An ANSWER to a LETTER written by a Mem∣ber of Parliament in the Country, upon the occasion of his Reading of the Gazette of the 11th of December, 1679; wherein is the Proclamation for further Pro∣roguing the Parliament, till the 11th of November next ensuing.
SIR,
I Received your Letter, when I was ingaged in much other business, which will excuse me that I have not returned an Answer sooner, and that is done no bet∣ter now: You desire me to let you know what that Judgment is which my Lord Chancellor acquainted my Lord Mayor and his Brethren with, and what my thoughts are upon it: And that I may obey you in both, I will first Transcribe that Case, as it is reported by Justice Crook, that being already put into English, whereas the Case in Moor is in French.
MEmorandum, That by Command from the King, all the Justices of England, * 1.1 with divers of the Nobility, viz. The Lord Ellesmere Lord-Chancellor, the Earl of Dorset Lord-Treasurer, Viscount Cranbourn Principal Secretary, the Earl of Nottingham Lord Admiral, the Earls of Northumberland, Worcester, Devon, and Northampton, the Lords Zouch, Burghley, and Knowles, the Chancellor of the Dutchy, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, Popham Chief Justice, Bruce Masters of the Rolls, An∣derson, Gawdy, Walmesley, Fenner, Kingsmil, Warburton, Savel, Daniel, Yelverton and Snigg, were assembled in the Star-Chamber, where the Lord Chancellor, after a long Speech made by him concerning Justices of the Peace, and his Exhortation to the Justices of As∣size, and a Discourse concerning Papists and Puritans, declaring how they both were Di∣sturbers of the State, and that the King intending to suppress them, and to have the Laws put in execution against them; demanded of the Justices their Resolutions in three things: First, Whether the Deprivation of Puritan-Ministers by the High Commissio∣ners, for refusing to conform themselves to the Ceremonies appointed by the last Ca∣nons, was lawful? Whereto all the Justices answered, That they had conferred thereof before, and held it to be lawful, because the King hath the Supreme Ecclesiastical Pow∣er, which he hath delegated to the Commissioners, whereby they had the Power of Deprivation by the Canon-Law of the Realm. And the Statute of 1 Eliz. which ap∣points Commissioners to be made by the Queen, doth not confer any new Power, but explain and declare the Ancient Power. And therefore they held it clear, That the King without Parliament might make Orders and Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy, and might deprive them if they obeyed not. And so the Commissioners might deprive them. But they could not make any Constitutions without the King: And the divul∣ging of such Ordinances by Proclamation is a most gracious Admonition: And foras∣much as they have refused to obey, they are lawfully deprived by the Commissioners ex Officio, without Libel Et ore tenus convocati. Secondly, Whether a Prohibition be