To conclude this matter whether the Acts of Parlament which contain this declaration of the Peerage of Bishops and their Iurisdiction in Cases of Treason were sufficiently repeal'd or not this solemn Assertion of it in two several Parlaments together with the Petition of the Commons mentioned before are a most clear evidence that in the general Opinion of the King Lords and Commons this Iurisdiction did of right belong to the Bishops And I am sure they are a Demonstration against the Authour of the Peerage his Assertion of a Negative Custome ancient as the Constitution of the Nation that Prelats should not exercise Iurisdiction in Capital Cases For had this been a clear and undoubted Custom from the first original of this Nation it is morally impossible it could have entred into the minds of two Parlaments solemnly to have raised this doubt whether a Judgment given in a case of Treason by the Temporal Lords without the Assent of the Bishops were valid and to have determin'd that it was not when yet there was no manner of reason to imagine that the Bishops ever had any Jurisdiction in such Cases nay when there was an immemorial Custome and Usage to the contrary namely that the Temporal Lords had in all times exercised this Jurisdiction alone and the Bishops had been excluded from any share in it And in the Apology of Adam D'Orleton Bishop of Hereford and after of Winchester for his imprisoning R. de Baldock a great Confident of Hugh Despencer's he declares that the reason why he was carried to Newgate was through the violence of the People although saith he the Parlament then sitting there was no cause of fear but Justice would be done His words are Domino Rege Praelatis Comitibus ac aliis terrae Optimatibus Lundoniae tunc congregatis praesentibus pro Iustitia ibidem in Parlamento convocatis omnibus exhibenda Which shews that the Prelats then did sit in matters of Justice in the House of Lords and in Cases Capital for this R. de Baldock was arraigned at Hereford for the same Crimes that Hugh Despencer was But the main strength of the Cause is supposed to lie in the Precedents produced out of the Rolls of Parlament from the 4 Edw. III. to the 38 H. VI. The force of these Precedents will be better understood if we consider these things I. That many of them are meer Negative Testimonies So 4 Edw. III. at the Trial of Roger Mortimer it is said the Earls Barons and Peers of the Realm were present therefore the Bishops were not 5 Edw. III. onely the Great ones returned therefore the Bishops did not So in the Case of Sir Iohn Grey From whence he inferrs that the Bishops were not to Iudge so much as of a Battery 25 Edw. III. in Sir William Thorp's Case the Grantz de Parlament were asked their advice therefore not the Bishops 1 R. II. in the Case of Weston and Gomenitz the Bishops not mention'd but other Lords Barons and Bannerets Sir Ralph de Ferrer's Case 4 R. II. the Bishops not present because not comprised under les Seigneurs de Parlament The like in Sir Iohn Oldcastle ' s Case 5 H. V. The Question he saith is whether Bishops be comprehended under les Seigneurs de cest present Parlament In the Earl of Devonshire ' s Case 31 H. VI. the strength lies in this that the Peers are onely mention'd and he supposes no man will say the Bishops were his Peers or Lords of the Realm So that here are Eight Precedents that are no more then Negative Testimonies concerning which in general the Authour of the Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted hath a good observation viz. That one or two or twenty Precedents in the Negative nay I say more were the number equal as many in the Negative as in the Affirmative yet it could not disprove their Iurisdiction it would onely shew their Lordships were free Agents to doe it or not to doe it as they saw Cause but their Iurisdiction remained entire still to doe it whensoever they would So I say here supposing that the Spiritual Lords were not present in these Cases it onely shews that they were free Agents and might withdraw at some times and be present at others which cannot overthrow their Right for these Reasons 1. Several of his Negative Precedents if they prove any thing prove the Bishops were not there when he confesses they might have been there As 1. In Cases of Misdemeanours At the Trial of Sir Iohn de Lee 42 Ed. III. being charged with several Misdemeanours the Record saith the Prelats were present 50 Edw. III. Several persons were accused by the Commons for Misdemeanours and the Bishops he confesseth were present as Rich Lions Iohn Lord Latimer William Ellis Iohn Peecher Lord Iohn Nevil at all these Trials the Bishops saith he were present and no body says but they might So in the Case of Alice Perrers 50 Edw. III. the Record saith the Prelats were present and gave Iudgment as to Banishment and Forfeiture of her Estate 10 R. II. Mich. de la Pool Lord Chancellour was accused by the Commons for several Misdemeanours before the King Prelats and the Lords Here he yields the Prelats were Iudges of Misdemeanours together with other Lords And yet if several of his Negative Precedents do prove any thing they prove too much viz. that the Bishops ought not to be present at the Trial of Misdemeanours For he saith the Bishops were not present at the Trial of Weston and Gomenitz 1 R. II. nor at the Trial of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. II. nor at such Iudgments as that of Sir William de Thorp 25 Edw. III. who was condemned for Bribery and yet he yields they were at the Trial of Mich. de la Pool 10 R. II. But if they ought not to be present at those of 25 Ed. III. and 1 R. II. and 7 R. II. neither ought they to have been present at the Trial of Mich. de la Pool Either therefore his argument doth not prove they were not present at the former being onely from general words or they ought not to have been present at the latter which he confesses they were This will best appear by comparing the Cases together 1 R. II. the Commons deliver in a Schedule to the Lords of their Demands before they would proceed to a Subsidy among which one was That all such who without cause had lost or given up any Castle or Town or Fortress to the dishonour of the King or dammage of the People may be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons that Parlament Here was no particular Impeachment of these Persons but upon this the Lords sent for these two Persons who were Prisoners in the Tower upon this account and the Charge against them was delivering two Towns in Flanders without Commission Weston made a long and plausible Defence to which no
THE GRAND QUESTION Concerning the Bishops Right To VOTE in PARLAMENT In Cases Capital STATED and ARGUED FROM The Parlament-Rolls and the History of former Times WITH An Enquiry into their Peerage and the Three Estates in Parlament LONDON Printed for M. P. and sold by Richard Rumball Book-binder at the Ball and Coffin in the Old Change 1680. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Question stated and general Prejudices removed CHAP. II. The Right in point of Law debated Concerning the Constitution of Clarendon and the Protestation 11. R. 2. CHAP. III. The Precedents on both sides laid down those against the Bishops examined and answered CHAP. IV. The Peerage of the Bishops cleared how far they make a third Estate in Parlament Objections against it answered CHAP. 1. The Question stated and general Prejudices removed THE Question in debate as it is stated by the Authour of the Letter is Whether the Bishops may be present and Vote Iudicially in Capital Cases which come to be judged in Parlament either in giving the Iudgment it self or in resolving and determining any circumstance preparatory and leading to that Iudgment For our better proceeding towards a Resolution of this Question it will be necessary to take notice of some things granted on both sides which may prevent needless disputes and be of great use in the following Debate 1. It is granted That the Bishops do sit in Parlament by virtue of their Baronies and are bound to serve the King there And one part of the Service due to the King there is to sit in Iudgment for the Authour of the Book entitled The Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted proves at large that the Right of Iudicature belongs to the Barons in Parlament and that the Lords Spiritual have a considerable share therein appears by this passage in the Title-page of that Book translated into English The Iudgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is according to the Vse and Custom of Parlament The Vse and Custom of Parlament is the Law of Parlament The Law of Parlament is the Law of England The Law of England is the Law of the Land The Law of the Land is according to Magna Charta Therefore the Iudgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is according to Magna Charta Some Right then of Iudicature in Parlament the Bishops have by Magna Charta which whatever it be is as much theirs by that Charter as any Right of Temporal Persons and cannot be invaded or taken from them without breach of that Charter any more then the Rights of the Lords Temporal or of any other Persons whatsoever But how far that Right doth extend is now the thing in Question 2. It is not denied that the Bishops do sit in Parlament by the same kind of Writs that other Barons do They are summon'd to advise and debate about the great and difficult Affairs of the Kingdom cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti Regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere tractatum i. e. to joyn therein with the Bishops and other Lords of the Kingdom So that by the King 's Writ of Summons they are impower'd and requir'd to confer and treat of all the weighty Affairs that shall be brought before them And no Instance is so much as offer'd to be produced of any Writ wherein the King doth limit and restrain the Bishops any more then any other Lords of Parlament as to any matter of Consultation or Point of Judicature belonging to that House They have then by their Writ of Summons as good right to sit in all Cases as in any and since the other Lords by their Writs are summoned to advise with the Prelates in all matters that shall come before them without limitation it is not to be conceived how this can be done if the Bishops in some of the most important Debates be excluded 3. It is yielded That if the House proceeds in a Legislative way by passing Bills of Attainder the Bishops have a Right to sit and Vote therein as well as other Lords at these it is said that the Bishops are or should be all present at the passing of them for then they act as Members of the House of Lords in their Legislative capacity But men do as certainly die that are condemned in the Legislative as in the Iudicial Way Is not this then really as much a Case of Bloud as the other If the Bishops should give their Votes in the Legislative way to condemn a Person for Treason and yet think they had not Voted in a Case of Bloud they would then indeed be like Chaucer's Frier mention'd by the Authour of the Letter that would have of a Capon the Liver and of a Pig the Head yet would that nothing for him should be dead Doth a Bill of Attainder cut of a man's Head without making it a Case of Bloud There can be then no objection now made against the Bishops Right from any Canons of the Church for those allow no such distinction of proceeding in the Legislative or Iudicial Way And the late Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual doth grant that the Canons do prohibit the Bishops voting in Bills of Attainder as much as in any Case whatsoever But we are not to suppose a Person of such abilities as the Authour of the Letter would go about to exclude the Bishops from their Right of Voting in a Iudicial way in Cases Capital unless there were some great appearance of Law on his side because he professes so great a Desire that Right may prevail and that his design in writing was to satisfy himself and others where that Right is The discovery whereof is our present business Yet before the Authour of the Letter comes to a close debate of the matter of Right he lets fall some general Insinuations to create a prejudice in the Reader 's mind as to the Bishops meddling at all in Secular Affairs as though it were inconsistent with their Function and with some passages in the Imperial Law And because men may sometimes doe more harm by what they tell us they will not say then by what they do say it will be fit to prevent the danger of such Insinuations before we come to consider his Arguments 1. The first is that meddling at all in Secular Affairs seems to be the doing that which the Apostles declared they would not doe viz. leave the Word of God and serve Tables But are all Persons of Estates now bound to part with them as the Christians then did The serving of Tables was a full employment and they who attended that Office were the Treasurers of the Church to distribute to every one as they judged fit out of the common Stock Is it no Service to God to doe Justice and to shew Mercy to attend upon the publick Affairs of the Kingdom when they are called to it by their Sovereign Or are all Bishops now
Power about the Liberties of Church-men This was carried on from the time that William I. brought them into Subjection by their Baronies his Sons stood upon the Rights of the Crown whilst Anselm and his Brethren struggled all they could but to little purpose till after the death of H. I. Then Stephen to gratifie the great Prelates by whose favour he came to the Crown yielded all they desired but he soon repented and they were even with him for it Malmsbury takes particular notice that he yielded they should have their Possessions free and absolute and they promised onely a conditional Allegeance to him as long as he maintained the Liberties of the Church When K. Stephen broke the Canons as they said by imprisoning 2 Bishops the Bishop of Winchester and his Brethren summon'd him to answer it before them in Council and there declared that the King had nothing to doe with Church-men till the Cause was first heard and determined by themselves All his time they had no regard to his Authority when it contradicted their Wills and when the Peace was made between Him and H. II. Radulphus de Diceto takes notice that the Power of the Clergy increased by it In this state H. II. found things when Gul. Neuburgensis saith the great business of the Church-men was to preserve their Liberties Upon this the great Quarrel between Him and Becket began this made the King search what the Rights of the Crown were which his Ancestours challenged to these he was resolved to make Becket and his Brethren submit For this purpose the Parlament was called at Clarendon and after great debates the 16 Constitutions were produced which were those the King was resolved to maintain and he made the Bishops as well as others swear to observe them Now when the rest of them relate to some Exemptions and Privileges which the Church-men challenged to themselves about their Courts Excommunications Appeals and such like and which the King thought fit to restrain them in From whence in Becket's Epistles it is said those Constitutions were framed ad ancillandam Ecclesiam to bring the Church in subjection as Baronius shews out of the Vatican Copy And Fitz-Stephen saith All the Constitutions of Clarendon were for suppressing the Liberty of the Church and oppressing the Clergy I say considering this is there not then great Reason to understand this 11 th Constitution after the same manner viz. that notwithstanding K. Stephen's Grant H. II. would make them hold by Baronies and doe all the Service of Barons in the King's Courts as other Barons did and he would allow them no other Privilege but that of withdrawing when they came to Sentence in a Case of Bloud What is there in this sense but what is easy and natural and fully agreeable to the state of those Times whereas there is not the least foundation for the pretence of the Bishops affecting to be present in all Causes which the King must restrain by this Constitution This sense of it is not onely without ground but is absolutely repugnant to all the History of that Age. For if this Constitution was intended to restrain the Bishops from trying Causes of Bloud then the Bishops did desire to be present in those Causes and the King would not suffer them Whereas it is evident that the Bishops pretended scruple of Conscience from the Canons that they could not be present but in truth stood upon their Exemption from the Service of Barons which they call'd Ecclesiastical Slavery And therefore that could not be the sense of the Constitution to restrain them in that which they desired to be freed from and which by this Constitution of Clarendon was plainly forced upon them against their wills For Lanfranc had brought the Canon of the 11 th Council of Toledo into England That no Bishop or Clergy-man should condemn a man to death or give vote in the Sentence of Condemnation at which Council were present 2 Archbishops 12 Bishops and 21 Abbots And before H. II ' s time this Canon of Toledo was received into the Body of the Canon-Law made by Ivo Burchardus Regino and Gratian who lived in the time of K. Stephen and when they saw such a Canon so generally received is there not far greater Reason to think they desired to withdraw then that they should press to be present and the King restrain them But the Constitution is so framed on purpose to let them understand that the King expected in all Iudgments they should doe their Duty as other Barons but lest they should think he purposely designed to make them break the Canons he leaves them at liberty to withdraw when Sentence was to be given So that I can hardly doubt but the Authour of the Letter if he please calmly to reflect upon the whole matter will see reason to acknowledge his mistake and that this Constitution was so far from intending to restrain the Bishops from all Iudicature in Cases of Bloud that on the contrary it was purposely framed to oblige them to be present and to act in such Causes as the other Barons did at least till the Cause was ripe for Sentence which last Point the King was content to yield to them out of regard and reverence to the Canons of the Church For the words of the Law are not words of Prohibition and restraint from any thing but of Obligation to a Duty which was to be present and serve in the King's Courts of Iudicature in like manner as the other Barons did From all which it is evident I think beyond contradiction that the Occasion of this Law was not the Ambition of the Prelates as the Authour of the Letter suggests to thrust themselves into this kind of Iudicature but an Ambition of a worse kind though quite contrary viz. under a pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty and Privilege to exempt themselves from the Service of the King and Kingdom to which by virtue of their Baronies they were bound sicut caeteri Barones as well as the other Barons And therefore it is so far from being true that the Bishops exercise of this Iurisdiction together with the Temporal Lords is a Relique of Popery and one of the Encroachments of the Clergy in those Times of Ignorance and Usurpation as some well-meaning Protestants are now made to believe that on the contrary the Exemption of the Clergy from this kind of Secular Iudicature was one of the highest Points of Popery and that which the Pope and his Adherents contested for with more zeal then for any Article of the Creed This was one of those Privileges which Thomas Becket said Christ purchased for his Church with his bloud and in the obstinate defence whereof against the King he himself at last lost his life And now to put the matter beyond all doubt I appeal to any man skill'd in the History of those Times whether Thomas Becket opposed the Constitutions of Clarendon to the
all probability this passage of his was levelled at those Bishops who did observe this 11. Constitution 3. We have a plain way to understand the meaning of this Constitution by what happen'd soon after in the Parlament at Northampton which was summon'd upon Becket's Obstinacy and Contempt of the King's Authority where Fitz-stephen saith he was accused of Treason and the Bishops sate together with other Barons and because it did not come to a sentence of Death after great debate between the other Lords and the Bishops about pronouncing the Sentence the Bishop of Winchester did it Wherein we have as plain evidence as can be desired that the Bishops did sit with the other Barons and vote with them in a case of Treason To this Precedent the Authour of the Letter answers several things 1. That none of the ancient Historians of those Times say any thing of his being accused of Treason and therefore he thinks one may modestly affirm that it was a mistake in Fitz-stephen to say so But what if H. II. and Becket himself both confess that he was charged with Treason H. II. in his Letter to Reginaldus saith that by consent of his Barons and Clergy he had sent Ambassadours to Pope Alexander with this Charge that if he did not free him from that Traitour Becket he and his Kingdom would renounce all Obedience to him And Becket did not think this a bare term of reproach for in one of his Letters he saith that defending the Liberties of the Church laesae Majestatis reatus sub persecutore nostro est was looked on as Treason by the King And even Gervase himself to whom the Authour of the Letter appeals saith some of his friends came to him at Northampton and told him if he did not submit to the King he would be proceeded against as a Traitour for breaking the Allegeance he had promised to the King when he did swear to observe the ancient Customs at Clarendon And Fitz-stephen saith the King's Council at Clarendon said it was Treason or taking the King's Crown from his head to deny him the Rights of his Ancestours 2. That it was a strange kind of Treason Becket was charged with at Northampton viz. for not coming when the King sent for him which at the most was onely a high Contempt and Fitz-stephen who was a Creature of the Archbishop's might represent it so to draw an odium on the King And therefore he looks on this as a weak precedent for the Bishops to lay any weight upon being at best out of a blind MS. of an Authour justly suspected of partiality against the tenour of all the ancient Writers that give an account of the same business What truth there is in this last suggestion appears in part already and will do more by what follows Must all the unprinted Records be answered with saying they are blind MSS I cannot but take notice how unreasonable a way of answering this is It is like turning of that pressing Instance of the Bishops making a Proctor in Capital Cases by saying it was Error temporis which because it will answer all Instances whatsoever as well as that is therefore an answer to none Just so it is equally an answer to all MSS to say they are blind and to all printed Books too because they were once MSS and for any thing that appears to the contrary as blind as Fitz-stephen's For surely no authority is added to a Book by its being printed unless in the opinion of the common people who are said to take all for true that is in Print I do not go about to parallel Fitz-stephen with Parlament-Rolls but I say his Authority is very good being present upon the place and the best we have of all the proceedings in the Parlament at Northampton And if the Authour of the Letter had taken the pains to peruse him he would not have contemned the Precedent drawn from thence which being so near the Parlament at Clarendon that as himself confesseth the one was in February the other in October following it gives the best Light into this matter of any thing in that Age and being not yet fully printed it will be worth our while to set it down Mr. Selden hath indeed printed very exactly the Proceedings of the first Iudgment upon Becket about the Cause of Contempt for not coming upon the King's Summons at the complaint of Iohn the Marshall wherein the Bishops did certainly sit in Iudgment upon him with the other Barons but there is a farther strength in this Precedent not yet taken notice of Which is that after this Iudgment passed Becket behaved himself with so great insolency towards the King and the Bishops upon the King's calling him to farther account for many other things laid to his Charge as diverting the King's Treasure and applying it to his own use and great Accounts to the King while he was Chancellour c. that the King required him to stand to the Iudgment of his Court Becket gave a dilatory Answer the King summons the Bishops and Earls and Barons to give Iudgment against him the Bishops tell the King Becket had appealed to the Pope and prohibited them to give any farther Judgment upon any Secular Complaint against him Whereupon the King sent some Earls and Barons to him to expostulate the matter since he was the King's Subject and had so lately sworn to the Constitutions at Clarendon and to know whether he would give Security to the King about making up his Accounts and stand to the Judgment of his Court Becket refuseth to give answer to any thing but the Cause of Iohn the Marshall for which he was summoned to appear slights his Oath as contrary to the Rights of the Church and confirms his Appeal to the Pope And such an owning of the Pope's Power in derogation to the Rights of the Crown Sir Edward Cook saith was Treason by the ancient Common Law before any Statutes were made However the King charges the Bishops by virtue of their Allegeance that together with the Barons they would give Iudgment upon the Archbishop They excused themselves on the account of the Archbishop's Prohibition The King replied That had no force against the Constitution of Clarendon so lately made and acknowledged by them The words of Fitz-stephen are these Rex responso Archiepiscopi accepto instat Episcopis praecipiens obtestans per homagium fidelitatem sibi debitam juratam ut simul cum Baronibus de Archiepiscopo sibi dictent sententiam Illi se excusare coeperunt per interpositam Archiepiscopi Prohibitionem Rex non acquievit asserens quòd non teneat haec ejus simplex Prohibitio contra hoc quod Clarendonae factum initum fuerat So that H. II. in the Parlament at Northampton declared that Bishops were bound by virtue of the Constitution of Clarendon to be present and to give their Votes in cases of Treason
le Parlement and all these are used to express the same Persons And again n. 3. touz les Grantz du dit Parlement which are there opposed to Chivalers des Countez and are more distinctly mention'd before in these words les ditz Prelatz Countes Barouns autres Grantz les Chivalers des Countes tote la Conumune Sometimes the Grantz are taken in general for all of the House of Peers and the Commons for the Lower House So 21 Ed. III. n. 63. il assentuz per lui les Grantz la dit Comunalte a son Parlement and again ditz Grantz de tote la Com̄e susditz and le Roi per assent des Grantz commanda a la ditz Com̄e From these examples and many more which might if it were needfull be produced it evidently appears that the Bishops were Grantz in Parlament according to the language of that Time and therefore the Precedents produced wherein onely the Grantz are mention'd are of no force at all against the Presence of the Bishops And that Assertion of the Authour of the Peerage c. appears to be without any ground viz. that the Bishops are never spoken of in any Record but by the name of Bishops or Prelats or some such name to distinguish them from the Laiety These general Negatives are very bold and dangerous things and one Affirmative overthrows them But I have produced many Instances to the contrary and might do many more Such men who dare venture upon such bold Sayings must be presumed to have read over all the Records themselves and must presume that none else ever so much as looked into them But that Authour discovers too much his Second-hand Learning in these matters and we might have wanted several of his Precedents had it not been for Mr. Selden's Baronage As to the Title of Seigneurs du Parlament being common to the Bishops I am prevented by another hand I shall onely adde two Precedents more not taken notice of by others The one 7 R. II. The Answer of Mich. de la Pole is said to becoram Magnatibus Communitate in Parlamento where the Authour of the Letter confesseth the Bishops were present and therefore comprehended under theMagnates The other 15 H. VI. One Philipps complained against the Bishop of London to the House of Commons they sent the Complaint up to the Lords the Bishop asks the Advice of the House who gave this Answer Non consentancum fuit aliquem Procerum alicui in eo loco responsurum Which had signified nothing if the Bishops had not been allowed to be Proceres Regni So much for his Negative Precedents II. Some of his Precedents were condemned in Parlament to be irregular and erroneous in other respects and therefore it is no wonder if they should be so in this 1. The Iudgment upon Roger Mortimer Earl of March 4 Ed. III. was reversed in Parlament 28 Ed. III as defective and erroneous in all points being without any Proof or Witnesses or bringing the Person to answer for himself And therefore it was an Honour for the Bishops not to be present 2. The Iudgment upon Haxey 20 R. II. is confessed by the Authour to be most unjust and would not onely have shaken but wholly destroyed the very foundation of Parlament and reversed 1 H. IV. as against Right and Course of Parlaments And he confesseth the Bishops were present at condemning it but not at passing it Which also makes much for their Honour III. Some of his Precedents prove that when the Bishops did withdraw they did it voluntarily and took care to preserve their Right either by Protestation or appointing a Proxy 1. That they withdrew voluntarily So 5 Ed. III. it is said that the Bishops did withdraw at that time being of opinion that it did not properly belong to them to give Counsel about keeping the Peace and punishing of Malefactours and so saith he they went away by themselves and returned no more But although this proves nothing but a voluntary Act of the Bishops in withdrawing yet the representation made of this matter is so partial and different from the Record that I cannot but take a little more notice of it 1. He saith that the Prelats being of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Counsel about keeping the Peace or punishing such evils they went away by themselves and returned no more Thereby insinuating that they looked on this matter as wholly unfit for them to meddle in and thereupon left the House Whereas the words of the Record are Si alerent mesmes les Prelatz les Procurators de la Clergie per eux mesmes a conseiler de choses susdites les ditz Countes Barons autres Grantz per eux mesmes So the Prelats and Proctors of the Clergy went by themselves toconsult about the aforesaid matters and the Earls Barons and other Great men by themselves So that this withdrawing was but into several Committees as was usual at that time by which the sense of the 3 Estates was best understood and then they met together and agreed upon what was fit to be made a Law This appears by 6 Edw. III A quen jour de Ioedi eu ont trete deliberation cest assavoir les ditz Prelats per eux mesmes les ditz Countes Barons autres Grantz per eux mesmes auxint les Chivalers des Countes per eux mesmes Upon which Thursday they enter'd upon debate concerning the News from Scotland the Prelats by themselves the Lords and other Great men by themselves and so the Knights of Counties by themselves The Houses being then not wholly separate nor always together but dividing into Committees and not into Houses as occasion required and then joyning together to express their common Sense So 40 Ed. III. when the occasion of their meeting was deliver'd which was an extraordinary message from Rome the Pope sending for Tribute and Homage it is said the Bishops went by themselves and the other Lords by themselves and the Commons by themselves and then met together and declared their unanimous resolution to oppose to the uttermost any such Demand Such a withdrawing of the Bishops it was in this case For they and the Proctors of the Clergy whether by them we understand the Procuratores Cleri who according to the Modus tenendi Parlamentum made a part of the Parlament or the Proxies of the absent Bishops who were allowed to supply their places as appears by 35 Ed. I. and the Case of the Bishops of Durham and Carlile in the Parlament at Westminster Ed. II. and 17 R. II. and many other instances afterwards thought fit to consider in this matter what was most proper for them And accordingly we find Ecclesiastical Censures added to the Civil Sanctions and brought in by the Prelats at that time which are still extant in the Record 2. Whereas he saith the Bishops returned no more the Record saith the
this as a sufficient Precedent in a Case of great moment about Commitment upon a general Accusation But there is not any Irregularity expressed or intimated in the Bishops appearing and judging as other Lords did and the Judgment was not reversed because of their being there as we have shewed others have been for their being absent V. None of all his Precedents do prove that the Bishops were ever excluded from sitting by any Vote of the House of Lords or Commons That they might voluntarily withdraw we deny not or not be present at giving of Iudgment out of regard to the Canons which is all that is proved by the Precedent of Iohn Hall 1 H. IV. of the Earls of Kent Huntington c. 2 H. IV. of Sir Iohn Oldcastle 5 H. V. and of Sir Iohn Mortimer 2 H. VI. And this we have made appear was done by them out of regard to the Canon-Law the force of which being taken away by the Reformation the Bishops are thereby restored to their just Parlamentary Right Neither can any Disusage be a bar to that Right since the ground of that Disusage was something then supposed to be in force which is now removed by the Reformation And I fear if this kind of arguing be sufficient to overthrow the Bishops Right much stronger of the same kind may be used to overthrow the King's Supremacy in mattters of Religion So great care ought men to have lest under the colour of a mighty zeal against Popery they do overthrow the very Principles of our Reformation VI. There are Precedents upon Record in the Rolls of Parlament which are not mention'd by the Authour of the Letter which do prove that the Bishops were present at the Examination of Treason and Capital Offences in Parlament And that within the time wherein he pretends to give an account of all the Trials recorded in the Rolls Which shews how easily men pass by those things they have no mind to see I begin with 4 Ed. III. and I must doe him that right as to say that he doth not onely mention the Trial of Roger Mortimer but of Sir Simon Bereford and others who were accused and tried in Parlament But pretending that the Roll of that Parlament is so defaced that it cannot be read he runs to that of 28 Ed. III. and so gently passes over all the other Trials which are in the Record and are more plain and express as to this matter Among the Articles against Roger Mortimer Ed. l of March one is that after he knew certainly the death of Edw. II. he made use of Instruments to perswade Edward Earl of Kent that King's Brother that he was still living and so drew him into a design for his Rescue for which he was attainted at Winchester and there suffer'd death for it Among these Instruments the chief was one Mautravers who for that Reason was attainted this Parlament and the words of the Record are Trestouz les Pieres Counts Barons assemblez a cest Parlement a West si ont examine estraitement sur ce sont assentuz accordez que John Mautravers si est culpable de la mort Esmon Count de Kent c. All the Peers Counts and Barons assembled in this present Parlament upon strict examination do assent and agree that John Mautravers is guilty of the death of Edmund Earl of Kent Here we have the strict Examination of a Capital Case in Parlament and all the Peers are said to be present at it It is used as an argument by the Authour of the Letter that in the case of Roger Mortimer the Bishops could not be comprized under the general name of Peers since the Barons are first in rank But here the Peers are mentioned before Counts and Barons and it will be impossible for him to assign any other Peers at that time that were named before them but the Prelats who frequently are so put in the Records of that time as in the same Parlament n. 12. Prelatz Countes Barons n. 13. Et per assent des ditz Prelatz Countes Barons so again n. 14. 15. 17. 24. 25. But the Authour of the Letter saith they cannot pretend to be Peers of the Realm Let him name then other Peers of the Realm at that time who were neither Counts nor Barons and were before them But if we are to judge who are Peers of the Realm by the Records of Parlament I do not question but I shall make it evident that the Bishops were so esteemed and that some persons who pretend to great skill in Records either have not searched so diligently or have not observed so carefully about this matter as they might have done But of this afterwards In the same Parlament Judgment was passed upon Boges de Boyons Iohn Deveril Thomas Gurnay William Ocle but being by way of Attainder and not upon particular examination which is mentioned in the case of Mautravers I pass them over In the Pleas of the Crown held before the King in this Parlament we find another Case which relates to our present debate viz. of Thomas Lord Berkely and Knight who was arraigned for the death of King Ed. II. who came before the King in pleno Parlamento in full Parlament and there pleaded Not guilty and declared he was ready to clear himself as the King's Court should advise Then they proceeded to particular examination of him how he could acquitt himself being Lord of the Castle where the King was murthered he being committed to his Custody and John Matravers He pleaded for himself that he was then sick at Bradley and knew nothing of it They charged him that the Keepers of the Castle were of his own appointing and therefore he was bound to answer for them He answer'd that they with Matravers having receiv'd the King into their custody he was not to be blamed for what they did and for this he put himself upon his Country At the day appointed for his Trial he appears again coram Domino Rege in pleno Parlamento and the Iury returned him Not guilty But because he appointed Gurney and Ocle to keep his Castle of Berkely by whom the King was murthered the King appoints him a day the next Parlament to hear his Sentence and in the mean time he was committed to the custody of Ralph Nevil Steward of the King's House In the next Parlament 5 Edw. III. n. 18. The Prelats Earls and Barons petition the King that he might be discharged of his mainprisors the which was granted and a farther day given him to appear next Parlament But we reade no more of him till the Summons he had 14 Ed. III. as one of the Lords in Parlament The great force of this Precedent lies in understanding what is meant by appearing before the King in full Parlament If under this the Bishops be comprehended then this will be an uncontroulable Precedent of the presence of the Bishops in
the Examination of a Case Capital What the importance of this phrase of full Parlament is will best appear by the use of it in the Records of that time 4 Ed. III. n. 6. Et est assentu accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roi touz les Grantz en pleyn Parlement Where it was agreed that the procedings at that time by the Lords against those who were not Peers should not be drawn into consequence and that the Peers should be charged onely to try Peers Which hath all the formality of an Act of Parlament and therefore all the Estates were present n. 8. Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi son Conseil en pleyn Parlement Which was an Act of Pardon concerning those who followed the Earl of Lancaster 5 Ed. III. n. 10. we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who do make a full Parlament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi Prelatz Countes Barons autres Grantz du Roialm en pleyn Parlement and n. 17. En pleyn Parlement si prierent les Prelatz Countes Barons autres Grantz de mesme le Parlement a nostre Seigneur le Roi c. 6 Ed. III. n. 5. the Archbishop of Canterbury made his Oration en pleyn Parlement which is explained by en la presence nostre Seigneur le Roi de touz les Prelatz autres Grantz n. 9. Si est accorde assentu per touz en pleyn Parlement who those were we are told before in the same number viz. les Prelatz Countes Baronns touz les autres somons a mesme le Parlement Which is the clearest explication of full Parlament in the presence of all those who were summon'd to Parlament From whence it follows that where a full Parlament was mention'd at that time the Bishops were certainly present and consequently did assist at the Trial of Thomas Lord Berkely who appeared before the King in full Parlament as Nich. de Segrave did 33 Ed. I. and there the Bishops are expresly mention'd as present as appears by what hath been said before concerning his Case 5 H. IV. Henry Hotspur Son to the Earl of Northumberland was declared a Traitour by the King and Lords in full Parlament and the same day the Father was upon examination acquitted of Treason by the Peers It is not said that this was done in full Parlament as the other was but there are several circumstances which make it very probable the Bishops were then present 1. When the Earl of Northumberland took his Oath of Fidelity to the King he did it saith the Record upon the Cross of the Archbishop which was to be carried before him if he went out of the House 2. The Archbishop of Canterbury pray'd the King that forasmuch as himself and other Bishops were suspected to be in Piercie's Conspiracy that the Earl might upon his Oath declare the truth who thereupon did clear them all Which shews that the Archbishop was then present in the House And for the same reason that he was present we may justly suppose the other Bishops to have been so too 3. The Earl of Northumberland beseeched the Lords and Earls and Commoners that if he brake this Oath they would intercede no more with the King for him Now the better to understand this we are to consider that H. IV. takes notice in his declaration upon the Rebellion of Sir Henry Piercy that the Earl of Northumberland and his Son gave out that they could have no access to the King but by the Mediation of the Bishops and Earls and therefore did beseech them to intercede with the King for them It is not then probable that those should be now left out when the words are large enough to comprehend them and no one circumstance is brought to exclude them For that general one of their not being Peers will be fully refuted afterwards But that which puts this out of dispute is 4. that the Record saith n. 17. the Commons not onely gave the King thanks for the pardon of the Earl of Northumberland but the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in these remarkable words Et auâ—i mesmes les CoÌ„es remercierment les Seigneurs Espirituelx Temporelx de lour bon droiturell judgment quils avoient fait come Piers du Parlement And likewise the Commons gave thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the good and right Iudgment which they had given in this case as Peers of Parlament Which is a clear Precedent of the Bishops judging in a Capital Case and that as Peers 2 H. VI. n. 9. Iohn Lord Talbott had accused Iames Boteler Earl of Ormond of sundry Treasons before the King and his great Council and after before Iohn Duke of Bedford Constable of England The King takes advice of his Parlament about it and then it is expresly said in the Record De avisamento assensit Dominorum Spiritualium Temporalium ac Communitatis Regni Anglie in eodem Parlamento existent ' facta fuit quedam abolitio delationis nuntiationis detectionis predict c. Here the King adviseth with the Lords Spiritual in an accusation of Treason and therefore they must be present in the debates concerning it I leave now any considerate person to judge impartially on which side the Right lies For on the one side 1. There is the Constitution of Clarendon interpreted by H. II. and the Bishops at Northampton 2. A Protestation of their Right enter'd and allowed by King Lords and Commons 11 R. II. 3. A Reversing of Iudgments owned by Parlament for want of their presence 21 R. II. 4. A Preserving of their Right by Proxie when they thought their Personal attendance contrary to the Canons 5. A Bar to a total discontinuance of their personal Right by an allowed Precedent 28 H. VI. 6. A Restoring them to their former Right by removing of the force of the Canon-Law upon the Reformation 7. No one Law or Precedent produced for excluding them even in those Times when they thought the Canons did forbid their presence 8. Several Precedents upon Record wherein they were present at Examinations and Debates about Cases Capital On the other side 1. The Precedents are General and Negative 2. Or relating to such Cases wherein they are allowed to be present 3. Or of Iudgments condemned as erroneous by Parlament 4. Or of voluntary Withdrawing with Protestation of their Right and making of Proxies 5. Or of not being present at the passing of Iudgment out of regard to the Canon-Law And now on which side the Right lies let the Authour of the Letter himself judge CHAP. IV. The Peerage of the Bishops cleared how far they make a third Estate in Parlament Objections against it answered THERE remain Two things to be considered which are put in by way of Postscript by the Authour of the Letter the one concerns the Peerage of the Bishops the other their Being a Third Estate in Parlament 1.
Nobles Vt Episcopi Abbates Comites potentiores quique si causam inter se habuerint ac se pacificare noluerint ad nostram jubeantur venire praesentiam neque illorum contentio aliubi judicetur But in this Court they challenged that as their privilege to be tried by their Peers who were called Pares Curiae So the Emperour Sigismund in his Protestation before the States of the Empire Cùm secundùm juris communis dispositionem nec non usum morem stylum consuetudinem sacri Romani Imperii feudalis contentio per Dominum feudi ac Pares Curiae terminanda sit c. And again nisi Parium nostrae Curiae arbitrio So likewise in France as Tilius saith Haec judiciorum ratio ut de causis feudalibus judicent Feudales Pares in Gallia est perantiqua So in Fulbertus one Count sends word to another that their Cause should not be determin'd nisi in Conventu Parium suorum And many other examples might be produced but these are sufficient to make us understand the true Original of this Right of Peerage which was from the Feodal Laws and all those who held of the same Lord and by the same Tenure were said to be Pares Peers And therefore since the Bishops in England were Barons by Tenure ever since William I. by consequence they were Peers to other Barons and had the same original Right of Trial by other Barons as their Peers holding by the same Tenure and sitting in the same Court. And thus I hope I have given what that Authour so impatiently desired viz. a rational account of the Trial by Peers and have thereby shewed that this is so far from being any disadvantage to the Bishops Cause that it adds very much to the Iustice of it And that this is so far from being a violation of Magna Charta that it is within the intention and meaning of it I thus prove In the 14. ch of Magna Charta we read Comites Barones non amercientur nisi per Pares suos but by the Common Law the Amerciament of a Bishop is the same with that of a Lay-Baron and therefore in the sense of the Law they are looked on as Peers And all the Parlamentary Barons whether Bishops or Abbots were amerced as Barons Thence 15 Edw. 2. a Writ was directed to the Justices of the Common Pleas that they should not amerce the Abbot of Crowland tanquam Baro because he did not hold per Baroniam aut partem Baroniae And it is confessed by the most learned Lawyers that the Lords Spiritual do enjoy the same legal Privileges in other respects which the Temporal Barons do as in real Actions to have a Knight returned in their Iury as to a day of Grace hunting in the King's Forests Scandalum Magnatum c. Now since the Law of England allows onely a double Parity viz. as to Lords of Parlament and Commons whether Knights Esquires Gentlemen or Yeomen without any consideration of the great inequality of circumstances among them Yeomen having as little sense of Gentility as Commons can have of the privileges of Nobles it is apparent that this Trial by Peers was not founded upon equality of circumstances and that in all reason those who do enjoy the legal Privileges of Peers are to be looked on as such by Magna Charta But the great Objection is that the Lawyers are of another opinion as to this Trial by Peers and not onely the common sort who take all upon Trust which they find in the modern Law-Books but those who have searched most into Antiquity such as Mr. Selden and Sir Edw. Coke To this therefore I answer 1. The Authour of the Peerage c. proves the Bishops are not Peers because not to be tried by Peers This consequence Mr. Selden utterly denies for he saith it is true and plain that the Bishops have been Peers For which he quotes the Bishop of Winchester's Case who was question'd in the King's Bench for leaving the Parlament at Salisbury in the beginning of Ed. III. and he pleaded to the declaration quod ipse est unus e Paribus Regni that he was one of the Peers of the Realm which he saith was allowed in Court And from other Book-cases and Parlament-Rolls he there evidently proves that the Bishops were Peers which he not onely asserts in that confused Rhapsodie which went abroad under his name but in his elaborate Work of the last Edition of his Titles of Honour in which he corrected and left out the false or doubtfull passages of his first Edition And among the rest that passage wherein this Authour triumphs A Bishop shall not be tried by Peers in Capital Crimes The same thing I confess is said in the Privileges of the Baronage which he there calls a point of Common Law as it is distinguished from Acts of Parlament i. e. the custom and practice hath been so And the onely evasion he hath for Magna Charta is this that it is now to be interpreted according to the current practice and not by the literal interpretation of the Words Which is an admirable answer if one well considers it and justifies all violations of Magna Charta if once they obtain and grow into Custom For then no matter for the express words of Magna Charta if the contrary practice hath been received and allowed in legal proceedings This is to doe by Magna Charta as the Papists doe by the Scriptures viz. make it a meer Nose of Wax and say it is to be interpreted according to the Practice of the Church 2. Some things are affirmed about this matter with as great assurance as this is which have not been the constant practice Coke is positive that Bishops are not to be tried by their Peers but so he is in the same page that a Nobleman cannot wave his Trial by his Peers and put himself upon the Trial of the Countrey Whereas it is said in the Record 4 Ed. III. that Thomas Lord Berkely ponit se super Patriam put himself upon his Countrey and was tried by a Jury of 12 Knights And 28 H. VI. the Duke of Suffolk declined the Trial of his Peers and submitted to the King's mercy By which it appears that this was a Privilege which was not to be denied them if they challenged it but at least before 15 Ed. III. they might wave it if they pleased and after that too if they were tried out of Parlament For this Trial by Peers was intended for a security against arbitrary Power in taking away mens Lives and therefore it was allowed at the King's Suit but not at the Suit of the Party But if Bishops were tried out of Parlament and did voluntarily decline the challenge of this Privilege this is no argument at all against their Right of Peerage and so I find some say it was in the Case of Fisher Bishop of
and fundamental Policy of that is the same with England and he that believed the Subjects made the Three Estates there could never believe the King to be one of them here The next Authority is of King Charles I. in his Answer to the 19 Propositions Iune 2. 1642. wherein he tells the two Houses that neither one Estate should transact what is proper for two nor two what is proper for three To which I answer that the Penner of that Answer was so intent upon the main business viz. that the two Houses could doe nothing without the King that he did not go about to dispute this matter with them whether the King were one of the Three Estates or not but taking their supposition for granted he shews that they could have no Authority to act without the King's concurrence But the unwary Concessions in that Answer were found of dangerous consequence afterwards when the King's enemies framed the Political Catechism out of them which is lately reprinted no doubt for the good of the People In 2 H. IV. n. 32. he makes the House of Commons to declare to the King and Lords that the Three Estates of the Parlament are the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Whereas the truth of that matter is this A difference had happen'd in the House of Lords between the Earl of Rutland and Lord Fitz-Walter whereupon the House of Commons go up to the King and the Lords and having it seems an Eloquent Speaker who ventured upon dangerous Metaphors he makes bold with the Similitude of the Trinity because that would help him to perswade them to Vnity but if he had left the King out he might have been suspected to have set up an Independent Power in the Three Estates therefore lest he should lose his Similitude which goes a great way with an eloquent man he strains another point and draws the King into his Trinity And is such an expression to be mention'd in comparison with the express Declaration but the year before 1 H. IV. of both Houses concerning the Three Estates in Parlament Next to this Similitude that of Stephen Gardiner ought to be mention'd who compared Faith Hope and Charity concurring to Iustification to the concurrence of the Three Estates in Parlament i.e. the King and two Houses to the making of Laws But I wonder the Authour of the Letter who expresseth so much dislike of his Divinity would take his Iudgment in Politicks But this notion of making the King one of the Three Estates how valuable soever it be to some men is it seems onely to be met with in some grave ancient Similitudes But of what Authority these are against the constant sense of Parlaments so fully declared I leave any man of understanding to judge For the judgment of eminent Lawyers he quotes but one in King Iames his time viz. Finch in his Book of Law l. 2. ch 1. who doth indeed in the words quoted by him make the King Lords and Commons to be the Three Estates But I can hardly imagine how a learned Lawyer could fall into such a gross mistake unless the Modus tenendi Parlamentum should give the occasion to it which was accounted no blind MS. in those days but a very great Treasure as appears by Sir E. Coke who cites it on all occasions And very few Lawyers had the judgment in Antiquity which Mr. Selden had who first discovered the just Age and Value of that MS. This Authour indeed towards the conclusion of his Treatise makes the King the first of the Estates but then he makes Six Estates in Parlament or Degrees as he calls them and delivers this for good doctrine at the very end of his Treatise that if any one of all these be summon'd and do not appear yet with him it is notwithstanding a full Parlament nay he expresly saith the King may hold a Parlament without a House of Lords But there are so many other such Positions discover'd by others in that Treatise that I need to say no more of it And as to this point of the King 's being one of the Estates in Parlament Sir Ed. Coke who otherwise too much admired that Treatise declares against it in the very beginning of his Treatise of the Parlament This Court saith he consisteth of the King's Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick capacity and of the Three Estates of the Realm viz. of the Lords Spiritual Archbishops and Bishops the Lords Temporal and the Commons of the Realm And however the Authour of the Letter may slight Mr. Selden's Judgment in this matter yet these two may be sufficient to weigh down the Scales against any one Lawyer 's Authority to the contrary especially since they were never suspected I dare say for any partiality towards the Clergy 3. But the Authour of the Letter thinks to carry this point by meer strength of Reason We must therefore diligently consider the force of his Arguments 1. If Bishops were one of the Estates in Parlament Reason would they should vote by themselves separately from other Lords which would make another Estate But they do not onely not vote apart by themselves the whole Body of them together but that Body is divided and separated within it self one part from another If both Houses ever sate together as some imagine and as they do in a neighbour Kingdom this way of Reasoning will make but one Estate in Parlament all that time But to give a clear answer to this objection I distinguish two things in the Bishops their Spiritual Capacity by which they represent and their Civil Capacity as Barons in which they vote according to the Rules of the House For the manner of giving their Votes is a thing under the Regulation of the House and depends upon Custom but their Spiritual Capacity as Bishops in which they represent doth not And the Reason of their sitting together with other Lords is upon the account of their Writs of Summons which as Mr. Selden confesseth ever since the latter end of Edw. III. hath been for the Bishops cum ceteris Prelatis Magnatibus Proceribus colloquium habere tractatum and therefore they are bound to sit together in the same place with the Temporal Lords or else they cannot advise and confer together And I leave the Authour of the Letter to consider whether his Reason or the King 's Writ ought to take place 2. If the Bishops were a Third Estate they must have a Negative voice to all that passeth there But the Bishops are intermingled with the Temporal Lords in making up the Majority as a part of it Since I have evidently proved the Clergy to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament if he be sure that every Estate ought to have a Negative voice then I am sure that this Objection lies more upon him to answer then upon the Bishops But to prevent any new disputes I shall return this Answer to
it Since it is agreed on both sides that the Bishops do sit in the House as Temporal Barons and in that respect do make up the Majority of Votes in the House of Lords it could not but seem unreasonable that they who voted as Barons in the House should have a Negative voice in another capacity and by this means they lost their distinct Negative voice because by the King's Writs they were to sit and vote with the Temporal Lords Just as it is in the Diets of Germany Since the distribution of that Assembly of the Estates of the Empire into the several Chambers the Prelates vote according to their Ranks the Three Electors in the Electoral College the other Bishops that are Princes of the Empire in the Chamber of Princes and those who are not Princes with the Counts and Barons So that here the Votes of the Bishops are mingled with the rest without a distinct Negative voice and yet no one questions but the Bishops do represent a distinct Estate of the Empire 3. This is a disparagement to the House of Lords that another Estate must be joyned with them to make up their Negative No more then to the Princes of the Empire to have the Bishops joyned with them when the Imperial Cities vote by themselves But what disparagement is this for those to make up the Majority of the Votes of the Baronage who sit there as Barons by Tenure by a Right as ancient as Will. the Conquerour by the Authour 's own confession 4. If the Bishops make a Third Estate then a Parlament could not be held without them But a Parlament hath sate excluso Clero as that of Ed. I and that it may do so in point of Law appears by the Resolution of the Iudges in Keilway's Reports because the Bishops sit in Parlament by reason of their Baronies This is the great Objection to which I shall give a full Answer 1. It is dangerous arguing from extraordinary Cases to the excluding any one of the Estates of the Kingdom from being represented in Parlament because no one can tell where this way of arguing will stop If a Parlament may be good without one Estate why not without another And we have seen an House of Lords excluded as unnecessary upon such kind of arguments because they sit in their own Persons and represent none but themselves If we once depart from the ancient and legal Constitution of Parlaments there will be no end of Alterations Every new Modeller of Government hath something to offer that looks like Reason at least to those whose interest it is to carry it on And if no Precedents can be found then they appeal to a certain invisible thing called the Fundamental Contract of the Nation which being a thing no where to be found may signify what any one pleaseth Suppose one extraordinary case happens through the disorder of Times that the Clergy have been left out in a Parlament what doth this signify towards altering the legal Constitution and constant Course of Parlaments which from the beginning of Parlaments in this Nation have had the Estate of the Clergy represented in them as sufficiently appears by Mr. Petyt's learned Preface to his late Discourse of the ancient Right of the Commons The first after King Ethelbert's Conversion was Commune Concilium tam Cleri quà m Populi That under Ina was omnium Episcoporum Principum Procerum Comitum omnium Sapientum Seniorum Populorum totius Regni That under Edmund the Elder was Concilium magnum Episcoporum Abbatum Fidelium Procerum Populorum I might adde many more as that at Becanceld under King Withred A. D. 694. Episcopis c. Ducibus Satrapis in unum glomeratis At Clovesho under Kenulphus of Mercia at Calecyth at London at Kingston Nay not one can be found by me in the Saxon times wherein the Bishops are not expresly mention'd So that if there be such a thing to be found as the Fundamental Contract of the Nation about the Constitution of Parlaments I do not question but they have their share in it Insomuch that Sir H. Spelman makes it his description of the Wittena-Gemot that in it as Mr. Petyt observes Convenêre Regni Principes tam Episcopi quà m Magistratus liberique homines i.e. it was an Assembly of the Three Estates So that before there were any such things as Baronies they were an essential part of the English Parlament And must all this clear and undoubted evidence from the first mention of Parlaments be rejected because once upon a time a certain King called a certain Parlament wherein upon some Distast between the King and the Clergy the other Estates continued sitting without them 2. This single Instance about the Parlament under Ed. I. is much misunderstood as will appear by these considerations 1. That the Clergy excluded themselves and were not shut out by the Act of the King and the other Estates For upon the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII forbidding the Clergy giving any more Subsidies which was procured by Archbishop Winchelsee as our Historians relate a Parlament being called by Ed. I. at Saint Edmondsbury on purpose for Subsidies the Clergy refuse upon the Pope's prohibition till they had consulted the Court of Rome and go away every one to their own homes notwithstanding which the King proceeds with the other two Estates and gets Subsidies from the Laiety So that the exclusion of the Clergy came from their own voluntary Act when the King desired no such thing nor the other two Estates but were all extremely provoked at this withdrawing of the Clergy That this Parlament was called purposely for the Subsidy appears by the Writ still upon Record wherein the Archbishop is summon'd to appear ad ordinandum de quantitate modo subsidii memorati 2. Whereas it is insinuated that great matters were done and good Laws passed when the Clergy were excluded I find no such thing It is true the confirmation of Magna Charta by Ed. I. which was a great thing indeed is said in the Statute-Books to be done the same year viz. 25 Ed. I. But that it could not be done in that Parlament I thus prove That Parlament was called crast Animarum the King appoints another at London crast Hilarii where the difference still continuing he appoints a new Parlament on the day of S. Peter ad Vincula or Lammas-day wherein he was reconciled to the Archbishop and Clergy Then Fealty is sworn to his Son before his going into Flanders and the King excused himself as to the great Taxes and Subsidies on the account of his Wars While he was about Winchelsea a Remonstrance is sent to him of the Grievances of the Nation in the name of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and the whole Commons of England wherein they complain of illegal Taxes and the breach of Magna Charta The King gives a dilatory answer and passes over into Flanders
In his absence the People refuse to pay the Taxes and the Lords combine together and all things tend to an open Rebellion His Son Ed. II. calls a Parlament at London and promises a Confirmation of the Charter and that no Taxes should hereafter be raised either on Clergy or Laiety without their consent Which being sent over Edw. I. confirmed it with his own Seal which was all done within the compass of this year But he again ratified it in the Parlament 27 Ed. I. So that nothing was done in that Parlament at S. Edmondsbury but granting a 12 th of the Laiety to the King And when the great Laws were passed the King and Clergy were reconciled and they sate in Parlament And the Archbishop of Canterbury fell into the King's displeasure afterwards for being so active a promoter of them The summe then of this mighty argument is that the Lords and Commons once granted their own Subsidies without the concurrence of the Clergy therefore the Clergy are no essential part of the parlament 3. The Reason assigned in Keilway's Reports why the King may hold a Parlament without the Bishops is very insufficient viz. because they have no place in Parlament by reason of their Spiritualty but by reason of their Temporal possessions The insufficiency of which Reason will appear by two things 1. That it is not true as appears by this that the Clergy are one of the Estates of the Kingdom and all the Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament 2. Were it true it is no good Reason For why may they be excluded because they sit on the account of their Baronies Where lies the force of this Reason Is it because there will be Number enough without them That was the Rump's Argument against the Secluded Members And I hope the Authour of the Letter will not justify their Cause Or is it because they hold their Baronies by Tenure So did all the ancient Barons of England and why may the King hold his Parlament with the other Barons without the Bishops and not as well with the Bishops without the other Barons Which I do not see how it can be answer'd upon those grounds Suppose the Question had been thus put Since all the ancient Lords of Parlament were Barons by Tenure and Parlaments were held for many Ages without any Barons by Patent or by Writ why may not the King hold his Parlament after the ancient way onely with Barons by Tenure I do not see but as good a Reason may be given for this as that in Keilway's Reports All that I plead for is that our good ancient and legal Constitution of Parlament may not be changed for the sake of any single Precedents and rare Cases and obscure Reports built upon weak and insufficient Reasons For as the Authour of the Letter very well saith Consuetudo Parlamenti est Lex Parlamenti The constant Practice of Parlaments and not one single Instance is the Law of Parlaments And suppose that Precedent of 25 Ed. I. as full as could be wished in this case yet I return the answer of the Authour of the Letter in a like case This is but one single Precedent of a Parlament without Bishops against multitudes wherein they were present it was once so and never but once And can that be thought sufficient to alter and change the constant course and practice of Parlaments which hath been otherwise Nothing now remains but a severe reflexion on the Popish Bishops for opposing the Statute of Provisors and the several good Acts for the Reformation But what this makes against the Votes of Protestant Bishops is hard to understand If he thinks those could not make a good Third Estate in Parlament who took Oaths to the Pope contrary to their Allegeance and the interest of the Nation so do we If he have a great zeal for the Reformation so have all true Members of the Church of England who we doubt not will heartily maintain the Cause of our Church against the Vsurpations of Rome though the heat of others should abate For did not our Protestant Bishops seal the Reformation with their Bloud and defend it by their admirable Writings What Champions hath the Protestant Religion ever had to be compared in all respects with our Cranmer â—idley Iewel Bilson Morton Hall Davenant and many other Bishops of the Church of England And notwithstanding the hard fortune Archbishop Laud had in other respects not to be well understood in the Age he lived in yet his enemies cannot deny his Book to be written with as much strength and judgment against the Church of Rome as any other whatsoever I shall conclude with saying that the Clergy of the Church of England have done incomparably more Service against Popery from the Reformatition to this day then all the other Parties among us put together And that the Papists at this time wish for nothing more then to see men under a pretence of Zeal against Popery to destroy our Church and while they cry up Magna Charta to invade the legal Rights thereof and thereby break the first Chapter of it and from disputing the Bishops presence in Cases Capital to proceed to others and so by degrees to alter the ancient Constitution of our Parlaments which will unavoidably bring Anarchy and Confusion upon us from which as well as Popery Good Lord deliver us THE END Letter p. 1. Lett. p. 93. Lett. p. 3. 118. Lett. p. 66. P. 21. Lett. p. 2 3. Lett. p. 5. Lett. p. 86. Hincmar Epist de Ordine lalatii Concil Franc. c. 3. 9. Marculph Form l. 1. c. 25. Not. in Marc. p. 287. Concil Tolet 4. c. 75. 5. c. 7. 6. c. 17. 8. in Praef. 12. c. 1. 17. c. 1. 17. c. 1. Cont l. Tolet 13. c. 2. Rer. Aleman To. 2. Cod. Leg. Antiq. B. 362. Arumae de Comitiis â— 35. c. 4. â— 98. Goldast Bohem l. 5. c. 1. Bonfin dec 2. l. 1. Decret Ladiss p. 12. Starovolse â—olon p. 2â—5 Herburt Stat. Regni Pol. p. 263. Adam Brem de situ Dan. n. 85. Loccen Antiq Sâ—eco Goth. c. 8. Ius Aulicum Nâ—rveg c. 3. c. 36. Lett. p. 3 4. Stat. Merton c. 9. 20 H. 3. Dissert ad Flet. c. 9. § 2. Soz. hist. l. 1. c. 9. Capitul Carol Ludov l. 6. c. 281. ed. Lindenb c. 366. ed. Baluz Cod. Just. de Epise Audient l. 1. tit 4. c. 8. Cod. Theodos l. 16. tit 11. c. 1. Greg. NysS vit Greg. Basil. in ep Socr. l. 7. c. 37. Ambros. de Offic. l. 2. c. 24. Aug. ep 147. in Ps. 118. conc 24. Jac. Goth. in cod Theod. ad Extrav de Episc. judicio Concil Sardic c. 7. Balsam in Can. 4. Concil Chalced. Auth. Collat 1. tit 6. Novell 6. c. 2. Justin. Cod. l. 1. tit 3. c. 41. Cod. Theod. l. 16. tit 2. n. 38. Lindwood l. 3. de Testam Lett. p. 4. Lett. p. 68. Lett. p. 69. Lett. p.