have no voice in reversing judgements or damning Patents in Parliament therefore they have not a voice in passing Bils for publike Laws Answer Mr. Pryns words must be understood one of these wayes viz. That these judgements are reversed and Patents damned by Act of Parliament or else in the ordinary way of proceedings of Law as in a Court of Justice if he meane by Act of Parliament he onely beggs the question And false it is to say the King hath not a negative Voice in every Act propounded for a Law If he meane by judiciall proceedings as in a Court of Justice which I conceive he doth then the case truely stated is but thus The Lords House in Parliament time is a Court of Judicature and amongst other things the Members of that Assembly have power the cause being regularly brought before them by writ of errour and by the advice of the Judges and not else to reverse erroneous judgements given in the Kings Bench wherein it is true the King hath no Voice but that nothing disproves His negative Voice in making Laws if so that reason serves as well to exclude the Commons as the King for in reversing judgements in the Lords House the Members of the lower House have no Voice so if this argument of Mr. Pryns be of force the Lords without King or Commons have power to make Laws by Act of Parliament Then for damning Patents neither the Lords nor the Commons nor both Houses joyntly have power judicially or finally to determine the validity of any Patent or grant of the King That properly appertaines to the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and other Courts of Justice before whom as afterwards it is more clearly shewed such cases may be judicially brought to triall wherein neither King Lords or Members of the Commons House hath Voice And for the rest of his arguments they rather prove the contrary then that which Mr. Pryn infers upon them Kings saith he have in former times shewed their reasons why they denied to passe Bils presented unto them by both Houses which proves that those Kings had power to deny them else they could not shew cause of their refusall no more then Mr. Pryn can render reasons of his being at Westmiuster unlesse he have been there But Mr. Pryn knowes all Kings have most frequently rejected Bils passed by both Houses and Bils declared by the Members to concerne the publike good without rendring their reasons for the same And for the power of the Protector to confirme Bils passed by both Houses if that be granted that in some cases of imminent necessity the Protectors consent might make good and perfect such Bils it nothing proves the absolute power of both Houses without the King but rather the contrary and plainly demonstrates the imperfect power of the two Houses who cannot without the consent of a Protector in such cases make any compleat and binding Laws Therefore if not stronger the same it must be when we have a King no infant and Reigning without a Protector But saith Mr. Pryn in Countries where Kings are elective by the death of the Present King untill a new one be chosen the people having no King over them may make binding Laws Here although I beleeve Mr. Pryn cannot for other Countries make his position good yet this admitted to him rather disproves his argument against the Kings negative Voice for of his owne shewing it appears that in those Countries where Kings are elective after such time as the people have chosen a King they cannot make Laws without Him And if so where Kings are elective much more they cannot where Kings are hereditary Therefore by Mr. Pryns owne argument it followeth that in this Nation neither the people nor the two Houses without the King have power to make Laws For we have no interregnum there is not with us any time of vacancy of a King eo instante upon the death of the precedent King the Crowne is vested in the successour And for the two Houses refusall to grant the King Aide by Subsidies and the like That disproves the Kings power of His negative Voice in Parliament as the Kings refusall to confirme Bils passed by both Houses prove that the King at this day may make Lawes without them But saith he if Kings will not passe Laws presented unto them by both Houses they may be compelled thereunto for Kings saith he have been so forced as King H. 3. in that of Magna Charra and other Statutes Answer To admit that a Judge of a Court of Judicature may be forced to declare his opinion or to give judgement against his owne conscience seemes to me to be so absurd as I cannot but suppose that Mr. Pryn himself would grant it to be most unreasonable and even to be destructive of the Law it selfe If the King should assemble powers and by force compell the Lords or Commons to passe Laws by Him propounded it would be judged an act of high Tyranny and I beleeve Mr. Pryn would conceive Laws so obtained bound not And if so in that case if he be not extreame partiall he must upon the same ground agree that the King in the like case ought not to be forced He doubtlesse hath the same authority the same rules and motions to be guided by His Conscience as a Subject hath And methinkes the Law should protect the King from the violence of the people asmuch as it preserves them from the force of their King certainly it is at least reci mony or Oath taken is actually vested in the King succeeding upon which the Law saith that although in hoc individuo Hen. Rex moritur yet the King in His politick capacity never dieth Besides if the King at His Coronation should refuse to take an Oath we have no more Law to compell Him thereunto then we have to force Him to be Crowned And as it is not material to the right power of the King whether he be Crowned or not so it is inconsiderable to the people to have Him sworne for if we had no municipall Law the King unsworne were bound in Conscience to govern the people by naturall equity But we have a knowne Law by which both King and Subjects the one by a directive power the others by both directive and coercive are regulated and every one protected in his just rights and this whether the King be Crowned or not Crowned whether he take an Oath or no Oath Secondly admit Kings obliged to take an Oath at their Coronation yet even by the Members owne shewing they are not bound to take it in the words by themselves mentioned And of all the Kings past they instance but seven who have taken any Oath and but three of those seaven admitting that Oath in French and the other in Latine to be one and the same they name to have taken it And of these three offer proof but for one And themselves shew
or man although they be the greatest Tyrants in the world the highest persecutors of Christian Religion be it either spirituall or temporall although never so pernicious to foul or body it must be admitted for good Law and true Gospel Thus the people being drawne to recede from their true principle have occasioned their owne confusion Whereas by their observing the Laws of the Realme these distractions have been avoyded For by the constitutions of this Kingdome both King and Subject are regulated by a knowne Law which Law permits neither King nor people to be Judge in their owne case If one Subject wrongfully imprison the person of another seize his Lands or take away his goods the party injured hath his legall remedy but is not permitted to be his owne carver or revenger if he for his owne satisfaction kill his adversary it is murder If he seize his Lands or take his goods it is a trespasse So in the Kings case If by His Command any Subject be imprisoned or his estate taken from him against the rules of the knowne Law that Subject hath his legall remedy against the Kings ministers wherein neither the King nor his officers are Judge Therefore if that Subject thus injured should to revenge himself kill the King or seize His Revenues it were a most barbarous and unjust Law not to condemne this Act unlawfull And that being admitted it must be unlawfull to attempt His death or to leavy War against Him for any such cause And consequently all those facts although committed upon the grounds aforesaid are Treason Now that person who conceives himselfe to be most highly injured being required to set downe the motives of his taking up Armes against the King his pretence can be no other then this That his person hath been imprisoned his Lands seized and his goods taken from him And this in his judgement against Law none but Brutes can conclude these are legall justifications to act and do such things against their King And so consequently the authors and actors of this War are guilty of Treason But saith Mr. Pryn The Parliament is not within the meaning of this Statute of 25 Ed. 3. Therefore not Treason for the Members to seize the Kings Forts Armes Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne for saith he the King is a Member of the Parliament and therefore if the Parliament could commit Treason the King should commit Treason against himself And saith he the Parliament is a corporation and a Court of Justice and so not capable of the guilt of Treason Answer Most true it is That the King is exempt from the guilt of Treason for all Treasons are committed against Him But every Subject which includes all the rest of the people is capable both to commit the fact and is subject to punishment for the same And herein there is no difference of persons It is no more lawfull for a Peere then for a pezant to commit that crime the place where alters not the nature of that fact nor doth it availe the actors in being Members of any Assembly Corporation body politick or Court of Justice For every one of these Members or persons besides their pollitick capacity hath a naturall capacity too In which capacity he is subject to the frailties of man he may actually breake the Law and passively suffer for it But the Assembly it selfe the Corporation the body politick or the Court of Justice can neither commit a crime nor is capable of punishment For example the Parliament that is the King the Members of the Lords House and the Members of the Commons House their power is onely to make Laws by Act of Parliament Therefore when the Members of the two Houses in a Parliamentary way passe a Bill which the King confirmes with His Royall Assent Absurd it were to thinke this could be an Act of Treason And so it is for the Judges of every Court of Justice keeping themselves within their jurisdiction they cannot in the proceedings of their owne Court commit Treason And the like holds with all Corporations and bodies politick But if a Member in either House assault or strike his fellow Member that is a trespasse and wilfully to kill him is murther And by the same reason to kill the King although within the wals of the House is Treason And that being granted it followeth that to imagine His death or attempt to kill the King or agree to levy War against Him although in that place is Treason in such Members And herein no formall or seeming Parliamentary proceedings will alter the case The putting it to the question voting the businesse and setling it by a Major part or composing it into a formall Law and calling it by the name of an Ordinance of Parliament neither alter the nature of the crime nor takes away the guilt of Treason If one who hath acted in this War be indicted for Treason who at his arraignment shewes an Ordinance of both Houses for his justification The triall being before a just Judge It will no more availe him then Adam was justified saying Eve tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit And the Members who commanded those things to be done being legally questioned have no more to say then Eve had For it was the Serpent who tempted them to commit this treason The rightfull Judge will informe them that the Law cannot be altered but by Act of Parliament The Judges of the Realme understand not the Language of an Ordinance of the two Houses nor is any such thing pleadable in a Court of Justice the Law takes no notice thereof These things are done by the Members not in their politick but in their naturall capacities They are not Acts of Parliament they are unlawfull facts of Parliament-men And such offenders being attainted and executed the Parliament suffers not Besides it is the fact which the Law doth looke upon And in this case the greatnesse of the person offending the number committing the offence and the place where acted is so far from extenuating as that it rather aggravates the crime For a conservator of the peace in his owne person to breake it or a Judge of the Law to be an example of transgressing it is more odious then in other men Then considering the persons acting viz. Members of the House of Parliament the thing acted high Treason the place where in those Houses words cannot expresse the barbarousnesse of it Now to conclude this point I here set downe what facts the knowne Law judgeth Treason the Members Law therein and the proof on both sides What facts the Law judgeth high Treason the foresaid Statute of 25 Ed. 3. makes it manifest in these words viz. Whereas divers opinions have been before this time In what case Treason shall be said and in what not then declares that by the Law of the Land these particular facts following are Treason 1. To compasse or imagine the death of the King the Queen or the
with the King then they tell us that the question concerning their right thereof having been long and sadly debated both in black and red battles God himselfe hath given the verdict upon their sides meaning if their words have any sense that by their prevailing against the King in that war God hath judged the cause for them and against the King But who sees not this to be a presamptuous blasphemy added to the sin of Rebellion did not this bold hypocrisie as aptly sute with the actions of Ket Cade Wat Tyler and all fore-going Rebels Certainly as long as any Traytor murderer or felon can defend himselfe from the just triall and sentence of the Law it is as easie and upon as just grounds for him to appeale to God for justification of his fact as these Members do now call Him to witnesse for them So that the consequence to the people of England which followeth the excluding the King from His negative Voice in Parliament is no lesse then the losse of that happy condition of a free Subject governed by a knowne Law under a King and in being reduced to the slavery of an arbitrary power under their equals and fellow subjects Therefore all the people of England do generally disclaime the foresaid Members to be their representatives and refuse to submit unto their Orders or Ordinances Upon the whole matter these things appear that the Parliament of England consisteth of the King the Lords House and the Commons House joyntly concurring that every one of them hath a negative Voice in making Laws and consequently all Orders and Ordinances or whatever they may be stiled whereunto the King hath not or shall not voluntarily without compulsion give His Royall Assent are done without Commission warrant or Authority and so not binding King or people In the next Chapter is shewed the power of the Parliament of England CHAP. IV. That the King the Lords House and the Commons House concurring have not an unlimited power to make Laws it being in the brest of the Judges of the Realme to determine which Acts of Parliament are binding and which void and to expound the meaning of every Act. IT may seeme strange to some that the high Court of Parliament should be limited in their power and deny to expound their own Laws But upon consideration had of the use of a Parliament and of the grounds of the Laws of England it appears to be both just and consonant to the Constitutions of this Realme The People of this Nation are not governed by a Parliament Soveraignty is the Kings yet the King Himselfe hath not an absolute or an unlimited power over the people For as the people are governed by and under Him so the Law directs how He is to governe them But in this Nation as in every Common-wealth governed by a setled Law occasions oft happen to do such things as the rules of that Law cannot warrant Therefore necessary it is to have a power to supply those defects and that is the office and true use of a Parliament Which authority rightly considered is of such concernment to the Common-wealth as that the greatest care in the world ought to be had who are trusted therewith It is no lesse then a power to change that Law whereby the people have protection of life and fortune and therefore may require the consent of such persons as are not rightly qualified to judge which Laws are binding and which void or to expound the meaning thereof Upon that ground it is that by the constitution of this Realme no new Law can be made or the old changed but by the King with the assent of the two Houses of Parliament Those persons as before appears are proper to judge when such things have happened as may require the making of a new Law or to alter the old But without derogation from the honour of those persons That body is not of a mould fit to judge which Statutes are binding which void or to expound the meaning of an Act. First cleere it is Acts of Parliament may be so penned and containe such matter as ought not to binde either King or people Suppose it enacted that from henceforth the Members of the two Houses shall be exempt from punishment for Treason Murder Felony and other Crimes Or that the King and the two Houses from time to time shall consent to make such Laws as a close Committee or certaine persons by name shall conclude upon or that every Act of Parliament afterwards made shall be void and the like no man can conceive such Acts would be binding for thereby the true use of Parliaments the Law and government were destroyed Besides all men grant that an arbitrary power is absolutely destructive to the people And it appears in the next precedent Chapter that to give this unlimited authority of making Laws to the King alone or to either or both Houses without the King were no other then to bring upon the people that thraldome Now for this boundlesse power to be in the King and the two Houses joyntly although that were nothing so bad as to have it in the King alone or in either or both Houses without the King yet the people were not thereby so wel secured from the tyranny of an arbitrary power as when the Judges determine which Acts of Parlliament are binding and which void Upon perusall of former Statutes it appears the Members of both Houses have been frequently drawne to consent not onely to things prejudiciall to the Common-wealth but even in matters of greatest waight to alter and contradict what formerly themselves had agreed unto and that even as it happened to please the fancy of the present Prince witnesse that Statute by which it was enacted that the Proclamations of King H. 8. should be equivalent to an Act of Parliament one other Act which declared both Queen Mary and Queen Eliz. to be bastards one other which in words gave power to the same King to dispose of the Crowne of England by his last will and testament And the severall Statutes in the times of King H. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Mary and Queen Eliz. setting up and pulling downe each others Religion every one of them condemning even to death the professour of the contrary Religion And now reflecting upon the proceedings of the present Members we finde they have de facto arrogated unto themselves in the highest straine a power arbitrary It is likewise too evident with what terrors menaces and inhumane cruelties they presse their Soveraigne to passe Acts of Parliament for confirmation thereof Doubtlesse had they not met with a King even beyond humane expectation most magnanimous it had been effected And suppose this Kings consent had been obtained or that He or any other succeeding King shall be drawne by force or fraud to consent thereunto and admit such Acts of Parliament to bind it will follow that no Government can be more arbitrary
Roy le veilt So that if any difference be the Kings words are more prevalent for before that it is but a written piece of parchment not valid but by tht Kings words instantly it hath life and is become a Law binding the whole Kingdome and people And this as before is said is the Kings Law Then Mr. Pryn fals to presidents which he cals proofs King Ed. 2. and King R. 2. saith he were deposed by the Parliament Answer The case concerning these two Kings was thus Against King Ed. 2. after many distractions in the Kingdome the Queen His Wife and other of Her adherents increased the faction raised a Rebellion barbarously tooke the King prisoner and during His imprisonment without any lawfull authority or consent of the King in His name summoned a Parliament and by force drew him in words to resigne His Crowne unto His Son afterwards King Ed. 3. and that of King R. 2. was much to the like purpose He was drawne to resigne His Crowne to H. of Bullingbrooke Afterwards King Hen. 4. and these two lawfull Kings being thus injuriously bereft of their Scepters were shortly after most barbarously murdered too The whole proceedings of which Acts all such Pryn excepted as have mentioned them have condemned the same not onely to be illegall but as Acts most wicked and notoriously impious But saith Mr. Pryn Pierce Gaveston and the two Hugh Spencers were by Parliament banished the Spencers violently put to death Humphrey Duke of Gloucester arrested of high Treason at a Parliament at Berry and there murdered That the Earle of Strafford this Parliament lost his head against the Kings will Answer For the banishment of Gaveston and the two Spencers his Argument is but thus The King with the assent of the two Houses made an Act of Parliament to banish them Ergo the two Houses without the King have the Soveraigne power of Government And admit Mr. Pryn hath proved which he endeavours that the Members of the two Houses murdered the Duke of Gloucester and the Spencers still that proves not the Soveraigne power of government to be in the Members That example of the late Bishop of Canterbury I conceive to be a President far more proper to be cited for this purpose then the case of the Duke of Gloucester or the Spencers For all men know that Bishop was put to death by no other authority then by order of the two Houses yet this no more proves the Soveraigne power to be in the Members then that murder acted by Felton upon the person of the Duke of Buckingham proves Felton to be the King of England For the Members of the two Houses had no more authority to condemne to death the Bishop then Felton had to kill the Duke And consequently the murder of the Bishop whatever his offence was or however guilty it â—â—…ing done by pretext and colour of Law was more horrid And for the Earle of Strafford it was thus By the Laws of England no man can or ought to be convict of a crime but by Act of Parliament by utlagare or by triall of his Peeres That is if a Lord of the Parliament by a Jury of Lords if under that degree by a Jury of like quality and being convict the Judge ought to give no other sentence but what the knowne Law doth pronounce for that fact Now that Earle by the Members of the Commons House was accused of high Treason The King thereupon declared His resolution not to protect him from the tryall or just sentence of the Law After this the Members waving the ordinary proceedings of the Law passed a Bill to attaint him of Treason by Act of Parliament This Bill was presented to the King He for some time refused to make it a Law which peradventure He might be induced unto by the Bill it selfe There being a speciall proviso therein that the Judges shall not condemn any other for the like offences which might cause the King to be very tender of passing the Act thereby to condemne a man as a Traytor for facts passed which at the time committed was not Treason This if duely considered is so far from being evill in the King as that the whole Kingdome hath thereby great cause to acknowledge his goodnesse It hereby appears he desired to governe as King not as a Tyrant to proceed against offenders according to the knowne Law not by an arbitrary power And if some particular persons too much thirsting after Straffords blood occasioned such things as might draw the King against His conscience to consent unto that Act woe be unto them But however whether the King passed this Act willingly or against His will or whether the Earle of Strafford were guilty or not guilty of Treason That nothing proves that the Members have Soveraigne power of government above the King Thus for Mr. Pryns objections against the Kings right to Soveraignty And that the Members have no authority therein is further proved thus 1. So long as the people have been governed by a knowne Law there must have been a Supreame Governour but we have had the same Law by which we are now governed long before the Institution of the two Houses 2. It is absolutely necessary that the supreame Governour be a person constantly permanent and visible but the Members out of Parliament are not in being they are invisible 3. It is a contradiction to Soveraignty to be subject to the commands of an other But the Members are called together and dissolved againe at the Kings pleasure 4. The Composier of the Members is such As that to make them supreame Governours tends to the destruction not to the preservation of the Kingdome and people If a woman bring forth a Monster not having the shape of man-kind our Law judgeth it no issue it is lawfull to kill it it ought not to be baptized To have two heads of one body is monstrous so to have two Kings of one Kingdome must be destructive to that Nation But here which is a far more prodigious monster we by the Members usurpation are governed by two severall distinct bodies consisting of multitudes without any head This government is new there yet never was the like upon the face of the earth It is not Monarchicall Alligarchicall Aristocraticall Democraticall nor although the neerest to it Anarchicall it is worse then confusion It can have no proper name unlesse it be called contradiction Thus for the negative part that the two Houses have not the Soveraigne power it now rests to shew in whom it is And for that these two things are considerable first what is the office of the Supreame Governour secondly who hath performed that duty For the first all men grant it is to preserve the people in peace by causing the Laws to be justly distributed and the like which have ever been performed by the King of England for the time being and by none else He hath denounced War proclaimed peace inhaunced and