86 THE LIFE OF 



CHAP, there were two things charged upon him by the Commission, 

 VJI] &quot; why he should not be restored ; viz. want of learning, and 



not using the Common Prayer Book in that due exactness 

 as he should. 



His law- On Cawdry s side the question was, whether he were 

 ments. rgU &quot; r ^ nt ty deprived. If the Commissioners proceeded upon the 

 statute primo Elizabeth, then it was argued by his lawyers, 

 that he was not legally deprived ; for that statute limited 

 deprivation to be a punishment for a second offence, and not 

 James Mo- for the first, as Cawdry^s case was. James Morice, Attor- 

 yer ney of the Court of Wards, held this sentence to be null and 

 void in law for these reasons : because his Lordship, the 

 Bishop of London, was not Ordinary of the diocese where 

 the benefice lay ; and that it was his sentence only, and not 

 of the rest of the Commissioners. But to that it would be 

 said, that the rest that were present and assisting concurred 

 also in the sentence. Whereunto he replied, (which was 

 his second argument,) that it was not the sentence of the 

 Commissioners ; for by law the sentence should have been 

 given in the name of all the Commissioners present, and not 

 in the name of one by the others 1 consent, as it seems the 

 sentence ran. Again, the Bishop in his decree said ex 

 pressly, the cause was controverted before him in judicio ex 

 officio mero, which could not be before the Commissioners ; 

 and if the cause were depending before his Lordship as pro 

 ceeding ex qfficio, how could the judgment, said he, be other 

 than his own ? 



And then as for the sentence itself, or the matter of it, 

 that he held to be contrary to law ; because there were by 

 law several censures and punishments to be inflicted in that 

 case before deprivation, which was the last ; as namely, ad 

 monition, excommunication, sequestration. But this sen 

 tence at the first inflicted the last and extremest punish 

 ment ; which was not warrantable by the statute, nor any 

 other of the Queen s ecclesiastical laws. 



This was the substance of a paper which the said Morice, 

 a good friend to Cawdry, and that stuck close to him, writ 

 in Cawdry s behalf upon the Lord Treasurer Burghley s de- 



