his Leiges Remember what was said before touching the writ of Summons in the said Kings time From this time till the last Parliament of King Charles there is no Kings reign of which we have not many though not all the Acts of Parliament still in print amongst us Nor is there any Act of Parliament in the printed Books to the enacting of the which the Bishops approbation and consent is not plainly specified either in the general Proeme set before the Acts or in the body of the Act it themself as by the books themselves doth at at large appear And to this kind of proof may be further added the form and manner of the writ by which the Prelates in all times have been called to Parliament being the very same verbatim with that which is directed to the temporal Barons save that the Spiritual Lords are commanded to attend the service in fide dilectione the temporal in fide homagio and of late times in fide ligeantia A form or copy of which summons as antient as King Johns time is still preserved upon Record directed nominatim to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury r V. Titles of hon pt 2. c. 5. and then a scriptum est similiter to the residue of the Bishops Abbats Earls and Barons Then adde the Privilege of Parliament for themselves and their servants during the time of the Sessions the liberty to kill and take one or two of the Kings Deer as they pass by any of his Forests in coming to the Parliament upon his commandement s Charta de Foresta cap. their enjoying of the same immunities which are and have been heretofore enjoyed by the Temporal Barons t Cambden in Britannia and tell me if the Bishops did not sit in Parliament by as good a title and have not sate there longer by some hundreds of years in their Predecessours as or than any of the Temporal Lords do sit or have sat there in their Progenitours and therefore certainly essential fundamental parts of the Court of Parliament 8. But against this it is objected first that some Acts have passed in Parliament to which the Prelates did not vote nor could be present in the House when the Bill was passed as in the sentencing to death or mutilation of a guilty person as doth appear both by the laws constitutions recognized at Clarendon and the following practice This hath been touched on before we told you then that this restraint was laid upon them not by the Common law of England or any Act or Ordinance of the House of Peers by which they were disabled to attend that service It was their own voluntary Act none compelled them to it but only out of a conformity to some former Canons ad sanctorum Canonum instituta x Antiqu. Brit. in Gul. Courtney as their own words are by which it was not lawfull for the Clergy men to be either Judges or Assessors in causa Sanguinis y Constitut Othobon fol. 45. And yet they took such care to preserve their Interests that they did not only give their Proxies for the representing of their persons but did put up their Protestation with a salvo jure for the preserving of their rights for the time to come jure Paritatis interessendi in dicto Parliamento z Antiqu. Britan. in Gul. Courtney quoad omnia singula ibi excercenda in omnibus semper salvo as the manner was Examples of the which are as full and frequent as their withdrawing themselves on the said occasions But then the main objection is that as some Acts have passed in Parliament absentibus Praelatis when the Bishops did absent themselves of their own accord so many things have been transacted in the Parliament excluso Clero when the Clergy have been excluded or put out of the House by some Act or Ordinance A precedent for this hath been found and published by such as envied that poor remnant of the Churches honour though possibly they will find themselves deceived in their greatest hope and that the evidence will not serve to evince the cause The Author of the Pamphlet entituled The Prerogative and practice of Parliaments first laying down his Tenet that many good Acts of Parliament may be made though the Arch-bishops and Bishops should not consent unto them a Printed at London 1628. p. 37. which is a point no man doubts of considering how easily their negative may be over-ruled by the far greater number in the House of Peers adds that at a Parliament holden at S. Edmundsbury 1196 in the reign of Ed 1. a Statute was made by the King the Barons and the Commons Excluso Clero for the proof herof refers us unto Bishop Jewell Now Bishop Jewell saith indeed that in a Parliament solemnly holden at St. Edmunsbury by King Edward 1. Anno 1296. the Arch-bishops and Bishops were quite shut forth and yet the Parliament held on and good and wholsome laws were there enacted the departing or absence of the Lords Spiritual notwithstanding b Defence of the Apolog. pt 6. c. 2. §. 1. In the Records whereof it is written thus Habito Rex cum Baronibus suis Parliamento Clero excluso statutum est c. the King keeping the Parliament with his Barons the Clergy that is to say the Arch-bishops and Bishops being shut forth it was enacted c. Wherein who doth not see if he hath any eyes that by this reason if the proof be good many good Acts of Parllament may be made though the Commons either out of absence or opposition should not consent unto them of whose consent unto that Statute whatsoever it was there is as little to be found in that Record as the concurrence of the Bishops But for Answer unto so much of this Record so often spoke of and applauded as concerns the Bishops we say that this if truly senced as I think it be not was the particular act of an angry and offended King against his Clergy not to be drawn into example as a proof or Argument against a most clear known and undoubted right The case stood thus A Constitution had been made by Boniface the 8th Ne aliqua collecta ex ecclesiasticis proventibus Regi aut cuivis alii Principi concedatur c Matth. Westm in Edw. 1. that Clergy men should not pay any tax or tallage unto Kings or Princes out of their Spiritual preferments without the leave of the Pope under pretence whereof the Clergy at this Parliament at S. Edmundsbury refused to be contributory to the Kings occasions when the Lay-Members of the House had been forwards in it The King being herewith much offended gives them a further day to confider of it adjourning the Parliament to London there to begin on the morrow after S. Hilaries day and in the mean time commanded all their Barns to be fast sealed up The day being come and the Clergy still
persisting in their former obstinacy excluso e Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus populo habuit totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit d Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchelsey the King saith the Historian excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament advised with his Barons and his people only what was best to be done by whose advise he put the Clergy out of his protection and thereby forced them to conform to his will and pleasure This is the summa totalis of the business and comes unto no more but this that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular displeasure taken by the King against the body of his Clergy then convened together for their particular refusal to contribute to his wants wars the better to reduce them to their natural duty Which makes not any thing at all against the right of Bishops in the House of Peers or for excluding them that House or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together and did excuse himself for many extravagant Acts which he had committed e Walsingâ— in Edw. 1. anno 1297. against the liberties of the Subject whereof this was one laying the blame thereof on his great occasions and the necessities which the wars which he had abroad did impose upon him And so much as in Answer unto that Record supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced as I think they are not and that by Clerus there we are to understand Arch-bishops and Bishops as I think we be not there being no Record I dare boldly say it either of History or Law in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Arch-bishops and Bishops exclusive of the other Clergy or any writing whatsoever wherein it doth not either signifie the whole Clergy generally or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Arch-bishops Bishops and other Prelates Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavil of Excluso Clero from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time we must not understand the inâ—eriour Clergy as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the ecclesiastical notion of the word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally Arch-bishops Bishops Priests and Deacons yet in the legal notion of it it stands distinguished from the Prelates and signifieth only the inferiour Clergy Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates men of Religion and other Clerks 3. Edw. 1. c. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks 9 Edw. 2. c. 3. 1 Rich. 2. c. 3. or Prelates and Clerks beneficed 18 Edw. 3. c. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy 9 Edw. 2. c. 15. 14 Edw. 3. c. 1 3. 18 Edw. 3. 2. 7. 25 Edw. 3. 2. 4. 8 Hen. 6. c. 1. and in all acts and grants of Subsidies made by the Clergy to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 of Henry 8. when the Clergy subsidies first began to be confirmed by act of Parliament So also in the Latin ideom which comes neerest home Nos Praelati Clerus in the submission of the Clergy to King Henry 8. f Regist Waâ—ham and in the sentence of divorce against Anne of Cleve g Regist Cranmer and in the instrument of the grant of the Clergy subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27 of Queen Elizabeth and in the form of the Certificates per h Statut. 8 Eliz. c. 17. ever since Praelatâ—s Clerum returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer and finally Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur congregati i Stat. 1 Phil. Mar. c. 8. in the petition to K. K. Phillip and Mary about the confirmation of the Abby lands to the Patentees So that though many Statutes have been made in these later times excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferiour Clergy being quite shut out and utterly excluded from those publick Counsails yet this proves nothing to the point that auy act of Parliament hath been counted good to which the Bishops were not called or at the making of which Act they either were shut out by force or excluded by cunning As for Kilbancies book which that Author speaks of k Prerâ—g pract of Paâ—l p. 38. in which the Justices are made to say 7 H. 8. that our Soveraign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords and by the Commons also without the Spiritual Lords for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament chamber by reason of their Spiritualties but by reason of their Temporal possessions besides that it is only the opinion of a privat man of no authority or credit in the Common wealth and contrary to the practice in the Saxon times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual persons not as Barons the reason for ought I can see will serve as well to pretermit all or any of the Temporal Lords as it can serve to pretermit or exclude the Bishops the Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony 9. If it be said that my second answer to the argument of Excluso Clero supposeth that the inferiour â—lergy had some place in Parliament which being not to be supposed makes the Answer void I shall crave leave to offer some few observations unto the consideration of the sober and impartial Reader by which I hope to make that supposition probable and perhaps demonstrative First then we have that famous Parliament call it Concilium magnum or Concilium commune or by what other name soever the old writers called it summoned by King Ethelbert anno 605. which my l Concil Hen. Spelm. Author calleth Commune concilium tam Cleri quam Populi where Clerus comprehendeth the body of the Clergy generally aswell the Presbyters as the Bishops as the word populus doth the lay-subject generally as well Lords as Commons or else the Lords and Commons one of the two must be needs left out And in this sense we are to understand these words in the latter times as where we read that Clerus m Matth. Paris in Hen. 1. Angliae populus Vniversus were summoned to appear at Westminster at the Coronation of King Henry the first where divers Laws were made and declared subscribed by the Arch-bishops Bishops and others of the principal persons that were there assembled that Clero populo
Titles of hon part 2. cap. 5. to give the King their best advice in his great affairs So that the Prelates and Nobility conveened in Parliament made the Kings great Counsel and were called thither to that end What then belonged unto the Commons 1. No more than did belong to the Clergy also that is to say the giving of their consent to such Laws and Statutes as should there be made VVhich notwithstanding in tract of time gave them such a sway and stroak in the course of Parliaments that no law could be made nor no tax imposed without their liking and allowance And this is that which is expressed in the last clause of the said writ by which the Knights and Burgesses are to come prepared g Form a Brevis c. ad faciendum et consentiendum iis quae tune ibidem de consilio dicti Regni nostri super negotiis antedictis contigerint ordinari VVhich is the very same which you had before in the writ directed to the Bishops for summoning the Clergie of their several Diocesses and that here is a faciendum which the other had not A word which if you mark it well hath no operation in the Construction of the text except it be in paying subsidies or doing such things as are appointed to be done by that great Counsel of the Kingdom VVhich clause though it be cunningly left out that I may say no worse in the recital of the writ by the Author of the Book entituled the Prerogative and practice of Parliaments is most ingenuously acknowledged in the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon h Declaration of the treaty P. 15. where it is said that the writs of summons the foundation of all power in Parliament are directed to the Lords in expresse termes to treat and advise with the King and the rest of the Peers of the Kingdom of England and to the Commons to do and consent to those things which by that Common councell of England should be ordained And thus it stands as with the Common people generally in most states of Christendom so with the Commons antiently in most states of Greece of which Plutarch telleth us i Plutarch in Lyeurgo that when the people were assembled in Counsell it was not lawful for any of them to put forth matters to the Counsel to be determined neither might any of them deliver his opinion what he thought of any thing but the people had only authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give their assent unto such things as either the Senators or their Kings do propound unto them 10. But against this it is objected first that it is not to be found at what time the Clergie lost their place and vote in Parliament and therefore it may reasonably be presumed that they had never any there and 2ly that if they had been called ad consentiendum though no more than so we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts Statutes in our printed Books For answer unto which it may first be said that to suppose the Clergie had no voice in Parliament because it is not to be found when they lost that Privilege is such a kind of Argument if it be an argument as is made by Bellarmine k Bellarm. de Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 5. to prove that many of the controverted Tenets of the Church of Rome are neither terroneous nor new because we cannot say expressely quo tempore quo autore when and by whose promoting they first crept in And though we cannot say expressely when the inferiour Clergy lost their place in Parliament in regard it might be lost by discontinuance or non-usage or that the clause was pretermitted for some space of time the better to disuse them from it or that they might neglect the service in regard of their attendance in the Convocation which gave them power and reputation both with the Common people yet I have reason to beleeve that this pretermission and disuse did chiefly happen under the government of the Kings of the house of Lancaster who being the true heirs and successours of Iohn of Gaunt cast many a longing eye on the Church revenues and hardly were perswaded to abstain from that height of sacrilege which Henry the 8 did aftercome to And this I am induced to beleeve the rather in regard that in the confirmation of the Churches rights so solemnly confirmed and ratified in all former Parliaments there was a clog put to or added in these times which shaked the Fabrick the confirmation being first of such rights and liberties as were not repealed 3. Hen. 5. cap. 1. 4 Hen. 5. cap. 1. and afterwards of such as by the Common law were not repealeable 2 Hen. 6. cap. 1. which might go very far indeed And secondly I find that in the 8 of Henry the 6. an Act of Parliament was passed that all the Clergy called to Convocation by the Kings writ and their servants and Family shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and defence in comming tarrying and returning as the great men and Comminalty of the Realm of England called to the Kings Parliament do enjoy l 8 Hen. 6. cap. 1. c. Which being an unnecessary care or caution when the Clergie had their voice in Parliament and very necessary to be taken formerly if they had never had such voice makes me conceive that it was much about this time that they lost that privilege But this I leave as a conjecture and no more than so For answer to the second argument that if they had been called of old ad consentiendum we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts and Statutes of the former times besides that it is a negative proof and so non concludent it strikes as much against the presence and consent of the Knights and Burgesses in the elder Parliaments as it can do against the Clergie For in the elder Parliaments under K. Henry 3. and K. Edward the first there is no mention of the Commons made at all either as present or consenting nor much almost in all the Parliaments till K. Henry 7. but that they did petition for redresse of greivances and that upon their special instance and request m In the Proem to the several Sessions several laws were made for the behoof and benefit of the Commonwealth which part the Clergie also acted in some former Parliaments as before was shewed So that this negative Argument must conclude against both or neither But secondly I answer that in these elder times in which the Proctors for the Clergy had their place in Parliament they are included generally in the name of the Commons And this I say on the authority of the old modus tenendi Parliamentum in which the Commons are divided in the Spiritualty and the Temporalty and where it is expressely said that the Proctors for
it should be otherwise in the present times the equity and justice of it being still the same and the same reasons for it now as forcible as they could be then Had it been otherwise resolved of in the former ages wherein the Clergy were so prevalent in all publique Counsails how easie a matter had it been for them either by joyning with the Nobility to exclude the Commons or by joyning with the Commonalty to exclude the Nobles Or having too much conscience to adventure on so great a change an alteration so incompatible and inconsistent with the Constitution of a Parliament how easily might they have suppressed the potency and impaird the Privileges of either of the other two by working on the humours or affections of the one to keep down the other But these were Arts not known in the former daies nor had been thought of in these last but by men of ruine who were resolved to change the Government as the event doth shew too clearly both of Church and State Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree to say that the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers was not done meerly by the practice of the two other Estates but by the asseâ—t of the King of whom the Laws say he can do no wrong and by an Act of Parliament wherof our Laws yet say quae â—ul doit imaginer chose dishonourable c Plowden in Commentar that no man is to think dishonourably For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act to what extremities he was reduced on what terms he stood how he was forced to flye from his City of London to part with his dear Wife and Children and in a word so overpowred by the prevailing party in the two Houses of Parliament that it was not safe for him as his case then was to deny them any thing And for the Act of Parliament so unduly gained besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House when contrary unto the course of Parliament it was brought again it is a point resolved both in Law and reason that the Parliament can do nothing to the destruction of it self and that such Acts as are extorted from the King are not good and valid whereof we have a fair example in the Book of Statuers d 15 Ed. 3. For whereas the King had granted certain Articles pretended to be granted in the form of a Statute expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm and his own Prerogative and rights royal mark it for this is just the case which he had yielded to eschew the dangers which by denying of the same were like to follow in the same Parliament it was repealed in these following words It seemed good io the said Earls Barons and other wise men that since the Statute did not proceed of our free will the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their counsail and assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void c. Or if it should not be repealed in a formal manner yet is this Act however gotten void in effect already by a former Statute in which it was enacted in full Parliament and at the self same place where this Act was gained that the Great Charter by which and many other Titles the Bishops held their place in Parliament should be kept in all points and if any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none e 42 Ed. 3. c. 1. CHAP. VI. That the three Estates of every Kingdom whereof CALVIN speaks have no authority either to regulate the power or controll the Actions of the Soveraign Prince I. The Bishops and Clergy of England not the King make the third Estate and of the dangerous consequences which may follow on the contrary Tenet II. The different influence of the three Estates upon conditional Princes and an absolute Monarch III. The Sanhedrim of no authority over the persons or the actions of the Kings of Judah IV. The three Estates in France of 〈◊〉 small authority over the actions of that King V. The King of Spain not over-ruled or regulated by the three Estates VI. Of what authority they have been antiently in the Parliaments of Scotland VII The King of England alwaies accounted heretofore for an absolute Monarch VIII 〈◊〉 part of Soveraignty invested legally in the English Parliaments IX The three Estates assembled in the Parliament of England subordinate unto the King not co-ordinate with him X. The Legislative power of Parliaments is properly and legally in the King alone XI In what particulars the power of the English Parliament doth consist especially XII The Kings of England ordinarily over-rule tâ—eir Parliaments by themselves their Counsel and their Judges XIII Objections answered touching the power and practice of some former Parliaments and the testimonies given unto them XIV No such Authority given by God in Holy Scripture to any such Popular Magistrates as CALVIN dreams of and pretends XV. The Application and Conclusion of the whole Discourse I Have been purposely more copious in the former Chapter because I thought it necessaâ—y to declare and manifest who made the three Estates in each several Kingdom which are pretended by our Author to have such power of regulating the authority and censuring the actions and the persons of their Soveraign Princes And this the rather in regard it is thought of late and more than thought presented to the world in some publick writings especially as it relates to the Realm of England that the King the Lords and Commons make the three Estates which brings the King into an equal rank with the other two in reference to the businesse and affairs of Parliament A fancy by what Accident soever it was broached and published which hath no consistence either with truth or ordinary observation or with the practice of this Realm or of any other For the proof of this my position that the King is none of the three Estates as is now pretended if all proofs else should fail I have one from Calvin whose judgement in this point amongst many of us will be instar omnium For where he saith in singulis Regnis tres esse Ordines e Calvin instâ—t 4. cap. ult that there are three Estates in each several Kingdom and that these three Estates convened in Parliament or by what other name soever they call their meeting are furnished with a power Regum libidinem moderandi of moderating the licentiousness of Kings and Princes and that they become guilty of perfidious dissimulation si Regibus impotenter grassantibus c. If they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or wantonly insult on the Common-people I trow it cannot be conceived that the King is any one of the three Estates who are here
or interrupted by any claim of right made in the behalf of the two Houses which is as sure a title as the Law can make the Houses have declared by a Act of Parliament a Sâ—at 7 Ed. 1. cap. 1. that of right it belongs unto the King streightly to defend that is prohibit all force of Arms and that the Parliament is bound to aid him in that prohibition Touching the Royal navy and the ports and forts the Kings prescription to them is so strong and binding that in the 3d. of Edward 3. Edw. 3. the House of Commons did disclaim the having cognisance of such matters as the guarding of the Seas and marches of the Kingdome which certainly they had not done had they pretended any title to the ports and navy As for suppressing tumults and providing for the safety of the Kingdom against sudden danger the Law commits it solely to the care of the King obliging every Subject by the duty of his allegeance to aid and assist him at all seasons when need shall require b 11 Henr. 7. c. 18. And for their power of declaring law in the House of Peers wherein they deliver their opinion in the point before them in true propriety of speech they have none at all c Case of our Affairs p. 4. And this is that which was affirmed by his Majesty at the end of the Parliament Anno 1628. saying that it belonged only to the Iudges under him to interpret laws and that none of the Houses of Parliament joynt or separate what new Doctrine soever might be raised had any power either to make or declare law without his consent d 3 Car. And if it be done with his consent it is not so properly the declaring and interpreting of an old law as the making rather of a new saith a learned Gentleman e Case of our affairs P. 5. 9. Others have found out a new way to invest the Parliament with the robes of Soveraignty not as superiour to the King but co-ordinate with him and this say they appears sufficiently in that the two Houses of Parliament have not only a power of consulting but of consenting and that too in the highest office of the Monarchy whereof they are a Coordinative part the making of Laws f Fuller Answer to D. F. p. 2. Which dangerous doctrin as it was built at first on that former error which makes the King to be one of the three Estates in Parliament so it is super-structed with some necessary consequents whether more treasonable or ridiculous it is hard to say For on these grounds the Author of the Fuller Answers hath presented us with these trim devises g Id. pag. 1. viz. that England is not a simple subordinate and absolute but a coordinative and mixt Monarchy that this mixt Monarchy is compounded of three coordinate Estates a King and two Houses of Parliament that these three make but one supreme but that one is a mixt one or else the Monarchy were not mizt and finally which needs must follow from the premises that although every Member of the Houses sâ—orsim taken severally may be called a Subject yet all collective in their houses are no Subjects Auditum admissi risum teneatis Can any man hear these serious follies and abstain from laughter or think a fellow who pretends both to wit and learning should talk thus of a Monarchy which every one that knoweth any thing in Greek know to imply the supreme government of one compounded of three coordinate Estates and those coordinate Estates consisting of no fewer than 600 persons Or that a man who can pretend but to so much use of reason as to distinguish him from a beast could fall on such a senselest Dotage as to make the same man at the same time to be a Subject and no Subject a Subject in the Streets and in his private House no Subject when he sits in Haberdashers Hall for advance of moneys or in either of the two Houses of Parliament And yet this senseless Doctrine is become so dangerous because so universally admired and hearkned to that the beginning and continuance of our long Disturbances may chiefly be ascribed unto this opinion to which they have seduced the poor ignorant people The rather in regard that some who have undertook the confutation of these brainless solies have most improvidently granted not only h As in the book called Conscience satisfied that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort coordinate with the King ad aliquid to some Act or exercising of the supreme power that is to the making of Laws but that this coordination of the three Estates of which the King is yielded every where for one is fundamental and held by the two Houses on no worse a title than a fundamental Constitution which is as much as any reasonable Parliamentarian need desire to have Therefore in Answer to the Fuller not taking notice of his foolish and seditious inferences we will clear those points 1. That the two Houses of Parliament are not coordinate with the King but subordinate to him And 2. that the power of making laws is properly and legally in the King alone As for the first we had before a Recognition made by Act of Parliament by which the Kingdom of England is acknowledged to be an Empire governed by one supreme head and King to whom all sorts and degrees of people ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience i 24 H. 8. c. 12. which certainly the Lords and Commons had not made to the dethroning of themselves their heirs and successors from this coordinative part of Soveraignty if any such coordination had been then believed Or if it be supposed to excuse the matter that K. Henry the 8th being a severe and terrible Prince did wrest this Recognition from them which yet will hardly serve for a good defence what shall we say to the like recognition made in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign k 1 Eliz. c. 1. when she was green in State and her power unsetled and so less apt to work upon her people by threats and terrors Assuredly had the Houses dream't in those broken times of that coordinative Soveraignty which is now pretended they might have easily regained it and made up that breach which by the violent assaults of King Henry the 8th had been made upon them which was a point they never aimed at Besides if this coordinative mâ—jesty might be once admitted it musts needs follow that though the King hath no Superiour he hath many Equalls and where there is Equality there is no Subjection But Bracton tells us in plain terms not only that the King hath no Superiour in his Realm except God almighty but no Equal neither and the reason which he gives is exceeding strong Quia sic amitteret praeceptum cum par in Parem non habeat potestatem l Bracton de leg Aâ—gl
declared to have been fortified by sundry Laws and Ordinances made in former Parliaments k Ibid. and such as hath been since confirmed by a solemn Oath taken and to be taken by most of the Subjects of this Kingdom Which Oath consisting of two parts the one Declaratory and the other Promissory in the Declaratory part the man thus taketh it doth declare and testifie in his conscience that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Dominions and Countries aswell in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal c. l 1 Eliz. c. 1. And in the Promissooy part they make Oath and swear that to their power they will assist and defend all Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Succcesseors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Put all which hath been said together and it will appear that if to have merum imperium a full and absolute command and all the jura majestatis which belong to Soveraignty if to be so supreme as to hold immediatly of God to have all persons under him none but God above him if to have all authority and jurisdiction to be vested in him and proceeding from him and the material sword at his sole disposal for the correcting of offenders and the well ordering of his people if to have whole and entire power of rendring justice and final determination of all causes to all manner of Subjects us also to interpret and dispence with Laws and all this ratified and confirmed unto him by the solemn Oath of his Subjects in the Court of Parliament be enough to make an absolute Monarch the Kings of England are more absolute Monarchs than either of their Neighbours of France or Spain 8. If any thing may be said to detract from this it is the new devise so much pressed of late of placing the chief Soveraignty or some part thereof in the two Houses of Parliament concerning which Mr. Prynne published a discourse entituled The supreme power of Parliaments and Kingdoms and others in their Pamphlets upon that Argument have made the Parliament so absolute and the King so limited that of the two the Members of the Houses are the greater Monarchs But this is but a new devise not heard of in our former Monuments Records of Law nor proved or to be proved indeed by any other Medium than the Rebellions of Cade Tiler Straw Kett Mackerell and the rest of that rascall rabble m Prynnes book of Parl. c. pâ— 3. or the seditious Parliaments in the time of K. Henry the 3d. King Edward the 2d and King Richard the 2d when civil war and faction carried all before it For neither have the Houses or either of them enjoyed such Soveraignty de facto in times well setled and Parliaments lawfully assembled nor ever could pretend to the same de jure Or if they did as many have been apt enough to raise false pretences it would much trouble them to determine whether this Soveraignty be conferred upon them by the King or the people whether it be in either of the Houses severally or in both united If they can challenge this pretended Soveraignty in neither of these capacities nor by none of these Titles it may be warrantably concluded that there is no such Soveraignty as they do pretend to And first there is no part nor branch of Soveraignty conferred upon them by the King The writs of Summons which the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon. 1643. doth most truly call the foundation of all power in Parliament n Declaration of the Treaty p. 15. tell us no such matter The writ directed to the Lords doth enable them only to confer and treat with one another consilium vestrum impendere and to advise the King in such weighty matters as concern the safety of the Kingdom But they are only to advise not compell the King to counsell him but not controll him and to advise and counsel are no marks of Soveraignty but rather works of service and subordination Nor can they come to give this Counsel without he invite them and being invited by his writ cannot choose but come except he excuse them which are sure notes of duty and subjection but very sory signs of power and soveraignty 'T is true that being come together they may and sometimes do on a writ of Error examin and reverse or affirm such judgements as have been given in the Kings Bench and from their sentence in the case there is no appeal but only to the whole body of that Court the King and both the Houses the Head and Members o Case of our Affairs p. 7 8. But this they do not as the upper house of Parliament but as the distinct court of the Kings Barons of Parliament of a particular and ministerial jurisdiction to some intents and purposes and to some alone which though it doth invest them with a power of judicature confers not any thing upon them which belongs to Soveraignty Then for the Commons all which the writ doth call them to is facere consentire to do and consent unto such things which are ordained by the Lords and Common Counsel of the Kingdom of England and sure conformity and consent which is all the writ requireth from them are no marks of Soveraignty nor can an Argument be drawn from thence by the subtillest Sophister to shew that they are called to be partakers of the Soveraign power or that the King intends to denude himself of any branch or leaf thereof to hide their nakednesse And being met together in a body collective they are so far from having any share in Soveraignty that they cannot properly be called a Court of Judicature as neither having any power to minister an Oath p Id. p. 9. or to imprison any body except it be some of their own Members if they see occasion which are things incident to all Courts of Justice and to every Steward of a Leet insomuch that the House of Coâ—mons is compared by some â—and not incongruosly unto the Grand Inquest at a general Sessions q Review of the Observat p. 22. whose principal work it is to receive bils and prepare businesses and make them fit and ready for my Lords the Judges Nay so far were they heretofore from the thoughts of Soveraignty that they were lyable to sutes and punishments for things done in Parliament though only to the prejudice of a private Subject untill King Henry 8. most graciously passed a Law for their indemnity For whereas Richard Strode one of the company of Tinners in the County of Cornwall being a Member of the Commons House had spoken somwhat to the prejudice of that Society and contrary to the Ordinances of the Stanneries at his return into the Country â—e was arested fined imprisoned Complaint whereof being
the Clergie the Knights the Citizens and the Burgesses did represent the whole Comminalty of the Realm of England a Cap. ult And this holds good in law for ought I find unto the contrary to this very day Certain I am that Crompton in his book of the Iurisdiction of Courts where he fpeakes of Parliaments doth tell us that the Knights Citizens Burgesses and Barons of the Cinque ports b Grompton Iurisd des Courts caâ— ove le Clergie qu' eux assemble au Pawles represent le corps de tout le Comminalty Dengliterre together with the Clergie which assembled at S. Pauls doe represent the body of the whole Comminalty of England So then the Clergie were not only called but were present also according to that clause in the writ of Summons which before I spake of directed to their several and respective Bishops as the Kings spiritual Sheriffs if I may so say inabled by the Laws to that end and purpose Which some endeavouring to avoid have at last found out that the clause before recited out of the Writ to the Bishops is not a calling of the Clergy to attend in Parliament but to command them to attend in the Convocation which I have heard much pressed by those who pretend unto some knowledge in the course of things Which though it be a gross mistake and inconsistent with the words and circumstances of the VVrit it self which relates meerly to the Parliament and business of a Parllamentarie nature yet for the clearing of the point and undeceiving such as have been deceived they may please to know that besides this VVrit by which the Clergy are commanded to appear in Parliament there is another writ and another form of calling them unto the service of the Convocation which is briefly this The King sends out his VVrit or Mandat to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury requiring him super quibusdam arduis urgentibus negotiis c. n Regist Warham for divers great and weighty reasons concerning the Kings honour the Churches safety and the publick peace of his dominions to summon all the Bishops Deans and Chapters Arch-deacons and the whole Clergy of his Province to meet in Convocation at a day and place appointed On the reception of which Writ the Arch-bishop sendeth out his Monitory to the Bishop of London who by his place is Dean of the Episcopal College o Antiqu. Britan. in initio and to disperse the Mandates of the Metropolitan requiring him to appear himself in person and to send out his warrant unto every Bishop of the Province to appear there also and to take order that the Deans of the Cathedrals and Arch-deacons personally the Chapter by one Procurator the Clergy of the Diocese by two whom we usually call Clerks of the Convocation do attend that service p b Regist Warham VVhich comming to the hands of each several Bishop they do accordingly give intimation to their Deans and Chapters to their Arch-deacons and the Clergy and they accordingly prepare themselves to obey the Monitory and to return Certificate of their doings in it The like proceeding is observed also for the Province of York So that the calling of the Clergy to the Convocation being by a different VVrit and another form which hath no reference to nor dependance on the writs directed by the K. to each several Bishop for their attendance in the Parliament it must needs be as I conceive it that by that clause remaining in the VVrits aforesaid the Clergy have good right and title to a voice in Parliament though they have lost their jus in re the benefit the use and possession of it 11. But I speak this as once the Apostle said in another case not by commandement but by permission For I perswade my self the Clergy do not aim so high at the recovery of a right so long antiquated and disused but would be well enough content with the restitution of the Bishops to their vote in Parliament of which they stood possessed by so strong a Title as the very constitution of the Parliament and the fundamental laws of the English government could confer upon them For though the Bishops sate in Parliament in their own personal capacities and not as the representative body of the Clergy yet the poor Clergy found it some respect unto them to be thus honoured in their heads and were the more obliged to obey such Acts as were established in that Court wherein these heads had opportunity of interceding if perhaps any thing were propounded which might be grievous to the Clergy and many times a power of hindering and diverting if not by voice and numbers yet by strength of reasons They were not altogether Slaves and Bond-men whilest the Church held that remnant of her antient rights for whilest the heads retained that honor the body could not choose but rejoyce in it and be cherished by it But since they have been stripped of that by what unworthy Acts the world knows too well they are become of such condition that the most despicable Tradesman in a Corporate Town is more considerable in the eye of the State and hath a greater interesse in the affairs thereof than the greatest Prelate and to say truth than all the Clergy of the Realm For being there are three Ingredients which make up a Freeman as S. Francis Bacon well observed in his speech concerning the Post-nati that is to say 1. jus Civitatis which did inable a man to buy and sell and to take Inheritances 2. jus suffragii a voice in the passing of Laws and Election of Officers and 3. jus honoris a capability of such offices and honors as the State could give him the Clergy by this means are limited to the first right only utterly excluded from the other two and therby put into a worse condition than the meanest Freeman in the Kingdome Insomuch that whereas every needy Artizan if he be free of any Corporate Town or City every Cottager that dwelleth in an antient Burrough and every Clown which can lay claim to sorty shillings per Annum of free hold either for life or of inheritance hath a voyce in Parliament either in person or by Proxie and is not bound by any law but what himself consents to in his Representatives the Clergy only of this Realm as the case now stands being one of the greatest States of this Kingdom as is acknowledged expresly in terminis by Act of Parliament p 8 Eliz. c. 1. are neither capable of place there in their personal capacities nor suffered to be there in their Procuratours as of old they were nor have so much as any voice in choosing of the Knights and Burgesses which represent the body of the people generally I know it hath been said in reply to this that the Clergy may give voices at the election of the Knights and Burgesses and that it is their own neglect if they do it not But I know too
beginning of the Reign of King Edward the third till the beginning of the reign of King Henry the 7th save that sometimes we find the Lords complaining r 10 Ed. 3. c. or petitioning Å¿ 21 Ed. 3. c. and the Commons assenting t 28 Ed. 3. c. as their occasions did require and sometime also no other motive represented but the Kings great desire to provide for the ease and safety of his people upon deliberation had with the Prelates and Nobles and learned men assisting with their mutual Counsell u 23 Ed. 3. And all this while there is no question to be made but that the power of making Laws was conceived to be the chiefest flower of the Royal Diademe to which the Lords and Commons neither joynt nor separate did not pretend the smallest Title more than petitioning for them or assenting to them it being wholly left to the Kings grace and goodness whether he would give ear or not unto their petitions or hearken unto such advise as the Lords or other great men gave him in behalf of his people And this is that which was declared in the Parliament by the Lords and Commons and still holds good as well in point of Law as Reason that it belonged unto the regality of the King to grant or deny what Petitions x 2 Her 5. in Parliament he pleaseth But as the Kings came in upon doubtfull Titles or otherwise were necessitated to comply with the peoples humours as sometimes they were so did the Parliaments make use of the opportunities for the increase of their authoritie at least in the formalities of Law and other advantages of expression So that in the minority of King Henry the sixth unto those usual words by the advise and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at the special instance and request of the Commons which were inserted ordinarily into the body of the Acts from the beginning of the reign of King Henry the 6th was added this By the authority of the said Parliament y 3 Hen. 6. c. 2. 8 H. 6. 3. c. But still it is to be observed that though those words were added to the former clause yet the power of granting or ordaining was acknowledged to belong to the King alone as in the places in the Margin where it is said Our Lord the King considering the premises by the advise and assent and at the request aforesaid hath ordained and granted by the authority of the said Parliament 3 H. 6. 2. and our Lord the King considering c. hath ordained and established by authority of this Parliament 8 H. 6. 3. And thus it generally stood but every general rule may have some exceptions till the beginning of the reign of King Henry the 7th about which time that usual clause the special instance or request of the Commons began by little and little to be laid aside and that of their advise or assent to be inserted in the place thereof for which I do refer you to the book at large Which though it were some alteration of the former stile and that those words By the authority of this present Parliament may make men think that the Lords and Commons did then pretend some title unto the power of making laws yet neither advising or assenting are so operative in the present case as to transfer the power of making laws to such as do advise about them or assent unto them not can the alâ—eration of the forms and stiles used in antient times import an alteration of the form of Government unless it can be shewed as I think it cannot that any of our Kings did renounce that power which properly and solely did belong unto them or did by any solemn Act of Communication confer the same upon the Lords and Commons convened in Parliament And this is that which is resolved and declared in our Common law where it is said z Cited in the unlawfulness of resist p 107. Le Roy fait les loix avec le consent du Seigneurs et communs et non pas les Seigneurs et communs avec le consent du Roy that is to say that the King makes Laws in Parliament by the assent of the Lords and Commoni and not the Lords and Commons by the assent of the King And for a further proof of this and for the clearing of this point that the Lords and Commons pretend to no more power in the making of laws than opportunity to propound and advise about them and on mature advise to give their several Assents unto them we need but look into the first Act of the Parliament in the third year of King Charles being a Recognition of some antient Rights belonging to the English subject An Act conceived according to the primitive form in way of a Petition to the Kings most excellent Majesty a Statut. 3 Carol. in which the Lords and Commons do most humbly pray as their Rights and Liberties that no such things as they complained of might be done hereafter that his Majesty would vouchsafe to declare that the Awards doings and proceedings to the prejudice of his people in any of the premises shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example and that he would be pleased to declare his Royal pleasure that in the point aforesaid all his Officers and Ministers should serve him according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm To which although the King returned a fair general Answer assuring them that his Subjects should have no cause for the time to come to complain of any wrong or oppressions contrary to their just Righâ—s and Liberties yet this gave little satisfaction till he came in person and causing the Petition to be distinctly read by the Clerk of the Crown b Ibid. returned his Answer in these words Soit droit fait come est desire that is to say let right be done as is desired Which being the very formal words by which the said Petition and every clause and Article therein contained became to be a law and to have the force of an Act of Parliament and being there is nothing spoken of the concurrent authority of the Lords and Commons for the enacting of the same may serve instead of many Arguments for the proof of this that the Legislative power as we phrase it now is wholly and solely in the King although restrained in the exercise and use thereof by constant custome unto the counsel and consent of the Lords and Commons Le Roy veult c Smith de Rep. Angl. or the King will have it so is the imperative phrase by which the Propositions of the Lords and Commons are made Acts of Parliament And let the Lords and Commons agitate and propound what Laws they please for their ease and benefit as generally all Laws and Statutes are more for the ease and benefit of the Subject than the advantage of the King yet
in number nor more obvious than those of our Kings serving their turns by and upon their Parliaments as their occasions did require For not to look on higher and more Regal times we find that Richard the 2d a Prince not very acceptable to the Common people could get an Act of Parliament t 21 Ric. 2. to confirm the extrajudicial opinion of the Iudges given before at Notingham that King Henry 4th could by an other Act reverse all that Parliament u 1 Hen 4. entayl the Crown to his posterity and keep his Dutchy of Lancaster and all the Lands and Seigneuries of it from being united to the Crown that King Edward the 4th could have a Parliament to declare all the Kings of the House of Lancaster to be Kings in fact but not in right x 1 Ed. c. 1. and for uniting of that Dutchy to the Crown Imperial notwithstanding the former Act of separation that King Richard the 3d. could have a Parliament to bastardize all his Brothers Children to set the Crown on his own head though a most bloody Tyrant and a plain Usurper y Speeds hist in K. Richard 3. that King Henry 7. could have the Crown entayled by an Act of Parliament to the issue of his own body z Verulam hist of K. Hen 7. without relation to his Queen of the house of York which was conceived by many at that time to have the better Title to it another for paying a Benevolence which he had required of the subject a 11 Hen. 7. c. 10. though all Benevolences had been damned by a former Statute made in the short but bloody reign of King Richard the 3d. that King Henry 8. b 65 Hen. 8. c. 22 28. c. 7. 35 H. 8. c. 1. could have one Act of Parliament to bastardry his Daughter Mary in favour of the Lady Elizabeth another to declare the Lady Elizabeth to be illegitimate in expectation of the issue by Queen Jane Seymour a third for setling the succession by his Will and Testament and what else he pleased that Queen Mary could not only obtain several Acts in favour of her self and the Sâ—e of Rome c 1 Mar. sâ—s 2. c. 1 2. 1. 2 Ph. M. c. 8. 10. but for the setling of the Regency on the King of Spain in case the Children of that Bed should be left in nonage And finally that Queen Elizabeth did not only gain many several Acts for the security of her own Person which were determinable with her life but could procure an Act to be passed in Parliament for making it high treason to affirm and say That the Queen could not by Act of Parliament bind and dispose the Rights aâ—d Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown d 13 Eliz. c. 1. And as for raising monies and amassing treasures by help of Parliaments he that desires to know how well our Kings have served themselves that way by the help of Parliaments let him peruse a book intituled the Privilege of Parliaments writ in the manner of Dialogue between a Privy Counsellor and a Iustice of Peace and he shall be satisfied to the full Put all that hath been said together and sure the kingdom of England must not be the place in which the three Estates convened in Parliament have power to regulate the King or restain his actions or moderate his extravagances or where they can be taxed for perâ—idious treachery if they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or wantonly insult on the Common-people or otherwise abuse that power which the Lord hath given them Calvin was much mistaken if he thought the contrary or if he dreamt that he should be believ'd on his ipse dixit without a punctual enquiry into the grounds and probability of such a dangerous intimation as he lays before us 13. But against this it is objected that Parliaments have disposed of the Militia of the Kingdom of the Forts Castles Ports and the Navie Royal not only without the Kings leave but against his liking that they have deposed some Kings and advanced others to the top of the Regal Throne And for the proof of this they produce examples out of the reign of K. Henry 3. K. Edw. 2. and K. Richard the 2. e Prynnes Book of Parl. part 2. Examples which if rightly pondered doe not so much prove the power as the weakness of Parliaments in being carried up and down by the privat conduct of every popular pretender For 't is well known that the Parliaments did not take upon them to rule or rather to over-look K. Henry 3. but as they were directed by Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester who having raised a potent faction in the State by the assistance of the Earls of Glocester Hereford Derby f Maâ— Paris Henr. 3. and some others of the great Lords of the kingdom compelled the King to yeeld unto what terms he pleased and made the Parliaments no other than a means and instrument to put a popular gloss on his wretched purposes And 't is well known that the ensuing Parliaments which they instance in moved not of their own accord to the deposing of King Edward the 2. or King Richard the 2. but sailed as they were steered by those powerfull Counsels which Queen Isabel in the one and Henry Duke of Lancaster in the other did propose unto them g Walsingham in Hist Angl. Hypodig Neustriae It was no safe resisting those as their cold wisdoms and forgotten loyalties did suggest unto them qui tot legionibus imperarent who had so manany thousand men in arms to make good their project and they might think as the poor-spirited Citizens of Samaria did in another case but a case very like the present Behold two Kings stood not before him how then can we stand h 2 Kings 10. 4. For had it been an argument of the power of Parliaments that they deposed one King to set up another dethroned King Richard to advance the Duke of Lancaster to the Regal diadem they would have kept the house of Lancaster in possession of it for the full demonstration of a power indeed and not have cast them off at the first attempt of a new plausible pretender declared them to be kings in fact but not in right whose lawfull right they had before preferred above all other titles and set the Crown upon the heads of their deadly Enemies In the next place it is objected that Parliaments are a great restraint of the Soveraign power according to the Doctrine here laid down by Calvin in that the King can make no laws nor levy any money upon the Subject but by the counsel and assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament But this objection hurts as little as the former did For Kings to say the truth need no laws at all In all such points wherein they have not bound themselves by some former laws