Wednesday, March 16.
[On the] Bill for the [repair of] Highways.
Sir Courtney Poole.] Near him, several towns have put
this Act in execution for carriages; but then the Carrier informs against them for their highways, in the Exchequer,
which terrifies them from doing it; and in the Exchequer, upon the certificate of two Justices of the Peace,
process is taken of paying their fees; therefore it is but
reasonable that the enquiry should be in the country, and
Colonel Birch.] Meddle not with the weight they are
to carry, for it will be impracticable. It is two wheels
that spoil the ways, more than four. Stint the number
of horses, for they can but draw such a weight; the Carrier must be well befriended by the Constables, not to
have his corn measured, and goods weighed.
Sir Courtney Poole.] Waggons are a great damage to
our breed of horses; for by them fewer horses serve than
when we had none. It discourages navigation; for before we had waggons, we sent most of our goods to London, and fairs, by sea.
Mr Garroway.] In Sussex it is impossible to go double
with horses or beasts; the ruts are so deep, and the hills
so steep, that they are constrained to go sometimes single
in their coaches.
Mr Swynfin.] Waggons have been in use these thirty
years. The stinting the carriage any way hinders trade
much; for before, they could not bring it for a third
cheaper than now, and the good of that doth abundantly recompence the hurt it does the highways. Weak
teams cannot stride the rutts, and strong ones can. The
poor people that carry Birmingham ware cheap, will be
discouraged, and so trade fail; they carry now for threeshillings the hundred-weight in winter.
[Resolved, to allow five horses in length, 113 to 67.]
Thursday, March 17.
[On the Consideration of the public Accounts.
The Commissioners of Accounts were called in about the Prizes.
Twenty-one ships not cleared in the port of Dover.]
Mr Henry Coventry.] The Commissioners of Accounts
have not yet passed judgment; and suppose you find the
Commissioners of the Prizes guilty of a crime, and the
Commissioners of Accounts, after the recess, not guilty,
will it either way be for the honour of this House?
Sir Richard Temple.] The Commissioners of Accounts,
like Juries, find the special matter of the fact to be true,
but return all the judgment to you to proceed upon.
Mr Henry Coventry explains himself.] Shall you, by a vote,
say, "The Commissioners of the Prizes have not cleared
the ships," and the Commissioners of Accounts, "They
have?" Here will be judgment against judgment.
(fn. 1) .] Could wish that the Commissioners came
prepared in their charges; in the mean time the gentlemen concerned suffer in their reputation—Would have
the matter of fact heard that is ready.
Sir Winston Churchill.] Conceives that we can do nothing
in the business, the Commissioners bringing in an account
without a charge. 'Till they give judgment in matter
of accounts, we can give none in matter of crime. The
King was tender in making himself more enemies than
he had, which occasioned the discharge of many ships.
These Commissioners were but substitutes, and if they
have given the Lords Commissioners false accounts of
their actions, they are to answer it to them. But if the
Lords Commissioners of Prizes have approved of what
they have done, the question is then, whether the Lords
have done their duty, and are accountable to you?
Mr Edward Seymour.] Does not blame the Long Robe
to be always for the use of Counsel. Truth lies in a narrow room, and is always naked. If the case be only,
who, and what, you need no Counsel. The jurisdiction
is a distinct one for account for the Exchequer; Crime
and Misdemeanor is your judgment. If the Lords Commissioners must authorise their actions, and you to make
no farther progress, you needed not have made this Act.
Because you cannot charge all persons, will not you proceed upon a particular person? Because you cannot do
all, will you do none? It is complete for you to judge,
though not for the Commissioners to return judgment
into the Exchequer. The Commissioners are ready so
far, as to charge, and the Prize Commissioners, to answer;
so the issue is joined. Possibly the Commissioners of the
Prizes may have a long recess of Parliament in their prospect, and may hope to weather it out.
Sir Robert Howard.] The thing before you is not capable of return to the Exchequer; if you are not now
ready to hear, it is not your reason hinders you, but your
temper. The Act exempts condign punishment from
the Exchequer of that.
Sir Job Charlton.] A post confirmation is as good as a
præ order. Read all the papers, and then judge whether
Counsel is fit to be heard upon the whole; and you may
judge whether the proceedings are just and legal.
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] Though he respects the Commissioners of Accounts, yet would not have any man totally concluded by them; consider what steps are fit
for you to take. He concerns himself as mankind, not
as Long Robe-man. The Emperor that took away
Sanctuary was lost, for want of the horns of the Altar
to fly unto—Would not have these dangerous precedents
upon ourselves. Twenty-five ships discharged without
order, and seventeen with order precedent, but not
without account, from time to time, of the product of
them. If this in civil cases, much more in criminal,
when the matter of fact is reported, why, and wherefore;
if that shall not keep a man from being criminal, there is
no rule of conversation in this world. No man can be
twice indicted; he that has once given an account to the
Law, and his Superior, cannot be called again to account;
this is the Law of the whole world. Now, whether this
discharge does not amount to a legal one, is the question
—He would have Counsel allowed. (Which was agreed to.)
Mr Ayliffe, a Counsel for Sir Thomas Peyton, Sir Fra.
Clarke, and Col. John Strode, Commissioners for the Prizes
of Dover port,] Confesses that they have not punctually followed the instructions, but upon the circumstances
much will depend. These twenty-five ships were dismissed
when the Plague was as hot at Dover as at London, and
the Lords Commissioners were remote, either at Oxford
or Salisbury. The nature of the ships was, either ships
formerly discharged in other ports, and did esteem it as
a crime in them to have detained them till they could have
power from the Lords Commissioners, all which they did
immediately give notice of. But Quis constituit judicem?
Ships brought in probationarily: they have no negative
words that forbid them discharging such ships; but
had they staid for particular directions, it may be the
plague would have left them no men to man them.
Though they may not in stricto jure be justified, yet the
worst of the charge, he hopes, will be double diligence.
By a letter from the Lords Commissioners, it appears,
that the whole management was left to the Sub-Commissioners; and the same in all other cases. Appeals to
the Commissioners of Accounts, whether the Lords Commissioners ever gave them any check in their proceedings.
Not speaking derogatory to any, the Lords Commissioners were the sole judges of the matter, and thought the
Sub-Commissioners care and integrity deserved an acknowlegement, in giving them 100 l. a-piece over and
above all charges. This being so, hopes no farther animadversion, or observation, may be made upon them.
Qui non vetat, jubet.
Lord Brereton.] Hopes that the House will not blame
them; though they are unacceptable to others; and that
though the Lords Commissioners have approved of the
actions of the Sub-Commissioners, yet they are not to be
blamed for not approving.
[The Matter was fully heard at the Bar.]
Friday, March 18.
The Bill against transporting English subjects [prisoners into
parts beyond the seas, was read the second time, and a Proviso
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] If this be a good Bill (for ex
malis moribus bonæ leges) it has the best luck that ever Bill
had. Relegati ad insulas, and no foot of liberty left the
subject. This Bill does not distinguish between imprisonment ad custodiam, and that that may be ad pænam.
As you have declared the Law, he shall have an action at
Law, for his being "detained for any contriving or acting."
It is an unfathomable Clause, without depth; had you
stopped at "damages from the party," &c. Every verdict
from the party disables the defendant from bearing any
office. This is a severity not meant by the Bill, and yet
expressed. You have not left the King any power, and
it is in the power of any man to fly in the King's face,
and turn out any of his officers; and this is the goodmanners of this Bill.
Sir Thomas Lee.] He that is sent to Jersey or Guernsey,
may be sent to Tangier, and so never know what his crimes
are, and no Habeas Corpus can reach him. All conviction must be by a Plebeian Jury, which now they cannot
have—Thinks no danger in it; it does not take away the
King's power at all, but secures the subject.
Sir Robert Atkins.] It is said by the Sollicitor "that the
King has the power already to send a man out of the
kingdom convicted of felony." It is the first time he has
heard it for Law. This Bill takes away the danger we
were under in these times of transportation to Jamaica, &c.
Serjeant Maynard.] Law and Prerogative must stand
together. Suppose a man be kept three years at Tangier,
he cannot help himself, but could wish that the Clause of
"aiding and assisting" was put out.
Sir Thomas Meres.] Prerogative is but a pretence the
Lawyers differ about; it is but a poor request to have
this granted, if it be a retrenching the Prerogative, after
such great aids given by this House.
Sir Anthony Cope.] Would have no man out of the
reach of Westminster-hall.
[The Bill passed, 100 to 99.]
Saturday, March 19.
Counsel upon the Petition of the Company of Wine Merchants, &c. [concerning Brandy] against the Farmers of Excise.] No company of men have abused the King more
than this company of Excise-farmers. They pretend great
service by bringing in the company of Brewers. The
nature of the farm is like a covenant with a tenant; if it
be an ill year, the landlord will abate rent; so that they
are certain gainers. They have got a grant from three
years to three years, and the Law is only determinately,
three years. Thus they cheat the King.
The Law provided that no Farmer should be a Commissioner, nor contra. They get the King to covenant,
that he shall commissionate such persons, some of their
brothers, relations, or friends, and so elude the Law;
and if these serve not, they covenant that, from time to
time, the King shall nominate such as they shall agree
to, and so elude the Law. The King may, by Law,
bring his action in any of his Courts of Westminster, but
for seizures, no where but in the Exchequer. They are
Jury and Judges; and if you plead that the thing depends in the Exchequer, then they over-rule it, and judge
it themselves. 5000 l. a year defaulted in their rent
upon their several pretences. If Brandy is to be entered,
you must do it as strong water, perfectly made; you
shall not land it else, and a lighter was sunk, and lost
upon it. They will have it their own way. Whilst Mr
Papillon's Cause was depending in the Exchequer, yet
nothing would serve them but to appear before their Commissioners, though judgment and verdict in the case.
They give little or no warning for people to defend
Mr Offley.] Such as they nominate shall be Commissioners, and if they die, such as they shall appoint in their
stead shall fill up the Commission; it may be persons not
born, their heirs and executors.
Evidence for the Merchants.] The Farmer ordered him
to receive four pence per gallon, and afterwards caused
him to take eight pence per gallon; and not to pass entry,
unless the Merchant entered, "Brandy, alias strong
Alderman Bucknall.] Would have the Merchants instance any thing that they have done unjustly, in their
Evidence.] Mr Hall, Remembrancer in the Exchequer,
had a counterpart of the Patent of the Farmers of the
Excise brought to him to be inrolled; he finding it interlined, and razed in some places, and a seal defaced,
and the label torn off, did not finish the inrollment, but
left off at "In witness whereof," as appears by the roll,
untill he had compared it with the Patent, which Bucknall
pretended to be in an infectious house; so he never filed
the roll to make it a record.
Mr Sollicitor's examination, returned to the Lords of the
Council, of his servant Hannes, That he did interline
"Brandy and Mum." It was pretended that the King
and Council did give order for it, but he had no reward
for it. Mr Bredon was present, and made no proffer of oath
to the contrary. The Farmers, accusing Mr Sellwood for
negligence in his place, Mr Sellwood affirmed, That the
Clerks intended to make use of the interlineation. The
party was sick, and had swellings, tho' not of the plague.
Mr Sollicitor turned out Hannes with exemplary disgrace.
One St. John said,] That the interlineations were false
orthography, and false English, and a seal broken, and
another put to it.
Mr Ayliffe, a Counsel for the Farmers.] The King appointed the Commissioners of his own grace and favour,
and they are Commissioners all England over. No case
but Mr Papillon's, and the opinion of the Exchequer
only delays, at Mr Papillon's request, to keep the argument alive for this time. They cannot say that any execution of this judgment by the Commissioners was taken
in any case but Mr Papillon's. The allowance of 5000l.
was by the Lords of the Treasury granted; former Farmers had 1000l. Suit is not causeless where there is probabilis causa litigandi. The Farmers were but five, and
the actions were eighty. They thought it impossible to
do any thing by a London jury, so they proposed six
counties; they take three, and the same for the Commissioners. They might reasonably have confidence in a
London Jury, to avoid the unindifferency of the place.
Sellwood corresponded with the persons against whom
informations were, and took things from the file, being
the Farmers Register; so no wonder the Farmers were
attacked then; and if they could have got the Farmers
out, Sellwood should have had 9000l. and besides, to go a
considerable share with those that would be Farmers.
The interlining, and all the practices, will appear to be
from Sellwood, who was particeps criminis. Mr Sellwood
had nothing to lose. Alderman Bredon, a man of an
estate. Leaves the judgment of the probability of it,
for he must lose his ears.
Alderman Bucknall.] The 21,000l. was abated, in consideration of their losses and attendance in the plague-time. Sellwood was the man that sowed difference between him and his partners. The counterpart was in
Hannes's hand, but Sellwood and he were often drunk together; and in Hannes's hand the interlineations were
made, and the seals broken. Several other particulars of
Sellwood's practices against him.
Sellwood contrived the turning the Farmers out. This
Sellwell, or Sellwood, that betrayed his former masters,
would now betray his new ones.
Sellwell answers] He never had a farthing, or premium,
if he did betray them; but being a sworn register, he
thought it his duty to give out copies. The reflections
upon him, so long concealed, why not produced all this
while? Wishes Mr Bucknall might be criminally examined in this business.
Contra.] 'Twas said, by the Counsel, to be for Brandy,
Coffee, Mum, &c. the very liquors they were allowed a
[To proceed on the 21st.]
Monday, March 21.
The Bill for prohibiting foreign Brandy, &c. [was read the
Colonel Birch.] This is a Bill rather to bring in Brandy
by dispensation. The King of France has laid 80 per
cent. upon our commodities, but has forbidden none of
them; let us not provoke him then—He would have
such a charge upon it, without prohibition, at seven or
eight shillings per gallon, which no man can think will
hinder ours, which may be sold for 2s 6d.
Sir Richard Temple.] This is a portable commodity, and
the Custom easily stolen, by putting in Wine at each end
of the cask. This is contrary to Birch's former arguments. Talk of what imposition you please, it will be
stolen if you will make it prohibited—He would have it in
the ordinary course of Law, and not to be decided, as in the
Bill, by Justices of the Peace—Would also have prohibition of clover, and such foreign seed of grass, which
will destroy all our home seed, and carry away much of
Colonel John Stroude.] No man can be assured of the
honesty of the Master of the ship; by forfeiting it, it
forfeits another man's ship, for the fault of the master—
Would have the penalty only upon the Master; the
owner at London knows not what the Master will do in
France. Let any penalty be upon the Master.
Mr Seymour.] He welcomes any thing that comes to
improve your land; but cannot understand how, in the
infancy of a manufacture, we can encourage it by an imposition, to make good that of the customs—Knows not
how to reconcile Birch's arguments, only in point of
Sir Thomas Lee.] Does not find any Acts of retaliation
upon France, for the fame only of burning our commodities. If you lay any sum upon the commodity, by
way of imposition, and forbid the commodity, you are
uncertain of a recompence. The disputes upon the whole
matter will be useless; if you prohibit it, who will adventure to undergo the penalty of the Act? And his gain
will not be great, we affording it at ten groats, or 3s.
per gallon—Likes not the conviction by Justices; we
have too much of that already—Likes not the imposition, but would have a prohibition, and the Bill but
Sir William Thompson.] Every town that has Brewers
in it, will have Stillers, and what a numerous company of officers will you employ, and so create a LandExcise. Most of the ships are not built for trade, but
for hire. The seamen may bring, and unknown to the
Sir Thomas Clifford.] You have left Brandy out of
your Bill, and now would prohibit it quite. It is taken
for granted at the Custom-house, that great imposition
is next to prohibition; and amongst Ambassadors, prohibition of a commodity amounts to an embargo, and
they afterwards make it the ground of a quarrel. Imposition amounting to a prohibition, what will that do but
make the King's Impost as broad as long, if it comes
in any way?
Sir William Coventry.] Here is a popular action in the
case; no restraint to any officer. A troublesome fellow,
the ship being just upon her voyage, may rummage the
ship, and spoil her voyage, and find no Brandy. With
imposition you have a prohibition; if he pays it, it is
so dear, that your home manufacture outsells it. If he
sells without entry, his goods are forfeited; if only by
prohibition, you bring the foreign trade out of the Merchant's hand into the Distiller's. He will say, it is Brandy
not made in France, but made of Wine in England; so
no remedy by distinction—Would have it by imposition.
Sir George Downing.] Never knew a Bill brought in
by a corporation, as this seems to be; never good for the
nation. For the report only of a doctor or two, will
you spoil your own Plantations? Make it as penal as
you will, but do not prohibit it. This looks like an invention to send your seamen to the Dutch, who will be
destroyed without foreign Brandy. The Custom of half
the Brandy is the King's for life, and half for ever; for
two or three years imposition on this, you will take the
King's revenue away for ever.
Sir Robert Howard.] Has no other end in this Bill but
to help our rents. If we drink no Brandy, we shall drink
the more Beer and Ale, if we can wholly keep it out,
though we cannot make it here. For the King's revenue, blanks are left in the Bill, which, with other things,
at the Committee, may be supplied.
Mr Love.] Would have an imposition upon foreign
Brandy, and none upon home; it may in some measure
reach your end.
[The Bill was ordered to be committed.]
Tuesday, March 22.
[The House proceeded to reading of the rest of the Clauses
and Provisos, reported, delivered, and tendered, to be added to
the Bill for rebuilding the city of London.]
Debate about allowance of something out of the imposition on
Coals for rebuilding St Paul's.
Sir John Birkenhead.] Has the particulars in his hand,
and there was not above 8000l. in bank of the money
belonging to St Paul's, whereof 7100l. is spent.
Sir Thomas Clarges.] Affirmed there was 100,000l.
Colonel Titus.] As villages were before cities, so were
Parish-Churches before Cathedrals; therefore your care
should be accordingly.
Lord Cornbury.] Affirms that there is not 700l. left;
there was above 8000l. in bank.
[The Bill, with the several Provisos, &c. was ordered to be
[March 23 and 24 omitted. March 25 the House did not sit.]
Saturday, March 26, 1670.
[Serjeant Charlton reports, from the Committee of Elections,
the state of the case, touching the Election for the Borough of
Tamworth, between Lord Clifford
(fn. 2) and Mr Ferrers; and the evidence on both sides, and precedents as to former usage.
The question was, Whether the right of Election was in the
Bailiffs, and four and twenty capital Burgesses; or in the Populacy and Burgesses at large.
The opinion of the Committee was, That the right of Election was in the Bailiffs, &c. and that Lord Clifford had the majority of voices.]
It was said,] In dark and doubtful things, usage is the
best interpreter. When Mr Ferrers saw the Election lost
by the capital Burgesses, he then, and not till then, admitted of the Popularity.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] All returns must be by charter,
or prescription; there can be no prescription since Queen
Mr Swynfin.] Prescription is only where grants are lost;
a prescription is not from the beginning of the world,
but presumes a grant, though lost.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Argues against the inconvenience
of popular Elections. He would ask any man what is
more popular than the Election of the Knights of the
Shire? If the Law was to be altered, much might be
said both for and against it.
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] State what is clear first, and then
the doubts may be considered the better. All do agree,
that if a charter could be produced that mentions only the
capital Burgesses; if such a charter be, it is void, because
it cannot invade a right of prescription. Utile per inutile
non vitiatur. As if "coram justitiarios Domini regis & alios
præsentes," should entitle the people that stand by to levy
fines. If they have right, by prescription, from the
Conquest to the first of the Queen, you have no return;
if any be, they must be on the record upon the file,
and extant. He has seen returns in the Tower from Edward the first's time; and the returns of Tamworth must
be, unless all the records are burnt. Every franchise is a
ray from the fountain of all Privileges, the King; the
merit of this cause lies wholly in prescription, and lies
not in grant; it would else be extant.
Serjeant Maynard.] Is prescription good only from
Queen Elizabeth? If a Quo Warranto was brought, they
cannot plead by charter, for that mentions no Burgesses
of Parliament. Common right of Election is not in the
corporation, but in the commonalty. In Dims and
Quinzes, viz. Tenths and Fifteenths, granted; Quinzes
paid by the Freeholders, and Dims on the corporations,
because they pay there for their wares. If ten men
have power to send Burgesses to Parliament, shall all be
at the charge? It is said that the charter is burnt. Can
any man say, that the twenty-four Burgesses have sole
power of Election by charter? What needs prescription? Would they have left out of their charter so considerable a thing as capital Burgesses, had they it of ancient right?
Mr Waller.] We are not, in this case, arguing the prudence, but the justice of the thing. If they sent before
the charter, it is but conjectural at the best. The words
of the charter, Aliis chartis progenitorum nostrum. The
Bailiffs presume their right by other charters.
Sir Richard Temple.] If he could not reconcile his affections to his judgment, he would not trouble you in
this business. You have many Burgesses sit here, who,
'till the Long Parliament, sat not till that time, from
Edward I. Many sent up Petitions, by reason of their
poverty, to be exempted, and were excused. This Borough was revived in a very regular time, in Queen Elizabeth's; any custom from Queen Elizabeth, or an hundred
years ago, is good. He that will shake a common right
by prescription, must show you a charter to the contrary.
Of a thousand that chuse Knights of the Shire, it may
be, not forty seal to the indenture. Since 9 Henry III.
no record of any thing. The great men and the small
men are the favourers of the Monarchy; the quatre trois
men (fn. 3) not.
[The House, on a division, agreed with the Committee, and
Lord Clifford was voted duly elected, 90 to 84.]
Monday, March 28.
[Consideration of the Lords Amendments, Provisos, and
Clauses, to be added to the Bill for suppressing Conventicles.]
" Provided that no Peer of the realm shall have his house
searched, but by immediate warrant from his Majesty, under his
Sign Manual, or in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant of the
Sir John Birkenhead.] " Default in form, or other defect whatsoever." The Law against Recusants, 3 Jam. has
these very words in it, they finding so many ways to elude
Sir Richard Temple.] No Law ever said " lack of
form," but " default in form" often. The Justice of
Peace else may convict Robert for Thomas.
Serjeant Maynard.] A man must lie under a conviction,
and no appeal at all; most unreasonable!
Sir Walter Yonge.] That of the Papists was tryal by
Juries, outlawries, &c. but to subject a man to the Judicature of a Justice is hard.
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] This offence is contra pacem; but
by this Proviso he shall neither be attached nor convicted,
and you exempt him wholly from the Law by this Proviso.
[This Proviso was rejected.]
"Provided always, and be it farther enacted, by the authority
aforesaid, that neither this Act, nor anything therein contained,
shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesty's Supremacy in
ecclesiastical affairs, or to destroy any of his Majesty's Rights,
Powers, or Prerogatives, belonging to the imperial Crown of this
realm, or at any time exercised or enjoyed by himself, or any of his
Majesty's royal predecessors, Kings or Queens of England; but that
his Majesty, his heirs and successors, may, from time to time, and
at all times hereafter, exercise and enjoy all such powers, and
authorities aforesaid, as fully and as amply as himself, or any of
his predecessors, have or might have done the same; any thing
in this Act, or any other Law, Statute, or Usage to the contrary
notwithstanding (fn. 4) .
[The words printed in Italics, were rejected by the Commons,
122 to 68.]
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] This Proviso is not fit to pass, as
it is tendered. It is a reassumption of all Laws since the
Conquest; it revives the Court of Wards, and the Tenures, &c. Cannot think that when this Proviso was
made, it was so intended. He is not against the King's
Supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, but would not have it
part of this Bill—It needs it not; this being only to keep
people quiet—Believes that the Lords, in a Conference,
will be in pain to hear your reasons against it.
Serjeant Maynard.] That there is no occasion for this
Proviso at all in this Bill, you will all think that made
the Bill. Can any man tell what tryal any had before
Magna Charta? The King could afforest any man's
lands, &c. This, at one clap, takes away all the graces
and favours we ever have had by Law.
Sir Richard Temple.] Here being no Proviso for the
foreign Churches in this Bill, you send away all foreigners
from us—Would have the King to have power there by
a Proviso for his Royal Prerogative.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Amendment of the Lords amendments of our Bill—Nothing so frequent.—He suspects
his own understanding, when he is against a thing of this
nature, and which comes from the Lords, the Judges
present. This Proviso is a giving away all that has ever
been given us; he stands astonished at it; knows not
what to call it (it is Bell and the Dragon) nor what it is.
He would have the Supremacy kept in, and us as far to
recognize the Supremacy as any body; he that has taken
the oath of Supremacy ought to be as forward as any.
Say some, has the King this power? He has it, if not
abridged by any Statute. Never heard any man say he
was against religious meetings; the Bill is not at all ecclesiastical, it is purely a civil Bill to keep all in quiet.
Sir John Birkenhead.] The French and Dutch Churches
are provided for in this Act; "no person of the age of
sixteen, being no foreigner," so they are not included in
Sir Robert Howard.] Craves leave to be against the
learned men, though he much suspects his judgment in
it. What do the French and Dutch Churches sit quiet by?
It is a Dispensation, and no other way. Now he would
ask any learned man, should the King's hands be tied in
this case? Lord Coke calls Dispensation from the King,
Propter impossibilitatem. Are we sure the thing will need
no ease nor relaxation? The King lets the Acts be executed. Here are, it may be, forty or fifty considerable
men, that may bring all the rest off. We must argue
either as Gods or men. Et propter impossibilitatem videntem. There may be such a case, and so we may argue
upon it. "Usage, or Law, to the contrary"—If any
other Law has been to the contrary, it is fit he had the
power again. The Jews allowed it; witness their Proselytes. Queen Elizabeth allowed Laymen to preach, (the
Sheriff of Oxford's Sermon) propter impossibilitatem, &c.
We restore the King to what he had before, and no
Mr Steward.] Why should not this ingredient be put
into all Acts of Parliament? For the foreign Churches
he would have a Proviso by itself, and that in foreign
Sir John Duncombe.] If the King has a power of Dispensation, he has it without this Proviso—He agrees to
the first Clause of it, and as for the second, we may debate it.
Sir Winston Churchill.] Thinks it necessary to recognize
the King's Supremacy now. It is not whether his ecclesiastical right be infringed, but whether the King thinks so
or no. Any gentleman may prefer a Proviso in this
House to any Bill for himself. The Lords, the two
States, have thought this requisite; the Lords think the
Supremacy in question, and they advise it. He cannot
give his Negative 'till he hears the Lords reasons.
Sir William Coventry.] Readily assents to the first part of
the Clause; but as for "have or might have exercised,"
if you pass this latter part, you repeal more acts than
any man can repeal. It concerns the Church in all respects that you can imagine. Either there is no use of it,
or it restrains those Laws you have in use. Erasmus said of
England, in Hen. VIII's time, "That it was a strange country, where the Protestants were burnt, and the Papists
were hanged." Should we come in succession to the government of a foreigner, out of our line of Kings, shall
we put this power into his hands? Were the particulars set down in the Act, we knew what we had to do.
Let the King's Supremacy be set down in the very words
of the oath; let those words be set down and recognized
in an Act, and not do things in the dark. The foreign
Churches are provided for in the Act of Uniformity.
Mr Waller.] Thinks this a horrible Proviso; like a
precipice, it makes his head run round. It is a strange way
to make a new Law by a Proviso. The Lords usually,
when they send us any extraordinary thing, do it at a
Conference; and is sorry to see all this Session pass without one.
Mr Seymour.] Thinks that this Proviso has that in its
consequence, that was not intended by the Lords—
All Laws take either from the King, or the people—
Thinks that nothing is more requisite, as the nation now
stands, than the first and last part of this Proviso. If one
man make Canons, and another Laws, it will destroy the
Mr Secretary Trevor.] The King has power in greater
matters than this, as in felony, &c.—Would not have
you disarm him in this thing, less in the comparison, but
very great in the consequence.
Sir Philip Warwick.] King James used to say, "That
Moses and Aaron were brethren, and we were happy
that the ecclesiastical Law and the temporal Law were
both in a hand"—Would have the word "notwithstanding" left out.
Sir Thomas Lee.] By 24 Henry VIII. the King stands
in the same Supremacy in both ecclesiastical and temporal affairs. What this Proviso may reach, he knows
not. If you intend this Proviso for no longer than till the
Statutes may be perused, which no man yet tells you
what they are, it is an immense power you give, no man
knows what. The King never knew the want of this before. Could he foresee the bottom of it, if it might be
for a short time—But for perpetuity, the precedent is of
such dangerous consequence, that you may shake Magna
Charta in this Breath.
Sir Robert Howard.] As for letting it be for two or three
years, it is putting the King upon his good behaviour
for that time in his Regency.
Serjeant Maynard.] This Proviso coming in so heterogeneal and inconsistent to the Bill, it must be read
three times before passed. We come here to act nothing
new; we are all sworn; we are bound to the Laws as
long as they are so, and when altered, released. 1 Eliz.
puts fines upon ecclesiastical persons; for us to do this
without a necessity, is the question. Restrain it to the
first and last clause.
Sir Richard Temple.] Every one of us takes the oath
of Allegiance and Supremacy, which implies that we
must make no Laws to the contrary.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Thinks we shall be puzzled when
we come to the Lords at a Conference, if they should
ask us why we will not recognize the King's Supremacy.
Sir William Coventry.] The Managers may readily say,
that this Proviso is a new Law in effect, and no part of
our Bill; but we retain the Supremacy as before in other
Acts. It is said that the Bishops have not agreed; but
should we take that for doctrine, that would in a few
days be made use of in Lord Roos's business (fn. 5) .
Mr Vaughan.] The Law that by this Proviso cannot
be executed, is in effect repealed. The Kings had a Supremacy before Christianity was in England. Will you
have the King to have power to put the Christian Religion
out of England, and take away right of Patronage from
Sir Thomas Osborne.] Should have been satisfied if any
man could tell him, what Laws we repeal in any ecclesiastical affair—Would have the Debate postponed.
[It was referred to a Committee, to consider of the Amendments, &c. and to bring in such Amendments to be made
thereto, as they should see necessary.]
[March 29, omitted.]
Wednesday, March 30.
[An ingrossed Bill sent from the Lords, entitled, "An Act for
Lord Manners, called Lord Roos, to marry again," was read the
second time (fn. 6) .]
Lord Roos.] Desired the House to take his case into
consideration, That he might, by this Bill, be enabled
to marry, that his family might be kept up by his posterity, which otherwise would extinguish. And withdrew.
Mr Crouch.] This Bill is of the highest nature that
any Law can be. How if it be against divine Law?
It is disputable amongst Divines—Would have you send
to the Convocation, to know their judgment.
Sir Richard Barham.] Seconded the motion, the Lords
having the Bishops to consult with, and we have no Divines amongst us.
Sir Charles Harbord.] Never heard that any Members
were to attend the Convocation, as was moved—Would
have it committed, and then argued.
Dr Burwell.] It is expressly against the Law of God.
In the spiritual Courts they judge according to the opinion
of Divines. The Scripture says, that whosoever shall put
away his wife, &c. Now this was in answer to the Jews.
Man and wife shall be one flesh. Asserts that they cannot
marry. Some are Eunuchs born, and some make themselves
so—Moves to have the opinion of Divines.
Sir Courtney Poole.] At this day, it is no time to send
to Divines. Are not you obliged, if they send you word
they are not of this opinion? If we pass it they must
be of our opinion, therefore would not have them sent
The Canon was read at Sir Thomas Allen's Motion.
Sir Fretchville Holles.] You have bastardised all his
children had by her, or [that he] may hereafter have by
her. [In a former Bill.]
Sir John Earnly.] He that married the Queen of Scots
got himself convicted of Adultery, that he might marry
her. This is a business of great weight, and would have
it referred to the Convocation.
Sir Philip Warwick.] Moves to have the Bill committed to the whole House.
Sir Thomas Meres.] There is an upper and lower House
of Convocation; the upper House is above us, and
knows not the method of sending to them.
Sir Edward Thurland.] The whole Western Church is
of the opinion of our Law, that causa adulterii does not
dissolve vinculum matrimonii; though the Eastern differs.
Knows that the Western and Eastern Church have had
great controversy between themselves in it. Mr Selden
has taken much pains in this. We that have made the
four œcumenical or general Councils part of the Law of
England, shall we suddenly leap into this business, which
is of so great weight? You will do Lord Roos the greater
right in deliberation. It is for your honour, and the
good of his cause.
Sir Robert Howard.] Believes that much satisfaction,
as is said, will not be found. Mr Selden says, "it is a
Canon of the Council of Nice."
Sir William Coventry.] It may be, at a Committee,
this may be proposed general for all persons.
Mr. Seymour.] The same reason for a Bill of general
Naturalization, from one Bill for naturalizing one, or a
Sir Thomas Littleton.] Would not have it made a jocular dispute on any side.
Mr Henry Coventry.] Wishes it may be general, if for
the ease of the people.
Sir William Coventry.] Believes it to be no jocular motion—Would be glad to be furnished with an argument,
why it should not be in any man's case as well as Lord
Roos's, and if it be not possible but that the same case
will not vary, and subjects come to you, one by one, at
great charges? Knows no reason but that a poor man
may have a wife as well as a rich man; and therefore if
the thing be made an Act, would have it general (fn. 8) .
Sir Robert Howard.] Thinks that nothing can possibly be a public case like this. He has that charity for
women, that he believes none so bad. To make this a
public case, you must convict a woman of all these adulteries; Lady Roos stands convicted upon known and
proved adulteries—Believes no such case; but he that
may have it, let him have such a Bill.
Sir Charles Harbord.] The worst of whores is a wife-whore.
Sir Philip Warwick.] Finds it against the Law of God
and man; but proceed which way you will, either in a
grand Committee, or select.
Sir Richard Temple.] Every private Bill is from without, and public from within. This being private,
every person may have liberty to come to you, which
in a Committee of the whole House cannot be admitted
Mr Hampden.] You cannot suffer the Committee, either
select or not, to debate the subject-matter, whether a
Bill, or no Bill. That is only for the House.
[The Bill was committed to the whole House, 141 to 65.]
[In the Afternoon.]
Mr Sollicitor Finch's Reasons prepared for Conference,
about the Bill of Conventicles
(fn. 9) .] Every man has more suo
prosequendi. The vast change this Proviso makes, without
any reasons by Conference to dispose us to it, with the nonecessity of it in the Bill; and so much as we agree to is
only out of respect to his Majesty, without any conviction
upon us, that it is any way relating to the Bill. In all Laws
no mention of it, and why in this it should, is strange.
Also to put the Lords in mind that the words are a reassumption of all Laws. This takes away de tallagio non
concedendo, afforesting all lands. It exposes the Peers to
relief of noblemen, to be finable at the King's pleasure.
It sets up all tenures again. The King has, by Law, a
Supremacy; that of 21 Henry VIII. was but a restoration
of what the King had before. No ecclesiastical power
to meet, or make Canons, or promulgate them, without
the King's Leave. No Canons ever bound us from Rome
in the blindest times, unless assented to by the King.
We hope that no obscure thing may be revived by this
Proviso; as the six Articles in Henry VIII. several Acts
of burning, and forfeiture of estate, for offences ecclesiastical, as dissenting to Articles, &c. which by this Proviso we restore to the King, and revive.
[They were approved of by the House, and a Conference desired.]
[Debate on Lord Roos's Bill resumed.]
Sir William Coventry.] As Lord Roos has a great misfortune in the business, so have we in having the business
before us. States the case thus: The best way is to compare inconveniencies, and to take the least. This Bill is
to dissolve it a parte ante. As different from the printed
case, as the King's pardoning murder when done, and
of giving a licence to do it before. Henry VIII. was not
very mealy mouthed in asking things of this nature. He
dissolved his marriages in no such way. He that has read
deepest is in doubt, therefore it is the wisest way to take
the safest side, which is, the opinion of the Church.
We urge against the Sectaries that say, "Your Surplice,
"and other ceremonies of the Church are idolatrous,"
that the Church says no such thing—Thinks Lord Roos
not within the Statute of King James of Polygamy. The
inconvenience is civil effects. Henry VIII. had a surer
way of divorce than by Parliament, which was by death.
Sir William Coventry again.] Would have it general,
that persons may not be put upon new inconveniencies.
"The continuance of the noble family, &c." The Bill
that we shall pass, does not in any whit give more satisfaction in conscience—He wishes Lord Roos may have
better fortune than those that have trod in these steps before him. Here is somewhat national in it; for it is a
thing primæ impressionis, and would not have the honour
of the House exposed in it. Proposes that the Committee may be thus instructed; to leave it to Lord Roos's
conscience, and let the thing be put entirely into Lord
Roos's hand, to convey his lands, honours, or any civil
effects, to whom he pleases, before his death, at any time.
That he may have children, or by adoption may have
them, at any time before his death.
Mr Coleman.] In all Laws of Divorce, the woman is
not deprived of her estate; you are now passing a Law
ad omnem juris effectum; you take away the estate—Would
not have the Bill pass upon the bare saying of some Lords,
that Lady Roos shall have a maintenance.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] If your consciences were not weak
in the former Bill of illegitimating the children, it is not
reasonable they should be in this. The Gospel expressly
says, except for Adultery. If it be doubtful, as Coventry
alleges, it is not plain. The Canons of Edward VI.
are positive in this case; we are backed by both. It is
the practice of all the reformed Churches. The Roman
Church would make it null for the consanguinity. That
Act of the Marquiss of Northampton expressly says, "By
"the Law of God he might marry," and so the thing
is by Law declared already—To Coventry's expedient—
Was ever any such thing offered, as to give leave to a
man to make any one his heir against Law; or that any
man should make an Earl but the King? To the avoiding of sin—We that are married men are more sensible
and seeling in the case than those that are not. At first,
he compared it to murder, &c. and next makes it indifferent, and would have him do that doubtful thing
which you may determine.
Sir John Earnly.] Believes not that divine things can
be enacted in this place—Moves to have the Canon read.
Sir William Coventry.] Does not wish, as he is accused
of, that Lord Roos would take another woman; but had
rather he took one than he gave him one.
This Debate was in order to instruct the Committee, [and is
not mentioned in the Journal.]
Thursday, March 31.
[In a grand Committee on Lord Roos's Bill.]
Mr Swynfin.] The husband is the complainant and innocent, and shall he be sentenced? It is improper that
he should be part of the sentence. The security of the
bonds is not part of the punishment; for the wife, the
offending party, gives none. It is an advice and monition,
because the divorce of the ecclesiastical Court goes no
farther than a mensa & toro. Their divorce being a limited one, they make a direction in it.
Sir Thomas Littleton.] Birkenhead has told you his
knowledge of divorce, but it is singular.
Sir John Bramstone.] Committees examine the fact, and
then postpone the preamble—Would have the divorce
Sir Charles Harbord.] That is against all proceedings,
for the divorce is supposed by a former Act.
Mr Steward.] Acknowleges it to be the usual method
to postpone the preamble, but to do it here in this case,
you make the inferences before you allow the Proposition.
Sir John Birkenhead.] No Court, except Parliament,
can dissolve marriages, by the Statute Edward III. The
ecclesiastical Court only judges the causes a parte ante,
and to be judged in Court Christian, and no where else.
Mr Seymour.] A Member (Birkenhead) may speak twice
at a Committee, but not one speech twice.
Sir Richard Temple.] The doubting the divorce in the
former Act is more dilatory than reasonable.
Mr Secretary Trevor.] You have no power to throw
out the Bill, as a Committee; you may mend it. The
divorce is supposed, therefore postpone the preamble.
Sir Robert Howard.] Shall we, that have illegitimated
the children, now enquire whether there was a sentence
of divorce, or not? It is either to prove the divorce,
which is already done, or to know whether we have more
power than a spiritual Court—Would have it postponed.
Sir William Coventry.] The whole Bill is built upon
the preamble. He has heard the sentence of divorce
wished for in this House—Would have our own Act rather than the sentence. He would have an authentic
copy from the record, for the Act passing after the divorce, the Act confirms it. In the sentence it is Injungentes & inhibentes. The spiritual Court says, "it is
not lawful to marry," and you have confirmed that sentence by Act. So that this Bill must be a repealing that
Act. This argument had most weight.
Sir Robert Atkins.] No man is bound to remember all
the suggestions in a Bill—Would not have us marry Lord
Roos in spite of his teeth—Would hear it from himself.
Sir Rob. Howard.] Sir Robert Atkins was not in the House,
he supposes, when Ld. Roos twice declared his mind—Moves
to adjourn, and to have the record brought after dinner.
[The House adjourned accordingly.]
In the Afternoon. [The same Debate resumed.]
Sir Richard Temple.] There was a mistake in the morning about the penalty, which he declares plainly to be
sub pœnâ juris, and left to the Law.
Sir Winston Churchill.] The censure is according to the
Canon; for, it may be, a reconciliation may follow;
therefore it is a separation only a mensâ & toro.
Dr Burwell.] The bond is, that he shall not marry—
1 Cor. ii. Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
Sir Robert Howard:] The separation a mensa & toro
was learned only from the Council of Trent.
Sir Charles Wheeler.] Burwell said, "There was a Canon that did expressly say, that the separation was not
a vinculo;" but would have any Canon produced, that
the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, before or
since the Reformation. If so, he wonders why they proceeded no farther in the sentence.
Sir William Coventry.] Was answered, in the morning,
by Clifford, "that it was strange any man should make
"an Earl but the King." If this Act pass, it does make
a new Earl of Rutland, as much as what he offered. He
meant no incroaching upon the Royal Authority, and
would be so understood. He does believe Authors that
quote these Canons. Dr Hammond quotes the Canon of
1597—Would go the safest way, especially when the
Church leads him. If you are going a dangerous way,
and the Church would lead you a safer, sure that is to be
followed—He thinks the House would consent to repeal
the Act of Bastardy, as soon as pass this Bill. "It is
enjoined and inhibited, deterimus & declaramus, that
all those second marriages are nefandum matrimonium,
and are expressly void."
Sir Thomas Clifford.] The King making an Earl, and
the subject getting an Earl, are two things. The Dukes
of Norfolk and Somerset were restored, but you would not
give them power to make Dukes. He is much satisfied
with Dr Hammond, who allowed the Canon, and yet was
of another opinion, and therefore does not lay that weight
and stress upon a Canon, the Doctor not doing it, but
shall lay more upon an Act of Parliament.
Sir William Coventry.] The proposition that he formerly proposed was not extracted from him, but with
thoughts that an expedient might be found out—Presumes Clifford as well versed in the matter, being a
married man, as himself.—Would not be behind hand
wich him in his civility.
Sir Thomas Littleton.] The divorce in the ecclesiastical
Court was as far as they could go, and because they cannot, let us go farther.
Mr Coleman.] We must be satisfied somewhat farther
in matter of fact—Sees no legal proof of the accusation
—Knows not that Lady Roos was ever summoned, and
if so, and in foreign parts, where she could not attend
the sentence, it does not dissolve the marriage, nor [does]
the Act of Bastardy [dissolve it.] He is informed she was
not then heard—Would have her now summoned.
Sir Richard Temple.] It is now a strange thing to call
for proof of an Act of Parliament. Had the gentleman attended, he would have known that she was heard
by her Counsel and witnesses. He wonders to hear a
Lawyer call for an averment against matter of record.
All the Preamble is proved; but if you will do that
over again, it was never done in Parliament. No man
denies the premises, therefore it is fit to proceed upon the
Sir Robert Atkins.] If you find the suggestions in the
Bill not true, you must inform the House. The Bill says
only, "justly divorced for adultery;" it is reasonable to
think, that the House did take it to be a vinculo matrimonii; it supposes that to be done, and so gives him liberty to marry. The question is not, what it ought to
have been, but what it is. It is not intended that we
should do any ecclesiastical Act by our legislative power.
The House ought to be rightly informed, that as yet
there is no other divorce than a mensâ, and then refer it
to the ecclesiastical power to proceed farther, if they
Mr Swynfin.] What need we enquire what kind of divorce this was, whether the one or the other? The House
saw that it was a divorce for Adultery.
Mr Coleman.] To answer Temple—Matter of record may
be vacated by matter of record.
Sir Robert Howard.] Never heard an Act of Parliament so arraigned as in this Debate. The preamble speaks
of an "Adultery," but "Dissolution" is the genuine
matter of the Debate.
Mr Coleman.] If a record recites matter of fact, no
traverse can be; but in many collateral matters it may,
as in case of a Sheriff's making a false return.
[The Preamble was postponed.]
Mr Buller.] Would have the weighty considerations in
the Bill enquired into, what they are. The Lords, it
seems, know them; we do not.
Sir Robert Holt.] Would see the Earl of Rutland's Petition.
Sir Philip Warwick.] If the enacting Clause be no
more than a civil sanction, and that Lord Roos had married, he should not be against it; but he has that reverence for the ecclesiastical Body, that in things dubious,
as this is, he would not take a thorn out of Lord Roos's
side, and put it into his own foot. Our Saviour's responses were not always full to the question. It is a charitable thing to save one person, but if the cock-boat he
is in can hold no more, he must think of himself, and
those with him. He thinks that many talk of antiquity
that have read little in it—Robin Hood's Bow—When it
is considered how many men and women may run into
adultery to void their marriages, we had better have a
mischief than an inconvenience. If it be a civil sanction,
be is for it; if an ecclesiastical, against it.
Sir Charles Harbord.] It is not in our power to make
it any thing but a civil sanction; the conscience part lies
at Lord Roos's door. The Milesian Council, and St Augustine's Recantations for it.
Mr Secretary Trevor.] The sentence has made it adultery in him to come to his wife again. The practice of
all the reformed Churches makes it lawful. The Roman
Church, by dispensation, makes almost all things lawful.
The Lords, by this Bill, make this only a civil sanction;
but the Marquiss of Northampton's case says, "it is by
the Law of God." But this Bill not; it makes it
only a civil sanction.
Mr Steward.] Grotius, Erasmus, Hammond, and Reynolds, make it lawful; yet the Text of Scripture was
a captious question: Except in case of Adultery. The answer is according to the question; but in Mark and Luke,
it is positive that he may. We have all the Evangelists;
but in the time they were written, (they were not all
at a time) no supplement could be from one to another. An infallible interpreter makes Scripture a nose
of wax, but an authentic interpreter must be, which
is the Church. We have different opinions, Council
against Council. The Council of Miliberis, and the Churches
under the Turk, do admit of it. St Augustine and St Ambrose different. Where the thing is controvertible, it is
the safest way not to do it. If you are mistaken in your
judgments, you put him, and engage the nation, in an
adultery. You have the least reason to do it in this of
any case, because here can be no failure of justice in him,
you having delivered him from a spurious issue. If the
wife be barren, or diseased, you may call for such an Act,
for want of posterity, by this precedent.
Sir Charles Wheeler.] The ill consequences are either
subornation or collusion. If suborning, he may bring
witnesses that she has smothered her child, and so may be
rid of her. If by collusion, proving adultery—Scarce such
a thing happens in an hundred years. It is a hard case
to prove adultery. The Jews had tryal by water of innocence, and we formerly by fire. If this Act should
not pass, how many troubles should we have for alimony!
What made us abolish that of death, and introduce a
more mild Law? Either our charity, not to take away
a woman in sin, or out of hopes that she may mend;
but not out of your charity to the woman to do the
highest injustice to the man. He will yield the question, if any man can make out the doctrine of divorce [a mensâ & toro] introduced by unanimous consent [before the Council of Trent.] The Council of
Trent did not anathematise (Temperamentum perquom
subtile—Never heard it said) any thing but such as
contradicted any doctrine dissonant from the Church of
(fn. 10) . Hillaleus and Sammaeus
(fn. 11) , famous Jewish disputants in our Saviour's time. Any manner of uncleanness and adultery different in the old Law. There never
was a divorce made for frigidity, either from the Law of
God or man, but by civil sanction only.—Mr Selden.
"What if Matthew had said nothing, where would the
argument have been?" Answers, The same as if we
dispute about light, if there was no light.
Mr Buller.] Understands that the word was new till
the Council of Trent, and before that time nothing used
but a vinculo; if that appears by books, he assents to the
Sir Richard Temple.] He believes, and therefore speaks.
They tell you that Mark and Luke leave it out, but that
St Matthew mentions it. There is no particular directions of any of the Evangelists to one part of the world
more than another. They may as well say, that For thine
is the kingdom, &c. is not part of the Scripture, because
all the Evangelists mention not that conclusion. Swear
not at all, &c. By this, taken only literally, we shall be
all Quakers. Cannot find, that any Council did absolutely forbid second marriage. Some have encouraged it.
The Fathers opinions various; because they would not allow it to Priests, they would allow it to none else. In
our Church we find it a constant controversy, and we
branding the Church of Rome for it. Dr Willet, Hammond, Hall, and Reynolds, all do write expressly against
—Bellarmine for it. Only one of our Divines, Dr—,
out of scholastical wit, against it in a disputation. Bellarmine brands our Church with it. He says, "that
marriages are made by light of Nature, and so with a
Heathen may be dissolved, but not with a Christian,
because it is a Sacrament." In divorce, you are divorred from all conjugal duty; Can there be a relation
without a duty? Dispensation for Lent allows us to eat
what the Law forbids, which has respect to the brood of
cattle. Cranmer and Ridley, who suffered, were for it,
and so were all the reformed Clergy. Do not condemn
our Church for being tender in this point; the Canons are
allowed that are not directly against Law; the King allows them from the Convocation. There is only caution
in the Canon, to make the people careful.
Sir John Bramstone.] After divorce, the husband makes
title to the wife's land and goods; how could that be, if
the marriage was void and null?
Sir Edward Thurland.] 28 Ed. I. Camois and Paganel's
case (fn. 12) .—The Orators of the Venetians sent to the Council
of Trent, that they had some places of their territory that
were of a contrary opinion. They were anathematised for
contradicting the Council, and not assenting. Amongst
the Jews, they needed no dissolving nor separation, as we
do, for it was punished by death. The divorce a mensâ
was asserted by several higher than the Council of Trent.
Sir John Birkenhead.] Who durst dispute Lord Parr's
divorce by Bill, who had taken off the Duke of Somerset's
head, was Captain of the Guard, and a great man? No
man durst contradict him. How soon he turned Rebel
afterwards, and set up the Lady Jane, you know. The
Commons prepared a Bill then, that the thing should
never be brought into example; but Lord Parr dissolved
them before it could pass.
After a long dispute, Whether candles or none (for upon that
the fate of the Bill would depend) it was carried for candles by
a few voices; the rest of the Debate was soon over, and at ten
of the clock at night the Bill passed [and was ordered back to the
[April 2, omitted.]