Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	party_n	peace_n	warrant_n	4,409	5	10.2565	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

we can only make this Objection now upon the hearing of it read In all the Debates that have been heretofore in the Great Case of the Habeas Corpus concerning my Lord Hollis and those other Gentlemen who were in Prison upon Commitments by the Privy Council the Returns are that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council as near as I can remember I will not take it upon me to be positive in it but I believe if your Lordships thought fit to give us a short time to look into it we should be plainly able to shew you that all the Returns of Commitments of this nature are said to be by Order of the Council-Board and never any of them naming the Lords for that may be true and yet not a Legal Commitment Lord Ch. Iustice. I have seen several Precedents of Commitments in this Form and if you make no Exception to the Warrant you can make no Exception to the Return because that only sets forth the Warrant Mr. Pollexfen The Commitment you are to judge of is upon the Return with submission and supposing the Warrant to be right and good yet the Return is not Legal Mr. Attorn Gen. We say in common Understanding it cannot be but a Commitment in Council Mr. S. Pemberton But common Understanding and legal Understanding are two things and we pray the Judgment of the Court. Mr. Soll. Gen. And so do we my Lord and pray your Rule in it Mr. Iustice Allybone You may by the same reason say that upon all Commitments by Warrant from Justices of the Peace that the Commitment was out of the County if the Party does not alledge in the Warrant or Return that the Commitment was in the County 'T is an Objection that would put us upon presuming what we have no reason to presume L. Ch. Iustice. If you would have our Opinions let my Brothers declare theirs I will soon tell you my mind Mr. Iustice Holloway Pray let the Return be read again which was done Mr. Attorn Gen. So that the Return says they were committed by vertue of a Warrant of such and such by Name Lords of the Council and whether this be a Warrant of the Council is the Question and we think it is plain enough that 't is a good Return Mr. Iustice Powell I have given you my thoughts already I think we ought to consult Precedents in a Case of this Weight and Nature and truly I will not take upon me to say whether it be a good Return or not a good Return without looking into Precedents Mr. Iust. Allybone For my own part it does not stick at all with me for the Reasons I gave before when any man that has an Authority to commit does commit a Person to an Inferiour Officer and that Officer has an Habeas Corpus brought to him it is enough for him to return his Warrant by which the Party was committed and whatsoever he sayes by the bye cannot have any Influence one way or other to alter the nature of the thing Now unless you would make every man that is a Justice of the Peace write his Name and stile himself Justice of the Peace this must be a good Commitment Every Commitment shall be presumed to be pursuant to the power of the Person committing and I am sure take these Lords separately and they had no power to commit and consequently such a Warrant would be no Authority to the Lieutenant of the Tower to receive them But when they send such a Warrant as this we shall presume it to be according to the Power they have and not according to the Power they have not this Warrant is returned by the Officer and I cannot but presume that it is all very well Mr. Iustice Holloway My Lords I am very desirous and willing your Lordships should have all the Right and Justice done you that can be and by the Grace of God I will endeavour it all I can I see in this Case it is agreed on both sides that the Council have a power to commit and the Commitment is here certified in the words of the Warrant and the Lieutenant has made his Return that they were committed by vertue of this Warrant If the Lieutenant of the Tower had returned any other Commitment you would have blamed him for a false Return but now you find fault with his Return because he does not say the Warrant was made by the Lords of the Council and in Council That is a thing so notoriously known to all the Kingdom that my Lords were sent to the Tower by the Council that no body doubts it and being thus sent by this Warrant I do not see but that this is a very good Return and my Judgment is that the Information ought to be read Lord Ch. Iust. I told you in the beginning after you had made your Objections that I thought it was as all other Returns are and I am of the same Opinion still I find no fault with the Warrant nor with the Return Mr. Serj. Pemberton There is no Objection to the Warrant at present upon this Question L. Ch. Iust. Neither do I take upon me to say any thing nor is there any thing now to be spoken of touching the Fact for which these Noble Lords were committed Mr. Att. Gen. We pray my Lord the Information may be read Mr. Iust. Holloway There is no question about the Fact but whether this be a good Return which is here made that they were committed by such and such Lords of the Council L. Ch. Iust. I would do as much to give my Lords the Bishops case and set them at liberty as I could possibly by Law but we must not break the Rules of Law for any one Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray read the Information Mr. Finch No my Lord we oppose the reading of it Mr. Sollicitor Gen. Why will not you be satisfied with the Opinion of the Court Mr. Finch We have another thing to offer which we must have the Opinion of the Court in before this Information can be Read. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray let us hear it what it is Mr. Finch My Lord we did humbly offer one Objection more to your Lordship against the reading of the Information the former objection was concerning the Persons Committing in that it does not sufficiently appear upon the Return that they were committed by the Lords in Council the Court have given their opinion in that But the other objection still remains whether they ought to have been committed at all and therefore when they now appear upon this Habeas Corpus we say they were not legally committed to Prison because a Peer ought not to be committed to Prison in the first instance for Misdemeanour Mr. Sollicit Gen. If you please you may speak to that by and by but that is not proper now for you to offer or for the Court to determine whether a Peer may be committed upon an Accusation for a Misdemeanour Mr. Finch

be a Libel although it 〈◊〉 true that they did so deliver it First my Lord there is a little disingenuity offered to my Lords the Bishops in only setting forth part and no●… the whole in only reciting the Body 〈◊〉 not the Prayer But my Lord with your Lordships favour taking the Petitionary part and adding it to the other it quite alters the Nature of the thing for it may be a Complaint without seeking redress might be an 〈◊〉 ●…atter but here taking the whole together it appears to be a Complaint of a Grievance and a desire to be eased of it With your Lordships favour the Subjects have a right to Petition the King in all their Grievances so say all our Books of Law and so says the Statute of the Thirteenth of the late King They may Petition and come and deliver 〈◊〉 ●…tion under the number of ten as heretofore they might have done says the Statute so that they all times have had a right so to do and indeed if they had not it were the most lamentable thing in the World that Men must have Grievances upon them and yet they not to be admitted to seek Relief in an humble ●…ay Now my Lord this is a Petition setting forth a Grievance and praying his Majesty to give Relief And what is this Grievance It is that Command of his by that Order made upon my Lords the Bishops to distribute the Declaration and cause it to be read in the Churches And pray my Lord let us consider what the Effects and Consequences of that Distribution and Reading i●… It is to tell the People that they need not submit to the Act of Unifarmity no●… to any Act of Parliament made about Ecclesiastical Matters for they are suspended and dispensed with this my Lords the Bishops must do if they obey this Order but your Lordship sees if they do it they lie under an Anathema by the Statute of 1 Eliz. for there they are under a Curse if they do not look to the preservation and observation of that Act But this Command to Distribute and Read the Declaration whereby all these Laws are dispensed with is to let the People know they will not do what that Act requires of them Now with your Lordships favour my Lords the Bishops lying under this pressure the weight of which was 〈◊〉 grievous upon them they by Petition apply to the King to be eased of it which they might do a●… Subjects besides my Lord they are Peers of the Realm and were most of them sitting as such in the last Parliament where as you have heard it was declared such a Dispensation could not be and then in what a Case should they have been if they should have distributed this Declaration which was so co●… to their own Actings in Parliament What could they have answered for themselves had they thus contributed to this Declaration when they had themselves before declared that the King could not dispense And that was no new thing for it had been so declared in a Parliament before in two Sessions of it in the late Kings Reign within a very little time one of another and such a Parliament that were so liberal in their Aides in the Crown that a Man would not think they should go about 〈◊〉 deprive the Crown of any of its Rights it was a Parliament that did do as great services for the ●…own as ●…ver any did and therefore there is no reason to suspect that if the King 〈◊〉 had such a power they would have appeared so earnest against it But my Lord if your Lordship pleases these are not the beginnings of this matter for we have shewed you from the Fifteenth of Richard the Second that there was a power granted by the Parliament to the King to dispense with a particular Act of Parliament which argues that it could not be without an Act of Parliament And in 1662 't is said expresly that they cannot be dispensed with but by an Act of Parliament 'T is said so again in 1672 the King was then pleased to assume to himself such a power as is pretended to in this Declaration 〈◊〉 yet upon Information from his Houses of Parliament the King declared himself satisfied that he had no such power Cancelled his Declaration and promised that it should not be drawn into Consequence or Example And so the Commons by their Protestation said in Richard the Seconds time That it was a Novelty and should not be drawn into Consequence or Example Now my Lord if your Lordship pleases if this matter that was Commanded the Bishops to do were something which the Law did not allow of surely then my Lords the Bishops had all the reason in the World to apply themselves to the King in an humble manner to acquaint him why they could not obey his Commands and to seek relief against that which lay so heavy upon them Truly my Lord Mr. Attorney was very right in the opening of this Cause at first that is That the Government ought not to receive affronts no nor the Inferior Officers are not to be affronted a Justice of Peace so low a Man in Office is not for a Man to say to a Justice of Peace when he is executing his Office that he does not do right is a great Crime and Mr. Attorney said right in it But suppose a Justice of Peace were making of a Warrant to a Constable to do something that was not Legal for him to do if the Constable should Petition this Justice of the Peace and therein set forth Sir you are about to command me to do a thing which I conceive is not Legal surely that would not be a Crime that he was to be punished for for he does but seek relief and shew his Grievance in a proper way and the distress he is under My Lord this is the Bishops Case with submission they are under a distress being Commanded to do a thing which they take not to be Legal and they with all humility by way of Petition acquaint the King with this Distress of theirs and pray him that he will please to give Relief My Lord there is no Law but is either an Act of Parliament or the Common Law for an Act of Parliament there is none for such a power all that we have of it in Parliamentary Proceedings is against it and for the Common Law so far as I have read o●…it I never did meet with any thing of such a Nature as a Grant or Dispensation that pretended to dispense with any one whole Act of Parliament I have not so much as heard of any such thing mentioned by any of the Kings Council But here my Lord is a Dispensation that dispenses with a great many Laws at once truly I cannot take upon me to tell how many there may be forty or above for ought I know Therefore my Lord the Bishops lying under such a Grievance as this and under such a Pressure being Ordered

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

not at all to the purpose That is but what was offered in another Case that may be remembred and offered by way of Plea and pressed with a great deal of Earnestness but Rejected by the Court and now what could not be receiv'd then by way of Plea these Gentlemen would by their Importunity have you receive by way of Parole at the Bar I suppose the Design is to entertain this great Auditory with an Hara●…gue and think to perswade the weak men of the World for the wise are not to be imposed upon that they are in the Right and we in the wrong under Favour my Lord we are in the Right for the King we desire this Information may be read and let them plead what by Law they can to it according to the Course of the Court but that which they now urge is untimely and out of Course Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we offer this to your Lordship Mr. Att. Gen. Why Gentlemen you have been heard before your time already Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord give us leave to answer what the Kings Counsel have objected L. C. I. The Kings Counsel have answered your Objections and we must not permit Vying and Re-vying upon one another if you have no more to say but only as to the Matters that have been urged you have been heard to it on both sides already Mr. S. Pemberton I would if you please answer what has been objected by the Kings Counsel and state the Case aright Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Pemberton I do not apprehend that the Objection you make against this Commitment has any weight in it The Objection as I take it is this that these Lords were not legally committed because they were committed says the Return by such and such Lords of the Council particularly named and it does not specifie them to be united in the Privy Council now truly with me that seems to have no weight at all and I will tell you why If my Lord Chief Iustice do commit any Person and set his Name to the Warrant he does not use to add to his Name Lord Chief Iustice but he is known to be so without that Addition and would you have a different Return from the Lieutenant of the Tower to a Habeas Corpus than the Warrant it self will justifie the Lords do not use to write themselves Privy Counsellors they are known to be so as well as a Judge who only writes his Name and does not use to make the addition of his Office. Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray my Lord give me leave to be heard to this I think truly it is a weighty Objection for under Favour we say it must upon the Return here appear that they were legally committed before you can charge them with an Information I do not take Exceptions to the Warrant because it is subscribed by such Lords and they do not write themselves Lords of the Council they need not do that and the Return has averred that they are so But the Return ought to have been that it was by Order of the Privy Council and so it must be if they would shew my Lords to be legally committed that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council and not by such and such particular Persons Lords of the Privy Council so in the Case put by Mr. Iustice Allybone of a Commitment by your Lordship or any of the Judges it must be returned to be by such a Warrant by such a One Chief Iustice for that shews the Authority of the Person committing and then your Lordships Name to it indeed is enough without the Addition But if it does not appear by the Return that there was sufficient Authority in the Person to commit your Lordship cannot take it to be a Legal Commitment But now in this Case they could have no Authority to commit but in Council and this Return seems to make it done by them as particular Persons and that 's not a good Return with your Lordships favour upon which these Reverend and Noble Lords can be detained in Prison But what do they on the other side say to this Why we shall be heard to it anon but my Lord they very well know it would be too late for that Effect which we desire of our Motion and therefore we lay the Objections before you now in its proper time say we you ought not to read any Information against us because we are not legally here before the Court and sure that which was said by the Kings Councel that your Lordship may charge any One that you find here in Court which way soever he comes in cannot be legal Mr. Att. Gen. Who ever said so Sir Robert Sawyer I apprehended you said so Mr. Attorney or else you said nothing Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Robert Sawyer You of that side have a way of letting your selves in to say the same things over and over again and of making us to say what you please Sir Rob. Sawyer Truly I did apprehend you laid down that for Doctrine which I thought a very strange One for we say with your Lordships favour he that is in Court without a Legal process is not in Court so as to be charged with an Information S. Pemberton My Lord It is not the Body being found here that intitles the Court to proceed upon it but the person accused is to be brought in by Legal Process Then if we be not here by Legal Process the Information cannot be charged upon us and if we suffer it to be read it will be too late for us to make this Objection L. C. I. That you have all said over and over and they have given it an Answer Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Serjeant will you make an end you have repeated your Objection over and over I know not how often and will never be contented with our Answer Mr. I. Allyb. Sir Rob. Sawyer That which you said in Answer to the Case I put methinks does not answer it For if the Return be as good that it was by a Warrant from such an one Lord Chief Iustice as if my Lord Chief Iustice had added the Title of his Office to his own Name when he subscribed the Warrant Then this Return That this was done by such and such Lords of the Council must be as good as if they had added that to their own Names Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not our Objection Mr. Att. Gen. Your Objection has been heard and answered we pray the Information may be read Mr. Serj. Pemberton No we are not come to that yet Mr. I. Allyb. Pray would you have an Averment by the Lieutenant of the Tower in his Return to an Habeas Corpus that it was done by them in the Council-Chamber Mr. Finch My Lord The Difference is this with Submission a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Ch Justice is a good Commitment and a Return of that Nature were a good Return because he is Chief Justice all over

England and hath Authority to commit wherever he is but a Commitment by such an one or such and such Lords of the Privy-Council cannot be a good Return of a Commitment because though they be Lords of the Council yet neither single or apart nor all together have Authority to do such an Act unless they be assembled in the Privy-Council there their Authority is circumscribed so that that must needs be a great difference between a Commitment made by a Judge who is always so and a Commitment by a Lord or so many Lords by the Name of Lords of the Privy-Council who carry not their Authority about with them but are limited to their Assembly in Council Mr. I. Allyb. Mr. Finch Indeed your Objection is worth something if my Lord Chief Justice could not act but as under the character of Chief Justice for you are now arguing that these Lords could not do this Act but as Lords of the Council in Council the same say I may be said of a Commitment by the Lord Chief Justice he cannot do it but under the formality of his Authority as he is Chief Justice unless you will make it impossible for him to do any thing but as Chief Justice or unless you make it impossible to separate his Person from his Authority Mr. Finch But Sir the difference lies here the Authority of the one is general and universal and goeth with him wherever he goes the other's Authority is limited to a particular sphere Mr I. Allyb. Why would you have it averred That they did it being assembled in Council Mr. Finch Under favour they cannot justifie any thing that was done by them as Lords of the Council but in the Privy-Council Mr. I. Powel Truly my Lord for my part I think there is no such great necessity of haste in this matter Here are Exceptions taken to this Return and the matter transacted now before us appears to me to be of very great weight peradventure a greater or a weightier has not been agitated in this place in any Age it concerns these Noble and Reverend Lords in point of Liberty it comes suddenly upon us and therefore my Lord I think it very fit we should consider a little of this matter and consult the Precedents of Returns how they are for there are multitudes of Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus in this Court therefore it were requisite that we did consult the Forms of other Returns and how the Precedents as to this matter have always been if they are according as this is then all is well but if they be otherwise it is fit we should keep to the usual Forms L. C. I. What 's your Opinion of it Brother Allybone Mr. I. Allyb. I am still of the same mind I was my Lord That he could make no Return but this Return he has made and if his Warrant was insufficient upon this Account that these particular persons Lords of the Privy-Council did this Act without saying that they did it in Privy-Council then 't is not his Return that could mend it and truly I do not know that there does need any Precedent for this for every one knows where the Lords of the Council are and 't is a sufficient Averment this that is in the Return Mr. Pollexfen They are Lords of the Council every where but they do not act as Lords of the Council any where but in Council Mr. I. Allyb. So my Lord Chief Justice is Chief Justice every where Mr. Finch And he can do Judicial Acts as such every where but the Lords of the Council cannot act but in the Council Mr. I. Allyb. Nor is it to be presumed that they did do it Mr. Finch It is not a presumption that is to make any thing in this case but the Question is whether here be a legal Return of a legal Commitment Mr. I. Allyb. Such publick Persons in such publick Acts can never be presumed to act in their separate private capacities Mr. Finch But with submission your Lordships can judge only what is before you in this Return whether it be a good Return and whether here be a good Authority asserted in the persons that did commit my Lords the Bishops L. C. I. Truly as to this Objection and Exception that has been made by them I have considered of it and what has been said on all sides and I think 't is the usual way of Commitment I never saw any other all the Warrants that ever I saw are of this Form if there were any Precedents they should be shewn of that side Sir Robert Sawyer There are multitudes of Precedents otherwise and none of this Form. L. I. C. I confess 't is a Case of great Weight and the Persons concerned are of great Honour and Value and I would be as willing as any body to testifie my Respects and Regards to my Lords the Bishops if I could see any thing in it worth considering of Mr. Sol. Gen. There 's no colour for it if they do but look upon the Statute of the 16th and 17th of the late King which arraigns the Proceedings of his Privy-Council that tells you what things belong to the cognizance of the Privy-Council and what not and there you have all the Distinctions about Commitments by the King and Council and by the Lords of the Council And that Act will shew that this is a Commitment according to the usual Form They know very well what the common Style of the Orders and Commitments of Council is as in other places and other Commitments By such an one Chief Iustice that is the Style that is very well known for such Warrants So a Commitment by such and such naming them particularly Lords of the Council that 's an Order made by the Lords in Council and that Statute distinguishes between Commitments of one sort and the other and it does it because sometimes Warrants run in one form and sometimes in another but they all come within the Direction of that Statute My Lord we are in a plain Case my Lords the Bishops come Regularly before you upon a Commitment by the Council and therefore we pray they may be charged with this Information Sir Robert Sawyer Pray will your Lordship give us leave to have that Statute lookt into which Mr. Sollicitor speaks of and then we shall see whether it be to his purpose L. C. I. Let the Statute be read Mr. Sol. Gen. If it be Keeble's Book it is the 16th of Charles the First if it be the Old Book it is the 16th and 17th of Car towards the end Clerk reads Provided always and be it enacted that this Act and the several Clauses therein contained shall be taken and expounded to extend onely to the Court of Star-Chamber and to the said Court holden before the President and Council in the Marches of Wales and before the President and Council in the Northern parts Mr. Soll. Gen. It is the Paragraph before that Clerk reads And be

never published for the Question was before the Court whether this Sealing of it up and not delivering it to any other body were a Publication the Court was of Opinion that the very Writing of it was a Publication they did not value the delivery of it to the Prince but it was proved he Writ it and that made it Treason My Lord we have Cases enough in my Lord Hobart for this Matter Sir Baptist Hick's Case and my Lady Hatt●…n's Case there was only a Letter sealed up and delivered to the Party L. C. I. You need not trouble your self about that Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. If the Case then be thus I take it it will turn upon this Fact they have given your Lordship no Proof where this Paper was Signed by them here are seven Persons that had a hand in it and here is only one Person whom they have insisted to be infirm and kept his House for a great while together We say the Publishing follows the Libel where-ever it goes the Libel is in the County of Middlesex they have confessed it in the County of Middlesex and they did not distinguish where it was done Then if they will not distinguish upon the Evidence no Man ought to distinguish but ought to presume it was done in that place where they owned it Mr. Attor Gen. I did not apprehend we were got so far that they Opposed us in the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes we did for you have given no Evidence of it Mr. Attor Gen. Surely my Lord for that we have give a sufficient Evidence and they have given some Proof of it as to my Lord Archbishop that because he had not been from Lambeth therefore he did not publish nor could cause it to be published for your Lordship sees by this Information they are not only to answer the Publicavit but also the Publicari causavit for do you doubt Gentlemen of the Law in this Case that if I compose a Libel in Surrey for Example and send a Person over into Middlesex I am not Guilty of the Publishing Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not your Case Mr. Attorney Mr. Finch That were clear if it were so but it is not so Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Archbishop's Case signifies nothing if we shew it was published in Middlesex and you give no Evidence to the contrary but it might be there and I am sure as to the rest of my Lords the Bishops there is no Evidence at all given Here is a Petition that we say is a Libel they it may be will make that a Question this is delivered to the King 's own Hand in the County of Middlesex and there are as many Cases as any one Man can name that this amounts to a Publication by the Party for if I send a Letter by the Post sealed that no body can see but the Party himself and he that writ it it is adjudged over and over again it is a Libel Mr. Justice Powel That you need not labour Mr. Attorney for that 's the Case of Williams of Essex but how do you apply it to the Case now before us Mr. Attor Gen. That 's an Answer to their Objection as to the Publication Mr. Justice Powel But what say you to the first part you have not proved that it was written in Middlesex Mr. Attor Gen. There is the Case of Barrow and Lewellin in Hobart and likewise the Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which is reported both in Hobart and in Popham and in Popham towards the end of the Case there is a remarkable Passage Says that Case If it should not be punishable at the Suit of the King there would be no Remedy for the Party cannot bring an Action because he can be no Witness for himself and it is only known betwixt them two but a Witness for the King he may be to prove his own Receipt of the Letter and the Party's Hand Mr. Justice Powel You need not labour that Point I 'll tell you Mr. Attorney for the Law is very clear in that Point I think if you bring it home to your Case Mr. Attor Gen. Then here 's the Case in short my Lord That my Lords the Bishops have caused to be made and written this Petition they are made Parties to it by setting their Names and this is a continued Act whatsoever is written there is my Lord Archbishop's Writing where-ever it goes as I 'll put you a Case that 's very well known If I take away Goods from a Man in the County of Cumberland and I am found with them in the County of Middlesex it is a continued Act and makes all but one Felony and I shall be Tried here in Middlesex for it If a Man write a thing in one County and it is sent and dispersed in another County that still continues to be his Fact though it may be the first part was not in the same County with the other but suppose all this while that part should not affect my Lord of Canterbury the causing it to be Published does Mr. Justice Powel Do you think Mr. Attorney that writing in one County is such a continued Act that he may be said to write it in another County Mr. Attor Gen. Sir I take it where there is a complicated Crime of Writing and Publishing a Libel and the beginning of it is in one County and the carrying it on is in another that is a continued Act and may be Tried in either County L. C. I. It is all one Act of Libelling as they say Mr. Iust. Holloway In Cases of Felony 't is so taking in one County and being found with the Goods in another it is Felony in either County Mr. Iust. Powel But in that Case they are two Felonies for it is Robbery in the one County and but bare Felony in the other Mr. Sol. Gen. Suppose that my Lords the Bishops Signed this Paper in another County and my Lord Archbishop consents to have it sent into Middlesex is not this a causing it to be published in another County Mr. Iust. Powel Yes it may be if you prove his Consent Mr. Sol. Gen. Then suppose further which may very well consi●…t with my Lord Archbishop's Evidence of his not being out of Lambeth in so long time the rest of the Bishops might sign it in Middlesex or it may be in that Place and then they carry it by my Lords consent over hither into this County is not this a causing it to be published the Delivery with his Consent certainly is a Proof of that for our Information goes two ways For Making Contriving Writing and Publishing that 's one And then For causing it to be Made Contrived and Published that 's the other And if I prove that he caused it to be published he may be found Guilty as to that part and not Guilty as to the other for the Information is not so intire but that the King has his choice if the Archbishop had