the Examination of a Case Capital What the importance of this phrase of full Parlament is will best appear by the use of it in the Records of that time 4 Ed. III. n. 6. Et est assentu accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roi touz les Grantz en pleyn Parlement Where it was agreed that the procedings at that time by the Lords against those who were not Peers should not be drawn into consequence and that the Peers should be charged onely to try Peers Which hath all the formality of an Act of Parlament and therefore all the Estates were present n. 8. Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi son Conseil en pleyn Parlement Which was an Act of Pardon concerning those who followed the Earl of Lancaster 5 Ed. III. n. 10. we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who do make a full Parlament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi Prelatz Countes Barons autres Grantz du Roialm en pleyn Parlement and n. 17. En pleyn Parlement si prierent les Prelatz Countes Barons autres Grantz de mesme le Parlement a nostre Seigneur le Roi c. 6 Ed. III. n. 5. the Archbishop of Canterbury made his Oration en pleyn Parlement which is explained by en la presence nostre Seigneur le Roi de touz les Prelatz autres Grantz n. 9. Si est accorde assentu per touz en pleyn Parlement who those were we are told before in the same number viz. les Prelatz Countes Baronns touz les autres somons a mesme le Parlement Which is the clearest explication of full Parlament in the presence of all those who were summon'd to Parlament From whence it follows that where a full Parlament was mention'd at that time the Bishops were certainly present and consequently did assist at the Trial of Thomas Lord Berkely who appeared before the King in full Parlament as Nich. de Segrave did 33 Ed. I. and there the Bishops are expresly mention'd as present as appears by what hath been said before concerning his Case 5 H. IV. Henry Hotspur Son to the Earl of Northumberland was declared a Traitour by the King and Lords in full Parlament and the same day the Father was upon examination acquitted of Treason by the Peers It is not said that this was done in full Parlament as the other was but there are several circumstances which make it very probable the Bishops were then present 1. When the Earl of Northumberland took his Oath of Fidelity to the King he did it saith the Record upon the Cross of the Archbishop which was to be carried before him if he went out of the House 2. The Archbishop of Canterbury pray'd the King that forasmuch as himself and other Bishops were suspected to be in Piercie's Conspiracy that the Earl might upon his Oath declare the truth who thereupon did clear them all Which shews that the Archbishop was then present in the House And for the same reason that he was present we may justly suppose the other Bishops to have been so too 3. The Earl of Northumberland beseeched the Lords and Earls and Commoners that if he brake this Oath they would intercede no more with the King for him Now the better to understand this we are to consider that H. IV. takes notice in his declaration upon the Rebellion of Sir Henry Piercy that the Earl of Northumberland and his Son gave out that they could have no access to the King but by the Mediation of the Bishops and Earls and therefore did beseech them to intercede with the King for them It is not then probable that those should be now left out when the words are large enough to comprehend them and no one circumstance is brought to exclude them For that general one of their not being Peers will be fully refuted afterwards But that which puts this out of dispute is 4. that the Record saith n. 17. the Commons not onely gave the King thanks for the pardon of the Earl of Northumberland but the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in these remarkable words Et auâ—i mesmes les CoÌ„es remercierment les Seigneurs Espirituelx Temporelx de lour bon droiturell judgment quils avoient fait come Piers du Parlement And likewise the Commons gave thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the good and right Iudgment which they had given in this case as Peers of Parlament Which is a clear Precedent of the Bishops judging in a Capital Case and that as Peers 2 H. VI. n. 9. Iohn Lord Talbott had accused Iames Boteler Earl of Ormond of sundry Treasons before the King and his great Council and after before Iohn Duke of Bedford Constable of England The King takes advice of his Parlament about it and then it is expresly said in the Record De avisamento assensit Dominorum Spiritualium Temporalium ac Communitatis Regni Anglie in eodem Parlamento existent ' facta fuit quedam abolitio delationis nuntiationis detectionis predict c. Here the King adviseth with the Lords Spiritual in an accusation of Treason and therefore they must be present in the debates concerning it I leave now any considerate person to judge impartially on which side the Right lies For on the one side 1. There is the Constitution of Clarendon interpreted by H. II. and the Bishops at Northampton 2. A Protestation of their Right enter'd and allowed by King Lords and Commons 11 R. II. 3. A Reversing of Iudgments owned by Parlament for want of their presence 21 R. II. 4. A Preserving of their Right by Proxie when they thought their Personal attendance contrary to the Canons 5. A Bar to a total discontinuance of their personal Right by an allowed Precedent 28 H. VI. 6. A Restoring them to their former Right by removing of the force of the Canon-Law upon the Reformation 7. No one Law or Precedent produced for excluding them even in those Times when they thought the Canons did forbid their presence 8. Several Precedents upon Record wherein they were present at Examinations and Debates about Cases Capital On the other side 1. The Precedents are General and Negative 2. Or relating to such Cases wherein they are allowed to be present 3. Or of Iudgments condemned as erroneous by Parlament 4. Or of voluntary Withdrawing with Protestation of their Right and making of Proxies 5. Or of not being present at the passing of Iudgment out of regard to the Canon-Law And now on which side the Right lies let the Authour of the Letter himself judge CHAP. IV. The Peerage of the Bishops cleared how far they make a third Estate in Parlament Objections against it answered THERE remain Two things to be considered which are put in by way of Postscript by the Authour of the Letter the one concerns the Peerage of the Bishops the other their Being a Third Estate in Parlament 1.
To conclude this matter whether the Acts of Parlament which contain this declaration of the Peerage of Bishops and their Iurisdiction in Cases of Treason were sufficiently repeal'd or not this solemn Assertion of it in two several Parlaments together with the Petition of the Commons mentioned before are a most clear evidence that in the general Opinion of the King Lords and Commons this Iurisdiction did of right belong to the Bishops And I am sure they are a Demonstration against the Authour of the Peerage his Assertion of a Negative Custome ancient as the Constitution of the Nation that Prelats should not exercise Iurisdiction in Capital Cases For had this been a clear and undoubted Custom from the first original of this Nation it is morally impossible it could have entred into the minds of two Parlaments solemnly to have raised this doubt whether a Judgment given in a case of Treason by the Temporal Lords without the Assent of the Bishops were valid and to have determin'd that it was not when yet there was no manner of reason to imagine that the Bishops ever had any Jurisdiction in such Cases nay when there was an immemorial Custome and Usage to the contrary namely that the Temporal Lords had in all times exercised this Jurisdiction alone and the Bishops had been excluded from any share in it And in the Apology of Adam D'Orleton Bishop of Hereford and after of Winchester for his imprisoning R. de Baldock a great Confident of Hugh Despencer's he declares that the reason why he was carried to Newgate was through the violence of the People although saith he the Parlament then sitting there was no cause of fear but Justice would be done His words are Domino Rege Praelatis Comitibus ac aliis terrae Optimatibus Lundoniae tunc congregatis praesentibus pro Iustitia ibidem in Parlamento convocatis omnibus exhibenda Which shews that the Prelats then did sit in matters of Justice in the House of Lords and in Cases Capital for this R. de Baldock was arraigned at Hereford for the same Crimes that Hugh Despencer was But the main strength of the Cause is supposed to lie in the Precedents produced out of the Rolls of Parlament from the 4 Edw. III. to the 38 H. VI. The force of these Precedents will be better understood if we consider these things I. That many of them are meer Negative Testimonies So 4 Edw. III. at the Trial of Roger Mortimer it is said the Earls Barons and Peers of the Realm were present therefore the Bishops were not 5 Edw. III. onely the Great ones returned therefore the Bishops did not So in the Case of Sir Iohn Grey From whence he inferrs that the Bishops were not to Iudge so much as of a Battery 25 Edw. III. in Sir William Thorp's Case the Grantz de Parlament were asked their advice therefore not the Bishops 1 R. II. in the Case of Weston and Gomenitz the Bishops not mention'd but other Lords Barons and Bannerets Sir Ralph de Ferrer's Case 4 R. II. the Bishops not present because not comprised under les Seigneurs de Parlament The like in Sir Iohn Oldcastle ' s Case 5 H. V. The Question he saith is whether Bishops be comprehended under les Seigneurs de cest present Parlament In the Earl of Devonshire ' s Case 31 H. VI. the strength lies in this that the Peers are onely mention'd and he supposes no man will say the Bishops were his Peers or Lords of the Realm So that here are Eight Precedents that are no more then Negative Testimonies concerning which in general the Authour of the Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted hath a good observation viz. That one or two or twenty Precedents in the Negative nay I say more were the number equal as many in the Negative as in the Affirmative yet it could not disprove their Iurisdiction it would onely shew their Lordships were free Agents to doe it or not to doe it as they saw Cause but their Iurisdiction remained entire still to doe it whensoever they would So I say here supposing that the Spiritual Lords were not present in these Cases it onely shews that they were free Agents and might withdraw at some times and be present at others which cannot overthrow their Right for these Reasons 1. Several of his Negative Precedents if they prove any thing prove the Bishops were not there when he confesses they might have been there As 1. In Cases of Misdemeanours At the Trial of Sir Iohn de Lee 42 Ed. III. being charged with several Misdemeanours the Record saith the Prelats were present 50 Edw. III. Several persons were accused by the Commons for Misdemeanours and the Bishops he confesseth were present as Rich Lions Iohn Lord Latimer William Ellis Iohn Peecher Lord Iohn Nevil at all these Trials the Bishops saith he were present and no body says but they might So in the Case of Alice Perrers 50 Edw. III. the Record saith the Prelats were present and gave Iudgment as to Banishment and Forfeiture of her Estate 10 R. II. Mich. de la Pool Lord Chancellour was accused by the Commons for several Misdemeanours before the King Prelats and the Lords Here he yields the Prelats were Iudges of Misdemeanours together with other Lords And yet if several of his Negative Precedents do prove any thing they prove too much viz. that the Bishops ought not to be present at the Trial of Misdemeanours For he saith the Bishops were not present at the Trial of Weston and Gomenitz 1 R. II. nor at the Trial of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. II. nor at such Iudgments as that of Sir William de Thorp 25 Edw. III. who was condemned for Bribery and yet he yields they were at the Trial of Mich. de la Pool 10 R. II. But if they ought not to be present at those of 25 Ed. III. and 1 R. II. and 7 R. II. neither ought they to have been present at the Trial of Mich. de la Pool Either therefore his argument doth not prove they were not present at the former being onely from general words or they ought not to have been present at the latter which he confesses they were This will best appear by comparing the Cases together 1 R. II. the Commons deliver in a Schedule to the Lords of their Demands before they would proceed to a Subsidy among which one was That all such who without cause had lost or given up any Castle or Town or Fortress to the dishonour of the King or dammage of the People may be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons that Parlament Here was no particular Impeachment of these Persons but upon this the Lords sent for these two Persons who were Prisoners in the Tower upon this account and the Charge against them was delivering two Towns in Flanders without Commission Weston made a long and plausible Defence to which no
this as a sufficient Precedent in a Case of great moment about Commitment upon a general Accusation But there is not any Irregularity expressed or intimated in the Bishops appearing and judging as other Lords did and the Judgment was not reversed because of their being there as we have shewed others have been for their being absent V. None of all his Precedents do prove that the Bishops were ever excluded from sitting by any Vote of the House of Lords or Commons That they might voluntarily withdraw we deny not or not be present at giving of Iudgment out of regard to the Canons which is all that is proved by the Precedent of Iohn Hall 1 H. IV. of the Earls of Kent Huntington c. 2 H. IV. of Sir Iohn Oldcastle 5 H. V. and of Sir Iohn Mortimer 2 H. VI. And this we have made appear was done by them out of regard to the Canon-Law the force of which being taken away by the Reformation the Bishops are thereby restored to their just Parlamentary Right Neither can any Disusage be a bar to that Right since the ground of that Disusage was something then supposed to be in force which is now removed by the Reformation And I fear if this kind of arguing be sufficient to overthrow the Bishops Right much stronger of the same kind may be used to overthrow the King's Supremacy in mattters of Religion So great care ought men to have lest under the colour of a mighty zeal against Popery they do overthrow the very Principles of our Reformation VI. There are Precedents upon Record in the Rolls of Parlament which are not mention'd by the Authour of the Letter which do prove that the Bishops were present at the Examination of Treason and Capital Offences in Parlament And that within the time wherein he pretends to give an account of all the Trials recorded in the Rolls Which shews how easily men pass by those things they have no mind to see I begin with 4 Ed. III. and I must doe him that right as to say that he doth not onely mention the Trial of Roger Mortimer but of Sir Simon Bereford and others who were accused and tried in Parlament But pretending that the Roll of that Parlament is so defaced that it cannot be read he runs to that of 28 Ed. III. and so gently passes over all the other Trials which are in the Record and are more plain and express as to this matter Among the Articles against Roger Mortimer Ed. l of March one is that after he knew certainly the death of Edw. II. he made use of Instruments to perswade Edward Earl of Kent that King's Brother that he was still living and so drew him into a design for his Rescue for which he was attainted at Winchester and there suffer'd death for it Among these Instruments the chief was one Mautravers who for that Reason was attainted this Parlament and the words of the Record are Trestouz les Pieres Counts Barons assemblez a cest Parlement a West si ont examine estraitement sur ce sont assentuz accordez que John Mautravers si est culpable de la mort Esmon Count de Kent c. All the Peers Counts and Barons assembled in this present Parlament upon strict examination do assent and agree that John Mautravers is guilty of the death of Edmund Earl of Kent Here we have the strict Examination of a Capital Case in Parlament and all the Peers are said to be present at it It is used as an argument by the Authour of the Letter that in the case of Roger Mortimer the Bishops could not be comprized under the general name of Peers since the Barons are first in rank But here the Peers are mentioned before Counts and Barons and it will be impossible for him to assign any other Peers at that time that were named before them but the Prelats who frequently are so put in the Records of that time as in the same Parlament n. 12. Prelatz Countes Barons n. 13. Et per assent des ditz Prelatz Countes Barons so again n. 14. 15. 17. 24. 25. But the Authour of the Letter saith they cannot pretend to be Peers of the Realm Let him name then other Peers of the Realm at that time who were neither Counts nor Barons and were before them But if we are to judge who are Peers of the Realm by the Records of Parlament I do not question but I shall make it evident that the Bishops were so esteemed and that some persons who pretend to great skill in Records either have not searched so diligently or have not observed so carefully about this matter as they might have done But of this afterwards In the same Parlament Judgment was passed upon Boges de Boyons Iohn Deveril Thomas Gurnay William Ocle but being by way of Attainder and not upon particular examination which is mentioned in the case of Mautravers I pass them over In the Pleas of the Crown held before the King in this Parlament we find another Case which relates to our present debate viz. of Thomas Lord Berkely and Knight who was arraigned for the death of King Ed. II. who came before the King in pleno Parlamento in full Parlament and there pleaded Not guilty and declared he was ready to clear himself as the King's Court should advise Then they proceeded to particular examination of him how he could acquitt himself being Lord of the Castle where the King was murthered he being committed to his Custody and John Matravers He pleaded for himself that he was then sick at Bradley and knew nothing of it They charged him that the Keepers of the Castle were of his own appointing and therefore he was bound to answer for them He answer'd that they with Matravers having receiv'd the King into their custody he was not to be blamed for what they did and for this he put himself upon his Country At the day appointed for his Trial he appears again coram Domino Rege in pleno Parlamento and the Iury returned him Not guilty But because he appointed Gurney and Ocle to keep his Castle of Berkely by whom the King was murthered the King appoints him a day the next Parlament to hear his Sentence and in the mean time he was committed to the custody of Ralph Nevil Steward of the King's House In the next Parlament 5 Edw. III. n. 18. The Prelats Earls and Barons petition the King that he might be discharged of his mainprisors the which was granted and a farther day given him to appear next Parlament But we reade no more of him till the Summons he had 14 Ed. III. as one of the Lords in Parlament The great force of this Precedent lies in understanding what is meant by appearing before the King in full Parlament If under this the Bishops be comprehended then this will be an uncontroulable Precedent of the presence of the Bishops in
and fundamental Policy of that is the same with England and he that believed the Subjects made the Three Estates there could never believe the King to be one of them here The next Authority is of King Charles I. in his Answer to the 19 Propositions Iune 2. 1642. wherein he tells the two Houses that neither one Estate should transact what is proper for two nor two what is proper for three To which I answer that the Penner of that Answer was so intent upon the main business viz. that the two Houses could doe nothing without the King that he did not go about to dispute this matter with them whether the King were one of the Three Estates or not but taking their supposition for granted he shews that they could have no Authority to act without the King's concurrence But the unwary Concessions in that Answer were found of dangerous consequence afterwards when the King's enemies framed the Political Catechism out of them which is lately reprinted no doubt for the good of the People In 2 H. IV. n. 32. he makes the House of Commons to declare to the King and Lords that the Three Estates of the Parlament are the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Whereas the truth of that matter is this A difference had happen'd in the House of Lords between the Earl of Rutland and Lord Fitz-Walter whereupon the House of Commons go up to the King and the Lords and having it seems an Eloquent Speaker who ventured upon dangerous Metaphors he makes bold with the Similitude of the Trinity because that would help him to perswade them to Vnity but if he had left the King out he might have been suspected to have set up an Independent Power in the Three Estates therefore lest he should lose his Similitude which goes a great way with an eloquent man he strains another point and draws the King into his Trinity And is such an expression to be mention'd in comparison with the express Declaration but the year before 1 H. IV. of both Houses concerning the Three Estates in Parlament Next to this Similitude that of Stephen Gardiner ought to be mention'd who compared Faith Hope and Charity concurring to Iustification to the concurrence of the Three Estates in Parlament i.e. the King and two Houses to the making of Laws But I wonder the Authour of the Letter who expresseth so much dislike of his Divinity would take his Iudgment in Politicks But this notion of making the King one of the Three Estates how valuable soever it be to some men is it seems onely to be met with in some grave ancient Similitudes But of what Authority these are against the constant sense of Parlaments so fully declared I leave any man of understanding to judge For the judgment of eminent Lawyers he quotes but one in King Iames his time viz. Finch in his Book of Law l. 2. ch 1. who doth indeed in the words quoted by him make the King Lords and Commons to be the Three Estates But I can hardly imagine how a learned Lawyer could fall into such a gross mistake unless the Modus tenendi Parlamentum should give the occasion to it which was accounted no blind MS. in those days but a very great Treasure as appears by Sir E. Coke who cites it on all occasions And very few Lawyers had the judgment in Antiquity which Mr. Selden had who first discovered the just Age and Value of that MS. This Authour indeed towards the conclusion of his Treatise makes the King the first of the Estates but then he makes Six Estates in Parlament or Degrees as he calls them and delivers this for good doctrine at the very end of his Treatise that if any one of all these be summon'd and do not appear yet with him it is notwithstanding a full Parlament nay he expresly saith the King may hold a Parlament without a House of Lords But there are so many other such Positions discover'd by others in that Treatise that I need to say no more of it And as to this point of the King 's being one of the Estates in Parlament Sir Ed. Coke who otherwise too much admired that Treatise declares against it in the very beginning of his Treatise of the Parlament This Court saith he consisteth of the King's Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick capacity and of the Three Estates of the Realm viz. of the Lords Spiritual Archbishops and Bishops the Lords Temporal and the Commons of the Realm And however the Authour of the Letter may slight Mr. Selden's Judgment in this matter yet these two may be sufficient to weigh down the Scales against any one Lawyer 's Authority to the contrary especially since they were never suspected I dare say for any partiality towards the Clergy 3. But the Authour of the Letter thinks to carry this point by meer strength of Reason We must therefore diligently consider the force of his Arguments 1. If Bishops were one of the Estates in Parlament Reason would they should vote by themselves separately from other Lords which would make another Estate But they do not onely not vote apart by themselves the whole Body of them together but that Body is divided and separated within it self one part from another If both Houses ever sate together as some imagine and as they do in a neighbour Kingdom this way of Reasoning will make but one Estate in Parlament all that time But to give a clear answer to this objection I distinguish two things in the Bishops their Spiritual Capacity by which they represent and their Civil Capacity as Barons in which they vote according to the Rules of the House For the manner of giving their Votes is a thing under the Regulation of the House and depends upon Custom but their Spiritual Capacity as Bishops in which they represent doth not And the Reason of their sitting together with other Lords is upon the account of their Writs of Summons which as Mr. Selden confesseth ever since the latter end of Edw. III. hath been for the Bishops cum ceteris Prelatis Magnatibus Proceribus colloquium habere tractatum and therefore they are bound to sit together in the same place with the Temporal Lords or else they cannot advise and confer together And I leave the Authour of the Letter to consider whether his Reason or the King 's Writ ought to take place 2. If the Bishops were a Third Estate they must have a Negative voice to all that passeth there But the Bishops are intermingled with the Temporal Lords in making up the Majority as a part of it Since I have evidently proved the Clergy to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament if he be sure that every Estate ought to have a Negative voice then I am sure that this Objection lies more upon him to answer then upon the Bishops But to prevent any new disputes I shall return this Answer to