He first asserts, that that statute had been enacted contrary to law, as if a free legislative body could ever do any thing illegal.

He next affirms, that as it was hurtful to the prerogatives of the crown, which he had sworn to defend, he had only dissembled when he seemed to ratify it, but that he had never in his own breast given his assent to it.

He does not pretend that either he or the parliament lay under force; but only that some inconvenience would have ensued, had he not seemingly affixed his sanction to that pretended statute.

He therefore, with the advice of his council and of some earls and barons, abrogates and annuls it; and though he professes himself willing and determined to observe such articles of it as were formerly law, he declares it to have thenceforth no force or authority.[**] The parliaments that were afterwards assembled took no notice of this arbitrary exertion of royal power, which, by a parity of reason, left all their laws at the mercy of the king; and, during the course of two years, Edward had so far reestablished his influence, and freed himself from his present necessities, that he then obtained from his parliament a legal repeal of the obnoxious statute.[***] This transaction certainly contains remarkable circumstances, which discover the manners and sentiments of the age; and may prove what inaccurate work might be expected from such rude hands, when employed in legislation, and in rearing the delicate fabric of laws and a constitution.
* Statutes at large, 15 Edward III.

That this protest of the king's was secret appears evidently, since otherwise it would have been ridiculous in the parliament to have accepted of his assent: besides, the king owns that he dissembled, which would not have been the ease had his protest been public.
** Statutes at large, 15 Edward III.
*** Cotton's Abridg.p.38, 39.