OCR Text |
Show F 6 a -. L 7 3= 1685. a Time when Arbitrary Power threatnetl the Dellruct-‘oa of the (buff: tution, and which brought about that Revolution, whichloon followed. la that Cafe the Lord Delomero offered a Plea to the JL‘ll‘lltllCl‘tOIi of the Lord High Steward, and the Peers comiirillioned to try him -, but his Plea Was ob- jected to, for want of Counctls Hand to ll'Z, whereupon he prayed to have COuncil afligned him, to put it in Form, and to argue rt, which was agreed to" other}; : be allowed him, if he had them ready 3 the Lord High Steward laying, I} Time appointed they pleaded to the Jurifdrc‘tion of the Court, both as to that particr'lar Cafe they were Cited for, and as to the whole Power Of the Court, by letting, forth the Act of I 6th of Charles the. firft, that enacted, that no fuch the Lord Delamerc inflfli upon hitting his Council heard, it in: not fit for me to re- fnfo hooriizg what they confoy 5 and afterwards, If you infill- 1/p0n it to have tony The Cafe was thus 5 Ring 7on3; the 2d commanded the Univerlity of ("inn/nailed to admit o Popifl to the Degree of Mofler of Arty, which they refitted to do 3 and for that Contempt were cited before the High Commiflion. They appeared by their Vice Chancellor, and eight of their Senate. Whereupon the Vice Chancellor prayed, oml l‘otl Time to mzfim'r, with Leone to put the Aufwcr in Writing, and with Council, onil lg}: tohot Council he plenfm'. At the (hilncilhc'di'd, GOD FORBID THA'l'l SHOULD DENY l'l' l L‘pon which it may be obferved, that tho' this was in the Year I 685. three Years hefire the Court as that ihould be afterwards held. Revolution, Kavery bad Time, yet even EEFFFR TS then Lord High firew- upon it was anfwered, To; My Lord, and then the Matter \Vas taken into Con- ard, Was f0 far from thinking Council criminal to lien 21 Plea to the jnrndie- fidr-ration for a Week : But it appears not by this Cafe, that even that wicked Man, the Chancellor f7EFFFRTS, ever fo much as thought, that thofe Council acted amifs, for advifing or {igning of that, or the former Plea in the Bifhop of London's Cale : Tho' in the lafi Cafe, to the fhame ofthat COurt, ‘7EFFERYTS tion, that it was allowed the l'ritbner to get Couneil who it, anal it was olr ieeted to, for being: Without Council's Hand :, and leall it may be hippoled he might be Guilty of (lonrlenming nnhmrrl, he, even ‘7EFFERTS, in an apparent Horror at fucli a Thing, fays, Cot/forhitl that I/houlcl deny to hem" his ('oiincil l ('1' 12. But if it lhould be objected, that the Pleas in thch two Cafes, were nor to the judges Commitlions, nor to the Being of thofe Courts, but tended Which Plea was received, and read, and when read, the Chancellor f-‘fEFFERT'S alked, if it was framed P Where- pronounced the Judgment of it, which was, That, (no ll'L'll'k of His Maia/ifs and their Lordjhipi‘ DISPLEASUREJhEy thought fit to appoint, that the Vice Choncellar /honltl he thencoforth (loiritiotl of that Ohm. All which appears in the 4th Vol. of the Store Tryolt, from pm. 250. to 259. only to air/l or deprive thofeCourts, ofthejurifdic‘tion ofthole particular Caules, we lhall offer two other Examples. In the Year I 686, two Years before the Revolution, King flower the fecond eroded High Commiflion Courts, and made the Lord Chancellor ‘fEli'FFRT'S and ether Inflruments of Arbitrary Power, whole Names are now infamous, to be the judges thereof, before which Court, by Virtue ofone of thefe (Tom- iiiilhons, the Billiop of London was cited, for not obeying the King's Com- mand to lulpend Dr. Shin-,7, for preaching againfi POperv. When the l'inhnp appeared, he demanded a Copy of their Comniiflion. j‘EFFERRx‘ told him, it was on Record, and to be bought for a Penny in every Coffee-Hoot}: in Town; the Bilbop faid, he had not feen it, and begged fome Time to advife with Council what to anlWer 3 and they, even they, gave him a Week, and in live Days afterwards, he came and begged a Fortnight more, and they alfo gave it to him, to advife with Council. At the Time laft appointed, the Biihop came with four Council, and a Plea ready drawn, to their Jurifdic‘tion, and offered that Plea -, and the Bilhop faid, he was told, That to plcoo'fmh Plea, was a Right every one haa to make Mfg of, when he find: it for his Advantage, and fa yS, my Counctl tell me, That Tour Procoeiliizgr in this Court are (lireélly contrary to the Statute Law, and are here to plead it, if Tour Lord/hi J‘ will oil/nit them. Upon which the Lord Chancellor .‘i‘EFFERl'b‘ faid, W, an"! neither hear Tour Lora/{flan}, nor Tour Council, lVe (m2 fiztiified of tho Legality of Our Conniiiflion. Upon which it may be ohferved, That tho' thofe Council had advifed, figu- q 14. Thefe Authorities, with what is referred to in the Argument of Mr. Van Dom's Council, are a full Proof, that it is by Law the Right of the Sub- ieet to take Exception, either to the jurifdié'cion oftheCourt, or the Commiflion of a Tudge. And if this be the Right of the Subject, how confident is it with the CREAT CHARTER to deny it to him ? It is faid there, Nu/li raga/2imm, nulli dzflbrenms 711/?"1‘11771 vol Refill/n. We will Jory: no Mon, we will (lelo) to no lVIxzn, i7lt/llc‘t‘ or Right. Now this Law was made our Birth-Right (fee My Lord‘Colze's Comment. upon 2d In/l. 56.) And to obferve this Law, not only the King, at His Coro- nation, but all his judges of Common Law, are .or ought to be {worn And if this is the Subjects Right, what Judge, Without Violation of his Oath, can deny it? And how can it, confident With either _Reafon, Law or common Senfe, be termed a CONTEMPT to claim that Right? Or for Coun- cil to fign and file Exceptions in Confequence of that Right P 1 15‘. In the next Place we obferve, that the Suggelhon, in the faid Order, That the Exception deny; the Being of the Suproom Court, is altogether Without Truth and groundlefs. Had the Supream Court no other Foundation than the Judges CommifliOns, there might have beenlome Truth in that Sngaefhon. In fueh Cafe, to deny the Lawfulnefs of their Comnuflions, would be to deny the Being of the Court : But it is well known, that the Being of the ed, and were ready to argue in hipport ofthat Plea to their Jurifdit‘tion, which Supreain Court has a quite different Foundation. was to their COmmiflions and whole Power ‘, yet it does not appear, that even this infamous Chancellor f7‘TFFLRl'S gave them the leall harlh Word, for fo doing (thO', to his perpetual Shame, l'e relhfed to hear the Billiop or his CounCil to that No.1,) but admitted thofe Councrl aliCI‘Wlll‘LlStOIIrfJ‘uf} upon the Merits of the (knife. This appears by Vol. 3. of Xcmm's Hil'tory of Englml fir/(IR 1 16. It WaS, till lately, underflood to have been founded on Ordinances, tinue its l'ein", the lall of which was publilhed in the Supream Court, in the r ago than the Prefencc, Md bV Order, ofthefe Gentlemen,aud bears date no'longe feveral of which have been made from Time to Time, either to give or con- 4S8. (EV. and State Tryolr, Vol. 4. flog. 846. 0‘6. and [liftor'v of the Reim of But fuppofe it 19379 March, in the fixth Year of His prelent Majefly's Reign. ely Imagined, haveilat Tome as to exif't or have its being hr the Common Law, the Stewards, 711, and which feems to be Mr. Chief Juftice's Opinion (fee his Charge to the i i- a I". The fecond of thefe Examples is in the ‘1 car 1687. one year before the Revolution, before the High Commiflioners, Chancellor E'EFFERTS, and other: : - - - - [whole Para- Grand JUrY Of I 5th }'mmmy, i733. peg. 4. Gentlemen, its Being frolm derive not doth graph to] - - - - 710w.) Yet in either Cafe, it ‘ t to |