Grace The Fifth settles The Marshal's Fee in Ireland Perhaps you will say these Officers take more than their Fees therefore the Statute is no Act of Parliament Very probable they do that is a general Distemper where Offices have Fees annexed to them and yet it may be an Act of Parliament still The Sixth Chapter its Title is In what Cases the Justices of Ireland may grant Pardon of Felony and where not The Title of the Seventh Chapter is By what Seal Writs in Ireland shall be Sealed The Eighth and last is Adjournment of Assizes in Ireland Are these Parts of the Statute observed in Ireland or no I ask you this because if any one part is received the whole is received Obedience given to any part of this Law acknowledges the Jurisdiction of the Law-makers and you insist only on the First Chapter as if the rest were no part of the Law That this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is really in it self no Act of Parliament but meerly an Ordinance of the King and his Privy-Council in England I have already given you my Definition what an Act of Parliament is and if this be no more than an Order of the King and his Privy-Council I must be of your Mind Let us therefore enquire farther into this matter you say it appears to be no otherwise as well from the Preamble of the said Ordinance as from the Observation likewise I assure you if this Proof hath not more weight in it than the other I shall think it an Act of Parliament still Let us therefore see what the Preamble is which I find to be this Edward by the Grace of God King of England Lord of Ireland Duke of Aquitain to all those who shall see or hear these Letters doth send Salutation Know you That for the Amendment of the Government of our Realm of Ireland and for the Peace and Tranquillity of our People of the same Land at Nottingham the Octaves of St. Martin in the Seventeenth Year of our Reign by the assent of our Council there being the points hereafter mentioned be made and agreed upon to the intent that they may be firmly observed in the same Realm Where please to note that the Words are not by assent of our Privy-Council but of our Council by which name the Parliament of England is often called It would be endless to give and account of the different Stiles under which Acts of Parliament past in those Days sometimes in the Name of the King only sometimes of the King and Great Men sometimes of the King and his Council sometimes of the King and his Common Council and sometimes of neither as he who will be at the trouble to inspect our Statute Books may see I will give some Instances instead of many The great Charters are only in the King's Name Henry by the Grace of God King of England c. and so Edward by the Grace of God King of England c. The Statute in the Twentieth of Henry III. made at Merton hath this Preamble It was provided in the Court of our Sovereign Lord the King holden at Merton on Wednesday the morrow after the Feast of St. Vincent the Twentieth Year of the Reign of King Henry the Son of King John before William Archbishop of Canterbury and other his Bishops and Suffragans and before the greater part of the Earls and Barons of England there being assembled for the Coronation of the said King and Helianor the Queen about which they were all called where it was treated for the Commonwealth of the Realm upon the Articles under-written Thus it was provided and granted as well of the aforesaid Archbishop Bishops Earls and Barons as of the King himself and others By which it appears that in those Days when the Great Men who were the Barons or Freeholders of England were called together they made Laws and did not so much regard the Stile as that they were made by a general Consent The Statute 51 Henry 3. Sect. 1. begins thus The King to whom all these Presents shall come greeting We have seen certain Ordinances c. Stat. 5. of the same Year begins thus The King commandeth that all manner of Bailiffs Sheriffs c. Stat. 6. of the same Year begins thus If a Baker or a Brewer be Convict because he hath not c. The Preamble of the Statutes 52 Henry 3. made at Marlbridge 18. November 1267. runs thus In the Year of Grace One thousand two hundred sixty seven the Fifty-second Year of the Reign of King Henry Son of King John in the Utas of St. Martin the said King providing for the better Estate of this Realm of England and for the more speedy Ministration of Justice as belongeth to the Office of a King the more discreet Men of the Realm being called together as well of the Higher as of the Lower Estate It was provided agreed and ordained That whereas the Realm of England of late had been disquieted with manifold Troubles and Dissentions for Reformation whereof Statutes and Laws be right necessary whereby the Peace and Tranquility of the People must be observed wherein the King intending to devise convenient Remedy hath made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes underwritten which he willeth for ever to be observed firmly and inviolably of all his Subjects as well High as Low The Preamble to the Statutes made the Third of Edward I. runs thus These be the Acts of King Edward Son to King Henry made at Westminster at his Parliament General after his Coronation on the Monday of Easter Utas the Third Year of his Reign by his Council and by the Assent of Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm being thither Summon'd because our Lord the King had great Zeal and Desire to redress the State of the Realm in such things as required Amendment for the Common Profit of Holy Church and of the Realm and because the State of Holy Church hath been evilly kept c. the King hath Ordained and Established these Acts under-written which he intendeth to be necessary and profitable to the whole Realm The Preamble to the Statute made the Fourth of Edward the First call'd the Statute of Bigamy runs thus In the Presence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the King's Council the Constitutions under-written were recited and after heard and published before the King and his Council Forasmuch as all the King's Council as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in Writing for a perpetual Memory and that they should be stedfastly observed The Preamble to the Statutes made at Gloucester 6 Edw. 1. runs thus For the great Mischiefs Damages and Disherisons that the People of the Realm of England have heretofore suffer'd through default of the Law that fail'd in divers Cases within the same Realm Our Sovereign Lord the King for the amendment of the Land c. hath provided and
established these Acts under-written willing and commanding that from henceforth they be firmly observed within this Realm The Preamble of the Statute of Westminster made the 13th of Edward I. runs thus Whereas of late our Lord the King in the Quinzim of St. John Baptist the Sixth Year of his Reign calling together the Prelates Earls Barons and his Council at Gloucester and considering that divers of this Realm c. ordain'd certain Statutes right necessary and profitable for his Realm whereby the People of England and Ireland being Subjects unto his Power have obtain'd more speedy Justice c. Our Lord the King in his Parliament after the Feast of Easter holden the 13th Year of his Reign at Westminster caused many Oppressions of the People and Defaults of the Laws for the accomplishment of the said Statutes of Gloucester to be rehearsed and thereupon did provide certain Acts as shall appear here following Here I cannot but observe That the King and Parliament of England thought Ireland a part of this Realm and subject to their Legislative Power and that it was concerned in the Statutes of Gloucester before-mentioned though not named therein Now whose Judgement shall we take the King and Parliament who lived in those Days or yours Four hundred Years afterwards I shall only mention one more which is in the 21 Edward 1. we find there a Statute made De iis qui ponendi sunt in Assisis and at the end thereof I find this Sect. 6. Rex c. quia ad communem utilitat◠〈◊〉 â—opuli nostri Regni de communi Concilio ejusdem Regni Statuerimus c. Now all these are accounted Statutes or Acts of Parliament and so called in the Books which shows that it is not the Name but the Modus of passing them which is the essential part of a Statute Law Besides if you please to peruse your own Quotations p. 48 and 49. you there acknowledge the Parliament to be called Generale Concilium Commune Concilium Great Council or Parliament I now come to your last Argument against this Statute p. 89. That King Edward I. held no Parliament in the 17th Year of his Reign This seems very doubtful even to your self for it follows If this were a Parliament this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is the only Act thereof that is extant and may not that be Henry III. granted the Magna Charta in the Ninth Year of his Reign you allow this to be a Statute or Act of Parliament and yet we do not find any other Law past that Year and but one single Act in his Fourteenth Year One in the Ninth of Edward I. and many other Instances may be made of this nature But after all I do not see how the stress of the Matter lies on this Foundation suppose this to be no Act of Parliament as you say what then shall we want Antient Precedents which name Ireland What think you of the Statute of Merchants which I have mentioned before 13 Edw. 1. this was made before that of the Seventeenth Year which you so much contend about and Ireland is expresly named in that Statute The Sum is this you say it is not a Statute I say it is and the Books call it so I have also given my Reasons why I think it so not that I think it material to our Debate but because if Statutes should be rejected for the Reasons you reject this I fear a great part of our old Acts of Parliament and even Magna Charta it self must be expunged out of the Statute Book I come now to your third Antient Precedent the Staple Act made in the Second of Henry VI. Cap. 4. This is expired so I find only the Title in the Statute Book which is this All Merchandizes of the Staple passing out of England Wales and Ireland shall be carried to Calice as long as the Staple is at Calice The Reason you give why this Law doth not bind Ireland is grounded on the Opinion of the Judges of England whereof you give this account p. 90. That by the Year Book of the Second of Richard III. it doth appear that the Merchants of Waterford having Ship'd off some Wool and consign'd it to Sluce in Flanders the Ship by stress of Weather put into Calice and Sir Thomas Thwaits Treasurer there seized the said Wool as forfeited whereupon a Suit was commenced between the said Merchants and him which was brought before all the Judges of England into the Exchequer-Chamber where the Questions were two one of which was Whither this Staple Act binds Ireland I have Abbreviated what you Write but I think I have done it fairly to which the Judges gave this Answer p. 91. Quod terra Hibernia inter se habent Parliament ' omni modo Cur prout in Angl. per Idem Parliament ' faciunt Leges mutant Leges non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia quia non hic habent Milites Parliamenti c. But in p. 92. you confess from the Year Books of 1 Henry 7. That when the aforesaid Case came a second time under the Consideration of the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber we find it Reported thus Hussy the Chief Justice said That the Statutes made in England shall Bind those of Ireland which was not much gainsaid by the other Judges notwithstanding that some of them were of a contrary Opinion the last Term in his Absence What a strange Argument is this The Judges say you gave their Opinion who were those Judges You name only Hussy and he was against it But you say all the Judges of England in the former Term it could not be all because Hussy was not there and afterwards he gave his Opinion quite contrary And as you confess p. 92. all the Judges submitted to it so that here is the Judges Opinion at one time against their Opinion at another and will you bring this to overthrow the Authority of the Legislative Power of England But suppose Hussy and the rest of the Judges had agreed with the first Opinion what would you draw from this Have the Judges Power to question the Parliament in the Exercise of their Legislative Authority I know they are often advised with in the making of an Act but when it is once past I presume their business is to give their Judgments according to it or to Explain it where the Sence is doubtful but not to go against the express Words of an Act much less to question the Parliaments Power to make it Your second Argument against this Statute's binding Ireland is a Note in a Book made by Brook in Abridging this Case That Ireland is a Kingdom of it self and hath Parliaments of its own p. 92. Certainly you have very light Thoughts of Parliaments if you think that Notes in Books should abridge their Power The third is a Comment of your own on the whole p. 93. wherein you draw a Comparison of Ireland with Scotland and conclude That
prove that either they did not and then to show when they first Usurp'd it or that it was an Usurpation from the Beginning therefore your first second and third general Heads seeming to be of no great Moment in this Dispute I shall say the less to them your fourth fifth and sixth seem more to relate to the matter before us Under the first of these speaking of Henry II. you say Page 11 and 12. That all the Archbishops Bishops and Abbots of Ireland came to the King of England and received him for King and Lord of Ireland swearing Fealty to him and his Heirs for ever the Kings also and Princes of Ireland did in like manner receive Henry King of England for Lord of Ireland and became his Men and did him Homage and swore Fealty to him and his Heirs against all Men and he received Letters from them with their Seals Pendent in manner of Charters confirming the Kingdom of Ireland to him and his Heirs and testifying That they in Ireland had ordained him and his Heirs to be their King and Lord of Ireland for ever This was Anno 1173. Now either this Resignation they made to him was Absolute or Limited if the latter I conceive it must be exprest in those Charters you mention and it had very much concerned your Argument to have got them perused if any there are and to have shewed how far the Parliaments of England have broke through those Original Compacts And herein I think I have granted as much as you desire in your second Head it seems to me all one as to the present Case whether Henry II. be considered Page 13. as Conquestor Hiberniae or as Dominus Hiâ—erniae I shall draw no Arguments from either a Submission you have acknowledged You say Page 15. That all came in peaceably and had large Concessions made them of the like Laws and Liberties with the People of England here again it would have been necessary for you to have produced some of those Concessions that you might have made it appear to the Parliament of England what they were not that I do make any Demur to the freedom of the People of Ireland I take them to be so both in their Lives Liberties and Properties as much and as far as any People in England and I take them to be the more so because they are subject to an English Parliament and so have all the Priviledges of an English People which the Subjects of Scotland have not I take every Subject of the Kingdom of England to be Born Free and to carry this Charter of his Freedom about him let him remove where he will within the Dominions of England and that he cannot be divested thereof but by the Laws of this Land made by his Representatives in Parliament in the Election whereof he either hath or may have a Voice if he qualifies himself as those Laws doe direct This I willingly grant because I would not be thought to argue against the Liberty and Property of English Men wherever they are settled But still I think it had been necessary for you to have produced a Transcript of those Concessions for either they were made or they were not if they were you live in a Kingdom whose Interest it was to preserve them and they must give great light into the present Controversy if none appears how do you know what those Concessions were I insist the more on this because you say they had Concessions of the like Laws and Liberties with the People of England now whether by this you mean the same Laws and Liberties or such as were very like them I am in the dark if the latter they must be either more or less they cannot be more for I take the People of England to be as free as any People in the Universe if they were less then I grant you more then you desire for I take the People of Ireland to stand on the same footing with the People of England and yet I am afraid you are not content therefore I should gladly see a Transcript of those Concessions because I am apt to think we differ in this I say they were to be subject to all the Laws of England in general you exempt them from the Statute-Laws but I expect to find you fuller on this in your Fourth Particular As to your third Particular What Title Conquest gives by the Laws of Nature and Reason Page 18. I shall say little to it supposing it hath no relation to this Controversy for I do grant that the People of Ireland are a free People and that they are as you say Page 20. The Progeny of the English and Britains that from time to time went over into that Kingdom I add who before they went hence were subject to the Statute Laws of England and then the Question will be what were those Concessions that discharged them from rendring Obedience to the Legislative Power of this Kingdom This brings me to your Fourth Particular pag. 28. What Concessions and Grants have been from time to time made to the People of Ireland But the latter part of that Particular pag. 5. By what Degrees the English Form of Government and the English Statute Laws came to be received in Ireland which you say was wholly owing to the Consent of the People and Parliament of Ireland I deny and you are to prove and I conceive this cannot better be done than by producing some Concessions or Grants whereby they are discharged by the Legislative Power of England from the Obedience they owed and always paid to the Statute Laws of this Kingdom before they removed into Ireland And now we are arrived at the true State of the Controversy you suppose that the People of Ireland cannot pay Obedience to the Statute Laws of this Kingdom except they subject themselves to a State of Bondage and I believe they ought to do it especially when those Laws are designed to bind them and that this consists with the State of Liberty and Freedom I will therefore examin what you say on this Fourth Particular The First Precedent you produce is only an Account that Matth. Paris Historiographer to King Henry III. gives who by the way please to note wrote above Sixty Years after King Henry II. took Possession of Ireland That Henry the Second a little before he left Ireland in a Publick Assembly and Council of the Irish at Lismore did cause the Irish to receive and swear to be governed by the Laws of England pag. 28. I desire to know whether the Statute Laws were then part of the Laws of England If they were which I suppose you will not deny for you confess Parliaments to be before that time pag. 39. then please to inform me Whether the People of Ireland consented to the making those Laws If not by your own Argument here is the Slavery which you so much fear and exclaim against through your whole Book introduced on them in the
Civil and Ecclesiastical State were setled there Regiae sublimatis authoritate Solely by the King's Authority and their own good Wills as the Irish Statute 11 Eliz. Cap. 1. expresses it What the Irish Statutes express I think hath no great Weight in this Debate the Question is by what Power the People of Ireland for so I will now call them threw off that Subjection they once owed to the Legislative Power of England If they think their bare Denial is enough to warrant them free from such a Subjection the People of England may expect the like on the same Argument if because they are not present at our Elections I will answer that in the following Discourse We proceed now to pag. 39. To see â—â— what farther Degrees the Government of Ireland grew up conformable to that of England which are your own Words you say that about the twenty third year of Henry II. which was within five years after his return from Ireland he created his younger Son John King of Ireland at a Parliament held at Oxford and from this you would infer Page 40. That by this Donation of the Kingdom of Ireland to King John Ireland was most eminently set apart again as a separate and distinct Kingdom by it self from the Kingdom of England but you do not set forth that Grant and our Statute-Books are not so old this had been necessary for many reasons you say Page 40. That by this Donation King John made divers Grants and Chartes to his Subjects of Ireland does this alone shew a Regal Authority and might it not have been done by a Lord-Deputy still subject to the Crown of England Pray let me ask you was he at his return to England which you say was a little after his first going over received here by his Father as a Brother-King and did he take Precedence of his elder Brother Richard 'T is much this young King had not punished his Subjects of Ireland for being angry at his deriding their long Beards at which you say they took such Offence that they departed in much Discontent I say 't is much he had not punished their Undutifulness but rather chose to come away in a Pet and thereby to abdicate his new Kingdom for you do not shew that he left the Administration of the Government with any one else All that can be said in his Defence is that he was young about Twelve Years old pag. 39 and perhaps the obstinate Humour which the Barons of England afterwards found in him might grow up with him and become an Infirmity of Age and during King John's being in England did the Kingdom of Ireland govern its self For if his Father King Henry the Second sent over any other to succeed him all your Argument is lost But after all I find his granting Charters is not of such moment as to prove him a King for this he did to the City of Bristol whilst he was Earl of Moreton which I believe was long after the time you mention and I find by the exemplification of that Charter that his Son King Henry the Third in his Inspeximus confirms it as granted by his Father King John when he was Earl of Moreton without mentioning that he was then also King of Ireland and Princes do not use to abate any thing of their Titles especially when they are of so great Importance as this No body doth believe that King John whilst Earl of Moreton had such a Royal Authority in Bristol as to discharge it from an obediential Subjection to the Legislative Power of England The Statute Primo G. M. Cap. 9. ss 2. saith Ireland is annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of England as well by the Laws of this Kingdom as those of Ireland and I am sure there is a great deal of difference between being part of the Imperial Crown of England as Wales is and a separate Kingdom as Scotland is I find likewise that Henry the Third never wrote himself more than Lord of Ireland and 't is strange if Ireland was established a separate Kingdom in John Earl of Moreton and his Heirs that the Title had not been continued in his Son and how comes it to pass that we have ever since been at the Charge of supporting that Kingdom with our Treasure without keeping a separate Account of our Expences laid out on it which doubtless we should have done had we thought it a separate Kingdom But to proceed on searching Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle I cannot find that he takes any Notice of King Henry IId's sending over his Son John about the Twenty Third Year of his Reign as you say Page 39. which 't is much he should omit seeing it was on so memorable an Occasion as his being made King of a separate Kingdom by his Father in a Parliament at Oxford but he saith that in the Thirty First Year of his Reign he sent his Son John over to Ireland to be Governour there and afterwards in the Reign of Richard I. Son to Henry II. and Brother to this John he speaking of the great Kindnesses shewed by the said King Richard I. to his Brother John hath these Words To whom he made appear how much the Bounty of a Brother was better than the Hardnesses of a Father and afterwards he names the several Earldoms which he conferred on him viz. Cornwall Dorset Somerset Nottingham Darby and Lancaster then treating of Affairs in England during the King's Absence on his Voyage to the Holy Land saith he left William Longshamp Bishop of Ely in chief Place of Authority at which his Brother was disgusted whom he calls there Duke John and in another Place he says that the King after his Return from the Holy Land took from him all the great Possessions he had given him and afterwards the said John submitted himself to the King his Brother Now does this agree with the Honour and Dignity of a King who had a separate Kingdom or were the Grants of those several Earldoms from his Brother which you see were liable to be taken away again at the King's Pleasure to be accounted a greater Largess than the Bounty of his Father if he had made him King of a separate Kingdom and setled it in Parliament as you affirm Besides if any such thing was done by Henry II. in the Twenty Third Year of his Reign it appears if Baker be in the right that that Grant was recalled for he saith plainly that he sent him over in his One and Thirtieth Year to be Governor of Ireland How indeed saith to be Lord of Ireland but neither of them mention any thing of what was done in the Parliament at Oxford Well suppose it to be Dominus Hiberniae on which Word you seem to build so much pag. 40 41. Is this Title any thing greater than Lord Lieutenant or Lord Justice which hath for ought I can perceive been used ever since Does a Title granted in a Patent from the King
If not let me ask you Why should the Laws made by the Parliament of England have more force in Ireland than those made in Scotland There can be no other reason given for it but this That Ireland is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England but is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of Scotland Had you told us what Acts of Parliament these were we might have judged whether they were Declaratory or no but since you have omitted that I think the Answer I have given sufficient P. 77. You proceed to consider the Objections and Difficulties that are moved against this your Proposition that the English Laws become passable in Ireland only by the Consent of the People and Parliament thereof these you say arise from Precedents and Passages in your own Law Books that seem to prove the contrary which shews that as Cocksure as you are in this Particular it hath been disputed and doubted by your own Lawyers and in your own Parliaments too if I take the matter right The first you mention is in p. 78. you say That in the Irish Act concerning Rape passed Anno 8 Edvardi 4. 't is expressed that a doubt was conceived whether the English Statute of the Sixth of Richard the Second Chap. 6. ought to be of Force in Ireland without the Confirmation thereof in the Parliament of Ireland all the use I shall make of this is that your Parliaments then doubted this thing Your second Objection is p. 80. That though perhaps such Acts of Parliament in England which do not name Ireland shall not be construed to bind Ireland yet all such English Statutes as mention Ireland either by the general Words of his Majesty's Dominions or by particularly naming of Ireland are and shall be of force in this Kingdom These are your Words and This you say was a Doctrine first broached directly by William Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's-Bench in England in the First Year of Henry VIIth and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cooke Pray Sir do you speak in earnest Was this Doctrine never broach'd before the Reign of Henry the VIIth What think you of the several Acts of Parliament made in the several Kings Reigns since Henry the Third down to Henry the Seventh in some whereof they mention Ireland in others they do not do you not believe those several Parliaments thought there was some difference in those Acts But when the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and Sir Edward Cook after him both Persons of great Station in the Law broach'd this Opinion what was done in the Parliament of Ireland thereon Did they ever by any publick Act declare these Oracles of the Law to be in the wrong I do not find by any thing you say that they did and do believe you would not have let such an Argument have lain asleep if you could have brought it therefore I conclude they did not but on the contrary it doth appear that all Laws of that Nature have ever since been observed and obeyed in Ireland and many of them of much later Dates and now I wonder you should come to dispute it by your private Opinion One hundred and fifty Years after the Death of Hussy when in all this time the Body of Ireland hath not undertaken it But I will examine your Arguments against this The first is That the King and his Privy-Council in England have often transmitted into Ireland to be passed into Laws there English Statutes wherein the general Words Of all His Majesty's Dominions or Subjects were comprehended from whence you conclude that they were of a contrary Opinion p. 81 82. Suppose this to be so the most you can conclude from it is that it obliquely shews the King and Privy-Councils Opinion and doth not the Parliaments passing such Acts as well shew the Opinion of the Legislative Power of England But what if the King and Privy-Council of England do as you say actum agere shall this make the Parliaments Intentions in making those Laws void No certainly no more than the Parliament of Ireland's confirming them shall prove they were not binding before for whither the Parliament of Ireland accept or refuse those Laws that are made by the Parliament of England with intention to bind Ireland they are never the more or less binding there P. 84. You proceed and tell us You see no more reason for binding Ireland by the English Laws under the general Words Of all His Majesty's Dominions or Subjects than there is for binding Scotland by the same Truly Sir I believe you else I should wonder to have seen you taking so much Pains But because I am of a different Opinion let me consider this Matter with you Ireland is by several Laws made both in this Kingdom and in that annexed and joined to the Imperial Crown of England but Scotland tho' it has been often sought for never yet obtained that favour Ireland you confess submitted it self to King Henry the Second and thereby became at first annexed to the Crown of England one of the Terms of which Submission was That it should be govern'd by the English Laws whereas Scotland was united to it in the Person of King James and since that by its voluntary Recognition of King William and Queen Mary still keeping its own Laws and leaving a possibility of its becoming a separate Kingdom again which Ireland never can be The People of Ireland I mean the English and Britains which you say p. 20. are a Thousand for One of the antient Irish were once subject to the Legislative Power of England which the People of Scotland never were but always a separate Kingdom The People in Ireland have all the Privileges of English Men and thereby under the easiest Government in Europe which the People in Scotland have not whilst they remain in that Kingdom The People in Ireland are governed by the Common Laws of England one part whereof is That thore Laws may be inlarged abridged or altered by the Parliament of England but the People in Scotland are and ever were governed by their own Laws Ireland is mentioned in several of our Statutes as part of the Kingdom of England and joined with Wales as a dependant thereon which Scotland never was thought to be viz. 27 Edward III. Sess 2. in the Preamble of that Statute are these Words Sect. 2. For the Damage which hath notoriously come as well to us and the Great Men as to the People of our Realm of England and of our Lands of Wales and Ireland Cap. 1. it goes on First that the Staple of Wools c. within our said Realm and Lands Cap. 2. Item to replenish the said Realm and Lands with Money and Plate c. Cap. 3. Item we Will and Grant that all Merchants c. through our Realm and Lands Cap. 4. Item for as much as no Staple can be profitable for us and for our Realm and Lands Cap. 7.
35. This Ordinance and Act the King willeth to be observed from henceforth through his Realm of England and Ireland What think you of the Statutes made at Westminster 11 Edw. 3. Anno 1337. which I recited before where cap. 3. all Foreign Clothes are prohibited to be brought into Ireland and cap. 5. Clothworkers are invited to settle in Ireland and are encouraged thereto by Franchises promised them What think you of the Statute of the Staple mentioned before made 27 Edw. 3. Anno 1353 In the Preamble of which Statute Ireland is mentioned and cap. 1. bears this Title Where the Staple for England Wales and Ireland shall be kept whether Merchandizes of the Staple shall be carried and what Customs shall be paid for them Which Chapter shews That the Parliament of England had Power of raising Money by laying Customs on Commodities in Ireland At this Sessions were made Twenty eight Acts or Chapters call them which you will and all point at Ireland But I cannot pass by this last Statute of 27 Edw. 3. without making observation on its Preamble which I here give you verbatim Edward by the Grace of God c. To our Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Ministers and other our faithful People to whom these present Letters shall come greeting Whereas good deliberation had with the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and great Men of the Counties that is to say of every County one for all the County and of the Commons of our Cities and Boroughs of our Realm of England summoned to our great Council holden at Westminster the Monday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle the 27th Year of our Reign of England and of France the 14th For the damage that hath notoriously come as well to us and to our great Men as to our People of our Realm of England and of our Lands of Wales and Ireland because that the Staple of Woolls Leather and Wool-fells of our said Realm and Land have been holden out of our said Realm and Lands and also for the great Profits which should come to the said Realm and Lands if the Staple were holden within the same and not elsewhere to the Honour of God and in Relief of our Realm and Lands aforesaid and to eschew the Perils that might happen of the contrary in time to come by the Counsel and common Consent of the said Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons Knights and Commons aforesaid we have ordained and established the things under written Here the King is called King of England and France without mentioning Ireland but we find the Laws made in that Sessions to be binding to his Lands of Wales and Ireland as I have before observed The King also takes notice of the Summons sent to the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and great Men of the Counties and Commons of Cities and Boroughs of his Realm of England summoned to his great Councel holden at Westminster c. without mentioning any thing of Ireland though it was bound by the Laws made in that Sessions By all which it doth appear to me That Ireland was lookt on in those days as an Appendix to the Kingdom of England all one as Wales and yet the Laws of that Sessions were received in Ireland Why did not the Parliament of Ireland if there was then any make an early Protestation against this irregular Proceeding and condemn it as an Encroachment on their Priviledges which had been much better then for you to undertake this Task three hundred and fifty years after But to proceed What think you of the Statute made at Westminster 34 Edw. 3. Anno 1360 the Preamble is These be the things which our Lord the King the Prelates Lords and Commons have ordained in this present Parliament holden at Westminster the Sunday next before the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul to be holden and openly published through the Realm and yet the Title of cap. 17. is Merchandize may be carried into and brought out of Ireland By which it appears That the Parliament of England made Laws to regulate the Trade of Ireland in those early days and that the Bill relating to the Woollen Manufactures now depending before the present Parliament is not a Modern Instance of that Power Cap. 18. of that Sessions hath this Title They which have Lands in Ireland may carry their Goods thither and bring them again From both which I make this observation That the Preamble saith These are to be holden and published openly thorough the Realm and the 17th and 18th Chapters shew that Ireland is part of that Realm In the 4th of Henry 5. cap. 6. an Act was made but is now Ob so I find nothing but its Title in the Statute Book which is this If any Archbishop Bishop c. of Ireland Rebel to the King shall make collation of a Benifice to any Irish-man or bring any Irish-man to the Parliament to discover the â—ounsel of English-men to Rebels his Temporalities shall be seized until he hath made Fine to the King By which it doth appear That the Parliament of England took notice there was a Parliament in Ireland and made Laws to bind that Parliament All these Statutes bound Ireland and doubtless many more there are had I time to look after them but I mention these because they come within the compass of your old Precedents being before the Second of Henry 6. But before I speak to your old Precedents give me leave to mention one Statute more viz. 1 Hen. 6. cap. 3. which though I do not produce as a Precedent binding Ireland yet it will serve to show what opinion the Parliament of England had of Ireland in those days the words are these Forasmuch as divers Manslaughters Murders c. and divers other Offences now late have been done in divers Counties of the Realm of England by People born in the County of Ireland repairing to the Town of Oxford c. I will make no Paraphrase on them they are easie to be understood by any English Reader and this is a Modern Statute in respect to the time of Henry II. when you say Ireland was made a separate Kingdom and settled by him on his Son John in a Parliament at Oxon whereas this Parliament calls it a County Well then let us see what you say against these Ancient Precedents you have produced before we come to the Modern Instances as you call them These Statutes you say pag. 86. especially the two first meaning Statutum Hiberniae and Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae being made for Ireland as their titles import have given occasion to think that the Parliament of England have right to make Laws for Ireland without the consent of their chosen Representatives Surely every Body I think is of that Judgment that hath lookt into the matter no you dissent from it and for this gives several Reasons The first is pag. 86 87 88. which I am obliged here to transcribe The Statutum Hiberniae 14 Hen. 3. as
't is to be found in the Collection of English Statutes is plainly thus The Judges in Ireland conceiving a doubt concerning Inheritances devolved to Sisters or Coheirs viz. whether the younger Sisters ought to hold of the eldest Sister and do homage unto her for their Portions or of the chief Lord and do homage unto him therefore Girald Fitz-Maurice the then Lord Justice of Ireland dispatched four Knights to the King in England to bring a Certificate from thence of the practice used there and what was the Common Law of England in that Case whereupon Henry III. in this his Certificate or Rescript which is called Statutum Hiberniae merely informs the Justice what the Law and Custom was in England viz. That the Sisters ought to hold of the chief Lord and not of the eldest Sister And the close of it commands That the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this case be proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and be there observed Teste meipso apud Westminst 9 Febr. An. Reg. 14. From whence you infer That this Statute was no more then a Certificate of what the Common Law of England was in that case which Ireland by the original Compact was to be governed by And do you really speak your Thoughts herein Was it ever customary for the Judges to send to the King to expound Law to them and for the King by Certificates to direct them what they should give for Law I thought their Business had been to declare the Law impartially between the King and his Subjects and that if they doubted in any Points of the Common Law their Custom had been to advise one with another or with some other Learned Councel in the Law Is it to be thought the King knew Law better than his Judges I would not have you insist on this for the Honour of the Long Robe in Ireland But Sir there is more in this then perhaps at first you think for either this is a Statute Law and our Books call it so therefore in your favour I will believe it so or else the King had in those days an Absolute Power and Authority to impose on Ireland what Laws he thought fit For in the close of that Statute 't is said Therefore we command you That you cause the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this case to be proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and to be straitly kept and observed If all our Acts of Parliament which declare the Common Law of England shall be called Certificates pray what will become of Magna Charta Charta Foresta and most of our old Laws which were generally Declarations of what was the Common Law of this Kingdom and what were the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects before the making of them I come now to your second old Precedent the Statute called Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae made at Nottingham 17 Edw. 1. Anno 1288. This you say pag. 88. was certainly never received or of force in Ireland And you further say That this is manifest from the very first Article of that Ordinance which prohibits the Justice of Ireland or others the King's Officers there to purchase Lands in that Kingdom or within their respective Bailiwicks without the King's Licence on pain of Forfeitures But that this has ever been otherwise and that the Lords Justices and other Officers here have purchased Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure needs no proof to those who have the least knowledge of this Country Is this a fair Argument against the Validity of a Statute That it hath not had due obedience rendred to it If this be Law I am afraid many of our late good Statutes have run the same fate but I never knew till now That the Peoples Obedience was an Essential part in a Statute I thought the Consent of King Lords and Commons given to it in Parliament had been enough But we will not let this Matter fall without further examining into your Argument That Statute consists of eight Chapters let us see which of those Chapters have not been received and obeyed you only mention the first viz. That the Lords Justices of Ireland and other Officers have purchased Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure as you recite it pag. 88. But the words in the Statute are these That the Justices of Ireland nor any other Officers of ours of the same Realm so long as they are in our Service there shall purchase any Land or Tenement within the List or bound of their Bailiwicks without our special Licence Which makes a great Alteration in the Matter for they might purchase Lands or Tenements both before and after they were in their Offices But we will take the Words as you give them how does it appear that this Law was not observed You say p. 89. It does not appear by any Inquisition Office or Record that any one ever forfeited on that account It may be so perhaps it was never broke and then there was no need of an Inquisition or the King might grant Licence as that Law does direct to his Justices and other Officers to purchase Lands during their being in their Offices or they might purchase them without the List or Bounds of their Bailiwicks and then the Terms of the Law were complied with But I am apt to think you will carry this farther and say That in later Years the Justices of Ireland and other the King's Officers have not taken notice of this Law perhaps so and what would you draw from this How many old Laws have we in England that are obsolete and disregarded by Time which though they fitted the Circumstances of the Times they were made in yet are not proper for our Days Witness the Statutes against going Arm'd the Statutes about Bows and Arrows and many others which were and still remain Statutes till repealed though perhaps 't will be thought hard to put them in Execution without giving publick Notice thereof sometime before to the Subject But after all how do you know but that these Officers you last mentioned may have Licences from the King to purchase Lands though I think it not at all to the matter whether they have or no. But to proceed That Statute as I said before consists of Eight Chapters you have taken notice only of the First therefore we will come to the next Chapter of that Statute The Title is In what Case only Purveyance may be made in Ireland Is that observed in Ireland or do the Justices or other the King's Officers by colour of their Offices take Victuals or any other things of any Person against his Will contrary to that Chapter The Third Chapter is about Transporting Merchandizes out of Ireland Do the Justices or any of the King's Ministers by colour of their Offices Arrest the Ships or other Goods of the People of Ireland The Fourth settles The Fees of a Bill of
to a Law This I presume must be done either by a Man's self or by his chosen Representative if so then we will consider how far this will affect the People of Ireland with respect to the Matter we are now upon For I believe you will grant that if a Man denies or neglects to qualifie himself for such an Election or if qualified refuses to be present thereat or removes himself at such a distance that he cannot if he would this Man is not denied his Consent nor is his Liberty broken in upon though he be afterwards bound up by Laws made by a Parliament in the Election of whose Members he actually gave no Vote the Laws governing Elections being made by a common Consent though they may seem to affect some Persons severely yet being thought convenient for the whole Community ought to be submitted to And as for the other two things being Acts of a Man 's own his Choice is supposed to go along with them If this be not allowed there never was any Election free For suppose I will not make my self a Freeholder for a County Citizen or Burgess for a Corporation must the Laws already made be Cancelled to gratify my Humour Or suppose that I go on a Voyage to Sea or settle my self in the Plantations Abroad shall not I be bound by the Statute-Laws of England because I was not actually present at the Election of the Members that made them If this be admitted few Men will care to be there 'T is a pleasant way of Arguing till it comes to be closely applied Now there is no English Subject in Ireland but may put himself if he please under one of these Qualifications that is he is capacitated to do it as he is an Englishman and this is what his Ancestors did before him to whose Privileges he succeeds and must not expect that new Itinerant Courts of Parliament shall be erected to follow him where-ever he thinks fit to remove If this be allowed to the Gentlemen of Ireland why should it be denied to those who settled in our Plantations in America they all removed out of England on the same Principles of advancing their own private Fortunes and what a Jumble of Laws should we then have Not but that I think it highly reasonable they should all have power to make private Laws for the better governing their several Colonies and this they do by Representatives chosen by themselves which in the Lesser Plantations they call Assemblies but in Ireland a Parliament which Assemblies and the Laws they make ought still to be in Submission to the Superior Power of the Parliament of England But if I do not mistake you have somewhere own'd that Ireland did once send Representatives to the Parliament of England I must turn back and I find it in p. 95. where you say There have been other Statutes or Ordinances made in England for Ireland which may reasonably be of Force here because they were made and assented to by our own Representatives And you go on to shew from the White Book in the Exchequer in Dublin the form of a Writ sent by King Edward I. to his Chancellor of Ireland wherein he mentions Quaedam Statuta per nos de assensu Prelatorum Comitum Baronum Communitatis Regni nostri Hiberniae nuper apud Lincoln quaedam alia Statuta post modum apud Eborum facta These you suppose to be Statutes made either at the Request of the States of Ireland or by the Assent of your own Representatives the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of Ireland and from this you Argue p. 96. That the King and Parliament of England would not Enact Laws to bind Ireland without the Concurrence of the Representatives of this Kingdom Well Sir put what Sence you please on it this shews plainly that you then came to England for your Laws and that the Parliament of England had a Legislative Jurisdiction over you in those early days so that all makes the worse for your Argument How then came you to be free from it For either you cast off the Parliament of England or the Parliament of England cast off you 't is not the latter for the Parliament is still careful for your Welfare and makes good Laws for your better Government and I see no Power you had to cast them off except you will at the same time say you are not English-Men which I hope you will not but I find you are like froward Children who will not eat their Bread and Butter unless it be Sugar'd nothing will please you unless the Parliament of England will resign their Legislative Authority which they shall never have my Consent to except I see better Reasons for it than any you have yet produced But you proceed p. 96. Formerly when Ireland was but thinly Peopled and the English Laws not fully currant in all parts of the Kingdom 't is probable that then they could not frequently Assemble with conveniency or safety to make Laws in their own Parliaments at Home and therefore during the Heats of Rebellions or Confusion of the Times they were forc'd to Enact Laws in England Truely 't is a very probable Story you tell us I take Bevis of Southampton or Guy of Warwick to be altogether as probable Come let us examine it In the former part of your Book you lay it down as undeniable That Henry II. in the Parliament at Oxford made a Donation of Ireland to his Son John as a separate Kingdom and as such Parliaments were there settled I must confess I think 't is all of a piece now you tell us that because the People of Ireland could not Assemble with Conveniency and Safety to make Laws during the Heats of Rebellions and Confusions of Times there they came to England to make them here just like the Birds that remove at their Pleasure from colder Climates to make their Nests in Warmer But you prove nothing of this nor is it at all likely Pray when were these Heats of Rebellions not in the Days of Henry II. for you say p. 8. that Anno 1172 Ireland was quietly surrendred to him by Richard Strongbow at Dublin afterwards p. 30. you say he settled a modus tenendi Parliam p. 39. you say that five Years after his return from thence he created his Younger Son John King of Ireland who went thither and that the Irish Nobility and Gentry immediately repaired to him 'T is true you say there was some Difference between them about their long rude Beards but I hope you will not call that a Rebellion p. 40. you imply to us that King John made another Voyage thither which How and Baker say was the 31 Hen. 2. being eight Years after You proceed also and tell us That King John govern'd them Two and twenty Years during the Lives of his Father Henry II. and his Brother Richard I. in which time he made them divers Grants and Charters so that hitherto
then upon be considered which was this as I find it in his Abridgment pag. 271. R. C. by his Guardian bringeth an Assize the Defendants say the Plaintiff ought not to be answered quia est Aliagena natus 5 Novemb. An. Dom. Regis Angliae c. tertio apud E. infra Regnum Scotiae ac insra ligeanciam Domini Regis Regni sui S. ac extra ligeanciam Regni sui Angl. Here the Debate being about a Post natus in Scotland Sir Edward Cook brought the Quotation you mention for the sake of the last words thereof sed personae eorum sunt subjecti Regis sicut Inhabitantes in Calesia Gasconia Guyan who had been ever accounted Denizens and makes the Note you mention viz. which is to be understood unless they be especially named on the other part of that quotation Nostra Statuta non ligant c. because he would not be thought of Opinion with the former Judges Et non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia which you mention pag. 91. And this having no relation to the Case he was then upon he thought it needless to give the Reasons for this his dissent in Opinion from them which makes you call him Magisterial c. But afterwards pag. 117. you say that in another place of the same Report he gives this colour of Reason for his former Assertion That though Ireland be a distinct Dominion from England yet the Title thereof being by Conquest the same by Judgment of Law might by express words be bound by the Parliaments of England From this you would raise an Argument p. 118. between the Opinion given by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber pag. 91. and the now Opinion of the L. Chief Justice Cook But I shall leave you to reconcile those venerable Judges and proceed to my own Argument because I think I have already spoken to every thing you therein mention only I can't but stand amazed at your what shall I call it in this Assertion pag. 118. I challenge any Man to shew me that any one before him or any one since but from him hath vended this Doctrine when your self had told us before pag. 92. That the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and the other Judges were of the same Opinion when the Case of the Merchants of Waterford which is the same you now quote was argued the second time in the Exchequer Chamber And in pag. 80. you tell us This was a Doctrine first broached directly by Will. Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in England in the first year of Henry VII and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cook I wonder how you can make such bold Challenges which need no farther trouble then perusing your own Book to answer I hope I have now vindicated my Lord Chief Justice Cook whose Name you say pag. 116. is of great veneration with the Gentlemen of the Long Robe if so I may likewise hope they will give me thanks for doing it so many years after his death The next Case you mention is that of Pilkinton 20 Hen. 6. pag. 122. This you say is for you It is too long to transcribe but the Substance of it is this There were Letters Patents granted by the King to A. for an Office in Ireland formerly granted to P. by the same King's Letters Patents whereupon P. brings a Scire Facias against A. to shew cause why his Letters Patents should not be repealed A. pleads That Ireland had time out of mind been a Land separate and distinct from England was govern'd by its own Customs had a Parliament and made Statutes and by one of those Statutes P. had forfeited his Office Hereupon P. demur'd in Law and it was debated by five of the Judges of England who differ'd in their Opinions about it Well what will you infer from this doth any one doubt whether Ireland hath a Parliament and Customs among themselves that govern them Did the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England come any way to be called in question here if not 't is nothing to our Matter Yes you say pag. 124. Two of the Judges said That if a Tenth or a Fifteenth be granted the King by the Parliament of England that shall not bind Ireland c. Perhaps it may not 't is according as the Act is worded we see our ordinary Acts for raising Taxes are not extended to Ireland But doth this show that the Parliament of England hath not Power to make Laws which shall bind Ireland Besides suppose two Judges of five had positively said they could not was their Opinion to be taken against that of the Parliament of England shewn by their constant practice for Five hundred years I profess I cannot see how this Case reaches the Matter we are upon As to the Merchants of Waterford's Case pag. 125. it hath been spoken to before so I shall pass it by now The next is the Prior of Lanthonies in Wales 5 Hen. 6. This you say is for you pag. 125. I think 't is not but it lyes on me to give my Reasons therefore I will abreviate it The Prior of Lanthony brought an Action in the Common Pleas of Ireland against the Prior of Mollingar Judgment went against the Prior of M. who brought a Writ of Error in the King's Bench of Ireland where the Judgment was affirmed He then appeals to the Parliament of Ireland who revers'd both Judgments The Prior of L. removes all into the King's Bench in England but the King's Bench refused to intermeddle having no Power over what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland he then appealed to the Parliament of England where you say it doth not appear by the Parliament Roll that any thing was done on this Appeal save receiving the Petition Well what would you draw from this I think it proves nothing to our Matter if it doth the Conclusion must be against you For it appears by this quotation That the Prior of L. two hundred and seventy years since thought that an Appeal lay from the Parliament of Ireland to the Parliament of England and it doth likewise appear That the Parliament of England received his Petition But as to your Inference against the Power of the Parliament of England because nothing was done therein it may as well be concluded That they cannot judge Appeals brought before them by a Writ of Error out of the King's Bench of England because many times no Proceedings follow thereon which every Body knows may be let fall after the Petition is received at the Pleasure of the Parties concerned As to what you say of the Civil and Ecclesiastical State of Ireland p. 127 128 129. I think I have given a full Answer to it already so shall not repeat I will only add That 't is a wrong method to draw Arguments against the Power of the Parliament of England from Acts made by the Parliament of Ireland No doubt the Titles of those Kings and Queens you
discharge any Persons or the Places they govern from Obedience to the Legislative Authority of England If it doth I should think That granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Talbot would go a great way in it which you give us pag. 33. in these Words Dilecti fidelis nostri Johannis Talbot de Hallom shire Chevaler locum nostrum tenentis terrae nostrae Hiberniae which you interpret pag. 32. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and it is not to be doubted but Henry IV. thought he had not divested himself of his Regal Authority in Ireland thereby for though we do not find any Statutes made in his Reign to bind that Kingdom yet we do in the Reign of his Son Henry V. and those Kings who succeeded him if then John Earl of Moreton was never created King of Ireland nor That made a separate Kingdom in the Parliament at Oxon as you alledge but do not prove then all your Arguments drawn thence pag. 41 42 43 44. beginning with this Paragraph Let us then suppose that c. fall to the Ground As for its being annext to the Imperial Crown of England by several Acts of Parliament both here and there which you mention pag. 43. I do agree to the Reason you give for it pag. 44. as one viz. That it should not be alienated or separated from the Kings of England But I hope you will not draw any Inference from this that Ireland therefore is not subject to our Legislative Power it seems to me a greater Argument that it is and those Acts made in Ireland look like an Acknowledgement of it seeing the Members there knew the Opinion of the Parliament of England by their continued Practice of making Laws to bind it I am the longer on this Subject of Henry the Seconds making his Son John King of Ireland and That a separate Kingdom because I find you insist upon it as a thing unquestionable through your whole Book and I am willing to clear it here to prevent often Repetitions I will proceed with you to King John's going over into Ireland after he became King of England pag. 44. for which you quote Mat. Paris who saith Cum venisset ad Dublinensem civitatem occurrerunt ei ibidem plusquam 20 Regul'â— illius Regionis qui omnes timore maximo praeteriti Homagium ei fidelitatem fecerunt Fecit quoque Rex ibidem construere Leges Consuetudines Anglicanas ponens Vice cometes aliosque ministros qui populum Regni illius juxta Leges Anglicanas judicarent This you know was long after that Amicable Concession or Original Compact you mention pag. 37. to be made between Henry II. and the People of Ireland and long after the same King John was made King of Ireland by his Father and yet your Author says fecit quoque Rex ibidem c. which I English thus He appointed Officers to govern them by the English Laws wherein he caused them to be instructed So that here is a second original Compact if you will call it so viz. That they must be govern'd by the English Laws and Customs and now I think we are agreed the Matter viz. That they were to be govern'd by the English Laws Let us see then where we differ for I am very willing to part Friends with a Gentleman of your Parts your Fault is that you would willingly make more from things then was ever intended by them Page 45. You proceed to speak of a Magna Charta granted by Henry III. to Ireland dated at Bristol the 12th of November in the first year of his Reign which you say is agreeable to the Magna Charta granted to England I have not seen it nor have you set it forth so I can say nothing to its Contents I will only ask you whither it doth discharge Ireland from being subject to the Legislative Power of England which is the matter in hand and if it does whether it was confirmed by Parliament I will not differ with you whose Seals were put to it whether the King 's own or the venerable Persons you there mention if it doth not discharge from Obedience to Laws made by the Parliament of England and was not confirmed by them I examine no farther And I do not remember I ever heard of a Parliament held at Bristol nor doth this seem to be one because you say it was by advice of his Council of England whose Names are particularly recited which I therefore take to be the Privy Council in opposition to the great Council or Parliament of England and the rather because I find this was the usual Form of granting Charters in those days I shall only Note that this you say was eight years older then that which he granted to England Page 46. You set forth another Charter sent them by the said King in February following the Substance whereof you give us Page 47. Volumus quod in Signum fidelitatis vestrae tam praeclarae tam insignis libertatibus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre nostro nobis concessis de gratia nostra dono in Regno nostro Hiberniae Gaudiatis vos vestri Haeredes in Perpetuum This was made by advice of his Common Council and Sealed with their Seals as it follows in the same Page Quas distincte in Scriptum reductas de communi Concilio omnium sidelium nostrorum vobis mittimus signatas sigillis Domini nostri G. Apostolicae sedis Legati fidelis nostri Com. W. Maresc Rectoris nostri Regni nostri quia sigillum nondum habuimus easdem processu temporis de majori Concilio proprio sigillo signaturi Teste apud Glouc. 6 Febru So that here you see there is a difference between the Communi Concilio and the Majori Concilio but neither do you set forth nor can I guess what those Liberties were being before our Magna Charta of England as you confess p. 45. and does appear by our Statute-Books the latter being made the Ninth Year of his Reign and this you say in the First But I cannot allow of your Paraphrase on it p. 48. Here we have a free Grant of all the Liberties of England to the People of Ireland I differ with you in this because the Grant you mention doth not say they shall enjoy all the Liberties of English Men but all those Liberties which had been granted by his Father and himself to his Kingdom of England what those were you do not set forth and it can have no Reference to our Magna Charta besides it seems strange he should ex mero motu then grant those Priviledges to Ireland which if I mistake not cost England afterwards a great deal of trouble to bring him to acknowledge to be their right But be this as it will I do not see how it signifies much to the question in hand except it be allowed that the King by Charter can discharge the Subjects of England from Obedience to the Legislative Power Nor can I see