Defense of the People of England, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
YOu ſeem to begin this Eleventh Chapter, Salmaſius, though with no modeſty, yet with ſome ſenſe of your weakneſs and trifling in this Diſcourſe. For whereas you propoſed to your ſelf to enquire in this place, by what authority, ſentence was given againſt the King? You add immediately, which no body expected from you; that 'tis in vain to make any ſuch enquiry; to wit, becauſe the quality of the perſons that did it, leaves hardly any room for ſuch a queſtion. And therefore as you have been found guilty of a great deal of Impupence and Saucineſs in the undertaking of this Cauſe, ſo ſince you ſeem here conſcious of your own impertinence; I ſhall give you the ſhorter anſwer. To your queſtion then; by what authority the Houſe of Commons either condemn'd the King themſelves, or delegated that power to others; I anſwer, they did it by vertue of the Supreme authority on earth. How they come to have the Supreme Power, you may learn by what I have ſaid already, when I refuted your Impertinencies upon that Subject. If you believed your ſelf that you could ever ſay enough upon any Subject, you would not be ſo tedious in repeating the ſame things ſo many times over. And the Houſe of Commons might delegate their Judicial Power by the ſame reaſon, by which you ſay the King may delegate his, who received all he had from the people. Hence in that Solemn League and Covenant that you object to us, the Parliaments of England and Scotland ſolemnly proteſt and engage to each other to puniſh the Traytors in ſuch manner as the Supreme, Judicial Authority in both Nations, or ſuch as ſhould have a Delegate power from them, ſhould think fit. Here you hear the Parliaments of both Nations proteſt with one voice, that they may Delegate their Judicial Power, which they call the Supreme; ſo that you move a vain and frivolous Controverſie about Delegating this power. But, ſay you, there were added to thoſe Judges that were made choice of out of the Houſe of Commons, ſome Officers of the Army, and that never was known that Soldiers had any right to try a Subject for his life. I'le ſilence you in a very few words: You may remember that we are not now diſcourſing of a Subject, but of an Enemy; whom if a General of an Army, after he has taken him Priſoner reſolves to diſpatch, would he be thought to proceed otherwiſe than according to cuſtom and Martial Law, if he himſelf with ſome of his Officers ſhould sit upon him, and try and cendemn him? An enemy to a State made a Priſouer of War, cannot be lookt upon to be ſo much as a Member, much leſs a King in that State. This is declar'd by that Sacred Law of St. Edward, which denies that a bad King is a King at all, or ought to be called ſo. Whereas you ſay, it was not the whole but a part of the Houſe of Com…ons that try'd and condemned the King, I give you this anſwer: The number of them, who gave their Votes for putting the King to death, was far greater than is neceſſary according to the cuſtom of our Parliaments to tranſact the greateſt Affairs of the Kingdom, in the abſence of the reſt; who ſince they were abſent through their own fault (for to revolt to the common enemy in their hearts is the worſt ſort of abſence) their abſence ought not to hinder the reſt who continued faithful to the cauſe, from preſerving the State; which when it was in a tottering condition, and almoſt quite reduced to Slavery and utter ruin, the whole body of the people had at firſt committed to their fidelity, prudence and courage. And they acted their parts like men; they ſet themſelves in oppoſition to the unruly wilfulneſs, the rage, the ſecret deſigns of an inveterate and exaſperated King; they prefer'd the common liberty and ſafety before their own; they out-did all former Parliaments, they out-did all their Anceſtors in Conduct, Magnanimity and ſteddineſs to their cauſe. Yet theſe very men did a great part of the people ungratefully deſert in the midſt of their undertaking, though they had promiſed them all fidelity, all the help and aſſiſtance they could afford them. Theſe were for Slavery and peace with ſloth and luxury upon any terms: Others demanded their Liberty, nor would accept of a peace that was not ſure and honourable. What ſhould the Parliament do in this caſe? ought they to have defended this part of the people, that was ſound and continued faithful to them and their Country, or to have ſided with thoſe that deſerted both? I know what you will ſay they ought to have done. You are not Eurulochus, but Elpenor, a miſerable Enchanted Beaſt, a filthy Swine, accuſtomed to a ſordid Slavery, even under a Woman; ſo that you have not the leaſt reliſh of true Magnanimity, nor conſequently of Liberty, which is the effect of it: You would have all other men ſlaves, becauſe you find in your ſelf no generous, ingenuous inclinations, you ſay nothing, you breath nothing but what's mean and ſervile. You raiſe another ſcruple, to wit, That he was the King of Scotland too, whom we condemn'd; as if he might therefore do what he would in England. But that you may conclude this Chapter, which of all others is the moſt weak and inſipid, at leaſt with ſome witty querk, There are two little words, ſay you, that are made up of the ſame number of Letters, and differ only in the placing of them, but whoſe ſignifications are wide aſunder, to wit, Vis and Jus, (might and right.) 'Tis no great wonder that ſuch a three letter'd man as you, (Fur, a Thief,) ſhould make ſuch a Witticiſm upon three Letters: 'Tis the greater wonder (which yet you aſſert throughout your Book) that two things ſo directly oppoſite to one another as thoſe two are, ſhould yet meet and become one and the ſame thing in Kings. For what violence was ever acted by Kings, which you do not affirm to be their Right? Theſe are all the paſſages that I could pick out of nine long Pages, that I thought deſerved an anſwer. The reſt conſiſts either of repetitions of things that have been anſwered more than once, or ſuch as have no relation to the matter in hand. So that my being more brief in this Chapter than in the reſt, is not to be imputed to want of diligence in me, which, how irkſome ſoever you are to me, I have not ſlackned, but to your tedious impertinence, ſo void of matter and ſenſe.