By W. W. Ravenhill, Esq. 171 
Thus stood the law in 1655, and it being highly desirable to pro- 
ceed by the more distinct “ Statute in such case made and provided” 
the question arose, was His Highness within its protection? The 
Judges held he was; that it was against all laws, statutable or 
otherwise, to levy war against the Chief Magistrate. Perhaps in 
arriving at this conclusion, they considered that the letter of the 
law had already been departed from, in that Queen Regnants 
had been held within, but King Consorts without. That the original 
meaning of the word King was no more than the Chief elected by a 
nation on account of his valour. This view had been practically 
sanctioned, in that legitimate heirs to the throne had been set aside, 
both before and after the passing of the Act, with the consent or 
acquiescence of the nation. That the duties of the Lord Protector 
and a King were identical, he was head of Parliament, Generalissimo 
of the army, and Chief Magistrate. He initiated or sanctioned 
laws, and secured life and property to dwellers-at-home, and as far 
as possible to those who roamed abroad. This position he had ob- 
tained, in their opinion, by the will of the majority of the people of 
England. Had not the successors of those who originally founded 
the kingship, the power to change its title, without altering its na- 
ture, or their laws? *T'was a mere quibble of names. Could it be 
contended that no circumstances could arise, which would justify such 
a course? Surely not. The necessity of the times had swept it 
_. away, and the maxim “ Rex nunguam moritur?’—at least the “ Rex ” 
3 
—as understood by the Royalists, for if he lived, he was now 
Protector. The kingly name merely had gone, the power and duties 
remained, and had devolved upon His Highness; and it was for these 
reasons that his person was so sacred, and why all laws, human and 
divine, threw their shields around him. 
But the question was never permitted to be argued in a court of 
law during the Commonwealth; and the Restoration came in due 
time, with its judicial assertion, after little if any discussion; that the 
_ wandering exile, Charles IT., was king de jure and de facto throughout 
the whole of the Protector’s reign. Fortunately it is practically of 
little value, and one we will hope, which will never be solemnly 
considered in this country ; but should it be, I cannot help thinking 
