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
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
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
258 to A a 263 wherefore the Point of Conquest examined and what improvement is made of the admittance of it 293 to 300 Constitutions of Clarendon expounded and the Bishops Wings clipt there 144 to 166 Convocation of the Clergy 81 82 127 137 S 290 Corporations an account of them and of their ancient Interest in Parliament 276 to 286 3d part Coventry its first Representation in Parliament B b 279 Crimes some that did laedere Majestatem Regiam not capital 172 in marg Curia Regis of various Acceptation 150 Curia Regis how far Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt agree with the Author against Dr. Brady as to its being distinct from the General Council of the Nation V 204 Objection against them where their Notion of it differs from the Authors 205 particular Objections against Mr. W's Notion of it 209 X 210 Mr. Hunt's mistake about it 231 to Y 235 D. DAnby's Plea O 197 Demeasn the Kings of England never had all the Lands of the Kingdom in demeasn 3d part p. 253 to 255 Dictare Sententiam how understood N 179 Doctor Oates vndicated P 222 Doctor Standish his Case 47 S 291 E. EArls and Barons are the Peers of the Realm 22 23 24 R. 263 Earls and Barons consiliarij nati 138 Earl of Arundel's Case O 208 Earl of Hereford and Glocester their Case T 287 V 189 Earl Godwin his Appeal Q 227 Earl of Northumberland 51 54 R 274 275 Earl of Salisbury Kent Huntington their Case 50 Ellis William's Case 35 Errors none by the Bishops absence 47 Estate Bishops but part of a 3d Estate 80 to 85 Exegetical where words used exegetically 52 X 213 Explication of several words quosque Judicium pervenior 155 156 Exposition of words according to the standing 18 to 25 52 X 212 to Y 226 and Q 233 234 F. FErrer's Sir Ralph's Case 39 Fitstephen's Authority examined 77 Fortescuâ—… his Authority B b 271 Form of Writs no Proof of Right 86 Franck-pledges at a Great Council of the Kingdom and who within them B b 273 274 275 283 284 G. GEntlemen how became so C c 285 Glocester Earl and Hereford their Case T 287 and V 189 Godwin Earl his Appeal Q 227 Gomentez and Weston their Cases 37 Grants where the Bishops not comprehended under that word itsextent 32 S 278 279 Government the same before 49 H. 3. as since 3d part 271 to 290 Gurney Thomas 26 H. HAxy Thomas his Case 43 Henry Hotspur's Case S 281 282 283 Huntington's Earl Case 50 S 280 Hunt Mr. the Censure of his Book Pref. to the second Treatise His wrong Translation of non licet in mar 157 His Mistakes Y 229 c. Reasons why he might have spared his Censures Y 228 229 I. IMpeachment when by the Commons the Lords obliged to to try a Commoner 14 Interesse ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur vel exercetur prohibited 158 John Imperial's Case 39 R 264 Irregularity P 221 222 223 Judicial Power in Capital Cases denied the Bishops in the Northern Kingdoms 90 Judicial Power denied them here by Canon Common and Statute Law Vid. Bishops Absence not meerly from the Canons Judgments in which the Bishops had share 11 Judicium a word of various Acceptations 155 Judgments alledged to be void for the Absence of the Bishops 11 195 O 196 Judgments in Parliament and the Curia Regis how reconciled General Pref. V fin K. KEnt Earl S 280 King cannot make an Estate 126 127 King Stephen's Grants reversed at Clarendon 141 142 King Rich. II. undecently reflected on O 194 L. LAwyers confessedly differ from the Questionist as to the Trial of Bishops T 277 and V 194 Laws made upon a dubious Title good 45 46 P 209 to 214 Laws concerning the matter and manner of their making 44 45 Lay-men used to meet with the Clergy in their Councils 157 Lee Sir John's Case 35 Legislative Power in capital Matters allowed to Bishops yet no judicial Power inferred Gen. Pref. 87 88 131 132 and even that an Abuse crept in since Hen. VIII 88 London a Corporation at the Common Law B b 282 Lord Latimer Lions Richard c. 35 Lords of Parliament 36 Lords Temporal expresly named in the Record as sole Iudges 40 58 and R 276 S 280 M. MAnucaptors B b 274 March Earl 22 Mautraver's Case 20 51 279 S 280 281 ibid. Modus tenendi Parl. its Antiquity 121 Molross the Abby its Case and the Authority of that Book answered G 206 207 Mortimer Sir Iohn's case whether judg'd by Act of Parliament 56 to 59 R 262 Mortimer Roger's Case 14 and R 262 N. NAmes equivocal no good Argument from thence P 227 Nevel Lord 35 Nobilitas Major how made 113 Bishops no part of such Nobility S 287 Northumberland Earl R 51 54 274 275 O. OAts Dr. vindicated P 222 Objections from Reason against Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt where they differ from the Autthor's Notion of the Curia Regis 3d part 205 206 Ocle William 26 Old-Castle Sir John 55 Old Modus its Antiquity 121 Omnipotency and the Bishop's Affectation of it in what sense understood by Lord H. 152 153 Orlton's Case R 267 P. PArdons made revocable at Pleasure O 195 Parliament when the word first in use 121 Parliament at Clarendon 139 Peace of the Bishops refusing to give Counsel about it 30 31 R 266 269 Percy Henry's Case 53 Peers of the Realm who 20 21 Pessimae Consuetudines what 140 142 Petrus Blessensis his Testimony 97 98 125 167 168 R 261 Plain dealing 147 Plea of the Earl of Danby O 197 Pool William Duke of Suffolk 13 T 286 Pool Michael's Case 33 34 R 272 Presidents urged against Lord Hollis make for him 14 Proctors or Proxies why the Bishops desire to make them 12 concerning their making them 46 162 197 199 B 200 201 204 205 Proprietors of Land as such their Interest in the Great Council of the Kingdom Y 230 231 and B b 273 to 291 Protestations of the Lord Hollis his Sincerity 6 Protestation made by the Bishops 11 R 2 5 6 7 8 41 42 43 and O 185 to 194 Protestations in the names of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal 8 13 Protomartyr 49 Q. QUestion concerning the Bishops stated 10 11 R. REcapitulation of Arguments against the Bishops being Iudges in case of Blood N 184 Again more fully P 223 224. Q 225. S 277 Rickhil Sir William's Case 48 Reflections upon R. the 2d undecent O 194 Regradation of Peers V 190 S. SAlisbury Earl's Case 50 Sautree William's Case 49 Scheme of the Government as it anciently stood and now stands B b 271 to 291 Scripture against the Bishops their medling in Secular Affairs 134 Scroop Lord. 50 Segrave's Case 61 62 and Q 232 233. T 287 Seniores Populi who meant by them 167 170 Sinister ends in the Parliament 21 R. 2. O 195 Spencer's their Case 48 O 197 198. and Q 234 Standish his Case 47 and S 291 Statute 27. Ed. Ist. c. 3.
than the Suitors at the Curia being Summon'd The Legislative power they exercised as Members of the General Council or Parliament And the Iudicial power as Members of the Curia and were Members of the Curia as they held Lands of the King in Chief Whereas Men came to the Parliament generally upon the account of property in Land without consideration of tenure so it were free In short a Man may have that in an extraordinary capacity in Parliament which he has not there in an ordinary I likewise held that Becket was try'd for Misdemeanors only though according to the Language of those days they were crimina Laesae Majestatis and that the Tryal was in a bare Curia Regis when no more than Suitors to that were summoned Mr. Hunt 's Argument upon this follows If it was the Curia Regis wherein the ordinary Justice of the Nation was administred and not the Parliament was intended in the Assize of Clarendon in which the priviledge and indulgence under the quosque was allow'd to Bishops then the Assize of Clarendon is unduly urg'd against the Bishops judging in Cases of Blood in Parliament c. And consequently by the Assize of Clarendon the Bishops have no leave to withdraw If the Court wherein Thomas Becket was tryed was the Curia Regis then the Bishops judging in that Court in that cause doth most clearly declare that being a case in point that the quousque was an indulgence which they might use or wave Now to my thinking this seeming irrefragable Argument has no real force For not to mention his wrong interpretation of the Constitution of Clarendon nor yet his mistake of the Fact in relation to Becket 's Tryal as if he were Tryed for a Capital Offence In both which I doubt not but he will receive Conviction to the contrary from these two Learned Authors I am bold to say that there is no manner of consequence in the first Branch of his Dilemma which is the only thing that can lye upon me to answer And truly I conceive that it by no means follows that because the Curia Regis in the Constitution of Clarendon is not the whole Parliament but only that Court which either when a Parliament was held or when only a Council of Tenants in Capite or Lords assembled had the sole exercise of the Judicial Power that therefore Iudgements in Parliament before the Lords such as were Members of the Curia are not affected by that Constitution any more than we can now say the House of Lords cannot be concerned in any matter which does not belong to the whole Parliament I shall only add three Observations which may go far to put an end to this Controversie 1. That part of the Constitution of Clarendon which says of the Ecclesiastick Tenants in Chief Debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Regis quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem was part of the avitae consuetudines ecclesiasticae If it had been a New Law then indeed whatever was not expresly forbidden were matter of Liberty But it being only in affirmance of the Ancient Law their Liberty went no further than the usage which was to be present only till such Causes came to be tryed 2. If Precedents are as Mr. Hunt censures them like an Oracle that will always give a Response agreeable to the Enquirer and Consulter then we must as I formerly did look to the Law in the Case without entring into the large Field of Precedents 3. If the Canons require the Bishops not to concern themselves in the Tryals of Capital Causes and those Canons have been sufficiently received to become the Law of the Land which these Authors prove undeniably then the Bishops must ever be supposed to have been absent when such matters came in question in Parliament unless they are mentioned there by name and cannot be comprehended under words common to them with the Temporal Lords any more than we can imagine that the Popish Lords who are excluded the Lords House by Act of Parliament yet still are Peers are Parties to any Judgement given by the Peers there SIR THE former trouble I gave you upon this Subject you pulled upon your self by desiring my opinion in it but for this I now give you I must beg your pardon it being singly upon my own account to do my self â—…ht and justifie what I then wrote to you against several aspersions cast upon me in a Pamphlet entituled The Right of Bishops to judge in Capital Cases in Parliament c. made it seems by the same person who had set out the other Pamphlet intituled The Honours of the Spiritual Lords asserted c. Of which I gave you some account in a Postscript to my former Letter and I think without any sharp reflection either upon that Author or his work The most I said was When I had instanced in three notorious falsifications of his The first is p. 112. where he quotes Mr. Selden to prove That the Spiritualty made their Proxies in Capital Causes in more Parliaments than the 21 R. 2. for that they did it likewise in the 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 5. which I shew was a mistake and only said he could not find it so in the Record it self but that he took it upon trust out of the Margin of Mr. Seldens book of the Priviledges of the Baronage p. 125. where there is such a quotation of the 2 H. 4. and the 2 H. 5. but wholly misapplyed by our Assertor of Honours for Mr. Selden alledges that Precedent to shew that whereas 2 H. 5. it was by the then Earl of Salisbury assigned as an error in the Attainder of his Father who was condemned of High-Treason in the 2 H. 4. because it was done Sans Assent des Prelates which are the words of the Record Without the Assent of the Prelates by the way speaks nothing of Proxies it was then adjudged to be no error and his Petition rejected which in truth is a strong Argument to prove that the Prelates had no right to be present at such Tryals and Judgments which is the main Question between us And though he being of another mind had maintained his opinion by so gross a prevarication I was so far from retorting it upon him with any bitterness saying It was disingenious and a suppressing of truth and not setting things down faithfully which is his ordinary language concerning me Or with insipid jeers saying I wear a sharp Sword a Trenchant Toledo as one of the younger house of great Alexander and that he brings me to the Sun like Alexanders Horse and telling of the Magical combate in Apuleius and a City of Birds in Aristophanes and such other scurralous passages as his Book is full of which shews the sweetness of the Gentlemans nature and the goodness of his cause which he maintains only by railing and false assertions Whereas I rather lessened his fault saying only that he was mistaken by being
demand for I do very well know what judgments the Commons did then not intend which were all Judgments in Capital Cases for it is most clear by all Records of Parliament and all the vestigia that remain with us of the usage and proceedings of antient Parliaments that there is not the least colour for so much as a doubt or a suspition that the Prelates or Lords Spiritual could have any part in those Judgments And we know on the other side what judgments they had their shares in which were all Judgments in such Civil Causes as came into the Parliament and in Criminal Causes that were not Capital and the Commons then could intend none but these which was enough to satisfie me that this Petition of theirs at that time was no wayes contrary or repugnant to what I maintained And by the way methinks it is worth observation the reason they give of their desire that the Bishops would make a Proctor not so much for that that their presence there was of so absolute necessity as that what was done without them was in it self null and void but to put an end to all controversies which shews the Prelates had expressed some dissatisfaction and had gotten some things which had been done in their absence to be undone and Repealed which considering their power at that time and how all the Laity was in awe of them would have a great effect upon mens minds and make them do what else they would not have done and perhaps strain a point a little to satisfie them And still it shews that notwithstanding their absence they were good and valid till the same power that had made them did Repeal them And to shew what an ascendant the Prelates had over King and Parliament and the whole Kingdom at that time see what they did but the year before 20 R. 2. They declared unto the King in open Parliament That they were sworn to the Pope and See of Rome and if any thing were in Parliament attempted in restraint of the same they would in no wise assent thereunto but would utterly withstand the same and can we then wonder if the Commons were not very loth to displease them and willing to comply with them much rather than have a controversie with them and perhaps be fain at last to undo what they had done His fourth Postulatum is upon the Protestation of Viscount Beaumont in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Case of William de Pole Duke of Suffolk which hath been touched upon before wherein he now saith I have left out the most material words but what they are he expresseth not nor can I imagine what he means As I have already said I have been very particular in setting down every circumstance of the whole proceeding acknowledged the actings of the Prelates in it thoroughout as far forth as the Temporal Lords and then I say how upon the Kings giving Judgment upon the Duke that Viscount in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal made that Protestation That it should not be nor turn in prejudice nor derogation of them their heirs ne of their Successors in time to come I think this was sufficient to shew that I did acknowledg all that could be pretended to for the Bishops Judicature in that business and what this Assertor would have more and wherein I have failed I can not imagine only I see he is a quick-sighted Gentleman and can see further into a Milstone than another man and spy a fault which another cannot see He hath a fifth Postulatum to whichI can say nothing for I understand not what he would be at he speaks of my accurateness in making a distinction between the Matter andForm of a Law and then saith He observes three things though he expresseth but two which he saith he shall have occasion to make use of hereafter when he comes to speak of the particular Cases and I must refer my Answer to what I shall there find when I believe I shall make it appear that he makes no great use of them nor of any other Argument that he brings And now I come to the particular Cases the first is 4 E. 3. of Roger Mortimer Earl of March being then condemned for Treason Here our Asserter saith That by 28 E 3. upon his Cousin Roger of Wigmore's petitioning to have this Judgment and Attainder reversed I acknowledg it to be an Attainder If I say truth say nothing to the purpose This is gentile language and which discovers my Gentlemans ignorance as well as his rudeness his ignorance in conceiving an Attainder to be only by a Law by an Act of Parliament in which Bishops may be present and if they were not so but did withdraw it was their own voluntary act and no diminution to their Rights I have already upon his second Postulatum handled this point so fully and made I think both his errour and the truth so clear as I need not say any thing more to it here Then it is a pretty Argument he brings against my saying That the Record being Les queur Counts Barons Piers les Articles per eur eramine rebindrent c. Which Earls Barons and Peers having examined the Articles returned c. It must be inferred that the Bishops cannot be comprehended under the word Peers since the Barons are named first To this his Answer is Well but I find the contrary Peers many times put before Barons particularly in Mr. Selden's Baronage p. 12. then he cites a Record of the Judgment against John Mautravers where it is said For which the said Peers of the Land and Judges of Parliament adjudge and award c. Doth this at all contradict my quotation of the Record in Roger of Mortimers Case but that it is as I say That the general word Peers is there put after the Barons and being so cannot comprehend Bishops because in some other Records that word is put before He talks of drawing arguments illogically I am sure this is so I would put him a Case he brings his Action of Slander against one for that at such a time in such a place he had spoken ill of him and said he was a lying Knave and other words that will bear an Action and proves it by witness That man proves by other Witnesses That at another time and in another place he had spoken very well of him and said He was a fine Gentleman I ask now if he would be satisfied with this and not stand upon it that he had proved his Plaint and expects a Verdict and Judgment upon it So may I say that my Precedent stands good and proves what I alledge it for and what he saith is not to the purpose But I will go further and make it appear that even his Precedents that he alledges make all for me and against himself and though he charges me with not being so good as my word saying That I
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
concerning Breakers of Truce and a Proviso in it That this Act shall not extend to any Act or Ordinance made 2 H. 5. late indeed and not of right King of England But still he is acknowledged King of England de facto which goes a great way to authorize any thing done under their power Therefore 11 H. 7. c. 1. A Law is provided to indemnifie all persons that shall do service to the King in being whether he have right or no. As for what is said of the Bishops making their Common Proxy at the prayer of the House of Commons That their Proceedings might be valid and not questioned in future Parliaments by reason of their absence and that divers Judgements had been reversed because they were not present It is true it is so expressed in the Roll of that void Parliament which as it hath no authority nor validity in it self so it is very strange that if there had been ground for this apprehension there should remain nothing upon Record in all the Rolls of Parliament that ever any Judgement or any other act done in any Parliament had been so repealed We know it was once attempted 2 H. 5. by Thomas Montacute Earl of Salisbury as I told you in my former Letter who brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgement given against his Father 2 H. 4. because the Bishops as he alledges there being Peers of Parliament were not parties to that Judgement but it was declared to be no Error and his Petition was rejected And we know that in Edward the First 's time there was a Parliament held at St. Edmonds-bury Clero excluso not a Prelate admitted to it And in Henry the Eighth's time all the Judges of England declared it for Law That the King might hold a Parliament with his Lords Temporal and Commons altogether without the Lords Spiritual Tout sans les Spirituels Seigneurs it is in Keilwayes Reports in Dr. Standish's Case Therefore there is no reason to think that any Judgements were repealed upon the Bishops being absent seeing their presence is not of necessity for the constituting and sitting of a Parliament And especially not for the Judgements which we treat of in Capital Cases because by what appears upon Record and by all the Laws Canon Common and Statute Law they never were present I always except that Unparliamentary Extravagant Proceeding and Judgement of Henry the Sixth in the twenty eighth of his Reign upon William de la Pool Our Asserter tells us of some Judgements reversed 15 E. 2. particularly in the Case of the Spencers but he doth not tell us where he finds it nor I believe doth he know himself having only taken it up some where upon trust as he doth other things But in this 21 R. 2. upon the Petition of the Earl of Gloucester it appears by the Record of the proceedings against the two Spencers Father and Son in that 15 E. 2. which are there repeated at large that there was nothing Capital in their Case neither in the Charge nor in the Judgement so as this signifies nothing to the matter in question which is all can be said to it And as little shall I say to his witty allusion of bringing me to a sight of my self as Alexander did his Horse to the Sun that he might not kick only this I might say if I were as foul-mouthed as he that indeed such a scoffing injurious Scribbler were fitter to be answered with a kick than with fair reasoning by way of Argument Next we come to the 1 H. 4. Sir William Rickhill's Case where I think I should do well only to transcribe what he hath written to shew it needs no answer but that I should waste too much Ink and Paper I represented in my Letter to you that Rickill being sent for into Parliament no formal charge being against him to give an account only by what order he had taken the Duke of Gloucester's Confession at Calais which he did the Bishops present but when they came to consider what was to be done upon it then only the Lords Temporal were asked their opinion which I alledge to shew that the Bishops there were not advised with because it might be preparatory to a further proceeding by way of Tryal And this our Asserter says is to serve an Hypothesis and learnedly gives it us in Greek and bids the Reader judge and so do I. Then for the Tryal of Hall who was one of the murtherers of the Duke of Gloucester he hath the condescension to acknowledge it probable that the Bishops were not there but then saith that they left it to the Temporal Lords without any Impeachment to their right it being secured before by the security of a confessed Act of Parliament 11 R. 2. it is their Protestation he harps at And if I had as much Greek as he I would say it in Greek that he now doth serve an Hypothesis or in good English beg the Question for that is his meaning of serving an Hypothesis for the Right which the Bishops there saved he will have to be and hath forty times repeated it to judge Capitally when they please but I have clearly shewed it was not of their assisting in those Judgements as he still will have it to be but other Judgements and proceedings in Parliament where in truth they had a right to assist Then follows the Case of William Sautre 2 H. 4. where he is pleased to give me a wipe for stiling him the Protomartyr of England and out of his great reading informs that St. Alban lived some hundreds of years before him but he must give me leave to inform him that the common acceptation of Martyrs amongst us Protestants now is of such Orthodox persons as have suffered for the truth whom the Papists have put to death for Hereticks and this man was the first of them in England He hath some other notable Remarks one is that whereas I said that the Bishops and Clergy of those times were the chief Promoters of bringing him to his end which I meant of their declaring him an Heretick and then turning him over to the Secular Power he observes upon it That then they acted in a Capital Case which he saith makes against me And that if it was the Lords Temporal who signed the Warrant for his execution that the Bishops had no hand in it and so have escaped my lash but who were his Judges nondum constat I am sure it doth not constare to me to what purpose he saith all this which I do not find to make either for him or against me No more than what he saith of the Case of the Earls of Kent Huntington and Salisbury 2 H. 4. who he grants were declared and adjudged Traytors by the Temporal Lords and no Bishops present and then saith he will give a Parallel Case it is of the Earl of Cambridge and the Lord Scroope 3 H. 5. where the Bishops were present and
and Temporal and of the Commons in Parliament in the passing of an Act of Parliament for when a thing is said to be enacted by the King with the advice and assent of the two Houses that advice and assent of the two Houses is their passing and enacting of it as to their part in it For any thing that is done in either House if the King be mentioned in it is said still to be done by him with the Advice and Consent of that House so in a Judgement judicially given by the House of Peers where anciently the King was often present when they acted judicially it is said to be given by the King by the advice of his Lords and here the Duke of Gloucester represented the Kings Person and held the Parliament by Special Commission so the Judgement is said to be given by him by the advice of the Lords Temporal And so the Lords 28H 6. when the King of himself gave the Judgement upon the Duke of Suffolk the Lords protested against it because it proceeded not by their advice and counsel For that is it which gives the form and being to the Judgement and stamps upon it the Authority of the Parliament Then he comes to a Precedent without debate as he calls it which is that of 28H 6. the Duke of Suffolk's case and confessed so by me as he saith but not truly For I do not allow it to be a just and legal precedent I do acknowledge that the Bishops were present all along the whole transaction of that business but as I said in my first Letter to you so I must and do say in this there was in it from the beginning to the end nothing regular nor according to the usage and practice of Parliaments Then it cannot be said to be a Precedent no more than a Monster that hath no shape nor limb of a true Child can be said to be a Child As for the particular deformities of this Monster for so I may term it they are already so fully deciphered in my former Letter as I will not now trouble you with them again So it shall pass at this time as he will have it for a Precedent without debate for it shall not be any further debated Only I must say still it is but a single Precedent and of what force that is or can be when the constant course and practice of Parliaments hath been to the contrary I leave it to you to judge One single Precedent against all other Parliaments is an unequal match one would think I have heard of a great conquering Prince that gave it for his Motto Souls contra omnes but I have not heard it said so of a Parliament Solum contra omnia The authority of any one Parliament I know to be very great yet it is a known Maxime in the Law Parliament poit errer A Parliament may err and another Parliament may mend what one doth amiss Parliament-men are men and may and do sometimes mistake as well as other men it is possible they did so 28H 6. and more than probable they did so because no other Parliament before nor since did ever do the like And for his Recapitulation of all the fore-mentioned Records in all twenty seven which he makes to prove that this was not a single Precedent as I affirm it to be all the rest as he saith concurring with it to admit Bishops to be Judges in Capital Cases I will only say Sit liber Iudex resort to the Records themselves and to what is already said in my former Letter and this and then judge if he saith true Then he hath a fling at me for what I say upon the Case of Nicholas de Segrave 33 E. 1. where he must give me leave to say with truth what he saith falsly of me upon several occasions which is this That he hath not set down things Faithfully and Ingenuously He saith Segrave came into full Parliament into the presence of the King the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and several Bishops Earls and Barons acknowledged his offence and submitted to the Kings pleasure Upon this he observes That here was no Iudicatory of Parliament and then adds that the King pardoned him De advisamento Comitum Baronum Magnatum aliorum By the advice of the Earls Barons Nobles and others You shall see now how faithful and ingenuous a dealer our Asserter is but certainly he takes all upon trust and takes not the pains to see any thing himself First I do acknowledge it was no formal Tryal for there was no impeachment nor Indictment against him but I must say it was Tantamount for he comes in upon Summons into the Parliament then sitting where the Prelates were among the rest of the Members of the House and how long they continued there it appears not by the Record but he being come Nicholas de Warwick the Kings Councel charged him and pressed matters against him And then the King as the Record saith willing to have the advice of the Earls Barons Nobles and others of his Counsel enjoyned them upon the Homage Fidelity and Allegiance which they owed him to give him faithful Counsel what punishment was fit to be inflicted upon such a fact so confessed Who all of them upon a serious debate and advising upon the matter and well weighing all the particulars of it and what was by the said Nicholas plainly and expressly acknowledged do say That such a man deserved to lose his life But afterwards the Record saith Dominus Rer tamen de gratia sua speciali pietate motus malens vitam quam mortem eorum qui se voluntati suae submittunt remittit eidem Nicholao Iudicium vitae membrorum But the King moved by his special grace and piety desiring rather the life than the death of those that submit to his will did remit unto the said Nicholas the Judgement of loss of Life or Member Here you see the King advised not with his Prelates but with the Earls Barons and other Nobles and what did they advise Not to pardon him as our Asserter will have it but they say he deserved death and then the King of himself would not have it go to that extremity Now whether this Judgement would have been final if they had pronounced sentence and adjudged him to death as they only said such a man deserved death or whether this was only to be preparatory to a Tryal and to proceed afterwards upon a formal Impeachment I confess it is not clear to me nor is it greatly material to our purpose only it shews the Bishops were to give no advice in it one way or other and it is rather stronger to prove they are not to meddle in such matters if it was but preparatory For it shews that in those Capital Cases they must have nothing to do with them to determine and judge any thing concerning them from one end to the other ab ovo usque ad mala as the
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
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
properly they had no Right thereto That all Judgments belonged to the King and Lords is only an Affirmation of the Arch-bishop but binds not the Commons See Posthu Cottoni p. 350. For I think it very plain that anciently the Commons as well as the Lords had their share in Judicature I shall touch some Records which the Reader may consult at leisure Rot. claus 12. E. 2. m. 5. in the Case of Hugh Audley and his Wife Margaret the Relict of Pierce Gaveston they petition'd to be restored to certain Lands given to Pierce A nostre Signure le Roy son Consâ—…l Prelatez Countes Barons del ' sa terre the Petition was brought into full Parliament and debated habito diligeâ—…i tractatu in pleno Parliamento tam per Prâ—…latos quam per Comites Barones totam Communitatem Regni Concordaâ—… Consideratum 't was ordained considered and agreed per Praelatos Comites Barones totâ—…m Communitatem Regni that all the King's Grants to the said Pierce Peter and his Wife should be revoked and the Deeds cancelled Et quod istud Iudicrum intretur in Rot. Parliament in Cancellariâ—… exinde â—…iur in scaccarium ad utrumque Bancum to be enrolled Nothing can be plainer than that this was a Judgment and no Act of Parliament and that not concerning Blood the Prelates concurred and that probably both Houses sate and voted together as one Body I shall add one Record more in a Capital Case and that is entred Rot. Patent 3 E. 3. pars prima me 33. The Case of Adam Orleton or Tarlton Bishop of Hereford and after of Worcester This Bishop was about 17 E. 2. convicted of Treason before Sir Henry Staunton and other Justices In 1 E. 3. he petitions that the Process and Record in which there was Error might be brought into Parliament and examined and he restored to his Estate Praetextu hujus petitionis mandatum fuit by a Writ Galfrido de Scroop who had the Record quod venire faceret recordum processum praedicta quae sunt in custodiâ suâ in pleuo Parliamenio where after he had assigned several Errors the Record concludes Et quia videtur Dom. Regi praefatis comitibus Proceribus Concilio Dom. Regis toti Communitati Regni convocatis ad Parliamentum quod praedictum recordum processus omnino erronea sunt rationibus praedictis concessum est quod eadem recorda processus adnullentur c. This was clearly a Judgment in Parliament in which the Commons were certainly present and that it was not an Act appears plainly for the Record was certified and Errors assigned and 't is worth observation that he did not assign for Error that he was before convicted by a common Jury but admitted it legal Next I think the Prelates were not Parties to the Reversal of the Judgment given in 17 E. 2. for it is coram Praefatis comitibus Proceribus c. though they were at the recital of the Errors neither is it much material for they might very well be Parties to the Examination of a Judgment in a Capital Case for whether they concurred either in affirming or reversing the Record that made them no Parties to the first Judgment but is only a Concurrence in Opinion that what before had been done by others was well or ill done by them I could cite many other Records where the Commons were present in Parliamentary Judgments but let these suffice But this may seem too large a Digression since I was upon the consideration of 5 E. 3. in which I say Secondly It doth not appear that this was an Advice taken up by themselves for the words are not fust avise par eux or ils furent d'avis it was thought fit by themselves but are et pour ceo que avis feust a eux that is because Advice was given them by others to go away they absented themselves probably in Obedience to those Laws which forbad their Presence And they returned no more saith the Author of the Letter p. 8. and the Advice was given by the Lords Temporal only No saith the Grand Questionist p. 102. The Bishops and Proctors of the Clergy went only into another Room to consult therein which was usual in those times I do not at all doubt but the Members of Parliament have several Rooms to retire to upon occasion but that in this Case they did go apart to consult and give Advice in this Business seems very unreasonable for any one to believe because they had but immediately before declared that the Consideration of such matters properly belonged not to them to meddle with and accordingly withdrew certainly no considerate Man will think they went to consult about what they in the same Breath said belonged not to them Besides we see the return of the Lords and Commons without any mention of the Bishops and the Advice given by them by the mouth of Sir Henry Beamont their Speaker which Advice was afterwards put into a Law and then the Prelates might be present tho they were not at giving the Advice For the Record saith It was enacted by the King Bishops Lords and Commons which then became a Law to which the Prelates might justly give their Consent in their Legislative Capacity whatever it concerned Where note that Sir Robert Cotton translates Grands Commons I think with good reason though carp't at by Mr. Prin in the Margine for we heard nothing of them before and soon after we find them named and undoubtedly concerned in all Proceedings before See Matth. Paris p. 55. Magnates Grands comprehends Counts Barons Knights or any other considerable Person together with many others which would be endless to quote Having before shewed that what our Author calls negative Precedents were not simply so and that the Author of the Letter had great reason to believe them absent where they were not named and where the Laws forbad their Presence especially having on his side the Authorities of 4 E. 3. Numb 1. of 1 H. 4. Numb 80. where the Temporal Lords assume unto themselves the power of judging Peers which Opinion is also made good by the late Votes of the Lords in Parliament May 15 1679. By the Case of Dr. Leighton in the Star-Chamber 6 Car. 1. It is evident that the Prelates were not look'd upon in the same sort that the Temporal Peers were for the Information against him was for writing a scandalous Book against the King Queen Peers and Prelates where Peers and Prelates are contra-distinguished and not taken synonymously as may be gathered by the Sentence and being another Body were judged as Peers to one another not to the Temporal Lords I come now to the Consideration of what he saith pag. 90. he there alledges that many of those the Author of the Letter calls Negative Precedents if they prove any thing prove too much for some of them admit they were not present
guilty he shall be degraded and delivered over to the Temporal Power But if he be first arrested by 〈◊〉 Secular Magistrate and tried and found guilty he shall be delivered to the Bishop to be deprived and then delivered back to Punishment The Precedent of Thomas Merks Bishop of Carlisle our Author allows to be against him but asks whether one Precedent before the time of Hen. 8th be sufficient to expound Magna Charta for in this Case the Immunities of the Church were considered and a Declaration by them that their Priviledges extended not to Treason But for a full Answer I say first that there are more Precedents than one but if there were not would not one with the constant Opinion of all Lawyers and Judges be enough to prevail with a dis-interested Man to believe that the Peers in Magna Charta and the Lex Terrae do not intend Bishops to be such Peers as are to receive their Trial by Noble-men But what Exception can be taken to those Cases after and in the time of Hen. 8th Did he not continue the Roman Religion all his time was it more against his Prerogative than of any of his Predecessors 'T is clear enough that the Proceedings before as well as after were according to Law notwithstanding the Clamour of the Clergy as is plain by Mr. Selden I shall now consider the Case of Adam de Orlton alias Tarlton Bishop of Hereford All Historians of those times as well as other later ones set sorth the violent Proceedings of the Clergy in that matter who took him twice out of the Hands of Justice But it appears by Mr. Selden by the Record Hill 17. E. 2. Rot. 87. Dors coram Rege that he was arraigned in the King's Bench and upon question how he would be tried refuseth to answer there Day is given and the Indictment brought into the Parliament where he makes the same Plea that he is by the Will of God and the Pope Bishop of Hereford and that he ought not to answer before that Court. Here you see whatever the Carriage of the Clergy was and what-ever Judgment was given against him His Exceptions were as much against any Trial in Parliament by the Lay-Lords as else-where And that consequently the Injury they conceived done to them was that they should be tried in any Secular Court whatsoever This you may see in Du Fresnes Glossary Verbo Par. The Trial he required was per Episcopos Pares suos By the Bishops his Peers This appears also by the Complaint of the Bishop of Ely that he was brought to be tried coram Laico Iudice before a Secular Judg. By this our Author's Mistake may appear who saith pag. 144. That they look'd upon themselves out of Parliament as having no Peers in Judgment but Bishops when it is evident by the Case of these Bishops that they made the same Exception as to their Trials before the Lords in Parliament that they did before the Secular Judges out of it and pretended they ought not to be tried before any Lay-Judges whatsoever Neither did they look upon themselves under the same Condition that Lay-Men were but being a distinct Body among themselves thought it reasonable to be judged by themselves only and in their own Courts an Innovation the Law never allowed or gave any Countenance unto I confess I cannot but wonder that any one Person of how great Parts soever should go about to contradict the Opinion of very many learned Judges who have all asserted the contrary to wit that Bishops ought to be tried by Commoners and no one Lawyer of any note that I know of hath hitherto maintained the contrary Methinks those of the Long-Robe should be tender in opposing the Judgments of Stanford Cook Doddridg and Selden except their Opinions were back'd by the Authority of Judges equal in Ability and Learning to those before named Having thus cleared the Precedents urged by Mr. Selden and others from the Exceptions of this Author let us now see what is alledged by him to prove that it was not always so but that sometimes they were tried by the Noble-Men as their Peers in Parliament And to that purpose he propounds the Case of Stratford Arch-bishop of Canterbury out of Arch-bishop Parker's Antiq. Ecclesiae Britan. who tells you that Stratford was at the King's Suit accused of Capital Crimes in the Exchequer that he put himself upon his Trial in Parliament that a Parliament was called and he after some Opposition admitted into the House and there as our Author saith put himself upon the Trial of his Peers this it seems is the Relation of Matth. Parker By the way whom he meant by his Peers doth not yet appear whether the Clergy only or the lay-Lay-Lords But let us have recourse to the Record as it is abridged by Sir Robert Cotton 15 E. 3. Numb 8. The same day the King came into St. Edward's Chamber commonly called the Chamber de Pinct the painted Chamber before whom all the Lords and Commons the Arch-bishop of Canterbury humbled himself and required his Favour which he granted Afterwards the Arch-bishop desired that where he was defamed through the Realm he might be arraigned in open Parliament before his Peers probably by his Peers he understood the Bishops as others had done and not the Lay-Lords Besides this seems to be a Desire of his at a Conference before the King and Lords for it was in the painted Chamber whereas the Commons usually sate in the great Refectory now called Westminster-Hall Let us observe the King's Answer which was that he would attend the common Affairs and after hear others where we see the King did not grant his Desire but gave only a Dilatory Answer Lastly it doth not appear that he was ever arraigned in Parliament for the Record saith Numb 49. And it is to be remembred that all things touching the Arraignment of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury should remain with Sir William de Kedelsby Keeper of the Privy-Seal By which it is evident that these things were not then put into the Hands of Sir William de Kedelsby but to remain there where probably they were before and were only some Papers relating to what was before done in the Chequer for I find no Arraignment recorded about that time Two Yearsafter viz. 17 Edw. 3. Numb 22. All the Proceedings against the Arch-bishop were cancelled by order from the King so that nothing appears to have been done against him to any purpose either in Parliament or else-where 'T is true there was a continuance of the Parliament in 15 o from day to day for a Week about the Trial of Noble-Men that they should not be put to answer but in open Parliament by their Peers to which purpose there are named four Bishops four Earls and four Barons as a Committee to draw up the Plot. These Persons being in their Device assigned as hereafter doth ensue Under the Name of which Peers they
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
not pursue this Author in his Digression touching the ground and reason of the Trial by Peers since our Question is not what the Law may be in other Countries but what the Practice of our own is and of what sort of People those Peers are to be composed That is to say Whether the Jury for the Trial of Bishops shall be composed of Noble-Men or of Commoners In this he confesseth that the Lawyers and those of them who have most searched into Antiquity are of a different Opinion to what he maintains as to this Particular A shrewd Objection I take it this is for every one ought to be credited in his own Art and 't is ten to one the Generality of the Lawyers are rather in the right than Strangers to the Profession or Lawyers of a lower Rank than those great Masters have been But that he may say something he tells you that Mr. Selden not only in that confused Rapsody goes under his name but in his more elaborate second Edition of his Titles of Honour admits the Bishops to be Peers in which he hath corrected and left out the false or doubtful Passages of his first Edition and among the rest that Passage A Bishop shall not be tried by Peers in Capital Crimes What then doth this Omission supersede those Precedents laid down by him in that Rapsody as he calls it which was as much his as the other The leaving out that Passage might be a Neglect in the Printer I am sure 't is no Retractation of what he had said before Neither need I tell this Author how Books come sometimes to be corrupted Secondly He saith some things have been affirmed about this matter with as great Assurance as this is which have not been the constant Practice Coke he saith is positive in his third Instit. p. 30. That a Bishop should not be tried by Peers and in the same Page that a Noble-Man cannot wave his Trial by his Peers and put himself upon the Trial of the Country And doth this Author think the Law to be otherwise Yes he saith in the Record of 4. Edw. 3. That Thomas Lord Berkley put himself upon his Country I have a Transcript of the Record by me which I received from my learned and worthy Friend Mr. Atwood of Greys-Inn but because it is in Latine and agrees with the Abridgment by Sir Robert Cotton and review ed by Mr. Prin I shall not transcribe except two or three Lines Thomas de Barkele Miles venit coram Domino Rege in pleno Parliamento suo c. Cotton 4 E. 3. Numb 16 17. In a Plea of the Crown holden before the King this Parliament Thomas of Berkley Knight was arraigned for the Death of Edw. II. for that the said King was committed to the keeping of the said Thomas and Iohn Mautrevers at the Castle of Thomas at Berkley in Glocestershire where he was murthered Thomas pleads that he was sick at Beudlâ—…y without the said Castle at the Death of the said King and put himself upon the Trial of 12 Knights named in the Record by whom he was acquitted Here we have an Arraignment of Thomas de Berkele Knight in 4 Edw. 3. but none of Thomas Lord Berkele as this Author supposeth In 5 Edw. 3. Numb 15. I find the same Person at the request of the whole Estate discharged by the name of Sir Thomas Berkley so that it seems plain he was then no Peer and consequently no waver of Peerage in 14 Edw. 3. and in 4 Rich. 2. Cot. p. 187. I find him summoned to Parliament not before 14 Edw. 3. When any Noble Man had the Addition of Miles the name of his Barony was generally expressed and the word Dominus annexed Iohn de Beauchamp Militi Domino de Beauchamp 27 Hen. 6. Rob. de Hungerford Mil. Dom. de Moleyns and many others Insomuch that I am confident that in 4 E. 3. Thomas de Berkley had never been summoned and so not inter Barones Majores And the Milites were Tenants in Capite I have at last examined all the parts of this elaborate Treatise in which the Author hath endeavoured with all Art and Industry imaginable to support a declining Cause I have not to my Knowledg left any Argument unconsidered which hath been thought material by this Writer to be urged in defence of that Cause the Maintenance whereof he had undertaken I have been longer I confess in this Discourse than at first I thought to have been but this must be attributed to the Subtilty of my Adversary who by learned Digressions and cunning Insinuations hath indeed clouded the Truth and rendered it less visible to the Eyes of common Readers Notwithstanding what I have said if this Drudgery of being present as Judges in Criminal Cases or in the Trials of Noble-Men in Parliament be the Right of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament If the Embassadours of Christ the Messengers of Peace and the Preachers of Mercy and Reconciliation to God in Christ have more mind to be Executioners of God's strange Work than in what he delights If they delight rather to make Wounds than to bind them up let them enjoy that Burthen according to their Desire But their Pretences to it hitherto have been ineffectual and of late all Power of Judicature in Cases of Blood hath been denied them in several Parliaments by both Houses Neither hath this Author been yet so happy as to have produced any one clear Precedent where they have been present at the Trial and have given Votes for the acquittal or Condemnation of any Noble-Man brought to Judgment in Parliament in Cases of Blood Or that any of their Order have been in such Cases tried by Noble-Men or indeed have desired to be so tried Certainly this Nation together with the most of other Christians in Europe lived under the Papal Communion till the times of Reformation and therefore the Bishops here cannot reasonably be supposed to have enjoyed Priviledges different or greater than those enjoyed by their Fellows in other Places where they had the greatest as well Power as Honour But I think I may with Confidence affirm they were no where allowed to sit Inquisitors of Blood and not only to debate but at their Pleasure to give Sentence in such Cases as Secular Persons in Secular Courts I very well remember that in the Parliament begun here 1640 it was at the beginning thereof hotly debated in the Lords House whether any Bishop might be so much as of a Committee in any Parliamentary Examination in the Case of my Lord Strafford because it was a Case of Blood in which by Law they ought not to meddle the Debate was put off and the Bishops were willing to absent themselves according to the Opinion of one of their own Body and agreeable to the Practice and Usage of the Kingdom being only allowed by the Lords to enter a Protestation saving their Rights in that and
and 2. Ed. 3. forbidding Churchmen to take Cognizance of Matters of Blood 30 33 64. and 169 Statute of Clarendon a binding Law and only affirmative of the old Law 153 Statute of Westminster Anno 1175 forbidding all Persons in Holy Orders Judicium Sanguinis agitare 101 102 157 Stephen Bishop of London tryed by a Common Iury. 27 Stephen King his Charter to the Clergy 140 153 Stratford Arch-Bishop his Case T 283 Succession to the Crown 209 to P 214 Suffolk Duke his Case 13 60. S 284 285 T. TAlbot Lord his Case S 285 Temporal Lords sole Iudges of Peers 40 56 R 276. S 280 Tenants in Capite more than they Members of Parliament before 49th H. 3d. yeilded in Effect by Mr. Hunt 264 to 268. 3d. Part. Tenure in Capite created 78 A a 253 Tenure in Capite Mr. Hunt's Mistakes about it 242 to A a 258 Tenure by Barony inferred no more than a Minor Baron 78 109 118 119 120 Thorp Sir William 32 33 Titles Vid. Succession to the Crown Treason declared by the Iudges in Parliament R 264 265 Trial of Bishops by a Common Iury. 26 27 T 278 279 Trials in Appeals and the reason thereof V 191 192 193 U. UTriusque ordinis consensus explained T 275 276 W. Waver of Peerage T 286 287 Westminster the Council there forbiding Churchmen to meddle in matters of Blood 101 102 157 Cicero de Senectute ult edit tom 4. f. 532. Jani Angl. facies nova p. 186. Habet Rex Curiam suam in concilio suo in Parliamentis suis ubi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum novis injuriis emersis nova constituuntur remedia unicuique justitia prout meruerit retribuetur ibidem Fleta lib. 2. cap. 2. The passage relating to the constituting new remedies must needs here relate to the power of the Magnum concilium or curia in making Ordinances Vid. Jus Angl. ab antiquo Addit p. 40. Ib. p. 39. Jan. Angl. p. 186 189 190. Jan. Angl. c. p. 201. Ib. p. 199. Ib. p. 189. Mr. Hunt's Argument p. 17. Vid. p. 100. 139 to 166. Vid. p. 65 to 70 172 to 181. Dr. Stillingfleet says The King insisted on the receiving the Ancient Customes of Clarendon Answer to Cressy's Apol. p. 100. This received over all the Western Church Burnet's History of the Reformation f. 101. Mr. Hunt's Arg p. 6. Jan. Angl. facies nova à p. 186. to 219. Vid. p. 87 183 184 c. Page 7. Page 25. Page 24. Pag. 13 and Pag. 37 c. Page 38. Page 129. Gr. Qu. p. 1. Seld. Tit. hon p. 730. I edit fol. 19 Edw. 2. Seld. Tit. Hon. pag. 704. Mat Par. p 7. ult ed. Ad id temporis Mr. Hunt thinks that the Tenure made them Barons and that Tenure and Barronies were coincident Seld Tit. Hon. p. 699. and 700. a This I take to be the only true of enobling any body as to the Nobilitas Major Seld. Tit. Hon. par 2. cap. 5. cir finem Vid. Els 〈◊〉 p. 33. b See Mr. Seld. Jans Angl. facies altera ult edit p. 51. Seld. Tit. Hon. pag. 747. Dugd. Baron c Query Whether this Summons gave him other Title than a Minor Baron 7 Edw. 2. 7 Rich. 2. 7 Rich. 2. Vid. Cot. Post. â—…ls edit pag. 344. Seld. Tit. Hon. pag. 690. Part 2. c. 13. Fitstep c. 11. Matth. Paris Anno 1215. Hakewell pag. 4. Pâ—…in 591 c. Seld. Tit. Hon. part 2. p. 743 Cook 's Iuris of Courts Hakew. Mod. p. 135. Dan. Cron. Anno 1133. Rights of the Crown p. 100. Cook 's Preface to his 9th Report sets it out at large Fitst cap. 10 col 2. Seld. Tit. Hon. cap. 5. pag. 706. d N. B. their calling themselves Barons did not make them such who were at first summoned Ratione Episcopalis Dignitatis e Vid. Rot. Fin. 9. H. 3. me 3. 12. E. 2. Funivals c. 18. E. 2. Nevils c. Pet. Blesens yy 2. edit in Quarto or some Lines before see after p. 58 and p. 129. b wrongfully or contrary to the true use Kelway fol. 184. saith That the Convocation is not a part of the higher House neither the Bishops any part of it but sit there as they have Temporal Baronies But he doth not say the Convocation is not one Estate or part of the Parliament which however is but the Opinion of a Serjeant at Law Dr. Heylin's Stumbling-block Prin. fourth p. Kal. p. 594 595. Gr. q. p. 〈◊〉 Gr. q. p. 3. Els. p. 〈◊〉 Gr. q. p. 4. Hist. Coll. part 2. pag. 990. Gr. q. p. 6. Vid. Dan. p. 35. 46. Baker p. 26. 30. Gr. q. p. 6. N. B. Here he makes the whole Clergy to be one of the three Estates Il Nipotismo de Roma p. 37. Pad paolo de materie ecclesiastiche Our Bishops Rights pag. 61. Spel. Glos. verb. Cap. Justic. Co. 2. Inst. p. 26. Seld. tit hon part 2. p. 703. What Dr. Bradies Fancy is in that Particular let him make good if he can Coo. Cawdreys Case Twysden's Vind. of Schism In a Parliament held at Oxford Anno 1136. he grants by his Charter under his Hand That all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastical should appertain only to Ecclesiastical Judges Hon. of the Lords p. 26. Laws of Edg. ch 5. Coo. Mag. Cha. p. 488. Rejoin p. 5. Jour of â—…arl p. 258. Bishops Rights p. 139. 141. Gr. q. p. 19. Gr. q. p. 20. Petit pr. p. 45. Ger. Dorob p. 1653. 〈◊〉 E. 3. Gr. q. p. 20. Gr. q. p. 30. Seld. tit hon p. 703. Gr. q. p. 32. Hoveden f. 543. Ger. Dorob fo 1429. An. 1175. Non licet ought not to be translated it is not convenient as Mr. Hunt would have it and never hath that Signification but when a Law intervenes which makes it as well unlawful as inconvenient for every Law makes the Breach of it inconvenient Linw. lib. 3. tit 29. Ne qui Cler. Vid. Treat of the Nobil pag. 68. supposed to be by Doddridg Seld. tit hon p 704. Cook 2 Inst. pag. 587. Hakewell mod pa. 84. Adsint Fitz. cap. 10. col 12. Co. Ma. Ch. p. 585. Gr. q. p. 33. Gr. q. p. 34. That Edition in qâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certainly the best the latter ones being printed from that Copy Pet. Blâ—…n Y y 2. The critically learned Mr. Hunt in his undigested Lump instead of a methodical Discourse pag. 5â—… endeavours to cure the Ignorance of his Readers by telling them that by Principes Sacerdotum Seniores Populi the Bishops are only meant who from the Dignity and Worthiness of their Order are called Seniores a note of Dignity in all Countries He should have done well to have added Qâ—…m Principes Sacerdotum Sâ—…es populi as the first and best Edition of Petrus Blesensis hath it That Senior is a name of Honour he might have learn'd at School but that the Chief Priests and the Elders often mâ—…ned in Scripture were the same â—…ns he hath
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
and other Lords who were suspected to be of the Confederacy with the said Henry Hotspur alias Percy This was the work of Friday the 18th of February on Saturday the 19th the Commons give Thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the rightful Judgment they had given as Peers of Parliament 5 H. 4 from N. 12 to N. 17. This is the whole Case as to Father and Son Now whether the Bishops were present at all these Proceedings and how far is the Question The Grand Questionist contends they were present at the Proceedings both against the Father and the Son at that against the Son from the word full Parliament which he seemeth to infer must include the Bishops and at that against the Father from the Thanks made by the House of Commons the next day after the acquittal of the Earl First as to the Son It appears plainly by the Historians of those times that he was slain in the fourth Year of the King in the life-time of the Father who soon after broke out into Rebellion so that at the time of Henry's Death he was only a Commoner and consequently not to receive any Judgment in the Lord's House alone nor could he be made a Traitor otherwise than by Act of Parliament so that the word full Parliament must either refer to some particular Act of Parliament made in his Case in which the Bishops might be present and the Commons concur or else the Proceedings were wholly irregular and contrary to their own Agreement in 4 E. 3. Now from an illegal Act no Right can be concluded As to the Earl himself we find him suddenly after in open Rebellion defeated and escaped into Scotland with Lord Bardolf and convicted of Treason by the Temporal Lords for not appearing upon Summons and all this within two Years after Now can it be reasonable to think that the Bishops were present at the acquittal of this very Lord in 5 H. 4. who were not present in 7 H. 4. which was but two Years after nor were present at a like Case in 2 H. 4. N. 30. against the Earl of Holland and others which was not three Years before Neither can any weight be laid upon the Thanks of the House of Commons which was only matter of Complement and performed at another time when the House was assembled upon other matters but seeing them there might extend their Thanks to them also who though they could not contribute did nothing to hinder the Clemency of the Temporal Lords towards the Earl besides at the same time it was accorded by the King and Lords upon the Desire of the Commons that certain ill Officers about the King should be discharged in which the Bishops might be Instrumental and very well deserve the Thanks of the Commons at which Desire of the Commons they might assist and be absent at the rest The Precedent of Iohn Lord Talbot will not avail him he exhibited an Accusation against the Earl of Ormond for certain Treasons by him committed this Accusation was in the Marshalsea before the Earl of Bedford Constable of England The King to put an end to this matter doth by Act of Parliament make an Abolition and Discharge of the said Accusation and Discovery The words are That the King by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons made an Abolition of the said Detection Whoever denied the Bishops Consent in a Legislative way and had it been otherwise the Commons could not have been I think regularly concerned 2. H. 6. N. 9. The Precedent of the Duke of Suffolk in 28 H. 6. I thought to have passed over being a Case as irregular in the Proceedings as unjust in those that put to death that unfortunate Man Much Art was used by the Court to have preserved him from the Envy of the People A Parliament assembled at Westminster after dismissed into London then prorogued to Leicester that dissolved and another called at Westminister in which the Duke appeared which exasperated the Commons against him But upon the whole Record it appears that no Issue was joyned for after Articles exhibited by the Commons and his denial of them March 14 at the least of the eight first and giving some Answers to others on the 17 th he was sent for again and the Chancellour acquainted him that he had not put himself upon his Peerage and now asketh him how he would be tried who instead of pleading put himself upon the King's Order who caused him to be banished for five Years By all this it appears here were no judicial Proceedings which could not be before Issue joyned so that although the Bishops were present at the reading of the Articles yet this can be no Precedent to entitle them to be present in judicial Proceedings in Capital Causes for here were none at all in this Case and till Issue joyned the Bishops are not bound to withdraw Neither ought it to seem strange that the Viscount Beaumont should make Protestation in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal against these Proceedings which they finding to be extra-judicial in very many Particulars they did not know I mean the Bishops as well as some of the Lords what Construction might be made to their Prejudice for sometimes they met in one place sometimes in another and not always in the Parliament-House to consult of this Business Besides many things pass sub silentio which being questioned would not have been allowed these Observations being added to what hath been said by the Author of the Letter seems to me a full Answer to this Precedent in which the Protestatio is only Protestatio facti not Iuris I have thus put an end to the Examination of this third Chapter and fully considered all his Arguments and Precedents and come now to a view of his fourth and last Chapter CHAP. IV. IN this Chapter our Author hath employed all his Art to assert the Peerage of the Bishops and that they make a third Estate in Parliament in what sense they are called Peers as also that the entire Clergy met in Convocation make a third Estate I have largely shewed before and shall not now repeat I admit they are sometimes called Lords Spiritual tho not so before Rich. II. but Prelates or the like Peers of the Realm Peers in Parliament If by that Appellation you would make them Equals to the Nobilitas Major I think they never were yet have they many Privtledges in respect of their Seats and Episcopal Dignity in the Lords House and by reason of their most honourable Profession have all of them Precedence to Barons I admit also that the Clergy is really a third Estate and that the Bishops in respect that they are the Head of the Clergy may sometimes in ordinary Discourse be called so but are in truth never so exclusively to the rest of the Clergy they all making but one Body or third Estate fully represented