power and authority by Law vested in the King in derogation of his high Court of Parliament as makes the rules of Law and Justice meerely Arbitrary as in those particulars afore specified we must needs grant and yet in inferiour Courts the same rules in Arbitrary Government no where warranted or allowed but contrary wise their proceedings obliging both King and people to a mutuall observance by a legall power and authority to that purpose setled in them This were repugnant even to sence Now to summe up this point if the King cannot leavie or maintaine any Forces by Sea or Land as is formerly proved though for defence of the Realme or his Person upon his owne Judgement or apprehension of danger What shall we then say to this effusion of bloud the Authors and fomenters of this intestine Warre shall they be protected Surely at some mens hands this bloud will be required and though they may here escape yet righteous judgement must be expected hereafter Papists inabled nay compelled to beare Armes contrary to the lawes viz. 3. Jacobi 5. Also this matter seemeth more to be aggravated since in this late great and numerous Army of the King those persons who are prohibited by Law to come within tenne miles of the Court disabled by Law to beare Armes within this Kingdome contrary to the Kings owne solemne Protestations made unto his Parliament are enabled nay commanded to beare Armes to the destruction of the Kings subjects I meane the Popish Party in this Kingdome whose doctrine and practises both to King and State in most execrable Treasons and impious Conspiracies hatefull both to God and man are sufficiently manifest to all the world and need not here to be remembred Now there being such a cloud of Witnesses as is afore specified Common Law Stat. judgement of this Parliament proving the Armies Illegall viz. the Common Law the Statute Law the Judgement of this Parliament in Master Hampdens Case the very same in Law and reason convincing any capacity in the certainty of this truth that these Armies now maintained by the King are not warranted by Law What shall I say more yea what shall we thinke of this Commission of Array Commission of Array destructive of Parliaments upheld by our opposites What is this likewise but a meere usurpation a plaine violation of the Lawes and what would follow if this doctrine should be admitted but a finall dissolution of Parliaments For what would they then serve for if Armies of men may contrary to the positive Lawes be raised without them They would be at the best but as the tyrannicall Bishop of Rome formerly boasted Puteus inexhaustus an ever springing Fountaine to satisfie the ambitious desires of the mighty with the riches and wealth of the people nay peradventure Aides Taxes and Impositions would be had at pleasure and the people by force compelled to slavish obedience as we have found by sad experience too dearely bought in a branch of these Dominions the unfortunate Kingdome of Ireland where the insolencie of the Souldiers was such yea even in the times of Peace in the time of the late Earle of Strafford that the Lawes were sleighted and trodden under foot and the Paper Decrees of the Castle Chamber put in execution by these Agents in Armes forcing the poore subject to obey whatsoever was in this wicked and illegall manner commanded what difference now betwixt the Turkish Government and this new devised Monarchy of these Dreamers the lives and estates of all men being subjugated to misery and inevitable destruction but God in his good time discover these evill instruments and bring them to Justice who labour to involue so great a Prince into inextricable errour and calamity I promised moderation therefore I will say no more but will divert my meditations to the period of this discourse as thinking I have satisfied mine owne conscience it not others in so large a debate hereof Object There is one great Objection made by the adverse part which if answered this particular is satisfied And that is By what authority are the forces of the Parliament raised Seeme they not as illegall as unwarrantable Sol. To which I answer That the Parliament themselves in their Declarations which I have seene make it onely on their part defensive there being an Army intended against them full foure yeares since the Army raised against the Scots and afterwards for this purpose implyed to awe this Parliament and to force them to consent unto such Articles framed by evill persons touching the Government of this Kingdome which appeares by the Depositions of divers persons of note and quality annexed to a Remonstrance of Parliament 19. Maii 1642. which sure was long before an Army raised by the Parliament or thought upon the King being then present at Parliament and I will not say it was by his privity or knowledge Onely thus much I will say That this Act was alone sufficient to breed jealousies and feares in the Parliament and to provide further for their defence and security Afterwards this was increased by the Kings comming to the House of Commons in that unusuall manner to demand the Members affrighting the Assembly there present who upon request were denyed a Guard Afterwards his Majesty at Yorke at Nottingham had a considerable Army of men to the number of foure or five thousand as I have credibly heard by those that were then there present and all this while no Army of the Parliament appearing that I did heare of only speeches to that purpose Now upon all these proceedings the Parliament for their owne defence the Kings Royall Person and Authority the defence of the rights and liberties of the Subject raised an Army under the command of his Excellency Rob. Earle of Essex which whether or no defensive or justly done I leave it to the world to judge upon that which hath been formerly spoken But to make a more full answer and to square my course in these Treaties by the positive Lawes to stop the mouthes of clamorous people The raising of Forces by the Parliament justified as a Court of Justice The Parliament and either of the Houses must be admitted to have supreme power of Judicature without the Kings Personall presence as the Rolls and judiciall proceedings thereof sufficiently manifest as is formerly spoken and if so then they have power to Summon Censure and judge all Delinquents yea force them to submit to the Justice of that high Court upon contempt by enjoyning Posse commitatus yea Posse Regni to execute their Commands against all disobedient persons unto the Justice and Government of this Kingdome and this meerely by the Law of inferiour Courts as I have formerly remembred therefore this shall be sufficient Object Legislative power just There is one thing that scruples the mindes of Malignants much and that is That the Parliament have hitherto proceeded by a meere legislative power and not by the positive Lawes and
that they instance in the Case of the late Earle of Strafford Sol. To which I answer first That if they did so it were but just according to the Supreme power of that Court but to descend to our Adversaries and to search all the Foxes Holes that they may have no refuge I take it cleere that in the Case of the late Earle of Strafford they did proceed against him but according to the positive Lawes in respect of the Crime The Common law of this Realme is in force in Ireland and all statutes enacted before 10. H. 7. in this Realme are in force in Ireland vid. Poyninâ—â— ley though his triall might seeme somewhat differing for surely either by the Common Law or by the Statute of 25. E. 3. or by the Statute of 28. H. 6. as I remember a Statute made and enacted in the Kingdome of Ireland he was justly attainted of High Treason as for the Act of Attainder and the Proviso thereof that it should be no president for the future the meaning whereof I will open unto you hereafter certainely it was not for want of Crime or Delinquency as ignorant people and disaffected falsly say For a little to debate this particular in mine owne apprehension and no further because I have not lately seene this Act. Act vid. the act â—f Attainder of of the Earle of Strafford He was at first by Bill in the House of Commons Voted a Traitor which Bill was transmitted to the Lords for their concurrence therein but the Lords being doubtfull De jure not De facto as they were at the first in the Case of the late Prelate of Canterbury to wit whether he were guilty of high Treason by the Positive Lawes or no therefore for their satisfaction he was tryed in Westminster Hall per pares by his Peeres upon their Honour according to the course of the positive Lawes a L. Steward being appointed found guilty there of high Treason Upon these proceedings was the Act of Attainder drawne up wherein the Clause afore mentioned was inserted viz. That this Act of Attainder should be no president for the future which I conceive must be intended either in respect of the Triall or Judgement it selfe The Act or Judgement includes the triall or proceedings in law and although the clause should mention the Act and not the proceedings thereupon it is all one as if it had in sence of Law for the proceedings and the triall are included and involved in the Judgement and therefore the Act of Attainder or Judgement comprehends all depending thereupon Reverse a Judgement at Law you reverse all the proceedings without any mention of them therefore they are included Now the triall was unusuall for in the House of Commons he was tried in a Parliamentary way in the House of Peeres by the Common Law in Westminster Hall Further this Clause might have a retrospect unto the Act or Judgement for the Judgement was unusuall at least not necessary in this respect he was by the positive Lawes proceeded against Judgement might have been given against him by the Parliament which Judgement should have been entred into the Rolls of Parliament Vnto a Judgement by Statute all men are privie according to the course of other Courts of Justice but to be attainted by Act this was more full and satisfactory both to the offender and to others in this respect that all men are privie and consenting unto this Judgement either personally or representatively and therefore all men must rest satisfied but to returne to our former Discourse and not to detaine you any longer with mine owne fancy as some may say This I will confidently averre he was by the Law positive adjudged a Traitor for leavying warre in the Kingdome of Jreland His person here subject for offending against a positive law viz. 25. E. 3. as also for offending against a Statute there made viz. 2â— H. 6. and his possessions in both Kingdomes cleare liable by both statutes The Act of 25. E. 3. is in force in Ireland either by vertue of Poynings law or else by the ancient common law of England which is in force in Ireland 25 E. 3. is b t of the ancient common law declaratory Câ—m â—lees of the Crowne Tit. Treason Treason against the law against the very Law it selfe for he that goeth about to alter the Law or Governement or to oppose it in any hostile or compulsary way as it was proved manifestly he did is a Traitor within 25. E. 3. and leavieth warre against our Soveraigne Lord the King as the words of that Statute are for leavying warre against the Person of the King is included in the first branch of the Act of compassing or imagining the Kings death as the learned know therefore this Clause of leavying warre against the King if taken in the literall sence were not so necessary but because of some great authority in this particular which I have seene I will conclude that if taken in the sence against the the Person of the King yet it is also and most principally a leavying warre against the Lawes and Government a secret which ignorant people know not for they thinke no Treason can be but against the Person of the King now least any man being impeached of High Treason should claime the benefit of this Act which peradventure would prove inconvenient I conceive this clause for some of these reasons added unto this Act. But some will say That his ignorance of the offence Object and his good intentions to his Majesty and the State were a sufficient Apology the which he confirmed by his Speech unto the people at his death I answer If it were so admitted Sol. yet ignoruntia juris non excusat yea the meanest crime of the meanest person is not hereby extenuated in Law but this was a crime of an eminent person the highest offence in Law and of dangerous consequence All Courts of Justice have their Seales viz. C. B. Bleâ—oy this hath â—â—one but this Ergo. There are some Rights of Parliament yet behind as namely the attendance of the great Seale necessarily upon this Court their claime and disposition likewise of the Militia the Navy Forts and Magazins for the defence of the Kingdom as also of the great Offices of the Realme all these nor any of them being the Kings unboubted right Object as he claimeth them For to begin with the Militia which some may say hath been formerly debated in shewing his Majesties raising of Armies illegall and unwarrantable and therefore here it will be but repitition Sol. I answer if it were so yet this being a matter now controverted of so high consequence it should not seeme ungratefull Que repetita placent decies repetita placebunt but to dispossesse you of this fancy you shall finde it not so the discourse of it here you will finde in a larger notion though very briefe then before it was spoken of as
not grounded alwaies upon the positive Laws but upon intervenient accidents arising upon materiall circumstances of time place or other emergent causes which Orders are held by the Sages of the Law agreeable unto equity and Justice although no expresse Law to warrant the same In Chancery many crosse Orders the one to the other in a cause there depending yea almost seeming contradictory yet in Law and conscience justifiable and he that shall disobey those Orders is accounted a rebell unto the Law the King and his royall Government Jurisdiction of Courts title Parliament as appeareth by the Writ of Rebellion usually in those cases issuing and Sir Edward Coke affirmeth this power of Ordinance antiently pertaining to this high Court of Parliament And I know not but they may proceed to definitive Judgement in Causes notwithstanding any thing that hath been formerly spoken The Power of Parliament to proceed unto finall Judgement in case of wilfull absence of any the Judges of this Court paâ—alleld with this power in inferiour Court The Court full in Judgement of the law without those Judges which are wilfully absent if any Members of the Houses who are by Law Judges of this high Court shall refuse to discharge the trust committed unto them as the case now is and wilfully by absence or delinquency make themselves uncapable and unworthy of that great service for then I conceive it cleere that the Court is full in Judgement of Law without them and under favour there is no Law in point but the remaining Judges may proceed by the same authority For to examine a little the course of inferiour Courts of Law if any one or two of the Judges of the Kings Bench or Common Pleas shall obstinately recede from that Court and deny his attendance there for the publike shall not the residue of the Judges transact all matters there depending Certainely they may and further they ought so to doe And although for conveniency or conformity or to the end the Judgement may be the more unquestionable being confirmed by the greater number the weighty matters are agitated and determined in Plena curia for the most part yet I take it cleere in case of absence especially wilfull or obstinate the remaining Court may debate and finally sentence all matters incident to their jurisdiction Indeed in some particular cases the chiefe Justice or Judge hath formerly had the sole power as concerning Writs of Errour viz. that the warrant for the issuing out the Writ of Errour to the Chancery ought to be under the Teste of the chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench No judiciall but ministeriall acts by law transacted solely by any one Judge in inferiour Courts vid. Supâ—a but that Case or any of the like nature I conceive are only ministeriall but if a Writ be once returned in Court and so the Cause there depending no doubt the remaining Judges may judicially heare and determine Now if so in these lower Courts we cannot dis-affirme the same in this eminent Tribunall the Parliament the Court being the moddell and patterne of all other Courts the Gnomon that points out the course of the Sunne the course of Justice and equity to all the other Courts there being no brightnesse or lustre of Justice in inferiour Courts but resides more fully and more aboundantly in that high Court of Parliament So that I conclude the Parliament may make Ordinances Orders give Judgement and Sentence definitively in all matters whatsoever without the Kings personall presence or any of the Members of either Houses their absence being such as is formerly declared and that upon the reason of Law in these rivâ—lets of Justice their latitude of power and the superlative authority considered in themselves and in their course of prâ—ceedings being not so much as intended to be here mentioned but onely by way of comparison or resemblance of the Law in inferiour Courts to make things more conspicuous not any waies to dishonour this Court as if it should emendicare justitiam begge or borrow the rules of Justice from inferiour Courts who arâ— but tanquam ancâ—lle like handmaids to this Lady and Queene of Justice as also it is done ea intentione to informe vulgar capacities per notiora nobis by things even subject unto sence to the end they might if possible be satisfied I should now enter into the proofe of the violation of this priviledge almost forgotten by this digression namely the transacting of matters belonging unto this high Court by the new erect and pretended Parliament at Oxford a greater violation in this particular then if any inferiour Court of Justice in this Kingdome had assumed or arrogated this authority The Assembly at Oxford unwarrantable by law even in their Session much more in their proceedings because this Assembly at Oxford have not so much as any colour of Law to warrant even their Session much lesse their proceedings the matters there trans-acted and adjudged in derogation and dishonour of this high Court being so many and numerous as also the extrajudiciall arraignement of the Votes and proceedings of this Parliament but I thinke it is manifest to all the world and no man ignorant thereof The many and weighty Remonstrances Declarations and Ordinances of this high Court decâ—ared and pronounced null and void at Oxford and elsewhere by Declarations of his Majesty extrajudicially framed Much might be spoken herein with much sorrow and peradventure not without offence therefore I will desist and close up my meditations on this particular protesting nothing but the delivery of the truth with meekenesse and moderation and my soule is full of heavinesse and lamentation that ever so unhappy an occasion should be ministred â—eseeching God if it may stand with his Will and Pleasure to heale all our wounds and to reconcile all differences with peace There is another right of Parliament yet behinde which requires me not to be silent as being of all one of the chiefest by breach of which the Sword is gone through our Land Armies of men have been raised whereby not only violation of Lawes Rights and Justice but even the destruction of all is at hand unlesse God in his mercy prevent it In briefe we have seene great forces raised and maintained by the King without any Law or authority to warrant the same being as I suppose misinformed and unadvised herein The Priviledge or right of Parliament it being directly against the right and power of Parliament which is this That no Armies of men can he raised by the King or any subordinate authority under him but as the positive Law hath prescribed unlesse by consent of Parliament And here peradventure it will be expected I should speake of the Militia of the Kingdome The Milita absolute or generall Vid. infra as being a matter at this time of the highest concernement but I will referre it to a distinct debate by it selfe as you shall perceive hereafter in this discourse
point the Common Law formerly recited is still in force viz. That none are bound to attend the King in his Warres either within or without the Realme unlesse in case of sudden invasion unlesse by their Tenures if by their Tenures bound to attend him in forraine service as that is not cleerely granted yet you see no penalty ensues for default thereof unlesse the high Court of Parliament impose it a president of which Escuage assessed Service not compulsary in effect no service we have not had since 8. E. 2. no such service penall or compulsary without Parliament which is in effect as if you should say No such service at all without consent of Parliament But I will leave the Common Law I hope vindicated from all objections and come we to the Statute it selfe and that is that such number of Souldiers shall be imprest in all Counties of this Kingdome by the Committees for that purpose as shall be appointed by the King and both Houses of Parliament This is the substance of the Act if not the words and here you may see this Statute is tender of the ancient Birth-right and freedome of the subject for it reciteth it and withall maketh but a temporary provision for Ireland The statute for the releese of Ireland but temporary The Common Law onely in force for the Militia of thiâ— Kingdome against all persons except the high Court of Parliament Vi. infra which occasion ceasing the Common Law hath its force againe so that as to the Realme of England and elsewhere except Ireland the Common Law hath its force and is at present effectuall against all power and authority either of the King or Subject but only the supreme authority of Parliament Object But it may be hence objected that since this Act extends onely to Ireland therefore the Militia for the service of this Kingdome rests as it did before not within the letter or sence of this Act. Sol. Implication for sure the King would not have joyned in an Act if he might have done it legally before Object I answer if we should admit this which for Argument sake we onely doe there being something to be gathered by implication from the words of this Law touching the power of the Militiia as appertaining to the Parliament then the Common Law formerly recited must rule us and here it is said The Common Law That none shall be forced out of their Shires c. is intended without wages and therefore if they have pay or wages they may be legalâ—y compelled by the King to attend his service in the warres and so are the Statutes of 1 E. 3. 18. E. 3. and divers others and the opinion of that reverend Judge Thirninge in the time of H. 4. is so to be intended Sol. No Innuendo in private affairs much lesse in Acts of Parliament allowable I answer first if this should be granted it is a strange and dangerous way to expound Lawes and Statutes and to inlarge the meaning of the Law-makers with an Innuendo a thing not permitted even in private affaires much lesse to be allowed in generall and publike lawes viz. That they shall not be forced out of their Shires c. innuendo without wages by this course Lawes and Statutes shall be wrested and made a noâ—e of waxe capable of any forme or exposition but there is one great reason which will make this Objection but meere cavillation if I have not satisfie it already and that is this That one Session of Parliament viz. 1 E. 3. confirme and makes both these Lawes 1 E. 3. ca. 5. 1 E. 3. ca. 5.7 explained 18. H. 6. 19. 7. H. 7. 1 3. H. 8. 5â— recites the Common Law before remembred and confirmes it too 1 E. 3. ca. 7. and all other Statutes relating to this Law have these words or to this effect That Souldiers (a) Imprest viz. Forreine service not compâ—lsary by the law positive penall by authority of Parliament Vt supra 1 E. 3. ca. 7. may heâ— also intended of the Impressing that Militia that was not hereunto bound either by Tenuâ—e or Contract both branches of the Militia intended by this law legally raised or imprest 1 E. 3. ca. 7. intended most especially of that generall and more absolute power of the Militia not of the positive Militia viz. of those that were bound by Tenure c. imprest by the King (b) The word Commission in the statute of 1 E. 3. ca. 7. must be intended Commissioners derived from the authority of parliament not any oâ—her regall Commission so forreine service might be â—ompulsary even of those that weâ—e bound by their Tenures viz. by such Commissions Commission for Scotland or Gascoigne shall have wages Or forreine service f. 1. E. 3. 7. the one Statute is generall in the negative That they shall nor be forced out of their Shires either with wages or without as the sence is plaine to any rationaâ—l man The subsequent Law saith That the Kings souldiers shall have wages so that having wages allowed they may be compelled to serve Here seemes repugnancy or contradiction may be said To reconcile this and to manifest to the world the honour and wisedome of a Parliament notwithstanding any aspersion by the rule of law and reason you must make such exposition of any Law as in all parts may be operative and effectuall if it may be and that each Chapter of a Session of Parliament may have their genuine and proper operation why then these Statutes Ex visoâ—ribus actus an excellent way of expounding Statutes by comparing and conferring one Statute with the other are thus to be intended 1 E. 3. ca. 5. 7. Statutes differing in matter and substance viz. That 1 E. 3. ca. 5. and 7. are Statutes differing in matter and substance the one not having any relation to the other though they may so seeme upon the first view for 1 E. 3. ca. 5. extendeth onely to the Militia limited by the positive Lawes cap. 7. to the Militia imprest by authority of Parliament for forreine service which could not legally be dore without this authority as you have formerly heard and so the one doth not crosse or oppose the other which of necessity they must doe if other constructions be made for they treat of severall matters and the sence of Law makes a great disparity betweene them though there be a sound of words seeming otherwise so that 1 E. 3. ca. 7. is thus to be intended The Kings Souldiers going in forreine service shall have wages viz. The Kings souldiers legally raised by authority of Parliament and so there is no violence offered either to the letter or sence of either of these Lawes The power of the Militia to be implyed by the King in Forreine service with wages printed in Calvines Case denied for law That which is printed in Calvins Case a famous Case well knowne to Lawyers was but the
possession of any Castle or Fort. The Sheriffe hath his authority from the King viz. by Statute 9 E. 2. unto which the King hath assented to defend any Castle defencible with the Militia of the County therefore if the Sheriffe or any such like subordinate authority from the King hold a Castle defenceable it is in judgement and speech of Law the Kings possession of the same but of this sufficient For the great Offices The great Offices of the Kingdome the disposition of them did anciently belong unto the Parliament as their rights and that Master Lambard a learned Lawyer in his Archeion of the Courts of Justice testifieth whose words are these The great Offices anciently pertaining to the Parliament That the Keeper of the great Seale was wont to be elected by Authority of Parliament and he saith further That he had read that Ralph Nevill Bishop of Chichester being Chancellour to King H. 3. being Commanded refused to yeeld up his Seale unto the King when he required it affirming that as he had received it by the Counsell of the Realme so he would not without like warrant resigne it againe And in the daies of the same King it was told him by all his Lords spirituall and temporall That of ancient time the creation and disposition of the chiefe Justice the Chancellour and Treasurer belonged to the Parliament Thus farre Mr. Lambard Dr. Cowell also in his Booke called The Interpreter whom I nominate at this time as a Royalist in this yet he citeth a President in the time of King H. the 6. who directing his privie Seale to Richard Earle of Warwick thereby to discharge him of the Captaine-ship of Callis the Earle refused to obey and continued forth the said Office because he received it by Parliament and the inference of Cowell hereupon is false that either the King must be above his positive Lawes or else he is no absolute King for he is an absolute King though not above the Lawes for his Government were then meere Tyranny Vid. Dâ—vant f. 16. 6. also the Kings of this Nation are nor in that sence absolute Monarchies for this is a mixt Government partly Politicall partly Monarchicall as that worthy Knight Sir Thomas Smith in his Common Wealth of England affirmeth and this I have remembred before Further Sir Edward Coke in his Magna Charta f. 558 559. saith That anciently Offices either for the preservation of the Peace or execution of Justice because they concerned all the Subjects of the County were not disposed of by the King but by the Free-holders of the County chosen in every severall Shire by the Kings Writ now if it were so for the publke Offices of the County the same Law and reason telleth you that it must be so for the publike Offices of the Kingdome either it must rest in the people or their representative Body Object But it may be objected That Sir Edw. Coke saith in the samâ— place that the Statute before named of the 28 E. 1. is altered by 9 E. 2. and so this Office of the Sheriffe being a publikt Office for the preservation of the Peace and execution of Justice also is not in the Subject or their representative Body Sol. To which I answer shortly because it hath been formerly debated Altered not abrogated or â—ullified That Sir Ed. Coke is thus to be intended that it is altered partly as to the election of the Sheriffe in the Exchequer if the Judges pursue the same Statute and the Free holders of the County doe not elect before them and so that authority is good Law We must make such interpretation that every learned mans judgement may be honourably esteemed and be effectuall It likewise appeareth by the same Author that anciently the Conservators of the Peace or Justices of the Peace were chosen by the People and so are many Offices at this day the election of the Officers is by the Free-holders or people the Kings Writ issuing forth first for that purpose Vsage of no forcâ— against a statute or judiciall record Now what Law hath taken away those from the people or their representative Body Verily none that I know no act Judiciall or Record whereby the right of the Kingdome is expresly given away or if this did appeare No statute gives away the Subjects right expresly in the disposition of great Office or of the militia or if it should be granted that usage recorded in the Kings Case were sufficient yet in these particulars it will not give a right unto the King and if he hath time out of minde disposed of them yet this will not availe if by any matter of Record the right of the subject appeare as it doth by Statute Law before remembred and by legall authority Nota. then usage is invalid as the learned in the Lawes know The Act of 28 E. 1. settles the Militia in the subject as you have heard formerly here the right of the subject appeares the Forts Navie Castles and Magazines depend all upon the Militia either the absolute or generall power of the Militia or the Militia positive or regulated by the positive Lawes both which are by Law vested in the People or the representative Body the Parliament as you have heard formerly The great Offices of the Kingdome appeare by learned and legall authority afore mentioned in the Subject and their representative Body both in right and in disposition What shall I say more if this be not sufficient to make the Subjects right cleare in this particular Prescription of no force against â— statute Then although the King hath by usage almost gained a perpetuity in them yet this will not serve no prescription or use will be of force against a Statute or judiciall Record for that is proofe to the contrary as the Law saith And the Kings Case is all one with the Subjects in this Regall use is of no force against a Statute or judiciall Record for as the rule of Law is true Nullum tempus occurrit Regi prescription is not good against the King in many Cases so it is as true Nullum tempus occurrit legi no usâ—ge or prescription is of any effect either in the Kings Case or Subject against the Law appearing by Statute or judiciall Record and I hope no man will say but that the Rolls of Parliament are judiciall Records Vsage of no force against claimes and interruptions besides our legall Annals or Bookes Further if usage shauld be admitted yet here have been divers clamours and interruptions of Parliament yea dispositions by them of those great Offices and those other particulars and then necessarily usage is not of force as the Law saith for the Parliament claimes unto the great Offices of the Kingdome yea their disposition of them from time to time I have spoken of before as also of the Subjects disposition of the Militia Vsage gaines no inheritance or right of claime or
interruption or their representative Body for it cannot appeare that the King hath by disposition of them time out of minde gained any inheritance in them in the right as we say but that there have been Claimes and disturbances by the Subject or their representative Body and then usage necessarily is of no force Object Before I conclude this particular I will answer one Objection that happily may be made touching the Militia and that is this Pleas of the Crowne f. 9. that Sir Edw. Coke saith That no man can leavie Warre within the Realme without authority from the King for to him it onely belongeth Sol. I answer because the authority is great that his legall or politick capacity may be very well here intended Authority from the King intendâ— his legall or politick capacity not his personall or naturall and not his personall and so the authority of every Court of Justice is the Kings authority the words De mandato nostro in the Writ of Melius inquirendum upon a former Office defective are intended not the Kings Personall Command but his Command by Writ issuing out of a Court of Justice so the authority of the King is in this place meant his legall authority not his Personall which every Court of Justice specially upon Record is invested withall In a literall sence the Sheriffes aâ—thority is the Kings authority Also the subordinate authority of the Sheriffe as also of every Court of Justice is the Kings authority even in the literall sence for the Sheriffe and Judges of the Court of Justice are authorized by â—he Kings Letters Patents Also they that have their Authority by Acts of Parliament as the Sheriffe hath have their authority from the King No man c. purport thus much no man of hiâ— own private authority Legall authority the Kings authority for are not all Acts perfected and confirmed with the Royall assent So that these words before specified viz. no man c. purport plainly thus much No man of his owne private authority without legall authority which is the Kings imediate authority can leavie War within this Realme Nota. If you should make other construction you nullifie the positive Lawes and even the legal course of Justice and Government So that we may safely conclude I hope upon the premisses that the Subjects right and consequently of their representative Body to dispose of the Militia and of the great Offices of the Kingdome remaineth yet undoubted even at this day These things have been judiciously debated and at large by a learned gentleman very well knowne Note that all the statutes touching this high point of the Militia are warily and cautiously penned not one law that in expresse words or by any sound Collection or inferences settles it in the King personally those statutes that the King make use of and which mention tâ—e military service due unto the Regall Dignity are in generall termes and may very well be with relation to the positive lawes precedent as 11 H 7. ca. 1.5 H. 4. 1 E. 3. ca. 5. None of them can be intended of the generall or absolute power of the militia but of that part of the Militia that is by the positive lawes limited for if otherwise you must by such construction nullifie all the positive lawes proceedâ—ng Nota. Vid. ante therefore of this sufficient You that are now learned and wise be not seduced with errour pause a while and consider with moderation what is become of the Regall power viz. the Kings personall power such as you would have it in the Militia of this kingdome That which the King will not part withall no not for any time be it to his Wife or Children so neare and deare it is unto him and of so high consequence as he professeth There are but two branches of the Militia the one generall and more absolute the other speciall and limited by the positive Lawes as you have heard For the generall and more absolute power over the Militia it is apparent to be inherent of ancient right in the high Court of Parliament onely I thinke the premisses duly considered no rationall man will deny it for the other part of the Militia limited by the positive Lawes you have heard it is vested in the Kings Ministers the Judges and great Officers of Justice by the positive Lawes not in the King personally considered What is then become of the great Commission of Array which clearely claimeth and useth both these powers of the Militia What are Armies of men raised by these illegall meanes You have heard formerly in this discourse what they are I should be sorry to repeat it The supreme Moderator of all things will one day Judge these exorbitancies I will say no more Object There is one yet great Objection of those that are curious and hard to be satisfied it is somewhat darke and Enigmaticall to the ignorant and that is That Armes are taken up against the King by the Parliament they leavie War against his Person an Act in it selfe impious and by the Divine or Humane Law in no wise warranted Sol. To which I answer That this Allegation is false and untrue there is no force or violence offered or intended to be offered against the person of the King we conceive his person onely free from the Sword By the Divine law the regall person differenced from the regall power but if you take his person for his power raised by him coagmentative there we differ from you for by the Law Divine whether his person and power raised by him illegally be together confounded and not distinguished or whether Tyranny or abused Authority shall be said to be the Ordinance of God and so not to be disobeyed I will not meddle in the decision thereof though I take it cleare they shall not for goe to the very Etymology of the word Ordinance mentioned frequently in the Scriptures of God and so much insisted upon by the other part that it ought not to be resisted it is plaine it is derived Ab ordine from order wisedome and judgement the shadowes of the Divine essence which is an eternall Law of admirable wisedome even to it selfe and is the Primum mobile and originall of all Order and Law to the Creature Now in Tyranny and abused Authority there is nothing but folly and madnesse as I may so say the authours of disorder and confusion and surely if the Lawes of man be called Ordinances for this reason before mentioned What shall we thinke of the Law of God Whatsoever is by this Law appointed is wisedome and judgement in the abstract 1 Sam ca. 8. That place of Scripture which you wrest by mis-interpretation for the purposes warrants no such matter This shall be the manner of the Kings saith Samuel to the people They shall take your Sonnes and your Daughters they shall take your Fields your Vineyards and give them to their servants Render the
words viz. this shall be the right of the Kings c. From this place of Scripture make you Tyranny the right of Kings for so some of you tender the words and so Ex consequenti the Ordinance of God is Mos Regis jus Regis Is it the right of Kings because the Act of Kings then Murther Adultery c. are the right of Kings and the Ordinance of God so God himselfe is made the Author of all wickednesse a most impious and detestable opinion Yea doth not the practice of the Kings of Israell manifest the same Did Ahab take away Naboths Vineyard as his right without any further proceedings Did he not by pretence and colour of Law take away his life and Vineyard Did he not suborne Witnesses against him This man blasphemeth God and the King was he not much perplexed troubled in minde at Naboths deniall All these things surely had not been if it had been lawfull for Ahab to have taken his Vineyard from him yea what saith God unto him for this Hast thou killed and also taken possession Is this Divine approbation Are either of these Acts allowed or not plainly reproved hast thou taken possession implyeth clearely that Ahab taking Naboths Vineyard was not Gods Ordinance or Law but the wicked abuse of Divine authority Further I conceive upon the Acts of David and Elisha mentioned in the Scriptures it is lawfull to resist Tiranny and abused authority yea that it is lawfull to oppose the Regall power Distinction of the regall person and the regall power by the law of this Realme though not the Regall Person but to leave these things to those that are learned in Theology we will search a little the Lawes of the Kingdom Doe not our Lawes make the same distinction betweene any power ilâ—egally raised by the King and his Person May not the one be lawfully resisted not the other Hath not the Law appointed the Militia of the Kingdome to suppresse any Ryots illegall Assemblies yea though commanded by the King I suppose that may be made a parent enough for put the case that numbers of people being Insidiatores viarum agrorum depopulatores gaine the Person of the King yea his protection under the great Seale Object shall not the Magistrates and Ministers of the Law execute the Law against these persons notwithstanding the King be present with them Sure they may and ought But peradventure you wil say This case is nothing to our purpose they that have now adheared to the King are good Subjects no Delinquents as your instance formerly imports Sol. I answer the reason of the Law is the same in both Cases yea they are delinquents in both Cases that take up Armes without lawfull authority and further they are Traitors also though they aide and assist the Kings person as you may perceive by the former discourse but I will exp laâ—e the Law a little further in this particular 2 E. 3. 8. 14. E. 3. ca. 14. There are two or three severall Statutes in the Raigne of E. 3. and of other Kings of England containing these words or to this effect That the Judges or the Kings Justices shall not delay to doe justice and right yea they are commanded so to doe even in the Kings Case notwithstanding the King by his great Seale or Privie Seale command the contrary But we then the case that the great Seale is sent to stay the course of Justice and the Meâ—seâ—gers thereof be numbers of armed men shall not the Justices oppose this illegall power Shall they not apprehend these persons as Rebels unto the State and Government if they shall attempt the execution of this regall command by force or violence nay The King by divers statutes disabled to raise any Armies of men or to come in any hostile manner to disturbe justicâ— I conceive they are subjâ—ct unto great and severe censure if not Capitall for appearing in Armes in disturbance of justice although they offer no force or violence at all but deliver their Message to the Court. And is it not apparent that these persons shall be empeached as offenders Conâ—ra coronam dignitatem Regis These men Traitors by law though the King present with them f â—n any hostile way they execute his illegal command or indeavour the same notwithstanding the Kings Seale yea if the King shall be present with them this will not aâ—ter the Case the Judges are to execute the â—aw in the Kings name against them and further to pronounce them Traitors if in forceable or hostile manner they shall endeavour to interrupt or hinder the power and authority of the Law here you see the distinction which the Law makes betwixt the Regall person and the regall power Nota. The Kings person not criminous by law and the reason The Kings person is subiect to no debility or imperfection in judgement of Law and therefore no crime or offence can be incident to his person witnesse the Attainder of King H. 7. before he was King resolved by all the Judges that Ipso facto by attaining the regall dignity all attainders of Treason or any other offence were purged and that there needed not any reversall of them in Law and this appeareth in the legall Annals of the said King you may plainly perceive the Kings person uncapable of crime by the Law of this Land his person is sacred and not to be touched with violence yea the Law medleth not at all with his person as being innocent of all crime Regall imputation as to any legall imputation but the power of the King Nota. in what condition it stands you may easily see Which Henry the 7. wisely fore-seeing procured that Act 11 H. 7. ca. 1. before mentioned to exempt the attendants of his person as also of his successors from impeachment knowing that by Law they might become offenders although they followed his person in the Warres and did him true and faithfull service for the defence of the King and the Land The true reason why this act of 11 H. 7. ca. 1. was made because his Title unto the Crowne as the times then were might not prove firme for if his Title by Marriage should have failed Nota. as even the state of Princes is subject unto humane casualty then his attendants in the Warres upon his Person should be in danger of judgement as being raised without lawfull authority so as by this Act if a Perkin Warbecke should attaine the regall dignity lawfully Lawfull viz. by consent of the Realme by authority of Parliament his Attendants in the Warres were by this Act free from impeachment if they declined not from their duty of Allegiance in this Statute mentioned which by Law had not been so if this Act had not made this speciall provision Now you may view plainly the Kings Person and his Power distinguished also you may see in the exposition of this Statute formerly mentioned the same
in Fayres or Markers is the forfeiture of their Armour and theâ—r boâ—y imprisonable by 2. E. 3. ca. 3. 2 E. 3. ca. 3. and yet to evill intention appeares and so are other Statures that no man shall goe or ride armed upon penalties of Fire and Imprisonment except the Kings Ministers in doing their Office and I take it these Statutes last mentioned The King â—â—niall servants are here onely intended his â—â—nisters of Justice are specially here named by themselve Vi. infra though ancient are still in force Indeed the Kings servants are there spoken of in one of these Statutes and withall there are these words subsequent in presence of the King so that the Kings servants in his preseâ—â—e may goe or ride arâ—ed but those either for their paucity were not then nor are now considerable or otherwise they were inabled in those times of danger for the preservation of the Peace and the Kings Person against disturbers thereof By the ancient Law and Custome of the Parliament a Proclamation ought to be made in Westminster Hall That no man upon paine to lose all that he hath should during the Parliament in London Westminster or the Suburbs thereof weare any privie Coate of Plate or goe armed and the reason hereof was That the Parliament should not be disturbed nor the Members thereof who are to attend the arduous and urgent businesse of the Church and Common Wealth should not be withdrawne from their service Thus you see how tender the Law is of any Warlike appearance What shall we then thinke of great numbers of men in a Warlike Assembly armed not in London Westminster and the Suburbs thereof but even at the doores of the Parliament environing the House of Commons as it was since the Commencement of this Parliament Object But it is urged That the King is compelled to raise an Army for his owne necessary defence his Royall Person Honour and Estate all which are now endangered and exposed even to ruine and destruction Sol. Admit the truth of these aspertions unquestionable Who shall be Judges of these dangers and the inevitable necessity of raising an Army Surely no particular or private persons No particular person The Clergy no Judge no not the Clergy themselves who have in these unhappy times some few onely excepted broken downe the wall of partition and separation I meane have intruded upon the Civill Government and have obtruded upon the People in their Writings and Sermons those Positions and Maximes which admitted would shake if not ruine the very basis and foundation of this famous Government The King nâ—â—udge or at least no sole Judge Many they are which I could here mention but I conceive it done out of ignorance being not willing to discover errours as I hope not wilfully committed Nay the King himselfe cannot be the sole Judge so hath it been declared and adjudged in a like Case the very same in Law and reason this Parliament in a full Session when the King and all the Members were then present in M. Hampdens Case concerning Ship-money where the Opinion of the Judges The King no sole Judge of the danger of the Realme together with the Judgement given in the Exchequer Chamber That the King was sole Judge of the danger of the Kingdom of suddaine invasion of Enemies or the like and might compell his subjects to provide ships for so long time as he should thinke meet whereby the subject was forced to contribute great summes of money was reversed damned and sentenced as erronious and illegall destructive to the liberty of the subject and contrary to the Fundamentall Lawes of this Realme Now if any man shall say Object It is for the defence of the Kings Person and that even the Lawes of Nature and reason warrant and surely the Lawes of this Kingdome repugne not the Lawes of Nature and reason Sol. I answer that the Lawes of this Realme provide sufficiently for the Person of the King and for the security thereof it being high Treason by Law to compasse or imagine by any overt Act the destruction of the King although not effected not so in the Case of the subject Further if you consider him according to the Law of Nature then the case is no more but as the Case of a private man or person who may Vim vi repellere even by 2 multitude of persons King intends the politicke capacity not the naturall But our Inquisition at this time is not in this capacity but our question is of a King constituted by Law and the policy of man and therein that capacity he can doe no more then what the Law doth warrant Id Rex potest quod de jure potest and therefore you see an end of this objection Then to revert to our Discourse by Law it seemes the Parliament are the Eyes of the Body Politick The King no Judge or no sole Judge in Parliament by the law of inferiour Courts proved and are the onely great Counsell of the King and Kingdome whereof the King is the head and they are to Judge of all dangers to the King or Realme and the King himselfe is not the Judge and we see it is so in all other Courts of Justice the King Judgeth not nor medleth at all either in matters concerning himselfe or any other there being Judges by Law appointed for that purpose by whose Wisedom the King seeth discerneth discovereth redresseth all errours grievances or injuries private or publike particular or generall how then can the King be sole Judge in this Case of the necessity of raising an Army although it were in his owne just defence without his Great and High Court of Parliament approve of the same Is not this a violation of the Law and Government established Ought not they at leastwise to concurre in judgement before any such Forces or Armies of men can be raised and this onely by the Law of inferiour Courts The consideration hereof being of such high concernement that the proceedings and actions of all other matters seeme in comparison hereof not at all materiall nay if the King might be sole Judge in this Case although the danger reall and just this mischiefe and inconvenience would follow Great mischiefe and inconvenience of the King should be sole Judge viz. of the danger of the Realme That the King in an Act of such high consequence for the generall good contrary to his actions and proceedings in all other Courts even in matters of least moment as is before mentioned might upon surmise or suggestion of danger to his Royall Person without any further consultation with his high Court of Parliament raise and maintaine an Army of men how numerous soever and justifie the same as warranted by the Lawes of this Realme to the great impoverishment of the subject and not without great perill that I say no more even to the very Principles of this well compacted government Shall we imagine such a