claime any right interest or authority but such as He is intitled unto by the Common Law by Particular Custome or by Act of Parliament In the next place it is shewed when the two Houses were Instituted and what is a Parliament CHAP. II. What is a Parliament and how and when the two Houses were Instituted AS it is necessary for a Common-wealth to have a Law so every known law must be grounded upon certain rules Therefore be it composed with never so much care the people cannot be well governed unlesse some persons have power in some things to alter the old and make new Laws Emergent occasions are oft such as require raising mony and other things to be done which the prescribed rules of a known Law cannot warrant which persons so authorized to make Laws in this Nation are called the Parliament And that those Persons at this time consist of the King and both Houses joyntly is a thing most obvious to all men but how long it hath been so is uncertaine For although all the Sages of the Law and judicious Historians agree and therwith reason it self concurreth that ever since we have had Lawes some persons have had power in some things to alter and make new Lawes which might properly be called a Parliament yet untill long after the Norman Conquest I doe not finde it cleared what was a Parliament or what Persons had that power But upon perusall of the Statutes themselves which I conceive in this case to be the best proof I confesse I am much inclined to believe that untill the Raigne of King Edward 1. there was not any formed body or known persons whom the King was obliged to summon unto a Parliament for the making of Lawes wherein I shall begin with the first Law of that nature which at this day binds the people And therein we cannot goe beyond the ninth year of the Raigne of King Henry 3. that of Magna Charta being the first upon serious perusall of which Act the Charter of the Forrest and the Statute of Ireland enacted the same year by the words thereof I am induced to believe although doubtlesse with the consent of divers of His Subjects that they were made by the sole power of the King In the Preamble of the Statute of Merton made 20. Hen. 3. are these words viz. It is provided in the Court of our Soveraigne Lord the King holden at Merton before William Arch-bishop of Canterbury and others His Bishops and Suffragans and before the greater part of the Earls and Barons of England there being Assembled for the Coronation of the King and His Queen about which they were all called where it was Treated for the Common-wealth of the Realme And then were made diverse Acts of Parliament By which it clearly seemes to me That the Persons consenting to the Lawes then made were not summoned to a Parliament but to the Kings Court and not called to make Lawes but to solemnize the Coronation of the King and His Queene Those Treated with Bishops Earls and Barons not the Commons nor all the Bishops Earles and Barons only such as the King thought fit to be present at His and His Queenes Coronation And none of them called by Writ Likewise in the Preamble of the Statute of Marlbridge made 52 Hen. 3. are these words viz. For the better Estate of this Realme as it behoveth the Office of a King the more discreet men of the Realme being called together as well on the higher as on the lower estate c. So that to this Parliament it seemes only such Lords and other discreet men of the Common-wealth such as the King thought fit were summoned But in the Preamble of the Statute of Westminster first made 3 Edw. 1. are these words viz. These are the Acts of King Edw. 1. by His Councell and by assent of Arch-bishops Bishops Abbotts Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realme being thither summoned because our Soveraign Lord the King had great desire and zeal to redresse the State of the Realme By which it appears that to the making of Lawes at this time there was a great and generall concurrence for besides Arch-bishops Bishops Abbotts Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty the Kings Councell gave their advice therein and consented thereunto But by subsequent Acts of Parliament it seemes to me such a generall Assembly was not necessary For in the Statute of Bigamy made the next year being 4 Edw. 1. are these words viz. In the presence of certaine Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Councell as well the Justices as others did agree they should be put in writing for a perpetuall memory And 6 Edw. 1. The King and His Justices made an exposition of certaine of the Articles upon the Stat. of Glocester In the Preamble of the Statute of Mortmaine are these words viz. We therefore intending to provide convenient remedy by the advise of our Prelats Earles Barons and other our Sujbects being of our Councell have provided c. In the Preamble of the Statute called Articuli super Chartas it it thus expressed viz. Forasmuch as the Articles of the Great Charter hath not been observed because there was no punishment upon the Offenders c. our Lord the King at the request of His Prelats Earles and Barons Assembled in Parliament hath enacted certaine Articles c. In the Statute of Eschetors made at Lincolne 29 Edw. 1. are these words viz. At the Parliament of our Soveraign Lord the King by His Councell it was agreed and also commanded by the King Himself That from thenceforth it should be observed and done according to the advice of the Reverend Father William Langton Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield and Treasorer to the King John Langton then being Chancellour and other of the Councell then being present before the King c. By these Acts it still seemes to me That both for the Lords and for the Commons as the King pleased sometimes were called more sometimes fewer sometimes part of the Commons sometimes all and somtimes none of them yet the power one and the same for at all the times aforesaid severall Statutes were made which to this day binde the people equall to any Act of Parliament made since Whereupon I conceive that the two Houses of Parliament were not originally composed with the beginning of the Law for as by the aforesaid Acts of Parliament it doth appear in the Raign of King Edw. 1. being the ninth King after the Conquerour and in time above two hundred years from the Conquest all which space we were governed by the same Law we now have there was not any formed Body known Persons or Assembly whose consent was necessary to joyne with the King to make an Act of Parliament but it seems that when the King conceived it fit to make a Law He called to Him such of His Subjects either
s'avisera that is He will advise whether to confirme them or not It seemes to me strange to conclude thereupon Ergo the two Houses may make Laws without Him that is plainely a non sequitur but it doth directly imply that the King hath election to make it a Law or no Law else it were in vaine for Him to advise upon it And the words of King Rich 2. admitting that story to be true saying He conceived Himselfe bound by His Oath to consent unto that Law shewes first that it was in His power to consent or not to consent secondly that the Members could not do it without Him thirdly that it was only an obligation upon His Conscience And that He because He conceived it to be a just Law thought Himself tied in conscience to confirme it Upon the whole matter clear it is admitting the King to have taken an Oath in the words mentioned by the Members it rather proves the Kings power of a negative Voice then disproves it But the Members I am confident know that the King neither did nor was oblieged to take the aforesaid Oath The King pursuing former presidents recorded in the Exchequer tooke the Oath in words and according to the Ceremony as followeth viz. After the Sermon is done the King ariseth and goeth to the Altar and there the Archbishop administreth these questions And the King Answereth Bishop Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirme to the people of England the Laws and Customes to them granted by the Kings of England your Lawful Religious Predecessors And namely the Laws Customes and Franchizes granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customes of the Realme King I grant and promise to keep them Bishop Sir will you keep peace and godly agreement intirely according to your power both to God the holy Church the Clergy and the people King I will keep it Bishop Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your Judgements King I will Bishop Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightfull customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have And will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lieth King I grant and promise so to doe Then one of the Bishops reads this admonition to the King before the people with a loud voice Our Lord and King we beseech you to pardon and to grant and to preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our Charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice And that you would protect and defend us as every good King in His Kingdomes ought to be protector and defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their government King With a willing and devoute heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your Charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice And that I will be your protector and defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in His Kingdome in right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the people to observe the premises And laying His hand upon the Booke saith The things which I have before promised I shall performe and keep so help me God and by the Contents of this Booke Now for the King to oblish Episcopacy to destroy the whole Government of the Church established by Law for the King so far as in Him lies to transfer unto His Subjects that regall power which is inherently in His Person to change the Monarchicall Government into a confusion to reduce his Subjects being a freeborne people unto a perpetuall slavery under their equals and fellow Subjects certainly cannot stand with this Oath All which in the proposals made to Him by the Members nay more and worse then words can expresse is required and by most Barbarous and inhumane cruelties attempted to be forced from Him Now having done with this Oath I shall proceed further to examine the legality of the Members doctrine to exclude the King from His negative Voice It is an undoubted maxime in every Law that no Person Court or Assembly can Act or do any thing concerning the publike affaires of the Kingdome or Common-wealth without Commission which stands with all the reason in the world else it followeth that every one hath equall power to make Laws Act and do what he thinks fit And by the constitutions of this Realme every Person Court or Assembly must derive its authority by one of these wayes viz. by the Kings grant by Act of Parliament or by custome and use if by the Kings grant the Patent it selfe declares the persons authorised if by Act of Parliament the Statute names the men if by custome and use that use and custome is their Commission For example if the King by His Commission authorize twenty persons or any ten of them whereof A. B. or C. to be one to determine a felony if seventeen of the twenty in the absence of A. B. and C. execute that Commission all their proceedings are void as done without Commission seventeen strangers not named in the Commission might as well act therein as they And if the Commission be by Act of Parliament none can execute that Commission but those authorized by the Statute And the like holds when custome and use is the Commission unlesse that custome and use warrant the persons to act it is done without authority and so void Then for the point in question The Members of the two Houses have no grant from the King nor is there any Act of Parliament to enable them to make Laws nor doth custome warrant it For untill this Parliament they never made Law without and against the Kings consent nor claimed power so to do But say the Members in the foresaid Declaration If there be not an agreement between His Majesty and His Parliament either His Majesty must be Judge against His Parliament or the Parliament without His Majesty for say they that question whereupon the safety of the Kingdome depends must not be undetermined And say they if His Majesty against His Parliament why not as well of the necessity in the question of making a Law without and against their consent as of denying a Law against their desire and advise The Judge of the necessity say they in either case by like reason is Judge in both Besides say they if His Majesty in this difference of opinions should be Judge He should be Judge in His owne case But the Parliament should be Judge between His
with the King then they tell us that the question concerning their right thereof having been long and sadly debated both in black and red battles God himselfe hath given the verdict upon their sides meaning if their words have any sense that by their prevailing against the King in that war God hath judged the cause for them and against the King But who sees not this to be a presamptuous blasphemy added to the sin of Rebellion did not this bold hypocrisie as aptly sute with the actions of Ket Cade Wat Tyler and all fore-going Rebels Certainly as long as any Traytor murderer or felon can defend himselfe from the just triall and sentence of the Law it is as easie and upon as just grounds for him to appeale to God for justification of his fact as these Members do now call Him to witnesse for them So that the consequence to the people of England which followeth the excluding the King from His negative Voice in Parliament is no lesse then the losse of that happy condition of a free Subject governed by a knowne Law under a King and in being reduced to the slavery of an arbitrary power under their equals and fellow subjects Therefore all the people of England do generally disclaime the foresaid Members to be their representatives and refuse to submit unto their Orders or Ordinances Upon the whole matter these things appear that the Parliament of England consisteth of the King the Lords House and the Commons House joyntly concurring that every one of them hath a negative Voice in making Laws and consequently all Orders and Ordinances or whatever they may be stiled whereunto the King hath not or shall not voluntarily without compulsion give His Royall Assent are done without Commission warrant or Authority and so not binding King or people In the next Chapter is shewed the power of the Parliament of England CHAP. IV. That the King the Lords House and the Commons House concurring have not an unlimited power to make Laws it being in the brest of the Judges of the Realme to determine which Acts of Parliament are binding and which void and to expound the meaning of every Act. IT may seeme strange to some that the high Court of Parliament should be limited in their power and deny to expound their own Laws But upon consideration had of the use of a Parliament and of the grounds of the Laws of England it appears to be both just and consonant to the Constitutions of this Realme The People of this Nation are not governed by a Parliament Soveraignty is the Kings yet the King Himselfe hath not an absolute or an unlimited power over the people For as the people are governed by and under Him so the Law directs how He is to governe them But in this Nation as in every Common-wealth governed by a setled Law occasions oft happen to do such things as the rules of that Law cannot warrant Therefore necessary it is to have a power to supply those defects and that is the office and true use of a Parliament Which authority rightly considered is of such concernment to the Common-wealth as that the greatest care in the world ought to be had who are trusted therewith It is no lesse then a power to change that Law whereby the people have protection of life and fortune and therefore may require the consent of such persons as are not rightly qualified to judge which Laws are binding and which void or to expound the meaning thereof Upon that ground it is that by the constitution of this Realme no new Law can be made or the old changed but by the King with the assent of the two Houses of Parliament Those persons as before appears are proper to judge when such things have happened as may require the making of a new Law or to alter the old But without derogation from the honour of those persons That body is not of a mould fit to judge which Statutes are binding which void or to expound the meaning of an Act. First cleere it is Acts of Parliament may be so penned and containe such matter as ought not to binde either King or people Suppose it enacted that from henceforth the Members of the two Houses shall be exempt from punishment for Treason Murder Felony and other Crimes Or that the King and the two Houses from time to time shall consent to make such Laws as a close Committee or certaine persons by name shall conclude upon or that every Act of Parliament afterwards made shall be void and the like no man can conceive such Acts would be binding for thereby the true use of Parliaments the Law and government were destroyed Besides all men grant that an arbitrary power is absolutely destructive to the people And it appears in the next precedent Chapter that to give this unlimited authority of making Laws to the King alone or to either or both Houses without the King were no other then to bring upon the people that thraldome Now for this boundlesse power to be in the King and the two Houses joyntly although that were nothing so bad as to have it in the King alone or in either or both Houses without the King yet the people were not thereby so wel secured from the tyranny of an arbitrary power as when the Judges determine which Acts of Parlliament are binding and which void Upon perusall of former Statutes it appears the Members of both Houses have been frequently drawne to consent not onely to things prejudiciall to the Common-wealth but even in matters of greatest waight to alter and contradict what formerly themselves had agreed unto and that even as it happened to please the fancy of the present Prince witnesse that Statute by which it was enacted that the Proclamations of King H. 8. should be equivalent to an Act of Parliament one other Act which declared both Queen Mary and Queen Eliz. to be bastards one other which in words gave power to the same King to dispose of the Crowne of England by his last will and testament And the severall Statutes in the times of King H. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Mary and Queen Eliz. setting up and pulling downe each others Religion every one of them condemning even to death the professour of the contrary Religion And now reflecting upon the proceedings of the present Members we finde they have de facto arrogated unto themselves in the highest straine a power arbitrary It is likewise too evident with what terrors menaces and inhumane cruelties they presse their Soveraigne to passe Acts of Parliament for confirmation thereof Doubtlesse had they not met with a King even beyond humane expectation most magnanimous it had been effected And suppose this Kings consent had been obtained or that He or any other succeeding King shall be drawne by force or fraud to consent thereunto and admit such Acts of Parliament to bind it will follow that no Government can be more arbitrary
when the Law is only declared by Act of Parliament If the King and the two Houses declare that it is not by the Common Law of England Treason to kill or to attempt to kill the King the Queen or Prince or that it is not felony to steale or the like such declarations are of no effect they ought not they do not they cannot conclude the Judges And as every Statute may be judged by them whether it be binding or void so the meaning of the words thereof must be by the Judges expounded too It is the true sense which is the Law not the bare letter and this exposition is likewise the office of the Judges as is said before For example by a Statute made 1 Eliz. it is enacted that all leases made afterwards by any Bishop of his Church-lands exceeding 21. years or three lives shall to all intents and purposes be judged void and yet it hath been adjudged both in the Kings Bench and in the Common Pleas that a lease for an hundred years is not void against that Bishop himselfe who was lessor wherein the Judges expound the meaning of the Law-makers to be thus that their intent was onely for the benefit of the Successours not to releive any man against his owne Act therefore such leases made after the Statute exceeding twenty one years or three lives are voidable only by the successours if they please and adjudged not void against the lessour himselfe contrary to the expresse words of the Statute And in like manner are other infinite Acts of Parliament expounded by the Judges wherein it is a maxime in Law that their exposition of Statutes ought to be according to the rules of the Common Law by which it appears the Members are not the interpreters for they know not the rules of the Law Besides the Parliament cannot be the finall expounders of Statutes for these reasons 1. It appears before that it is not the bare letter but the true sence and meaning of the words which is the Law And the King and the two Houses cannot declare the meaning of those words but by Act of Parliament they cannot saith our Law otherwise speake what ever they Act or doe in any other way is extrajudiciall if the King and both Houses unanimously deliver an opinion without reducing it to an Act of Parliament concerning the meaning of a former Statute it is of no more nor greater force or effect then for the Judges of a Court of judicature to give their opinions in a point of Law in a case not judicially depending before them such an opinion binds not nor is pleadable in a Court of Justice And besides the absurd inconvenience and the impossibility to have an Act of Parliament to determine every question arising upon Statutes it may so happen as that the King and the two Houses can never give an end to one controversie For example suppose an Act be made to explaine the meaning of former Statute ambiguously penned the words of this Act must have a meaning too and may admit of severall interpretations as well as the former Act did and severall persons as they are therein concerned may differ in the exposition thereof and so irreconcileable as not to be ended without the authority of a Judge and this may fall out upon every Act of explanation upon explanation in infinitum and consequently by that way there cannot to the end of the world be a finall determination of the difference 2. The validity of every Statute and the exposition thereof at the will of every person concerned may regularly be brought before the Judges of the Law but cannot judicially depend before the Parliament For example every Statute is binding or void if binding it concerns the Subject in his person or estate and when it is put in execution the ministers or actors therein may at the will of him interrupted thereby be sued in the Court of Common Pleas or in some other Court of Justice by an action of trespasse by which suite what ever the Act of Parliament is both the validity of the Statute and the meaning of the words thereof is submitted to the Judges of that Court and to their judgement As suppose this case to arise upon the foresaid Statute of 23 H. 6. that one who hath continued Sheriff above one year by vertue of a Writ directed to the Sheriff of the same County doth arrest the body of A. who for this brings his action of trespasse in the Common Pleas in which the Sheriff justifies by vertue of the Writ A. replies pleads the Statute and shewes that the year was ended before the arrest upon which the Sheriff demurs in Law by these pleadings the whole fact is confessed on both sides the Sheriff doth acknowledge his year was out before the arrest and A. confesseth the arrest was by vertue of the Kings Writ directed to the Sheriff and so the question being matter of Law it is to be determined by the Judges of that Court wherein the sole doubt is whether that Statute be binding or void for if binding judgement ought to be given for the plaintife A. because the Statute being good the defendant was not Sheriff after his year ended when he made the arrest and so had no authority if void it ought to be given for the Sheriff for then the Law is not by it altered and so he was Sheriff at the time of the arrest although his year was out Now in this case no man can deny but that the Judges must give judgement else the Court of Common Pleas which were absurd to imagine hath not power to determine an action of trespasse and judgement being given as in this case it ought to be for the Sheriff because it is already resolved and received for a knowne truth that the foresaid Statute binds not the King this duty of the Subject to serve the King in person saith the booke being due by the Law of nature cannot be severed by Act of Parliament it is finall And so if it were enacted that a Member of the Commons House or any other subject by name should not be condemned or punished for murder who afterwards commits the fact for which being arraigned at the Kings Bench bar he pleades the Statute the Judges even against the expresse words and intent of that Act ought to give sentence of death And contrariwise if by Act of Parliament it were enacted that all Pardons for felony to be granted by the King should be judged void after which a subject commits felony obtaines the Kings pardon for it is arraigned at the bar and pleads this pardon it ought to be allowed being duely pleaded and the Justices in such case ought not to condemne but to acquit the prisoner And these judgements as to any appeale to the Parliament are finall they cannot be brought before the King and the two Houses by any suite or action at Law They cannot judicially determine any
name but the power of Judges the knowne Law of the Land is their rule to determine every question depending before them which they are sworne to observe notwithstanding any command of the King the Members or any persons whatsoever And consequently every one is thereby preserved in his just Interest but by the Members taking upon them both to nominate the Iudges and to declare the Law the Law it selfe is destroyed and both King and people inslaved Upon the whole matter clear it is That the King and none else hath power to nominate and authorize the aforesaid Iudges and officers And therefore if the Members of the two Houses have or shall either in the Kings name or in their owne de facto appoint any persons for Judges in those Courts or in words by Commission of Oyer and Terminer or generall Gaole delivery give power to any to execute the office of Judicature in Circuits or otherwise such persons have not de Jure the power of Iudges For the Members have no more authority to make a Judge or to give any such power then any other subject in the Kingdome hath therein And consequently all the judgements acts and proceedings of those nominall Iudges or such Commissioners are void as things done coram non Judice Every person by such authority who either in the Kings Bench or at the Assises or elsewhere hath been or shall be condemned and executed for any crime whether guilty or not guilty is murdered And every other judgement or sentence by them given either in Capitall Criminall or Civill affaires is invalid In the next place it is proved that the King is the only Supreame Governour CHAP. VII That the King is the onely Supreame Governour unto whom all the people of this Nation in point of Soveraignty and Government are bound to submit themselves AGainst this undoubted right of the Kings these distractions have produced another Treatise of Mr. Pryns likewise published by authority of the Commons House intituled thus The Parliament and Kingdom are the Soveraigne power Wherein his aime is to perswade the people that the Members of the two Houses are the supream Governours of this Kingdom and begins thus The High Court of Parliament and whole Kingdome which it represents saith he may properly be said to be the highest Soveraigne power and above the King for saith he every Court of Justice whose Just resolutions and every petty Jury whose upright verdicts oblige the King may truly be said to be above the Kings person which it bindes But the Court of Parliament hath lawfull power to question the Kings Commissions Patents and Grants and if illegall against the Kings will to cancell or repeal them Therefore the Parliament hath Soveraign power above the King Answer Here I deny both his Major and Minor First for his Major Although it is true that every Just resolution of any Court of Justice That is when the Judges legally determine such things as regularly depend before them in point of Interest bindes the King as well as a Subject that proves not a Soveraigne power in the Judges If so it followeth that the Judges of the Kings-Bench the Common Pleas and of all other Courts of Justice And by M. Pryns Argument every petty Jury too have in point of Soveraignty a power above the King which is most grosly absurd So that admit the two Houses a Court of Justice which they are not and to have power legally to determine Causes which they have not That is nothing to Soveraignty It is one thing to have power to make Lawes another to expound the Law and to Governe the people is different from both The first appertaines to the King and the two Houses the second to the Judges and the third is the Kings sole right Neither the making declaring or expounding the Law is any part of Soveraignty But regulating the people by commanding the Lawes to be observed and executed pardoning the transgressors thereof and the like are true badges of a Supreme Governour All which are the Kings ☞ sAnd for his Minor take his meaning to be the true Parliament That is the King and the two Houses And it is false that the two Houses without the King have power legally to cancell or make voide any Commission Patent or Grant of the Kings For as before appeareth That united body cannot speak or doe any thing but by Act of Parliament To say the Parliament without the King may make a Law is as grosse a Contradiction as to affirme that the King may make an Act without the King And his meaning being taken to be the two Houses without the King In that sense the Members have herein no power at all for as before appeares they are neither a Parliament nor a Court of Iustice and consequently have not jurisdiction legally to cancell or repeale any Commission Patent or Grant of the Kings But saith Master Prin the King although he be cheif yet he is but one Member of the Parliament and saith he the greatest part of any politicke body is of greater power then any one particular Member As the Common-Councell is a greater power then the Major the Chapter then the Dean the Dean and Chapter then the Bishop and so the whole Parliament then the King for saith he in an Oligarchy Aristocrasie and Democrasie That which seemes good to the major part is ratified although but by one casting voice As in election of the Knights of the shire Burgesses and the Votes in the two Houses And saith he by the Lawes of England The Kings the Lords and Commons make but one intire Corporation and so concludes that the Major part of the Parliament which in Law saith he is the Corporation is above the King Answer There is scarce one word in this discourse but it is false or misapplied It appears before That the Parliament consists of 3 distinct bodies viz. the King the Lords House and the Commons House and in making Lawes which is all they have to doe they have but three Voices yet that which seemes good to the major part of these three is not ratified For as before it appeares they must all concurre else no Parliament It is true where the Government is Aligarchicall Aristocraticall or Democraticall the major part determines the Question But this is mis-applyed to the businesse in dispute concerning the Soveraign power Our Government is Monarchicall The people of England are not Governed by a Parliament The use of a Parliament as before appeares is onely in some things when necessity requires To alter the old or make new Lawes wherein the foresaid three bodies viz. the King the Lords House and the Commons House are joyntly trusted If Mr. Pryn be asked what he meanes by the Major part of that Corporation which he in this place calls the Parliament His Answer must be one of these viz. Any two of the aforesaid three bodies or else That the King the Lords and the Commons
Roy le veilt So that if any difference be the Kings words are more prevalent for before that it is but a written piece of parchment not valid but by tht Kings words instantly it hath life and is become a Law binding the whole Kingdome and people And this as before is said is the Kings Law Then Mr. Pryn fals to presidents which he cals proofs King Ed. 2. and King R. 2. saith he were deposed by the Parliament Answer The case concerning these two Kings was thus Against King Ed. 2. after many distractions in the Kingdome the Queen His Wife and other of Her adherents increased the faction raised a Rebellion barbarously tooke the King prisoner and during His imprisonment without any lawfull authority or consent of the King in His name summoned a Parliament and by force drew him in words to resigne His Crowne unto His Son afterwards King Ed. 3. and that of King R. 2. was much to the like purpose He was drawne to resigne His Crowne to H. of Bullingbrooke Afterwards King Hen. 4. and these two lawfull Kings being thus injuriously bereft of their Scepters were shortly after most barbarously murdered too The whole proceedings of which Acts all such Pryn excepted as have mentioned them have condemned the same not onely to be illegall but as Acts most wicked and notoriously impious But saith Mr. Pryn Pierce Gaveston and the two Hugh Spencers were by Parliament banished the Spencers violently put to death Humphrey Duke of Gloucester arrested of high Treason at a Parliament at Berry and there murdered That the Earle of Strafford this Parliament lost his head against the Kings will Answer For the banishment of Gaveston and the two Spencers his Argument is but thus The King with the assent of the two Houses made an Act of Parliament to banish them Ergo the two Houses without the King have the Soveraigne power of Government And admit Mr. Pryn hath proved which he endeavours that the Members of the two Houses murdered the Duke of Gloucester and the Spencers still that proves not the Soveraigne power of government to be in the Members That example of the late Bishop of Canterbury I conceive to be a President far more proper to be cited for this purpose then the case of the Duke of Gloucester or the Spencers For all men know that Bishop was put to death by no other authority then by order of the two Houses yet this no more proves the Soveraigne power to be in the Members then that murder acted by Felton upon the person of the Duke of Buckingham proves Felton to be the King of England For the Members of the two Houses had no more authority to condemne to death the Bishop then Felton had to kill the Duke And consequently the murder of the Bishop whatever his offence was or however guilty it â—â—…ing done by pretext and colour of Law was more horrid And for the Earle of Strafford it was thus By the Laws of England no man can or ought to be convict of a crime but by Act of Parliament by utlagare or by triall of his Peeres That is if a Lord of the Parliament by a Jury of Lords if under that degree by a Jury of like quality and being convict the Judge ought to give no other sentence but what the knowne Law doth pronounce for that fact Now that Earle by the Members of the Commons House was accused of high Treason The King thereupon declared His resolution not to protect him from the tryall or just sentence of the Law After this the Members waving the ordinary proceedings of the Law passed a Bill to attaint him of Treason by Act of Parliament This Bill was presented to the King He for some time refused to make it a Law which peradventure He might be induced unto by the Bill it selfe There being a speciall proviso therein that the Judges shall not condemn any other for the like offences which might cause the King to be very tender of passing the Act thereby to condemne a man as a Traytor for facts passed which at the time committed was not Treason This if duely considered is so far from being evill in the King as that the whole Kingdome hath thereby great cause to acknowledge his goodnesse It hereby appears he desired to governe as King not as a Tyrant to proceed against offenders according to the knowne Law not by an arbitrary power And if some particular persons too much thirsting after Straffords blood occasioned such things as might draw the King against His conscience to consent unto that Act woe be unto them But however whether the King passed this Act willingly or against His will or whether the Earle of Strafford were guilty or not guilty of Treason That nothing proves that the Members have Soveraigne power of government above the King Thus for Mr. Pryns objections against the Kings right to Soveraignty And that the Members have no authority therein is further proved thus 1. So long as the people have been governed by a knowne Law there must have been a Supreame Governour but we have had the same Law by which we are now governed long before the Institution of the two Houses 2. It is absolutely necessary that the supreame Governour be a person constantly permanent and visible but the Members out of Parliament are not in being they are invisible 3. It is a contradiction to Soveraignty to be subject to the commands of an other But the Members are called together and dissolved againe at the Kings pleasure 4. The Composier of the Members is such As that to make them supreame Governours tends to the destruction not to the preservation of the Kingdome and people If a woman bring forth a Monster not having the shape of man-kind our Law judgeth it no issue it is lawfull to kill it it ought not to be baptized To have two heads of one body is monstrous so to have two Kings of one Kingdome must be destructive to that Nation But here which is a far more prodigious monster we by the Members usurpation are governed by two severall distinct bodies consisting of multitudes without any head This government is new there yet never was the like upon the face of the earth It is not Monarchicall Alligarchicall Aristocraticall Democraticall nor although the neerest to it Anarchicall it is worse then confusion It can have no proper name unlesse it be called contradiction Thus for the negative part that the two Houses have not the Soveraigne power it now rests to shew in whom it is And for that these two things are considerable first what is the office of the Supreame Governour secondly who hath performed that duty For the first all men grant it is to preserve the people in peace by causing the Laws to be justly distributed and the like which have ever been performed by the King of England for the time being and by none else He hath denounced War proclaimed peace inhaunced and
can be expected Thirdly the Composier of these Members being two distinct bodies considered it is as prepostrous for them to command the Militia as to have the Soveraigne power of Government or to judge the Law It may fall out even in the time of greatest danger that one House shall Vote to fight the other not to fight the enemy And this difference may happen to be unreconciled untill the Nation be conquered or destroyed Thus it appears that the Members have no power over the Militia It now rests to prove that it is the Kings right which is made good by authority and reason First for authority it is proved by constant practise which is not onely the strongest proof in our Law but it is the Law it selfe We have no formall Institution of the Common Law it is no other but common Ancient and frequent use For example it is felony to steale it is not felony of death unlesse the thing stolen exceede the value of twelve pence These are things so certainly knowne and so generally received for Law as that any man to dispute them renders himself ridiculous yet being denied none can shew when the Law began how or by what authority it was made there is no other proof to make it good but custome and use So for the Militia of the Kingdome it was never estated upon the King by Act of Parliament or by any other constitution It is His right by the Common Law of England which is made good by custome and use and authorities of bookes And first for custome and use Any man of what quality or ranke soever he be reflecting upon his owne memory and observation must acknowledge that in all his time no Souldiers were impressed armed arrayed or mustered no Forts strong-holds or â—â—rrisons held or commanded no Commanders Officers or Souldiers Imployed by Land or Sea no Commissions concerning War either Forraigne or Domestick or concerning the administration of Justice but by authority derived from the King alone And such as search the Records in former times will finde the like practise in all ages And with this agrees all Histories and stories from this day upward unto the Roman Conquest Then for authorities and to begin with Acts of Parliament Magna Charta granted about 440. years since not onely being the first Statute but beyond it there is scarce an authentick record of Law at this day to be found In which Act it is thus declared by King Hen. 3. viz. And if We do lead or send him who is by tenure to defend a Castle in an Army he shall be free from Castle-guard from the time that he shall be with us in fee in our Host for the which he hath done service in our Wars Thus even in that Instrument whereby the King confirmed unto the people their Liberties It appears that by the Laws of the Land the power of War was the Kings sole right By an other Statute made 7. of King Ed. 1. being the son and next succeeding King to H. 3. The Prelates the Earles the Barons and the Comonalty of the Realme Assembled in Parliament declared that to the King it belongeth and His part is through His Royall Signiorie straightly to defend force of armour other force against the Kings peace at all times when it shall please Him And to punish them which shall do contrary according to the Laws and usages of the Realme And that they the Subjects are hereunto bound to aid their Soveraigne Lord the King at all seasons when need shall be After this by severall Acts of Parliament viz. 13. of the same King 1 Ed. 3. 25 Ed. 3. 4 H. 4. 5 H. 4. and other Statutes it is declared how and in what manner the Subject shall be charged with armes mustered arraied and forced to serve in War In all which Acts without dispute the whole power and command therein is admitted to be in the King By a Statute made 11 H. 7. The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare it to be the duty and Allegeance of the Subjects of England not onely to serve their Prince and Soveraigne Lord for the time being in Wars but to enter and abide in service in battaile and that both in defence of the King and the Land against every Rebellion power and might reared against him By a Statute made 2 Edw. 6. in the Raigne of a child King The Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare that it is the bounden duty of the Subjects to serve their Prince in War By a Statute made 4 and 5 P. M. In the Raigne of a Woman the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament declare thus viz. That whereas heretofore commandement hath been given by the Queen and her Progenitors Kings of England to diverse persons to muster their Subjects and to levy them for the service of their Majesty and this Realme in their Wars which service saith the Statute hath been hindred by persons absenting themselves from Musters and by being released for rewards And then provides remedy therein when the Queen her Heirs or successors shall authorize any to muster the people And by that late unanimous and voluntary recognition made by the Lords and Commons in Parliament unto King James they declared thus viz. We being bound thereunto both by the Lawes of God and Man doe recognize and acknowledge and thereby expresse our unspeakable Joyes That immediately upon the death of Queen Elizabeth the imperiall Crowne of the Realme of England did by inherent birth-right and lawfull and undoubted succession descend and come to your most Excellent Maj. that by the goodnesse of Almighty God your Maj. is more able to Governe us your Subjects in Peace and plenty then any of your Progenitors And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige our heires and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our blouds be spent Now every man of sense will agree that the opinion of the Members of this Parliament is no more authentique then the opinions of the Lords and Commons Assembled in former Parliaments And that being granted it followeth that any one of the aforementioned Statutes whereby the Lords and Commons declare That by the Law of the Land the power of the Militia is in the King is so much the more weighty and so much more to be relyed upon in this point of the Militia then the opinion of these Members by how much more persons are competent to determine a question concerning another then to judge their own case or when they resolve for or against themselves But these Members setting aside their owne Votes in this their own case for their own advantage cannot make their pretence to the Militia good by any one Authority Opinion Practise or President But this not all These Westminster men themselves even this Parliament have both in their Ordinances as they call them and Petitions acknowledged the Militia to be the