have no voice in reversing judgements or damning Patents in Parliament therefore they have not a voice in passing Bils for publike Laws Answer Mr. Pryns words must be understood one of these wayes viz. That these judgements are reversed and Patents damned by Act of Parliament or else in the ordinary way of proceedings of Law as in a Court of Justice if he meane by Act of Parliament he onely beggs the question And false it is to say the King hath not a negative Voice in every Act propounded for a Law If he meane by judiciall proceedings as in a Court of Justice which I conceive he doth then the case truely stated is but thus The Lords House in Parliament time is a Court of Judicature and amongst other things the Members of that Assembly have power the cause being regularly brought before them by writ of errour and by the advice of the Judges and not else to reverse erroneous judgements given in the Kings Bench wherein it is true the King hath no Voice but that nothing disproves His negative Voice in making Laws if so that reason serves as well to exclude the Commons as the King for in reversing judgements in the Lords House the Members of the lower House have no Voice so if this argument of Mr. Pryns be of force the Lords without King or Commons have power to make Laws by Act of Parliament Then for damning Patents neither the Lords nor the Commons nor both Houses joyntly have power judicially or finally to determine the validity of any Patent or grant of the King That properly appertaines to the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and other Courts of Justice before whom as afterwards it is more clearly shewed such cases may be judicially brought to triall wherein neither King Lords or Members of the Commons House hath Voice And for the rest of his arguments they rather prove the contrary then that which Mr. Pryn infers upon them Kings saith he have in former times shewed their reasons why they denied to passe Bils presented unto them by both Houses which proves that those Kings had power to deny them else they could not shew cause of their refusall no more then Mr. Pryn can render reasons of his being at Westmiuster unlesse he have been there But Mr. Pryn knowes all Kings have most frequently rejected Bils passed by both Houses and Bils declared by the Members to concerne the publike good without rendring their reasons for the same And for the power of the Protector to confirme Bils passed by both Houses if that be granted that in some cases of imminent necessity the Protectors consent might make good and perfect such Bils it nothing proves the absolute power of both Houses without the King but rather the contrary and plainly demonstrates the imperfect power of the two Houses who cannot without the consent of a Protector in such cases make any compleat and binding Laws Therefore if not stronger the same it must be when we have a King no infant and Reigning without a Protector But saith Mr. Pryn in Countries where Kings are elective by the death of the Present King untill a new one be chosen the people having no King over them may make binding Laws Here although I beleeve Mr. Pryn cannot for other Countries make his position good yet this admitted to him rather disproves his argument against the Kings negative Voice for of his owne shewing it appears that in those Countries where Kings are elective after such time as the people have chosen a King they cannot make Laws without Him And if so where Kings are elective much more they cannot where Kings are hereditary Therefore by Mr. Pryns owne argument it followeth that in this Nation neither the people nor the two Houses without the King have power to make Laws For we have no interregnum there is not with us any time of vacancy of a King eo instante upon the death of the precedent King the Crowne is vested in the successour And for the two Houses refusall to grant the King Aide by Subsidies and the like That disproves the Kings power of His negative Voice in Parliament as the Kings refusall to confirme Bils passed by both Houses prove that the King at this day may make Lawes without them But saith he if Kings will not passe Laws presented unto them by both Houses they may be compelled thereunto for Kings saith he have been so forced as King H. 3. in that of Magna Charra and other Statutes Answer To admit that a Judge of a Court of Judicature may be forced to declare his opinion or to give judgement against his owne conscience seemes to me to be so absurd as I cannot but suppose that Mr. Pryn himself would grant it to be most unreasonable and even to be destructive of the Law it selfe If the King should assemble powers and by force compell the Lords or Commons to passe Laws by Him propounded it would be judged an act of high Tyranny and I beleeve Mr. Pryn would conceive Laws so obtained bound not And if so in that case if he be not extreame partiall he must upon the same ground agree that the King in the like case ought not to be forced He doubtlesse hath the same authority the same rules and motions to be guided by His Conscience as a Subject hath And methinkes the Law should protect the King from the violence of the people asmuch as it preserves them from the force of their King certainly it is at least reci mony or Oath taken is actually vested in the King succeeding upon which the Law saith that although in hoc individuo Hen. Rex moritur yet the King in His politick capacity never dieth Besides if the King at His Coronation should refuse to take an Oath we have no more Law to compell Him thereunto then we have to force Him to be Crowned And as it is not material to the right power of the King whether he be Crowned or not so it is inconsiderable to the people to have Him sworne for if we had no municipall Law the King unsworne were bound in Conscience to govern the people by naturall equity But we have a knowne Law by which both King and Subjects the one by a directive power the others by both directive and coercive are regulated and every one protected in his just rights and this whether the King be Crowned or not Crowned whether he take an Oath or no Oath Secondly admit Kings obliged to take an Oath at their Coronation yet even by the Members owne shewing they are not bound to take it in the words by themselves mentioned And of all the Kings past they instance but seven who have taken any Oath and but three of those seaven admitting that Oath in French and the other in Latine to be one and the same they name to have taken it And of these three offer proof but for one And themselves shew
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
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
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
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