THE CASE OF IRELAND's Being BOUND by Acts of Parliament IN ENGLAND, Stated. BY William Molyneux, of Dublin, Esq  
Dublin, Printed by joseph Ray, and are to be Sold at his Shop in Skinner-Row. M DC XC VIII.   

TO THE KING.  
SIR,  
THE Expedition Your MAJESTY Undertaken into England, to Rescue these Nations from Arbitrary Power, and those Unjust Invasions that were made on our Religion, Laws, Rights and Liberties, was an Action in itself so Great, and of such Immense Benefit to our Distressed Countries, that 'tis Impossible to give it a Representation so Glorious as it Deserves. Of all Your Majesty's Kingdoms, none was more Sensible of the Happy Effects thereof, than Your Kingdom of Ireland, which from the Depth of Misery and Despair, is Raised by your Majesty to a Prosperous and Flourishing Condition. And we presume most humbly to Implore the Continuance of Your Majesty's Graces to us, by Protecting and Defending those Rights and Liberties which we have Enjoyed under the Crown of England for above Five Hundred Years, and which some of late do Endeavour to Violate. Your most Excellent Majesty is the Common Indulgent Father of all your Countries; and have an Equal Regard to the Birthrights of all Your Children; and will not permit the Eldest, because the Strongest, to Encroach on the Possessions of the Younger: Especially considering with what Duty, Loyalty, and Filial Obedience, we have ever behaved ourselves to Your Majesty: Insomuch that I take leave to Assert, That Your Majesty has not in all Your Dominions a People more United and Steady to Your Interests, than the Protestants of Ireland: Which has manifestly Appeared in all our Actions and Parliamentary Proceedings, since Your Majesty's Happy Accession to the Throne. To Relieve the Distressed, has ever been the Peculiar Character of Your Majesty's Glorious Family. The United Provinces have found this in Your Famous Ancestors: And all Europe has been Sensible of this in Your Royal Person. To this End more particularly You came into these Kingdoms, as Your Majesty has been pleased to Declare: And as You have Established the Rights and Liberties of England on a Foundation that, we hope, can never be shaken; So we doubt not but Your Sacred Majesty will have a Tender Care of Your Poor Subjects of Ireland, who are Equally Your Subjects, as the rest of Your People.  
Pardon, I most Humbly beseech Your Majesty, my Presumption, in Appealing to You on this Occasion: Nothing but the Dignity and Weight of the Subject, can Excuse my Boldness herein: But if That be Considered, it Deserves the Regard of the Greatest Prince; 'Tis no less than the Rights and Liberties of one of His Kingdoms, on which their Religion, their Property, their All Depends; and which they have Enjoyed for Five Hundred Years past. This, I think, I have clearly shown in the following Leaves: I am sure, if my Management thereof, were suitable to the justice of our Cause, our Friends of England can no longer Doubt it.  
At Your Majesty's Feet therefore, I throw it; and with it the Unworthy Author thereof,  
(May it please Your Majesty)  
Your Majesty's Most Dutiful, Loyal, and Obedient Subject and Servant, William Molyneux.   

PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Have nothing to Offer in this Preface, more than to let the Reader know, how Unconcerned I am in any of those Particular Inducements, which might seem at this juncture to have Occasioned the following Discourse.  
I have not any Concern in Wool, or the Wooll-Trade. I am no wise Interested in the Forfeitures, or Grants. I am not at all Solicitous, whether the Bishop, or Society of Derry Recover the Land they Contest about.  
So that, I think, I am as Free from any Personal Prejudice in this Cause, as 'tis possible to Expect any Man should be, that has an Estate and Property in this Kingdom, and who is a Member of Parliament there in. I hope therefore 'tis a Public Principle that has moved me to this Undertaking: I am sure, I am not Conscious to myself of any other Intention.  
I have heard it has been said, That perhaps I might run some Hazard in Attempting this Argument; But I am not at all Apprehensive of any such Danger: We are in a Miserable Condition indeed, if we may not be Allowed to Complain, when we think we are Hurt; and to give our Reasons with all Modesty and Submission. But were it otherwise, it would not in the least Affect, or Discourage me in an Attempt, where I think my Cause Good, and my Country Concerned, and where I am fully persuaded, the True Interest of England is as Deeply Engaged, as the Protestant Interest of Ireland.  
The Great and Just Council of England freely Allow●… all Addresses of this sort T●… Receive and Hear Grievances is a great part of their Business; and to Redress them, is their Chief Glory. But this is no to be done, till they are laid before them, and fairly Stated for their Consideration.  
This I have endeavoured 〈◊〉 the following Paper. What S●…cess it may have, I am not ve●… solicitous about. I have Done what I thought was my Duty, and Commit the Event to GOD Almighty, and the Wise Council of England.  
Dublin, Febr. 8. 7 1698. W. MOLYNEUX.   

The CASE OF IRELAND's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament IN ENGLAND, STATED.  
I HAVE ever been see 
Introduction, and Occasion of this Disquisition.  fully persuaded of the strict Justice of the Parliament of England, that I could never think that any of Their Proceedings, which might seem to have the least Tendency to Hardship on their Neighbours, could arise from any thing but want of Due Information, and a right State of the Business under their Consideration. The want of which, in Matters wherein another People are chiefly Concerned, is no Defect in the Parliament of England, but is highly unblamable in the Persons whose Affair is Transacting, and who permit that Illustrious Body of Senators to be Misinformed, without giving them that Light that might Rectify them.  
I could never Imagine that those Great Assertors of their Own Liberties and Rights, could ever think of making the least Breach in the Rights and Liberties of their Neighbours, unless they thought that they had Right so to do; and this they might well surmise, if their Neighbours quietly see their Enclosures Invaded, without Expostulating the Matter at least, and showing Reasons, why they may think that Hardships are put upon them therein.  
The Consideration hereof has Excited me to undertake this Disquisition, which I do with all Imaginable Diffidence of my own Performance, and with the most profound Respect and Deference to that August Senate. The present Juncture of Affairs, when the Business of Ireland is under the Consideration of both Houses of the English Parliament, 
* Bishop of Derry in the House of Lords, and Prohibiting Exportation of our Woollen Manufacture in the House of Commons.  seems to require this from some Person; and seeing all Others silent, I venture to Expose my own Weakness, rather than be wanting at this time to my Country. I might say indeed to Mankind; for 'tis the Cause of the whole Race of Adam, that I Argue: Liberty seems the Inherent Right of all Mankind; and on whatsoever Ground any one Nation can Challenge it to themselves, on the same Reason may the Rest of Adam's Children Expect it.  
If what I Offer herein seems to carry any Weight, in relation to my own Poor Country, I shall be abundantly happy in the Attempt: But if after all, the Great Council of England Resolve the contrary, 〈◊〉 shall then believe myself to be ●…n an Error, and with the lowest Submission ask Pardon for my Assurance. However, I humbly presume I shall not be hardly Censured by them, for offering to lay before them a fair State of our Case, by such Information as I can procure; especially when at the same time I declare my Intention of a Submissive Acquiescence in whatever they Resolve for or against what I Offer.  
The Subject therefore of our 
Subject of this Enquiry.  present Disquisition shall be, How far the Parliament of England may think it Reasonable to intermeddle with the Affairs of Ireland, and Bind us up by Laws made in their House.  
And seeing the Right which England may pretend to, for Binding us by their Acts of Parliament, can be founded only on the Imaginary Title of Conquest or Purchase, or on Precedents and Matters of Record; We shall Inquire into the following Particulars.  
(1.) First, How Ireland became a Kingdom Annexed to the Crown of England. And here we shall at large give a faithful Narrative of the First Expedition of the Britain's into this Country, and King Henry the Second Arrival here, such as our best Historians give us.  
(2.) Secondly, We shall Inquire, Whether this Expedition, and the English Settlement that afterwards followed thereon, can properly be called a Conquest? Or whether any Victories obtained by the English, in any succeeding Ages in this Kingdom, upon any Rebellion, may be called a Conquest thereof?  
(3.) Thirdly, Granting that it were a Conquest, we shall Inquire what Title a Conquest gives.  
(4.) Fourthly, We shall Inquire what Concessions have been from time to time made to Ireland, to take off what even the most Rigorous Assertors of a Conquerour's Title do pretend to. And herein we shall show by what Degrees the English Form of Government, and the English Statute-Laws, came to be received among us: And this shall appear, to be wholly by the Consent of the People and Parliament of Ireland.  
(5.) Fifthly, We shall Inquire into the Precedents and Opinions of the Learned in the Laws, relating to this Matter, with Observations thereon.  
(6.) Sixthly, We shall Consider the Reasons and Arguments that may be farther Offered on one side and tother; and shall Draw some General Conclusions from the Whole.  
As to the First, We shall find 
Britain's first Expedition into Ireland.  the History of the First Expedition of the English into Ireland, to be briefly thus: In the Reign of King Henry the Second, Dermot Fitzmurchard, commonly called Mac-Morrogh, Prince of Leinster, who was a Man Cruel and Oppressive, after many Battles with other Princes of Ireland, and being Beaten and put to Flight by them, Applied for Relief to King Henry the Second, who was then busied in Aquitain; the King was not then in such Circumstances as to afford him much Help: However thus much he did for him, By Letters Patents he granted Licence to all his Subjects throughout his Dominions, to Assist the said Prince to Recover his Dominions. These Letters Patents are to be seen in 
* Giraldus Cambr. Hib. Expug. Lib. I. C. 1,  Giraldus Cambrensis, who was Historiographer and Secretary to King Hen. II. and Accompanied him in his Expedition into Ireland, and from him it is that we have this Relation. The Irish Prince brought these Letters into England, and caused them to be Read in the Audience of many People; Beating up, as it were, for Volunteers and free Adventurers into Ireland. At length, Richard Earl of Strigul (now Chepstow in Monmouthshire) Son of Earl Gilbert, called Strongbow, Agreed with him, to Assist him in the Recovery of his Country, on Condition that Dermot should give him his Eldest Daughter in Marriage, and his Kingdom of Leinster after his Death. About the same time Robert Fitz-Stephen, Governor of Aberlefie in Wales, Agreed likewise with Dermot to help him, on Condition that he would grant to him and Maurice Fitzgerald in Fee the City of Wexford, with two canters or Hundreds of Land near adjoining.  
These Adventurers afterwards went over, and were successful in Treating with the Irish, and Taking Wexford, Waterford, Dublin, and other Places. Whereupon Earl Richard Strongbow married Dermots Daughter, and according to Compact, succeeded him in his Kingdom.  
A little after the Descent of these 
Hen. II. comes into Ireland.  Adventurers, King Henry II. himself went into Ireland with an Army, in November 1172. and finding that his Subjects of England had made a very good hand of their Expedition, he obtained from Earl Richard Strongbow a Surrender of Dublin, with the canters adjoining, and all the Maritine Towns and Castles. But Strongbow and his Heirs were to Enjoy the Residue of Dermots Principality.  
King Hen. II. Landed at Waterford 
Irish submit to him.  from Milford in Pembrookshire, and staying there some few days, (says Giraldus Cambrensis) Rex Corcagiensis Dormitius advenit ei, & tam Subjectionis vinculo quam fidelitatis Sacramento Regi Anglorum se sponte submisit. He freely swore Fealty and Subjection to the King of England.  
From thence he went to Lismore, and thence to Cashel, where Dunaldus King of Lymerick, se quoque fidelem Regi exhibuit. The like did all the Nobility and Princes in the South of Ireland.  
Afterwards he marched to Dublin, and there the Princes of the Adjacent Countries came to him, & sub Fidelitatis & Subjectionis obtentu a Rege Pacem impetrabant. Thus Cambrensis in his Hibernia Expugnata; and there he mentions the several Princes that came in, vizt. Macshaghlin King of Ophaly, O Carrol King of Uriel (now Lowth) O Rourk King of Meath, Rotherick O Connor King of Connaught, and Monarch as it were of the whole Island, with divers others, qui firmissimis fidelitatis & subjectionis vinculis Domino Regi innodarunt & in singulari Rotherico Conactiae Principe tanquam Insulae Monarchâ subditi redduntur universi, nec alicujus fere in Insula vel nominis vel ominis erat qui Regiae Majestati & Debitam Domino Reverentiam, non exhiberet.  
The same Relation we have from Roger Hoveden (Annal. parsposter. fol. 301.) About the Kalends of November 1172. (saith he) King Henry II. of England, took Shipping for Ireland at Milford, and Landed at Waterford, & ibi venerunt ad eum Rex Corcagiensis, Rex de Lymerick, Rex de Oxenie, Rex Midiae, & fere omnes Hiberniae Potentes. And a little afterwards in the same place speaking of King Henry the Second being at Waterford, ibidem venerunt ad Regem Angliae omnes Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & abbots totius Hiberniae, & receperunt eum in Regem & Dominum Hiberniae jurantes ei & heredibus suis Fidelitatem & Regnandi super eos Potestatem in perpetuum & inde Dederunt ei Chartas suas. Exemplo autem Clericorum predicti Reges & Principes Hiberniae receperunt simili modo Henricum Regem Angliae in Dominum & Regem Hiberniae, & sui devenerunt, & ei & Heredibus suis Fidelitatem contra omnes juraverunt.  
Matthew Paris likewise in his History speaking of King Hen. II. being in Ireland, saith, Archiepiscopi & Episcopi ipsum in Regem & Dominum receperunt, & ei Fidelitatem & Homagium juraverunt.  
john Brampton Abbot of Iorna●… in his Historia jornalensi, pag. 1070. speaking of Hen. II. hath these words, Recepit ab unoquoque Archiepiscopo & Episcopo Hiberniae Literas cum Sigillis suis in modum Chartae pendentibus, Regnum Hiberniae sibi & Haeredibus suis Confirmantes, & Testimonium perhibentes ipsos in Hibernia eum & Heredes suos sibi in Reges & Dominos in perpetuum Constituisse. All the Archbishops, Bishops, and Abbots of Ireland came to the King of England, and Received him for King and Lord of Ireland, swearing Fealty to him and his Heirs for ever. The Kings also and Princes of Ireland, did in like manner Receive Henry King of England, for Lord of Ireland, and became his Men, and did him Homage, and swore Fealty to him and his Heirs against all Men. And he received Letters from them with their Seals pendent in manner of Charters, confirming the Kingdom of Ireland to him and his Heirs; and Testifying, that they in Ireland had Ordained him and his Heirs to be their King and Lord of Ireland for ever. After which, he returned into England in April following, vizt. April 1173.  
I come now to Inquire into our Second Particular proposed, Viz. 
Ireland whether ever Conquered.  Whether Ireland might be properly said to be Conquered by King Henry the Second, or by any other Prince in any succeeding Rebellion. And here we are to understand by Conquest, an Acquisition of a Kingdom by Force of Arms, to which, Force likewise has been Opposed, if we are to understand Conquest in any other sense, I see not of what Use it can be made against Ireland's being a Free Country. I know Conquestus signifies a Peaceable Acquisition, as well as an Hostile Subjugating of an Enemy. Vid. Spelman's Glos. And in this sense William the First is called the Conqueror, and many of our Kings have used the Epocha post Conquestum. And so likewise Henry the Second styled himself Conquestor & Dominus Hiberniae; but that His Conquest was no violent Subjugation of this Kingdom, is manifest from what foregoes: For here we have an Entire and Voluntary Submission of all the Ecclesiastical and Civil States of Ireland, to King Henry II. without the least Hostile Stroke on any side; We hear not in any of the Chronicles of any Violence on either Part, all was Transacted with the greatest Quiet, Tranquillity, and Freedom, imaginable. I doubt not but the Barbarous People of the Island at that time were struck with Fear and Terror of King Hen. Il's Powerful Force which he brought with him: but still their Easy and Voluntary Submissions Exempts them from the Consequents of an Hostile Conquest, whatever they are; where there is no Opposition, such a Conquest can take no place.  
I have before taken Notice of Henry the Il's using the Style of Conquestor Hiberniae; 
* Mr. Selden will not allow that ever H. 2. used this Style. Tit. Hon. Par. 2. G. 5. Sect. 26.  I presume no Argument can be drawn from hence, for Ireland's being a Conquered Country; for we find that many of the Kings of England have used the Aera of post Conquestum; Edward the Third was the first that used it in England, and we frequently meet with Henricus post Conquestum Quartus, etc. as taking the Norman Invasion of William the First, for a Conquest. But I believe the People of England would take it very ill to be thought a Conquered Nation, in the sense that some impose it on Ireland: And yet we find the same Reason in one Case, as in t'other, if the Argument from the King's Style of Conquestor prevail. Nay, England may be said much more properly to be Conquered by William the First, than Ireland by Henry the Second: For we all know with what Violence and Opposition from Harrold, K. William obtained the Kingdom, after a Bloody Battle nigh Hastings. Whereas Henry the Second received not the least Opposition in Ireland, all came in Peaceably, and had large Concessions made them of the like Laws and Liberties with the People of England, which they gladly Accepted, as we shall see hereafter. But I am fully satisfied, that neither King William the First, in his Acquisition of England, or Henry II. in his Acquest of Ireland, obtained the least Title to what some would give to Conquerors. Tho' for my own part, were they conquerors in a sense never so strict, I should enlarge their Prerogative very little or nothing thereby, as shall appear more fully in the Sequel of this Discourse.  
Another Argument for Henry the Second Hostile Conquest of Ireland is taken from the Opposition which the Natives of Ireland gave to the first Adventurers, Fitz-Stephens, Fitzgerald, and Earl Strongbow, and the Battles they sought in assisting Mac-Morogb Prince of Leinster, in the Recovery of his Principality.  
'Tis certain there were some Conflicts between them and the Irish, in which the Latter were constantly beaten; but certainly the Conquests obtained by those Adventurers, who came over only by the King's Licence and Permission, and not at all by his particular Command (as is manifest from the words of the Letters Patents of Licence recited by Giraldus Cambrensis, Hib. Expug. pag. 760. Edit. Francof. 1603. Angl. Norm. Hiber. Camd.) can never be called the Conquest of Henry the Second especially considering that Henry the Second himself does not appear to have any Design of Coming into Ireland, or Obtaining the Dominion thereof, when he gave to his Subjects of England this Licence of Assisting Mac-Morrogh. But I conceive rather the contrary appears, by the Stipulations between Mac-Morrogh and the Adventurers, and especially between him and Strongbow, who was to succeed him in his Principality.  
From what foregoes, I presume 
Suppressing Rebellions, whether a Conquest.  it Appears that Ireland cannot properly be said so to be Conquered by Henry the Second, as to give the Parliament of England any Jurisdiction over us; it will much more easily Appear, that the English Victories in any succeeding Rebellions in that Kingdom, give no Pretence to a Conquest: If every Suppression of a Rebellion may be called a Conquest, I know not what Country will be excepted. The Rebellions in England have been frequent; in the Contests between the Houses of York and Lancaster, one side or other must needs be Rebellious. I am sure the Commotions in King Charles the First's time, are styled so by most Historians. This Pretence therefore of Conquest from Rebellions, has so little Colour in it, that I shall not insist longer on it: I know Conquest is an hateful word to English Ears, and we have lately seen a Book 
* Bishop of Salisbury's Pastoral Letter.  undergo a severe Censure, for offering to broach the Doctrine of Conquest in the Free Kingdom of England.  
But, to take off all Pretence from 
What Title is obtained by Conquest.  this Title by Conquest, I come in the third Place to inquire, What Title Conquest gives by the Law of Nature and Reason.  
And in this particular I conceive, 
No Title gained by an Unjust Conquest.  that if the Aggressor or Insulter invades a Nation Unjustly, he can never thereby have a Right over the Conquered: This I suppose will be readily granted by all men: If a Villain with a Pistol at my Breast, makes me convey my Estate to him, no one will say that this gives him any Right: And yet just such a Title as this has an Unjust Conqueror, who with a Sword at my Throat forces me into Submission; that is, forces me to part with my Natural Estate, and Birthright, of being governed only by Laws to which I give my Consent, and not by his Will, or the Will of any other.  
Let us then suppose a Just Invader, 
What Title by a Just Conquest.  one that has Right on his side to Attack a Nation in an Hostile manner; and that those who oppose him are in the Wrong: Let us then see what Power he gets, and over whom.  
First, 'Tis plain he gets by his 
None over the Assisters in the Conquest.  Conquest no Power over those who Conquered with him; they that fought on his side, whether as private Soldiers or Commanders, cannot suffer by the Conquest, but must at least be as much Freemen, as they were before: If any lost their Freedom by the Norman Conquest, (supposing King William the First had Right to Invade England) it was only the Saxons and Britain's, and not the Normans that Conquered with him. In like manner supposing Hen. II. had Right to Invade this Island, and that he had been opposed therein by the Inhabitants, it was only the Ancient Race of the Irish, that could suffer by this Subjugation; the English and Britain's, that came over and Conquered with him, retained all the Freedoms and Immunities of Freeborn Subjects; they nor their Descendants could not in reason lose these, for being Successful and Victorious; for so, the state of Conquerors and Conquered shall be equally Slavish. Now 'tis manifest that the great Body of the present People of Ireland, are the Progeny of the English and Britain's, that from time to time have come over into this Kingdom; and there remains but a mere handful of the Ancient Irish at this day; I may say, not one in a thousand: So that if I, or any body else, claim the like Freedoms with the Natural Born Subjects of England, as being Descended from them, it will be impossible to prove the contrary. I conclude therefore, That a Just Conqueror gets no Power, but only over those who have Actually Assisted in that Unjust Force that is used against him.  
And as those that joined with 
None over the Non-Opposers  the Conqueror in a Just Invasion, have lost no Right by the Conquest; so neither have those of the Country who Opposed him not: This seems so reasonable at first Proposal, that it wants little Proof. All that gives Title in a Just Conquest, is the Opposers using Brutal Force, and quitting the Law of Reason, and using the Law of Violence; whereby the Conqueror is entitled to use him as a Beast; that is, Kill him, or Enslave him.  
Secondly, Let us consider what 
Just Conqueror entitled to the Lives of the Opposers.  Power that is, which a Rightful Conqueror has over the Subdued Opposers: And this we shall find extends little farther than over the Lives of the Conquered; I say, little farther than over their Lives; for how far it extends to their Estates, and that it extends not at all to Deprive their Posterity of the Freedoms and Immunities to which all Mankind have a Right, I shall show presently. That the Just Conqueror has an Absolute Power over the Lives and Liberties of the Conquered, appears from hence, Because the Conquered, by putting themselves in a State of War by using an Unjust Force, have thereby forfeited their Lives. For quitting Reason, (which is the Rule between Man and Man) and using Force (which is the way of Beasts) they become liable to be destroyed by him against whom they use Force, as any savage wild Beast that is Dangerous to his Being.  
And this is the Case of Rebels in a settled Commonwealth, who forfeit their Lives on this Account. But as for forfeiting their Estates, it depends on the Municipal Laws of the Kingdom. But we are now Enquiring what the Consequents will be between two Contesting Nations.  
Which brings me to Consider how far a Just Conqueror has Power over the Posterity and Estates of the Conquered.  
As to the Posterity, they not having 
Just Conqueror how far impower'd over the Posterity of the Opposers.  Joined or Assisted in the Forcible Opposition of the Conquerors Just Arms, can lose no Benefit thereby. 'Tis unreasonable any Man should be punished but for his own fault. Man being a free Agent, is only Answerable for his own Demerits; and as it would be highly Unjust to Hang up the Father for the Son's Offence, so the Converse is equally Unjust, that the Son should suffer any Inconvenience for the Father's Crime. A Father hath not in himself a power over the Life or Liberty of his Child, so that no Act of his can possibly forfeit it. And though we find in the Municipal Laws of particular Kingdoms, that the Son loses the Father's Estate for the Rebellion or other Demerit of the Father, yet this is Consented and Agreed to, for the Public Safety, and for deterring the Subjects from certain Enormous Crimes that would be highly prejudicial to the Commonwealth. And to such Constitutions the Subjects are bound to submit, having consented to them, tho' it may be unreasonable to put the like in Execution between Nation and Nation in the State of Nature: For in Settled Governments, Property in Estates is Regulated, Bounded and Determined by the Laws of the Commonwealth, consented to by the People, so that in these, 'tis no Injustice for the Son to lose his Patrimony for his Father's Rebellion or other Demerit.  
If therefore the Posterity of the 
How far over their Estates.  Conquered are not to suffer for the Unjust Opposition given to the Victor by their Ancestors, we shall find little place for any Power of the Conquerors over the Estates of the Subdued. The Father by his Miscarriages and Violence can forfeit but his own Life, he involves not his Children in his Gild or Destruction. His Goods, which Nature (that willeth the Preservation of all Mankind as far as possible) hath made to belong to his Children to sustain them, do still continue to belong to his Children. 'Tis true indeed, it usually happens that Damage attends Unjust Force; and as far as the Repair of this Damage requires it, so far the Rightful Conqueror may invade the Goods and Estate of the Conquered; but when this Damage is made up, his Title to the Goods ceases, and the Residue belongs to the Wife and Children of the Subdued.  
It may seem a strange Doctrine, that any one should have a Power over the Life of another Man, and not over his Estate; but this we find every day, for tho' I may Kill a Thief that sets on me in the Highway, yet I may not take away his Money; for 'tis the Brutal Force the Aggressor has used, that gives his Adversary a Right to take away his Life, as a noxious Creature. But 'tis only Damage sustained, that gives Title to another Man's Goods.  
It must be confessed that the 
Practise of Conquerors otherwise.  Practice of the World is otherwise, and we commonly see the Conqueror (whether Just or Unjust) by the Force he has over the Conquered, compels them with a Sword at their Breast to stoop to his Conditions, and submit to such a Government as he pleases to Afford them. But we Inquire not now, what is the Practice, but what Right there is to do so. If it be said the Conquered submit by their own Consent: Then this allows Consent necessary to give the Conqueror a Title to Rule over them. But then we may Inquire whether Promises Extorted by Force without Right, can be thought Consent, and how far they are Obligatory; And I humbly conceive they Bind not at all. He that forces my Horse from me, ought presently to Restore him, and I have still a Right to retake him: So he that has forced a Promise from me, ought presently to Restore it, that is, quit me of the Obligation of it, or I may choose whether I will perform it or not: For the Law of Nature obliges us only by the Rules she prescribes, and therefore cannot oblige me by the Violation of her Rules; such is the Extorting any thing from me by Force.  
From what has been said, I presume it pretty clearly appears that an Unjust Conquest gives no Title at all; That a Just Conquest gives Power only over the Lives and Liberties of the Actual Opposers, but not over their Posterity or Estates, otherwise than as before is mentioned; and not at all over those that did not Concur in the Opposition.  
They that desire a more full Disquisition of this Matter, may find it at large in an Incomparable Treatise concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government, Chap. 16. This Discourse is said to be written by my Excellent Friend, JOHN LOCKE, Esq Whether it be so or not, I know not; This I am sure, whoever is the Author, the Greatest Genius in Christendom need not disown it.  
But granting that all we have said in this Matter is Wrong, and granting that a Conqueror, whether Just or Unjust, obtains an Absolute Arbitrary Dominion over the Persons, Estates, Lives, Liberties and Fortunes of all those whom he finds in the Nation, their Wives, Posterity, etc. so as to make perpetual Slaves of them and their Generations to come; Let us next Inquire whether Concessions granted 
Concessions granted by a Conqueror, whether Obligatory.  by such a Victorious Hero, do not bound the Exorbitancy of his Power, and whether he be not Obliged strictly to Observe these Grants.  
And here I believe no Man of Common Sense or Justice, will Deny it; None that has ever Considered the Law of Nature and Nations, can possibly hesitate on this matter; the very Proposing it, strikes the Sense and Common Notions of all Men so forcibly, that it needs no farther proof. I shall therefore insist no longer on it, but hasten to consider how far this is the Case of Ireland: And that brings me naturally to the fourth Particular proposed, vizt. To show by Precedents, Records, and History, what Concessions and Grants have been made from time to time to the People of Ireland, and by what steps the Laws of England came to be introduced into this Kingdom.  
We are told by Matth. Paris, Historiographer 
What Concessions have been made from the Crown of England to the Kingdom of Ireland.  to Hen. III. that Henry the Second, a little before he left Ireland, in a Public Assembly and Council of the Irish at Lismore, did cause the Irish to Receive, and swear to be Governed by the Laws of England: Rex Henricus (saith he) 
By Henry II.  antequam ex Hibernia Rediret apud Lismore Concilium Congregavit ubi Leges Angliae sunt ab omnibus gratanter receptae, & juratoriâ cautione prestitâ Confirmatae, Vid. Matth. Paris, ad An. 1172. Vit. H. 2.  
And not only thus, but if we 
Irish Modus Tenendi Parliamentum.  may give Credit to Sir Edward Cook, in the 4th Instit. Cap. 1. and 76. and to the Inscription to the Irish Modus Tenendi Parliamentum, it will clearly Appear, that Henry the Second did not only settle the the Laws of England in Ireland, and the Jurisdiction Eclesiastical there, by the Voluntary Acceptance and Allowance of the Nobility and Clergy, but did likewise Allow them the Freedom of Holding of Parliaments in Ireland, as a separate and distinct Kingdom from England; and did then send them a Modus to Direct them how to Hold their Parliaments there. The Title of which Modus runs thus: Henricus Rex Angliae Conquestor & Dominus Hiberniae, etc. Mittit hanc formam Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus, justiciariis, Vicecomitibus, Majoribus, Praepositis, Ministris & omnibus. Fidelibus suis Terrae Hiberniae Tenendi Parliamentum. In primis Summonitio Parliamenti praecedere debet per Quadraginta Dies.  
And so forth.  
This Modus is said to have been sent into Ireland by Hen. II. for a Direction to Hold their Parliaments there. And the sense of it agrees for the most part with the Modus Tenendi Parl. in England, said to have been Allowed by William the Conqueror; when he obtained that Kingdom; where 'tis altered, 'tis only to fit it the better for the Kingdom of Ireland.  
I know very well the Antiquity of this Modus, so said to be Transmitted for Ireland by Hen. II. is questioned by some Learned Antiquaries, particularly by Mr. Selden 
a Tit. Hon. Par. 2. C. 5. Sect. 26. Edit. Lond. An. 1672  and 
b Against Cook's 4th Instit. C. 76.  Mr. Pryn, who deny also the English Modus as well as this. But on the other hand, my Lord Chief Justice Cook, in the 4th Instit. pag. 12. and 349. does strenuously Assert them both. And the late Reverend and Learned Dr. Dopping Bishop of Meath, has Published the Irish Modus, with a Vindication of its Antiquity and Authority in the Preface.  
There seems to me but two Objections of any Moment raised by Mr. Pryn against these Modi. The One relates both to the English and Irish Modus; the other chiefly strikes at the Irish. He says the Name Parliament, so often found in these Modi, was not a name for the great Council of England known so early as these Modi Pretend to. I confess I am not prepared to Disprove this Antiquary in this Particular: But to me it seems reasonable enough to Imagine that the Name Parliament, came in with William the Conqueror: 'Tis a Word perfectly French, and I see no reason to doubt its Coming in with the Normans. The other Objection affects our Irish Modus, for he tells us, That Sheriffs were not established in Ireland in Henry II's. time, when this Modus was pretended to be sent hither, yet we find the Word Vicecomes therein. To this I can only Answer, That Hen. II. intending to Establish in Ireland the English form of Government, as the first, and Chief step thereto, he sent them Directions for Holding of Parliaments, Designing afterwards by degrees and in due time to settle the other Constitutions agreeable to the Model of England. If therefore England had then Sheriffs, we need not wonder to find them named in the Irish Modus, though they were not as yet established amongst us, for they were designed to be appointed soon after, and before the Modus could be put regularly in execution; and accordingly we find them established in some Counties of Ireland in King john's Time.  
This Irish Modus is said to have been in the Custody of Sir Christopher Preston of Clane in Ireland, An. 6. Hen. 4. and by Sir john Talboi Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, under King Hen. 4. It was Exemplified by Inspeximus under the great Seal of Ireland, and the Exemplification was sometimes in the Hands of Mr. Hackwel of Lincoln's Inn, and by him was Communicated to Mr. Selden. The Tenor of which Exemplification runs thus.  
Henricus Dei Gratia Rex Angliae & Franciae, & Dominus Hiberniae, omnibus ad quos presents▪ Literae pervenerint salutem Inspeximus Tenorem Diversorum Articulorum in quodam Rotulo Pergameneo Scriptorum cum Christopher Preston, Milite Tempore Arrestationis suae apud Villam de Clare, per Deputatum Dilecti & Fidelis nostri johannes Talbot de Halomshire Chivaler locum nostrum Tenentis Terrae nostrae Hiberniae, nuper factae inventorum ac coram nobis & Concilio nostro in eadem terrae nostra apud Villam de Trim. Nono die januarii ultimo praeteriti in haec verba,  
Modus Tenendi Parliament●… Henricus Rex Angliae, Conquestor & Dominus Hibernia, Mittit have formam Archiepiscopis, etc.  
and so as before, Et omnibus Fidelibus suis Terrae Hiberniae Tenendi Parliamentum Imprimis Summonitio, etc. and then follows the Modus, agreeable in most things with that of England, only fitted to Ireland. Then the Exemplification concludes:  
Nos autem tenores Articulorum praedictorum de Assensu praefati Locum tenentis & Concilii praedicti tenore praesentium duximus Exemplificandum & has Literas nostras fieri fecimus Patentes. Teste Praefato Locum nostrum tenente apud Trim. 12 diae Ianuarii Anno Regni nostri sexto.  
Per ipsum Locum tenentem & Concilium.  
Now we can hardly think it credible, (says the Bishop of Meath) that an Exemplification could have been made so solemnly of it by King Henry the Fourth, and that it should refer to a Modus transmitted into Ireland by King Henry II. and Affirm that it was produced before the Lord Lieutenant and Council at Trim, if no such thing had been Done: This were to call in question the Truth of all former Records and Transactions, and make the Exemplification contain an Egregious Falsehood in the body of it.  
The Reverend Bishop of Meath, in his forecited Preface does believe that he had obtained the very Original Record, said by my Lord Cook to have been in the Hands of Sir Christopher Preston: It came to that Learned Prelates Hands amongst other Papers and Manuscripts of Sir William Domviles, late Attorney General in this Kingdom, who in his Life-time, upon an occasional Discourse with the Bishop concerning It, told him that this Record was bestowed on him (Sir W. Domvile) by Sir james Cuffe, late Deputy Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, that Sir james found it among the Papers of Sir Francis Aungier, Master of the Rolls in this Kingdom; and the present Earl of Longford (Grandson to the said Sir Francis Aungier) told the Bishop, that his said Grandfather had it out of the Treasury of Waterford.  
Whilst I write this, I have this very Record now before me, from the Hands of the said Bishop of Meath's Son, my Nephew, Samuel Dopping; and I must confess it has a Venerable Ancient Appearance, but whether it be the True Original Record, I leave on the Arguments produced for its Credit by the said Bishop.  
This I am sure of, that whether 
Parliaments very early in Ireland.  this be the very Record Transmitted hither by King Henry the Second, or not; yet 'tis most certain from the Unanimous Concessions of all the forementioned Antiquaries, Cook, Selden, Pryn, etc. That we have had Parliaments in Ireland very soon after the Invasion of Henry II. For Pryn confesses that 
a Against the 4th Inst. c. 76. p. 249.  King Hen. II. after his Conquest of Ireland, and the General Voluntary Submission, Homages, and Fealties of most of the Irish Kings, Prelates, Nobles, Cities and People, to him, as to their Sovereign Lord and King, Anno 1170, (it should be 1172.) held therein a General Council of the Clergy at Cashal, wherein he Rectified many Abuses in the Church, and Established sundry Eclesiastical Laws, agreeable to those in the Church of England; Ecclesiae illius statum ad Anglicanae Ecclesiae formam Redigere Modis omnibus elaborando; To which the Irish Clergy promised Conformity, and to observe them for time to come, as 
a Togograph Hibern. l 3. c. 18 Hib. Expug. l. 11. c. 33, 34.  Giraldus Cambrensis, who was then in Ireland, and other 
b Hoveden Annal parspost. p. 302. Brampton Chr. Col. 1071. Knighton de Even. Angl. l. c. c. 10 col. 2394, 2395. Pol. Virg. Hist. Angl. l. 13. Radul. de Diceto. Walsingbam, etc.  Histoans, relate: Et ut in singulis Observatio similis Regnum Colligaret utrumque (that is England and Ireland) passim omnes unanimi voluntate communi Assensu, Pari desiderio Regis imperio se subjiciunt, omnibus igitur hoc modo Consummatis, in Concilio habito apud Lismore Leges Angliae ab omnibus sunt gratantur receptae, & juratoriâ cautione praestitâ Confirmatae, says Math. Paris.  
Can any Concession in the 
Original Compact for Ireland.  World be more plain and free than this? We have heard of late much Talk in England of an Original Compact between the King and People of England; I am sure 'tis not possible to show a more fair Original Compact between a King and People, than this between Henry the Second, and the People of Ireland, That they should Enjoy the like Liberties and Immunities, and be Governed by the same Mild Laws, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, as the People of England.  
From all which, It is manifest that there were no Laws Imposed on the People of Ireland, by any Authority of the Parliament of England; nor any Laws introduced into that Kingdom by Henry the Second, but by the Consent and Allowance of the People of Ireland: For both the Civil and Ecclesiastical State were settled there Regiae sublimitatis Authoritate, solely by the King's Authority, and their own good Wills, as the Irist Statute, 11 Eliz. C. 1. expresses it. And not only the Laws of England, but the manner of Holding Parliaments in Ireland to make Laws o●… their own (which is the Foundatio●… and Bulwark of the People's Liberties and Properties) was Directe●… and Established there by Henry the Second, as if he were Resolve●… that no other Person or Persons should be the Founders of the Government of Ireland, but himself and the Consent of the People, who submitted themselves to him against all Persons whatsoever.  
Let us now see by what farther Degrees the Government of Ireland grew up Conformable to that of England.  
About the Twenty-third year of Henry the Second, (which was 
King john made King of Ireland.  within Five years after his Return from Ireland) he created his younger Son john, King of Ireland, at a Parliament held at Oxford. Soon after King john being then about Twelve Years of Age, came into Ireland, from Milford to Waterford, as his Father had formerly done. The Irish Nobility and Gentry immediately repaired to him; but being Received by him and his Retinue with some Scorn and Derision, by reason of their long rude Beards, quas more Patrio grandes habebant & prolixas, (says Giraldus Cambrensis, Hib. Expug. Cap. 35.) they took such Offence thereat, that they departed in much Discontent; which was the occasion of the young Kings staying so short a time in Ireland, as he did this his first time of being here.  
And here, before we proceed any farther, we shall observe, That 
By this Ireland made an Absolute separate Kingdom.  by this Donation of the Kingdom of Ireland to King john, Ireland was most eminently set apart again, as a Separate and Distinct Kingdom by itself from the Kingdom of England; and did so continue, until the Kingdom of England Descended and came unto King john, after the Death of his Brother Richard the First, King of England, which was about Twenty two years after his being made King of Ireland; during which space of Twenty two years, both whilst his Father Henry the Second, and his Brother Richard the First, were living and Reigning, King john made divers Grants and Charters to his Subjects of Ireland, which are yet in being in this Kingdom; wherein he styles himself Dominus Hiberniae, (the constant Style till Henry the Eighth's time) and in others, Dominus Hiberniae & Comes Meritoniae. By which Charters both the City of Dublin, and divers other Corporations enjoy many Privileges and Franchises to this day. But after the said Grant of the Kingdom of Ireland to King john, neither his Father Henry II. nor his Brother King Richard I. Kings of England, ever styled themselves, during their Lives, King or Lord of Ireland; for the Dominion and Regality of Ireland was wholly and separately vested in K. john, being absolutely Granted unto him without any Reservation. And he being Created King in the Parliament at Oxford, under the Style and Title of Lord of Ireland, Enjoyed all manner of Kingly jurisdiction, Pre-eminence, and Authority Royal, belonging unto the Imperial State and Majesty of a King, as are the Express words of the Irish Statute, 33 Hen. VIII. c. 1. by which Statute the Style of Dominus was changed to that of Rex Hiberniae.  
Let us then suppose that Richard the First, King John's Elder Brother, had not died without Issue, but that his Progeny had sat on the Throne of England, in a Continued Succession to this Day: Let us suppose likewise the same of King John's Progeny, in relation to the Throne of Ireland; where then had been the Subordination of Ireland to the Parliament, or even to the King of England? Certainly no such thing could have been then pretended: Therefore if any such Subordination there be, it must arise from something that followed after the Descent of England, to King john; for by that Descent England might as properly be Subordinate to Ireland, as the converse; Ireland being vested in the Royal Person of King john, Two and Twenty years before his Accession to the Crown of England, and being a more Ancient Kingdom than the Kingdom of England. As the English Orators in the Council of Constance, An. 1417 
a Seldens Tit. Hon. Par. 1. C. 8 Sect. 5. Usher Archbibishop of Armagh, of the Religion of the Ancient Irish, Cap. 11.  confessed and alleged, as an Argument in the Contest between Henry the Fifth's Legates, and those of Charles the Sixth King of France, for Precedence: Satis Constat (say they) 
b Act. Concil. Constant. Ses. 28. MS. in Bib. Reg. not in the Printed Acts.  secundum Albertum Magnum & Bartholomeum de Proprietatibus Rerum, quod toto Mundo in tres partes Diviso, scilicet in Europam, Asiam & Africam (for America was not then Discovered) Europa in quatuor Dividitur Regna scilicet, Primum Romanum, Secundum Constantinopolitanum, Tertium Regnum Hiberniae (quod jam translatum est in Anglos) & Quartum Regnum Hispaniae. Ex quo patet, quod Rex Angliae & Regnum suum sunt de Eminentioribus Antiquioribus Regibus & Regnis totius Europae. The Antiquity and Precedence of the King of England, was allo'wd him wholly on the Account of his Kingdom of Ireland.  
Perhaps it will be said, That 
Ireland in what sense Annexed to England.  this Subordination of the Kingdom of Ireland, to the Kingdom of England, proceeds from Ireland's being Annexed to, and as it were united with the Imperial Crown of England, by several Acts of Parliament both in England and Ireland, since King john's time. But how far this Operates, I shall Inquire more fully hereafter; I shall only at present Observe, that I conceive little more is Effected by these Statutes Than that Ireland shall not be Aliened or Separated from the King of England, who cannot hereby dispose of it otherwise than in Legal Succession along with England; and that whoever is King of England, is ipso facto King of Ireland, and the Subjects of Ireland are obliged to Obey him as their Liege Lord.  
To proceed therefore. After both Crowns were united, on the 
King john comes a second time into Ireland. The People submit to him  Death of Richard the First without Issue, in the Royal Person of King john: He, about the Twelfth Year of his Reign of England, went again into Ireland, viz. the Twenty Eight day of june, 1210. and Math. Paris tells us, pag. 220. Cum Venisset ad Dublinensem Civitatem Occurrerunt ei ibidem plus quam 20 Reguli illius Regionis qui omnes Timore maximo preterriti homagium ei & Fidelitatem fecerunt. Fecit quoque Rex ibidem, Construere Leges & Consuetudines Anglicanas, ponens Vicecomites aliosque Ministros, qui populum Regni illius juxta Leges Anglicanas Judicarent.  
His Son King Henry the Third 
Concess●…▪ from Hen. III.  came to the Crown the Nineteenth of October 1216. and in November following he Granted to Ireland a Magna Charta, Dated at Bristol 12 November, the First Year of his Reign. 'Tis Prefaced, that for the Honour of God, and Advancement of Holy Church, by the Advice of his Council of England, (whose names are particularly recited) He makes the following Grant to Ireland; And then goes on Exactly Agreeable to the Magna Charta which he granted to England; only in ours we have Civitas Dublin, & Avenliffee, instead of Civitas London, and Thamesis with other Alterations of the like kind where Needful. But ours is Eight years older than that which he granted to England, it not being till the Ninth Year of his Reign, and ours is the First Year. This Magna Charta of Ireland Concludes thus, Quia vero sigillum nondum Habuimus presentem Cartam Sigillis Venerabilis Patris nostri Domini Gualt. Apost. Sedis Legati & Willelmi Mar eschalli Comitis Pembrooke Rectoris nostri & Regni nostri secimus Sigillari. Testibus omnibus praenominatis & aliis Multis D●…t per Manus Praedictorum Domini Legati & Willelmi Marescalli. Apud Bristol Duodecimo die Novembr. Regni nostri Anno Primo. An Ancient Copy of this Magna Charta of Ireland is to be found in the Red Book of the Exchequer Dublin.  
In February following in the First Year like wise of his Reign, by Advice of all his Faithful Counsellors in England, to gratify the Irish (says 
a Pryn against the 4th Inst. c. 76. p. 250.  Pryn) for their eminent Loyalty to his Father and Him, he granted them out of his Special Grace, that they and their Heirs for ever should enjoy the Liberties granted by his Father and Himself to the Realm of England; which he Reduced into Writing, and sent Sealed thither under the Seal of the Pope's Legate, and W. Earl Marshal his Governor, because he had then no Seal of his own. This as I conceive Refers to the forementioned Magna Charta Hiberniae. The Record as Recited by Mr. Pryn, here follows.  
Rex Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, 
Pa. 1 H. III. m. 13. intus.  Abbatibus, Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus & Libere Tenentibus, & omnibus Fidelibus suis per Hiberniam Constitutis, Salutem: Fidelitatem vestram in Domino Commendantes quam Domino Patri nostro semper Exhibuistis & nobis estis diebus nostris Exhibituri: Volumus quod in signum Fidelitatis vestrae, tam praeclarae, tam Insignis Libertatibus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre nostro & nobis Concessis, de gratia nostra & Dono in Regno nostro Hiberniae guadeatis vos & vestri Haeredes in perpetuum. Quas distinct in Scriptum Reductas de Communi Consilio omnium Fidelium nostrorum vobis Mittimus Signatas Sigillis Domini nostri G. Apostolicae Sedis Legati & Fidelis nostri Com. W. Maresc. Rectoris nostri & Regni nostri quia Sigillum nondum habuimus, easdem processu temporis de Majori Consilio proprio Sigillo Signaturi.  
Teste apud Glouc. 6 Februar.  
Here we have a free Grant of all the Liberties of England to the People of Ireland. But we know the Liberties of Englishmen are Founded on that Universal Law of Nature, that aught to prevail throughout the whole World, of being Governed only by such Laws to which they give their own Consent by their Representatives in Parliament.  
And here, before I proceed farther, 
Record out of Mr. Petyt of the Antiquity of Parliaments in Ireland.  I shall take Notice, That in the late Raised Controversy, Whether the House of Commons were an Essential part of Parliament, before the 49th year of Henry the Third; The Learned Mr. Petyt, Keeper of the Records in the Tower, in his Book on that Subject, pag. 71. Deduces his 9th Argument From the Comparison of the Ancient Generale Concilium, or Parliament of Ireland, instanced An. 38 Hen. III. with the Parliament in England, wherein the Citizens and Burgesses were; which was Eleven years before the pretended beginning of the Commons in England.  
For thus we find it in that Author.  
As great a Right and Privilege surely was and ought to be allowed to the English Subjects, as to the Irish, before the 49th of Hen. III. And if that be admitted, and that their (the Irish) Commune Concilium, or Parliament, had its Platform from ours (the English) as I think will not be Denied by any that have considered the History and Records touching that Land (Ireland) we shall find the ensuing Records, Ann. 38 Hen. III. clearly evince that the Citizens and Burgesses were then a part of their (the Irish) Great Council or Parliament.  
That King being in partibus 
Rot. 38 H. III, in 4. Hibernta  Transmarinis, and the Queen being left Regent, she sends Writs (or a Letter) in the King's Name, directed Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Comitibus, Baronibus, Militibus, Liberis Hominibus, Civibus & Burgensibus, Terrae suae Hiberniae; telling them that, Mittimus Fratrem Nicholaum de Sancto Neoto, Fratrem Hospitii Sancti johannis jerusalem in Anglia ad partes Hiberniae ad exponendum vobis (together with I. Fitz-Geoffery the King's Justice) the State of his Land of Vascony, endangered by the Hostile Invasion of the King of Castille, qui nullo jure sed potentia sua Confisus Terram nostram Vasconiae per ipsius Fortitudinem, a manibus nostris Auferre & a Dominio Regni Angliae segregare Proponit. And therefore universitatem Vestram Quanta possumus Affectione Rogantes quatenus no●… & jura nostra totaliter indefens●… non deserentes nobis in tanto periculo quantumcunque poteritis d●… Gente & Pecunia subveniatis; which would turn to their Everlasting Honour; concluding. His nostris Augustiis taliter Comp●…tientes, quod nos & Heraedes nostri vobis & Haeredibus vestris sumus non immerito Obligati. Teste Regina, & R. Comite Cornubiae, apud Windesor, 17 die Februar.  
Per Reginam.  
Thus far Mr. Petyt.  
Here we have a Letter from the Queen Regent to the Parliament in Ireland, in an humble manner beseeching them for an Aid of Men and Money against the King of Castile's Hostile Invasion of Gascony; from whence we may perceive that in those days, no more than at present, Men and Money could not be Raised but by Consent of Parliament. I have been the more particular in Transcribing this Passage out of Mr. Petyt, to show that we have as Ancient and Express an Authority for our present Constitution of Parliaments in Ireland, as can be shown in England. And I believe it will not be thought Adviseable in these latter Days, to break in upon Old Settled Constitutions: No one knows how fatal the Consequents of that may be.  
To return therefore where we 
Farther Concessions from Hen. III  Digressed. Henry the Third, about the Twelfth year of his Reign, did specially Empower Richard de Burgh, than justice of Ireland, at a certain day and place, to summon all the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Knights, Freeholders and Sheriffs of each County, and before them to cause to be Read the Charter of his Father King john, whereunto his Seal was Appendent, whereby he had granted unto them the Laws and Customs of England, and unto which they swore Obedience: And that he should cause the same Laws to be observed and Proclaimed in the several Counties of Ireland, that so none presume to do contrary to the King's Command. The Record I have taken out of Mr. (a) Pryn, 
(b) Against Cook's 4th Instit. p. 252.  in these words:  
Rex Dilecto & Fideli suo 
Claus. 12 H. III in 8 de Legibus & Consuetudinibus Observandis in Hibern.  Richardo de Burgo Justie ' suo Hibern. Salutem. Mandamus vobis firmiter praecipientes quatenus certo die & Loco faciatis venire coram vobis Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Priores Comites & Barones' Milites & libere Tenentes & Ballivos singulorum Comitatum & coram eye Publice legi faciatis Chartam Domini J. Regis Patris nostri cui Sigillum suum appensum est quam fieri fecit & jurari a Magnatibus Hibern. de Legibus & Consuetudinis Angliae Observandis in Hibernia. Et praecipiatis eye ex parte nostra quod Leges illas & Consuctudines in Charta praedicta contentas de caetero firmiter teneant & observent & hoc idem per singulos Commitatus Hiberniae clamari faciatis & teneri prohibentes firmiter ex parte nostra & super foris facturam nostram nequis contra hoc Mandatum nostrum venire praesumat, etc. Teste Me ipso Apud Westm' 8 die Maii An. Reg. nostri 12.  
By what foregoes, I presume it plainly appears, that by three several Establishments under the three first Kings of Ireland of the Norman Race, the Laws and Liberties of the People of England, were granted to the People of Ireland. And that neither of these three Kings Established those Laws in Ireland by any Power of the Parliament of England, but by the free Consent, Allowance and Acceptance of the People of Ireland.  
Hen. II. first introduced the Laws 
Recapitulation.  of England into Ireland, in a Public Assembly of the Irish at Lismore, and Allowed them the Freedom of Parliaments to be held in Ireland, as they were held in England.  
King John at the Request, and by the Consent of the Irish, did appoint the Laws of England to be of Force in Ireland; and tho' he did not this till the Twelfth year of his Reign of England, yet he did it not as King of England, but as Lord of Ireland: For the Crown of England came to him by Descent from his Brother Richard, who had no Regal Power in Ireland; and what his Brother had not, could not descend to him.  
Henry the Third in the first year of his Reign gave Ireland a Magna Charta; and in the Twelfth year of his Reign did provide, That all the Laws of England should be observed in Ireland; and that the Charter granted to the Irish by his Father King john under his Seal, when he was in that Kingdom, should be kept inviolably.  
And from the Days of these Three Kings, have England and Ireland been both Governed by the like Forms of Government under one and the same Supreme Head, the King of England; yet so, as both Kingdoms remained Separate and Distinct in their several Jurisdictions under that One Head, as are the Kingdoms of England and Scotland at this day, without any Subordination of the One to the Other.  
It were endless to mention all Records and Precedents that might be quoted for the Establishment of the Laws of England in Ireland; I shall therefore enter no farther into that Matter, but therein refer to Lord Chief Justice Cook, 
a Fourth Instit.  Pryn, 
b Against the 4th Instit.  Reyly, 
c Placita Parliamentaria. English Laws Established in Ireland.  etc.  
If now we Inquire, What were those Laws of England that became thus Established in Ireland? Surely we must first reckon the Great Law of Parliaments, which England so 
Law of Parliament.  justly Challenges, and all Mankind have a Right to. By the Law of Parliament, I mean that Law where by all Laws receive their Sanction, The Free Debates and Consent of the People, by Themselves, or their Chosen Representatives. That this was a main Branch of the English Law Established in this Kingdom, and the very Foundation of our Future Legislature, appears manifest from Parliaments being so early convoked in Ireland, as the forementioned Precedents express.  
Mr. Pryn acknowledges one in Hen. II's time, (pag. 259. against the 4th Instit.) but makes a very false Conclusion, that there appears no Footsteps of a Parliament afterwards, till the third year of Edward the Second, because the Acts of that Parliament are the first that are Printed in our Irish Statute-Book: For so we may argue the Parliaments of England to be of later Date than pretended, when we find the first Printed Acts in Keeble to be no older than the 9th of Hen. III. Whereas 'tis most certain, that Parliaments have been held in England some Ages before that.  
After this Great Law of Parliaments, 
Common Law.  we may reckon the Common Law of England, whether it relates to Regulating and Settling of Property, and Estates in Goods or Land, or to the judiciary and Executive parts of the Law, and the Ministers and Process thereof, or to Criminal Cases. These surely were all Established in this Country, by the three first Kings of Ireland of the Norman Race.  
Let us now consider the state of 
Statute Law.  the Statute Laws of England under these three Kings, and their Predecessors: For by the Irish Voluntary Submission to, and Acceptance of the Laws and Government of England, we must repute them to have submitted themselves to these likewise; till a Regular Legislature was Established amongst them, in pursuance of that Submismission and Voluntary Acceptance.  
And here we shall find, that in 
Statute-Law of England from the Norman Conquest to Hen. III.  those Times, viz. from the Norman Conquest to Henry the Third's time inclusive, the Statute-Laws of England were very few and slender. 'Tis true, that before the 12th of Hen. III. we find amongst the English Historians frequent mention of the Laws of Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, Hen. I. Hen. II. King john, and Hen. III. All which are only Charters, or several Grants of Liberties from the King; which nevertheless had the force of Acts of Parliament, and laid as great Obligations both upon Prince and People, as Acts of Parliament do at this day: Whereof we may read several Proofs in the Prince's Case, Cook's 8th Report. But these were only so many Confirmations of each other, and all of them Sanctions of the Common Laws and Liberties of the People of England, ab Antiquo Usitatae & comprohatae per totam terram & in quibus ipsi & eorum Patres nati & nutriti sunt, as the words of the Manuscript Chronicle of Litchfield express it.  
The Laws of Edward the Confessor, 
Law of Edward the Confessor.  held in so great Veneration in Ancient Times, & per universum Regnum corroboratae & confirmatae, prius inventae & Constitutae fuerunt Tempore Regis Edgari Avi sui. Verum tamen post mortem ipsius Regis Edgari, usque ad Coronationem Sancti Regis Edwardi (which was 67 years) praedictae Leges Sopitae sunt & penitus intermissae. Sed postquam Rex Edwardus in Regno sublimatus fuit Consilio Baronum Angliae Legem illam sopitam Excitavit, Excitam Reparavit, Reparatam Decoravit, Decoratam Confirmavit; & confirmatae vocantur Lex Sancti Regis Edwardi, non quod ipse primus eam ad invenisset; sed quod Reparavit, Restituitque, 
a Selden 〈◊〉 & speci●…▪ ad eadmerum, pag 17●…  as the said Litchfield Chronicle has it. These Laws of Edward the Confessor were transcribed by Ingulphus Abbot of Croy land under William the Conqueror and are annexed to his History.  
The Laws of William the Conqueror are but a Confirmation of the 
Of Wil Conq.  Laws of Edward the Confessor, with some small alterations, as the very Letter of those Laws themselves express it. 
b Leges W. 1. Cap. 63. apud Selden in not●…●…d eadmerum p. 192.  Hoc quoque praecipimus ut omnes habeant & teneant Leges Edwardi Regis in omnibus Rebus adauctis his quas constituimus ad Utilitatem Anglorum.  
The Laws of Henry I. which are in the Red Book of the Exchequer, 
Of Hen. I.  in the custody of the King's Remembrancer in England, are but a summary confirmation both of the Laws of Edward the Confessor and William the First, as the Charter itself expresses it, 
c Vid. Selden ut supra.  Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis Reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater meus emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum.  
The Laws of Henry II. called 
Of Hen II.  Constitutiones Clarendoniae, and the Assize of Clarendon in the 2d part of Cooks Inst. p. 6. are all but confirmations and vindications of the King's just Prerogative against the Usurpations of the Pope and Clergy: As we find at large in Chron. Gervasii. Doroborn p. 1387. Edit. Lond. an. 1652.  
The Laws of King John, called 
Of K. John.  The Great Charter of King John, granted in the 17th Year of his Reign, upon the Agreement made between him and his Barons at Running-Mead between Staines and Windsor, was but a Confirmation of the Laws of Edward the Confessor and Henry the First, as 
d Mat. Paris add an. 1215. pag. 253. etc.  Mat. Paris relates it. Anno Regis Johannis 17. venientes ad Regem magnates petierunt quasdam Libertates & Leges Regis Edwardi cum aliis libertatibus sibi & Regno Angliae & Ecclesiae Anglicanae concessis confirmari prout in Charta Regis Hen I. ascriptae continentur. The same Historian gives us also at large both Charta Libertatum, and Charta de Foresta, which are not extant in the Rolls of those times, nor to be found in any till the 28th of Edward I. and that but by inspeximus.  
The Laws of Henry III. contained in Magna Charta and Charta de Forresta, 
Of Hen. III.  both which are called Magnae Chartae Libertatis Angliae, and were established about the 9th Year of Henry III. are for the most part but declaratory of the common municipal Laws of England, and that too no new declaration thereof; for King john in the 17th year of his Reign had granted the like before, which was also called Magna Charta. 
a Cook's Pref. to the 2d Inst.  And by the English Statute 25 Ed. 1. c. 1. it is Enacted, That the Great Charter, and the Charter of the Forest be taken as the Common Law of England.  
By what foregoes, I conceive, it is very clear, That all the Charters and Grants of Liberties from Edward the Confessor's time down to the 9th of Henry the Third were but Confirmations one of another, and all of them Declarations, and Confirmations of the Common Law of England. And by the several Establishments, which we have formerly mentioned, of the Laws of England to be of force in Ireland: First, in the 13th of Henry II. Secondly in the 12th of King john. Thirdly, in the 12th of Henry III. All those Laws and Customs of England, which by those several Charters were Declared and Confirmed to be the Laws of England, were established to be of force in Ireland. And thus Ireland came to be governed by one and the same Common Law with England; and those Laws continue as part of the municipal and fundamental Laws of both Kingdoms to this day.  
It now remains that we inquire, 
Engl. Statutes since the 9th. Hen. III. introduced in Ireland.  How the Statute Laws and Acts of Parliament made in England since the 9th of Henry the Third came to be of force in Ireland; And whether all or any of them, and which, are in force here, and when and how they came to be so.  
And the first Precedent that occurs in our Books, of Acts of Parliament in Ireland particularly mentioning and confirming special Acts of Parliament in England, is found in a Marginal Note of Sir Richard Bolton's formerly Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, affixed in his Edition of the Irish Statutes to Stat. 10 Hen. 7. Cap. 22. to this purport, That in 13 Edw. II. by Parliament in this Realm of Ireland the Statutes of Merton, made the 20th 
Statutes of Merton. Marlebr. Westm. Gloucest.  of Hen. II. and the Statutes of Marlbridge, made the 52 of Henry the Third; The Statute of Westminster the First, made the 3d of Edward the First; The Statute of Gloucester, made the 6th of Edward the First▪ And the Statute of Westminster the Second, made the 13th of Edward the First, were all confirmed in this Kingdom, and all other Statutes which were of force in England, were referred to be Examined in the next Parliament; and so many as were then Allowed and Published, to stand likewise for Laws in this Kingdom. 
Vid. Lib. Rubr. Scaccar. Dubls.  And in the 10th of Henry the Fourth, it was Enacted in this Kingdom of Ireland, That the Statutes made in England should not be of force in this Kingdom, unless they were Allowed and Published in this Kingdom by Parliament. And the like Statute was made again in the 29th of Henry the Sixth. These Statutes are not to be found in the Rolls, nor any Parliament Roll of that time; but he (Sir Richard Bolton) had seen the same Exemplisyed under the Great Seal, and the Exemplification remaineth in the Treasury of the City of Waterford. Thus far the Note. If we consider the frequent Troubles and Distractions in Ireland, we shall not wonder that these, and many other Rolls and Records, have been lost in this Kingdom: For from the third year of Edward the Second, which was Anno 1310. through the whole Reigns of Edward III. Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. and so to the Seventh year of Henry the Sixth, Anno 1428. which is about 118 years, there are not any Parliament Rolls to be found, 
a Annals of Ireland, at the End of Camden's Britan. Edit. 1637. page 196, 197, etc.  yet certain it is, that divers Parliaments were held in Ireland in those times. 
b Ibid. p. 160. Pryn against the 4th Instit. Chap, 76.  The same may be said from Henry the Second coming into Ireland, Anno 1172. to the third year of Edward the Second, Anno 1310. about 138 years.  
Perhaps it may be said, That if here were such Statutes of Ireland as the said Acts of the 10th of Henry the Fourth, and the 29th of Henry the Sixth; As they show, that the Parliaments of Ireland did think that English Acts of Parliament could not bind Ireland; yet they show likewise, that even in those days the Parliaments of England did claim this Superiority; or else, to what purpose were the said Acts made, unless in denial of that Claim?  
All which I hope may be readily granted without any prejudice to the Right of the Irish Parliaments: There is nothing so common, as to have one Man claim another Man's Right: And if bare Pretence will give a Title, no Man is secure: And it will be yet worse, if when another so Pretends, and I insist on my Right, my Just Claim shall be turned to my Prejudice, and to the Disparagement of my Title.  
We know very well that many of the Judges of our Four Courts have been from time to time sent us out of England; and some of them may easily be supposed to come over hither Prepossessed with an Opinion of our Parliaments being subordinate to that of England. Or at least, some of them may be Scrupulous, and desirous of full Security in this Point; and on their Account, and for their Satisfaction, such Acts as aforesaid, may be devised, and Enacted in Ireland. But then, God forbid, that these Acts should afterwards be laid hold of to a clear other intent than what they were framed for; and instead of Declaring and Securing our Rights, should give an Handle of Contest, by showing that our Rights have been questioned of Ancient Time.  
In conclusion of all, If this Superiority of the Parliament of England have been Doubted a great while ago, so it has been as great a while ago Strenuously Opposed, and Absolutely Denied by the Parliaments of Ireland. And by the way, I shall take Notice, That from whencesoever this Ancient Pretence of Ireland's Subordination proceeded in those days, it did not arise from the Parliament of England itself: For we have not one single Instance of an English Act of Parliament Expressly Claiming this Right of Binding us: But we have several Instances of Irish Acts of Parliament, Expressly Denying this Subordination, as appears by what foregoes.  
Afterwards by a Statute made in Ireland the 18th of Hen. VI Cap. 1. All the Statutes made in England against the Extortions and Oppressions of Purveyors, are Enacted to be holden and kept in all Points, and put in Execution in this Land of Ireland.  
And in the 32d year of Henry the Sixth, Cap. 1. by a Parliament in Ireland, 'tis Enacted, That all the Statutes made against Provisors to the Court of Rome, as well in England as in Ireland, be had and kept in force.  
After this, in a Parliament at Drogheda the 8th of Edward IU. cap. 1. it was Ratified, That the English Statute against Rape, made the 6th of Richard the Second, should be of Force in Ireland from the 6th day of March last passed: And that from henceforth the said Act, and all other Statutes and Acts made by Authority of Parliament within the Realm of England, be Ratified and Confirmed, and Adjudged by the Authority of this Parliament in their Force and Strength, from the said sixth day of March. We shall hereafter have occasion of taking farther Notice of this Statute upon another Account.  
Lastly, In a Parliament held at 
All English Statutes before the 10th of Hen. VII. in force in Ireland.  Drogheda the 10th of Henry the Seventh, cap. 22. it is Enacted, That all Statutes late (that is, as the 
a Cook's 4th Instit. Cap. 76. P. 351.  Learned in the Laws expound it, before that time) made in England, concerning the Common and Public Weal of the same, from henceforth be Deemed effectual in Law, and be Accepted, Used and Executed within this Land of Ireland in all Points, etc.  

b Vid. Irish Stat.  And in the 14th year of the same King's Reign, in a Parliament held at Tristle-Dermot, it was Enacted, That all Acts of Parliament made in England for Punishing Customers, Controulers, and Searchers, for their Misdemeanours; or for Punishment of Merchants or Factors, be of Force here in Ireland, Provided they be first Proclaimed at Dublin, Drogheda, and other Market-Towns.  
Thus we see by what Steps and Degrees all the Statutes which were made in England from the time of Magna Charta, to the 10th of Henry the Seventh, which did concern the Common Public Weal, were Received, Confirmed, Allowed, and Authorised to be of Force in Ireland; all which was done by Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in the Parliament of Ireland Assembled, and no Otherwise.  
We shall next Inquire, Whether 
English Statutes Declaratory of the Common Law in force in Ireland.  there are not other Acts of the English Parliament, both before and since the 10th of Henry the Seventh, which were and are of Force in Ireland, tho' not Allowed of by Parliament in this Kingdom. And we shall find, That by the Opinion on of our best Lawyers, there are divers such; but then they are only such as are Declaratory of the Ancient Common Law of England, and not introductive of any New Law: For these become of Force by the first General Establishment of the Common Laws of England in this Kingdom, under Henry the Second, King john, and Henry the Third; and need no particular Act of Ireland for their Sanction.  
As to those English Statutes 
English Acts introductive of a New Law, not of force in Ireland.  since the 10th of Henry the Seventh, that are Introductive of a New Law, it was never made a Question whether they should Bind Ireland, without being Allowed in Parliament here; till of very late years this Doubt began to be moved; and how it has been Carried on and Promoted, shall Appear more fully hereafter.  
I say, Till of very late years; for the Ancient Precedents which we have to the contrary, are very numerous. Amongst many, we shall mention the following Particulars.  
In the 21th of Henry the 8th an Act was made in England making it Felony in a Servant that runneth away with his Masters or Mistresses Goods. This Act was not received in Ireland till it was Enacted by a Parliament held here in the 33d of Henry the 8th. c. 5. Ses. 1.  
In the 21th of Henry VIII. c. 19 there was a Law made in England, That all Lords might Distrain on the Lands of them holden, and make their Avowry not naming the Tenant, but the Land. But this was not of force in Ireland till Enacted here in the 33d of Henry VIII. C. 1. Ses. 1.  
An Act was made in England, anno 31. Henry VIII. That Joint-Tenents and Tenants in Common should be compelled to make Partition, as Coparceners were compellable at Common Law. But this Act was not Received in Ireland till Enacted here An. 33. Henry VIII. c. 10.  
Anno 27. Henry VIII. c. 10. The Statute for Transferring Uses into Possession was made in England; but not admitted in Ireland till 10. Car. 1. Ses. 2.  
In like manner, the English Statute 33. Henry VIII. c. 1. directing how Lands and Tenements may be disposed by Will, etc. was not of force in Ireland till 10. Car. 2. Ses. 2.  
The Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments was made in England the 1st. of Eliz. c. 2. but was not established in Ireland till the 2d. of Eliz. c. 2. And so that of England 14. Car. 2. c. 14. was not received in Ireland till 17. & 18. Car. 2 c. 6.  
The Statute against Wilful Perjury made in England 5. Eliz. c. 9 was not Enacted in Ireland till 28 Eliz. c. 1.  
So the English Act against Witchcraft and Sorcery made 5 Eliz. c. 16. And another Act against Forgery 5 Eliz. c. 14. were neither of them in force in Ireland till the 28th of Her Reign, Cap. 3 and 4.  
The English Statutes against Pirates was made the 28th of Hen. 8. c. 15. but not in Ireland till the 12th of King james, c. 2.  
In England an Act was made the 27th of Eliz. c. 4 against Fraudulent Conveyances; but it was not in force in Ireland till Enacted here the 10th of Charles, c. 3. Ses. 2.  
In the 15th year of King Charles the 1st. in a Parliament held at Dublin there were Six English Statutes made Laws of this Kingdom, with such Alterations as best fitted them to the State thereof, viz.  
21 jac. c. 14. For pleading the General Issue in Intrusions brought by the King, by Chap. 1. of the Irish Statutes.  
31 Eliz. c. 2. For Abridging of Proclamations on Fines, by Chap. 2. 2 and 3 Edw. 6. c. 8. Concerning Offices before the Escheator, by Chap. 4.  
31 Eliz. c. 1. Discontinuance of Writs of Error in the Exchequer Chamber, by Chap. 5.  
8 Eliz. c. 4. and 18 Eliz. c. 7. concerning Clergy, by Chap. 7.  
24 Hen. 8. c. 5. Concerning Killing a Robber, by Chap. 9  
There are Six English Statutes likewise passed in the time of King Charles the 2d. upon and soon after the Restoration, some of which were not passed into Laws in Ireland till a year, two or three, afterwards: As will appear by consulting the Statute Books. 
a Irish Stat. 13 C. 2. c. 2. 13 C. 2. c. 3. 14 & 15 C. 2. c. 1. 14 & 15 C. 2. c. 19 17 & 18 C. 2. c. 3. 17. & 18 C. 2. c. 11. English Stat. 12 C. 2. c. 12. 12 C. 2. c. 3. 12 C. 2. c. 14, 12 C. 2. c. 24. 12 C. 2. c. 33. 16 & 17 C. 2. c. 5.   
And in the First year of William and Mary, Ses. 2. c. 9 an Act passed in England declaring all Attainders and other Acts made in the late pretended Parliament under King James at Dublin void: But was not Enacted here in Ireland till the 7th year of K. William c. 3. And this was thought requisite to be done upon mature consideration thereon before the King and Council of England, 
* For we had two several Acts transmitted to us at different times, to this very purpose. One we rejected in the Lord Syd●…eys Government, t'other we passed under the Lord Capell.  notwithstanding that the English Act does particularly name Ireland, and was wholly designed for, and relates thereto.  
The like may we find in several other Statutes of England passed since his present Majesty's Accession to the Throne, which have afterwards been passed here in Ireland, with such Alterations as make them practicable and agreeable to this Kingdom. Such as are amongst others, the Act for Disarming Papists. The Act of Recognition. The Act for taking away Clergy from some Offenders. The Act for taking Special Bail in the Country, etc. The Act against Clandestine Mortgages. The Act against Cursing and Swearing.  
These, with many more, are to to be found in our Statute Books in the several Reigns of Henry the 8th. Edward the 6th. Queen Elizabeth, King james, King Charles the 1st and 2d. and King William. But it is not to be found in any Records in Ireland, that ever any Act of Parliament introductive of a new Law made in England since the time of King john, was by the judgement of any Court received for Law, or put in Execution in the Realm of Ireland before the same was Confirmed and Assented to by Parliament in Ireland.  
And thus I presume we have pretty clearly made out our Fourth Enquiry forementioned: and shown plainly the several steps by which the English form of Government, and the English Statute Laws were received in this Kingdom; and that this was wholly by the People's consent in Parliament, to which we have had a very ancient Right, and as full a Right as our next Neighbours can pretend to or challenge.  
I shall now consider the Objections and Difficulties that are moved 
Objections Answered.  on this Head drawn from Precedents, and Passages in our Law-Books that may seem to prove the contrary.  
First 'tis urged, That in the Irish Act concerning Rape passed anno 
Objection from the Stat. of Rape.  8 Edward 4, c. 1. 'tis expressed, That a Doubt was conceived whether the English Statute of the 6th of Richard the 2d. c. 6. ought to be of force in Ireland without a Confirmation thereof in the Parliament of Ireland. Which shows (as some allege) that even in those days it was held by some, That an Act of of Parliament in England might bind Ireland before it be consented to in Parliament here.  
But I concieve this Gloss is raised merely for want of Expressing the Reason of the said Doubt in the Irish Statute of the 8th of Edward the 4th. c. 1. which we may reasonably judge was this. By the Statute of Westminster the 2d. c. 34. a Woman that eloped from her Husband and lived with the Adulterer, or a Wife that being first Ravished did afterwards consent, and lived with the Ravisher, she should lose her Dower. This Statute of Westminster the 2d, was made of force in Ireland by an Act passed here the 13th of Edward the 2d, as we have seen before, pag. 68, 69. Afterwards by the English Statute of the 6th of Rich. the 2d. c. 6. there was a farther addition made to the said Statute of Westminster the 2d. to this effect, That a Maiden or Wife being Ravished, and afterwards consenting to the Ravishers, as well the Ravisher as she that was Ravished shall be disabled to claim all Inheritance or Dower after the death of her Husband or Ancestor.  
On this account the Doubt was here raised in Ireland in the 8th of Edward the 4th. c. 1. Whether this latter English Statute of the 6th of Richard the 2d. c. 6. were not in force in Ireland by virtue of the Irish Statute of the 13th of Edward the 2d. which confirmed the Statute of Westminster the 2d. c. 34. And for settling this Doubt the said Statute of the 8th of Edward the 4th c. 1. was passed in Ireland, and we find very good reason for the said Doubt. For the English Statute of the 6th of Richard the 2d. c. 6. contained but a small addition to the Statute of Westminster the 2d c. 34. and we see that even this addition itself was judged not to be of force in Ireland till Enacted here. For the said Irish Statute of the 8th of Edward the 4th. c. 1. makes the said Statute of the 6th of Rich. 2d. c. 6. of Force in Ireland only from the 6th of March, than last past.  
'Tis urged secondly, That tho' perhaps such Acts of Parliament in England which do not Name Ireland, shall not be construed to Bind Ireland, yet all such English Statutes as mention Ireland, either by the General Words of all his Majesty's Dominions, or by particularly Naming of Ireland, are and shall be of Force in this Kingdom.  
This being a Doctrine first broached Directly (as I conceive) by Will. Hussey, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in England, in the first year of Henry the Seventh and of late Revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cook, and strongly urged, and much relied upon i●… these latter Days; I shall take th●… Liberty of Enlarging thereon, though I venture thereby to swell this Pamphlet to a size greater than I desire or designed.  
First therefore, As to such English 
Object. English Statutes comprehending Ireland by general Words.  Statutes as seem to comprehend Ireland, and to Bind it, under the General Words of all his Majesty's Dominions or Subjects, whatever has been the Opinion of Private and Particular Lawyers in this Point, I am sure the Opinions of the Kings of England, and their Privy Council, have been otherwise: 'Tis well known since poinding's Act in Ireland, the 10th of Henry the Seventh, no Act can pass in our Parliament here, till it be first Assented to by the King and Privy Council of England, and Transmitted hither under the Broad Seal of England: Now the King and his Privy Council there, have been so far from surmising that an Act of Parliament of England, mentioning only in General All the King's Dominions, or Subjects, should Bind Ireland, that they have clearly shown the contrary, by frequently Transmitting to Ireland, to be passed into Laws here, English Statutes, wherein the General Words of all the King's Dominions or Subjects were contained; which would have been to no purpose, but merely Actum Agere, had Ireland been Bound before by those English Statutes.  
Of this I shall give the following Examples, amongst many others.  
The Act of Parliament in England 
Act against Appeals to Rome.  against Appeals to Rome, 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. by express words extends to all his Majesty's Dominions, yet the same was not in force, nor received in Ireland, till it was Enacted by Parliament there, the 28th of Hen. 8. c. 6.  
In like manner the Statutes made 
Acts of First Fruits and Faculties.  in England concerning First Fruits, 26 Hen. 8. c. 3. and the Act of Faculties, 
a Title in the English Statutes is, No Imposition shall be paid to the Bishop of Rome.  25 Hen. 8. c. 21. though each of them by express words comprise All his Majesty's Subjects and Dominions, were not received as Laws in Ireland, till the former was Enacted there, 28 H. 8. c. 4. and the latter the 28 Hen. 8. c. 19 and so the Stature Restoring to the Crown all Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical made in England, Anno 1 Eliz. c. 1. and therein giving Power to Erect an Ecclesiastical High-Commission-Court in England and Ireland, yet was not of Force in Ireland till Enacted there, Anno 2 Eliz. c. 1. And though the said English Act, in relation to Erecting such an High-Commission Court, was Repealed 17 Car. 1. c. 11 and the Repeal confirmed the 13 Car. 2. c. 12 And the late Bill of 
High-Commission-Court▪  Rights, 1 W. and M. Ses. 2. c. 2. in England, has damned all such Courts. Yet the Act in Ireland 2 Eliz. c. 1. remains still in force here; and so it was lately declared here by the Lord High-chancellor Porter, Lord Chief Justice Reynel, Lord Chief Baron Hely, Mr. Justice Cox, Mr. Justice jeffreyson, in the Case of Dr. Thomas Hacket, late Bishop of Down, who was deprived of the said Bishopric by such a Commission, for great Enormities; the Commissioners being Dr. Dopping late Bishop of Meath, Dr. King, the present Bishop of London-Derry, and Dr. Wiseman, late Bishop of Dromore.  
And truly I see no more Reason 
By the same Reason Scotland may be bound.  for Binding Ireland by the English Laws under the General Words of all his Majesty's Dominions or Subjects, than there is for Binding Scotland by the same; for Scotland is as much his Dominion, and Scots-men as much his Subjects as Ireland and Irishmen: If it be said, That Scotland is an Ancient Separate and Distinct Kingdom from England; I say, So is Ireland: The Difference is, Scotland continued separate from the Kings of England till of late years, and Ireland continued separate from England but a very little while in the Person of King john, before the Death of his Father, and of his Brother Richard the First, without issue. But then 'tis to be considered, that there was a Possibility, or even a Probability, that Ireland might have continued separate from the Crown of England, even to this very day, if Richard the First had left behind him a Numerous Progeny.  
Secondly, As to such English 
English Statutes naming Ireland.  Statutes as particularly Name Ireland, and are therefore said to be of Force in this Kingdom, tho' never Enacted here; I shall consider only the more Ancient Precedents that are offered in Confirmation of this Doctrine: For as to those of later Date, 'tis these we complain of, as bearing hard on the Liberties of this Country, and the Rights of our Parliaments, and therefore these ought not to be produced as Arguments against us. I presume, if I can show, that the Ancient Precedents that are produced, do not conclude against us; it will follow that the Modern Instances given, ought not to conclude against us; that is to say plainly, These ought not to have been made as they are, as wanting Foundation both from Authority and Reason.  
The Ancient Precedents of English Statutes, particularly Naming Ireland, and said to be made in England with a Design of Binding Ireland, are chiefly these three: 

1. Statutum Hiberniae, 14 H. 3.  
2. Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae, 17 Edw. 1.  
3. And the Act that all Staple Commodities passing out of England or Ireland, shall be carried to Calais, as long as the Staple is at Calais, 2 Hen. 6. c. 4. on which Hussey delivered his Opinion, as we shall see more fully hereafter.    
These Statutes, especially the two first, being made for Ireland, as their Titles import, have given occasion to think, that the Parliament of England have a Right to make Laws for Ireland, without the Consent of their Chosen Representatives. But if we Inquire farther into this matter, we shall find this Conclusion not fairly Deduced.  
First, The Statutum Hiberniae, 14 Hen. 3. as 'tis to be found in the Collection of English Statutes, is plainly thus: The Judges in Ireland conceiving a Doubt concerning Inheritances devolved to Sisters or Coheirs, viz. Whether the younger Sisters ought to hold of the Eldest Sister, and do Homage unto her for their Portions, or of the Chief Lord, and do Homage unto him; therefore Girald Fitz Maurice, the then Lord Justice of Ireland, dispatched four Knights to the King in England, to bring a Certificate from thence of the Practice there used, and what was the Common-Law of England in that Case. Whereupon Hen. 3. in this his Certificate or Rescript, which is called Statutum Hiberniae, merely informs the Justice what the Law and Custom was in England, viz. That the Sisters ought to hold of the Chief Lord, and not of the Eldest Sister. And the close of it commands, that the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this Case, be Proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland, and be there observed. Teste meipso apud Westminst. 9 Feb. An. Reg. 14.  
From whence 'tis manifest, that this Statutum Hiberniae was no more than a Certificate of what the common Law of England was in that Case, which Ireland by the Original Compact was to be governed by. And shows no more, that therefore the Parliament of England may bind Ireland, than it would have proved, that the Common Wealth of Rome was subject to Greece, if, after Rome had received the Law of the Twelve Tables, they had sent to Greece to know what the Law was, in some Special Case.  
The Statute called Ordinatio pro 
Or dinatio pre Statu Hiberniae.  Statu Hiberniae, made at Nottingham the 17th of Edward the First, and to be found in Pultons' Collection pag. 76. Edit. Lond. 1670. was certainly never Received, or of Force, in Ireland. This is Manifest from the very first Article of that Ordnance, which Prohibits the justice of Ireland or others the King's Officers, there to Purchase Land in that Kingdom, or within their respective Balliwicks without the King's Licence, on pain of Forfeitures. But that this has ever been Otherwise, and that the Lords Justices, and other Officers here have Purchased Lands in Ireland, at their own Will and Pleasure, needs no Proof to those who have the least knowledge of this Country. Nor does it appear by any Inquisition, Office, or other Record, that any one ever Forfeited on that Account.  
Moreover this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae, is really in itself No Act of Parliament, but merely an Ordinance of the King and his Privy Council in England; which appears as well from the Preamble to the said Ordinance, as from this Observation likewise, That King Edward the First held no Parliament in the 17th year of his Reign: Or if this were a Parliament, this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae, is the only Act thereof that is Extant: But 'tis very improbable, that only this single Ordinance should Appear, if any such Parliament were called together.  
Thirdly, As to the Staple-Act, 
Staple-Act,  2 Hen. 6. c. 4. which expressly names Ireland, and Hussey's Opinion thereon. The Case, as we find it in the Year-Books of Mich. 2 Rich. 3. fol. 11. and Mich. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 3. is in short thus: The Merchants of Waterford 
Merchants of Waterford's Case.  having Shipped off some Wool, and consigned it to Sluice in Flanders, the Ship by stress of Wether was put in at Calais, where Sir Thomas Thwaits, Treasurer of Calais, seized the said Wool as forfeited, half to himself, and half to the King, by the said Statute; hereupon a Suit was commenced between the said Merchants and the said Treasurer, which was brought before all the Judges of England into the Exchequer Chamber: The Merchants pleaded the King's Licence to the Citizens of Waterford and their Successors, for carrying Wool where they pleased; and the Questions before the Judges were two, Viz. Whether this Staple-Act Binds Ireland; And Secondly, Whether the King could grant his Licence contrary to the Statute, and especially where the Statute gives half the Forfeiture to the Discoverer.  
The first Point only relates to our present purpose; and herein we find the foresaid Year-Book of 2 Rich. 3. fol. 12. to Report it thus: Et ibi (in the Exchequer Chamber) quoad Primam Questionem Dicebant quod Terr. Hibern. inter se habent Parliament. & omnimodo Curprout in Angl. & per Idem Parliamentum faciunt Leges & Mutant Leges & non Obligantur per Statuta in Anglia, quia non hic habent Milites Parliamenti (and is not that an unanswerable Reason?) sed hoc intelligitur de terris & rebus in terris illis tantum efficiendo; sed Personae eorum sunt Subject. Regis & tanquam Subjecti erunt Obligati ad aliquam rem extra Terram illam faciend. contra Statut. sicut habitantes in Calesia, Gascoigny, Given, etc. dum fuere Subjecti; & Obedientes erunt sub Admiral. Angl. de re fact. super Altum Mare; & similit. Brev. de Errore de judicio reddit. in Hibern. in Banco Reg. hic in Angl.  
I have verbatim transcribed this Passage out of the foresaid Year-Book, that I might be sure to omit nothing that may give the Objection its full weight. And all that I can answer to it, is this:  
1. That when the foresaid Case came a second time under the Consideration of the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber in Mich. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 3. we find it Reported thus: Hussey the Chief justice said, That the Statutes made in England shall bind those of Ireland, which was not much gainsaid by the other judges, notwithstanding that some of them were of a contrary Opinion the last Term in his Absence. How the Presence and Opinion of the Chief Justice came to influence them now, I leave the Reader to judge.  
2. That Brook in Abridging this Case of the first of Hen. 7. fol. 3. Title Parliament, Sec. 90. adds, Tamen Nota, That Ireland is a Kingdom by itself, and hath Parliaments of its own; intimating thereby, That therefore Hussey's Opinion herein was Unreasonable.  
3. That 'tis manifest, if Hussey mean by his words, That All Acts of Parliament in England shall bind Ireland, it is directly contrary to the Judge's Opinion in the second of Richard the Third, before recited; for within the Land of Ireland, they are all positive, That the Authority of the Parliament of England will not Affect us. They seem at the utmost reach to extend the Jurisdiction of the English Parliament over the Subjects of Ireland, only in relation to their Actions beyond Seas, out of the Realm of Ireland, as they are the King of England's Subjects; but even This will Appear Unreasonable, when we consider, that by the same Argumentation, Scotland itself may be bound by English Laws, in relation to their Foreign Trade, as they are the King of England's Subjects. The Question is, Whether England and Ireland be two Distinct Kingdoms, and whether they have each their Respective Parliaments; neither of which will be denied by any Man: And if so, there can be no Subordination on either side, each is complete in its own Jurisdiction, and ought not to interfere with t'other in any thing. If England's Subjects, be a Reason why we ought to submit to Laws, (in relation to our Trade abroad, in places where the Parliament of England has no Jurisdiction) which have not received our Assent; the People of England will consider whether they also are not the King's Subjects, and may therefore (by this way of Reasoning) be bound by Laws which the King may Assign them without their Assent, in relation to their Actions Abroad or Foreign Trade: Or whether they had not been Subjects to the King of France, had our Kings continued their Possession of that Country, and there kept the Seat of the Monarchy; and then, had France been stronger than England, it might seem that the Subjects of these Kingdoms might have been bound by Laws made at Paris, without their own Consent. But let this Doctrine never be mentioned amongst the Freeborn Subjects of these Nations.  
Thus I have done with the Three Principal Instances that are usually brought against us, on the Stress that is laid on English Acts of Parliament, particularly Naming Ireland.  
There have been other Statutes 
Members from Ireland in the Parliament of England.  or Ordinances made in England for Ireland, which may reasonably be of force here, because they were made and Assented to by our own Representatives. Thus we find in the White Book of the Exchequer in Dublin, in the 9th year of Edward the First, a Writ sent to his Chancellor of Ireland, wherein he mentions Quaedam Statuta per nos de Assensu Prelatorum Comitum Baronum & Communitates Regni nostri Hiberniae, nuper apud Lincoln & quaedam alia Statuta postmodum apud Eborum facta. These we may suppose were either Statutes made at the Request of the States of Ireland, to Explain to them the Common Law of England; or if they were introductive of New Laws, yet they might well be of force in Ireland, being Enacted by the Assent of our own Representatives, The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of Ireland; as the Words aforementioned do show: And indeed, these are Instances so far from making against our Claim, that I think nothing can be more plainly for us; for it manifestly shows, that the King and Parliament of England would not Enact Laws to Bind Ireland, without the Concurrence of the Representatives of this Kingdom.  
Formerly, When Ireland was but thinly Peopled, and the English Laws not fully currant in all parts of the Kingdom, 'tis probable that then they could not frequently Assemble with conveniency or safety to make Laws in their own Parliaments at home; and therefore during the Heats of Rebellions, o●… Confusion of the Times, they were forced to Enact Laws in England. But then this was always by their proper Representatives. For we find that in the Reign of Edward the Third, (and by what foregoes, 'tis plain 'twas so in Edward the First's Time) Knights of the Shire, Citizens, and Burgesses, were Elected in the Shires, Cities and Burroughs of Ireland, to serve in Parliament in England, and have so served accordingly. For amongst the Records of the Tower of London, Rot. Claus. 50. Edw. 3. Parl. 2. Membr. 23. We find a Writ from the King at Westminster, directed to james Butler, Lord Justice of Ireland, and to R. Archbishop of Dublin, his Chancellor, requiring them to issue Writs under the Great Seal of Ireland, to the several Counties, Cities and Burroughs, for satisfying the Expenses of the Men of that Land, who last came over to serve in Parliament in England. And in another Roll the 50th of Edw. III. Membr. 19 On Complaint to the King by john Draper, who was Chosen Burgess of Cork by Writ, and served in the Parliament of England, and yet was denied his Expenses by some of the Citizens, Care was taken to re-imburse him.  
If from these last mentioned Records, it be concluded that the Parliament of England may Bind Ireland; it must also be Allowed that the People of Ireland ought to have their Representatives in the Parliament of England. And this, I believe we should be willing enough to embrace; but this is an Happiness we can hardly hope for.  
This sending of Representatives out of Ireland to the Parliament in England, on some occasions, was found in process of time to be very Troublesome and Inconvenient; and this, we may presume, was the Reason, that afterwards, when Times were more settled, we fell again into our old Track, and regular course of Parliaments in our own Country: and hereupon the Laws afore-noted, pag. 64. were Enacted, Establishing that no Law made in the Parliament of England, should be of force in Ireland, till it was Allowed and Published in Parliament here.  
I have said before, pag. 85. that 
Modern Acts of the Parliament of England, naming Ireland.  I would only consider the more Ancient Precedents that are offered to prove, That Acts of England particularly Naming Ireland, should bind us in this Kingdom; and indeed it were sufficient to stop here, for the Reason above alleged. However, I shall venture to come down lower, and to inquire into the Modern Precedents of English Acts of Parliament alleged against us: But still with this Observation, That 'tis these we Complain against as Innovations, and therefore they ought not to be brought in Argument against us.  
I do therefore again assert, that before the Year 1641. there was no Statute made in England introductory of a New Law that interfered with the Right which the People of Ireland have to make Laws for themselves, except only those which we have before mentioned, and which we have discussed at large, and submit to the Readers ●…udgment.  
But in the Year 1641. and afterwards in Cromwel's time, and since that, in King Charles II. and again very lately in King William's Reign, some Laws have been made in England to be of Force in Ireland. But how this came to pass, we shall now Inquire.  
In the 17th Year of K. Charles I. 
Acts in favour of Adventurers in 1641.  which was in the Year 1642. there were three or four Acts of Parliament made in England for encouraging Adventurers to raise Money for the speedy suppression of the Horrid Rebellion which broke out in Ireland the 23d of October 1641▪ The Titles of these Acts we have in Pulton's Collection of Statutes: But with this Remark, That they are made of no Force by the Acts of Setlement and Explanation passed in King Charles Il's. time in the Kingdom of Ireland. So that in these we are so far from finding Precedents for England's Parliament binding Ireland, that they plainly show, that the Parliament of Ireland may Re●… an Act passed in England, in relation to the Affairs of Ireland. For 'tis very well known, that Persons who were to have Interests and Titles in Ireland by virtue of those Acts passed in England, are cut off by the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. And indeed there is all the Reason in the World that it should be so, and that Acts made in a Kingdom by the Legal Representatives of the People, should take place of those made in another Kingdom. But however, it will be said, that by those Acts 'tis manifest that England did presume they had such a Right to pass Acts binding Ireland, or else they had ne'er done it. To which I answer, That considering the condition Ireland was in at that time, viz. under an horrid Intestine Rebellion, flaming in every corner of the Kingdom; 'twas impossible to have a Parliament of our own; yet it was absolutely necessary that something should be done towards suppressing the Violences then raging amongst us: And the only means could then be practised, was for the Parliament of England to interpose, and do something for our Relief and Safety; these were the best Assurances could be had at that juncture: But when the Storm was over, and the Kingdom quieted, we see new Measures were taken in a Legal Parliament of our own.  
As to what was done for Ireland 
Acts in Cromwel's time.  in the Parliament of England in Cromwel's time, besides the Confusion and Irregularity of all Proceeding in those days, which hinders any of them to be brought into Precedent in these times; We shall find also that then there were Representatives sent out of this Kingdom, who sat in the Parliament of England, which then was only the House of Commons. We cannot therefore argue from hence, that England may bind us; for we see they allowed us Representatives, without which, they rightly concluded, they could not make Laws Obligatory to us.  
I come now to King Charles the 2ds' time: And in it we shall find the following English Statutes made, in which the Kingdom of Ireland is concerned.  
The first is an Act against Importing 
Cattle Act.  Cattle from Ireland or other Parts beyond Seas. It was only temporary by 18 Ch. 2. c. 2. but made perpetual 20 Ch. 2. c. 7. and 32 Ch. 2. c. 2. This Act, however prejudicial to the Trade that was then carried on between Ireland and England, does not properly Bind us, more than it does any other Country of the World. When any thing is Imported, and Landed in England, it becomes immediately subject to the Laws thereof, so that herein we cannot be said properly to be bound.  
Secondly, The Acts against Planting 
Tobacco Act.  Tobacco in England and Ireland, 12 Ch. 2. c. 34. and 15 Ch. 2. c. 7. and 22 and 23 Ch. 2. c. 26, etc. do positively Bind Ireland. But there has never been an Occasion of Executing it here; for I have not heard that a Rood of Tobacco was ever Planted in this Kingdom. But however that takes not off the Obligation of the Law: 'Tis only want of our Consent, that I urge against that. I see no more Reason for sending a Force to Trample down an Acre of Tobacco in Ireland by these Statutes, than there would be for Cutting down the Woods of Shelela, were there an Act made in England against our Planting or Having Timber.  
Thirdly, The Act for Encouraging 
Navigation Act.  Shipping and Navigation, by express name Mentions and Binds Ireland; and by the last Clause in the Act, Obliges all Ships belonging thereto importing any Goods from our Foreign Plantations, to touch first at England.  
Fourthly, The Acts Prohibiting 
Note, Exporting Wool from Ireland, is made penal by the Irish. Stat. 13 Hen. 8. c. 2. 28 Hen. 8. c. 17. But both these Statutes are obsolete: The like may we observe of the 11 Eliz. c. 10. & 13 El. c. 4.  the Exportation of Wool from Ireland, to any Country except to England, do likewise strongly Bind us, and by the 12 Car. 2. c. 32. it was made highly penal on us, and by the 14th of Car. 2. c. 18. 'tis made Felony.  
To these three last Acts, I must confess, I have nothing to urge, to take off their Efficacy; Name us they do most certainly, and Bind us so, as we do not transgress them. But how Rightfully they do this, is the matter in Question. This I am sure of, that before these Acts in King Charles the Second Time, (the Eldest of which is not over Thirty-Seven years) there is not one positive full Precedent to be met with in all the Statute-Book, of an English Act Binding the Kingdom of Ireland. And on this Account we may venture to assert, That these are at least Innovations on us, as not being warranted by any former Precedents.  
And shall Proceedings only of Thirty-Seven Years standing, be urged against a Nation, to Deprive them of the Rights and Liberties which they Enjoyed for Five Hundred Years before, and which were Invaded without and against their Consent, and from that day to this have been constantly complained of? Let any English Heart that stands so justly in Vindication of his own Rights and Liberties, answer this Question, and I have done.  
I am now arrived at our Present 
English Acts Binding Ireland since King William's Reign.  Days, under the Happy Government of His Majesty King WILLIAM the Third; and I am sorry to reflect, That since the late Revolution in these Kingdoms, when the Subjects of England have more strenuously than ever Asserted their own Rights, and the Liberty of Parliaments, it has pleased them to bear harder on their Poor Neighbours, than has ever yet been done in many Ages foregoing. I am sure what was then done by that Wise and Just Body of Senators, was perfectly out of Good Will and Kindness to us, under those Miseries which our Afflicted Country of Ireland then suffered But I fear some Men have since that, made use of what was then done, to other Purposes than at first intended. Let us now see what that was, and consider the Circumstances under which it was done.  
In the year 1689. when most o●… the Protestant Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy of Ireland, were driven out of that Kingdom by the Insolences and Barbarities of the Irish Papists, who were then it Arms throughout the Kingdom and in all Places of Authority under King james, newly Returned to them out of France; the only Refuge we had to fly to was in England, where Multitudes continued for many Months, destitute of all manner of Relief, but such as the Charity of England afforded, which indeed was very Munificent, and never to be forgotten.  
The Protestant Clergy of Ireland 
Act for the Protestant Irish Clergy.  being thus Banished from their Benefices, many of them Accepted such small Ecclesiastical Promotions in England, as the Benevolence of well disposed Persons presented them with. But this being directly contrary to a Statute in this Kingdom, in the 17 and 18 of Charles the Second, Cap. 10. Entitled, An Act for Disabling of Spiritual Persons from holding Benefices or other Ecclesiastical Dignities in England or Wales, and in Ireland at the same time. The Protestant Irish Clergy thought they could not be too secure in avoiding the Penalty of the last mentioned Act, and therefore Applied themselves to the Parliament of England, and obtained an Act in the first year of King William and Queen Mary, c. 29. Entitled, An Act for the Relief of the Protestant Irish Clergy. And this was the first Attempt that was made for Binding Ireland by an Act in England, since his Majesty's Happy Accession to the Throne of these Kingdoms.  
Afterwards in the same year, and 
Act against Commerce with France.  same Session, Chap. 34. there passed an Act in England, Prohibiting all Trade and Commerce with France, both from England and Ireland. This also binds Ireland, but was during the Heat of the War in that Kingdom, when 'twas impossible to have a regular Parliament therein, all being in the hands of the Irish Papists. Neither do we complain, of it, as hindering us from corresponding with the King's Enemies, for 'tis the Duty of all Good Subjects to abstain from that. But as Scotland, tho' the King's Subjects, Claims an Exemption from all Laws but what they Assent to in Parliament; so we think this our Right also.  
When the Banished Laity of Ireland observed the Clergy thus careful to secure their Properties, and provide for the worst as well as they could in that Juncture, when no other means could be taken by a Regular Parliament in Ireland; they thought it likewise adviseable for them to do something in relation to their Concerns. And accordingly they obtained the Act for 
Act for Security of the Protestants of Ireland.  the better Security and Relief, of their Majesty's Protestant Subjects of Ireland, 1 W. and M. Ses. 2. c. 9 Wherein King James' Irish Parliament at Dublin, and all Acts and Attainders done by them, are declared void. 'Tis likewise thereby Enacted, that no Protestant shall suffer any Prejudice in his Estate or Office, by reason of his absence out of Ireland, since December 25. 1685. and that there should be a Remittal of the King's Quitrent, from 25 December 1688. to the end of the War. Thus the Laity thought themselves secure.  
And we cannot wonder that during the Heat of a Bloody War in this Kingdom, when it was impossible to Secure our Estates and Properties by a Regular Parliament of our own; we should have recourse to this Means, as the only which then could be had. We concluded with ourselves, that when we had obtained these Acts from the Parliament in England, we had gone a great way in securing the like Acts to be passed in a regular Parliament in Ireland, whenever it should please God to re-establish us in our own Country: For we well knew our own Constitution under Poynings Law, That no Act could Pass in the Parliament of Ireland till approved of by the King and Privy Council of England. And we knew likewise, That all the Lords and others of his Majesty's Privy Council in England are Members of the Lords or Commons House of Parliament there. And that by obtaining their Assent to Acts of Parliament in Favour of the Irish Protestants, they had in a manner pre-engaged their Assent to the like Bills when they should hereafter come before them as Privy Councillors, in order to be regularly Transmitted to the Parliament of Ireland, there to be passed into Laws of that Kingdom. But instead of all this, to meet with another Construction of what was done herein, and to have it pleaded against us as a Precedent of our Submission, and absolute Acquiescence in the Jurisdiction of the Parliaments of England over this Kingdom, is what we complain of as an Invasion (we humbly conceive) of that Legislative Right which our Parliament of Ireland, claims within this Kingdom.  
The next Act passed in the Parliament 
Act appointing New Oaths  of England, Binding Ireland, is that for Abrogating the Oath of Supremacy in Ireland, and Appointing other Oaths, 3 and 4 William and Mary, c. 2. To this the Parliament convened at Dublin, Anno 1692. under Lord Sidney, and that likewise Anno 1695. under Lord Capel, paid an entire Obedience. And by this ('tis alleged) we have given up our Right, if any we had, and have for ever acknowledged our Subordination to the Parliament of England. But let us a little consider the force of this Argument.  
I readily grant, that this and the other forementioned Acts in England since the Revolution, when they were made, were looked upon highly in our Favour, and for our Benefit; and to them as such, we have conformed ourselves. But then, in all Justice and Equity, our Submission herein is to be deemed purely voluntary, and not at all proceeding from the Right we conclude thereby in the Legislators. If a Man, who has no jurisdiction over me, command me to do a thing that is pleasing to me, and I do it; it will not thence follow, that thereby he obtains an Authority over me and that ever hereafter I must Obey him of Duty. If I voluntarily give my Money to a Man when I please, and think it convenient for me; this does not Authorise him at any time to command my Money from me when he pleases. If it be said, this allows Subjects to Obey only whilst 'tis convenient for them. I pray it may be considered, whether any Men Obey longer, unless they be forced to it; and whether they will not free themselves from this Force as soon as they can. 'Tis impossible to hinder Men from desiring to free themselves from Uneasiness, 'tis a Principle of Nature, and cannot be eradicated. If Submitting to an Inconvenience be a less Evil than endeavouring to Throw it off, Men will Submit. But if the Inconvenience grow upon them, and b●… greater than the hazard of getting rid of it, Men will Offer at putting it by, let the Statesman or Divine say what they can.  
But I shall yet go a little further, and venture to Assert, That the Right of being subject Only to such Laws to which Men give their own Consent, is so inherent to all Mankind, and founded on such Immutable Laws of Nature and Reason, that 'tis not to be Aliened, or Given up, by any Body of Men whatsoever: For the End of all Government and Laws being the Public Good of the Commonwealth, in the Peace, Tranquillity and Ease of every Member therein; whatsoever Act is contrary to this End, is in itself void, and of no effect: And therefore for a Company of Men to say, Let us Unite ourselves into a Society, and let us be absolutely Governed by such Laws, as such a Legis●…ator, without ever Consulting us, shall devise for us; 'tis always to be understood, Provided we find them for our Benefit: For to say, We will be Governed by those Laws, whether they be Good or Hurtful to us, is absurd in itself: For to what End do Men join in Society, but to avoid Hurt, and the Inconveniencies of the State of Nature?  
Moreover, I desire it may be considered, whether the General Application of the Chief part of the Irish Protestants, that were at that time in London, to the Parliament at Westminster, for obtaining these Laws, may not be taken for their Consent, and on that Account, and no other, these Acts may acquire their Binding Force. I know very well, this cannot be looked upon as a Regular and Formal Consent, such as might be requisite at another more favourable Juncture: But yet it may be taken talis qualis, as far as their Circumstances at that time would allow, till a more convenient Opportunity might present itself.  
I am sure, if some such Considerations as these, may not plead for us, we are of all his Majesty's Subjects the most Unfortunate: The Rights and Liberties of the Parliament of England have received the greatest Corroborations since his Majesty's Accession to the Throne; and so have the Rights of Scotland; but the Rights of the People of Ireland, on the other hand, have received the greatest Weakening under his Reign, by our Submission (as 'tis alleged) to these Laws that have been made for us.  
This certainly was not the Design of his Majesty's Glorious Expedition into these Kingdoms; That, we are told by Himself, (whom we cannot possibly mistrust) was to Assert the Rights and Liberties of these Nations; and we do humbly presume that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to permit us to Enjoy the Benefits thereof.  
And thus I have done with the 
The Opinions of the Lawyers thereon.  Fourth Article proposed. As to the Fifth, viz. The Opinions of the Learned in the Laws relating to this Matter; 'tis in a great measure dispatched by what I have offered on the Fourth Head; I shall therefore be the more brief thereon. And I think indeed the only Person of Note that remains to be considered by us, is the Lord Chief Justice 
Lord Chief Justice Cook's Opinion Discussed.  Cook, a Name of great Veneration with the Gentlemen of the Long Robe, and therefore to be treated with all Respect and Deference.  
In his Seventh Report in Calvin's Case, he is proving that Ireland is a Dominion Separate and Divided from England; for this he quotes many Authorities 
a 20 H. 6. 8. Pilkington' s Case. 32 H. 6. 25. 20 Eliz. Dyer. 360. Flowed. Com. 360.  out of the Year-Books and Reports; and amongst others, he has that which I have before mentioned, pag. 91. 2 R. 3. f. 12. which he Transcribes in this manner, Hibernia habet Parliamentum, & faciunt Leges, & nostra Statuta non ligant eos, quia non mittunt Milites ad Parliamentum; and then adds, in a Parenthesis, (which is to be understood, unless they be specially named) sed Personae eorum sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitants in Calesia, Gasconia, & Guyan. The first thing I shall observe hereon, is the very unfaithful and broken Citation of this Passage, as will manifestly appear by comparing it with the true Transcript I have given thereof before, pag. 91. Were this all, 'twere in some measure pardonable. But what cannot be excused, is the Unwarrantable Position in his Parenthesis, without the least colour or ground for it in his Text. Herein he concludes down right Magisterially, So it must be, this is my Definitive Sentence; as if his Plain Assertion, without any other Reason, aught to prevail; nay, even point blank against the irrefragable Reason of the Book he quotes. I confess in another place of Calvin's Case, viz. fol. 17. b. he gives this Assertion a Colour of Reason, by saying, That tho' Ireland be a Distinct Dominion from England, yet the Title thereof being by Conquest, the same by judgement of Law might by Express Words be bound by the Parliaments of England How far Conquest gives a Title, we have Enquired before: But I would fain know what Lord Cook means by judgement of Law: Whether he means the Law of Nature and Reason, or of Nations; or the Civil Laws of our Commonwealths; in none of which Senses, I conceive, will he, or any Man, be ever able to make out his Position.  
Is the Reason of England's Parliament not Binding Ireland, Because we do not send thither Representatives? And is the Efficacy of this Reason taken off, by our being Named in an English Act? Why should sending Representatives to Parliament, Bind those that send them? Merely because thereby the Consent of those that are Bound, is obtained, as far as those sort of Meetings can possibly permit; which is the very Foundation of the Obligation of all Laws. And is Ireland's being Named in an English Act of Parliament, the least step towards obtaining the Consent of the People of Ireland? If it be not, then certainly my Lord Cook's Parenthesis is to no purpose. And 'tis a wonder to me, that so many Men have run upon this vain Imagination, merely from the Assertion of this Judge: For I challenge any Man to show me, that any one before him, or any one since, but from him, has vended this Doctrine: And if the bare Assertion of a Judge, shall Bind a whole Nation, and Dissolve the Rights and Liberties thereof, We shall make their Tongues very powerful, and constitute them greater Lawgivers than the greatest Senates. I do not see why my Denying it, should not be as Authentic as his Affirming it. 'Tis true, He was a great Lawyer and a powerful Judge; but had no more Authority to make a Law, than I or any Man else. But some will say, He was a Learned Judge, and may be supposed to have Reason for his Position. Why then does he not give it us? And than what he Asserts would Prevail, not from the Authority of the Person, but from the Force of the Reason. The most Learned in the Laws have no more power to make or alter a Constitution, than any other Man; And their Decisions shall no farther prevail, than supported by Reason and Equity. I conceive my Ld. Ch. Justice Cook applied himself so wholly to the Study of the Common Laws of England, that he did not inquire far into the Laws of Nature and Nations; if he had, certainly he could never have been Guilty of such an Erroneous Slip; He would have seen demonstrably, that Consent only gives Humane Laws their Force, and that therefore the Reason in the Case he quotes is unanswerable, Quia non mittunt Milites ad Parliamentum. Moreover, the Assertion of Cook in this point is directly contrary to the whole tenor of the Case which he citys: For the very Act of Parliament on which the Debate of the Judges did arise, and which they deemed not to be of Force in Ireland, particularly names Ireland. So that here again Ld. Cooke's Error appears most plainly. For this I refer to the Report, as I have exactly delivered it before pag. 90, 91. By which it appears clearly to be the unanimous Opinion of all the Judges then in the Exchequer Chamber: That within the Land of Ireland, the Parliaments of England have no Jurisdiction, whatever they may have over the Subjects of Ireland on the open Seas: And the reason is given, Quia Hibernia non mittit Milites ad Parliamentum in Angliâ.  
This Assertion likewise is inconsistent with himself in other parts of his Works. He tells us in his 4th. Inst. pag. 349. That 'tis plain that not only King John (as all Men allow) but Henry the Second also, the Father of King John, did Ordain and Command, at the Instance of the Irish, That such Laws as had been in England should be Observed and of Force in Ireland. Hereby Ireland being of itself a distinct Dominion, and no part of the Kingdom of England, was to have Parliaments holden there as in England. And in pag. 12. he tells us, That Henry the Second sent a Modus into Ireland, directing them how to hold their Parliaments. But to what end was all this, if Ireland nevertheless were subject to the Parliament of England? The King and Parliaments of these Kingdoms are the supreme Legislators; If Ireland be subject to Two (its Own, and that of England) it has Two Supreams; 'tis not impossible, but they may Enact different or contrary Sanctions; which of these shall the People Obey? He tells us in Calvin's Case fol. 17. b. That if a King hath a Christian Kingdom by Conquest, as Henry the Second had Ireland, after King John had given to them, being under his Obedience, and Subjection, the Laws of England for the Government of that Country, no succeeding King could alter the same without Parliament. Which, by the way, seems directly contradictory to what he says concerning Ireland six lines below this last cited passage. So that we may observe my Lord Cook enormously stumbling at every turn in this Point.  
Thus I have done with this Reverend 
Opinions of other Judges, in Favour of Ireland.  Judge; and, in him, with the only Positive Opinion against us I shall now consider what our Law-Books offer in our Favour on this Point.  
To this purpose we meet a Case fully apposite, reported in the Year-Book of the 20th of Henry the 6th, fol. 8. between one john Pilkington and one A.  
Pilkington brought a Scire Facias 
Pilki●…s Case.  against A. to show Cause, why Letters Patents whereby the King had granted an Office in Ireland to the said A. should not be repealed, since the said Pilkington had the same Office granted to him by former Letters Patents of the same King to be occupied by himself or his Deputy. Whereupon A. pleaded, That the Land of Ireland, time out of Memory, hath been a Land separated and distinct from the Land of England, and Ruled and Governed by the Customs of the same Land of Ireland. That the Lords of the same Land, which are of the King's Council, have used from time to time, in the absence of the King, to Elect a justice, who hath Power to Pardon and Punish all Felons, etc. and to call a Parliament, and by the Advice of the Lords and Commonalty to make Statutes. He alleged further, That a Parliament was Assembled, and that it was Ordained by the said Parliament, 
a This Statute we may reckon. amongst the number of those that are lost during the long Intervals of our Irish Acts, noted before page 65. to be above 118 Years.  That every Man who had an Office within the said Land, before a certain day, shall occupy the said Office by himself, otherwise, he should forfeit. He showed that Pilkington Occupied by a Deputy; and that therefore his Office was void, and that the King had granted the said Office to him the said A. Hereupon Pilkington Demurred in Law; and it was debated by the Judges, Yeluerton, Fortescue, Portington, Markham, and Ascough, whether the said Prescription in relation to the State and Government of Ireland, be good o●… void in Law. Yeluerton and Portington held the Prescription void But Fortescue, Markham, and Ascough held the Prescription good; and that the Letters Patents made to A were good, and ought not to be Repealed. And in this it was agreed by Fortescue and Portington, That if a Tenth or Fifteenth be granted by Parliament in England, that shall not Bind Ireland, although the King should send the same Statute into Ireland under his Great Seal: Except they in Ireland will in their Parliament Approve it; Because they have not any Commandment by Writ to come to the Parliament of England: And this was not Denied by Markham, Yeluerton, or Ascough.  
The Merchants of Waterford's Case 
Merchants of Waterfords Case.  which I have observed before, pag. 90. as Reported in the Year Book of the 2d. of Richard the 3d. fol. 11, 12, is notorious on our behalf, but needs not be here repeated.  
The Case of the Prior of Lanthony 
Prior of Lanthonies Case.  in Wales, mentioned by Mr. Pryn against the 4th Inst. ch. 76. p. 313. is usually cited against us. But I conceive 'tis so far from proving this, that 'tis very much in our Behalf. The Case was briefly thus. The Prior of Lanthony brought an Action in the Com. Pleas of Ireland against the of Prior molingar, for an Arrear of an Annuity, and Judgement went against the Prior of molingar; hereon the Prior of molingar brought a Writ of Error in the King's Bench of Ireland, and the Judgement was affirmed. Then the Prior of molingar Appealed to the Parliament in Ireland held 5 Hen. 6. before james Butler Earl of Ormond, and the Parliament Reversed both Judgements. The Prior of Lanthony removed all into the King's Bench in England; but the King's Bench refused to intermeddle, as having no Power over what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland. Hereupon the Prior of Lanthony Appealed to the Parliament of England. And it does not appear by the Parliament Roll 
a Rot. Parl. An. 8. H. 6. in ult.  that any thing was done on this Appeal; all that is Entered being only the Petition itself at the end of the Roll. Vid. Pryn against the 4th Instit. chap. 76. p. 313.  
Now whether this be a Precedent proving the Subordination of our Irish Parliament to that of England, I leave the Reader to judge. To me it seems the clear contrary. For first we may observe, the King's Bench in England absolutely disclaiming any Cognisance of what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland. And next we may observe, That nothing at all was done therein upon the Appeal to the Parliament of England: Certainly if the Parliament of England had thought themselves to have a Right to Inquire into this Matter, they had so done, one way or tother, and not left the Matter Undetermined  
It has ever been acknowledged 
Argument from Acts of Succession and Recognition passed in Ireland.  that the Kingdom of Ireland is inseparably annexed to the Imperial Crown of England. The Obligation that our Legislature lies under by poinding's Act, 10 H. 7. c. 4. makes this Tie between the two Kingdoms indissoluble. And we must ever own it our Happiness to be thus Annexed to England: And that the Kings and Queens of England are by undoubted Right, ipso facto Kings and Queens of Ireland. And from hence we may reasonably conclude, that if any Acts of Parliament made in England, should be of force in Ireland, before they are Received there in Parliament, they should be more especially such Acts as relate to the Succession and Settlement of the Crown, and Recognition of the King's Title thereto, and the Power and jurisdiction of the King. And yet we find in the Irish Statutes, 28 Hen. VIII. c. 2. An Act for the Succession of the King and Queen Ann; and another, Chap. 5. declaring the King to be Supreme Head of the Church of Ireland; both which Acts had formerly passed in the Parliament of England So likewise we find amongst the Irish Statutes Acts of Recognition of the King's Title to Ireland, in the Reigns of Henry the Eighth, Queen Elizabeth, King james, King Charles the Second, King William and Queen Marry. By which it appears that Ireland, tho' Annexed to the Crown of England, has always been looked upon to be a Kingdom Complete within itself, and to have all Jurisdiction to an Absolute Kingdom belonging, and Subordinate to no Legislative Authority on Earth. Tho', 'tis to be Noted these English Acts relating to the Succession, and Recognition of the King's Title, do particularly Name Ireland.  
As the Civil State of Ireland is 
Ireland's State Ecclesiastical Independent.  thus Absolute within itself, so likewise is our State Ecclesiastical: This is manifest by the Canons and Constitutions, and even by the Articles of the Church of Ireland which differ in some things from those of the Church of England And in all the Charters and Grant of Liberties and Immunities to Ireland, we still find this, That Holy Church shall be Free, etc. I would fain know what is meant here by the word Free: Certainly if our Church be Free and Absolute within itself, our State must be so likewise; for how our Civil and Ecclesiastical Government is now interwoven, every body knows. But I will not enlarge on this head, it suffices only to hint it; I shall detain myself to our Civil Government.  
Another Argument against the 
Argument from a Record in Reyley.  Parliament of England's Jurisdiction over Ireland, I take from a Record in Reyley's Placita Parliamentaria, pag. 569. to this effect: 
a 14 Ed. 2. Par. 2. Memb▪ 21 Int.  In the 14th of Edward the Second, the King sent his Letters Patents to the Lord Justice of Ireland, letting him know, That he had been moved by his Parliament at Westminster, that he would give Order that the Irish Natives of Ireland, might enjoy the Laws of England concerning Life and Member, in as large and ample manner as the English of Ireland enjoyed the same. This therefore the King gives in Commandment, and orders accordingly, by these his Letters Patents. From hence, I say, we may gather, That the Parliament of England did not then take upon them to have any jurisdiction in Ireland, (for then they would have made a Law for Ireland to this Effect) but instead thereof, they Apply to the King, that he would interpose his Commands, and give Directions that this great Branch of the Common Law of England should be put in Execution in Ireland indifferently to all the King's Subjects there, pursuant to the Original Compact made with them on their first Submission to the Crown of England.  
Let us now consider the great 
Objection drawn from a Writ of Error.  Objection drawn from a Writ of Error's lying from the King's Bench of England, on a Judgement given in the King's Bench in Ireland; which proves (as 'tis insisted on) that there is a Subordination of Ireland to England; and that if an Inferior Court of Judicature in England, can thus take cognizance of, and overrule the Proceedings in the like Court of Ireland; it will follow, that the Supreme Court of Parliament in England may do the same, in relation to the Proceedings of the Court of Parliament in Ireland.  
It must be confessed that this has been the constant Practice; and it seems to be the great thing that induced my Lord Cook to believe that an Act of Parliament in England, and mentioning or Including Ireland, should Bind here. The Subordination of Ireland to England, he seems to infer from the Subordination of the King's Bench of Ireland, to the King's Bench of England. But to this I answer:  
1. That 'tis the Opinion of several Learned in the Laws of Ireland, That this Removal of a Judgement from the King's Bench of Ireland, by Writ of Error, into the King's Bench of England, is founded on an Act of Parliament in Ireland, which is lost amongst a great number of other Acts, which we want for the space of 130 years at one time, and of 120 at another time, as we have noted before, pag. 65. But it being only a General Tradition, that there was such an Act of our Parliament, we only offer it as a Surmise, the Statute itself does not appear.  
2. Where a Judgement in Ireland is Removed, to be Reversed in England, the Judges in England ought, and always do judge, according to the Laws and Customs of Ireland, and not according to the Laws and Customs of England, any otherwise than as these may be of Force in Ireland; but if in any thing the two Laws differ, the Law of Ireland must prevail, and guide their Judgement. And therefore in the Case of one Kelly, Removed to the King's Bench in England, in the beginning of King Charles the First, one Error was assigned that the Praecipe was of Woods and Underwoods', which is a manifest Error, if brought in England; but the Judges finding the Use to be Otherwise in Ireland, judged it No Error. So in Crook, Charles, fol. 511. Mulcarry verse. Eyre's. Error was assigned for that the Declaration was of one hundred Acres of Bogg, which is a word not known in England; but 'twas said, It was well enough understood in Ireland, and so adjudged No Error.  
From whence, I conceive, 'tis manifest, that the Jurisdiction of the King's Bench in England, over a Judgement in the King's Bench of Ireland, does not proceed from any Subordination of one Kingdom to the other; but from some other Reason, which we shall endeavour to make out.  
3. We have before observed, That in the Reign of K. Henry the Third, Gerald Fitz-Maurice, Lord Justice of Ireland, sent four Knights to know what was held for Law in England in the Case of Coparceners. The Occasion of which Message (as before we have noted out of the King's Rescript) was, because the King's Justice of Ireland was ignorant what the Law was. We may reasonably imagine that there were many Messages of this kind; for in the Infancy of the English Government, it may well be supposed, that the Judges in Ireland were not so deeply versed in the Laws of England: This occasioned Messages to England, Before Judgement given in Ireland, to be informed of the Law. And After Decrees made, Persons who thought themselves aggrieved by Erroneous Judgements, applied themselves to the King in England for Redress. Thus it must be, that Writs of Error (unless they had their Sanction in Parliament) became in use. Complaints to the King by those that thought themselves injured, increased; and at last grew into Custom, and obtained the Force of Law.  
Perhaps it may be Objected, That if the Judges of the King's Bench in England ought to Regulate their Judgement by the Customs of Ireland, and not of England, it will follow, that this Original which we assign of Writs of Error to England, is not right.  
I Answer, That this may be the Primary Original, and yet consist well enough with what we have before laid down: For tho' the Common Law of England was to be the Common Law of Ireland, and Ireland at the beginning of its English Government might frequently send into England to be informed about it; yet this does not hinder, but Ireland, in a long Process of Time, may have some smaller Customs and Laws of its own, gradually but insensibly crept into Practice, that may in some measure differ from the Customs and Practice of England; and where there is any such, the Judges of England must regulate their Sentence accordingly, tho' the first Rise of Writs of Error to England, may be as we have here suggested. In like manner, where the Statute-Law of Ireland differs from that of England, the Judges of England will regulate their Judgements by the Statute-law of Ireland: This is the constant Practice, and notoriously known in Westminster-Hall: From which it appears, that removing a Judgement from the King's Bench of Ireland, to the King's Bench of England, is but an Appeal to the King in his Bench of England, for his Sense, Judgement, or Exposition of the Laws of Ireland. But of this more hereafter.  
4. When a Writ of Error is Returned into the King's Bench of England, Suit is made to the King only; The Matter lies altogether before Him; and the Party complaining applies to No Part of the Political Government of England for Redress, but to the King of Ireland only, who is in England: That the King only is sued to, our Law-Books make Plain. This Court is called Curia Domini Regis, and Aula Regia, because the King used to sit there in Person, as Lambard tells us; And every Cause brought there, is said to be coram Domino Rege, even at this very day, Cook 4 Inst. p. 72. Therefore if a Writ be returnable coram nobis ubicunque fuerimus, 'tis to be Returned to the King's Bench. But if it be Returnable coram justiciariis nostris apud Westm. 'tis to be Returned into the Common Pleas. This Court (as Glaunil and other Ancients tells us) used to Travel with the King, wherever he went. And Fleta, in describing this Court, says, Habet Rex Curiam suam & justiciarios suos, coram quibus, & non alibi nisi coram semet ipso, etc. falsa judicia & Errores revertuntur & Corriguntur. The King then (as Britton says) having Supreme Jurisdiction in his Realm, to judge in all Causes whatsoever; therefore it is, that Erroneous judgements were brought to him out of Ireland. But this does not argue that Ireland is therefore Subordinate to England; for the People of Ireland are the Subjects of the King to whom they Appeal. And 'tis not from the Country where the Court is held, but from the Presence and Authority of the King (to whom the People of Ireland have as good a Title as the People of England) that the Praeeminence of the jurisdiction does flow, And I question not, but in former times, when these Courts were first Erected, and when the King Exerted a greater Power in Judicature than he does now, and he used to sit in his own Court, that if he had Travelled into Ireland, and the Court had followed him thither; Erroncous Judgements might have been removed from England before him into his Court in Ireland; for so certainly it must be, since the Court Travelled with the King. From hence it appears, that all the Jurisdiction, that the King's Bench in England, has over the King's Bench in Ireland, arises only from the King's Presence in the former. And the same may be said of the Chancery in England, if it will assume any Power to Control the Chancery in Ireland; because (as Lambard says, p. 69, 70.) The Chancery did follow the King, as the King's Bench did; and that, as he tells us out of the Lord Chief Justice Scroop, the Chancery and the King's Bench were once but one Place. But if this be the ground of the Jurisdiction of the King's Bench in England over the King's Bench in Ireland, (as I am fully persuaded it is) the Parliament in England cannot from hence claim any Right of Jurisdiction in Ireland, because they claim a jurisdiction of their own; and their Court is not the King's Court, in that proper and strict sense that the King's Bench is.  
But granting that the Subordination of the King's Bench in Ireland, to the King's ●…ch in England, be rightly concluded from a Writ of Error out of the latter, ●…ying on a Judgement in the former. I see no Reason from thence to conclude, that therefore the Parliament of Ireland is Subordinate to the Parliament in England, unless we make any one sort of Subordination, or in any one part of Jurisdiction, to be a Subordination in all Points, and all parts of Jurisdiction. The Subjects of Ireland may Appeal to the King in his Bench in England, for the Expounding of the Old common and Statute-Law of Ireland; will it therefore follow that the Parliament of England shall make New Laws to bind the Subjects in Ireland? I see no manner of Consequence in it; unless we take Expounding Old Laws, (or Laws already made) in the-Kings Bench, and making New Laws in Parliament, to be one and the same thing. I believe the best Logician in Europe will hardly make a Chain of Syllogisms, that from such Premises, will regularly induce such a Conclusion.  
To close this Point, We find that a Judgement of the King's Bench in Ireland, may be Removed by a Writ of Error to the Parliament in Ireland: But the Judgement of the Parliament of Ireland was never questioned in the Parliament of England. This Appears from the Prior of Lanthony's Case aforegoing.  
I shall conclude this our Fifth Article with a memorable Passage 
Declaration in the Irish Act of Faculties.  out of our Irish Statutes, which seems to strengthen what we have delivered on the Business of a Writ of Error, as well as the chief Doctrine I drive at; and that is 28 H. VIII. Chap. 19 The Act of Faculties. This Statute is a Recital at large of the English Act of the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. In the Preamble of which English Act 'tis Declared, That this Your Grace's Realm Recognising no Superior but Your Grace, hath been and yet is free from any Subjection to any Man's Laws, but only such as have been Devised within this Realm; for the Wealth of the same, or to such others, as by Sufferance of Your Grace and Your Progenitors, the People of the Realm have taken at their Free Liberties by their own Consent; and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to the Observance of, etc.  
This Declaration, with the other Clauses of the said English Act, is verbatim recited in the Irish Act of Faculties; and in the said Irish Act it is Enacted, That the said English Act, and every thing and things therein contained, shall be Established, Affirmed, Taken, Obeyed and Accepted within this Land of Ireland as a good and perfect Law, and shall be within the said Land of the same Force, Effect, Quality, Condition, Strength and Virtue, to all Purposes and Intents, as it is within the Realm of England; (if so, than the said Clause declares our Right of being bound only by Laws to which we Consent, as it does the Right of the People of England) And that all Subjects within the said Land of Ireland, shall enjoy the Profit and Commodity thereof, in like manner as the King's Subjects of the Realm of England.  
I am now Arrived at our Sixth and Last Article Proposed, viz. The 
Farther Reasons offered in behalf of Ireland.  Reasons and Arguments that may be be farther Offered on one side and tother in this Debate.  
I have before taken notice of the 
England's Title to Ireland by Purchase.  Title England pretends over us from Conquest: I have likewise enquired into the Precedents on one side and tother, from Acts of Parliament, from Records, and from Reports of the Learned in the Laws. There remains another Pretence or two for this Subordination, to be Considered; and one is founded on Purchase.  
'Tis said, That vast Quantity of Treasure, that from time to time has been spent by England in Reducing the Rebellions and carrying on the Wars of Ireland, has given them a just Title at least to the Lands and Inheritances of the Rebels, and to the absolute Disposal thereof in their Parliament; And as particular Examples of this, we are told of the great Sums Advanced by England for suppressing the Rebellion of the Irish Papists in 41. and Opposing the late Rebellion since King WILLIAM's Accession to the Throne.  
To this I Answer, That in a War there is all Reason imaginable that the Estates of the Unjust Opposers should go to repair the the Damage that is done. This I have briefly hinted before. But if we consider the Wars of Ireland, we shall perceive they do not resemble the common Case of Wars between two Foreign Enemies; Ours are rather Rebellions, or Intestine Commotions; that is, The Irish Papists rising against the King and Protestants of Ireland; and then 'tis plain, that if these Latter, by the Assistance of their Brethren of England, and their Purse, do prove Victorious, the People of England ought to be fully Repaid▪ But then the manner of their Payment, and in what way it shall be Levied, aught to be left to the People of Ireland in Parliament Assembled: And so it was after the Rebellion of 41. The Adventurers than were at vast Charges, and there were several Acts of Parliament in England made for their Re-imbursing, by disposing to them the Rebels Lands. But after all, it was thought Reasonable that the Parliament of Ireland should do this in their own way; and therefore the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, made all the former English Acts of No Force; or at least did very much Alter them in many Particulars, as we have Noted before. In like manner we allow that England ought to be repaid all their Expenses in supressing this late Rebellion: All we desire is, That, in Preservation of our own Rights and Liberties, we may do it in our own Methods regularly in our own Parliament: And if the Reimbursement be all that England stands upon, what availeth it whether it be done this way or that way, so it be done? We have an Example of this in Point between England and Holland in the Glorious Revolution under His Present Majesty: Holland in Assisting England Expended 600000 Pounds, and the English Parliament fairly repaid them: It would have looked oddly for Holland to have insisted on Disposing of Lord Powis' and other Estates, by their own Laws, to re-imburse themselves.  
'Tis an Ungenerous thing to vilify good Offices, I am far from doing it, but with all possible Gratitude Acknowledge the Mighty Benefits Ireland has often received from England, in helping to suppress the Rebellions of this Coun●…ry; To England's Charitable Assistance our Lives and Fortunes are owing: But with all humble Submission, I desire it may be considered, whether England did not at ●…he same time propose the Prevention of their own Danger, that would necessarily have attended our Ruin; if so, 'twas in some measure their own Battles they fought, when they fought for Ireland; and a great part of their Expense must be reckoned in their own Defence.  
Another thing alleged against Ireland is this: If a Foreign Nation, as France or Spain for instance, 
Object. Ireland prejudicial to England's Trade, therefore to be Bound.  prove prejudicial to England, in its Trade, or any other way; England, if it be stronger, redresses itself by Force of Arms, or Denouncing War; and why may not England, if Ireland lies cross their Interests, restrain Ireland, and bind it by Laws, and maintain these Laws by Force?  
To this I answer: First, That it will hardly be instanced, that any Nation ever Declared War with another, merely for over-topping them in some signal Advantage, which otherwise, or but for their Endeavours, they might have reaped. War only is Justifiable for Injustice done, or Violence offered, or Rights detained. I cannot by the Law of Nations, quarrel with a Man, because he, going before me in the Road, finds a Piece of Gold, which possibly, if he had not taken it up, I might have light upon and gotten. 'Tis true, we often see Wars commenced on this Account underhand, and on Emulation in Trade and Riches; but then this is never made the Open Pretence, some other Colour it must receive, or else it would not look fair; which shows plainly, that this Pretence of being Prejudicial, or of reaping Advantages which otherwise you might partake of, is not justifiable in itself. But granting that it were a good Justification of a War with a Foreign Nation, it will make nothing in the Case between England and Ireland; for if it did, why does it not operate in the same manner between England and Scotland, and consequently in like manner draw after it England's binding Scotland by their Laws at Westminster: We are all the same King's Subjects, the Children of one Common Parent; and tho' we may have our Distinct Rights and Inheritances absolutely within ourselves; yet we ought not, when these do chance a little to interfere to the prejudice of one or t'other side, immediately to treat one another as Enemies; fair Amicable Propositions should be proposed, and when these are not harkened to, then 'tis time enough to be at Enmity, and use Force.  
The last thing I shall take Notice 
Object. Ireland a Colony.  of, that some raise against us, is, That Ireland is to be looked upon only as a Colony from England: And therefore as the Roman Colonies were subject to, and bound by, the Laws made by the Senate at Rome; so ought Ireland by those made by the Great Council at Westminster. Of all the Objections raised against us, I take this to be the most Extravagant; it seems not to have the least Foundation or Colour from Reason or Record: Does it not manifestly appear by the Constitution of Ireland, that 'tis a Complete Kingdom within itself? Do not the Kings of England bear the Style of Ireland amongst the rest of their Kingdoms? Is this Agreeable to the nature of a Colony? Do they use the Title of Kings of Virginia, New-England, or Mary-Land? Was not Ireland given by Henry the Second in a Parliament at Oxford to his Son john, and made thereby an Absolute Kingdom, separate and wholly Independent on England, till they both came United again in him, after the Death of his Brother Richard without Issue? Have not multitudes of Acts of Parliament both in England and Ireland, declared Ireland a Complete Kingdom? Is not Ireland styled in them All, the Kingdom, or Realm of Ireland? Do these Names agree to a Colony? Have we not a Parliament, and Courts of Judicature? Do these things agree with a Colony? This on all hands involves so many Absurdities, that I think it deserves nothing more of our Consideration.  
These being the only remaining Arguments that are sometimes mentioned Against us, I now proceed to offer what I humbly conceive Demonstrates the Justice of our Cause.  
And herein I must beg the Reader's Patience, if now and then I am forced lightly to touch upon some Particulars foregoing. I shall Endeavour all I can to avoid prolix Repetitions; but my Subject requires that sometimes I just mention, or refer to, several Notes before delivered.  
First therefore, I say, That Ireland should be Bound by Acts of Parliament made in England, is against Reason, and the Common Rights of all Mankind.  
All Men are by Nature in a state 
Against the Rights of Mankind.  of Equality, in respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion: This I take to be a Principle in itself so evident, that it stands in need of little Proof. 'Tis not to be conceived, that Creatures of the same Species and Rank, promiscuously born to all the same Advantages of Nature, and the use of the same Faculties, should be Subordinate and Subject one to another; These to this or that of the same Kind. On this Equality in Nature is founded that Right which all Men claim, of being free from all Subjection to Positive Laws, till by their own Consent they give up their Freedom, by entering into Civil Societies for the common Benefit of all the Members thereof. And on this Consent 
Consent only gives Law force.  depends the Obligation of all Humane Laws; insomuch that without it, by the Unanimous Opinion of all jurists, no Sanctions are of any Force. For this let us Appeal, amongst many, only to the judicious Mr. Hooker's Eccles. Polity, Book 1. Sec. 10. Lond. Ed it. 1676. Thus Herald  
Howbeit, Laws do not take their Constraining force from the Quality of such as Devise them, but from that Power which doth give them the strength of Laws. That which we spoke before, concerning the Power of Government, must here be applied to the Power of making Laws whereby to Govern, which Power God hath over All; and by the Natural Law, whereunto he hath made all subject, the Lawful Power of making Laws, to command whole Politic Societies of Men, belongeth so properly unto the same entire Societies, that for any Prince or Potentate, of what kind soever upon Earth, to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God, or else by Authority derived at the first from their Consent, upon whose Persons they impose Laws, it is no better than mere Tyranny. Laws they are not therefore, which Public Approbation hath not made so: But Approbation not only they Give, who Personally declare their Assent by Voice, Sign, or Act; but also when others do it in their Names, by Right Originally, at the least, derived from them: As in Parliaments, Councils, etc.  
Again, Sith Men Naturally have no full and perfect Power to command whole Politic Multitudes of Men; therefore utterly without our Consent, we could in such sort be at no Man's Commandment living. And to be commanded we do consent, when that Society whereof we are part, hath at any time before consented, without revoking the same after by the like Universal Agreement. Wherefore as any Man's Deed past is good, as long as himself continueth, so the Act of a Public Society of Men, done five hundred years sithence, standeth as theirs who presently are of the same Societies, because Corporations are Immortal; we were then alive in our Predecessors, and they in their Successors do still live. Laws therefore Humane of what kind soever, are available by Consent, etc.  
And again, But what matter the Law of Nations doth contain, I omit to search; the strength and virtue of that Law is such, that no particular Nation can lawfully prejudice the same by any their several Laws and Ordinances, more than a Man by his Private Resolutions the Law of the whole Commonwealth or State wherein he liveth; for as Civil Law being the Act of a whole Body Politic, doth therefore overrule each Civil part of the same Body; so there is no Reason that any one Commonwealth of itself, should to the Prejudice of another, annihilate that whereupon the whole World hath Agreed.  
To the same purpose may we find the Universal Agreement of all Civilians, Grotius, Puffendorf, Lock's Treat. Government, etc.  
No one or more Men, can by Nature challenge any Right, Liberty or Freedom, or any Ease in his Property, Estate or Conscience, which all other Men have not an Equally Just Claim to. Is England a Free People? So ought France to be. Is Poland so? Turkey likewise, and all the Eastern Dominions, aught to be so: And the same runs throughout the whole Race of Mankind.  
Secondly, 'Tis against the Common 
Against the Common Law of England.  Laws of England, which are of Force both in England and Ireland, by the Original Compact before hinted. It is Declared by both Houses of the Parliament of England, 1 jac. cap. 1. That in the High Court of Parliament, all the whole Body of the Realm, and every particular Member thereof, either in Person, or by Representation (upon their own Free Elections) are by the Laws of this Realm deemed to be Personally present. Is this then the common Law of England, and the Birthright of every Freeborn English Subject? And shall we of this Kingdom be denied it, by having Laws imposed on us, where we are neither Personally, nor Representatively present? My Lord Cook in his 4th Inst. cap. 1. saith, That all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and all the Commons of the whole Realm, aught ex Debito Justiciae to be Summoned to Parliament, and none of them ought to be Omitted. Hence it is called Generale Concilium in the Stat. of Westminst. 1. and Commune Concilium, because it is to comprehend all Persons and Estates in the whole Kingdom. And this is the very Reason given in the Case of the Merchants of Waterford foregoing, why Statutes made in England, should not bind them in Ireland, Quia non habent Milites hic in Parliamento; Because they have no Representatives in the Parliament of England. My Lord Hobbard in the Case of Savage and Day, pronounced it for Law, That whatever is against Natural Equity and Reason, is against Law; Nay, if an Act of Parliament were made against Natural Equity and Reason, that Act was void. Whether it be not against Equity and Reason, that a Kingdom regulated within itself, and having its own Parliament, should be Bound without their Consent, by the Parliament of another Kingdom, I leave the Reader to consider. My Lord Cook likewise in the first Part of his Institutes, fol. 97. b. saith, Nihil quod est contra Rationem est Licitum. And in the old Modus Tenendi Parliamenta of England, said to be writ about Edward the Confessor's time, and to have been Confirmed and Approved by William the Conqueror: It is expressly declared, That all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses ought to be summoned to Parliament. The very same is in the Modus sent into Ireland by Henry the 2d. And in King John's Great Charter dated 17. johannis, 'tis granted in these words, Et ad habend. Commune Concilium Regni de Auxiliis & Scutagiis Assidendis, Submoneri faciemus Ar●…hiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Comites, & Majores Barones, Regni Sigillatim per Literas Nostras, & faciemus submoneri in generali per Vicecomites omnes alios, etc. Math. Paris ad An. 17. johann. All are to be Summoned to Parliament, the Nobility by special Writts; the Commons by general Writts to the Sheriffs. And is this the Common Law of England? Is this part of those Liberae Consuetudines, that were contained in the Great Charter of the Liberties of the People of England; And were so solemnly granted by Henry II. King john, and Henry the 3d, to the People of Ireland, that they should Enjoy and be Governed by; and unto which they were Sworn to be Obedient; And shall they be of Force only in England, and not in Ireland? Shall Ireland Receive these Charters of Liberties, and be no Partakers of the Freedoms therein contained? Or do these words signify in England one thing, and in Ireland no such thing? This is so repugnant to all Natural Reason and Equity, that I hope no Rational Man will Contest it: I am sure if it be so, there's an end of all Speech amongst Men; All Compacts, Agreements, and Societies, are to no purpose.  
3. It is against the Statute Laws 
Against the Statute Law both of England and Ireland.  both of England, and Ireland: this has been pretty fully disussed before; however I shall here again take notice, That 
a See before pag. 65.  in the 10. of Henry the 4th it was Enacted in Ireland, that Statutes made in England should not be of Force in Ireland, unless they were Allowed and Published by the Parliament of Ireland. And the like Statute was made the 29th of Henry the 6th. And in the 10th Year of Henry the 7th. Chap. 23 Irish Statutes, The Parliame●… which was held at Drogheda, befor●… Sir Christopher Preston, Deputy to jaspar Duke of Bedford, Lieut●… nant of Ireland, was declared Void for this Reason amongst others That there was no General Summons of the said Parliament to all the Shires, but only to Four. And if Acts of Parliament made in Irelan●… shall not Bind that People, because some Counties were omitted: how much less shall either their Persons or Estates be Bound by those Acts made in England, whereat no one County, or Person of that Kingdom is present? In the 
b Pultons' Col. Eng. Stats. Edit. 1670. pag. 63.  25t●… of Edward the 1st. Cap. 6. It was Enacted by the Parliament of England in these Words, Moreover from henceforth we shall take no manner of Aid, Taxes, or Prizes, but by the Common Assent of the Realm. 
c ibid. page. 75.  And again in the Statute of Liber ties, by the same King, Cap. 1. D●… Tallag. non Concedend. it is Enacted in these Words. No Tallage or Aid shall be Taken or Levied by Us, or Our Heirs, in Our Realm, without the Good Will and Assent of Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other Freemen of the Land. The like Liberties are specially Confirmed to the Clergy, 
d ibid. page. 113.  the 14th of Edward the 3d. And were these Statutes, and all other Statutes and Acts of the Parliament of England Ratified, Confirmed, and Adjudged by several Parliaments of Ireland to be of Force within this Realm: And shall the People of Ireland receive no Benefit by those Acts? Are those Statutes of Force in England only; And can they add no Immunity or Privilege to the Kingdom of Ireland, when they are received there? Can the King and Parliament make Acts in England to Bind his Subjects of Ireland without their Consent; And can he make no Acts in Ireland with their Consent, whereby they may receive any Privilege or Immunity? This were to make the Parliaments of Ireland wholly Illusory, and of no Effect. If this be Reasonable Doctrine, To what end was poinding's Law in Ireland, 
e 10 H. 7. c. 22  that makes all the Statutes of England before that, in Force in this Kingdom? This might as well have been done, and again undone, when they please, by a single Act of the English▪ Parliament. But let us not make thus light of Constitutions of Kingdoms, 'tis Dangerous to those who do it, 'tis Grievous to those that suffer it.  
Moreover, Had the King or his Council of England, in the 10th year of Hen. VII. in the least dreamt of this Doctrine, to what end was all that strict Provision made by poinding's Act, Irish Stat. cap. 4. That no Act of Parliament should pass in Ireland, before it was first Certified by the Chief Governor and Privy Council here, under the Broad Seal of this Kingdom, to the King and his Privy Council in England, and received their Approbation, and by them be remitted hither under the Broad Seal of England, here to be passed into a Law? The design of this Act, seems to be the Prevention of any thing passing in the Parliament of Ireland Surreptitiously, to the Prejudice of the King, or the English Interest of Ireland. But this was a needless Caution, if the King, and Parliament of England, had Power at any time to revoke or annul any such Proceedings. Upon this Act of Poynings, many and various Acts have passed in Ireland, relating to the Explanation, Suspension, or farther Corroboration thereof, in divers Parliaments, both in Henry the Eighth's, Phil. & Mary's, and Q. Eliz. Reigns; for which see the Irish Statutes. 
a 28 H 8. c. 4. 28 H. 8. c. 20. 3 & 4 Ph. & M. c. 4. 11 Eliz. Ses. 2. c. 1. 11 Eliz. Ses. 3. c. 8.  All which show that this Doctrine was hardly so much as Surmised in those Days, however we come to have it raised in these Latter Times.  
Fourthly, 'Tis against several 
Against several Concessions made to Ireland.  Charters of Liberties Granted unto the Kingdom of Ireland: This likewise is clearly made out by what foregoes. I shall only add in this place, That in the Patent-Roll of the 17 Rich. 2. m. 34. de Confirmatione, There is a Confirmation of several Liberties and Immunities granted unto the Kingdom and People of Ireland by Edw. III. The Patent is somewhat long, but so much as concerns this Particular, I shall render verbatim, as I have it Transcribed from the Roll by Sir William Do●…vile, Attorney General in Ireland during the whole Reign of King Charles II. Rex omnibus, etc. Salutem: Inspeximus Literas Patentes Domini Edwardi nuper Regis Angliae, Avi nostri fact. in haec verba: Edwardus Dei Gra. Rex Angliae & Franciae, & Dominus Hiberniae, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Ministris nostris tam Majoribus quam Minoribus, & quibuscunque aliis de Terra nostra Hiberniae fidelibus nostris ad quos Praesentes Literae pervenerint, Salutem: Quia, etc. Nos haec quae sequuntur Ordinanda Duximus & firmiter observanda, etc. Imprimis, vizt. Volumus & Praecipimus quod Sancta Hibernicana Ecclesia suas Libertates & Liberas Consuetudines illesas habeat, & eye Libere gaudeat & Utatur. Item volumus & praecipimus quod nostra & ipsius Terrae Negotia presertim Majora & Ardua in Consiliis per Peritos Consiliaros nostros ac Praelatos & Magnates & quosdam de Discretioribus & Probioribus Hominibus de partibus vicinis ubi ipsa Concilia teneri Contigerit propter hoc evocandos, in Parliamentis vero per ipsos Conciliaros nostros ac Praelatos & Proceres aliosque de terra predicta prout Mos Exegit secundum justiciam Legem Consuetudinem & Rationem tractentur deducantur & fideliter timore favore odio aut praetio post positis discutiantur ac etiam terminentur, etc. In Cujus Rei Testimonium has Literas nostras fieri fecimus Patentes Teste meipso Apud Westminst. 25 die Octob. Anno Regni nostris Angliae 31, Regni vero Franciae 18. Nos autem Ordinationes Voluntates & Praecepta Praedicta ac omnia alia & singula in Litteris praedictis Contenta Rata Habentes & Grata Ea pro nobis & Haeredibus nostris quantum in nobis est Acceptamus, Approbamus, Ratificamus, & Confirmamus prout Literae praedictae rationabiliter testanter. In Cujus, etc. Test. Reg. apud Westminst. 26 die junii.  
Fifthly, It is inconsistent with 
Inconsistent with the Royalties of a Kingdom.  the Royalties and Praeeminence of a Separate and Distinct Kingdom. That we are thus a Distinct Kingdom, has been clearly made out before. 'Tis plain, the Nobility of Ireland are an Order of Peers clearly Distinct from the Peerage of England, the Privileges of the one, extend not into the other Kingdom; a Lord of Ireland may be Arrested by his Body in England; and so may a Lord of England in Ireland, whilst their Persons remain Sacred in their respective Kingdoms: A Voyage Royal may be made into Ireland, as the Year-Book, 11 Hen. 4. 17. fol. 7. and Lord Cook tells us; and King john in the 12th year of his Reign of England, made a Voyage Royal into Ireland; and all his Tenants in Chief, which did not attend him in that Voyage, did pay him Escuage, at the Rate of Two Marks for every Knight's Fee; which was imposed super Praelatis & Baronibus pro Passagio Regis in Hibernia, as appears by the Pipe-Roll, Scutag▪ 12 johannis Regis in Scaccario Angl. Which shows that we are a Complete Kingdom within ourselves, and not little better than a Province, as some are so Extravagant as to Assert; none of the Properties of a Roman Province agreeing in the least with our Constitution. 'Tis Resolved in Sir Richard Pembrough's Case in the 44th of Edw. III. That Sir Richard might lawfully refuse the King, to serve him as his Deputy in Ireland, and that the King could not Compel him thereto, for that were to Banish him into another Kingdom, which is against Magna Charta, Chap. 29. Nay, even though Sir Richard had great Tenors from the King, pro servitio Impenso & Impendendo, for that was said must be understood within the Realm of England, Cooks 2d Inst. pag. 47. And in Pilkington's Case aforementioned, Fortescue declared, That the Land of Ireland is and at all times hath been a Dominion Separate and Divided from England. How then can the Realms of England and Ireland, being Distinct Kingdoms and Separate Dominions, be imagined to have any Superiority or jurisdiction the one over the other. 'Tis absurd to fancy that Kingdoms are Separate and Distinct merely from the Geographical Distinction of Territories. Kingdoms become Distinct by Distinct jurisdictions, and Authorities Legislative and Executive; and as Rex est qui Regem non habet, so Regnum est quod alio non Subjicitur Regno: A Kingdom can have no Supreme; 'tis in itself Supreme within itself, and must have all Jurisdictions, Authorities and Praeeminencies to the Royal State of a Kingdom belonging, or else 'tis none: And that Ireland has all these, is declared in the Irish Stat. 33 Hen. VIII. c. 1. The chief of these most certainly is, the Power of Making and Abrogating its own Laws, and being bound only by such to which the Community have given their Consent.  
Sixthly, It is against the King's 
Against the King's Prerogative.  Prerogative, that the Parliament of England should have any coordinate Power with Him, to introduce New Laws, or Repeal Old Laws Established in Ireland. By the Constitution of Ireland under poinding's Act, the King's Prerogative in the Legislature is advanced to a much higher Pitch than ever was Challenged by the Kings in England, and the Parliament of Ireland stands almost on the same bottom as the King does in England; I say almost on the same Bottom, for the Irish Parliament have not only a Negative Vote (as the King has in England) to whatever Laws the King and his Privy Councils of both or either Kingdom, shall lay before them; but have also a Liberty of Proposing to the King and his Privy Council here, such Laws as the Parliament of Ireland think expedient to be passed. Which Laws being thus Proposed to the King, and put into form, and Transmitted to the Parliament here, according to poinding's Act, must be Passed or Rejected in the very Words, even to a Tittle, as they are said before our Parliament, we cannot alter the least jota. If therefore the Legislature of Ireland stand on this Foot, in relation to the King, and to the Parliament of Ireland; and the Parliament of England do Remove it from this Bottom, and Assume it to themselves, where the King's Prerogative is much Narrower, and as it were Reversed, (for there the King has only a Negative Vote) I humbly conceive 'tis an Encroachment on the King's Prerogative: But this I am sure, the Parliament of England will be always very Tender of, and His Majesty will be very loath to have such a Precious Jewel of his Crown handled rufly. The Happiness of our Constitutions depending on a Right Temperament between the Kings and the People's Rights.  
Seventhly, It is against the Practice 
Against the Practice of former Ages.  of all former Ages. Wherein can it appear, that any Statute made in England, was at any time since the Reign of Henry the Third, allowed and put in practice in the Realm of Ireland, without the Authority of the Parliament of Ireland. Is it not manifest by what foregoes, that from the Twentieth of King Henry the Third, to the Thirteenth of Edward the Second, and from thence to the Eighteenth of Henry the Sixth, and from thence, to the Thirty-Second of Henry the Sixth, and from thence, to the Eighth of Edward the Fourth, and from thence, to the Tenth of Henry the seventh, there was special care taken to Introduce the Statutes of England, (such of them as were necessary or convenient for this Kingdom) by degrees, and always with Allowance, and Consent of the Parliament and People of Ireland. And since the General Allowance, of all the English Acts and Statutes in the Tenth of Henry the Seventh, there have several Acts of Parliament, which were made in England in the Reigns of all the Kings from that Time, Successively to this very Day, been particularly Received by Parliament in Ireland; and so they become of force here, and not by reason of any General Comprehensive words, as some Men have lately fancied. For if by General Comprehensive Words, the Kingdom of Ireland could be bound by the Acts of Parliament of England, what needed all the former Receptions in the Parliament of Ireland, or what use will there be of the Parliament of Ireland at any time? If the Religion, Lives, Liberties, Fortunes, and Estates of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry of Ireland, may be disposed of, without their Privity and Consent, what Benefit have they of any Laws, Liberties, or Privileges granted unto them by the Crown of England? I am loath to give their Condition an hard Name; but I have no other Notion of Slavery; but being Bound by a Law to which I do not Consent.  
Eighthly, 'Tis against several 
Against the Resolution of Judges.  Resolutions of the Learned judges, of former times in the very Point in Question. This is manifest from what foregoes in the Case of the Merchants of Waterford, Pilkington's Case, Prior of Lanthony's Case, etc. But I shall not here enlarge farther thereon.  
Ninthly, The Obligation of all Laws having the same Foundation, 
Destroys Property.  if One Law may be Imposed without Consent, any Other Law whatever, may be Imposed on us Without our Consent. This will naturally introduce Taxing us without our Consent; and this as necessarily destroys our Property. I have no other Notion of Property, but a Power of Disposing my Good as I please, and not as anothe●… shall Command: Whatever another may Rightfully take from me without my Consent, I have certainly no Property in. To Tax me without Consent, is little better, if at all, than downright Robbing me▪ I am sure the Great Patriots of Liberty and Property, the Free Peo I'll of England, cannot think of such a thing, but with Abhorrence.  
Lastly, The People of Ireland 
great Confusion.  are left by this Doctrine in the Greatest Confusion and Uncertainty Imaginable. We are certainly bound to Obey the Supreme Authority over us; and yet hereby we are not permitted to know Who or What the same is; whether the Parliament of England, or that of Ireland, or Both; And in what Cases the One, and in what the Other: Which Uncertainty is or may be made a Pretence at any time for Disobedience. It is not impossible but the Different Legislatures we are subject to, may Enact Different, or Contrary Sanctions: Which of these must we obey?  
To conclude all, I think it highly 
Inconvenient to England to Assume this Power.  Inconvenient for England to Assume this Authority over the Kingdom of Ireland: I believe there will need no great Arguments to convince the Wise Assembly of English Senators, how inconvenient it may be to England, to do that which may make the Lords and People of Ireland think that they are not Well Used, and may drive them into Discontent. The Laws and Liberties of England were granted above five hundred years ago to the People of Ireland, upon their Submissions to the Crown of England, with a Design to make them Easy to England, and to keep them in the Allegiance of the King of England. How Consistent it may be with True Policy, to do that which the People of Ireland may think is an Invasion of their Rights and Liberties, I do most humbly submit to the Parliament of England to Consider. They are Men of Great Wisdom, Honour, and justice: and know how to prevent all future Inconveniencies. We have heard Great Out-cries, and deservedly, on Breaking the Edict of Nantes, and other Stipulations; How far the Breaking our Constitution, which has been of Five Hundred years standing, exceeds that, I leave the World to judge. It may perhaps be urged, That 'tis convenient for the State of England, that the Supreme Council thereof should make their Jurisdiction as Large as they can. But with Submission, I conceive that if this Assumed Power be not Just, it cannot be convenient for the State. What Cicero says in his Offices, Nihil est Utile, nisi idem sit Honestum, is most certainly true. Nor do I think, that 'tis any wise necessary to the Good of England to Assert this High Jurisdiction over Ireland. For since the Statutes of this Kingdom are made with such Caution, and in such Form, as is prescribed by poinding's Act 10 H. 7. and by the 3d and 4th of Phil. and Mar. and whilst Ireland is in English hands, I do not see how 'tis possible for the Parliament of Ireland to do any thing that can be in the least prejudicial to England. But on the other hand, If England assume a jurisdiction over Ireland, whereby they think their Rights and Liberties are taken away; That their Parliaments are rendered merely nugatory, and that their Lives and Fortunes Depend on the Will of a Legislature wherein they are not Parties; there may be ill Consequences of this. Advancing the Power of the Parliament of England, by breaking the Rights of another, may in time have ill Effects.  
The Rights of Parliament should be preserved Sacred and Inviolable, wherever they are found. This kind of Government, once so Universal all over Europe, is now almost Vanished▪ from amongst the Nations thereof. Our King's Dominions are the only Supporters of this noble Gothick Constitution, save only what little remains may be found thereof in Poland. We should not therefore make so light of that sort of Legislature, and as it were Abolish it in One Kingdom of the Three, wherein it appears; but rather Cherish and Encourage it wherever we meet it.  
FINIS.