Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	duke_n	earl_n	john_n	48,781	5	6.3855	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26154	The rights, powers, and priviledges, of an English convocation, stated and vindicated in answer to a late book of D. Wake's, entituled, The authority of Christian princes over their ecclesiastical synods asserted, &c. and to several other pieces.	Atterbury, Francis, 1662-1732.	1700 (1700)	Wing A4151; ESTC R16535	349,122	574

General Denomination of Commons as the Case plainly was in the Petition just now produc'd which is enter'd in the Rolls among the Petitions of the Commons tho' the Clergy joyn'd in it and as it probably was in that mention'd by Mr. Elsyng pag. 275. but with false Numbers where the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons Et autres Gens de la Cominaltie d'Engleterre pray that they may let out to Farm the Wasts of Mannors held of the King in capite without his License which being the Case of many Inferior Clergy-men who held such Mannors of the Crown it is to be suppos'd that they also joyn'd in the Petition and are under the Autres Gens de la Cominaltie included But more express to this purpose is the Statute of the Clergy 18 E. 3. which recites * I take the words of it from Rastal with the more assurance because Pryn says he has compar'd the Print with the Record and that they agree Abridg. of Rec. p. 44. That the Prelates Great Men and Commons had advis'd and aided the King and afterwards the Great Men aforesaid grant so and so and the said Prelates and Procurators of the Clergy grant so and so whereas there is no Previous Mention of the Procurators of the Clergy but under the Title of Commons To these many other Records might be added which mention the Convocation-Clergy as of the Parliament and in it But that I may not load the Reader a few of these taken from the Beginning the Middle and the End of that Period we are considering shall suffice The rest will find as proper a place in another part of these Collections and thither therefore I shall refer the Reader for an account of them In the 10 E. 3. a Writ issu'd to the Archbishop of York reciting that the Clergy of Canterbury-Province had given the King a Tenth in Parliamento nostro Westminster and exciting Him and his Clergy to follow their Example † Cl. 10 E. 3. m. 36. dors The like Recitals are to be met with often in latter Writs as particularly in 43 E. 3. Cl. m. 6. Dors. which begins Rex Arch o. Cant. salutem Qualiter negotia nostra tam Nos Statum Regni nostri quam necessariam defensionem ejusdem concernentia ac onera nobis per hoc incumbentia Vobis Aliis in ultimo Parliamento nostro existentibus plenius exposuimus vos non latet Ad quorum onerum supportationem absque adjutorio fidelium nostrorum non sufficimus sicut scitis propter quod aliquod subsidium congruum in supportationem tantorum onerum à Vobis Aliis de Clero Dioeceseos Provinciae vestrarum in dicto Parliamento tunc existentibus nobis concedi petivimus c. And the same Passage in Terms recurs in another Letter of the same kind to the Archbishop two years afterwards Cl. 45 E. 3. m. 35. Dors. The Great Deed of Entail in the 8 Hen. 4. by which the Crown was setled on his Heirs male and which was witness'd by the Great Men and by Sir I. Typtot the Speaker in behalf of the whole Body of the Commons recites Quòd in Parliamento nostro apud Westminster 7 o. Die Iulii Anno Regni nostri 7 o. per nos de consensu avisamento omnium Praelatorum Magnatum Procerum ac Cleri Communitatis regni nostri Angliae fuerit Statutum Ordinatum And proceeds to make void what had been so ordain'd in these Memorable words Nos igitur ad instantem Petitionem eorundem Praelatorum Magnatum Procerum Cleri Communitatis supradictae de eorum omnium singulorum Voluntate Assensu expressis nec non nostrâ praesentis Parliamenti nostri auctoritate Statutum Ordinationem praedictam cassamus adnullamus Nec non ad eorundem Praelatorum Magnatum Procerum Cleri Communitatis praedictae Petitionem Rogatum ac de E●rum Consensu concordi auctoritate c. And this too Pryn has abridg'd * See Abr. of Records p. 454. in his way without taking notice of these Passages which are so Material and Instructive The Original Record with all its appendant Seals intire tho' the Deed it self be cancel'd is preserv'd still in the Cottonian Library † Inter Chartas in Pyxide Galba and affords a manifest Proof of the Interest which the Convocation Clergy at that time had in Parliament for it would be ridiculous to imagin that by Clergy in this Instrument thus plac'd between the Lords and Lay-Commons any other than the Convocation-Clergy are intended For near 140 years afterwards the Language I find continu'd the same in the Bishops Mandates to their Archdeacons for the Collection of Subsidies for thus speaks one of Bonner's ⸫ In Registro Cum Praelati Clerus Prov. Cant. in Parliamento hujus regni Angliae nuperrimè apud Westminster tento celebrato quoddam Subsidium sub certis modo formâ tunc expressis Illustrissimo c. Ex nonnullis rationabilibus causis dederint concesserint c. Oct. 10. 1543. And if I should beyond all this affirm that the Convocation attended the Parliament as One of the Three States of the Realm I should say no more than the Rolls have in express Terms said before me where the King is mention'd as calling Tres Status Regni ad Palatium suum Westm. viz. Praelatos Clerum Nobiles Magnates nec non Communitates dicti regni * Rot Parl. 9 H. 5. n. 15. And when more than Three States are mention'd as in the Antient Piece of the Manner of Holding Parliaments the Inferior Clergy is still reckon'd as one of them Judge Thirnyng therefore thus addresses himself to Richard the IId at his Deposition † See the Roll of Parliam Printed at the End of X. Script p. 2760. SIRE It is wele knowe to zowe that there was a Parlement Somond of all the States of the Reaume for to be at Westmynstre c. bycause of the whiche Sommons all the States of t●is Lond were there gadyr'd the whiche States hole made thes same persones that ben comen here to zowe nowe her Procuratours and gafen him full auctorite and Power and charged him for to say the wordes that we shall say to zowe in her name and on thair behalve that is to wytten the Byshop of Seint Assa for Ersbishoppes and Bishoppes the Abbot of Gla●●enbury for Abbots and Priours and all other Men of Holy Chirche Seculers and Rewelers the Erle of Gloucestre for Dukes and Erles the Lord of Berkeley for Barones and Banerettes Sir Thomas Irpyngham Chamberleyn for all the Bachilers and Commons of this Lond be south Sire Thomas Grey for all the Bachilers and Commons by North and my Felawe Iohn Markham and Me to come with him for All this States and so Sire these wordes and the doying that we sall say to zowe is not onlych our wordes bot the wordes and doyings

have done amiss in this Application yet nothing that they did afterwards needs an Excuse Their Refusal to comply with the King 's Excessive Demands was not only faultless but honourable and the Proceeding against them upon that refusal was altogether Illegal and Barbarous For we must not think that this sentence of Outlawry was built on any Legal Forfeiture they had incurr'd by adhering to the Pope against the Crown no it was founded purely on their denying to supply the King according to his Demands for three years before this when they delay'd to grant the Moiety ask'd he threatned † Audiens Rex indignatus est per suos satellites comminatus est se extrà Protectionem suam Clerum velle ponere nisi medietatem omnium bonorum concederent Knight c. 2502. So also Eversden before cited to do what he actually did now to put them out of his Protection and Then the Prohibitory Bull of Pope Boniface was not in being It would be some Mitigation indeed of the severity of this Process if it had been as Dr. W. would perswade us † P. 351. carried on in Parliament But that is highly improbable and inconsistent with the best accounts we have of those times The Barons it is plain were now very uneasy under the King's Exactions and it is not credible therefore that They should joyn with him in oppressing the Clergy nor had they for ought I can find any Opportunity of doing it For the Clergy were put out of the King's Protection Ian. 30 ‖ 310. Cal. Feb. tale fuit Regis Consilium quòd praeciperet praescriptam duriti em fieri contra Clerum Ann. Wigorn. apud Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 520. 129 6 which was long after the Parliament of St. Edmundsbury ⸪ Held Nov. 3. 1296. was up and before the Council of Sarum ⸫ Which met Feb. 24. 1296 7. was called Nay 12 days before this Council the Sentence was not only pronounc'd but executed even in the remote parts of England for the Writ of Seizure to the Sheriff of Worcestershire bears date Feb. 12 * Vid. eosdem Ann. Wigorn. ibid. And this agrees very well with the Observation made by the Writers of that time § Eversden Knighton Westminster Ann. Wigorn. that the King's Army was beat in Gascoign on the same day that the Clergy were outlawed here in England for the News of this Defeat it appears from Matthew of Westminster † P. 429. reach'd the King sometime before he met his Barons at Sarum Indeed Knighton ⸪ Col. 2491 and Walsingham ⸫ Ypod. Neustr. speak of a Parliament at Hillary 9● where this Sentence may seem to have pals'd but there is great reason to suspect their Exactness in this particular The Eldest of them liv'd an 100 Years after the Time they here write of whereas there is no one Cotemporary Author ‖ Rex Angliae Edwardus in crastino animarum apud S●um Edmundum Parliamentum suum tenuit vocati ibidem venerunt per Regias Literas Praelati totus Clerus Sed quoniam Clerus vocatus fuit ibidem ad mandatum regis non auctoritate Ecclesiasticâ noluit ibidem finaliter respondere Sed prorogata dies fuit quoad Clerum usque in Crastinum S. Hilarii A Laïcis tamen ibidem duodecimam partem bonorum-suscepit c. In festo verò S. Hil. Rex petebat à Clero tùnc Londoniae eâdem causa congregatis auctoritate Ecclesiasticâ Auxilium c. Excerpta è Chron. MS. Eccl. Cont. apud Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1 ●p 51. Generalis Convocatio Cleri facta est apud Londoniam in Octavis S. Hil. ad tractandum de pace Sanctae Eccl. c. Iohn de Eversden MS. The Sentence of Excommunication denounc'd by the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation A. D. 1298. see it Spelman Concil Vol. 2. p. 428. style this meeting Quaedam Convocatio Praelatorum Cleri London celebrata post Festum S. Hil. A. D. 1296. The Writ also for summoning it see it Registr Winchelsey fol. 205. the Returns to that Writ see One Registr Henr. Prioris fol. 70. and the Procuratoria drawn in relation to it ibid. mention a Meeting of the Clergy alone without any the least Intimation of a Parliament that I have seen either in Print or Manuscript and I have perus'd several that mentions such a Parliament or speaks of this meeting at St. Hilary any otherwise than as a Provincial Council of the Clergy agreed upon indeed in the preceding Parliament of St. Edmundsbury but not held concurrently with any Session of it Nor is there a Writ of this date either of Summons or Pro●ogation in our Rolls or Registers So that the word Parliamentum in these two Historians must be taken loosly and in the same Latitude that it is made use of at this very time by Westminster † Barones Angliae Parleamentum suum per se-statuerunt ad ann 1297. and Eversden † Comites Barones tenuerunt Parliamentum suum apud Northampton de discordiâ ortâ inter Regem Ipsos ad ann eund when they apply it to the Barons Voluntary Meetings without and in Opposition to the King's Authority Accordingly we may observe that in the Praecept to the Sheriff for-seizing the Estates of the Clergy by me lately mention'd there are no words that imply the Sentence to have pass'd de Consilio Baronum or to have had the Consent of Parliament It says only Propter aliquas certas C●usas Tibi praecipimus qùod omnia L●●ca F●eda totius Cleri in Ballivâ tuâ sine dilatione capia●is in manum vestram c. † Annal. Wig. p. 520 and by the Tenor of it one would guess that it was a mere Arbitrary Command of the Prince not built on any Judicial Process whatever I have been very Liberal therefore in allowing that it might spring from a Iudgment in Court led to it by some Expressions that look that way in the Relations of Thorn and Knighton However the Judge who pronounc'd it will not be excus'd by this allowance for he pass'd an Unrighteous Sentence in a very Infamous Cause and meanly prostituted the Law to gratify the King's Resentments For which reason we may be sure that Sir Roger Brabazon * Dr. W. pretends to tell this Story with great Exactness and yet mistakes both the Name of the Person and his Office there being no such Iudge at that time as Robert Brabazon and the Person he means being neuer either second Iudge or Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas as Dr. W. will have him to have been if Dugale 's Chronica Juridicialia may be relied on The Dr. it seems found there Justitiarius ad Placita corum Rege and Justitiarius de Banco oppos'd to one another and wisely thought that the first of these signify'd the Common Pleas and the second the King's Bench just as they sounded was not the Man as my Lord Coke too

hastily thought for He was too Great and Good a Person to be employed in such Vile Offices No it was Iohn de Metingham a Clergyman who utter'd those words as the Annals of Worster expresly tell us † P. 520. a fit Instrument to be made use of in the Oppression of his Brethren For look through all our History and you shall find that wherever the Clergy have smarted under any Great Hardship some of their Own Order have been still at the bottom of it without whose Helping Hand the Rights and Priviledges of the Church never were and never would be invaded Thus much to take off the Aspersions with which Dr. W. has loaded the Clergy of those times very Indecently and Untruly Their Conduct I do not in every respect pretend to justify However I think it capable of a Fair Excuse if their Circumstances be consider'd And accordingly I observe that among all our Historians of Note Antient or Modern there is not One that I know of who has thoroughly taken the King's part in this Dispute none I dare say that has represented it so much to the Disadvantage of the Clergy as this Gentleman of the Function has done And yet several of these were Laymen particularly Daniel the most sensible of the Moderns calls the King 's Proceeding in this Case a strain of State beyond any of his Predecessors † P. 194. It was a Debt I ow'd to Truth to set this Story right and I would have done it had Iews or Heathens been the Subject of it Whatever the Popish Clergys faults were yet want of Love to their Country was none of 'em the true Interests of which they understood and espous'd generally and were ever fast Friends to the Libertys of it They were bad Christians but good Englishmen which is more than can be said for some of their Successors who with a Purer Religion have been worse Members of the Common-wealth than They. Their Dependence indeed on a Forreign Head misled 'em in Church affairs but against the Exactions and Usurpations even of the Pope himself in Civil Matters none declar'd more loudly or made a more vigorous stand than They. Matthew Paris is an Instance of this kind worth our notice who tho' of a Monastery that ow'd all its Immunities and Exemptions to the Pope yet takes the English side all along against Papal Encroachments and his Works therefore the best part of our History are a mere Satyr on the Court of Rome written indeed not in the mannerly way of later times but however with a Spirit of great Honesty and Freedom Disinterestedness a Love of Truth and a Generous Concern for the Publick shine through every Page of him Qualitys which it were well if some Modern Historians who have spent a great many Popular Invectives against Monks and Monkish Writings had been pleas'd to observe and imitate Their Works as well as Persons would then have been in much greater Esteem with the Age wherein they liv'd and have had a much surer Title to the Applause of Posterity If what I have said of the Popish Clergy be suspected any ways my Lord Coke will vouch for the Truth of it who with great Candor and Justice observes of that very Reign we are upon that Allbeit divers Judges of the Realm were Men of the Church as Briton Martin de Pateshull William de Raleigh Robert de Lexington Henry de Stanton and many others and that the Honourable the Officers of the Realm as Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer Lord Privy Seal Master of the Rolls c. were in those days Men of the Church yet they ever had such honourable and true-hearted Courage as they suffer'd no Encroachment by any Forreign Power upon the Rights of the Crown or the Laws and Customs of the Realm † Vpon the Stat. of Westm. I. cap. 51. Among so many Excellent Persons what wonder is it if a false hearted Clergyman or two were found true neither to the Libertys of their Country nor the Interests of their Order Every Age and every Body of Men has had and will have its Iohn de Metingham's it is enough if the Age and the Body they were of has constantly abhorred them From what has been before related it appears that this Exclusion of the Clergy from Parliament so much talk'd of is as much misunderstood for in the first place That was really no Parliament from whence they were excluded but a Colloquium or Tractatus only as the Writ of Summons † Dugdale Summon p. 18. expresly calls it And the common Opinion that this hapned at the Parliament of St. Edmondsbury in crastino Animarum is a common mistake for the Clergy were certainly both summon'd thither ⸪ Dugd. p. 13. and present there throughout the whole Session † MS. Chron. Eccl. Cant. Eversden ante citat But they were not so in the Council of Sarum on St. Matthias's day to which it appears by our Rolls ⸫ Dugdale p. 19. that some particular Barons and Knights only were call'd but not one of the Clergy And here therefore Knighton ‖ Col. 2492. and Eversden * Rex Parliamentum suum apud Sarum cum Laïcis ad hoc tantùm vocatis in die cinerum tenuit positively fix the Exclusion and what they say the whole course of the Story manifestly confirms The Pretence for this Exclusion I suppose to have been the Clergys Outlawry and the seizure of their Temporaltys which was judg'd a sufficient reason for denying 'em their Writs of Summons And this also seems to have been the Ground of that famous Resolution of the Judges in Keilway's Reports † fol. 181. where it is affirm'd that the King might hold his Parliament without the Spiritual Lords i. e. when those Lords Spiritual are in the case of Outlaws and under a Premunire as they were when that Judgment was given and incapable therefore as Opinions then ran of their seats in Parliament But later Times and greater Authoritys have decided quite contrary it being upon several solemn Debates in the House of Commons 35. Eliz. resolv'd * See Sir Symonds d' Ewes Jour p. 518. that a Man under an Outlawry was capable of being elected a Member and what does not disable a single Person from being chosen into Parliament could be no sufficient reason for shutting the whole Spiritualty out of it who are One of the Greatest Estates of this Realm † 1. Eliz. c. 1. All therefore that this celebrated Instance amounts to is that the King having put the Clergy under an Outlawry against Law and Reason held a select Council of the Laiety without them against all Rule and Custom And it must be remember'd that this was not only Excluso Clero but Excluso Populo too for neither had the Countys Citys and Burroughs any Representatives there and such an Instance can I am sure no ways prejudice the Parliamentary Interest of the Clergy To proceed