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
respect of Power and also in respect of the use and exercise of it In this kind of Government there are alwayes more Governours then one which are all Limited in the very essence and being of their power having none of them perfect absolute full and intire authority but onely their severall shares and proportion neither can they act in an arbitrary manner according to the full extent of that power which they have but have a certain rule set them by law The second is Limited in respect of the power alone In this kinde of Government as in the former there are alwayes more Governours then own which have all their Limited shares yet may all act arbitrarily either joyntly together or every one within the pale and limits of his own authority The third is Limited in respect of the exercise onely In this kind of Government the Governours are absolute in regard of power but circumscribed and Limited in the Acts of it As of absolute and limited so there are likewise three kinds of Mixed Government sutable to the other the first is Mixed both in respect of power and also in respect of the use and exercise of it In this kinde of Government there is a mixture of severall powers which compound and make up one perfect absolute full and intire power and also of severall persons and estates to whom the said powers do radically and fundamentally pertain which do jointly concurre in the administration and exercise of them The Second is Mixed in respect of the power alone In this kind of Government severall persons and estates are mixed together in the possession of power but one alone do exercise all the acts of Soveraigntie In this manner was the Roman Commonwealth governed by Sylla and by Dictators in the time of exigence and necessity The third is Mixed in respect of the exercise onely In this kind of Government severall persons and estates are Mixed in the exercise of power but one of the estates alone hath the dominion and propriety of it Now touching the Government of England I have shewed already that it is Monarchicall that the Monarchie is Absolute in respect of the power that the King alone hath perfect Absolute full and intire jurisdiction able if put in action to effectuate and bring to passe all the ends of Government and that all other persons of all estates and degrees whatsoever both Nobles and Commons move in their severall circuits and spheres of activity by virtuall emanation from him and not by force of any power authority or jurisdiction inherent in themselves And indeed all Monarchies are Absolute in this respect that is in respect of the power for when the limitation is in the essence and being of power Monarchie is destroyed not limited But yet the English Monarchie is Limited in respect of the use and exercise of power the King being obliged to govern according to the laws of the land which although they doe not diminish Majesty in essentialibus yet they do diversly qualifie and modificate it It is also Mixed in the same respect the King being obliged in some cases not to use his power without the assent and concurrence of the two other estates The pretended Parliamentarians on the other side deny the English Monarchie to be Absolute in any respect and affirm it to be Limited and Mixed as well in respect of the power it self as in respect of the use and exercise thereof the two Houses of Parliament being coordinate with the King not only in the administration of power but in the possession of it Yet they are not able to alledge one syllable of law to make good these strange novelties but strive by indirect inferences to decieve the people Howsoever I will bring their objections such as they are and answer them in order and first I will bring their objections whereby they indevour to prove their pretended limitation and then those whereby they endevour to prove their pretended mixture Object touching li ∣ mitation 1 I conceive and in my judgement perswaded saith the Treatiser that the Soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited and not only in the use and exercise of it and am perswaded so on these grounds and reasons First because the Kings Majesty himself who best knowes by his Councel the nature of his own power sayes that that the Law is the measure of his power Declar. from Newmarket Mart. 9. 1641. Which is as full a concession of the thing as words can expresse If it be the measure of it then his power is limited by it for the measure is the limits and bounds of the thing limited And in his answer to both the Houses concerning the Militia Speaking of the men named to him says If more power shall be thought fit to be granted to them then by law is in the crown it self his Majesty holds it reasonable that the same be by some law first vested in him with power to transfer it to those persons In which passage it is granted that the powers of the Crown are by law and that the King hath no more then are vested in him by law Object 2 Secondly because it is in the very constitution of it mixed as I shall afterwards make it appear then it is radically limited for as I shewed before every mixed Monarchy is limited though not on the contrary For the necessary connexion of the other power to it is one of the greatest limitations a subordiuation of causes doth not ever prove the supreme cause of limited virtue a coordination doth alwayes Object 3 Thirdly I prove it from the ancient ordinary and received Denominations For the Kings Majesty is called our Liege that is legal Soveraign and we his liege that is legal Subjects What do these names argue but that his Soveraignty and our Subjection is legall that is restrained by law Object 4 Fourthly had we no other proof yet that of prescription were sufficient in all ages beyond record the Lawes and customes of the Kingdome have been the rule of Government liberties have been stood upon and grants thereof with limitations of Royal power made and acknowledged by Magna Charta and other publick solemn acts and no obedience acknowleded to be due but that which is according to law nor claimed but under some pretext and title of law Object 5 Fifthly the very being of our Common and Statute lawes and our Kings acknowledging themselves bound to govern by them doth prove and prescribe them limited For those Lawes are not of their sole composure nor were they established by their sole authority but the concurrence of the other two estates so that to be confined to that which is not meerly their own is to be in a limited condition Reply Before I come to answer his objections out of his own mouth will I condemn him for if he be perswaded as he saith in his first objection that the King by his Councell knew the nature of
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
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
Fol. 125. the Kings alwayes most gravely and considerately repelled that sort of attempt The Kings supremacy then is inherent in his Person not in his Courts as the pretended House affirm for his politique capacity can not be seperated from his naturall but what power soever he maketh over unto his Courts the same and greater remaineth in Himself His authority is not separated from him by such a concession privitivè but Cumulativè onely as Civilians distinguish in Concessions of like nature made by the Emperour that is He loseth no authority by Communicating it to others but others hould that which is communicated together with himself As God loseth no authority by communicating it to Kings so Kings loseth it not by communicating of it to their Courts The Civilians give these reasons for the ground of their law not much different from those alleadged by Lambart out of Bracton and others Credendum non est Imperatorem ita fontes suos derivasse foras ut nihil penes se remanserit sed in quavis concessione semper authoritas persona ejus excepta censetur quis enim tam stolidus ut alii benefaciendo seipsum consumere velit cum etiam Principis sit ad offitium ejus proprie pertineat jus dicere Knichen d. superiorit territ cap. 1. num 518. Wurms evercit 3. num 15. Rosental d. feud cap. 5. conclus 13. Pruckman d. Regal cap. 1. num 17. Leipold d. Concurrent jurisdict quaest 1. i. e. It is not to be imagined that the Emperour should so empty his fountaines as to leave nothing in himselfe but it is to be conceived that in every concession his own person and authority is excepted for who is such a fool to consume himself by doing good to others it is also the essentiall property and office of a prince to doe justice The pretended House proceed And to speak properly only his high court of Parliament wherein he is absolutely supreme head and governour from which there is no appeale Reply They speak not more properly as they say but much more improperly then they did before it is the same authority that is in all his courts in his person too though not all the same authority for it is limited restrained in his courts by commission writ or law and according as as those limitations and restrictions are more or lesse so may courts be said to have a greater or lesse jurisdiction but not the King to be more or lesse supreme nor is their expression improper onely but also full of falshood and deceit for whereas they say there can be no appeale from the high court of Parliament they desire the people should so construe their words as to think the two Houses could jointly by reason of the Kings virtual presence take cognizance of a plea and give judgement upon it from which there could be no appeale which had they spoke out their falshood had been transparent for onely the Lords House is a court of judicature and from thence appeales may be made to the King who may and have reformed the undue proceedings of that Court Lambarts Archeion sol 133. for anno 18. Edward 1. Bogo de Clare being discharged of an accusation put against him in Parliament for some imperfections of form that were discovered in the complaint the King commanded him neverthelesse to appeare before himselfe ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus confilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to are-examination of the whole cause Neither is the former part of their words truer then the latter the Kings supreamacy they say to speak properly is onely in his high court of Parliament This in their sense is false the supreamacy of the King is no more in his high Court of Parliament by reason of his virtual presence or politique capacity then in his other Courts when he is personally there his supreamacy then together with his Person is in the Court not otherwise For I have shewed already in divers places that the rights of Soveraigntie are not onely individually inherent in his Person but so inseperably also annexed unto it that they can not be communicated to others by any grant or concession made by himself in private or by an act of Parliament I shall now adde Lib. 7. in Calvinet case that their conceit is called in Cooks reports a damnable and damned opinion and hath been at large confuted and condemned by all the judges as is there related it was first invented by the Spencers who to cover their treason said that homage and the oath of ligeance was more by reason of the Kings Crown that is by reason of his politique capacity then by reason of the Person of the King from which opinion they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King doe not demeane himself by reason his Leiges are bound by oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by suit of law that ought to be done per aspertee 3. That his Lieges are bound to govern in ayd of him all which were condemned by two parliaments one in the Reign of Edward the second called exilium Hugonâ—s le Spencer And the other anno 1. E. 3. cap. 1. And indeed their conceit is so irrationall that it might easily be prognosticated they would never make good Statsmen For when the King is not personally present in his Courts he can be there by reason of his politique capacity no other wayes but by virtuall emanation there can be in them no more authority then is delegated and committed to his judges now it is a common conception as evident as the first principles that a delegate power can not be supreme The exercise of supreme authority in some Commonwealths may but the power it selfe can not be delegated Kings may also abdicate and resigne up supreme authority but they can not delegate it In how generall tearmes soever say Civilians authority be granted by the Concessour to the concessary supreame authority can not be comprised under those termes Quocuuque modo Regalium concessio fiat nihilominus superius illud Majestaticum imperium ea largitione nunquam censeatur comprehensum sed potius major semper quam est concessa reservata retenta putetur potestas cap. Dudum ¶ Hoc igitur de praebend in 6. l. inquisitio Et ibi De c. de solut Periginus de jure sisci lib. 1. tit ult num 33. Kniken de jure territorii cap. 1. num 315. i. e. Which way soever Regalities are granted it may not be supposed that supreame authority is comprehended under such a grant but rather that a greater power then is granted is reserved to the Prince Object 2 Their second objection is If the Parliament may take an accompt what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour courts much more what is done by him without authority in any court Reply This if is well put in they say not
authority and power is originally in the people from whence he inferreth that they may translate as much and as little as they please to their governours and so limit their power in its being and essence But because they speak not de facto but de possibili and because I shall handle these things ex proposito in the third question I will referr them them to their due place Object touching mixture 1 I come now to the objections whereby they endevour to prove the English Monarchy to be a mixed Monarchy I conceive it saith the Treatiser a clear and undoubted truth that the authority of the land is of a compounded and mixed nature in the very root and constitution thereof and my judgement is established on these grounds First it is acknowledged to be a Monarchy mixed with Aristocracy in the House of Peers Answer to the 19. Propositions and Democracy in the House of Commons Now as before was made appear in the first part it is no mixture which is not in the root and supremacy of power For though it hath a subordination of inferiour officers and though the powers inferiur be seated in a mixed Subject yet that makes it not a mixed Government for it is compatible to the simplest in the world to have subordinate mixtures Reply His Majesty acknowledgeth Monarchy to be so mixed with Aristocracy and Democracy in the exercise of some part of his power that the conveniencies of all those forms of Government without the inconveniencies of any of them are obtained by such a mixture But he denyeth the mixture to be in the power it self for the convenience which he saith it hath from Monarchy is that it is Governed by one Head Where by one Head he meaneth not one by mixture but one single Person one pure and unmixed subject that hath all power and authority alone The Treatiser I conceive hath purposely omitted his words that his sense might not appear but I shall cite them in the next chapter and shew the true intention and meaning of them Now whereas his Majesty hath acknowledged a mixture to infer from thence that he granted the mixture to be in the power it self because the other kind is not a true but an improper kind of mixture is a strange and unusual way of argumentation If his Majesty was in an errour and apprehended that to be a true mixture which is not all that can be concluded thereupon is that he misunderstood the true nature of mixture not that he granted the mixture to be such as they contend for when it is evident that a man deny a thing in terminis there is neither candor nor ingenuity in those which will by consequences argue him to affirm it Some accuse the Romane Catholiques of Idolatry because they affirm such things as in their conceit seem by way of consequence to allow it but no man was ever so void of ingenuity as to dispute the question whether Idolatry be lawful and then cite them for Authors that maintain it to be lawful In like manner some accuse Calvine of Turcisme because he affirm such things as in their conceit seem by way of consequence to justifie the practise and religion of the Turks but no man was ever so unreasonable as to dispute the Question whether the Turkish religion be the true Religion and then cite him for an Author that maintained it to be true because it is evident that if those questions were propounded in terminis the Romane Catholicks would deny Idolatry to be lawful and Calvine if he were alive the Turkish religion to be the true religion what consequences soever other men draw from their words Yet the Treatiser dealeth in this manner with his Majesty for although it be evident that his Majesty denyed in terminis the mixture of the English Monarchy to be in the power it self yet he argues him by consequences to affirm it this to the Antecedent But secondly the consequent is also false the mistake is in himself not in his Majesty why is it no mixture which is not in the root and supremacy of power he answereth Though it hath a subordination of inferiour officers and though the powers inferiour be seated in a mixed subject yet that makes it not a mixed Government for it is compatible to the simplest in the world to have subordinate mixtures What if no government in the world be so perfectly simple as to exclude all subordinate mixtures it doth not follow from thence that a subordinate mixture is no mixture I shall also deny the very ground and foundation of his argument such subordinate mixtures as are in the English Monarchy are not compatible to the simplest government in the world for where the government is arbitrary and absolute both in respect of power and in respect also of the use and exercise of it supreme governours can put forth all the acts of power and jurisdiction alone they can make lawes raise taxes and exercise their whole power according to the full activity of it without the concurrence of the other estates and although they do often make use of their direction and assistance yet this mixture in the exercise of power proceeds not from the constitution of government but from their own voluntary election choosing this as the most conducible means to obtain the ends of government For although they may act according to the full activity of their power yet they cannot act in person at all times and in all places nor is one mans wisdome sufficient to meet with all the Events and accidents of government by reason whereof they are driven to seek a remedy against such inconveniencies as would arise frm these and the like causes and if when they find no better they substitute others and give them authority to act with them in the exercise of power this voluntary mixture cannot have such an effect as to denominate a government mixed because it depend upon the immediate will of the supreme governour who may act without them where and when he please and whether he acts with them or without them the frame of government is still the same for it is the constitution of a government that specificate it and causeth it to be denominated mixed or simple There is a great difference then between such subordinate mixtures and the subordinate dinate mixture that is in the English Monarchie those are mutable uncertain depending upon the will of the Supreme Governour this immutable certain depending upon the constitution of the Government for whether it was effected by originall contract with the people at the first foundation of the Monarchy or whether it was established afterward by the voluntary grant and concession of some of our Kings or whether it was introduced by custome the Government is now so constituted that the King can not make lawes raise subsidies or exercise some other acts of his power without the assent of the two other estates So that the very
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
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
dignities gifts offices fees or annuities are bound to assist the King in his wars against all rebellions insurrections and powers raised against him And by the Parliament holden the fourth and fifth years of Queen Mary an Act was made wherein it was acknowledged that the Queen and her progenitors had power and authority to oppoint commissioners to muster and array the people and subjects and to levy such a number as they should think fit to serve them in their wars and a remedy provided against the abuses that had formerly been committed by divers who absented themselves from such musters and brought not their best furniture and array with them Coke lib. 7.7 B. I will omit the statutes made in the 11. H. 7. cap. 1. and the 2. E. 6. cap. 2. by which it appeareth that the subjects of England are bound to go with the King in his wars as well within the Realm as without I will also omit the act not printed made in the fifth year of Henry the fourth concerning the commission of array as also divers other acts and statutes made to that effect and purpose because so much hath been said about that subject already by his Majesty in his answer to the declaration of both houses of Parliament concerning the commission of array Secondly the legislative power is another right of soveraignty whereby Kings and supreme Magistrates are enabled by just and necessary laws to provide for the peace and safety of their people and this is wholely and entirely in the King although he be limited in the exercise of his power so as he can not make laws without the assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament And this is that whith the pretended house have stood so much upon because the Kings of England desiring to rule their people by lenity have out of princely clemency condiscended so far as not to impose upon them which they anciently did as I shall shew hereafter any new law or alter and repeal the old without their own consent they from the premises would make the people believe that their authority is equal to the Kings and that themselves as their deputies are coordinate with him and not content with the share which they unjustly challenged at first they afterwards layd claime to all wholely excluding the King and denying him his negative voyce usurping and taking upon themselves the whole power of making laws whereas they have no other interest or authority but what they derive from him the Statutes declare this in expresse tearms 5. R. 2. cap. 2. for their ordinary style is The King doth will and command and it is assented in the Parliament by the Prelates 7. H. 4. cap. 15. Lords and Commons Our Soveraign Lord the King by the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament hath ordained And that the meaning and true intention of these expressions is such as I have said 22. E. 3. will appear by the resolution of the Judges of which I shall speak hereafter Now that the King hath a negative voyce in making laws and that nothing can or ought to be esteemed an Act of Parliament without him is evident by divers Statutes In the first year of King James a Statute was made wherein the two Houses petitioning the King that the recognition of their duty and obedience as also of his Majesties right unto the Crown of England might be published in High Court of Parliament to remain as a memorial to all posterity conclude after this manner which if your Majesty shall be pleased as an argument of your gracious acceptation to adorn with your Majesties Royal assent without which it can neither be compleat and perfect nor remain to all posterity according to our humble desire as a memorial of your Princely and tender affection towards us we shall add this also to the rest of your Majesties unspeakable and inestimable benefits But in the fifteenth year of Edward the third a Statute was made on purpose to make voyd an Act whereunto the King had promised to set his Seal and seemed to assent which by some for that reason was esteemed a Statute because he had not actually assented and set to his seal Edward by the grace of God c. to the Sheriff of Lincoln greeting whereas at our Parliament summoned at Westminster in the 15. of Easter last past certain Articles expresly contrary to the lawes and customes of our Realm of England and to our Prerogatives and rights Royal were pretended to be granted by us by the manner of a Statute we considering how that by the bond of our Oath we be tyed to the observance and defence of such laws customes rights and prerogatives and providently willing to revoke such things to their own state which be so improvidently done upon conference and treatise thereupon had with the Earls Barons and other wise men of our said Realm and because we never consented to the making of the Statute but as then it behoved us we dissimuled in the premisses by protestations of revocation of the said statute if indeed it should proceed to eschew the dangers which by the denying of the same we feared to come forasmuch as the said Parliament otherwise had been without dispatching any thing in discord dissolved and so our earnest business had likely been ruinated which God prohibite and the said pretensed statute we promised then to be sealed It seemed to the said Earls Barons and other wise men that sithence the statute did not of our free will proceed the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a statute and therefore by their counsell and assent we have decreed the said statute to be void and the same in as much as it proceeded of deed we have agreed to be adnulled willing nevertheless that the articles conteined in the said pretensed statute which by other of our statutes or of our progenitors Kings of England have been approved shall according to the form of the said statute in every point as convenient is be observed and the same we do onely to the conservation and reintegration of the rights of our crown as we be bound and not that we should in any wise grieve or oppress our subjects whom we desire to rule by lenity and gentleness And therefore we do command thee that all these things thou cause to be openly proclaimed in such places within thy Bailiwick where thou shalt see expedient witness my self at Westminster the first day of October the fifteenth year of our reign Thirdly allegiance or ligeance is another right of soveraignty due onely to Supreme Rulers and Governours A coordinate Magistrate who hath but a parcel and share of authority can not alone challenge all obedience from the people for all that are coordinate and have their shares in the rights of Soveraignty joyntly taken together make up one supreme head to whom only allegiance
or ligeance is due Now that allegiance or ligiance is due to the King and onely to the King will appear by several Acts of Parliament In the first year of King James the Lords and Commons declared that both the ancient and famous Realms of England and Scotland were united in allegiance and loyal subjection in his royal person 1. Jac. cap. 2. to his Majesty and his posterity for ever In 34. H. 8. cap. 1. and 35. H. 8. cap. 3. c. the King is called the liege Lord of his subjects and in the Acts of Parliament of 13. R. 2. cap. 5. 11. R. 2. cap. 1. 14. H. 8. cap. 2 c. subjects are called the Kings liege people By other Acts of Parliament divers oaths have been framed and given to the people the contents and effects whereof were that they should bear all faith and allegiance to the King and his heirs In the six and twenty year of Henry the eighth an oath was taken by all the Kings subjects for the surety of the succession of the crown of England 26. H. 8. cap. 2. the oath was this Ye shall swear to bear faith truth and obedience all onely to the Kings Majesty and to the heirs of his body of his most dear and intirely beloved lawful wife Queen Anne begotten and to be begotten and further to the heirs of our said Soveraign Lord according to the limitation in the statute made for surety of his succession in the crown of this Realm mentioned and conteined and not to any other within this Realm nor forrain authority or Potentate and in case any oath be made or hath been made by you to any person or persons that then ye repute the same as vain and adnihilate and that to your cunning wit and utmost of your power without guile fraude or other undue mean ye shall observe keep maintain and defend the said act of succession and all the whole effects and contents thereof and all other acts and statutes made in confirmation or for execution of the same or for any thing therein conteined And this ye shall do against all manner of persons of what estate dignity degree or condition soever they be And in no wise do or attempt nor to your power suffer to be done or attempted directly or indirectly any thing or things privately or apertly to the let hinderance damage or derogation thereof or of any part of the same by any manner of means or of any manner of pretence so help you God and all Saints and the holy Evangelists There are two things observable in this oath first that they swear inclnsivè to bear all faith truth and obedience to the Kings Majesty and his heirs and onely to them Secondly that they swear exclusivè to bear faith truth and obedience to no other either within the realm or without not to other persons nor to other authority by both which clauses of the oath it appears that the King 28. H. 8. cap. 7. and none but the King can challenge faith and allegiance from the people Afterwards in the eight and twenty year of King Henry the eighth the like oath was injoyned to be taken by all his subjects touching his succession by Queen Jane for the former Act touching his succession by Queen Anne was repealed but the oath injoyned was otherwise the same And in the five and thirty year of his reign an other oath was framed wherein besides the contents of the former touching allegiance due to the King and his heirs some other additions were inserted touching his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes because the former oaths were not thought full enough to that effect and purpose And these oaths were extraordinary and imposed by special appointment l. 35. But besides these there is another ordinary oath of Allegiance which was first instituted by King Arthur l. 59. and is mentioned amongst the laws of King Edward and confirmed by the laws of William the Conquerour this oath cominueth still in force and should by the law be given in every Leer The order and form of it appeareth in Britton who wrote in the reign of Edward the first and compiled a book of the Statutes and lawes which were then in use the effect of it is this Coke lib. 7. in Calvins case You shall swear that that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our soveraign Lord the King and his heirs and truth and faith shall bear of life and member and terrene honour and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or damage intended unto him that you shall not defend so help you almighty God By this it is clear enough that allegiance is due to the King the pretended house on the other side is so far from having authority to exact allegiance from the people that they were all bound themselves by law to take the oath of Allegiance before they were admitted to sit in the house and having every one taken the said oath how they should be absolved none but themselves can understand whose common practice hath been to play with oaths as children play with toyes and trifles seeming rather to make them their pastime then to esteem them religious acts or sacred obligations Fourthly to pardon the transgression of the laws to remit treason murder felony man-slaughter to appoint subordinate Judges to make leagues with forraign Princes and States all these are rights of soveraignty and all these are declared and determined by the Statutes of the land to belong to the Kings Majesty First the power of pardoning the transgressions of the law and of remitting treason murder felony manslaughter and such like offences is declared and determined to be in the Kings Majesty by a Statute made in the twenty seventh year of Henry the eighth 27. H. 8. c. 24. Where divers of the most ancient prerogatives and authorities of Justice appertaining to the imperial crown of this realm have been severed and taken from the same by sundry gifts of the Kings most noble progenitors Kings of this realm to the great diminution and detriment of the Royal estate of the same and to the hinderance and great delay of justice for reformation whereof be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that no person or persons of what estate or degree soever they be of from the first day of July which shall be in the year of our Lord God 1536. shall have any power or authority to pardon or remit any treasons murders manslaughters or felonies or any utlaries for any such offences aforesaid committed perpetrated done or divulged or hereafter be committed done or divulged by or against any person or persons in any part of this Realm Wales or the marches of the same but that the Kings highness his heirs and successors Kings of this Realm shall have the whole and sole power and authority thereof united and knit to the imperial crown of this realm as
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
Vicecomites alios Ballivos Ministros suos quibus referantur tam quaestiones super dubiis quam querimoniae super injuriis i. e. And if our Lord the King be not sufficient to determine all controversies himself he ought to select wise men fearing God and hating coveteousness and out of them constitute Justices Sheriffs Bailies and other officers to whom controversies and complaints may be referred The practice of the law hath alwayes been the same since Bracton's time and all Judges and chief officers appointed by writ patent or commission from the King Hence it is that all patents and commission of Judges and other such officers are determined by the common law at the Kings death Coke tit discontinue de proces c. part 7.30 Al common ley per demise le Roy le plea fuit discontinue le proces que fuit agard nient returne devant le mort le Roy fuit perde Car per le breve del predecessor rien poit estre execute in le temps del novel Roy si non que il soit in especial cases car le mort le Roy non solement les justices de lū Bank de laūt Barons del exchequer mes les viconts auxi eschetors touts commissions de Oyer Terminer Goale delivery justices de peace sont determine per le mort le predecessor qui eux fist i. e. By the Common law all pleas were discontinued by the death of the King and process awarded and not returned before his death was lost for by the writ of the predecessour nothing can be executed in the time of the new King except it be in some special causes for by the death of the King not onely the justices of both the benches and the Barons of the exchequer but Sheriffs also and Escheatours and all commissions of Oyer and Terminer Goal delivery and Justices of peace are determined by the death of the predecessor that made them Fifthly the power of making leagues and contracting alliance as also of making war with foraign States is in the King alone Coke lib. 7.25 Leagues between our Soveraign and others are the means to make aliens friends foedera percutere to make leagues onely and wholly pertaineth to the King wars do make aliens enemies and bellum indicere belongeth onely and wholly to the King and not to the subject as appearath in 19. E. 4. fol. 6.6 It hath been resolved by the Judges 19. E. 4.46.22 E. 4. Fitz. jurisdiction last placite Judge Jenkins fol. 17. that if all the people of England collectively taken should break the league made with a forraign Prince without the Kings consent the league holds and is not broken There are yet other rights of Majesty as the power of Coynage the power of granting letters patents of Denization the power of dispensing with such laws as are dispensable and the power of pardoning the transgression of them with divers others all which belong to the King by the Common law but because they are not called in question I will pass them over CHAP. VI. The Kings Supremacy both in general and particular shewed by reasons depending upon the laws and customes of the Land ALthough I esteem positive Laws and customes more demonstrative then deductions and inferences yet these have also their weight and importance I will therefore in the last place add such reasons as shall sufficiently confirm the Kings Supremacy although the laws had positively declared or the Judges resolved nothing concerning it First that power which is so under controul that it can be annihilated at the will of another must needs be inferiour to that power which doth so overrule and master it Now such is the condition of Parliaments that the King by law can annihilate them at his pleasure for they depend upon him quoad existentiam for their existence and continuance If it should be granted that Parliaments are in actu signato by original constitution yet the precise time of their existence and continuance hath alwayes been at the Kings appointment it being in his power to call them and dissolve them when he please so that they must needs be subordinate to him and depend upon him for their operation when they depend upon him for their existence Answer To this the reverent Divines answer for the convention of Parliaments the State hath authority in some eases to meet together in Parliament without a legal warrant from the King as if the King be a prisoner in the enemies hands or distracted and have done it de facto in the infancy and minority of some Kings and for the dissolution of Parliaments they say that they have heard wise men affirm that by law a Parliament can not be dissolved whilst there are any petitions of grievances or such matters of importance depending and unfinished Reply What needed the reverent Divines to have cited these wise men Could they not as easily have said themselves that Parliaments could not be dissolved by the Kings command as they said they might be called without it Perhaps they thought that such notorious falsities would never pass currently amongst the people if they were not confirmed by the authority of wise men as well as by their owne yet I beleeve the wise men they speak of were not so wise as Thales Milesius but whatsoever they were their magisteriall dictates must not passe for law for both that which these wise men affirm and that which they affirm themselves is manifestly opposit to law and truth There was never yet since the first foundation of the Monarchie a Parliament called without a legall warrant from the King nor can a Parliament be called without it for the cases put by them are altogether impertinent and can not be supposed the King according to his politique capacity can not be a prisoner or an infant or distracted but in case his condition be such as make him uncapable to guide and manage his charge in person as in case of infancy or distraction the law hath made sufficient provision who shall exercise the regall power in such occurrencies if he be prisoner in the enemies hands he may substitute others or if he be so closely kept as that can not be permitted in such events also the law is not deficient but in all these cases nothing can be acted by authority inherent in the people but by the Kings authority which can never be in prison nor is it subject to infancy or distraction and Parliaments called at such time by those that have authority by law to exercise the Royall power are called by a legall warrant from the King and without such a legall warrant they never were nor can be called It there have been any generall Conventions without it as the reverent Divines who should have done well to have quoted their authors and their words assure us their acts were never esteemed lawes nor such Conventions Parliaments And that the King
they are to be condemned for such and to forfeit their estates Coke in Nevils case lib. 7. fol. 34. Ceux que sont countees ount office de graund trust confidence sont create pur 2. purposes 1. ad consulendum regi tempore pacis 2. ad defendendum regem patriam tempore belli Et pur c. antiquitie ad done eux 2. ensignes a resembler ceux deux duties car primeremt lour teste est adorn ove un capoe de honor coronet lour corps ove unrobe in resemblance de counsel secundmt ilz sout succinct ove un espee in resemblans q. ilz serr Foiall loyal a defender lour Prince pays Donques quant tiel person encout le dutie fine de son dignitie prist non solemt counsel mes armes auxi eneout le Roy a luy de destroyer et de c. est attaint per due course del ley per ceo il ad forfeit son dignitie per un condition tacite annexe al estate de dignitie i. e. They which are Earles have an office of great trust and confidence and are created for two purposes first to counsell the King in time of peace secondly to defend the King and their Country in time of war and for this cause Antiquity hath given them two ensignes to represent these two duties for first their head is adorned with a cap of honour and a coronet and their body with a robe in resemblance of counsell secondly they are girt with a sword in resemblance that they shall be faithfull and loyal to defend their prince and countrey when such a person then against his outy and end of his dignitie take not onely counsell but armes against the King to destroy him and be attainted thereof by due course of law He hath thereby forfeited his dignitie by a tacite condition annexed unto it Fourthly the Parliament is one of the Kings courts as is apparent both by our Statutes and law books 1. Iac. cap 1. Bracton lib. 2. cap. 16. Fieta lib 2. cap. 2. the two Houses therefore must derive all their authority from him for the King is a full sea of anthority from whom all power and jurisdiction by commissions writs letters pattents c. as through so many channells run into all his courts if the two houses have authority radically in themselves by fundamentall constitution or if they derive their authority from any other then the King the court is none of his Answer The Treatiser having made divers suppositions which he telleth the Reader are the lawes of the land or to use his own words the modell and platform of the English Monarchy out of the said suppositions frameth this answer It is his Parliament because an assembly of his subjects convocated by his writ to be his counsell to assist him in making lawes for him to govern by yet not his as his other courts are altogether deriving their whole authority from the fulnesse which is in him Reply Whereas he calls the Parliament an assembly of his subjects whereas he faith they make lawes for him to govern by and that there is a fulnesse of power in him he doth but complement with his Majesty his suppositions and principles agrees not with such expressions for if the two Houses derive not their authority from his Majesty but have it radically in themselves how is there a fulnesse of power in him if the jura Majestatis be divided amongst them he hath not a fulnesse but his share onely of power or how do they assist him to make lawes to govern by they assist not him alone but all the three estates are mutually assistant to one another in making lawes to govern jointly where their joint concurrence is necessary or to govern in their severall charges where they may act severally Or lastly how can they be called his subjects subjection is due to the three estates acting together or to either of them in their severall places and jurisdictions as well as to him for it is due to him in the administration of that power which belong to him alone so is it likewise to them by his principles in things within the verge and composse of their authority And yet all that he saith if it were consistent with reason is not sufficient to make the Parliament his Majesties court except it deriveth all authority and jurisdiction from him it is not enough that they are an assembly of his subjects for in divers forrain Nations Ecclesiastical persons are subjects to the princes they live under yet Ecclesiastical courts belong not to those Princes but to the Sea of Rome nor is it enough which he addeth that they are summoned by his writ for the Judges of divers courts but chiefly of courts Christian have sent out citations and summons in their own name as the King doth by writ and yet they are not the proprietaries of those courts nor yet is it sufficient that they are his Councell for his Counsellours make it not his Court but his Authority It is authority that constitutes a court and inables it to proceed judicially he which ownes that is owner and Master of the Court. Fiftly Parliaments as they are now established consisting of three estates the King the Lords and the Commons are but of late existence and therefore such a composition and mixture of the said estates as is pretended can not be by originall constitution It is granted that Parliaments otherwise are of a long continuance and may plead the prescription of many hundred years for although the word Parliament hath been introduced as is probable since the Norman conquest yet a convention of that nature was in use in the time of the Saxon Kings who did seldom make lawes without the counsell and assent of their wise men and this assembly was called in the Saxon language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Councell and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Synode It is granted also that the Commons were sometimes called to such consultations but that was a thing not necessary or frequent but rare aibitrary and contingent There were no certaine persons designed by law whose concurrence was required to constitute a Parliament but the King used the advice of those onely which he pleased to call unto himself which were alwayes such as he thought most able to counsell and direct him in the matters that were to be consulted of and whose assent was likely to adde most credit and estimation to the lawes that were to be divulged Sometimes he made lawes without the assent of others for offa King of the Mercians In vita Offae 2. as Matthew Paris relateth being at Rome ordained that every Houshoulder in all his dominions which were three and twenty Provinces or Shires that had above thirty penny-worth of goods in the field should every year pay a Penny to the maintenance of the English School that then florished at Rome which in those times was a great taxation His igitur auditis
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
instances to which I could yet add more if I thought it needful But it would be superfluous to illustrate and interpret this place by other when the words considered by themselves imply no more for he maketh no distinction of Superiority but calleth God and the Law and the Earls and Barons in his court superiour to the King after the same manner Now it is evident that God in this place is said to be superiour to him in respect of the directive power his Law hath over him for although God hath de jure a coercive power and jurisdiction over Kings and shall de facto after their death dispose of them as their Judge and in this life also doth often restrain them by his secret judgements yet Bracton speaketh not in this place as will appear immediately when the whole and intire period shall be cited of either of those kinds of jurisdiction but of giving present and open judgement upon the Kings fact and upon his charter which is a jurisdiction that he exerciseth not but giveth his Law only for direction by which all Princes ought to be regulated both in granting their charters and in the whole administration of their power It is also clear that the Laws of the Land are said to be superiour to him in respect of the directive power of them having otherwise no force or influence upon him Bracton therefore meaneth that the Earls and Barons in his Court are superiour to him in the same respect and not in respect of any jurisdiction they ought to exercise over him But if we look upon the coherence of these words and their dependence upon the precedent and subsequent matter Bracton's intention will more fully and easily be discerned I will therefore set down as much as is necessary to the present purpose and explain every clause of it and shew the relation and connexion one thing hath with another and let the Reader judge whether this testimony of Bracton doth not strengthen the Kings cause and might not rather be alledged for him then against him Nec factum Regis nec chartam potest quis judicare ita quod factum Domini Regis irritetur Sed dicere poterit quis quod Rex Justitiam fecerit bene si hoc eadem ratione quod male ita imponere ei quod injuriam emendet ne incidat Rex justiciari in judicium viventis Dei propter injuriam Rex autem habet superiorem Deum Item legem per quam factus est Rex item curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones quia Comites dicuntur quasi socii Regis qui habet socium habet Magistrum ideo si Rex fuerit sine frano i. e. sine lege debent ei fraenum ponere That is No man may judge of the Kings fact or his charter so as to make void the fact of our Lord the King But some may say the King hath done justice and well and if so by the same reason that he hath done ill and impose upon him to amend the injury lest he and his justices fall into the judgement of the living God for the injury But the King hath God his superiour and the Law by which he is made King and his Court namely his Earls and Barons for they are called Comites as being Companions to the King and he that hath a Companion hath a Master and therefore if the King be without a bridle that is without Law they ought to put a bridle upon him If this passage be well considered it will be clear that Bracton in the words alleadged calleth not the Earls and Barons superiour to the King in a civill and legall but in a moral regard alone First he saith No man may judge of the Kings fact or his charter so as to make void the fact of our Lord the King How can the words alledged agree with this if their exposition be admitted How can the Earls and Barons in his Court be superiour to the King in respect of a coercive power or civil Jurisdiction when they cannot judge his charter or his fact No man can have a coercive power or civil jurisdiction over another but he hath authority to judge him according to Law and to force the execution of his Sentence Secondly he saith But some may say the King hath done Justice and well and if so by the same reason that he hath done ill and impose upon him to amend the injury lest he and his Justices fall into the hands of the living God for the injury But the King hath God his superiour and the Law by which he is made King and his Court namely his Earls and Barons Having declared what power the Earls and Barons have not over the King here he declareth what power they have In case justice be not duly administred there are some he saith which may advertise him of it and impose upon him to reform what is amisse and those he declares to be the Earls and Barons in his Court who as well as God and the Laws of the Realm are superiour to him that is are superiour to him in the same manner namely by a directive power For he saith not that they should by constraint but by admonition impose upon him to amend the injury using this reason lest He and his Justices fall into the hands of the living God according to that which he saith in the place before quoted Cap. 4. p. 37. Satis sufficit ei pro poena quod Dominum expectet ultorem Thirdly he saith For they are called Comites as being Companions of the King and he that hath a Companion hath a Master Here he giveth a reason why the Earls and Barons may be called his Superiours namely because they are his Companions and he that hath a Companion hath a Master This reason holds good if he indevoureth by it to prove them his Superiours in respect of a directive power and moral superiority but is ridiculous if he should indevour by it to prove them his Superiours in respect of a coercive power or civil jurisdiction for every one cannot be Superiour to his Companions in respect of jurisdiction and be a leige Lord or Legal Master over all the rest But every one may instruct Counsell and direct all his Companions and be a moral Master over them in that respect all Companions may be mutually one anothers Masters Fourthly he saith And therefore if the King be without a bridle that is without Law they ought to put a bridle upon him This inference which he maketh out of the former words doth also confirm that Bracton calleth them not his Superiours in respect of a coercive power or civil jurisdiction for because they are his Companions and so in a moral regard his Masters they ought therefore he saith if he be without a bridle to put a bridle of the Law upon him This bridle then must be a bridle of Law and not a bridle of their own
own confession In the first year of Queen Elizabeth another Act was made wherein she is declared supream head of the Realm in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal and an Oath injoyned to be taken by divers both Ecclesiastical and Lay persons wherein they were to acknowledge her supremacy and to promise faith and true Allegiance the Oath was this I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queens Highnesse is the only supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other her Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no forraign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all forrain jurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the Queens Highnesse her Heirs and lawful successors and to my power shall assist and defend all jnrisdictions priviledges preheminences and authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness her Heirs and Successors or united annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm so help me God and the Contents of this Book Answer 1 They answer first That this Statute was made to exclude a forraign power and therefore all that can be collected out of it is that the Queen was above all forraigners but not above the People and their Deputies in Parliament Reply It is no matter wherefore the Statute was made the Queen is there positively declared to be the only supreme Governour of the Realm the words of a Statute whatsoever the end was are alwayes supposed to be true and are pleadable in their usual and Gramatical sense to all purposes But was the Oath framed onely to exclude a forraign power are they sure of that When God shall make inquisition for blood and call the Reverend Divines the fuller Answerer the Treatiser and the rest of their Complices to account for all the murders oppressions and injustice whereof they have been the Authors and Abettors by stirring up the people to Rebellion and teaching them lies they will be found to have broken the oath of Allegiance now his Majesties rights have been invaded by the pretended Parliament as well as if they had been invaded by a forreigner For the Statute was made as well to declare who was the Supream Governour of the Realm as to declare who was not The Pope challenged no Superiority over the Queen in Temporal matters and yet in the Oath the Queen is acknowledged the supreme Governour of the Realm as well in Temporal as in Ecclesiastical causes This had been very superfluous if it had been composed and given only to exclude the Pope and was neither true nor a fit expression if the two Houses had been coordinate with her neither had they sufficiently excluded a forraign power by this Act which they say was the only end was aimed at for the Pope claimed supreme jurisdiction over all in Ecclesiastical causes as well over the two houses as over the Queen yet in this act provision is made for none but the Queen by the title of the Statute all ancient jurisdictions are restored to the Crown but there is no restantation of dignity or jurisdiction to the people or to their substitutes in Parliament Answer 2 Secondly they answer That the Queen is declared to be supreme in respect of particular persons but not in respect of the people collectively taken or their Substitutes in Parliament Reply The Queen is declared in the oath to be supreme Governour of the Realm and the Realm includes the People collectively taken Besides supremacy cannot admit of that distinction for they that have any above them or coordinate with them are not supreme although they be greater then any one in particular Answer 3 Thirdly they answer That the Queens supremacy was to be understood in curia non in camera in her Courts and not in her private capacity Reply The Queen by communicating her authority to her courts did not part with it her self Mr. Lambert in his Discourse upon the high Courts of Justice almost at the end of his Book speaks punctually to this exception Thus have I saith he run along our Courts of all kinds and have said as I was able severally of these lay and mixed Courts of record deriving them from the Crown their Original and drawing by one and one as it were so many roses from the garland of the Prince leaving nevertheless the garland it self un-despoiled of that her soveraign vertue in the administration of justice or as Bracton saith well Rex habet ordinariam jurisdictionem omnia jura in manu sua quae nec ita delegari possunt quin ordinaria remaneant cum ipsc Rege And therefore whatsoever power is by him committed over unto other men the same nevertheless remaineth still in himself in so much as he may take knowledge of all causes unless they be felony treason or such other wherein because he is a party he cannot personally sit in judgment but must perform it by his delegates The Kings authority then is as well in his person in regard of his private as in his Courts in regard of his politique capacity and according to the Acts of Soveraignty and Majesty onely in his person for a delegate power can not be Supreme not but that it is the same authority whereby he acts himself in person and his judges in his courts but because it is not all the same authority but restrained in his Judges by commission writ or law In the first year of Edward the sixt an Act was made wherein the King is acknowledged to be the Supreme head of the Church and Realm and that all power and authority was derived from him Whereas the Archbishops and Bishops and other Spiritual persons in this Realm do use to make and send out their summons 1 E. 6. cap. 2. citations and other processe in their own names in such form and manner as was used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome contrary to the form and order of the summons and process of the common law used in this Realm Seeing that all authority of jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supreme head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland and so justly acknowledged by the cleargy of the said Realms and that all courts Ecclesiastical within the said two Realms be kept by no other power or authority either forraine or within the Realm but by the authority of his most excellent Majesty Be it therefore further enacted c. Is it not evident from hence that the two houses of Parliament are subordinate to the King and that they have their power by derivation from him who is the fountain of all authority These