ADDITIONS Answering the OMISSIONS OF OUR Reverend AUTHOR. LONDON, Printed for Edward Berry 1681. ADDITIONS Answering the OMISSIONS, etc. SInce the Doctor thinks to flourish with some of his frivolous Omissions, like running his Sword through me after he had slain me in imagination; To show that I am not quite killed, I shall venture to try the length of his new whetted Animadverting Weapon, and give him a few home thrusts in exchange for his intended ones. Because I find him a gentle, and easy Foe, I shall advise him like a Friend, Frange miser Calamos, vigilataque praelia deal. Your miserable Scribbling pray give o'er, With such polemics vex the World no more. Nor censure every thing as Impertinent, Against Jani, etc. p. 1. unintelligible, and Obscure, that's above the level of your understanding. For proof of his great understanding he taxes three Paragraphs of mine with Obscurity, Ib. p. 113. and 114. and that darkness which is in his own mind. 1. The first is, Jani, etc. p. 26. that the City of London being charged with a Tallage, their Common-Council dispute whether it were Tallagium, or Auxilium, which is there meant of voluntary aid, not due upon the account of their Houses being of of the King's Demeasn, Quid, a new Paragraph. though indeed 'tis then shown that they had several times before been talliated. Quid est quod in hâc Causâ defensionis egeat? I must needs say I take all this to be so plain that I know not which part I ought to add any light to. Is the difference between Tallage and a Voluntary Aid obscure? Or is it not well known that the King's Demeasns only were talliated, and that the City having been talliated, 'twas in vain to urge that they paid only voluntary Aid? But perhaps in the two next the obscurity may lie, and yet, by the Doctor's Art of multiplying faults, they may make three obscure Paragraphs. 2. This explains that part of the Charter, He adds such to Cases, to render it obscure. Simili modo fiat de Civitate London, that is as in all Cases besides those excepted Escuage or Tallage should not be raised but by a Common-Council of the Kingdom, Jani, etc. p. 26. that is of all the persons concerned to pay; so for the City of London, unless the Aid was ordered in Common-Council, wherein they and all other Tenants in chief were assembled, none should be laid upon any Citizens but by the consent of their own Common-Council, Na. So if a sum in gross were laid upon them. and if the Ordinance were only in general Terms, that all the King's Demeasns should be talliated, the proportions payable there should be agreed by the Common-Council of the City. This consists of two parts; First, That where there was not the consent of a Common-Council of all the Tenants in chief, the Citizens might of themselves give a Tallage, which is not in dispute between us, but is with admirable ingenuity turned into an assertion, Viz. To such payment as Tallage. that Cities and Burroughs were not taxed or assessed towards any payments, but by their own Common-Councils, (which is not to be inferred from the privilege of one City, suppose it were so for London, nor can be gathered from my words, which yield that even London might be Taxed or Assessed by the consent of the Common-Council of Tenants) or that they, Against Jani, etc. p. 113. as part of the Common-Council of the Land taxed themselves, which is true; but no man of sense can understand that to be the meaning of this part of the Obscure Paragraph, but that something farther was intended. 2. The second I need not explain since he understands, for all his affected ignorance, Indeed he would take in more places. that after a Tax was imposed upon the City of London the Inhabitants (or those who composed its Council) met to proportion it, so as it might be paid with as much equality as could be. Na. the King did perhaps require a certain sum after a general Ordinance made by the Council of Tenants for a Rationabile auxilium. This he yields to my hand, that they always did if they would, it seems convinced by that Record, which shows that when the Council of the City would not agree to the Sum demanded by the King, 'twas the voluntate omnium Baronum nostrorum Civitatis ejusdem, that the King talliated his Tenants per se, Jani, etc. p. 26. or per Capita, so much upon every head. 3. This clears the last Paragraph which I need not recite, it having no meaning differing from the Record, but if my Record give not sufficient light and strength he, I thank him, according to his usual Courtesy citys one clear enough. Dr. p. 115. Et cum praedicti Cives noluissent intrare finem praedict' trium mille marcarum praedicti Thes. & alii voluerint assidere illud Tal. per Capita. So that till the Citizens refused the the Sum in gross, the King did not Talliate each man in particular. But I am told that this is nothing to my purpose, 'tis strange that he who blames me in other places for not quoting more than is for my purpose, when nothing behind makes against me, should now tax me for not skipping over any part of that Clause which 'twas needful to take and explain entire. To clear up his understanding if possible, though I thought to have left this Task, I will obviate an objection which such as our Answerer may make, that 'tis obscure how the Record of the Common-Council of London's concerning its self about the Charge laid upon the City should explain that part of the Charter which says Simili modo fiat de Civitate London, but surely practice is a good Interpreter of a Law, and there is this further evidence that here is provision for the power of the Common-Council of the City, because that holding in Capite, and being mentioned distinct from all the other Tenants there named in general, it must be for something else, besides that for which 'tis joined with the other Tenants. But Excedimus tenebris in crepusculum, from this obscurity and darkness to be felt by the Doctor's groping hand, we come to broad day light. When in the 39th. H. 3. Provisum fuit per Consilium Regis apud Merton, Against Jani, p. 115. & 117. that he should talliate his Demeasns, though this was after King John 's Charter, which was intended to restrain the King from levying public Taxes without public consent; yet it seems to be plain by the Record that the King by the advice of his Privy Council taxed the City of London, even without the consent of the Common Council of his immediate Tenants, whom he makes the Common-Council for all manner of Aid and Escuage. But it may be said, a Tallage was no public Tax, though the Tax here spoke of, is made no more public than the consent required to charge it; Which consent according to him, was from immediate Tenants only, so that Tallage might be a public Tax as well as any other. And to be sure Scutagium concerning the King's Tenants only, and the Cases in which the King reserved to himself power of taxing without public consent in his sense, relating only to them; the Tax because of tenure must be provided for, as well as other, if any other were there meant by Auxilium, vel Scutagium. Nay, he owns expressly, that according to the Law in King John 's Charter, London and other Cities and burgh's were to be Assessed and Taxed by the Common-Council of the Kingdom. p. 117. & 118. And he makes a reason of that provision, to be the usage in the time of H. 2. for the King to Talliate, or Tax them without such a Council. The Doctor has doubtless the most particular convincing way of reasoning of any man, he says that Law in King John 's Charter intended to restrain the King from levying of public Taxes without public consent: And the reason of this Artice in King John 's Charter is Argument sufficient to prove it: for, mark the weighty reason, H. the Third after this was granted, and Edw. 1st. taxed their Demeasns through England, though not the whole Kingdom by Advice and Consent of their Privy-Councils only until the Stat' de Tallagio non concedendo, That is (as Tallage is confessed to be, a Public Tax) because some of King John's Successors Taxed their Demeasns without public consent. Therefore 'twas provided in King John's time, by way of Prophecy, that no public Tax, Aid, or Escuage should be raised without public consent. So that what was done after, was a moral cause, or occasion of what preceded. 'Twill be said, that the thing that the Doctor went to prove was, that the Common-Council mentioned in the Charter was the Great and Common-Council of the Kingdom, to all intents and purposes. Not that the King was restrained from levying a public Tax without the consent of the Great Council. But surely when he goes to give the reason why the Charter must be taken in such a sense, we are to expect the proof of that, not of something else, quitting the thing to be proved. If I can understand his dark meaning, he was proving that Nullum Scutagium, etc. intended to restrain the King from levying public Taxes without public Consent. That is (to explain what he very obscurely drives at,) the restraint was only from Taxing the whole Kingdom; not from Taxing his Tenants in Chief. And the reason of this Article, p. 118. viz. as taken in this sense, is, that several times after this Charter was granted, Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. Taxed their Demeasns through England, though not the whole Kingdom, by Advice and Consent of their Privy-Councils only, until the Statute De tallagio non concedendo was made 34 E. 1. And both Richard the First and King John had Taxed the whole Kingdom without common Assent, before the grant of Magna Charta. And when he has made good the Premises in this Argument for the meaning of the Article, which will be ad graecas Calendas, then, he may conclude that this Article intended to restrain the King, Na. he should have added only. only from levying of public Taxes without public Consent, not to provide about Escuage, Nullum Scutagium, etc. or Tallage, which none but his immediate Tenants were liable to. And from hence when proved, we might with some more colour and coherence raise the Consequence that the Common-Council mentioned in King John's Charter was the Great and Common-Council of the Kingdom to all intents and purposes. But how that should appear from the mention of Aid, and Escuage only, will be a Question. 'Tis by him observed of Richard the First, Accepit de unaquâque carucatâ terrae totius Angliae sex solidos. But what proof is there from the word accepit, or the collecting of a Tax, ex praecepto Regis, that he took it without public consent? Bracton Lib. 1. cap. 16. I am sure Bracton, as good an Author as the Historian whom he Vouches, tells us Carvage, and such this was, could never be raised but Consensu communi totius regni. But if the King in his Privy-Council might Tax the Kingdom its self, till the making King John's Charter, and was restrained then, I wonder our Reverend Author has made the Constitution of the House of Lords, that is according to him, the whole great Council, to have been no earlier than the 49th. of H. 3. And unless such a Council as is mentioned in that Charter were Constituted before, Nay sometimes he Argues that it was not before, p. 56. how comes it to pass that the Clerus and Populus, which were of the King's Council for making Laws, and giving Taxes, were not till 17. Jo. confined to such of them as were of the Privy-Council, as well as Communitas populi, after Magnates was meant of such people as were Magnates, and Milites, p. 110. & liberè tenentes, besides Barons, were the Tenants in Capite, 112. who by their Acts obliged all that held of them by Knight's Service: 113. that is all the Milites, but not the liberè tenentes. We are taught that in the 6 of King John Tenants in Capite only, Against Jani, etc. p. 125, 126, 127. provided that every nine Knights should find a tenth for the defence of the Kingdom, and that they who were to find them were all Tenants in Military Service. Though the Record shows, that besides the Miles vel Serviens, Alius terram tenens was Charged with this. And he vouchsafes not to take notice of my Argument, that every Knight being bound by his tenure to find a man; if this had not extended to all that had to the value of a Knight's Fee, Jani, etc. p. 225. though not held by Knight's Service, it would have been an abatement of the Services due, and a weakening of the Kingdom. Besides, admit that Tenants in Capite only laid this Charge, and only Tenants by Knight's Service were bound by it, here is such a Commune Concilium of Tenants, as I say King John's Charter Exhibits, and no Charge laid by them upon others. Whereas he should have proved that they did oblige others without their consent. But suppose Tenants only were Charged, why might not the Charge have been laid by Omnes fideles in my sense, as we find Omnes de Regno, taxing Knights Fees only? The Doctor in his Margin gives us an admirable nota, p. 119. that Liberi were Tenants in Military Service, or Gentlemen, Rustici Socagers, possessors or Freeholders in Socages only, which is as much as to say that Freeholders were not Freemen, unless they held in Military Service, and yet a Tenement, or Possession neither added to, Glos. p. 10. or detracted from the person of any man, if free or bond before. But surely Mr. Professor has some colourable proof for his remark here: For that let others judge. Hoveden acquaints us with the manner of collecting a Carvage in the ninth of Richard the First, which was, that in every County the King appointed one Clergyman, and one Knight, who with the Sheriff of the County to which they were sent, Galls Milites. and lawful Knights chose, and sworn to execute this business faithfully, Fecerunt venire coram se senescalos Baronum istius comitatûs, & de qualibet villâ Dominum vel Ballivum villae & prepositum cum quatuor legalibus hominibus villae, sivae liberis, sive rusticis, who were to swear how many Plough Lands there were in every Town. If here liberi, and rustici are not meant for two denominations of the same sort of men, that is ordinary Freeholders, I will leave him to fight it out with Hoveden, since he himself is directly contrary to the old Munk; Hoveden shows us that these Socagers were legales homines, such as chose Juries, and served on Juries themselves, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 36. etc. but our new light is positive that Tenants in Military Service were the only Freemen, and the only legal men. Thus I have done right to his Omissions, So Against Jani. p. 36. passing by nothing which has not received justice before, and shall add some confirmations of what I have taken leave to assert in other places. I had affirmed for one reason why the Doctor could have small assistance from doomsday Book, p. 78. that the Titles whereby men enjoyed their Estates are seldom mentioned there. And if I find by Record a whole County in the Doctor's sense, that is all the Lands of the County enjoyed by descent from before the imaginary Conquest; What will he say in justification of his whymsies upon the Conquest, and the authority he would fetch for it from doomsday Book? He may please to consider, and give a Categorical Answer to this memorable Record. IN placito inter Regem & priorem Ecclesiae de Coventre de annua pensione uni Clericorum Regis, Placita coram Rege Hill. Anno 14 R. 2. Rot. 50▪ warw. ratione nove creationis ejusdem prioris quousque, etc. prior venit & defendit vim & injuriam & quicquid est in contemptu domini Regis, etc. non cognovit Ecclesiam suam beatae Mariae de Coventre fore Ecclesiam Cathedralem nec ipsum priorem tenere aliquid de domino Rege per Baroniam prout pro domino Rege in narratione sua proponitur. Et dicit quod tenet prioratum praedictum ex fundatione cujusdam Leofrici quondam Comitis Cestriae qui prioratum praedictum fundavit tempore sancti Edwardi dudum Regis Angliae progenitoris domini Regis nunc per Cantam suam in haec verba. Anno dominice incarnationis 1043. Ego Leofricus Comes Cestriae Consilio & assensu Regis qui literas suas infrascriptas sub sigillo misit & testimonio aliorum religiosorum virorum tam laicorum quam Clericorum Ecclesiam Coventre dedicari feci, in honore dei & Ecclesiae sanctae Mariae genitricis ejus, & sancti Petri Apostoli & sancte Osburge Virgins, & omnium sanctorum; Has igitur viginti quatuor villas eidem Ecclesiae attribui, ad servitium dei & ad victum & vestitum Abbatis & Monachorum in eodem loco deo servientium, videlicet Honiton Newenham Chaldeleshunt Ichenton Vlston Soucham Grenesburgh Burthenburgh Mersten juxta Avonam Hardewick Wasperton Creastorton Sotham Rugton dimidium Sow Merston in Gloucestriae provincia Salewarpe in Wigorniensi Eton juxta amnem qui dicitur dee in Cestriae provincia Keldesbye & Windwyk in Hamptoniensi provincia Borbach Barewell Scrapstofte Pakinton & Potteres Merston in Leycestrensi provincia. Has autem terras dedi huic Monasterio cum Soca Saca cum telonio & theme cum libertatibus & omnibus consuetudinibus ubique Sicut a Rege Edwardo melius unquam tenui. Cum hiis omnibus Rex Edwardus & ego libertates huic Monasterio dedimus, ita ut Abbas ejusdem loci Soli Regi Angliae sit Subjectus. Ibidem recitatur Charta ejusdem Regis Edwardi quas donationes & concessiones diversi alii Reges confirmaverunt & dicit quod postea per processum temporis nomen Abbatiae praedictae divertebatur in nomen prioratus, eo quod Leofwinus ad tunc ibidem creatus fuit in Episcopum Cestriae & ordinavit per assensum Monachorum ibidem quod Abbatia praedicta ex tunc foret prioratus & quod Superiores ejusdem Ecclesiae forent priores successive in perpetuum, & dicit quod de ipso Leofrico, quia obiit sine herede de corpore suo descendente advocatio Ecclesie predicte tempore Willielm' Conquest' Angliae cuidam Hugoni Comiti Cestriae ut Consanguineo & heredi ipsius Leofrici, Na. this is the Hugh to whom he imagines that William, gave all the Lands of the County of Chester. viz. Filio Erminelde sororis ejusdem Leofrici & de ipso Hugone cuidam Ricardo ut filio & heredi & de ipso Ricardo cuidam Ranulpho ut Consanguineo & heredi, viz. filio Matildis sororis praedicti Hugonis & de ipso Ranulpho cuidam Ranulpho ut filio & heredi & de ipso Ranulpho filio Ranulphi quia obiit sine herede de corpore suo descendente advocatio praedicta simul cum Comitatu Cestre & Huntingdon & aliis diversis Castris Maneriis terris & tenementis cum pertinentis in Anglia & Wallia quibusdam Matildae Mabilliae Ceciliae & Margeriae ut sororibus & heredibus predicti Ranulphi inter quas propertia facta fuit de predictis Comitatibus advocationibus & Castris Maneriis terris & tenementis cum pertinentiis supradictis. Et predicta advocatio Simul cum toto predicto Comitatu Cestriae cum pertinentiis allocata fuit predicte Matilde pro proparte sua in allocationem diversorum aliorum Castrorum Maneriorum terrarum & tenementorum cum pertinentiis praedictis Mabilliae Ceciliae & Margeriae seperatim allocatorum & de ipsa Matilda descendebant predicta advocatio simul cum praedicto Comitatu Cestriae cum pertinentiis post propertiam predictam cuidam Johanni Scot ut filio & heredi praedictae Matildae Qui quidem Johannes Scot advocationem praedictam simul cum praedicto Comitatu Cestriae cum pertinentiis dedit Henrico quondam Regi Angliae filio Regis Johannis & heredibus suis in perpetuum, etc. praedictus prior sine die. This was a Judgement upon solemn Debate and Trial, and it cannot be believed but the Judges, and King's Council so many hundred years ago, knew as much of the right of the Conquest as our Doctor can discover. 'Twill be said notwithstanding this Record, that Hugh had the Confirmation of his Kinsman the Conqueror. Admit he had, he being his Kinsman would either thereby wheedle others in to the like acknowledgement of William's power; Or else having the Government of the County, would do this in compliment to the supreme Governor. But that such Confirmation as to the Lands he had there, and all appendants or appurtenances to them was wholly neeedless, appears in that the Title is laid only in descent, nor does it in the least appear that William either granted or confirmed more than the Comitatus, Government, or Jurisdiction of it, or that more than that was held by the Sword, which the Doctor makes Tenure in Capite. Let him show how, by what manner of tenure his Land was held. Not being aware that so great an Author as the Doctor would have condemned for precarious, Against Jani, etc. p. 89. all that I think I have proved from the Records and Histories which I cite for the foundation of my former Essay, Jani, etc. p. 264. viz. that till the 48. and 49th. H. 3. all Proprietors of Land came to the Great Council without exclusion. ib. p. 264. I had asserted that the probi homines, or bonae conversationis, came to the Great Councils (which in common Intendment is meant of coming as Members) in their own persons, Against Jani, p 4. and when they agreed to it, which was no abridgement of their personal right, they came by Representation, and Election, and every one was there himself virtually by his Deputy, but they often met in vast bodies, and in capacious places, both in the Saxon times, and after William the First obtained the Imperial Crown. (1.) If you'll believe the Chair all this is precariously said, Against Jani, etc. p. 89. without Foundation or Authority; however 'tis granted that I seem to back it with an instance, where I say, The whole body of Proprietors were assembled at Runemede between Stanes and Windsor, at the passing of King John's Charter. The Doctor refers us to p. 106. and 107. of his pretended Answer to Mr. Petyt, to see what this Assembly was, and of whom it consisted; where he proves my Assertion, being all that he there shows is, that there was not time for Writs to issue to choose any Representatives of the Commons, but not a word offered against their being there in their own Persons, having been got together expecting the Kings Answer to their Demands, who appointed a meeting at Runemede. Rot. Pat. 17. Joh. pars unica m. 13. n. 3. ib. m. 23. dorso. The Record saith there were Comites, & Barones, & liberi homines totius regni, or according to that Expounder of more fallible Record Ma. Paris, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 183. p. 127. in Marg. there were the Magnates, which must there be meant of the Nobilitas Major, (unless you take them for the King's friends only, as the great men of the Kingdom elsewhere) these Magnates had drawn to their side, and to that treaty, Vniversam fere totius Regni Nobilitatem, Ma. Paris fo. 244. and this Nobility was so numerous, that they made a vast Army, exercitum inestimabilem confecerunt, and the Records not only show that such as were but liberi homines were there, and parties to the agreement being inter Regem, Comites, & Barones & liberos homines, but the body of the Charter shows that Tenants by other free tenors, besides Knight's service were interested in it. Besides this, the frequent meetings in so wide a place as Runenede called Pratum Concilii, as I observed in the same page, is a strong Argument that vast bodies composed the great Councils in those days, and why Tenants in free Socage were not Members, as well as such as held of Subjects by Knight's service I see no reason, but wait for the Doctors; In the mean while I shall present him with some other Authorities which show that my Assertion was not precarious. (2.) If in the 38th. of H. 3. the Commons, or probi homines were Members of the Great Council by Representatives of their own choice, and degree, there being besides all the Tenants in Capite two chose for every County, Jani, etc. p. 244. Vide amongst other Authorities. Vice omnium & Singulorum, and yet such came in their own persons both before, and after the making of King John's Charter, since which till the 48th. or 49th. of H. 3. no alteration in the way, Jani, p. 51. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61. 66. 2●4. 248. or right of coming is supposed; then it follows that Representations were brought in when the Commons (who might have come in their own persons) agree to it, and there being of the Councils before the Norman times and then, Barones & populus, 'tis not to be doubted but that they came in their Persons if they would, both in the Saxon, and Norman times, especially since William the First did but confirm the Law of the Confessor concerning the power of the Great Council, Rex debet omnia rite facere in regno & per judicium Procerum Regni Leges Par. Ed. in words that showed that all the Members were in those ages styled Peers, such as might come in person, and that inferior Proprietors were Members, the Law of the great Folcmote then received proves beyond all dispute. 3. If besides Barones, Jani, etc. p. 241. and Milites, we find Libere tenentes, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 112. or Fideles in the account of Great Councils before 49 H. 3. we are to suppose, The free Tenants in Scotland, and the Possessionatis in Poland used to be Members of their great Councils without Representation. even without Consideration of the Capacious places of their Assembly, and the multitudes there, that such Proprietors of Land as would, came personally, till a Law or common practice to the contrary be shown, it being according to their natural right, and the natural import of the words; besides the Doctor does not allow of Representations, except the Tenants in Capite who came without Election, Jani, etc. p. 248. & p. 66. were Representatives of the rest. 4. If King John's Charter does not exhibit the full form of our English Great, Jani, etc. throughout. and most general Councils in those days, but, by continuing the rights of every particular place, leaves room for Proprietors of Land to have been Members, as well as Tenants in Capite, than the libere Tenentes, which many Records before the supposed change in the time of H. 3. mention as Members of the Great Councils, were not Tenants in Capite. And as Tenants in Capite came in their own persons for matters concerning their Tenors; So, unless the contrary can be shown, we are to believe that the libere tenentes, not holding in Capite, came in like manner, especially if we consider how mean were some of the Majores Barones, to whom special Writs were to be directed, as he that held part of the Barony of Mulgrave, Communia de Term. Mich. An. 39 E. 3. Rot. 36. penes Rem. R. in scaccario. per servitium millesimae ducentesimae partis Baroniae. Nay I find Norman Darcy, who indeed held several parcels of the Manor of Darcy, which seem to be by several purchases, Penes Rem. Regis in scaccario de Term. Pasche 29 E. 3. Lincoln de Re. Brook tit. exemption. amongst other shares holding Centessimam partem Centessimae Sexagessimae partis Baroniae. The hundreth part of the Hundred, and sixtieth part of the Barony, and yet that he who had only so much was Baro Major appears, in that the Common Law exempted him from being of a Common Jury as holding part of a Barony. Besides the Doctor yields that more than such as are expressly mentioned in the contested Clause, Tenants in Military service of King John's Charter, viz. of Tenants in Capite were Members of the Great Councils, (which he does not always confine to the great Tenants) and some of these were as inconsiderable, and as unfit for Counsellors as the generality of the libere Tenentes; for though he in his sixteen years' search, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 41. could find no less a part of a Knight's Fee, than a twentieth, yet in the last recited Record he may meet with the sixtieth part of one Knights Fee in the Manor of Norton. 5. Being all that were Members of the Great Councils in those times of which our dispute is, Jani, etc. p. 32. 35, 36. 40. 57 62, 63, 64. 66. 185. 219. were Nobles, in which the Doctor and I agree, and the Nobles came in their own Persons, the libere Tenentes, part of the Nobility were personally present. Indeed Corporations holding in Capite might well come by Representation, being they were but as one Noble, and one Tenent, and would have been an unwieldy body to move to Council united as their interest was. (6.) King John's Resignation was void, because 'twas without the consent of the Commons, Sanz leur assent, and to say that this is without the assent of a general Council, Colloquium, or Parliament, in those times when it was done; unless he yield the same sort or degree of men to have been Members of the Great Councils formerly as then, does not take in the full meaning, but is to say nothing, being the Commons manifestly assert their right, as when they declared that they had ever been a Member of Parliament, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 133. and as well Assenters as Petitioners. And what force does it bring to the Doctor's Assertion, that the Commons answer in the same form of Speech conceived by the Barons? ib. p. 140. Which he thinks worthy of great Letters, is that an Argument that the Commons did not think that they ought to have been parties? He himself grants that King John resigned before them that came upon a Military Summons, Against Jani, etc. p. 22, 23, 24. that is (as all who ought to come were concluded by them that came) before all his Barons; wherefore nothing wanted to the Confirmation, but the Consent of the Commons. And if the Commons were then an essential part of the Great Council they might come in Person, Vid. the 12th. head. unless the change in 49 H. 3. can be shown to have been any otherwise than in the bringing in a Representation of them. (7.) By the Charter of H. 1. Jani, etc. p. 34. for the King's dominica necessaria, or de arduis Regni, all the Counties and Hundreds, that is the Freeholders, the Suitors at those Courts were to be summoned to the Great Council, as it had been in the time of the Confessor, when there repaired to the Great Folcmote, or General Council held once a year, all the Peers, Knights, and Freemen, at least Freeholders of the Kingdom. (8.) For demonstration that libere tenentes came to the Great Councils in their own Persons, and as Members; King John before the passing of his Charter, writes to the Milites, & Fideles, (the last of which takes in all the libere tenentes) and tells them that if it might have been done he would have sent Letters to every one of them; wherefore these Members whose right is here acknowledged were single, individual persons; for they could not have been summoned to come by Representation in the case of such particular Writs, or Letters, unless the Representation were settled before the Summons, which is not to be supposed. These Arguments all but the last, which the Doctor has supplied me with, arise out of my former Treatise, and I take it that this which the Doctor has occasioned, will yield a few more without pressing. V. doomsday, etc. (9) Since William the First was no Conqueror, Besides (according to the terms first agreed on) he received the Confessors Laws about this Folcmote. Confutation, p. 33. it follows that the Great Folcmote, or General Council in the Saxon times, where to be sure all Proprietors of Land were to be Members, could not have been turned into an Assembly of the King's Tenants upon the old legal Title, (and without a Conquest there was no other.) And as there must have been a vast number of the Proprietors whom the King's immediate Tenants could not oblige; so they must have been Members of those Councils which laid any general Charge, and that with the same privileges the Tenants in Capite, who came in Person, had. (10.) Though demonstration itself will not satisfy unreasonable men, yet not to mention more I shall urge the Authority of the Legier Book of Ely before cited, Jani, p. 41. (the great Antiquity of the hand writing of which is beyond all exception) to persuade the Doctor that my Notion is far from being precarious; Since that M. S. shows that King Stephen consulted about the State of the Kingdom, not only with the Bishops, Abbots, Monks, and inferior Clergy, but with the Plebs, and they in an infinite number, Concilio adunato Cleri & populi, Episcoporum, atque Abbatum, Monachorum, & Clericorum, Plebisque infinitae multitudinis, etc. de statu Regni cum illis tractavit. This single instance is sufficient to prove that the Primates, Against Jani, p. 62. Primores, Proceres, Magnates, and Nobiles, were not the Constituent parts of Great Councils in the Reigns of W. the 1st. H. 1st. King Stephen, H. 2. R. 1st. according to his restrictive and limited understanding and exposition of these words and phrases, but that the CLERUS and POPULUS (the general words which often comprehend all the Members) signify as well as Great Men, the Common Freeholders, as at this day; nor need I examine his Book any farther: but I hope the Doctor, a man of that known integrity, as his excellent Book expresses him to be, will now make good his promise to be of my opinion, when I should evince that Common Freeholders had this great privilege. p. 62. (11.) The Lords right of answering for their Tenants being founded in the imaginary feudal right, which is made to extend only to Tenants by Knight's Service, the Socagers, being free from that Law, could not be charged without their own consent, and that given by word of their own mouths, if they pleased. (12.) The Authority cited by Mr. Cambden, Jani, etc. p. 248. and approved of by our Author as well as by me, shows that the only change in the Great Council was in leaving out of the special Summons what Earls and Barons the King pleased but the right of all other Barons▪ Against Mr. Petyt, p. 226. ib. p. 228. Confutation, p. as Singular Persons, to share in the Legislature was preserved by the alia illa brevia, by which the Representatives for the Counties came, and being all the Members of the Great Councils, but Citizens and Burgesses, or all such Barons as aforesaid, came before the change in their own Persons, and no new kind of Members were then Created, and yet there was a substantial alteration, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 210. a new Government framed and set up, this alteration must consist in the Commons, or Barones Minores, their being put to Representatives when before they came Personally. (13.) I could bring many Arguments from the Doctor, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 183. & 192. as, besides others, that the Vniversitas Militiae, or qui militare servitium debebant, that is as Record explains, Ma. Paris, the Fideles besides Milites were Members of Parliament, but I may spare farther proof till he gives me fresh occasion. (14.) And possibly then amongst his other marvellous discoveries, I may have time to animadvert a little more largely upon his fancy, Against Jani, etc. p. 34. that the Suitors in the County Court were all Tenants in Military Service, Yet this tenure came in with Will. 1st. except Barons, both in the Saxon and Norman times; by the way you must understand that the Barons were not Tenants in Military Service, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 31. though they held in Capite by Knight's Service. And that William the the First made no alteration of the Government; for Tenants by Military Service, were the only legal men, and the only Members of the Great Council before. But as Tenants in Capite, Glos. p. 26. and their Tenants in Military Service were of the Great Councils in Person, all the Suitors at the County Court, who were according to the Charter of H. 1. qui liberas habent terras, in each County respectively, were there in Person as Members. Though not relating to the foundation of my Essay, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 43. according to him, who makes the Question about the Conquest not directly to reach the Controversy between us, Against Jani, p. 15. I may make a little sport with his Arguing that William 1st. gave whole Counties to his Followers, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 29. under the word Comitatus, that is as he renders it, all the Lands in the Counties, Glos. p. 8. and yet that besides whole Counties, he gave a great proportion of Lands in them. But since he taxes what I lay for the foundation of my Essay for precarious, let's see a little whether he does not render his own so, where it opposes mine. His whole Book in that respect resolves its self into these three Heads; 1. That King John's Charter in affirmance of the Law imposed by William, or in force before, declares that the Tenants in Capite were the only Members of the General Council of the Kingdom. 2. That from thence to the 49 H. 3. the practice or fact was for Tenants only to compose the Great or General Council. 3. That none but Tenants in Capite were Nobles. (1.) If he himself yields that till King John's Charter there was no such Council as one made up only of Tenants in Capite, he thereby renders all under this head precarious, but this he does in two places at least. One where he urges that if the Curia Regis Ordinaria, which I say was the Court of the King's Tenants, Against Jani, p. 46. & 47. and Officers exclusive of others, went off by reason of the Clause in King John's Charter, it certainly went off before it began, that is, such a Court began not before; and agreeable to this, he says, that after the granting of this Charter by King John there were many General, and Great Councils, or Colloquiums summoned by Edict according to the form there prescribed: that is, as he will have it, after that the Tenants in Capite only were summoned to the Great Council, but not before, for than began this form. In another place (though he charges upon me what are his own words) he says King John resigned his Crown the 15. ib. p. 22. & 23. of May in the 14th. of his Reign, and he granted the great Charter of the Liberties three years after on the 15. of June in the 17. of his Reign, Thus p. 48. & 49. he charges Mr. Petyt and me for averring that even Servants who are not in a legal sense people of the Kingdom were Members of the Great Council. and therefore could not resign it in such a Council as was Constituted three years after his Resignation. And 'tis a question whether he asserts not this in a third place, where he affirms that before this Charter the Kingdom had been Taxed by our ancient Kings, and their Privy-Council only. (2.) But in truth he not only yields that the Tenants in Chief were first made the General Council by King John's Charter; My words are in such a Council as this here. but that after that, more than such were Members, Jani, p. 15. which is as much as to say that there was such a Council as this before. p. 118. not only the Tenants in Military Service, of Tenants in Chief, but other ordinary Freeholders. So that he submits himself to be gored by both the horns of that Dilemma enforced in my former Treatise, viz. that King John's Charter was either declarative of the Law as 'twas before, Against Jani, p. 66. Jani, p. 236. or introductive of a new Law. And yields the precariousness of his own vagaries. (3.) But does he not own that the Notion that Tenants in Capite only were Noble, is precarious? Since he yields that no kind of tenure does nobilitate, Glos. p. 10. or so much as make a man free who was not so before according to his Blood or Extraction. Though, according to this, one that held of the King in Chief might have been a Subjects Villain, yet none that held a certain Estate of Freehold could be a Villain, because 'tis contrary to the nature of a Freehold, that it should be so no longer than another pleased, that is only an Estate at will. He will have it that Mr. Petyt is guilty of some horrible Design, Against Mr. Petyt, p. 1. from the effects of which it seems this mighty Champion is to rescue the Government. And for me I am a Seducer, one who would seduce unwary Readers, Against Jani, p. 71. a malicious insinuation, as if I would wheedle to my side a party against Truth and the Government; but whether he who would set aside the evidences for the Rights of the Lords, and Commons, or they who produce them fair, and would render them unquestioned, is guilty of the worst design, the World will judge; and I doubt not, but he has at home a thousand Witnesses, Conscientia mille testes. who, if he will hear their unbyast Testimonies, will inform him whose are the groundless and designing interpretations. Against Mr. Petyt, p. 1. But I must confess they are so weak that these sacred things need very little help to rescue them; ib. especially since their Enemies are so far from agreeing amongst themselves, that 'tis more easy to conquer than to reconcile them. As on Mr. Petyts, and my side, the design can be no other, than to show how deeply rooted the Parliamentary Rights are; So the Doctors in opposition to ours, must be to show the contrary, (a design worthy of a Member of Parliament) and 'tis a Question whether he yields these Rights to be more than precarious. For according to him the Tenants in Capite were the only Members of the Great Council before 49 II. 3. and if others were after, 'twas by Usurping upon the Rights of Tenants in Capite, ib. p. 210. who and not others, ib. 42. when the new Government was set up, How were Cities and Burroughs holding in Capite Represented according to this? began to be Represented by two Knights for every County, out of their own number, and they at first, that is then, Elected their own Representatives; and yet these Tenants in Capite might be set aside if the King and his Council pleased, And how came they ever to be Represented? nor was any power given to others to choose till 10 H. 6. c. 2. which gave no new power, ib. p. 79. and the Lords depend upon the King's pleasure. ib. p. 42. Therefore what the design is, ib. p. 227. & 228. and at whose door the crime of it lies▪ the thing itself speaks, though I should be silent. But for fear he should seduce unwary Readers, I must observe his Artifice in imposing upon them the belief that as it has ever since 49 H. 3. been at the King's pleasure that any Lords came to the Great Council; so the King could of right name to the Sheriff what Representatives for the Counties, Against Mr Petyt, p. 249. Cities and Burroughs he pleased, as he observes in the Margin upon a Record 31 E. 3. but he is not so Candid to observe, that though indeed at that time there was such a nomination, yet that was not to any Parliament, or to make any new Law, or lay any kind of Charge upon the Nation, or particular men; but was a Summons of a Council to advise how what was granted by full Parliament, legally Summoned, might be best answered juxta intentionem concessionis praedictae, and in such Cases the Judges only, who are but Assistants in Parliament, might well be consulted; but pro magnis, & urgentibus negotiis, (as when King Charles the First called the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council of Peers to York, An. 164●. upon the Scotch Rebellion) the King called more to Advise with▪ and the Counsellors might well be of his own Choice. 'Twill be urged that when the King appointed but one for every County, p. 242. 26 E. 3. p. 246. 27 E. 3. they were empowered to consent to what the Communi Consilio contigerit ordinari, and that such a Council made Laws, as the Statute of the Staple made the 21 of E. 3. to which the answer is very obvious, that they made only Ordinances, not Laws, and that these were Magna Consilia, taken in a sense totally different from the Generalia Concilia, or Parliaments, and all this appears above the power and subtlety of our learned Doctor's Evasions, in that the Record cited by himself in the 26 E. 3. calls the Assembly they are Summoned to, Concilium only, and an Act of Parliament in the twenty eight of that King calls what was done in the twenty seven Ordinances, 28 E. 3. c. 13. and that meeting a Great Council, Magnum Concilium; but such a Council it was, and its Resolutions such mere Ordinances (the distinction of which from Acts is well known) that that very next Parliament finds it needful to confirm, and give them the force of a Law. Agreeably to this the Earl Marshal in that grand Case in the 3 H. 6. pleads, Rot. Par. 3 H. 6. n. 12. that though a determination had be made against the said Earl Martial in great Council, though he had be of full age, that might not disherit him without Authority of Parliament, these are uncontrollable evidences, and proofs against him, let him to save the great Credit of his Learning answer them if he can. But who is the new Government-Maker, and new Parliament-Maker, perhaps one might know from himself when he has considered a little better, and then he may think the Government, as 'tis now established, nighly concerned in his Errors. Perhaps 'twill be said I injure this good man in imputing to him a design in relation to the present Government; Since he owns that the most excellent great Council, Against Mr. Petyt▪ p. 229. (and goes to prove it evidently from Records) received its perfection from the King's Authority, and time. But 'tis obvious that its Perfection, must be meant of such its Perfection, as his Book allows, and he would make evident, but what is that? That Lords should, to the time of his excellent discoveries, be Summoned to Parliament, ib. p. 227. & 228. or passed by, at the King's pleasure, and that if the King pleased, he might Summon one Knight for a County, ib. p. 249. one Citizen for a City, one Burgess for a Burgh, and those named to the Sheriff. And this design will be very evident if we observe his airy ambuscade, to return his own phrase, and mere juggle in joining the King's Authority and time together; we think we have something, but by an Hocus Pocus Trick 'tis gone; for admit that its Perfection were such as we say it has at this day, viz. for Lords to come of Right in their own Persons, and that the Commons should send Representatives of their free Choice. Yet let us see what setlement he gives this Great Council, for which purpose we must divide the two Authorities, which sometimes may differ. And (1.) Suppose that though time would preserve that power which the Great Council exercises, a King would hereafter take it all to himself, and make Laws by a Council of his own choosing, or without any. If the Doctor allows this power, doubtless the next Parliament will thank him. (2.) Suppose that without, or against the King's Authority, time only would establish this Great Council, can this be done? He that affirms it surely will be no great friend to Prerogative, nor understands he that Maxim, Nullum tempus occurrit Regi. And one of these must be closed with. 'Twill be objected that I am as injurious to Prerogative in arguing that some Lords may have a Right of Prescription to come to the Upper-House. But I think no sober man will deny that there is a right either from Writs alone, or from Writs as prescribed to, and 'tis strange that it should not be against Prerogative to urge a right from one Royal Concession, and yet it should be to urge it from many; but farther, if they who had no right to come in Person, or be Represented in Parliament, should by colour of Prescription put themselves upon the King for Counsellors, this were derogatory to the Prerogative. But if there be a natural right for Proprietors of Land (with whom some say is the balance of power within this Nation) to be interested in the Legislature, which I 〈◊〉 not affirm. Or if there be such a positive right, not only from the Laws for frequent Parliaments, which suppose such to be Members as had been, but more particularly from the Law received in the 4th. of William the First, Rex debet omnia rite facere in Regno & per judicium procerum Regni. and by positive Law or Custom the King used to send special Writs for some, general for others; the Prescribing to special Writs, which is not of Substance as to the Legislative Interest, is no diminution of Prerogative; because no more in effect is out of the King than was before, which is, that this man should one way or other have a share in the Legislature. If this Solution of mine will not pass I cannot help it, I am sure the Law for a right grounded upon one or more Special Writs of Summons, stands fast, though the reason of it should be above my reach. Having run through a Book so ill-natured to the Government, and so impotent in its settled anger, Above all vid. Title page Against Mr. Petyt, & p. 81. as that which some may think to have no other design, than that of exposing Mr. Petyt and me, the one for Artifice, unhandsome dealing with, and false application of Records, etc. the other amongst other things, for Ignorance, Confidence, and Cheating his Readers; I may hope notwithstanding the disparity of years, and the dignity of his place, to be very excusable in using our Answerer with no more respect. When a man renders himself cheap by his folly, and yet meets with many so weak that they are discipled by him, to notions of dangerous and pernicious consequence to the State. — Ridentem dicere verum, Quis vetat?— In summing up the Product of his many years labours, which my Preface charges him with, perhaps it may be thought that I omitted one considerable Head; however I leave to others if they think fit to add for a seventh. That both Lords, and Commons may be deprived of all Shares, or Votes in making of Laws for the Government of the Kingdom, when ever any future King shall please to resume the Regality. Some perhaps may add an eighth; That the Parliaments are nothing but Magna Concilia, such as are called only to Advise upon what shall be given in direction, but no consent of theirs required to make the King's determination a binding Law. And Vice Versa, every Great Council, such as that called to York, An. 1640. is a Parliament. FINIS.