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
yet when the business of the Parliament was extraordinary the Writs of Summons both to the Prelates and Barons had a Premonition that a Proxy should not be allowed unless they could not possibly be present dors claus 6 E. 3. m. 36. claus 1 R. 2. m. 37. 2 R. 2. m. 29. Nor was it unusual with the Prelates to make such their Procurators who were no Members of that House In that Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. the Bishop of Exeter sends to the Parliament Henry de Pinkney Parson of Haughton as his Proxy The Bishop of Bath and Wells sends William of Charleton a Canon of his Church In the Parliament 17 R. 2. the Bishop of Norwich made Michael Cergeaux Dean of the Arches and others his Procurators In the same year the Bishop of Durham his Proxies are John of Burton Canon of Beudly and others In the Statute of Praemunire 16 R. 2. cap. 5. it is said that the advice of the Lords Spiritual being present and of the Procurators of them that were absent was demanded This making of others then Barons of Parliament Proxies is not without President likewise in the case of Temporal Lords Lit. Procurator Parl. 4 H. 5. Thomas de la War gave his Procuratory Letters to John Frank and Richard Hulme Clerks So that it appears that by the Law of Parliament the Proxies of the Bishops in the 21th of R. 2. were legal Proxies and consequently the Bishops there virtually Besides that the lawfulness thereof doth appear for that it was required of them by the Parliament that they should make their Proxies and be present by their Procurators for this reason lest otherwise the Proceedings in that Parliament should be void CHAP. X. IT is true that the Parliament 21 R. 2. was wholly repealed by 1 H. 4. but that was for a good reason indeed because that Parliament of 21 R. 2. had delegated their whole power to a few of their number who finally without any resort back to the House made and past Laws But did ever any man before the Octavo argue at this rate that because there is one error in a case for which the Judgment is reversed that therefore there was nothing in the case legal and well considered And therefore how unreasonable and false this way of arguing is and that it is disputing against fact we shall further shew and prove For a probable Opinion still continued of the necessity of the Bishops sitting which implies a clear Recognition of a Right for in the 2 H. 5 the Earl of Salisbury petitioned the House to reverse a Judgment given against the Earl his Father Anno 2 H. 4. the Error assigned was the Absence of the Spiritual Lords The Case was much debated but the Judgment affirmed as we allow it ought to be but we produce it as an irrefragable Testimony of the Bishops Right to sit for if that had not been allowed there could not have been the least colour in the case nor matter of debate CHHP. XI BUt tho' the Actual Exercise of the Bishops Right in their own Persons though whatsoever is done by a Deputy is done in the Right of him that makes the Deputation as every body knows was for some time discontinued tho' their Right in that time was most solemnly owned and recognized yet in 28 H. 6. we find them re-continuing the Exercise of that Right and Authority and in their own Persons sitting in Judgment upon William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk who was impeach'd of Treason by the Commons for that he had sold the Realm to the French King and had fortified Wallingford Castle for a place of Refuge The Impeachment of High Treason was brought from the House of Commons by several Lords Spiritual and Temporal sent thither by the King's Command the Ninth of March the Duke was brought from the Tower into the Presence of the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal The Impeachment was read unto him The Thirteenth of March he was sent for to come before the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to answer to his Charge which he did On Tuesday the Seventeenth of March the King sent for all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal who were in Town They are named two Arch-Bishops and thirteen Bishops besides the Temporal Lords who being assembled the King sent for the Duke There was no Judgment given by the Parliament but he submitted to the King and the King gave him Penance which was that he should be absent for Five Years out of England The Lords Spiritual and Temporal by Viscount Beaumont declared to the King that this that was so decreed and done against the Person of the Duke proceeded not by their Advice and Council with this Protestation that it should not be nor turn in Prejudice nor Derogation of them their Heirs ne of their Successors in time coming but that they may have and enjoy their Liberty and Freedom as largely as ever their Ancestors or Predecessors had and enjoyed before this time Observe here that the Lords Spiritual were present at every Motion of this Cause This Cause was thrice before them no Exception taken to the Bishops being Judges They could not sit by Permission without Right if the Bishops had no Right to sit the Proceedings had been certainly erroneous For though one Judge's Absence if there be a Quorum will not vacate a Judgment yet if one sit in Judgment that is not an Authorized Judge the Proceeding is certainly erroneous and void Can any man believe that the Government should lose it self forget it s own Establishments in the highest concerns We may as soon believe that a man may forget his own name One positive Act of Session signifies more than 100 Omissions for if it had not been well understood that the Bishops had a Right to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament they could never have been admitted they would never have presumed to endeavour it But with false Logick and absurd Reasonings and dislike to the Order it is become an Opinion in this Age because sometimes the Bishops absented that they have no Right But we have one thing further to add that declares an inherent Right in the Lords Spiritual to the Authority in question and that is an Opinion of the Judges 10 E. 4. 35. which says that the Lords Spiritual in case of a Tryal of a Temporal Peer in Parliament shall make a Procurator for then it seems an Opinion was received which was error temporis That it was indecent for Bishops to sit in their own persons in Judgment in such cases But they themselves are best Judges of what is indecent and unbecoming their Order for no man is obliged to any man but himself in the matters of Decency and the measures that make things decent or indecent is very mutable as changable and mutable as Customs Fashions and Opinions Besides that there is nothing that is very valuable and is of great concernment but can and
sincerity and to make a Precedent where he could not find one for his turn he foists a Battery into the Case hoping that then the forward Reader would supply the Rest and smell blood in the Case which must be interdicted to a Bishops Cognizance But observe what an aking-tooth he hath against the Bishops Right for he could not but have in his mind what almost immediately after he writes down in his Octavo viz. the Case of Sir John Lee 24 E. 3. and of several persons 50 E. 3. and 51 E. 3. censured in Parliament by Bishops for misdemeanors And he saith well they might which certainly together with the Case of Michael de la Pooll 10 R. 2. he troubled himself to transcribe to make a shew of Number and false musters a sleight that must not pass upon the people and a Stratagem that will never get him any advantage towards a Victory We omitted to consider the Case of Sir William de Thorpe 50 E. 3. as it lies in order in his Book because we thought it more expedite to examine those that spake to the same thing together but now we will examine it The Record of a Judgment of death against him for Buggery was brought into Parliament saith the Octavo in full Parliament saith Sir Robert Cotton and the King caused it to be read before the Grants in Parliament The Bishops saith the Octavo could not be there because this was no imployment for them and thus he proves his cause it was so because it was so And for want of proof concludes he hath a very good Cause But he knows if he would tell us the truth that a full Parliament doth include Bishops that the Bishops are truly Grants and so called that the Bishops could not vanish away at the putting of the question But we should have had a most famous Record of that story and wonderful Accident The Cause of William de Weston and John de Gomenits 1 R. 2. was for traiterously surrendring Towns and Castles in Flanders to the Kings Enemies And the question was whether they behaved themselves well in their defence and did therein like valiant and faithful Commanders Whether the Towns could be preserved against the strength of the Enemies that did attach them Indeed not a very proper question for a Bishop to determine The Examination of the Charge and defence was committed to several Lords Temporal named in the Record But it must be observed though these Lords managed the Cause found the Towns upon Examination not of necessity but willfully delivered and agreed what Judgment should be pronounced against them Yet observe their Answers were put in full Parliament When the Judgment was pronouncing there was likewise sitting a full Parliament which the Octavo doth wilfully omit And the Record further saith that they were brought before the Seigniors in Parliament Friday the 27. of November and again before the said Lords Saturday the 28. of Nov. That all this while in the Record there is no mention of the Names of any particular Lords so that we hear nothing yet in the Record but of a full Parliament Seigniors in Parliament which are the most comprehensive terms and can and do include Bishops and strongly intend them included He that saith all excepts none the Record saith that when the Judgment was to be pronounced Les Seigniors dudit Parliament cestascavoir and then names the Duke of Lancaster Earls of Cambridge March Arundel Warwick Stafford Suffolk Salisbury Northumberland Lord Nevil and Clifford and other Lords Barons and Bannerets being then in Parliament had met and advised upon the matters before These Lords agreed it seems the Judgment for the whole House and it was pronounced in full Parliament and that in the Names and Authority of the whole Parliament Pray let it be observed that when the Record speaks of Seigniors in the first part of it no Lords are named and so all intended when afterwards he mentions the Lords the Record saith avantdits or foresaid Lords and no Lords named yet so that all the Lords of Parliament are then likewise included But when he names the Lords that had advised there is no avantdits or aforesaid Though the Octavo puts the avantdits or the aforesaid to the named Lords to the purpose that it may seem that no Lords were present in this Cause before in Parliament but those named and mentioned amongst the which there were no Bishops against the Faith of the Record To the Record I appeal Rot. Parl. 1 R. 2. Mem. 5. The next is Sir Ralph Ferrers his Case 4 R. 2. He was brought into Parliament and there tryed for Treason in holding intelligence with the French The Entry is It seem'd to the Lords of the Parliament that the said Sir Ralph was innocent This testimony too is argumentative and concludes Bishops not there because not expresly mentioned as they were in Alice Perries Case 1 R. 2. I never could have a good opinion of a cause that hath nothing but argumentative proofs for this reason because there are more things possible than ever happen'd but a reasoning Witness is always accounted a willing Witness and therefore a Witness suspectae fidei but most certain a Witness with a reason His testimony is no better than his reason But I pray must the Entries of the Clerks be so nicely weighed Are they so oracularly penned that every iota of the Journal must comprehend a Mystery of State and carry in it the very constitution of the Government must that be such and no other than short or large Entries make it Must a Criticism upon the Clerks form of Entry alter and refix the Government must it change and be ambulatory at the haste or leasure the short or more large Entry of the Clerk Did ever any wise man before this Criticiser ever determine questions of the greatest moment upon such trifling considerations or suspend the most momentous concerns of a Nation the very Government it self upon such a very slender thread But to leave no scope for such Cavillations we will turn him to the Parl. Rolls of 14 E. 3. Were not the Grants the Bishops as well as the Temporal Lords Are not both Bishops and Peers called Seigniors Are not Seigniors and Grants of the same import And as certainly this argumentative testimony makes no credit to the Cause nor to the Author of the Octavo who produc'd it The next Case is of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. 2. who is brought to Judgment in Parliament amongst other offences for betraying Graveling to the French which was Treason And this cause the Record saith was heard before the Lords Temporal And here I will agree that the Bishops were not present but I will not allow that they were excluded And if that addition of Temporal had been to the Seigniors in Sir Ralph Ferrers Case or to the Grants in Sir Wil. Thorps I would have allowed the Bishops in those Cases not present likewise But why I pray may
Fortunes to their Children but what they themselves could deserve viz. Hate and Infamy All Usurpation and Encroachment of Power is to be opposed where it can be lawfully as the greatest Mischief and the Ministers to the Designs hated and detested as the most pernicious and loathsome Vermine CHHP. XV. BUt to return agreable to this Policy of Sovereign Princes who had the Donation of Bishopricks of advancing Bishops to the highest secular Dignities and Trust William the Conqueror did create Bishops into Barons and exacted the Services and Counsells of Barons in the Great Council of the Kingdom by putting their Lands under Tenure by Barony he gave them no new Endowments but as a Conqueror he confirmed their Ancient Possessions under a new reserv'd Tenure and annex'd to their Order a Secular Honor a successive Baronage Since the Conquerour the title of Baron took the place of that of Thane which was likewise a Feudal Honour in the Saxons time By William the Conquerour Baronies were feudal and in congruity to the State of the Lay Nobles he made the Bishops feudal Barons for there was no other than feudal Nobility at that time It will not be amiss nor time mispent here to give a short account of the Government in the Conquerours time of the Baronage by him introduced and the policy thereof and of the change made in the Baronage of England in after time Because from thence we must derive the Bishops Right now in question which is included and virtually contained in their Right of Baronage Hereby it will appear that the Bishops were of the Barones majores and of the Barones majores the first in Dignity that they became feudal Barons in the Conquerour's time and when the reason of our Baronage changed and no man continued a Baron ratione tenurae it cannot with reason be said that the Bishops are Barons onely for the sake of their Lands which our Adversaries do insist upon for that they think it is an abatement to the Honour of Peerage and a prejudice to their Right in question but because it has been said before by men of Authority in the Law and grown up to be a vulgar error we will now discharge the mistake by affixing here the History and Reason of the change It was the policy of the first William for some are so critical they will not call him Conquerour to create new Tenures upon all the great Possessions of the Realm and impose upon the principal men to hold their Lands of him in capite under such Services that were necessary in peace and war for State and Justice and by putting all the considerable men of the Realm under Oaths of Fealty incident to those Tenures besides the Oaths of Allegeance he provided for the establishment of his Conquest or his possession of the Crown without title The principal men of the Realm both Ecclesiastical and Lay hereby were not onely obliged to support but to become part of the Government and were obliged to be Ministers of Justice and also Members of the great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament which was now to be made up principally of his Dependents by which he changed the constitution of the great Council in the Saxons times in the balance of that equal sort of Government the consequent mischiefs whereof this Kingdom laboured under untill we recovered it again by an equal representative of the Commons in Parliament in the time of King Henry the Third The power of the Baronage proved equally oppressive to the people and came in that time to be reduced irreverent to the Crown By this policy the Conquerour intended to establish his Conquest to secure to himself and his posterity the Imperial Crown of England imagining that otherwise he should have been but a precarious King He had now turn'd the Kingdom upon the matter into one great Mannor and kept his Courts called the Curia Regis in the nature of a Sovereign Court Baron now become more frequented and solemn than that Court was before the Conquest thrice in every Year at stated Times and Places viz. at Easter at Winchester at Whitsuntide at Westminster and at Christmas at Gloucester at these times and places all his Tenants which were all the considerable Free-holders of England attended of course and upon a General Summons at any other time or place appointed by the King as his Affairs did require they were bound likewise to attend In these Courts the Suitors swore Fealty did renew and confirm their Obligations to the Crown and the King became more assured of their Allegiance by their Personal Attendance and by his Royal Entertainments of them at such times In these Courts they recognized their own Services and the Rights of the King their Lord and assessed Aids and Estuage Prestations due to the Crown by their Tenures upon themselves to which in general they were obliged by their Tenures In these Conventions the Right of the Suitors the King's Tenants were adjudged as Private Lords had Judgment of the Right of Lands in pretence held of them in Fee in their several Manors as they have to this day But if Right was not done by the Lord the Cause was to be removed to this Curia Regis the King being Lord Paramount of whom all Estates mediately or immediately were held Which appears by the Form of the Writ of Right now in use which we will transcribe N. B. precipimus tibi quod sine dilatione plenum Rectum teneas A. de B. de uno Messuagio L. in I quae clamat tenere de te per liberum Servitium unius denarii per annum pro omni servitio quod W. de T. ei deforciat nisi feceris Vicecomes faciatne amplius inde Clamorem audiamus pro defectu Recti The Common Pleas was not then a Court and at this time the Appeal and resort to the King was in this Court if Justice was not done by the Lord or Sheriff So that the greatest part of the Justice of the Nation was administred in those Assemblies But it must not be understood that this vast Convention was a Court of Judicature for every Cause neither that it was formally a Parliament without some farther Act of the King for erecting that Convention into the great Council of the Nation But in this Curia Regis they were obliged to answer the King's Writs of Summons Writs of Commission and obey his Appointments in the Ordinary Administration of Justice in which the Capitalis Justiciarius or Justitia was to preside That this was not a Judicature the vast numbers of those that made it the inequality of the Persons considered under the Common Reason of being Tenants in Capite and Barons whereby they became indifferently members of the Curia Regis besides the neglect that must necessarily be presumed in the greatest part of such a Body to the business of Jurisdiction and judging of Rights without particular Designation thereto do sufficiently argue and evince But
of the Commoners which are Knights should be impannelled upon a Jury where either a Spiritual or Temporal Baron is concern'd besides that I find a single Remembrance as high as 13 E. 3. in Brooks Tryal 142. the Reports of that year are not printed of the Bishops Right of Peerage in a Capital Cause the Book is Evesque est Peere de Realme serva try per Peres in Crime But how this Right came to be discontinued and to lose remembrance we shall presently account for but I cannot think it Sence which some of our Lawyers have said for this purpose that a Bishop his being a Baron is Ratione Tenurae and not personal which is all one as to say that the Bishop is a Baron but his Person is not a Baron but his Peerage and Baronage is no other in truth than an Honor accumulated upon the Person of a Bishop together with his Office But to excuse them they thought themselves obliged to give a reason why Bishops are not as the Law is taken to be tryed by Peers but by a Common Jury which grew into practice by accident and was not ever so in probability but certainly is very irregular and extream incongruous and therefore to give a good reason for it is too hard a task to be undertaken and he that will undertake to give a reason of that which is unreasonable and go about to prove a thing fit which is incongruous must likely speak things equally incongruous absurd and unreasonable But to speak what the truth is in this matter the Bishops and the whole Order of Clergy did challenge to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of Secular Courts but the Bishops as is objected never waved their jus paritatis upon Arraignment in inferior Courts They only never insisted upon it For they had a better way to escape by setting up the pretended Rights and Priviledges of their Order and that Church for exempting themselves from the Jurisdiction of the Temporal Courts and by this means they did escape unpunished for the most part Though there were several Abatements made by the provision of the Laws and the Wisdom of the Judges to their unreasonable pretences therein yet they always got off by their pretended priviledge if not with impunity yet with some protection at least from Justice and farther they thought perhaps they might at least avoid being thought guilty of the Crimes objected whilst they used this pretence for a reason why they would not make a Defence And sure in all Offences but Treason they escaped with their Lives before the Statutes that took away the benefit of Clergy in some Cases of the greatest Guilt and even in the Case of Treason the Criminal ever had the Advocation and Intercession of the Church-power and Interest because the priviledge they contended for was so great and valuable a Concernment as they esteem'd it to the Order of the Clergy But by this means the memory of the Use of this Right and Priviledge was lost and the Detestation of a Crime in a Prelate provided him a speedy and ready Justice such as was at hand and at length Bishops themselves unadvisedly and being born down by the Common Opinion thus grounded and occasioned did submit to Tryals by Juries It is enough to have given an account how this Anamolous piece of Law came about But Anamolous Cases never make Rules nor destroy any Nor is it to be drawn into consequence whatever is a departure from the Establishment to destroy it quite Positive Constitutions of which no Reasons can be given why they are so can infer or argue nothing Reason cannot make Law though it is a fair inducement but our Reason is most perversly imployed when it proceeds from the Irregularities that happen in Human Affairs and are shuffled upon us by length of time by violence and iniquity and a heap of Accidents to argue us into more and to refix that which is regular and remains firm In quo quis peccat in eo punietur Is it not enough that the Order now suffers a diminution of their dignity by reason of the contumacy of the Popish Prelates their Predecessors and that their Refusals to submit to Temporal Justice are visited upon the Succession Severe enough this is in it self But why should any man expect that this Age in consequence of this should be persuaded and reasoned to exclude the Bishops out of their remaining right 'T is no more to be expected than that a man that hath one hand withered and mortified with the Palsie should be persuaded to cut off the other for conformity We know how the Prelates fell from their primitive Dignity of being tried by those of their own Order and were submitted to be tried by Juries of Commoners It would be therefore consonant and agreeable to the Dignity of Barons and Lords of Parliament for such the Bishops are that they be restored to their ancient right in the matters of Trials as mistaken Law is rectified by an Act of Parliament A wise Act of State it would be to redintegrate the Honour of the Baronage of England the whole Baronage suffering dishonour by a mutilation of so Honourable a Privilege in one of the membra dividentia of that body whilest the Bishops are thrown to common Jurors Especially since the incongruity thereof hath given occasion to some men to question one another of the jura paritatis which belongs to the Prelates and to dispute their right of Session in that House in one of the most important Concerns of the Government But however this Irregularity is discoursed it doth not affect the Right of the Prelates now in dispute for though Bishops are tried by Commoners out of Parliament as the Law is now generally taken yet that they are to be tried by Peers in Parliament our Adversaries do not deny And that they may and ought to sit in judgment upon Temporal Lords in Parliament in Capital Causes we have clearly proved So that the Reciprocal of a Bishops being judged and judging in Capital Causes in Parliament is intire and in this they continue duly pares But that it may not depend upon our Adversaries Concessions that Bishops may be tried by Peers in Parliament for he is not always constant to himself and may take back what he hath yielded we shall here subjoyn a short demonstrative proof that the Bishops ought to be tried by Peers in Parliament And that they have been declared and taken for Peers and under that Character tried when if they had not been reckoned and deemed Peers they could not have received Tryal in Parliament and it is thus Edward the Third had prevailed with the Lords against their good will to condemn the Earl of March Sir Simon Beresford John Matrevers Boys de Boyons John Devard Thomas de Gowrney William Ogle for the Murder of Edward the Second his Father and the Earl of Kent all of them Commoners but the Earl of March The Lords were
concesserunt in sententiam Excommunicationis generaliter latam apud Westm decimo tertio die Maii Anno Regni Regis praedicti 37 in hac forma viz. Quòd vinculo praefatae sententiae ligentur omnes venientes contra Libertates contentas in Chartis communium Libertatum Angliae de Foresta omnes qui Libertates Ecclesiae Angliae temporibus Domini Regis praedecessorum suorum Regni Angliae obtentas usitatas scienter malitiosè violaverint aut infringere praesumpserint And the Record concludes In hujus rei memoriam in posterum veritatis testimonium tam Dominus Rex quà m praedicti Comites ad instantiam aliorum populi praesentium which at that time was the style of a Parliament and the manner of passing such Acts scripto sigilla sua apposuerunt Rot. Pat. 37 H. 3. M. 12. dorso And whereas it was provided by the Confirmat Chart. c. 4.25 E. 1. and by the Statute De Tallagio non concedendo c. 4.34 E. 1. That Excommunication should twice a year be denounced against the Infringers of Magna Charta At a Synod held for the Province of Canterbury in that Kings time John Peckam Archbishop of Canterbury enjoyned the like Denunciations near four times every year Constit Provinc tit De Sententia Excom And in the Province of York it obtained three times in a year Manuale juxta usum Ecclesiae Eboracensis By which the exemplary zele of the Bishops in those times against Oppression and the violation of the common Rights and the attempts of absolute and unlimited power appears for that they prevented the Temporal Baronage and outdid the Parliament it self in defending and guarding the Government of Laws By the way we cannot but take notice of Mr. Selden his mistake in his book De Synedriis which he fell into by inserving to his beloved Erastian Hypothesis viz. That that Excommunication before mentioned in 37 H. 3. was enacted by Parliament whereas it was onely confirmed but pronounced by the Bishops though with the seeming good liking of that King so that the Power of the Keys was not usurp'd but the exercise thereof approved by Parliament according to what hath been usual as Grotius observes Vsum Clavium Divino Juri congruum poenarum injunctionem Canonibus Legibus consentaneum summae potestates solent approbare atque hoc est Imperiale Anathema Quòd non una Justiniani lege comprehensum est Which together with what hath been said by us here will serve for an Answer to what Mr. Selden hath aggested in his book De Synedriis for wresting the Keys out of the hands of the Bishops They pretend to a Jus Divinum only for that which merely concerns their Spiritual Office and I cannot for my part suspect them of holding any Opinion of a Jus divinum in Civil Offices which are of a Humane Original because I can imagine no reason for such an Opinion though I know it is by some imputed to them By a Thomas of Becket a Sibthorp and Manwaring and a few less-considering Clergy-men in an Age we are not to conclude the Judgment of the Body of our Learned Clergy They assuredly know as all men in their Wits do believe that the Government is de jure such as it is and can be no other nor rightfully admit any Alteration That God never made any Commonwealth but one by his directive Will and that only for one Nation for in these things he hath left men ordinarily in the Hands of their own Councils and to their own Prudence in which he had no regard to the absolute rightful Sovereignty of Adam's right Heir the wildest certainly of all the Paradoxes that this giddy phantastick Age hath produced The Kentish Knight should have kept his Dream to himself until he had found him out and then have brought him and his Book called Patriarcha together to the King Then I doubt not but his Majesty would have provided him his due Reward But his Book and the Publishers thereof deserve his Majesty's utmost Displeasute For we are in fear that the Government is about to be changed when Books are licensed to prove any thing Lawful in that kind And besides it makes a Charge upon our Divines that they have a good liking to the Design for that they who best understand by their Profession the jura divina have not answered it But to speak the Truth the Book is not to be answered For it is but a fine Essay how near Non-sence may be made to look like Sence and it is truly worth no man 's Undertaking But whatsoever sinister thoughts some ill affected Men to the Bishops may conceive of them we expect and with reason too that they will with equal Courage to that recorded of their Predecessors stand up for the Preservation of the Government in its true and rightful Constitution And the rather for that the true Religion their Principal Care and their Temporal Rights and Dignities will inevitably perish in the Change Nay perhaps in consequence of the very Attempt of a Change except they strenuously for their parts oppose it However their Order will certainly by their Silence and Indifferency be rendred despicable They will lose all opinion with the People of their Sincerity perform their Functions with no advantage and lose that share in the Honors and Affections of the People that will establish them bespeak them useful and necessary to the Church and state in their several Capacities in all after times That they answer their Trust and perform that Duty which they owe to the Publick in their several Offices is that we may justly expect And this they will certainly do though they should be censured as they were in K. John's days or in the Language of the Folio Author charged to be clamorous and over-busie Medlers in Matters of State and Government But to return Is it not a course Artifice in the Octavo pag. 96. that he will so willfully mistake the Question'd of the Bishops being one of the three States and representing the Matter as if the Bishops should have a Negative by themselves to stop the passing of any Bill if they are admitted to be a distinct State CHAP. XXVI WHen it is not disputed or brought into Question whether they are divided in their Voting from the Temporal Barons most certainly they never were nor was it ever disputed Though an obstinate Opinion was maintained from the Time of E. 2. in the Case of the Spencers until the Time of E. 5. in the Case of the Earl of Salisbury that the Bishops Presence was necessary in Judgments even in Capital Causes which must be allowed a clear Argument for their Right of Judgment in such Causes For the Spiritual and Temporal Lords though two States make but one House upon the Reasons afore-mentioned according to the general Understanding and Usage of former Ages But upon this Supposition he tells us of several Bills that gave furtherance to
the King for that office the best of those they know which are many times most unfit But this may be remedied when his Majesty shall please to give leave to the Clergy of the Diocess to choose their own Diocesan their Choice notwithstanding submitted to the Kings approbation and Confirmation which was permitted by Justinian the Emperor and was in use in several of the best Ages of the Church or by some other method which may be advised by his great Council whereby the greatest assurance may be given that the best and fittest persons be preferred to Bishopricks for the Common people are envious and suspicious and what ever may be done by bad means they always think is so But if Bishops were promoted to their Sees with the gratulations and applauses of the whole body of the Clergy of the respective Diocesses all that passeth under their advice and consent would likely meet with the general satisfactions of the people as it would well deserve as long as the Clergy can have any Authority with them That is as long as the Nation continues Christian But the general Corruption of Manners and decay of Piety is the great and truest cause why the Bishops unenvied enjoy no part of that honour that our Ancestors Wisdome and Piety conferred upon their order conformably to all other the Ancient Christian Governments But when Virtue and Piety shall recover their esteem the reverence of the Clergy will return We are not like long to expect this happy Change for Vice is now arrived to a Plethora and like to burst by its own excesses And we well hope that the mischiefs which we suffer will cure that evil from whence they spring and prevent the greater Calamities that it further threatens However it becomes all good men to assist to support the present Government which is the cheapest the surest and the next way to arrive at a happy constitution of things This was the design of the Author of the Grand Question After the publication of that Book I laid by all thoughts of publishing this Treatise But perceiving that notwithstanding what he hath said the Right yet remains controverted and a Book is since printed wherein several things are objected in prejudice of this Right and more is expected I did review these Papers wherein I found I had prevented those objections and with a little application they would appear insignificant I did resolve to make this publick And besides that I apprehended some things material to the Question were omitted by the Grand Question that a several way of speaking things to the same purpose hath its advantage Our great Courts affect to have several arguments on the same side in great Causes and our Reporters publish them Besides herein several things are occasionally discourst of which makes it of further usefulness to the publick Our adversaries also were treated too kindly by him and had deserved sharper reflections than he makes upon them for their false and perverse Reasonings and ought to lose that reputation which they abuse to the hurt of the Government And further I thought it not for the honour of our faculty that never fails to supply the worst cause with Advocates That a question of this Nature wherein both Church and State Religion and our Civil Policy is concerned and the Right thereof not only clear and evident in it self but also useful to the State should have not one of the Robe to plead for it The friends of the Cause will not grudge to read two Books for the Right as well as several against it and the Adversaries of our Cause ought to suffer the like trouble themselves which they occasion to others These Considerations did induce me to publish this Treatise I am well pleased that I am ingaged in a good Cause that was suited to one of my slender Abilities Right is so strong an Argument for it self that it wants only light to discover it Whereas an unrighteous cause stands in need of disguisings and shadowings and all the Artifices and fetches of the Wit of abler men to give that a Colour at least which is destitute of Law and Right THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THe Nature of the Right the obligation to use it the obvious indications of it and the benefit which may be reasonably expected in the exercise of it How it came to be drawn into question and how it can be fairly determined how it hath been opposed and upon what Reasons and Evidence the Right doth rely Chap. II. The general prejudice against this Right from an Opinion conceived that the Clergy ought not to intermeddle in Secular Affairs remov'd That Bishops have been employed in the greatest trusts by Emperors not hindred by the Church but this hath been envy'd to them by the Pope Chap. III. The Precedents that are produc'd from the Parliament Rolls against this Right are considered They prove not pertinent at most but bare Neglects not Argumentative or concluding against the Right Chap. IV. This Right cannot be prejudic'd by non user The Nature of Prescription that the Right in question is not prescriptible The Original of this Right that it is incident to Baronage The Bishops when made Barons and for what reason That all Offices whether by Tenure or Creation are Indivisable Chap. V. Bishops never pretended the Assise of Clarendon when said to be absent Bishops sat in Judgment upon Becket and his Crime and Charge Treason by which it is demonstrated that the Assise of Clarendon only put them at liberty but not under restraint from using their Right of Judging in Capital Causes Chap. VI. Bishops sat in Judgment upon John Earl of Moreton after King John the Bishop of Coventry c. for Treason Chap. VII An Opinion prevail'd and continued long that no Judgment in Parliament where the Bishops were absent was good and their absence assigned for Error to reverse Judgment in Treason in Parliament prov'd by the Petition of the Commons 21 R. 2. upon their protestation made 11 R. 2. And by that protestation it is evident they had a Right and that they saved it by that protestation They pretended they could not attend the matters then treated of by reason of the Canon But alledged no Law for their absence Chap. VIII Of Canons Canon law What effect Canons can have upon a Civil Right The Canons prohibiting the use proves the Right Chap. IX Bishops made their Proxies in Capital Causes which proves their Right and their thereby being virtually present and the lawfulness of making Proxies and such as they made Chap. X. A Repeal of the Parliament 21 R. 2. No prejudice to what the Bishops did in making their Proxies The Opinion of Bishops presence being necessary in Parliament continued in time of H. 5. Chap. XI Bishops actually exercised this Authority in 28 H. 6. in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk Opinion of the Judges that Bishops ought to make Proxies in the Tryal of a
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
to whom such Judgment doth of Right appertain did give their Judgment He concludes that the Bishops could not he said to be his Peers which shews they were not there But he must give us leave with much better Logick to conclude that they were present and We with reason presume because they are Peers of Parliament for so the Record is not his Peers for he fallaciously changeth the Terms they were there except he can prove them absent if common Right is not Reason of presumption no presumption can be reasonable But we can prove to him they were there And thereby in consequence we have another proof that they are Peers Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment tells us 5 H. 4. Fol. 426. that at the same time the Arch-Bishops and Bishops at their own request and therefore certainly then present were purged from suspicion of Treason by the said Earl And at the same time I pray observe Sir Henry Piercy his levying of War was adjudged Treason by the King and Lords in full Parliament Note that here is said to be a full Parliament and yet nothing in the Entry but the stile of Lords So various and contingent in respect of form are the Entries which ought to be observed But to review and consider again the Case of John Hall condemned in Parliament for Treason for murdering the Duke of Glocester And to this place I have reserved the Case of the two Merchants that killed John Imperial an Ambassadour of Genoua for both Cases are of the same nature and must receive the same answer and that is this The Statute of the 25 E. 3. was made to declare certain matters Treason and to be so judged in ordinary Judicatures but withall that Statute did provide that if any other Case supposed Treason do happen it shall be shewed to the King and Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason Concerning which the King and Parliament do and are to declare by their Legislative power as it is agreed by all and as they did in the Case of John Imperial as appears by that Record expresly So that though the Bishops were not present at the Judgment of John Hall they might have been it must be confessed by our Adversary if the Judgment against John Hall was by the Legislative Power as it must be By this it appears how false an Argument this of his is To conclude no Right from absence for it is plain here it proves too much it proves a thing notoriously false a thing false by the confession of our Adversary and from what any falshood may be inferred is not it self true but stands reproved by the falshood and absurdity of what follows in consequence thereof But this is too Solemn Reproof of so frivolous an Argument for it is no more in effect than this That no man can have an Authority but what he is always in the exercise of The Octavo goes on and remembers that in the 2 H. 4. the first Writ de Haeretico comburendo was framed by the Lords Temporal only and without question it was so For the order of proceedings in Case of Hereticks Convict so required it The Bishops are upon the Matter the pars laesa in Heresy The authority of the Church is therein offended and it was not therefore proper for an Ecclesiastick to be an Actor therein The Author doth improve this as he doth all things that he can with any manner of colour to render the Order of Bishops hated and disesteemed which is the publick establishment the legal provision for the Government and guidance of Religion What mischief then is he a doing How great is his fault to deprave that provision to destroy their Reputation and Esteem with the people to destroy all their authority as much as in him lyeth His utmost endeavours are not thereto wanting to make their Ministries useless and to frustrate the provisions of the Law and the care of the Government in the highest concernment of the Nation Doth this become a great man I will not say a good man God rebuke him To lessen the Authority and disrepute and dishonour any Order of men or any Constitution that can be any ways useful to the publick is a great fault but this of his is a most enormous offence But what can be inferred from hence against the Order of the Bishops may be with like unworthiness inferred against the Christian Religion it self For it may be as well concluded that the Christian Religion is a bad Religion for that men of that denomination in the general Apostasie by pretence of Warranty from that Religion though it gave none murdered innocents As that the practices of the Bishops of that Religion so depraved do reflect any dishonour against the Bishops of reformed Christianity And this Answer will suffice too for the Case of Sir John Old-Castle As for the Earls of Kent Huntingdon and Salisbury the Lord le Despencer and Sir Ralph Lumley before that executed and declared Traytors in Parliament by the Lords Temporal only in the Parliament of the 2 H. 4. and the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph against whom it was proceeded in a Court of Chivalry after their death who were declared Traytors after they were dead in the Parliament in the 7 H. 4. I hope the Octavo Gentleman and all that are at present of his Opinion will take this for a sufficient Answer if we had no more to say that it was irregular very irregular indeed to condemn men after they were dead when he himself would set aside the Authority of the Case of William de la Poole in 28 H. 6. in Parliament where the Bishops were present which though he saith is the sole single precedent of Bishops acting in Capital Causes We shall therein convict him to be a man of Will to have lost himself in his passions and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And enter that Case with a cloud of other testimonies and reasons that affirm I will not stick to say demonstrate so as such matters can be demonstrated with a moral demonstration such as shall leave no doubt with any man of the Bishops Right of judging in Capital causes in Parliament But We shall further add for Answer that the Temporal Lords did not herein exercise the Office of a Judge For it could be no Judgment they delivered It was only an officious declaration an avowing of the justness of the slaughter of these great men and to enter themselves of the other side But is it as reasonable for this Writer to fore-judge the Bishops of their Franchise and to have it seized because they would not be guilty of a misuser thereof and would not consent to so insolent a thing as to judge men unheard nay when dead and they could not be heard And to kill over again the murdered Lords for so they are in consideration of the Law who are not by legal process condemned and executed I cannot but observe in many of
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
ensued if they had been divided and separated in several Colleges and had had in consequence thereof a Negative upon each other as they then of necessity must But by uniting both Orders into one Council and Assembly distractions in Councils and impediments to the Affairs of Princes are avoided And we are assured of a more wise as well as an unanimous and more authoritative Result in all Councils and Debates which if the Octavo had duly considered he would not have depraved and disparaged this wise Constitution by comparing it to a nest of Boxes They were therefore for these great Reasons both Spiritual and Secular Lords united in the great Councils of Kingdoms and these two Orders of Nobles Spiritual and Secular became the two States which together with the Representatives of the People the third State made the Parliaments Diets and Convention of State under which Names the great Assembly which we call a Parliament in the several Sovereignties of Christian Europe hath respectively passed This hath been observed by the most learned Onuphrius Postquam verò juris imperii facta est eorundem Praelat electio quemadmodum ceteri Principes seculares Imperii tum Caesares qui de Religione bene merere volebant sine Imperii tamen praejudicio coeperunt Episc Abbates ob Religionem tanquam potiora Imperii membra prae caeteris Laicis Principibus honorare profana ditione ingentibus opibus honestare Arces Oppida Vrbes Marchias Ducatus Provincias Pedagia Telonia Vectigalia Portaria multa alia quae Imperii propria erant Episcopatibus concedere quae vel ex suis propriis bonis quae ad Imperium pertinebant vel ex alienis feudis erant Nam Laicis Principibus sine legitimo haerede mortuis eorum Provincias quae beneficiario jure ad Imperium pertinebant non aliis ampliûs Laicis Regulis sed Episcopis concedebat atque hac ratione omnes Episcopatus Abbatias Italiae Galliarum Germaniae imò totius Orbis Latini denique ipsum Pontificem Romanum ex pauperibus ditissimos maximos Principes fecerunt ex eis scilicet quibus quae antea Imperii juris erant in nulla re propterea Imperialia jura minui existimantes quippe quod certi essent eos omnes Praelatos a se designandos fore non nisi jussu suo voluntate Sacerdotia ipsa obtenturos Nicholaus Cusanus lib. 3. de Concordia Catholica cap. 27. attributes this Policy to Otho Secundus who saith he Vnico gaudens filio multis regnis cogitans difficile fore absque maximo labore tot regna in pace aliquamdiu servari posse insequens vestiga Avi sui Henrici Primi Ottonis Patris suum cogitatum ad res ecclesiasticas appulit considerans multa jam Religiosis locis per praesentes Reges donata summa pace gaudere quia verecundum erat Deo dicatis vim inferre animo ponderavit Ordinationem factam Synodo Romanae Ecclesiae de qua 63. Dist In Synodo Per quam perpetua dabatur potestas Imperatoribus Romanum Pontificem Cunctos sub Imperio Episcopos investiendi vel saltem eorum consensum semper concurrere debere celebrata Canonica Electione ut 63. Distinct NOS SANCTORVM Vnde hoc ponderans credidit perpetuis temporibus Imperio subjectis pacem dare posse si temporalia Dominia tam Romanae Ecclesiae quam aliis adjungerentur cum certi Servitii observatione tunc enim cultus Divinus augmentaretur Religionem in magnam Reverentiam exaltandam credidit quando sanctissimi magnae potentiae aliis Principibus intermiscerentur non posse tunc quosque voluntate in peccatis uti nulla publica sperabat unquam peccata Captorum depopulatorum agrorum communem pacem turbantium incendiariorum consimilium posse nutriri Ecclesiasticâ Sacrâ potestate potenti valenti resistente etiam praedones pauperum oppressores qui particulari regimini praeessent sic corrigi posse affirmabat ut sic absque Tyrannica Oppressione populus in Libertate vivere posset Imperio etiam tranquillissimo non dubitabat hanc Ordinationem esse utilissimam quando per annua servitia praestimonias quilibet Ecclesiae juxta quantitatem temporalium indictas Status Imperialis manu teneretur ac etiam multo major Imperii Potentia ex hoc appareret quod illis omninibus Dominiis ita Ecclesiis traditis nullus nisi per Imperium absque Successione percipi posset Who is desirous of more to this purpose may see Sigonius de Regno Italiae Bishops were made Dukes and Counts in France and also Peers in France and about this time out of the Princes Dukes and Counts the number of 12 were selected by the Kings of France and erected into the Title of the 12 Peers of France by which Dignity they became the Chief Councellors and Directors of State These twelve being chosen besides their being Peers in matters of Judgment in the Old Parliaments were Peers also in the management of the whole Kingdom and while their Greatness held were therein so Powerful that they added a Taste of Aristocracy to that great Monarchy not disagreable to the Title that our Peers assumed of being Pares Regis and having a Power Fraenum imponere Regi as Bracton tells us but he and his Law both are antiquated Of these six were Lay and six were Ecclesiastical but the Dignity of Pair is supposed in these Bishops not as they are Bishops but as being Dukes and Counts also that is in the first three viz. Rhemes Laon Langres as Dukes and of Beavois Chalous and Noyons as Counts These twelve Peers of France had such a Power towards the Ancient Kings of France as the Ephori of Sparta and the Justiciaries of Arragon had towards their Kings They were obliged to exercise that Power with Care and they did exert it towards their Kings What they did agreable to the Power assigned them in the Government was lawful and just nay their bounden Duty But certainly the Exercise of these Powers was against no Command of God For God makes no Government nor obligeth us to obey any but what are made by Men The Government it self is its own Measure It 's no Objection against the Lawfulness of any Government that it 's inconvenient if they like it notwithstanding whose Government it is But this Constitution was of advantage to Royal Families in that it made a kind of Entail of the Crown upon their Families and preserved the Monarchy and its Descent And besides had this farther Conveniency that it was under them impossible for a Nation or Kingdom to be undone in a trice for a Caprice of the Prince or destroyed to make a Fortune for some Up-start For the Sake of Mankind it is to be earnestly desired and prayed that such as they who derive no Honour from their Ancestors may leave none to their Children that themselves may survive their Honors and leave nothing of their
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
the Reformation to which the Bishops did not assent and would never have passed if they had had a Negative upon them But by his Favor these Instances of his are great Arguments of those Bishops their Sincerity For they must needs be under great and violent Prejudices Besides every great man as the Author of the Letter well knows is apt to value himself and cares not to be accounted a light man and the higher in place the more unwilling to be found in a Mistake and they are not content if Old Men Quae juvenes dedicere senes perdenda fateri There is good Hopes therefore that our Rightfully Reformed Bishops will be the last that will give up the Cause of Reformed Christianity and will not be out-done by the Popish Bishops in Constancy when they have a better Cause I must likewise take notice to do the Spiritual Lords Justice of the Behavior of the Gentleman in Folio towards the Bishops He takes notice and that dutifully of the Satyrical so he calls it Language of the Pamphleteers against the Court and the greatest Scurrilities with which the House of Commons are aspersed but has not heard sure of any against the Bishops and the whole Ecclesiastical Order For he makes not the least mention of any such But because they shall not escape besides that in his Book he declaims 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Order and seems so fond of this Office that he forbids all other the use of the Cart he tells the Story of Hephestion and Craterus the one of which loved Alexander and the other the King By this Apologue I doubt not but he intended a Slander and to signifie thereby supprestly a lewd Reproach viz. that the Bishops are not true Servants of the King and Government but of themselves than which a falser thing I hope cannot be said nor a more malitious thing imagined if not true For he may know that they are better men in their true Character than his Loyal Patriots that are true to the King and House of Commons For they have I doubt not I am sure they ought to have a care of the whole Government in the Integrity of its Constitution The Bishops well know how much the People are concerned in the Greatness of the House of Lords which establisheth the Throne and makes and supports the King Great and by their Power and Interest make his Government equal to which they contribute no small Share for to them is entrusted by the Authothority of our Lord Christ the Conduct of Religion and that mighty and momentous Office hath commended them and advanced them to the State of Peerage and will continue them in great Authority with the People as long as the Nation continues in any degree Religious The Temporal Baronage cannot want them in the Support of that mighty Province that belongs to that House In them the People will find their Interest as long as they can value Wisdom and Religion that is as long as they are Christian Men and by them the Kingly Office will find it self served as long as true Religion and Wisdom can minister to the Support of Government and wise and good men under the greatest Trust and in the highest Dignity in the Government can be fit Councellors and Ministers of State The Octavo hath also a hint to this purpose for pag. 30. where he brings in the Case of Thomas Arundel Arch-bishop of Canterbury when all the Bishops made Sir Thomas Piercy their Procurator he says That uniting in one man argued a great Unanimity in the Voting of the Prelates which seems saith he hath ever been The meaning of this is a sly Disparagement of the Bishops in their Voting viz. that have one Common Tie and Dependency upon the Crown that determines them to their Interest and produces the Unanimity of Voting But are the Bishops more depending because they once for all received their Temporalities from the King than the Temporal Lords who are commoly Officers of State and otherwise depend upon their Prince's Favor Is not the Bishops Advancement rather a Reward to their Eminent Services performed in the matter of Religon of the greatest Importance certainly to the State and a Recognition of the excellent Character of those men that are preferred to that Office than a Bribe upon their Actings after they have that Favor irrevocable Do not we know that the Services of Church-men are rewardable upon the Churches Stock and that the King need not impair the Royal Treasure to pay Thanks to Episcopal Men whose Worth doth bespeak the Royal Favor to that Preferment and Advancement Are not the Temporalities of the Church the King 's only to give but not to retain What evil Prejudice or Obligation can this be to any man to serve the King unfaithfully who hath chosen him perhaps though there were others but as equally fit for that Office For we ought to suppose no other disposition of those Dignities than what is just and fit in our general Discourses however things are administred in particular Cases Is not this an Office together with its maintenance of the Provision of the Law and not of the King But to remove that Scandal of their Unanimity in voting which some have reproached with a scoffing Term of a dead Weight it may be considered that Men of the best Judgments and Honesty mostly agree That Variety of Judgments proceeds oftner from Passion and Interest than from Difficulty of the matter debated It mostly grows either from want of Integrity or want of Judgment Agreement in Votes is an Argument therefore of true Judgment and unbiassed Integrity As it is also farther of a good Correspondence amongst themselves of previous Debates and more mature Deliberation Besides that it is no unusual thing in difficult and lubricous Affairs for many to compromise the matters to a few or to the Majority of their own Numbers and abide the Result of the major part But because this matter of Exception to the Integrity of my Lords the Bishops in the great Affair now in Agitation is argumentum ad hominem and gives Prejudice to the true Right and Merits of the Cause and is the most prevalent and hopeful Argument if not the only one that our Adversaries can rely upon For whatever the Causa justifica or Pretence be for the espousing of any Opinion or part of any Controversie if the Causa suasoria the Inducement and true moving cause thereto be strong and persuasive the slightest Reasons will be a pretence for Confidence and the smallest Color of Right shall prevail finally and in the last Issue especially where the Parties concerned must judge or by their Power can make their Will and determinate Resolves to obtain to the biggest purposes I will therefore farther add that we well know what a high Esteem their true Character doth deserve That they are intended the Light of the World the Salt of the Earth If the Salt hath lost its Savor