the thing lawful nor could this in the least be inferr'd from the other because however an Act may be made void or tortious Indeed in the Reign of R. 3. whose Character blemishes the Judgments of his time it was held by all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber that the King might license the shipping of Wooll elsewhere than at the Staple yet even they were not of Opinion that the License made the thing lawful for then the Discoverer could not have had his share which they agreed that he ought to have and so the License was only as far as it concern'd the King. They also setled the other Point which before was a Doubt That a Pardon before an Information brought would defeat the Informer But then the Authority of the first Point is suspended by a Doubt remaining before all the Judges afterwards assembled upon a rehearing of this Cause in a more setled time Indeed they agreed the other of an Information after a Pardon but hitherto there is no manner of Proof of any Case wherein the King by his Dispensation could discharge the Penalty given not only to himself but also to an Informer who has his Action given by Statute But for this we must take a Leap downwards as far as 13 Jac. 1. which we may ballance with the 7th of his Reign when it is held by Lord Cook That where a Statute concerns the Benefit of the King alone he may dispense with it by a Non obstante And BY THE COURT that where it concerns the Benefit of the Subject the King cannot dispense 7. Whereas our Chief Justice thinks that a Statute's providing against Non obstante's shews that the King could otherwise have dispens'd with the Act by a Non obstante it is not onely unconcluding because it might be no more than an Argument of an Abuse of the Law but turns very strong against him For admit the Resolution of the Judges 2 H. 7. were as he contends yet he who makes so much of a Concession of the Commons of England assembled in Parliament when he thinks it of his Side ought surely to yield that the Judgment of King Lords and Commons is of uncontrollable Authority Wherefore when not only one but several Parliaments provide that all Non obstantes shall be void is it not plain that their Judgment was that such Non obstantes could not be set up by any Resolution of Judges And for this we have the Judgment of King Lords and Commons and that of but late days That even where a Grant is made to the King where 't will be said he is solely entrusted for the Publick Good yet it may be out of his power to defeat it by a Non obstante This appears by the Statute 19 Car. 2. c. 8. which provides That no Letters Patents granted to any Person of Exemptions from Subsidies c. shall free them from the Charges of any Sum granted by that Act and all Non obstantes in Letters Patents made or to be made in bar of any Act or Acts of Parliament for the Supply or Assistance of his Majesty are thereby declared to be void and of none effect And even where Statutes have not expresly provided against Non obstante's tho' the Statutes were such as restrain what many take to be the King's Prerogative yet if we receive the Sense of Lords and Commons the King has no Prerogative warranting Non obstante's to them as appears by the Articles against King Richard the Second one of which is For that the King contrary to the Laws and Wills of the Justices suffer'd Sheriffs to continue longer than one Year c. This were enough to set aside all Pretences taken from Calvin's Case tho' as Sir Edward Herbert pleasantly suggests it were resolv'd there That that was resolv'd 2 H. 7. which was never mention'd till after the Resolution Here is the Authority of Lords and Commons in competition with that of Mercenary Judges And if the Concessions of the Commons alone assembled in Parliament are of weight with him I know not why their Denials ought not as well to be urg'd against him which if we may do not onely the Fictions and loose Reasonings in Calvin's Case but the main Resolution there may be justly call'd meer Court-Law Such I am sure it is that the honest House of Commons 4 Jac. 1. would not bear it and any one that reads the Arguments of those Learned Men who manag'd the Conference with the Lords upon the Question of the Union of the two Kingdoms may easily see how inexcusable the Judges of that time were to proceed to the Judgment in Calvin's Case after they had been so enlightned Nor could they but know that the then Parliament was broke up because they were not so complying as the Judges shew'd themselves both then and afterwards But they secur'd their Cushions by it while Sir John Bennet Father of the present Lord Oswalston lost his in the Prerogative-Court and had a swinging Fine impos'd upon him into the Bargain several Years after upon pretence of Extortion but as I am well inform'd the real ground was his disrellishing Speech in Parliament upon this Subject 'T is well known some Princes us'd to have good Memories that way Manet altâ mente repostum c. 8. Non obstante's having no other Foundation than in the Encroachments of Princes and Servility of Judges especially if we except Cases concerning the King alone they ought not to be strain'd to any new Case The Advice of Bracton will rise up in Judgment against such Men who tells them If such things never hapned before and the Judgment is without Light from former Cases and difficult let it be adjourn'd to the Great Court. According to which Adjournments to ensuing Parliaments have been frequent in former days when there were more Learned Judges and that as often for the weightiness of the Matter as intricacy of the Points 9. But for the closing Aggravation Whereas our Chief Justice denies all indirect means for procuring Opinions and stands upon his Innocence challenging the World to lay any thing of that kind to his charge I think by this time few will the less suspect him because of his Assurance if either Threats or Sollicitations can be prov'd upon him the World will judge either of them indirect Means and I am much misinform'd if both cannot be justly charg'd If after all he can excuse himself with renouncing Infallibility and making Asseverations of keeping to the clear Dictates of his Conscience I must say Judges in former Ages have had hard luck and been made Examples to little purpose King Alfred would lose the Reputation of his Justice in hanging above thirty Judges and Parliaments have been very barbarous to proceed against others as Traytors who yet either were so ingenuous to confess their Faults or at least not so provoking as to
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Herbert's ACCOUNT EXAMIN'D By W. A. Barrister at Law. Wherein it is shewn That those Authorities in Law whereby he would excuse his Judgment in Sir Edward Hales his Case are very unfairly cited and as ill applied Vendidit hic auro patriam Dominumque potentem Imposuit leges fixit pretio atque refixit LONDON Printed for J. Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-yard and Mat. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1689. THE Lord Chief Justice HERBERT's ACCOUNT EXAMIN'D WEre it not the Reproach of our Times to have had Men advanc'd to Courts of Judicature for other Merits besides Integrity and Learning in the Laws of their Country it might seem a great piece of Vanity in me to answer a Book stamp'd with the Name and Authority of a Chief Justice Yet perhaps I might be thought not without cause to take this as my more immediate Province having been the first of the Profession who ventur'd in Publick Companies to shew how wofully that innocent Book-Case 2 H. 7. in relation to Sheriffs has been mistook or wrested to serve for Colour to that hasty Judgment in Sir Edward Hales his feigned Case Wherefore how needful soever the Chief Justice may find it to make Protestations of his Sincerity this may supersede any such from me Nor would I willingly call his a Protestation contrary to apparent Fact especially considering that weakness of Judgment manifested by this Defence did he not give too great occasion for it 1. From the large Steps which he took to precipitate and as I am well assured to sollicit that Resolution 2. The manner in which he delivered it widely differing from what he now prints 3. The unfairness of his present Quotations And 4. The unhappiness not to say worse of those Instances which he is pleased to give of his Sincerity I shall not dispute or repeat his Lordships State of the Case But the Question upon it being Whether the King may by his Prerogative dispense with the Statute 25 Car. 2. c. 2. requiring all Persons in any Office under the King to take the Test against Popery I shall enquire 1. Whether those Books which he relies on as Authorities for his Judgment give any colour to it 2. Whether admit they did they would countenance the Resolution as he delivered it 3. Whether those Instances which he offers of his Sincerity may reasonably be taken for such 4. Whether he in any measure clears himself from the Imputation of being highly criminal His Lordship like a Master-Disputant begins as he thinks with a Definition of a Dispensation which he says is given by the Lord Cook Dispensatio mali prohibiti est de jure Domino Regi concessa propter impossibilitatem praevidendi de omnibus particularibus dispensatio est mali prohibiti provida relaxatio utilitate seu necessitate pensatâ Where I must say he very unlearnedly clogs the Definition of a Dispensing Power with the Person in whom 't is suppos'd to be lodg'd nay and the Reason too why it should be so which neither the Lord Cook nor Common Sense gives him any Warrant to bring into the Definition However it seems according to this a Dispensing Power in some Case or other is vested in the King which yet is far from proving any thing to his purpose for either the King may in all Cases dispense as to particular Persons and then his Distinction of malum prohibitum malum in se falls to the ground or else it reaches only to those Cases in which the Judgment or Flattery of Judges have ascrib'd it to him He adds out of the Lord Cook as an Enlargement upon what he calls the Definition Inasmuch as an Act of Parliament which generally prohibits any thing upon a Penalty that is POPULAR OR ONLY GIVEN TO THE KING may be inconvenient to divers particular Persons in respect of Person Time or Place for this purpose the Law gives a Power to the King to dispense with particular Persons Where the Lord Cook manifestly restrains the Penalty to such as is given the King as Head of the People upon which account only he calls it Popular nor indeed can be thought to take in what is granted to any Subject that will inform it being mentionâ—d without distinction whether before or after an Information commenced And that the Lord Cook 's Words here ought not to be strained farther is yet more evident from the Case of Penal Statutes on which Sir Herbert's Misrepresentations will occasion my more particular Remarks As Sir Edward considering what Interest he has serv'd may be presum'd something conversant with Priests and Jesuits He might among others of less use have consulted the Learned Suarez who after the Definition which he makes to be Legis humanae relaxatio in a distinct Chapter shews with whom the ordinary Power of Dispensing which he distinguishes from that which is delegated is lodged where he says Certum est eum habere ordinariam potestatem dispensandi qui legem tulit And he gives the Reason Quia ab ejus voluntate potentiâ pendet So that none can have this power but he or they who are vested with the Legislative exclusive of others or such as have it delegated from thence That the King has not the Legislative exclusive of others is what I have formerly prov'd at large and it lies on the other side to shew that the Dispencing Power bas been delegated to him Yet thus much may be said on the contrary 1 st That the King could not in Law be presum'd to have exercis'd such a Power by himself for that the ancient Law provided that he should have a Counsel chose in Parliament who as the Charter affim'd to be declaratory of the ancient Law and sworn at the Coronation of Hen. 3. has it were sworn quod negotia Domini Regis Regni fideliter tractabunt sine acceptatione personarum omnibus justitiam exhibebunt and that it was accounted the Law long after that appears by the impeachment of Roger Mortimer 4o. E. 3. part of which was that Whereas it was ordain'd in the Parliament next after the Kings Coronation that four Bishops four Earls and four Barons should stand by the King PUR LUY COUNSEILLER without whose assent NUL GROS BUSOIGN NE SE FEUST Nevertheless Mortimer would undertake to manage all by himself accroaching Royal Power and it is easily to be shewn that such a Counsel was in use or continually insisted on as the right of the Kingdom from the time of the Charter confirmâ—d 28. Hen. 3. till the end of the Reign of Hen. 6. 2. A Power to grant Non obstantes to Statutes could not have been a right in the Crown at Common Law for we have clear Proofs of its odious and condemn'd beginning from the sulpureous Fountain of Rome as an honest Popish Lawyer confest with a deep sigh 35 Hen. 3.
that Lord Vaughan is who owns That the King cannot dispense in any Case but with his own Right and not with the Right of any other which he confines not to individual Persons consider'd singly for he says expresly If the Wisdom of the Parliament hath made an Act to restrain pro bono publico the Importation of Foreign Manufactures that the Subjects of the Realm may apply themselves to the making of the said Manufactures for their Support and livelihood to grant to one or more the Importation of such Manufacture without any Limitation non obstante the said Act is a Monopoly and void For this I am sure particular Persons are not entitled to Actions upon their own accounts Indeed he supposes the King may license limiting the Quantity and that for private uses not by way of Merchandise as not being against the End of the Act. Wherefore in our Case all the Subjects being interested as Protestants their Support and Encouragement being provided for by the Act and the letting Papists into the Government against the End of it who can doubt but Lord Vaughan would have pronounc'd Hales's Dispensation void And whereas our Judge pleads in his excuse That tho' this Law was made for the Interest of Religion the Offence is not directly against Religion but against a Politick Constitution tho' made for the Interest of Religion he might not onely have learnt from Lord Cook above That the Subjects have such an Interest as the King cannot dispense with in what is made void or tortious that is unlawful for the good of the Church but Lord Vaughan shews That there are mala politica not to be dispens'd with and instances in some things which are Nusances in specie Now besides what already has been shewn to disable these three last Instances urg'd by Sir Edward That they are not pro bono singulorum populi as that Rule is vindicated from Misapplications may appear in that neither of them affect all the People in general As to the Clergy-men they can only do injury in their respective Parishes where they are Benefic'd and the Welshman in that part of Wales where he is an Officer nor besides can the Clergy-men be suppos'd much to prejudice the Interest of Religion being the Plurallist cannot supply his Cure but by one qualified and the Bastard might be a good Man and good Preacher And yet even these would fall within Vaughan's acceptation of his own Rule for he shews That Laws made for the benefit of but part of the Kingdom Artificers and Husbandmen cannot be dispens'd with to any one Person to frustrate the Ends of the Statutes This leads to another Flourish which he makes with the Vaughan's Authority in answer to the Objection That the Law was made pro bono publico and was highly necessary for the Publick Indeed Lord Vaughan will have it that the sole Reason why a Statute cannot be dispens'd with is not that the Law was made pro bono publico because all Laws were made for Publick good and yet Dispensations had been allow'd in some nor was the Degree of Publick good that which alter'd the Case yet he shews that the Extent of it does and seems still to keep to Cook 's Rule Where the People had entrusted the King with the Law as Head of the complicated Body there the Trust was entirely in him but when the Law extended in Interest not onely to individual Persons but to a considerable part of the Nation much more when to all in either of which Cases the Statute is pro bono singulorum populi in neither of these can the King dispense And that the Statute in question is of the largest extent appears as the Nation is a Protestant Nation this the Religion establish'd by Law and these Provisions necessary Means to preserve it and therefore tho' the Papists have no benefit by it they are not in Law in this respect any part of the People for People always is taken for them that have Legal Interests Thus when the Statute provides That the People of Counties shall chuse their Sheriffs it relates not to all the People in general but onely to Freeholders Having thus shewn That those Grounds which our Judge pretends to have gone upon afford no Countenance even to his Palliation of the Judgment they will appear much less to countenance it as it was deliver'd which to evince I shall here set it down ipsissimis verbis from that faithful Reporter Mr. Blaney It was on that memorable Day when as another mark of his Sincerity he directed the willing Jury and concurr'd in the infamous Sentence against that excellent Author Mr. Johnson when the Jury was gone out the Chief Justice took occasion to inveigh against spreading of Scandalous Reports about Cases depending in the Court and to prevent any thing of that Nature in the Case of Sir Edward Hales he thought fit to deliver the Opinion of the Judges in this manner C. J. In the Case of Godwin and Hales wherein the Defendant pleads a Dispensation from the King it is doubted whether or no the King had such a Prerogative Truly upon the Argument before us it appear'd as clear a Case as ever came before this Court But because Men fancy I know not what difficulty when really there is none we were willing to give so much Countenance to the Question in the Case as to take the Advice of all the Judges of England They were all assembled at Serjeants-Inn and this Case was put them and the Great Case of the Sheriffs was put whether the Dispensation in that Case were Legal because upon that depended the Execution of all the Law of the Nation And I must tell you that there were then Ten upon the place that clearly delivered their Opinions That the Case of the Sheriffs was good Law and that all the Attainders grounded upon Indictments found by Juries return'd by such Sheriffs were good and not erroneous and consequently that Men need not have any Fears or Scruples about that Matter And in the next place they did clearly declare That there was no imaginable difference between that Case and this unless it were that this were the much clearer Case of the two and liable to the fewer Exceptions My Brother Powel said he was inclin'd to be of the same Opinion but he would rather have some more time to consider of it but he has since sent by my Brother Holloway to let us know that he does concur with us To these Eleven Judges there is One Dissenter Brother Street who yet continues his Opinion That the King cannot dispense in this Case But that 's the Opinion of One single Judge against the Opinion of Eleven We were satisfied in our own Judgments before and having the Concurrence of Eleven out of Twelve we think we may very well declare the Opinion of the Court to be That the King may dispense in this
Reporters foreign to any matter in question against solemn Resolutions which either wilful Falsifications or criminal Negligence has occasion'd the answering Objections with a Case which never had a Resolution but what he and his Brethren gave when it was brought in by Head and Shoulders onely to be a leading Case to this 5. He could not but know that the Case was faintly argued against Sir Edward Hales either he or the late Empson and Dudley having given the Fees on both sides wherefore 't was comical for the Chief Justice to say That the Case appear'd clear upon the Argument I am sure he is inexcusable that when Causes of less Consequence and of less dark Learning us'd to be argued twice at least this was but once and the learned Mr. Wallop who could have set it in the truest light was refus'd to be heard to it tho' he requir'd it 6. Our Chief Justice might easily have found that the beginning of Non obstante's was within time of Memory which would not be enough to entitle the King to a Prerogative For as 't is in Plowden every Prerogative contains a Prescription for it rests in usage that is such as are not deriv'd from known Grants of the People And he might have learnt from that Great Man whom he would fain draw to his side That Presidents are useful to decide Questions but in such Cases as these which depend upon fundamental Principles from which Demonstrations may be drawn millions of Presidents are to no purpose Time of legal Memory is well known to extend to the Reign of R. 1. and tho' Non Obstante's as I observ'd above are complain'd of within that time as early as 35 H. 3. yet that diligent and faithful Searcher into Antiquity Mr. Prin shews That they were then made use of only to revoke some indiscreet Grants or Priviledges but not to elude subvert or dispense with any Penal Laws or Acts of Parliament till they were introduced by religious Persons after the Statute of Mortmain 7 E. 1. to elude and frustrate the Act. And if this be true I am sure thus far there is no Colour for the late Resolution for they might have seen in Lord Vaughan That the King in that Case dispenses only with his own Right and concludes not the mean Lords Tho' successive Resolutions of Judges are but Evidences of the Law and such as are to be examin'd and rectified by the Constitution and fundamental Maxims of the Inherent Rights and Liberties of a free-born People Yet if Sir Edward had had the diligence to read what might have occurr'd on this Subject or the Honesty to hear it from others he might have known that it is far from being a setled Point That the King might dispense with particular Persons as to whatever is not prohibited by the Law of God and that his Dispensation makes the thing prohibited lawful to be done by him that has it The farther we look back since this Power has come in question the less does it seem allowed Edward 3. with the Assent of that Council which as I observ'd before was chose in Parliament had granted to Merchants Denizens for a time the same Liberty about Staple Commodities which Merchants Aliens had tho' this was not by the King alone and for the Benefit of Natives yet the Merchants fearing that they might be impeach'd in time to come for their Merchandize which they had so pass'd by vertue of such Grants for as much as they were made out of Parliament for their Surety obtain'd a Ratification and Confirmation in Parliament But the vexata questio was about licensing the shipping of Wooll elsewhere than at Calais that the King might do this the Pretence was specious Calais was no part of the ancient Demeasn of the Crown but a new Acquisition whose Interests the King seem'd to have more absolutely at his Disposal according to the Resolution of our Judges before the House of Lords who declared That tho' the Canaries were the Dominion of the King of Spain they were no part of the Dominion of Spain And if Sir Edward had taken notice of Lord Cook where he is against as well as where he seems to favour him he ought to have observ'd That one Lyons a Merchant and Lord Latimer were sentenc'd in Parliament for procuring of Licenses and Dispensations for transporting of Wooll And this they laid to the Destruction of the Staple and of the Money of Calais to the great Damage of the King and Realm Indeed the year after the Latimer's Sentence is remitted at the Request of the Commons alledging that the Charge against him was not true not for defect of matter So that here is a Judgment of the House of Lords in Point against one of those very Cases upon which Court Judges have since founded their Distinction of malum prohibitum malum in se And it is an easie thing to know which ought to turn the Scale After this it came to be a Question before all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber Whether this Offence being pardoned which that the King might do after it was committed has not been disputed the Pardon before an Information brought would defeat the Informer of his share There the Court held That if the Suit were the Parties the Pardon should not bar him but the sole Question was Whether the Party was entitled to any Suit being the Advantage was given to the Discoverer which he might have by a Suggestion in the Exchequer but the Statute gives no Action however this receiv'd no Determination at that time But if the Question had then been of a Dispensation and whether that would bar the Informer's Action given by Statute can any man doubt but that they would have adjudg'd it could not When notwithstanding a Pardon and that in a Case where an Action was not expressly given yet it was so doubtful that they would not determine against the Informer but that the Dispensation would not have avail'd with them or at least they would not have lookt upon it to authorize what was prohibited by any Statute appears from other Passages there as where it is said That in a Recognizance of the Peace which is not confin'd to one entered into at the request of a Subject the King cannot pardon or release till the Peace is broken And where a man ought to repair a Bridge the King can pardon only for the Fine due to himself but however the Party shall be obliged to repair the Bridge because this is to the Damage of all the People And to the same purpose is that 3 H. 7. that tho' the King may pardon or free from a pecuniary Mulct before the occasion happen yet he cannot pardon or discharge the Trespass it self and instance is given in voluntary Escapes So far were they from believing that the King in remitting the pecuniary Mulct could make
justifie them It is well known in Story that six Judges and two of the King's Council at Law suffer'd for Treason upon a Parliamentary Prosecution 11 R. 2. for delivering their Opinions That they were to be punish'd as Traytors who hindred the King from exercising his Soveraignty and Prerogative over a Statute and an Ordinance and Commission made in the foregoing Parliament The substance of their Crime lay in ascribing to the King a Power to defeat the Provisions of the Parliament for the safety of the Nation and is a direct President at which our Judges ought to tremble Nor can it avail them that the express words of the Statute 25 E. 3. c. 2. do not condemn them since that Act transmits Common-Law Treasons to the Judgment of Parliament and the Statute 1 Mar. c. 1. leaves that power untouch'd and who can doubt but such a Resolution and that justified in Print and published to the World is an overt Act of Treason as it tends to the subverting the Fundamental Rights of Parliaments Nor can they have any colour for asking with the Lord Strafford Where is the Buoy when they see so many Shipracks to admonish them Nor ought Sir Edward to wonder at a Treason against the Government tho' not directly against the Person of the King his Relatives Officers or his Coin nor yet an actual levying of War within his Kingdom or adhering to his Enemies for he may find among the Articles against the Lord Kimbolton and others exhibited Anno 1641. by his Father then Attorney-General That they have traiterously endeavoured to subvert the very Rights and Beings of Parliaments But since Sir Edward pleads Conscience for what he did and might have urg'd the Authority of Spiritual Guides who would make the Scripture notion of higher Powers a sufficient Warrant for such a Judgment I shall conclude with the good Queen Elizabeth Doctrine of the famous Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester By Superior Powers ordain'd of God we understand not only Princes but all politick States and Regiments some where the People some where the Nobles have the same Interest to the Sword that Princes have in their Kingdoms And in Kingdoms where Princes bear rule by the Sword we do not mean the Prince's private Will against his Laws but his Precept derived from his Laws and agreeing with his Laws FINIS Publish'd by this Author A Poetical Essay towards an Epitome of the Gospel Ed. Anno 1678. Jani Anglorum facies nova Anno 1680. Jus Anglorum ab Antiquo Anno 1681. King Edward the Sixth against the Pope's Supremacy with Remarks on his Life Anno 1682. Lord Hollis his Remains Dr. Twisden's Considerations touching the Grand Question With Reflections upon Antidotum Britannicum and Mr. Hunt's Book and Postscript Anno 1682. Anonymus his Letters to Dr. Sherlock concerning Church-Communion With a Reply to his Answer Anno 1683. A Letter of Remarks on Jovian Anno 1683. A true Account of the Unreasonableness of Mr. Fitton 's Pretences against the Earl of Macclesfield Grotius his Arguments for the Truth of the Christian Religion in Verse With an Appendix concerning Prophecies Anno 1686. The Idea of Christian Love and Paraphrase on Mr. Waller's Poem of Divine Love. Anno 1688. Ready for the Press A Supplement to Dr. Brady's Introduction and Compleat History Vid. Account p. 1. Account p. 6. Cook 11 Rep. f. 88. V. p. 7. 8. P. 6. 11 Rep. f. 88. 7 Rep. f. 36. Suarez de Legibus lib. 6. cap. 10. f. 384. Ib. cap. 14. f. 395. V. Jus Angl. ab Antiquo Jani Angl. fa. nov Vid. Mat. Par. de Anno 28. H. 3. So Rot. Pat. 42 H. 3. m. 4. m. 10. V. Jan. An. fa. Nov. p. 244. Rot. Par. 4. E. 3. Vid Rot. Par. 5. E. 2. Ryley pl. parl f. 317. Rot. Par. 8. E. 2. n. 35. 4. E. 3. n. 16. 17. E. 3. n. 12. Walsingham fol. 243. Vid. Knighton the 1st Art. against R. 2. f. 2747. Vid. etiam 5. H. 4. n. 37. 11. H. 4. n. 15. 1. H. 6. n 16.24.30 11. H. 6. n. 17. 31. H. 6. n. 38. V. Roles Ab. 2. part 179. Mat. Par. ed. Tig. f. 784. V. Math. Paris f. 827. illepidum Prin's Animad f. 129.130 V. etiam Sir John Davis his Rep. f. 69. b. * Vid. Mod. ten Parl. Parliamentum separari non Debet dummodo aliqua Petitio pendeat indiscussa vel ad Minus ad quam non suit determinatum responsum si Rex contrarium permittat perjurius est As I find it in an ancient MS. of the Modus Vid. etiam 4 Inst f. 11. Vid. 50 E. 3. n. 177 178. 1 R. 2.95 This acknowledg'd for Law in the King's Name 2 R. 2. n. 4. Vid. Spelm. Vit. Aelfredi f. 115. Mirrour p. 282. Where 't is plac'd among the Abuses of the Law That Parliaments are not held twice a year Account p. 7. 7 Rep. f. 36. Account p. 7. Pag. 7. Pag. 28. Chief Justice Fineux 11 H. 7. f. 12. a. Moor Rep. f. 714. Indeed the Book spsaks also of dispensing with Statutes restraining the Prerogative but that concerns not the Instances here of things forbid the Subject for the limitation of that Power Vid. infra F. 332. F. 333. Sup. f. 714. 7 Rep. f. 36. b. 1 H. 7. f. 2. b. 3. â— P. 8 9. Acc. p. 9. Yet p. 5. he promises to cite the Books and Pages and to transcribe the very words of his Authorities that every body may be convinc'd if he were in a mistake it was no wilful mistake 2 H. 7. f. 6. b. 7. a. F. 7. It should be c. 9. F. 7. a. Brook Patents n. 45. Fitz. Ab. tit Grant n. 22. Account p. 11. First Ground 23 H. 6. c. 8. Vid. Cambd. Brit. f. 115. Vid Dugdale's Baron f. 2. Bromton a. f. 779 ad 798. De Regno Northumb. 9 Rep. f. 25 b. ir Rob. Atkins v. Rob. Holford in Scaccario Hil. 22 23 Car. 2. Vid. Rep penes doctissimum Dominum Ward The second Ground Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. par 2. Account p. 12. Vid. Account f. 12. Account p. 12. Accoont p. 13. Grenden v. Levesque de Lincoln Plowden f. 502. Second Point 2 H. 7. Account p. 13. 12 Rep. f. 17. Was made Sollicitor 16 June 34 Eliz. Dugd. Cron. Series f. 99. 12 Rep. f. 18. Dr. Sherlock's Case of Resist p. 113. Dr. Scot's Serm. upon Rom. 13 1. Dr. Sherlock's Case of Non-resistance p. 199. Pag. 199 200. Jovian p. 242. How falsly vid. the Letter to Jovian Vid. Jovian p 236. Account p. 13. 7 Rep. f 4. Vid. Archb. Abbot's Exceptions to Sibthorp's Serm. Rushw part 1. f. 439. 442 7 Rep. f. 27. Vid. Vaugh. f. 286. 4 Inst f. 135. 3 Inst f. 154. Account p. 16. Account p. 16. Vid. Consid touching the Grand Quest a. p. 210. to 214. 1 Inst f. 58 b. Account p. 26. Vid. supra 3 Inst f. 154. Vid sup p. 12 28 30. Account p.