The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part D.: From Elizabeth to James I.
David Hume · en
She appointed forty-four commissioners, twelve of whom were
ecclesiastics; three commissioners made a quorum; the jurisdiction of
the court extended over the whole kingdom and over all orders of
men; and every circumstance of its authority, and all its methods of
proceeding, were contrary to the clearest principles of law and natural
equity. The commissioners were empowered to visit and reform all errors,
heresies, schisms, in a word, to regulate all opinions, as well as to
punish all breach of uniformity in the exercise of public worship. They
were directed to make inquiry, not only by the legal methods of juries
and witnesses, but by all other means and ways which they could devise;
that is, by the rack, by torture, by inquisition, by imprisonment Where
they found reason to suspect any person, they might administer to him
an oath, called “ex officio,” by which he was bound to answer all
questions, and might thereby be obliged to accuse himself or his most
intimate friend. The fines which they levied were discretionary,
and often occasioned the total ruin of the offender, contrary to
the established laws of the kingdom. The imprisonment to which they
condemned any delinquent, was limited by no rule but their own pleasure.
They assumed a power of imposing on the clergy what new articles of
subscription, and consequently of faith, they thought proper. Though
all other spiritual courts were subject, since the reformation,
to inhibitions from the supreme courts of law, the ecclesiastical
commissioners were exempted from that legal jurisdiction, and were
liable to no control. And the more to enlarge their authority, they were
empowered to punish all incests, adulteries, fornications; all outrages,
misbehaviors, and disorders in marriage: and the punishments which
they might inflict, were according to their wisdom, conscience, and
discretion. In a word, this court was a real inquisition; attended
with all the iniquities, as well as cruelties, inseparable from that
tribunal. And as the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court was
destructive of all law, so its erection was deemed by many a mere
usurpation of this imperious princess; and had no other foundation
than a clause of a statute, restoring the supremacy to the crown, and
empowering the sovereign to appoint commissioners for exercising that
prerogative. But prerogative in general, especially the supremacy,
was supposed in that age to involve powers which no law, precedent, or
reason could limit and determine.