AN argument IN justification OF The five Members ACCUSED By HIS majesty. Wherein is proved, that the raising of this present Army by Authority of Parliament, is not Treason. By which it likewise appeareth, that never any King of England received loss or damage by any Parliament, from the first that ever was called, to this present Parliament. By PETER BLAND of Grays-inn, Gent.  
London, Printed for JOHN FIELD.   

A Dialogue between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student at Law, Concerning the KING and PARLIAMENT.  DOctor. 
Sir, being acquainted with your ways of employment, 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 myself: and first I desire you to tell me, who may be Burgesses or Knights in Parliament.  Student. 
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 son 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 courtesy of England he is called so, but in any Declaration or writing he hath no more than his legal addition given.  Doct: 
But may not a Divine be chosen for a burgess, for he hath no voice in the upper House unless he be a Bishop.  Stud. 
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 room for Leo in Cornwall.  Doct. 
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?  Stud. 
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 burgess 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 majesty's service, unless the House will allow of a new Election.  Doct. 
What then Sir if one man be chosen for two places, which must he serve for?  Stud. 
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 cavel was returned for Ludders-hall and for Travayny, and he appeared for the first, and a Writ issued to choose another for Travayny.  Doct. 
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 King's hands, when they are all met and a Speaker made.  Stud. 
The first thing that they require at the King's hands, is that which was required by the Commons in the thirteenth year 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.  Doct. 
If that be granted, than they may speak of the King what they please; and he must be pardoned.  Stud. 
No Sir, the reverence which a vassal oweth his sovereign 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 pardoned, otherwise not; for in Queen Elisabeth's time, who gave freedom of speech to all Parliaments, when Wentworth made those motions that were but supposed dangerous to the Queen's estate, he was imprisoned in the Tower, and there died.  Doct. 
I thought every burgess or Knight of the Parliament house had a privilege that they could not be imprisoned.  Stud. 
No more they cannot at the suit of any common person, where the offence does not touch the King directly, as by a trespass against another, or the like; but a man shall not have the privilege of the House for a criminal offence that immediately toucheth the King.  Doct. 
If he shall not have the privilege 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.  Stud. 
As to that question, I shall not give you my own opinion, but I shall show you what precedents 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 Cecil 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 showed divers precedents 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 same: Which also they did print, prefer, and urge in Parliament; but it seemed that if they had treated thereof only in time of Parliament (being Burgesses) they should not have been impeached: in 28 Eliz.  Doct. 
What then do you think of the Kings accusing of the five Members?  Stud. 
Sir, you must know that the accusation laid by His Majesty against them, is not within the compass of any of those precedents; and we need not stand to give any reasons to prove how it differs from them precedents, because the King Himself hath acknowledged it; and what dishonour 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 goodness of His royal Ancestors, which act I hope shall be perpetually Recorded in the hearts of all His Subjects, for a testimony of His Grace and goodness, and for a pattern to all succeeding Princes.  Doct. 
But why did not they then except of a Pardon?  Stud. 
Then the King's mercy had been apparent, of which we have other great evidences; but His willingness to acknowledge His errors (which is as great a virtue in Prince) had been concealed, and so he had been (in that respect) less glorious: besides, had they received a Pardon, being not guilty, they had ipso facto lost their personal estate by the Statute, unless some words of Art had been put into the pardon, which is not too late yet to be done.  Doct. 
Then it seems that in former times the King had a power over the Parliament, unless I misapprehend them, pray tell me, hath he not now a power over them?  Stud. 
I shall tell you what I have read, and farther I cannot go: The House had agreed in 23 Eliz. to have a common Fast, whereof the Queen misliked not for the matter, but for the innovation of order, without her privity, and without ecclesiastical 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 privy-council doth; which advice if the King embrace, it becomes the Kings own Act in the one; and the King's Law in the other; for without the King's acceptation, both the public and private advices be but as empty eggshells. Again, if there be any difference for alteration of a Bill between the Lords and Commons, then usually some special 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 altered in any part thereof, without His majesty's 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 showed 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 accounted, 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.  Doct. 
But pray Sir, tell me your opinion freely, Is it dangerous for the King to assemble the three States; for thereby former Kings have always lost somewhat of their Prerogative: 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.  Stud. 
Sir you would do me a singular favour in your so doing.  Doct. 
You know that the Kings of England had no formal Parliament, till about the eighteenth year of Henry the first, for in his 17th year for the marriage of his daughter, the King raised a Tax upon every hide of Land by the advice of his privy council alone; but you may remember how the subjects, soon after this Parliament, began to stand upon terms with the King, and drew from him by strong hand and the sword, the Great Charter.  Stud. 
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.  Doct. 
Then afterwards King John promised to restore King Edward's Laws, and also to confirm the Charter of forests, and the great Charter upon his absolution; but after his return out of France, in his 16 year he denied it, because without such a promise he had not obtained restitution, therefore he said his promise was constrained, and not voluntary: what say you therefore, was he not bound in honour to perform it?  Stud. 
Certainly no, for it was determined the Case of King Francis the first of France, That all promises by him made, whilst he was in the hands of Charles the Fifth his enemy, were void, by reason the judge of honour, which tells us he durst do no other.  Doct. 
But King John was not in prison.  Stud. 
Yet for all that, restraint is imprisonment, yea, fear itself 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 is freely given; for binding of a King by Law upon the advantage of his necessity, makes the breach itself lawful 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.  Doct. 
But what say you to the Parliament of Westminster in the 16 year 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 denied the Subsidy demanded.  Stud. 
I confess Sir, That the House excused themselves by reason of their poverty, and the Lords taking of Arms; but you spoke Sir of danger of Parliaments: Now in this Parliament there was a denial, 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 man's 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 called to account, they willingly yielded 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 civil Wars, the King hath more loss, 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 received loss or prejudice.  Doct. 
But what say you to tha denial in the 26 year of this King's reign, sven when the King was invited to come into France by the Earl of March who married his Mother, and who promised to assist him in the Conquest of many places that he had lost?  Stud. 
It is true, that a subsidy was then denied, 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 sums of Money were given, and the same appointed to be kept in four Castles, and not to be expended, but by the advice of the Peers; it was believed, that the same Treasure was yet unspent.  Doct. 
Good sir, you have said enough; judge you yourself, whether that were not a dishonour to the King to be so tied; as not to expend his Treasure, but by other men's advice, as it were by their licence.  Stud. 
Surely (noble Doctor) the King was well advised to take the money upon any condition, and they were fools that did propound the restrained; 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 Mary's time, when it was thought that she was with child; It was propounded that the Rule of the Realm should be given to King Philip, during the Minority of the hoped Prince or Princess; and the King offered his assurance in great sums of Money, to relinquish the Government; at such time as the Prince or Princess 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 King's Bonds? which ended the despute; for what Bond is between a King and vassal, more than the Bond of the King's Faith?  Doct. 
What say you then to the twenty eighth year of that King, in which when the King demanded relief, the States would not consent, except the former Order had been taken for the appointing of four Overseers for the Treasure; As also that the Lord chief Justice, and the Lord Chancellor should be chosen by the States, with some Barons of the Exchequer and other Officers.  Stud. 
Why Sir, Admit the King had yielded to their demands, than whatsoever had been ordained by those Magistrates to the dislike of the Commonwealth, the people had been without remedy; whereas while the King made them, they had their appeal and other remedies; It is an excellent thing for a King to have patience, and give way to the fury of men's passions.  Doct. 
Was not the King denied a subsidy in the forty first of his Reign?  Stud. 
No Sir, for although the King required Money as before, for the impossible conquest of Sicily, yet the House offered to give fifty two thousand Marks, which whether he refused or accepted, is uncertain; And whilst the King dreamed of Sicily, the Welsh Invaded and spoiled the Borders of England; for in the Parliament of London, when the King urged the House for the prosecuting the Conquest of Sicily, the Lords utterly disliking the attempt, urged the prosecuting of the Welsh-men: Which PARLIAMENT being prorogued, did again Assemble at OXFORD, and was called the mad PARLIAMENT, which was no other than the Assembly of Rebels; for the royal Assent of the KING, which gives life to all Laws formed by the three Estates, was not a royal assent, when both the King and Prince were constrained to yield to the Lords; A constrained consent is the consent of a Captive, not of a King; and therefore there was nothing done there either legal, or royal; 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 govern the Realm; and as other Writers have it, 24 Peers, and therefore the assembly made by Jack Straw and other Rebels, may as well be called a Parliament, as that at Oxford, Principis nomen habere non est esse Princeps, for thereby was the King driven, not only to compound all quarrels with the French, but he quitted his Right to Normandy, Anyou, and main.  Doct. 
But what needed this extremity, seeing the Lords required but the confirmation of the former Charter, which was not prejudicial to the King to grant?  Stud. 
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 bankrupt; 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 sovereign.  Doct. 
But you know 'tis dangerous to call in other Nations both for the spoil they make, as also because they have often held the possessions of the best places, with which they have been trusted.  Stud. 
'tis true Sir, nothing is so dangerous for a King, as to be constrained and held as prisoner to his vassals; for by that Edward the Second and Richard the Second lost both their Kingdoms and their lives.  Doct. 
Why, those were both Deposed by Parliament, were they not?  Stud. 
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 Milan, nor King of Naples and Sicily; but sir, errores non sunt trahendi in exemplam, when I defend Parliaments, I speak of peaceable, regal and lawful Parliaments.  Doct. 
What say you then to the Parliament held at London, about the sixt year of Edward the Seconds time?  Stud. 
I say, that King was not bound to perform the Acts of that Parliament, because the Lords, being 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 surprised the King, they constrained (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.  Doct. 
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.  Stud. 
Certainly in raising an Army, they committed 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 construe all levying of War without the King's Commission, and all Force raised to be intended for the death of the King, not attending the sequel, 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 general rule; That the immortal Policy of a State, cannot admit any Law or privilege whatsoever, but in some particular or other, the same must necessarily be broken; therefore I hold not Sir Welter's opinion for good Law in the case of our times; for the supreme reason bears out their practice of many things without the advice of the Law; and where the Law by forecast hath not provided remedies for future dangers, Parliaments are forced to assist themselves by their privileges: And besides, who can show 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 been ever prosperous both to King and people; so where Kings have restrained the House, the contrary hath happened.  Doct. 
Well Sir, but is it not the best way to compound a Parliament of the King's servants and others, that shall in all obey the King's desires?  Stud. 
Certainly no, for it hath never succeeded well on the King's 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 kingdom, and to the loss and ruin of many; In later times '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.  Doct. 
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 King's disgrace; and if the King be driven into any extremity, they can say to the King, that because we found it extremely unpleasing to his Majesty to hear of a Parliament, we thought it no good manners to make such a motion.  Stud. 
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 success of counsels, which have been founded upon reason; to fear that, were to fear the loss of the Bell more than the loss of the Steeple; and were also the way to beat all men from the study of the King's service: But for the second part of your excuse, where you excuse yourself 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 employed them; take counsel of thine heart saith Solomon, for their is none more faithful unto thee than it.  
FINIS.