are convicted for non-appearance He must have a new way of reasoning who considering that in 4 E. 3. the Earls and Barons are declared those Peers to whom such Judgments belong that in 5 E. 3. the Prelates declared that in a Case where Blood might be it belonged not to them to be present that in 7 R. 2. the Temporal Lords were only concerned in a Case where the Accusation was Treason with many other Cases that in 1 Hen. 4. the Lords are declared Judges in such matters that in 2 Hen. 4. in a like Trial or Judgment the Temporal Lords are all named who were the Judges that now in 7 Hen. 4. the Temporal Lords are again declared Judges and after all this that the Prelates should be deemed proper Judges in Cases of Blood upon bare Surmises and no direct Proof seems to me to savour of a Man wedded to an Opinion which he resolves to maintain when at last tho Precedents confirm what the Law is 't is that must determine the Controversy This I say in Relation to what Mr. Hunt objects This Precedent may in part serve to give answer to those Arguments drawn from the Identity of Names to the Identity of Right The Bishops saith the Grand Questionist are sometimes comprehended under the name of Grands Seigneurs and Peers therefore their Right is equal to all others who enjoy those Names How he attempts to make this good we shall see anon But first let him consider how weak a way of arguing this is we know nothing is more equivocal than Names Many are called Lords who had once that Name as Embassadors Chief Justice c. or such whose Fathers are Dukes so Earls Eldest Sons yet are indeed but Commoners so Baronagium comprehends all the whole Parliament Barons there are of the Cinque-Ports of the Exchequer and of some chief Towns as I have noted before from Mr. Selden so we are not to judg the Right from the Appellation but govern the Appellation by the Right The first Precedent he urges is pag. 96. where in 4 E. 3. an Act passed for Trial by Peers Cotton Numb 6. 'T is agreed unto by the King and all the Grands in full Parliament that tho the Lords had tried some who were not their Peers upon Accusation by the King in a summary way against Law it should be so no more If the Bishops were here comprehended under the Name of Grands so were the Commons too if it should be an Act of Parliament will he hence infer that the Commons have an equal Right with the Lords because they all are called Grands Who were esteemed Grands or Magnates see Matth. Paris in Anno Dom. 1100. Inhibitio ne qui Magnates viz. Comes Baro Miles seu aliqua alia notabilis Persona c. Here you see under Magnates are taken Earls Barons Knights or any other Person of Rank So Milites Comitatuum and Barones quinque portuum are called Magnates inter com brevia de term sctae trin Sct. Mich. An. 34. E. 1. penes rentem Dom. thesaurarij in Scaccario he that desires more let him consult Mr. Petyt's Learned Discourse of the ancient Rights of the Commons pag. 93 94. and in sundry other places I think therefore I may safely conclude this Point That where Grands are named alone there not only the Bishops but the Earls Barons Judges and Commons might be comprehended but where the Grands are mentioned after the Earls and Barons there the Bishops who ought first to be named shall never be taken in secondarily and by Implication Neither is it any thing to our Question whether it were for their Honour to be absent in some Cases as he intimates pag. 100. in the Case of Roger Mortimer but what the matter of Fact was Pag. 112. He would comprehend the Prelates among the Peers because in 4 E. 3. N. 3. The words are All the Peers Counts and Barons assembled in Parliament upon strict Examination do assent and agree that John Mautrevers is guilty of the Death of Edmund Earl of Kent Here he would infer that the Prelates were present at the Examination of that Capital Crime under the name of Peers because at that time there were no Dukes nor others of Superiour Degree to Earls but he doth not consider that the word Peers in this place doth only denote who those Peers then mentioned were Peers viz. Earls and Barons not Bishops as before Magnates viz. Comes Baro Miles c. As when we say a Noble-Man is to be tried by his Peers we understand only those that are truly so and not others that sometimes may be called so this is much cleared by the Record 2 Hen. 4. N. 30. The Lords Temporal by the Assent of the King adjudged Thomas Holland late Earl of Kent Iohn Holland late Earl of Huntington and others Traitors this Judgment was after the Parties were dead and but the second Successor after Edward the third Why did not now the Prelates come in and claim their Right Certainly they would have done it but that they knew the Law and Practice was against them what else is material in this Chapter hath been taken notice of by the Author of the Letter and others so that it needs no further Examination and I may safely conclude that where the Prelates are not named they are not understood Now that in this case the Bishops could not be meant by the word Peers is very plain from the Record it self For the fore-named Iohn Mautrevers being not in hold the said Peers do pray our Lord the King that search should be made for him throughout the Realm and a Reward promised Now if the Bishops were meant by the word Peers alone for Earls and Barons are named witness the Peers Earls and Barons then by Parity of Reason the said Peers should be meant only of the Bishops as if they alone had made the desire for the Apprehension of the said Matrevers and the Earls and Barons had been unconcerned which is absurd See 4 E. 3. Mem. 3. N. 3. Seld. Baron p. 13. Our Author concludes his third Chapter with the Case of Henry Hotspur the eldest Son of the Earl of Northumberland who for having levied War with others against the King was declared a Traitor being before slain in Battel by the King and Lords in full Parliament this was upon Friday the 18th of February upon the same Friday upon that Case and the Petition of the Earl Father to Henry and Examination of his Cause by the Lords as Peers of Parliament to whom such Judgment belonged for the King would then have referred the whole matter to the Judges he was declared innocent of Treason or Felony but only finable for Trespass at the King's Pleasure for which the said Earl gave Thanks to the King and Lords for their rightful Judgment and also at the same time purged upon his Oath the Arch-bishop of Canterbury the Duke of York
with an evil Eye with much other such Language throughout his Book which the Reader may observe if he pleases He ought with more Reason to have considered the Age the Quality the Place this Octavo Gentleman beld at Court the Service he had done his Country both at home and abroad rather than to have loaden the Ashes of a dead Noble-Man with Revilings railing Language and Reproaches who was known to be a Person of so great Worth and Experience The Reader will pardon this Warmth in me when I hear a Person now at rest so slighted who had he been alive this little Gown-man durst not have approached without marks of Reverence and Submission But let us allow him to make up the shortness of his Reasoning by the length of his Railing Thirdly His Extravagancies are so numerous that nigh every Leaf hath somewhat or other of that Nature Conjectures and Surmises without any manner of Proof must pass for Demonstrations One while the Bishops are Spiritual Barons a Title I never remember given to them nay not so much as Lords Spiritual till the time of Rich. II. Another time Feudal Barons and that there was no other than Feudal Nobility Sometimes they are Barones Majores yet not enobled in Blood nor their Honour conferred upon them by any actual Ceremony or otherwise esteemed than Barons by Tenure and that William the Conqueror intended that as an Honour which themselves and all other Historians complain of as a Burthen That the Bishops in Parliament are a full third Estate and yet we know Acts are good when they are either excluded absent or oppose the passing them and yet they never represented any but themselves Sometime he is troubled that the Nomination of the Bishops is in the King These things cursorily observed by me makes his whole Book appear an indigested Lump fit to be lick'd over if so it may be brought into any form 'T is not unlike a Lottery where after a hundred Blanks you may chance get a Prize But I shall leave a further Examination of his crude Notions to another Hand who may be more concerned to detect his Errors than I am However I cannot omit the taking notice of his pompous Title â—…tis indeed a Titulus Sesquipetulcus Their Right unalterable in that place in the Government they now enjoy which Fancy is confirmed by a Consequence of his own making Page 122 That the Bishops cannot be detruded from that Place they bear in the Constitution of the Government for that no Government can legally or by any lawful Power be changed but must remain for ever once established and it cannot be less then Treason of State to attempt a Change No Authority in the World is competent to make any Alteration How false this Position is he will find if he consult the frequent Change of Governments since the Creation in the Jewish Grecian Roman nay in our Britannick State with many others in all parts of the World Neither can I imagine this Maxime can serve him to any other end than to arraign those Parliaments who have made Laws without them or that in 17 Car. 1. Anno 1642 which by Act took away their Seats in that House And lastly to accuse those as Traitours to the State if any hereafter shall attempt it I am confident no Parliament will endeavour to take from them their just Right but to say they cannot and that the Government cannot then subsist is as absurd as the other is unlikely I must further observe that this Author doth upon all Occasions blame those Persons who deny the Prelates that judicial Power in Capital Cases he would place in them as Enemies to the Government whereas he ought to know that Exceptio probat regulam in non exceptis He that gives them Authority in all things that are clear and denies it them in dubious doth more asserttheir Right then he that by giving it them in all things doth rather perplex it I have now done with this unwary Writer who whilst he seems so zealous for the Government doth himself in the main part of it unhinge and destroy it Doth he not Pag. 144. endeavour to destroy the most ancient Court of Chancery which he calls both a Reproach and Grievance to the Nation Doth he not spend some Leaves to shew how this may be effected by setting up as many Chancellours as there shall be Judges in Courts which must in the end be either wholly useless or run us upon an Arbitrary way of proceeding and put an end to all our ancient way of Trials by Iuries and leave all in the Breast of the Iudg to determine Let him not now think to take off the Envy of this by a fawning commendation of our present Lord Chancellour I am so well acquainted with the great Abilities and large Endowments of that Noble Person that I doubt not but his just Decrees in that Court will remain as perpetual Testimonies of his Conscientious Iustice and Equitable Distribution of it in that place in which he is now settled Nor can I believe he will be pleased with any tho never so due Commendations to the Disparagement of his worthy Predecessors or such as hereafter may succeed him in the most Honourable Station in which he now is worthily placed DId the Author of this Treatise believe that the Lord Bishops voting as Judges in Parliament in Cases of Life and Member could any way conduce either to their Honour or Greatness or the Good of the Church and Nation he would never have entred the List in this Quarrel being himself wholly conformable and in his Judgment fully approving the Polity of the Church of England as the best reformed of any other he knows having cleared herself from the Superstitious Formalities of the Church of Rome on the one hand and on the other not requiring from her Children under Terms of Communion any thing in which she may not lawfully as he thinks be obeyed But being fully convinced that their asserting this Right in themselves will bring forth no other Fruit except Envy to their Persons and perhaps sometime or other through the unequal Affections of a head-strong People Prejudice to their Functions I have been the more easily induced to make known my Thoughts herein I observe there have already been made publick six elaborate Treatises upon this Subject four asserting a Right in them to vote in Parliament in matters of Blood and two against it But because the last and most learned Tractate which goes under the name of the Grand Question c. is look'd upon and indeed is the most material I shall apply my self chiefly to the Examination of his Arguments and I hope discover the Errors Fallacies or Inconsequences of them He tells us at first that 't is granted on both sides that the Bishops sit in Parliament by virtue of their Baronies This I must take Liberty to question as doubtful still premising that Truth doth not lye in
by the Earl of Gloster against whom the Bill was found whereas here the Reference is made by both and to the Kingalone Next we find the King here was present with the rest which was not usual if the Lords had proceeded judicially wherever the matter was heard whether in Parliament or else-where Besides it is observable that the word Consilium is twice written with an s whereas if it had been a Parliament the word would have been written with a c as was generally observed by the Writers of those Times In Conclusion this Record makes nothing either to the Bishops Power of judging in Criminal Cases or that Submission of a matter to the King should be a waver of Peerage but was a making the King an Arbitrator for they knew the Verdict was void being not upon Oath I have before denied that such Persons as sate in the Lord's House by virtue of their Office had any Right to be tried by Noble-Men except they had an inheritable Right of their own as well as their Office I am not therefore concerned to examine as to Predial Feudal or Personal Right what is urged by our Author or any other because I have throughout this Discourse maintained that no Man can have any Priviledg or Right of Trial but according to the nature of his Peerage which seems to me not only reasonable but within the plain meaning of Magna Charta that the Triers and Party tried ought to be of the same Condition and capable to undergo the same Penalties in like Case That what the Discourser hath said as to the Regradation of their Peerage when their Office shall be taken away means no more than that Officers shall no longer sit among the Peers not that they had any Right of Peerage during the continuance thereof tho they were placed among them by a particular Law or Usage Neither is our Author's Reason of any force that because Persons enobled in Blood in a Forreign Country shall not try a Peer of England therefore the Parity is not of Blood but of Priviledg in Parliament For he cannot but know that all Laws are originally made for the benefit of those who are born subject to them or adopted into them by Naturalization and such shall have the full benefit of all things appliable to their English Condition as if they were natural born-Subjects Others that are Strangers tho of equal or greater Quality shall not enjoy the Rights invested in the Natives by their Birth but only the Protection and Priviledge of the Laws of that Country where they are during their abode there Another Argument is drawn by our Author from the Proceedings in Cases of Appeal against a Noble-Man at the Suit of the Party He argues thus If in Appeal of Murther or the like at the suit of the Party a Noble-Man shall be tried by a Jury of good Free-holders then their Exemption from being always so tried proceeds from their sitting in Parliament and not from Nobility of Blood and therefore all those who have Right to sit in that House have Right to the same Priviledg But the Bishops have Right to sit in the same House and are called Barons therefore they ought to enjoy the same Priviledge other Barons have This Argument how specious soever it may appear is unconclusive in many respects First It doth not follow that those that have Priviledg to sit in the same House have the same Priviledges to all Intents and Purposes My Lords the Judges and all Justices of the Peace sit upon the same Bench and by the same Commission yet are not equal in all Circumstances Nay my Lords the Bishops themselves though they are of the same Order and Quality yet are not equal in Priviledges I have before shewed that there were Barones Minores who were not properly Barons but so called and might be left out at the King's Pleasure But such as are enobled in Blood may demand their Writs which the Barones Minores could not And if now the Bishops have that Right which is not certain it is because they are to summon the Clergy without which the Parliament would not be compleat as to the Convocation And were it not for that Reason the Bishops might be now wholly left out for they being only Barons by Tenure cannot be in any other Rank than were the Barones Minores who were left out at the King's Pleasure I have before asserted they hold their Possessions per Servitium Baroniae as a Burthen not Honour to them and their sitting among the Lords was only indulged to the Dignity of their Function as Bishops they being indeed no more than Commoners Neither secondly doth it any way follow that because Peers in some Cases shall be tried by a Common Jury therefore those who are properly Commoners and only priviledged to sit among the Lords should participate of the same Honour with them To examine farther into the Reason why in all Criminal Cases at the Suit of the King the Trial shall be by Peers not so in an Appeal for the same Crime Sir Edw. Coke will tell you One reason is because the Trial if it ought to be so must be before a Lord Steward and no Appeal can be brought before a Lord Steward who is but only Temporary but ought to be brought before the Judges in the King 's ordinary Courts of Justice We are likewise further to consider that Inequality of Persons is not of the Law of Nature but of Human Constitution and that the Statute of Magna Charta is but a Confirmation of our ancient Rights in which all Subjects were Pares But since it is apparent that ever since Magna Charta and perhaps long before the Trials at the Suit of the Party have been as they now are we must look upon them as a Branch of the common Law of England never taken away from the Commoners but that the King and Noble-Men as to what concerned the Crown were contented to introduce that manner of Trial as to the Nobles and long use and Custom hath now made it to be received as the Law of England yet the poor Commoner never received that way of Trial as to his own Right who look'd upon the Verdict of twelve substantial Men of his Neighbourhood as much better Security for them and their Heirs than a Trial upon Honour When upon their Appeal it would always have been in the Power of the King to name again the same Lords for Triers which they had before and by that means defeat them of the benefit of their Appeal to which the Law gives so great respect that upon an Appeal brought all Proceedings at the King's Suit should as has been taken for Law stay till the Appeal were determined because a particular wrong to a private Person in the Murther of an Husband or very near Relation is of greater Consideration to the Party than the general loss of a Subject is to the King I shall
one nay some might have been obliged to attend upon one Cause of Summons exprest which were not upon another for if the King had an Occasion of transporting an Army beyond Sea in that case only they that held by the Service of going into forreign Parts together with such as were tied to general Service were obliged to attend and liable to pay Escuage upon their default to be taxed by them who were present according to the Obligation of their Tenure If the Tenure were to go into Scotland or Wales they could not by reason of their Tenure be compelled to go else-where whereas the Attendance at the King's Court ex more was what I take it lay upon every Tenant in Chief holding by Knights Service Ratione Tenurae and was not superseded by King Iohn's Charter but still they that were not present were concluded as to all Acts of the King's Court Baron either in Criminal or Civil Causes as much as in the court-Court-Baron of an Inferiour Lord the Suitors present may proceed to all Judgments within the Cognizance of their respective Courts where through the common neglect of the Suitors the Steward for the most part gives Judgment by himself Mr. W. who was the first Author of a Lawyer that ran Counter to me makes a distinction between a Parliament and a Curia Regis which I conceive to be without any difference in Relation to the several Powers of the Curia and the Great Council of the Nation except that 't was less in that which is now called the Parliament than 't was in the Curia for he says that to the Curia the Tenants were obliged to come Ratione Tenurae but to the other they could not come but ex Gratia Regis Upon which 't is further observable 1st That he yields that the Commons others beside the Tenants in Chief had as much right as the Tenants in Chief to come to the Parliament before the 49th Hen. 3. for he grants that they too came sometimes before that time ex Gratia 2dly Whereas he supposes that King Iohn's Charter of Resignation was void not being in Magno Concilio though 't was in Communi Concilio Faronum he assignes no reason in the World for it's being void for admit that to the Commune Concilium Faronum or Curia the Tenants in Capite came Ratione Tenurae and to the General Council of the Kingdom ex Gratia which he subjoyns as the Ground for avoiding that ignominious Resignation which he agrees with me contrary to Dr. Brady to have been made in the Curia Regis and not in the General Council of the Kingdom does it follow that because they had no Right to come to the General Council though they had to the Curia that therefore a Resignation in the Curia was not good nay does it not follow that because they had no Right to come to the General Council therefore the King might exercise his absolute Power in such a Counsel as he should think fit to call and might oblige the Nation in any Act of his done by such Advice or Consent Nay rather if there were a Counsel where they might ex 〈◊〉 be present which Mr. W. makes the same with Ratione Tenurae does it not follow that there would be less Obligation upon them from any Act done in the General Council of the Kingdom where they had no Right to be present and so no consent of theirs could be urged to inforce the Obligation than from the Determinations of that Counsel where they were necessary Members But Mr. W. his Grounds for his Belief that the Commons had no Right to come to the General Council of the Kingdom before the 49th of Hen. 3. are two 1st That in the 45th of Hen. 3. only three were ordered to be Representatives for every County the Year I take to have been mistaken by the Printer for the Settlement and Reformation of the Government which he mentions was in the 48th and that he means that Settlement and not one before in the 42d is evident by his citing Si videatur Communitati Praelatorum â—…ronum which is in the Record of the 48th and not in any of the 42d that I have seen But 't is evident by the Record that the three he mentions were assigned for the Electors of a standing Counsel to the King which was to act out of Parliament as well as in but with no Authority in Legislation besides admit that they were intrusted with all the Power of the Counties I cannot find any force in the Argument that because a Representative was then agreed on therefore they had no Right to come before that time in their own Persons But indeed in the 42d of that King there was a Representive of the Commons who were in those times accounted only the Citizens and Burgesses this was pur espargner les Costs des Communs to spare the Charges of the Commous which I use not to shew that all such came any otherwise than two for a place But that the settling a Representative is an Argument that before that time they came in greater Numbers 2dly His second Argument is the Authority of Pollidore Virgil which proves wholly against him for it says that the Populus rarely were consulted with before the time of Hen. I. Adeo ut ab Henrico primo id Institutum Iure Manasse diâ—…i possit Even he allows the Right of the Commons to be a constituent part of Parliament to have been an Institution or a settled Right long before the 49th of Hen. 3. no less than one hundred forty nine Years And in the Case of Godsoll and others against Sir Christopher Heydon my Lord Cook affirmed that he had seen a Record in the time of Hen. I. of the Commons Degrees and Seats in Parliament his words are these En Ancient temps tout le Parliament sea insimul le Separation fuit Par le desire del Commons mes â—…ent obstant ils font forsque un mese ieo aie veiw un Record 30 H. 1. de lour Degrees Seats That the Commons were Members of the General Councils of the Kingdom in the time of Hen. I I think is very plain when we find even at Synods Assemblies for Ecclesiastical Affairs Nobilitas Populusque minor and Laici tam divices quam mediocres But that they then had any Order and certain Seats there I cannot readily believe And indeed we find that in the Reign of King Stephen who immediately succeed Hen. I. 't is spoke of as customary for the Uulgus or Commons which were Infinita Multituto Plebis to come as Members of the Great Council and to intermix themselves with Men of the greatest Quality as 't is usual in Crouds Uulgo etiam confusè permixtum ut solct se ingerente 3dly Mr. W. his third Argument is that where a Record makes mention of Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots Priors
would run through all the Tryals upon Record in that I have omitted four in that 4 E. 3. I shall give you an account of those Tryals in that Parliament and you will see that I could have no sinister end in not mentioning them and that all of them proved and confirmed my assertion that the Bishops had no part in any of them I expressed as much as was necessary to prove they were not present at Roger de Mortimers Earl of March who was the chief and the principal of those Delinquents and whose Tryal was the leading Case to all the rest I give you the words of the Record how after the exhibiting of the Articles against him the King bespake the Judges the Peers who were to judge him and charged them in these words Dont le dit Sr. le Roy vous charge Counts Barons les Piers de son Royalme que de st come cest choses touchent principalement a lui a vous a tout le people c. Therefore our said Lord the King charges you the Earls Barons Peers of his Realm that as these things chiefly concern him and you and all the people c. You give righteous Judgment I ask now if this be not as clear as the Sun at noon-day that by the words of this Record I charge you the Earls Barons Peers of the Realm which is the same as if he had said I charge you Earls and Barons who are the Peers of the Realm can be no otherwise understood but that only the Earls and Barons are the Peers that are there charged and none else to give this righteous Judgment The Earls and Barons are the two Species particularly enumerated and Peers is the genus which comprehends both And the same persons whom the King had so charged are they who tryed and gave Judgement upon the Earl of March as the Record shews it saying Les queux Countes Barons Piers c. did judge him guilty of those Treasons And the very same persons did give Judgement immediately in that very Parliament upon the rest viz. Sir Simon de Bereford John Mautravers Boeges de Bayons and the rest Therefore my not mentioning their Tryals which our Asserter lays to my charge as a Crime and a not doing what I had engaged my self to do which was to run through all the Tryals in those Parliament Rolls could not be designedly done with an intention to conceal any thing which made against me as it is maliciously and very falsely interpreted for they all made for me and it was a passing over sub silentio of so many Precedents that confirmed and fortified what I asserted And should you Sir ask me why I omitted the mentioning of them I profess I could give you no good account of it but that it was a meer inadvertency When the question first arose about the Judicature of the Bishops I took some short notes of some Copies of Records that I had and then seeing that all those particular Tryals in 4 E. 3. hung all upon one string and were managed by the same persons it seems I thought it then sufficient to set down the proceedings in the first which was the rule and foundation of the proceedings in the rest and afterwards when I came upon your request to take a little more pains in making my enquiry into the usage of ancient Parliaments I was afterwards more exact in it but when I wrote my Letter to you I made use of my notes which I had taken of the first Parliament and particularly of 4 E. 3. where these other Tryals as I say were left out But I shall now give you an account what they are and you will see it was not for my advantage to conceal them nor would it have been for our Asserters advantage if they had been mentioned but he quarrels at every thing Only give me leave before I come to that to set it down as a general Rule and a very true one That wherever there is an enumeration of particulars of several ranks and degrees which goes downwards beginning with the higher and ending with a lower and in the close a general expression is of Others to be added to and joined with them those others must not be of a higher rank and a superiour degree to that particular which is last mentioned but either of the same degree or of a lower This is a judged Case even in the business of Bishops in Cokes second Report in the Arch-bishop of Canterbury's Case p. 46. Ad este adjuge que Evesques ne sont include deins le Statute 13 Eliz. c. 10. It hath been adjudged that Bishops are not included in the Statute 13 Eliz. c. 10. which saith That Colledges Deans and Chapters Parsons Vicars and then concludes and Others having Spiritual Promotions that these last words cannot include Bishops for reasons before given which reasons are upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. concerning the dissolution of Abbies which mentioning their coming into the Kings hand by Renouncing Relinquishing Forfeiture Giving up c. and concludes with general words Or any other means this cannot be understood of an Act of Parliament which is a higher way of conveyance than any of those specified So Sir Edward Coke upon the Statute of Westminster the second c. 41. which saith Si Abbates Priores Custodes Hospitalium aliarum domorum Religiosarum c. hath this Comment Seeing this Act begins with Abbots c. and concludeth with other Religious Houses Bishops are not comprehended within this Act for they are superiour to Abbots c. and these words Other Religious Houses shall extend to Houses inferiour to them that were mentioned before So I conclude that the Record saying Earls and Barons and Peers c. the general words And Peers can comprehend none but some other Peers equal only or inferiour to Barons and not any above them as I am sure Bishops will say they are And I will tell you when those of a higher degree may and must be comprehended under a general expression that is when the Enumeration or Climax for so I may call it goes upwards beginning with a lower Rank and rising higher in those which they particularize As if it be said Barons Earls and all other Peers here Marquesses and Dukes will be comprehended and Bishops also would be if they were Peers which they are not but still I say if the enumeration descend none higher than the last mentioned can be understood to be meant by any general clause I think you are satisfied that the E. of March was Tryed and Judged only by the Temporal Lords to whom the K. had committed his Tryal and charged them only with it Sir Simon de Bereford was the next who was Tryed and by the same Persons the Record is Item en mesme le Parlement si chargea nostre Sur le Roy les ditz Countes Barons Piers a donner droit loyal Iugement come affiert
such Judgements and then particularly whether among the Grantz of that Parliament of 25 E. 3. that affirmed that Judgement against Thorp there were any Bishops And I infer there was none because they tell the King that hereafter even out of Parliament if any body else offend in like manner he may take any of them that is of those Grantz that now give him this advice to joyn in condemning him and by the Law of the Land a Bishop could not joyn therefore there was no Bishop amongst them And that by the Law Bishops and all Clergy-men were prohibited appears by the Act of Parliament of the second of that King which I mentioned before confirming one to the same purpose made in Edward the First 's time that No Clerk should be a Justice of Gaol-delivery for Tryal of Felons this I think is not petere Principium to prove the true meaning of what was done at that time in the House of Lords by what the Law of the Land had already established which must regulate what the House of Lords then did and doth shew there could be no Bishops in the number of those Grantz Then for what he saith of the Commons charging Michael de la Poole before the King Prelates and Lords which was in 10 R. 2. and parallelling his crime to that of Sir William Thorp who for it was condemned to dye upon which he will infer that Michael de la Poole was charged with a Capital crime and accused of it by the Commons before the Prelates as well as before the other Lords who gave their Judgements upon it He may examine the Record and he will find that the Impeachment was only for Misdemeanors cozening the King in an exchange of Land when he was Chancellour and some other miscarriages of that nature And it is the Impeachment which is in the nature of an Indictment that governs the Tryal be the crime what it will As it is laid in the Impeachment or the Indictment it must be so found upon the Tryal at the least it can be found no higher less haply it may be A man that is Indicted for a Misdemeanour cannot be found Capitally Guilty And though by a comparison by way of aggravation it was likened to Thorp's Case Michael de la Poole made it appear there was no resemblance between them And who will take pains to read the Record of Thorp which I dare say this Trifler never did nor scarce any Record will see that the ground of that Judgement which made it Capital was that himself had submitted to such a condition when he took upon him the Office of Chief Justice the words are Si sembla a eur le Jugement sur ceo rendu resonable depuis qil se obligea mesmes per son serement a tiel penance fil feist alencontre The Judgement given upon it seemed to them to be agreeing to reason since he had bound himself by his Oath unto such a punishment if he did contrary to his Oath And I must say it would go hard with a great many if every one should be hanged that cozens the King And it is a pretty remark of his upon Sir John Lee's Case 42 E. 3. that the Record saying That he was brought before the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and some of the Commons c. He observes that if at this Tryal any thing had been objected which had been Capital the Bishops were present at it And I say he might have made a truer observation than that which is That they might be well assured that nothing Capital was to be objected because then the Bishops would not have been present And one thing I am sure is observable which is that the Bishops that is the Prelates are here recorded to be present and to be ranked before the Dukes Earls c. We are sure if any be specified they are and still ranked in the first place What my Gentleman means in what he saith upon the Tryals 50 E. 3. I understand not they are the Cases of Richard Lyons the Lord Latimer William Ellis the Lord Nevill and John Peach all these were only charged with Misdemeanors he saith their crimes were great and hainous and reckons the loss of Forts among them which he saith was a crime Capital in Gomenitz and Weston 1 R. 2. and that I acknowledge the Bishops to have been present at those Tryals But still this learned Gentleman who brags here that he will not suffer the World to be longer amused and imposed upon by my Notions doth himself still mistake the business not well understanding the nature of the thing he treats of Otherwise he would consider that the Tryal of a Criminal person must always be pursuant to his Charge which is a point I have already spoken to therefore I shall say little here only this that the Impeachment of the Commons against those persons was only for Misdemeanors their Tryal was accordingly and the Bishops were present And for what he saith of Gomenitz and Weston was clean another Case it was for betraying those Towns which they had undertaken to keep when the force upon them was not so great However it is not material what their Crime would appear to be upon proof but what their Charge was and that was Capital Then for what he adds of the Bishops being comprehended under the general Apellation of Les Seigneurs du Parlement The Lords of Parliament in several Cases which he there cites which he beats upon over and over again in so many several places of his Pamphlet and sets up like a Man of Straw of his own making to make sport with is what I never denied my Position is That I have still observed in all Tryals of Crimes when Bishops could be present it is so expressed that they were so as in all Crimes not Capital and I do not think one Instance can be given to the contrary And my other Position which I affirm with more confidence is That if any of the other ranks of the Lords be mentioned the Bishops are so likewise or else it is a certain argument that they were not there My Gentleman is a little put to his Trumps in the Case of Gomenitz and Weston 1 R. 2. That is so plain first the Commons coming and desiring That such as had lost Towns and Castles by their own default might be punished Per agard des Seigneurs Baronage By the Judgement of the Lords and Baronage whereupon those Lords commanded Gomenitz and Weston to be brought before them and upon a long hearing condemned them both to death And the Lords are particularly named the Duke of Lancaster first and ten more Earls and Barons by name of whom Roger Lord Clifford was the last and then a general clause Et plusours autres Setgneurs Barons Bannerettes And many other Lords Barons and Bannerets Now this is so plain and exclusive of all Prelates as my Gentleman is forced to confess that it seems
doubtful to him who these Lords were whether the Prelates or the Lords particularly named and plusours autres Seigneurs under which he saith very probably the Lords Spiritual might be comprised I see a truth cannot come clearly from him a thing that is most clear he makes it doubtful And one thing he saith most falsely of a Petition commanded to be read Numb 29. En cest Parlement per les Prelates Seigneurs Piers du Parlement By the Prelates and Lords Peers of Parliament which Petition he will have to be concerning this matter which is most false For that which is said Numb 29. is of a Petition and Writ of Error presented by William de Montague Earl of Salisbury which was then read and nothing at all concerning Gomenitz and Weston which is a horrible falshood and imposture of our Asserter to abuse the world so and impose upon the Reader The first request of the Commons concerning this business and to have this matter examined is Numb 38. and then Numb 39. there is mention of a Schedule given in by Weston and the Record saith Ueue leue la dite cedule en plein Parlement The Schedule being seen and read in full Parliament and any thing concerning Weston or Gomenitz before this there is not But some falshood he must still add of his own for the Jesuites Verse is very applicable to him Verba damus cum nostra damus quia fallere nostrum est Et cum nostra damus nil nisi verba damus And indeed throughout his whole Pamphlet he doth but Verba dare take Verba Words as in opposition to reality and truth for it is full of falshoods or take Words in opposition to matter and good sense for his whole Book is a very bundle of words without any good matter in it But one thing more I cannot but observe it is his insisting so much upon a thing which I am confident himself doth not believe though I have known a teller of stories tell one of his own invention so often that at last himself hath begun to believe it to be a truth It is that after the naming several Lords and ending with some Barons there is a general expression â—…t plusours autres Seigneurs Barons Bannerettes And many other Lords Barons and Bannerets my confident Gentleman hath the boldness to add Under which probably the Lords Spiritual might be comprised which he knows the Prelates of those times if they had been concerned in it would never have endured and the Clerk of the Parliament would as soon have eaten Fire as have entered it so Then in the Case of the Murtherers of John Imperial a publick Minister 3 R. 2. because I observe that it is expressed in the Parliament Roll that the Bishops were not present at the framing of the Act to make it Treason in them which I grant in other places of my Letter they might have been being to pass an Act of Parliament in a Legislative way my Gentleman is pleased to say That I forget my self In truth No I did suppose it and do suppose it to be a good Argument à minore to shew that the Prelates were then so modest as to withdraw upon the passing of a Law for the greater punishment of such a Capital Crime which in strictness perhaps they did not need to have done much more then would they avoid the sitting as Judges to take away life in a judicial way which they could no ways pretend to But my Gentleman loves to quarrel and scribble Paper though to no purpose To the Case of Sir Ralph Ferrers 4 R. 2. he only sings over his tedious plain Song That under the general word of Lords of Parliament Bishops may be comprehended and therefore he will have it That they must be so And much good may it do him with his Crambe bis cocta I may say centies cocta for I think he serves up this same dish a hundred times in this his learned Treatise But I may not let pass what he saith upon the Case of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. 2. how extream falsly he recites things taking all upon trust how this man or t'other man cites a Record but never seeing the Record it self which perhaps he cannot so much as read He desires it may be taken notice of that for those Misdemeanors he was adjudged to make Fine and Ransome to the King and that the Judgement was passed upon him by the Lords by assent of Parliament where he saith he hopes I will not deny but that there were Bishops present and for this sends me to Cotton's Abridgement 7 R. 2. n. 23. but if he would have looked upon the Parliament Roll he would have found this Perquoy del aâ—…ent des Countes Barons autres Seigneurs Temporelz presentz en ce Parlement est assentuz accordez que vous soiez en la mercile Roy mis au fin raunceon pur vostre malfait solonc la quantitée qualitée dicell Therefore by the assent of the Earls Barons and other Lords Temporal present in this Parliament it is agreed and accorded that you shall be at the Kings mercy and put to Fine and Ransome for your misdeeds according to its quantity and quality You see now how this man would impose upon us and what stuff he brings to make good his assertion If I had been guilty of such a falshood I should have heard of it to purpose that both my ears would have rung again and no Ink this Gentleman could have got black enough to set it out in its colours Then he comes to the Case of Michael d la Poole 10 R. 2 where he saith the same things he did before and which I have already answered so to that I refer you The next is the 11 R. 2. where the Prelates withdrawing from Parliament by reason of matters of blood which were then to come into agitation enter a Protestation with a Salvo to their right of sitting in Parment which my Gentleman will have to be meant even of their being present at the agitation of those matters if they were so pleased This hath been treated of before at large already to which I refer you I will only observe this further at present out of the words of their Protestation first they say Quia in praesenti Parliamento agitur de nonnullis materiis in quibus non licet nobis aut alicui eorum juxta Sacrorum Canonum instituta quomodolibet personaliter interesse ea propter pro nobis eorum quolibet protestamur eorum quilibet hic presens etiam protestatur quod non intendimus nec volumus sicuti de jure non possumus nec debemus nec intendit nec vult aliquis eorum dum de hujusmodi materiis agitur vel agetur quomodolibet interesse sed nos eorum quemlibet in ea Parte penitus absentaxe This they declare That it is not lawful for them nor any of them
tumultuary way without any formal Tryal the business being brought into Parliament were by the Temporal Lords in a Judicial way of proceeding adjudged to be Traytors and their fact to be Treason But then he adds that I likewise make the Case of the Earl of Cambridge 3 H. 5. like to these which is not true being of a clean different nature an Act of Parliament which had its rise from a request of the House of Commons who brought it up to the Lords here I say the Bishops were and might be present That which he saith to the Case of Sir John Oldcastle 5 H. 5. is so threadbare with rubbing it over and over again and hath been so often said and so often answered as that it would too much trespass upon your patience Sir to trouble you with any one word of it more I think I have made it exceeding clear where under the general term of Lords of Parliament Bishops may be understood to be comprehended and where not Those particular Cases which he now brings to prove his Assertion are point blank against him that is the Case of Mautravers 4 E. 3. and of Gomenitz and Weston 1 R. 2. in that of Gomenitz many particular Lords are named several Earls and Barons and then a general clause Et plusieurs autres Seigneurs Barons Bannerettes Is it possible to think that Bishops come in that fag end Indeed I do observe one thing in this Case of Sautre which is not in any of the other I cannot say that I lay any great stress upon it yet something it is that the Record expresses that the Bishops had done with him declaring him a Heretick and then Relinquentes eum ex nunc Iudicio seculari Leaving him from henceforward to the Secular Judgement as if they should say They would have no more to do with him And as convincingly he argues in the Case of Sir John Mortimer 2 H. 6. He confesses with me that the Indictment found against him at the Guild hall was brought into Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester and the Lords Temporal Fuit liberatum It was there delivered to them and then he cites a Record as he makes it De advisamento dictorum Dominorum auctoritate istius Parliamenti ordinatum est statutum quod ipse usque ad Turrim ducatur By the advice of the said Lords it was ordained and enacted by authority of the said Parliament and by the advice of the said Lords Temporal that he should be led to the Tower These are his words and how he hath mangled and falsely rendred and expounded the Record you will judge by the words of the Record it self which I will here faithfully set down It is this Numb 18. Memorand quod 26. die Februarii anno praesenti de advisamento Dominorum Temporalium ac ad Supplicationem Communitatis Regni Angliae in praesenti Parliamento existentiam redditum fuit quoddam Iudicium versus Iohan. de Mortimer de Bishops Natfield in Comitatu Nertford Chevalier cujus quidem Iudicii recordum patet in Schedula per Iohannem Hals unum Iusticiariorum Domini Regis de banco edita praesenti Rotulo consuta Memor That the 26th of February of this present year by the advice of the Lords Temporal and at the Petition of the Commons in this present Parliament a certain Judgement was given upon Sir John Mortimer of Bishops-Hatfield in the County of Hertford Knight the Record of which Judgement appears in a Schedule drawn by John Hals one of the Justices of the Kings-bench and fastened to this Roll. Then follows the Schedule it self where is set down what past at Guild-hall upon the sinding of the Indictment and how that Indictment was brought into the Parliament Coram duce Bedfordiae ac aliis Dominis Temporalibus Before the Duke of Bedford and the other Lords Temporal and how Sir John Mortimer was brought before them by the Lieutenant of the Tower and how the Commons desired the Indictment might be affirmed and that Judgement might be given upon him Then follows Super hoc viso plenius intellecto Indictamento per dictum Ducem de advisamento dictorum Dominorum Temporalium ac ad requisitionem totius Communitatis authoritate istius Parliamenti ordinatum est statutum quod Indictamentum affirmetur praedictus Iohannes Mortimer de proditionibus praedictis sit convictus ad Turrim ducatur usque ad furcas de Tyburn trahatur super eas suspendatur c. Hereupon the Indictment being viewed and well understood it was by the foresaid Duke by the advice of the said Lords Temporal and at the request of all the Commons ordained and decreed that the Indictment should be affirmed and the foresaid John Mortimer stand convicted of his foresaid Treasons should be carried to the Tower then drawn to the Gallows at Tyburn and there hanged c. This was a Judgement of the House of Peers in their Judicial capacity upon an Impeachment and at the pursuit of the House of Commons who prosecuted and pressed the evidence before the Lords the words of the Record are Tota Communitas praefatum Indictamentum illud in omnibus fuxta vim formam effectum efusoem pro vero fideli Indictamento affirmat ac praefatis Duci ac aliis Dominis Temporalibus supplicat eadem Communitas quatenus iidem Dux Domini Indictamentum praedictum pro vero fideli Indictamento affirmare vellent quod executio dicti Iohannis Mortimer ut de proditionibus feloniis convicti fiat The whole House of Commons do affirm the foresaid Indictment to be in all points for the force form and effect thereof a true and legal Indictment and that execution of the said John Mortimer as of one convicted of the said Treasons and Felonies may follow This you see was a formal Tryal in all points and a Judgement upon it and so it is entred upon the Roll such a day 26 Februarii de advisamento Dominorum Temporalium ad Supplicationem Communitatis redditum fuit quoddam Iudicium versus Iohannem de Mortimer c. And our Asserter here tells us a tale of a Tub that the matter should be decreed after by Authority of Parliament of which the Bishops are an essential part and therefore were present which is an excellent Chimaeâ—…a as if the Advisamentum Dominorum Temporalium Authoritas Parliamenti were two distinct things and the work of several persons some actors in the one who were not so in the other and that the advice of the Lords Temporal had produced some other things which had a greater authority and that the Bishops had joyned in that which shews his ignorance in the course of Parliaments for the Judgement which is given Judicially in the House of Lords hath upon it the stamp and the authority of the whole Parliament and that Advisamentum of the Lords Temporal here was the Judgement as is the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual
saying is neither in the Judgement it self nor any thing leading to it So he comes to the Arch-bishop Becket's Case where he notably spends his mouth but like an ill Hound all upon false Hunting and indeed runs riot so far as he is not to be lashed in He fills several leaves of his Book with Encomium's of the Popish Clergy because some of them sometimes did what it was their duty to do which doth not excuse them in the general current of their proceedings commonly to stand for the authority of the Pope and the See of Rome against the Regal power and the authority of Parliaments as they did 20 R. 2. saying They were sworn to the Pope and to that See and they would oppose whatever the King and the Temporal Lords should do En restriaion del Poair Apostoliqué ou derogagation de la libertoe de Saina Eglise In restraint of the Power Apostolick or derogation of the Liberty of Holy Church So he takes much pains to assert the Kings natural right to command his Subjects to serve him upon any emergency and so to make Clergy-men Justitiaries if he see cause for it Which then gives them power of Judicature and I do acknowledge it but it is to be understood of Judicature in such Cases as the Law of the Land allows we know they have been some of them Lord Chancellours Lord Treasurers Lord Privy Seal but can he shew me that any of them judged in Cases of Blood For this Case of Beckett's is certainly misrepresented in Fitz-Stephens manuscript We know there have been heretofore in many Counties Justices of Assize which have been Clergy-men joyned with others in Commission who were not Clergy-men to take Assizes in the County And the Act of Parliament 27 E. 1. c. 3. coming to give power to those Justices of Assize to deliver the Gaols and so to be made Justices of Gaol-delivery and try Felons and Murtherers it provides that if one of them be a Clerk then one of the most discreet Knights of the Shire shall be associated to him that is a Lay-man and be empowered by the Knights Writ to deliver the Gaols of the Shires and chasten and punish whom they shall find to be guilty And this Statute is confirmed 2 E. 3. c. 2. which makes it manifest what the intendment of the Law is in that particular that Clerks must not meddle to judge in Cases of Blood and must hold good even for Bishops who are all of them Clerks As for this Case of Beckets which only stands upon the credit of a Manuscript said to be made by Fitz-Stephens a Monk whom he characterizes for a sober and grave Historian and more solito out of the sweetness of his nature gives me a lash saying It is usual with me to let fall expressions to vilifie Testimonies and Precedents when they make against me and this because I stile it a Blind Manuscript and suspect the Author as partial having been a creature of Beckets and consequently no friend to the King And therefore I give rather credit to the unanimous consent of the Historians of those times who do not relate the passages of that Tryal to be as he makes them than I do to him and his Manuscript I call it a Blind Manuscript because it sees not the light lyes obscure in some bodies Closet Mr. Selden doth not tell where and I dare say our Asserter never saw it though he terms the Author a grave Historian His tale is how at that great Council at Northampton Archiepiscopus laesae Majestatis Coronae Regiae arguitur quia est a Rege citatus pro causa Iohannis neque venerat neque idonee se excusasset c. The Arch-bishop is questioned for Treason against the Crown of the King because he was summoned by the King in the Cause of John that is one John the Marshal who complained that the Arch-bishop had done him injustice in his Court and he neither came nor had sifficiently excused himself upon sickness or any other just reason which might necessarily hinder him whereupon he was condemned to forfeit his personal estate and the Bishops and Barons not agreeing who should pronounce the sentence they putting it off from one to another at last the King commanded the Bishop of Winchester to do it This is his story and one may think it a strange piece of Treason one not to come immediately upon a Summons to attend the King especially if it be true what all the Historians that write of those times have related of this business Gervasius Dorobernensis is an Author as Mr. Selden observes who lived in that age and one of whom Mr. Selden and all Antiquaries we are sure have a good opinion and though our Asserter is confident enough to affirm they all have so of Fitz-Stephen it is of what I do not find that much hath been said by them to shew that nor do I think that any of our Antiquaries but Mr. Selden doth so much as mention him And from Gervasius Dorobernensis we have this relation Rex praecepit praesules Proceres regni apud Northamptoniam una cum ipso Archiepiscopo convenire c. The King commanded the Prelates and Nobles of the Kingdome together with the Arch-bishop himself to meet at Northampton where the Arch-bishop was accused of many things first that he had not fully done justice to one John that had a suit before him then that upon this occasion being called into the Kings presence he neglected to come To this the Arch-bishop made answer That John had all the justice done him that was due to him that he had illegally defamed his Court that he would not swear upon the Evangelists as the custome is but upon an old Song-book which he brought with him But that being upon this summoned he came not into the Kings presence was not upon any contempt but that he was hindred by a great sickness and that he had excused himself by two competent witnesses whom he had sent for that purpose yet this served not his turn but Curiali Iudicio Episcoporum consensu condemnatus est He was condemned by the Iudgement of the Court the Bishops consenting to it that all his personal estate should be at the Kings disposing This now is delivered unto us by an unquestionable known Author who lived in that time Fitz-Stephen and he agree in the matter of the Accusation and agree in the Judgement but Fitz-Stephen lays it to be Crimen laesae Majestatis Coronae Regiae High-Treason which must be for not coming to the King when he was summoned Gervasius saith that he sent his excuse by two witnesses who testified that he was then very sick and not able to come which we all know to be a Lawful Essoine De malo lecti which cannot be disallowed but must excuse nay justifie any bodies absence Now can any body that is master of common sense believe Fitz-Stephens relation who will have this to be
a Capital crime High Treason and a Capital proceeding upon it We see the Sentence was far from Capital and could not have been such as it was if the Crime had been laid in the Accusation to be High Treason Roger de Hoveden in his relation of this business makes no mention of Treason He saith That the King calling a great Council at Northampton Taedium magnum fecit Archiepiscopo did a thing which much vexed the Arch-bishop which was that he caused his Horses to be put into the Arch bishops Inn whereupon the Arch-bishop sent the King word that he would not come to the Council till his Inn was cleared of those Horses yet upon the second day of the meeting the Arch bishop came into the Chapel where the Council sate and there desired the Kings leave that he might go over into France to visit Pope Alexander who was then there which the King denied him and said he should first answer for the injustice he had done to John the Marshal in his Court This John having complained to the King that he had had a long suit in the Arch bishops Court for some Land he held of him and could have no Iustice and that thereupon Curiam Archiepiscopi Sacramento falst ficaverat secundum consuetudinem Regni He had according to the custome of the Kingdom upon Oath charged the Court with wrong doing which I take to be a protesting against the proceeding of that Court and the Judgement there given in the nature of a Writ of Error The Arch-bishop answered to this That John had no injustice done him and that he brought into the Court a certain strange Book and would swear upon that how for want of Iustice he left my Court which the Officers that kept my Court looked upon as an injury done to me because it is the Law of the Kingdome Quod qui Curiam alterius falsificare voluerit oportet eum jurare super sacrosancta Evangelia Whoever will so charge a Court with false dealing must take his Oath upon the Holy Evangelists Notwithstanding this the King swore he would have Iustice done upon him Et Barones Curiae And the Barons of the Court gave Iudgement on him to be at the Kings mercy Which Iudgement the Arch-bishop going about to reverse Iudicium illud falsificare is the expression He was perswaded by the Barons to submit himself to the Kings mercy for a Fine of five hundred pounds Here is nothing in all this that can possibly infer any thing like Treason And it is something observable what both these Authors say of the Judgement given Gervasius saith Curiali Iudicio Episcoporum consensu condemnatus est as if the part of the Bishops in this judgement were something differing from the Act of the Court and not comprized in it Hoveden saith Barones Curiae Regis judicaverunt eum as if the Bishops had no hand in it at all Radulphus de Diceto Decanus Londinensis I suppose Dean of Pauls who lived in those times mentions this business he saith That the Arch-bishop was questioned upon John the Marshals complaint and fined 500 l. and that he was questioned likewise for moneys received by him when he was Chancellour for some Bishopricks and Abbies of which he had received the profits during their vacancies and that not finding the Bishops to be his friends he appealed from their Judgement but then the Proceres the Nobles though he appealed from their Judgement likewise yet they In eum nec confessum nec convictum sententiam intorserunt They wrested a Iudgement against him though he confessed nothing nor was at all convicted You see here is not a word of Treason laid to his charge nor nothing Capital or any thing towards it Matthew Paris tells you the same story and almost in the very same words Now let any man judge whether all those Historians concurring or single Fitz-Stephen disagreeing deserves more credit And that which hath greatest weight with me is the Argument drawn ex natura rei the crime which all agree that the Arch-bishop was charged with was his not appearing upon the Kings Summons which without a great and a very false Multiplying-Glass cannot appear to be any thing like Treason So I must conclude that since the Charge against him had nothing of Capital in it the proceedings upon it was not as against a Capital Offender not brought to Tryal as a Prisoner but came in upon a bare Summons and tarried there and returned at full liberty the Judgement neither of loss of Life nor Limb but meerly Pecuniary and as some of the Authors say compounded with for five hundred pounds I must I say conclude that this whole Case is nothing to our purpose and neither the Law nor usage of Parliament did bar the Bishops from being personally present at such a Tryal And now I come to the point of Peerage which I have so fully handled in my former Letter as I think I need not say much in this Our Asserter brings three Arguments to prove them to be Peers The first is That it is the general stile of all Parliaments from the beginning to be Generale Concilium Cleri Populi even before the coming in of the Normans which no man denies The businesses of the Church as well as of the Civil State are there determined the Writ of Summons shews it which saith That the King intending to call a Parliament Pro quibusdam arduis negotiis Nos Statum defensionem Regni Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus Bishops and Temporal Lords are summoned and heretofore several others were summoned as Bannerets and sometimes other persons of Quality who likewise were not Peers and yet were called to the Parliaments as pleased the King and the Judges are so summoned at this day Super dictis negotiis tractaturi consilium suum impensuri Where the Bishops act as Bishops and what by the Law of the Land and the practice and usage of Parliaments they ought to do that they do and may do the Temporal Lords in like manner and so likewise the Judges every one acts in his Sphere but this neither gives the Bishops power to judge in Capital Causes if otherwise it be prohibited them nor doth it make them Peers no more than it did formerly the Bannerets and others for their being summoned to sit and vote in the House of Peers We had the experience of this the last Parliament a Baron pretending to a much ancienter station among the Peers by proving that his Ancestor had been summoned by one of our former Kings to sit more than once in the House of Lords yet not making it appear that that favour had been still continued to him and it being made appear on the other side that several Families in this Kingdom would have the same pretence upon the like ground it was the opinion of the House that he had no Right to it and consequently that his Ancestor was never acknowledged to
Contradictio in adjecto an Imparity in a Parity Thirdly If the Husband be enobled the Wife must be so but the Wife of a Bishop is not enobled therefore the Person of her Husband is not for the Wife and the Husband are one Fourthly If a Bishop were a Peer he could in Parliament time be Tryed no where but in the House of Peers but Matter of Fact we find to be otherwise Therefore I think I may safely conclude that Bishops are no Peers But before I leave this point I must answer one thing which is said They say they hold by Baronage and therefore they are Barons as Fitz Stephen makes the Bishops in their altercation with the Temporal Lords about the pronunciation of the Sentence against the Arch-bishop saying Non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones Pares hic sumus We sit not here in Parliament as Bishops but as Barons we are Barons and you are Barons Here we are Peers Fitz-Stephen's authority signifies nothing to me but this I know is said and believed by many therefore it must be answered to disabuse many who may think that holding by Barony creates a Baron which it doth no more than holding by Knights service makes a man a Knight or holding by Villanage makes a man a Villain which many do to this day even but here at East-Barnet and yet are good Free-men and no Villains for it works not upon the Person as Fleta saith l. 3. c. 13. the service they do is ratione tenementi non personae So the Bishops holding per Baronagium are thereby made subject to do the service of Barons and to obey the Kings Writ of Summons to attend the Parliament which makes them Lords of Parliament but affects not their person The Bishop of the Isle of Man is a Bishop as well as any of the rest first instituted by Pope Gregory the Fourth as Sir Edward Cooke saith but not holding by Baronage hath no place nor vote in Parliament We must know that this Tenure by Baronage was first created by William the First of all the Lands which held of the Crown in Capite consisting of so many Knights Fees these Lands were divided some to Lay-men some to Ecclesiastical persons And these were all bound to certain services though not all to the same and among others all to attend in Parliament whenever the King pleased to Summon them and so became Lords of Parliament This continued so till King Iohn's time when the number of the Temporal Lords growing so great and numerous that King made some alteration which certainly was setled and confirmed by Parliament but justly the time when this was done is not known the Record of it being lost The alteration was that none of the Temporal Lords should come to Parliament but such as received the Kings Writ a particular Summons for it These were called Barones Majores those who were not so summoned and so did not come to Parliament were stiled Barones Minores and were still Feodal Barons as before and held their Lands per Baronagium but were not Lords of Parliament Therefore it was not barely holding by Barony which made the person a Baron even in those times there was an act of the Kings requisite even in the Summoning of him to Parliament to make that Honour to affect and enoble the Person and so to fix it and make it hereditary in the Family which way of dignifying a Person continued till the eleventh year of Richard the Second when Iohn de Beauchamp Steward of the Houshold was first created by Patent Baron of Kiderminster since which time it hath still been practised to make them all Barons by Patent But the Bishops have still continued upon the first Institution of being by their Tenures obliged and accordingly Summoned to attend in Parliament which made them Lords of Parliament but not Peers of the Realm And now I come to his last point making them a Third Estate for which he cites the Bill presented to Richard the Third in his first Parliament where they are made so and to this I can oppose other passages in Parliament clean contrary as that 2 H. 4. where the Temporal Lords and they together are made to be one of the three Estates and other instances may be given of the same nature But let us a little consider how that Bill was framed 1 R. 3. it was first devised by certain Lords Spiritual and Temporal and other Nobles and notable Personages of the Commons a Party picked out and chosen for that purpose who presented it in the behalf and in the name of the Three Estates of this Realm of England and what was this to do to declare Edward the Fourth to have lived in adultery with Dame Elizabeth Gray whom he had married being precontracted to Dame Ellianor Bottiler daughter to the Earl of Shrewsbury and consequently all his Children Bastards Edward the Fifth a Bastard and Elizabeth his Sister a Bastard afterwards married to Henry the Seventh which entituled him and his Posterity to the Crown set an end to all the foregoing competitions and setled it as it is at this day this Bill as the Record saith was first presented and delivered to their Soveraign Lord the King that was to R. 3. whom they made so in the name and on the behalf of the said Three Estates out of Parliament and now by the said Three Estates assembled in Parliament ratified and confirmed And truly I must say this is not an authority to be bragged of for making the Bishops a Third Estate But then let us see if the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords have the necessary and essential qualifications of being a Third Estate in Parliament without which they cannot be a Third Estate there That the Clergy is one of the three Estates of the Realm and they the Principal and Chief of them no body denies And that they are Summoned to Parliament as a Third Estate of the Realm the dignified Clergy personally others of the Inferiour sort by their Procurators and Representatives is likewise confessed but not to have any part in making of Laws for the good Government of the Kingdom no not so much as in matters meerly concerning the Church but they may offer and propose and be consulted with but whatever they agree upon must come to the two Houses of Parliament and receive the stamp of their Authority before it can be presented to the King to become a Law and be binding to the People This is the work of the Convocation which meets at the same time with the Parliament and there is convened the Third Estate of the Realm Where the Bishops make the Upper House and there sit as Bishops according to their Spirituality But their Summons gives them another capacity which is to meet in the House of Lords and there Cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus regni de arduis negotiis Statum regni Ecclesiae
what Men may say of themselves or passeth under common Estimation of Men but what upon serious Examinition of the Question shall be found to be true I shall endeavour to make it appear that many who held Lands in Cap per Baroniam or per servitium Baroniae were not enobled in Blood nor had Right to demand their Writ of Summons as the Noble Barons had but were to expect the King's Will and Pleasure and were often left out These were secundae Dignitatis Barones or Barons by Tenure only of which some might probably be adopted into the Nobilitas Major afterwards as Barones adscriptij yet at first were not so and this was to them an Honour but to the Bishops a Burthen who held their Lands free before and had no Honour conferred upon them as the rest had For tho it be true that all the great Noble-Men held per Baroniam yet was it not their Tenure which gave them that Right as I shall shew by and by These second sort of Barons were called Barons Peers because they held of the King in Capite as his immediate Free-holders and were stiled Barones Regis for the Word imported then no more but Men holding of the King's Person in Capite These subdivided their Lands to others under the like Military Service these were likewise called Barons from their appearing at their Lord's Court called the Court Baron and Baronagium became a Word of general Signification comprehending those liberè Tenentes or Sutors to the Court Baron who together with the King 's immediate Tenants who were the Barones Regis that is the Kings immediate Free-holders made up the Communitas Angliae and comprehended all Persons except such as held in Villenage Besides these thus made by the King there were others some found here some brought out of Normandy of great Nobility and Extraction who had of their own great Possessions as Earldoms and Counties in this Country and others brought over with the Conquerour out of Normandy of an Inferiour Rank to whom he gave the like Honour out of the Lands of those adhered to Harold which all held of him per Baroniam but by Creation were many of them afterwards made of a higher Rank and were called Comites Regis and Majores Barones Regni they being possessed of the like Honours in their several Countries before The Bishops I conceive were not under any of these Ranks but were called to Parliaments ratione Episcopalis Dignitatis not ratione Tenurae only of which they complained as a Burthen Creation they had none to any higher Honour than Episcopal their Tenure could not give them a greater Honour than to be Barones minores or Barons Peers Neither can I find in any Act of Parliament or Record that they were called Lords before the time of Rich. II. and then first called Lords Spiritual to shew their Honour arose from their Spiritual Function and not from any Temporal Possessions nor the name of Barons applied to them except by themselves who perhaps finding the Burthen of their Service which before was free were willing that others should give them the Title tho there was no more reason that their Tenure by Baron Service should make them Barons than that Knight Service should make the Tenant a Knight Having thus cleared my way I shall in the next place shew that these Barones Minores or Barons Peers were sometimes summoned by Writs to Parliament and sometimes left out The Abbot of Feversham one under the same Rule with the Bishops was summoned to 12 Consecutive Parliaments as Tenant in capite per Baroniam and then left out 19 Edw. 2. Rot. penes remem Dom. Regis in Scall Thomas de Furnival had been sumoned to 30 Parliaments and yet upon an Amerciment in the Exchequer pleads he was no Baron now except he had held in Cap. per Baroniam or part of a Barony he could not have been summoned at all as a Member of Parliament Whether his Plea were allowed doth not appear upon the Record but by this and some other Records in my hand to the same purpose it seems to me that many that held per Baroniam were not Barons but at the best Bannerets or Barons Peers I cannot find by my utmost search that any thing hitherto hath madeit apparent that Baronies were ever annexed to the Possessions of the Bishops but Men have generally taken it for granted that they were so They say that William the first soon after his Reception to the Crown of England did introduce new Tenures and established Counties and Baronies and did then order that Bishops and the Parliamentary Clergy should hold per Baroniam or sicut Baroniam which the Learned Mr. Selden saith in the language of those Times signified the same thing For he saith that tenere de Rege in capite and habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron according to the Laws of those Times are synonimous Seld. Tit. Hon. part 2. pag. 704 Cook Hakewell and others say they hold per Baroniam But the Proofs any that I have met with offer to make good this Division by William or that Tenure per Baroniam did infer more when a minor Baron in my Judgment are not cogent What they urge is taken out of Wendover and from him transcribed by Matth. Paris He first greatly blaming the Act of William hath these Words Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias tenebant catenus ab omni servitute saeculari libertatem habuerant sub servitute statuit militars irrotulans singulos Episcopatus Abbatias pro voluntate suâ quot Milites sibi successoribus suis Hostilitatis tempore voluit a singulis exhiberi That is He established under Military Service all Bishopricks and Abbeys which held Baronies and at that time had freedom from all Secular Service inrolling them all and appointing according to his Pleasure what Souldiers in time of War they should severally find unto him and his Successors Mr. Selden finding the contradiction in these Words that their Baronies which should have kept them as he thought free from Secular Service as the words import were the only thing that bound them to it thinks there ought to be a Parenthesis after Baronias in purâ perpetuâ eleemosina eatenus ab omni servitio saeculari c. and makes the words run thus All Bishops and Abbeys that held Baronies in Frankalmoign and in that respect freed from all Secular Service c. And backs this Conjecture by the Authority of Mr. Cambden who he conceives might have seen some Copy where those words were But he need not have put himself to the trouble of that Conjecture had he translated eatenus at that time as the word signifies and never that I know in that respect However finding further that this would not take away all doubt because the words refer not to all Bishopricks and Abbeys but to such only as then possessed
Baronies for ought appears of elder time which he denies any did before the time of William the first of which perhaps more anon doth believe that this Tenure was enacted by some Parliament in William's time preceding to this whose Journals or Records are now lost yet adds for a further Proof the Authority of an ancient Manuscript in his hand belonging it seems to the Abbey of Ramsey of Matth. Paris where over the Year 1070 are inserted these Words In this Year the Servitium Baroniae was imposed upon Ramsey This perhaps might equally concern other Abbies yet seems but a weak Proof of the matter in question as to the Bishops did not somewhat in Ingulphus and the subsequent Practice give some Light to the Business But neither Laws nor Practice ought to be forced or stretched to a greater Latitude than the natural Construction of the Words will bear It cannot reasonably be denied but that in the Times of our Ancestors when Learning in Lay-men was very rare that the Clergy bare a great sway in the Councils of Princes and Great Men who busied themselves in little more then Feats of Arms and Hospitality But the Clergy a wary and vigilant sort of People guided by the subtile Heads of Rome under whose Banner they always fought what under pretences of Piety Satisfaction for Sins commited Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory and what not captivated the Consciences and drained the Purses of most of the ignorant Multitude Nay so holy was their Function and so sacred their Persons that no Secular Tribunal was by them thought sanctified enough to question their Actions but they still pressed to be remitted to their own or by their Appeals to Rome frustrated the Designs of the Civil Magistrate William the first being desirous to put a stop to this exorbitant Pride and growing Power of these Men and yet not disgrace their Calling did as before is mentioned out of Mat. Paris ordain that the Clergy should not be wholly exempted from all Secular Service and probably might before that have altered their Tenure which most-what before was in Frankalmoign unto the Tenure in capite sicut Baroniam or in the nature of a Barony by which they were made subject to such Services as Tenants in cap. per Baroniam were tyed unto and were called to Parliaments and sate among the other Noble-Men and the Barons Peers being first summoned thereunto by the King 's Writ Most Men have considered the Nobilitas Major or those who constituted the House of Peers under a threefold Relation First as made Earls or Barons by Creation and an actual Ceremony of investure of Robes and a succeeding Charter and Writ to attend in Parliament when summoned The Charter comprehended some Limitation how the Honour should go or else some Pension to the Barons to support their Dignity and Title of which you may see more Examples in Mr. Selden's Tit. of Hon. Part 2. Cap. 5. Such I conceive was that Charter made by King Stephen to Mandevile Earl of Essex and renewed again by Maud the Empress the like was that of Miles Earl of Hertford granted by Maud and renewed by Hen. II. which Charter only served to convey the third penny of the County Now these Charters being usual as to Earls which was the highest Degree at that time and an actual Ceremony being also used in the making of Knights which was the lowest degree of Honour I see no reason but to believe that the same Ceremony of Invetisture was used to Barons which was the middle Degree Some Light is given to this by considering the Charter granted to the Lord Iohn Beauchamp of Holt. where the words are Ipsum Iohannem in unum Parium Baronum Regni nostri Angliae praefecimus volentes quod idem Johannes haeredes masculi de Corpore suo exeuntes statum Baronis obtineant ac Domini de Beauchamp Barones de Kiddermister nuncupenter In cujus rei Testimonium c. Here being in this Charter no words of Creation but all in the Praeterperfect Tense we have promoted must refer to some Act done before and this Charter served only to limit how the Estate should go Mr. Seld. Tit. Hon. Part 2. Cap. 5. p. 747. I edit in fol. I know reckons this as the first Creation of a Baron by Patent but doth not observe the words nor his own Subsequent Patents made to others where the words are in the Present Tense and constituent of the Honour granted viz. Praficimus constituimus creamus we do create promote and appoint Neither can I imagine what Right those Ancient Barons of which we have yet some left who were so before Rich. II. have to come this day in Robes had not their Ancestors been invested with them in their Creation and different from those of Earls Now this as it was the most ancient so was it the most honourable way of conferring Honours so was it also the most noble by which their Blood was not only enobled but also all other Rights and Priviledges competible to that Degree were given unto them and certainly we must make some difference between one made a Peer of the Kingdom by Charter and one so called in ordinary Speech of which Name no Man in the Kingdom but is in some sense capable we being all Peers to those of our own Degree Now of these Peers thus enobled by the Invetisture of Robes some were called to Parliament by Writ after the Ceremony of Invetisture had been performed and had never any Patent to limit the descent of the Honour Such had their Honour in fee-simple and it went to the Heirs general of which we have many Examples where the Sole Daughter and Heir of such a Baron hath not only conveyed the Honour to her Descendents but enjoyed the Title herself during Life Amongst many I will only instance in one Charles Longuevile Son and Heir to Susanna Heir general to the Barony de Grey of Ruthin left only one Daughter named Susanna Charles her Father was received in Parliament in his Robes in the latter end of King Charles the first his Reign he dying left the foresaid only Daughter who after his Death married Sir Henry Yelverton of Easton Manduit in Northamptonshire Baronet Sir Henry died leaving Sir Charles Yelverton Baronet his Son and Heir then a Minor Susanna enjoyed the Honour during her Life and at her Death left Charles still under Age who immediately possessed the Honour and at his full Age was called by Writ sate in his Robes in Parliament till he died which happened soon after his Age of twenty one without any issue leaving the Honour to Henry his Brother and Heir yet alive and under Age. See Sir William Dugdale's History of the Baronage Title Lord Grey first Part pag. 718 719. The second way by which some have conceived Barons were made hath been by Writ only without any other Formality or Ceremony whatsoever and of this
Opinion have been some Heraulds and have contended that by the Writ of Summons the Person was enobled and if his Descendents were so called for three Descents the Blood was enobled I conceive this Opinion to be erroneous For it is against a Maxime in Law that the King should pass any thing by Implication and as unreasonable to believe he might not have Liberty to require the Counsel of his Subjects without conferring an Honour upon them he did not intend Besides it will hence follow That during divers Parliaments of Edw. 1. almost all in Edw. 2. and many in Edw. 3. all the Judges King's Serjeants and many other were enobled for they had the same Writ the Barons had yet were never accounted such nay were often after such Summons omitted The known Case of Mounthermer is very pertinent to our purpose who having married the Relict of the Earl of Gloster who had a great part of the Earldom in Jointure her Husband was summoned as an Earl during the Minority of her Son but after he came of Age Mounthermer was summoned as a Baron during his own Life and after wholly omitted in his Descendents If it be said that his Summons enobled him but in regard his Descendents were not called the Blood was not enobled what will they then say to the Case of Radulphus de Camois who was summoned and his Son after him in 7 Edw. 2. yet in 7 Rich. 2. Claus. Memb. 32. in dors Thomas Camois the Grand-child was chosen one of the Knights for Surrey and discharged by the King 's Writ because he and his Ancestors were Baronets and the said Thomas was summoned and served in that Parliament not as a Baron but as a Barons Peer or Baronet which was an inferiour sort of Honour and signisied the same thing that Tenants in Cap. did in the time of King John But that these sorts of Peers were sometimes summoned and sometimes omitted at the King's Pleasure The only difference being that which appeared when they came thither the one appearing viz. The inheritable Barons in their Robes the others not but in Habits different from the Barons Now that there was this difference is made plain by those Authorities shall be produced under the next Head which is that there were a sort of Persons called Barons who were so by Tenure only that is to say who held of the King in Cap. and had such a number of Knights-fees and upon that account were summoned as Barons or rather as Barons Peers Mr. Selden seems to say in his Tit. Hon. Part 2. Sect. 17. pag. 690. That all Honorary Barons of that time whereof he speaks were for ought appears Barons only by Tenure The words are cautelous and his Expressions as became a Learned Man warily set down First Honorary Barons viz. Such as had the Honorary Name of Barons but not the Blood for such I take his meaning to be because he gives us no Definition of Honorary Barons nor why if it be admitted that Barons had their beginning from the number of Knight's fees which they held why Earls had not the like beginning who held of the King in Cap. as well as the others Now that there was a clear distinction between Barons enobled in Blood and those that held only in Cap. the one we find called Barones Majores the greater Barons the other Barones Minores lesser Barons The red Book in the Exchequer or Remembrancers Office attributed to Gervasius Tilburiensis speaks of it as an undoubted Truth Quidam c. Some hold of the King in Cap. things belonging to the Crown to wit greater or lesser Barons Quidam enim de Rege tenent in Capite quae ad Coronam pertinent Barones scil majores seu minores by which it appears they both held of the King in Cap. yet were distinguished into greater or lesser Fitstephens in the Life of Thomas of Becket Chap. 11. mentions Secundae Dignitatis Barones Barons of a second Degree Matth. Paris Anno 1215 hath these words Summoneri faciemus Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas nostras Et praeterea faciemus submoneri in generali per Vicecomites Ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in Cap. tenent de nobis ad certum diem Here we see two different sorts of Barons the one summoned by the King 's Writ the other by the Sheriff The first sort by Writs sealed by the Chancellor the rest by Writs to the Sheriff yet both held in Capite But certainly omnes qui de Rege tenent in Capite must be understood with a reasonable Restriction For it will be very evident to any Man who shall examine the Inquisitions post Mortem remaining in the Tower that much Land held per Baroniam was in the Hands of private Men who were never reputed Barons neither could these Inquisitions be understood of Tenures from Mesne Lords and not from the King because all Tenures per Baroniam were Tenures in Capite which must be from the King Besides if the Tenure of Land made a Baron Why were not the Purchasers of those Lands by the King's Licence of Alienation ever after the Stat. of quia emptores Terrarum called to Parliament as Barons The Case of the Earl of Arundel 11 Hen. 6. will not mend the matter for his Ancestor was created by Writ and the Castle entailed upon him so that he was called to Parliament not by having the Land only but by virtue of the Creation of his Ancestor and the Entail upon it In so much that I still conceive that the ancient Nobility from whatsoever beginning it arose was made inheritable by Creation and Investiture of Robes upon which sometimes followed Cnarters which directed how it should descend and the Confusion in Historians hath proceeded from their not distinguishing Barons from Barons Peers so called not from their Parity in Honour but in Estate and Tenure but wanting Investiture were called or left out at the Pleasure of the King This Distinction is clearly mentioned in the old Modus tenendi Parliamentorum printed by Mr. Hakewell Summoneri debent omnes singuli Comites Barones eorum Pares All Earls and Barons ought to be summoned as also their Peers I know the Authority of this Treatise hath been questioned by some Learned Men but by none with more violence and less reason than by Mr. Prin in his fourth part of his Register of Writs p. 591. To which easie Answers may be given if we consider the Translators out of the Saxon Tongue might easily translate Words which they thought of an equivalent Signification by words in use at that time as Wittena Gemot for Parliament and the like Others of as great Judgment have as strenuously defended the Authority of it Sir Edward Cook in his Jurisdiction of the Court of Parliament strongly defends its Antiquity and Mr. Hakewell pag. 135.
testifies to have seen an Exemplification of it under the Great Seal of Ireland in the time of Henry the fourth testifying the same to have been sent into Ireland by Henry the second for a Form of holding Parliaments in that Kingdom So that we must either admit the Great Seal of Ireland to be forged or confess the Modus as ancient as Henry the second 's time Many admit that it was sent into Ireland as a Modus for that Country but was not so for England which seems to me unreasonable it not being likely we should give them a Patern different from our own who now observe most of the Rules there given Daniel Anno 1133 in the Life of Henry the first will tell you that in his time the word Parliament began to be in use after the Convocation of his Parliament at Salisbury in the 15th Year of his Reign Nay much ancienter even as old as Canutus if we believe the old Book of Sir Edmundsbury who in the fifth Year of his Reign summoned all his Prelates Nobles and Great Men to his Parliament as you may see more fully Rights of the Crown p. 100. By all which of much more that might be added we may see how dangerous it is to judg of Books by the promiscuous use of words I have made this short Digression to the end that what I shall say hereafter may be made clearer I shall now apply my self to the Case of the Clergy and consider their Right to sit in Parliament This Right of theirs must grow since the Conquest from the Tenure of their Land in Capite sicut Baroniam and consequently they cannot be reckoned but amongst the Barons by Tenure and are not properly Barons but Peers no way enobled in Blood nor of longer continuance than the Foundation upon which the Tenure is built continues Thus we see in the Dissolution of Monasteries the Tenure was extinguished The same in Bishopricks as that of Westminster and others where the Corporation being dissolved the Tenure as to them was extinguished I know very well they would not now be thought to sit Ratione Episcop Dignitatis as Bishops but as Barons In that famous Wrangle at Northampton touching Becket who should pronounce Sentence against him The Bishops tell the Lords Non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones nos Barones vos Barones pares hic sumus Fitst cap. 10. col 2. Seld. Tit. Hon. part 2. cap. 5. pag. 706. We sit not here Bishops but Barons We Barons and you Barons are here Peers or Equals Not meaning by these words that they were otherwise Peers than such as their Tenure made them which was only to hold in Cap. sicut Baroniam or in the nature of a Barony for although that tenere per Baroniam sicut Baroniam perhaps are all one neither of them imply a Barony but only the Services of a Barony which the Bishops by their Tenure were bound to perform as also the Abbots And I am the more confirmed in this Opinion because I do not find that any Examination was made what their Possessions were nor of how many Knights Fees they consisted but were they more or less the Tenure was the same whereas 't is probable the Possessions of some were above twenty Knights Fees the rate of an Earl others less than thirteen yet still the Tenure and Peerage was the same Neither is any Record or Patent produced nor I think can be where any Barony was annexed to their Possessions 'T is evident that out of one Bishoprick others have been taken as Peterborough out of Lincoln Oxford out of Gloster yet these Bishops came to Parliament and still under the same Tenure and Service In Edward the sixth's time Cranmer had his Episcopal Dignity during Pleasure Was he then a Baron at will We may safely conclude from the Complaint of all Historians of those Times that Tenure in Capite and their Services which arose by it was put upon them as a Burthen not as an Honour but imposed upon them to make them know they were Subjects which they could hardly be brought to believe having such Dependance upon Rome Yet was it not thought fit wholly to exclude them from all Councils and therefore this expedient was found out that they should hold their Lands by doing such Services as Barons did and sit amongst them in Parliament in the nature of Barons which they improved afterwards to the Appellation of themselves by the name of Barons but never could to equal Priviledges with those Persons who were truly such Petrus Blesensis in his Tractate de Institutione Episcopali hath these words which I have occasion to cite more at large towards the end of this Treatise pag. 129. Quidam Episcopi Regum munificentias eleemosynas antiquorum abusivè Baronias Regalia vocant in occasione turpissimae Servitutis se ipsos Barones vocant Some Bishops abusively call the Bounties of Princes and the Alms of their Ancestors Baronies and Royalties and taking occasion from that base Slavery he means certainly the Slavery in performing those Services put upon them by their Tenure call themselves Barons This he much and largely inveighs against from all which it may reasonably be collected that they gave themselves that Title rather than that it was given them by the King who yet sate in Parliament together with the other Barons not as a distinct Estate from them but involved with them as part of a third Estate which was intirely represented in Convocation For it seems to me very clearly that they never were a distinct Estate in Parliament if by Parliament you understand that part of it which consisted of Counts and Barons yet were they the chief and principal part of a third Estate in Parliament in respect of the Convocation which began continued and ended with it and where their Debates Gifts to the King and other Transactions bind only their own Body Neither is it reasonable to believe them a third Estate here otherwise than they are so accounted in other parts of the World to wit a part of that Body the Clergy who being a Select Portion or Lot of the Lords and Embassadours of Christ look'd upon themselves as not accountable to any Secular Tribunal Neither is it material whether they sate mixt with the Laity as perhaps they have sometimes done for this cannot alter their being a third Estate as Clergy-men let their Votes be gathered together or apart Indeed I cannot see how it is possible they should be a third Estate in that House where they sit among the Lords for besides their Unwillingness to own that they sit as Bishops but as Barons I would fain have any Man tell me how it comes to be so Dr. Heylin will tell you that Clerus was never taken for the Bishops distinct from the other Clergy By what Title do they then claim it by any Grant from the King that should be produced
Canons when 't is for our Advantage to break them I might now proceed to the Examination of his Iast Head How far the Canon Law is at this day binding But because I would not leave any thing untaken notice of he thinks fit to make use of for the strengthening his Cause I shall speak something to what he farther urgeth He tells you out of Knighton That this Parliament was called Parliamentum sine Misericordiâ and that many Circumstances concurred which might make the Lords willing to admit of their Protestation because their business might proceed better against the King's Ministers He need not have urged Inducements to perswade the Lords to admit of their Protestation except he had first shewed they had Power to have refused it But by this Inducement he insinuates that the Bishops would probably have obstructed Justice against those wicked Ministers about the King What the Accusation was for which some of them were executed I shall let you seek in the Historians of those times being unwilling to rake into that Puddle any deeper I shall therefore leave this Parliament and the mysterious Canons as our Author well calls them and come to the Anti-Parliament to this held in 21 R. 2. where as he saith the King had a Mind to undoe what was done in the Parliament in 11 R. 2. which Intention this Author saith he had kept in his Mind ten Years by being willing to let the Bishops be absent in 11. that he might have that pretence to Question in this Anti-Parliament the things then done An undecent Charge he lays upon the King if it be well considered The Declaration by help of the Bishops that the King's Pardon granted in Parliament in 11. was revocable by the King was the Labour of his Ministers in 〈◊〉 which those Ministers prevailed in 〈◊〉 Measure but their Actions with 〈◊〉 â—…cceeding Murther of the D. of Gloâ—… the King's Uncle bred such a Jealousie and Distrust between the King and his People that I may call it the first Stone which left not rolling till it ended in the Ruine of that poor Prince who continued not King much more than a Year after and was soon after the Deprivation of his Crown deprived of his Life also What Art was used to make that Parliament subservient to their ends I need not tell you One of the first Attempts was what I touched before to make Pardons granted by the King in Parliament revocable at his Pleasure in this the Clergy were very instrumental After this the Commons come to do their Parts and they represent that divers Judgments had been undone heretofore for that the Clergy were not there present and therefore pray they might appoint some common Proctor with sufficient Authority to that Purpose From hence he infers two things First That the Commons thought their Presence necessary because Judgments had been undone for want of it Therefore their Concurrence in Judgment was thought necessary to make a Judgment valid Secondly That they should therefore make a common Proctor This is strange Logick Their Presence was thought necessary and Judgments undone for want of it therefore they ought to be present I think ought to have been the Consequent but the Commons pray that in that respect they should make a Proctor I should think now the true Inference ought to have been The Bishops and Clergy ought not to be personally present in Cases of Blood yet because it is fit they should be represented at least in some Cases let them nominate a common Proctor to be in their stead where their Concurrence is necessary This is Sense the other is contradictory 'T is evident by this Petition of the Commons that matter of Blood was to be treated of for there needed no Proctor for any other use since themselves might have been present And I think it very clear by the Year-book in 10 E. 4. that when Issue was once joyned 't was their Duty to absent themselves For that Book is that the Peer questioned may plead not guilty and then the Bishops to depart so that it is plain they were not to vote after Issue joyned in matters of Blood So Hakewell in his Modus Tenend pag. 84. before cited saith That to our days when Question is had of the Attainder of any Peer the Bishops are to depart Now I take the Law to be all one what â—…ue is joyned in a Capital Accusation so as there be any upon which the Court may proceed to Famination of the Cause and to Judgment accordingly As to our purpose in the case of the 〈◊〉 of Danby he pleads the King's Pardon the King's Counsel or the Commons demur The matter then in Issue upon the Demurrer is whether the Pardon is good in Law upon which the Bishops according to 10 E. 4. are to go out because if the Pardon be found invalid then must Sentence of Death be pronounced against the Criminal for I take the Law to be That the pleading a Pardon in Bar upon an Endictment or Impeachment is a Confession that all the matters contain'd in the Endictment or Impeachment are true and he shall never be admitted to plead Not Guilty afterward But this by the way Our Question is about the Commons Petition that they would make a Proctor which being in matter of Blood the Author of the Letter saith was the only time whether this was Error temporis as one saith the Error of that time or an inconsiderate rash Desire of the Commons as another is not necessary to enquire for it doth not appear that any Capital Judgments had been reversed by reason of their Absence so that their desire fails in the ground of it if they meant of Capital ones for the first Judgment against the Spencers was affirmed in 1 Ed. 3. and the Reversal made 15 Ed. 2. was made null so that the Commons it seems were ignorant in that and might be unadvised in the rest as they sometime have been Beside if he consult Sir Edward Coke in his 2 Instit. cap. de Asportatis religiosor pag. 586. he doth well excuse the Commons in shewing that the Bishops were present at the Charge against the Spencers in 1 Ed. 2. so that the Commons might not know how far the Bishops were conusant of the thing and looking only on the out-side were ignorant of the Act in 1 E. 3. for the Discourser saith there were no more No replyes the Grand Questionist not in his Study but the Commons might know of more for we have not all the Rolls What then This at best is but a Surmise and the two Judgments against the two Spencers were enough to make their Allegation true that divers Judgments had been reversed for that cause though it be not to excuse their Ignorance in not knowing that the first Judgment against them was revived by the Statute of 1 Ed. 3. And it seems strange to me that he that had so much
Reverence for the then House of Commons should have so little Respect to the Opinion of both Houses now for the Commons unanimously voted That the Bishops ought not to be present at any Debate concerning the Earl of Danby or the Lords in the Tower by them impeached of Treason Journ of Parl. pag. 258. and 267. The Lords about the same time voted That the Bishops were to go out when their Lordships proceeded to examine Guilty or Not Guilty This Author with great Confidence and little Respect affirms they have right to stay till the definitive Sentence is to be given But let me now admit that it was reasonable in the House of Commons to move that they might make a Proctor and that the Bishops had also Right to nominate one in Capital Cases yet certainly when they all absented themselves together 't was in their Choice whether they would make any or no and consequently their omitting it as in 11 R. 2. could be no cause to reverse a Judgment as the Commons alledged The Reason is as I touched before because they take notice of the matter in Question by hearing the Accusation read which is always done before they go away which is enough to make any Act good and to be said to pass by their Consent because they voluntarily absent themselves though with Allowance of the Lords where their Presence is not lawful Vid. Co. 2. Inst. de Asport Relig. pag. 586. So that the Reason of the House of Commons was every way weak and unsound In the next place let me examine what the Office of a Proctor is being made It is plain by the Imperial Law that a Proctor is in the Nature of an Attorney to appear and make Answer in the name of his Client to such things as the Court shall think fit to demand but never by that or any other had he Power to over-rule or contradict what was the sense of the Court. I have seen some ancient Precedents of Persons under the degree of Noble men made Proctors by the Bishops for which consult Mr. Selden's Privil of the Baron pag. 5. Hon. of the Lords Spir. pag. 27. Els. Mod. pag. 16. But in all Cases I have met with the ancient form runs thus At the Parliament at Carlisle under Edward the First the Words are Ad consentiendum quod tunc ibidem per dictos Prelatos Proceres contigerit ordinari Another in Edward the First 's time in a Parliament at Westm. runs thus Ad comparendum audiendum pro nobis in hoc Parliamento tractanda consentienda So that their Power was but to appear and hear for them what by others were to be treated and consented to Accordingly Mr. Selden saith that in Attainders upon Appeal they made their Proctors for assenting in Parliament I hear nothing of dissenting Seld. Privil Bar. pag. 5. Neither is it reasonable to believe the Lords would suffer any Commoner to sit and vote among them as Judges neither do we read of any place where such a Proctor was to sit having no right of his own to be there If you will say he was to sit upon the Bishops Bench and there to give his Vote you give the Bishops Power by their simple deed to give place and vote in Parliament which is as much as the King can do by his Letters Patents and by which the Patentee is enobled Neither is it just to think they could any way transfer a Right for others to judge for them where themselves were prohibited to be present or judge It appears that in the Parliament in 49th of Henry the Third there were a hundred and twenty Bishops Abbots Priors and Deans 't is not like there were many fewer in 21 Richard the Second who was not long after him Can any one now think the Lords would suffer Thomas Percy to dispose of a hundred and twenty Votes It had been much safer to have let the Clergy to have been personally present than to unite in one man a power to over-ballance them all I think it probable for the Reasons before given that their Proctor either sate among the mean Officers or that in those times the Lords and Commons sate together and that this Percy was one of those that served for his Country But against this is urged that in Edward the Third's Time there were distinct Houses though before that Time they might sit together Sir Ed. Coke Prin and others are of Opinion they sate together far in Edward the Third's Time why may not that be extended to his Son Richard the Second the exact time when they divided being not so exactly agreed upon I have before shewed out of Mr. Petit Rot. Parl. 2 Henry the Fifth pars 2. n. 10. that the Commonalty have ever been accounted a part of the Parliament I have also shewed out of Cambden Selden and others that Baronagium comprehended both Lords and Commons and in all Histories of those Times you shall frequently meet with Concilium Baronum Baronagium and the like Mr. Selden tells you Tit. Hon. part 2. chap. 5. no. 16. pag. 689. that the Burgesses of some good Towns as well as the Cinque-Ports which still retain the same name were called Barons In the seventeenth of King John dors claus memb 7. Baronib Germuthae Gipswici Norwici c. Mat. Paris Anno 1253. pag. 863. speaking of the Citizens of London hath these Words being englished Whom for the Dignity of the City and the ancient Liberties of the same we usually call Barons Of this Identity of Names we can give no better account than because they were usually joyned with the other Barons in great Councils of which there were also two sorts Gervasius Tilburiensis part 2. cap. 13. speaks of Barones majores and mineres Fitz-Steph cap. 11. mentions secunde dignitatis Barones In the Mag. Char. of King Iohn Mat. Par. Anno 1215. mentions a Summons to a Common Counsel of the greater Barons by the King 's Writ and of other Tenants in Cap. which were Barones minores by the Sheriff but all of them comprehended under the general Name of Barones or Baronagium under which general Name all meeting who had any Right to come either as Barons or Free-holders we have no reason to believe they did not all sit together in the same Counsel whereunto they were summoned under the same Name The old Modus put out in English by Hakewell with his seeming Approbation of the Book saith in his Chapter concerning Cases and Judgments that are heard that every degree might go by it self and consider of it by which it appears they then sate together 6 Edw. 3. Elsing p. 96. and 99. saith in two Parliaments they went apart and in one gave Subsidies apart The Case is in 50 Edward 3. where the cause of Summons being shew'd the Commons were willed to withdraw to their ancient place and consult among themselves proves no more than that
provincial that have been by common Use allowed shall be of force and not to be taken away but by Act of Parliament Now himself confesses that the Canons are against him then may I well conclude that the Law is against him since all Canons then in use are part of the Law at present Page 68. He tells you the Sanction of this Law which was Irregularity is now ceased and that some of our most learned Judges have declared that is taken away by the Reformation First I am to learn that Irregularity was the Sanction of the Law I always understood that the Sanction of a Law was the matter established by it obedience to which was required under the Penalty of Irregularity but I will not stand upon that which if true would open a door to disanul all Laws made under a Penalty by pardoning that But the fore-going Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. clearly shews that all Canons accustomably used are still in force Who hath then taken off the Penalty If no body then their forbearance in Cases of Blood ought still to be observed in obedience to them Of this opinion were the Parliament both Lords and Commons in the Case of the Earl of Strafford whom this Author is pleased to honour with the name of a Cabal as also the Proclamation to call in my Lord Keeper Finch who was then fled both which were done in the Absence and after the Bishops were withdrawn and after William Bishop of Lincoln had given his opinion they ought so to do and are taken notice of by the Author of the Letter pag. 51 52 53. and by him very materially observed that that Proclamation against my Lord Finch was drawn by the Judges by order of the Lords Temporal after the old Parliamentary way from whence it is easie to infer that it was the old Parliamentary way for the Judges to draw up such Proclamations by Command of the Lords Temporal and that the Clergy medled not in those matters To all that hath been said to this purpose he hath either given no answer or what makes against him He tells you that my Lord of Canterbury was first named in Commission for the Tryal of the Queen of Scots This signifies little for here he was only a Commissioner but no Judge in Parliament Secondly That though the Queen could not dispense with the Law in general as to all Individuals yet to any one she might and the express naming him a Commissioner might amount to a Dispensation Thirdly though the Arch-bishop was named yet he was not present at the Tryal whose Names you may see in Cambden's Annals anno 1586. and therefore the Canon was observed for what other reason could be given for his refraining that Service but because by it he might have become irregular I shall add one or two Authorities more and so conclude the point Arch-bishop Abbot in King Iames his time hunting in one of his own Parks shooting at a Deer by an unfortunate Glance of his Arrow kill'd his Keeper much Debate there was whether this Act had made him irregular and that it did so was strongly argued by Williams Bishop of Lincoln then Lord Keeper who said that by the Canon-Law then in force he was ipso facto irregular Here you see the Canon-Law was then deemed in force and Irregularity to be by it contracted At last Commissioners were appointed to examine the business whose Names you may see in Rushworth both Divines Civilians and Common Lawyers After a full Debate they agreed he was not irregular for this was no Crime and therefore by Law could not contract Irregularity for by Law the Arch-bishop was allowed to hunt this accident being only Chance Medley could not bring any Guilt upon him But there was not the least Doubt made of the Canons being in force and that Punishment might be inflicted upon the Breakers of them Baker's Chron. pag. 446. who being then a man of good Age made this Relation upon his own knowledge This may serve in Answer to his Reflection upon Dr. Oates that he hath incurred Irregularity by his Discovery of the Horrid Plot not yet fully examined for this Discovery was but his Duty so far was it from being a Crime that it deserved and hath already found some Reward from his Majesty Of the same Opinion was Arch-bishop Laud with the rest in the Star-Chamber in the Censure of Dr. Leighton where Arch-bishop Laud would not suffer any corporal Punishment to be inflicted upon him until he was first degraded nor his Ears to be cropt in St. Paul's Church-yard because the Ground was consecrated now Degradation and Consecration of Places are the Fruits of the Canon-Law Lastly one Madie was in the High Commission Court Pas. 4 Car. 1. declared irregular and deprived for the same having first as was alledged preached after Suspension By all which it plainly appears that Irregularity may be incurred at this day and therefore those Canons not against the King's Prerogative nor consequently taken away by the Act of 25 Hen. 8. but that Irregularity may still be contracted by the breach of them I have now done with his two first Chapters which contain the substance of his whole Book and have shewed First that it is not clear that Bishops were Barons otherwise than by Appellation that they were never enobled in Blood that no Instrument can be produced what Baronies were annexed to their several Possessions whose Bishopricks have the Title common to other Noblemen as Lincoln Carlisle Bath Worcester York and others which is not usual that one should be Duke or Earl and another Baron of the same place beside the superfetation of Baronies by dividing one Bishoprick into several Baronies But that it is much more reasonable to believe that their Tenure in Cap. by Baronage Service which was imposed upon them as a burthen not an honour might cause them to be called to Parliament as Barones minores lesser Barons but not left out at the King's Pleasure as the lesser Barons were because they were to summon the Clergy to Convocation Secondly I have made it apparent that the Convocation is properly the third Estate in Parliament of which they constitute the upper House and not other than a part of a third Estate among the Lords Thirdly Admitting they were a third Estate in the Lords House entire as some think there could be no colour for their Tryal of a Noble-man who is a Member of another Estate Fourthly the Canons of the Council of Toledo were not the first cause of their absenting themselves in cases of Blood Fifthly I have vindicated the Parliament at Clarendon from all his Exceptions and made it very plain by the natural construction of the Words as well as by the Interpretation of his own Author Fitz-Stephens they are not to be present at any Consultations or Debates where the end may be Blood and that the Proceedings in the Council at
and Royalties and themselves Barons both blaming and threating them from God for so doing and involving themselves in Secular Matters This Author flourished in the time of Hen. II. ancient enough to know the truth and how they were look't upon in those days Moreover I do not find it can be made appear except conjecturally that they were ever present where they were not first named The Honour of their Function makes them be called before Dukes and Earls and being by that reason Pralati leâ—… no Man deprive them of their Right and by Post-Position make them post Lati. Lastly This Person being executed in 4 Edw. 3. as appears by the Record in 28 E. 3. Cot. p. 85. without any Accusation or Answer makes me believe the Bishops being Men of Piety would not by their Prefence countenance so illegal a thing tho they had had Right without entring their Protestation manifesting their dislike of it neither do I believe their Spirits so humble to suffer a Post-Position of their Titles But this whole matter will I conceive be better cleared if I shall acquaint the Reader with something more concerning this Roger Earl of March than hath yet come to this learned Person 's Knowledg In 5 Edw. 3. the very next Year after the summary Judgment was given against Mortimer and Matrevers a Commoner at the Complaint of the King we find inter Brevia Baronibus direct 5 E. 3. m. 33. penes rememorat Dom. Regis in Sâ—…cio that those Judgments were per Comites Barones alios Pares Regni not a Syllable of the Prelates nor can the word alios take them in since in the whole current of Records the Prelates were never placed after Earls and Barons And the alij Pares were either such as might be extraordinarily summoned an usual Practice at that time or they were the Barons Peers viz. Barones Minores besides the succeeding words clear the Point For there was in 4 E. 3. an Agreement and Concordia made by the Lords and Commons that such Proceedings should not for the future be drawn into Example to judg Commoners to death upon Summary Articles without any Concurrence from them Now this Concord was made by the Temporal Lords not by the Prelates but per nos Pares praedictos nec non Communitatem Regni in eodem Parliamento Now in 4 E. 3. the Reference was made to the Earls and Barons the Peers to whom of right such Judgments belonged and no Prelates comprehended and here they are called Pares praedicti Add to this Rot. Parl. 13 E. 3. Numb 8. Le grant des Graunts where an Aid was granted to the King then in war with France The Record saith Les Countes Barouns esteantzen dit Parlement Granteront pour eiix pour leur Peers de la terre qui teignent per Baronie la desme garb la disme tuzon la disme Aignel de touts leur demaignes Terres Now if the Prelates were understood by the word Peers in this place then it must be granted that the Earls and Barons taxed the Prelates who always taxed themselves and the inferiour Clergy in Convocation But the succeeding words will clear the matter which run thus in the same Record Et pour ceo quil fu aviis as Prelatez Countes Barouns autres Graunts que pour les ploite des besognes c. the Record is touching a speedy Supply to the King Here we see where the Bishops were concerned they were named which shews they were no more comprehended under Peers before than under the word Magnates in this Clause I could multiply Records to this purpose and am confident no clear Example can be given where they were necessarily comprehended after Counts and Barons The next Authority he quotes to weaken the Authority of those he calls Negative Precedents is the case of the Murther of Iohn Imperiall a publick Minister sent from Genoa This Case I conceive is not truly stated by the Author of the Letter and misapplied by the Grand Questionist The Point in question in the Record was what Offence the Murther of this publick Minister was which matter was referred to the Judges for their Advice who agreed that it was Treason within the Statute of 25 E. 3. This their Judgment was confirmed in Parliament whilst the Doubt was in Agitation among the Judges 't was not material who was there But after they had given their Sense what was meant by this Confirmation in Parliament is the next Question Whether more were meant than an approving of the Opinion given by the Judges by them drawn up in form and this may well be the meaning of that whole Proceeding which Practice is usual in our days but cannot be called a Judgment in Parliament tho it might be their Opinion But if you will rather believe it to be by Act of Parliament then must the Commons be Parties of whom we hear no mention nor any Statute to that purpose extant that I can find and in that Case the Bishops might have been present if they would and whether they were or not is not material Vid. Cot. 3. R. 2. N. 38. p. 183. Yea in Acts of Parliament when the Sentence comes to be given they are to withdraw as it was held by Mr. Edward Bagshaw a learned Reader of the middle Temple who for some Opinions by him held touching the Bishops was by the Power of Arch-bishop Laud suspended from proceeding in his reading Rushw. Hist. Coll. Tom. 2. p. 990. The next Precedent is in 5 E. 3. Which in conclusion will do him as little Service as the former The Author of the Letter pag. 7 8. tells us that that Parliament was summoned for redress of the Breach of the Law and the Peace of the Kingdom and the Record saith further that 't was to consult touching Lands in Guienne and the Marriage of the King in which the Bishops went away and returned no more I confess I know no reason but they might have staid it seems they thought otherwise being in all likelihood privy to some Actions to be treated there wherein Sentence of Blood might be pronounced But be their reason what you will their words are these Et pour ceo que avisefust a les dits Prelates qu'il nattient proprement a eux de Counseiller de la gard de la paix de chastiment de tels malvois s'allerent mesmes les Prelates Which words do not only import that they voluntarily went away but that it did properly behove them not to be present in such matters or to give Counsel for the Punishment of such Crimes The same word is used in 1 Hen. 4. Cot. p. 392. where the King by the mouth of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury declares that the Commons in that Case were only Petitioners and that all Judgments belonged to him and the Lords belonged that is the Commons had no Right thereto so here nattient proprement is that
when they might have been others that they were present when by his own Rules they should have been excluded either therefore the general words where they are not mentioned do not enforce their Absence or that they oughtto have been excluded at some other Trials where the Author of the Letter admits they were or might have been present The chief Case he instanceth in is that of Michael de la Pool Chancellour of England who was accused of many Misdemeanours by the House of Commons and as I think he would infer such as Thorp Chief Justice was found guilty of being Capital where the Author of the Letter saith the Bishops were not present yet allows them to have been present in the Case of this Chancellour a parallel Case as he saith with that of Thorp either therefore saith our Author they might have been present in the Case of Thorp or they should have been absent in Trial of Pool This is his Argument as near as I can gather out of his Words put together something obscurely I need give no other Answer to this than to lay before you the words of the Record This Accusation was exhibited by the Commons in 10 R. 2. against Michael de la Pool Lord Chancellour in full Parliament before the King Bishops and Lords and six Articles were objected by them against him The first was That he purchased Lands of the King of great value whilst he was Chancellour the other five as the Record saith were only Quarrels and of little concern To the first and most considerable the Chancellour put in a fair Answer the Commons reply and urge things to the utmost and amongst other things say That whereas by the Popes Provisions a Person was recommended to the Priory of St. Anthonies he the said Chancellour would not suffer him to be admitted till the Grantee had contracted to pay to the Chancellor and his Son 100 l. yearly and then parallel this with Thorp's Case and would have had the Chancellor in the same fault with Thorp for Bribery as a Judg and consequently incur the same Judgment The Chancellor replies and shews great difference between the Cases Upon the whole matter Judgment was given against him pursuant to the Accusation for Misdemeanours only in which the Bishops were and might be present and the parallelling it with Thorp's Case was only in the Management of the Cause by the Commons and no part of the Accusation Neither is it reasonable to believe that which our Author asserts in the same Page that the Prelates were free Agents and might withdraw at some times and be present at others as they saw cause For beside that this is contrary to the express Law of Clarendon which expresly declares that 't is their duty to be present in all Proceedings in Curia Regis which in that place must be understood of the Parliament because they were to be present with the other Lords tho I know that Curia Regis is sometimes taken in a more laxe Sense for all the Courts in Westminster are the King's Courts and unto which they were to give Obedience and Attendance in Cases not prohibited I say over and above this Act at Clarendon it seems to me very unreasonable to suppose that such a Body of Men had liberty to give their Attendance when they pleased without leave of the House or cause shewed why 't was fit they should be absent or that the Author of the Letter meant more when he saith they might have been present than that they were not prohibited by the Law of Clarendon which only had Relation to Matters of Blood But these Men had other Canons to go by when they thought fit as well as those of Toledo and 't is probable enough that the rest of the Noble-Men finding them most constant Factors for the Pope were willing enough to let them be absent upon any colourable Pretence when they desired it Is not one clear Precedent against them in point of greater weight than many dubious and equivocal ones which cannot without great Art be wire-drawn to speak to their advantage Let him consult the Discourse of Peerage pag. 17. The Case of the Earl of Northumberland 7 Hen. 4. Rot. processus cor Dom. Rege in Parl. in 5 Hen. 4. This Noble-Man came into Parliament and confessed before the King and Lords that he had done against his Allegiance in gathering Power and giving Liveries this Fact by the Lords was adjudged no Treason for which he gives Thanks to the Lords his Judges and a day after the Commons do the like where the Prelates are named as our Author affirms and to which I shall speak by and by But in 7 Hen. 4 the same Earl was in actual Rebellion in the North and his Forces dispersed by the Earl of Westmarland but he and the Lord Bardolf fled into Scotland the rest were most of them taken Prisoners This Case came into Parliament where the King commands the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm to advise what Process to make and what Judgment to render against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolf Nothing can be plainer than that the King look'd upon the Lords Temporal as those Peers who were proper to give Judgment touching their Fellow Peers who had fled from Trial in a case of Blood The Record goes on the said Lords advised thereupon and gave Counsel to the King Then the said Lords Peers of the Realm by assent of the King order summoning the said Lords to appear at a day given or to stand convicted by Award of the Peers in Parliament The King farther demanded the Opinion of the Lords Temporal touching the Arch-bishop of York who was in the same Treason The Lords Temporal by the Assent of the King and by their Authority declared and awarded the said Earl and Lord to stand convict of Treason for not appearing upon Summons 'T is very clear that this whole Business was transacted by the Lords Temporal without the Bishops and with the Concurrence of the King 'T is not to be believed that the Bishops would have sate quiet had they thought themselves wronged in these Proceedings See the Discourse of Peerage pag. 17 18. I think it hardly possible to find a more clear Record in the Point than this is First here were two Noble Lords defeated in actual Rebellion and fled from Justice into Scotland The King upon this would not so much as consult with his Prelates knowing them by Law no proper Counsellours against Peers in matters of Blood applies himself to his Lords Temporal they order Proclamations by order of the King enjoyning the said Lords to appear at a day certain or to stand convict they not appearing are by Award of the Lords Temporal convicted of Treason and a Year after one is slain the other mortally wounded at Bramham-moor in York-shire Can any thing be more agreable to the Practice at this day against Men that fly from Justice and
in Convocation as I have sufficiently I hope made appear pag. 19 20 c. of this Discourse As also that they had the Appellation of Barons and Peers not that they really were so which must have enobled their Blood but in respect of their Tenure in Capite sicut Baroniam or per Servitium Baroniae and for the most part so called by themseves only Our Author's Suggestion p. 151. that they sit in Parliament in a double Capacity as it is new so is it not solid He saith when they sit in the House in a judicial way they sit only in the Capacity of Temporal Barons and that this appears by the Constitution of Clarendon where the King requires their Attendance as his Barons But that in their Legislative Way they have a farther Capacity as representing a third Estate in Parliament I say this Fancy is new for I do not believe any before him look'd upon them as representing a third Estate in Parliament and not representing it I know they have been said to sit in respect of their Possessions which are Temporal in their own nature but not so when given Deo Ecclesiae but that they sate in any other Quality than Spiritual Persons I never heard nor can conceive Methinks if they have a Capacity to sit in the Quality of Temporal Barons they should also have a Capacity to change their Spiritual Robes and put on Temporal The Constitutions of Clarendon he saith require their Attendance in Judicature as his Barons and from thence would infer they sit in the Quality of Temporal Barons But how doth this follow I hope they may sit as Spiritual Barons But when all is done this Allegation of his is not sincere for the words are Debent interesse judiciis curiae Regis sicut caeteri Barones or cum caeteris Baronibus that is to say 't is their Duty to be present in Trials in the King's Court with the other Barons or as the other Barons are there present which words are far from inferring that they sit there in the Quality of Temporal Barons no more than the Judges rather that they sit not as Barons at all but only amongst them who are so It is evident therefore that his first Argument drawn from the Constitutions of Clarendon is not solid His next Suggestion that they are a third Estate in Parliament if by Parliament he mean their Convention in Convocation from the issuing out of Writs to the Guardian of the Spiritualties in the Vacancy of the Episcopal See I shall not contend with him only I think it from hence plain that they have Right to sit as Members of the Convocation properly where with the rest of the Brethren they make up a third Estate in which Writs there is generally a Clause of Praemunientes added to shew that other Clerks are to be chosen to sit in Convocation for which reason the Guardians in their Vacancy have their Writs directed to them lest the Convocation should not be full Now how this can prove them a third Estate in the Lords House I should be glad this Author would instruct me so that his Conceit of their sitting there in a double Capacity is of no weight and all his Precedents cited to that purpose might have been spared which do not in the least measure prove that the Bishops sit in the Lords House as a third Estate because Clerks shall be chosen to sit in Convocation by Writs directed to the Guardians of the Spiritualties where there are no Bishops or when they are beyond Sea rather evinces the necessity of a Convocation to meet in Consultation as to Ecclesiastical Matters which are only proper for their Function Lastly Let it be observed that his Quotations out of the Author of the Letter pag. 93. as to Doctor Standish his Case are mistaken the Author's words are the Judges said The Lords Spiritual have no Place in Parliament by reason of their Spiritualties in which respect in truth their place is in Convocation but by reason of their Temporal Possessions that is holding their Tempoporal Possessions in nature of Baronies The Scope of that Book is to shew that a Parliament might be held without them who indeed were no Barons but had liberty to sit among them by an Indulgence in respect of their Possessions And at last I am perswaded our Author will hardly be bound by that Opinion for if that be true how can they sit there as a third Estate if their Right to sit there be only as Temporal Barons This Authority is only from Kelway 7 Hen. 8. 184. See the Case at large in Burnet Our Grand Questionist goes on and endeavours to prove and clear that intricate matter as it hath been made touching the Interest the Clergy then had in Parliaments as well as Convocations but chiefly to prove that all the Interest they had in Parliaments was not meerly upon the account of their Temporal Baronies which the Bishops and many of the Abbots then had this he saith is the great but common mistake of the Author of the Letter 'T is first to be observed that he hath not proved that to hold Land by Baron-Service and to be a Baron is all one which by me is left doubtful as appears by what is said in the first Chapter of this Treatise Neither see I any reason why tenere per Baroniam should make a Baron more than Tenere per Militare Servitium should make a Knight Secondly That what he now saith is only a Pursuit of his precedent Conceit that the Bishops sit in the Lord's House in a double Capacity because as he saith there is a Distinction made even in Parliament between the several Estates of the Clergy and Laity How far this is argumentative and how far his Precedents warrant what he affirms I shall examine by and by only in the mean time would desire him to tell me whether they could come to Parliament at all without first receiving the King's Writ and in the next place Whether the King 's Writ imply any other Capacity than as Spiritual Persons holding their Possessions per Servitium Baroniae and voting among the Lords in respect of their Lands which are in their own nature Temporal Estates in the Hands of Spiritual Persons but by their Dedication to God made spiritual also which is as much as can be drawn from what Mr. Selden saith in the place quoted by our Author pag. 151. That they met as Counsellors in the Saxon's time in their Wittena Gemot I will not deny but whether by virtue of any Writ Summons or rather by general Allowance as Counsellors or what other way he cannot prove Records there are none or very few and Historians give but a dark account of those Times and things then one but which way soever they then sate certainly by William I. their right of sitting was much altered the Frame of things being in some measure altered also in so much that they
must now meet under such Qualifications and no other as were by him allowed them which by all Men is agreed to be as Tenants to the King in Capite for their Possessions which they held in the Nature and by the Service of Baronies This being so I see not what use he can make of the Distinction made in Parliament between the several Estates of the Clergy and Laity The Question is not Whether the Clergy and Laity are distinct Estates which no Man ever denied but whether the Bishops distinct from the other Clergy in Convocation be an entire third Estate in the Lord's House that they are so no Man hath yet proved His Authority out of Eadmerus speaking of what was done in Parliament in 3 Hen. 1. saith it was done Utriusque ordinis concordi Curâ sollicitudine by the unanimous care and trouble of both Orders Ranks or Degrees Why must Ordo signify an Estate rather than a Degree or Rank Now I hope Men of different Degrees may sit together without being different Estates Dukes Earls Marquesses Viscounts Barons now sit together yet may make but one Estate But let Ordo signify that Estate as he would have it and as he thinks it doth why must it signify an intire Estate or what doth it more import than that it was done by the Joint-Consent of the Lords and Commons who might then sit together and were not at any time left out as is sufficiently proved by Mr. Petyt Matth. Paris his Clerus and Populus and the other Cases by him there mentioned comprehended the whole Body of the Clergy and Laity met together in Parliament including as well the Inferiour Clergy as the Superiour sitting in their due Ranks All the rest of his Precedents made use of by him seem rather to enforce that the King is not a third Estate than that the Bishops are more than a part of a third Estate among the Lords But this Point whether the King be one Estate or not in Parliament and how an Head can be considered as no part of the Body I leave to others to dispute but must rest in this undeniable Conclusion that there can be no legal co-ordinate Power however the case stands for as in the Body natural nothing can be done without the concurrence of the Head So in the Body Politick nothing can justly be done without the concurrence of the King in matters of publick concern in Parliament except their Proceedings deviate from the ordinary Rules of the known Laws of England I have put off the Examination of the first part of his fourth Chapter that I might conclude this Discourse with an Answer to the Matters he there alledgeth He finds himself pressed with that strong Argument drawn as well from Magna Charta as from divers Precedents that the Bishops were not Peers to Noble-Men but were themselves tried by a common Jury in Matters Capital and therefore were not of Condition to try Noble-Men who had in themselves Inheritable Noble Blood To this Argument he opposes two things First That the matter of Fact cannot be made out that a Bishop hath always been tried by Commoners Secondly That if it could it doth not overthrow their Peerage in Parliament This second Assertion I will easily grant if by Peerage in Parliament be no more meant than a Community of Appellation by reason of their sitting amongst the Lords and their Precedence in place with some other Priviledges as to Amerciaments days of Grace and the like But certainly if it can be cleared that they have of right been tried by common Juries and that as well before as after the time of Henry the 8th Nay that they have not look'd upon the Lords in Parliament as their Peers and proper Judges I may then rationally conclude that they are not Peers in Parliament to that end to try or be tried by Noble-Men there It is plain by all our Law-books that out of Parliament no such Priviledg belongs to them For first out of Parliament over and above the express Authority of Stanford a Judg in Queen Mary's time Sir Edward Coke a great Judg in our time Mr. Selden a great Lawyer and Antiquary Mr. Cambden an Herauld great Scholar and Historian all agree that Bishops shall not be tried by Noble-Men and that manner of Triall hath never been put in use as to them Now if this be confessed to be the Law out of Parliament let the Author give me one Example that a Man of right ought for a like Offence to be tried by one sort of Jury out of Parliament and another in it The Case of Appeals under which Covert he endeavours to hide himself I shall discuss anon The Priviledg they claimed as Clerks was common to all other Clerks as well as to them but there are many Cases of Clerks tried in Secular Courts and the Trial allowed to be good to which purpose see Cook 's second Instit. 638 but never any Exception of theirs allowed of as if those Trials were illegal As to the Case of Bishops and their Trials by common Juries Mr. Selden is very clear and gives many Examples both before and after Hen. 8th's time which are not so to be slighted as this Author seems to do That of John de Isle the Bishop of Ely's Brother is full to the point where the Bishop was arraigned and upon Question how he would be tried stood upon his Priviledg as Clerk that he was a Member of the Pope's and therefore ought to be brought to his Answer before his Ordinary the Arch-bishop of Canterbury who was there ready to demand him affirming that he ought not to answer before a Lay-Judg this Plea was rejected and a day given to the Bishop and a Jury impannelled sworn and tried which shews he had his Challenge The Jury bring in their Verdict and find that the Bishop was not guilty of the Fellony laid to the Charge of John de Isle his Brother and his Companions but they find that after the Felony committed the said Bishop knowing that these Persons had committed Felony did receive and harbour them upon which a Writ was directed to enquire what Goods and Chattels he had and his Person upon request of the Arch-bishop delivered him to be kept as it behoved him to do Now let any Man judg whether here were not in every respect a legal proceeding The matter of Fact tried by the Verdict of twelve Men Inquisition made concerning his Goods Lands and Chattels himself the Crime being only receiving of Felons delivered to the Arch-bishop either to make his Purgation or to be kept in due manner Was here now any Willingness in the Court to break the Law as our Author saith pag. 146. or not rather a perfect Observation of it Is not this perfectly agreeable to what Dr. Ridley in his view of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws saith pag. 86. If a Clerk be first arrested by a Spiritual Judg and found
many all the Grantees were Tenants in Capite and owed the same entire Service that the first Grantee did 1. His Errours upon his first and second Heads cannot be truly shown unless they be fully transcribed in their full Dimensions When the Conqueror says he did innovate his Tenures in Capite and made all Men of great Estates Barons and by their Tenures and Estates Members of Parliament we then had such Laws quas vulgus elegerit and the nwe had materially our three Estates though not so well sized and sorted as since We had then I say many great Free-holders in every County that by their Tenures were Members of Parliament whereas now we have but two and tho the People did not not chuse them yet the Men of that Order seem chosen once for all interpretatively by the People in their consent to the Government In this Constitution scarce any Man that was fit to be chosen but was without the Peoples choice a Member of Parliament as there now are more who are fit to be chosen than they can chuse so that the Barones Minores were then instead of Knights of the Shire and the Barones Majores Bishops and Earls did then as now make the Parliament Besides Barones Majores and Minores there was at this time a distinction between the Barones Regis and Barones Regni which I will explain to prevent any Mistake that may grow thereupon The Barones Regni were Barons by Tenure and made part of the Government by the Constitution of the first William and so in process of Time called Barones Regni because they had by Continuance of that Constitution acquired a fixed Right to that Honour But because of the frequent Wars between the Barons and the Kings at that time they did omit to summon some who were Barons by Tenure and now duly called Barones Regni to Parliament and called others that had no Right to be called Ratione Tenurae and those they called Barones Regis This was ill taken by the Lords and was one of the occasions of their War with King Iohn upon which they obtained his Charter for Remedy as follows Barones Majores Regni sigillatim summoneri faceret the truth of this as to the Fact will appear by the History of those Times and that this is the reason of this distinction of Barones Regis and Barones Regni doth appear by the recited Charter of King Iohn where the Majores Barones are called Barones Regni for the Barons were more concerned for the losing of their Honours than they were at the Communication of the like Honour to others and with reason though all Honours are lessened by the numbers of those that participate of them The Inconveniency and Mischiefs of this Constitution were very great and very sensible by making the Government to consist of one Order there was no third to moderate and hold the Ballance I shall not here enlarge upon his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Conquest nor upon his Conjecture of one of the Occasions of the Barons Wars nor yet upon his notion of three Estates materially the same when but one Order and by the same reason if all were in one by virtue of his Spiritual and Temporal Power and he had by a Conquest all the property of the Nation here the Government was materially the same with Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in his Belly as when he had disgorged and scattered abroad the Property and Power But to the purpose of the above-mentioned Heads 1. Whereas he will have it that only Bishops and Earls were Majores Barones it appears manifestly to the contrary from the words of King Iohn's Charter which he mistakes Submoneri faciemus Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites Majores Barones Regni Sigillatim Here are Majores Barones Regni after Bishops and Earls And I need not here remind him of the Vanity of the Notion of making Majores Barones exegetical or comprehensive of what went before 'T is certain if Bishops were Majores Barones as well as Earls here are others intended also and why are not such as held whole Baronies as some did Great Barons Besides you shall find numbers of Barons to have received particular Summons even to the Wars according to the Provision in King Iohn's Charter for summoning the Majores Barones Sigillatim I will give him some Names and see whether he makes Earls of them all Three Bassets William de Harecourt Roger de Somerey Iohn Forreigner Extraneus Richard de Grey Ern. de Bosco c. But if all these were Earls what thinks he of the nine hundred and odd who received special Summons De veniendo ad Regem cum Equis Armis usque Berwicam super Twedam in the 29th of Edw. 1. 2. Whereas he will have it that the Barones Regni were Barons by Tenure and the Barones Regis by Call to Parliament he might have known that every Baro Regis was a Baron of the Kingdom but every Baron of the Kingdom was not Baro Regis in a strict Sense Wherefore accordingly King Iohn's Charter confines the special Summons which as I say was to the Curia Regis to such Great Barons of the Kingdom as held in Capite There being after Majores Barones Regni in a different Provision Et omnes alios qui de nobis tenent in Capite Wherefore when all the Barons of the Kingdom were summoned it took in the Majores and Minores both those that held in Capite and otherwise But when they are used distinctly 't is wholly contrary to his Supposition for the Barones Regis were properly and strictly they who held immediately of the King as all manner of Authorities warrant Indeed I am almost ashamed here to bring Proof of a thing so evident But he may please to observe that Thanus and Baro were always of the same Acceptation Thanus Regis was strictly he who held Lands of the King by any kind of Tenure and so was Baro Regis tho somtimes appropriated to him that held by Knights Service and an ordinary Thane was no more than an honest Free-holder by any sort of Tenure as appears by Dooms-day-Book it self But I conceive the Difference between Baro Regni and Regis is sufficiently shewn in this following Authority In the 23d of Hen. 2. Benedictus Abbas tells us the King summoned Magnum Concilium de Statutis Regni sui coram Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Terrae coram eis per Concilium Comitum et Baronum Militum et hominum suorum he made the fam'd Assize at Northampton Here are Barones Terrae or Regni and Barones Milites et Homines sui Here either all the Barones Regni were Barones Regis or sui And then his distinction between Baro Regni and Baro Regis falls to the ground there being no Difference or else there is that very Difference I stand upon viz. That the Barones Regni were comprehensive of all sorts of Barons the
that of the Nation British Saxon Danish and Latine almost as unintelligible as either of the other that if they had been all digested into the English that was then spoken we should very little better have understood it than we do the French in which the Laws were afterwards rendred And it is no wonder since a Reduction into order was necessary that the King who was to look to the Execution took care to have them in that Language which himself best understood and from whence issued no Inconvenience the former remaining still in the Language in which they had been written CHAP. III. That Mr. Hunt himself in Effect grants that more than Tenants in Chief had right to come to the Great Council of the Nation in which the Nation 's Rights were involved I Do not deny says he but upon a Change in the Succession to the Crown there might have been in this time extraordinary Conventions of the People to declare their universal Assent for better assuring such Successors discountenancing the real Prince and preserving the Peace as in the Case of William the second Henry the first King Stephen and King John c. with an assent of such an Assembly as this at least King John should only if so have made his Kingdom Tributary to the Pope 1. Here he grants that sometimes more than Tenants in Capite assembled at Council 2. That to some purposes such Assemblies were needful not only to quiet the Minds of the People but to transfer over a National Right For he says if ever there were extraordinary Conventions which he owns to have been in some Cases then King John could have made the Kingdom Tributary only in such a Council viz. an extraordinary Convention Wherefore Government being as he says Rei Publicae Communis Sponsio he grants that the Government here was not absolutely in the King and his Tenants in Chief For if it had they might have disposed of all the Nation 's Rights Wherefore in effect he yields That the Men of that Order were not chosen once for all interpretatively by the People in their Consent to the Government But further if he yields us those Authorities which shew that the People of the Land the Free-holders used to assemble for the declaring their Assent to the Supream Governour with what colour can he set aside those Authorities which mention Assemblies to other purposes in as general Terms If an ordinary Free-holder was under the word Populus at an Election to the Crown or Recognition of a Title how comes the Signification to be restrained at other times Will not Vulgus Plebs Populus minor Laici mediocres and the like denote more than Tenants in Capite as well at one publick Assembly in the some King's Reign as at another Unless a prior Law be shewn which excludes the Commons from one Council but admits them to the other But I cannot find any thing more in this Supposition than a downright begging the Question Indeed if William the first made a Conquest of England so as that he divided out all the Lands of the Kingdom to be held of him in Chief And the Alienees of Tenants in Chief still held immediately of the King neither of which will readily be proved then indeed but not till then the Populus Minor at the Councils would be taken for the Tenants in Chief only But the admittance that the presence or consent of more than Tenants in Chief was at any time needful to any Act of rightful Civil Power wholly destroys the supposition of a Conquest unless we can believe that the conquer'd ought to give Laws to the Conqueror or that notwithstanding any kind of Establishment the dernier resort and Supremacy of Power is always in the People Which is a Notion that would unsetle all Governments making them precarious Whereas he himself tells us No Government can be legally or by any lawful Power chang'd but must remain for ever once establish'd CHAP. IV. That even according to Mr. Hunt's Notion of Tenure in Capite all Proprietors of Land as such had till the 49th of H. 3. right to come to Parliament THis though never so strange I think will be granted me that he does if he makes all the Free-holders of the Kingdom Tenants in Capite per Baroniam He supposes that the whole Kingdom was upon the matter turn'd into one great Mannor by William the First all Men made his Tenants And that all the great Possessions by which he must mean the Mannors of which others held were made Baronies Now this Feudal Baronage he says was capable of being multiplied several ways For every part of the Fee however divided the Services reserved upon that Fee that were entire and indivisible were to be performed by the several Proprietors of the several parts of the divided Fee Since he uses this as a Proof of the Multiplication of Baronies according to the Argument Baron-Service was indivisible Thus every Proprietor as he had part of the divided Fee was part of the Baronage and consequently If all the Baronage both Spiritual and Temporal de jure ought to have Summons now to Parliament without respect to Estate or Tenure there would be a great many Pretenders But to be sure when all the Baronage were summoned antiently these inferior Tenants came by his own Rule as owing the Service of Barons and so ratione Tenurae were Barones Regni But the Baronage of England having been always in his Opinion the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Nobility having been Foudal or because of the Feud the Burgesses being all according to him till about the time of H. 3. under Tenure by Baronage were as good Lords as the best And why were not honest Free-holders so too as well as Traders most of them then 't is likely Mechanicks CHAP. V. Whereas he would set aside the Questions of what the Government was till 49th of H. 3. as impertinent 1. His own Notion by which he would supplant the Labours of others destroys it self while mine maintains what he aims at 2. He puts such matter in Issue for asserting the present Government as can never be maintained 3. He yeilds so much of the Fact against me as sets aside the whole Foundation of his Postscript And yet admit he answers all Objections against his Postscript the Grounds which I go upon are of the most General Use. FOr preventing the Worlds being troubl'd with impertinent Labours and to divert those that thus employ themselves to Undertakings more useful to the Publick advantagious to themselves he thought fit to tell us that the Parliament was always materially the same But we are at a loss to know what he means by materially the same For 't is manifest that according to his Notion if the Government were from the time of our Dispute always in one it would have been materially the same as 't is now and
within Frank-pledges and be bound with Sureties to their good Behaviour Which Dr. Brady tells us and rightly enough if he speak of the Time of Edw. 1. was only for the ordinary Free-men or the Bulk and multitude of the Free-men or small Free-holders All that look'd upon themselves as Gentlemen at the least were without any manner of Representation and wherever they were interested appeared in Person and sometimes in very disorderly Multitudes Some sensible of the inconvenience of it and expence and trouble to themselves of their free Choice became incorporated by Charter as aforesaid being either the Kings Tenants or some inferiour Lords or it may be the Tenants of several Mannors joining together and their coming to Parliament or as the Burrough of St. Alban's pleads pro omnibus serviciis faciendis was a consequent upon their Incorporation Free-hold I take it was the occasion of all this though afterwards Traders might be admitted to Priviledges amongst them The Traders and Free-holders within Cities or Boroughs sent their Delegates whilst here as in Poland the Possessionati Men living upon their Lands in the Counties came to the General Councils in their own Persons Thus it was here till the 49th of H. the 3d as I think the Authorities formerly insisted on by Mr. Petyt in behalf of the Citizens and Burgesses and by me for the Possessionati in the Counties sufficiently Warrant Wherefore the Alteration which was made in the Government in the 49th of H. the 3d. if any were then made was the calling out some of these Proprietors Earones Comitatus to come in their own Persons and putting a Representation upon the rest which was most likely to be done by the Perswasion and Influence of the King though with the consent of the People And therefore I must say 't is most probable that what is by Mr. Cambden's Author transmitted to us as done a little before the Death of H. the 3d must have been some years af-the 49th and the Kings Victory at Evesham over the Great Barons whom he curb'd by the Less the Commons Which prevail'd on his side by whose Assistance he depriv'd many great Men of a judicial Power in Parliament and of the right to special Summons while the Commons had their Power preserved in their Representatives they were all interested in the Legislature as before But all the Great Barons had not their former Interest in the Supream Judicature and yet this variation in respect of the Great Lords was no change of the outward frame of the Government but only a diminution of the Priviledges of some particular Men. And though the bringing in Representations where no Representations were before altered the Frame and Appearance of the Government yet it did not the Constitution and fundamental Interest of Proprietors of Land with whom the Ballance of Power has ever been in this Nation the Foundation is and was the same like the same Soul animating the same Body when 't is greater and when by reason of Tumults and Seditions as we may call them in the Spirits 't is wasted from its Corpulency and thereby often brought to a more assured state of Health than ever before This more healthful State in a contracted Body of Proprietors of Land I yeild to have been setled in the Reign of H. the 3d. It happening that there were Writs to that Purpose just in the 49th 't is concluded that then it was first begun Whereas by the same Argument 't was in the 38th when two for every County were summoned to Parliament Vice omnium singulorum But if I should confine my self to Authorities within the time of the first Edward immediate Successor to H. the 3d I doubt not but there were enough to satisfy any unbyass'd Reader that the Commons such as are now represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses had before the 49th of H. the 3d Shares or Votes in making of Laws for the Government of the Kingdom and had communication in Affairs of State otherwise then as represented by the Tenants in Capite notwithstanding Dr. Brady's Affirmation to the contrary In the 24th of E. 1. the Earls Barons Knights and others of the Kingdom which others was then and afterwards meant of the Commons of the Cities and Boroughs gave a Subsidy Sicut aliàs nobis progenitoribus nostris Regibus Angliae And sure Hen. the 3d could be but one Progenitor so that the Farones Minores the Free-holders of Land which ever since the 49th or some other Year of Hen. the 3ds Reign were represented by the Knights of the Counties who were not in those times to be sure confined to Knights by Tenure or Dubbing And the Commons of Cities and Burroughs at the least from within the Reign of King John to whom Hen. the 3d. immediately succeeded were Members of Parliament being Parties to Grants there made And omitting the Prescription of the Burrough of St. Albanes from within the time of the Progenitors of Edward the first to use but one Authority not mentioned in either of my Tracts In the 28 of E. 1. the Knights Citizens and Burgesses had been summoned to the Parliament at Westminster Nobiscum de diversis negotiis nos Populum Regni specialiter tangentibus tractatur and Writs issued out for their reasonable Expences prout aliis consuevit in casu consimili 1. Upon which 't is observable that de quibusdam arduis which is now in use in the Writs of Summons ought not to be restrained to a few great matters but extends to divers according to the different natures of matters brought before or appearing to them 2. That the Commons had not only an Assent without power of dissenting but they were to treat as well as the Peers 3. That their coming was not a new thing then as if begun but 35 Years ago in the 49th of H. 3. but it was of Custom and legal Prescription so far that it laid an Obligation upon the Subject to contribute to these Expences and surely an Usage of 35 Years would not be a sufficient Charge in Law 4. That though there is no Evidence that Representations for Counties were settled before the 49th of Hen. 3. Yet the Freeholders were often at Parliament by Representation and thence there was ground in reason to occasion the Custom that they should bear the Charges of them that they chose Nay if there were no actual Choice there was tacit Consent from which Custom may arise that those who were willing and at leisure to be at Council should answer for and have Contributions from the rest But let both Dr. Brady and Mr. Hunt consider the Precedents above mentioned of Coventry and Bridgwater which did not hold of the King and yet sent Burgesses to Parliament and let them give a categorical Answer whether they believe that the Majores Barones Regni and omnes alij holding in Capite mentioned in King John's Charter made
casu fieri consuevit Teste Rege apud Lancetost 18. die Octobris 34. FINIS ERRATA PAge 113. line 3. in Marg. read true way P. 117. l. 18. r. Bannerets Ib. l. 21. r. Banneret P. 122. l. 2. r. St. P. 144. l. 8. r. ingenuously So P. 145. l. 31. P. 160. l. 5 after the Word Barony add in the Margine viz. Ecclesiastical Persons P. 174. or 274. T l. 18. r. done P. 204. V l. 2. r. Counsel So l. 11. Ib. P. 212. X l. 22. r. permixtim P. 217. X l. 26. r. de tout le c. P. 220. l. 6. r. taken Other Literal Mistakes the Reader is desired to correct with his Pen. A TABLE of the Principal CONTENTS The Number of the Page being often mistaken through the Printers false counting to one another the Reader is desired where the Figures are wrong to observe the Letter which begins the Sheet A Page Abby of Molross O 206 207 Absence of the Bishops not merely from the Canon-Law 84 N 181 182 Adam de Orlton's Case R 267 T 180 Agitare Judicium Sanguinis prohibited H 101 and N 157 183 Allusion made by the Questionist not solid 165 Appeal to Rome no capital Crime antiently M 173 Appeal of Earl Godwin Q 227 Appeals in Trial V 191 192 193 Appellation ought to be governed by the Right S 278 Apostles their Rule p. 89 how far their Practice to be urged for Example now 133 Apostolick Canons against Clergy-Men their medling in Secular Affairs P 135 216 Arch-bishop Stratford's Case T 282 283 284 Arundel Earl his Case O 208 Assemby at Northampton no Parliament p. 170 171 172. Matters carried there in great Heat and no Iudgment of Treason given M 172 173 Attainders what they are 9 10 Augustine St. his Opinion 94 95 B. BArons how made enobled in Blood and how made 107 to 120 Barons by Blood and by Tenure different 78 118 119 120 Barones Majores who 78 Z 245 246 Barones Minores who 7 8 Barons Peer who 21 107 117 Barones Regis who 107 Z 247 to 250 Barones Regni who ibid. Baronagium and how comprehensive 107 P 202 203 Y 226 S 278 Becket not impeached of Treason from 65 to 70 and from 172 to N 180 Berkeley Sir Tho. his Case 28 29 V 196 Blesensis his Words marked 97 98 125 167 168 R 261 Bishops whether they sit in Parliament by vertue of any Baronies p. 106 108 and how 122 c. T 174 or 274 Bishops not Barons 77 108 19 123 124 125 Bishops how they sate with the Earls 91 92 93 145 P 217 Bishops Service and Tenure a Burthen 106 124 125 Their Tenure offects not their Persons 77 Bishops if a third Estate not capable to try a Peer 128 Bishops the form of their Writs no Argument of their Power 86 129 130 when present always exprest that they were 36 Bishops medling in Secular Affairs forbidden 129 135 P 216. Their Opposition to the King at Clarendon and from what Cause 141 Bishops Power clipt at Clarendon 99 O 144 when to go away in Criminal Cases 161 196 197 even in Acts of Parliament R 265 Bishops Absence not merely from the Canons 8 84 N 181 182 183 190 N 193 O Bishops Protestation p. 5 6 7 translated and explained 41 42 and N 185 to 194 Bishops not reckoned Nobles T 184 or 284 not called Lords till the time of Rich. II. 108 Bishop of Norwich his Case 40 Bishop of Carlile tried by a common Iury T 279 so Bishop of Ely 278 ibid. Bishops Absence no Error 47 Bishops had no Right to be present in the Debate and handling matters of Blood 143 Bishops not comprehended under the name of Peers or Grands if put after Earls and Barons 14 18 to 25 32 Bishops if others named always named where they are present 24 29 32 36 and that before others R 261 Bishops not Peers to Temporal Lords 71 to 99 S 280 Bishops sit in respect of Temporal Possessions 83 yet in the quality of Spiritual Persons T 174 or 274 and S 289 Bishops cannot sit in a double Capacity S 288 289 T 174 Bishops contended to be tried by their own Order T 181 or 281 whence their pretence of Immunity proceeded 153 Bishops to be tried by common Iuries T 277 to 282 Bishops their Equivocation 141 Bishops Messengers of Peace V 197 Bishops chief Employment to make Peace in civil Affairs antiently Counsellours not Iudges p. 89 91 their refusing to give Advice about keeping the Peace 30 31 266 and R 269 Bishops but part of a third Estate 80 to 85 and 126 127 137 S 290 Bishops in France never sit in that Chamber of Parliament which tries Capital Cases 90 Bishops never absent not prov'd Q 228 Bishops no where allowed to sit Inquisitors of Blood V 198 Bishops not summoned to Parliament several times Q 238 Bishops a Question whether they might be even of a Committee in matters of Blood V 199 Boeges de Bayon's Case 25 26 Brady Dr. his Assertions and Fancies condemned Pref. to the 2d Part and p. 189 in Marg. V X A a 204 205 224 227 Burroughs and Burgesses Z 237 238 C. CAmbridg Earl 50 Canons forbidding of Clergy-men to meddle in Capital Causes still in force 87 164 and P 217 to 222 Canons concerning Blood as anciently in England as the Conquest and part of the common Law N 181 182 Capitalis Justiciarius Angliae what Office 137 138 Capitalia placita what Q. 229 230 231 Chancellour when no Peer how tried T 285 286 Charter of King John the Author's Interpretation of it asserted against Dr. Brady X 206 207 against Mr. Hunt Z 237 to 242 Clarendon the meeting there a Parliament 139 Clarendon and the Parliament there considered 99 100 142 Clarendon Earl his Arguments against the pretended Conquest A a 260 to 263 Chivaler who B b 284 Clergy subjected to Baron-Service 112 140 Clergy their Power in Primitive-times 89 their Power in other Nations 90 Clerus never taken for the Bishops alone 126 Commons and Commonalty of the Kingdom where Records and Histories manifestly shew their Presence at Parliament before 49 Hen. 3â—… X 211 to Y 22â—… Commons their Vote in Danby's Case O 98 Commons sometimes meant by Grands R 270 S 279 226 3d Part anciently had their share in Judicature R 266 267 268 Commons always Members of Parliament 172 O 202 sâ—… together with the Lords in the times of Hen. I and King Stephen X 212 and long afterwards O 202 203 204 Mr. W's Grounds for the Belief that they had no Right to come to Parliament till 49 H. 3. answered and turned against him X 210 to Y 227 so Mr. Hunt's p. 221 222 223 Y 235 and to A a 268 Commons their Petition 21 R. 2. p. 11. and O 195 196 Community of Names no Argument of Right S 278 Concordia 4 E. 3. 27 R 263 Conquest disclaimed by William the first 139 A a 260 no Conquest
taught no body nor learnt himself and certainly the Addition of Populus will do him little Service But this Author would be an excellent Man were he as good at proving as propounding Vide before p. 18. and after p. 129. Mortes truncationes melius ut videtur Ian. Angl. fa. nov pag. 209. 210. N. B. Nothing urged by Mr. Hurt p. 62. does prove that Meeting a Parliament but such a Council as was free for the King to call of such Persons as he pleased I am sure here are neither Abbots nor Commons summoned I presume this Author never read Fitz-Stephens whose words are considentibus not consulentibus Episcopis We have seen such a Concilium magnum at York called by King Charles the First Arguitur I conceive doth more properly â—…gnifie to induce or argue a thing to be so as well as to blame or accuse and is more properly applyed to Arguments or Disceptations Fitz. cap. 10. col 2. N. B. In those times Treason in common Speech was a general name for all Offences the King thought did ledere Majestatem regiam till afterward the matter was better explained in 25 E. 3. Vid. Jani Anglor facies nova p. 199. Fitz. cap. 10. co 1. These Milites I conceive might be such as held in Capite and were sometime called Baronets or Barones minores Curia Regis was here the Kings Council then summoned Manuum depressio I take to be Submission Gr. q. p. 39. Mat. Paris Anno 1213. pa. 240. Seld. Pr. Bar. cap. 4. pag. 10. Gr. q. p. 40. Cook 2 Inst. 631. Seld. ubi supra Gr. q. p. 42 Gr. q. p. 42. Ger. Dor. An. 1175. Legis vigorem habeat quicquid de consilio de consensu Magn. Reipubl communi sponsione authoritate Regis sive principis praecedente juste fuerit definitum approbatum vid Bracton lib. 1. cap. 1. Gr. q. p. 44. N. B. who were these others Gr. q. p. 47. Mr. Hunt tells you p. 87. that if this be a Law it is a Law only for that case 'T is true the Protestation as such was personal to them but the Canons I hope that put them upon a Non licet and de jure non possumus were not personal also for here is a Prohibition both by the Canon Common and Statute Law Gr. q. p. 49. Gr. q. p. 51 52 c. Gr. q. p. 68. Gr. q. p. 41. Gr. q. p. 53. Gr. q. p. 53. Gr. q. p. 54. 〈◊〉 E 4. 3â—… 23 H. 6. no. 41. inter Petit connâ—… and many others Co. 2 Inst. pag. 286. Iourn of Parl. pag. 258. and 267. Co. 2. Inst. pag. 586. Seld. Priv. Bar. p. 5. Hon. of Bishops p. 27. Els. Mod. p. 16. Seld. Pr. oâ—… Bar. p. 5. Petit's anc Rights p. 62. Prin's Calender p. 56. and 160. Coo. 4. Inst. cap. 1. p. 2. Vid. Rot. Claus. 12 E. 2. m. 5. dorso Audley's Case judic per Prelatos Comites Barones totam communitatem Regni yet no Act. Vid. hic p. 133. Vid. etiam Rot. Parl. 50. Ed. 3. n. 131. 189. Cottoni Posth f. 349. Eliz. Burgh's Case Seld. tit hon p. 689. Ger. Tilb. Fitz. Mat. Paris Whether this was meant of a Parliament or other Council not material to this point the Reason being the same as to meeting upon Summons to the one or t'other Hakewell pa. 18. 21 R. 2. memb 6. N. B. 'T is plain by Clergy here was more meant than the Bishops only for the Abbots were reckoned as part of the Clergy I suppose Gr. q. p. 57. Sir William Dromond 's Life of Iames the Fourth pag. 200. ult Edit in octavo Discourse pag. 20. Gr. q. p. 57. Gr. q. p. 58. See Sir Hen. Wotton's Interest of the Princes of Christend this Question touched upon Gr. q. p. 64. Spel. Coun. tom 2. p. 8. Con. Tol. 11 Can. 6. Lamb. Laws Edgar cap. 5. Gr. q. p. 67. See the Provisos in the Acts. 25 H. 8. cap. 21. Co. lib. 2. 32 b. Gr. q. p. 68. Gr. q. p. 57. Whitgift was then Arch-bishop Cambd. An. Anno 1586. and Baker 391. Rush. hist. Col. part p. 61. Baker pag. 446. Gr. q. p. 69. Rush. hist. Coll. part 2. pag. 56. Rush. com 2. App. p. 15. Gr. q. p. 32. Journ of Parl. pag. 258. Vid. Hakewell mod p. 84. Gr. q. p. 70. Quaere What that Word then meant Gr. q. p. 73. Gr. q. p. 74. Spel. Gloss. word Comes p. 140. 141. Gr. q. p. 74. Gr. q. p. 77. Lett. p. 55. Gr. q. p. 76. Pla. Parl. 33 Ed. 1. a This Consilium Regis I take to be that steddy Counsel that always attended the King at his Parliament though perhaps not always Members See Coo. 2. Rep. Arch. Cant. Case Divers Cases to that purpose Gr. q. p. 79. Gr. q. p. 88. Gr. q. p. 88. Gr. q. p. 94. See before p. 18. in the Edition in Quarto Pet. Bles. 〈◊〉 edit p. 551. col 1 2. in fol. Idem p. 552. col 2. Cot. p. 85. 5 E. 3. m. 33. Rot. Parl. 4. E. 3. n. 6. 5 E 3. ubi supra N. B. Cotton Abridg. Counts and Barons by Lords as 〈◊〉 often does Gr. Qu. p. 95. Gr. Qu. p. 89. Cot. p. 392. Rot. Claus. 1 E. 3. m. 13. pro Episc. Hereford Gr. Qu. p. 102. * N. B. The King 's going to the holy Land was then in debate touching which the Bishops might well consult Matth. Paris p. 55. Magnates comprehendit Comes Baro miles seu aliqua alia notabiles Persona Vid. Mr. Petyt p. 101 94 95. N. B. The Abridger often translates Counts and Barons in the Record by the name of Lords only because when the Bishops were meant Lords Spiritual or some word equivalent was expressed Rush. Hist. Col. part 2. p. 55. Gr. Qu. p. 90. N. B. Though there were no particular Impeachment against Weston and Gomenes by the Commons yet the general one being the delivering Forts and Castles was Treason at the Examination of which the Prelates ought to be absent Vid. Gr. Qu. p. 92. Gr. Qu. p. 90. Rot. Proces in Parl. Gr. Qu. p. 117. Gr. Qu. p. 95. See before p. 131. the Records there cited Matth. Paris Anno 1100. Rot. cl 3. E. 2. m. 16. in dorso 34 Edw. 1. Gr. Qu p. 100. See before p. 131. N. B. The Iudgment may well be given after the Parties are dead an hundred Examples may be given where their Bones have bin burned their Bodies hanged c. contrary to what Mr. Hunt thinks 2 H. 4. N. 30 4 Edw. 3. 5 H. 4. N. 12. to 17. Gr. Qu. p. 119. 2 H. 6. N. 9. Viz. The Fact was not by their Advice which they desired to have entred Gr. Qu. p. 121. Gr. Qu p. 151. Gr. Qu. p. 151. 7 H. 8. p. 184. Grand Quest. p. 260. Vid. Dier fol. 60. Cromp. Jurisd Courts p. 2. Grand Quest. p. 124. Stanf lib. 1. cap. 3. Cook 3d Instit. â—…ol 30. Seld. Priv. of Bar. p. 45. and others Gr. Q.
a Simon de Bereford Chebalier c. Item in the same Parliament our Lord the King charged the said Earls Barons and Peers to give a right and loyal Iudgement upon Sir Simon de Bereford c. It follows afterwards Si agarderent aviggerent les ditz Countes Barons Piers come Iuges du Parlement per assent du Roy que le dit Simon come treitre fast treisne pendu So the said Earls Barons and Peers as Iudges of Parliament did with the Kings assent award and adjudge Sir Simon de Bereford to be Drawn and Hanged You see the same persons were his Judges who had before Tryed and Condemned the Earl of March yet I must observe a little difference in the expressions The King in giving the charge to the Peers in the Earls Case the words of the Record are The King charges you Earls Barons Les Piers de son Royalme The Peers of his Realm which must be construed Who are the Peers or Being the Peers of his Realm And then their Judgement comes to be set down the Record saith Les queux Countes Barons Piers c. The which Earls Barons and Peers did so and so with a Conjunction Copulative and before Peers as if there were some other Peers after the Earls and Barons which if there were we are sure it could not be the Bishops which is all that we are to enquire into We know that heretofore the Kings of England did sometimes send Writs of Summons to other persons that were not Peers of the Realm but persons of Quality as Bannerets and some Officers as the Warden of the Cinque-Ports whom I find commonly to be the last set down in the List of those who were summoned And those persons so summoned came and attended the Parliament and had Voice and Vote with the Peers as Members of their House and as Peers pro tempore and might be comprized under the general name of Peers and being Lay-men might act as Peers in all Tryals and in all other Judgements of Parliament both Civil and Criminal even in Capital Causes but these could in no sort be esteemed to be Peers of the Realm though they might pass in a large acceptation and a vulgar construction of the expression be termed Peers in Parliament These now might be summoned to a Parliament or two or three Parliaments one after another as pleased the King and then be summoned no more if the King was otherwise minded and they could not pretend to have wrong done them their former Summons having been Ex mera gratia without any right of theirs to them So then I may conclude that it is all one whether you will take it as it is expressed in the Kings charge then The Earls Barons Peers of the Realm c. or as it is when they come to give Judgement and as it is likewise expressed in the Case of Sir Simon de Bereford The said Earls Barons and Peers c. and whether that Conjunction and before the word Peers be of any signification or no to mark out other Peers subsequent to the Barons is not material to what our Asserter would have to be understood of my leaving out any thing for it had all made for me and against him making it clear enough that the Bishops had no part in those Judgements The next Precedent is the Judgement of Iohn Mautravers the Record says Trestouz les Piers Countes Barons assemblez a ceste Parlement a Westminster 〈◊〉 on t examine estroitement sur ce sont assentuz accordez que John Mautravers 〈◊〉 est culpable c. All the Peers Earls and Barons assembled in this Parliament at Westminster have strictly examined and thereupon have agreed and accorded that John Mautravers is guilty c. I appeal now to any man that hath but common sense if it can be imagined that the Prelates or Bishops can be thought to be meant by that expression of All the Peers and if it be not the same in signification as when the King charged them to give righteous Judgement upon the Earl of March saying Si vous charge Countes Barons les Piers de mon Roialme c. And so I charge you Earls Barons the Peers of my Realm c. There the several ranks of Peers are first named and the general word which denotes their Quality common to both which makes them competent Judges of those matters that is their being Peers is put last And here in this Record concerning Mauâ—…avers it is put first Which comes all to one And it is further observable that at the time of that Parliament there were no Temporal Lords before Earls neither Dukes nor Marquesses So if any others were to be understood to be comprised under that General Title of Peers it could be only the Lords Spiritual which is a thing very ridiculous to believe Can it be thought nay can our Asserter himself think I trow not that when the other particular ranks and degrees of the Peerage are expressed and set down nominatim by name as one may say by Tale and by Token Earls and Barons that I say at the same time and to be joyned with them in the same action another rank of men viz. Bishops must pass under a General Title and that put in the first place as if Peerage were an Apellativum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them or a Genus Imperfectum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the two Species the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal which Genus the Logicians define to be Quod speciebus suis non communicatur ex aequo sed alteri magis alteri minus uni speciei immediatè propriè alteri mediatè in ordine ad primariam And that so the Lords Spiritual should still be principally and chiefly meant by the General Name of Peers they Primariò and the Temporal Lords Secundarió Those Logical expressions I know our Asserter understands well who blames others for bringing Illogical arguments therefore I put this to him But that they are not at all Peers of the Realm to speak properly and truly and as they are in the eye of the Law though they have sometimes been stiled so both by themselves and others I have in my former Letter I think made it clear and all that our Asserter saith to the contrary hath not made me change my opinion and I shall say more to it when I come in course to answer what is there said by him In the mean time I shall only add this which I lay for a ground that I do verily believe no instance can be given of an enumeration of some particulars in an Universal Collective Proposition and to leave out that particular which is first in Rank and ought to be first named if any at all be named and to have that to be tacitely implied under the General Term the Signum Collectivum As in this Proposition All the Peers Earls and Baâ—…ons gave such a Iudgement This