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
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
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
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
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
not consonant to the rules of Law or reason it were without any disparagement to their Lordships all one if not better when the question is whether the Iudges of the Court of Kings Bench erred in judgement to have it determined by casting of lots for whether right or wrong judgment were given if the Lords determine it it is but chance whether they pursue the Law or not And if by lot expence of money is saved Therefore cleare it is to examine a judgement given in the Exchequer Chamber by a writ of error brought in the Lords House is in effect for the same persons to judge whether themselves erred or not and so whether the Lords have or have not this power the Iudges of the Realme are still depended upon And in case the King and the two Houses make an Act of Parliament concerning the same thing when that Act is passed from them as before appears an appeale lieth by an action or suite at Law unto the Judges who have power to determine whether that Statute be binding or void and therefore clear and manifest it is that in matters of Law the last and finall sentence is the Iudges of the Realme But me thinks for a Nation which hath been governed so many hundreds of years by a known Law and under it so flourishing a people as the Subjects of England have been and yet not to be agreed who are the finall Judges of the Law is so grosse a thing as that all forraigne Nations hearing of it cannot but accompt us men to have lost our wits In every constitution it is oftentimes difficult even amongst the learned in the profession in some particular questions arising to determine what the Law is But not to know what persons have Authority to decide those questions is most ridiculous The Judges of the Law ought to be so conspicuous as that all persons even from the most learned unto the most ignorant may equally alike discerne the men Which considered I conceive it necessary not only for the information of the vulgar people of England which have herein been grosly deceived but for the Vindication and Honour of our own Nation and the Law established so farre to digresse as in a word to shew how this fond question was raised and controverted in this Kingdome which was thus This Nation is governed by a known Law that Law â—â—dgeth the King to be our onely Supream Governour gives power to the King with the assent of the two Houses and no other to alter that Law and to make new Lawes And to the Judges of the Realme it ascribes the power finally to declare the Law Now such whose aime is to usurp Soveraignty or to swallow the wealth of the Nation cannot hope to effect their ends by submitting to the known Law That were to commit a crime immediately submit themselves to the block Therefore they must either deceive the people by mis-informing them what the Law is else by strong hand to enforce upon them a new Law for their own purpose Now that the Members aime was at no lesse then all is too too apparent But at the beginning of these distractions they were not in a condition to force the people Therefore their Iudgements must be deceived Hereupon the Plot was that the Members in the opinion of the people should gaine the reputation of being the finall Judge of the Law which was effected thus The people by reason of some good Lawes obtained of the King by the Members procurement were inclinable to believe whatever they propounded Then the Members Voted Thus viz. That when the Lords and Commons declare what the Law of the Land is it is a high breach of Priviledge of Parliament to question it This being published and the people by Incendiaries spread throughout the Kingdome for that purpose by false Calumnies cast upon the King being grosly abused the Members work was in a manner finished Then they took upon them the power of the Militia declared that the Soveraigne power was not in the Kings Person but virtually in them And from thence what made for their advantage how grosse soever did but the Members declare it for Law and good enough Thus the Iustice seate even by a sleight became both disputed and usurped But now the Scales are turned The peoples understandings are enlightned they see how grosly they were misled They finde that whilst the Judges of the Realme declared the Law both King and Subject were preserved in their Persons lives and fortunes That by this usurpation the known Law is subverted and consequently that protection vanished But as the people have changed their opinions so have the Members framed a new Argument They have left the Word and betaken themselves to the Sword They having Armies to back them their will is now the Law and resolve whilst they can by force to hold it Thus we are fallen into a gulf of misery whereas had the people been but half so carefull to have found out the Truth as they were industrious to effect their owne destruction these calamities had been prevented When the difference first hapned between the King and the Members had not the people leaped into their own ruine but taken the least consideration thereof had they bethought themselves how they were to be rightly informed what the Law was they must have resolved that as we had a Law consequently there must so long have been a Judge of that Law But the Members neither exercised or pretended any such power one minute beyond the foresaid Vote And for Authority to make their pretence good none can be produced but that their own testimony in this their own case and in a thing of no lesse concernment then the gaining of the wealth of the whole Kingdome to their own use and enslaving the people to their owne pleasure Hereupon doubtlesse the people would have concluded that not the Members the Judges of the Realme were the men unto whom all persons were Obliged to submit for matter of Law But it is objected That this is too great a power for the Judges for say they those persons may and doe erre in Judgement and are subject to corruption as in that case of Ship-money Answer It is true the Iudges have erred and it being granted that in the case of Ship-mony they did erre and were corrupt too and that it cannot be expected but they shall againe and againe erre be corrupt yet until we have other Creatures then Men to make choise of for Iudges this Objection ought to be disallowed We finde the Members to be no Gods And for the weight of the businesse concluded to be too great for the Iudges I Answer that that power must be in some To have a Law without a Judge finally to end controversies were worse then to have no Law at all And to have a Law and a Judge of that Law who understands not the profession were a degree worse then