Sir, being acquainted with your wayes of im­ployment, and knowing you to be a Lawyer, I shall desire some satisfaction from you concerning a Parliament, it being no way belonging to my own study, whereby I may resolve my self: and first I desire you to tell me, who may be Burgesses or Knights in Parliament.

I wish all Divines were of your temper, not to meddle with that which belongs not to them; and to answer your question; the son and heir of an Earl may be, and so was the Lord Russell: Eliz. 6. or the sonne and heir apparent of a Baron, and so was Mr. Henry Brook; for the eldest son of an Earl is not a Lord, only by the cour­tesie of England he is called so, but in any Declaration or writing he hath no more then his legall addition given.

But may not a Divine be chosen for a Burgesse, for he hath no voice in the upper House unlesse he be a Bishop.

No Sir he may not, and therefore Alexander Nowell was refused, being a Prebend of Westminster, where­upon a Writ issued to choose another in his roome for Leo in Cornwall.

But I have heard that the Country hath a free chise, and if they choose a Divine and he is returned, may the House put him out, and have they power to send out Writs?

In 23 Eliz. it was ordered, that during the Ses­sion, no Writs should issue to choose Knights or Burges­ses, but by Warrant of the House to the Clerk of the Crown, and 18 Martii, 23 Eliz. it was agreed by the House, that if a Burgesse be incurably sick, another may be chosen in his place by licence of the House, but not if he be easily sick, or sent of his Majesties service, unlesse the House will allow of a new Election.

What then Sir if one man be chosen for two places, wh [...]ch must he serve for?

He must serve for that place which first chose him: Sir Henry Piercy was chosen Knight for two Coun­ties, and thereupon it was adjudged by the House, that he should serve for that County which first chose him: 13. Eliz. and in 7. E. 6. one Cavell was returned for Ludders-hall and for Travayny, and he appeared for the first, and a Writ issued to choose another for Travayny.

Well Sir, you have satisfied me for the Election of Burgesses, and who may be, now tell me what they do usually re­quire at the Kings hands, when they are all met and a Spea­ker made.

The first thing that they require at the Kings hands, is that which was required by the Commons in the thirteenth yeer of Henry 8. to wit, that if any man of the Commons House should speak more largely, then of du­ty he ought to do, all such offences to be pardoned, and that to be of record.

If that be granted, then they may speak of the King what they please; and he must be pardoned.

No Sir, the reverence which a vassall oweth his Soveraigne is intended (in that motion) for to be proved in every speech, what ever it be it must import the good of the King and his State; and so long it may be easily [Page 5] pardoned, otherwise not; for in Queen Elisabeths time, who gave freedom of speech to all Parliaments, when Wentworth made those motions that were but supposed dangerous to the Queens estate, he was imprisoned in the Tower, and there dyed.

I thought every Burgesse or Knight of the Parliament house had a priviledge that they could not be imprisoned.

No more they cannot at the suit of any common person, where the offence does not touch the King direct­ly, as by a Trespasse against another, or the like; but a man shall not have the priviledge of the House for a criminall offence that immediatly toucheth the King.

If he shall not have the priviledge of the House for such an offence as immediately toucheth the King, who then must commit him, the King, or the House of Parliament whereof he is a Member.

As to that question, I shall not give you my own opinion, but I shall shew you what Presidents have been done, if the Books be true that I go by: Sir Edward Warner (Lieutenant of the Tower) was sent out of his house to the Tower for an offence done before the Par­liament was summoned: And Sir William Cecill then Se­cretary, said that the Queen was then assured by her Ju­stices, that she might commit any of the House during the Parliament, for any offence against her Crown and Dig­nity; and that they shewed divers Presidents thereof; and Pearne was committed to the Marshalsy for words, with­out any notice given to the House; and Master Cope, Ma­ster Leukenor, Hurlston, and Master Braynbridge, and others were committed to the Tower by the Queen, for that be­fore the Parliament they had sundry conventions for the preferring in Parliament a Book touching the Rates of the Church, and a form of an Act for establishing the [Page 6] same: Which also they did print, prefer, and urge in Parliament; but it seemed that if they had treated thereof onely in time of Parliament (being Burgesses) they should not have been impeached: in 28 Eliz.

What then do you think of the Kings accusing of the five Members?

Sir, you must know that the accusation layd by His Majesty against them, is not within the compasse of any of those Presidents; and we need not stand to give any reasons to prove how it differs from them presidents, because the King Himself hath acknowledged it; and what dishonor can His so doing be to so Religious a Prince, when as he himself is subject to error, being con­sidered as man? nay, in that point He hath excelled the goodnesse of His Royall Ancestors, which act I hope shall be perpetually Recorded in the hearts of all His Subjects, for a testimony of His Grace and goodnesse, and for a pattern to all succeeding Princes.

But why did not they then except of a Pardon?

Then the Kings mercy had been apparent, of which we have other great evidences; but His willing­nesse to acknowledge His errors (which is as great a ver­tue in Prince) had been concealed, and so he had been (in that respect) lesse glorious: besides, had they received a Pardon, being not guilty, they had ipso facto lost their personall estate by the Statute, unlesse some words of Art had been put into the pardon, which is not too late yet to be done.

Then it seems that in former times the King had a power over the Parliament, unlesse I misapprehend them, pray tell me, hath he not now a power over them?

I shall tell you what I have read, and farther I cannot go: The House had agreed in 23 Eliz. to have a [Page 7] common Fast, whereof the Queen misliked not for the matter, but for the innovation of order, without her pri­vity, and without Ecclesiasticall Authority; for which cause, the Commons submitted themselves, and she gave them their pardon: And Sir Walter Raleigh saith, the three Estates do but advise, as the Privie-Councell doth; which advice if the King embrace, it becomes the Kings own Act in the one; and the Kings Law in the other; for with­out the Kings acceptation, both the publike and private advices be but as empty Egge-shells. Again, if there be any difference for alteration of a Bill between the Lords and Commons, then usually some speciall persons of each House meet & confer, that one House may understand the meaning of the other; but a Bill that is signed by the King, and sent to the Lower-house, may not be altred in any part thereof, without His Majesties licence; but if a Bill come from the Lords, and not signed by him, it may be altered, by noting what should be taken from it, or added unto it: from whence learned Doctor I desire you to gather your own satisfaction: and in 4. & 5. Phill. & Mar. The Speaker shewed that it was the QUEENS pleasure, that the House should proceed no farther with the Bill for the Revenues of the Queen, because it ex­tended to divers which had accompted, and then Peter Wentworth and James Dalton moved, whether this did not restrain the Liberty of the House; upon which after ma­ny arguments, they resolved to cease till some other time: now the Queen revoked her said Command, and gave them liberty to proceed; but upon consultation a­mongst themselves, they spared to proceed any farther.

But pray Sir, tell me your opinion freely, Is it dange­rous for the King to assemble the three States; for thereby for­mer Kings have alwayes lost somewhat of their Prerogative: [Page 8] and because you shall not think that I speak at random, I will begin with elder times, wherein the first contention began be­twixt the Kings of this land, and their Subjects in Parliament.

Sir you would do me a singular favour in your so doing.

You know that the Kings of England had no formall Parliament, till about the eighteenth yeer of Henry the first, for in his 17th yeer for the marriage of his daughter, the King raised a Tax upon every hide of Land by the advice of his pri­vy Councell alone; but you may remember how the subjects, soon after this Parliament, began to stand upon termes with the King, and drew from him by strong hand and the sword, the Great Charter.

You say well Sir, the great Charter was drawn from the King by the sword, but hereof the Parliament cannot be accused, but the Lords.

Then afterwards King John promised to restore King Edwards Laws, and also to confirm the Charter of Forrests, and the great Charter upon his absolution; but after his return out of France, in his 16 year he denyed it, because without such a promise he had not obtained restitution, therefore he said his promise was constrain'd, and not voluntary: what say you therefore, was he not bound in honor to perform it?

Certainly no, for it was determined the Case of King Francis the first of France, That all promises by him made, whil'st he was in the hands of Charls the Fifth his enemy, were voyd, by reason the judge of Honor, which tells us he durst do no other.

But King John was not in prison.

Yet for all that, restraint is imprisonment, yea, fear it self is imprisonment, and the King was subject to both: I know there is nothing more Kingly in a King, than the performance of his word; that is, his word that [Page 9] is freely given; for binding of a King by Law upon the advantage of his necessity, makes the breach it self lawfull in a King (saith Sir Walter Raleigh) his Charters and all other instruments being no other than the surviving wit­nesses of unconstrained will, Princeps non subjicitur nisi suae voluntate libra, mero motu & certa scientia; necessary words in all the Grants of a King; witnessing that the same Grants were given freely and willingly.

But what say you to the Parliament of Westmin­ster in the 16 yeare of the King, when notwithstanding the Wars of France, and the great charge he had been at in repul­sing the Welsh Rebels, he was flatly denyed the Subsidy de­manded.

I confesse Sir, That the House excused them­selves by reason of their poverty, and the Lords taking of Arms; but you spake Sir of danger of Parliaments: Now in this Parliament there was a deniall, but there was no danger at all; yet in the end of that year, at the Assembly of the States at Lambeth, the King had the for­tieth part of every mans goods given him freely towards the payment of his debts, and those people who the same year had refused to give the King any thing, when they saw he had supplied his own necessity out of Delinquents and corrupt Officers which he call'd to accompt, they willingly yeelded to give him satisfaction; and indeed 'tis impossible for a King of England to greaten and en­rich himself by any way so assuredly, as by the love of his people; for by one years-Rebellion, or civill Wars, the King hath more losse, than by a hundred years obser­vance of Magna Charta, and the other Laws that are in force; for in those times of War, Kings have been for­ced to compound with Rogues and Rebels, and to pardon them; but by Parliaments; the Kings of England ne­ver [Page 10] received losse or prejudice.

But what say you to tha deniall in the 26 year of this Kings Reigne, sven when the King was invited to come into France by the Earle of March who married his Mother, and who promised to assist him in the Conquest of many places that he had lost?

It is true, that a Subsidie was then denyed, and the reasons are delivered in English Histories; who say, That with a world of payments there mentioned, the King had drawn the Nobility dry; and besides, That whereas not long before, great summes of Money were given, and the same appointed to be kept in four Castles, and not to be expended, but by the advise of the Peers; it was believed, that the same Treasure was yet unspent.

Good sir, you have said enough; judge you your self, whether that were not a dishonor to the King to be so tyed; as not to expend his Treasure, but by other mens advise, as it were by their licence.

Surely (noble Doctor) the King was well advi­sed to take the money upon any condition, and they were fooles that did propound the restrain't; for it does not ap­pear that the King took any great heed to those overseers: Kings are bound by their Piety, and by no other obliga­tions. In Queen Maries time, when it was thought that she was with Childe; It was propounded that the Rule of the Realm should be given to King Philip, during the Minority of the hoped Prince or Princesse; and the King offered his assurance in great summes of Money, to relinquish the Government; at such time as the Prince or Princesse should be of age: At which motion when all were silent in the House, the Lord Dacres (who was none of the wisest) asked who should sue the Kings Bonds? which ended the despute; for what Bond is between a [Page 11] King and Vassall, more than the Bond of the KINGS Faith?

What say you then to the twenty eighth yeare of that King, in which when the King demanded Reliefe, the States would not consent, except the former Order had beene taken for the appointing of foure Overseers for the Treasure; As also that the Lord Chiefe Justice, and the Lord Chancellor should be chosen by the States, with some Ba­rons of the Exchequer and other Officers.

Why Sir, Admit the King had yeelded to their demands, then whatsoever had been ordained by those Magistrates to the dislike of the Commonwealth, the people had beene without remedy; whereas while the King made them, they had their appeale and o­ther remedies; It is an excellent thing for a King to have patience, and give way to the fury of mens pas­sions.

Was not the King denied a Subsidie in the forty first of his Reign?

No Sir, for although the King required Money as before, for the impossible conquest of Scicily, yet the House offered to give fifty two thousand Marks, which whether he refused or accepted, is uncertaine; And whilest the King dreamed of Scicily, the Welsh Invaded and spoyled the Borders of England; for in the Parlia­ment of London, when the King urged the House for the prosecuting the Conquest of Scicily, the Lords utterly disliking the attempt, urged the prosecuting of the Welsh-men: Which PARLIAMENT being Pro­roged, did againe Assemble at OXFORD, and was called the mad PARLIAMENT, which was no other than the Assembly of Rebels; for the Roy­all Assent of the KING, which gives life [Page 12] to all Laws formed by the three Estates, was not a Roy­all assent, when both the King and Prince were constraind to yeeld to the Lords; A constraind consent is the con­sent of a Captive, not of a King; and therefore there was nothing done there either legall, or Royall; for if it be not properly a Parliament where the Subject is not free, certainly, it can be none where the King is bound, for all Kingly Rule was taken from the King, and twelve Peers appointed to Governe the Realm; and as other Writers have it, 24 Peers, and therefore the assembly made by Jack Straw and other Rebels, may aswell be called a Par­liament, as that at Oxford, Principis nomen habere non est esse Princeps, for thereby was the King driven, not onely to compound all quarrels with the French, but he quitted his Right to Normandy, Anyou, and Mayne.

But what needed this extremity, seeing the Lords re­quired but the confirmation of the former Charter, which was not prejudiciall to the King to grant?

Yes Sir, but they insulted upon the King, and would not suffer him to enter into his own Castles; they put down the Purvey or of the meat, for the mainte­nance of his house, as if the King had been a Banckrupt; and gave order, That without ready money he should take up a Chicken; and though there is nothing against the Royalty of a King in these Charters, yet it is so con­trary to the nature of a King to be forced, even to those things which may be to his avantage, as that the King had some reason to seek the dispensation of his oath from the Pope, and to draw in strangers for his own defence; yea, jure salvo coronae nostrae, is intended inclusively in all oaths and promises exacted from a Soveraign.

But you know tis dangerous to call in other Nations both for the spoyle they make, as also because they have often [Page 13] held the possessions of the best places, with which they have been trusted.

Tis true Sir, nothing is so dangerous for a King, as to be constraind and held as prisoner to his Vassalls; for by that Edward the Second and Richard the Second lost both their Kingdoms and their lives.

Why, those were both Deposed by Parliament, were they not?

Yes Sir, being prisoners, and being out of Posses­sion; It is an old contrary Proverb (that might over­comes right) a weak title that wears a strong sword, com­monly prevails against a strong title that wears but a weak one; otherwise. Philip the second had never been Duke of Millaine, nor King of Naples and Sicily; but sir, errores non sunt trahendi in exemplam, when I defend Parliaments, I speak of peaceable, Regall and lawfull Parliaments.

What say you then to the Parliament held at London, about the sixt year of Edward the Seconds time?

I say, that King was not bound to performe the Acts of that Parliament, because the Lords, beeing too strong for the King, enforced his consent; for these be the words of our own History, viz. They wrested too much beyond the bounds of reason; and at the Parlia­ment in the 13 year of that King, the Lords that were so moved came with an Army, and by strong hand surprized the King, they constraind (saith the Story) the rest of the Lords, and compelled many of the Bishops to consent unto them; yea, it saith farther, That the King durst not but grant to all that they required.

What say you to the Lords in Richard the Seconds time, when he was first besieged in the Tower, the Lords came to the Parliament, and no man durst contradict them.

Certainly in raising an Army, they committed [Page 14] Treason, and though it did appear that they all loved the King (for they did him no harm having him in their pow­er) yet our Law doth conster all levying of War without the Kings Commission, and all Force raised to be inten­ded for the death of the King, not attending the sequell, so saith Sir Walter Raleigh; but Mr. Doctor, for this war that our present Parliament do maintain, I must tell you, that you must take this for a generall rule; That the im­mortall Policy of a State, cannot admit any Law or Privi­ledge whatsoever, but in some particular or other, the same must necessarily be broken; therefore I hold not Sir Walters opinion for good Law in the case of our times; for the supreme reason beares out their practise of many things without the advise of the Law; and where the Law by forecast hath not provided remedies for future dangers, Parliaments are forced to assist themselves by their Priviledges: And besides, who can shew a greater Right or Title to the exposition of that Statute, and deter­mining what is a levying of War within that Statute, and what not; then those that can expound with the same au­thority that the thing expounded was made by; how­ever I am sure, That as those Parliaments wherein the Kings of this Land have satisfied the people, have beene ever prosperous both to King and people; so where Kings have restrained the House, the contrary hath hapned.

Well Sir, but is it not the best way to compound a Par­liament of the Kings servants and others, that shall in all o­bey the Kings desires?

Certainly no, for it hath never succeeded well on the Kings part, nor on the Subjects; for from such a com­position do arise all jealousies and all contentions; it was practised in elder times, to the great trouble of the King­dome, and to the losse and ruine of many; In later times [Page 15] 'twas used by King Hen. the eight; but every way to his disadvantage, when the King leaves himself to his peo­ple, they assure themselves that they are trusted and be­loved of their King; and there was never any people so barbarous, as not to answer the love and trust of their King.

Well Sir, notwithstanding all this, who dares to ad­vise a King to call a Parliament; for if it should succeed ill, those that advised the King to it, should fall into the Kings disgrace; and if the King be driven into any extremity, they can say to the King, that because we found it extreamly unplea­sing to his Majesty to hear of a Parliament, we thought it no good manners to make such a motion.

As to the first part of your excuse, let me tell you; that there was never any just Prince that hath ta­ken any advantage of the successe of Counsells, which have bin founded upon reason; to fear that, were to fear the losse of the Bell more then the losse of the Steeple; and were also the way to beate all men from the study of the Kings service: But for the second part of your ex­cuse, where you excuse your self upon the Kings prote­sting against a Parliament; let me tell you, that the King upon better consideration may encounter that finesse of yours; therefore 'twill be better for a King to trust his own reason and excellent judgement, which have not deceived him in any thing wherein His Majesty hath im­ployed them; take counsell of thine heart saith Salomon, for their is none more faithfull unto thee then it.