Aristocrasy and Democrasy That the Kings can do nothing without the States General which are the very same things with our Parliaments That the Judges are the Peoples Officers That the words so much abused Such is our Pleasure signify only This is the Decree of our Courts of Judicature That they have no Right to levy any Impositions without the Consent of the States and many other Articles of that Nature CHAP. XV. That the Royalty of England never had any other form than the rest of the Northern and Western States I Have insisted the longer to shew how the Royalty was limited in France because the most part of our Modern Writers seem to have had in their aims to reduce our Monarchy to the Form of that Kingdom as supposing that it would have been a most glorious and advantageous Thing for our late Kings to transform them into so many Lewis's XIV that is to say to change us into Slaves and our Princes into Tyrants I shall say nothing of the Royalty in Scotland nor of the Bounds have been always set it by the Fundamental Laws of the State. There has been lately so much writ concerning this Matter to justify the Proceedings of the Convention of that Kingdom that it would be of no use to repeat it here And for the same reason I shall excuse my self of the trouble of treating what concerns the Limitation of the Royalty in England so largely as the Subject seems to deserve however what I shall say will be sufficient to make it appear that Royalty has been always on the same foot in that Kingdom as it is still in the other Western Kingdoms If we consider the most remote times that History gives us any account of we shall find that the Saxons as to the Power of their Kings followed the Example of the Ancient Germans whose Authority if we may believe Caesar and Tacitus was altogether limited and restrain'd We find in the Mirror of Justices cap. 1 2. that the first Saxons created their Kings that they made them take an Oath and that they put them in mind that they were liable to be judged as well as their meanest Subjects After that the Right of Succession was received in England yet it never deprived the English People of the Right of choosing their Kings This is evident from the Form of the Coronation published by Hugh Menard at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory p. 278. which Form was as follows After they had made the King promise to preserve the Laws and the Rights of the Church we read these words Deinde alloquantur duo Episcopi populum in Ecclesia inquirentes eorum voluntatem si concordes fuerint agant gratias Deo Omnipotenti decantantes Te Deum laudamus Then let two Bishops speak to the People in the Church and demand their Will and Pleasure and in case they do agree let them give thanks to Almighty God singing We praise thee O Lord. And pag. 269 270 We pray thee most humbly to multiply the gifts of thy Blessings upon this thy Servant whom we chuse to be our King viz. of all Albion and of the Franks That the Kings of England are as well bound by their Oath as their Subjects appears by the confession of Henry III upon occasion of one of his Councellors of State pretending that he was not obliged to preserve the Liberties of the Nation as being extorted from him expressing himself in these terms recorded by Mat. Paris under the Year 1223. Omnes libertates illas juravimus omnes adstricti sumus ut quod juravimus observemus pag. 219. All these Liberties we have sworn to and we are all bound to observe and make good what we have sworn English Men were always so well perswaded of this Truth that in their deposing of Richard II they thought they had done enough to prove That the King had forsworn himself by the Oath he had taken having broken several of the Articles he had promised to his Subjects by Oath to observe as we may see in the Acts of his Deposal recorded in the Chronicle of Knighton James the First was convinced of this when he told the Parliament of 1609. the 21st of March That the King is bound by a double Oath tacitly as being King and so bound to protect his People and the Laws and expresly by his Coronation Oath so as every just King is bound to preserve that Paction made with his People by his Laws framing the Government thereunto and a King leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to govern by Law. For what concerns the Laws we find that the Kings alone had not the Authority of making them King Edwin published his Laws Habito cum Sapientibus Senioribus Consilio with Advice of the Wise Men and Elders Ina King of the West Saxons did the like The Laws of Alfrede were made after the same manner Ex consilio prudentissimorum atque iis omnibus placuit edici eorum omnium Observationes As for the Government of the State we find that the Parliaments met and that their Meetings were fix'd once a Year by Alfred which was renewed by Edward II by two Laws Moreover the King was obliged to assist at them in case he was not sick and nothing but his Sickness could dispense with his Attendance That English-men never believed that the King of England could violate the Laws and overturn the State at his Pleasure without making himself thereby liable to punishment clearly appears from the Laws of St. Edward and by the manner of holding Parliaments confirmed by William the Conqueror and printed by the care of Dom. Luc. D'achery in the 12 To me of his Spicilege Sure it is that we clearly find these three things 1st That by the Agreement and Consent of King John upon the Complaints made against him by the whole State there were chosen 25 Barons with Power to represent to the King his unjust Oppression of the Nation and to oblige him by force of Arms to redress them which he himself published by his Letters Patents in the Year 1215. which piece was published by Dom. Luc. D'achery in the old Norman Tongue Spicil Tom. XII p. 583 584 585. as it is to be read in Matthew Paris ad An. 1215. Secondly We find that the opinion of the English Nation of old was That they could not only resist their Prince which abused his Authority but wholly deprive him of it by driving him and his wicked Councellors out of the Kingdom as we see in Matth. Paris in the Year 1233 where he relates that Henry III having call'd a Parliament upon the Complaints that came in from all Parts against his Ministers and the Strangers whose Service he made use of in the management of the Affairs of the Kingdom the Members of the said Parliament perceiving that they could not with safety meet together refused to come up
Denunciantes Regi per nuncios solennes quatenus omni dilatione remota ejiceret by solemn Messengers requiring the King that without any delay he should turn out those Strangers 3ly They judged that if the Sword of St. Edward called Curtana signified that the King reserved to himself the Right of exercising Justice against Delinquents yet he was liable to the same Penalties with private Persons whenever he transgress'd the Laws of the State whereof he was the Keeper and Defender as the same Matth. Paris explains it in the Life of Henry III. much after the same manner as Aurelius Victor reports in the Life of Trajan That that Emperor understood the Ceremony of delivering the Sword to the Prefect of the Pretorium Surely if we consider our History we shall find 1. That the Kings alone never had the Power of making Laws 2. That they had no Power to lay Taxes on the People 3. That they had not always the Power of making Magistrates 4. That they had not the Right of waging War without the Advice of Parliament as is observed by Philip de Commines Lib. 4. cap. 1. 5. That as they were chosen by the People they had also Power to depose them Nennius the most ancient English Historian after Gildas tells us That Vortigerne was deposed by St. Germain and the Council of the Britains because he had married his own Daughter who placed his Son Vortimer upon the Throne Edward II. Richard II. 6. That the States have cut off the Succession may be seen by Henry VII Indeed we find that our Ancient Lawyers our Ministers of State and our Kings who of all Men ought well to understand the Form and Constitution of our Kingdom were so far from believing that the Royalty in England was an Absolute and Unlimited Government that they have expresly declared that it is a Government bounded by Fundamental and Essential Laws and composed of a mixture of Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy See how Bracton expresseth himself to this purpose Lib. 2. c. 16. Fleta l. 1. c. 17. In populo regendo Rex habet Superiores Legem per quam factus est Rex Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno id est sine Lege debent ei fraenum ponere In Ruling the People the King has above him the Law by which he is made King and his High Court viz. the Earls and Barons Earls are so called as being the King's Companions and he who has a Companion has a Master and therefore if the King be without Bridle that is without Law they must bridle him Chancellor Fortescue saith That the King cannot alter the Laws of his Kingdom for he governs his People not only by a Regal but a Political Power when it is said the Prince's Will has the Force of a Law this saith he is to be understood of a Regal or Absolute Power from which a political Power much differs for such can neither change the Law nor charge the People with new Impositions against their Wills. This is a thing so notorious that Philip de Commines has taken notice of it in his Memoires Lib. 4. cap. 1. and elsewhere as also Polydore lib. 11. Neither have those only who have expresly treated of the Government of England as Secretary Smith consider'd our Monarchy as a Government mix'd and bounded but Charles I himself spake of it in these terms There being three kinds of Government absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy and all having particular Conveniences and Inconveniences the experience and Wisdom of our Ancestors hath so moulded this out of a mixture of those as to give this Kingdom the Conveniences of all three without the Inconveniences of any one as long as the ballance hangs even between the three Estates and they run jointly in their proper Channels The ill of absolute Monarchy is Tyranny of Aristocracy Faction and Division of Democracy Tumults Violence and Licentiousness The Good of Monarchy is uniting a Nation under one Head the good of Aristocracy is the conjunction of Counsel in the ablest Persons for the Publick Good the good of Democracy is Liberty and the Courage and Industry which Liberty begets The Lords being trusted with Judicatory power are an Excellent Skreen and Bank between the Prince and the People by just Judgment to preserve the Law wherefore the Power of punishing is already in your hands according to Law. Let any one judg after all this whether our Ancestors ever entertain'd any of those pernicious Maxims maintain'd by some of our Modern Divines Maxims that have been the fruitful Mother of Tyrants viz. That Princes can dispose of the Goods Body and Lives of their Subjects at their pleasure That they are not subject to Laws or to give any Accompt That their Succession to the Throne is by Nature and Generation and not at all by the Authority or Approbation of the States That neither their Merits or Demerits can be brought into consideration to alter any thing about the Right of their Succession which is unalterable That without precipitating our selves into eternal Condemnation we may not oppose their Designs though directly and openly level'd at the Ruin of the State and the Change of Religion In a word that they may commit all manner of Injustice and Violence they please and that safely and securely because none but God alone can punish them CHAP. XVI An Answer to some Difficulties moved against this Truth AFter having set this Matter in so clear and evident a Light it is not without some Shame and Reluctancy that I make a stop to answer some insignificant Difficulties which those who defend the unlimited Power of the Kings of England oppose to the proofs I have alledged However such as they are I am willing to consider them that I may rid the Makers of them from the least pretext of continuing any longer in so gross and dangerous an Error They alledge in the first place the Title of Imperial given to the Crown of England which in their Judgments seems to equalize our Kings with the Roman Emperors and to attribute an absolute Empire or Dominion to them concerning which I have already shewed that tho this Title were well grounded yet the consequence they draw from thence would be null whether we consider the antient Roman Empire or whether we consider the Empire as it is now in Germany I add here for a further clearing of this Matter that the same thing happened to the Kings of the West with regard to the Emperor of the West as befell the other Kings who rose after the Destruction of the Roman Empire and to the Emperor of Germany with respect to the Emperors of the East The Emperors of the East as appears from the Embassy of Luitprand at Constantinople could not endure that other Princes should take upon them the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings or Emperors believing that the Name of Kings left them in some dependence upon the Empire of the East this obliged the Emperors of the West to take upon them the Title of Emperor to intimate their independency upon the Princes of the East Which Title the Emperors of the West having afterwards made use of as a pretence to raise themselves above the rest of the Princes of Europe the Western Kings did the same which the Emperors of the West had done before to assert their Independency For not only the Kings of England but some other Western Kings have taken upon them the Title of Emperors Alphonsus VI King of Spain took upon him this Title by a Concession from Pope Vrban II because he had suppressed the Mosorabick-Office Alphonsus VII and VIII assum'd the same Titles and Alphonsus VIII was Crowned in that quality by Raymond Arch-Bishop of Toledo in the Church of Lions with the consent of Pope Innocent II as is reported by Garibay lib. 8. hist cap. 4. We find that Peter de Clugny writes to this Alphonsus as Emperor of Spain Epist 8. And long time before these Princes it is certain that the Kings of the Goths since Richaredus had taken to themselves the Title of Flavians in imitation of the Roman Emperors as may be seen in the Councils of Toledo Yet Philip II having demanded this Title in 1564 of Pope Pius IV it was refused him The Kings of Lombardy had assum'd the Title of Flavians even since Autlaric according to the Account given us by Paul Diacon lib. 3. cap. 8 which they did to shew that they were Emperors in their own Lands and Territories and that they acknowledged no Soveraign or Superior And it seems that in Process of Time some Western Kings affected that Title for the same reason and were the rather perswaded so to do because some Canonists and Lawyers have impudently maintained That the Kings of Spain France and England were Subjects of the Emperors of the West Glossa in cap. Venerabil de Elect. in verbo transtulit in caput Venerabil qui filii sint legitimi Bartolus in caput hostes ff de captivis Alciat lib. 2 disjunct c. 22. Baldus in cap. 1 de Pace juramento fervando in usibus Feudorum Tho he contradict himself by asserting elsewhere That the King of France is not subject to the Emperor And thus much for the first Illusion some make use of to perswade us that the Kings of England possess the same Rights as the Emperors A second which seems to have some more Ground is this They say that as the Emperors that were after Vespasian had the Right to divide the Empire and to settle it by their Wills on their Heirs the Kings of England having done the like it appears thereby they were in Possession of the same Right the Emperors had to this purpose they alledge the last Will of William the Conqueror in favor of his Son William Rufus But nothing can be more vain than this Objection 1. We cannot deny but that the Election of Kings took Place during the Reign of the Saxons not that they did it with that Freeness as to prefer the Uncle before his Nephew that was under Age ' tho the Kings Son and the youngest Brother before the Eldest 2ly It is true that William the Conqueror did act in an extraordinary manner in disposing of his Kingdom in Favor of William Rufus in the same way as one disposeth of a Conquest and this in prejudice to Robert his Eldest Son as was also done by William Rufus But these two Princes dying without Heirs Henry who had Married the Daughter of King Alexander of Scotland who had the Rights of the Saxon Kings and who in Consideration of that Marriage renounced the Rights he might pretend to England as heir Presumptive of the Saxon Kings having obtain'd the Government by the Right of his Wife the Laws recovered their Strength and Things returned to their antient Channel as they were in the time of the Saxons So that it appears that it is Folly for any one to imagine that the Kings of England may alienate their Estates as a private Person can alienate his Inheritance This was evident in the case of King John who was opposed by the whole State for pretending to subject the Crown of England to Pope Innocent III. And indeed if we consider the Thing in it self and according to the unanimous Opinion of all Lawyers these last Wills can really be of no Force without the consent of the States to authorize them as we find that the same did intervene in both the fore-mentioned Cases The reason whereof is invincible forasmuch as all States do not consider their Kings as Proprietors of their Kingdoms but only as publick Ministers who are intrusted with a Jurisdiction and Administration for the Good of the publick And this is the Title by which even Conquerors themselves are at last obliged to hold their Authority They tell us in the 3d place that the Kings of England entitling themselves Kings by the Grace of God it appears that their Power being come from God cannot be limited by their Subjects over whom God has set them A wonderful way of arguing and never known till these our Times at least it is evident that he who has defended Nicholas de Lyra against Burgensis hath made a very different use of these words Dei Gratia by the Grace of God wherewith the Kings of the North prefac◠their Titles from what some now a days make of it For he maintains that it is the Character of a limited and temper'd Government see how he expresseth himself upon the 8. ch of the 1 Book of Kings Titulus Imperatoris modo regendi vitiato that is to say illimitato as he expresses himself before contradicit nam titulus ejus est N. Dei gratia Romanorum Rex semper Augustus hoc est Reipublicae non privatae accommodus Ita aliorum Regum Protestationes sunt sub Dei gratia quae vitiatum Principatum non admittit The very Title of the Emperor saith he is a Contradiction to an Arbitrary and Unlimited kind of Government for his Title is N. by the Grace of God King of the Romans always Augustus that is enlarger of the Empire which implies that his Government is accommodate to the Common good and not his Private Interest So likewise we find that the Protestations of other Kings are under Dei Gratia the Grace of God which doth not admit of Arbitrary Government There remain but two difficulties more the first is this Several Members of the Church of England having perswaded the People that a necessity was laid upon them to suffer all from the Hands of their Kings The Kings of England have accordingly usurped those Rights and were actually in possession of them when the same began to oppose themselves to King James this is that they call a right of Prescription They consider the
promulgamus ut si quis ex eis contra reverentiam legum superba dominatione fastu regio in flagitiis facinore sive cupiditate crudelissimam potestatem in populis exercuerit anathematis sententia à Christo domino condemnetur habeat a Deo separationem atque judicium propter quod praesumpserit prava agere in perniciem regnum ††deducere convertere De se Suintilane vero qui scelera propria metuens seipsum regno privavit potestatis fascibus exuit id cum gentis consultu decrevimus ut neque eundem vel uxorem ejus propter mala quae commiserunt neque filios eorum unitati nostrae unquam consociemus nec eos ad honores à quibus ob iniquitatem dejecti sunt aliquando ‖ ‖ provehamus promoveamus quique etiam sicut à fastigio regni habentur extranei ita à possessione rerum quas de miserorum sumptibus ††auxerant hauser ant maneant alieni praeter id quod pietate piissimi principis nostri fuerint consecuti Non aliter * * Geilanem Gelanem memorati ††Suintilanae Suintilani sanguine scelere fratrem qui neque in germanitatis * * fide foedere stabilis extitit nec fidem gloriosissimo nostro domino pollicito conservavit hunc igitur cum conjuge sua sicut ††antefactum est antefatos à societate gentis atque consortio nostro placuit separari nec in amissis facultatibus in quibus per iniquitatem creverant reduces fieri * * praeter in id praeter id quod consecuti fuerint pietate clementissimi principis nostri cujus gratia bonos donorum praemiis ditat malos à beneficentia sua ††congruè non separat non separat Gloria autem honor omnipotenti Deo nostro in cujus nomine congregati sumus Post haec salus pax diuturnitas piissimo amatori Christi domino Sisenando regi cujus devotio nos ad hoc decretum salutiferum convocavit Corroboret Christi gloria regnum illius * * gentesque gentisque Gothorum in fide Catholica annis meritis protegat illum usque ad ultimam senectutem summa Dei gratia post praesentis regni gloriam ad aeternum regnum transeat ††ut sine fine regnet qui * * in saeculo intra Saeculum feliciter imperat ipso praestante qui est Rex regum Dominus dominantium cum Patre Spiritu Sancto in Saecula Saeculorum Amen Definitis itaque iis quae superius comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissimo principe placuit deinde nulla re impediente à quolibet nostrum ea quae constituta sunt temerari sed cuncta salubri consilio ††conservari conservare quae quia profectibus Ecclesiae animae nostrae conveniunt etiam propriâ subscriptione ut permaneant roboramus * * subscripserunt omnes AN ADVERTISEMENT Concerning the ARTICLES OF MAGNA CHARTA of King JOHN As also concerning The MAGNA CHARTA now printed in this APPENDIX THESE Articles or Capitula were found in the Study of Bishop Warner late Bishop of Rochester They were communicated by a Gentleman of that Family to Mr. Geddis and by him to the present Bishop of Salisbury There can be no reasonable scruple raised against the Authentickness or Truth of the Writing For first 1. It is in a Hand very ancient They that are competent judges of such Antiquities say It well pretendeth to the Time of which it treateth 2. It hath yet appendant the Seal of King John without any suspicion of being lately affixed 3. In the famous Library of Sir John Cotton there are now to be seen many private Charters of King John which exactly agree with this both in respect of the Writing and also of the Seal 4. In the Books of the Archbishoprick of Canterbury amongst many things there entred of the time of King John these Articles are Recorded and were thence transcribed many Years before the Original of them came into the Hand of the Bishop of Salisbury 5. This Instrument is the same which Matth. Paris mentioneth Page 254. by the name of SCHEDVLA Archiepiscopus Schedulam illam c. The Arch-Bishop with others bringing that Schedule to the King recited before the King all the Capitula c. Which tho' the King then rejected yet shortly after upon better Advice He granted as may be gathered from the next Page of Matth. Paris These Arguments may satisfie those who since the late mentioning of these Articles in the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Salisbury have had the Civility to doubt of the Truth of the whole matter 1. As to the substance of these Articles It is to be observed that they contain some part of the Rights of the Barons due to them by the Unwritten or Common Law of the Land which Rights for more certainty were in several Reigns drawn into Writing And for more obligatoriness into Charters after the entrance of the Normans In the time of the Confessor they were contained in the Laws of that King. William the Conqueror confirmed to the old and new Barons of his Investiture according to Custom of England the Laws of the Confessor as appeareth by the Record in Ingulf and other Testimonies 2. These Articles or the Laws of the Confessor were recognized and by Oath re-confirm'd by William Rufus no doubt at His Coronation or not long after The old English Chronicle writeth thus William Rufus by his Letters Summon'd the Bishops Earls and Barons to St. Pauls and there he Sware and made to them Surety by Writing to sustain and maintain the Right 3. King Henry I. ratified these Rights In his Charter we find in general Lagam Edwardi Regis vobis reddo cum its emendationibus quibus Pater meus eam emendavit c. I restore to you the Law of King Edward as it was mended or enlarged by my Father with the Advice of his Barons 4. It is evident that King John to omit others both by His Coronation Oath and at other times confirmed these Articles or Explanations of the Old Law. Matth. Paris pag. 239. The King John strictly commanded that the Laws of His Grandfather King Henry should be observed by the whole Kingdom But what this Law of King Edward or Emendations contained the same Matth. Paris setteth down in short pag. 252. The Charter of King Henry the First contained certain Liberties and Laws of King Edward granted to the Church of England and the great Men as also some Liberties superadded by King Hen. I. And pag. 254. Capitula quoque legum libertatum c. The Heads or Articles of the Laws and Liberties which the Great Men desired to be confirmed are already entred partly above in the Charter
the same Limitations of the Regal Power in Denmark as Pontanus observes in his 8th Book and it was for endeavouring to break through these Bounds that Christiern the II. was deposed as may be seen in Petersen in Chron. Holsat Where he hath set down the Acts and Reasons of the State of Denmark about that Proceeding That the Power of the Kings of Hungary was a Power limited by the Fundamental Laws of the State is a Matter so notorious that Chalcondilas has made it his Observation in the second Book of his History where he compares the Royalty of Hungary in that respect to the Kingly Power in England And which may be farther made out by the Fundamental Laws of Hungary set down by Bonfinius Decad. 4. lib. 9. Where we also find the Oath taken by those Kings at their Coronation being the most expresly conditional that can be imagined Chalcondile saith the same Thing of the Kingdoms of Arragon and Navarre Lib. 5. where he observes that the Kings did not create the Magistrates that they could not make any Garrison without the Consent of the People and that they could not require any thing of them contrary to their Customs that is to say contrary to their Laws Accordingly we find that the Kings of Spain have no Power to lay any new Impositions upon their Subjects without their consent They are obliged to swear they will observe the Laws And in Arragon the People declare to the King at his Coronation that if they do not perform their Oath and Promise their Subjects are thereby set free from their Oath of Allegiance We find the same Thing in the History of the Kingdom of Portugal but especially in that part of it which gives an Account of the Reign of Alphonsus III. The Fundamental Laws of which Kingdom we find in the 17th Title of the Ordinances of Portugal Lib. 2. § 2 3. seq So true is it that all those Kingdoms never in the least supposed that their King had an Absolute Power over them And it is as certain that almost all those States have always maintained That the Power of their Soveraigns was so limited 1. That they could make no Laws without the States General of the Kingdom 2. That they could not levy any Mony on their Subjects without their Consents 3. That they could not break the Laws according to their Will and Pleasure 4. That in case of their violating the Fundamental Laws of the State they were liable to be deprived of a Power which they abused 5. That the States were free to chuse such a Form of Government and such a Person for to govern them as they thought most expedient for them This is that which I intend to prove more particularly by Examples taken from the Empire and the Kingdoms of Poland France Scotland and England to which I shall add some Remarks upon those Titles which deceive some who consider Things of this Nature with too little attention CHAP. XII That the Power of the Emperors of the West is a Limited Power THis is a Matter that may be easily gathered from these following Instances 1. Because Charles the Great who was the first that took upon him the Title of Roman Emperor reigned according to the Customs of the Princes of Germany of whose Opinion concerning an Absolute and Despotical Government Tacitus has given us some Account who represents them as having the greatest abhorrence for it 2. Because Lewis the Good did himself acknowledg that the Soveraign Power was shared between him and the chief Members of the Empire Capitular Lib. 2. Tit. 3. Sed quanquam summa hujus ministerii in nostra persona consistere videatur tamen Divinâ Authoritate humanâ ordinatione ita per partes divisum esse cognoscitur ut unusquisque vestrûm in suo loco ordine partem nostri Ministerii habere cognoscatur But though the whole of this Ministry seem to consist in our Person yet it is known to be so shared and divided as well by Divine Authority as Humane Ordination that every one of you in his respective Place and Order is known to partake of this Ministry Thus was he pleased to express himself in the Assembly of the States General whose Authority he owned to be as much of Divine Right as his own which made Charles du Moulin the most famous of all French Lawyers say Ergo solum Caput non omnia potest imo persona Principis non est Caput nisi Organicum sed verum Caput est Principatus ipse cum membris integrantibus eum Wherefore the Head alone cannot do all yea the Person of the Prince is only the Organical Head but the true Head is the Principality it self with its integral constituting Members Which are his express words in his Commentaries upon the Stile of Parliament dedicated to the first President of Paris and printed with Priviledg 3. Because though the Western Empire did seem to be so Hereditary that the Emperors had divided it amongst their Children yet in process of time it became Elective which began to take place in the Eleventh Century in the Person of Rudolphus 4. In that they always excluded Females from the Succession to the Empire though they had respect in their choice to the Imperial Blood. With respect to the Rights of Soveraignty we find that tho the Empire be a Monarchical Government yet we see it is mixed with Aristocracy for the Emperor cannot enjoy it but with the Consent of the States of the Empire without making himself liable to be contradicted and deposed also He has not the Right of making Laws without the Consent and Authority of the States of the Empire He has no right to declare War without the foregoing consent of the States He has no right of levying any Imposition on the States without the Consent of the Diets Whenever he begins to usurp the Rights that do not belong unto him and to infringe the Rules of Government he has sworn to observe the States have a Right to oppose his Enterprizes to repel Force with Force and finally to deprive him of the Empire in case he continue in the Design of changing the Form of Government For though there be no Laws which bound and regulate the Article of the Deposing of Emperors when they abuse their Power for the overturning of the State or for invading the Rights of the Princes of the Empire and Imperial Cities yet the Germans have always held and still do hold it for a certain Truth that it is a Right inherent in the Empire to deprive an Emperor of the Imperial Power and Dignity and to confer the same on another This is the common Opinion of the German Lawyers represented to us by Lampadius Arnizaeus Diderick Conringe and many others And indeed we may say that there is nothing more certain if we consider the Examples of Emperors that have been deposed since these 7 or 800 Years Examples that are neither rare