By 7F. W. RavenhiU, 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 

 J udges 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 ? 'Twas 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 nunquam moritur " — at least the " Rex " 

 — 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 II., was king dejure 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 



