Constitutional history -- Great Britain; Great Britain -- History -- 1689-1714 -- Sources; Great Britain -- History -- Restoration, 1660-1688 -- Sources
be Unlawful; it is not only Lawful, but his Duty, _Rescribere Principi_;
which is all the Bishops had done here, and that in the most humble
manner: That as to Matters of Fact alleg'd in the said _Petition_, there
cou'd be no Design to Diminish the Prerogative, because the King had no
such Prerogative: That the _Petition_ cou'd not be Seditious, because it
was Presented to the King in Private, and Alone; Nor False, because the
Matter of it was True; Nor Malicious, for the Occasion was not sought,
the Thing was press'd upon them; Nor, in short, a Libel, because the
Intent was Innocent, and they kept within the Bounds set by the Act of
Parliament, that gives the Subject leave to apply to his Prince by
Petition, when he is aggriev'd.
When the Councel on both sides had done, Chief-Justice _Wright_ summ'd
up the Evidence, and told the Jury, That Sometimes the _Dispensing
Power_ had been allow'd, as in Richard IId's time, and sometimes deny'd;
but that it was a Question out of the present Case; If they believ'd the
Petition to be the same that was Presented by the Bishops to the King,
then the Publication was sufficiently Prov'd: And whatever tended to
Disturb the Government, or make a Stir among the People, was certainly
within the Name of _Libellus Famosus_; and his opinion, in short, was,
That the Bishops _Petition_ was a _Libel_.
Mr. Justice _Holloway_ declar'd, That the End and Intention of every
Action was to be Consider'd: That the Bishops were Charg'd with
Delivering a _Petition_ which, according to their Defence, was done with
all the Humility and Decency imaginable: That the Delivering of a
_Petition_ could be no fault, it being the right of every Subject to
_Petition_: Therefore, if the Jury were satisfy'd, They did it with no
Ill Intention, but only to shew the Reasons for their Disobedience to
the King's Command, he cou'd not think it to be a _Libel_.
Mr. Justice _Powel_ more plainly declar'd, That He could discern no
Sedition or any other Crime fixed upon the Bishops, since there was
nothing offer'd by the King's Councel to render the _Petition_ False,
Seditious or Malicious. He admonish'd the Jury to Consider that the
Contents of the _Petition_ were, That the Bishops Apprehended the
_Declaration to be Illegal, as being founded upon a_ Dispensing Power
_claim'd by the King_; and that for his Part he did not remember in any
Case in all the Law, that there was any such Power in the King, and if
not, the _Petition_ could not be a Libel. He concluded with telling
them, That he could see no Difference between the King's Power to
_Dispense_ with the Laws Ecclesiastical, and his Power to Dispense with
any Laws whatsoever: That if this was once allow'd of, there would be no
need of Parliaments, and all the Legislature would be in the King, and
so he left the Issue to God and their Consciences.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account