peaceably worshipping their God. Whence it may be easy to observe, that popifh friars, and prelatical perfecutors, are mere confederates.

But what others have only adventured to stammer at, the recorder of London has been fo ingenuous as to fpeak moft plainly; or elfe, what mean thofe two fatal expreffions, which are become the talk and terror of both city and country?

First, In affuring the jury, That there would be a law next feffions of parliament, that no man fhould have the protection of the law, but fuch as con• formed to the church.' Which, fhould it be true, as we hope it is falfe, (and a difhonourable prophecy of that great affembly) the Papifts may live to fee their Marian days outdone by profeffed Proteftants.

But furely no Englishman can be fo fottifh, as to conceive that this right to liberty and property came in with his profeffion of the Proteftant religion! Or that his natural and human rights are dependent on certain religious apprehenfions: and confequently he must esteem it a cruelty in the abstract, that perfons fhould be denied the benefit of thofe laws which relate to civil concerns, who by their deportment in civil affairs have no way tranfgreffed them, but merely upon an opinion of faith, and matter of conscience.

It is well known that liberty and property, trade and commerce, were in the world long before the points in difference betwixt Proteftants and Diffenters, as the common privileges of mankind; and therefore not to be measured out by a conformity to this or the other religious perfuafion, but purely as Englishmen.

Secondly, But we fhould rather choose to esteem this an expreffion of heat in the recorder, than that we could believe a London's recorder fhould fay an English parliament fhould impofe fo much flavery on the present age, and entail it upon their own pofterity (who, for aught they know, may be reckoned among the Diffenters of the next age) did he not encourage us to believe it was both his defire and his judgment, from that deliberate eulogy he made on the Spanish inqui

T 4

inquifition, expreffing himself much to this purpose, viz. Till now, I never understood the reafon of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in fuffering the inquifition among them: and certainly it will never be well with us, till fomething like unto the Spanish inquifition be in England.' The grofs malignity of which faying is almoft inexpreffible. What does this but justify that hellish design of the Papifts, to have prevented the first reformation? If this be good doctrine, then Hoggeftrant, the grand inquifitor, was a more venerable person than Luther the reformer. It was an expreffion that had better become Cajetan, the pope's legate, than Howel, a proteftant city's recorder. This is so far from helping to convert the Spaniard, that it is the way to harden him in his idolatry, when his abominable cruelty fhall be esteemed prudence, and his moft barbarous and exquifite torturing of TRUTH, an excellent way to prevent faction.

If the recorder has spoke for no more than himself, it is well; but certainly, he little deferves to be thought a proteftant, and a lawyer, that puts both reformation and law into the inquifition. And doubtlefs the fupreme governors of the land are highly obliged, in honour and confcience, (in difcharge of their truft to God and the people) to take these things into their serious confideration, as what is expected from them, by those who earnestly wish theirs and the kingdom's fafety and profperity.

POST

POST SCRIPT.

The Copy of Judge Keeling's Cafe, taken out of the Parliament Journal.

TH

Die Mercurii, 11° Decembris, 1667.

HE house refumed the hearing of the reft of the report, touching the matter of restraint upon juries; and that upon the examination of divers witneffes, in feveral claufes of reftraints put upon juries, by the lord chief juftice Keeling: whereupon the committee made their refolutions, which are as followeth :

First, That the proceedings of the lord chief juftice, in the cafes now reported, are innovations, in the trial of men for their lives and liberties; and that he hath used an arbitrary and illegal power, which is of dangerous confequence to the lives and liberties of the people of England, and tends to the introducing of an arbitrary government.

Secondly, That in the place of judicature, the lord chief justice hath undervalued, vilified, and condemned magna charta, the great preferver of our lives, freedom, and property.

Thirdly, That he be brought to trial, in order to condign punishment, in fuch manner as the house fhall judge most fit and requifite.

Die Veneris 13° Decembris, 1667.

Refolved, &c. That the precedents and practice of fining or imprisoning jurors for verdicts, is illegal.

pro

Now whether the juftices of this court, in their ceedings (both towards the prifoners and jury) have acted according to law, and to their oaths and duty, to do justice without partiality, whereby right might

be

be preserved, the peace of the land fecured, and our ancient laws established; or whether fuch actions tend not to deprive us of our lives and liberties, to rob us of (our birth-right) the fundamental laws of England; and finally, to bring in an arbitrary and illegal power, to ufurp the benches of all our courts of juftice, we leave the English reader to judge.

Certainly, there can be no higher affront offered to king and parliament, than the bringing their reputations into fufpicion with their people, by the irregular actions of fubordinate judges: and no age can parallel the carriage of this recorder, mayor, &c. Nor can we think fo ignobly of the parliament, as that they fhould do less than call these persons to account, who failed not to do it to one lefs guilty, and of more repute; to wit, judge Keeling: for if his behaviour gave juft ground of jealoufy, that he intended an innovation, and the introducing an arbitrary government, this recorder's much more. Did chief justice Keeling fay, " Magna charta was magna farta?" So did this recorder too: and did justice Keeling fine and imprison juries, contrary to all law? So did this recorder alfo. In fhort, there is no difference, unless it be that the one was queftioned, and the other deferves it. But we defire in this they may be faid to differ, that though the former escaped punishment, the latter may not; who having a precedent before, did notwithstanding notoriously tranfgrefs.

To conclude: the law fuppofes the king cannot err, because it is willing to fuppofe he always acts by law, (and voluntas legis, eft voluntas regis; or, the king's will is regulated by the law); but it fays no fuch thing of the judges. And fince they are obliged by oath to difregard the king's letters (though under the broad and privy feal) if they any wife oppugn or contradict the law of the land; and confidering that every single action of an inferior minifter has an ugly reference to the fupreme magiftrate, where not rebuked; we cannot but conclude, that both judges

are

are anfwerable for their irregularities, especially where they had not a limitation of a king's letter, or command; and that the fupreme magiftrate is obliged, as in honour and fafety to himself, Alfred-like, to bring fuch to condign punishment; left every feffions produce the like tragical fcenes of ufurpation over the consciences of juries, to the vilifying and contemning of juftice, and great detriment and prejudice of the good and honeft men of this famous and free city.

FIAT JUSTITIA.

THE