Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-10-28

all good laws for protection safety, ease and benef Of his
| subjects
Fourhy because is repugnant the very letters and
meaning OF the Kings coronation oath, soemHy made all
his subjects, 10 grant, fud and defend all laos
uhfch The Commons hereaLa shall choose, and strength
en- and maintain them after his po,cer.
Here he goes into long argument citing many authorities
and other passages from the coronation oath favorng his doc
trine and reasoning therefrom.
Filthy, because it is directly contrary the preambes
and reclas Of sundry Of Parliament Of Kings
/ reighs' comprising the two last reasons"
In support Of this position he cites the ancient statutes Of
Harfdrdge in 1867, and Sd Edw. statutes of Westmin-
sler and Gloucester, Edw. and many Others with agu-
mens occupying three four pages and concludes this fifth
part in these words
It is most apparent that the Kings Of England both by
their OATH duty and right even in point Of Justice
and conscience, are 6oud 10 assent TO all public acts are
really necessary for the peace safety ease veal benefit pre-
venon OF msches and redress of grievances OF all any
their subjects without any egversaon unnecessary de-
lays, when they are passed and rendered them by both
houses and that in such as these they have no absolute
negative voice at all but ought give their speedy Free and
u consents thereto unless they give satisfactory
to the contrary.
"Sxthy all ancient Kings Of England Gas the pre-
misses with all public useful enacted in their repns
evdence have always usually given their free and full con-
sents in Parliament such public these without denial
or proraction cocerng they bound By oath and duty
so 10 do and If they denied their royal any
petitions or bills of the Lords and Commons Of this nature
they always gave such good for as satisfied both
houses"
This renders precisely similar to the provision of severa
OF our State constitutions in regard the power.
"Sevenihy. If the King, in point of law should have an
absolute negative voice denying his public bills Of
mere right and justice then he would have power by law to
deny justice and right and to do wrong and injustice his
peoPea prerogatve which neither God himself any law
u monarch challenged but renounced with greatest
deestation. read in Plutach that when aterer said to
King Antgonns that all things honest and Just Kings,
he answered, Only indeed 10 Kings of bbarnns, but 10
honest things are 10 be accounted for honest and just things
for JUST"
He argues in the ninth place, that kingdoms and COM
monweahs existed with laws govern them before there
were any kings for them and that, according Aristotle
Cicero Poybius Augustine Fortescue, and Others they
swoe their kings observe those laws before they would
crown admit them to the government and likewise gave
them further oath pass and confirm all such subsequent
iacs they should make choice Of for their public benefit
and protection"
fkng chance to die without any heir, the kingdom in
such may assemble OF themselves and make binding
cessary laws without ng and alter the very frame of gov
ernmen by public ccnsest Therefore, royal just
necessary public bills in truth but formal ceremony
compliment" &c.
"Tenthy Our very laws in many cases deny the King an
absolute negative voice power in of preoga-
tive because they contrary to his CATH and mischevous
the republic.
Here the writer makes long string of references and CON-
ments upon them.
"Eeyenthy is inaby proved by the usual form of our
Kings answer to such bills they assent not tofie King
,oU be adrsed take further consideration which is no
absolute denial but craving Of longer time advise upon
them and heeupon to to them if he no
to the contrary else give satisfactory why
he cannot assent; which proper formal
had the King absolute negative reject bills with
out rendering sufficient satisfactory Of his refusal of
them.
"Twehy. Public bills for the subjects common good are
formed for the part by the Lords and Commons them
selves who, in truth, have elsewhere proved the
chief lawmakers and who, Aristotle Defines know better
what is good and necessary for their benefit than the
King, their public minister for their good Therefore, pass
ing such bills there greater that both houses should
overrule the King than the King them.
Tbiteenthy. If the King should have an absolute mega
tive voice in refusing such public bills necessary and
expeden for the good and safety Of the people, it
would rest in the power and pleasure Of wilfu
advised King, seduced by evil counsellors, deprive the
kingdom of the principal use, benefit and privileges Of Par
lament" &c.
In conclusion, the writer says:
"From all which premises, humbIy conceive, may
aby conclude that the King, in passing the aforementioned
kind of biIs Of right and justice for the kingdoms
and the safety negative voice.
but must and ought Of right and Justice, by virtue Of
his royal oath and duty give his ready and free
them, without any ergiyersaion and the Parliament, in
their declarations to this purpose hath ways invaded
Injured his Maesys Just Preroglse royal in this particular
And my conclusion, Messrs Editors is tha, the
power President far less democratic than is that Of
the Crown Of Great Britain.