CHAR. I. obferve them, or punifh them when he breaks them? Will 1648-9. it not be an empty found without any meaning? And will

Reafors

again the parliament.

not the English government be as arbitrary as that of any other country in the world? Since, therefore, the laws have not decreed any penalty against a king that should neglect his duty, or the manner to conftrain him to discharge it; and as, neverthelefs, he is bound by the fame laws to procure the obfervance thereof, and to obferve them himself, the nation's rerepresentative in parliament is of course to call him to an account, fince it is not poffible to imagine any other way. Suppofing the king has violated the most fundamental laws of the realm, fhall foreigners be applied to, for to bring him to juftice? Can it be fuppofed, contrary to experience, that the king is under an impoffibility of breaking the fundamental laws of the kingdom, of endeavouring to fubvert them, and of establishing an arbitrary government? Will it be maintained, that he may do it with impunity? But if he is affured of impunity, what difference is there between the English government and the most defpotic, fince its prefervation will folely depend on the king's probity and will? If he runs no hazard in trying to alter the conftitution, after ten attempts, he will try again, even till he fucceeds. As to the objection, That lefs violent means than war may be used to oblige the king to the observance of the laws, and lefs unjust and extraordinary, than the taking away his life, to punish him for the breach of them; it is answered, This is true, and the parliament had accordingly tried to fecure the government by other methods, as by demanding of the king that the power of the militia might be lodged in both houfes. If the king had agreed to it, the realm would have been in peace, and the people's jealoufies have ceafed. But he had taken up arms to prevent the parliament's using these means, a clear evidence that his design was to maintain himself in a condition to alter the government when he fhould have opportunity. This unjuft war had been the occafion of infinite mifchiefs, of the death of thousands of his fubjects, and the ruin of the reft; and if he was brought to a trial, it was not fo much to punifh him for violating the laws, as for preferring the unjust and violent way of arms, before the expedients offered him to prevent his breaking them for the future.

The advocates for the king fay, 1. Though the kings of England have not fo much authority in their realm as fome other kings, it does not follow, that they may be put upon

a level

a level with fubjects, and made equally accountable for their CHAR. I. actions. 1648-9.

2. The principle laid down for foundation, that there is an equal obligation upon the king and fubjects to obferve the law, is falfe, and confequently the whole reafoning founded thereon, of no force. For, private perfons being entrufted only with their own conduct, nothing can exempt them from the obfervance of the laws. But the king being entrusted with the government of the ftate, and the execution of the laws, he has confequently power to qualify them on certain occafions, otherwife this truft would be to no purpose. The laws could not forefee every thing, and there are occafions where it is abfolutely neceffary for the public good to act contrary to them, or at least to fufpend the obfervance of them, and therefore the obligation of the king and the fubject is not equal.

3. Suppofing the king had violated fome of the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and levied war against the parliament after the most unjust manner, it did not follow that he might be punished with death, by reafon he has neither. fuperior nor equal in the kingdom, and he could have none but fubjects for his judges. Befides, he was the fountain of juftice, and it was abfurd to make him liable to justice, from whom it flows and derives its whole authority.

4. According to this fuppofition, the chance of war having put him in the power of his enemies, he might have been. detained in prison, and prevented from doing mischief, till he was prevailed with to grant all the fecurities required. But there was a wide difference between imprisonment and death; as the firft could be confidered as a reasonable and neceffary precaution, and the other as a punishment fubjects were not impowered to inflict on their fovereign, as indeed the like had never been heard of.

5. But the fuppofition that the king had violated the laws, and levied unjust war against his parliament, was very far from being well-grounded. In the first place, as to the laws, if the king, mifled by evil counfels, had, on fome occafions, carried his power too far, when the parliament made him fenfible of the ill confequences of this conduct, he had chearfully and willingly renounced the exorbitant power which he believed himself before to be justly intitled

to.

He had, without delay, confented to all the acts prefented to him on that fubject, and agreed that his most intimate counsellors should be brought to juftice. The parliament had accepted this reparation, without expreffing the

L13

leaft

CHAR. I. leaft defire of causing him to suffer for his paft faults. After 1648-9. that, it was abfurd to alledge thefe fame faults, fo amply repaired, as a motive of the juftice pretended to be executed upon him.

6. As for the war he had levied againft his parliament, it was wrongfully afferted, and without the leaft proof, that the king had raised and begun it on purpose to avoid giving his people fecurity. And under colour of defiring fecurity for the future, a defire wholly founded upon mere fufpicions and bare poffibilities that the king might abuse his power, it was pretended to ftrip him of all his prerogatives, in a word, of the regal authority, and leave him only a shadow of royalty. Thus, fuppofing it true that the king had begun the war, which was by no means evinced, it would alio be true, that the parliament had excited it, by attempting, under a vain pretence of peace and concord, to reduce the king to the most melancholy ftate a fovereign can poffibly be in.

7. The juftice, pretended to be executed upon the king, was founded intirely on two fuppofitions, fupported with no proof. The firft, that the king had undertaken the war, only to free himself from giving fecurity. The fecond, that there was reafon to fear he would employ the power that fhould be left him, in altering the conftitution. All reafonable perfons were therefore left to judge, whether there was juftice in trampling upon all laws divine and human, and inflicting upon their foverign a capital punishment on two fuch rafh fuppofitions.

8. As for the plunder, ruin, murder, and other mischiefs occafioned by the war, before they could be charged to the king's account, it ought at leaft to have been well proved that he was the author of the war. But if this point were fully examined, it would doubtlefs be found, that the complainers themselves could alone be charged with it.

9. The king was proceeded againft for intending to change the government, and make it arbitary and tyrannical. But every Englishman was convinced, that the government had never been more defpotic, more tyrannical, and more arbitrary than fince the meeting of this parliament. There was fcarce a law but what had been violated. The two houfes had, for feveral years, ufurped the fupreme authority contrary to the known laws. And lately the commons had voted, that all power was lodged in them, without the concurrence of king and peers, a maxim unknown to the Englifh from the foundation of the monarchy.

10. The

10. The commons in establishing, by a bare vote, that CHAR. I. it belonged to them alone to try the king, had plainly de- 1648-9. clared, they owned neither fuperior nor equal, which was really introducing an arbitrary government.

II. Laftly, till 1643, the parliament had only fufpected the king's intention to alter the government, but after the parliament had affumed the direction, the government was really and truly changed. The king was moreover fufpected of defigning to alter the established religion: but the parliament had indeed changed it, and reduced it to a deplorable confufion, and the project of this unfortunate change had been the true caufe of the war, and of all the fubfequent calamities.

IV. The fourth circumftance I intend to obferve, is, that the king was brought three times before the high court of juftice, and as often called upon to answer the charge entered against him, which was read in his hearing. But he conftantly refused to own the authority of the court, and of those who erected it. On the other hand, the court would never hear his reafons for declining their jurifdiction. They always took for granted, that the authority by which the court was established, was fufficient; which was the very thing the king would have combated, but was never fuffered. At laft, feeing he could not prevail to be heard on that subject, he left his reafons in writing to this effect:

"That no earthly power could justly call him (who was His reafons "their king) in queftion as a delinquent.

for it. Rushworth,

"That there were no proceedings juft against any man VII.p.1403. "but what were warranted, either by God's laws, or the municipal laws of the country where he lives. As for "the proceedings against him, they could not be warranted by God's laws. For on the contrary, it is there faid, where the word of a king is, there is power; and who may fay unto them, what doft thou? Ecclef. viii. 4. Then for "the law of the land, no impeachment can lie against the "king, they all going in his name: and one of their "maxims is, That the king can do no wrong. Befides, the

law upon which they grounded their proceedings, muft "either be old or new: if old, they ought to fhew it; if "new, they fhould tell what authority, warranted by the "fundamental laws of the land, had made it, and when.

"How the houfe of commons could erect a court of judicature, which was never one itself, he left to God and "the world to judge.

L14

* And

CHAR. I.

"And it was full as ftrange, that they should pretend to 1648-9. "make laws without king, or lords houfe, to any that had "heard fpeak of the laws of England. And admitting, "that the people of England's commiffion could grant their "pretended power, he faw nothing they could fhew for that; for certainly they never afked the queftion of the "tenth man in the kingdom.

Remarkable

against the

"That having concluded, as much as in him lay, a "treaty at Newport, and expecting the houfe's agreement "thereunto, he was fuddenly furprifed and hurried from "thence as a prifoner; that the higher houfe, for any thing "he could fee, was totally excluded; and for the house "of commons it was too well known, that the major part "of them were detained or deterred from fitting: fo as if he "had no other, this would have been a fufficient reafon "for him to protest against the lawfulness of their pretended

❝court.

"That the arms he took up, were only to defend the "fundamental laws of the kingdom, againft those who had "fuppofed his power had totally changed the ancient go"vernment "." W 23

V. Of all the witneffes, as I faid, examined againft the depofitions king, there was not one which proved the king to be author of the war. But among the depofitions, there were Rushworth, two which must not pafs unobserved, fuppofing they were Vil.p.1406. neither forged nor altered. The firft fhows, the king was

king.

P. 1414.

much lefs incenfed against the independents than against the prefbyterians, though afterwards he had but too much caufe to perceive, that the principles of the former, were more deftructive to him, than thofe of the latter. The fecond feems to prove, that the king did not act with fincerity, even in the treaty of Newport.

Richard Price a fcrivener of London depofed, that the committee of safety being informed, that the king was privately negotiating with the independents, fent the deponent to Oxford, under colour of carrying proposals to the king, from the independents: that he was introduced to the king by the earl of Bristol, and received orders to fay to the leading independents, from his majefty, that if they would take his part against the parliament, he would grant them whatever freedom they defired.

This, fays the king, I intended to fpeak in Weftminster-hall, on Monday, Jan. 22, but against reafon was hindered to fhow my reafon.

* See their names at length in

The

Echard's Hift. Tom. II. p. 633, and their depofitions in Rufhworth, Tom. VII. p. 1406, &c. and in Statetrials, Tom. I.