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
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
debaced Coyne commanded forraigne Coyne to be current here ordered all forraigne negotiations All matters of War either foraigne or domestick And so in all civill affaires The Judges of the Law authorized by Him All legall proceedings in his name and by His authority The Law it selfe called His Law He hath usually dispensed with Acts of Parliament at pleasure pardoned transgressours of the Law To Him appertaines the forfeitures for Treason and other offences In a word He is the sole fountaine of Justice Mercy and Honour And with this constant practise agrees all authorities histories and stories among which that of the Oath of Supremacy if there were no more is sufficient to satisfie all the World the words are these I A. B. do utterly testifie in my conscience that the Kings Highness is the onely Supreame Governour of this Realme and of all other His Highnesse Realmes Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall things or causes as Temporall Now if the contents of this Oath be true that is If the King be the onely Supreame Governour all the rest of the people from the highest to the lowest whether Members or not Members are subject unto Him and persons governed And as all persons are hereby included so it extends to all things both Spirituall and Temporall And me thinks it strange an Englishman should make doubt of the truth of this Oath It was composed by the Lords and Commons in Parliament in the time of Queen Elizabeth And at their suite by Act of Parliament made high Treason for a Subject to deny to take it And further enacted that every Judge of the Law and other Officer either Spirituall or Temporall every person of any profession or calling before he be enabled to exercise the same every ward before he be permitted to sue out his Livery every one elected Member of the Commons House before he be permitted to sit or Vote there shall take this Oath Yet the Members of this Parliament would make an evasion out of it Thus. The Kings Supreamacy say they is meant in Curia non in Camera in His Courts not in His private Capacity And to speak properly onely His high Court of Parliament wherein He is absolutely Supream Head and Governour from whence there is no appeal And say they if the Parliament may take an Accompt what is done by His Majesty in His inferiour Courts much more what is done by Him without Authority in any Court. And say they It is preached to the people by the Kings Declarations that by the Supreamacy is meant a power inherent in the Kings Person without above against all His Courts the Parliament not excepted whereby say they the excellent Lawes are turned into an Arbytrary Government Answer That which the Members in this discourse say in effect is but thus The King is Supreame Governour Yet under the Members Government He hath Authority without appeal to determine all things yet hath not power to determine any one thing To blear the eyes of the Vulgar they are contented the King shall be called the onely Supream Governour But the Authority Power and Execution thereof if we may believe the Members is their owne The King and People are herein used as a Father sometimes deals with his child telling his little son the flock of sheep is his yet the Father shears them takes the profits to his own use Even so are King People dealt with They are told bythe Members that the King by the Supreamacy claimes such a power As that the Subjects thereby have lost both their Law and Liberty and would make them believe that they are by those Members thereunto restored againe Whereas all but naturalls may now discerne That whilst the King together with the name enjoyed both the Power and Execution of the Supreamacy The people were a free Subject And that by this usurpation upon the King They are inslaved For the Supreamacy is in the Kings Person But by it He neither hath nor claimes an unlimited power The People are Governed under Him but that Government is directed by a known Law of which Law the King is not Judge nor can He by Himselfe alone alter that Law Now whilst the Supreamacy the Power to Judge the Law and Authority to make new Lawes are kept in severall hands the known Law is preserved but united it is vanished instantly thereupon and Arbytrary and Tyrannicall power is introduced For example the Members condemne a Subject to die they confiscate his estate to their own use and without appeal have power to Judge the Law thereupon This granted clear it is the Will of the Members is the Law they are hereby Judge Party and Witnesse It were fruitlesse for that condemned person although guiltlesse to urge his innocency of the Fact or to dispute the Law upon that Fact with them who have condemned him And as the Members tell us there is none else to appeal unto It is therefore to be feared the greater Estate the Delinquent hath or the more spleen some Members bear to his person the more Capitall is his offence So that it is the Members not the King who claime a power in their owne persons without above against all Courts of Justice The Parliament it self not excepted Our excellent Lawes are by them destroyed and turned into their own Arbitrary power And thus the people are enslaved by a distinction never heard of or thought on before this Parliament the aforesaid two Spencers onely excepted It is true they having committed acts of Treason to colour their proceedings divulged an opinion suitable to this they pretended that the Oath of Allegeance was more in respect of the Crown then the Kings Person That the King might be removed and the people ought to governe But those opinions are condemned as damnable execrable by two Acts of Parliament One called exilium Henrici de Spencer And the other made 1 Ed. 3. But that this of the Members and that of the Spencers are meere fictions and delusions to gull the people is evident both by Authorities of Law and the common practice of the Kingdome It is resolved in Calvins case which therein agrees with the whole current of our Law-bookes that Allegeance is due onely to the King That theKing hath two Capacities one of a natural body descended of the Royal Blood this is subject to death and infirmities The other a politick body and in that immortall invisible not subject to non-age c. That the King having but one person and severall capacities It was resolved Allegeance is due to his naturall Capacity And consequently the Soveraigne power of Government inherently in his person By the common Law of the Land Treason is to kill or endeavour to kill the King His consort the Queen or the Prince Therefore it is the naturall body the Law lookes upon for the politick body cannot die Besides neither the Queen nor the Prince hath a
first confessing the foresaid facts of Levying Warre doth deny an intent to harme the King in His Crowne or Dignity Then for rescuing the King from His Cavaleers If M. Pryn reflect upon the case of Robert Earl of Essex in the time of Queen Elizabeth he will finde That that Earl in comparison of Edg-hill Battaile gathered together but a handfull of men nor was that Queen fought with nor her Person in danger All which things the foresaide Earl at his Arraignment alledged for himself And protested his intent was onely to remove from the Queen some evill Councellors about her yet not available The fact by him confessed viz. without warrant from the Queen in a tumultuous manner to raise force was Judged Treason for which that Earl and his Adherents were executed as Traitors Thus for the point of Levying Warre against the King Then for imagining the death of the King Queen and Prince In this case the intent of the party acting is considerable For example suppose the King to be distracted or distempered endeavours to violate himself or assaults a Subject To lay hands upon the King to preserve His or the Subjects life in those cases and such like the facts are lawfull And it may so happen that the King may be slaine and yet no Treason As in case of tilting and such like Now the intent of any man cannot appeare otherwise then by the parties confession or by Proofes Circumstances and Presumptions Then for the Authors and Actors in this War It is true they deny an intention to kill the King the Queen or Prince But the Circumstances are as full and pregnant to prove they intended it as is possible A man seeme to come out of a house with a naked sword bloody none being in the house but the Corps of a dead body newly slaine with a Sword This is so pregnant a presumption as that before a just Judge and an equall Jury the mans deniall will not availe him Suppose one should assault and strike the King the Queen or Prince and with violence pursue the same and for this be indicted to have imagined their death for that man to alleadge he intended not to kill him or them so assaulted were in vaine But certainly the presumptions to prove the Authors and Actors of this War intended to kill the King the Queen and Prince are far more pregnant Suppose the Members and their Souldiers had declared their intent to be to kill them no man can devise how they could have endeavoured to have effected it more then hath been done by this Warre Severall Battailes have been joyned the King and Prince in person And many thousands on the Kings party slaine And for the Queen witnesse the businesse at Burlington The Authors and Actors of the powder-plot were justly condemned for Treason Upon that point of imagining to kill the King the Queen and and Prince But upon this ground of M. Pryns they might have escaped punishment It had been as easie for them to have alledged that they intended not to kill the King the Queene and Prince As for the Actors in this Warre to pretend it But Master Pryn undertakes to make this War against the King to be Lawfull by Authority and presidents Julius Caesar saith he by a Conspiracy of the Senate of Rome was murdered having 23 wounds given him And then shewes the Rebellions in the Raigne of King John Henry 3. Edward 2. Richard 2. and other Kings And some of them it is true were murdred by their Subjects Answer I confesse if presidents and examples of this kinde be Authorities to prove the facts lawfull It is easie enough to justifie this and every Rebellion And M. Pryn having cited that president of Julius Caesar and himself acknowledging that fact to be murder he was overseen to omit citing that of Judas for it was somewhat later in time it excels that fact against Caesar and is very sutable with this of the Members He betrayed his Master and the Saviour of the world with a Kisse these their Soveraigne with an Oath And like unto those Treasons and Murders against Caesar King Edw. 2. and King Rich. 2. they might very aptly have cited the examples of some of their deare brethren the Scots severall King have been Rebelled against and Murdred too by the Subjects of that Nation Yet we see they are not by the people of Scotland made examples or cited for Authorities to prove the lawfulnesse thereof But contrarywise That Nation doth unanimously declare it their duty to relieve and rescue their King from out of the hands of His Rebellious English Subjects And many other examples I confesse there be in forraigne Countries both Christians Turks and Infidells where Kings by their own Subjects have been betrayed and murdered And so the discontented people in any Nation may alledge that King Edw. 2. Rich. 2. of England being lawfull Kings were by their owne Subjects Rebelled against and Murdered And so be the scene in Spaine France or any other Kingdome conclude it is lawfull for them to doe the like Then M. Pryn explaines the meaning of the aforesaid Statute of 25 Edw. 3. by which it is declared to be Treason to Levy Warre against the King to compasse or imagine the death of the King the Queen or Prince But the words of the foresaid Act saith he must be understood with this Limitation viz. so long as Kings execute their Just Royall powers according to the Laws of God and of their Realmes that saith he is the meaning of the holy Ghost And even so saith he are these words of Saint Paul viz. let every Soul be subject to the higher powers to be understood with that limitation yet saith he No private man of his owne authority ought to rise in Armes against them without the generall consent of the whole Kingdome or both Houses of Parliament Answer This was a doctrine aptly divulged for the justification of this Rebellion And a ready way I confesse to draw the multitude to their party who oftentimes are as in this case they were misled upon pretence of Law and Religion to their owne ruine Now admit the Members to have got the Soveraigne power If Mr. Pryn be asked this question How he will have the holy Ghost now to speake If the Members make a Law and declare it Treason for the people to leavy War against them whether that Law shall be understood with the same limitation Mr. Pryns answer will be that the limitation is now ended The Members he will say must expound the meaning of their owne Law and S. Pauls words too For the Members themselves tell the people that they are the Kingdome whatever they do they would have us beleeve to be the act of every person in the whole Nation And so not examinable but by God himselfe in the next world so that the Members having got the power into their owne hands whether they governe by the Laws of God
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
Majesty and the Kingdome as they are in many if not in all cases And say they if His Majesty should be Judge He should be Judge out of His Courts and against His highest Court which He never is But the Parliament should onely Judge without His Personall Assent which as a Court of Judicature it alwayes doth and all other Courts as well as it And say they if the King be for the Kingdome and not the Kingdome for the King and if the Kingdome best knoweth what is for its owne good and preservation and the Parliament be the representative Body of the Kingdome it is say they easie to judge who in this case should be Judge But say they it it not so easie to understand what is the danger of unsetling by this meanes the security of all mens estates Is this danger say they kept of us by His Majesties single Vote And all mens estates without security and exposed to an arbitrary power because in all Courts of Justice and in the Court of Parlialiament and that without any appeale from it mens estates and interests are Judged without His Majesties Personall Assent But say they we do not say this as if the Royall Assent were not requisite in the passing of Laws nor doe nor ever did we say that because His Majesty is bound to give His consent to good Laws presented to Him by His people in Parliament that therefore they shall be Laws without His consent or at all obligatory saving only for the necessary preservation of the Kingdome whilst that necessity lasts and such consent cannot be obtained Answer Here with much art and cunning it is endevoured to misleade the people And for that purpose the true question is declined and other questions raised which at the first sight may to the vulgar seeme plausible When a difference happens say the Members between the King and the Houses and thus in a thing which concerns the safety of the Kingdome it must not rest undetermined therefore say they either the King must be Judge against the Houses or the Houses must be Judge against the King and conclude for themselves But the case being rightly stated and the constitutions of the Realme duly considered every rationall man will conclude that this power being granted the Members all the rest of the people of England are of a free Subject become absolute slaves which is thus This Nation is governed by a knowne Law which hath its prescribed rules therefore as before I said it may be necessary in some things to alter the old and make new Laws And that being so some knowne persons must Judge when necessity requires such a change and consequently untill those persons have so judged it all the people ought to conclude there is no need to alter the Law And by the Laws of England as before is said the King and the two Houses are that Judge no major part it is all joyntly who have that power As if A. seised of Lands upon his marriage is tied not to sell without the consent of B. and C. in this case A. B. or C. may negatively hinder the sale but it were absurd to conclude thereupon that A. B. or C. or any two of them have power to sell but most injurious it were upon that ground to give power to B. and C. to sell the Lands of A. without his personall consent So in this case the Kings of England have debarred themselves from making or changing the Laws without assent of the two Houses whereby the King the Lords House or the Commons House hath power negatively to hinder the making of any new Law or changing the old but it followeth not therefore the King the Lords or Commons or any two of those bodies have power to make a Law The difference is no lesse then between the having and not having a known Law The one imports the settlement of a knowne Law and preserves it and the other introduceth an arbitrary government For example if the King hath power to make what Laws He thinkes fit He may at pleasure bereave the Subject of life and confiscate their estates But now having a knowne Law and thereby protected in our persons and estates the King having a negative Voice to hinder the changing of that Law there ensueth no such evill consequence And the same holds with the members the Lords House and the Commons House having each of them a negative Voice to hinder the changing of the Law or making a new Law doth not lessen the peoples protection of their persons nor alters the property of their estates The knowne and setled Law still preserves both But admit one or both Houses without the King to make what Laws they please it followeth they have power to put to death whom and for what cause they thinke fit and for their owne use to seise and dispose of their estates their will is then the Law So that to give this power to the King alone or to one or both Houses without the King the consequence is equally evill If the King have it both Law and Parliaments are destroyed If the Members Monarchy the Parliament and the Law it selfe are totally abolished And if the King by having this power of a negative Voice be Judge in His owne cause the Members having that authority are so too But that is a meere fiction neither King nor Members by having a negatie Voice in Parliament are Judges in their own cause but all that is to say the King and the Houses are jointly Judges when it is fit to make a new Law or change the old And so long as they extend not beyond the power of a negative Voice the Members of the two Houses are persons indifferent between the King and the people and so is the King indifferent between the Members and the people For example if the King propound a Law to take away the life of His subjects to tax them with payments of money not warranted by the knowne Law or otherwise to inlarge His Prerogative the Members may assent thereunto and so make it a Law or refuse it and herein they are indifferent between King and people for the benefit of those Laws thus propounded accrues not to them And so it is if either or both Houses propound a Law to the King whereby they would assume to themselves the absolute power of Government to put to death whom they please to tax or impose upon the people to confiscate their estates to their own use the King is a person indifferent between the Members and the people to Judge whether to passe it or not But when the Members without the King assume power to make Laws the dispute between the King and the people is ended the businesse is then immediately and totally between the Members and the people Therefore by excluding the King from His negative Voice the Members have made themselves Judges in their owne case By our wofull experience we now find there
of the Members to have power to make a Law it is all one as to have that authority without asking them the question The Members upon broaching such a doctrin for the King would cal it tyranny they might justly too in that case account themselves but ciphers And the like reason holds via versa if the Kings deniall to make a Law hinder not the force of it the absolute power is in the Members And whether a Law be of necessity to be made for the preservation of the Kingdome or not he who will be sole Judge of that necessity excludes the other if the King be Judge thereof the Houses are excluded if the Houses assume that power the King is excluded And then for the continuance of those Laws it is as easie for the Members to say they have cause to continue them as to pretend necessity to make them The Members judged it necessary for the preservatiō of the Kingdome to take from the Crowne the Militia of the Realme and to settle it upon themselves they desired the King to consent He refused thereupon the Members without the King usurped that power into their owne hands The Members now declare it necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome for them without the King to impose upon the people impositions taxes and payments without stint to make what Laws they thinke fit to exclude the King from His Regall Authority to assume the whole power of Government and that to be Arbitrary the King having been desired to consent hereunto He refuseth Upon this we see the Members without the King assume it witness the imposition of that horrid Tax by Excise Assesments condemning of their fellow Subjucts to death confiscating their Estates and the like so that no man can apprehend that the asking of the Kings consent which in shew they seemed to desire is in their esteeme indeed of any moment And the Members by excluding the King from His negative Voice having got possession of the wealth of the whole Nation and dominion over the people having thereby wrested from the King the Sword His Scepter and Soveraignty it selfe no doubt but the same necessity pretended by them at first to incroach this power will be still alleadged by them to make their usurped authority lasting which accordingly we find the Members have as much as in them lie made their raigne perpetuall They tell us first in generall that in all matters either concerning Church or State we have no Judge upon earth but themselves And so by their doome we are both for soul and body in an everlasting and absolute slavery unto our fellow Subjects Then they proceed to particulars and begin with the Militia of the Realme which they judge usetesse and as a thing lying dead whilst it is in the power of the King of England For say the Members by the constitutions of the Realme the King cannot by himselfe alone without consent of the two Houses raise money by taxing the people Therefore the power of the Militia say they inables Him not to do the Kingdome any effectuall service But those Members having arrogated a power without the King to impose upon the people without stint they do therefore judge the Militia to be their owne And I confesse they are in some sort necessitated thereunto for both we and they see that otherwise then by troopes of Horse and bands of Soldiers it is impossible to leavy upon the Subject those illegall burthens by the Members laid upon them So that it is now come to passe that our greatest happinesse is made the foundation of our greatest misery because the King governs us by a knowne Law these Members tell us we must not be governed by a King the Kings justnesse to His people hath furnished these Tyrants with arguments to dis-throne Him By the government under the King and that authority claimed by Him the people have such protection of their persons and property in their Lands and goods as that otherwise then the known Law declared by the sworne Judges of the Realme doth warrant the King cannot molest them in either therefore say the Members He ought not to have the power of the sword But on the other side the Members having usurped an arbitrary and tyrannicall power over the persons lives estates and fortunes both of King and people therefore the Militia of the Kingdom say they belongs to them so that upon the matter better it had been both for King and people if the King had assumed the Turkish tyranny for then the King even by the Members owne argument had kept His Crown nor had the Subject been in so great a slavery as now we had then been subject only to one tyrant but by this doctrine we are vassals to seven hundred The Members have already besides the whole Revenue of the Crowne which they have barbarously wrested from the King the Queen and the Royall Progeny taxed upon the people by way of Excise Assesments and such like new impositions before this Parliament never known nor heard of in England above 3000000. l. per annum for their owne setled Revenue yet all this serves not the turne of these blessed self-denying reformers Besides all this they force the people to lend to give they confiscate where they please and convert to their own use what summes of money they thinke fit Yet setting aside their owne pompe and glory no visible cause of expence appears saving the Souldiery who are kept for no other end but to awe the people and force those exorbitant and illegall contributions Secondly they have Judged the King whom themselves even this Parliament have sworne to be their onely Supreame Governour to be unfit to Governe And this for refusing to acknowledge it His duty to be governed by them His Subjects and so much as in Him lay perpetually to vassalage unto those Rebels Himselfe His Royall Posterity and all the rest of the people And to compleat the worke they have Judged it Treason for any Subject of England either to make application to His Soveraigne or to receive any Message from Him By which Tyranny the people of this Nation are brought into that sad condition as doubtlesse was never yet parallel'd even from the Creation upon the face of the whole earth For Traytors we are denounced both for doing and not doing one and the same thing By Act of Parliament it is high Treason to refuse to sweare the King to be the only Supreame Governour over all the people of the Realme And these Members against this knowne and declared Law although themselves have taken that Oath murther such Subjects as according to their duty make addresse unto Him And call that their due allegeance Treason And to colour these proceedings the Members have the boldnesse to vouch God himselfe to justifie the legality thereof The power of the Militia say they was the principall cause both of this late War and the quarrell
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
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
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
can be expected Thirdly the Composier of these Members being two distinct bodies considered it is as prepostrous for them to command the Militia as to have the Soveraigne power of Government or to judge the Law It may fall out even in the time of greatest danger that one House shall Vote to fight the other not to fight the enemy And this difference may happen to be unreconciled untill the Nation be conquered or destroyed Thus it appears that the Members have no power over the Militia It now rests to prove that it is the Kings right which is made good by authority and reason First for authority it is proved by constant practise which is not onely the strongest proof in our Law but it is the Law it selfe We have no formall Institution of the Common Law it is no other but common Ancient and frequent use For example it is felony to steale it is not felony of death unlesse the thing stolen exceede the value of twelve pence These are things so certainly knowne and so generally received for Law as that any man to dispute them renders himself ridiculous yet being denied none can shew when the Law began how or by what authority it was made there is no other proof to make it good but custome and use So for the Militia of the Kingdome it was never estated upon the King by Act of Parliament or by any other constitution It is His right by the Common Law of England which is made good by custome and use and authorities of bookes And first for custome and use Any man of what quality or ranke soever he be reflecting upon his owne memory and observation must acknowledge that in all his time no Souldiers were impressed armed arrayed or mustered no Forts strong-holds or â—â—rrisons held or commanded no Commanders Officers or Souldiers Imployed by Land or Sea no Commissions concerning War either Forraigne or Domestick or concerning the administration of Justice but by authority derived from the King alone And such as search the Records in former times will finde the like practise in all ages And with this agrees all Histories and stories from this day upward unto the Roman Conquest Then for authorities and to begin with Acts of Parliament Magna Charta granted about 440. years since not onely being the first Statute but beyond it there is scarce an authentick record of Law at this day to be found In which Act it is thus declared by King Hen. 3. viz. And if We do lead or send him who is by tenure to defend a Castle in an Army he shall be free from Castle-guard from the time that he shall be with us in fee in our Host for the which he hath done service in our Wars Thus even in that Instrument whereby the King confirmed unto the people their Liberties It appears that by the Laws of the Land the power of War was the Kings sole right By an other Statute made 7. of King Ed. 1. being the son and next succeeding King to H. 3. The Prelates the Earles the Barons and the Comonalty of the Realme Assembled in Parliament declared that to the King it belongeth and His part is through His Royall Signiorie straightly to defend force of armour other force against the Kings peace at all times when it shall please Him And to punish them which shall do contrary according to the Laws and usages of the Realme And that they the Subjects are hereunto bound to aid their Soveraigne Lord the King at all seasons when need shall be After this by severall Acts of Parliament viz. 13. of the same King 1 Ed. 3. 25 Ed. 3. 4 H. 4. 5 H. 4. and other Statutes it is declared how and in what manner the Subject shall be charged with armes mustered arraied and forced to serve in War In all which Acts without dispute the whole power and command therein is admitted to be in the King By a Statute made 11 H. 7. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare it to be the duty and Allegeance of the Subjects of England not onely to serve their Prince and Soveraigne Lord for the time being in Wars but to enter and abide in service in battaile and that both in defence of the King and the Land against every Rebellion power and might reared against him By a Statute made 2 Edw. 6. in the Raigne of a child King The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare that it is the bounden duty of the Subjects to serve their Prince in War By a Statute made 4 and 5 P. M. In the Raigne of a Woman the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare thus viz. That whereas heretofore commandement hath been given by the Queen and her Progenitors Kings of England to diverse persons to muster their Subjects and to levy them for the service of their Majesty and this Realme in their Wars which service saith the Statute hath been hindred by persons absenting themselves from Musters and by being released for rewards And then provides remedy therein when the Queen her Heirs or successors shall authorize any to muster the people And by that late unanimous and voluntary recognition made by the Lords and Commons in Parliament unto King James they declared thus viz. We being bound thereunto both by the Lawes of God and Man doe recognize and acknowledge and thereby expresse our unspeakable Joyes That immediately upon the death of Queen Elizabeth the imperiall Crowne of the Realme of England did by inherent birth-right and lawfull and undoubted succession descend and come to your most Excellent Maj. that by the goodnesse of Almighty God your Maj. is more able to Governe us your Subjects in Peace and plenty then any of your Progenitors And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige our heires and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our blouds be spent Now every man of sense will agree that the opinion of the Members of this Parliament is no more authentique then the opinions of the Lords and Commons Assembled in former Parliaments And that being granted it followeth that any one of the aforementioned Statutes whereby the Lords and Commons declare That by the Law of the Land the power of the Militia is in the King is so much the more weighty and so much more to be relyed upon in this point of the Militia then the opinion of these Members by how much more persons are competent to determine a question concerning another then to judge their own case or when they resolve for or against themselves But these Members setting aside their owne Votes in this their own case for their own advantage cannot make their pretence to the Militia good by any one Authority Opinion Practise or President But this not all These Westminster men themselves even this Parliament have both in their Ordinances as they call them and Petitions acknowledged the Militia to be the
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
And although this rule be exactly observed yet once having declared himself he is every houre in danger of destruction For when a new faction gets up which is very frequent changing his note oftentimes preserves him not from an impeachment he is from thence but dandled as a whelp under a Lyons Paw when that party thinkes fit cru hed in pieces Now should some of the Judges of any Court of Justice in Westminster-Hall demean themselves in this manner with their fellow Judges no wise man would esteeme them to have the power of Judicature And why a part of the Members of either House should have this Priviledge more then they is beyond the reach of the Westminster-men to make it good By this it appears that the Members have not freedome of Speech and consequently no House of Parliament Fourthly admitting the Members had not been injuriously expulsed And had they been permitted freely to give their opinions yet these men at Westminster have disabled themselves to sit or Vote there which is proved thus Every Traytor Murderer and Felon by the Law of the Land is disabled to sit or vote in Parliament But these persons are Traytors Murderers and Felons Ergo. The Major needs no proof every one grants it And for the Minor Those men have not onely committed such facts as the Law judgeth Treason Murder and Felony but even making it their daily work are still constant to those their principles They as before appears actually Levyed War against their King which is Treason They have actually endeavoured to kill the King the Queen and Prince which is Treason They have counterfeited the Kings Great Seal which is Treason They have counterfeited His Mony which is Treason They have not onely denyed their King to be the Supreame Governour but have arrogated the power of Soveraignty to themselves which is Treason They have this Parliament declared it Treason to attempt to change the Law But themselves have actually subverted both Law and Religion And have reduced both King and people to their Arbitrary power which is Treason They have and still doe imprison the Person of their King which is Treason Then for Murder besides their owne consciences if they have any remorse inwardly gnawing the fatherlesse children and widdowes of those slaine on both sides in this unnaturall War raised and prosecuted by them against King and Kingdome in swarmes to testifie against them But this not all they doe still in colder bloud and in further abuse of Justice by pretext and colour of Law sometimes in their own names other while imitating the ordinary formes of Law by the mouths of their nominall mock Judges whose understandings and consciences by their foresaid Order and with bribes and rewards they have in vassalage condemne murder and put to death the Kings Loyall Subjects as Traytors and this principally for refusing to commit Treason And for felony That offence is included both in the crime of Treason and Murder but there needs not that help to prove them guilty thereof By the Law of England it is felony of death to steal goods exceeding the value of twelve pence But these persons in the nature of robbery have by force taken from King and People their whole livelihood Suppose 20 Troopers to make an Order that all persons passing through High-gate shall deliver unto them all such Money as shall be found about them If the Troopers by colour of this Order force the passengers to deliver their Money It were ridiculous to deny this to be robbery Yet if that Order made by the Troopers were binding the fact were lawfull So here those men at Westminster have ordered which they stile an Ordinance of Parliament that all the people of England shall give unto them the 5 part and the 20 part of their Estates That every man who eats or drinkes buyes or sels shall pay unto them a certaine summe by the name of Excise That every County and Towne shall likewise contribute unto them and their Souldiers vast summes of money That all the Kings Revenues shall be disposed of to them and to their use That all persons who shall oppose them herein shall be judged Traytors and forfeit unto these men their whole estates and fortunes And by colour of those Orders we see they do by force seize and take all to their owne use Now in regard the foresaid persons at Westminster have not power as before is proved to make such Laws it directly followeth that the forcing the King and people herein is unlawfull and consequently both King and Subject are robbed of their money and goods And their estates wrongfully detained from them But peradventure these incendiaries at Westminster will object that although they be guilty of those crimes yet untill they be judicially convict thereof it cannot be alleadged against them Answer First By their owne practice they have judged this point against themselves For as before appears without any legall conviction they have expulsed almost all their fellow-Members And that for supposed facts which if guilty of disabled not them to sit or vote in the house So that these Westminster-men having to the view of the world committed such facts as by law disables them to sit or vote to be judged no Members themselves must confesse is at the most but lex Talionis Secondly it may appear even in the judgment of Law that a man is guilty of treason murder or felony although not attainted or convicted thereof For example one calls another before any conviction of such a crime Traytor Murderer or Thief The Person thus charged brings his action of slaunder In this case if the Defendant justifie his words alleaging that the Plaintif committed such a fact which the law judgeth Treason Felony or Murder and at the triall proved it The Jury ought to acquit the Defendant of the slaunder yet still that Traytor Murderer or Felon is not convict of the fact Therefore clear it is a Traytor is a Traytor And the people may as well know him so to be and as lawfully so call him before attainder or conviction as to know a spade to be a spade and so call it Besides when a treason murder or felony is committed it is the proper office of every petty Constable and of every Justice of peace nay it is the duty of every honest Subject to apprehend the malefactor and to bring him to due punishment wherein neither priviledge of Parliament dignity of the Person or imployment of the Offender is any protection It is not only lawful but the duty of every honest English man to lay hands upon the Speakers of both Houses or upon any Peer or Parliament-man or any other having committed the crime of treason murder or felony or justly suspected for the same And consequently they ought to apprehend the aforesaid Westminster-men It is true that in the ordinary proceedings no man can be convict of treason murder or felony but by Act of Parliament or
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
still carry the face of Justice although nothing ever was or can be more pernitious to King and people Ket Cade Wat Tyler and the like in their insurrections pretended reformation To remove bad Councellors from the King To restore the people to their Liberties and to set up the Law they protested were the things they aimed at Now admit their intention had been to reforme yet their proceedings must necessarily destroy both Law and Government Suppose Ket had been asked who should judge what persons had broken the Law who were bad Councellours who should nominate the Officers of State and the like Ket would have answered that he who reformes must judge of the reformation Therefore none but Ket should judge of these things which had been no lesse then to have arrogated an Arbitrary power to enslave the people And if so in Kets case It is the same when any persons what ever their quality or number be for it is the Authority and Commission which the Law lookes upon to justifie the fact not the dignity or number of the persons acting And as those things alter not the nature of the crime so the consequence thereof to the people is all one They are as much and more damnified by an unlawfull act committed by a Lord as by a peasant by a thousand as by one single person Then for the Members proceedings Their assuming power to judge the Law to exclude the King from His Negative voice in Parliament taking upon them Authority to make Laws and the like are in themselves as unlawfull as the foresaid acts of Ket c. The Members have no more Commission for this then Ket had for that And the consequence thereupon to the people is one and the same Suppose a single person to have conquered the Kingdome And thereupon to assume an Arbitrary power The lives estates and fortunes of the people were at his command And so they now be at the will of the Members And thus the Subjects were enslaved CHAP. XV. The way how to restore the people to their former Liberties WHen the Physitian hath discovered the nature of his sick patients disease and not before he knowes what medicine to apply for the cure Which holds with a Common-wealth fallen into disorder And for England the cause of its grief is apparent It is rather out of joynt then sick of a disease Our misery is occasioned as before appears onely by setting aside the King For by that the Soveraign power of Government the Authority to make Lawes and the power to judge the Law are wrested out of their proper places and drawne into one hand The Members by excluding the King have usurped all these so that there is no other power or rule to guide their actions but their own will But whilst the King held His right the power of Government was His the Authority to make Lawes was in Him and the two Houses joyntly and to declare the Law in the Judges whereby every one was limited within His own bounds and so avoid all Arbitrary power Thus for the cause of our grief Then for the cure when any limbe of a man is out of joynt it so much distempers every part as that if not timely prevented the whole body is in danger to perish And as no medecine without putting it into joynt againe will ease the paine so by setting straight that joynt at once it is a perfect cure to the whole body Now by setting aside the King the disorder in our Common-wealth is no lesse then an absolute subversion both of Law and Government The people are thereby totally enslaved this incurable but by restoring the King again For so long as the Members exclude the King so long the aforesaid authorites are usurped by them and so a power Arbitrary For example If the Members condemne an innocent man to death And for a fact if guilty not punishable by Law The Members having power without appeal both to determine the fact and to declare the Law upon that fact And those Members having Judged him to dye and to forfeit his Estate unto themselves This innocent man all the world must confesse is without remedy he is hopelesse without the mercy of those who gaine by his destruction But the King being restored the foresaid Authorities are returned into their proper places and againe divided into severall hands instantly from thence every Court Assembly and person not only enjoyes its own Authority but is limited within its own bounds no man then is permitted to be both Judge and Party he ought not by our Law to give sentence of death if by that Sentence the Judge gave the fortune of the man condemned Thus for the Medicine In the next place it is considerable who shall apply it And for that as the people were the immediate instruments of their own thraldome they ought to be the principall Agents of their own freedome Their motives to returne to their obedience are farre greater then they had to recede from it Was any heretofore hindred to exercise his owne opinions in matters of Religion Was his person imprisoned taxes and impositions laid upon him not warranted by the Law If so his condition is now farre worse First for Religion The sence of those Members we now finde is made the rule of every mans faith he is bound to change his Religion as the Major part of the Houses shall Vote The Ecclesiasticall Judges heretofore were limited in their punishments The Members are boundlesse And as they are not guided either for Doctrine or Discipline but by their owne will So in their punishments they are a large too Shall the Members Vote that no man shall use the word Trinity or call upon our Saviour by the name of Jesus or what else soever it be The punishment upon those breaking that Law may be losse of all his Estate or death if the Members please Then for imprisoments formerly the Judges had power by whose warrant or command soever committed as the cause required to bail or set him at liberty But now once committed by the Members the cause is not examinable unlesse released by them who committed him without redemption or examination in the gaol he must starve and perish And for taxes and impositions it is true we have heard of Loans and Benevolences and we know the businesse of Ship-money But the people are now taxed by Assessements Excize and otherwise at pleasure Peradventure the Excize now laid upon London exceeds not 20000. l. a week but by the same Law that such a summe is imposed it may be multiplyed to a Million a day If one County be assessed at 1000. l. a moneth it may be raised to 10000. l. a weeke And as these are new wayes to tax the people The Members by the same rule every day may devise other new wayes to burthen them And doubtlesse he who hath his Estate taken from him by Assessements or Excize is left as little to feed