The Bishop of St. David's CASE.  
THE Bishop having been libelled against before the Archbishop of Canterbury, for matters of an heinous nature, supported with great Clamours; thought it for his reputation not to insist upon his Privilege of Peerage, to prevent any Proofs which could be made in the Cause.  
But since the Archbishop has given Sentence, not only without sufficient proof of the pretended grounds, but a Sentence of Deprivation; which no Archbishop before him ever pronounced, of his sole Authority, against a Bishop; 'tis humbly submitted to the consideration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament, whether a waving Privilege can amount to a submission to the being divested of Peerage: and whether, however, that would give a new Jurisdiction over any Lord of Parliament, in prejudice of the Right of the House of Lords.  
This the Bishop humbly hopes may induce their Lordships to examine the Circumstances of his Case, which he cheerfully submits to such equal and proper Judges.  
Robert Lucy, an avowed Enemy to the Bishop, having caused many scandalous Reports to be raised of him, and by indirect Practices prevailed upon some to swear against him, and kept others from witnessing the Truth; dressed up a Libel with many Articles, which fall under these Heads.  
1. Simony. 2. Extortion. 3. Falsification. 4. Misapplying the Revenue of the Church. 5. Breach of a Canon in the manner of exercising Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. 6. Disaffection to the present Government.  
But the Sentence is only upon the 3 first Heads, the Archbishop, it seems, being satisfied, that the others were added only to increase the Load; or else as he was restrained by prohibition.  
1. The first supposed Instance of Simony was, in relation to the preferring his Nephew Mr. John Medley, to several Places in the Church; taking a Bond of him in the Penalty of 200 l. for the Payment of 100 l. after he was collated to the Archdeaconry of St. David 's; and, for some time, receiving Rents of that and other of Mr. Medley's Preferments.  
But that 100 l. was plainly proved to be part of 500 l. which the Bishop advanced for the Marriage Portion of Mr. Medley's Sister, of which the Bishop freely gave 400 l. and her Brother undertook to give 100 l.  
And such Profits belonging to Mr. Medley as the Bishop received, were only till he was reimbursed the Money he had laid out upon Mr. Medley's account: and though the Bishop had some of the Places in commendam, by virtue of a Faculty to retain'em, yet he let Mr. Medley have all the Profits from the beginning of the Bishop's holding them in his own right.  
Certainly it ought not to be believed on slight grounds, that the Bishop, who had given such proofs of his Affection to his Nephew and his Sisters; who had not the least Objection against him for the dispoling Church Preferments to any other Person; and had given Demonstrations of his generous regard to Merit in Strangers, and the greatest abhorrence of corrupt Bargains; should seek his own Profit in advancing his Nephew, agreed to be a Person very deserving. And how apt soever Men may be to think hardly of the Bishop; his Nephew was proved to be a Person of a strict Life and Conversation, and very charitable; no way ambitious of Preferment; and one that would have abhorred it upon Simoniacal Terms.  
Another supposed Instance of Simony was his taking a Sum of Money, for the Lease to a reputed Clergyman, of a Rectory which the Bishop held in commendam. This of itself could be no more Simony, than letting out Tithes to a known Layman, for a Sum in hand; but the aggravation was thought to lie in the Bishop's promising under his hand to resign the Rectory, when desired by his Lessee. For which there was not the least Footstep of any prior Agreement, and the Promise was freely made by the Bishop, after he had received his Money for the Lease.  
2. As to the imputation of Extortion; whether the Fees taken by him and his Officers, were more than were allowable by the Custom of the Diocese, seems a matter properly triable at Common Law: besides, 'twas fully proved, that he and his Officers did not in any particular take more than was usual, and really took less than his Prosecutor Mr. Lucy, and his Father, and succeeding Bishops of that Diocese did in like cases.  
3. The falsification, or crimen falsi, laid to his Charge was as if he had ordained Persons without requiring the appointed Oaths and Subscription; and yet had in this matter certisied under his Episcopal Seal, contrary to the truth.  
Of the pretended abuse of the Seal no proof was offered, and only one witness deposed positively, about the imputed Omissions at an Ordination.  
But, besides that a single Witness is not enough to six such a Charge upon a Bishop; that Witness was upon several Accounts proved incompetent.  
However, the Archbishop, supposing these matters to have been sufficiently proved, 
Tho. Arch. Judex antedictus.  pronounced Sentence of Deprivation, for those Causes: and this he did by his single Authority, as the only Judge, though with the Assistance of some Bishops; who were not all satisfied with it.  
This some imagine that the Archbishop may do, as succeeding the Pope in Spiritual Authority: whereas that is allowed him by special Act of Parliament, only for Dispensations, 
25 H. 8. c. 21.  and they much limited: but the Pope himself never judged Originally in such Causes, as that in question, arising here; otherwise than as he, by his Legates, presided in Councils.  
The Is't Statute which takes away Appeals to the Pope, 
24 H. 8. c. 12.  expressly provides, That the Spiritual Causes there mentioned, shall be examined, adjudged, and determined, in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal, as the Natures, Conditions, and Qualities of the Cases and Matters shall require.  
And if by the Law and Usage of the Kingdom, all Deprivations of Bishops (except such as were by Act of Parliament, or Commissioners so authorised) were to be by judgement of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Councils; the House of Lords must necessarily be the Court, which is to examine, adjudge, and determine, concerning the Bishop's Case.  
'Tis evident, 
25 H. 8. c. 19  that neither the Statute 24 H. 8. nor the Statute 25 H. 8. (which provides for Appeals in Cases not mentioned in the former) makes any provision concerning Appeals, in Cases which belong to none but the Lords in Parliament.  
If the archbishop judge in a Cause which belongs to them, it's absurd to urge that by those Statutes there can be no Appeals but to Delegates; since a Petition to the Lords in this matter comes not by way of Appeal, but Complaint of the Archbishop's usurping upon their Jurisdiction.  
The only question now is, whether the Bishop's waving Privilege, and appealing to the Delegates, shall prejudice him.  
to which the answer is plain, That it shall not oust the Lords of their Jurisdiction. Becase of their Interest in their fellow Peers; 'twas resolved, in the Case of Lord Grace of Ruthin, 
Journal of the House of Lords, Feb. 10. An. 1640.  and afterwards repeated in another Case, That 'tis not in the power of a Peer, to drown, or extinguish his Honour, by Surrender, Grant, Fine, or any other Conveyance to the King.  
And fully to remove the Objection here; 'tis provided by Act of Parliament, That if any of the Peers of his own accord will answer, and be adjudged, eisewhere than before the Peers in Parliament; 
Rot. Parl. 15. E. 3. n. 7.  this shall not turn to the prejudice of other Peers, or of himself in any other Case.  
To which may be added, That whatever Precedents there have been for trying Bishops in Capital Cases, by common Juries, because by reason of the Canons received here, they are not to judge of Temporal Peers in such Cases; yet this being a Case wherein a Bishop was never judged but in a Council, and the matter being such as infers a forfeiture of his Barony, 
Vid. 25 E. 3. c. 6.  which is a Temporalty; we may here apply the declaration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Parl. 11 R. 2. upon the criminal Appeals then brought; and may conclude that the matter is to be judged only in Parliament, Et ne per altar ley que ley et cours de Parl, 
Rot. Parl. 11 B. 2.  et qil appertient as surs du Parl. estre Iuges en tiel case.