Secresy as to time and place it appearing of its own Nature necessary The other was a Letter from one Christopher Anderton dated from Hilton by which was meant Rome Feb. the 5th 1677 8. wherein mention was made of the Patents being sent thence both which Letters the Prisoners strugled much to vindicate by such forced Constructions of the matters they contained as all the Court rejected Against Gavan Dr. Oates deposed That he saw his Name to the Resolve though he could not swear he was at the Consult of the 24th of April That he gave an account from time to time of the Affairs of Staffordshire and Shropshire relating to the Plot and that coming to London he gave the same account to Ireland his own Chamber and talk'd of two or 3000 l. that would be ready for the Design Mr. Prance then deposed that Harcourt had told him above a Year before as he was paying him for an Image of the Virgin Mary that there was a Plot upon the Life of the King Mr. Dugdale deposed against him that it was he who had engaged him in the Plot upon the Life of the King and often perswaded and encouraged him to it That at Ewer's and his Chambers at Boscobel and other places several Consultations had been had about the Death of the King and bringing in of Popery wherein Mr. Gaven was always a great Man being a good Orator to perswade People in the Design That at the same Consultations he had heard the Massacre often discours'd of And that Gaven should say That tho they were but in a low condition themselves yet they would have Men and Mony enough to spare for such a Design That the said Gaven had many times endeavoured to convince him of the Lawfulness if not the Merit of killing any person whatsoever for the Advancement of their Religion As to Turner it was sworn by Dr. Oates that he was at the Consult of Fenwick's Chamber and sign'd the Resolve Mr. Dugdale also deposed that Ewers had told him that Turner was to carry on the Design in VVorcestershire That the said Turner had met with Ewers Leveson and others in several places and had in every one of them given his consent to and assisted with his Counsel in the carrying on of the grand Design of killing the King and introducing of Popery This was the main of the Evidence for the King The Prisoner's defence lay chiefly in seeking to invalidate the Testimony given against them and to prove Oates perjured they produced these St Omers Witnesses who testify'd that he was not in England in April viz. Mr. Hilsley William Parry Doddington Gifford Palmer Cox who differed in his Testimony from all the rest and caused two great Laughters in the Court Thomas Billing Townley Fall John Hall Butler Cooke a Taylor some of which were so positive that they affirmed that Dr. Oates never lay but two Nights out of the Colledg from December till the middle of June And to prove further that he did not come over with Sir John VVarner and Sir Thomas Preston as he had deposed elsewhere one Bartlet a Dutchman Carlier Verron Baillee who spoke by an Interpreter John Joseph and Peter Carpenter appear'd Then Gaven produced two Witnesses to prove him to be at VVolverhampton in Staffordshire at the time of the Consult viz. one Mrs. Kath. VVinford at whose House he there lodged and Mary Poole a Servant in the House the latter of whom was so lame in her Testimony as caused both Laughter and Shouts He produced four more that affirm'd him to be in VVolverhampton the last week in July but none that could speak to the other three weeks in that Month. However he protested his Innocency and desired to put himself upon the Trial of Ordeal Then VVhitebread in his defence offered to prove D. Oates mistaken in his Evidence at Mr. Ireland's Trial which the Court would not allow Harcourt endeavoured to prove Dr. Oates mistaken as to Ireland's being with him in his Chamber in August One Gifford the Lady Southcott Sir John Southcott Mr. Edward Southcott his Son Mrs. Harewel her Daughter Eliz. Keeling Pendrel and his Wife two Mrs. Giffords and one Mr. Bedloe affirming him to have been most of that Month in Saffordshire Fenwick offer'd to invalidate Mr. Bedloe's Evidence from his having been an ill Man c. Then Sir Creswel Levinz of Counsel for the King summ'd up the Prisoners Defence and to clear Dr. Oates's Evidence about Ireland he called Sarah Pain who swore that she saw Ireland in London about the middle of August And for the Proof of Dr. Oates's being in England at the time he said he was Mr. VValker a Minister Mrs. Ives Mrs. Mayo Sir Richard Barker Philip Page Butler his Servants Mr. Smith Schoolmaster of Islington and Mr. Clay a Popish Priest all deposed as to his being seen in April and May 78 to which the Prisoners only opposed the Number and Innocency of their Evidence being most young Boys After which the Ld. Ch. Justice directed the Jury and in summing up the Evidence insisted particularly on Dugdal's Evidence concerning Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Death as a mighty Confirmation of the Plot. Then an Officer was sworn to keep the Jury who withdrew and the Judges also went off from the Bench leaving Mr. Recorder and a competent number of Commissioners there to take the Verdict and about a quarter of an Hour after the Jury brought them all in Guilty Then the Prisoners were carried back to Newgate and the Court adjourned till eight next Morning And then Mr. Langhorn was tried and found guilty After which they were all six brought to the Bar together and received Judgment to be Drawn Hang'd and Quartered which accordingly was done upon these 5 Jesuits and Priests on Friday June the 20th at Tyburn The Trial of Richard Langhorn Esq Counsellour at Law at the Old-Baily on Saturday June the 14th 1679. HIS Indictment was for conspiring the Death of the King Subversion of the Government and Protestant Religion whereto he pleading Not guilty the Jury were impannelled for his Trial who were Arthur Yong Edward Beeker Robert Twyford VVilliam Yapp John Kirkham Peter Pickering Thomas Barnes Francis Neeve John Hall George Sitwel James VVood Richard Cawthorne To whom the Indictment being read Roger Belwood Esq of Counsel for the King in this cause opened the Indictment and Sir Creswel Levins proved the Charge And Then Mr. Dugdale was first called to give Evidence of the general Design from which afterwards it would be brought down particularly to Mr. Langhorn who therefore deposed that he had been in several Consultations for alteration of this present Government and for the introducing of Popery and Murther of the King that he was to have a Sum of Money to be one of them that should kill the King being put upon it by Mr. Ewers Mr Gavan Mr. Luson and Mr. Vavasor all Jesuits that there was then to have been a Massacre of the Protestants and
Sir John Gage of Sussex which the Witness saw to be an Officer in the Army That in August there was a Consult whereat Fenwick was wherein there was a Design laid for killing the Duke of Ormond and raising a Rebellion in Ireland to which VVhitebread also consented when he came over as appears by their Entry-Books That in September VVhitebread having had Intimation from one Beddingfield of the Plots being discover'd and of the suspicion they had of the Witness being waited upon at his Lodgings upon his coming over by the Witness he beat affronted and reviled the said Witness commanding him to go beyond Sea again assaulting him in his Lodging afterwards to have murthered him being jealous that he had betrayed them He deposed also that Grove did go about with one Smith to gather Peter-Pence and that he saw the Book wherein it was entred And confessed to him that he with three Irish Men did fire Southwark for which Grove had 400 l. and the other three 200 l. a piece Then Mr. Bedloe deposed That he had been five Years almost employed by the Jesuits and the English Monks in Paris to carry and bring Letters between them from and to England for the promoting of this Plot Relating how Harcourt began to employ him and naming the particular places whither he had been sent to shew the Reasons of his knowledg in this matter saying that in all their Consults wherein he was it was always concluded on That they would not leave any Member of any Heretick in England that should survive to tell in the Kingdom hereafter that there ever was any such Religion in England as the Protestant Religion Then he proceeded to depose that in August last there was a Consult at Harcourt's Chamber about killing the King as Pritchard inform'd him and of sending the four Ruffians to Windsor who failing it was afterwards concluded Pickering and Grove should go on and Conyers be joyned with them to assassinate the King in his Morning-Walks at New-Market this he heard in Harcourt's Chamber in August also Grove and Pickering and Pritchard and Fogarthy and Harcourt and the Witness being present And Grove being more forward than the rest said Since it could not be done clandestinely it should be attempted openly That those that fell had the Glory to die in a good Cause But if it were discovered the Discovery could never come to the heighth but their Party would be strong enough to bring it to pass That Grove was to have 1500 l. and Pickering a considerable number of Masses That there was a Discourse at the same time of a design to kill several Noble Persons Knight was to kill the Earl of Shaftsbury Pritchard the Duke of Buckingham Oneile the Earl of Ossory and Obrian the Duke of Ormond Then a Letter was produced and read in Court sworn by Sir Thomas Doleman to have been found among Harcourt's Papers four or five days after Dr. Oates had given in his Informations from one Edward Petre giving account when the Consult was to be as ordered by their Provincial Whitebread mightily confirming Dr. Oates's Evidence as to that particular Then the Seals also were shewn in Court that were made use of to sign Commissions taken out of VVhitebread's Chamber Then the King's Counsel here ending their Evidence the Lord Chief Justice took notice to the Jury that there had only one Witness sworn against Whitebread and Fenwick Bedloe charging them with nothing of his own knowledg and that therefore he would discharge them of them and accordingly he sent them back to the Goal And the other three were called upon to make their Defence which was only a bare denial of the Matter of Fact Only Ireland being charged in August laboured very much to prove that he was out of Town all that Month by the Testimony of his Mother and Sister and one Harrison Sir John Southcott's Coachman and one Gifford His Mother and Sister saying expresly that he went out of Town August 3d and Harrison that he saw him at St. Albans August 5th and continued in his Company to the 16th and Gifford that he saw him at the latter end of August and beginning of September at Wolverhampton tho it was reproved by very good Circumstances and upon Oath for the King by Sarah Pain Servant to Grove that she saw him at his own door in London about the 12th or 13th of the same Month. His next Defence was a weak Reflections upon Dr. Oates's Credit to which purpose an Indictment for Perjury never prosecuted was urged against him but the Attourny-General made slight of it as of a thing that had nothing in it Neither was that which Sir Dennis Ashbournham said of greater force concerning the Irregularities of his Childhood which he said would have staggered his Belief of what the Doctor had deposed if the matter had depended solely upon his Testimony but being so corroborated with other Circumstances he was convinced of the Truth of what he had discovered nor did he think any thing could be said against Dr. Oates to take off his Credibility The Lord Chief Justice then summ'd up the Evidence smartly inveighing against the Principles and Doctrines of Popery After which the Jury retired for a very little while and then brought those three Prisoners in Guilty And then the Court Adjourn'd till the Afternoon when being met about five a Clock Mr. Recorder the Judges being gone home made an excellent Speech against Popery to the Prisoners sentencing them to be drawn hang'd and quartered which accordingly was executed upon them at Tyburn on Friday Jan. 24th following The Trials of Robert Green Henry Berry and Laurence Hill at the King's-Bench-Bar at Westminster on Monday Feb. 10th 1678. THE Prisoners there appearing were indicted for the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey Kt. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex to which they pleaded Not Guilty on Wednesday Feb. 5. and were ordered to be brought the next day to their Trials But Mr. Attourny-General the next day moved the Court that it might be deferred till Monday Feb. 10. that the King's Evidence might be the more ready which was granted On Monday therefore they were brought to their Trials and the Jury impanell'd were Sir Will. Roberts Bar. Sir Rich. Fisher Bar. Sir Mich. Heneage Kt. Sir Tho. Bridges Kt. William Avery Esq Char. Vmphrevile Esq John Bathurst Esq Richard Gowre Esq Thomas Henslowe Esq John Sharpe Esq John Haynes Esq Walter Moyle Esq To whom the Indictment being read Sir Thomas Stringer Serjeant at Law and of Counsel for the King in this Cause opened the Charge and Sir William Jones Attorney-General opened the Evidence Then Dr. Oates being sworn deposed That in September Sir Edmondbury Godfrey in Discourse did tell him what Affronts he had received from some great Persons for being so zealous to take Examinations concerning the Plot And that others who were well inclin'd to have the Discovery made did think that
was his unhappiness he had no Witnesses to call The Ld. Ch. Justice therefore in a few words summing up the Evidence the Jury presently brought him in Guilty The Trial of Capt. William Blague at the Old-Baily on Friday July 13. 1683. THE Prisoner having been Arraigned the day before and pleaded Not Guilty to an Indictment for High-Treason for conspiring the Death of the King and subversion of the Government was then and there set again to the Bar and making no Challenges the former Jury was sworn viz. Robert Beddingfield John Pelling William Windbury Theophilus Man John Short sen Thomas Nicholas Richard Hoare Thomas Barnes Henry Robins Henry Kemp. Edward Raddish Edward Kemp. To whom the Indictment being read and briefly opened by Mr. North and Serjeant Jefferies Thomas Leigh deposed That the Prisoner in discourse with him and Goodneough about seizing the Tower told them that the only way was to do it with Mortar-Pieces that he would venture his own Ship and provide 200 Men and lay his own Ship on Southwark side and make up his 14 Guns he had already 24 and would undertake once in 20 times to dismount the five Pieces that fac'd towards Southwark-side That he ask'd Goodenough what Mony was provided who answering 40000 l. He answered the Seamen would swallow that up presently to which Goodenough replied there was more provided at any time Mate Lee swore That the Prisoner told him as they were in a Coach together that one of these days they should have a Ball to toss which afterwards he understood by Rouse and Leigh was the Ball that was to be toss'd on Black-Heath That about six Weeks ago Capt. Blague and he walking about the Tower and discoursing of seizing it his way was to scale it but the Captain said the best was to shoot Mortar-pieces on Southwark-side but about the Ship he could say nothing The Prisoner's Defence was That his Business with Rouse was to procure him Mony as being a Broker which brought him sometimes into Goodenough's Company but that he never discours'd about any Publick Affairs and as to the seizing the Tower it was only accidental Discourse And as for his 200 Men it was impossible his Vessel being but a Pink which had been in his Possession but three Weeks and what Arms he had he bought therewith and that he never heard any thing about either a Ball or Bank of Mony Calling his Witnesses Mr. VVright declared That he had waited on the Captain ever since he had been shipp'd and was in his Pay before he had the Ship in possession Robert Chappel Carpenter declar'd The Vessel was not able to do any Service three Weeks ago and that he had been shipp'd four Months and an half to go for New-York One Bellinger the Chirurgeon declared That he had belonged to the Ship seven Weeks and to the Captain before he had a Ship and for Guns belonging to the Ship there were fourteen Saker-Guns of which four were Wooden ones six above Deck and four in the Hold. The Lord Chief Justice then summ'd up the Evidence taking notice to the Jury that these Men belonged to the Captain a great while ago and that there was only one Evidence that did affect him Wherefore the Jury Withdrawing in a short time returned and brought him in Not Guilty THE next day being Saturday July 14. 1683. the Lord Russel Capt. VValcot Mr. Rouse and VVilliam Hone were brought to the Bar to receive Sentence Where the Lord Russel desired to hear his Indictment read in English which was granted and thereupon demanded an Arrest of Judgment because there had been no Evidence of his conspiring the Death of the King as it was in the Indictment but only of levying War But the Verdict being past the Court told him they must go by what the Jury had found and not the Evidence and therefore Sentence was pass'd upon him to be Drawn Hang'd and Quarter'd Capt. VValcot had nothing to say but desired that his Son and some Friends might come and see him Hone had no more to say but begg'd the same favour Rouse insisted on some Disadvantages he had when he came on his Trial and some difference between the Indictment and their Oaths but Verdict being past Judgment was given against them three as against the Lord Russel And upon Friday July 20. following VValcot being drawn to Tyburn in one Hurdle and Rouse and Hone in another and there put into a Cart attended by Dr. Cartwright the Dean of Rippon and the Ordinary of Newgate who urged them much to discover all they knew of the Plot after they had spoke to the People were executed accordingly The next day being Saturday July 21. the Lord Russel having taken leave of his Lady the Lord Cavendish and several others of his Friends at Newgate took Coach with Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Burnet who accompanied him to the Scaffold built in Lincolns-Inn-Fields where he deliver'd his Speech to the Sheriff and after some Preparation he ordered the Executioner after he had lain down a small moment to do his Office without a Sign and so his Head at three blows was severed from his Body and ordered by the Sheriff to be delivered to his Lordship's Friends and Servants as being given them by his Majesty's Favour and Bounty The Trial of Algernon Sidney Esq before the Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster on the 7th 21st and 27th of November 1683. UPON Wednesday Nov. the 7th 1683. Algernon Sidney Esq was arraigned at the Kings-Bench Bar upon an Indictment of High Treason for conspiring the Death of the King and intending to raise a Rebellion in this Kingdom Which Indictment he excepted against as erroneous several Crimes being put together therein distinct in nature one from another and distinguished by Law offering to the Court a Parchment wherein were his Exceptions to the Bill but it was refused and he sorced to plead which he did at length Not Guilty And then he desired a Copy of the Indictment which was denyed him but upon his Request it was read to him again in Latin and his Trial appointed to be on Wednesday Novemb. the 21st 1683. Then and there the Prisoner again appearing he desired Pen Ink and Paper and that Mr. VVinn and Mr. Gibs might write for him which were granted him and then he shewed the reason he had before to desire a Copy of his Indictment which the Lord Stafford and the other Lords in the Tower had urging it for Law upon the Statute of 46 Edw. 3. But the Court over-ruled it Then the Clerk of the Crown called the Jury and after several Challenges the Jurors were John Anger Richard VVhite VVilliam Linn Lawrence VVood Adam Andrews Emery Arguise Josias Clerke George Glisby Nicholas-Baxter VVilliam Reeves VVilliam Grove John Burt. To whom the Indictment being read Mr. Dolben opened the same and the Attorney General opened the Evidence and then Mr. VVest was called against whom the Prisoner excepted
Word again That they offered him their Petition to read but he did not think it fit for him to do it and therefore he refused and would not read it but that he went immediately to the King and acquainted his Majesty with it and he commanded him to let them know they might come when they would which he immediately did they said they would go and speak with some of their Brethren that were not far off in the mean time he gave order that they should be admitted when they came and they did in a little time return and went first into the Bed-Chamber and then into the Room where the King was And all this was before they appeared at the Council This was no Evidence Mr. Pollexfen said against the Archbishop because he was not there and nothing had been proved against him as done in Middlesex and for the other 6 Lords the Lord President did not say that this is the Petition that they said they had to deliver to the King Nor did he see them deliver any thing but that is still lest doubtful so that it stands upon Presumption and not upon Proof However the Kings Counsel desired to leave it fairly to the Jury upon this Fact and then therefore the Bishops Counsel desired to be heard in their Defence And First Sir Robert Sawyer in a long and learned Speech told the Jury that the Charge against the Bishops was That they did conspire to diminish the Royal Authority and to this end make a Libel against the King but that the Evidence fell far short of this which only proved that the Bishops in as private and humble a manner as they could presented the Paper to the King which was a Petition to be relieved against an Order of Council which they conceived they were aggrieved by and herein was no Sedition either in the matter or manner of delivering it That it was not to be question'd but that any Subject commanded by the King to do an unlawful Thing or what was against his Conscience might humbly tell the King why he could not obey him And that whereas Mr Attorn Gen. had at first said that the Bishops were not sued as Bishops nor prosecuted for their Religion he could not conceive what they were sued for else the Information being against them for an Act they did as Bishops and no otherwise it being what was their Duty and properly within their Sphere and Jurisdiction That whether therefore they consider'd the Matter of this Petition or Manner of delivering it or the Persons that deliver'd it there can appear no Reason for such an Information against them In the Matter of the Petition he consider'd two Things First the Prayer wherein he shewed there could be nothing of Falsity nor any thing contrary to Law for which reason he said possibly it was left out of the Information as being thought no part of a Libel and so made a deform'd story of it without Head or Tail a Petition directed to no Body and for nothing it being without both Title and Prayer Secondly he considered the Reasons of the Bishops for not complying expressed in it The first whereof is the Declarations of Parliament against the Dispensing Power and the next because it is a Matter of so great Moment and Consequence to the whole Nation that they could not make themselves so far Parties in it For if it be of any effect then by it not only the Laws of the Reformation but of all Religion are suspended and what a mischief that would be to the Church which is under the Care of my Lords the Bishops any one might easily apprehend While Sir Robert was speaking to these things the Ld. Ch. Justice said aside that he must not suffer this They intended to dispute the King's Power in suspending Laws Mr. Justice Powel reply'd to him that they could not avoid that Point because if the King had no such Power which was his Judgment then this Petition could not be Libellous The Lord Chief Justice told him he knew he was full of that Doctrine and because the Bishops should have no occasion to say that he denied to hear their Counsel he would let them talk on till they were weary Then for the Manner of delivering the Petition Sir Robert Sawyer proceeded to shew that from their Evidence it appeared to be in the most private and humble manner Leave being first asked and then given Then for the Persons he shewed that they did no more than what was their Duty and belonged to them the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. making them special Guardians of the Law of Uniformity and of that other Law in his late Majesties Reign where all the Clauses of 1 Eliz. are revived Now in that Statute of 1 Eliz. there is this Clause And for the due Execution hereof the Queen 's most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in God's Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Ordinaries that they do endeavour themselves to the utmost of their Knowledges that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his People for neglecting this good and wholsome Law By this he shewed that it was plain that the Bishops upon pain of bringing upon themselves the Imprecation of this Act of Parliament were obliged to see it executed and then when any thing comes under their Knowledg especially if they are to be Actors in it that has such a tendency to destroy the very Foundations of the Church as the Suspending of Laws has it concerns them that have no other Remedy to address the King by Petition about it and 't is the Duty of an Officer or Magistrate to tell the King what is Law and what is not he instancing in Cavendish's Case and another in the time of the Lord Hobbart Next to him Mr. Finch spoke briefly recapitulating the King's Evidence and then shewing that this Petition as well for the Matter of it as Manner of delivering it and the Persons by whom it was delivered was no Libel Particularly that the King 's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative was no way diminished thereby for that the Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power which the King could not have Because a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature which is only in the King and his two Houses of Parliament as to make Laws and a Power to suspend is equal to a Power of abrogating Laws because they are no longer in being as Laws while they are suspended That this was never attempted but in the last King's time which was took notice of and declared against in Parliament in the Years 1662 and 1672 the effect of which was that His Majesty cancell'd the Declaration and declared that it
Penal Laws not being for the future to be drawn either into Consequence or Example caused the Original Declaration under the Great Seal to be cancelled in his presence whereof Himself and several other Lords of the Council were Witnesses The Record of which in the Journal was then read Then his present Majesty's Speech on Novemb 9. 1685 to both Houses was read wherein declaring the Necessity of his Standing Army and requiring a Supply for their Maintenance he says Let no Man take Exception that there are some Officers in the Army not qualified according to the late Tests I will neither expose them to disgrace nor my self to the want of them if there should be another Rebellion to make them necessary to me The Commons Journal being then turned to their Address to the King was then read Wherein after they had thanked him for his Care in the suppressing the late Rebellion they acquaint him that they had considered his Speech and as to that part of it relating to the Officers They do out of their bounden Duty humbly represent to him That those Officers cannot by Law be capable of their Imployments and that the Incapacities they bring upon themselves thereby can no ways be taken off but by Act of Parliament That therefore they are preparing a Bill to indemnify them from the Penalties they have now incurred And because the continuance of them in their Imployments may be taken to be a dispensing with that Law without Act of Parliament the Consequence of which is of the greatest Concern to the Rights of all his Majesty's Subjects and to all the Laws made for the Security of their Religion They therefore do beseech him he would be graciously pleased to give such Directions therein that no Apprehensions or Jealousies may remain in the Hearts of his Subjects After this that forecited Clause of the Statute 1. Eliz. was read and then Mr. Serj. Levinz spoke to this effect That the Charge being for a Libel it ought to be consider'd Whether the Bishops did deliver this Paper to the King of which there has been no direct Proof Publishing he would not talk of because there has been no proof of a Publication or supposing they did deliver it Whether this be a Libel upon the Matter of it the Manner delivering it or the Persons that did it He said it was no Libel taking notice of the disingenuity offered the Bishops in only setting forth part and not the whole Affirming that the Subjects have a Right to Petitioning in all their Grievances That this was a Grievance the Bishops petitioned against it being what the Law neither Common nor Act of Parliament allowed of And therefore the Bishops could not be guilty of the Charge Then Mr. Finch spoke briefly again making a Challenge to shew any one Instance of such a Declaration such a general Dispensation of Laws from the Conquest till 1672. Leaving their Cause upon this Point That to suspend Laws is to abrogate them and that to abrogate Laws is part of the Legislature which Power is lodged in King Lords and Commons To which Sir Robert Sawyer added That he found few Attempts of this Nature in any Kings Reign In the Reign of Henry the 4th there was an Act of Parliament that Foreigners should have a free Trade in London notwithstanding the Franchises of the City After the Parliament rose the King issued out his Proclamation forbidding the execution of that Law and commanding that it should be in suspense till the next Parliament yet that was held to be against Law Then he mentioned another Case upon the Statute of 31. Hen. 8. cap. 8. which enables the King by Proclamation in many Cases to create the Law which Statute was repealed by 1. Edw. 6. cap. 12. That very Act reciting that the Law is not to be altered or restrained but by Act of Parliament Then Mr. Sommers of Counsel also for the Bishops mentioned the Case of Thomas and Sorrel upon the Validity of a Dispensation of the Statute of Edward the 6th touching selling of Wine Where it was the Opinion of every one of the Judges and they did lay it down as a settled Position that there never could be a Suspension of an Act of Parliament but by the Legislative Power Affirming that the Matters of Fact alledged in the Bishops Petition had been proved perfectly true by the Journals of both Houses That there could be no Design thereby to diminish the King's Prerogative because he had none such That the Petition could not be Seditious nor stir up Sedition because it was presented to the King in private and alone False it could not be because the Matter of it is True There could be nothing of Malice because the Occasion was not sought the Thing was pressed upon them and a Libel it could not be because the Intent was innocent and they kept within the Bounds set by the Act of Parliament that gives the Subject leave to petition his Prince when he is grieved Here the Bishops Counsel saying they had done Mr. Attorn Gen. spoke for the King Alledging that the Records produced were nothing to the purpose because they were only Matters transacted in Parliament and not Acts of Parliament That be their Libel never so true yet still it was Libellous That though the Subject may petition the King yet not in such reflecting Terms And though Religion was concerned yet ought not illegal Means he made use of That therefore the Bishops ought rather to have acquiesced under their Passive Obedience till the Parliament met which the King had promised in his Declaration should be in November Then Mr. Sol. Gen. in along Speech added That the Bishops had no right of Petitioning out of Parliament and therefore the Proceedings in Parliament which had been produced were not to the purpose Here Mr. Justice Powel expressed his dislike of this Doctrine aside to the Ld. Ch. Justice who concurred with him Going on to prove from the Statute 1 Hen. 4. that there ought to have been no Complaint made till it had come from the Commons in Parliament that the Law continued 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 which yet was abolished by the Statute of the 15 Car. 1. That the Proceedings of Parliament produced were no Declarations of Parliament because never passed into an Act and therefore they are Nullities and cannot be accepted of as any Evidence Here again the Ld. Ch. Justice and Mr. Justice Powel discours'd aside saying he thought to impose upon them but they believed not one word he said Then he appealed to the Case in the 2 Cro. 2. Jac. 1. Where it is asserted That the King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical And the Case of De Libellis Famosis which says in the 5th Report If a Person does a thing