« PreviousContinue »
that have already done it ; and the People, wbat a Deal of Law they are to expect hereafter. All you can juftly! in your own Sense, accuse the King of, is but Discontinuance, or untimely Difsolution of Parliaments, which I won. der with what Sense you can interpret a Design to destroy the Parliaments, fince all the World knows he parted with his power to diffolve the Parliament too. But see how doubly unjust you are ; you accuse him for not calling Parliaments so often as he was bound to do by the Law, once a Year, (as you say) or oftner, but never conlider how that is impoflible to be done, without diffolving them as often, for doing which, notwithstanding, with so much Clamour, you condemn him. Thus you charge him with Inconsisten. cies, and may with much more Reason accuse him for calling Parliaments, be. cause if he had not called them, he. could never have diffolved them, which is very like your way of Argument.
But much better than you commonly ufe ; for your next,(to remove an Ob. jection out of your way) is thus managed: The King, and not the Judges. and evil Councellors, ought to be ac.
countable for the Male-Administrations, Injustices, and Oppreilions of the Parliament. Your Reasons are because he made fuch wicked and corrupt Judges : Were they not his own Creatures? and ought not every Man to be accountable for the work of his own · Hands ? Believe me, this were something, if you could prove he made them wicked, as well as Judges. But if this Plea hold, you have argued well for your honourable Clients, the People ; for if they made the King, as you say they did, yon have cleard him of all such horrid Crimes, Murders, and Massacres, which you take so much Pains, to no purpose, to accuse him of, and, like a right Man of Law, have undone your Clients, upon whose Score you set them. Your next Business will be to prove God guilty of the Sins of wicked Men, for they are his Creatures and the Work of his own Hands, I take it. But this is your perpetual Method of doing him Right, to make him fole Author and Owner of all bis ill ordered or unhappy Actions, and not allow him a Share in any good Deed or Act of Grace.
And these are the Fundamentals of the Charge, only Suppofitions of Intentions and Designs, which how far you have proved just or profitable, let any Man but your self judge. The Course you take afterwards, is much worse, in my opinion, for you make your own Grounds, and either not prove them at all, or (which is worse) prove them upon their own Bottom, as when you take upon you to state the Ground of your Wars, and prove the King to be the cause of it, you do it thus :
The King (you fay) set up his Stan. dard of War for the Advancement and Upholding of his Personal Interest, Power, and pretended Prerogative; a: gainst the publick Interest of common Right, Peace, and Safety. How do you prove this? Because he fought for the Militia, for a Power to call and dissolve Parliaments, a negative Voice. to make Judges, confer Honours, grant Pardons, make Corporations, inhance or debafe Money, and avoid his own Grants. These you call his Personal Interest, Power and Prerogative, which you fay he fought for: Now, put the Pofition and Proof together, and fee
what Sense it will make; truly none but this : That he made War for his Prerogative, because he fought for his Prerogative: Is not this fine Logick! but suppose it were Sense, how do you prove he fought for his Prerogative ? to this you have not one Word to say ; and why then Mould we rather take your Word than the King's, who protested he took Arms in Defence of the Protestant Religion, the Liberty of the Subject, the Privileges of Parliament, and Laws of England? Certainly there is no Man in his Wits, but would rather believe
his Words, than your Arguments, if he does but consider that the most improbable Part of all, (he protested to fight for the Defence of the Privileges of Parliament) is fcand by Experience to be no Paradox: How true the rest is,Time will instruct you. But yet I cannot fee, why we should not rather believe them, than the Pre. tences of the Parliament, which were nore to fight in Defence of his Person, and their own Privileges, which how they have performed, your self can tell; but all this while you mistake your own Question, which was not the right.of the Cause, but the Cause, or (as you have it the Occasion of the
War; and if you had a Purpose to know that, Actions had been the only Guide of your Inquiry ; for Intentions and Words are uncertain, and if they make no Assaults in private Quarrels, I know not why they should in publick; and therefore, since we can never agree about tbe Truth of more remote Cau.. fes, 'tis most just for us to place the Cause of the War, where we find the first Breach of the Peace. Now, that the King was cleared of this, all'indifferent Men, who had the Unhappiness to be acquainted with the Méthod of their own Undoing, can very well te. ftify.. And if the Parliament should deny it, their own Votes would contradict them, as well as their A&tions; for when they first raifed Horse and Arms, they pretended to do so, because it appeared, the King, seduced by wicked Counsel, intended to make War against the Parliament; whereby they confess he had not then done ita and they had so little Ground to make it appear he ever would, that they were fain to usurp the Right of his Cause, to justify their own;
and, they fay, took Arms for the Defence of the King, which, if we grant, it must fol