Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX Bona agere mala pati Regium est Page 1 THE Free-holders GRAND INQUEST Touching Our Sovereign Lord the KING And His PARLIAMENT To which are added OBSERVATIONS UPON FORMS OF GOVERNMENT Together with Directions for Obedience to Governours in Dangerous and Doubtful Times By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Knight Claudian de laudibus Stiliconis Fallitur egregio quisquis sub Principe credit Servitium Nunquam Libertas gratior extat Quà m sub Rege pio LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX The Author's PREFACE THere is a general Belief that the Parliament of England was at first an Imitation of the Assembly of the Three Estates in France therefore in order to prepare the Understanding in the Recerche we have in hand it is proper to give a brief Accompt of the mode of France in those Assemblies Scotland and Ireland being also under the Dominion of the King of England a touch of the manner of their Parliaments shall be by way of Preface 1. In France the Kings Writ goeth to the Bailiffs Seneschals or Stewards of Liberties who issue out Warrants to all such as have Fees and Lands within their Liberties and to all Towns requiring all such as have any Complaints to meet in the Principal City there to choose two or three Delegates in the name of that Province to be present at the General Assembly At the day appointed they meet at the Principal City of the Bailiwick The King 's Writ is read and every man called by name and sworn to choose honest men for the Good of the King and Commonwealth to be present at the General Assembly as Delegates faithfully to deliver their Grievances and Demands of the Province Then they choose their Delegates and swear them Next they consult what is necessary to be complained of or what is to be desired of the King and of these things they make a Catalogue or Index And because every man should freely propound his Complaint or Demands there is a Chest placed in the Town-Hall into which every man may cast his Writing After the Catalogue is made and Signed it is delivered to the Delegates to carry to the General Assembly All the Bailiwicks are divided into twelve Classes To avoid confusion and to the end there may not be too great Delay in the Assembly by the Gathering of all the Votes every Classis compiles a Catalogue or Book of the Grievances and Demands of all the Bailiwicks within that Classis then these Classes at the Aslembly compose one Book of the Grievances and Demands of the whole Kingdom This being the order of the Proceedings of the third Estate the like order is observed by the Clergy and Nobility When the three Books for the three Estates are perfected then they present them to the King by their Presidents First the President for the Clergy begins his Oration on his knees and the King commanding he stands up bare-headed and proceeds And so the next President for the Nobility doth the like But the President for the Commons begins and ends his Oration on his knees Whilst the President for the Clergy speaks the rest of that Order rise up and stand bare till they are bid by the King to sit down and be covered and so the like for the Nobility But whilst the President of the Commons speaks the rest are neither bidden to sit or be covered Thus the Grievances and Demands being delivered and left to the King and His Counsel the General Assembly of the three Estates endeth Atque ita totus actus concluditur Thus it appears the General Assembly was but an orderly way of presenting the Publick Grievances and Demands of the whole Kingdom to the consideration of the King Not much unlike the antient Usage of this Kingdom for a long time when all Laws were nothing else but the King's Answers to the Petitions presented to Him in Parliament as is apparent by very many Statutes Parliament-Rolls and the Confession of Sir Edw. Coke 2. In Scotland about twenty dayes before the Parliament begins Proclamation is made throughout the Kingdom to deliver in to the King's Clerk or Master of the Rolls all Bills to be exhibited that Sessions before a certain day then are they brought to the King and perused by Him and onely such as he allows are put into the Chancellour's hand to be propounded in Parliament and none others And if any man in Parliament speak of another matter than is allowed by the King the Chancellour tells him there is no such Bill allowed by the King When they have passed them for Laws they are presented to the King who with his Scepter put into His hand by the Chancellor ratifies them and if there be any thing the King dislikes they raze it out before 3. In Ireland the Parliament as appears by a Statute made in the Tenth year of Hen. 7. c. 4. is to be after this manner No Parliament is to be holden but at such Season as the King's Lieutenant and Councel there do first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the Causes and Considerations and all such Acts as they think fit should pass in the said Parliament And such Causes and Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for that Land And His Licence thereupon as well in affirmation of the said Causes and Acts as to summon the Parliament under His Great Seal of England had and obtained That done a Parliament to be had and holden after the Form and Effect afore rehearsed and if any Parliament be holden in that Land contrary to the Form and Provision aforesaid it is deemed void and of none Effect in Law It is provided that all such Bills as shall be offered to the Parliament there shall first be transmitted hither under the Great Seal of that Kingdom and having received Allowane and Approbation here shall be put under the Great Seal of this Kingdom and so returned thither to be preferred to the Parliament By a Statute of 3 and 4 of Philip and Mary for the expounding of Poynings Act it is ordered for the King 's Passing of the said Acts in such Form and Tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the Change of them or any part of them After this shorter Narrative of the Usage of Parliaments in our Neighbour and Fellow Kingdoms it is time the inquisitio magna of our own be offered to the Verdict or Iudgment of a moderate and intelligent Reader REFLECTIONS Concerning the ORIGINAL OF GOVERNMENT Upon I. Aristotle's Politiques II. Mr. Hobs's Leviathan III. Mr. Milton against Salmasius IV. H. Grotius De Iure Belli V. Mr. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy VI. Another Treatise of Monarchy by a nameless Author Arist. Pol. Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX THE ANARCHY OF A LIMITED OR MIXED Monarchy OR A
Knights Citizens and Burgesses 4. The Penalty of 40 l for Maiors or Bayliffs making untrue Returns 5. Due Election of Knights must be in the full County-Court between the Hours of Eight and Eleven before noon 6. The Party must begin his Suit within 3 Moneths after the Parliament began 7. Knights of the Shire shall be notable Knights of the County or such notable Esquires or Gentlemen born of the said Counties as shall be able to be Knights and no man to be such Knight which standeth in the Degree of a Yeoman and under The last thing I observe in the Writ for Election of Members for Parliament is That by the express words of the Writ Citizens and Burgesses for the Parliament were eligible at the County-Court as well as Knights of the Shire and that not only Free-holders but all others whosoever were present at the County-Court had Voices in such Elections see the Stat. 7. Hen. 4. cap. 15. I have the longer insisted on the Examination of the Writ being the Power and Actions of the House of Commons are principally justified by the Trust which the Free-holders commit unto them by virtue of this Writ I would not be understood to determine what Power the House of Commons doth or may exercise if the King please I confine my self only to the Power in the Writ I am not ignorant that King Hen. 7. in the Cause of the Duke of Britain and King Iames in the Business of the Palatinate asked the Councel of the House of Commons and not only the House of Commons but every Subject in particular by Duty and Allegiance is bound to givâ—… his best Advice to his Sovereign when he is thoughâ—… worthy to have his Councel asked 13. Edw. 3. nu 10. All the Merchants of England were summoned by Writ to appear at Westminster in proper Person to confer upon great business concerning the Kings Honour the Salvation of the Realâ—… and of themselves In Passages of publick Councel it is observable saith Sir Rob. Cotton that in ancient times the Kings of England did entertain the Commons with weighty Causes thereby to apt and bind them to a readiness of Charge and the Commons to shun Expence haâ—… warily avoided to give Advice 13. Edw. 3. The Lords and Commons were called to consult how the domestick Quiet may be preserved the Marches of Scotland defended and thâ—… Sea secured from Enemies The Peers and Commons having apart consulted the Commons desired Not to be charged to Councel of things of whicâ—… they had no Cognisance de queux ils n' ont pas de Cognisance 21. Edw. 3. Justice Thorp declaring to the Peeâ—… and Commons that the French War began by theiâ—… Advice the Truce after by their Assent accepted and now ended the Kings Pleasure was to havâ—… their Counsel in the Prosecution the Commons being commanded to assemble themselves and when they were agreed to give notice to the King and the Lords of the Councel after four days Consultation Humbly desire of the King that he would be advised therein by the Lords and others of more Experience than themselves in such Affairs 6. Ric. 2. The Parliament was called to consult whether the King should go in Person to rescue Gaunt or send an Army The Commons after two dayes Debate crave a Conference with the Lords and Sir Thomas Puckering their Speaker protests that Councels for War did aptly belong to the King and His Lords yet since the Commons were commanded to give their Advice they humbly wished a Voyage by the King 7. Ric. 2. At the second Session the Commons are willed to Advise upon View of Articles of Peace with the French whether War or such Amity should be accepted they modestly excuse themselves as too weak to Counsel in so weighty Causes But charged again as they did tender their Honour and the Right of the King they make their Answer giving their Opinions rather for Peace than War For fuller Manifestation of what hath been said touching the Calling Election and Power of the Commons in Parliament it is behooful to observe some Points delivered by Sir Edw. Coke in his Treatise of the Jurisdiction of Parliaments where First he fairly begins and lays his Foundation that the High Court of Parliament consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there and of the three Estates 1. The Lords Spiritual 2. The Lords Temporal 3. And the Commons Hence it is to be gathered that truly and properly it cannot be called the High Court of Parliament but whilst the King is sitting there in Person so that the Question now a days whether the Parliament be above the King is either false or idle false if you exclude and idle if you include the King's Person in the word Parliament The case truly put and as it is meant is whether the three Estates oâ—… which is all one the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament be above the King and not whether the King with the three Estates be above the King It appears also that they are much mistaken who reckon the King one of the three Estates as Mr. Pryn pag. 20. and many others do for the three Estates make the Body and the King is Caput Principium finis Parliamentor as confesseth Sir Edw. Coke Secondly Sir Edw. Coke delivers That certain it is both Houses at first sate together and that it appears in Edward the Third's time the Lords and Commons satâ—… together and the Commons had no continual Speaker If he mean the Lords and Commons did sit and Vote together in one Body few there be that will believe it because the Commons never were wont to lose or forego any of their Liberties or Privileges and for them to stand now with their Hats in their hands which is no Magistratical Posture there where they were wont to sit and Vote is an alteration not imaginable to be indured by the Commons It may be in former times when the Commons had no constant Speaker they were oft and perhaps for the most part in the same Chamber and in the presence of the Lords to hear the Debates and Consulations of the Great Councel but not to sit and Vote with them for when the Commons were to Advise among themselves the Chapter-house of the Abby of Westminster was oft-times their place to meet in before they had a settled House and their meetings not being very frequent may be the reason I conceive why the name of the House of Commons is not of such great Antiquity or taken notice of but the House of Lords was only called the Parliament-House and the Treatise called Modus tenendi Parliamentum speaks of the Parliament as but of one House only The House where now the Commons sit in Westminster is but of late Use or Institution for in Edward the Sixth's dayes it was a Chappel of the Colledge of Saint Stephen and had a Dean Secular Canons and Chorists who were the Kings Quire at his Palace at
be Kings in Fact and Kings themselves to be but Subjects We read in Sir Roâ—…ert Cotton that towards the end of the Saxons and â—…he first times of the Norman Kings Parliaments stood 〈◊〉 Custom-grace fixed to Easter Whitsontide and Christmas and that at the Kings Court or Palace Parliaments sate in the Presence or Privy Chamber from whence he infers an Improbability to believe the King excluded His own Presence and unmannerly fâ—… Guests to bar Him their Company who gave them theâ—… Entertainment And although now a-days the Parliament sit not in the Court where the Kings housholâ—… remains yet still even to this day to shew that Parliaments are the Kings Guests the Lord Steward oâ—… the Kings Houshold keeps a standing Table to entertain the Peers during the sitting of Parliament and he alone or some from or under him as the Treasurer or Comptroller of the Kings Houshold takeâ—… the Oaths of the Members of the House of Commoâ—… the first day of the Parliament Sir Richard Sâ—…roop Steward of the Houshold of our Sovereign Lord the King by the Commandment of the Lords sitting in full Parliament iâ—… the Great Chamber put I. Lord Gomeniz and William Weston to answer severally to Accusations broughâ—… against them The Necessity of the King's Presence in Parliamenâ—… appears by the Desire of Parliaments themselves iâ—…former times and the Practice of it Sir Robert Cottoâ—… proves by several Precedents whence he concludeâ—… that in the Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King wâ—… not only present to advise but to determine also Whensoever the King is present all Power of judging which is derived from His ceaseth The Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the finaâ—… Judgment is only the Kings Indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of theiâ—… Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of Use by which means it is comâ—… to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late been left to the Judgment of the Peers who in Quality of Judges extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in His absence to determine such matters as are properly brought before the King Himself sitting in Person attended with His great Councel of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the Kings Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from the Confirmation of Him who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Judge All Judgement is by or under Him it cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton that ancient Chief Justice in Hen. 3. time An ancient Precedent I meet with cited by Master Selden of a judicial Proceeding in a Criminal Cause of the Barons before the Conquest wherein I observe the Kings Will was that the Lords should be Judges â—…n the Cause wherein Himself was a Party and He â—…atified their Proceeding The case was thus Earl Godwin having had a Trial before the Lords under King Hardicanute touching the Death of Alfred Son to King Ethelbert and Brother to him who was afterward Edward the Confessor had fled out of England and upon his Return with Hope of Edward the Confessor's Favour he solicited the Lords â—…o intercede for him with the King who consulting together brought Godwin with them before the King to obtain his Grace and Favour But the King â—…resently as soon as he beheld him said Thou Traytor Godwin I do appeal thee of the Death of my Brother Alfred whom thou hast most trayterously slain Then Godwin excusing it answered My Lord the King may it please your Grace I neither betrayed nor killed your Brother whereof I put my self upon the Iudgment of your Court Then the King said You noble Lords Earls and Barons of the Land who are my Liege men now gathered here together and have heard My Appeal and Godwins Answer I Will that in this Appeal between Us ye decree right Iudgment and do true Iustice. The Earls and Barons treating of this among themselves were of differing Judgments some said that Godwin was never bound to the King either by Homage Service or Fealty and therefore could not be his Traytor and that he had not slain Alfred with his own hands others said that neither Earl nor Baron nor any other Subject of the King could wage his War by Law against the King in his Appeal but most wholly put himself into the Kings Mercy and offer competent Amends Then Leofric Consul of Chester a good man before God and the World said Earl Godwin next to the King is a man of the best Parentage of all England and he cannot deny but that by his Counsel Alfred the Kings Brother was slain therefore for my part I consider that He and his Son and all we twelve Earls who are his Friends and Kinsmen do go humbly before the King laden with so much Gold and Silver as each of us can carry in our Arms offering him That for his Offence and humbly praying for Pardon And he will pardon the Earl and taking his Homage and Fealty will restore him all his Lands All they in this form lading themselves with Treasure and coming to the King did shew the Manner and Order of their Consideration to which The King not willing to contradict did ratifie all that they had judged 23 Hen. 2. In Lent there was an Assembly of all the Spiritual and Temporal Barons at Westminster for the determination of that great Contention between Alfonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre touching divers Castles and Territories in Spain which was by compromise submitted to the Judgment of the King of England And the King consulting with his Bishops Earls and Barons determined it as he saith Himself in the first Person in the Exemplification of the Judgement 2 Of King Iohn also that great Controversie touching the Barony that William of Moubray claimed against William of Stutvil which had depended from the time of King Hen. 2. was ended by the Councel of the Kingdom and Will of the King Concilio regni voluntate Regis The Lords in Parliament adjudge William de Weston to Death for surrendring Barwick Castle but for that Our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Judgment the Constable of the Tower Allen Buxall was commanded safely to keep the said William untill he hath other Commandment from our Lord the King 4 Ric. 2. Also the Lords adjudged Iohn Lord of Gomentz for surrendring the Towns and Castles of Ardee and for that he was a Gentleman and Bannaret and had served the late King he should be beheaded and for that our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Iudgment the Execution thereof
patri G. eadem gratia Archiepiscopo Cantuarienâ—…i totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano salutem Quia de advisamento assensu Concilii nostri pro quiâ—…usdam arduis urgentibus negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae ecclesiae Anglicaâ—…ae concernentibus quoddam Parliamentum nostrum apud W. c. teneri ordinavimus ibidem vobiscum cum â—…aeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere tractatum Vobis â—…n fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter injungendo mandamus quod consideratis dictorum negotioruâ—… arduitate periculis imminentibus cessante quacunquâ—… excusatione dictis die loco personaliter intersitis Nobiscum cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribâ—… praedictis super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque concilium impensuri hoc sicut Nos Honorem nostrâ—…ac salvationem regni praedicti ac ecclesiae sanctae expeditionemque dictorum negotiorum diligitis nullatenus omittatiâ—… Praemonentes Decanum capitulum ecclesiae vestrae Caâ—…tuariensis ac Archidiacanos totumque Clerum vestrae Diâ—…cesis quod idem Decanus Archidiaconi in propriis peâ—…sonis suis ac dictum Capitulum per unum idemque Clerâ—… per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam sufficientem poâ—… statem ab ipsis Capitulo Clero habentes praedictis die â—… loco personaliter intersint ad consentiendum hiis quae tuâ—…ibidem de Commune Concilio ipsius Regni Nostri divinâ—… favente Clementia contigerint ordinari Teste Meipso apâ—… West c. CHARLES by the Grace of God c. To the moâ—… Reverend Father in Christ W. by the samâ—… Grace Arch-bishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of all England Health Whereas by thâ—… Advice and Assent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the Statâ—… and Defence of Our Kingdom of England and 〈◊〉 the English Church We have Ordained a certaâ—… Parliament of Ours to be holden at W. c. aâ—… there to have Conference and to treat with you thâ—… Prelats Great men and Peers of Our said Kingdoâ—… We straitly Charge and Command by the Faiâ—… and Love by which you are bound to Us that coâ—…sidering the Difficulties of the Businesses aforesaiâ—… and the imminent Dangers and setting aside all Excuse you be personally present at the Day and Place aforesaid to treat and give your Counsel concerning the said Businesses And this as you love Us and Our Honour and the Safeguard of the foresaid Kingdom and Church and the Expedition of the said Businesses you must no way omit Forewarning the Dean and Chapter of your Church of Canterbury and the Arch-deacons and all the Clergy of your Diocese that the same Dean and the Arch-deacon in their proper Persons and the said Chapter by one and the said Clergy by two fit Proctors having full and sufficient Power from them the Chapter and Clergy be personally present at the foresaid Day and Place to Consent to those things which then and there shall happen by the favour of God to be Ordained by the Common Councel of our Kingdom Witness Our Self â—…t Westm. The same Form of Writ mutatis mutandis concluding with you must no way omit Witness c. â—…s to the Temporal Barons But whereas the Spirituâ—…l Barons are required by the Faith and Love the Temporal are required by their Allegiance or Homage The Difference between the two Writs is that the Lords are to Treat and to Give Counsel the Commons â—…re to Perform and Consent to what is ordained By this Writ the Lords have a deliberative or a â—…onsultive Power to Treat and give Counsel in difficult Businesses and so likewise have the Judges Barons â—…f the Exchequer the Kings Councel and the Maâ—…ters of the Chancery by their Writs But over and â—…esides this Power the Lords do exercise a decisive or Iudicial Power which is not mentioned or found in their Writ For the better Understanding of these two different Powers we must carefully note the distinction between a Iudge and a Counsellor in a Monarchy the ordinary Duty or Office of a Iudge is to give Judgment and to command in the Place of the King but the ordinary Duty of a Counsellor is to advise the King what he himself shall do or cause to be done The Iudge represents the Kings Person in his absence the Counsellor in the Kings Presence gives his Advice Iudges by their Commission oâ—… Institution are limited their Charge and Power and in such things they may judge and cause their Judgments to be put in Execution But Counsellors have no Power to command their Consultations to bâ—… executed for that were to take away the Sovereignty from their Prince who by his Wisdom is to weighâ—… the Advice of his Councel and at liberty to resolvâ—… according to the Judgment of the wiser part of hiâ—… Councel and not always of the greater In a word regularly a Counsellor hath no Power but in thâ—… Kings Presence and a Iudge no Power but out oâ—… his Presence These two Powers thus distinguished have yet such Correspondency and there is so neeâ—… Affinity between the Acts of judging and counselling that although the ordinary Power of the Judgâ—… is to give Judgment yet by their Oath they arâ—… bound in Causes extraordinary when the King pleaseth to call them to be his Counsellors and oâ—… the other side although the proper work of a Counsellor be only to make Report of his Advice to his Sovereign yet many times for the Ease only and by the Permission of the King Counsellors are allowed to judge and command in Points wherein ordinarily they know the mind of the Prince and what they do is the act of the Royal Power it self for the Councel is always presupposed to be united to the Person of the King and therefore the Decrees of the Councel are styled By the King in his Privy Councel To apply this Distinction to the House of Peers we find originally they are called as Counsellors to the King and so have only a deliberative Power specified in their Writ and therefore the Lords do only then properly perform the Duty for which they are called when they are in the Kings Presence that He may have Conference and treat with them the very Words of the Writ are nobiscum ac cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus praedictis super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque concilium impensuri with Us and with the Prelates Great men and Peers to treat and give your councel the word Nobiscum implieth plainly the Kings Presence It is a thing in reason most absurd to make the King assent to the Judgments in Parliament and allow Him no part â—…n the Consultation this were to make the King â—… Subject Councel loseth the name of Councel â—…nd becomes a Command if it put a Necessiâ—…y upon the King to follow it such Imperious Councels make those that are but Counsellors â—…n name to
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
was ready drawn by them Her Majesty was highly displeased herewith as contrary to her former strait Command and charged the Councel to call the Parties before them Sir Thomas Henage sent for them and after Speech with them commanded them to forbear the Parliament and not to go out of their several Lodgings after they were called before the Lord Treasurer the Lord Buckhurst and Sir Thomas Henage Mr. Wentworth was committed by them to the Tower Sir Henry Bromley with Mr. Richard Stevens to whom Sir Henry Bromley had imparted the Matter were sent to the Fleet as also Mr. Welch the other Knight for Worcestershire In the same Parliament Mr. Morrice Attorney of the Court of Wards moved against the hard Courses of the Bishops Ordinaries and other Ecclesiastical Judges in their Courts used towards sundry Learned and godly Ministers and Preachers and spake against Subscription and Oaths and offer'd a Bill to be read against Imprisonment for refusal of Oaths Mr. Dalton opposed the Reading of it as a thing expresly against Her Majesties Command to meddle in Doctor Lewin shewed that Subscription was used even at Geneva At two of the clock the same day the Speaker Mr. Coke afterwards Sir Edward Coke was sent for to the Court where the Queen Her self gave him in Command a Message to the House She told him It being wholly in Her Power to Call to Determine to Assent or Dissent to any thing done in Parliament that the Calling of This was only that the Majesty of God might be more religiously observed by compelling by some sharp Laws such as neglect that Service and that the Safety of Her Majesties Person and the Realm might be provided for It was not meant they should meddle with matters of State or Causes Ecclesiastical for so Her Majesty termed them she wondred that any could be of so high Commandement to attempt they were Her own words a thing so expresly contrary to that which She had commanded wherefore with this She was highly offended And because the words spoken by my Lord Keeper are not now perhaps well remembred or some bâ—… now here that were not then present Her Majesties present Charge and express Command is that no Bill touching the said matter of State or Reformation in Causes Ecclesiastical be exhibited and upon my Allegiance saith Mr. Coke I am charged if any such Bill be exhibited not to read it I have been credibly informed that the Queen sent a Messenger or Serjeant at Arms into the House of Commons and took out Mr. Morrice and committed him to prison within few dayes after I find Mr. Wroth moved in the House that they might be humble Suitors to Her Majesty that She would be pleased to set at liberty those Members of the House that were restrained To this it was answered by the Privy Counsellors that Her Majesty had committed them for Causes best known to Her self and to press Her Highness with this Suit would but hinder them whose Good is sought that the House must not call the Queen to account for what she doth of Her Royal Authority that the Causes for which they are restrained may be High and Dangerous that Her Majesty liketh no such Questions neither doth it become the House to searcâ—… into such matters In the 39 Eliz. The Commons were tolâ—… their Privilege was Yea and No and thaâ—… Her Majesties Pleasure was that if the Speaker perceived any idle heads which would not stick to hazard their own Estates which will meddle with reforming the Church and transforming the Commonweal and do exhibit Bills to that purpose the Speaker should not receive them till they were viewed and considered by those whom it is fitter should consider of such things and can better judge of them and at the end of this Parliament the Queen refused to pass 48 Bills which had passed both Houses In the 28 of Eliz. the Queen said She was sorry the Commons medled with chusing and returning Knights of the Shire for Norfolk a thing impertinent for the House to deal withal and only belonging to the Office and Charge of the Lord Chancellor from whom the Writs issue and are returned 4 Hen. 4. The 10 of October the Chancellor before the King declared the Commons had sent to the King praying him that they might have Advice and Communication with certain Lords about Matters of Business in Parliament for the common good of the Realm which Prayer Our Lord the King graciously granted making Protestation he would not do it of Duty nor of Custom but of his special Grace at this time and therefore Our Lord the King â—…harged the Clark of the Parliament that this Protestation should be entred on Record upon the Parliament-Roll which the King made known to them by the Lord Say and his Secretary how that neither of Due nor of Custom our Lord the King ought to grant any Lords to enter into Communication with them of Matters touching the Parliament but by his special Grace at this time he hath granted their Request in this Particular upon which matter the said Steward and Secretary made Report to the King in Parliament that the said Commons knew well that they could not have any such Lords to commune with them of any Business of Parliament without special Grace and Command of the King Himself It hath heretofore been a question whether it be not an Infringing and Prejudice to the Liberties and Privileges of the House of Commons for them to joyn in Conference with the Lords in Cases of Benevolence or Contribution without a Bill In the 35 Eliz. on Tuesday the first of March Mr. Egerton Attorney general and Doct. Carey came with a Message from the Lords their Lordships desired to put the House in Remembrance of the Speech delivered by the Lord Keeper the first day for Consultation and Provision of Treasure to be had aginst the great and imminent Dangers of the Realm thereupon their Lordships did look to have something from the Houses touching those Causes before this time and yet the Parliament had sate but three dayes for it began Feb. 26. and therefore their Lordships had hitherto omitted to do any thing therein themselves And thereupon their Lordships desired that according to former laudable Usages between both Houses in such like Cases a Committee of Commons may have Conference with a Committee of Lords touching Provision of Treasure against the great Dangers of the Realm which was presently resolved by the whole House and they signified to their Lordships the willing and ready Assent of the whole House At the Meeting the Lords negatively affirm not to assent to less than three Subsidies and do insist for a second Conference M. Francis Bacon yielded to the Subsidy but opposed the joyning with the Lords as contrary to the Privileges of the House of Commons thereupon the House resolved to have no Conference with the Lords but to give their Lordships most humble and dutiful Thanks with all Reverence for
at that Election sending back unto Us the other part of the Indenture aforesaid affiled to these Presents together with this Writ Witness Our Self at Westminster By this Writ we do not find that the Commons are called to be any part of the Common Councel of the Kingdom or of the Supream Court of Iudicature or to have any part of the Legislative Power or to Consult de arduis regni negotiis of the difficult Businesses of the Kingdom The Writ only sayes the King would have Conference and Treat with the Prelates Great men and Peers but not a word of Treating or Conference with the Commons The House of Commons which doth not minister an Oath nor fine nor imprison any but their own Members and that but of late in some Cases cannot properly be said to be a Court at all much less to be a part of the Supream Court or highest Judicature of the Kingdom The constant Custom even to this day for the Members of the House of Commons to stand bare with their Hats in their Hands in the Presence of the Lords while the Lords sit covered at all Conferences is a visible argument that the Lords and Commons are not fellow Commissioners or fellow Counsellors of the Kingdom The Duty of Knights Citizens and Burgesses mentioned in the Writ is only ad Faciendum Consentiendum to Perform and to Consent to such things as should be ordained by the Common Councel of the Kingdom there is not so much mentioned in the Writ as a Power in the Commons to dissent When a man is bound to appear in a Court of Justice the words are ad Faciendum recipiendum quod ei per curiam injungetur which shews that this word Faciendum is used as a Term in Law to signifie to give Obedience For this we meet with a Precedent even as ancient as the Parliament-Writ it self and it is concerning Proceedings in Parliament 33. Ed. 1. Dominus Rex mandavit vicecom ' quod c. summon ' Nicolaum de Segrave ex parte Domini regis firmiter ei injungeret quod esset coram Domino Rege in proximo Parl. c. ad audiendum voluntatem ipsius Domini Regis c. Et ad Faciendum recipiendum ulterius quod curia Domini Regis consideraret in Praemissis Our Lord the King commands the Sheriff to summon Nicholas Segrave to appear before the Lord our King in the next Parliament to hear the Will of the Lord our King himself and to Perform and receive what the Kings Court shall further consider of the Premises Sir Ed. Coke to prove the Clergy hath no Voice in Parliament saith that by the Words of their Writ their Consent was only to such things as were ordained by the Common Councel of the Realm If this argument of his be good it will deny also Voices to the Commons in Parliament for in their Writ are the self-same words viz. to consent to such things as were ordained by the Common Councel of the Kingdom Sir Edw. Coke concludes that the Procuratores Cleri have many times appeared in Parliament as Spiritual Assistants to Consider Consult and to Consent but never had voice there how they could consult and Consent without Voices he doth not shew Though the Clergy as he saith oft appeared in Parliament yet was it only ad consentiendum as I take it and not ad faciendum for the Word Faciendum is omitted in their Writ the cause as I conceive is the Clergy though they were to assent yet by reason of Clerical Exemptions they were not required to Perform all the Ordinances or Acts of Parliament But some may think though the Writ doth not express a Calling of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses to be part of the Common Councel of the Kingdom yet it supposeth it a thing granted and not to be questioned but that they are a part of the Common Councel Indeed if their Writ had not mentioned the Calling of Prelates Great men and Peers to Councel there might have been a little better colour for such a Supposition but the Truth is such a Supposition doth make the Writ it self vain and idle for it is a senseless thing to bid men assent to that which they have already ordained since ordaining is an Assenting and more than an Assenting For clearing the meaning and sense of the Writ and Satisfaction of such as think it impossible but that the Commons of England have alwayes been a part of the Common Councel of the Kingdom I shall insist upon these Points 1. That anciently the Barons of England were the Common Councel of the Kingdom 2. That until the time of Hen. 1. the Commons were not called to Parliament 3. Though the Commons were called by Hen. 1. yet they were not constantly called nor yet regularly elected by Writ until Hen. 3. time For the first point M. Cambden in his Britania doth teach us that in the time of the English Saxons and in the ensuing Age a Parliament was called Communâ—… concilium which was saith he Praesentia Regis Praelatorum Procerumque collectorum the Presence of the King Prelates and Peers assembled No mention of the Commons the Prelates and Peers were all Barons The Author of the Chronicle of the Church of Lichfield cited by M. Selden saith Postquam Rex Edvardus c. Concilio Baronum Angliae c. After King Edward was King by the Councel of the Barons of England he revived a Law which had layen asleep threescore and seven years and this Law was called the Law of St. Edward the King In the same Chronicle it is said that Will. the Conquerour anno regni sui quarto apud Londin ' haâ—… Concilium Baronum Suorum a Councel of his Barons And of this Parliament it is that his Son Hen. 1. speaks saying I restore you the Laws of King Edward the Confessor with those amendments wherewith my Father amended them by the Councel of his Barons In the fifth year as M. Selden thinks of the Conquerour was a Parliament or Principum conventus aâ—… Assembly of Earls and Barons at Pinenden Heath iâ—… Kent in the Cause between Lanfranke the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Odo Earl of Kent The King gave Commission to Godfrid then Bishop of Constanâ—… in Normandy to represent His own Person for Hearing the Controversie as saith M. Lambard and caused Egelrick the Bishop of Chichester an aged man singularly commended for Skill in the Laws and Customes of the Realm to be brought thither in a Wagon for his Assistance in Councel Commanded Haymo the Sheriff of Kent to summon the whole County to give in Evidence three whole dayes spent in Debate in the End Lanfranke and the Bishop of Rochester were restored to the Possession oâ—… Detling and other Lands which Odo hath withholden 21. Ed. 3. fol. 60. There is mention of a Parliament held under the same King William the Conquerour wherein all the Bishops of the Land Earls and
sift out what is comprised in the Writ for the Election of the Commons to Parliament since it is certain though the Writ doth not yet Privilege of Parliament gives sufficient Power for all Proceedings of the Two Houses It is answered that what slight Esteem soever be made of the Writ yet in all other cases the Original Writ is the Foundation of the whole business or action and to vary in Substance from the Writ makes a nullity in the Cause and the Proceedings thereupon and where a Commissioner exerciseth more Power than is warranted by his Commission every such Act is void and in many Cases punishable yet we will lay aside the Writ and apply our selves to consider the Nature of Privilege of Parliament The Task is the more difficult for that we are not told what the number of Privileges are or which they be some do think that as there be dormant Articles of Faith in the Roman Church which are not yet declared so there be likewise Privileges dormant in the House of Commons not yet revealed we must therefore be content in a generality to discourse of the Quality or Condition of Privilege of Parliament and to confine our selves to these three points 1. That Privilege of Parliament gives no power but only helps to the execution of the Power given by the Writ 2. That the Free-holders by their Elections give no Privilege 3. That Privilege of Parliament is the Gift of the King First The End or Scope of Privilege of Parliament is not to give any Power to do any publick Act not warranted by the Writ but they are intended as Helps only to enable to the Performance of the Duty enjoyned and so are subservient to the Power comprised in the Writ For Instance the grand Privilege of Freedom from Arrests doth not give any Power at all to the House of Commons to do any act but by taking away from the Free-holders and other Subjects the Power of Arrests the Commons are the better inabled to attend the Service to which they are called by the King In many other Cases the Servants oâ—… Ministers of the King are privileged and protected much in the same Nature The Servants in houshold to the King may not be arrested without special Licence Also the Officers of the Kings Courts of Justice have a Privilege not to be sued in any other Court but where they serve and attend and to this Purpose they are allowed a Writ of Privilege Likewise all such as serve the King in his Wars or are imployed on forreign Affairs for him are protected from Actions and Sutes Nay the Kings Protection descends to the privileging even of Laundresses Nurses and Midwives if they attend upon the Camp as Sir Edw. Coke saith quia Lotrix seu Nutrix seu obstetrix Besides the King protects his Debtors from Arrests of the Subject till his own Debts be paid These sorts of Protections are Privileges the Common Law takes notice of and allows and hath several Distinctions of them and some are Protections quia profecturus and others are quia moraturus some are with a Clause of volumus for stay of Suits others with a Clause of Nolumus for the safety of mens Persons Servants and Goods and the Kings Writs do vary herein according to the Nature of the Business But none of these Privileges or Protections do give any Power they are not positive but privative they take away and deprive the Subject of the Power or Liberty to arrest or sue in some cases only no Protection or Privilege doth defend in point of Treason Felony or Breach of the Peace Privileges are directly contrary to the Law for otherwise they should not be Privileges and they are to be interpreted in the strictest manner as being odious and contrary to Law we see the Use of Privileges they do but serve as a Dispensation against Law intended originally and principally for the expediting of the Kings Business though secondarily and by accident there do sometimes redound a Benefit by them to the Parties themselves that are protected Strictly and properly every Privilege must be against a publick or common Law for there is no Use or Need of a private Law to protect where there is no publick Law to the contrary Favours and Graces which are only besides and not against the Law do not properly go under the name of Privileges though common Use do not distinguish them I know no other Privilege that can be truly so called and to belong to the House of Commons which is so vast and great as this Privilege of their Persons Servants and Goods this being indeed against the Common Law and doth concern the whole Kingdom to take notice of it if they must be bound by it Touching this grand Privilege of Freedom from Arrests I read that in the 33 Hen. 8. the Commons did not proceed to the Punishment of Offenders for the breach of it untill the Lords referred the Punishment thereof to the Lower House The Case is thus reported George Ferrers Gentleman Servant to the King and Burgesse for Plymouth going to the Parliament House was arrested in London by Process out of the Kings Bench for Debt wherein he had before been condemned as Surety for one Welden at the Sute of one White which Arrest signified to Sir Thomas Moyl Speaker and to the rest the Serjeant called Saint-Iohns was sent to the Counter in Breadstreet to demand Ferrers The Officer of the Counter refused to deliver him and gave the Serjeant such ill Language that they fall to an Affray the Sheriff coming taketh the Officers part the Serjeant returned without the Prisoner This being related to the Speaker and Burgesses they would sit no more without their Burgess and rising repaired to the Upper House where the Case was declared by the Speaker before Sir Thomas Audley Chancellor and the Lords and Iudges there assembled who judging the Contempt to be very great referred the Punishment thereof to the House of Commons it self This Privilege of Freedom from Arrestâ—… is the only Privilege which Sir Edward Coke finds to belong to the House of Commons he cannot or at least he doth not so much as name any other in his Section of the Privileges of Parliament neither doth he bring so much as one Precedent for the Proof of this one Privilege for the House of Commons which may cause a Doubt that this sole Privilege is not so clear as many do imagine For in a Parliament in the 27 Eliz. Richard Coke a Member being served with a Subpoena of Chancery the Lord Chancellor thought the House had no such Privilege for Subpoena's as they pretended neither would he allow of any Precedents of the House committed unto them formerly used in that Behalf unless the House of Commons could also prove the same to have been likewise thereupon allowed and ratified also by Precedents in the Court of Chancery In the 39 of Eliz. Sir Edw. Hobby and Mr. Brograve Attorney
it from one or more of the General Assembly but the forming penning or framing it into a Law is committed to a few because a great number of persons cannot without tedious and dilatory Debates examine the Benefits and Mischiefs of a Law Thus in the very first Beginning the Intention of a general Assembly is frustrated then after a Law is penned or framed when it comes to be questioned whether it shall pass or nay though it be Voted in a full Assembly yet by the Rules of the Assembly they are all so tyed up and barred from a free and full Debate that when any man hath given the Reasons of his Opinion if those Reasons be argued against he is not permitted to reply in Justification or Explanation of them but when he hath once spoken he must be heard no more which is a main Denial of that Freedome of Debate for which the great Assembly is alleaged to be ordained in the high Point of Legislative Power The same may be said touching the executive Power if a cause be brought before a great Assembly the first thing done is to referr or commit it to some few of the Assembly who are trusted with the examining the Proofs and Witnesses and to make Report to the general Assembly who upon the Report proceed to give their Judgments without any publick hearing or interrogating the Witnesses upon whose Testimonies diligently examined every man that will pass a conscientious judgment is to rely Thus the legislative and executive Power are never truly practised in a great Assembly the true Reason whereof is if Freedom be given to Debate never any thing could be agreed upon without endless Disputes meer Necessity compels to refer main Transactions of Business to particular Congregations and Committees Those Governments that seem to be popular aâ—… kinds of petty Monarchies which may thus appear Government is a Relation between the Governours and the governed the one cannot be without the other mutuò se ponunt auferunt where a Command or Law proceeds from a major part there those individual Persons that concurred in the Vote are the Governours because the Law is only their Will in particular the Power of a major Part being a contingent or casual thing expires in the very Act it self of voting which Power of a major part is grounded upon a Supposition that they are the stronger part when the Vote is past these Voters which are the major part return again and are incorporated into the whole Assembly and are buried as it were in that Lump and no otherwise considered the Act or Law ordained by such a Vote loseth the Makers of it before it comes to be obeyed for when it comes to be put in Execution it becomes the Will of those who enjoyn it and force Obedience to it not by Virtue of any Power derived from the Makers of the Law No man can say that during the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth that King Henry the 8th or Edward the sixth did govern although that many of the Laws that were made in those two former Princes times were observed and executed under her Government but those Laws though made by her Predecessours yet became the Laws of her present Government who willed and commanded the Execution of them and had the same Power to correct interpret or mitigate them which the first makers of them had every Law must always have some present known Person in Being whose Will it must be to make it a Law for the Present this cannot be said of the major part of any Assembly because that major part instantly ceaseth as soon as ever it hath voted an infallible Argument whereof is this that the same major part after the Vote given hath no Power to correct alter or mitigate it or to Cause it to be put in Execution so that he that shall act or cause that Law to be executed makes himself the Commander or willer of it which was originally the Will of others It is said by Mr. Hobs in his Leviathan page 141. nothing is Law where the Legislator cannot be known for there must be manifest Signs that it proceedeth from the Will of the Sovereign there is requisite not only a Declaration of the Law but also sufficient Signs of the Author and the Authority That Senate or great Councel wherein it is conceived the supreme or legislative Power doth rest consists of those Persons who are actually Subjects at the very same time wherein they exercise their legislative Power and at the same Instant may be guilty of breaking one Law whilest they are making another Law for it is not the whole and entire Will of every particular Person in the Assembly but that part onely of his Will which accidentally falls out to concurr with the Will of the greater part So that the Sharers of the legislative Power have each of them perhaps not a hundreth part of the legislative Power which in it self is indivisible and that not in Act but in Possibility only in one particular Point for that Moment whilst they give their Vote To close this Point which may seem strange and new to some I will produce the Judgment of Bodin in his sixth Book of a Commonweal and the fourth Chapter his words are The chief Point of a Commonweal which is the Right of Sovereignty cannot be nor insist to speak properly but in Monarchy for none can be Sovereign in a Commonweal but one alone if they be two or three or more no one is Sovereign for that no one of them can give or take a Law from his Companion and although we imagine a Body of many Lords or of a whole People to hold the Sovereignty yet hath it no true Ground nor Support if there be not a Head with absolute Power to unite them together which a simple Magistrate without Sovereign Authority cannot do And if it chance that the Lords or Tribes of the People be divided as it often falls out then must they fall to Arms one against another and although the greatest part be of one Opinion yet may it so happen as the lesser part having many Legions and making a Head may oppose it self against the greater Number and get the Victory We see the Difficulties which are and always have been in popular Estates whereas they hold contrary Parts and for divers Magistrates some demand Peace others War some will have this Law others that some will have one Commander others another some will treat a League with the King of France others with the King of Spain corrupted or drawn some one Way some another making open War as hath been seen in our Age amongst the Grisons c. Upon these Texts of Aristotle forecited and from the Mutability of the Roman Popularity which Aristotle lived not to see I leave the Learned to consider whether it be not probable that these or the like Parodoxes may be inferred to be the plain Mind of Aristotle viz. 1.
HUNTON'S Treatise of Monarchy Arist. Pol. Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE PREFACE WITH no small Content I read Mr. Hobs's Book De Cive and his Leviathan about the Rights of Sovereignty which no man that I know hath so amply and judiciously handled I consent with him about the Rights of exercising Government but I cannot agree to his means of acquiring it It may seem strange I should praise his Building and yet mislike his Foundation but so it is his Jus Naturae and his Regnum Institutivum will not down with me they appear full of Contradiction and Impossibilities a few short Notes about them I here offer wishing he would consider whether his Building would not stand firmer upon the Principles of Regnum Patrimoniale as he calls it both according to Scripture and Reason Since he confesseth the Father being before the institution of a Commonwealth was Originally an Absolute Sovereign with power of Life and Death and that a great Family as to the Rights of Sovereignty is a little Monarchy If according to the order of Nature he had handled Paternal Government before that by Institution there would have been little liberty left in the Subjects of the Family to consent to Institution of Government In his pleading the Cause of the People he arms them with a very large Commission of Array which is a Right in Nature for every Man to war against every Man when he please and also a Right for all the People to govern This latter Point although he affirm in Words yet by Consequence he denies as to me it seemeth He saith a Representative may be of All or but of a Part of the People If it be of All he terms it a Democratie which is the Government of the People But how can such a Commonwealth be generated for if every man Covenant with every man who shall be left to be the Representative if All must be Representatives who will remain to Covenant for â—…e that is Sovereign makes no Covenant by his Doctrine It is not All that will come together that makes the Democratie but All that have power by Covenant thus his Democratie by Institution fails The same may be said of a Democratie by acquisition for if all be Conquerours who shall Covenant for Life and Liberty and if all be not Conquerours how can it be a Democratie by Conquest A Paternal Democratie I am confident he will not affirm so that in conclusion the poor People are deprived of their Government if there can be no Democratie by his Principles Next If a Representative Aristocratical of a Part of the People be free from Covenanting then that whole Assembly call it what you will though it be never so great is in the state of Nature and every one of that Assembly hath a Right not only to kill any of the Subjects that they meet with in the streets but also they all have a natural Right to cut one anothers throats even while they sit together in Councel by his Principles In this miserable condition of War is his Representative Aristocratical by Institution A Commonwealth by Conquest he teacheth is then acquired when the Vanquished to avoid present Death Covenanteth that so long as his Life and the liberty of his Body is allowed him the Victor shall have the Use of it at his pleasure Here I would know how the Liberty of the Vanquished can be allowed if the Victor have the Use of it at pleasure or how it is possible for the Victor to perform his Covenant except he could alwayes stand by every particular man to protect his Life and Liberty In his Review and Conclusion he resolves that an ordinary Subject hath liberty to submit when the means of his Life is within the Guards and Garisons of the Enemy It seems hereby that the Rights of Sovereignty by Institution may be forfeited for the Subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a Conquerour except his former Subjection be forfeited for want of Protection If his Conquerour be in the state of nature when he conquers he hath a Right without any Covenant made with the conquered If Conquest be defined to be the acquiring of Right of Sovereignty by Victory why is it said the Right is acquired in the Peoples Submission by which they contract with the Victor promising Obedience for Life and Liberty hath not every one in the state of Nature a Right to Sovereignty before Conquest which onely puts him in possession of his Right If his Conquerour be not in the state of Nature but a Subject by Covenant how can he get a Right of Sovereignty by Conquest when neither he himself hath Right to Conquer nor Subjects a liberty to Submit since a former Contract lawfully made cannot lawfully be broken by them I wish the Title of the Book had not been of a Common-Wealth but of a Weal Publick or Common-weal which is the true word Carefully observed by our Translator of Bodin de Republica into English Many ignorant men are apâ—… by the Name of Common-wealth to understand a Popular Government wherein Wealth and all things shall be Common tending to the Levelling Community in the state of pure Nature OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. HOBS's LEVIATHAN OR HIS ARTIFICIAL MAN A Commonwealth I. IF God created only Adam and of a Piece of him made the Woman and if by Generation from them two as parts of them all Mankind be propagated If also God gave to Adam not only the Dominion over the Woman and the Children that should issue from them but also over the whole Earth to subdue it and over all the Creatures on it so that as long as Adam lived no man could claim or enjoy any thing but by Donation Assignation or Permission from him I wonder how the Right of Nature can be imagined by Mr. Hobs which he saith pag. 64. is a Liberty for each man to use his own Power as he will himself for Preservation of his own Life a Condition of War of every one against every one a Right of every man to every thing even to one anothers Body especially since himself affirms pag. 178. that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord with Power over him of Life and Death II Mr. Hobs confesseth and believes it was never generally so that there was such a jus naturae and if not generally then not at all for one exception bars all if he mark it well whereas he imagines such a Right of Nature may be now practised in America he confesseth a Government there of Families which Government how small or brutish soever as he calls it is sufficient to destroy his jus naturale III. I cannot understand how this Right of Nature can be conceived without imagining a Company of men at the very first to have been all Created together without any Dependency one of another or as Mushroms fungorum more they all on a sudden were sprung out of the Earth without any
his own Will V. If it be demanded what is meant by the word People 1. Sometimes it is Populus universus and then every Child must have his Consent asked which is impossible 2. Sometimes it is pars major and sometimes it is pars potior sanior How the major part where all are alike free can bind the minor part is not yet proved But it seems the major part will not carry it nor be allowed except they be the better part and the sounder part We are told the sounder part implored the help of the Army when it saw it self and the Commonwealth betrayed and that the Souldiers judged better than the Great Councel and by Arms saved the Commonwealth which the Great Councel had almost damned by their Votes p. 7. Here we see what the People is to wit the sounder part of which the Army is the judge thus upon the matter the Souldiers are the People which being so we may discern where the Liberty of the People lieth which we are taught to consist all for the most part in the power of the Peoples Choosing what Form of Government they please pag. 61. A miserable Liberty which is onely to choose to whom we will give our Liberty which we may not keep See more concerning the People in a Book entituled The Anarchy p. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. VI. We are taught that a Father and a King are things most diverse The Father begets us but not the King but we create the King Nature gives a Father to the People the People give themselves a King If the Father kill his Son he loseth his life why should not the King also p. 34. Ans. Father and King are not so diverse it is confessed that at first they were all one for there is confessed Paternum imperium haereditarium p. 141. and this Fatherly Empire as it was of it self hereditary so it was alienable by Patent and seizable by an Usurper as other goods are and thus every King that now is hath a Paternal Empire either by Inheritance or by Translation or Usurpation so a Father and a King may be all one A Father may dye for the Murther of his Son where there is a Superiour Father to them both or the Right of such a Supreme Father but where there are onely Father and Sons no Sons can question the Father for the death of their Brother the reason why a King cannot be punished is not because he is excepted from Punishment or doth not deserve it but because there is no Superiour to judge him but God onely to whom he is reserved VII It is said thus He that takes away from the People the power of Choosing for themselves what Form of Government they please he doth take away that wherein all Civil Liberty almost consists p. 65. If almost all Liberty be in Choosing of the Kind of Government the People have but a poor Bargain of it who cannot exercise their Liberty but in Chopping and Changing their Government and have liberty onely to give away their Liberty than which there is no greater mischief as being the cause of endless Sedition VIII If there be any Statute in our Law by which thou canst find that Tyrannical Power is given to a King that Statute being contrary to Gods Will to Nature and Reason understand that by that general and primary Law of ours that Statute is to be repealed and not of force with us p. 153. Here if any man may be judge what Law is contrary to Gods Will or to Nature or to Reason it will soon bring in Confusion Most men that offend if they be to be punished or fined will think that Statute that gives all Fines and Forfeitures to a King to be a Tyrannical Law thus most Statutes would be judged void and all our Fore-fathers taken for Fools or Madmen to make all our Laws to give all Penalties to the King IX The sin of the Children of Israel did lye not in Desiring a King but in desiring such a King like as the Nations round about had they distrusted God Almighty that governed them by the Monarchical Power of Samuel in the time of oppression when God provided a Judge for them but they desired a perpetual and hereditary King that they might never want in Desiring a King they could not sin for it was but Desiring what they enjoyed by Gods special Providence X. Men are perswaded that in Making of a Covenant something is to be performed on both parts by mutual Stipulation which is not alwayes true for we find God made a Covenant with Noah and his Seed with all the Fowl and the Cattel not to destroy the Earth any more by a flood This Covenant was to be kept on Gods part neither Noah nor the Fowl nor the Cattel were to perform any thing by this Covenant On the other side Gen. 17. 9 10. God covenants with Abraham saying Thou shalt keep my Covenant every male child among you shall be circumcised Here it is called Gods Covenant though it be to be performed onely by Abraham so a Covenant may be called the Kings Covenant because it is made to him and yet to be performed only by the People So also 2 Kin. 11. 17. Iehoiada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King and the People that they should be the Lords People Between the King also and the People which might well be that the People should be the Kings Servants and not for the King 's covenanting to keep any Humane Laws for it is not likely the King should either Covenant or take any Oath to the People when he was but seven years of age and that never any King of Israel took a Coronation-Oath that can be shewed when Iehoiada shewed the King to the Rulers in the House of the Lord he took an Oath of the People he did not Article with them but saith the next Verse Commanded them to keep a Watch of the Kings House and that they should compass the King around about every man with his weapon in his hand and he that cometh within the Ranges let him be slain XI To the Text Where the word of a King is there is Power and who may say unto him What dost thou J. M. gives this Answer It is apparent enough that the Preacher in this place gives Precepts to every private man not to the great Sanhedrin nor to the Senate shall not the Nobles shall not all the other Magistrates shall not the whole People dare to mutter so oft as the King pleaseth to dote We must here note that the great Councel and all other Magistrates or Nobles or the whole People compared to the King are all but private men if they derive their Power from him they are Magistrates under him and out of his Presence for when he is in place they are but so many private men I. M. asks Who swears to a King unless the King on the other side be sworn