a Deer unfortunately kill'd the Keeper and his Jurisdiction he being suspended was supplyed by Commission as you may read in Dr. Heylin of the Life of Arch-Bishop Laud in the 87th fol. of the Book it self but more fully fol. 170. The Bishop of London is next in Place and Dignity to the Metropolitans see his Priviledges ibid. 185. See Dr. Heylin's Judgment in the Work of Reforming the Church either in Doctrine or Exercise of the Discipline pertinent to the Matter now in hand but in Point of Law it would be no very difficult thing to discover him to be mistaken fol. 327. See the Power of the Metropolitan and of the Appeal from him to a Provincial Synod and a Stop put there and a ne ultra and that there is no Vicar upon Earth appointed to be the Supream Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters in the Opinion of the Council of Nice discours'd of by Dr. Stilling fleet in his Antiquities of the British Churches fol. 100. but still it must be understood that this fixed Power in the Ecclesiastical Judges and Courts in England is deriv'd from the Crown but now under the Crown setled in this Method not to be interrupted this is quoad Potestatem Jurisdictionis non Ordinis FINIS Introduction Time and Place not material unless the Defendant make them so by his Plea as here Plea. Conclusion of the Plea. Three Points First Point First Proposition Reason Authority The Town-Clerk of Athens The Party to a Suit. Lord Beauch Case A Difference Councellor Attorney Witness Juror Justa occasio lequendi The Minor Proposition The Commons as now elected have ever been a part of the Parliament Dr. Heylin in the Life of Archbishop Laud. Sir Rob. Filmer Dugd. in his Orig. Juridic Mr. Pryn in his Preface to Sir Rob. Cotton's Abr. as he conjectures Dr. Manwaring Pryns Plea for the Lords â—5â— King Charles the Second Fol. 32. Fol. 223. of his Works The Commons as now constituted began before 49 H. 3. Rushw. Hist. Collec Part 1. fol. 52. Proof that the House of Commons have ever been a part of the Parl. In his Pref. to his 10th Rep. Proof by Records of Parliament 51 E. 3. 5 H. 4. nu 71. 5 H. 4. na 74. Mr. Pryn ut supra fo 771. Addresses to the King ought to be with Reverence â—1 H. 6. Thorpes Case Exâ—hequor Records H. 12. E. 4. in the Exchequer E. 2. S. Albans 11 H. 4. num 59. Proof by Acts of Parliament 5 R. 2. Parl. 2. C. 4. 2 H. 5. pars 2da Numb 10. Historians and Antiquaries Et Populi Conventus Seld. Tit. of Hon. pag. 702. in a Case between the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishop of Worc. Mag. Char. 9 H. 3. Object 1. Fol. 709. The Ancientest Writ of Summons that Mr. Selden had seen for a Peer was but 6 Johannis Tit. of Hon. 707 708. Mr. Pryn's Plea for the Lords fol. 113. but mis-paged 2. Object 49 H. 3. 28 E. 1. 35 E. 1. 15 E. 2. 31 E. 3. 18 E. 2. 18 E. 3. 26 E. 3. 1 H. 5. the Indenture return'd by the Sheriff of Wiltshire recites their trust in the same words and pursues the words of the Writ 2 H. 4. 25 H. 6. 16 E. 2. 27 H. 6. Object Pennings of Ancient Acts of Parliament Petitions for Freedom of Speech c. Tit. of Honout Fol. 603 604. Fol. 603. Fol. 176. The Freeholders grand Enquest fol. 40. 41. 28 E. 1. c. 8. 13. Elect. of Sheriffs The late E. of Clarend in his Answ. to Hobs. Petition of Right 3 Car. 1. Stat. of Provisors 25 E. 3. Mr. Pryn's Plea for the Lords 389 390. All three Estates one entire Body and Corporation 14 H. 8 3. Fineux Ch. Just. Ferrer ' s Case Crompt Jurisd Sir Pierce de la Mare This is contradicted by Mr. Pryn in his Preface to Sir Cotton's Abr. fol. 5 6. The Powers of Parliament Of the Power and Jurisdiiction of the Parliament Nothing acted in this present Case but what is within their Power The House of Commons the Grand Inquest of the Nation The printing Dangerfield's Information 46 E. 3. C. Search of Records must be Free. See the 1 st St. in such Cases of Reporting false News viz. W. 1. C. 34. the Reporter is only to be imprison'd till he have found out him of whom the word was moved So is 2 R. 2. C. 5. the Stat. de Scandalis Magnatum So is 12 R. 2. c. 11. Dier 155. The Lady Morirsons Case Crok 162. but more fully in Marshes Actions of Slander fol. 19. 20. If an action of Slander be brought for Reporting what another had said Slanderously the Pl. in his Declaration must aver that A. did never so report the Defendant may Plead that in truth A. did so report and it is a good Plea by Tanfield Leonards Rep. 1. P. 287. in an Indictment upon the Stat. of W. 1. C. 33. and 2 R. 2. c. 5. for reporting false News it was found billa vera as to the Defendant's reporting the false News but as to the maliciose seditiose Ignoramus and the Defendant therefore discharg'd The Persons too great to be so used John Earl of Moreton So called 1 Eliz C. 3. 4. H. 8. c. 8. the House of Commons call'd the Honourable House in the Petit. of Rich. Strode which is part of the Act. 2d Point Mr. Pryn E Contra in his Preface to Sir Rob. Cot. Abr. but nothing clear 1 â—ac c. 1. The like words Fol. 72. Med. Mr. Pryn. ibid. 388. A Resolve of all the Judges in the point Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. pag. 651. Mr. Pryn in his Plea for the Lords calls this a famous memorable Case and says he was then ch Baron A second Resolution of all the Judges in the point A Protestation of the Commons against Impeachments other than in the House c. The like Claim of the Lords and confirm'd by Act. An Act of Parliament in the point Pryn's Plea for the Lords fol. 401 at large 4 H. 8. c. 8. Memorials of the English Affairs fol. 12. See Rushw. Collect. 1 part pag. 672. Appendix to it pag. 44. The Resolution of the Commons in Irewinnard's Case is called the Judgment of the most high Court of Parliament If it had been clear that the King's-Bench could have punished it they would have begun with it there but they try'd the Council and the Star-Chamber first King Charles the Second Fol. 15. â— Iust. fol. 17. 26 H. 8. c. 1. * Sir Hen. Hebâ—i ' s Reports f. 63. It is said by the Judges of the Common-Pleas That the Power of Justice is in the King as Sovereign originally but afterwards setled in several Courts as the Light being first made by God was after setled in the great Bodies of the Sun and Moon And Sir E. 〈◊〉 4 Inst. f. 70. in the Chapter of the Court of Kings-Bench to the same effect * See the Original of Bishops Courts and Jurisdictions severed from the Hundred Court distinct from Provincial and national Synods and that there were then Ecclesiastical Laws the Chartter of K. William he 1st to Remigius then Bishop of Linc. Mr. Selden's Notes ad Eadmerum f. 167. * Sir Ed. Cokes 5. Rep. The Case of the Kings Ecclesiastical Law f. 40. * Not by extraordinary Commissions at the first instance but only gradually upon Appeales Sir John Davies Reports fol. 91. the Case of Premunire 4. Inst. 339. of Appeals This Statute was the ground for Commissions to hear and determine Spiritual Causes ad primam Instantiâ—m ☞ 4. Inst. 340. Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation 183. med folii * See Dr. Field of the Church fol. 511 512. The antient Canon requires the consent of 12 Bishops to censure judge and depose a Bishop * See Mr. Bagshaw's Arguments in Parliament against the Canons made by the Convocation 1640 fol. 19.
them unto And Sir Robert Filmer fol. 40. allows neither Lords nor Commons any Power but by the King 's bare Permission and thus they are growing in their Invasions against the Court of Parliament and impeach one first and the other will follow more easily And Sir Robert Filmer further holds the Legislative Power rests solely in the King and fol. 39. he hath these words But the truth is saith he The Liberties and Priviledges of both Houses have but one and the self-same Foundation which is nothing else but the meer and sole Grace of Kings And Doctor Heylin in his Life of Arch-Bishop Laud fol. 91. denies the Priviledges of Parliament to be the Peoples Birth-Right but holds them not otherwise exercis'd than by the Grace and Goodness of the King. Mr. Pryn Sir Robert Filmer and Mr. Dugdale lay great stress upon the diversity that is in the Writs of Summons between the Summons for the Lords and the Summons for the Commons That to the Lords say they is super negottis praedictis tractaturi vestrumque consilium impensuri But that to the Commons is say they only ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem de communi cousilio dicti regni contigerint ordinari It is true that for many years of late that distinction hath been so used in the Summons but not constantly so As to this point I will cite Mr. Dugdale's and Mr. Prin's own Books against their own Opinion The very first writ of Summons which as they say is now extant for the Summoning of the Commons by Election viz. 49 H. 3. runs in these words Nobiscum ac cum praedictis praelatis magnatibus nostris super praemissis tractaturi at que consilium impensuri Dugd. Orig. Jur. pag 18. The Writ De expensis Militum qui venerunt ad Parliamentum venientibus saies that Writ usque ad Westmonasterium ibidem de diversis negâ—ciis nobiscum tractaturis See Mr. Pryn's 4th part of a Register of Parliament Writs fol. 8. In Mr. Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria it appears that as the Summons to the Temporal Lords fol. 318. was ad tractandum and so likewise the Summons to the Prelates fol. 319. so also fol. 320. it is entred in these words Mandatum fuit singulis Vicecomitibus per Angliam quod de quolibet comitatu duos milites de qualibet civitate duos cives de quolibet burgo duos Burgenses eligi ad dictum Parliamentum venire facerent ad tractandum c. In the same Book fol. 570. An. 15 E. 2. there is mention of a Writ of Summons for Knights out of Wales to a Parliament at York ad tractandum consilium impendendum In Mr. Pryn's Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva fol. 274. there is the very Indenture return'd by the Sheriff of Norsolk for great Yarmouth ad tractandum consulendum consentiendum And fol. 68. of that Book another Writ de expensis militum reciting the Cause for which they had been Summon'd to the Parliament viz. ad tractandum c. And in the same Book fol. 145. it appears that 18 E. 3. the Writs to the Sheriffs for chusing Knights mention'd what their work was to be in these words viz. Nobiscum cum praelatis proceribus praedictis super diversis arduis negotiis nos statum regni nostri specialiter tangentibus tractaturi suum consilium impensuri And fol. 147. and 149. the like words in the Writs And fol. 177. And 276. and 283. and 381. Indentures return'd from Reading Bristol London with the same words And ib. fol. 178 and 179 and 291 for Windsor and 365. So that in the Reigns of seven several Kings and those of the most Ancient Kings there was no such distinction in the Writs of Summons Another Argument used by these late Authors to prove that the whole Power and all the Priviledges of the House of Commons are not from the Original Constitution of the Government as I Affirm and I hope have proved they are but of a later Original and by the meer Grace and Indulgence of Princes as indeed they must be if the House of Commons began within Memory is taken from the Words and Phrases of our Historians who have written since the coming in of the Normans and ascribe the making of Laws and all the Determinations and Decrees in Matters of Judicature and all the Actings of the Ancient Parliaments before the time of the Normans to the King and Lords only Exclusive to the Commons and that the Commons had no part in them till this time of 49 H. 3. And they ground this Opinion upon the Form of Penning of our Ancient Acts of Parliament which seem by the Words of them to be meer Concessions of our former Kings and to have proceeded only from their Royal Bounty and at their sole Will and Pleasure And they Confirm themselves in that Opinion from observing the Course used in the beginning of Parliaments when the Speaker makes his humble Petitions to the King for the Granting of them Freedom from Arrests and Freedom of Speech Now to discover the Falsity of these Grounds and the Weakness of these Arguments taken from the Words and Phrases us'd by our Historians I shall shew that our Historians who have written since the time of the coming in of the Normans and have Translated the Saxon Annals have in those Translations instead of the Saxon Titles used the Titles that were never in use before their own Times which Titles used in the Saxons times had quite different Significations from the Titles used in the times of the Translators The Title Earl for Example is used in the Penning of the Saxons Laws as among those of Athelstan as we may see by Mr. Lambert in his Book de Priscis Anglor Legibus and the Title Comes came in amongst us since from the Empire and signified a different thing from Earl. Now our Translators mistaking those two Titles Earl and Comes to signifie the same thing wherever they met with Earl in the Annals of the Saxons they have rendred it Comes in their Translations and whatever in those times was done by Earls and whatever Power the Earls then used is by our Translators ascribed to our Comites who are therefore also called Earls when in Truth they had different Significations and were different in their Powers Mr. Selden takes notice of this Error in our Norman or English Translators proceeding from their Ignorance But from this Error false Conclusions have been raised and false Measures taken in our Discourses concerning the Power of the Peers Sir H. Spelman observes the same Error in our Translators in rendring Words and Titles Non èmore Saeculi antiquioris but according to the Titles used in their own times when many times they signified different things Nobilis says Mr. Selden in the Saxons times denoted every Gentleman Now because
Heterochiis fol. 147 All these great Officers were chosen by the Freeholders as our Knights of the Shire are and as Coroners and Verderers formerly Men of great Power are chosen by Writ at the County-Court to this day These were mighty Powers and Freedoms and enjoyed by the People as anciently as any of our Records reach and are more authentique Proofs than the writings of Historians and best shew the Native Freedom that the People had by the ancient Constitution of our Government contrary to all the new Doctrines of our late Writers and prove that the Priviledges and Freedoms we yet enjoy are not meer Emanations of Royal Favour as our Novellists would impose upon us See Sir E. C. to this purpose 2. Inst. 174. 558. I could name some great Men that have lately used the same language in Books publish'd sub magni Nominis umbra Bracton who liv'd in the time of K. H. 3. l. 1. c. 1. fol. 1. affirms Legis vigorem habet quicquid de consilio consensu magnatum Reipub. Communi sponsione authoritate Regis praecedente juste fuerit definitum approbatum In the last place that humble and modest way of the People's addressing to their Sovereign either for the making of Laws which has been very ancient or for granting of Priviledges as the Speaker of the Commons hath of late years done it shews indeed great Reverence and I do not in the least dislike it and it becomes the Majesty of the Prince to be so address'd to but let it not be made an argument that either the Laws thereupon made or the Priviledges so allow'd are precarious and meerly of Favour and may be refus'd them I would be loth to pay Wages and to maintain at my Charges every one that styles himself my humble Servant In that Act of Parliament Intituled The Petition of Right the Title corrects and qualifies it self 3 Car. 1. the Lords and Commons petition'd the King but it was for their Rights and Priviledges not for any new but for their ancient Rights and Priviledges and yet they style it a Petition In the Title of this Act the Petition of Right those res olim insociabiles sc. Imperium Libertas are bene mixtae and from hence is a mixt Monarchy In the Stat. of Provisors 25 E. 3. the Commons prayed they are fond of the word and I commend it in them but the word was used by the Figure Catachresis as the Scholars call it not properly as appears by the Subject matter of that Act that follows what was it I pray that they so prayed They prayed says that Act That upon the mischiefs that happen to the Realm the King ought and is bound by his Oath with the accord of his People in his Parliament thereof to make Remedy and Law. The Peers are here included in the People so that the word prayed had it been used to any other than the King had signified remonstrated declared or represented This proves too where the transcendent Power of the Legislature is and that the Exercise of it tho' it be free and not subject to coercion yet it is not at will and pleasure in the Exercise of it but guided by Rules And tho' the Speaker does upon his being approv'd of by the King make it his humble Petition to have Liberty of Speech allow'd the Commons from whence Dr. Heylin and Sir Rob. Filmer and others infer that the Commons enjoy that Liberty meerly by the King's Grace and Favour yet they are clearly answear'd by the words that accompany that humble Petition he prays they may be allow'd that Freedom as of Right and Custome they have Vsed and all their Antient and Just Priviledges and Liberties So that this from the Speaker is also a Petition of Right Nor is this request of the Speakers antient in the use of it if we may believe Mr. Hakewel in his Treatise of the manner of Enacting Statutes in Parliament fol. 136. Thomas Moyle Speaker 34 H. 8. the first that is recorded to have made Petition for Freedom of Speech I hope I have sufficiently made it out that the House of Commons as a Member of the High Court of Parliament are not of so late an Original as 49 H. 3. but have been as Antient as the Nation it self and may in the Sence of Julius Caesar in his Comment be accounted among the Ab-Origines and that they have had a perpetual Being to speak in the Language of the Law temps dont c. Ã tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit and that they are therefore capable by Law together with the rest of the three Estates in Parliament to prescribe and claim a share in all Parliamentary Powers and Priviledges I do not mean separately but in conjunction with those other Estates which they could not otherwise legally have done if their Originall and Commencement could have been shown I shall in the next place endeavour to make it evident That the three Estates of Parliament are one entire Body and Corporation and that all their Powers and Priviledges in the Right of them and in the Title to them are intire per my per tout and belonging to the whole Body of the Parliament tho' in the Exercise of those Powers and sometimes in the claim of them they are distinguish'd and in the practice of their Powers they are in many things distributed into parts For their Powers are one thing and their Priviledges are another the latter are but an incident or attendant upon the former It is very material in our present case to have this matter consider'd I mean the Intireness of this High Court for Divide Impera The Faggot is easily broken when first the Band is broken If this be well consider'd the consequence of this Case will be better understood It concerns the Defendant only by name and more immediately but in the right and near consequence it is now most evident that it nearly concerns the House of Lords this Information of Mr. Attornies like a Terrae-motus or as that great Blast would have done had not Almighty God in his Infinite Goodness to this Nation prevented it shakes the Foundation of both Houses and reaches to all future Parliaments it frights me to speak what may be the effects of it if it should prevail and be stretch'd to the utmost I am far from saying or thinking it is so intended But who knows how far a single Precedent will be made use of in times to come All the Estates in Parliament are all called by one common name as Commune Concillum Regni Magna Curia They are one Body Politick M. 14 H. 8. fol. 3. in the year-book which I cited before to another purpose it is said by Fineux Ch. I. that the Parliament at the Common-Law consists of the King Lords and Commons and they are saies he but one Body Corporate This proves likewise what I before
argued that the Commons at the Common-Law which is ab initio were a part of the Parliament In the Case of Ferrers out of Crompt Jurisd of Courts fol. 8 9 10. for I keep within my proper Element and move in my Sphere and cite Authors of our own Science of the Common-Law K. H. the 8th call'd before him the Lord Chancellor the Judges the Speaker of the House of Commons and others and thus express'd himself before them viz. That he was inform'd by his Judges that he the King as Head and the two Houses as Members were knit together in one Body Politick so as whatsoever Offence or Injury during time of Parliament is offer'd to the meanest Member of the House is to be judged as done to the King's Person and the Whole Court of Parliament And Sir Edward Mountague the Ld. Ch. I. then present confirm'd all that the King had said and it was assented to by all the rest of the Judges Now if you bruise or pierce the hands and the House of Commons may well be compar'd to the hands for they have been the Liberal Hands and the Hands feed the Head the Head and all the rest of the Body must quickly be sensible In Trewinnard's Case Dier 60. and 61. The Priviledge of the Commons upon this very account is term'd the Priviledge of the Parliament and the Judgment given in that Case by the House of Commons is there said to be the Judgment of the most High Court of Parliament The Statute of 1 C. 1. saies the Parliament is the whole Body of the Realm By the two Records that I cited before out of the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer 12 E. 4. It appears in two several Cases of Priviledge the one concerning the Lords and the other concerning the Commons in both Cases the Priviledge was laid and claim'd as one entire Priviledge and so allow'd by the Judgment of that Court by advice of all the Judges of both Benches The Speaker of the House of Commons by the Rolls of Parliament which are the most proper proofs in a thing of this Nature is term'd the Speaker of the Parliament so it is in the Roll of 1 R. 2. in Sir Cotton's Abr. fol. 155 it was in the Reign of a King that was no favourer of Parliaments Sir John Bussey Speaker to the Parliament Sir Robert Cotton's Abr. 20. R. 2. num 14 and 15. 51 E. 3. num 87. Sir Robert Cotton's Abr. fol. 151. Sir Thomas Hungerford Speaker of the Parliament And so is the Speaker of the Commons styled in the Case of Ferrers in Crompton's Jurisd of Courts fol. 8 9 10. before cited In the Statute of 6 H. 8. C. 16. the Clerk of the House of Commons is called Clerk of the Parliament In the Case of Godsol and Sir Christ Heydon 12 in B. R. in Sergeant Roll's Rep. fol. It was affirm'd by Sir E. C. that in antient time all the Parliament sate together and the separation was at the desire of the Commons notwithstanding saies he they are but one house and he further affirms that he had seen a Record 30 H. 1. of their Degrees and Seats Having made it appear that the Parliament is one intire body and therefore mutually concern'd in Powers and Priviledges as to the Right and Title of them tho' dividod sometiems in the Exercise I shall proceed briefly to show what those Powers are in order to the proving that what in our Case is charg'd to be done by the Speaker by Order and Command of the Parliament for so I may now affirm is pursuant to their Power and Jurisdiction The Parliament hath three Powers 1. A Legislative in respect of which they are call'd the three Estates of the Realm 2. A Judicial in respect of this 't is call'd Magna Curia or the High Court of Parliament 3. A Counselling Power hence it is call'd Commune Concilium Regni For the proof of these I shall cite some few Antiquaries but chiefly some Authors of our Profession of the Law and those of the best Authority with us I shall mention them without observing any exact method because divers of them extend to more than one of these distinct Powers and some of them refer at once to all of them Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary Tit. Gemotum which was the old Saxon word for a Parliament fol. 261. Convenere saies he Regni Principes tam Episcopi quam Magistratus there are those that now make up the House of Lords Liberique homines there are the Commons what is their proper Work and Power Consulitur de communi salute de pace bello This proves them the Commune Concilium Regni Learned Camden Quod Saxones olim Wittena Gemot nos Parliamentum recte dicicimus as to their Power Summam Sacro-sanctam authoritatem habet in legibus ferendis interpretandis in omnibus quae ad reipubl salutem spectant This shews their Legislature The Mirror of Justices this is an Authority in Law C. 1. fol. 9. saies Parliaments were institued Pur oyer terminer this is is the Supream Court of Oyer and Yerminer The Court of King's Bench is said to be above all Courts of Eire or Itinerant and if the King's Bench be adjourn'd into any County where the Eire is sitting the Eire ceases In praesentia Majoris c. But this Court is above the King's Bench and all Courts of Oyer and Terminer The King's Bench is the Highest Eire but this is according to Solomon's Hyperbole higher than the highest But what is the proper Subject of their Oyer and Terminer Our Antient Author who wrote some part of his Book before the Conquest tells us their work is to hear and determine les plaintes de tort le Roy de la reign de leur Enfans the King's Children so that they make an Impartial Enquiry but saies our Author further De eux specialment de queux torts lun ne poit aver autrement common droit this flies very high to prove their Judicial Power I forbear to English it It is the proper work of this Supream Court to deal with such Delinquents as are too high for this Court of the King's Bench or other ordinary Courts Against whom through their Potency or mighty Interest common right cannot be had it must be understood in ordinary Courts And the Writing and Printing of this was never taken to be a Scandal to the Government or to the Justice of the Nation For the Author speaks in the Person of the King himself and tells us that the High Court of Parliament is arm'd with a Power able to cope with and quell the most insolent Offenders When the Great Judge of all the Earth comes to make Inquisition for Blood and to Execute Judgment by the hands of this High Court. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down and made low To discourse of this Judgment
sacred Authority of any Court that it hath an absolute power that it is the highest Court in the Realm is acknowledged by our most Learned and gravest Writers and Historians for I would not wholly omit them though I do not need them but I relie only and put all the stress of my proofs and arguments upon my Authorities in Law. Cambden in his Britannia Summam sacrosanctam Authoritatem habet Parliamentum Knighton de eventibus Angliae l. 1. fo 2681. col 1 2. He calls it the Highest Court of the Realm So it is call'd in Trewinnard's Case in Dier 60 61. Sr. Thomas Smith in his Common-Wealth of England l. 2. c. 2. fo 50 51. In Comitiis Parliamentariis posita est omnis absolutae potestatis vis Sir R. Cotton in his Posthuma edit at Lond. pag. 345. cited by Mr. Pryn in his Preface to Sir Robert Cotton ' s Abr. The Parliament controlls all Inferior Courts and all Causes of difficulty cum aliqua dubitatio emergit referr it to the Parliament To shew their power and jurisdiction upon Erroneous proceedings in other Courts by authorities in Law which confirms one of my Reasons In Trewinnard's case it is said that though the Parliament erre it is not reversible in any other Court This is spoken in a case where the then occasion was upon a Judgment given only by the House of Commons in a case of Priviledge Agreeable to this is 21 E. 3. fo 46. Br. Abr. tit Error plac 65. in the latter end of that case and 7 H. 6. Br. Abr. tit Error plac 68. by Cottesmore and 1 H. 7. fo 19. Br. Error plac 137. Error in Parliament shall be revers'd in Parliament non aliter for there is not an higher Court. 1 H. 7. fo 19 20. By all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber for a Judgment in the King's-Bench Error must be sued in Parliament and as the Parliament shall correct the Judgments so they are to correct the Judges that give corrupt and dishonest Judgments These are the words and the opinions of the Lord chief Justice Vaughan in his Reports fo 139. in Bushel's case Such says he in all ages have been complained of to the King in the Star-Chamber which is a Court now dissolv'd by Parliament or to the Parliament He there mentions many Judges those 44. that were hang'd in King Alfred's time before the Conquest for corrupt judgments and those in the time of E. 1. E. 3. and R. 2. for their pernicious resolutions He vouches the Journals of Parliament and instances in the Judgment of Ship-money in the last King's time and the particular Judges impeach'd Sir E. C. in his 12 Rep. fol. 64. the words are spoken by Sir E. C. but as that Rep. says with the clear consent of all the Judges The King hath his Court that is to say in the Vpper House of Parliament in which he with his Lords is the Supreme Judge over all other Judges For if Error be in the Common-Pleas that may be revers'd in the King's-Bench and if the Court of King's-Bench erre that may be revers'd in the Upper House of Parliament by the King with the assent of the Lords Now though this is spoken of the Lords House only yet it must be again remembred that the Parliament as I prov'd before is one entire Body and that their power in the right of it is entire though as to the exercise of it it is distributed into parts and is divided Not can the House of Lords exercise any power as an House of Parliament or as a Court for Errors without the House of Commons be in being at the same time Both Houses must be Prorogu'd together and Dissolv'd together like the Twins of Hippocrates they live and die together and the one cannot be in being without the other also at the same time be in being too 2. Inst. 408. Matters of difficulty were heretofore usually Adjourn'd to Parliament but says he 't is now disused And 2. Inst. 599. Courts at variance properly complain to the Parliament 4. Inst. In the Chapter of the Court of the Kings-Bench Errors in the Kings-Bench in matters that concern their Jurisdiction and other Cases there excepted in the Act of 27 Eliz. Cap. 8. cannot be Revers'd but in the High Court of Parliament 4. Inst. Fol. 67. There is a Court Erected by the Statute of 14 E. 3. Cap. 5. Stat. 2. For redress of delays of Judgments in the Kings great Courts consisting of a Prelate Two Earls and Two Barons to be chosen in Parliament by that Statute If the Case before them be so difficult that it may not well be determin'd without assent of the Parliament it does not say by the House of Lords only then shall the tenor of the Record be brought by the said Prelate Earls and Barons into the next Parliament and there a final Judgment shall be given Si obscurum difficile sit Judicium ponantur judicia in respectu usque magnam curiam Rot. Parl. 14. E. 3. Num. ult Sir Jeffery Stanton's Case 25. E. 3. Cap. 2. The Chapter of Treason in the 2. Inst. Fol. 21. The Judge or Court in some Cases is to forbear going to Judgment till the Cause be shewed before the King and his Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason or not That this Court proceeds by the ordinary Rules of the Common Law but that High Court of Parliament proceeds not by that Law but by a Law peculiar to that High Court which is called Lex Consuetudo Parliamenti and consists in the Customs Usages and Course of Parliament and therefore this Court nor no other inferior Court can for this very Reason judge or determine of what is done in Parliament or by the Parliament If this Court should take upon it to proceed in such cases it would justly be said of it as a thing very irregular Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. 20. R. 2. nu 14 15. Sir Tho. Haxey delivered a Bill to the Commons in Parliament for the honour and profit of the King and of all the Realm complaining of the outragious Expences of the Kings House and namely of Bishops and Ladies Here the Camb. Dr. I have before mention'd would take occasion again to complain of the sauciness of this Bill K. R. 2. was offended with the Commons for preferring this Bill to the King for it seems they had entertain'd this Information from a particular hand as was done in our Case from Dangerfield and they proceeded upon it K. R. 2. said it was an offence against his Dignity and Liberty and said he would be free therein And Sir John Bussey the Speaker to the Parliament as that Roll of Parliament calls him is charg'd to declare the Name of him who Exhibited that Bill By this it appears the King could not take notice of what was done in the Commons-House or deliver'd to them but by
the House it self and that is one of the Laws and Customs of Parliament and yet no doubt but it was well known to every Member of that House and yet it came not to the Kings knowledge Nu. 16. The Commons deliver'd to the King the Name of the Exhibiter which was Sir Tho. Haxey Nu. 17. The Commons afterwards came and submitted themselves to the King and crav'd Pardon and the King excus'd them Nu. 23. Sir Tho. Haxey was adjudg'd by Parliament to die as a Traitor The King was offended the Commons forsook the Exhibiter and submitted and the Lords adjudge him guilty of Treason This seems to be a strong Case against the Liberty and the Privilege of the House of Commons but it seems strange how it should be made Treason but it is stranger especially if it be suppos'd this Sir Tho. Haxey was a Member of the House one would have thought he should have been under a protection and special privilege But I take him to be no Member for he is afterwards call'd Sir Tho. Haxey Clerk and Graduates in the University and those in Orders were usually dignified with the addition of Sir and it is not yet quite out of use in the University I find by Mr. Pryn in his Plea for the the Lords Fol. 345. that in the next Kings Reign H. 4. the Commons exhibited a Petition on the behalf of Sir Tho. Haxey for he was not Executed the Archbishop of Canterbury took him into his Protection being a Clergy-man and the Commons in their Petition affirm that the Judgment against Sir Tho. Haxey for delivering in this Bill to the Commons in Parliament was against Right and the Course that had been used before in Parliament in destruction of the Customs of the Commons Here note That the Right and Course of Parliament and the Customs of the Commons are mention'd as Synonymies Upon this Petition of the Commons the Judgment is adjudg'd to be null and void But this could be adjudg'd no where but in Parliament for it concern'd the Right and Privilege and the Customs and Course of the Parliament 1 H. 4. Nu. 91. In Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. the Record says Sir Tho. Haxey Clerk Pardon'd and the Judgment revers'd and he restor'd to all This Case in very many Circumstances suits with the Case of Dangerfield and in many with our present Case Ours is in the Case of an Heir apparent or presumptive But a greater than the Heir is here in this Case of Sir Tho. Haxey namely the then King himself But I cite it principally to prove one of my Reasons and Arguments to the third point namely that there are Rights and Customs that are peculiar to the High Court of Parliament and that there is a Law called the Course of Parliaments and it may be observ'd that the Customs of the Commons are the Law and Course of Parliament Concurring with one observation that I made out of this Case that one of the Laws or Customs of Parliament is That no Member is to publish at the Court or elsewhere abroad what is done in the House of Commons but it ought to proceed from the House it self and no other which is another Argument to prove that no other inferior Court can enquire into or hear or determine of their doings for no notice can be taken of what they do unless it come by their own Relation and Discovery That I say which concurrs with this is another Roll of Parliament of that noble King H. 4. viz. 2 H. 4. Nu. 11. The Commons require that is request the King that he would not give an ear to any untrue reports of the Commons-House until the time might try the same and that time is when the Commons apply to the King in it and not before Whereunto the King granted which allows it to be the Law and Course of the Parliament 4. Inst. Fol. 15. Every Court of Justice says Sir E. C. hath Rules and Customs for its direction So the High Court of Parliament de suis propriis legibus consuetudinibus consist it Again Sir E. C. in his select Case Printed 1677. Fol. 63. Note says he the Privilege Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper House or of the House of Commons belongs to the determination only of the Court of Parliament And there he cites two Precedents for it The First that of 27 H. 6. in the Controversy between the Earls of Arundel and Devonishire for Precedency The King by advice of the Lords referr'd it to the Judges to examine and to report not finally to determine as Judges of the Case but as Assistants to the Lords ☞ The Judges answer'd That it was a matter of Parliament and belong'd to the King and the Lords to determine One would think this were a strange answer of the Judges to deny their advice Were they not Assistants to the Lords in matters of Law The true reason of their declining to give their Advice is It was a Case above them and not to be determined by the ordinary Rules of Law and therefore out of their element Quae supra nos nihil ad nos Therefore their answer was That it was a matter of Parliament and belong'd to the King and Lords but not to the Judges This is a Resolution of all the Judges in the very point though this particular Case concern'd only the Lords being a matter of precedency between Two Lords yet as I have prov'd the Parliament is one entire Body and are mutually concerned in their powers and privileges The other Case mentioned by Sir E. C. is that of Tho. Thorp the Speaker of the Commons 31 H. 6. taken in execution at the suit of the Duke of York during the recess of the Parliament We have it at large in the Parliament Roll of 31 H. 6. nu 25 26 27 28. The Commons at the opening of the next Session of Parliament request the King and Lords to restore their Speaker to them The Judges being demanded of their Counsel therein Note it was nothing but their Advice ask'd It was after mature deliberation they answered It was not their part to judge of the Parliament which may judge of the Law. Note the reason to judge of the Law signifies they are the Supream Court to judge what is Law and what is not And to judge of the Law likewise signifies that they can judge whether a Law be good or not in order to Approve of it and to Enact it or to Repeal a Law. This is in a Case that concern'd the privilege of the Commons and their Speaker and yet they say that judging in this Case were to judge of the Parliament This intimates too that the Parliament judges by other Rules than those of the Common-Law And 't is the Common-Law is the proper Element of the Judges of the Courts of Westminster-Hall This is a second Resolution of all the Judges in the very point Mr. Hakewel in
Affairs set out by a Learned Lawyer and the Son of a Judge and it is the Case that I lightly touch'd upon but now that of Mr. Hollis Selden c. The offence charg'd upon Mr. Denzill Hollis who was afterwards the Lord Hollis Mr. Selden Sir John Elliot Sir John Hobart and divers other Parliament-men was for a force used upon the then Speaker Sir John Finch afterwards Lord Keeper in keeping him in the Speaker's Chair against his will when he would have left it and pressing him to put a question which the King had forbidden him to put For this supposed offence after the Parliament was Dissolv'd these Parliament-men were first convened before the Council where they refus'd to answer the Charge it being for matters done in Parliament Then the Judges had Questions propounded to them to which they gave their resolution that for things done not in a Parliamentary way a Parliament-man may be punished after the Parliament is ended if he be not punished in Parliament otherwise as J. Croke said There would be a failure of Justice but that regularly he cannot be compell'd out of Parliament to answer things done in a Parliament in a Parliamentary course This Answer seems to be very oracular for it resolves that a Parliament-man shall not Answer for things done in Parliament in a Parliamentary course If it be done in a Parliamentary course what occasion can there be to answer for it But who shall judge what is a Parliamentary course but a Parliament not Judges of the Common-Law for the Parliamentary course differs from the Rules of the Common-Law But they refusing to answer at the Council-Board were committed close Prisoners to the Tower. After this Sir Robert Heath the King's Attorney preferr'd an Information in the Star-Chamber against them that was not proceeded in The Lord Keeper was under difficulties about it says the Author The Judges of the King's-Bench were to consult with the rest of the Judges in granting a Habeas Corpus for bailing the Prisoners The rest of the Judges would hear arguments so it was put off and delay'd as our Author reports it At last an Information was exhibited against them in the King's-Bench The Defendants pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court their plea was over-rul'd and they refusing to plead over judgment was entred by nihil dicit and they fined and imprison'd Mr. J. Croke at the latter end of those Reports gives this further account of that Case that afterwards in the Parliament 17 Car. 1. It was Resolv'd by the House of Commons that those Parliament-men should have a recompence for their damages sustain'd for the services to the Commonwealth in the Parliament 3 Car. 1. If a Judge hath thought fit to report this it may be as fit for me to mention it I take that to be the first precedent or resolution given in any case for what was done in Parliament and it stands alone I have heard of none since that neither It seems to be directly against the provision made by it it is clearly within the Equity and Reason of it Strode's Act. I wish I could not say that even those times of 3 Car. 1. were not full of trouble It appears much by the difficulty the Judges seem'd to be at in the proceedings of that Case this detracts much from that veneration that otherwise is justly due to a Resolution so solemn as that of all the Judges The Lord Chancellor Bacon in his profound Book of the Advancement of Learning dislikes all Precedents that taste of the times and advises that Precedents should be deriv'd from good and moderate Times The only reason that I find given for that proceeding in the case of Denzill Hollis is that given by Mr. J. Croke viz. That otherwise there would be a failure of Justice This reason must be grounded either upon the Infrequenecy of Parliaments or upon an opinion that Parliaments will be partial in cases of their own Members As to the first of these the long intervals between Parliaments This under favour ought to be no reason especially to come from a Judges's mouth I have a great honour for the memory of that Reverend Judge who must needs know and ought to assert it That by the Law Parliaments ought to be very frequent and Judges ought to take part with the Law and to maintain it Before the Conquest as 't is untruly call'd by the Law Parliaments were to be held twice a year as appears by King Edgar's Laws c. 5. in Lamb. de priscis c. And the Mirror of Justice c. 1. Sect. 3. tells us that King Alfred ordain'd for a perpetual Usage that twice in the year and if need were oftner The Seniors or Earls should assemble themselves at London to speak their minds And 't is reckon'd among the Abusions as they are there term'd of the Common-Law That whereas Parliaments ought to be twice in the year for the salvation of the Souls of Trespassers and at London too that they are there but very seldom and at the pleasure of the King for Subsidies and Collections of treasure And by the Statute of 4 E. 3. c. 14. Parliaments ought to be once a year and oftner if need be I have heard a Civilian in the House of Commons give this construction to that short Act that the words If need be should referr to the Parliaments being once a year aswell as to the words and oftner and I never heard that any man was of that opinion but himself but I remember he himself laught when he spoke it but he was more laught at for that ridiculous exposition And should that sense be put upon it it would make the Law a very ridiculous thing indeed for then the short of it would be this That we should have a Parliament when there is need But to refute that fancy there is another Statute of the same King's time namely 36 E. 3. c. 10. which says that for redress of divers mischiefs and grievances which daily happen it s accorded that a Parliament shall be holden every year without any such restriction If need be And by the Act of 16 Car. 2. c. 1. These Acts are declared to be in force And farther it is Declared and Enacted That the holding of Parliaments shall not be discontinued above three years at the most Now how can any man say in Defiance of these Laws That there can be any long discontinuance of Parliaments His now Majesty has been pleased graciously to declare his Resolution often to meet his People in Parliaments and in the word of a King there is power Nay we have the King's Oath for it for he is sworn to observe the Law And eadem praesumitur esse mens Regis quae legis And it is an high presumption for any man to think or say otherwise For that other ground of that reason given by Mr. Justice Croke viz. That there would be a failure of Justice if
have been from the first Constitution of the Kingdom certain Courts and Jurisdictions erected within this Realm for deciding and determining of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Causes Selden's History of Tithes fol. 412. All this is excellently well set forth by the Preamble of the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. concerning Appeals That as the King hath ever been the Supream Head of the Realm which Word Head is by way of Metaphor and must have relation to some Body therefore the Statute in the Preamble proceeds to tell you what the Body is to which the Head relates viz. The Body Politick of the Realm consists of all sorts and degrees of People within this Realm divided by Names of Spiritualty and Temporalty The Statute proceeds to mention the plenary Power Authority and Jurisdiction the King hath within this Realm in all Causes It shews us how that Power is distributed and by whom to be exercised Not by the King in Person nor at his Will and Pleasure in any arbitrary Way but as that Preamble further iustructs us The Body Spiritual hath Power in all Causes Divine and Spiritual to determin and to administer all such Offices and Duties as to their rooms Spiritual doth appertain the like is declared as to Temporal Causes to be in the other Part of the said Body Politick call'd the Temporalty And both their Authorities and Jurisdictions do concur in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other The Preamble of this Stat. of 24 H. 8. c. 12. of Appeals further shews how that this Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction had been confirmed and defended by several antient Acts of Parliament against the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome and that long before the Reformation of Religion Then comes the Enacting Part which does Ordain That all Causes determinable by any Spiritual Jurisdiction whether they concern the King himself as the Case of the King's Divorce or any of the Subjects shall be heard examined discussed clearly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the nature of the Cases shall require Then the same Statute shews us in what Courts and by what Steps and Method Suits and Proceedings concerning Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be handled See Paragraph 5 6 7 8 9 10. It begins with the Arch Deacon's Court which is infimi gradus and proceeds gradually from the Arch-Deacon to the Diocesan from him to the Metropolitan and at last it mentions the Convocation as the Supreamest Note That further Appeals have been given by several Acts of Parliament as by 25 H. 8 c 19. from the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan to the King in Chancery which is by Commission of Delegates c. And it hath been Resolved That though the Acts of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. and of 25. H. 8 cap. 19. do upon certain Appeals make the Sentence definitive as to any further Appeal yet the King as Supream Head may grant a Commission of Review See the Case of Halliwell against Jervois Sir Francis Moores Reports fol. 462. and in the same Reports fol. 782. in the Case of Bird against Smith and in Sir Edw. Cokes 4th Institutes fol. 341. And as the Kings Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction are by the Fundamental Laws of the Realm distributed into several Courts which are mentioned and confirmed by the said several Acts of Parliament and may not therefore be exercised by any other but by such Courts and in such Method and Manner as by Law and the said Acts of Parliament it is provided So also those Courts cannot proceed Arbitrarily but by the known and setled Ecclesiastical Laws Constitutions and Canons that are in force By the Act of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Entituled An Act for restoring to the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual c. the seventeenth Paragraph in Keeble's Book of Statutes It is Enacted That such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this Present Parliament be united to the Crown By the 18th Paragraph of that Act the Queen and her Successors have Power by vertue of this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal to assign c. as often as they shall think meet and for such time such Person or Persons as the Queen c. shall think meet to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and to Visit Reform Redress Order Correct and Amend all such Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Anormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or lawfully may be Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended and such Person or Persons so to be named c. shall have full Power by vertue of this Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise use and execute all the Premises according to the Tenor and Effect of the said Letters Patents See Sir Edw. Cokes 4. Inst. in his Chapter of Ecclesiastical Courts fol. 324 325. and see the 3d. Observ. fol. 326. observe the Words viz. It was Enacted out of necessity c. and ibid. Necessity did cause this Commission and it was not to be Exercis'd but upon necessity for it was never intended That it should be a continual standing Commission c. That the main Object of that Act was to deprive the Popish Clergy Almere's Case and Taylor and Massie's Case left to the proper Diocesan Upon the last recited Clause in that of 1. Eliz. was grounded the late Court call'd The High Commission Court From which Act it may be observed and collected That it needed an Act of Parliament to give such Authority to the Queen to grant such Letters Patents or Commission and that without an Act of Parliament such Commission could not have been granted For if the Queen by her meer Prerogative and Supream Power in Ecclesiastical Causes could have granted such Commission an Act of Parliament had been unnecessary And the express Words of the Act are That the Queen c. shall have power by vertue of this Act and the Law had as hath been before observ'd distributed the Kings Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction into several Courts So that without a new Law the like Power could not be put into any other hands in Derogation of those ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts Secondly Note This Act makes no new Crimes nor Offences but gives the Commissioners or Patentees Power to Visit Reform Redress c. all such Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power can
that the Defendant does Lupum auribus tenere And so the Judgment was arrested But we find that soon after when the Judges of that Court were chang'd the same Plaintiff brought a new Action for the same Cause And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff That the Action would lie but the Judges acknowledged it was the first Precedent I suppose it was upon pleading Not Guilty Perhaps the Court might have been of another Opinion had the Defendant pleaded specially and justified according to the Opinion of Judge Dodderidge The Case is Cro. Car. 15 Latch 79. The allowing of such Actions of Conspiracy or upon the Case or of Indictments or Informations for what is said or done in a Course of Justice and especially by way of Discovery of Treasons would prove of a mischievous Consequence And would be an occasion of multiplying Actions against the Parties to the Suits against Councel the Attorneys the Witnesses and so Suits would be infinite As in this present Case Should an Action be adjudg'd to lie against the Defendant for what he has acted by Authority of Parliament what a multitude of Actions would be stirred up by it If the Speaker be liable to this Information for what he has done by the same Reason he would be liable to the Actions of the several great Persons that are said to be defamed by the Printing of Dangerfields Narrative And if the Speaker be liable who acted but by Command of others and as their Minister how much more would all those Persons be ilable by whose Command he so acted And how many Narratives have there been printed wherein several great Persons were severely reflected on and how many Votes of the like Nature have there been Printed So that there would arise a Multitude of Suits In Sir Drue Druries Case 6. Rep. 74. The Justices in judging of that Case give a very good Rule and Caution They say That Judges ought to have good Consideration in all Cases depending before them not only of the present Cases but also of the Consequences What general Prejudice may ensue upon them either to the King or Subject The Case before you exceedingly requires that Consideration The Prejudice to the King will be that he will not be Safe for by this means Men will be discouraged from discovering Treasons The Subjects will receive Prejudice by the multitude of Suits that will arise by it This mas suffice to be said in maintaining the first Proposition That no Information or Action lies for what is said or done in a Course of Justice The Minor Proposition is That what is here done by the Defendant in this Case was done in a Course of Justice and in a Legal Proceeding and that in the highest Court of the Nation in the Court of Parliament and done according to the Law and Custom of Parliament This I must make out in the next Place In the making this out I am under a Necessity of speaking of the transcendent Power of the High Court of Parliament and I must assert these Positions following 1. That the House of Commons was originally and from the first Constitution of the Nation the Representative of one of the three Estates of the Realm and a part of the Parliament 2. That what is done by either House according to the Law and Usage of Parliament is properly and in the Judgment of Law the Act of the whole Parliament And that what concerns the One must of necessity concern the Whole not meerly by Consequence but by an immediate Concernment as being One and Entire 3. That what hath been acted in our present Case by the Defendant as Speaker and by the House of Commons whose Minister he was and by whose Command and Order he did What he did was done according to the Law and Usage of Parliament As to the first That the House of Commons was from the first Constitution of this Kingdom a part of the Parliament There has been an Opinion that hath been stifly maintained by some Divines and others of late That the House of Commons originally were no part of the Parliament at least not as now elected and consisting of Knights Citizens and Burgesses but that their Beginning was in the forty ninth Year of King Henry 3. when that King had given a total overthrow at the Battle of Evesham to Symon Montford Earl of Leicester and the Barons And that to ballance the Power of the Barons that King caused the Knights Citizens and Burgesses to be chosen and to make a Part of the Parliament And from hence some Unquiet Innovating Writers quorum res spes ex adulatione pendent and who would destroy Foundations and remove our Ancient Land-marks and the Ancient and Just Limits and Boundaries of Power and Authority Persons of necessitous Estates or of greedy and ambitious Appetites which drive them upon devising how to do some acceptable Service to those that maintain them Or at the best out of unsetled Judgments and too much Zeal which carries them to a contrary extream These Men conclude That therefore all the Power and Priviledge the House of Commons claims is not by Prescription but that they depend upon the King 's Royal Will and Pleasure and had their Original by his meer Concession and not by Ancient Inherent Right nor Original Constitution and therefore may be resumed at Pleasure It was one of the Articles against Dr. Manwaring in the Parliament 3 Car. 1. for which he was Impeached by the Commons and Sentenced by the Lords in Parliament That to Subvert Scandalize and Impeach the good Laws and Government of this Realm and the Authority of the High Court of Parliament and to avert his Majesties Mind from calling of Parliaments and to alienate his Royal Heart from his People he did in his Sermons and in his Books printed endeavour to persuade the King That his Majesty was not bound to observe the Laws of the Realm concerning the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects That Authority of Parliament was not necessary for raising of Aids and Subsidies His Sentence was Imprisonment during pleasure and but 1000l Fine for this high Offence not 20000l as hath been of late times He was to acknowledge his Offences as it should be set down by a Committee in writing at the Bars of both Houses He was suspended from his Ministry Disabled to preach at Court. His Books were to be call'd in and burnt in London and both the Universities Power limited by Law is safest It may be thought Potestas minor sed tutior diuturnior Ea demum tuta est Potentia quae viribus suis modum imponit To encounter these new and upstart Opinions I shall mention an Author or two whom all sober men reverence that are of a contrary Judgment to these new Authors And they are either Eminent Lawyer or Divines And I am the more encourag'd to do it because His Majesty that now
is hath upon several occasions been pleas'd graciously to declare That he holds Parliaments to be the best Method for healing the Distempers of the Kingdom and the only means to preserve the Monarchy in credit at home and abroad and he promises to rule the People by the Law. Hales that solid learned Divine in his Golden Remains cites Baldus for it Digna Vox est Majestate Regnantis Legibus alligatum Principem se prositeri And Learned Hooker that great Champion for the Discipline and for the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church in his Eccles Polity delivers his Opinion quite contrary to these Time-Servers Pag. 27. All publick Government says he of what kind soever seemeth evidently to have arisen from deliberate Advice Consultation and Composition between men That Composition signifies the Laws And pag. 28. he says further That the Power of making Laws to command whole Politick Societies of men belongs properly to the same entire Societies What can be said more in confutation of the Book that goes by the Name of Sir Rob. Filmers The Duke of Wittemberg at the Council held at Wormes when other Princes discours'd of many Priviledges and Conveniencies of their Lordships and Territories openly protested it to be his greatest Felicity That he could in aperto Campo in Sinu Subditorum suorum dormire Non eget Mauri jaculis nec arcu c. I shall further add only the Judgment of one or two of our most Famous and Learned Judges concerning this Matter Fortescu that was first Lord Chief Justice and afterwards Lord Chancellor in the Reign of H. 6. in his excellent Book in commendation of the Laws of England affirms this Doctrine Ad tutelam Legis Subditorum ac eorum Corporum Bonorum erectus Rex est Et ad hanc Potestatem a Populo effluxam ipse habet Sir E. C. in his 12. Rep. 64. delivered his Opinion freely in the Case of Prohibitions before the King and the Lords of the Council where there was a warm Debate between the Judges and Dr. Bancroft Archbishop of Canterbury And what Sir E. C. deliver'd for Law was with the clear consent of all the Justices of England and Barons of the Exchequer And there Sir E. C. says it was greatly marvell'd at that the Arch-Bishop durst inform the King That the King had an absolute Power and Authority by the Word of God to determine what Causes he pleas'd in his own Person And it is admirable to observe with what a true and honest Courage that grave Chief Justice Sir E. C. answer'd the King himself in that Debate When the King was pleas'd to say It was Treason to affirm that the King was under the Law The Chief Justice answer'd him with the Words of an ancient Judge and Author of our Law that is out of Bracton That the King was Sub Deo Lege And Fleta another of our ancient Authors in our Science useth Words to the same effect This Doctrine differs from some of our late Motto's in the Serjeants Rings Tacitus in his Annals gives this excellent Commendation of two of the best of the Roman Emperors Nerva and Trajan Res olim insociabiles miscuerunt Imperium Libertatem And that Author well observes it as the true Case and Condition of a People and a necessary Consequence Amissa Virtute pariter ac Libertate This Discourse of mine may seem to some to be a Digression but a man can never have a juster occasion for it than now and upon this Argument and Suit I make that my Apology which I learn from King James His Majesties Royal Grandfather in his Discourse of the Powder-Treason Which proves it the more seasonable There is a Time saith King James when no man ought to keep silence It hath says he been ever held as a general Rule in all well-govern'd Common-wealths whether Christian or Ethnicks That when either their Religion or their King or their Countrey was in any extream hazard no good Countrey-man ought then to with-hold either his Tongue or his Hand according to his Calling or Faculty from aiding to repel the Injury repress the Violence and avenge the Guilt upon the Authors To support the Power and Priviledge of the House of Commons as being an essential part of the Parliament it is absolutely necessary to make it out against these Innovators that the House of Commons have ever been a part of the Parliament and that they were long before 49 H. 3. Or otherwise they are but precarious in their power and priviledges and enjoy them but of Grace Every Priviledge is by Prescription says the Lord Dier fol. 60. a. med in Trewinnard's Case which I shall have occasion to mention more at large before I have done And in the same Dier fol. 70. in the Case of Withers and Iseham it is held That a man cannot prescribe to an Incident or Appendent nor indeed to any Power or Authority where the Principal Thing hath not had a perpetual continuance Therefore where the beginning of a thing is known there can be nothing belonging to it by Prescription In one of our late Kings Reigns the House of Commons in an Address of theirs made mention of their Priviledges as their ancient and undoubted Right and Inheritance But Offence was taken at it and they were told it had been better if they had said their Priviledges were deriv'd from the Grace and Permission of the King and his Ancestors Now I shall clearly prove that these Powers and Priviledges were indeed their ancient Right and Inheritance Which they cannot be unless that House or the Commons by their Representative have been ever from the beginning of the Governm ent a part and member of the Parliament I shall prove it out of several authentick Authors of the Law Historians and Antiquaries and by a multitude of Records and by divers Acts of Parliament which are all the sorts of Proof that can be in a Question of this Nature The Mirrour of the Justices of which Book Sir E. C. says That most of it was written before the Conquest as appears by the Book it self Tho. Horn a Learned man added much to it in the Reign of E. 1. in this Mirrour of the Justices c. 1. sect 3. It is said that King Alfred Ordain'd for a perpetual Usage That twice in the Year or oftner if need be the Parliament should assemble And to let you see of whom that Parliament did consist he tells us in the same Chapter by whom the Laws were then made It is says he among other things ordain'd that no King should change his Money nor impair it nor inhanse it nor make any Money but of Silver without the assent of the Lords and All the Commons Sir E. C. in his Preface to the 9th Rep. tells us That Tenants in Ancient Demesn because by their Tenure they were bound to Plow and Husband the Kings Demesnes before the Conquest And in the Conquerors
Elected and to consist of Knights Citizens and Burgesses as is clearly Proved by the Records I have already offer'd The Parliament in the Saxon Times was styled Commune Concilium tam Cleri quam populi And the Laws were made per Commune Concilium assensum Omnium Episcopar ' Principum Procerum Comitum omnium sapientum Senior ' popular ' totius Regni Populi Conventus King Edward the Confessor Confirm'd the Saxon Laws and made new says Lambert in his Book De Priscis Anglor Legibus C. 8. fol. 139. and there ' t is said all to be done a Rege Baronibus Populo These general Words cannot be understood otherwise than to include the Commons And so totius Regni assensu omnium astipulatione judicio says Mr. Selden a Judgment was given concerning Lanfrank Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The Statute of Mag. Charta was made and Confirm'd 9 H. 3. which was forty Years before this new Date of the Original of the House of Commons viz. 49 H. 3. And it appears by several Statutes that Mag. Charta was made De Communi Concilio Regni says one Statute Per Commune assent de tut le Realm says another Per le Roy Peers Communes de le terre says another It is worth the while to examin the Grounds of their Opinion and it will appear how weak they are These new Authors affirm that the House of Commons began to be admitted as a part of the Parliament not till â— 49 H. 3. Their reason is because as Mr. Prin says in his Plea for the Lords fol. 182. and in his Preface to Sir Robert Cott. Abr. The first Writ of Summons of any Knights Citizens and Burgesses now extant is no antienter than 49 H. 3. Dorso 10. and 11. And from thence he concludes that it is most apparent that the Commons had no Place nor Votes by Election in Parliament before the End of the Reign of H. 3. and Sir Robert Filmer is in like manner positive in it in his Book call'd The Freeholders Grand Enquest fol. 18. and they both cite Mr. Seld. and Camd. and other Learned Authors and Mr. Dugdale in his Origines Juridiciales fol. 18. follows them in it It is true Mr. Selden in His Titles of Honour fol. 717 towards the end of that fol. does take notice that the First Roll that they find extant is that of 49 H. 3. for the Summoning of the Commons by way of Election but he does not thence conclude as those new Authors do that this was the first time that the Commons came to the Parliament by Election But in other places of his Learned Book he does strongly intimate his Opinion to be that the Commons did very Anciently and long before 49 H. 3. make an Essential part of the Parliament and were summon'd to it but in what Form they were summon'd and when they first began to be distinguished from the Barones Majores Selden himself seems much unresolved Learned Camden does indeed date the Original of the Commons as a part of the Parliament and as now Elected from 49 H. 3. fol. 13. of his Britannia in the Edit at Lond. An. 1600. But let us take notice upon what Authority he does it He says he has it Ex satis Antiquo Scriptore but he names not his Author Mr. Seld. fol. 713. says he could never meet with that Author and professes he gives little Credit to that Relation but acknowledges there had been a great Change in the Constitution of the Parliament but supposes it long before 49 H. 3. viz. in the time of that King's Father King John and that it was done by a Law tho' the Law be lost as many Rolls of Parliament were wherein those Laws were entered And the distinction of Barones Majores Minores he supposes was made by Act of Parliament about the time when the great Charter of King John was made at Runnymead viz. 17 Johannis By which Charter some of the Barones Majores were severally to be Summon'd to Parliament by special Writs And all other Tenants in capite or Tenants by Knights Service were to be summon'd by a general Summons directed to the Sheriff of every County By this Conjecture it should seem that the Court of Parliament before consisted but of one House or Assembly And it is generally held that at the first from the beginning of the Reign of William the first till that Charter of King John all Tenants in Capite had a Right to sit in Parliament For says Mr. Seld. fol. 704. medio folii Tenere de Rege in Capite and to be a Baron and to have a right to sit in Councils or Courts of Judgment are Synonymies That great Charter of King John says Seld. was made by the King and his Barons liberos homines totius Regni and that it seems first made the distinction But Mr. Seld. does by no means leave it to K. H. 3. or his Son E. 1. or to any other King at any time to send his special Writ of Summons to such of the Barons only quibus ipse Rex dignatus est Brevia Summonitionis dirigere As Mr. Camden's nameless Authour taught him and from Mr. Camden Mr. Pryn Sir Robert Filmer and Mr. Dugdale take it up and so propagate that Error So that this new fancy is wholly grounded upon the Credit of that uncertain Writer whom Mr. Selden could never meet with and to whom he gave no credit The Argument upon this Subject begins fol. 701. in Mr. Seld. Tit. of Honour and is continued to fol. 718. Now the Argument taken from the Rolls of Summons which are not extant before the time of 49 H. 3. is of no weight For by the same Argument it might be proved that there was no Parliament from the time of 49 H. 3. till 23 E. 1. For there is no Roll nor no other Testimony left of a Summons for any Knights Citizens and Burgesses from 49 H. 3. till 23 E. I. And yet we know there were no lest than fourteen Parliaments between those times And yet we know there were no less than fourteen Parliaments between those times They may as well argue that there were no Acts of Parliament nor no Parliament till 9 H. 3. when Magna Charta was made because there are no Rolls of them till that time Whereas it is beyond all dispute that there were Parliaments and Acts of Parliament long before as 4 Will. 1. when the Bishops were brought in to hold by Barony as Mr. Seld. conceives and some in H. 1. and others yet extant in History yet the Rolls of them are lost This is observ'd by the Ld. Ch. I. Vaughan in his Rep fol. 358. in the Case of Thomas and Sorrel In the next place these late Authors proceed further in their errour and maintain that the Commons had no further power in Parliament than what the King and the Lords admitted
Nobilis in our times is generally restrain'd to Peers whom we call the Nobility our New Writers as Mr. Pryn and Sir Robert Filmer and several others ascribe all to the Earls and Barons and other Peers of our times which they read in the Translations of the Saxon Annals to be acted by those that are called Nobiles in those Annals Altho' in truth in those Saxon times they were acted by the middle sort of Persons as well as by those of the highest sort of Dignity under the King. Those Translators misled our new Authors For the Norman Writers translate the Word Thanes into Barones and these new Authors of ours whatever they find in these Translations to be related of the Barones they limit it as a Peculiar to our present Barons and so ascribe all judicial Power antiently used in Parliament to the Barons only And they bring those Historians and Translators for a Proof For Example The Saxon Title Thanes was in the Saxon times applyed to all Lords of Mannors But the Translators of the Saxon Annals translating the Title Thanes into Barones Our Innovators apply all that in Saxon Writers is said to be done by the Thanes that is all Lords of Mannors as peculiarly belonging to the Power of the Barons in our times Hence it is that Sir E. C. cautions us against taking Reports of Law from Historians in his Preface to the 3d. Rep. he calls it Chronicle Law. The Word Baro was not in use in England till the Normans times and the Root of it as Mr. Seld. and Camd. and Sir H. Spelm. teach us is from the Northern Language Barn which signifies the Male Sex as when we put Cases of Baron and Feme or it signifies a Freeholder hence come the Words Courts Baron Nomine Baronagii says Camd. Eliz. Edit Lond. An. 1600. fol. 137. omnes quodammodo Regni Ordines continebantur It comprehended the Gentry as well as the greatest Persons After this manner Godwin in his Roman Antiquities speaking of the Roman Magistrates Translates the Words Triumviri capitales into 3. High Sheriffs but this affords no Argument that what was done by the Triumviri among the Romans may therefore lawfully belong to the power of High Sheriffs among us And so the Words Proceres Magnates Optimates Nobiles and such like were not in the Writers of the Saxons times restrain'd to Men of the highest rank then such as our Earls and Barons are now but to all Persons of the better sort tho' not of the highest rank not only to Patricians and those of the Senatorian order but to those also that were Equestris ordinis Excluding none but the Ignota capita or sine Nomine turba such as the Romans styled Plebeians Magnates Proceres are said to make the Stat. of Mortmain but we all know that the Parliament that made it consisted then of King Lords and Commons The great Charter made 17 of K. John appears by the body of the Charter it self to have been made per Regem Barones liberos Homines totius Regni so that it is most plain it was not made by the King and the Barons only as Mr. Seld. observes in his Tit. of Honour fol. 709. and there he refers to the Close Rolle 17 Johannis dorso memb 22 Yet K. H. 3. speaking of this Meeting calls it Baronagium Angliae and rot claus 28 H. 3. Pars unica membr 12. dorso it is call'd Parliamentum de Runni-meade quod fuit inter Dominum Regem Johannem Barones suos Angliae As for the other gross mistake That the Power of making Laws rests only in the King as Sir Robert Filmer would have it which he proves from the Titles of Acts of Parliament and the Forms of those Acts being by way of Charter and Grant from our Kings in ancient times as that of Magna Charta DOMINVS REX CONCESSIT and the Stat. De donis conditionalibus DOMINVS REX statuit sure he was no Lawyer that used this Argument and he never read the Prince's Case Nor Sir E. C. 2. Inst. nor shall I need to labour in the consutation of this Errour the fallacy of it being so well known to every Man that wears a Gown As for that Stat of Mag. Char. whereby the King only seems to speak and all that is ordain'd by that Stat. runs in the language of the King's Concessions only yet we know the Stat. of 15 E. 3. c. 1. which confirms it says of it that it was ordain'd by the King Lords and Commons The Stat. of 28 E. 1. c. 8. and c. 13. hath these words viz. The King hath granted unto his People that they shall have Election of their Sheriffs every year if they list One would take this to be a most gracious Liberty and an high Condescension if it should be granted now adays And our Innovators would be apt to conclude from the words of this Act and from the Penning of it that the People once had this mighty Priviledge meerly as a Boon from the King and by virtue of his Grant. Whereas there is nothing more certain and clear than that the Freeholders who are often call'd the People and are the true Proprietors of the Nation and Land had originally and from the very first Constitution of the Nation the Election not only of all Sheriffs but of all other Magistrates Civil or Military that had any Authority over them under the King so that they had a mighty Freedom in the very Constitution of the Nation and this overthrows all the wild Fancies of Sir Robert Filmer and Dr. Heylin and some later Doctors as if all were deriv'd from meer Grace and Bounty and many other Deductions might be made from the knowledge of this The Freeholders had originally the Election of the Conservators of the Peace who are become out of date by introducing our present Justices of Peace who have their Power not by the Elect. of the Freeholders or are they of their Nomination as anciently but nominated by the King and have their Power by special Commission under the great Seal and how and by what means and in what tempered times this came about and that this freedom was gain'd from the Freeholders of England you may read in Mr. Lambard in his Eirenarcha fol. 16. 19. 20. 147. It was done by Act of Parliament in the beginning of K. E. 3d and in his Infancy when his Mother Q. Isabel ruled all The Freeholders originally and from all antiquity did likewise by Writ at the County-Court styled in pleno Folkmote chuse the Heretochii What were those that sounds like a strange word I will imitate our Norman or English Translators in the translation of the Saxon Annals and render it into the English style you may by that rule call them Lords Lieutenants or Deputy Lieutenants for the Saxon Laws tell you their duty or office they were the Ductores Exercitus See Lamb. de priscis Anglor Legibus in his ch de
will make a Foelix tremble We have often heard it confidently said from the Pulpit That our Laws are like the Spiders Webs which catch the little Flies but the great ones break through them Now it is quite contrary with this great Court this great Court encounters only with great Offenders It is like the Imperial Eagle Aquila non capit Muscas it leaves them to this and other Inferiour Courts but that takes to task the Animalia Majora In the great Case Rot. Parl. 40 E. 3. num 7. King John had resign'd up the Crown of England to the Pope by the hand of Pandolphus his Legate and sordidly submitted to take the Crown at his hand again at a yearly Tribute In the Region of our noble King Edward the 3d. the Pope demanded his Rent and all the Arrears The Prelates Dukes Counts Barons and Commons resolv'd that neither the King nor any other could put the Realm nor the People thereof into subjection sans l'assent de eux This intimates that with their joint consent the Crown may be dispos'd of This was the highest Resolution in Law in one of the highest points in Law concerning the King's Claim of an Absolute Power and in a time when the Pope was in his height And the Commons join in the Resolution both against the Pope's and King John's pretence to a Despotick Power Sir Tho. Smith who was a Secretary of State in his Commonw l. 2. c. 2. fol. 50 51. In Comitiis Parliamentariis posita est omnis absolutae potestatis vis taking in the King as the Head of them as it ought to be understood this shows where the rightful absolute Power under Almighty God is And among other Magnalia he tells us Incerti Juris Controversias dirimunt This shews their transcendent Judicial Power they determine the greatest Disputes and Doubts in Law. They would quickly decide this Dispute and Controversie were it once before them without Argument This appears to be the proper business of a Parliament even from the Writ of Summons both to Lords and Commons for they did not Anciently differ in any thing material as I have abundantly shown already they are De Arduis Regni tractitare Concilium impendere here is their Councelling Power According to that Equitable Rule Quod omnes tangit ab omnibns tractari debet Their Legislative Power is most clearly set out by Bracton a Judge in the time of K. H. 3d. in whose latter times our Innovators would have the House of Commons to begin I cited him before Legis vigorem habet says he quicquid de Consilio de Consensu Magnatum Reipubl communi Sponsione anthoritate Regis praecedente juste fuerit definitum approbatum 5 H. 4. Num. 11. The Record there uses too gross a Word The Commons says the Roll require the King it should have been made it their Request to the King and the Lords accorded that four special Persons should be remov'd out of the Kings House This in some Ages as in the Reign of K. R. the 2d would have been thought a very high presumption and a sawcy thing to speak in the Language of the Pulpit and Press too from a late Cambr. Dr. and a Chaplain in Ordinary if the Title of the Print may be credited but said to be printed by the of that University A sawcy thing with their Prophane and Unhallowed Hands to presume to meddle in a thing so Sacred Thus says the late Printed Sermon But it was a Sacred or Consecrated thing indeed in this Roll of Parliament mention'd One of the 4 required to be remov'd out of the King's House where he was a Domestick was no less than the King's Confessor And it was not in the Reign of a R. the 2d or H. the 6th but of K. H. 4th one of our Wisest and most Active Valiant Kings But it may be thought that these four Persons were in some desperate Popish Plot of killing the King as the four we have heard of were No the King himself will resolve that Doubt That noble King said in answer to it He knew no cause wherefore they should be remov'd but only for that they were hated of the People And yet that great King charged those Four to depart from his House This proves their Councelling Power I might enumerate a vast multitude of Animalia Majora no small Flies that have in several Ages been catched in the Net or Webb of an Inquiry made by the House of Commons who fish only for such greater Fish such as we call the Pike who by Oppression live upon the smaller Fish and devour them The Commons to that end fish with a Net that has a wide and large Meshe such as le ts go the small Frye and compasses none but those of the largest size Such as the Lord Latimer in the time of E. 3. An. 50. Such as Michael de la Pool E. of Suff. and Lord Chancellour in 10. R. 2. Tho. Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. and such like William de la Pool D. of Suff. 28 H. 6. who were all impeach'd by the House of Commons in several Parliaments And I my self have seen a Lord Chief Justice of this Court while he was Lord Chief Justice and a Learned Man by leave from the House of Commons pleading before that House for himself and excusing what he had done in a Tryal that came before them in the West whereof Complaint was made to the House And he did it with that great Humility and Reverence and those of his own Profession and others were so far his Advocates as that the House desisted from any further prosecution In the the late Act of 13o. of his now Majesty for safety of his Royal Person there is a Proviso for the saving of the Just Antient Freedom and the Priviledge of either of the Houses of Parliament or any of their Members of debating any Matters or Business which shall be debated or propounded in either of the said Houses or at any Conferences or Committees of both or either of the said Houses or touching the Repeal or Alteration of any old or the preparing any new Laws or the Redressing of any publick Grievances I observ'd but now out of Trewinn Case in the Ld. Dier that the Judgment of the House of Commons in a Case of the priviledge of that House in that Report is called a Judgment of the most high Court of Parliament which proves they are not without a Judicial Power 3 H. 6. Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. fol. 574. The great Case between the E. of Warwick and the Earl Marshal for Precedency fol. 576. was determin'd by the King. By Advice and Consent of the Lords and Commons and yet one would have thought that a Case of Precedency between two Peers should have been a peculiar of the Lords In the Case of 1 H. 7. in the Year Books fol. 4. about reversing of Attainders it is advis'd by all the Judges that those
for an Information which is but the King's Suit the Reason being the same in both But it may perhaps be thought that in respect of the Persons concern'd in it this was too high a Flight and too bold an Attempt and that the height and eminence of some persons may exempt them from common Justice and from the Power even of a Parliament In answer to which I would observe that some Laws are more especially levell'd against the Highest Subjects By the Statute of W. 1. c. 5. The King forbids that nul haute homme no High or Great Man upon pain of grievous forseiture disturb Elections but Elections ought to be free The like may be observ'd in the Statute of W. 1. c. 35. Des hautes bommes c. And the greater the Persons are if they are in the rank of Subjects they must be subject to the King's Laws and they are the more proper for the undertaking and encounter of this High Court. It will not be Impar congressus I cited before the Mirror of Justices Chap. 1. Pag. 9. where it is said that Parliaments were ordained for to hear and determine in such wrongs and against such Persons especially against whom otherwise Common Right cannot be had I will cite no Historians to prove what hath been done in Antient Times within this very Kingdom of this Nature against the highest Subjects I will keep still within my own Sphere and cite none but Authorities in Law. And so keep my self in the way that belongs to me and so doing I am under the Protection of this Court and of the Law and may relye upon the performance of that Blessed Promise He will keep thee in all thy ways There must be no respect of Persons in doing Justice The great Judge of all the World gives it as a Rule and himself gives the Example God is no respecter of Persons The King was pleas'd to charge both Houses to make a strict and impartial Enquiry I shall cite two Authorities in Law that come to this point The first is in Case of a Brother and an Heir apparent too and of a Person that did after succeed in the Crown King Richard the 1st in his Magna Curia petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre fuo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae inierat That was the Offence charg'd It may possibly be Objected that the King himself complain'd True but he complains to the proper Judicature This proves their Power Hunts Arguments for Bishops fol. 80. But what did the High Court do upon that Complaint They pronounc'd a very severe Sentence tho' it were but in the Nature of a mean process to make him appear and Answer Seld. Tit. of Hon. fol. 707. The Lords Order or adjudge that if John Earl of Moreton did not appear within 40 Days after Summons Judicaverunt Comitem Johannem demeruisse Regnum Let me remember you of a stronger and higher Case and I have it out of an Author of the Law too Crompt Jurisd of Courts in his Chapter of the Court of the King 's Bench. In a Case of Corpus cum Causa Whidden one of the Judges of the Court cited a Case that did happen in the time of Gascoign Ch. I. in the Reign of King H. 4. Gascoign committed the Prince of Wales who was afterwards our King H. the 5th to Prison for endeavouring to take away a Prisoner from the Bar of the King's Bench and the Prince humbly submitted and went to Prison and the King hearing of it commended it If the King's Bench being an Inferior Court to that high Court might soar so high how much more the highest Court of the Realm where the King sits in the Exaltation of his Orb and is in his greatest Splendor The King indeed is presum'd in Law to be in this Court which makes the style of its proceedings to be Coram Rege and some of our Kings have been said to have sate here But the King is in his High Court of Parliament per Eminentiam as K. H. 8. one of the highest and most resolute of our Kings said in the Case of Ferrers which I cited before to another Point That he was informed by his Judges who were all then present that he in no time stood so high in his State Royal as in the time of Parliament Then if we consider the Person whom the Ch. I. Gascoign Committed He was a continuing settled fixed Heir and then Prince of Wales whose Chair now stands Vacant in the Lord's House in time of Parliament and afterwards this Prince of Wales proved a Renowned King. Nescit Imperare qui nescit obtemperare The Sacred Scriptures tell us that the Heir differeth nothing from a Servant I may say also from a Subject until the time appointed of the Father Gal. 4. 1 3. What would the Author of the Sermon preach'd before the University have said in these Cases that I have cited He would have call'd them Unwarrantable Proceedings and would have affirm'd that the Persons thus proceeded against were too sacred to be touch'd with such unhallowed Hands This hath been the Bold Language from the Pulpit and the Press if the Title of the Book be true from a Cambr. Dr. Oblitus Professionis suae quae nil nisi lene suadet justum And the Author while he was guilty of gross Flattery on the one hand was not afraid to run into the other Extream of speaking Evil of Dignities on the other hand of one of the three Estates of the Realm of the Representative of the Great Body whereof he himself makes but a small inconsiderable Atome We know from certain and undoubted Histories of our own that in the time of King H. 8. greater Persons in the Account of the Law than the Prince of Wales and yet but Subjects of the King have been brought to Tryal and that before Lords Commissioners and however in other Respects their Cases might be very hard yet it was never doubted but they were Subject to the Law and Justice Now to proceed to my second Point wherein I shall be brief viz. That however the Matters Charged in the Attorney General 's Information are not to be imputed to the Defendant in this Case He being but the Minister or Mouth of the House and Acting only by their Order He is frequently in the Parliament Records styled the Mouth of the House whose Speaker he is Mr. Hakewell in his Treatise of Parliaments fol. 200. among the Catalogue of Speakers begins with Petrus de Mountf whom he makes Speaker 44 H. 3. of the House of Commons and he cites the Register of St. Albans for it Fol. 207. where it is said that Petrus de Mountford Vice totius Communitatis consented to the Judgment of Banishment of Adomar de Valence Bishop of Winchester and Sir Robert Cotton agrees with Mr. Hakewell in this
the jurisdiction of the Court. Et dicit quod si quis eorum speaking of the Lords of Parliament deliquerit erga Dominum Regem in Parliamento aliquo in parliamento debet corrigi emendari non alibi in minori curia quam in Parliamento Vnde non intendit quod Dominus Rex velit in curia hic de bujusmodi transgressione contemptu factis in Parliamento responderi Note the Plea as to the offence is very general not only restrain'd to the offence of absenting from the Parliament but to any trespass or offence in Parliament Si quis deliquerit And it would be a little improper to call absence from Parliament offence committed in Parliament for it looks like the quite contrary But in a just sence any offence committed by a Member relating to the Parliament though done out of the House is termed an Offence in Parliament So Printing any thing by Order of Parliament though it be done and executed in another place yet it may be said to be done by the Parliament and in Parliament if it be by their Order and in time of Parliament We may note further that this is a prosecution only against one particular Person for a particular Offence and Contempt charg'd upon him But in our Case the prosecution is against the very Speaker of the Parliament and is in effect a prosecution against the Parliament for it is against him for what he did by command and order of Parliament and sitting the Parliament And though the Attorney-General reply'd to the Bishops Plea that the King might sue in what Court he would yet the Bishop rejoins upon him and maintains his former Plea and there it rests so that as Sir E. C. observes that the Bishops Plea did stand and was never over-rul'd agreeable to the resolutions of former times So this I. may claim as an authority on our side And though Mr. Plowden the Lawyer to the like Information put in against him and others 1 and 2 Philip and Mary pleaded that he remain'd continually from the beginning to the end of the Parliament and travers'd the absence whereby he passes by the advantage of the Plea to the jurisdiction yet this is no Authority against us for he might think fit Renunciare juri pro se introducto having so true an occasions of clearing himself from that scandalous imputation of being absent from doing his duty in Parliament which certainly is a very high breach of Trust and he might be impatient of lying under it and therefore thought it best to traverse it to clear his Reputation in that point yet I must confess I should never have advis'd it nor was there any further prosecution against him I will mention but one most excellent Record more and it is a Record out of the Parliament Rolls 27 E. 3. Num. 9. Sir Cotton's Abridgem and with that I will Conclude I take it to be very pertinent and I am sure it is very seasonable Among the Petitions of the Commons One is They pray the King that he will require the Archbishop and all other of the Clergy to Pray for the Peace and good Government of the Land. And for the King 's good will towards the Commons The King's Answer is The same prayseth the King. And I wish with all my heart it were the Common-Prayer I have but one Prayer more to make and that is That this Court will allow the Defendant's Plea. A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE Realm of England Occasioned by the Late COMMISSION IN Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir Robert Atkyns Kt. of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late One of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas LONDON Printed for Tim. Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against St. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street MDCLXXXIX A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE Realm of England Occasioned by the Late COMMISSION IN Ecclesiastical Causes THE Preamble acknowledges That the King justly and rightfully is and ought to be Supream Head of the Church of England and is so recognised by the Clergy in their Convocations And it is Enacted That the King and his Successors shall be taken c. the only Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England And shall have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown all Jurisdiction c. Authorities c. to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging And that the King and his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to visit repress redress reform order correct restrain and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed repressed ordered redressed c. Any Usage Custom foreign Laws foreign Authority Prescription or any thing to the contrary notwithstanding Note This Act doth not make the King to be the Supream Head of the Church of England but acknowledges that he ever hath been so as it is recited by the Statute made in the same Parliament of 26 H. 8. c. 3. the Act for the First-Fruits See the Preamble towards the latter Part being the first Paragraph See also the Oath prescribed by the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 1. for the Succession Paragraph the 11th in Mr. Keeble's Edition of the Statutes at large very full to this purpose to shew that the Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. gave the King no new Title but only acknowledged that he ever had a Right to it and that the Bishop of Rome had but usurped it And as the Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. gave the King no new Title so it gave him no new nor further Authority in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things nor over Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Persons than what he had before Therefore it is to be enquir'd what jurisdiction or Authority the King had before the making of that Act and how the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was of right and duly before exercis'd and administred viz. in what Courts by what Rules Laws or Canons and by what Persons It is clear in Law that the King himself merely in his own Royal Person could never take to himself the Hearing of any Cause Ecclesiastical or Temporal and adjudg and determine the Cause himself For by the Law and Constitution of the Realm the King hath committed all his Power Judicial to divers Courts some in one Court some in another as is held in Sir Ed. Cokes 2d Institutes fol. 186. at the lower end of that folio and in the middle of fol. 187. All Matters of Judicature and Proceedings in Law are distributed to the Courts of Justice and the King doth judg by his Justices See the Reports that pass by the Name of Sir Ed. Cokes 12th Reports fol. 63. the Case of Prohibitions Which is true as to Ecclesiastical Causes as well as Temporal for every Man knows that there
or lawfully may be Reformed Redressed Corrected c. In Sir Edw. Cokes 12 Rep. fol. 49 It was Resolved Trin. 6. Jae Per totam Curiam in the Court of Common-Pleas there being then Five Judges of that Court Coke being Chief Justice That the High Commissioners by vertue of their Commission and that Act of Parliament ought to proceed according to Ecclesiastical Law. Secondly If their Commission gave them any Power which was not allowed or warranted by that Act of Parliament it was not Legal which proves that such Power cannot be exercis'd by a Commission under the Great Seal merely without an Act of Parliament See Drakes Case in Justice Croke's Reports of the time of King Charles fol. 220. There it is also Resolv'd That the King by his Commissioners cannot alter the Ecclesiastical Law nor the Proceedings of ☞ it And if the Word Lawfully had not been in that Act of 1. Eliz. yet it must have been so intended and the Judges of the Common Law who are proper Judges Expositors and Interpreters of Acts of Parliament would have so understood it as appears by the Resolution of the Judges in the Case in the same 12. Rep. of the Lord Coke fol. 84 85. and little regard therefore was given by the Judges to Commissions under the Great Seal which the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Abbot said had been made in like Cases in the Times of King Hen. VIII and Ed. VI. In the last Case ibidem fol. 85. the Chief Justice Coke says He had seen the Commission made to Cromwell by King Hen. VIII to be Vice-gerent and other Commissions to others by his appointment and he refers to the Commission at large inserted in his Book of Precedents See in the same 12. Rep. of Sir Edw. Coke f. 88. Excellent Rules to be observ'd upon such extraordinary Commissions viz. They ought to be solemnly read for they may possibly contain many things against the Law as the Commission in that Case mentioned did The Commissioners may every one of them require Copies of the Commission The Commissioners ought to Sit in an open Place and at certain Days Note also That such Commissions ought not to be kept secret but they ought to be Enrolled in the Chancery That the Subjects may be under a known Authority See Sir Coke's 4. Instit. fol. 332. the middle of that fol. And upon irregular and illegal Commissions in Ecclesiastical Causes the Remedy is by Prohibition out of the Courts at Westminster In the same 4 Instit. fol. 340. the Author hath this Note Nota Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was depriv'd at Lambeth by Commission from King Edward the VI. made to Ten Persons proceeding upon it ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto omni appellatione remotâ summarie de plano absque omni forma figura Judicii sola Facti Veritate inspecta The Author passes no Opinion upon it Quaere by what Law this was warranted It must be rare and extraordinary otherwise Sir Edw. Coke would not have so specially mention'd it but a Facto ad Jus non valet Argumentum Note That part of the Act of 1 Eliz. viz. the 18th Paragraph before verbatim transcribed viz. of the Queen Eliz. and her Successors granting such Letters Patents or Commissions in Ecclesiastical Causes is repealed by the Act made 16 Car. 1. cap. 11. See it in Mr. Keeble's Book of Statutes at large See the last Paragr or Clause in that Act of Repeal of 16 Car. 1. It is Enacted That no new Court shall be erected or appointed which shall have The like Power or Jurisdiction as the High Commissioners had or pretended to have but that all such Letters Patents Commissions and Grants and all Powers and Authorities thereby granted and all Acts Sentences and Decrees to be made by vertue or colour of them shall be Void Note The late Act of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. in Mr. Keeble's Book of Statutes does declare that the Ordinary Power of Arch-Bishops and Bishops was not taken away by that Repealing Act of 17 Car. 1. cap. 11. as this last Act dates it But by this Act of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. in the second Paragraph The aforesaid Repealing Act of 17 Car. 1. and all the Matters and Clauses therein contained excepting what concerns the High Commission Court or the new Erection of some such like Court by Commission are Repealed See the third Paragraph also of the Act of 13. Car. 2. That the High Commission Court shall not be Revived So that I conceive no such Commission nor Letters Patents can now be granted but the Repealing Act of 16 or 17 Car. 1. stands in force against it By what Law or Rules Cromwell in the Time of King Henry VIII and by what Instructions he acted does not appear the Commissions to make him Vicar General which was surely in Imitation of what had been used by the Pope in the time of his Usurpation or that of Vice-gerent in Ecclesiastical Matters which seems to be new and prime Impressionis are not now to be found of which Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation of the Church of England makes some probable conjectures fol. 181. and wherein consisted the difference between those two Authorities and Titles and the Commissions for the exercise of them is not easy to find out But the thing then principally design'd was to suppress the religious Houses belonging to the regular Clergy which were great Supports to the Popish Hierarchy not at all to impeach the Lawful Power and Jurisdiction of Episcopacy for we find at the same time as Cromwell's Commissions were in force and had been then but newly passed That Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Metropolitical Visitation under which as I conceive most properly falls the Conusance of any contempt or abuse committed by any of his Suffragan Bishops if not in a Provincial Synod Archiepiscopi Jurisdictioni subsunt immediate suffraganti See Lind. Provin The exclusion of the Pope in the Time of King Hen. VIII made no diminution of the Power or Jurisdiction of the Clergy as to determining of Ecclesiastical Causes or making Canons Constitutions and other Synodical Acts as is rightly observ'd by Dr. Heylin in his Introduction to the History of Laud late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon this ground it is that to this day they exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in their own Names and under the distinct Seals of their Offices the Statutes that made some Alteration in the matter being all repealed See Dr. Heylin's Introduct aforesaid ibid. fol. 341. The Legislative Power in Matters Ecclesiastical continues in the Convocation for making Canons and Constitutions confirmed by the King and Parliament Discipline and the Admonition still resides in the Bishops and those under them In Case of any Irregularity in the Metropolitan Resort must doubtless be to the Head of the Church upon Earth the King as it was in the Case of Arch-Bishop Abbot who shooting at