I doubt, Sir JOHN, my lord of SALISBURY will bring a fresh complaint against you, for this liberty with the bishops. But I, who shall not be thought wanting in a due honour for that bench, must needs confess myself much pleased, as well with the novelty, as justice of this comment. I have frequently considered this famous reply of the old barons. But I did not see to the bottom of the contrivance. Their aversion to the imperial laws, as you say, must have been very great, to have put them on their guard against so inviting a proposal.
One thing, however, is forgotten or dissembled in this account, that the law of JUSTINIAN, which allows the privilege of legitimation to subsequent marriage, is grounded on some reasons that might, perhaps, recommend it to the judgment, as well as interest of the old prelates. Besides, they doubtless found themselves much distressed by the contrariety of the two laws in this instance. For the ground of their motion, as I remember, was, _Quod esset secundum communem formam ecclesiæ_. But, to deal ingenuously with you, Sir JOHN, you have dressed up your hypothesis very plausibly. And I, who am no advocate for the civil or ecclesiastical laws, in this or any instance where they clash with those of my country, can allow your raillery on HENRY’S good bishops, if it were only that I see it makes so much for your general argument.
Your lordship may the rather excuse this liberty with the _church_, as I propose, in due time, to deal as freely with WESTMINSTER-HALL; a similar plot, which I shall have occasion to mention presently, having been formed against the ancient constitution by the men of our profession.
In the mean time, Sir JOHN, you must give me leave, in quality of advocate for the church, to observe one thing, that does the churchmen honour. It is, that, in these attempts on the constitution, the judges and great officers of the realm, who in those times were of the clergy, constantly took the side of the _English_ laws; as my Lord COKE himself, I remember, takes notice in his commentary on this statute of MERTON.
I believe the observation is very just. But I should incline to impute this integrity, not to the influence of church principles, but those of the common law, and so turn your compliment to the honour of our profession instead of theirs, if it were not too clear in fact that every profession, in its turn, hath been liable to this charge of corruption.