Judgments good without an Original upon a Verdict If the Causes that are properly now of the cognisance of that Court of Common Pleas had been allotted to that Court Originally when the distribution of Administration of Justice was made in the Constitution of the Government that Court by its proper Authority and its own Process would have done Justice to all its Suitors without first expecting a Writ out of Chancery to bring the Cause before them or leaving any right without remedy to complain in Chancery of the defects of Justice in that Court But that Law of Magna Charta cap. 11. before-mentioned which erected the Court of Common Pleas fix'd the Judges and appropriated civil Causes to their Judicature no longer now ambulatory was the first step that was made to reduce the Court of Barons called Curia Domini Regis in which the Capitalis Justiciarius did preside Yet still this Court continued a Court of Pleas of the Crown and Appeals and for those that had the Priviledge of that Court as Officers Dependents Suitors as appears by Bracton l. 3. cap. 7. Rex habet unam propriam Curiam sicut Aulam Regiam Justitiarios Capitales qui proprias causas Regias terminant aliorum omnium per querelam i. e. Appeal vel per privilegium seu libertatem This Sir Edward Coke imagines is meant of the Kings Bench but that must be a mistake for sicut Aula Regia is not competent to that Court as now the Capitales Justitiarii were not the Chief Justices we now have For the Office of the Capitalis Justitiarius did yet continue But then that which follows in Bracton the description of the Justices of the Court he before spake of puts the matter out of doubt Item saith he Justitiariorum quidam sunt capitales generales perpetui majores à latere Regis residentes which terms are agreeable to none but the Barons But this sort of Judicature was not fit for continuance and the Barons were to be reduced they were dismist of this Jurisdiction about the time that change was made in reference to them in the Parliament for as long as they continued in their numbers and power so great as they were both Courts and Parliaments were troubled with tumultuous heaps of people brought thither by the Barons to countenance their pretences of which who will may see enough in Eadmerus And this reducement was I doubt not about the end of the Reign of H. 3. when the first Writs were issued to chuse Knights of the Shire Philip Basset was the last of these Capitales Justitiarii Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary p. 415. And then the Court of Kings Bench came to have such Judges as at this day ad obitum H. 3. 1272. Summorum Angliae Justitiariorum authoritas cessarit postea Capitales Justitiarii ad placita coram Rege tenenda appellati sunt saith an ancient Anonymous Author quoted by Sir Hen. Spelman Glossary 406. That ancient Style of Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae is now allowed to the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench though his legal Style is Capitalis Justitiarius ad placita coram Rege tenenda 2 E. 1. Radulphus Hengham was made the first Chief Justice of the Kings Bench as Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 416. But the Chief Justices of the Common Pleas were first made about the time of King John's Magna Charta when that Court was fixed as is before remembered Sir Henry Spelman out of Florilegus tells us Martin Peteshus was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1 H. 3. Neither did E. 1. trust the Barons with the Government of his Revenue as it was before the Capitalis Justic and the power of the Barons was reduced but he made Adam de Stratton a Clerk Chief Baron but in what time of his Reign doth not appear But they continued after they were reduced from the business of the Kings Bench and from that of the Court of Common Pleas to have the Government of the Revenue and making a Court of Exchequer And they still continued the Exercise of their ancient ordinary Right and judged Common Pleas in the Exchequer until the 28 E. 1. And then in the Statute called Articuli super Cartas cap. 4. it was enacted That no Common Pleas shall be henceforth held in the Exchequer contrary to the form of the Great Charter Their exercising their power lastly in that Court may be the reason why the Judges of that Court are called Barons Sir Henry Spelman saith he hath an uninterrupted Succession of the Barons of the Exchequer from the sixth year of Edward the Second by which it appears that the present Constitution was established after the Kings Bench and Common Pleas were made such as they now are But there was one Power and Authority that was inseparable from the Baronage and that is the Tryal of Peers the ancient Curia Regis continues to this day to that purpose as it must no other provision being ever since made therein This is the ancient Court of Peers the Curia Regis when revived The Power and Authority of the ancient Capitalis Justitiarius is as often revived as that Court is erected for Tryal for Offices at Common Law can be no more nor less than the Law appointed That he is called High Steward is no Objection to us for so was the Capitalis Justitiarius called and Justitiarius and Seneschallus are used one for another in the Language of those times Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 403. And this is the true reason I humbly conceive of that Tradition that the High Steward by the Kings constituting him such hath such mighty powers that are fit to be trusted with him no longer than while he is busie about that piece of Justice for which he is appointed and he is not to receive his Commission but just at his entry upon the business of the Court and not before The power of this Capitalis Justitiarius was the same with that of the Mair of the Palace in France from whence the Conquerour brought this Office which was the same or greater with the Authority of the Praefectus Praetorio amongst the Romans It is a thing to be wished that Gentlemen that apply themselves to the study of Antiquities that relate to our Laws and Government would design to adorn and cultivate the present Laws and to make out their reasonableness rather than to innovate upon us by bringing back what is obsolete rejected and antiquated and that they would contribute what they can to refine it from many absurd reasons that dishonour our Faculty which are the best our Books afford even for some of the Regulae juris I shall instance onely in one or two of them Why the Father cannot inherit the Lands of the Son it is told us for a reason in our Books that Terra est quid ponderosum and will not ascend in the right line whereas the true reason is this the Lord that first granted the Fee neglected the Father gave
as many of them as were most proper to judge or assist in the Judgment as the Case did require were appointed by the King or his Capitalis Justiciarius And that it was so in Fact appears by that Famous Cause wherein Arch-bishop Lanfranck recovered against Odo Bishop of Baieux Earl of Kent Eadmerus Hist Nov. l. 1. f. 9. tells us That there was Principum Conventus an Assembly of Barons at Pinneden in Kent and that the Kings Precept was Rex quatenus adunatis primoribus probis viris non solum de Comitatu Cantiae sed de aliis Comitatibus Angliae Querele Lanfranci in medium ducerentur examinarentur determinarentur disposito itaque saith he principum Conventus apud Pinneden Gaufridus Episcopus Constantiensis vir ea tempestate praedives in Anglia Vice Regis for Odo Bishop of Baieux one of the Litigants was at that time the Justiciarius Angliae justitiam de suis querelis strenuissimè jussus fecit where we see Godfrey at the King's Precept took so many Barons of that Country or of any other where any of the Lands lay as Assistants to him For our Historian saith that Lanfranck though Godfred pronounced the Judgment did recover judicio Baronum qui placita tenuerunt The probi homines were such by whom the truth of the matter might be better understood and did probably enquire of it who did accord and agree the Judgment to be right Lanfranc did recover ex communi omnium astipulatione judicio as our Historian also informs us I might cite many more Records of the Method of the Administration of Justice in this Curia Regis but I should be too long in this matter not being strictly necessary to the Question in hand though the understanding of the Nature of this Court and the Constitution of the Government at this time will many ways inserve to the clearing the Right thereof In this Court Peers were tryed all Pleas of the Crown heard and whatever is now the Business of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer was dispatch'd in this Curia Regis Here Fines were levyed as appears by a Record furnished to us by Sir Hen. Spelman in his Gloss f. 279. the word Fines There men famous for their Skill in the Law did attend and by this Judicature some place was assigned them where they were to hear such Causes as were referred and sent down to them and it is very possible that Fines may be levyed i. e. Concord made of the thing in pretence that was referred to them and it may be true that in a Charter of a Grant of Conusance of Causes Words may be conteined for excluding the Intromissions of the Justices of the one Bench and the other For such Charters never want words These matters are produced by Sir Edward Coke in his Preface to the Eighth Report to prove that the Common Pleas was a Court before the Magna Charta of King John for that these matters are in time before that Charter but these Justices were no other than Ministers to the Curia Regis They were not such Justices as now make that Court all Common Pleas being now appropriated to their Judicature For the Writs before that Charter were returnable coram me vel Justitia mea Glanvil l. 1. cap 6. but after that Charter they were returnable coram Justiciariis meis apud Westmonasterium Bracton l. 2. cap. 32. But before this all Common Pleas were adjudged in the Curia Regis and that Court did send down the Cause to such as did attend that Court to receive its References By Magna Charta cap. 11. it was provided Communia placita non sequantur Curiam nostram sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco And now Writs were made returnable there the Common Pleas were taken out of the Jurisdiction of the Curia Regis one Judicature was appointed for all Causes between the Subjects and one place of Attendance for Litigants By this Provision Justice was administred without Noise and Tumult the Administration of it committed to men of Skill and to such who might be answerable for their Judgments and from whom it might be appealed But after Magna Charta made by King John and confirmed by H. 3 9. the Authority continued of the Justitia or capitalis Justiciarius to him was the resort for Writs from whence all Judicial Authority was still derived He did direct and bound the Justice of the Court of Common Pleas by such Formula's as were allowed in the Curia Regis where the Chancellor and his Colledge of Clerks did attend for the forming of Writs according to the nature of the Complaint with the Allowance of that Court but the Authority of this Court ceasing and the Office of this great Justiciary about the end of H. 3. we find in the Statutes of Glouc. 6 E. 1. c. 7. Laws for a Writ of Entry to be granted to the Reversioner where Tenant in Dower Aliens in Fee though her Alienation was a Forfeiture of that Estate at Common Law But it seems there had been no such Writ yet formed and the Chancellor had no such Power of forming a new Writ That Statute provides that in that Case there shall be a Writ of Entry thereof made in Chancery which is called A Writ of Entry in casu proviso And for that Power might not be wanting in the Chancellor to issue out new Writs where no Writs before formed were fitted to the Case So that Writs in Cases of like reason had been granted by W. 2. cap. 24. it was provided quotiescunque evenerit in Cancellaria quod in uno casu reperitur Breve in consimili casu cadente simili indigente remedio concordent Clerici de Cancellaria in Brevi faciendo Whereas in the full Authority of the Court of the Curia Regis no Right could have failed of a Remedy For Jura sunt matres Actionum But Derivative Authorities are always stricti Juris no Rights are now remediable but where they are in a Parity of Reason or Analogy with such Rights as had received relief in the time of that Great and Original Judicature So inconvenient are those Reformations that reform by pulling down Want of Authority to do Right is a greater Fault in Government than the allowance of a Power that may be abused to Wrong and Oppression But this is the true reason why we have so many Causes irremediable at Common Law petitioning for relief at this day in our Court of Chancery though if the Statute of Westm 2. before-mentioned were well improved the Defects of our Law would not be so shameful and notorious By what hath been said it appears that the Common Pleas was not an Original Court or a Court of ordinary Jurisdiction in the First Constitution of the Government and such it remains and continues to this time For that Court cannot proceed to Judgment in any Cause without an Original Writ out of Chancery though a late Statute makes their
continue them great The contempt of the Bishops and Clergy the great cause of our evil State at present out of which we cannot recover but by an excellent Clergy and a high esteem of them with the people The Postscript ERRATA PAge 13. Line 18. read they p. 15. l. 15. r. Taxeotam Buleutam p. 19. l. 9. r. Blaesensis p. 23. l. 4. r. can p. 44. l. ult dele as p. 51. l. 22. to but add not l. ult to usage add other p. 57. l. 29. r. hucusque p. 130. dele in p. 165. l. 8. r. here p. 167. r. interpolatis p. 180. l. 3. dele them to r. send l. 29. to fit add to mention p. 206. l. 29. r. injurious p 240. l. ult dele near POSTSCRIPT P. 32. l. 1. r. he made his natural Sons first noble l. 7. r. Eufame p. 34. l. 1. r. is not subject p. 42. l. 25. r. decedents p. 45. l. 30. r. he p. 46. l. 8. r. more cruel p. 58. l. 18. r. futility p. 59. l 26. r. being What else is escaped the Reader is desired to correct by reason of the Authors absence from the Press The Argument CHAP. I. IN this question the Constitution of the Government is concerned and the Right of a most principal constituent part and that in a matter of the highest Trust which if truly a Right can be no more relinquished as the Nature of this Right is than a trust can be betrayed a duty and a Right denyed to be paid and performed or the Constitution of the Government changed For of such a Nature doth appear to be the Right in pretence and Controversy of the Lords the Bishops to have judgment in the House of Lords in Capital Causes For by their being made Barons they owed their judgments in such Causes as a service to the King at first by their Tenures in Baronage for though since they are become Barones Rescriptitii or Barons by Writ their duty is not abated And besides the Cognisance of such Causes become their own Right being a part of and belonging to the dignity and office of a Baron And it likewise became an appointment in the Government in which the whole Community have their Interest for that is principally provided for and procured in all Governments whose greatest concern it is to have Justice done against all Criminals and to have great and wise just and good men in the Administrations of Justice and other great offices of the Government The people of England did anciently understand the benefit of this Constitution when nothing but the Baronage of England the Lords Spiritual and Temporal could resist the Torrent of Arbitrary Government And it may be easily understood too that nothing but the Baronage of England is able to support the Throne For that Monarchy unless so supported is the weakest and most precarious and dependent Government in the World except it be supported with an Army and turned into a Tyranny That the Throne should be established by Natural and gentle provisions and the Government fixed is every mans greatest interest If the Lords Temporal have more under command and a larger Potestas jubendi yet the Lords Spiritual out-did them Authoritate suadendi and had more voluntary obedience The Lords Spiritual have several Advantages as they are Novi homines men chosen out of Thousands for an excellent Character and Spirit and need not want any accomplishments if duely chosen and preferred for the discharge of the greatest Provinces that are to be managed by wisdome and integrity and therefore they cannot be well wanted in any Ministries in the Government to which they are bespoken and have a legal designation Since this Authority by the very opening of the Cause doth appear probably belonging to the Bishops and if so that it cannot without breach of their duty that they owe to all the parts of the Government and the whole Community depart from it it may surely be insisted upon disputed and maintained by them without blame or imputation But so unhappily it falls out that the very disputing and contending of this Matter by reason of the unseasonableness of the dispute and the delays that were thereby given to the most important business of the Nation to the great hazard as some think of the summ of Affairs was very mischievous to the publick And now both parties are charging one another with all the mischiefs and the delays that this Controversy hath given to publick proceeding or can with any probability be thought to have occasioned And there are not men wanting on either side within doors and without that are forward enough to charge all those mischiefs as deserved by their oppoposite party which may eventually happen hereupon Who sees not how fatal this Controversy is like to prove to one or other of the Litigants and to the Government in consequence if this Cause cannot be duely heard and considered and be determined upon its own Merits without undue Censures and Reflections on either side Since at last the contenders themselves must be the Judges and give judgment in the Cause or it can never be quieted and have an end I am sure passion is no equal Judge and Arbiter and men angred and provoked have not the same sentiments of the same things as when calm and serene And because there is no common Judicature it ought to be considered by both parties with all equality of judgment and an exact pondering and weighing of the reasons offered on either side for that otherwise it can never be fairly decided but must for ever remain a Controversy to the immediate overthrow and destruction of the Government or over-ruled by the force and Power of a most dangerous consequence in the course of time to the Government and will be a laying of the Axe to the very root of the Tree and will put the Government it self into a State of War between the several constituent parts of it and given an occasion for one part to usurp upon another until the tone and frame of Goverment become changed and at last fall into ruine I am very well aware of the gravity of the Question and its importance the high honour and regard that is due to the House of Commons in Parliament what commendations are due to them in their persons for their zeal and endeavour by all means if it be possible to save the Nation Religion and Government And what a great Capacity that House in its very constitution in the first designation of the Government and by their mighty growth in power and interest in the Course of time have in procuring the publick good and that they cannot have any interest divided from the common Weal I must do them right and with the greatest clearness and satisfaction I determine with my self that their zeal for public Justice against unpardonable offences in their judgment and a prejudicate opinion they had conceived of the Spiritual Lords unindifferency how duely will appear by
Authority or weight enough to perswade the contrary or an alteration therein notwithstanding that complaint which he tells us was made in the 45 of E. 3. fol. by the two Houses Counts Barons and Commons to the King how the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hands of the Clergy Per cet grant mischiefs dammages sont avenuz en temps passe pluis purroit eschire en temps avenir al disherison de la Coronne grant prejudice du Royalme Whereby great mischiefs and damages have happened in times past and more may fall out in time to come to the disherison of the Crown and great prejudice to the Realm And therefore they humbly pray the King that he would imploy Laymen This they had too much reason to desire then when the Pope had advanced his Authority over them and put them under Oaths of Canonical obedience which rendred them less fit to be intrusted in the Government of this Kingdom who were become Subjects of another Empire usurping continually upon us which will never be our Case again if the Bishops can help it CHAP. III. ANd now we proceed to the Precedents of which the Octavo Book principally consists which seem as that Author and the other in Folio would have it to be not only a discontinuance of the Right of the Bishops to judge in Capital Causes but an argumentative proof that they never had any because it can as they say be never proved to be otherwise Immemorial time I confess is a great evidence of the right whether In non user or user and a fair reason to allow or deny the pretence and therefore we will now consider the Precedents As for the argumentative and discoursive parts of those books they will fall in to be answered by way of Objection when we are discoursing and proving the affirmative part of the Question and will best be reproved by being placed near the light of our reasons for establishing the Right of the Prelates If we do not give some satisfaction to these Precedents whatever we shall say I know can signifie no more than an Argument to prove a thing not true which is possible de facto testified by unexceptionable witnesses for such the Precedents will be taken until exceptions are made to their Testimony The Precedents produced by the two Authors are mostly the same only the Octavo hath more than what the Folio Book hath recited The first case that the Octavo produceth against the Lords Spiritual their Right of being Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes is that of Roger Mortimer Earl of March Simon Beresford and others who were no Peers and yet tryed in Parliament and no Bishops present and we agree it probable for his reason because there is mention made of Counts Barons and Peers and Peers being named after Barons could not comprehend the Bishops And because we think it reasonable when the orders of that House are particularly enumerated that the order omitted should be intended absent but we will not allow but that Peers is and so is Grants comprehensive of Bishops Nor will we when the entry is General intend the Bishops absent except he cannot otherwise prove them absent which we mention in the entry once for all as just and common measures between us in this dispute It will appear true what we affirm of the words Peers and Grants by what follows And if we should not insist upon their being present when nothing appears to the contrary we should do wrong to the Cause But to come to the consideration of this Precedent Is this a just Precedent Is not Magna Charta hereby violated Are not the proceedings altogether illegal Here are Commoners tryed by Peers in Parliament It is well known that the high displeasure of the King was concerned and that he did interpose with a plenitude of Power in this particular case against the fundamental constitutions of the Government the greatest crime of this Earl was too much familiarity with the Kings Mother Indignation and Revenge and not Justice formed the Process It was proceeded to condemn him Judicio Zeli upon pretence of the Notoriety of the fact Sir Robert Cotton in his abridgment tells us Anno 4. Ed. 3. That the King charged the Peers who as Judges of the Land by the Kings assent adjudged that the said Roger as a Traytor should be drawn and hanged The Bishops were not present certainly they were none of the Judges that gave Judgment as the King pronounced without Cognisance of the Cause The King had more Honour for their Order than to call then to such Drudgery and service of the Crown The iniquity of the sentence appears by the reversal thereof in Parliament 25 Ed. 3. in which the Original Record is recited Sir Robert Cotton in his Abridgment tells us That this Earl being condemned of certain points whereof he deserved commendation and for other altogether untrue surmises there was a Bill brought into the Lords House for the reversal of the Judgment and it was reverst by Act of Parliament indeed it could not be otherways reverst for no Court can judicially reverse their own Judgment for Error in Law and Judgment in the Lords House being the dernier Resort cannot be repealed but undone it may be by themselves in their legislative Capacity Here saith the Octavo the Bishops were not present at the passing of that Bill but yet the Octavo Gentleman will not pretend that the Bishops are to be excluded in any Acts of Legislation Why therefore was he so willing to impose upon the people so falsely and unrighteously and to produce this as a Precedent against the Bishops Right of Session in matters of that Nature by himself recognized There is nothing can excuse him herein for he is certainly self-condemned of undue Art in thiâ— matter In 20 R. 2. the Case of Sir Thomas Haxey happen'd which the Octavo book page 20 produceth against us He was forsooth condemned in Parliament for that he had preferred a Bill in the House of Commons for regulating the outragious Expences of the Kings House particularly of Bishops and Ladies Haxey was for this tryed and condemned to death for it in Parliament And here appears to be no Bishops and there ought not to have been any for these reasons First that the Bishops were the parties wronged and therefore could not in any fitness give sentence But Secondly if that was not in the Case that that caus'd the process was Royall anger upon a great faction of State in which I believe the Bishops were not engaged made for deposing of Rich. the 2d that was understood by the King to be in acting and promoted by Sir Thomas Haxey by his Bill It was this made the sentence altogether abhorrent from legal justice in matter and form Here was a Tryall of a Commoner by Peers a matter made Treason that did participate nothing of the nature of Treason But the discreet Gentleman
it not be with as much fairness concluded that the Bishops were present because the addition of Temporal is not made to Seigniors and Grants in the said Cases of Sir Ralph Ferrers and Sir Wil. Thorp as it can be that they were absent in the hearing of the said Cases because the word Prelate or Bishop is not in those Entries expressed If he will be just and change the Tables He must yield us the Argument for he knows that there is no establishment in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum directing the Forms of Entries or any solemnes formulae whose import and value is ascertained and made indisputable but are to be expounded by an easy interpretation such as we use when we make fair constructions in common speech But to give this another Answer The Arguer is herein guilty of that fallacy which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or non causa pro causa And his Witness doth not speak ad idem The Bishop was an Ecclesiastical person and though the Bishops might try a Temporal Lord for the same offence yet they would not consent to try a Bishop and forgo that great priviledge of the Clergy with so much earnestness defended in that Age to be exempt from secular Judicatures They would not be present to try because of the person of the Defendant which cannot be drawn into Argument to prove that they had no cognizance of the Cause with any fairness But further the Octavo doth afterwards produce a Testimony that doth contradict this last Testimony in the point for which he produc'd it It is the Case of Thomas Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. The Bishops pronounced Judgment against him in Treason by their Proxy They can it seems upon great Reasons wave that priviledge and submit a great Malefactor of their own Order to Justice as they did in the Case of Becket heretofore So that you see here they used a Jurisdiction in a Cause of Treason in the Case of Thomas Arundel which the Bishops could not have used without a Right And the Case of the Bishop of Norwich is only an omission consistent with a Right The Case of Sir William Rikehill is next in order who was sent by R. 2. to Calais to take the Confession of the Duke of Glocester who soon after was Murdered The Judge was arrested and brought into Parliament before the King Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons the whole matter was examined and the Judge was examined Here is likewise a clear Case for the Bishops an Instance wherein they did take cognizance of a Capital Cause in Parliament But the Octavo hath a Shift for us and says that there was no impeachment or charge against the Judge and so the Bishops might be present at his Examination Let the Reader here observe the sleights wriglings and prevarications of this Octavo Author Whatever the World thinks of this Author I am much dissatisfyed about him and cannot believe him a man indifferent and impartial in this Enquiry In his observations of the Parliament of the 15 E. 3. the Bishops he saith vanished like lightning they went away immediately at the opening That matters of the Peace in general were to be treated of wherein Blood and Member might not at all be concerned for all that appears They went away and as he would have it they returned no more and they must not hear so much as a Commission of the Peace read But here in this Case of Rikehill they may examine a Murder He will say I am sure that though the Bishops did examine it they could make no judgment of the matter But who will believe him In the Case of de la Zouch and Gray he observes that Bishops could not be present so much as at a Battery though there was no Battery in the Case and yet he allows them to judge of all misdemeanors in the same little Book I observe but these things of many more of like nature which the Reader may observe of himself in that little Octavo that the World may judge how unjustly he deals in this Cause with what iniquity and prevarication he manages a noble question of Right concerning the Government of the Kingdom With what petulancy spight and inveterate displeasure he useth the Bishops That he is grinning at them whetting his teeth and squinting upon them perpetually with an evil Eye He oppugns their Right with Cavillations upon the Clerks Entries with what is in the Record and what is not and what he is pleased to add of his own upon them and with Precedents that reprove one another Had it not been more fair for him to have stated the Right upon a probable result of all the Records considered together than to make their Right sometimes more sometimes less sometimes to affirm sometimes to deny their Right in the same little Octavo He cannot sure think that every Judgment that hath been given upon deliberation in the greatest Judicature can uncontroulably make the Law much less a Fact much less an Omission a Negative that can operate nothing If nothing be Law but what hath always and constantly been done in the same manner and form and all circumstances the same as this Author it seems would have it and nothing true Theology according to Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule but what hath been received ab omnibus ubique semper We can have no Law nor no Theology Vain and idle opinions must be discharged such as can have no consideration with wise men and the Law must be declared by the Nature of Government reason and the general order of things But we have made too long an Excursion We must return to a further consideration of Rikehil his Case And now I submit it to any impartial man whether the Judge could be arrested and brought under an Arrest into the Parliament and be examined and not accused The very next Case he recites is that of John Hall in which we find nothing but an Examination and confessal upon which he was condemned as a Traytor And so would it have fared with Sir William Rikehil without doubt if he had been guilty and had confessed Neither the Octavo nor Sir Robert Cotton mentions any formality more against the one than the other The House of Lords are not tyed to Formalities in their proceedings like other inferior Judicatures and the more inferior any Court is the more regular forms are exacted and that with great reason which we will not hear treat of Besides in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland recited in the Octavo Book Fol. 34. in 5 H. 4. a Judgment was given against him for an offence upon a petition which he exhibited for a pardon of the same offence But in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland I pray observe what the Octavo saith in reference to our question After he hath recited part of the Record in these words The petition being read and understood the Lords as Peers of Parliament
left this Author neither reason or Argument We have stript the Cause of all the Precedents that pretend to favour it and have left it Rara Avis indeed but not nigro simillima Cygno as the learned Author in Octavo hath it with which he reproaches the Right of the Bishops as assisted only with a single Precedent But to a Bird of no colour at all the bird in the Fable I mean furtivis nudata coloribus to be exposed to laughter with its naked Rump CHAP. IV. BUt if these Precedents had been all such as they pretend to be and the Bishops not present in Judgment in any of those Cases which the Octavo and Folio have produced and if they had been all Capital Causes that came in Judgment in that House and all determined judicially and not by the Legislative power of Parliament and no reason was to be assigned for the Prelates absence from the Nature of the Cause If they had had no inducements to withdraw from any dissatisfaction they had in the prosecution and the pretended Right of the Church-men in those days much insisted upon to be exempted from the jurisdiction of secular Courts had not been the Cause of their absence which suppositions are not so in fact And tho' the Bishops had never used the Authority and power in question as they have yet if we can prove they had once a Right those Omissions of theirs can be no prejudice to the meer-Right Though then I confess we should labour a-the gainst invincible prejudice in the Opinions of most 1. For that no man can lose a Right by not using of it but where that right can be usurpt by another and is so And that usurpation having been for immemorable time when no body can tell when it was otherwise shall in a matter prescriptible be intended to be acquired by good Right and that with great reason in favour of possession and the quieting of them for that Estates and Rights can last longer than the Grants and Evidences or Records themselves that first created them But where the nature of the Right is such as this of the Bishops in pretence is which no body can use for them For the Temporal Lords sit in Judgment in their own Right which is a plenary and compleat right and cannot be made more or less Secondly for that no Franchise from the Power and Authority upward of a Court Leet which can be neither more nor less by usuage than the Law hath establisht can be prescribed to And a Quo Warranto will fore-close and extinguish an immemorial usuage of any irregular and illegal Franchise A Right that can never be prejudged and fore-closed by non user and such is every Right that grows from the constitution of the Government though it should be discontinued for a long tract of time may be at any time rightfully and legally continued The happiness of our Case is that we can point to the time when the Right of the Prelates to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament was established And which is more imposed upon them and they put under a Compulsory and obliged by the Tenure of their Lands to serve the Crown in that capacity And that was in the beginning of the Reign of William the Conquerour Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour with great probability hath fixed it in the 4 year of his Reign when he made the Bishopricks and Abbies subject to Knight service in chief by creation of new Tenures upon them and so first turned their possessions into Baronies and thereby made them Barons of the Kingdom by Tenure This he saith is justified by Mat. Paris and Roger of Windover out of whom Mat. Paris took this Relation Anno 1070. so are their words Rex Willielmus pessimo usus consilio Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias that is by Anticipation for the Lands made Baronies tenebant in purâ perpetuâ eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerunt sub servitute statuit militari c. This he makes further probable for that in a Manuscript Copy which he used in a very antient hand these words are noted in the upper Margin over the year 1070. hoc anno servitium baroniae imponitur Ramesiae It seems saith he the volumn belonged to the Abby of Ramsey And some Monk of the House noted that in the Margin touching his own Abby which equally concerned the rest of the Abbies that were mentioned in that Relation by their Lands being put under the Tenure by Barony and they made Barons they had a Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Councellor Courts of Judgment For saith Mr. Selden tenere de Rege in capite habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron and to have Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Council or Courts of Judgment according to the Laws of that time are Synonymies So that there were no distinctions of Barons as to power and Authority or Jurisdiction but the Right of a Baron was the same whether he was a Temporal or Spiritual Baron for the Tenure of both is one and the same and therefore the Services must be the same The office that is the result of this Tenure is the same in the House of Lords and indeed no office can be less than what the Law appoints it The King cannot make a Peer a Judge or a Bishop and put any Restraint upon the exercise of the powers and the jura ordinaria that belongs by the appointment of the Law to a Peer Bishop or Judge And that it is an office by Tenure can make no difference for the Law declares the Power and Authority So that the Powers of all Barons are and must be equal and what is allowed to one Baron cannot be denyed to another William the Conqueror made the Bishops Barons by putting them to hold as by Barony did not intend only the Bishops more honour but himself also more service and better assured He cannot be intended especially to abate them their service in punitive or vindictive Justice which a Conquerour of all other performances cannot want I do not doubt and if it were not unnecessary to this question likewise to shew that before the Conquest the Bishops or Spiritual Lords had a great share with the Thanes or Temporal Lords in the Government and were then one of the three States agreeable to all the Gothish Saxon for the Saxons were Goths which we must not here insist upon and Modern Governments that have been planted in Europe which we shall speak to more hereafter But we will resort no higher than this of their becoming Barons by Tenure in time of the Conquerour for the clearing of the Prelates Right now in question And therefore we are not concerned to say any thing to the Case of E. Godwin mentioned in the Octavo in Edward the Confessor's time For Brevity sake and because we will
Regni definitum est quod Comes Johannes disseiseretur de omnibus Tenementis suis in Anglia Castella sua obsiderentur This is a Cause of Treason for that Richard the First immediately upon the demise of the Crown was King It can be no objection that this was not a formal Parliament for whether it was or no it seems the Bishops power in that Cause was allowed That it was Commune Concilium Regni and had the Nature of a Parliament And that the Bishops therein had a parity of Authority with the Temporal Lords But soon after his return King Richard held a Parliament at Notingham Hoveden mentions the Bishops that were present by Name In which Parliament our Historian tells us That the King Petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre suo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Castella sua occupaverat terras suas transmarinas destruxerat foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae contra eum inierat And the like Justice he required against the Bishop of Coventry for that he had adher'd Regi Franciae Comiti Johanni inimicis suis and it was thereupon adjudged Judicatum saith Hoveden quod Comes Johannes Episcopus Coventrensis peremptoriè citarentur si intra quadraginta dies non venerint nec Juri steterint Judicaverunt Comitem demeruisse regnum Episcopum Coventrensem subjacere judicio Episcoporum in eo quod Episcopus erat Judicio Laicorum in eo quod ipse Vicecomes Regis extiterat You see here the Bishops zeal and Loyalty that they adjoyn'd the censure of the Church which they had power of as Bishops to a Civil punishment which they with the Temporal Barons had Authority to pronounce against One of their own Order who was guilty of a design to engage a Nation in a War by opposing the lawful Successour to the Crown and this being so great a Cause We hear nothing here of any scruple the Canon gave them nor mention of any Priviledge of an Ecclesiastick to be exempt from the Judgment of the secular Court In the same Parliament Giraldus de Canavilla was accus'd of harbouring of Pirats and Praeterea saith Hoveden appellaverunt eum de Laesurâ Regiae Majestatis in eo quod ipse ad vocationem Justitiariorum Regis venire noluit nec juri stare de praedictâ receptatione raptorum neque eos ad Justitiam Regis producere sed respondet se esse hominem Comitis Johannis velle in Curiâ suâ Juri stare Hoveden tells us all that were present at this great Council Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Galfridus Arch-Bishop of York Hugh Bishop of Durham Hugh Bishop of Lincoln William Bishop of Ely William Bishop of Hereford Henry Bishop of Worcester Henry Bishop of Exeter and John Bishop of Carlisle Earl David Brother of the King of Scots Hamelinus Earl de Warrenna Ranulfus Earl of Chester William Earl of Feriers William Earl of Salisbury and Roger Bigot Let any one judge if it was likely that the Bishops did withdraw in the Case of Earl John or the said Bishop when besides them there were but six Barons present at that Parliament What manner of great Council would this Parliament have been that had consisted but of six Barons of what Authority would such a Parliament have been in the absence of the King and a troubled Estate of the Kingdom CHAP. VII IN the time of Edward the Second in the two Judgments against the Spencers the Right of the Bishops to judge in capital Causes in Parliament was carried so high in opinion that their presence was thought necessary to give Authority and validity to the Judgment of the House of Lords in such Cases and their absence was assigned for Error for Reversal of those Judgments for an Error that appears in the irregularity of the Proceedings is an allowable Cause for vacating the Judgment by the same Court that gave it And so far did that Opinion prevail that the presence of the Lords Spiritual was necessary to give Authority to a Judgment of that House that for this Cause because the Prelates were absent that Judgment was reversed Which opinion did arise upon this mistake that because the Lords Spiritual was one of the two States that made the House of Lords nothing could be done without their concurrence But though they are a distinct State from the Temporal Lords they make but one House and they are both there under one Notion and Reason viz. as they are both Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Baronage of England But let any man tell me that can whether if the Lords Spiritual had not been understood Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes it could have been a question whether their absence could avoid the Judgment in the Case of the Spencers much less that such an opinion should prevail that the Judgment should be as it was for that reason reversed And tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was set aside and the Judgment affirmed in 1 E. 3. Yet the publick Recognition of the Bishops Right in the Reversal remains an undeniable Testimony to their Right of sitting Tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was not warrantable for the reason of the Bishops absence as it could not have been reversed by reason of the absence of as many Temporal Barons if there remained enough besides to make a House to give the Judgment And yet we find the Reversal of the Reversal reversed in 21 R. 2. and the Family of the Spencers restored in the person of the Earl of Glocester So prevalent was the opinion that the Bishops Concurrence was necessary in all capital Judgments in Parliament at that time For this see Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment fol. 373. Yet it is observable that the consequence from the Bishops being a third State and an Essential constituent part of that House to a necessity of their presence in all judicial matters even of Capital Offences and Treason did so stick with that Age for they then in that Age did no more know what three States served for or that they both made but one House than some in our time can tell how to find them For that very Reason in 21 R. 2. the first Petition that the Commons made in that Parliament to the King was for that diverse Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present The Commons prayed the King that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient Authority thereunto The Prelates therefore being severally examined appointed Sir Thomas de la Piercy to assent The words of which Petition and the procuratory Letters for greater Authority and more satisfaction I have thought fit to transcribe Nos Thomas Cantuar. Robertus Eborac Archiepiscopi ac Praelati Clerus utriusque Provinciae Cantuar. Ebor. jure Ecclesiarum nostrarum Temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in singulis Parliamentis Domini nostri Regis
his qui in sacris ordinibus constituti judicium sanguinis agitare unde saith the Canon Prolibemus ne aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant a very fitting Employment for a Bishop aut inferendas judicent and after all this we have still our old Answer upon which we will ever insist it is but a Canon and can make no Alteration in the Rights of Government For tho' Gervasius Dorob tells us In hoc Concilio ad emendationem Anglicanae Ecclesiae assensu Domini Regis primorum omnium Regni haec subscripta promulgata sunt Capitula yet the Canons of this Council are not Laws For that our Historian does not tell us of any Parliament then held or that they were confirmed in Parliament and the good liking of Great Men out of Parliament will not confirm nay not justifie the Canons if they cannot justifie themselves in Parliament Besides that these Canons were not made into Laws we will offer two Reasons 1st For that amongst these Canons there is one that disposeth of the Right of Patronage against the Law as it hath been before and since taken and that is this Nulli liceat Ecclesiam nomine dotalitii ad aliquem transferre vel pro presentatatione alicui personae pecuniam vel aliquod emolumentum pacto interveniente recipere quod si quis fecerit in jure convictus vel confessus fuerit ipsum tam Regia quam nostra freti autoritate patricinio ejusdem Ecclesiae in perpetuum privari statuimus which was never most certainly Law Secondly If this had been a Law the other Canon before-mentioned made by Stephen Arch-bishop of Canterbury was idle nay presumptuous for offering to derogate from a Canon made a Law about 47 years before But however Canons confirmed by Law remain but Canons still and the Breach of them not punished as the Breach of Laws nor no Innovation made thereby upon a civil Right of which before and after more As to the Second Canon we observe how dutiful this Canon in the Stile of it behaves it self towards the Civil Government in that Clerks should not exercise Jurisdiction where Judgment of Blood is to be given under the soft word Statuimus that they should not Literas pro poena sanguinis infligenda scribere that is sign an Order for the Execution of a Condemned Man or be present at the Sentence is under the districtiùs inhibemus but the doing of this is not declared to be a Sin he that is contravenient to the Canon is not thereby to become irregular to be punished by his Superior or to incurr Excommunication or any Censure the Clergy are not declared by this Canon to be incompetent Judges it only declares them unworthy of the Protection of the Church the meaning of it is Judge not least ye be judged If you judge the Laicks they will judge you This is the Scandal for which the Privilegium Clericale will be lost So that upon the whole matter this Canon is but Advice and Counsel and offers reasons to the Choice and Approbation rather than a Command under the Authority of the Church in a Council But let it be what it will if the Canon had been most peremptory in its Prohibition and had lighten'd and thunder'd in its Denunciatiations it would have been of no force to alter the Government or discharge a Judge from doing his Duty but this is farther to be duely observed that this Canon could not be broken if the Law had not been otherwise than these Canons direct and therefore these Canons produced by our Adversaries are the greatest Testimonies to the Right we defend and a practice agreeable thereto Doth not the Canon suppose that a Beneficed Clerk or one in Holy Orders was sometimes in Commission for judging in Capital Causes For certainly the Canon did not prohibit them to murder or enjoyn them not to write Letters to subborn men to kill What can be the meaning of the Canon but this supposing a Beneficed Clerk to be made a Judge of Life and Death to assist in a Commission of Oyer Terminer or Goal-delivery that he should be enjoyned not to pronounce the Sentence or to sign the Order or Calendar for Execution But if he were not a Judge how possibly could he sign an Order for Execution By the other words of the Canon Nec intersit ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur he can be forbidden onely to be present and assisting as a Judge or Officer at the pronouncing of Sentence for it can be no fault sure nor ever was intended by any Canon to be made one for any Clerk to hear a Court pronounce a Judgment of Death or Mutilation or to see a Malefactor executed What therefore can be more evident than that the Bishops did withdraw not for want of Right of Session but they pretended the Canon because they did not like the Causes But further that nothing more than what we have shewed was understood to be done in that Protestation by those times they must be allowed at least to know their own Opinions doth appear for that notwithstanding the Protestation of the Bishops aforementioned the great Council of the Kingdom did not think the Authority of a Parliament when the Bishops were absent unquestionable This Opinion we do not go about to maintain but this we conclude that there could never have been such an Opinion if the Bishops had been denied Right of Session in Capital Causes in that time CHAP. IX THE Commons of England in the 21 R. 2 pray that the Bishops might make their Proxy which they did thrice in that Parliament once by Procuratory Letters to Sir Thomas Percy as is before recited and afterwards William la Scroop Earl of Wilts was made their Procurator and a third time the Earls of Worcester and Wilts were made their Procurators in the matter between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk That it may the better appear that the Bishops were virtually present by their Proxy it ought to appear that they were allowed to make Proxies and that the Lords Spiritual did so as well as the Temporal Lords The first mention of Proxies that occurs in the memory of our Parliaments is in the Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. and that is of the Bishops Proxies The words are these Quia omnes Praelati tunc plenariè non venerunt receptis quibusdam procurationibus Praelator qui venire non poterant adjornantur And in a Parliament held at Westminster under Ed. 2. dors clauso Ed. 2. m. 11. the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle remaining upon the Defence of the Marches of Scotland are severally commanded to stay there and in the Writ this Clause was added to both of them Sed Procurat vestrum sufficienter instructum ad dictum diem locum mittatis ad consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem praedictos Praelatos Proceres contigerit ordinari Though generally Proxies were admitted to both Spiritual and Temporal Lords
to the Encroachment of the Papal Power and in this matter to declare how far the Bishops might if they pleased observe the Canon Law or rather themselves and what was thought then decent to their Order So according to the Print in Gervasius and therein he differs from Matth. Paris it is Quousque judicio perveniatur ad mutilationem membrorum vel mortem which further clears the meaning of that Law to be that the Bishops were thereby excused not altogether from Capital Causes but onely when it was proceeded so far in such like Cause that Judgment was to be pronounced which when the Bishops had nothing to gainsay they might depart and leave Sentence to be pronounced by the House But we cannot after all this allow the Author of the Folio to have so little sense as with a good conscience to say that he who cannot perhaps by reason of his circumstance and some consideration of Indecency execute a thing in his own person therefore cannot do it by another no more than he can authorise one man to murther another Thus he saith fol. 20. when surely this Gentleman cannot think it as fit for a Judge to be a Hang-man as to sign a Kalendar for the Execution of the Condemned Prisoners But the Octavo is somewhat surprizing in this matter For he doth affirm That it is not lawful for Bishops to vote in any Question preliminary and preparatory to the Sentence of Condemnation when such Sentence follows and the matter preliminary is necessary to the Process This he proves by a Logick Rule Causa Causae est Causa Causati one of Sthalius his Axioms hath turn'd round the Head of this Gentleman I find few men can bear Axioms Maxims and Sentences There are none speak so much unnatural Non-sence as they that use them most May not several men I pray do several parts of an affair and yet he that doth the first part is no ways the Cause of what another man doth in the second and third place Is the acting the first part of the Play the cause of acting the last Or is the laying the Foundation the Cause that lays on the Roof Is the Jury the Cause of any more than their Verdict And doth not the Court give Judgment by their own Authority and Causality If men would speak by Nature and according to first Notions and were not so full of second Notions and Universals we should not have so many Errors Mistakes and Confounding Opinions in the Work But this we complain of as too severe in the Octavo that when he had confounded us with his Causa Causae Causati he would render us ridiculous with a Story of a Friar out of Chaucer That would of a Capon the Liver of a Pig the Head But would that nothing for him should be dead This indeed was a fine piece of Wit in the Poet but translated hither by our Author is an insipid piece of Malice His Design sure in this was to enter the Bishops amongst Chaucer's Friars and then the Learned Readers of Chaucer would be very conceited upon them and apply all his pleasant Satyrs against the Friars to the Bishops But for the farther Evidence of the Bishops Baronage and their Jus paritatis it would not be impertinent here to add That the Names of Barons Peers Seniors Grants have been attributed to the Lords Spiritual in all times in Authentick Histories and Records Forasmuch as a Nominal Argument is not a very inartificial Topick in such a Cause as this Besides that this will destroy the very strength of our Adversaries which lies in this that they will not allow Prelates to be comprehended in the Name of Peers Grants and Barons And that where the Records doth not expresly mention Prelates they will conclude they were not meant or intended to be present But the Collection which was made for this purpose shall not trouble the Reader because in two Books since Printed in Defence of the Bishops Right in question this is abundantly performed Besides that it is a very precarious Conclusion that our Adversaries make and without argument For they ground themselves herein upon a most unreasonable Postulatum viz. That Titles do not belong to persons for whom they were made and to whose Character they agree and that Words do not design the things which they were made and imposed to signifie CHAP. XIV NOw we shall proceed to perform a necessary piece of Justice to the Prelates as well as a Right to the Government to recover its true Constitution from the Prejudice of Modern Ignorance to declare and manifest that our Gvernment doth consist of three States the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of England These do make the Great Council of the Kingdom and minister to the King Council and Auxiliaries over which the King doth preside as the Great Superintendent and mover of this mighty Machin The consequence of which is that the Bishops cannot be detruded from that place they bear in the Constitution of the Government for that no Government can be legally or by any lawful power changed but must remain for ever once established And it cannot be no less than Treason of State to attempt a change no Authority in the world is competent to make any alteration The Princes of Christendom after they took to themselves the Election of Bishops which is a natural right of the Sovereign Power become Christian they soon observed the advantage that they might make by advancing them to the greatest Secular Dignities Governments and Trusts and did accordingly advance them to an equality if not to a superiority to the highest of the Secular Nobility gave them Dutchies Marquisates Baronies and rich Endowments and erected that Order into a successive Nobility Another sort of Nobility from that of the Lay Princes concluding that they should be better served by men of their own choice and approved worthiness who had also other advantages over the People than those that the Temporal Princes and Lords had by that Reverence they paid to their Bishops and the Authority and Power that they had over them in the virtue of Religion than by the Hereditary Princes and Nobility who did not always answer to the virtue of the original Ancestors and the first stock Besides that Religious Kings and Sovereign Princes did by advancing Bishops intend to do great advantages and honour to Religion but withall they did not divide the Bishops thus advanced from the Secular Princes and Noblemen in Councils for then they had lost their design The Bishops could not have had any direct influence upon the Councils of the Nobles and Secular Princes nor have tempered their Debates with an excellent Charity and firm Loyalty and other Vertues which belong to their Character It would have made trouble distraction and impediment in the Affairs of Princes and emulation and strife and faction between the Ecclesiastical and Secular Orders and several mischiefs and great inconveniencies would have
it to the Son and his Descendents and to the Family he should derive from himself and when this was alienated in Fee the descent of it was directed agreeably to the manner and direction of the first Collation If the Father gave the Son the Estate there was a Tenure created of the Father as there was in all Feofments of the Feoffer before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum and it is a Rule in Law that a man cannot be haeres dominus Stamford's Exposition of the Prerogative chap. 5. fol. 23. B. If before the Statute of Quia emptores the eldest Son had enfeoffed the middlemost to hold of him and had taken his Homage the middlemost dieth without Issue the youngest should have had the Land and not the eldest Howbeit if there were no youngest Son or any other Heir than the Feoffor might claim the Land again by Escheat and not otherwise Another is this for a reason in our Law why the Children of several venters shall not inherit each others Lands it is told us it is so because they are but of the half blood to one another and therefore the Brother of the first venter shall not succeed to the State of the Brother by a second venter which dies without Issue But the Land must descend to the Uncle But this Uncle can be but of the half blood to the Nephew and the very reason that is given for the Law makes the Law unreasonable But the true reason why the Brothers of different venters cannot inherit each other is a disallowance that our Ancestors the Saxons had of second Marriages they as most of the Germane Nations esteeming them as concubinat and at best but as permitted Fornication So Tacitus tells us in his Book de moribus Germanorum that they did not allow of Second Marriages Ne non maritum sed matrimonium ament non nuptam sed nuptias and agreable to this Opinion are descents governed in several Countries in Germany at this day This tho' it is apt to excite all Gentlemen of the Robe never to acquiesce in any reason of the Law that is not sence which if they do they will forfeit their Reason and Judgment I should not have been so impertinent as to have mentioned in this Discourse but that this dealing in Causes without the exercise of clear reason about them hath brought it to pass that much of our Law will not sort to Natural Reason and Justice and this gave one great occasion to the Rise and Growth of the Court of Chancery Since it came in my way to shew the Original of the other Courts and the Reader may wonder that there is nothing in Antiquity that gives Authority to so celebrated and so busie a Court as this is at this day I will here offer an account of the Rise and Growth of it which will prepare the way for taking of it down which is no less a Reproach than it is a Grievance to the Nation There is nothing so great a Reproach to a Nation than to have Laws that are confessedly not good and equal to continue them and yet to allow of an Authority to reproach them with Iniquity that our Courts of Law should be under Rules and Obligations to pronounce Judgments which a single Gentleman shall authoritatively controul and condemn as unrighteous that Law and Equity should be Opposites That a Judgment must be made up and formd in a Case and what is equal just and fit therein must not be considered though it can be and will in another Court have a judicial Consideration Our Judges at Law take themselves bound not to hear or regard the Allegations of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs pretence which ought in good reason to bar them therein or at least qualifie the Judgments when the same matter shall be heard in Chancery and prevail either wholly to set aside or to qualifie the same Judgments This is not only to be complain'd of as derogatory to the Reputation of the Wisdom of the Nation but is insufferably oppressive to the Subject by the multiplicity of Suits tedious and vexatious Delays Nay by this ill Contrivance the Expences sometimes equal sometimes exceed the Value of the Right which is litigated and which is worse the Event of the Suit is very uncertain and fortuitous But this is not all our Law it seems is not a Rule that extends it self to all Causes and we have Rights confessedly such and which can be judicially remedied to which the Common Law extends no Relief For a thousand Causes in a year are for that reason heard in the Court of Chancery Two such Reproaches no Nation but ours hath ever yet incurr'd or suffer'd For Law and Equity is no where else opposed and every Right hath his Remedy by the Law of the Country but ours The first great occasion to the rise of the Chancery was Feoffments made upon Trust to uses in the time of our Warring about the Title of the Crown to avoid Forfeitures The Judges in tenderness to the Condition and necessity of those times did judge that an Use was no Right though most certainly it is For it is jus ad rem that nothing might be forfeited when it depended upon chance whether a man should be a good Subject or a Traitor And the same consideration easily admitted of any Authority that would interpose to relieve against those who would abuse or deny such Trusts and no body brought into question that authority by which a piece of justice so necessary to the Nation was administred Another great reason of the business of the Court of Chancery is that which we before-mentioned that we have not improv'd the Statute of Westm 2 C. 24. And a third is the ill conducting of our Laws our Ancient Judges were infected with the Monkery of that time men of no Learning and of a vain Subtilty The Theology of those times was insipid and most trifling and the Administration of Justice agreably turned into a vain art of disputing the apices juris and a subtilty was used too fine for business and to govern the affairs of Men that governed themselves by none of those Superfineries They argued without Discourse or discoursed from positive Rules or Presidents which were almost the same with them as Rules of Law and not from the true Merits of the Cause and its own particular reasons of Right And the Common Law which is Lex non scripta i. e. that which a wise Judicature should declare upon the consideration of the present Case was by the Proceedings of our Courts turn'd into a Lex scripta positive and inflexible and the Rule of Justice could not accomodate it self to every Case according to the Exigency of Right and Justice But if it were consider'd that there can be no Prescription against Justice that no Presidents where a Right hath not been relieved can be pretended why it should not be assisted hereafter And if a matter
pleaded in Bar upon which the Defendant will be certainly relieved in Chancery may notwithstanding it hath not heretofore be hereafter allowed in our Law-Courts we should be in a great measure restored to our easie expedite cheap and certain Justice which the Methods of our Common Law-Courts hath most excellently provided until a Parliament sometime or other may consider whether it be not fit to take it quite down by inabling Courts of Law to do true Right in all Causes that shall come before them For nothing renders the Chancery tolerable but the mo exemplary Virtue and Great Endowments of our present Lord Chancellor in which he is not like to have a Successor But to return to the Curia Regis it was not only the great Judicature of the Nation formally but it was also materially our Parliament too That this Curia Regis was not without any more the Parliament of these times is evident first that the Curia Regis was summoned by a general Writ of Summons directed to the Sheriffs in this Form viz. Rex Vicecomiti Northamptoniae c. praecipimus tibi quod summoneri facias Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites Barones Abbates Priores Milites Liberos homines qui de nobis tenent in Capite c. Rot. Claus 26 H. 3 M. 7. Dorso This must necessarily be this Curia Regis in Distinction to a Parliament For that in the Grand Charter of King John made in the last year of his Reign it was granted that Ad habendum Commune Concilium Regni de auxilio assidendo aliter quà m in tribus praedictis casibus i. e. Those cases of Aid to make the eldest Son a Knight to marry the eldest Daughter and of Ransom and de Scutagiis assidendis faciemus summoneri Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas nostras Et praeterea faciemus summoneri in generali per Vicecomites Ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in capite tenent de nobis At present we make no other use of this Grand Charter than to prove it a distinctive mark of a Parliament where the Summons are personal to the Bishops Earls and the greater Barons This Charter of King Johns declares the ancient usage of summoning the greater Barons by special Summons to them severally directed for that the Kings before him as Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary p. 80. Propter crebra bella simultates quas aliquando habuêre cum his ipsis majoribus suis Baronibus alios etiam eorum interdum omitterent aegrè hoc ferentes Proceres Johannem adegêre sub magno sigillo Angliae pacisci ut Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas summoneri faceret By which it was provided that all the Barons should have pro more Summons to the Parliament that non of those great Barons should want his several Summons and they had anciently several Summons for in a general Summons no body was excluded By which it doth appear that the Council at Northampton wherein Thomas of Becket was brought in judgment was a Parliament and not the Curia Regis for that the Bishops had their several Writs of Summons which appears in that Fitz Stephens tells us as matter of observation that Thomas of Canterbury had not his Writ of Summons but was cited as a Criminal to answer which we before observed And this was but necessary that when the Tenents in capite or Barons which principally at least made the Parliament were to be consulted about some arduous Affairs that they should have notice and a solemn intimation thereof and their presence required and enjoyned by Writs to them particularly and personally directed Besides that it was agreeable to all the forms of Government then in use to have their ordinary and extraordinary Council For Omnes Germanicae Originis Reges atque Imperatores duplici Concilio antiquitùs utebantur altero statario qui Senatus dicitur ad res quotidianas altero evocato concilium aut conventus ordinum ad res momenti majoris as Grotius assures us Neither can it be denied by any man of modesty who hath heard any thing of the state of our Government before the Conquest and that knows that many ancient Burroughs send Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription and will consider the Records produced by Mr. Petit in his very learned and elaborate Book called The Ancient Right of the Commons of England to prove the Right of ancient Burroughs to send Members to Parliament who represent them but that such though not Suiters to the Curia Regis were Members de jure of the great Council of Parliament But the truth is they are not mentioned in any Record or History of any Parliament from the beginning of the Conquerours Reign to the end of Henry 3. as a distinct part of the Parliament of England their Numbers and Qualities were little and mean of no consideration in comparison to that great Body of the Baronage that constituted our Parliaments in that time but our Parliaments seem by the style used in Histories and Records to be onely the Baronage of England William the First in the fourth year of his Reign Consilio Baronum suorum saith Hoveden pag. 343. fecit summoneri per universos Consulatus Angliae Anglos nobiles sapientes sua lege eruditos ut eorum jura consuetudines ab ipsis audiret Those who were returned shewed what the Customs of the Kingdom were which with the assent of the same Barons were for the most part confirmed in that Assembly which was a Parliament of that time saith Mr. Selden Titles of Honour pag. 701. Amongst the Laws of Hen. 1. published by Mr. Abraham Whelock cap. 2. I find thus Forestas communi consensu Baronum in manu mea retinui sicut pater meus eas habuit And after Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus emendavit consilio Baronum suorum The Parliament is styled Commune Concilium gentis Anglorum and at the same time Commune Concilium Baronum and also Clerus Populus Matth. Paris fol. 52 53 54. And this is sometimes called Communitas for that it represents the whole people and involves their consent Which appears by 48 H. 3. Pars unica M. 8. D. Haec est forma pacis à Domino Rege Domino Edwardo filio suo Praelatis Proceribus omnibus Communitate Regni Angliae communiter concorditer approbata And that Communitas Regni hath no other sense than commune concilium Regni and used as a comprehensive term of them that made it is evident for that it is said in the second Record Si videntur communitati Praelatorum Baronum And again Per consilium communitatis Praelatorum Baronum Further Magnates Vniversitas Regni sometimes used for the Parliament Matth Paris 659,666 And after King John's Charter wherein it was