established these Acts under-written willing and commanding that from henceforth they be firmly observed within this Realm The Preamble of the Statute of Westminster made the 13th of Edward I. runs thus Whereas of late our Lord the King in the Quinzim of St. John Baptist the Sixth Year of his Reign calling together the Prelates Earls Barons and his Council at Gloucester and considering that divers of this Realm c. ordain'd certain Statutes right necessary and profitable for his Realm whereby the People of England and Ireland being Subjects unto his Power have obtain'd more speedy Justice c. Our Lord the King in his Parliament after the Feast of Easter holden the 13th Year of his Reign at Westminster caused many Oppressions of the People and Defaults of the Laws for the accomplishment of the said Statutes of Gloucester to be rehearsed and thereupon did provide certain Acts as shall appear here following Here I cannot but observe That the King and Parliament of England thought Ireland a part of this Realm and subject to their Legislative Power and that it was concerned in the Statutes of Gloucester before-mentioned though not named therein Now whose Judgement shall we take the King and Parliament who lived in those Days or yours Four hundred Years afterwards I shall only mention one more which is in the 21 Edward 1. we find there a Statute made De iis qui ponendi sunt in Assisis and at the end thereof I find this Sect. 6. Rex c. quia ad communem utilitat◠〈◊〉 â—opuli nostri Regni de communi Concilio ejusdem Regni Statuerimus c. Now all these are accounted Statutes or Acts of Parliament and so called in the Books which shows that it is not the Name but the Modus of passing them which is the essential part of a Statute Law Besides if you please to peruse your own Quotations p. 48 and 49. you there acknowledge the Parliament to be called Generale Concilium Commune Concilium Great Council or Parliament I now come to your last Argument against this Statute p. 89. That King Edward I. held no Parliament in the 17th Year of his Reign This seems very doubtful even to your self for it follows If this were a Parliament this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is the only Act thereof that is extant and may not that be Henry III. granted the Magna Charta in the Ninth Year of his Reign you allow this to be a Statute or Act of Parliament and yet we do not find any other Law past that Year and but one single Act in his Fourteenth Year One in the Ninth of Edward I. and many other Instances may be made of this nature But after all I do not see how the stress of the Matter lies on this Foundation suppose this to be no Act of Parliament as you say what then shall we want Antient Precedents which name Ireland What think you of the Statute of Merchants which I have mentioned before 13 Edw. 1. this was made before that of the Seventeenth Year which you so much contend about and Ireland is expresly named in that Statute The Sum is this you say it is not a Statute I say it is and the Books call it so I have also given my Reasons why I think it so not that I think it material to our Debate but because if Statutes should be rejected for the Reasons you reject this I fear a great part of our old Acts of Parliament and even Magna Charta it self must be expunged out of the Statute Book I come now to your third Antient Precedent the Staple Act made in the Second of Henry VI. Cap. 4. This is expired so I find only the Title in the Statute Book which is this All Merchandizes of the Staple passing out of England Wales and Ireland shall be carried to Calice as long as the Staple is at Calice The Reason you give why this Law doth not bind Ireland is grounded on the Opinion of the Judges of England whereof you give this account p. 90. That by the Year Book of the Second of Richard III. it doth appear that the Merchants of Waterford having Ship'd off some Wool and consign'd it to Sluce in Flanders the Ship by stress of Weather put into Calice and Sir Thomas Thwaits Treasurer there seized the said Wool as forfeited whereupon a Suit was commenced between the said Merchants and him which was brought before all the Judges of England into the Exchequer-Chamber where the Questions were two one of which was Whither this Staple Act binds Ireland I have Abbreviated what you Write but I think I have done it fairly to which the Judges gave this Answer p. 91. Quod terra Hibernia inter se habent Parliament ' omni modo Cur prout in Angl. per Idem Parliament ' faciunt Leges mutant Leges non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia quia non hic habent Milites Parliamenti c. But in p. 92. you confess from the Year Books of 1 Henry 7. That when the aforesaid Case came a second time under the Consideration of the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber we find it Reported thus Hussy the Chief Justice said That the Statutes made in England shall Bind those of Ireland which was not much gainsaid by the other Judges notwithstanding that some of them were of a contrary Opinion the last Term in his Absence What a strange Argument is this The Judges say you gave their Opinion who were those Judges You name only Hussy and he was against it But you say all the Judges of England in the former Term it could not be all because Hussy was not there and afterwards he gave his Opinion quite contrary And as you confess p. 92. all the Judges submitted to it so that here is the Judges Opinion at one time against their Opinion at another and will you bring this to overthrow the Authority of the Legislative Power of England But suppose Hussy and the rest of the Judges had agreed with the first Opinion what would you draw from this Have the Judges Power to question the Parliament in the Exercise of their Legislative Authority I know they are often advised with in the making of an Act but when it is once past I presume their business is to give their Judgments according to it or to Explain it where the Sence is doubtful but not to go against the express Words of an Act much less to question the Parliaments Power to make it Your second Argument against this Statute's binding Ireland is a Note in a Book made by Brook in Abridging this Case That Ireland is a Kingdom of it self and hath Parliaments of its own p. 92. Certainly you have very light Thoughts of Parliaments if you think that Notes in Books should abridge their Power The third is a Comment of your own on the whole p. 93. wherein you draw a Comparison of Ireland with Scotland and conclude That
If not let me ask you Why should the Laws made by the Parliament of England have more force in Ireland than those made in Scotland There can be no other reason given for it but this That Ireland is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England but is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of Scotland Had you told us what Acts of Parliament these were we might have judged whether they were Declaratory or no but since you have omitted that I think the Answer I have given sufficient P. 77. You proceed to consider the Objections and Difficulties that are moved against this your Proposition that the English Laws become passable in Ireland only by the Consent of the People and Parliament thereof these you say arise from Precedents and Passages in your own Law Books that seem to prove the contrary which shews that as Cocksure as you are in this Particular it hath been disputed and doubted by your own Lawyers and in your own Parliaments too if I take the matter right The first you mention is in p. 78. you say That in the Irish Act concerning Rape passed Anno 8 Edvardi 4. 't is expressed that a doubt was conceived whether the English Statute of the Sixth of Richard the Second Chap. 6. ought to be of Force in Ireland without the Confirmation thereof in the Parliament of Ireland all the use I shall make of this is that your Parliaments then doubted this thing Your second Objection is p. 80. That though perhaps such Acts of Parliament in England which do not name Ireland shall not be construed to bind Ireland yet all such English Statutes as mention Ireland either by the general Words of his Majesty's Dominions or by particularly naming of Ireland are and shall be of force in this Kingdom These are your Words and This you say was a Doctrine first broached directly by William Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's-Bench in England in the First Year of Henry VIIth and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cooke Pray Sir do you speak in earnest Was this Doctrine never broach'd before the Reign of Henry the VIIth What think you of the several Acts of Parliament made in the several Kings Reigns since Henry the Third down to Henry the Seventh in some whereof they mention Ireland in others they do not do you not believe those several Parliaments thought there was some difference in those Acts But when the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and Sir Edward Cook after him both Persons of great Station in the Law broach'd this Opinion what was done in the Parliament of Ireland thereon Did they ever by any publick Act declare these Oracles of the Law to be in the wrong I do not find by any thing you say that they did and do believe you would not have let such an Argument have lain asleep if you could have brought it therefore I conclude they did not but on the contrary it doth appear that all Laws of that Nature have ever since been observed and obeyed in Ireland and many of them of much later Dates and now I wonder you should come to dispute it by your private Opinion One hundred and fifty Years after the Death of Hussy when in all this time the Body of Ireland hath not undertaken it But I will examine your Arguments against this The first is That the King and his Privy-Council in England have often transmitted into Ireland to be passed into Laws there English Statutes wherein the general Words Of all His Majesty's Dominions or Subjects were comprehended from whence you conclude that they were of a contrary Opinion p. 81 82. Suppose this to be so the most you can conclude from it is that it obliquely shews the King and Privy-Councils Opinion and doth not the Parliaments passing such Acts as well shew the Opinion of the Legislative Power of England But what if the King and Privy-Council of England do as you say actum agere shall this make the Parliaments Intentions in making those Laws void No certainly no more than the Parliament of Ireland's confirming them shall prove they were not binding before for whither the Parliament of Ireland accept or refuse those Laws that are made by the Parliament of England with intention to bind Ireland they are never the more or less binding there P. 84. You proceed and tell us You see no more reason for binding Ireland by the English Laws under the general Words Of all His Majesty's Dominions or Subjects than there is for binding Scotland by the same Truly Sir I believe you else I should wonder to have seen you taking so much Pains But because I am of a different Opinion let me consider this Matter with you Ireland is by several Laws made both in this Kingdom and in that annexed and joined to the Imperial Crown of England but Scotland tho' it has been often sought for never yet obtained that favour Ireland you confess submitted it self to King Henry the Second and thereby became at first annexed to the Crown of England one of the Terms of which Submission was That it should be govern'd by the English Laws whereas Scotland was united to it in the Person of King James and since that by its voluntary Recognition of King William and Queen Mary still keeping its own Laws and leaving a possibility of its becoming a separate Kingdom again which Ireland never can be The People of Ireland I mean the English and Britains which you say p. 20. are a Thousand for One of the antient Irish were once subject to the Legislative Power of England which the People of Scotland never were but always a separate Kingdom The People in Ireland have all the Privileges of English Men and thereby under the easiest Government in Europe which the People in Scotland have not whilst they remain in that Kingdom The People in Ireland are governed by the Common Laws of England one part whereof is That thore Laws may be inlarged abridged or altered by the Parliament of England but the People in Scotland are and ever were governed by their own Laws Ireland is mentioned in several of our Statutes as part of the Kingdom of England and joined with Wales as a dependant thereon which Scotland never was thought to be viz. 27 Edward III. Sess 2. in the Preamble of that Statute are these Words Sect. 2. For the Damage which hath notoriously come as well to us and the Great Men as to the People of our Realm of England and of our Lands of Wales and Ireland Cap. 1. it goes on First that the Staple of Wools c. within our said Realm and Lands Cap. 2. Item to replenish the said Realm and Lands with Money and Plate c. Cap. 3. Item we Will and Grant that all Merchants c. through our Realm and Lands Cap. 4. Item for as much as no Staple can be profitable for us and for our Realm and Lands Cap. 7.
't is to be found in the Collection of English Statutes is plainly thus The Judges in Ireland conceiving a doubt concerning Inheritances devolved to Sisters or Coheirs viz. whether the younger Sisters ought to hold of the eldest Sister and do homage unto her for their Portions or of the chief Lord and do homage unto him therefore Girald Fitz-Maurice the then Lord Justice of Ireland dispatched four Knights to the King in England to bring a Certificate from thence of the practice used there and what was the Common Law of England in that Case whereupon Henry III. in this his Certificate or Rescript which is called Statutum Hiberniae merely informs the Justice what the Law and Custom was in England viz. That the Sisters ought to hold of the chief Lord and not of the eldest Sister And the close of it commands That the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this case be proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and be there observed Teste meipso apud Westminst 9 Febr. An. Reg. 14. From whence you infer That this Statute was no more then a Certificate of what the Common Law of England was in that case which Ireland by the original Compact was to be governed by And do you really speak your Thoughts herein Was it ever customary for the Judges to send to the King to expound Law to them and for the King by Certificates to direct them what they should give for Law I thought their Business had been to declare the Law impartially between the King and his Subjects and that if they doubted in any Points of the Common Law their Custom had been to advise one with another or with some other Learned Councel in the Law Is it to be thought the King knew Law better than his Judges I would not have you insist on this for the Honour of the Long Robe in Ireland But Sir there is more in this then perhaps at first you think for either this is a Statute Law and our Books call it so therefore in your favour I will believe it so or else the King had in those days an Absolute Power and Authority to impose on Ireland what Laws he thought fit For in the close of that Statute 't is said Therefore we command you That you cause the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this case to be proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and to be straitly kept and observed If all our Acts of Parliament which declare the Common Law of England shall be called Certificates pray what will become of Magna Charta Charta Foresta and most of our old Laws which were generally Declarations of what was the Common Law of this Kingdom and what were the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects before the making of them I come now to your second old Precedent the Statute called Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae made at Nottingham 17 Edw. 1. Anno 1288. This you say pag. 88. was certainly never received or of force in Ireland And you further say That this is manifest from the very first Article of that Ordinance which prohibits the Justice of Ireland or others the King's Officers there to purchase Lands in that Kingdom or within their respective Bailiwicks without the King's Licence on pain of Forfeitures But that this has ever been otherwise and that the Lords Justices and other Officers here have purchased Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure needs no proof to those who have the least knowledge of this Country Is this a fair Argument against the Validity of a Statute That it hath not had due obedience rendred to it If this be Law I am afraid many of our late good Statutes have run the same fate but I never knew till now That the Peoples Obedience was an Essential part in a Statute I thought the Consent of King Lords and Commons given to it in Parliament had been enough But we will not let this Matter fall without further examining into your Argument That Statute consists of eight Chapters let us see which of those Chapters have not been received and obeyed you only mention the first viz. That the Lords Justices of Ireland and other Officers have purchased Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure as you recite it pag. 88. But the words in the Statute are these That the Justices of Ireland nor any other Officers of ours of the same Realm so long as they are in our Service there shall purchase any Land or Tenement within the List or bound of their Bailiwicks without our special Licence Which makes a great Alteration in the Matter for they might purchase Lands or Tenements both before and after they were in their Offices But we will take the Words as you give them how does it appear that this Law was not observed You say p. 89. It does not appear by any Inquisition Office or Record that any one ever forfeited on that account It may be so perhaps it was never broke and then there was no need of an Inquisition or the King might grant Licence as that Law does direct to his Justices and other Officers to purchase Lands during their being in their Offices or they might purchase them without the List or Bounds of their Bailiwicks and then the Terms of the Law were complied with But I am apt to think you will carry this farther and say That in later Years the Justices of Ireland and other the King's Officers have not taken notice of this Law perhaps so and what would you draw from this How many old Laws have we in England that are obsolete and disregarded by Time which though they fitted the Circumstances of the Times they were made in yet are not proper for our Days Witness the Statutes against going Arm'd the Statutes about Bows and Arrows and many others which were and still remain Statutes till repealed though perhaps 't will be thought hard to put them in Execution without giving publick Notice thereof sometime before to the Subject But after all how do you know but that these Officers you last mentioned may have Licences from the King to purchase Lands though I think it not at all to the matter whether they have or no. But to proceed That Statute as I said before consists of Eight Chapters you have taken notice only of the First therefore we will come to the next Chapter of that Statute The Title is In what Case only Purveyance may be made in Ireland Is that observed in Ireland or do the Justices or other the King's Officers by colour of their Offices take Victuals or any other things of any Person against his Will contrary to that Chapter The Third Chapter is about Transporting Merchandizes out of Ireland Do the Justices or any of the King's Ministers by colour of their Offices Arrest the Ships or other Goods of the People of Ireland The Fourth settles The Fees of a Bill of
then upon be considered which was this as I find it in his Abridgment pag. 271. R. C. by his Guardian bringeth an Assize the Defendants say the Plaintiff ought not to be answered quia est Aliagena natus 5 Novemb. An. Dom. Regis Angliae c. tertio apud E. infra Regnum Scotiae ac insra ligeanciam Domini Regis Regni sui S. ac extra ligeanciam Regni sui Angl. Here the Debate being about a Post natus in Scotland Sir Edward Cook brought the Quotation you mention for the sake of the last words thereof sed personae eorum sunt subjecti Regis sicut Inhabitantes in Calesia Gasconia Guyan who had been ever accounted Denizens and makes the Note you mention viz. which is to be understood unless they be especially named on the other part of that quotation Nostra Statuta non ligant c. because he would not be thought of Opinion with the former Judges Et non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia which you mention pag. 91. And this having no relation to the Case he was then upon he thought it needless to give the Reasons for this his dissent in Opinion from them which makes you call him Magisterial c. But afterwards pag. 117. you say that in another place of the same Report he gives this colour of Reason for his former Assertion That though Ireland be a distinct Dominion from England yet the Title thereof being by Conquest the same by Judgment of Law might by express words be bound by the Parliaments of England From this you would raise an Argument p. 118. between the Opinion given by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber pag. 91. and the now Opinion of the L. Chief Justice Cook But I shall leave you to reconcile those venerable Judges and proceed to my own Argument because I think I have already spoken to every thing you therein mention only I can't but stand amazed at your what shall I call it in this Assertion pag. 118. I challenge any Man to shew me that any one before him or any one since but from him hath vended this Doctrine when your self had told us before pag. 92. That the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and the other Judges were of the same Opinion when the Case of the Merchants of Waterford which is the same you now quote was argued the second time in the Exchequer Chamber And in pag. 80. you tell us This was a Doctrine first broached directly by Will. Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in England in the first year of Henry VII and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cook I wonder how you can make such bold Challenges which need no farther trouble then perusing your own Book to answer I hope I have now vindicated my Lord Chief Justice Cook whose Name you say pag. 116. is of great veneration with the Gentlemen of the Long Robe if so I may likewise hope they will give me thanks for doing it so many years after his death The next Case you mention is that of Pilkinton 20 Hen. 6. pag. 122. This you say is for you It is too long to transcribe but the Substance of it is this There were Letters Patents granted by the King to A. for an Office in Ireland formerly granted to P. by the same King's Letters Patents whereupon P. brings a Scire Facias against A. to shew cause why his Letters Patents should not be repealed A. pleads That Ireland had time out of mind been a Land separate and distinct from England was govern'd by its own Customs had a Parliament and made Statutes and by one of those Statutes P. had forfeited his Office Hereupon P. demur'd in Law and it was debated by five of the Judges of England who differ'd in their Opinions about it Well what will you infer from this doth any one doubt whether Ireland hath a Parliament and Customs among themselves that govern them Did the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England come any way to be called in question here if not 't is nothing to our Matter Yes you say pag. 124. Two of the Judges said That if a Tenth or a Fifteenth be granted the King by the Parliament of England that shall not bind Ireland c. Perhaps it may not 't is according as the Act is worded we see our ordinary Acts for raising Taxes are not extended to Ireland But doth this show that the Parliament of England hath not Power to make Laws which shall bind Ireland Besides suppose two Judges of five had positively said they could not was their Opinion to be taken against that of the Parliament of England shewn by their constant practice for Five hundred years I profess I cannot see how this Case reaches the Matter we are upon As to the Merchants of Waterford's Case pag. 125. it hath been spoken to before so I shall pass it by now The next is the Prior of Lanthonies in Wales 5 Hen. 6. This you say is for you pag. 125. I think 't is not but it lyes on me to give my Reasons therefore I will abreviate it The Prior of Lanthony brought an Action in the Common Pleas of Ireland against the Prior of Mollingar Judgment went against the Prior of M. who brought a Writ of Error in the King's Bench of Ireland where the Judgment was affirmed He then appeals to the Parliament of Ireland who revers'd both Judgments The Prior of L. removes all into the King's Bench in England but the King's Bench refused to intermeddle having no Power over what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland he then appealed to the Parliament of England where you say it doth not appear by the Parliament Roll that any thing was done on this Appeal save receiving the Petition Well what would you draw from this I think it proves nothing to our Matter if it doth the Conclusion must be against you For it appears by this quotation That the Prior of L. two hundred and seventy years since thought that an Appeal lay from the Parliament of Ireland to the Parliament of England and it doth likewise appear That the Parliament of England received his Petition But as to your Inference against the Power of the Parliament of England because nothing was done therein it may as well be concluded That they cannot judge Appeals brought before them by a Writ of Error out of the King's Bench of England because many times no Proceedings follow thereon which every Body knows may be let fall after the Petition is received at the Pleasure of the Parties concerned As to what you say of the Civil and Ecclesiastical State of Ireland p. 127 128 129. I think I have given a full Answer to it already so shall not repeat I will only add That 't is a wrong method to draw Arguments against the Power of the Parliament of England from Acts made by the Parliament of Ireland No doubt the Titles of those Kings and Queens you