debate or censure but a retarding of Justice If Judgement be given against the King he cannot examine this iudgement in an extrajudiciall way before himselfe but it must he subject to censure or debate in a legall way by Writ of Errour or the like An offence committed in the presence of a Court of Justice great and more capitall then in the presence of the King I need say no more for the proofe of this I will present you with the great Majesty that doth attend the administration of Justice and that is this An Offence committed in the presence of a Court of Justice is a greater Crime and more Capitall then in the presence of the King killing the Chancellor or Judge of either Bench doing his office is High Treason by the expresse words of 25. E. 3. not so if from the Bench though in presence of the King striking any man in Westminster Hall in presence of the Courts of Justice is the losse of a mans right hand and his goods and chattels not so in the Pallace or presence of the King unlesse blood shed ensue upon it and that is specially by Statute not by common Law but because alâ— have touched upon this before I will returne to the discourse intended It is manifest that the Law is the square and rule by which both King and people are directed and regulated in inferiour Courts What shall we then say to the high Court of Parliament in comparison of which all other Courts are but Tanquam viburna cupresso like shrubs to the lofty Cypresse or Cedar from whose fulnesse and abundance all other Courts receive even their power and authority There is an enemy at hand Object a strong objection and that is that this is no Parliament they have no plenitude of power without the King and the rest of the Lords and Commons now absent and by this they thinke to invalide all that hath been formerly spoken To which I answer Sol. That first the Parliament must he admitted to be a Court of Justice without the Kings Personall presence his legall presence being inseparable from this Court like as from all other his Courts of Justice and the contrary I suppose no man that is rationall will affirme Further I conceive in inferiour Courts his personall presence is against Law in point of Judgement in any matter between the King and his people for then the King should be Judge in his owne Cause contrary to the rule of Law Ministeriall or judiciall Acts not incident to the Regall dignity which saith That the Kings cannot doe any Act ministeriall to himselfe aâ— to take a Recogniâ—â—nce pro securitate paâ—is or the like much lord doe any Act judiciall betwixt himselfe and his people yea not onely so but he might fit in one Court and reverse a Judgement given against himselfe in another Court which how injurious this same would be unto the subject how dishonounourable and scandalous to the Court of Justice I suppose the weakest capacity doth apprehend Therefore the wisedomes of the 〈◊〉 hath appointed the sage and learned men being sworne to administer Justice indifferently betwixt the King and his people Court of B. Le R. B. C. Courts of Justice time out of minde and Magna Cart. ca. to did not â—reate and constitute the Court of C. B it did only settle it in Locâ— câ—â—tâ— No Courts of Justice at the first in the subject â—s now but all dispensation of Justice in the Crown viz. by the Kings ministery And the Opinion of Fineaux chiefe Justice in the time of King Henry the 7 That all administration of Justice into at first in the Crowne is to be understâ—â—d with this distinction it was not in that Regall period aâ— to the dispensation of it but it was in the regall Ministers or the Judges and so might be said to be in the Crowne according to the rule of Law Qui â—er alium facit per seipsant fadere videniâ— If so in inferiour Courts the same law â—â—â—â—â—â—ed sway in that high Court of Parliament also the practice and course of that Court sheweth plainely that they are a Câ—â—rt of Justice without the personall â—reâ—eâ—ce of the King Witnesse their reverâ—â—â—â— erroâ—ious judgements given in inferiour â—â—â—rt â—aâ—â—ing illegall Parents Monopolies granted by the King and many other might here be remembred I have heard it formerly objected that the House of Commons could not take a Recognizance Pro securitate pacis of themselves but it was alwaies transmitted to the Lords therefore this House was no Court of Justice for this is incident to every Court of Justice that is of Record yea a Commissioner of Oier and Terminer may take a Recognizans as it seemeth and for proofe the Case in the 1 H. the 7.19 20. is urged for there it is expresly said That the transcript of a Writ of Error upon an erronious Judgement in the Kings Bench shall be brought into the House of Peeres Et per Dominos tantum non per communitatem assignabitur seneschallus qui cum Dominis spiritualibus temporalibus per concilium Justiciar procedet ad errorem corrigendum Hence it seemeth that the House of Commons of it selfe cannot examine any Judgement in inferiour Courts and therefore should seeme to be no distinct Court of Justice of it selfe As also that the House of Commons considered in relation to that joynt power of Judicature that it hath with the House of Lords cannot take a Recognizans as is before objected for so it may seeme to be implyed by this Case I answer Sol. because the weight of this objection seemeth great that this Case may be admitted for Law and yet the power of that High Court of the House of Commons no whit diminished for this Case must be intended of their joynt and entire power of Judicature Coâ—rts of Justice have no immediate cognizance of each others proâ—eedings but they must be certified hereof and that in a legall way Certificate implies no immediate cognizans for otherwise the House of Lords could take no immediate cognizance or knowledge of the proceedings of the House of Commons nor è converso the House of Commons of the proceedings of the House of Peeres but their proceedings ought to be legally certified and by the words in this Record you may see it was done in relation to that joynt power for the words are Per Dominos tantum non per communitatem c. Here the Commonalty must plainely be intended as member or part of that High Court or otherwise the words were meerely nugatory for what need this restriction if the House of Commons were not conjoyned with the Lords in entercourse of Justice but were a distinct Court and severall from the House of Peeres it were as much as if the Kings Beanch should be restrained from having any immediate Jurisdiction or Cognizans in matters pertaining to the Common Pleas a thing ridiculous and superfluous seeing by
gracia admit their Allegation true that they were driven from the Service of the Parliament by Tumults and disorders which no man will the premisses considered suppose yet the objection is still frivolous who shall judge them innocent or transgressors of the Law shall not the Parliament yes verily as it is manifestly proved by the former discourse so that in the confutation of this we doe but like Sysiphi saxâ—m voluere labour in vaine with multiplicity of words to answer a meere false and nugatory suggestion Object There is yet further opposition and that is upon the Statute 6 H. 8. before named That the penalty of that Law is but loâ—se of their wages in case any of the Members of the said House of Commons shall depart from the Service of the House without leave of the House accordingly as that Act hath appointed and so with losse of their wages upon the point that Statute is satisfied Sol. 6 H. 8. More penall abrogateth no former Law To which I answer First that Statute extendeth not to the House of Peeres neither doth it take away the mulct or penalty of any former Law or Statute made in that behalfe but addeth a further punishment to the crime abrogateth no former Law so that Fine Imprisonment and Arbitrary Censure continue still in their force and to conclude this point they are by one Statute or the other or by both transgressors of the Law and liable to the judgement of that supreme Judicatory The proceedings of the Paâ—liament not subject to any debate extrajudiciall nor to any debaâ—e judiciall but of it selfe Another right of Parliament is the sole trans-action of all matters even unto Judgement or the Royall Assent the proceedings of this High Court being not subject to any extrajudiciall debate of censure of any other Court or Authority whatsoever but onely of it selfe and within it selfe having supreme Authority and Jurisdiction and whereas I spake before of their power of preparing and trans-acting all matters unto the Royall Assent The transacting matters unto the Royall Assent doth not intend the royall assent Arbitrary I doe not intend the royall assent Arbitrary for the royall assent cannot in Justice be denyed to any Bills preferred by the wisedome of Parliament for the publike good neither can any absolute Negative voice no Prerogative negative voyce of the King in this nature be any prerogative to him justly pertaining although by a Proclamation bearing date at Oxford printed not long since his Majesty claimeth an absolute negative voyce in Parliament as his undoubted right And likewise in one of his Declarations he justifieth it as his right for this reason Object That if he should onely have a negative voyce in Parliament in matters of Grace and Favour and not in matters of right and Justice then matters of grace and savour would soone be brought within the compasse of right and justice if the Parliament shâ—ll so declare them they would soone interest the Republike in them also and so exclude him from any negative voyce at all To answer this I need say no more but this Sol. Matters of right and Justiâ—e and of graâ—e and favour legally differenâ—ed That these are thoughts dishonourable of a Parliament to make the head and fountaine of Justice a receptory of such impure streames as these injury and injustice besides these matters are in Law plainely and perspicuously differenced in the one viz. matters of Right and Justice the whole Kingdome is concerned not so in the other as being private on particular in their nature as Bills of Naturalization Indenization Generall pardon how speciall grant of Franchises on priviledges to Corporations or private persons generall pardons or particular for though the word generall be here used yet it operates but especially it extends onely to particular persons without you will make all the Kingdome delinquents unto Justice it includes genera singulorum at the most Generall statutes not nationall or publike not singula generum And so in Law divers Statutes are called generall Statutes of which the Judges are bound by Law to take notice of without speciall pleading and yet the Publique or the whole Kingdome are not concerned in them For my part I shall need to say little herein because it hath been formerly handled by others Arbitrary Goverment grounded upon the negative voice also I take it to be a truth as cleare as the noone day that upon this Structure all Arbitrary Government is founded and maintained which position standeth not with a mixt and Politique Government as this of our Nation is but with a Monarchicall where the will and pleasure of the Prince is a Law as is known sufficiently to the learned In inferiour Courts no negative voiâ—e no voice at all But a little to examine this particular and let us looke into the proceedings of inferiour Courts Hath he there any negative voyce It appeareth he is so farre from having any negative voyce that he hath no Vote at all but the voyce of the Law pronounced by the mouthes of the dispensers thereof the reverend Judges is that which obligeth both King and peopâ—e neither can it be disanulled by any verball Command of the King or any other extrajudiciall way although under â—he Great Seale of England although the Judgement be against the King himselfe Nay further I conceive the Law exerciseth a coersive power over all persons without exception the King as well as the people surely then the King hath no voyce negative yea the compulsary proceedings were the same anciently though now dis-used that is to say Writs issued forth against the King as against the Subject I have seene good Authority in print that the forme of the Writ in the times of Henry the 1. or thereabouts as I remember was thus Precipe â—enrico Regi c. the power of the Law was here supreme but of late times it is now by way of Petition if the Suit be against the Kings Servants or incumbent as in a Quare impedit or the like if judgement be once given as it is usuall the Kings right is bound and you see withall it is by Writ in that Case now if Judgement be given Judgement against the King by the posiâ—ive lawes and with all compulsary surely even at this day the Judgement is not illusory for every Judgement in its nature is an Act compulsary Et judicium rediliâ—us in invitum as the Lawyers say for execution may be demanded upon this Judgement and cannot in Justice be denyed though against the King These things thus premised I doe reiterate my former question where is now the Kings negative voyce surely in inferiour Courts he hath no voyce at all come we then to the right Court of Parliament Hath he it there without doubt he hath it not It is an Opinion exployded by all good meâ— unsound and rotten at the root if we but open it The
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
arguments of Judges â—o resolutions in this particular and iâ— they had been resolutions they had been erronious as it is manifest by what is formerly spoken and by the judgement also of this Parliament in reciting the ancient Common Law in this particular in force even at this day Much labour hath been spent in one of the Kings Declarations to put in or for and in the Statute of 1 E. 3. No necessity but forreine invasion upon the Common Law of the Statuteâ— which recites the Common Law and so to extend that Statute and the Common Law likewise to home defence but the truth of it is there is neither or nor and in the Statute of 4 H. 4. which is a weighty Statute and recites the Common Law in this particular and the Statutes confirming it for the words of this Statute are Forreine service by statute this Parliament enacted a fâ—â—tioâ—â—â— Home defence None shall be forced out of his Shire to the Kings Wars unlesse in case of necessity of suddain comming of strange enemies into the Realm thus you see all passages cleared His Majesty in one of his Declarations saith That he yeelded more willingly unto thiâ— Act for releefe of Ireland it being no matter of home defence but forreine as being also formerly controverted how groundlesse the controversie was on the adverse part for disposition of the Militia for forreine service by the regall authority you may see by what hath been formerly delivered Also we may reason thus upon this Statute viz. The Statute for releefe of Ireland that if no forces can be raised by the King for the defence of a forreine Kingdome though subject to the Crowne of England a fortiori they cannot be raised for home defence without consent of Parliament and certainely if they might be raised they must be maintained and what provision hath the Law made for them verily even none at all then it followes that Armies of men illegally raised must be illegally maintained that is to say By rapine and oppression Object Commission of Array But it is objected That the Kings forces are raised legally viz. by a Commission under the Great Seale commonly called The Commission of Array Sol. to which I answer That the Commission of Array is against the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme and is neither warranted neither by Common Law or Statute or president of former times it being against them all directly forcing men to goe out of their Counties as it is now put in practice against the ancient Common Law formerly remembred and to finde Armes contrary to the Assize limited in the Statute of Winchester and subjecting mens bodies and estates to imprisonment and other penalties imposed by Commissioners for refusall things not warranted by any Law Object But it is urged That the Law of 5 H 4. a Statute not in print upon which his Majesty grounds his Commission of Array is in force Indeed that Statute the King hath made use of in print to publike view for his sole and onely warrant of this Commission but you shall see presently how unsafe a refuge it is yea how upon the first triall of it it will not enduâ—e For in the first place I say Sol. It is absolutely repealed and that by the Statute of 21. Jacobi by which all former Statutes concerning the power of Arraying men are repealed and then surely Statutes that concerne the execution of this power must needs be also repealed as this of 5. H. 4. is 5 H. 4. Depends upon Winchester as even reason teacheth for how can any Statute touching Commissioners Arraying or arming men stand in force when the Statute of Winchester the sole Statute concerning the power of Array is by the Law repealed but to make it plaine to every capacity the Law of 5. H. 4. is onely a Law for the indemnity of Commissioners putting in execution the Statute of Winchester Now if the Statute of Winchester be nor in force this of 5. H. 4. 5. H. 4. Temporary no statute must likewise fall to the ground because it doth necessarily depend thereupon Further this Statute of 5. H. 4. was but temporary and so expired long agoe or no Statute at all but a Commission inrolled or the like never assented unto in nature of an Act of Parliament as is learnedly proved by the Remonstrance of Parliament Concerning the Commission of Array I will crave the patience to answer one Objection more particularly because it seemeth materiall and this is made by the Penner of one of the Kings Declarations Object to wit that 21. Jacobi repeales indeed the Statute of Winchester but not 5 H. 4. Refutation of the Commission of Atâ—â—y by Parliament because Winchester is onely for preservation of me peace at ordinary times as also the Asâ—ize of Armes in that Act mentioned a petty and small proportion not sutable or agreeable to extraordinary or great occasions as suddaine invasion or the like and therefore 5. H. 4. Authorizing a large Commission for the raising and leavying of Armes agreeable to any occasion ordinary or extraordinary must needs be still in force notwithstanding the repeale of Winchester they are severall Statutes to severall ends and puâ—poses and therefore the repealing of the one repeaseth not the other Sol. Winchester for deseâ—â—e ordinary and extraordiâ—â—ry I answer The Statute of Winchester is intended by the very words and sence of the Law for defence ordinary and extraordinary and so is the Judgement of a Parliament in 3. R. 2. that Winchester was made for the defence of the Kingdome and the small proportions of Assizes of Armes there mentioned are but onely mentioned for example Exâ—mpla illustrant non testringunt lâ—gem Assises or proportions other then in that Statute limited and above those proportions are plainely collected from the very words of this Act as also that Winchester did extend to other proportions was the judgement of the Parliament 3. R. 2. before specified Come we then to 5. H. 4. that recites the Statute of Winchester and confirmes it as likewise that the Statute of Winchester was made for the defence of the Kingdome ordinary The very words of 5. H. 4. shewes that Winchester was for defence ordinary and extraordinary and extraordinary appeares by the very words of this Act for defence of the Sea-coasts and that in that case the Statute of Winchester shall be observed Are the Sea-coasts defended but for feare of forreine invasion which likewise was the cause of making this Act for but the yeare before the French attempted to invade this Kingdome It may be said then Object What needs this Act of 5. H. 4. if the Statute of Winchester provided sufficiently for defence of this Kingdome I answer Sol. That this Act was made to rectifie illegall Commissions not warranted by the Statute of Winchester and this was the sole end of the making this Act. The true sence and effect of the statute