his Courts not in his private capacity and to speak properly only in his high Court of Parliament wherein he is absolutely supreme Head and Governour from which there is no appeal Object 2 And if the Parliament may take account what is done by by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts much more what is done by him without authority in any Court Object 3 And it is preached to the people in the Kings Declarations that by the Supremacy is meant a power inherent in the Kings person without above against all his Courts the Parliament not excepted whereby the excellent Lawes are turned into an arbitrary Government Reply Argus Eyes will scarce be able to discover a word of Law or truth in all this every sentence seemeth rather to be a Sarcasme then to contain matter of serious importance wherein they deal with his Majesty as the Jews did with our Saviour Christ who having stripped him of his apparrel and used all the spiteful and opprobrious tearms they could devise against him added at last a mock to their other incivilities bowing unto him and saying HARLE KING OF THE JEWES The pretended House having likewise seized upon all his Majesties Revenues and rights of the Crown and offered him all the indignities they could invent do yet style him their King and supreme Head and Governour but in such a manner as they may seem like the Jews rather to do it by way of derision then in earnest The Kings Supremacy they say is meant in Curia non in Camera in his Courts not in his private capacity As they fancy the people to have conveyed all authority to the King so they fancy the King to have poured it out again into his Courts as if he had no power authority or jurisdiction adherent in his person but had committed all to his delegate Judges or rather which they say is to speak properly unto themselves Manwood of sorrest lawes part 1. whereas he hath by law a royal and supiremenent jurisdiction above all his courts and may call causes out of them before himself or hear appeals and reform their abuses when occasion require Lambart Archaion fol. 95. I shall not need to repeat that which I have before this time opened touching the beginning of the Kingly power and authority for the delivery of justice to all the sorts and in all the suits of his subjects but I will confirm by proofes drawn out of our country lawes and lawyers that the self same generall jurisdiction is appropriated to all the Kings of this realm of England Master Henry Bracton that lived in the time of King Henry the third hath in the ninth and tenth chapter of his book these words following Rex non alius debet judicare si solus ad id sufficere possit cum ad hoc per veritatem Sacramenti teneatur astrictus exercere igitur debet Rex potestatem juris sicut Dei Vicarius minister in terra Sin Dominus Rex ad singulas causas determinandas non sufficiat ut levior sit illi labor in plures personaspartito onere eligere debet viros sapientes timentes Deum ex illis constituere justiciarios The words do prove two things serviceable to this purpose first that the K. onely is to be the judge of his people if he alone were able to performe that office as well because he is within his own Kingdome the vice-Roy of God the supream judge of the world as also for that he is thereunto bound by oath taken at the Coronation The second that albeit he doe for the multitude of causes substitute others underneath him yet is he not thereby discharged himself for it is done ut levior sit illi labor that his labour be the lighter not that he should sit unoccupied and least you should doubt that so much is not comprised in that oath of his one question therein amongst others is this Facies fieri in omnibus judiciis tuis aequam rectam justitiam discretionem in misericordia veritate secundum vires tuas To which he answereth faciam wherein the words judiciis tuis vires tuas doe more properly denote his own doing then the doing of his subalterne justices albeit their judgment be after a certain manner the judgement of the King himself also from whence their authority is derived Much like the words of Bracton speaketh King Edward the first in the beginning of his book of law commonly called Britton where after he had shewed that he is the Vicar of God and that he hath distributed his charge into sundry portions because he alone is not sufficient to heare and determine all complaints of his people theu he addeth these words Nous volons que nostre jurisdiction so it sur touts jurisdictions en nostre realm issent que in touts manners de felonies trespas contracts en touts maners de autres actions personals on real ayons poer a rendre faire rendre les jugements tiels come ils afferont sans a uter processe par la ou nous scavons la droit verite come judges We Will saith the King that our own jurisdiction be above all the jurisdiction of our realm so as in all manner of felonies trespasses contracts and in all other actions personalls or realls we have power to yeild or cause to yeild such judgements as do appertaine without other processe wheresoever we know the right truth as judges Neyther may this be taken to be meant of the Kings bench where there is onely an imaginary presence of his person but it must necessarily be understood of a jurisdiction remaining and left in the Kings Royall bodie and breast distinct from that of his Bench Marshalsey Common pleas Exchequer and the other ordinary courts because he doth immediatly after in the same place severally set forth by themselves as well the authority of the Kings Bench as of the rest of those his ordinarie Courts of justice And that this was no new made law or first brought in by the Normin conquest I must put you in mind of that which I touched before out of tho Saxon lawes of King Edgar where you did read it thus Nemo in lite Regem appellato nisi quando domi jus consequi non poterit sin juris summi onere domi prematur ad regem ut is id oneris allevet provocato Let no man in suit appeale to the King unlesse he may not get right at home but if that right be to heavy for him goe to she King to have it eased By which it may evidently appeare that even so many years agoe there might appellation be made to the Kings Person whensoever the cause should inforce it Hitherto Mr. Lambart who doth afterwards further prove this supreame and supereminent jurisdiction of the King by divers precedents and acts of Parliament And although the Commons in some other Parliaments have seemed to impugne this prerogative yet here as he saith
categorically they may take an accompt what is done by his Majesty in his inseriour courts yet they would have the people think them to have such a power and therefore they lay it down as a supposition which they seem to take for granted although they know it to be false If they were a full and legal Parliament they might indeed take an accompt what is done in his Courts by subordinate Officers but not what is done by his Majesty who as King can do no wrong His authority is from God and if injustice be committed in his Courts his Kingly authority is not the cause thereof but the corruption of his judges who abuse it and his Majesty may take an accompt of them either privately or in his Parliament but is not himself accountable for their abuses For although the judgement of his courts may and is termed in law the judgement of the King yet that is to be understood of the act it self which cannot be effected without his influence and concurrence K. H. 7.4 not of the obliquity and deviation from justice which is in it Nor is he yet accomptable to any but God for his perfonal actions by the lawes of the land he cannot be obnoxious to any guilt had he committed treason or any other crime before he was King by taking the Crown upon him all attainder of his person is purged ipso facto Enough hath been said already to prove both the Houses and the Members thereof as well collectively as severally taken to be his inferiour delegate and subordinate ministers that derive their authority from him and in case of grievance are to sue unto him by petition which is all the help the law giveth in such exigencies for they are so far from having any jurisdiction over him in matters of misdemeanour that they cannot take knowledge of those cases wherein Majesty without disparagement may submit it self to a legal triall as in controversies of right or of title to land c. except he be pleased to have the businesse decided in that Court. In Haedlows case before mentioned it is resolved by all the Justices that controversies which concetn the King cannot be determined in Parliament 22. E. 3.6 and it is there added above what hath been cited that Kings may not be judged by others then themselves and their justices unques Roys ne serra adjuge si non per eux mesmes lour justic And this is true as it was resolved by Scrope in the Bishop of Winchesters case not only in respect of others but in respect of the Members of Parliament themselves for although they are to be tryed by their own respective houses in things which concern the Parliament if the fact touch not the King yet if it touch the King and the case be prosecuted by him they cannot then take cognisance of it except he thinks it expedient who hath power if he please to try it in any of his other Courts Fitz. tit coron p. 3. E. 3. p. 161. Ceux queux sount judges in Parliament sount judges de lour Pieres mes le Roy naver Piere in sa terre demesne per que il ne doit per eux estre judge ne ailours faire son suite vers cestui qui luy trespassa quam la ou luy pleist i. e. They which are judged in Parliament are judged of their Peers that is the Lords by the House of Lords and the Commons by the House of Commons bur the King can have no Peer in in his own Land and therefore he ought not to be judged by them nor to make his processe against him that offends but where he please himself Object 3 Last of all they charge the King for atttibuting too much power and authority to himself And it is preached to the People in the Kings Declarations that by the Supremacy is meant a power inherent in the Kings person without above against all his Courts the Parliament not exceped whereby the excellent Lawes are turned into an Arbitrary Government It is no wonder if the Members of the Pretended House were more inclined to hear what their own seditious Divines preached in Saint Margarets then what the King preached in his Declarations yet I believe it had been better for them if they had entertained his Majesties Person and Declarations with more respect and duty However for the present may seem to have ruined him and his people too yet they which have mounted to places of dignity and profit upon the dead bodies of the King and People may find in the end that Rebellion and Murder sit not so high but that vengeance and divine Justice sit above them As for the charge which they bring against his Majesty it is partly false his Majesty never used such expressions as they pin upon him where doth he say that he hath a personal power above and against the Parliament let any man produce the words out of which he can force such a sense Their Charge is also partly vain and frivolous for whereas they accuse him for saying his Supremacy was inherent in his Person they might as well accuse him for saying he was King Supremacy is an essential attribute of Majesty and cannot be seperated without the corruption of its Subject to say the Kings Supremacy is in his Courts and not in his person is not only to contradict the Lawes but the Common principles of reason This hath been demonstrated in divers places yet because occasion is offered again I will hear adde the resolution of all the Judges made in the first year of Henry the seventh concerning this matter for a Parliament being then called and both the King himself and divers of the Members being attainted of high Treason it was resolved by the Judges that the Attainder of the Members ought to be adnulled before they could sit in the house but touching the King it was resolved that his attainder was adnulled upon his admittance to the crown because the King is personable that is because his Kingly authority was inherent in his Person by reason whereof he was discharged of all guilt against the Laws 1. H. 7.4 Et donques fuit move un question que serra dit pur le Roy mesme pur ceo que il fuit atteint puis communication ew entor eux touts accordront que le Roy fuit Personable discharge de ascune atteind eo facto qil prist sur luy le Reigne ee Roy. i. e. And then a Question was moved what shall be said of the King himself for he was also attainted and after communication had amongst them all agreed that the King was Personable and discharged from all attainder in the very act that he took the Kingdome upon him and became King Nor is the other part of their charge lesse frivolous and vain wherein they accuse his Majesty as if he had committed a great crime in saying his Supremacy was a power inherent
respect of the power it self the Monarchy is absolute simple pure independent without profanation of outward mixture the King alone without further influence from the two Houses having ful power and authority to do or cause to be done all acts of Justice The King alone makes Laws by the asscent of the two Houses and if the two Houses are said at any time to make Lawes it is by a delegate power and authority communicated to them from him and not by any power and authority which they have radically in themselves Secondly I say that the King alone is not onely invested with all the rights of Soveraingty but hath them also so inseperably annexed to hs Royal person by the Lawes of the Land that they cannot be separated from him by any Act of Parliament by any civil constitution or pragmattical Sanction by any Law or Ordinance whatsoever but in case the King himself should improvidently by Act of Parliament agree to any thing tending to the diminution of his Royal Dignity it is then in the power of the Common-law to controul such a Statute to make voyd all such acts as tend to the degradation much more such as tend to the annihilation of Majesty Having thus opened the state of the Question I will now proceed to demonstrate the truth by Statutes by Common-Law and by reasons depending upon the laws and customes of the land CHAP. II. The Kings Supremacy in general shewed by the Statutes of the land I Could both from Saxon and divers other lawes and antiquities shew the Kings of England to have ruled more absolutely and to have anciently exercised a larger Jurisdiction then hath of later years been exercised or challenged by their Successors but because many immunities and priviledges have been granted to the Subjects since their times I will therefore confine my self to such statutes as have been made since the giving of the great Charter And to avoyd tediousnesse I will omit many statutes wherein the King is by both Houses collectively taken acknowledged to be supreme for they frequently in the statutes style him Our gracious Soveraign Lord the King Our dreadful Soveraign Lord the King I will likewise omit many others wherein they acknowledge themselves to be his Subjects and that when they were in their site relation order and union in which posture the fuller Answerer fancies them to be coordinate for such expressions run through divers statutes Most humbly beseech your most excellent Majesty your faithful and obedient subjects the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons in this your present Parliament assembled In their most humble wise shewen unto your Royal Majesty your loving subjects the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons of this present Parliament assembled I will only alledge such statutes as have been made on purpose to declare to whom Supremacy and all power and jurisdiction belong for there hath been divers acts of Parliament made to that end upon several occasions wherein the Kings Supremacy hath been acknowledged and confirmed unto him In the four and twenty year of Henry the eighth an Act was made that no Appeals should be used but within the Realm the Reason alledged in the Statute is because the King alone is the onely Supreme head of the Realm and is furnished with plenary and entire power to do all acts of justice Where by divers sundry old authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and hath so been accepted in the world governed by one supreme head and King having the dignity and Royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in tearms and by names of spiritualty and temporalty been bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience he being also institute and furnished by the goodnesse and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire power preheminence authority prerogative and jurisdiction to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk resiants or subjects within this his Realm This clear testimomy of the Kings Supremacy is thus eluded by the fuller Answerer saith he Answer what is meant by governed by one supreme head such a one as is able to do all acts of needful justice which the King in his natural capacity cannot do he cannot make a law it must therefore be understood in his full and intire politick capacity which takes in Law and Parliament nor can it be said that by those words a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees the Parliament is properly meant but the Kingdome at large Reply The sum of his Answer is this that in this Statute by the King not the King alone but the King and the two Houses of Parliament are to be understood and so although he would have the Kings power to be lesse yet to make him amends he will have his name to signifie more then it did before But this is nothing else but the evaporation of his own brain for if in any place the word King could signifie the King and the two Houses of Parliament yet in this it must of necessity signifie the King alone 35. H. 8. cap. 1. these words having the dignity and Royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same can have reference to no other Besides in this Answer he contradicts his own Principles for if the two Houses be coordinate with the King and have power radically in themselves not derived from him they cannot be comprehended under his politick capacity Whereas he saith the King cannot make a Law and infer from thence that the King alone without taking in the two Houses hath not intire and plenary jurisdiction his inference is very infirm for it doth not diminish Majesty but redounds to the glory of it Argum. l. 8. c. de legibus to give lawes to the people by the counsel and assent of wisemen It hath been and is for the most part the practise in absolute Monarchies to make Lawes that shall bind posterity by general consent and agreement which yet doth not deprive the Monarch of his power or derogate any way from the plenitude and intirenesse thereof But I shall speak more of this when I come to answer their objections Whereas he saith that by a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees not the Parliament but the Kingdome at large is properly meant I know no man will contradict him yet I say the two Houses are comprehended under the Kingdome at large and are representative thereof in Parliament and representatives cannot be the head when the Kingdome at large whose Representatives they are is but the body And therefore here the fuller Answerer hath a little overshot himself for if by the body politick the Kingdome at large be understood then is the King major universis greater then all the people collectively taken by his
chiefly to purge themselves from the murders and injustice which they have committed by the authority of the people whose supremacy they say is sufficient to warrant their proceedings At the first they denied not the supremacy of the King but as the keepers and guardians of it they raised an army against him by vertue of his own authority but having seised upon his person and imprisoned him it was then more conducible to their ends to avouch the supremacy of the people But whosoever have the title they exercise the power themselves and as before they rebelled against the King so now they murder and oppress the people by pretence of their own authority which as their Deputies in Parliament they intend to manage as long as they can finde means to defend and uphold their tyranny Now although this pretended Parliament are no more deputies of the people of England then the Bantiti are deputies of the people of Italy who if they had as great a power would soon have as great a right as these to govern under that pretence yet for the present we will suppose them such and examine onely their Principle by which they labour to support their cause that is the Supremacy of the People And first I will shew that the people and their deputies in Parliament are neither supreme nor coordinate with the King by the lawes of the land as some of them say secondly that they are not supreme by the laws of nature as others thirdly that the people never had in them any authority or jurisdiction at all which they could give or resume again upon occasion as they generally affirm And these particulars I intend to handle in three questions The first question shall be Whether the people and their deputies in Parliament be supreme and above the King or coordinate with him by the laws of the land The second Whether the people and their deputies in Parliament be supreme by the laws of nature and have alwayes reserved a juridical power of judging their magistrates whether their actions be just and of resuming authority in case they be not The third Whether authority be originally in the people and translated by them to Kings and other supreme magistrates or in the Kings and other supreme magistrates themselves immediately from God tanquam in primo subjecto creato as in the first created subject The KINGS Supremacy asserted The First QUESTION Whether the People and their Deputies in Parliament be supreme and above the King or coordinate with him by the Lawes of the Land CHAP. I. The state of the Question explained THE first Question that shall come into consideration is Whether the people and their Deputies in Parliament be supreme and above the King or coordinate with him by the Laws of the Land The pretended Parliamentarians affirm the two Houses to be coordinate with the King in the rights of Soveraignty for the Monarchy of England they say is a mixed Monarchy and this mixture is in the power and rights of Majesty themselves so that the King alone hath not full and plenary authority to perform all acts requisite to Government but there is in the Monarchy a concurrence of several powers belonging to several estates which being mixed together make up one whole and entire power and those several estates one supreme head of the Common-wealth And although some of them are so liberal as to allow the King a primity of share in this coordination yet others say that the superiority belongs to the two Houses the King being greater then any one of the Members of Parliament but lesse then the two houses collectively taken who in the legislative power which is one of the principal rights of Soveraignty have a greater Interest then He in whose breasts alone remaineth the final determination of Law for they deny the King to have a negative voice as if his sitting in Parliament were a ceremony and meer formality and not an act of Majesty and Jurisdiction This foundation as I think was first laid by the fuller Answerer but the Treatiser the Reverend Divines and divers others have added a superstructure to it of many fine and new inventions of their own which are not needful to be here related because they alter not the state of the Question for they all affirm the two Houses to be coordinate with the King in the rights of Soveraignty and the mixture of the English Monarchy to be in the power it self I will set down their assertions in the fuller Answerers own words Before we judge saith he of what a Parliament can do in England it will be needful to know what kind of Government this of England is we are therefore to know that England is not a simply subordinative and absolute but a coordinative and mixt Monarchy this mixture or coordination is in the very supremacy of power it self otherwise the Monarchy were not mixt all Monarchies have a mixture or composition of subordinate and under officers in them but here the Monarchy or highest power it self is compounded of three coordinate estates a King and two Honses of Parliament And again a little after he saith But you 'l say what is not the Parliament subordinate to the King Are they not all Subjects I answer the Parliament cannot be said properly to be a Subject because the King is a part and so he should be subject to himself no nor are the two Houses without him subjects every Member seorsim taken severally is a Subject but all collectim in their House are not In his Answer to Doctor Ferns Reply he addeth further Although every one and all the Members are Subjects the Houses cannot properly be said to be subject and coordinate too they are the two membra dividentia which must at no hand admit coincidence nay tho' all the Members as parts and put them together too are Subjects yet all the parts of a whole taken all together are not equal to the whole the order site relation union of the parts whence the formality of the whole results being still yet wanting These are the phantasies of the pretended Parliamentarians which are so grosse and contrary to Law that the fuller Answerer seems to me to have been in a dream when his head was first impregnated with such conceptions And although I cannot but acknowledge that both the liberty and safety of the Nation consists in Free-Parliaments yet I cannot forbear to declare the Truth in such a time as this wherein Parliaments are abolished and yet their Authority and Supremacy pretended to maintain Tyranny and Rebellion I say therefore in opposition to these phantasies first that the King alone is by the Lawes of the Land the only Supreme head and Governour of England and that the people and their Deputies in Parliament taken both collectim and seorsim as well collectively as severally are his Subjects and not coordinate with him there is no mixture at all in the rights of Soveraingty for in
of good right and equity it appertaineth any grants usages prescription act or acts of Parliament or any other thing to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Secondly the power of appointing subordinate judges is declared and determined to be in the King by the same Statute And be it also enacted by authority aforesaid that no person or persons of what estate degree or condition soever they be from the said first day of July shall have any power or authority to make any justices of Eire justices of assize Justices of peace or justices of Goale delivery but that all such Officers and Ministers shall be made by Letters Patents under the Kings great Seal in the name and by authority of the Kings highnesse and his Heirs Kings of this Realm in all Shires Counties Counties Palatine and other places of this Realm Wales and the marches of the same or in any other his Dominions at their pleasure and wills in such manner and form as justices of Eire justices of Assise and justices of peace and justices of Goale delivery be commonly made in every shire of this Realm any grants usages prescription allowance act or acts of Parliament or any other thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding Thirdly the power of making leagues with forraign Princes and States is declared to be in the King by a Statute made in the fourteenth year of Edward the fourth which begins thus 14. E. 4. cap. 4. Whereas divers and great offences and attempts have now of late been done and committed against the amities and leagues made betwixt our said soveraign Lord the King and strange Prince By this beginning of the Statute it is manifest that the power of making leagues and contracting alliance with forraign estates is a right belonging onely to the crown I could yet add divers other acts of Parliament to confirm this and all the other particulars above named but I suppose these which are already alledged are more then sufficient there are also other rights of Soveraignty which I could shew by the statutes to be in the King but because there is no contestation about them I will not fight with a shadow those above mentioned are the chiefest and inseparable from Majesty CHAP. IV. The Kings Supremacy in general shewed by the Common Law HAving shewed the Kings Supremacy from the Statutes I come now to the Common law which is the ground and foundation of it for Statutes are but declarations of the royal power the power it self with the several modifications and qualifications of it is more ancient then any statute and cannot be limited or restrained by an Act of Parliament in any thing that tends to the derogation or diminution of Majesty for the English Monarchy by the common law is an absolute Monarchy susceptible of no alteration in the rights and preheminences of Majesty First I say the English Monarchy is an absolute Monarchy by the Common Law admitting no mixture in the rights of Soveraignty the King alone being the onely supreme head and governour having none superiour to him or coordinate with him either singly or collectively taken this is expresly determined in Sir Edward Cokes reports If that Act of the first year of the late Queen had never been made it was resolved by all the judges that the King or Queen of England for the time being may make such an Ecclesiastical Commission as is before mentioned by the ancient prerogative and Law of England Coke lib. 5. in Caudreys case And therefore by the ancient Laws of the realm this Kingdom of England is an absolute Empire and Monarchy consisting of one head which is the King and of a body politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet agreeing members all which the law divideth into two general parts that is to say the Clergy and the laitie both of them next and immediately under God subject and obedient to the head also the King head of this Politick body is instituted and furnished with plenary and iutire power prerogative and jurisdiction to render justice and right to every part and member of this body of what estate degree or calling soever in all causes Ecclesiastical or Temporal otherwise he should not be head of the whole body This is further proved by Sir Edward Coke by divers Precedents and Acts of Parliament who concludeth his report after this manner Fol. 40.6 Thus hath it appeared as well by the ancient common lawes of this Realm by the resolutions and judgements of the judges and sages of the Lawes of England in all succession of ages as by authority of many acts of Parliament ancient and of later times that the Kingdome of England is an absolute Monarchy and that the King is the only supream governour as well over Ecclesiastical persons and in Ecclesiastical causes as temporal within this Realm to the due observation of which Laws both the King and Subject are sworn In the second year of King James in Hillary Terme letters being directed to the judges to have their resolution concerning the validity of a grant made by Queen Elizabeth under the great seal of the benefit of a penal Statute in which grant power was given to the Lord Chancelour or Keeper of the great Seal to make dispensations when and to whom he pleased after great deliberation it was resolved that when a Statute is made by Act of Parliament for the publick good the King could not give the power of dispensation to any Subject or grant the forfeitures upon penal lawes to any before the same be recovered and vested in his Majesty by due and lawful proceeding and the reason there alledged is because the King as head of the Common-wealth and the fountain of justice and mercy ought to have these rights of Soverainty annexed only to his Royal person Coke lib. 7. tit penall Statutes Car quant un statute est fait pro bono publico le Rey come le teste del bien publique le fountaine de justice mercie est par tout le realme trust ove ceo cest considence trust est cy inseparablement adjoyne annexe al Royal person del Roy in cy haut point de soveraigntie que il ne poit transferre ceo al disposition on poiar d'ascune privat person ou al ascune privat use that is For when a Statute is made for the publick good and the King as head of the Common-wealth and the fountain of justice and mercy is by all the Realm trusted with it that confidence and trust is so inseperably annexed to the Royal person of the King in so high a point of Soveraignty that he cannot transfer it to the disposition or power of a private person or to any private use I shall not need to explain and amplifie the matter by arguments and inferences drawn from these reports for the words are clear of themselves and do expresly declare and resolve the Monarchy of
England to be an absolute Monarchy the King alone to be the only supreme head and Governour of the whole body that is of all the people as well collectively as severally taken And hence it is namely in regard of the Kings Supremacy he being the only head of the Kingdome having no equal or Superiour but God alone whose Vicegerent he is upon earth that the Common law doth by way of fiction and similitude attribute unto him the Divine perfections 1. H. 7.10 Finch lib 2. del ley bap 1. Roy est le test del bien publike immediate desoubs Dieu desuis touts persons en touts causes Et pur ceo entant que il resemble le person del Dien port son image enter homes le Ley attribute a lui en un similitudinarie manner 7. E. 4.17 21. H. 7.2 Coke 7. f. 7. B. 43. El. Coke 5. fol. 114. B. 4. E. 6.31 5. E. 4.7 2. H. 4.7 1. H. 7.19 bombre del excelleneies que sont en Dien cest ascavoir SOVERAIGNTIE tout terre est tenu de de luy nul action gist vers luy car quis commandra le Roy POYAR il poit commaunder ses subjects daler hors de Realm en guerr poet faire ascune foreine coine currant icy per ses Proclamations MAJESTY ne poet prend ne departer ove oscune chose forsque per matter de record si non soit chattell ou tiel quia de minimis non curat lex INFINITENES en un manner 35. H. 6.26 esteant present en touts ses courts si come home poet dire en chescun lieu PERPETVITY ayant perpetuell succession ne unque mor. 10. El. 331. 35. H. 6.61 4. El. 246. PERFECTION car nul laches follie infancie ou corruption del sank est judge en lui VERITY ne serra unque estoppe JUSTICE ne poet esse disseisor ne faire ascun tort id est The King is head of the Common-wealth immediately under God over all persons and in all causes and therefore because he represents the person of God and bears his image the law attributeth unto him in a similitudinary manner a shadow of Divine excellencies namely SOVERAIGNTIE all lands are holden of him no action lyeth against him for who shall command the King POWER he may command his Subjects to go out of the Realm to War He may make any forraign coyn currant here by his Proclamations MAJESTY he can neither take nor part with any thing without matter of Record except it be chattel or such like because the law regards not such small matters INFINITENESSE after a Manner being present in all his courts and as it were in all places PERPETUITIE having perpetual succession and being not subject to dye PERFECTION for no laches folly infancy or corruption of blood can be judged in him TRUTH he cannot be estopped JUSTICE he cannot be a disseisor or do any wrong There are also divers prerogatives and priviledges by the Common law belonging to the King and divers Acts which the King may do or not do by reason of his Supremacy The King shall not in his writ give any man the style or title of Dominus because it is unbeseeming his Majesty to use that tearm to any he being himself omnium subditorum supremus Dominus the supream and soveraign Lord of all his subjects and in this case although there be variance between the Writ and Obligation 8. E. 6.23 B. 11. E 4.2 8. E. 4.2 or other specialty yet the Writ shall not abate which it shall in other cases as if they vary in the name or sirname or if they vary in the surn The King can hold land of no man As p. 1.18 Elizab. 498. because he can have no superiour but on the other side all lands either immediately or mediately ate holden of him as Soveraign Lord for although a man hath a perpetual right in his estate yet he hath it in the nature of a fee and whether it cometh to him by descent or purchase he oweth a rent or duty for it and therefore when in pleading a man would signifie himself to have the greatest right in his estate Littleton f. 3. he saith Que il est ou fuit seise de ceo en son demesne come de fee that he is or was seised thereof in his demeasne as of fee and if a man holds his estate immediately of the King as of his Crown or person this tenure is called a tenure in capite because he holds it of the supreme head of the Common-wealth If a man holdeth land both of the King and other inferiour Lords whereby his heir becometh a Ward the King alone shall have the custody both of the heir and land the reason which is rendered in law is because the King can have none coordinate with him or superiour to him Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 10. Si quis in Capite de Domino Rege tenere debet tunc ejus custodia ad Dominum Regem plene pertinet sive alios Dominos habere debeat ipse haeres sive non quia Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus superiorem i. e. If any man houldeth land of our Lord the King in capite then his wardship shall wholly belong to our Lord the King whether he hath other Lords or not because the King can have no equal much less a superiour Bracton lib. 2. cap. 37. Si aliquis haeres terram aliquam tenuerit de Domino Rege in Capite sive alios Dominos habuerit sive non Dominus Rex aliis praefertur in custodia haeredis sive ipse haeres ab aliis prius fuerit feofatus sive posterius cùm Rex parem non habeat nec superiorem in regno suo i. e. If an Heir holdeth land of our Lord the King whether he hath other Lords or not our Lord the King shall have the wardship of the heir whether the heir were first or last infeoffed by others because the King hath no equal or superiour in his Kingdom The law is the same as well for whole Societies Incorporated and collective bodies as for Particular men if a man should make the two houses his heir leaving them lands holden of them by Knights service if the same persons held also of the King in capite by Knights service the King alone should have the wardship and custody of the heir and land though first infeoffed by the others and the reason in law of this prelation is saith Bracton and Glanvil because the King hath neither equall nor Superiour By the common law there lieth no action or writ against the King but in case he seiseth his subjects lands 21. H. 7.2 or taketh away their goods having no title or order of law petition is all the remedy the subject hath Stanford in his exposition of the Kings Prerogative c. 22. and this petition is called a petition of right The reason which is
been then so moulded as they are at this this time for all their friends must needs be contained under one of those degrees and in case his supposition were true should not have been distinguished from their wise men which in all good construction they must for the words do evidently imply that besides their wise men they called such other of their friends as they thought by reason of their prudence or power and prevalency with the people were most like to assist them and further their designs But whosoever their wise men were although they were frequently called yet they were not all of them called alwayes to make laws for in the time of Ethelstane divers Lawes were made by the Counsel and assent of the Clergy alone which we find amongst his other laws Ic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binnon mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. I Ethelstane K. signifie to all my Governours within my Kingdome that by the advice of Wulfhelmus my Arch-bishop and all my other Bishops and servants of God for the forgivenesse of my sins I have ordained c. And although lawes were frequently made Polydor. Virgil. lib. 11. Hist and Parliaments holden in the Reigns of the Saxon Kings yet the people had been so seldome called to such conventions in the time of Henry the first that Polydore Virgil saith that institution may seem to have sprung from him At illud appositè habeo dicere Reges ante haec tempora non consuevisse populi conventum consultandi cansa nisi perraro facere adeo ut ab Henrico id institutum jure manasse dici possit i. e. But this I can speak appositively that Kings before these times were not accustomed except very seldome to call the people to their consultations so that this institution may be said to have had its first beginning from King Henry This is certain the House of Commons hath been accustomed now a long time to give their consent in making Lawes but how long is not certain their opinion is most likely which think this custome began to take place about the time of Edward the first For there are probable reasons which confirme that Laws were made without the Concurrence of the Commons long after the time of the abovesaid Henry the first who although he did call them more frequently then any of his predecessors had done yet he did not bind himself to make laws alwayes by their assent But because it would requite anintire treatise to speak sufficiently of this subject and because it can no way prejudice the cause in hand if we grant Parliaments as they are now molded to be by fundamental agreement seeing the K. by the laws of the land and the said sundamental agreement is invested as hath been shewed with all the rights of Soverainty I will lay by many advantages and omit many reasons and passages which I could alledge touching this matter Sixthly if the Nobility and people be then and only then coordinate with the King when they are in their site relation order and union in Parliament as the fuller Answerer affirmeth in time of Parliament the Kingdome should be a Head without a Body For if the King be part of the Head and the whole Nobility part of the Head and all the people part of the Head too where is the Body And on the other side in the vacancy of Parliaments the Kingdome should be a body without a Head For if the Nobility and people be only coordinate when they are in their site relation order and union in Parliament after a Parliament be broken up where is the Head For as the preservation of the whole consist in the order and union of its parts so the dissolution of it followeth their seperation and divorce If this opinion then were true the Common-wealth should be a strange deformed Monster for in time of Parliament when all the Body were a Head it should be monstrous by too much perfection and our of Parliament when two parts of the Head were fallen into the Body it should be monstrous by too little In both cases it should want that beauty and comlinesse which consists in the harmony and proportion of several parts Seventhly if we descend into particulars we shall find Parliaments to be so molded that their frame and composition rendereth the two houses an unmeet subject for supreamacy for the Militia the power of making warre or peace with forrain princes and most of the other rights of Soveraigntie require a subject perpetually existent many occasionall accidents may arise that may call for present and sudden use of the supreame power for which there can be no provision made by bodies not existent Lastly if the people collectively taken be Supreme and above their King there should be in every Kingdome of the world many Millions of Kings namely All the Subjects and these many Millions of Kings should have but one Subject amongst them all namely Their King I could adde much more both from the statutes Common law and reason as well concerning the Kings Supremacy in general as concerning the particular rights of Soveraignty But I presume that which hath been said is more then sufficient not only to satisfie all that are indifferent and neutral but to convince those that are most interessed who shall not easily find shifts and distinctions plausible enough to illude such clear testimonies of law But God only is able to change their hearts and to make such impressions there as can cause them to repent and turn from their evil wayes I shall pray continually he would do it as well in regard of the peace and happinesse of the Kingdome as of their own salvation which I cannot otherwise hope they should obtain For whatsoever deceives them and bears up their spirits for a time repentance at last if God give them grace will prove their best fortune CHAP. VII Divers Objections made by the pretended House answered The Kings Supremacy shewed to be in His Person not in His Courts THE Kings Supremacy being made apparent I shall now proceed to answer their objections which yet are of that nature that they deserve more to be contemned then answered for in stead of Law they alleadge Bedas axioms their own fancies and such other impertinencies as one would think should sooner move a man to laughter then to be of their opinion But because they shall not complain that their objections are concealed and because in answering them I shall further confirm the Kings Supremacy I will bring them all in order not suppressing or omitting any thing that hath but the face of an objection how slight and impertinent soever I will begin with that which is alleadged by them in several declarations the summe and substance whereof is that which followeth Object 1 The Kings Supremacy is meant in curia non in Camera in
ordinances not a bridle of force but a bridle of admonitions counsel and advice they have no other means but such by Law to bridle the King if at any time he breaks out into violent and illegal courses This is the Scope of Bracton as is evident by the whole coherence and connexion of the matter who was so far from allowing such fond conceits and imaginations as they seem to suppose that the contrary runs in one constant veine through all his book if they regarded the authority of Bracton they would soon lay down their arms and sue to his Majesty for a Pardon Thirdly they alledge the testimony of Fortescue who speaking of the King of England Fol. 25. saith Prinipatu ne dum Regali sed Politico suo populo dominatur That is He governeth his People not only by Kingly but also by Politique power Reply Fortescue implyeth in these words that the King ought not to make his Will but the Lawes the rule of his power not that others are coordinate with him in the rights of Soveraingty Arist Pol. l. 1. c. 1. 3. For power is either Despotical or Politick Despotical power is Kingly power not moderated nor restrained by humane Laws and constitutions Politick power is Kingly power limited and restrained by humane and politick Laws Now Fortescue saith that the Kings power is not meerly Despotical and Regal but Politick and tempered by law and his intention is to shew the difference between the Common Laws of England and the Civill Laws The Emperour after the power was translated to him from the Common-wealth by that Law which in the Digest is called lex regia until the custome of making Laws by the assent of the people took place again might command what he pleased Quod Principi placet legis habet potestatem is a part of that Law but the King of England he saith cannot altogether govern his people by such a power but is obliged to rule them according to the tenour of the Politick Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdome so that Politique power is here opposed to Kingly power taken in its greatest latitude and not to Kingly power moderated and restrained by Law But how doth this concern the case in hand Object 4 Fourthly they alledge Precedents Parliaments they say have exercised a supreme power over the Crown of England it self to transfer it from the right Heir and setled it upon whom themselves thought meet to elect for their King They cite two Kings which were deposed Edward the second and Richard the second and then conclude that those Parliaments which have exercised such jurisdiction over them must certainly be above them and the highest Soveraigne power Reply The deposition of those Kings hath been resolved Treason by all the Judges of England and yet if it had been legall Coke institut part 2. tit treason the Precedents are impertinent for those acts were confirmed by the Kings themselves and could never have been esteemed Acts of Parliament without their own assent CHAP. X. Objections made against the KINGS supremacy in Particular by Mr. Bridge the reverend Divines and Others answered THey have yet other Objections whereby they endevour to prove that the Particular Rights of Soveraigntie are divided from the King and placed in the two Houses And first touching the Militia Mr. Bridge and the reverend Divines have found a device how the Parliament may make use of that and levy war against the King by his own authority They say as Judges they may send out Messengers or Sergeants at Arms for his evill Counsellours and in case they refuse to appear before them fetch them in as Delinquents by force of arms this is the sum of their Objection but I will set it down in their own terms Suppose saith Mr. Bridge a man be complained of to the Parliament for some notorious crime it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Sergeant at Arms for him Mr. Bridges Objection and if he refuse to come that Sergeant at arms hath a power to call more and if the Delinquent shall raise twenty or thirty or an hundred men to reskue him then the Parliament hath power to send down more messengers by force to bring up the Delinquent and if they may raise an hundred why may they not upon the like occasion raise a thousand and so ten thousand And again in his answer to Doctor Ferns reply If the Parliament may send one Serjeant at Arms then twenty then an hundred then a thousand Reply This I confesse is a subtile invention for there can be by Law but thirty Serjeants at Arms at the same time within the Realm now if Mr. Bridge can shew a way how out of thirty Serjeants at Arms an Army of a thousand 13. R. 2. Cap. 6. or ten thousand may be raised he shall be worthy to have a Statue erected to his Memory The reverent Divines have in substance the same objection The reverent Divines objection saving onely they are not so punctuall for point of Law as to have their Army consist of Serjeants at Arms and they alledge a case in Law to justifie that way of proceeding Supposing say they the power of calling and dissolving Parliaments wholly in the King ordinarily yet there may be such power in them so long at they do sit to command arms to be raised for the suppressing of any Delinquents maintaining themselves with Arms even under the colour of the Kings authority which I thus make good If there be any such kind of power in the very judges in their Courts at Westminster for the whole Kingdome and in their several circuits for the shires they sit in although themselves are made Judges at the Kings will merely and put out ordinarily at his pleasure and they can neither keep assizes at any time nor keep any term any where but when and so long as the King pleases to give commission If I say there be such a power in the Judges and even in one of them then much more in the whole Parliament which is unquestionably and undoubtedly the highest judicature in the Kingdome and hath most power during their sittings now that such a kind of power is in the Judges I appeale to experience in the case following A private man hath a suit with the King about land or house and the like the King hath possession and some officer or tenant of his holds it for the King the Judges having heard the cause give sentence for the subject adjudge him to have the possession delivered him by the Kings Tenant or Officer he refuses and Arms himself to keep possession still upon this after due summons and processe of Law a writ of rebellion shall go out against the Officer af the Kings even though he should pretend to keep possession still by a command and warrant from the King and the Sheriffe shall be commanded to raise arms oven the whole
posse Comitatus if need be to expell this Officer of the Kings and bring him to condigne punishment for resisting the Kings authority in his Lawes Here now is raising of Arms by the Kings legal authority against the Kings Title and the Kings Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the Kings personall command and that Officer hath a Writ of Rebellion sent against him and shall be punished by Law for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence ask the Lawyers whether in sence this be not the Law and ordinarily practised save that the King do not command the contrary but whether that would hinder Law or not the Parliament may then in case of necessity raise arms against the Kings personall command for the generall safety and keeping possession which is more necessary then the hope of regaining of the Houses Lands Goods Liberties Lives Religion and all and this by the Kings legall Authority and resisters of this are the Rebells in the Lawes account and not the instruments so imployed legally though with Arms by the Parliament Reply For matter of fact it was themselves that withheld Delinquents from a legall tryall the King detained none but when divers Members of the Parliament were assaulted in the streets driven from the house defamed by Libells and Justice not permitted to take place it was the office of the King to protect them in their Rights and Liberties and to force the due execution of the Lawes and if he refused to yield up those to their injustice which assisted him this was not to keep Delinquents from their tryall but to protect his loyall subjects according to law this for matter of fact But for matter of Right suppose the King had taken up arms unjustly the Law doth not permit his Courts to oppose him or to call any in question that are assistant to him when the King taketh up arms they which attend upon his Person or are imployed in other places about the same service may not be molested or troubled by processe of Law either in Parliament or in any of his Courts as is declared and enacted by a Statute made the eleventh year of Henry the seventh The King our Soveraign Lord calling to his remembrance the duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm 11. H. 7. cap. 1. and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince and Soveraign Lord for the time being in his wars for the defence of Him and the Land against every rebellion power and might reared against him and with him to enter and abide in service in battail if case so require and that for the same service what fortune ever fall by chance in the same battail against the mind and will of the Prince as in this Land sometime passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his Commandement within this Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true duty and service of Allegiance It be therefore ordained enacted and established by the King our Soveraign Lord by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and authority of the same that from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being in his person and do him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his Commandement in his Wars within this Land or without that for the said deed and true duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise convict or attaint of high treason ne of other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chattels or any other things but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or losse As for the case that is put by them it is very impertinent and the whole Objection made both by Mr. Bridge and themselves full of erronious passages and mistakes first they assume the two Houses to be the whole Parliament Secondly they assume them to be a Court of judicature Thirdly they assume the Judges to have a power of suppressing any Delinquents and maintaining themselves by arms The two former assumptions are absolutely false and the latter true only in some cases so far as they have order of Law and no man deny such a power to be in either of the Houses they may force Delinquents to appear before them in such cases and in such a manner as the Law hath provided for what is so done is done by the Kings Command in Law which is to be obeyed before his personal commands But they must proceed no further nor after any other manner then the King commands in Law And first although the Kings bare Command be not sufficient to warrant his Tenant or others to resist the sentence of his Courts yet if the King in Person taketh up arms and granteth Commissions to any to assist him his Courts must then forbear all processe of Law and desist from all further opposition as is provided in the foresaid statute And secondly although the King doth not authorize the fact in person or by Commission yet neither the two Houses in Parliament nor the Judges can make what Ordinances they please to raise arms or imploy their own instruments to bring in Delinquents but must proceed according to order of Law and commit the whole carriage of the businesse to such of the Kings Officers as are appointed for that purpose which are chiefly the high Sheriffs of Counties who are also confined by Law and may not exceed their Commission For both in the case put by the reverent Divines and also in all cases whatsoever if Delinquents grow so strong that they be able to resist the posse Commitatus and cannot be suppressed but by a War and by the Militia of the Kingdom the Sheriffe ought then to certifie the Court thereof and the prosecution of the matter must be left to the King to whom only it is reserved to preserve the peace of the Kingdome in such cases Object 2 Secondly against the Kings Negative voyce they urge the Oath taken at his Coronation whereby they say he is bound to give his assent to all Bills offered him by the Lords and Commons They have found out a form in Latin which they say was anciently used and ought now to be taken the Form is this Concedis just as leges consuetudines esse tenendas promittis pro te eas esse protegendas ad hónorem Dei corroborandas quas vulgus elegerit secundum vires tuas Resp Concedo