Amicus reipublicæ. = The Common-Wealths friend or an exact and speedie course to justice and right, and for preventing and determining of tedious law-suits. With many other things very considerable for the good of the publick. All which are fully controverted and debated in law. By John March of Grayes-Inne, barister.

Whether Clergy be agreeable to reason, and Justice, or no?

CLergy is, when a man is convi∣cted of Man-slaughter, or any

other crime or offence, for which he may have his Book, and thereupon prayes his Clergy, that is, that he may have his Book, which being granted, the Ordinary, being a Cler∣gy man, and heretofore in stead of the Bishop who is the Ordinary, opens the Book, and turns him to a place to read, and reading, the Court demands whether he reads as a Clerk, if the ordinarie saith that he doth, he saves his life by it, and is onely burnt in the hand.

We must know, that the Original of this use of Clergy, was at that time when the World was in its Mi∣nority; I mean this little World, and there were but few Clerks, or learned men; and then in favour, and for in∣couragement of learning, as also for supply of places which were desti∣tute of men of such abilities, this Law or Priviledge of Clergy was in∣vented

and approved of for saving of such mens lives in some cases, for the reasons aforesaid; and this was the reason that Women could not have their Book, because they could not be Clerks.

Now I would fain know of any one, whether the cause, or reason of the making of this Law holds to this day or not? if it doth not, what reason can there be to continue it? for the rule of Law is, Cessante causâ, cessat effectus, the cause ceasing, the effect likewise ceaseth. And that it doth not, nothing more evident, for certainly (God be thanked for it) England never more abounded with learned men, than it doth now: and therefore no want of such Clerks as they are.

That this Law stands not with reason, I shall offer these things to consideration; first, the slightness

and inconsiderableness (especially as the case stands now) of the thing it self, that reading of a line or two should save a mans life; by which the crime is no way answered or sa∣tisfied for. Secondly, it may prove very unjust, for if several men be convicted of one and the same of∣fence, one may happily read, the other not, so that the one shall there∣by save his life, and the other suffer; which cannot stand with Justice. But where they are both equally guiltie, and so have deserved death; yet to pardon one may be just, for that the one may have been a more notorious offender than the other, and so not deserving the least fa∣vour, but for one to have power to save himself, and not the other, that I judge very hard and unreasonable. Lastly, (if there were reason in the thing it self) the difficultie of the

Tongue, and in many places, the Character being an old Letter too, and so hard to be read, makes it very unreasonable. So that I may safely say, were it not through the favour of the Court, not one of twentie could save their lives by reading.

Since therefore there is no ground for the continuance of this Law (as there is not for any that wants rea∣son for the support of it) I think it were better in such cases, where Cler∣gy is allowable, that they should be onely burnt in the hand, as women are, and so set at Liberty; which ne∣vertheless I submit to graver judge∣ments. The next I shall write of is the distinction in Law, betwixt Mur∣der and Man-slaughter; and therein put this short question.