claime any right interest or authority but such as He is intitled unto by the Common Law by Particular Custome or by Act of Parliament In the next place it is shewed when the two Houses were Instituted and what is a Parliament CHAP. II. What is a Parliament and how and when the two Houses were Instituted AS it is necessary for a Common-wealth to have a Law so every known law must be grounded upon certain rules Therefore be it composed with never so much care the people cannot be well governed unlesse some persons have power in some things to alter the old and make new Laws Emergent occasions are oft such as require raising mony and other things to be done which the prescribed rules of a known Law cannot warrant which persons so authorized to make Laws in this Nation are called the Parliament And that those Persons at this time consist of the King and both Houses joyntly is a thing most obvious to all men but how long it hath been so is uncertaine For although all the Sages of the Law and judicious Historians agree and therwith reason it self concurreth that ever since we have had Lawes some persons have had power in some things to alter and make new Lawes which might properly be called a Parliament yet untill long after the Norman Conquest I doe not finde it cleared what was a Parliament or what Persons had that power But upon perusall of the Statutes themselves which I conceive in this case to be the best proof I confesse I am much inclined to believe that untill the Raigne of King Edward 1. there was not any formed body or known persons whom the King was obliged to summon unto a Parliament for the making of Lawes wherein I shall begin with the first Law of that nature which at this day binds the people And therein we cannot goe beyond the ninth year of the Raigne of King Henry 3. that of Magna Charta being the first upon serious perusall of which Act the Charter of the Forrest and the Statute of Ireland enacted the same year by the words thereof I am induced to believe although doubtlesse with the consent of divers of His Subjects that they were made by the sole power of the King In the Preamble of the Statute of Merton made 20. Hen. 3. are these words viz. It is provided in the Court of our Soveraigne Lord the King holden at Merton before William Arch-bishop of Canterbury and others His Bishops and Suffragans and before the greater part of the Earls and Barons of England there being Assembled for the Coronation of the King and His Queen about which they were all called where it was Treated for the Common-wealth of the Realme And then were made diverse Acts of Parliament By which it clearly seemes to me That the Persons consenting to the Lawes then made were not summoned to a Parliament but to the Kings Court and not called to make Lawes but to solemnize the Coronation of the King and His Queene Those Treated with Bishops Earls and Barons not the Commons nor all the Bishops Earles and Barons only such as the King thought fit to be present at His and His Queenes Coronation And none of them called by Writ Likewise in the Preamble of the Statute of Marlbridge made 52 Hen. 3. are these words viz. For the better Estate of this Realme as it behoveth the Office of a King the more discreet men of the Realme being called together as well on the higher as on the lower estate c. So that to this Parliament it seemes only such Lords and other discreet men of the Common-wealth such as the King thought fit were summoned But in the Preamble of the Statute of Westminster first made 3 Edw. 1. are these words viz. These are the Acts of King Edw. 1. by His Councell and by assent of Arch-bishops Bishops Abbotts Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realme being thither summoned because our Soveraign Lord the King had great desire and zeal to redresse the State of the Realme By which it appears that to the making of Lawes at this time there was a great and generall concurrence for besides Arch-bishops Bishops Abbotts Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty the Kings Councell gave their advice therein and consented thereunto But by subsequent Acts of Parliament it seemes to me such a generall Assembly was not necessary For in the Statute of Bigamy made the next year being 4 Edw. 1. are these words viz. In the presence of certaine Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Councell as well the Justices as others did agree they should be put in writing for a perpetuall memory And 6 Edw. 1. The King and His Justices made an exposition of certaine of the Articles upon the Stat. of Glocester In the Preamble of the Statute of Mortmaine are these words viz. We therefore intending to provide convenient remedy by the advise of our Prelats Earles Barons and other our Sujbects being of our Councell have provided c. In the Preamble of the Statute called Articuli super Chartas it it thus expressed viz. Forasmuch as the Articles of the Great Charter hath not been observed because there was no punishment upon the Offenders c. our Lord the King at the request of His Prelats Earles and Barons Assembled in Parliament hath enacted certaine Articles c. In the Statute of Eschetors made at Lincolne 29 Edw. 1. are these words viz. At the Parliament of our Soveraign Lord the King by His Councell it was agreed and also commanded by the King Himself That from thenceforth it should be observed and done according to the advice of the Reverend Father William Langton Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield and Treasorer to the King John Langton then being Chancellour and other of the Councell then being present before the King c. By these Acts it still seemes to me That both for the Lords and for the Commons as the King pleased sometimes were called more sometimes fewer sometimes part of the Commons sometimes all and somtimes none of them yet the power one and the same for at all the times aforesaid severall Statutes were made which to this day binde the people equall to any Act of Parliament made since Whereupon I conceive that the two Houses of Parliament were not originally composed with the beginning of the Law for as by the aforesaid Acts of Parliament it doth appear in the Raign of King Edw. 1. being the ninth King after the Conquerour and in time above two hundred years from the Conquest all which space we were governed by the same Law we now have there was not any formed Body known Persons or Assembly whose consent was necessary to joyne with the King to make an Act of Parliament but it seems that when the King conceived it fit to make a Law He called to Him such of His Subjects either
that Suppose it granted that the Iudges in that case of Ship-mony gave Sentence by corruption whereby about 200000. l. per annum was drawn from the people To conclude hereupon that we must from henceforth have no more learned men chosen Iudges is extreame harsh It might as well be argued thus The Members of the two Houses have erred in Iudgement and have been corrupt ergo we ought to have no more Parliaments For as before appeares the Members of former Parliaments have most grosly erred And for these present Members they have not only erred but have been in the highest nature corrupt too First They erred in Iudgement by assuming the Iustice seat the Soveraign power of Government and so in infinite other particulars Then for corruption since these Authorities were by them arrogated twice twenty times 200000. l. per annum illegally and barbarously drawn from the people doth not stint them They have corruptly by one Vote not onely given themselves the wealth of the whole Nation but have likewise enslaved both King and People for their lives and fortunes to their owne will But clear it is no constitution can avoid every mischiefe it is the best Law which prevents the most inconveniencies therefore in this case that which can be done is to have persons who are learned in the profession made Iudges of the Law and all possible care taken that they doe Iustice and for that by our Law no man is capable of a Iudges place unlesse he have ability to execute the same And although he be sufficient for learning yet being advanced for bribes or rewards he is by Law likewise disabled to performe the office They are sworne to do right to all persons and although error in judgement is no crime yet corruption in the Iudge be it for bribes affection malice desire of preferment fear or any other cause is by our Law an offence of an high nature and and most severely punished Now if in stead of exalting themselves the Members had as they made some shew for a while made inquiry how and by whom the Judges were drawne as the Members alleadge to give that corrupt sentence and had presented the same to the King to the end not onely exemplary punishment might have been inflicted upon them but they put out of their places and new Iudges elected the Members had done like Parliament men that had pursued their Commission And so whilst the King the Parliament the Judges every Court and Assembly retaine their owne proper authority without clashing with or encroaching each upon other As by the Laws of England they ought to do both King and Subject are preserved in their just rights And this ought to be exactly observed notwithstanding the superiority or inferiority of any Court power person or Assembly because one Court in some respect is superiour to another that takes not away nor lesseneth the proper jurisdiction of the inferior Court Scarce any inferior Court but it hath some powers which the superior Court hath not For example The Court of CommonPleas hath power between party and party to determine reall actions which the Kings Bench hath not The Assembly of the Commons House cannot give an oath yet the meanest Court of Justice even a Court of Pipowders hath that power So that if it were admitted that the two Houses of Parliament were a Court of Justice as it is not And that it were the highest Court of that nature in this Kingdome that would not at all make good their pretence to be the finall Judge of the Law from whom no appeale should lie But by this Vote and practise of the Members all Courts of justice and rightfull powers in the Kingdome are put downe the Law totally subverted and all things reduced to their arbitrary power Upon the whole matter clear it is that the Judges of the aforesaid three Courts are the Judges of the Realme and the persons unto whom all the people of this Nation are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law But notwithstanding all this the same necessity which made the Members exclude the King from His negative Voice and so to usurpe a boundlesse power to make Laws enforceth them to arrogate the Justice seate too For it were to little purpose for them to declare it Treason for a Subject to speake to His King and infinite such like grosse contradictions both to reason and the knowne Law and yet permit the rightfull Judges to determine the same questions that were both to exalt themselves up and at the same instant to cast themselves downe againe But they tell us they are no such babies So long as the people will be fooled nothing is more certaine but Tyrants they will be to us their slaves In the next place it is shewed who ought to nominate and authorize the Judges of the Realme CHAP. VI. That the Judges of the Realme ought to be elected and authorized by the King of England for the time being and by none else THe legall authorizing of the Judges of the Law is of that importance as upon it depends the preservation of the people for no Law no government no Judge no Law and if authorized by an illegall Commission no Judge It appears before that when the Iudge extends beyond the bounds of his Commission his proceedings are void as done coram non Judice Upon the same grounds be the words of the Commission never so large if the authority be derived from such as have not power to grant it the whole Commission is voide Yet Mr. Pryn by the authority of the Commons House hath published a Treatise intituled thus The Parliaments right to elect Privy Councellors great Officers and Judges Wherein he endeavours to prove the two Houses by the Laws of England ought to elect the Iudges And proceeds thus Kings saith he were first elected by the people and as he beleeves the people at the first elected the Judges and great Officers and bound them by publike Laws which appears saith he by infinite Acts of Parliament regulating both the power of the King and His Officers That in ancient time Lieutenant Generals and Sheriffs were elected by the Parliament and people That the Coroners Majors Aldermen of Corporations Constables and other such like officers at this day are elected by the people Knights of Shires and Burgesses are elected by the Commons of the Realme That the King can neither elect a Commoner nor exclude a Member of either House to sit or Vote That the Parliament consists of Honourable wise grave and discreet persons That although the Kings have usually had the election of great officers and Judges it hath rather been by the Parliaments permission then Concession That the Judges and Officers of State are as well the Kingdomes as the Kings And saith that Mr. Bodin a grave Politician declares That it is not the right of electing great officers which prove the right of Soveraignty because it oft
of the Kings learned Councell and the Masters of the Chancery whom the King adviseth with as His great Councell It is the office of the Commons as likewise by this Writ appears to do and consent unto such things as the King the Prelates and Peeres agree upon The second are such as the King makes choice of to advise Him in matters of State and are sworne to secrecy And the third are the Judges of the Realme and others of the Long Robe whom the King elects and are sworne to advise Him in matters of Law Now whilst these Councellors keepe within their owne bounds and faithfully performe their severall duties the known Law is preserved and so every one protected But when they extend beyond their bounds confusion ensueth Absurd it were for a sick man concerning his Cure to advise with a Lawyer or for any one in point of Law to take advise of a Physitian So for the Privy Councellors to judge the Law for the Judges to determine matter of State And the like holds with the Members of the two Houses They are neither qualified nor have Commission either to intermeddle with the Law or the affaires of State otherwise then the King shall thinke fit to intrust them by asking them their advise wherein they are onely to deliver their opinions not to controle Therefore when the two Houses have passed a Bill for a new Law and have presented it to the King they have performed their duty it then rests in the King whether to make it a Law or not wherein it may be necessary for Him to take the advise of His Privy Councell His learned Councell or of both And I conceive that may be the reason why Kings have used to answer Bils which they passe not by these words le Roy le veili By these words of the Writ viz. Quia de advisamento assensu consilii nostri c. quoddam Parliamentum nostrum c. teneri ordinavimus c. It appears that the King depends upon His Councell in calling Parliaments which oftentimes is occasioned upon State-affaires such as requires the assembling of a Parliament yet not safe to reveale those reasons to the Parliament men And so the King by advise of His Privy Councell or His learned Councell may and oftentimes doth reject Bils presented unto Him by both Houses and yet not convenient to render His reasons to that multitude Therefore clear it is the men at Westminster have extended beyond their Commission and so all these Votes are absolutely invalid not binding either King or people The King notwithstanding these Votes is or whatever the Members shall or can Vote will and must be our only Supreame Governour And consequently these men at Westminster by breaking their bounds are themselves guilty of those things which in and by their declarations to the people they grossely and falsely aspersed their King with They have and do arrogate to use their owne words an arbitrary power without above against all the Courts of Justice the Parliament it selfe not excepted And thereby the knowne Law is subverted and consequently they are most palpably guilty of that crime for which they themselves condemned as a Traytor the late Earle of Strafford but for attempting to do and that upon a slender proof too Upon the whole matter it may with as much justice sense be said that there was yet never one King of England as to question whether the King for time being hath inherently in His person the Soveraigne power of Government But that man who hath taken consideration hereof and yet so absurdly peevish as to remaine unsatisfied of the Kings right herein the whole world must judge Him worse then out of his wits to give it unto the Members Suppose the Steward of a Lord or Commoner to claime property in the estate of his Master I presume the Houses would account him an unjust Judge who should determine the case on the Stewards behalfe upon his owne testimony So here the Members challenge not onely the Soveraignty due unto their Leige Lord and King but an authority arbitrary over King and people wherein they have not the least colour of proof more then their owne affirmation Besides when a witnesse although not a party contradicts himselfe his testimony becomes invalid But the Members solemnly upon their Oathes even this Parliament have declared the King their only Supreame Governour wherein they swore not for themselves but on anothers behalfe that is for the Kings Interest So that every prudent man in common sense and reason ought to beleeve that which these men have thus sworne for the King And absolutely to reject this their affirmation contrary to that Oath and for their owne advantage And so I conclude this point concurring with the Lords and Commons 1 Jacobi that the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme is by inherent birth-right descended and come to this our King Charls And that according to the Oathes of these Members and their predecessors in former Parliaments he is our onely Supreame Governour In the next place it is shewed that the Militia of the Kingdom is in the King CHAP. VIII That the Militia of the Kingdome by the knowne Laws of the Realme is inherent in the Crowne And at the absolute command of the King and none else IT appears before that the King is the onely Supreame Governour which of it selfe is sufficient to satisfie any man of judgement that the Militia of the Kingdome is likewise in Him yet Mr. Pryn by licence of the Commons House hath published a Treatise Intituled thus The Parliaments Interest in the Militia Whereby he endeavours to prove that the Members of the two Houses which he miscals the Parliament have the power over the Militia the Forts the Navie and Revenues of the Crown And begins thus It must saith he be granted that the power which His Majesty hath or His Predecessors enjoyed ever the Militia the Forts the Navie Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne was originally granted to His Ancestors by the Parliament and Kingdomes free consent Answer The Militia the Forts the Navy Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne saith M. Pryn were granted to the Kings Ancestors by the Parliament and Kingdomes free consent So that neither the Parliament nor the Kingdome by his owne confession made the grant nor who he meanes was this grantor himself cannot imagine However it is not worth the labour to make further inquiry thereof for most certaine it is never any such grant was made But admit that before the Kings Ancestors enjoyed them some persons had power and Interest therein and made a grant thereof to the Kings Ancestors It is as hard a taske thereby to prove that the Members have title to these things as to find out this imagined grantor who never yet was in esse The Argument is but thus The Militia the Forts the Navy Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne were originally granted to the Kings Ancestors Ergo at
this day by the Laws of England the Members of the two Houses have right thereunto which is most absurd But Mr. Pryn affirming that these things were granted to the Kings Ancestors and the truth being that the King and His Ancestors time out of minde have enjoyed them It is a good argument to prove the King hath title to them And for Parliaments as before appeares The first Act we have is Magna Charta made 9 H. 3. but the Kings Auncestors and predecessors enjoyed the Militia the Forts the Navy Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne many hundred of yeares before that time therefore could not be granted by the Parliament or by its consent And for the Kingdomes consent Master Pryn must explaine his meaning what he intends thereby before it be Intelligible Then saith M. Pryn the King hath no power to array arme or muster His Subjects but in such manner as the Parliament by speciall Acts hath prescribed Answer This being granted makes directly against Master Pryn it disproves the Members pretended power to the Militia and makes good the Kings interest therein The Argument is thus The King cannot muster His Subjects but in such sort as is prescribed by Act of Parliament To conclude thereupon that the Members of the two Houses have the power of the Militia nothing can be more absurd But it directly implies that none but the King can muster the people And consequently the Militia is in the King And for Acts of Parliament prescribing how or in what manner the people shall be mustered or arrayed we have none of that nature untill the Raign of King Ed. 1. But the Militia of the Kingdome was executed and commanded by the Kings of England 1200. yeares before that time And by every Act of Parliament which doth in any sort order or appoint the mustering or arraying of the Subject It appeares that the Power and Authority it self before that Law was in the King And by none of them is taken out of him And so this Argument of Master Pryns is to no purpose But saith M. Pryn The King hath these things and the Revenues of His Crown in His politick Capacity as saith he a Major and Commonalty a Dean and Chapter and the like are seized of their Lands And therefore saith he the King neither by His Will nor by His Letters Patents can devise alien or sell the same Answer If it be admitted that the King cannot alien such Lands and Revenues as He is seized of in His politick Capacity which is in it selfe most absurd how this disproves his title to the Militia the Forts the Navie Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne is not intelligible The Argument in effect is but thus The King hath the Militia c. in his politick capacity Ergo he hath it not Or thus The King cannot sell the Revenues of his Crowne Ergo the Members have the Interest therein and may seize them But saith Master Pryn the Ships Armes and Ammunition seized of by the Members were bought with the Kingdomes Money And therefore the Members may seize them Answer Suppose it understood what is the Kingdomes Money and that with such Money Ships Armes and Ammunition are bought It seemes a good Argument for the King to Seize them For He as King ex Officio is obliged to preserve His people in Peace Besides that money or other things which no particular Subject can challenge property in by the Lawes of the Kingdome is the Kings But by the Lawes of England we have no person or pollitick body by the name of the Kingdome which is capable to have property either in Lands or Goods And for the Members of the two Houses as Parliament men they have not any politick Capacity they are not a body to sue or to be sued nor are capable to buy or sell nor have property in any estate And consequently Master Pryn by his own Argument hath as much title to seize the foresaid Ships Armes and Aummunition as they Then saith M. Pryn the Members seized the Ships and Revenues of the Crown to prevent the arrivall of forraign forces and a Civill Warre which they foresaw As saith he Queene Elizabeth in time of War with Spaine granting letters of Mart to seize all materialls for Warre transported through the narrow Seas Answer By this discourse we are told what moved the Members to seize the Kings Navy and the Revenues of his Crown which in effect is thus viz. The Members having usurped an Arbitrary power over King and people and thereby having destroyed the Monarchy of England had just cause not only to expect opposition from their own Soveraign but in his relief arrivall of forraigne forces from all the Kings in Christendome For upon the same grounds as the Members made this seizure the Subjects of any King may doe the like It is as easie for the people of Spaine France or any other Nation in the world to say they foresee a War as these Members pretend it And I am certaine it is as unlawfull and directly against the constitutions of England for the Subjects here to assume this power as for the people of any other Country to doe the like to their King Therefore I grant it was an act of Pollicy for the Members to seize the Kings Ships and the Revenues of His Crown It was a great and principle means to prevent the suppression of this their Rebellion But all that proves the legality of their proceedings no more then a high-way man having taken a purse murders the party robbed to prevent his own discovery makes the robbery lawfull And so M. Pryns Argument in effect is but thus The Members de facto have seized the Kings Ships and Revenues of his Crown ergo they have done it lawfully Thus in Answer to Master Pryns Arguments whereby he endeavours to prove that the Members have power over the Militia c. But that they have no colour to claime any Authority therein further appeares thus First all men must grant That so long as the people have been governed by a Law so long the power of the Militia must have been in some But the people of England as before appears have been governed by a Monarchicall power above 1200 yeares before the institution of the two Houses And all that while the Kings of England for the time being and none else have executed that Authority Therefore not in the Members Secondly it is absolutely necessary that the power of the Militâ—â— be in such hands as may at all times provide against approaching dangers to the Common-wealth But that cannot be the Members they are not in esse out of Parliament Suppose this Nation in the vacancy of a Parliament be suddenly invaded by a Forraigne enemy or infested by a domestick insurrection If none have power to command the people to assemble and make resistance untill the summoning of the two Houses of Parliament nothing but distraction to King and people
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
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
He is not Judge in His own case nor hath a power Arbitrary His Authority and interest is regulated by a known Law Thus appears the different condition of the people between that in the worst of times under the Kings Government and what they are now reduced unto under the men at Westminster So that if the people had onely exchanged that Government for this it had been miserable enough Therefore considering the blood which hath been spilt herein most irksome it must be to every honest soule to think thereof But still the peoples case is worse the former grievances under the King was no cause of their defection For before this War began they were reformed Ship-money and all grievances were taken away In a word the people had no other motive to draw their sword against their Soveraigne but thus They were by these incendiaries falsely told that the King meant not what he said nor intended to keep those Laws he had made But now every person thus seduced by his owne wofull experience finds that it was these persons at Westminster who meant contrary to what they pretended If he looke for the Protestant Religion freedome of conscience the Laws of the Realme Liberty of his person or property in his estate due unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject not one of them is to be found But instead thereof he finds himselfe poore man catched in the Members net His conscience His life His Liberty His estate and fortune is now at their arbitrary power These things considered he that thinkes either of this world or of the world to come upon his soule or body if he love himselfe or his Country if he fear God or honour the King must instantly make one in this worke to restore that King to his Throne Thus for the persons who ought to apply the medicine the next is to know how it shall be done And for that although considering the calamities this Nation hath suffered in being brought to bondage To redeeme it againe may seeme difficult yet upon consideration had thereupon it appears to be a thing easily effected That of the Members in excluding the King opposed the Law Therefore could not be done but by War and force But this of restoring the King pursues the Law and so proclaimes peace And as the Members could not have usurped this power but by War so they cannot hold it but by force Instantly upon the Law having its free passage their Kingdome is at an end And to every War is absolutely necessary the peoples personall assistance and money to pay the Soldiers If either of these faile the War is ended And obvious it is that the persons at Westminster can have neither of them but from those whom by the same persons have been thus brought to thraldome So that to perfect all this worke if every one would do his duty there would be no danger of bloodshed Then there needed no weapons not doing would do the worke Therefore whether thou bee'st in armes or not obey thy King according to the Law make thy payments to whom by Law they are due pay no Excise Loanes Benevolences Assessements Tax Tollage or other new impositions by them laid upon thee And if these Usurpers require these things as due by Law Tell them it is contrary to their owne doctrine Wish them to read the Petition of right whereby the Lords and Commons in Parliament declared That the people ought not to be Taxed with payments of money but by Act of Parliament that is by the King the Lords House and the Commons joyntly concurring Put them in minde of their Declarations this Parliament wherein they call it pernitious â—â—…mpt to goe about to Tax the people by way of Excise That it is against the liberty of the Subject to be charged with payments of money otherwise then the knowne Law doth warrant that nothing is more horrid then to have Soldiers billited to force upon the people voluntary contributions or to have new Oathes put upon them Yet these and thousand more exactions laid upon thee against Magna Charta the Petition of right and the knowne Law thou maist charge them with And needs no other Judge to condemne them but themselves out of their owne mouthes And further for thy incouragement herein be assured that by this restauration of the King not onely the people of England obtaine their freedome but instantly thereupon ensueth peace and unity throughout all the Kings Dominions For by that the Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland are againe united The people will then with great joy and acclamation according to the foresaid just recognition of the Lords and Commons unto King James performe their duty unto this our King Charls And acknowledge Him according to the foresaid Oath of Supremacy their onely Supreame Governour Upon the whole matter so long as the people continue in this slavery they are not onely their owne wilfull tormentors but disobeyers of the Laws of God and man And by quitting themselves from bondage which is at every instant in their power to do they performe their duty to both FINIS ERRATA PAg. 8. lin 11. read or our p. 10. l. 20. r. his advice p. 12. l. 14. r. never had p. 15. l. 32. r. motives p. 28. l. 34. r. we having p. 30. l. ult r. without consent p. 32. l. 26. blot the first and. p. 39. l. 28. r. denied p. 48. l. 29. r. the Law and l. 31. r. can gaine p. 53. l. 9. r. have been p. 58. l. 4. r. I conceive p. 67. l. 14. blot out the last that p. 88. l. 11. r. le Roy savisera p. 98. l. 7. r. he could not p. 116. l. 26. r. sterne p. 118. l. 31. r. of this p. 121. l. 34. blot out and. p. 124. l. 12. r. one p. 127. l. 2. r. left 25. Febr. 1641. 27. Maii 1642. Vide Pref. Cok. 8. Report Preface to Cok. 4. Report Coke 9. fol. 75. Plo. 195. 319. Cokes Preface 4. Report Magna Chart. 9 H. 3. The Charter of the Forrest 9 H. 3. Stat. of Ireland 9 H. 3. Stat. of Merton made 20 H. 3. Stat. of Marlebridge made 52 H. 3. Westminst the 1. made 3 E. 1. Stat. of Bygamy made 4 E. 1. 6 E. 1. Stat. of Mortmaime made 7 E. 1. Articuli super Cart. 28 E. 1. Stat. of Escheators made 29 E. 1. Coke Calvins case b. Stat. 33. H. 8. cap. 21. Coke 8. fo 20. b. 12 H. 7. 20 H. 8. Dyer 59. 60. 34 E. 1. c. 1. Statute of Staple made 27 E. 3. 7 H. 4. cap. 15. 1 H. 5. cap. 1. Stat. 33 H. 8. cap. 21. Coke 8. fo 20. 11 H. 7. 27. 7 H. 7. 14. Dyer 59. 60. Co. 4. Inst p. 25. Stat. 24 H. 8. ca. 12. Coke 5. f. 28. Coke 8. fo 20. Coke 7. fo 36 37. 2 H. 7. 6. Co. 7. 14. Plo. 502. 〈◊〉 f. 59. p. 19. Coke 8. fo 20. 12 H. 7. 20 H. 8. Plo. 79 4 H. 7.
THE ROYALISTS DEFENCE VINDICATING THE KING'S PROCEEDINGS IN THE LATE WARRE MADE AGAINST HIM Clearly discovering How and by what Impostures the Incendiaries of these Distractions have subverted the knowne Law of the Land the Protestant Religion and reduced the people to an unparallel'd Slavery Veritas emerget Victrix Printed in the Yeare 1648. To all the People of ENGLAND IN every Common-wealth where the tyranny of an Arbitrary power prevailes not some known persons are assigned unto whom for matter of law both the Governours and the Persons governed do submit For example where a King hath the Soveraignty if it be likewise in his power to judge the Law his authority is Arbitrary He may then take the life or confiscate the estate of whom he pleaseth and for what cause he thinks fit And the same it is when the soveraigne power is in severall persons whatever their number be and however composed if they have also authority to judge the Law by which they govern the rest of the People are inslaved to their will But herein the Subjects of England are a most happy people By the constitutions of this Realm our King hath inherently in His Person the soveraigne power of government but He hath not authority to judge the Law The Judges of the Realme declare by what law the King governs and so both King and people regulated by a known law giddy multitude out goes Presidents found in the Old Testament shewing that Subjects so anciently sometimes resisted lawfull Authority and have rebelled against their King Nor be the Lawyers herein excusable too many of them declining the authority of the Iudges of the Realme make their own expositions of the Books and Records their rule to know the Law Now amongst those he who hath once got the reputation of an Antiquary and hath accustomed himself to discourse of things out of the common roade ipso facto is Master of this Art It is then but making use of some dull expressions found in an old worm-eaten Record selecting the mistaken opinions of some particular Iudges obiter delivered in Arguments or some dark Sentences taken out of a rotten Manuscript And if any printed Book be daigned the mentioning it must not be the known authentique Authours reporting the resolutions of the Court of Justice nor such as shew the common and constant practice of the Kingdome which is the Law it self but some antiquated thing whose Authour is unknowne and his meaning as obscure These rules being observed his work is done the people observing this Cynicks discourse to be different from other men presently conclude him to be far more learned in his profession then his fellow Lawyers and gaze upon him as an infallible guide Those sorts of people both Divines and Lawyers thus prepared are equally armed to assault either King or Subject and ever looking upon their particular interest as they find Instruments to work upon make their applications sometimes by the assistance of a greedy Sycophant-Courtier the KING is abused being by those persons drawn to act things not warranted by the constitutions of the Realme Other times by the aide of discontented Spirits whoever affect popularity the people are incited to disobey the Kings just commands And so misunderstanding oftentimes is occasioned between the King and His Subjects whereupon ariseth feares and jealousies on both sides This in some sort was our condition before this Parliament which was the ground-work whereupon these men at Westminster even by a totall destruction of the whole Nation have compleated the business At the first meeting of this Parliament the confusion began visibly to appear The Incendiaries of that Faction not only cherished the old but by casting false calumnies upon the King fomented new jealousies whereby the people were put into such a pannick fear as that they believed a present destruction inevitably must befall them if not preserved by the Members of the two Houses of Parliament And the King on the other side with wonderfull expressions of loyalty even by the same Serpent was told He should be made more Glorious then any of His Ancestors or Predecessours But the Members having thus encreased the flame between the King and the Subject and having by these false surmises and cunning dissemblings gulled the people into a belief That whatever the Members declared be it in things either Spirituall or Temporall the one was good Law and the other true Gospel which the Members perceiving they instantly made use thereof and upon that score Voted it a high Breach of the Priviledge of Parlialiament for any the Iudges the Courts of Iustice nor the King himself excepted either to oppose their Commands or to deny that to be Law which they declared so to be By which sleight their whole work was finished for by this the known Law was absolutely subverted and both King and people for their Consciences their Lives Estates and Fortunes inslaved to their will and doome But this Arbitrary power thus by the Members usurped rested not long there Shortly after that a Faction in the City of London who were the mony'd men and so interessed in buying the Church Lands and those who were possessed of beneficiall places in gathering that cursed tax of Excise and the like gave the law unto these Members And now we see it is a Councell of War although acted in the name of the Westminster men called the Parliament and none else who dare declare the Law And so for the present six or eight empty soules and untill inriched by theft and plunder indigent persons are our Legislators And in this condition the people must be It cannot be otherwise until the King be restored to His just Rights for till then although we have as many new Governours as new Moons it is but so often changing the Theif It is not at all considerable to the people whether this or that Faction or which opinion in Religion prevailes in the Houses be it the true Protestant Religion established Popery Presbytery Independency or what else soever it is whilst the King is kept from his just Rights of His Negative Voice in Parliament and his Soveraigne power of Government every predominant Party makes his Will the Law and consequently the people for their Consciences their Lives Estates and Fortunes inslaved to that Faction Therefore whether thou beest a Royalist or against thy King what Religion soever Sect or opinion thou doest professe If thou hast not lost thy wits thou must be sensible of thy present sad condition Doest thou enjoy a competent estate doest thou find comfort in having freedome of thy conscience in matters of Religion In the society of thy wife family kindred or friends if thou doest consider what hopes thou hast to enjoy them to thinke thereof will rather adde grief unto thy soul then increase thy consolation for being defeated of thy Protector the knowne Law which is banished thou canst not for the least instant of time promise to thy self continuance of
any one of these blessings If the major part of the Members require from thee thy life thy estate thy fortune thy friend or what ever else is most dear unto thee It is say they a breach of Priviledge of Parliament not to submit thy self to the block and render all to their lusts And if thou hast in this War acted against thy King thy case is still worse for by that War the Law is destroyed and so thou hast been an Instrument of thine owne and the Kingdomes ruine Yet of that faction against the King there be two sorts of people The one for self-ends against their owne knowledge the other misled and so pursuing although an erroneous one their owne conscience For those of the first ranke I feare like unto Judas their owne souls render themselves hopelesse of pardon which I presume like unto Catiline makes them judge themselves in no security but by attempting worse evils which doubtlesse begat that barbarous Vote and declaration of the Members not to make further Application to their King And for those of the latter ranke how far their following the dictamen of their owne conscience in point of Divinity may excuse them I will not dispute but certaine I am by the constitutions of this Realme in Temporall things it neither extenuates the crime nor mitigates the punishment In our Law it is a Maxime and a just one too Ignorantia Juris non excusat If not knowne the Law be a Plea or justification in facts of Treason murder felony trespasse or the like both King and people were without protection either of life person or estate It were easie for every Malefactor to pretend ignorance of the Law Therefore when the difference between the King and the two Houses first happened every Subject at his perill ought so far to have rectified his judgement as to have informed himself which side the Law obliged him to adhere unto yet not by that obliged to impossibilities for although most men in many particulars are unknowing of the Law every one even of the meanest capacity may as easily learne from whom he is to be informed thereof the Judges of the Realme as a sick man may find out where his Physitian dwels Now for want of so much consideration as to make enquiry whether by the Laws of England the King or the Members was therein to be obeyed that sort of people were surprised quitting their Allegeance to their King adhered to the Members their fellow Subjects and ingaged in this horred Rebellion Therefore in strictnesse of Law as guilty of Treason as those of the former ranke And thus by receding from that one principle in submitting to the true Iudge of the Law this desolation is come upon the whole Kingdome Had the King been suffered to enjoy his lawfull power of Soveraignty The Iudges of the Realme their Offfce of declaring the Law by which the King governs and the Parliament that is the King and the two Houses joyntly its proper authority viz. When necessity requires to make new Laws or change the old Had the Divines the Lawyers and especially the Members of the two Houses kept themselves within their owne spheares and every one submitted unto and obeyed his lawfull Superior the knowne Law of the Land had continued in force and consequently we had still been a most flourishing people But it is never too late to amend and if every one would herein begin at home the worke were instantly done but although it cannot be expected that all men will do their duty yet for those who were cheated into this Rebellion their judgements being once rectified it were not onely against the rules of charity but of reason likewise to conceive they should not with much more Zeal endeavour to restore the King and the people to their freedome then grounding upon an erronious conscience they prosecuted theirs and their owne confusion Now to shew that the honest vulgar people which are infinite in comparison of the Seducers were by the Incendiaries of these Westminster men intrapped into this Rebellion That by the Laws of the Land every mans onely true guide all the Subjects of the Realme ought in that War to have adhered unto the King That by the peoples disobedience therein the knowne Law is subverted and themselves inslaved That untill the King be restored unto His just rights the knowne Law set on foot and a submission to the true Judges thereof the people are not to hope for other then increase of misery And that by doing this which is both in their power and the peoples duty to performe is the scope of this Treatise And herein let none heretofore active against the King by reflecting upon the Law which as before appears doth judge him a Traytor be deterred from doing his duty That were in example of Judas to revenge themselves upon their owne persons They doe thereby become the Authors of their owne ruine for as we have the seate of then by attributing it to the Parliament Therefore much more is the arrogancy of the Members to claime that unlimited authoty without the King CHAP. V. That the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer are the Judges of the Realme unto whom the people are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law p. 49. Wherein is shewed that the Members are neither qualified nor of a composier fit to Judge the Law And that if the King or the two Houses have that power the known Law is destroyed and the people inslaved CHAP. VI. That the Judges of the Realme ought to be elected and authorized by the King of England for the time being and by none else p. 64. Wherein it is shewed to be most preposterous for the Members to assume it And that all persons condemned and executed by their sentence or the sentence of their nominall Judges whether guilty or not guilty are murdered and all other proceedings void in Law CHAP. VII That the King is the onely Supreame Governour unto whom all the people of this Nation in point of Soveraignty and Government are bound to subject themselves p. 69. Wherein is shewed that Soveraigne power of Government power to make Lawes and power to judge the Law are three feverall things and by the constitutions of England ought to be in three severall hands The first is in the King the second in the King and the two Housis and the third in the Judges That the Members having usurped all these have destroyed the Law and inslaved the people CHAP. VIII That the Militia of the Kingdome by the knowne Law of the Land is inherent in the Crowne and at the absolute command of the King and none else p. 89. Wherein is shewed the true use of the Militia the grosse absurdity of the Members claime thereunto And that their usurpation herein hath undone the Kingdome CHAP. IX That all persons who have promoted this War in the
name of King and Parliament and all such as have acted therein or adhered thereunto are guilty of Treason p. 100. CHAP. X. That the Subjects of this Nation are not only 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 p. 112. CHAP. XI That those persons at Westminster who call themselves The Parliament of England are not the two Houses nor Members of the Parliament p. 113. CHAP. XII Results upon the premises That the people of England under the government of the King according to the Laws of the Realme are a free Subject p. 125. CHAP. XIII That the people of England under the government claimed by the Members of the two Houses are absolute slaves p. 128. CHAP. XIV How the Subjects of England were brought into this slavery p. 132. CHAP. XV. The way how to restore the people unto their former Liberty p. 135. The Preamble or Introduction to the insuing Discourse wherein are contained the Motives which induced the Authour to take up Armes for the KING against the Forces raised by command of the Members of the two Houses of PARLIAMENT WHen the unhappy difference between His Majesty and the two Houses began to appear I endeavoured to satisfie my self of the cause thereof which I found to be thus The Members formed a 〈◊〉 concerning the Militia of the Kingdome to this effect viz. That certain persons by them therein named shall have power to Call together Muster and Arme all the people of the Kingdome and Conduct them into any part of the Realme to suppresse rebellious Insurrections or Invasions in such sort as the Members without the King shal signifie this power to continue so Long and no longer then those Members please and disobedience therein to be punished by the Members and none else This being presented to the King He refused to confirm it with His Royall Assent The Members thereupon stiling it An Ordinance of Parliament without the King declared it a Law By which in words not onely the Militia of the Kingdome and the Government of the Realm was taken from the Crowne and removed to the Members but an Arbitrary power usurped by them to signifie and declare what Facts were Rebellion and what not and accordingly by pretext and colour thereof caused the people to be Arrayed Armed and Mustered And so in effect the Kings Sword and Scepter wrested out of His hands by His owne Subjects And further the Members pretending the King not consenting to that Law was Evil-counselled by like Ordinances raised Armies appointed the Earl of Essex their Generall authorized them by War to Kill and slay their fellow Subjects and to remove from the King those pretended bad Counsellours The King by His Proclamation inhibited all Persons from adhering unto them and required His Subjects obedience unto Him their King Hereupon I seriously bethought my self whether I was obliged herein to obey the King or the Members and resolved the Laws of England ought to be my guide which I found to be thus That this Nation is governed by a known Law that Law expounded by the Judges of the Realme Those Judges appointed and authorized by the King our only Supream Governor unto whom alone all the people of England are obliged in point of Soveraignty and Government to submit themselves Then I considered in whom the power of the Militia was before the making of the aforesaid Ordinances Secondly 〈◊〉 â—â—…teration those Ordinances made For the first I found that the Militia of the Kingdome by the known Law was inherently in the King For the latter that no New Law can be made or the Old changed but by the King with the assent of the two Houses of Parliament And finding the King therein to dis-assent I did without scruple resolve the law was not altered therefore the Militia still in the Crown and consequently that it was my duty herein to obey the Kings Command not the Members Then I considered what was the offence of a Subject to joyne with those Forces raised by the Members which I found to be the crime of High Treason And lastly it being the duty of every Subject not onely to decline opposing his Soveraigne but to assist Him against all disloyall actions I took up Armes for Him and in His defence in this War Since which I have met with some Objections against these my proceedings which with my Answers to them I have set down in this ensuing Discourse And first concerning the grounds of the Law CHAP. I. That the Lawes of England consist in generall customes particular Customes and Acts of Parliament MOst evident it is that from the subduing of this Nation by the Romans which is about 1700 years agoe the people of this Realme have been governed by a Monarchicall power first under the Roman Emperours then under the Saxons awhile under the Danes again under the Saxons and lastly under the Norman Conquerour and his Progeny untill this day yet by what particular Laws those former Kings governed no authentick Author beyond the time of William the Conquerour doth make it appear But certain it is after that Conquerour had in a Battle slaine Harold and vanquished his Army which is neer 600 years since the people of this Nation submitted unto him as King of England who being in possession of the Crown agreed to Govern by known Laws Now whether those were new Laws introduced or the old continued as to this purpose is not materiall But by that very same Law as by severall Acts of Parliament it appeareth divers of his Successours Kings calling unto them for their advice such of their Subjects as they thought fit by Acts of Parliament made new Laws and changed the old but succeeding Kings since that have herein limited themselves insomuch as by the Constitutions of the Realme as now it is setled the Law of England consists in these three particulars 1. Generall Customes as thus the eldest Son to Inherit his Fathers Land the Wife to enjoy a Third part of her Husbands Inheritance for her Dower these and such like are generally Law throughout the Kingdome therefore called the Common Law 2. Particular Customes as thus in some places the yongest Son in other places all Equally Inherit their Fathers Land these and such like are particular Customes being fixed to particular places and by antient constant and frequent use is become Law there although not generally throughout the Kingdome 3. Acts of Parliament made by the King with the assent of the two Houses All which together that is to say The Common Law particular Customes and Acts of Parliament make the Law of England By this Law all men are protected in their Persons and Estates wherein there is no difference between King and People for neither King nor Subject hath or can justly
of His Councell or others as He thought most proper to be consulted with concerning that present occasion if it concerned matter of Law as in these of the exposition of the Statute of Gloucester and the Statute of Bigamy and other such Acts the Judges and other of His Councell learned were principally consulted with if it concerned the people in generall as that of the Statute of Will 1. and other such like the people of all sorts were called to advise with the King what Laws were to be made And so I conceive it was from that time upward to the Conquest Therefore when any Book or History makes mention of a Parliament in those daies that Assembly as I conceive was no other but as aforesaid And rare it was for any King in those times to consult with any other in making Laws but the Prelats the Peers his Privy Councell the Judges and other persons learned in the profession yet doubtlesse never concluded any matter of moment without consent of such his people as were proper to be advised with therein Nor do I conceive it was in the power of any King after William the Conquerour had consented to govern by a known law to alter the fundamentall grounds thereof But in those daies although we were governed by the same law as now yet it appears to me we had not any formed bodies of the Houses nor could any Subject by the law challenge a particular priviledge to be summoned to Parliament nor claim right to a negative voice But now the law is otherwise there be two formed bodies which must be summoned assembled and their assents had before any new law can be made or the old changed the King at this day hath not a power therein without the joint concurrence of the two Houses which constitution of the two Houses and this power which the Members have to consent unto or refuse laws propounded by the King seems to me to have been attained thus Cleer it is nothing is more plausible to the people then to be preserved from extraordinary Taxes and payments of mony And that might induce King Edw. 1. to make a Law which I find he did 34. of his Reign in these words viz. No Tallage or Aid shall be taken or levied by Vs Our Heires in Our Realm without the good will and assent of Archbishops Bishops Earles Barons Knights Burgesses and other Free-men of the land By this the King excluded himself and his Successours by themselves alone to tax or impose upon the people any payments of mony and from thenceforth no subsidy or other aide could be given him by the Subject without consent of Prelats Peers and Commons This I conceive was the first foundation of the House of Commons and the ground-work for the formed bodies of both Houses For it is obvious that if not the principall one chief end of calling Parliaments was and is to raise mony for the publike affaires so that after the aforesaid Statute of 34 Edw. 1. it had been to little purpose to call a Parliament of Prelats and Peers and not to summon the Commons And upon view of the Statute made after that time it appears that those persons were more frequently called And doubtlesse King Edw. 1. and other succeeding Kings finding that the greater number of the Prelats Peers and Commons consenting thereunto more cheerfully the Laws were obeyed it begat in them a desire to increase their number and to have their assent not only to Subsidies but to every New law And accordingly severall Kings summoned more Towns to return Burgesses created new Corporations and granted to them power to send their Deputies yet was it not reduced to any certainty what number were to be summoned to Parliament the aforesaid Statute of 34 Edw. 1. only declaring That no tax c. shall be levied without assent of Arch-bishops Bishops Earles Barons Knights Burgesses and other Free-men of the Land not mentioning how many or what particular persons so that it was still left to the Kings choice how many to call And so continued for a long time after For to the making of the Satute of Staple 27. E. 3. but one single person was summoned for any one County as by the preamble thereof in these words appears viz. Edw. by the grace of God c. Whereas good deliberation had with the Prelats Dukes Earles Barons and great men of the Counties that is to say for every County one for all the County And of the Commons of Cities and Boroughes of our Realme summoned to our great Councell holden at Westminster c. But afterwards all the Bishops and Peers two Knights for a Shire two Citizens for a City and two Burgesses for a Borough towne were usually called And by a Statute made 7. H. 4. the Writ of summons now used was formed and by one other Act made 1. H. 5. direction is given who shall be chosen that is to say for Knights of the Shire persons resiant in the County and for Cities and Boroughes Citizens and Burgesses dwelling there and free-men of the same Cities and Boroughes and no other And so by frequent calling Parliaments constant summoning the Prelates Peers and Commons as aforesaid the Kings not pressing Laws to passe nor any Law being admitted to bind without such consent the Parliament became a body composed thus viz. of the Lords Spirituall the Lords Temporall and the Commons being three Estates and the King head of all and as the soul adding life And by continuance of time it likewise became in the nature of a fundamentall ground That no new Law can be made or the old altered but by the King with the assent of the two Houses of Parliament And yet the King at this day which is evident by common experience hath power to increase the numbers of either House and that without stint Thus the power of the Kings of England was restrained from making Laws without consent of their Subjects as aforesaid wherein the difference is but thus Former Kings in some things without consent of any knowne Body or Assembly had power to alter the old and make new Lawes our King cannot in any one particular alter the old or make a new Law without the assent of the two Houses Yet Monarchy remaines the people are governed by the same Law under the same power as before which is by the Kings sole Authority And Laws now made by Act of Parliament although they bind not without assent of the two Houses yet they are the Kings Laws and are properly said to be made by Him And the Statutes for the most part are and the best forme of penning an Act is thus viz. Be it enacted by the Kings Majesty with the assent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons c. Besides at this day after a Law is made by Act of Parliament the execution of that Law is by the Kings sole
Authority the power to pardon the transgressours thereof and Authority to dispence with the Law it selfe is totally in Him for example if by Act of Parliament it be made felony or other crime to transport any commodity beyond the Seas the King after the fact committed may pardon the offence and before it be committed by His Letters patents without assent of the Members may by a non abstante dispence with the Law it self and legally Authorize any person notwithstanding that Statute to Transport that prohibited commodity and so in all publike and penall Acts not prohibiting malum in se Thus it appears that originally the Parliament consisted of the King calling to Him for their advice such as He thought fit But now by consent of former Kings as aforesaid no new Law can be made or the old altered or abrogated but by the King with the assent of the two Houses And so the King and the Members of these two Assemblies joyntly concurring at this day are the Parliament Upon which it consequently followeth that the King hath an absolute negative Voice in every Law to be propounded But in regard this is now not onely denied but a power usurped by those Members without the King to make Laws in the next place that point is more fully debated CHAP. III. That the Members of the two Houses have not power in any one particular to make a new Law or to change the old The King of England for the time being having an absolute negative Voice therein AGainst this I have seen a Treatise published by Order of the House of Commons in the name of William Pryn an utter Barrister of Lincolns Inne intituled thus viz. That the King hath no absolute negative Voice in passing Bils of common right and justice for the publike good And to make good his position proceeds to his proof in this manner The King saith he in most proceedings in Parliament as in reversing judgements damning Patents and the like hath no casting Voice 2. That Kings in ancient time have usually consented to Bils for the publicke good else gave such reasons of their deniall as satisfied both Houses 3. That Kingdomes were before Kings and then the people might have made Laws 4. That the King may die without heire and thereby the people may have such power againe 5. That the Lord Protectour in the infancy of a King may confirme Bils and so make Laws 6. That in Countries where Kings are elective and so an interregnum the people in the vacancy of their King may make Laws 7. That the two Houses have frequently denied to grant the King Aide by Subsidies 8. That the Kings of this Realme have been forced to give their Royall assent to Bils as in that of Magna Charta This is the substance of his objections and arguments against the Kings negative Voice in Parliament Answer M. Pryn hath spared no labour to make good his assertion fetching his arguments from a time supposed by him before Monarchy here began secondly upon accidents happening since this Monarchy And then imagineth a time to come that is when the King and all the bloud Royall of England shall be extinct for want of an heire at Law to inherit the Crowne First for his far fetched argument Kingdomes saith he were before Kings These words taken in their literall sense imply a grosse and absurd contradiction and he might as well say that servants were before Masters or the Son before the Father But doubtlesse Mr. Pryns meaning is that Countries and people were before they had Kings over them yet his words being so expounded make nothing to his purpose suppose that before Monarchy began in this Nation the people had been governed by a known Law to conclude thereupon That the Members of the two Houses at this day have power to make Laws without the King or that the King hath not a negative Voice in Parliament is to no more purpose then if he should say The Earth was made before it was peopled Ergo there is neither man woman nor child in the world or thus This Nation was peopled before they were governed by a Law Ergo the people neither had either Law or government The Jews upon the like ground may argue thus viz. our Religion was before Christ Ergo the people at this day ought not to professe Christian Religion But Mr. Pryns argument is more absurd he cannot shew that the people of this Nation before they were governed under Kings had either Literature known Law or Government However cleere it is This Nation hath been Monarchiall above 1200. years before the institution of the two Houses of Parliament And so Mr. Pryns argument that Kingdomes were before Kings is no weight at all to prove That the two Houses have power to make Laws without the King And much like unto it is his argument That the King may die without heire for if that should happen saith Mr. Pryn the people might make what Laws they should thinke fit Now thereupon he concludes thus Ergo the Members at this day have power without the King to make Laws With more reason the King might argue thus All the lands in England mediatly or immediatly are held of the King and if the owners die without heire by the Laws of the Realme Escheats to the Crown and so becomes at the Kings disposall but every man may die without heire Ergo all the lands in England at this present are the proper inheritance of the King No Lawyer can deny major or minor yet the conclution thereupon is absurd But in Mr. Pryns case admit the King should die without heire although it be granted that the people had thereby power to make Laws yet grosse it were to conclude upon it That the Members of the two Houses might so do For if the King and that Stem Royall were extinct without issue the two Houses would be extinct too By the Law of England if the King die during a Parliament ipso facto the Parliament is dissolved because the King who was head to advise with whom and by whose Writ and command the Members were summoned is dead Yet in that case the successour King if he please might call a new Parl. But when the King dies without heire there is no succeding King to summon it And so the constitution of Parliament and the whole Law and Government the fountaine of all which being stopped would be suspended if not ended and the people left without Law Then it might be granted Mr. Pryn That the strongest party concurring in that case would governe yet that is no proof that the Members had thereby power to make Laws And therefore more absurd it is to conclude upon Mr. Pryns reason That the two Houses at this day whilst the King and the blood Royall are in being have that power Then for his objections upon Authority or presidents happening since the beginning of the English Monarchy Kings saith he
that the Oathes taken by the other four viz. King H. 8. King E. 6. King James and King Charles differ in the very words in question and render a quite other sense viz. of that of King H. 8. they set downe the words thus viz. And affirme them which the Nobles and people have made and chosen with my consent And that of King Ed. 6. thus viz. Doe you grant to make no new Laws but such as shall be to the honour of God and the good of the Common-wealth and the same shall be made by consent of your people as hath been acoustomed And for the Oaths of King James and King Charles they say the word choose was left out So that upon the whole matter that which hath been or can be said herein is but thus Some Kings at their Coronation have taken an Oath but that any King is obliged so to doe or being obliged that he ought to pursue the foresaid words it neither doth nor can be made good Thirdly admit that Kings have taken the Oath in the foresaid words and obliged thereunto yet that nothing proves the Members power without him to make Laws William the Conquerour all men must grant might have imposed upon this Nation what Laws he pleased But being resolved to have a setled Government granted to the people such Laws and customes as were just and equall between Him and them And so bound Himself and His successours to Governe by a knowne Law The people being thus freed from the servitude incident to a Conquest nothing could be more acceptable to them then the continuance of that Law And nothing being more safe for a King then to have the love of His Subjects succeeding Kings might be induced at their publike Coronations voluntarily to take an Oath for the preservation of the Laws And in that sense these words quas vulgus elegerit might be aptly used for it is not improperly said the people had chosen those Laws which the Conquerour with their good liking had consented to governe by So that the Coronation Oath admitting it in the words as the Members have expressed cannot in any reasonable sense be rendred otherwise then thus viz. Do you grant to keep and for your self promise to defend and to the honour of God corroborate the just Laws and customs which the people have chosen This imports a settlement of a known Law which the King swears to preserve but to render the words in the future tense and to make the King to swear to confirme such Laws as the people shall choose what ever they be tends to confusion But say the Members if elegerit in this place be Englished have chosen the King is not sworne to keep Laws afterwards made which is utterly mistaken for when a new Law is made it is then part of the Law of England And being sworne in generall words to defend the Law He is sworne to defend all the Law For example the Judges in generall words are sworne to determine controversies according to the Law and frequent it is after the Judges have taken that Oath for the Law to be altered by Act of Parliament yet the former Oath binds those Judges and they are obliged even by that Oath to give sentence as the Law is according to that alteration not as it was when they tooke the Oath And so it is with the King he having taken the Coronation Oath is thereby bound in Conscience to defend and observe every Law afterwards made Fourthly admit the word elegerit in that place to be Englished in the future tense and the King to swear to confirme the just Laws which the people shall propound unto Him That cannot admit of any other interpretation then thus viz. If the people propound Laws to the King which in themselves are just and equall He is by His Oath obliged in conscience to confirme them but He is not thereby bound in conscience to consent to all such Laws as the people shall say are just That were to make one part of the Oath to contradict another part thereof for by the former part of the Oath the King swears to defend the Laws of the Realme And by the same Oath thus expounded He is not onely bereft of power to performe it but swears at the pleasure of the vulgar multitude to destroy it Suppose the King thus sworne be desired by the people to make a Law thereby to exempt persons from punishment for Treason Felony or other crimes or to settle the power of Srveraignty and government upon Subjects in this case the King even by that Oath were obliged to reject such Laws for it is neither a just Law nor doth it stand with reason to exempt any from punishment for such crimes or to exact of the King to quit His Authority nor were it in His power ought He to put His people under the yoake of their fellow Subjects Fiftly but however if the King should in terminis swear to confirme all Laws whether just or unjust to be propounded to Him by the people That doth not enable any to make Laws without Him A King although not sworne is obliged in conscience to consent to such Laws which are in themselves good for the Common-wealth just equall between Him and His Subjects but is not compellable to change either Law or setled Government And if so unsworne it followeth that his being sworne to do it is but a further tie upon His conscience By swearing to confirme such Laws as His people shall propound unto Him that gives not power to them to make Laws without Him such an exposition of an Oath untill this Parliament was never heard of Sixthly if such an absurd exposition of an Oath could be admitted the Members of the two Houses cannot be the people intended by the words of this Oath for Kings have taken Oaths at their Coronations before the institution of the two Houses Secondly the Members of the two Houses do not derive their power from the people but from the King by whose Writs they are summoned And first for the Lords House none can sit there but a Peere of the Realme none can create a Peere but the King not one Member of that House the Prelates excepted but He or His Ancestors from whom he claimes his Peerage derives that honour from this King or from His progenitors Kings of England since the Norman Conquest And for the Prelates And their power as Peeres to sit in that Assembly it was founded by the Kings too It is now and ever was in the sole power of the King of England for the time being by Patent or by Writ of summons to create and call to that House without stint or limitation as many and what persons He thinkes fit which creation and the Kings Writ of summons is their Commission The words whereof follow viz. Carolus c. charissimo c. Comiti Arundell Quia de advisamento assensu Consilii nostri
s'avisera that is He will advise whether to confirme them or not It seemes to me strange to conclude thereupon Ergo the two Houses may make Laws without Him that is plainely a non sequitur but it doth directly imply that the King hath election to make it a Law or no Law else it were in vaine for Him to advise upon it And the words of King Rich 2. admitting that story to be true saying He conceived Himselfe bound by His Oath to consent unto that Law shewes first that it was in His power to consent or not to consent secondly that the Members could not do it without Him thirdly that it was only an obligation upon His Conscience And that He because He conceived it to be a just Law thought Himself tied in conscience to confirme it Upon the whole matter clear it is admitting the King to have taken an Oath in the words mentioned by the Members it rather proves the Kings power of a negative Voice then disproves it But the Members I am confident know that the King neither did nor was oblieged to take the aforesaid Oath The King pursuing former presidents recorded in the Exchequer tooke the Oath in words and according to the Ceremony as followeth viz. After the Sermon is done the King ariseth and goeth to the Altar and there the Archbishop administreth these questions And the King Answereth Bishop Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirme to the people of England the Laws and Customes to them granted by the Kings of England your Lawful Religious Predecessors And namely the Laws Customes and Franchizes granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customes of the Realme King I grant and promise to keep them Bishop Sir will you keep peace and godly agreement intirely according to your power both to God the holy Church the Clergy and the people King I will keep it Bishop Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your Judgements King I will Bishop Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightfull customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have And will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lieth King I grant and promise so to doe Then one of the Bishops reads this admonition to the King before the people with a loud voice Our Lord and King we beseech you to pardon and to grant and to preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our Charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice And that you would protect and defend us as every good King in His Kingdomes ought to be protector and defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their government King With a willing and devoute heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your Charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice And that I will be your protector and defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in His Kingdome in right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the people to observe the premises And laying His hand upon the Booke saith The things which I have before promised I shall performe and keep so help me God and by the Contents of this Booke Now for the King to oblish Episcopacy to destroy the whole Government of the Church established by Law for the King so far as in Him lies to transfer unto His Subjects that regall power which is inherently in His Person to change the Monarchicall Government into a confusion to reduce his Subjects being a freeborne people unto a perpetuall slavery under their equals and fellow Subjects certainly cannot stand with this Oath All which in the proposals made to Him by the Members nay more and worse then words can expresse is required and by most Barbarous and inhumane cruelties attempted to be forced from Him Now having done with this Oath I shall proceed further to examine the legality of the Members doctrine to exclude the King from His negative Voice It is an undoubted maxime in every Law that no Person Court or Assembly can Act or do any thing concerning the publike affaires of the Kingdome or Common-wealth without Commission which stands with all the reason in the world else it followeth that every one hath equall power to make Laws Act and do what he thinks fit And by the constitutions of this Realme every Person Court or Assembly must derive its authority by one of these wayes viz. by the Kings grant by Act of Parliament or by custome and use if by the Kings grant the Patent it selfe declares the persons authorised if by Act of Parliament the Statute names the men if by custome and use that use and custome is their Commission For example if the King by His Commission authorize twenty persons or any ten of them whereof A. B. or C. to be one to determine a felony if seventeen of the twenty in the absence of A. B. and C. execute that Commission all their proceedings are void as done without Commission seventeen strangers not named in the Commission might as well act therein as they And if the Commission be by Act of Parliament none can execute that Commission but those authorized by the Statute And the like holds when custome and use is the Commission unlesse that custome and use warrant the persons to act it is done without authority and so void Then for the point in question The Members of the two Houses have no grant from the King nor is there any Act of Parliament to enable them to make Laws nor doth custome warrant it For untill this Parliament they never made Law without and against the Kings consent nor claimed power so to do But say the Members in the foresaid Declaration If there be not an agreement between His Majesty and His Parliament either His Majesty must be Judge against His Parliament or the Parliament without His Majesty for say they that question whereupon the safety of the Kingdome depends must not be undetermined And say they if His Majesty against His Parliament why not as well of the necessity in the question of making a Law without and against their consent as of denying a Law against their desire and advise The Judge of the necessity say they in either case by like reason is Judge in both Besides say they if His Majesty in this difference of opinions should be Judge He should be Judge in His owne case But the Parliament should be Judge between His
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
is none either to umpire or mediate between the Members and the people And so the Members by this have assumed an arbitrary power Nor doth this power of a negative Voice in the King take away or lessen the authority of any Court of Justice Every Court of Judicature pursuing its Commission hath power to determine the interest both of King and people and that without assent either of King or Member The knowne Law is their ground to judge by not the opinion of the King or of either or both Houses Nor can the King in this be said to Judge out of his Courts or against the two Houses of Parliament for the King and the two Houses have herein equall power that is every one of them a negative Voice they are all together joyntly Judge of that high Court of Parliament but no one or two of these bodies is Judge thereof So that by the Kings and either Houses having a negative Voice it cannot be said they Judge each other out of that or any other Court of Justice But some object that if the refusall of the King shall hinder the making of Laws the Common-wealth is in danger to suffer for say they the King may be refractory and deny to passe good Laws Answer No humane Law can preserve a Common-wealth from every mischief That Law which avoideth the most inconveniencies is the best Law It is granted that the will of the King or of either House by refusing to passe a Law propounded may prove mischievous But upon pretence of necessity to give power to the King and either House or both Houses without the King to alter the Law or to make new Laws were more dangerous If that rule serve them to make good Laws it enables them to make bad ones too If they be Judge when to make one Law they are Judge to make as many and what Laws they please they who have this power may declare what they list to concerne the safety of the Kingdome Once breake this rule That no new Law can be made with consent of the King and the two Houses and there is no end of the distraction Upon the same ground that the Lords and Commons in the case of the Militia pretending a necessity and that the King was refractory assumed power to make Laws without Him the Lords House may exclude both King and Commons the Commons House Lords and King or the King both Houses When there ariseth a difference between the King and the two Houses if it be of necessity that the King or the two Houses must so far Judge the businesse as to make a Law without the other by the same reason when a difference happens between the two Houses one of them must be Judge against the other and make a Law without the others consent for such a difference between the two Houses may as well happen to concerne the safety of the Kingdome as when the difference fals out between the King and both Houses And if either House obtaine the sole power to make Laws still there is no period for if reason or reall necessity require it and should be Judge when and what Laws are to be made the lesser number of one of those Assemblies peradventure may be in the right But whether right or wrong the zelots may chance to side with the little flock rise up and in tumults call it Justice And so consequently the good Law of the Land destroyed and club-law introduced and the very being of Parliaments taken away whereas by observing the constitutions of the Realme in submitting this power of making Laws to the Judge thereof that is the King without the assent of the two Houses all these absurdities and inconveniences are avoided Which constitution being rightly understood is grounded upon great reason and is most equall between King and people for the Commons House upon just grounds for any thing to them appears may passe a Bill which the Lords upon as just reasons may reject the Members of that Assembly being persons who for the most part have a greater deeper reach insight in State affaires And both Houses may passe a Bill conceiving it necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome to have it made a Law and thereupon desire the Kings consent which the King may as justly reject And for such reasons they may be matters of that nature as not convenient and most unfit to be imparted and revealed to such a multitude as the seven hundred Members or more of both Houses But when all that is when the King and the two Houses concur the Common-wealth may as safely depend upon it as upon any humane institution Upon these grounds it is that when a dispute happeneth concerning the making of a Law the King being of one opinion the Lords of another and the Commons of a third or when any one of the three bodies dissent from the other two there is no umpire but themselves to end that controversie nor can they decide the question by any other way but by a joint agreement or quitting the dispute for untill a joint concurrence of all three their proceedings are but conferences and their results what they would have to be Lawes but no Laws indeed untill by consent of all three they be reduced to Acts of Parliament No Order Ordinance or what ever it is or shall be called made by consent of any one or two of these bodies alone hath the strength or force of a Law our Law takes no notice thereof like a verdict for life lands or goods in which case the major part of the Jury determineth not the question all twelve must agree else it is no verdict for the question being fact some one of the Jury may have better knowledge thereof then all the rest So in this case by the constitutions of the Realme no new Law can be made or the old altered without a joint concurrence of the King and the two Houses It is that united body which at this day as to the Legislative power represent the whole Kingdome The Members of the Commons House alone do not in that manner represent the Commons of England the Lords the Peers and the King for Himself but all together do represent the whole Kingdom no one or two of these bodies can herein be said to represent only any part every common person doth herein by the Laws of England asmuch depend upon the judgement of the King and the Lords as upon the Members of the Commons House And so do the King and the Lords upon those Members for the King the Lords and Commons as now by consent of former Kings it is setled are herewith joyntly trusted As if three Lords authorize three severall persons to sell their Lands if two of them sell it binds not therefore in judging that sale void no man is injured the Lords are seized of their Lands as before and the persons trusted have the same power that is
joyntly concurring to sell and by that sale the Lords are concluded it is done by the Commission of those Lords and therefore in Judgement of Law their owne Act. So for the Parliament the King the Lords and Commons by the constitutions of this Realme are jointly trusted to consent unto the making new or changing the old Law therefore no lesse then all have Commission for it And so if the King and either House or both Houses without the King passe a Bill or make a Law this ought to be judged invalid none are thereby wronged still the knowne Laws are in force the people as before by the knowne Law are protected in their persons and estates and those trusted that is the King the Lords and Commons joyntly concurring have power to make new Laws which consent concludes the whole Nation it is done by its representative body and so by their Commission Thus it appears that when there is a question and dispute in Parliament between the King and the two Houses it is not necessary to have it affirmatively determined nor needfull that His Majesty in such cases be Judge against the two Houses or the two Houses to Judge it without Him That is but a fiction of the Members devised by them to reduce the Nation unto their Tyranny which as the Members knew they could not effect but by excluding the King from His negative Voice in Parliament so that being done their worke was finished Then they without the King arrogate power to make new Laws and change the old for their owne advantage as they pleased And so both King and people inslaved Therefore herein to beguile the people a case was faigned and stated thus That such a difference between the King and the two Houses as concerned the safety of the Kingdome was happened in Parliament That unlesse this question were instantly determined the Kingdome was in danger to perish Then to draw the people to side with the Members they were told that the Lords and Commons were the representative body of the Kingdome That whatever the Members in those Assemblies do it is so much the Act of every particular person in the Kingdome as if he were within the wals of the House personally consenting And perswaded the vulgar that this dispute between the King and the Members in effect is between Him and all the people of England And then offer it to the consideration of the multitude whether it be not more likely that all the people of the Realme concurring in one opinion should better know what is for their owne good then the King being but one single person and dissenting in judgement from the whole Nation The poor people not being of capacity suddenly to discerne the fallacy hereof And being ravished with a conceipt to be Judge in their owne case in smarmes flocked to this Idoll the Members thinking they had thereby adored themselves as well as that beast and never ceased untill by violence they expelled the King from His negative Voice in Parliament But now by wofull experience they both understand by whom and how they are represented which is thus The Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses being elected by the Inhabitants of the severall Counties and Townes do in some sort represent the people who chose them but that is no further then their Cōmission extends And they have no other Commission then the Kings Writ of Summons the returne thereof word by word set downe before which gives them no other authority then to consent unto Laws agreed on by the King His great Councell the Peeres consequently they do represent the people no further then to consent unto such Laws And for the Peeres they have no Commission at all from the people nor can be said to represent them their authority is solely from the Kings said Writ of Summons directed to every particular Lord by which likewise his power is declared and stinted That is to advise with the King concerning the affaires of the Realme So that the Lords and Commons put together they have no Commission to make Laws we are still to seeke that Legislative power nor is it to be found but in the King He alone is properly the Law-maker But the Kings of England as before appears having excluded themselves to make Laws without consent of the two Houses Therefore that united body the King and the Members of those Assemblies is called the Legislative power and the representative body of the Kingdom But that either or both Houses or any Assembly or people in this or any other Nation governed by Monarchy hath or ever claimed to have a Legislative power or sofar to represent the Kingdome as to make new Laws or change the old without the Personall consent of the King is such a ridiculaus Bull as never was heard or thought of untill this frantick Parliament Therefore when either or both Houses without the King take upon them to make Laws they extend beyond the bounds of their Commission they thereby act of their owne head not as representatives For example a Lord by Commission gives power to A. and B. to let and set his Land for tearme of years so long as A. and B. pursue this authority they do represent that Lord but if by colour of that Commssion A. and B. demise for life or sell the Inheritance it is done without authority their Commission reacheth not so far and so not representatives Therefore such lease or sale is void it doth not bind the Lord. Or thus A. having contracted with B. to make A. feoffement unto him and his heirs of the Mannour of D. upon a condition by letter of Atturney gives power to C. to make livery and seisin upon that Condition C. performes it In this case the Land is as firmely setled in B. as if A. had executed it in his owne person because it is done by his representative But if C. omitting to express the Condition make livery and seisin absolutely nothing passeth to B. for saith our Law C. extending the bounds of his Commission he doth not represent A. Therefore his whole act void So here the Lords as before appears have Commission to advise with the King the Commons to do and consent unto things agreed on by the King and them Now those Lords and Commons taking upon them without the Personall assent of the King to make new or change the old Law it is a power usurped without Commission or authority therefore no representatives and consequently all their proceedings void Then for the distinctions in the aforesaid Declarations mentioned 1. That no Law made without the Kings consent binds unless His consent be first required and refused 2. That those Laws be necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome 3. That such Laws shall continue no longer in force then that necessity lasteth these are snares and subtilties only to catch the simple no wise man wil be taken with them Suppose the King upon refusall
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
nor any people from free Subjects become more absolute slaves then the Englishmen are and will be And being thus brought into misery that which is still worse our selves and posterity to the end of the world are likely to live under this vassallage without hope of redemption if not by Gods mercy timely remedied For it cannot be imagined that the Members so long as they have power over their Prince and other His good Subjects and whilst their persons estates and Fortunes are thus at their will and pleasure it cannot be imagined I say that by their owne judgement against themselves or sentence we shall be enfranchized Now if I appeale to any rationall man not prejudicated as a person herein particularly concerned whether that Law which declares such Acts of Parliament to binde or that which judgeth them void be the more prudent wholesome and reasonable Law I dare be bold to conclude that sentence herein will be given for the latter And since it followeth that some Acts of Parliament may and ought to be adjudged void that being granted reason dictates to every man of sense that not the Members but some other knowne persons must determine which Statutes bind the people and which are invalid Now that the Judges of the Realme have power not only to determine which Acts of Parliament are binding and which void but to expound the meaning of every Act is no new doctrine it is the knowne Law and the common practice of the Kingdome which is the Law it selfe In the bookes of our Law it is declared for a fundamentall ground That such Statutes as are against Common-right repugnant or impossible are void and that they ought to be so declared by the Judges of the Realme For example by the Statute of Carlile made 35. E. 1. it is ordained that the Seale of the order of the Cistercians and Augustines shall be kept in the custody of the Priour and foure others and that any deed sealed with any other seale shall be void and this Statute is judged to be void in Law and that the Priour notwithstanding this Law and against the expresse words thereof sealing deeds with any other seale those deeds are judged good for the Priour could not seale with that seale in the custody of the other four and therefore that Statute repugnant in it selfe and so void It is likewise declared by the Judges that where a Statute gives power to A. to determine all pleas happening within his mannour in that case A. shall not have power to determine such pleas as concerne himselfe and the same it were if the Statute should in expresse words grant to A. that authority for it is repugnant to reason and common justice that any man shall be judge in his owne case It is resolved by the Judges of the Realme that divers prerogatives are so inseperably annexed to the Crowne as that they cannot be severed by Act of Parliament for example by a Statute made 23 H. 6. c. 10. it is enacted that no man shall continue Sheriffe of a Shire above one year and by that Act declared in these words that all Patents from the King of that office of Sheriffe for yeers for life in taile or in fee shall be void any clause or words of non obstante put into such Patents notwithstanding Now thisStatute as to the Kings power is by the Judges of the Realm declared void and although that Statute was never repealed all Kings since might have granted that office for life in taile or in fee and grants thereof have been made accordingly contrary to the expresse words of that Statute yet resolved to be good And ever since that Act all Kings have most frequently continued Sheriffs in their office for longer time then a year Even common experience sheweth that the power of the old Sheriffe doth not cease or determine untill the King hath made a new Sheriffe and notice thereof given to the old which oftentimes happeneth to be after the year And in Michaelmas Terme 5. and 6. of Queen Eliz. the Sheriffs by reason of the great plague then and of the adjournment of that Terme wholly were made and named by the Queen without the Assembly of the Justices in the Exchequer according to the common usage and though for the most part none were named but one of the two which remained in the bill of the year then last passed yet by all the Justices and Serjeants at Law it was holden that the Queen by Her prerogative might have made a Sheriff without any such election notwithstanding any Statute to the contrary which appears in Dyers Reports The King is fountaine of Justice mercy therefore if it were enacted that he shall not grant Commissions to determine felonies or that from henceforth it shall not be in his power to pardon any Crime or that all such pardons shall be void such Laws would be void and would not bind as being repugnant to Law government and reason to stop that fountaine The King by His Prerogative hath authority to dispense with penall Laws which cannot be taken from Him by Act of Parliament although in expresse termes it be enacted that all such dispensations with a non obstante shall be void which cleerely appears by the foresaid case of the Sheriff for though by that Statute of 23 H. 6. it is inacted that all Patents of the King shall be void as before although with a non obstante yet the Judges at all times have resolved it as a thing without dispute That those Patents although expressely against the words and intent of that Act with a non obstante are good in Law And so the bookes take it for a fundamentall ground that the King may by His Patent with a non obstante dispense with Laws made by Act of Parliament and put the difference between Acts prohibiting what the Common-Law prohibits in which case the King cannot by His letters Patents with a non obstante how strong soever it be penned dispence with such Acts or any one point of the Common Law of England which forbids onely that which is malum in se otherwise it is of Acts prohibiting things not before prohibited by the Law which are onely mala quia prohibita the King may dispense with such Acts by His Letters Patents with a non obstante though those very Acts expressely say that such Letters Patents with a non obstante shal be void That Prerogative being inseperable as is shewed before and not to be abolished by Act of Parliament no more then His other prerogatives of as high a nature viz. those of denouncing War and concluding Peace inhaunsing or debasing of Coine or the like which are flowersinseperably annexed to the Crowne and most proper for a King but not sutable with the condition of a Subject therefore the Judges have resolved they cannot be severed by Act of Parliament And the same it is
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
of them hath its proper and peculiar jurisdiction The Chancery for Equity the Kings Bench for Pleas of the Crowne the Common pleas for reall actions and other matters of the Law The Exchequer for the Kings Revenues And every one of these Courts is circumscribed within its own bounds The Chancery unlesse it be in some particular cases warranted by custome hath not power to determine questions of Law nor the other three Courts matter of Equity The Common pleas not to intermeddle with the Pleas of the Crowne nor the Kings Bench unlesse occasioned by breach of the Kings peace with questions concerning title of Lands And none of them hath authority to extend beyond its bounds in any one particular All which is made good by authority and reason For authority it is resolved in the bookes of the Law that if the Judges of the Common pleas in an Appeale or Indictment for murder felony or other capitall crime condemne any person their proceedings are voide as done coram non Judice That person so condemned although guilty of the fact in the judgement of Law is not attainted nor his blood corrupted he forfeits not his estate and if executed although by the command of the Judges of that Court both Judge and executioner are guilty of felony and punishable as if done without that command If the Lord of a Leete hold his Court or the Sheriff his Turne at other times then custome doth warrant Or the Court of Marshalsey assume jurisdiction not made good by use their proceedings are void In all which cases the Officers or Ministers of those Courts are punishable for executing the commands of the Iudges thereof wherein the Law takes this difference viz. When a Court assumes power to determine that which it hath not Commission to determine and when it hath jurisdiction of the cause yet proceeds inverso ordine in the first as in the cases aforesaid The Minister is not excused or justified by the warrant of the Court In the latter the warrant or processe of the Court is a legall justification as thus If the Court of Common Pleas hold Plea without originall or award processe of Capias against a Peere and the like in these cases although the proceedings be illegall yet in regard the Court hath jurisdiction to determine the cause if it were regularly brought before them the processe or warrant of the Court is a good justification for the Minister thereof And this rule holds with all other Courts Assemblies and persons when they act or doe such things as they have not Commission for their proceedings are void So that the Laws of England admits not of Iudges but persons qualified to performe that office yet ability by it selfe is no Commission to make a Iudge The Judges of the Common Pleas are as learned in the Law and as able for their knowledge to determine Pleas of the Crowne as the Judges of the Kings bench but they have not the same authority The Court of Common Pleas hath not used it and consequently it is out of their Commission And that no Court ought to extend its owne bounds is made good by reason For if any Person Court or Assembly takes upon them in any one thing to execute that which their Commission extends not to by the same reason they may assume it in another and so in infinitum upon which it followeth that the power of that Court Person or Assembly is become boundlesse And if one Court Person or Assembly may inlarge its bounds the like reason holds with every Court Person and Assembly in the Kingdome and so a Parity introduced and consequently the whole Government subverted and destroyed In the next place it is considerable to know what Commission the Parliament the two Houses or either of them hath therein And first for the Commons house That Assembly hath no Commission from the King nor by Act of Parliament to Judge the Law and for Prescription they faile in all the foresaid three particulars for they cannot challenge any thing time out of mind The Assembly it self had its beginning after the Raign of K. Ric. 1. Secondly admit them to have been time out of mind they fail in the use for untill this Parliament they never executed or claimed any such thing Thirdly admit them to have been time out of mind and constantly to have used the power of Judicature yet it ought to be disallowed because not reasonable it is repugnant to the Rules of Law and justice that persons not fitly qualified should have power of Judicature By the constitutions of England controversies are decided thus The Plaintif exhibits his complaint in a Court of Justice and that in the Latin tongue The Defendant answereth in the same Court and Language out of which pleading the case ariseth which sometimes is questio facti and sometimes questio Juris If it be facti it is tried by a Jury sworn by authority of that Court where the suit depends and that cannot be the Members of the Commons house for besides the difficulty of the Language those Members cannot give an Oath and if it be matter of law the sworne Judge is to determine it but they are not sworn to doe justice And for the Lords house it is granted that in some things which custome and use hath made good the Members of that Assembly have power of Judicature for although that House as now it is formed and setled hath not been so auntient as to make a Prescription yet the Prelats the Peers and the Judges time out of mind have been frequently called together by the Kings of England and consulted with concerning making of Laws and other the affaires of the Common-wealth And amongst other things the Lords depending therein on the advice of the Judges have so auntiently as the beginning thereof cannot be made appear by licerse of the King upon Writs of Error reversed erronious Judgements given in the Kings bench But as the Lords have this authority by Prescription so they are excluded from all other power of judicature but that which custome and use doth warrant for Prescription is all the Commission they have Neither Grant from the King nor Act of Parliament they have for a Court of justice Now to give power to the Lords house or to the Commons house to inlarge their Commission or Jurisdiction the same inconveniences would thereupon ensue as by suffering other Courts to doe the like if the Members of the Commons house should at this day take upon them to give an Oath and this legally intitle them to it by the same reason they might as now the present Members of that Assembly in effect doth without King or Lords assume the whole Government And for the two Houses jointly they are not a Court of judicature they have therein no Commission at all neither from the King nor by Act of Parliament nor by Prescription And for the Parliament that is the King
and the two Houses that body cannot properly be said a Court of Justice The Office of a Judge is upon a Question depending before him to declare what the Law is but the office of the Parliament is only to make new laws By this it appears that neither the Members of the Lords house nor of the Commons house are qualified to be Judges of the Law nor have they either jointly or severally Commission for that purpose And lastly admit every Member of either house in Learning sufficiently qualified to make a Judge their composure considered they are not capable jointly to perform that Office they being two distinct bodies their proceedings severall and distinct it cannot be expected but they shall frequently differ in Opinion and judgment therefore were they never so learned should the King grant unto them power of judicature or should they have that authority given them by an Act of Parliament the Lawes of England would judge both that Grant and Statute absolutely void as a thing most incongruous against sense and reason Upon which it followeth that if the Lords House or the Commons house or both Houses jointly have or shall condemne any person for Treason Felony or other capitall offence try any title of Land tax the people with payments of money seise or confiscate the Subjects estates or the like be it by Order Ordinance or any other way all such proceedings are void done coram non Judice and consequently both the Members and all persons executing their commands therein are by the Lawes of England punishable as Murderers Felons or other transgressours because done without warrant or authority And how long soever they shall continue this power and how frequently soever it is used that alters not the case the Law is still the same it was Yet herein I doe not abridge the power and authority of the Peers of the Realme It is true when the King hath constituted a Lord high Steward and consented to the triall of a Peere for his life for a fact committed against the known Law such a Peere not only may but ought the Lords observing the rules of law to be tried by the Lords his Peers But there is no colour for the Lords or for the Commons or for both Houses jointly although the King should give way thereunto to try or judge any Commoner Every common person ought to be tried by his Peers too that is by a Jury of the Commons and that Iury by the Lawes of England ought to be of that County and neare that place where the fact is committed It is a Rule in our Law that in capitall offences Vbi quis delinquit ibi punietur persons dwelling near the place are most likely to have cognizance of the fact Besides by our law every free-born Subject of this Nation hath at his arraignment power and liberty to challenge Iurors impannelled for his triall But all such liberties are taken away by this usurpation of the Members Thus it appears that the Judges of every Court of Justice so far as their Commission extends and no other persons are Judges of Law But the Judges of no one Court are those unto whom the people are bound lastly to submit themselves for every Court of Justice in some respect is inferiour to another Court or power unto which appeales lie as in the case of a Writ of error and the like unlesse it be in the Exchequer Chamber when the cause regularly depends before the Judges of the Kings Bench the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer into which Chamber things of great weight and difficulty concerning matter of Law are usually transmitted And being there judicially determined from that sentence t◠conceive no appeale lies to any other Court by Writ of error That is the sentence and judgement of the Judges of the Realme yet from that judgement some persons are of opinion a Writ of errour lieth before the Lords in the upper House of Parliament But upon consideration had of the reason of the Law concerning the proceedings in Writs of error brought there I conceive it were to little purpose to permit any such appeale unto the Lords upon judgements given in the Exchequer Chamber before all the Judges of the Realme The power of the Lords House to reverse erronious judgements I conceive began thus The Court of the Kings Bench is the highest Court of Judicature wherein any suite of Law can legally and regularly be brought and therefore their proceedings not to be examined by any other ordinary Court of Justice every one of them being inferiour to it But the Judges of the Kings Bench are as subject to erre as the Judges of other Courts Therefore as requisite to have their proceedings examined Now in regard the Judges of the Realme were at all times at least assistant to the Lords House it was proper enough to have the errors of the Kings Bench reversed in that place And having had its beginning thus constant use and custome hath Legally intituled them unto it Therefore although peradventure it may have happened that some few particular Writs of errour have been brought in the Lords House upon judgements given in some other Courts I conceive the prescription which is all the Commission they have lieth only for the Kings Bench. And I am the more confirmed therein because the Law bookes mentioning the authority of the Lords House in reversing judgements do generally instance in the Kings Bench not naming other Courts Besides as the Lords House hath this jurisdiction by prescription the same use and custome requires these circumstances 1. That the Kings consent to prosecute a Writ of error be obtained because every judgement in the Kings Bench doth immediately concerne the King the jurisdiction of that Court being properly Pleas of the Crowne 2. That the Lords after the cause is brought before them proceed by the advice of the Judges which is indeed the essentiall part of the prescription To have a profession of Law Courts of judicature erected persons learned in that profession appointed Judges thereof it were most preposterous to have the proceedings of these Judges even in the most difficult points of the Law examined reversed and controlled by persons ignorant in that profession By the constitutions of England no man is capable to be a Judge unlesse he have understanding in the Law to performe that office Therefore shall the King grant to one who is most learned a Judges place to him and his heires as to his heires it were void and the same it were if such a grant were made by Act of Parliament And so consequently if the Lords should prescribe that time out of mind they and their predecessours Lords of the Parliament in Parliament time have without mentioning it to be with the advise and assistance of the Judges reversed erronious Iudgements given in the Kings Bench or in any other Court of Iustice it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be disallowed judged as an evil use
is and may be in the Subject Answer Although his whole discourse is either false or impertinent yet his saying that Kings were first elected by the people That the people as he beleeves elected the Judges and bounded them by publike Laws And for proof positively affirming although not naming one Act That all this appears by infinite Acts of Parliament regulating the King and His officers The vulgar may thereby conceive that the Members of the two Houses without the King have made Acts of Parliament That by those Acts it appears That the people elected the first King of England and the Judges and bounded them by publike Laws Although Mr. Pryn himselfe well knowes that never any Act of Parliament was or could be made without the Kings expresse consent And that the people of this Nation have been governed under Kings 1200. years before the first Act of Parliament at this day extant So that if Mr. Pryn had made his Argument according to the truth of the fact it had been but thus After King H. 3. begun his reigne and not before the Kings of England have made some Laws by Act of Parliament whereby in some things they have regulated their owne authority and the power of their officers and Judges Ergo the people although we had Kings 1200. years before that elected the first King the Judges and bounded them by publike Laws Besides admit the people had elected the first King and the Judges That nothing proves that the Members of the two Houses at this day by our Law outgh to nominate the Judges And for the rest of his Arguments they are to this effect A question being asked who ought to elect the Judges Mr. Pryn saith Leiutenant Generals and Sheriffs were anciently elected by the Parliament and people Colonels Majors Aldermen Constables Knights of the Shire and Burgesses are elected by the people Kings cannot elect a Member or exclude him from sitting That the Members are honourable grave and wise That the Judges are the Kingdomes as well as the Kings That although the Kings have usually had the election of them perchance it was by usurpation and Mr. Bodin a great Polititian saith that the election of these officers may be and often are in the Subject Now hereupon to conclude Ergo By the Laws of England the Members of the two Houses ought to elect the Judges I cannot more aptly parallel the Argument then thus How many miles to London Answer a poke full of plums Ergo it is 20. miles to London upon this it might as well have been concluded 40. 100. or 1000. miles to London as 20. and so for electing the Judges upon any of Mr. Pryns reasons or upon all together admitting them all true It might with as much sence and reason have been concluded thus Ergo the Major of Quinborough the great Turke or the man in the Moon ought to elect them Besides the Members of the two Houses cannot have the election of the Judges for these reasons First the Chancery the Kings Bench the Common Pleas and the Court of the Exchequer are Courts of Justice by prescription they were instituted before the time of memory none knows the beginning thereof but certaine it is they were Courts of Iustice before the House of Commons had being Secondly as it is necessary that the Iudges of the Law be knowne persons It is as requisite that such as elect them should be constantly visible But the Members out of Parliament are invisible Thirdly suppose it enacted That none that shall be a Iudge unlesse elected by A. and B. It were no wonder for them irreconcileably to differ in their choice And the two Houses are as distinctly two as A. and B. That difference which is renders the Members more improper for the worke and consequently not of a Composier fit to elect the Iudges And that this is the Kings right is made good thus First It appears before that those Courts have had Judges time out of mind And so long as any may can shew or prove there hath been Judges of those Courts so antiently the Kings of England and none else have elected and authorized them which is the strongest proof in the Law It is the Law it selfe It were absurd for any man to deny that it is felony to steale or that the eldest son is heir to his Fathers land yet there is no other proof to make it good but use and practise And the Kings have as antiently and constantly elected the Iudges as theft hath been punished or that the eldest son hath by discent enjoyed his fathers land Secondly if this King hath not right to elect the Iudges no former King had it and consequently we never had one Judge rightly authorized So that Mr. Pryn hath found out a point in Law which at once makes a nullity of all former proceedings in those Courts as things done coram non Judice But this not all If Mr. Pryns doctrine be true we have had no Parliament for the Kings not having power legally to authorize the Lord-keeper all creations of Peeres are void and so the Writs for electing the Knights and Burgesses were illegall and void too And consequently Mr. Pryns Law admitted there is no Member of either House Lawfully authorized to sit or Vote And for authority of bookes either Law or History I dare be bold to say there is not one man in the World untill the sitting of these Members who hath upon any occasion mentioned these things but hath delivered it as a fundamentall ground and a positive truth That the authority to elect the Iudges is in the King alone So thatsuch as are unsatisfied of the Kings right herein may with as much reason doubt whether we have had a King Law or government Nothing can herein be alledged against the King or on the Members behalfe unlesse a new maxime of Law be started up That no proof be it never so clear is sufficient to entitle the King to any Interest or authority But for the Members although they have neither authority use practise president or reason to make it good have title and interest to what they list But if the two Houses have the finall power to judge the Law and that every one who shall dispute their Votes break the priviledge of Parliament It matters not who hath the election of them nor who are chosen If the man be flexible enough the meanest capacity in one dayes study and with the expence of one single penny may be sufficiently compleat for a States Judge his Library needs not consist of more bookes then a copy of the Houses Votes whereby we are declared breakers of the priviledges of Parliament to deny that to be Law which they declare so to be For by these Votes we have no Law but the Members will And consequently those persons they call Iudges are no other but their Ecchoes But the true Judges authorized by the King have not only the
name but the power of Judges the knowne Law of the Land is their rule to determine every question depending before them which they are sworne to observe notwithstanding any command of the King the Members or any persons whatsoever And consequently every one is thereby preserved in his just Interest but by the Members taking upon them both to nominate the Iudges and to declare the Law the Law it selfe is destroyed and both King and people inslaved Upon the whole matter clear it is That the King and none else hath power to nominate and authorize the aforesaid Iudges and officers And therefore if the Members of the two Houses have or shall either in the Kings name or in their owne de facto appoint any persons for Judges in those Courts or in words by Commission of Oyer and Terminer or generall Gaole delivery give power to any to execute the office of Judicature in Circuits or otherwise such persons have not de Jure the power of Iudges For the Members have no more authority to make a Judge or to give any such power then any other subject in the Kingdome hath therein And consequently all the judgements acts and proceedings of those nominall Iudges or such Commissioners are void as things done coram non Judice Every person by such authority who either in the Kings Bench or at the Assises or elsewhere hath been or shall be condemned and executed for any crime whether guilty or not guilty is murdered And every other judgement or sentence by them given either in Capitall Criminall or Civill affaires is invalid In the next place it is proved that the King is the only Supreame Governour CHAP. VII That the King is the onely Supreame Governour unto whom all the people of this Nation in point of Soveraignty and Government are bound to submit themselves AGainst this undoubted right of the Kings these distractions have produced another Treatise of Mr. Pryns likewise published by authority of the Commons House intituled thus The Parliament and Kingdom are the Soveraigne power Wherein his aime is to perswade the people that the Members of the two Houses are the supream Governours of this Kingdom and begins thus The High Court of Parliament and whole Kingdome which it represents saith he may properly be said to be the highest Soveraigne power and above the King for saith he every Court of Justice whose Just resolutions and every petty Jury whose upright verdicts oblige the King may truly be said to be above the Kings person which it bindes But the Court of Parliament hath lawfull power to question the Kings Commissions Patents and Grants and if illegall against the Kings will to cancell or repeal them Therefore the Parliament hath Soveraign power above the King Answer Here I deny both his Major and Minor First for his Major Although it is true that every Just resolution of any Court of Justice That is when the Judges legally determine such things as regularly depend before them in point of Interest bindes the King as well as a Subject that proves not a Soveraigne power in the Judges If so it followeth that the Judges of the Kings-Bench the Common Pleas and of all other Courts of Justice And by M. Pryns Argument every petty Jury too have in point of Soveraignty a power above the King which is most grosly absurd So that admit the two Houses a Court of Justice which they are not and to have power legally to determine Causes which they have not That is nothing to Soveraignty It is one thing to have power to make Lawes another to expound the Law and to Governe the people is different from both The first appertaines to the King and the two Houses the second to the Judges and the third is the Kings sole right Neither the making declaring or expounding the Law is any part of Soveraignty But regulating the people by commanding the Lawes to be observed and executed pardoning the transgressors thereof and the like are true badges of a Supreme Governour All which are the Kings ☞ sAnd for his Minor take his meaning to be the true Parliament That is the King and the two Houses And it is false that the two Houses without the King have power legally to cancell or make voide any Commission Patent or Grant of the Kings For as before appeareth That united body cannot speak or doe any thing but by Act of Parliament To say the Parliament without the King may make a Law is as grosse a Contradiction as to affirme that the King may make an Act without the King And his meaning being taken to be the two Houses without the King In that sense the Members have herein no power at all for as before appeares they are neither a Parliament nor a Court of Iustice and consequently have not jurisdiction legally to cancell or repeale any Commission Patent or Grant of the Kings But saith Master Prin the King although he be cheif yet he is but one Member of the Parliament and saith he the greatest part of any politicke body is of greater power then any one particular Member As the Common-Councell is a greater power then the Major the Chapter then the Dean the Dean and Chapter then the Bishop and so the whole Parliament then the King for saith he in an Oligarchy Aristocrasie and Democrasie That which seemes good to the major part is ratified although but by one casting voice As in election of the Knights of the shire Burgesses and the Votes in the two Houses And saith he by the Lawes of England The Kings the Lords and Commons make but one intire Corporation and so concludes that the Major part of the Parliament which in Law saith he is the Corporation is above the King Answer There is scarce one word in this discourse but it is false or misapplied It appears before That the Parliament consists of 3 distinct bodies viz. the King the Lords House and the Commons House and in making Lawes which is all they have to doe they have but three Voices yet that which seemes good to the major part of these three is not ratified For as before it appeares they must all concurre else no Parliament It is true where the Government is Aligarchicall Aristocraticall or Democraticall the major part determines the Question But this is mis-applyed to the businesse in dispute concerning the Soveraign power Our Government is Monarchicall The people of England are not Governed by a Parliament The use of a Parliament as before appeares is onely in some things when necessity requires To alter the old or make new Lawes wherein the foresaid three bodies viz. the King the Lords House and the Commons House are joyntly trusted If Mr. Pryn be asked what he meanes by the Major part of that Corporation which he in this place calls the Parliament His Answer must be one of these viz. Any two of the aforesaid three bodies or else That the King the Lords and the Commons
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
Kings right Besides it is resolved in our books of Law that if all the people of England should break a League with a forraign Prince without the Kings consent the League were not broken And consequently by the Judgement of the Law the sole power of the Militia is in the King And with this agrees all the Authorities both of our Books of Law and History It was never for the space of 1700. yeares past questioned or disputed untill now by these Vsurpers injuriously wrested from the Crowne But the Members in the name of the Lords and Commons upon serious consideration have lately Voted to this effect That the Militia hath been long debated in black and red letters and that God hath now given his Verdict on their sides That however the English men please themselves with their Magna Charta and because their Lives and Estates are not at the Kings Will and for that He cannot make Lawes or raise money without consent in Parliament All this say they signifies nothing if the Militia be in the King for by that say the Members He may destroy the People For say the Members if there be a true intention to leave unto the People their knowne rights that no Law be made or Money levied to maintaine the Militia without their consent in Parliament It cannot inable Him to do the Kingdom effectually any good alone But may serve to make Him capable alone to do them hurt Answer Every man may be satisfied these men have spoke what they can to maintaine this their pretended Right yet these their Votes being duely examined every indifferent person will thereby rather think that the Devill himself who hath long owed them a shame hath now paid that debt then by these Votes be drawn to believe the Members Doctrine First for their supposed Verdict to be given by God himself Their Argument therein is sutable to that of the Jewes and Turks whose examples and presidents I presume they follow The Jewes even to this day audaciously scoffe and taunt us Christians for receiving Christ Jesus for our Messias because upon the Crosse he being required by them to manifest his authority by saving himself and thereupon then offering to believe his Doctrine which he did not Therefore the wicked Jewes concluded they could not And the Turkes for the space of 1000. yeares past to make good their Doctrine of Mahomet and their claime to be the only Monarch of the World much insult upon the Christians for their Victories obtained against them whereby we cannot deny but they doe possesse amongst infinite other Kingdomes and Countries wrested from Christian Kings the places both of the Birth and Passion of our Saviour And upon this the Turks infer that God hath Judged the cause for them against the Christians Now that difference which is to be found between the Arguments of the Jews and Turks and these of the Zelots at Westminster renders the latter to be the greater Blasphemous They althoughly wickedly protesting against Christ pursued their Conscience Neither Turk nor Jew for any thing appeares did know or believe Christ to be the Saviour of the World These hypocritically make use of the name of God himself and to establish themselves in their usurped possessions with insolent boldnesse call him to testifie nay affirme that God in this point of the Militia hath given his Verdict for them and against the King which themselves doe not only know but have acknowledged to be the Kings Right And having with this semblance of sanctity prepared the People with this forged Verdict Then they Vote reasons to perswade the vulgar That for the King to have the Militia tends to their destruction but that Authority being placed in the Members the people are if we may believe them secured from harme But of their owne shewing the expresse contrary Appeares First they tell us as the truth is that by the Laws of England the King hath not power by himself alone to tax or impose payments of money upon the Subject therefore say they mark this consequence so long as the Law is therein observed the Kings having of the Militia is not effectuall to the Kingdome Hence it followeth by the Members own Argument that if the King had an Arbitrary power then the Militia were his own So that by the Members Doctrine none but Tyrants have title to the power of the Sword which I confesse is a foundation aptly laid for their own structure All the world will witnesse for them that in point of Tyranny the malice of man with the advise and assistance of all the devils in hell cannot out-strip them Let the Members search Histories and Stories Presidents and Examples from the first Creation untill this Parliament and not onely of this Nation but throughout the face of the whole Earth and I defie the most vigilant amongst them to finde one Tyrannicall act which these Members since their usurpation upon the King have not done or audatiously claimed by the Law of the Land to have power to execute Thus appeares the different condition of the people concerning the Militia under the Kings Government and this under the Members By that under the King whilst the people submit unto their lawfull Superiors and obey the just Sentence of Law there is no need of the power of the Sword for the King neither hath nor claimes Authority by the Militia to force his Subjects to make payment of money or to doe any one thing more or otherwise then the known Law commands We are not Governed by the Will of the King but under Him according as the Law of the Land directs And the use of the Militia is no other then to preserve the Law And therefore in case of disobedience to compell submission thereunto wherein the power of the Sword that is the Militia is as necessary as the Law it self for as the people cannot be protected in their persons lives or estates without the Law so that Law is fruitlesse where there wants power to put it in execution Hence it followeth even by reason it selfe that he who hath the Soveraign power of Government hath as an incident inseperable unto it the power of the Sword And by our Law the King hath the Soveraignty From him as before appeares is due to the people protection of their persons and Estates That by the Lawes of England is implyed in the word King And so the word Subject implies a duty in the people to assist their King And as this duty is reciprocall between King and Subject so the performance thereof is equally beneficiall to both And if either faile in their duty both King and People are destroyed Therefore to deny our King the Militia of the Realme is no lesse an absurdity then to appoint a Generall of an Army with commands to fight an approaching Enemy and to deny that Generall use of Armes and power to command his Souldiers But on the other side to give
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
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
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
by judiciall proceedings recorded in his life time yet there is another rule in Law too viz. that no man shall take advantage of his owne wrong Therefore if one before he be convict by such proceedings be killed in rebellion and his corps viewed by the chief Justice he forfeits both lands and goods Now suppose 500 ordinary persons not claiming the power or name of a Parliament to have committed the crime of treason murder or felony Then assemble to themselves multitudes out the Judges from their Justice seat place those of their faction therein seize the Kings Great Seale break it in pieces and counterfeit an other Imprison the King and thus stop the course of Justice against themselves Grosse it were in that case because unattainted or unconvicted not to declare them Traytors Should the people in that case omit by all possible endeavours to apprehend and bring them to punishment wherein the Law upon resistance doth warrant the killing of them they were not only disobeyers of the Law but the cause of their owne misery Even so it is with the people at this day There is no difference to be found betwixt those 500 men and them at Westminster but the Westminster-mens pretence of authority which renders them more odious And therefore the people ought to be more zealous to apprehend them Fiftly it is an undoubted truth that whilst the Members are so over-awed as to act and doe what others command them It is no free Parliament and consequently all their proceedings void and null But those Westminster-men are in that manner awed Even as they by tumults expelled their fellow Members and by their tyranny fettered their consciences themselves are now by the power of an Army forced to captivate their owne sence to the will of a few inconsiderable persons some particular Officers of the Army The Members do not they dare not act any thing but in obedience of the results of a Councell of Warre Nay more we see not to alter and change opinion how contradictory soever to former votes how pernicious to King Church or Common-wealth as they receive commands from thence is ground sufficient both of an expulsion from the House and an impeachment of Treason Hence it is That we find such contradictory results sometimes these persons voting themselves a Parliament sometimes no Parliament sometimes much shew of setling a Forme of Religion they unvote that againe and declare upon pretence of satisfying tender Consciences to have none at all They do in effect say and unsay vote one and the same thing lawfull and not law even as the Cudgell hangs over them And so unlesse persons whose Soules and Consciences are so far in vassalage as to say act and doe what ever the present prevailing Party commands make the Houses of Parliament these Westminster men are not they and consequently if nothing but this were against them it proves them no Members of Parliament Sixtly admitting these men not disabled by any or all the foresaid means yet by their late Votes declaring their resolution not to make any addresse or application to the King nor to permit any from him they have by the Law of England dissolved themselves For setting aside the Kings Writs of summons the peoples electing the Knights Citizens and Burgesses and the returns thereof made And the Persons assembled have no more authority to sit or vote in either House then any other men And by those Writs they have nothing else to doe but to treat with the King concerning the affaires of the Realme Therefore by waving that they quit all their imployment They doe by it clearly publish unto the world an absolute deniall to take upon them those things which the King and people intrusted them with and for which they had Commission And consequently what ever they doe is without Commission or Authority But to doe them right they are in these votes more ingenuous then formerly There is now a harmony between their words and actions which heretofore jarred For notwithstanding their often Declarations and high Protestations even with deep execrations upon themselves if not performed to make the King glorious and the people to flourish The world might even from the first beginning of the Parliament see that all their actions tended to the destruction both of King and Kingdome Now suppose a new gang of four Judges set up in the Court of Kings bench by colour of Authority of these Persons at Westminster and three of them by an Order of their own to expell the fourth then two of the three to expel the third then one of the two to assemble multitudes and expell the other And after this the last man by himself alone or calling unto him two or three other persons sutable to himself to judge the Law and thereby to declare the wealth of the Nation to be their owne and both the Members and the rest of the people to be their slaves And having got an Army on foot to support their actions Then to declare that they will have no more relation unto or medling with the Members such Persons would quickly be denounced no Judges of that Court Declared to act without commission or authority To be Subverters of the Law and would be impeached of high Treason against this new State Even so ought all the people to declare these Westminster-men It is their case against the King the people and the old known fundamentall Laws of England Upon the whole matter I cannot more aptly parallel these persons then unto those men our Saviour in the Gospel warns us of They have got within the walls of the Houses of Parliament but entred not in by the dore They came in Sheeps clothing expressing themselves most zealous to advance Religion and to preserve the peoples Liberty But by their fruits we find them inwardly ravening Wolves they are like unto those who our Saviour calls thieves that come to steale kill and destroy they have abolished all Religion they have taken from the people their Liberty and almost to the last drop of bloud have sucked from them their livelihood In a word since they cast off their loyalty and so making themselves masterlesse those Wolves are so filled with pride as that they disdaine all other Creatures They are so gorged with malice as that they snarle and pinch at most men they meet which hath its effects like unto the biting of a mad Dog scarce curable but by a medicine prepared with the heart or liver of that biting Cur. So the world sees when these Westminster men have once fixed their malice whether upon those against them or upon their owne Party whether he have deserved well or ill whether the fact charged upon him be lawfull or unlawfull it is a million to one in fine he perisheth Nor can the wit of man find a cure for this grief but to unkennell these Wolves And to effect it the people of England by the rule of reason
by the law of nature of Nations by the Laws of the Realme and by the Laws of God are obliged to doe their uttermost endeavour For to their dores it is now brought wherein they cannot expect any formall Warrants according to the ordinary proceedings For as before appears the Malefactors themselves have stopped the passage of the Law the people therefore ought not onely to declare these Westminster men no Houses of Parliament and no Members of them but they are obliged to reject all their Orders Ordinances and Commands what name or title soever they have given or shall give them And also to apprehend their persons and bring them to due punishment of Law CHAP. XII Results upon the premises That the people of England under the government of the KING according to the known Laws of the Realme are a free Subject THe use of a Law is to protect every one under it in his just Rights which I grant cannot be done unlesse by that Law the lives and estates of the people be subject to the judgement of some known persons without that neither Malefactor can be punished nor Controversie decided Hence it followeth that the happinesse or misery of the people depends upon the good or the bad constitution of that law under which they are governed For such a law may be as that the people are thereby little altered from that condition they were in when they had no Law at all For example where there is no Law and so the strongest party hath the best interest every one is a Tyrant each to other and where the supream Magistrate hath an arbitrary power the people are no better then legall slaves to that supreame Governour Now this Arbitrary power cannot be avoided but by observing these principles viz. By placing the Soveraigne power of Government in one hand and the absolute determination of that Law by which under the Supreame Magistrate the people are governed in an other hand And for making new Lawes or altering the old That neither the supreame Governour by himself alone nor any other without him have that authority But that such a composed body be therewith trusted as have not the power of government All which is observed by the Laws of England The King by our law is the onely supream Governour but his power is not unlimited for the people under Him are governed by a knowne Law And this Law not declared by the King but by the Judges of the Realme being persons unconcerned and sworne to decide controversies according to the Law To the King is due forfeitures for Treason fines imposed upon offenders transgressing the Law and the like But the King doth neither Judge what is Treason what fact doth breake the Law nor hath power to impose a fine upon any offender And for making Laws the King alone hath not that power nor is it in any other without him It is no Law without the joynt consent of the King and the Members of the two Houses which united Body hath not the government of the people And so every one is limited and kept within his owne bounds But although we have a knowne Law and for the most part in the execution thereof knowne processe which and no other the people are obliged to obey yet sometimes for necessity the Law refers severall things to be acted and done according to the discretion of persons trusted whose Commands although they doe not observe the ordinary rules and knowne processe of the Law the people are bound to submit unto For example It is the office of every Sheriff of his County to preserve the Kings peace within his liberty Therefore upon any suddaine insurrection tumult or other just occasion the Law to enable him to performe that duty gives him authority to raise the power of that County wherein it is best to the discretion of the Sheriff to judge when it is necessary to command the peoples assistance But herein he is not the finall Judge In that case it is at the equall perill of the Sheriff and the inhabitants of the County To the one when to command and to the other when to obey If the Sheriff without just cause force the people to rise himsefe is punishable And if he requires the inhabitants to assist him when it is necessary and they refuse the people are punishable In which case both Sheriffs and Inhabitants being equally concerned therefore neither the one nor the other is Judge to determine whether there was cause to require assistance or not That question the cause being regularly brought before them properly belongs to the Judges of the Law And therein he who findes himselfe agreived hath liberty to commence his action and bring it to tryall And as in that case of the Sheriff for his particular County the like accidents may happen whereby the whole Kingdome may be in such danger as not possible by the ordinary meanes and knowne practise of Law to prevent the destruction of it The Nation may be so suddenly invaded by a forraigne enemy or infested by a domestick insurrection as that without present supplies and assistance of men money and other provisions of War the whole people and Kingdome may perish It were grosse in such a case to be tyed unto the formalities of Law or to want meanes to prevent that danger And this cannot be supplied unlesse some have legall power to command and the people obliged to obey Therefore by our Law the King ex officio as King hath that power He may in such cases by His regall authority compell His subjects in His and His peoples defence to serve in person and contribute with their purses Yet herein the King is not the finall Judge if so the estate and fortune of the subject were at His will He might then upon pretence of necessity draw from the people their whole fortunes and estates which were in effect a power arbitrary Therefore as before in the case of the Sheriff so here as the people are at their extreame perill in case of danger bound to obey the Kings commands So it is at the perill of the Kings Ministers therein imployed that the King hath just cause to make that command For every subject who by the Kings commands or warrants is molested either in person or estate may prosecute suit in a Court of Justice against the Kings officers who interrupted him wherein the Kings Warrants Writs or Commands are no legall justification unlesse it judicially appear to the Judges of that Court where the suite depends that the King had just cause to require that assistance For the King is not the finall Judge in such a case So that our Law in the first place preserves the Kingdome and people from danger by providing remedy against those sudden accidents yet protects the subject from tyranny and arbitrary power And this rule for the liberty of the subject holds in all cases that is to say The Subject of England under the
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
himselfe and family as if it were taken by way of Ship-money Loan or Benevolence Nor is any mans hunger satisfied his thirst quenched or his children clothed by being told that this is done by the representative body of the whole Kingdome But on the other side it is apparent that the people are hereby generally impoverished and the Members in pompe glory and wealth advanced far beyond their ranks and fortunes We had a Star-Chamber and a High Commission the Judges whereof sometimes imposed exorbitant punishments But we have now the Members stiled a Parliament who have not onely accumulated unto themselves the power of those Courts and of all other Courts of Justice in the Kingdome but have therein assumed an unlimited power when they think fit to censure whether it be for a crime or vertue disobedience or obedience of the Law The punishment if they please is either pecuniary corporall brands of infamy confiscations of their whole estate or death it self And in all this which by the Lawes of England is most horrid the Members are both Judge and Party the profits of those forfeitures redound unto themselves But the new mercenary Preachers and other incendiaries appointed for that purpose blaze those Westminster-men to be persons full of grace and mercy They would make the people beleeve they are such as drive onely at the publicke not looking upon their owne particulars And herein make speciall use of the putting down of the Court of Wards The truth whereof is but thus By the Lawes of England every one who holds Lands by Knights service whether of the King or of his fellow Subject and dyes his heire within age of 21 years the King or that Lord of whom it is held hath the profits of such Lands untill his full age and the government and marriage of his person Which being an interest due unto his Lord by reason of the tenure of his Land is as justly his as the rent of a Tenant for yeares belongs to his Land-lord Now this right both of King and Subject these Westminster-men take upon them to dispose and call it their own act of grace Much like unto their taking from their King and His Loyall Subjects their whole Estates and bounteously dividing it amongst themselves But admit they had had Authority which they have not the least colour to challenge to alter the Law in this case of tenures yet the people are not by this alteration any whit bettered It is true formerly the eldest son or the heire of some particular persons were during their minorities subject to wardships But under the Tyranny of these men and by the doctrine they preach the King and all the people are hereditary slaves Themselves all their Children their Childrens Children and posterities for ever in person estate and fortune whether owner or not owner of Land and however it is held even to the worlds end are at all times at their absolute command Suppose the King should quit His right of tenures and then by other impositions wrest from the people 40 times the value thereof these Members would judge that to be no act of bounty And if so in the Kings case much worse it is in them For they neither have power in the one nor in the other They cannot acquit any one of Wardship nor lawfully tax the people one penny And suitable to this we heaâ— of another bounty intended The people say they must be eased of free-quarter wherein the Country-men are dealt with as sometime it happeneth to an innocent man upon the racke who to gain a little respite from the present torment falsely accuseth himself of a crime for which he is put to death or like unto the carriage of a sturdy bold theif whereof these times afford examples enough who tels the owner of a horse that unlesse he may have the value of it he will steal the horse but having got the money takes the horse too So here the people are pestered with quartering of Souldiers and are so barbarously used by these inhumane wretches as that the poor men are prepared to part with their whole fortunes to be eased of that present Tyranny Hereupon a new and an illegall tax of about 20000. l. the weeke is laid upon them which done although it a mounts to twice treble the charge of quartering still the Souldiers must be bilited And their insolency hereby rather increased then abated These and such like are all the favours we can expect to have during the time of the raign of these Westminster-men To be short they have got possession of the wealth of the whole Nation and have usurped an Arbitrary power So that did they incline thereunto they cannot do unto the people any considerable favour or act of grace For so long as they abide to these their owne principles of which Arbitrary power they cannot settle in any man a permanent estate interest power or authority wherein the City of London may be a paterne to the whole Nation We see these Westminster-men sometimes judge it fit that the Citizens should enjoy all their liberties and priviledges Presently upon that even by the same hand they are not permitted so much freedome as from the Lord Major to the petty Constable to elect one officer But those Officers are placed and displaced at the pleasure of these Members To day is granted to them their owne Militia to morrow by the same Authority they are judged persons of so base a condition as not capable of so great a power And not long after that courted to accept of it againe They are now exalted to the heavens and instantly thereupon even by the same mouthes and as it were with the same breath impeached of Treason And this is every mans condition Suppose one by these Members to be condemned to death is by them afterwards pardoned The next houre even by â—â—ese who pardoned he may be put to death An estate of Land an Office or other power or authority is by these men given for life or in fee be it as strong and ful as words can expresse it neither that nor any other act of these Tyrants binds one minute longer then they please And all this consonant to these their new principles for these men tell us their will is the Law we have no other Judge upon earth either in soul or body say they but themselves Farre otherwise it was with the people of this Nation under the King The King neither hath nor claimes power to tax the people or impose upon their estates but as the known Law permits When the King hath once made His grant either of Land Office Power or Authority He is concluded He cannot recall it or take to himself any thing in Lieu thereof Therefore shall the King quit His tenants of the foresaid tenures and put down the Court of Wards It may properly be said an Act of grace and bounty And so it is in all other things granted by Him