parliament to confirm this liberty, although it was made a matter of derision the other day in this house.

One is that of 36 Edward III. No. 9, and another in the same year, No. 20, not printed, but yet as good as those that are; and that of 42 Edward III. Cap. 3, so express in the point, (especially the petition of the commons that year, which was read by Mr. Littleton, with the king's answer, so full and free from all excep. tion, to which I refer your Lordships,) that I know not how any thing in the world can be more plain.

Now, therefore, if in parliament we shall make any doubt of that which is so fully confirmed by parlia ment, and in a case so clear, go about by new glosses to alter these old and good laws, we shall not only forsake the steps of our ancestors, who, in cases even of small importance, would answer nolumus leges Anglia mutari, but we shall yield up and betray our right in the greatest inheritance the subjects of England have; and that is the laws of England.

Truly, I wonder how any man can think that this house (though no lawyers) can admit of such a gloss upon a plain text, as should overthrow the very end and design of the law; for whereas the law of magna charta is, That no freeman shall be imprisoned, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land; it has been insisted on by some, that by these words, the law of the land, it is to be understood, that the king hath power to commit without shewing any cause; which is an exposition, not only expressly contrary to other acts of parliament, and those expressly before cited, but against

common sense.

Mr. Attorney confesseth this law concerns the king. Why then, where the law saith, the king shall not commit but by the law of the land, the meaning must be, (as Mr. Attorney would have it) that the king must not commit, but at his own pleasure! and shall we think that our ancestors were so foolish as to hazard their persons and estates, and labour so much to get a law, and VOL. I.

8

have it thirty times confirmed, that the king might not commit his subjects, but at his own pleasure? and that if he did commit any of his subjects without a cause shewn, that then the party must lie in prison during the king's pleasure? Nothing can be imagined more ridiculous, or more contrary to reason and common sense.

From the precedents I observe, that many committed by the king or his counsel have been delivered upon habeas corpus, and that constantly. It is true that some precedents were brought on the king's part, that when some of these persons desired to be delivered by habeas corpus, the king, or his council, signified his majesty's pleasure that they should be delivered; or the king's attorney hath come into court and released them by the king's command. But this seems to make for the subject; for, it being in his majesty's power to deliver them, who, by his special commandment, and without any cause shewn, were imprisoned, may we not think that his majesty at that time, would rather have staid their deliverance by law, than furthered it by his letters, and so make the prisoners rather beholden to him for his great mercy, than to the judges for justice, had not his majesty known that, at that time, they ought to have been delivered by law?

I think no man would imagine a wise king would have suffered his grace and prerogative (if any prerogative there were) to be so continually questioned; or his majesty and his council to be so far from commanding the judges not to proceed to deliver the prisoners by them committed, without cause shewn, as that on the other side, (which is all the force of these precedents) the king and council should signify to the judges, that they should proceed to deliver the parties!

Certainly, if the king had challenged any such prerogative, that a person committed, without any cause shewn, might not be delivered by the judges without his consent, it would have appeared, by one precedent or other,

amongst all that have been produced, that his majesty would have made some claim to such a prerogative; but it appears, on the contrary, that in many of these cases the king nor his council did ever interpose; and where they did, it was always in affirmation and encourage. ment to that court to proceed. And besides, the writing of letters from the king to the judges to do justice to his majesty's subjects, may, with as great reason, be in terpreted, that without those letters they might not do justice; as this, that the king signified his willingness that such and such persons, which were committed by him without cause shewn, should be delivered, therefore they could not be delivered without him; which is a strange reason. So that finding the laws so full, so many, and so plain in the point; and that whenever any committed without cause shewn, brought their habeas corpus, they were delivered, and no command ever given to the contrary, nor no clain made on the king's part to any such prerogative; I may safely conclude, as the house of commons have done; and if any one precedent or two, of late, can be shewn, that the judges have not delivered the prisoners so committed, I think it is their fault, and ought to be enquired of; but contrarily, it seems to me to be an undoubted right of the subject, that if he be committed without cause, or without cause shewn, yet he may have some speedy course to bring himself to trial, either to justify his own innocency, or to receive punishment accord. ing to his fault; for God forbid that an innocent man, by the laws of England, should be put in worse case than the most grievous malefactors are, as must needs be, if, when a cause is shewn, he may have his trial; but if none, he must lie and pine in prison during the king's pleasure.

Mr. Serjeant Ashley, the other day, told your lordships of the emblem of a king; but, by his leave, he made a wrong use of it: for the king holds in one hand the globe, and in the other the sceptre, the types of

sovereignty and mercy; but his sword of justice is ever carried before him by a minister of justice, which shews that subjects may have their remedies for injustice done, and that appeals lie to higher powers; for the laws of England are so favourable to their princes, as to declare that they themselves can do no injustice.

Therefore I will conclude, as all disputes should do, magna est veritas et prævalebit; and I make no doubt, we living under so good and just a prince as we do, when this is represented unto him, he will answer us, magna est charta et prævalebit.

SIR EDWARD COKE.

Sir Edward Coke's Speech against inserting the words "Sovereign Power," as applied to the Prerogative, in an Address to the Throne.

THIS is magnum in parvo. This is propounded to be a conclusion of our petition. It is a matter of great weight, and to speak plainly, it will overthrow all our petition; it trenches to all parts of it; it flies at loans, at the oath, at imprisonment, and at billetting of soldiers. This turns all about again. Look into all the petitions of former times; they never petitioned wherein there was a saving of the king's sovereignty. I know that prerogative is part of the law; but sovereign power is no parliamentary word. In my opinion it weakens magna charta, and all the statutes; for they are absolute, without any saving of sovereign power; and should we now add it, we shall weaken the foundation of law, and then the building must needs fall. Take we heed what we yield unto. Magna charta is such a fellow,

that he will have no sovereign. I wonder this sovereign was not in magna charta, or in the confirmations of it. If we grant this, by implication we give a sovereign power above all laws. Power in law is taken for a power with force; the sheriff shall take the power of the county; what it means here, God only knows. It is repugnant to our petition, that is a petition of right, grounded on acts of parliament. Our predecessors could never endure a salvo jure suo, no more than the kings of old could endure for the church, salvo honore Dei et ecclesiæ. We must not admit of it, and to qualify it is impossible. Let us hold our privileges according to the law that power that is above this, is not fit for the king and people to have it disputed further. I had rather, for my part, have the prerogative acted, and I myself to lie under it, than to have it disputed.

FRANCIS ROUSE

Was a native of Cornwall. He represented Truro in the long parlia ment, was one of the lay members of the assembly of divines, and speaker of Barebon's parliament, and died in 1659. His speech against a Dr. Manwaring, who had written a flaming monarchical sermon, is so remarkable for its fanatical absurdity, and the uncouthness of the stile, that it certainly deserves a place in this collection, as a curiosity.

Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Rouse's Speech.

I AM to deliver, from the committee, a charge against Mr. Manwaring, a preacher and doctor of divinity; but a man so criminous, that he hath turned his titles into accusation, for the better they are, the worse is he that dishonours them.