had utterly abrogated the first Statute Many Cases might likewise be remembred to prove this but in our Statute there are no words but affirmative only therefore no question upon this rule in Law so in the end you see these two Statutes are not the one contrary to the other Also there is another reason which makes for us and that is that 9 E. 2. is onely affirmative as you have heard and by implication must nullifie 28 E. 1. and that cannot be as I conceive It is a high and great right of the Subjects this of the Militia it is one of the chiefest flowers of the Garland of their Liberties it cannot be divested out of the Kingdome but by expresse words The Kingdoms right cannot passe by implication it is like unto Jus regale or a Royalty of the Crowne which cannot passe by implication as the Sages of the Law know for it is the Kingdomes case and no particular Subjects case and right One Act repealeth not anâ—ther by wordâ— generall and implicite and therefore from all cases in Law that can be opposed differing 10 R. 2. ca. 5. doth not take away 13 E. 1. commonly called the Statute of Donis conditionalibus because the words are generall and implicite Statutes made by the venerable presence of three hundred men or more equall to the Senate of Rome in wisedome shall not be disannulled by such ambiguous construâ—â—ions but I will leave this to the judgement of the learned Fâ—rther if the disposition of this branch of the Militia were the Kings Right by this Statute before mentioned If the Militia by the positive lawes limited were vested in the King yet he is not the sole proprietor but intrusted with it Sub modo aâ— the positive law hath appointed yet he it not the sole proprâ—etor thereof but intrusted Sub modo to dispose of it as the Law hath appointed and you see in what manner the Law hath setled it by this former discourse The King cannot command the Militia or raise an Army either by Sea or Land without his high Court of Parliament approve of the same they cannot be forced out of their Shires but in case of suddaine comming into this Land of strange enemies by the power of the King or by his legall authority But to lay aside all other weapon of defence and argument Argument by admittance and to close with the adverse part upon this very Law of 9 E. 2. and the sence of Law upon this Act and admitting 9 E. 2. to nullifie 28. E. 1. which yet we doe nor grant for a positive truth by admittance of it Argumenti gratia onely we will debate this Statute of 9 E. 2. and open it plainely to every capacity whereby it shall appeare here is no harbour for the Militia Royall it will prove but Statio malificae carinis an unsafe refuge The words of the Statute which they sâ—rmise vest the Militia in the King are these That the Sheriffes shall be chosen in every County by the Chancellour Treasurer Barons of the Exchequer or chiefe Baron as another Statute hath it or by the Justices by one Statute and by another Statute by the chiefe Justices of one Bench and of the other Parum differunt que re concordant But to our purpose In whom is the Militia setled by this Statute It is apparent not in the King but in the Sheriffe elected by the Judges who are sworne as well to the Kingdome and People as to the King By 9 E. 2. a hare nomination no right of the Militia setled in any as appeareth by their Oath But yet further In what right hath the Sheriffe the Militia of the County I answer Here is no right of the Militia vested in any by this Statute onely a bare nomination then the right and power of the Militia rests where it did before by Law and that if the very letter or sence of this Statute be urged the right of the Militia is not in the King Object Why then a further question ariseth upon this Act in whom is the right of the Militia or in whom was it before this Statute since this Law giveth no right to any I answer Sol. The Sheriffe had the possession of the Militia The Sheriffe of the Militia possessour by 9 E. 2. the law and Courts of justice Cestuy que use the Law was Cestuy que use that is to say had the right and interest of the same the Sheriffe had the disposition of it for the use benefit end behoofe of the Law for that you shall see plaine enough for the words of the Law are to this purpose That the Sheriffe is to dispose of the Militia to preserve the peace of the County to suppresse all Riots Insurrections in disturbance of the peace to execute the Judgements and Injunctions of the Law in the Courts of Justice What is the peace of the County but the Law of the County or rather the fruit and effect of the Law The peace of the County the law of the County or rather the fruit and effect of the law Due observance and execution of the Law is the preservation of the Peace whereas on the contrary violation of the Lawes brings Warres and Division with it Not a word here but that the Law is Vsu fructuarius of the Militia hath the right and power of it the Sheriffe the disposition as Minister and Servant of the Law If it be objected that the Law saith That to preserve the Kings Peace the Sheriffe hath the disposition of the Militia The Kings peace the Kings lawes or the fruit and effect of the law That is true and yet it is nothing to prove the right of the Militia in the King for the Kings Peace is meant or the fruit and effect of the Lawes by which Lawes the King injoyeth his Peace as well as the Subject so that still you doe but labour in vaine The Law still hath the right of the Militia also the Courts of Justice especially the high Court of Parliament where the law resteth as in the Center Vsage Regall of no force in the Militia Vi. infra For Usage and the Kings disposition of the Militia De facto though it were since the Conquest that is not materiall as you shall see presently in the debate concerning the great Offices of the Kingdome Vbi eadem ratio idem jus The Militia of the Navie As touching the Navy Royall the Forts and Magazines it is apparent that either they are included as parcell of the Militia of the Kingdome or are as appendants thereunto and therefore as to them Nihil erit jam dictum quod non dictum sit prius But yet to say something of them though but repitition The Navie that is to say the Ships are things in their nature transitory in Law they may have existence or not Diversis temporibus as occasion requireth and so in the eye of the
not grounded alwaies upon the positive Laws but upon intervenient accidents arising upon materiall circumstances of time place or other emergent causes which Orders are held by the Sages of the Law agreeable unto equity and Justice although no expresse Law to warrant the same In Chancery many crosse Orders the one to the other in a cause there depending yea almost seeming contradictory yet in Law and conscience justifiable and he that shall disobey those Orders is accounted a rebell unto the Law the King and his royall Government Jurisdiction of Courts title Parliament as appeareth by the Writ of Rebellion usually in those cases issuing and Sir Edward Coke affirmeth this power of Ordinance antiently pertaining to this high Court of Parliament And I know not but they may proceed to definitive Judgement in Causes notwithstanding any thing that hath been formerly spoken The Power of Parliament to proceed unto finall Judgement in case of wilfull absence of any the Judges of this Court paâ—alleld with this power in inferiour Court The Court full in Judgement of the law without those Judges which are wilfully absent if any Members of the Houses who are by Law Judges of this high Court shall refuse to discharge the trust committed unto them as the case now is and wilfully by absence or delinquency make themselves uncapable and unworthy of that great service for then I conceive it cleere that the Court is full in Judgement of Law without them and under favour there is no Law in point but the remaining Judges may proceed by the same authority For to examine a little the course of inferiour Courts of Law if any one or two of the Judges of the Kings Bench or Common Pleas shall obstinately recede from that Court and deny his attendance there for the publike shall not the residue of the Judges transact all matters there depending Certainely they may and further they ought so to doe And although for conveniency or conformity or to the end the Judgement may be the more unquestionable being confirmed by the greater number the weighty matters are agitated and determined in Plena curia for the most part yet I take it cleere in case of absence especially wilfull or obstinate the remaining Court may debate and finally sentence all matters incident to their jurisdiction Indeed in some particular cases the chiefe Justice or Judge hath formerly had the sole power as concerning Writs of Errour viz. that the warrant for the issuing out the Writ of Errour to the Chancery ought to be under the Teste of the chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench No judiciall but ministeriall acts by law transacted solely by any one Judge in inferiour Courts vid. Supâ—a but that Case or any of the like nature I conceive are only ministeriall but if a Writ be once returned in Court and so the Cause there depending no doubt the remaining Judges may judicially heare and determine Now if so in these lower Courts we cannot dis-affirme the same in this eminent Tribunall the Parliament the Court being the moddell and patterne of all other Courts the Gnomon that points out the course of the Sunne the course of Justice and equity to all the other Courts there being no brightnesse or lustre of Justice in inferiour Courts but resides more fully and more aboundantly in that high Court of Parliament So that I conclude the Parliament may make Ordinances Orders give Judgement and Sentence definitively in all matters whatsoever without the Kings personall presence or any of the Members of either Houses their absence being such as is formerly declared and that upon the reason of Law in these rivâ—lets of Justice their latitude of power and the superlative authority considered in themselves and in their course of prâ—ceedings being not so much as intended to be here mentioned but onely by way of comparison or resemblance of the Law in inferiour Courts to make things more conspicuous not any waies to dishonour this Court as if it should emendicare justitiam begge or borrow the rules of Justice from inferiour Courts who arâ— but tanquam ancâ—lle like handmaids to this Lady and Queene of Justice as also it is done ea intentione to informe vulgar capacities per notiora nobis by things even subject unto sence to the end they might if possible be satisfied I should now enter into the proofe of the violation of this priviledge almost forgotten by this digression namely the transacting of matters belonging unto this high Court by the new erect and pretended Parliament at Oxford a greater violation in this particular then if any inferiour Court of Justice in this Kingdome had assumed or arrogated this authority The Assembly at Oxford unwarrantable by law even in their Session much more in their proceedings because this Assembly at Oxford have not so much as any colour of Law to warrant even their Session much lesse their proceedings the matters there trans-acted and adjudged in derogation and dishonour of this high Court being so many and numerous as also the extrajudiciall arraignement of the Votes and proceedings of this Parliament but I thinke it is manifest to all the world and no man ignorant thereof The many and weighty Remonstrances Declarations and Ordinances of this high Court decâ—ared and pronounced null and void at Oxford and elsewhere by Declarations of his Majesty extrajudicially framed Much might be spoken herein with much sorrow and peradventure not without offence therefore I will desist and close up my meditations on this particular protesting nothing but the delivery of the truth with meekenesse and moderation and my soule is full of heavinesse and lamentation that ever so unhappy an occasion should be ministred â—eseeching God if it may stand with his Will and Pleasure to heale all our wounds and to reconcile all differences with peace There is another right of Parliament yet behinde which requires me not to be silent as being of all one of the chiefest by breach of which the Sword is gone through our Land Armies of men have been raised whereby not only violation of Lawes Rights and Justice but even the destruction of all is at hand unlesse God in his mercy prevent it In briefe we have seene great forces raised and maintained by the King without any Law or authority to warrant the same being as I suppose misinformed and unadvised herein The Priviledge or right of Parliament it being directly against the right and power of Parliament which is this That no Armies of men can he raised by the King or any subordinate authority under him but as the positive Law hath prescribed unlesse by consent of Parliament And here peradventure it will be expected I should speake of the Militia of the Kingdome The Milita absolute or generall Vid. infra as being a matter at this time of the highest concernement but I will referre it to a distinct debate by it selfe as you shall perceive hereafter in this discourse
Parliament inconsistent and differing yet both just in their proproper motion Vide postea if we should admit the tryall in inferiour Courts this mischiefe would follow that their Judgements might peradventure be legall yet not just it being lawfull for a man to open his Conscience here so farre without dread or feare in any matter touching the Common-wealth or any particular person in a Parliamentary way which in other Courts would be held a crime and by the positive Lawes of this Kingdome punishable This being so the vio ation of this priviledge rests to be proved and truly I am sorry to enter into the proofe of it it reflecting somewhat upon the Kings most excellent Majesty whose Royall Person I shall ever unfeignedly honour But surely it is the unhappinesse of Kings to be abused by evill Counsell and the errour is not to be imputed to the King but to his Ministers But since I must speake it is Soli lucem inferre to hold a Candle before the Sunne so evident it is it needeth no proofe at all for is not the breach of this priviledge in fresh memory when the now Members of both Houses should have been taken from them in an unusuall way I will not say by violence if they had been there present to the great feare and astonishment of that present Assembly but I will say no more as supposing this Act unjustifiable however not yet absolutely disclaimed for ought that I could ever yet see but his Majesty hath declared in print that he would proceed against them in an unquestionable way Vnquestionable way by these words not pronounced innocent but rather criminous A generall Declaration of the proceedings of this Parliament which words in what sence they may be taken I doe not for my part certainly know as being obscure to my understanding and not to all intents satisfactory which violation I take it hath been since pursued in his Majesties Declaration of the twelfth of August 1642. in offering to prefer an Iudictment upon the Statute of 25. E. 3. against divers Members of the House therein named and I take it his meaning is not in Parliament but of this I will speake no more Another right of Parliament is this That every Member of both Houses shall upon Summons come to the Parliament unser the paine of Amercement and other punishment as of old hath been used to be done as appeareth by the Statute of 5. R. 2. cap. 4. and also by the Statute made 6 H. 8. cap. 16. It is enacted that no Member of the House of Commons shall depart from the Service of the House without leave of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Commons in Parliament Assembled which license shall be entred in the Booke of the Clarke of the Parliament upon Record under paine of losing those summes of Money which they should have had for their Wages by both which Statutes it doth appeare that departure from the House of Parliament without leave is a Crime and punishable of ancient times 5 R. 2. Of the Common Law declaratory for so it appeareeh by the first of these Statutes which was but declaratory of the Law formerly used and that the punishment was Fine and Imprisonment and sometimes Arbitrary appeareth by ancient Authority of Law But it may be objected Object that by a clause in the Statute of 5 R. 2. before named it is no Crime if the Member of Parliament so absenting himselfe can reasonably and honestly excuse himselfe to our Lord the King so that the King by this Statute is made the sole Judge of the offence and if the King License or Command the absence of any Member of either Houses it is sufficient To which I answer Sol. That the Statute is not to be intended in that sence that all Parliaments may be made frustrate and void at the will and pleasure of the King by his License or Command of the absence of any Member of Parliament without great cause for the same for that were not reasonable and honest as the words are Et veâ—ba accipienda cum effectu as the Law saith and otherwise the very essence of Parliaments would be shaken by such exposition But to make a full Answer to these words Our Lord the King before mentioned in the Statute are in Law taken for the King in his Politick Capacity not in his Personall and so it is no more then if the words had been to our Lord the King in his Court of Justice in his high Court of Parliament and so the Court of Justice is the Judge and not the King personally and so is the Law frequently takan for to give you an instance or two and that in a Statute Law as this is Merton cap. 3. Dominum Regem the Kings Court of Justice in the Statute of Merton cap. 3 are these words Statim capiantur in prisona Domini Regis detineanter quousque per Dominum regem vel alio modo deliberentur Here the words Dominum Regem our Lord the King are intended the Court of Justice of our Lord the King and not the Kings Person and so in the Statute of Marle-bridge Marl. cap. 8. Cum Domino â—ege the Kings Court of Justice Perceptum Domini regis perceptum curiâ— cap. 8. the words there are Et hoc per finem own Domino Rege faciend per transgressione c. Here cum Domino Rege is intended the Court of Chancery or Kings Bench and so is perceptum Domini Regis in that Statute taken for the command of the Kings Court of Justice and not for any other command of the King whatsoever In miserecordia Domini Res 1. curio Domini regis Statute enacts that Fine and ransome shall be made at the Kings pleasure intends the pleasure of his Court of Justice not his persons pleasure The Law is cleare in these Cases which are the very same in these words with the Statute 5 R. 2. before named Further because this objection seemeth great I will give you one instance more in a Statute latter then any of these the Statute of 25 E. 3. an Act so highly and worthily prised and much made use of at this time by the Kings Majesty the words are these Ou si home levira guerre counter nostre Seignior Le Roy en son Realme c. Here the words Nostre Siegnior Le Roy are taken for the Lawes of our Lord our King and by good judgement likewise as to me it seemeth not for any leavying War against his Person for that is included in the first branch of this Act Si home compassa ou imagine c. The Lawes and the Courts of Law or Justice intend the same thing therefore I conclude the words Our Lord the King must necessarily be meant in this Statute of 5. R. 2. the Kings Court of Justice or the Lawes of his Court of Justice to wit His high Court of Parliament who onely are
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
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
Law they are meere estranged from any knowledge in this nature of any proceedings of each other interlocutory untill judgement given and then it must legally be brought before them Jurisdiction of Courts so that this Case is clearely meant of their joynt power wherein by custome as saith Sir Edward Cooke the Lords only proceed to reverse or affirme any Judgement upon errour no whit diminishing the Power and Authority of the House of Commons by this for divers matters may by custome be severally trans-acted by Persons having the same power and authority Transaction by one done by all representative and yet they are in Law trans-acted by all the Members or Judges of that Court representative How the opinion of Sir E. Cooke formerly is to be understood viz. according to their joynt power of Judicatuâ—e But I doubt not but the transcript of any Judgement in the Kings Bench may be commanded and that legally too into the House of Commons and that they may proceed thereupon either to affirme or reverse the Judgement and that by the power of that high Court as a severall and distinct Court of Justice from the House of Peeres this Case before remembred to be good Law notwithstanding but this I leave to the learned The House of Commons may take a Recognizance at a distinct court of Justice Now concerning the Recognizance before touched there is nothing expressed or implyed in this Case but that the House of Commons as a severall and distinct Court of Justice of it selfe may take a Recognizance there is no question of that for every Court of Record have that power unquestionably yea derivative Authority from Courts of Justice as Commissioners of Oier and Terminer are invested with this Authority Further The House of Commons may take a Recognizance according to their joynt power the House of Commons considered in relation to their joynt power may take a Recognizance for so saith good authority that reverend Judge Brooke in abridging the said Case of 1 H. 7. before cited Videtur quod tout un are his very words besides if there hath no such practise been or used in the House of Commons that is no proofe it is no argument from a non esse to a non posse an hundred presidents Sub silentio make not a Law it was never yet upon contestation so determined but of this sufficient Thus I hope I have cleared this false aspersion it plainely appearing that they are a High and Supreme Court of Justice joyntly and severally without the Kings personall presence The Assembly at Oxford no Parliament There hath of late been an Anti-parliament for so I may terme it erected at Oxford whereby they had thought to have weakened the power of this Parliament by Voting their proceedings as traiterous and illegall but alas these are poore shifts and evasions seeing there is an Act unto which they themselves this very Session have assented by which it appeares this Parliament cannot be held proroged or adjournied elsewhere without the consent of both Houses of Parliament now assembled so that this Assembly at Oxford is no Parliament and consequently their proceedings a meere nullity in judgement of Law and withall subject to severe Censure in regard they have assumed to themselves the Supreme Authority of the Kingdome without any warrant of Law so to doe and that spurious generation of Bastards or illegitimate Children which seeke to sever and divide the Power and Authority of this High Court by affirming any legall presence of this Assembly elsewhere the wise Salomons of this Parliament will in their due time bring to condigne punishment Well then they being in Parliament and a high Court of Justice without the Kingâ— personall presence Inferiour Courts may command Posse comitatus what question can be made of their power even as a Court of Justice to constraine and compell all persons yea even by force of Armes to submit to their supreme Authority and in case of resistance if inferiour Courts may command Posse Comitatus to execute their Processes and Injunctions as it is manifest they may for in one common Case of Replevin from the Court of Common Pleas the Sheriffe of the County as Minister to the Court of Justice if the party that hath taken a Distresse carry the same to a Fort or Castle to the end it may not be replevied he may command the power of the County to attend him and abate that Fortlet or Castle in case of resistance delivering by Replevin the Cattell to the owner Surely then the Parliament in case their Power be contemned and disobeyed may command Posse Regni and not onely Posse comitatus to bring all persons rebellious unto the Justice of that High Court there to receive according to their merits And thâ—s is the case of this present Parliament as I take it who have legally Summoned the Members of both Houses now absent to attend the Service of the Houses and they have not appeared but absolutely refused to obey the Summons Processe and Power of that Court which for my part what offence it is and where Censurable I leave it to the world to judge upon whâ—t hath been formerly spoken there being no absolute case of necessity to plead for their absence as I could ever yet perceive and the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme being peremptory in the mulct and penalty thereof The Kings presence representative by 33. H. 8. supra Now peradventure it is necessary to know in what the Royall Assent Personally or Representative is required and that is plaine in enacting any Law or Statute to make it perpetuall to oblige the people I conceive the Royall Assent must precede yet the Royall Assent cannot in Justice be denied neither with a Le Roy s'duisera suspended unlesse satisfactory reasons be given for the same unto the Parliament for the publike good as also the confirmation of them is no act of transcendent grace but of right and Justice as hath been formerly spoken The power of the Parliament to make Ordinances paralleld with this power in inferiour Courts Nay further it must be granted that as incident to this great Court they may make Ordinances to binde the people Sedente Parliamento without any royall assent unto which Ordinances although not grounded upon the positive Lawes of this Kingdome the people ought to yeeld obedience as well as to the Ordinances Ordinances binds untill definitive Judgement though not transacted in plena cur Orders and interlocutory Judgements in other Courts of Justice unrill definitive or finall Judgement which is for the most part in Plena curia when the Court is full but that other power is used although but part of the Court be then sitting and bindeth all persons untill finall Judgement it is also plaine that in other Courts their Orders Ordinances Ordinances binding though not grounded upon the positive Lawes and interlocutory Judgements are
in Fayres or Markers is the forfeiture of their Armour and theâ—r boâ—y imprisonable by 2. E. 3. ca. 3. 2 E. 3. ca. 3. and yet to evill intention appeares and so are other Statures that no man shall goe or ride armed upon penalties of Fire and Imprisonment except the Kings Ministers in doing their Office and I take it these Statutes last mentioned The King â—â—niall servants are here onely intended his â—â—nisters of Justice are specially here named by themselve Vi. infra though ancient are still in force Indeed the Kings servants are there spoken of in one of these Statutes and withall there are these words subsequent in presence of the King so that the Kings servants in his preseâ—â—e may goe or ride arâ—ed but those either for their paucity were not then nor are now considerable or otherwise they were inabled in those times of danger for the preservation of the Peace and the Kings Person against disturbers thereof By the ancient Law and Custome of the Parliament a Proclamation ought to be made in Westminster Hall That no man upon paine to lose all that he hath should during the Parliament in London Westminster or the Suburbs thereof weare any privie Coate of Plate or goe armed and the reason hereof was That the Parliament should not be disturbed nor the Members thereof who are to attend the arduous and urgent businesse of the Church and Common Wealth should not be withdrawne from their service Thus you see how tender the Law is of any Warlike appearance What shall we then thinke of great numbers of men in a Warlike Assembly armed not in London Westminster and the Suburbs thereof but even at the doores of the Parliament environing the House of Commons as it was since the Commencement of this Parliament Object But it is urged That the King is compelled to raise an Army for his owne necessary defence his Royall Person Honour and Estate all which are now endangered and exposed even to ruine and destruction Sol. Admit the truth of these aspertions unquestionable Who shall be Judges of these dangers and the inevitable necessity of raising an Army Surely no particular or private persons No particular person The Clergy no Judge no not the Clergy themselves who have in these unhappy times some few onely excepted broken downe the wall of partition and separation I meane have intruded upon the Civill Government and have obtruded upon the People in their Writings and Sermons those Positions and Maximes which admitted would shake if not ruine the very basis and foundation of this famous Government The King nâ—â—udge or at least no sole Judge Many they are which I could here mention but I conceive it done out of ignorance being not willing to discover errours as I hope not wilfully committed Nay the King himselfe cannot be the sole Judge so hath it been declared and adjudged in a like Case the very same in Law and reason this Parliament in a full Session when the King and all the Members were then present in M. Hampdens Case concerning Ship-money where the Opinion of the Judges The King no sole Judge of the danger of the Realme together with the Judgement given in the Exchequer Chamber That the King was sole Judge of the danger of the Kingdom of suddaine invasion of Enemies or the like and might compell his subjects to provide ships for so long time as he should thinke meet whereby the subject was forced to contribute great summes of money was reversed damned and sentenced as erronious and illegall destructive to the liberty of the subject and contrary to the Fundamentall Lawes of this Realme Now if any man shall say Object It is for the defence of the Kings Person and that even the Lawes of Nature and reason warrant and surely the Lawes of this Kingdome repugne not the Lawes of Nature and reason Sol. I answer that the Lawes of this Realme provide sufficiently for the Person of the King and for the security thereof it being high Treason by Law to compasse or imagine by any overt Act the destruction of the King although not effected not so in the Case of the subject Further if you consider him according to the Law of Nature then the case is no more but as the Case of a private man or person who may Vim vi repellere even by 2 multitude of persons King intends the politicke capacity not the naturall But our Inquisition at this time is not in this capacity but our question is of a King constituted by Law and the policy of man and therein that capacity he can doe no more then what the Law doth warrant Id Rex potest quod de jure potest and therefore you see an end of this objection Then to revert to our Discourse by Law it seemes the Parliament are the Eyes of the Body Politick The King no Judge or no sole Judge in Parliament by the law of inferiour Courts proved and are the onely great Counsell of the King and Kingdome whereof the King is the head and they are to Judge of all dangers to the King or Realme and the King himselfe is not the Judge and we see it is so in all other Courts of Justice the King Judgeth not nor medleth at all either in matters concerning himselfe or any other there being Judges by Law appointed for that purpose by whose Wisedom the King seeth discerneth discovereth redresseth all errours grievances or injuries private or publike particular or generall how then can the King be sole Judge in this Case of the necessity of raising an Army although it were in his owne just defence without his Great and High Court of Parliament approve of the same Is not this a violation of the Law and Government established Ought not they at leastwise to concurre in judgement before any such Forces or Armies of men can be raised and this onely by the Law of inferiour Courts The consideration hereof being of such high concernement that the proceedings and actions of all other matters seeme in comparison hereof not at all materiall nay if the King might be sole Judge in this Case although the danger reall and just this mischiefe and inconvenience would follow Great mischiefe and inconvenience of the King should be sole Judge viz. of the danger of the Realme That the King in an Act of such high consequence for the generall good contrary to his actions and proceedings in all other Courts even in matters of least moment as is before mentioned might upon surmise or suggestion of danger to his Royall Person without any further consultation with his high Court of Parliament raise and maintaine an Army of men how numerous soever and justifie the same as warranted by the Lawes of this Realme to the great impoverishment of the subject and not without great perill that I say no more even to the very Principles of this well compacted government Shall we imagine such a
interruption or their representative Body for it cannot appeare that the King hath by disposition of them time out of minde gained any inheritance in them in the right as we say but that there have been Claimes and disturbances by the Subject or their representative Body and then usage necessarily is of no force Object Before I conclude this particular I will answer one Objection that happily may be made touching the Militia and that is this Pleas of the Crowne f. 9. that Sir Edw. Coke saith That no man can leavie Warre within the Realme without authority from the King for to him it onely belongeth Sol. I answer because the authority is great that his legall or politick capacity may be very well here intended Authority from the King intendâ— his legall or politick capacity not his personall or naturall and not his personall and so the authority of every Court of Justice is the Kings authority the words De mandato nostro in the Writ of Melius inquirendum upon a former Office defective are intended not the Kings Personall Command but his Command by Writ issuing out of a Court of Justice so the authority of the King is in this place meant his legall authority not his Personall which every Court of Justice specially upon Record is invested withall In a literall sence the Sheriffes aâ—thority is the Kings authority Also the subordinate authority of the Sheriffe as also of every Court of Justice is the Kings authority even in the literall sence for the Sheriffe and Judges of the Court of Justice are authorized by â—he Kings Letters Patents Also they that have their Authority by Acts of Parliament as the Sheriffe hath have their authority from the King No man c. purport thus much no man of hiâ— own private authority Legall authority the Kings authority for are not all Acts perfected and confirmed with the Royall assent So that these words before specified viz. no man c. purport plainly thus much No man of his owne private authority without legall authority which is the Kings imediate authority can leavie War within this Realme Nota. If you should make other construction you nullifie the positive Lawes and even the legal course of Justice and Government So that we may safely conclude I hope upon the premisses that the Subjects right and consequently of their representative Body to dispose of the Militia and of the great Offices of the Kingdome remaineth yet undoubted even at this day These things have been judiciously debated and at large by a learned gentleman very well knowne Note that all the statutes touching this high point of the Militia are warily and cautiously penned not one law that in expresse words or by any sound Collection or inferences settles it in the King personally those statutes that the King make use of and which mention tâ—e military service due unto the Regall Dignity are in generall termes and may very well be with relation to the positive lawes precedent as 11 H 7. ca. 1.5 H. 4. 1 E. 3. ca. 5. None of them can be intended of the generall or absolute power of the militia but of that part of the Militia that is by the positive lawes limited for if otherwise you must by such construction nullifie all the positive lawes proceedâ—ng Nota. Vid. ante therefore of this sufficient You that are now learned and wise be not seduced with errour pause a while and consider with moderation what is become of the Regall power viz. the Kings personall power such as you would have it in the Militia of this kingdome That which the King will not part withall no not for any time be it to his Wife or Children so neare and deare it is unto him and of so high consequence as he professeth There are but two branches of the Militia the one generall and more absolute the other speciall and limited by the positive Lawes as you have heard For the generall and more absolute power over the Militia it is apparent to be inherent of ancient right in the high Court of Parliament onely I thinke the premisses duly considered no rationall man will deny it for the other part of the Militia limited by the positive Lawes you have heard it is vested in the Kings Ministers the Judges and great Officers of Justice by the positive Lawes not in the King personally considered What is then become of the great Commission of Array which clearely claimeth and useth both these powers of the Militia What are Armies of men raised by these illegall meanes You have heard formerly in this discourse what they are I should be sorry to repeat it The supreme Moderator of all things will one day Judge these exorbitancies I will say no more Object There is one yet great Objection of those that are curious and hard to be satisfied it is somewhat darke and Enigmaticall to the ignorant and that is That Armes are taken up against the King by the Parliament they leavie War against his Person an Act in it selfe impious and by the Divine or Humane Law in no wise warranted Sol. To which I answer That this Allegation is false and untrue there is no force or violence offered or intended to be offered against the person of the King we conceive his person onely free from the Sword By the Divine law the regall person differenced from the regall power but if you take his person for his power raised by him coagmentative there we differ from you for by the Law Divine whether his person and power raised by him illegally be together confounded and not distinguished or whether Tyranny or abused Authority shall be said to be the Ordinance of God and so not to be disobeyed I will not meddle in the decision thereof though I take it cleare they shall not for goe to the very Etymology of the word Ordinance mentioned frequently in the Scriptures of God and so much insisted upon by the other part that it ought not to be resisted it is plaine it is derived Ab ordine from order wisedome and judgement the shadowes of the Divine essence which is an eternall Law of admirable wisedome even to it selfe and is the Primum mobile and originall of all Order and Law to the Creature Now in Tyranny and abused Authority there is nothing but folly and madnesse as I may so say the authours of disorder and confusion and surely if the Lawes of man be called Ordinances for this reason before mentioned What shall we thinke of the Law of God Whatsoever is by this Law appointed is wisedome and judgement in the abstract 1 Sam ca. 8. That place of Scripture which you wrest by mis-interpretation for the purposes warrants no such matter This shall be the manner of the Kings saith Samuel to the people They shall take your Sonnes and your Daughters they shall take your Fields your Vineyards and give them to their servants Render the
difference His power not so viz. his illegall power They may attend the Kings person in the Warres and yet Traitors by Law his Person secured his power not so And although the King pardoneth this Offence upon this Statute as it appeareth formerly he hath done yet surely this is not effectuall for he is disabled by Act of Parliament to take benefit of this act and therefore the King cannot inable him as upon 31. Vi. ante f. Eli. in case of simony if the King present the same person simonaically to the same Benefice and withall in his presentation there is a speciall Non obstante yet this will not availe Also I conceive Impeachment in the high Court of Parliament disables the Kings pardon Nota. if he be Impeached in the high Court of Parliament upon this Act as he may be and not by Indictment at Common Law then surely the Kings Pardon will not aide him I have been somewhat more prolixe upon this Statute of 11 H. 7. ca. 1. because it is much insisted upon by the adverse part Give me leave to impart unto you some speciall observations upon these Statutes of E. 3. before mentioned viz. That Justice shall nor be delayed for the great or little Seale of the King Three particulars worthy the consideration branch themselves out of these Lawes naturally Note the contrary held in Cambridge in the Case between the Archebishop of Canterbury Chancellor viz. That the King sitting in Cathedra personally though he might erre in circumstance or the like yet in point of judgement he could not erre 11 Car. aut eo circiter The King may erre in judgement proved by the law positive First That the King may erre in his judgement his Commands may be illegall and contrary to Law Secondly That Armies of men or men in Armes may be raised by the King without authority of Law Thirdly That these forces thus raised by the King are to be suppressed and punished as Delinquents to the Lawes and Government notwithstanding the Kings Command where you may likewise evidently perceive a difference in Law betwixt the Kings Person and his Power I will debate these three partâ—culars briefly The King may erre in his judgement he may Command contrary to Law yea that his verball protestations may be otherwise in private to the Judge in publike to the world the Judge is not bound to beleeve his verball protestations though under Seale he is to execute the Law and not to delay right and justice Note here the command of the Law Nota. the command of the King the command of the Law to be obeyed not the King note also here the supreme power of the Law before spoken of Object Our Malignants cry out and say Is not the King to be beleeved He hath protested upon the holy Sacrament to the world that he will preserve our Religion Lawes and Liberties yea that he will not violate the Lawes we are Rebells and not Subjects if we should discredit the protestations yea the Oathes of our Prince I answer Sol. The Judgement of a Parliament is otherwise he may erre his Commands may be illegall and the Judge is not to regard any protestations that are otherwise but to execute the Law We are good subjects notwithstanding this false aspersion The King may raise Armies of men contrary to law for the second particular he may raise Armies of men against Law that you see plainly for if he send this Message to obstruct the course of Justice by numbers of Armed men are not these men illegally armed For it appeares they come to oppose the Law a great offence by these Lawes evident enough Here likewise appeares the truth of that Stature of 11 H. 7 afore named so much mis-interpreted by evill Counsell about his Majesty such Counsell by which his Majesty is seduced in his heart and misled Of what Counsell the law taketh notice of of which Counsell the Law taketh no notice at all whilst the wisedome of the great Counsell of the King and Kingdome so by Law deemed and determined even in the interpretation of this Law and many others is neglected and not regarded for these numbers of armed men comming with the Kings Seale to stay Justice yea though the King be attended by them in Armes are capitall Offenders and Traitors and so to be certainly pronounced if they shall forceably attempt to execute this Regall Command though the Kings person be attended by them What speakes then the Act of 11 H. 7. but what former Statutes have said The Allegiance of the Subject may be declined and yet the Kings person followed in the Warres for the Regall Warres may be unjust upon all these Statutes and so it is cleare to any rationall man I am sorry to unfold these hidden and secret Mysteries of the Law thus farre for I doe unfainedly honour the King but Amicus Socrates anicus Plato sed magis amica veritas For the third particular that the Judges are to suppresse this illegall power I need not much trouble you withall for otherwise the words of these Statutes were idle and illusory Regall forces not warranted by law are clearely to be supprest by these lawes how could the Judge proceed to Judgement if these men that come to stay the course of Justice were not hindered in the execution of this illegall Command The sence of the Law to be thus upon these Statutes he that runneth may read I intended no more but by way of supposion but in respect that application is necessary in these distracted times Application Nota. and usefull in all Discourse in regard that our opposites will say and clamour too That none of these Lawes are in question there is no violation of them therefore you shall see that in our unhappy times all these afore recited particulars are verified The King doth erre in his Judgement his Commands are contrary to Law witnesse the Kings Command to apprehend the Members of the House of Commons contrary to their Lawes and Priviledges and to try them upon supposed Crimes elsewhere yea his Majesty himselfe came in Person into the House of Commons and Demanded or Commanded delivery of them The illegall Commission of Array so often issuing forth a great oppression to the people whereby he armeth thousands of men at this day contrary to Law and Justice the King claiming no other power to Array his people or Arme them by his owne Declarations in print but which depends upon the Statute of 5 H. 4. before remembred and that Statute is not in force as you may perceive in this Treatise formerly What need I say more Nota. Commissions have been sent under the great Seale to Array the City of London and other places of this Kingdome to take up Armes against the Judges of that high Court of Parliament to hinder Justice and Judgement as these statutes afore mention Shall not these Judges proceed to doe right
I answer Sol. The opposite power or faction hath been for many Ages prevalent and where the regall Power hath gained from the the Subject it is hard and with much difficulty to be reduced notwithstanding there havâ— not wanted in all Ages Champions and Assertors of these truths Tempore R. 2. H. 4 Therninge chiefe Justice nostrâ— tempore Crooke Hâ—tton Weston c. Illustre Parliamentum nunc apud Westminist yea even in our owne times there have been Propugnatores acerrimi Witnesse the Case of Mr. Hampden formerly remembred in the damning of which Judgement I thinke all these illegalities appeare which had it stood in force property in Estates had been a meere nullity yea the Axe was laid to the very root the subversion of Justice and Government Nota. yea your high Court of Parliament had been of no use for the Subject since upon the Kings owne personall judgement and opinion Viz. by thae judgement for ought that appeares otherwise for he that was the sole Judge of the danger of the Kingdome might have imposed what Taxes he pleased upon his People and upon refusall have inforced the paiment thereof a slavish and barbarous judgement nullifying upon the point all the positive Lawes of this Kingdome and making the Government it selfe meerely Arbitrary Preâ—ogative I should likewise here give you a touch of the Kings Prerogatives here as pertinent to this former Discourse for some may say The Liberties of the Subject are much insisted upon here but where are the Kings Rights and Prerogatives hath he none at all Therefore to omit the numerous Prerogatives of the King partly mentioned in that ancient Statute of Prerogativa Regis or dispersed in the legall Records or Annals which to present unto you would be too great a labour and needlesse 17 E. 2. Devant Ante diem clauso componet vesper Olympâ— Wardships Liveries Primer-seisin Marriages reliefe fines Pâ—â—â—aliener Customes Mines Wrecks Treasure trove Escheates Forfeitures cum multis aliis c rights and prerogatives done al Roy pur defend soy mesme son Realme of great benefit to the Crowne and the respect of these the subject to be free from Taxes and Impositions Definition of the Prerogative Rules restrictive of the Prerogative I will onely in a way compendiary shadow them unto you by their rules and restrictions which like the skilfull Pilot steere the course of this great Ship the Royall Prerogatives in the turbulent seas of humane affaires therefore in the first place note that the Kings Rights and Prerogatives are differenced in Law his Prerogatives are onely incident to the Crowne his Prerogatives are his rights but not â—onvâ—â—so The definition of a Prerogative is a power preheminence or priviledge which the King hath over and above other persons and above the ordinary course of Law in the Subjects case in right of his Crowne his Prerogatives are either personall or by reason of his possessions or having relation to both All of them have these restrictions they hold not in any thing injurious to the Subject they must be by prescription oâ— usage beyond all memory to the contrary no Prerogative can Commence at this day without authority of Parliament To give you some instances Basketviles case sâ—venth report The King hath title by Laps to present to a Church he suffereth a Presentation the Clerke is inducted and dyes now the Patron shall present not the King and although the Prerogative be that no laches or negligence shall be impured to the King Nullum tempus occurrit Regi faith the Statute yet laches here shall be imputed or otherwise the subject should be injured in his right the King had but onely the first or next presentation given him by Law therefore he shall not have the second Viz. By Writ certif otherwise Perpaâ—â—ll or letters act of force The King may take a man into his protection by his Prerogative to free him from Suit and molestation if he be imployed in the Kings service and so legally certified but he cannot protect him that is in â—aâ—â—â—tion or against whom an Execution is to be granted at the Suit of the Subject because that would be tortious to the Subject and dispossesse him of that interest which the Law hath vested in him Royall Proclamation a Prerogative He hath a great Prerogative indeed viz. to make Proclamations Sub pena which no Subject can doe but this Proclamation must be in supplement or Declaration of a Law already in being not in derogation of any Law established nay I conceive he cannot command any thing by Proclamation at least Sub pena it there be no Law in force to warrant it although in this particular his Proclamation be in nature of a Law remediall preventing some great mischiefe at present by no positive Law redressed What shall we then thinke of those frequent Proclamations of late times denouncing men Traitors before the Law hath so adjudged them contrary to the knowne rules of Justice yea men the Members of Parliament which cannot be legally judged Traitors but by the Justice of that high Court as formerly you have heard yea divers others also no waies sentenced I assure my selfe in any legall way so to be To the second rule or restriction of the Prerogative I need say little authorities are so plentifull If Lands come unto the King by Purchase in these he hath no Prerogative as in those he holdeth Jure coronae by great antiqui y. The King hath no Prerogative in the Militia Nota. These concerning the Militia the negative voyce in Parliament cannot be Prerogative they are not within these rules or limitations for if the Prerogative should be of force for the Militia it would be injurious to the Subject it should also commence by usage within memory contrary to the Statute of 28 E. 1. 25 E. 3. 4. H. 4. 13. c. Vid. ante yea to other more moderne Lawes So likewise the negative voice in Parliament it would not onely be injurious to the Subject but even to the Lawes and Government it selfe Mag. Char. ca. 29. making them all meerely Arbitrary yea contrary to Statute Law as some good opinion hath been Thus you have a briefe view of the Prerogatives rather shewing you what they are not then what they are which I was moved unto for the satisfaction of those who have not so deep insight into the Lawes Perpaucos arbusta juvant humilesque myricae And now I have passed through the enemies Quarters that is to say the strength of their Positions and Assertions by which they have misled a great party of this Kingdome I will a little breath and deliver unto you the summe of all and run over the heads of their Principles Their first The materiall cause of Parliament as you may see in the beginning of this Treatise strikes at the root and branch of Parliaments the materiall cause thereof that is the
the the same let him Discendere in arenam I heartily desire that by the same rules of Law and Justice the folly of this worke may be convinced and that with meeknesse and moderation by the touch-stone of truth viz. the positive Lawes that those that sit in darknesse may be enlightned let no man goe about to hew it in pieces with the sword of violence and injustice R. 2. for then heare what the blessed Apostle saith By breaking the Lawes dishonourest thou God Thinkest thou that the humane Lawes are not the Lawes of God when thy obedience unto them is so often in the holy Writ injoyned yea canst thou imagine that if thou shalt transgresse this Law that thou shalt escape the righteous Judgement of God Rich Legacies viz. the positive lawes Are the rich Legacies of thy forefathers bought at so deare a price with so much bloud and treasure trampled under thy feet as despicable things I will say no more Remember the wise man let not mercy and truth forsake thee binde them about thy neck and I beseech the Almighty God to give unto us all a right understanding in all things What I intended is now finished wherein I have squared my course altogether by the positive Lawes because of exception of the adverse part not touching upon the legislative or supreme power of Parliaments Master Plynne it being done already by the Pen of a learned Gentleman whose abilities are sufficiently knowne If I have satisfied any man in what is written it is my desire Epilogue I call Heaven and Earth to witnesse that according to my knowledge in the Lawes of this Kingdome I have delivered the truth and I wish every man to lay his hand upon his heart and rightly to weigh and consider the premisses and for passion sinister ends or respects to deviate neither to the right hand not to the left but with a sincere and cleere minde to implore the Divine assistance that in so weighty a matter he may act resolve and doe that which shall be agreeable to the holy will and pleasure of God and consonant unto the Honourable Lawes and Government of this flourishing State and Kingdome Soli Deo Gloria The Table ABsence of the King from Parliament how farre justifiable Page 19. as it hath been many yeares by no Law warrant used only page 21. Vi. tit Statute 38 H. 8. ca. 21. vi tit use Of any Member from Parliament how and in what manner justifiable and where and in what manner punishable p. 15 16 17 18 c. Vi. tit Statut. 5 R. 2. 6 H. 8. ca. 16. Acception legall priviledge of Parliament Pag. 6 7. Act Judiciall Ministeriall in what Cases not incident to the Kings Person pag. 32 Vi. tit presence Allegiance the Etymology thereof p. 18. triplex naturall locall legall p. 57 58 59 c. Vi. tit Statute 11. H. 7. ca. 1. to what capacity of the King due p. 62 Armes who permitted to beare who not Vi. tit Statute 2. E. 3. ca. 3. by the Parliament defensive justified in them â—s a Court of justice p. 70 71 72. Aâ—â—â—ne Royall in what cases requisite in what not p. 38. C. CApacity of the King naturall politick Vi. titl Allegiance devant naturall how secured by Law p. 66. Causes of Parliament efficient materiall formall finall differ c. p. 117 118 119. c. Commission of Array disproved Vi. alarge p. totum 52. 53. usque 59. Corone All Administration of Justice at first in the Crowne how meant p. 32 33. Court Parliament a Court of Justice without the Kings personall presence 32 33 34. severall Courts of Justice ibid. c. Vi. p. 72. Their 〈◊〉 to coâ—â—â—â—dâ—â—â— posse comiâ—â—â—â— posse 〈…〉 proved p. 37 72. Court in what Cases fall in Jâ—dgement oâ— Law in what not p. 39 40 D. DIspensation Regall against a Statute â—here of forcâ— wherenot Viâ—tul Non obstante E. Escuage The service explained not penal but by Parliament p. 46 47 Exception legall privil edge of Parliament p. â—6 7. Exception where it relates to the body of the Act 〈◊〉 â—re not p. 45. in some Cases unnecessary ibid. I. Innuendo in Acts of Parliament where rejected p. 4â— Judgement Against the King by the Law positive and compulsary p. 2â— â—6 Judgement or proceedings of Parliament not subject to debate elsewhere p. 2â— 24 â—â— Judgement definitive in what Cases pertaining to Parliament or other Courts of justice p. 39 4â— Judiciall Acts trans-acted in what cases by part of the Court representative by all p. 35 40. differed from ministeriall ibid Judge Who shall he of the danger of the Realme or of the â—ecessity of raising Armies p. 64 65. paralel'd with the power of judgement in inferiour Courts ibid K. King WHat capacity intended by Law and what meant hereby Vi. titl Capacity Vi. a large titl Stat. 5. R. 2 â—â— E. 3. p. 16 17 18 97. Considered in both capacities naturall politick p. 65. 66. L. LAw of Parliament Vi. titl priviledge inconsistent with the positive Law yet just p. 13 122 Common Law touching the Militia p. 43 44 45. usque 52 per totum Vi. titl Statut. 1 E. 3. 5 â— H. 4. 13. The onely positive Law now in force concerning the Militia Lawes and Statutes how to be expounded Vi. p. 50. 77. M. Militia A Right of Parliament p. 43. Duplex generall absolute or extraordinary ordinary or liâ—â—ted by the positive Lawes p. â— The Militia positive extendeth onely to Tenures or Contracts not to be forced out of their Shires unlesse in case of sudden invasion p. 45 46 47 c. Militia positive vestâ—d in the Sheriffe as an instrument or Officer by Statute in the Law or Courts of Justice in the power or right Vi. a large p. 82 83. usque 88. Vi. tiâ—l statut 9. E. 2. 28 E. 1. cap. 28. The generall or absolute power of the Militia in Parliament De jure not in the King the reasons why at large p. 78 79 80. Militia Of the Navie or the Seas in Parliament not in the King at large debated p. 90 91. c. not divisible ibid. Militia The Adjuncts and Attendants of the Militia viz. the Fortâ— Castles and Magazines to whom they belong ibid Different from houses or palaces ibid N. NEgative voice in Parliament to what it extends p. 23 24 c. examined in inferiour Courts p. 25 Non obstaâ—â—te in the Kings pardon where availeable where not p. 62 63 105 109. O. OAth of the King at his Coronation explained p. 27 28. Observations touching the discourse p. 122 123 c. Offence in presence of a Court of justice and in presence of the King differ Ordinance the Etymology of it how Regall power the Oâ—dinance of God p. 100 101 102 Ordinance and the force thereof in Parliaments in inferiour Courts debated p. 38 39 Offices publike or the great Offices of the Kingdome to whom the disposition of them pertaines p. 93 94. P.
the Judges of any crime committed in that Court and no other inferiour Court as hath been proved at large Also this latter Statute of 6 H. 8. 6 Hen. 8. ca. 16. A stricter law then 5. R. 2. seemeth to conclude all Delinquents that have not Licence as is before mentioned although the occasion of their absence be great and urgent affaires even in Law and conscience satisfactory Now to deny unto the Parliament the dispensation of Justice against Offenders in this kinde as it is too apparent and withall to protect them from the censure of that high and great Court surely I say no more it is a violation of their Lawes and Rights unto them anciently belonging But that I may answer all Objections Object it is urged by the adverse party that their departure from the service of the Parliament was forced by tumults and disorders of people not without just feare and perill of their lives and therefore their absence not within either of the Statures before named but justifiable by the rules of all Law and Conscience Sol. To which I answer because it seemeth materiall that first it must be granted that those Members so departing were Summoned to returne to the Service of the Houses and their Answers especially of divers of the House of Peeres were to this purpose That by their duty of Allegiance they were bound to attend the Kings Person or that they were commanded to attend his Person and therefore they held themselves excusable which was in effect a plaine deniall divers of which Answers I have seene in print Now it must needs be inferred from hence and it plainely appeares to any man not devoid of reason That if there had been really any such danger or cause as is objected Nota. they would have inserted the same in their Answers and so reasonable and certaine an Argument of their innocency would not have been omitted as on the contrary so high and contumacious a defence would not have been returned such an affront and contempt of Justice that even a Court of Pye-powders would not have suffered Also see their Answers what they are their Allegiance is the ground of them as if their attendance on the Kings Person warranted them to doe injustice to violate the Lawes of these Statutes before named Is this their Allegiance to the King Is not the Subjects Allegiance confired to the Lawes Is not the very Etimology of the word derived from thence Legiantia Allegiance the Etymology quasi legis essentia therefore their answers not legall Their answer noâ— legall because they infringe the law viz. 5. R. 2 6. H. 8. Tumult what it is as also the Objection of being driven from the Parliament frivolous for then they would have made use of it in their answers Further to question the word Tumult afore mentioned doe numbers of people with Petitions no way disturbing the Peace make in Law a Tumult Certainely no likewise it appeares by undeniable proofe that some of them were sollicited away from Parliament by Letters therefore the former allegation is idle For the Kings absence from the Parliament in what condition it stands The Kings absence from the Parliament by the ancient law how farre justifiable I will offer you one of the ancient Lawes of that pious Prince Edward Sir named the Confessor whose Lawes the Kings of this Nation at their Coronation sweate to observe and keep the words are these rendred in English The King ought to be present at his Parliament unlesse he be hindred by sicknesse and then he ought to be in the same Towne where the Parliament is held and his sicknesse ought to be certified by twelve Members of the Parliament a Committee for that purpose of the Lords and Commons Here appeares no cause of his absence but sicknesse justifiable and of this he himselfe is not the Judge it must be certified as you have heard What not perill of his life may some say Is that no just cause of His absence You heare the Law I have nothing to say to questions It seemes in those dayes there were no such unworthy and dishonourable thoughts in the mindes of men as to doubt the security of Parliaments unto the Regall Person since in judgement of Law if Tumults or Disorders shall happen in the Common-wealth Parliaments are best able to suppâ—â—se them and to protect both King and pâ—ople from injury and wrong Now Parliaments are the bane of Princes as they are now to â—â—ed they are now Corasives when as you see formerly they were the onely curers of all Diseases in the Body Politique The King formerly not any where safe but here now the King in His owne judgement safe any where but here flying from them as from His enemy when as it is not possible he should finde any where that which he desireth but under God even with them peace and security Be not deceived Great Prince neither fly them that pursue you not in any Hostile manner The Parliament follow you with humble Declarations and Petitions for Peace you mistake their sweet Compellations put up your Sword into the Sheath and let Peace be in our dwellings and amongst us I have a little deviated I will returne unto my selfe and I finde the King still absent notwithstanding all that hath been spoken and justifying the same Indeed there is a Statute in the time of King Henry the 8 via 33. H. 8. cap. 21. 33. H. 8. ca. 21. by which in the Kings absence from Parliament His Assent by his Letters Patents under the Great Seale shall be sufficient Here it may be alledged Object that the Kings absence from Parliament is warranted by this Statute I answer Sol. This is nothing to make the ancient Law afore recited ineffectuall for his absence here upon this Law standeth as it did before this Act not touched or medled with by this Act and therefore sicknesse continues still a cause of absence of the Kings Person from his Parliament and no other and where he might legally justifie his absence before this Statute he may still doe the same and no otherwaies And although that the use now of late times hath been Vse of no force against a law Vi. infra that the first and last day of Parliament is sufficient yet that is but use which is of no force against a Law in being as I conceive Further His Assent by this Act is limited it is onely to Acts of Parliament and no other assent is warranted Note also that to dis-assent to any matter trans-acted in Parliament it giveth him no power at all Thus you see Ex libro de ordine Parlia Editi tempâ—re Edvardi filij Regis Ethelâ— redi the Kings absence from his Parliament how it stands by the ancient Law of which I have an extract as also by latter Law you have heard likewise the absence of the Members of the Houses debated But we will Argumenti