in Parliament Which was the Receiving of Petitions As the Rolls of most times witness It being the old Mode and others accounted it somewhat against Reason that Petitions should be taken and brought into the House by those that were to debate and determine them and so might at pleasure keep them Out or too hastily might press them in Whereas they were to be filled up in course and so to be debated as they were received which was therefore entrusted to the care of known and sworn Officers of the Kingdom Although of late their work in Parliament be so strangely degenerate from that it was of old when also beside Receivers there were some appointed for Tryers of Petitions who as it seemeth were to enquire of matter of Fact expressed in the Petition that it might be cleared and rightly stated before it came to be debated in full Parliament I do not deny but these Triers of Petitions were most frequently some of the Bishops and other Barons But by this I am not convinced that the Lords had by Right and Legislative Power or were the sole Determinors of all Petitions as some would infer or that they were the sole Judges except also the Petty Jury that are Tryers of Fact shall be esteemed the sole Judges of Matters of Law And yet I shall not deny but Petitions concerning abuses or errors in Judicature were often deermined by the Lords as the great Judges but of error in the King's Bench as Judges above the King as was shewed before or from the Exchequer In Queen Ellzabeths Time for the seldom meeting or great Affairs of Parliament the Writs of Error from the King's Bench were by special Act of Parliament to be brought before the Judges of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer and by them to be determined But with these express Limitations as the Law shall require other than for Errors to be assigned or found for or concerning the Iurisdiction of the said Court of Kings Bench or for want of form in any Writ Process Verdict c. and that after all the Records and all concerning them be remanded to the King's Bench as well for execution as otherwise as shall appertain and with this express Proviso That any Party agrieved by such Iudgment in the Exchequer shall and may sue in Parliament for a further and due Examination By which I do not see such Parties agreed were absolutely tied to Petition the Lords onely although it were onely in a Case judicial Yet I deny not but in Edward the 3d. there was a Committee made of a Bishop two Earls and two Barons to hear and determine all Petitions complaining of Delays or Grievances in Courts of Justice But with great Limitations so that they must send for the Records and Judges which were to to be present and be heard and then by good advice of the Chancellor Treasurer Judges and other of the Council to make an Accord yet so that all be remanded to the Judges before whom the Cause did first depend who were then to proceed to Judgment according to the Accord of the said Committee And in Case it seemed to them to be such as might not well be determined but in full Parliament that then the said Records or Tenors should be brought by the said Commitee to the next Parliament it being the Common Law of the Kingdom and so expressed in all the old Books that all new unwonted difficult matters of consequence should still be brought and submitted to the Judgment of full Parliament so that all our Iudges did and ought to respit such Causes till the next Parliament of which there be almost innumerable Precedents in all the Rolls Nay in Richard the 2d there was a Committee of Lords and Commons appointed to hear and determine all Petitions present in that Parliament But afterwards it was adjudged and declared That such a Commission ought not to be given committing or betraying the High Power of Parliament into a few private hands as we may learn out of Henry the 4th beside other times Yet the Modi of Parliament admit that some extraordinary Cases where the Estates could not agree or the greater part of the Knights Proctors Citizens c. There by consent of the whole Parliament the Matter might be compromised to 25. chosen out of all Degrees and to fewer till at length it might come to 3. who might determine the Case except that being written it were corrected by Assent of Parliament and not otherwise And this seemeth to be the Law of Nature and right Reason That Delegates should not delegate others which was one reason why the Commons never made Pracies as the Lords did Nor might any Committee so determine but there might be Appeal from it to the Parliament Nor doth the Parliament it Self conclude so but that there may be Appeal from its self to its self even to its Iustice if it erre or at least to its mercy by some motion or Petition In one Parliament of Richard the 2d it was Enacted that no man condemned by Parliament should move for Pardon but another Parliament 10 years after did annul this Branch as unjust unreasonable and against the Law and Custom of Parliament For from this which is the highest here there still lieth Appeal from its Self to its Self For which also by the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom there were to be frequent Parliaments that so the errors or omissions of one being still human and therefore errable might be corrected and amended in another By express Statutes of Edw. the 3d. we are to have Parliaments once every year and oftner if need be They were of Old three or four times a year as may be found in all the Old Historians speaking of the great Feats in the Militia in King Alfred's Time they were to be twice a year and that at London as the Mirror affirmeth which we compared with the Laws of the Confessor And I speak also of King Edgars and Canutes Laws for the Celeberrimus Conventus ex qualibet Satrapta which the Great Iudg applieth to the Parliament Eternity it self would be a Burthen unto him that is not pleased with his Being so would Omnipotence to him that is unhappy in his acting It was therefore goodness in God to limit man as well in Doing as in Being It was also the Wisdom of our Ancestors to bound and limit out the Being Acting and continuing not onely of other Judges but also of Parliaments Yet the Old Modi of Parliament agree in this That a Parliament should not be Dissolved till all Petitions were discussed and answered and that after all there should be Proclamation made in some open place whether any had a Petition or just Address to the Parliament and if none replied then it was to be Dissolved I need not shew the Care of our Ancestors or former Parliaments for most strict observation of their own good Orders and Customs of Parliament which are such so just and reasonable that they well deserve a peculiar Discourse by themselves and suppose it not impossible to clear them more by the practice and consent of most Ages in this Kingdom which might also be useful for the Times to come And although it might be possible to find some of their old custome fit to be changed yet my hope is they will retain and observe such Rules of right Reason good Orders and Customs as may still make this an Happy Nation and that they will be mindful of their great Trust for which they are accountable And however it may be in this World yet they also must be judged at his coming who shall bring every Work into Iudgment with every secret Thing whether it be good or whether it be evil And I am not ashamed both to long and pray for his coming who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords The Prince of Salem that is Peace as well as King of Righteousness Melchizedek the Lamb upon the white Thone All the Creation groaneth and the Spirit and the Bride saith come Lord Iesus come quickly FINIS
I am now grown wiser and do now see I may absolve my self from that which I would not have taken but by force or fraud But can the World this vain and frail and foolish World command controll and over-awe my Soul to take an Oath the Oath of God to what I think unjust It may be so for I am Man and frail with those that are the weakest for He knoweth my foolishness but it should not be and when it is I must be very tender lest I adde more Sin to Sin as bad or worse to that which is too Bad already For by breaking such an Oath I may do worse much worse than first I did in making it except I Swore to sin and then I may not keep my Oath And I believe the Iews might not have pleaded Force or over-awing Arguments in Swearing Homage to the King of Babylon and yet 't is known how God did charge and chasten that said Perjury nor is it altogether inconsiderable that good Lot's or at least the men of Sodom's freeing themselves from Chedorlaomer is stiled by God himself plain downright Rebellion Yet there was another King of Sodom and Chederlaomer seemeth but a kind of Tyrant that had but little Right but Conquest and his Might The Catholicks may seem too free in dispensing with Oaths to Protestant Kings but some there are with them Sacred Persons And because I now dispute ad Hominem I shall touch on that in which we know them most Religious Their solemn Obligation to the Pope which yet is such they will not deny as doth not secure or free him from being Iudged or Coerced in cases of Distraction Natural in Raving or Moral in Raging so that danger be apparent to those about him or in some Spiritual Frenzie of notorious Heresie Convict the Chair in Conclave not the Person is exempt or much suspected while himself refuseth Legal Tryal by a Council or the like The Case is argued in Occhams Dialogues with others Our Oath of Fealty comes next upon the Test although I might interpose as a Parallel to the Pope the Iewish High Priest a very Sacred Person and the Lords Anointed also but yet such as must still submit to the Sentence of the Great Sanhedrin nay and that for his Life also if they so adjudged him For which of the Sanhedrins Power over the Jewish King in Criminals and in War except only what God had commanded against Amaleck or the seven Nations I might cite several clear passages from the Talmud and those that expound it long before Cochius or Sanhedrin or Schickards Ius Regium Our Land seemeth to Mourn because of Oaths but I must only touch the civil Part or what is Legal and our Law seemeth Deficient in this of Oaths for there is scarcely any Law since the Star Chamber to punish Perjury but only where it is before a Court of Justice and there also the Punishment of Witnesses is very light and exceeding short of Attaint on Jurors by the Common Law Our Customs seem to overgoe our Laws in much of Oaths They were but Attestations though most Solemn in the Name and Presence of God As the Lord doth Live But they are now brought to Imprecations or a kind of Curse So help me God and the Contents of this good Book Yet so it was of old at Combat on Appeal the Appellè did first devote himself Again some force a Kissing of a Book the Law requireth but a Sight and Touch. For ought I find the Saxon Jurors were Sacra Tenentes In the first Norman times it was Sacris Tactis and in later writs Evangelijs Tactis Nay the Priests hand was upon his Breast in Matthew Paris not upon the Book and the Villain seemeth forbidden to touch the Book The Statute saith he shall hold his Hands over it but the Freeman upon it and from this Touch with the Body such an Oath was called Corporal The Iews and eldest Christians in their Swearing Blessing Praying lifted up the Hand and sometimes Bowed the Head or Knee for In his Name shall all Knees bow seemeth but Parallel to that of the Psalmist In thy Name will I lift up my Hand and the Grecian or Trojan Princes lifted up their Scepters in Swearing but others held Earth and Water in Allusion perhaps to the sacred Styx Most if not all publick Officers were tyed to their Dutyes by some Oaths but they were made by Parliament in all Ages This being a Pillar in our Laws that none can make alter or impose an Oath without an Act of Parliament or Custom by the Common Law 'T is strange how much in all we degenerate from our good Ancestors So that with us to break ones Oath even in the greatest Office is but a kind of Petty Aggravation as they call it rather than a Crime because such Oaths be now accounted but meer Forms or Ceremonious Shaddows But it was not so ab initio and among other Precedents I find the old Mirrour speaking of a Chancellour of England charged with Perjury for taking a small Summe of Money half a Mark for Sealing of a Writ which was against his Oath being neither to Deny Delay or Sell Justice or Remedial Writs Yet Six Pence was allowed to the King for Sealing of a Writ How great a Crime they did account such Perjury I need not say to Lawyers or to any that have read the Saxon Parliaments But of all our Oaths those seemed to be most content to be counted Formal That they were imposed on meer Children of a dozen Years old how many such we have or had in great Schools or Universities may be known and felt too much I fear And the Oath of Allegiance was twelve Years old and so pressed at the Leets or Turns but did they mean we should Observe it but as Children not as Men or Christians It is true the Saxons also had a twelve-Year-old Oath but against Theft and how the Laws of Henry the first did Annul the Oaths of Children was observed and the fifty ninth Chapter of those Laws forbiddeth any to Plead or to be Pleaded in Iudicio till the Age of fifteen It was also a Maxim in our Law Books that Minors could not Essoyn because they could not Swear and that Homage might be done in Nonage but not Fealty For although Homage was the more Honourable done upon the Knee yet Fealty was the more Sacred being ever done by Oath and from hence is the usual Phrase in all Lawyers and Historians to Do Homage but to Swear Fealty Must our Allegiance only run before our Reason or Discretion which yet was our great Fealty for it differed little from Homage with the Oath of Fealty to Mean Lords but in the Salvo which I touched before and must again being one good help to explain our Allegiance I shall acknowledge that Allegiance ought to have been kept by all Subjects although they never took that Oath which it may be many did not especially
Parliamenti sedebunt nullus stabit sed quando loquitur ut omnes audiantur à Paribus And again Nullus solus potest nec debet recedere à Parliamento sine Licentia Regis omnium Parium Parliamenti hoc in pleno Parliamento Ità quod inde fiat mentio in Rotulis Parliamenti It may be possible That Bracton and Fleta with others may use the Phrase Pares in such a sence when they say That the King or his Commissioners should not judge and determine of Treason but Pares Which may be added to the 25 th of Edw. 3. reserving Treason to Parliament where of Old it seemeth only determinable so that The Mirror would not have it Endicted but by Accusation and in full Parliament as in King Edmund's Time c. Cap. 2. Sect. 11. and in Edw. the 3 d it was enacted That Offences of Peers and great Officers and those who sued against the Laws should be tryed in Parliament And although now the Phrase be given to all the Lords of Parliament yet it was most or only proper to the Earls whom by Law and custom the King styleth Consanguineos and he might style them his Peers or Companions as in Latine Comites So Bracton Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum and in another place A Societate Reges enim tales sibi Associant ad consulendum regendum Populum Dei and the like is in Fleta Comites à Comitiva dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine Freno Frenum sibi apponere tenentur c. which is also in Bracton The Mirror is yet clearer although the King had no Equals yet because himself or his Commissars might not be Judge it was provided by Law that he should have Companions to hear and determine all his Torts c Aux Parliaments and those Companions were called Countees Earls from the Latine Comites So also Sarisberiensis cited before in Hen. 2. Comites à Societatis participatione dici quisquis ignorat ignarus est literarum c. some will have them Comites Socii in Fisca because of old some Earls had a third part of profits accrewing by Pleas and Forfeitures in their Counties as the Laws of the Confessor and Mr. Selden in his Comes but he will also grant their name à Comitiva potestate rather than from such Communion of profits That the old Sheriffs also who were Vice-Comites did come to Parliament appeareth in the Ancient Writs and Histories and yet the Barons seem to be the Kingdoms Iudges and the present Earls may seem to sit in Parliament but onely as Barons who are now all Peers and Lords and Parliament But although the Lords were the great Iudges of the Kingdom and of all Members thereof yet it is well known that in full Parliament as old as Edw. 3. they did not only acknowledge but protest that they were not to Iudge the Commons in Cases of Treason and Felony being not their Peers How it was in Rich. the Second may be seen at large in the Rolls and Records now printed in Edward the Second the Commons proceeded by the Judgment of the Lords for which also the Fructus temporum cited before may be added to all in the Road. Appeals and Writs of Error were from the King to the Lords in Ecclesiasticals that touched the King they were to the Spiritual Prelates Abbots and Priors of the Upper House by Act of Parliament in 24 Hen. 8. till which it may be Temporal Lords had also Cognizance of such as well as Temporals And Writs of Error in the Parliament were Judged by the Lords for they came from the Kings Court his Bench or his Exchequer and if Errors had been in the Common Pleas or below it they should not be brought into Parliament but to the Kings-Bench and from the Kings-Bench as from the King not otherwise they came to the Lords and although there was a formal Petition for removing the Record from the King it was but of Course and the King could not deny it Which we found granted by all the old Lawyers and Historians as I shewed before and by the grand Master and Patron of Law King Edw. 1. in Britton because none may Judge in his own Cause Therefore in Causes where our self shall be Party we do consent que N. Court soit judg Sicome Counts Barons in Temps de Parliament In the Laws of Hen. 1. one of the Chapters beginneth thus Iudices sunt Barones Comitatus qui liberas in eis terras habent for in those times Barons were by Tenure only not by Patent that I know till Beauchamp of Holt in Rich. 2. nor by Writ that I can find till the Barons Wars but K. Johns Charter is to Summon Comites Barones Regni majores sigillatim per literas N. But all that hold in Capitae by general Summons forty days before the Parliament and that Negotium procedat ad diem assignatum secundum consilium eorum qui presentes fuerint quamvis non omnes submoniti venerint and the Summons of Delinquents or Suitors in Parliament was to appear and abide the Judgment of the Court not of the King but of his Court for the King is Father and not Judge of his People in his proper Person as was shewed before and all the Books agree that he must Commit his Jurisdiction unto Judges in the Courts of Justice and when he might assume great Offices into his own Hands by Parliament in Edw. the third all Judges were expresly excepted and the Judges Oaths and several Acts of Parliament require them to proceed according to the Law notwithstanding the Kings Command or Seal against it and the Register affordeth a Writ to Supersede or Revoke any such Seal from the King himself to any of the Judges And the Lord Chief Justices as the Lord Chancellor and Treasurer were Chosen by the Kingdom as we found before in the time of Hen. 3. how much more then should the Lords of Parliament be made by Parliament for else they be the Kings Commissioners So the Roman saith our German Fathers chose their Lords in Common Council to be Judges in iisdem Conciliis Eliguntur Principes qui Jura reddunt De Minoribus consultant Principes de Majoribus Omnes And Caesar also observeth that their Princes or Lords were their great Judges sed Principes Regionem atque Pagorum inter suos jus dicunt Controversiasque minuunt Yet Tacitus will also tell us that with those Princes they did joyn Commons Centeni ex Plebe Comites which were perhaps the Fathers of our County Hundreds And in K. Williams Edition of the Confessor's Laws when he inclined so much to them of Norwey Universi Compatriotae Regni qui Leges Edixerant came and besought him not to change their Old Laws and Customs of their Ancestors because they could not judge from Laws they understood not quia durum valde foret sibi suscipere
Leges ignotas Judicare de eis quas Nesciebant How it was in Parliament while there were only Barons by Tenure would be more enquired But of later times Commons have adjudged Commons and have joyned with the Lords in adjudging Lords of which there are divers Cases cited in the Fourth Part of Institutes Cap. 1. pag. 23. It may be considered that many Kingdoms and Common-wealths that were not Kingdoms in all Ages did consist of Three Estates as of Three Principles in Nature or Bodies Natural which might occasion the Phrase of Tribe in many other besides the Romans who in Three Estates were not so Ancient as the Grecians or Aegyptians that I speak not of the Gauls Britans or the Eastern Nations And if any would observe it might be possible to find the Prophets hinting a Trinity in divers Kingdoms or Estates and that not only for moulding but for overthrowing them Besides the Three Captivities or Three overturnings of the Iewish State and the Three blows of the Goat on the Ram in Daniel as alluding to the Three great Battles which did break the Persian Empire And why may not the Sacred Trinity be shadowed out in Bodies Politick as well as in Natural And if so our Three Estates may be branched as our Writs into Original Iudicial and Executive as shadows of the Being Wisdom and Activity Divine If I may not grant yet I cannot deny Original Power to the Commons Iudicial to the Lords Executive to the King as the Spirit to the Body or if you will the Head or Fountain of Sense and Motion But he must see by two Eyes and hear by two Ears as I touched before yet his very pardoning although it be by Law much limited doth seem to speak his Power Executive And so his Writs do speak aright Because my Courts have so and so judged Therefore I do so and so command the Judgment shall be executed And if any will assert the Militia to this Power Executive I shall also grant it to the King So that it may be alwayes under the Power Original and Judicial This might belong to the Lords and that to the Commons And the plain truth is I do not find more Arguments to prove the Judicial Power to belong to the Lords than I do for rhe Legislative in the Commons And as it seemeth to be above so below also it may be much disputed That the Legislative Judicial and Executive power should be in distinct Subjects by the Law of Nature For if Law-makers be Judges of those that break their Laws they seem to Judge in their own Causes which our Law and Nature it self so much avoideth and abhorreth So it seemeth also to forbid both the Law-maker and Iudge to execute And by express Act of Parliament it is provided That Sheriffs be not Justices where they be Sheriffs But if Execution be alwayes consonant to Judgment and This to the Law there is still most sweet Harmony and as I may say a Sacred Unity in Trinity represented That the Commons should have most Right to the Power Original or Legislative in Nature I shall leave to be disputed by others I shall only touch some few Particulars which have made me sometimes to suspect that by our Laws and Model of this Kingdom it both was and should be so How the Roman Historian found the Judicial power given to the Lords by our Old Ancestors I did observe before he is as plain for the Legislative in the Commons Nay to the Lords themselves he saith in Judging was adjoyned a Committee of Commons both for Counsel and Authority Ex plebe Comites consilium simul Authoritas And again he sheweth how the Lords did sit in Council about the less Affairs but of greater all both Lords and Commons So also that those things which the Commons did determine Quorum Arbitrium penes Plebem apud Principes pertractentur they should be debated with the Lords for their Advice but not their Legislative Votes And the Mirror a good Comment on Tacitus in this sheweth how our Lords were raised out of the Commons and giveth them a power Judicial but where is their Ligislative Nay the Modus of Parliament will not only tell us that the Commons have better and stronger Votes than the Lords but that there may be a Parliament without the Lords as well as Prelates For there was a time in which there was neither Bishop nor Earl nec Baro so the Irish Modus and yet there were Parliaments without them but never without the Commons So that if the Commons be not summoned or for Cause Reasonable cannot or will not come for Specialties in which they blame the King Parliamentum tenebitur pro Nullo quamvis omnes Alii status plenarie ibidem interfuerint And the Kings Oath is to confirm the Just Laws which the Commons not the Lords but Commons shall Elect or Choose quas Vulgus Elegerit So in Latine and in French of Edw. 2. and Edw. 3. Les quiels la Communante aur ' eslu And in English of Hen. 8. and other Times which the Commons of the Realm shall choose And if we look into the Old Writs of Summons we shall find the Commons called ad consentiendum faciendum and the Old Writ addeth quod quilibet omnes de Comitatu facerent vel faceret Ii personaliter interessent As it is in the Modus of Parliament with sufficient intimation that without the Commons nothing could be done which the late Writs express thus Ita quod dicta Negotia Infecta non remaneant pro defectu potestatis c. But the Lords are called de quibusdam arduis tractaturi consilium Impensuri only as Counsellors not as Law-makers For the very same words are in the Writs for the Judges and others coming to Parliament although they do not Vote in making Laws This may also shew us how the Lords themselves did Elect the Knights of Shires and by Statute of Rich. 2. are to contribute to the charges of the County Knights who were to sit and Vote in Parliament as Law-makers for the whole County whereas the Lords were there but as Judges and the Kings Counsellors And is it probable they should retain to their own Persons that for which they delegated others who were there to do quod quilibet omnes facerent personaliter even all that all the Lords themselves should do as Freeholders not as Lords or the Kings Patentees who might so be his Councellors or Iudges rather than Law-makers this was more left it seems to the Commons who for this and other Reasons should not be Common Iudges as I think in private Causes or of private Persons but of Iudges or of such as the Mirror speaketh of whom elsewhere there was no Common Justice to be had But if the Lords had not a Legislative Right why did the Commons send up the Bills to them how came the Lords to joyn with the Commons in Passing of Acts
his Priviledges was to be free from the Justies of either Bench and of Assize Which is one of the first Records for the antient Benches But it may not be impossible to trace them thorow some Elder times For the Saxon Law so often repeated and confirmed that none should complain to the King but want of Right or against summum jus at Home might in modern Language be translated Thus. The Writ of Right must abide the Baron or Bayliffe For it cannot fall to a Copyhold Steward except the Lords default or consent or the Tenants suit procure a Tolt to lift it up to the County Court Or a Pone place it in the Common Pleas. That such a course was antient may be gathered from the Mirror Asser and others of Alfred Edgar Canute Ethelred and of the Tolt before in King William To which I may add the Writ of Right in the third Book of Reports brought by I. de Beverlace against Walter of Fridastern and by a Tolt removed from the Court Baron to the County and for default of the Baron how it must be falsified we may touch anon it was concluded before Ranulph de Glanvil Sheriff of Yorkshire Glanvil is clear enough for the course of removing to higher Courts and of the Writ de Pace stepping between the Combat on the Writ of Right and Assize Coram justitiis in Banco sedentibus and although this Book intituled Glanvil was not written till about Henry the 2d yet it is plain enough that he speaketh of Antient Custom His words are very considerable The grand Assize saith he is a Royal benefit granted by the Parliament Clementia principis de Concilio procerum populis indultum as being that which saved blood and did oft prevent the Combat on the Writ of Right and of this he speaketh in the third of the same Book as of a very old and antient Custom Secundum jus consuetudinem Regni antiquam A weighty expression from so antient an Author which may possibly lead us higher than the Saxon times For we may find the Duel or Combat among the Gaules from British Druides as among the Germans also whence our Fathers came Nonnunquam etiam armis de principatu contendunt So of the Gauls or British Druids He that was like to know it and of those and Germans Tacitus and Diodorus Siculus before Aventinus Some observe it in the Salique Law and among the Laws of Charlemaign and that the Longobards did bring it into Italy where it was also setled by Law But of our Ancestors combats in another place I know not any Fines upon Record till Richard the First But Stowels Case in Plowden may inform us that they were before the Norman And we need not doubt the Books of Edward the third speaking of Benches settled in Henry the first but I do not remember the phrase of Capitalis Iusticiarius noster till great Charter which repeateth elder Customs Goodwin the famous Earl of Kent among the Saxons had two Sons that in as good an Author as Huntington are stiled Regni Iusticiariis the phrase is common in Hoveden and others of the times of Clarendon Assizes And K. Edgar had a Cosin Ailwin who was totius Angliae Aldermannus which is supposed Lord Chief Iustice by a Learned man besides the best though yet imperfect Glossary But it might denote the Lord High Constable Of which before in William the first And William the 2d found great Odo of Baieux setled L. Ch. Justice of England Iusticiarius totius Angliae So Matth. of Westminster and Huntingdon calleth him Iusticiarius and Princeps and Moderator totius Angliae in Wigornensis He is Custos Angliae And the phrase of Iusticiarius is also in Matth. Paris of William the first Iusticiarii in Banco Regio of after times as also placita de Nova disseissena before Justices in Eyre But he speaketh of placita lethifera the Pleas of Life and Death yea even in Bishops Courts about the Normans coming in But in Polydore we find out 4 Terms with divers other elder Customes ascribed to the first Norman But that which he addeth of the place for these Courts to be at the Kings appointment might be true till the Law fixed the Pleas which may be long before our Charter of Henry 3d. where it is confirmed not created But for the Kings Bench the Return was coram Nobis ubicunque c. and for the Pleas coram Iusticiariis nostris apud Westmon That which Virgil addeth of the Iudges in Westminster and of those higher beyond appeal and of Iustices of Peace setled by the Conqueror as he saith Sheriffs were in every County may be more considered For it may be as much too late as some have thought it too early They which presume to make K. Henries Cubit the first Standard of Winchester must refute the old Saxon Laws of which before For those may seem to deserve as much credit as Malmsbury other marks That he did confirm the Curtesie d' Angletterre I may yeild to the Mirror and other Authors but not that he first began it For the Statute of Kentish Customs and those that treat of Gavel-kind may shew us an Older Tenure by Curtesie there also where the Tenant had no Issue And this may teach us whence the like Custom came into Ireland as also to be Curialitas Scotiae which our master seemeth to forget when he saith Que ne'st use en auter Realm forsque tant solement en Engleterre But his Commentator he lyeth in this and in divers other things In case Entails this English Curtesie is very remarkable in which the Book of Cases have great diversity But those that perswade us there was no Land in Tayles before the 2d of Westminster in King Edward the first which are all that subscribe to Littleton must interpret the Laws of King Alfred much otherwise than I can do For the 37th Chap. of his Laws is to me much clearer for Lands Entail'd then is all the Statute de Donis Conditionalibus One Case of the Courtesie may be considered for the Militia If Land in Capite descend to a Woman who upon Office found intrudeth on the King and taketh an Husband and by him hath Issue and then dieth yet cannot the King eject or detain the man but he shall be Tenant by the Kingdoms Curtesie although he came in upon Intrusion Which seemeth to hint that Our Law did chiefly intend the Kingdoms good defence and service which might be performed by such an intruder rather than the Kings pleasure or his bare Prerogative in this which is thought so great a Prerogative of Tenure in Capite For which the Comments on Magna Charta and the Statute of Prerogative with Littletons Dower and Curtesie are clear enough To Henry the first they also ascribe the Curtesie of saving the wreck from his Exchequer if there were so much as a Cat or a breathing Creature let in the Ship I do not deny him to be
by Commune assent in special of the Clergy And for this Walsinghams Neustria may be added to others in the Road and at his return he is again Crowned before the People as well as the Lords Consilio Procerum Yet Polydore with others is bold to charge his Reign with great exactions on the Clergy in special for his ransome but himself yeilded that the King did send the Bishop of Salisbury into England that by the consent of Parliament Regii Senatus Authoritate he might get his Ransome And himself yeilded that at his return there was a Parliament wherein the King thanked his People for their Faith to him and for that they had helped him in his Wars and Imprisonment And that Ejus Nutu Archiep. Cantuar. was conferred on the said Bishop of Durham and that the Chalices c. were again restored to the Churches and that the Laws with weights and measures were then also corrected or amended K. Iohn's Election must be discussed in another place Of his Military Aids Paris with Wendover is clear that they were granted in and by Parliament Convenerunt ad Colloquium apud Oxoniam Rex magnates Angliae ubi concessa sunt Regi Auxilia Militaria de quolibet scuto duae marcae dimidium Nor are the Records wholly lost of his Parliament summoned about a War with the French or rather defence against them and his Writs are known enough They speak consent of Parliament provisum est de communi assensu Archiep. Comitum Baronum omnium Fidelium nostrorum Angliae quod novem Milites per Angliam inveniant decimum bene parat ad defensionem Regni Besides the Rolls this is found in the 9th part of the great Reports and in divers others His Charter is now so well known in Print that I need not cite any clause thereof No not that so clear for the Militia Nullum scutagium vel Auxilium ponam in regno nostro nisi per commune Consilium Regni nostri Yet I may add that the Aides there excepted and called Reasonable being such by Common Law were afterwards assessed and ascertained by Parliament For which the first of Westminster may be compared with the 25 th of Ed. 3d. and in the 14 th of that King his Aides were remitted by Parliament because for his Wars he had taketh other Assistance than was due by Law which was much excused by himself and divers other Kings And for this I might cite the 48 th of H. 3d. the 25 th and 31 th of Edw. 1st the 10 11 12 and 13 of Edw. 2d the 19 th and 20 th Edw. 3 d. who did buy Souldiers rather than Press them as the Roman Historian of the declining times of that Empire Of the Barons Wars I must not speak a syllable they do deserve a discourse by themselves and it may be possible er'e long to see it Now I shall only observe that our great Charter was rather the Cause or occasion than the Effect of those Wars For had it been so kept as it was made the Crown might have rested in peace enough They which perswade others that this Charter was first created by King Henry and extorted from him only by a prevailing Sword seem not to consider so much as its Title as it now is printed where we find it granted in his 9 th year Although it was so ill performed that it needed confirmation afterwards Matth. Paris is very clear and plain in this that it was wholly the same or exactly agreeing with that of K. Iohn in nullo dissimilis Nay he speaketh of K. Iohns Charter quas sponte promisit Baronagio Angliae and again in K. H. 3 d. sponte liberaliter concessit And the Popes Letters tell us of K. Iohns Charter granted most freely Liberaliter ex mera spontanea Voluntate de Communi consensu Baronum suorum c. Besides the very words in one of those Charters spontanea voluntate nostra dedimus concessimus pro nobis Heredibus nostris Libertates has subscriptas Nor were these new priviledges then first Created by him But the old Rights of the People by long and ancient Custom as we may find at large also in Wendover with Matthew Paris where they are not only Antiquae Leges consuetudines Regni but we are also told they did present the great Charter of H. the first with his Laws and St. Edward's And to these the Barons sware as the King had also done before For so we read their Covenant was that if the King would break his Oath a juramento proprio resilire which they had some cause to believe or suspect propter suam duplicitatem yet they would keep theirs and would do their best to reduce him to keep his Virgil is also clear in this who telleth us K. Iohn's Troubles and proceedure from his not restoring K. Edw. Laws as he had promised And that the Barons urged him ut promissas tandem aliquando Lege daret and again they ask for their Antient Customes vetera instituta quibus olim Reges Pop. Angl bene rexissent and the close is quae ille prius recepisset se sanctissime observaturum And for Henry the Third the same Author affirmeth that instead of his granting ought that was new the People granted him that grand Prerogative of Wardships which that King accepted with many thanks adding also that the People did not intend it for his Successors But of this I may speak in another place I shall now only adde that if there be not yet enough said from all the Saxon Laws and Histories with the first Norman Confirmations and Explications to assert the Great Charter to be more Antient for its matter than K. Henry or K. Iohn I shall only desire those that are yet unsatisfied they would please to peruse the 2 d. part of the Great Institutes or at least so much of it as speaketh of H. 3 d. and Edw. 1st And it may be they will not wonder that at the Prelates motion that Bastards might inherit the Parliament at Merton cryed out so loud nolumus Lages Angliae mutate c. To which also besides the late Declarations of this Parliament and the Petition of Right may be added the Learned arguments of those Grave and Honourable Judges to whom we shall ever owe so much for standing up in an evil day for Truth and Common Justice in the Case of Ship-money Sir Richard Hatton Sir George Crook and Sir Iohn Denham with the truly Noble Oliver St. Iohn Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Their Arguments are now in Print by publick Command Nor may I presume to add a word in that subject Nor shall I speak of the times following the great Charter which was confirmed more than thirty times in full Parliament with many special Provisions for the Militia It being most just and reasonable that what did so much concern all should be considered by all Quod omnes tangit
tenens to the Sheriff and he standeth when the King dieth When also so many think there is no Sheriff but it may be more considered I must not stay in the Court of Peepoudres incident to every Fair or Market as a Court Baron to a Mannor although it be a Court of Record and a Writ of Error lyeth on its judgment for which Iones and Hall's Case in the 10th Part of Reports and in the 4th Institutes I need not speak of Writs of Error from the Common Pleas to the Kings Bench from the King's Bench to the Exchequer-Chamber and from thence as from the King's Bench also to the Parliament or of the known Statute of Henry the 6th making it Felony to steal withdraw or avoid Records or any parcel of Record But of no Records is the Law more punctual than in of extraordinary Cases of Oyer and Terminer which were more private oft and less fixed being transient on emergent Cases which yet being heinous seemed to require most exact Records especially because there might be Appeal so just and needful if the Judges exceeded but one tittle of their Commission If it were discontinued or expired then the Indictment and all Records were to meet in their proper Center at the King's Bench but in other Cases Records of Oyer and Terminer were sent into the Exchequer So in Edw. the 3d. As in Elizabeth Results on charitable uses and the like were to the Chancery by Act of Parliament The great Seal was the Soul to inform and actuate the Body of Records in all exemplifications from the Rolls in all Writs Pattents or Commissions and the rather also that by this nothing of moment might be hudled up but duly weighed and considered while it passed so many hands and judgments as it should before the Sealing Nor shall I add that an Act of Parliament it Self is not pleadable in a Court of Record but from Record or under the Seal whence the old custom was to remove the Records of Parliament by a Writ of Certiorari into the Chancery thence by the Lord Chancellor into the Kings Bench and thence by a Mittimus into the Common Plea and Exchequer with an usual Writ commanding all the Courts to keep and observe such Acts of Parliament which of Old were Proclaimed by the Sheriffs and were put under the Seal as we may see by the Proclamation now printed among the Statutes of Edw. the 3d. and they were not hudled into Print in those Days not of such vertue in Print as on Record and under the Seal For there were not then such Printers or Copiers that without much caution our fore-Fathers durst trust with all their Lives and Estates which by one dash of a Pen the change of a not a with a to a for or a from might be soon destroyed or enslaved Much less then should a Court of Record be Created but by Record yea and that be shewed under the Seal also For when the Seal was moulded our Ancestors ordained that no Jurisdiction should be grantable but under the Seal which should be known and obeyed by all the People as the Mirror discourseth at large In Edw. the 4th it was resolved by all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber that no man could be a Iudg or Iustice by Writ which was also Sealed but by open Pattent or a publick Commission But the Lord Chief Iustice of England hath of late no such Commission or Pattent yea a Sealed Writ and of Old he was also Created by Pattent till about the end of King Henry the 3d. if good Authors deceive me not It seemeth also somewhat disputable whether he were not included in the Statute of Henry the 8th for Commissions to the Judges by Letters Pattent under the Seal However the words are plain enough for Iustices of Eyre which of Old were also by Writ as those of Oyer and Terminer but now not to be but by Comission or Pattent under the Great Seal Which Commission should also be read and shewed in Court lest there be some kind of Demurrer or exception unto jurisdiction which hath been in some Cases at the Kings Bench and may be by Law to all now Judges by special Commission except it be produced under the Seal if the old Books deceive us not who do do not onely ascribe all jurisdiction to the Seal but in all legal exceptions ever admit of that to the Iudg if he be a Party or have not jurisdiction or be otherwise incompetent That the Parliament also will never Erect or Create any Court of Record but by Record and open Commission under the Great Seal I do the rather believe because the Seal is so proper and peculiar to the Parliament being made by common consent of which the Mirror and others at large and by such common consent used and committed to the special care of the Chancellor or Lord Keeper of England as he was called for keeping that which our Fathers esteemed as the Kingdoms Key or Clavis It is well known how King Henry the 3d. was brought to acknowledg That among all great Officers the Lord Keeper or Chancellor did especially belong to the Choice of the Parliament and Ralph Nevil among others refused to yield up the Seal to the King when it was demanded saying that he had received it by the Common Councel of the Kingdom and without their Warrant he would not deliver it of which both Matthew Paris and Matthew of Westminster From the continual use of this Seal in Parliament it is the Law and Custom of the Kingdom that the Lord Keeper shall have place in Parliament still to be there with the Sael although he be often no Peer and have no Vote but for making and Sealing of Charters Pattents Commissions and Writs framed by Parliament For although the Register made or continued by Parliament be now so full that there be little need yet the framing of New Writs was a great work of Old Parliaments as appeareth in the Books and Statutes as in that of Westminster the 2d de Casu consimili And as if the Parliament had made no Laws at all but onely New Writs the Old Modus brancheth out all the Laws of Parliament into Originals Iudicials and Executives which all know to he the Division of Writs Those especially de Cursu drawn by the Cursitors for Brevia Magistralia were let to be framed by the Masters of Chancery as appeareth at large in Bracton and Fleta and in the Oath of the Six Clerks or other Clerks of Chancery in Ed. 3 with that of Ed. 1. de casu continili in which Statute it is asol provided that if the Masters could not agree in framing such a new Writ they might if they saw cause respit the Parties till the next Parliament that so it might be formed by Advice of all the great Lawyers of the Kingdom Yet besides this of making and sealing of Writs there was another work and great use of the Masters of Chancery