my Lord the Bishops are not bound to Plead instantly so that 't is not a Question Whether they ought to Answer or not to Answer but whether they ought to Answer immediately and what do they say more They would have an Imparlance and time to consult with their Councel what they shall Plead which is all but one and the same thing and what is the reason they give for this They induce it thus These Noble Persons are Peers of the Realm and so ought not to be compelled to Plead immediately this if I mistake not is the sum of their Plea. Now pray my Lord what sort of Plea is this It is not a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court tho' it do in a sort decline the Justice of the Court Is it a Plea in Abatement No it is not for it is only to gain time and do they now offer any thing more for themselves than what was said by their Council before Only That we are Peers of the Realm and that such is the Priviledge of Peers that they ought to have an Imparlance and time to Plead and that they ought not to answer presently My Lord this Matter hath been long agitated in the Court already your Lordship and the Court have given your Judgments and we know your Lordship and the Court will not admit of Tricks to delay the Kings Causes we all know the Term is a short Term and what I said in the beginning upon this matter I say again it is the Interest and for the Honour of my Lords the Bishops if they understand their own Interest and value their Honour to have this Cause tryed as soon as may be but this trifling and tricking is only for delay For what issue can be taken upon this Plea Certainly none And if we should Demurr what will be the end of that But only to get time to slip over the Term. If there were any thing worth the considering in this Plea and that had not been already debated and setled then it might concern us to give some Answer to it but we have spent three hours by my Watch in the Dispute and the Matter having been over-ruled already it is time to have an end of it sure the Court will never be so treated by these Persons that are of Councel for my Lords the Bishops for it cannot be thought that my Lords the Bishops do it of themselves and whether the Court will be so served we submit to your Lordship Certainly you will not receive such a Plea as this especially it being in Paper you will never countenance such a Practice so far as to give these Lords time to trifle with the Court if any such thing as a Plea be tender'd to the Court it ought to be in Parchment and if they would have an Imparlance there ought to have been an entry of a Petit Licentiam inter loquendi upon the Roll but not such a Plea as this for this in effect is no more then desiring an Imparlance which if it be granted of course upon such a Prayer entred upon the Roll you take it of course but if it be not of course you cannot come in by way of Plea it must be by suggestion upon the Roll and a Conceditur entred if this be admitted as a Precedent every Man hereafter that comes in upon an Information will take advantage of it and plead such a Plea as this and if you grant an Imparlance in this Case upon this Plea you must grant an Imparlance in every Case certainly the Law is not to be altered the Methods of Proceedings ought to be the same in every Case And I hope you will not make a particular Rule in the Case of my Lords the Bishops without a special Reason for it Mr. Serj. Pemb. We put in this Plea my Lord and are ready to abide by it and we say that according to the course of the Court it ought to be received Mr. Att. Gen. No but good Mr. Serjeant 't is in the discretion of the Court whether they will receive it or not for the matter has been in debate already and has receiv'd a determination the Court has over-ruled them in this very Point already and there is no more in this Plea than was in the Argument before and therefore it ought to be rejected as a frivolous Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. Here is a Plea offered in Writing and in Paper the Court sees what it is and I hope you will give no countenance to it Mr. Pollixfen I do hope my Lord you will not judge this as a frivolous Plea I think our Case is such that you will not do that if you think fit you may over-rule it but I hope you will not refuse it Mr. Soll. Gen. The Court will certainly reject a frivolous Plea and they may do it Mr. Pollixfen But Mr. Solliciter I hope the Court will consider of it whether it be a frivolous Plea or not it is true there has been a Debate about the course of the Court and there has been an Examination of the Clerk of the Office and the Court has gone upon his Certificate but yet still perhaps it may remain in doubt and it being a Question of such a consequence as this it may very well deserve the Court's Consideration there never was a Judicial Settlement of it that I know of yet nor do I know any way of having it satisfactorily setled but by the Judgment of the Court entred upon Record here we offer a Plea that contains the matter in debate and this Plea will appear upon Record and if upon consideration of the Plea your Lordship shall think fit to over-rule it and be of Opinion against the Plea then will you by your Resolution in a Judicial way settle the Question that has hitherto been in Controversy L. C. I. Mr. Pollixfen I would ask you whether the Council have dealt ingeniously with the Court or no in this matter after four hours debate and the Opinion of the Court delivered to come and sum up all the Arguments in such a Plea as this and so put us upon debating it over again Mr. Pollixfen My Lord certainly this has been done before without Offence after we had moved for a thing which was denied upon Motion it is no such great dis-respect to the Court with submission to put the same Matter into a Plea for the Judicial Opinion of the Court. Sir Ro. Sawyer That without all Question has been done a great many times Mr. Sol. Gen. How many times have you been accused of playing Tricks Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Rob. Sawyer Not so many as you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I don't ask it as if I questioned it for I assure you I don't doubt it of your part at all L. C. I. Pray Gentlemen don't fall out with one another at the Bar we have had time enough spent already Mr. Pollixfen Truly My Lord I would not trick with the Court in any
Case nor on the other side would I be wanting to Advise and do for my Client what I am able and lawfully may we have laboured all we could to get time for my Lords the Bishops to Imparle to this Information and we have been the more earnest in it because it concerns us who attends this Bar to take what Care we can that the Course of the Court may be observed but as for this Matter we suppose this Practice of the Court is not in Law a good Practice Now what way in the World has any man to bring this so in question as to have a Judicial Resolution of the Court about it but by such a Plea We take it that it is usual and legal for us to have an Imparlance and a man would Imparle but the Court upon Motion refused to give him an Imparlance Is it not think you very fit for the party to have this Judicially entered upon Record where all this Matter will appear and the party may be relieved by writ of Error if the Judgment of the Court should be wrong but truly I cannot see how the Court can refuse the Plea for if so be a Plea be pleaded they have their liberty to Answer it on the other side by a Replication or else to Demur and the Judgment of the Court may be had upon it one way or other but the Court will never go about to hinder any man from pleading where he may plead by Law here is a Plea put in and the Court sure will take no notice what is the Matter of the Plea till the other party have either replied or demurred the same thing may happen in any other Plea that is pleaded and the party will-be without Remedy upon a writ of Error because the Plea being Rejected there does nothing appear upon Record truly for the Court to reject and refuse this Plea would be as hard as the refusing of the Imparlance and we know no way we have to help our selves Mr. Sol. Gen. You might have entered your Suggestion for an Imparlance upon the Roll and then it would have appeared upon Record and if the Court had unjustly denied it you you would have had the benefit of that Suggestion elsewhere Truly My Lord I think if any thing be tricking this is for it is plainly ill pleading Mr. Finch Then pray demur to it Mr. Sol. Gen. No Sir 't is Fencing with the Court and that the Court won't suffer it is only to delay and if we should demur then there must be time for Arguing and what is the Question after all but whether you would be of the same Opinion to Morrow that you are to Day Sir Rob. Sawyer I would put Mr. Sollicitor in mind of Fitz Harris's Case which he knows very well he put it in a Plea and we for the King desired it might not be received but the Court gave him time to put it into Form and I was fain to joyn in Demurrer presently and so may these Gentlemen do if they please Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes Sir Robert Sawyer I do know the Case of Fitz Harris very well I was assigned of Councel by the Court for him we were four of us and there was a Plea put in but no such Plea as this there was an Indictment of High Treason against him in which Case it is agreed on all hands that the party must answer presently but because he suggested here at the Bar says he I have Matter to plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court and shewed what it was I was Impeached before the Lords in Parliament for Treason for the same Matter of which I am here Accused The Court did give him time to put this into Form and we were assigned his Council to draw it up for him and accordingly we did put that Matter into a Plea that we were here Indicted for one and the same Treason for which we were Impeached in Parliament and that that Impeachment was still depending and so we rested in the Judgment of the Court whether we should be put to Answer it here this was a Plea that carried something of weight in it and not such a trifling one as this It is true Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General did press the Court to over-rule it immediately but it being a matter of some Importance the Court would not do that but had it argued solemnly by Council on both sides and at last there was the Opinion of three Judges against one that the Plea was no good Plea But what is that to such a trifling Plea as this Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord favour me a few words about that Case of Mr. Fitz Harris it is true there was a Plea put in and it is true also that that which brought that Plea to be argued was the Demurrer that was put in by Sir Robert Sawyer who was so zealous and hasty in the matter that because the Court did not presently over-rule the Plea as he desired he immediately Demurred before the rest of the King's Council could offer at any thing about it and thereupon it was put to the Judgment of the Court and no doubt must be argued and spoke to on both sides but where Pleas are really in abuse of the Court the Court never gives any Countenance to them Nay truly I have known another Course taken I am unwilling to mention a Case that hapned much about that time too in this Court because of that regard I have to my Lords the Bishops but Sir Robert Sawyer remembers it very well I am sure it was the Case of one Whitaker who for a thing like this putting in a trifling Plea not only had his Plea rejected but something else was ordered I could shew the Precedent but that I am more tender than to press it in this Case because there the Court ordered an Attachment to go against him but I will put these Gentlemen in mind of another Case and that is the Case of a Peer too it is the Case of my Lord Delameere which they cannot but remember it being in the highest Case a Case of Treason when my Lord Delameere was Arraigned and to be Tryed for High Treason he put in a Plea before my Lord Chancellor who was then High Steward and Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General prayed the Lord Steward and the Peers to reject it and the Court did reject it as we hope the Court will do this and would never so far delay Justice as to admit of a Plea that carried no Colour in it and there was no Demurrer put into the Plea but it was absolutely refused My Lord in this Case we have had the Judgment of the Court already and therefore we must now desire that this Plea may be rejected Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we have now gone out of the way far enough already it is time for us to return and bring the Case into its due methods We pray
better look another way and look towards the Court for there your business lies L. Ch. Iust. Well Mr. Sollicitor What say you Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord it appears plainly that the King is in possession of this Priviledge and has been so for these dozen Years for so long the Justice of the Kingdom towards all the Subjects hath run in all the instances of it in this Channel and tho' it has been contested as often as Mr. Pollixfen has been of Counsel for the Defendant in such Cases it has always been ruled against him he indeed has made his continual Claims Sir Samuel Astry saies he has raised the Dust and made a Hue and Cry but it has always gone against him And I would ask the rest of you Gentlemen that are of Council for my Lords the Bishops for some or one of you I am sure has been concerned in every Information that has been exhibited in this Court for this nine or ten Years last past I would ask you whether in any Information that you have been concerned in if the Party being brought in by Process insisted to have time and an Imparlance it was ever granted him I know you will not say it ever was why then should there be more done in this Case than has been done in all other Cases this ten Years 'T is not sufficient to make Declarations against the unreasonableness of the Practice for it is but what you have done your selves and insisted upon for Law and all those men that upon Informations have been compelled to plead have had Injury done them or else these Lords will have no Injury by the Court 's taking the same Course It is true my Lords the Bishops are Peers and here are Seven of them and Seven Lords go a great way they make a Committee I think in the House of Peers and a mighty matter is made of it that this is the Case of so many Lords But will you alter the Course of the Court because Seven of my Lords the Bishops are concerned in it and they make a mighty stir about the Reasonableness of the thing How can it be believed that the Law will not give a man time to make his Defence They agree themselves that if it were in the Case of Life and Death they must plead presently and doth not the same Reason hold and may not an Argument be drawn à fortiori in the Case of a Misdemeanour If I am not to have time when I plead for my Life there is less Reason I should have time to answer a Trespass But my Lord 't is not Reason that weighs in the Case 't is the Course of the Court which is the Law of the Court that we are contending for and what is there in the Case that should require so much time for my Lords the Bishops to plead to it It is charged in the Information that these Noble Prelates did make a Libel which was produced by them and published in the Kings presence they can easily tell whether thâ—… have done this or not done it what can they plead but the general Issue They talk of special matter to be pleaded but can they shew any more that they can say than what any poor ordinary Countryman if he were here to plead to an Information could say that is whether he was Guilty or not Guilty These Lords can tell whether it be true that they did publish the Paper laid in the Information and then your Lordship will tell them what will be the Consequences of that Publication in point of Law. We say all this was done at Westminster there the Scene is laid and it is not an Information for an old stale thing done a great while ago but a thing that was done yesterday and a thing notorious enough their contesting with the King about his Declaration of Indulgence And as to what Mr. Finch has said That this is a Novel Invention and a Trick to rob a man of his just Defence sure he forgets who it is that taught us the Trick if it be a Trick we have learnt it from those that trick'd before us and what is it that these Lords do desire they would have an Impaâ—… till Michaelmas Term does or can your Lordship think they ask than which is reasonable to have six Months time to plead not Guilty to an Information for a Libel and when so many men have been denyed it formerly upon the instigation of those very Gentlemen that now press so very hard to have it granted sure they must expect to be denyed it too and all this while these Lords lye under this accusation which is not so trivial a matter as some would make it I believe my Lords the Bishops have a desire to be cleared I suppose it is only their Council that desire to delay it upon what ground I know not I believe they themselves would be glad to remove the imputation which would be best done by a Tryal and the sooner the better If they have a mind to justifie themselves this is the readiest course for it and they may do it presently by Pleading Not Guilty My Lord I know I am in a great Auditory and abundance of your Lordships time has been taken up already I press it therefore for the sake of the King and for the sake of my Lords the Bishops we shall else have all â—…ang in suspence and hang in the Air for six Months longer therefore let the matter be put upon a fair Issue so as it may come to a speedy Determination I am sure is these Lords be innocent to day they will be innocent to morrow and if it were my own case I would desire to have it Tryed as speedily as I could and therefore I pray they may plead immediately Mr. I. Powel Mr. Soll. What do you say to the Difference that was taken between a person that was brought in Custody at the first instance where there is no contempt to the Process of the Court and one that comes in here by Capias upon default of appearing at the Summons Mr. Finch My Lord If I apprehend them aright they give us more than we did ask for Mr. Sollicitor has laid it down as a Rule that if a Man is taken upon a Capias in a Mean Process he shall have no Imparlance Mr. Soll. Gen. No you are greatly mistaken Sir and I pray don't lay down Rules for me Mr. Finch If I am Sir I beg your pardon but this I am sure of if a Venire Fac. goes out which is in the nature of a Subpoena and the party appear to it that being the first time he could come into Court you cannot force him to plead to an Information but he has an Imparlance of Course Mr. I. Powell Methinks it seems very reasonable that this forcing a Man to plead presently should be only a punishment for a Contempt of the Court and pray were my Lords the Bishops in contempt to
the Court when they came here to day Certainly they were not for no man is in contempt but he that being served with Process disobeys that Process and if my Lords the Bishops had been served with a Subpoena and had not appeared then there would have gone out a Capias to bring them in and so they would have come in upon a Contempt and then they would have come within the Rule Mr. Soll. Gen. If you have a mind to it you may ask Sir Samuel Astry again Mr. Att. Gen. If they come in upon Bail they ought to plead presently Mr. I. Allybone Mr. Finch I 'le tell you what sticks with me truly you could not but be aware that this would be required of you for this very thing was in debate last Term and you know what Rules the Officer said was the Course of the Court why did you not therefore come prepared with some Presidents to shew us what the course of the Court is Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord at this rate we shall keep your Lordship here all this Afternoon if these Gentlemen will not be satisfyed with the Rule of the Court and for an Answer to what Mr. Justice Powel says if any Ryotbâ—… committed in the Countrey and the Parties are bound by Recognizance to appear here that is no process of this Court and so consequently there can be no contempt and yet they must Plead presently Mr. I. Powell There is a particular reason for that because they are bound by Recognizance Sir Samuel Astry and others say that if they come in by Recognizance they must plead presently Mr. Soll. Gen. But for the thing it self that the people that hear us may not imagine that this Court puts a hardship upon my Lords the Bishops more than is done in other Cases it is best to keep the same Rule as is in all other Cases for when all is done when Justice goes with an Equal Current without any regard to one person or other then every body is safe and all persons concerned do their duty so in this case here be no Presidents produced wherein it has been otherwise then can no person complain but that things go in this Case as they do in all other Cases perhaps such a Case as to the Fact of it never hapned before but for the Law of it that is plain and the same as in all other Cases for that there may be an Information against my Lords the Bishops as well as other people If they make Libels sure it is no doubt at all and if an Information lies against them for it they are under the same Rules as others are but these Gentlemen talk of being surprized and that this is the first time they have heard of this Information but have we told any news in this Information Was not all that is contained in it notoriously enough known before Was not the Kings first Declaration very well known Was not his second Declaration very well known Was not his Order of Councel for the Reading of the Declaration very well known Is not your own Petition a thing very well known to yourselves and all the world Then these being the particular Facts of which this Information is made up and we only say you did do this Fact and we ask you did you do it or did you not Can there be any great surprize in this My Lord I cannot see any thing that alters this from the common Case but only their being Peers and since this question has been heretofore under contest these Gentlemen have had time enough to have prepared Precedents to differ this from the common Rule if they could but since they cannot we desire they may have the same Rule that is in all other Cases and then to be sure all will go right L. C. I. Sir Samuel Astry pray will you tell us whether ever the Court used to grant an Imparlance where a person comes in in Custody or did you ever know when a person comes in upon a Commitment time was given him to Plead Mr. Ser. Pemberton Have you ever known it disputed and denyed Sir S. Astry My Lord I have known that 't is in the discretion of the Court to grant what time they please L. C. I. Is it the course of the Court to give an Imparlance Sir S. Astry No 't is the favour of the Court and if the Defendants have at any time shewed a reasonable Cause that they have special Matter to plead or any other cause allowed by the Court the Court has sometimes Indulged them so far as to give them time L. C. I. But how is the ordinary course Sir Samuel Astry Mr. I. Allybone Ay for as I said before things done in particular Cases in favour are not Precedents Sir S. Astry I have told your Lordship the Course is this that any person that appears upon a Recognizance or is taken up by your Lordships Warrant or by a Warrant from a Justice of Peace or any other way in Custody or any Officer of the Court that is a Priviledged person and that must appear in propria personâ must plead presently if the Court upon particular Reasons do not give him time and this I received Information of as the practice of the Court from Mr. Waterhouse who had been a Clerk in the Office sixty years Mr. Soll. Gen. He said so before but these Gentlemen will never be contented unless they have a new Law made for them Mr. Pollixfen My Lord I would not unnecessarily trouble your Lordship but truly this is a case of great Concern And first of all I think we shall all agree that what has been used for ten or twelve years past will not make the Course of the Court and next I perceive they do not bring any one Instance for any proceeding of this sort above ten or twelve years old but then say they on the other side Why do not you bring Presidents that it has gone otherwise hretofore My Lord that cannot be done for it is a Negative on our side that this which they desire is not the Course of the Court but then as it is impossible to prove a Negative so the Proofs should come on the other side that this has been done they ought to shew it if there has been any such thing as a standing Rule or else it shall be presumed an Innovation as being contrary to all Reason But My Lord because they put it upon us there is this Proof on our side as much as a Negative can afford In those proceedings that were in the great Case of the Habeas Corpus there was an Information against Elliot and others they had time given them to Plead over and over so that there is one Precedent And as many as these Cases in former times as can be found will show that this was always the Course but pray say they produce us one Instance that ever there was a man that came in upon a
some slight Answer but then here are these two persons Mr. Harcourt and Mr. Sillyard and the one has been a Clerk these sixteen or seventeen years and the other has known the Office thirty years though there were not heretofore so many Informations of this Nature and Kind as now of late but still they say that a person that comes in upon a Commitment or a Recognizance shall never have any Imparlance Mr. Sol. Gen. Can they give any one Instance that has any the least shaddow to the contrary Mr. Pollixfen My Lord if we had time we hope we should be able to satisfie you in this Matter Mr. Sol. Gen. You have had time enough to prepare your selves for this Question if you had thought you could do any good in it L. C. I. Would the Course of the Court be otherwise to Morrow then it is to Day we have taken all the Care we can to be satisfied in this Matter and we will take care that the Lords the Bishops shall have all Justice done them nay they shall have all the Favour by my consent that can be shewn them without doing wrong to my Master the King but truly I cannot depart from the Course of the Court in this Matter if the King's Council press it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we must pray your Judgment in it and your Direction that they may plead L. C. I. Truly I think they must Plead to the Information Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Samuel Astry pray ask My Lords whether they be Guilty or Not Guilty Then his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury stood up and offered a Paper to the Court. Archbish. of Cant. My Lord I tender here a short Plea a very short one on behalf of my self and my Brethren the other Defendants and I humbly desire the Court will admit of this Plea. L. C. I. If it please your Grace it should have been in Parchment Mr. Sol. Gen. What is that my Lord offers to the Court L. C. I. We will see what it is presently Mr. Sollicitor Bish. of Peter I pray My Lord that the Plea may be Read. M. Sol. Gen. But not received Mr. Att. Gen. No we desire to know what it is first Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Attorney if they will Plead the Court sure is obliged to receive it L. C. I. If it is a Plea your Grace will stand by it L. Archbish. of Cant. We will all stand by it my Lord it is subscribed by our Council and we pray it may be admitted by the Court. Mr. S. Pemb. I hope the Court will not deny to receive a special Plea if we offer one L. C. I. Brother let us hear what it is Mr. Sol. Gen. Read it if you please but not receive it Clerk Reads the Plea which in English is thus The BISHOPS PLEA AND the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely John Bishop of Chicester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Jonathan Bishop of Bristol being present here in Court in their own Persons pray Oyer of the Information aforesaid and it is Read to them which being Read and heard by them the said Archbishop and Bishops The said Archbishop and Bishops say that they are Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament and each of them is one of the Peers of this Kingdom of England and a Lord of the Parliament and that they being as before is manifest Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament ought not to be compelled to answer instantly for the Misdemeanour aforesaid mentioned in the said Information exhibited here against them in this Court but they ought to be required to appear by due Process in Law issuing out of this Court hâ—…e upon the Information aforesaid and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the said Information exhibited against them and reasonable time to imparl thereupon and to advise with Council Learned in the Law concerning their Defence in that behalf before they be compelled to answer the said Information Whereupon for that the said Archbishop and Bishops were Imprisoned and by Writ of our Lord the King of Habeas Corpus directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower of London are now brought here in Custody without any Process upon the Information aforesaid issued against them and without having any Copy of the said Information or any time given them to imparl or be advised They pray Judgment and the Priviledge of Peers of this Kingdom in this Case to be allowed them and that They the said Archbishop and Bishops may not be compelled instantly to answer the Information aforesaid c. Rob. Sawyer Hen. Finch Hen. Pollixfen Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord with your Lordship's favour this in an ordinary Person 's Case would perhaps be thought not fair dealing or that which it being in the Case of these Reverend Prelates I shall not now name to make all this Debate and Stir in a Point of this nature to take the Judgment of the Court after three or four hours arguing and when the Opinion of the Court has been delivered then to put in a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court Sir Rob. Sawyer It is no such Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. It is so in effect but certainly it is such an Irregularity and such an unfair way of Proceeding as would not be endured in an ordinary Case and I hope you will give so little countenance to it as to reject it and make them Plead according to the usual course and way of proceedings certainly a Plea of this nature after so long an Argument would be reckoned nothing but a trick Mr. Serj. Pemb. We hope the Court and you are not of one mind Mr. Attorney in this matter we desire the Court to receive the Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. With submission the Court is not bound to receive Pleas that are put in purely for delay as this is for the Judgment of the Court has been already given in the very matter of this Plea and for rejecting a Plea it is done every day if a Man puts in a mere trifling dilatory Plea the Court may reject it Does this Plea contain any thing in it but what has been argued and debated pro con and setled by the Court already If they will put in any Plea in chief they may but such a Plea as this I hope shall not have so much countenance as to be receiv'd by the Court. Mr. Pollixfen Do you Demur to it if you please Mr. Attorney we will joyn in Demurrer with you Mr. Att. Gen. No there will be no need of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Surely the Court will never give so much Countenance to it as to receive it Mr. Finch If you will please either to Reply or Demur Mr. Sollicitor we are here to maintain the Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. If you were here you would say the same thing that we do My Lord this Plea is That
say it shall be this day fortnight and let there be a Jury according to the usual course Sir Rob. Sawyer We pray it may be in the presence of the Attorneys or Sollicitors on both sides L. C. I. What is the usual coâ—…se Sir Samuel Astry Do you use to return twenty four or forty eight and then strike out twelve a piece which I perceive they desire for the Defendants Sir Sam. Astry My Lord the course is both ways and then it may be as your Lordship and the Court will please to order it L. C. I. Then take forty eight that is the fairest Mr. Att. Gen. We agree to it we desire nothing but a fair Jury Sir Rob. Sawyer Nor we neither try it when you will. L. C. I. Take a Recognizance of his Grace my Lord of Canterbury in 200 l. and the rest of my Lords in 100 l. a piece Mr. Att. Gen. What your Lordship pleases for that we submit to it Clerk. My Lord of Canterbury your Grace acknowledges to owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King the sum of 200 l. upon condition that your Grace shall appear in this Court on this day fortnight and so from day to day till you shall be discharged by the Court and not to depart without leave of the Court. Is your Grace contented A. B. C. I do acknowledge it Clerk. My Lord Bishop of St. Asaph you acknowledge to owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King the sum of 100 l. upon condition that your Lordship shall appear in this Court on this day fortnight and so from day to day until you shall be discharged by the Court and not to depart without leave of the Court. Is your Lordship contented Bish. of St. Asaph I do acknowledge it The like Recognizances were taken of all the rest of the Bishops and then the Court arose De Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Jacobi Secandi Regis Quarto In Banco Regis Die Veneris vicesimo nono die Junii 1688. in eod ' Term. Being the Feast of St. PETER and St. PAUL Dominus Rex versus Archiep. Cantuar. al. Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice Mr. Justice Holloway Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Allybone Judges Clerk. CRyer make Proclamation thrice Cryer Oyes Oyes Oyes Our Sovereign Lord the King streightly charges and commands every one to keep silence upon pain of Imprisonment Cl. of the Cr. Call the Defendents Cryer William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Archbish. Here. Cryer William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Bish. St. Asaph Here. And so the rest of the Bishops were called and answered severally Clerk. Gardez votres Challenges Swear Sir Roger Langley Cryer Take the Book Sir Roger. You shall well and truly try this Issue between our Sovereign Lord the King and William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and others according to your Evidence So help you God. The same Oath was administred to all the Jury whose Names follow viz. Sir Roger Langley Barr. Sir William Hill Knt. Roger Iennings Esq Thomas Harriot Esq Ieoffery Nightingale Esq William Withers Esq William Avery Esq Thomas Austin Esq Nicholas Grice Esq Michael Arnold Esq Thomas Done Esq Richard Shoreditch Esq Clerk. You Gentlemen of the Jury who are sworn hearken to the Record Sir Thomas Powis Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General has exhibited an Information which does set forth as followeth ff MEmorandum That Sir Thomas Powys Knt. Attorney-General of our Lord the King who for our said Lord the King in this behalf prosecutes came here in his own person into the Court of our said Lord the King before the King himself at Westminster on Friday next after the morrow of the Holy Trinity in this Term and on the behalf of our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That our said Lord the King out of his signal Clemency and gracious intention towards his Subjects of his Kingdom of England by his Royal Prerogative on the fourth day of April in the third year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster in the Country of Middlesex did publish his Royal Declaration entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience bearing date the same day and year sealed with the Great Seal of England in which Declaration is contained JAMES R. proâ—…t in the first Declaration before recited And the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King further giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That afterwards to wit on the twenty-seventh day of April in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid our-said Lord the King out of his like Clemency and gracious intention towards his Subjects of his Kingdom of England by his Royal Prerogative did publish his other Royal Declaration entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration bearing date the same day and year last mentioned sealed with his Great Seal of England in which Declaration is contained JAMES R. Our Conduct has been such c. prout in the second Declaration before recited Which said Royal Declaration of our said Lord the King last mentioned our said Lord the King afterwards to wit on the thirtieth day of April in the fourth year of his Reign aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid did cause to be printed and published throughout all England and for the more solemn Declaring Notification and Manifestation of his Royal Grace Favour and Bounty towards all his Leige-people specified in the Declaration last mentioned afterwards to wit on the fourth day of May in the fourth year of his Reign at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid our said Lord the King in due manner did Order as followeth At the Court at Whitehall the Fourth of May 1688. By the King 's most Excellent Majesty and the Lords of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council IT is this day Ordered by His Majesty in Council That His Majesties late Gracious Declaration bearing date the Twenty Seventh of April last be read at the usual time of Divine Service upon the Twentieth and Twenty Seventh of this Month in all Churches and Chappels within the Cities of London and Westminster and Ten Miles thereabout And upon the Third and Tenth of Iune next in all other Churches and Chappels throughout this Kingdom And it is hereby further Ordered That the Right Reverend the Bishops cause the said Declaration to be sent and distributed throughout their several and respective Diocesses to be read accordingly W m. Bridgeman And further the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That after the making of the said Order to wit on the eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex
Chancellor used Mr. S. Levinz Pray do not twist a man so Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. And you are not to untwist a man neither Mr. Serjeant Mr. Att. Gen. Do you remember that the King said any thing of the paper being delivered to him Mr. Blathwait The King has said it several times I believe I have heard him say it ten times at least Mr. Att. Gen. Did he say it at that time Mr. Blathwait I cannot positively say that he did Sir. Mr. S. Pemb. He cannot answer it why will you press it Mr. Blathwait My Lord here is the Clerk of the Counsel that was then in waiting he took minutes and perhaps can remember more than I. Mr. Sol. Gen. Here they cry he cannot answer it as if they could tell what he can answer better than himself pray Mr. Bridgman was there any question to this purpose either from my Lord Chancellor or from the King whether that was the Paper that was presented by my Lords the Bishops or delivered by the King for I see you are very nice as to words and you do very well but was there not a question to that purpose Mr. Bridgm. Sir I do not remember for I speak to the best of my remembrance in all this matter I say I do not remember that that question was asked in those very words but I do remember something was said to that purpose but by whom I cannot particularly say Sir Rob. Sawyer To what purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. It is very strange that they wont let the witness speak but are continually interrupting him Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Solicitor no body interrupts him L. C. I. Why do not I behave my self between you all as I ought to do pray Sir Rob. Sawyer sit down you cannot be contented when the man does you no harm Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray consider did my Lords the Bishops say any thing or was there any discourse concerning the Paper whether it was delivered to the King or no Mr. Bridgm. Mr. Solicitor I have told you as near as I can what I do remember I know not by whom it was said but that question or to that purpose was asked whether that was the Petition they delivered but I do not remember whether the question was directly asked or answered there was something about it and several passages there were but whether spoken by my Lord Chancellor or who I cannot remember Mr. Sol. Gen. You say there was that which sufficiently denoted a question to that purpose and they said nothing against it Mr. Bridgm. No there was no denial of it Mr. S. G. I see you do not remember the particular words nor do we desire it of you Mr. Bridgm. They did not deny it nor confess it Mr. Sol. Gen. Then in your apprehension did they own that they delivered that Paper to the King L. C. I. You must not ask that Mr. Solicitor it is not a fair question to ask him what he apprehended Mr. Sol. Gen. He said it before himself L. C. I. But his apprehensions are no Evidence and it is a sort of a leading question which we must not allow of Mr. Sol. Gen. Then if your Lordship do not like it I will not ask it but I will ask him another question L. C. I. Ay ten if you will so they be fair ones Mr. Sol. Gen. Was it upon the first or second time of their being examined Mr. Bridgm. I cannot tell it was not the first time all of it I believe for at the first time my Lords the Bishops made some scruple of answering or owning any thing and whatsoever they owned they said they hoped it should not be made use of to their prejudice I remember no reply that was made nor any thing farther onely my Lord Chancellor said they were not to capitulate with their Prince but they were required to answer the questions that were asked them Mr. Sol. Gen. What were those questions Mr. Bridgm. I have told you already as well as I can remember Mr. Sol. Gen. But did you take it upon the main that they owned the delivery of that paper to the King Mr. Iust. Pow. Mr. Solicitor you have been told you are to ask no such questions S. R. Saw. Nor never was there such wire-drawing of a Witness in this world before L. Ch. Iust. Pray sit still Sir Rob. Sawyer you are not to teach us what we are to do Mr. Solicitor must ask questions that are proper for him and not such as these but the Court must correct him and not you Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Bridgman is very cautious and he is to be commended for it but we would get the truth out of him if we could pray Sir if you can remember recollect your self whether by any question to that purpose it was believed that they did own the delivery of the paper to the King. Mr. Bridgm. I told you Mr. Solicitor as to that at first that I do not remember the very words of the question but I believe there was no body doubted that that was not the paper Mr. Sol. Gen. You speak well in your way but these Gentlemen are very unwilling you should tell your opinion L. Ch. Iust. His opinion is no Evidence therefore you must not ask any such questions Mr. Solicitor Mr. Bridgm. Assoon as the Petition was delivered within a few hours after I saw it the King shewed it to several people and he said it was the Petition the Bishops had delivered he took it into his own custody and afterwards commanded me to write a Copy of it and there was no Copy made of it but that one but notwithstanding that I do remember I did see a Copy of the Petition within a day or two after it was presented about the Town Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray how many days was this before the discourse in Counsel upon their Examination Mr. Bridgm. How many days was what Sir Mr. Sol. Gen. When the King gave the paper to be copied Mr. Bridgm. It was upon the Sunday Mr. Sol. Gen. But you say as you believe it was in a few hours after the paper was delivered to the King that you did see it Mr. Iust. Powel But what makes him say that this was delivered to the King but only hear-say Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Mr. Solicitor will you produce that which is Evidence and not spend our time in that which is not Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I would make no more of it than it is Mr. S Levinz 'T is a shamefull thing to offer such things in a Court of Justice Mr. S. Pemberton 'T is a practice that ought not to be endured Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Brothers be quiet or I 'le turn him loose upon you again if you 'l not be quiet what is the matter cannot you let us alone we shall do every body right come to shorten this matter I ask you but this one question and that may satisfie any one that has honesty about him do you
follow the Nature of the Fact that I need not insist upon it if the Act be unlawful the Law supplies the Malice and evil Intentions Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this Case for the King and I shall take leave to proceed in this Method First I shall put the Case of my Lords the Bishops and then consider the Arguments that have been used in their Defence and answer them as much as is material to be answered and then leave it to your Lordship and the Juries Consideration whether what has been said by these Gentlemen weigh any thing in this Case First my Lord I take it for granted and I think the Matter is pretty plain by this time by my Lord Presidents Evidence and their own Confession that it is not to be disputed but that this Paper was presented by these Lords to the King I think there is no great difficulty in that Matter at all but I just touch upon it because I would follow them in their own Method Then my Lord let us take this Case as it is upon the Nature of the Petition and the Evidence that they have given and then let us see whether that will justifie the thing that is done For the business of Petitioning I would distinguish and enquire Whether my Lords the Bishops out of Parliament can present any Petition to the King I do agree that in Parliament the Lords and Commons may make Addresses to the King and signifie their Desires and make known their Grievances there and there is no doubt but that is a natural and proper way of Application For in the beginning of the Parliament there are Receivers of Petitions appointed and upon Debates there are Committees appointed to draw up Petitions and Addresses but to come and deduce an Argument that because the Lords in Parliament have done thus there being such Methods of Proceedings usual in Parliaments therefore my Lords the Bishops may do it out of Parliament that is certainly a Non sequitur no such Conclusion can be drawn from those Premises My Lord I shall endeavour to lay the Fact before you as it really is and then Consider what is proper for the Court to take notice of as Legal Proof or Evidence And I take it all those Presidents that they have produced of what the Lords did and what the Commons did in Parliament is no Warrant for them to shelter themselves under against the Information here in Question Here Mr. Iust. Powel spake aside to the Lord Chief Iustice thus Mr. Iust. Powel My Lord this is strange Doctrine shall not the Subject have Liberty to Petition the King but in Parliament If that be Law the Subject is in a miserable Case Ld. Ch. Iust. Brother let him go on we will hear him out tho' I approve not of his Position Mr. Solicit General The Lords may Address to the King in Parliament and the Commons may do it but therefore that the Bishops may do it out of Parliament does not follow I heard nothing said that could have given Colour to such a thing but the Curse that has been read in 1 Elizabeth But pray my Lord let us consider that Evidence they have given they have begun with that Record in Richard the Seconds time and what is that That the King may dispeâ—…se with the Statute of Provisors till the meeting of the next Parliament and a Protestation of the Commons at the end of it whether that be an Act of Parliament that is Declaratory of the Common Law or Introductory of a new Law Non Constat and for ought appears it might be a Declaratory Act And if so it is a Proof of the Kings Prerogative of Dispensing It might be an Act in Affirmance of the Kings Prerogative as there are a great many such we very well know and generally most of the Laws in that kind are in Affirmance of the Kings power so that the Law turns as an Argument for the King Prerogative and they have given him that which will turn upon themselves so it stood in Richard the Seconds time but whether that be an Argument one way or other Conclusive is lest to your Lordship and the Jury Ay but say they there is no Execution of such a Power till very lately and the first Instance that they produce is that in the Year 1662. But your Lordship knows that before the Râ—…ign of Henry the Fourth there was great Jurisdiction assumed by the Lords in Original Causes then comes the Statute of Appeals 1 Hen. 4. which takes notice that before that time the Lords had assumed an Original Jurisdiction in all Causes and would proceed and determine them in Parliament and out of Parliament and it fell out to be so great a Grievance that it was thought necessary to make a Law against it that Appeals in Parliament should be abolished and destroyed and then comes that Law in favour of the Subject of England and that settles the bounds between the King and the Lords in a great measure before that time the Lords were grown very powerful and where there is a Power there always will be Applications and what is the effect of that Statute 1 Hen. 4. for all that we endeavour is to make things as plain can be that no further Applications no Accusations no Proceedings in any Case whatsoever be before the Lords in Parliament unless it be by Impeachment of the Commons so that there is the Salvo and the use that I make of it is this The Commons by that very Statute did abolish the Power that the Lords had arrogated to themselves and Ordered that they should not meddle with any Cause but upon the Impeachment of the House of Commons and establish the Impeachment of the Commons which is as ancient as the Parliament for that was never yet spoken against the Power of the Commons Impeaching any Person under the degree of the Prince and that is the regular legal way and so the Commons asserted their Ancient Right and whatsoever the Lords took notice of must come by Application of the Commons then Conferences were to pass between the Houses and both Houses by Address apply to the King this is the proper way and course of Parliament of which thy Lord Cook says It is known to few and practised by fewer but it is a Venareble Honourable way and this is the Course that should have been taken by my Lords here and they should have stayed till the Complaint had come from the Commons in Parliament and then it had been Regular for them to Address to the King but they were too Quick too Nimble And whereas the Statute of Hen. 4. says That no Lord whatsoever shall intermeddle with any Cause but by the Impeachment of the Commons they interpose and give their advice before their time if there be any Irregularity in Parliament or out of Parliament the Commons are to make their Complaint of it
they are not Evidence L. Ch. Iust. No I don't intend they shall Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we pray they may have the whole Petition Mr. Iust. Holloway That is with the Direction and Prayer you mean. Mr. Attorn Gen. Yes with all our Hearts Then the Court arose and the Iury went together to Consider of their Verdict and stayed together all Night without Fire or Candle On Saturday the 30th Day of June Anno Dom. 1688. about Ten of the Clock in the Morning the Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops came again into the Court and immediately after the Iury were brought to the Bar. Sir Sam. Astry Cryer Take the Appearance of the Jury Sir Roger Langley Sir Rog. Langley Here. Cryer Vous avez c. And so all the rest were called and answered Then Proclamation for Silence was made Sir. Sam. Astry Gentlemen are you agreed on your Verdict Iury. Yes Sir Sam. Astry Who shall say for you Iury. Foreman Sir Sam. Astry Do you find the Defendants or any of them Guilty of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached or not Guilty Foreman NOT GUILTY Sir Sam. Astry Then hearken to your Verdict as the Court hath Recorded it You say the Defendants and every of them are NOT GUILTY of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached and so you say all Iury. Yes At which there were several great Shouts in the Court and throughout the Hall. Mr. Sollicitor General taking Notice of some Persons in Court that Shouted moved very earnestly that they might be committed whereupon a Gentleman of Grays Inn was laid hold on but was soon after Discharged And after the Shouting was over the Lord Chief Iustice reproving the Gentleman said L. Ch. Iust. Sir I am as glad as you can be that my Lords the Bishops are acquitted but your Manner of rejoycing here in Court is Indecent you might rejoyce in your Chamber or elsewhere and not here Then speaking to Mr. Attorney he said Have you any thing more to say to my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attorney Mr. Attorn Gen. No my Lord. Then the Court arose and the Bishops went away FINIS ADVERTISEMENT There will be shortly Published Poems on several Occasions By Charles Cotton Esq Printed for T. Basset W. Hensman and T. Fox Here the Lord Chief Justice speaking aside said L. C. Just. I must not suffer this they intend to dispute the King's Power of suspending Laws Mr. Just. Powel My Lord they must necessarily fall upon that Point for if the King hath no such Power as clearly 〈◊〉 hath not in my Iudgment the natural Consequence will be that this Petition is no diminution of the King 's Regal Power and so not seditious or libellous L. C. Just. Brother I know you are full of that Doctrine but however my Lords the Bishops shall have no occasion to say that I deny to hear their Counsel Brother you shall have your Will for once I will hear them let them talk till they are weary Mr. Just. Powel I desire no greater liberty to be granted them than what in Iustice the Court ought to grant that is to hear them in defence of their Clients * Here Mr. Iust. Powel speaking to the Lord Chief Iustice Mr. I. Pow. My Lord this is wide Mr. Sollicitor would impose upon us let him make out if he can that the King has such a Power and Answer the Objections made by the Defendants Councel L. Ch. Iust. Brother impose upon us he shall not impose upon me I know not what he may upon you for my part I do not believe one word he sayâ—… * Here there was a great Hissing
go a great way with the Court. Sir Ro. Sawyer Such a practice as this has been always very rare in Informations for Misdemeanours and they bring you nothing of any President older then Sir Samuel Astry's time Mr. Finch Pray My Lord give me leave to very the Question I do not now make it a Question whether your Lordships should grant My Lords the Bishops an Imparlance but whether you would think fit to look into the Course of the Court before that time that Sir Samuel Astry speakâ—… of and take time to consider and search into Presidents Mr. I. Allybone Do you Mr. Finch give us any one Reason or President that may make us doubt whether this be the Course of the Court or no à And you could not but be aware of this before and therefore should have come prepared to make out your Objection Mr. Finch Mr. Pollixfen and the rest of the Practicers in My Lord Hales's time will tell you that the Course was otherwise in his time Sir Samuel Astry indeed tells you it has been so since his time but this was one of the Points it seems that he was ignorant of which made him inquire of Mr. Waterhouse so doubtful was this Practice Sir Samuel Astry I was an Attender upon this Court before I came into this Office but it was in another place on the other side of the Court and therefore was not concerned so much to know what was the Course on this side till I came into this Office. Mr. Sol. Gen. These Gentlemen differ among themselves one would have an Imparlance the other only time to plead I believe truly they cannot tell well what they would have I pray the Rules of the Court may be kept to Sir Sam. Astry Here are two Clerks that sit by me that have been a long time in the Office Mr. Harcourt my Secondary and the Clerk of the Rules I pray they may be asked their knowledge of this matter Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly these Gentlemen think they have a Priviledge above all other people that they must not be subject to the same Rules as others are we on our 〈◊〉 have taken all the Methods that we could to make this matter manifest and what is it that these Gentlemen now propose They pray you to take time to consider but have they used the right means of creating a jealousie or suspicion in the Court that the Course is otherwise they can give no instance of it and all they say is 't is a Negative that this is not the Course of the Court but the Imparlance that they beg is in the Affirmative surely that they can find proof of if it be so As for my Lord Holly's Case that is with us and not against us let Mr. Pollixfen shew that ever any one of the Men that were brought into Court in Custody either had time to Plead or an Imparlance L. C. I. Sir Samuel Astry says he has given you his Opinion and here are two other Clerks of the Office that he refers himself to are you willing that they should be asked Mr. Ser. Pemberton Yes my Lord with all our hearts L. C. I. Mr. Harcourt How long have you been a Clerk in the Crown-Office Mr. Harcourt About seventeen or eighteen years my Lord. L. C. I. How long have you known the practice of the Court in this matter and what is it Mr. Harcourt I cannot charge my self so with Particulars from the time of my coming into the Office but for these ten or twelve years past I remember it has been as the King's Council pressed and as Sir Samuel Astry has declared L. C. I. What say you Mr. Sillyard How long have you known the Crown-Office Mr. Sillyard I have been a Clerk here about thirty years L. C. I. Well and how has the practice been all your time Mr. Sillyard I have not sat here as Clerk of the Rules but a little while but since I have sat here I have always observed it to be the Practice that one that comes in Custody should Plead immediately it was a thing heretofore that did not so often happen asit hath done here of late therefore I cannot so well speak to it but it hath fallen out frequently within some years last past and that hath been the constant Course Sir. Samuel Astry When you first came to be Attorney General Sir Robert Sawyer I am sure it was so Mr. Att. Gen. Pray let me ask you Mr. Sillyard you say you have known the Office thirty years When you first came to the Office were Informatitions as frequent as they are now and have been of late Mr. Sol. Gen. It was so in the Case of Mr. Hampden when you were Attorney General Sir Robert Sawyer he was forced to Plead immediately to an Indictment for a Crime that perhaps you will say was near upon Treason Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes truly it wanted but one Witness that was all Mr. Sol. Gen. But yet the Indictment was only for a Misdemeanour and there we strugled and debated the Matter but were forced to give it over because the course of the Court was against us so it has been by the unquestionable Testimony of Sir Samuel Astry for these twelve years last past and in those twelve years we have had many changes perhaps there may have been twelve Chief Justices and they have all affirmed it and if I then make it out that in all these Judges times that are within our Remembrance it has gone thus then there are enough of Precedents in the Matter Sir Rob. Sawyer But my Lord I desire to know whether that were the Ancient Course Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. They that make the Objection ought to prove it but I will name Sir Robert Sawyer another Case and that is the Case of Sir Samuel Barnardiston which was the Case of a Libel too he was forced to plead immediately and it cost him 10000 l. Fine L. C. I. Well Gentlemen have you done on either side Mr. S. Pemberton If your Lordship will please to give us time till to morrow Morning we will come hither by Rule of Court and bring you some Certificates and Assidavits or else some Precedents that we hope will satisfie your Lordship in this Matter L. C. I. No Brother we cannot do that the Question is what the Course of the Court is we have had an Account of that from Sir Samuel Astry for twelve years of his own Knowledge and from Mr. Waterhouse by him for sixty years but for Mr. Waterhouse they except against him and say he was a person that was always Lazy and did not foâ—…well understand his business and now is superannuated that is said but is but â—…is dictum perhaps it may be so perhaps not and they have offered to Examine Mr. Ince about some Opinion that he has had from this Mr. Waterhouse it may be he may have asked him some Question that may lead to it and he may have given
spoke Brother Pemberton and I would willingly hear you what you have to say but we must not have vying and revying for then we shall have no end Mr. Serj. Levinz I would offer your Lordship some new matter which has not been touched upon yet why it is not to be Read. L. C. I. What 's that Brother Mr. Serj. Levinz All the proof that has been given whatsoever it amounts to has been only of its being Written but no proof has been given of its being Written in the County of Middlesex where the Information is laid and the matter is Local Mr. Sol. Gen. First Read it and then make your Objection Mr. Recorder My Lord as to the Evidence that has been given I would only put your Lordship in mind of one Case and that was the Case of Sir Samuel Barnardiston and the great Evidence there was the proof of its being his Hand-writing and that being proved was sufficient to Convict him of a Libel for they could not believe Sir Samuel Barnardiston was Guilty of making Libels unless they were proved to be his Hand-writing Sir Robert Sawyer He owned them to be his Hand-writing L. C. I. If you do expect my Opinion in it whether this be good Evidence and whether this Paper be proved or no I am ready to give it Mr. Finch My Lord I desire to be heard before the Opinion of the Court be given Mr. Sol. Gen. If there be not proof enough to induce the Jury to believe this is their Paper yet sure there is enough to Read it Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord we have not been heard to this yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Why is this fit to be suffered L. C. I. Mr. Sol. I am always willing to hear Mr. Finch Mr. Sol. Gen. But I hope your Lordship and the Court are not to be Complemented into an unusual thing Mr. Serj. Pemberton It is not a Complement but Right and Justice Mr. Sol. Gen. Certainly it is Right and Justice that there should be some limits put to Men's speaking that we may know when to have an end Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Sollicitor does mistake the right my Lord for we desire to be heard to this Point as not having spoke to it yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir let me make my Objection to your being heard for I believe you and I have been chid several times for speaking over and over the same thing Sir R. Sawyer This that we now offer iâ—… not to the same Point that we have spoken to already Mr. Sol. Gen. We are now speaking to the Reading of the Paper and you have spoken to it already Sir R. Sawyer If the Court will please to hear us we have that to offer against the Reading of that Paper which has not been offered yet L. C. I. Sir Robert Sawyer I take it it is in the Breast of the Court â—…o heâ—… when they will and as much as they will and whom they will for if Three or Four have been heard of a side to speak what they will the Court may very well depend upon the Learning of those Three or Four that they say what can be said upon the Point and that 's enough but if Six or Seven desire to be heard over and over to the same thing certainly the Court may stop at Three or Four if they will. Sir R. Sawyer This is a new Objection that none of us have been heard to yet Mr. Finch My Lord that which I offer is not contrary to the Rules of Law nor contrary to the Practice of the Court nor was I going any way to invade that Priviledge which Mr. Sollicitor claims of making Objections and not receiving an Answer Mr. Sol. Gen. What a fine Declamation you have now made I never claimed any such right but I oppose your being heard over and over to the same thing Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord let 's come to some Issue in this matter L. C. I. I will hear you but I would not have you introduce it with a reflection upon the King's Council Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord if you impose that upon him you stop his Mouth for some Men cannot speak without reflection L. C. I. On the other side pray Mr. Sollicitor give us leave to hear fairly what they have to say for I perceive he cannot offer to speak but you presently stop his Mouth Mr. Finch My Lord that which I was going to say is another matter than any thing that has been yet offered We say that this Paper ought not to be Read for that they are obliged by Law to prove their Information and consequently having laid a particular place where the thing was done in the Information they ought to prove that this was done in that place The Evidence that they have given is of my Lords the Bishops Writing this Paper and they have laid it to be done in Middlesex and this with submission to your Lordship is local and they must prove it to be Written in Middlesex where they have laid it or else they fail in their proof This is another Objection which as yet hath not been spoken to That if there be a proof of their Hand-writing yet there is no proof where that Hand was Written and therefore they are not yet got so far as to have it Read against my Lords Mr. Att. Gen. For that Point my Lord we say This would have been as properly said after the Paper had been Read when they come to make Objections against our Proof by way of Defence and with submission it had been more proper then than it is now For what are we now doing My Lord we are Proving that such a Paper was Subscribed by my Lords the Bishops and Sir Iohn Nicholas gives you an Account that he had it from his Majesty at the Council and that certainly is in the County of Middlesex and iâ—… will concern you to Prove that it was Written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's very well Mr. Attorney sure you do not think as you speak Mr. Att. Gen. Here is a Paper Composed and Written by you that Sir Iohn Nicholas says he had from his Majesty how he came by it I suppose you will tell us by and by this is your Hand-writing that I think we have proved sufficiently this is found in the County of Middlesex and you come and tell us that we must Prove that it was Written in the County of Middlesex and it is taken to be Written where it was found unless you Prove the contrary Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's pretty Doctrine indeed and very new Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord here 's an Objection made too timely we are now upon Reading of this Paper and the Question is Whether it shall be Read or not be Read. Surely we have given Evidence enough to induce the Court to Read it and it is another Question that will come time enough afterwards Where it was Writen L. C. I. Truly I do not think it
own Act and Dead It is true if my Lords had published a Paper that was contrived by some of their Council it had been some Excuse and they must have only suffered for that Publication in the place where it was done but they are here for Writing this they have owned in this County and therefore iâ—…â—…es upon them to prove it done elsewhere There is another Objection my Lord made That here is no Evidence of a Publicationâ—… my Lord I take it to be a Publication in it self Is it possible for a man to write a Libell to set his Name and part with it and it coming to the hands of the King that this is not a Publication It is not their saying we did not publish it that will excuse them for can there be a greater Publication in it self than this when men have set their Hands to it and owned their Names what makes the Fact in this Case If a Deed he denied to be factum of such a one what is the proof of it but setting the Hand and Seal and the Delivery There is owning the Paper and setting their Hands is a Publication in it self and therefore they cannot make any such Objection My Lord if there were occasion we have Authorities enough to this purpose and we will give them scope enough if they will argue this matter and if they have any Evidence we desire to hear what they can say to it Mr. Att. Gen. As for this matter of Fact my Lord if I take it right they do not Controvert the Publishing but say they pray make it out where it was written or composed I confess this would be a business worth the while for all persons that act in this manner and are concerned in making of Libels to understand for their advantage no man doubts in the matter of Treason but it is local then put the Case a man is found in Middlesex with a treasonable Paper in his Pocket I do not make a Comparison as if this was such a Paper I hope I am not so understood but I only put it as a Case and that the Law is so is beyond all Controversie then the man is indicted here in Midds for framing and composing such a Treasonable Libell and he comes to be tryed and says he Pray prove where I made and composed it for though you found it in my Pocket in the County of Midds yet I might doe it in the County of York upon my word this had been a very good Defence for Mr. Sidney who was indicted convicted and attainted for making a Treasonable Paper which was found in his Study might not he have put the same Objection might not Mr. Sidney have said it was great pity he did not understand it pray prove where I did it for I did it elsewhere than in this County Mr. Sol. Gen. He did say it I remember Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord I would not hear any Answer given to this for it would make the King in a very woful Case Here is a Paper that is found in the County of Midds and this is there owned by you to be written and subscribed by you pray do you prove it that it was written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord we will doe it we will be governed by Mr. Attorney for once Mr. Serj. Levinz We will prove that my Lord Archbishop was not in Middlesex in seven Months before and truly I think Mr. Attorney's Case of a Paper found about a man or in his Custody will not come up to our Case for was this Paper found about us surely that is not pretended Mr. Serj. Pemb. Your Lordship sees by the very frame of the Petition that this Petition which they call a Libell was made after the King's Order concerning reading this Declaration Now we shall prove that my Lord Archbishop whose hand-writing they prove this to be was not out from Lambeth-House in two Months before nor till he was before the Council Sr. Rob. Sawyer Which was long after that time when it was made Mr. Serj. Pemb. So that this cannot be written in the County of Middlesex Call Francis Nicholls Mr. Nicholls was sworn Sir R. Sawyer Do you remember the 18th of May last Mr. Nicholls Yes Sir. Sir. R. Sawyer Pray how was it with my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury at that time and before that did he go abroad Mr. Nicholls My Lord I am very sure that my Lord his Grace of Cant. whom I have served in his Bed Chamber this seven years never stirred out of the Gate of Lambeth House since Michaelmas last Sir R. Sawyer Till when Mr. Nicholls Mr. Nicholls Not till the time he was summoned before the Councill Mr. Serj. Pemb. Now I hope we have given them a full proof that it could not be in Middles Call Thomas Smith Mr. Smith was not examined Mr. Finch Truly my Lord I think that what we have proved or what Proof we further offer of my Lord of Canterburies not being in Middlesex for so long a time is ex abundanti and we need it not for with humble submission in point of Law it is incumbent upon them that are to prove the Charge in the Information to prove where it was done because the Locality of it is part of the thing they ought to prove it in it's nature it is local there is a Place assigned in the Informâ—…ion and unless they prove it was done in the Place that they have laid they have not proved the Charge in the Information Now my Lord they have not made any Proof of that and for proof of Publication I think they have offered none to your Lordship they never did call it so yet and truly I never did hear or know that the owning of their Hands at the Council-Table was a Publication of a Libel it is owning the Writing but it is not an owning where the Writing was made but where it was written and where it was made is of necessity to be proved before the Charge upon a Record in a Court of Justice can be said to be made out it is a Local Charge and in Justice the locality must be proved or the Information fails my Lord they have offered no Proof to it and they have not yet gone to the second part of the Information for as to the Publication of it there is not a tittle of Proof offered but only the owning of their Hands upon their Examination at the Council and no Man did ever yet think that the answering a Question and owning a Paper at the Council-Table upon a Question put by the King himself was a Publication of a Libel Mr. Serjeant Baldock Pray my Lord hear me a Word to that Though the thing be never so local yet there must be some place where a thing that was done was done Then if nothing else appears but what was done in Westminster in the County of Middlesex unless they shew the contrary that must be the very
and an Affront put upon the Bishops they ought to make it out for their own Vindication and to prove themselves Innocent If they do that they do well and they ought to have Satisfaction â—…de them by those that have so highly injured them and the King cannot be better pleased I am sure than to find them so But if Men will look one way and act another they must expect to be dealt with accordingly Will any Man that has heard this Evidence and sees that these Gentlemen will not go the right way to work to prove their own Innocence believe them to be not Guilty 'T is plain they contrived it and signed it for can any one imagine that they set their Hands to a Paper that was not formed and contrived by themselves then let it go That this was done in another County and we cannot punish the Writing of it in this County yet still they are Guilty of causing it to be published in this County and for that we may punish them here We will be content with having that found that we have proved which certainly is an Offence Sir Rob. Sawyer We oppose that Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. You oppose it I know you 'l oppose common Sense we don't speak to you we speak to the Court we are content with what is plain and do not desire to insist upon any strained Construction we say this is Natural Evidence for us If this thing be a Libel as we say it is then the causing it to be published is an Offence The Publication we â—…ay was here in Middlesex and of that there is Clear Evidence because it was found there and came from the King's Hand to whom it was directed and it could not come to the King's Hand out of their Custody without their Consent This we say is a clear Evidence of causing it to be published let the rest go as it will because we will take the easiest part of the Case and not go upon Strains Mr. Serj. Trinder The greatest Question is I think now come to the Publishing L. Ch. Iust. The Court is of Opinion that its coming to the King is a publishing Mr. Justice Powel Ay my Lord if it be proved to be done by them Mr. Serjeant Pemberton Before the Court deliver their Opinion we desire to be heard L. Ch. Iust. Brother you shall be heard in good time but let them make an end on the other side and when the King's Counsel have done we 'l hear you Mr. Serjeant Trinder My Lord upon the Question of Publishing it has been insisted upon and the Court seems to be very much of the same Opinion That the Writing of it is a Publishing That it is without Controversie if the Writing of it fell out to be in Middlesex where the Information is laid but that they would not have to be so by Argument because the Archbishop had kept in at Lambeth so long But suppose that it were so as they would have it that is only as to the Archbishop he being the Writer of it but yet notwithstanding that the other six might subscribe it in Middlesex taking it that there is such a Face in their Argument as they would have it Mr. Sol. Gen. We will lay no greater load on the other six than we do upon my Lord Archbishop and we say they are all Guilty of the Publication in Middlesex Mr. Serjeant Trinder Pray Sir spare me this Paper was in the Archbishops Custody and Power he making of it himself and regularly it could not have come out of his Custody in common Supposition but it must come with his Consent It was afterwards in the Power of the other six they had it to subscribe where the Subscription was non constâ—… they it may â—…e can prove it themselves but I will only deduce this Argument That if it after comes into Middlesex it must be taken by presumption to be subscribed by them there and published it must taken by Presumption so to be Lord Ch. Iust. No Brother we ought not to do any thing by presumption here Mr. Just. Powel No no by no means we must not go upon Presumptions but Proofs L. Ch. Iust. I will not presume it to be made in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Trinder But it is proved to be published in Middlesex Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord with submission there is no Evidence of the Publication Mr. Attor Gen. That the Court is to judge of Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray good my Lord what Instance of a Publication have they given Mr. Sol. Gen. The Court has heard â—…he Evidence we leave it there Sir Rob. Sawyer Was it their owning and acknowledging it was their Hands when the King asked them the Question at the Council-Table Surely the King's Counsel won't pretend that was a Publication when it was done at the King's Command it was certainly the King that published it then and not my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attor Gen. Well said Sir Rob. Sawyer Don't you remember that when Sir Blathwayt said the King gave it to be read and it was shewed to the Bishops L. Ch. Iust. I remember what Evidence Mr. Blathwayt gave of the Passages at the Council-Board very well and I know what Mr. Attorney did press about the Kings promising to take no advantage Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Mr. Attorney is on the other side he did not press it L. Ch. Iust. Sir Robert Sawyer I mean I beg both your Pardons Gentlemen I think I have done Injury to you both Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we say there is no Evidence at all that ever this was sent to the King by the Archbishop or any of my Lords the Bishops And as for the Cases that they have put they might have put five hundred Cases and all nothing to the purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. So they might and done just as others had done before them Sir Rob. Sawyer And so are these for here is the Question We are in a Case where the Publication is that which makes it a Crime Now I would have them if they can put me any such Case and then apply it to this in William's Case the Question is quite otherwise and so in any Case of Treason it must be where-ever there is an Overt Act proved it is the Treasonable Intention and the ill Mind of the Traytor that is the Crime and the Treason the Overt Act is only to be the Evidence of it In that Case of Williams with submission my Lord the Publication was not at all necessary but the very secretest Act that could be done by him if it were an Act is an evidence of the Mind and so the sending of the Book to the King himself though no body else did see it was an Evidence of the Crime of Treason yet it could not be called a Pâ—…blication But in the other Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which was in the Star-Chamber about sending a Letter of Challenge it was plainly resolved that it was no Publication
that these Gentlemen have spent all this time to no purpose Lord Ch. Iust. Yes Mr. Attorney I 'le tell you what they offer which it will lie upon you to give an Answer to They would have you shew how this has disturbed the Government or diminished the Kings Authority Mr. Att. Gen. Whether a Libel be true or not as to the matter of Fact was it ever yet in any Court of Justice permitted to be made a question whether it be a Libel or not Or whether the Party be punishable for it And therefore I wonder to hear these Gentlemen to say that because it is not a false one therefore 't is not a Libel Suppose a Man should speak scandalous Matter of any Noble Lord here or of any of my Lords the Bishops and a Scandalum Magnatum be brought for it though that which is spoken has been true yet it has been the Opinion of the Courts of Law that the Party cannot justifie it by reason it tends to the disturbing of the Peace to publish any thing that is matter of Scandal The only thing that is to be lookt into is whether there be any thing in this Paper that is Reflecting and Scandalous and not whether it be true or no for if any Man shall Extra-Iudicially and out of a Legal Course and way reflect upon any of the great Officers of the Kingdom nay if it be but upon any Inferior Magistrate he is to be punished and is not to make his Complaint against them unless he do it in a proper way A Man may Petition a Judge but if any Man in that Petition shall come and tell the Judge Sir you have given an Illegal Judgment against me and I cannot in Honour Prudence or Conscience obey it I do not doubt nor will any Man but that he that should so say would be laid by the Heels though the Judgment perhaps might be illegal If a Man shall come to Petition the King as we all know the Council Doors are thronged with Petitioners every day and Access to the King by Petition is open to every body the most Inferior Person is allowed to Petition the King but because he may do so may he therefore suggest what he pleases in his Petition shall he come and tell the King to his Face what he does is Illegal I only speak this because they say in this Case his Majesty gave them leave to come to him to deliver their Petition but the King did not understand the Nature of their Petition I suppose when he said he gave them leave to come to him My Lord for this Matter we have Authority enough in our Books particularly there is the Case of Wrenham in my Lord Hobart the Lord Chancellor had made a Decree against him and he Petitioned the King that the Cause might be re-heard and in that Petition he Complains of Injustice done him by my Lord Chancellor and he put into his Petition many reflecting things this my Lord was punished as a Libel in the Star Chamber and in that Book it was said that though it be lawful for the Subject to Petition the King against any Proceedings by the Judges yet it must not be done with Reflections nor with Words that turn to the Accusation or Scandal of any of the Kings Magistrates or Officers and the Justice of the Decree is not to be questioned in the Case for there Wrenham in his Defence would have opened the particulars wherein he thought the Decree was unjust but that the Court would not meddle with nor would allow him to justifie for such Illegality in the Decree so in this Case you are not to draw in question the truth or falsehood of the Matter complained against for you must take the way the Law has prescribed and prosecute your Right in a Legal Course and not by Scandal and Libelling My Lord there is a great deal of difference between not doing a thing that is Commanded if one be of Opinion that it is unlawful and coming to the King with a Petition highly reflecting upon the Government and with Scandalous Expressions telling him Sir you Act illegally you require of us that which is against Prudence Honour or Conscience as my Lords the Bishops are pleased to do in this Petition of theirs I appeal to any Lord here that if any Man should give him such Language either by Word of Mouth or Petition whether he would bear it without seeking satisfaction and reparation by the Law My Lord there is no greater proof of the Influence of this Matter than the Croud of this day and the Haâ—…angue that hath been made is it not apparent that the taking this Liberty to Canvas and dispute the Kings Power and Authority and to Censure â—…s Actions possess the People with strange Opinions and raises Discontents and Jealousies as if the free Course of Law were restrained and Arbitrary Will and Pleasure set up instead of it My Lord there is one thing that appears upon the Face of the Information which shews this not to be the right Course and if my Lords the Bishops had given themselves the opportunity of reading the Declaration seriously they would have found in the end of the Declaration that the Ring was resolved to call a Parliament in November might not my Lords the Bishops have acquiesced under their passive Obedience till the Parliament met But nothing would serve them but this and this must be done out of Parliament for which there is no President can be shewn and this must be done in such a manner as your Lordship sees the Consequence of by your Trouble of this Day There is one thing I forgot to speak to they tell us that it is laid Malicious and Seditious and there is no Malice or Sedition found we know very well that that follows the Fact those things arise by Construction of Law out of the Fact. If the thing be illegal the Law says it is Seditious a Man shall not come and say he meant no harm in it That was the Case of Williams in his treasonable Book says he I only intended to warn the King of the Danger approaching and concludes his Book with God save the King but no Man will say that a good Preface at the beginning or a good Prayer at the end should excuse Treason of Sedition in the Body of a Book if I meet another Man in the Street and kill him though I never saw him in my Life the Indictment is that it was ex Malitia Praecogitata as it often happens that a Person kills one he never had acquaintance with before and in favorem vitae if the Nature of the Fact be so the Jury are permitted to find according to the Nature of the Case but in strictness of Law there is Malice implyed But my Lord I think these Matters are so Common and that is a Point that has been so often setled that the form of the Indictment and Information must
and a Man must not be his own Judg nor his own Carver nor must every Man create Difficulties of his own nor set upon Petitioning in this sort But there I lay my Foundation That in such a matter as this there ought to have been the Impeachment of the Commons in Parliament before these Lords could do any thing and I know nothing can be said for the Bishops more than this That they were under an Anathema under the Curse that Sir Robert Sawyer speaks of and for fear of that they took this Irregular Course But some would say Better fall into the hands of God than of Men some would say so I say I know not what they would say but these being the Methods that these Lords should have taken they should have pursued that Method the Law should have carved out their Relief and Remedy for them but they were for going by a new Fancy of their Own. My Lord the Law continued thus and was practised so till the 3. Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber and there Men were often brought to Judgment and Punishment for their Sins and though very great Power was given them yet they arrogated to themselves a greater and therefore that Court is abolished by the Statute of the 15th Car. 1. and what is the reason of abolishing that Statute Because the Star-Chamber did not keep within their bounds that the Law set them but assumed to themselves a larger Power than the Law would allow and grew very Exorbitant and very Grievous to the Subject And another reason was which the Statute of 15th Car. 1. founded it self upon because there was nothing that was brought in Judgment before that Court but might be relieved and remedied in the oridinary methods of Justice in the Courts of Westminster Hall So that upon those two Considerations because that Course was exorbitant and because all the Sins and Misdemeanours that were punished there might be punished in an ordinary way of Law in another Court and therefore there was no need of that Court and so it was abolished and the Subject was pretty safe If there was a Crime committed here a Man might come properly before your Lordship into this Court and have it punished My Lord they find fault with the Words in the Information and they say why are these Words put in Seditious Malicious If the matter be Libellous and Seditious we may Lawfully say it and it is no more than the Law speaks it results out of the Matter it self and if it be a Libellous Paper the Law says it is Maliciously and Seditiously done and these Gentlemen need not quarrel with us for so are all the Informations in all times past and 't is no more than the Vi Armis which is Common Form. It may be said How can the publishing of a Libel be said to be done Vi Armis That is only a Supposition of Law and they may as well Object to the conclusion of the Information that it was Contra Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis if it be an Illegal thing or a Libel these are necessary Consequences it is no more than the speaking of the Law upon the Fact. But my Lord let us a little consider whether this Matter were Warrantable and whether they had any Warrant to do what was done they pretend it was done upon this Account That the King had set forth a Declaration and had Ordered them to Read it which to excuse themselves from they make this Petition or this Libel call it what you will and they use this as the main Argument That they say the King has done Illegally and they tell the King plainly so that it is Illegal for they take notice of this Declaration and say it is Illegal because it is contrary to the Declarations of Parliament in 1662 1672 and 1685. Pray my Lord let us consider a little whether there be any Declaration in Parliament that they have given Evidence of Have they read any Declaration of the Parliament in 1662 What is a Declaration in Parliament but a Bill that is passed by the King Lords and Commons That we know to be the meaning and no other if it pass the Commons it is no Declaration in Parliament nay if it pass the Lords and Commons it is not a Declaration in Parliament except it also pass the King all these things are Nullities and the Law takes no notice of them we have it in our Books over and over and no Court ought to suffer such Evidence to be given I know these Gentlemen are very well acquainted with the Authority in Fitz-Herbert's Title Parliament there was an Act that was said to be by the King and the Lords but because the Commons did not agree to it it is declared and adjudged to be a Nullity and the Court would take no notice of it and how can any Man call that a Declaration in Parliament which is only a Vote of the House of Commons or of the Lords No sure that is one of the Heads I go upon It 's not a Declaration in Parliament unless it be by Act of Parliament Indeed my Lord there is another sort of a Declaration in Parliament before the Lords as they are a Court of Judicature and that is a fair Declaration too for if any thing comes Judicially before the Lords either by Writ of Error or by natural Appeal from any of the other Courts or by Adjournment and there be any Judgment given That is a Declaration in Parliament and may be fairly so called So likewise there is another Judicial Declaration which is when any thing comes before the Lords Judicially upon an Impeachment of the Commons and they give Judgment upon that Impeachment That is a Declaration in Parliament But to say that there is any other Declaration in Parliament is to say more than these Gentlemen can make out if they will shew me any such I will submit to them and not speak a Word against my Lords the Bishops but if these Learned Gentlemen cannot shew me any such then they have not said that was true in this Petition that it was so and so declared in Parliament For let us consider what there is in this Case upon this Evidence for that in 1662. is only a Vote and an Opinion of the House of Commons and I always understood and have been told so by some of the Gentlemen of the other side that such a Vote signifies nothing But besides it seems to be a mistaken Address for they say in it That the Declaration in 1662. which they Address against was the first Declaration of that sort to suspend Laws without Act of Parliament and yet in the same breath they do take notice of the King's Declaration from Breda But here is a mighty Argument used from the King's Speech That