thing but by Act of Parliament And if they shall in this case make a new Statute that Law must even by the same Judges be expounded too 3. The Parliament is a body so composed as that it is not onely improper but almost impossible for these persons finally to determine any one point of Law A Court of Judicature ought to consist of one entire body and of such a body as at all times hath power not onely to deliver its owne opinion but by that sentence to decide the question depending before them but the Parliament is not so composed The Members of that Assembly are divided into three severall bodies and their proceedings severall and distinct and obvious it is that in one and the same thing they frequently conclude opposite each to other yet untill all three concur it binds not And so though every Member of those bodies hath given his sentence according to his owne conscience yet the question is not decided and that which is worse peradventure never can be brought to a period for it may fall out these three bodies of the King the Lords House and the Commons may in that perpetually differ in opinion These things considered every rationall man must conclude that the Parliament is not of a Composure fit for this worke nor instituted for that purpose Those things as afterwards in its proper place is more fully shewed are the office of the Judges of the Realme By this it appears that when the two Houses have passed a Bill for an Act of Parliament and to it the Kings Royall Assent is had the Parliaments power ends and then begins the authority of the Judges of the Realme whose office is the case being regularly brought before them first to judge whether the Act it selfe be good and if binding then to declare the meaning of the words thereof And so the necessity of having a power upon emergent occasions to make new Laws is supplied and yet the fundamentall grounds of the Law by this limitation of the power of the Law-maker with reference to the Judges to determine which Acts of Parliament are binding and which void is preserved Upon the whole matter cleere it is The Parliament it selfe that is the King the Lords and Commons although unanimously consenting are not boundlesse the Judges of the Realme by the fundamentall Law of England have power to determine which Acts of Parliament are binding and which void and to expound the meaning of every Statute Thus whilst every person Court and Assembly keep within its owne bounds the knowne Law protecteth every man in his just rights the Subject whilst that is observed need not doubt protection of his person and may securely challenge a property in his estate But the Members do now teach or to speake more properly force upon the people another doctrine They without the King not onely assume the power of a Court of Judicature and that without any appeale from it but an authority and power to make and declare the Law and that boundlesse too whereby Law it selfe is totally destroyed It is a Maxime in Law that every disseisor of Land is seised in fee simple and that no man can give a particular estate by wrong for example A. Tenant for years remainder to B. for life remainder to C. in taile remainder to D. in fee E. outs A. from his possession E. doth not hereby get the estate for years but by that entry hath displaced all the remainders and untill re-entry by A. is wrongfully seised to him and his heires Like unto this was that of the Members They injuriously excluded the King from his negative Voice in Parliament They have not by it gained power to make Laws without Him but whilst they continue this usurpation they wrongfully disinherit both King and people of all their birth-rights The knowne Laws of the Land is by this totally subverted untill the King be reinvested herein we have neither common Law particular custome or Statute Law nor can any man challenge protection of his person or property in his Lands or goods for what Law they make how repugnant to sense and reason how barbarous soever it be neither the Judges of the Realme nor any other if we may believe the Members have power to examine controle or oppose it Thus our excellent Laws the Members have so much so often boasted to defend are by the same persons at the same instant and even by the same medicine excluding the King from His negative Voice they pretended to preserve them destroyed So that I confesse the Members were necessitated not onely to deny the King this power but to assume authority without Him to make Laws and that without stint or limitations for by the knowne Law the facts and proceedings of these Members are Treason Therefore they must make new ones else be judged by the old And to make new Laws yet to admit the Judges power to determine whether they binde or not were to fall into the same Predicament of Treason In the next place it is shewed who are the Judges of the Law which power although with as little reason or sense as the former the Members have usurped too CHAP. V. That the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer are the Judges of the Realme unto whom the people are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law BUt some give this power to the Parliament others to the two Houses joyntly others to the Lords House singly and some make the House of Commons Judge of the Law All which are meere surmises by faction raised and spread abroad since this Parliament for besides what before is said herein in the next precedent Chapter upon consideration had of the quality of the persons of those Members the Commission required to authorize a Judge of the Law and the composier of that Body It will appear they are so far from having any such power as that the Lords House in some particular things excepted neither the Parliament nor the two Houses joyntly nor either of them singly can judicially or finally determine any one point of Law First for the quality of the persons And to begin with the House of Commons They consist of Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses The Knights of the Shire we see by experience although sometimes men of estates are chosen yet not alwaies of the best understanding For the Citizens and Burgesses the Cities and Corporations for which they serve are Instituted onely for advancement of trade and accordingly the bodies of such townes and places consist of Tradesmen whose educations are onely to learne Crafts and occupations and the far greater number of them mecanick handy-crafts Besides the true cause of authorizing Corporations to send Burgesses to Parliament is that they may give information concerning the Trading in those places to the end if need be to make Laws for the increase thereof And
himselfe and family as if it were taken by way of Ship-money Loan or Benevolence Nor is any mans hunger satisfied his thirst quenched or his children clothed by being told that this is done by the representative body of the whole Kingdome But on the other side it is apparent that the people are hereby generally impoverished and the Members in pompe glory and wealth advanced far beyond their ranks and fortunes We had a Star-Chamber and a High Commission the Judges whereof sometimes imposed exorbitant punishments But we have now the Members stiled a Parliament who have not onely accumulated unto themselves the power of those Courts and of all other Courts of Justice in the Kingdome but have therein assumed an unlimited power when they think fit to censure whether it be for a crime or vertue disobedience or obedience of the Law The punishment if they please is either pecuniary corporall brands of infamy confiscations of their whole estate or death it self And in all this which by the Lawes of England is most horrid the Members are both Judge and Party the profits of those forfeitures redound unto themselves But the new mercenary Preachers and other incendiaries appointed for that purpose blaze those Westminster-men to be persons full of grace and mercy They would make the people beleeve they are such as drive onely at the publicke not looking upon their owne particulars And herein make speciall use of the putting down of the Court of Wards The truth whereof is but thus By the Lawes of England every one who holds Lands by Knights service whether of the King or of his fellow Subject and dyes his heire within age of 21 years the King or that Lord of whom it is held hath the profits of such Lands untill his full age and the government and marriage of his person Which being an interest due unto his Lord by reason of the tenure of his Land is as justly his as the rent of a Tenant for yeares belongs to his Land-lord Now this right both of King and Subject these Westminster-men take upon them to dispose and call it their own act of grace Much like unto their taking from their King and His Loyall Subjects their whole Estates and bounteously dividing it amongst themselves But admit they had had Authority which they have not the least colour to challenge to alter the Law in this case of tenures yet the people are not by this alteration any whit bettered It is true formerly the eldest son or the heire of some particular persons were during their minorities subject to wardships But under the Tyranny of these men and by the doctrine they preach the King and all the people are hereditary slaves Themselves all their Children their Childrens Children and posterities for ever in person estate and fortune whether owner or not owner of Land and however it is held even to the worlds end are at all times at their absolute command Suppose the King should quit His right of tenures and then by other impositions wrest from the people 40 times the value thereof these Members would judge that to be no act of bounty And if so in the Kings case much worse it is in them For they neither have power in the one nor in the other They cannot acquit any one of Wardship nor lawfully tax the people one penny And suitable to this we heaâ— of another bounty intended The people say they must be eased of free-quarter wherein the Country-men are dealt with as sometime it happeneth to an innocent man upon the racke who to gain a little respite from the present torment falsely accuseth himself of a crime for which he is put to death or like unto the carriage of a sturdy bold theif whereof these times afford examples enough who tels the owner of a horse that unlesse he may have the value of it he will steal the horse but having got the money takes the horse too So here the people are pestered with quartering of Souldiers and are so barbarously used by these inhumane wretches as that the poor men are prepared to part with their whole fortunes to be eased of that present Tyranny Hereupon a new and an illegall tax of about 20000. l. the weeke is laid upon them which done although it a mounts to twice treble the charge of quartering still the Souldiers must be bilited And their insolency hereby rather increased then abated These and such like are all the favours we can expect to have during the time of the raign of these Westminster-men To be short they have got possession of the wealth of the whole Nation and have usurped an Arbitrary power So that did they incline thereunto they cannot do unto the people any considerable favour or act of grace For so long as they abide to these their owne principles of which Arbitrary power they cannot settle in any man a permanent estate interest power or authority wherein the City of London may be a paterne to the whole Nation We see these Westminster-men sometimes judge it fit that the Citizens should enjoy all their liberties and priviledges Presently upon that even by the same hand they are not permitted so much freedome as from the Lord Major to the petty Constable to elect one officer But those Officers are placed and displaced at the pleasure of these Members To day is granted to them their owne Militia to morrow by the same Authority they are judged persons of so base a condition as not capable of so great a power And not long after that courted to accept of it againe They are now exalted to the heavens and instantly thereupon even by the same mouthes and as it were with the same breath impeached of Treason And this is every mans condition Suppose one by these Members to be condemned to death is by them afterwards pardoned The next houre even by â—â—ese who pardoned he may be put to death An estate of Land an Office or other power or authority is by these men given for life or in fee be it as strong and ful as words can expresse it neither that nor any other act of these Tyrants binds one minute longer then they please And all this consonant to these their new principles for these men tell us their will is the Law we have no other Judge upon earth either in soul or body say they but themselves Farre otherwise it was with the people of this Nation under the King The King neither hath nor claimes power to tax the people or impose upon their estates but as the known Law permits When the King hath once made His grant either of Land Office Power or Authority He is concluded He cannot recall it or take to himself any thing in Lieu thereof Therefore shall the King quit His tenants of the foresaid tenures and put down the Court of Wards It may properly be said an Act of grace and bounty And so it is in all other things granted by Him
THE ROYALISTS DEFENCE VINDICATING THE KING'S PROCEEDINGS IN THE LATE WARRE MADE AGAINST HIM Clearly discovering How and by what Impostures the Incendiaries of these Distractions have subverted the knowne Law of the Land the Protestant Religion and reduced the people to an unparallel'd Slavery Veritas emerget Victrix Printed in the Yeare 1648. To all the People of ENGLAND IN every Common-wealth where the tyranny of an Arbitrary power prevailes not some known persons are assigned unto whom for matter of law both the Governours and the Persons governed do submit For example where a King hath the Soveraignty if it be likewise in his power to judge the Law his authority is Arbitrary He may then take the life or confiscate the estate of whom he pleaseth and for what cause he thinks fit And the same it is when the soveraigne power is in severall persons whatever their number be and however composed if they have also authority to judge the Law by which they govern the rest of the People are inslaved to their will But herein the Subjects of England are a most happy people By the constitutions of this Realm our King hath inherently in His Person the soveraigne power of government but He hath not authority to judge the Law The Judges of the Realme declare by what law the King governs and so both King and people regulated by a known law giddy multitude out goes Presidents found in the Old Testament shewing that Subjects so anciently sometimes resisted lawfull Authority and have rebelled against their King Nor be the Lawyers herein excusable too many of them declining the authority of the Iudges of the Realme make their own expositions of the Books and Records their rule to know the Law Now amongst those he who hath once got the reputation of an Antiquary and hath accustomed himself to discourse of things out of the common roade ipso facto is Master of this Art It is then but making use of some dull expressions found in an old worm-eaten Record selecting the mistaken opinions of some particular Iudges obiter delivered in Arguments or some dark Sentences taken out of a rotten Manuscript And if any printed Book be daigned the mentioning it must not be the known authentique Authours reporting the resolutions of the Court of Justice nor such as shew the common and constant practice of the Kingdome which is the Law it self but some antiquated thing whose Authour is unknowne and his meaning as obscure These rules being observed his work is done the people observing this Cynicks discourse to be different from other men presently conclude him to be far more learned in his profession then his fellow Lawyers and gaze upon him as an infallible guide Those sorts of people both Divines and Lawyers thus prepared are equally armed to assault either King or Subject and ever looking upon their particular interest as they find Instruments to work upon make their applications sometimes by the assistance of a greedy Sycophant-Courtier the KING is abused being by those persons drawn to act things not warranted by the constitutions of the Realme Other times by the aide of discontented Spirits whoever affect popularity the people are incited to disobey the Kings just commands And so misunderstanding oftentimes is occasioned between the King and His Subjects whereupon ariseth feares and jealousies on both sides This in some sort was our condition before this Parliament which was the ground-work whereupon these men at Westminster even by a totall destruction of the whole Nation have compleated the business At the first meeting of this Parliament the confusion began visibly to appear The Incendiaries of that Faction not only cherished the old but by casting false calumnies upon the King fomented new jealousies whereby the people were put into such a pannick fear as that they believed a present destruction inevitably must befall them if not preserved by the Members of the two Houses of Parliament And the King on the other side with wonderfull expressions of loyalty even by the same Serpent was told He should be made more Glorious then any of His Ancestors or Predecessours But the Members having thus encreased the flame between the King and the Subject and having by these false surmises and cunning dissemblings gulled the people into a belief That whatever the Members declared be it in things either Spirituall or Temporall the one was good Law and the other true Gospel which the Members perceiving they instantly made use thereof and upon that score Voted it a high Breach of the Priviledge of Parlialiament for any the Iudges the Courts of Iustice nor the King himself excepted either to oppose their Commands or to deny that to be Law which they declared so to be By which sleight their whole work was finished for by this the known Law was absolutely subverted and both King and people for their Consciences their Lives Estates and Fortunes inslaved to their will and doome But this Arbitrary power thus by the Members usurped rested not long there Shortly after that a Faction in the City of London who were the mony'd men and so interessed in buying the Church Lands and those who were possessed of beneficiall places in gathering that cursed tax of Excise and the like gave the law unto these Members And now we see it is a Councell of War although acted in the name of the Westminster men called the Parliament and none else who dare declare the Law And so for the present six or eight empty soules and untill inriched by theft and plunder indigent persons are our Legislators And in this condition the people must be It cannot be otherwise until the King be restored to His just Rights for till then although we have as many new Governours as new Moons it is but so often changing the Theif It is not at all considerable to the people whether this or that Faction or which opinion in Religion prevailes in the Houses be it the true Protestant Religion established Popery Presbytery Independency or what else soever it is whilst the King is kept from his just Rights of His Negative Voice in Parliament and his Soveraigne power of Government every predominant Party makes his Will the Law and consequently the people for their Consciences their Lives Estates and Fortunes inslaved to that Faction Therefore whether thou beest a Royalist or against thy King what Religion soever Sect or opinion thou doest professe If thou hast not lost thy wits thou must be sensible of thy present sad condition Doest thou enjoy a competent estate doest thou find comfort in having freedome of thy conscience in matters of Religion In the society of thy wife family kindred or friends if thou doest consider what hopes thou hast to enjoy them to thinke thereof will rather adde grief unto thy soul then increase thy consolation for being defeated of thy Protector the knowne Law which is banished thou canst not for the least instant of time promise to thy self continuance of
any one of these blessings If the major part of the Members require from thee thy life thy estate thy fortune thy friend or what ever else is most dear unto thee It is say they a breach of Priviledge of Parliament not to submit thy self to the block and render all to their lusts And if thou hast in this War acted against thy King thy case is still worse for by that War the Law is destroyed and so thou hast been an Instrument of thine owne and the Kingdomes ruine Yet of that faction against the King there be two sorts of people The one for self-ends against their owne knowledge the other misled and so pursuing although an erroneous one their owne conscience For those of the first ranke I feare like unto Judas their owne souls render themselves hopelesse of pardon which I presume like unto Catiline makes them judge themselves in no security but by attempting worse evils which doubtlesse begat that barbarous Vote and declaration of the Members not to make further Application to their King And for those of the latter ranke how far their following the dictamen of their owne conscience in point of Divinity may excuse them I will not dispute but certaine I am by the constitutions of this Realme in Temporall things it neither extenuates the crime nor mitigates the punishment In our Law it is a Maxime and a just one too Ignorantia Juris non excusat If not knowne the Law be a Plea or justification in facts of Treason murder felony trespasse or the like both King and people were without protection either of life person or estate It were easie for every Malefactor to pretend ignorance of the Law Therefore when the difference between the King and the two Houses first happened every Subject at his perill ought so far to have rectified his judgement as to have informed himself which side the Law obliged him to adhere unto yet not by that obliged to impossibilities for although most men in many particulars are unknowing of the Law every one even of the meanest capacity may as easily learne from whom he is to be informed thereof the Judges of the Realme as a sick man may find out where his Physitian dwels Now for want of so much consideration as to make enquiry whether by the Laws of England the King or the Members was therein to be obeyed that sort of people were surprised quitting their Allegeance to their King adhered to the Members their fellow Subjects and ingaged in this horred Rebellion Therefore in strictnesse of Law as guilty of Treason as those of the former ranke And thus by receding from that one principle in submitting to the true Iudge of the Law this desolation is come upon the whole Kingdome Had the King been suffered to enjoy his lawfull power of Soveraignty The Iudges of the Realme their Offfce of declaring the Law by which the King governs and the Parliament that is the King and the two Houses joyntly its proper authority viz. When necessity requires to make new Laws or change the old Had the Divines the Lawyers and especially the Members of the two Houses kept themselves within their owne spheares and every one submitted unto and obeyed his lawfull Superior the knowne Law of the Land had continued in force and consequently we had still been a most flourishing people But it is never too late to amend and if every one would herein begin at home the worke were instantly done but although it cannot be expected that all men will do their duty yet for those who were cheated into this Rebellion their judgements being once rectified it were not onely against the rules of charity but of reason likewise to conceive they should not with much more Zeal endeavour to restore the King and the people to their freedome then grounding upon an erronious conscience they prosecuted theirs and their owne confusion Now to shew that the honest vulgar people which are infinite in comparison of the Seducers were by the Incendiaries of these Westminster men intrapped into this Rebellion That by the Laws of the Land every mans onely true guide all the Subjects of the Realme ought in that War to have adhered unto the King That by the peoples disobedience therein the knowne Law is subverted and themselves inslaved That untill the King be restored unto His just rights the knowne Law set on foot and a submission to the true Judges thereof the people are not to hope for other then increase of misery And that by doing this which is both in their power and the peoples duty to performe is the scope of this Treatise And herein let none heretofore active against the King by reflecting upon the Law which as before appears doth judge him a Traytor be deterred from doing his duty That were in example of Judas to revenge themselves upon their owne persons They doe thereby become the Authors of their owne ruine for as we have the seate of then by attributing it to the Parliament Therefore much more is the arrogancy of the Members to claime that unlimited authoty without the King CHAP. V. That the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer are the Judges of the Realme unto whom the people are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law p. 49. Wherein is shewed that the Members are neither qualified nor of a composier fit to Judge the Law And that if the King or the two Houses have that power the known Law is destroyed and the people inslaved CHAP. VI. That the Judges of the Realme ought to be elected and authorized by the King of England for the time being and by none else p. 64. Wherein it is shewed to be most preposterous for the Members to assume it And that all persons condemned and executed by their sentence or the sentence of their nominall Judges whether guilty or not guilty are murdered and all other proceedings void in Law CHAP. VII That the King is the onely Supreame Governour unto whom all the people of this Nation in point of Soveraignty and Government are bound to subject themselves p. 69. Wherein is shewed that Soveraigne power of Government power to make Lawes and power to judge the Law are three feverall things and by the constitutions of England ought to be in three severall hands The first is in the King the second in the King and the two Housis and the third in the Judges That the Members having usurped all these have destroyed the Law and inslaved the people CHAP. VIII That the Militia of the Kingdome by the knowne Law of the Land is inherent in the Crowne and at the absolute command of the King and none else p. 89. Wherein is shewed the true use of the Militia the grosse absurdity of the Members claime thereunto And that their usurpation herein hath undone the Kingdome CHAP. IX That all persons who have promoted this War in the
name of King and Parliament and all such as have acted therein or adhered thereunto are guilty of Treason p. 100. CHAP. X. That the Subjects of this Nation are not only commanded from doing violence to the Kings Person or prejudice to His authority but are obliged with their lives and fortunes to assist and preserve His person and just rights from the fury of His enemies both forraigne and domestick p. 112. CHAP. XI That those persons at Westminster who call themselves The Parliament of England are not the two Houses nor Members of the Parliament p. 113. CHAP. XII Results upon the premises That the people of England under the government of the King according to the Laws of the Realme are a free Subject p. 125. CHAP. XIII That the people of England under the government claimed by the Members of the two Houses are absolute slaves p. 128. CHAP. XIV How the Subjects of England were brought into this slavery p. 132. CHAP. XV. The way how to restore the people unto their former Liberty p. 135. The Preamble or Introduction to the insuing Discourse wherein are contained the Motives which induced the Authour to take up Armes for the KING against the Forces raised by command of the Members of the two Houses of PARLIAMENT WHen the unhappy difference between His Majesty and the two Houses began to appear I endeavoured to satisfie my self of the cause thereof which I found to be thus The Members formed a 〈◊〉 concerning the Militia of the Kingdome to this effect viz. That certain persons by them therein named shall have power to Call together Muster and Arme all the people of the Kingdome and Conduct them into any part of the Realme to suppresse rebellious Insurrections or Invasions in such sort as the Members without the King shal signifie this power to continue so Long and no longer then those Members please and disobedience therein to be punished by the Members and none else This being presented to the King He refused to confirm it with His Royall Assent The Members thereupon stiling it An Ordinance of Parliament without the King declared it a Law By which in words not onely the Militia of the Kingdome and the Government of the Realm was taken from the Crowne and removed to the Members but an Arbitrary power usurped by them to signifie and declare what Facts were Rebellion and what not and accordingly by pretext and colour thereof caused the people to be Arrayed Armed and Mustered And so in effect the Kings Sword and Scepter wrested out of His hands by His owne Subjects And further the Members pretending the King not consenting to that Law was Evil-counselled by like Ordinances raised Armies appointed the Earl of Essex their Generall authorized them by War to Kill and slay their fellow Subjects and to remove from the King those pretended bad Counsellours The King by His Proclamation inhibited all Persons from adhering unto them and required His Subjects obedience unto Him their King Hereupon I seriously bethought my self whether I was obliged herein to obey the King or the Members and resolved the Laws of England ought to be my guide which I found to be thus That this Nation is governed by a known Law that Law expounded by the Judges of the Realme Those Judges appointed and authorized by the King our only Supream Governor unto whom alone all the people of England are obliged in point of Soveraignty and Government to submit themselves Then I considered in whom the power of the Militia was before the making of the aforesaid Ordinances Secondly 〈◊〉 â—â—…teration those Ordinances made For the first I found that the Militia of the Kingdome by the known Law was inherently in the King For the latter that no New Law can be made or the Old changed but by the King with the assent of the two Houses of Parliament And finding the King therein to dis-assent I did without scruple resolve the law was not altered therefore the Militia still in the Crown and consequently that it was my duty herein to obey the Kings Command not the Members Then I considered what was the offence of a Subject to joyne with those Forces raised by the Members which I found to be the crime of High Treason And lastly it being the duty of every Subject not onely to decline opposing his Soveraigne but to assist Him against all disloyall actions I took up Armes for Him and in His defence in this War Since which I have met with some Objections against these my proceedings which with my Answers to them I have set down in this ensuing Discourse And first concerning the grounds of the Law CHAP. I. That the Lawes of England consist in generall customes particular Customes and Acts of Parliament MOst evident it is that from the subduing of this Nation by the Romans which is about 1700 years agoe the people of this Realme have been governed by a Monarchicall power first under the Roman Emperours then under the Saxons awhile under the Danes again under the Saxons and lastly under the Norman Conquerour and his Progeny untill this day yet by what particular Laws those former Kings governed no authentick Author beyond the time of William the Conquerour doth make it appear But certain it is after that Conquerour had in a Battle slaine Harold and vanquished his Army which is neer 600 years since the people of this Nation submitted unto him as King of England who being in possession of the Crown agreed to Govern by known Laws Now whether those were new Laws introduced or the old continued as to this purpose is not materiall But by that very same Law as by severall Acts of Parliament it appeareth divers of his Successours Kings calling unto them for their advice such of their Subjects as they thought fit by Acts of Parliament made new Laws and changed the old but succeeding Kings since that have herein limited themselves insomuch as by the Constitutions of the Realme as now it is setled the Law of England consists in these three particulars 1. Generall Customes as thus the eldest Son to Inherit his Fathers Land the Wife to enjoy a Third part of her Husbands Inheritance for her Dower these and such like are generally Law throughout the Kingdome therefore called the Common Law 2. Particular Customes as thus in some places the yongest Son in other places all Equally Inherit their Fathers Land these and such like are particular Customes being fixed to particular places and by antient constant and frequent use is become Law there although not generally throughout the Kingdome 3. Acts of Parliament made by the King with the assent of the two Houses All which together that is to say The Common Law particular Customes and Acts of Parliament make the Law of England By this Law all men are protected in their Persons and Estates wherein there is no difference between King and People for neither King nor Subject hath or can justly
Authority the power to pardon the transgressours thereof and Authority to dispence with the Law it selfe is totally in Him for example if by Act of Parliament it be made felony or other crime to transport any commodity beyond the Seas the King after the fact committed may pardon the offence and before it be committed by His Letters patents without assent of the Members may by a non abstante dispence with the Law it self and legally Authorize any person notwithstanding that Statute to Transport that prohibited commodity and so in all publike and penall Acts not prohibiting malum in se Thus it appears that originally the Parliament consisted of the King calling to Him for their advice such as He thought fit But now by consent of former Kings as aforesaid no new Law can be made or the old altered or abrogated but by the King with the assent of the two Houses And so the King and the Members of these two Assemblies joyntly concurring at this day are the Parliament Upon which it consequently followeth that the King hath an absolute negative Voice in every Law to be propounded But in regard this is now not onely denied but a power usurped by those Members without the King to make Laws in the next place that point is more fully debated CHAP. III. That the Members of the two Houses have not power in any one particular to make a new Law or to change the old The King of England for the time being having an absolute negative Voice therein AGainst this I have seen a Treatise published by Order of the House of Commons in the name of William Pryn an utter Barrister of Lincolns Inne intituled thus viz. That the King hath no absolute negative Voice in passing Bils of common right and justice for the publike good And to make good his position proceeds to his proof in this manner The King saith he in most proceedings in Parliament as in reversing judgements damning Patents and the like hath no casting Voice 2. That Kings in ancient time have usually consented to Bils for the publicke good else gave such reasons of their deniall as satisfied both Houses 3. That Kingdomes were before Kings and then the people might have made Laws 4. That the King may die without heire and thereby the people may have such power againe 5. That the Lord Protectour in the infancy of a King may confirme Bils and so make Laws 6. That in Countries where Kings are elective and so an interregnum the people in the vacancy of their King may make Laws 7. That the two Houses have frequently denied to grant the King Aide by Subsidies 8. That the Kings of this Realme have been forced to give their Royall assent to Bils as in that of Magna Charta This is the substance of his objections and arguments against the Kings negative Voice in Parliament Answer M. Pryn hath spared no labour to make good his assertion fetching his arguments from a time supposed by him before Monarchy here began secondly upon accidents happening since this Monarchy And then imagineth a time to come that is when the King and all the bloud Royall of England shall be extinct for want of an heire at Law to inherit the Crowne First for his far fetched argument Kingdomes saith he were before Kings These words taken in their literall sense imply a grosse and absurd contradiction and he might as well say that servants were before Masters or the Son before the Father But doubtlesse Mr. Pryns meaning is that Countries and people were before they had Kings over them yet his words being so expounded make nothing to his purpose suppose that before Monarchy began in this Nation the people had been governed by a known Law to conclude thereupon That the Members of the two Houses at this day have power to make Laws without the King or that the King hath not a negative Voice in Parliament is to no more purpose then if he should say The Earth was made before it was peopled Ergo there is neither man woman nor child in the world or thus This Nation was peopled before they were governed by a Law Ergo the people neither had either Law or government The Jews upon the like ground may argue thus viz. our Religion was before Christ Ergo the people at this day ought not to professe Christian Religion But Mr. Pryns argument is more absurd he cannot shew that the people of this Nation before they were governed under Kings had either Literature known Law or Government However cleere it is This Nation hath been Monarchiall above 1200. years before the institution of the two Houses of Parliament And so Mr. Pryns argument that Kingdomes were before Kings is no weight at all to prove That the two Houses have power to make Laws without the King And much like unto it is his argument That the King may die without heire for if that should happen saith Mr. Pryn the people might make what Laws they should thinke fit Now thereupon he concludes thus Ergo the Members at this day have power without the King to make Laws With more reason the King might argue thus All the lands in England mediatly or immediatly are held of the King and if the owners die without heire by the Laws of the Realme Escheats to the Crown and so becomes at the Kings disposall but every man may die without heire Ergo all the lands in England at this present are the proper inheritance of the King No Lawyer can deny major or minor yet the conclution thereupon is absurd But in Mr. Pryns case admit the King should die without heire although it be granted that the people had thereby power to make Laws yet grosse it were to conclude upon it That the Members of the two Houses might so do For if the King and that Stem Royall were extinct without issue the two Houses would be extinct too By the Law of England if the King die during a Parliament ipso facto the Parliament is dissolved because the King who was head to advise with whom and by whose Writ and command the Members were summoned is dead Yet in that case the successour King if he please might call a new Parl. But when the King dies without heire there is no succeding King to summon it And so the constitution of Parliament and the whole Law and Government the fountaine of all which being stopped would be suspended if not ended and the people left without Law Then it might be granted Mr. Pryn That the strongest party concurring in that case would governe yet that is no proof that the Members had thereby power to make Laws And therefore more absurd it is to conclude upon Mr. Pryns reason That the two Houses at this day whilst the King and the blood Royall are in being have that power Then for his objections upon Authority or presidents happening since the beginning of the English Monarchy Kings saith he
Majesty and the Kingdome as they are in many if not in all cases And say they if His Majesty should be Judge He should be Judge out of His Courts and against His highest Court which He never is But the Parliament should onely Judge without His Personall Assent which as a Court of Judicature it alwayes doth and all other Courts as well as it And say they if the King be for the Kingdome and not the Kingdome for the King and if the Kingdome best knoweth what is for its owne good and preservation and the Parliament be the representative Body of the Kingdome it is say they easie to judge who in this case should be Judge But say they it it not so easie to understand what is the danger of unsetling by this meanes the security of all mens estates Is this danger say they kept of us by His Majesties single Vote And all mens estates without security and exposed to an arbitrary power because in all Courts of Justice and in the Court of Parlialiament and that without any appeale from it mens estates and interests are Judged without His Majesties Personall Assent But say they we do not say this as if the Royall Assent were not requisite in the passing of Laws nor doe nor ever did we say that because His Majesty is bound to give His consent to good Laws presented to Him by His people in Parliament that therefore they shall be Laws without His consent or at all obligatory saving only for the necessary preservation of the Kingdome whilst that necessity lasts and such consent cannot be obtained Answer Here with much art and cunning it is endevoured to misleade the people And for that purpose the true question is declined and other questions raised which at the first sight may to the vulgar seeme plausible When a difference happens say the Members between the King and the Houses and thus in a thing which concerns the safety of the Kingdome it must not rest undetermined therefore say they either the King must be Judge against the Houses or the Houses must be Judge against the King and conclude for themselves But the case being rightly stated and the constitutions of the Realme duly considered every rationall man will conclude that this power being granted the Members all the rest of the people of England are of a free Subject become absolute slaves which is thus This Nation is governed by a knowne Law which hath its prescribed rules therefore as before I said it may be necessary in some things to alter the old and make new Laws And that being so some knowne persons must Judge when necessity requires such a change and consequently untill those persons have so judged it all the people ought to conclude there is no need to alter the Law And by the Laws of England as before is said the King and the two Houses are that Judge no major part it is all joyntly who have that power As if A. seised of Lands upon his marriage is tied not to sell without the consent of B. and C. in this case A. B. or C. may negatively hinder the sale but it were absurd to conclude thereupon that A. B. or C. or any two of them have power to sell but most injurious it were upon that ground to give power to B. and C. to sell the Lands of A. without his personall consent So in this case the Kings of England have debarred themselves from making or changing the Laws without assent of the two Houses whereby the King the Lords House or the Commons House hath power negatively to hinder the making of any new Law or changing the old but it followeth not therefore the King the Lords or Commons or any two of those bodies have power to make a Law The difference is no lesse then between the having and not having a known Law The one imports the settlement of a knowne Law and preserves it and the other introduceth an arbitrary government For example if the King hath power to make what Laws He thinkes fit He may at pleasure bereave the Subject of life and confiscate their estates But now having a knowne Law and thereby protected in our persons and estates the King having a negative Voice to hinder the changing of that Law there ensueth no such evill consequence And the same holds with the members the Lords House and the Commons House having each of them a negative Voice to hinder the changing of the Law or making a new Law doth not lessen the peoples protection of their persons nor alters the property of their estates The knowne and setled Law still preserves both But admit one or both Houses without the King to make what Laws they please it followeth they have power to put to death whom and for what cause they thinke fit and for their owne use to seise and dispose of their estates their will is then the Law So that to give this power to the King alone or to one or both Houses without the King the consequence is equally evill If the King have it both Law and Parliaments are destroyed If the Members Monarchy the Parliament and the Law it selfe are totally abolished And if the King by having this power of a negative Voice be Judge in His owne cause the Members having that authority are so too But that is a meere fiction neither King nor Members by having a negatie Voice in Parliament are Judges in their own cause but all that is to say the King and the Houses are jointly Judges when it is fit to make a new Law or change the old And so long as they extend not beyond the power of a negative Voice the Members of the two Houses are persons indifferent between the King and the people and so is the King indifferent between the Members and the people For example if the King propound a Law to take away the life of His subjects to tax them with payments of money not warranted by the knowne Law or otherwise to inlarge His Prerogative the Members may assent thereunto and so make it a Law or refuse it and herein they are indifferent between King and people for the benefit of those Laws thus propounded accrues not to them And so it is if either or both Houses propound a Law to the King whereby they would assume to themselves the absolute power of Government to put to death whom they please to tax or impose upon the people to confiscate their estates to their own use the King is a person indifferent between the Members and the people to Judge whether to passe it or not But when the Members without the King assume power to make Laws the dispute between the King and the people is ended the businesse is then immediately and totally between the Members and the people Therefore by excluding the King from His negative Voice the Members have made themselves Judges in their owne case By our wofull experience we now find there
is none either to umpire or mediate between the Members and the people And so the Members by this have assumed an arbitrary power Nor doth this power of a negative Voice in the King take away or lessen the authority of any Court of Justice Every Court of Judicature pursuing its Commission hath power to determine the interest both of King and people and that without assent either of King or Member The knowne Law is their ground to judge by not the opinion of the King or of either or both Houses Nor can the King in this be said to Judge out of his Courts or against the two Houses of Parliament for the King and the two Houses have herein equall power that is every one of them a negative Voice they are all together joyntly Judge of that high Court of Parliament but no one or two of these bodies is Judge thereof So that by the Kings and either Houses having a negative Voice it cannot be said they Judge each other out of that or any other Court of Justice But some object that if the refusall of the King shall hinder the making of Laws the Common-wealth is in danger to suffer for say they the King may be refractory and deny to passe good Laws Answer No humane Law can preserve a Common-wealth from every mischief That Law which avoideth the most inconveniencies is the best Law It is granted that the will of the King or of either House by refusing to passe a Law propounded may prove mischievous But upon pretence of necessity to give power to the King and either House or both Houses without the King to alter the Law or to make new Laws were more dangerous If that rule serve them to make good Laws it enables them to make bad ones too If they be Judge when to make one Law they are Judge to make as many and what Laws they please they who have this power may declare what they list to concerne the safety of the Kingdome Once breake this rule That no new Law can be made with consent of the King and the two Houses and there is no end of the distraction Upon the same ground that the Lords and Commons in the case of the Militia pretending a necessity and that the King was refractory assumed power to make Laws without Him the Lords House may exclude both King and Commons the Commons House Lords and King or the King both Houses When there ariseth a difference between the King and the two Houses if it be of necessity that the King or the two Houses must so far Judge the businesse as to make a Law without the other by the same reason when a difference happens between the two Houses one of them must be Judge against the other and make a Law without the others consent for such a difference between the two Houses may as well happen to concerne the safety of the Kingdome as when the difference fals out between the King and both Houses And if either House obtaine the sole power to make Laws still there is no period for if reason or reall necessity require it and should be Judge when and what Laws are to be made the lesser number of one of those Assemblies peradventure may be in the right But whether right or wrong the zelots may chance to side with the little flock rise up and in tumults call it Justice And so consequently the good Law of the Land destroyed and club-law introduced and the very being of Parliaments taken away whereas by observing the constitutions of the Realme in submitting this power of making Laws to the Judge thereof that is the King without the assent of the two Houses all these absurdities and inconveniences are avoided Which constitution being rightly understood is grounded upon great reason and is most equall between King and people for the Commons House upon just grounds for any thing to them appears may passe a Bill which the Lords upon as just reasons may reject the Members of that Assembly being persons who for the most part have a greater deeper reach insight in State affaires And both Houses may passe a Bill conceiving it necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome to have it made a Law and thereupon desire the Kings consent which the King may as justly reject And for such reasons they may be matters of that nature as not convenient and most unfit to be imparted and revealed to such a multitude as the seven hundred Members or more of both Houses But when all that is when the King and the two Houses concur the Common-wealth may as safely depend upon it as upon any humane institution Upon these grounds it is that when a dispute happeneth concerning the making of a Law the King being of one opinion the Lords of another and the Commons of a third or when any one of the three bodies dissent from the other two there is no umpire but themselves to end that controversie nor can they decide the question by any other way but by a joint agreement or quitting the dispute for untill a joint concurrence of all three their proceedings are but conferences and their results what they would have to be Lawes but no Laws indeed untill by consent of all three they be reduced to Acts of Parliament No Order Ordinance or what ever it is or shall be called made by consent of any one or two of these bodies alone hath the strength or force of a Law our Law takes no notice thereof like a verdict for life lands or goods in which case the major part of the Jury determineth not the question all twelve must agree else it is no verdict for the question being fact some one of the Jury may have better knowledge thereof then all the rest So in this case by the constitutions of the Realme no new Law can be made or the old altered without a joint concurrence of the King and the two Houses It is that united body which at this day as to the Legislative power represent the whole Kingdome The Members of the Commons House alone do not in that manner represent the Commons of England the Lords the Peers and the King for Himself but all together do represent the whole Kingdom no one or two of these bodies can herein be said to represent only any part every common person doth herein by the Laws of England asmuch depend upon the judgement of the King and the Lords as upon the Members of the Commons House And so do the King and the Lords upon those Members for the King the Lords and Commons as now by consent of former Kings it is setled are herewith joyntly trusted As if three Lords authorize three severall persons to sell their Lands if two of them sell it binds not therefore in judging that sale void no man is injured the Lords are seized of their Lands as before and the persons trusted have the same power that is
joyntly concurring to sell and by that sale the Lords are concluded it is done by the Commission of those Lords and therefore in Judgement of Law their owne Act. So for the Parliament the King the Lords and Commons by the constitutions of this Realme are jointly trusted to consent unto the making new or changing the old Law therefore no lesse then all have Commission for it And so if the King and either House or both Houses without the King passe a Bill or make a Law this ought to be judged invalid none are thereby wronged still the knowne Laws are in force the people as before by the knowne Law are protected in their persons and estates and those trusted that is the King the Lords and Commons joyntly concurring have power to make new Laws which consent concludes the whole Nation it is done by its representative body and so by their Commission Thus it appears that when there is a question and dispute in Parliament between the King and the two Houses it is not necessary to have it affirmatively determined nor needfull that His Majesty in such cases be Judge against the two Houses or the two Houses to Judge it without Him That is but a fiction of the Members devised by them to reduce the Nation unto their Tyranny which as the Members knew they could not effect but by excluding the King from His negative Voice in Parliament so that being done their worke was finished Then they without the King arrogate power to make new Laws and change the old for their owne advantage as they pleased And so both King and people inslaved Therefore herein to beguile the people a case was faigned and stated thus That such a difference between the King and the two Houses as concerned the safety of the Kingdome was happened in Parliament That unlesse this question were instantly determined the Kingdome was in danger to perish Then to draw the people to side with the Members they were told that the Lords and Commons were the representative body of the Kingdome That whatever the Members in those Assemblies do it is so much the Act of every particular person in the Kingdome as if he were within the wals of the House personally consenting And perswaded the vulgar that this dispute between the King and the Members in effect is between Him and all the people of England And then offer it to the consideration of the multitude whether it be not more likely that all the people of the Realme concurring in one opinion should better know what is for their owne good then the King being but one single person and dissenting in judgement from the whole Nation The poor people not being of capacity suddenly to discerne the fallacy hereof And being ravished with a conceipt to be Judge in their owne case in smarmes flocked to this Idoll the Members thinking they had thereby adored themselves as well as that beast and never ceased untill by violence they expelled the King from His negative Voice in Parliament But now by wofull experience they both understand by whom and how they are represented which is thus The Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses being elected by the Inhabitants of the severall Counties and Townes do in some sort represent the people who chose them but that is no further then their Cōmission extends And they have no other Commission then the Kings Writ of Summons the returne thereof word by word set downe before which gives them no other authority then to consent unto Laws agreed on by the King His great Councell the Peeres consequently they do represent the people no further then to consent unto such Laws And for the Peeres they have no Commission at all from the people nor can be said to represent them their authority is solely from the Kings said Writ of Summons directed to every particular Lord by which likewise his power is declared and stinted That is to advise with the King concerning the affaires of the Realme So that the Lords and Commons put together they have no Commission to make Laws we are still to seeke that Legislative power nor is it to be found but in the King He alone is properly the Law-maker But the Kings of England as before appears having excluded themselves to make Laws without consent of the two Houses Therefore that united body the King and the Members of those Assemblies is called the Legislative power and the representative body of the Kingdom But that either or both Houses or any Assembly or people in this or any other Nation governed by Monarchy hath or ever claimed to have a Legislative power or sofar to represent the Kingdome as to make new Laws or change the old without the Personall consent of the King is such a ridiculaus Bull as never was heard or thought of untill this frantick Parliament Therefore when either or both Houses without the King take upon them to make Laws they extend beyond the bounds of their Commission they thereby act of their owne head not as representatives For example a Lord by Commission gives power to A. and B. to let and set his Land for tearme of years so long as A. and B. pursue this authority they do represent that Lord but if by colour of that Commssion A. and B. demise for life or sell the Inheritance it is done without authority their Commission reacheth not so far and so not representatives Therefore such lease or sale is void it doth not bind the Lord. Or thus A. having contracted with B. to make A. feoffement unto him and his heirs of the Mannour of D. upon a condition by letter of Atturney gives power to C. to make livery and seisin upon that Condition C. performes it In this case the Land is as firmely setled in B. as if A. had executed it in his owne person because it is done by his representative But if C. omitting to express the Condition make livery and seisin absolutely nothing passeth to B. for saith our Law C. extending the bounds of his Commission he doth not represent A. Therefore his whole act void So here the Lords as before appears have Commission to advise with the King the Commons to do and consent unto things agreed on by the King and them Now those Lords and Commons taking upon them without the Personall assent of the King to make new or change the old Law it is a power usurped without Commission or authority therefore no representatives and consequently all their proceedings void Then for the distinctions in the aforesaid Declarations mentioned 1. That no Law made without the Kings consent binds unless His consent be first required and refused 2. That those Laws be necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome 3. That such Laws shall continue no longer in force then that necessity lasteth these are snares and subtilties only to catch the simple no wise man wil be taken with them Suppose the King upon refusall
of the Members to have power to make a Law it is all one as to have that authority without asking them the question The Members upon broaching such a doctrin for the King would cal it tyranny they might justly too in that case account themselves but ciphers And the like reason holds via versa if the Kings deniall to make a Law hinder not the force of it the absolute power is in the Members And whether a Law be of necessity to be made for the preservation of the Kingdome or not he who will be sole Judge of that necessity excludes the other if the King be Judge thereof the Houses are excluded if the Houses assume that power the King is excluded And then for the continuance of those Laws it is as easie for the Members to say they have cause to continue them as to pretend necessity to make them The Members judged it necessary for the preservatiō of the Kingdome to take from the Crowne the Militia of the Realme and to settle it upon themselves they desired the King to consent He refused thereupon the Members without the King usurped that power into their owne hands The Members now declare it necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome for them without the King to impose upon the people impositions taxes and payments without stint to make what Laws they thinke fit to exclude the King from His Regall Authority to assume the whole power of Government and that to be Arbitrary the King having been desired to consent hereunto He refuseth Upon this we see the Members without the King assume it witness the imposition of that horrid Tax by Excise Assesments condemning of their fellow Subjucts to death confiscating their Estates and the like so that no man can apprehend that the asking of the Kings consent which in shew they seemed to desire is in their esteeme indeed of any moment And the Members by excluding the King from His negative Voice having got possession of the wealth of the whole Nation and dominion over the people having thereby wrested from the King the Sword His Scepter and Soveraignty it selfe no doubt but the same necessity pretended by them at first to incroach this power will be still alleadged by them to make their usurped authority lasting which accordingly we find the Members have as much as in them lie made their raigne perpetuall They tell us first in generall that in all matters either concerning Church or State we have no Judge upon earth but themselves And so by their doome we are both for soul and body in an everlasting and absolute slavery unto our fellow Subjects Then they proceed to particulars and begin with the Militia of the Realme which they judge usetesse and as a thing lying dead whilst it is in the power of the King of England For say the Members by the constitutions of the Realme the King cannot by himselfe alone without consent of the two Houses raise money by taxing the people Therefore the power of the Militia say they inables Him not to do the Kingdome any effectuall service But those Members having arrogated a power without the King to impose upon the people without stint they do therefore judge the Militia to be their owne And I confesse they are in some sort necessitated thereunto for both we and they see that otherwise then by troopes of Horse and bands of Soldiers it is impossible to leavy upon the Subject those illegall burthens by the Members laid upon them So that it is now come to passe that our greatest happinesse is made the foundation of our greatest misery because the King governs us by a knowne Law these Members tell us we must not be governed by a King the Kings justnesse to His people hath furnished these Tyrants with arguments to dis-throne Him By the government under the King and that authority claimed by Him the people have such protection of their persons and property in their Lands and goods as that otherwise then the known Law declared by the sworne Judges of the Realme doth warrant the King cannot molest them in either therefore say the Members He ought not to have the power of the sword But on the other side the Members having usurped an arbitrary and tyrannicall power over the persons lives estates and fortunes both of King and people therefore the Militia of the Kingdom say they belongs to them so that upon the matter better it had been both for King and people if the King had assumed the Turkish tyranny for then the King even by the Members owne argument had kept His Crown nor had the Subject been in so great a slavery as now we had then been subject only to one tyrant but by this doctrine we are vassals to seven hundred The Members have already besides the whole Revenue of the Crowne which they have barbarously wrested from the King the Queen and the Royall Progeny taxed upon the people by way of Excise Assesments and such like new impositions before this Parliament never known nor heard of in England above 3000000. l. per annum for their owne setled Revenue yet all this serves not the turne of these blessed self-denying reformers Besides all this they force the people to lend to give they confiscate where they please and convert to their own use what summes of money they thinke fit Yet setting aside their owne pompe and glory no visible cause of expence appears saving the Souldiery who are kept for no other end but to awe the people and force those exorbitant and illegall contributions Secondly they have Judged the King whom themselves even this Parliament have sworne to be their onely Supreame Governour to be unfit to Governe And this for refusing to acknowledge it His duty to be governed by them His Subjects and so much as in Him lay perpetually to vassalage unto those Rebels Himselfe His Royall Posterity and all the rest of the people And to compleat the worke they have Judged it Treason for any Subject of England either to make application to His Soveraigne or to receive any Message from Him By which Tyranny the people of this Nation are brought into that sad condition as doubtlesse was never yet parallel'd even from the Creation upon the face of the whole earth For Traytors we are denounced both for doing and not doing one and the same thing By Act of Parliament it is high Treason to refuse to sweare the King to be the only Supreame Governour over all the people of the Realme And these Members against this knowne and declared Law although themselves have taken that Oath murther such Subjects as according to their duty make addresse unto Him And call that their due allegeance Treason And to colour these proceedings the Members have the boldnesse to vouch God himselfe to justifie the legality thereof The power of the Militia say they was the principall cause both of this late War and the quarrell
of them hath its proper and peculiar jurisdiction The Chancery for Equity the Kings Bench for Pleas of the Crowne the Common pleas for reall actions and other matters of the Law The Exchequer for the Kings Revenues And every one of these Courts is circumscribed within its own bounds The Chancery unlesse it be in some particular cases warranted by custome hath not power to determine questions of Law nor the other three Courts matter of Equity The Common pleas not to intermeddle with the Pleas of the Crowne nor the Kings Bench unlesse occasioned by breach of the Kings peace with questions concerning title of Lands And none of them hath authority to extend beyond its bounds in any one particular All which is made good by authority and reason For authority it is resolved in the bookes of the Law that if the Judges of the Common pleas in an Appeale or Indictment for murder felony or other capitall crime condemne any person their proceedings are voide as done coram non Judice That person so condemned although guilty of the fact in the judgement of Law is not attainted nor his blood corrupted he forfeits not his estate and if executed although by the command of the Judges of that Court both Judge and executioner are guilty of felony and punishable as if done without that command If the Lord of a Leete hold his Court or the Sheriff his Turne at other times then custome doth warrant Or the Court of Marshalsey assume jurisdiction not made good by use their proceedings are void In all which cases the Officers or Ministers of those Courts are punishable for executing the commands of the Iudges thereof wherein the Law takes this difference viz. When a Court assumes power to determine that which it hath not Commission to determine and when it hath jurisdiction of the cause yet proceeds inverso ordine in the first as in the cases aforesaid The Minister is not excused or justified by the warrant of the Court In the latter the warrant or processe of the Court is a legall justification as thus If the Court of Common Pleas hold Plea without originall or award processe of Capias against a Peere and the like in these cases although the proceedings be illegall yet in regard the Court hath jurisdiction to determine the cause if it were regularly brought before them the processe or warrant of the Court is a good justification for the Minister thereof And this rule holds with all other Courts Assemblies and persons when they act or doe such things as they have not Commission for their proceedings are void So that the Laws of England admits not of Iudges but persons qualified to performe that office yet ability by it selfe is no Commission to make a Iudge The Judges of the Common Pleas are as learned in the Law and as able for their knowledge to determine Pleas of the Crowne as the Judges of the Kings bench but they have not the same authority The Court of Common Pleas hath not used it and consequently it is out of their Commission And that no Court ought to extend its owne bounds is made good by reason For if any Person Court or Assembly takes upon them in any one thing to execute that which their Commission extends not to by the same reason they may assume it in another and so in infinitum upon which it followeth that the power of that Court Person or Assembly is become boundlesse And if one Court Person or Assembly may inlarge its bounds the like reason holds with every Court Person and Assembly in the Kingdome and so a Parity introduced and consequently the whole Government subverted and destroyed In the next place it is considerable to know what Commission the Parliament the two Houses or either of them hath therein And first for the Commons house That Assembly hath no Commission from the King nor by Act of Parliament to Judge the Law and for Prescription they faile in all the foresaid three particulars for they cannot challenge any thing time out of mind The Assembly it self had its beginning after the Raign of K. Ric. 1. Secondly admit them to have been time out of mind they fail in the use for untill this Parliament they never executed or claimed any such thing Thirdly admit them to have been time out of mind and constantly to have used the power of Judicature yet it ought to be disallowed because not reasonable it is repugnant to the Rules of Law and justice that persons not fitly qualified should have power of Judicature By the constitutions of England controversies are decided thus The Plaintif exhibits his complaint in a Court of Justice and that in the Latin tongue The Defendant answereth in the same Court and Language out of which pleading the case ariseth which sometimes is questio facti and sometimes questio Juris If it be facti it is tried by a Jury sworn by authority of that Court where the suit depends and that cannot be the Members of the Commons house for besides the difficulty of the Language those Members cannot give an Oath and if it be matter of law the sworne Judge is to determine it but they are not sworn to doe justice And for the Lords house it is granted that in some things which custome and use hath made good the Members of that Assembly have power of Judicature for although that House as now it is formed and setled hath not been so auntient as to make a Prescription yet the Prelats the Peers and the Judges time out of mind have been frequently called together by the Kings of England and consulted with concerning making of Laws and other the affaires of the Common-wealth And amongst other things the Lords depending therein on the advice of the Judges have so auntiently as the beginning thereof cannot be made appear by licerse of the King upon Writs of Error reversed erronious Judgements given in the Kings bench But as the Lords have this authority by Prescription so they are excluded from all other power of judicature but that which custome and use doth warrant for Prescription is all the Commission they have Neither Grant from the King nor Act of Parliament they have for a Court of justice Now to give power to the Lords house or to the Commons house to inlarge their Commission or Jurisdiction the same inconveniences would thereupon ensue as by suffering other Courts to doe the like if the Members of the Commons house should at this day take upon them to give an Oath and this legally intitle them to it by the same reason they might as now the present Members of that Assembly in effect doth without King or Lords assume the whole Government And for the two Houses jointly they are not a Court of judicature they have therein no Commission at all neither from the King nor by Act of Parliament nor by Prescription And for the Parliament that is the King
not consonant to the rules of Law or reason it were without any disparagement to their Lordships all one if not better when the question is whether the Iudges of the Court of Kings Bench erred in judgement to have it determined by casting of lots for whether right or wrong judgment were given if the Lords determine it it is but chance whether they pursue the Law or not And if by lot expence of money is saved Therefore cleare it is to examine a judgement given in the Exchequer Chamber by a writ of error brought in the Lords House is in effect for the same persons to judge whether themselves erred or not and so whether the Lords have or have not this power the Iudges of the Realme are still depended upon And in case the King and the two Houses make an Act of Parliament concerning the same thing when that Act is passed from them as before appears an appeale lieth by an action or suite at Law unto the Judges who have power to determine whether that Statute be binding or void and therefore clear and manifest it is that in matters of Law the last and finall sentence is the Iudges of the Realme But me thinks for a Nation which hath been governed so many hundreds of years by a known Law and under it so flourishing a people as the Subjects of England have been and yet not to be agreed who are the finall Judges of the Law is so grosse a thing as that all forraigne Nations hearing of it cannot but accompt us men to have lost our wits In every constitution it is oftentimes difficult even amongst the learned in the profession in some particular questions arising to determine what the Law is But not to know what persons have Authority to decide those questions is most ridiculous The Judges of the Law ought to be so conspicuous as that all persons even from the most learned unto the most ignorant may equally alike discerne the men Which considered I conceive it necessary not only for the information of the vulgar people of England which have herein been grosly deceived but for the Vindication and Honour of our own Nation and the Law established so farre to digresse as in a word to shew how this fond question was raised and controverted in this Kingdome which was thus This Nation is governed by a known Law that Law â—â—dgeth the King to be our onely Supream Governour gives power to the King with the assent of the two Houses and no other to alter that Law and to make new Lawes And to the Judges of the Realme it ascribes the power finally to declare the Law Now such whose aime is to usurp Soveraignty or to swallow the wealth of the Nation cannot hope to effect their ends by submitting to the known Law That were to commit a crime immediately submit themselves to the block Therefore they must either deceive the people by mis-informing them what the Law is else by strong hand to enforce upon them a new Law for their own purpose Now that the Members aime was at no lesse then all is too too apparent But at the beginning of these distractions they were not in a condition to force the people Therefore their Iudgements must be deceived Hereupon the Plot was that the Members in the opinion of the people should gaine the reputation of being the finall Judge of the Law which was effected thus The people by reason of some good Lawes obtained of the King by the Members procurement were inclinable to believe whatever they propounded Then the Members Voted Thus viz. That when the Lords and Commons declare what the Law of the Land is it is a high breach of Priviledge of Parliament to question it This being published and the people by Incendiaries spread throughout the Kingdome for that purpose by false Calumnies cast upon the King being grosly abused the Members work was in a manner finished Then they took upon them the power of the Militia declared that the Soveraigne power was not in the Kings Person but virtually in them And from thence what made for their advantage how grosse soever did but the Members declare it for Law and good enough Thus the Iustice seate even by a sleight became both disputed and usurped But now the Scales are turned The peoples understandings are enlightned they see how grosly they were misled They finde that whilst the Judges of the Realme declared the Law both King and Subject were preserved in their Persons lives and fortunes That by this usurpation the known Law is subverted and consequently that protection vanished But as the people have changed their opinions so have the Members framed a new Argument They have left the Word and betaken themselves to the Sword They having Armies to back them their will is now the Law and resolve whilst they can by force to hold it Thus we are fallen into a gulf of misery whereas had the people been but half so carefull to have found out the Truth as they were industrious to effect their owne destruction these calamities had been prevented When the difference first hapned between the King and the Members had not the people leaped into their own ruine but taken the least consideration thereof had they bethought themselves how they were to be rightly informed what the Law was they must have resolved that as we had a Law consequently there must so long have been a Judge of that Law But the Members neither exercised or pretended any such power one minute beyond the foresaid Vote And for Authority to make their pretence good none can be produced but that their own testimony in this their own case and in a thing of no lesse concernment then the gaining of the wealth of the whole Kingdome to their own use and enslaving the people to their owne pleasure Hereupon doubtlesse the people would have concluded that not the Members the Judges of the Realme were the men unto whom all persons were Obliged to submit for matter of Law But it is objected That this is too great a power for the Judges for say they those persons may and doe erre in Judgement and are subject to corruption as in that case of Ship-money Answer It is true the Iudges have erred and it being granted that in the case of Ship-mony they did erre and were corrupt too and that it cannot be expected but they shall againe and againe erre be corrupt yet until we have other Creatures then Men to make choise of for Iudges this Objection ought to be disallowed We finde the Members to be no Gods And for the weight of the businesse concluded to be too great for the Iudges I Answer that that power must be in some To have a Law without a Judge finally to end controversies were worse then to have no Law at all And to have a Law and a Judge of that Law who understands not the profession were a degree worse then
is and may be in the Subject Answer Although his whole discourse is either false or impertinent yet his saying that Kings were first elected by the people That the people as he beleeves elected the Judges and bounded them by publike Laws And for proof positively affirming although not naming one Act That all this appears by infinite Acts of Parliament regulating the King and His officers The vulgar may thereby conceive that the Members of the two Houses without the King have made Acts of Parliament That by those Acts it appears That the people elected the first King of England and the Judges and bounded them by publike Laws Although Mr. Pryn himselfe well knowes that never any Act of Parliament was or could be made without the Kings expresse consent And that the people of this Nation have been governed under Kings 1200. years before the first Act of Parliament at this day extant So that if Mr. Pryn had made his Argument according to the truth of the fact it had been but thus After King H. 3. begun his reigne and not before the Kings of England have made some Laws by Act of Parliament whereby in some things they have regulated their owne authority and the power of their officers and Judges Ergo the people although we had Kings 1200. years before that elected the first King the Judges and bounded them by publike Laws Besides admit the people had elected the first King and the Judges That nothing proves that the Members of the two Houses at this day by our Law outgh to nominate the Judges And for the rest of his Arguments they are to this effect A question being asked who ought to elect the Judges Mr. Pryn saith Leiutenant Generals and Sheriffs were anciently elected by the Parliament and people Colonels Majors Aldermen Constables Knights of the Shire and Burgesses are elected by the people Kings cannot elect a Member or exclude him from sitting That the Members are honourable grave and wise That the Judges are the Kingdomes as well as the Kings That although the Kings have usually had the election of them perchance it was by usurpation and Mr. Bodin a great Polititian saith that the election of these officers may be and often are in the Subject Now hereupon to conclude Ergo By the Laws of England the Members of the two Houses ought to elect the Judges I cannot more aptly parallel the Argument then thus How many miles to London Answer a poke full of plums Ergo it is 20. miles to London upon this it might as well have been concluded 40. 100. or 1000. miles to London as 20. and so for electing the Judges upon any of Mr. Pryns reasons or upon all together admitting them all true It might with as much sence and reason have been concluded thus Ergo the Major of Quinborough the great Turke or the man in the Moon ought to elect them Besides the Members of the two Houses cannot have the election of the Judges for these reasons First the Chancery the Kings Bench the Common Pleas and the Court of the Exchequer are Courts of Justice by prescription they were instituted before the time of memory none knows the beginning thereof but certaine it is they were Courts of Iustice before the House of Commons had being Secondly as it is necessary that the Iudges of the Law be knowne persons It is as requisite that such as elect them should be constantly visible But the Members out of Parliament are invisible Thirdly suppose it enacted That none that shall be a Iudge unlesse elected by A. and B. It were no wonder for them irreconcileably to differ in their choice And the two Houses are as distinctly two as A. and B. That difference which is renders the Members more improper for the worke and consequently not of a Composier fit to elect the Iudges And that this is the Kings right is made good thus First It appears before that those Courts have had Judges time out of mind And so long as any may can shew or prove there hath been Judges of those Courts so antiently the Kings of England and none else have elected and authorized them which is the strongest proof in the Law It is the Law it selfe It were absurd for any man to deny that it is felony to steale or that the eldest son is heir to his Fathers land yet there is no other proof to make it good but use and practise And the Kings have as antiently and constantly elected the Iudges as theft hath been punished or that the eldest son hath by discent enjoyed his fathers land Secondly if this King hath not right to elect the Iudges no former King had it and consequently we never had one Judge rightly authorized So that Mr. Pryn hath found out a point in Law which at once makes a nullity of all former proceedings in those Courts as things done coram non Judice But this not all If Mr. Pryns doctrine be true we have had no Parliament for the Kings not having power legally to authorize the Lord-keeper all creations of Peeres are void and so the Writs for electing the Knights and Burgesses were illegall and void too And consequently Mr. Pryns Law admitted there is no Member of either House Lawfully authorized to sit or Vote And for authority of bookes either Law or History I dare be bold to say there is not one man in the World untill the sitting of these Members who hath upon any occasion mentioned these things but hath delivered it as a fundamentall ground and a positive truth That the authority to elect the Iudges is in the King alone So thatsuch as are unsatisfied of the Kings right herein may with as much reason doubt whether we have had a King Law or government Nothing can herein be alledged against the King or on the Members behalfe unlesse a new maxime of Law be started up That no proof be it never so clear is sufficient to entitle the King to any Interest or authority But for the Members although they have neither authority use practise president or reason to make it good have title and interest to what they list But if the two Houses have the finall power to judge the Law and that every one who shall dispute their Votes break the priviledge of Parliament It matters not who hath the election of them nor who are chosen If the man be flexible enough the meanest capacity in one dayes study and with the expence of one single penny may be sufficiently compleat for a States Judge his Library needs not consist of more bookes then a copy of the Houses Votes whereby we are declared breakers of the priviledges of Parliament to deny that to be Law which they declare so to be For by these Votes we have no Law but the Members will And consequently those persons they call Iudges are no other but their Ecchoes But the true Judges authorized by the King have not only the
debaced Coyne commanded forraigne Coyne to be current here ordered all forraigne negotiations All matters of War either foraigne or domestick And so in all civill affaires The Judges of the Law authorized by Him All legall proceedings in his name and by His authority The Law it selfe called His Law He hath usually dispensed with Acts of Parliament at pleasure pardoned transgressours of the Law To Him appertaines the forfeitures for Treason and other offences In a word He is the sole fountaine of Justice Mercy and Honour And with this constant practise agrees all authorities histories and stories among which that of the Oath of Supremacy if there were no more is sufficient to satisfie all the World the words are these I A. B. do utterly testifie in my conscience that the Kings Highness is the onely Supreame Governour of this Realme and of all other His Highnesse Realmes Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall things or causes as Temporall Now if the contents of this Oath be true that is If the King be the onely Supreame Governour all the rest of the people from the highest to the lowest whether Members or not Members are subject unto Him and persons governed And as all persons are hereby included so it extends to all things both Spirituall and Temporall And me thinks it strange an Englishman should make doubt of the truth of this Oath It was composed by the Lords and Commons in Parliament in the time of Queen Elizabeth And at their suite by Act of Parliament made high Treason for a Subject to deny to take it And further enacted that every Judge of the Law and other Officer either Spirituall or Temporall every person of any profession or calling before he be enabled to exercise the same every ward before he be permitted to sue out his Livery every one elected Member of the Commons House before he be permitted to sit or Vote there shall take this Oath Yet the Members of this Parliament would make an evasion out of it Thus. The Kings Supreamacy say they is meant in Curia non in Camera in His Courts not in His private Capacity And to speak properly onely His high Court of Parliament wherein He is absolutely Supream Head and Governour from whence there is no appeal And say they if the Parliament may take an Accompt what is done by His Majesty in His inferiour Courts much more what is done by Him without Authority in any Court. And say they It is preached to the people by the Kings Declarations that by the Supreamacy is meant a power inherent in the Kings Person without above against all His Courts the Parliament not excepted whereby say they the excellent Lawes are turned into an Arbytrary Government Answer That which the Members in this discourse say in effect is but thus The King is Supreame Governour Yet under the Members Government He hath Authority without appeal to determine all things yet hath not power to determine any one thing To blear the eyes of the Vulgar they are contented the King shall be called the onely Supream Governour But the Authority Power and Execution thereof if we may believe the Members is their owne The King and People are herein used as a Father sometimes deals with his child telling his little son the flock of sheep is his yet the Father shears them takes the profits to his own use Even so are King People dealt with They are told bythe Members that the King by the Supreamacy claimes such a power As that the Subjects thereby have lost both their Law and Liberty and would make them believe that they are by those Members thereunto restored againe Whereas all but naturalls may now discerne That whilst the King together with the name enjoyed both the Power and Execution of the Supreamacy The people were a free Subject And that by this usurpation upon the King They are inslaved For the Supreamacy is in the Kings Person But by it He neither hath nor claimes an unlimited power The People are Governed under Him but that Government is directed by a known Law of which Law the King is not Judge nor can He by Himselfe alone alter that Law Now whilst the Supreamacy the Power to Judge the Law and Authority to make new Lawes are kept in severall hands the known Law is preserved but united it is vanished instantly thereupon and Arbytrary and Tyrannicall power is introduced For example the Members condemne a Subject to die they confiscate his estate to their own use and without appeal have power to Judge the Law thereupon This granted clear it is the Will of the Members is the Law they are hereby Judge Party and Witnesse It were fruitlesse for that condemned person although guiltlesse to urge his innocency of the Fact or to dispute the Law upon that Fact with them who have condemned him And as the Members tell us there is none else to appeal unto It is therefore to be feared the greater Estate the Delinquent hath or the more spleen some Members bear to his person the more Capitall is his offence So that it is the Members not the King who claime a power in their owne persons without above against all Courts of Justice The Parliament it self not excepted Our excellent Lawes are by them destroyed and turned into their own Arbitrary power And thus the people are enslaved by a distinction never heard of or thought on before this Parliament the aforesaid two Spencers onely excepted It is true they having committed acts of Treason to colour their proceedings divulged an opinion suitable to this they pretended that the Oath of Allegeance was more in respect of the Crown then the Kings Person That the King might be removed and the people ought to governe But those opinions are condemned as damnable execrable by two Acts of Parliament One called exilium Henrici de Spencer And the other made 1 Ed. 3. But that this of the Members and that of the Spencers are meere fictions and delusions to gull the people is evident both by Authorities of Law and the common practice of the Kingdome It is resolved in Calvins case which therein agrees with the whole current of our Law-bookes that Allegeance is due onely to the King That theKing hath two Capacities one of a natural body descended of the Royal Blood this is subject to death and infirmities The other a politick body and in that immortall invisible not subject to non-age c. That the King having but one person and severall capacities It was resolved Allegeance is due to his naturall Capacity And consequently the Soveraigne power of Government inherently in his person By the common Law of the Land Treason is to kill or endeavour to kill the King His consort the Queen or the Prince Therefore it is the naturall body the Law lookes upon for the politick body cannot die Besides neither the Queen nor the Prince hath a
politick Capacity If the King die during a Parliament ipso facto the Parliament is dissolved Therefore Soveraignty is not virtually in the two Houses By the Kings death untill a late Statute made therein all suites in Law even between party and party were discontinued And at this day the Chancellor the Keeper of the Great Seal the Judges the Sheriffes of Counties Justices of Peace and other Officers by his death are void which could not be if Soveraigne power were not in the naturall person of the King or if that Authority were virtually in the Members The Law of the Land saith that Allegeance is due from the Subject to the King so soon as he is born therefore he is called Subditus natus And so both Soveraignty and Allegeance inherently and by birth-right the one in the person of the King and the other in the person of the Subject And this duty is reciprocall The King ex Officio as King is obliged to protect the people And the Subject in duty is bound to obey their Soveraign for protectio trahit subjectionem subjectio protectionem There be two sorts of Homage viz. Homagium Ligeum homagium feudale The first being Allegeance is due onely to the Kings Person And therefore our Law saith it is inherent inseparable and cannot be respited But the latter being due by reason of the tenure of Land a Writ lies to respite it Besides a body politick can neither doe nor receive Homage It cannot be done but to the naturall person of a man The Lords and Commons 10 Jacobi made this recognition viz. Albeit within few houres after the death of Queen Elizabeth we declared your Majesty our onely and rightfull Leige Lord and Soveraigne Yet as we cannot doe it too often or enough So it cannot be more fit then in this High Court of Parliament where the whole Kingdome in person or by representation is present upon the knees of our hearts to agnize our most constant Faith Obedience and Loyalty to your Majesty your Royall Progeny humbly beseeching it may be as a Memoriall to all Posterity recorded in Parliament and enacted by the same that we recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the death of Queen Elizabeth the Imperiall Crown of this Realme did by inherent birth-right and lawfull and undoubted succession descend and come to your Majesty And that by Lawfull right and discent under one Imperiall Crowne your Majesty is of England Scotland France and Ireland King And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige our selves our heires and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our bloods be spent And beseech your Majesty to accept the same as the first fruits of our Loyalty to your Majesty and Royall Progeny and Posterity for ever Which if your Majesty will adorne with your Royall Assent without which it neither can be compleat nor remaine to all Posterity we shall adde this to the rest of your Majesties inestimable benefits By this we see that this Kings Father by inherent birth-right had the Soveraigne power of Government That the Lords and Commons in Parliament did not onely submit thereunto but at their humble suite by Act of Parliament obliged themselves their heires and posterities for ever even to the spending of their last drop of blood to preserve Him and His Posterity therein But to insist upon particulars of this nature were too tedious There is no other Language to be found from the beginning of this Parliament up to the Romane conquest Every Statute booke of Law History and the constant practice of the Kingdome herein concurs Neither tongue nor pen untill these Antipodes the Members who belch nothing but contradictions to truth justice and honesty ever made other expressions But the juggle is now even by the vulgar clearly discovered and found to be too slight an Hocus Pocus trick to gaine three Kingdomes But it is visible to the world The Members use the word King as they do the name of God himself either for their owne advantage or to gull the people which amongst infinite other particulars by their various proceedings concerning the Kings Soveraigne power it is manifest First by their foresaid Declaration in words they ascribe unto the King a greater power then he either hath or challengeth He is say they absolutely Supreame head and Governour And this in all things and that finall too for say they from him there is no appeale But even by the same Instrument they tell us that this Soveraignty is not in the Kings person but totally in the Members of the two Houses And after their preaching of this doctrine and exercising the Kings office for some years then they tooke the boldnesse in plaine tearmes to tell us they would have no King that they themselves would without their Soveraigne governe the Kingdome But herein they catched themselves for instantly thereupon the people plainely discerned their intention even from the first they were by this Vote satisfied that the Members aime was not for the publicke but for their owne private to subvert the knowne Law and to reduce the people to the slavery of an everlasting arbitrary and tyrannicall power under their equals The Subjects of England upon this Vote unanimously even through the whole Kingdome as if they were at one instant generally inspired make their Protestation against these usurpers They cry out and call for their leige Lord their King They resolve to submit unto no other government then by our ancient and knowne Laws which the Members perceiving they returned to their owne vomit and thinking to deceive the people with a new sleight do now againe begin to word it for a King and Vote thus That this Nation shall be Governed by King Lords and Commons Which is as perfect a juggle as that whereby they Declared the Kings power to be virtually in themselves If those Votes binde it followeth that we neither have nor can have otherwise then at the Members will either King Law or Government Their last Vote in words seemes in some sort to set up a King But for any thing we know before the next new Moon the Members may fancy to themselves the same motives as formerly and Vote Him quite downe againe So that admitting this power in the Members to set up and pull downe to Vote and uâ—-Vote it is indifferent both to King and people whether to have a Statue and call it King or a King by the Members Vote Then for the Vote it selfe admitting the Members to have authority by their Votes to alter the Law which they have not it is in it selfe most grosse We must say they be governed by King Lords and Commons But what power is hereby intended for the King non constat By the next Vote the Members may declare they meant hereby that the King shall not have any authority in his owne person but still judge the Soveraigne power as formerly
this day by the Laws of England the Members of the two Houses have right thereunto which is most absurd But Mr. Pryn affirming that these things were granted to the Kings Ancestors and the truth being that the King and His Ancestors time out of minde have enjoyed them It is a good argument to prove the King hath title to them And for Parliaments as before appeares The first Act we have is Magna Charta made 9 H. 3. but the Kings Auncestors and predecessors enjoyed the Militia the Forts the Navy Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne many hundred of yeares before that time therefore could not be granted by the Parliament or by its consent And for the Kingdomes consent Master Pryn must explaine his meaning what he intends thereby before it be Intelligible Then saith M. Pryn the King hath no power to array arme or muster His Subjects but in such manner as the Parliament by speciall Acts hath prescribed Answer This being granted makes directly against Master Pryn it disproves the Members pretended power to the Militia and makes good the Kings interest therein The Argument is thus The King cannot muster His Subjects but in such sort as is prescribed by Act of Parliament To conclude thereupon that the Members of the two Houses have the power of the Militia nothing can be more absurd But it directly implies that none but the King can muster the people And consequently the Militia is in the King And for Acts of Parliament prescribing how or in what manner the people shall be mustered or arrayed we have none of that nature untill the Raign of King Ed. 1. But the Militia of the Kingdome was executed and commanded by the Kings of England 1200. yeares before that time And by every Act of Parliament which doth in any sort order or appoint the mustering or arraying of the Subject It appeares that the Power and Authority it self before that Law was in the King And by none of them is taken out of him And so this Argument of Master Pryns is to no purpose But saith M. Pryn The King hath these things and the Revenues of His Crown in His politick Capacity as saith he a Major and Commonalty a Dean and Chapter and the like are seized of their Lands And therefore saith he the King neither by His Will nor by His Letters Patents can devise alien or sell the same Answer If it be admitted that the King cannot alien such Lands and Revenues as He is seized of in His politick Capacity which is in it selfe most absurd how this disproves his title to the Militia the Forts the Navie Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne is not intelligible The Argument in effect is but thus The King hath the Militia c. in his politick capacity Ergo he hath it not Or thus The King cannot sell the Revenues of his Crowne Ergo the Members have the Interest therein and may seize them But saith Master Pryn the Ships Armes and Ammunition seized of by the Members were bought with the Kingdomes Money And therefore the Members may seize them Answer Suppose it understood what is the Kingdomes Money and that with such Money Ships Armes and Ammunition are bought It seemes a good Argument for the King to Seize them For He as King ex Officio is obliged to preserve His people in Peace Besides that money or other things which no particular Subject can challenge property in by the Lawes of the Kingdome is the Kings But by the Lawes of England we have no person or pollitick body by the name of the Kingdome which is capable to have property either in Lands or Goods And for the Members of the two Houses as Parliament men they have not any politick Capacity they are not a body to sue or to be sued nor are capable to buy or sell nor have property in any estate And consequently Master Pryn by his own Argument hath as much title to seize the foresaid Ships Armes and Aummunition as they Then saith M. Pryn the Members seized the Ships and Revenues of the Crown to prevent the arrivall of forraign forces and a Civill Warre which they foresaw As saith he Queene Elizabeth in time of War with Spaine granting letters of Mart to seize all materialls for Warre transported through the narrow Seas Answer By this discourse we are told what moved the Members to seize the Kings Navy and the Revenues of his Crown which in effect is thus viz. The Members having usurped an Arbitrary power over King and people and thereby having destroyed the Monarchy of England had just cause not only to expect opposition from their own Soveraign but in his relief arrivall of forraigne forces from all the Kings in Christendome For upon the same grounds as the Members made this seizure the Subjects of any King may doe the like It is as easie for the people of Spaine France or any other Nation in the world to say they foresee a War as these Members pretend it And I am certaine it is as unlawfull and directly against the constitutions of England for the Subjects here to assume this power as for the people of any other Country to doe the like to their King Therefore I grant it was an act of Pollicy for the Members to seize the Kings Ships and the Revenues of His Crown It was a great and principle means to prevent the suppression of this their Rebellion But all that proves the legality of their proceedings no more then a high-way man having taken a purse murders the party robbed to prevent his own discovery makes the robbery lawfull And so M. Pryns Argument in effect is but thus The Members de facto have seized the Kings Ships and Revenues of his Crown ergo they have done it lawfully Thus in Answer to Master Pryns Arguments whereby he endeavours to prove that the Members have power over the Militia c. But that they have no colour to claime any Authority therein further appeares thus First all men must grant That so long as the people have been governed by a Law so long the power of the Militia must have been in some But the people of England as before appears have been governed by a Monarchicall power above 1200 yeares before the institution of the two Houses And all that while the Kings of England for the time being and none else have executed that Authority Therefore not in the Members Secondly it is absolutely necessary that the power of the Militâ—â— be in such hands as may at all times provide against approaching dangers to the Common-wealth But that cannot be the Members they are not in esse out of Parliament Suppose this Nation in the vacancy of a Parliament be suddenly invaded by a Forraigne enemy or infested by a domestick insurrection If none have power to command the people to assemble and make resistance untill the summoning of the two Houses of Parliament nothing but distraction to King and people
can be expected Thirdly the Composier of these Members being two distinct bodies considered it is as prepostrous for them to command the Militia as to have the Soveraigne power of Government or to judge the Law It may fall out even in the time of greatest danger that one House shall Vote to fight the other not to fight the enemy And this difference may happen to be unreconciled untill the Nation be conquered or destroyed Thus it appears that the Members have no power over the Militia It now rests to prove that it is the Kings right which is made good by authority and reason First for authority it is proved by constant practise which is not onely the strongest proof in our Law but it is the Law it selfe We have no formall Institution of the Common Law it is no other but common Ancient and frequent use For example it is felony to steale it is not felony of death unlesse the thing stolen exceede the value of twelve pence These are things so certainly knowne and so generally received for Law as that any man to dispute them renders himself ridiculous yet being denied none can shew when the Law began how or by what authority it was made there is no other proof to make it good but custome and use So for the Militia of the Kingdome it was never estated upon the King by Act of Parliament or by any other constitution It is His right by the Common Law of England which is made good by custome and use and authorities of bookes And first for custome and use Any man of what quality or ranke soever he be reflecting upon his owne memory and observation must acknowledge that in all his time no Souldiers were impressed armed arrayed or mustered no Forts strong-holds or â—â—rrisons held or commanded no Commanders Officers or Souldiers Imployed by Land or Sea no Commissions concerning War either Forraigne or Domestick or concerning the administration of Justice but by authority derived from the King alone And such as search the Records in former times will finde the like practise in all ages And with this agrees all Histories and stories from this day upward unto the Roman Conquest Then for authorities and to begin with Acts of Parliament Magna Charta granted about 440. years since not onely being the first Statute but beyond it there is scarce an authentick record of Law at this day to be found In which Act it is thus declared by King Hen. 3. viz. And if We do lead or send him who is by tenure to defend a Castle in an Army he shall be free from Castle-guard from the time that he shall be with us in fee in our Host for the which he hath done service in our Wars Thus even in that Instrument whereby the King confirmed unto the people their Liberties It appears that by the Laws of the Land the power of War was the Kings sole right By an other Statute made 7. of King Ed. 1. being the son and next succeeding King to H. 3. The Prelates the Earles the Barons and the Comonalty of the Realme Assembled in Parliament declared that to the King it belongeth and His part is through His Royall Signiorie straightly to defend force of armour other force against the Kings peace at all times when it shall please Him And to punish them which shall do contrary according to the Laws and usages of the Realme And that they the Subjects are hereunto bound to aid their Soveraigne Lord the King at all seasons when need shall be After this by severall Acts of Parliament viz. 13. of the same King 1 Ed. 3. 25 Ed. 3. 4 H. 4. 5 H. 4. and other Statutes it is declared how and in what manner the Subject shall be charged with armes mustered arraied and forced to serve in War In all which Acts without dispute the whole power and command therein is admitted to be in the King By a Statute made 11 H. 7. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare it to be the duty and Allegeance of the Subjects of England not onely to serve their Prince and Soveraigne Lord for the time being in Wars but to enter and abide in service in battaile and that both in defence of the King and the Land against every Rebellion power and might reared against him By a Statute made 2 Edw. 6. in the Raigne of a child King The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare that it is the bounden duty of the Subjects to serve their Prince in War By a Statute made 4 and 5 P. M. In the Raigne of a Woman the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare thus viz. That whereas heretofore commandement hath been given by the Queen and her Progenitors Kings of England to diverse persons to muster their Subjects and to levy them for the service of their Majesty and this Realme in their Wars which service saith the Statute hath been hindred by persons absenting themselves from Musters and by being released for rewards And then provides remedy therein when the Queen her Heirs or successors shall authorize any to muster the people And by that late unanimous and voluntary recognition made by the Lords and Commons in Parliament unto King James they declared thus viz. We being bound thereunto both by the Lawes of God and Man doe recognize and acknowledge and thereby expresse our unspeakable Joyes That immediately upon the death of Queen Elizabeth the imperiall Crowne of the Realme of England did by inherent birth-right and lawfull and undoubted succession descend and come to your most Excellent Maj. that by the goodnesse of Almighty God your Maj. is more able to Governe us your Subjects in Peace and plenty then any of your Progenitors And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige our heires and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our blouds be spent Now every man of sense will agree that the opinion of the Members of this Parliament is no more authentique then the opinions of the Lords and Commons Assembled in former Parliaments And that being granted it followeth that any one of the aforementioned Statutes whereby the Lords and Commons declare That by the Law of the Land the power of the Militia is in the King is so much the more weighty and so much more to be relyed upon in this point of the Militia then the opinion of these Members by how much more persons are competent to determine a question concerning another then to judge their own case or when they resolve for or against themselves But these Members setting aside their owne Votes in this their own case for their own advantage cannot make their pretence to the Militia good by any one Authority Opinion Practise or President But this not all These Westminster men themselves even this Parliament have both in their Ordinances as they call them and Petitions acknowledged the Militia to be the
Kings right Besides it is resolved in our books of Law that if all the people of England should break a League with a forraign Prince without the Kings consent the League were not broken And consequently by the Judgement of the Law the sole power of the Militia is in the King And with this agrees all the Authorities both of our Books of Law and History It was never for the space of 1700. yeares past questioned or disputed untill now by these Vsurpers injuriously wrested from the Crowne But the Members in the name of the Lords and Commons upon serious consideration have lately Voted to this effect That the Militia hath been long debated in black and red letters and that God hath now given his Verdict on their sides That however the English men please themselves with their Magna Charta and because their Lives and Estates are not at the Kings Will and for that He cannot make Lawes or raise money without consent in Parliament All this say they signifies nothing if the Militia be in the King for by that say the Members He may destroy the People For say the Members if there be a true intention to leave unto the People their knowne rights that no Law be made or Money levied to maintaine the Militia without their consent in Parliament It cannot inable Him to do the Kingdom effectually any good alone But may serve to make Him capable alone to do them hurt Answer Every man may be satisfied these men have spoke what they can to maintaine this their pretended Right yet these their Votes being duely examined every indifferent person will thereby rather think that the Devill himself who hath long owed them a shame hath now paid that debt then by these Votes be drawn to believe the Members Doctrine First for their supposed Verdict to be given by God himself Their Argument therein is sutable to that of the Jewes and Turks whose examples and presidents I presume they follow The Jewes even to this day audaciously scoffe and taunt us Christians for receiving Christ Jesus for our Messias because upon the Crosse he being required by them to manifest his authority by saving himself and thereupon then offering to believe his Doctrine which he did not Therefore the wicked Jewes concluded they could not And the Turkes for the space of 1000. yeares past to make good their Doctrine of Mahomet and their claime to be the only Monarch of the World much insult upon the Christians for their Victories obtained against them whereby we cannot deny but they doe possesse amongst infinite other Kingdomes and Countries wrested from Christian Kings the places both of the Birth and Passion of our Saviour And upon this the Turks infer that God hath Judged the cause for them against the Christians Now that difference which is to be found between the Arguments of the Jews and Turks and these of the Zelots at Westminster renders the latter to be the greater Blasphemous They althoughly wickedly protesting against Christ pursued their Conscience Neither Turk nor Jew for any thing appeares did know or believe Christ to be the Saviour of the World These hypocritically make use of the name of God himself and to establish themselves in their usurped possessions with insolent boldnesse call him to testifie nay affirme that God in this point of the Militia hath given his Verdict for them and against the King which themselves doe not only know but have acknowledged to be the Kings Right And having with this semblance of sanctity prepared the People with this forged Verdict Then they Vote reasons to perswade the vulgar That for the King to have the Militia tends to their destruction but that Authority being placed in the Members the people are if we may believe them secured from harme But of their owne shewing the expresse contrary Appeares First they tell us as the truth is that by the Laws of England the King hath not power by himself alone to tax or impose payments of money upon the Subject therefore say they mark this consequence so long as the Law is therein observed the Kings having of the Militia is not effectuall to the Kingdome Hence it followeth by the Members own Argument that if the King had an Arbitrary power then the Militia were his own So that by the Members Doctrine none but Tyrants have title to the power of the Sword which I confesse is a foundation aptly laid for their own structure All the world will witnesse for them that in point of Tyranny the malice of man with the advise and assistance of all the devils in hell cannot out-strip them Let the Members search Histories and Stories Presidents and Examples from the first Creation untill this Parliament and not onely of this Nation but throughout the face of the whole Earth and I defie the most vigilant amongst them to finde one Tyrannicall act which these Members since their usurpation upon the King have not done or audatiously claimed by the Law of the Land to have power to execute Thus appeares the different condition of the people concerning the Militia under the Kings Government and this under the Members By that under the King whilst the people submit unto their lawfull Superiors and obey the just Sentence of Law there is no need of the power of the Sword for the King neither hath nor claimes Authority by the Militia to force his Subjects to make payment of money or to doe any one thing more or otherwise then the known Law commands We are not Governed by the Will of the King but under Him according as the Law of the Land directs And the use of the Militia is no other then to preserve the Law And therefore in case of disobedience to compell submission thereunto wherein the power of the Sword that is the Militia is as necessary as the Law it self for as the people cannot be protected in their persons lives or estates without the Law so that Law is fruitlesse where there wants power to put it in execution Hence it followeth even by reason it selfe that he who hath the Soveraign power of Government hath as an incident inseperable unto it the power of the Sword And by our Law the King hath the Soveraignty From him as before appeares is due to the people protection of their persons and Estates That by the Lawes of England is implyed in the word King And so the word Subject implies a duty in the people to assist their King And as this duty is reciprocall between King and Subject so the performance thereof is equally beneficiall to both And if either faile in their duty both King and People are destroyed Therefore to deny our King the Militia of the Realme is no lesse an absurdity then to appoint a Generall of an Army with commands to fight an approaching Enemy and to deny that Generall use of Armes and power to command his Souldiers But on the other side to give
the Militia unto the Members is the same as to put the Sword into the hands of a mad-man for as the one hath no reason to restrain himself from doing mischief so the Members are not guided by any known Law but having usurped an Arbitrary power over King and Subject we finde by our wofull experience make use of the power of the Sword to compell the people to submit unto their insatiable lusts Witnesse besides the infinite murders and slaughters of the people the vast summes of money these Members since this Parliament by the power of the Sword have unlawfully wrested from the Subject which being justly cast up would amount to more then all the Subsidies grants of that nature given unto all the Kings of England for the space of 500. yeares before that Upon the whole matter clear it is the Militia of the Realme by the known Law of the Land is the sole and onely Right of the King And consequently all Commissions Powers and Authorities granted or given by the Members of the two Houses concerning this Warre are voide in Law and no Justification for those acting thereby But for the nature of that offence it is shewed in the next Chapter CHAP. IX That all persons who have promoted this Warre in the name of King and Parliament and such as have acted therein or adhered thereunto are guilty of Treason THe Office of the King and Duty of the Subject appeares before to be thus The King to Command and Govern according to the Established Lawes of the Realme The Subject to obey those Commands wherein the Law of all things abhors force and enjoynes peace which Peace by the Lawes of England is called the Kings Peace Therefore in every Indictment for Murder Felony or Trespasse done upon the person or estate of a subject These words viz. contra pacem domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suam ought to be expressed for although the fact be done immediately against a Subject yet it trencheth against the Kings Authority His Law is thereby broken And the Lawes of England not onely protects the Kings Person from violence but preserves Him in His Royall Throne and Government Therefore if any persons in this Kingdome without command or assent of the King raise Forces Powers or Armes be it upon what pretence soever it is a Warre levied against the Kings Authority His Crown and Dignity For in that the Subject assumes the Regall power of the King Then for the Authors and Actors of this Warre the Kings Castles Forts His Navy Armes Ammunition and Revenues of His Crown are by force wrested out of His Hands Armes raised conducted into the Field Himself fought with in severall Battailes His Subjects in every part of the Kingdome by the awe of those Armies forced from their Allegeance Therefore a War it is and a War against the King The next Question is what the Law declares this offence to be And that appeares by the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. in these words Whereas divers opinions have been before this time in what case Treason shall be said and in what not The King at the request of the Lords and of the Commons hath made a Declaration in this manner When a man doth compasse or imagine the death of our Soveraigne Lord the King or of my Lady the Queen or of their Eldest Sonne and Heire or if a man do levy War against our Soveraigne Lord the King in this Realme or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in this Realme giving aide or comfort in the Realme or elsewhere and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by people of their condition c. It is to be understood that it ought to be Judged Treason By this clear it is That it is Treason to Levy War against the King to compasse or imagine the death of the King the Queen or Prince to adhere unto or aide the Kings Enemies Of all which the death of the King Queen and Prince excepted the Authors and Actors of this War are guilty But M. Prin hath by Authority of the Commons House of Parliament published a Treatise intituled thus The Parliaments present necessary defensive Warre is Just and Lawfull both in Law and Conscience and no Treason or Rebellion Answer This Title is like his whole discourse totally either impertinent or false This is not the Parliaments War but a War of the Members of the two Houses Nor is it a War on the Members behalf defensive but offensive which omitting to expresse when and by whom the Armies and Forces were first raised that being obvious to all men appeares by considering the Cause of the Warre which was thus The Members having formed a Law to take out of the Crown the power of the Militia and to settle it in themselves the King refused to consent unto it which refusall was the ground of this War wherein the King was onely Passive and the Members Active They pressed upon Him to change the Law He refused It were grosse in this case to conceive the King should make a War But the Members had no way to gain their ends but by force and so began the War Then Master Prin proceeds to prove that this Warre of the Members is not Treason For saith he they intended no violence to the Kings Person His Crown or Dignity onely to rescue Him from His Cavaleers and bring Him backe to His Great Councell Answer It is true sometimes the intent of the party committing the fact alters the case For example A man travelling the passage is stopt by water And finding a horse there makes use thereof to get over the water This is not Felony But it is a Trespaas Suppose this party indicted for felony at his triall it is pertinent for him to confesse the fact That he used the horse and by circumstances to make it appear he intended thereby onely to get over the water and so to quit himself of the fellony But this man being indicted onely for a Trespasse for him to confesse he used the horse to get over the water alledging he could not otherwise have passed thereby to quit himself of the Trespas were foolish So here raising of Armies against the Kings Command conducting them into the field c. is confessed But saith M. Pryn that is not Treason for they intended no harme to the Kings Person His Crown or Dignity Which is a fond contradiction for admitting they intended no harme to the Kings Person the fact confessed is a harme to His Crown and Dignity And that in the highest nature that may be It is a Warre Levied against Him and His Regall Authority which by the Laws of England is High Treason Raviliake who killed the King of France upon M. Pryns ground might have justified the fact Although he had confessed to have willfully killed that King yet he might with as much truth and sense have said he intended not to hurt the Kings Person As M. Pryn
or man although they be the greatest Tyrants in the world the highest persecutors of Christian Religion be it either spirituall or temporall although never so pernicious to foul or body it must be admitted for good Law and true Gospel Thus the people being drawne to recede from their true principle have occasioned their owne confusion Whereas by their observing the Laws of the Realme these distractions have been avoyded For by the constitutions of this Kingdome both King and Subject are regulated by a knowne Law which Law permits neither King nor people to be Judge in their owne case If one Subject wrongfully imprison the person of another seize his Lands or take away his goods the party injured hath his legall remedy but is not permitted to be his owne carver or revenger if he for his owne satisfaction kill his adversary it is murder If he seize his Lands or take his goods it is a trespasse So in the Kings case If by His Command any Subject be imprisoned or his estate taken from him against the rules of the knowne Law that Subject hath his legall remedy against the Kings ministers wherein neither the King nor his officers are Judge Therefore if that Subject thus injured should to revenge himself kill the King or seize His Revenues it were a most barbarous and unjust Law not to condemne this Act unlawfull And that being admitted it must be unlawfull to attempt His death or to leavy War against Him for any such cause And consequently all those facts although committed upon the grounds aforesaid are Treason Now that person who conceives himselfe to be most highly injured being required to set downe the motives of his taking up Armes against the King his pretence can be no other then this That his person hath been imprisoned his Lands seized and his goods taken from him And this in his judgement against Law none but Brutes can conclude these are legall justifications to act and do such things against their King And so consequently the authors and actors of this War are guilty of Treason But saith Mr. Pryn The Parliament is not within the meaning of this Statute of 25 Ed. 3. Therefore not Treason for the Members to seize the Kings Forts Armes Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne for saith he the King is a Member of the Parliament and therefore if the Parliament could commit Treason the King should commit Treason against himself And saith he the Parliament is a corporation and a Court of Justice and so not capable of the guilt of Treason Answer Most true it is That the King is exempt from the guilt of Treason for all Treasons are committed against Him But every Subject which includes all the rest of the people is capable both to commit the fact and is subject to punishment for the same And herein there is no difference of persons It is no more lawfull for a Peere then for a pezant to commit that crime the place where alters not the nature of that fact nor doth it availe the actors in being Members of any Assembly Corporation body politick or Court of Justice For every one of these Members or persons besides their pollitick capacity hath a naturall capacity too In which capacity he is subject to the frailties of man he may actually breake the Law and passively suffer for it But the Assembly it selfe the Corporation the body politick or the Court of Justice can neither commit a crime nor is capable of punishment For example the Parliament that is the King the Members of the Lords House and the Members of the Commons House their power is onely to make Laws by Act of Parliament Therefore when the Members of the two Houses in a Parliamentary way passe a Bill which the King confirmes with His Royall Assent Absurd it were to thinke this could be an Act of Treason And so it is for the Judges of every Court of Justice keeping themselves within their jurisdiction they cannot in the proceedings of their owne Court commit Treason And the like holds with all Corporations and bodies politick But if a Member in either House assault or strike his fellow Member that is a trespasse and wilfully to kill him is murther And by the same reason to kill the King although within the wals of the House is Treason And that being granted it followeth that to imagine His death or attempt to kill the King or agree to levy War against Him although in that place is Treason in such Members And herein no formall or seeming Parliamentary proceedings will alter the case The putting it to the question voting the businesse and setling it by a Major part or composing it into a formall Law and calling it by the name of an Ordinance of Parliament neither alter the nature of the crime nor takes away the guilt of Treason If one who hath acted in this War be indicted for Treason who at his arraignment shewes an Ordinance of both Houses for his justification The triall being before a just Judge It will no more availe him then Adam was justified saying Eve tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit And the Members who commanded those things to be done being legally questioned have no more to say then Eve had For it was the Serpent who tempted them to commit this treason The rightfull Judge will informe them that the Law cannot be altered but by Act of Parliament The Judges of the Realme understand not the Language of an Ordinance of the two Houses nor is any such thing pleadable in a Court of Justice the Law takes no notice thereof These things are done by the Members not in their politick but in their naturall capacities They are not Acts of Parliament they are unlawfull facts of Parliament-men And such offenders being attainted and executed the Parliament suffers not Besides it is the fact which the Law doth looke upon And in this case the greatnesse of the person offending the number committing the offence and the place where acted is so far from extenuating as that it rather aggravates the crime For a conservator of the peace in his owne person to breake it or a Judge of the Law to be an example of transgressing it is more odious then in other men Then considering the persons acting viz. Members of the House of Parliament the thing acted high Treason the place where in those Houses words cannot expresse the barbarousnesse of it Now to conclude this point I here set downe what facts the knowne Law judgeth Treason the Members Law therein and the proof on both sides What facts the Law judgeth high Treason the foresaid Statute of 25 Ed. 3. makes it manifest in these words viz. Whereas divers opinions have been before this time In what case Treason shall be said and in what not then declares that by the Law of the Land these particular facts following are Treason 1. To compasse or imagine the death of the King the Queen or the
name but the power of Judges the knowne Law of the Land is their rule to determine every question depending before them which they are sworne to observe notwithstanding any command of the King the Members or any persons whatsoever And consequently every one is thereby preserved in his just Interest but by the Members taking upon them both to nominate the Iudges and to declare the Law the Law it selfe is destroyed and both King and people inslaved Upon the whole matter clear it is That the King and none else hath power to nominate and authorize the aforesaid Iudges and officers And therefore if the Members of the two Houses have or shall either in the Kings name or in their owne de facto appoint any persons for Judges in those Courts or in words by Commission of Oyer and Terminer or generall Gaole delivery give power to any to execute the office of Judicature in Circuits or otherwise such persons have not de Jure the power of Iudges For the Members have no more authority to make a Judge or to give any such power then any other subject in the Kingdome hath therein And consequently all the judgements acts and proceedings of those nominall Iudges or such Commissioners are void as things done coram non Judice Every person by such authority who either in the Kings Bench or at the Assises or elsewhere hath been or shall be condemned and executed for any crime whether guilty or not guilty is murdered And every other judgement or sentence by them given either in Capitall Criminall or Civill affaires is invalid In the next place it is proved that the King is the only Supreame Governour CHAP. VII That the King is the onely Supreame Governour unto whom all the people of this Nation in point of Soveraignty and Government are bound to submit themselves AGainst this undoubted right of the Kings these distractions have produced another Treatise of Mr. Pryns likewise published by authority of the Commons House intituled thus The Parliament and Kingdom are the Soveraigne power Wherein his aime is to perswade the people that the Members of the two Houses are the supream Governours of this Kingdom and begins thus The High Court of Parliament and whole Kingdome which it represents saith he may properly be said to be the highest Soveraigne power and above the King for saith he every Court of Justice whose Just resolutions and every petty Jury whose upright verdicts oblige the King may truly be said to be above the Kings person which it bindes But the Court of Parliament hath lawfull power to question the Kings Commissions Patents and Grants and if illegall against the Kings will to cancell or repeal them Therefore the Parliament hath Soveraign power above the King Answer Here I deny both his Major and Minor First for his Major Although it is true that every Just resolution of any Court of Justice That is when the Judges legally determine such things as regularly depend before them in point of Interest bindes the King as well as a Subject that proves not a Soveraigne power in the Judges If so it followeth that the Judges of the Kings-Bench the Common Pleas and of all other Courts of Justice And by M. Pryns Argument every petty Jury too have in point of Soveraignty a power above the King which is most grosly absurd So that admit the two Houses a Court of Justice which they are not and to have power legally to determine Causes which they have not That is nothing to Soveraignty It is one thing to have power to make Lawes another to expound the Law and to Governe the people is different from both The first appertaines to the King and the two Houses the second to the Judges and the third is the Kings sole right Neither the making declaring or expounding the Law is any part of Soveraignty But regulating the people by commanding the Lawes to be observed and executed pardoning the transgressors thereof and the like are true badges of a Supreme Governour All which are the Kings ☞ sAnd for his Minor take his meaning to be the true Parliament That is the King and the two Houses And it is false that the two Houses without the King have power legally to cancell or make voide any Commission Patent or Grant of the Kings For as before appeareth That united body cannot speak or doe any thing but by Act of Parliament To say the Parliament without the King may make a Law is as grosse a Contradiction as to affirme that the King may make an Act without the King And his meaning being taken to be the two Houses without the King In that sense the Members have herein no power at all for as before appeares they are neither a Parliament nor a Court of Iustice and consequently have not jurisdiction legally to cancell or repeale any Commission Patent or Grant of the Kings But saith Master Prin the King although he be cheif yet he is but one Member of the Parliament and saith he the greatest part of any politicke body is of greater power then any one particular Member As the Common-Councell is a greater power then the Major the Chapter then the Dean the Dean and Chapter then the Bishop and so the whole Parliament then the King for saith he in an Oligarchy Aristocrasie and Democrasie That which seemes good to the major part is ratified although but by one casting voice As in election of the Knights of the shire Burgesses and the Votes in the two Houses And saith he by the Lawes of England The Kings the Lords and Commons make but one intire Corporation and so concludes that the Major part of the Parliament which in Law saith he is the Corporation is above the King Answer There is scarce one word in this discourse but it is false or misapplied It appears before That the Parliament consists of 3 distinct bodies viz. the King the Lords House and the Commons House and in making Lawes which is all they have to doe they have but three Voices yet that which seemes good to the major part of these three is not ratified For as before it appeares they must all concurre else no Parliament It is true where the Government is Aligarchicall Aristocraticall or Democraticall the major part determines the Question But this is mis-applyed to the businesse in dispute concerning the Soveraign power Our Government is Monarchicall The people of England are not Governed by a Parliament The use of a Parliament as before appeares is onely in some things when necessity requires To alter the old or make new Lawes wherein the foresaid three bodies viz. the King the Lords House and the Commons House are joyntly trusted If Mr. Pryn be asked what he meanes by the Major part of that Corporation which he in this place calls the Parliament His Answer must be one of these viz. Any two of the aforesaid three bodies or else That the King the Lords and the Commons