King Charles!!. 1673. ~ 'Ihe parlia– ment a– z~akened. Arguments for and a– gainjl the dijpenjing p•wer. 'Jhe HISTORY o/ the PuRITANs. VoL. li• . When the king met. his parliamen~ Feb. 4, after a recefs of a year and nme months, he acquamted them with the reafonablenefs and nece!lity of the war with the Dutch, and having afk.ed a fupply, told them, "he cc had foun·d the good effect of his indulgence to diflenters, but that it " was a mifl:ake in thofe who faid, more liberty was given to papiits <c than others, becaufe they had only freedom in their own houfes, and " no public a!Temblies; he ibould therefore take it ill to receive con– « tradiction iH what he had done; and to deal plainly with you (fays his " maje!l:y), I am refolved to flick to my declaration." Lord chancellor Shaftjbury feconded the king's fpeech, and having _vindicated the indulgence, magnified the king's zeal for the church of England and the pro– teftant religion. But the houfe of commons declared againft the dif– penjing poqver, and argued, that though the king had a power to pardon offenders, he had not a right to authorize men to break the laws, for this would infer a power to alter the government ; and if the king could fecure offenders by indemnifying them before-hand, it was in vain to make any laws at all, becaufe according to this maxim, they had no force but at the king's difcretion ---But it was objeCl:ed on the other fide, that a difference' was to be made between penal laws in fpiritual matters and others; that the king's fnpremacy gave him a peculiar authority over thefe, as was evident by his tolerating the Jews, and the churches of foreign protefl:ants --To which it was replied, that the intent of the law in a!Terting the fupremacy was only to exclude all foreign jurifdiCl:ion, and to lodge the whole authority with the king; but that was !l:ill bounded and regulated by law; the Jews were !l:ill at mercy, and only connived at, but the foreign churches were excepted by a particular claofe in the aB: of uniformity; and therefore upon the whole, they came to }l. ofcomthis refol~tion Feb. I o. " that penal ftatutes in matters ecclefiafl:ical can– mons v ote a- cc not be fufpended but by aB: of parliament; that no fuch power had 'ai'!}l it. cc been clai"tmd or exercifed by any of his maje!l:y's predeceifors, and Eachard, P· 889. llurnet. P· 347· " therefore his majefl:y's indulgence was cotHrary to law, and te nded to " fubvert the legiflative power, which had always been acknowledged cc to relide in the king and his two houfes of parliament." Purfuant to this refolu tion, they add relied the king Feb. I 9, to recal his declaration. ·The king anfwered, that he was forry th:y !houl? queftiot~ his power in ecclefiallics, whio11 had not been Jone m the retgns of hts anceftors; that he did not pretend to fufpend laws, wherein the properties. rig~ts or liberties of his fubjeCl:1> were concerned, nor to alter any tl11ng m the efl:abli.£he<l religion, but only to take off the .peHalties i~fliCl:ed on di!frmters which he believed they themfelves would not wt!h executed ac– cording to the rigor of the law.. The COJ_Dmons perceiving his J_Dajefty was not inclined to defift from lm declarauon, ftopt the money-br/1, and pre~
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=