change within the city of London, upon a horse | without a saddle, with his face backwards to ward the horse's tail, holding the tail in his hind, with the former paper on his head; and be there again set, and stand, upon the pillory, two hours: and from thence shall ride, in like manier, to the Fleete, and there to remain until the next Friday morning; and, on that morning, to ride in like manner, into Cheapside, in the city of London, and there shall be set, and stand, upon the pillory, with the former paper and inscription, by the space of two hours, that is, from 10 until 12 of the clock in the forenoon of that day; and ride back to the Flete, in like manner as before: And that there is set, and assessed upon hint, a fine of 1000!."

the judges and king's council should make a report of the collections of what the Commons alledged for their right of judicature.

The Lords having considered the precedents alledged by the Commons at the last Conference, do find that they tended to prove, 1. "That the house of commons is a Court of Record. 2. That they have administered an Oath in matters concerning themselves. S. That they have inflicted punishments on delinquents, where the cause has concerned a messenger of their house, or the privilege thereof."-Their lordships determined, "That the question, at this time, is not Whether that house be a Court of Record; nor whether the Oath by them alledged to be ministered, in a matter concerning that house, was given by the house, or by a master in Chancery, then one of their members; nor whether they have a right of judicature in matters concerning themselves? But the question is, Whether that house may proceed to Sentence any man, who is not a member of their house, and for a matter which does not concern them, for which the Commons alledged no proofs, nor produced any precedents? Therefore their lordships agreed to pray a Re-conference about the same; and, at the said Conference, to stick to this only, "That the house of commons have no power of Judicature, no coercion against any, but in matters concerning their own house."

This Proceeding the Lords judged to be a great infringement of their privileges; and, on the day aforesaid, after mature deliberation of the matter, the lords sent a message, in writing, to the commons, by two of the Judges, importing, "That the Lords, during all this parliament, have had much contentment in the good correspondency that hath been between both houses: that their lordships have an earnest affection, and an assured confidence of the happy continuance of it to the end; with a full resolution of all possible endeavours, on their parts, tending thereunto. Their lordships having heard of a Censure lately passed in that house, against one Edward Floyde, are desirous May 8. p. m. The house being to meet the of a Conference for the accommodation of that Commons at the Re-conference, this afternoon, business, in such sort as may be without any concerning the Judicature in which the Lords prejudice to the privileges of either house. conceived the others had trenched into their This Conference they desire, if it may stand liberties and privileges; and wherein their lordwith the occasions of that house, may be be- ships were not satisfied with the precedents tween the whole houses, at 3 in the afternoon, alledged by the Commons, at the former Conin the Painted Chamber; with power to each ference in their defence thereof: yet being decommittee to treat and confer freely, and to sirous to continue that good respect and cor understand each other's reasons."-To the end respondency which hath been all this parlament that the Lords might agree amongst themselves between both the houses, they thought proper in what manner to proceed at the said Confe- to order, That the archbishop of Canterbury rence, the house adjourned ad libitum; and, should begin the introduction to the Confer being returned, it was resolved, That the arch-ence, and propound any thing that might tend bishop of Canterbury should begin, and the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Chamberlain, and the earl of Southampton, should argue and dispute about it.-Answer returned from the Commons by sir Lyonel Cranfield and others: "The knighus, citizens, and burgesses of the Hanse of Commons, have commanded me to your lordships understand, that they take comfort in the message which your lords sent them, and desire the happy continuof the love and unity of both houses. ir whole house, as a committee, will attend lordships at the conference desired, and The time and place appointed." ny 5. p. m. After consulting a precedent their lordships by Mr. Serjeant Crew, n. 4, which proved, That the Commons not Judges in parliament; but that judiWe belongs unto the King and Lords alone, hole house went, as a committee, into the led Chamber. And, being returned, the as resumed; when it was agreed, that

to a gentle ending of the same. And, that if the Commons would agree to a sub-committee, to end this business, then the Archbishop, the Lord Admiral, the Lord Chamberlain, the earls of Arundel and Southampton were appointed for that purpose; and it was further agreed, That this sub-committee should be limited not to yield to any thing, in point of Judicatare, which they of the commons have done, lest it may in time become a precedent to wrong the privileges of the lords. The Commons agreed to a sub-committee, to end this difference.

May 12. The archbishop of Canterbury re ported the Conference held yesterday between the sub-committees of both houses, to this ef fect; "1. The Commons shewed their constant resolution to maintain the love and good cor respondency between the two houses. 2. Their resolution not to invade the privileges of this house, that have dealt so nobly with them. Lastly, that out of their zeal they sentenced Floyde; but they leave him to the Lords with

an intimation of their hope that this house will minious and despiteful terms of Goodman censure him also. Then they proposed a Pro-Palsgrave,' and Goodwife Palsgrave; and testation to be entered with the Lords for a termed him that poor lad;' and scotingly, mean to accommodate the business between and with great-jollity, related a stage play of them.-A Protestation was immediately drawn the princess running away with two children, up and agreed to, in these words; "That the the one under one arm, and the other under proceedings lately passed in the House of Com- the other arm, and the third in her belly, and mons, against Edward Floyde, be not at any the Falsgrave following with the cradle. time hereafter drawn or used as a precedent to the enlarging or diminishing of the lawful rights or privileges of either house: but that the rights and privileges of both houses shall remain in the self-same state and plight as before." This Protestation is also entered in the Journals of the Commons, without any addition or alteration by them.

Proceedings before the Lords.

May 25. The archbishop of Canterbury, first of the committee appointed by the House to take Examinations in the Cause of Edward Floyde, reported, That they had taken several, and were satisfied of the Proof of the Crimes objected against him; and moved the house that Mr. Attorney General might read the said Examinations. Accordingly, the Deposition of six persons were read, and then it was ordered, That Floyde should be brought to the bar the next morning, in order to proceed to Judgment against him.

The Attorney General's Charge.

May 26. Edward Floyde being brought to the bar, Mr. Attorney charged him with notorious Misdemeanors and high Presumption: viz. 1. For rejoicing at the losses happened to the king's daughter and her children. 2. For discouraging of others, which bear good affection unto them. 3. For speaking basely of them. 4. For taking upon him to judge of the rights of kingdoms.

The first, Mr. Attorney shewed, that, in Dec. last, Floyde, being prisoner in the Fleet, having advertisement that Prague was taken, did, upon all occasion, shew himself joyful and glad of that calamity and afflictions which had happened unto the prince and princess Palatine, the king's only daughter, and their chil

dren.

And for the fourth, Mr. Attorney shewed, That one Abdias Cole going to preach on a Sunday morning in the Fleet, the said Floyde called to him, and told him that Prague is taken; and the said Abdias Cole answering, That is little comfort to me,' Floyde replied, Nay, now we may freely speak it, for any nobleman has as good right to be king of Wales, as he, meaning the Palsgrave, to be king of 'Bohemia.'

Here Mr. Attorney opened that point of the ancient Oath of Allegiance:* Of which oath and the danger to the offender in such case, the said Floyde (being a lawyer) could not be ignorant and that therefore his offence was greater. And Mr. Attorney did further shew, That this Floyde; being a man of good estate, was a justice of peace in the county of Salop, and for that he was put out of the commission (which was affirmed to be true, by Mr. Baron Bromley, being this day present). And also that this Floyde, having heretofore studied the cominon laws of this land in the Inner Temple, wi ere he was called to the bar, was put out of that society by the benchers of that house.

Floyde's Answer.

This being said, the Lord Chief Justice demanded of Floyde what Answer he could make unto these Misdemeanors, wherewith he was charged by Mr. Attorney. Floyde thereupon began with a long discourse, to traduce the persons of such as had deposed against him; but, being demanded to make a direct Answer to the Charge; He said, 'I cannot remember that these Words were ever spoken by ine.'

Whereupon the Clerk read the Depositions and Examinations of Lettice Harris, Henry Pennington, John Broughton, George Hardman, Edward Aldred, Abdias Cole. Which being read, the L. C. Justice demanded of Floyde, whether he spake these Words, Goodman Palsgrave,' and Goodwife Palsgrave.' He the said Floyde said, I spake not those Words in such sort as they are laid down in the said Examinations.' The L. C. Justice demanding of him again, whether he spake those Words, or words to that effect; He answered,

And for the second, Mr. Attorney shewed, that this Floyde, relating unto Henry Pennington this loss of Prague, and the captivity, as he believed, of the king's son in law, and of the king's daughter and her children; and the said Pennington wishing that himself, and all the convenient men of this kingdom, were pressed forth, not to return with their lives, till theyIt is but a folly for me to deny thear, because had redeemed her from captivity; he the said Floyde replied: I am sorry, thou art such a fool.' And the said Pennington reproving him for saying so, he the said Floyde replied, That, if he had been out of his chamber, he would have struck him.'

And for the third, Mr. Attorney shewed, That the said Floyde taking occasion to speak of these matters, did term the prince and princess Palatine, the king's daughter, by the igno

so many have proved them.' And afterwards he said, I will not deny them, because so many have proved them.' And he being demanded, whether he spake the other words, or used the insolent behaviour towards the prince and princess Palatine; answered, 'I remember it not.'

The Prisoner being withdrawn ; although the

→ Sic in Orig.

lords were fully satisfied by these Examinations, and Floyde's Answers, yet, for order sake, it was put to the question, Whether Edward Floyde be so guilty of the offences wherewith he is charged, as that he deserves to be censured; and agreed unto by all, nem. diss.

The Censure against E. Floyde being propounded in this manner: viz. "1. Not to Bear Arms as a gentleman, &c. 2. To ride with his face to the horses tail, to stand on the pillory, and his ears nailed, &c. 3. To be whipped at a cart's tail. 4. To be fined at 5000l. 5. To be perpetually imprisoned in Newgate." It was put to the question, first, Whether the said Floyde shall be whipped or no, which some lords doubted to yield unto, because he was a gentleman; yet it was agreed, per plures, that he shall be whipped.-Then it was put to the question, Whether Floyde's ears shall be nailed to the pillory or no; and agreed, per plures, not to be nailed.

Sentence of the Lords.

shall be brought to Westminster-hall, and there to be set on horse back, with his face to the horse tail, holding the tail in his hand, with papers on his head and breast, declaring his offence, and so to ride to the pillory in Cheapside, and there to stand two hours on the pillory, and there to be branded with a letter K in his forehead. 3. To be whipped at a cart's tail, on the first day of the next term, from the Fleet, to Westminster-hall, with papers on his head, declaring his offence, and then to stand on the pillory there two hours. 4. That he shall be fined to the king in 5000l. 5. That he shall be imprisoned in Newgate, during his life."

Mem. The clerk signed a warrant to the Serjeant at Arms, and the Warden of the Fleet, to see the Sentence executed; with a clause therein, for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, and all other his majesty's officers to whom it might appertain, to be aiding, and assisting unto them. And Mem. That these Words were written in the Paper to be on Floyde's head, declaring his offence: viz. "For ignominious Then the form of the Sentence being read," and despiteful Words and malicious and it was put to the question, Whether those Pu- "scornful behaviour towards the Prince and nishments therein mentioned shall be inflicted" princess Palatine, the king's only daughter, on the said Floyde or no; and agreed unto ge- "and their children." nerally. And he being brought to the bar again, Mr. Attorney General came to the clerk's table, and making a short repetition of Floyde's offence, prayed the lords to proceed to Judgment against him.

Cambden tells us, That every part of this Sentence was executed on Floyde; but the Lords Journals assure us, That some days after on a motion from the Prince it was ordered, That the punishment of whipping, with all that belongs to it, to be inflicted upon Edward Floyde, be suspended and forborn, until the

Whereupon the Lord Chief Justice pronounced the Sentence in these words: viz. "The lords spiritual and temporal, consi-pleasure of the house be further known; the dering of the great Offence of the said Edward Floyde, do award and adjudge: 1. That the said Edw. Floyd shall be incapable to bear arms as a gentleman; and that he shall be ever held an infamous person, and his testimony not to be taken in any court or cause. 2. That on Monday next, in the morning, he

rest of the punishment to be executed accord ing to the former order. It was also ordered, That, hereafter, when any Censure beyond imprisonment be agreed on, that judgment there upon be not then given, but on another day, or sitting, that time may be taken to consider thereof.

121. Proceedings against GEORGE ABBOT,* Archbishop of Canterbury, for the killing of Edward Hawkins, one of the Lord Zouch's Keepers: 19 JAMES I. A. D. 1621. [2 Collier's Eccl. Hist. 720. Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book 10, Cent. Hacket's Life of Williams, 66.

Laud, 80. man's Remains.] THE next summer, (1621,) archbishop Abbot | being invited by lord Zouch to kill a buck at his Park at Bramzil, in Hampshire, met with a very calamitous accident, for shooting at a

* James Howell in a letter to sir Thomas Savage, Nov. 9, 1622, writes, "Since that sad disaster which befel Archbishop Abbot, to kill the man by the glancing of an arrow as he was shooting at a deer (which kind of death befel one of our king's once in New Forest) there hath been a commission awarded to debate

Heylin's Life of Sir Henry Spel

deer with a cross bow, the keeper, coming up unwarily too forward, was struck with the arrow under the left arm, and died about an hour after. The king informed of this misfortune, whether upon this fact, whereby he hath shed human blood, he be not to be deprived of his archbishoprick, and pronounced irregular: some were against him; but bishop Andrews, and sir Henry Martin, stood stiffly for him, that in regard it was no spontaneous act, but a mere contingency, and that there is no degree of men

and apprehensive scandal might be given if the ' of some doubts, as making the case different matter was passed over, resolved to have the in his person in respect of the scandal, (as is case thoroughly examined. To this purpose supposed) we therefore, being desirous (as it the following Letter was directed to the Lord is fit we should) to be satisfied therein, and Keeper Williams, the bishops of London, Win- ' reposing especial trust in your learning and chester, Rochester, and the elects of St. Da-judgment, have made choice of you to inform vids and Exeter, sir Henry Hobart, knight, us concerning the nature of the case: and do Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Mr. Jus-therefore require you to take it presently into tice Doddridge, of B. R. sir Henry Martin Dean of the Arches, and Mr. Dr. Steward, or any six of them, whereof the Lord Keeper (then bishop of Lincoln elect) the bishop of London, Winton, and St. David's elect, to be four.||

It is not unknown unto you what hap 'pened this last summer unfortunately to our right trusty, and our right well beloved coun'sellor the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, 'who shooting at a deer with a cross bow in Bramzil Park, did with that shoot casually give the keeper a wound whereof he died, which accident, though it might have happened to any other man, yet because his eminent rank and function in the Church bath (as we are informed) ministered occasion

your consideration, and the scandal that may have risen thereupon, and to certify us, what in your judgments the same may amount unto, either to an irregularity or otherwise, and lastly what means may be found to redress 'the same (if need be) of all which points, we 'shall expect to hear your reports with what diligence, and expedition, you possibly may. Dated at Theobalds, 3 Oct. 1621.'

To this Letter the bishops and others to whom the consideration of the Archbishop's Case was referred, returned their Answer in these words:

May it please your majesty; Whereas we received a command from your majesty under your royal signet, to deliver our opinions unto your majesty, whether an irregularity or scandal might arise by this unfortunate act, which 'God permitted to come to pass by the hand ' of the most reverend Father in God, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, shooting in a cross-bow at a deer in Bramzil Park: as also of the cure and remedy of the same irregula

but is subject to misfortunes and casualties, they declared positively that he was not to fall from his dignity or function, but should still remain a regular, and in statu quo prius. During this debate, he petitioned the king that be might be permitted to retire to his alms-house at Guildford where he was born, to pass therity. For the first; Whether any irregularemainder of his life; but he is now come to be again rectus in curia, absolutely quitted, and restored to all things: but for the wife of him who was killed, it was no misfortune to her, for he hath endowed herself, and her children with such an estate, that they say her husband could never have got."

rity be contracted by this act, in the person of my Lord Archbishop or not? No greater part of our number could assent or agree, because the Canons and Decrees themselves are so general, and so ready to entertain distinctions and limitations, the doctors and 'glosses so differing, inferences and disputes so ‹ peculiar to every man's conceit and apprehension, authorities of canonists and casuists, Heylin and bishop Hacket both give a so orposite in this very case in band, that we letter (which is also in the Cabala, p. 55.) ex- • could not return unto your majesty any unapressing his opinion, that Abbot by this mis-nimous resolution or opinion in the same. chance, had become irregular and incurred forfeiture, and his desired hope that the king would shew him mercy.

+ No two of the authors cited relate the accident in the same way.

For the second; Whether any scandal may arise out of this act? We are of opinion a scandal may be taken by the weak at home, It is elsewhere stated "quorum unum Me- and the malicious abroad, though most of us nevensum, &c." It happened very unluckily, believe there was no scandal given by the as it is expressed in an article in the British said right reverend father. For the third; Museum, that there were four bishops elected We are all agreed not only that a restitution but not consecrated, viz. Dr. John Williams, or dispensation may be granted by your ma Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, to the see ofjesty, either immediately under the great Lincoln, Dr. John Davenant to that of Salisbury, Dr. Valentine Cary to that of Exeter, and his old antagonist Dr, Wm. Laud, whose preferment on this occasion he had warmly opposed, to that of St. David's; and all except Dr. Davenant scrupled the archbishop's capacity to lay hands on them till he was cleared from all imputation as to this fact. It seems not unlikely that this scrupulosity arose from a cautious apprehension, that the validity of their consecrations might afterwards be questioned if performed by a metropolitan who was irregular, or to whom any imputation or suspicion of irregularity might be reproached.

seal, or (which most of us in all humility represent unto your majesty) by the hands of 'some clergyman delegated by your majesty for that purpose, or what other way your majesty 'shall be pleased to extend that favour, but 'withal we are of opinion that it is most fitting 'for the said reverend father, both in regard of 'his person, and the honour of the church, to 'sue unto your most gracious majesty for the 'said Dispensation in majorum cautelam si qua forte sit irregularitas. All which, craving pardon for our weakness, we do in all hum<bleness submit to the decision of your majesty's 'most profound and incomparable wisdom!"

Jo. Linc. elect, C. S.; Geo. London.; La. | nor incurs any irregularity, where the person Winton.; Jo. Roffens.; Guil. Menevens. elect; Valen. Exon, elect; Henr. Hobart, Jo. 'Doddridge, H. Marten, Ny. Stewarde.”

committing it was engaged in no unlawful business or recreation, and took all necessary precaution to guard against accidents. That all this might be fairly pleaded in behalf of the Archbishop, is not only taken for granted in the Dispensation, but farther made out by this Apologist. For the purpose, he takes notice that the canon de clerico tenutore, cited in the De

The Archbishop governed by this advice, and applying to the king, his majesty directed a Commission to the bishop of Lincoln, lord keeper, to the bishops of London, Winchester, Norwich, Coventry, and Litchfield, to the bishop of Bath and Wells, Ely and Chichester, im-cretum against the Archbishop, has a mark of powering them or any six of them, of which the bishops of Lincoln, London, Winchester and Norwich were to be of the quorum, to dispense with any irregularity, in case the late accident had drawn any such blemish or imputation upon the Archbishop. By this Instrument the canons, in case there was need, were over-ruled and dispensed with, the force of Abbot's character is revived, and he is fully restored to the exercises of his function. This is a wonderful relief from the crown; and supposes a patriarchal at least, if not a papal authority vested in the king. The Record lays the death of the Keeper upon his own rashness and want of care, makes the homicide perfectly casual, that the Archbishop was in no degree to blame for the misfortune: and that this requesting his majesty for a dispensation was only ad cautelam ex superabundan- | ti. And that the reader may better remark how far the dispensation reaches, he may please to observe, that irregularity lays the sacerdotal powers as it were asleep, forfeits all preferments, and makes the person incapable of any for the future.

To return: Besides the favourable report of the Archbishop's case in the commission, there was a learned Apology+ drawn up for him. The author proves hunting for health allowed clergymen. This point he makes good from several authorities, and disables some objections from the canon law. From hence he advances to prove that casual homicide sticks no blemish,

Heylin, in his life of Laud, ascribes the inclination of bishop Andrews (between whom and Abbot there had been some disgust) towards the protection of Abbot, to two motives, 1st, an unwillingness too rigidly to construe the canons, lest afterwards a rigid construction of those canons might hurt himself or his brethren. 2d, An apprehension that if Abbot should be deprived Williams would succeed him, who Andrews thought would make a dangerous head of the church. In other respects all the historians agree that Andrews was no friend to Abbot. Of sir Henry Martin, Heylin says that he had received his offices and preferments from Abbot, and so was bound by gratitude to maintain his cause. He farther observes that it required not the gift of prophecy to foretel that Williams would be a dangerous head to the church. He was in 1641 the contriver of the injudicious and mischievous protestation of the bishops, and of their secession from parlia

ment.

This Apology and the Answer to it are inserted at the end of this Case,

censure and unauthentickness put upon it by Gratian: he brings the gloss for evidence, that whereas this canon is cited out of the 4th Council of Orleans, there is no such thing there to be found. Thirdly, the pretended canon is levelled only against clamosa venutio, but quiets or modesta is allowed by the canonists. Now this latter was the recreation in which the misfortune happened at Bramzil, as may be seen in the dispensing instrument. The Apologist rem forces his argument by observing that by 35 H. 8. cap. 16, no canon is in force in England, which clashes with the laws and statutes of this realm or the prerogative royal; and that the canon urged against Abbot is of this nature. For by Charta de Forests, archbishops and bishops have express liberty to hunt; and that from 18 R. 2, cap. 13, it follows by necessary implica tion, that a clergyman who has 107. per annum or upwards, may keep greyhounds or hounds to hunt. And to mention nothing farther from him, he argues, that Lindwood who was very well skilled in the English ecclesiastical constitutions, condemns only the excesses of hunting in clergymen, and the undue application of that liberty, but does no where pronounce it as absolutely unlawful for their profession: After this he gives several instances of bishops who have used this diversion without censure or imputation.

And, las lv, the famous sir Edward Coke, upon the question being put to him by sir lleny Saville, Whether a bishop may hunt in a park by the laws of the realm? answered affirmatively in these words: He may hunt by the laws of 'the realm, by this very token, that there is an 'old law, that a bishop when dying is to leave his pack of dogs (called muta canum, i. e. muit de chienst) to the king's free use and disposal.' To this Apology there is an Answer returned, as it is said by sir Henry Spelman, but this dis course looks strained, and discovers something of a prosecuting humour, and I cannot help say ing it falls short of that strength and candour customary to this learned gentleman, and therefore, being a posthumous work, I would willingly believe some part of it at least was the work of another hand.

But, notwithstanding the Archbishop's recre ation, and his precaution against misfortune, was defensible, yet his being excused the forms of

* Lord Coke 3 Inst. cap. 73. p. 309. All canons against the laws or customs of the rcalm are void and of none effect.

† See Acc. 3d. Inst. 308, 339; and the very ancient authorities there cited.