Issue according to the present interests of his Affairs and Passions that such contradictory Acts could not be all true and though the Responses from Delphos or any Oracles of the Gentile ages might miss the truth as much yet by their dubious answers they forfeited not their reputations so much We may also note (l) Jus Regium p. 178 179. that by God Almighty's Providence and the care of his own Laws the Duke of Richmond was removed by death to prevent the unjust Competitors and Prince Edward was born and by the same Providence and the sence the Subjects had of the great Fundamental of Hereditary Succession contrary to some of these Acts and what Edward the Sixth did in setling the Crown upon the Lady Jane Grey proved of no force for Queen Mary succeeded though she was a Papist and Queen Elizabeth succeeded her though she was declared Bastard The rights of Blood prevailing over the Formalities of Divorce and the Dispensations of the Popes and the Laws made to gratify Henry the Eighth's pleasure as the strength of nature doth often prevail over Poisons and to evince the greater certainty of their being void so little notice was taken of those and the subsequent Acts Anno 1535. that the Heirs of the Blood succeeded without repealing that Act as an Act in it self invalid from the beginning For such Acts are past by without being repealed as we find in the Act of Recognition of Queen Elizabeth no notice was taken of the Act of Parliament against her and Blackwood (m) P. 45. observes very well that so conscious were the makers of these Acts Jus Regium p. 179. of the illegality of them and of their being contrary to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that Kings Testament wherein he did nominate a Successor conformable to the power granted by those Acts but that as soon as they were freed by his Death from the violent oppressions that had forced them to alter a Successor three several times and at last to swear implicitly to whomsoever he should nominate they proclaimed first Queen Mary and after her decease Queen Elizabeth Therefore all these Acts both of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth are to be looked upon as Politick interims to serve for some present ends And as we observe the trepidations vibrations and as we may say uneasiness of things in all that have been displaced till reseated again whereby we have a certain Indicium of any thing Natural so may we note the naturalness of Hereditary Succession by the Tragical Convulsions and unsetledness of things in any State where great force and policy have usurped the Crown till it hath returned to the right owner So we see after the force was removed by the expiration of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth things returned again into their pristin State according to the Laws of the Crown I shall now pass to consider other Reasons and First it may be observed Fundamentals in Government not to be altered That the Venerable Age of such Fundamental Laws should have another kind of respect pay'd to them than to be made obsolete because they will not sort with some new-fashioned Intrigue For it is a most true Maxime Non magis aliunde floret respublica quam si legum vigeat Authoritas So in the first Parliament (n) Cap. 2. of King James the First it is fully expressed That to alter and innovate the Fundamental ad Ancient Laws See Commission for Union 16â—4 Priviledges and good Customs of the Kingdom whereby not only the Kings Regal Authority but the Peoples securities of Lands Livings and Priviledges both in general and particular are preserved and maintained and by the abolishing or alteration of the which it is impossible but that present confusion will fall upon the whole State and frame of Government is of most dangerous consequence whence we may well infer That to endeavour to alter the right of Succession of the Crown in the direct line is one of the most dangerous Innovations of all others as drawing innumerable mischiefs after it Now there can be no greater fundamental right than the Succession of our Monarch The Hereditary Succession is a Fundamental That our Monarchy is Hereditary is the great Basis upon which most of all the positions of the Laws are established which every where we meet with in the Writings of Lawyers viz. That the King never dies the next Successour in Blood is legally King from the very moment in which the last King dies that there needs neither Coronation or Recognition of the People to intitle him to the exercise of his Regal Authority that his Commissions are valid all Men are liable to do him Homage and hold their rights of him and his Heirs he may call Parliaments dispose of the Lands belonging to the Crown and all that oppose him are Rebells Generally this Principle runs through all the Veins of our Laws it is that which gives Life and Authority to our Statutes but receives none from them which are undeniable marks and Characters of a Fundamental Right in all Nations Secondly Such further provision hath the Law made to secure the Succession in the direct line that if the right Heir of the Blood or the Father or Mother of the right Heir be attainted of High Treason by Parliament the Attainder is no obstruction to the descent If he who were to succeed had committed Murther or were declared Traytor formerly to the Crown for open Rebellion against the King and Kingdom yet upon his coming to the Crown he need not to be restored by Act of Parliament but his very right of Blood would purge all these Imperfections For tanta est Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminare patiatur saith a (o) Craig learned Lawyer and the Reasons given are For that no Man can be a Rebel against himself nor can the King have a Superior and consequently there can be none whom he can (p) Jus Reg. p. 169. offend and it would be absurd that he who can restore all other Men should need to be restored himself Also the Punishments of Crimes such as Confiscations c. are to be inflicted by the Kings Authority or to fall to the Kings Treasury and it would be most absurd that a Man should exact from himself a Punishment So Richard Plantaginet Duke of York and Edward the Fourth his Son were both attainted yet Edward the Fourth was rightful King and no impediment in the Succession accrued by it So Charles the Seventh of France though banished by Sentence of Parliament did afterwards succeed to the Crown and though Lewis the Twelfth forfeited for taking up Arms against Charles the Eighth yet he succeeded and Alexander Duke of Albany and his Descendants being declared Traytors by his Brother King James the Fourth yet his Son John being called home upon
Cabedo Pract. Obs par 2. decis 40. would himself For it is essential to Majesty and Soveraignty and cannot be abdicated while he remaineth King nor separated without the diminution or destruction of Majesty How both King and People are obliged to defend the Rights of the Crown will appear in the Laws ascribed to King Edward the Confessor in the 17.35 and 56. As to the Particular How absolutely necessary the Royal Assent is to all Laws in the Act of Recognition to King James the First it is fully expressed thus Which if Your Majesty shall be pleased as an Argument of your Gracious acceptation to adorn with Your Majestie 's Royal Assent without which it can neither be Compleat and Perfect nor remain to all Posterity according to our Desire as a Memorial of your Princely and tender Affection towards us c. Against what I have laid down those who were for co-ordinate Powers in the two Houses object many things Answers to some Objections against the King's sole establishing of Laws some I have answered in the Chapter of the King's Sovereignty and I shall meet with others in the Chapters of Parliaments And shall here only take notice of some omitted or not fully answered there Against the assertion That the Liberties granted by King Henry the Third were by way of Charter they produce the Preamble (r) Coke 2 Instit fol. 525. to the Confirmation of King Edward the First of Magna Charta La Charte des Franchises la Charte de la Forest les queux fuerent faitz per Commen de tout Royalm en le temps le Roy Henry pier soient tenue c. and Charta de Foresta wherein he saith that the Charter of Liberties and the Charter of the Forest made by the Community of all the Realm in the time of King Henry our Father shall be kept c. To which with the Judicious Doctor (s) General Preface to Compleat History p. 41. The ancient Kings sealing of Charters of Liberties reputed Laws Brady may be answered that these were the Petitions and Requests of the Community of the Kingdom and may be said to be made that is digested by them into the form of a Charter So the Barons offered King John's Magna Charta to him ready drawn in a Schedule and forced him to grant it and cause his Seal to be put to it and the whole strength and validity of the Charter lay in his Grant and the Confirmation of it under his Seal This was the only Security they desired and demanded no other and the Tenour of all the Charters were accordingly We grant We confirm We give for us and our Heirs to them and their Heirs c. Which Grants and Concessious were always in these times accepted and acknowledged to be sufficient without the least doubting or scruple There was no other Power or Authority that gave them being but the King's so that it seemed the great Councils or Parliaments of those times owned the Kings Charters under Seal and the Grants made by them to the People to be of good force and effect and that their Petitions to which he gave his assent and caused to be put under his Seal were by them accepted and from time to time acknowledged as firm and valid Laws The same learned (t) Idem p. 67. The Laws planted by Kings Doctor Brady observes that Sir Edward Coke hath a formal way of speaking The Law doth this and The Law doth that This is Law That is by Common Law of England abstracting it from any dependance upon or Creation by the Government as if it had been here before there was any and had grown up with the first Trees Herbs and Grass that grew upon English Ground and had not been of our antient Kings and their Successors planting by assistance and advice of their great Councils in all Ages as it was found expedient either by them or upon Petition and Request of their People which is acknowledged by all the Bishops Earls Barons and People present at the (u) Claus 1 E. 2. m. 10. dorso Coronation of King Edward the Second in these words Sir Will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirm to the People of England the Laws and Customs granted to them by the antient Kings of England your Predecessors true and devout to God and namely the Laws and Customs and Liberties granted to the Clergy and People by the glorious King Edward your Predecessor Another Objection some make against the Absoluteness of the King's Power Second Objection when it is said in antient Statutes The King ordains The King wills that it hath been resolved by many of the Judges (w) Coke 8. Report s 20. b. that if these Statutes be entred in the Parliament Rolls and allowed as acts of Parliament it shall be intended they were by Authority of Parliament With the Judicious Dr. Brady I shall not enquire how such Entry and such Allowance without any Words in the Statutes to that purpose can make them to be by Authority of Parliament But we may he sure those Words The King ordains The King wills being pronounced in Parliament and recorded in the Rolls thereof do clearly prove the King's Authority and Power in making Laws to be far greater than many Men would allow him or have him to enjoy (x) Lib. 3. c. 9. Bracton and the Author of (y) Lib. 1. c. 17. â—leta applying the Passage of the Civil Law Quod Principi placet Legis habet vigorem to the King of England say That Clause ought not to be understood of every thing that is rashly presumed to be his Will but of that which is justly determined upon good Advice and Deliberation by the Counsel of his Magistrates (z) Râ—ge Authoritatem prastante the King giving it Authority and confirming it for a Law and from hence (a) Cum ipse sit Author Juris non debet inde Injuriarum nasci occasio unde Jura nascuntur infer That when he himself is the Author of the Law Injustice ought not to spring from the same Fountain from whence the Law doth spring It is no diminution of the Sovereignty of a Prince in the matter of making Laws or repealing them to have the Assent of the Nobles and such a select Body of Great and Wise Men as the House of Commons are But when as in the Parliament 1641. the Two Houses claim a Co-ordinate Power and would make their Advices be swallowed as Commands it is this that all Loyal Persons should oppose We generally understand that the Persian Monarchy was as Absolute as any yet in it we have a manifest Discovery of the Concurrence of the Nobles in preparing a Decree The Persian manner of making Laws yet they wanted the King's establishing the Decree by his signing it whereby it might not be changed and Grotius thinks they signed it also (b) Dan. cap. 6. v. 7 8
Barons Justices and others which are of the King's Council who may not depart without special leave of the King I shall not here enter into the enquiry how far the extent of the Power of the King's Council was in those days but it is very apparent that the King with advice of his Council proposed Laws and that others proposed by the Houses were considered by the King and Council as no doubt they are now considered before the King gives his Assent to Bills So in the Statute of the Definition of (x) Pulton An. 1304. fol. 72. Conspirators in the three and Thirtieth Year of King Edward the First it is said This Ordinance was accorded by the King and his Council in his Parliament Also in the Ordinance of (y) Idem Anno 1305. Enquests the Eighteenth of Sept. in the thirty third Year of Ed. the First It is said it is agreed and ordained by the King and all his Council that is his Parliament As to the special Prerogative of the King in giving the ultimate Character and fiat to the Laws every Act expresseth it so the Statute of (z) 18 Sept. 33 E. 1. Champerty the Statutes are called by the King Our Statutes and Our Lord the King hath commanded and in the Statute de Conjunctim feoffat it is said It is no new thing that among divers Establishments of Laws which we have ordained in our time so in the Ordinatio Forestae 34 Ed. 1. The King Ordains (a) Id. Anno 1306. fol. 73. We have ordained for our selves and our Heirs So in the Statute De asportatu Religiosorum 35 Ed. 1. it is said by the Council of his Earls Barons great Men and other Nobles of his Kingdom at his Parliament Our Lord the King hath Ordained and Enacted I shall only note first That in the Twenty eighth of this King those the (b) Cl. 28 E. 1. m. 3. dorso King had appointed being ready to give an account of the Perambulation of the Forests the King put a present stop to their report and his determination because the Prelates Earls Barons The Reason the King will determine nothing without advice in Parliament and the rest of the Magnates of the Kingdom in whose Presence his own and others Reasons should be propounded and heard and by whose Councils he intended to work especially seeing they were bound by Oath as well as himself to observe and maintain the Rights of the Kingdom and Crown were not then present and those were not summoned who should propound their Reasons so far as the matters concerned them and the King was not willing without their advice to put an end to the matters therefore he orders the Sheriffs to cause the two Knights that came to the last Parliament by his Precept now to come and the like for the Cities and Burroughs and if any were dead or infirm so that he could not come then to cause another to be chosen By which it appears that it was only from the King's Indulgence and that he might more deliberately resolve for the best advantage of his Subjects and for their satisfaction that he would have the advice of a fuller Assembly We may also further note from hence that it was in the King's Power to summon the same Knights Citizens and Burgesses without a new Choice except the Persons were dead or infirm Of the Parliaments in King Edward the Second's time IN this King's Reign these following Particulars are most observable In the Statute for (a) Pulton An. 1307. fol. 79. Knights 1 Regni it is said Our Lord the King hath granted In the Summons 5 Ed. 2. the Precept to the Sheriff The same Knights c. to come that were before is to cause to come to the Parliament to be held at Westminster those Knights Citizens and Burgesses in his Bailiwick which he caused to come lately to the present Parliament at London and which for certain causes went from the said Parliament (b) Cl. 5 E. 2. m. 26. dorso Vel alios ad hâ—â— idoneos loco ipsorum si ad hoc vacare non possunt or others fit for the Imployment if they cannot be at leisure Dated Octob. 11. In the sixth of Ed. 2. we have an example of the King 's (c) Cl. 6 E. 2. m. 27. dorso A Form of Prorogation proroguing the House of Commons in these Words Dominus Rex praecepit quod Milites Cives Burgenses qui ad Parliamentum Regis ibidem summonitum convenerunt pro Comitatibus Civitatibus Burgis Angliae ad propria remearent ita quod reverterentur ibidem in crastino S. Mich. prox futuro sub poena qua decet So that as they were commanded to return home so they were appointed a time to return under the Intimation of a Punishment The Preamble to the (d) Pulton An. 1315. fol. 80. The King with his Council revise Articles after the Parliament ended Articuli Cleri runs thus That by the Kings Progrenitors and himself at the Instance of the Prelates certain Articles were made and in the Parliament at Lincoln 9 Regni he caused them to be rehearsed before his Council and made certain answers to be corrected and to the residue of the Articles answers were made by him and his Council and so by way of Charter they are published at York 24 Nov. 10 Regni The Statute of (e) Id. 1316. fol. 83. Gavelet at London saith It is provided by our Lord the King and his Justices In the Statute de Terris (f) Id. Anno 1323. 17 E. 2. fol. 91. Templariorum it is said Great conference was had before the King himself in the presence of the Prelates Earls Barons Nobles and great Men of the Realm and others present whereupon the Greater part of the King's Council The King's Council and Justices affirm as well the Justices as other Lay-men being assembled the Justices affirmed precisely c. After the recital of Particulars the words are It is ordained and agreed in the same Parliament Anno 1326. the last of Ed. 2. There is a Prorogation of the (g) Claus 20 E. 2. m. 4. dorso A Prorogation before Meeting Parliament before meeting which runs thus That though the King had intended Colloquium Tractatum Conference and Treaty in the Quindene of St. Andrew by Isabel the Queen and Edward his eldest Son Custos of the Kingdom the King then being beyond Sea and the Prelats Proceres Magnates Regni and so had commanded two Knights of the Community of the County two Burgesses of every Burrough (h) Quia tamen quibusdam de causis necessariis utilibus praedict Parliamentum Tractatum usque in crast inum Epiphaniae prox jam futur c. duximus prorogandum yet for certain causes necessary and profitable he hath prorogued the said Parliament and Treaty unto the day after Epiphany c. Of the Parliaments in King Edward the Third's
Curiae suae Baronum Parium suorum So Anno 1240. 24 H. 3. (i) Graviter accusatus coram Rege Curia tota Lond. Mat. Westm 153. Matthew Paris saith That Hubert de Burgo Earl of Kent was grievously accused before the King and his whole Court and it was adjudged he should resign to the King four of his Castles I cannot omit one memorable passage that (k) Mat. Westm Anno 1260. p. 295 296. Anno 1260. 44 H. 3. there falling out a difference betwixt King Hen. 3. Prince Edward his Son Simon Montfort and other Nobles the King called his Baronage to St. Pauls and there it being urged that Prince Edward had done some injuries to the King he offered to prove himself innocent before the King and his Uncle who was King of the Romans saying Who are Peers of Prince Edward That none of (l) Omnes alios Barones Comites sibi de â—ure non esse Pares nec sâ—â—s in eum excercerâ— disâ—ussiones the rest of the Barons and Earls were by right his Peers nor ought to exercise upon him their Discussions of the matter By which it appears that he judged himself to be something more than a Peer of the Realm being the Heir apparent of the Crown I might fill a large Volum with the Histories and Records to prove this but since Levellers and the House of Commons that voted the House of Lords dangerous and useless have received such deadly wounds by Mr. Prynne in his Plea for the Lords who was once one of their own Champions I think it needless to whet those Weapons again since they always will be in readiness for any one to make use of if need require and shall only obviate one objection that may be urged That whatever the usage was before the Representatives of the Commons An Objection That after the House of Commons were admitted the Jurisdiction of the Lords House was lessened Answered yet the Commons after were often admitted to a share of Judicature in some cases But I shall give a few Instances how after this change of the Constitution of Parliament still this power of Judicature remained in the King and House of Lords Roger de (m) 4 E. 3. num 11.28 E. 3. num 9 10. Mortimer being accused of High Treason 4 E. 3. for the Murther of King Edward 2. after his resignation and unlawful deposition Knighton (n) De Event Angliae lib. 3. c. 16. col 1556 1557. giving an account of the proceedings agreeable to the Parliament Roll saith Rex praecepit Comitibus Baronibus caeteris Magnatibus Regni justum judicium ferre super praedicto Rogero de Mortimer So at the Parliament held at Salisbury 7 R. 2. W. de Zouch is said to be called to the Parliament to stand to the Judgment (o) Ad standum judicio Regis Domincrum Walâ—ingham p. 334. Hist Ang. Hypodig Neust p. 141. of the King and the Lords So Michael de la Pole Earl of Suffolk and Chancellor of England 10 R. 2. (p) Rot. Parl. 10 R. 2. num 6. ad 18. was accused by the Commons in full Parliament before the King Bishops and Lords and at last it is said The Lords in full Parliament gave judgment against him In the Parliament 11 R. 2. Thomas Duke of Gloucester offered to put himself upon his Tryal as the Lords of the Parliament would award c. After which the Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal claimed their Liberties and Franchises namely That all weighty matters in the same Parliament which should be after moved touching the Peers of the Land should be judged and determined by them by the course of Parliament and not by the Civil Law nor yet by the Common Law of the Land used in other Courts of the Realm Yet this seems a very high Demand for they have not Juris dandi but dati Jurisdictionem as they are a Court of Ministerial Jurisdiction being the Court of the King's Barons in Parliament And though when upon Writ of Error (q) Egerton sect 4.22 23. any Judgment in the King's Bench is examined in the House of Lords and there affirmed or reversed the Judgment is said to be affirmed or reversed in Parliament yet we cannot conclude they have the Power of the High Court of Parliament that their Decrees if against the Law should be as binding as Acts of Parliament How the Lords judge ministerially And though the same House in the same Session may not have Power to review again their own Judgment nor to restore again any Judgment they have reversed because they judge ministerially and not sovereignly and so bind their own Hands as well as their Inferiors whereas an Absolute Supreme Court is never at the last Period of Jurisdiction yet we see Attainders in one Parliament reversed in another and so may their Judgments be But this obiter I shall but add one proof more being full and express to the purpose to prove the House of Lords sole Jurisdiction with the King who must always be understood to give Judgment by them The Record is 1 H. 4. (r) Rot. Par. 1 H. 4. num 79. Exact Abridgment p. 392. where it is said That 3 Nov. the Commons in this Parliament shewed to the King Come les joggements du Parlement apperteignent soulement au Roy Seignieurs nient aus Communes c. That the Judgments of Parliament appertained only to the King and to the Lords and not unto the Commons Thereupon they prayed the King out of his special Grace to shew unto them the said Judgments and the cause of them that so no Record might be made in Parliament against the said Commons which are or shall be parties to any Judgment given or hereafter to be given in Parliament without their Privity Whereunto the Archbishop of Canterbury gave them this Answer by the Kings Commandment That the Commons themselves are Petitioners and Demanders and that the King (s) Et que le Roy les Seigniours de tout temps ont eues averont de droit les Juggement in Parliament en manere come mesmes les Communes soâ—t monstres and Lords from all times have had and shall have of right the Judgments in Parliaments in manner as the Commons have shewed How far the King and House of Lords have been Judges of the Priviledges of the House of Commons I shall declare in that part of this Chapter wherein I treat of that House SECT 5. Of the Assistants to the House of Lords HAving thus far treated of the Constituent Parts of the House of Lords I come now to the Assistants to this most Honourable House which were mostly the (t) Prynne's Brief Register part 1. sect 3. p. 240. The Judges and other Assistants of the House of Lords King 's Great Officers as well Clergy-men as Secular Persons who were no Lords or Barons of the Realm as namely his Treasurer
puts an end to the Sessions so that what ever Bills are ready and pass not the Royal Assent must be again read three times in either House for the more security it is usual to insert a Proviso That the Session is not thereby concluded The Royal Assent is given two ways First Royal Assent by Patent by Commission since the Statute of the 33 H. 8. c. 21. wherein it is expressed That the Kings Royal Assent by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal Signed by his hand and declared and notified in his absence to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and to the Commons Assembled in the higher House is and ever was of as good strengh and force as if the King had been there personally present and assented openly and publickly to the same The manner of the King 's giving his Publick Assent is in this manner The King cometh in Person in his Parliament-Robes Royal Assent when the King present and sitteth in his State and the Upper House sit in their Robes The Speaker with all the Commons House cometh to the Bar of the Lords House and in Sir Thomas Smith's time Sir Th. Smith's Commonwealth p. 45. Speeches used to be made there the Chancellor for the Lords and the Speaker for the Commons in set Speeches returned the Prince Thanks for that he hath so great Care of the good Government of his People and for calling them together to advise of such things as should be for the Reformation Establishing and Ornament of the Commonweal After which the Chancellor in the Prince's Name giveth Thanks to the Lords and Commons for their Pains and Travel taken which he saith the Prince will remember and recompense when Time and Occasion shall serve and that the Prince is ready to declare his Pleasure concerning their Proceedings whereby the same may have perfect Life and Accomplishment by his Princely Authority I think now mostly Hackwell of Passing of Bills p. 181 182. the Speaker of the House of Commons makes a Speech acquainting the King with the purport of the Bills Then the Clerk of the Crown readeth the Title of the Bills in such Order as they are in Consequence After the Title of every Bill is read singly The Clerk of the Crown pronounceth the Royal Assent or Dissent the Clerk of the Parliament pronounceth the Royal Assent according to certain Instructions given from his Majesty in that behalf If it be a Publick Bill to which the King assenteth the Answer is Le Roy le veult The King willeth If a Private Bill allowed by the King the Answer is Soit fait comme il est desire Let it be done as it is desired And upon a Petitionary Bill the like is used If it be a Publick Bill which the King forbeareth to allow he saith Le Roy se avisera The King will advise To a Subsidy Bill the Clerk pronounceth Le Roy remercie ses loyaux Subjects accepte leur Benevolence aussi le veult The King thanks his Loyal Subjects accepts their Benevolence and also willeth To a general Pardon is pronounced Les Prelates Seigneurs Communs en cest Parlement assembles au nom de touts vous autres Subjects remercient tres humblement vostre Majesty prient Dieu vous donner en sante bone vie longe The Prelates Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled in the name of all your other Subjects thrice humbly give thanks to your Majesty and pray God to give you in health a good Life and long These P. 46. saith Sir Thomas Smith be taken now as perfect Laws and Ordinances of the Realm of England and none other and as shortly as may be are printed except it be some Private Acts made for the Benefit or Prejudice of some Private Man these be only exemplified under the Seal of the Parliament CHAP. XXIX Of Factious Combinations in Parliaments I Hope in the foregoing Chapters I have so explained the Constitution of Parliaments and the Legislative Power that unbiassed and unprejudiced Persons will no more be misled by the Sophisms and plausible pretences which to aggrandize the Power of the two Houses at first and after of the Commons House only the Penmen of the long Parliament made use of yet because many of late were furbishing the rusty Armour of their Demagogues and trimming their Helmets with fresh Plumes I conceive it necessary to take notice of some of their chiefest Arguments and examine those which had greatest Influence upon the People The great and venerable name of Parliament and its Authority was constantly used as Shield and Buckler to ward off all the Force of the Loyal Assaults and Mr. Prynne writ a large Volume which he stiled The Soveraign Power of Parliaments and when the very Lees and Dregs of the Commons House was put in Ferment that very Kilderkin would admit no lower Stile than the supreme Authority of the Nation to be pearched on its Bunghole Therefore to disabuse the less considerate The various Acceptation of the word Parliament and to detect the Frauds of those which under that great Name applyed whatever they met with in the Laws or History to the House of Commons I think it necessary in the first place to clear the acceptation of the Word Appropriated to the Lords House Sometimes the word Parliament is used for the House of (a) Egerton sect 4. 22 23. Lords only as when upon Writ of Error any Judgment in the King's-Bench is examined in the House of Lords the Judgment is said to be affirmed or reversed by Parliament The Appellation of Parliament is likewise used for the two Houses To both the Houses in regard they are the gross Body whereof the Parliament consists there only wanting the Sovereign Head to compleat it But they are so far from being the High Court of Parliament that they cannot co-unite to be an entire Court either of Sovereign or Ministerial Justice but only in concurring in Votes in their several Houses for preparing of matters in order to an act of all the Body which when they have done their Votes are so far from having any legal Authority in the State as in Law there is no Stile or Form of their joynt Acts further than Bills nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them till they have Royal Assent without which the Votes of the two Houses dye in the Womb like an Embryo So that the proper use of the word Parliament How properly the High Court of Parliament as Authority of Law-making is annexed to the name is only when the King and the two Houses concurr in one Act and in that sence only is the Parliament the Supream Court the highest Judicatory and the most Sovereign Power Not for any Soveraignty in the two Houses and from them transferred to the King by their joining and consenting with him but because every compleat and perfect Act of it is the Act of
Prince should be limited from using the legislative Power without concurrent assent of the Peers and Commons By which means the constitution of our Parliaments is so equal and geometrical and all parts so equally contribute their Offices that no part can have an extream predominance over other Therefore to prevent any evil that might come by the admission of two such Bodies to a participation of Power in this particular of making Laws if they should combine against the Soveraign the Law gives them an equal Power to assent or dissent The Ballancing of the Powers in Parliament so that opposing the single Power of every one of them to the Votes of every other two there might be so secure a balancing of the Power of one against the other that no practice of any two of them should do any prejudice and diminution to the third without the third Party it self did give consent unto it otherwise the King and Peers might oppress the Commons the King and Commons oppress the Peers or the Peers and Commons oppose the King and the Peers being easily oppressed by the Commons as we saw in our late calamitous Times an Appian Decemvirate or the 30 or 300 Tyrants might get the Power into their own hands In another place he saith Though properly Laws be the Acts of the King in Parliament yet are they also truly the Acts of the whole Parliament because every of the Estates contribute their Power according to the diversity of their Office and Interest and so as from a sacred Tripos the civil Oracles of the Law are delivered It is therefore to be considered saith a Judicious (m) King's Supremacy asserted c. 9. p. 96. where the Reader may find a full Answer to the Deductions they make from the King's way of arguing Author in answer to some other passages of his Majesty that the Parliamentarians wrested That if his Majesty out of a desire to save the effusion of Blood used such gracious Expressions as were most likely to prevail with the People and consolidate their Minds they ought not in Equity to prejudice the Rights of the Crown although he had abdicated therein some parts of his Authority and granted things destructive to his own Prerogative From his Majesties saying That the Power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the Power of Tyranny they infer This cannot be made good without a Power of Resistance for that Tyranny cannot otherwise be restrained Which is easily answered For it cannot be understood that the King means by this a forceable resistance or restraint (n) Id possit quisquam quod jure possit but a legal one so far as Humane Prudence can by lawful and just ways provide The Power they have by Law being to inflict punishments on evil Instruments whereby others may be afraid to take upon them such Imployments and they may refuse to give the King Subsidies and other necessary Assistance if he refuseth to moderate excesses which are Powers more efficacious than resistance the success of the one being more probable and likely than the other However The not asserting of King Charles the First 's Prerogative disadvantagious in my poor opinion it had been more honourable and probably more efficacious to have spent less time in this kind of defending the Kings Interest by the Pen and have imployed it in asserting the true Prerogative of the King and his undoubted Rights to have let the People as well as the Houses know what he would reform and out of Princely Clemency grant for his Peoples ease and at their earnest Petition but neither to have depreciated or descended so much below the Majesty and Dignity of his place to enter into Reply and Duply Altercation and Apologies with his Subjects But that King composed all of Mercy Justice and Tenderness to his Subjects judging others by his own Royal Standard of Integrity let the Houses seize his Ships Magazines and left them the City of London's Purse while he retired to the North and plied the Houses with Declarations and Messages to have reduced them to their Duties and though his condescensions were great and the way of Argument such as before I have instanced in yet I cannot find except in that particular of making himself one of the three Estates that he yielded any part of his Royal Prerogative till he was made Prisoner that in his restraint he condescended to a temporary divesting himself of the Militia and other things which all sorts of Subjects except the very chief of those in Rebellion against him found infinitely more tending to the enslaving and utter ruine of the People than ever they could have been if the King had managed all by his absolute Will and the direction of those they accounted his worst Instruments I having in several places cleared the Kings Soveraignty shall only on this Head endeavour to answer the principal of those popular Reasons the Writers for the Parliament used not grounded upon any Law or Constitution of the Government but only upon the false supposition That the Wisdom of the two Houses was to be valued above the Wisdom of the King and Council in proposing matters for the Royal Assent which were conducible to the Liberty of the Subject which they pretended was their whole design and that they would establish the Kings Throne in more Glory and Splendor than had ever been in any Ages The first and principal Topick they used was The Monarchy of England not mixed That the Monarchy of England was in its Constitution allayed and the Power of the two Houses in making Laws had such a Copartnership and radical mixture that they had something more than a Consultive and Assenting part and that the King was oblig'd in the duty of his Office and by his Coronation Oath to grant what they desired Mr. Sherringham (o) King's Supremacy asserted p. 74. hath culled out the prime Arguments of the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy The fuller Answerer and others upon this Head and so fully answer'd them that I must refer the Reader to him for satisfaction and shall only select some of the chiefest of these Arguments more for the orderly continuance of this Discourse than for any need of repeating them First They say That King Charles the First owned the Law (p) Declaration from Nâ—wmarket 9 March 1641. to be the Measure of his Power and if so it is limited But this concludes no more than that his Power is of such a size and bigness as the Law hath ordained and if the Law give the King absolute full and entire Power and limits him only in the exercise of it this is a restraint and limitation according to such Laws as the Soveraign hath established in that particular alone and is the happiness of the English Subject that Kings act not Arbitrarily but this gives no Power to the two Houses to be any checks upon
Parliament of England knew they had no Power to make such an Act and we may conclude That such Politick and Temporary provisions find no approbation either by the Laws or succeeding ages who in all such cases judge more impartially therefore it is much more honourable for the Legislative Power to found their Laws upon Justice and Right rather than upon the humours and Interests of those who desire but the shadow of a Law to countenance their designs It must be owned that King Edward the Second was deposed The Injustice in deposing Kings for making use of Gaveston and the Spencers But how illegally all succeeding ages have acknowledged and it rather shews how extravagant the People and their Representatives are in their humors than how just their Powers are For by the same parity of Reason the horrid Murther of the blessed Martyr or the Murther of Edward the Second may be justified as his deposing may be and the like may be said of King Richard the Second against whom the Fourteenth Article was that he refused to allow the Laws made in Parliament which had been in effect to consent that the two Houses should have been the Soveraign and that he had transferred the Royal Power on them Whoever desires further satisfaction may consult Arnisaeus in that Treatise Quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum Principem arma sumere Whereas Richard Duke of York in Henry the Sixth's time after he had been declared Heir Apparent was by another Act of Parliament declared uncapable of Succession all that can be inferred from it is When Acts of Parliament to be less esteemed That Acts of Parliament when they are bottomed upon private affections to Parties in times of Faction and civil War are not to be looked upon with that veneration as when they regularly pass in times that are calm when no potent Persons oppress Justice or usurping Powers hinder faithful Judges from expounding the Laws soundly Therefore we find in the claim of the said Duke of York that it is more consentaneously to Law expressed That no Act taketh place or is of force against him that is right inheritor of the Crown as accordeth saith the Record with Gods Laws and all natural Laws and we may observe that though there was a Succession of three Kings of the House of Lancaster who had usurped the Crown for Sixty Years yet all our Historians and the Laws call those Kings de facto and not de jure Such a true sence of just and right the uninterested Ages have had of that Usurpation ever since although there were Acts of Parliament carefully penned to corroborate â—he Title of the house of Lancaster during that time and all ways and means used to have established that Line yet by vertue of the Right of Lineal Succession Edward the Fourth Son to the said Duke of York came to be owned lawful King of England though the Right of his Family had been interrupted ever since Henry the Fourth usurped the Crown which might have been a sufficient document to all Ages not to have attempted any sort of praeterition of the Right Heir Yet we find that unsuccessful attempts were made by H. 8. contrary to the fundamentals of Succession which when rightly considered I hope will convince all of how little validity even such Acts are to be reputed Therefore because these have been made use of for Precedents I shall speak a little more fully to them In the 25 of H. 8. (f) Cap. 22. the Marriage with Queen Katherine is made void Concerning the several Entailings of the Crown by King Henry the Eighth and that with Queen Anne's declared good and an Entail made on the Issue Male or Female and the Penalty for hurting the Kings Person disturbing his Title to the Crown or slandering the present Marriage is judged High Treason and Anno 26. (g) Cap. 2. a strict Oath is injoyned to observe the Succession there appointed But 28 H. 8. (h) Cap. 7. it is declared that the former Act was made upon a pure perfect and clear foundation thinking the Marriage then had between his Majesty and the Lady Anne they are the words of the Act in their Consciences to have been pure sincere and perfect and good c. till now of late that it appeareth that the said Marriage was never good or consonant to the Laws but utterly void and of none effect and so both the Marriage with the Princess Katherine and the Lady Anne are declared void and their Issue made illegitimate and the perils are enumerated that might ensue to the Realm for want of a declared lawful Successor to the Crown and the Act impowers the King if he dye without Issue of his body that he may limit the Crown to any by his Letters Patents or his last Will in Writing and it is declared Treason to declare either of the Marriages to be good or to call the Lady Mary or Lady Elizabeth Legitimate and the former Oath is made void and this may be judged to be procured when he resolved to settle the Crown on Henry Fitz Roy Duke of Richmond his natural Son But after the Birth of Prince Edward 38 H. 8. (i) Cap. 1. another alteration is made whereby the Crown is entailed on Prince Edward and for want of his Issue on the Lady Mary and for want of her Issue on the Lady Elizabeth and for want of Issue of the King or them then the King is impowered by his Letters Patents or last Will to dispose of the Crown at his free will It is therefore to be considered that in such a juncture of affairs when the legality of the Kings Marriages were so disputable by reason that two of the legal Successors upon niceties not of nature but of the Popes 〈◊〉 for Divorcing were declared Bastards there was some â—eason (k) 25 H. 8. c. 22. that the Act should express that the Ambiguity of several Titles pretended to the Crown then not perfectly declared but that men might expound them to every ones sinister affection and sence contrary to the right legality of Succession and Posterity of the lawful Kings and Emperours of the Realm hath been the cause of that great effusion and destruction of mens blood and the like cause will produce the like effect as the words are Upon such grounds it was very plausible to declare by Act of Parliament the Succession But this does not prove that where the Right of nature is clear that the Parliament may invert the same and they teach us how dangerous it is to leave Parliaments to the Impression of Kings when it is too obvious the first of these Laws was made to gratifie the Kings affection to Queen Anne in the case of naming a Successor as it is also to expose Kings to the Arbitrariness of Parliaments And we may well infer H. 8. taking such care by his Parliaments to legitimate and illegitimate his
his Uncles Death was declared Tutor and Governour without any remission or being restored and if his Cousin King James had died without Issue he had been declared the true Successour of the Crown We have a memorable Instance of this in H. 7. who when he came to the Crown called his Parliament and the Judges having determined that those Members of the House that had been outlawed by the Parliament in Richard the Third's time and been declared Rebels should absent themselves till a Bill were brought in for their restoring It was moved among the Judges what should be done about the King who had been condemned and declared Traytor c. and it was by the unanimous consent of all the Judges saith the learned (q) St. Alban's Hist H. 7. p. 29. Chancellor declared That the Crown removed all the obstructions in the Blood which might in any manner impede its descent and from that time the King took the Crown Coronam ipsam omnes sanguinis oppilationes quae descensum Coronae ullatenus impediunt deobstruere Vt Regi opera Parliamentaria non fuisset opus the fountain of his Blood was purged and all the Corruptions and Impurities taken away so that he had no need of any Parliamentary help to supply him Thirdly The Consideration of the Oaths which the Subjects are bound to take and observe gives some further Proof of the Obligation of all the Subjects to maintain this lineal Succession The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy bind the Subjects to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against altering Succession his Heirs and lawful Successors and that to their Power they shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted to the King's Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and of those Priviledges c. I think none will deny but that Hereditary Succession is one of the principal Prerogatives intended by those Oaths We are not in these only sworn to His Majesty but his Lawful Successors which word Lawful is inserted to cut off the Pretences of such as should not succeed by Law and the insolent Arbitrariness of such as being but Subjects themselves think they may chuse their King These being promissory Oaths as well to the Successors when their Right shall fall as to the present King they have every of them in their respective degrees and orders and indispensible Right confirmed to them by this Oath So that the Predecessor hath no legal right to deprive his Successor as hereafter I shall clear nor to remit the Peoples Obligation to him as lawful Heir and Successor (r) Address part 3. p. 64. much less can the two Houses do it for they are all within the Obligation of this Oath and it is unreasonable that Men should dispence with their own promissory Oaths to others for this would destroy all Faith and Confidence amongst Men and pull up the very roots of Society and Government Whereas some object out of my Lord (s) Coke on Littleton p. 8. Coke Objection That none is Heir before the death of his Ancestor but Heir apparent It is to be considered Answered that it must be the Heir presumptive or apparent that is here understood otherwise the inserting the word Heir were superfluous if by the Oaths were not intended he that is next Heir upon the Death of the King and if any Person think to evade it by affirming that if the Parliament declare any Person to be no next Heir he ceaseth to be so as also not to be lawful Successor because by such an Act he is outlawed Let such Persons consider that this is neither better nor worse than palpable Aequivocation For we swear in the common Sence of the words and so by Heir we understand such as by proximity of Blood have greatest right to succeed in the Inheritance It may be farther considered that the Lord Chancellor Treasurer and Judges (t) See 18 E. 3. all the great Officers of State the Privy-Council c. are all sworn to defend the Rights of the Crown and that they shall not concurr or assent to any thing which may turn to the King in Damage or Dis-herison How then can any of these much less the Judges who are to expound and interpret the Law consent without palpable violation of their Oaths to the changing of the Essence of the Monarchy I shall now endeavour to prove Acts of Parliament cannot alter Lineal Succession that no Parliament by a compleat Act can legally alter the Succession in an Hereditary Monarchy For first all (u) Jus Reg. p. 153. Kings and Parliaments are subordinate to the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and Nations So that unless we give the Inferior Power and Jurisdiction over the Superior no Act of Parliament can be binding to overturn what those three Laws have have established and I hope I have proved under all these Heads in the preceding part of this discourse that the right of Succession is founded on them As to the Law of God it is clear not only from the general dictates of Religion but 28 H. 8. c. 7. the Parliament uses these words For no Man can dispence with God's Laws which we also affirm and think As to the Laws of Nature they are acknowledged to be immutable from the Principles of Reason So the (w) Sect. sed naturale Institut de Jure naturali Law it self confesseth Naturalia quaedam Jura quae apud omnes gentes observantur divina quadam providentia constituta semper firma atque immutabilia permanent Certain natural Laws which are observed by all Nations and such is that of Primogeniture by Divine Providence being constituted remain always firm and immutable So when the Law declares that a supreme Prince is free from the obligation of Laws solutus Legibus yet Lawyers (x) Voet. de Statutis sect 5. c. 1 Accursius in L. Princeps F. de Leg. Clementina pasturalis de re Judicata still acknowledge that this does not exclude these Supream Powers from being liable to the Laws of God Nature and Nations as is evident by all that treat of that Point Nor can the Law of Nations be overturned by private municipal Laws so all Statutes to the prejudice of Ambassadors who are secured by the Law of Nations are confessed by all to be null and the highest Power whatsoever cannot take off the denouncing of a War before a War can be lawful Besides secondly a Parliament cannot do more than (y) Jus Reg. p. 154. any absolute Monarch in his own Kingdom for they when joyned are but in place of the supreme Power sitting in Judgment We must not think our Parliaments have an unlimited Power de jure so as they may make a forfeiture or take away Life without a cause or pass Sentence against the Subjects
without citing or hearing them For if they had such Power we should be the greatest Slaves and live under the most arbitrary Government imaginable Therefore an absolute Prince cannot in an Hereditary Kingdom where the Successor is to succeed Jure Regni (z) Nulla clausula Successori Jus auferri potest modo succedat ille Jure Regni Aristaeus c. 7. num 5. prejudge the Successors right of Succession for the same right the present King hath to the Possession the next of Blood hath to the Succession Therefore Hottoman Lib. 2. de Regno Galliae affirms That ea quae Jure Regni primogenito competunt ne Testamento quidem Patris adimi possunt That in the absolute Monarchy of France The Father cannot by his last Will deprive the First-born of those things which belong to him by Royal right So when the King of France designed to break the Salique Law of Succession as in the Reign of Charles the Fifth it was found impracticable by the three States So when Pyrrhus would have preferred his younger Son to the Crown (a) Pausanias lib. 1. the Epirots following the Law of Nations and then own refused him So Anno 1649. when Amurat the Grand Signior left the Empire to Han the Tartarian passing his Brother Ibrahim the whole Officers of State did unanimously cancel the Testament and restored Ibrahim the true Heir though no other than a Fool. So if Kings could have inverted their Succession Saint Lewis had preferred his own Third Son to Lewis his Eldest and Alphonsus King of Leon in Spain had preferred his Daughter to Ferdinand his Eldest Son and Edward the Sixth of England had preferred and did actually prefer the Lady Jane Grey to his Sisters Mary and Elizabeth Thirdly It is undeniable in the opinion of all Lawyers That a King cannot in Law alienate his Crown but that the Deed is void nor can he in Law consent to an Act of Parliament declaring that he should be the last King For if such consents and Acts (b) Jus Regium p. 163. had been sufficient to bind Successors then weak Kings by their own simplicity and gentle Kings by the Rebellion of their Subjects or being wrought upon by the importunity of their Wives or Concubines or the mis-representation of Favourites might do great mischiefs to their People in raising up continual Factions of the miseries of which I shall speak hereafter This is owned in Subjects That the Honour and Nobility that is bestowed upon a man and his Heirs doth so necessarily descend upon those Heirs that the Father or Predecessor cannot exclude the Successor or derogate from his Right by renouncing resigning following base or mean Trades or such like For Fab. Cod. 9. tiâ— 28. say the Lawyers since he derives his Right from his old Progenitors and owes it not to his Father his Fathers Deed should not prejudge him so much more in Kings the ill consequences of such violations of Justice and Right being infinitely more destructive the Predecessor should not do any Act to prejudice his Successor For that right of blood which makes the Eldest First makes the other Second and all the Statutes that acknowledge the present Kings Prerogative acknowledge that they belong to him and his Heirs For as a Prince cannot even ex plenitudine potestatis legitimate a Bastard in prejudice of former Children though they have only but an hope of Succession much less can he bastardize or disinherit the Right Heir who is so made by God and honoured from him with the Character If therefore Kings how absolute soever cannot de jure invert the natural order of Succession there is no reason that the States of Parliament should have such a Power For by the known Laws they have no Legislative Power otherwise than by assenting to what the King does and all that their assent could do would be no more than that they and their Successors should not oppose his nomination because of their consent but that can never amount to a Power of transferring For if the States of Parliament had this Power originally in themselves to bestow why might they not reserve it for themselves and so perpetuate the Government in their own hands So Judge Jenkin asserts according to Law That no King can be named or in any time made in this Kingdom (d) Liberty of Subject p. 25. by the People Kings being before there were Parliaments and there is good reason for then the Monarchy should not be Hereditary but Elective the very Essence of Hereditary Monarchy consisting in the Right of Succession whereas if the Parliament can prefer the next save one they may prefer the last of all the Line and the same reason by which they can chuse a Successor which can only be that they have Power above him should likewise in the opinion of a very (e) Jus Regium p. 167. learned Person justify their deposing of Kings as we saw in the last Age that such reasons as of late have been urged to incapacitate the Children of King Charles the First from the hope of Succession viz. Popery and Arbitrary Government did embolden men to dethrone and murther the Father who was actual King For if it were once yielded that the Houses had a Right in themselves to take care for the Salus populi that none but such Princes should succeed who were approved of by the prevailing Faction in their body nothing but confusion would follow one Party having their Votes seconded by force one time and a quite contrary another yet all pretending the Publick Weal and so a large breach should be made by pretending to stop one dangerous Successor to the inflowing of successive Usurpers and thereby the Crown should not only by ambulatory but unstable upon every head that wore it and alwaies in danger of a bloody surprise till at last the Regalia being secured from the expectant Heir the Factious would find a way to pillage them from the present Soveraign and convert them into a Mace for an House of Commons I writ this Part with greater Enlargements in answer to the plausiblest Arguments for the Bill of Seclusion while that matter was in the hottest agitation But since there will be no need of dilating upon that Subject now that God Almighty hath so signally determined the Controversie by the peaceable settlement of his Majesty upon his Throne I shall close this Chapter with some few remarks of the miseries have been brought upon Kingdoms and especially upon this by the disjoynting the Succession So we read what dreadful (f) Jus Regium p. 166. mischiefs arose from Pelops preferring his younger Son to the Kingdom of Mycene The Miseries which Kingdoms have sustained where the Succession hath been interrupted from Oedipus commanding that Polynices his Youngest Son should reign interchangeably with the Eldest From Parisatis the Queen of Persia's preferring her Youngest Son Cyrus to her Eldest Artaxerxes From Aristodomus admitting
great Ceremonies swear the points of their Contests He also further declared that those who usurp'd upon the Limits of others Possessions were not only to be punished here but were doomed to Torments in Hell to the end that every Man might be afraid to seize on the Goods of another Mans. These therefore I look upon as the Fundamentals of civil Religion in the rendring so venerable the Faith by Oaths whereby not only Allegiance to the Prince but Society was established upon that firm Basis of mutual Confidence and by the securing Propriety the whole Compages of Government was preserved We ought likewise to consider that there are moral Vertues which conciliate such a Reverence to the Practisers of them Moral Vertues very useful to Government that they are great helps to preserve and make flourishing every Kingdom and Commonweal and which constitute a considerable Religious Portion of civil Government and when Princes and People exercise them both live happilier than when without them great Sanctity and Devotion are only pretended The Vertues I put in the Balance against Bigotry in Religion Better than Hypocritical Holiness are Justice Temperance Charity Fortitude Magnanimity which are branched out into many flourishing Boughs that bear the Golden Fruit upon them such as these Not to do to another that which we would not have done to our selves To live contentedly in our Station To be obedient to our Magistrates and Superiours To live in Charity with all Men To be Compassionate to the Poor and Needy To give no evil Example in any sort of Debauchery To consider that we come into this World to live according to the rules of Life the Sovereign Being of all hath pleased to reveal That we do nothing here which may forfeit our more durable Inheritance in the other World These were the Buttresses of Government in the Heathen World when the whole train of Moral Vertues without Hypocrisie and Dissimulation were practised and can Machiavel or any of his Disciples find that the same things are not pressed as a duty upon all in the Christian Religion there seeming to me this only advantageous difference That the Foundation and Basis upon which these Moral Vertues rest in the Christian Religion is more firm more regular and more curiously hewen and polished and more consentaneous to the Dictates of right Reason in that they are implanted and promulged as standing Laws by one God Omnipotent than in the multiform jarring Polytheism of the Heathens who for every different Species of things or qualifications of Beings introduced a presiding Spirit In answer to the second Plea of the Secretary That Religion doth not dis-spirit Men. That our Religion hath dis-spirited Christians I think every one will be furnished out of the Armory of his own Experience or the perusing of antient and modern Histories with Shield and Buckler against such false Thrusts and will own that there have been as considerable and glorious Atchievements performed by Christians as by Heathens as may be instanced in Constantine the Great Theodosius Valentinian Justin Charlemain Scanderbeg and infinite more modern Christian Princes who neither yield for Manhood Valour or Conduct to Turks or Pagans and how Patient and Meek soever Christianity teacheth Men to be yet it no ways hinders Subjects from using offensive or defensive Arms when commissioned by Lawful Authroity nor discourageth adventuring of Life for the defence of Kings or their Countries nor is it an Extinguisher of Endeavours to serve God the Soveraign or his People in the Honourablest Imployments It must be confessed True Piety lessened by subtile Disputes that since Religion hath been reduced from Precepts and Axioms to Systems and that the practical part of Justice Moral Vertues and Honesty were no longer in Esteem than as they were found subservient to the promoting Speculations there hath been a way found out to render these fundamental and substantial Qualifications of less value in very good Men unless withal they added some quaint Notions that might sublime their Heathenish Moralities as they call them into Elixirs and quintessences of Religion as in our late Times If one could not give a certain Diagnostick when Grace was wrought in him he was not fit for reforming Employment Men being more distinguished by Tests and Oaths than by good Manners By which we forgo the Substance of Moral Piety for a fleeting Shadow and many are so bigotted in their several Sentiments that it is a more arduous task of late than formerly for Princes to comport themselves in this particular so as to keep in one Uniformity Subjects of so different Perswasions whereby they may command that obedience Subjects ought to pay to their Sovereigns To find Expedients or offer any directions to Princes in this Case were to involve ones self in an endless Labyrinth and discover an unpardonable Presumption the Difficulties being very great if not insuperable how to frame Laws that should combine such varieties and diversities of Opinions in one Yoak Order or Rule without such an universal and absolute Monarch as scarce in Idaea much less in Practice can ever be I shall therefore concern my self no way in tugging at the end of that Saw of Controversies which how pleasant soever it may be to such as have an over-weening Opinion of their Knowledge in such Subtilties is very harsh and ungrateful to my Temper This one Hypothesis or Postulatum however I hope few will deny That since Monarchy is the Established Government in his Majestie 's Dominions and however maliciously and potently assaulted in our Memories yet never can be altered here The Government of the Church of England agreeable to the English Monarchy Princes by small searches into the aptitude of the several Schemes of religious Worship and Government may soon find which is most agreeable to the Constitution of the Monarchy and will be most subservient to it In which particular the Church of England as established by Law in its Doctrine and Discipline and all the true Members of it and the Subjects of all Conditions who act according to the Principles of it have obtain'd a Royal and Gracious Character founded upon the constant Experience the Kings of England have had That upon all the most critical trials the Members of it have stood firm to the Crown even when worn by Princes of different Religion Therefore till other Forms practised in the late times can give as undeniable Proofs of their unconditionate Loyalties I think it but reasonable they should allow His Majesty liberty to consult his own and the interest of his Government rather than their inconsistent Models One of the Principles of the Church of England conformable to that of the Christian Religion is That it teacheth Obedience to the Soveraign not for Fear only but for Conscience sake and all considerate as well as Pious Men where they are convinced That it is better to obey God than Man if any thing should be commanded that
Poet tells us That divine Power enlargeth temperate Government and a grave (i) Potentia mediocritâ— exerâ—ita omnia quaesiâ—a conservat D. Cass lib. 43. Historian tells us That moderately exercised Power conserves all that it hath acquired for Mildness in all Affairs and (k) Remissius imperanti melius paretur Sen. de Clem. Obedience is better payed to gentler Commands than to the more rigid and austere A Prince saith * Amorem apud populares mâ—tum apud hâ—sies quaraâ— Annal. 11. Tacitus should endeavour to obtain Love among his Subjects and fear among his Enemies For as the ‖ Claudianus ad Hoâ—or Poet saith Non sic excubiae non circumstantia tela Quam tutatur Amor. That Love is a better defence than Halberts Battle-Axes and common Guards A Prince having the Love of his Subjects yet must have Guards Yet we have known a Prince who for this Vertue of Clemency deserved as much Love as any designed to be assassinated when wicked Conspirators hoped his small Guards would be too weak to defend his Royal Person against their Force Therefore however commendable Clemency be in a Prince yet it should not be his constant wear some Scarlet with the fine Linnen makes not only a more splendid but an usefuller show Though the (l) Senec. Trag. Overmuch Clemency dangerous Poet say true Hoc Reges habent magnificum Et ingens nullus quod capiet Dies Prodesse Miseris supplices fido lare Protegere Yet the Rule of the Prince of (m) Omnia sâ—irâ— non omnia prosequi parvis peâ—catâ—s veniam magnis â—â—â—eritatem commodare Tacitus vita Agric. Historians is to be observ'd That a Sovereign know all the Stratagems of his Enemies but not to prosecute all to pardon small faults and accommodate Severity to great Crimes For as another Judicious (n) Salutaris severitas vincere inanem speciem clementix Ciâ—ero ad Clâ—â—ent Author saith Healthful Severity should sometimes overcome the unprofitable and ineffectual kind of Clemency for it often happens (o) 〈◊〉 ager crudelem facit medicum Publius That the unruly Patient makes the crueller Physician So (p) Meus hic suror subditos sanos reddit Stobaeus de Regno Cotys the Thracian King answered some that taxed him with Severity in a necessary Case that it was to make his Subjects Healthful for sometimes there is no other way to save the sound Parts but to separate the gangrene by a total Abscission though a gentler Hand is desired by ignorant Spectators (q) Ingenia nostra ut â—obiles generesi equi melius 〈…〉 Sen. 1. de â—â—em In some Cases it is true generous Souls as tender-mouthed Horses are governed by a gentler Bitt and out of (r) 〈…〉 de 〈◊〉 Pity to such as wander ignorantly missing rather than willfully passing out of the way it is better with a gentle Hand to lead them into right Paths than to expel them All this Method our late King followed too long till the cunning Designings of the Achitophels the Pride and Lust of pamper'd Men the contempt of his forgiving Temper and the wilful Deviations from their Allegiance of others had almost put it out of his Power to let the Dutiful and Just see that he had a Care for himself and them I cannot here omit what King (s) Basilicon Doron James the First his Royal Grandfather saith of such a People That he was the Phrygian that too late and at too great a price was wise For whereas by all gentle means he endeavoured to allure them to Obedience the contrary hapned to him so that all the return was he lost his Endeavours upon an ungrateful People and unloosned the Government by his Lenity This Age hath found this Remarque too true and though I should be loth to excite his Royal Grandson to any sort of Severity yet I suppose it is a general Belief That His present Majesty will not suffer Himself to be imposed upon by a Party that have so grosly abused the Lenity of His Royal Grandfather Father and Brother Who deserve not Clemency Nor can it be judged Severity in a Prince who hath seen so great and durable Clemency contemned and disposing men rather to the most cruel and wicked Rebellions to oblige these by the terror of his Laws to be kind to themselves as well as the Publick by creating no Disturbances or publickly affronting his Authority as they did too lately in His Royal Brother's time If there be any such who for sinister Ends are at this time of day pressing him with what was urged to (t) Plut in Lacon Cleomenes That it becomes good Magistrates to be mild to all It is to be presumed they may receive the like Answer That it must not be to that degree as to bring Himself into contempt Much less ought a Prince to use it to those who have at any time heretofore joyned in those Tumultuous Petitions in His Royal Brothers Time or in countenancing the Bill of Seclusion against His Royal Person For although His Majesty may follow the Example of (u) Panormitanus in vita Alphonsi Alphonsus who said That private Offences to his Person he could forgive yet he ought to be severe against those Offences which concerned the Commonweal (x) Phil. de Comines Or as Lewis the Twelfth of France who being advised after he came to the Crown to take some Revenge against that Great General Lewis de Tremoulie that had fought against him replied He would not punish the Affronts done to the Duke of Orleance Kings may forgive Offences against them before they were Kings And so His present Majesty may forgive the Injuries done to Him as Duke of York yet it is not reasonable to think but that he will strenuously assert and defend the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown So that it will be His Majesty's Interest to trust none of those that would contrary to the Laws of God and Man so wickedly have precluded him from his Right to the Crown And it will be adviseable for all them to repent them of that unjust Act and transmit it as a Caution to their Posterity never to attempt the like Which will be more honourable and advantageous for them to do than the striving to set up a spurious Title CHAP. XIII Of Prudence requisite in a Prince IT is Prudence directs all the great Affairs of a Monarch to that Scope and Terminus Theâ—se of Prudence in Government to which all must aim who design an happy Reign over good Subjects By it they know when to relax and when to straiten the Reins where to place their Favours and whom to employ in every Administration and by it they are guarded from all the Vicious and Malevolent For none dare disturb the Prudent who have no unarmed Parts being all Head all Eyes all Hands Inaccessible by the Flatterers inaccessible by the Vain-glorious the Ambitious and Debauched
by the Law said to be in the King (z) Sheppard ut supra a threefold greatness of Perfection First of being freed from Infamy and all kind of Imperfections common to Man Secondly of Power in having the command of all his People Thirdly of Majesty being the Fountain of Honour Justice and Mercy The King is Gods immediate Viceroy (a) Câ—k 2.44.5.29 within his Dominions Vicarius Dei As his Protection and Government reacheth to all his People as Subjects so the Allegiance and Obedience of them all is due to him as their Sovereign whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and so he is Persona mixta his Prerogatives are called Jura Regalia Insignia Coronae Ancient Prerogatives and Royal Flowers of the Crown so inseparably annexed to the Crown that none but the King may have them nor can they be communicated to or taken by any Subject (b) Bracton lib. 1. c. 8. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 21. Nemo terram nisi Authoritate Râ—gia possiâ—et Plowden 136. Jenkins Cent. 7. Case 77. 2. Case 16.17 E. 2. c. 17. Nevil 101.174 All Lands are said to be held of him immediately or mediately he can hold of no Man or any be equal to him as to be joynt Tenant of Land with him and his Jurisdiction is over all places within his Dominions both on the dry Land and on the Sea The Judges are to observe it as a certain Rule That whatever may be for the benefit of the King and his profit shall be taken most largely for him and what against him and for his disprofit be taken strictly neither is it only the duty of Judges but of all other his Subjects in their Stations to help the King to his Right The Perogatives are many and great yet such as are his by the Ancient Law of the Land and what the Kings of England have time out of mind used and are such as are of absolute (c) Coâ—e 12.8.30.2 part Instit 262.496.5 part 11.2.8 necessity for the security of the Government and the Public weals As to call and dissolve Parliaments give his Royal Assent to Laws command the Militia coyn Moneys grant Honors make and dispose of the great Seal dispense with penal Laws pardon Felonies and Treasons make and appoint great Officers Justices of Eyre and Assize of the Peace Gaol-delivery and Sheriffs to grant Charters to Corporations and other Persons or Fraternities He hath the sole Power of appointing ratifying and consummating all Treaties with Foreign Princes making War and Peace granting Safe-Conduct and Protection and all these and many other are firmly ascertained (d) Quod Rex est 〈◊〉 Lex est Regi Rex est Amma 〈◊〉 Lex est Anima Regi by Laws and have ever been and still are in the King alone and at his own Discretion Although there is no need in describing the Sovereignty of our Kings to carry it up to that absoluteness of Monarchy where all things are appointed and reversed by the Sovereigns fiat yet (e) Jus Regium p. 42. we must on the other side consider That the Monarchy which is subject to the impetuous Caprices of the Multitude when giddy or to the incorrigible Factiousness of the Nobility when interested is in effect no Government at all it must be owned That in all Governments a Sovereignty must reside some where and a Monarch can 〈◊〉 no Participants For then it would cease to be a Monarchy and in things that relate immediately to Government the King hath as much right to regulate them as to instance to restrain the Licence of the Press or secure Peace as we have to regulate and dispose of our Property Government being the Kings Property for with the Monarchy the King must enjoy all things that are necessary for the Administration of it according to that just Maxim (f) Quando aliquid â—oneditur omnia concessa videntur sine quibus concessum explicari nequit of the Law When any thing is granted all things seem to be granted without which the thing granted cannot be explained Which warrants the Kings Advocate of Scotland to lay that down as a general (g) Jus Regium p. 77. Rule That their Kings can do every thing that relates to Government and is necessary for the Administration thereof though there be no special Law or Act of Parliament for it if the same be not contrary to the Law of God Nature or Nations The Power and Authority of the Kings of England have been much more unbounded than they are at present (h) Part 1. c. 16. sol 34. Bracton speaking of his time saith That neither the Justices or private Persons might dispute the Kings Charter but if there were a doubt of it the Resolution must come from the Kings own Interpretation If Justice be demanded of the King saith (i) Idem lib. 1. c. 8. p. 5. he seeing no Writ lies against him one must petition that he would correct and amend what he hath done By the Condescensions of gracious Princes such Restrictions have been made of their Sovereign Absoluteness By the Grants and Condescensions of our Kings their Absoluteness lessened that they have obliged themselves to govern their Kingdoms transmitted to them with such Limitations by their numerous Ancestors by Rules of Law Equity Justice and right Judgment in Imitation of their Supreme Head and Omnipotent Monarch That therefore it may demonstratively appear how happily the Government of England is constituted for the Benefit of the Subjects who under so benign a Monarchy enjoy more Advantages in the Security of their Persons and Proprieties than under the most free Commonwealth that ever we read of I shall lightly touch upon some of those Particulars which the Kings of England by reason of several Acts of Parliament they have given their Royal Assents to have precluded themselves from the single Disposal of as in Absolute Monarchies are used yet I hope to make it clear in several Branches of this Discourse That there is no such thing as Co-ordinacy of any other Power or such a mixture as vitiates the Monarchy by a debasing Alloy much less that the Government can be Arbitrary or Tyrannical which hath sheathed the Sword of Justice within the Velvet Scabbard of the Laws and lined the Scarlet Robes of Majesty with the softest Ermine of Indulgence to well deserving Subjects who by their Obedience and Considerateness make their Princes and their own Happiness most perfect For it is equally unhappy to Princes and Subjects where (k) Alii Principes Reges hominum ipse Rex Regum Maximilian's Jest is true That whereas other Princes were Kings of Men he was King of Kings because his Subjects would do but only what they list But to come to the Particulars of Royal Abatements and Indulgences The Kings of England may not rule their People by their Will or by Proclamation as the Roman Emperors by their (l) 〈◊〉 lib. 2. c. 8. The
Misgovernment to call their Sovereigns to an account In the first Place it ought to be considered that by constituting any check upon Sovereign Princes all Decisions and Controversies must be writ in Blood and it would lay a fruitful (b) Non tanti est civilia bella movere Arguments against Resisting of Princes Seed-Plot of civil Wars by indulging the most pernicious Freedom of righting our selves for though the People or some ambitious Male-contents may not be so happy as they could wish yet to make use of Force as a Remedy will certainly encrease the Miseries If this Principle be granted it will make Sovereigns always jealous Would make Princes always jealous and consequently studious to secure themselves against such opposition by strong Hand which will be very galling to the Subject Besides upon all differences betwixt the King and People No Judges can be betwixt King and People no Judge can be found to determine the Matter and to allow this Power to the People is to allow a Difference that can have no end before one half of the Nation have ruined another as by sad Experience we found in our late Civil Wars Further it ought to be considered That this not only overthrows Monarchy but all Government for who will obey It overthrows all Government when they can resist Under all Governments we should have one Rebellion (c) Just Right of Monarchy p. 92.93 rising out of the Ashes of another for only those who prevailed should be satisfied and all the rest would certainly conclude that they might more justly oppose those Usurpers than the first did their lawful Prince and thus Government which is designed for the Security Peace and Tranquillity of the State should be perpetually embroyled and by the cruel Hostilities of emulous Factions mastering one another the common People and those who would desire to live peaceably should be the continual Prey of Ravenous Harpyes and Vultures If we allow Subjects to take Arms against their Prince Not allowed in Families we ought to allow Children the like Liberty against their Parents Servants against their Masters Soldiers against their Officers and the common Rabble against their Magistrates For the King in his Sovereignty eminently comprehends all these Relations Besides what reasonable Man can think much more ought to assert that it is fit to allow this Principle when all Ages Mischiess of the Peoples Liberties and daily Experience teach us That the numerous Party of Mankind is difficultly by the most rational and strictest Laws contained in their duty What might we therefore expect if every Man should be invested with Power to be his own Judge and be loosed from all Laws and encouraged to the Duty as it must be upon this Doctrine of transgressing disobeying and breaking all Laws that establish a Government uneasie to him It cannot but be observed and by daily Experience is found 〈◊〉 in all Popular Congresses in all Elections or public Votes of the Body of the People how violent they are when opposed by some few How Insolent when they find their Strength that nos numeri sumus And how Cruel when enraged as in the History of Cardinal Bentivolio to go no higher in that of Naples under Masianello and that of Amsterdam against the De Witts and many more might be instanced in And it will certainly be allowed that the Multitude being cajoled by Pretenders to be their Patriots and the publick-spirited maintainers of their Liberties Properties and Religion the usual Shams and Wheedles ambitious and contriving Men make of to seduce them find these very Men more unjust oppressive exorbitant and Arbitrary than the worst of Princes Therefore since the multitude is no better qualified to judge nor juster when led by such Chieftains Surely all prudent Men and Lovers of their own and their Countries Happiness must conclude it much safer and conducibler to the Publick Weal to obey those whom God hath set over them and the Laws their Duties and Oaths oblige them to bear Faith and Allegiance to than to subject themselves to their fellow-Subjects who can have no other Title but rebellious Success to warrant them to harass butcher and ruin them Whereas at the worst in Kings we have but an ill Master but allowing Subjects to usurp we may fight our selves into slavery under hundreds of Tyrants and those too fighting one against another so that we shall not know even which of those Devils to obey Would we consult the Histories of preceding times or our own Experiences we should find the Pretenders to reform (d) Idem p. 92. Pretenders to Reformation greatest Oppressors Government have proved the greatest Cheats to those they have seduced They in reality neither promoting Liberty or Religion but under that Vizard-mask shrouded other black designs and when they succeeded in their Attempts they became infinitely more oppressive to the People than the lawful Powers ever had or could be they pretended to protect them from the Rigor of And when (e) Idem p. 90 91. others rose against them on the same pretence they did in the severest manner declare that Rebellion in others which they contended to be lawful in themselves Whoever will not be convinced of this if he by woful Experience knew it not may read it in the Histories of our late Miseries and if he have any Spirit of Ingenuity or Christianity will totally abandon such Principles as brought so wasting a Calamity on our Country In the Constitution of our English Government we have but one Sovereign The Constitution of England's Government Monarchical to whom we owe Fealty Homage Allegiance and Obedience by Oaths and Laws Even all the Acts of Parliament that acknowledg this a Monarchy are so many solid Arguments and Testimonies of the Kings Supremacy and to set up any co-ordinate Power whatsoever would be to create Regnum in Regno in Temporals as the Phanatick Principle That Dominium fundatur in Gratia or in Orthodoxa Religione doth in Spirituals Than which no Sentiment was ever invented more dangerous to overturn States and bring all to Confusion If indeed we were to form the Government under which we were to live No new Government now to be framed we might agree upon setting up Ephori Tribunes of the People Daemagogues Calvin's Three Estates or a co-ordinate Power in the two Houses as so many checks upon the Supreme Governour But we are born under a Monarchy fix'd by Law and Consent time out of Mind so that we may as well yield to the Levellers reducing us to the pure pute State of Nature as the forming such an Idaea of a Common-wealth wherein a Sovereign is to be resisted if any factious Party think themselves aggrieved It is to be well considered that though William the Conqueror had little or no Title of Right yet his Conquest with the Subjects submission then and in after Ages to his Successors and the Obligation of Oaths and
subsequent Acts of Parliament supplied all Defects and all the Limitations of that absolute Power which accrued by Conquest being the free Concession of himself and his Successors which appears in their Grants by way of Charter as I shall hereafter have occasion to enlarge upon it is most evident that the King's Power is absolute where no Law (f) D. Digs Unlawfulness of Resisting can be produced to the contrary and no special Case can be determined by the Subject to the Kings disadvantage and though the Kings succeeding the Conquest to sweeten Subjection quaedam jura pactis minuerunt and these Acts of Grace were confirmed by Promise and Oath No Contract betwixt King and Subjects whereby they may exact an Account yet we find no Footsteps of any security given that should endanger the Person or Regal Authority by giving to their Subjects any legal Power to unking them if they should not perform Covenant Nor could it be rational to expect such for they knew full well if they should not break such Promises yet a Pretence that they did so as we have known it was alledged concerning the Coronation Oath might upon the first opportunity create a Civil War Therefore their Subjects had as little reason to accept as the Kings had to offer so pernicious a Security as would bring both Parties into such a sad Condition For if Rebellion were to be allowed in any Case that Case would be always pretended and though the Prince were Just Wise and Religious yet ambitious Men to compass their own Ends would impute to him Oppression Weakness or Irreligion as the World knows by too sad Experience was verified in King Charles the Martyr who taking his measures of others Sincerity by the rule of his own Heart suffered pretences of publick Good to grow up to insolent Tumults and at last to Rebellion and notwithstanding his Exemplary Practice in his publick Devotions was traduced to have but handsomly dissembled and favoured another Religion in his Heart and at last brought before a crew of Regicides impeached of breach of Trust Tyranny and I know not how many horrid Crimes against his Subjects who yet died the Peoples Martyr and the Royal Asserter of their Liberties and Priviledges which all his Subjects found to expire with him the greatest Arbitrariness and cruellest Tyranny being during their Power exercised by the new Common-wealth Men that ever was read of in any History Those who read Books among those of the Sect of Libertines in Politicks and so much magnify the great name of Liberty of the Subject and co-ordinate Powers Writers who lived under Common-wealths no Guides to us converse most in Greek and Latin Authors who lived under Commonwealths and so were profuse in the commendation of their Country Government against Usurpers or else these admired Authors were (g) Jus Regium p. 134. Stoicks who out of a selfish Pride equalled themselves not only to their Kings but to their own Gods even as our Quakers who pretend a Light within them a more sure guide to them than the Law Now the same reason they had to commend their form of Government We have more reason to commâ—nd our Government than the Romans or Grecians theirs and so much more as Monarchy is preferrable to Aristocracy we in England have reason to commend our Constitution where our Kings are truly the Fathers of their Country and if they would ballance the convenience or inconvenience of either Government they would soon discover it For whereas they say that the Doctrine of Non-resistance is the readiest Motive to establish Tyranny It is much more certain and experimentally known that the Leaders of the Rabble always prove such and that the Distractions of a civil War which ordinarily are occasioned by the pretence of reforming something amiss in the Governours and Competitions betwixt Persons for Soveraignty destroy more than the Lusts of any one Tyrant can do which made Lucan a Republican and of the Pompeian Party conclude after a sad review of the continual Civil Wars betwixt Sylla and Marius Caesar and Pompey without touching upon what followed under the Triumvirs Foelices Arabes Medique Eoaque tellus Qui sub perpetuis tenuerunt Regna Tyrannis And if he preferred even the Tyranny or absoluteness of those Kings before the State of Civil Wars how much more have we reason to submit and that chearfully to the most easy Yoak of the Sovereignty of our Princes We need not be solicitous that their unaccountableness to their Subjects shall prompt them to Tyranny because we have good Security as strong as humane Wisdom ever invented that we shall live happily under that Constitution which our Fore-fathers enjoyed the Benefit of in an high Degree The Security we have that no Arbitrary Government can be exercised in England never distrusting the sound temper of the Policy For first our Kings swear at their Coronations to preserve the Laws Liberties Properties and Religion Secondly If they should command illegal things the Executors of them are responsible to Parliamentary Inquisitions Lastly the Interest of the King is the same with that of the Subject as to their Prosperity and Misery so that a King will always consult the good of his Subjects which made (h) Praeestis hominibus sed hominum causa nec domini modo Arbitri rerum sed Tutores Administratores estis Collata est in sinum vestrum a deo hominibus Respublica sed nempe in sinum ut foveatur Epist Dedicat ad Imp. Reges Principes Lipsius tell the Sovereigns That they govern over Men but for their good and are not only Lords and Judges of Matters but Tutors and Administrators That the Government of the Commonweal by God and Men is placed in their Bosoms or Laps but so as to be cherished and protected there To conclude this discourse We have heard of or seen the sad Calamities the Republican Rebellion brought upon all his Majesties Dominions when the mild Government of King Charles the First was altered to the most Bloody and Tyrannical one of his rebellious Subjects that any Age could parallel and we have had Experience of the merciful Government of his Royal Son and Successor and have lived to see all the Establishments of Usurpers brought to Confusion We have seen a formidable Rebellion burst forth in our Magnanimous King James the Second's Reign which had been forming seven Years before utterly overthrown in two Months and we cannot peruse Histories but we must meet with infinite Examples of the sad devastations such Rebellions bring to their Country and the unsuccessfulness of them Therefore I would earnestly advise all Malecontents never to make their Country's Ruine and the slain Carcasses of their Countrymen the Steps by which they must ascend the Scaffolds or the Rounds of the Ladders they must mount the Gallows which without a Prince's Clemency are the sure Rewards of all Rebels and their certain Fate CHAP.
Council and the Optimates witnessing are Cynedrid the Queen three Bishops one Abbot and Brorda Wiega Cuthbert Eobing Esne Cydda Winbert Heardbert and Brorda Dukes besides Ethelbeard Archbishop Forthred Abbat and Sighore Son of Siger But I shall hereafter more copiously give an Account of the constituent Parts of the great Councils The King the Fountain of Laws The Legislative Power saith a learned (h) Sheringham's Supremacy p. 34. Leges vero Anglicanae consuetudines Regum Authoritate jubent quandoque quandoque vetant quandoque vindicant puniunt transgressores Bracton lib. 1. c. 2. Author belongs to the King alone by the Common Law for though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent yet the Power that makes it a Law the Authority that animates it and makes it differ from a dead Letter is in the King who is the Life and Soul of the Law by whose Authority alone the Laws command forbid vindicate and punish Transgressors This was resolved by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the Reign of King Edward the Third for one (i) Fuit dit que le Roy sist les Leis per assent des Peres de la Commune non pas les Peres le Commune qu'il ne avera nul Pere en sa terre demesne que le Roy per eux ne doit estre ajuge 22 E. 3. c. 1. Haedlow and his Wife having a Controversie with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament It was resolved That the King makes Laws by the Assent of the Lords and Commons and not the Lords and Commons and that he could have no Peer in his own Land and could not be judged by them This is further manifested that the Laws are primarily and properly made by the King and the two Houses have a Cooperation but no Co-ordination of Power for the breach of any Statute whether it be by Treason Murther Felony Perjury or by any other way is an offence against the (k) Encounter la Corone Dignitie le Roy. Stanford 's Pleas of the Crown lib. 1. c. 1. Kings Authority alone and Pleas made against such Offences are called The Pleas of the Crown because they are done against the Crown and Dignity of the King So that it is not the Dignity and Authority of the Lords and Commons which is violated but the Dignity and Authority of the King This appears also in the Power the (l) Sheringham p. 35. See Finch lib. 2. fol. 22. Coke 2 II. 7. lib. 7. fol. 14. Stanford lib. 2.101 King hath in dispensing with such Laws as forbid a thing which is not malum in se and in pardoning the Transgression of others as Treason Felony c. which in Reason he ought no more to do than to dispense with the Laws of Germany Spain or France or pardon the Transgressors thereof if they were not made by his Authority Furthermore it is a certain Maxim of the Law (m) Ejusdem est leges interpretari cujus est condere The Amendment was sealed by the Great Seal 2 May 9 E. 1. commanding the Justices to do and execute all and every thing contained in it though the same did not accord with the Statute of Gloucester in all things None can interpret the Laws but the same Power that makes them But the King may do this as appears by the Statute of Glocester 6â—â— where immediately after the Statute are these words After by the King and his Justices certain Expositions were made upon some of the Articles above mentioned So the Judges are appointed by the King and they have from him a Power to interpret the Law judicialiter otherwise they could not proceed to Judgment and being called by the King with him and under him they have a Power to interpret the Law Authoritativé But the two Houses besides that they can do nothing singly or joyntly without the Kings Concurrence in (n) Sheringham ut supra their make and composition are unfit to interpret Law For such Power as interprets Law must be always existent or in being to act according to emergent Occasions which the two Houses are not And if they were a permanent Body yet they having a Negative upon each other the Interpretation of the Law must be retarded and all Controversies depending thereupon undecided And this Disagreement might perhaps endure for ever and so a final Determination in such Suits would be impossible Now these are Inconveniences which ought not to be admitted in any Commonwealth for it derogates both from the Honour and Wisdom of a Nation to be so moulded and framed that Justice cannot have a free Passage in all Contingencies Not only the Legislative Power it self but the very (o) Hem p. 36. The King may provide for all things necessary for Government where the Law hath not provided or contradicts not Exercise of the Power also so far as it is essential to Government is in the King alone for he can by Edicts and Proclamations provide for all necessary occasions and special Emergencies not provided for by fixed Laws which is one of the most excellent and eminent Acts of the Legislative Power and a sufficient Remedy against all Mischiefs in case the two Houses should refuse to concurr with him in those things which concern the Benefit of the Kingdoms For as (p) Ea quae Jurisdictioâ—is sunt pacis ea qâ—ae sunt Justitiae paci annexa ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam Dignitatem Regiâ—m Bracton lib. 2. c. 24. Bracton saith those things which belong to Jurisdiction and Peace and those which are annexed to Justice and Peace appertain to none but the Crown neither can they be separated from it because they make the Crown If the King should unwarily by Act of Parliament consent to any thing prejudicial and derogatory to His Royal Prerogative such Acts are void by the Common Law and the Judges are bound to declare them so as that of 23. H. 6. about Sheriffs not to continue longer than one Year was by the Judges declared void and all Kings since might with a Clause of non obstante against the manifest words of the Statute have granted that office for Life in Tail or in Fee But I need not enlarge upon this for all the Acts for the King's Supremacy all the Laws and Statutes that over were made put this beyond Dispute that the affirmative Voice is absolutely in the King that no Laws can be binding or be Laws at all without his special Consent and this being one of the great Rights of Sovereignty cannot be separated from the Person of the King although he (q) Suprema jurisdictio potestas Regia etsi Princeps volet separari non pessunt sunt enim ipsa sorma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente ipso Rege ab eo abdicari non possunt
had with Ecclesiasticks and Laicks and in the Laws it is often said Thonne cwaedon these we pronounce or appoint and sometimes the single person is used and in other places us betweonan heoldan it is holden betwixt us Here we find the Great Council summoned by the King and the constituent parts of it to be the Clergy and Laity and that the Laity were only the Princes Dukes Earls great Officers Military Commanders the Kings Ministers Graeves Praepositi Thanes sometimes denoted by the general names of Wites translated Sapientes Magnates Optimates c. as is every where beyond all possible doubt cleared by the most Judicious Dr. Brady in his Answer to Mr. Petyt to whose great collection for the proof of this point before I proceed further I shall only in transitu instance in a few The Title of the Council of Berghamsted (f) Spelman Concil vol. 1. fol. 194. Anno 697. Withrad 5 of Withred King of Kent is This Synd Wightraedes domas Cantuara Cyninges Saxon Great Councils These are the Judgments of Withred King of Kent and the persons mentioned particularly are the King that convened them and Birthwald Bretone Heahbisceop High or Archbishop of Britain Gibmund Bishop of Rochester and the rest of the Ecclesiastick (g) Aelc had ciricean thaere maegthe acmodlice Order of that Nation mid thy Hersuman Folcy with the Military Persons such as in after times were called Here-Thegni in King Ina's Laws and Heretoches in the Auctuary (h) Lamb. tit Heretoch fol. 147. to the 35 Laws of King Edward the Confessor which are there interpreted Barones Nobiles Insignes Sapientes Ductores Excercitus So in the Council at Clovesho 3. Cal. Nov. Anno Dom. 824. under (i) Spelm. Conc. vol. 1. fol. 333. Beornwulph Beornwulph King of the Mercians besides the Archbishop VVulfred and several Bishops and Abbats are enumerated only Beornoth Eadberht Sigered Egberht Eadwulf Alheard Mucel Vhtred and Ludica under the stile of Duces Bynna Frater Regis Aldred Thelonius So in the Great Council at London (k) Idem fol. 336. Egbert 26 May Anno 833. the Title is Presidentibus Egberto Rege West-Saxoniae Withlasio Rege Merciorum utroque Archiepiscopo caeterisque Angliae Episcopis Magnatibus and besides the Bishops and Abbats that subscribe we find these Adelwulphus filius Regis West-Saxoniae Wulhardus Dux Athelmus Dux Herenbrithus Dux So in the Council at Kingsburie Anno 851. Bertulph Idem fol. 344. under Bertulph King of the Mercians it is said to be praesentibus Ceolnotho Dorobernensi Archiepiscopo caeterisque Regni Merciae Episcopis Magnatibus and the Subscribers are besides the Bishops and Abbats Ernulphus Dux Osrithus Dux Serlo Comes Elbertus Comes Huda Comes Oflat Pincerna Regis I have upon this occasion instanced in these few of the Ancientest to clear who the Persons were according to their Orders Ranks and Degrees that constituted these Great Councils and shall now proceed to other Saxon Councils succeeding Eldred King of all England gave the Monastery (l) Ingulphi Hist fol. 477. King Eldred's Great Council of Croyland to Abbat Turketul and his Monks by his Charter dated in Festo Nativitatis B. M. Virginis Anno Dom. 948. cum universi Magnates Regni per Regium edictum summoniti when all the great Men of the Kingdom were summoned by the Kings command and then more particularly he divides them into the two Orders of Ecclesiasticks and Laicks thus Tam Archiepescopi Episcopi Abbates quam caeteri totius Regni Proceres Optimates Londoniis convenissent ad tractandum de negotiis publicis totius Regni Some may object That Ingulphus giving this account may rather express the Members and the occasion of it to treat of the Publick Affairs of the whole Kingdom according to the usage of the Age he lived in than of the Age the Great Council was held in which is well to be observed in many cases But in the Laws of King Edgar I shall shew it was then used in such manner to give account of the great Councils as both his Laws and those I have hitherto mentioned of the oldest Date manifest The Preface to King Edgar's Laws is thus This is seo geraednysse the Eadgar Cyng mid his Witena getheahte geraed King Edgar's Laws Lamb. Conc. fol. 62. Regn. coepit 959. desiit 975. This is the Constitution Act or Decree which King Edgar with his Wisemen or Great-men hath made ready trimmed or enacted Then follow the three great Ends for which such Councils are called viz. God to lofe to the Love Glory or Praise of God in appointing Religious Laws him Sylfum to Cynescipe rendred by Lambard ad Regiae Majestatis ornamentum or according to the significancy of the Words himself to make Kingly or his own Kingship or Soveraignty to manifest and thirdly eallum his leodscip to thearf all his People or Nation to profit or according to Lambard ad totius Reipublicae utilitatem The same King Edgar (m) Spelmanâ— Concil Tom. 1. fol. 4â—5 in his Charter to Glastonbury concludes it thus Hanc privilegii paginam Rex Edgarus XII Regni sui Sacro Scripto apud Londoniam communi Concilio Optimatum suorum confirmavit So that it appears this was in the presence of a great Council and the Witnesses named are Elfgina Regis mater Edward Clito filius Kinedius Rex Albaniae Mareusius Archiparata Admiral Then follow both the Archbishops and several Bishops and Abbats after whom the secular Optimates viz. Elpher Oslac Ethelwine by the Title of Duces Oswold Eufward Ethelsic Ellshie by the Title of Ministri which were Officers under the King as Thegns praepositi In the account given of a Council held at (n) Idem 490. Winchester in this Kings Reign those present at it are reckoned thus Praesentibus Edgaro Rege cum Conjuge Dunstano Archiepiscopo Elfero Principe Merciorum Ethelwino Duce Orientalium Anglorum and the same persons called Duces in the foregoing Charter Elfwoldo suo Germano Brithnotho Comiti cum Nobilitate totius Regni So that none but the Nobility were present The Witnesses to a Charter of the same King to the Monastery of Hyde in Winchester are the King Archbishop Dunstan Eadmund Clito legitimus praefati Regis filius Edward eodem Rege Clito procreatus Aelftheyth Regina Eadgita Regis avia the present Queen hath the precedence of the Queen Dowager Then follow several Bishops and Abbats after whom the Lay-Peers viz. Odgar Athelstan Athelwin Dukes Aethelweard Aelfweard and Walston Ministri It is to be noted That most do make the Laws of King Edward the Confesson to be principally a revival of King Edgar's Laws mixing such as Canutus had adjoyned to them The Preamble to the Laws of King Ethelred runs thus The Laws of Ethelred fol. 88. Regn. coepit A. 979. desiit 1016. This is tha geraednyss the Ethelred Cyning his Witan geraeddon eallum Folc to fritherbote These are the Constitutions King
its Mitigation So Matt. Paris saith Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias tenebant eatenus ab omni servitute sâ—â—ulari libertatem habuerant sub servitute statuit militarâ— and according to the Rules of the Feudal Law which as it was the Law for the most part in Normandy as to Possession and Tenure so was it in England until by the Indulgence of Usurpers as well as of lawful Sovereigns to the great Men and of them to their Tenents and Followers their Tenures became more easie and were changed into Inheritances both Free and Bond. So by Compact or Agreement betwixt kind and favourable as well as indigent Lords and serviceable Tenents as also by the Introduction of the use of the Canon or Imperial Law the Rigor of the Feudal Law was abated and received several Alterations and Amendments by flux of Time and especially by Acts of great Councils or Parliaments and the Necessities or Indulgence of Princes So that instead of more rigid Tenures the soft ones of Fee-simple in all its kinds by Deed or Feofment or inheritable and qualified Copyholds were introduced As to the second Particular concerning William the Conqueror's setling Laws for the equal Government Of the Conqueror's Laws both of the Normans and English I shall first give an account out of (f) Parte posteriori fol. 346. Hoveden what these were and how they were procured He saith That the Danish Laws being understood by the Conqueror to be used in Norfolk Suffolk and Cambridg-shire others (g) Chron. Liâ—â—f See for the Conqueror's Charter and Laws Dr. Brady fol. 17 252 254 258 298 249. add the Deirans and the Isles concerning Forfeitures he preferred them before the other Laws of the Kingdom and commanded they should be observed and gives the reason for it that his and the Ancestors of most of the Barons of Normandy were come from Norway therefore the Laws of the Danes ought to be preferred before those of the Britains viz. of the English and Picts Which saith my (h) Quo audito mox universi compatriota qui legâ—s edixerant tristâ—s essecâ—i unanimiter deprecati sunt quatenus permitâ—eret lâ—ges sibi prâ—prias consueâ—udines â—â—iqua halere Id. num 10. Hoveden fol. 347 num 1. Author being heard by the great Men of the Country who had as hereafter I shall show been appointed to revize the Laws they all were very sorrowful and unanimously intreated him that he would permit them to have the Laws proper to themselves and their ancient Customs under which their Fathers lived and they were born and bred under for that it would be very hard for them to receive unknown Laws and to judge of those things they understood not See Brady's Answer to Argum. Aâ—tiâ—oâ—â— p. 298 299. But finding the King unwilling to be drawn to consent they follow on their suit praying for the Soul of King Edward who bequeathed him his Crown and Kingdom whose Laws they were that they might not have the Laws of strange Nations imposed on them but he would grant them the Continuance of their Countries Laws To which intreaty of his Barons after Counsel taken my Author saith I cannot conceive but here were many of the Saxon Nobility and Men of best Account otherwise they could not call them the Laws their Fathers had lived under and the Normans could not then know much of our Laws or Speech but this was before he had subdued all fully he acquiesced and from that day the Laws of King Edward were of great Authority and Esteem throughout England and were confirmed and observed before other Laws of the Country Our Author further notes That these were not the proper Laws of King Edward but of Edgar his Grandfather which had been little observed for 68 years as in one place and 48 years in another he saith by reason of the Danish Invasions c. and being revived repaired and confirmed by King Edward were called his Laws The Account the Chronicle (i) Anglos Nobiles Sapientes suaâ—â—ge eruditos Id. fol. 348. Spelm. Concil tom 1. fol. 619. of Lichfield gives is this That King William in the fourth year of his Reign at London by the Counsel of his Barons made to be summoned through all the Counties of England all the Noble Wisemen and such as were skilled in their Law that he might hear their Laws and Customs and then gives an account how he approved of the Danish Laws used in Norfolk c. Concerning the Kindness the Conqueror pretended in his first four Years and his Rigour after see at large Dr. Brady in his Answer to the Argumentum Antinormanicum especially p. 260. and 299. But afterwards at the Intreaty of the Community of the English he yielded to grant them King Edward's Laws Before I proceed any further I cannot but note that what Hoveden calls Compatriotae here is called Communitas Anglorum and in both of them afterwards it is called Concilio Baronum by which we may know who these Compatriotae and this Communitas were viz. the Barons or great Men. Our Author proceeds That by the King's Precept out of every County of England Twelve Wisemen were chosen who were enjoyned an Oath before the King that according to their utmost they should discover the establishments of their Laws and Customs (k) Vt quoad possent recto tramite incedentes nec ad dextram nec ad sinistram divertentes nihil addentes nihil praevarieando mutantes Omnia quae praedicti â—urati dixerunt going in a strait Path neither declining to the right or left Hand omitting adding or prevaricating nothing and Aldred Archbishop of York who crowned King William and Hugh Bishop of London by the King's command writ the Laws which the said sworn Persons did produce But it is to be noted that this Chronicle of Lichfield is of a later Date than other Writers and the Laws in it differ from those in Ingulphus The next Testimony is that of (l) Circa sinem Hist fol. 519. num 36. Leges aquiâ—â—mi Regis Edwardi quas Dom. meus inclitus Rex W. authenticas esse perpetuas c. proclamarat Ingulphus who tells us That he brought from London to his Monastery i.e. Croyland the Laws of the most just King Edward which his Lord the famous King VVilliam willed to be Authentic and Perpetual and had proclaimed under the severest Penalties to be inviolably kept through the whole Kingdom of England and commended them to his Justiciaries in the same Language they were set forth in c. of which I shall say something below The Author of Jus Anglorum ab Antiquo and the Argumentum Anti-Normanicum and Mr. Petyt in his Rights of the Commons asserted have writ largely to prove That the Conqueror made little Innovation in our Laws and on the contrary the profoundly learned (m) Answer to Petyt p. 14. Great Officers Normans Doctor Brady hath from undeniable Records
suae â—re proprio specialiter sibi Regno suo salvavit excepit That the King in the Declaration of the said Sentence did by his own Mouth specially save and except to himself and his Kingdom all the Liberties ancient Customs of his Kingdom and Usages Dignities and Rights of his Crown By which it is apparent how cautious the King was in these liberal Concessions not to prejudice his Prerogative They are neither few in Number nor of mean repute for judgment and learning in our Laws who assert Such like Protestation King Richard the Second made 10 Reg. Rot. Parl. 10 R. 2. num 32. See in King Stephen that as Acts of Parliament made contrary to Magna Charta are void so likewise are all such as diminish the Prerogative in any part of it which is necessary for the support of the Government So upon the passing the Petition (q) His Majesty's Speeches fol. 368. of the Basilica of Right King Charles the First the King said The King willeth that Right be done according to the Laws and Customs of the Land and that the Statutes be put in due Execution that the Subjects may have no cause to complain of any Wrong or Oppression contrary to their Just Rights and Liberties to the Preservation whereof he holdeth himself obliged as well as of his Prerogative But this would not please and so he pronounced Le droit soit fait comme il est desire and adds that he is sure is full but no more than he granted in his first Answer his meaning in that being to confirm all their Liberties knowing according to their Protestations they neither meant nor can hurt his Prerogative The Peoples Liberty strengthens the Kings Prerogative and the Kings Prerogative is to defend the Peoples Liberties The rest of the Parliaments of this Kings Reign are said to be called (r) Id. 435. num 10.21 H. 3. Id. 693. num 20.26 H. 3. Id. fol. 579. num 40. Id. fol. 696. num 30. Id. fol. 698. num 40. Vide Brady's Appendix fol. 59 60. per scripta Regalia submonitione Regia or that scripsit Rex praecipiens or missis literis convocavit Anno 1246. 30 H. 3. or Edicto Regio convocat c. which denotes the Authority convening them and for the Members they are either stiled Magnates omnis Regni Nobilitas or Clerus Populus cum Magnatibus Magnates tam Laici quam Praelati Episcopi alii Ecclesiarum Praelati cum Proceribus Regni or else they are particularly numbred to be Archbishops Bishops Abbats Priors for the Clergy and the Comites Barones for the Laity In one I find Archiepiscopus cum Suffraganeis suis for the rest of the Bishops and (s) M. Paris fol. 397. num 10.10 H. 3. another runs thus Anno 1247. 31 H. 3. fecit Dominus Rex Magnates suos nec-non Angliae Archidiaconos per scripta sua Regia Londinum convocari Yet though Matt. Paris only mention the Magnates Archidiaconi yet he saith when the prefixed day was come the Bishops all willingly absented themselves and he gives the Reason ne viderentur propâ—iis factis eminus adversari sciebant enim corda omnium usque ad animae amaritudinem non immerito sauciari Then when he (u) Id. 629. Edit ult num 10. Archdeacons summoned to Parliament gives an Account of the business of this great Council he saith that the Archdeacons of England as also not the least part of the whole Clergy of the Kingdom with the Magnates complained of the Popes exaction and so Letters were writ to the Pope and Cardinals It may be noted also That in those Days the Kings summoned other dignified Clergy besides Bishops Abbats and Priors I shall insist no longer upon these Matters The new Constitution of Parliament by Representatives but pass to the great Mutation which was made in the Constitution of our English Parliaments It seems to be clear that before King John's time the Members of the Great Councils were summoned by special Writ and they were only the Archbishops Bishops Abbats and Priors for the Clergy and the Earls and Barons and such of the Tenents in Capite as were of greatest quality as the King pleased But in King John's Charter all the Tenents in Capite were convened by a General Summons which did much encrease the number of the Members of these great Councils and by so much as they were more numerous it is likely the Popular Barons hoped to make their Party the stronger against the King for we find it introduced when the Barons were propense to rebel So the Second great Alteration on the Constitution of Parliament was introduced Montfort's Rebellion when Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester and the Rebellious Barons had the King and the Prince Prisoners Simon Montford to strengthen his Interest first in the Kings Name summons the Earls and Barons which were in Arms against the King also at other times summoned more Abbats and Priors than had been used for that the Clergy at that time had a great Opinion of him and he was their Minion as is apparent in Matthew Paris and fully in the judicious (w) Answer to Petyt fol. 137 138 139. Doctor Brady to whom I must specially refer the curious Reader in this particular The 14th The Form of the Writ of Summons of Dec. 48 H. 3. the first Writ issued out thus Item mandatum est singulis Vicecomitibus per Angliam quod venire faciant duos Milites de legalioribus discretioribus Militibus singulorum Comitatuum It is commanded to all the Sheriffs of England that they make or cause to come two Knights of the more Legal and Discreet Knights of every County to be at London on the Octaves of St. Hilary next So in the like manner (x) Cl. 49 H. 3. m. 11. dorso schedulae Writs were directed to Cities and Burroughs to send two of the more Discreet Legal and Honest Citizens and Burgesses This is without Date that to the Barons of the Cinque Ports is Jan. 20. It doth not appear by the Writ to the Sheriffs whether they or the Counties were to elect and send those Knights or who were Electors It is the Opinion of most learned (y) Brady against Petyt fol. 143. Dugdale's Baronage fol. 759. col 3. Men that Simon Montfort apprehended from the Concourse of the Nobility and their great Retinues and the Example of his and the Barons Practices at Oxford some danger to himself and his Affairs and so altered the ancient Usage Upon the 5th of August 49 H. 3. Simon Montfort was slain at Evesham and all his Party routed and the 8th of September following the King convened his Parliament at Winchester which according to the old form The old Form again used consisted only of the Bishops Abbats Priors Earls Barons and Great Men nor did he continue Montfort's Method after as appears by that Parliament he
called 50 Regni By the Statute of Marleburgh 52 H. 3. it is evident All the Barons not summoned but the more discreet and so of the lesser Barons That even all the great Barons were not summoned but only the more Discreet and such as the King thought fit to call and the like is observed of the lesser Barons or Tenents in Capite For if it had been by General Summons that Restriction of the more Discreet had been useless so that it appears that what (z) Britannia fol. 122. Quibus ipâ—â— Rex dignaâ—us est brevia summonitionis dirigere venirent c. non alii Mr. Camden's ancient Author observes is true That after the horrid Confusions and Troubles of the Barons Wars those Earls and Barons whom the King thought worthy to summon by his Writ to meet came to his Parliaments and no other The Preamble to this Statute of (a) Stat. Edit 1576. p. 15. Marlebridge runs thus in Tottel Providente ipso Domino Rege ad Regni sui Angliae meliorationem exhibitionem Justitiae prout Regalis Officii poscit Vtilitas pleniorem convocatis discretioribus ejusdem Regni tam majoribus quam minoribus provisum est statutum ac concordatum ordinatum According to Pulton the (b) Fol. 14. Preamble is thus That whereas the Realm of England of late had been disquieted with manifold Troubles and Dissentions for Reformation whereof Statutes and Laws be right necessary The Use and Benefit of Laws whereby the Peace and Tranquillity of the People must be observed wherein the King intending to devise convenient Remedy hath made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes underwritten which he willeth to be observed for ever firmly and inviolably of all his Subjects as well high as low Thus we see in the whole Reign of H. 3. excepting in that Parliament of Montfort's Faction the Bishops and dignified Clergy Earls Barons and Tenents in Capite were only summoned as Members of the great Councils and there were no Representatives of the Commons and the Kings Authority in summoning dissolving and making Laws is most manifest Of Parliaments in King Edward the First 's Reign I Shall now glean out of Tottel and Pulton's Editions of the Statutes the most material Preambles which give light to the constituent Parts of Parliaments to the Legislative Power in the King with the Concurrence of the two Houses and how that in the Series of the Kings Reign hath been expressed and such other matters relating to the Parliament as may shew the gradual Progress of their Constitution to the usage of this present Age leaving the Reader to make his own remarques from the matters of Fact and the expressions used by my Authors and explaining some The Preface to the Statute of (a) Ceux sont les establishments le Roy Ed. fitz Roy Hen. fait a Westminst c. par son Councel par Passentments des Archevesques Evesques Abbes Priores Countes Barons tout le Commonalty de la terre illonques summons Tottel Stat. fol. 24. Pulton p. 19. Westminster begins thus These are the Establishments of King Edward Son to King Henry made at Westminster at his first General Parliament after his Coronation c. by his Council and by the Assent of the Archbishops Bishops Abbats Priors Earls Barons and the whole Commonalty of the Land thither summoned This Parliament was prorogued before it met and the Writ of Prorogation mentions only Quia generale Parliamentum nostrum quod cum Praelatis Magnatibus Regni nostri proposuimus habere c. Therefore having prorogued it mandamus c. Intersitis ad tractandum ordinandum una cum Praelatis Magnatibus Regni nostri (b) Brady against Petyâ— fol. 147. c. So that all the Members are included in the two general Terms of Praelati Magnates which great Men very frequently comprehended as well the Barones Majores as Minores the Earls Barons and greater Tenents in Capite and the less which then were called the Community of the Kingdom The rest of the Preamble of the Statutes made at (c) Pulton's Stat. An. 1275.3 E. 1. f. 19. Westminster runs thus Because our Lord the King hath great Zeal and desire to redress the State of the Realm c. the King hath ordained and established these Acts under written The Preface to the Statute de Bigamis 4 Oct. 4 Ed. 1. is thus (d) In prasentia venerabilium purum quâ—ruâ—dam Episcoporum Angliae aliorum de Concilio Râ—gis â—â—citatae sâ—â—erunt constitutiones â—ub â—riptae postmodâ—â—m coram Domino Rege Concilio sâ—o auditae publicatae Quia omnes de consiliâ—â—am â—usâ—â—â—â—arii quam alii concordaverunt c. Tottel p. 39. b. expressed In the Presence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Council the constitutions under written were recited and after heard and published before the King and his Council for as much as all the King's Council as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in writing for a perpetual memory and that they should be stedfastly observed In the First Chapter it is said Concordatum est per Justiciarios alios sapientes de Concilio Regni Domini Regis It was agreed by the Justices and other wise or sage Men of the Council of the Kingdom of the Lord the King Perhaps saith the judicious Doctor Brady the best understanding of the preamble and first Chapter may be that the Laws and Constitutions were prepared by the King and his (e) Answer to Pâ—tyt fol. 148. Council with the Assistance of the Justices and Lawyers that were of it or called to assist in it and declared afterwards in Parliament (f) Praeâ—iâ—â—ae autem constitutiones eâ—iâ—â— suerunt c. exâ—une lâ—â—um habeanâ— Tottel fol. 40. for it is said in the close of the Statute The aforesaid Constitutions were published at Westminster in the Parliament after the Feast of St. Michael the 4th of the Kings Reign and thence forward to take place The Preamble to the Statute of Gloucester Anno 1278. 6 E. 1. is thus (g) Pour amendment de son Roialm pur plus pleinir exhibition de droit si comâ—â—â—â— prâ—sit dâ— Office demanâ— appâ—lles le plues discretes de son Roialme auâ—â— bien des Granders comâ— des Meindres establie est concordantment ordine Tottel fol. 50. The King for the amendment of the Realm and for the more full Exhibition of Justice according as the benefit of his Office requires having called the most discreet of his Realm as well the greater as the smaller It is established and unanimously ordained as Pulton adds after by the King and his Justices certain Expositions were made The Statute of Mortmain is thus prefaced Nos pro (h) Tottel p. 48. Vtilitate Regni volentes providere Remedium de Concilio Praelatorum Comitum Baronum aliorum fidelium
allow no alteration but in that of Dudley Which makes some observe Lawyer out-lawed p. 12. That if the House of Commons had then known they had any Power to mend the said Returns or punish the Offenders or Sir Edward Coke had known it had been Law he had never been sent on that Message So that what Authority the House hath it hath accrued since SECT 11. Concerning the House of Commons Censuring Imprisoning and Expelling their own Members AS to the Commons Imprisoning and Punishing their own Members The Reasons for this Privilege for words by them spoken or Misdemeanors committed in the House there may be some reason for it First Stat. 4. H. 8. c. 8. Coke 4. Instit p. 25. 31 H. 6. c. 26 27. because by Law they are not Punishable elsewhere for any rash indeliberate and inordinate Speeches in Parliament which do not amount to Treason Felony or Breach of the Peace which it is supposed none in that rightly constituted House will protect though done in the House of Commons begun in 1641. Secondly It is to be supposed that the Members upon their entring into that House unanimously agree for order sake that the lesser number should always submit to the greater So by such Consent and original Compact every single Member submitting himself to the rest he hath no such reason to complain although they had no such Authority for scienti volenti non fit Injuria provided that they exceed not the common Rules of Justice nor the Bounds of Established Laws for then no private Act can bind a Subject though made with his own free Consent as appears in Clark's Case against the Mayor and Burgesses of St. Albans Coke lib. 5. p. 64. The first Precedent I find that any Member of the House of Commons was complained and Petitioned against for Misdemeanors and put to answer before the King and Lords in Parliament Rot. Parl. 16. R. 2. num 6. and there judged and fined was 16 R. 2. the Wednesday after the Parliament began when Sir Philip Courtney Members of the House of Commons punished for Misdemeanour by the King and Lords returned one of the Knights for Devonshire came before the King in full Parliament and said that he understood how certain people had accused and slandered him to the King and Lords therefore prayed to be discharged of the said Imployment until the accusations c. were tryed and because his said Prayer seemed honest to the King and the Lords the King granted him his Request and discharged him in full Parliament Exact Abridgment p. 417. and the Monday following at the Instance and Prayer of the Commons the King granted that he should be restored and remitted to his Place In the Parliament 4 H. 4. the accusations against him being re-inforced the King and Lords adjudged that he should be bound to his good Behaviour and committed to the Tower for his Contempt By which saith Mr. Prynne it appears Plea for the Lords p. 386 387. That only the King and Lords in full Parliament can suspend or discharge any Knights or Commoners sitting in Parliament and have Power of restoring and re-admitting a suspended Member of the Commons House and he answers the Precedents that Sir Edward Coke brings 4 Instit p. 23 and 3 Inst p. 22. Vide pag. 296 297 299 344 371 372 373. and many others which would be tedious here to insert The first Precedent he finds The first Precedent of the House of Commons secluding their Members that the Commons began to seclude one another upon Pretence of undue Elections and Returns was in Queen Elizabeth's time when Thomas Lucy 8 Eliz. was removed out of the House for giving four Pound to the Mayor of Westbury to be chosen a Burgess and the Mayor fined and imprisoned and 23 Eliz. Mr. A. Hâ—ll for publishing the Conferences of the House and writing a Book to the dishonour of the House was committed to the Tower for six Months and fined five hundred Mark and expelled the House and in King Charles the First 's time this Power over their Fellow-Members was greatly improved in which how far Mr. Prynne then concurred I know not but after he was secluded he every where writes with great earnestness against this usage but whether with Judgment Law and Reason I shall leave others to judge only I think fit to insert some of his Invectives against the Proceedings of that unparallell'd house of Commons First he saith There can be no legal Trial or Judgment given in Parliament in Criminal Causes or others Id. p. 309. Mr. Prynne's Reasons against this Usage without Examination of Witnesses upon Oath as in all other Courts of Justice which the House of Commons cannot do Littleton sect 212. Coke ibid. Secondly That it is a Rule both of Law and Justice That no Man can be an Informer Prosecutor and Judge too of the persons prosecuted and informed against the Commons being in the nature of the Grand Inquest Coke 4. Inst p. 24. being summoned from all parts of the Kingdom to present Publick Grievances and Delinquents to the King and Peers for their Redress Plea for the Lords p. 373. Thirdly That all the objected Precedents are of very puny date within time of memory therefore unable to create a Law or Custom of Parliament or any right of sole Judicature in the House of Commons Fourthly Id. p. 387. That all these Precedents were made by the Commons themselves unfit Judges in their own Cases much less over one another being all of equal Authority so that in his opinion they could no more expel or eject any of their Members by their own Authority without the King and Lords concurrent consent See Legal Vindication p. 10. than one Justice of Peace Committeeman or Militia-man can unjustice or remove another since par in parem non habet potestatem neither in Ecclesiastical Civil Id. p. 373. Military or Domestick Affairs Fifthly That they are all against Law because coram non Judice he having throughout the whole Discourse endeavoured to prove That the Commons have no right or power of Judicature much less of sole Judicature in our Parliaments but only the King and Lords Sixthly That these Precedents are but few never judicially argued and rather connived at than approved by the King and Lords taken up with other more publick business therefore passing sub silentio they can make no Law or Right as is resolved in Long 5 E. 4. fol. 110. Cook 's four Rep. fol. 93 94. Slade's Case and six Rep. fol. 75. Drurie's Case Seventhly In the long Parliament of King Charles the First they began to seclude Projectors Exact Collections of Ordinances p. 541. to 558. Monopolists c. though duly elected then suspended and ejected such who were Royalists and adhered to the King then they proceeded to imprison and eject those Members Plea for the Lords p.
intended to invade the Subjects Liberties but if they allowed the Writ the delicious Power of Imprisoning such as they had a Pique to was utterly lost and all Persons referred to the ordinary Courts of Justice or upon their failure to the House of Lords Sir William Jones against any ones Release by Habeas Corpus if they were imprisoned by the House of Commons the Supreme Tribunal of England Sir William Jones insisted much upon the Power of the House and that they did not intend by that Act to bind themselves which yet must bind the King though it might as well be alledged That he did not intend to bind himself by it However Sir William persisted urging See Debates of the House p. 217. That whatever Reasons may be given for discharging such as are not committed for Breach of Privilege if grounded on the Act for the Habeas Corpus will hold as strong for discharging of Persons for Breach of Privilege and so consequently deprive the House of all its Power and Dignity and so make it insignificant and said That was so plain and obvious that all the Judges ought to take notice of it and so judged it below the House to make any Resolution therein but rather to leave the Judges to do otherwise at their peril and let the Debate fall without any Question But Baron Weston had the Courage to grant the Habeas Corpus Baron Weston grants the Habeas Corpus as rather willing to expose himself to the Displeasure of the House than deny or delay Justice contrary to his Oath I could not omit this remarkable Passage as a Specimen of the Arbitrariness of the Leading Party in that House Brief Register part 4. p. 846. and now shall proceed to Mr. Prynne's Remarks upon the Proceedings of the long House of Commons He observes Privilegia omnino amittere meretur qui sibi abutitur concessa penestate Ejus est interpretari cujus concedere Summa Rosella Privilegium 3. That Privileges may be lost by the abuse of the Power and that whatever Privilege the House hath is from the King's Grant or Toleration Therefore according to the Canonists Rule If the Privilege granted be expressed in general dubious or obscure Words then it is in the power of him to interpret who hath the power to grant Now the Petition of the Speaker is That the Commons in this Parliament may and shall have all their Ancient and Just Privileges allowed them Therefore the King Nemini liceat Chartas Regias nisi ipsis Regibus judicare Placita Parl. 18 E. 1. num 19. p. 20. being the sole Granter of these Privileges must be the only proper Interpreter and Judge of them as he is of all his other Charters of Privileges Liberties Franchises and Acts of Parliament themselves after his Regal Assent thereto not the Commons or Persons to whom they are granted and that both in and out of Parliament by Advice of his Nobles or Judges of the Common-Law Therefore he saith first How the Breach of Privilege to be punished according to Mr. Prynne See the Authority Brief Regist part 2. p. 847. That if the Commons by Petition to the King and Lords in Parliament complain of the Breach of their ancient Privileges and Liberties as they ever did in the Cases of Lark Thorp Hyde Clerk Atwyll and others the King by Advice of his Lords in Parliament assisted with his Judges hath been and as he humbly conceives is the sole proper Judge of them and their violations not the Commons who being Parties Prosecutors and Complainants are no legal indifferent Judges in their own or Menial Servants cases if they will avoid partiality which is the reason the Law allows Challenges to Jurors in Civil and Criminal causes Therefore he observes Ibid. p. 1206. that the House of Commons taking Informations without Oath may be easilier abused by misinformation and sometimes thereby are put upon over hasty Votes which upon finding out evil Combinations they are forced to retract Secondly The Chancellor or Lord Keeper to grant the Writ If the complaint of the breach of Privilege be made in the Commons House and thereupon an Habeas Corpus Writ of Privilege or Supersedeas prayed under the great Seal for the Members or menial Servants release whose Privilege is infringed the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the great Seal representing the Kings person in Chancery the Court for relief in cases of Privilege is the properest Judge and Examiner of the claimed Privilege and its violations upon Oath and other sufficient Evidence assisted by all the Kings Judges in cases of difficulty who thereupon will grant or deny the Writs Thirdly The Judges of the Courts to which the Writ is directed to judge of the validity of the Privilege When these Writs of Privilege Supersedeas or Habeas Corpus are granted to any Member or menial Servants and directed to any of the Kings Courts to enlarge their restrained Persons or stay any Arrests Process or Judgments against them the Kings own Judges in his respective Courts to which they are directed are then the proper Judges of the Privileges of Parliament and of their breaches suggested in these Writs who may examine not only all matters of Law or Fact comprised in them which are Traversable but likewise adjudge allow or disallow the very Privilege it self if no real ancient Parliamentary Privilege allowed by the Laws and Customs of the Realm How far he is in the right I will not undertake to judge but I remember somewhere he wisheth an Act of Parliament to pass to adjust these matters which possibly would prevent many of those chargeable attendances about false Returns and save much expence of time in the discussing of them and enable the Subjects to pay a right and due obedience to them SECT 12. Concerning the Royal Assent to Bills I Have treated so much of this elsewhere as to the sole Power in the King the ancient Custom of Sealing the Acts with the Kings Seal and of some of the Prelates and Nobles as Witnesses of their Assents that I shall only now speak as to the usual formality of passing the Bills into Acts by the Kings last Act. See also his Memorials For Mr. Hackwell hath given a full account of the manner how Statutes are enacted in Parliament by passing of Bills to which Book I refer the curious Reader that would understand the order that is used in the debating and passing of them When Bills are passed by both Houses upon three several Readings in either House Hackwell of Passing of Bills p. 179. ad 182. they ought for their last approbation to have the Royal Assent whereby every Statute is as Mr. Hackwell observes like Silver seven times tryed The Royal Assent is usually deferred to the last day of the Session and because some have been of opinion that the passing of Bills The Royal Assent determines not the Session
the King who by the same Laws hath the Power of putting in execution and suspending the execution of the Laws in many Cases or that Aristocracy or Democracy have any such mixture with the Monarchy as they can impose their Laws upon him For to suppose a mixed Monarchy consisting of Three Estates independent for their Authority upon one another and to have several shares in the Rights of Sovereignty and to say The Government of three Estates is the Government of one Monarch is perfect nonsence for when (q) Besold Synopsis Polit. Doct. l. 1. c. 6. Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy are melted and allayed together that which resulteth can take its name from none of the simple species or kinds of Government but must have some other Appellation Whoever will consider aright of the concurrence of the two Houses in preparing Bills will find How the two Houses concur in making Laws That though the Houses be as the Causa sine qua non yet the efficient procatarctick Cause and the Authoritative Power in passing these into Laws is the King only and what the two Houses do without his Assent is but as the Counsellor at Law 's framing a Deed and the Clerks Ingrossing the Indenture of Conveyance but till the Seal be set to it and delivery made as the Act and Deed of Donor or Conveyor it is of no force and virtue neither do we call it the Act and Deed of the Counsellor or Clerk but of the Person that seals it Another Objection those Champions for the two Houses made great noise with was (r) King's Supremacy p. 84. Objection That the Mixture is in the Supremacy of Power That the Power where the Legislative is in all Three is in the very Root and Essence of it compounded and mixed of those three so that where this height of Power resideth in a mixed Subject that is in three concurrent Estates the consent and concursus of all being most free and none depending on the Will of the other that Monarchy is in the most proper sence and in the very model of it a mixed Constitution And that such is the State of the Monarchy of England the Objector thinks clear because the House of Peers are an Aristocracy and the Commons a Democracy and this mixture of Interests and Powers being in the very Legislative Power he concludes the mixture is in the Root and Supremacy of Power and not in the exercise alone In answer to which it must be considered Answer That is only in the Exercise of the Power That though the concurrence of both the Estates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws be such as our Laws describe yet it is no otherwise than in the precedent Chapters by undeniable proofs I have made it out That what participation soever the two Houses have with the King in the Legislature it is only derivative from the Crown by the King's Summons and the restriction of those Summons to do and consent It is known to be the common Assertion of (s) Panorm cap. Gravem de Sent. Excom Canonists (t) Bertol. in Lomnes Populi sect de Justitia Jure q. 2. Civilians and (u) Suarez lib. 1. de Leg. c. 8. n. 9. Schoolmen That the Legislative Power is communicable by the Princes allowance and that such a concurrence as our Kings have allowed is no Argument of Supremacy such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies * Besold de Juribus Magist c. 2. which every where are owned to be absolute in respect of Power For as they are summoned by the Princes single Authority and dissolved at his own pleasure they can claim no sort of Right during their Session further than to consult about and prepare Bills for the Royal Assent Therefore (w) De Imperio Summarum Potestatum circa sacra c. 8. num 11. Grotius saith Istam Legislationem quae aliis quam Summae Potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure Summae Potestatis quod in Scholis dicunt cumulative datum censeri non privative So in our Kingdom every Corporation hath Authority to make Ordinances and Constitutions within their own Liberties for the good Order and Government of the Body and the Inhabitants (x) Coke 5. part tit Cases de By-Laws Ordinances of every Parish to make By-Laws and Ordinances among themselves for their own profit where they have Custom for it and for the Publick Good where they have no Custom Surely this is a sort of Legislative Power yet thereby it cannot be inferred that they have any Co-ordinate Power with the King in the Rights of Soveraignty So that allowing the Power of the two Houses as large as can be proved by the Laws for the stretch that the Parliamentarians would make is by the Tenters they only have set up the whole latitude of the Nomothetical Power is not jointly in the two Houses for none but Strangers to our Laws can deny That the King hath sole Power to dispense with the Statutes and abate their Rigour where a mischief would otherwise insue he alone hath Power by Edicts and Proclamations to order all Affairs for which there is no order taken by certain and perpetual Laws The Legislative Power is either (y) King's Supremacy p. 88. Of Architectonical and Preceptive Power Architectonical or Preceptive The Architectonical is that which layeth Materials of Law and consisteth in two things First in determining what is just convenient or necessary Secondly in declaring and promulgating that to be actually made a Law and Enacted which upon consultation is thought to be just convenient or necessary The first shews no Jurisdiction in the Persons who have it but only an Office and Imployment to deliberate and consult But whoever hath the Second Power hath a Jurisdiction to define Authoritatively what shall be Law and this Preceptive Power is that which makes the Law sacred and inviolable and which giveth it force to oblige the Conscience Now it is evident by undeniable Testimony and Authority that the exercise of the Architectonical Power is only committed to the two Houses who have votum consultivum decisivum but it is derived from the King who hath only the Preceptive Power So that the Writers for the two Houses generally did use a Sophistical way of arguing not discovering what they could not but know the difference betwixt the King's and the two Houses Powers in the making of Laws For subordinate Agents that are but Instruments of another and work by a derived Power when they concur with the Principal and supream Agent have their causality in producing the Effect yet this doth not prove the Authority to be radically in them As in an Estate of Lands saith (z) Idem p. 91. Mr. Sherringham wherein a Man hath a perpetual Right in Fee his Right is distinguished from the King 's Right of whom he holds the King having the demean of the
infallible and every Member an Angel But the Observer Objection That if the King have a Negative Voice there will be no need of Parliaments and his Pewfellows urge That if the Houses can do no Act for publick good without the King's consent and if the King may reject their Counsels and Advice it were needless to put the Country to the charge of choosing Members of Parliament And if the King may prefer other opinions before Parliamentary Motives then Parliaments are vain and useless helps Princes are unlimited and the People miserable These Objections are of such an odious nature Answer That no good Subject can take delight in them whose duty is to pray for the like consent among the several Orders of the Kingdom as is supposed to be among the several Orbs of Heaven The King undoubtedly the Primum movens the Great and Privy Council the lower Spheres The usual but not the only form of the Kings Answers to such Bills as they were not willing to pass Le Roy s'avisera proves (e) Answer to Observations p. 56. That after the advice of this his Great Council he is yet at liberty to advise further with persons or occasions as his own Wisdom shall think meet But these Authors will by no means take notice That the use of Council is to perswade not to compel as if a Man in business of great concernment might not very prudently consult with many Friends and yet at last follow the advice perhaps of one if it appear more proportionable to the end he aims at If it were because they are a more numerous body therefore their Counsel is upon that account to be yielded to then the liberty of dissenting may be denied to the House of Peers in comparison of the House of Commons and to that House too in comparison of the People and so both King Lords and Commons are voted out of Parliament Besides Natural Wisdom and Fidelity there is a thing called Experience of high concernment in the managery of Publick Affairs He that will steer one Kingdom aright must know the right Constitution of all others their Strength their Affections their Counsels and Resolutions that upon each different Face of the Skie he may alter his Rudder The best Governments have more Councils than one One for the Publick Interest of the Kingdom another for the Affairs of State a Council for War and a Council for Peace Let them be as wise and faithful Counsellors as the Observer pleaseth only let them be but Counsellors Necesse est us Lancea in libra ponderibus impositis deprimi sic animum perspicuis cedere Let their conlusions have as much credit as the premisses deserve and if they can necessitate the Prince by weight of Reason and convincing Evidence of experience let them do it on Gods name But it is not to be done upon the Authority of a bare Vote as I think all uninterested persons are satisfied in the Votes of the Houses in 1641. about the Militia Church-Government and the voted Nineteen Propositions or the late Votes about the Bill of Seclusion the Repealing of the branch of the Statute of Queen Elizabeth against Protestant Dissenters and the Loans upon the Kings Revenue There are other ends besides Counsel for which Parliaments are called as consenting to new Laws furnishing the Public with Moneys and maintaining the Interest of the Government and liberty of the Subject from the removing one social end to inferr that an Action is superfluous deserves no answer but silence and contempt This should teach the Electors Wisdom not to chuse such as have Factious Bents or are not truly qualified in their Allegiance to their Prince or Malecontents who render such Conventions useless to the Publick Ends of Government and the Peace Tranquillity and Prosperity of both Prince and People Because the Long Parliament Writers would have no Stone unturned nor any specious Argument uninforced Concerning the Coronation-Oaths of the King of England that might bring the King to their Lure to consent to what they proposed they endeavoured to make the World believe that the King was bound by his Coronation Oath to pass all such Bills as they presented or tendered to him grounding as Mr. Prynne and others alledged on a promise of the Kings at his Coronation to grant and keep the Laws and Customs which the Commonalty shall chuse Before I come to give the particular Answer I think it not unfit to take this opportunity to give a full account of the Coronation Oaths of our Kings and how the same from Age to Age were varied by which the Ingenious Reader will find what the respective Kings by their Oaths did promise That I may deduce as high as I have yet found the Original of Soveraign Princes taking Oaths at their Coronations it may be noted that the first Emperor that was Crowned and had any Coronation Oath prescribed was (f) Evagrius Hisâ— Eccles lib. 3. c. 32. Who first took a Coronation-Oath Anastasius the Greek Emperor who being elected by the Senate and Soldiers about Ann. 486. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople suspecting him to be addicted to the Heresy of Eutychius and the Manichees would not consent to his Coronation till he should deliver him a Writing under his Hand ratified with his Oath wherein he should plainly declare That if he were Crowned Emperour he would maintain the true Faith and Synod of Chalcedon during his Reign and bring in no Novelty to the Church of God This Writing ratified with his Oath Macedonius the Treasurer was to keep and after he was made Patriarch the Emperor demanded it and said It was a great discredit unto his Subjects that his Hand-writing should be kept to testifie against him or that he should be tied to Pen and Paper There is no mention of any Coronation Oath used from thence to the Year 804. that (g) Eutrop. lib. 24. p. 145 146. Zonar Annal. tom 3. fol. 142 143. Imperatorio Diademate est ornatus postulato prius scripto quo promitteret se nulla Ecclesiae statuta violaturum Stauratius Son to Nicephorus slain in his Wars against the Bulgarians being declared Emperor by some Michael Curopolata was adorned by the Patriarch with the Diadem a Writing before being desired in which he promised to violate none of the Statutes of the Church c. Which is the first Precedent of a Promise not an Oath demanded from or given by any Roman King for confirming the Laws of the Church c. The first Emperor Crowned at Rome by any Pope (h) Onuphr was Charles the Great Anno 800. but without an Oath and Henry the Fifth (i) Dicens Imperatorem nemini jurari debere cum juramentorum sacramenta ab omnibus sint sibi adhibenda Hermold Chron. Scl. l. 1. c. 40. Sim. Dunelm 232 237. refused to take any Corporal Oath saying That an Emperor ought to Swear to none for that Oath i. e. of Fealty
saith That Enrollments (l) Pur le Enrolments de Pardon de Roy in le Chancery en temps le Roy Alfred of Pardons of the King were in the Chancery in the time of King Alfred Altho' Mauricius Regis Cancellarius by that title subscribes as witness to the Charter of King William the Conquerer to the Abby of Westminster yet none of these prove that such a Court was in those Ages constituted as we now call the Chancery For Sir Henry Spelman (m) Gless p. 107 ◠proves the Chancery was no Court but only the Ship as he calls it of the Kings Writs and Charters in old time now consisting of three Parts sc è Collegio Scribarum Regiorum è Foro Juris communis è Praetorio boni aqui Mr. Lambard (n) Archaion p. 62 63. hath proved that till the Reign of King Edward the First we find nothing of the Chancellors hearing and determining of Civil causes for till then the Justiciarius Angliae had the great Power Sir William Dugdale 's Origines Jurid fol. 36. b. which being then restrained ad placita coram Rege tenenda the King together with the trust and charge of the Great Seals appointed him to represent his own Royal and extraordinary Preheminence of Jurisdiction in Civil Causes and he gives this particular reason for his opinion That Britton a Learned Lawyer in Edward the First 's time writing of all other Courts from the highest Tribunal to a Court Baron maketh no mention of this Chancery Yet towards (o) 28 E. 1. c. 5. the latter end of his Reign we find it enacted The Chancellor and Justices of the King's-Bench to follow the King That the Chancellor and Justices of the Bench should follow the King that is remove with the Kings Court so that he might have at all times near him some Sages of the Law which were able to order all such matters as should come unto the Court at all times when need should require Yet this Act did not give an absolute Power to the Chancellor alone of determining in such Civil Causes as may seem by that Law which was made 20 Ed. 3. (p) Cap. 6. where it appears the Treasurer was joyned with him to hear complaints against Sheriffs Escheators c. something like this about Purveyors and Escheators that they might not oppress was enacted (q) Cap. 3. 36 Ed. 3. Nevertheless Mr. Lambard observes When Causes in Equity determined in Chancery that it doth not appear in the Reports of the Common Law that there is any frequent mention of Causes usually drawn before the Chancellor for help in Equity till from the time of King Henry the fourth nor are there found any Bills and Decrees in Chancery before the 20 of H. 6. such Causes as since that time were heard in that Court having formerly been determined in the Lords House of Parliament So Sir Edward Coke saith In the Chancery are two Courts First the ordinary coram Domino Rege in Cancellaria where in the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal proceeds according to the right line (r) Secundum Legen Consuetudinem Angliae of the Laws and Statutes of the Realm Secondly extraordinary according to the Rule of Equity Secundum aequum bonum But it is not my business to enter into particulars The curious may consult Sir Edward (s) 4. Instit c. 8. Coke Mr. Richard Cromptom cap. 3. Sir Henry Spelman 1. glossar 1. de Cancellario à pag. 105. ad pag 113. Ryley's Appendix Ash's Repertory tit Courts Sect. 2. Roll's Abridgment p. 374. to 587. Prynne's Animadversions p. 48. Anno 5 Eliz. (t) Cap. 18. it was Enacted that the Lord Keeper for the time being hath always had used and executed and so may for the future The Lord Keeper equal to Lord Chancellor the like place Authority Preheminence Jurisdiction Execution of Law c. as the Lord Chancellor of England for the time being lawfully used The Oath of the Chancellor or Lord Keeper is to be found (u) Rot. Parl. 10 R. 2. col 8. 10 R. 2. consisting of six Parts First That well and truly he shall serve our Soveraign Lord the King and his People in the Office of Chancellor The Oath of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper Secondly That he shall do right to all manner of people Poor and Rich after the Laws and usages of the Realm Thirdly That he shall truly counsel the King and his Counsel he shall layen i. e. hide or keep secret Fourthly That he shall not know nor suffer the hurt or disheriting of the King or that the Rights of the Crown be decreased by any means as far as he may lett it Fifthly That if he may not lett it he shall make it clearly and expresly to be known to the King with his true Advice and Counsel Sixthly That he shall do and purchase the Kings profit in all that he reasonably may as God help him and by the Contents of this Book SECT 6. Of the Court of the Exchequer SIR Edward Coke saith the Authority of this Court is of original Jurisdiction without any Commission Bracton mentioneth nothing of this Court and Fleta giveth a very short account that the King hath his Court and his Justiciaries residing at his Exchequer but descends to no particulars of the Jurisdiction (w) Fol. 2 b. But x Britton who lived in Edward the First 's Reign and all along writes in the name of the King as if his whole work had been the Kings gives us an account of the Nature of this Court in several particulars To hear and determine all Causes which touch the Kings Debts his Fees and the incident Causes without which these cannot be tried So of Purprestures Rents Farms Customs and generally of whatever appertained to the Revenue of the Crown the Tenants and Receivers of it so that the Court is divided into two Parts viz. Judicial Accounts called Scaccarium Computorum and into the Receipt of the Exchequer The principal Officer is the Lord Treasurer of England who formerly had this great Office The Lord Treasurer principal Officer of the Exchequer by delivery of the Golden Keys of the Treasury and hath the Office this day by delivery of a white Staff at the Kings Will and Pleasure his Oath is much-what the same as the Chancellors differing principally in that clause That the Kings Treasure he shall truly keep and dispend The other great Officers are the Treasurer of the Exchequer the Chancellor and Chief Baron and other Barons of the Exchequer The rest of the Officers are particularly reckoned in Sir (x) 4. Instit fol. 106 107 108. Edward Coke The Oath of the Barons of the Exchequer is to be found in the Statutes (y) The Oath of 〈◊〉 Barons of the 〈◊〉 chequer 20 Ed. 3. cap. 2. whereof the principal parts are That he shall truly charge and discharge
a name of Continuance which as the Law presumes shall always remain as Head and Governour of the People For the English Monarchy (x) Coke 4. Report Praef. knows no Interregnum being Successive by inherent Birthright whereby infinite inconveniences are avoided so that the young Phenix stays not to arise out of the Spicy ashes of the old but the Soul of Royalty by a kind of Transmigration passeth immediately out of one body into another and in the same manner will every right Heir acquire the Royalty after his Predecessor ceaseth to be Therefore the judicious Lord (y) Interregnum aut tituli suspensionem â—aeges Regni non permittere Hist H. 7. p. 26. Verulam observes That H. 7. knowing that the Laws permit not any interim suspension or stay of the Title and having no mind to own his Queens Title the best She being the Heiress of the house of York as he in some respects was Heir of the House of Lancaster he ordered the Act so that it should neither be by recognition nor his Title be established by a new Law (z) Potius media via institit simplicis stabilimenti Ideo verbis tectis utrinque nutantibus his ut haereditas Coronae resideres remaneret continuaretur in Rege but chose a milder way viz. of simple Establishment in covert words interpretable several ways that the inheritance of the Crown should reside remain and continue in him So King James in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 209. tells the Prince That at the very moment of the expiring of the King Reigning the nearest and lawful Heir entreth in his place and so to refuse him or intrude another is not to hold out the Successor from coming in but to expel and put out their Righteous King So Sir (a) Report 7 8 10 11. Calvin ' s Case Watson and Clark ' s Case 1 Jac. 1. Edward Coke affirms That it is a known Maxim of the Laws That in the moment of the descent of the Crown the person on whom it descends which is the next immediate Heir only becomes complete and absolute King to all intents and purposes And so he saith The second Son of the King of England after (b) 3. Instit 8. the death of the first-born is eldest Son within the Statute of 25 E. 3. as it was resolved in the case of Prince Charles concerning the Dutchy of Cornwall It would be a tedious work to recite all the Authorities in this Case may be found in the Statutes and Law-Books I will content my self instead of all others with the Act of (c) Cap. 2. Recognition 1 Jacobi primi wherein The Recognition of King James the First after the two Houses had enumerated the benefits by the Conjunction of the Houses of York and Lancaster and the uniting of England and Scotland in the Kings Person and that They agnize their constant Faith Obedience and Loyalty to him and his Royal Progeny The worlds of the Act are In most humble and lowly manner do beseech your most Excellent Majesty as a memorial to all posterity among the Records of your High Court of Parliament for ever to endure of our Loyalty Obedience and hearty humble affection it may be published and declared in the High Court of Parliament and enacted by Authority of the same That we being bound thereunto by the Laws of God and man do recognize and acknowledge and thereby express our unspeakable joyes that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England c. did by inherent Birthright and lawful undoubted Succession descend and come to your most Excellent Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the blood Royal of this Realm as is aforesaid c. and thereunto we most humbly and faithfully do submit and oblige our selves our Heirs and Posterities for ever until the last drop of our blood be spent and do beseech your Majesty to accept the same as the first-fruits of this High Court of Parliament of our Loyalty and Faith to your Majesty and your Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever By which it first appears that the Crown of England is an unalterable Entail and the reversion in him only by whom Kings reign without any Election or consent of the People otherwise than by acknowledging the lawful Right of the Kings derived from God by their blood to them Also from this Recognition we may consider How to understand the Act made by Queen Elizabeth against the Claims of Mary Queen of Scots Secondly what to think of that Act of Queen Elizabeth That if any Person shall affirm that the Parliament of England has not full power to bind and govern the Crown in point of Succession and descent that such a Person during the Queens life shall be guilty of High Treason For we must consider that by the words bind and govern we may conceive the sence to be That the Parliament is Judge where there are differences (d) Jus Regium p. 181. betwixt Competitors in nice and controvertible points which cannot be otherwise decided So that such temporary Acts as these are to be interpreted and restrained by other uncontroverted Laws We must also look upon it as made to secure the Queen against Mary Queen of Scots and to let her know it was to no purpose for her to design any thing against the Right or Person of Queen Elizabeth upon that ground as may be presumed the Queen of Scots might claim for that Queen Elizabeth by Act of Parliament had been declared a Bastard Therefore to let her know that it was to no purpose to insist upon any such claim and that her other Right as next undoubted Heir by blood to the Crown might be altered or governed this Act was made So that we must from hence conclude That it was to be reckoned only as one of those Statutes which the Law says are made ad terrorem ex terrore only which may appear the more evidently because it was never made use of For it is to be mainly considered that this Law being made to exclude Queen Mary and the Scotish Line as appears by that clause wherein it is declared That every Person or Persons of what degree or Nation soever they be who shall during the Queens life declare or publish that they have Right to the Crown of England shall be disinabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession Therefore it was never valid (e) Id. p. 183. For if it had been good King James might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeeded next to the Scotish Race For it is undeniable that Queen Mary did during Queen Elizabeth's life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard Therefore the calling in of King James after this Act and the acknowledging his Title do clearly evince that the
to Kingly Government and he every where commends it as most acceptable to the People and most safe for the Prince There is an excellent (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Creatione Princ. Soliloquy that Philo brings in his King to make and which may become the potentest Monarch to imitate That he writ the Laws himself into a Book that he might transcribe them into his Soul and imprint into his Mind those divine Characters never to be washed out again whereas other Kings therefore bear Staves for their Scepter the abridgment of the Law should be his Scepter his rejoycing and Glory uncontroulable the Ensign of that unreproveable Government which is fashioned according to the Pattern of Gods own Kingdom Although according to Harmenopulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is not to be subject to the Laws because offending against them he is not punished and as St. (b) Neque ullis ad poenam legibus voâ—antur tuti Imperii potestate Apol. pro Davide Ambrose speaking of David saith He being a King was tyed to no Laws because Kings are freed from the Bonds or Punishments of Faults being called to Punishment by no Laws being protected by the Power of their Empire yet (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. as a grave Father saith God's Word and right Reason must give a Law to the Law-giver Therefore that weighty and elegant Expression of (d) Temperans Majestatem Caesaris infra Deum magis illum commendo Deo cui soli subjicio Ideo magnus quia coelo minor est Apol. c. 35. Tertullian deserves consideration by all Princes which is this While we temper the Majesty of Caesar under God we commend him the more to God unto whom alone we do subject him therefore great because he is less than Heaven To the voluntary submission of a Prince to his own or the Laws of his Progenitors may be referred the memorable saying of Valentinian (e) Revera majus Imperio est submittere legibus Principâ—tum Lib. 4. c. de Leg. c. Licet Lex Imperii solennibus Juris Imperatorem solverit nihil tamen tam proprium Imperii est quam legibus vivere Lib. 3. c. de Testam the Younger It is in truth a greater thing than Empire to submit the Princedom it self to the Laws and that other equally imitable by Princes Though the Laws of the Empire have freed the Emperor from the Solemnities of the Laws yet nothing is so proper for Empire as to live by the Laws or according to them So inthat commendation which Plutarch gives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 2. de Fortuna Alex. Alexander the Great That he conceived he ought to be thought superior unto all Men yet subject to Justice Such a Prince we find Pliny fully describe in his (g) Nec minus hominem se quam hominibus praeesse meminit Panegyrick of Trajan That he thinks himself to be one of us and so much the more excellent and eminent he is that he so thinketh and no less remembreth that he is a Man than that he is a Ruler of Men. For he who hath nothing left to (h) Cui nihil ad augendum fastigium superest hic uno modo crescere potest si se ipse submittat securus magnitudinis suae increase his heighth hath but this one way to grow by if he submit himself that is to the governing by Laws it may be presumed he means being secure of greatness and in another place he calls him equal to all in this only greater than the rest That he was better and more nearly to our present purpose Thou hast made (i) Ipse te legibus subjecisti Legibus Caesar quas 〈◊〉 Principi scrip 〈◊〉 thy self subject to the Laws O Caesar which were not written to restrain the Prince by So we find both Severus (k) Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus 〈…〉 Instit quibus modis Testam infirment 8. Vet. and Antonius often set down in their Rescripts Although we be loosed from the Laws yet we live by the Laws These Laws are the Laws of God of Nature or those of the Kingdom concerning the first and last I shall not now discourse concerning that of Nature the (l) Non scripta sed nata lex quam non didicimus accepimus legimus verum ex natura ipsa arripuimus hausimus expressimus ad quam non docti sed facti non instituti sed imbuti sumus Pro Milone Orator saith It is not writ but born with us which we have not learnt received or read but from Nature it self have powerfully attracted drunk in and extracted to which we are not taught but made obedient not instructed but imbued Concerning the original of which Law he saith (m) Vnus erit communis quasi Magister Imperator omnium Deus ille legis hujus inventor disceptator lator â—ui qui non pâ—rebit ipâ—e se fugiet aâ— naturam hominis spernabitur atque hoc ipsâ— luet maximas poenas etiamsi caetera supplicia quae putantur â—ffugerit Lib. 3. de Repub. That God our common Master and Ruler of all is the Inventer Judg and Law-giver which he who will not obey must fly from himself i. e. abandon the Dictates of his own Reason and Conscience and despise the Nature of Man and in himself i. e. in his Conscience undergo the greatest Pains although he should escape all those other which commonly are accounted Punishments It is concerning this Law he saith That from it neither the Senate noâ— the People can exempt us nor is it lawful to abrogate it in the whole nor derogate from it (n) Ibid. Neque derogari ex hac aliquid licet neque tota abrogari potest nec vero aut per Senatum aut per populum solvi hac lege possumus The fore-mentioned Archbishop (o) Vsâ—er's Power of Princes p. 70. from hence concludes That to this moral Law of God whether by Nature thus written in the Hearts of Men or more fully delivered by Gods own written word or by just consequence deduced from the grounds of either of them the greatest Monarch upon Earth owes as much obedience as the lowest and meanest of all his Subjects And however the Prince is obliged to the directive force of the Law and so ought to be governed by it as his Director and though it be most true that (p) Reges Jolo Dei timore metuque Gehennae coercentur Isiodorus 3. Sent. c. 31. Kings are restrained only by the fear of God and Hell yet we may conclude that these together with the consideration of their Interests will be sufficient Incitements to them to govern according to such Laws Yet still it is to be owned That when a King doth not act according to such Laws he is not thereby capable of any Punishment for the transgressing of them and the reason saith the learned
(q) Power of the Prince p. 81. Primate is obvious because the inflicting of a punishment is an Act of a Superior to an Inferior and to make one upon Earth Superior to the Supreme Governour would imploy an absolute contradiction though a Father or Master were never so faulty none would be so absurd as to think that their Servants or Children might chastise them When I reflect on that dismal Day when the wicked High Court of Justice arraigned and sentenced the most Innocent Just and Religious King that possibly hath worn a Crown since our Saviours time I always stand amazed and read or meditate on that Tragical Act with a concern next to that of our Saviour's suffering All that black and bloody Scene was acted by Men of and upon the Principles successful Rebels made use of The Preamble to the Treasonable Charge against King Charles the First That Kings are admitted and trusted with a limited Power to govern by and according to the Laws of the Land and not otherwise and by their Trust Oath and Office are obliged to use the Power committed to them for the Good and Benefit of the People and for the Preservation of their Rights and Liberties which they charged that Blessed King to have designedly violated To which I shall give only some k short Heads of his Majesties Answer (r) His Majesty's Speeches and Tryal p. 429. which if they had been weighed were enough to confound all their arguing He demanded by what lawful Authority he was seated there he had a trust committed to him by God by old and lawful Descent that he would not betray Pag. 431. to answer to a new unlawful Authority That England was an Hereditary Kingdom He tells them how great a sin it is to withstand lawful Authority and submit to a Tyrannical or Unlawful That Kings can be no Delinquents That Obedience unto Kings is strictly commanded in the old and new Testament pag. 435. particularizing that one place Where the word of a King is there is Power and who may say unto him What dost thou Eccl. 8.4 That no Impeachment can lye against him all running in his Name That the King can do no wrong the House of Commons never being a Court of Judicature can erect none He owns an Obligation to God to defend and maintain the Liberties of his People against all such Illegal and Arbitrary Proceedings Pag. 439. But 't was to no purpose to show such Crown-Jewels before such Wolves and Bears that were gaping for his Blood and would not admit his only request to them to be heard for the Welfare of the Kingdom and Liberty of the Subject before they precipitated Sentence against him before the Lords and Commons and pressed it That it may be it was something he had to say they had not heard before Hand But nothing his sacred Majesty could say would move those who under a vile and notorious Lye in the Name of the People the Supreme Authority as they called it passed that barbarous Sentence against that sacred Head to the amazement of the whole World sufficient to raise the utmost Indignation of all good Men against such barbarous Principles and Proceedings CHAP. XIX That the Sovereign may dispense with the Execution of the Laws of his Country in several Cases HAving discoursed of the Kings being unaccountable to any but God Almighty when he governs not according to the Laws of God Nature or his Dominions The Connexion of this with the foregoing Chapter upon that Foundation That there cannot be two Supremes here upon Earth in one Kingdom I come now to discover what Power Kings in general and our Kings in particular have to dispense with the Execution of the Laws upon some cases for it is far from my thoughts ever to suggest any such dangerous assertion That Princes in general may dispense with the Execution of the Laws Plutarch (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Compar Flaminii Philopaemenis setteth this down as a chief point of that natural skill which Philopoemen had in Government That he did not only rule according to the Laws but over-ruled the Laws themselves when he found it conducing to the Weal publick For as the (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Jun. Imp. praef Constit 3. Emperor saith whilst the Laws stand in force it is fit that sometimes the Kings Clemency should be mingled with the severity of them especially when by that means the Subject may be freed from much Detriment and Damage Princes according to the (c) Princeps est supra legem adeo quod secundum conscientiam suam judicare potest Cyrus in L. Rescript c. Judgment of great Lawyers have Power to judge according to their own Conscience and not according to the Letter of the Law and no doubt it was such written Laws as these that (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justinian Novel 105. Justinian the Emperor meant when upon the enacting of a Constitution of this kind he added thereunto this Limitation From all these things which have been said by us let the Emperors State be excepted whereunto God hath subjected the very Laws themselves sending him as a living Law unto Men who therefore in another place assumeth to himself the Title of a Father of the Law Whereupon the (e) Nota Imperatorem vocari patrem Legis under c Leges sune ei subjecte Gloss in Novel 12. c. 4. Glossator maketh this Observation Note That the Emperor is the Father of the Law whereupon the Laws also are subject to him So the great (f) Princeps est supra legem in quantum si expediens est potest legem mutare in ea dispensare pro loco tempore Vid. Thom. in 1.2 q. 96. Artic 5. ad 3. Schoolman saith The Prince is above the Law so far that if it be expedient he may change the Law and dispense with Time and Place as when a Man is condemned to banishment the Prince if he see cause may revoke him from thence and therein saith (g) Gloss in lib. 4. de Poenis Accursius his own Will is accounted a great and just cause Magna justa Causa est ejus Voluntas The Reason of these Assertions is couched in what Aeneas (h) Convenit Imperatori Juris rigorem aequitatis fraeno temperare cui soli inter aequitatem jusque interpositam interpretationem licet incumbit inspicere De Ortu Authoribus Imperii Sylvius observes That there is a certain other thing to which the Emperor is more obnoxious than to the Law and that is Equity which is not always found written Now if the Law doth command one thing and Equity perswade another It is fit the Emperor should temper the Rigor of the Law with the Bridle of Equity as he who alone may and ought to look unto that Interpretation which lyeth interposed betwixt Law and Equity since no Law can sufficiently
in such cases it is not to be wondred at that a majority of Votes might be opposite to more judicious and foreseeing Members judgments neither is the Maxim universally true for it must be caeteris paribus if all things be alike For it is not sufficient for an Adviser to see unless he can let another see by the light of Reason A man ought not implicitely to ground his Actions upon the Authority of other mens Eyes whether many or few but of his own One Physician may see more into the state of a mans body than many Empiricks One experienced Commander may know more in Military Affairs than ten fresh-water Souldiers One old States-man in his own Element is worth many new Practitioners One man upon a Hill may see more than an Hundred in a Valley And who will deny but among an Hundred one of them may have a stronger Eye and see clearer and further than all the Ninety Nine So one Paphnutius in the Council of Nice saw more than many greater Clerks And it is no new thing to find one or two men in the Parliament change the Votes of the House Therefore nothing is got by this way of arguing though it be one of the plausiblest and most improveable of any of the Topicks they choose And if we could be sure that all the Members of such Assemblies were free from all the imperfections such are liable to much might be yielded to it All these Arguments were used for that sole end that they might possess their Party with the reasonableness of their desires to the King that he would implicitly yield up his reason to the guidance of their Councils They were not so frontless at first Concerning the Negative Voice as positively to deny the Kings negative Vote in Parliament that had never been doubted and there is good reason it should be a most sure Fundamental of the Government since nothing can be Statute-law but that to which the King assents Le Roy le veult For who can be said to will that hath not the Power to deny Si vult is scire an velim efficite us possim nolle Seneca But they affirmed that in Cases extraordinary when the Kingdom was to be saved from ruine the King seduced and preferring dangerous men it was necessary for them to take care of the Publick And then the Kings denying to pass their Bills was a deserting of them Objection That in Cases of Extraordinary necessity the Houses to have Power to secure the People from Tyranny Otherwise they alledged Parliaments had not sufficient Power to restrain Tyranny and so they boldly affirmed they had an absolute indisputable Power in declaring Law and as their Observer words it they are not bound to Precedents since Statutes cannot bind them there being no obligation stronger than the Justice and Honour of Parliaments And to summ up all he tells us if the Parliament meaning the two Houses be not vertually the whole Kingdom it self if it be not the supreme Judicature as well in matters of State as matters of Law if it be not the great Council of the Kingdom as well as of the King to whom it belongeth by the consent of all Nations to provide in all extraordinary cases ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica let the brand of Treason saith he stick upon it Indeed because by all these most false and impious assertions and those horrid Acts built upon them they brought so great a ruine to the Kingdom they are and ever will be uâ—less a Platonick year return again branded with Rebellion in the highest degree To answer this Accumulation of Treasonable Positions for such I hope I may call in some sence Answer what is against the Kings Crown and Dignity is no ways difficult from the discourse of right constituted Parliaments For those of them that carry any shew of Reason are such only as may be understood of Acts of Parliament compleated by the Royal Assent but being spoken of either or both Houses in opposition to the King they are most false as I shall shew in particular For First If the two Houses are not bound to keep any Law no man can accuse them of breach of any What obligation can Justice lay on them who by a strange vertue of Representation are not capable of doing wrong But it is well known that Statutes stand in full force to the two Houses as being not void till repealed by a joynt consent of the King and the two Houses It would be much for the credit of the Observers desperate Cause if he were able to shew one such Precedent of an Ordinance made by Parliament without the Kings assent that was binding to the Kingdom in nature of a Law Our Kings can repeal no Laws by their own Prerogative though they may suspend the Execution It seems the Houses would have Power to do both and our Author in another place thinks it strange that the King should assume or challenge such a share in the Legislative Power to himself as without his concurrence the Lords and Commons should have no right to make Temporary Orders for putting the Kingdom into a Posture of Defence These were strange Phrases never heard before by English Ears Our Laws give this Honour to the King That he can joyn or be sharer with no man The King like Solomon's true Mother challengeth the whole Child not a divisible share but the very life of the Legislative Power The Commons present and pray the Lords advise and consent the King Enacts Secondly The Houses have no Power to declare Law As to their claiming an absolute Power in declaring Law it is as bold and false an Assertion as the other when spoken of the two Houses They may vote in order to a new Bill the explaining or repeal of any Law formerly made or prepare a Bill for any New Law and that is all they can do but authoritatively to declare any Law is most contrary to the Constitution of the Houses and never was adjudged one of their Privileges Thirdly As to the Justice and Honour of a Parliament when the State is in quiet and the Conventions only for making wholsome Laws for the Publick weal there are no Factions in Court or Country no private Intriegues to be managed the People neither uneasie nor discontented then it is to be expected That none but the wisest and wealthiest of the Gentry will be chosen Members of that August Assembly and their Justice and Honour will be conspicuous in all their Actions But have we not known Houses of Commons composed of other kinds of Persons who have voted their own Justice and Honour to be to imprison their fellow Members and fellow Subjects in an Arbitrary way How (d) Address part 3. p. 121. could a generous Soul conscious to himself he had transgressed no Law kneel at the Bar of such a House with the same submission as if he believed the Speaker