Citizens of Rome who had been Conquerours of all Nations round about them could not endure of Warriers to become Quarriers and Day-labourers Whereas it is said that Tarquin was expelled for the Rape committed by his Son on Lucrece it is unjust to condemn the Father for the Crime of his Son it had been fit to have petitioned the Father for the Punishment of the Offender The Fact of young Tarquin cannot be excused yet without wrong to the Reputation of so chaste a Lady as Lucrece is reputed to be it may be said she had a greater Desire to be thought chaste than to be chaste she might have died untouched and unspotted in her Body if she had not been afraid to be slandered for Inchastity both Dionysius Halicarnasseus and Livie who both are her Friends so tell the Tale of her as if she had chosen rather to be a Whore than to be thought a Whore To say Truth we find no other Cause of the Expulsion of Tarquin than the Wantonness and Licentiousness of the People of Rome This is further to be considered in the Roman Government that all the time between their Kings and their Emperours there lasted a continued strife between the Nobility and Commons wherein by Degrees the Commons prevailed at last so to weaken the Authority of the Consuls and Senate that even the last sparks of Monarchy were in a manner extinguished and then instantly began the Civil War which lasted till the Regal Power was quickly brought home and setled in Monarchy So long as the Power of the Senate stood good for the Election of Consuls the Regal Power was preserved in them for the Senate had their first Institution from Monarchy It is worth the noting that in all those places that have seemed to be most popular that weak Degree of Government that hath been exercised among them hath been founded upon and been beholden unto Monarchical Principles both for the Power of assembling and manner of consulting for the entire and gross Body of any People is such an unweildy and diffused thing as is not capable of uniting or congregating or deliberating in an entire Lump but in broken Parts which at first were regulated by Monarchy Furthermore it is observable that Rome in her chief Popularity was oft beholden for her Preservation to the Monarchical Power of the Father over the Children by means of this Fatherly Power saith Bodin the Romans flourished in all Honour and Vertue and oftentimes was their Common-weal thereby delivered from most imminent Destruction when the Fathers drew out of the Consistory their Sons being Tribunes publishing Laws tending to Sedition Amongst others Cassius threw his Son headlong out of the Consistory publishing the Law Agraria for the Division of Lands in the Behoof of the People and after by his own private Judgment put him to Death the Magistrates Serjeants and People standing thereat astonied and not daring to withstand his Fatherly Authority although they would with all their Power have had that Law for Division of Lands which is sufficient Proof this Power of the Father not only to have been sacred and inviolable but also to have been lawful for him either by Right or Wrong to dispose of the Life and Death of his Children even contrary to the Will of the Magistrates and People It is generally believed that the Government of Rome after the Expulsion of Kings was popular Bodin endeavours to prove it but I am not satisfied with his Arguments and though it will be thought a Paradox yet I must maintain it was never truly popular First it is difficult to agree what a popular Government is Aristotle saith it is where Many or a Multitude do rule he doth not say where the People or the major part of the People or the Representors of the People govern Bodin affirms if all the People be interessed in the Government it is a Popular Estate Lib. 2. c. 1. but after in the same Chapter he resolves that it is a Popular Estate when all the People or the greater part thereof hath the Sovereignty and he puts the Case that if there be threescore thousand Citizens and forty thousand of them have the Sovereignty and twenty thousand be excluded it shall be called a popular Estate But I must tell him though fifty nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine of them govern yet it is no popular Estate for if but one man be excluded the same reason that excludes that one man may exclude many hundreds and many thousands yea and the major part it self if it be admitted that the People are or ever were free by Nature and not to be governed but by their own Consent it is most unjust to exclude any one man from his Right in Government and to suppose the People so unnatural as at the first to have all consented to give away their Right to a major part as if they had Liberty given them only to give away and not to use it themselves is not onely improbable but impossible for the whole People is a thing so uncertain and changeable that it alters every moment so that it is necessary to ask of every Infant so soon as it is born its Consent to Government if you will ever have the Consent of the whole People Moreover if the Arbitrary Tryal by a Jury of twelve men be a thing of that admirable Perfection and Justice as is commonly believed wherein the Negative Voice of every single Person is preserved so that the dissent of any of the twelve frustrates the whole Judgment How much more ought the natural freedom of each man be preserved by allowing him his Negative Voice which is but a continuing him in that estate wherein it is confessed Nature at first placed him Justice requires that no one Law should bind all except all consent to it there is nothing more violent and contrary to Nature than to allow a major part or any other greater part less than the whole to bind all the People The next difficulty to discovering what a Popular Estate is is to find out where the Supreme Power in the Roman Government rested it is Bodin's opinion that in the Roman state the Government was in the Magistrates the Authority and Counsel in the Senate but the Sovereign Power and Majesty in the People Lib. 2. c. 1. So in his first Book his Doctrine is that the ancient Romans said Imperium in Magistratibus Authoritatem in Senatu Potestatem in plebe Majestatem in Populi jure esse dicebant These four words Command Authority Power and Majesty signifie ordinarily one and the same thing to wit the Sovereignty or supreme Power I cannot find that Bodin knows how to distinguish them for they were not distinct Faculties placed in several Subjects but one and the same thing diversly qualified for Imperium Authoritas Potestas and Majestas were all originally in the Consuls although for the greater shew the Consuls would have the Opinion and Consent of
Centuries This Assembly by Centuries as it was more Ancient than that by Tribes so it was more truly popular because all the Nobility as well as the Commons had Voices in it The Assembly by Tribes was pretended at first only to elect Tribunes of the People and other inferiour Magistrates to determine of lesser Crimes that were not Capital but only finable and to decree that Peace should be made but they did not meddle with denouncing War to be made for that high Point did belong only to the Assembly of the Centuries and so also did the judging of Treason and other Capital Crimes The Difference between the Assembly of the Tribes and of the Centuries is very material for though it be commonly thought that either of these two Assemblies were esteemed to be the People yet in Reality it was not so for the Assembly of the Centuries only could be said to be the People because all the Nobility were included in it as well as the Commons whereas they were excluded out of the Assembly of the Tribes and yet in Effect the Assembly of the Centuries was but as the Assembly of the Lords or Nobles only because the lesser and richer part of the People had the Sovereignty as the Assembly of the Tribes was but the Commons only In maintenance of the popular Government of Rome Bodin objects that there could be no regal Power in the two Consuls who could neither make Law nor Peace nor War The Answer is though there were two Consuls yet but one of them had the Regality for they governed by Turns one Consul one Moneth and the other Consul another Moneth or the first one day and the second another day That the Consuls could make no Laws is false it is plain by Livy that they had the Power to make Laws or War and did execute that Power though they were often hindered by the Tribunes of the People not for that the Power of making Laws or War was ever taken away from the Consuls or communicated to the Tribunes but onely the Exercise of the Consular Power was suspended by a seeming humble way of intercession of the Tribunes The Consuls by their first Institution had a lawful Right to do those things which yet they would not do by reason of the shortness of their Reigns but chose rather to countenance their actions with the title of a Decree of the Senate who were their private Councel yea and sometimes with the Decree of the Assembly of the Centuries who were their Publick Counsel for both the Assembling of the Senate and of the Centuries was at the Pleasure of the Consuls and nothing was to be propounded in either of them but at the Will of the Consuls which argues a Sovereignty in them over the Senate and Centuries the Senate of Rome was like the House of Lords the Assembly of the Tribes resembled the House of Commons but the Assembling of the Centuries was a Body composed of Lords and Commons united to Vote together The Tribunes of the People bore all the Sway among the Tribes they called them together when they pleased without any Order whereas the Centuries were never Assembled without Ceremony and Religious observation of the Birds by the Augurs and by the Approbation of the Senate and therefore were said to be auspicata and ex authoritate Patrum These things considered it appears that the Assembly of the Centuries was the only legitimate and great Meeting of the People of Rome as for any Assembling or Electing of any Trustees or Representors of the People of Rome in nature of the modern Parliaments it was not in Use or ever known in Rome Above two hundred and twenty years after the expulsion of Kings a sullen humour took the Commons of Rome that they would needs depart the City to Ianiculum on the other side of Tybur they would not be brought back into the City until a Law was made That a Plebiscitum or a Decree of the Commons might be observed for a Law this Law was made by the Dictator Hortensius to quiet the Sedition by giving a part of the Legislative Power to the Commons in such inferiour matters only as by Toleration and Usurpation had been practised by the Commons I find not that they desired an Enlargement of the Points which were the Object of their Power but of the Persons or Nobility that should be subject to their Decrees the great Power of making War of creating the greater Magistrates of judging in Capital Crimes remained in the Consuls with the Senate and Assembly of the Centuries For further manifestation of the broken and distracted Government of Rome it is fit to consider the original Power of the Consuls and of the Tribunes of the Commons who are ordinarily called the Tribunes of the People First it is undeniable that upon the expulsion of Kings Kingly power was not taken away but only made Annual and changeable between two Consuls who in their Turns and by course had the Sovereignty and all Regal power this appears plainly in Livy who tells us that Valerius Publicola being Consul he himself alone ordained a Law and then assembled a general Session Turemillus Arsa inveighed and complained against the Consul's Government as being so absolute and in Name only less odious than that of Kings but in Fact more cruel for instead of one Lord the City had received twain having Authority beyond all Measure unlimited and infinite Sextius and Licinus complain that there would never be any indifferent Course so long as the Nobles kept the Sovereign Place of Command and the Sword to strike whiles the poor Commons have only the Buckler their Conclusion was that it remains that the Commons bear the Office of Consuls too for that were a Fortress of their Liberty from that day forward shall the Commons be Partakers of those things wherein the Nobles now surpass them namely Sovereign Rule and Authority The Law of the twelve Tables affirms Regio imperio duo sunto iique Consules appellantor Let two have regal Power and let them be called Consuls also the Judgment of Livy is that the Sovereign Power was translated from Consuls to Decemvirs as before from Kings to Consuls These are proofs sufficient to shew the Royal Power of the Consuls About sixteen years after the first Creation of Consuls the Commons finding themselves much run into Debt by wasting their Estates in following the Wars and so becoming as they thought oppressed by Usury and cast into Prison by the Judgment and Sentence of the Consuls they grievously complained of Usury and of the Power of the Consuls and by Sedition prevailed and obtained Leave to choose among themselves Magistrates called Tribunes of the People who by their Intercession might preserve the Commons from being oppressed and suffering Wrong from the Consuls and it was further agreed that the Persons of those Tribunes should be sacred and not to be touched by any By means of this Immunity of
next under God the Sovereignty over the Israelites p. 252. but he doth not allow it to Ioshua but will have it descend to Eleazar the High-Priest Aaron's son His Proof is God expresly saith concerning Ioshua He shall stand before Eleazar who shall ask Counsel for him before the Lord after the judgment of Urim is omitted by Mr. Hobs at his word they shall go out c. therefore the Supreme Power of making Peace and War was in the Priest Answ. The Work of the High-Priest was onely Ministerial not Magisterial he had no power to Command in War or to Judge in Peace onely when the Sovereign or Governour did go up to War he enquired of the Lord by the Ministry of the High Priest and as the Hebrews say the Enquirer with a soft voice as one that prayeth for himself asked and forthwith the Holy Ghost came upon the Priest and he beheld the Brest-plate and saw therein by the Vision of Prophecy Go up or go not up in the letters that shewed forth themselves upon the Brest-plate before his face then the Priest answered him Go up or Go not up If this Answer gave the Priest Sovereignty then neither King Saul nor King David had the Sovereignty who both asked Counsel of the Lord by the Priest OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Milton Against SALMASIUS I. AMong the many Printed Books and several Discourses touching the Right of Kings and the Liberty of the People I cannot find that as yet the first and chief Point is agreed upon or indeed so much as once disputed The word King and the word People are familiar one would think every simple man could tell what they signified but upon Examination it will be found that the learnedst cannot agree of their Meaning Ask Salmasius what a King is and he will teach us that a King is he who hath the Supreme Power of the Kingdom and is accountable to none but God and may do what he please and is free from the Laws This Definition I. M. abominates as being the Definion of a Tyrant And I should be of his Mind if he would have vouchsafed us a better or any other Definition at all that would tell us how any King can have a Supreme Power without being freed from humane Laws To find fault with it without producing any other is to leave us in the Dark but though Mr. Milton brings us neither Definition nor Description of a King yet we may pick out of several Passages of him something like a Definition if we lay them together He teacheth us that Power was therefore given to a King by the People that he might see by the Authority to him committed that nothing be done against Law and that he keeps our Laws and not impose upon us his own Therefore there is no Regal Power but in the Courts of the Kingdom and by them pag. 155. And again he affirmeth the King cannot Imprison Fine or punish any man except he be first cited into some Court where not the King but the usual Iudges give Sentence pag. 168. and before we are told not the King but the Authority of Parliament doth set up and take away all Courts pag. 167. Lo here the Description of a King He is one to whom the People give Power to see that nothing be done against Law and yet he saith there is no Regal Power but in the Courts of Iustice and by them where not the King but the usual Iudges give Sentence This Description not only strips the King of all Power whatsoever but puts him in a Condition below the meanest of his Subjects Thus much may shew that all men are not agreed what a King is Next what the word People means is not agreed upon ask Aristotle what the People is and he will not allow any Power to be in any but in free Citizens If we demand who be free Citizens That he cannot resolve us for he confesseth that he that is a free Citizen in one City is not so in another City And he is of Opinion that no Artificer should be a free Citizen or have Voice in a well ordered Commonwealth he accounts a Democratie which word signifies the Government of the People to be a corrupted sort of Government he thinks many men by Nature born to be Servants and not fit to govern as any part of the People Thus doth Aristotle curtal the People and cannot give us any certain Rule to know who be the People Come to our Modern Politicians and ask them who the People is though they talk big of the People yet they take up and are content with a few Representors as they call them of the whole People a Point Aristotle was to seek in neither are these Representors stood upon to be the whole People but the major part of these Representors must be reckoned for the whole People nay I. M. will not allow the major part of the Representors to be the People but the sounder and better part only of them and in right down terms he tells us pag. 126. to determine who is a Tyrant he leaves to Magistrates at least to the uprighter sort of them and of the People pag. 7. though in number less by many to judge as they find cause If the sounder the better and the uprighter Part have the Power of the People how shall we know or who shall judge who they be II. One Text is urged by Mr. Milton for the Peoples Power Deut. 17. 14. When thou art come into the Land which thy Lord thy God giveth thee and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me It is said by the Tenure of Kings these words confirm us that the Right of Choosing yea of Changing their own Government is by the Grant of God himself in the People But can the foretelling or forewarning of the Israelites of a wanton and wicked Desire of theirs which God himself condemned be made an Argument that God gave or granted them a Right to do such a wicked thing or can the Narration and reproving of a Future Fact be a Donation and approving of a present Right or the Permission of a Sin be made a Commission for the doing of it The Author of his Book against Salmasius falls so far from making God the Donor or Grantor that he cites him only for a Witness Teste ipso Deo penes populos arbitrium semper fuisse vel ea quae placerâ—…t forma reipub utendi vel hanc in aliam mutandi de Hebraeis hoc disertè dicit Deus de reliquis non abnuit That here in this Text God himself being Witness there was always a Power in the People either to use what Form of Government they pleased or of changing it into another God saith this expresly of the Hebrews and denies it not of others Can any man find that God in this Text expresly saith that there was always a Right in the People to use what Form
A little enquiry would be made into the manner of the Government of these Kingdoms for these Northern people as Bodin observeth breath after liberty First for Poland Boterus saith that the Government of it is elective altogether and representeth rather an Aristocracie than a Kingdome the Nobility who have great authority in the Diets chusing the King and limiting His Authority making His Soveraignty but a slavish Royalty these diminutions of Regality began first by default of King Lewis and Jagello who to gain the succession in the Kingdom contrary to the Laws one for his daughter and the other for his son departed with many of his Royalties and Prerogatives to buy the voices of the Nobility The French Author of the book called the Estates of the world doth inform us that the Princes Authority was more free not being subject to any Laws and having absolute Power not onely of their estates but also of life and death Since Christian Religion was received it began to be moderated first by holy admonitions of the Bishops and Clergy and then by services of the Nobility in war Religious Princes gave many Honours and many liberties to the Clergy and Nobility and quit much of their Rights the which their successors have continued The superiour dignity is reduced to two degrees that is the Palatinate and the Chastelleine for that Kings in former times did by little and little call these men to publike consultations notwithstanding that they had absolute power to do all things of themselves to command dispose recompence and punish of their own motions since they have ordained that these Dignities should make the body of a Senate the King doth not challenge much right and power over His Nobility nor over their estates neither hath he any over the Clergy And though the Kings Authority depends on the Nobility for His election yet in many things it is absolute after He is chosen He appoints the Diets at what time and place He pleaseth He chooseth Lay-Councellors and nominates the Bishops and whom He will have to be His Privy Councel He is absolute disposer of the Revenues of the Crown He is absolute establisher of the Decrees of the Diets It is in His power to advance and reward whom he pleaseth He is Lord immediate of His Subjects but not of His Nobility He is Soveraign Iudge of his Nobility in criminal causes The power of the Nobility daily increaseth for that in respect of the Kings election they neither have Law rule nor form to do it neither by writing nor tradition As the King governs His Subjects which are immediately His with absolute Authority so the Nobility dispose immediately of their vassals over whom every one hath more than a Regal power so as they intreat them like slaves There be certain men in Poland who are called EARTHLY MESSENGERS or Nuntio's they are as it were Agents of Iurisdictions or Circles of the Nobility these have a certain Authority and as Boterus saith in the time of their Diets these men assemble in a place neer to the Senate-House where they chuse two Marshals by whom but with a Tribune-like authority they signifie unto the Council what their requests are Not long since their authority and reputation grew so mightily that they now carry themselves as Heads and Governours rather than officers and ministers of the publick decrees of the State One of the Councel refused his Senators place to become one of these officers Every Palatine the King requiring it calls together all the Nobility of His Palatinate where having propounded unto them the matters whereon they are to treat and their will being known they chuse four or six out of the company of the EARTHLY MESSENGERS these deputies meet and make one body which they call the order of Knights This being of late years the manner and order of the government of Poland it is not possible for the Observator to finde among them that the whole Community in its underived Majesty doth ever convene to do Iustice nor any election or representation of the Community or that the people assume its own power to do it self right The EARTHLY MESSENGERS though they may be thought to represent the Commons and of late take much upon them yet they are elected and chosen by the Nobility as their agents and officers The Community are either vassals to the King or to the Nobility and enjoy as little freedom or liberty as any Nation But it may be said perhaps that though the Community do not limit the King yet the Nobility do and so he is a limited Monarchy The Answer is that in truth though the Nobility at the chusing of their King do limit his power and do give him an Oath yet afterwards they have always a desire to please him and to second his will and this they are forced to do to avoid discord for by reason of their great power they are subject to great dissentions not onely among themselves but between them and the order of Knights which are the Earthly Messengers yea the Provinces are at discord one with another and as for Religion the diversity of Sects in Poland breed perpetual jars and hatred among the people there being as many Sects as in Amsterdam it self or any popular government can desire The danger of sedition is the cause that though the Crown depends on the election of the Nobility yet they have never rejected the Kings successour or transferred the Realm to any other family but once when deposing Ladislaus for his idleness whom yet afterward they restored they elected Wencelaus King of Bohemia But if the Nobility do agree to hold their King to his conditions which is not to conclude any thing but by the advice of his Councel of Nobles nor to choose any wife without their leaves then it must be said to be a Common-weal not a Royalty and the King but onely the mouth of the Kingdom or as Queen Christina complained that Her Husband was but the shadow of a Soveraign Next if it be considered how the Nobility of Poland came to this great power it was not by any original contract or popular convention for it is said they have neither Law Rule nor Form written or unwritten for the election of their King they may thank the Bishops and Clergy for by their holy admonitions and advice good and Religious Princes to shew their piety were first brought to give much of their Rights and Priviledges to their Subjects devout Kings were meerly cheated of some of their Royalties What power soever general Assemblies of the Estates claim or exercise over and above the bare naked act of Councelling they were first beholding to the Popish Clergy for it it is they first brought Parliaments into request and power I cannot finde in any Kingdom but onely where Popery hath been that Parliaments have been of reputation and in the greatest times of Superstition they are first mentioned As for the Kingdom of Denmarke
Succinct Examination of the Fundamentals of Monarchy both in this and other Kingdoms as well about the Right of Power in Kings as of the Original or Natural Liberty of the People A Question never yet Disputed though most necessary in these Times Lucan Lib. 3. LIBERTAS Populi quem Regna coercent Libertate Perit Neque enim Libertas gratior ulla est Quà m Domino servire bono Claudian LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE Jury-Men OF ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES Together with a Difference between An ENGLISH AND HEBREW Witch LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX The Argument A Presentment of divers Statutes Records and other Precedents explaining the Writs of Summons to Parliament shewing I. That the Commons by their Writ are onely to Perform and Consent to the Ordinances of Parliament II. That the Lords or Common Councel by their Writ are only to Treat and give Counsel in Parliament III. That the King Himself only Ordains and makes Laws and is Supreme Iudge in Parliament With the Suffrages of Hen. de Bracton Jo. Britton Tho. Egerton Edw. Coke Walter Raleigh Rob. Cotton Hen. Spelman Jo. Glanvil Will. Lambard Rich. Crompton Will. Cambden and Jo. Selden THE Free-holders GRAND-INQUEST Touching Our Sovereign Lord the King and His Parliament EVery Free-holder that hath a Voice in the Election of Knights Citizens or Burgesses for the Parliament ought to know with what Power he trusts those whom the chooseth because such Trust is the Foundation of the Power of the House of Commons A Writ from the King to the Sheriff of the County is that which gives Authority and Commission for the Free-holders to make their Election at the next County-Court-day after the Receipt of the Writ and in the Writ there is also expressed the Duty and Power of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses that are there elected The means to know what Trust or Authority the Country or Free-holders confer or bestow by their Election is in this as in other like Cases to have an eye to the words of the Commission oâ—… Writ it self thereby it may be seen whether that which the House of Commons doth act be within the Limit of their Commission greater or other Trust than is comprised in the Body of the Writ the Free-holders do not or cannot give if they obey the Writ the Writ being Latine and not extant in English few Free-holders understand it and fewer observe it I have rendred it in Latine and English Rex Vicecomiti salut ' c. QUia de Advisamento Assensu Concilii nostri prâ—… quibusdam arduis urgentibus Negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae Ecclesâ—… Anglicanae concernen ' quoddam Parliamentum nostruâ—… apud Civitatem nostram West duodecimo die Novembrâ—… prox futur ' teneri ordinavimus ibid. cum Praelatâ—… Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquiuâ—… habere tract Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentâ—… quod facta proclam in prox comitat ' tuo post receptioneâ—… hujus brevis nostri tenend ' die loco praedict duos miliâ—… gladiis cinct ' magis idoneos discretos comit ' praedictâ—… de qualib civitate com' illius duos Cives de quâ—…libet Burgo duos Burgenses de discretior ' magis suffcientibus libere indifferenter per illos qui proclam ' hâ—…jusmodi interfuerint juxta formam statutorum inde edâ—… provis ' eligi nomina eorundum milit ' civium â—… Burgensium sic electorum in quibusdam indentur ' intâ—…te illos qui hujusmodi election ' interfuerint inde confidend ' sive hujusmodi electi praesentes fuerint vel absentes inseri eósque ad dict' diem locum venire fac ' Ita quod iidem milites plenam sufficientem potestatem pro se communitate comit ' praedicti ac dict' Cives Burgenses pro se communitat ' Civitatum Burgorum praedictorum divisim ab ipsis habeant ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibid ' de communi Consilio dicti reg nostri favente Deo contigerint ordinari super negotiis ante dictis Ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi seu propter improvidam electionem milit ' civium aut Burgensium praedictorum dicta negotia infecta non remaneant quovismodo Nolumus autem quod tu nec aliquis alius vic' dicti reg nostri aliqualiter sit electus Et electionem illam in pleno comitatu factam distincte aperte sub sigillo tuo sigillis eorum qui electioni illi interfuerint nobis in cancellar ' nostram ad dict' diem locum certifices indilate remittens nobis alteram partem indenturarum praedictarum praesentibus consut ' una cum hoc breve Teste meipso apud Westmon The King to the Sheriff of Greeting WHereas by the Advice and Consent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the State and Defence of our Kingdom of England and the English Church We have ordained a certain Parliament of ours to be held at Our City of the day of next ensuing and there to have Conference and to treat with the Prelates Great men and Peers of our said Kingdom We command and straitly enjoyn you that making Proclamation at the next County-Court after the Receipt of this our Writ to be holden the day and place aforesaid You cause two Knights girt with Swords the most fit and discreet of the County aforesaid and of every City of that County two Citizens of every Borough two Burgesses of the discreeter and most sufficient to be freely and indifferently chosen by them who shall be present at such Proclamation according to the Tenor of the Statutes in that case made and provided and the Names of the said Knights Citizens and Burgesses so chosen to be inserted in certain Indentures to be then made between you and those that shall be present at such Election whether the Parties so elected be present or absent and shall make them to come at the said day and Place so that the said Knights for themselves and for the County aforesaid and the said Citizens and Burgesses for themselves and the Commonalty of the aforesaid Cities and Boroughs may have severally from them full and sufficient Power to Perform and to Consent to those things which then by the Favour of God shall there happen to be ordained by the Common-Councel of our said Kingdom concerning the Businesses aforesaid So that the Business may not by any means remain undone for want of such Power or by reason of the improvident Election of the aforesaid Knights Citizens and Burgesses But We will not in any case you or any other Sheriff of Our said Kingdom shall be elected And at the Day and Place aforesaid the said Election made in the full County-Court you shall certifie without Delay to Us in our Chancery under your Seal and the Seals of them which shall be present
of Government they please The Text not warranting this Right of the People the Foundation of the Defence of the People is quite taken away there being no other Grant or proof of it pretended 2. Where it is said that the Israelites desired a King though then under another Form of Government in the next line but one it is confessed they had a King at the time when they desired a King which was God himself and his Vice-roy Samuel and so saith God They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them yet in the next Verse God saith As they have forsaken me so do they also unto thee Here is no Shew of any other Form of Government but Monarchy God by the Mediation of Samuel reigned who made his Sons Judges over Israel when one man constitutes Judges we may call him a King or if the Having of Judges do alter the Government then the Government of every Kingdom is altered from Monarchy where Judges are appointed by Kings it is now reckoned one of the Duties of Kings to judge by their Judges only Where it is said He shall not multiply to himself Horses nor Wives nor Riches that he might understand that he had no Power over others who could Decree nothing of himself extra Legem if it had said contra legem Dei it had been true but if it meant extra legem humanam it is false 4. If there had been any Right given to the People it seems it was to the Elders onely for it is said it was the Elders of Israel gathered together petitioned for a King it is not said it was all the People nor that the People did choose the Elders who were the Fathers and Heads of Families authorized by the Judges 5. Where it is said I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me To set a King is not to choose a King but by some solemn publick Act of Coronation or otherwise to acknowledge their Allegiance to the King chosen It is said thou shalt set him King whom the Lord thy God shall choose The Elders did not desire to choose a King like other Nations but they say now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations III. As for Davids Covenant with the Elders when he was annointed it was not to observe any Laws or Conditions made by the People for ought appears but to keep Gods Laws and serve him and to seek the Good of the People as they were to protect him 6. The Reubenites and Gadites promise their Obedience not according to their Laws or Conditions agreed upon but in these words All that thou cammandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendst us we will go as we harkened to Moses in all things so will we harken unto thee only the Lord thy God be with thee as he was with Moses Where is there any Condition of any humane Law expressed Though the rebellious Tribes offered Conditions to Rehoboam where can we find that for like Conditions not performed all Israel deposed Samuel I wonder Mr. Milton should say this when within a few Lines after he professeth that Samuel had governed them uprightly IV. Ius Regni is much stumbled at and the Definition of a King which saith His Power is supreme in the Kingdom and he is accountable to none but to God and that he may do what he please and is not bound by Laws it is said if this Definition be good no man is or ever was who may be said to be a Tyrant p. 14. for when he hath violated all divine and humane Laws nevertheless he is a King and guiltless jure Regio To this may be answered That the Definition confesseth he is accountable to God and therefore not guiltless if he violate Divine Laws Humane Laws must not be shuffled in with Divine they are not of the same Authority if humane Laws bind a King it is impossible for him to have Supreme Power amongst men If any man can find us out such a kind of Government wherein the supreme Power can be without being freed from humane Laws they should first teach us that but if all sorts of popular Government that can be invented cannot be one Minute without an Arbitrary Power freed from all humane Laws what reason can be given why a Royal Government should not have the like Freedom if it be Tyranny for one man to govern arbitrarily why should it not be far greater Tyranny for a multitude of men to govern without being accountable or bound by Laws It would be further enquired how it is possible for any Government at all to be in the World without an arbitrary Power it is not Power except it be arbitary a legislative Power cannot be without being absolved from humane Laws it cannot be shewed how a King can have any Power at all but an arbitrary Power We are taught that Power was therefore given to a King by the People that he might see by the Authority to him committed that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose upon us his own therefore there is no Royal Power but in the Courts of the Kingdom and by them pag. 155. And again it is said the King cannot Imprison Fine or Punish any man except he be first cited into some Court where not the King but the usual Iudges give Sentence pag. 168. and before we are told not the King but the Authority of Parliament doth set up and take away all Courts pag. 167. Lo here we have Mr. Milton's perfect Definition of a King He is one to whom the People gave Power to see that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose his own Whereas all other men have the Faculty of Seeing by Nature the King only hath it by the Gift of the People other Power he hath none he may see the Judges keep the Laws if they will he cannot compell them for he may not Imprison Fine nor punish any man the Courts of Justice may and they are set up and put down by the Parliament yet in this very Definition of a King we may spy an arbitrary Power in the King for he may wink if he will and no other Power doth this Description of a King give but only a Power to see whereas it is said Aristotle doth mention an absolute Kingdom for no other Cause but to shew how absurd unjust and most tyrannical it is There is no such thing said by Aristotle but the contrary where he saith that 〈◊〉 King according to Law makes no sort of Government and after he had reckoned up five sorts of Kings he concludes that there were in a manner but two sorts the Lacedemonian King and the Absolute King whereof the first was but as General in an Army and therefore no King at all and then fixes and rests upon the Absolute King who ruleth according to
I read that the Senators who are all chosen out of the Nobility and seldom exceed the number of 28 with the chief of the Realm do chuse their King They have always in a manner set the Kings eldest Son upon the Royal Throne The Nobility of Denmarke withstood the Coronation of Frederick 1559 till he sware not to put any Noble-man to death until he were judged of the Senate and that all Noble-men should have power of life and death over their Subjects without appeal and the King to give no Office without consent of the Councel There is a Chancelour of the Realm before whom they do appeal from all the Provinces and Islands and from him to the King himself I hear of nothing in this Kingdom that tends to Popularity no Assembly of the Commons no elections or representation of them Sweden is governed by a King heretofore elective but now made hereditary in Gustavus time it is divided into Provinces an appeal lieth from the Vicount of every territory to a Soveraign Judge called a Lamen from the Lamens to the Kings Councel and from this Councel to the King himself Now let the Observator bethink himself whether all or any of these three Countries have found out any art at all whereby the people or community may assume its own power if neither of these Kingdomes have most Countries have not nay none have The people or Community in these three Realms are as absolute vassals as any in the world the regulating power if any be is in the Nobility Nor is it such in the Nobility as it makes shew for The election of Kings is rather a Formality than any real power for they dare hardly chuse any but the Heir or one of the blood Royal if they should chuse one among the Nobility it would prove very factious if a stranger odious neither safe For the Government though the Kings be sworn to raign according to the Laws and are not to do any thing without the consent of their Councel in publick affairs yet in regard they have power both to advance and reward whom they please the Nobility and Senators do comply with their Kings And Boterus concludes of the Kings of Poland who seem to be most moderated that such as is their valour dexterity and wisdome such is their Power Authority and Government Also Bodin saith that these three Kingdoms are States changable and uncertain as the Nobility is stronger than the Prince or the Prince than the Nobility and the people are so far from liberty that he saith Divers particular Lords exact not onely Customs but Tributes also which are confirmed and grow stronger both by long prescription of time and use of Iudgments The End AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE JURY-MEN of ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES ADVERTISEMENT To the JURY-MEN OF ENGLAND THE late Executon of Witches at the Summer Assises in Kent occasioned this brief Exercitation which addresses it self to such as have not deliberately thought upon the great difficulty in discovering what or who a Witch is To have nothing but the publick Faith of the present Age is none of the best Evidence unless the universality of elder times do concur with these Doctrines which ignorance in the times of darkness brought forth and credulity in these days of light hath continued Such as shall not be pleased with this Tractate are left to their liberty to consider whether all those Proofs and Presumptions number'd up by Mr. Perkins for the Conviction of a Witch be not all Condemned or confessed by himself to be unsufficient or uncertain He brings no less than eighteen signs or proofs whereby a Witch may be discovered which are too many to be all true his seven first he himself confesseth to be insufficient for Conviction of a Witch His eight next proofs which he saith men in place have used he acknowledgeth to be false or insufficient Thus of his Eighteen proofs which made a great shew fifteen of them are cast off by himself there remains then his sixteenth which is the Confession of a Witch yet presently he is forced to yield That a bare Confession is not a sufficient proof and so he cometh to his seventeenth proof which is two credible witnesses and he here grants that the League between the Devil and the Witch is closely made and the practices of Witches be very secret that hardly a man can be brought which upon his own knowledge can aver such things Therefore at last when all other proofs fail he is forced to fly to his eighteenth proof and tells us that yet there is a way to come to the knowledge of a Witch which is that Satan useth all means to discover a Witch which how it can be well done except the Devil be bound over to give in evidence against the Witch cannot be understood And as Mr. Perkins weakens and discredits all his own proofs so he doth the like for all those of King James who as I remember hath but Three Arguments for the discovery of a Witch First the secret Mark of a Witch of which Mr. Perkins saith it hath no power by Gods Ordinance Secondly The discovery by a fellow Witch this Mr. Perkins by no means will allow to be a good proof Thirdly the swimming of a Witch who is to be flung cross ways into the water that is as Wierus interprets it when the Thumb of the right Hand is bound to the great Toe of the left Foot and the Thumb of the left Hand to the great Toe of the right Foot Against this Tryal by water together with a disability in a Witch to shed Tears which King James mentions Delrio and Mr. Perkins both argue for it seems they both write after King James who put forth his Book of Daemonologie in his youth being in Scotland about his age of thirty years It concerns the people of this Nation to be more diligently instructed in the Doctrine of Witch-craft than those of Forraign Countries because here they are tyed to a stricter or exacter Rule in giving their sentence than others are for all of them must agree in their Verdict which in a case of extream difficulty is very dangerous and it is a sad thing for men to be reduced to that extremity that they must hazard their Consciences or their Lives A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN An English and Hebrew WITCH THE Point in Question is briefly this Whether such a Witch as is Condemned by the Laws and Statutes of this Land be one and the same with the Witch forbidden by the Law of Moses The Witch Condemned by our Statute-law is 1 Iacob Cap. 12. One that shall use practice or exercise any Invocation or Conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit or consult covenant with entertain or employ feed or reward any evil or wicked spirit to or for any intent or purpose or take up any dead man woman or child out of his her or their grave or any other place where the dead body resteth or the
shall be respited untill our Lord the King shall be informed It is commanded to the Constable of the Tower safely to keep the said John untill he hath other commandement from our Lord the King In the case of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Ric. 2. who was accused for complying with the French and other Failings the Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that The cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of common Right and antient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholly belong to Our Lord the King and no other Le cognisance punissement de commune droit auntienne custome de Royalme de Engleterre seul per tout apperteine au Roy nostre Seignieur a nul autre In the case of the Lord de la Ware the Judgment of the Lords was that he should have place next after the Lord Willoughby of Erisbe by consent of all except the Lord Windsor and the Lord Keeper was required to acquaint Her Majesty with the Determination of the Peers and to know her Pleasure concerning the same The Inference from these Precedents is that the Decisive or Iudicial Power exercised in the Chamber of Peers is merely derivative and subservient to the Supreme Power which resides in the King and is grounded solely upon his grace and favour for howsoever the House of Commons do alledge their Power to be founded on the Principles of Nature in that they are the Representative Body of the Kingdom as they say and so being the whole may take care and have power by Nature to preserve themselves yet the House of Peers do not nor cannot make any such the least Pretence since there is no reason in Nature why amongst a company of men who are all equal some few should be picked out to be exalted above their Fellows and have power to Govern those who by Nature are their companions The difference between a Peer and a Commoner is not by Nature but by the grace of the Prince who creates Honours and makes those Honours to be hereditary whereas he might have given them for life onely or during pleasure or good behaviour and also annexeth to those Honours the Power of having Votes in Parliament as hereditary Counsellours furnished with ampler Privileges than the Commons All these Graces conferred upon the Peers are so far from being derived from the Law of Nature that they are contradictory and destructive of that natural equality and freedom of mankind which many conceive to be the foundation of the Privileges and Liberties of the House of Commons there is so strong an opposition between the liberties of Grace and Nature that it had never been possible for the two Houses of Parliament to have stood together without mortal Enmity and eternal jarring had they been raised upon such opposite foundations But the truth is the Liberties and Privileges of both Houses have but one and the self same foundation which is nothing else but the meer and sole Grace of Kings Thus much may serve to shew the Nature and Original of the deliberative and decisive Power of the Peers of the Kingdom The matter about which the deliberative power is conversant is generally the Consulting and Advising upon any urgent Business which concerns the King or Defence of the Kingdom and more especially sometimes in preparing new Laws and this Power is grounded upon the Writ The décisive Power is exercised in giving Judgment in some difficult Cases but for this Power of the Peers I find no Warrant in their Writ Whereas the Parliament is styled the Supreme Court it must be understood properly of the King sitting in the House of Peers in Person and but improperly of the Lords without him Every Supreme Court must have the Supreme Power and the Supreme Power is alwayes Arbitrary for that is Arbitrary which hath no Superiour on Earth to controlâ—… it The last Appeal in all Government must still bâ—… to an Arbitrary Power or else Appeals will bâ—… in Infinitum never at an end The Legislative Power is an Arbitrary Power for they are termini convertibiles The main Question in these our dayes is Where this Power Legislative remains or is placed upon conference of the Writs of Summons for both Houses with the Bodies and Titles of our Ancient Acts of Parliament we shall find the Power of making Laws rests solely in the King Some affirm that a part of the Legislative Power is in either of the Houses but besides invincible reason from the Nature of Monarchy it self which must have the Supreme Power Alone the constant Antient Declaration of this Kingdom is against it For howsoever of later years in the Titles and Bodies of our Acts of Parliament it be not so particularly expressed who is the Author and Maker of our Laws yet in almost all our elder Statutes it is precisely expressed that they are made by the King Himself The general words used of later times that Laws are made by Authority of Parliament are particularly explained in former Statutes to mean That the King Ordains the Lords Advise the Commons Consent as by comparing the Writs with the Statutes that expound the Writs will evidently appear Magna Charta begins thus Henry by the grace of God Know ye that WE of Our Meer and Free Will have given these Liberties In the self-same style runs Charta de Foresta and tells us the Author of it The Statute de Scaccario 41 H. 3. begins in these words The King Commandeth that all Bailiffs Sheriffs and other Officers c. And concerning the Justices of Chester the King Willeth c. and again He Commandeth the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer upon their Allegiance The Stat. of Marlborough 52 Hen. 3. goeth thus The King hath Made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes which He Willeth to be Observed of all his Subjects high and low 3 Edw. 1. The Title of this Statute is These are the ACTS of King EDWARD and after it follows The KING hath Ordained these ACTS and in the first Chapter The King Forbiddeth and Commandeth That none do hurt damage or grievance â—…o any Religious Man or Person of the Church and in the thirteenth Chapter The King prohibiteth that none do Ravish or take away by force any Maid within age 6 Edw. 1. It is said Our Sovereign Lord the King hath established these Acts commanding they be â—…bserved within this Realm and in the fourteenth Chap. the words are The King of his special Grace granteth that the Citizens of London shall recover in an Assise Damage with the Land The Stat. of West 2. saith Our Lord the King hath ordained that the Will of the Giver be observed and in the 3. Chap. Our Lord the King hath ordained that a woman after the Death of her Husband shal recover by a Writ of Entry The Stat. of Quo Warranto saith Our Lord
the King at His Parliament of his special Grace and for Affection which he beareth to his Prelates Earls and Barons and others hath granted that they that have Liberties by Prescription shall enjoy them In the Stat. de finibus Levatis the Kings Words are We intending to provide Remedy in our Parliament have ordained c. 28. Edw. 1. c. 5. The King Wills that the Chancellor and the Iustices of the Bench shall follow Him so that he may have at all times some neer unto him thaâ—… be learned in the Laws and in Chap. 24. the words are Our Lord the King after full Conference and Debate had with his Earls Barons Nobles and other Great men by their whole Consent hath ordained c. The Stat. de Tallagio if any such Statute there be speaks in the Kings Person No Officer of Ours No Tallage shall be taken by Us We Will and Grant 1. Edw. 2. begins thus Our Lord the King Willeth and Commandeth The Stat. of 9. the same King saith Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and other great States hath Ordained 10. Edw. 2. It is provided by our Lord the King and his Iustices The Stat. of Carlile saith We have sent our Command in writing firmly to be observed 1. Edw. 3. begins thus King Edw. 3. at his Parliament at the request of the Commonalty by their Petition before him and his Councel in Parliament hath granted c. and in the 5th Chap. The King willeth that no man be charged to arm himself otherwise than he was wont 5. Edw. 3. Our Lord the King at the Request of his People hath established these things which He Wills to be kept 9. Of the same King there is this Title Our Lord the King by the Assent c. and by the Advice of his Councel being there hath ordained c. In his 10 year it is said Because Our Lord King Edw. 3. hath received by the Complaint of the Prelates Earls Barons also at the shewing of the Knights of the Shires and his Commons by their Petition put in his Parliament c. Hath ordained by the Assent c. at the Request of the said Knights and Commons c. The same year in another Parliament you may find these be the Articles accorded by Our Lord the King with the Assent c. at the Request of the Knights of the Shires and the Commons by their Petition â—…ut in the said Parliament In the year-Book 22 Edw. 3. 3. pl. 25. It is said The King makes the Laws by the Assent of the Peers and Commons and not the Peers and Commons The Stat. of 1. Ric. 2. hath this Beginning Richâ—…d the 2. by the Assent of the Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons and at the Instance and special Request of â—… Commons Ordained There being a Statute made 5 Ric. 2. c. 5. against Lollards in the next year the Commons Petition Him Supplient les Commons que come un estatute fuit fait c. The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented to nor Granted by the Commons but that which was done therein was done without their Assent In this Petition the Commons acknowledge it a Statute and so call it though they assented not to it 17 Ric. 2. nu 44. The Commons desire some pursuing to make a Law which they conceive hurtful to the Commonwealth That His Majesty will not pass it As for the Parliaments in Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Edw. 4. and Ric. 3. Reigns the most of them do agree in this one Title Our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of His Lords and at the special Instance and Request of the Commons Hath ordained The Precedents in this Point are so numerous that it were endless to cite them The Statutes in Hen. 7. days do for the most part agree both in the Titles and Bodies of the Acts in these words Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons iâ—… Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same hath ordained Unto this Kings time we find the Commons very often petitioning but not petitioned unto The first Petition made to the Commons that I meet with among the Statutes is but in the middle of this King Hen 7. Reign which was so well approved that the Petition it self is turned into â—… Statute It begins thus To the Right Worshipfuâ—… Commons in this present Parliament assembled Sheweth to your discreet Wisdoms the Wardens of the Fellowship of the Craft of Upholsters within London c. This Petition though it be directed to the Commons in the Title yet the Prayer of the Petition is turned to the King and not to the Commons for it concludes therefore it may please the Kings Highness by the Advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and his Commons in Parliament c. Next for the Statutes of Hen. 8. they do most part agree both in their Titles and the Bodies of the Acts with those of his Father King Hen. 7. Lastly In the Statutes of Edw. 6. Qu. Mary Q. Elizabeth K. Iames and of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is there is no Mention made in their Titles of any Assent of Lords and Commons or of any Ordaining by the King but only in general terms it is said Acts made in Parliament or thus At the Parliament were Enacted yet in the Bodies of many of these Acts of these last Princes there is sometimes Mention made of Consent of Lords and Commons in these or the like words It is Enacted by the King with the Assent of the Lords and Commons Except only in the Statutes of our Lord King Charles wherein there is no Mention that I can find of any Consent of the Lords and Commons or Ordaining by the King But the words are Be it Enacted by Authority of Parliament or else Be it Enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons as if they were all Fellow-Commissioners Thus it appears that even till the time of K. Ed. 6. who lived but in our Fathers dayes it was punctually expressed in every King's Laws that the Statutes Ordinances were made by the King And withal we may see by what degrees the Styles and Titles oâ—… Acts of Parliament have been varied and to whose Disadvantage The higher we look the more absolute we find the Power of Kings in Ordaininâ—… Laws nor do we meet with at first so much as thâ—… Assent or Advice of the Lords mentioned Nay 〈◊〉 we cast our eye upon many Statutes of those that bâ—… of most Antiquity they will appear as if they weâ—… no Laws at all but as if they had been made only to teach us that the Punishments of many Offencâ—… were left to the meere pleasure of Kings The punitive part of the Law which gives all the Vigoâ—… and Binding Power to the Law we find committed by the
Maurice Justicer of Ireland The Explanations of the Statute of Gloucester made by the King and His Iustices only were received alwayes for Statutes and are still printed with them Also the Statute made for the correction of the twelfth Chapter of the Statute of Gloucester was Signed under the Great Seal and sent to the Justices of the Bench after the manner of a Writ Patent with a certain Writ closed dated by the Kings hand at Westminster 2 Maii 9 Edw. 1. requiring that they should do and execute all and every thing contained in it though the same do not accord with the Stat. of Gloucester in all things The Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly of Prelates and the greater part of the Earls and Barons for the Coronation of the King and his Queen Elinor are in the form of a Proclamation and begin Provisum est in Curia domini Regis apud Merton 19 Hen. 3. a Provision was made de assisa praesentationis which was continued and allowed for a Law untill the Stat. of West 2. which provides the contrary in express words In the old Statutes it is hard to distinguish what Laws were made by Kings in Parliament and what out of Parliament when Kings called Peers only to Parliament and of those how many or whom they pleased as it appears anciently they did it was no easie matter to put a difference between a Councel-Table and a Parliament or between a Proclamation and a Statute Yet it is most evident that in old times there was a distinction between the Kings special or Privy Councel and His Common Councel of the Kingdom and His special Councel did sit with the Peers in Parliament and were of great and extraordinary Authority there In the Stat. of Westm. 1. it is said These are the Acts of K. Edw. 1. made at His first Parliament by His Councel and by the Assent of Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm The Stat. of Acton Burnell hath these words The King for Himself and by His Councel hath Ordained and Established In articulis super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the Request of the Prelates Earls and Barons are found these two provisions 1. Nevertheless the King and his Councel do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the Kings Right 2. Notwithstanding all these things before-mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Councel and all they that were present Will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of His Crown shall be saved to Him in all things The Stat. of Escheators hath this Title At the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King By His Councel it was agreed and also by the King himself commanded 1 Edw. 3. where Magna Charta was confirmed this Preamble is found At the request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King and His Councel in Parliament by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons c. The Statute made at York 9 Edw. 3. goeth thus Whereas the Knights Citizens and Burgesses desired Our Sovereign Lord the King in His Parliament by their Petition c. Our Sovereign Lord the King desiring the profit of His People By the Assent of His Prelates Earls Barons and other Nobles of His Realm and by the Advice of His Councel being there Hath Ordained 25. Edw. 3. In the Statute of Purveyors where the King at the request of the Lords and Commons made a Declaration what Offences should be adjudged Treason It is there further said if per-case any man ride Armed with Men of Arms against any other to slay him or rob him It is not the Mind of the King or of His Councel that in such cases it shall be adjudged Treason By this Statute it appears that even in the case of Treason which is the Kings own Cause as whereas a man doth compass or imagine the Death of Our Lord the King or a man do wage War against Our Lord the King in His Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving to them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere in all these cases it is the Kings Declaration onely that makes it to be Treason and though it be said that Difficult points of Treason shall be brought and shewed to the King and His Parliament yet it is said it is the mind of the King and his Councel that determines what shall be adjudged Treason and what Felony or Trespass 27 Edw. 3. the Commons presenting a Petition to the King which the Kings Councel did mislike were content thereupon to amend and explain their Petition the Petition hath these words To their most redoubted Sovereign Lord the King Praying Your said Commons that whereas they have prayed him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Eyre c. which Petition seemeth to his Councel to be prejudicial unto him and in Disinherison of his Crown if it were so generally granted His said Commons not willing nor desiring to demand things of Him or of his Crown perpetually as of Escheats c. But of Trespasses Misprisions Negligences Ignorances c. And as in Parliaments the Kings Councel were of Supereminent Power so out of Parliament Kings made great Use of them King Edw. 1. finding that Bogo de Clare was discharged of an Accusation brought against him in Parliament commanded him nevertheless to appear before him and his Councel ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus Concilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to the Examination of the whole Cause 8 Edw. 1. Edw. 3. In the Star-chamber which was the ancient Councel-table at Westminster upon the complaint of Eliz. Audley commanded Iames Audley to appear before Him and His Councel and determined a Controversie between them touching Land contained in her Jointure Rot. claus de An. 41 Edw. 3. Hen. 5. In a Suit before Him and His Councel For the Titles of the Manors of Serre and St. Lawrence in the Isle of Thanet in Kent took order for the Sequestring the Profits till the Right were tried Hen. 6. commanded the Justices of the Bench to stay the Arraignment of one Verney in London till they had other Commandment from Him and His Councel 34 Hen. 6. rot 37. in Banco Edw. 4. and his Councel in the Star-Chamber heard the Cause of the Master and poor Brethren of Saint Leonard's in York complaining that Sir Hugh Hastings and others withdrew from them a great part of their Living which consisted chiefly upon the having of a Thrave of Corn of every Plow-land within the Counties of York Westmorland Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. pat de an 8. Edw. 4. part 3. memb 14. Hen. 7. and his Councel in the Star-Chamber decreed that Margery and Florence Becket should sue no further in their cause against Alice Radley Widow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumsted in Kent for as much as the matter had been heard
Commons may be unjust so that the Lords and Commons themselves may be the Judges of what is just or unjust But where a King by Oath binds his Conscience to protect just Laws it concerns him to be satisfied in his own Conscience that they be just and not by an implicite Faith or blind Obedience no man can be so proper a Judge of the Justness of Laws as he whose Soul must lie at the Stake for the Defence and Safeguard of them Besides in this very Oath the King doth swear to do equal and right Iustice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth in all His Iudgments facies fieri in omnibus judiciis tuis aequam rectam justitiam discretionem in Misericordia Veritate if we allow the King Discretion and Mercy in his Iudgments of Necessity he must judge of the Justness of the Laws Again the clause of the Oath quas vulgus elegerit doth not mention the assenting unto or granting any new Laws but of holding protecting and strengthning with all his Might the just Laws that were already in Being there were no need of Might or Strength if assenting to new Laws were there meant Some may wonder why there should be such Labouring to deny the King a negative Voice since a negative Voice is in it self so poor a thing that if a man had all the Negative Voices in the Kingdom â—…t would not make him a King nor give him Power to make one Law a negative Voice is but a â—…ivative Power that is no Power at all to do or act any thing but a Power only to hinder the Power of another Negatives are of such a malignant or destructive Nature that if they have nothing else to destroy they will when they meet destroy one another which is the reason why two Negatives make an Affirmative by destroying the Negation which did hinder the Affirmation A King with a Negative Voice only is but like a Syllogisme of pure negative Propositions which can conclude nothing It must be an Affirmative Voice that makes both a King and a Law and without it there can be no imaginable Government The reason is plain why the Kings negative Voice is so eagerly opposed for though it give the King no Power to do any thing yet it gives him a Power to hinder others though it cannot make Him a King yet it can help him to keep others from being Kings For Conclusion of this Discourse of the negative Voice of the King I shall oppose the Judgment of a Chief Iustice of England to the Opinion of him that calls himself an utter Barister of Lincolns Inn and let others judge who is the better Lawyer of the two the words are Bracton's but concern Mr. Pryn to lay them to heart Concerning the Charters and Deeds of Kings the Iustices nor private men neither ought nor can dispute nor yet if there rise a Doubt in the Kings Charter can they interpret it and in doubtful and obscure Points or if a word contain two Senses the Interpretation and Will of Our Lord the King is to be expected seeing it is his part to interpret who makes the Charter full well Mr. Pryn knows that when Bracton writ the Laws that were then made and strived for were called the Kings Charters as Magna Charta Charta de Foresta and others so that in Bracton's Judgment the King hath not only a Negative Voice to hinder but an Affirmative to make a Law which is a great deal more than Master Pryn will allow him Not only the Law-maker but also the sole Iudge of the People is the King in the Judgment of Bracton these are his words Rex non alius debet judicare si solus ad id sufficere possit the King and no other ought to judge if He alone were able Much like the words of Bracton speaketh Briton where after that he had shewed that the King is the Viceroy of God and that He hath distributed his Charge into sundry portions because He alone is not sufficient to hear all Complaints of His People then he addeth these words in the Person of the King Nous volons que nostre jurisdiction soit sur touts Iurisdictions c. We Will that Our Iurisdiction be above all the Iurisdictions of Our Realm so as in all manner of Felonies Trespasses Contracts and in all other actions Personal or Real We have Power to yield or cause to be yielded such Iudgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right Truth as Iudges Neither was this to be taken saith Mr. Lambard to be meant of the Kings Bench where there is only an imaginary presence of His Person but it must necessarily be understood of a Iurisdiction remaining and left in the King 's Royal Body and Brest distinct from that of His Bench and other ordinary Courts because he doth immediately after severally set forth by themselves as well the authority of the Kings Bench as of the other Courts And that this was no new-made Law Mr. Lamâ—…d puts us in mind of a Saxon Law of King Edgars Nemo in lite Regem appellato c. Let no man iâ—… Suit appeal unto the King unless he cannot get Right aâ—… home but if that Right be too Heavy for him then lâ—… him go to the King to have it eased By which iâ—… may evidently appear that even so many years agâ—… there might be Appellation made to the Kings Persae whensoever the Cause should enforce it The very like Law in Effect is to be seen in the Laws of Canutus the Dane sometimes King of thâ—… Realm out of which Law Master Lambard gatheâ—… that the King Himself had a High Court of Iustia wherein it seemeth He sate in Person for the words bâ—… Let him not seek to the King and the same Court â—… the King did judge not only according to meeâ—… Right and Law but also after Equity and gooâ—… Conscience For the Close I shall end with the Suffrage â—… our late Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary he saith Omnis Regni Iustitia solius Regis est c. All Iustice of the Kingdom is only the King 's and Hâ—… alone if He were able should Administer it but thâ—… being impossible He is forced to delegate it to Ministers whom he bounds by the limits of the Laws the positive Laws are only about Generals in particular Cases they are sometimes too strict sometimes too remisâ—… and so oft Wrong instead of Right will be done if wâ—… stand to strict Law also Causes hard and difficult dâ—…ly arise which are comprehended in no Law-books â—… those there is a necessity of running back to the King tâ—… Fountain of Iustice and the Vicegerent of God himself who in the Commonwealth of the Iews took such Cause to His own cognisance and left to Kings not only the Example of such Iurisdiction but the Prerogative also Of Privilege of Parliament WHat need all this ado will some say to
their Councel extraordinary that by their Advice they might countenance and strengthen such Actions as were full of Danger and Envy and thus the Consuls by weakening their original Power brought the Government to Confusion civil Dissension and utter Ruine so dangerous a thing it is to shew Favour to Common People who interpret all Graces and Favours for their Rights and just Liberties the Consuls following the Advice of the Senate or People did not take away their Right of Governing no more than Kings lose their Supremacy by taking Advice in Parliaments Not only the Consuls but also the Pretors and Censors two great Offices ordained only for the ease of the Consuls from whom an Appeal lay to the Consuls did in many things exercise an arbitrary or legislative Power in the Absence of the Consuls they had no Laws to limit them for many Years after the Creation of Consuls ten men were sent into Greece to choose Laws and after the 12 Tables were confirmed whatsoever the Pretors who were but the Consuls Substitutes did command was called jus honorarium and they were wont at the Entrance into their Office to collect and hang up for publick View a Form of Administration of Justice which they would observe and though the edictum Praetoris expired with the Pretoâ—… Office yet it was called Edictum perpetuum What Peace the Low-Countries have found since their Revolt is visible it is near about an hundred Years since they set up for themselves of all which time only twelve years they had a Truce with the Spaniard yet in the next year after the Truce was agreed upon the War of Iuliers brake forth which engaged both Parties so that upon the matter they have lived in a continued War for almost 100 Years had it not been for the Aid of their Neighbours they had been long ago swallowed up when they were glad humbly to offer their new hatch'd Commonweal and themselves Vassals to the Queen of England after that the French King Hen. 3. had refused to accept them as his Subjects That little Truce they had was almost as costly as a War they being forced to keep about thirty thousand Souldiers continually in Garrison Two things they say they first fought about Religion and Taxes and they have prevailed it seems in both for they have gotten all the Religions in Christendome and pay the greatest Taxes in the World they pay Tribute half in half for Food and most necessary things paying as much for Tribute as the price of the thing sold Excise is paid by all Retailers of Wine and other Commodities for each Tun of Beer six Shillings for each Cow for the Pail two Stivers every week for Oxen Horses Sheep and other beasts sold in the Market the twelfth part at least be they never so oft sold by the year to and fro the new Master still pays as much they pay five Stivers for every Bushel of their own Wheat which they use to grinde in publick Mills These are the Fruits of the Low-Country War It will be said that Venice is a Commonwealth that enjoys Peace She indeed of all other States hath enjoyed of late the greatest Peace but she owes it not to her kind of Government but to the natural Situation of the City having such a Banck in the Sea of neer threescore Miles and such Marshes towards the Land as make her unapproachable by Land or Sea to these she is indebted for her Peace at home and what Peace she hath abroad she buys at a dear Rate and yet her Peace is little better than a continued War The City always is in such perpetual Fears that many besieged Cities are in more Security a Senator or Gentleman dares not converse with any Stranger in Venice shuns Acquaintance or dares not own it they are no better than Banditos to all humane Society Nay no People in the World live in such Jealousie one of another hence are their intricate Solemnities or rather Lotteries in Election of their Magistrates which in any other Place would be ridiculous and useless The Senators or Gentlemen are not only jealous of the Common People whom they keep disarmed but of one another they dare not trust any of their own Citizens to be a Leader of their Army but are forced to hire and entertain Foreign Princes for their Generals excepting their Citizens from their Wars and hiring others in their Places it cannot be said that People live in Peace which are in such miserable Fears continually The Venetians at first were subject to the Româ—… Emperour and for fear of the Invasion of the Hunnes forsook Padua and other places in Italy and retired with all their Substance to those Islandâ—… where now Venice stands I do not read they had any Leave to desert the defence of their Prince and Countrey where they had got their Wealth much less to set up a Government of their own it was no better than a Rebellion or Revolting from the Roman Empire At first they lived under a kind of Oligarchy for several Islands had each a Tribune who all met and governed in common but the dangerous Seditions of their Tribunes put a necessity upon them to choose a Duke for Life who for many hundreds of years had an Absolute Power under whose Government Venice flourished most and got great Victories and rich Possessions But by insensible degrees the Great Councel of the Gentlemen have for many years been lessening the Power of their Dukes and have at last quite taken it away It is a strange Errour for any man to believe that the Government of Venice hath been alwayes the same that it is now he that reads but the History of Venice may find for a long time a Sovereign Power in their Dukes and that for these last two hundred years since the diminishing of that Power there hath been no great Victories and Conquests obtained by that Estate That which exceeds admiration is that Contareâ—… hath the confidence to affirm the present Government of Venice to be a mixed Form of Monarchy Democratie and Aristocratie For whereas he makes the Duke to have the Person and Shew of a King he after confesseth that the Duke can do nothing at all alone and being joyned with other Magistrates he hath no more Authority than any of them also the power of the Magistrates is so small that no one of them how great soever he be can determine of any thing of moment without the allowance of the Councel So that this Duke is but a man dressed up in Purple a King only in Pomp and Ornament in Power but a Senator within the City a Captive without a Traytor if he go without Leave As little reason is there to think a Popular Estate is to be found in the great Councel of Venice or S. P. Q. U. for it doth not consist of the fortieth part of the People but only of those they call Patritians or Gentlemen for the Commons neither by
the People may choose what Form of Government they please and their Will is the Rule of Right Populus eligere potest qualem vult gubernationis formam neque ex praestantia formae sed ex voluntate jus metiendum est lib. 1. c. 3. Also that the People choosing a King may reserve some Acts to themselves and may bestow others upon the King with full Authority if either an express Partition be appointed or if the People being yet free do command their future King by way of a standing Command or if any thing be added by which it may be understood that the King may be compelled or else punished In these Passages of Grotius which I have cited we find evidently these Doctrines 1. That Civil Power depends on the Will of the People 2. That private men or petty Multitudes may take up Arms against their Princes 3. That the lawfullest Kings have no Propriety in their Kingdoms but an usufructuary Right only as if the People were the Lords and Kings but their Tenants 4. That the Law of Not resisting Superiours is a humane Law depending on the Will of the People at first 5. That the Will of the first People if it be not known may be expounded by the People that now are No Doubt but Grotius foresaw what Uses the People might make of these Doctrines by concluding if the chief Power be in the People that then it is lawful for them to compel and punish Kings as oft as they misuse their Power Therefore he tells us he rejects the Opinion of them who every where and without Exception will have the chief Power to be so the Peoples that it is lawful for them to compel and punish Kings as oft as they misuse their Power and this Opinion he confesseth if it be altogether received hath been and may be the Cause of many Evils This cautelous Rejection qualified with these Terms of every where without Exception and altogether makes but a mixt Negation partly negative and partly affirmative which our Lawyers call a negative Repugnant which brings forth this modal Proposition that in some Places with Exception and in some sort the People may compel and punish their Kings But let us see how Grotius doth refute the general Opinion that People may correct Kings He frames his Argument in these words It is lawful for every man to yield himself to be a private Servant to whom he please What should hinder but that also it may be lawful for a free People so to yield themselves to one or more that the Right of governing them be fully set over without retaining any part of the Right and you must not say That this may not be presumed for we do not now seek what in a doubtful case may be presumed but what by Right may be done Thus far is the Argument in which the most that is proved if we gratifie him and yield his whole Argument for good is this that the People may grant away their Power without retaining any part But what is this to what the People have done for though the People may give away their Power without Reservation of any part to themselves yet if they have not so done but have reserved a part Grotius must confess that the People may compel and punish their Kings if they transgress so that by his Favour the Point will be not what by Right may be done but what in this doubtful case hath been done since by his own Rule it is the Will and Meaning of the first People that joyned in Society that must regulate the Power of their Successours But on Grotius side it may be urged that in all Presumption the People have given away their whole Power to Kings unless they can prove they have reserved a part for if they will have any Benefit of a Reservation or Exception it lies on their part to prove their Exception and not on the Kings Part who are in Possession This Answer though in it self it be most just and good yet of all men Grotius may not use it For he saves the People the Labour of proving the primitive Reservation of their Forefathers by making the People that now are competent Expositors of the meaning of those first Ancestors who may justly be presumed not to have been either so improvident for themselves or so negligent of all their Posterity when by the Law of Nature they were free and had all things common at an Instant with any Condition or Limitation to give away that Liberty and Right of Community and to make themselves and their Children eternally subject to the Will of such Governours as might misuse them without Controul On the behalf of the People it may be further answered to Grotius that although our Ancestors had made an absolute Grant of their Liberty without any Condition expressed yet it must be necessarily implyed that it was upon condition to be well-governed and that the Non-performance of that implyed Condition makes the Grant void Or if we will not allow an implicit Condition then it may be said that the Grant in it self was a void Grant for being unreasonable and a violation of the Law of Nature without any valuable Consideration What sound Reply Grotius can return to such Answers I cannot conceive if he keep himself to his first Principle of natural Community As Grotius's Argument against the People is not sound so his Answer to the Argument that is made for the People is not satisfactory It is objected that he that ordains is above him that is ordained Grotius answers Verum duntaxat est in ea constitutione cujus effectus perpetuò pendet à voluntate constituentis non etiam in ea quae ab initio est voluntatis postea verò effectum habet necessitatis quomodo mulier virum sibi constituit cui parere semper habet necesse The Reply may be that by Grotius's former Doctrine the very Effect of the Constitution of Kings by the People depends perpetually upon the Will of them that Constitute and upon no other Necessity he will not say that it is by any necessity of the Law of Nature or by any positive Law of God he teacheth that non Dei praecepto sed sponte men entred into Civil Society that it is an Humane Ordinance that God doth onely approve it ut humanum and humano modo He tells us further that Populus potest eligere qualem vult gubernationis forâ—…am ex voluntate jus metiendum est that the People may give the King as little Power as they will and for as little time as they please that they â—…ay make temporary Kings as Dictators and Protectors jus quovis tempore revocabile id est precarium as the Vandals in Africa and the Goths in Spain would depose their Kings as oft as they displeased them horum enim actus irriti possunt reddi ab his â—…i potestatem revocabiliter dederunt ac proinde non idem est
first before the Councel of Edw. 4. after that before the President of the Requests of that King Hen. 7. and then lastly before the Councel of the said King 1 Hen. 7. In the time of Hen. 3. an Order or Provision was made by the Kings Councel and it was pleaded at the Common Law in Bar to a Writ of Dower the Plaintifs Atturney could not deny it and thereupon the Judgment was ideo sine die It seems in those days an Order of the Kings Councel was either parcell of the Common Law or above it Also we may find the Judges have had Regard that before they would resolve or give Judgment in new Cases they consulted with the Kings Privy Councel In the case of Adam Brabson who was assaulted by R. W. in the Presence of the Justices of Assise at Westminster the Judges would have the Advice of the Kings Councel for in a like Case because R. C. did strike a Juror at Westminster which passed against one of his Friends It was adjudged by all the Councel that his right hand should be cut off and his Lands and Goods forfeited to the King Green and Thorp were sent by the Judges to the Kings Councel to demand of them whether by the Stat. of 14 Edw. 3. 16. a word may be amended in a Writ and it was answered that a word may be well amended although the Stat. speaks but of a Letter or Syllable In the Case of Sir Thomas Ogthred who brought a Formedon against a poor man and his Wife they came and yielded to the Demandant which seemed suspitious to the Court whereupon Judgment was staid and Thorp said that in the like case of Giles Blacket it was spoken of in Parliament and we were commanded that when any like should come we should not go to Judgment without good Advice therefore the Judges Conclusion was Sues an counseil comment ils voilent que nous devomus faire nous volums faire autrement nient en oest case sue to the Councel and as they will have us to do we will do and otherwise not in this Case 39 Edw. 3. Thus we see the Judges themselves were guided by the Kings Councel and yet the Opinions of Judges have guided the Lords in Parliament in Point of Law All the Judges of the Realm Barons of Exchequer of the Quoif the Kings learned Councel and the Civilians Masters of Chancery are called Temporal Assistants by Sir Edw. Coke and though he deny them Voices in Parliament yet lie confesseth that by their Writ they have Power both to treat and to give Councel I cannot find that the Lords have any other Power by their Writ the Words of the Lords Writ are That you be present with Us the Prelates Great men and Peers to treat and give your Counsel The words of the Judges Writ are that you be present with Us and others of the Counsel and sometimes with Us only to treat and give your Counsel The Judges usually joyned in Committees with the Lords in all Parliaments even in Queen Eliz. Reign untill her 39th Year and then upon the 7th of November the Judges were appointed to attend the Lords And whereas the Judges have Liberty in the upper House it self upon Leave given them by the L. Keeper to cover themselves now at Committees they sit always uncovered The Power of Judges in Parliament is best understood if we consider how the judicial Power of Peers hath been exercised in matter of Judicature we may find it hath been the Practice that though the Lords in the Kings Absence give Judgment in Point of Law yet they are to be directed and regulated by the Kings Judges who are best able to give Direction in the difficult Points of the Law which ordinarily are unknown to the Lords And therefore if any Errour be committed in the Kings Bench which is the highest ordinary Court of Common Law in the Kingdom that Errour must be redressed in Parliament And the Manner is saith the Lord Chancellor Egerton If a Writ of Errour be sued in Parl. upon a Iudgment given by the Iudges in the Kings Bench the Lords of the higher House alone without the Commons are to examine the Errours The Lords are to proceed according to the Law and for their Iudgments therein they are to be informed by the Advice and Councel of the Iudges who are to inform them what the Law is and to direct them in their Iudgment for the Lords are not to follow their own Discretion or Opinion otherwise 28 Hen. 6. the Commons made Sute that W. de la Pool D. of Suffolk should be committed to Prison for many Treasons and other Crimes the Lords of the higher House were doubtful what Answer to give the Opinion of the Iudges was demanded their Opinion was that he ought not to be committed for that the Commons did not charge him with any particular Offence but with general Reports and Slanders this Opinion was allowed 31. Hen. 6. A Parliament being prorogued in the Vacation the Speaker of the House of Commons was condemned in a thousand Pounds Damages in an Action of Trespass and committed to Prison in Execution for the same when the Parliament was re-assembled the Commons made sute to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered The Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges whether he might be delivered out of Prison by Privilege of Parliament upon the Judges Answer it was concluded that the Speaker should remain iâ—… Prison according to the Law notwithstanding the Privilege of Parliament and that he was Speaker which Resolution was declared to the Commons by Moyâ—… the Kings Serjeant at Law and the Commons were commanded in the Kings name by the Bishop 〈◊〉 Lincoln in the absence of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury then Chancellor to chuse another Speaker 7 Hen. 8. A Question was moved in Parliament Whether Spiritual Persons might be convented before Temporal Iudges for criminal Causes there Sir Iohn Fineux and the other Judges delivered their Opinion that they might and ought to be and their Opinion allowed and maintained by the King and Lords and Dr. Standish who before had holden the same Opinion wâ—… delivered from the Bishops I find it affirmed that in Causes which receive Determination in the House of Lords the King hath 〈◊〉 Vote at all no more than in other Courts of ministerial Iurisdiction True it is the King hath no Vote at all if we understand by Vote a Voice among others for he hath no partners with Him in giving Judgement But if by no Vote is meant he hath no Power to judge we dispoil him of his Sovereignty It is the chief Mark of Supremacy to judge in the highest Causes and last Appeals This the Children of Israel full well understood when they petitioned for a King to judge them if the dernier resoâ—… be to the Lords alone then they have the Supremacy But as Moses by chusing Elders to judge in small Causes did
not thereby lose his Authority to be Judge himself when he pleased even in the smallest matters much less in the greatest which he reserved to himself so Kings by delegating others to judge under them do not thereby denude themselves of a Power to judge when they think good There is a Distinction of these times that Kings themselves may not judge but they may see and look to the Iudges that they give Iudgment according to Law and for this Purpose only as some say Kings may sometimes sit in the Courts of Justice But it is not possible for Kings to see the Laws executed except there be a Power in Kings both to judge when the Laws are duely executed and when not as also to compell the Judges if they do not their Duty Without such Power a King sitting in Courts is but a Mockery and a Scorn to the Judges And if this Power be allowed to Kings then their Judgments are supream in all Courts And indeed our Common Law to this Purpose doth presume that the King hath alâ—… Laws within the Cabinet of His Breast in Scrinio pectoris saith Crompton's Jurisdiction 108. When several of our Statutes leave many things to the Pleasure of the King for us to interpret all those Statutes of the Will and Pleasure of the Kings Iustices only is to give an absolute Arbitrary Power to the Justices in those Cases wherein we deny it to the King The Statute of 5 Hen. 4. c. 2. makes a Difference between the King and the Kings Iustices in these words Divers notorious Felons be indicted of divers Felonies Murders Rapes and as well before the Kings Iustices as before the King himself arreigned of the same Felonies I read that in An. 1256. Hen. 3. sate in the Eâ—…chequer and there set down Order for the Appearance Sheriffs and bringing in their Accounts there wâ—… five Marks set on every Sheriffs Head for a Fine bâ—…cause they had not distrained every Person that migâ—… dispend fifteen pounds Lands by the Year to receive tâ—… Order of Knighthood according as the same Sherifâ—… were commanded In Michaelmas Term 1462. Edw. 4. sate thâ—… dayes together in open Court in the Kings Bench. For this Point there needs no further Proofs bâ—…cause Mr. Pryn doth confess that Kings themselvâ—… have sate in Person in the Kings Bench and other Couâ—… and there given Iudgment p. 32. Treachery and Dâ—…loyalty c. Notwithstanding all that hath been said for tâ—… Legislative and Judicial Power of Kings Mr. Pryâ—… is so far from yielding the King a Power to maâ—… Laws that he will not grant the King a power to hinder a Law from being made that is 〈◊〉 allows Him not a Negative Voice in most case which is due to every other even to the Meaâ—…est Member of the House of Commons in his Judgment To prove the King hath not a Negative Voice 〈◊〉 main and in truth his only Argument insisted oâ—… is a Coronation-Oath which is said anciently soâ—… of our Kings of England have taken wherein thâ—… grant to defend and protect the just Laws and Customâ—… which the Vulgar hath or shall chuse Iustas Legâ—… Consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit Hence Mâ—… Pryn concludes that the King cannot deny any Iaâ—… which the Lords and Commons shall make choâ—… of for so he will have vulgus to signifie Though neither our King nor many of His Predecessors ever took this Oath nor were bound to â—…ake it for ought appears yet we may admit â—…hat our King hath taken it and answer we may be confident that neither the Bishops nor Privy Councel nor Parliament nor any other whosoever they were that framed or penn'd this Oath ever intended in this word Vulgus the Commons in Parliament much less the Lords they would never so much disparage the Members of Parliament as to disgrace them with a Title both base and false it had been enough if not too much to have called them Populus the People but Vulgus the Vulgar the rude Multitude which hath the Epithet of Ignobile Vulgus is a word as dishonourable to the Composers of the Oath to give or for the King to use as for the Members of the Parliament to receive it being most false for the Peers cannot be Vulgus because they are the prime Persons of the Kingdom next the Knights of the Shires are or ought to be notable Knights or notable Esquires or Gentlemen born in the Counties as shall be able to be Knights then the Citizens and Burgesses are to be most sufficient none of these can be Vulgus even those Free-holders that chuse Knights are the best and ablest men of their Counties there being for every Free-holder above ten of the Common People to be found to be termed the Vulgar Therefore it rests that vulgus must signifie the vulgar or common People and not the Lords and Commons But now the Doubt will be what the Common People or vulgus out of Parliament have to do to chuse Laws The Answer is easie and ready there goeth before quas vulgus the Antecedeâ—… Consuetudines that is the Customs which the Vulghath or shall chuse Do but observe the Nature 〈◊〉 Custom and it is the Vulgus or Common People only who chuse Customs Common Usage time out 〈◊〉 mind creates a Custom and the commoner 〈◊〉 Usage is the stronger and the better is the Custom no where can so common an Usage be found 〈◊〉 among the Vulgar who are still the far greatâ—… part of every Multitude if a Custom be commoâ—… through the whole Kingdom it is all one with the Common Law in England which is said to be Common Custom Thus in plain Terms to protect the Customs which the Vulgar chuse is to swear to protect the Common Laws of England But grant that Vulgus in the Oath signifies Lordâ—… and Commons and that Consuetudines doth not signifie Customs but Statutes as Mr. Pryn for a desperate Shift affirms and let elegerit be the Future or Preterperfect Tense even which Mr. Pryn please yet it cannot exclude the Kings negative Voice for as Consuetudines goeth before quas vulgus so doth justas stand before leges consuetudines so that not all Laws but only all just Laws are meant If the sole Choice of the Lords and Commons did oblige the King to protect their Choice without Power of Denial what Need or why is the Word justas put in to raise a Scruple that some Laws may be unjust Mr. Pryn will not say that a Decree of a General Councel or of a Pope is infallible nor â—… think a Bill of the Lords and Commons is infallible just and impossible to erre if he do Sir Edward Coke will tell him that Parliaments have been utterly deceived and that in eases of greatest Moment even iâ—… case of High Treason and he calls the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. an unjust and strange Act. But it may be Mr. Pryn will confess that Laws chosen by the Lords and