THE PROCEEDINGS AND TRYAL IN THE CASE OF The Most Reverend Father in GOD WILLIAM Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY And the Right Reverend Fathers in God WILLIAM Lord Bishop of St. Asaph FRANCIS Lord Bishop of Ely IOHN Lord Bishop of Chichester THOMAS Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells THOMAS Lord Bishop of Peterborough And IONATHAN Lord Bishop of Bristol In the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-Term in the Fourth Year of the Reign of King Iames the Second Annoque Dom. 1688. Licensed and Entred according to Act of Parliament LONDON Printed for Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet street and Thomas Fox at the Angel in Westminster-Hall 1689. TO HIS Most Illustrious HIGHNESS WILLIAM HENRY Prince of Orange May it please Your Highness HOW deeply the Design was laid and with what Violence carry'd on by those who lately Steer'd the Helm of this State for the Subversion of the Establish'd Religion and Government of these Three Kingdoms is already sufficiently well known to Your Highness Among the rest one of their Chiefest Contrivances was by a Malicious and Illegal Prosecution to have extinguish'd the Brigthest Luminaries of the English Church to the end that the benighted People might the more easily after that have been misled into the Pitfals of Superstition and Slavery But as Heaven began their Disappointment in eluding both at once there Subtilty and Malice by the speedy Deliverance of the Seven Renowned Sufferers from the Jaws of their Oppressors So the utter Dissolution of their Arbitrary Command and Domineering Power under the Conduct of the same Providence was fully Compleated Great SIR by Your Deliberative Prudence and Undaunted Courage To Your Illustrious Highness therefore the Oblation of these Sheets containing an exact Accompt of the Prosecution and Tryal of those Heroick Prelates is most justly due as being That wherein Your Higness may in part discern the Justice of the Cause You have so Generously undertaken and that it was not without Reason that the English Nation so loudly Implor'd Your timely Assistance A clear convincement that it was not Ambition nor the desire of spacious Rule but a Noble and Ardent Zeal for the most Sacred Worship of God which rows'd Your Courage to rescue a Distressed Land whose Religion Laws and Liberties were just ready to have been overwhelm'd with French Tyranny and Romish Idolatry Therefore that the Nation may long continue under the Protection of Your Glorious Administration is the Prayer of Great SIR Your Highnesses most Humble Most Faithful and most Obedient Servants Tho. Basset Tho. Fox December 13. 1688. NOT long after the Tryal of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Six Bishops and while the Passages thereof were fresh in my Memory I perused that Copy of this Proceeding and Tryal which Mr. Ince their Lordships Attorney had caused to be taken for their Use And I have also lately read over the same again as intended to be printed by Mr. Basset and Mr. Fox And I do think it to be a very Exact and True Copy of the said Proceeding and Tryal according to the best of my Judgment having been very careful in perusing thereof Ioh. Powel These Peers were present on the 15th Day of Iune 1688. when the Lords the Archbishop and Bishops were brought into Court from the Tower upon the Habeas Corpus VIZ. Lord Marquis of Hallifax Lord Marquis of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Burlington Earl of Carlisle Earl of Danby Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Lord Viscount Fauconberge Lord Grey of Ruthyn Lord Paget Lord Chandoys Lord Vaughan Carbery These Peers were present on the Day of the Tryal being the 29th of Iune 1688. and the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. VIZ. Lord Marquis of Hallifax Lord Marquis of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Pembrook Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Rivers Earl of Stamford Earl of Carnarvon Earl of Chesterfield Earl of Scarsdale Earl of Clarendon Earl of Danby Earl of Sussex Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Earl of Abington Lord Viscount Fauconberge Lord Newport Lord Grey of Ruthyn Lord Paget Lord Chandoys Lord Vaughan Carbery Lord Lumley Lord Carteret Lord Ossulston 'T is possible more of the Peers might be present both Days whose Names by reason of the Croud could not be taken De Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Jacobi Secundi Regis Quarto In Banco Regis Die Veneris Decimo Quinto Die Junii 1688. Dominus Rex versus Archiep. Cantuar. al. Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice Mr. Justice Holloway Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Allybone Judges THIS being the first day of the Term His Majesties Attorney General as soon as the Court of Kings Bench was sat moved on the behalf of the King for a Habeas Corpus returnable immediate directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower to bring up his Grace the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of St. Asaph Ely Chichester Bath and Wells Peterborough and Bristol which was granted And with great dispatch about eleven a Clock the very same day the Lieutenant returned his Writ and brought the said Lord Arch-Bishop and Bishops into Court where being set down in Chairs set for that purpose Mr. Attorney-General moved the Court. Viz. Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray that the Writ and Retorn may be read by which my Lords the Bishops are brought hither Lo. Ch. Iust. Read the Retorn Clerk reads the Retorn which in English is as follows viz. I Sir Edward Hales Baronet Lieutenant of the Tower of London named in the Writ to this Schedule annext To Our Mâ—… Serene Lord the King do most humbly certifie That before the coming of the said Writ to wit the Eighth day of June in the Fourth Year of the Reign of our Lord James the Second King of England c. William Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely John Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Jonathan Lord Bishop of Bristol mentioned in the aforesaid Writ were committed and delivered to and are retained in my Custody by Vertue of a certain Warrant under the Hands and Seals of George Lord Jeffries Baron of Wem Lord High Chancellor of England Robert Earl of Sunderland Lord President of the Privy Council of our Lord the King Henry Lord Arundel of Warder Keeper of the Pivy Seal of our said Lord the King William Marquess of Powis John Earl of Mulgrave Lord Great Chamberlain of England Theophilus Earl of Huntingtou Henry Earl of Peterborough William Earl of Craven Alexander Earl of Moray Charles Earl of Middleton John Earl of Melfort Roger Earl of Castlemain Richard Viscount Preston George Lord Dartmouth Sidney Lord Godolphin Henry Lord Dover Sir John Earnly Knight Chancellor of the Exchequer of our said Lord the King Sir
aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury of Lambeth in the County of Surrey William Bishop of St. Asaph of St. Asaph in the County of Flynt Francis Bishop of Ely of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex Iohn Bishop of Chichester of Chichester in the County of Sussex Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells of the City of Wells in the County of Somerset Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol of the City of Bristol did consult and conspire among themselves to diminish the Regal Authority Royal Prerogative Power and Government of our said Lord the King in the premises and to infringe and clude the said Order and in prosecution and execution of the Conspiracy aforesaid They the said William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol on the said eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King aforesaid with Force and Arms c. at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid falsly unlawfully maliciously seditiously and scandalously did frame compose and write and caused to be framed composed and written a certain false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel in writing concerning our said Lord the King and his Royal Declaration and Order aforesaid under pretence of a Petition and the same false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel by them the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Franois Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol with their own hands respectively being subscribed on the day and year and in the place last mentioned in the presence of our said Lord the King with Force and Arms c. did publish and cause to be published in which said false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel is contained The humble Petition c. prout before in the Petition to these words reasonable construction in manifest contempt of our said Lord the King and of the Laws of this Kingdom to the evil example of all others in the like case offending and against the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown Dignity c. Whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King prays the Advice of the Court here in the premises and due Process of Law to be made out against the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol in this behalf to answer our said Lord the King in and concerning the premises c. T. Powys W. Williams To this Information the Defendents have pleaded Not Guilty and for their Trial have put themselves upon their Country and his Majesty's Attorney-General likewise which Country you are Your Charge is to enquire whether the Defendents or any of them are guilty of the matter contained in this Information that hath been read unto you or Not Guilty If you find them or any of them Guilty you are to say so and if you find them or any of them Not Guilty you are to say so and hear your Evidence Cryer make Proclamation Cryer O yes If any one will give Evidence on behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King against the Defendents of the matters whereof they are impeached let them come forth and they shall be heard Mr. Wright May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury this is an Information exhibited by his Majesty's Attorney-General against the most Reverend my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Six other Honourable and Noble Bishops in the Information mentioned And the Information sets forth That the King out of his Clemency and benign intention towards his Subjects of this Kingdom did put forth his Royal Declaration bearing date the fourth day of April in the third year of his Reign entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience and that afterwards the twenty-seventh of April in the fourth year of his Reign he published another Declaration both which have been read to you and for the further Manifestation and Notification of his Grace in the said Declaration bearing date the twenty-seventh of April last his Majesty did order That the said Declaration should be read on the twentieth and twenty-seventh of the same month in the Cities of London and Westminster and ten miles about and on the third and tenth of Iune throughout the whole Kingdom and that the Right Reverend the Bishops should send the said Declaration to be distributed throughout their respective Diocesses to be read accordingly But that the said Archbishop and Bishops the eighteenth of May in the said fourth year of his said Majesty's Reign having conspired and consulted among themselves to diminish the King's Power and Prerogative did falsly unlawfully maliciously and scandalously make compose and write a false scandalous malicious and seditious Libel under pretence of a Petition which Libel they did publish in the presence of the said King the Contents of which Libel you have likewise heard read To this they have pleaded Not Guilty You Gentlemen are Judges of the Fact if we prove this Fact you are to find them Guilty Mr. At. Gen. May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury your have heard this Information read by the Clerk and it has been likewise opened to you at the Barr but before we go to our Evidence perhaps it may not be amiss for us that are of Council for the King now in the beginning of this Cause to settle the Question right before you as well to tell you what my Lords the Bishops are not prosecuted for as what they are First I am to tell you and I believe you cannot your selves but observe that my Lords are not prosecuted as Bishops not much less are they Prosecuted for any point or matter of Religion but they are Prosecuted as Subjects of this Kingdom and only for a temporal Crime as those that have injured and affronted the King to his very Face for it is 〈◊〉 to be done in his own Presence In the next place they are not Prosecuted for any Noâ—…easance or not doing or omitting to do any thing but as they are Actors for ceâ—…ring of his Majesty and his Government and for giving their Opinion in Matters wholly relating to Law and Government and I cannot omit here to take notice that there is not any one thing which the Law is more iealous of or does more carefully provide for the prevention and punishment of than all accusations and arraâ—…ents of the Government no Man is allowed to
the Copy that was printed is the true Copy of the Declaration Mr. Att. Gen. He says he had it from Mr. Hills Mr. Finch Pray Mr. Hills what did you examin that Copy by which you gave to Mr. Williams Hills I had the Copy from Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Finch Did you examin it with the Original under the Great Seal Hills I did not examin it I had it from Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Finch What was it under Seal Mr. Bridgeman It was the Original signed by the King. Mr. Finch But I ask you was it under Seal Mr. Bridgeman Not under the Great Seal it was not it was the very Declaration the King signed Sir Rob. Sawyer But it ought to be compar'd with the Original or it is no good proof that it is the same Mr. Sol. Gen. Sir Robert Sawyer you understand Collation better sure you should be asham'd of such a weak Objection as this Williams We never bring our Proof to the Great Seal Sir Rob. Sawyer But if you will have it Proof at Law you must have it compared with the Original Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you think there is any great stress to be laid upon that we only say it was printed Sir Rob. Sawyer But you have made it part of your Information and therefore you must prove it L. C. Iust. I think there 's proof enough of that there need no such nicety Mr. Pollixfen Well my Lord we must submit let them go on we won't stand upon this Mr. Att. Gen. Then pray let me go on Where had you that Paper Sir Iohn Nicholas Sir Iohn Nicholas I had this Paper from the King's Hand L. C. Iust. Put it in Mr. Sol. Gen. Who had you it from do you say Sir I. Nich. From the King. Mr. Sol. Gen. About what time had you it from the King Sir Sir I. Nich. I had it twice from the King. Mr. Sol. Gen. When was the first time Sir Sir I. Nich. The first time was in Council the 8th of this month Mr. Sol. Gen. What became of it afterwards Sir I. Nich. The King had it from me the 12th and the 13th I had it from the King again Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray deliver it this way into the Court We will now go on and prove the Bishops hands to it This is the Paper upon which we bring this Information Gentlemen it is all the Hand-writing of my Lord Archbishop and signed by Him and the rest of the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. I suppose my Lords the Bishops will not put us to prove it they will own their Hands L. C. Iust. Yes Mr. Attorney their Council will put you to prove it I perceive your best way is to ask nothing of them Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we will desire nothing of them we will go on to our Proofs Call Sir Thomas Exton Sir Richard Raynes Mr. Brooks Mr. Recorder and Mr. William Middleton Sir Thomas Exton appeared and was sworn L. C. Iust. What do you ask Sir Thomas Exton Mr. Att. Gen. Pray convey that Paper to Sir Thomas Exton Mr. Sol. Gen. Shew that Paper to Sir Thomas Exton Sir Thomas I would ask you one question Do you know the Hand-writing of my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Sir Thomas Exton I 'll give your Lordship what account I can Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir answer my question Do you know his Hand-writing Sir Tho. Exton I never saw him write five times in my life Mr. Sol. Gen. But I ask you upon your Oath do you believe that to be his Hand-writing Sir Tho. Exton I do believe this may be of his Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe all the Body of it to be of his Hand-writing or only part of it Sir Tho. Exton I must believe it to be so for I have seen some of his Hand-writing and this is very like it Mr. Sol. Gen. What say you to the Name do you believe it to be his Hand-writing Sir Tho. Exton Yes I do Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know any of the rest of the Names that are upon that Paper Sir Tho. Exton No I do not L. C. Iust. Do you for the Defendants ask Sir Tho. Exton any Question Sir Rob. Sawyer No my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Then call Sir Richard Raynes Sir Tho. Exton My Lord Sir Richard Raynes has been sick this month and has not been at the Commons Mr. Sol. Gen. We have no need of him Call Mr. Brooks Mr. Brooks sworn Mr. Att. Gen. Pray shew Mr. Brooks that Paper Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Brooks I ask you this Question Do you know my Lord Archbishop's Hand-writing Mr. Brooks Yes my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray look upon that Paper do you take that to be my Lord Archbishop's Hand Mr. Brooks Yes my Lord I do believe it to be my Lord Archbishop's Hand Mr. Att. Gen. What say you to the whole Body of the Paper Mr. Brooks I do believe it to be his Hand Mr. Att. Gen. What do you say to his Name there Mr. Brooks I do believe this Name is his Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. Call Mr. William Middleton Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Brooks don't go away but look upon the Names of the Bishop of St. Asaph and my Lord of Ely. Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord Bishop of St. Asaph's Hand-writing Mr. Brooks I have seen my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of St. Asaph's Hand-writing and I do believe this is his hand Mr. Sol. Gen. Look you upon the Name of my Lord of Ely do you know his Hand-writing Mr. Brooks My Lord I am not so well acquainted with my Lord of Ely's Writing Mr. Sol. Gen. But have you seen his Writing Mr. Brooks Yes I have Mr. Sol. Gen. Is that his Writing do you think Mr. Brooks It is like it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to be his Hand Mr. Brooks Truly I do believe it Sir Geo. Treby Did you ever see him write Mr. Brooks No Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. But he has seen his Writing Sir Geo. Treby How do you know that it was his Hand-writing that you saw Mr. Brooks Because he own'd it L. C. Iust. How do you know it do you say Mr. Brooks I know it I say because I have seen a Letter that he writ to another person which he afterwards own'd L. C. Iust. What did he own Mr. Brooks Mr. Brooks That he wrote a Letter to another person which I saw Sir Geo. Treby To whom Sir Sir Rob. Sawyer Have you the Letter here Sir Mr. Brooks No Sir the Letter was writ to my Lord Bishop of Oxford Sir Geo. Treby Can you tell what was in that Letter Mr. Att. Gen. What is that to this Question You ask him how he knows his Hand-writing and says he I did not see him write but I have seen a Letter of his to the Lord Bishop of Oxford L. C. Iust. And he does say my Lord of Ely own'd it to be his Hand that is there Mr. Sol. Gen. No my Lord that 's a
remember whether or no they were asked if that was the Petition that they delivered to the King Mr. Bridgm. My Lord I have answered that question as directly as I can I do not positively remember that that was the question Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor General you must be satisfied when proper questions are fairly answered and therefore pray be quiet Mr. Att. Gen. However we pray we may ask the rest of the Clerks of the Counsel it may be they may remember more Sir Iohn Nicholas you were at the Council-Table that day my Lords the Bishops were examined about this Paper Sir Iohn Nicholas Yes Sir I was Mr. Att. Gen. Pray did you observe that the King produced the Petition Sir Iohn Nicholas No indeed I did not see it Mr. Att. Gen. Did you observe any thing that passed there in discourse Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you observe any questions that were asked the Bishops either by the King or by my Lord Chancellor Sir Iohn Nich. I think my Lord Chancellor did ask them if that was their hands to the Petition and they owned it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you remember whether they owned that they delivered that Paper to the King Lord Ch. Iust. I 'le ask you Sir Iohn Nicholas did my Lord Chancellor ask them this question is this the Petition you delivered to the King Sir Iohn Nicholas I do not remember that Then there was a great shout Mr. Sol. Gen. Here 's wonderfull great rejoycing that truth cannot prevail Mr. S. Pemberton No Mr. Solicitor truth does prevail Mr. Sol. Gen. You are all very glad that truth is stifled Mr. Serjeant Mr. S. Trinder Pray Sir Iohn Nicholas let me ask you one question was there any discourse about delivering that Petition to the King Sir Iohn Nicholas Indeed I do not remember it Mr. Sol. Gen. There is Mr. Pepy's wee 'll examine him Mr. Pepy's sworn Lord Ch. Iust. Come I 'le ask the questions were you bye at the Council-Board when my Lords the Bishops were committed Mr. Pepy's Yes I was Lord Ch. Iust. What were the questions that were asked either by the King or by my Lord Chancellor Mr. Pepy's My Lord I would remember as well as I could the very words and the very words of the question were I think My Lords do you own this Paper I do not remember any thing was spoken about the delivering but I believe it was understood by every body at the Table that that was the Paper that they had delivered Lord Ch. Iust. Well have you done now But to satisfie you I 'le ask this question was this question asked my Lords was this the Paper you delivered to the King Mr. Pepy's No my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Sir do you remember whether the King himself asked the question Mr. Pepy's You mean I suppose Mr. Attorney that these were the words or something that imported their delivering it to the King. Mr. Att. Gen. Yes Sir. Mr. Pepy's Truly I remember nothing of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you observe any discourse concerning their delivery of it to the King. Mr. Pepy's Indeed Mr. Solicitor I do not Mr. Att. Gen. Swear Mr. Musgrave Mr. Musgrave Sworn Lord Ch. Iust. You hear the question Sir what say you to it Mr. Musg My Lord I will give as short an acount of it as I can the first time after his Majesty had produced the Petition and it was read at the Board his Grace my Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury and the other six Reverend Lords Bishops were called in and it were asked of them if they owned that or if it was their hands my Lord Archbishop in the name of the rest did decline answering upon the account that they were there as Criminals and were not obliged to say any thing to their own prejudice or that might hurt them hereafter but if his Majesty would command them and if he would promise that no advantage should be made of whatsoever they confessed then they would answer the question his Majesty made no answer to that but only said he would do nothing but what was according to Law whereupon the Bishops were ordered to withdraw and being called in a second time the Petition was shewn to them and they were asked if they did own it or if it was their hands and I think my Lord Archbishop did say then we will rely upon your Majesty or some such general thing was said and then they did all own it that it was their hands I cannot say the Petition was read to them Mr. Iust. Pow. Mr. Blathwait as I remember it was the third time Mr. Musgrave It was the second time to the best of my remembrance Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Sir was there any question to this purpose is this the Paper you delivered to the King Mr. Musg I do not remember that ever any such direct question was asked Mr. Iust. Allybone But as my Brother Pemberton did very well before distinguish there is a great deal of difference between the owning the subscription of a Paper and between the owning of that Paper Mr. Pepy's did say that they did own the Paper and upon my word that will look very like a Publication Mr. Musg I remember my Lord there was at the same time a question asked because several Copies had gone about the Town whether they had published it and my Lord Archbishop did say he had been so cautious that he had not admitted his own Secretary but writ it all himself and the rest of the Bishops did say they did not publish it nor never gave any Copies of it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I confess now it is to be left to the Jury upon this point whether there not being a positive Witness that was by when the thing was done yet upon this Evidence the Jury can't find any otherwise than that the thing was done truly I think we must leave it as a strong case for the King I could have wished indeed for the satisfaction of every body that the proof would have come up to that but we must make it as strong for the King upon the Evidence given as it will bear now my Lord take all this whole matter together here is a Paper composed framed and written by seven learned Men and this must be written by such persons sure for some purpose it is directed as a Petition to the King and this Petition did come to the hands of the King for the King produces it in Counsel and my Lord Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops owned their hands to it then the question is my Lord whether or no there be any room for any body living to doubt in this case that this was not delivered by my Lords the Bishops to the King though it be not a conclusive Evidence of a positive Fact yet unless they shew something on the other side that may give way for a supposition to the contrary that it came out of their hands by surprize or
intrusted in him to the Peace and Establishment of the Church of England and the ease of all his Subjects in general Neither does he pretend to the Right of Suspending any Laws wherein the Properties Rights or Liberties of any of his Subjects are concerned nor to alter any thing in the established Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England But his only design in this was to take off the Penalties the Statutes inflicted upon Dissenters which he believes when well considered of you your selves would not wish executed according to the Rigour and Letter of the Law neither hath he done this with any thought of avoiding or precluding the Advice of his Parliament and if any Bill shall be offered which shall appear more proper to attain the aforesaid Ends and secure the Peace of the Church and Kingdom when tendred in due manner to him he will shew how readily he will Concur in all ways that shall appear good for the Kingdom Sir Rob. Sawyer Turn to the 26th of February 1672. Clerk read Die Mercurii xxij February 1672. Mr. Powle Reports from the Committee appointed to consider of an Answer to return to his Majesties last Message upon the debate of the House an Answer agreed by the Committee and drawn up and put into Writing which he read in his place and then delivered the same in at the Clerks Table where it was twice read and is as followeth viz. Most Gracious Sovereign WE your Majesties most Humble and Loyal Subjects the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in this present Parliament Assembled do render to your most Sacred Majesty our most dutiful Thanks for that to our unspeakable Comfort your Majesty has been pleased so often to reiterate unto us those gracious Promises and Assurances of maintaining the Religion now Established and the Liberties and Properties of your People and we do not in the least Measure doubt but that your Majesty had the same gracious Intention in giving Satisfaction to your Subjects by your Answer to our last Petition and Address Yet upon a serious Consideration thereof We find that the said Answer is not sufficient to clear the Apprehensions that may justly remain in the minds of your People by your Majesties having claimed a Power to suspend Penal Statutes in Matters Ecclesiastical and which your Majesty does still seem to assert in the said Answer to be intrusted in the Crown and never questioned in the Reigns of any of your Ancestors Wherein we humbly conceive your Majesty has been very much Misinformed Since no such Power ever was claimed or exercised by any of your Majesties Predâ—…ssors and if it should be admitted might tend to the interrupting the free Course of the Laws and altering the Legislative Power which hath always been acknowledged to reside in your Majesty and your two Houses of Parliament We therefore with an unanimous Consent become again most humble Suiters unto your Sacred Majesty That you would be pleased to give us a full and satisfactory Answer to our said Petition and Address and that your Majesty would take such effectual order that the Proceedings in this Matter may not for the future be drawn into Consequence or Example The Answer to his Majesties Message was again read by Paragraphs and the several Paragraphs to the last were upon the question severally agreed The last Paragraph being read and the Question being put that the Word unanimous should stand in the Paragraph The House divided The Noes go out Tellers Lord St. Iohn Mr. Vaughan for the Yeas 180. Sir Richard Temple Sir Philip Howard for the Noes 77. And so it was resolved in the Affirmative The Question being put to agree to the Paragraph it was resolved in the Affirmative Resolved c. That the whole Address be agreed to as it was brought in by the Committee Sir Rob. Sawyer Now turn to the Lords Journal and there your Lordship will see that the King does Communicate this Address to the Lords and desires their Advice Read the 1st of March 1672. Clerk reads Die Sabbati primo die Marcii 1672. His Majesty this Day made a short Speech as follows My Lords You know that at the Opening of this Session I spoke here to your Satisfaction it has notwithstanding begotten a greater disquiet in the House of Commons than I could have imagined I received an Address from them which I looked not for and I made them an Answer that ought to have contented them but on the contrary they have made me a Reply of such a nature that I cannot think fit to proceed any further in this Matter without your Advice I have commanded the Chancellor to acquaint you with all the Transactions wherein you will find both me and your selves highly concerned I am sensible for what relates to me and I assure you my Lords I am not less so for the Priviledg and the Honour of this House Afterwards the Lord Chancellor read the several Papers of Addresses of the House of Commons and his Majesties Answer thereunto and opened his Majesties proceedings upon them The Address of the House of Commons was read Sir Rob. Sawyer Pass over that you have read it already Clerk reads The next his Majesties Answer to the Address of the House of Commons was read as follows Sir Rob. Sawyer That hath been read too Clerk reads Then was read the Reply of the House of Commons to his Majesties Answer as followeth Mr. Finch You have read that likewise Clerk reads Upon this it is ordered that the Lord Treasurer Duke of Buckingham Earl of Bridgwater Earl of Northampton Earl of Bristol Earl of Berks Earl of Bullingbrook and the Earl of Anglesy do forthwith withdraw and consider what humble Thanks is fit to be given to his Majesty for his great Favour in communicating this Business to this House and report the same And accordingly the said Lords Committees did withdraw themselves for that purpose The Lords being returned the Duke of Buckingham reported what the Committee had prepared to present to his Majesty by way of Thanks which was read as followeth We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled do unanimously present to your Sacred Majesty Our most humble Thanks for having been pleased to Communicate to us what has passed between your Majesty and the House of Commons whereby you have graciously offered us the means of shewing our Duty to your Majesty and of asserting the Ancient Just Rights and Priviledges of the House of Peers The Question being put whether to agree with the Committee It was resolved in the Affirmative Ordered that his Majesty be desired that his Speech and the Papers read this day may be entred into the Journal Book of this House The Lord Treasurer the Duke of Buckingham and the Lord Chamberlain are appointed to attend his Majesty presently to know his pleasure what time and place this whole House shall wait upon him to present the humble Thanks of this House for his great Favour shewed this day
Edward Herbert Knight Chief Iustice of the Common Bench of our Lord the King and Sir Nicholas Butler Knight Lords of his Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council to me directed the Tenor of which Warrant follows in these Words viz. THESE are in his Majesties Name and by his Command to require you to take into your Custody the Persons of William Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely Iohn Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Ionathan Lord Bishop of Bristol For Contriving Making and Publishing a Seditious Libel in Writing against his Majesty and his Government and them safely to keep in your Custody until they shall be delivered by due Course of Law For which this shall be your sufficient Warrant At the Council Chamber in White-Hall this Eighth day of Iune 1688. And this is the Cause of the taking and detaining c. Lord Ch. Iust. Well What do you desire Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. We pray for the King that the Return may be filed L. Ch. Iust. Let it be filed Mr. Att. Gen. By this Retorn your Lordship observes what it is my Lords the Bishops were committed to the Tower for it is by Warrant from the Council Board where when their Lordships appeared they were not pleased to give their Recognizances to appear here as they were required by the King to do and there upon they were committed to the Tower and now come before the Court upon this Retorn of the King 's Writ of Habeas Corpus and by the Retorn it does appear it was for Contriving Writing Framing and Publishing a Seditious Libell against His Majesty and the Government My Lord it is our Duty who are the King's Councel pursuant to our Orders to prosecute such kind of Offences and when the proper time shall come for us to open the nature of the Offence your Lordships will then judge what reason there is for this Prosecution but in the mean time what we are now to offer to your Lordship is The Officer of this Court has an Information against his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of my Lords the Bishops which we desire may be read to them and pray that they may plead to it according to the Course of the Court. Sir Rob. Sawyer If it please your Lordship to spare us a word for my Lords the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord We pray for the King the Information may be read Sir Rob. Sawyer We define to be heard a word first Mr. Soll. Gen. We oppose your speaking any thing till the Information hath been read Sir Rob. Sawyer But what we have to offer is proper before it be read Mr. Att. Gen. Your time is not yet come Sir Robert. Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes this is our proper time for what we have to say and therefore we move it now before there be any other proceedings in this matter Mr. Soll. Gen. It is irregular to move any thing yet pray let the Information be read first Mr. S. Pemberton If your Lordship please to spare us we will offer nothing but what is fit for us to do Sir Rob. Sawyer And now is our proper time for it Mr. Soll. Gen. Gentlemen You do know the way of Proceeding in such Cases better than so I am sure as for you Sir Robert Sawyer you have often oppos'd any such Motion as irregular and I hope the Case is not alter'd however you may be the course of the Court is the same Sir Rob. Sawyer With submission if your Lordship please to spare me a word that which I would move is to discharge my Lords the Bishops upon this Return and from their Commitment upon this Warrant Mr. Att. Gen. Surely these Gentlemen think to have a Liberty above all other People here is an Information which we pray my Lords the Bishops may hear read and plead to Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly Sir Rob. Sawyer you would not have done thus half a year ago Sir Rob. Sawyer What would not I have done I move regularly with Submission to discharge my Lords the Bishops from their Commitment If they are not here legally Imprisoned now they are before your Lordships upon this Writ then you will give us leave to move for their Discharge before any thing else be said to them and that is it we have to say to demand the Judgment of the Court upon this Return whether we are legally Imprisoned Mr. Att. Gen. Under Favour my Lord neither the Court nor they are ripe for any Motion of this Nature yet Mr. S. Pemberton If we do not move it now it will afterwards I fear be too late Mr. Soll. Gen. These Gentlemen are very forward but certainly they mistake their time this is a Habeas Corpus that 's brought by the King and not by the Prisoners and therefore they are too soon till they see what the King has to say to them Mr. Att. Gen. Your Lordship cannot as yet be moved for your Judgment about the Legality of this Commitment because this Writ was granted upon our Motion who are of Councel for the King and upon this Writ they are brought here and what is it we desire for the King Certainly nothing but what is Regular we have here an Information for the King against my Lords and we desire they may plead to it Mr. S. Pemberton Good my Lord will you please to hear us a little to this Matter L. C. Iust. Brother Pemberton we will not refuse to hear you by no means when you speak in your proper time but it is not so now for the King is pleased by his Attorney and Sollicitor to Charge these Noble Persons my Lords the Bishops with an Information and the Kings Councel call to have that Information read but you will not permit it to be read Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord spare us a word if we are not here as Prisoners regularly before your Lordship and are not brought in by the due Proâ—… of the Court then certainly the Kings Councel or the Court have no Power to charge us with an Information therefore we beg that you will hear us to that in the first place whether we are Legally here before you Mr. Soll. Gen. These Gentlemen will have their proper time for such a Motion hereafter Mr. Pollexfen No Mr. Soll. this is without all Question our only time for it we shall have no time afterwards Mr. Att. Gen. Yes you will for what do we who are of Councel for the King now ask of the Court but that this Information may be read when that is done if we move to have my Lords the Bishops plead then they may move what they will but before we make that Motion they cannot break in upon us with their Motion and with Submission to your Lordship whether my Lords the Bishops were duely Committed
is not yet a Question Mr. Finch But it is and this the fittest time for it Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray will you hear us quietly what we have to say and then answer us with Reason if you can I think we are in a proper way but they are not my Lord for as I said my Lords the Bishops are brought by the Kings Writ upon our Motion for the King not upon theirs and now we have them here before the Court We for the King would charge them with an Information which Information that they and the Court may know what it is they are charged with we pray it may be read to them by the Clerk and when it is read let these Gentlemen say what they will for them they shall have their time to speak but certainly they ought not to obstruct the Kings Proceedings nor oppose the Reading of the Information to these noble Lords who are brought here in Custody into Court to this very purpose that they may be charged with this Information Mr. S. Pemberton But we have somewhat to say before you can come to that Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. You ought not to be heard as yet M. S. Pemberton Under favour we ought to be heard Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord Mr. Sollicitor has opposed our being heard but we now desire he would hear our answer to it and that which we have to say is this That my Lords the Bishops are not here Regularly in the Court to be charged with an Information and if the Law be not with us in this point as we doubt not to make appear it is no question but when your Lordship has heard what we have to say you will give a Right Rule in it My Lord we say that by the Rules of Law no man ought to be Charged with an Information or Indictment by the Express Statute of Edward the Third unless he come into Court by Legal process that is a standing Rule and the practice of this and all other Courts is pursuant to it Now in this Court you have several processes that go out of this Court and he that comes as taken by vertue of a Capias or an Attachment after a Summons or by Venire in the nature of a Subpoena I say he that comes in upon these processes may be Charged with an Information but where a person is in Prison Committed by another Jurisdiction and another Authority then that of this Court when the â—…risoner is brought here by Habeas Corpus the first thing the Court has to do is to enquire whether he be Legally Committed to that end the Return is filed and the party has leave to make his Exceptions to it as we do in this Case My Lords are brought here upon a Habeas Corpus the Return of which has been read and now the Return is filed we are proper to move that my Lords may be discharged for you now see what they are Committed for it is for a Misdemeanour in making and publishing a Libel that 's the matter for which they are Committed and it appears by the Return likewise that they who are thus Committed are Peers of the Realm for so my Lords the Bishops all are and for a Misdemeanour they ought not by Law to have been Committed L. C. I. You go too far now Sir Robert Sanyer I would willingly hear you whatsoever you have to say but then it must be in its due time Mr. Att. Gen. This very discourse indeed I have heard has pass'd up and down the Town for Law We may see now whence they had it Mr. Sol. Gen. I know it has heretofore been urged by me but denyed by them who now urge it and I am glad that they now learn of me to tack about L. C. I. Look you Gentlemen do not fall upon one another but keep to the matter before you Mr. S. Pemberton So we would my Lord if the Kings Councel would let us First we say we being brought here upon a Return of a Habeas Corpus there was neither at the time of the Commitment Cause to Imprison us nor was there by the Warrant any Cause to detain us in Prison and for that besides what has been hinted at we say further that here it is returned that we were Committed by such and such Persons Lords of the Privy Council but the Return doth not say that it was done by them as Lords of the Privy Council which must be in Council for if it be not in Council they have not power to make such a Warrant for the Commitment of any Person and that we stand upon here is a Return that is not a good Return of a Legal Commitment and therefore we pray my Lords may be discharged Mr. Pollexfen Pray my Lord spare me a word that is the thing we humbly offer to your Lordships Consideration and under Favour I think we are proper both as to the Matter and as to the Time the Return is now filed before you if by this Return there appears to have been such a Cause to Commit these Lords to Prison as is Legal then we acknowledge they may in a Legal Course be brought to answer for their Offence but with Submission it appears not by any thing that is in this Return that my Lords the Bishops were Committed by the Order of the Privy Council All that is said is That they were Committed by my Lord Chancellor and those other Persons named Lords of the Privy Council which we conceive is not a good Return for they can do nothing as Lords of the Privy Council except only as they are in Council and by Order made in Council except that do appear they have no Power to Commit then take the Case to be so here is a man Committed by one that has no Authority to Commit him and he is brought by Habeas Corpus into this Court what shall the Court do with him Shall they charge him with an Information No it does appear that he was never in Custody but under a Commitment by those who had no Legal Power to Commit him and therefore he must be discharged and that we pray for my Lords the Bishops What the Kings Councel may have to say to them afterwards by way of Information or otherwise they must take the Regular Methods of the Law to bring my Lords the Bishops to answer but as the Case stands here before you upon this Return it does appear they had no Authority to Commit them by whose Warrant they were Committed and therefore this Court has nothing to do but to discharge them Mr. Finch I beg your Lordships leave to say one word farther on the same side I think with humble Submission this is the most proper time for us to make this Motion for here is a Habeas Corpus Returned this Return is filed and then the Kings Councel move to Charge my Lords the Bishops with an Information that Motion of theirs we say is too soon
unless my Lords are here in Court I mean Legally in Court for no man is in Court so as to be liable to be charged with an Indictment or Information that is not brought into Court by Legal process or as a prisoner upon a Legal Commitment then my Lord with humble submission we say that it doth appear by this Return that my Lords the Bishops are not here Legally in Court because this Commitment of theirs was not a Legal Commitment and two Objections we have to it The one is that the Persons Committing had no Authority to commit for the Return says that it was by Vertue of a Warrant under the Hands of such and such being Lords of the Council and they we say have no Authority to do this The other Objection is that the Fact for which they were committed they ought not to have been Imprisoned for the Fact charged upon them is in the nature of it a bare Misdemeanour and for such a Fact it is the Right of my Lords the Bishops as Peers of the Realm that they ought to be served with the usual Process of Subpoena and not to be committed to prison These are the two Objections that we have to this Return and this is under favour the proper time for us to make this Objection before the Kings Councel can charge my Lords the Bishops with an Information L. Ch. Iust. What say you to it Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. With submission my Lord these Gentlemen have out of course and preposterously let themselves in to this Discourse and when all is done we must Recurr to that which we moved to your Lordship before to desire that your Lordship would order the Information to be read and when we call my Lords to plead to the Information then will be their proper time to make this Objection for 't is a strange thing certainly for men to make Objections before they know what it is that they are charged with They say the ground of their Motion is because my Lords the Bishops are here in Court upon the Return of an Habeas Corpus and therefore they come in upon a Commitment as they say for that which they ought not to be committed for at all and we cannot charge them unless they be properly in Court. Now for that it is true if that Commitment of theirs were the only thing that was here before the Court then the Court would if that Commitment were Illegal discharge them of that but when a man is present here in Court brought into Court let him come how he will he is not to have any longer time then that Instant to appear to and be charged with the Information 'T is true upon a Subpoena which is in the Nature of a Summons there a man hath as it were an Essoyn and may make his Excuse and he shall have time but when he is present in Court either as a Person priviledged as an Officer or as a Prisoner he shall be charged presently and these Gentlemen are not to let themselves into Invectives against the Commitment thereby to keep off their being charged with the Information Besides that it is strange these Gentlemen should know the Priviledge of my Lords the Bishops as Peers better then all the Lords of the Council who are most of them themselves Peers and they that make the Objection should have considered whether these Lords that made the Commitment did not think themselves concerned in all the Priviledges of Peerage as well as these seven Noble Lords Sir Rob. Sawyer Is that an Answer to our Objection Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. I say it is a strange Objection and I answer 't is out of due time for this we say that my Lords the Bishops being now here in Court as Prisoners upon a Commitment and we desiring to charge them with an Information you are not to examine the matter of their Commitment and therefore I do insist upon it that the Information should be read and then you will consider whether they are not bound to plead to it Mr. Finch My Lord I hope Mr. Attorney General will not think Legal Objections to be Invectives Mr. Att. Gen. Truly I know not what you call Legal Objections I do not think yours are so nor do I think Legal Objections are Invectives but I used that Expression as very proper for what you urged against the Commitment L. C. I. Nay Gentlemen don't quarrel about words Mr. Finch My Lord we would not willingly have Words given us to quarrel at Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord the Question is whether we are in the right Method of Practice as to the Course of the Court or they It may be these Gentlemen think to make us angry and take Advantage of our being in a Passion Mr. Finch Mr. Sollicitor we desire to have our Objections answered Mr. Soll. Gen. Nay if you begin to be angry Gentlemen we can be angry too L. C. I. I would have neither of you be Angry Mr. Soll. Gen. It seems they would have an Answer to their Objections but will not suffer us to give it they would first examine whether my Lords the Bishops have been duly Committed that we say is not to be done by the Court as yet your Lordship sees they are actually in Custody by a Commitment of the Lords of the Council that appears by the Return before your Lordship and for what they were Committed what do we now pray for the King First we move for a Habeas Corpus then that this Information may be read and all is in Order to bring this Fact for which they were Committed to a Trial 't is said upon the Return they were sent to the Tower for Contriving Writing and Publishing a Seditious Libel against the Kings Person and Government which I think is Crime enough for a man to deserve to be Committed for they would have you to discharge these Lords from this Commitment the Return as they say being not Legal before the Information be read But we think their Motion is Irregular for here is a Crime charged in the Commitment and upon that Commitment they are here now as Criminals before your Lordship and Mr. Attorney has exhibited an Information for the King which is in the Nature of a Declaration at the Kings Suit and that in this Court which is the Supreme Court now in being for the Trial of Matters of this Nature We will come to that Question whether they were legally Committed when there is a proper time for it but now we find my Lords the Bishops in Court upon a Commitment for a great Crime I repeat it again It is for Contriving Writing and Publishing a Seditious Libel against the Kings Person and against the Kings Government and whether the Kings Counsel shall not have leave to make out this Charge by an Information sure can be no Question at all in this Court I hear them mention the Statute of Edward the Third But that is
not at all to the purpose That is but what was offered in another Case that may be remembred and offered by way of Plea and pressed with a great deal of Earnestness but Rejected by the Court and now what could not be receiv'd then by way of Plea these Gentlemen would by their Importunity have you receive by way of Parole at the Bar I suppose the Design is to entertain this great Auditory with an Haraâ—…gue and think to perswade the weak men of the World for the wise are not to be imposed upon that they are in the Right and we in the wrong under Favour my Lord we are in the Right for the King we desire this Information may be read and let them plead what by Law they can to it according to the Course of the Court but that which they now urge is untimely and out of Course Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we offer this to your Lordship Mr. Att. Gen. Why Gentlemen you have been heard before your time already Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord give us leave to answer what the Kings Counsel have objected L. C. I. The Kings Counsel have answered your Objections and we must not permit Vying and Re-vying upon one another if you have no more to say but only as to the Matters that have been urged you have been heard to it on both sides already Mr. S. Pemberton I would if you please answer what has been objected by the Kings Counsel and state the Case aright Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Pemberton I do not apprehend that the Objection you make against this Commitment has any weight in it The Objection as I take it is this that these Lords were not legally committed because they were committed says the Return by such and such Lords of the Council particularly named and it does not specifie them to be united in the Privy Council now truly with me that seems to have no weight at all and I will tell you why If my Lord Chief Iustice do commit any Person and set his Name to the Warrant he does not use to add to his Name Lord Chief Iustice but he is known to be so without that Addition and would you have a different Return from the Lieutenant of the Tower to a Habeas Corpus than the Warrant it self will justifie the Lords do not use to write themselves Privy Counsellors they are known to be so as well as a Judge who only writes his Name and does not use to make the addition of his Office. Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray my Lord give me leave to be heard to this I think truly it is a weighty Objection for under Favour we say it must upon the Return here appear that they were legally committed before you can charge them with an Information I do not take Exceptions to the Warrant because it is subscribed by such Lords and they do not write themselves Lords of the Council they need not do that and the Return has averred that they are so But the Return ought to have been that it was by Order of the Privy Council and so it must be if they would shew my Lords to be legally committed that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council and not by such and such particular Persons Lords of the Privy Council so in the Case put by Mr. Iustice Allybone of a Commitment by your Lordship or any of the Judges it must be returned to be by such a Warrant by such a One Chief Iustice for that shews the Authority of the Person committing and then your Lordships Name to it indeed is enough without the Addition But if it does not appear by the Return that there was sufficient Authority in the Person to commit your Lordship cannot take it to be a Legal Commitment But now in this Case they could have no Authority to commit but in Council and this Return seems to make it done by them as particular Persons and that 's not a good Return with your Lordships favour upon which these Reverend and Noble Lords can be detained in Prison But what do they on the other side say to this Why we shall be heard to it anon but my Lord they very well know it would be too late for that Effect which we desire of our Motion and therefore we lay the Objections before you now in its proper time say we you ought not to read any Information against us because we are not legally here before the Court and sure that which was said by the Kings Councel that your Lordship may charge any One that you find here in Court which way soever he comes in cannot be legal Mr. Att. Gen. Who ever said so Sir Robert Sawyer I apprehended you said so Mr. Attorney or else you said nothing Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Robert Sawyer You of that side have a way of letting your selves in to say the same things over and over again and of making us to say what you please Sir Rob. Sawyer Truly I did apprehend you laid down that for Doctrine which I thought a very strange One for we say with your Lordships favour he that is in Court without a Legal process is not in Court so as to be charged with an Information S. Pemberton My Lord It is not the Body being found here that intitles the Court to proceed upon it but the person accused is to be brought in by Legal Process Then if we be not here by Legal Process the Information cannot be charged upon us and if we suffer it to be read it will be too late for us to make this Objection L. C. I. That you have all said over and over and they have given it an Answer Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Serjeant will you make an end you have repeated your Objection over and over I know not how often and will never be contented with our Answer Mr. I. Allyb. Sir Rob. Sawyer That which you said in Answer to the Case I put methinks does not answer it For if the Return be as good that it was by a Warrant from such an one Lord Chief Iustice as if my Lord Chief Iustice had added the Title of his Office to his own Name when he subscribed the Warrant Then this Return That this was done by such and such Lords of the Council must be as good as if they had added that to their own Names Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not our Objection Mr. Att. Gen. Your Objection has been heard and answered we pray the Information may be read Mr. Serj. Pemberton No we are not come to that yet Mr. I. Allyb. Pray would you have an Averment by the Lieutenant of the Tower in his Return to an Habeas Corpus that it was done by them in the Council-Chamber Mr. Finch My Lord The Difference is this with Submission a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Ch Justice is a good Commitment and a Return of that Nature were a good Return because he is Chief Justice all over
England and hath Authority to commit wherever he is but a Commitment by such an one or such and such Lords of the Privy-Council cannot be a good Return of a Commitment because though they be Lords of the Council yet neither single or apart nor all together have Authority to do such an Act unless they be assembled in the Privy-Council there their Authority is circumscribed so that that must needs be a great difference between a Commitment made by a Judge who is always so and a Commitment by a Lord or so many Lords by the Name of Lords of the Privy-Council who carry not their Authority about with them but are limited to their Assembly in Council Mr. I. Allyb. Mr. Finch Indeed your Objection is worth something if my Lord Chief Justice could not act but as under the character of Chief Justice for you are now arguing that these Lords could not do this Act but as Lords of the Council in Council the same say I may be said of a Commitment by the Lord Chief Justice he cannot do it but under the formality of his Authority as he is Chief Justice unless you will make it impossible for him to do any thing but as Chief Justice or unless you make it impossible to separate his Person from his Authority Mr. Finch But Sir the difference lies here the Authority of the one is general and universal and goeth with him wherever he goes the other's Authority is limited to a particular sphere Mr I. Allyb. Why would you have it averred That they did it being assembled in Council Mr. Finch Under favour they cannot justifie any thing that was done by them as Lords of the Council but in the Privy-Council Mr. I. Powel Truly my Lord for my part I think there is no such great necessity of haste in this matter Here are Exceptions taken to this Return and the matter transacted now before us appears to me to be of very great weight peradventure a greater or a weightier has not been agitated in this place in any Age it concerns these Noble and Reverend Lords in point of Liberty it comes suddenly upon us and therefore my Lord I think it very fit we should consider a little of this matter and consult the Precedents of Returns how they are for there are multitudes of Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus in this Court therefore it were requisite that we did consult the Forms of other Returns and how the Precedents as to this matter have always been if they are according as this is then all is well but if they be otherwise it is fit we should keep to the usual Forms L. C. I. What 's your Opinion of it Brother Allybone Mr. I. Allyb. I am still of the same mind I was my Lord That he could make no Return but this Return he has made and if his Warrant was insufficient upon this Account that these particular persons Lords of the Privy-Council did this Act without saying that they did it in Privy-Council then 't is not his Return that could mend it and truly I do not know that there does need any Precedent for this for every one knows where the Lords of the Council are and 't is a sufficient Averment this that is in the Return Mr. Pollexfen They are Lords of the Council every where but they do not act as Lords of the Council any where but in Council Mr. I. Allyb. So my Lord Chief Justice is Chief Justice every where Mr. Finch And he can do Judicial Acts as such every where but the Lords of the Council cannot act but in the Council Mr. I. Allyb. Nor is it to be presumed that they did do it Mr. Finch It is not a presumption that is to make any thing in this case but the Question is whether here be a legal Return of a legal Commitment Mr. I. Allyb. Such publick Persons in such publick Acts can never be presumed to act in their separate private capacities Mr. Finch But with submission your Lordships can judge only what is before you in this Return whether it be a good Return and whether here be a good Authority asserted in the persons that did commit my Lords the Bishops L. C. I. Truly as to this Objection and Exception that has been made by them I have considered of it and what has been said on all sides and I think 't is the usual way of Commitment I never saw any other all the Warrants that ever I saw are of this Form if there were any Precedents they should be shewn of that side Sir Robert Sawyer There are multitudes of Precedents otherwise and none of this Form. L. I. C. I confess 't is a Case of great Weight and the Persons concerned are of great Honour and Value and I would be as willing as any body to testifie my Respects and Regards to my Lords the Bishops if I could see any thing in it worth considering of Mr. Sol. Gen. There 's no colour for it if they do but look upon the Statute of the 16th and 17th of the late King which arraigns the Proceedings of his Privy-Council that tells you what things belong to the cognizance of the Privy-Council and what not and there you have all the Distinctions about Commitments by the King and Council and by the Lords of the Council And that Act will shew that this is a Commitment according to the usual Form They know very well what the common Style of the Orders and Commitments of Council is as in other places and other Commitments By such an one Chief Iustice that is the Style that is very well known for such Warrants So a Commitment by such and such naming them particularly Lords of the Council that 's an Order made by the Lords in Council and that Statute distinguishes between Commitments of one sort and the other and it does it because sometimes Warrants run in one form and sometimes in another but they all come within the Direction of that Statute My Lord we are in a plain Case my Lords the Bishops come Regularly before you upon a Commitment by the Council and therefore we pray they may be charged with this Information Sir Robert Sawyer Pray will your Lordship give us leave to have that Statute lookt into which Mr. Sollicitor speaks of and then we shall see whether it be to his purpose L. C. I. Let the Statute be read Mr. Sol. Gen. If it be Keeble's Book it is the 16th of Charles the First if it be the Old Book it is the 16th and 17th of Car towards the end Clerk reads Provided always and be it enacted that this Act and the several Clauses therein contained shall be taken and expounded to extend onely to the Court of Star-Chamber and to the said Court holden before the President and Council in the Marches of Wales and before the President and Council in the Northern parts Mr. Soll. Gen. It is the Paragraph before that Clerk reads And be
it also provided and enacted That if any person shall hereafter be Committed Restrained of his Liberty or suffer Imprisonment by the Order and Decree of any such Court of Star-Chamber or other Court aforesaid now or at any time hereafter having or pretending to have the same or like Iurisdiction Power or Authority to commit or imprison as aforesaid or by the Command or Warrant of the King's Majesty his heirs or Successors in their own Persons or by the Command or Warrant of the Council-Board or of any of the Lords or others of his Majesties Privy-Council that in every such Case every person so Committed Restrained of his Liberty or suffering Imprisonment upon demand Mr. Soll. Gen. That is all Your Lordship sees these several Distiâ—…ctions of the Style of Commitment Mr. Att. Gen. Now pray favour us a little My Lord I think these Gentlemen will not deny but that the Lords of the Council can commit I must confess they ask that which was pretty reasonable if the Case was as they would make it They would have my Lords the Bishops discharged because there is not a Return of a good Commitment and that stands upon this presumption that what is here said to be done by all these Lords at the end of whose Names this is added Lords of the Privy-Council was done by them out of Council which I suppose your Lordship will not presume but will take it that they did this as Lords of the Council in Council And no man can say but the Lords in Council can commit Mr. Soll. Gen. You may as well presume upon a Warrant made by my Lord Chief Iustice because it is not said where he did it and therefore he did it in Scotland Mr. Att. Gen. I say again unless your Lordship will presume that which is not to be presumed this must needs be a very good Return Mr. I. Allyb. Truly as Mr. Sollicitor says you may as well desire us to presume that my Lord Chief Iustice would commit a man in Ireland or Scotland I can see no imaginable difference Mr. Finch My Lord That which we pray is not that your Lordship would presume but that you would not presume but take the Return as 't is before you and then see whether it can be thought to be a Commitment by the Lords in Council Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord spare us a little in this matter Here has been the Clause of a Statute read to you from whence Mr. Sollicitor would conclude that all Commitments by several sorts of persons there named are legal or else the Enumeration of the several sorts of Commitments signifies nothing to this purpose But I pray your Lordship would consider this that the very scope and end of that Act of Parliament is to relieve against illegal Commitments and Oppressions then the several Commitments therein named can never all be called legal so that that signifies nothing to our purpose My Lord they tell us we stand upon Presumption no we do not so we say your Lordship ought not to presume the One or the other but to judge upon what is before you but here is nothing before you but this Return of a Commitment of these Noble Persons my Lord the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops which is said to be by these particular Lords Now if your Lordship will please to give us time to look into it for this is an Exception we take at the Bar upon hearing the Return read we would shew the constant way has been quite otherwise than this Return makes it therefore we desire leave to satisfie your Lordship concerning the usual Form of Precedents and thereby it will appear that it ought to have been that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council and then he should have set forth the Warrant it self which would have shewn the Names of the Privy Councellors and he needed not to have put their Names in the Return as the particular Persons that committed them but now my Lord this does not appear to be an Order made in Council as it ought to be and the Return is that which is before you and you are to judge only upon what is before you L. C. Iust. So we do Mr. Iustice Allybone Pray Sir Robert Sawyer would the Saying of a Governour of the Tower in his Return to a Writ of Habeas Corpus alter the Nature of the Commitment Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord We are in your Lordships Judgment Mr. Iust. Allybone I say Brother Pemberton would any collateral Saying of the Lieutenant of the Tower alter the Nature of the thing his Return in this Case is onely an Inducement to the Warrant of Commitment and his Saying one way or t'other would neither vitiate nor mend the Commitment Mr Soll. Gen. Your Lordship cannot take notice of the Commitment but from the Warrant Mr. Pollexfen The Return is the Fact upon which you are to judge Mr. Iust. Powel Certainly we must judge of the Record and nothing else and the Return is the Record now being filed L. Ch. Iust. The Return is as certain I think as can be Mr. Soll. Gen. By the Return it appears the Bishops were committed by the Warrant of such and such Lords of the Council and that which is before you now is whether you will not intend it to be done by them in Council Mr. Iust. Powel We can intend nothing but must take the Return as ' t is Lord Chief Iust. The Warrant is good enough I think truly and so is the Return Mr. Pollexfen I think in all the Habeas Corpus's that have been since the King's return of Persons committed by the Council the Returns have been quite otherwise than this Return is We do all pretty well agree for ought I can perceive in these two things We do not deny but the Council Board has Power to commit they on the other side do not affirm that the Lords of the Council can commit out of Council Mr. Att. Gen. Yes they may as Justices of the Peace Mr. Pollexfen That is not pretended to be so here L. Ch. Iust. No no that is not the Case Mr. Pollexfen Then my Lord with submission I will compare it to any thing else of this nature I deny not but that the Council may commit but the Question is whether this Return of their Commitment be right Suppose there should be a Return to a Habeas Corpus that such a one was committed by Sir Robert Wright and three others by Name Justices of this Court for a Contempt without saying that it was done in Court this would be an ill Return although they had power in Court to commit for a Contempt yet it must appear that it was done in Court or it cannot be a good Return If I had thought or foreseen that such a Return would have been made I could easily have made out our Objection but we could not foretell what they would return and therefore
With Submission that is such a difficulty that lyes in the way against the reading of the Information that you must get over it before you can come at the Reading of it Mr. Att. Gen. You will have your time for all this matter by and by but certainly you cannot be admitted to it yet L. Ch. Iust. Truly I think you are too early with that Exception Mr. Finch With Submission we think this is the proper time and I will tell your Lordship the reason why Ld. Ch. Iust. Mr. Finch certainly every thing in the world that can be said you will say for your Cllent and you shall be heard for we are very willing to deliver these Noble Lords if we can by Law and if the Exceptions you make be legal Mr. Finch My Lord we do not doubt your Justice and therefore we desire to offer what we have to say in this Point the only Question now it seems is about our time of making our Exception Mr. Attor we apprehend did say one thing which was certainly a little too large That however any man comes into Court if the Court find him here they may Charge him with an Information Mr. Attor Gen. Who says so I said no such thing Mr. Finch Then I acquit Mr. Attorney of it he did not say so Then both he and I agree the Law to be That a man that does come into Court if he does not come in by Legal Process he is not to be Charg'd with an Information then since we do agree in that Proposition certainly we must be heard to this Point Whether we are here upon Legal Process before you can Charge us with this Information Mr. Attor Gen. You think you have said a fine thing now and take upon you an Authority to make me agree to what you please Mr. Finch Certainly the Consequence is plain upon your own Premises Mr. Attor Gen. Do you undertake to speak for me Mr. Finch I am in the Judgment of the Court and to them I leave it Mr. Attor Gen. I know you thought you had got an extraordinary Advantage by making me say what you please but there has been very little said but what has been grounded upon Mistakes all along This is that I do say If a man comes in voluntarily upon any Recognizance though he be not in Custody or if he comes in upon any Process if the Court find him here though that Process be not for the thing Charged in the Information yet the Court is so much in possession of the Person that he shall plead to any Information and That I do say and will stand by Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we are here in a very great Auditory and this Court is always a very great Court but here is a Greater and Nobler Assembly than usually we have here and these Gentlemen to shew their Eloquence and Oratory would by converting Propositions otherwise than they are delivered put another meaning upon them and so draw strange Inferences from them but these Arts we are sure will not prevail here we say plainly and we are sure the Law is so let them apprehend what they will That your Lordship cannot exhibit an Information to any man that you find accidentally here in Court then says Mr. Finch we are agreed but withal say I take my other Proposition If a Person be brought into Court by Legal Process or upon any Contempt whatsoever by an Attachment or Warrant or upon a Habeas Corpus after a Commitment being thus found in Court your Lordship may certainly Charge him with an Information when these Gentlemen who are so eager on the otherside did preside here and stood in the places where Mr. Attorney and I now are I can name them abundance of Cases of the like nature with this when men have been compelled to appear to Informations and plead presently they are the Persons that made the Precedents they made the Law for ought I know I 'm sure I find the Court in possession of this as Law and we pray the usual Course may be followed Mr. Finch 'Pray my Lord spare us a word in this matter I do agree with Mr. Attor in this matter but I do not agree with Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. You do not agree with your self Mr. Finch I hope I do and always shall agree with my self but I do not agree with you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. You do not in 1688 agree with what you were in 1680. Mr. Finch Says Mr. Attorney A man that comes voluntarily in cannot be Charged with an Information with him I agree Says Mr. Sollicitor A man that comes in and is found in Court by any Process may be Charg'd with an Information I say no if the Process be wholly illegal for he cannot be said to be legally in Court Suppose a Peer of the Realm be taken upon a Capias and is Committed to the Marshaâ—…ea and is brought up upon a Habeas Corpus I would fain know whether you could declare against him Mr. Attor Gen. No we cannot Mr. Finch And why is that but because the Process is Illegal and he is not truly in Court Then is it a proper time now to make this a question Whether my Lords here were Legally committed before you can lay any thing to their charge by way of Information for if the Commitment be Illegal it is a void Commitment and if the Commitment be void the Process is void and then my Lords are not Legally in Court. Ld. Ch. Iust. That sure is but returning again to the same question that has been determined already Mr. Soll. Gen. If your Lordship will permit them to go over and over the same things we shall never have an end Mr. Finch My Lord we pray these Gentlemen of the KINGS Council may be a little cool with us and then they will find we do not talk the same things over and over again nor meddle with that which the Court have given their Judgment in Ld. Ch. Iust. Well go on Sir. Mr. Finch My Lord We say it is the Priviledge of the Peers of England that none of them shall be Committed to Prison for a Misdemeanour especially in the first instance and before Judgment this we say is the right of my Lords the Bishops and that which they claim as Lords of Parliament Now it appears upon this Return and the Warrant that the Council-Table hath Committed them for your Lordship and the Court hath rul'd it that this Commitment must be taken to be by Order of the Privy-Council and we meddle not with that further but we say that the Council-Table may Commit a man unjustly that is certain There has been relief often given in this Court against Commitments by the Council-Table And that they were unjustly Committed depends upon that point of their Priviledge as Peers Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord we say that the Lords of the Council have Illegally Committed these Noble Persons who are Peers of
the Realm and ought to have the priviledge of their Peerage which is not to be Committed for a Misdemeanour that the Council ought not to have done For the Peers of England ought no more to be Committed for a Misdemeanour and to be Imprisoned especially upon the first Process than they may be in a case of Debt It is true in the case of Treason Felony or the Breach of the Peace the Peers have not such a Priviledge they may be Committed but for a bare Misdemeanour as this does appear to be in the Warrant of Commitment they ought not to be Committed but they were Committed by the Lords of the Council and we now complain of this to your Lordship as Illegal and therefore pray my Lords may be discharged Sir Robert Sawyer Will your Lordship be pleased to favour me a Word on the same side for my Lords the Bishops It must be agreed to me that if a Peer be brought into Court as taken by a Capias he cannot be charged with a Declaration and the reason is because the Process is Illegal Then my Lord with submission When a Peer comes upon a Foreign Commitment and is brought in Custody upon a Habeas Corpus this is either in the nature of a Process or a final Commitment as a Judgment they will not say that this is a good Commitment so as to amount to a Judgment for the Council-Board could not give a Judgment in the case besides the Commitment is Illegal because it is not a Commitment till they find security to answer an Information here but 't is a Warrant to keep them for a Misdemeanour besides there is another thing we have to say to this Warrant for I am making Objections against the Validity of this Commitment it does not appear that there was any Oath made and therefore the Court must adjudge that there was no Oath made and then no man ought without an Oath to be Committed much less a Peer but that which we chiefly rely upon is That my Lords ought not to have been Committed for this which is but a Misdemeanour at most And if they use it as Process to bring my Lords the Bishops to answer an Information we say By Law no such Process can be taken out against the Persons of Peers for bare misdemeanours I do agree that for Fellony Treason or Surety of the Peace the Persons of Peers may be Committed and that which is called Surety of the Peace in our Books Mr. Sollicitor knows very well in some of the Rolls of Parliament is called Breach of the Peace but it is all one and the meaning in short is That it is such a Breach of the Peace as for which a Man by Law may be obliged to find Sureties for the Peace If it should mean a Breach of the Peace by implication as all Trespasses and Misdemeanours are said to be Contra Pacem in the Indictment or Information then it were a simple thing to enumerate the Cases wherein Priviledges did not lie for there could be no Information whatsoever but must be Contra Pacem and so there could be no such thing as Priviledge at all And besides we say the very Course of this Court is contrary to what they would have for in the Case of a Peer for a Misdeameanour you go first by Summons and then you do not take out a Capias as against a common Person but the next Process is a Distringas and so ad Infinitum And I do appeal to them on the other side and Challenge them to shew any one Precedent when a Peer was brought thus into Court to be charged with an Information without it were in the Case of an apparent Breach of the Peace for he must be Charged in Custody and there must be a Committitur to the Marshal to intitle the Court to proceed your Lordship will find very few Precedents of Cases of this Nature about common Persons for till within these 14 or 15 years there was no such thing ever done against a common Person But this was the Rule first there went out a Subpoena and then an Attachment and when the Party was taken upon the Attachment he is taken to come in upon Process and then the Court would Charge him presently but if he did appear upon the Summons they would not Charge him but he had time to take a Copy of the Information and an Imparlance of Course till the next â—…erm before he could be compelled to Plead But in the Case of a Peer there never was any such Precedent as the Attaching his Person but only a Summons and Distress and I would be glad the KING's Council would shew that ever there was any such process taken out against the Person of a Peer for a meer Misdemeanour My Lord 't is plain what Breach of the Peace means in every Information and I only speak this to acquaint the Court how the constant Proceedings in all these cases have been These Informations were anciently more frequent in the Star-Chamber and what was the Process there Not the common Process of a Subpoena that was not the course there but the Process was a Letter from the Chancellor that if the Party upon that Letter did not appear in a Common Case there went out an Attachment but in a Peers Case never and so it appears by Cromptons Iurisdiction of Courts Tit. Star-Chamber 33. This appears likewise by the Proceedings in Chancery against the Peers till the Queens time they did not so much as take out an Attachment after default upon a Subpoena but they would then in the Queens time be so bold as to take out an Attachment against a Lord for not appearing but that Course was condemned as illegal so we find in my Lord Dyer Mr. Attor Gen. That was at a common Persons Suit. Sir Robert Sawyer But the proceedings in the Star-Chamber were at the King's Suit and I am sure Mr. Sollicitor knows that the Peers priviledges reach to Informations but as I was saying it was so adjudged as to the Chancery in my Lord Cromwel's Case xiiii Eliz. Dyer 315. Ld. Ch. Iust. You take a great compass Sir Robert Sawyer but pray remember what you laid down at first for the Ground of your discourse That there was never any Commitment of a Peer for a bare Misdemeanour you must keep to that that is the Point you are to look after Sir Robert. Sawyer My Lord I will so I do not Cite these Cases but for this purpose to shew that in all Courts the Peers have particular Priviledges and I am sure they can produce you no Precedents for any such proceedings against a Peer in my experience of these matters I never knew any such nay I knew it always to be otherwise That in Informations for Misdemeanours there did never issue out a Capias against a Peer and Mr. Attorney knows very well it was so in the late Case of my Lord Lovelace for that Case of my
Lord Devonshire that was an express Breach of the Peace tho' it was debated and disputed then so that I take it these Noble Lords cannot be charged with this Information because they do not come in by Legal Process and unless they can shew me any Case where a Peer did ever come in upon such a Commitment and answered to an Information upon that Commitment it must certainly be allowed not to be the Legal Course though if such a Precedent could be shewn that past sub Silentio without debate or solemn determination that would not do nor could bind the rest of the Peers If one man would lose a particular Benefit he has all the whole Body must not lose it and the benefit is not small of Time to make his Defence of Imparling of taking a Copy of the Indictment and preparing himself to plead as his Case will bear and indeed a common person has used to have these priviledges tho in some Cases of late they have taken the other Course and if a Capias went out which We say cannot go against a Lord and the Party were brought in he was to answer immediately Now my Lord I take it That the Priviledges of Peers is in all times the same with the Parliamentary Priviledge in Parliament time which reacheth to Informations as well as other Actions My Lord Cooke is express in this point in the 4. Instit. 25. If that Objection should hold good that every Information being Contra Pacem that should be a Breach of the Peace then as I said before priviledge will hold in no Information which is contrary to that and all our other Books 't is only such a Breach of the Peace as for which security of the Peace may be required But further that this is a Priviledge enjoyed by the Peers Spiritual as well as Temporal I suppose will not be denied for I think they will not question but that the Bishops and Abbots that were Lords of Parliament were Peers and we find in our Books when the Court has been moved for a Capias against an Abbot if he were a Mitred Abbot and sat in the Lords House it was always said that no such Process ought to go and so it is in the case of Bishops but indeed for other Noble Men the difference is this Where it does not appear upon Record that they are Lords of Parliament there the Courts have put them to bring their Writs of priviledge but where it does appear upon Record that they are Peers the Court is to allow and take notice of their priviledge and there needs no such Writ Now that the Parliament priviledge and the priviledge of Peers as to their persons is the same appears by the form of the Writ in the Register fol. 287. Fitz Herb. Nat. Brev. 247. The Words of the Writ are these That if such a one be Sued at the Suit of another the Writ commands that a Peer out of Parliament time should have the same priviledge with those summoned by the KING to the Parliament and I know not any difference that can be put between them and it cannot be denied that all Informations whatsoever unless such as are for Breaches of the Peace for which Surety of the Peace may be required are under the Controul of the Parliament priviledge so that upon these grounds I do press that my Lords the Bishops may be discharged If there be any Information against us we are ready to enter our Appearance to answer it according to the course of the Court but if the Information be for no other thing than what is contained in the Warrant of Commitment then their persons ought to be priviledged from Commitment Mr. Pollixfen If your Lordship please to take it all together you will find it a case very well worth your consideration it being the case of all the Peerage of England Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord these Gentlemen have taken a great deal of Liberty and spent much of your time in making long Arguments and after all truly I do not know where to have them nor can understand what they would be at it seems they agree that for Treason Felony and Breach of the Peace a Peer may be Committed Ld. Ch. Iust. That is say they such a Breach of the Peace as for which Surety of the Peace may be required Mr. Attor Gen. Then all the Learning they have been pleased to favour us with is at an end for if here be any thing charged upon the Bishops for which Sureties of the Peace may be required then this is a good Commitment Ld. Ch. Iust. That they must agree upon their own Arguments Mr. Attor Gen. Can then any man in the world say that a Libel does not require Sureties of the Peace for we must now take it as it is here upon this Return How my Lords the Bishops will clear themselves of it is a Question for another time but the Warrant says they were Commited for Contriving Framing and Publishing a Seditious Libel against His Majesty and His Government Is there a greater Misdemeanour Or is there any thing on this side a Capital Crime that is a greater Offence Is there any thing that does so tread upon the Heels of a Capital Offence and comes so near the greatest of Crimes that can be Committed against the Government Not to enlarge at this time upon what the Consequences of such things may be Is there a greater Breach of the Peace than such Seditious Practices No doubt any man may be Committed for it and may be bound to find sureties for his good Behaviour Sir Robert Sawyer I say Sureties of the Peace not of the good Behaviour Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray my Lord would you consider where we are we are going towards France I think or some farther Country they have set us out to Sea and I do not see after this rate when we shall come to Land certainly these Gentlemen are mightily out of the way and would fain have us so too we are here upon a single Question as this Case stands before your Lordship upon the Return here is a Libel a Seditious Libel said to be contrived made and published against the KING and His Government by these Noble Lords the Prisoners this is the Accusation suppose this be true that is to be proved hereafter I hope they are innocent and will prove themselves so but suppose it to be true that they have made a seditious Libel against the King and His Government will any man say that this is not done Vi Armis This is a Libel with a witness nay two or three degrees more may carry it to High Treason and all the Informations that were exhibited by Sir Robert Sawyer when he was Attorney General and he exhibited a great many for Libels constantly these Words were in Vi Armis contra Pacem Bishop of Peterborough Was it so in your own Case Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes it was so
in my Case and you were one of them that prosecuted me for ought I know or if you did not prosecute me you preached against me or if you did not some of your Tribe did But so my Lord it was in many other Cases within time of Memory Sir Robert Sawyer has past a Complement upon me of my great Skill in Parliament matters but truly there needs no great Skill in matters where the Law is so plain a Peer they agree may be in Prison for Treason Felony or Breach of the Peace but that Breach of the Peace I say they is where the Law requires Sureties of the Peace but is there any Certainty where Sureties of the Peace shall be required and where not Then I would put this Cafe These Lords have contrived and published a Seditious Libel against the King and His Government and whether this be not such a Breach of the Peace as will require Sureties of the peace is the Question before you And it plainly appears to be so in Sir Baptist Hick's Case in Hobbart If a man write a private Letter provoking another to fight although there be no fighting this is a Breach of the peace now a Letter can do no Wrong in that kind but as it incites and stirs up to fighting which may occasion Blood-shed and I think there cannot be a greater Breach of the peace than for a man to come to the King's Face and publish a Libel against Him and yet according to their Doctrine this man shall go away and you shall not take him up but take a Subpoena against him and wait for the delay of all the ordinary process and they tell you another thing that a Capias does not lie upon an Information against the person of a Peer and that there is no precedent of any such thing but I would pray them to remember the Case of my Lord Lovelace about some three years ago for breaking a Foot-mans Head. It seems if a man libels the King in His own presence that is not so great a matter as a little Correction to an insolent Foot-man but there he was bound in a Recognizance to appear here in this Court and accordingly he did appear and was Charged with an information and as to that precedent I do believe Sir Robert Sawyer and Mr. Finch won't contradict me this was in the first year of this King There was likewise my Lord of Pembrooke's Case who went to a disorderly House and there frighted some people and we moved the Court and had an Attachment against him for a misdemeanour and he was glad to Compound the thing or it had not ended so soon as it did and yet if a Lord comes to the King's Person and affronts Him to his very Face will not an Attachment lie against him for it Certainly it will. My Lord we have gone out of the way too much already and these Gentlemen will lead us farther but we hope your Lordships will reduce us to the methods of the Law Here is an Information which we desire may be read if they have any thing to plead to it their time for that will come after it is read if they think they have been illegally imprison'd it appears plainly upon this Return who they were that did Commit them here are a great many Noble Lords to Answer an Action of false imprisonment if these Lords think fit and may have these Learned Gentlemen that are very well able to advise them what they should do in it Sir Robert Sawyer We pray your Lordships Judgment whether the Cases put by Mr. Sollicitor are like our Case Mr. Soll. Gen. They are as like as Sir Robert Sawyer is to Mr. Attorney that was Sir Robert Sawyer Those Cases are of apparent Breaches of the peace so likewise was my Lord of Devonshire's Case but certainly that was not at all like this Mr. Finch With your Lordships Favour I would add but one Word and I would repeat nothing of what has been said all that I shall say is this There is a great deal of Difference between an Actual Breach of the Peace and that which in the bare Form of an Information is a Breach of the Peace by Construction of Law it being contra pacem Suppose it be laid that a man did vi armis speak Words will that make the Words a Breach of the peace Mr. Soll. Gen. It must be vi armis and certainly is a Breach of the peace Mr. Finch If a man write a Petition are the pen and ink that he uses the Arms Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I hope Mr. Finch remembers what I heard him say in Algernoon Sidney's Case scribere est agere Mr. Finch I think it is so Mr. Sollicitor but every Action is not a Breach of the peace Ld. Ch. Iust. We let my Brothers deliver their Opinions I will give you mine Mr. Iust. Allyb. The single Question now is Whether or no that which Mr. Sollicitor was pleased to name as the Crime and lay it to the Charge of my Lords the Bishops that is a seditious Libel be a Breach of the peace I do confess that there is little of Argument to be drawn from Forms of Indictments and I shall put no great stress upon the words vi â—…mit where the Fact will not come near it but if a Commitment may ensue as they seem to agree wherever surety of the peace may be required nothing seems more important to me than that surety of the peace should be required where there is any thing of Sedition in the Case and wherever there is a Seditions Act I cannot tell how to make any other Construction of it but that it is an Actual Breach of the peace that is my Opinion Mr. Iust. Powell I am of the same opinion in this point too as I was in the other point before It was a matter of great consequence I thought upon the former point but now it appears to me to be of far greater consequence than it did at first for here all the Great High and Noble Peers of England are concerned in it as to theâ—… priviledge Our Predecessors in this Court heretofore would not determine the priviledges of the Peers but left them to themselves to make what Judgment they pleased of them I think truly 't is a thing of that weight that it may be very fit for the Court to take time to consider of it and I declare for my own part I will not take upon me to deliver â—…y Opinion in a matter of this Consequence before I have Consulted all the Books that can give me any Light in the Case Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Powell I am not determining limitting or cramping the priviledge of Peers but I am only considering whether or no a seditious Libel be a breach of the Peace 'T is agreed to be on all hands a breach of the Peace Is there any thing that will require Sureties of the Peace to be
given upon the doing of it For there Sir Robert Sawyer has laid the Foundation of his distinction and if that shall draw any person under a Commitment then say I in my Judgment wherever there is a seditious Libel there is that which is an actual breach of the Peace for I am sure there is that which is sufficient to require Sureties of the Peace I controvert not the right of the Peers one way or other but only declare my opinion That this is a fact that comes within the Rule laid down by them That what will require Sureties of the Peace is a breach of the Peace Mr. Iust. Holloway God forbid that in a Case of this Nature any one should take upon him here to say that every Misdemeanour were a breach of the Peace I say not so but certainly there are some such Misdemeanours as are breaches of the Peace and if here be such a Misdemeanour before us then it is acknowledged that even in Parliament time a priviledged person might be Committed for it For in Treason Felony and breach of the Peace priviledge does not hold I will not take upon me as my Brother said to determine concerning the priviledge of the Peers it is not of our Cognizance nor have we any thing to do either to enlarge or confine priviledge nor do we determine whether this be such a Libel as is charged in the Information that will come in question another time but certainly as this Case is the Information ought to be read and my Lords ought to appear and plead to it Ld. Ch. Iust. Certainly we are all of us here as tender of the priviledges of Peers as any in the World can be and as tender as we would be and ought to be in trying any man's right it becomes us to do it with great respect and regard to my Lords the Bishops and therefore I would be as careful if that were the question before me to consider very well before I give my opinion as ever I was in my life But when I see there can come no mischief at all to the priviledges of the Peers by what is agreed on all hands I think I may very justly give my opinion for here is the question Whether the fact charged in the Warrant be such a Misdemeanour as is a breach of the Peace and the words of the Warrant which is now upon the Record being such as have been recited I cannot but think it is such a Misdemeanour as would have required Sureties of the Peace and if Sureties were not given a Commitment might follow and therefore I think the Information must be read Mr. Attor Gen. We pray the Clerk may read it Clerk reads Middlesex ss Memorand That Sir Thomas Powys Knight Attorney General of our Lord the KING who for our said Lord the KING in this behalf Sues comes in his own person here into the Court of our said Lord the KING before the KING Himself at Westminster on Friday next after the morrow of the Holy Trinity in this Term and for our said Lord the KING gives the Court here to understand and be informed that our said Sovereign Lord the KING out of His Signal Clemency Mr. Soll. Gen. Read it as it is in Latin. Bish. of Peterborough My Lord We desire it may be read in English for we don't understand Law-Latin Mr. Soll. Gen. No my Lords the Bishops are very learned Men we all know pray read it in Latin. Clerk reads Memorundum Quod Thomas Powys Miles Attornatus Domini Regis nunc Generalis qui pro eodem Domino Rege in hac parte sequitur in proprâ—…a Persona sua venit hic in Curia dict' Domini Regis coram ipso Rege apud Westmonasterium Die Veneris proxime post crastinum Sanctae Trinitatis isto eodem â—…ermino pro eodem Domino Rege Dat Curiae hic intelligi informari quod dictus Dominus Rex nunc ex insigni Clementia benigna Intentione suis erga Subdâ—…os suâ—…s Regni â—…ui Angliae per Regiam suam Praerogativam quarto Die Aprilis Anno Regni Dict' Domini Regis nunc Tertio apud Westmonasterium in Comitatu Middlesexiae Declarationem suam Intitulatam His Majesties Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience gerentem Datum eisdem Die Anno Magno Sigillo suo Angâ—…ae Sigiâ—…dtim publicavit in qua quidem Declaratione continetur IAMES R. IT having pleased Almighty GOD not only to bring Us to the Imperial Crowns of these Kingdoms through the greatest difficulties but to preserve Us by a more than ordinary Providence upon the Throne of Our Royal Ancestors There is nothing now that We so earnestly desire as to Establish Our Government on such a Foundation as may make Our Subjects happy and Unite them to Us by Inclination as well as Duty which We think can be done by no means so effectually as by Granting to them the Free Exercise of their Reilgion for the time to come and add that to the perfect enjoyment of their property which has never been in any case invaded by Us since Our coming to the Crown which being the two things men value most shall ever be preserved in these Kingdoms during Our Reign over them as the truest methods of their Peace and Our Glory We cannot but heartily wish as it will easily be believed that all the People of Our Dominions were Members of the Catholick Church yet We humbly thank Almighty GOD it is and hath of long time been Our constant Sense and Opinion which upon diverse occasions We have declared that Conscience ought not to be constrained nor People forced in matters of meer Religion It has ever been directly contrary to Our Inclination as We think it is to the Interest of Government which it destroys by spoiling Trade depopulating Countries and discouraging Strangers and finally that it never obtained the end for which it was imployed And in this We are the more Coâ—…medi by the Reflections We have made upon the conduct of the four last Reigns For after all the frequent and pressing endeavours that were used in each of them to reduce this Kingdom to an exact Conformity in Religion it is visible the success has not answered the design And that the difficulty is invincible We therefore out of Our Princely Care and Affection unto all Our Loving Subjects that they may live at ease and quiet and for the increase of Trade and encouragement of Strangers have thought fit by Virtue of Our Royal Prerogative to issue forth this Our Declaration of Indulgence making no doubt of the Concurrence of Our two Houses of Parliament when we shall think it convenient for them to meet In the first place we do Declare that We will Protect and Maintain Our Arch-bishops Bishops and Clergy and all other Our Subjects of the Church of England in the Free Exercise of their Religion as by Law Established and in the quiet
in Parliament and particularly in the Years 1662 and 1672. and the beginning of Your Majesties Reign and is a matter of so great Moment and Consequence to the whole Nation both in Church and State that your Petitioners cannot in Prudence Honour or Conscience so far make themselves Parties to it as the Distribution of it all over the Nation and the solemn Publication of it once and again even in God's House and in the time of his Divine Service must amount to in common and reasonable Construction In contemptum dicti Domini Regis nunc Legum hujus regni Angliae manifestum in malum exemplum omnium aliorum in tali casu delinquentium ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam Dignitatem suas c. Unde idem Atornatus dicti Domini Regis nunc generalis pro eodem Domino Rege petit advisamentum Curiae hic in praemissis debitum legis processum versus praefatos Willielmum Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem Willielmum Episcopum Asaphensem Franciscum Episcopum Eliensem Iohannem Episcopum Cicestrensem Thomam Episcopum Bathonensem Wellensem Thomam Episcopum Petriburgensem Ionathanum Episcopum Britollensem fieri ad respondendum dicto Domino Regi de in praemissis c. T. Powys W. Williams Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord we humbly pray that according to the Rules of the Court in such Cases my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and my Lords the Bishops may Plead to the Information Mr. Solli Gen. My Lords the Bishops are here in Custody in Court upon the highest Commitment that can be in this Kingdom to wit That of the King in Council and we pray that according to the Course of the Court they may Plead to the Information presently L. Ch. Just. What does his Grace and my Lords the Bishops say to it Mr. Serj. Pemberton Will your Lordship give us leave who are of Council for his Grace my Lord of Canterbury and the rest of my Lords the Bishops to speak a word in this Matter L. Ch. Just. Ay Brother go on Mr. Serj. Pemberton That which we have to desire of your Lordship and the Court is this We have now heard this Information Read and 't is plain we could know nothing of this before the Warrant of Commitment being only in general for a Libel and this being a Case of the greatest Consequence peradventure that ever was in Westminster Hall that I think I may boldly say it is a Case of the greatest Consequence that ever was in this Court and it being a matter of this Nature that these Great and Noble Persons my Lords the Bishops are here taxed with that is for making a Seditious Libel contained in such a Petition as though it was a Libel to Petition the King We do beg this of your Lordship that it being of this great Importance to the end we may come prepared to say what we have against it We may have an Imparlance till the next Term. Mr. Finch Pray my Lord favour me with a Word on the same side for my Lords the Bishops You Lordship sees now how necessary the trouble we gave you before in making our Objections against the reading of the Information was and what the drift and aim of the Kings Councel was in the desiring the Information to be read first for now it is read What is it that they desire of your Lordships They desire that my Lord Arch Bishop and my Lords the Bishops being in Custody and brought here in Custody they may be now so Charged with this Information as to Plead presently This my Lord we oppose and with humble Submission we ought to have time to Imparle and a Copy of the Information that we may consider what we have to Plead to it for however we come here into Court whether legally or not legally yet ought we in the one and in the other Case to have time to Consider of our Defence And my Lord till of later time this Practice which the Kings Counsel now calls the Course of the Court was never used nor was any Man required to Plead immediately and my Lord if the Practice of the Court has not been anciently so as I do believe they will scarce shew it to be Ancienter than a few years last past then with humble submission though the Course of the Court have been so for some little time past yet it is not in the power of the Couâ—… as we humbly Conceive to make a Course in prejudice of all the Priviledges that the Kings Subjects are by the Antient Rules of Law intituled to they cannot make a new Law in prejudice of any Right or Priviledge which the Subject hath and call it the Course of the Court Now that this which we desire for my Lords the Bishops is the Right and Priviledge of the Subject is most manifest for there might be many Defences that a Man may have to make to an Accusation of this Nature which it is impossible for him to know at the first hearing of an Information read and yet which would be necessary for him to make use of or at least it would be impossible for him to make use of in such a manner as the Law doth allow of and require It may be the Pleas which he has to Plead may be such as that he has not time to put into form there may be Matters upon the hearing the Information read that it would be necessary for him to give answer to which he knew not of before and therefore may neither have Materials ready nor be capable of putting them if he had them ready into such Form as the Law requires They tell you on the other side that if a Man be brought into Court by Legal Process he may be Charged with any Information whatsoever that they are not tied to the Fact alleadged in the Commitment but finding the Party under a Legal Imprisonment they can exhibit an Information against him for any other Offence Then my Lord would I fain know which way any Man alive can be prepared to make his Just and Legal Defence for he knows not his Accusation for tho' he think it may be for that for which he was Committed yet it may prove otherwise and then he can be no way provided with Materials for his Defence but he must lose all Advantages which the Law gives him for his Defence My Lord if this be the course of latter times yet you will not take that to be such a Law as is binding to all future times and we are sure the King's Counsel cannot shew that this was the Ancient Practice for that was quite otherwise L. C. Iust. Mr. Finch you were not here I suppose when this Question came in debate in this Court lately in the Case of a very great Person 't was urged very earnestly and very learnedly by one that stands by you we upon that Debate asked Sir Samuel Astry what the Course of the
have it not ready 't is not telling the Court of it without shewing of it that will do and it may be a man that is taken up and brought hither in Custody cannot have it ready to shew but yet then by this Rule a man shall lose the benefit of his Plea by being compelled to answer immediately But they say the Court will do right I suppose they will and my Lords the Bishops in this case I believe do not distrust but that the Court will do right but I never thought the Law was brought to that pass that such things as these were left wholly in the discretion of the Court certainly Imparlances time to plead and just Preparations for a man's defence are things that the Law has setled and not left in the discretion of the Court and truly to me it seems all one utterly to take away a man's Defence as to hinder him of the means to prepare for it My Lord here is an Information before you against these Noble Lords it is a matter of great moment and tho' I hope in God there is no great cause for it yet however since such Persons are concerned and 't is a matter of such great weight I hope you will give us such an Imparlance as if we had this day appeared upon the ordinary Process which is an Imparlance until the next Term. L. Ch. Iust. There is a difference between this and that other Case if my Lords the Bishops had appeared upon the Summons they would have had an Imparlance of Course but when they are brought up hither in Custody that mightily alters the Case but that we may not be too hasty in a thing of this nature let the Clerk of the Court be consulted with that we may know what the true Course is Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we pray Sir Samuel Astry may be examined a little about it Mr. Iust. Allybone Mr. Pollixfen I believe the Court is unanimous in their Resolutions of making nothing new in this Case but pray give me leave to tell you this is not the first time that this Question has come to be agitated in this Court since I came hither Now from whence can the Court take their measures to be rightly informed what the Practice of the Court is but from the Information of the Officers of the Court who by their constant Imployment are most capable of knowing what the Course is Now if you come to offer any thing that may be matter of doubt to the Court concerning the Practice of the Court you having known that this thing was controverted before for so it has been should have provided your self with something that must be a reasonable motive for us to doubt for this has not been only once but often moved and our Officers have been consulted with concerning this Question which took its rise from such Objections as you have made now Now for you to tell us That you desire that we would look into Precedents is methinks pretty odd if you had brought us any Precedents it had been something And withall I must tell you that you must not reckon the favour of the Court in any particular Case to be the standing Rules for the Practice and Course of the Court but instead of bringing Precedents you only offer your own Thoughts and those would create no doubt in us but what has been before satisfied upon Examination of the Officers of the Court. Mr. Pollixfen Pray Sir will you give me leave to answer you one word Mr. Iust. Powell Truly I have not observed that ever this Point was started so as to beget a Question since I came hither but only in the Cases of the Quo Warranto's and truly in that Case I thought it hard they should be denied time to plead especially the Consequence being so fatal L. Ch. Iust. Yes yes Brother it has been several times Mr. Iust. Powell Truly my Lord I have not observed it nor do I remember it Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord I have always taken the distinction as to these Matters to be this Mr. Iust. Powell But my Lord if the ancient Course of the Court hath been to grant an Imparlance and a Copy of the Information before they plead I see no reason why my Lords the Bishops should not have the benefit of that ancient Course for if a man that is sued at Law for a Two-penny Trespass shall have that advantage as to receive a Declaration and have time to plead what he can to it why should not my Lords the Bishops in a matter of so great weight have the same advantage too But indeed if the Course of the Court had been anciently otherwise I can say nothing to it for the Course of the Court is certainly the Law of the Court. Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Powell you say well if they did produce any one Precedent to give us occasion to doubt in the matter Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray good my Lord will you give me leave Mr. Attorn Gen. Why Sir Robert Sawyer will you never have done Mr. Soll. Gen. No they are all so zealous and eager in this Case that they wont permit either the Court or any body else to speak a word but themselves Mr. Serj. Pemberton Good Mr. Sollicitor give us leave to answer the Objection that the Court hath made to us we would satisfie your Lordship where the Distinction really lieth where there has been an Opportunity for the party to come in as by Summons or Subpaena or the like and he has slipped that opportunity and so the King is delayed in that Case they always used to put the Party upon Pleading presently when he was taken up upon a Capias and brought in Custody but when there was never any Subpoena taken out as the Case is here so that the Party never had an opportunity to come in and render himself and appear to Answer it according to the due Course of Law an Imparlance was never yet denyed nor time to Plead and that is the Case here Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord Mr. Serjant has given you the true distinction where Process has gone out to summon any one to appear to an Information and he hath failed to appear according to the Summons and the Prosecutor for the King takes out a Capias if he be brought in upon that Capias the Ancient Course has been so as they say But for that other matter where a Man comes in upon a Commitment at the first Instance and an Information is put in just as this is the same Morning and not before if they can shew any one Precedent of this kind Fifteen years ago I would be contented to yield that they are in the right but I am sure they are not able to do it In Sir Mathew Hales's time when this was moved it was refused and he was clear of another Opinion Mr. Attor Gen. I hope now my Lord we shall be heard a little for the King and I
better look another way and look towards the Court for there your business lies L. Ch. Iust. Well Mr. Sollicitor What say you Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord it appears plainly that the King is in possession of this Priviledge and has been so for these dozen Years for so long the Justice of the Kingdom towards all the Subjects hath run in all the instances of it in this Channel and tho' it has been contested as often as Mr. Pollixfen has been of Counsel for the Defendant in such Cases it has always been ruled against him he indeed has made his continual Claims Sir Samuel Astry saies he has raised the Dust and made a Hue and Cry but it has always gone against him And I would ask the rest of you Gentlemen that are of Council for my Lords the Bishops for some or one of you I am sure has been concerned in every Information that has been exhibited in this Court for this nine or ten Years last past I would ask you whether in any Information that you have been concerned in if the Party being brought in by Process insisted to have time and an Imparlance it was ever granted him I know you will not say it ever was why then should there be more done in this Case than has been done in all other Cases this ten Years 'T is not sufficient to make Declarations against the unreasonableness of the Practice for it is but what you have done your selves and insisted upon for Law and all those men that upon Informations have been compelled to plead have had Injury done them or else these Lords will have no Injury by the Court 's taking the same Course It is true my Lords the Bishops are Peers and here are Seven of them and Seven Lords go a great way they make a Committee I think in the House of Peers and a mighty matter is made of it that this is the Case of so many Lords But will you alter the Course of the Court because Seven of my Lords the Bishops are concerned in it and they make a mighty stir about the Reasonableness of the thing How can it be believed that the Law will not give a man time to make his Defence They agree themselves that if it were in the Case of Life and Death they must plead presently and doth not the same Reason hold and may not an Argument be drawn à fortiori in the Case of a Misdemeanour If I am not to have time when I plead for my Life there is less Reason I should have time to answer a Trespass But my Lord 't is not Reason that weighs in the Case 't is the Course of the Court which is the Law of the Court that we are contending for and what is there in the Case that should require so much time for my Lords the Bishops to plead to it It is charged in the Information that these Noble Prelates did make a Libel which was produced by them and published in the Kings presence they can easily tell whether thâ—… have done this or not done it what can they plead but the general Issue They talk of special matter to be pleaded but can they shew any more that they can say than what any poor ordinary Countryman if he were here to plead to an Information could say that is whether he was Guilty or not Guilty These Lords can tell whether it be true that they did publish the Paper laid in the Information and then your Lordship will tell them what will be the Consequences of that Publication in point of Law. We say all this was done at Westminster there the Scene is laid and it is not an Information for an old stale thing done a great while ago but a thing that was done yesterday and a thing notorious enough their contesting with the King about his Declaration of Indulgence And as to what Mr. Finch has said That this is a Novel Invention and a Trick to rob a man of his just Defence sure he forgets who it is that taught us the Trick if it be a Trick we have learnt it from those that trick'd before us and what is it that these Lords do desire they would have an Impaâ—… till Michaelmas Term does or can your Lordship think they ask than which is reasonable to have six Months time to plead not Guilty to an Information for a Libel and when so many men have been denyed it formerly upon the instigation of those very Gentlemen that now press so very hard to have it granted sure they must expect to be denyed it too and all this while these Lords lye under this accusation which is not so trivial a matter as some would make it I believe my Lords the Bishops have a desire to be cleared I suppose it is only their Council that desire to delay it upon what ground I know not I believe they themselves would be glad to remove the imputation which would be best done by a Tryal and the sooner the better If they have a mind to justifie themselves this is the readiest course for it and they may do it presently by Pleading Not Guilty My Lord I know I am in a great Auditory and abundance of your Lordships time has been taken up already I press it therefore for the sake of the King and for the sake of my Lords the Bishops we shall else have all â—…ang in suspence and hang in the Air for six Months longer therefore let the matter be put upon a fair Issue so as it may come to a speedy Determination I am sure is these Lords be innocent to day they will be innocent to morrow and if it were my own case I would desire to have it Tryed as speedily as I could and therefore I pray they may plead immediately Mr. I. Powel Mr. Soll. What do you say to the Difference that was taken between a person that was brought in Custody at the first instance where there is no contempt to the Process of the Court and one that comes in here by Capias upon default of appearing at the Summons Mr. Finch My Lord If I apprehend them aright they give us more than we did ask for Mr. Sollicitor has laid it down as a Rule that if a Man is taken upon a Capias in a Mean Process he shall have no Imparlance Mr. Soll. Gen. No you are greatly mistaken Sir and I pray don't lay down Rules for me Mr. Finch If I am Sir I beg your pardon but this I am sure of if a Venire Fac. goes out which is in the nature of a Subpoena and the party appear to it that being the first time he could come into Court you cannot force him to plead to an Information but he has an Imparlance of Course Mr. I. Powell Methinks it seems very reasonable that this forcing a Man to plead presently should be only a punishment for a Contempt of the Court and pray were my Lords the Bishops in contempt to
Recognizance that had time to Plead truly My Lord I cannot just now tell whether any such Instance can be produced but I verily believe there may be a great many but I turn it upon them and that with great Reason with Submission to your Lordship Shew me any man if you can above a dozen years ago that had not time allowed him to Plead Ay but say they Mr. Waterhouse an Ancient Clerk of the Crown Office that has been there these sixty years hath certified that this hath been the practice of all his time My Lord we that have been Conversant in the business of this Court did all very well know Mr. Waterhouse when he was here and sat in Court in the place of Sir Samuel Astry Sir S. Astry No Sir It was in Mr. Harcourt's place Mr. Pollixfen Well he executed a place here and 't is no matter whether he were Master of the Office or no but I think we all knew him very well he was a man as lame in his business as could be for there are some men that will never do business well let them be never so long at it and he was as weak in the practice of the Court and every thing else as 't is possible for one that has been bred in an Office can be and at this time he is grown so decreppit and superannuated that you may as well depend upon the Certificate of an old Woman as any thing that he shall say in such a Matter as this he is now almost fourscore years of Age and has lost that little Memory and Understanding he had but if his Certificate must be depended upon because of his standing in the Office pray My Lord let him come hither and do you ask him what he has to say in this Matter Mr. Soll. Gen. Aye that is very well indeed Mr. Pollixfen Good Mr. Sollicitor spare us certainly there needs not such great hast in this Matter we are upon a business of very great Weight and Concernment for you are now making a Law for the whole Kingdom in point of Practice in Cases of this Nature We do say indeed that by the Reason of the Heat and Zeal of these last ten years such a Usage has been introduced but Sir Samuel Astry tells you it was opposed and I hope that neither I nor thâ—… thing will be the worse thought of because I opposed what I thought an unreasonable and new Invention My Lord I know in the Case of the City of London we had time to plead a whole Vacation after an Imparlance and were not at all hurried on as the King's Counsel would do in this Case My Lord if they can produce any Ancient President for it I will say no more but there is no Case in Print in any of our Books that ever I read or can remember that countenances such an Opinion a man by this means may loose his just Defence and he has no Remedy nor will it over be in his Power to retrieve it for he may be brought on a suddain into Court upon a Warrant and when he is here he shall be charged with an Information and presently he must Plead not Guilty because he has not time to prepare a Plea of any other Nature let him have never so much other special Matter or occasion for it if you please to let this Matter be examined what the Presidents are and what Age those Precedents are then perhaps your Lordship will get some satisfaction but otherwise if the bare Certificate of the Master of the Office is to be a Guide to the Court what is Law and what is not we shall be in a very uncertain Condition especially when the Matter comes in the very face of it a great deal of Unreasonableness and Injustice They on the other side will argue that is not more unreasonable then the practice in the Case of Treason and Fellony where Persons are compelled to Plead instantly But under favour My Lord there is no Comparison between this Case and that though I know it was always thought a hardship and defect in our Law that a person should be denied time to plead in case of Life and Death except he can shew some special Matter of Law that he has to Plead and then he has always time allowed him to put it into Form And I could never think there was any Reason to be given for it but because the common Defence of Fellons would be little Shifts and Arts which would destroy proceedings and make them tedious and that would be an Encouragement to People to commit Fellony and beside there is a Trust which the Law reposes in the Court in Capital Cases to take care that these Men should not suffer upon any little Tricks in Law but if you come below Treason and Fellony the Law puts no such hardship upon the Defendant nor reposes such aspecial Trust in the Court but a man may plead any thing he has to plead And can any man plead before he sees what he is â—…o plead to and shall the Law allow him Council to prepare his Plea and not allow him time to consult with that Council about it These are thingâ—… My Lord that truly to me seems unreasonable But as to the Practice and course of the Court I pray your Lordship to give Order that the Precedents may be searched that you may know what the ancient Practice was Mr. Finch Whether you will grant an Impâ—…ance now or no yet I hope however you will think â—…it to give My Lords the Bishops time to plead Lord Chief Iustice. But Mr. Finch we have had a Certificate from Sir Samuel Astry which truly weighs a great deal with me he tells you the Practice has been so ever since he came here and â—…t Mr. Waterhouse â—…old him that it had been so all his time which is sixty years Mr. Pollixfen My Lord there are Persons here that will upon their Oaths declare That Mr. Waterhouse has often told them the Practice was otherwise even in his time and afterwards a long time before this new waâ—… of Proceeding came in Mr. Ince My Lord if I might have liberty to speak I can say Mr. Waterhouse has told me Lord Chief Iustice. Pray be quiet Mr. Ince Mr. Iustice Allybone But pray Mr. Pollixfen give me leave to mind you how the Evidence stands against you the Objections are that this has been a Practice but for twelve years last past if that be true I think it goes a great way for the practice of twelve years is President enough Prima Facie that such is the practice For how shall we come to the knowledge of the practice but from our Officer Sir Samuel Astry who has been here Examined and he tells you that upon his coming into the Office when it could not be so doubtful as now it seems it is he took Instructions from Mr. Waterhouse I allow you 't is but his Certificate but that must
some slight Answer but then here are these two persons Mr. Harcourt and Mr. Sillyard and the one has been a Clerk these sixteen or seventeen years and the other has known the Office thirty years though there were not heretofore so many Informations of this Nature and Kind as now of late but still they say that a person that comes in upon a Commitment or a Recognizance shall never have any Imparlance Mr. Sol. Gen. Can they give any one Instance that has any the least shaddow to the contrary Mr. Pollixfen My Lord if we had time we hope we should be able to satisfie you in this Matter Mr. Sol. Gen. You have had time enough to prepare your selves for this Question if you had thought you could do any good in it L. C. I. Would the Course of the Court be otherwise to Morrow then it is to Day we have taken all the Care we can to be satisfied in this Matter and we will take care that the Lords the Bishops shall have all Justice done them nay they shall have all the Favour by my consent that can be shewn them without doing wrong to my Master the King but truly I cannot depart from the Course of the Court in this Matter if the King's Council press it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we must pray your Judgment in it and your Direction that they may plead L. C. I. Truly I think they must Plead to the Information Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Samuel Astry pray ask My Lords whether they be Guilty or Not Guilty Then his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury stood up and offered a Paper to the Court. Archbish. of Cant. My Lord I tender here a short Plea a very short one on behalf of my self and my Brethren the other Defendants and I humbly desire the Court will admit of this Plea. L. C. I. If it please your Grace it should have been in Parchment Mr. Sol. Gen. What is that my Lord offers to the Court L. C. I. We will see what it is presently Mr. Sollicitor Bish. of Peter I pray My Lord that the Plea may be Read. M. Sol. Gen. But not received Mr. Att. Gen. No we desire to know what it is first Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Attorney if they will Plead the Court sure is obliged to receive it L. C. I. If it is a Plea your Grace will stand by it L. Archbish. of Cant. We will all stand by it my Lord it is subscribed by our Council and we pray it may be admitted by the Court. Mr. S. Pemb. I hope the Court will not deny to receive a special Plea if we offer one L. C. I. Brother let us hear what it is Mr. Sol. Gen. Read it if you please but not receive it Clerk Reads the Plea which in English is thus The BISHOPS PLEA AND the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely John Bishop of Chicester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Jonathan Bishop of Bristol being present here in Court in their own Persons pray Oyer of the Information aforesaid and it is Read to them which being Read and heard by them the said Archbishop and Bishops The said Archbishop and Bishops say that they are Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament and each of them is one of the Peers of this Kingdom of England and a Lord of the Parliament and that they being as before is manifest Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament ought not to be compelled to answer instantly for the Misdemeanour aforesaid mentioned in the said Information exhibited here against them in this Court but they ought to be required to appear by due Process in Law issuing out of this Court hâ—…e upon the Information aforesaid and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the said Information exhibited against them and reasonable time to imparl thereupon and to advise with Council Learned in the Law concerning their Defence in that behalf before they be compelled to answer the said Information Whereupon for that the said Archbishop and Bishops were Imprisoned and by Writ of our Lord the King of Habeas Corpus directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower of London are now brought here in Custody without any Process upon the Information aforesaid issued against them and without having any Copy of the said Information or any time given them to imparl or be advised They pray Judgment and the Priviledge of Peers of this Kingdom in this Case to be allowed them and that They the said Archbishop and Bishops may not be compelled instantly to answer the Information aforesaid c. Rob. Sawyer Hen. Finch Hen. Pollixfen Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord with your Lordship's favour this in an ordinary Person 's Case would perhaps be thought not fair dealing or that which it being in the Case of these Reverend Prelates I shall not now name to make all this Debate and Stir in a Point of this nature to take the Judgment of the Court after three or four hours arguing and when the Opinion of the Court has been delivered then to put in a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court Sir Rob. Sawyer It is no such Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. It is so in effect but certainly it is such an Irregularity and such an unfair way of Proceeding as would not be endured in an ordinary Case and I hope you will give so little countenance to it as to reject it and make them Plead according to the usual course and way of proceedings certainly a Plea of this nature after so long an Argument would be reckoned nothing but a trick Mr. Serj. Pemb. We hope the Court and you are not of one mind Mr. Attorney in this matter we desire the Court to receive the Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. With submission the Court is not bound to receive Pleas that are put in purely for delay as this is for the Judgment of the Court has been already given in the very matter of this Plea and for rejecting a Plea it is done every day if a Man puts in a mere trifling dilatory Plea the Court may reject it Does this Plea contain any thing in it but what has been argued and debated pro con and setled by the Court already If they will put in any Plea in chief they may but such a Plea as this I hope shall not have so much countenance as to be receiv'd by the Court. Mr. Pollixfen Do you Demur to it if you please Mr. Attorney we will joyn in Demurrer with you Mr. Att. Gen. No there will be no need of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Surely the Court will never give so much Countenance to it as to receive it Mr. Finch If you will please either to Reply or Demur Mr. Sollicitor we are here to maintain the Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. If you were here you would say the same thing that we do My Lord this Plea is That
my Lord the Bishops are not bound to Plead instantly so that 't is not a Question Whether they ought to Answer or not to Answer but whether they ought to Answer immediately and what do they say more They would have an Imparlance and time to consult with their Councel what they shall Plead which is all but one and the same thing and what is the reason they give for this They induce it thus These Noble Persons are Peers of the Realm and so ought not to be compelled to Plead immediately this if I mistake not is the sum of their Plea. Now pray my Lord what sort of Plea is this It is not a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court tho' it do in a sort decline the Justice of the Court Is it a Plea in Abatement No it is not for it is only to gain time and do they now offer any thing more for themselves than what was said by their Council before Only That we are Peers of the Realm and that such is the Priviledge of Peers that they ought to have an Imparlance and time to Plead and that they ought not to answer presently My Lord this Matter hath been long agitated in the Court already your Lordship and the Court have given your Judgments and we know your Lordship and the Court will not admit of Tricks to delay the Kings Causes we all know the Term is a short Term and what I said in the beginning upon this matter I say again it is the Interest and for the Honour of my Lords the Bishops if they understand their own Interest and value their Honour to have this Cause tryed as soon as may be but this trifling and tricking is only for delay For what issue can be taken upon this Plea Certainly none And if we should Demurr what will be the end of that But only to get time to slip over the Term. If there were any thing worth the considering in this Plea and that had not been already debated and setled then it might concern us to give some Answer to it but we have spent three hours by my Watch in the Dispute and the Matter having been over-ruled already it is time to have an end of it sure the Court will never be so treated by these Persons that are of Councel for my Lords the Bishops for it cannot be thought that my Lords the Bishops do it of themselves and whether the Court will be so served we submit to your Lordship Certainly you will not receive such a Plea as this especially it being in Paper you will never countenance such a Practice so far as to give these Lords time to trifle with the Court if any such thing as a Plea be tender'd to the Court it ought to be in Parchment and if they would have an Imparlance there ought to have been an entry of a Petit Licentiam inter loquendi upon the Roll but not such a Plea as this for this in effect is no more then desiring an Imparlance which if it be granted of course upon such a Prayer entred upon the Roll you take it of course but if it be not of course you cannot come in by way of Plea it must be by suggestion upon the Roll and a Conceditur entred if this be admitted as a Precedent every Man hereafter that comes in upon an Information will take advantage of it and plead such a Plea as this and if you grant an Imparlance in this Case upon this Plea you must grant an Imparlance in every Case certainly the Law is not to be altered the Methods of Proceedings ought to be the same in every Case And I hope you will not make a particular Rule in the Case of my Lords the Bishops without a special Reason for it Mr. Serj. Pemb. We put in this Plea my Lord and are ready to abide by it and we say that according to the course of the Court it ought to be received Mr. Att. Gen. No but good Mr. Serjeant 't is in the discretion of the Court whether they will receive it or not for the matter has been in debate already and has receiv'd a determination the Court has over-ruled them in this very Point already and there is no more in this Plea than was in the Argument before and therefore it ought to be rejected as a frivolous Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. Here is a Plea offered in Writing and in Paper the Court sees what it is and I hope you will give no countenance to it Mr. Pollixfen I do hope my Lord you will not judge this as a frivolous Plea I think our Case is such that you will not do that if you think fit you may over-rule it but I hope you will not refuse it Mr. Soll. Gen. The Court will certainly reject a frivolous Plea and they may do it Mr. Pollixfen But Mr. Solliciter I hope the Court will consider of it whether it be a frivolous Plea or not it is true there has been a Debate about the course of the Court and there has been an Examination of the Clerk of the Office and the Court has gone upon his Certificate but yet still perhaps it may remain in doubt and it being a Question of such a consequence as this it may very well deserve the Court's Consideration there never was a Judicial Settlement of it that I know of yet nor do I know any way of having it satisfactorily setled but by the Judgment of the Court entred upon Record here we offer a Plea that contains the matter in debate and this Plea will appear upon Record and if upon consideration of the Plea your Lordship shall think fit to over-rule it and be of Opinion against the Plea then will you by your Resolution in a Judicial way settle the Question that has hitherto been in Controversy L. C. I. Mr. Pollixfen I would ask you whether the Council have dealt ingeniously with the Court or no in this matter after four hours debate and the Opinion of the Court delivered to come and sum up all the Arguments in such a Plea as this and so put us upon debating it over again Mr. Pollixfen My Lord certainly this has been done before without Offence after we had moved for a thing which was denied upon Motion it is no such great dis-respect to the Court with submission to put the same Matter into a Plea for the Judicial Opinion of the Court. Sir Ro. Sawyer That without all Question has been done a great many times Mr. Sol. Gen. How many times have you been accused of playing Tricks Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Rob. Sawyer Not so many as you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I don't ask it as if I questioned it for I assure you I don't doubt it of your part at all L. C. I. Pray Gentlemen don't fall out with one another at the Bar we have had time enough spent already Mr. Pollixfen Truly My Lord I would not trick with the Court in any
your Lordship to reject this Plea. Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we are in your Judgment whether you will receive this Plea or not L. C. I. You shall have my Judgment presently but my Brothers are to speak first Mr. I. Allybone Mr. Pollixfen makes it a Question whether this Plea may be reiected or not or whether it ought to be received and the Court give their Judgment upon it Mr. Iust. Powell Truly I do not know whether the Court can reject this as 〈◊〉 frivolous Plea. L. C. I. Surely we may and frequently do Mr. Att. Gen. You do it every day it 's a frequent Motion if a frivolous Plea be put in before it be entred upon Record as a Plea the Court may refuse it if they see cause Mr. I. Allybone Truly if it may be this appears to me a very frivolous Plea. Mr. Iust. Powell I do not know how the Court can reject any Plea that the party will put in if he will stand by it as they say they will here and I cannot think this a frivolous Plea it concerning the priviledge of Peers and Lords of Parliament Mr. I. Allybone Brother Powell I would be as tender of the Priviledges of Parliament and speak with as much respect of the Priviledges of the Peerage as any body else but for the matter of the Plea truly it appears to me that the Peers are named in it only for fashion safe and it is frivolous Mr. Iust. Powell The matter of the Plea except only their being said to be Peers and Lords of Parliament was spoke to before but it was only obiter and by way of motion but now it may come before us for our Judicial Determination Mr. I. Allybone Pray let the Plea be read again Which was done Mr. Iust. Allybone This Plea is no more but that which has been denied already upon solemn debate and if it be in the power of the Court to reject any Plea surely we ought to reject this Indeed I know not what power we have to reject a Plea but if we have power this ought to be rejected Mr. Iust. Powell I declare my Opinion I am for receiving the Plea and considering of it Mr. Iust. Holloway I think as this case is this Plea ought not to be received but rejected because 't is no more than what has been denied already I am not ashamed to say That I should be very glad and ready to do all things that are consistent with my Duty to shew respects to my Lords the Bishops some of whom are my particular Friends but I am upon my Oath and must go according to the course of Law. L. C. I. We have asked and informed our selves from the Bar whether we may or can reject a Plea and truly what they have said hath satisfied me that we may if the Plea be frivolous and this being a Plea that contains no more than what has been over-ruled already after hearing what could be said on both sides I think the Court is not bound to receive the Plea but may reject it and my Lords the Bishops must plead over Mr. Att. Gen. We pray they may plead in chief Clerk. My Lord Archbishop of Canterbury is your Grace guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty A. B. C. Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of St. Asaph is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of St. Asaph Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Ely is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Ely. Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Chichester is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Chichest Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Bath Wells Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Peterborough is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Peterborough Not guilty Clerk. My Lord Bishop of Bristol is your Lordship guilty of the matter charged upon you in this Information or not guilty Bish. of Bristol Not guilty Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray the Clerk may joyn Issue on the behalf of the King that so we may come to Tryal and we would have these Gentlemen take notice that we intend to try this Cause on this day fortnight and we pray liberty of the Court that we may try it at Bar. L. C. I. Are you not too hasty in that Motion Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we should indeed make it the Motion of another day but we do now tell them this exabundanti because my Lords the Bishops are now here and will I suppose take notice that we do intend to move it another day Mr. Soll. Gen. We now give them notice that we intend to move Sir Rob. Sawyer For that you need not trouble your selves we are very desirous it should be tryed at Bar and that as soon as you please Mr. Att. Gen. Well then you take notice it will be tryed this day fortnight L. C. I. Well what shall we do with my Lords the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. They are baylable no question of it my Lord if they please L. C. I. Then my Lords we are ready to bail you if you please Sir Rob. Sawyer We desire your Lordship would be pleased to take their own Recognizance L. C. I. What say you Mr. Attorney I think that may do well enough Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord with all my heart we will do it L. C. I. In what Penalty shall we take it Mr. Att. Gen. A 1000. I think my Lord his Grace and 500 l. apiece the rest Sir Rob. Sawyer What necessity is there for so much Mr. Att. Gen. Look you Sir Robert Sawyer to shew you that we do insist upon nothing that shall look like hardship what my Lords have been pleased to offer concerning taking their own Recognizance we agree to and what sums the Court pleases Mr. Soll. Gen. It is all one to us we leave it wholly to the Court. Sir Rob. Sawyer Only I have one thing more to beg of your Lordship on the behalf of my Lords the Bishops that you will please to order that in the Return of the Jury there may be forty eight returned Mr. Att. Gen. I tell you what we will do Sir Samuel Astry shall have the Freeholders Book if you please and shall return twenty four Sir Rob. Sawyer Eight and forty has been always the course when the Jury is returned by Sir Samuel Astry Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I pray the Officer may return the Jury according as is usual in Cases of this nature Mr. Att. Gen. You do admit of a Tryal at Bar Gentlemen Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes and try it when you will. L. C. I. They
say it shall be this day fortnight and let there be a Jury according to the usual course Sir Rob. Sawyer We pray it may be in the presence of the Attorneys or Sollicitors on both sides L. C. I. What is the usual coâ—…se Sir Samuel Astry Do you use to return twenty four or forty eight and then strike out twelve a piece which I perceive they desire for the Defendants Sir Sam. Astry My Lord the course is both ways and then it may be as your Lordship and the Court will please to order it L. C. I. Then take forty eight that is the fairest Mr. Att. Gen. We agree to it we desire nothing but a fair Jury Sir Rob. Sawyer Nor we neither try it when you will. L. C. I. Take a Recognizance of his Grace my Lord of Canterbury in 200 l. and the rest of my Lords in 100 l. a piece Mr. Att. Gen. What your Lordship pleases for that we submit to it Clerk. My Lord of Canterbury your Grace acknowledges to owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King the sum of 200 l. upon condition that your Grace shall appear in this Court on this day fortnight and so from day to day till you shall be discharged by the Court and not to depart without leave of the Court. Is your Grace contented A. B. C. I do acknowledge it Clerk. My Lord Bishop of St. Asaph you acknowledge to owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King the sum of 100 l. upon condition that your Lordship shall appear in this Court on this day fortnight and so from day to day until you shall be discharged by the Court and not to depart without leave of the Court. Is your Lordship contented Bish. of St. Asaph I do acknowledge it The like Recognizances were taken of all the rest of the Bishops and then the Court arose De Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Jacobi Secandi Regis Quarto In Banco Regis Die Veneris vicesimo nono die Junii 1688. in eod ' Term. Being the Feast of St. PETER and St. PAUL Dominus Rex versus Archiep. Cantuar. al. Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice Mr. Justice Holloway Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Allybone Judges Clerk. CRyer make Proclamation thrice Cryer Oyes Oyes Oyes Our Sovereign Lord the King streightly charges and commands every one to keep silence upon pain of Imprisonment Cl. of the Cr. Call the Defendents Cryer William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Archbish. Here. Cryer William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Bish. St. Asaph Here. And so the rest of the Bishops were called and answered severally Clerk. Gardez votres Challenges Swear Sir Roger Langley Cryer Take the Book Sir Roger. You shall well and truly try this Issue between our Sovereign Lord the King and William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and others according to your Evidence So help you God. The same Oath was administred to all the Jury whose Names follow viz. Sir Roger Langley Barr. Sir William Hill Knt. Roger Iennings Esq Thomas Harriot Esq Ieoffery Nightingale Esq William Withers Esq William Avery Esq Thomas Austin Esq Nicholas Grice Esq Michael Arnold Esq Thomas Done Esq Richard Shoreditch Esq Clerk. You Gentlemen of the Jury who are sworn hearken to the Record Sir Thomas Powis Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General has exhibited an Information which does set forth as followeth ff MEmorandum That Sir Thomas Powys Knt. Attorney-General of our Lord the King who for our said Lord the King in this behalf prosecutes came here in his own person into the Court of our said Lord the King before the King himself at Westminster on Friday next after the morrow of the Holy Trinity in this Term and on the behalf of our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That our said Lord the King out of his signal Clemency and gracious intention towards his Subjects of his Kingdom of England by his Royal Prerogative on the fourth day of April in the third year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster in the Country of Middlesex did publish his Royal Declaration entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience bearing date the same day and year sealed with the Great Seal of England in which Declaration is contained JAMES R. proâ—…t in the first Declaration before recited And the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King further giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That afterwards to wit on the twenty-seventh day of April in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid our-said Lord the King out of his like Clemency and gracious intention towards his Subjects of his Kingdom of England by his Royal Prerogative did publish his other Royal Declaration entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration bearing date the same day and year last mentioned sealed with his Great Seal of England in which Declaration is contained JAMES R. Our Conduct has been such c. prout in the second Declaration before recited Which said Royal Declaration of our said Lord the King last mentioned our said Lord the King afterwards to wit on the thirtieth day of April in the fourth year of his Reign aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid did cause to be printed and published throughout all England and for the more solemn Declaring Notification and Manifestation of his Royal Grace Favour and Bounty towards all his Leige-people specified in the Declaration last mentioned afterwards to wit on the fourth day of May in the fourth year of his Reign at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid our said Lord the King in due manner did Order as followeth At the Court at Whitehall the Fourth of May 1688. By the King 's most Excellent Majesty and the Lords of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council IT is this day Ordered by His Majesty in Council That His Majesties late Gracious Declaration bearing date the Twenty Seventh of April last be read at the usual time of Divine Service upon the Twentieth and Twenty Seventh of this Month in all Churches and Chappels within the Cities of London and Westminster and Ten Miles thereabout And upon the Third and Tenth of Iune next in all other Churches and Chappels throughout this Kingdom And it is hereby further Ordered That the Right Reverend the Bishops cause the said Declaration to be sent and distributed throughout their several and respective Diocesses to be read accordingly W m. Bridgeman And further the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That after the making of the said Order to wit on the eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex
of May the King's Order of Council for the Reading the Declaration Mr. Gantlâ—… There it is Sir. The Book delivered into Court. Mr. Sol. Gen. Read it I Pray Clerk Reads At the Court at Whitehall the fourth of May 1688. and so reads the Order of Council Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we have one thing that is mentioned in the Information that this Declaration was Printed if that be denied we will call Henry Hills his Majesties Printer because we would prove all our Information as it is laid Lord Ch. Iust. You must do so Mr. Sollicitor you must prove the whole Declaration Mr. Sol. Gen. Cryer call Henry Hills He was called but did not presently appear Mr. Sol. Gen. Call Mr. Bridgman though these Declarations prove themselves we have them here Printed but Swear Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Bridgeman Sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Shew Mr. Bridgeman the two Declarations Lord Ch. Iust. What do you ask him Mr. Sol. Gen. We ask you Sir if the two Declarations were Printed Mr. Bridgeman What Declarations do you mean Mr. Solliitor Mr. Sol. Gen. You know what Declarations I mean well enough but weâ—…l ask you particularly you know the Declaration that was made the 4th of April in the third Year of the King. was it Printed Mr. Bridgeman Yes it was Printed by the King's Order Mr. Sol. Gen. Was that of the 27th of April in the 4th Year of the King Printed Mr. Bridgman Yes they were both Printed by the King's Order Mr. At. Gen. Then the next thing in course is the Bishops Paper Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Bridgeman pray let me ask you one Question Did you ever compare the Print with that under Seal Mr. Bridgeman I did not compare them Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Sol. Gen. He does Swear they were Printed by the King's Order Sir Robert Sawyer Good Mr. Sollicitor give me leave to ask him a Question Can you Swear then that they are the same Mr. Bridgman I was not asked that Question Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. Come then Mr. Bridgeman I 'le ask you Do you believe they are the same Sir Rob. Sawyer Is that an Answer to my Question Mr. Sol. Gen. We must ask him Questions as well as you Sir Robert what say you Do you believe it to be the same Lord Ch. Iust. You hear Mr. Sollicitors Question answer it Mr. Bridgeman Mr. Bridgeman Yes my Lord I do believe it Lord Ch. Iust. Well that 's enough Mr. At. Gen. If there were occasion we have them here Compared and they are the same Sir Rob. Sawyer With Submission my Lord in all these Cases if they will prove any Fact that is laid in an Information they must prove it by those that know it of their own Knowledge Do you know it to be the same Mr. Sol. Gen. That 's very well Sir. Sir Rob. Sâ—…yer Ay so it is Mr. Sollicitor It is a wonderful thing my Lord that we cannot be permitted to ask a Question Do you know it to be the same Mr. Bridgeman I ask you again Mr. Bridgeman I have not compared them I tell you Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Rob. Sawyer Then that is no Proof Lord Ch. Iust. Would you have a Man Swear above his Belief he tells you he believes it is the same Sir Rob. Sawyer Is that Proof of an Information Lord Ch. Iust. Well you 'l have your time to make your Objections by and by Mr. At. Gen. Then Swear Sir Iohn Nicholas Sir Iohn Nicholas I am Sworn already Mr. At. Gen. I see you have a Paper in your Hand Sir Iohn Nicholas pray who had you that Paper from Sir Iohn Nicholas I will give you an Account of it as well as I can Mr. Pollixfen Before they go to another thing my Lord we think they have failed in their Proof of their Information about the Printing this Declaration Mr. At. Gen. Where is Mr. Hills Mr. Iust. Allyb. They have laid That it was printed by the King's Order and it is such a matter Mr. Sollicitor as you may clear if you will sure Mr. Sol. Gen. There is Mr. Hills now I see him L. C. Iust. I was going to give Order that you should send to the Printing-house for him Mr. Iust. Allyb. They may put this matter out of doubt too if they will on the other side for I see they have a Copy in Print and there 's the Original they may compare them if they please Mr. Sol. Gen. I am very glad to hear such a strong Objection Sir Rob. Sawyer We would clear the way for you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. No you put Straws in our way we shall be able enough to clear it without your help Swear Mr. Hills and young Mr. Graham here Hills and Graham sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Graham did you compare any of these Printed Declarations with the Original Graham Yes I did compare some of them and did make Amendments as I went along Mr. Sol. Gen. 〈◊〉 one that you have compar'd with the Original Mr. Att. Gen. Hills is here himself we 'll ask him Are you sworn Sir Cryer He is sworn Mr. Att. Gen. Pray were the King's Declarations for Liberty of Conscience printed both of them Hills Ay an 't please you Sir. Mr. Att. Gen. You printed them I think Hills Yes I did print them Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Hills you say they were printed Upon your Oath after they were printed did you examin them with the Original under Seal Hills They were examined before they were printed Sir Rob. Sawyer Did You examin them Hills I did not here 's one that did Mr. Sol. Gen. Who is that Hills It is Mr. Williams here Mr. Sol. Gen. Swear him Williams sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you hear Williams Do you know that the King's Declaration for Liberty of Conscience two of them one of the 4th of April and the other of the 27th of April were printed Williams Yes my Lord. Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you examin them after they were printed by the Copy they were printed by Williams Yes I did Mr. Sol. Gen. Where had you the Copy who had you it from Williams I had it from Mr. Hills Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Williams did you examin them with the Original under the Great Seal Williams The First Declaration I did Sir Rob. Sawyer The Second Declaration is the main Williams The Second was Compos'd by the First Sir Rob. Sawyer Why is there no more in the Second Declaration than there was in the First Williams Yes there is Sir. Sir Rob. Sawyer Did you examin That with the Original under the Great Seal Williams No I did not Mr. Sol. Gen. Can any one tell who did examin it under the Great Seal Mr. Finch Pray what did you examin it by Mr. Williams Williams By a Copy that I receiv'd from Mr. Hills Mr. Att. Gen. Then we will go on and we desire Sir Iohn Nicholas to give an account where he had that Paper that he has in his hand Mr. Finch My Lord it does not appear that
believe it or do you not Mr. Middleton It is like it that 's all I can say Mr. Sol. Gen. Cannot you tell whether you believe it or not believe it Mr. Middleton I do believe it is his hand Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you ever see him write for I would clear this matter beyond exception Mr. Middleton I have seen his Lordship write but I never stood by him so near as to see him make his Letters Mr. Sol. Gen. Is that his Hand-writing Mr. Middleton It is like it I believe it is his Mr. Sol. Gen. You did not guide his Hand I believe Do you know my Lord of Chichester's Hand-writing Mr. Middleton Sir I am acquainted with none of their Hands but with my Lord of Canterbury's and my Lord of Ely's Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord of Peterburgh's Hand-writing Mr. Middleton I had my Lord of Peterburgh's Writing two years ago for some money but I cannot say this is his Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to be his Mr. Middleton I never took notice of it so much as to say I believe it to be like it I never saw it but once Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know any other of the Names there What say you to the Bishop of Bristol's Name Mr. Middleton I saw once my Lord of Bristol's Hand-writing Mr. Sol. Gen. What say you to that Writing there Mr. Middleton It is like it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you believe it to be his or no Mr. Middleton Truly that I cannot say for I never saw it but once Lord Ch. Iust. You never saw him Write did you Mr. Middleton No my Lord I never did Mr. Sol. Gen. Then we will call Sir Thomas Pinfold and Mr. Clavel Sir Thomas Pinfold is there Swear him Sir Thomas Pinfold Sworn Mr. Sol. Gen. Sir Thomas Pinfold do you know my Lord Bishop of Peterburgh's Hand-writing Sir Thomas Pinfold Truly not very well I never saw but one Letter from him in my Life shew me his Hand and I will tell you Which was done Mr. Sol. Gen. Well Sir what say you to it Sir Tho. Pinfold Then upon my Oath I say I cannot well tell upon my own Knowledge that it is his Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. I ask you do you believe it to be his Hand Sir Tho. Pinfold Sir upon the Oath that I have taken I will answer you that upon this account that I have heard there was a Paper delivered by my Lords the Bishops to the King and this Paper that you offer me I suppose to be the same upon that Score I do believe it but upon any other Score I cannot tell what to say Mr. Sol. Gen I ask you upon your Oath Sir do you believe it is his Hand-writing or no Sir Tho. Pinfold Sir I have answered you already that upon my own Knowledge I cannot say it is his Hand-writing but because I have heard of such a Paper I do believe it may be his Lord Ch. Iust. Did you ever see my Lord Bishop write Sir Tho. Pinfold I have been in his Chamber several times when he has been Writing but I had more Manners than to look upon what he Writ Lord Ch. Iust. Did you never see him write his Name Sir Tho. Pinfold I do not know that I ever saw him write his Name but I have seen him Writing I say and so my Lord Bishop may have seen me Writing but I believe he does not know my Hand Mr. Sol. Gen. You have seen him write you say Sir Tho. Pinfold I tell you Mr. Sollicitor I have been in his Chamber when he has been Writing but I had more Manners than to look over him Mr. Iust. Powel Then you did never see any of that Writing Sir Tho. Pinfold I cannot say I did my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray did you never see any of his Writing but that Letter you speak of Sir Tho. Pinfold No not that I remember Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor you must call other Witnesses for this does not prove any thing Mr. At. Gen. We will go on Swear Mr. Clavel Mr. Clavel Sworn Mr Sol. Gen. Do you know my Lord Bishop of Peterburgh's Hand-writing or no Mr. Clavel I have seen it many times Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you know it when you see it Mr. Clavel I believe I do Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray look upon that Paper and upon your Oath tell us do you believe that Name to be his Writing or no Mr. Clavel I do believe it is my Lord. Mr. At. Gen. Pray look upon the rest of the Hands there do you know any of the other Names Mr. Clavel No I do not Mr. Att. Gen. Have you ever seen any of their Writing Mr. Clavell It is probable I may have seen some but do not now remember it Mr. Sol. Gen. I think you are a Bookseller Mr. Clavell Mr. Clavell Yes I am so Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. I suppose you have had some Dealings with them in the way of your Trade Did you never see any of their Writing Mr. Clavell I have seen the Names of some of them but it is so long since that I cannot Remember L. C. I. Did you ever see my Lord of Peterborough Write Mr. Clavell I cannot tell whether ever I saw him Write his Name or no but I have had several Letters from my Lord of Peterborough Mr. Sol. Gen. Is that his Hand-writing Mr. Clavell I cannot say it is I believe it is Mr. Sol. Gen. You have had Letters from him you say Mr. Clavell Yes and it seems to be like his Hand Mr. Pollixfen But you never saw him Write his Hand you say Mr. Clavell I cannot say I ever did Mr. Sol. Gen. These Letters that you have received from my Lord of Peterborough did he own them Do you think they were Counterfeit or of his own Hand-writing Mr. Clavell I suppose he has owned them Sir. Mr. I. Powell But you must Answer directly Sir Did he own them Mr. Sol. Gen. What did those Letters concern were they about Books or what Mr. Clavell They were sometimes about one business sometimes about another Mr. Sol. Gen. Was the subject-matter of any of these Letters about Mony and was it paid you Did you receive or did you give any account of it Mr. Clavell They were about several Businesses L. C. I. Look you Mr. Clavell you must give us as particular account as you can Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir upon those Letters were the things done that those Letters required Mr. Clavell Yes they were Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you do your part Mr. Clavell Yes I did Mr. Sol. Gen. Now I would ask you Do you believe that Name of my Lord Bishop of Peterborough to be the Hand-writing of my Lord Bishop Mr. Clavell I believe it is Mr. I. Powell Do you know that those Letters that you say you received from my Lord were of my Lords own Hand-writing Do you Swear that Mr. Clavell My Lord I cannot Swear that Mr. Finch Do you know whether the Letters
spoke Brother Pemberton and I would willingly hear you what you have to say but we must not have vying and revying for then we shall have no end Mr. Serj. Levinz I would offer your Lordship some new matter which has not been touched upon yet why it is not to be Read. L. C. I. What 's that Brother Mr. Serj. Levinz All the proof that has been given whatsoever it amounts to has been only of its being Written but no proof has been given of its being Written in the County of Middlesex where the Information is laid and the matter is Local Mr. Sol. Gen. First Read it and then make your Objection Mr. Recorder My Lord as to the Evidence that has been given I would only put your Lordship in mind of one Case and that was the Case of Sir Samuel Barnardiston and the great Evidence there was the proof of its being his Hand-writing and that being proved was sufficient to Convict him of a Libel for they could not believe Sir Samuel Barnardiston was Guilty of making Libels unless they were proved to be his Hand-writing Sir Robert Sawyer He owned them to be his Hand-writing L. C. I. If you do expect my Opinion in it whether this be good Evidence and whether this Paper be proved or no I am ready to give it Mr. Finch My Lord I desire to be heard before the Opinion of the Court be given Mr. Sol. Gen. If there be not proof enough to induce the Jury to believe this is their Paper yet sure there is enough to Read it Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord we have not been heard to this yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Why is this fit to be suffered L. C. I. Mr. Sol. I am always willing to hear Mr. Finch Mr. Sol. Gen. But I hope your Lordship and the Court are not to be Complemented into an unusual thing Mr. Serj. Pemberton It is not a Complement but Right and Justice Mr. Sol. Gen. Certainly it is Right and Justice that there should be some limits put to Men's speaking that we may know when to have an end Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Sollicitor does mistake the right my Lord for we desire to be heard to this Point as not having spoke to it yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir let me make my Objection to your being heard for I believe you and I have been chid several times for speaking over and over the same thing Sir R. Sawyer This that we now offer iâ—… not to the same Point that we have spoken to already Mr. Sol. Gen. We are now speaking to the Reading of the Paper and you have spoken to it already Sir R. Sawyer If the Court will please to hear us we have that to offer against the Reading of that Paper which has not been offered yet L. C. I. Sir Robert Sawyer I take it it is in the Breast of the Court â—…o heâ—… when they will and as much as they will and whom they will for if Three or Four have been heard of a side to speak what they will the Court may very well depend upon the Learning of those Three or Four that they say what can be said upon the Point and that 's enough but if Six or Seven desire to be heard over and over to the same thing certainly the Court may stop at Three or Four if they will. Sir R. Sawyer This is a new Objection that none of us have been heard to yet Mr. Finch My Lord that which I offer is not contrary to the Rules of Law nor contrary to the Practice of the Court nor was I going any way to invade that Priviledge which Mr. Sollicitor claims of making Objections and not receiving an Answer Mr. Sol. Gen. What a fine Declamation you have now made I never claimed any such right but I oppose your being heard over and over to the same thing Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord let 's come to some Issue in this matter L. C. I. I will hear you but I would not have you introduce it with a reflection upon the King's Council Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord if you impose that upon him you stop his Mouth for some Men cannot speak without reflection L. C. I. On the other side pray Mr. Sollicitor give us leave to hear fairly what they have to say for I perceive he cannot offer to speak but you presently stop his Mouth Mr. Finch My Lord that which I was going to say is another matter than any thing that has been yet offered We say that this Paper ought not to be Read for that they are obliged by Law to prove their Information and consequently having laid a particular place where the thing was done in the Information they ought to prove that this was done in that place The Evidence that they have given is of my Lords the Bishops Writing this Paper and they have laid it to be done in Middlesex and this with submission to your Lordship is local and they must prove it to be Written in Middlesex where they have laid it or else they fail in their proof This is another Objection which as yet hath not been spoken to That if there be a proof of their Hand-writing yet there is no proof where that Hand was Written and therefore they are not yet got so far as to have it Read against my Lords Mr. Att. Gen. For that Point my Lord we say This would have been as properly said after the Paper had been Read when they come to make Objections against our Proof by way of Defence and with submission it had been more proper then than it is now For what are we now doing My Lord we are Proving that such a Paper was Subscribed by my Lords the Bishops and Sir Iohn Nicholas gives you an Account that he had it from his Majesty at the Council and that certainly is in the County of Middlesex and iâ—… will concern you to Prove that it was Written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's very well Mr. Attorney sure you do not think as you speak Mr. Att. Gen. Here is a Paper Composed and Written by you that Sir Iohn Nicholas says he had from his Majesty how he came by it I suppose you will tell us by and by this is your Hand-writing that I think we have proved sufficiently this is found in the County of Middlesex and you come and tell us that we must Prove that it was Written in the County of Middlesex and it is taken to be Written where it was found unless you Prove the contrary Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's pretty Doctrine indeed and very new Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord here 's an Objection made too timely we are now upon Reading of this Paper and the Question is Whether it shall be Read or not be Read. Surely we have given Evidence enough to induce the Court to Read it and it is another Question that will come time enough afterwards Where it was Writen L. C. I. Truly I do not think it
Whitehall Mr. Soll. Gen. What say you to the Bishop of St. Asaph Did he own it Mr. Blathwayt Yes All my Lords the Bishops did own it Mr. Soll. Gen. Name them particularly what say you the Bishop of Ely Mr. Blathwayt In the same manner my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. The Bishop of Chichester Mr. Blathwayt In the same manner Mr. Soll. Gen. The Bishop of Bath and Wells Mr. Blathwayt Yes my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. The Bishop of Peterborough Mr. Blathwayt Yes my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. And the Bishop of Bristol Mr. Blathwayt Yes my Lord. Mr. Soll. Gen. So We have proved they all owned it Mr. Iust. Holloway Could not this have been done at first and saved all this trouble Sir Rob. Sawyer Have you done with Mr. Blathwayt Mr. Attorney that we may ask him some questions Mr. Att. Gen. Ask him what you will. Mr. Ser. Pemb. Pray Mr. Blathwayt upon what occasion did they own it you are Sworn to tell the whole truth pray tell all your Knowledge and the whole Confession that they made Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I am called here by a Subpoena to answer on behalf of the King my Lord I am ready to doe my duty and I beg of your Lordship that you would please to tell me what is my duty for whatsoever I shall answer I shall speak the truth in Mr. Ser. Pemb. There is nothing desired but that you would speak the truth Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I am easily guided by your Lordship what I ought to answer to L. C. Iust. What is it you ask him Brother Pemberton Mr. Ser. Pemb. We desire Mr. Blathwayt to tell the whole discourse that passed at the Council when he says my Lords the Bishops owned this Paper Mr. Soll. Gen. That 's a very pretty thing indeed L. C. Iust. Look you Mr. Blathwayt you must answer them what they ask you unless it be an ensnaring Question and that the Court will take care of Mr. Blathwayt If your Lordship please to ask me any Question I shall readily answer it L. C. Iust. You must answer them Mr. Ser. Pemb. We ask you upon what occasion they came to own their Hands What discourse was made to them and what they answered Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I beg your Lordship's directions L. C. Iust. Come tell it Sir. Mr. Blathwayt My Lord the occasion was this This Paper was read in Council and I had the honour to read it before the King and it having been read before his Grace the Arch-Bishop and my Lords the Bishops they were asked whethey did own that Paper and my Lord they did own it Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Blathwayt was that the first time that my Lords the Bishops came in Mr. Blathwayt Sir I was not asked that Question L. C. Iust. What would you have Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Robert Sawyer We would have an account what passed at the Council L. C. Iust. Would you have all the Discourse betwixt the Council and my Lords the Bishops Mr. Ser. Pemb. All that relates to their Accusation my Lord their whole Confession and what was said to them Mr. Att. Gen. Do you think Mr. Serjcant that when we call a Witness you are at liberty to examine him to every impertinent thing Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we desire that they may only ask reasonable and proper Questions Mr. Ser. Pemb. Mr. Sollicitour he is sworn to answer and tell the whole truth and that 's all we ask of him Sir Rob. Sawyer Sir I will ask you a plain Question upon your Oath did not my Lord Arch-Bishop and the rest of my Lords the Bishops at first resuse to own it or to answer whether it were their Hands or not Mr. Soll. Gen. That is not a fair Question Sir Robert Sawyer 't is a leading Question Mr. Ser. Pemb. Then I ask you in short what did they refuse I am sure that is a fair Question for God forbid that any should hinder the King's Evidence from telling truth Sir Rob. Sawyer And God forbid that half Evidence should condemn any man. L. C. Iust. God forbid the Truth should be concealed any way Mr. Ser. Pemb. Pray Sir when they were first asked whether that was their Hands or not what answer did they give Mr. Blathwayt Sir I have begged the favour of my Lords the Judges to tell me what I am to answer and what Questions are proper for me to answer to L. Ch. Iust. You must answer any Questions that are not ensnaring Questions Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Blathwayt you are upon your Oath to testifie the Truth Mr. Blathwayt Sir I am not acquainted with the Methods of Law I desire my Lords the Judges would instruct me Mr. Iust. Ailibone Answer to the Question that they ask you Ld. Ch. Iust. We observe what they ask you we 'll take care that they ask you nothing but what they should Mr. Blathwayt I desire the Question may be repeated Mr. S. Pemberton When they were first asked if it were their Hands what answer did they give the King Mr. Blathwayt His Grace the Archbishop and my Lords the Bishops at first did not immediately answer whether the Paper were theirs or no. Mr. S. Peinberton What did they say Mr. Blathwayt They said they did humbly hope if they were put to answer no advantage should be taken against them Mr. S. Pemberton What did they say farther at that time concerning His Majesties pleasure Mr. Soll. Gen. That 's a leading Question Mr. S. Pemberton you cannot leave your way of leading Witnesses Mr. S. Pemberton It is a very strange thing if we ask a question that 's general that 's excepted to if we ask any question in particular then they find fault with us that it is a leading Question so that we can never ask a question that will please them Pray Mr. Blathwayt what did they say concerning the King's pleasure whether they would answer if the King commanded them Mr. S. Trinder How can it be material what they said L. Cn. Iust. It is material that it should be asked and that it should be answered Mr. S. Levinz You are to tell the whole Truth Sir Pray tell us what did my Lords the Bishops say about submitting to the King's pleasure Mr. Soll. Gen. What is that to the purpose Mr. Pollixfen Mr. Sollicitour his Oath is to tell the truth and the whole truth and therefore he must answer my question Mr. S. Pemberton You are mighty loth Mr. Sollicitour to let us hear the truth I would not willingly lead him in any thing and I cannot see that this is any leading question unless his Oath be against Law which says he is to tell the whole truth Mr. At. Gen. My Lord I do beg your Lordship's favour of a word in this thing It is certain if they ask any thing that shall take off the Evidence that was first given that it is not true I cannot oppose it but if they ask questions onely to conflame and to possess people
with foolish notions and strange conceits that is not to the fact that we are now trying Sr. Rob. Sawyer 'T is onely to have the truth out that we doe it Mr. S. Pemberton There is no body here that will be enflamed Mr. Attorney I have asked a fair question the Court has ruled it so Mr. Blathwayt I shall readily answer any question that the Court thinks fit Mr. S. Pemberton Sir by the Oath you have taken you are to tell the whole truth L. Ch. Iust. Is he to tell you all that was done at the Council board that day Mr. S. Pemberton No my Lord onely what passed there about my Lords the Bishops Confession the whole of that matter Mr. Blathwayt There has been so much said between the asking of the question and this time that I desire it may be repeated that I may know what to answer to Mr. S. Pemberton I ask you in short Sir What did my Lords the Bishops say at the time of their appearing in Council concerning the King's pleasure whether they should answer or not Mr. Blathwayt The first time my Lords the Bishops came into the Council they were asked the question whether they did own that Paper they did immediately answer They humbly hoped as they stood there Criminals His Majesty would not take advantage against them but however they would obey His Majesties Command Sir Rob. Sawyer Were they commanded to withdraw Mr. Blathwayt Yes thereupon they were commanded to withdraw which they did Mr. S. Pemberton When they came in again what questions were asked them Mr. Blathwayt They came in several times more than twice I have reason to remark this that they did so Do you mean the second time Sir Mr. S. Pemberton Yes Sir. Mr. Blathwayt The second time they seemed unwilling to own the Paper Sir Rob. Sawyer And what did they doe the third time Mr. S. Pemberton But first let us know what more was done the second time Sir Geo. Treby How was that unwillingness of theirs overcome Mr. S. Pemberton When they exprest their unwillingness what did they say farther Mr. Blathwayt If I remember right they said as they did the first time they humbly hoped His Majesty would not take advantâ—…ge against them Mr. S. Pemberton Then what did they say the third time Sr. Rob. Sawyer Pray were they asked whether they published it Mr. Blathwayt As to the publishing it it was laid before them and I think they were asked the question whether they published it Sir Rob. Sawyer And what answer did they make Mr. Blathwayt I remember His Grace and my Lords the Bishops did not own they had published it but they denied it Sir Geo. Treby After they discovered their unwillingness the second time what followed next Mr. Blathwayt They did withdraw after the second Attendence Mr. S. Levins But what was said to them Was that all that was said to them the second time Mr. Blathwayt I have said two things already that they were unwilling to answer and that they denied the publishing L. Ch. Iust. This is strange usage of a Witness to put him to tell every thing that was said Mr. S. Pemberton I would ask you this question Sir When they came in the second time whether they did desire to know if it were His Majesties Command that they should own it L. Ch. Iust. That I must not permit you to ask Brother that is to lead the Witness Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord he will not answer general questions I have asked him all along general questions and I cannot get an answer from him to them Mr. Blathwayt I am ready to answer any questions that the Court thinks I should answer I am not backward to answer according to my duty L. Ch. Iust. Let one of you ask a question at a time and not chop in one upon another Mr. Soll. Gen. In all the Tryalls that ever I have been in in all the Cases of Criminals the King's Witnesses used to be treated with respect and not to be fallen upon in this manner L. Ch. Iust. He shall be sure to have all respect paid him Mr. Soll. Gen. He is in Office under the King. Mr. S. Pemberton I do not think Mr. Blathwayt does believe I would shew him any disrespect more than he would shew me Mr. Att. Gen. I beg one word my Lord. L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Attorney What do you say Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I say I do oppose the asking of this question not but that every man has a right to cross examine a Witness but if they ask such a question let them tell us what use they would make of it L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Attorney General for that matter Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord if you please I 'll give Mr. Attorney an answer L. Ch. Iust. Brother Pemberton I was speaking to Mr. Attorney and pray hear me I will not ask you what use you 'll make of the question you ask but do you ask fair and regular questions and I 'll take care you shall have an answer to them Mr. Serj. Pemberton I will deal plainly with the Court and tell you what use we intend to make of our question if they answered under a Promise from His Majesty that it should not be given in Evidence against them I hope they shall not take advantage of it Mr. Soll. Gen. I say that is a very unmannerly question but however it shall be answered Mr. Serj. Pemberton Why so Mr. Sollicitour Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord it is to put something upon the King which I dare hardly name L. C. Iust. We do not know what Answer will be made to it yet but it does look like an odd kind of question Mr. Soll. Gen. If men will be so pressing I for the King desire the question may be entred Sir R. Sawyer What do you mean Mr. Sollicitour Mr. Soll. Gen. I know very well what I mean Sir I desire the question may be recorded in Court. Mr. Serj. Pemberton Record what you will I am not afraid of you Mr. Sollicitour Mr. Soll. Gen. Are you afraid of the Law Mr. Serj. Pemberton No nor of you neither L. C. Iust. Pray be quiet Gentlemen Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Blathwayt answer whether there was any promise made to my Lords the Bishops from the King. Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I take the question to be whether the King was pleased to make my Lords the Bishops any promise of not taking advantage of what answer they made Mr. Att. Gen. That is the question Mr. Blathwayt As that question is stated there was no such made L. C. Iust. Look you he tells you there was no such promise made there is an Answer to your Question Brother Mr. Serj. Levinz We made no such question but the question I would ask is this Mr. Soll. Gen. For the satisfaction of the Court repeat what you said just now Mr. Blathwayt Mr. Blathwayt I take the question to be whether the King made any promise
to my Lords the Bishops that no advantage should be taken of what they said and I say the King made no such promise Mr. Serj. Pemberton We did not ask you the question but we only told you what use we would have made of another question Mr. Pollixfen Mr. Blathwayt I see you can very well distinguish what questions are to be answered I ask you in short upon your Oath When they were first called in what was said to them and what was answered by them L. C. Iust. Here has been a great deal of wrangling but this is a fair question and may reduce us to order again tell us oâ—…er again from the beginning what passed when my Noble Lords the Bishops came in the first second and third time when they were examined about this Paper Mr. Blathwayt My Lord I shall comply with your Lordship's Directions I apprehend I am to answer together concerning the first second and third comings in of my Lords the Bishops into the Council The first time as I said before my Lords the Bishops were unwilling to own the Paper and did say they humbly hoped His Majesty would not take advantage against them but that they were ready to obey his Command The second time they were called in they did repeat it again that they hoped His Majesty would not take advantage against them after that there was mention made of the Paper being published I remember my Lords the Bishops said they had not published it Sir R. Sawyer Is that all Mr. Att. Gen. You have no mind to hear all I think L. C. Iust. How do you expect to be answered your questions if you interrupt them Go on Mr. Blathwayt Mr. Blathwayt Sir I said last that they having prayed the King that no advantage might be taken against them for what they should say there was mention made of the Paper its being published and my Lords the Bishops did say they had not published it and His Grace my Lord Archbishop said it was written with his own Hand and that he had not made use of his Clerk. Sir. R. Sawyer Is that all you can remember that passed at that time Mr. Blathwayt This is the substance of what I remember L. C. Iust. Was this the third time Mr. Blathwayt No that was the second time my Lord. Mr. Pollixfen If there be not some order in this Evidence my Lord we shall not be able to observe any thing upon it Pray what was done afterwards Mr. Blathwayt My Lord Chancellour upon their coming in did require them to answer whether they did own that Paper or not my Lords the Bishops did own the Paper Mr. Pollixfen Do you remember in what words or expressions as near as you can they did own it Mr. Soll. Gen. Is this a practice to be endured Mr. Finch Why he may apprehend and take that to be an owning of it which was not Mr. Soll. Gen. Has not he sworn the manner of it and almost the very words Mr. Serj. Levinz We desire nothing of him but that he will tell us what words they said when they owned it Mr. Blathwayt It was the third time that they came in that they owned it Mr. Serj. Pemberton Why what did they say Mr. Blathwayt My Lord Chancellour required them to answer whether they owned the Paper or no. Mr. Serj. Pemberton What did they say then Mr. Blathwayt As near as I can remember His Grace and my Lords the Bishops did own the Paper Mr. Serj. Pemberton What words did they own it in tell the manner of it Mr. Soll. Gen. What 's this to the purpose Mr. Finch Mr. Blathwayt Did you take notes of what passed there Mr. Blathwayt I answer Sir I did not take notes for I attended the King at his Elbow and did not take notes Mr. Finch you know the manner of the Council in such cases very well Mr. Att. Gen. Then we ask you for the King because they shall not enflame People by such an expression In what words did they own it if you can remember Mr. Blathwayt Sir I have declared my memory as well as I can when the other Clerks come to be examined if they can tell any more let them Mr. Soll. Gen. But we will have no Discourse to enflame the World Did the King promise or declare that no advantage should be taken of their confession L. Ch. Iust. I would ask him that question What was the manner that my Lord Chancellour exprest himself in to them when they came in the third time Mr. Blathwayt Assoon as my Lord Chancellour had required them to declare whether they owned that Paper as well as I remember His Grace took the Paper in his hand and it was handed over or shewed to my Lords the Holding it forth to the Court. Bishops and they owned and declared so just as if they should lay it before the Court just so I do not recollect my self of all the circumstances that passed I only can tell you the substance Mr. Soll. Gen. He does not remember what they said particularly Mr. Att. Gen. Mr. Sollicitour I know well enough what they mean by the question I know they would fain possess the World with a belief that there was such a promise made them and yet they are prosecuted notwithstanding that promise therefore I do ask you Mr. Blaithwayt and for the King's Honour I must ask it Did the King make any Promise or Declaration that no advantage should be taken or use made of it Mr. Blathwayt The King did not make any Promise or Declaration that no advantage should be taken or use made of it Mr. Soll. Gen. He only put them upon it whether they did own it or not Mr. Att. Gen. I ask you upon your Oath Did my Lord Archbishop own it to be his Head-writing Mr. Blathwayt Yes he did and said he writ it with his own Hand and would not let his Clerk write it Mr. Att. Gen. Did he own the whole to be his Hand-writing or not Mr. Blathwayt Yes he did Mr. Att. Gen. Did every one of the Bishops own their names subscribed to it Mr. Blathwayt Yes Mr. Soll. Gen. Then my Lord we pray now that it may be read L. C. Iust. I suppose now they will be content it should be read Mr. Finch If your Lordship please to favour me one word I think it cannot yet be read and my Objection is this L. C. Iust. I thought you had made all your Objections before as to the reading of it Mr. Finch Pray my Lord spare us Here are two parts of this Information the one is for consulting and conspiring to diminish the King's Royal Prerogative and for that end they did make and write a seditious Libell the other part is that they did publish this seditious Libell We are hitherto upon the first part the making and writing of it both parts are local untill they have proved the making and writing of it to have been in Middlesex it
is not Evidence upon this Information Mr. Soll. Gen. We have proved it written and published in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Pemb. The contrivance and writing of a Libell is in itself penal and they may be punished for it if they be found guilty Now if they could give an undeniable Evidence concerning the publishing of it that is nothing to this point but if they should not give such Evidence or any Evidence at all of the publication yet if it be proved that it was written and contrived by them they would be guilty for so much if it be a Libell and this we say is local as well as all the rest and therefore we insist upon it that the writing and contriving must as well be proved to be in Middlesex as the publication for all is local L. C. Iust. There is no publishing yet proved Mr. Serj. Levinz It is true my Lord here is nothing of a Publication yet with your Lordship's favour for their Answer to His Majesty in Council was that they did not publish it all that is said yet is that they owned the Paper to be their hands My Lord does the owning of that own that it was written in the County of Middlesex or that it was contrived or made there No surely upon this Evidence the place is clearly at large My Lord this might have been done in the County of Surrey or Somerset or any other County Their Information is that they did consult and contrive to diminish the King's Prerogative at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and there they did write and cause to be written this Libell and there they did publish it suppose it should be granted that it is proved that this is the Archbishop's Hand-writing and these are their Names to it is there any one Evidence that any thing of this was done in Middlesex and my Lord that is the thing they are to prove Mr. Sommers If your Lordship please all matters of Crime are so local that if it be not proved to be done in the County where it is laid the party accused is as innocent as if he never had done the thing and with submission it is the very point of the Information that it be proved they are guilty of the Fact in the place where it is laid to be done L. C. Iust. This is the same thing over and over again but I am content to hear you Mr. Sommers at any time I have told you my opinion about reading of the Paper already if you 'll have it again you may Mr. Pollixfen Pray good my Lord spare us before it be read Mr. Iust. Holloway Mr. Pollixfen you have not yet had the Directions of the Court for the reading of it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord when this Paper is read which we pray it may be we will answer their Objections but at present we say they are out of time Mr. Pollixfen Good Lord what a â—…ange thing is this We object against the reading of it and you 'll answer us after it is read Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly my Lord we have done enough to prove that this is a paper owned by them in the County of Middlesex and we pray it may be read L. Ch. Iust. Truly I am of the same mind I was before that it is too soon to make the Objection and that the Paper ought to be read Mr. Soll. Gen. We submit to your Rule Mr. Pollixfen If it be the Will of the Court I have nothing to say Mr. Iust. Powell My Lord The Contrivance and Publication are both matters of Fact and upon Issue joined the Jurors are Judges of the Fact as it is laid in the Information but how can they be Judges of a matter of Fact done in another County and it must be presumed in favour of Innocence not to be done in this County but in another except they prove it Mr. Att. Gen. We are not yet ripe for arguing that point Mr. Soll. Gen. We are speaking only to the Court now for the reading of this Paper and the Jury are not Judges of that whether the Paper ought to be read or no that is merely a matter of Law and under the direction of the Court and therefore I pray since it is now in your Lordship's Judgment whether that Paper should be read that you would please to order it to be read L. C. Iust. I can only give you my own opinion let my Brothers give theirs Mr. Iust. Holloway There is no body against the reading of it my Lord I suppose my Brother Powell is not against its being read Mr. Iust. Powell But they say the King's Counsel must make it out first that the writing of it and the conspiring about it was in the County of Midds or there can be no judgment so much as to read it Mr. Pollixfen My Lord If the Objection be saved to us we shall not so much oppose the reading it only we would not be surprized in point of time Mr. Iust. Powell Nay if they consent to the reading we have no reason to hinder it L. C. Iust. Brother I believe they know well enough what they have to say for their Clients let the Paper be read Clerk reads The Humble Petition of William Archbishop of Canterbury Sir. R. Sawyer Read the whole Petition Pray my Lord that the whole may read Read the Top first Sir to whom it was directed L. C. Iust. Read the whole Clerk reads To the King 's Most Excellent Majesty The Humble Petition of William Archbishop of Canterbury and of divers of the Suffragan Bishops of that Province now present with him in behalf of themselves and others of their absent Brethren and of the Clergy of their respective Dioceses Humbly sheweth THat the great aversness they find in themselves to the distributing and publishing in all their Churches your Majesties late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience proceedeth neither from any want of Duty and Obedience to your Majesty our holy Mother the Church of England being both in her Principles and in her constant practice unquestionably loyal and having to her great Honour been more than once publickly acknowledged to be so by your Gratious Majesty nor yet from any want of due tenderness to Dissenters in relation to whom they are willing to come to such a Temper as shall be thought fit when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation but amongst many other considerations from this especially because that Declaration is founded upon such a Dispencing Power as hath been often declared illegal in Parliament and particularly in the Years 1662 and 1672 and in the beginning of your Majesties Reign and is a matter of so great moment and consequence to the whole Nation both in Church and State that your Petitioners cannot in Prudence Honour or Conscience so far make themselves parties to it as the Distribution of it all over the Nation and the solemn Publication of it once and again even in
own Act and Dead It is true if my Lords had published a Paper that was contrived by some of their Council it had been some Excuse and they must have only suffered for that Publication in the place where it was done but they are here for Writing this they have owned in this County and therefore iâ—…â—…es upon them to prove it done elsewhere There is another Objection my Lord made That here is no Evidence of a Publicationâ—… my Lord I take it to be a Publication in it self Is it possible for a man to write a Libell to set his Name and part with it and it coming to the hands of the King that this is not a Publication It is not their saying we did not publish it that will excuse them for can there be a greater Publication in it self than this when men have set their Hands to it and owned their Names what makes the Fact in this Case If a Deed he denied to be factum of such a one what is the proof of it but setting the Hand and Seal and the Delivery There is owning the Paper and setting their Hands is a Publication in it self and therefore they cannot make any such Objection My Lord if there were occasion we have Authorities enough to this purpose and we will give them scope enough if they will argue this matter and if they have any Evidence we desire to hear what they can say to it Mr. Att. Gen. As for this matter of Fact my Lord if I take it right they do not Controvert the Publishing but say they pray make it out where it was written or composed I confess this would be a business worth the while for all persons that act in this manner and are concerned in making of Libels to understand for their advantage no man doubts in the matter of Treason but it is local then put the Case a man is found in Middlesex with a treasonable Paper in his Pocket I do not make a Comparison as if this was such a Paper I hope I am not so understood but I only put it as a Case and that the Law is so is beyond all Controversie then the man is indicted here in Midds for framing and composing such a Treasonable Libell and he comes to be tryed and says he Pray prove where I made and composed it for though you found it in my Pocket in the County of Midds yet I might doe it in the County of York upon my word this had been a very good Defence for Mr. Sidney who was indicted convicted and attainted for making a Treasonable Paper which was found in his Study might not he have put the same Objection might not Mr. Sidney have said it was great pity he did not understand it pray prove where I did it for I did it elsewhere than in this County Mr. Sol. Gen. He did say it I remember Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord I would not hear any Answer given to this for it would make the King in a very woful Case Here is a Paper that is found in the County of Midds and this is there owned by you to be written and subscribed by you pray do you prove it that it was written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord we will doe it we will be governed by Mr. Attorney for once Mr. Serj. Levinz We will prove that my Lord Archbishop was not in Middlesex in seven Months before and truly I think Mr. Attorney's Case of a Paper found about a man or in his Custody will not come up to our Case for was this Paper found about us surely that is not pretended Mr. Serj. Pemb. Your Lordship sees by the very frame of the Petition that this Petition which they call a Libell was made after the King's Order concerning reading this Declaration Now we shall prove that my Lord Archbishop whose hand-writing they prove this to be was not out from Lambeth-House in two Months before nor till he was before the Council Sr. Rob. Sawyer Which was long after that time when it was made Mr. Serj. Pemb. So that this cannot be written in the County of Middlesex Call Francis Nicholls Mr. Nicholls was sworn Sir R. Sawyer Do you remember the 18th of May last Mr. Nicholls Yes Sir. Sir. R. Sawyer Pray how was it with my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury at that time and before that did he go abroad Mr. Nicholls My Lord I am very sure that my Lord his Grace of Cant. whom I have served in his Bed Chamber this seven years never stirred out of the Gate of Lambeth House since Michaelmas last Sir R. Sawyer Till when Mr. Nicholls Mr. Nicholls Not till the time he was summoned before the Councill Mr. Serj. Pemb. Now I hope we have given them a full proof that it could not be in Middles Call Thomas Smith Mr. Smith was not examined Mr. Finch Truly my Lord I think that what we have proved or what Proof we further offer of my Lord of Canterburies not being in Middlesex for so long a time is ex abundanti and we need it not for with humble submission in point of Law it is incumbent upon them that are to prove the Charge in the Information to prove where it was done because the Locality of it is part of the thing they ought to prove it in it's nature it is local there is a Place assigned in the Informâ—…ion and unless they prove it was done in the Place that they have laid they have not proved the Charge in the Information Now my Lord they have not made any Proof of that and for proof of Publication I think they have offered none to your Lordship they never did call it so yet and truly I never did hear or know that the owning of their Hands at the Council-Table was a Publication of a Libel it is owning the Writing but it is not an owning where the Writing was made but where it was written and where it was made is of necessity to be proved before the Charge upon a Record in a Court of Justice can be said to be made out it is a Local Charge and in Justice the locality must be proved or the Information fails my Lord they have offered no Proof to it and they have not yet gone to the second part of the Information for as to the Publication of it there is not a tittle of Proof offered but only the owning of their Hands upon their Examination at the Council and no Man did ever yet think that the answering a Question and owning a Paper at the Council-Table upon a Question put by the King himself was a Publication of a Libel Mr. Serjeant Baldock Pray my Lord hear me a Word to that Though the thing be never so local yet there must be some place where a thing that was done was done Then if nothing else appears but what was done in Westminster in the County of Middlesex unless they shew the contrary that must be the very
place where it was done Mr. Sollicitor General Here is a great deal of Prevarication in this matter and I would observe to your Lordship how they do use the Court ill in it pray my Lord What is it we are upon we are proving that these seven Lords the Bishops signed this Paper and I think we have proved it sufficiently out of their own Mouths But say they it was not signed in the County of Middlesex but in the County of Surrey All this is but Imagination and they would have the Court to imagine it too For how do they prove it They would have your Lordship and the Jury believe That it was signed elsewhere because my Lord Archbishop has not been out of his House in some Months before it is all but Inference and Argument and Imagination But still Gentlemen do you answer what I objected to you Does it not lie in their Power to shew where it was signed Here are six more besides the Archbishop where was it signed by them Here are six of the Bishops that it does not appear where they signed it but they confess at White-Hall in Middlesex that they did set their Hands Mr. Serjeant Levinz Ay they did so and what then Mr. Solicitor General Ay and ay too if they did so the Presumption and Common Intendment upon such Evidence is That is was done in the Place where it was owned and the rather for that Reason that I said before That it lies in their Knowledge and therefore it is incumbent upon them to prove That it was not in the County of Middlesex So that this Objection I take rather to be an Invention of the Counsel than the Truth of the Fact because they that can make this out do not And as to what they say of my Lord Archbishop That he has not been out of Doors for so long who can prove such a thing Certainly my Lord was able to come for any thing that appears he has been here twice and he was able to come to the Council-Board But when all is done my Lord Archbishop is certainly able to put this matter out of doubt for he may easily prove it if the Fact be so and that will satisfie the Court and every Body That it was signed by him at Lambeth if he designs to deal sincerely with your Lordship and the Court and the Jury but certainly it is not to be proved by a Circumstance such a one as this is but he ought to give your Lordship and the Jury Satisfaction about this Fact He ought to say 'T is true I did sign it but it was at Lambeth-House that indeed would be a down-right Stroke to us But to go upon a Supposition That because my Lord Archbishop was not out of his House for so long together therefore they are all not Guilty is a very hard and foreign Inference My Lord there 's another Matter that they insist upon and that is about the Publication that is as plain as any thing can be that here is a full Proof of a Publication for if the Paper be Libellous where-ever that Paper is that is a Publishing where-ever the Paper travels how far soever it goes it is a Publication of it by these Persons that signed it I believe no body thinks that this should fly into the King's hand but some body brought it to him and certainly my Lord if your Opinion should be that this Paper is Libellous then where ever it is it is a Publishing which is our offence where-ever it is found it is a Publâ—…tion for there is the mistake of these Gentlemen they fancy that unless there was a Publick Delivery of this Paper abroad nothing can be a Publication but I rely upon it they setting their Names to it made it their Paper and where-ever it was afterwards found that did follow the Paper where-ever it went and was a Publication of it it was in their Power being their own Contrivance it was made and formed by themselves and no body will believe when it was their own Hands that they put to it that any body else could have any power over it for ought appears no body else was at work about it and when there were so many Learned Prelates that had signed such a Paper no one can believe they would let it go out of their Hands but by their Consent and Direction Is not this a Proof of the Publishing Do they give your Lordships any Evidence that they had stifled this Paper If they had so done they had said something but will any body believe that this thing was done in vain Can any body assign a Reason why so solemn a thing as this should be done to no end and purpose Why a Paper should be framed that rails at the Kings two Declarations Why a Paper that gives Reasons why they could not read it in their Churches and signed with such Solemnity by all these Noble Lords we submit this to you in point of Law and the Law is plain in it that if this Paper be Libellous and it is found in the County of Middlesex there is a Publication of that Libel I shall mention to your Lordship that Case of Williams which is reported in the Second Part of Roll's Reports Mr. Finch made use of it in the Case of Sidney it was the great Case relied upon and that guided and governed that Case as I apprehend from the Verdict and Judgment that was given in it This Case was 15 Iacobi It seems Williams was a Barrister of the Inner-Temple and it seems being an high Catholick for Opinion and Judgment he was expelled the House and he being so expelled being a sort of a Vertuoso wâ—…ote a Book called Baalam's Ass and therein he makes use of the Prophecy of the Prophet Daniel and he makes Application of it according to his own particular fancy He writes there That this World was near at an end and he said Those ill days were come that that Prophecy had spoken of and because of the Impurity of Prince and Priest and People and other things that happened those were the worst of days and therefore the last and that certainly we had the worst Prince that ever was in the World when he wrote this Book what does he do He was a little more close than my Lords the Bishops and pins it up or seals it up and it was brought to the King and what is this more than the Case before your Lordship They indeed say I do this by way of Advice to the King so said he I do this by way of Advice to the King for God forbid that any of this should happen to the King and so what he does was by way of Advice and he prayed God to avert it from him here was as good a Prayer as there is in this Paper and there was a good design he made use of the Prophet Daniel and applied his words Well what was done upon it This was
never published for the Question was before the Court whether this Sealing of it up and not delivering it to any other body were a Publication the Court was of Opinion that the very Writing of it was a Publication they did not value the delivery of it to the Prince but it was proved he Writ it and that made it Treason My Lord we have Cases enough in my Lord Hobart for this Matter Sir Baptist Hick's Case and my Lady Hattâ—…n's Case there was only a Letter sealed up and delivered to the Party L. C. I. You need not trouble your self about that Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. If the Case then be thus I take it it will turn upon this Fact they have given your Lordship no Proof where this Paper was Signed by them here are seven Persons that had a hand in it and here is only one Person whom they have insisted to be infirm and kept his House for a great while together We say the Publishing follows the Libel where-ever it goes the Libel is in the County of Middlesex they have confessed it in the County of Middlesex and they did not distinguish where it was done Then if they will not distinguish upon the Evidence no Man ought to distinguish but ought to presume it was done in that place where they owned it Mr. Attor Gen. I did not apprehend we were got so far that they Opposed us in the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes we did for you have given no Evidence of it Mr. Attor Gen. Surely my Lord for that we have give a sufficient Evidence and they have given some Proof of it as to my Lord Archbishop that because he had not been from Lambeth therefore he did not publish nor could cause it to be published for your Lordship sees by this Information they are not only to answer the Publicavit but also the Publicari causavit for do you doubt Gentlemen of the Law in this Case that if I compose a Libel in Surrey for Example and send a Person over into Middlesex I am not Guilty of the Publishing Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not your Case Mr. Attorney Mr. Finch That were clear if it were so but it is not so Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Archbishop's Case signifies nothing if we shew it was published in Middlesex and you give no Evidence to the contrary but it might be there and I am sure as to the rest of my Lords the Bishops there is no Evidence at all given Here is a Petition that we say is a Libel they it may be will make that a Question this is delivered to the King 's own Hand in the County of Middlesex and there are as many Cases as any one Man can name that this amounts to a Publication by the Party for if I send a Letter by the Post sealed that no body can see but the Party himself and he that writ it it is adjudged over and over again it is a Libel Mr. Justice Powel That you need not labour Mr. Attorney for that 's the Case of Williams of Essex but how do you apply it to the Case now before us Mr. Attor Gen. That 's an Answer to their Objection as to the Publication Mr. Justice Powel But what say you to the first part you have not proved that it was written in Middlesex Mr. Attor Gen. There is the Case of Barrow and Lewellin in Hobart and likewise the Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which is reported both in Hobart and in Popham and in Popham towards the end of the Case there is a remarkable Passage Says that Case If it should not be punishable at the Suit of the King there would be no Remedy for the Party cannot bring an Action because he can be no Witness for himself and it is only known betwixt them two but a Witness for the King he may be to prove his own Receipt of the Letter and the Party's Hand Mr. Justice Powel You need not labour that Point I 'll tell you Mr. Attorney for the Law is very clear in that Point I think if you bring it home to your Case Mr. Attor Gen. Then here 's the Case in short my Lord That my Lords the Bishops have caused to be made and written this Petition they are made Parties to it by setting their Names and this is a continued Act whatsoever is written there is my Lord Archbishop's Writing where-ever it goes as I 'll put you a Case that 's very well known If I take away Goods from a Man in the County of Cumberland and I am found with them in the County of Middlesex it is a continued Act and makes all but one Felony and I shall be Tried here in Middlesex for it If a Man write a thing in one County and it is sent and dispersed in another County that still continues to be his Fact though it may be the first part was not in the same County with the other but suppose all this while that part should not affect my Lord of Canterbury the causing it to be Published does Mr. Justice Powel Do you think Mr. Attorney that writing in one County is such a continued Act that he may be said to write it in another County Mr. Attor Gen. Sir I take it where there is a complicated Crime of Writing and Publishing a Libel and the beginning of it is in one County and the carrying it on is in another that is a continued Act and may be Tried in either County L. C. I. It is all one Act of Libelling as they say Mr. Iust. Holloway In Cases of Felony 't is so taking in one County and being found with the Goods in another it is Felony in either County Mr. Iust. Powel But in that Case they are two Felonies for it is Robbery in the one County and but bare Felony in the other Mr. Sol. Gen. Suppose that my Lords the Bishops Signed this Paper in another County and my Lord Archbishop consents to have it sent into Middlesex is not this a causing it to be published in another County Mr. Iust. Powel Yes it may be if you prove his Consent Mr. Sol. Gen. Then suppose further which may very well consiâ—…t with my Lord Archbishop's Evidence of his not being out of Lambeth in so long time the rest of the Bishops might sign it in Middlesex or it may be in that Place and then they carry it by my Lords consent over hither into this County is not this a causing it to be published the Delivery with his Consent certainly is a Proof of that for our Information goes two ways For Making Contriving Writing and Publishing that 's one And then For causing it to be Made Contrived and Published that 's the other And if I prove that he caused it to be published he may be found Guilty as to that part and not Guilty as to the other for the Information is not so intire but that the King has his choice if the Archbishop had
not signed it or written it but had caused it to be published he may be found guilty of so much But if he be Guilty of any one of these things it is enough and if he be Guilty of none of the other things laid in the Information yet if he be Guilty of causing it to be published by his consenting that the rest of the Bishops should do it that will be enough to maintain this Information Then my Lord is there any Evidence brought against what we have proved That he did not consent Mr. Just. Powel But where was this Consent of his given Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray good Sir give me your Favour I think I am in a plain Case Mr. Serj. Pemberton So you are truly Mr. Sol. Gen. Why good Sir you ought to make out the Locality if you 'l take advantage of it Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's very well indeed this is the first time I ever heard that Doctrine Mr. Sol. Gen. I cannot help that but certainly the Law is plain we have proved there was such a Fact as this done and they do not go about to prove that it was done elswhere than where we have laid it for if they did their Witnesses would be cross-examined by us and then we know what would become of them then the Truth of the matter would come out Therefore I would make all this constare The Archbishop might be at Lambeth and yet Guilty in Middlesex by his Concurrence with what was done in Middlesex And I say my Lord this is natural upon the Evidence that has been given because when they were interrogated at the Council and confessed the Paper to be theirs they made no such Explanation of their Confession of which they can make any Advantage in their Defence Here has been no Body produced that proves any thing to be done out of Middlesex so that still if he 's Guilty of the Fact proved he must be Guilty in Middlesex Serjeant Baldock And it does not appear in this Case but that my Lord Archbishop might write the same thing in Middlesex tho' he was at Lambeth so long as the Witness speaks of Mr. Just. Powel How do you make out that Brother Serj. Baldock He might do it when he câ—…me over to the Council Sir Rob. Sawyer He must do it after it was presented Serj. Baldock Might he not be so long here on this side the Water as to make such a short thing as this before it was delivered half a quarter of an Hour would have done it L. Ch. Iust. That 's a thing not to be presumed Brother especially since he is proved not to have been in Middlesex for so long together Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Serjeant is mightily mistaken for it is not pretended That it was delivered at the time when the Archbishop and my Lords the Bishops were before the Council Mr. Recorder Either the Making and Contriving or the Publishing of this Libel will do upon this Information for they shall be taken to be one continued complicated Act and then the Party may be tryed in either of the Counties as the King will as in the case of Treason it has been over and over again adjudged That if a Man does one Act of Treason in one County and afterwards goes into another County and does another Act of Treason the Jury of either of the Counties may enquire of the Fact done in the other If they then should take those two as several Acts they were several Offences and they may be found Guilty of the one and acquitted of the other but if they are taken as one continued Act they are but one Offence and the Jury of either County may try it If then in this Case the Jury of this County may take notice of the Publication which was here as certainly they may if they will agree as the Law certainly is That the Writing of a Letter will be a sufficient Publication if the matter be Libellous And there are multitudes of Precedents for that and that the bare setting of a Man's Hand has been adjudged to be a Publication Then give me leave my Lord to bring it to a similar Case Suppose a Man write a scandalous Letter from London to a Judge or Magistrate in Exeter and sends it by the Post and the Letter is received from the Post at Exeter and there opened would any Man make a Question whether the Gentleman that sent the Letter may not be indicted and prosecuted for a Libel at Exeter where the Libel was received Mr. Just. Powel There 's no question of that Mr. Recorder that comes not home to the Fact in our Case undoubtedly in the Case that you put the Law is as you said but it is far different from this Case L. Ch. Iust. There 's no Body opposes the Publication but the framing of it where it was made Mr. Recorder Supposing then the Party were at Exeter and he were interrogated before the Magistrate Whether that were his Hand or no and he should own it to be his Hand can any body doubt whether his owning that to be his Hand would be a sufficient Evidence to prove a Publication Mr. Just. Powel But is that any Evidence where it was written Or if it be not proved that it was received at Exeter would that be a Proof of a Publication at Exeter L. Ch. Iust. They do not deny the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer We do deny that there was any Publication and they have proved no place where it was made Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we are not for turning my Lords the Bishops out of the way of Proof that is usual in such Cases let them take it if they will That this was contrived and made in Surrey But can they publish it in Middlesex without committing an Offence and that is it we stand upon We are not for laying a greater Load upon my Lords the Bishops than our Proof will answer Sir Rob. Sawyer We thank you for your Complement Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. Is this a fare way of interrupting us when we are speaking Durst any one have served you so when you were in the Kings Service We would make our Duty as easie as we can to my Lords the Bishops and it may be easier than other Men would have made it But my Lord let it be a doubtful case that we cannot tell which County it was made and contrived in if it were made and contrived in another County yet when they brought it into Middlesex there was a Publication in Middlesex and if my Lord of Canterbury consented to it and if he caused it to be published how can any Body ever get him off from that causing of it to be published Here is a Paper that must be supposed to be my Lord Archbishops Paper Now either the World must look upon it to be an Imposture put upon my Lords the Bishops or a real Paper made by them If it were an Imposture
and an Affront put upon the Bishops they ought to make it out for their own Vindication and to prove themselves Innocent If they do that they do well and they ought to have Satisfaction â—…de them by those that have so highly injured them and the King cannot be better pleased I am sure than to find them so But if Men will look one way and act another they must expect to be dealt with accordingly Will any Man that has heard this Evidence and sees that these Gentlemen will not go the right way to work to prove their own Innocence believe them to be not Guilty 'T is plain they contrived it and signed it for can any one imagine that they set their Hands to a Paper that was not formed and contrived by themselves then let it go That this was done in another County and we cannot punish the Writing of it in this County yet still they are Guilty of causing it to be published in this County and for that we may punish them here We will be content with having that found that we have proved which certainly is an Offence Sir Rob. Sawyer We oppose that Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. You oppose it I know you 'l oppose common Sense we don't speak to you we speak to the Court we are content with what is plain and do not desire to insist upon any strained Construction we say this is Natural Evidence for us If this thing be a Libel as we say it is then the causing it to be published is an Offence The Publication we â—…ay was here in Middlesex and of that there is Clear Evidence because it was found there and came from the King's Hand to whom it was directed and it could not come to the King's Hand out of their Custody without their Consent This we say is a clear Evidence of causing it to be published let the rest go as it will because we will take the easiest part of the Case and not go upon Strains Mr. Serj. Trinder The greatest Question is I think now come to the Publishing L. Ch. Iust. The Court is of Opinion that its coming to the King is a publishing Mr. Justice Powel Ay my Lord if it be proved to be done by them Mr. Serjeant Pemberton Before the Court deliver their Opinion we desire to be heard L. Ch. Iust. Brother you shall be heard in good time but let them make an end on the other side and when the King's Counsel have done we 'l hear you Mr. Serjeant Trinder My Lord upon the Question of Publishing it has been insisted upon and the Court seems to be very much of the same Opinion That the Writing of it is a Publishing That it is without Controversie if the Writing of it fell out to be in Middlesex where the Information is laid but that they would not have to be so by Argument because the Archbishop had kept in at Lambeth so long But suppose that it were so as they would have it that is only as to the Archbishop he being the Writer of it but yet notwithstanding that the other six might subscribe it in Middlesex taking it that there is such a Face in their Argument as they would have it Mr. Sol. Gen. We will lay no greater load on the other six than we do upon my Lord Archbishop and we say they are all Guilty of the Publication in Middlesex Mr. Serjeant Trinder Pray Sir spare me this Paper was in the Archbishops Custody and Power he making of it himself and regularly it could not have come out of his Custody in common Supposition but it must come with his Consent It was afterwards in the Power of the other six they had it to subscribe where the Subscription was non constâ—… they it may â—…e can prove it themselves but I will only deduce this Argument That if it after comes into Middlesex it must be taken by presumption to be subscribed by them there and published it must taken by Presumption so to be Lord Ch. Iust. No Brother we ought not to do any thing by presumption here Mr. Just. Powel No no by no means we must not go upon Presumptions but Proofs L. Ch. Iust. I will not presume it to be made in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Trinder But it is proved to be published in Middlesex Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord with submission there is no Evidence of the Publication Mr. Attor Gen. That the Court is to judge of Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray good my Lord what Instance of a Publication have they given Mr. Sol. Gen. The Court has heard â—…he Evidence we leave it there Sir Rob. Sawyer Was it their owning and acknowledging it was their Hands when the King asked them the Question at the Council-Table Surely the King's Counsel won't pretend that was a Publication when it was done at the King's Command it was certainly the King that published it then and not my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attor Gen. Well said Sir Rob. Sawyer Don't you remember that when Sir Blathwayt said the King gave it to be read and it was shewed to the Bishops L. Ch. Iust. I remember what Evidence Mr. Blathwayt gave of the Passages at the Council-Board very well and I know what Mr. Attorney did press about the Kings promising to take no advantage Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Mr. Attorney is on the other side he did not press it L. Ch. Iust. Sir Robert Sawyer I mean I beg both your Pardons Gentlemen I think I have done Injury to you both Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we say there is no Evidence at all that ever this was sent to the King by the Archbishop or any of my Lords the Bishops And as for the Cases that they have put they might have put five hundred Cases and all nothing to the purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. So they might and done just as others had done before them Sir Rob. Sawyer And so are these for here is the Question We are in a Case where the Publication is that which makes it a Crime Now I would have them if they can put me any such Case and then apply it to this in William's Case the Question is quite otherwise and so in any Case of Treason it must be where-ever there is an Overt Act proved it is the Treasonable Intention and the ill Mind of the Traytor that is the Crime and the Treason the Overt Act is only to be the Evidence of it In that Case of Williams with submission my Lord the Publication was not at all necessary but the very secretest Act that could be done by him if it were an Act is an evidence of the Mind and so the sending of the Book to the King himself though no body else did see it was an Evidence of the Crime of Treason yet it could not be called a Pâ—…blication But in the other Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which was in the Star-Chamber about sending a Letter of Challenge it was plainly resolved that it was no Publication
of the Letter and that was not the ground of the Judgment given against him there that it was the Publication of a Libel but the very Fact was a particular offence for said the Court there if you will send a Letter to a private Man and that is a Letter that will provoke him to break the Peace that is an Offence punishable in the Star-Chamber but that is not the Reason which was alledged because no Action will lie for want of Proof but quite the contrary because they may produce the Porter or Party that brought it and prove it that it came from this man's hands and I do not question but that in the King's Bench at this day if a man will write a Letter privately to provoke another man to fight there will lie an Information but not for a Libel for there it will be necessary for to make it an Offence that there be a Publication for that is the very form of the Crime and upon that ground were all those Judgments against Libels in the Star-Chamber My Lord I agree to write a Letter to the King of another Person or to make a Petition to the King concerning another Person as of my Lord Chancellor or the Judges or the like to complain to the King of them scandalously with provoking and reviling Language that is a Publication and so if I write a Letter to one man of another if there be Scandal in a Letter that is a Pubâ—…cation of a Libel and that is the difference that has been always taken where it is essential to make it a Libel that there be a Publication such a Publication must be proved and the delivery of a Letter to a man that concerns himself is no Publication but in this case they have not so much as proved that it was delivered to the King. Mr. Serj. Pemberton My Lord with your Lordship's leave I take it that they have given no manner of Evidence of a Publication to say the writing and subscribing of their Names to a Paper is a Publication of that Paper is such a Doctrine truly as I never heard before supposing this Paper had lain in my Study subscribed by me but never went further would this have been a Publication They never said any such thing As to Algernoon Sidney's Case there was no colour for it that it should be a Publication but it was an Overt Act of Treason to compose such a Book They have proved by our Confession here that we have subscribed this Paper they would take it now that therefore it must be presumed we sent this to the King and so surmise us into an Information for making and publishing a Libel which we sent to the King but they do not prove it at all My Lord there are a thousand ways that it might come into Middlesex and perhaps come to the King's Hands too without our knowledge of Delivery and sure you will not presume these Noble Persons without Evidence to be guilty of such an Offence as this is suggested to be so that My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury 't is impossible for you to find this a Publication in Middlesex and for the other thing the writing this Paper they that would make it an Offence must prove where it was done Mr. Ser. Levinz My Lord The Answer that I shall give to what has been said on the other side is very short the Cases that have been cited are all Law but not one tittle to this purpose In Sir Baptist Hicks's Case and Williams's Case it was proved they all sent them to the Places whither they were directed but is there a tittle of Proof that these Bishops sent it here In all those Cases they must send it either by a Porter or a Carrier and they send it as their own Act and when it comes there by their sending that is sufficient Proof of their Act in the place whither it is sent And for Sidney's Case there was Treason in the very Libel and Book that he made and he was not indicted for Publishing but for Treason in the place where it was found because it was found in his possession But was this ever in my Lord Archbishops possession in Middlesex or the rest of the Bishops and were they publishing of it if it had then it had been their Act clearly But that is the thing wherein they are defective that they do not prove that my Lords the Bishops sent or brought it here but upon the Question asked them by the King they acknowledged it to be their Hands So that my Lord there is no proof of any Fact done here but an Acknowledgment of a Fact done no Body knows where upon the King's Question here in Middlesex Is that any Proof of this Information Mr. Finch Pray my Lord spare me a Word on the same side let us see what the Evidence is The Evidence is this That the King brought the Paper to the Council-Table and the Bishops owned their Hands to it This is the Effect of the Evidence and all that is to prove the Forming and Making a Libel in Middlesex and the Publication of that Libel And what is therefore inferred from thence why having proved that the King brought the Paper to the Council-Table and the Bishops owned their Hands Therefore first the Bishops made this Libel in Middlesex Secondly they brought it to the Council-Table and published it at the Council-Table or else there is no proof at all For here is nothing of Evidence given of any Fact but because they acknowledged it therefore they made it therefore they gave it to the King in Middlesex This were good Evidence if they had had the Help of a Supposition to make it good but they want that nor must any such thing be admitted but I think they are such gross false Consequences that I doubt not you 'l be of Opinion Here 's no proof of a Publication in Middlesex and then there is no proof at all against my Lords the Bishops Mr. Pollixfen I must confess I hear them say two Acts prove a Publication in this Case the one is the Writing of the Libel and the Subscribing If so then I think upon the Evidence that has been given the Court must needs be satisfied that the Writing of it was in Surrey The next is their owning their Hands for there is no Act done that appears or any Evidence against them of any Act done from the time of the Writing to the time that they were asked is this your Hand Surely no Man would ever think this to be a Publication where one is asked by Authority whether such a Paper be his Hand and he acknowledges 〈◊〉 in Answer to that Question to turn this to be a Crime I think it can never be done nor never was done before Then there is nothing in the Case that they can hold to for Evidence and Proof against my Lords the Bishops but the Writing and that is apparent to
have been in Surrey or otherwise they must hold that the Answer to the King's Question this is my Hand is a Publication But truly my Lord I think neither of these will do But my Lord to me this is a great Evidence in it self against the Proof of a Publication the Care and Wariness that has been used that there should be nothing at all of this Matter known from the time that it was written to the time that they came to be examined and summoned to appear as Offenders My Lord the Nature of Libels is to publish and proclaim Scandal and Defamation or else it loses its End and consequently its Name This as it stands upon their Evidence is a monstrous Proof for my Lords the Bishops against the King's Council for it seems 't is a very private Matter so cautiously and warily carried that there is not any Evidence of the Fact but only the Names of the persons that writ it till they come to be examined by the greatest Authority Is this your Hand and then they own it so to be how can this be taken to be a Publication and it will be a thing of wonderful Consequence if an Answer to a Question put by Authority should amount to a Crime as it would in this Case that would be as if Authority that should be employed to do Right would be turned to do the greatest Wrong for it is the Duty of all men to answer when examined by a lawful Authority and it would never be offered at sure in any other Case If a Man comes before a Magistrate and confesses any thing that indeed is Evidence but is not a Crime for there is a great deal of difference between Evidence and the Crime but that this should be both an Evidence and a Crime too is I think a very strange Construction and for the other part the writing of it I suppose the Court is satisfied that it was in another County Sir Geo. Treby I desire your Lordship to spare me a Word which I think has not been observed by the Council that have spoke before The Question that remains is Whether my Lords the Bishops did Publish this Paper This is a matter of Fact that lies upon the Prosecutors to prove Now I think they are so far from having proved that the Bishops did publish it that on the contrary they have proved that their Lordships did not Publish it The Evidence they have offered for this matter is a Confession This Confession is testified by Mr. Blathwayt and he says the Bishops were ask'd at the Council whether they did subscribe and publish this paper and that their answer was that they did subscribe but not publish it Now a Confession must be taken together and must be admitted to be intirely true by them that produce it they shall never be allowed to take out and use one piece and wave the rest Why then by this Evidence of Confession taken as it ought it appears that the Bishops though they did subscribe did not publish the paper So that I say the King's Counsel have hereby plainly proved that the Bishops did not publish this paper and yet this is the onely Evidence upon which they would infer that they did publish it Mr. Att. Gen. Look you it does lie upon you Gentlemen to prove it was done elsewhere than in Middlesex Mr. Finch Sure Mr. Attorney is in jest Mr. Att. Gen. No I am in good earnest all the proof that we have given has been in Middlesex and you can best tell whether you did it in Middlesex or no. Mr. Finch My Lord we have done as to this Objection for we say they have not proved their Case L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Finch you may observe and I am sure you do observe as well as any body in all Cases but I say you may observe that they are off of every thing but causing it to be published now that does lie upon the King's Counsel to prove that my Lords the Bishops did cause it to be published for their owning of their hands does not amount to a Publication Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord We are upon this point with them whether here be any Evidence of a Publication at all Mr. Iust. Powell Pray let us clear this first for if there be no publication there can be no causing of it to be published Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord if you think fit we shall go on and reserve this point till afterwards Mr. Sol. Gen. They may make Objections if they think fit L 〈◊〉 Iust. So they may and they say if these Objections are with us we need go no farther Mr. S. Pemberton But my Lord if they be not with us we have a reserve to give a farther Answer to it and to offer Evidence against the Evidence they have offered Mr. Sol. Gen. With all our hearts give in Evidence what you can Mr. Att. Gen. Then pray my Lord let us go on to answer this Objection L. Ch. Iust. Pray do Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I would first observe how far we have gone That there was such a paper written is clear beyond all question and written by my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and that it was signed by the rest of the Bishops but not in the County of Middlesex and that this paper was published is agreed on all hands Mr. Iust. Holloway No they do not agree that Mr. Att. Gen. Do I say it was published by them but there was such a paper published Mr. S. Pemberton No we say it was never published at all L. Ch. Iust. Pray Brother Pemberton be quiet if Mr. Attorney in opening does say any thing that he ought not to say I will correct him as I would do any body that does not open things right as they are proved but pray don 't you that are at the Bar interrupt one another it is unbecoming men of your Profession to be chopping in and snapping at one another Go on Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. I say that the Paper is proved to be written and signed by my Lords the Bishops that I take for granted and that the Paper so signed and written is now published to the world is also evident but the question is who it was done by or who caused it to be done we are reduced to that question Now first it is agreed on all hands that if I send a Letter to a private Man containing Scandalous things in it though there is no proof more but that it was sent sealed and received by the party in that Case it was a fault punishable in the Star-Chamber as a Crime but now that this was received by the King and written by them there is no room for doubt for you hear it was produced by the King at the Council-Board and they asked upon it if it were their hands that the King did receive it there is no room for question or that they did write it but
the question is from whom the King had it I am sure they must shew that some body else did it and unless they doe show that I hope there is no manner of question but it came from them and they did it though no man Living knew any thing of this matter but whom they thought fit to communicate it to yet still they putting the King upon the necessity of shewing this Power in order to his obtaining satisfaction for it or else he must remain under the indignity without reparation it ought to be put upon them to clear the Fact for if he does not produce it then must the King put up the highest injury and affront that perhaps a Man can give the King to his face by delivering a Libel into his own hands and if he does produce it then say they that is not our publication we prove it to be your writing and signing and we prove it to come from the hand of the King against whom it was composed for we say it is a Libel against his Majesty his Government and Prerogative if then all those cases that have been cited be Law then sure there never was a stronger case in the World than this and I hope the Law goes a little farther in the case of the King than it does in the case of a private Man no Man must think by policy to give private wounds to the Government and disparage the Administration of it and then when he is called in question about it says he pray prove that I published it or else you shall not punish me for it we prove you framed it and writ it and signed it and we prove it came to the King's hand of whom it was composed must we produce two Witnesses of the delivery of it to the King surely there will be no need of any thing of that Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we have reduced it now to a very narrow question for as Mr. Attorney has said my Lord there is no doubt but that my Lords the Bishops are the Authours of this Paper there is no doubt but they signed it and there is no doubt but that their signing of it though it were at Lambeth as they say is a publishing of it but however this is plain and manifest that this Paper was published and that this Paper was publiâ—…d in Middlesex that is as plain too now then there is nothing left but this question whether my Lords the Bishops who framed the thing who wrote the thing who signed the thing were not the occasion or cause of its publication or privy or consenting to it my Lord I will reduce it to a very plain point for we are upon a rational question before a rational Court and a rational Jury whether these Lords did all of them in the County of Surry consent to the publishing of this Paper in Middlesex for it is published in Middlesex that we see and if they are guilty of that part of the Information of causing it to be published now what do they say to it say they it is agreed that it is published in Middlesex but it is not proved to be published by us Lord Ch. Iust. No they do not say so they agree it was in Middlesex but not published Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Solicitor they do agree it was in Middlesex but not published to be sure not by them Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor I 'll tell you what they stand upon they say you ought to prove it to be delivered to the King by the Bishops or some body employed by them for upon that went the Resolution that was in William's case that he sent it to the King but here is no body that proves that it was delivered to the King in this case so that how it came to the King Non constat Mr. Sol. Gen. There will be the question between us whether this be not a publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray Mr. Solicitor prove your case before you argue it Lord Ch. Iust. First settle what the case is before it be either proved or argued Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I 'll put you the case here does appear in Middlesex a Paper that is a Libel in it self and this Libel is proved to be written and formed by these persons this Libel coming into Middlesex the question is whether they are privy to it I say in point of presumption it must come from them Lord Ch. Iust. I cannot suppose it I cannot presume any thing Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I speak of that which is a common presumption a natural presumption what we commonly call a violent presumption which is a legal presumption and has always been allowed for Evidence now whether there be not such a presumption in our Case as to induce your Lordship and the Jury to believe that it cannot be otherwise or at least to put the labour upon them to shew how it came out of their Studies and how it came to the King's hands for it is in their power to shew the truth of this matter how it was if they do not the presumption will lie upon them that the Paper came to the King that is plain enough and its coming to the King's hands is a plain proof of a publication in Middlesex and who should bring it to the King but these Gentlemen in whose power it was there is no Man undertakes to say he lost it then what else is to be believed but that it came from them I speak of common supposition and belief they may very well shew it if it were not so all that we can say in it is here is a Paper in Middlesex this you agreed was once your Paper and in your power pray shew what became of it it lies upon you to clear this doubt Mr. Recorder My Lord there is but this question in the case the question is not whether the owning it be a publication but whether here be any Evidence that they did deliver it to the King now if they did deliver it to the King that will be agreed to me to be a publication Mr. Ius Holloway No doubt of it if you can prove it Mr. Recorder Pray Sir spare me that they did it you have this Evidence first that they were the Authours of this Paper by their own Confession that this was in the County of Middlesex and that when they were asked concerning it they owned it to be their hand Writing now whether you can in the least question after all this their delivering of it to the King or that it came to the King's hands without their knowledge or consent is that which lies before your Lordship for your Judgment Lord Chief Iustice. I will ask my Brothers their Opinion but I must deal truly with you I think it is not Evidence against my Lords the Bishops Mr. Iust. Holloway Truly I think you have failed in your Information you have not proved any thing against my Lords the Bishops in
the County of Middlesex and therefore the Jury must find them not guilty Mr. Attor Gen. I 'le put you but one case my Lord a Man has an opportunity secretly to deliver a Libel into the King's hands when no Body is by and so there can be no proof of the delivery Mr. Iust. Powel 'T is a dangerous thing Mr. Attorney on the other side to convict People of Crimes without proof Mr. Attorney General But shall a Man be permitted thus to affront the King and there be no way to punish it Lord Chief Iustice. Yes there will sure but it will be a very strange thing if we should go and presume that these Lords did it when there is no sort of Evidence of it 't is that which I do assure you I cannot do we must proceed according to Evidence and forms and methods of Law they may think what they will of me but I always declare my mind according to my Conscience Mr. S. Trinder But as to that other point whether their owning of it be a publication has not been particularly spoke to Lord Chief Iustice. Mr. Attorney and Mr. Solicitor if there were enough to raise doubt in the Court so as to leave it to the Jury I would summ up the Evidence Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord we know it is with the Court these Lords insisted upon it that it was a great while in their hands but it seems as far as our Evidence has gone hitherto their Confession went no farther than that it was their Paper and we must not extend their Confession further than it was but I think we shall offer a fair Evidence that they did deliver it in the County of Middlesex Lord Ch. Iust. Indeed indeed you ought to have gone to this Mr. Solicitor before the Court gave their Opinions Mr. Solicit Gen. Pray call Mr. Blathwayt again Mr. Blathwayt called Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor unless you are sure that Mr. Blathwait is a Witness to the publication 't is but spending the Courts time to no purposâ—… to call him Mr. Solicit Gen. We are sure of nothing my Lord but we must make use of our Witnesses according to our Instructions in our Briefs Then Mr. Blathwait appeared Mr. Attor Gen. Mr. Blathwait you were sworn before Mr. Blathwait Yes Sir. Mr. Attor Gen. Your were present when this Paper or Petition was dell vered by the King at the Council-Board Mr. Blathwait Yes I was so Sir. Mr. Attor Gen. Do you remember any thing of the Bishops acknowledging their delivery of it to the King. Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Blathwait I would ask you was there any mention or discourse with my Lords the Bishops how that Paper came into the King's hands was there any mention of what it was done for upon the account of Religion or how Mr. Blathwait I don't remember any thing of that Mr. Solicitor at which there was a great Laughter Lord Ch. Iust. Pray let us have no laughing it is not decent can't all this be done quietly without noise pray Mr. Blathwait let me ask you do you remember there was any discourse how that writing came into the Kings hands Mr. Blathwait I received it from the Kings hands and I know it was presented to him by my Lords the Bishops Lord Ch. Iust. How do you know it was presented to the King. Mr. Blathwait I heard the King say so several times Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray mind my question Sir first I ask you who produced the Paper at the Council-Table Mr. Blathwait The King. Mr. Sol. Gen. What said the Bishops when that Paper was shewed them Mr. Blathwait Then as I remember they were asked whether that was the Paper that they delivered to the King Mr. Sol. Gen. Then what said the Bishops Mr. Blathwait They at first scrupled to answer and they said it might be made use of to their prejudice if they owned it Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Blathwait consider again was that the question put to my Lords the Bishops whether that was the Paper that was presented by them to the King Mr. Blathwait I do think to the best of my remembrance that my Lord Chancellor did ask them to that purpose I cannot speak to the very words Mr. Sol. Gen. And upon this what answer did they make Mr. Blathwait My Lords the Bishops scrupled to answer the first and second time as I told you before but they did own it was the Petition that they presented to the King to the best of my remembrance Mr. Sol. Gen. Did the Archbishop do any thing to own it Mr. Blathwait Yes both my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops did own all the same thing Mr. Sol. Gen. Was this done at Whitehall Mr. Blathwait Yes at the Council-Table L. Ch. Iust. Pray recollect your self and consider what you say did they own that that was the Paper they delivered to the King Mr. Serj. Pemb. Pray my Lord give us leave to ask a question to clear this matter was the question put to them Whether it was the Paper that they delivered or whether it were their hands that were to it Mr. Blathwait My Lord I do not so exactly recollect the words L. Ch. Iust. But pray tell us if you can what the question was Mr. Blathwait My Lord I do not remember the very words but I think if Mr. Serjeant Pemberton be pleased to repeat his question I shall give him a satisfactory answer as well as I can Mr. Serj. Pemberton Sir that which I ask you is this Whether the question that was put to my Lords the Bishops at that time was Whether this was the Paper that they deliver'd to the King or whether those were their hands that was to it Mr. Blathwait My Lord I did always think that it was a plain Case that that was the Paper that they delivered to the King and my Lords the Bishops did never deny but that they gave it to the King and I had it from the King's hands L. Ch. Iust. But we must know from you if you can tell us what the question was that was put to my Lords the Bishops were they asked Whether those were their hands that were to that paper or was it Whether they delivered that paper to the King Mr. Blathwait As to the first part that they owned 't was their hands that I am sure of but as to the other I do not remember what the words were At which there was a great shout Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Blathwait recollect your self you say the King produced it Mr. Blathwait Yes Sir. Mr. Att. Gen. Do you remember that the King asked them any question upon the producing of it Mr. Blathwait My Lord Chancellor asked them if those were not their hands to the Petition Mr. Sol. Gen. Was there any other matter in discourse whether that was the paper that was delivered by them to the King Mr. Blathwait I cannot so positively say what were the words that my Lord
Chancellor used Mr. S. Levinz Pray do not twist a man so Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. And you are not to untwist a man neither Mr. Serjeant Mr. Att. Gen. Do you remember that the King said any thing of the paper being delivered to him Mr. Blathwait The King has said it several times I believe I have heard him say it ten times at least Mr. Att. Gen. Did he say it at that time Mr. Blathwait I cannot positively say that he did Sir. Mr. S. Pemb. He cannot answer it why will you press it Mr. Blathwait My Lord here is the Clerk of the Counsel that was then in waiting he took minutes and perhaps can remember more than I. Mr. Sol. Gen. Here they cry he cannot answer it as if they could tell what he can answer better than himself pray Mr. Bridgman was there any question to this purpose either from my Lord Chancellor or from the King whether that was the Paper that was presented by my Lords the Bishops or delivered by the King for I see you are very nice as to words and you do very well but was there not a question to that purpose Mr. Bridgm. Sir I do not remember for I speak to the best of my remembrance in all this matter I say I do not remember that that question was asked in those very words but I do remember something was said to that purpose but by whom I cannot particularly say Sir Rob. Sawyer To what purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. It is very strange that they wont let the witness speak but are continually interrupting him Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Solicitor no body interrupts him L. C. I. Why do not I behave my self between you all as I ought to do pray Sir Rob. Sawyer sit down you cannot be contented when the man does you no harm Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray consider did my Lords the Bishops say any thing or was there any discourse concerning the Paper whether it was delivered to the King or no Mr. Bridgm. Mr. Solicitor I have told you as near as I can what I do remember I know not by whom it was said but that question or to that purpose was asked whether that was the Petition they delivered but I do not remember whether the question was directly asked or answered there was something about it and several passages there were but whether spoken by my Lord Chancellor or who I cannot remember Mr. Sol. Gen. You say there was that which sufficiently denoted a question to that purpose and they said nothing against it Mr. Bridgm. No there was no denial of it Mr. S. G. I see you do not remember the particular words nor do we desire it of you Mr. Bridgm. They did not deny it nor confess it Mr. Sol. Gen. Then in your apprehension did they own that they delivered that Paper to the King L. C. I. You must not ask that Mr. Solicitor it is not a fair question to ask him what he apprehended Mr. Sol. Gen. He said it before himself L. C. I. But his apprehensions are no Evidence and it is a sort of a leading question which we must not allow of Mr. Sol. Gen. Then if your Lordship do not like it I will not ask it but I will ask him another question L. C. I. Ay ten if you will so they be fair ones Mr. Sol. Gen. Was it upon the first or second time of their being examined Mr. Bridgm. I cannot tell it was not the first time all of it I believe for at the first time my Lords the Bishops made some scruple of answering or owning any thing and whatsoever they owned they said they hoped it should not be made use of to their prejudice I remember no reply that was made nor any thing farther onely my Lord Chancellor said they were not to capitulate with their Prince but they were required to answer the questions that were asked them Mr. Sol. Gen. What were those questions Mr. Bridgm. I have told you already as well as I can remember Mr. Sol. Gen. But did you take it upon the main that they owned the delivery of that paper to the King Mr. Iust. Pow. Mr. Solicitor you have been told you are to ask no such questions S. R. Saw. Nor never was there such wire-drawing of a Witness in this world before L. Ch. Iust. Pray sit still Sir Rob. Sawyer you are not to teach us what we are to do Mr. Solicitor must ask questions that are proper for him and not such as these but the Court must correct him and not you Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Bridgman is very cautious and he is to be commended for it but we would get the truth out of him if we could pray Sir if you can remember recollect your self whether by any question to that purpose it was believed that they did own the delivery of the paper to the King. Mr. Bridgm. I told you Mr. Solicitor as to that at first that I do not remember the very words of the question but I believe there was no body doubted that that was not the paper Mr. Sol. Gen. You speak well in your way but these Gentlemen are very unwilling you should tell your opinion L. Ch. Iust. His opinion is no Evidence therefore you must not ask any such questions Mr. Solicitor Mr. Bridgm. Assoon as the Petition was delivered within a few hours after I saw it the King shewed it to several people and he said it was the Petition the Bishops had delivered he took it into his own custody and afterwards commanded me to write a Copy of it and there was no Copy made of it but that one but notwithstanding that I do remember I did see a Copy of the Petition within a day or two after it was presented about the Town Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray how many days was this before the discourse in Counsel upon their Examination Mr. Bridgm. How many days was what Sir Mr. Sol. Gen. When the King gave the paper to be copied Mr. Bridgm. It was upon the Sunday Mr. Sol. Gen. But you say as you believe it was in a few hours after the paper was delivered to the King that you did see it Mr. Iust. Powel But what makes him say that this was delivered to the King but only hear-say Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Mr. Solicitor will you produce that which is Evidence and not spend our time in that which is not Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I would make no more of it than it is Mr. S Levinz 'T is a shamefull thing to offer such things in a Court of Justice Mr. S. Pemberton 'T is a practice that ought not to be endured Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Brothers be quiet or I 'le turn him loose upon you again if you 'l not be quiet what is the matter cannot you let us alone we shall do every body right come to shorten this matter I ask you but this one question and that may satisfie any one that has honesty about him do you
that any body else delivered it to the King without their knowledge or consent here must needs be a very violent presumption that they did do it and when nothing of that is said on their side can any Jury upon their Consciences say that it was not published by them and it being found in Middlesex though it might be written and composed in Surry yet surely we have given a convincing Evidence that either they published it or caused it to be published in Middlesex Pray call Mr. Grayham Cryer He is gone out of the Hall. Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord there is in Law a presumption that is Evidence though there be no positive proof Sir Rob. Sawyer But not in an Information for a Libel Mr. Sol. Gen. This is a meer question of Fact there is no difficulty in the Law of it at all for it is plain if these Lords or any of them did consent and agree to the publishing of this Paper in Middlesex they are guilty of this Information and whether they are guilty or not guilty we do rely upon the Circumstances proved which are very violent First that they were the Men that contrived and set their hands to it and so were the Authours of it is undenyable for they have owned it Men of their learning and parts never did any such thing in vain and then that they were concerned in the publishing of it in Middlesex we offer for proof that which was said by Mr. Pepy's and Mr. Blathwait who though they do not come directly and expresly to the formal words of such a question yet they tell you especially Mr. Blathwait that they did apprehend it and it was the Collection of all their thoughts and they took it for granted as a thing that every body was satisfied in that they did deliver that Paper to the King. I must confess and agree there is no proof of the delivery of it by my Lords the Bishops to the King but we know very well that it is no wonder when a Paper is Libellous that Men should use all the skill they can to publish it with impunity and this is a thing that was done after some time of premeditation and serious Consultation for it was some days after the Order for reading the Declaration was published that this was framed and delivered and it concerned them to be wary as it seems they have been but take this altogether my Lord the Paper being found in the King's Hands it is in these Persons Power and it lies upon them to make it out plain what became of this Paper which once lay in their own Hands and Custody they can give an Account of it they can give Light unto it If they do not I shall submit to the Jury whether this is not sufficient Evidence to Convict them especially when being examined they did not make that their Excuse they never said this Paper indeed we signed but we did not intend to publish it we intended to stifle it that had been some excuse But for them to say now they did not present it to the King I must submit to the Jury whether they will believe upon this Evidence that these Lords the Bishops did present it or cause it to be presented to the King then they are guilty of this Matter And I leave it to them and their Consciences what they will think upon the whole Mr. Recorder My Lord if your Lordship please Lord Chief Iustice. What again Well go on Sir Bartho Shore if we must have a Speech Mr. Recorder Nay my Lord I would not trespass upon your Lordship L. C. Iust. Gentlemen of the Jury here is an Information against my Lords the Bishops I think I need not trouble my self to open all of it because I see you are Men of Understanding Men of great Diligence and have taken Notes your selves some of you therefore I say only something of the Proof that is required in such a Case and of the manner of the Proof that has been given in this Case and then tell you my Opinion in Point of Law. Here is an Information brought by Mr. Attorny General on behalf of the King against these Reverend Fathers of the Church the Arch-Bishop and the rest and it is for publishing a Seditious Libel under the pretence of a Petition in which are contained the words that are seen Gentleman the Information is long it tells you That the King out of his Gracious Clemency to all his Loving Subjects and for other Considerations had thought fit to publish a Declaration of Indulgence that all his Loving Subjects might have Liberty of Conscience upon the 4th of April in the 3d Year of his Reign and that this was set forth by the King and that the King of his farther Grace about the 27th of April then next following Mr. Finch I humbly beg your Lordships Favour L. C. Iust. What say you Mr. Finch Mr. Finch I ask your Pardon for breaking in upon you when you are directing the Jury I know I should not do it but I hope you will not be angry with me for it L. C. Iust. If I thought you did any Service to your Client I should willingly hearken to you Mr. Finch That which I humbly offer to your Lordship is only to remember your Lordship where we were L. C. Iust. Go on Sir. Mr. Finch I would only say this my Lord the Question is Whether this be Evidence or no L. C. Iust. I am sorry Mr. Finch you have that Opinion of me as to think I should not leave it fairly to the Jury Mr. Finch I only speak it my Lord because if it be Evidence we have other Matter to offer in Answer to that Evidence and in our own Defence L. C. Iust. If you have more to offer why did you conclude here and let me begin to direct the Jury but since you say you have other Matter to offer we will hear it Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord we submit to your Lordships direction L. C. Iust. No no you do not you say you have further Matter to offer Mr. Pollixfen My Lord we shall rest it here L. C. Iust. No no I will hear Mr. Finch Go on my Lords the Bishops shall not say of me that I would not hear their Counsel I have already been told of being Counsel against them and they shall never say that I would not hear their Counsel for them Mr. S. Levinz My Lord we beseech your Lordship go on with your Directions for all that Mr. Finch said was only that this was not sufficient Evidence L. C. Iust. No Brother he says you have a great deal more to offer and I will not refuse to hear him the Court will think there was something more than ordinary therefore I will hear him such a Learned Man as he shall not be refused to be heard by me I 'le assure you Why don't you go on Mr. Finch Mr. Finch My Lord I beg your pardon for interrupting
you but all that I was going to say would have amounted to no more than this That there being no Evidence against us we must of course be acquitted Mr. Just. Holloway My Lord did intend to have said as much as that I dare say L. C. Iust. Well Gentlemen of the Jury we have had Interruption enough Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I must beg your Pardon for interrupting you now and I am very glad these Gentlemen have given us this Occasion because we shall now be able to clear this Point There is a Fatality in some Causes my Lord and so there is in this we must beg your Patience for a very little while for we have notice that a Person of very great Quality is coming that will make it appear that they made their Addresses to him that they might deliver it to the King. L. C. Iust. Well You see what comes of the Interruption Gentlemen now we must stay Then there was a Pause for near half an hour Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord put the Case that a Man writes a Libel in one County and it is found in another Is not he answerable unless he can shew something that may satisfy the Jury how it came there Mr. Soll. Gen. Ought he not to give an account what became of it L. C. Iust. No look you Mr. Attorney you must look to your Information and then you will find the Case that you put does not come up to it It is for Writing Composing and Publishing and causing to be published and all this is laid in Middlesex Now you have proved none of all these things to be done in the County Mr. Att. Gen. They did in Middlesex confess it was theirs L. C. Iust. Ay but the owning their Hands is not a publication in Middlesex and so I should have told the Jury Mr. Finch I beg your Lordship's pardon for interrupting you Mr. Att. Gen. But my Lord does it not put the Proof upon them to prove how it came out of their Hands into the King's Hands L. C. Iust. No the Proof lies on your part Mr. Pollixfen Pray my Lord give us your favour to dismiss us and the Jury Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord our Witnesses will be here presently Mr. Att. Gen. Sure my Lord the Presumption is on our side Mr. Iust. Powell No the Presumption is against you for my Lord Arch-Bishop lived in Surry and it is proved was not out of Lambeth-House since Michaelmass till he came before the Council Mr. S. Pemb. Pray good my Lord we stand mightily uneasy here and so do the Jury pray dismiss us L. C. Iust. I cannot help it it is your own Fault Then there was another great Pause Lord Chief Iustice. Sir Bartho Shore now we have time to hear your Speech if you will. Mr. Poâ—…fen My Lord there is no Body come nor I believe will come Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes he will come presently we have had a Messenger from him Call Mr. Graham 〈◊〉 He is gone and said he would come presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My Lord he will bring ouâ—… Witnesses with him Then there was another 〈◊〉 Mr. S. Pemb. My Lord this is very unusual to stay thus for Evidence L. Ch. Iust. It is so but I am sure you ought not to have any â—…avour Mr. Solicitor Are you assured that you shall have this Witness that you speak of Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes my Lord he will be here presently L. Ch. Iust. We have staid a great while already and therefore it is â—…it that we should have some Oath made that he is coming Mr. Sol. Gen. The Cryer tells you that Mr. Graham did acquaint him that he would return presently L. Ch. Iust. Give him the Book Mr. Soll. Gen. Let your Left-hand give your Right-hand the Oath The Cryer sworn L. Ch. Iust. By the Oath that you have taken did Mr. Graham tell you there was any further Witness coming in this Case Cryer Yes my Lord he did he went out of the Hall and returned when your Lorship was directing the Jury and he asked me what the Court were upon and I told him you were directing the Jury and then he said my Lord Sunderland was a coming but he would go and prevent him and afterwards he returned and finding your Lordship did not go on to direct the Jury he said he would go again for my Lord Sunderland whom he had sent away and he is now gone for him and he said he would bring him with him presently L. Ch. Iust. Well then we must stay till the Evidence for the King comes for now there is Oath made that he is coming And after a considerable pause the Lord President came Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord we must pray that my Lord President may be sworn in this Case on behalf of the King. The Lord President sworn Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord with your Lordship's favour I would ask my Lord President a Question Your Lordship remembers where we left this Cause we have brought it to this Point That this Petition came to the King's Hands that it is a Petition written by my Lord Arch-bishop and subscribed by the rest of my Lords the Bishops but there is a Difficulty made whether this Petition thus prepared and written was by them delivered to the King and whether my Lords the Bishops were concerned in the doing of it and were privy oâ—… Parties to the Delivery Now that which I would ask your Lordship my Lord President is Whether they did make their Application to your Lordship to speak to the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. Did they make their Application to your Lordship upon any account whatsoever L. President My Lord my Lord Bishop of St. Aâ—…ph and my Lord Bishop of 〈◊〉 came to my Office and told me they came in the Names of my Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury and four others of their Brethren and themselves with a Petition which they 〈◊〉 to deliver to his Majesty and they did come to me to know which was the best way of doing it and whether the King would give them leave to do it or not they would have had mâ—… râ—…d tâ—…ir Petition but I refused it and said I thought it did not at all belong to me but I would let the King know their desire and bring them an Answer immediately what his pleasure was in it which I did I acquainted the King and he commanded me to let my Lords the Bishops know they might come when they pleased and I went back and told them so upon which they went and fetch'd the rest of the Bishops and when they came immediately they went into the Bed-Chamber and 〈◊〉 another Room where the King waâ—… this is that I know of the matter Mr. Soll. Gen. About what time was this pray my Lord L. President I believe there could not be much time between my coming from the King and their fetching their Brethren and going in to the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. They were with the King that
day L. President Yes they were Mr. Soll. Gen. Was this before they appeared in Council L. President Yes it was several days before Mr. Soll. Gen. Then I think now my Lord the matter is very plain Mr. Iust. Allibone Did they acquaint your Lordship that their business was to deliver a Petition to the King. L. President Yes they did Mr. Soll. Gen. And they would have had my Lord read it he says Mr. Attorn Gen. And this was the same day that they did go in to the King. L. President The very same day and I think the same hour for it could not be much longer L. Ch. Iust. Now it is upon you truly it will be presumed to be the same unless that you prove that you delivered another Pray my Lord did you look into the Petition L. President No I refused it I thought it did not concern me Mr. Iust. Powel Did you see them deliver it to the King my Lord L. President I was not in the Room when it was delivered Mr. Iust. Powel They did open their Petition to your Lordship did they L. President They offered me to read it but I did refuse L. Ch. Iust. Will you ask my Lord President any Question you that are for the Defendants Sir Rob. Sawyer No my Lord. Mr. Sol. Gen. Then my Lord we must beg one thing for the sake of the Jury if your Lordship can turn your self a little this way and deliver the Evidence you have given over again that they may hear it L. President My Lord I will repeat it as near as I can I think I shall not vary the Sense The Bishops of St. Asaph and Chichester came to my Office I do not know just the day when but it was to let me know that they came in the Name of the Archbishop and four other of their Brethren Is it necessary I should name them L. Ch. Iust. Do it my Lord if you can L. President They were the Bishops of Ely Bath and Wells Bristol and Peterborough they came to let me know in the Name of the Arch-bishop those four and themselves that they had a Petition to deliver to the King if he would give them leave and desired to know of me which was the best way to do it I told them I would know the King's Pleasure and bring them word again they offered me their Petition to read but I did not think it fit for me to do it and therefore I refused and would not read it but I went immediately to the King and acquainted his Majesty with it and he commanded me to let them know they might come when they would which I immediately did they said they would go and speak with some of their Brethren that were not far off in the mean time I gave order that they should be admitted when they came and they did in a little time return and went first into the Bed-Chamber and then into the Room where the King was Mr. Sol. Gen. And this was before they came and appeared at the Council L. President Yes it was Mr. Pollixfen Your Lordship did not read any thing of the Petition L. President No Sir I did not I refused it Mr. Pollixfen Nor does your Lordship know what Petition they did deliver to the King. L. President I did not know any thing of it from them then L. Ch. Iust. Now you may make your Observations upon this two hours hen now we shall hear what Mr. Finch had â—…her to offer I suppose Then my Lord President went 〈◊〉 Mr. Sol. Gen. I think now it is very plain L. Ch. Iust. Truly I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell you there was a great presumption before but there is a greater now and I think I shall leave it with some effect to the Jury I cannot see but that here is enough to put the Proof upon you they came to the Lord President and asked him how they might deliver a Petition to the King he told them he would go and see what the King said to it they would have had him read their Petition but he refused it he comes and tells them the King said they might come when they would then those two that came to my Lord President went and gathered up the other four the Arch-bishop indeed was not there but they six came and my Lord President gave Direction they should be let in and they did go into the Room where the King was now this with the King 's producing the Paper and their owning it at the Council iâ—… such a Proof to me as I think will be Evidence to the Jury of the Publication Mr. Pollixfen Then my Lord thus far they only can go the Arch-bishop was not there and so there is no Evidence against him Mr. Sol. Gen. As to the Writing we have given Proof against him for it is all his Hand Mr. Pollixfen That still is in another County and there is nothing proved to be done by my Lord Arch-Bishop in Middlesex and next for the other six Lords my Lord President does not say that this is the Petition that they said they had to deliver to the King nor did he see them deliver any thing to the King but that is left still doubtful and under your Judgment so that it stands upon Presumption not upon Proof that this is the same and left under Consideration Mr. Attor Gen. Then we will leave it fairly to the Jury upon this Fact. Mr. Pollixfen If so then we desire to be heard in our Defence Sir Rob. Sawyer May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury you have heard this Charge which Mr. Attorny has been pleased to make against my Lords the Bishops and that is this That they did conspire to diminish the Royal Authority and Regal Prerogative Power and Government of the King and to avoid the Order of Council and in prosecution of this they did falsely maliciously and seditiously make a Libel against the King under pretence of a Petition and did publish the same in the King's presence This Gentlemen is a very heinous and heavy Charge but you see how short their Evidence is The Evidence they bring forth is only that my Lords the Bishops presented the Paper to the King in the most private and humble manner they could that which they have been so many hours a proving and which they cry up to be as strong an Evidence as ever was given proves it to be the farthest from Sedition in the doing of it that can be and you see what it is it is a Petition to be relieved against an Order of Council which they conceive they were aggrieved by they indeed do not deal fairly with the Court nor with us in that they do not set it forth that it was a Petition L. Ch. Iust. That was over-ruled before Sir Rob. Sawyer I do not insist upon it now so much an Exception to the Information as I do to the Evidence they set this forth to be
a scandalous matter but it only contains their Reasons whereby they would satisfy his Majesty why they cannot comply in a Concurrence with his Majesty's Pleasure and therefore they humbly beseech the King and beg and request him as the words of it are that his Majesty would be pleased not to insist upon their distributing and reading of this Declaration so the Petitioners on behalf of themselves and the whole Clergy of England beg of the King that he would please not to insist upon it Gentlemen you may observe it that there is nothing in this Petition that contains any thing of Sedition in it and it would be strange this Petition should be Felo de se and by one part of it destroy the other it is laid indeed in the Information that it was with intent and purpose to diminish the King's Royal Authority but I appeal to your Lordship the Court and the Jury whether there be any one word in it that any way touches the King's Prerogative or any tittle of Evidence that has been given to make good the Charge It is an Excuse barely for their non-Complyance with the King's Order and a begging of the King with all Humility and Submission that he would be pleased not to insist upon the reading of his Majesty's Declaration upon these grounds because the Dispensing Power upon which it was founded had been several times in Parliament declared to be against Law and because it was a Case of that Consequence that they could not in Prudence Honour or Conscience concur in it My Lord Mr. Attourny has been pleased to charge in this Information that this is a false malicious and seditious Libel both the falsity of it and that it was malicious and seditious are all Matters of Fact which with Submission they have offered to the Jury no proof of and I make no question but easily to demonstrate the quite contrary For my Lord I think it can be no question but that any Subject that is Commanded by the King to do a Thing which he conceives to be against Law and against his Conscience may humbly apply himself to the King and tell him the Reason why he does not that thing he is commanded to do why he cannot concur with his Majesty in such a Command My Lord that which Mr. Attorney did insist upon in the beginning of this Day and he pretended to cite some Cases for it was that in this Case my Lords the Bishops were not sued as Bishops nor prosecuted for their Religion truly My Lord I do not know what they are sued for else the Information is against them as Bishops it is for an Act they did as Bishops and no otherwise and for an Act they did and do conceive they lawfully might do with relation to their Ecclesiastical Polity and the Government of their People as Bishops The next thing that Mr. Attorney offered was that it was not for a Non-feasance but for a Feasance it is true my Lord it is for a Feasance in making of the Petition but it was to excuse a Non-feasance the not reading according to the Order and this sure was lawful for all the Bishops as Subjects to do and I shall shew it was certainly the duty of my Lords the Bishops or any Peer of the Realm to do the same in a like Case It was likewise said they were prosecuted here for affronting the Government and intermedling with Matters of State but I beg your Lordship and the Jury to consider whether there is one tittle of this mentioned in the Petition or any Evidence given of it the Petition does not meddle with any thing of any Matter of State but refers to an Ecclesiastical Matter to be executed by the Clergy and to a Matter that has relation to Ecclesiastical Causes so that they were not Busybodies or such as meddled in Matters that did not relate to them but that which was properly within their Sphere and Jurisdiction But after all there is no Evidence nor any sort of Evidence that is given by Mr. Attorney that will maintain the least tittle of this Charge and how he comes to leave it upon this sort of Evidence I cannot tell all that it amounts to is That my Lords the Bishops being greived in this manner made this Petition to the King in the most private and respectful manner and for him to load it with such horrid black Epithets that it was done Libellously Maliciously and Scandalously and to oppose the King and Government 't is very hard 't is a Case of a very extraordinary Nature and I believe my Lords the Bishops cannot but conceive a great deal of trouble that they should lie under so heavy a Charge and that Mr. Attorney should draw so severe an Information against them when he has so little Proof to make it out My Lord by what we have to say to it we hope we shall give your Lordship and the Jury Satisfaction that we have done but our Duties supposing here has been a sufficient Evidence of the Fact given which we leave to your Lordship and the Jury My Lord we say in short That this Petition is no more than what any Man if he be Commanded to do any thing might humbly do it and not be guilty of any Crime And my Lord as to the Matter of our Defence it will consist of these Heads First We shall Consider the Matter of this Petition Secondly The Manner of the delivering it according as they have given Evidence here and Thirdly the Persons that have delivered this Petition And we hope to make it appear beyond all question that the Matter contained in this Petition is neither false nor contrary to Law but agreeable to all the Laws of the Land in all Times We shall likewise shew you though that appear sufficiently to you already that the Manner of delivering it was so far from being Seditious that it was in the most secret and private manner and with the greatest Humility and Duty imaginable And then as to the Persons we shall shew you that they are not such as Mr. Attorney says who meddle with Matters of State that are of out their Sphere but they are Persons concerned and concerned in Interest in the Case to make this humble application to the King. And when we have proved all this Matter you will see how strangely we are blackned with Titles and Epithets which we no ways deserve and of which God be thanked there is no Proof For my Lord for the Matter of the Petition we shall consider two things The First is The Prayer which is this They humbly beg and desire of the King on behalf of themselves and the rest of the Clergy that he would not insist upon the Reading and Publishing of this Declaration Surely my Lord there is nothing of Falsity in this nor any thing that is contrary to Law or unlawful for any Man that is pressed to any thing especially by an Order of
Council and this is nothing but a Petition against an Order of Council and if there be an Order that commands my Lords the Bishops to do a thing that seems grievous to them surely they may beg of the King that he would not insist upon it And for this Matter they were so well satisfied about it and so far from thinking that it was any part of a Libel that they left it out of the Information and so have made a deformed and absurd Story of it without Head or Tall a Petition directed to no Body and for nothing it being without both Title and Prayer so that this is plain is was lawful to Petition Then my Lord the next Thing is the Reasons which my Lords the Bishops come to acquaint the King with why in Honour and Conscience they cannot comply with and give obedience to this Order and the Reasons my Lord are two The first Reason that is assigned is the several Declarations that have been in Parliament several of which are mentioned that such a Power to dispense with the Law is against Law and that it could not be done but by an Act of Parliament for that is the meaning of the word Illegal that has no other signification but unlawful the same word in point of signification with the word Illicitè which they have used in their Information a thing that cannot be done by Law and this they are pleased to tell the King not as declaring their own Judgments but what has been declared in Parliament though if they had done the former they being Peers of the Realm and Bishops of the Church are bound to understand the Laws especially when as I shall come to show you they are made Guardians of these Laws and if any thing go amiss and contrary to these Laws they ought to inform the King of it My Lord the next thing is Because it is a Thing of so great moment and the Consequences that will arise from their publishing of this Declaration and that too my Lord for the latter I shall begin first with there can be no Question about or any pretence that this is libellous or false for certainly it is a Case of the greatest Consequence to the whole Nation that ever was therefore it cannot be false or libellous to say so My Lord I would not mention this for I am loth to touch upon things of this Nature had not the Information it self made it the very Gift of the Charge for the Information if there be any thing in it says that it was to diminish the King's Prerogative and Regal Power in publishing that Declaration Now my Lord what the Consequence of this would be and what my Lords the Bishops meant by saying It was a Cause of great Moment will appear by considering that which is the main Clause in the Declaration at which my Lords the Bishops scrupled which is the main Stumbling-block to my Lords and has been to many honest Men besides and that is this We do likewise declare It is our Royal Will and Pleasure that from hence-forth the Execution of all and all manner of Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical for not coming to Church or not receiving the Sacrament or for any other Nonconformity to the Religion Established or for or by Reason of the Exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever be immediately suspended and the further execution of the said Penal Laws and every of them is hereby suspended Now my Lord this Clause either is of some legal â—…ect and Signification or it is not If Mr. Attorny or the King's Council do say it is of no Effect in Law then there is no harm done then this Petition does no ways impeach the King's Prerogative in saying it has been declared in Parliament according as the King's Counsel do agree the Law to be But my Lord if it have any Effect in Law and these Laws are suspended by virtue of this Clause in the Declaration then certainly my Lord it is of the most dismal Consequence that can be thought of and it behoved my Lords who are the Fathers of the Church humbly to represent it to the King. For my Lord by this Declaration and particularly by that Clause in it not only the Laws of our Reformation but all the Laws for the preservation of the Christian Religion in general are suspended and become of no force if there be such an Effect in Law wrought by this Declaration as is pretended that is that the Obligation of Obedience to them ceaseth the Reason of it is plain the words cannot admit of such a Quibble as to pretend that the Execution of the Law is not the Suspending of the Law and that the Suspending the Execution of the Law is not a Suspending of the Law for we all know the Execution of every Law in its primary Intent is Obedience to it that of the Penalty comes in by way of Punishment and Recompence for their Disobedience Now my Lord if this Declaration does discharâ—… the King's Subjects from their Obedience to and the Obligation from those Laws then pray my Lord where are we Then all the Laws of the Reformation are suspended and the Laws of Christianity it self by those latter words 〈◊〉 or for or by reason of Religion in any manner whatsoever so that it is not confined to the Christian Religion but all other Religions are permitted under this Clause And thus all our Laws for keeping the Sabbath and which distinguish us from Heathens will be suspended too My Lord this is such an Inconvenience as I think I need name no more and it is a very natural Confequence from that Clause of the Declaration it discharges at once all Ministers and Clergy-men from performing their Duty in reading the Service of the Church it discharges their Hearers from attending upon that Service When a Law is suspended the Obligation thereof is taken away and those that before thought themselves bound to obey now conclude they are not so obliged and what a mischief that will be to the Church which is under the Care of my Lords the Bishops your Lordship will easily apprehend These things my Lord I only mention to shew the great and evil Consequences that apparently follow upon such a Declaration which made my Lords the Bishops decline obeying the Order and put them under a necessity of applying thus to the King to acquaint him with the Reasons why they could not comply with his Commands to read this Declaration to the People because the Consequences thereof were so great it tending naturally to lead the People into so great an Error as to believe those Lawâ—… were not in Force when in Truth and Reality they are still in Force and continue to oblige them And that being the second Reason in this Petition I come next to consider it to wit thâ—… the Parliament had often declared this pretended Power to be Illegal and for that we shall read the several
Records in Parliament mentioned in their Petition and produce several Ancient Records of former Parliaments that prove this Point and particularly in the Time of Richard the Second concerning the Statute of Provisors where there were particular Dispensations for that Statute the King was enabled to do it by Act of Parliamentâ—… and could not do it without L. C. Iust. Pray Sir Robert Sawyer go to your Proofs and reserve your Arguments till afterwards Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord I do but shortly mention these things so that my Lord as to the Matter of this Petition we shall shew you that it is true and agreeable to the Laws of the Land. Then my Lord as to the manner of delivering it I need say no more but that it is plain from their Evidence that it was in the most private and humble manner And as my Lord President said Leave was asked of the King for them to be admitted to present it Leave was given and accordingly they did it We come then my Lord to the third thing the Persons these noble Lords and we shall shew they are not Busie-Bodies but in this Matter have done their Duty and medled with their own Affairs That my Lord will appear First By the general Care that is reposed in them by the Law of the Land They are frequently in our Books called the King's Spiritual Judges they are intrusted with the Care of Souls and the Superintendency over all the Clergy is their principal Care. But besides this my Lord there is another special Care put upon them by the express Words of an Act of Parliament for over and above the general Care of the Church by virtue of their Offices as Bishops the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. makes them special Guardians of the Law of Uniformity and of that other Law in His Late Majesty's Reign where all the Clauses of that Statute of 1 Eliz. are revived and made applicable to the present State of the Church of England Now in that Statute of 1 Eliz. there is this Clause And for the due Execution hereof the Queen 's Most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in God's Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Ordinaries that they do endeavour themselves to the utmost of their Knowledges that the due and true Execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his People for neglecting this good and wholsome Law. This is the Charge that lies upon the Bishops to take care of the Execution of that Law and I shall pray by and by that it may be read to the Jury Mr. Soll. Gen. That is very well indeed To what purpose Sir Rob. Sawyer So that my Lord by this Law it is plain that my Lords the Bishops upon pain of bringing upon themselves the Imprecation of this Act of Parliament are obliged to see it executed and then my Lord when any thing comes under their Knowledge especially if they are to be Actors in it that has such a tendency to destroy the very Foundations of the Church as the Suspension of all the Laws that relate to the Church must do it concerns them that have no other Remedy to address the King by Petition about it For that Mr. Attorney my Lord has agreed That if a proper Remedy be pursued in a proper Court for a Grievance complained of though there may be many hard Words that else would be scandalous yet being in a regular Course they are no Scandal And so it is said in Lake's Case in my Lord Hobbart My Lord we must appeal to the King or we can appeal to no body to be relieved against an Order of Council with which we are aggrieved and it is our Duty so to do according to the Care that the Law hath placed in us Besides my Lord the Bishops were commanded by this Order to do an Acâ—… relating to their Ecclesiastical Function to distribute it to be read by their Clergy And how could they in Conscience do it when they thought part of the Declaration was not according to Law Pray my Lord What has been the reason of His Majesty's consulting of his Judges And if His Majesty or any the great Officers by his Command are about to do any thing that is contrary to Law was it ever yet an Offence to tell the King so I always look'd upon it as the Duty of an Officer or Magistrate to tell the King what is Law and what is not Law. In Cavendish's Case in the Queen's time there was an Office granted of the Retorn of the Writs of Supersedeas in the Court of Common Pleas and he comes to the Court and desires to be put into the possession of the Office The Court told him They could do nothing in it but he must bring his Assize He applies to the Queen and she sends under the Privy Seal a Command to sequester the Profits and to take Security to answer thâ—… Profits as the Judgment of the Law should go But the Judges there return an Answer That it was against Law and they could not do it Then there comes a second Letter reciting the former and commanding their Obedience The Judges returned for Answer They were upon their Oaths and were sworn to keep the Laws and would not do it My Lord The like was done in the time of my Lord Hobbart We have it reported in Anderson in a Case where a Prohibition had gone There came a Message from Court that a Consultation should be granted and that was a Matter wherein there were various Opinions whether it was Ex Necessitate or Discretionary but there they return'd That it was against Law for any such Message to he sent Now here my Lord is a Case full as strong My Lords the Bishops were commanded to do an Act which they conceived to be against Law and they decline it and tell the King the reason and they have done it in the most humble manner that could be by way of Petition If they had done as the Civil Law terms it Rescribere generally that had been lawful but here they have done it in a more respectful manner by an humble Petition If they had said the Law was otherwise that sure had been no Fault but they do not so much as that but they only say it was so declared in Parliament and they declare it with all Humility and Dutifulness So that my Lord if we consider the Persons of the Defendants they have not acted as Busie-Bodies and therefore as this Case is when we have given our Evidence here will be an Answer to all the Implications of Law that are contained in this Information For they would have this Petition work by Implication of Law to make a Libel of it but by what I have said it will appear
there was nothing of Sedition nothing of Malice nothing of Scandal in it nothing of the Salt and Vinegar and Pepper that they have put into the Case We shall prove the Matters that I have open'd for our Defence and then I dare say your Lordship and the Jury will be of Opinion we have done nothing but our Duty Mr. Finch May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury This Information sets forth as you may observe upon opening it that the King having by his Royal Prerogative set forth his Declarations that have been read and made an Order of Council for the Reading the said Declarations in the Churches and that the Archbishop and Bishops should severally send them into their Diocesses to be read my Lords the Bishops that are the Defendants did consult and conspire together to diminish the Kingly Authority and Royal Prerogative of the King and his Power and Government in his Regal Prerogative in setting forth his Declaration and that in prosecution of that Conspiracy they did contrive as it was laid in the Information a malicious seditious scandalous false and feigned Libel under pretence of a Petition and so set forth the Petition and that they published the Petition in the presence of the King. To this Charge in the Information Not Guilty being pleaded the Evidence that hath been given for the King I know hath been observed by the Court and the Jury and I know will be taken into Consideration how far it does come up to the Proof of the Delivery of this Petition by my Lords the Bishops for all that was said till my Lord President was pleas'd to come was no Evidence of any Delivery at all and my Lord Preâ—…dent's Evidence is that they were going to deliver a Petition but whether they did deliver it or did it not or what they did deliver he does not know This is all the Evidence that has been given for the King. But supposing now my Lord that there were room to presume that they had delivered this Petition set forth in the Information let us consider what the Question is between the King and my Lords the Bishops The Question is Whether they are guilty of Contriving to diminish the King's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative in his Power and Government in setting forth this Declaration Whether they are guilty of the making and presenting a malicious seditious and scandalous Libel and whether they have published it as it is said in the Information in the King's Presence So that the Question is not now reduced to this Whether this Paper that is set forth in the Information was delivered to the King by my Lords the Bishops but whether they have made a malicious seditious and scandalous Libel with an Intent to diminish the King's Royal Prerogative and Kingly Authority And then if you Gentlemen should think that thâ—… is Evidence given sufficient to prove that my Lords the Bishops have delivered to the King that Paper which is set forth in the Information yet unless they have delivered a false malicious seditious and scandalous Libel unless they have published it to stir up Sedition in the Kingdom and unless they have contrived this by Conspiracy to diminish the King 's Royal Prerogative and Authority and that Power that is said to be iâ—… the King my Lords the Bishops are not guilty of this Accusation There are in this Declaration several Clauses which upon reading of the Information I am sure cannot but have been observed by you Gentlemen of the Jury and one special Clause hath been by the Council already opened to you and I shall not enlarge upon it My Lord This Petition that is thus delivered to the King if it be a Libel a scandalous and seditious Libel as the Information calls it it must be so either for the Matter of the Petition or for the Persons that deliver'd the Petition or for the manner of their presenting and delivering it But neither for the Matter nor for the Persons nor for the manner of presenting it is there any Endeavour to dimâ—…nish the King 's Royal Prerogative nor to stir up Sedition nor Reflection upon the King 's true Royal and Kingly Authority The Petition does humbly set forth to His Majesty that there having been such a Declaration and such an Order of Council they did humbly represent to His Majesty that they were not averse to any thing commanded them in that Order in respect to the just and due Obedience that they owed to the King nor in respect of their want of a due Tenderness to those Persons to whom the King had been pleased to shew his Tenderness but the Declaration being founded upon a Power of Dispensing which had been declared illegal in Parliament several times and particularly in the Years 1662 72 and 85. they did humbly beseech His Majesty they not being able to comply with his Command in that matter that he would not insist upon it Now my Lord Where is the Contrivance to diminish the King's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative This is a Declaration founded upon a Power of Dispensing which undertakes to suspend all Laws Ecclesiastical whatsoever for not Coming to Church or not Receiving the Sacrament or any other Nonconformity to the Religion established or for or by reason of the Exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever Ordering that the Execution of all those Laws be immediately suspended and they are thereby declared to be suspended as if the King had a Power to suspend at once all the Laws relating to the establish'd Religion and all the Laws that were made for the Security of our Reformation These are all suspended by His Majesty's Declaration as it is said in the Information by virtue of his Royal Prerogative and Power so to do Now my Lord I have always taken it with Submission that a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature as a Power to make Laws A Power to lay Laws asleep and to suspend Laws is equal to a Power of Abrogating them for they are no longer in Being as Laws while they are so laid asleep or suspended And to abrogate all at once or to do it time after time is the same thing and both are equally parts of the Legislature My Lord In all the Education that I have had in all the small Knowledge of the Laws that I could attain to I could never yet hear of or learn that the Constitution of this Government in England was otherwise than thus That the whole Legislative Power is in the King Lords and Commons the King and his two Houses of Parliament But then If this Declaration be founded upon a part of the Legislature which must be by all Men acknowledged not to reside in the King alone but in the King Lords and Commons it cannot be a legal and true Power or Prerogative This my Lord has been attempted but in the last King's time it never was pretended till
then and in that first Attempt it was so far from being acknowledged that it was taken notice of in Parliament and declared against So it was in the Years 1662. and 1672. In the Year 62. where there was but the least Umbrage given of such a Dispensing Power although the King had declared in his Speech to the Parliament that he wished he had such a Power which his Declaration before seemed to assume the Parliament was so jealous of this that they immediately made their Application to His Majesty by an Address against the Declaration and they give Reasons against it in their Address One in particular was That the King could not dispense with those Laws without an Act of Parliament There was another Attempt in 1672. and then after His Majesty had in his Speech mentioned his Declaration to them the Parliament there again particularly the House of Commons did humbly address to His Majesty setting forth that this could not be done by Law without an Act of Parliament And your Lordship by and by upon reading the Record will be satisfied what was the Event of all this His Majesty himself was so far pleased to concurr with them in that Opinion that he cancell'd his Declaration tore off the Seal and caused it to be made known to the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor who by His Majesty's Command satisfied the House of it that His Majesty had broken the Seal and cancell'd the Declaration with this further Declaration which is enter'd in the Records of the House That it should never be drawn into Example or Consequence My Lord The Matter standing thus in respect to the King's Prerogative and the Declarations that had been made in Parliament consider next I beseech you how far my Lords the Bishops were concerned in this Question humbly to make their Application to the King. My Lords the Bishops lying under a Command to publish this Declaration it was their Duty as Peers of the Realm and Bishops of the Church of England humbly to apply themselves to His Majesty to make known their Reasons why they could not obey that Command and they do it with all Submission and all Humility representing to His Majesty what had been declared in Parliament and it having been so declared they could not comply with his Order as apprehending that this Declaration was founded upon that which the Parliament declared to be illegal and so His Majesty's Command to publish this Declaration would not warrant them so to do This they did as Peers and this they had a Right to do as Bishops humbly to advise the King. For suppose my Lord which is not to be supposed in every Case nor do I suppose it in this but suppose that there might be a King of England that should be mis-led I do not suppose that to be the Case now I say but I know it hath been the Case formerly that the King should be environed with Counsellors that had given him evil Advice it has been objected as a Crime against such evil Counsellors that they would not permit and suffer the Great Men of the Kingdom to offer the King their Advice How often do we say in Westminster-Hall That the King is deceived in his Grant There is scarce a Day in the Term but it is said in one Court or other but it was never yet thought an Offence to say so And what more is there in this Case My Lord If the King was mis-informed or under a Mis-apprehension of the Law my Lords as they are Peers and as they are Bishops are concerned in it and if they humbly apply themselves to the King and offer him their Advice where is the Crime My Lord These noble Lords the Defendants had more than an ordinary Call to this for besides the Duty of their Office and the Care of the Church that was incumbent on them as Bishops they were here to become Actors for they were by that Order of Council commanded themselves to publish it and to distribute it to the several Ministers in their several Diocesses with their Commands to read it Therefore they had more than ordinary Reason to concern themselves in the Matter Next We are to consider my Lord in what manner this was done They make their Application to the King by an humble Petition with all the Decency and Respect that could be shewn asking leave first to approach his Person and having leave they offer'd my Lord President the Matter of their Petition that nothing might seem hard or disrespectful or as if they intended any thing that was unfit to be avowed When they had taken all this Care in their Approach and begging leave for it they come secretly to the King in private when he was all alone and there they humbly present this Petition to His Majesty Now how this can be called the Publication of a malicious and seditious Libel when it was but the Presenting of a Petition to the King alone And how it can be said to be with an Intent to stir up Sedition in the People against His Majesty and to alienate the Hearts of his People from him when it was in this private manner delivered to him himself only truly I cannot apprehend My Lord I hope nothing of this can be thought an Offence If the Jury should think that there has been Evidence sufficient given to prove that my Lords the Bishops did deliver this Paper to the King yet that is not enough to make them guilty of this Information unless this Paper be likewise found to be in Diminution of the King 's Royal Prerogative and Regal Authority in dispensing with and suspending of all Laws without Act of Parliament Unless it be found to be a Libel against the King to tell him That in Parliament it was so and so declared And unless the presenting this by way of Petition which is the Right of all People that apprehend themselves aggrieved to approach His Majesty by Petition be a Libelling of the King And unless this humble Petition in this manner presented to the King in private may be said to be a malicious and seditious Libel with an Intent to stir up the People to Sedition Unless all this can be found there is no Man living can ever find my Lords the Bishops guilty upon this Information Therefore my Lord we will go on and make out this Matter that we have opened to your Lordship if Mr. Attorney and Mr. Sollicitor think fit to argue the Points that we have opened Mr. Pollixfen Pray my Lord spare me a Word on the same Side For the first Point It is a Point of Law whether the Matter contained in this Petition be a Libel The King's Council pretend it is so because it says the Declaration is founded upon a Power the Parliament has declared to be illegal But we say that whatsoever the King is pleased to say in any Declaration of his it is not the King 's saying of it that makes
it to be Law. Now we say This Declaration under the Great Seal is not agreeable to the Laws of the Land and that for this Reason Because it does at one Blow set aside all the Law we have in England My Lord If this be denied we must a little debate this matter for they are almost all Penal Laws not only those before the Reformation but since upon which the whole Government both in Church and State does in a great measure depend Especially my Lord in Matters of Religion they are all Penal Laws For by the Act of Uniformity which my Lords the Bishops are sworn to observe and adjured by an express Clause in the Act No Man is to preach unless he be Episcopally ordained no Man is to preach without a Licence If all this be set aside I confess then it will go very far into the whole Ecclesiastical Government If this be denied we are ready to argue that too L. C. I. They are to do so still Mr. Pollixfen My Lord I am sure the Consequence is otherwise if this Declaration signifie any thing And if it be the Will of the King my Lord the Will of the King is what the Law is If so be the King 's Will be not consonant to the Law it is not obliging My Lord The Cases that we have had of Dispensations are all so many strong Authorities against a general or particular Abrogation My Lord that is a Matter of Law which if it fall out to be any way doubtful it will be fit to have it debated and setled If they will say that the Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical can be abrogated or nulled or made void pro tempore or for Life without the meeting of the King and People in Parliament I must confess they say a great thing as it is a Point of great Concern but I think that will not be said And all that has been ever said in any Case touching Dispensations proves quite the contrary and asserts what I affirm For Why should any Man go about to argue that the King may dispense with this or that particular Law if at once he can dispense with all the Law by an undoubted Prerogative This is a Point of Law which we insist upon and are ready to argue with them but we will go on with the rest of those things that we have offer'd And first we will read the Act of Uniformity made 1 Eliz. that Clause of it where they are so strictly charged to see to the Execution of that Law. This Act my Lord by the Act of Uniformity made in the Beginning of the late King's Reign is revived with all the Clauses in it relating to this Matter If then this be a Duty incumbent upon them and their Oaths require it of them and if they find that the Pleasure of the King in his Declaration is that which is not consonant to this Law what can they do Can any thing be more humble or done with a more Christian Mind than by way of Petition to inform the King in the Matter For I never thought it nor hath it ever sure been thought by any body else to be a Crime to petition the King For the King may be mistaken in the Law so our Books say and we every Day in Westminster-Hall argue against the King's Grants and say He is deceived in his Grants It is the great Benefit and Liberty which the King gives to his Subjects to argue the Legality or Illegality of his Grants My Lord When all this is done to make this to be a Libel by putting in the Words Malicious Seditious Scandalous and with an Intent to raise Sedition would be pretty hard My Lord We pray that Clause of the Statute may be read Mr. Soll. Gen. What for Mr. Pollixfen It is a general Law and therefore the Court will take notice of it and we pray the Jury may hear it read Mr. Soll. Gen. I agree it to be as Mr. Pollixfen has opened and I agree it to be as Sir Robert Sawyer has opened it Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord We shall put it upon a short Point My Lords the Bishops are here accused of a Crime of a very heinous nature as can be they are here branded and stigmatized by this Information as if they were seditious Libellers when my Lord it will in truth fall out that they have done no more than their Duty their Duty to God their Duty to the King and their Duty to the Church For in this Case that which we humbly offer to your Lordship and insist upon it as very plain is this That the Kings of England have no power to suspend or dispense with the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom that establish our Religion That is it which we stand upon for our Defence And we say That such a Dispensing Power with Laws and Statutes is a thing that strikes at the very Foundation of all the Rights Liberties and Properties of the King's Subjects whatsoever If the King may suspend the Laws of the Land which concern our Religion I am sure there is no other Law but he may suspend And if the King may suspend all the Laws of the Kingdom what a Condition are all the Subjects in for their Lives Liberties and Properties All at Mercy My Lord The King 's Legal Prerogatives are as much for the Advantage of his Subjects as of himself and no Man goes about to speak against them But under pretence of Legal Prerogatives to extend the Power of the King to support a Prerogative that tends to the Destruction of all his Subjects their Religion and Liberties in that I think they do the King no Service who go about to do it But now we say with your Lordship's Favour that these Laws are the great Bulwark of the Reformed Religion they are in truth that which fenceth the Religion and Church of England and we have no other Humane Fence besides They were made upon a Fore-sight of the Mischief that had and might come by false Religions in this Kingdom and they were intended to defend the Nation against them and to keep them out particularly to keep out the Romish Religion which is the very worst of all Religions from prevailing among us and that is the very Design of the Act for the Tests which is intituled An Act to prevent Dangers that may happen from Popish Recusants My Lord If this Declaration should take effect what would be the End of it All Religions are let in let them be what they will Ranters Quakers and the like nay even the Roman Catholick Religion as they call it which was intended by these Acts of Parliament and by the Act of Uniformity and several other Acts to be kept out of this Nation as a Religion no way tolerable nor to be endured here If this Declaration take effect that Religion will stand upon the same Terms with the Protestant Religion Suspend those Laws and that Romish
Religion that was intended to be prohibited and so much Care was taken and so many Statutes made to prohibit it will come in and all this Care and all those Statutes go for nothing This one Declaration sets them all out of doors and then that Religion stands upon equal Terms with the established Religion My Lord We say this farther that my Lords the Bishops have the Care of the Church by their very Function and Offices and are bound to take care to keep out all those false Religions that are prohibited and designed to be kept out by the Law. My Lords the Bishops finding this Declaration founded upon a meer pretended Power that had been continually opposed and rejected in Parliament could not comply with the King's Command to read it My Lord Such a Power to dispense with or suspend the Laws of a Nation cannot with any shadow of Reason be It is not long since that such a Power was ever pretended to by any but such as have the Legislative too for it is plain that such a Power must at least be equal to the Power that made the Laws To dispense with a Law must argue a Power greater or at least as great as that which made the Law. My Lord It has been often said in our Books That where the King's Subjects are concerned in Interest the King cannot suspend or dispense with a particular Law. But my Lord how can the King's Subjects be more concern'd in Interest than when their Religion lies at stake It has been resolved upon the Statute of Symony that where the Statute has disabled the Party to take there the King could not enable him against that Act of Parliament And shall it be said that by his Dispensation he shall enable one to hold an Office who is disabled by the Test-Act My Lord We say The Course of our Law allows no such Dispensation as this Declaration pretends to And he that is but meanly read in our Law must needs understand this That the Kings of England cannot suspend our Laws for that would be to set aside the Law of the Kingdom And then we might be clearly without any Laws if the King should please to suspend them 'T is true we say the last King Charles was prevailed upon by Mis-information to make a Dispensation somewhat of the nature of this though not so full an one for that dispensed only with some few Ceremonies and things of that nature But the House of Commons this taking Air in 1662. represent this to the King by a Petition And what is it that they do represent That he by his Dispensation has undertaken to do that which nothing but an Act of Parliament can do that is the dispensing with Penal Laws which is only to be done by Act of Parliament And thereupon it was thought fit upon the King's Account to bring in an Act for it in some Cases My Lord The King did then in his Speech to the Parliament which we use as a great Argument against this Dispensing Power say this That considering the Circumstances of the Nation he could wish with all his Heart that he had such a Power to dispense with some Laws in some Particulars And thereupon there was a Bill in order to an Act of Parliament brought in giving the King a Power to dispense but my Lord with a great many Qualifications Which shews plainly that it was taken by the Parliament that he had no Power to dispense with the Laws of himself My Lord Afterwards in 1672. the King was prevailed upon again to grant another Dispensation somewhat larger L. C. I. Brother Pemberton I would not interrupt you but we have heard of this over and over again already Mr. S. Pemberton Then since your Lordship is satisfied of these things as I presume you are else I should have gone on I have done my Lord. Mr. S. Levinz But my Lord we shall go a little higher than that and shew that it has been taken all along as the ancient Law of England that such Dispensations ought to be by the King and the Parliament and not by the King alone Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord if you will admit every one of the Council to Speech it before they give their Evidence when shall we come to an End of this Cause We shall be here till Midnight L. C. I. They have no Mind to have an End of the Cause for they have kept it three Hours longer than they need to have done Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord This Case does require a great deal of Patience L. C. I. It does so Brother and the Court has had a greas deal of Patience But we must not sit here only to hear Speeches Mr. Att. Gen. Now after all their Speeches of two Hours long let them read any thing if they have it Sir Rob. Sawyer We will begin with the Record of Richard the Second Call William Fisher. William Fisher Clerk to Mr. Ince sworn L. C. I. What do you ask him Sir Rob. Sawyer Shew him that Copy of the Record The Record was then shewn him L. C. I. Where had you those Sir Mr. Fisher. Among the Records in the Tower. L. C. I. Are they true Copies Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Did you examine them by the Record Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer Then hand them in put them in Clerk reads Ex Rotulo Parliamenti de Anno Regni Regis Richardi Secundi XV. No 1. My Lord It is written in French and I shall make but a bad Reading of it Sir Sam. Astrey Where is the Man that examin'd it Do you understand French Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer The Record is in another Hand than this they may easily read it Mr. Soll. Gen. Who copy'd this Paper Mr. Fisher. I did examine it Mr. Soll. Gen. What did you examine it with Mr. Fisher. I look'd upon that Copy and Mr. Halstead read the Record L. C. I. Young Man read out Fisher reads Vendredy Lande maine del Almes qu'estoit le primier jour Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray tell us what it is you would have read Mr. S. Levinz I 'll tell you what it is Mr. Sollicitor 'T is the Dispensation with the Statute of Provisors And the Act of Parliament does give the King a Power to dispense till such a time Mr. Soll. Gen. Don't you think the King's Prerogative is affirmed by many Acts of Parliament Mr. S. Levinz If the King could dispense without an Act of Parliament what need was there for the making of it Mr. Soll. Gen. Mr. Serjeant We are not to argue with you about that yet L. C. I. Read it in English for the Jury to understand it Mr. Fisher. My Lord I cannot undertake to read it so readily in English. Mr. I. Powel Why don't you produce the Records that are mentioned in the Petition those in King Charles the Second's time Mr. S. Levinz We will produce our Records in Order of Time as they
are Sir Sam. Astrey There is the Clerk of the Records of the Tower Mr. Halstead will read it very well in French or English. Then Mr. Halstead was sworn to interpret the Records into English according to the best of his Skill and Knowledge but not reading very readily a true Copy of the Record in English follows out of the Rolls of Parliament in the 15th Year of King Richard the Second Numero Primo FRiday the Morrow of All Souls which was the first Day of this Parliament holden at Westminster in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of our Lord King Richard the Second after the Conquest the Reverend Father in God the Archbishop of York Primate and Chancellor of England by the King's Commandment being present in Parliament pronounced and declared very nobly and wisely the Cause of the Summons of this Parliament And said First That the King would that holy Church principally and afterwards the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and also the Cities and Burroughs should have and enjoy their Liberties and Franchises as well as they had them and enjoyed them in the Time of his Noble Progenitors Kings of England and also in his own Time. And afterwards said The Summons of this Parliament was principally for three Occasions The first Occasion was To ordain how the Peace and Quiet of the Land which have heretofore been greatly blemished and disturbed as well by Detraction and Maintenance as otherwise might be better holden and kept and the Laws better executed and the King's Commands better obeyed The second Occasion was To ordainâ—… and see how the Price of Wools which is beyond measure lessened and impaired might be better amended and inhaunced And also That in case the War should begin again at the End of the present Truce to wit at the Assumption of our Lady next coming to ordain and see how and whereby the said War may be maintained at the least Charge of the People And the third Occasion was touching the Statutes of Provisors To ordain and see how our Holy Father might have that which to him belongs and the King that which belongs to him and to his Crown according unto that Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar ' s and unto God the things which are God's Then the other Record of Richard the Second was read as follows out of the Rolls of Parliament the fifteenth Year of King Richard the Second No 8 Be it remembred touching the Statute of Provisors That the Commons for the great Confidence which they have in the Person of our Lord the King and in his most excellent Knowledge and in the great Tenderness which he hath for his Crown and the Rights thereof and also in the noble and high Discretions of the Lords have assented in full Parliament that our said Lord the King by Advice and Assent of the said Lords may make such Sufferance touching the said Statute as shall seem to him reasonable and profitable until the next Parliament so as the said Statute be not repealed in no Article thereof And that all those who have any Benefices by force of the said Statute before this present Parliament and also That all those to whom any Aid Tranquility or Advantage is accrued by virtue of the said Statute of the Benefices of Holy Church of which they were heretofore in Possession as well by Presentation or Collation of our Lord the King as of the Ordinaries or Religious Persons whatsoever or by any other manner or way whatsoever may freely have and enjoy them and peaceably continue their Possession thereof without being ousted thereof or any ways challenged hindred molested disquieted or grieved hereafter by any Provisors or others against the Form and Effect of the Statute aforesaid by reason of the said Sufferance in any time to come And moreover That the said Commons may disagree at the next Parliament to this Sufferance and fully resort to the said Statute if it shall seem good to them to do it With Protestation That this Assent which is a Novelty and has not been done before this time be not drawn into Example or Consequence for Time to come And they prayed our Lord the King that the Protestation might be entred of Record in the Roll of the Parliament And the King granted and commanded to do it Mr. S. Levinz Now my Lord we will go on This was in Richard the Second's Time And a Power is given by the Commons to the King with the Assent of the Lords to dispense but only to the next Parliament with a Power reserved to the Commons and to disagree to it and retract that Consent of theirs the next Parliament Sir Geo. Treby The Statute of Provisors was and is a Penal Law and concerning Ecclesiastical Matters too viz. The Collating and Presenting to Archbishopricks Bishopricks Benefices and Dignities of the Church And in this Record now read the Parliament give the King a limited Power and for a short Time to dispense with that Statute But to obviate all Pretence of such a Power 's being inherent in the Crown as a Prerogative they declare 1. That it was a Novelty that is as much as to say That the King had no such Power before 2. That it should not be drawn into Example that is to say That he should have no such Power for the future Mr. S. Levinz Now we will go on to the Records mentioned in the Petition those in the last King's Time in 1662 and 1672 and that in this King's Time in 1685. Where is the Journal of the House of Lords Mr. Walker sworn L. C. I. Is that the Book of the House of Lords Mr. Walker It is the Journal of the House of Lords L. C. I. Is it kept by you Mr. Walker Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Where is it kept Mr. Walker In the usual place here in Westminster Mr. Soll. Gen. What is that Mr. S. Levinz It is the Journal of the House of Lords But my Lord there is one thing that is mentioned in the last Record that is read which is worth your Lordship's and the Jury's Observation That it is declared a Novelty and a Protestation that it should not be drawn into Precedent for the future L. C. I. That has been observed Brother Let us hear your Record read Clerk read Die Mercurii 18 o die Februarii 1662. His Majesty was present this Day sitting in the Regal Crown and Robes the Peers being likewise in their Robes The King gave Order to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to signifie to the House of Commons his Pleasure that they presently come up and attend His Majesty with their Speaker who being present His Majesty made this Speech following My Lords and Gentlemen I Am very glad to meet you here again having thought the Time long since we parted and often wished you had been together to help me in some Occasions which have fallen out I need not repeat them unto you you have all had
the Noise of them in your several Countries and God be thanked they were but Noise without any worse Effects To cure the Distempers and compose the differing Minds that are yet amongst us I set forth my Declaration of the 26th of December In which you may see I am willing to set Bounds to the Hopes of some and to the Fears of others of which when you shall have examined well the Grounds I doubt not but I shall have your Concurrence therein The truth is I am in my Nature an Enemy to all Severity for Religion and Conscience how mistaken soever it be when it extends to Capital and Sanguinary Punishments which I am told were began in Popish Times Therefore when I say this I hope I â—…hall not need to warn any here not to inferr from thence that I mean to favour Popery I must confess to you there are many of that Profession who having served my Father and my self very well may fairly hope for some part in that Indulgence I would willingly afford to others who dissent from us But let me explain my self lest some mistake me herein as I heard they did in my Declaration I am far from meaning by this a Toleration or Qualifying them thereby to hold any Offices or Places of Trust in the Government Nay further I desire some Laws may be made to hinder the Growth and Progress of their Doctrine I hope you have all so good an Opinion of my Zeal for the Protestant Religion as I need not tell you I will not yield to any therein not to the Bishops themselves nor in my liking the Uniformity of it as it is now established which being the Standard of our Religion must be kept pure and uncorrupted free from all other Mixtures And yet if the Dissenters will demcan themselves peaceably and modestly under the Government I could heartily wish I had such a Power of Indulgence to use upon Occasion Sir Geo. Treby Pray Sir read that out distinctly Clerk reads I could heartily wish I had such a Power of indulgence to use upon Occasion as might not needlesly force them out of the Kingdom or staying here give them Cause to conspire against the peace of it My Lords and Gentlemen It would look like Flattering in me to tell you in what degree I am confident of your Wisdom and Affection in all things that relate to the Greatness and Prosperity of the Kingdom If you consider well what is best for us all I dare say we shall not disagree I have no more to say to you at present but once again to bid you heartily welcome Mr. Finch The next thing we shall shew you is that after the King had made this Speech and wished he had such a Power of Indulgence to use upon Occasion there was a Bill in the House of Lords brought in to enable the King to dispense with several Laws We shall shew you the Journal where it was Read and Committed but further than that it went not L. C. I. What Use do you make of this Mr. Finch Sir Rob. Sawyer You may easily apprehend the Use we shall make of it The King in his Speech says He wish'd he had such a Power the House of Lords thought he had not and therefore they order'd a Bill to be brought in to enable him Read the Journal of the Lords of the 13th of March 1662. Clerk reads Die Veneris XIII o die Martii 1662. After some Debate whether the House should be put into a Grand Committee for the further Debate of the Bill concerning His Majesty's Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs it was put to the Question viz. As many of your Lordships as would have this House adjourned and put into a Committee to consider of the said Bill say Content others Not Content Passed in the Affirmative And then the Lord Chamberlain of the Houshold was directed to take the Chair as formerly which he did accordingly And after Debate the House was resumed after the Grand Committee had appointed a Sub-Committee touching the said Bill Sir Rob. Sawyer This is all in the Journal of the House of Lords about this Matter We will now shew you the Bill it self Clerk reads An Act concerning His Majesty's Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs WHereas divers of His Majesty's Subjects through Error of Judgment and mis-guided Consciences whereunto the Licentiousness of these late unhappy Times have much contributed do not conform themselves to the Order of Divine Worship and Service established by Law and although His Majesty and both Houses of Parliament are fully satisfied that those Scruples of Conscience from whence this Nonconformity ariseth are ill grounded and that the Government of the Church with the Service thereof as now established is the best that is any where extant and most effectual to the Preservation of the Protestant Religion Yet hoping that Clemency and Indulgence may in time wear out those Prejudices and reduce the Dissenters to the Unity of the Church and considering that this Indulgence how necessary soevever cannot be dispensed by any certain Rule but must vary according to the Circumstances of Time and the Temper and Principles of those to whom it is to be granted and His Majesty being the best Judge when and to whom this Indulgence is to be dispensed or as may be most consistent with the publick Peace and without just Cause of Offence to others and to the end His Majesty may be enabled to exercise it with universal Satisfaction Be it Enacted by the King 's Most Excellent Majesty by Advice and with the Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority thereof That the King's Majesty may by Letters Patents under the Great Seal or by such other Ways as to His Majesty shall seem meet dispense with one Act or Law made the last Session of this present Parliament Intituled An Act for the Uniformity of Publick Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies and for Establishing the Form of Making and Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deueotis in the Church of England and with any other Laws or Statutes concerning the same or requiring Oaths or Subscriptions or which do enjoin Conformity to the Order Discipline and Worship established in this Church and the Penalties in the said Laws imposed or any of them And may grant â—…fences to such of His Majesty's Subjects of the Protestant-Religion of whose inoffensive and peaceable Disposition His Majesty shall be perswaded to enjoy and use the Exercise of their Religion and Worship though differing from the publick Rule the said Laws and Statutes or any Disabilities Incapacities or Penalties in them or any of them contained or any Matter or Thing to the contrary thereof notwithstanding Provided always and be it Enacted That no such Indulgence Licence or Dispensation hereby to be granted shall extend or be construed to extend to the Tolerating or Permitting the Use or
considered the nature of your Majesty's Declaration from Bredah and are humbly of opinion That your Majesty ought not to be pressed any further Because it is not a Promise in it self but only a Gracious Declaration of your Majesty's Intentions to do what in you lay and what a Parliament should advise your Majesty to do and no such Advice was ever given or thought fit to be offered nor could it be otherwise understood because there were Laws of Uniformity then in being which could not be dispenced with but by Act of Parliament Sir Rob. Sawyer This is all that we read this for your Lordship and the Jury see what is here declared by the Parliament That the Act of Uniformity could not be dispensed with without an Act of Parliament Next My Lord we shall shew you what was done in the Year 1672. Read the King's Speech the 5th of February 1672. The Journals of the Lords House were delivered in Clerk reads Die Mercurii 5. Febr. 1672. My Lords and Gentlemen I am glad to see you here this day I would have called you sooner together but that I was willing to ease you and the Country till there were an absolute necessity Since you were last here I have been forced to a most important necessary and expensive War and I make no doubt but you will give me suitable and effectual assistance to go through with it I refer you to my Declaration for the causes and indeed the necessity of this War and shall now only tell you That I might have digested the Indignities to my own Person rather than have brought it to this Extremity if the Interest as well as the Honour of the whole Kingdom had not been at stake and if I had omitted this Conjuncture perhaps I had not again ever met with the like advantage You will find that the last Supply that you gave me did not answer Expectation for the ends you gave it the payment of my Debts therefore I must in the next place recommend them again to your special Care. Some few days before I declared the War I put forth my Declaration for Indulgence to Dissenters and have hitherto found a good effect of it by securing my peace at home when I had war abroad There is one part in it that has been subject to Misconstructions which is that concerning the Papists as if more liberty was granted to them than to other Recusants when 't is plain there is less for the others have publick Places allowed them and I never intended that they should have any but only have the freedom of their Religion in their own Houses without any concourse of others and I could not grant them less than this when I had extended so much more Grace to others most of them having been loyal and in the service of me and the King my Father And in the whole course of this Indulgence I do not intend that it shall any way prejudice the Church but I will support its Rights and It in its full power Having said this I shall take it very ill to receive contradiction in what I have done and I will deal plainly with you I am resolved to stick to my Declaration There is one Jealousie more which is maliciously spread abroad and yet so weak and frivolous that I once thought it not of moment enough to mention but it may have gotten some ground with some well-minded people and that is That the Forces which I have raised in this War were designed to controul Law and Property I wish I had had more Forces the last Sommer the want of them then convinces me I must raise more against this next Spring and I do not doubt but you will consider the charge of them in your Supplies I will conclude with this assurance to you That I will preserve the true Reformed Protestant Religion and the Church as it is now Established in this Kingdom and that no Mans Property or Liberty shall ever be invaded I leave the rest to the Chancellor Mr. S. Pomb Now go to the Journal of the Commons of the 14th of February 1672. The Journal put in Clerk Reads Veneris xiiij die Februarii 1672. Mr. Powle Reports from the Committee appointed to prepare and draw up a Petition and Address to his Majesty The said Petition and Address which he read in his place and afterwards delivered the same in at the Clerks Table and the same being again twice read is as followeth viz. Most Gracious Sovereign We your Majesties most Loyal and Faithful Subjects the Commons Assembled in Parliament do in the first place as in all Duty bound return your Majesty our most humble and hearty Thanks for the many Gracious Promises and Assurances which your Majesty has several times during this Present Parliament given to us That your Majesty would Secure and Maintain unto us the true Reformed Protestant Religion our Liberties and Properties which most gracious Assurances your Majesty out of your great Goodness has been pleased to renew unto us more particularly at the Opening of this present Session of Parliament And further we crave leave humbly to represent That we have with all Duty and Expedition taken into our Consideration the several parts of your Majesties last Speech to us and withal the Declaration therein mentioned for Indulgence to Dissenters dated the 15th of March last And we find our selves bound in Duty to inform your Majesty That Penal Statutes in Matters Ecclesiastical cannot be Suspended but by Act of Parliament We therefore the Knights Cittizens and Burgesses of your Majesties House of Commons do most humbly beseech your Majesty That the said Laws may have their free Course until it shall be otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament And that your Majesty would graciously be pleased to give such Directions herein that no Apprehensions or Jealousies may remain in the Hearts of your Majesties good and faithful Subjects Resolved c. That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Petition and Address by them drawn up to be presented to his Majesty Sir Rob. Sawyer Now turn to the 24th of February 1672. in the same Book Clerk Reads Lunae 24th of February 1672. Mr. Secretary Coventry Reports and Presents in Writing from his Majesty his Answer to the humble Petition and Address of this House which was thrice read and the Matter debated and is as followeth viz. CHARLES R. HIS Majesty hath received an Address from you and he hath seriously considered of it and returns you this Answer That he is very much troubled that that Declaration which he put out for ends so necessary for the quiet of his Kingdom and especially in that Conjuncture should have proved the Cause of disquiet in his House of Commons and give occasion to the questioning of his Power in Ecclesiasticks which he finds not done in the Reigns of any of his Ancestors He is sure he never had thoughts of using it otherwise than as it hath been
Ordered that upon Monday morning next this House will debate the whole Matter of his Majesties Speech and these Papers and to consider the Points of Priviledg and what else may arise thereupon The Lords that were appointed to attend his Majesty return with this Answer That his Majesty has appointed this Afternoon at five of the Clock for this House to wait upon him in the Banquetting-house at Whitehall Ordered that all the Judges now in Town shall attend this House on Monday morning next Sir Rob. Sawyer The 3d of March 1672. is the next Clerk reads Die Laine 3. die Marcil 1672. The Lord Chancellor reported That the whole House on Saturday last waited upon his Majesty at Whitehall and presented the humble Address of this House and his Majesty was pleased to return this Answer My Lords It ake this Address of yours very kindly I will always be very affectionate to you â—…nd expect you should stand by me as I will always by you Then the House took into Consideration the whole Matter of his Majesties Speech on Saturday and the three Papers which his Majesty acquainted this House withal and all the said Papers in their order were read and after a long debate the Question being put Whether this House shall in the first place enter into Consideration of giving Advice to his Majesty It was resolved in the Affirmative It is ordered that this Business shall be taken into Consideration to morrow Morning at nine of the Clock the first Business Ordered that the Judges now in Town shall attend to morrow Morning Sir Rob. Sawyer The 4th of March 1672. Clerk reads Next The House took into Consideration the Advice to be given to his Majesty concerning the Addresses made to him from the House of Commons The Addresses of the House of Commons and his Majesties Answer were read and after a long debate the Question being put Whether the King's Answer to the House of Commons in referring the Points now controverted to a Parliamentary way by Bill is good and gracious that being a proper and natural Course for Satisfaction therein It was resolved in the Affirmative Sir Rob. Saywer The 8th of March 1672. Clerk reads Die Sabbati 80 die Marcii 1672. His Majesty in his Royal Throne adorned with his Crown and Regal Ornaments commanded the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to give notice to the House of Commons that they attend his Majesty presently The Commons being come with their Speaker his Majesty made this short Speech following My Lords and Gentlemen Yesterday you presented me an Address as the best means for the satisfying and composing the Minds of my Subjects to which I freely and readily agreed and I shall take care to see it performed accordingly I hope on the other side you Gentlemen of the House of Commons will do your part for I must put you in mind it is near five Weeks since I demanded a Supply and what you Voted unanimously upon it did both give Life to my Affairs at Home and dishearten mine Enemies abroad but the seeming delay it hath met withal since hath made them to take new Courage and they are now preparing for this next Summer a greater Fleet as they say than ever they have had yet so that if the Supply be not very speedily dispatcht it will be altogether ineffectual and the Safety Honour and Interest of England must of necessity be exposed Pray lay this to heart and let not the Fears and Jealousies of some draw an inevitable Ruin upon us all My Lords and Gentlemen If there be any Scruple remaining with you concerning the Suspension of Penal Laws I here faithfully Promise you That what has been done in that particular shall not for the future be drawn either into Consequence or Example And as I daily expect from you a Bill for my Supply so I assure you I shall as willingly receive and pass any other you shall offer me that may tend to the giving you satisfaction in all your just Grievances Next my Lord Chancellor reported That both Houses waited upon the King yesterday and presented him with the Address against the growth of Popery and his Majesty has been pleased to return this Answer My Lords and Gentlemen I do heartily agree with you in your Address and shall give speedy Order to have it put in Execution there is one part to which I believe it is not your Intention that it should extend for I can scarce say those are in my pay that are presently to be imployed abroad but as for all other parts I shall take care it shall be done as you desire After which the Lord Chancellor said he had somewhat more to impart to the House by the Kings Command which was That his Majesty last night having spoken with several Members of both Houses found some dissatisfaction remaining concerning his Answer to their Address in the particular of the Officers to be employed abroad of which number he had five or six that were of the best Officers of France and Flanders and being his â—…wn Subjects he had been very sollicitous to get but if that bred any umbrage the King commanded him to let them know that he resolves to give both his Houses full satisfaction to their desires There was another particular that the Lord Chancellor said he thought fit to acquaint them with which though it was by his Majesty's leave yet it was not by his Command however he thought it his duty to acquaint the House with it Mr. Secretary Coventry intending to acquaint the House of Commons with the same That his Majesty had the last night in pursuance of what he then intended and declared this morning concerning the suspension of Penal Laws not being for the future drawn either into Consequence or Example caused the Original Declaration under the Great Seal to be cancelled in his presence whereof himself and several other Lords of the Council were Witnesses Sir Rob. Sawyer Turn to the 10th of March 1672. Clerk reads Die Lune decimo die Marcil 1672. Ordered That what my Lord Chancellor said on Saturday last concerning his Majesty's causing the vacating his Indulgence under the Great Seal of Enggland shall be entred into the Journal-Book of this House as on Saturday last Sir Rob. Sawyer We shall now come to that which past in the Parliament in 1685. Read the 9th of November 1685. The Journal of the Lords 1685. put in Clerk Reads His Majesty being on his Royal Throne adorned with his Regal Robes and Crown the Lords being in their Robes also commanded the Gentleman Usher to give notice to the House of Commons that they immediately attend his Majesty who being come his Majesty made the following Speech My Lords and Gentlemen After the Storm that seemed to be coming upon us when we parted last I am glad to meet you all again in so great peace and quietness God Almighty be praised by whose blessing that Rebellion was suppressed but
when I reflect what an inconsiderable number of men began it and how long they carried it on without any opposition I hope every body will be convinced that the Militia which hath hitherto been so much depended upon is not sufficient for such Occasions and that there is nothing but a good force of well disciplined Troops in constant pay that can defend us from such as either at home or abroad are disposed to disturb us And in truth my concern for the peace and quiet of my Subjects as well as for the safety of the Government made me think it necessary to increase the number to the proportion I have done this I owed as well to the honour as to the security of the Nation whose Reputation was so infinitely exposed unto all our Neigbours by having lain open to this late wretched Attempt that it is not to be repaired without keeping such a Body of Men on foot that none may ever have the thoughts again of finding us so miserably unprovided It is for the support of this great Charge which is now more than double to what it was that I ask your assistance in giving me a Supply answerable to the Expence it brings along with it And I cannot doubt but what I have begun so much for the honour and defence of the Government will be continued by you with all the chearfulness and readiness that is requisite for a Work of so great importance Let no man take Exception that there are some Officers in the Army not qualified according to the late Tests for their Imployments The Gentlemen I must tell you are most of them well known to me and having formerly served with me on several Occasions and always approved the Loyalty of their Principles by their Practices I think them fit now to be employed under me and will deal plainly with you that after having had the benefit of their Services in such time of need and danger I will neither expose them to disgrace nor my self to the want of them if there should he another Rebellion to make them necessary to me I am afraid some men may be so wicked to hope and expect that a difference may happen between you and me upon this Occasion but when you consider what advantages have risen to us in a few months by the good understanding we have hitherto had what wonderful effects it has already produced in the change of the whole scene of Affairs abroad so much more to the honour of the Nation and the figure it ought to make in the World and that nothing can hinder a further progress in this way to all our satisfactions but Fears and Jealousies amongst our selves I will not apprehend that such a misfortune can befall us as a Division or but a Coldness between me and you nor that any thing can shake you in your Steadiness and Loyalty to me who by God's blessing will ever make you all returns of kindness and protection with a Resolution to venture even my own Life in the defence of the true Interest of this Kingdom Sir Rob. Sawyer Turn to the Commons Journal the 16th of November 1685. The Journal of the House of Commons put in Clerk reads Die Lune xvi die Novemb. 1685. Most Gracious Sovereign We your Majesty's most Loyal and Faithful Subiects the Commons in Parliament assembled do in the first place as in duty bound return your Majesty our most humble and hearty thanks for your great care and conduct in the suppression of the late Rebellion which threatned the overthrow of this Government both in Church and State and the uttermost extirpation of our Religion by Law established which is most dear unto us and which your Majesty has been pleased to give us repeated assurances you will always defend and support which with all grateful hearts we shall ever acknowledg We further crave leave to acquaint your Majesty That we have with all duty and readiness taken into our consideration your Majesty's gracious Speech to us and as to that part of it relating to the Officers in the Army not qualified for their Imployment according to an Act of Parliament made in the 25th year of the Reign of your Majesty's Royal Brother of blessed memory Intituled An Act for preventing danger that may happen by Popish Recusants We do out of our bounden duty humbly represent unto your Majesty That those Officers cannot by Law be capable of their Imployments and that the Incapacities they bring upon themselves thereby can no ways be taken off but by Act of Parliament Therefore out of the great deference and duty we owe unto your Majesty who has been graciously pleased to take notice of their Services to you we are preparing a Bill to pass both Houses for your Royal Assent to indemnify them from the Penalties they have now incurred and because the continuance of them in their Employments may be taken to be a dispencing with that Law without Act of Parliament the consequence of which is of the greatest concern to the Rights of all your Majesty's Dutiful and Loyal Subjects and to all the Laws made for the security of their Religion We therefore the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of your Majesty's House of Commons do most humbly beseech your Majesty that you would be graciously pleased to give such directions therein that no Apprehensions or Iealousies may remain in the hearts of your Majesty's good and faithful Subjects Mr. Polixfen My Lord We pray that these half dozen lines of the Statute 1 Eliz. may be read A Statute-book was then produced by Mr. Ince L. C. J. No We will have it read out of our own Book which was delivered into Court. Clerk reads This is 1 Eliz. cap. 2. An Act for Uniformity of Religion c. Whereabout is it Mr. Ince 'T is the 15th Paragraph at these words And for the due execution c. Clerk Reads And for due Execution hereof the Queens most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present Parliament Assembled do in Gods Name earnestly Require and Charge all the Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledge that the due and true Execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholsome Law. Mr. Serjeant Levinz Noâ—… my Lord if your Lordship pleases the Charge is a Charge for a Libel and there are two things to be Considered First Whether the Bishops did deliver this Paper the King 〈◊〉 thaâ—… leave upon the Evidence that has been given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say them has been no direct proof of that In the next place Supposing they did deliver this Petition to the King Whether this be a Libel upon the Matter of it the manner of delivering it 〈◊〉 the Persons that did it And with submission my Lord this cannot
be a Libel although it 〈◊〉 true that they did so deliver it First my Lord there is a little disingenuity offered to my Lords the Bishops in only setting forth part and noâ—… the whole in only reciting the Body 〈◊〉 not the Prayer But my Lord with your Lordships favour taking the Petitionary part and adding it to the other it quite alters the Nature of the thing for it may be a Complaint without seeking redress might be an 〈◊〉 â—…atter but here taking the whole together it appears to be a Complaint of a Grievance and a desire to be eased of it With your Lordships favour the Subjects have a right to Petition the King in all their Grievances so say all our Books of Law and so says the Statute of the Thirteenth of the late King They may Petition and come and deliver 〈◊〉 â—…tion under the number of ten as heretofore they might have done says the Statute so that they all times have had a right so to do and indeed if they had not it were the most lamentable thing in the World that Men must have Grievances upon them and yet they not to be admitted to seek Relief in an humble â—…ay Now my Lord this is a Petition setting forth a Grievance and praying his Majesty to give Relief And what is this Grievance It is that Command of his by that Order made upon my Lords the Bishops to distribute the Declaration and cause it to be read in the Churches And pray my Lord let us consider what the Effects and Consequences of that Distribution and Reading iâ—… It is to tell the People that they need not submit to the Act of Unifarmity noâ—… to any Act of Parliament made about Ecclesiastical Matters for they are suspended and dispensed with this my Lords the Bishops must do if they obey this Order but your Lordship sees if they do it they lie under an Anathema by the Statute of 1 Eliz. for there they are under a Curse if they do not look to the preservation and observation of that Act But this Command to Distribute and Read the Declaration whereby all these Laws are dispensed with is to let the People know they will not do what that Act requires of them Now with your Lordships favour my Lords the Bishops lying under this pressure the weight of which was 〈◊〉 grievous upon them they by Petition apply to the King to be eased of it which they might do aâ—… Subjects besides my Lord they are Peers of the Realm and were most of them sitting as such in the last Parliament where as you have heard it was declared such a Dispensation could not be and then in what a Case should they have been if they should have distributed this Declaration which was so coâ—… to their own Actings in Parliament What could they have answered for themselves had they thus contributed to this Declaration when they had themselves before declared that the King could not dispense And that was no new thing for it had been so declared in a Parliament before in two Sessions of it in the late Kings Reign within a very little time one of another and such a Parliament that were so liberal in their Aides in the Crown that a Man would not think they should go about 〈◊〉 deprive the Crown of any of its Rights it was a Parliament that did do as great services for the â—…own as â—…ver any did and therefore there is no reason to suspect that if the King 〈◊〉 had such a power they would have appeared so earnest against it But my Lord if your Lordship pleases these are not the beginnings of this matter for we have shewed you from the Fifteenth of Richard the Second that there was a power granted by the Parliament to the King to dispense with a particular Act of Parliament which argues that it could not be without an Act of Parliament And in 1662 't is said expresly that they cannot be dispensed with but by an Act of Parliament 'T is said so again in 1672 the King was then pleased to assume to himself such a power as is pretended to in this Declaration 〈◊〉 yet upon Information from his Houses of Parliament the King declared himself satisfied that he had no such power Cancelled his Declaration and promised that it should not be drawn into Consequence or Example And so the Commons by their Protestation said in Richard the Seconds time That it was a Novelty and should not be drawn into Consequence or Example Now my Lord if your Lordship pleases if this matter that was Commanded the Bishops to do were something which the Law did not allow of surely then my Lords the Bishops had all the reason in the World to apply themselves to the King in an humble manner to acquaint him why they could not obey his Commands and to seek relief against that which lay so heavy upon them Truly my Lord Mr. Attorney was very right in the opening of this Cause at first that is That the Government ought not to receive affronts no nor the Inferior Officers are not to be affronted a Justice of Peace so low a Man in Office is not for a Man to say to a Justice of Peace when he is executing his Office that he does not do right is a great Crime and Mr. Attorney said right in it But suppose a Justice of Peace were making of a Warrant to a Constable to do something that was not Legal for him to do if the Constable should Petition this Justice of the Peace and therein set forth Sir you are about to command me to do a thing which I conceive is not Legal surely that would not be a Crime that he was to be punished for for he does but seek relief and shew his Grievance in a proper way and the distress he is under My Lord this is the Bishops Case with submission they are under a distress being Commanded to do a thing which they take not to be Legal and they with all humility by way of Petition acquaint the King with this Distress of theirs and pray him that he will please to give Relief My Lord there is no Law but is either an Act of Parliament or the Common Law for an Act of Parliament there is none for such a power all that we have of it in Parliamentary Proceedings is against it and for the Common Law so far as I have read oâ—…it I never did meet with any thing of such a Nature as a Grant or Dispensation that pretended to dispense with any one whole Act of Parliament I have not so much as heard of any such thing mentioned by any of the Kings Council But here my Lord is a Dispensation that dispenses with a great many Laws at once truly I cannot take upon me to tell how many there may be forty or above for ought I know Therefore my Lord the Bishops lying under such a Grievance as this and under such a Pressure being Ordered
to distribute this Declaration in all their Churches which was to tell the People they ought to be under no Law in this Case which surely was a very great Pressure both in point of Law and Conscience too they lying under such Obligations to the contrary as they did With submission to your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury If they did deliver this Petition Publishing of it I will not talk of or there has been no proof of a Publication but a delivering of a Petition to his Majesty in the most secret and decent manner that could be imagined My Lords the Bishops are not guilty of the Matter Charged upon them in this Information it has been expresly proved that they did not go to disperse it abroad but only deliver'd it to the King himself And in short my Lord if this should be a Libel I know not how sad the Condition of us all would be it we may not Petition when we suffer Mr. Finch My Lord I Challenge them to shew us any one Instance of such a Declaration such a General Dispensation of Laws from the Conquest till 1672. The first Umbrage of such a thing is that of 〈◊〉 1662 but your Lordship heâ—…s the Declaration of the Parliament upon it Before that as there was no such thing so your Lordship sees what the Parliament did to enable the King not to do this thing but something like it in Richard the Seconds Time where you see the Parliament did give the King a Power to Dispense with the Statute of Provisors for a time but at the same time declared that very Grant of their own to be a Novelty and that it should not be drawn into Consequence or Example My Lord we shall leave it upon this Point to suspend Laws is all one as to abrogate Laws for so long as a Law is suspended whether the Suspension be Temporary or whether it be for ever whether it be at once or at several times the Law is abrogated to all Intents and Purposes But the Abrogation of Laws is part of the Legislature that Legislative Power is lodged as I said before and I could never find it otherwise in all our Law in King Lords and Commons Ld. Ch. Iust. You did open that before Mr. Finch Mr. Finch With this my Lord That my Lords the Bishops finding this Order made upon them to publish this Declaration did what in Duty they were bound to do and unless the Jury do find that they have done that which is contrary to Law and to the Duty of their places and that this Petition is a Libel and a seditious Libel with an intent to stir up Sedition among the People We rely upon it My Lords the Bishops can never be found Guilty upon this Information Ld. Ch. Iust. Have you now done Gentlemen Mr. Finch Yes my Lord till they give us further occasion if they have any other Evidence to offer we must Answer it if not this is the Answer we give to what they have said Mr. Solicit Gen. We make no Bargain with you If you have done say so Ld. Ch. Iust. You must know that you are not to have the last word Mr. Solicit Gen. You have been three hours already if you have any more to say pray conclude Mr. Finch If they say they have no more Evidence then we know what we have to do Ld. Ch. Iust. If you do say any thing more pray let me advise you one thing don't say the same thing over and over again for after so much time spent it is â—…irksome to all Company as well as to me Mr. Finch My Lord we have no more Evidence to offer to your Lordship at present unless they by offering new Evidence give us occasion to Reply upon them Ld. Ch. Iust. Gentlemen you shall have all the Legal favour and advantage that can be but pray let us keep to an orderly decent Method of proceeding Sr. Rob. Sawyer Pray my Lord favour me a word before we conclude My Lord I do find very few Attempts of this Nature in any Kings Reign In the Reign of Henry the Fourth there was an Act of Parliament that Foreigners should have a Free Trade in the City of London notwithstanding the Franchises of London after the Parliament rose the King issued out his Proclamation forbidding the Execution of that Law and Commanding that it should be in Suspence Usque ad Proximum Parliamentum yet that was held to be against Law. Ld. Ch. Iust. Sir Robert Sawyer that which you are to look to is the publishing of this Paper and whether it be a Libel or no. And as to the business of the Parliaments you mentioned they are not to the purpose Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord I say I would put it where the Question truly lyes if they don't dispute the Point then we need not labour it but I dont know whether they will or no and therefore I beg your Lordships favour to mention one Case more and that is upon the Statute of 31 Hen. 8. cap. 8. Which enables the King by Proclamation in many Cases to create the Law which Statute was repealed by 1. Edw. 6. cap. 12. That very Act does recite that the Law is not to be altered or restrained but by Act of Parliament and therefore the Parliament enables the King to do so and so But that was such a Power that the Parliament thought not fit to continue and it was afterwards Repealed but it shews that at that time the Parliament was of the same Opinion as to this Matter that other Parliaments have been since Mr. Sommers My Lord I would only mention the great Case of Thomas and Sorrel in the Exchequer Chamber upon the validity of a Dispensation of the Statute of Edward the Sixth touching Selling of Wine There it was the Opinion of every one of the Judges and they did lay it down as a setled Position that there never could be an Abrogation or a Suspension which is a Temporary Abrogation of an Act of Parliament but by the Legislative Power That was a Foundation laid down quite thorough the debate of that Case Indeed it was disputed how far the King might dispense with the Penalties in such a particular Law as to particular Persons but it was agreed by all that the King had no power to suspend any Law And my Lord I dare Appeal to Mr. Attorney General himself whether in the Case of Godden and Hales which was lately in this Court to make good that Dispensation he did not use it as an Argument then that it could not be expounded into a Suspension He admitted it not to be in Kings power to suspend a Law but that he might give a Dispensation to a particular Person was all that he took upon him to justifie at that time My Lord by the Law of all civilized Nations if the Prince does require something to be done which the Person who is to do it takes to be unlawful
it is not only lawful but his Duty Rescribere Principi this is all that is done here and that in the most humble manner that could be thought of your Lordship will please to observe how far it went how careful they were that they might not any way justly offend the King. They did not interpose by giving advice as Peers they never stirr'd till it was brought home to themselves when they made their Petition all they beg is that it may not so far be insisted upon by his Majesty as to oblige them to read it whatever they thought of it they do not take upon them to desire the Declaration to be revoked My Lord as to Mattters of Fact alledged in the said Petition that they are perfectly true we have shewn by the Journals of both Houses In every one of those Years which are mentioned in the Petition this Power of Dispensation was considered in Parliament and upon debate Declared to be contrary to Law there could be no Design to diminish the Prerogative because the King hath no such Prerogative Seditious my Lord it could not be nor could possibly stir up Sedition in the minds of the People because it was presented to the King in private and alone false it could not be because the Matter of it is true There would be nothing of Malice for the occasion was not sought the thing was pressed upon them and a Libel it could not be because the intent was innocent and they kept within the bounds set by the Act of Parliament that gives the Subject leave to apply to his Prince by Petition when he is agrieved Mr. Att. Gen. Have you done Gentlemen Mr. Finch We have done Sir. Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I shall be a great deal more merciful to your Lordship and the Jury than they have been who have spent these four hours in that which I think is not pertinent to the Case in Question They have let themselves into large Discourses making great Complaints of the Hardships put upon my Lords the Bishops by the Order of Councel to read his Majesties Declaration and putting these words into the Information of Seditious Malicious and Scandalous But my Lord I admire that Sir Robert Sawyer should make such Reflections and Observations upon these words when I am sure he will scarce find any one of his own exhibiting that has so few of those aggravating words as this has and therefore that might have been very well spared especially by him In the next place my Lord we are told what great Danger our Religion is in by this Declaration I hope we have an equal concern for that with them or any Person else whatsoever But however I am sure our Religion teaches us not to preserve our Religion or our Lives by any illegal Courses and the Question is whether the Course that my Lords the Bishops have taken to preserve as they say our Religion be Legal or not if it be not Legal then I am sure our Religion will not justifie the using such a Course for never so good an End. My Lord for the thing it self I do admire that they in so long a time and search that they have made should not which I expected produce more Presidents of such a Paper as this is They challenge us to shew that ever there was any such Declaration as this I 'le turn the same Challenge upon them Shew me any one instance that ever so many Bishops did come under pretence of a Petition to reflect upon the King out of Parliament Sir Robert Sawyer Is that your way of Answering Mr. Attorney Mr. Attorney General Pray Sir Robert Sawyer you have had your time don't interrupt us sure we have as much right to be heard as you Lord Chief Iustice. You have been heard over and over again Sir Robert Sawyer already Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord I don't intend to interrupt him Mr. Solicitor General We cannot make them be quiet they will still be chopping in upon us Mr. Attorney General That is an Art that some People have always practised not to permit any body to speak but themselves But my Lord I say that those few Instances that they have produced are nothing at all to this Matter that is now upon Trial before your Lordship and this Jury nay they are Evidences against them for they are only matters transacted in Parliament which are no more to be applied to this thing that is in Controversy now than any the most remote matter that could be thought of and though they have gone so high in point of time as to the Reign of Richard the Second yet they have nothing between that and the late Kings Reign to which at last they have descended down But my Lord I say that all the talk of Richard the Seconds time is wholly out of the Case truly I do not doubt but that in Richard the Seconds time they might find a great many Instances of some such sort of Petitioning as this for our Histories tell us that at that time they had 40000 Men in Arms against the King and we know the troubles that were in that Kings Reign and how at length he was deposed but certainly there may be found Instances more applicable to the Case than those they produce as for those in King Charles the Seconds time do they any ways justifie this Petition for now they are upon justifying the words of their Petition that this power has been declared to be illegal in 1662 1672 and 1685. For what was done in 1662 do they shew any thing more than some Debates in the House of Commons And at last an Address an Answer by the King a Reply of the Commons and then the thing dies Pray my Lord is a Transaction in the House of Commons a Declaration of Parliament Sure I think no one will affirm that any thing can be a Declaration of Parliament unless he that is the Principal part Concurs who is the King for if you speak of the Court of Parliament in a Legal sense you must speak of the whole Body King Lords and Commons and a Declaration in Parliament must be by all the whole Body and that is properly an Act of Parliament Why then they come to the year 1672 where your Lordship observes that the late King did insist upon his Right for after the Dispute which was in 1662 his Majesty did issue out another Declaration and when it comes to be debated in Parliament he insists upon his Right in Ecclesiastical Matters and though his Declaration was Cancelled yet there is no formal Disclaimer of the Right My Lord after all how far these things that they have offered may work as to the point that they have debated I shall not now meddle with it nor give your Lordship any trouble about it because it is not at all pertinent to the Case in question for I do after all this time and pains that they have spent take leave to say
that these Gentlemen have spent all this time to no purpose Lord Ch. Iust. Yes Mr. Attorney I 'le tell you what they offer which it will lie upon you to give an Answer to They would have you shew how this has disturbed the Government or diminished the Kings Authority Mr. Att. Gen. Whether a Libel be true or not as to the matter of Fact was it ever yet in any Court of Justice permitted to be made a question whether it be a Libel or not Or whether the Party be punishable for it And therefore I wonder to hear these Gentlemen to say that because it is not a false one therefore 't is not a Libel Suppose a Man should speak scandalous Matter of any Noble Lord here or of any of my Lords the Bishops and a Scandalum Magnatum be brought for it though that which is spoken has been true yet it has been the Opinion of the Courts of Law that the Party cannot justifie it by reason it tends to the disturbing of the Peace to publish any thing that is matter of Scandal The only thing that is to be lookt into is whether there be any thing in this Paper that is Reflecting and Scandalous and not whether it be true or no for if any Man shall Extra-Iudicially and out of a Legal Course and way reflect upon any of the great Officers of the Kingdom nay if it be but upon any Inferior Magistrate he is to be punished and is not to make his Complaint against them unless he do it in a proper way A Man may Petition a Judge but if any Man in that Petition shall come and tell the Judge Sir you have given an Illegal Judgment against me and I cannot in Honour Prudence or Conscience obey it I do not doubt nor will any Man but that he that should so say would be laid by the Heels though the Judgment perhaps might be illegal If a Man shall come to Petition the King as we all know the Council Doors are thronged with Petitioners every day and Access to the King by Petition is open to every body the most Inferior Person is allowed to Petition the King but because he may do so may he therefore suggest what he pleases in his Petition shall he come and tell the King to his Face what he does is Illegal I only speak this because they say in this Case his Majesty gave them leave to come to him to deliver their Petition but the King did not understand the Nature of their Petition I suppose when he said he gave them leave to come to him My Lord for this Matter we have Authority enough in our Books particularly there is the Case of Wrenham in my Lord Hobart the Lord Chancellor had made a Decree against him and he Petitioned the King that the Cause might be re-heard and in that Petition he Complains of Injustice done him by my Lord Chancellor and he put into his Petition many reflecting things this my Lord was punished as a Libel in the Star Chamber and in that Book it was said that though it be lawful for the Subject to Petition the King against any Proceedings by the Judges yet it must not be done with Reflections nor with Words that turn to the Accusation or Scandal of any of the Kings Magistrates or Officers and the Justice of the Decree is not to be questioned in the Case for there Wrenham in his Defence would have opened the particulars wherein he thought the Decree was unjust but that the Court would not meddle with nor would allow him to justifie for such Illegality in the Decree so in this Case you are not to draw in question the truth or falsehood of the Matter complained against for you must take the way the Law has prescribed and prosecute your Right in a Legal Course and not by Scandal and Libelling My Lord there is a great deal of difference between not doing a thing that is Commanded if one be of Opinion that it is unlawful and coming to the King with a Petition highly reflecting upon the Government and with Scandalous Expressions telling him Sir you Act illegally you require of us that which is against Prudence Honour or Conscience as my Lords the Bishops are pleased to do in this Petition of theirs I appeal to any Lord here that if any Man should give him such Language either by Word of Mouth or Petition whether he would bear it without seeking satisfaction and reparation by the Law My Lord there is no greater proof of the Influence of this Matter than the Croud of this day and the Haâ—…angue that hath been made is it not apparent that the taking this Liberty to Canvas and dispute the Kings Power and Authority and to Censure â—…s Actions possess the People with strange Opinions and raises Discontents and Jealousies as if the free Course of Law were restrained and Arbitrary Will and Pleasure set up instead of it My Lord there is one thing that appears upon the Face of the Information which shews this not to be the right Course and if my Lords the Bishops had given themselves the opportunity of reading the Declaration seriously they would have found in the end of the Declaration that the Ring was resolved to call a Parliament in November might not my Lords the Bishops have acquiesced under their passive Obedience till the Parliament met But nothing would serve them but this and this must be done out of Parliament for which there is no President can be shewn and this must be done in such a manner as your Lordship sees the Consequence of by your Trouble of this Day There is one thing I forgot to speak to they tell us that it is laid Malicious and Seditious and there is no Malice or Sedition found we know very well that that follows the Fact those things arise by Construction of Law out of the Fact. If the thing be illegal the Law says it is Seditious a Man shall not come and say he meant no harm in it That was the Case of Williams in his treasonable Book says he I only intended to warn the King of the Danger approaching and concludes his Book with God save the King but no Man will say that a good Preface at the beginning or a good Prayer at the end should excuse Treason of Sedition in the Body of a Book if I meet another Man in the Street and kill him though I never saw him in my Life the Indictment is that it was ex Malitia Praecogitata as it often happens that a Person kills one he never had acquaintance with before and in favorem vitae if the Nature of the Fact be so the Jury are permitted to find according to the Nature of the Case but in strictness of Law there is Malice implyed But my Lord I think these Matters are so Common and that is a Point that has been so often setled that the form of the Indictment and Information must
follow the Nature of the Fact that I need not insist upon it if the Act be unlawful the Law supplies the Malice and evil Intentions Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this Case for the King and I shall take leave to proceed in this Method First I shall put the Case of my Lords the Bishops and then consider the Arguments that have been used in their Defence and answer them as much as is material to be answered and then leave it to your Lordship and the Juries Consideration whether what has been said by these Gentlemen weigh any thing in this Case First my Lord I take it for granted and I think the Matter is pretty plain by this time by my Lord Presidents Evidence and their own Confession that it is not to be disputed but that this Paper was presented by these Lords to the King I think there is no great difficulty in that Matter at all but I just touch upon it because I would follow them in their own Method Then my Lord let us take this Case as it is upon the Nature of the Petition and the Evidence that they have given and then let us see whether that will justifie the thing that is done For the business of Petitioning I would distinguish and enquire Whether my Lords the Bishops out of Parliament can present any Petition to the King I do agree that in Parliament the Lords and Commons may make Addresses to the King and signifie their Desires and make known their Grievances there and there is no doubt but that is a natural and proper way of Application For in the beginning of the Parliament there are Receivers of Petitions appointed and upon Debates there are Committees appointed to draw up Petitions and Addresses but to come and deduce an Argument that because the Lords in Parliament have done thus there being such Methods of Proceedings usual in Parliaments therefore my Lords the Bishops may do it out of Parliament that is certainly a Non sequitur no such Conclusion can be drawn from those Premises My Lord I shall endeavour to lay the Fact before you as it really is and then Consider what is proper for the Court to take notice of as Legal Proof or Evidence And I take it all those Presidents that they have produced of what the Lords did and what the Commons did in Parliament is no Warrant for them to shelter themselves under against the Information here in Question Here Mr. Iust. Powel spake aside to the Lord Chief Iustice thus Mr. Iust. Powel My Lord this is strange Doctrine shall not the Subject have Liberty to Petition the King but in Parliament If that be Law the Subject is in a miserable Case Ld. Ch. Iust. Brother let him go on we will hear him out tho' I approve not of his Position Mr. Solicit General The Lords may Address to the King in Parliament and the Commons may do it but therefore that the Bishops may do it out of Parliament does not follow I heard nothing said that could have given Colour to such a thing but the Curse that has been read in 1 Elizabeth But pray my Lord let us consider that Evidence they have given they have begun with that Record in Richard the Seconds time and what is that That the King may dispeâ—…se with the Statute of Provisors till the meeting of the next Parliament and a Protestation of the Commons at the end of it whether that be an Act of Parliament that is Declaratory of the Common Law or Introductory of a new Law Non Constat and for ought appears it might be a Declaratory Act And if so it is a Proof of the Kings Prerogative of Dispensing It might be an Act in Affirmance of the Kings Prerogative as there are a great many such we very well know and generally most of the Laws in that kind are in Affirmance of the Kings power so that the Law turns as an Argument for the King Prerogative and they have given him that which will turn upon themselves so it stood in Richard the Seconds time but whether that be an Argument one way or other Conclusive is lest to your Lordship and the Jury Ay but say they there is no Execution of such a Power till very lately and the first Instance that they produce is that in the Year 1662. But your Lordship knows that before the Râ—…ign of Henry the Fourth there was great Jurisdiction assumed by the Lords in Original Causes then comes the Statute of Appeals 1 Hen. 4. which takes notice that before that time the Lords had assumed an Original Jurisdiction in all Causes and would proceed and determine them in Parliament and out of Parliament and it fell out to be so great a Grievance that it was thought necessary to make a Law against it that Appeals in Parliament should be abolished and destroyed and then comes that Law in favour of the Subject of England and that settles the bounds between the King and the Lords in a great measure before that time the Lords were grown very powerful and where there is a Power there always will be Applications and what is the effect of that Statute 1 Hen. 4. for all that we endeavour is to make things as plain can be that no further Applications no Accusations no Proceedings in any Case whatsoever be before the Lords in Parliament unless it be by Impeachment of the Commons so that there is the Salvo and the use that I make of it is this The Commons by that very Statute did abolish the Power that the Lords had arrogated to themselves and Ordered that they should not meddle with any Cause but upon the Impeachment of the House of Commons and establish the Impeachment of the Commons which is as ancient as the Parliament for that was never yet spoken against the Power of the Commons Impeaching any Person under the degree of the Prince and that is the regular legal way and so the Commons asserted their Ancient Right and whatsoever the Lords took notice of must come by Application of the Commons then Conferences were to pass between the Houses and both Houses by Address apply to the King this is the proper way and course of Parliament of which thy Lord Cook says It is known to few and practised by fewer but it is a Venareble Honourable way and this is the Course that should have been taken by my Lords here and they should have stayed till the Complaint had come from the Commons in Parliament and then it had been Regular for them to Address to the King but they were too Quick too Nimble And whereas the Statute of Hen. 4. says That no Lord whatsoever shall intermeddle with any Cause but by the Impeachment of the Commons they interpose and give their advice before their time if there be any Irregularity in Parliament or out of Parliament the Commons are to make their Complaint of it
and a Man must not be his own Judg nor his own Carver nor must every Man create Difficulties of his own nor set upon Petitioning in this sort But there I lay my Foundation That in such a matter as this there ought to have been the Impeachment of the Commons in Parliament before these Lords could do any thing and I know nothing can be said for the Bishops more than this That they were under an Anathema under the Curse that Sir Robert Sawyer speaks of and for fear of that they took this Irregular Course But some would say Better fall into the hands of God than of Men some would say so I say I know not what they would say but these being the Methods that these Lords should have taken they should have pursued that Method the Law should have carved out their Relief and Remedy for them but they were for going by a new Fancy of their Own. My Lord the Law continued thus and was practised so till the 3. Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber and there Men were often brought to Judgment and Punishment for their Sins and though very great Power was given them yet they arrogated to themselves a greater and therefore that Court is abolished by the Statute of the 15th Car. 1. and what is the reason of abolishing that Statute Because the Star-Chamber did not keep within their bounds that the Law set them but assumed to themselves a larger Power than the Law would allow and grew very Exorbitant and very Grievous to the Subject And another reason was which the Statute of 15th Car. 1. founded it self upon because there was nothing that was brought in Judgment before that Court but might be relieved and remedied in the oridinary methods of Justice in the Courts of Westminster Hall So that upon those two Considerations because that Course was exorbitant and because all the Sins and Misdemeanours that were punished there might be punished in an ordinary way of Law in another Court and therefore there was no need of that Court and so it was abolished and the Subject was pretty safe If there was a Crime committed here a Man might come properly before your Lordship into this Court and have it punished My Lord they find fault with the Words in the Information and they say why are these Words put in Seditious Malicious If the matter be Libellous and Seditious we may Lawfully say it and it is no more than the Law speaks it results out of the Matter it self and if it be a Libellous Paper the Law says it is Maliciously and Seditiously done and these Gentlemen need not quarrel with us for so are all the Informations in all times past and 't is no more than the Vi Armis which is Common Form. It may be said How can the publishing of a Libel be said to be done Vi Armis That is only a Supposition of Law and they may as well Object to the conclusion of the Information that it was Contra Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis if it be an Illegal thing or a Libel these are necessary Consequences it is no more than the speaking of the Law upon the Fact. But my Lord let us a little consider whether this Matter were Warrantable and whether they had any Warrant to do what was done they pretend it was done upon this Account That the King had set forth a Declaration and had Ordered them to Read it which to excuse themselves from they make this Petition or this Libel call it what you will and they use this as the main Argument That they say the King has done Illegally and they tell the King plainly so that it is Illegal for they take notice of this Declaration and say it is Illegal because it is contrary to the Declarations of Parliament in 1662 1672 and 1685. Pray my Lord let us consider a little whether there be any Declaration in Parliament that they have given Evidence of Have they read any Declaration of the Parliament in 1662 What is a Declaration in Parliament but a Bill that is passed by the King Lords and Commons That we know to be the meaning and no other if it pass the Commons it is no Declaration in Parliament nay if it pass the Lords and Commons it is not a Declaration in Parliament except it also pass the King all these things are Nullities and the Law takes no notice of them we have it in our Books over and over and no Court ought to suffer such Evidence to be given I know these Gentlemen are very well acquainted with the Authority in Fitz-Herbert's Title Parliament there was an Act that was said to be by the King and the Lords but because the Commons did not agree to it it is declared and adjudged to be a Nullity and the Court would take no notice of it and how can any Man call that a Declaration in Parliament which is only a Vote of the House of Commons or of the Lords No sure that is one of the Heads I go upon It 's not a Declaration in Parliament unless it be by Act of Parliament Indeed my Lord there is another sort of a Declaration in Parliament before the Lords as they are a Court of Judicature and that is a fair Declaration too for if any thing comes Judicially before the Lords either by Writ of Error or by natural Appeal from any of the other Courts or by Adjournment and there be any Judgment given That is a Declaration in Parliament and may be fairly so called So likewise there is another Judicial Declaration which is when any thing comes before the Lords Judicially upon an Impeachment of the Commons and they give Judgment upon that Impeachment That is a Declaration in Parliament But to say that there is any other Declaration in Parliament is to say more than these Gentlemen can make out if they will shew me any such I will submit to them and not speak a Word against my Lords the Bishops but if these Learned Gentlemen cannot shew me any such then they have not said that was true in this Petition that it was so and so declared in Parliament For let us consider what there is in this Case upon this Evidence for that in 1662. is only a Vote and an Opinion of the House of Commons and I always understood and have been told so by some of the Gentlemen of the other side that such a Vote signifies nothing But besides it seems to be a mistaken Address for they say in it That the Declaration in 1662. which they Address against was the first Declaration of that sort to suspend Laws without Act of Parliament and yet in the same breath they do take notice of the King's Declaration from Breda But here is a mighty Argument used from the King's Speech That
because he wished he had such a Power this must be declared in Parliament that he had no such Power Is the Speech of the Prince a Declaration in Parliament All the Speeches that were made upon the opening of the Parliament will you say they are Declarations in Parliament Then the Chancellor or the Keeper's Speech or the Lord Privy Seals must be a Declaration in Parliament Whoever speaks the Sense of the King if he does not speak that which is Law and Right is questionable for it and several have been Impeached for so doing for they look not upon it as the King's Speech except it be according to Law Nothing can turn upon the Prince but what is Legal if it be otherwise it turns upon him that speaks it I never did hear that a Speech made by the Chancellor and I will appeal to all the Lords that hear me in it was a Declaration in Parliament Then my Lord we come to the business in 1672. which with that in 1662. and that in Breda shews That this of the King 's is not such a Novelty but has been done often before In 1672. the King was in Distress for Money being intangled in a Dutch War and wanted Supply He Capitulates with his Commons you have heard it read and upon the Commons Address he asserts it to be his Right and makes his Complaint to the Lords how the Commons had used him for when he gives them a fair Answer they Reply and there are Conferences with the Lords about it but at length it all ends in a Speech by the King who comes and tells them of his present Necessitieâ—… and so he was minded to reâ—… a little at the Instigation of the Commons and he has a good Lump of Money for it Would this amount to a Declaration in Parliament Can my Lords the Bishopâ—… fancy or imagine that this is to be imposed upon the King or upon the Court for a Declaration in Parliament Then last of all for that in 1685. in this King's time What is it The Commons make an Address to the King and Complain to his Majesty of some of his Officers in his Army that might pretend to have a Dispensation something of that Nature contrary to the Test Act And what is done upon it They make their Application to the King and the King Answers them and that is all But since it is spoken of in the Court I would take notice That it is very well known by the Case of Godding and Hales the Judgment of this Court was against the Opinion of that Address But what sort of Evidence is all this Would you allow all the Addresses of the House of Commons to be Evidence Give me leave to say it my Lord If you suffer these Votes these Copies of Imperfect Bills these Addresses and Applications of one or both Houses to the King to be Evidence and Declarations in Parliament then what will become of the Bill of Exclusion Shall any Body mention that Bill of Exclusion to be a Declaration in Parliament If so then there is Declaration against Declaration the Declaration of the Commons against the Declaration of the Lords I know not what Judgment my Lords the Bishops may be of now concerning those things of Votes and Addresses being Declarations in Parliament but I am sure they have spoken against it heretofore nay I am sure some of them have Preached against it And if my Lords the Bishops have said These are Declarations in Parliament and they are not Declarations in Parliament and if they accuse the King of having done an Illegal thing because he has done that which has been declared in Parliament to be Illegal when it was never so declared then the Consequence is very plain That they are Mistaken sometimes and I suppose by this time they believe it I dare say it will not be denied me That the King may by his Prerogative Royal issue forth his Proclamation it is as essential a Prerogative as it is to give his assent to an Act of Parliament to make it a Law. And it is another Principle which I think cannot be denied That the King may make Constitutions and Orders in Matters Ecclesiastical and that these he may make out of Parliament and without the Parliament If the King may do so and these are his Prerogatives then suppose the King does issue forth his Royal Proclamation and such in effect is this Declaration under the Great Seal in a Matter Ecclesiastical by Virtue of his Prerogative Royal and this Declaration is read in the Council and published to the World and then the Bishops come and tell the King Sir you have issued out an Illegal Declaration being contrary to what has been declared in Parliament when there is no Declaration in Parliament Is not this a Diminishing the King's Power and Prerogative in issuing forth his Declaration And making Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical Is not this a questioning of his Prerogative Do not my Lords the Bishops in this Case raise a question between the King and the People Do not they as much as in them lyes stir up the People to Sedition For who shall be Judg between the King and the Bishops Says the King I have such a Power and Prerogative to issue forth my Royal Proclamation and to make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical and that without the Parliament and out of Parliament Say my Lords the Bishops You have done so but you have no Warrant for it Says the King Every Prince has done it and I have done no more than what is my Prerogative to do But this say the Bishops is against Law. How shall this be tryed Should not the Bishops have had the Patience to have waited till a Parliament came When the King himself tells them he would have a Parliament in November at furthest L. Ch. Iust. Pray Mr. Sollicitor come close to the business for it is very late Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I beg your Patience you have had a great deal of Patience with them pray spare me a little I am saying when the King himself tells them that he would have a Parliament in November at furthest yet they have no Patience to stay till November but make this Application to him Is not this raising a Question upon the King's Prerogative in issuing forth Declarations and upon the King's Power and Right in Matters Ecclesiastical And when I have said this that my Lords the Bishops have so done If they have raised a Question upon the Right of the King and the Power of the King in Matters Ecclesiastical then they have stirred up Sedition That they have so done is pretty plain and for the Consequence of it I shall appeal to the Case in the 2 Cro. 2. Iac. 1. That is a plain direct Authority for me Mr. Iust. Powel Nay Mr. Sollicitor we all very well know to deny the King's Authority in Temporals and Spirituals as by Act of
Parliament is High Treason Mr. Sol. Gen. I carry it not so far Sir we have a Gracious Prince and my Lords the Bishops find it so by this Prosecution But what says that Case It is Printed in 3 Books in Noy 100. in Moor 375. and in Mr. Just. Cro. 371. says that Case The King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical Mr. Iust. Powel But how will you apply that Case to this in hand Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I will apply it by and by Sir. I would first shew what it is there is a Convention of the greatest Men in the Kingdom Mr. Iust. Powel Indeed Mr. Sollicitor you shoot at Rovers Mr. Sol. Gen. There iâ—… the Lord Privy Seal the Archbishop of Canterbury and a great many others it is the greatest Aâ—…embly we meet with in our Books and all of them are of this Opinion That the King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical My Lord there is another Authority and that is from the Statute 1 Eliz. which erected the High Commission Court and that Statute was not Introductory of a New Law but Declaratory of the Old Law The King by his Proclamation declares his Sense to do such and such a thing the Court and all Persons there give their Judgment and Opinion upon that Statute That they looked upon it as the grossest thing and the soulest affront to the Prince for any Man to bring into Question that Power of the King in Matters Ecclesiastical 't is said to be a very High Crime Why then my Lord what is done in this Case Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor Pray when you are applying apply that other part of the Case too which says that it was a heinous Offence to raise a Rumor that the King did intend to grant a general Toleration and is there any Law since that has changed it Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. In the main Judgment goes another way as for that part it was personal to the Prince that then was of whom they had Scandalously reported that he intended to do such a thing they look'd upon it as a Scandal to King Iames that it was a sowing Sedition and stirring up People against the Government and that will come up to our Case for as some Men do it on the right side others do it on the left and whoever he be that endeavours to bring a dislike of the King in the People that is moving Sedition against the Prince but that is personal to the Prince himself and does not go to his Successors Now my Lord I come to that which is very plain from the Case of De Libellis Famosis If any Person in any Paper have Slandered the Government you are not to Examine who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong whether what they said to be done by the Government be Legal or no but whether the party have done such an Act. If the King have a Power for still I keep to that to Issue forth Proclamations to his Subjects and to make Orders and Constitutions in matters Ecclesiastical if he do Issue forth his Proclamation and make an Order upon the matters within his Power and Prerogative and if any one would come and bring that Power in Question I say that is Sedition and you are not to Examine the Legality or Illegality of the Order or Proclamation and that I think is very plain upon that Case in the Fifth Report for it says If a Person does a thing that is Libellous you shall not Examine the Fact but the Consequence whether it tended to stir up Sedition against the Publick or to stir up Strife between Man and Man in the Case of private Persons as if a Man should say of a Judge He has taken a Bribe and I will prove it this is not to be sent in a Letter but they must take a regular way to Prosecute it according to Law. If it be so in the Case of an Inferior Magistrate what must it be in the Case of a King to come to the Kings Face and tell him as they do here that he has Acted Illegally doth certainly sufficiently prove the matter to be Libellous What do they say to King they say and admit that they have an aversness for the Declaration and they tell him from whence that aversness doth proceed and yet they insinuate that they had an inclination to Gratify the King and Embrace the Dissenters that were as averse to them as could be with due tenderness when it should be settled by Parliament and Convocation Pray what hath their Convocation to do in this matter L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Sollicitor General I will not interrupt you but pray come to the Business before us Shew us that this is in diminution of the Kings Prerogative or that the King ever had such a Prerogative Mr. Sol. Gen. I will my Lord I am observing what it is they say in this Petition They tell the King it is inconsistent with their Honor Prudence and Conscience to do what he would have them to do and if these things be not reflective upon the King and Government I know not what is this is not in a way of Judicature possibly it might have been allowable to Petition The King to put it into a course of Justice whereby it may be Tryed but alas there is no such thing in this matter It is not their desire to put it into any Method for Tryal and so it comes in the Case De Libellis Famosis for by this way they make themselves Judges which no Man by Law is permitted to do My Lords the Bishops have gone out of the way and all that they have offered does not come home to justify them and therefore I take it under Favour that we have made it a good Case for the King we have proved what they have done and whether this be Warrantable or not is the Question Gentlemen that you are to try The whole Case appears upon Record the Declaration and Petition are set forth and the Order of the King and Council When the Verdict is brought in they may move any thing what they please in arrest of Judgment They have had a great deal of Latitude and taken a great deal of Liberty But truly I apprehend not so very pertinently But I hope we have made a good Case of it for the King and that you Gentlemen will give us a Verdict Mr. Iust. Holloway Mr. Sollicitor there is one thing I would seign be satisfied in you say the Bishops have no Power to Petition the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. Not out of Parliament Sir. Mr. Iust. Holloway Pray give me leave Sir Then the King having made such a Declaration of a General Toleration and Liberty of Conscience and afterwards he comes and requires the Bishops to disperse this Declaration this they say out of a tenderness of Conscience they cannot do because they apprehend it contrary to Law and contrary to their
Function What can they do if they may not Petition Mr. Soll. Gen. I 'll tell you what they should have done Sir. If they were commanded to do any thing against their Consciences they should have acquiesced till the Meeting of the Parliament At which some People in the Court hissed Mr. Attorn Gen. This is very fine indeed I hope the Court and the Jury will take notice of this Carriage Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord it is one thing for a Man to Submit to his Prince if the King lay a Command upon him that he cannot Obey and another thing to Affront him If the King will impose upon a Man what he cannot do he must acquiesce But shall he come and fly in the Face of his Prince Shall he say it is Illegal And that the Prince acts against Prudence Honor or Conscience And throw Dirt in the King's Face Sure that is not to be permitted that is Libelling with a Witness L. Ch. Iust. Truly Mr. Sollicitor I am of Opinion that the Bishops might Petition the King but this is not the right way of bringing it I am not of that Mind that they cannot Petition the King out of Parliament but if they may Petition yet they ought to have done it after another Manner For if they may in this Reflective way Petition the King I am sure it will make the Government very precarious Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor it would have been too late to stay for a Parliament for it was to have been Distributed by such a time Mr. Soll. Gen. They might have lain under it and submitted Mr. Iust. Powel No they would have run into Contempt of the King's Command without Petitioning the King not to insist upon it and if they had Petitioned and not have shewn the Reason why they could not Obey it would have been looked upon as a piece of Sullenness and that they would have been blamed for as much on the other side Mr. Serj. Baldock After so long a Debate I shall not trouble you long most things that are to be said have been said but I shall only say this in short I cannot deny nor shall not but that the Subject has a Right to Petition but I shall affirm it also he has a Duty to Obey and that in this Case the Power of the King to Dispense with Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical is not a thing that is now in Question nor need we here have had these long Debates on both sides It may be perceived plainly by the Proofs that have been read that the Kings and Princes have thought themselves that they had such a Power though it may be the Parliament thought they had not and therefore the Declarations of the one or the other I shall not meddle with in this Case That Power it self which the King has as King of this Realm in Matters rather Ecclesiastical and Criminal than Matters of Property may somewhat appear by what has been read before your Lordship but all this will be nothing in our Case neither has his Majesty now depended so much upon this thing the Declaration has been read to you and what 's there said The King there says That for those Reasons he was ready to Suspend those Laws And be they Suspended Yet my Lord with this too That he refers it to and hopes to make it secure by a Parliament So that there being this it has not gone I think very far and it not having been touch'd here it is not a point of Duty in my Lords the Bishops as Bishops that 's here inquired into Whether they should have medled with this or no in this manner is the Question That the King is Supreme over all of us and has a particular Supremacy over them as Supreme Ordinary and Governor and Moderator of the Church is very plain and my Lord it is as plain that in such things as concern the Church he has a particular Power to Command them this is not unknown but very frequent and common in Matters Ecclesiastical and Matters of State It is not here a Question now whether these Declarations which they were Commanded to take Care of getting read were Legal or not Legal what Prudence there was what Honour there was what Conscience there was for their not reading it is not the Question neither But the point was the King as Supreme Ordinary of his Kingdom to whom the Bishops are Subject does in Council Order And what is it he Orders Their sending out and distributing his Declaration they were concerned in no more than that and it had been a very petty thing a small thing to send out the King's Declaration to be read by the Clergy All the Clergy were Ordered to read it but my Lords the Bishops were only Commanded to distribute it this he might do by Virtue of his Power Ecclesiastical And if this be not an Evil in it self and if it be not against the Word of God certainly Obedience was due from my Lords the Bishops active Obedience was due from them to do so much as this it was no Consent of theirs it was no Approbation of theirs of what they read that was Required So that if they had read it or another had read it by the King's Order especially if that Order be Legal they are bound to do it by Virtue of their Obedience and not to Examine more And my Lord in this Petition here they come to relieve not only themselves that were present for I speak to the Preamble as others before me have spoke to the Conclusion but they do involve the rest of the Bishops that were absent for it is in behalf of Themselves and their Brethren and all the Clergy of that Province Now that all these should joyn in the Petition is a thing very uncertain how does it construe here whether they were altogether and Consented to it or how all their Minds could be so fully known that they would be all involved in the Disobedience to this Order of the King. Then my Lord What is the thing they are greatly averse to There are Two things required in the Order The Bishops required to Distribute the Declaration to the Inferior Clergy and the Inferior Clergy are required to Read it Then their averseness must be to Distribute it and the others to Read it and so they will be involved none of whom did ever appear to have Joyned in it And then they give Reasons for their averseness and it is true Reasons might have been given and good Reasons should be given why they would not do this in Duty to His Majesty more gentle Reasons and other kind of Reasons than those that they have given L. Ch. Iust. Pray Brother will you come to the Matter before us Mr. Serj. Baldock I have almost done my Lord. Mr. Iust. Powel The Information is not for Disobedience Brother but for a Libel Mr. Serj. Baldock No Sir it is not for Disobedience but it is for
giving Reasons for the Disobedience in a Libellous Petition and I am going on to that The Declaration is said in the Petition to be Illegal which is a Charge upon the King That he has done an Illegal Act. They say they cannot in Honor Conscience or Prudence do it which is a Reflection upon the Prudence Justice and Honour of the King in Commanding them to do such a thing And this appearing to have been delivered to the King by my Lords the Bishops Persons to whom certainly we all owe a Deference as our Spiritual Masters to believe what things they say as most likely to be true and therefore it having an Universal Influence upon all the People I shall leave it here to your Lordship and the Jury whether they ought not to Answer for it Mr. Recorder Will your Lordship please to spare me one Word L. Ch. Iust. I hope we shall have done by and by Mr. Recorder If your Lordship don't think fit I can sit down L. Ch. Iust. No no go on Sir Barth Shore you 'll say I have spoiled a good Speech Mr. Recorder I have no good one to make my Lord I have but a very few Words to say L. Ch. Iust. Well go on Sir. Mr. Recorder That which I would urge my Lord is only this I think my Lord we have Proved one Information and that they have made no Answer to it for the Answer they have made is but Argumentative and taken either from the Persons of the Defendants as Peers or from the Form of its being a Petition As Peers it is said they have a Right to Petition to and Advise the King but that is no Excuse at all for if it contains Matter Reproachful or Scandalous it is a Libel in Them as well as in any other Subject and they have no more Right to Libel the King than His Majesties other Subjects have nor will the Priviledge of their Peerage exempt them from being Punished And for the Form of this Paper as being a Petition there is no more Excuse in that neither For every Man has as much Right to Publish a Book or Pamphlet as they had to Present their Petition And as it would be Punishable in that Man to Write a Scandalous Book so it would be Punishable in them to make a Scandalous and a Libellous Petition And the Author of Iulian the Apostate because he was a Clergy Man and a Learned Man too had as much Right to Publish his Book as my Lords the Bishops had to Deliver this Libel to the King. And if the City of London were so severely Punished as to lose their Charter for Petitioning for the Sitting of a Parliament in which there were Reflecting Words but more Soft Mr. Iust. Holloway Pray good Mr. Recorder don't compair the Writing of a Book to the Making of a Petition for it 's the Birth-right of the Subject to Petition Mr. Recorder My Lord it was as Lawful for the City of London to Petition for the Sitting of a Parliament as it was for my Lords the Bishops to give Reasons for their Disobedience to the King's Command And if the Matter of the City of Londons Petition was reckoned to be Libellous in saying that what the King had done in Dissolving the Parliament was an Obstruction of Justice what other Construction can be made of my Lords the Bishops saying that the King's Declaration is Illegal And if the Matter of this Petition be of the same Nature with that of the City of London your Lordship can make no other Judgment of it but that it ought to have the same Condemnation Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Recorder you will as soon bring the Two Poles together as make this Petition to agree with Iohnson's Book they are no more alike than the most different things you can name Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord I have but one Word L. Ch. Iust. How unreasonable is this now that we must have so many Speeches at this time of Day But we must hear it go on Brother Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord if your Lordship pleases That which they seem most to insist upon on the other side and which has not been much spoken to on our side is That this Power which His Majesty has Exerted in setting forth His Declaration was Illegal and their Arguments were Hypothetical If it were Illegal they had not Offended and they offered at some Arguments to prove it Illegal But as to that my Lord we need not go much further than a Case that is very well known here which I crave leave to mention only because the Jury perhaps have not heard of it and that was the Case of Sir Edward Hales where after a long Debate it was Resolved That the King had a Power to Dispense with Penal Laws But my Lord if I should go higher into our Books of Law that which they seem to make so strange of might easily be made appear to have been a frequent and constant practice L. Ch. Iust. That is quite out of the Case Brother Mr. Serj. Trinder I beg your Lorships Favour for a Word or two if your Lordship please to Consider the Power the King has as Supreme Ordinary we say he has a Power to Dispense with these Statutes as he is King and to give Ease to his Subjects as Supreme Ordinary of the whole Kingdom and as having Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority throughout the Kingdom There might be abundance of Cases cited for this if there were need the Statute of primo Eliz. doubtless is in Force at this time and a great many of the Statutes that have been made since that time have express Savings of the King's Supremacy so that the King's Power is Unquestionable And if they have come and Questioned this Power in this manner by referring themselves to the Declarations in Parliament they have done that which of late Days has been always look'd upon as an Ill thing as if the King's Authority was under the Suffrages of a Parliament But when they come to make out their Parliament Declarations there was never a one unless it be first in Richard the Seconds time that can properly be called a Parliament Declaration so that that of the several Parliaments is a Matter perfectly mistaken and if they have mistaken it it is in the Nature of false News which is a Crime for which the Law will Punish them More things might be added but I consider your Lordship has had a great deal of Patience already and much time has been spent and therefore I shall conclude begging your Lordships Pardon for what I have said L. Ch. Iust. I do assure you if it had not been a Case of great Concern I would not have heard you so long It is a Case of very great Concern to the King and the Government on the one side and to my Lords the Bishops on the other and I have taken all the Care I can to observe what has been said on both sides 'T
is not to be expected that I should repeat all the Speeches or the particular Facts but I will put the Jury in mind of the most Material things as well as my Memory will give me leave but I have been interrupted by so many Long and Learned Speeches and by the length of the Evidence which has been brought in in a very broken unmethodical way that I shall not be able to do so well as I would Gentlemen thus stands the Case It is an Information against my Lords the Bishops his Grace my Lord of Canterbury and the other Six Noble Lords and it is for Preferring Composing Making and Publishing and Causing to be Published a Seditious Libel the way that the Information goes is special and it sets forth That the King was Graciously pleased by his Royal Power and Prerogative to set forth a Declaration of Indulgence for Liberty of Conscience in the Third Year of his Reign and afterwards upon the 27. of April in the Fourth Year he comes and makes another Declaration and afterwards in May orders in Council that this Declaration should be Published by my Lords the Bishops in their several Diocesses and after this was done my Lords the Bishops come and present a Petition to the King in which were contained the Words which you have seen Now Gentlemen the Proofs that have been upon this you 'll see what they are the two Declarations are proved by the Clerks of the Council and they are brought here under the Great Seal a Question did arise whether the Prints were the same with the Original Declarations and that is proved by Hills or his Man that they were Examined and are the same then the Order of Council was produced by Sir Iohn Nicholas and has likewise been read to you then they come to prove the Fact against the Bishops and first they fall to proving their Hands they begun indeed a great way off and did not come so close to it as they afterwards did for some of their Hands they could hardly prove but my Lord Archbishop's Hand was only proved and some others but there might have been some Question about that Proof but afterwards it came to be proved that my Lords the Bishops owned their Hands which if they had produced at first would have made the Cause something shorter than it was The next Question that did arise was about the Publishing of it whether my Lords the Bishops had Published it and it was insisted upon That no body could prove the Delivery of it to the King it was proved the King gave it to the Council and my Lords the Bishops were called in and there they acknowledged their Hands but no body could prove how it came to the King's Hands Upon which we were all of Opinion That it was not such a Publishing as was within the Information and I was going to have directed you to find my Lords the Bishops Not Guilty But it hapned that being Interrupted in my Directions by an Honest Worthy Learned Gentleman the Kings Council took the Advantage and informing the Court that they had further Evidence for the King we staid till my Lord President came who told us how the Bishops came to him to his Office at White-hall and after they had told him their Design That they had a mind to Petition the King they asked him the Method they were to take for it and desired him to help them to the Speech of the King And he tells them he will acquaint the King with their Desire which he does and the King giving leave he comes down and tells the Bishops that they might go and speak with the King when they would and says he I have given Direction that the Door shall be opened for you as soon as you come With that the Two Bishops went away and said they would go and fetch their other Brethren and so they did bring the other Four but my Lord Archbishop was not there and immediately when they came back they went up into the Chamber and there a Petition was Delivered to the King. He cannot speak to that particular Petition because he did not Read it and that is all that he knew of the Matter only it was all done the same Day and that was before my Lords the Bishops appeared at the Council Gentlemen after this was proved then the Defendants came to their Part and these Gentlemen that were of Councel for my Lords let themselves into their Defence by notable Learned Speeches by telling you that my Lords the Bishops are Guardians to the Church and great Peers of the Realm and were bound in Conscience to take care of the Church They have Read you a Clause of a Statute made in Queen Eliz. time by which they say my Lords the Bishops were under a Curse if they did not take care of that Law. Then they shew you some Records One in Richard the Seconds time which they could make little of by reason their Witness could not Read it but it was in short a Liberty given to the King to Dispense with the Statute of Provisors Then they shew you some Journals of Parliament First in the Year 1662. where the King had Granted an Indulgence and the House of Commons Declared it was not fit to be done unless it were by Act of Parliament And they Read the King's Speech wherein he says he wish'd he had such a Power and so likewise that in 1672. which is all nothing but Addresses and Votes or Orders of the House or Discourses either the King's Speech or the Subjects Addresses but these are not Declarations in Parliament that is insisted upon by the Councel for the King That what is a Declaration in Parliament is a Law and that must be by the King Lords and Commons the other is but common Discourse but a Vote of the House or a Signification of their Opinion and cannot be said to be a Declaration in Parliament Then they come to that in 1685. where the Commons take notice of something about the Souldiers in the Army that had not taken the Test and make an Address to the King about it but in all these things as far as I can observe nothing can be gathered out of them one way or other it is all nothing but Discourses Sometimes this Dispensing Power has been allowed as in 〈◊〉 2. time and sometimes it has been denied and the King did once wave it Mr. Sollicitor tells you the Reason There was a Lump of Money in the Case But I wonder indeed to hear it come from him Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I never gave my Vote for Money I assure you L. Ch. Iust. But those Concessions which the King sometimes makes for the Good of the People and sometimes for the Profit of the Prince himself but I would not be thought to distinguish between the Profit of the Prince and the Good of the People for they are both one and what is the Profit of the Prince
is always for the Good of the People but I say those Concessions must not be made Law for that is reserved in the King's Breast to do what he pleases in it at any time The truth of it is the Dispensing Power is out of the Case it is only a Word used in the Petition but truly I will not take upon me to give my Opinion in the Question to determine that now for it is not before me The only Question before me is and so it is before you Gentlemen it being a Question of Fact Whether here be a certain Proof of a Publication And then the next Question is a Question of Law indeed Whether if there be a Publication proved it be a Libel Gentlemen upon the point of the Publication I have summed up all the Evidence to you and if you believe that the Petition which these Lords presented to the King was this Petition truly I think that is a Publication sufficient if you do not believe it was this Petition then my Lords the Bishops are not Guilty of what is laid to their Charge in this Information and consequently there needs no Inquiry whether they are Guilty of a Libel But if you do believe that this was the Petition they presented to the King then we must come to Inquire whether this be a Libel Now Gentlemen any thing that shall disturb the Government or make Mischief and a Stir among the People is certainly within the Case of Libellis Famosis and I must in short give you my Opinion I do take it to be a Libel Now this being a point of Law if my Brothers have any thing to say to it I suppose they will deliver their Opinions Mr. Iust. Holloway Look you Gentlemen it is not usual for any Person to say any thing after the Chief Justice has summed up the Evidence it is not according to the Course of the Court but this is a Case of an Extraordinary Nature and there being a point of Law in it it is fit every body should deliver their own Opinion The Question is whether this Petition of my Lords the Bishops be a Libel or no Gentlemen the End and Intention of every Action is to be Considered and likewise in this Case we are to Consider the Nature of the Offence that these Noble Persons are Charged with it is for delivering a Petition which according as they have made their Defence was with all the Humility and Decency that could be So that if there was ill Intent and they were not as it is nor can be pretended they were Men of Evil Lives or the like to deliver a Petition cannot be a Fault it being the Right of every Subject to Petition If you are satisfied there was an ill Intention of Sedition or the like you ought to find them Guilty but if there be nothing in the Case that you find but only that they did deliver a Petition to save themselves harmless and to free themselves from blame by shewing the Reason of their Disobedience to the King's Command which they apprehended to be a Grievance to them and which they could not in Conscience give Obedience to I cannot think it is a Libel It is left to you Gentlemen but that is my Opinion L. Oh. Iust. Look you by the way Brother I did not ask you to sum up the Evidence for that is not usual but only to deliver your Opinion whether it be a Libel or no. Mr. Iust. Powel Truly I cannot see for my part any thing of Sedition or any other Crime fixed upon these Reverend Fathers my Lords the Bishops For Gentlemen to make it a Libel it must be False it must be Malicious and it must tend to Sedition as to the Falshood I see nothing that is offered by the King's Councel nor any thing as to the Malice It was preferred with all the Humility and Decency that became the King's Subjects to approach their Prince with Now Gentlemen the Matter of it is before you you are to Consider of it and it is worth your Consideration they tell his Majesty It is not out of aversness to pay all due Obedience to the King nor out of a want of tenderness to their dissenting Fellow Subjects that made them not perform the Command imposed upon them but they say That because they do conceive that the thing that was Commanded them was against the Law of the Land therefore they do desire his Majesty that he would be pleased to forbear to insist upon it that they should perforâ—…â—…hat Command which they take to be Illegal Gentlemen we must Consider what they say is Illegall in it they say they apprehend the Declaration is Illegal because it is founded upon a Dispensing Power which the King claims to Dispense with the Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Gentlemen I do not remember in any Case in all our Law and I have taken some Pains upon this Occasion to look into it that there is any such Power in the King and the Case must turn upon that in short If there be no such Dispensing Power in the King then that can be no Libel which they presented to the King which says that the Declaration being founded upon such a pretended Power is Illegal Now Gentlemen this is a Dispensation with a Witness it amounts to an Abrogation and utter Repeal of all the Laws for I can see no difference nor know of none iâ—… Law between the King's Power to Dispense with Laws Ecclesiastical and his Power to Dispense with any other Laws whatsoever If this be once allowed of there will need no Parliament all the Legislature will be in the King which is a thing worth Considering and I leave the Issue to God and your Consciences Mr. Iust. Allybone The single Question that falls to my share is to give my Sense of this Petition whether it shall be in Construction of Law a Libel in it self or a thing of great Innocence I shall endeavour to express my self in as plain Terms as I can and as much as I can by way of Proposition And I think in the first place That no Man can take upon him to write against the actual Exercise of the Government unless he have leave from the Government but he makes a Libel be what he writes true or false for if once we come to impeach the Government by way of Argument 't is the Argument that makes it the Government or not the Government So that I lay down that in the first place That the Government ought not to be impeached by Argument nor the Exercise of the Government shaken by Argument because I can manage a Proposition in it self doubtful with a better Pen than another Man This say I is a Libel Then I lay down this for my next Position That no private Man can take upon him to write concerning the Government at all for what has any private Man to do with the Government if his Interest be not stirred or
shaken It is the business of the Government to manage Matters relating to the Government it is the business of Subjects to mind only their own Properties and Interest If my Interest is not shaken what have I to do with Matters of Government They are not within my Sphere If the Government does come to shake my particular Interest the Law is open for me and I may redress my self by Law And when I intrude my self into other Mens business that does not concern my particular Interest I am a Libeller These I have laid down for plain Propositions now then let us Consider further Whether if I will take upon me to contradict the Government any specious Pretence that I shall put upon it shall dress it up into another Form and give it a better Denomination and truly I think it will not I think 't is the worse because it comes in a better Dress for by that Rule every Man that can put on a good Vizard may be as Mischievous as he will to the Government at the bottom so that whether it be in the form of a Supplication or an Address or a Petition if it be what it ought not to be let us call it by its true Name and give it its right Denomination It is a Libel Then Gentlemen Consider what this Petition is This is a Petition relating to something that was done and ordered by the Government Whether the Reasons of the Petition be true or false I will not Examine that now nor will I Examine the Prerogative of the Crown but only take notice that this relates to the Act of the Government The Government here has published such a Declaration as this that has been read relating to Matters of Government And shall or ought any body to come and impeach that as Illegal which the Government has done Truly in my Opinion I do not think he should or ought for by this Rule may every Act of the Government be shaken when there is not a Parliament de Facto sitting I do agree That every Man may Petition the Government or the King in a matter that relates to his own private Iâ—…erest but to meddle with a matter that relates to the Government I do not think my Lords the Bishops had any Power to do more than any others When the House of Lords and Commons are in Being it is a proper way of applying to the King there is all the openness in the World for those that are Members of Parliament to make what Addresses they please to the Government for the rectifying altering regulating and making of what Law they please but if every private Man shall come and interpose his Advice I think there can never be an end of Advising the Government I think there was as an instance of this in King Iames's Time when by a Solemn Resolution it was declared to be High Misdemeanour and next to Treason to Petition the King to put the Penal Laws in Execution Mr. Iust. Powel Brother I think you do Mistake a little Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother I dare rely upon it that I am Right it was so declared by all the Judges Mr. Soll. Gen. The Puritans presented a Petition to that purpose and in it they said if it would not be granted they would come with a Great Number Mr. Iust. Powel Ay there it is Mr. Iust. Allybone I tell you Mr. Sollicitor the Resolution of the Judges is That such a Petition is next Door to Treason a very Great Misdemeanour Mr. Iust. Powel They accompanying it with Threats of the Peoples being Discontented Mr. Iust. Allybone As I remember it is in the Second Part of the Folio 35 or 37 where the Resolution of the Judges is That to frame a Petition to the King to put the Penal Laws in Execution is next Door to Treason for say they no Man ought to intermeddle with Matters of Government without leave of the Government Mr. Serj. Pemberton That was a Petition against the Penal Laws Mr. Iust. Allybone Then I am quite Mistaken indeed in case it be so Mr. Serj. Trinder That is not Material at all which it was Mr. Pollixfen They there threatned unless their Request were granted several Thousands of the King's Subjects would be Discontented Mr. Iust. Powel That is the Reason of that Judgment I affirm it Mr. Iust. Allybone But then I 'll tell you Brother again what is said in that Case that you hinted at and put Mr. Sollicitor in mind of For any Man to raise a Report that the King will or will not permit a Toleration if either of these be disagreeable to the People whether he may or may not It is against Law for we are not to measure things from any Truth they have in themselves but from that Aspect they have upon the Government for there may be every Tittle of a Libel true and yet it may be a Libel still So that I put no great Stress upon that Objection That the Matter of it is not False and for Sedition it is that which every Libel carries in it self and as every Trespass implies Vi Armis so every Libel against the Government carries in it Sedition and all the other Epithets that are in the Information This is my Opinion as to the Law in General I will not Debate the Prerogatives of the King nor the Priviledges of the Subject but as this Fact is I think these Venerable Bishops did meddle with that which did not belong to them they took upon them in a Petitionary way to contradict the Actual Exercise of the Government which I think no private particular Persons or single Body may do L. Ch. Iust. Gentlemen of the Jury Have you a Mind to Drink before you go Iury. Yes my Lord if you please Wine was sent for for the Iury. Iury-man My Lord we humbly pray that your Lordship would be pleased to let us have the Papers that have been given in Evidence L. Ch. Iust. What is that you would have Sir Mr. Soll. Gen. He desires this my Lord That you would be pleased to direct that the Jury may have the use of such Writings and Statute Books as may be Necessary for them to make use of L. Ch. Iust. The Statute Book they shall have Mr. Soll. Gen. But they can have no Papers but what are under Seal Mr. Serj. Levinz They may have them by Consent and they may have a Copy of the Information L. Ch. Iust. They shall have a Copy of the Information and the Declarations under Seal Mr. Pollixfen If they have those and the Lâ—…bel as they call it they will not need a Copy of the Information M. Attorn Gen. My Lord we pray that your Lordship would be pleased to ascertain what it is they shall have L. Ch. Iust. They shall have a Copy of the Information the Libel and the Declarations under the Great Seal Mr. Soll. Gen. But not the Votes of the House of Commons nor the Journals for
they are not Evidence L. Ch. Iust. No I don't intend they shall Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we pray they may have the whole Petition Mr. Iust. Holloway That is with the Direction and Prayer you mean. Mr. Attorn Gen. Yes with all our Hearts Then the Court arose and the Iury went together to Consider of their Verdict and stayed together all Night without Fire or Candle On Saturday the 30th Day of June Anno Dom. 1688. about Ten of the Clock in the Morning the Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops came again into the Court and immediately after the Iury were brought to the Bar. Sir Sam. Astry Cryer Take the Appearance of the Jury Sir Roger Langley Sir Rog. Langley Here. Cryer Vous avez c. And so all the rest were called and answered Then Proclamation for Silence was made Sir. Sam. Astry Gentlemen are you agreed on your Verdict Iury. Yes Sir Sam. Astry Who shall say for you Iury. Foreman Sir Sam. Astry Do you find the Defendants or any of them Guilty of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached or not Guilty Foreman NOT GUILTY Sir Sam. Astry Then hearken to your Verdict as the Court hath Recorded it You say the Defendants and every of them are NOT GUILTY of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached and so you say all Iury. Yes At which there were several great Shouts in the Court and throughout the Hall. Mr. Sollicitor General taking Notice of some Persons in Court that Shouted moved very earnestly that they might be committed whereupon a Gentleman of Grays Inn was laid hold on but was soon after Discharged And after the Shouting was over the Lord Chief Iustice reproving the Gentleman said L. Ch. Iust. Sir I am as glad as you can be that my Lords the Bishops are acquitted but your Manner of rejoycing here in Court is Indecent you might rejoyce in your Chamber or elsewhere and not here Then speaking to Mr. Attorney he said Have you any thing more to say to my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attorney Mr. Attorn Gen. No my Lord. Then the Court arose and the Bishops went away FINIS ADVERTISEMENT There will be shortly Published Poems on several Occasions By Charles Cotton Esq Printed for T. Basset W. Hensman and T. Fox Here the Lord Chief Justice speaking aside said L. C. Just. I must not suffer this they intend to dispute the King's Power of suspending Laws Mr. Just. Powel My Lord they must necessarily fall upon that Point for if the King hath no such Power as clearly 〈◊〉 hath not in my Iudgment the natural Consequence will be that this Petition is no diminution of the King 's Regal Power and so not seditious or libellous L. C. Just. Brother I know you are full of that Doctrine but however my Lords the Bishops shall have no occasion to say that I deny to hear their Counsel Brother you shall have your Will for once I will hear them let them talk till they are weary Mr. Just. Powel I desire no greater liberty to be granted them than what in Iustice the Court ought to grant that is to hear them in defence of their Clients * Here Mr. Iust. Powel speaking to the Lord Chief Iustice Mr. I. Pow. My Lord this is wide Mr. Sollicitor would impose upon us let him make out if he can that the King has such a Power and Answer the Objections made by the Defendants Councel L. Ch. Iust. Brother impose upon us he shall not impose upon me I know not what he may upon you for my part I do not believe one word he sayâ—… * Here there was a great Hissing
cannot forbear observing in the first Place somewhat that these Gentlemen have offered at who are now inveighing against the heat of the Times when a great part of that heat we know who were the Inflamers of but what is all this to the purpose The Question is barely this Whether when a Man is brought in Custody into this Court and Charged with an Information he shall not by the Course of the Court be compelled to Plead presently Sir Robert Sawyer To Indictments for Treason and Felony he shall be Compelled to Plead presently but not to an Information for Misdemeanours Mr. Just. Powel It seems to me very hard he should Mr. Attor Gen. Sir there are many things that seem hard in Law but yet when all is done the Judges cannot alter the Law 't is a hard Case that a Man that is tryed for his Life for Treason or Felony cannot have a Copy of his Indictment cannot have Council cannot have his Witnesses sworn but this has been long practiced and the usage is grown to a Law and from time to time it hath been so taken for Law it cannot be altered without a new Law made as it hath been heretofore so it must be now till a greater Authority alter it and so as to the Case here at present if it were a new Case and it was the first Instance I must Confess I think I should not press it but if this be the Constant Practice of the Court and if these Gentlemen that now oppose it some of them Ministerially some of them Judicially have themselves Established this Practice they have no reason to wonder that we follow them in it we do not blame them for what they do now for Men when they are of Council may be permitted to argue for their Client contrary to their former Opinions but if these things by their procurement have done thus before surely without Offence we may pray the like may be gone now 'T is our duty on behalf of the King to desire that he may have Right done him as well as they on the behalf of my Lords the Bishops and for the usage to Cite Precedents were endless especially of late times and these Gentlemen know them all very well for they were some of them Parties to them themselves and we can do no more nor need than to put them in mind of their own doings whether it was so before their time or not it concerns them to make out and retract their own Errors but in our observation if ever this was pressed or insisted upon on the Kings behalf this Course has always been persued Sir Robert Sawyer For a Precedent my Lord there is the Case of my Lord Hollis where there was given time after time Mr. Soll. Gen. That was only time to argue the Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Just. Powel Mr. Solli have you ever known it contested and upon Debate so Ruled in an Information for a Misdemeanour as this Case is Mr. Sol. Gen. If you please to ask Sir Samuel Astry he will inform you how the Course has been L. C. Iust. What say you Sir Samuel Astry Sir Sam. Astry My Lord when I came into this Place there was an Ancient Gentleman that had been long a Clerk in the Office. L. C. Iust. How many years is it since you came into this Office Sir Sam. Astry About a dozen years I think my Lord and he sat in this place where Mr. Harcourt does now he was always accounted a Loyal Honest and Intelligent Man that is Mr. Waterhouse who is now alive and when I came into my Office I took my Instructions in a great measure from him and asked him what the Course of the Court was in such Cases which I my self did not understand for tho' I had been an Attorney Twenty years yet it was on the other side the Civil side and tho' I knew some things of my own knowledge yet I did not so well know the whole practice of the Court and particularly I asked him what was the Course of the Court in this Case that is now in Question and he told me that in all his time and experience if a Man appears upon a Recognizance or was a Person in Custody or appeared in propria persona as a person Priviledged he ought to Plead at the first instance and according to that practice when Sir Robert Sawyer was Attorney-General it was the constant practice and I am sure he knows it is no new thing Sir Rob. Saw. But upon what Informations Sir Samuel Astry were they Informations upon Misdemeanors Sir Sam. Astry Yes several Sir Rob. Saw. But was there not Process taken out first to call the Party in Sir Sam. Astry Yes where Process was never taken out Mr. Att. Gen. For how long time is this that you speak of your own knowledge Sir Samuel Sir Sam. Astry About a dozen years Mr. Serj. Pemb. It was never done till very lately but after the Party was in Contempt for not appearing Mr. Sol. Gen. I would ask you Sir Samuel Astry one Question Was the usual Process of Subpoena first taken out for Mr. Serjeant Pemberton says it was do you find any Warrant for such a difference as that Mr. Serj. Pemb. Do you find any such Case as this is Mr. Sol. Gen. Nay pray Mr. Serjeant give us your favour and let us ask our Questions according to your own Doctrine How do you find the Practice to have been as to that distinction they have made Sir Sam. Astry Sir I would be very loath to inlarge the Precedents of the Crown Office furthar than the truth is I tell you whence I took my Instructions from Mr. Waterhouse who was an Ancient Clerk in the Office he has been in that Office Sixty years and the Instructions I took from him were that this was the Practice all his time and it has been asserted all my time it has been often contested I confess and Mr. Pollixfen has always opposed it and moved against it but it has been always ruled against him I know it was against his Judgment but the Court always over-ruled it Sir Rob. Saw. Sir Samuel Astry can you give any one Precedent before you came into this Office Sir Sam. Astry Sir I can go no farther than this that I have told you what Information I received from him Sir Rob. Saw. What is all this but a Certificate from Mr. Waterhouse L. C. Iust. We can be informed no otherways than by Certificate from the old Clerks of the Office. Mr. Serj. Pemb. Alas he is a Child and not fit to do any thing Mr. Pollixf We all know Mr. Waterhouse very well he is a very weak Man and always was so and there is no depending upon any thing that he says Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray my Lord will you hear us a little for the King. The Bishop of Peterborough whispering with Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Sollicitor said to him My Lord you had