Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	court_n	record_n	writ_n	3,114	5	9.8826	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61601	The proceedings and tryal in the case of the most Reverend Father in God, William, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Right Reverend Fathers in God, William, Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, Francis, Lord Bishop of Ely, John, Lord Bishop of Chichester, Thomas, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, Thomas, Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and Jonathan, Lord Bishop of Bristol, in the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-term in the fourth year of the reign of King James the Second, Annoque Dom. 1688.	Sancroft, William, 1617-1693.; Lloyd, William, 1627-1717.; Turner, Francis, 1638?-1700.; Lake, John, 1624-1689.; Ken, Thomas, 1637-1711.; White, Thomas, 1628-1698.; Trelawny, Jonathan, Sir, 1650-1721.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1689 (1689)	Wing S564; ESTC R7827	217,926	148

Case nor on the other side would I be wanting to Advise and do for my Client what I am able and lawfully may we have laboured all we could to get time for my Lords the Bishops to Imparle to this Information and we have been the more earnest in it because it concerns us who attends this Bar to take what Care we can that the Course of the Court may be observed but as for this Matter we suppose this Practice of the Court is not in Law a good Practice Now what way in the World has any man to bring this so in question as to have a Judicial Resolution of the Court about it but by such a Plea We take it that it is usual and legal for us to have an Imparlance and a man would Imparle but the Court upon Motion refused to give him an Imparlance Is it not think you very fit for the party to have this Judicially entered upon Record where all this Matter will appear and the party may be relieved by writ of Error if the Judgment of the Court should be wrong but truly I cannot see how the Court can refuse the Plea for if so be a Plea be pleaded they have their liberty to Answer it on the other side by a Replication or else to Demur and the Judgment of the Court may be had upon it one way or other but the Court will never go about to hinder any man from pleading where he may plead by Law here is a Plea put in and the Court sure will take no notice what is the Matter of the Plea till the other party have either replied or demurred the same thing may happen in any other Plea that is pleaded and the party will-be without Remedy upon a writ of Error because the Plea being Rejected there does nothing appear upon Record truly for the Court to reject and refuse this Plea would be as hard as the refusing of the Imparlance and we know no way we have to help our selves Mr. Sol. Gen. You might have entered your Suggestion for an Imparlance upon the Roll and then it would have appeared upon Record and if the Court had unjustly denied it you you would have had the benefit of that Suggestion elsewhere Truly My Lord I think if any thing be tricking this is for it is plainly ill pleading Mr. Finch Then pray demur to it Mr. Sol. Gen. No Sir 't is Fencing with the Court and that the Court won't suffer it is only to delay and if we should demur then there must be time for Arguing and what is the Question after all but whether you would be of the same Opinion to Morrow that you are to Day Sir Rob. Sawyer I would put Mr. Sollicitor in mind of Fitz Harris's Case which he knows very well he put it in a Plea and we for the King desired it might not be received but the Court gave him time to put it into Form and I was fain to joyn in Demurrer presently and so may these Gentlemen do if they please Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes Sir Robert Sawyer I do know the Case of Fitz Harris very well I was assigned of Councel by the Court for him we were four of us and there was a Plea put in but no such Plea as this there was an Indictment of High Treason against him in which Case it is agreed on all hands that the party must answer presently but because he suggested here at the Bar says he I have Matter to plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court and shewed what it was I was Impeached before the Lords in Parliament for Treason for the same Matter of which I am here Accused The Court did give him time to put this into Form and we were assigned his Council to draw it up for him and accordingly we did put that Matter into a Plea that we were here Indicted for one and the same Treason for which we were Impeached in Parliament and that that Impeachment was still depending and so we rested in the Judgment of the Court whether we should be put to Answer it here this was a Plea that carried something of weight in it and not such a trifling one as this It is true Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General did press the Court to over-rule it immediately but it being a matter of some Importance the Court would not do that but had it argued solemnly by Council on both sides and at last there was the Opinion of three Judges against one that the Plea was no good Plea But what is that to such a trifling Plea as this Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord favour me a few words about that Case of Mr. Fitz Harris it is true there was a Plea put in and it is true also that that which brought that Plea to be argued was the Demurrer that was put in by Sir Robert Sawyer who was so zealous and hasty in the matter that because the Court did not presently over-rule the Plea as he desired he immediately Demurred before the rest of the King's Council could offer at any thing about it and thereupon it was put to the Judgment of the Court and no doubt must be argued and spoke to on both sides but where Pleas are really in abuse of the Court the Court never gives any Countenance to them Nay truly I have known another Course taken I am unwilling to mention a Case that hapned much about that time too in this Court because of that regard I have to my Lords the Bishops but Sir Robert Sawyer remembers it very well I am sure it was the Case of one Whitaker who for a thing like this putting in a trifling Plea not only had his Plea rejected but something else was ordered I could shew the Precedent but that I am more tender than to press it in this Case because there the Court ordered an Attachment to go against him but I will put these Gentlemen in mind of another Case and that is the Case of a Peer too it is the Case of my Lord Delameere which they cannot but remember it being in the highest Case a Case of Treason when my Lord Delameere was Arraigned and to be Tryed for High Treason he put in a Plea before my Lord Chancellor who was then High Steward and Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General prayed the Lord Steward and the Peers to reject it and the Court did reject it as we hope the Court will do this and would never so far delay Justice as to admit of a Plea that carried no Colour in it and there was no Demurrer put into the Plea but it was absolutely refused My Lord in this Case we have had the Judgment of the Court already and therefore we must now desire that this Plea may be rejected Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we have now gone out of the way far enough already it is time for us to return and bring the Case into its due methods We pray

Exchequer of our said Lord the King Sir Edward Herbert Knight Chief Iustice of the Common Bench of our Lord the King and Sir Nicholas Butler Knight Lords of his Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council to me directed the Tenor of which Warrant follows in these Words viz. THESE are in his Majesties Name and by his Command to require you to take into your Custody the Persons of William Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely Iohn Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Ionathan Lord Bishop of Bristol For Contriving Making and Publishing a Seditious Libel in Writing against his Majesty and his Government and them safely to keep in your Custody until they shall be delivered by due Course of Law For which this shall be your sufficient Warrant At the Council Chamber in White-Hall this Eighth day of Iune 1688. And this is the Cause of the taking and detaining c. Lord Ch. Iust. Well What do you desire Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. We pray for the King that the Return may be filed L. Ch. Iust. Let it be filed Mr. Att. Gen. By this Retorn your Lordship observes what it is my Lords the Bishops were committed to the Tower for it is by Warrant from the Council Board where when their Lordships appeared they were not pleased to give their Recognizances to appear here as they were required by the King to do and there upon they were committed to the Tower and now come before the Court upon this Retorn of the King 's Writ of Habeas Corpus and by the Retorn it does appear it was for Contriving Writing Framing and Publishing a Seditious Libell against His Majesty and the Government My Lord it is our Duty who are the King's Councel pursuant to our Orders to prosecute such kind of Offences and when the proper time shall come for us to open the nature of the Offence your Lordships will then judge what reason there is for this Prosecution but in the mean time what we are now to offer to your Lordship is The Officer of this Court has an Information against his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of my Lords the Bishops which we desire may be read to them and pray that they may plead to it according to the Course of the Court. Sir Rob. Sawyer If it please your Lordship to spare us a word for my Lords the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord We pray for the King the Information may be read Sir Rob. Sawyer We define to be heard a word first Mr. Soll. Gen. We oppose your speaking any thing till the Information hath been read Sir Rob. Sawyer But what we have to offer is proper before it be read Mr. Att. Gen. Your time is not yet come Sir Robert. Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes this is our proper time for what we have to say and therefore we move it now before there be any other proceedings in this matter Mr. Soll. Gen. It is irregular to move any thing yet pray let the Information be read first Mr. S. Pemberton If your Lordship please to spare us we will offer nothing but what is fit for us to do Sir Rob. Sawyer And now is our proper time for it Mr. Soll. Gen. Gentlemen You do know the way of Proceeding in such Cases better than so I am sure as for you Sir Robert Sawyer you have often oppos'd any such Motion as irregular and I hope the Case is not alter'd however you may be the course of the Court is the same Sir Rob. Sawyer With submission if your Lordship please to spare me a word that which I would move is to discharge my Lords the Bishops upon this Return and from their Commitment upon this Warrant Mr. Att. Gen. Surely these Gentlemen think to have a Liberty above all other People here is an Information which we pray my Lords the Bishops may hear read and plead to Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly Sir Rob. Sawyer you would not have done thus half a year ago Sir Rob. Sawyer What would not I have done I move regularly with Submission to discharge my Lords the Bishops from their Commitment If they are not here legally Imprisoned now they are before your Lordships upon this Writ then you will give us leave to move for their Discharge before any thing else be said to them and that is it we have to say to demand the Judgment of the Court upon this Return whether we are legally Imprisoned Mr. Att. Gen. Under Favour my Lord neither the Court nor they are ripe for any Motion of this Nature yet Mr. S. Pemberton If we do not move it now it will afterwards I fear be too late Mr. Soll. Gen. These Gentlemen are very forward but certainly they mistake their time this is a Habeas Corpus that 's brought by the King and not by the Prisoners and therefore they are too soon till they see what the King has to say to them Mr. Att. Gen. Your Lordship cannot as yet be moved for your Judgment about the Legality of this Commitment because this Writ was granted upon our Motion who are of Councel for the King and upon this Writ they are brought here and what is it we desire for the King Certainly nothing but what is Regular we have here an Information for the King against my Lords and we desire they may plead to it Mr. S. Pemberton Good my Lord will you please to hear us a little to this Matter L. C. Iust. Brother Pemberton we will not refuse to hear you by no means when you speak in your proper time but it is not so now for the King is pleased by his Attorney and Sollicitor to Charge these Noble Persons my Lords the Bishops with an Information and the Kings Councel call to have that Information read but you will not permit it to be read Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord spare us a word if we are not here as Prisoners regularly before your Lordship and are not brought in by the due Pro●… of the Court then certainly the Kings Councel or the Court have no Power to charge us with an Information therefore we beg that you will hear us to that in the first place whether we are Legally here before you Mr. Soll. Gen. These Gentlemen will have their proper time for such a Motion hereafter Mr. Pollexfen No Mr. Soll. this is without all Question our only time for it we shall have no time afterwards Mr. Att. Gen. Yes you will for what do we who are of Councel for the King now ask of the Court but that this Information may be read when that is done if we move to have my Lords the Bishops plead then they may move what they will but before we make that Motion they cannot break in upon us with their Motion and with Submission to your Lordship whether my Lords the Bishops were duely Committed

With Submission that is such a difficulty that lyes in the way against the reading of the Information that you must get over it before you can come at the Reading of it Mr. Att. Gen. You will have your time for all this matter by and by but certainly you cannot be admitted to it yet L. Ch. Iust. Truly I think you are too early with that Exception Mr. Finch With Submission we think this is the proper time and I will tell your Lordship the reason why Ld. Ch. Iust. Mr. Finch certainly every thing in the world that can be said you will say for your Cllent and you shall be heard for we are very willing to deliver these Noble Lords if we can by Law and if the Exceptions you make be legal Mr. Finch My Lord we do not doubt your Justice and therefore we desire to offer what we have to say in this Point the only Question now it seems is about our time of making our Exception Mr. Attor we apprehend did say one thing which was certainly a little too large That however any man comes into Court if the Court find him here they may Charge him with an Information Mr. Attor Gen. Who says so I said no such thing Mr. Finch Then I acquit Mr. Attorney of it he did not say so Then both he and I agree the Law to be That a man that does come into Court if he does not come in by Legal Process he is not to be Charg'd with an Information then since we do agree in that Proposition certainly we must be heard to this Point Whether we are here upon Legal Process before you can Charge us with this Information Mr. Attor Gen. You think you have said a fine thing now and take upon you an Authority to make me agree to what you please Mr. Finch Certainly the Consequence is plain upon your own Premises Mr. Attor Gen. Do you undertake to speak for me Mr. Finch I am in the Judgment of the Court and to them I leave it Mr. Attor Gen. I know you thought you had got an extraordinary Advantage by making me say what you please but there has been very little said but what has been grounded upon Mistakes all along This is that I do say If a man comes in voluntarily upon any Recognizance though he be not in Custody or if he comes in upon any Process if the Court find him here though that Process be not for the thing Charged in the Information yet the Court is so much in possession of the Person that he shall plead to any Information and That I do say and will stand by Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we are here in a very great Auditory and this Court is always a very great Court but here is a Greater and Nobler Assembly than usually we have here and these Gentlemen to shew their Eloquence and Oratory would by converting Propositions otherwise than they are delivered put another meaning upon them and so draw strange Inferences from them but these Arts we are sure will not prevail here we say plainly and we are sure the Law is so let them apprehend what they will That your Lordship cannot exhibit an Information to any man that you find accidentally here in Court then says Mr. Finch we are agreed but withal say I take my other Proposition If a Person be brought into Court by Legal Process or upon any Contempt whatsoever by an Attachment or Warrant or upon a Habeas Corpus after a Commitment being thus found in Court your Lordship may certainly Charge him with an Information when these Gentlemen who are so eager on the otherside did preside here and stood in the places where Mr. Attorney and I now are I can name them abundance of Cases of the like nature with this when men have been compelled to appear to Informations and plead presently they are the Persons that made the Precedents they made the Law for ought I know I 'm sure I find the Court in possession of this as Law and we pray the usual Course may be followed Mr. Finch 'Pray my Lord spare us a word in this matter I do agree with Mr. Attor in this matter but I do not agree with Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. You do not agree with your self Mr. Finch I hope I do and always shall agree with my self but I do not agree with you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. You do not in 1688 agree with what you were in 1680. Mr. Finch Says Mr. Attorney A man that comes voluntarily in cannot be Charged with an Information with him I agree Says Mr. Sollicitor A man that comes in and is found in Court by any Process may be Charg'd with an Information I say no if the Process be wholly illegal for he cannot be said to be legally in Court Suppose a Peer of the Realm be taken upon a Capias and is Committed to the Marsha●…ea and is brought up upon a Habeas Corpus I would fain know whether you could declare against him Mr. Attor Gen. No we cannot Mr. Finch And why is that but because the Process is Illegal and he is not truly in Court Then is it a proper time now to make this a question Whether my Lords here were Legally committed before you can lay any thing to their charge by way of Information for if the Commitment be Illegal it is a void Commitment and if the Commitment be void the Process is void and then my Lords are not Legally in Court. Ld. Ch. Iust. That sure is but returning again to the same question that has been determined already Mr. Soll. Gen. If your Lordship will permit them to go over and over the same things we shall never have an end Mr. Finch My Lord we pray these Gentlemen of the KINGS Council may be a little cool with us and then they will find we do not talk the same things over and over again nor meddle with that which the Court have given their Judgment in Ld. Ch. Iust. Well go on Sir. Mr. Finch My Lord We say it is the Priviledge of the Peers of England that none of them shall be Committed to Prison for a Misdemeanour especially in the first instance and before Judgment this we say is the right of my Lords the Bishops and that which they claim as Lords of Parliament Now it appears upon this Return and the Warrant that the Council-Table hath Committed them for your Lordship and the Court hath rul'd it that this Commitment must be taken to be by Order of the Privy-Council and we meddle not with that further but we say that the Council-Table may Commit a man unjustly that is certain There has been relief often given in this Court against Commitments by the Council-Table And that they were unjustly Committed depends upon that point of their Priviledge as Peers Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord we say that the Lords of the Council have Illegally Committed these Noble Persons who are Peers of

in my Case and you were one of them that prosecuted me for ought I know or if you did not prosecute me you preached against me or if you did not some of your Tribe did But so my Lord it was in many other Cases within time of Memory Sir Robert Sawyer has past a Complement upon me of my great Skill in Parliament matters but truly there needs no great Skill in matters where the Law is so plain a Peer they agree may be in Prison for Treason Felony or Breach of the Peace but that Breach of the Peace I say they is where the Law requires Sureties of the Peace but is there any Certainty where Sureties of the Peace shall be required and where not Then I would put this Cafe These Lords have contrived and published a Seditious Libel against the King and His Government and whether this be not such a Breach of the Peace as will require Sureties of the peace is the Question before you And it plainly appears to be so in Sir Baptist Hick's Case in Hobbart If a man write a private Letter provoking another to fight although there be no fighting this is a Breach of the peace now a Letter can do no Wrong in that kind but as it incites and stirs up to fighting which may occasion Blood-shed and I think there cannot be a greater Breach of the peace than for a man to come to the King's Face and publish a Libel against Him and yet according to their Doctrine this man shall go away and you shall not take him up but take a Subpoena against him and wait for the delay of all the ordinary process and they tell you another thing that a Capias does not lie upon an Information against the person of a Peer and that there is no precedent of any such thing but I would pray them to remember the Case of my Lord Lovelace about some three years ago for breaking a Foot-mans Head. It seems if a man libels the King in His own presence that is not so great a matter as a little Correction to an insolent Foot-man but there he was bound in a Recognizance to appear here in this Court and accordingly he did appear and was Charged with an information and as to that precedent I do believe Sir Robert Sawyer and Mr. Finch won't contradict me this was in the first year of this King There was likewise my Lord of Pembrooke's Case who went to a disorderly House and there frighted some people and we moved the Court and had an Attachment against him for a misdemeanour and he was glad to Compound the thing or it had not ended so soon as it did and yet if a Lord comes to the King's Person and affronts Him to his very Face will not an Attachment lie against him for it Certainly it will. My Lord we have gone out of the way too much already and these Gentlemen will lead us farther but we hope your Lordships will reduce us to the methods of the Law Here is an Information which we desire may be read if they have any thing to plead to it their time for that will come after it is read if they think they have been illegally imprison'd it appears plainly upon this Return who they were that did Commit them here are a great many Noble Lords to Answer an Action of false imprisonment if these Lords think fit and may have these Learned Gentlemen that are very well able to advise them what they should do in it Sir Robert Sawyer We pray your Lordships Judgment whether the Cases put by Mr. Sollicitor are like our Case Mr. Soll. Gen. They are as like as Sir Robert Sawyer is to Mr. Attorney that was Sir Robert Sawyer Those Cases are of apparent Breaches of the peace so likewise was my Lord of Devonshire's Case but certainly that was not at all like this Mr. Finch With your Lordships Favour I would add but one Word and I would repeat nothing of what has been said all that I shall say is this There is a great deal of Difference between an Actual Breach of the Peace and that which in the bare Form of an Information is a Breach of the Peace by Construction of Law it being contra pacem Suppose it be laid that a man did vi armis speak Words will that make the Words a Breach of the peace Mr. Soll. Gen. It must be vi armis and certainly is a Breach of the peace Mr. Finch If a man write a Petition are the pen and ink that he uses the Arms Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I hope Mr. Finch remembers what I heard him say in Algernoon Sidney's Case scribere est agere Mr. Finch I think it is so Mr. Sollicitor but every Action is not a Breach of the peace Ld. Ch. Iust. We let my Brothers deliver their Opinions I will give you mine Mr. Iust. Allyb. The single Question now is Whether or no that which Mr. Sollicitor was pleased to name as the Crime and lay it to the Charge of my Lords the Bishops that is a seditious Libel be a Breach of the peace I do confess that there is little of Argument to be drawn from Forms of Indictments and I shall put no great stress upon the words vi ●…mit where the Fact will not come near it but if a Commitment may ensue as they seem to agree wherever surety of the peace may be required nothing seems more important to me than that surety of the peace should be required where there is any thing of Sedition in the Case and wherever there is a Seditions Act I cannot tell how to make any other Construction of it but that it is an Actual Breach of the peace that is my Opinion Mr. Iust. Powell I am of the same opinion in this point too as I was in the other point before It was a matter of great consequence I thought upon the former point but now it appears to me to be of far greater consequence than it did at first for here all the Great High and Noble Peers of England are concerned in it as to the●… priviledge Our Predecessors in this Court heretofore would not determine the priviledges of the Peers but left them to themselves to make what Judgment they pleased of them I think truly 't is a thing of that weight that it may be very fit for the Court to take time to consider of it and I declare for my own part I will not take upon me to deliver ●…y Opinion in a matter of this Consequence before I have Consulted all the Books that can give me any Light in the Case Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Powell I am not determining limitting or cramping the priviledge of Peers but I am only considering whether or no a seditious Libel be a breach of the Peace 'T is agreed to be on all hands a breach of the Peace Is there any thing that will require Sureties of the Peace to be

some slight Answer but then here are these two persons Mr. Harcourt and Mr. Sillyard and the one has been a Clerk these sixteen or seventeen years and the other has known the Office thirty years though there were not heretofore so many Informations of this Nature and Kind as now of late but still they say that a person that comes in upon a Commitment or a Recognizance shall never have any Imparlance Mr. Sol. Gen. Can they give any one Instance that has any the least shaddow to the contrary Mr. Pollixfen My Lord if we had time we hope we should be able to satisfie you in this Matter Mr. Sol. Gen. You have had time enough to prepare your selves for this Question if you had thought you could do any good in it L. C. I. Would the Course of the Court be otherwise to Morrow then it is to Day we have taken all the Care we can to be satisfied in this Matter and we will take care that the Lords the Bishops shall have all Justice done them nay they shall have all the Favour by my consent that can be shewn them without doing wrong to my Master the King but truly I cannot depart from the Course of the Court in this Matter if the King's Council press it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we must pray your Judgment in it and your Direction that they may plead L. C. I. Truly I think they must Plead to the Information Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Samuel Astry pray ask My Lords whether they be Guilty or Not Guilty Then his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury stood up and offered a Paper to the Court. Archbish. of Cant. My Lord I tender here a short Plea a very short one on behalf of my self and my Brethren the other Defendants and I humbly desire the Court will admit of this Plea. L. C. I. If it please your Grace it should have been in Parchment Mr. Sol. Gen. What is that my Lord offers to the Court L. C. I. We will see what it is presently Mr. Sollicitor Bish. of Peter I pray My Lord that the Plea may be Read. M. Sol. Gen. But not received Mr. Att. Gen. No we desire to know what it is first Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Attorney if they will Plead the Court sure is obliged to receive it L. C. I. If it is a Plea your Grace will stand by it L. Archbish. of Cant. We will all stand by it my Lord it is subscribed by our Council and we pray it may be admitted by the Court. Mr. S. Pemb. I hope the Court will not deny to receive a special Plea if we offer one L. C. I. Brother let us hear what it is Mr. Sol. Gen. Read it if you please but not receive it Clerk Reads the Plea which in English is thus The BISHOPS PLEA AND the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely John Bishop of Chicester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Jonathan Bishop of Bristol being present here in Court in their own Persons pray Oyer of the Information aforesaid and it is Read to them which being Read and heard by them the said Archbishop and Bishops The said Archbishop and Bishops say that they are Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament and each of them is one of the Peers of this Kingdom of England and a Lord of the Parliament and that they being as before is manifest Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament ought not to be compelled to answer instantly for the Misdemeanour aforesaid mentioned in the said Information exhibited here against them in this Court but they ought to be required to appear by due Process in Law issuing out of this Court h●…e upon the Information aforesaid and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the said Information exhibited against them and reasonable time to imparl thereupon and to advise with Council Learned in the Law concerning their Defence in that behalf before they be compelled to answer the said Information Whereupon for that the said Archbishop and Bishops were Imprisoned and by Writ of our Lord the King of Habeas Corpus directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower of London are now brought here in Custody without any Process upon the Information aforesaid issued against them and without having any Copy of the said Information or any time given them to imparl or be advised They pray Judgment and the Priviledge of Peers of this Kingdom in this Case to be allowed them and that They the said Archbishop and Bishops may not be compelled instantly to answer the Information aforesaid c. Rob. Sawyer Hen. Finch Hen. Pollixfen Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord with your Lordship's favour this in an ordinary Person 's Case would perhaps be thought not fair dealing or that which it being in the Case of these Reverend Prelates I shall not now name to make all this Debate and Stir in a Point of this nature to take the Judgment of the Court after three or four hours arguing and when the Opinion of the Court has been delivered then to put in a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court Sir Rob. Sawyer It is no such Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. It is so in effect but certainly it is such an Irregularity and such an unfair way of Proceeding as would not be endured in an ordinary Case and I hope you will give so little countenance to it as to reject it and make them Plead according to the usual course and way of proceedings certainly a Plea of this nature after so long an Argument would be reckoned nothing but a trick Mr. Serj. Pemb. We hope the Court and you are not of one mind Mr. Attorney in this matter we desire the Court to receive the Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. With submission the Court is not bound to receive Pleas that are put in purely for delay as this is for the Judgment of the Court has been already given in the very matter of this Plea and for rejecting a Plea it is done every day if a Man puts in a mere trifling dilatory Plea the Court may reject it Does this Plea contain any thing in it but what has been argued and debated pro con and setled by the Court already If they will put in any Plea in chief they may but such a Plea as this I hope shall not have so much countenance as to be receiv'd by the Court. Mr. Pollixfen Do you Demur to it if you please Mr. Attorney we will joyn in Demurrer with you Mr. Att. Gen. No there will be no need of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Surely the Court will never give so much Countenance to it as to receive it Mr. Finch If you will please either to Reply or Demur Mr. Sollicitor we are here to maintain the Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. If you were here you would say the same thing that we do My Lord this Plea is That

my Lord the Bishops are not bound to Plead instantly so that 't is not a Question Whether they ought to Answer or not to Answer but whether they ought to Answer immediately and what do they say more They would have an Imparlance and time to consult with their Councel what they shall Plead which is all but one and the same thing and what is the reason they give for this They induce it thus These Noble Persons are Peers of the Realm and so ought not to be compelled to Plead immediately this if I mistake not is the sum of their Plea. Now pray my Lord what sort of Plea is this It is not a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court tho' it do in a sort decline the Justice of the Court Is it a Plea in Abatement No it is not for it is only to gain time and do they now offer any thing more for themselves than what was said by their Council before Only That we are Peers of the Realm and that such is the Priviledge of Peers that they ought to have an Imparlance and time to Plead and that they ought not to answer presently My Lord this Matter hath been long agitated in the Court already your Lordship and the Court have given your Judgments and we know your Lordship and the Court will not admit of Tricks to delay the Kings Causes we all know the Term is a short Term and what I said in the beginning upon this matter I say again it is the Interest and for the Honour of my Lords the Bishops if they understand their own Interest and value their Honour to have this Cause tryed as soon as may be but this trifling and tricking is only for delay For what issue can be taken upon this Plea Certainly none And if we should Demurr what will be the end of that But only to get time to slip over the Term. If there were any thing worth the considering in this Plea and that had not been already debated and setled then it might concern us to give some Answer to it but we have spent three hours by my Watch in the Dispute and the Matter having been over-ruled already it is time to have an end of it sure the Court will never be so treated by these Persons that are of Councel for my Lords the Bishops for it cannot be thought that my Lords the Bishops do it of themselves and whether the Court will be so served we submit to your Lordship Certainly you will not receive such a Plea as this especially it being in Paper you will never countenance such a Practice so far as to give these Lords time to trifle with the Court if any such thing as a Plea be tender'd to the Court it ought to be in Parchment and if they would have an Imparlance there ought to have been an entry of a Petit Licentiam inter loquendi upon the Roll but not such a Plea as this for this in effect is no more then desiring an Imparlance which if it be granted of course upon such a Prayer entred upon the Roll you take it of course but if it be not of course you cannot come in by way of Plea it must be by suggestion upon the Roll and a Conceditur entred if this be admitted as a Precedent every Man hereafter that comes in upon an Information will take advantage of it and plead such a Plea as this and if you grant an Imparlance in this Case upon this Plea you must grant an Imparlance in every Case certainly the Law is not to be altered the Methods of Proceedings ought to be the same in every Case And I hope you will not make a particular Rule in the Case of my Lords the Bishops without a special Reason for it Mr. Serj. Pemb. We put in this Plea my Lord and are ready to abide by it and we say that according to the course of the Court it ought to be received Mr. Att. Gen. No but good Mr. Serjeant 't is in the discretion of the Court whether they will receive it or not for the matter has been in debate already and has receiv'd a determination the Court has over-ruled them in this very Point already and there is no more in this Plea than was in the Argument before and therefore it ought to be rejected as a frivolous Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. Here is a Plea offered in Writing and in Paper the Court sees what it is and I hope you will give no countenance to it Mr. Pollixfen I do hope my Lord you will not judge this as a frivolous Plea I think our Case is such that you will not do that if you think fit you may over-rule it but I hope you will not refuse it Mr. Soll. Gen. The Court will certainly reject a frivolous Plea and they may do it Mr. Pollixfen But Mr. Solliciter I hope the Court will consider of it whether it be a frivolous Plea or not it is true there has been a Debate about the course of the Court and there has been an Examination of the Clerk of the Office and the Court has gone upon his Certificate but yet still perhaps it may remain in doubt and it being a Question of such a consequence as this it may very well deserve the Court's Consideration there never was a Judicial Settlement of it that I know of yet nor do I know any way of having it satisfactorily setled but by the Judgment of the Court entred upon Record here we offer a Plea that contains the matter in debate and this Plea will appear upon Record and if upon consideration of the Plea your Lordship shall think fit to over-rule it and be of Opinion against the Plea then will you by your Resolution in a Judicial way settle the Question that has hitherto been in Controversy L. C. I. Mr. Pollixfen I would ask you whether the Council have dealt ingeniously with the Court or no in this matter after four hours debate and the Opinion of the Court delivered to come and sum up all the Arguments in such a Plea as this and so put us upon debating it over again Mr. Pollixfen My Lord certainly this has been done before without Offence after we had moved for a thing which was denied upon Motion it is no such great dis-respect to the Court with submission to put the same Matter into a Plea for the Judicial Opinion of the Court. Sir Ro. Sawyer That without all Question has been done a great many times Mr. Sol. Gen. How many times have you been accused of playing Tricks Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Rob. Sawyer Not so many as you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I don't ask it as if I questioned it for I assure you I don't doubt it of your part at all L. C. I. Pray Gentlemen don't fall out with one another at the Bar we have had time enough spent already Mr. Pollixfen Truly My Lord I would not trick with the Court in any

your Lordship to reject this Plea. Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we are in your Judgment whether you will receive this Plea or not L. C. I. You shall have my Judgment presently but my Brothers are to speak first Mr. I. Allybone Mr. Pollixfen makes it a Question whether this Plea may be reiected or not or whether it ought to be received and the Court give their Judgment upon it Mr. Iust. Powell Truly I do not know whether the Court can reject this as 〈◊〉 frivolous Plea. L. C. I. Surely we may and frequently do Mr. Att. Gen. You do it every day it 's a frequent Motion if a frivolous Plea be put in before it be entred upon Record as a Plea the Court may refuse it if they see cause Mr. I. Allybone Truly if it may be this appears to me a very frivolous Plea. Mr. Iust. Powell I do not know how the Court can reject any Plea that the party will put in if he will stand by it as they say they will here and I cannot think this a frivolous Plea it concerning the priviledge of Peers and Lords of Parliament Mr. I. Allybone Brother Powell I would be as tender of the Priviledges of Parliament and speak with as much respect of the Priviledges of the Peerage as any body else but for the matter of the Plea truly it appears to me that the Peers are named in it only for fashion safe and it is frivolous Mr. Iust. Powell The matter of the Plea except only their being said to be Peers and Lords of Parliament was spoke to before but it was only obiter and by way of motion but now it may come before us for our Judicial Determination Mr. I. Allybone Pray let the Plea be read again Which was done Mr. Iust. Allybone This Plea is no more but that which has been denied already upon solemn debate and if it be in the power of the Court to reject any Plea surely we ought to reject this Indeed I know not what power we have to reject a Plea but if we have power this ought to be rejected Mr. Iust. Powell I declare my Opinion I am for receiving the Plea and considering of it Mr. Iust. Holloway I think as this case is this Plea ought not to be received but rejected because 't is no more than what has been denied already I am not ashamed to say That I should be very glad and ready to do all things that are consistent with my Duty to shew respects to my Lords the Bishops some of whom are my particular Friends but I am upon my Oath and must go according to the course of Law. L. C. I. We have asked and informed our selves from the Bar whether we may or can reject a Plea and truly what they have said hath satisfied me that we may if the Plea be frivolous and this being a Plea that contains no more than what has been over-ruled already after hearing what could be said on both sides I think the Court is not bound to receive the Plea but may reject it and my Lords the Bishops must plead over Mr. Att. Gen. We pray they may plead in chief Clerk. My Lord Archbishop of Canterbury is your Grace guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty A. B. C. Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of St. Asaph is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of St. Asaph Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Ely is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Ely. Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Chichester is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Chichest Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Bath Wells Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Peterborough is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Peterborough Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Bristol is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Bristol Not guilty Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray the Clerk may joyn Issue on the behalf of the King that so we may come to Tryal and we would have these Gentlemen take notice that we intend to try this Cause on this day fortnight and we pray liberty of the Court that we may try it at Bar. L. C. I. Are you not too hasty in that Motion Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we should indeed make it the Motion of another day but we do now tell them this exabundanti because my Lords the Bishops are now here and will I suppose take notice that we do intend to move it another day Mr. Soll. Gen. We now give them notice that we intend to move Sir Rob. Sawyer For that you need not trouble your selves we are very desirous it should be tryed at Bar and that as soon as you please Mr. Att. Gen. Well then you take notice it will be tryed this day fortnight L. C. I. Well what shall we do with my Lords the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. They are baylable no question of it my Lord if they please L. C. I. Then my Lords we are ready to bail you if you please Sir Rob. Sawyer We desire your Lordship would be pleased to take their own Recognizance L. C. I. What say you Mr. Attorney I think that may do well enough Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord with all my heart we will do it L. C. I. In what Penalty shall we take it Mr. Att. Gen. A 1000. I think my Lord his Grace and 500 l. apiece the rest Sir Rob. Sawyer What necessity is there for so much Mr. Att. Gen. Look you Sir Robert Sawyer to shew you that we do insist upon nothing that shall look like hardship what my Lords have been pleased to offer concerning taking their own Recognizance we agree to and what sums the Court pleases Mr. Soll. Gen. It is all one to us we leave it wholly to the Court. Sir Rob. Sawyer Only I have one thing more to beg of your Lordship on the behalf of my Lords the Bishops that you will please to order that in the Return of the Jury there may be forty eight returned Mr. Att. Gen. I tell you what we will do Sir Samuel Astry shall have the Freeholders Book if you please and shall return twenty four Sir Rob. Sawyer Eight and forty has been always the course when the Jury is returned by Sir Samuel Astry Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I pray the Officer may return the Jury according as is usual in Cases of this nature Mr. Att. Gen. You do admit of a Tryal at Bar Gentlemen Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes and try it when you will. L. C. I. They

may be Read. Mr. Att. Gen. We have given sufficient Evidence sure to have it Read therefore we desire it may be Read. Mr. Serj. Levinz My Lord before this Paper be Read we hope you will let us be heard to it we think that what they desire to have this Paper Read ought not to be for what is all the proof that they have given of this Paper they have a proof by Comparison of Hands which in a Criminal Case ought not to be received and besides my Lord what is that Comparison of Hands that they have offered Some persons come here and say They cannot tell whether it be their Hands they believe it may or it may not for ought they know How shall we Convict any Man upon such a Testimony as this can we have our Remedy against him for Perjury for saying He believes it to be our Hand therefore here is not any Evidence to Charge us For first It is only a Comparison of Hands And secondly That Comparison is proved in such an uncertain manner Some of them tell you They do not know what to believe another tells you I believe 't is rather such a Lord's Hand then the others are such a Lord's Hands I believe 't is rather his Hand than that above it or that below it what sort of proof is all this Therefore we pray it may not be Read till they prove it better Mr. Serj. Pamberton Pray my Lord spare me a word or two in this matter for Evidence sake there is a great deal of reason we should take Exceptions to the Evidence that has been given for truly I think I never heard such a sort of Evidence given before It is a Case of as great Concernment as ever was in Westminster ●…all and for them to come to prove Hands only by those that saw Letters but never saw the persons Write this I hope will not amount to so much as a Comparison of Hands Your Lordship knows that in every petty Cause where it depends upon the Comparison of Hands they use to bring some of the Parties Hand writing which may be Sworn to to be the Parties own Hand and then it is to be compared in Court with what is endeavoured to be proved and upon comparing them together in Court the Jury may look upon it and see if it be right and never was there any such a thing as this admitted in any poor petty Cause that is but of the value of Forty Shillings And therefore as to this Evidence First We say Comparison of Hands ought not to be given at all in the Cases of Criminals And I believe it was never heard of that it should In the next place if it be admitted to be Evidence yet it is not such an Evidence as that by Comparison of Hands the Jury can take notice of it for in such manner of proofs by Comparison of Hands the usage is That the Witness is first asked concerning the Writing he produces Did you see this Writ by the Defendant whose Hand they would prove If he answers yes I did then should the Jury upon Comparison of what the Witness Swears to with the Paper that is to be proved judge whether those Hands be so like as to induce them to believe that the sames person Writ both and not that the Witness should say I had a Letter from such a person and this is like the Hand of that Letter therefore I believe it to be his Hand My Lord I hope this shall never be admitted for Evidence in this Court. L. C. I. I do take it that the Witness himself is Judge of the Comparison for if he does know the Parties Hand and a Paper be offered him to prove the Parties Hand he is to compare it in his own mind Mr. Serj. Pemberton It never was admitted to be so that I know of my Lord or ever Read of Mr. Sol. Gen. You may remember several Cases about that particularly Sidney's Case Mr. Pollixfen Pray my Lord hear me a little as to that it is a Point of very great moment whether in the Case of a Misdemeanour either in an Indictment or Information it be good Evidence to offer Comparison of Hands and that this Court did adjudge quite contrary upon an Indictment of Forgery against my Lady Carr appears in Syderfin's Reports they went to prove her Letters Written by her to Cox the Court rejected it and gave their judgement here That it was no Evidence and that for this Reason Because of the evil consequences of it For said they It is an easie matter for any Man's Hand to be Counterfeited that they sure will agree for frequent daily experience shews how easily that may be done is it not easie then to cut any Man down in the World by proving it is like his Hand and proving that likenss by comparing it with something that he hath formerly seen this strikes mighty deep the honestest Man in the World and the most Innocent may be destroyed and yet no fault to be found in the Jury or in the Judges if the Law were so it would be an unreasonable Law. Next my Lord for the Case of Sidney that was a Case of Treason Now in the Case of Treason there is always other Evidence brought and this Evidence comes in but as a Collateral Evidence to strengthen the other but in this Case it is the single Evidence for ought that appears for there is nothing more for ought I can see in the Case but whether this were their Hands and proved only by what another believes Now shall any be condemned by anothers belief without proof surely my Lord that was never Evidence yet to Convict any one so that their proof failes in both Points For first It ought to be considered whether Comparison of Hands be Evidence in a Case of Misdemeanour And next if it be Evidence whether you will take it that the belief of a Man that brings nothing to compare with it or never saw the Party Write but has received Letters and says This is like it and therefore he believes it to be his Hand be good Evidence as a Comparison of Hands Mr. Serj. Pemberton My Lord they are pleased to mention Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Serj. you have been heard already and you are not to reply upon us or if you would we must be heard first Mr. Serj. Pemberton I would only speak to that Case of Sidney my Lord that Case differs from this toto Caelo the Writing was found in his possession in his Study there was the proof that nailed him Mr. Sol. Gen. You shall see how we 'll apply it by and by Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord favour me a word in this matter that there is stronger and weaker Evidence no Man doubts but that which these Gentlemen say that in this Case there is no Evidence must needs be a mistake if they mean that it is not so strong an Evidence as is possible to be given

is not Evidence upon this Information Mr. Soll. Gen. We have proved it written and published in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Pemb. The contrivance and writing of a Libell is in itself penal and they may be punished for it if they be found guilty Now if they could give an undeniable Evidence concerning the publishing of it that is nothing to this point but if they should not give such Evidence or any Evidence at all of the publication yet if it be proved that it was written and contrived by them they would be guilty for so much if it be a Libell and this we say is local as well as all the rest and therefore we insist upon it that the writing and contriving must as well be proved to be in Middlesex as the publication for all is local L. C. Iust. There is no publishing yet proved Mr. Serj. Levinz It is true my Lord here is nothing of a Publication yet with your Lordship's favour for their Answer to His Majesty in Council was that they did not publish it all that is said yet is that they owned the Paper to be their hands My Lord does the owning of that own that it was written in the County of Middlesex or that it was contrived or made there No surely upon this Evidence the place is clearly at large My Lord this might have been done in the County of Surrey or Somerset or any other County Their Information is that they did consult and contrive to diminish the King's Prerogative at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and there they did write and cause to be written this Libell and there they did publish it suppose it should be granted that it is proved that this is the Archbishop's Hand-writing and these are their Names to it is there any one Evidence that any thing of this was done in Middlesex and my Lord that is the thing they are to prove Mr. Sommers If your Lordship please all matters of Crime are so local that if it be not proved to be done in the County where it is laid the party accused is as innocent as if he never had done the thing and with submission it is the very point of the Information that it be proved they are guilty of the Fact in the place where it is laid to be done L. C. Iust. This is the same thing over and over again but I am content to hear you Mr. Sommers at any time I have told you my opinion about reading of the Paper already if you 'll have it again you may Mr. Pollixfen Pray good my Lord spare us before it be read Mr. Iust. Holloway Mr. Pollixfen you have not yet had the Directions of the Court for the reading of it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord when this Paper is read which we pray it may be we will answer their Objections but at present we say they are out of time Mr. Pollixfen Good Lord what a ●…ange thing is this We object against the reading of it and you 'll answer us after it is read Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly my Lord we have done enough to prove that this is a paper owned by them in the County of Middlesex and we pray it may be read L. Ch. Iust. Truly I am of the same mind I was before that it is too soon to make the Objection and that the Paper ought to be read Mr. Soll. Gen. We submit to your Rule Mr. Pollixfen If it be the Will of the Court I have nothing to say Mr. Iust. Powell My Lord The Contrivance and Publication are both matters of Fact and upon Issue joined the Jurors are Judges of the Fact as it is laid in the Information but how can they be Judges of a matter of Fact done in another County and it must be presumed in favour of Innocence not to be done in this County but in another except they prove it Mr. Att. Gen. We are not yet ripe for arguing that point Mr. Soll. Gen. We are speaking only to the Court now for the reading of this Paper and the Jury are not Judges of that whether the Paper ought to be read or no that is merely a matter of Law and under the direction of the Court and therefore I pray since it is now in your Lordship's Judgment whether that Paper should be read that you would please to order it to be read L. C. Iust. I can only give you my own opinion let my Brothers give theirs Mr. Iust. Holloway There is no body against the reading of it my Lord I suppose my Brother Powell is not against its being read Mr. Iust. Powell But they say the King's Counsel must make it out first that the writing of it and the conspiring about it was in the County of Midds or there can be no judgment so much as to read it Mr. Pollixfen My Lord If the Objection be saved to us we shall not so much oppose the reading it only we would not be surprized in point of time Mr. Iust. Powell Nay if they consent to the reading we have no reason to hinder it L. C. Iust. Brother I believe they know well enough what they have to say for their Clients let the Paper be read Clerk reads The Humble Petition of William Archbishop of Canterbury Sir. R. Sawyer Read the whole Petition Pray my Lord that the whole may read Read the Top first Sir to whom it was directed L. C. Iust. Read the whole Clerk reads To the King 's Most Excellent Majesty The Humble Petition of William Archbishop of Canterbury and of divers of the Suffragan Bishops of that Province now present with him in behalf of themselves and others of their absent Brethren and of the Clergy of their respective Dioceses Humbly sheweth THat the great aversness they find in themselves to the distributing and publishing in all their Churches your Majesties late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience proceedeth neither from any want of Duty and Obedience to your Majesty our holy Mother the Church of England being both in her Principles and in her constant practice unquestionably loyal and having to her great Honour been more than once publickly acknowledged to be so by your Gratious Majesty nor yet from any want of due tenderness to Dissenters in relation to whom they are willing to come to such a Temper as shall be thought fit when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation but amongst many other considerations from this especially because that Declaration is founded upon such a Dispencing Power as hath been often declared illegal in Parliament and particularly in the Years 1662 and 1672 and in the beginning of your Majesties Reign and is a matter of so great moment and consequence to the whole Nation both in Church and State that your Petitioners cannot in Prudence Honour or Conscience so far make themselves parties to it as the Distribution of it all over the Nation and the solemn Publication of it once and again even in

Records in Parliament mentioned in their Petition and produce several Ancient Records of former Parliaments that prove this Point and particularly in the Time of Richard the Second concerning the Statute of Provisors where there were particular Dispensations for that Statute the King was enabled to do it by Act of Parliament●… and could not do it without L. C. Iust. Pray Sir Robert Sawyer go to your Proofs and reserve your Arguments till afterwards Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord I do but shortly mention these things so that my Lord as to the Matter of this Petition we shall shew you that it is true and agreeable to the Laws of the Land. Then my Lord as to the manner of delivering it I need say no more but that it is plain from their Evidence that it was in the most private and humble manner And as my Lord President said Leave was asked of the King for them to be admitted to present it Leave was given and accordingly they did it We come then my Lord to the third thing the Persons these noble Lords and we shall shew they are not Busie-Bodies but in this Matter have done their Duty and medled with their own Affairs That my Lord will appear First By the general Care that is reposed in them by the Law of the Land They are frequently in our Books called the King's Spiritual Judges they are intrusted with the Care of Souls and the Superintendency over all the Clergy is their principal Care. But besides this my Lord there is another special Care put upon them by the express Words of an Act of Parliament for over and above the general Care of the Church by virtue of their Offices as Bishops the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. makes them special Guardians of the Law of Uniformity and of that other Law in His Late Majesty's Reign where all the Clauses of that Statute of 1 Eliz. are revived and made applicable to the present State of the Church of England Now in that Statute of 1 Eliz. there is this Clause And for the due Execution hereof the Queen 's Most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in God's Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Ordinaries that they do endeavour themselves to the utmost of their Knowledges that the due and true Execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his People for neglecting this good and wholsome Law. This is the Charge that lies upon the Bishops to take care of the Execution of that Law and I shall pray by and by that it may be read to the Jury Mr. Soll. Gen. That is very well indeed To what purpose Sir Rob. Sawyer So that my Lord by this Law it is plain that my Lords the Bishops upon pain of bringing upon themselves the Imprecation of this Act of Parliament are obliged to see it executed and then my Lord when any thing comes under their Knowledge especially if they are to be Actors in it that has such a tendency to destroy the very Foundations of the Church as the Suspension of all the Laws that relate to the Church must do it concerns them that have no other Remedy to address the King by Petition about it For that Mr. Attorney my Lord has agreed That if a proper Remedy be pursued in a proper Court for a Grievance complained of though there may be many hard Words that else would be scandalous yet being in a regular Course they are no Scandal And so it is said in Lake's Case in my Lord Hobbart My Lord we must appeal to the King or we can appeal to no body to be relieved against an Order of Council with which we are aggrieved and it is our Duty so to do according to the Care that the Law hath placed in us Besides my Lord the Bishops were commanded by this Order to do an Ac●… relating to their Ecclesiastical Function to distribute it to be read by their Clergy And how could they in Conscience do it when they thought part of the Declaration was not according to Law Pray my Lord What has been the reason of His Majesty's consulting of his Judges And if His Majesty or any the great Officers by his Command are about to do any thing that is contrary to Law was it ever yet an Offence to tell the King so I always look'd upon it as the Duty of an Officer or Magistrate to tell the King what is Law and what is not Law. In Cavendish's Case in the Queen's time there was an Office granted of the Retorn of the Writs of Supersedeas in the Court of Common Pleas and he comes to the Court and desires to be put into the possession of the Office The Court told him They could do nothing in it but he must bring his Assize He applies to the Queen and she sends under the Privy Seal a Command to sequester the Profits and to take Security to answer th●… Profits as the Judgment of the Law should go But the Judges there return an Answer That it was against Law and they could not do it Then there comes a second Letter reciting the former and commanding their Obedience The Judges returned for Answer They were upon their Oaths and were sworn to keep the Laws and would not do it My Lord The like was done in the time of my Lord Hobbart We have it reported in Anderson in a Case where a Prohibition had gone There came a Message from Court that a Consultation should be granted and that was a Matter wherein there were various Opinions whether it was Ex Necessitate or Discretionary but there they return'd That it was against Law for any such Message to he sent Now here my Lord is a Case full as strong My Lords the Bishops were commanded to do an Act which they conceived to be against Law and they decline it and tell the King the reason and they have done it in the most humble manner that could be by way of Petition If they had done as the Civil Law terms it Rescribere generally that had been lawful but here they have done it in a more respectful manner by an humble Petition If they had said the Law was otherwise that sure had been no Fault but they do not so much as that but they only say it was so declared in Parliament and they declare it with all Humility and Dutifulness So that my Lord if we consider the Persons of the Defendants they have not acted as Busie-Bodies and therefore as this Case is when we have given our Evidence here will be an Answer to all the Implications of Law that are contained in this Information For they would have this Petition work by Implication of Law to make a Libel of it but by what I have said it will appear

and a Man must not be his own Judg nor his own Carver nor must every Man create Difficulties of his own nor set upon Petitioning in this sort But there I lay my Foundation That in such a matter as this there ought to have been the Impeachment of the Commons in Parliament before these Lords could do any thing and I know nothing can be said for the Bishops more than this That they were under an Anathema under the Curse that Sir Robert Sawyer speaks of and for fear of that they took this Irregular Course But some would say Better fall into the hands of God than of Men some would say so I say I know not what they would say but these being the Methods that these Lords should have taken they should have pursued that Method the Law should have carved out their Relief and Remedy for them but they were for going by a new Fancy of their Own. My Lord the Law continued thus and was practised so till the 3. Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber and there Men were often brought to Judgment and Punishment for their Sins and though very great Power was given them yet they arrogated to themselves a greater and therefore that Court is abolished by the Statute of the 15th Car. 1. and what is the reason of abolishing that Statute Because the Star-Chamber did not keep within their bounds that the Law set them but assumed to themselves a larger Power than the Law would allow and grew very Exorbitant and very Grievous to the Subject And another reason was which the Statute of 15th Car. 1. founded it self upon because there was nothing that was brought in Judgment before that Court but might be relieved and remedied in the oridinary methods of Justice in the Courts of Westminster Hall So that upon those two Considerations because that Course was exorbitant and because all the Sins and Misdemeanours that were punished there might be punished in an ordinary way of Law in another Court and therefore there was no need of that Court and so it was abolished and the Subject was pretty safe If there was a Crime committed here a Man might come properly before your Lordship into this Court and have it punished My Lord they find fault with the Words in the Information and they say why are these Words put in Seditious Malicious If the matter be Libellous and Seditious we may Lawfully say it and it is no more than the Law speaks it results out of the Matter it self and if it be a Libellous Paper the Law says it is Maliciously and Seditiously done and these Gentlemen need not quarrel with us for so are all the Informations in all times past and 't is no more than the Vi Armis which is Common Form. It may be said How can the publishing of a Libel be said to be done Vi Armis That is only a Supposition of Law and they may as well Object to the conclusion of the Information that it was Contra Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis if it be an Illegal thing or a Libel these are necessary Consequences it is no more than the speaking of the Law upon the Fact. But my Lord let us a little consider whether this Matter were Warrantable and whether they had any Warrant to do what was done they pretend it was done upon this Account That the King had set forth a Declaration and had Ordered them to Read it which to excuse themselves from they make this Petition or this Libel call it what you will and they use this as the main Argument That they say the King has done Illegally and they tell the King plainly so that it is Illegal for they take notice of this Declaration and say it is Illegal because it is contrary to the Declarations of Parliament in 1662 1672 and 1685. Pray my Lord let us consider a little whether there be any Declaration in Parliament that they have given Evidence of Have they read any Declaration of the Parliament in 1662 What is a Declaration in Parliament but a Bill that is passed by the King Lords and Commons That we know to be the meaning and no other if it pass the Commons it is no Declaration in Parliament nay if it pass the Lords and Commons it is not a Declaration in Parliament except it also pass the King all these things are Nullities and the Law takes no notice of them we have it in our Books over and over and no Court ought to suffer such Evidence to be given I know these Gentlemen are very well acquainted with the Authority in Fitz-Herbert's Title Parliament there was an Act that was said to be by the King and the Lords but because the Commons did not agree to it it is declared and adjudged to be a Nullity and the Court would take no notice of it and how can any Man call that a Declaration in Parliament which is only a Vote of the House of Commons or of the Lords No sure that is one of the Heads I go upon It 's not a Declaration in Parliament unless it be by Act of Parliament Indeed my Lord there is another sort of a Declaration in Parliament before the Lords as they are a Court of Judicature and that is a fair Declaration too for if any thing comes Judicially before the Lords either by Writ of Error or by natural Appeal from any of the other Courts or by Adjournment and there be any Judgment given That is a Declaration in Parliament and may be fairly so called So likewise there is another Judicial Declaration which is when any thing comes before the Lords Judicially upon an Impeachment of the Commons and they give Judgment upon that Impeachment That is a Declaration in Parliament But to say that there is any other Declaration in Parliament is to say more than these Gentlemen can make out if they will shew me any such I will submit to them and not speak a Word against my Lords the Bishops but if these Learned Gentlemen cannot shew me any such then they have not said that was true in this Petition that it was so and so declared in Parliament For let us consider what there is in this Case upon this Evidence for that in 1662. is only a Vote and an Opinion of the House of Commons and I always understood and have been told so by some of the Gentlemen of the other side that such a Vote signifies nothing But besides it seems to be a mistaken Address for they say in it That the Declaration in 1662. which they Address against was the first Declaration of that sort to suspend Laws without Act of Parliament and yet in the same breath they do take notice of the King's Declaration from Breda But here is a mighty Argument used from the King's Speech That

because he wished he had such a Power this must be declared in Parliament that he had no such Power Is the Speech of the Prince a Declaration in Parliament All the Speeches that were made upon the opening of the Parliament will you say they are Declarations in Parliament Then the Chancellor or the Keeper's Speech or the Lord Privy Seals must be a Declaration in Parliament Whoever speaks the Sense of the King if he does not speak that which is Law and Right is questionable for it and several have been Impeached for so doing for they look not upon it as the King's Speech except it be according to Law Nothing can turn upon the Prince but what is Legal if it be otherwise it turns upon him that speaks it I never did hear that a Speech made by the Chancellor and I will appeal to all the Lords that hear me in it was a Declaration in Parliament Then my Lord we come to the business in 1672. which with that in 1662. and that in Breda shews That this of the King 's is not such a Novelty but has been done often before In 1672. the King was in Distress for Money being intangled in a Dutch War and wanted Supply He Capitulates with his Commons you have heard it read and upon the Commons Address he asserts it to be his Right and makes his Complaint to the Lords how the Commons had used him for when he gives them a fair Answer they Reply and there are Conferences with the Lords about it but at length it all ends in a Speech by the King who comes and tells them of his present Necessitie●… and so he was minded to re●… a little at the Instigation of the Commons and he has a good Lump of Money for it Would this amount to a Declaration in Parliament Can my Lords the Bishop●… fancy or imagine that this is to be imposed upon the King or upon the Court for a Declaration in Parliament Then last of all for that in 1685. in this King's time What is it The Commons make an Address to the King and Complain to his Majesty of some of his Officers in his Army that might pretend to have a Dispensation something of that Nature contrary to the Test Act And what is done upon it They make their Application to the King and the King Answers them and that is all But since it is spoken of in the Court I would take notice That it is very well known by the Case of Godding and Hales the Judgment of this Court was against the Opinion of that Address But what sort of Evidence is all this Would you allow all the Addresses of the House of Commons to be Evidence Give me leave to say it my Lord If you suffer these Votes these Copies of Imperfect Bills these Addresses and Applications of one or both Houses to the King to be Evidence and Declarations in Parliament then what will become of the Bill of Exclusion Shall any Body mention that Bill of Exclusion to be a Declaration in Parliament If so then there is Declaration against Declaration the Declaration of the Commons against the Declaration of the Lords I know not what Judgment my Lords the Bishops may be of now concerning those things of Votes and Addresses being Declarations in Parliament but I am sure they have spoken against it heretofore nay I am sure some of them have Preached against it And if my Lords the Bishops have said These are Declarations in Parliament and they are not Declarations in Parliament and if they accuse the King of having done an Illegal thing because he has done that which has been declared in Parliament to be Illegal when it was never so declared then the Consequence is very plain That they are Mistaken sometimes and I suppose by this time they believe it I dare say it will not be denied me That the King may by his Prerogative Royal issue forth his Proclamation it is as essential a Prerogative as it is to give his assent to an Act of Parliament to make it a Law. And it is another Principle which I think cannot be denied That the King may make Constitutions and Orders in Matters Ecclesiastical and that these he may make out of Parliament and without the Parliament If the King may do so and these are his Prerogatives then suppose the King does issue forth his Royal Proclamation and such in effect is this Declaration under the Great Seal in a Matter Ecclesiastical by Virtue of his Prerogative Royal and this Declaration is read in the Council and published to the World and then the Bishops come and tell the King Sir you have issued out an Illegal Declaration being contrary to what has been declared in Parliament when there is no Declaration in Parliament Is not this a Diminishing the King's Power and Prerogative in issuing forth his Declaration And making Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical Is not this a questioning of his Prerogative Do not my Lords the Bishops in this Case raise a question between the King and the People Do not they as much as in them lyes stir up the People to Sedition For who shall be Judg between the King and the Bishops Says the King I have such a Power and Prerogative to issue forth my Royal Proclamation and to make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical and that without the Parliament and out of Parliament Say my Lords the Bishops You have done so but you have no Warrant for it Says the King Every Prince has done it and I have done no more than what is my Prerogative to do But this say the Bishops is against Law. How shall this be tryed Should not the Bishops have had the Patience to have waited till a Parliament came When the King himself tells them he would have a Parliament in November at furthest L. Ch. Iust. Pray Mr. Sollicitor come close to the business for it is very late Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I beg your Patience you have had a great deal of Patience with them pray spare me a little I am saying when the King himself tells them that he would have a Parliament in November at furthest yet they have no Patience to stay till November but make this Application to him Is not this raising a Question upon the King's Prerogative in issuing forth Declarations and upon the King's Power and Right in Matters Ecclesiastical And when I have said this that my Lords the Bishops have so done If they have raised a Question upon the Right of the King and the Power of the King in Matters Ecclesiastical then they have stirred up Sedition That they have so done is pretty plain and for the Consequence of it I shall appeal to the Case in the 2 Cro. 2. Iac. 1. That is a plain direct Authority for me Mr. Iust. Powel Nay Mr. Sollicitor we all very well know to deny the King's Authority in Temporals and Spirituals as by Act of

Parliament is High Treason Mr. Sol. Gen. I carry it not so far Sir we have a Gracious Prince and my Lords the Bishops find it so by this Prosecution But what says that Case It is Printed in 3 Books in Noy 100. in Moor 375. and in Mr. Just. Cro. 371. says that Case The King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical Mr. Iust. Powel But how will you apply that Case to this in hand Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I will apply it by and by Sir. I would first shew what it is there is a Convention of the greatest Men in the Kingdom Mr. Iust. Powel Indeed Mr. Sollicitor you shoot at Rovers Mr. Sol. Gen. There i●… the Lord Privy Seal the Archbishop of Canterbury and a great many others it is the greatest A●…embly we meet with in our Books and all of them are of this Opinion That the King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical My Lord there is another Authority and that is from the Statute 1 Eliz. which erected the High Commission Court and that Statute was not Introductory of a New Law but Declaratory of the Old Law The King by his Proclamation declares his Sense to do such and such a thing the Court and all Persons there give their Judgment and Opinion upon that Statute That they looked upon it as the grossest thing and the soulest affront to the Prince for any Man to bring into Question that Power of the King in Matters Ecclesiastical 't is said to be a very High Crime Why then my Lord what is done in this Case Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor Pray when you are applying apply that other part of the Case too which says that it was a heinous Offence to raise a Rumor that the King did intend to grant a general Toleration and is there any Law since that has changed it Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. In the main Judgment goes another way as for that part it was personal to the Prince that then was of whom they had Scandalously reported that he intended to do such a thing they look'd upon it as a Scandal to King Iames that it was a sowing Sedition and stirring up People against the Government and that will come up to our Case for as some Men do it on the right side others do it on the left and whoever he be that endeavours to bring a dislike of the King in the People that is moving Sedition against the Prince but that is personal to the Prince himself and does not go to his Successors Now my Lord I come to that which is very plain from the Case of De Libellis Famosis If any Person in any Paper have Slandered the Government you are not to Examine who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong whether what they said to be done by the Government be Legal or no but whether the party have done such an Act. If the King have a Power for still I keep to that to Issue forth Proclamations to his Subjects and to make Orders and Constitutions in matters Ecclesiastical if he do Issue forth his Proclamation and make an Order upon the matters within his Power and Prerogative and if any one would come and bring that Power in Question I say that is Sedition and you are not to Examine the Legality or Illegality of the Order or Proclamation and that I think is very plain upon that Case in the Fifth Report for it says If a Person does a thing that is Libellous you shall not Examine the Fact but the Consequence whether it tended to stir up Sedition against the Publick or to stir up Strife between Man and Man in the Case of private Persons as if a Man should say of a Judge He has taken a Bribe and I will prove it this is not to be sent in a Letter but they must take a regular way to Prosecute it according to Law. If it be so in the Case of an Inferior Magistrate what must it be in the Case of a King to come to the Kings Face and tell him as they do here that he has Acted Illegally doth certainly sufficiently prove the matter to be Libellous What do they say to King they say and admit that they have an aversness for the Declaration and they tell him from whence that aversness doth proceed and yet they insinuate that they had an inclination to Gratify the King and Embrace the Dissenters that were as averse to them as could be with due tenderness when it should be settled by Parliament and Convocation Pray what hath their Convocation to do in this matter L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Sollicitor General I will not interrupt you but pray come to the Business before us Shew us that this is in diminution of the Kings Prerogative or that the King ever had such a Prerogative Mr. Sol. Gen. I will my Lord I am observing what it is they say in this Petition They tell the King it is inconsistent with their Honor Prudence and Conscience to do what he would have them to do and if these things be not reflective upon the King and Government I know not what is this is not in a way of Judicature possibly it might have been allowable to Petition The King to put it into a course of Justice whereby it may be Tryed but alas there is no such thing in this matter It is not their desire to put it into any Method for Tryal and so it comes in the Case De Libellis Famosis for by this way they make themselves Judges which no Man by Law is permitted to do My Lords the Bishops have gone out of the way and all that they have offered does not come home to justify them and therefore I take it under Favour that we have made it a good Case for the King we have proved what they have done and whether this be Warrantable or not is the Question Gentlemen that you are to try The whole Case appears upon Record the Declaration and Petition are set forth and the Order of the King and Council When the Verdict is brought in they may move any thing what they please in arrest of Judgment They have had a great deal of Latitude and taken a great deal of Liberty But truly I apprehend not so very pertinently But I hope we have made a good Case of it for the King and that you Gentlemen will give us a Verdict Mr. Iust. Holloway Mr. Sollicitor there is one thing I would seign be satisfied in you say the Bishops have no Power to Petition the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. Not out of Parliament Sir. Mr. Iust. Holloway Pray give me leave Sir Then the King having made such a Declaration of a General Toleration and Liberty of Conscience and afterwards he comes and requires the Bishops to disperse this Declaration this they say out of a tenderness of Conscience they cannot do because they apprehend it contrary to Law and contrary to their