have no voice in reversing judgements or damning Patents in Parliament therefore they have not a voice in passing Bils for publike Laws Answer Mr. Pryns words must be understood one of these wayes viz. That these judgements are reversed and Patents damned by Act of Parliament or else in the ordinary way of proceedings of Law as in a Court of Justice if he meane by Act of Parliament he onely beggs the question And false it is to say the King hath not a negative Voice in every Act propounded for a Law If he meane by judiciall proceedings as in a Court of Justice which I conceive he doth then the case truely stated is but thus The Lords House in Parliament time is a Court of Judicature and amongst other things the Members of that Assembly have power the cause being regularly brought before them by writ of errour and by the advice of the Judges and not else to reverse erroneous judgements given in the Kings Bench wherein it is true the King hath no Voice but that nothing disproves His negative Voice in making Laws if so that reason serves as well to exclude the Commons as the King for in reversing judgements in the Lords House the Members of the lower House have no Voice so if this argument of Mr. Pryns be of force the Lords without King or Commons have power to make Laws by Act of Parliament Then for damning Patents neither the Lords nor the Commons nor both Houses joyntly have power judicially or finally to determine the validity of any Patent or grant of the King That properly appertaines to the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and other Courts of Justice before whom as afterwards it is more clearly shewed such cases may be judicially brought to triall wherein neither King Lords or Members of the Commons House hath Voice And for the rest of his arguments they rather prove the contrary then that which Mr. Pryn infers upon them Kings saith he have in former times shewed their reasons why they denied to passe Bils presented unto them by both Houses which proves that those Kings had power to deny them else they could not shew cause of their refusall no more then Mr. Pryn can render reasons of his being at Westmiuster unlesse he have been there But Mr. Pryn knowes all Kings have most frequently rejected Bils passed by both Houses and Bils declared by the Members to concerne the publike good without rendring their reasons for the same And for the power of the Protector to confirme Bils passed by both Houses if that be granted that in some cases of imminent necessity the Protectors consent might make good and perfect such Bils it nothing proves the absolute power of both Houses without the King but rather the contrary and plainly demonstrates the imperfect power of the two Houses who cannot without the consent of a Protector in such cases make any compleat and binding Laws Therefore if not stronger the same it must be when we have a King no infant and Reigning without a Protector But saith Mr. Pryn in Countries where Kings are elective by the death of the Present King untill a new one be chosen the people having no King over them may make binding Laws Here although I beleeve Mr. Pryn cannot for other Countries make his position good yet this admitted to him rather disproves his argument against the Kings negative Voice for of his owne shewing it appears that in those Countries where Kings are elective after such time as the people have chosen a King they cannot make Laws without Him And if so where Kings are elective much more they cannot where Kings are hereditary Therefore by Mr. Pryns owne argument it followeth that in this Nation neither the people nor the two Houses without the King have power to make Laws For we have no interregnum there is not with us any time of vacancy of a King eo instante upon the death of the precedent King the Crowne is vested in the successour And for the two Houses refusall to grant the King Aide by Subsidies and the like That disproves the Kings power of His negative Voice in Parliament as the Kings refusall to confirme Bils passed by both Houses prove that the King at this day may make Lawes without them But saith he if Kings will not passe Laws presented unto them by both Houses they may be compelled thereunto for Kings saith he have been so forced as King H. 3. in that of Magna Charra and other Statutes Answer To admit that a Judge of a Court of Judicature may be forced to declare his opinion or to give judgement against his owne conscience seemes to me to be so absurd as I cannot but suppose that Mr. Pryn himself would grant it to be most unreasonable and even to be destructive of the Law it selfe If the King should assemble powers and by force compell the Lords or Commons to passe Laws by Him propounded it would be judged an act of high Tyranny and I beleeve Mr. Pryn would conceive Laws so obtained bound not And if so in that case if he be not extreame partiall he must upon the same ground agree that the King in the like case ought not to be forced He doubtlesse hath the same authority the same rules and motions to be guided by His Conscience as a Subject hath And methinkes the Law should protect the King from the violence of the people asmuch as it preserves them from the force of their King certainly it is at least reci mony or Oath taken is actually vested in the King succeeding upon which the Law saith that although in hoc individuo Hen. Rex moritur yet the King in His politick capacity never dieth Besides if the King at His Coronation should refuse to take an Oath we have no more Law to compell Him thereunto then we have to force Him to be Crowned And as it is not material to the right power of the King whether he be Crowned or not so it is inconsiderable to the people to have Him sworne for if we had no municipall Law the King unsworne were bound in Conscience to govern the people by naturall equity But we have a knowne Law by which both King and Subjects the one by a directive power the others by both directive and coercive are regulated and every one protected in his just rights and this whether the King be Crowned or not Crowned whether he take an Oath or no Oath Secondly admit Kings obliged to take an Oath at their Coronation yet even by the Members owne shewing they are not bound to take it in the words by themselves mentioned And of all the Kings past they instance but seven who have taken any Oath and but three of those seaven admitting that Oath in French and the other in Latine to be one and the same they name to have taken it And of these three offer proof but for one And themselves shew
and the two Houses that body cannot properly be said a Court of Justice The Office of a Judge is upon a Question depending before him to declare what the Law is but the office of the Parliament is only to make new laws By this it appears that neither the Members of the Lords house nor of the Commons house are qualified to be Judges of the Law nor have they either jointly or severally Commission for that purpose And lastly admit every Member of either house in Learning sufficiently qualified to make a Judge their composure considered they are not capable jointly to perform that Office they being two distinct bodies their proceedings severall and distinct it cannot be expected but they shall frequently differ in Opinion and judgment therefore were they never so learned should the King grant unto them power of judicature or should they have that authority given them by an Act of Parliament the Lawes of England would judge both that Grant and Statute absolutely void as a thing most incongruous against sense and reason Upon which it followeth that if the Lords House or the Commons house or both Houses jointly have or shall condemne any person for Treason Felony or other capitall offence try any title of Land tax the people with payments of money seise or confiscate the Subjects estates or the like be it by Order Ordinance or any other way all such proceedings are void done coram non Judice and consequently both the Members and all persons executing their commands therein are by the Lawes of England punishable as Murderers Felons or other transgressours because done without warrant or authority And how long soever they shall continue this power and how frequently soever it is used that alters not the case the Law is still the same it was Yet herein I doe not abridge the power and authority of the Peers of the Realme It is true when the King hath constituted a Lord high Steward and consented to the triall of a Peere for his life for a fact committed against the known Law such a Peere not only may but ought the Lords observing the rules of law to be tried by the Lords his Peers But there is no colour for the Lords or for the Commons or for both Houses jointly although the King should give way thereunto to try or judge any Commoner Every common person ought to be tried by his Peers too that is by a Jury of the Commons and that Iury by the Lawes of England ought to be of that County and neare that place where the fact is committed It is a Rule in our Law that in capitall offences Vbi quis delinquit ibi punietur persons dwelling near the place are most likely to have cognizance of the fact Besides by our law every free-born Subject of this Nation hath at his arraignment power and liberty to challenge Iurors impannelled for his triall But all such liberties are taken away by this usurpation of the Members Thus it appears that the Judges of every Court of Justice so far as their Commission extends and no other persons are Judges of Law But the Judges of no one Court are those unto whom the people are bound lastly to submit themselves for every Court of Justice in some respect is inferiour to another Court or power unto which appeales lie as in the case of a Writ of error and the like unlesse it be in the Exchequer Chamber when the cause regularly depends before the Judges of the Kings Bench the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer into which Chamber things of great weight and difficulty concerning matter of Law are usually transmitted And being there judicially determined from that sentence t◠conceive no appeale lies to any other Court by Writ of error That is the sentence and judgement of the Judges of the Realme yet from that judgement some persons are of opinion a Writ of errour lieth before the Lords in the upper House of Parliament But upon consideration had of the reason of the Law concerning the proceedings in Writs of error brought there I conceive it were to little purpose to permit any such appeale unto the Lords upon judgements given in the Exchequer Chamber before all the Judges of the Realme The power of the Lords House to reverse erronious judgements I conceive began thus The Court of the Kings Bench is the highest Court of Judicature wherein any suite of Law can legally and regularly be brought and therefore their proceedings not to be examined by any other ordinary Court of Justice every one of them being inferiour to it But the Judges of the Kings Bench are as subject to erre as the Judges of other Courts Therefore as requisite to have their proceedings examined Now in regard the Judges of the Realme were at all times at least assistant to the Lords House it was proper enough to have the errors of the Kings Bench reversed in that place And having had its beginning thus constant use and custome hath Legally intituled them unto it Therefore although peradventure it may have happened that some few particular Writs of errour have been brought in the Lords House upon judgements given in some other Courts I conceive the prescription which is all the Commission they have lieth only for the Kings Bench. And I am the more confirmed therein because the Law bookes mentioning the authority of the Lords House in reversing judgements do generally instance in the Kings Bench not naming other Courts Besides as the Lords House hath this jurisdiction by prescription the same use and custome requires these circumstances 1. That the Kings consent to prosecute a Writ of error be obtained because every judgement in the Kings Bench doth immediately concerne the King the jurisdiction of that Court being properly Pleas of the Crowne 2. That the Lords after the cause is brought before them proceed by the advice of the Judges which is indeed the essentiall part of the prescription To have a profession of Law Courts of judicature erected persons learned in that profession appointed Judges thereof it were most preposterous to have the proceedings of these Judges even in the most difficult points of the Law examined reversed and controlled by persons ignorant in that profession By the constitutions of England no man is capable to be a Judge unlesse he have understanding in the Law to performe that office Therefore shall the King grant to one who is most learned a Judges place to him and his heires as to his heires it were void and the same it were if such a grant were made by Act of Parliament And so consequently if the Lords should prescribe that time out of mind they and their predecessours Lords of the Parliament in Parliament time have without mentioning it to be with the advise and assistance of the Judges reversed erronious Iudgements given in the Kings Bench or in any other Court of Iustice it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be disallowed judged as an evil use
joyntly concurring to sell and by that sale the Lords are concluded it is done by the Commission of those Lords and therefore in Judgement of Law their owne Act. So for the Parliament the King the Lords and Commons by the constitutions of this Realme are jointly trusted to consent unto the making new or changing the old Law therefore no lesse then all have Commission for it And so if the King and either House or both Houses without the King passe a Bill or make a Law this ought to be judged invalid none are thereby wronged still the knowne Laws are in force the people as before by the knowne Law are protected in their persons and estates and those trusted that is the King the Lords and Commons joyntly concurring have power to make new Laws which consent concludes the whole Nation it is done by its representative body and so by their Commission Thus it appears that when there is a question and dispute in Parliament between the King and the two Houses it is not necessary to have it affirmatively determined nor needfull that His Majesty in such cases be Judge against the two Houses or the two Houses to Judge it without Him That is but a fiction of the Members devised by them to reduce the Nation unto their Tyranny which as the Members knew they could not effect but by excluding the King from His negative Voice in Parliament so that being done their worke was finished Then they without the King arrogate power to make new Laws and change the old for their owne advantage as they pleased And so both King and people inslaved Therefore herein to beguile the people a case was faigned and stated thus That such a difference between the King and the two Houses as concerned the safety of the Kingdome was happened in Parliament That unlesse this question were instantly determined the Kingdome was in danger to perish Then to draw the people to side with the Members they were told that the Lords and Commons were the representative body of the Kingdome That whatever the Members in those Assemblies do it is so much the Act of every particular person in the Kingdome as if he were within the wals of the House personally consenting And perswaded the vulgar that this dispute between the King and the Members in effect is between Him and all the people of England And then offer it to the consideration of the multitude whether it be not more likely that all the people of the Realme concurring in one opinion should better know what is for their owne good then the King being but one single person and dissenting in judgement from the whole Nation The poor people not being of capacity suddenly to discerne the fallacy hereof And being ravished with a conceipt to be Judge in their owne case in smarmes flocked to this Idoll the Members thinking they had thereby adored themselves as well as that beast and never ceased untill by violence they expelled the King from His negative Voice in Parliament But now by wofull experience they both understand by whom and how they are represented which is thus The Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses being elected by the Inhabitants of the severall Counties and Townes do in some sort represent the people who chose them but that is no further then their Cōmission extends And they have no other Commission then the Kings Writ of Summons the returne thereof word by word set downe before which gives them no other authority then to consent unto Laws agreed on by the King His great Councell the Peeres consequently they do represent the people no further then to consent unto such Laws And for the Peeres they have no Commission at all from the people nor can be said to represent them their authority is solely from the Kings said Writ of Summons directed to every particular Lord by which likewise his power is declared and stinted That is to advise with the King concerning the affaires of the Realme So that the Lords and Commons put together they have no Commission to make Laws we are still to seeke that Legislative power nor is it to be found but in the King He alone is properly the Law-maker But the Kings of England as before appears having excluded themselves to make Laws without consent of the two Houses Therefore that united body the King and the Members of those Assemblies is called the Legislative power and the representative body of the Kingdom But that either or both Houses or any Assembly or people in this or any other Nation governed by Monarchy hath or ever claimed to have a Legislative power or sofar to represent the Kingdome as to make new Laws or change the old without the Personall consent of the King is such a ridiculaus Bull as never was heard or thought of untill this frantick Parliament Therefore when either or both Houses without the King take upon them to make Laws they extend beyond the bounds of their Commission they thereby act of their owne head not as representatives For example a Lord by Commission gives power to A. and B. to let and set his Land for tearme of years so long as A. and B. pursue this authority they do represent that Lord but if by colour of that Commssion A. and B. demise for life or sell the Inheritance it is done without authority their Commission reacheth not so far and so not representatives Therefore such lease or sale is void it doth not bind the Lord. Or thus A. having contracted with B. to make A. feoffement unto him and his heirs of the Mannour of D. upon a condition by letter of Atturney gives power to C. to make livery and seisin upon that Condition C. performes it In this case the Land is as firmely setled in B. as if A. had executed it in his owne person because it is done by his representative But if C. omitting to express the Condition make livery and seisin absolutely nothing passeth to B. for saith our Law C. extending the bounds of his Commission he doth not represent A. Therefore his whole act void So here the Lords as before appears have Commission to advise with the King the Commons to do and consent unto things agreed on by the King and them Now those Lords and Commons taking upon them without the Personall assent of the King to make new or change the old Law it is a power usurped without Commission or authority therefore no representatives and consequently all their proceedings void Then for the distinctions in the aforesaid Declarations mentioned 1. That no Law made without the Kings consent binds unless His consent be first required and refused 2. That those Laws be necessary for the preservation of the Kingdome 3. That such Laws shall continue no longer in force then that necessity lasteth these are snares and subtilties only to catch the simple no wise man wil be taken with them Suppose the King upon refusall
nor any people from free Subjects become more absolute slaves then the Englishmen are and will be And being thus brought into misery that which is still worse our selves and posterity to the end of the world are likely to live under this vassallage without hope of redemption if not by Gods mercy timely remedied For it cannot be imagined that the Members so long as they have power over their Prince and other His good Subjects and whilst their persons estates and Fortunes are thus at their will and pleasure it cannot be imagined I say that by their owne judgement against themselves or sentence we shall be enfranchized Now if I appeale to any rationall man not prejudicated as a person herein particularly concerned whether that Law which declares such Acts of Parliament to binde or that which judgeth them void be the more prudent wholesome and reasonable Law I dare be bold to conclude that sentence herein will be given for the latter And since it followeth that some Acts of Parliament may and ought to be adjudged void that being granted reason dictates to every man of sense that not the Members but some other knowne persons must determine which Statutes bind the people and which are invalid Now that the Judges of the Realme have power not only to determine which Acts of Parliament are binding and which void but to expound the meaning of every Act is no new doctrine it is the knowne Law and the common practice of the Kingdome which is the Law it selfe In the bookes of our Law it is declared for a fundamentall ground That such Statutes as are against Common-right repugnant or impossible are void and that they ought to be so declared by the Judges of the Realme For example by the Statute of Carlile made 35. E. 1. it is ordained that the Seale of the order of the Cistercians and Augustines shall be kept in the custody of the Priour and foure others and that any deed sealed with any other seale shall be void and this Statute is judged to be void in Law and that the Priour notwithstanding this Law and against the expresse words thereof sealing deeds with any other seale those deeds are judged good for the Priour could not seale with that seale in the custody of the other four and therefore that Statute repugnant in it selfe and so void It is likewise declared by the Judges that where a Statute gives power to A. to determine all pleas happening within his mannour in that case A. shall not have power to determine such pleas as concerne himselfe and the same it were if the Statute should in expresse words grant to A. that authority for it is repugnant to reason and common justice that any man shall be judge in his owne case It is resolved by the Judges of the Realme that divers prerogatives are so inseperably annexed to the Crowne as that they cannot be severed by Act of Parliament for example by a Statute made 23 H. 6. c. 10. it is enacted that no man shall continue Sheriffe of a Shire above one year and by that Act declared in these words that all Patents from the King of that office of Sheriffe for yeers for life in taile or in fee shall be void any clause or words of non obstante put into such Patents notwithstanding Now thisStatute as to the Kings power is by the Judges of the Realm declared void and although that Statute was never repealed all Kings since might have granted that office for life in taile or in fee and grants thereof have been made accordingly contrary to the expresse words of that Statute yet resolved to be good And ever since that Act all Kings have most frequently continued Sheriffs in their office for longer time then a year Even common experience sheweth that the power of the old Sheriffe doth not cease or determine untill the King hath made a new Sheriffe and notice thereof given to the old which oftentimes happeneth to be after the year And in Michaelmas Terme 5. and 6. of Queen Eliz. the Sheriffs by reason of the great plague then and of the adjournment of that Terme wholly were made and named by the Queen without the Assembly of the Justices in the Exchequer according to the common usage and though for the most part none were named but one of the two which remained in the bill of the year then last passed yet by all the Justices and Serjeants at Law it was holden that the Queen by Her prerogative might have made a Sheriff without any such election notwithstanding any Statute to the contrary which appears in Dyers Reports The King is fountaine of Justice mercy therefore if it were enacted that he shall not grant Commissions to determine felonies or that from henceforth it shall not be in his power to pardon any Crime or that all such pardons shall be void such Laws would be void and would not bind as being repugnant to Law government and reason to stop that fountaine The King by His Prerogative hath authority to dispense with penall Laws which cannot be taken from Him by Act of Parliament although in expresse termes it be enacted that all such dispensations with a non obstante shall be void which cleerely appears by the foresaid case of the Sheriff for though by that Statute of 23 H. 6. it is inacted that all Patents of the King shall be void as before although with a non obstante yet the Judges at all times have resolved it as a thing without dispute That those Patents although expressely against the words and intent of that Act with a non obstante are good in Law And so the bookes take it for a fundamentall ground that the King may by His Patent with a non obstante dispense with Laws made by Act of Parliament and put the difference between Acts prohibiting what the Common-Law prohibits in which case the King cannot by His letters Patents with a non obstante how strong soever it be penned dispence with such Acts or any one point of the Common Law of England which forbids onely that which is malum in se otherwise it is of Acts prohibiting things not before prohibited by the Law which are onely mala quia prohibita the King may dispense with such Acts by His Letters Patents with a non obstante though those very Acts expressely say that such Letters Patents with a non obstante shal be void That Prerogative being inseperable as is shewed before and not to be abolished by Act of Parliament no more then His other prerogatives of as high a nature viz. those of denouncing War and concluding Peace inhaunsing or debasing of Coine or the like which are flowersinseperably annexed to the Crowne and most proper for a King but not sutable with the condition of a Subject therefore the Judges have resolved they cannot be severed by Act of Parliament And the same it is
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
of them hath its proper and peculiar jurisdiction The Chancery for Equity the Kings Bench for Pleas of the Crowne the Common pleas for reall actions and other matters of the Law The Exchequer for the Kings Revenues And every one of these Courts is circumscribed within its own bounds The Chancery unlesse it be in some particular cases warranted by custome hath not power to determine questions of Law nor the other three Courts matter of Equity The Common pleas not to intermeddle with the Pleas of the Crowne nor the Kings Bench unlesse occasioned by breach of the Kings peace with questions concerning title of Lands And none of them hath authority to extend beyond its bounds in any one particular All which is made good by authority and reason For authority it is resolved in the bookes of the Law that if the Judges of the Common pleas in an Appeale or Indictment for murder felony or other capitall crime condemne any person their proceedings are voide as done coram non Judice That person so condemned although guilty of the fact in the judgement of Law is not attainted nor his blood corrupted he forfeits not his estate and if executed although by the command of the Judges of that Court both Judge and executioner are guilty of felony and punishable as if done without that command If the Lord of a Leete hold his Court or the Sheriff his Turne at other times then custome doth warrant Or the Court of Marshalsey assume jurisdiction not made good by use their proceedings are void In all which cases the Officers or Ministers of those Courts are punishable for executing the commands of the Iudges thereof wherein the Law takes this difference viz. When a Court assumes power to determine that which it hath not Commission to determine and when it hath jurisdiction of the cause yet proceeds inverso ordine in the first as in the cases aforesaid The Minister is not excused or justified by the warrant of the Court In the latter the warrant or processe of the Court is a legall justification as thus If the Court of Common Pleas hold Plea without originall or award processe of Capias against a Peere and the like in these cases although the proceedings be illegall yet in regard the Court hath jurisdiction to determine the cause if it were regularly brought before them the processe or warrant of the Court is a good justification for the Minister thereof And this rule holds with all other Courts Assemblies and persons when they act or doe such things as they have not Commission for their proceedings are void So that the Laws of England admits not of Iudges but persons qualified to performe that office yet ability by it selfe is no Commission to make a Iudge The Judges of the Common Pleas are as learned in the Law and as able for their knowledge to determine Pleas of the Crowne as the Judges of the Kings bench but they have not the same authority The Court of Common Pleas hath not used it and consequently it is out of their Commission And that no Court ought to extend its owne bounds is made good by reason For if any Person Court or Assembly takes upon them in any one thing to execute that which their Commission extends not to by the same reason they may assume it in another and so in infinitum upon which it followeth that the power of that Court Person or Assembly is become boundlesse And if one Court Person or Assembly may inlarge its bounds the like reason holds with every Court Person and Assembly in the Kingdome and so a Parity introduced and consequently the whole Government subverted and destroyed In the next place it is considerable to know what Commission the Parliament the two Houses or either of them hath therein And first for the Commons house That Assembly hath no Commission from the King nor by Act of Parliament to Judge the Law and for Prescription they faile in all the foresaid three particulars for they cannot challenge any thing time out of mind The Assembly it self had its beginning after the Raign of K. Ric. 1. Secondly admit them to have been time out of mind they fail in the use for untill this Parliament they never executed or claimed any such thing Thirdly admit them to have been time out of mind and constantly to have used the power of Judicature yet it ought to be disallowed because not reasonable it is repugnant to the Rules of Law and justice that persons not fitly qualified should have power of Judicature By the constitutions of England controversies are decided thus The Plaintif exhibits his complaint in a Court of Justice and that in the Latin tongue The Defendant answereth in the same Court and Language out of which pleading the case ariseth which sometimes is questio facti and sometimes questio Juris If it be facti it is tried by a Jury sworn by authority of that Court where the suit depends and that cannot be the Members of the Commons house for besides the difficulty of the Language those Members cannot give an Oath and if it be matter of law the sworne Judge is to determine it but they are not sworn to doe justice And for the Lords house it is granted that in some things which custome and use hath made good the Members of that Assembly have power of Judicature for although that House as now it is formed and setled hath not been so auntient as to make a Prescription yet the Prelats the Peers and the Judges time out of mind have been frequently called together by the Kings of England and consulted with concerning making of Laws and other the affaires of the Common-wealth And amongst other things the Lords depending therein on the advice of the Judges have so auntiently as the beginning thereof cannot be made appear by licerse of the King upon Writs of Error reversed erronious Judgements given in the Kings bench But as the Lords have this authority by Prescription so they are excluded from all other power of judicature but that which custome and use doth warrant for Prescription is all the Commission they have Neither Grant from the King nor Act of Parliament they have for a Court of justice Now to give power to the Lords house or to the Commons house to inlarge their Commission or Jurisdiction the same inconveniences would thereupon ensue as by suffering other Courts to doe the like if the Members of the Commons house should at this day take upon them to give an Oath and this legally intitle them to it by the same reason they might as now the present Members of that Assembly in effect doth without King or Lords assume the whole Government And for the two Houses jointly they are not a Court of judicature they have therein no Commission at all neither from the King nor by Act of Parliament nor by Prescription And for the Parliament that is the King
that Suppose it granted that the Iudges in that case of Ship-mony gave Sentence by corruption whereby about 200000. l. per annum was drawn from the people To conclude hereupon that we must from henceforth have no more learned men chosen Iudges is extreame harsh It might as well be argued thus The Members of the two Houses have erred in Iudgement and have been corrupt ergo we ought to have no more Parliaments For as before appeares the Members of former Parliaments have most grosly erred And for these present Members they have not only erred but have been in the highest nature corrupt too First They erred in Iudgement by assuming the Iustice seat the Soveraign power of Government and so in infinite other particulars Then for corruption since these Authorities were by them arrogated twice twenty times 200000. l. per annum illegally and barbarously drawn from the people doth not stint them They have corruptly by one Vote not onely given themselves the wealth of the whole Nation but have likewise enslaved both King and People for their lives and fortunes to their owne will But clear it is no constitution can avoid every mischiefe it is the best Law which prevents the most inconveniencies therefore in this case that which can be done is to have persons who are learned in the profession made Iudges of the Law and all possible care taken that they doe Iustice and for that by our Law no man is capable of a Iudges place unlesse he have ability to execute the same And although he be sufficient for learning yet being advanced for bribes or rewards he is by Law likewise disabled to performe the office They are sworne to do right to all persons and although error in judgement is no crime yet corruption in the Iudge be it for bribes affection malice desire of preferment fear or any other cause is by our Law an offence of an high nature and and most severely punished Now if in stead of exalting themselves the Members had as they made some shew for a while made inquiry how and by whom the Judges were drawne as the Members alleadge to give that corrupt sentence and had presented the same to the King to the end not onely exemplary punishment might have been inflicted upon them but they put out of their places and new Iudges elected the Members had done like Parliament men that had pursued their Commission And so whilst the King the Parliament the Judges every Court and Assembly retaine their owne proper authority without clashing with or encroaching each upon other As by the Laws of England they ought to do both King and Subject are preserved in their just rights And this ought to be exactly observed notwithstanding the superiority or inferiority of any Court power person or Assembly because one Court in some respect is superiour to another that takes not away nor lesseneth the proper jurisdiction of the inferior Court Scarce any inferior Court but it hath some powers which the superior Court hath not For example The Court of CommonPleas hath power between party and party to determine reall actions which the Kings Bench hath not The Assembly of the Commons House cannot give an oath yet the meanest Court of Justice even a Court of Pipowders hath that power So that if it were admitted that the two Houses of Parliament were a Court of Justice as it is not And that it were the highest Court of that nature in this Kingdome that would not at all make good their pretence to be the finall Judge of the Law from whom no appeale should lie But by this Vote and practise of the Members all Courts of justice and rightfull powers in the Kingdome are put downe the Law totally subverted and all things reduced to their arbitrary power Upon the whole matter clear it is that the Judges of the aforesaid three Courts are the Judges of the Realme and the persons unto whom all the people of this Nation are bound lastly and finally to submit themselves for matter of Law But notwithstanding all this the same necessity which made the Members exclude the King from His negative Voice and so to usurpe a boundlesse power to make Laws enforceth them to arrogate the Justice seate too For it were to little purpose for them to declare it Treason for a Subject to speake to His King and infinite such like grosse contradictions both to reason and the knowne Law and yet permit the rightfull Judges to determine the same questions that were both to exalt themselves up and at the same instant to cast themselves downe againe But they tell us they are no such babies So long as the people will be fooled nothing is more certaine but Tyrants they will be to us their slaves In the next place it is shewed who ought to nominate and authorize the Judges of the Realme CHAP. VI. That the Judges of the Realme ought to be elected and authorized by the King of England for the time being and by none else THe legall authorizing of the Judges of the Law is of that importance as upon it depends the preservation of the people for no Law no government no Judge no Law and if authorized by an illegall Commission no Judge It appears before that when the Iudge extends beyond the bounds of his Commission his proceedings are void as done coram non Judice Upon the same grounds be the words of the Commission never so large if the authority be derived from such as have not power to grant it the whole Commission is voide Yet Mr. Pryn by the authority of the Commons House hath published a Treatise intituled thus The Parliaments right to elect Privy Councellors great Officers and Judges Wherein he endeavours to prove the two Houses by the Laws of England ought to elect the Iudges And proceeds thus Kings saith he were first elected by the people and as he beleeves the people at the first elected the Judges and great Officers and bound them by publike Laws which appears saith he by infinite Acts of Parliament regulating both the power of the King and His Officers That in ancient time Lieutenant Generals and Sheriffs were elected by the Parliament and people That the Coroners Majors Aldermen of Corporations Constables and other such like officers at this day are elected by the people Knights of Shires and Burgesses are elected by the Commons of the Realme That the King can neither elect a Commoner nor exclude a Member of either House to sit or Vote That the Parliament consists of Honourable wise grave and discreet persons That although the Kings have usually had the election of great officers and Judges it hath rather been by the Parliaments permission then Concession That the Judges and Officers of State are as well the Kingdomes as the Kings And saith that Mr. Bodin a grave Politician declares That it is not the right of electing great officers which prove the right of Soveraignty because it oft
of the Kings learned Councell and the Masters of the Chancery whom the King adviseth with as His great Councell It is the office of the Commons as likewise by this Writ appears to do and consent unto such things as the King the Prelates and Peeres agree upon The second are such as the King makes choice of to advise Him in matters of State and are sworne to secrecy And the third are the Judges of the Realme and others of the Long Robe whom the King elects and are sworne to advise Him in matters of Law Now whilst these Councellors keepe within their owne bounds and faithfully performe their severall duties the known Law is preserved and so every one protected But when they extend beyond their bounds confusion ensueth Absurd it were for a sick man concerning his Cure to advise with a Lawyer or for any one in point of Law to take advise of a Physitian So for the Privy Councellors to judge the Law for the Judges to determine matter of State And the like holds with the Members of the two Houses They are neither qualified nor have Commission either to intermeddle with the Law or the affaires of State otherwise then the King shall thinke fit to intrust them by asking them their advise wherein they are onely to deliver their opinions not to controle Therefore when the two Houses have passed a Bill for a new Law and have presented it to the King they have performed their duty it then rests in the King whether to make it a Law or not wherein it may be necessary for Him to take the advise of His Privy Councell His learned Councell or of both And I conceive that may be the reason why Kings have used to answer Bils which they passe not by these words le Roy le veili By these words of the Writ viz. Quia de advisamento assensu consilii nostri c. quoddam Parliamentum nostrum c. teneri ordinavimus c. It appears that the King depends upon His Councell in calling Parliaments which oftentimes is occasioned upon State-affaires such as requires the assembling of a Parliament yet not safe to reveale those reasons to the Parliament men And so the King by advise of His Privy Councell or His learned Councell may and oftentimes doth reject Bils presented unto Him by both Houses and yet not convenient to render His reasons to that multitude Therefore clear it is the men at Westminster have extended beyond their Commission and so all these Votes are absolutely invalid not binding either King or people The King notwithstanding these Votes is or whatever the Members shall or can Vote will and must be our only Supreame Governour And consequently these men at Westminster by breaking their bounds are themselves guilty of those things which in and by their declarations to the people they grossely and falsely aspersed their King with They have and do arrogate to use their owne words an arbitrary power without above against all the Courts of Justice the Parliament it selfe not excepted And thereby the knowne Law is subverted and consequently they are most palpably guilty of that crime for which they themselves condemned as a Traytor the late Earle of Strafford but for attempting to do and that upon a slender proof too Upon the whole matter it may with as much justice sense be said that there was yet never one King of England as to question whether the King for time being hath inherently in His person the Soveraigne power of Government But that man who hath taken consideration hereof and yet so absurdly peevish as to remaine unsatisfied of the Kings right herein the whole world must judge Him worse then out of his wits to give it unto the Members Suppose the Steward of a Lord or Commoner to claime property in the estate of his Master I presume the Houses would account him an unjust Judge who should determine the case on the Stewards behalfe upon his owne testimony So here the Members challenge not onely the Soveraignty due unto their Leige Lord and King but an authority arbitrary over King and people wherein they have not the least colour of proof more then their owne affirmation Besides when a witnesse although not a party contradicts himselfe his testimony becomes invalid But the Members solemnly upon their Oathes even this Parliament have declared the King their only Supreame Governour wherein they swore not for themselves but on anothers behalfe that is for the Kings Interest So that every prudent man in common sense and reason ought to beleeve that which these men have thus sworne for the King And absolutely to reject this their affirmation contrary to that Oath and for their owne advantage And so I conclude this point concurring with the Lords and Commons 1 Jacobi that the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme is by inherent birth-right descended and come to this our King Charls And that according to the Oathes of these Members and their predecessors in former Parliaments he is our onely Supreame Governour In the next place it is shewed that the Militia of the Kingdom is in the King CHAP. VIII That the Militia of the Kingdome by the knowne Laws of the Realme is inherent in the Crowne And at the absolute command of the King and none else IT appears before that the King is the onely Supreame Governour which of it selfe is sufficient to satisfie any man of judgement that the Militia of the Kingdome is likewise in Him yet Mr. Pryn by licence of the Commons House hath published a Treatise Intituled thus The Parliaments Interest in the Militia Whereby he endeavours to prove that the Members of the two Houses which he miscals the Parliament have the power over the Militia the Forts the Navie and Revenues of the Crown And begins thus It must saith he be granted that the power which His Majesty hath or His Predecessors enjoyed ever the Militia the Forts the Navie Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne was originally granted to His Ancestors by the Parliament and Kingdomes free consent Answer The Militia the Forts the Navy Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne saith M. Pryn were granted to the Kings Ancestors by the Parliament and Kingdomes free consent So that neither the Parliament nor the Kingdome by his owne confession made the grant nor who he meanes was this grantor himself cannot imagine However it is not worth the labour to make further inquiry thereof for most certaine it is never any such grant was made But admit that before the Kings Ancestors enjoyed them some persons had power and Interest therein and made a grant thereof to the Kings Ancestors It is as hard a taske thereby to prove that the Members have title to these things as to find out this imagined grantor who never yet was in esse The Argument is but thus The Militia the Forts the Navy Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne were originally granted to the Kings Ancestors Ergo at
or man although they be the greatest Tyrants in the world the highest persecutors of Christian Religion be it either spirituall or temporall although never so pernicious to foul or body it must be admitted for good Law and true Gospel Thus the people being drawne to recede from their true principle have occasioned their owne confusion Whereas by their observing the Laws of the Realme these distractions have been avoyded For by the constitutions of this Kingdome both King and Subject are regulated by a knowne Law which Law permits neither King nor people to be Judge in their owne case If one Subject wrongfully imprison the person of another seize his Lands or take away his goods the party injured hath his legall remedy but is not permitted to be his owne carver or revenger if he for his owne satisfaction kill his adversary it is murder If he seize his Lands or take his goods it is a trespasse So in the Kings case If by His Command any Subject be imprisoned or his estate taken from him against the rules of the knowne Law that Subject hath his legall remedy against the Kings ministers wherein neither the King nor his officers are Judge Therefore if that Subject thus injured should to revenge himself kill the King or seize His Revenues it were a most barbarous and unjust Law not to condemne this Act unlawfull And that being admitted it must be unlawfull to attempt His death or to leavy War against Him for any such cause And consequently all those facts although committed upon the grounds aforesaid are Treason Now that person who conceives himselfe to be most highly injured being required to set downe the motives of his taking up Armes against the King his pretence can be no other then this That his person hath been imprisoned his Lands seized and his goods taken from him And this in his judgement against Law none but Brutes can conclude these are legall justifications to act and do such things against their King And so consequently the authors and actors of this War are guilty of Treason But saith Mr. Pryn The Parliament is not within the meaning of this Statute of 25 Ed. 3. Therefore not Treason for the Members to seize the Kings Forts Armes Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne for saith he the King is a Member of the Parliament and therefore if the Parliament could commit Treason the King should commit Treason against himself And saith he the Parliament is a corporation and a Court of Justice and so not capable of the guilt of Treason Answer Most true it is That the King is exempt from the guilt of Treason for all Treasons are committed against Him But every Subject which includes all the rest of the people is capable both to commit the fact and is subject to punishment for the same And herein there is no difference of persons It is no more lawfull for a Peere then for a pezant to commit that crime the place where alters not the nature of that fact nor doth it availe the actors in being Members of any Assembly Corporation body politick or Court of Justice For every one of these Members or persons besides their pollitick capacity hath a naturall capacity too In which capacity he is subject to the frailties of man he may actually breake the Law and passively suffer for it But the Assembly it selfe the Corporation the body politick or the Court of Justice can neither commit a crime nor is capable of punishment For example the Parliament that is the King the Members of the Lords House and the Members of the Commons House their power is onely to make Laws by Act of Parliament Therefore when the Members of the two Houses in a Parliamentary way passe a Bill which the King confirmes with His Royall Assent Absurd it were to thinke this could be an Act of Treason And so it is for the Judges of every Court of Justice keeping themselves within their jurisdiction they cannot in the proceedings of their owne Court commit Treason And the like holds with all Corporations and bodies politick But if a Member in either House assault or strike his fellow Member that is a trespasse and wilfully to kill him is murther And by the same reason to kill the King although within the wals of the House is Treason And that being granted it followeth that to imagine His death or attempt to kill the King or agree to levy War against Him although in that place is Treason in such Members And herein no formall or seeming Parliamentary proceedings will alter the case The putting it to the question voting the businesse and setling it by a Major part or composing it into a formall Law and calling it by the name of an Ordinance of Parliament neither alter the nature of the crime nor takes away the guilt of Treason If one who hath acted in this War be indicted for Treason who at his arraignment shewes an Ordinance of both Houses for his justification The triall being before a just Judge It will no more availe him then Adam was justified saying Eve tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit And the Members who commanded those things to be done being legally questioned have no more to say then Eve had For it was the Serpent who tempted them to commit this treason The rightfull Judge will informe them that the Law cannot be altered but by Act of Parliament The Judges of the Realme understand not the Language of an Ordinance of the two Houses nor is any such thing pleadable in a Court of Justice the Law takes no notice thereof These things are done by the Members not in their politick but in their naturall capacities They are not Acts of Parliament they are unlawfull facts of Parliament-men And such offenders being attainted and executed the Parliament suffers not Besides it is the fact which the Law doth looke upon And in this case the greatnesse of the person offending the number committing the offence and the place where acted is so far from extenuating as that it rather aggravates the crime For a conservator of the peace in his owne person to breake it or a Judge of the Law to be an example of transgressing it is more odious then in other men Then considering the persons acting viz. Members of the House of Parliament the thing acted high Treason the place where in those Houses words cannot expresse the barbarousnesse of it Now to conclude this point I here set downe what facts the knowne Law judgeth Treason the Members Law therein and the proof on both sides What facts the Law judgeth high Treason the foresaid Statute of 25 Ed. 3. makes it manifest in these words viz. Whereas divers opinions have been before this time In what case Treason shall be said and in what not then declares that by the Law of the Land these particular facts following are Treason 1. To compasse or imagine the death of the King the Queen or the
Prince 2. To violate the Queen the Kings eldest daughter unmarried or his eldest sons wife 3. To leavy War against the King or to adhere unto His enemies giving them aid or comforts in this Realme or elsewhere 4. To counterfeit the Kings Great Seale the Privy Seale or His money 5. To bring false money into this Realme counterfeit to the money of England 6. To slay the Chancellor Treasurer or the Judges of either Bench the Justices of Eyre of Assize and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine in their places doing their office And then it is enacted in the negative that no other thing shall be judged Treason untill it be declared by the King and His Parliament And accordingly by severall Acts of Parliament some other things have been made Treason viz. 7. To deny the King to be our onely Supreame Governour and so in some other particulars The Members Law herein both Affirmatively and Negatively follow thus 1. That it is not Treason to imagine the death of the King the Queen or Prince 2. That it is not Treason to Levy War against the King to adhere unto His Enemies or to give aide or comforts to them in England or elsewhere 3. That it is not Treason to Counterfeit the Kings Great Seal or His Money 4. That it is not Treason to deny the King to be the Supreame Governour Then for their Doctrine in their Affirmative it followeth thus 1. That it is Treason to endeavour the preservation of the Kings Person from violence 2. That it is Treason for a Subject to aide the King against His Rebellious Subjects Levying War against Him 3. That it is Treason to maintain or affirme that the King is the onely Supreame Governour 4. That it is Treason for any Man to deny the Members their fellow Subjects to have the Soveraigne power of Government 5. That it is Treason for a Subject without leave of the Members to recide or dwell in London But it is not possible to instance in all the particulars of the new Treasons therefore in general the people must know that whatever the Members shall say is Treason They must beleeve it to be Treason Now for the poofs The foresaid Statute doth clearly demonstrate what the known Law is And therewith agrees all the Authorities Judgements and Resolutions of the Law But for the Members their Law is so new as that they cannot look beyond the beginning of this Parliament nor produce any one Judgement Resolution or Opinion to make good any one of their Doctrines And consequently their own fictions Let them speak out and all that they can say for themselves is but thus viz. We have gotten possession of the Kings Revenue we have besides that setled unto our selves a yearly Revenue amounting to at least thrice treble the profits of the Crown of England and which is still more sweet we have the dominion over King and People we have a power unlimited to impose taxes and payments upon whom we please and what summes we thinke fit their persons we have in vassalage and can take away their lives when and for what cause we please for the obtaining whereof we did Levy War against the King we did in that Warre attempt to kill the King the Queen and Prince we did adhere unto His Enemies and gave unto them relief and comforts we have counterfeited the Kings Great Seal and His Money we have and yet doe most barbarously imprison the Kings Person we have subverted both Law and Religion Now for us to confesse the known Law and submit our selves thereunto were no other then to put our necks into the halter Therefore we must of necessity deny the old and forge new Lawes These things considered I suppose every one not particeps criminis in this odious Rebellion will judge it more absolutely necessary for him to endeavour his infranchisement from His slavery then it was for the Members to commit this foul Treason and Rebellion whereby the people are brought to this Vassalage Upon the whole matter clear it is that all those Members of either House of Parliament who consented to the making of any Order or Ordinance for the promoting of this War pretended for King and Parliament and all other persons who have acted therein consented or adhered thereunto are guilty of High Treason CHAP. X. That the Subjects of this Nation are not onely commanded from doing violence to the Kings Person or prejudice to His Authority but are obliged with their lives and fortunes to assist and preserve His Person and Just Rights from the fury of His enemies both forraigne and domestick ALL the people of this Nation are divided thus viz. King and Subject which of it self is proof sufficient to make this good The word King as before appears implies a duty in the King to protect His people and the word Subject a duty in them to assist Him By the Laws of England for a servant to kill his Master is an offence of a higher nature and the punishment for it more severe then for the meanest Subject without such relation of service to kill the greatest Peere for besides the Subordination between them a trust is implyed the breach whereof by an act of that nature by the Lawes of England is petty Treason Besides the Law expects from the servant a personall assistance to preserve his Master from violence or hurt and in that regard the Master being assaulted the servant by the Lawes of England may justifie to resist the assailant in defence of his Masters person And between the King and His Subjects the Subordination and Subjection is of a far higher nature The trust reposed in the Subject and his duty to the King is far more transcendent the King being head of the weal publick By violating his person saith our Law every Member of the Common-wealth suffers Therefore in assisting Him we doe defend our selves He is Pater Patriae we are His naturall born Subjects and so by the Law of nature obliged to preserve Him from injury Now the person of my Soveraigne Leige Lord the King by an unnaturall Warre raised and prosecuted by His owne Subjects being assaulted and Warre made against His Crowne and Dignity And the King having by His Proclamations summoned His Loyall Subjects to assist him upon serious consideration thereof I found that nothing was more clear or pregnant both by Authorities of the books of Law and severall Acts of Parliament by which it is abundantly declared to be our bounden duty to serve the King in His Wars both against forrain invasions domestick insurrections and rebellions Then that I was obliged in duty by the Lawes of this Realm by the Law of Nature by the Law of Reason and by the Law of God even by that precept of Saint Paul in these words viz. Let ' every soul be subject to the higher powers to assist Him against these assaults And upon these grounds I took up Armes for Him and
then was the condition of an English villaine at the beginning of this Parliament It is as bad nay worse then that under the Turke they have onely one Tyrant we seven hundred They one head over their whole body we two bodies without a head And as it is with us in Temporall affaires the same it is in Spirituall things too The Members have de facto abolished the Protestant Religion And both in doctrine and discipline force mens consciences how absurd or blasphemous soever it be to submit to their resolutions So that if the question be asked whether the scripture or the Church be Judge or how a man shall be informed of the truth These Tyrants make answer that neither Scripture nor Church is Judge of controversies but the two Houses We must no more search the Scriptures but submit our selves our souls and bodies to the Votes of the Major part of those two Houses and thus are the people slaves CHAP. XIV How the Subjects of England were brought unto this slavery IT is true the people of England for some time before this Parliament were grieved with illegall taxations Monopolizing of Trades and other things not warranted by Law And although there wants not meanes besides a Parliament to redresse any disorder arising in the Common-wealth yet the cause of the distempers may be such as that without a Parliament it would be difficult to reforme them When the Judges are corrupt as the Members alledged they were in that case of Ship-money when the Officers of State or other persons of power neere the King occasioned the mischiefe as it was conceived in the businesse of Monopolies few in the ordinary way of proceedings dare informe or prosecute Therefore in such cases a Parliament is necessary The Members in those things have freedome of speech And the King having called His Parliament at the first meeting thereof expressed Himself most sensible of the disorders of the Kingdome declared His desire to have a perfect reformation His resolution to governe according to the knowne Law such as were authors or actors of the former distractions he left them to legall tryall And to compleat the businesse promised to concur with the two Houses in all things tending to reformation Thus the Parliament had a happy beginning and for a good space of time a progresse sutable For such as looke upon the Statutes made this sitting shall find the worke of reformation even by the King Himselfe perfectly compleated That Judgement for Ship-money the busines of Monopolies and all other visible and Knowne greivances were taken away And to prevent the like danger for after-times the King passed an Act for calling a Parliament every third year So that to the obtaining of the greatest happinesse that any people in the world can desire there wanted nothing but to punish the authors of the former mischiefe and then for the present a dissolution of the Parliament Then might every one by observing a knowne Law have promised to himself security of his person and challenged property in his estate But the sequell shewes that it was not the publick good it was their owne private the government and wealth of the whole Nation the Members aimed at And as a foundation to it the plot was to make this Parliament perpetuall But at the first it not being thought fit to discover their intention therein it was pretended that the affaires of the Kingdome required instant supplies of great summes of money which as they pretended could not be obtained but by Loane And that the people fearing a suddaine dissolution of the Parliament would not lend A Bill therefore is cunningly formed not at all mentioning for what time the Parliament should sit in generall words enacting that it shall not be dissolved nor adjourned but with the assent of the two Houses And the King being informed by the hatchers of that plot that this Act was for no other end but to procure the Loane of money for the publick good passed the Bill The Members having obtained this Act and conceiving that thereby the King could not dissolve the Parliament without their consent then they began their intended worke From thence nothing is heard of in the old Parliamentary way The prosecution of the Judges in that heavy charge of corruption is not onely set aside but some of them formerly accused to be such high malefactors as to have subverted the knowne Law are received into the greatest favour as persons most proper to usher in the arbitrary power of the Members Then are the people amused with feares and jealousies by printed pamphlets they are grosly abused by being told that the King intended to subvert the Law and governe by His arbitrary power To abolish the Protestant Religion and to introduce Popery The Kingdome therefore it was resolved must be put into a posture of defence The Militia must be taken out of the Kings hands and setled in the Members And accordingly by their command the Kings subjects are mustered arrayed and put into a readinesse for War they are instructed and prepared to take upon them any enterprize the Members shall direct The Fortes the Navy the Armes Ammunition and Revenues of the Crowne are taken to the use of the Members Thus having prepared and strengthened themselves the next thing was further to disinable the King to make resistance It is therefore falsely and maliciously declared to the people that it is against the liberty of the Subject for any cause whatsoever unlesse upon an actuall invasion to be forced by the Kings command out of their owne County So that by this doctrine in case of a forraigne Invasion the enemy must be landed he must have footing in the Kingdome before the people may be gathered together by the King to make defence But in case of Rebellion the businesse in hand if the Rebels once get a formed body too strong for any one County the businesse is done They may if this be true doctrine undoubtedly conquer County after County the whole Kingdome These things being done it was then conceived opportunely and safe enough to publish and declare their intent Then without the King they arrogate the name of the Parliament of England take upon them to be the Supreame Court of Justice to make Laws and in a word a power arbitrary So that the Members have as an emprick by killing his patient with improper medicines cures his disease reformed this Common-wealth under pretence to restore the knowne Law The Law it selfe is by them totally subverted And that which is still more grievous the people were made voluntary instruments of this tragedy whilst they conceived they fought in defence of the Law and their owne Liberties they were therein their owne executioners They have embrued their hands in the blood of their fellow Subjects and by their victory have plunged themselves into the debts of slavery But these things being done in the name of a Parliament with some persons they