when the Law is only declared by Act of Parliament If the King and the two Houses declare that it is not by the Common Law of England Treason to kill or to attempt to kill the King the Queen or Prince or that it is not felony to steale or the like such declarations are of no effect they ought not they do not they cannot conclude the Judges And as every Statute may be judged by them whether it be binding or void so the meaning of the words thereof must be by the Judges expounded too It is the true sense which is the Law not the bare letter and this exposition is likewise the office of the Judges as is said before For example by a Statute made 1 Eliz. it is enacted that all leases made afterwards by any Bishop of his Church-lands exceeding 21. years or three lives shall to all intents and purposes be judged void and yet it hath been adjudged both in the Kings Bench and in the Common Pleas that a lease for an hundred years is not void against that Bishop himselfe who was lessor wherein the Judges expound the meaning of the Law-makers to be thus that their intent was onely for the benefit of the Successours not to releive any man against his owne Act therefore such leases made after the Statute exceeding twenty one years or three lives are voidable only by the successours if they please and adjudged not void against the lessour himselfe contrary to the expresse words of the Statute And in like manner are other infinite Acts of Parliament expounded by the Judges wherein it is a maxime in Law that their exposition of Statutes ought to be according to the rules of the Common Law by which it appears the Members are not the interpreters for they know not the rules of the Law Besides the Parliament cannot be the finall expounders of Statutes for these reasons 1. It appears before that it is not the bare letter but the true sence and meaning of the words which is the Law And the King and the two Houses cannot declare the meaning of those words but by Act of Parliament they cannot saith our Law otherwise speake what ever they Act or doe in any other way is extrajudiciall if the King and both Houses unanimously deliver an opinion without reducing it to an Act of Parliament concerning the meaning of a former Statute it is of no more nor greater force or effect then for the Judges of a Court of judicature to give their opinions in a point of Law in a case not judicially depending before them such an opinion binds not nor is pleadable in a Court of Justice And besides the absurd inconvenience and the impossibility to have an Act of Parliament to determine every question arising upon Statutes it may so happen as that the King and the two Houses can never give an end to one controversie For example suppose an Act be made to explaine the meaning of former Statute ambiguously penned the words of this Act must have a meaning too and may admit of severall interpretations as well as the former Act did and severall persons as they are therein concerned may differ in the exposition thereof and so irreconcileable as not to be ended without the authority of a Judge and this may fall out upon every Act of explanation upon explanation in infinitum and consequently by that way there cannot to the end of the world be a finall determination of the difference 2. The validity of every Statute and the exposition thereof at the will of every person concerned may regularly be brought before the Judges of the Law but cannot judicially depend before the Parliament For example every Statute is binding or void if binding it concerns the Subject in his person or estate and when it is put in execution the ministers or actors therein may at the will of him interrupted thereby be sued in the Court of Common Pleas or in some other Court of Justice by an action of trespasse by which suite what ever the Act of Parliament is both the validity of the Statute and the meaning of the words thereof is submitted to the Judges of that Court and to their judgement As suppose this case to arise upon the foresaid Statute of 23 H. 6. that one who hath continued Sheriff above one year by vertue of a Writ directed to the Sheriff of the same County doth arrest the body of A. who for this brings his action of trespasse in the Common Pleas in which the Sheriff justifies by vertue of the Writ A. replies pleads the Statute and shewes that the year was ended before the arrest upon which the Sheriff demurs in Law by these pleadings the whole fact is confessed on both sides the Sheriff doth acknowledge his year was out before the arrest and A. confesseth the arrest was by vertue of the Kings Writ directed to the Sheriff and so the question being matter of Law it is to be determined by the Judges of that Court wherein the sole doubt is whether that Statute be binding or void for if binding judgement ought to be given for the plaintife A. because the Statute being good the defendant was not Sheriff after his year ended when he made the arrest and so had no authority if void it ought to be given for the Sheriff for then the Law is not by it altered and so he was Sheriff at the time of the arrest although his year was out Now in this case no man can deny but that the Judges must give judgement else the Court of Common Pleas which were absurd to imagine hath not power to determine an action of trespasse and judgement being given as in this case it ought to be for the Sheriff because it is already resolved and received for a knowne truth that the foresaid Statute binds not the King this duty of the Subject to serve the King in person saith the booke being due by the Law of nature cannot be severed by Act of Parliament it is finall And so if it were enacted that a Member of the Commons House or any other subject by name should not be condemned or punished for murder who afterwards commits the fact for which being arraigned at the Kings Bench bar he pleades the Statute the Judges even against the expresse words and intent of that Act ought to give sentence of death And contrariwise if by Act of Parliament it were enacted that all Pardons for felony to be granted by the King should be judged void after which a subject commits felony obtaines the Kings pardon for it is arraigned at the bar and pleads this pardon it ought to be allowed being duely pleaded and the Justices in such case ought not to condemne but to acquit the prisoner And these judgements as to any appeale to the Parliament are finall they cannot be brought before the King and the two Houses by any suite or action at Law They cannot judicially determine any
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
Prince 2. To violate the Queen the Kings eldest daughter unmarried or his eldest sons wife 3. To leavy War against the King or to adhere unto His enemies giving them aid or comforts in this Realme or elsewhere 4. To counterfeit the Kings Great Seale the Privy Seale or His money 5. To bring false money into this Realme counterfeit to the money of England 6. To slay the Chancellor Treasurer or the Judges of either Bench the Justices of Eyre of Assize and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine in their places doing their office And then it is enacted in the negative that no other thing shall be judged Treason untill it be declared by the King and His Parliament And accordingly by severall Acts of Parliament some other things have been made Treason viz. 7. To deny the King to be our onely Supreame Governour and so in some other particulars The Members Law herein both Affirmatively and Negatively follow thus 1. That it is not Treason to imagine the death of the King the Queen or Prince 2. That it is not Treason to Levy War against the King to adhere unto His Enemies or to give aide or comforts to them in England or elsewhere 3. That it is not Treason to Counterfeit the Kings Great Seal or His Money 4. That it is not Treason to deny the King to be the Supreame Governour Then for their Doctrine in their Affirmative it followeth thus 1. That it is Treason to endeavour the preservation of the Kings Person from violence 2. That it is Treason for a Subject to aide the King against His Rebellious Subjects Levying War against Him 3. That it is Treason to maintain or affirme that the King is the onely Supreame Governour 4. That it is Treason for any Man to deny the Members their fellow Subjects to have the Soveraigne power of Government 5. That it is Treason for a Subject without leave of the Members to recide or dwell in London But it is not possible to instance in all the particulars of the new Treasons therefore in general the people must know that whatever the Members shall say is Treason They must beleeve it to be Treason Now for the poofs The foresaid Statute doth clearly demonstrate what the known Law is And therewith agrees all the Authorities Judgements and Resolutions of the Law But for the Members their Law is so new as that they cannot look beyond the beginning of this Parliament nor produce any one Judgement Resolution or Opinion to make good any one of their Doctrines And consequently their own fictions Let them speak out and all that they can say for themselves is but thus viz. We have gotten possession of the Kings Revenue we have besides that setled unto our selves a yearly Revenue amounting to at least thrice treble the profits of the Crown of England and which is still more sweet we have the dominion over King and People we have a power unlimited to impose taxes and payments upon whom we please and what summes we thinke fit their persons we have in vassalage and can take away their lives when and for what cause we please for the obtaining whereof we did Levy War against the King we did in that Warre attempt to kill the King the Queen and Prince we did adhere unto His Enemies and gave unto them relief and comforts we have counterfeited the Kings Great Seal and His Money we have and yet doe most barbarously imprison the Kings Person we have subverted both Law and Religion Now for us to confesse the known Law and submit our selves thereunto were no other then to put our necks into the halter Therefore we must of necessity deny the old and forge new Lawes These things considered I suppose every one not particeps criminis in this odious Rebellion will judge it more absolutely necessary for him to endeavour his infranchisement from His slavery then it was for the Members to commit this foul Treason and Rebellion whereby the people are brought to this Vassalage Upon the whole matter clear it is that all those Members of either House of Parliament who consented to the making of any Order or Ordinance for the promoting of this War pretended for King and Parliament and all other persons who have acted therein consented or adhered thereunto are guilty of High Treason CHAP. X. That the Subjects of this Nation are not onely commanded from doing violence to the Kings Person or prejudice to His Authority but are obliged with their lives and fortunes to assist and preserve His Person and Just Rights from the fury of His enemies both forraigne and domestick ALL the people of this Nation are divided thus viz. King and Subject which of it self is proof sufficient to make this good The word King as before appears implies a duty in the King to protect His people and the word Subject a duty in them to assist Him By the Laws of England for a servant to kill his Master is an offence of a higher nature and the punishment for it more severe then for the meanest Subject without such relation of service to kill the greatest Peere for besides the Subordination between them a trust is implyed the breach whereof by an act of that nature by the Lawes of England is petty Treason Besides the Law expects from the servant a personall assistance to preserve his Master from violence or hurt and in that regard the Master being assaulted the servant by the Lawes of England may justifie to resist the assailant in defence of his Masters person And between the King and His Subjects the Subordination and Subjection is of a far higher nature The trust reposed in the Subject and his duty to the King is far more transcendent the King being head of the weal publick By violating his person saith our Law every Member of the Common-wealth suffers Therefore in assisting Him we doe defend our selves He is Pater Patriae we are His naturall born Subjects and so by the Law of nature obliged to preserve Him from injury Now the person of my Soveraigne Leige Lord the King by an unnaturall Warre raised and prosecuted by His owne Subjects being assaulted and Warre made against His Crowne and Dignity And the King having by His Proclamations summoned His Loyall Subjects to assist him upon serious consideration thereof I found that nothing was more clear or pregnant both by Authorities of the books of Law and severall Acts of Parliament by which it is abundantly declared to be our bounden duty to serve the King in His Wars both against forrain invasions domestick insurrections and rebellions Then that I was obliged in duty by the Lawes of this Realm by the Law of Nature by the Law of Reason and by the Law of God even by that precept of Saint Paul in these words viz. Let ' every soul be subject to the higher powers to assist Him against these assaults And upon these grounds I took up Armes for Him and
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
the Militia unto the Members is the same as to put the Sword into the hands of a mad-man for as the one hath no reason to restrain himself from doing mischief so the Members are not guided by any known Law but having usurped an Arbitrary power over King and Subject we finde by our wofull experience make use of the power of the Sword to compell the people to submit unto their insatiable lusts Witnesse besides the infinite murders and slaughters of the people the vast summes of money these Members since this Parliament by the power of the Sword have unlawfully wrested from the Subject which being justly cast up would amount to more then all the Subsidies grants of that nature given unto all the Kings of England for the space of 500. yeares before that Upon the whole matter clear it is the Militia of the Realme by the known Law of the Land is the sole and onely Right of the King And consequently all Commissions Powers and Authorities granted or given by the Members of the two Houses concerning this Warre are voide in Law and no Justification for those acting thereby But for the nature of that offence it is shewed in the next Chapter CHAP. IX That all persons who have promoted this Warre in the name of King and Parliament and such as have acted therein or adhered thereunto are guilty of Treason THe Office of the King and Duty of the Subject appeares before to be thus The King to Command and Govern according to the Established Lawes of the Realme The Subject to obey those Commands wherein the Law of all things abhors force and enjoynes peace which Peace by the Lawes of England is called the Kings Peace Therefore in every Indictment for Murder Felony or Trespasse done upon the person or estate of a subject These words viz. contra pacem domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suam ought to be expressed for although the fact be done immediately against a Subject yet it trencheth against the Kings Authority His Law is thereby broken And the Lawes of England not onely protects the Kings Person from violence but preserves Him in His Royall Throne and Government Therefore if any persons in this Kingdome without command or assent of the King raise Forces Powers or Armes be it upon what pretence soever it is a Warre levied against the Kings Authority His Crown and Dignity For in that the Subject assumes the Regall power of the King Then for the Authors and Actors of this Warre the Kings Castles Forts His Navy Armes Ammunition and Revenues of His Crown are by force wrested out of His Hands Armes raised conducted into the Field Himself fought with in severall Battailes His Subjects in every part of the Kingdome by the awe of those Armies forced from their Allegeance Therefore a War it is and a War against the King The next Question is what the Law declares this offence to be And that appeares by the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. in these words Whereas divers opinions have been before this time in what case Treason shall be said and in what not The King at the request of the Lords and of the Commons hath made a Declaration in this manner When a man doth compasse or imagine the death of our Soveraigne Lord the King or of my Lady the Queen or of their Eldest Sonne and Heire or if a man do levy War against our Soveraigne Lord the King in this Realme or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in this Realme giving aide or comfort in the Realme or elsewhere and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by people of their condition c. It is to be understood that it ought to be Judged Treason By this clear it is That it is Treason to Levy War against the King to compasse or imagine the death of the King the Queen or Prince to adhere unto or aide the Kings Enemies Of all which the death of the King Queen and Prince excepted the Authors and Actors of this War are guilty But M. Prin hath by Authority of the Commons House of Parliament published a Treatise intituled thus The Parliaments present necessary defensive Warre is Just and Lawfull both in Law and Conscience and no Treason or Rebellion Answer This Title is like his whole discourse totally either impertinent or false This is not the Parliaments War but a War of the Members of the two Houses Nor is it a War on the Members behalf defensive but offensive which omitting to expresse when and by whom the Armies and Forces were first raised that being obvious to all men appeares by considering the Cause of the Warre which was thus The Members having formed a Law to take out of the Crown the power of the Militia and to settle it in themselves the King refused to consent unto it which refusall was the ground of this War wherein the King was onely Passive and the Members Active They pressed upon Him to change the Law He refused It were grosse in this case to conceive the King should make a War But the Members had no way to gain their ends but by force and so began the War Then Master Prin proceeds to prove that this Warre of the Members is not Treason For saith he they intended no violence to the Kings Person His Crown or Dignity onely to rescue Him from His Cavaleers and bring Him backe to His Great Councell Answer It is true sometimes the intent of the party committing the fact alters the case For example A man travelling the passage is stopt by water And finding a horse there makes use thereof to get over the water This is not Felony But it is a Trespaas Suppose this party indicted for felony at his triall it is pertinent for him to confesse the fact That he used the horse and by circumstances to make it appear he intended thereby onely to get over the water and so to quit himself of the fellony But this man being indicted onely for a Trespasse for him to confesse he used the horse to get over the water alledging he could not otherwise have passed thereby to quit himself of the Trespas were foolish So here raising of Armies against the Kings Command conducting them into the field c. is confessed But saith M. Pryn that is not Treason for they intended no harme to the Kings Person His Crown or Dignity Which is a fond contradiction for admitting they intended no harme to the Kings Person the fact confessed is a harme to His Crown and Dignity And that in the highest nature that may be It is a Warre Levied against Him and His Regall Authority which by the Laws of England is High Treason Raviliake who killed the King of France upon M. Pryns ground might have justified the fact Although he had confessed to have willfully killed that King yet he might with as much truth and sense have said he intended not to hurt the Kings Person As M. Pryn
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
government of the King cannot be forced either in person or estate otherwise then the knowne Law judged by indifferent persons unconcerned as aforesaid doth permit And consequently the people of England a most free subject CHAP. XIII That the people of England under the government claimed by the Members of the two Houses are absolute slaves IT cannot be denied but that where the King or the Supreame Magistrates authority over the people is arbitrary that government is tyrannicall No tyrant ever had or can have a greater power Nor is it possible for people where any Law is admitted to be under a greater servitude For he whose will is a Law as he hath no superiour so by any under his command he cannot be said to erre in judgement be his sentence never so bloody cruell or barbarous the dispute is ended no appeale or Writ of Error lyes so that the wisest man how industrious or conscientious soever cannot for the least instant of time promise to himselfe security of life or challenge property in his estate Therefore if the government in England practised and claimed by the Members be arbitrary it followeth that the people are absolute slaves wherein these things are considerable 1. Who they be that arrogate the government 2. What those persons act de facto 3. What power they claime to have de jure 1. For the first they are the Members of the two Houses being in number the Assemblies admitted full about seven hundred persons They are divided into two severall distinct bodies without any head and every body having equall power Then for their priviledges It is by themselves declared to this effect viz. That none of them although he hath committed Treason Sacriledge Murther Rape Felony or any other crime how execrable soever is to be appehended questioned or prosecuted for the same untill licence be thereunto obtained from that House whereof he is a Member Every offender herein is by their Declarations denounced a breaker of the liberty of the Subject of the priviledge of Parliament and a publike enemy to the Common-wealth And such a licence being obtained and the Malefactor thereupon apprehended he is not say they to be prosecuted by indictment or otherwise but in such manner and before such persons as that Assembly thinks fit to direct their persons are so sacred as that none but themselves must judge their actions Thus for the persons commanding 2. What they act de facto We see by a new Law called an Ordinance made by themselves without the King the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was condemned to death and executed They have confiscated his and other mens estates and by the same pretence they have taxed the people to the twentieth and fift part of their fortunes They have laid an imposition upon the Subject heretofore not heard of in England called an Excise They have taxed them with vast impositions and payments of money by way of assessements and otherwise at pleasure They receive and dispose of the confiscations and of all the aforesaid summes of money as themselves thinke fit They assume the power finally to declare and Judge the Law and by colour of their owne authority they have de facto repealed severall Acts of Parliament And have imposed upon the people new Lawes of their devising 3. What they claime to have de Jure if themselves be asked whether by Law they have not power to act the foresaid things If they have not authority without appeale to determine what is Treason murder felony or other capitall offence To put to death who they please To confiscate any mans estate To tax or impose upon the people without stint whether the profits of those confiscations taxes and impositions be not at their owne dispose and all this without any account To these they doe they have already answered affirmatively However all men of judgement may be herein satisfied The Members had lawfull power to put to death the Bishop of Canterbury and to seize his estate else he was murdered and his estate seized against Law now if they had therein lawfull authority it followeth that by the same Law they may whether guilty or not guilty of a crime put to death any other who they shal say deserveth to dye and may confiscate whose estate they please dispose thereof to their own use or otherwise as they thinke fit And accordingly we see they have and are going fast on as theives do their booties to divide and share the wealth of the Kingdome amongst themselves If they did lawfully tax the people to a fifth part by the same Law they may tax them to their full worth And for excise admit them to have power to charge any commodity with one peny and it cannot be denied them to have power to tax every one for every drop of drinke or morsell of mâ—â—t or what he buyes or sels to the full double or treble value thereof If they have power to repeale one Act of Parliament they have authority to repeale all the statutes in England And if they have authority to impose upon the people one Law their power therein is without limitation They may inforce upon the Subject what Laws they please and consequently their power claimed as highly arbitrary and tyrannicall as any have or can claime to have And having made this claime Then for their security therein they tell us that in all matters both for soul and body we have no Judge upon earth but themselves and denounce every one an enemy to this new State who shall deny that to be the Law which they declare Law Yet even now the people are told that they are and shall be governed by the knowne Law because say they Judges are appointed and suites of Law admitted Answer There was never any Tyrant but in some sort permitted a known Law among his vassals else the slaves could not acquire estates and so confiscations to the Tyrant would prove inconsiderable By the Laws of England a villaine hath power to buy and purchase and is therein protected against all persons his Lord excepted But the Lord may seize his estate beate or strike his villaine at his pleasure The Turke who hath been accompted the greatest tyrant his vassals acquire vast fortunes and are by a Law protected therein against their fellow slaves But the Turke at pleasure may not onely seize their whole estates but take their lives too Even so it is at present with the people of England we have liberty to buy and sell and acquire wealth we are as an English villaine or Turkish slave sometimes that is when the Members please else not protected therein against one another But when the Members thinke fit every mans estate his fortune his person his life all is at their will and doome That Law permitted amongst the people reacheth not so high as the Members when they thinke fit their will is the Law so that our slavery for the present is worse
politick Capacity If the King die during a Parliament ipso facto the Parliament is dissolved Therefore Soveraignty is not virtually in the two Houses By the Kings death untill a late Statute made therein all suites in Law even between party and party were discontinued And at this day the Chancellor the Keeper of the Great Seal the Judges the Sheriffes of Counties Justices of Peace and other Officers by his death are void which could not be if Soveraigne power were not in the naturall person of the King or if that Authority were virtually in the Members The Law of the Land saith that Allegeance is due from the Subject to the King so soon as he is born therefore he is called Subditus natus And so both Soveraignty and Allegeance inherently and by birth-right the one in the person of the King and the other in the person of the Subject And this duty is reciprocall The King ex Officio as King is obliged to protect the people And the Subject in duty is bound to obey their Soveraign for protectio trahit subjectionem subjectio protectionem There be two sorts of Homage viz. Homagium Ligeum homagium feudale The first being Allegeance is due onely to the Kings Person And therefore our Law saith it is inherent inseparable and cannot be respited But the latter being due by reason of the tenure of Land a Writ lies to respite it Besides a body politick can neither doe nor receive Homage It cannot be done but to the naturall person of a man The Lords and Commons 10 Jacobi made this recognition viz. Albeit within few houres after the death of Queen Elizabeth we declared your Majesty our onely and rightfull Leige Lord and Soveraigne Yet as we cannot doe it too often or enough So it cannot be more fit then in this High Court of Parliament where the whole Kingdome in person or by representation is present upon the knees of our hearts to agnize our most constant Faith Obedience and Loyalty to your Majesty your Royall Progeny humbly beseeching it may be as a Memoriall to all Posterity recorded in Parliament and enacted by the same that we recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the death of Queen Elizabeth the Imperiall Crown of this Realme did by inherent birth-right and lawfull and undoubted succession descend and come to your Majesty And that by Lawfull right and discent under one Imperiall Crowne your Majesty is of England Scotland France and Ireland King And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige our selves our heires and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our bloods be spent And beseech your Majesty to accept the same as the first fruits of our Loyalty to your Majesty and Royall Progeny and Posterity for ever Which if your Majesty will adorne with your Royall Assent without which it neither can be compleat nor remaine to all Posterity we shall adde this to the rest of your Majesties inestimable benefits By this we see that this Kings Father by inherent birth-right had the Soveraigne power of Government That the Lords and Commons in Parliament did not onely submit thereunto but at their humble suite by Act of Parliament obliged themselves their heires and posterities for ever even to the spending of their last drop of blood to preserve Him and His Posterity therein But to insist upon particulars of this nature were too tedious There is no other Language to be found from the beginning of this Parliament up to the Romane conquest Every Statute booke of Law History and the constant practice of the Kingdome herein concurs Neither tongue nor pen untill these Antipodes the Members who belch nothing but contradictions to truth justice and honesty ever made other expressions But the juggle is now even by the vulgar clearly discovered and found to be too slight an Hocus Pocus trick to gaine three Kingdomes But it is visible to the world The Members use the word King as they do the name of God himself either for their owne advantage or to gull the people which amongst infinite other particulars by their various proceedings concerning the Kings Soveraigne power it is manifest First by their foresaid Declaration in words they ascribe unto the King a greater power then he either hath or challengeth He is say they absolutely Supreame head and Governour And this in all things and that finall too for say they from him there is no appeale But even by the same Instrument they tell us that this Soveraignty is not in the Kings person but totally in the Members of the two Houses And after their preaching of this doctrine and exercising the Kings office for some years then they tooke the boldnesse in plaine tearmes to tell us they would have no King that they themselves would without their Soveraigne governe the Kingdome But herein they catched themselves for instantly thereupon the people plainely discerned their intention even from the first they were by this Vote satisfied that the Members aime was not for the publicke but for their owne private to subvert the knowne Law and to reduce the people to the slavery of an everlasting arbitrary and tyrannicall power under their equals The Subjects of England upon this Vote unanimously even through the whole Kingdome as if they were at one instant generally inspired make their Protestation against these usurpers They cry out and call for their leige Lord their King They resolve to submit unto no other government then by our ancient and knowne Laws which the Members perceiving they returned to their owne vomit and thinking to deceive the people with a new sleight do now againe begin to word it for a King and Vote thus That this Nation shall be Governed by King Lords and Commons Which is as perfect a juggle as that whereby they Declared the Kings power to be virtually in themselves If those Votes binde it followeth that we neither have nor can have otherwise then at the Members will either King Law or Government Their last Vote in words seemes in some sort to set up a King But for any thing we know before the next new Moon the Members may fancy to themselves the same motives as formerly and Vote Him quite downe againe So that admitting this power in the Members to set up and pull downe to Vote and uâ—-Vote it is indifferent both to King and people whether to have a Statue and call it King or a King by the Members Vote Then for the Vote it selfe admitting the Members to have authority by their Votes to alter the Law which they have not it is in it selfe most grosse We must say they be governed by King Lords and Commons But what power is hereby intended for the King non constat By the next Vote the Members may declare they meant hereby that the King shall not have any authority in his owne person but still judge the Soveraigne power as formerly