Parliament,' the solicitor-general had said, 'that I, Richard Rich, should be King, and that it should be treason to deny it, what would be the offence if you, Sir Thomas More, were to say that I was King?' More had answered that, in his conscience, he would be bound by the Act of Parliament, and would be obliged to accept Rich as King. He would put another case, however. 'Suppose it should be enacted by Parliament, Quod Deus non esset Deus, and that opposing the Act should be treason, if it were asked of him, Richard Rich, whether he would say Quod Deus non erat Deus, according to this statute, and if he we're to say No, would he not offend?' Rich had replied, 'Certainly, because it is impossible, Quod Deus non esset Deus; but why, Master More, can you not accept the King as chief Head of the Church of England, just as you would that I should be made King, in which case you agree that you would be obliged to acknowledge me as King?' 'To which More, persevering in his treasons, had answered to Rich, that the cases were not similar, because the King could be made by Parliament and deprived by Parliament;[1] but in the first case the subject could not be obliged, because his consent could not be given for that in Parliament.'
This was the substance of the indictment. As soon as it was read, the lord chancellor rose, and told the prisoner that he saw how grievously he had offended the King; it was not too late to ask for mercy, however, which his Majesty desired to show.
- ↑ If this was the constitutional theory, 'divine right' was a Stuart fiction.
