The grand question, concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in cases capital stated and argued, from the Parliament-rolls, and the history of former times : with an enquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in Parliament.

The grand question, concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in cases capital stated and argued, from the Parliament-rolls, and the history of former times : with an enquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in Parliament.

Table of contents

Title page

THE CONTENTS.

CHAP. 1. The Question stated; and general Prejudices removed.

CHAP. II. The Right in point of Law debated. Concerning the Constitution of Clarendon, and the Protestation 11 R. 2.

CHAP. III. The Precedents on both sides laid down: those against the Bishops examined and answered.

CHAP. IV. The Peerage of the Bishops cleared; how far they make a third Estate in Parlament. Objections against it answered.

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE GRAND QUESTION, Concerning the Bishops Right To VOTE in PARLAMENT In Cases Capital, STATED and ARGUED, FROM The Parlament-Rolls, and the History of former Times. WITH An Enquiry into their Peerage, and the Three Estates in Parlament.

LONDON, Printed for M. P. and sold by Richard Rumball Book-binder, at the Ball and Coffin in the Old Change, 1680.

THE CONTENTS.

[Page]

[Page]

CHAP. I.

THE Question stated; and general Prejudices removed.

CHAP. II.

The Right in point of Law debated. Concerning the Constitution of Clarendon, and the Protestation 11. R. 2.

CHAP. III.

The Precedents on both sides laid down: those against the Bishops examined and answered.

CHAP. IV.

The Peerage of the Bishops cleared; how far they make a third Estate in Parlament. Objections against it answered.

CHAP. 1.
The Question stated; and general Prejudices removed.

[Page]

[Page]

THE Question in debate, as it is stated by the Authour of the Letter, is, Letter p. 1. Whether the Bishops may be present and Vote Iudicially in Capital Cases, which come to be judged in Parlament, either in giving the Iudgment it self, or in resolving and determining any circumstance preparatory and leading to that Iudgment?

For our better proceeding towards a Resolution of this Question, it will be necessary to take notice of some things granted on both sides, which may prevent needless disputes, and be of great use in the following Debate.

1. It is granted, Lett. p. 93. That the Bishops do sit in Parlament by virtue of their Baronies, and are bound to serve the King there. And one part of the Service due to the King there, is to sit in Iudgment: for the Authour of the Book entitled, The Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted, proves [Page]at large, that the Right of Iudicature belongs to the Barons in Parlament; and that the Lords Spiritual have a considerable share therein, appears by this passage, in the Title-page of that Book, translated into English.

The Iudgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is according to the Vse and Custom of Parlament.

The Vse and Custom of Parlament is the Law of Parlament.

The Law of Parlament is the Law of England.

The Law of England is the Law of the Land.

The Law of the Land is according to Magna Charta.

Therefore the Iudgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is according to Magna Charta.

Some Right then of Iudicature in Parlament the Bishops have by Magna Charta: which, whatever it be, is as much theirs by that Charter as any Right of Temporal Persons; and cannot be invaded or taken from them without breach of that Charter, any more then the Rights of the Lords Temporal, or of any other Persons whatsoever. But how far that Right doth extend, is now the thing in Question.

[Page] 2. It is not denied, that the Bishops do sit in Parlament by the same kind of Writs that other Barons do. They are summon'd to advise and debate about the great and difficult Affairs of the Kingdom; cum Praelatis, Magnatibus & Proceribus dicti Regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere & tractatum; i. e. to joyn therein with the Bishops and other Lords of the Kingdom. So that by the King's Writ of Summons they are impower'd and requir'd to confer and treat of all the weighty Affairs that shall be brought before them. And no Instance is so much as offer'd to be produced of any Writ wherein the King doth limit and restrain the Bishops, any more then any other Lords of Parlament, as to any matter of Consultation, or Point of Judicature, belonging to that House. They have then by their Writ of Summons as good right to sit in all Cases, as in any: and since the other Lords by their Writs are summoned to advise with the Prelates in all matters that shall come before them, without limitation, it is not to be conceived how this can be done, if the Bishops in some of the most important Debates be excluded.

3. It is yielded,Lett. p. 3. 118. That if the House proceeds [Page] in a Legislative way by passing Bills of Attainder, the Bishops have a Right to sit and Vote therein as well as other Lords: at these it is said, that the Bishops are or should be all present at the passing of them, for then they act as Members of the House of Lords in their Legislative capacity. But men do as certainly die that are condemned in the Legislative, as in the Iudicial Way. Is not this then really as much a Case of Bloud as the other? If the Bishops should give their Votes in the Legislative way to condemn a Person for Treason, and yet think they had not Voted in a Case of Bloud; they would then indeed be like Chaucer's Frier, mention'd by the Authour of the Letter, that would have of a Capon the Liver, Lett. p. 66. and of a Pig the Head, yet would that nothing for him should be dead. Doth a Bill of Attainder cut of a man's Head without making it a Case of Bloud? There can be then no objection now made against the Bishops Right from any Canons of the Church; for those allow no such distinction of proceeding in the Legislative, or Iudicial Way.P. 21. And the late Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual doth grant, that the Canons do prohibit the Bishops voting in Bills of Attainder,[Page]as much as in any Case whatsoever.

But we are not to suppose a Person of such abilities as the Authour of the Letter, would go about to exclude the Bishops from their Right of Voting in a Iudicial way in Cases Capital, unless there were some great appearance of Law on his side; because he professes so great a Desire that Right may prevail; Lett. p. 2, 3. and that his design in writing was, to satisfy himself and others where that Right is. The discovery whereof is our present business. Yet before the Authour of the Letter comes to a close debate of the matter of Right, he lets fall some general Insinuations to create a prejudice in the Reader's mind, as to the Bishops meddling at all in Secular Affairs, as though it were inconsistent with their Function, and with some passages in the Imperial Law. And because men may sometimes doe more harm by what they tell us they will not say, then by what they do say; it will be fit to prevent the danger of such Insinuations, before we come to consider his Arguments.

1. The first is,Lett. p. 5. that meddling at all in Secular Affairs seems to be the doing that which the Apostles declared they would not doe, viz. leave the Word of God, and serve Tables. But are all Persons of Estates now [Page] bound to part with them, as the Christians then did? The serving of Tables was a full employment; and they who attended that Office were the Treasurers of the Church, to distribute to every one as they judged fit, out of the common Stock. Is it no Service to God, to doe Justice, and to shew Mercy? to attend upon the publick Affairs of the Kingdom, when they are called to it by their Sovereign? Or are all Bishops now in the same circumstances the Apostles were when the Christian Church was to be planted in the World, and so few persons as the 12 Apostles made choice of for that Work? Is there no difference to be made between a Church constituted and settled and incorporated into the Commonwealth, and one not yet formed, but labouring under great difficulties, and making its way through constant persecutions? May it not be as well argued, that Bishops are not to stay in one Countrey, nor to have any fixed habitation, because the Apostles passed from place to place preaching the Word of God? Doth not the Authour of the Letter himself confesse, that the Clergy are one of the Three Estates of the Kingdom? Lett. p. 86. and by the Act 8 Eliz. 1. the Clergy are called one of the greatest [Page]States of this Realm. And is there not then great Reason, that those who are the chief part of it, as he confesseth the Bishops to be, should have a share in affairs that concern the whole Nation? And would it not seem strange to the Christian World, that we alone of all the Kingdoms of Europe should exclude the Bishops from having an equal Interest with the other Estates in Parlament? For it were easy to prove from unquestionable Testimonies, that as soon as the Christian Religion was well settled in any of these Northern Kingdoms, the Bishops were admitted into all the publick Councils: and have so continued to this day, where the Convention of the Estates hath been kept up; Bohemia onely excepted since the days of Sigismond.

I begin with France, where Hincmarus saith,Hincmar. Epist. de Ordine lalatii. there were two great Councils every year: one of the States of the Kingdom, for ordering the Affairs of the ensuing year, and redressing of Grievances; and in these the Bishops were always present: and the other of the King's Council, which managed the intervening Affairs; and into this the chief of the Bishops were chosen. It were endless to repeat the several Parlaments in France in the time of the Merovingian [Page] and Caroline Race, wherein Laws were passed, and the great Affairs of the Kingdom managed by the Bishops, Noblemen, and others. Those who have looked into the ancient Annals and Capitulars of France, cannot be ignorant of this. There is one thing remarkable to our purpose in the famous Council of Frankford, which opposed the Worship of Images so stoutly, viz. that after the matters of Religion were agreed, then, according to the Custom of that Age, the other Estates being present, they proceeded to other matters: and then Tassilo Duke of Bavaria was brought upon his Knees for Treason; and the Cause of Peter Bishop of Verdun was heard, who was likewise accused of Treason, and there purged himself. Concerning both which Cases there are 2 Canons still extant among the Canons of that Council:Concil. Franc. c. 3. & 9. and in another, the Bishops are appointed, by consent of the King, to doe Justice in their several Dioceses. And that they had not onely a share in the Legislative, but in the Iudiciary part, appears by one of the ancient Formulae in Marculphus, Marculph. Form. l. 1. c. 25. where it is said, that the King sate in Judgment unà cum Dominis & Patribus nostris Episcopis, vel cum plurimis Optimatibus[Page]nostris; (vel, in the language of that Age, is the same with &.) This was the Palatine Court,Not. in Marc. p. 287. where Bignonius saith the greater Causes were heard, the King himself being present, (or the Comes Palatii,) Episcopis & Proceribus adsidentibus, the Bishops and Lords sitting in Iudicature together with him. And this was not onely the Original of the Parlament of Paris, as a standing Court of Iudicature; but the like in England was the true foundation of the Supreme Court of Iudicature in the House of Peers. So that in the eldest and best times of France, after Christianity had prevailed there, neither consultation about publick Affairs, nor administration of Justice were thought inconsistent with the Function of Bishops.

In Spain, during the Gothick Power, all the great Affairs of the Kingdom, and even the Rights of their Princes, were debated and transacted by the greatest of the Clergy and Nobility together; as may be seen in the several Councils of Toledo in that time,Concil. Tolet. 4. c. 75. 5. c. 7. 6. c. 17. 8. in Praef. 12. c. 1. 17. c. 1. 17. c. 1. in the case of Suintilas, Sisenandus and others. And in one of them it is said, that after they had dispatched matters of Religion, they proceeded ad caeterarum Causarum negotia, to the handling of other Causes. Cont l. Tolet. 13. c. 2. In the 13. [Page] Council of Toledo, the Case of Impeachments of Treason is brought in; and Rules set down for due proceedings therein. And yet from one of these Councils of Toledo it is, that all the stir hath been made in the Canon-Law about Bishops not being present in cases of bloud.

In Germany, the first Laws that were ever published were those by Lotharius II. in Comitiis Regni, Rer. Aleman. To. 2. Cod. Leg. Antiq. B. 362. saith Goldastus; and there were present 33 Bishops, 34 Dukes, 72 Counts, besides the People. And by the Matriculation-Roll of the States of the Empire, it appears what a great Interest the Clergy have preserved ther in from the first times of the prevalecy of Christianity there.Arumae. de Comitiis [...]. 35. c. 4. [...]. 98. And Arumaeus, a considerable Protestant Lawyer of the Empire, saith, the Bishops of Germany sit in a double capacity in the Diets, both as Bishops, and as Princes of the Empire. And he commends the prudence of that Constitution with respect both to Iustice, and the Honour and Safety of Religion.

For the Kingdom of Bohemia,Goldast. Bohem. l. 5. c. 1. Goldastus, a learned Protestant, saith, that there, as in all other well-constituted Kingdoms among Christians, there were 3 Estates, of Prelats, Nobles, and Commons; and this continued, he saith, from [Page] the time Christianity was received, till the days of Sigismond.

No sooner was Christianity received in Hungary, Bonfin. dec. 2. l. 1. but their Princes, Stephanus and Ladislaus, called their great Councils of their Prelats and Nobles: and the Laws made in the Concilium Zabolchianum were passed by the King, Decret. Ladiss. p. 12. with all his Bishops and Nobles, and with the consent of the whole Clergy and People.

In Poland,Starovolse. [...]olon. p. 2 [...]5. Starovolscius saith, that their Ancestours, after they received Christianity, out of regard to Religion, gave the Bishops the first place in the Senate; and admitted the Clergy to the great Offices of the Kingdom.Herburt. Stat. Regni Pol. p. 263. And Sigismond in his Constitution saith, the States of Poland consist of the Bishops, Barons, and Delegates, called Nuntii terrestres.

In the Northern Kingdoms, Adam. Brem. de situ Dan. n. 85. Adamus Bremensis saith, that the Bishops, after the People received Christianity, were receiv'd into their publick Councils.Loccen. Antiq. S [...]eco. Goth. c. 8. And Loccenius reckons up among the several Estates, the Bishops, Nobles, Knights, and Deputies of the Country and Cities. And it appears by the Hirdstraa,Ius Aulicum N [...]rveg. c. 3. c. 36. or the ancient Laws of Norway, the Bishops as well as Nobility were present in the Convention of the States, and all publick Councils.

[Page] The like might be proved here in the Saxon times, from the Conversion of Ethelbert downward. This is so very evident, that he must blind his eyes that doth not see it, if he doth but cast them on the History of those times.

These things I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness, that in one view we may see a consent of all these parts of the Christian World, in calling Bishops to their publick Councils, and most solemn Debates; and how far they were from thinking such Imployments inconsistent with their Sacred Function, and charging them, that thereby they left the Word of God to serve Tables. Neither can this be looked on as any part of the Degeneracy of the Church, or the Policy of the Papacy; since, as the fore-cited Arumaeus saith, they were admitted to this honour before the Papal Power was advanced; and were so far from carrying on the Pope's designs, that they were, in most Countries, the greatest Opposers of them. And when the Popes began to set up their Monarchy, their business was, to draw them off from meeting in these Councils, under several pretences of Cases of Bloud, and other things; the better to keep them in a sole Dependency on themselves. [Page] As will appear by the following Discourse.

2. The next thing suggested is, that the Imperial Law doth forbid Clergy-men having any thing to doe with Secular matters.Lett. p. 3, 4. And for this a Rescript of Honorius and Theodosius is mentioned, and a Decree of Iustinian. To which I answer,

1. The Imperial Edicts are not the Law of England. Our dispute is about a Right by our own Laws; which a Rescript of Honorius and Theodosius can neither give nor take away. What would become of the whole frame of our Government, and of our just Rights and Properties, if the producing of Imperial Edicts would be sufficient to overthrow them? When the Bishops once pleaded hard in Parlament in behalf of an Imperial Constitution, lately adopted into the Canon-Law, the Answer given by all the Temporal Lords was,Stat. Merton c. 9. 20 H. 3. Nolumus leges Angliae mutare, quae huc usque usitatae sunt & approbatae. They did not mean, they would make no alterations in Parlament, for that very Parlament did so in several things: but their meaning was,Dissert. ad Flet. c. 9. § 2. as Mr. Selden observes, that they owned neither Canon nor Imperial Laws here, any farther then they were agreeable to the Laws of the Land.

[Page] 2. The Imperial Constitutions do give liberty to Church-men to have to doe in Secular Affairs. The Emperour Constantine, whose Constitutions deserve as great regard as those of Honorius and Theodosius, to shew his respect to the Christian Religion, permitted all men to bring their Causes before the Bishops, without ever going to the other Tribunals,Soz. hist. l. 1. c. 9. as Sozomen, a Lawyer of Constantinople, relates. And this is the true foundation of the Constitution De Episcopali Iudicio; as Gothofred confesseth. Which is at large inserted into the Capitulars, Capitul. Carol. & Ludov. l. 6. c. 281. ed. Lindenb. c. 366. ed. Baluz. with a more then usual introduction; and made a Law to all the Subjects of the Empire, Franks, Saxons, Lombards, Britons, &c. and therefore is more considerable to these parts then a bare Rescript of Honorius and Theodosius. And yet, these very Emperours,Cod. Just. de Epise. Audient. l. 1. tit. 4. c. 8. in a Constitution of theirs, do so far ratifie the Judgment of Bishops upon Trial by consent before them, that no Appeal doth lie from their Decree. What Rescript then is this of theirs which so utterly forbids Clegy-men having any thing to doe with publick Functions, or things appertaining to the Court? I suppose that Constitution of Honorius is meant, which confines the [Page] Bishops Power to what concerns Religion; and leaves other Causes to the ordinary Judges and the Course of Law. But two things are well observed by Iac. Gothofred concerning this Rescript of Honorius: Cod. Theodos. l. 16. tit. 11. c. 1. 1. that it is meant of absolute and peremptory Judgment without Appeal; 2. that whatever is meant by it, not many years after, this Constitution was repealed by Honorius himself, and the Bishops sentence made as absolute as before. So that Honorius is clearly against him, if a man's second judgment and thoughts be better.

3. The practice of the best men in those Ages shews, that they thought no Law in force to forbid Church-men to meddle in Secular Affairs: as might be at large proved from the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus and S. Basil in the East; Greg. NysS. vit. Greg. Basil. in ep. Socr. l. 7. c. 37. of Silvanus Bishop of Troas, of S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and others of the greatest and most devout Church-men of those times.Ambros. de Offic. l. 2. c. 24. And S. Augustine was so far from thinking it unlawfull,Aug. ep. 147. in Ps. 118. conc. 24. that in his opinion S. Paul commanded the Bishops to doe it. Constituit enim talibus Causis Ecclesiasticos Apostolus Cognitores. And the learned Gothofred of Geneva saith,Jac. Goth. in cod▪ Theod. ad Extrav. de Episc. judicio. Mos hic frequens & legitimus eundi ad Iudices [Page]Episcopos. It was then a common and legal practice to go to Bishops as to their Iudges. Which would never have been, if there had been a Law in force to forbid Bishops meddling in Secular Affairs.

4. The Emperours still reserved to themselves the power of dispensing with their own Rescripts, and the Canons of the Church.Concil. Sardic. c. 7. Therefore the Council of Sardica, when it prohibits Bishops going to Court, excepts the Princes calling them thither. Upon which Balsamon hath this Note; that although the Canons prohibit, yet if the Emperour commands, the Bishops are bound to obey, and to doe what he commands them; without any fault either in the Emperour or them. And in other places he asserts the Emperour's power of dispensing with the strictest Canons against Church-mens meddling in Secular Affairs:Balsam. in Can. 4. Concil. Chalced. Thence he saith, the Metropolitan of Side was chief Minister of State under Michael Ducas; and the Bishop of Neocaesarea made the Laws of the Admiralty for Greece. And the Glosse upon Iustinian's Novells observes,Auth. Collat. 1. tit. 6. Novell. 6. c. 2. that Bishops may meddle with the Affairs of the Commonwealth, when their Prince calls them to it. And this is the present Case; for [Page] the Bishops are summon'd by the King's Writ to serve him in the publick Council of the Nation: and therefore no Imperial Rescript, if it were of force in England, could have any in this Case, which was allowed by the Imperial Laws themselves.

5. There is a great Mistake about Iustinian's Decree.Justin. Cod. l. 1. tit. 3. c. 41. For the Bishops are not so much as mention'd in it; but the Defensores Ecclesiarum; who were Lawyers, or Advocates of the Church: as appears by a Constitution of Honorius; where Gothofred proves they were not so much as in Orders.Cod. Theod. l. 16. tit. 2. n. 38. It is true, Iustinian doth appropriate the Probat of Wills to the Master of his Revenue; but the Law and Custom of England, Lindwood l. 3. de Testam. as Lindwood observes, hath alter'd that Constitution: and which must we regard more, Iustinian, or our own Laws?

I find one thing more suggested by way of Prejudice to the Cause in hand, viz. the Common Law of England, Lett. p. 4. which hath provided a Writ upon a Clergyman's being chosen an Officer in a Mannor, saying it was contra Legem & Consuetudinem Regni, & non consonum. The Argument had been altogether as good, if it had been taken from a Minister of a [Page] Parish not being capable of the Office of Constable; and it had as effectually proved that Clergy-men ought not to meddle in Secular Affairs.

CHAP. II.
The Right in point of Law debated. Concerning the Constitution of Clarendon, and the Protestation 11 R. 2.

HAving removed these general Prejudices, I now come to debate more closely the main Point. For the Authour of the Letter undertakes to prove, that Bishops cannot by Law give Votes in Capital Cases in Parlament.Lett. p. 68. Which he doth two ways: 1. by Statute-Law; 2. by Use and Custome, which he saith is Parlament-Law: and for this he produceth many Precedents.

I. For Statute-Law; two Ratifications, he saith, there have been of it in Parlament; by the Constitutions of Clarendon, and the 11 R. 2.

1. The Constitutions of Clarendon; Lett. p. 69. which he looks on as the more considerable, because they were not the enacting of [Page]new Laws, but a declaration of what was before. And for the same Reason I value them too, and shall be content this Cause stand or fall by them.

The Constitution in debate is the 11th, which is thus repeated and translated in the Letter. Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & universae Personae Regni qui de Rege tenent in Capite, habeant possessiones suas de Rege, sicut Baroniam, & inde Respondeant Iusticiariis & Ministris Regis, & sequantur & faciant omnes consuetudines Regias: Et sicut ceteri Barones, debent interesse judiciis Curie Regis, quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum, vel ad mortem.

The Archbishops, Bishops, and all the dignified Clergy of the Land that hold of the King in Capite, shall hold their possessions from the King, as a Barony, and answer for their estates unto the King's Iustices and Ministers, and shall observe and obey all the King's Laws: And together with the other Barons, they are to be present at all Iudgments in the King's Courts, till it come to require either losse of Member or Life.

The Argument from hence he enforceth from the solemn Recognition and publick confirmation of these Constitutions, Lett. p. 71, 72. [Page] and the Oath taken to observe them; from whence he concludes this to be Testimonium irrefragabile, An irrefragable and invincible Testimony. And so I foresee it will prove, but to a quite contrary purpose from what he intended it.

The whole Question depends upon the meaning of the latter Clause of this Constitution. The meaning he gives of it is this, Lett. p. 61. that the Prelats of the Church should not be present at the Iudgments given in the King's Courts when losse of Member or Life was in question.

The meaning of it I conceive to be this, that the Bishops are required to be present in the King's Courts as other Barons are, till they come to give Sentence as to Dismembring, or loss of Life.

Whether of these is the true meaning is now to be considered: and that will best be discovered these three ways. 1. By the Occasion. 2. By the plain Sense of the words according to their true Reading. 3. By the subsequent Practice upon this Constitution in the Parlament at Northampton soon after.

1. By the Occasion. The Authour of the Letter assigns that Occasion for this Constitution, for which there is not the least colour; viz. That the Prelats of that [Page]time were ambitious of a kind of Omnipotency,Lett. p. 73. (in Judicature I suppose he means,) and that to restrain their power of Judging Capital Cases this Constitution was made: and because this seemed to be a diminution of their Power, therefore Matt. Paris ranks it among the Consuetudines iniquas, the wicked Customs of the former times. For all which there is not the least shadow of Proof; besides that it is so repugnant to the History of those Times, that I can hardly believe a Person of so much Learning and Judgment, as is commonly said to be the Authour of the Letter, could betray so much unskilfulness in the Affairs of those Times. For this is so far from being true, that the Bishops did then affect such a Power of Iudging in all Secular Causes, that they looked on their attendance in the King's Court in the Trial of Causes, as a burthen which they would fain have been rid of; because they accounted it a Mark of Subjection to the Civil Power, and contrary to that Ecclesiastical Liberty, or Independency on Princes, which from the days of Gregory VII. they had been endeavouring to set up. Which H. II. being very sensible of, resolved to tie them to the Service of their Baronies, and to an attendance [Page] on the King's Courts together with other Barons. But lest they should pretend any force on their Consciences, as to the Canons of the Church, this Constitution doth not require, but suffers them to withdraw, when they came to Sentence in matters of Bloud. And that this was the true Occasion, I prove by these two invincible Arguments.

1. By the complaint which they made of the Baronies, as too great a mark of Subjection to the Civil Power. This is plain from Matt.Paris Matt. Paris ad A. D. 1070. himself, to whom the Authour of the Letter refers: for when he speaks of William the Conquerour's bringing the Temporalties of the Bishops into the condition of Baronies, i. e. forcing them to hold them of him in Chief upon certain Duties and Services, he calls it Constitutionem pessimam, a most wicked Constitution; just as he calls the Customs of Clarendon Consuetudines iniquas, wicked Customs. And he adds, that many were banished rather then they would submit to that Constitution. For their Privileges were so great with the Frank-almoign they enjoy'd in the Saxon times, and their desires so hearty (especially among the Monks, who from Edgar's time had gotten into most Cathedral Churches) to advance [Page] the Papal Monarchy, that they rather chose to quit all, then to give up the Cause of the Churche's Liberty by accepting of Baronies. Therefore Matt. Paris calls the Rolls that were made of the Services belonging to these Baronies, Rotulas Ecclesiasticae Servitutis, the Rolls of Ecclesiastical Slavery; then which nothing could be more contrary to that Ecclesiastical Liberty which was then setting up by Pope Hildebrand. And to put this out of all dispute, Petrus Blesensis, a Name well known in this dispute, in that very Book where he complains of the Bishops Hypocrisy about Cases of Bloud, in being present at hearing and trying Causes, but going out at Sentence, complains likewise of their Baronies, as those which gave occasion to that Hypocrisy, and as the marks of the vilest Slavery. Pet. Bles. de Institut. Episc. p. 451. Et in occasione turpissimae Servitutis seipsos Barones appellant. They may think it an honour to be called the King's Barons, but he accounts it the greatest Slavery; and applies that place of Scripture to them, They have reigned, but not by me; they are become Princes, and I know them not. Now Pet. Blesensis lived in the time of H. II. and knew the whole proceedings of the Constitutions of Clarendon, and was [Page] a zealous maintainer of Becket's Cause, or, which was all one, of the Liberties of the Church, as they call'd them, against the Civil Power.

2. By the fierce Contest between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power, about the Liberties of Church-men. This was carried on from the time that William I. brought them into Subjection by their Baronies: his Sons stood upon the Rights of the Crown; whilst Anselm and his Brethren struggled all they could, but to little purpose, till after the death of H. I. Then Stephen, to gratifie the great Prelates, by whose favour he came to the Crown, yielded all they desired: but he soon repented, and they were even with him for it. Malmsbury takes particular notice, that he yielded they should have their Possessions free and absolute; Malmsbur. hist. Novell. p. 100. b. and they promised onely a conditional Allegeance to him, as long as he maintained the Liberties of the Church. When K. Stephen broke the Canons, as they said, by imprisoning 2 Bishops, the Bishop of Winchester and his Brethren summon'd him to answer it before them in Council; and there declared, that the King had nothing to doe with Church-men, till the Cause was first heard and determined by themselves. [Page] All his time, they had no regard to his Authority, when it contradicted their Wills: and when the Peace was made between Him and H. II. Radulphus de Diceto takes notice that the Power of the Clergy increased by it.Rad. de Diceto Imag. histor. p. 509. 528. In this state H. II. found things,Gul. Neuburg. l. 2. c. 16. when Gul. Neuburgensis saith, the great business of the Church-men was to preserve their Liberties. Upon this the great Quarrel between Him and Becket began: this made the King search what the Rights of the Crown were which his Ancestours challenged; to these he was resolved to make Becket and his Brethren submit. For this purpose the Parlament was called at Clarendon, and after great debates the 16 Constitutions were produced; which were those the King was resolved to maintain, and he made the Bishops as well as others swear to observe them. Now when the rest of them relate to some Exemptions and Privileges which the Church-men challenged to themselves, about their Courts, Excommunications, Appeals, and such like, and which the King thought fit to restrain them in; (From whence in Becket's Epistles it is said,Bar. ad A. D. 1164. n. 3. those Constitutions were framed ad ancillandam Ecclesiam, to bring the Church in subjection, as Baronius shews [Page] out of the Vatican Copy. And Fitz-Stephen Fitz-Stephen vit. Th. Beck. M S. saith, All the Constitutions of Clarendon were for suppressing the Liberty of the Church, and oppressing the Clergy: I say, considering this,) is there not then great Reason to understand this 11th. Constitution after the same manner: viz. that notwithstanding K. Stephen's Grant, H. II. would make them hold by Baronies, and doe all the Service of Barons in the King's Courts, as other Barons did; and he would allow them no other Privilege, but that of withdrawing when they came to Sentence in a Case of Bloud? What is there in this sense, but what is easy and natural, and fully agreeable to the state of those Times? whereas there is not the least foundation for the pretence of the Bishops affecting to be present in all Causes, which the King must restrain by this Constitution.

This sense of it is not onely without ground, but is absolutely repugnant to all the History of that Age. For if this Constitution was intended to restrain the Bishops from trying Causes of Bloud, then the Bishops did desire to be present in those Causes, and the King would not suffer them. Whereas it is evident that the Bishops pretended scruple of Conscience from [Page] the Canons, that they could not be present; but in truth stood upon their Exemption from the Service of Barons, which they call'd Ecclesiastical Slavery. And therefore that could not be the sense of the Constitution, to restrain them in that which they desired to be freed from, and which by this Constitution of Clarendon was plainly forced upon them against their wills. For Lanfranc had brought the Canon of the 11th. Council of Toledo into England, Spelm. Concil. To. 2. p. 8, 9, 11. That no Bishop or Clergyman should condemn a man to death, or give vote in the Sentence of Condemnation: at which Council were present 2 Archbishops, 12 Bishops, and 21 Abbots. And before H. II's time this Canon of Toledo was received into the Body of the Canon-Law, made by Ivo, Burchardus, Regino, and Gratian who lived in the time of K. Stephen: and when they saw such a Canon so generally received, is there not far greater Reason to think they desired to withdraw, then that they should press to be present, and the King restrain them? But the Constitution is so framed on purpose, to let them understand, that the King expected in all Iudgments they should doe their Duty, as other Barons: but lest they should think he purposely designed [Page] to make them break the Canons, he leaves them at liberty to withdraw when Sentence was to be given. So that I can hardly doubt but the Authour of the Letter, if he please calmly to reflect upon the whole matter, will see reason to acknowledge his mistake; and that this Constitution was so far from intending to restrain the Bishops from all Iudicature in Cases of Bloud, that, on the contrary, it was purposely framed to oblige them to be present, and to act in such Causes as the other Barons did, at least till the Cause was ripe for Sentence: which last Point the King was content to yield to them, out of regard and reverence to the Canons of the Church. For the words of the Law are not words of Prohibition and restraint from any thing, but of Obligation to a Duty; which was, to be present and serve in the King's Courts of Iudicature, in like manner as the other Barons did.

From all which it is evident, I think, beyond contradiction, that the Occasion of this Law was not the Ambition of the Prelates, P. 73. (as the Authour of the Letter suggests) to thrust themselves into this kind of Iudicature; but an Ambition of a worse kind, (though quite contrary) [Page] viz. under a pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty and Privilege, to exempt themselves from the Service of the King and Kingdom, to which by virtue of their Baronies they were bound, sicut caeteri Barones, as well as the other Barons. And therefore it is so far from being true, that the Bishops exercise of this Iurisdiction together with the Temporal Lords is a Relique of Popery, and one of the Encroachments of the Clergy in those Times of Ignorance and Usurpation, as some well-meaning Protestants are now made to believe; that, on the contrary, the Exemption of the Clergy from this kind of Secular Iudicature was one of the highest Points of Popery, and that which the Pope and his Adherents contested for with more zeal then for any Article of the Creed. This was one of those Privileges which Thomas Becket said Christ purchased for his Church with his bloud, and in the obstinate defence whereof against the King he himself at last lost his life. And now to put the matter beyond all doubt, I appeal to any man skill'd in the History of those Times, whether Thomas Becket opposed the Constitutions of Clarendon to the death, and broke the Oath he had taken to observe them, because by them (among other [Page] things) the Bishops were excluded from Iudicature in Cases of Bloud; or for the quite contrary reason, (among others) because this Service of the King in his Courts, impos'd on them by virtue of their Baronies, was look'd upon by him as a violation of the Privileges of the Church, and a badge of Ecclesiastical Slavery, which by all means he desir'd to cast off. And if the latter be the true Reason, I leave it to the impartial Reader, and even to the Authour of the Letter himself upon second thoughts, whether he have not widely mistaken both the Occasion and Meaning of this Law.

2. Let us consider the plain Sense of the words according to the true reading of them. The Authour of the Letter hath made use of the most imperfect Copy, viz. that in Matt. Paris; I cannot tell for what reason, unless it be that in the last Clause [in Iudicio] is there left out, which is put in in the Copy extant in Gervase, and in the Vatican Copy, and in several MSS. in all which it runs thus, Et sicut Barones caeteri debent interesse judiciis Curiae Regis cum Baronibus, usque perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum, vel ad mortem. Now here are two things to be distinguished.

[Page] 1. Something expresly required of the Bishops as to their presence in the King's Courts, viz. that they must attend as other Barons, and sit together with them: and therefore it is expressed twice; Et sicut caeteri Barones, in the beginning of that Clause, and cum Baronibus, again after, and debent interesse, in the middle. And can any one soberly think, that the meaning of all this is, they must not be present in cases of Bloud? No: the Constitution saith, they ought to be present as other Barons, and sit with other Barons in the Trials of the King's Courts. And yet the Authour of the Letter doth (to speak mildly) very unfairly represent this Constitution, as if it did forbid the Prelats to be at all present in the Iudgments of the King's Courts in Cases of Bloud; and that in express words. For, speaking of the Constitutions of Clarendon, he hath this passage,pag. 61. And one of these Constitutions was, that the Prelats of the Church should not interesse Iudiciis Curie Regis, be present at the Iudgments given in the Kings Courts. Whereas this Constitution (as he himself cites it afterwards) runs thus, debent interesse Iudiciis Curie Regis, quousque, &c. they ought to be present in the Iudgments of the King's Courts, till it come to loss of [Page]Members or Life. So that this Law expresly says, that they ought to be present in the Iudgments of the King's Courts, till it come, &c. And when it comes to loss of Members or Life, it doth not say (as the Authour of the Letter affirms) that they should not be present then, nor do the words of the Constitution imply any such thing; but only require (as I shall evidently make appear) their presence so far; and when it should come to Sentence, leaves them at liberty to withdraw in obedience to the Canons of the Church, which they pretended themselves bound in Conscience to observe. And this is the true Reason why, among the 16 Constitutions of Clarendon, Baronius ad Ann. 1164. (whereof 10 were condemned, 6 tolerated, but none approv'd, by Pope Alex. III.) this 11. was one of the 6 which escaped with an Hoc toleravit, this the Pope was content to tolerate; because in the last Clause of it there was regard had to the Canons of the Church. Of this misrepresentation of the Constitution under debate, though it might have deserved a more severe animadversion, I shall say no more, because I have no design to provoke the Authour or any body else, but onely to convince them.

2. Something allowed to the Bishops as [Page] peculiar to themselves, viz. That when the Court hath proceeded so far in judicio, in a particular Trial, (for before it is Iudiciis in general) that Sentence was to be given either as to dismembring, or loss of life, then they are at liberty; but till then they are required. As, suppose Charles V. had required the Protestant Princes to attend him to Masse, as other Princes did; onely when the Mass-Bell tinckled they might withdraw; would not any reasonable man understand by this, that they were obliged to their Attendance till then? So it is here: the King commands their Attendance till it comes to such a point; therefore before it comes thither, their presence is plainly required by this Constitution. And so in stead of there being a Statute-Law to exclude the Bishops at such Trials, there is one to require their presence in judicio, in the proceedings of such a Trial, till it comes to Sentence. All that can be said in this case is, that the last Clause is not to be understood of the Sentence, but of the Kind or quality of the Cause; i. e. they are to be present in the King's Courts, till they come to a Cause wherein a man's Life or Members are concerned. But that this cannot be the meaning will appear.

[Page] 1. There is a great deal of difference between quousque perveniatur ad judicium mutilationis membrorum, vel mortis, that might have been understood of a Cause of Bloud; and quousque perveniatur in judicio ad mutilationem membrorum, vel ad mortem, for this supposeth a Trial already begun, and the Bishops present so far in it; but when it comes to the point of mutilation or death, then they have leave to withdraw. So that this last Clause must either be understood of Execution, which no one can think proper for the King's Courts; or for the Sentence given by the Court, which is most agreeable.

2. The Sense is best understood by the Practice of that Age. For, if the meaning of the Constitution had been, they must not be present in any Cause of Bloud, and the Bishops had all sworn to observe it; can we imagine we should find them practising the contrary so soon after? And for this I appeal to Petrus Blesensis, Pet. Bles. de Instit. Episc. p. 454. whose words are so material to this purpose, that I shall set them down. Principes Sacerdotum & Seniores Populi, licèt non dictent judicia sanguinis, eadem tamen tractant disputando & disceptando de illis; séque ideo immunes à culpa reputant, quòd mortis aut truncationis membrorum judícium decernentes,[Page]à pronuntiatione duntaxat & executione poenalis sententiae se absentent. Whereby it is evident that the Bishops were present at all Debates, and gave Votes in Causes of Bloud; but they absented themselves from the Sentence, and the Execution of it. It is true, Pet. Blesensis finds fault with them for this. But what is that to the Law, or to the practice of that Age? I do not question, but Pet. Blesensis condemned the observation of the other Constitutions of Clarendon, as well as this; and in all probability this passage of his was levelled at those Bishops who did observe this 11. Constitution.

3. We have a plain way to understand the meaning of this Constitution, by what happen'd soon after in the Parlament at Northampton, which was summon'd upon Becket's Obstinacy and Contempt of the King's Authority: where Fitz-stephen saith, he was accused of Treason; and the Bishops sate together with other Barons; and because it did not come to a sentence of Death, after great debate between the other Lords and the Bishops about pronouncing the Sentence, the Bishop of Winchester did it. Wherein we have as plain evidence as can be desired, that the Bishops did sit with the other Barons, and [Page] vote with them in a case of Treason.

To this Precedent the Authour of the Letter answers several things.

1. That none of the ancient Historians of those Times say any thing of his being accused of Treason:Lett. p. 60. and therefore he thinks one may modestly affirm,pag. 62. that it was a mistake in Fitz-stephen to say so. But what if H. II. and Becket himself both confess that he was charged with Treason?Vol. Epistol. Becket in Bibl. Cotton. MS. l. 1. ep. 65. H. II. in his Letter to Reginaldus saith, that by consent of his Barons and Clergy he had sent Ambassadours to Pope Alexander, with this Charge, that if he did not free him from that Traitour Becket, he and his Kingdom would renounce all Obedience to him. And Becket did not think this a bare term of reproach; for in one of his Letters he saith, that defending the Liberties of the Church laesae Majestatis reatus sub persecutore nostro est,Ep. 52. was looked on as Treason by the King. Gervas. Chronic. p. 1391. And even Gervase himself, to whom the Authour of the Letter appeals, saith, some of his friends came to him at Northampton, and told him, if he did not submit to the King, he would be proceeded against as a Traitour, for breaking the Allegeance he had promised to the King, when he did swear to observe the ancient Customs at Clarendon. And [Page] Fitz-stephen saith, Fitz-stephen Vit. Th. Becket. de Concilio apud Clarendon. the King's Council at Clarendon said it was Treason, or taking the King's Crown from his head, to deny him the Rights of his Ancestours.

2. That it was a strange kind of Treason Becket was charged with at Northampton, Lett. p. 63. viz. for not coming when the King sent for him; which at the most was onely a high Contempt; and Fitz-stephen, who was a Creature of the Archbishop's, might represent it so, to draw an odium on the King. And therefore he looks on this as a weak precedent for the Bishops to lay any weight upon, being at best out of a blind MS. of an Authour justly suspected of partiality, against the tenour of all the ancient Writers that give an account of the same business. What truth there is in this last suggestion appears in part already, and will do more by what follows. Must all the unprinted Records be answered with saying they are blind MSS? I cannot but take notice how unreasonable a way of answering this is. It is like turning of that pressing Instance, of the Bishops making a Proctor in Capital Cases, by saying it was Error temporis; pag. 79. which because it will answer all Instances whatsoever as well as that, is therefore an answer to none. Just so it is equally an answer to all MSS, [Page] to say they are blind; and to all printed Books too, because they were once MSS, and, for any thing that appears to the contrary, as blind as Fitz-stephen's. For surely no authority is added to a Book by its being printed; unless in the opinion of the common people, who are said to take all for true that is in Print. I do not go about to parallel Fitz-stephen with Parlament-Rolls; but I say, his Authority is very good, being present upon the place, and the best we have, of all the proceedings in the Parlament at Northampton. And if the Authour of the Letter had taken the pains to peruse him, he would not have contemned the Precedent drawn from thence; which being so near the Parlament at Clarendon, (that, as himself confesseth,pag. 61. the one was in February, the other in October following,) it gives the best Light into this matter of any thing in that Age; and being not yet fully printed, it will be worth our while to set it down. Mr. Selden hath indeed printed very exactly the Proceedings of the first Iudgment upon Becket, Titles of Honour, p. 2. c. 5. n. 20. about the Cause of Contempt, for not coming upon the King's Summons, at the complaint of Iohn the Marshall; wherein the Bishops did certainly sit in Iudgment [Page] upon him with the other Barons: but there is a farther strength in this Precedent, not yet taken notice of. Which is, that after this Iudgment passed, Becket behaved himself with so great insolency towards the King and the Bishops, upon the King's calling him to farther account, for many other things laid to his Charge, as diverting the King's Treasure, and applying it to his own use, and great Accounts to the King while he was Chancellour, &c. that the King required him to stand to the Iudgment of his Court. Becket gave a dilatory Answer: the King summons the Bishops, and Earls and Barons, to give Iudgment against him: the Bishops tell the King, Becket had appealed to the Pope, and prohibited them to give any farther Judgment upon any Secular Complaint against him. Whereupon the King sent some Earls and Barons to him, to expostulate the matter, since he was the King's Subject, and had so lately sworn to the Constitutions at Clarendon; and to know whether he would give Security to the King about making up his Accounts, and stand to the Judgment of his Court. Becket refuseth to give answer to any thing, but the Cause of Iohn the Marshall, for which he was summoned to appear; [Page] slights his Oath, as contrary to the Rights of the Church, and confirms his Appeal to the Pope. And such an owning of the Pope's Power, in derogation to the Rights of the Crown, Sir Edward Cook saith was Treason by the ancient Common Law, before any Statutes were made. However, the King charges the Bishops by virtue of their Allegeance, that, together with the Barons, they would give Iudgment upon the Archbishop. They excused themselves on the account of the Archbishop's Prohibition. The King replied, That had no force against the Constitution of Clarendon, so lately made and acknowledged by them. The words of Fitz-stephen are these: Rex, responso Archiepiscopi accepto, instat Episcopis, praecipiens & obtestans per homagium & fidelitatem sibi debitam & juratam, ut simul cum Baronibus de Archiepiscopo sibi dictent sententiam. Illi se excusare coeperunt per interpositam Archiepiscopi Prohibitionem. Rex non acquievit, asserens, quòd non teneat haec ejus simplex Prohibitio contra hoc quod Clarendonae factum & initum fuerat. So that H. II. in the Parlament at Northampton declared, that Bishops were bound, by virtue of the Constitution of Clarendon, to be present, and to give their Votes in [Page]cases of Treason. And the Bishops' did not deny this, but used prudential arguments to disswade the King from proceeding any farther, the Appeal being made; and that it was for the good of King and Kingdom, for them to submit to the Prohibition. And the Bishop of Chichester told Becket, he made them go against the Constitutions of Clarendon, which they had so lately sworn to observe; in these remarkable words; Quo contra nos venire compellitis, interdicendo, nè ei quod de nobis exigit adesse possumus Iudicio. By which we see this Constitution is indeed an irrefragable Testimony; but it is to prove that Bishops are bound to be present even in Cases of Treason, when the King summons them. And as to the case of Becket's Treason, the same Bishop told him, it lay in breaking his Oath about those Constitutions, wherein the Rights of the Crown were declared. And if this be not Treason by the Common Law, Sir Edward Cook's Preface to his fifth Book of Reports signifies nothing.

The late Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spirituall takes it for granted,pag. 14. that by the Constitution of Clarendon the Iurisdiction of Bishops was limited, that it should [Page] not extend ad diminutionem membrorum, vel ad mortem. But the foregoing discourse hath, I suppose, made it evident, that those words contain no Limitation, but a Privilege or Indulgence to them with respect to the Canon-Law. And he takes very needless pains to prove this to be declarative of the Common Law; and that the Meeting at Clarendon was a full Parlament: which are very much besides the business.

All that looks towards this matter, is, that he saith, this Statute was confirmed by a Council at Westminster; for which he cites Rog. Hoveden's Authority. But I wish he had produced the Canon entire as he there found it; for then the sense of it would have been better understood. In this Synod at Westminster, Richard Archbishop of Canterbury produceth several ancient Canons, which he thought fit to be observed here. Among the rest, he mentions that of the Council of Toledo. The words are these: His qui in Sacris Ordinibus constituti sunt, judicium sanguinis agitare non licet; here he makes his &c. and leaves out the Prohibition which declares the meaning and extent of this Canon: Vnde prohibemus, nè aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant, aut [Page]inferendas judicent; Wherefore we forbid them, either to dismember any persons themselves, or to give Iudgment for the doing of it. Both which were practised in Spain in the time of the Council of Toledo, which was the occasion of this Canon. And then follows the Sanction of Deprivation if men did otherwise. And what now doth this signifie more to the Constitution of Clarendon, then that the same Canons were now revived, which gave the occasion to that permission of withdrawing, when the Sentence came to be pronounced as to dismembring, or loss of Life?

But he urges farther about this Constitution, pag. 18. that it must be so understood, as to exclude the Bishops from all antecedent and praeliminary things which do relate or tend ad diminutionem, &c. or else, saith he, it must be onely the exemption of the Prelats from doing the Office of Executioners, which is Non-sense. Why so? though it be not the whole sense of the Canon, yet surely it is sense. But he might have thought of giving Sentence, which the Canons forbid, and is different from Execution, and doth not exclude the Bishops presence at Praeliminaries. The Constitution of Westminster, he saith, is plainer, Non debent agitare judicium sanguinis; [Page] which, he saith, excludes the exercise of any Judicial Power in Cases of Bloud. Whereas it appears by the Prohibition there extant, nothing is forbidden but giving Sentence; at which the Constitution of Clarendon allows them to withdraw.

2. The second time we are told that the Exclusion of the Bishops in Cases Capital rereived a Confirmation in Parlament,Lett. p. 73. was the 11. of R. II. When the Archbishop and the other Bishops, upon their withdrawing then from the Parlament, in regard matters of Bloud were there to be agitated and determined, in quibus non licet alicui eorum personaliter interesse, as they say, in which it was not lawfull for any of them to be present in person, did therefore enter a Protestation, with a Salvo to their Right of Sitting and Voting in that and all other Parlaments, when such matters were not in Question: which Protestation of theirs was at their desire enrolled in full Parlament by the King's Command, with the Assent of the Lords Temporal and Commons. So that it is here said to be a perfect and compleat Act of Parlament; and if it had not been a Law before, would then have been made one. This is the substance of what is more largely insisted[Page]on in another place; [...]. 19▪ &c. and what strength is there added shall be duely considered.

To understand this business aright, it will be necessary to set down the Protestation it self at large, as it is taken out of Courtney's Register,Rot. Parl. 11 R. 2. n. 9. and the Parlament-Rolls; and then examine the Points that do arise from thence. The Protestation runs thus.

In Dei nomine Amen. Cùm de jure & consuetudine Regni Angliae, ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, qui pro tempore fuerit, necnon caeteros suos Suffraganeos, Confratres & Coëpiscopos, Abbatésque & Priores, aliosque Praelatos quoscunque, per Baroniam de Domino Rege tenentes, pertineat in Parlamentis Regis quibuscunque, ut Pares Regni praedicti, personaliter interesse, ibidémque de Regni Negotiis, & aliis ibidem tractari consuetis, cum caeteris dicti Regni Paribus, & aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibus, consulere, tractare, ordinare, statuere, & diffinire, ac caetera facere quae Parlamenti tempore ibidem imminent facienda; in quibus omnibus & singulis, Nos Willielmus Cantuar. Archiepiscopus, totius Angliae Primas, & Apostolicae sedis Legatus, pro nobis, nostrisque Suffraganeis, Coëpiscopis, & Confratribus, [Page] bus, nec non Abbatibus, Prioribus, ac Praelatis omnibus supradictis, protestamur, & eorum quilibet protestatur, qui per se, vel per Procuratorem hîc fuerit modò praesens, publicè & expressè, quòd intendimus, & intendit, volumus, ac vult quilibet eorum, in hoc praesenti Parlamento, & aliis, ut Pares Regni praedicti, more solito interesse, consulere, tractare, ordinare, statuere, & diffinire, accaetera exercere, cum caeteris jus interessendi habentibus in eisdem, statu & ordine nostris & eorum cujuslibet in omnibus semper salvis. Verùm quia in praesenti Parlamento agitur de nonnullis materiis in quibus non licet nobis, aut alicui eorum, juxta Sacrorum Canonum instituta quomodolibet personaliter interesse, ea propter pro nobis & eorum quolibet protestamur, & eorum quilibet hîc praesens etiam protestatur, quòd non intendimus, nec volumus, sicuti de jure non possumus, nec debemus, intendit, nec vult aliquis eorundem, in praesenti Parlamento, dum de hujusmodi materiis agitur, vel agetur, quomodolibet interesse; sed nos, & eorum quemlibet, in ea parte penitùs absentare, jure Paritatis & cujuslibet eorundem interessendi in dicto Parlamento, quoad omnia & singula mihi exercenda, nostris & eorum cujuslibet statu & ordine congruentia, in omnibus semper [Page] salvo. Ad haec insuper protestamur, & eorum quilibet protestatur, quòd propter hujusmodi absentiam, non intendimus, nec volumus, nec eorum aliquis intendit vel vult, quòd processus habiti & habendi in praesenti Parlamento super materiis antedictis, in quibus non possumus, nec debemus, ut premittitur, interesse, quantum ad nos & eorum quemlibet attinet, futuris temporibus quomodolibet impugnentur, infirmentur, seu etiam infringentur.

This Protestation, setting aside the legal Formalities of it, consists of 3 parts. 1. A Declaration of their undoubted Right as Peers of the Realm, by virtue of their Baronies, to Sit and Vote in all Debates of Parlament. 2. Of their intention to withdraw this Parlament, because several matters were to be handled, at which it was not lawfull for them, according to the Canons, to be present. 3. That by this absenting themselves they did not intend, as far as concerned them, to null the proceedings of that Parlament.

Here now arise three main Points to be discussed.

1. Upon what Grounds the Prelats declared, it was not lawfull for them to be present in Parlament, at such matters?

[Page] 2. How far the Parlament's receiving that Protestation makes it a Law?

3. Whether on supposition it were a part of Canon-Law then in force, it continues so still since the Reformation?

1. Upon what Grounds they declared it unlawfull for them to be present in Parlament, at such matters? One would think the very reading the Protestation were sufficient to convince any man; for the Bishops declare as plainly as men could do, that it was out of regard to the Canons of the Church, and not from any Law of the Land. For how was it possible that the same men should declare, that by reason of their Baronies they had full Right to be personally present in all Debates of Parlament, if there were some Law in force which made it unlawfull for them to be personally present? The greater force there is in the Protestation's being receiv'd in Parlament, the greater strength there is in this Argument. For if the Protestation's being allowed by King, Lords and Commons, make it (as the Authour of the Letter affirms) a perfect and compleat Law, then their Right to be present in all Debates of Parlament is a Law; and so much the more considerable, because it is no enacting Law, [Page] making that to be so, which was not before, but declarative of what was confessed to be their undoubted Right by King, Lords and Commons. And therefore I do not wonder, that the Authour of the Letter, so conveniently to his purpose, left out all the beginning of the Protestation, which so fully clears the sense of the rest. For the very same thing which afterwards the Bishops say they are forbid to doe by the Canons, that is, personaliter interesse, to give their personal attendance, they say at first, by Right of their Peerage, as Barons by tenure, did belong to them; for there the words are personaliter interesse too. Therefore that personal attendance in such matters which they said was unlawfull to them by the Canons, they challenge to themselves as their just Right by virtue of their Baronies. But is it possible to imagine, if they had been precluded from sitting by any antecedent Law, that ever such a publick avowing their Right would have passed the King and both Houses? So unsuccessfull hath the Authour of the Letter been in his Statute-Laws, that there can be no stronger evidence of the Bishops Right to sit in such Cases, then those which he produceth against them.

[Page] But he goes about to prove this Prohibition cannot be understood onely of the Canon-Law: Lett. p. 21, 22. for the Canon-Law, saith he, was to them above all Laws; and what was forbidden by that Law, they could not have a thought, that it could in any sort be lawfull for them to challenge as their Right, upon any account. I confess I can see no force in this Reasoning: For when a thing is forbidden to men meerly by a positive Law of the Church, and the penalty of it is bare Irregularity by the Canons; why may not such men challenge their own Right notwithstanding those Canons, because the Irregularity might be dispensed with, when the Pope saw convenient? And by the Constitutions of O [...]hobon, Const. Othob. c. Nè Clerici. which were made in the time of H. III. we find, that if an Inferiour Clergy-man transgressed this Canon, it was in the power of the Diocesan to absolve him from his Irregularity. And this Canon was receiv'd and inforc'd most here in England on the inferiour Clergy, as appears by the Canons of Stephen Langton in the Council of Oxford, Spelman. Conc. To. 2. p. 183. p. 451. and other Synodall Constitutions here.Lyndwood ad tit. de Loc. & cond. c. vendentes. Si quis Clericus. For it is a Rule in Lyndwood, Clericus ex vi verbi non comprehendit Episcopum, sed cum adjuncto, sic in quantum illud adjunctum potest concernere Episcopum. [Page] That by Clerici we are not to understand Bishops, unless there be some adjunct that implieth it.Decretal. l. 3. tit. 50. c. 5. And among the Decretals there is one from Alexander III. to the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the Title Nè Clerici, to the same purpose. Where the Glosse, I grant, comprehends Prelats; therefore I will not deny, but they were to be irregular by the Canon-Law, as well as others. But then, we are to consider, how far the Legatine Power vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury might extend in such a Case; and that there was the same severity in the Canons against Clergymen's taking upon them any Secular Office: and yet in this very Parlament, Thomas Arundell Bishop of Ely was Lord Chancellour, and after him William of Wickham Bishop of Winchester, and before them R. Baybroke Bishop of London; and the Bishops of Durham and Exceter were Lords Treasurers under R. II. and in H. III's time we find 3 Clergy-men Lords Chief Iustices, Pateshull, Lovell and Mansell, notwithstanding these Canons; and in Edward III's time almost all the great Offices of the Court were executed by Clergymen. By which we see they did not think themselves so strictly bound to observe those Canons; or it was so easy to be [Page] dispensed with, that they had great Reason to insist upon the challenge of their own Right, notwithstanding the Canon-Law.

The truth is, the Canon-Law, as it was managed in those days, was one of the most mysterious pieces of Ecclesiasticall Policy: it was an Engine, which the artificial Church-men could screw up or let down as they pleased. If it were in a matter likely to be prejudicial to their interest, (as it was most apparently the case in 11 R. II. when matters grew so high between R. II. and the powerfull Lords, and so many Favourites were to be impeached, and among them Alexander Archbishop of York,) then it was a time to quote the Canons, and to enter a Protestation, and to withdraw: If the Times were calmer and more settled, or some great Reason moved them, then they could stick to their Right of Peerage, and make use of it, either in Person, or by Proxy, as they thought convenient. Nor was it so easy a matter to resolve what was Canon-Law in England, but they might with some colour make use of either of these Pleas. Rot. Parlam. 11 R. 2. p. 1. n. 26. For in this very Parlament 11 R. II. the Commons desire that those may be reputed Traitours who brought [Page] in the Pope's Bulls of Volumus & Imponimus: which shews that they did not think all Canon-Law that passed for such at Rome. And 15 R. II. Sir Will. Brian was sent to the Tower, for bringing a Bull from Rome which was judged prejudicial to the King, and derogatory to his Laws. And in 16 R. II. Will. Courtney, Archbishop of Canterbury, (the same who enter'd the Protestation before mentioned,) makes another of a different kind, owning the Rights of the Crown in opposition to the Pope's Encroachments. Now, by the same Reason, no Canon made at Rome, no Legatine or Synodal Constitutions, could have any force against the King's Authority. But the King himself being under a force at that time, as he alwaies declared afterwards, and that being,Knighton p. 2701. as Knighton saith it was called, Parlamentum sine Misericordia, the King having tied himself up, not to pardon any without consent of the Lords; he might be willing to let the Bishops excuse themselves; because that might give some colour to call in question the Proceedings then, as it did 21 R. II. when all the Acts of this Parlament were nulled: and the Lords and Commons might be very willing to let the Bishops [Page] withdraw, that their business might proceed with less difficulty against all the King's Ministers. So that here was a concurrence of many circumstances, which made the Bishops think fit not to appear in the House, this Parlament; and the King, Lords and Commons to be willing to receive their Protestation. But in the Anti-Parlament to this, that I mean 21 R. II. the Commons pray the King, that since divers Iudgments were undone heretofore, for that the Clergy were not present, they might appoint some Common Proctor with sufficient Authority to that purpose. This is a Passage which deserves consideration, and tends very much to clear the whole matter.

For the House of Commons declare, that divers Iudgments had been undone for want of the Presence of the Clergy. Therefore their Concurrence, in the judgment of the House of Commons, was thought necessary to make a Iudgment valid. A very late Authour finds himself so perplexed with this, that he knows not how to get off from it.A Discourse of the Peerage and Jurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual, p. 26. He cannot deny this to be in the Rolls of Parlament, and to be the first Petition of the Commons: but then he blames them for rashness and errour, and want of due Examination of [Page] Precedents. As though it were possible for any man now, to understand the Law and Practice better then the whole House of Commons then did. He saith, they were mistaken palpably de facto, in saying that divers Iudgments have been heretofore undone; and yet presently confesseth, that the two Iudgments against the two Spencers were reversed for this Cause; but he saith, there are no more to be found. Where doth he mean? in his Study? or not now extant in the Parlament-Rolls? But have we all the Rolls of Parlament that were then in being? or must men so boldly charge the House of Commons with Ignorance, Errour, breaking the Laws, because they speak against their fancies? But this Gentleman very peremptorily concludes the House of Commons then guilty of a very strange and unaccountable Oversight. It is great pity, a certain Gentleman had not been there to have searched Records for them, and to have informed them better. But we think a Iudgment of the whole House of Commons in such a Case, declared in so solemn a manner, without the least contradiction from the King or the Lords, might deserve a little more respect; and it had certainly had it, if it had made for [Page] the other side. But we see the House of Commons it self is reverenced, or not, as the Judgment of it serves mens purposes. And yet this was more then the bare Iudgment of the House of Commons: for a Petition was made upon it, and that Petition granted; and consequently a Common Proctor appointed, and that Proctor allowed by King, Lords and Commons. So that this was a Judgment ratified by consent of the King and the whole Parlament. For, if a Petition were made on a false ground, what had been more proper, then for the Lords to have open'd this to the Commons, and to have told them how unadvised and false their Iudgment was? whereas the Lords consented, and the Proctor was admitted, and gave his Vote in the name of the Clergy. But there is something more to confirm this Iudgment of the Commons, and that is, the Parlament 11 R. II. making Petition to the King, that all Iudgments then given might be approved, affirmed and stablished, as a thing duely made for the Weal and Profit of the King our Sovereign Lord, notwithstanding that the Lords Spiritual and their Procurators were absent at the time of the said Iudgments given. What means this Petition, if there had [Page] been no doubt at that time, that these Judgments might be reversed, as not duely made, by reason of the absence of the Prelats? The onely answer in my mind is, that it was Error Temporis, they were of that mind then, but some are resolved to be of another now.

But from hence we plainly see, that even in R. II's time the Concurrence of the Bishops was thought so necessary, that one Parlament declared Iudgments had been reversed for want of it; and that very Parlament wherein they absented themselves, got a Clause inserted on purpose to prevent the nulling of those Iudgments: which signified nothing to the Parlament 21 R. II. which reversed them all.

There is something more considerable to our purpose in this Parlament; viz. that the same Authour produceth the Testimony of a MS. Chronicle, Discourse of the Peerage, &c. p. 20. which largely handles the Affairs of that Parlament, wherein it is confessed, that the Bishops, by concurring with the Lords in the Revocation of the Earl of Arundel's Pardon, did give Vote in a Case Capital: for so the words are there cited, Dederunt ergo locum Praelati judicio Sanguinis in hoc facto. Which shews that the Bishops did [Page] then give their Votes about the validity of the Pardon: which the Authour of that Chronicle indeed condemns them for, and tells us some thought they incurred Irregularity by it. From whence it follows, that all the Penalty supposed to be incurred was onely Canonical; but he never charges them with going against the Law or Custom of Parlament therein.

But the Authour of the Letter saith,Lett. p. 30. Whatever was done this Parlament signifies nothing, because the whole Parlament stands repealed by 1 H. IV. and all done in it delcared null and void. Yet, to our comfort,p. 79. the same Authour tells us, the three Henry's were Usurpers; and therefore I desire to be satisfied, whether an Vsurper, by a Parlament of his calling, can null and repeal what was done by a King and his Parlament. If he may, then the King lost his Title to the Crown by the late Vsurpers; if not, then the Parlament 21 R. II. could not be repealed by that 1 H. IV. If the Authour of the Letter had considered this, he is a Person of too great Judgment and Loyalty, to have mention'd, more then once, the Repeal of that Parlament, Lett. p. 8 [...]. pag. 115. by the subsequent Parlament 1 H. IV.

From all this we see, that by the Judgment [Page] of the whole Parlament, both 11 R. II. and 21 R II. the Bishops had a right to sit, so far that Iudgments were reversed where they were not present; and therefore all the pretence they could have for withdrawing must be from the Canon-Law: which although not sufficient to bind them, if the matter had been contested, yet it served them for a very colourable pretence of absenting themselves in such dangerous times, as those of 11 R. II.

Here the Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual thinks he brings seasonable relief to the Cause, pag. 19. when he undertakes to prove, that the Bishops withdrawing was not meerly on the account of the Canon-Law. This, I confess, is home to the business, If he can make it out. (1.) He saith, there was an Act of Parlament before, that did expresly prohibit them to excercise Iurisdiction in those Cases. This we utterly deny. And the Constitution of Clarendon, to which he refers, proves the contrary. (2.) The Bishops made bold with the Canons when they thought fit,p 20. as 21 R. II. But how could they doe that, unless they had a Parlamentary Right to be present? He saith, the Constituting a Proxy was as [Page]great a violation of the Canons, as being personally present: and what then? therefore the Parlament would not have suffered them to doe that, if there had been a Law to exclude them. How doth this prove that the Bishops did not withdraw on the account of the Canons II R. II. because they made a Proxie 21 R. II? But why did they not appear personally, if they had no regard to the Canons; when the receiving their Proxie shewed they had a legal Right to appear? But he grievously mistakes the meaning of the Canon of Stephen Langton in Lyndwood, when he interprets Literas pro poena sanquinis instigenda scribere vel dictare, against making of Proxies; which is onely meant of giving or writing the Sentence for Execution. p. 21. (3.) He saith, they were excluded by ancient Custom; which, by a very subtle way of reasoning, he proves to have been part of the Fundamental Contract of the Nation, as he speaks. Seeing then, saith he, it is without doubt that there was such a Custom, that the Prelats should not exercise Iurisdiction in Capital Cases; (not so altogether without doubt, unless it were better proved then we have yet seen it;) and there is no Record that doth mention when it did begin,[Page]nor any time when it could be said there never was such an Vsage; (yes, before the Council of Toledo being published in Spain, and receiv'd here;) it must of necessity be supposed, that it is as ancient as the Government it self, and part of the Fundamental Contract of the Nation. Which looks so like a Iesuitical Argument, that one would have thought he had been proving Transubstantiation by it. For just thus the Argument runs at this day among that Party; There was a time when it was reciev'd, and no time can be instanced in wherein it was not, therefore it was a part of the Fundamental Religion of Iesus Christ. the plain Answer in both cases is the same: If we can produce unquestionable Authority to which a Doctrine or Practice is repugnant, we are not obliged to assign any punctual time in which it must first come in. But in this case, we do assign the very time and occasion of the Bishops absenting themselves in Capital Iudgments, and that was from the receiving the Canon of the Council of Toledo here: For no such practice can ever be proved before. And therefore this can never be proved to be any part of the ancient Common Law of England. And that this came in by way [Page] of imitation of other Countries, appears by the citing the Council of Toledo both by Lanfranc and Richard in the Council of Winchester. pag. 23. (4.) He saith, the Practice is ancienter then any of the Canons of the Church. But how doth that appear? The eldest Canon he can find is that of Stephen Langton in Lyndwood, which was made above 50 years after the Parlament at Clarendon. But we have made it evident, there was a Canon receiv'd here in Lanfranc's time, long before the Constitution of Clarendon. And so a full Answer is given to these Objections.

But we are told, by the Authour of the Letter, that the Bishops Protestation being receiv'd and enter'd in the Roll, or Iournal-Book, makes it to pass for a Law, it being agreed to by the King and two Houses; so as whatever was the Law before, if it were onely the Canon-Law, it is now come to be the Law and Rule of Parlament, and the Law of the Land.

2. This is therefore the second Point to be examined, Whether the receiving this Protestation amounts to a Law of Exclusion? which it can by no means do for these two Reasons: 1. from the nature of Protestations in general, 2. from the particular nature of this Protestation.

[Page] 1. From the nature of Protestations in general. For a Protestation is onely a Declaration of their minds that make it, and not of theirs who receive it, or suffer it to be enter'd in the Acts or Records of the Court; unless it be receiv'd in such a manner, as implies their consent. For, the very next Parlament after this, 13 R. II. the two Archbishops, in the name of the whole Clergy, enter a Protestation, That they gave no assent to any Law or Statute made in restraint of the Pope's Authority; and it is said in the Rolls of Parlament, that at their requests these Protestations were enrolled. Will any man hence inferre, that these Protestations were made Acts of Parlament? If the Cause would have born any better, a Person of so much skill in proceedings of Parlament would never have used such an Argument as this. Besides, it is a Rule in Protestations, Sum. l. 1. de Constit. n 18. pag. 24. Si Protestatio in Iudicio fiat, semper per contrarium actum tollitur, saith Hostiensis; A Protestation, although allowed in Court, is taken off by a subsequent Act contrary to it. Which shews, that a Protestation can never have the force of a Law; because it may be destroy'd by the Act of the Parties themselves. If therefore the Bishops did afterwards act contrary to this Protestation, [Page] they took away all the force of it.

2. The particular nature of this Protestation is such, as doth most evidently preserve their Right to be personally present on the account of their Peerage and Baronies; and the great design of a Protestation is, to preserve a Right notwithstanding some Act which seems to destroy it; as thier absenting themselves on the account of the Canons might seem to doe. But of this already.

3. We are now to consider the third Point, Whether, on supposition that on the account of the Canon-Law, the Bishops had always withdrawn in the time of Popery, that had continued in force still since the Reformation? I think not, upon these Reasons.

1. Because the Canon-Law was founded upon a Superstitious fancy, viz. that if Clergy-men be present in Causes of Bloud, they contract Irregularity ex defectu perfectae Lenitatis, Man [...]al. c. 27. as the excellent Canonist, Navarr, saith, because it argues a want of perfect Lenity. But if we consider the cases they allow, which do not incurre Irregularity, and those they do not allow, which do incurre it, we shall find all this stir in the Canon-Law about this matter to be onely a Superstitious kind of Hypocrisy.

[Page] 1. If a man in Orders gives another man Weapons, without which he could not defend himself, and by those weapons he maims him that assaulted him; this doth not make him irregular: but if he kills him, it doth: and yet the Canons make the case of Dismembring and Death the same.

2. It makes a man act against the Law or Nature to prevent Irregularity. For they say, if it be for the defence of Father or Mother, or preventing the ruin of his Country, although the Cause be never so just, a Clergy-man that dismembers, or takes away another's life, is irregular.

3. If a Clergy-man discovers Treason, or accuses another for Treason, without a Protestation, that he doth not doe it with a design to have him punished; he is irregular: but if he makes that Protestation, although death follows, he is not.

4. If a Clergy-man be in an Army, and perswades the Souldiers to fight manfully, and kill as many as they can; this doth not make him irregular; ny, although he beats them, if they will not fight: but if he happens to kill an enemy himself, then he is.

5. If he gives a Souldier a Sword or a [Page] Gun, by which he dispatches his enemies, if he did it with a particular intention that he should slay or maim them, he is irregular; if onely with a general intention, that he should overcome, he is not. This being somewhat a nice Case, the Canonists take more then usual pains to prove it. And from hence they defend their Priests and Iesuits in the Indies, who carry the Cross before their Armies into the Field, and encourage them to kill all they can: and yet Navarr saith, they are so far from being irregular, that they are regularissimi, as his word is.

6. If a man, to gain an Indulgence, carries a faggot to burn an Heretick, if it be with a design to take away his life, he is irregular: but if he be hanged first, or dead before it be thrown into the fire, then he is not.

7. If a man in Orders helps a Chirurgeon in cutting off a man's Leg, he is not irregular: but if a man be justly condemned to have his Leg cut off, if he then gives any assistence, he is irregular: because the one is moved out of Mercy, and the other out of Justice.

8. If the Bishops sit and condemn a man for Heresy, and deliver him over to [Page] the Secular Power for Execution; yet they free this from Irregularity, or else the practice of the Inquisition were lost. This seems a very difficult Case: but the Canonists salve this,Covarruv. ad Clem. fi surios. p. 2. § 5. n. 6. by saying that the Inquisitours, when they deliver them over to the Secular Power, do pray that they may not be hurt either Wind or Lim; as it appears by the Forms used in the Directorium Inquisitorum. And if this be not the height of Hypocrisie, let the World judge. And therefore this part of the Canon-Law is not consistent with the Sincerity of the Reformation.

2. This part of Canon-Law is inconsistent with the King's Power over Ecclesiastical Persons. For it supposeth them liable to the penalty of a Law, which he hath no cognisance of, and derives no force or authority from him: which tends to the diminution of the King's Prerogative Royal, and therefore it is nulled by the Stat. 25▪ H. VIII. c. 19. I do very much question whether this ever were any part of the Canon-Law of England, notwithstanding the Pope's Decretals; i. e. whether these Canons ever received confirmation by the Royal Authority, either in Synodal Constitutions, or elsewhere. And it would be a very hard [Page] case, if our Kings had not the same Privileges which are allow'd in Popish Countries; viz. that nothing passes for Canon-Law within their Territories, till it pass the examination of the King's Council, and approbation by his Authority. Thence in France nothing passes without the King's Pareatis; nor in Spain or Flanders, without the King of Spain's Placet; no nor in the Kingdom of Naples, without the Royal Exequatur. It is well known, that the 6. Book of Decretals was not allowed in France, because of the quarrel between the King and Boniface VIII. and that even the Council of Trent it self was not allowed by Philip II. till it had been strictly examined by the King's Council, that nothing might be allowed which tended to the diminution of his Prerogative. How then will men justifie the making that a part of the Canon-Law of England, which was repugnant to the Rights of the Crown, and deprives the King of the Power of taking advice of those of his Subjects, whom he hath summon'd for that end?

3. The Sanction of this Law is ceased, which was Irregularity: And some of our most Learned Iudges have declared, that is taken away by the Reformation. But [Page] in case any be of another opinion, I shall urge them with this inconveniency; viz. that the great Instrument of discovering the Plot falls under Irregularity by it. For it is most certain, by the Canon-Law, that a man in Orders accusing others of Treason, without making his due Protestation in Court, is Irregular. But if this be now thought unreasonable, as it is, in the person of an Accuser, why should it not be so in the case of Iudges? And if the Irregularity be taken away, then the Sanction is gone: and if the Sanction be taken off in a meer positive Law, the force of the Law is gone too. And therefore this Canon-Law, which forbids Clergymen being present in Capital Cases, and giving Votes therein, is wholly taken away by the Reformation. And we do not find any mention of it for 80 years and more after the Reformation; till about the time of the Earl of Strafford's Trial, a Book being printed about the Privilege of Peers, wherein this Protestation was mention'd, hold was presently taken of it, by Men who thought they could not compass their ends without removing the Bishops out of the House: and when the Bishops insisted on their Right, and could not be heard, but at last were willing to salve [Page] their Right by Proxies; the Lords of the Cabal prevailed with their friends, to declare they would use no Proxies themselves, and so by that artifice shut the Bishops out of Doors.

4. The practice hath been so contrary, since the Reformation, that I find no manner of regard hath been shewed to it. For the Archbishop of Canterbury was the first nominated in the Commission for the Trial of the Queen of Scots; as appears by the Commission it self in Camden; Camden. Annal. A. D. 1586. which is directly contrary to the Canon-Law. Some distinguish the Bishops acting by Commission, from their being Iudges in Parlament. For which there is no manner of Reason with respect to the Canon-Law, which is rather more express against any kind of Commissions in Cases of Bloud; as appears by the Council of Toledo, the Synodal Constitution, and the Pope's Decretals. And there hath never been any scruple about Divines sitting on the Crown-side as Iustices of the Peace, Vid. Lyndwood in Constit. Othob. c. Nè Clerici. v. In eisdem. when Sentence of death is pronounced; nor in the Ordinary's declaring Legit, or Non legit, when a man's life depends upon it. But, which is yet more to our present purpose, in the Parlament 22. May 1626. upon the Impeachment of the Earl of Bristol [Page] of high Treason, 10 Bishops, 10 Earls, 10 Barons, were appointed to examine the Evidence; and upon their Report he was sent to the Tower by the whole House. All which shews, that there hath been no regard had to the force of the Canon-Law in this matter since the Reformation: That being a Spirit lay'd long since by the Principles of our Church; and it would be strange, if some mens zeal against Popery should raise it again.

CHAP. III.
The Precedents on both sides laid down: those against the Bishops examined and answered.

II. I Now come to examine the Precedents, and shall proceed therein according to due Order of Time.

And so the first is taken from the Saxon times;Lett. p. 57. viz. from Brompton's Relation about Edward the Confessour's appealing to the Earls and Barons about Earl Godwin's murthering of his Brother Alfred. pag. 59. Here we see, saith the Authour of the Letter, it was onely ad Comites & Barones that he appealed, and they were onely[Page]to judge of it, and not Bishops or Prelates.

I have 2 things to answer to this Precedent. 1. That we have great reason to suspect the truth of it. 2. That if it were true, we have no reason to suspect the Bishops to be excluded.

1. For the truth of the Story. That there is great reason to suspect it, appears, in that it is the single relation of Brompton, against the consent of the other Historians, (and some of them much ancienter, and nearer to that time,) who mention K. Edward's charging Earl Godwin with the Death of his Brother, not in Parlament, but as they were at Table together at Winchester, upon the occasion of a saying of Earl Godwin's, upon the King's Cup-bearer's stumbling with one foot, and recovering with another; See, saith he, how one Brother helps another. Upon which Matt. Westminster, Knighton, and others say, that the King charged him about the Death of his Brother Alfred. Whatever the occasion was, our best Historians of that time, Malmsbury and Ingulphus, say, it was at an Entertainment at Winchester, and that Earl Godwin died upon the place; being choaked, as they say, with a Morsel of Bread he took with [Page] a great Execration upon himself if he were not innocent. Knighton saith, he was question'd for the Death of his Brother by Hardecnute, and that he cleared himself, by saying he did nothing but by the King's command. But suppose Edward to be never so weak a Prince, is it likely this should be done by an Appeal in Parlament by the King himself; and that afterwards, by the Judgment of his Earls and Barons, he and his Sons and 12 Kinsmen should make the King amends, by as much Gold and Silver as they could carry between their Arms? Besides, Brompton saith, this was done by Godwin when he returned to England, after King Edward's coming to the Throne; whereas Malmsbury shews, that it was through Earl Godwin's interest, that ever he came to it; and so the marrying his Daughter would make any one believe.

2. But suppose it true. What reason is there to conclude the Bishops not present, who were never absent through all the Saxon times, after Ethelbert's Conversion, in any publick Councils of the Nation? They had no Canon then to be afraid of; for that of the Council of Toledo was brought in by Lanfranc. And it was not against the practice of those [Page] Times. For if we believe as true a Story as this of Brompton, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself condemned King Edward's Mother Emma to a Trial by hot Irons, which was present death without a Miracle: and this it is said was done by the consent of the King and the Bishops; which is as good a Precedent against Temporal Lords, as the other is against the Bishops. However, this is certain, that the Bishops then sate in the County-Court at all Iudgments. And whereas the Authour of the Letter would avoid this, by saying that no Capital Crimes were tried there;Lett. p. 110. the contrary is most certainly true. For the Laws of King Edward, as they were set forth by H. I. c. 31. mention the Capitalia Placita that were there held. And the Authour of the MS. Life of S. Cuthbert saith, that when one of Earl Godwin's Sons was Earl of Northumberland, and one Hamel, a very bad man, was imprison'd by him, his Friends interceded earnestly with him, nè capite plecteretur, that he should not lose his head. By which it appears, that Cases Capital were heard and determin'd in those Courts, the Bishop and Earl sitting together in Iudgment. And here the Point is plainly gain'd, because the Authour of the Letter [Page] grants that the Bishops sate in all Iudgments in the County-Courts, and then puts the matter upon this Issue, whether Capital Crimes were there tried or not; which I have clearly proved that they were. But I shall make another advantage of this against the Authour of the Peerage, &c. for it plainly overthrows that confident Assertion of his,Lett. p. 21. That without doubt there was a Negative Custom, that the Prelates should not exercise Iurisdiction in Capital Cases, so ancient as to be part of the Fundamental Contract of the Nation. It were a thousand pities that such well-sounding words, so handsomely put together, should signifie nothing. I dare not be so positive as he is, but am of opinion, that if he could be perswaded to produce this Fundamental Contract of the Nation, which I perceive he hath lying by him, it would not amount to so much as a blind Manuscript. If it be said, that Brompton onely mentions Earls and Barons, and Bishops were not then made Barons; I answer, that Baronies were brought into England by the Conquerour, and therefore Brompton must speak improperly, and consequently, taking it onely for a Title of Honour, he means no more then those who were the Great men of that time, [Page] and so may take in the Bishops too: of which more afterwards. But there is one thing more in the Laws of H. I. (which were onely a restoring K. Edward's Laws) that implies that Bishops had then a Power of Judging in Cases Capital; which is c. 58. Qui occiderit Episcopum sit in arbitrio Principis & Episcoporum, He that killed a Bishop was to be left to the Will of the King and the Bishops. Which shews that they were to hear and examine the whole Evidence, and to give Judgment according to it.

After the Saxon times,Lett. p. 55. the first Precedent produced is of the 33 Edw. I. concerning Nicolas Segrave, who was summon'd to appear in Parlament, and after his Offences were open'd, the King advises onely with the Temporal Lords, who declared, such a man deserved to lose his Life. But is he sure the Bishops were not present? No: he saith, that doth not appear by the Record; but it appears clearly they were not to meddle with it. How so? The King declares, that he would have the Advice Comitum, Baronum, Magnatum, & aliorum de Consilio suo. But is he sure they are not comprehended under Magnates, and that there were no Clergy-men at that time of the King's Counsel? What thinks [Page] he is William de Hamilton, Dean of York▪ who was made Lord Chancellour Ian. 16. 33 Edw. I. and this Parlament was held the next Sunday after S. Matthias, which was the latter end of February? And in the 35. year, Ralph de Baldock, Bishop of London, was made Lord Chancellour: and scarce any other but Church-men had that Office all his days. The Bishop of Bath and Wells was Chancellour near twenty years of his Reign; after him the Bishop of Ely; after him the Dean of Chichester; and then comes the Dean of York. And among the Lords Treasurers of his time; were the Archdeacon of Dorset, the Abbot of Westminster, two Bishops of Bath and Wells, whereof one was Treasurer at this time. These two, I hope, we may suppose to be of the King's Counsel in this business; who we are certain were both Church-men. And if they adjudged Nic. de Segrave worthy of death, who so likely to deliver that Judgment as the Chancellour? But suppose these were not there, whom doth he mean by the Magnates then distinct from Earls and Barons, who were of the House of Peers? Mr. Selden will inform him, if he needs it, that there were no Dukes till the II. of Edw. III. nor the Title of [Page] Marquess till R. II. nor of Vicount till H. VI. And yet here were Magnates in Parlament, who were neither Earls nor Barons: and therefore we must in all reason understand the great Church-men, who were not so nice of meddling with Criminal Causes in Parlament of the highest nature in the time of Edw. I. As appears by the great Cause so much agitated in Parlament 20 Edw. I. concerning the Earls of Hereford and Gloucester; where this latter is charged with raising Arms without Commission, and committing Murthers and horrible Devastations in the Lands belonging to the other; and the King in Parlament appoints the Bishop of Ely with others to be a Committee for examination of this matter. And when they had both submitted to the King's Pleasure, we have these remarkable words in the Placita Parlamentaria. Per Consilium Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Comitum, Baronum, ceterorumque de Consilio suo existentium, facere volens in premissis, & ut voluntas sua justa sit & rationabilis, prout decet, eorumque assensum in premissis petiit, & Consilium. Propter quod, habito tractatu diligenti coram ipso Domino Rege & Consilio suo super predictis, tam ipsi Domino[Page]Regi quam ceteris Prelatis & Magnatibus, & singulis de Consilio suo, videtur quoad Comit. Gloucestr. and then follows the Sentence; which I confess did not extend to Life, but to a Forfeiture of his Estate to the King. However, we see hereby that the Bishops were present at all the praeliminary Debates, and the King asked their Advice; so that they had their Votes in the Sentence, whether it should extend to Life or not.

In the Reign of Edw. II. we meet with a remarkable Precedent in behalf of the Bishops Right, which is of a Iudgment reversed made by the Lords without the Prelats, viz. the Iudgment against the two Spencers 15 E. II. which Iudgment is said to be passed at Oxford that year, but in the Parlament at York, Claus. 15 Ed. 2. n. 23, 24. & dors. 13. 32. the same year, it was nulled and made void before the King, Lords and Commons; and one of the Reasons given for it is, because the Lords Spiritual, who were Peers, assented not to it. This Precedent had been cited and allowed by Mr. Pryn, in his Plea for the Lords; Plea for the Lords, p. 193. and therefore it is to be wonder'd the Authour of the Letter takes no notice of it. But the later Authour of the Discourse about the Bishops Peerage and Iurisdiction, Discourse of the Bishops Peerage, pag. 20. owns the truth [Page] of the thing, saying, that the two Iudgments aganst the two Spencers were reversed 15 Edw. II. for this Cause, through the great favour and interest they then had at Court. But then he thinks he hath taken off the force of this Precedent, by saying that 1 Edw. III. c. 1. this Iudgment is declared good, and therefore the said Reversal null and void; and the two Spencers upon this affirmance of the Iudgment were executed. This last Assertion every one knows to be a grievous mistake, that hath but looked into our History: for the Spencers were executed before Edw. III. came to the Crown; the elder in October 19 Edw. II. the other the latter end of November 20 Edw. II. And whereas he insists upon the Affirmance of the Iudgment 1 Edw. III. he had done well to have look'd a little farther, and then he would have found that Act also repealed 21 R. II. So that if the Act of 1 Ed. III. which affirms the first Judgment, may seem to take off the force of this Precedent, the repealing of that Act in the 21 R. II. restores it again, and leaves it in its full force. Especially if it be considered, that the Act of 1 Ed. III. was not barely repealed, but declar'd in Parlament to be unlawfull, because Ed. II. [Page]was living, Rot. 64. 21 R. 2. and true King, and imprison'd by his Subjects at the time of that very Parlament of 1 Ed. III.

Thus far this Precedent is good. But I will conceal nothing that may with any colour be objected against it. And I cannot deny but what the Authour of the Letter objects, against the Bishops constituting a Proctor to represent them in Capital Causes, seems to be of equal force against this Precedent, viz. That this Parlament of the 21 R. II. and all that was done in it, was repeal'd in the 1 H. IV. And if that be so, (and those Acts of State which then passed had not again been repealed 1 Ed. IV.) then the Repealing of that of 1. Ed. III. signifies nothing, and consequently the Affirmance of the first Iudgment against the two Spencers is good notwithstanding that Repeal. And therefore that we may examine this matter to the bottom, I shall set down the very words of the Authour of the Letter concerning it. Speaking of the Declaration made by the Lawyers in the 10 Ed. IV. concerning the Bishops making a Procurator in Capital Causes, he hath these words:pag. 79. It is true, here is mention made of their making a Proctor, which was Error temporis, the Errour of those times, grounded[Page]upon what was so lately done, (as they looked upon it) though irregularly done, in the last Parlament of R. II. whom they consider'd as their lawfull King; and in truth he was so, the three Henry's that came between being but Vsurpers. And again, speaking of the same business of a Proctor in the 21 R. II. he hath this remarkable passage:pag. 115. I have already shewed, that this whole Parlament was repeal'd for the extravagant things that were done in it, of which this was one. And therefore nothing that was then done can signifie any thing to a leading case any ways to be followed; and this as little as any: except it could be made appear, which I am confident it cannot, that some Iudgment had been reversed upon that account, because the Prelats were not present, and had not given their assent to it.

Now if I can make out these two things, 1. That the Parlament of R. II. was not legally repeal'd; 2. That the Iudgment against the two Spencers was revers'd, and that the Repeal of that Reversal in 1 Ed. III. was revok'd in 21 R. II. upon this very account, because the Prelats were not present, and had not given their assent to it; I hope the Authour of the Letter will be satisfy'd, that [Page] both this Precedent, and the Case of a Proctor, are very significant in this Cause; and that there is a great difference between being confident, and certain of any thing.

1. That the Parlament of 21 R. II. was not legally repeal'd. And for this I take the Authour's own acknowledgment, that R. II. was in truth lawfull King, and that H. IV. was but an Vsurper: Nay, I add farther, that R. II. was alive and in prison when H. IV. repeal'd the Parlament of 21 R. II. For so it is said in the very Act of Repeal, that R. II. late King of England was pursued, taken, put in ward, and yet remaineth in ward. And now I leave it to the Authour of the Letter, whether a Parlament call'd by a lawfull King, and the Acts of it, ought to be deem'd legally repeal'd by a Parlament that was call'd by an Usurper, and held whilst the lawfull King was alive, and detain'd in prison.

2. That the Iudgment against the two Spencers was revers'd, and the Repeal of the Reversal of it in 1 Ed. III. revok'd in 21 R. II. and that upon this very account, because the Prelats were not present, and had not given their assent to it; which the Authour of the Letter is [Page] confident cannot be made appear. pag. 115. That this Iudgment was reversed for this Reason I have already shewn, viz. in the Parlament at York 15 Ed. II. And I shall now shew, that the Repeal of that Reversal in 1 Edw. III. was revok'd in 21 R. II. and that upon the account mentioned. For in this Parlament Tho. le Despenser, Earl of Gloucester, exhibited two Bills, in which he prayeth that the Revocation of the Exile of the two Spencers in 15 Ed. II. might be brought before the King and confirmed, and that the Repeal of the same made in the 1 Ed. III. might be revoked. Of which Act of Repeal these Errours are assigned, among others:Kot. 55, 56. 21 R. 2. because the Prelats, who are Peers of the Realm, did not assent to the Iudgment; and because it was made onely by the Earls and Barons, Peers of the Realm, &c. and because it was made against the form of the Great Charter of England, in which it is contain'd, that no man shall be exil'd, or otherwise destroyed, but by the lawfull Iudgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. So that it seems it was look'd upon as a breach of the Great Charter, for the Temporal Lords to condemn a Peer without the Assent of the Bishops, and that such a Iudgment was [Page] not esteem'd a lawfull Iudgment by his Peers. And those Errours of the first Iudgment assign'd in the Revocation of it in 15 Ed. II. are allowed in this Parlament of 21 R. II. and that Revocation confirm'd, and the Repeal of it in 1 Ed. III. revok'd upon the same account. I shall onely observe,R. 2. 21. that in this Parlament (as before in 15 Ed. II.) the Bishops are declared to be Peers; Peers of the Realm, Rot. 55. Peers in Parlament, Rot. 56. & 61; but most fully and distinctly in the Roll last cited, Peers of the Realm in Parlament. Of which farther use may be made in the last Chapter concerning the Peerage of the Bishops.

And now to sum up the force of this Precedent for the Iurisdiction of the Bishops in Cases of Treason. Here is a Reversal of a Iudgment, because made without the Assent of the Prelats, by the Parlament at York in 15 Ed. II. And whereas it is said this Reversal was repeal'd, and the first Iudgment affirm'd in 1 Ed. III. I have shew'd, that this was no legal Repeal, because Ed. II. was alive, and lawfull King, (or else Ed. III. could never have been so) in the time of that first Parlament of Ed. III. and consequently Ed. III. at that time was an Usurper, and the [Page] Proceedings of that Parlament null and void. So that the Reversal in 15 Ed. II. stands good, notwithstanding the Repeal in 1 Ed. III. Besides that this Repeal (whatever it was) is solemnly revok'd in 21 R. II. And H. IV. who revers'd all the Proceedings of the Parlament of 21 R. II. during the life of R. II. is acknowledg'd by the Authour of the Letter to have been an Vsurper, and R. II. to have been a lawfull King. And now I think that this Precedent hath all the advantage that can be, and that the Iurisdiction of the Bishops in Cases of Treason could not have been asserted in a higher manner, then to have a Iudgment in Case of Treason solemnly revers'd in two Parlaments for this very cause, because the Bishops, who are Peers, assented not to it: And this Precedent own'd by the House of Commons, in their Petition to have a Common Proctor appointed by the Clergy, in this very Parlament of 21 R. II. as is acknowledg'd by the Authour of the Letter. pag. 115.

To conclude this matter; whether the Acts of Parlament which contain this declaration of the Peerage of Bishops, and their Iurisdiction in Cases of Treason, were sufficiently repeal'd or not; this solemn [Page] Assertion of it in two several Parlaments, together with the Petition of the Commons mentioned before, are a most clear evidence, that in the general Opinion of the King, Lords, and Commons, this Iurisdiction did of right belong to the Bishops. And I am sure they are a Demonstration against the Authour of the Peerage his Assertion, of a Negative Custome, ancient as the Constitution of the Nation, that Prelats should not exercise Iurisdiction in Capital Cases. For had this been a clear and undoubted Custom from the first original of this Nation, it is morally impossible it could have entred into the minds of two Parlaments, solemnly to have raised this doubt, whether a Judgment given in a case of Treason by the Temporal Lords without the Assent of the Bishops were valid, and to have determin'd that it was not; when yet there was no manner of reason to imagine that the Bishops ever had any Jurisdiction in such Cases, nay, when there was an immemorial Custome and Usage to the contrary, namely, that the Temporal Lords had in all times exercised this Jurisdiction alone, and the Bishops had been excluded from any share in it.

[Page] And in the Apology of Adam D'Orleton, Bishop of Hereford, and after of Winchester, for his imprisoning R. de Baldock, a great Confident of Hugh Despencer's, he declares, that the reason why he was carried to Newgate was through the violence of the People; although, saith he, the Parlament then sitting, there was no cause of fear but Justice would be done. His words are, Domino Rege, Praelatis, Comitibus, ac aliis terrae Optimatibus Lundoniae tunc congregatis & praesentibus, pro Iustitia ibidem in Parlamento convocatis omnibus exhibenda. Which shews that the Prelats then did sit in matters of Justice in the House of Lords, and in Cases Capital; for this R. de Baldock was arraigned at Hereford for the same Crimes that Hugh Despencer was.

But the main strength of the Cause is supposed to lie in the Precedents produced out of the Rolls of Parlament from the 4 Edw. III. to the 38 H. VI. The force of these Precedents will be better understood, if we consider these things.

I. That many of them are meer Negative Testimonies. So 4 Edw. III. at the Trial of Roger Mortimer,Lett. p. 6. it is said, the Earls, Barons and Peers of the Realm were present, therefore the Bishops were not▪ [Page] 5 Edw. III. onely the Great ones returned,pag. 8, 9. therefore the Bishops did not. So in the Case of Sir Iohn Grey. From whence he inferrs, that the Bishops were not to Iudge so much as of a Battery.pag. 10. 25 Edw. III. in Sir William Thorp's Case, the Grantz de Parlament were asked their advice, therefore not the Bishops.pag. 13. 1 R. II. in the Case of Weston and Gomenitz, the Bishops not mention'd; but other Lords, Barons and Bannerets.pag. 16. Sir Ralph de Ferrer's Case 4 R. II. the Bishops not present, because not comprised under les Seigneurs de Parlament. The like in Sir Iohn Oldcastle's Case 5 H. V.pag. 37. The Question, he saith, is, whether Bishops be comprehended under les Seigneurs de cest present Parlament. In the Earl of Devonshire's Case 31 H. VI. the strength lies in this, pag. 51. that the Peers are onely mention'd; and he supposes no man will say, the Bishops were his Peers or Lords of the Realm. So that here are Eight Precedents, that are no more then Negative Testimonies: concerning which in general, Jurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted, p. 91. the Authour of the Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted hath a good observation; viz. That one, or two, or twenty Precedents in the Negative, nay, I say more, were the number equal as many in the Negative as in the Affirmative, yet [Page] it could not disprove their Iurisdiction: it would onely shew, their Lordships were free Agents, to doe it, or not to doe it, as they saw Cause; but their Iurisdiction remained entire still, to doe it whensoever they would. So I say here; supposing that the Spiritual Lords were not present in these Cases, it onely shews, that they were free Agents, and might withdraw at some times, and be present at others: which cannot overthrow their Right, for these Reasons.

(1.) Several of his Negative Precedents, if they prove any thing, prove the Bishops were not there, when he confesses they might have been there. As,

1. In Cases of Misdemeanours. At the Trial of Sir Iohn de Lee, Lett. pag. 11. 42 Ed. III. being charged with several Misdemeanours, the Record saith, the Prelats were present. 50 Edw. III. p. 12. Several persons were accused by the Commons for Misdemeanours, and the Bishops he confesseth were present; as Rich, Lions, Iohn Lord Latimer, William Ellis, Iohn Peecher, Lord Iohn Nevil: at all these Trials the Bishops, saith he, were present; and no body says but they might. So in the Case of Alice Perrers, pag. 14. 50 Edw. III. the Record saith, the Prelats were present, and gave [Page]Iudgment as to Banishment, and Forfeiture of her Estate.pag. 18. 10 R. II. Mich. de la Pool, Lord Chancellour, was accused by the Commons for several Misdemeanours before the King, Prelats, and the Lords. Here he yields the Prelats were Iudges of Misdemeanours together with other Lords. And yet if several of his Negative Precedents do prove any thing, they prove too much, viz. that the Bishops ought not to be present at the Trial of Misdemeanours: For, he saith, the Bishops were not present at the Trial of Weston and Gomenitz, 1 R. II. nor at the Trial of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. II. nor at such Iudgments as that of Sir William de Thorp 25 Edw. III. Lett. p. 10. who was condemned for Bribery: and yet he yields they were at the Trial of Mich. de la Pool 10 R. II. But if they ought not to be present at those of 25 Ed. III. and 1 R. II. and 7 R. II. neither ought they to have been present at the Trial of Mich. de la Pool. Either therefore his argument doth not prove they were not present at the former, being onely from general words; or they ought not to have been present at the latter, which he confesses they were. This will best appear by comparing the Cases together. 1 R. II. the Commons [Page] deliver in a Schedule to the Lords of their Demands, before they would proceed to a Subsidy; among which one was, That all such who without cause had lost or given up any Castle, or Town, or Fortress, to the dishonour of the King, or dammage of the People, may be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons that Parlament. Here was no particular Impeachment of these Persons; but upon this the Lords sent for these two Persons who were Prisoners in the Tower upon this account; and the Charge against them was, delivering two Towns in Flanders without Commission. Weston made a long and plausible Defence, to which no Answer was given; yet both were condemned to die.pag. 17. The Bishop of Norwich was charged with several Miscarriages and Misdemeanours, saith he: why might not the Bishops be present at this Trial? To that he saith, he was charged with one Capital Crime, viz. betraying Graveling to the French: but he confesseth, he cleared himself of this, before they came to Iudgment: and yet he would have the Bishops excluded at this Iudgment; and that of Sir William Elmham, Sir Thomas Trivet, and others; but confesses they were present at the Trial and Iudgment of Mich. [Page]de la Pool. Let us then see, what kind of Trial this was. He was impeached in the name of the Commons of England, and 6 Articles were exhibited against him. The main were, concerning defrauding the King, and misimploying the Aids granted to the King last Parlament, whereby much mischief happen'd to the Kingdom: as may appear by the Rolls, and the Articles printed in Knighton. Knighton de Event. p. 2684. Upon these Articles, the Record saith that the Commons prayed that Iudgment of Death might pass upon him, as it did upon Sir William de Thorp for receiving 20 li. by way of Bribery. And yet this Iudgment of Sir William de Thorp is one of the Precedents against the Bishops being present; when he allows that they were present at the whole Trial of this Mich. de la Pool, when a great Minister of State was so hotly charged by the Commons, for offences of so great a nature, and which in their Judgment deserved no less then Death. From whence it follows, by his own confession, that the Bishops may be present, when the Ministers of State are impeached by the Commons of such Crimes which in their Iudgment deserve no less then Death.

[Page] 2. In Acts of Attainder, when the Houses proceed in a Legislative way, he grants the Bishops may be present; and yet if some of his Precedents signifie any thing, they prove they ought not to be present at the passing of them. As,

1. In the Case of Roger Mortimer and others accused and tried in Parlament 4 Ed. III. He confesseth the Roll cannot be read,Lett. pag. 6. and therefore referrs to 28 Ed. III. where Roger of Wigmore desires that the Attainder may be examin'd: which was reversed by Act of Parlament, and therefore we may justly suppose the Iudgment given against him was ratified in Parlament. Cestrens. l. 7. c. 44. Knighton, p. 2558. And some of our Historians say, he was condemned judicio Parlamenti. And in the Petition of Roger Wigmore, he prays that the said Statute and Iudgment may be reversed and annulled. If therefore the Prelats could not be present here, then they are not to be present in the Legislative way: If they were present in Acts of Attainder, then this general Negative way of arguing proves nothing; for then the Bishops were comprehended under the name of Peers: which, without any Reason, he saith, the Bishops cannot pretend to be; when it is notorious that they challenged it in Parlament [Page]11 R. II. and it was then allowed, as well as their Protestation.

2. In the case of the Murther of Iohn Imperial,pag. 15. 3 R. II. an Act of Parlament passed to make it Treason: and he proves the Bishops had no Vote in it, nor were present at the preparing it. And yet he confesses, pag. 3. 118. that the Bishops have a right to sit in all Acts of Attainder, because they sit then in their Legislative capacity. Therefore these Negative Precedents prove nothing.

(2.) The insufficiency of these Negative Precedents appears by this, that we can make it appear by good Testimonies, that the Bishops have been often comprehended under the general Titles of Grantz, Peers, and Lords of Parlament, without any express mention made of them.

And because the great force of many of his Testimonies lies wholly in this, that the Bishops are not comprehended under the names of Grantz, Seigneurs, and Peers, I shall endeavour to make it clear beyond exception, that if the Precedents must be determined by the general words, all the advantage lies on the Bishops side.

It is certain that in elder times the [Page] Baronagium Anglie did take in all the Lords of Parlament, both Spiritual and Temporal. But I betake my self to the expressions used in the Records; and because the matter of the debate is confined within the times of Ed. II. and IV. I shall take notice of the language of Parlament within that time; reserving that of their Peerage to the proper place for it.

I begin, as the Authour of the Letter doth, with 4 Edw. III. and in that year n. 6. the Record runs thus; Et est assentu & accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roi, & tout le Grantz en plcyn Parlement: where a Law was passed concerning Trial by Peers; and in the passing of a Law our Authour allows the Bishops to be present. But it is more plain n. 12. Accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roi, & les Grantz de mesinme le Parlement; It is agreed by the King, and the Great ones in Parlament. But that the Bishops are comprehended under theseGrantzis evident; for it is there said, that the Petitions of Edmund Earl of Kent and Margaret Countess of Kent, to which that Agreement referrs, were read before the King, the Prelats, the Counts, the Barons, and other Grantz of the Parlament. In the same year, n. 14. we meet with les Preres des Prielatz & [Page]autres Grantz, the Petition of the Bishops and other Great men: and then it follows, Nostre Seigneur le Roi en pleyn Parlement, per assent, accord, prieres & conseal des ditz Prelatz & autres Grantz; Our Lord the King in full Parlament, by the assent, accord, petition and advice of the said Prelats and other Grantz. Which shews that they are some of the Grantz of Parlament.

5 Ed. III. n. 3. Touz les Prelatz & autres Grantz: n. 13. Grantz in general is used in the Debate between the Abbot of Crowland and Sir Thomas Wake: and n. 15. le Roi & as autres Grantz en pleyn Parlement: n. 16. Item fu accorde per le Roi & touz le Grantz en mesme le Parlement, auxibien per Prelatz come per autres;It was agreed by the King and the Great men of the Parlament, as well by the Prelats as others. Nothing can be plainer then that here the Bishops are called Grantz, as well as the other Lords of Parlament.

6 Ed. III. n. 1. Devant nostre Seigneur le Roi, & touz le Prelatz, & autres Grantz: The Articles were read before the King, the Prelats, and other Great men. If the Bishops had not been comprehended under Grantz, the Record would [Page] have onely used Grantz, and not autres Grantz. But the same expression is again used n. 5. In the second part of the Rolls of that year, n. 1. we find three several ways of expressing the Persons then present: the first, les Prelatz, Countes, Baronns, & autres Grantz du Parlement; the next is, queux Prelatz, & autres Grantz; the third is, touz le Grantz en mesme le Parlement: and all these are used to express the same Persons. And again n. 3. touz les Grantz du dit Parlement; which are there opposed to Chivalers des Countez; and are more distinctly mention'd before in these words, les ditz Prelatz, Countes, Barouns, & autres Grantz, & les Chivalers des Countes, & tote la Conumune. Sometimes the Grantz are taken in general, for all of the House of Peers; and the Commons for the Lower House. So 21 Ed. III. n. 63. il assentuz per lui, les Grantz, & la dit Comunalte a son Parlement: and again, ditz Grantz & de tote la Com̄e susditz: and, le Roi per assent des Grantz commanda a la ditz Com̄e. From these examples, and many more which might, if it were needfull, be produced, it evidently appears that the Bishops were Grantz in Parlament, [Page] according to the language of that Time: and therefore the Precedents produced wherein onely the Grantz are mention'd, are of no force at all against the Presence of the Bishops. And that Assertion of the Authour of the Peerage, pag. 15▪ &c. appears to be without any ground, viz. that the Bishops are never spoken of in any Record but by the name of Bishops or Prelats, or some such name, to distinguish them from the Laiety. These general Negatives are very bold and dangerous things; and one Affirmative overthrows them. But I have produced many Instances to the contrary, and might do many more. Such men who dare venture upon such bold Sayings, must be presumed to have read over all the Records themselves; and must presume that none else ever so much as looked into them. But that Authour discovers too much his Second-hand Learning in these matters; and we might have wanted several of his Precedents, had it not been for Mr. Selden's Baronage.

As to the Title of Seigneurs du Parlament, Rights of the Bishops, p. 56, 57, &c. being common to the Bishops, I am prevented by another hand.

I shall onely adde two Precedents more, not taken notice of by others. The one 7 R. II. The Answer of Mich. de la [Page] Pole is said to becoram Magnatibus & Communitate in Parlamento;where the Authour of the Letter confesseth the Bishops were present, and therefore comprehended under theMagnates. The other 15 H. VI. One Philipps complained against the Bishop of London to the House of Commons: they sent the Complaint up to the Lords: the Bishop asks the Advice of the House; who gave this Answer, Non consentancum fuit aliquem Procerum alicui in eo loco responsurum. Which had signified nothing, if the Bishops had not been allowed to be Proceres Regni. So much for his Negative Precedents.

II. Some of his Precedents were condemned in Parlament to be irregular and erroneous in other respects; and therefore it is no wonder if they should be so in this.

1. The Iudgment upon Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, 4 Ed. III. was reversed in Parlament 28 Ed. III as defective and erroneous in all points; being without any Proof or Witnesses, or bringing the Person to answer for himself. And therefore it was an Honour for the Bishops not to be present.

2. The Iudgment upon Haxey,Lett. p. 24. 20 R. II. is confessed by the Authour to be [Page] most unjust, and would not onely have shaken, but wholly destroyed the very foundation of Parlament; and reversed 1 H. IV. as against Right and Course of Parlaments. And he confesseth the Bishops were present at condemning it, but not at passing it. Which also makes much for their Honour.

III. Some of his Precedents prove that when the Bishops did withdraw, they did it voluntarily, and took care to preserve their Right, either by Protestation, or appointing a Proxy.

[1.] That they withdrew voluntarily. So 5 Ed. III. it is said, Lett. p. 8. that the Bishops did withdraw at that time, being of opinion that it did not properly belong to them to give Counsel about keeping the Peace, and punishing of Malefactours: and so, saith he, they went away by themselves, and returned no more. But although this proves nothing but a voluntary Act of the Bishops in withdrawing; yet the representation made of this matter is so partial, and different from the Record, that I cannot but take a little more notice of it.

1. He saith, that the Prelats being of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Counsel about keeping the Peace, or punishing such evils, they went away by [Page]themselves, and returned no more. Thereby insinuating, that they looked on this matter as wholly unfit for them to meddle in, and thereupon left the House. Whereas the words of the Record are, Si alerent mesmes les Prelatz & les Procurators de la Clergie per eux mesmes a conseiler de choses susdites, & les ditz Countes, Barons & autres Grantz per eux mesmes: So the Prelats and Proctors of the Clergy went by themselves toconsult about the aforesaid matters, and the Earls, Barons and other Great men by themselves. So that this withdrawing was but into several Committees, as was usual at that time, by which the sense of the 3 Estates was best understood; and then they met together, and agreed upon what was fit to be made a Law. This appears by 6 Edw. III A quen jour de Ioedi eu ont trete & deliberation, cest assavoir les ditz Prelats per eux mesmes, & les ditz Countes, Barons, & autres Grantz, per eux mesmes; & auxint les Chivalers des Countes per eux mesmes: Upon which Thursday they enter'd upon debate, (concerning the News from Scotland) the Prelats by themselves, the Lords and other Great men by themselves; and so the [Page]Knights of Counties by themselves. The Houses being then not wholly separate, nor always together; but dividing into Committees, and not into Houses, as occasion required; and then joyning together to express their common Sense. So 40 Ed. III. when the occasion of their meeting was deliver'd, which was an extraordinary message from Rome, the Pope sending for Tribute and Homage, it is said, the Bishops went by themselves, and the other Lords by themselves, and the Commons by themselves; and then met together, and declared their unanimous resolution to oppose to the uttermost any such Demand. Such a withdrawing of the Bishops it was in this case. For they and the Proctors of the Clergy (whether by them we understand the Procuratores Cleri, who, according to the Modus tenendi Parlamentum, made a part of the Parlament; or the Proxies of the absent Bishops, who were allowed to supply their places, as appears by 35 Ed. I. and the Case of the Bishops of Durham and Carlile in the Parlament at Westminster Ed. II. and 17 R. II. and many other instances afterwards) thought fit to consider in this matter what was most proper for them. And accordingly we find [Page] Ecclesiastical Censures added to the Civil Sanctions, and brought in by the Prelats at that time, which are still extant in the Record.

2. Whereas he saith, the Bishops returned no more, the Record saith the contrary. For it expresly saith, that the Orders for keeping of the Peace agreed on by the Committee of Lords were read before the King, the Bishops, the Knights of Counties, and the Commons, and did please them all; & per nostre Seigneur le Roi, Prelatz, Countes, Baronns, & autres Grantz, & auxint per les Chivalers de Countez & gentz de Commun, furent pleynment assentuz & accordez. And the same is immediately said of the Censures brought in by the Bishops. Which made me extremely wonder at his saying that the Bishops returned no more; whereas it is very plain, they did not onely return, but the Orders were read before them, and they did give their assent to the Passing of them.

In the Parlament 11 R. II. that it was onely a voluntary withdrawing, I prove from the concessions of the Authour of the Letter; viz. that they might be present in all Acts of Attainder. For it is evident from the printed Statutes, that they [Page] proceeded by way of Attainder against the Ministers of State; and therefore they might have been present, if they pleased, upon the Authour's own grounds. How is it then possible for him to understand de Iure non possumus, in their Protestation 11 R. II. of the Law of the Land, when he grants that in all Acts of Attainder, they may de jure be present and give their Votes?

[2.] When they did solemnly withdraw, they took care to preserve their Right two ways; (1.) by Protestation, (2.) by Proxie.

1. By Protestation, saving their Right; which was receiv'd by the House, and enter'd:pag. 24. of which before. The late Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual will not allow the Protestation to be an argument of any Right; neither, saith he, doth the permission or allowance of any Protestation yield the Right which the Protester is desirous to save, but onely saves the Right which he had before, if he had any. Whereas the Authour of the Letter makes it as good as a Law, Lett. p. 23. being entred in the Iournal-Book, that such a thing was agreed by the King and the two Houses. I will not deny that the former Authour speaks [Page] more reasonably in this matter, when he saith, that the utmost a Protestation can doe is, to anticipate a Conclusion, or Estoppell; i.e. to provide that the doing of any such Act as is contained in the Protestation, shall not be construed to the prejudice of the Party, so as to bar or conclude him from claiming afterwards that which in truth is his Right. It is true, this Protestation passed with greater solemnity then usually; for it was with the consent of the King and both Houses: but however it retained the nature of a Protestation. And there was no distinction at that time between a Iournal-Book and the Rolls of Parlament. For a good Authour assures us,Selden's Bar. pag. 6. the Iournals of the Vpper House began 1 H. VIII. and therefore the Authour of the Peerage, Rights of the Bishops, pag. 76. &c. deserved no such severe reproof on that account. But this is all I plead for, viz. that this Protestation was a Salvo to their Right; which meeting with no contest or opposition in the Houses, but passing with unanimous consent, is a certain argument the Houses did not think there was any Law to exclude them. And therefore the Authour of the Iudicature very well saith, That had it not been for the Canon-Law, (for which he referrs to the Synodal Constitutions at Westminster [Page] 21 H. II. which is onely reviving the Council of Toledo's Canon,) they might have been present both by Common Law, and by the Law of God.

2. By Proxie, or one common Procurator to appear in Parlament for them, and to vote in the name of the whole Body. This was receiv'd and allow'd 21 R. II. upon the Petition of the House of Commons, because Iudgments had been reversed without their concurrence. Against this the Authour of the Letter objects many things which are easily answer'd.

1. That hence it appears they could not be personally present. Lett. p. 28. On the contrary, from hence it follows they had a Parlamentary Right to be present; although they said by Canon-Law they could not.

2. That it was never practised but in this one Parlament. That is strange, when himself confesseth, that it passed for good Law 10 Ed. IV. Term. Pasch. n. 35. and the same is cited by Stamford Placit. Cor. l. 3. f. 153.pag. 78. To which judgment of the Lawyers, and the greatest of their time, (for Littleton was then Judge 10 Ed. IV.) we have a very extraordinary Answer called Error Temporis; pag. 79. which will equally make void the Law or Iudgment of any Age. But is it possible, that should pass [Page] for Law 10 Ed. IV. which was never practised but once 21 R. II. and the contrary practice had been onely allowed all the intermediate times? Thus a short answer may be given to the Constitution of Clarendon, it was Error Temporis; to the allowing the Protestation 11 R. II. it was Error Temporis; and so on to the end of the Chapter. If there were any Error Temporis in this matter, it lay in this, that they took this Precedent 21 R. II. for a sufficient Ground, that the Bishops should onely appear by Proxy in such Cases; whereas the Canon-Law being taken away since the Reformation as to these matters, their Right of Personal appearing doth return to them of course.

3. That this Parlament was repealed 1 H. IV.Lett. p. 79. But this I have answer'd already from his own words, wherein he acknowledges him to be an Vsurper, and consequently the Repeal not made by a legal Parlament. And this Repeal was again taken off 1 Ed. IV.

4. That it is not at all Parlamentary, for one or two men to represent a whole Body. The consequence then is, that they ought to enjoy their own Personal Right. All that we urge from hence is, that the Bishops kept up their Right still by their Proxies, when they thought the Canons [Page] would not allow voting in their own Persons.

IV. Some of his Precedents do prove, that after the Protestations and Proxies, they did assert their own Personal Right, and were present both at Examinations, and at the whole Proceedings.

1. At Examinations. As in the Case of Sir William Rickill 1 H. IV. who was brought to Parlament before the King and the two Houses,Lett. p. 31. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons then assembled together. And he grants the Bishops were present at his Examination.

2. At the whole Proceedings, pag. 41. to pag. 48. 28 H. VI. where he confesseth the Bishops were not onely personally present, but did act and bear a principal part in aIudicialproceeding in Parlament, in a Case that was in it self Capital, viz. of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. Which is very fully related by the Authour, and needs no repetition. All that he hath to say to this, is, that the whole Proceedings were irregular, and not to be drawn into Precedent. Whereas a great Lawyer in his time, Sir E. C. made use of this as a sufficient Precedent in a Case of great moment, about Commitment upon a general Accusation. But there is not any Irregularity expressed or intimated [Page] in the Bishops appearing, and judging as other Lords did; and the Judgment was not reversed because of their being there, as we have shewed others have been for their being absent.

V. None of all his Precedents do prove that the Bishops were ever excluded from sitting, by any Vote of the House of Lords or Commons. That they might voluntarily withdraw, we deny not; or not be present at giving of Iudgment out of regard to the Canons: which is all that is proved by the Precedent of Iohn Hall 1 H. IV. of the Earls of Kent, pag. 32. Huntington, pag. 34. &c. 2 H. IV. of Sir Iohn Oldcastle 5 H. V. and of Sir Iohn Mortimer 2 H. VI. pag. 37. And this we have made appear was done by them out of regard to the Canon-Law; pag. 39. the force of which being taken away by the Reformation, the Bishops are thereby restored to their just Parlamentary Right. Neither can any Disusage be a bar to that Right, since the ground of that Disusage was something then supposed to be in force, which is now removed by the Reformation. And I fear, if this kind of arguing be sufficient to overthrow the Bishops Right, much stronger of the same kind may be used to overthrow the King's Supremacy in mattters of Religion. [Page] So great care ought men to have, lest under the colour of a mighty zeal against Popery, they do overthrow the very Principles of our Reformation.

VI. There are Precedents upon Record in the Rolls of Parlament, which are not mention'd by the Authour of the Letter, which do prove that the Bishops were present at the Examination of Treason and Capital Offences in Parlament. And that within the time,pag. 5. 51. wherein he pretends to give an account of all the Trials recorded in the Rolls. Which shews how easily men pass by those things they have no mind to see.

I begin with 4 Ed. III. and I must doe him that right, as to say, that he doth not onely mention the Trial of Roger Mortimer, pag. 6. but of Sir Simon Bereford and others who were accused and tried in Parlament. But pretending, that the Roll of that Parlament is so defaced that it cannot be read, he runs to that of 28 Ed. III. and so gently passes over all the other Trials which are in the Record, and are more plain and express as to this matter. Among the Articles against Roger Mortimer, Ed. l of March, one is, that after he knew certainly the death of Edw. II. he made use of Instruments to perswade Edward Earl of Kent, that King's Brother, that he was [Page]still living, and so drew him into a design for his Rescue; for which he was attainted at Winchester, and there suffer'd death for it. Among these Instruments the chief was one Mautravers, who for that Reason was attainted this Parlament: and the words of the Record are,Rot. Parl. 4 Ed. 3. n. 3. Trestouz les Pieres, Counts & Barons assemblez a cest Parlement a West. si ont examine estraitement, & sur ce sont assentuz & accordez, que John Mautravers si est culpable de la mort Esmon Count de Kent, &c. All the Peers, Counts and Barons assembled in this present Parlament, upon strict examination do assent and agree, that John Mautravers is guilty of the death of Edmund Earl of Kent. Here we have the strict Examination of a Capital Case in Parlament, and all the Peers are said to be present at it. It is used as an argument by the Authour of the Letter, that in the case of Roger Mortimer,pag. 7. the Bishops could not be comprized under the general name of Peers, since the Barons are first in rank. But here the Peers are mentioned before Counts and Barons; and it will be impossible for him to assign any other Peers at that time, that were named before them, but the Prelats; who frequently are so put in the Records of [Page] that time: as in the same Parlament n. 12. Prelatz, Countes, Barons;n. 13. Et per assent des ditz Prelatz, Countes, Barons; so again n. 14. 15. 17. 24. 25. But the Authour of the Letter saith,pag. 7. they cannot pretend to be Peers of the Realm. Let him name then other Peers of the Realm at that time, who were neither Counts nor Barons, and were before them. But if we are to judge who are Peers of the Realm by the Records of Parlament, I do not question but I shall make it evident, that the Bishops were so esteemed; and that some persons, who pretend to great skill in Records, either have not searched so diligently, or have not observed so carefully about this matter as they might have done. But of this afterwards.

In the same Parlament Judgment was passed upon Boges de Boyons, Iohn Deveril, Thomas Gurnay, William Ocle; but being by way of Attainder, and not upon particular examination, which is mentioned in the case of Mautravers, I pass them over.

In the Pleas of the Crown held before the King in this Parlament, we find another Case which relates to our present debate; viz. of Thomas Lord Berkely and Knight, who was arraigned for the death of King Ed. II. who came before the King [Page] in pleno Parlamento, in full Parlament, and there pleaded Not guilty; and declared he was ready to clear himself as the King's Court should advise. Then they proceeded to particular examination of him, how he could acquitt himself, being Lord of the Castle where the King was murthered, he being committed to his Custody and John Matravers. He pleaded for himself, that he was then sick at Bradley, and knew nothing of it. They charged him, that the Keepers of the Castle were of his own appointing; and therefore he was bound to answer for them. He answer'd, that they with Matravers having receiv'd the King into their custody, he was not to be blamed for what they did: and for this he put himself upon his Country. At the day appointed for his Trial, he appears again coram Domino Rege in pleno Parlamento; and the Iury returned him Not guilty. But because he appointed Gurney and Ocle to keep his Castle of Berkely, by whom the King was murthered, the King appoints him a day the next Parlament to hear his Sentence; and in the mean time he was committed to the custody of Ralph Nevil Steward of the King's House. In the next Parlament 5 Edw. III. n. 18. The Prelats, Earls and Barons petition the [Page] King, that he might be discharged of his mainprisors: the which was granted, and a farther day given him to appear next Parlament. But we reade no more of him, till the Summons he had 14 Ed. III. as one of the Lords in Parlament. The great force of this Precedent lies in understanding what is meant by appearing before the King in full Parlament. If under this the Bishops be comprehended, then this will be an uncontroulable Precedent of the presence of the Bishops in the Examination of a Case Capital.

What the importance of this phrase of full Parlament is, will best appear by the use of it in the Records of that time. 4 Ed. III. n. 6. Et est assentu & accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roi, & touz les Grantz en pleyn Parlement. Where it was agreed, that the procedings at that time by the Lords against those who were not Peers should not be drawn into consequence; and that the Peers should be charged onely to try Peers. Which hath all the formality of an Act of Parlament: and therefore all the Estates were present, n. 8. Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi & son Conseil en pleyn Parlement. Which was an Act of Pardon concerning those who followed the Earl of Lancaster.

[Page] 5 Ed. III. n. 10. we have the particular mention of the Bishops, as some of those who do make a full Parlament. Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roi, Prelatz, Countes, Barons, & autres Grantz du Roialm en pleyn Parlement: and n. 17. En pleyn Parlement si prierent les Prelatz, Countes, Barons, & autres Grantz de mesme le Parlement, a nostre Seigneur le Roi, &c.

6 Ed. III. n. 5. the Archbishop of Canterbury made his Oration en pleyn Parlement, which is explained by en la presence nostre Seigneur le Roi, & de touz les Prelatz, & autres Grantz. n. 9. Si est accorde & assentu per touz en pleyn Parlement: who those were, we are told before in the same number, viz. les Prelatz, Countes, Baronns, & touz les autres somons a mesme le Parlement. Which is the clearest explication of full Parlament, in the presence of all those who were summon'd to Parlament. From whence it follows, that where a full Parlament was mention'd at that time, the Bishops were certainly present; and consequently did assist at the Trial of Thomas Lord Berkely, who appeared before the King in full Parlament: as Nich. de Segrave did 33 Ed. I. and there [Page] the Bishops are expresly mention'd as present; as appears by what hath been said before concerning his Case.

5 H. IV. Henry Hotspur, Son to the Earl of Northumberland, was declared a Traitour by the King and Lords in full Parlament; and the same day, the Father was, upon examination, acquitted of Treason by the Peers. It is not said that this was done in full Parlament, as the other was: but there are several circumstances which make it very probable the Bishops were then present. (1.) When the Earl of Northumberland took his Oath of Fidelity to the King, he did it, saith the Record, upon the Cross of the Archbishop; which was to be carried before him, if he went out of the House. (2.) The Archbishop of Canterbury pray'd the King, that forasmuch as himself and other Bishops were suspected to be in Piercie's Conspiracy, that the Earl might upon his Oath declare the truth: who thereupon did clear them all. Which shews that the Archbishop was then present in the House. And for the same reason that he was present, we may justly suppose the other Bishops to have been so too. (3.) The Earl of Northumberland beseeched the Lords and Earls and Commoners,[Page]that if he brake this Oath, they would intercede no more with the King for him. Now the better to understand this, we are to consider, that H. IV. takes notice in his declaration upon the Rebellion of Sir Henry Piercy, Walsingh▪ hist. Angl. pag. 366. that the Earl of Northumberland and his Son gave out, that they could have no access to the King, but by the Mediation of the Bishops and Earls, and therefore did beseech them to intercede with the King for them. It is not then probable, that those should be now left out, when the words are large enough to comprehend them, and no one circumstance is brought to exclude them. For that general one, of their not being Peers, will be fully refuted afterwards.

But that which puts this out of dispute is, (4.) that the Record saith, n. 17. the Commons not onely gave the King thanks for the pardon of the Earl of Northumberland, but the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in these remarkable words; Et au [...]i mesmes les Cōes remercierment les Seigneurs Espirituelx & Temporelx de lour bon & droiturell judgment quils avoient fait come Piers du Parlement: And likewise the Commons gave thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the good and right Iudgment which they had given [Page] in this case as Peers of Parlament. Which is a clear Precedent of the Bishops judging in a Capital Case, and that as Peers.

2 H. VI. n. 9. Iohn Lord Talbott had accused Iames Boteler, Earl of Ormond, of sundry Treasons before the King and his great Council; and after, before Iohn Duke of Bedford, Constable of England. The King takes advice of his Parlament about it; and then it is expresly said in the Record, De avisamento & assensit Dominorum Spiritualium & Temporalium ac Communitatis Regni Anglie, in eodem Parlamento existent', facta fuit quedam abolitio delationis, nuntiationis, & detectionis predict, &c. Here the King adviseth with the Lords Spiritual in an accusation of Treason; and therefore they must be present in the debates concerning it.

I leave now any considerate person to judge impartially on which side the Right lies. For on the one side,

1. There is the Constitution of Clarendon interpreted by H. II. and the Bishops at Northampton.

2. A Protestation of their Right enter'd, and allowed by King, Lords and Commons, 11 R. II.

3. A Reversing of Iudgments owned by Parlament for want of their presence, 21 R. II.

[Page] 4. A Preserving of their Right by Proxie, when they thought their Personal attendance contrary to the Canons.

5. A Bar to a total discontinuance of their personal Right, by an allowed Precedent 28 H. VI.

6. A Restoring them to their former Right, by removing of the force of the Canon-Law upon the Reformation.

7. No one Law or Precedent produced for excluding them, even in those Times, when they thought the Canons did forbid their presence.

8. Several Precedents upon Record, wherein they were present at Examinations and Debates about Cases Capital.

On the other side,

1. The Precedents are General, and Negative.

2. Or relating to such Cases wherein they are allowed to be present.

3. Or of Iudgments condemned as erroneous by Parlament.

4. Or of voluntary Withdrawing, with Protestation of their Right, and making of Proxies.

5. Or of not being present at the passing of Iudgment out of regard to the Canon-Law.

And now on which side the Right lies, let the Authour of the Letter himself judge.

CHAP. IV.
The Peerage of the Bishops cleared; how far they make a third Estate in Parlament. Objections against it answered.

[Page]

THERE remain Two things to be considered, which are put in by way of Postscript by the Authour of the Letter: the one concerns the Peerage of the Bishops, the other their Being a Third Estate in Parlament.

1. Concerning their Peerage. To prove this two Statutes had been alledged, 25 Ed. III. c. 6. and 4 H. V. c. 6. and the opinion of Iudges and Lawyers out of the Year-Books. But although these had been very significant, if they had been against them; they have the hard fortune to signify nothing, when they are for them. A meer Protestation becomes good Law, very substantial Law, if it be supposed to make against the Bishops; and yet in that very Protestation the Right of Peerage is expresly challenged, (as well as it is asserted and taken for granted in the Statutes mention'd.) Is that part of [Page] the Protestation invalid? and must nothing pass for Law but what is against them? Is it credible that a Right of Peerage should be owned and received in Acts of Parlament, in Protestations, in Year-Books, time after time; and no opposition made against it by the Temporal Lords all that time, in case they believed the Bishops had challenged that which by no means did belong to them? Did not the Temporal Lords understand their own Privileges? or were they willing to suffer the Bishops to assume their Titles to themselves without the least check or contradiction, and let their Protestations be enter'd in the Rolls of Parlament without any contrary Protestation? I do not question but the Authour of the Letter did reade the Bishops Protestation at large in the Parlament-Rolls 11 R. II. And can any thing be plainer, then that therein they challenge a Right of Peerage to themselves, ut Pares Regni—cum caeteris Regni Paribus, &c.? And this Protestation, he saith, was enter'd by consent of the King, Lords Temporal, and Commons; as is expressed in the Rolls. Were the Temporal Lords awake? or were they mean and low-spirited men? No; they were never higher then at this [Page] time, when the King himself durst not withstand them. What could it be then, but meer conviction of their just Right of Peerage, which made them suffer such a Protestation as that to pass, after so solemn and unusual a manner, and to be enrolled par Commandment du Roy, & assent des Seigneurs Temporels & Communs; as it is in the Rolls? Was all this onely a Complement to the Potent Clergy at that time? But who can imagine that King, Lords and Commons should complement at that rate, as to suffer the Bishops to challenge a Peerage to themselves in Parlament, if they had not an undoubted Right to it? This one argument is sufficient to convince any reasonable man. Especially when we consider, that in the same Parlament, before the Protestation was brought in, a motion was made n. 7. by all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, which they claimed come leur libertez & franchise, as their Liberty and Privilege, that all weighty matters moved in this Parlament, or to be moved in any to come, touchant Pieres de la Terre, concerning the Peers of the Realm, should be determin'd, adjudged and discussed by the course of Parlament; and not by the Civil, nor by the Common[Page]Law of the Land, used in inferiour Courts of the Realm. The which Claim, Liberty and Franchise, the King most willingly allowed and granted in full Parlament. From whence it is evident, that the King and Parlament did allow the Right of Peerage in the Lords Spiritual; for it is said expresly in the Record, that all the Spiritual as well as Temporal Lords joyned in this Claim: which being allowed them in full Parlament, is an evidence beyond contradiction of their Right of Peerage.

But against this no less is pretended then Magna Charta, viz. that every man who is tried at the King's Suit must be tried by his Peers.Lett. pag. 85. Now if a Bishop be tried for any Capital offence, he is tried by the Commoners, and that is the Common Law of England; it hath ever been so, never otherwise: then must Commoners be his Peers, and he and Commoners must be Pares.

To this Argument, how strong soever it appears, these two things may be justly answer'd.

1. That the matter of Fact cannot be made out, that a Bishop hath always been tried by Commoners.

2. That if it could, it doth not overthrow their Peerage in Parlament.

[Page] (1.) That the matter of Fact cannot be made out, viz. that if a Bishop be tried for a Capital Offence, he is tried by the Commoners; that it hath ever been so, never otherwise. Antiq. Brit. pag. 223. For in 15 Ed. III. Iohn Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, was at the King's Suit accused of Capital Crimes, viz. of no less then Treason, and Conspiracy with the French King. He put himself upon his Trial in Parlament. A Parlament was called; and he at first refused admission into the House; which he challenged tanquam major Par Regni post Regem, & Uocem primam in Parlamento habere debens, as the First Peer of the Realm after the King, and having the first Uote in Parlament. Upon which, and the intercession of his Friends, he is admitted into the House; and there he put himself upon the Triall of his Peers. At which time a great Debate arose in the House, which continued a whole Week; and it was resolved, that the Peers should be tried onely by Peers in Parlament. Whereupon the Archbishop had 12 Peers appointed to examine the Articles against him: 4 Bishops, viz. London, Hereford, Bath, and Exceter; 4 Earls, Arundel, Salisbury, Huntingdon, and Suffolk; and 4 Barons, [Page] Percy, Wake, Basset, and Nevil. Here we have all that can be desired in the case. Here is a Bishop tried at the King's Suit, and for a Capital Crime; and yet not tried by Commoners, but by his Peers, and that after long debate in the House concerning it. If it be said, that he was tried by the Lords as Iudges in Parlament, and not as his Peers; it is answer'd, 1. Then Bishops are Iudges in Parlament in Cases Capital: for so this was, and 4 Bishops appointed to examine it. 2. The Debate in the House was about Trial of Peers by their Peers; and upon that it was resolved, that the Archbishop should be tried by the House. For the King designed to have him tried in the Exchequer for the matters objected against him, and the Steward of the King's House and Lord Chamberlain would not suffer him to enter into the House of Lords, till he had put in his Answer in the Exchequer. Upon which the great Debate arose; and therefore the Resolution of the House is as full a Precedent in this Case as can be desired.

I do not deny, that the Rolls of Parlament of that year seem to represent the 12 Peers, as Birchington calls them, not as appointed to examine the particular [Page] Case of Stratford; but to draw up in form the desire of the Peers as to a Trial by their Peers, in Parlament: the which is extant in the Record 15 Ed. III. n. 7. However, this Argument doth not lose its force as to the Peerage of the Bishops; but it is rather confirmed by it. For there they pray the King, by the Assent of the Prelats, Counts and Barons, that the Peers of the Realm may not be judged but in Parlament, & per lour Piers, and by their Peers: and after it follows, that they may not lose their Temporalties, Lands, Goods and Chattels, &c. Who were capable of losing their Temporalties, but the Prelats? Therefore this Law must respect them as well as others. As farther appears not onely by the Occasion, but by the Consequent of it. For it follows, n. 8. that the Archbishop of Canterbury was admitted into the King's Presence, and to answer for himself in Parlamentdevant les Piers, before his Peers: which the King granted. So that the Rolls of Parlament put this matter beyond contradiction.

In 21 R. II. Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, was impeached of High Treason before the King and Lords in Parlament. The King's answer was, That forasmuch as this Impeachment [Page] did concern so high a Person, & Pier de son Roialm, (it is in the Record, but left out in the Abridgment) and a Peer of the Realm, the King would be advised. But soon after he was condemned for Treason by the House, theProxie of the Bishops, Sir Tho. Percy, giving his Vote. The force of this doth not lie barely in his being impeached before the House of Peers in time of Parlament; but that the King called him in his Answer a Peer of the Realm.

And because two Laws were already passed, the one, that Peers were to try none but Peers, 4 Ed. III. n. 6. the other, that Peers were to be tried onely by their Peers, 15 Ed. III. n. 7. the former of these,pag. 192. the Authour of the Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted (one well known to the Authour of the Letter) would have onely looked on as a Temporary Order of the House. Coke 2. Inst. c. 29. p. 50. Sir J. M. Arg. concerning the Iurisdiction of the Peers, in Skinners Case. But our greatest Lawyers are of another opinion. And an eminent Lawyer still living urged this as an Act of Parlament, because it is said, that the King in full Parlament assented to it: and he added, that the words are both Affirmative and Negative; they shall not be bound, or charged to try any other then Peers, but be thereof discharged; and that [Page]therein they declare it to be against Law for them to exercise Iurisdiction on those who were not their Peers. From whence it follows, that since Stratford and Arundel, Archbishops of Canterbury, were allowed to be tried by the House of Peers, (without Impeachment from the Commons) they were looked on as Peers by the whole House.

The latter Act, the same Authour cannot deny to be a binding Law; but he hath a strange fetch to avoid the force of it;pag. 193. viz. that this Law was made with respect to the Case of Roger Mortimer 4 Ed. III. and not to the Case of Stratford then in Agitation: which is without all colour of Reason. For the Case then was of a different nature, viz. about the Peers trying those who were not Peers, as Sir Simon Bereford, &c: but here the case was, whether Peers should be tried by any others then their Peers; and the King granted they should not. Now upon this Stratford was allowed to be tried by his Peers in Parlament; and therefore this Trial upon these Acts is an invincible Argument of the Peerage of the Bishops.

In 28 H. VI. when William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, waved being tried by his Peers, and submitted to the King's [Page]Mercy; pag. 47. the Record saith, (as the Authour of the Letter himself confesseth) that Viscount Beaumont, on the behalf of the LordsSpiritualand Temporal, and by their advice, assent and desire, moved the King, that a Protestation might be enter'd in the Parlament-Roll, that this should not be, nor turn in prejudice nor derogation of them, their Heirs, ne of their Successours in time coming; but that they may have and enjoy their Liberties and Freedoms as largely as ever their Ancestours and Predecessours had or enjoy'd them before this time. Which Sir R. Cotton more briefly expresseth, n. 52. that neither they nor their Heirs should by this example be barred of their Peerage. The Authour of the Letter more fully puts in Successours, as well as Heirs; for this Protestation was made in behalf of the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal. But very unfairly leaves out the most material words in the Record, viz. [after Freedoms,] in case of their Peerage. And I appeal to the Authour himself, whether these words be not in the Record; and with what ingenuity they are left out, I cannot understand. I do not charge the Authour of the Letter himself with this; but whosoever searched the Records for him, hath dealt very [Page] unfaithfully with him. And I suppose, if he had seen this passage himself, he would never have so peremptorily denied the Peerage of the Bishops; nor asserted with so much assurance, that they are onely to be tried by Commoners, and that it was always so, and never otherwise.

(2.) Suppose the Bishops have been tried by Commoners out of Parlament, this doth not take away their Right of Peerage in Parlament. For all our dispute is concerning the Right of their Peerage in Parlament; and if that be allowed, we are not to dispute concerning the difference that in some respects may arise by Custom, or practice of Common Law, between Peers by Descent, and Peers by Tenure in Right of their Baronies. And therefore the Authour of the Peerage of the Lords Spiritual might have spared all the needless pains he takes about this:pag. 3, 4, &c. for we do not contend that they have an Inheritable Peerage, but that they are Peers in Parlament, having a Right to sit and judge there by virtue of their Baronies.

But from hence he undertakes to prove, that by Magna Charta they cannot be Iudges of such who are ennobled in Bloud. This comes home to our present [Page] business, and therefore must be considered.

1. He saith,pag. 4. that he who hath onely a Praedial or Feudal, and not Personal, Peerage, can have no Iurisdiction but such as is suitable to the nature of his Peerage; and therefore can onely extend to matters of property and possession, and not to matters of Bloud. But that this is a very trifling and ill-consider'd argument appears by this, that he grants a Lord Keeper, Lord Privy Seal, Lord Treasurer, to be Peers by their Offices; for, as he speaks, after Regradation their Peerage is ended: and he will not deny that these may sit as Iudges in Capital Cases, although they be Peers onely by their Offices. Those that are Peers in Parlament have Right to judge in all Cases that belong to the Iudicature of Parlament.

2. He saith, that the Reason of Magna Charta is,pag. 5. that the Iudges and Prisoner may be under the same Circumstances. But this kind of arguing as well excludes a Lord Keeper, who is no Baron, as a Bishop; and supposes that mens capacity for Judgment depends upon perfect equality of Circumstances: whereas Knowledge and Integrity go farther towards constituting [Page] one that is a Peer but in one respect, a just Judge, then bare Inheritance of Honour can do. But to give a full Answer to this Argument, on which that Authour lays so much weight, and challenges any Person, to give a rational account wherein the advantage of a man's being tried by his Peers doth consist; I shall (1) shew that this was not the Reason of Trial by Peers; (2) give a brief account of the true and original Reason of it.

[1.] That this was not the Reason.

1. Not in the Judgment of the Peers themselves, as that Authour hath himself sufficiently proved, when he takes so much pains to prove p. 3. that a Writ of Summons to Parlament doth not ennoble the Bloud; and consequently, doth not put persons into equality of Circumstances with those whose Bloud is ennobled: and yet he grants, that those who sate in the House of Peers by virtue of their Summons did judge as Peers; as is manifest from his own Precedents p. 15. from the 4 Edw. 3. From whence it follows, that this was not thought to be the Reason by the Peers themselves in Parlament.

2. That this was not the Reason in the Judgment of our greatest Lawyers; because they tell us, that where this Reason [Page] holds, yet it doth not make men Judges. As for instance, those who are ennobled by Bloud, if they be not Lords of Parlament, are not to be Judges in the case of one ennobled by Bloud. Onely a Lord of the Parlament of England, saith Coke, 2 Instit. p. 48. shall be tried by his Peers being Lords of Parlament; and neither Noblemen of any other Country, nor others that are called Lords, and are no Lords of Parlament, are accounted Pares Peers within this Statute. Therefore the Parity is not of Bloud, but of Privilege in Parlament.

3. The Practice it self shews that this was not the Reason. For this Reason would equally hold whether the Trial be at the King's Suit, or the Suit of the party: but in the latter case, as in an appeal for Murther, a man whose bloud is ennobled must be tried by those whose bloud is not ennobled;Coke 2 Instit. p. 49. Selden's Titles of Honour, 4to. pag. 347. even by an Ordinary Iury of 12 men. And I desire our Authour to consider what becomes of the inheritable quality of Bloud in this case, when Life and Fortune lies at the mercy of 12 substantial Free-holders? who, it is likely, do not set such a value upon Nobility as Noble-men themselves do: and yet our Law, which surely is not against [Page] Magna Charta, allows an Ordinary Iury at the Suit of the party to sit in Judgment upon the greatest Noble-men. Therefore this Reason can signifie nothing against the Bishops, who are Lords in Parlament, as I have already proved.

[2.] I shall give a brief account of the true and original Reason of this Trial by Peers; without which, that Authour it seems is resolved to conclude, that the Iurisdiction of the Bishops in Capital Cases is an abuse of Magna Charta, and a Violation offer'd to the Liberties of English Subjects.

As to the general Reason of the Trial by Peers, it is easie to conceive it to have risen from the care that was taken, to prevent any unfair proceedings in what did concern the Lives and Fortunes of men. From hence Tacitus observes of the old Germans, De Morib. Germ. c. 12. that their Princes, who were chosen in their great Councils to doe justice in the several Provinces, had some of the People joyned with them, both for Advice and Authority. These were Assessours to the Judges; that mens lives and fortunes might not depend on the pleasure of one man: and they were chosen out of the chief of the People, none but those who were born free being capable [Page] of this honour. In the latter times of the German State, before the subduing it by Charlemagn, H. Mei [...]om. de I [...]mensulâ. [...]. 4. some learned men say, their Iudges were chosen out of the Colleges of Priests, especially among the Saxons. After their being conquer'd by him, there were 2 Courts of Judicature established among them, as in other parts of the German Empire.

1. One ordinary and Popular, viz. by the Comites, or great Officers sent by the Emperour into the several Districts; and the Scabini, who were Assistants to the other, and were generally chosen by the People. The number of these at first was uncertain; but in the Capitulars they are required to be seven, who were always to assist the Comes in passing Judgments. But Ludovicus Pius, in his second Capitular, A. D. 819. c. 2. enlarged their number to 12. And if they did not come along with him, they were to be chosen out of the most substantial Free-holders of the County: for the words are, De melioribus illius Comitatûs suppleat numerum duodenarium. This I take to be the true Original of our Juries. For our Saxon Laws were taken very much from the Laws of the Christian Emperours of the Caroline Race, as I could at large [Page] prove, if it were not impertinent to our business; and thence discover a great mistake of our Lawyers, who make our ancient Laws and Customs peculiar to our selves. As in this very case of Trial by Peers, which was the common practice of these parts of the World. Therefore Otto Frisingensis takes notice of it as an unusual thing in Hungary; Otto Frising. de gestis Fred. l. 1. c. 31. Nulla sententia à Principe, sicut apud nos moris est, per pares suos exposcitur—sola sed Principis voluntas apud omnes pro ratione habetur: that they were not judged by their Peers, but by the Will of their Prince. Which shews, that this way of Trial was looked on as the practice of the Empire, and as preventing the inconveniences of arbitrary Government. And it was established in the Laws of the Lombards, Leg. Longobard. l. 3. tit. 8. § 4. Constit. Sicil. l. 1. tit. 44. and the Constitutions of Sicily. In the one it is said to be Iudicium Parium; in the other, proborum virorum. In the Saxon Laws of King Ethelred at Wanting, c. 4. 12 Freemen are appointed to be sworn to doe Iustice among their neighbours in every Hundred. Alfred. vit. l. 2. p. 72. Those in the Laws of Alfred are rather 12 Compurgators then Iudges; however some make him the Authour of the Trial by Peers in England. But by whomsoever it was brought into request here, [Page] it was no other way of Trial, then what was ordinary in other parts of Europe; and was a great instance of the moderation of the Government of the Northern Kingdoms.

2. There was an extraordinary or Royal Court of Iudicature: and that either by way of Appeal, which was allowed from inferiour Courts; or in the Causes of Great men, which were reserved to this Supreme Court. In which either the King himself was present, or the Comes Palatii, who was Lord High Steward; and all the Great persons were Assessours to him. In such a Court Brunichildis was condemned in France; Aimoin. l. 4. c. 1. and Tassilo Duke of Bavaria in the Empire; and Ernestus, and other Great men, Rhegin. l. 2. A. D. 861; and Erchingerus and Bartoldus under Conradus, the last of the French Race. And among the Causes expresly reserved for this Supreme Court, were those which concerned the Prelats as well as the Nobles. Capit. l. 3. c. 77. Vt Episcopi, Abbates, Comites, & potentiores quique, si causam inter se habuerint, ac se pacificare noluerint, ad nostram jubeantur venire praesentiam: neque illorum contentio aliubi judicetur. But in this Court they challenged that as their privilege to be tried by their Peers; who were [Page] called Pares Curiae. Sigism. Orat. A. D. 1434. So the Emperour Sigismund, in his Protestation before the States of the Empire; Cùm secundùm juris communis dispositionem, nec non usum, morem, stylum & consuetudinem sacri Romani Imperii, feudalis contentio per Dominum feudi, ac Pares Curiae terminanda sit, &c. And again, nisi Parium nostrae Curiae arbitrio. Tilius de rebus Gal [...]icis. So likewise in France, as Tilius saith, Haec judiciorum ratio, ut de causis feudalibus judicent Feudales Pares, Fulbert. ep. 96. in Gallia est perantiqua. So in Fulbertus one Count sends word to another, that their Cause should not be determin'd, nisi in Conventu Parium suorum. And many other examples might be produced: but these are sufficient to make us understand the true Original of this Right of Peerage; which was from the Feodal Laws; and all those who held of the same Lord, and by the same Tenure, were said to be Pares Peers. And therefore since the Bishops in England were Barons by Tenure ever since William I. by consequence they were Peers to other Barons; and had the same original Right of Trial by other Barons as their Peers, holding by the same Tenure, and sitting in the same Court. And thus I hope I have given (what that Authour so impatiently [Page] desired, viz.) a rational account of the Trial by Peers; and have thereby shewed, that this is so far from being any disadvantage to the Bishops Cause, that it adds very much to the Iustice of it.

And that this is so far from being a violation of Magna Charta, that it is within the intention and meaning of it, I thus prove. In the 14. ch. of Magna Charta we read, Comites & Barones non amercientur nisi per Pares suos: but by the Common Law the Amerciament of a Bishop is the same with that of a Lay-Baron; and therefore in the sense of the Law, they are looked on as Peers. And all the Parlamentary Barons, whether Bishops or Abbots, were amerced as Barons. Thence 15 Edw. 2. a Writ was directed to the Justices of the Common Pleas,Claus. 15 E. [...]. m. 12. that they should not amerce the Abbot of Crowland tanquam Baro, because he did not hold per Baroniam aut partem Baroniae. And it is confessed by the most learned Lawyers, that the Lords Spiritual do enjoy the same legal Privileges, Selden of Baron. p. 152. in other respects, which the Temporal Barons do; as in real Actions to have a Knight returned in their Iury; Titles of Hon. 4 to. p. 347. as to a day of Grace; hunting in the King's Forests; Scandalum Magnatum, &c. Now since the Law of England [Page] allows onely a double Parity, viz. as to Lords of Parlament, and Commons, whether Knights, Esquires, Gentlemen, or Yeomen, without any consideration of the great inequality of circumstances among them; (Yeomen having as little sense of Gentility, as Commons can have of the privileges of Nobles;) it is apparent that this Trial by Peers was not founded upon equality of circumstances; and that in all reason, those who do enjoy the legal Privileges of Peers, are to be looked on as such by Magna Charta.

But the great Objection is, that the Lawyers are of another opinion, as to this Trial by Peers; and not onely the common sort, who take all upon Trust which they find in the modern Law-Books, but those who have searched most into Antiquity, such as Mr. Selden and Sir Edw. Coke.

To this therefore I answer.

1. The Authour of the Peerage,pag. 6. &c. proves the Bishops are not Peers, because not to be tried by Peers.Privil. of Baronage, pag. 143. This consequence Mr. Selden utterly denies; for he saith, it is true and plain that the Bishops have been Peers. For which he quotes the Bishop of Winchester's Case, who was question'd in the King's Bench for leaving the Parlament at [Page] Salisbury in the beginning of Ed. III. and he pleaded to the declaration, quod ipse est unus e Paribus Regni, that he was one of the Peers of the Realm: which, he saith, was allowed in Court. And from other Book-cases and Parlament-Rolls he there evidently proves, that the Bishops were Peers: which he not onely asserts in that confused Rhapsodie, which went abroad under his name; but in his elaborate Work of the last Edition of his Titles of Honour,Titles of Honour, Sec. Part. ch. 5. § 32. in Marg. in which he corrected and left out the false or doubtfull passages of his first Edition. And among the rest, that passage wherein this Authour triumphs, A Bishop shall not be tried by Peers in Capital Crimes. The same thing I confess is said in the Privileges of the Baronage; which he there calls a point of Common Law as it is distinguished from Acts of Parlament; i. e. the custom and practice hath been so. And the onely evasion he hath for Magna Charta is this; pag. 153. that it is now to be interpreted according to the current practice, and not by the literal interpretation of the Words. Which is an admirable answer, if one well considers it, and justifies all violations of Magna Charta, if once they obtain and grow into Custom. For then, no matter for the express words of Magna [Page] Charta, if the contrary practice hath been received and allowed in legal proceedings. This is to doe by Magna Charta, as the Papists doe by the Scriptures, viz. make it a meer Nose of Wax, and say it is to be interpreted according to the Practice of the Church.

2. Some things are affirmed about this matter with as great assurance as this is, which have not been the constant practice.3. Instit. pag. 30. Coke is positive, that Bishops are not to be tried by their Peers; but so he is in the same page, that a Nobleman cannot wave his Trial by his Peers, and put himself upon the Trial of the Countrey: Whereas it is said in the Record 4 Ed. III. that Thomas Lord Berkely, ponit se super Patriam, put himself upon his Countrey, and was tried by a Jury of 12 Knights. And 28 H. VI. the Duke of Suffolk declined the Trial of his Peers, and submitted to the King's mercy. By which it appears, that this was a Privilege which was not to be denied them, if they challenged it; but, at least before 15 Ed. III. they might wave it if they pleased; and after that too, if they were tried out of Parlament. For this Trial by Peers was intended for a security against arbitrary Power in taking away mens Lives; and therefore it was [Page] allowed at the King's Suit, but not at the Suit of the Party. But if Bishops were tried out of Parlament, and did voluntarily decline the challenge of this Privilege, this is no argument at all against their Right of Peerage: and so I find some say it was in the Case of Fisher,Godwin. vit. Rich. Scroop Archiep. Eborac. Bishop of Rochester, in H. VIII's time; which is the great Precedent in the Law-Books.

3. The method of Proceeding as to the Trial of Bishops by Common Iuries, while the Pope's Power continued in England, is not so clear, that any forcible Argument can be drawn from thence. Because the Bishops then looked on themselves as having no Peers, out of Parlament, in point of Judgment, but Bishops. As in the famous Case of Adam Bishop of Hereford, under Edw. II. who was rescued from the King's Bench by his Brethren the Bishops, because they looked on his appearing there as a Violation of the Liberties of the Church. I do not go about to defend these Proceedings; but I am sure the Authour of the Peerage, &c. very much misrepresents this business: for he makes it as if the Bishop were legally convicted in Court by a common Iury, pag. 7. and that after conviction he was deliver'd to the Archbishop, to the intent, as he supposes, [Page] that he should be degraded. Whereas, in truth, the Bishops carried him out of the Court, without his giving any Answer to the Endictment; and when he was absent, the King commanded the Iury to bring in their Verdict; and without ever being heard to make any Defence for himself,Walsingh. pag. 119. they found him guilty in all the Articles laid to his Charge. That Authour very freely bestows the terms of Impudence on the Bishops of that time, and Ignorance on those who go about to defend them:pag. 7. 14. but I desire to know whether of these two makes a man thus misrepresent a matter of fact? For it was so far from being true, that upon Conviction he was deliver'd to the Archbishop to be degraded; that he never appeared in Court after, but continued under the Archbishop's care, till, after a while, he fully reconciled him to the King; notwithstanding the Jury found him guilty of Treason. I desire to be informed, whether we are to understand Magna Charta by such a Trial as this? Whether he were judged by his Peers, I know not; but I am sure he was not by the Law of the Land; Antiq. Cantuar. in Walt. Raynolds pag. 215. ed. Han. which I think is as good a part of Magna Charta as the other. And this, our Historians tell us, is the First Instance [Page]of any Trial of this kind, of any Bishop in England: which hath too much of force and violence in it, to be a good Interpreter of Magna Charta.

The Second Precedent is verbatim out of Mr. Selden concerning Iohn de Isle, and the Bishop of Ely his Brother; which concerns such matters, wherein himself confesses the Privilegium Clericale was allowed; and the Record saith, the Archbishop entering his plea, that he was to be deliver'd to him as a member of his Church, he was accordingly deliver'd, after the Jury had given in their Verdict. Which shews, indeed, the good will that was then used, to take away even the allowed Privileges of the Clergy by common Juries. And this is another stout Interpreter of Magna Charta; when Bracton, Briton, Fleta, Stat. West. 1. Articuli Cleri c. 15. are confessed,2. Instit. [...]. 633, &c. even by Sir Edw. Coke, to be so clear in the Clergie's behalf in these matters.

The Third Precedent, which is likewise out of the same Authour, is of Thomas Merks, Bishop of Carlisle; who, for his fidelity to R. II. and the true Heirs of the Crown, against the Usurpation of H. IV. was found guilty of Treason by a common Iury. But Mr. Selden [Page] is so ingenuous as to take notice, that the Writ directed to the Justices had in it a Non obstante to a Statute lately made at Westminster; Licèt in Stat. apud Westm. nuper edito inter caetera continetur, quòd nullus Archiep. nec Episcopus coram Iusticiariis nostris occasione alicujus criminis impetatur, absque speciali praecepto nostro, quousque, &c. Which was read in Court: but the Judges urging, that the Liberties of the Church did not extend to high Treason, then it is said, he did ponere se super Patriam; just as Thomas Lord Berkely did 4 Ed. III. This is the onely Precedent that proves that a Bishop, before the time of H. VIII. did put himself upon a common Iury: and yet we find as good a Precedent of this sort, concerning an allowed Peer of the Realm. And whether this single Precedent be sufficient to interpret Magna Charta, against the plain sense of the words, and to make a constant practice, I leave any rational man to judge.

But if this were yielded in Cases of high Treason, wherein the Privilege of Clergy holds not; (especially since the Statutes 25 Ed. III. c. 4. and 4 H. IV. c. 2, 3.) Mr. Selden tells them, that there is no consequence from hence, because [Page] they are not to be tried by Peers, therefore they are not Peers: since the Common Law may limit this Privilege of Peers in one particular case, which may hold in all others. As it is no diminution to the Peerage of the Temporal Lords, to be tried by a common Iury at the Suit of the Party. I conclude the Answer to this Argument,Camden. Brit. pag. 123. as Mr. Camden doth his Discourse about this subject; who having proved that the Bishops do enjoy all other Privileges of Peers, except this of being tried by them, (which he seems to attribute to a kind of Revenge upon them, for pleading such exemptions by the Canon-Law) after all, he leaves it to the Lawyers to determine, whether this be juris explorati. The meaning of which I am sure is not, as the Authour of the Letter expresseth it, that it was always so, and never otherwise.

But the great difficulty to some is, that a Praedial or Feudal Barony doth not ennoble the Bloud; and therefore can give no Right of Peerage. Whereas it is well known, that all the Baronies of England were such from the Conquerour's time, till after the Barons Wars, when, for Reason of State, it was thought necessary to make the Nobility more dependant on [Page] the Crown. And all that were Barons were Pares, i. e. Peers. So du Fresn quotes an old Poem of the Common Laws of England,

Barons nous appellons les Piers del Realm.Glossar. v. Pares.

In France, from whence our Baronies first came, Ecclesiastical Persons with praedial Baronies are thought as capable of Peerage as any. For, there at first all the Barones Regni (who both in France and England were the same with the Barones Regis, however some of late have distinguished them) sate in the great Council, and all publick Affairs passed through them; and they were judged by their own Order: and these were called Pares Regni, among whom the Bishops were comprehended. At last Lewis VII. A. D. 1179. (as most Authours agree) chose Twelve out of the great number of the Peers of France; of which half the number were Bishops who held feudal Baronies of the King; and the Archbishop of Rheims is the First of the whole Number. And because these enjoy'd greater Privileges then other Peers, their number was increased by particular Favour; but the ancient Right of Peerage remained to all the Barons of the Realm. In Scotland, [Page] when they appointed Twelve Peers for the King's Council, Walsingh. ad A. D. 1296. Mat. Westm. A. 1295. they were 4 Bishops, 4 Earls, 4 Barons. So that in the neighbour Nations Feodal Baronies were never thought inconsistent with Peerage: and we have as little Reason to think them so with us; since to this day, the Bishops do enjoy not onely the great Right of Peerage, of sitting and voting in the House of Peers, but have some personal Privileges of Peers allowed them by the Common Law, as is already shewed.

II. The last thing to be considered is, the Capacity in which they sit in the House, whether as a Third Estate or not? The Authour of the Letter not onely denies it, but opposes it with great vehehemency, and offers many Authorities and Reasons against it. All which must be weighed with the same calmness and impartiality, which hath been hitherto used in this Discourse. And there are Three things to be distinctly handled for the clearing of this Matter: 1. His Foundation; 2. His Authorities; 3. His Reasons.

(1.) His Foundation whereupon he builds;pag. 93. which is, that the Bishops sit in the House onely in the capacity of Temporal Barons; William the Conquerour having [Page]brought the Temporalties of Bishops under the condition of Baronies. That they do sit there in the Right of their Baronies, was yielded at first; but whether they sit there onely in that capacity, is the thing in Question.

And here I crave leave to make use of this Authour's distinction, and to apply it to this purpose; viz. of the Bishops sitting in the House in a Iudicial way, and in the Legislative way. When they sit in the Iudicial way, as Members of the Supreme Court of Iudicature, I grant that they sit onely in the capacity of Temporal Barons; as appears by the Constitution of Clarendon, where the King requires their attendance in Iudicature as his Barons: But that in the Legislative way they have a farther Capacity, as representing a Third Estate in Parlament, I prove by these Arguments.

[1.] During the Vacancy of Bishopricks, Writs were sent to the Guardians of the Spiritualties, to attend the Parlament. Which Mr. Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 2. ch. 5. n. 17. 23. who cannot be suspected for partiality in this matter, saith, is obvious in the Rolls of Parlament; and which he cannot deny to be an evidence of the Bishops sitting in Parlament as Bishops, and as Spiritual onely, as they did in[Page]the Saxon times, in the Wittena gemot. So likewise, the Vicars-general had Writs when the Bishops were beyond Sea. But neither of these could sit in Parlament as Temporal Barons.

But because so much depends on the proof of this, and no man hath yet undertaken it, I shall bring clear Testimonies of the constant practice of it, from the Records of the Tower.

24 Edw. I. Writs were directed Custodi Archiepiscopatûs Eborum, sede vacante; & Electo Menevensi, vel ejus vices gerenti, ipso agente in partibus transmarinis.

27 Ed. I. Custodibus Episcop. Lincoln. sede vacante; & Capitulo Eccles. B. P. Eborum, Custodibus Spiritual. ejusdem Dioces. sede vacante.

5 Ed. II. Vicario generali Archiep. Eborum, ipso Archiepiescopo in remotis agente.

6. Ed. II. Custodi Archiepiscopatûs Cantuar. sede vacante.

7 Ed. II. To the same, & Custodi Episcop. London. sede vacante.

1 Ed. III. Custodi Spiritualitatis Archiep. Cantuar. sede vacante: and twice the same 2 Ed. III.

7 Ed. III. Rex dilecto sibi in Christo [Page] Priori Eccles. Christi Cantuar. Custodi Spiritualit. Archiep. Cantuar. sede vacante.

10 Ed. III. Custodi Spirit. Episcop. Norwic. sede vacante.

11 Ed. III. Custodi Spirit. Episcop. Cicestr. sede vacante; & H. Episcopo Lincoln. vel ejus Vicario generali, ipso Episcopo in remotis agente.

12 Ed. III. A more general Writ to the Archbish. &c. vel Vicariis vestris generalibus, vobis in partibus transmarinis agentibus.

14 Ed. III. T. Episcop. Hereford. vel ejus Vicario generali, ipso Episcopo in remotis agente.

20 Ed. III. Custodi Spiritualit. Episcop. Assaphensis, &c.

The like we find 20 E. (3.) 34. 36. 38. 44. 5 R. (2.) 6. 7. 9. 10. 12. 13. 18. 20. 7 H. (4.) 8. 2 H. (5.) 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 2 H. (6.) 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. 15. 18. 20. 25. 29. 12 Edw. 4. In all these years, there are Writs directed, either to the Guardians of the Spiritualties in the Vacancies of the Sees, or to the Vicars-general or Chancellours in their absence beyond the Seas. Which are sufficient to prove this to have been the constant practice of Parlaments in those times.

[2.] Some Church-men were summon'd to [Page] Parlament who could have no pretence to sit there as Temporal Barons. For 49 H. III. the Deans of York, Exceter, Wells, Salisbury and Lincoln were summon'd with the like Writ as the rest. And Mr. Selden observes,Ib. n. 22. that in the times of Edw. I. Edw. II. Edw. III. where the Clause Praemunientes is omitted in the Writ to the Bishops, there particular and several Writs were sent to some Deans and Priors of Cathedral Churches, to appear in Parlament.

But to prove more fully the interest the Clergy had then in Parlaments, it is worth our observing, that in the ancient Records there are 4 several sorts of Writs wherein the Clergy were concerned.

1. In the common Writs of Summons to Parlament sent to the Archbishops and Bishops, with the Clause of Praemunientes, which runs thus; Premunientes Priorem & Capitulum, or Decan. & Capit. Ecclesie vestre, Archidiaconos, totumque Clerum vestre Dioces. facientes, quod iidem Prior & Archidiaconi in propriis personis suis, ac dictum Capitulum per unum, idem (que) Cierus per duos Procuratores idoneos, plenam & sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulo & Clero habentes, predictis die & loco intersint, ad[Page]consentiendum hiis que tunc ibidem de communi consilio ipsius Regni nostri, divina favente Clementia, contigerint ordinari. Titles of Honour, p. 595. So Mr. Selden represents it from the 50 Ed. III. membr. 6. And with him Sir Edw. 4 Instit. p. 4. Coke agrees; who saith, by this Clause in the Writ of Summons to the Bishops, they are required to summon these persons to appear personally at the Parlalament: but he proves they had no Voices there, because they are required onely ad consentiendum, &c. Which is a very weak argument. For, (1.) His own great Authority, Modus tenendi Parlamentum, saith expresly, they were called ad tractand. & deliberand. and that their names were called over in the beginning of Parlament; and that they had a Voice there, and did make up part of the Commons of England. Not that the Procuratores Cleri did sit together with them, after they had a Speaker of their own▪ of which I find no Precedent: but they sate by themselves, having a Prolocutor of their own: which is the very same name used in the Rolls for the Speaker of the House of Commons. (2.) These words do not exclude them from being part of the commune Concilium Regni, but onely shew, that their Consent was required, according to the [Page] Custom of that time. And 23 Ed. I. the Clause is more full, ad tract and. ordinand. & faciend. the like 24 Ed. I. But in 27 Ed. I. the words are, ad faciend. & consentiend. (3.) The same argument would exclude the Commons from any Voices: for in 23 Ed. I. the Writ for chusing Knights and Burgesses ran after the same manner; ita quod dicti milites plenam & sufficientem potestatem pro se & Commun' Comit' predict' & dicti Cives & Burgenses pro se & Communit Civit' & Burg' tunc ibidem habeant, ad faciend' tunc quod de communi Consilio ordinabitur in premissis. Would any man be so unreasonable to infer from hence, that the House of Commons have no Votes? The same form is used 26 Ed. I.—30 of the same. In 5 Ed. II. it is, ad consentiendum, &c. 6 Ed. II. it is, ad faciend. quod de communi Consilio contigerit ordinari. 7 Ed. II. ad faciendum & consentiend. and so it continued to the 26 Ed. III. when first came in, ad tract and. consulend. faciend. but 44 Ed. I. it was onely, ad consulend. & consentiend. 46 Ed. III. it was, ad faciendum & consentiendum his quae tunc de communi Concilio Regni contigerit ordinari: so 47 Edw. III. Which hath been the general form, ever since [Page] observed, and would exclude the House of Commons from any Votes in Parlament, as well as the Clergy.

2. There were other Writs of Summons to Parlament wherein the Clause Praemunientes was left out; and then particular Writs were sent to such Deans and dignified Clergy-men as the King thought fit. So it was not onely 49 H. III. but there were two Summons 23 Ed. I. and in one of them the Clause Praemunientes was inserted, in the other not. It was left out 25 Ed. I. and in one 27 Ed. I. and put in another, and left out again 28. and 30. of Ed. I. Inserted 1 Ed. II. in one Writ, and omitted in others; and so in the 3 following years: but afterwards generally inserted, except 6 Ed. II. 13. 16. 18. In 5 Ed. III. it was omitted, and so in 6. and some few years afterwards: but then it generally obtained, that the Clause Praemunientes was put into the Writs of the Bishops Summons to the Parlament.

3. There were Writs of Summons to great Councils, which were no Assemblies of the Estates; and then onely some great Bishops and Lords, or other Great men were summon'd, without any Writs to others, or any notice taken of them. In such a [Page] Summons 2 Ed. II. onely 4 Bishops are named; 18 Ed. II. onely 6; 19 onely 5; 2 Ed. III. onely 2. and the Guardian of the Spiritualties of the See of Canterbury: and so 4 Ed. III. and in another the same year, 3 besides the Archbishop of Canterbury. 5 Ed. III. Summons were sent to the Archbishop of York, and 19 Bishops more. 11 Ed. III. the Writ was directed to the Archbishop of York, and such Bishops, Earls, and Great men as were of the King's Council: and two more were summon'd the same year. The form of the Writ differs little from that to the Parlament, onely the Clause Praemunientes is always left out, and onely some particular Bishops and Nobles are called, and no Writs for elections of Knights or Burgesses. In the 16 Ed. III. the Writ is sent to the Archbishop and 7 Bishops more; but none to Abbots, Priors, Sheriffs, &c. Which shews that this was Magnum Concilium, as it is sometimes called, but no Parlament.

4. There were Writs to summon a Convocation distinct from the Writ of Summons to the Parlament with the Clause Praemunientes. This will appear by the first Writ of Summons to a Convocation, which I have seen; which bears [Page] date at Lincoln 17. Feb. 9 Ed. II. but the Parlament was summon'd 16. of October before, to meet at Lincoln in quindenâ S. Hilarii; with the Clause Praemunientes in the Writ to the Bishops. In which Summons to Convocation it is expressed, that those Bishops and others of the Clergy, who were summon'd to Parlament, did, as far as they were concerned, unanimously yield to a Subsidy; but so, that others of the Clergy who were not summon'd to Parlament should meet in Convocation, and consent thereto. Therefore the King sends his Writ to the Archbishop to summon all the Prelats, whether Religious or others, and others of the Clergy of his Province, to meet at London post 15. Pasch. ad tractand. & consentiend. &c. Here we have the plain difference between the Writs to Parlament, and to Convocation. The Writs to the Parlament were sent to the Archbishops and all the Bishops, with the clause Praemunientes, &c. summoning those of the Clergy who were then thought necessary to the Assembly of the Three Estates in Parlament: but when a Convocation was called, then the Writs were onely directed to the Two Archbishops, who were to summon the rest of the Clergy, and not onely those who held by Baronies, [Page] but others of the dignified Clergy, tam exemptos quàm non exemptos, with the Proctors of the Chapters and Clergy of the Diocese, ad tractand' & consulend' super premissis una vobiscum & aliis per Nos tunc mittendis. So it is expressed in the Writ for Convocation 11 Ed. III. 29 Ed. III. 31 Ed. III. 7 R. II. 28 H. VI. 23 Ed. IV. onely these two last have this difference, ad tractand', consentiend', conclud' super premissis, & aliis que sibi clarius exponentur tunc ibidem ex parte nostra.

These things I have laid together, not barely to clear this intricate matter, (as it hath been made) of the interest the Clergy then had in Parlaments as well as Convocations; but chiefly to prove from hence, that all the interest they had in Parlaments was not meerly on the account of the Temporal Baronies which the Bishops and many of the Abbots then had. Which is the great, but common mistake of the Authour of the Letter.

[3.] After the Bishopricks were made Baronies, the distinction even in Parlament is kept up between the several Estates of the Clergy and Laiety. For although Baronagium doth often take in all; yet sometimes they are so remarkably distinguished, that we may see they [Page] were looked on as two distinct Estates in Parlament. So Eadmerus, (speaking of what passed in the Parlament 3 H. I) saith, it was done utriusque Ordinis concordi curâ & solicitudine, Eadmer. l. pag. 67. by the consent of both Estates. So Matt. Paris, speaking of the Summons to appear in the beginning of H. I. comprehends all under those 2 Estates,Matt. Paris pag. 55. Clerus Angliae, & Pop. universus: and again, Respondente Clero, & Magnatibus cunctis. Speaking of a Parlament under H. II. he saith,pag. 143. Convocato Clero Regni, ac Populo. In 39 H. III. describing a Parlament, he calls those assembled Nobiles Angliae, tam viri Ecclesiastici quàm Seculares. And in the Writs of Summons the distinction hath been always preserved between the Praelati and the Magnates: for in those to the Bishops it is, cum caeteris Praelatis, Magnatibus, &c. in those to the Temporal Lords, cum Praelatis, Magnatibus, &c. In those to the Bishops they were commanded, in Fide & Dilectione quibus nobis tenemini: in those to the Temporal Lords, in Fide & Homagio; or, since Ed. III. in Fide & Ligeancia. Which shews that they were not summon'd meerly as Temporal Barons.

[4.] The Authour of the Letter confesseth [Page] the Clergy to be one of the three Estates of the Kingdom; pag. 86. but denies them to be one of the three Estates in Parlament. From whence I argue thus. Either the Clergy must be represented in Parlament, or one of the Estates of the Kingdom is not at all represented there. And if one of the Estates of the Kingdom be not there represented, how can it be a perfect Representative? So that this distinction of the Three Estates of the Kingdom, and the Three Estates in Parlament, unavoidably overthrows the Parlament's being a compleat Representative. But in 23 H. VIII. n. 33. as Mr. Petyt observes, there is this passage in the Parlament-Rolls. It is considered and declared by the whole Body of this Realm, The ancient Right of the Commons, pag. 61. now represented by all the Estates of the same assembled in this present Parlament. Therefore all the Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament. And 1 Eliz. c. 3. The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons are said to represent in Parlament the Three Estates of the Realm. From whence it follows, that, according to the sense of the Parlament, if the Clergy be an Estate of the Kingdom, as he saith they are, they must be represented in Parlament, [Page] or the whole Body of the Realm cannot be there represented.

(2.) We now come to consider the weight of Authority in this matter. For which I shall premise two things.

1. That the whole Parlament assembled are the best Judges, which are the Three Estates in Parlament; and their Authority is more to be valued, then that of any particular Persons, whether Lawyers, or others.

2. That no Parlaments can give better Testimony in this matter, then those which have assumed most to themselves. For if there be Three Estates in Parlament, and the Bishops be none, then the King must be one of the Three; as the Authour of the Letter insinuates, throughout this discourse: and the natural consequence from hence seems to be a coordination; or that two joyning together may over-rule the third. Therefore in all Reason, if any Parlaments would have made the King one of the Three Estates, it would have been either the Parlament 1 H. IV. which deposed one King, and set up another; or that 1 R. III. which disinherited the Children of Ed. IV. and set up their Uncle.

I shall therefore first from the Rolls of [Page] these two Parlaments shew, which are the Three Estates in Parlament; and from them, evidently prove that the King is none, but the Bishops are the Third Estate.

I begin with the Parlament 1 H. IV. By the Rolls it appears, (1.) That R. II. appointed two Procurators to declare his Resignation of the Crown, coram omnibus Statibus Regni, before all the States of the Kingdom. From whence it unavoidably follows, 1. that the King was none of them; 2. that the Estates of the Kingdom and the Estates in Parlament are the same thing. (2.) Among the Articles against R. II. one is concerning the Impeachment of Tho. Archbishop of Canterbury coram Rege & omnibus Statibus Regni, before the King and all the Estates of the Realm. The King then was none of the Estates. (3.) The Commissioners for the sentence of Deposition are said to be appointed per Pares & Proceres Regni Anglie Spirituales & Temporales, & ejusdem Regni Communitates, omnes Status ejusdem Regni representantes; by the Peers and Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons of the Kingdom, representing all the States of the Kingdom. Where observe, [Page] 1. The Bishops are called Peers, as well as the Temporal Lords. 2. The Estates of the Parlament are to represent all the Estates of the Kingdom. 3. The Three Estates in Parlament are the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons of the Realm; and Fabian expresly calls them the Three Estates of this present Parlament, Fabian. 7. par. R. 2. s [...]l. 158. representing the whole Body of the Realm.

In the Rolls of Parlament 1 R. III. it is recorded, that before his Coronation, certain Articles were deliver'd unto him in the name of the Three Estates of the Realm of England, that is to say, of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name, &c. Now forasmuch as neither the said Three Estates, neither the said Persons which in their name presented and deliver'd (as it is afore said) the said Roll unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, were assembled in form of Parlament, divers Doubts have been moved, &c. Now by the said Three Estates assembled in this present Parlament, and by Authority of the same, be ratified, and enrolled, &c. Upon which Mr. Pryn himself makes this Marginal Note, Abridgment of Records, pa. 710. 714. The Three Estates must concurr to make a Parlament; no one or two of them being a full or real Parlament, but all conjoyned.

[Page] But lest I should seem to take advantage onely of these two Parlaments, I shall now shew this to have been the constant sense of the Parlaments; as will appear by these following Records.

In 1 H. VI. n. 12. All the Estates of the Realm are said to be assembled in Parlament. 3 H. VI. n. 19. the Three Estates assembled in this present Parlament.

6 H. VI. n. 24. the Duke of Gloucester desired an explanation of his Power as Protector: in the Answer, drawn up by the Lords appointed for that purpose, it is alledged that H. V. could not by his last Will, nor otherwise, alter, change, or abroge, without the Assent of the Three Estates; nor commit or grant, to any Person, Governance or Rule of this Land, longer then he lived. Nevertheless they adde, It was advised and appointed by the Authority of the King, assenting the Three Estates of this Realm. Which shews how far the King was from being thought one of the Three Estates in Parlament at that time.

10 H. VI. n. 17. Ralph Lord Cromwell put in a Petition to the Parlament, that he was discharged the Office of King's Chamberlain in a way contrary to the Articles for the Council sworn 8 H. VI. coram [Page]tribus Regni Statibus, before the Three Estates of the Realm, as they were assembled in Parlament: which appears by the Record 8 H. VI. n. 27.

11 H. VI. n. 10. The Duke of Bedford appeared in Parlament, and declared the Reasons of his coming coram Domino Rege & tribus Regni Statibus, before the King and the Three Estates of the Realm; as it is in the Record, but not mention'd in the Abridgment.

n. 11. Domino Rege & tribus Regni Statibus in presenti Parlamento existentibus, the King and the Three Estates of the Realm being present in Parlament. Nothing can be plainer, then that the King is none; and that the Three Estates of the Kingdom are the Three Estates in Parlament.

11 H. VI. n. 24. Lord Cromwell Treasurer exhibits a Petition in Parlament, wherein he saith, the estate and necessity of the King and of the Realm have been notified to the Three Estates of the Land assembled in Parlament.

In an Appendix annexed to the Rolls of Parlament that year, the Duke of Bedford saith, in his Petition to the King, how that in your last Parlament yit liked your Highness, by yadvis of Three [Page]Estates of his Land, to will me, &c.

23 H. VI. n. 11. Presente Domino Rege, & tribus Regni Statibvs in presenti Parlamento existentibus, &c.

28 H. VI. n. 9. Domino Rege & tribus Regni Statibus in pleno Parlamento comparentibus, &c.

After these I shall insist upon the Precedents cited by the Authour of the Letter himself;pag. 86. viz. the Ratification of the Peace with France by the Thrée Estates 9 H. V. and 11 H. VII. which he alledges as an extraordinary thing, that the Three Estates joyned in these Transactions: whereas in truth it was nothing but a Ratification of the Peace in Parlament; and consequently, those Three Estates of the Kingdom, are the Three Estates of Parlament. Bacon H. 7. pag. 144. For the Parlament was then sitting at both these Ratifications; and no other Assembly of the Thrée Estates was ever known in England. Hist. Angl. pag. 404. Walsingham saith, that H. V. called aParlament, which was sitting at that time: for the King kept S. George's Feast at Windsor that year, from thence he went to the Parlament at London, which ended within a Month; and the Ratification of the Peace bears date May 2. Judge then, whether these were not the Three Estates in Parlament? But [Page] to prove this more fully. It seems by 23 H. VI. n. 24. that a Statute was made in the time of H. V. that no Peace should be made with France without the consent of the Three Estates of both Realms; which was then repealed. But whom they meant by the Thrée Estates here in the time of H. VI. appears by 28 H. VI. n. 9. when the Chancellour, in the presence of the King, gave thanks to the Three Estates, and prorogued the Parlament: where it is plain, the Three Estates in Parlament were meant, and that the King could be none of them. In 38 H. VI. n. 38.. the Chancellour again, in the presence of the King and of the Three Estates, having given thanks to all the Estates, dissolved the Parlament. But that which puts this matter out of doubt is, that in the Parlament 1 H. VI. the Queen Dowager in her Petition mentions the Ratification made in Parlament 9 H. V. and saith, it was not onely sworn by the King, but by the Thrée Estates of the Kingdom of England: Cest assavoir, les Prelatz, Nobles, & Grands, & per les Comuns de mesm le Roialm Dengleterre;that is to say, by the Prelats, Nobles, and other Grandees, and by the Commons of the Realm of England: as appears more fully, [Page] saith that Petition, by the Records and Acts of the said Parlament. And the King there declares in four several Instruments, that the said Articles of Peace were approved and ratified by Authority of Parlament, in these words; Qui quidem Pax, Tractatus, conclusio & concordia, omnes (que) Articuli contenti in eisdem, in Parlamento dicti Patris nostri apud Westm. 2⁰ die Maii A. R. 9. tento, Auctoritate ejusdem Parlamenti approbati, laudati, auctorizati & acceptati. Nothing can be plainer from hence, then that the Three Estates of the Kingdom were no other then the Three Estates in Parlament. And the same appears by another Petition of the same Queen, 2 H. VI. n. 19.

For latter Times I shall instance onely in the Parlament 1 Eliz. c. 3. wherein the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons declare, that they do represent in Parlament the Thrée Estates of the Realm. From whence it follows, 1. That the Three Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament. 2. That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons do represent those Three Estates of the Kingdom, and therefore are the Three Estates in Parlament. 3. That the [Page] King can be none of the Estates in Parlament, because he doth not represent any of the Estates of the Kingdom.

And it is a wonder to me, that any man, who considers the Constitution of the Government of Europe, and how agreeable it was in all the Kingdoms of it, as to the Assemblies of the Three Estates, could ever take the King to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament. For the Question would seem ridiculous to persons of any other Nation, if we should ask them whether the King was reckon'd among the tres Ordines Regni? For by the Three Estates they all mean the Three Ranks of men, the Clergy, Nobility, and Commonalty. pag. 88. But the Authour of the Letter could not deny that these were the Three Estates of the Kingdom; but he saith, the Three Estates of Parlament are clean another thing: which I may reasonably suppose, is sufficiently disproved by the foregoing Discourse.

But he quotes several Authorities for what he saith, which must now be examined, and will appear to be of no weight, if compared with the evidence already given on the other side.

The first Authority is of King Iames,pag. 98. in his Speech at the Prorogation of the Parlament [Page] 1605. wherein he saith, the Parlament consists of a Head, and a Body; the King is the Head, the Body are the Members of the Parlament. This Body is subdivided into two parts, the Vpper, and the Lower House. The Vpper consists of the Nobility and the Bishops; the Lower of Knights and Burgesses. The force of the Argument lies in King Iames his making the Bishops but a Part of the Vpper House: but that this doth not exclude their being a Third Fstate, I prove by a Parallel Instance. In 5 H. IV. the Bishop of London, being Chancellour, compared the Parlament to a Body, as King Iames did; but he made the Chùrch the Right Hand, the Temporal Lords the Left Hand, and the Commonaltie the other Members; yet presently after, he calls these, the several Estates which the King had called to Parlament. But that the Bishops sitting in the same House with the Temporal Lords doth not hinder their being a distinct Estate, will appear, when we come to answer his Reasons. And for King Iames his sense as to this matter, we may fully understand it by this passage in his Advice to his Son.Basilic. Dor. l. 2. p. 159. of his Works. As the whole Subjects of our Countrey (by the ancient and fundamental Policy of our Kingdom) are divided into [Page] Three Estates, &c. These words are spoken of the Kingdom of Scotland; but the ancient and fundamental Policy of that is the same with England; and he that believed the Subjects made the Three Estates there, could never believe the King to be one of them here.

The next Authority is of King Charles I. pag. 100. in his Answer to the 19 Propositions Iune 2. 1642. wherein he tells the two Houses, that neither one Estate should transact what is proper for two, nor two what is proper for three. To which I answer, that the Penner of that Answer was so intent upon the main business, viz. that the two Houses could doe nothing without the King, that he did not go about to dispute this matter with them, whether the King were one of the Three Estates or not; but taking their supposition for granted, he shews that they could have no Authority to act without the King's concurrence. But the unwary Concessions in that Answer were found of dangerous consequence afterwards, when the King's enemies framed the Political Catechism out of them; which is lately reprinted, no doubt, for the good of the People.

In 2 H. IV. n. 32.pag. 101. he makes the House of Commons to declare to the King and [Page]Lords, that the Three Estates of the Parlament are the King, the Lords Spiritual, and Temporal. Whereas the truth of that matter is this: A difference had happen'd in the House of Lords, between the Earl of Rutland and Lord Fitz-Walter; whereupon the House of Commons go up to the King and the Lords, and having, it seems, an Eloquent Speaker, who ventured upon dangerous Metaphors, he makes bold with the Similitude of the Trinity; because that would help him to perswade them to Vnity: but if he had left the King out, he might have been suspected to have set up an Independent Power in the Three Estates: therefore lest he should lose his Similitude, (which goes a great way with an eloquent man) he strains another point, and draws the King into his Trinity. And is such an expression to be mention'd in comparison with the express Declaration but the year before, 1 H. IV. of both Houses concerning the Three Estates in Parlament?

Next to this Similitude, that of Stephen Gardiner ought to be mention'd; who compared Faith, Hope, and Charity, concurring to Iustification, to the concurrence of the Three Estates in Parlament, i.e. the King and two Houses, to the making of [Page]Laws. But I wonder the Authour of the Letter, who expresseth so much dislike of his Divinity, would take his Iudgment in Politicks. But this notion of making the King one of the Three Estates, how valuable soever it be to some men, is, it seems, onely to be met with in some grave ancient Similitudes. But of what Authority these are, against the constant sense of Parlaments so fully declared, I leave any man of understanding to judge.

For the judgment of eminent Lawyers, pag. 103. he quotes but one in King Iames his time, viz. Finch in his Book of Law, l. 2. ch. 1. who doth indeed, in the words quoted by him, make the King, Lords and Commons to be the Three Estates. But I can hardly imagine how a learned Lawyer could fall into such a gross mistake, unless the Modus tenendi Parlamentum should give the occasion to it; which was accounted no blind MS. in those days, but a very great Treasure, as appears by Sir E. Coke, who cites it on all occasions. And very few Lawyers had the judgment in Antiquity which Mr. Selden had, who first discovered the just Age and Value of that MS. This Authour indeed, towards the conclusion of his Treatise, makes the King the first of the Estates: but then he [Page] makes Six Estates in Parlament, or Degrees, as he calls them; and delivers this for good doctrine at the very end of his Treatise, that if any one of all these be summon'd, and do not appear, yet, with him, it is notwithstanding a full Parlament: nay, he expresly saith, the King may hold a Parlament without a House of Lords. But there are so many other such Positions discover'd by others in that Treatise, that I need to say no more of it. And as to this point of the King's being one of the Estates in Parlament, Sir Ed. Coke, who otherwise too much admired that Treatise, declares against it, in the very beginning of his Treatise of the Parlament. This Court, saith he, consisteth of the King's Majesty, sitting there as in his Royal Politick capacity; and of the Three Estates of the Realm; viz. of the Lords Spiritual, Archbishops and Bishops, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons of the Realm. And however the Authour of the Letter may slight Mr. Selden's Judgment in this matter;pag. 86. yet these two may be sufficient to weigh down the Scales against any one Lawyer's Authority to the contrary; especially, since they were never suspected, I dare say, for any partiality towards the Clergy.

[Page] (3.) But the Authour of the Letter thinks to carry this point by meer strength of Reason. We must therefore diligently consider the force of his Arguments.

1. If Bishops were one of the Estates in Parlament, pag. 89. Reason would they should vote by themselves separately from other Lords, which would make another Estate: But they do not onely not vote apart by themselves, the whole Body of them together; but that Body is divided and separated within it self, one part from another. If both Houses ever sate together, as some imagine, (and as they do in a neighbour Kingdom,) this way of Reasoning will make but one Estate in Parlament all that time. But to give a clear answer to this objection; I distinguish two things in the Bishops, their Spiritual Capacity, by which they represent; and their Civil Capacity as Barons, in which they vote, according to the Rules of the House. For, the manner of giving their Votes is a thing under the Regulation of the House, and depends upon Custom; but their Spiritual Capacity as Bishops, in which they represent, doth not. And the Reason of their sitting together with other Lords, is upon the account of their Writs of Summons; which, as Mr. Selden confesseth, [Page] ever since the latter end of Edw. III. hath been, for the Bishops cum ceteris Prelatis, Magnatibus & Proceribus, colloquium habere & tractatum: and therefore they are bound to sit together in the same place with the Temporal Lords, or else they cannot advise and confer together. And I leave the Authour of the Letter to consider, whether his Reason, or the King's Writ, ought to take place.

2. If the Bishops were a Third Estate, pag. 89. they must have a Negative voice to all that passeth there: But the Bishops are intermingled with the Temporal Lords in making up the Majority, as a part of it. Since I have evidently proved the Clergy to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament, if he be sure that every Estate ought to have a Negative voice, then I am sure that this Objection lies more upon him to answer, then upon the Bishops. But to prevent any new disputes, I shall return this Answer to it. Since it is agreed on both sides, that the Bishops do sit in the House as Temporal Barons, and in that respect do make up the Majority of Votes in the House of Lords; it could not but seem unreasonable, that they who voted as Barons in the House should have a Negative voice in another capacity: and by [Page] this means they lost their distinct Negative voice, because by the King's Writs they were to sit and vote with the Temporal Lords. Just as it is in the Diets of Germany: Since the distribution of that Assembly of the Estates of the Empire into the several Chambers, the Prelates vote according to their Ranks: the Three Electors in the Electoral College; the other Bishops, that are Princes of the Empire, in the Chamber of Princes; and those who are not Princes, with the Counts and Barons. So that here the Votes of the Bishops are mingled with the rest, without a distinct Negative voice; and yet no one questions but the Bishops do represent a distinct Estate of the Empire.

3. This is a disparagement to the House of Lords, pag. 90. that another Estate must be joyned with them to make up their Negative. No more, then to the Princes of the Empire, to have the Bishops joyned with them, when the Imperial Cities vote by themselves. But what disparagement is this, for those to make up the Majority of the Votes of the Baronage, who sit there as Barons by Tenure, by a Right as ancient as Will. the Conquerour, by the Authour's own confession?

4. If the Bishops make a Third Estate,pag. 91. [Page] then a Parlament could not be held without them: But a Parlament hath sate excluso Clero, as that of Ed. I; and that it may do so in point of Law, appears by the Resolution of the Iudges in Keilway's Reports, because the Bishops sit in Parlament by reason of their Baronies. This is the great Objection, to which I shall give a full Answer.

[1.] It is dangerous arguing from extraordinary Cases to the excluding any one of the Estates of the Kingdom from being represented in Parlament: because no one can tell where this way of arguing will stop. If a Parlament may be good without one Estate, why not without another? And we have seen an House of Lords excluded as unnecessary, upon such kind of arguments; because they sit in their own Persons, and represent none but themselves. If we once depart from the ancient and legal Constitution of Parlaments, there will be no end of Alterations. Every new Modeller of Government hath something to offer that looks like Reason, at least to those whose interest it is to carry it on. And if no Precedents can be found, then they appeal to a certain invisible thing called the Fundamental Contract of the Nation: which being a thing no where to be found, may [Page] signify what any one pleaseth. Suppose one extraordinary case happens through the disorder of Times, that the Clergy have been left out in a Parlament; what doth this signify towards altering the legal Constitution and constant Course of Parlaments, which from the beginning of Parlaments in this Nation, have had the Estate of the Clergy represented in them? as sufficiently appears by Mr. Petyt's learned Preface to his late Discourse of the ancient Right of the Commons. pag. 7, &c. The first after King Ethelbert's Conversion was, Commune Concilium tam Cleri quàm Populi. That under Ina was, omnium Episcoporum, & Principum, Procerum Comitum, & omnium Sapientum Seniorum & Populorum totius Regni. That under Edmund the Elder was, Concilium magnum Episcoporum, Abbatum, Fidelium Procerum & Populorum. I might adde many more: as that at Becanceld under King Withred A. D. 694.Concil. Brit. p. 182. 189. 318. 327. 336. 340. 344. 428. 534. Episcopis, &c. Ducibus & Satrapis in unum glomeratis. At Clovesho under Kenulphus of Mercia; at Calecyth, at London, at Kingston. Nay, not one can be found by me in the Saxon times, wherein the Bishops are not expresly mention'd. So that if there be such a thing to be found as the Fundamental Contract [Page]of the Nation about the Constitution of Parlaments, I do not question but they have their share in it. Insomuch that Sir H. Spelman makes it his description of the Wittena-Gemot, that in it, as Mr. Petyt observes, Convenêre Regni Principes, tam Episcopi quàm Magistratus, liberique homines; i.e. it was an Assembly of the Three Estates. So that before there were any such things as Baronies, they were an essential part of the English Parlament. And must all this clear and undoubted evidence from the first mention of Parlaments be rejected, because once upon a time, a certain King called a certain Parlament, wherein, upon some Distast between the King and the Clergy, the other Estates continued sitting without them?

[2.] This single Instance about the Parlament under Ed. I. is much misunderstood, as will appear by these considerations.

1. That the Clergy excluded themselves, and were not shut out by the Act of the King and the other Estates. For upon the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. forbidding the Clergy giving any more Subsidies, (which was procured by Archbishop Winchelsee, as our Historians relate) a Parlament being called by Ed. I. at Saint Edmondsbury on purpose for Subsidies, the [Page]Clergy refuse, upon the Pope's prohibition, till they had consulted the Court of Rome; and go away every one to their own homes: notwithstanding which, the King proceeds with the other two Estates, and gets Subsidies from the Laiety. So that the exclusion of the Clergy came from their own voluntary Act; when the King desired no such thing, nor the other two Estates, but were all extremely provoked at this withdrawing of the Clergy. That this Parlament was called purposely for the Subsidy, appears by the Writ still upon Record; wherein the Archbishop is summon'd to appear,Claus. 24 Ed. 1. M. 7. dorso. ad ordinandum de quantitate & modo subsidii memorati.

2. Whereas it is insinuated, that great matters were done, and good Laws passed, when the Clergy were excluded; I find no such thing. It is true, the confirmation of Magna Charta by Ed. I. (which was a great thing indeed) is said, in the Statute-Books, to be done the same year, viz. 25 Ed. I. But that it could not be done in that Parlament, I thus prove. That Parlament was called crast. Walsingh. pag. 18. Thorn. ad A. 1296. Knighton, p. 2491. Matt. West. pag. 428. Animarum; the King appoints another at London crast. Hilarii: where the difference still continuing, he appoints a new Parlament on the day of S. Peter ad Vincula, or Lammasday, [Page] wherein he was reconciled to the Archbishop and Clergy. Then Fealty is sworn to his Son, before his going into Flanders; and the King excused himself as to the great Taxes and Subsidies, on the account of his Wars. While he was about Winchelsea, a Remonstrance is sent to him of the Grievances of the Nation, in the name of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, and the whole Commons of England, wherein they complain of illegal Taxes, and the breach of Magna Charta. The King gives a dilatory answer, and passes over into Flanders. In his absence the People refuse to pay the Taxes, and the Lords combine together, and all things tend to an open Rebellion. His Son Ed. II. calls a Parlament at London, and promises a Confirmation of the Charter, and that no Taxes should hereafter be raised, either on Clergy or Laiety, without their consent. Which being sent over, Edw. I. confirmed it with his own Seal: which was all done within the compass of this year. But he again ratified it in the Parlament 27 Ed. I. So that nothing was done in that Parlament at S. Edmondsbury, but granting a 12th of the Laiety to the King. And when the great Laws were passed, the King and [Page]Clergy were reconciled, and they sate in Parlament. And the Archbishop of Canterbury fell into the King's displeasure afterwards, for being so active a promoter of them. The summe then of this mighty argument is, that the Lords and Commons once granted their own Subsidies, without the concurrence of the Clergy; therefore the Clergy are no essential part of the parlament.

3. The Reason assigned in Keilway's Reports, why the King may hold a Parlament without the Bishops, is very insufficient:pag. 92. viz. because they have no place in Parlament by reason of their Spiritualty, but by reason of their Temporal possessions. The insufficiency of which Reason will appear by two things.

1. That it is not true: as appears by this, that the Clergy are one of the Estates of the Kingdom; and all the Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament.

2. Were it true, it is no good Reason. For why may they be excluded because they sit on the account of their Baronies? Where lies the force of this Reason? Is it because there will be Number enough without them? That was the Rump's Argument against the Secluded Members. [Page] And I hope the Authour of the Letter will not justify their Cause. Or is it because they hold their Baronies by Tenure? So did all the ancient Barons of England: and why may the King hold his Parlament with the other Barons, without the Bishops; and not as well with the Bishops, without the other Barons? Which I do not see how it can be answer'd upon those grounds. Suppose the Question had been thus put, Since all the ancient Lords of Parlament were Barons by Tenure, and Parlaments were held for many Ages without any Barons by Patent or by Writ, why may not the King hold his Parlament after the ancient way, onely with Barons by Tenure? I do not see, but as good a Reason may be given for this, as that in Keilway's Reports. All that I plead for is, that our good ancient and legal Constitution of Parlament may not be changed for the sake of any single Precedents, and rare Cases, and obscure Reports built upon weak and insufficient Reasons.pag. 68. For, as the Authour of the Letter very well saith, Consuetudo Parlamenti est Lex Parlamenti, The constant Practice of Parlaments (and not one single Instance) is the Law of Parlaments. And suppose that Precedent of 25 Ed. I. [Page] as full as could be wished in this case; yet I return the answer of the Authour of the Letter in a like case,pag. 49. This is but one single Precedent, (of a Parlament without Bishops,) against multitudes wherein they were present: it was once so, and never but once. And can that be thought sufficient to alter and change the constant course and practice of Parlaments, which hath been otherwise?

Nothing now remains, but a severe reflexion on the Popish Bishops for opposing the Statute of Provisors, pag. 96. and the several good Acts for the Reformation. But what this makes against the Votes of Protestant Bishops is hard to understand. If he thinks those could not make a good Third Estate in Parlament, who took Oaths to the Pope contrary to their Allegeance, and the interest of the Nation, so do we. If he have a great zeal for the Reformation, so have all true Members of the Church of England, who, we doubt not, will heartily maintain the Cause of our Church against the Vsurpations of Rome, though the heat of others should abate. For did not our Protestant Bishops seal the Reformation with their Bloud, and defend it by their admirable Writings? What Champions hath the Protestant Religion [Page] ever had to be compared in all respects with our Cranmer, [...]idley, Iewel, Bilson, Morton, Hall, Davenant, and many other Bishops of the Church of England? And notwithstanding the hard fortune Archbishop Laud had in other respects, not to be well understood in the Age he lived in; yet his enemies cannot deny his Book to be written with as much strength and judgment against the Church of Rome, as any other whatsoever. I shall conclude with saying, that the Clergy of the Church of England have done incomparably more Service against Popery, from the Reformatition to this day, then all the other Parties among us put together: And that the Papists at this time wish for nothing more, then to see men, under a pretence of Zeal against Popery, to destroy our Church; and while they cry up Magna Charta, to invade the legal Rights thereof, and thereby break the first Chapter of it; and from disputing the Bishops presence in Cases Capital, to proceed to others; and so by degrees to alter the ancient Constitution of our Parlaments, which will unavoidably bring Anarchy and Confusion upon us: from which, as well as Popery, Good Lord, deliver us.

THE END.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The grand question, concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in cases capital stated and argued, from the Parliament-rolls, and the history of former times : with an enquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in Parliament.

Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.

Edition statement

1680

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A61556

ID [STC]

Wing S5594

ID [STC]

ESTC R19869

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12443099

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12443099

ID [VID]

62146

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61556)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62146)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 948:15)

Source

— The grand question, concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in cases capital stated and argued, from the Parliament-rolls, and the history of former times : with an enquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in Parliament., Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699..

Extent

[4], 188 p.

Printed for M.P., and sold by Richard Rumball ...,. London :: 1680.. (Reproduction of original in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library.) (Attributed to Edward Stillingfleet. cf. NUC pre-1956.) (Table of contents: p. [3])

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.