in the Lawes and learned in them and are assisted with all or most of the Judges of the Benches do upon Writs of Errour in Parliament revise and by the advice of the Judges affirme or reverse the Sentence of the next inferiour Courts where the judgement whither given for the King or for a common person may be reversed and as well the King as the common person bound by their reversall and judgement unlesse they be relieved by expresse Act of Parliament Other way of Declaring Law in true proprietie of speech that is to declare the genuine sense and dictate of the Law as it naturally ariseth from the force of Lawes in being there is none for as for declaring Law by Act of Parliament though that of all other be most authentique yet it is not authentique for acurate judgement in interpretation supposed to be in the two Houses there so much as for authoritie legislative administred by the three Orders of that high Court for should the three Orders declare Law contrary to what were Law indeed yet could not their Declaration be erroneous for that it thenceforth altered the Law and made their dictate Law though it were none before Such Declaration of Law therefore being never possible to be made but by the full legislative power of all the three Orders is not so properly a Declaring or interpreting of Law as rather the making of it and is therefore to be referred to the point of restraint in making of Law And this is clear that in such declaring of Law the Kings power is so much lesse restrained than it is by declaring of Law by their inferiour Courts as that in this he himselfe hath ever a personall Vote in the Declaration but in other he hath none at all As to the restraint of regall absolutenesse in point of making Law When our wise and pious Christian Princes had once brought the Kingdom to an happy frame of just and regular Government and sought by all meanes the establishment of that good condition which promised both prosperitie to their people and stabilitie to their own Dominion Change and Innovation being thenceforth more to be feared than any other thing They for preservation of what they had done began to yeild the absolutenesse of their power without which they could never have brought the State into any perfect frame unto some retardation of motion and regulation of power and came by degrees not onely to use the advice of the Bishops and Barons in making of their Lawes but their consents also and then not onely their advice and consents but the advice and consents of the Commons also condescending at last that as to the power of making Law their Scepter should thenceforth be locked up under the cautelous ward of a triple hand so as no new Act whatsoever should obtain the Authoritie of a positive Law without the agreement of the King the Peeres and the Commons to the end that no unadvised Law not well examined and found agreeing with the interests of every of the three formall parts of this Kingdom might in any part maime or enfeeble the established frame which yet did not so much coop up or curbe the regall power from any due worke or office that belongeth to it as rather close and fence it in within the bounds of safetie and of preservation Now this restraint being at first collaterall and accidentall to the Soveraigne power did not in the beginning otherwise binde our Princes than by their voluntary and pious submission of their wils till constant custome becomming a Law made that usage which was at first at their will become an absolute and inevitable limitation of their power so as that at this day no positive Law can now be made by the King without the consent of the Peeres and of the Commons and yet for all this necessitie now of their concurrence and consent not any part of the Soveraignitie to which the legislative power is inseperably incident is in any sort transferred or communicate unto them but as in our Copy hold Estates the Copy holder of a meer Tenant at Will comes by custome to gain a customary inheritance and so to limit and restrain the will and power of the Lord as that he cannot make any determination of the Copy-holders estate otherwise than according to the custome of the Mannour yet does not he deprive the Lord of his Lordship in the Copy hold nor participate with him in it neither yet devest the Fee and Frank-tenement out of the lord but they still remain in him and are ever parcell of the Lords Demeasne So in this restraining of the Kings legislative power to the concurrence of the Peeres and Commons though the custome of the Kingdom hath so fixed and settled the restraint as that now the King cannot in that point use his soveraigne power without the concurrence of the Peeres and Commons according to the custome of the Kingdom yet still the Soveraignitie and with it the inseperable legislative power does soly reside in the King As for the Peeres and Commons they being meerly Instruments of Regulation and qualification of the Kings legislative absolutenesse are no sharers with him in the Soveraignitie but alwayes remain as our very legislative Acts of Parliament do alwayes speak them His Majesties Subjects And His Majestie for all this restraining power of theirs remaines as they themselves in the legislative Acts and not without an Oath acknowledge Him their true and onely Soveraigne Apparantly therefore the Soveraignitie or regall power being thus in matters of private interest restrained to the rule jurisdiction and administration of Law as well by inferiour Courts as by the House of Lords and in the publique affaire of making Law restrained to the concurrence of the Peers and Commons is not so properly said to be restrained as regulated For neither is any of the Kings just and necessary power to the prejudice of the Crown taken from Him for the Law in no sort suffers any diminution of the just and due Soveraignitie neither is there any partenership of the Supremacie thereby thrust upon the King when the Law notwithstanding the restraint expresly declares Him The onely Supreme Governour Neither yet is any of the irregular and exorbitant absolutenesse which the Law separates from the regalitie any way transferred to the Courts or persons that are the instrumentals of the regulation but the Law separating all irregular licentiousnesse from the Regalitie utterly annihilates and makes null all practice and exercise thereof In summe all that is effected by this regulation is the King as He ever was so still remaines wholly and soly Soveraigne of the Kingdom onely not of a licentious and illegall but of a regular and legitimate Dominion But when the power and authoritie of Parliament is acknowledged to be the highest most absolute and most Soveraigne power in the Kingdom and seemes repugnant to that which we have alleadged that the Soveraignitie is wholly and
The Case of our Affaires IN LAW RELIGION And other Circumstances briefly Examined and Presented to the CONSCIENCE Printed in the Yeare 1643. The Case of our Affaires in Law Religion and other Circumstances briefly examined c. THough the Bonds of all Dutie are originally and principally founded in God and tied by Religion yet seeing all civill Duties relate to the particularitie of the humane Ordinance and according to the nature of it is with more or lesse importance to be exacted What Subject soever would finde the true rule and bond of his obedience must in the first place look what the State is wherein he lives and in whom the Soveraignitie is to which his obedience and faith is inevitably bound Our State of England even by the declaration of our Lawes is a Kingdom an Empire a well regulated Monarchie the Head thereof a Supreme Head a Soveraigne a King whose Crown is an Imperiall Crown the Kingdom His Kingdom His Realme His Dominion the People His People the Subject His Subject not onely as they are single men but even when being in Parliament assembled they make the Bodie Representative of the whole Kingdom considered apart without the King so that the very Parliament it selfe is also by our Lawes called His Parliament the King alone by Law hath power to call together in Parliament that Representative Bodie and at His pleasure to dissolve it He personally hath Homage and Oath of fidelitie of all the Peeres as of His Barons and all the Commons in Parliament do by Law swear Alleageance to Him as to the Onely Supreme Governour and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities belonging to Him His Heires and Successours or annexed to the Imperiall Crown of the Realme By the same Oath also is every Officer of considerable trust in Church and Common-wealth assured to His Majestie and not onely they but every single man of twelve yeares of age ought by Law in some or other of His Majesties Leetes to swear Alleageance to His Majestie and never in our Law have we known an Oath of obedience to be made unto the Parliament or any other Power in any case either of mis-government or danger how extraordinary soever This Soveraignitie in the King appeares not onely by that Oath of Supremacie but by the constant acknowledgement of our Acts of Parliament both antient and moderne which alwayes stile the King Our Soveraigne Lord the King that is not Soveraigne Lord to every single man onely as the Observer traiterously and foolishly would make it but the universalitie of us even to our Bodie Representative in Parliament For we must note that though we have among us many that are called Lords even by our Acts of Parliament themselves yet being Lords without relation to the communitie or publique they are never called Our Lords but The Lords with addition of such or such place or Office and they indeed are Lords singulis not universis for every particular man may call such a Lord My Lord but the Communitie may not call him Our Lord for to be Our Lord is to be Lord of the Communitie and that belongeth onely to Our Soveraigne Lord the King Our very Acts of Parliament declaring this State to be a right Imperiall Kingdom a Kingdom we know consisteth of no more than two formall parts onely that is to say a Soveraigne Head and a Subject Bodie and then it clearly followeth that what cooperation soever there be of any of the Members with the Head for the doing of any necessary Act of State whatsoever necessitie there be of the concurrence of those Members and howsoever they may seem to be Parties Orders or States co-equally authorised in the power of acting with the Head yet plainly there neither is nor can be any co-ordination nor co-equalitie of any Estate Order or Degree of the Subject with the Soveraigne nor any competition of the Subjects power in his concurrence with the virtuall and primary influence of the Soveraignes power but a plain subordination and subjected ministration of the one under the Soveraignitie of the other as in the further examination of their differing interests will manifestly appear We see the Soveraignitie of this State clearly vested in the King by Law established in Him and inseparably annexed to His Person by which He hath also inseparably both the Soveraigne power and Soveraigne judgement but as in judging and determining matters of private interest His power is not absolute but is restrained to judgement not judgement arbitrary in His owm Person but judgement to be administred by the proper sworne Judges of His Courts of Law so in matters of publique affaire for so much as concernes the making of Law His power and judgement are so restrained to the concurrence of the Nobles and Commons in Parliament as that He cannot make any settled Law without their consent but then in all other things that are not expresly restrained by any Law as in providing for the present safetie against suddain danger which Senates are so unapt to do as that the famous Roman Senate was ever fain to choose a Dictator to do it for them likewise in levying of Armes suppressing of tumults and rebellions convoaking of Parliaments and dissolving of them making of Peeres granting libertie of sending Burgesses to Parliament treating with Forraigne States making of War League and Peace granting safe conduct and protection indenizing giving of Honour rewarding pardoning coyning and the like in all these and divers other points of Regalitie the Soveraignitie both of judgement and power ever hath been and still is in the King alone freely and at his own discretion is secured to him by tâ—â— Oath of Supremacie whereby as aforesaid the vvhole Representative of Commons all Magistrates and men in place both in Church and Common-vvealth svvear To assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges preheminences and authorities belonging to the Kings For it is plain that seeing that by the Lavv of God and Nations to be King is to be Supreme Judge and Lavv-giver vvhosoever is King is supreme in every thing vvherein he is not especially restrained and his restraint being by the peculiar Lavves of his Kingdome he can be no further restrained than the knovvn Lavves thereof expresly manifest The great restraint of regall absolutenesse in our State is in the tvvo points of declaring and making of Lavv in neither of vvhich doth the King depart vvith any vvhit of his Soveraignitie In the point declaring of Lavv the King is restrained ordinarily to the mediation of his Judges vvho to declare the Lavv by deliverie of the genuine sense and interpretation of Lavv according to to art and rules of science are in their respective Courts the proper and authorised Judges and Interpreters of Law and do by their interpretation and judgement then binde both the King and Subject Next above them upon errour supposed in their judgement the House of Lords who anciently were exercised
soly in the King We shall easily reconcile that apparition of contradiction if we consider that we use the word Parliament to divers senses and that in two senses wherein we use the word Parliament there is no Soveraignitie to be ascribed to it We sometimes use the word Parliament for the House of Lords onely As when upon Writs of Errour any Judgement in the Kings Bench is examined in the House of Lords and there affirmed or reversed the Judgement is said to be affirmed or reversed by Parliament And yet though in that sense the House of Lords is well enough called The Parliament yet is it not the high Court of Parliament which is the supreme Judgement power and Authoritie of the Kingdome and that we may easily see in this that though the Lords have power there to reverse the Judgements of their inferiour Courts yet have they not power to reverse their own Judgements nor to restore again any Judgement that they have reversed for they judging ministerially and not soveraignely do as well binde their own hands as the hands of their inferiours whereas the absolute soveraigne power doth not so but may reverse any judgement that they themselves have given and again restore the judgement that they themselves reversed for the absolute supreme Court having Juris dandi dictionem can never be at the last period of her jurisdiction but looking ever forward to the present occasion whatsoever passed before it pro re natâ legislatively judgeth maketh and declareth Law But the House of Lords though the most superiour of all Courts of ministeriall iurisdiction and all other inferiour Courts they having no other iurisdiction than onely juris dati dictionem in using their iurisdiction do consummate it and bring it to a period beyond which they cannot go Besides the House of Lords is nor universally to all occasions a iudicatorie and therefore not soveraigne but is the distinct Court of the Kings Barons of Parliament of particular and ministeriall iurisdiction in which the King though one of the three Voters in Parliament yet in those things which come by processe of Law to receive determination there onely hath no Vote at all no more than in all other Courts of ministeriall iurisdiction Sometime we use the word Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament onely and that in regard they are the grosse of the Bodie whereof the Parliament consists there wanting onely the Soveraigne Head to compleat it But the two Houses alone without the King are so farre from being the supreme and high Court of Parliament as that they are not at all a compleat Court neither can they so unite or conioyne as to be an entire Court of either soveraigne or ministeriall iurisdiction But are two distinct Courts if so be the House of Commons which cannot minister an Oath nor fine nor imprison any but their own Members may be called a Court then are they Courts not otherwise co-operating than by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act of all the three Orders of the Parliament which when they have done their Votes are so farre from having any Legall Authoritie in the State as that in Law there is no stile nor forme of their joynt Acts nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them untill they have the royall assent which if the King refuses he yet doth no injurie to any for that every of the three Orders that are the formall parts of the high Court of Parliament that is the King the Peeres and Commons are every of them by Law trusted for their own respective interests to be the onely assured Conservatours of the rights that do belong unto them and may therefore every one of them freely dissent from the Votes of the other two nor is their any danger that it should be so but contrarily the most assured safetie that may be for the consequence of their not agreeing can be no worse than that their severall interests shall still remain in the condition that they were before untill such time as that they shall all three agree upon the state of alteration Now when the two Houses alone do no way make an entire Bodie House or Court and when their is no known stile nor forme of any Law or Edict by the Votes of them two onely nor any notice of them taken by the Law it is apparant there is no Soveraignitie in their two Votes alone To argue now as some do that the King must not deny His Vote for if by denying it He may frustrate the Votes of the two Houses by the same reason may He frustrate the Votes of all inferiour Courts and open a way to the most boundlesse tyrannie that ever was is a most perverse and absurde falsitie there being no affinitie nor resemblance of the course of those Courts with that of Parliament For in inferiour Courts the Judges sit and give Judgement for the King and not for themselves and the Law there authorises them to give the Kings Judgement and none but them and therefore the Kings Dissent or Countermand cannot frustrate their Judgements But in Parliament the Peeres and Commons neither sit nor Vote for the King but for themselves And the Law appoints the King himselfe to give His own Vote there which if the Peeres and Commons in His absence could have supplied the Statute 33. H. 8.21 needed not have provided that His Consent or Vote by His Letters under His Great Seale should be as effectuall as if He himselfe in Person had assented Besides the Judgement given by the Judges in inferiour Courts is compleat in Law without the assent of the King and therefore cannot be frustrate by the Kings dissent but the Votes of the two Houses are therefore to be frustrated for want of the Kings assent because without it they are not compleat nor perfect The high Court of Parliament therefore resembling a Chaire of three feet the two Houses make but two of the three which without the third is lame and uselesse as to making of Law but with the third becomes a firme and usefull seate and makes that sacred Tripos from whence the Civil Oracles of our Law are delivered When therefore we speake of the Soveraigne power and Authoritie of the Parliament that never is to be understood of the power of the two Houses onely nor any such Soveraigne power to be ascribed unto them Now in the last place we use the word Parliament for the three Orders of Parliament agreeing in their Votes then and then onely use we the word Parliament properly and in that sense onely is the Parliament the supreme Court the highest judicatorie and most soveraigne power and authoritie in the Kingdom But we must ever understand that it is not the most Soveraigne Court for any Soveraignitie placed in the two Houses and from them transferred or communicated to His Majestie by their joyning or consenting with him but it is therefore
the most soveraigne Court because every compleat and perfect Act of it is the Act of the personall will and power of the Soveraigne himselfe Standing in His highest Estate Royall and through the concurrence of those that are the instrumentals of His restraint more freely and absolutely working there than in any other time and place he can do For as a man that yeildeth himselfe to be bound by keepers hath the use of his strength taken from him but none of the naturall strength it selfe much lesse any of it transferred to them that bound him but whensoever they loose his bonds he again workes and acts by virtue of his own naturall strength and not by any received from them So the naturall right and interest of the Soveraignitie being soly in the King and the Peeres and Commons being onely interessed in the Office of restraining for the regular working of true legitimate Soveraignitie in whatsoever the Peeres and Commons by consenting remit the restraint the King in that willeth and worketh absolutely by the power of his own inherent Soveraignitie And whatsoever Act of the Court so passeth the hands of all the three Orders does in truth virtually proceed from the King as from the true and proper efficient thereof which does not obscurely nor rarely appear in our Acts of Parliament but plainly and frequently throughout the whole Bodie of our ancient Lawes The King Willeth the King Commandeth the King Ordaineth Provideth Establisheth Granteth c. And yet though properly they be the Acts of the King in Parliament yet are they also truly the Acts of the whole high Court of Parliament because that every of the three Estates contribute their power according to the diversitie of their office and interest the two Houses by remitting through the consenting the restraint and the King by using his then unrestrained power We are also to consider that though this high Court of the three Orders be the supreme Judicatorie of the Kingdome yet it hath not that superioritie of judgement ascribed to it for any soveraigne facultie it hath in discerning the true dictate and result of Law no more than of any other particular Science as of Divinitie Philosophie Physicke Mathematiques c. for the judgement of Sciences belongeth to the professours thereof and the judgement of Law as well as of other Sciences But the high Court of Parliament is the supreme judge for the great trust the Law reposeth in the concurrence of all the three Orders who have meanes to have the best information of Law that the whole profession doth afford and are supposed to use it and likewise for the great power they have to binde all other judgement and to make their sentence Law though as we have said it were not Law before But we are further to observe that in the point of making of Law the Law restraining thus the Soveraigne power to the consent of the Peeres and Commons the more that by this regulation it purged it from destructive exorbitances the more tender it grew of the just and legitimate rights thereof remaining and therefore considering the person of the Soveraigne to be single and his power counterpoised by the opposed wisedome of the two numerous Bodies of the two Houses it allowed unto the King power to sweare unto himselfe a Bodie of Councell of State which our Lawes sometime call His Grand Councell and to sweare unto him also Counsellours at Law even the Judges themselves and others learned in the Law faithfully to advise him in his Government that he may neither do nor receive wrong especially not in Parliament where the wrong may be perpetuall And if upon a generall pretence of evill counsell without any instance in what his Majestie be deprived of the use and assistance of and assistance of any of his sworne Counsell especially in Parliament time when the Soveraignitie may be so easily overmatched it will make such a breach of the priviledge of the first of the three Orders in Parliament as will destroy the true frame of Parliaments diminish the power of the Crown and bring the settled estate of the Kingdome into the calamitous innovation of an unsettled and ever changing Forme of Government and so into all manner of miserie and confusion The Soveraignitie in the King alone is so clearly acknowledged by our Law as that unlesse we would reiect the iudgement and recognition of all our Parliament and especially of all our most sincere and unquestioned Parliaments all the time of Queen Elizabeth and ever since all which do not onely affirme but sweare it it would be idle to go about to make praise of it But when the incredible perversenesse of some and in particular of him that writes The treacherie and disloyaltie of Papists c. does not onely affirme the contrary but would pretend to prove it It cannot be a digression in a word or two to give some answer to his reasonings I shall passe over Minshaw's Dictionarie Speed Stowe Vowell Foxe and others whose authoritie he is not ashamed to cite for determining matter in Law and which if indeed it were a question were of the greatest consequence that ever was stirred in Law And because he so much insists upon Bracton I shall briefly examine Bracton and the Authours integritie in citing him and others And first that all men may know how little authoritie in Law Bracton either now hath or anciently hath had Our yeare-bookes tell us that in the 35. H. 6. It was declared by the whole Court that Bracton was never held an Authour in our Law and then it is not materiall what is the opinion of one that is of no authoritie But if he were yet those words in Bracton so much insisted on Rex habet superiorem Deum Legem item Curiam suam c. are not indeed Bractons assertion For Bracton speaking of the Kings Deeds and Charters and affirming which we would be loath should be Law at this day that Neither the Iustices nor private men may dispute the Kings Deed but that if there be doubt of his Deed or Charter the resolution must come from the Kings own interpretation and will c. Then goes he on thus But some may say saith he that the King may do justice and well and if so he may by the same reason do ill and so put a necessitie upon him that he mend the injurie least both King and Iustices fall into the judgement of the living God for the injurie The King hath a Superiour to wit God also the Law by which he is made King also His Court to wit the Earles and Barons c. Now whosoever considers the place it is all a reasoning which Bracton supposes some other to make and no affirmation of his own and that is also plain by his words in another place where speaking of the King If Iustice saith he be demanded of him seing no Writ lies against him one must petition that
he would correct and amend what he had done Which if he do not it is sufficient for his punishment that he must expect God to be the Avenger of it Not a word of the Courts avenging or rectifying of the iniurie or of their enforcing the King to do it himselfe Again speaking of Earles though with little iudgement he would seem to derive their Office from the Etymologie of the Latine name Comes which was but a late borrowed translation brought in use by the Conquerour and would so make them a kinde of Companions with the King yet does he not make them Companions thrust upon the King by Law but the Kings saith he do associate such to themselves for advice and government Every one truly is under him and he under none but God and he hath no Peer in his Kingdom for then he should loose the Command when as one Peer hath no command over another much lesse hath any one command over his superiour for so he should be inferiour to his own Subjects and the King ought not to be under man but under God and the Law now these words of Bracton tell us that the other are neither his assertion nor approbation And whereas by those words of Bracton that The King ought to be under the Law he would inferre a direct Soveraignitie over the King he very much corrupts the meaning of Bracton for it is one thing to be subiect to Law and to the administration of Law and another thing to be a Subiect to those that have the administration of Law as to his Soveraignes Our Saviour Christ was subiect to the Law and to the administration of the Law in the hands of them that were the Ministers of it yet was not Christ the Subject of those Ministers nor they his Soveraignes but contrary he theirs he being Borne King of the Iewes And Bracton's reason that the King must be under the Law is because he is Christs Vicar on earth And Christ himselfe was under the Law so as plainly Bracton meanes not the King otherwise under the Law then as our Saviour Christ was who did subject himselfe to the just execution of the positive Lawes of the Kingdom of which he himselfe was the Head and Fountain not that he should be subject to the administration of any arbitrary Law residing in the people who should in the last resort be Soveraignes over their own King for that was not sutable to one that should be Vicar of Christ but to a Vicar of the people Neither is the King more subject to any judgement that can be given in Parliament than He is to judgements given in inferiour Courts to which if you will say the Parliament is superiour to those Courts and the superioritie that is but subordinately in them is soveraignely in the Parliament truly the superioritie if it may so be call'd that is subordinately in the inferiour Courts is but more superiourly in the House of Lords than them but it is not soveraignely neither in the Lords House nor any other part of Parliament till we come to the judgement of all the three Estates where the Kings will is the efficient formall of the Law and there you may see that the Vicar of Christ the King like Christ His Lord whom He representeth in being subject to the Law of which He is Soveraigne becomes at last subject to none but Himselfe for that high Court of Parliament speaketh not without Him But ere we give over his citation of Bracton we must not forget his unfaithfull application of it For as for those words The King hath a superior that is to say God also the Law also His Court to wit the Earles and Barons He would not onely have them Bracton's words and have them understood to carry Soveraignitie over the King but would have that Soveraignitie placed in the two Houses when as Bracton expresly expounds that the Court which he meanes is the Earles and Barons that is to say the House of Lords onely and not the Commons too plainly shewing that he meanes no other superioritie than such as is incident to the regular course of Justice in the way of legall suit and processe which in that course never goes further than the House of Lords there is no forme of prosecution in that kinde in the two Houses and therefore neither Soveraignitie nor Superioritie in that kinde can be ascribed to them Neither may we passe over his falshood and shuffling to extenuate the Oath of Supremacie that securitie may make men swallow their perjurie and never know it for though it be true that the Oath was pricipally intended against Papacie because the Papacie was the first that ever pretended Soveraignitie over Kings and the clause of renouncing runnes against Forraigne powers onely as those that then were onely feared to be pretenders under the Papacie yet the recognition it selfe that The King is the onely Supreme Governour And the Oath it selfe to beare faith and true Alleageance to the King His Heires and Successours and to assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges preheminences and authoritie belonging to them c. are clearly generall absolute and unrestrained to any particularitie of Papacie Forraigners or any thing else whatsoever But to come to that that is the maine Authoritie scope and drift of his book and which he would by all meanes inculcate though but under the shew of telling what popish Parliaments have done lest otherwise his horrible intention might appear he brings us precedents that the two Houses of Parliament have upon all occasion soveraignely disposed of the Crown and of all the rights that do belong unto it and that even our Kings themselves have submitted their soveraigne rights to the determination of the two Houses Good God! How Evill men and Seducers wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived He that writ the Observations upon His Maiesties Answers and Expresses had so much ingenuitie left him as to acknowledge that There was never King deposed by any Parliament lawfully assembled and that the Acts of the Parliament R. 2. were not so properly the Acts of the two Houses as of H. 4. and His victorious Armie But this man being not ashamed to licke up what his fellow vomited out presents the world with a cull of all the irregular times of our unfortunate Princes in which by the consent of all men the Acts of neither side are to be drawn into example and bring us for judiciall Authorities the horrid facts of irregular power in the Times of King Iohn R. 2. H. 4. H 6. c. And is so supine in his purpose that with the factious Parliaments in the Times of H. 3. E 2. and R. 2. which he cites to have exercised authoritie over Kings he stickes not to couple the Rebellions in the North against H. 4. and the rebellious Insurrections of Iacke Cade Iacke Straw Wat Tyler Doctour Mackerell Ket and others as Acts that made equall proofe