Law they are meere estranged from any knowledge in this nature of any proceedings of each other interlocutory untill judgement given and then it must legally be brought before them Jurisdiction of Courts so that this Case is clearely meant of their joynt power wherein by custome as saith Sir Edward Cooke the Lords only proceed to reverse or affirme any Judgement upon errour no whit diminishing the Power and Authority of the House of Commons by this for divers matters may by custome be severally trans-acted by Persons having the same power and authority Transaction by one done by all representative and yet they are in Law trans-acted by all the Members or Judges of that Court representative How the opinion of Sir E. Cooke formerly is to be understood viz. according to their joynt power of Judicatuâ—e But I doubt not but the transcript of any Judgement in the Kings Bench may be commanded and that legally too into the House of Commons and that they may proceed thereupon either to affirme or reverse the Judgement and that by the power of that high Court as a severall and distinct Court of Justice from the House of Peeres this Case before remembred to be good Law notwithstanding but this I leave to the learned The House of Commons may take a Recognizance at a distinct court of Justice Now concerning the Recognizance before touched there is nothing expressed or implyed in this Case but that the House of Commons as a severall and distinct Court of Justice of it selfe may take a Recognizance there is no question of that for every Court of Record have that power unquestionably yea derivative Authority from Courts of Justice as Commissioners of Oier and Terminer are invested with this Authority Further The House of Commons may take a Recognizance according to their joynt power the House of Commons considered in relation to their joynt power may take a Recognizance for so saith good authority that reverend Judge Brooke in abridging the said Case of 1 H. 7. before cited Videtur quod tout un are his very words besides if there hath no such practise been or used in the House of Commons that is no proofe it is no argument from a non esse to a non posse an hundred presidents Sub silentio make not a Law it was never yet upon contestation so determined but of this sufficient Thus I hope I have cleared this false aspersion it plainely appearing that they are a High and Supreme Court of Justice joyntly and severally without the Kings personall presence The Assembly at Oxford no Parliament There hath of late been an Anti-parliament for so I may terme it erected at Oxford whereby they had thought to have weakened the power of this Parliament by Voting their proceedings as traiterous and illegall but alas these are poore shifts and evasions seeing there is an Act unto which they themselves this very Session have assented by which it appeares this Parliament cannot be held proroged or adjournied elsewhere without the consent of both Houses of Parliament now assembled so that this Assembly at Oxford is no Parliament and consequently their proceedings a meere nullity in judgement of Law and withall subject to severe Censure in regard they have assumed to themselves the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome without any warrant of Law so to doe and that spurious generation of Bastards or illegitimate Children which seeke to sever and divide the Power and Authority of this High Court by affirming any legall presence of this Assembly elsewhere the wise Salomons of this Parliament will in their due time bring to condigne punishment Well then they being in Parliament and a high Court of Justice without the Kingâ— personall presence Inferiour Courts may command Posse comitatus what question can be made of their power even as a Court of Justice to constraine and compell all persons yea even by force of Armes to submit to their supreme Authority and in case of resistance if inferiour Courts may command Posse Comitatus to execute their Processes and Injunctions as it is manifest they may for in one common Case of Replevin from the Court of Common Pleas the Sheriffe of the County as Minister to the Court of Justice if the party that hath taken a Distresse carry the same to a Fort or Castle to the end it may not be replevied he may command the power of the County to attend him and abate that Fortlet or Castle in case of resistance delivering by Replevin the Cattell to the owner Surely then the Parliament in case their Power be contemned and disobeyed may command Posse Regni and not onely Posse comitatus to bring all persons rebellious unto the Justice of that High Court there to receive according to their merits And thâ—s is the case of this present Parliament as I take it who have legally Summoned the Members of both Houses now absent to attend the Service of the Houses and they have not appeared but absolutely refused to obey the Summons Processe and Power of that Court which for my part what offence it is and where Censurable I leave it to the world to judge upon whâ—t hath been formerly spoken there being no absolute case of necessity to plead for their absence as I could ever yet perceive and the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme being peremptory in the mulct and penalty thereof The Kings presence representative by 33. H. 8. supra Now peradventure it is necessary to know in what the Royall Assent Personally or Representative is required and that is plaine in enacting any Law or Statute to make it perpetuall to oblige the people I conceive the Royall Assent must precede yet the Royall Assent cannot in Justice be denied neither with a Le Roy s'duisera suspended unlesse satisfactory reasons be given for the same unto the Parliament for the publike good as also the confirmation of them is no act of transcendent grace but of right and Justice as hath been formerly spoken The power of the Parliament to make Ordinances paralleld with this power in inferiour Courts Nay further it must be granted that as incident to this great Court they may make Ordinances to binde the people Sedente Parliamento without any royall assent unto which Ordinances although not grounded upon the positive Lawes of this Kingdome the people ought to yeeld obedience as well as to the Ordinances Ordinances binds untill definitive Judgement though not transacted in plena cur Orders and interlocutory Judgements in other Courts of Justice unrill definitive or finall Judgement which is for the most part in Plena curia when the Court is full but that other power is used although but part of the Court be then sitting and bindeth all persons untill finall Judgement it is also plaine that in other Courts their Orders Ordinances Ordinances binding though not grounded upon the positive Lawes and interlocutory Judgements are
reason why the negative voice is not consistent with this goverment for if he hath a negative voyce the Government is meerely Arbytrary inferiour Courts may a while be refreshed herewith but the fountaine will soone dry up and what then will become of the rivilets If this may be defended De Jure to be done that the King may deny his Assent to twenty Bills preferred unto him by the wisedome of his Parliament for the Publike good there will fall oâ—â— a totall defect of Justice in a short time without God incline the hearts of Princes miraculously And this admitted how would it let loose the reines of Government for if there were no supplement of new Lawes the old Lawes would soone expire diseases breeding in the Body Politique even as in the naturall requiring new Lawes the ministration of new devised remedies to suppresse the mischiefe the which the Art of man cannot cure or prevent by provision of old Lawes therefore for this very reason the Kings negative voyce is inconsistent with Government Further to what end is the Oath so solemnly tendred and taken by the Kings of this Nâ—tion at their Coronations Is it meerely superfluous or is he bound now and is he presently loosed in his practise and goverment The Kings Oath at his Iâ—auguration against the negative voice How doth his negative voyce in Parliament and this Oath stand together in which Oath he sweares to confirme those Lawes Quas vulgus elegerit which his people shall chuse Some materiall words in this Oath explained the true sence and meaning of the words extending onely to future Lawes to be chosen by the people as I take it cleare without all question for to lawes already established precedent branches of this Oath doe relate else there must be a Tantology which in an Oath penned with such wisedome and deliberation we must not conceive The word Consuetudines joyned with the words of this â—ranch of the Oath Object objected by his Majesty in ore of his Declarations plainely to intend this branch of precedent Lawes onely for Customes cannot commence at this day is a word of large fence in Law Sol. Merchandises vid. Mâ—cae ca. 30 Note that this word Consuetudines is also taken for Statute law as Centra consuetudinem communi conciliâ— Regni edit Câ— M. C. f. 5. 6. for Rents and Services due to the Lord are called Customes beâ— sides this woâ—d Consuetudiâ—es in this very Oath plainely pointeth out Lawes and Statutes Franchises and Liberties for have the Kings of this Realme granted Customes in this sence to their people as are the words of one branch of this Oath they cannot be Customes and yet have such denomination even at their very commencement as these words report but of this enough Now the people here intended in this Oath are the High Court of Parliament for where can the people make election of wholsome Lawes for themselves but here The Commons are there representative the Lords not so but personally that is the reason a Peere may make a Proxy not the other where they are representatively assembled for no legall Assembly or Convention totius populi can any History record or antiquity of this Nation ever mention but this convention of Parliament I will say no more in a truth so cleere to every capacity plaine and obvious but people dis-affected clamour much and say How can this be since the Kings dignity is above all Law his presence suspends the Law and surely if he may suspend the Law by his presence and that a Law already made and in being then surely he may deny efficacy or force to any Law not in being by an explicite Act or deniall of Assent for the former case is but implicite and for proofe of this they may object that ancient Case of Law Object That a Villaine in whom his Lord hath both in person and estate the inheritance the absolute and free disposition of him by Law so he doth not maihem him if in the presence of the King he is a free man he cannot be seised by his Lord but it is for the time an Enfranchisement Sol. To which I answer that this Case is ancient and the Law in this particular is antiquated not abrogated howsoever it is pertinent to out present purpose I say this Case stands upon its particular reason for the Kings presence is a sufficient Protection in favour of liberty against the Lord who doth not agere civiliter against his Villaine that is to say claime him in a course of Justice for then if the proceed in a judiciall way The Kings presence no Protection against the power and execution of the law where the power and authority of the Law appeares as he may then I conceive the Kings presence is no protection but it is like the case of a man upon an Execution awarded against him who flyeth into the Kings presence upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriffe for in that Case I take it the Law is plaine the Sheriffe must with the power of the County if needfull apprehend him and if he returne the especiall matter unto the Court without executing the Writ the returne of the Writ in this case is not good and if the party escape the Sheriffe is subject to an Action at the Suit of the party who is damnified thereby Thus I have done with this particular I meane the negative voice and if there be no coersive power to rectifie the abuse of Authority Regall as some would have it yet it remaines still a transgression from the rule of Truth and Justice and that is all that I desire at this time to prove If there be no limits for the impetuous waves of the proud Ocean God hath appointed the Sands to stand up and choake them Loe here God and Nature against exorbitant power but of this sufficient There yet remaineth the last part of this Priviledge afore mentioned a little to be spoken of The proceedings of Parliaments paralleld with the proceedings of inferiour Courts viz. That the proceedings of this High Court are not subject to any extrajudiciall censure or debate wherein I will briefly-parallel this with the proceedings in inferiour Courts where you shall finde that they are not so much as to be retarded or delayed by any verball command of the King their judgements binding all untill by legall course reversed no man no not the King himselfe authorized to question much lesse nullifie their Acts in any extrajudiciall way so much ought the judgement of the Law to be had in reverence The King cannot warrant the absence of any man in his service The King cannot retard Justice but in a legall way either by any verball or Certificate by Letter to the Court of Justice but it must be done legally by Writ under Scale or otherwise it will turne to a default he cannot retard Justice but in a legall way And what is extrajudiciall
that they instance in the Case of the late Earle of Strafford Sol. To which I answer first That if they did so it were but just according to the Supreme power of that Court but to descend to our Adversaries and to search all the Foxes Holes that they may have no refuge I take it cleere that in the Case of the late Earle of Strafford they did proceed against him but according to the positive Lawes in respect of the Crime The Common law of this Realme is in force in Ireland and all statutes enacted before 10. H. 7. in this Realme are in force in Ireland vid. Poyninâ—â— ley though his triall might seeme somewhat differing for surely either by the Common Law or by the Statute of 25. E. 3. or by the Statute of 28. H. 6. as I remember a Statute made and enacted in the Kingdome of Ireland he was justly attainted of High Treason as for the Act of Attainder and the Proviso thereof that it should be no president for the future the meaning whereof I will open unto you hereafter certainely it was not for want of Crime or Delinquency as ignorant people and disaffected falsly say For a little to debate this particular in mine owne apprehension and no further because I have not lately seene this Act. Act vid. the act â—f Attainder of of the Earle of Strafford He was at first by Bill in the House of Commons Voted a Traitor which Bill was transmitted to the Lords for their concurrence therein but the Lords being doubtfull De jure not De facto as they were at the first in the Case of the late Prelate of Canterbury to wit whether he were guilty of high Treason by the Positive Lawes or no therefore for their satisfaction he was tryed in Westminster Hall per pares by his Peeres upon their Honour according to the course of the positive Lawes a L. Steward being appointed found guilty there of high Treason Upon these proceedings was the Act of Attainder drawne up wherein the Clause afore mentioned was inserted viz. That this Act of Attainder should be no president for the future which I conceive must be intended either in respect of the Triall or Judgement it selfe The Act or Judgement includes the triall or proceedings in law and although the clause should mention the Act and not the proceedings thereupon it is all one as if it had in sence of Law for the proceedings and the triall are included and involved in the Judgement and therefore the Act of Attainder or Judgement comprehends all depending thereupon Reverse a Judgement at Law you reverse all the proceedings without any mention of them therefore they are included Now the triall was unusuall for in the House of Commons he was tried in a Parliamentary way in the House of Peeres by the Common Law in Westminster Hall Further this Clause might have a retrospect unto the Act or Judgement for the Judgement was unusuall at least not necessary in this respect he was by the positive Lawes proceeded against Judgement might have been given against him by the Parliament which Judgement should have been entred into the Rolls of Parliament Vnto a Judgement by Statute all men are privie according to the course of other Courts of Justice but to be attainted by Act this was more full and satisfactory both to the offender and to others in this respect that all men are privie and consenting unto this Judgement either personally or representatively and therefore all men must rest satisfied but to returne to our former Discourse and not to detaine you any longer with mine owne fancy as some may say This I will confidently averre he was by the Law positive adjudged a Traitor for leavying warre in the Kingdome of Jreland His person here subject for offending against a positive law viz. 25. E. 3. as also for offending against a Statute there made viz. 2â— H. 6. and his possessions in both Kingdomes cleare liable by both statutes The Act of 25. E. 3. is in force in Ireland either by vertue of Poynings law or else by the ancient common law of England which is in force in Ireland 25 E. 3. is b t of the ancient common law declaratory Câ—m â—lees of the Crowne Tit. Treason Treason against the law against the very Law it selfe for he that goeth about to alter the Law or Governement or to oppose it in any hostile or compulsary way as it was proved manifestly he did is a Traitor within 25. E. 3. and leavieth warre against our Soveraigne Lord the King as the words of that Statute are for leavying warre against the Person of the King is included in the first branch of the Act of compassing or imagining the Kings death as the learned know therefore this Clause of leavying warre against the King if taken in the literall sence were not so necessary but because of some great authority in this particular which I have seene I will conclude that if taken in the sence against the the Person of the King yet it is also and most principally a leavying warre against the Lawes and Government a secret which ignorant people know not for they thinke no Treason can be but against the Person of the King now least any man being impeached of High Treason should claime the benefit of this Act which peradventure would prove inconvenient I conceive this clause for some of these reasons added unto this Act. But some will say That his ignorance of the offence Object and his good intentions to his Majesty and the State were a sufficient Apology the which he confirmed by his Speech unto the people at his death I answer If it were so admitted Sol. yet ignoruntia juris non excusat yea the meanest crime of the meanest person is not hereby extenuated in Law but this was a crime of an eminent person the highest offence in Law and of dangerous consequence All Courts of Justice have their Seales viz. C. B. Bleâ—oy this hath â—â—one but this Ergo. There are some Rights of Parliament yet behind as namely the attendance of the great Seale necessarily upon this Court their claime and disposition likewise of the Militia the Navy Forts and Magazins for the defence of the Kingdom as also of the great Offices of the Realme all these nor any of them being the Kings unboubted right Object as he claimeth them For to begin with the Militia which some may say hath been formerly debated in shewing his Majesties raising of Armies illegall and unwarrantable and therefore here it will be but repitition Sol. I answer if it were so yet this being a matter now controverted of so high consequence it should not seeme ungratefull Que repetita placent decies repetita placebunt but to dispossesse you of this fancy you shall finde it not so the discourse of it here you will finde in a larger notion though very briefe then before it was spoken of as