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
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
wings to be clipt before he made the said grant he caused all the Lawes and Customes that were in force in the time of King Edward to be written out and then after good deliberation finding nothing in them prejudicial to his Crown and Royal authority he ratified and confirmed them For whereas some of them say the Fundamental Lawes are not written that so they might cover their fraud and deceit who pretending fundamental Laws are able to alledge nothing out of them this is contrary to all the Histories and Records of those times which testifie that Willam the Conquerour commanded twelve of the wisest men to be chosen in every County who did upon oath declare all the Lawes and Customes which they knew not adding or omitting any thing Aldered Arch-bishop of York who had crowned him and Hugo Bishop of London as Chronicon Lichfieldense relateth writ them out with their own hands Yet he granted not these Lawes without some emendations Leges H. 1. c. 2. as appears by the Laws of Henry the first Lagam Regis EDWARD I vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus eam Pater meus emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum i. e. I restore unto you the Laws of King Edward with those emendations which my father by the advice of his Barons added unto them For although he let the old foundation stand yet he inlarged it and added divers new dignities and preheminencies to the Crown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 151. not wholely relinquishing the rights he had gained by conquest as some without ground or reason affirm but joyning the rights of law and conquest together And this was all done by consent and agreement of the people and confirmed by Act of Parliament Thirdly the two Houses of Parliament are but the Kings Counsell according to their usual style both in our Statutes and Law Books at first the Members of the Pretended Parliament gave themselves no other name and in propability would have been longer content with it upon condition his Majesty would have observed their counsells as Laws and have acknowledged himself bound to obey them for they were willing then he should have had the title of a King so themselves might have had all the power and authority belonging to the Crown But the truth is there is a great distance between Counsels and Commands Counsellours are but subordinate officers and may not impose their Counsells for Lawes upon those which they serve in that employment Answer 1 To this it is answered first That the two Houses are called the Counsel of the Realm as well as the Kings Counsell and are trusted by the People as well as by the King Reply Although in some respects they be trusted by the people yet as touching the office of Councellours they are trusted by the King and when they are called the Councel of the Realm it is all one as if they were called the Councel of the King for under divers phrases the same thing is signified it being an usual custome in law in expressions of this kind to take the Realm or kingdome for the King himself Coke lib. 7.12 And oftentimes in the reports of our Book cases and in acts of Parliament also the Crown or Kingdom is taken for the King himself as in FITZ NATVR BRE FOL 5. tenure IN CAPITE is a tenure of the Crown and is Signory in grosse that is of the person of the King and so is the 30. H. 8. Dyer fol. 44 45. a tenure in chief as of the Crown is meerly a tenure of the person of the King and therewith agreeth 28. H 8. tit tenure Br. 65. The Statute of the 4. Hen. 5. cap. ultimo gave Priors aliens which were conventual to the King and his heirs by which gift saith 34. H. 6.34 the same were annexed to the Crown And in the said Act of 25. E. 3. whereas it is said in the beginning within the ligeance of England it is twice afterward said in the ligeance of the King and yet all one ligeance due to the King So in the 42. E. 3. fol. 2. where it is first said the ligeance of England it is afterward in the same case called the ligeance of the King wherein though they used severall manner and phrases of speech yet they intended one and the same ligeance So in our usual Commission of Assize of Goale delivery of Oyer and Terminer of the Peace c. power is given to execute justice secundum legem consuetudinem regni nostri Angliae and yet Little lib. 2. in his Chapter of Villenage fol. 43. in disabling of a man that is attainted in a praemunire saith that the same is the Kings Law and so doth the Register in the writ of ad jura Regia style the same Answer 2 Secondly it is answered although the two Houses be the Kings Counsell yet they are not chosen by himself the Lords are consiliari nati born Counsellours and the Commons are consiliari dati Counsellours given him by Election of the people Reply Although the Lords be born Counsellours and the Commons chosen by the people yet they cannot sit in Counsell but at such times as the King is pleased to make use of them and when he is pleased to summon them and command them to sit the Lords cannot refuse to come or the people to send their Deputies nor doth it alter their condition whether they be born his Counsellours given him by the people or chosen by himself they which are born to places of dignity and jurisdiction or they which are chosen to them by the people cease not for all that to be subordinate to the King they are all his Subjects and Ministers and are so far from having authority to challenge obedience to their Counsels that if their Counsells be not such as they ought they are themselves obnoxious to a censure of Law A King is obliged in time of Parliament to follow the advice and direction of the two Houses and out of Parliament of his Privy Counsell when their advice and direction tendeth to the preservation of his person and of his Royal authority and to the preservation of his people and of their rights and priviledges not that Counsellours have authority over Kings but because the matter of their Counsels do morally oblige their consciences but if their advice and direction tend to the ruin of either he may and ought to recede from their Counsels and such a King is not a tyrant but such Counsellours traitors by the law This is mysteriously represented to the Lords when they are first preferred to that degree and dignity by the usuall solemnities then performed for if in stead of giving counsell for the King they give counsell against him they are not only by the Statutes of the Land declared to be traitors but if the Statutes were silent by a tacite condition of law annexed to their dignities and vayled under certain ceremonies used at their first creation
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
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
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
his own power best why hath he acted contrary to his Majesties Declarations why hath he against his conscience affirmed it to be lawful to take up arms against him he knows his Majesty was never of that opinion Now to his objections I say that the second and fifth proceed upon his own principles namely that the Monarchy of England is mixed in the power it self and that the Legislative power is not in the King alone but jointly in the three estates If these principles were true his objections were material but I have shewed the contrary and shall yet shew it further hereafter In his other three objections he doth not so much as touch the question propounded he layeth down this conclusion to be proved that the Kings Soveraignty is radically and fundamentally Limited and not only in the use and exercise of it but endevoureth to prove no more then that it is limited in general without specifying whether radically and in the essence and being of it or in the exercise only A Legal moderation and limitation of Royal power as far as I know is denyed by none although the Treatiser be pleased to lay a false imputation upon some Divines because they hold it not limited in the same manner which he hath represented it The Kings Soveraignty to be radically and fundamentally limited and not only in the use and exercise of it is in the sense by him explained to be so limited that his Majesty shall not only be restrained in the use and exercise of supreme power but shall also be stinted in his share of it and have no more then a single part two other parts of the said power belonging to the other estates Now that he may deceive the people he maketh a shew as if he had gained his purpose by proving the Kings power to be limited in general whereas he knoweth well enough that there is a great difference between being limited and being so limited by law The Kings power to be measured and limited by law includes no more then that his power is of such a size and bignesse as the law hath ordained if the law giveth him perfect absolute full and intire power and limits him only in the exercise of it this is a restraint and limitation according to law yet not in the essence and being of power And indeed this is the true and only limitation of Monarchy whereby the Monarchs power is limited ab externo by humane lawes and constitutions and not by the free and arbitrary resolutions of his own will and yet Monarchy preserved intire But when the rights of Soveraignty are divided and placed in several Estates which limit one another such a limitation is inconsistent with Monarchy But the Treatiser objecteth further a-against this answer that where the limitation of power is only in the exercise of it and not in the power it self all acts of Government are resolved at last into the arbitrary will of the Monarch for although he be limited in the exercise of power by Law or promise yet if he will contrary to Law and Promise sinfully put it forth his power is authoritative and may not be resisted this is the full scope and summe of that which he replyeth to Doctor Fern with no small ostentation A Legal restraint Pag. 11. saith he you seem to acknowledge but such an one as resolve into the aobitrary Will of the Monarch as I have made it appear in my former Treatise which you will never be able to wipe off by this or any other reply If this Reply were strictly examined it would appear far unworthy such boasts and brags as are brought to set it out but I shall only in brief shew the insufficiency of it and so let it passe First therefore I say that we do by this assertion no more resolve Monarchy then he resolves his mixed Common-wealth into an arbitrary Government For although in a mixed government every one of the estates hath but a limited share yet taken together they have perfect absolute full and intire power which if they will contrary to law or promise sinfully put forth it is as authoritative and unresistible as if it were in one man He will grant I suppose the power of government to be equal in all Common-wealths and that there can be no essential but only an accidental difference between them for all Common-wealths have a sufficiency of power to attain to all the ends of government and to make provision for all occurrencies which cannot be otherwise limited then in the exercise This he confesseth in another place for disputing about the limitation of power in the essence and being thereof and having made an objection against it in answering the objection he saith such a limitation cannot be where power is supreme but for limitation to a rule and defined way of working Pag. 23. I cannot see how it withstands the end of Government which is the same in other terms that he confutes in Doctor Fern and doth expresly conclude that the power of Government taken in sua latitudine can not be limited in the essence and being of it but in the use and exercise only for to be limited to a rule and defined way of working is to be limited in the exercise but not in the essence of power If then allacts of government are resolved into the arbitrary will of the governours where the limitation of power is only in the exercise of it doth he not himself resolve his mixed commonwealth into an arbitrary Government But secondly I say that to limit power in the exercise of it is so far from resolving all cases into the arbitrary will of the Governour that it is the only way and means to restrain arbitrarinesse the limitation of power in the essence and being of it alone is not sufficient to restrain it for when power is limited in its essence and being and terminated only within its own intrinsinque bounds such a limitation is opposed to an Infinite but not to an Arbitrary activity When the three Estates have all their limited shares yet they may all act arbitrarily according to the extent of that power which they have not only when they act jointly together but in the administration of their several charges if their power be not regulated by law in the exercise of it it is not the limitation of power therefore in the essence and being of it but in the exercise which denominates and constitutes a limited Government Power which is limited in the essence and being of it only although it cannot act arbitrarily in so great a latitude as when it is intire and absolute yet it may act arbitrarily within its own bounds if it be determined only by the will of him that acteth by it and not by a certain rule of law Besides the former objections the Treatiser in his reply to Doctor Fern hath added others which proceed upon one of their own principles namely that all
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
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
upon the Statute of Glocester made in the sixt year of Edward the first extant amongst the printed Statutes and following immediately after the said Statute in these words After by the King and his Justices certain expositions were made upon some of the articles above mentioned that is to wit to the first article for entries by disseisin damages shall run from the time of the Statute published In the same wise in writs of entre upon disseisin in all writs of Mortdauncester Cousenage Aiel or Befaiel of intrusion by one act by any manner of writ damages shall run after the writ purchased against them that held by Statute albeit their ancestors died seised thereof c. Here we see to whom the interpretation of the law belongeth the Judges by themselves have a power to interpret it judicialiter they could not otherwise proceed to judgement but being called by the King with him and under him they have a power to interpret it authoritative as hath been the practice and is the known law of the Land But for the two houses besides that they can do nothing joyntly together unless the King doth actually concurre with them their structure is such that they are altogether uncapable and unfit to interpret law For the power that interprets law must be always existent to act as new occasions shall arise which requires the exercise of that power which the two houses are not And yet were they alwayes existent both houses having a negative voyce upon any disagreement between them the interpretation of the law must be retarded and all controversies depending thereupon undecided and this disagreement might perhaps endure for ever and so a final determination in such suites would be impossible Now these are inconveniences which ought not to be admitted in any common-wealth for it derogates both from the honour and wisdome of a Nation to be so moulded and framed that justice cannot have a free passage in all contingencies I will yet adde for the further clearing of this point that not only the legislative power it self but the very exercise of the power also so far as it is essential to government is in the King alone for he can by edicts and proclamations provide for all necessary occasions and special emergencies not provided for by fixed and certain laws which is one of the most excellent and eminent acts of the legislative power and a sufficient remedy against all mischiefs in case the two houses should refuse to concur with him in those things which concern the benefit of the Kingdome He may also grant immunities liberties and priviledges to any colledge town city or incorporation and authorise the said communities to make such local Statutes as shall oblige every member thereof so far as they contradict not the general Statutes of the Land which are all acts of the legislative power that he can exercise without the concurrence of the two houses Now concerning the Kings negative voice 12. H. 7.10 4. H. 7.18 7. H. 14. Judge Jenkins fol. 18. it is the known law that the King hath a power of dissenting and that no act of Parliament can have any authority except either in person or under his seal he signifies his assent Thirdly allegeance or ligeancy is due to the King and none but the King by the Common law as Sir Edward Coke sheweth at large in Calvins case from the resolution of the Judges By that which hath been said appeareth saith he that this ligeance is due onely to the King so as therein the question is not now cui sed quomodo debetur It is true that the King hath two capacities in him one a natural body being discended of the blood Royal of the realm and this body is of the creation of almighty God and is subject to death infirmity and such like The other is a politick body or capacity so called because it is framed by the policy of man and in the 21. E. 4.39 B. is called a mystical body and in this capacity the King is esteemed to be immortal invisible not subject to death infirmity infancy nonage c. Vide Pl. Com. in le Case de Seigmor Barclay 238. Et in the case del duchie 213. vide 6. E. 3.291 26. ass pl. 54. Now seeing the King hath but one person and several capacities and one politick capacity for the realm of England and another for the realm of Scotland it is necessary to be considered to which capacity ligeance is due and it was resolved that it was due to the natural person of the King which is ever accompanied with the politick capacity and the politick capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity and is not due to the politick capacity onely that is to the crown or Kingdome distinct from his natural capacity In the same case a little after it followeth And where divers books and Acts of Parliament speak of the ligeance of England as the 31. E. 3. tit Cosinage 5.42 E. 3.2.13 E. 3. tit Bre. 677.25 E. 3. Statut. 2. De natisultra mare All these and divers other spenking briefly in a vulgar manner for loquendum ut vulgus and not pleading for sentiendum ut docti are to be understood of the ligeance due by the people to the King For no man will affirm that England it self taking it for the continent thereof doth owe any ligeance or faith or that any ligeance of faith should be due to it but it manifestly appeareth that the ligeance or faith of the subject is proprium quarto modo to the King omni soli semper Fourthly the power of making Judges and all such State officers as exercise any jurisdiction is in the King alone by the Common law and can not nor ought not to be separated from him for it is not reasonable that delegate Judges should be substituted by any but those whose delegates they are nor can a King execute justice according to his oath which next the Glory of God is the chief end of Government by a naked title onely His subjects may be vexed by the rapine and exactions of unjust Judges they may be wearied by delayes exhausted by insupportable fees opprest many several ways and the King in the mean time must stand still and look on if his hands be bound and he disabled from punishing their delinquencies deputing others into their places And therefore this power cannot be disunited from the crown but ought to be de jure as it hath alwayes been de facto a part of the Kings prerogative Bracton lib. 3. tit de actionibus cap. 10. Et si ipse Dominus Rex ad singulas causas terminandas non sufficiat ut levior sit illi labor in plures personas partito onere eligere debet de regno suo viros sapientes timentes Deum in quibus sit veritas eloquiorum qui ederunt avaritiam quae inducit cupiditatem ex illis constituere Justiciarios
reason although it be contrary to the Common received principles of other Authors who teach that such a transcendent interest or primity of share cannot make a Monarch For such a preheminence is in some persons in the most popular States as in the Dukedomes of Venice and Genna Besold Synops Polit doct lib. 1. cap. 6. num 4. where the Dukes have a transcendent interest and primity of share above the rest and are Rectores executores summique magistratus having the gubernative and executive power in their hands and excelling all other in dignity and authority Such preheminences therefore are reckoned amongst the Simulacra imperii Regii Clapmar Dearcan Rerump tit de simulacris Imperii cap. 3. Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchie fal 39. being but images and shadowes of Kingly government where full and intire power is wanting Again that he might illude the Laws wherein the King is declared to be Supreme he saith that a transcendent interest or utmost Chiefty is sufficient to make good that title yet he endevoureth not to confirm this by one instance although it be contrary to the received signification of the word when it hath reference to power and jurisdiction for in Law when a governour or Ruler is called Supreme the word Supreme is alwayes opposed to subordinate and not to lesse amongst Lawyers he shall often find power and jurisdiction divided into Supreme and subordinate but never into Supreme and lesse if that which is lesse be also Supreme and independent But yet if his new principles were granted to be true he cannot by such shifts in any plausible manner evade the Statutes wherein the King is declared to have intire whole and plenary power and to be so supreme that all authority is derived from him and wherein it is declared that all obedience is due to him and to him only Will a transcendent interest make good all this Is a Primity of Share intire whole and plenary power Can all authority be derived from him that hath but an utmost chiefly Is all obedience due to one of the Estates where the mixture is in the power it self and supreme authority radically in the other Surely if the other Estates have Power Allegiance and Obedience is due unto it they had as good challenge no power as challenge no obedience CHAP. IX Divers generall objections taken from the testimony of his Majesty Bracton and Fortescue together with the Precedents of Edward the Second and Richard the Second answered BEsides the former objections they urge the testimony of his Majesty of Bracton and Fortescue to which I answer in generall that the decision of this controversy depends upon Law and not upon the bare words and authority of any The words of Lawyers are to be regarded no further then they are approved by law for they are but men may be incited by passion or private interest to speak or write what they ought not I have therfore purposely my self omitted all proofs of that nature and although I could produce a catalogue of Lawyers longer then a Genealogie to confirm the Kings right yet I have cited none but such as prove what they say by the laws except only those that are cited by themselves which I had also omitted but that I desire to make it evident how far those Authors are from favouring their seditious opinions And if his Majesty out of a desire to avoyd the effusion of blood used such gracious expressions as were most likely to prevail with the people and consolidate their minds they ought not in equity to prejudice the rights of the Crown although he had abdicated therein some part of his authority and granted things destructive to his own prerogative I have given this generall answer not because his Majesty Bracton or Fortescue have affirmed any thing in favour of their right but to shew the insufficiency of this objection in case they had but the truth is they have notoriously perverted the meaning of his Majesty as also the meaning of Bracton and Fortescue And although I cannot imagine any man so senselesse as to believe his Majesty ever subscribed to their judgement or any that have perused the works of Bracton and Fortescue so voyd of understanding as to think they were ever abettors of such phantasies yet that they may not exclaime for want of an answer I will more particularly examine what they say Out of his Majesties answer to the nineteen propositions they alledge this passage There being three kinds of Government amongst men absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy and all these having their particular conveniences and inconveniences the experience and wisdome of your Ancestours hath so moulded this out of a mixture of these as to give to this Kingdome as far as humane prudence can provide the conveniences of all three without the inconvenienees of any one as long as the ballance hangs even between the three estates and they run joyntly on in their proper channell begetting verdure and fertility in the meddows on both sides and the overflowing of either on either side raise no deludge or inundation the ill of absolute Monarchy is Tyranny the ill of Aristocracy is faction and division the ills of Democracy are tumults violence and licenciousnesse The good of Monarchy is the uniting a nation under own head to resist invasion from abroad and insurrection at home The good of Aristocracy is the conjunction of Counsell in the ablest persons of a State for the publik benefit The good of Democracy is libertie and the courage and industry which libertie begets the Lords being trusted with a judicatory power are an excellent screen and bank between the prince and people by just judgements to preserve the law since therefore the power legally placed in both houses is more then sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of tyranny since to the power of punishing which is already in your hands according to law Thus far and in this manner his Majesty is cited by the fuller Answerer who that he might the better wrest his Majesties Speeches to his own purpose hath made many transitions from one place to another mutilating the sense and leaving out that which should have made his Majesties meaning apparent And from these words he maketh divers deductions his first deduction is that his Majesty granteth the Government of England to be mixed in the power it self 1. Deduction Answer to Doctor Fern. Pag. 1. this he inferreth because his Majesty acknowledgeth a mixture and it is no true mixture he saith which is not in the very supremacy of power it self Reply This is answered in the former chapter I shall here only desire the reader to take notice that his Majesties true and reall intention is such as I have there expounded for these words The good of Monarchy is the uniting a Nation under one Head are a perfect Comentarie upon the former and do clearly manifest that his Majesty asserted not the Head
Promitto The word Elegerit they say may and ought to be taken in the future tense and doth obleige the King to agree to all acts that shall be thought convenient by the Houses And to confirm this they alledge a Heraulds Book wherein they say the Oath is found so Englished They alledge also an ancient French Form wherein they say it is so taken The Form is this Sire grantes vous a tener garder les leis customes naturelles les quels la communaute de vostre Royaume aur ' eslue les defenderer efforceeer a l' honeur de Dieu a vostre poiare Resp je le grante promitte Reply In all the authentical Records of the Exchequer the word Elegerit is Englished in the Preterperfect tense and not in the future tense proposing no more unto the King but that he would uphold and maintain the Lawes and Customes only which are actually then in use when he taketh the said Oath not such as shall be offered him by the Houses The words in the oath taken by his Majesty following the usual presidents were these BISHOP Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Lawes and rightful Customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have and will you uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lyeth KING I grant and promise so to doe The ancient Oath which is upon record used in the time of Henry the eight in whose reign they say the Herauld whose Book they speak of lived was this That he shall keep and maintain the Liberties of the Holy Church Book of Oath Fol. 1. of old time granted by the righteous Kings of England and that he shall keep all the Lands honours and dignities righteous and free of the Crown of England in all manner holy without any manner of minishments and the rights of the Crown hurt decay or losse to his power shall call again into the ancient estate and that he shall keep the peace of the holy Church and of the Clergy and of the people with good accord and that he shall do in his judgement equity and right justice with discretion and mercy and that he shall grant to hold the Lawes and Customes of the Realm and to his power keep them and affirm them which the flock and people have chosen and the evil Laws and Customes wholly to put out and stedfast and stable peace to the people of his Realm keep and cause to be kept to his power As for the French Form I cannot but wonder they should alledge it for it doth manifestly contradict that which they say and indevour to prove by it word for word it is thus to be rendered in English Sir do you grant to hold and keep the rightful Laws and Customes which the Commonalty of your Reaelm shall have chosen and to defend them and give them force to your power Answ I grant and promise it Who is there that understands the French Tongue which sees not that these words aur ' eslue shall have chosen which are put in the future tense can have reference to no other Lawes and Customes but those only which the Commonalty shall have chosen when the King taketh the Oath for the Form should have run thus quels la Communaute de vostre Royaume eslirà that is which the Commonalty of your Realm shall choose if Laws which were afterwards to be made had been intended in the Oath But let it be granted that Elegerit ought to be taken is the future tense yet leges consuetudines cannot relate to the Laws which shall be presented to the King by the two Houses in Parliament for the word vulgus cannot be applyed to the Lords Yet let that also be given them the Oath binds him to protect and corroborate only just Lawes not all which they shall say are just for it is evident whether Elegerit be taken in the preter perfect tense or in the future tense that by justas leges consuetudines it is implied that he is not bound to protect and corroborate all Laws and Customes but only those which are just whereof he himself assisted by his Justices and Council at Law who ought to inform him were he wanteth information is to be the Judge To conclude let the word Elegerit and all the other words signifie what they please it is not much important to their cause for the said Latin Form was never used to be taken In the time of Henry the third the Kings Oath contained only these three things Bracton l. 3. Cap. 9. 1. Se esse praecepturum pro viribus opem impensurum ut Ecclesiae Dei omni populo Christiano vera pax omni suo tempore observetur 2. Ut rapacitates omnes iniquitates omnibus gradibus interdicat 3. Vt in omnibus judiciis aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam In later times the English Form above mentioned without any alteration importing their sense hath been used to be taken many ages together Now if they could shew which I believe they cannot that divers Kings have taken the Latin Form they speak of yet that is not sufficient to prove a Custome seeing the practise was formerly and is at the present otherwise Object 3 Thirdly some infer that the King hath not a power of dissenting from the usual answer which he giveth when he refuseth to passe a Bill Le Roy s'adviserâ wherein they say he doth not peremptorily deny his assent but only craveth time to deliberate upon it Reply To what purpose should he crave time to deliberate about that which cannot be avoided there is no consultation to be used de necessariis Yet he may answer otherwise if he please a Judge Jenkins Fol. 32. Roy ne veult or b Hollinsh vol. 1. Fol. 108. il ne plaist are usuall forms as well as that Object 4 Fourthly they alledge Presidents The Militia and the chief Officers of the Kingdome they say have been disposed of in Parliament Reply If I should give a particular Answer to all their Presidents I should weary the Reader with such impertinencies sometimes they alledge a seditious speech of some of the Members for an Act of Parliament sometimes they say such or such a thing was done by Act of Parliament and and cite an Authour in the margin whereas no such thing is to be found in the said Authour Sometimes they urge a President wherein the Houses denied to give the King such subsidies and assistance as he required to his wars because the said wars were undertaken without their assent and conclude from thence that the power of making war and treating with forain states belong to the two Houses when the reason of their deniall was the miscarriages of the war and the mis-imployment of former subsidies not that they challenged the power of making war or treating with forrain states to pertain unto them They thought it would have been more