next under God the Sovereignty over the Israelites p. 252. but he doth not allow it to Ioshua but will have it descend to Eleazar the High-Priest Aaron's son His Proof is God expresly saith concerning Ioshua He shall stand before Eleazar who shall ask Counsel for him before the Lord after the judgment of Urim is omitted by Mr. Hobs at his word they shall go out c. therefore the Supreme Power of making Peace and War was in the Priest Answ. The Work of the High-Priest was onely Ministerial not Magisterial he had no power to Command in War or to Judge in Peace onely when the Sovereign or Governour did go up to War he enquired of the Lord by the Ministry of the High Priest and as the Hebrews say the Enquirer with a soft voice as one that prayeth for himself asked and forthwith the Holy Ghost came upon the Priest and he beheld the Brest-plate and saw therein by the Vision of Prophecy Go up or go not up in the letters that shewed forth themselves upon the Brest-plate before his face then the Priest answered him Go up or Go not up If this Answer gave the Priest Sovereignty then neither King Saul nor King David had the Sovereignty who both asked Counsel of the Lord by the Priest OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Milton Against SALMASIUS I. AMong the many Printed Books and several Discourses touching the Right of Kings and the Liberty of the People I cannot find that as yet the first and chief Point is agreed upon or indeed so much as once disputed The word King and the word People are familiar one would think every simple man could tell what they signified but upon Examination it will be found that the learnedst cannot agree of their Meaning Ask Salmasius what a King is and he will teach us that a King is he who hath the Supreme Power of the Kingdom and is accountable to none but God and may do what he please and is free from the Laws This Definition I. M. abominates as being the Definion of a Tyrant And I should be of his Mind if he would have vouchsafed us a better or any other Definition at all that would tell us how any King can have a Supreme Power without being freed from humane Laws To find fault with it without producing any other is to leave us in the Dark but though Mr. Milton brings us neither Definition nor Description of a King yet we may pick out of several Passages of him something like a Definition if we lay them together He teacheth us that Power was therefore given to a King by the People that he might see by the Authority to him committed that nothing be done against Law and that he keeps our Laws and not impose upon us his own Therefore there is no Regal Power but in the Courts of the Kingdom and by them pag. 155. And again he affirmeth the King cannot Imprison Fine or punish any man except he be first cited into some Court where not the King but the usual Iudges give Sentence pag. 168. and before we are told not the King but the Authority of Parliament doth set up and take away all Courts pag. 167. Lo here the Description of a King He is one to whom the People give Power to see that nothing be done against Law and yet he saith there is no Regal Power but in the Courts of Iustice and by them where not the King but the usual Iudges give Sentence This Description not only strips the King of all Power whatsoever but puts him in a Condition below the meanest of his Subjects Thus much may shew that all men are not agreed what a King is Next what the word People means is not agreed upon ask Aristotle what the People is and he will not allow any Power to be in any but in free Citizens If we demand who be free Citizens That he cannot resolve us for he confesseth that he that is a free Citizen in one City is not so in another City And he is of Opinion that no Artificer should be a free Citizen or have Voice in a well ordered Commonwealth he accounts a Democratie which word signifies the Government of the People to be a corrupted sort of Government he thinks many men by Nature born to be Servants and not fit to govern as any part of the People Thus doth Aristotle curtal the People and cannot give us any certain Rule to know who be the People Come to our Modern Politicians and ask them who the People is though they talk big of the People yet they take up and are content with a few Representors as they call them of the whole People a Point Aristotle was to seek in neither are these Representors stood upon to be the whole People but the major part of these Representors must be reckoned for the whole People nay I. M. will not allow the major part of the Representors to be the People but the sounder and better part only of them and in right down terms he tells us pag. 126. to determine who is a Tyrant he leaves to Magistrates at least to the uprighter sort of them and of the People pag. 7. though in number less by many to judge as they find cause If the sounder the better and the uprighter Part have the Power of the People how shall we know or who shall judge who they be II. One Text is urged by Mr. Milton for the Peoples Power Deut. 17. 14. When thou art come into the Land which thy Lord thy God giveth thee and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me It is said by the Tenure of Kings these words confirm us that the Right of Choosing yea of Changing their own Government is by the Grant of God himself in the People But can the foretelling or forewarning of the Israelites of a wanton and wicked Desire of theirs which God himself condemned be made an Argument that God gave or granted them a Right to do such a wicked thing or can the Narration and reproving of a Future Fact be a Donation and approving of a present Right or the Permission of a Sin be made a Commission for the doing of it The Author of his Book against Salmasius falls so far from making God the Donor or Grantor that he cites him only for a Witness Teste ipso Deo penes populos arbitrium semper fuisse vel ea quae placerâ—…t forma reipub utendi vel hanc in aliam mutandi de Hebraeis hoc disertè dicit Deus de reliquis non abnuit That here in this Text God himself being Witness there was always a Power in the People either to use what Form of Government they pleased or of changing it into another God saith this expresly of the Hebrews and denies it not of others Can any man find that God in this Text expresly saith that there was always a Right in the People to use what Form
shall be respited untill our Lord the King shall be informed It is commanded to the Constable of the Tower safely to keep the said John untill he hath other commandement from our Lord the King In the case of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Ric. 2. who was accused for complying with the French and other Failings the Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that The cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of common Right and antient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholly belong to Our Lord the King and no other Le cognisance punissement de commune droit auntienne custome de Royalme de Engleterre seul per tout apperteine au Roy nostre Seignieur a nul autre In the case of the Lord de la Ware the Judgment of the Lords was that he should have place next after the Lord Willoughby of Erisbe by consent of all except the Lord Windsor and the Lord Keeper was required to acquaint Her Majesty with the Determination of the Peers and to know her Pleasure concerning the same The Inference from these Precedents is that the Decisive or Iudicial Power exercised in the Chamber of Peers is merely derivative and subservient to the Supreme Power which resides in the King and is grounded solely upon his grace and favour for howsoever the House of Commons do alledge their Power to be founded on the Principles of Nature in that they are the Representative Body of the Kingdom as they say and so being the whole may take care and have power by Nature to preserve themselves yet the House of Peers do not nor cannot make any such the least Pretence since there is no reason in Nature why amongst a company of men who are all equal some few should be picked out to be exalted above their Fellows and have power to Govern those who by Nature are their companions The difference between a Peer and a Commoner is not by Nature but by the grace of the Prince who creates Honours and makes those Honours to be hereditary whereas he might have given them for life onely or during pleasure or good behaviour and also annexeth to those Honours the Power of having Votes in Parliament as hereditary Counsellours furnished with ampler Privileges than the Commons All these Graces conferred upon the Peers are so far from being derived from the Law of Nature that they are contradictory and destructive of that natural equality and freedom of mankind which many conceive to be the foundation of the Privileges and Liberties of the House of Commons there is so strong an opposition between the liberties of Grace and Nature that it had never been possible for the two Houses of Parliament to have stood together without mortal Enmity and eternal jarring had they been raised upon such opposite foundations But the truth is the Liberties and Privileges of both Houses have but one and the self same foundation which is nothing else but the meer and sole Grace of Kings Thus much may serve to shew the Nature and Original of the deliberative and decisive Power of the Peers of the Kingdom The matter about which the deliberative power is conversant is generally the Consulting and Advising upon any urgent Business which concerns the King or Defence of the Kingdom and more especially sometimes in preparing new Laws and this Power is grounded upon the Writ The décisive Power is exercised in giving Judgment in some difficult Cases but for this Power of the Peers I find no Warrant in their Writ Whereas the Parliament is styled the Supreme Court it must be understood properly of the King sitting in the House of Peers in Person and but improperly of the Lords without him Every Supreme Court must have the Supreme Power and the Supreme Power is alwayes Arbitrary for that is Arbitrary which hath no Superiour on Earth to controlâ—… it The last Appeal in all Government must still bâ—… to an Arbitrary Power or else Appeals will bâ—… in Infinitum never at an end The Legislative Power is an Arbitrary Power for they are termini convertibiles The main Question in these our dayes is Where this Power Legislative remains or is placed upon conference of the Writs of Summons for both Houses with the Bodies and Titles of our Ancient Acts of Parliament we shall find the Power of making Laws rests solely in the King Some affirm that a part of the Legislative Power is in either of the Houses but besides invincible reason from the Nature of Monarchy it self which must have the Supreme Power Alone the constant Antient Declaration of this Kingdom is against it For howsoever of later years in the Titles and Bodies of our Acts of Parliament it be not so particularly expressed who is the Author and Maker of our Laws yet in almost all our elder Statutes it is precisely expressed that they are made by the King Himself The general words used of later times that Laws are made by Authority of Parliament are particularly explained in former Statutes to mean That the King Ordains the Lords Advise the Commons Consent as by comparing the Writs with the Statutes that expound the Writs will evidently appear Magna Charta begins thus Henry by the grace of God Know ye that WE of Our Meer and Free Will have given these Liberties In the self-same style runs Charta de Foresta and tells us the Author of it The Statute de Scaccario 41 H. 3. begins in these words The King Commandeth that all Bailiffs Sheriffs and other Officers c. And concerning the Justices of Chester the King Willeth c. and again He Commandeth the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer upon their Allegiance The Stat. of Marlborough 52 Hen. 3. goeth thus The King hath Made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes which He Willeth to be Observed of all his Subjects high and low 3 Edw. 1. The Title of this Statute is These are the ACTS of King EDWARD and after it follows The KING hath Ordained these ACTS and in the first Chapter The King Forbiddeth and Commandeth That none do hurt damage or grievance â—…o any Religious Man or Person of the Church and in the thirteenth Chapter The King prohibiteth that none do Ravish or take away by force any Maid within age 6 Edw. 1. It is said Our Sovereign Lord the King hath established these Acts commanding they be â—…bserved within this Realm and in the fourteenth Chap. the words are The King of his special Grace granteth that the Citizens of London shall recover in an Assise Damage with the Land The Stat. of West 2. saith Our Lord the King hath ordained that the Will of the Giver be observed and in the 3. Chap. Our Lord the King hath ordained that a woman after the Death of her Husband shal recover by a Writ of Entry The Stat. of Quo Warranto saith Our Lord
End of Government frustrated If the Obligation upon the Commands of a Sovereign to execute a dangerous or dishonourable Office dependeth not on the words of our Submission but on the Intention which is to be understood by the End thereof No man by Mr. Hobs's Rules is bound but by the words of his Submission the Intention of the Command binds not if the words do not If the Intention should bind it is necessary the Sovereign must discover it and the People must dispute and judge it which how well it may consist with the Rights of Sovereignty Master Hobs may consider Whereas Master Hobs saith the Intention is to be understood by the End I take it he means the End by Effect for the End and the Intention are one and the same thing and if he mean the Effect the Obedience must go before and not depend on the understanding of the Effect which can never be if the Obedience do not precede it In fine he resolves refusal to obey may depend upon the judging of what frustrates the End of Sovereignty and what not of which he cannot mean any other Judge but the People XV. Mr. Hobs puts a case by way of Question A great many men together have already resisted the Sovereign Power unjustly or committed some Capital Crime for which every one of them expecteth death whether have they not the liberty then to joyn together and assist and defend one another Certainly they have for they but defend their Lives which the Guilty man may as well do as the Innocent There was indeed Injustice in the first breach of their Duty their bearing of Arms subsequent to it though it be to maintain what they have done is no new unjust Act and if it be only to defend their Persons it is not Unjust at all The only reason here alleged for the Bearing of Arms is this That there is no new unjust Act as if the beginning only of a Rebellion were an unjust Act and the continuance of it none at all No better Answer can be given to this case than what the Author himself hath delivered in the beginning of the same Paragraph in these words To resist the Sword of the Commonwealth in defence of another man Guilty or Innocent no man hath liberty because such Liberty takes away from the Sovereign the Means of protecting us and is therefore destructive of the very Essence of Government Thus he first answers the question and then afterwards makes it and gives it a contrary Answer other Passages I meet with to the like purpose He saith Page 66. A man cannot lay down the Right of Resisting them that Assault him by Force to take away his Life The same may be said of Wounds Chains and Imprisonment Page 69. A Covenant to defend my self from Force by Force is void Pag. 68. Right of Defending Life and Means of living can never be abandoned These last Doctrines are destructive to all Government whatsoever and even to the Leviathan it self hereby any Rogue or Villain may murder his Sovereign if the Sovereign but offer by force to whip or lay him in the Stocks since Whipping may be said to be wounding and Putting in the Stocks an Imprisonment so likewise every mans Goods being a Means of Living if a man cannot abandon them no Contract among men be it never so just can be observed thus we are at least in as miserable condition of War as Mr. Hobs at first by Nature found us XVI The Kingdom of God signifies saith Master Hobs page 216. a Kingdom constituted by the Votes of the People of Israel in a peculiar manner wherein they choose God for their King by Covenant made with him upon God's promising them Canaan If we look upon Master Hob's Text for this it will be found that the People did not Constitute by Votes and choose God for their King But by the Appointment first of God himself the Covenant was to be a God to them they did not contract with God that if he would give them Canaan they would be his Subjects and he should be their King It was not in their power to choose whether God should be their God yea or nay for it is confessed He reigned naturally over all by his Might If God Reigned naturally he had a Kingdom and Sovereign Power over his Subjects not acquired by their own Consent This Kingdom said to be constituted by the Votes of the People of Israel is but the Vote of Abraham only his single Voyce carried it he was the Representative of the People For at this Vote it is confessed that the Name of King is not given to God nor of Kingdom to Abraham yet the thing if we will believe Master Hobs is all one If a Contract be the mutual transferring of Right I would know what Right a People can have to transferr to God by Contract Had the People of Israel at Mount Sinai a Right not to obey God's Voice If they had not such a Right what had they to transferr The Covenant mentioned at Mount Sinai was but a Conditional Contract and God but a Conditional King and though the People promised to obey Gods word yet it was more than they were able to perform for they often disobeyed Gods Voice which being a breach of the Condition the Covenant was void and God not their King by Contract It is complained by God They have rejected me that I should reign over them but it is not said according to their Contract for I do not find that the Desiring of a King was a breach of their Contract of Covenant or disobedience to the Voice of God there is no such Law extant The People did not totally reject the Lord but in part onely out of timorousness when they saw Nahash King of the Children of Ammon come against them they distrusted that God would not suddenly provide for their Deliverance as if they had had alwayes a King in readiness to go up presently to fight for them This Despair in them who had found so many miraculous deliverances under Gods Government was that which offended the Lord so highly they did not desire an Alteration of Government and to cast off Gods Laws but hoped for a certainer and speedier deliverance from danger in time of War They did not petition that they might choose their King themselves that had been a greater sin and yet if they had it had not been a total rejection of Gods Reigning over them as long as they desired not to depart from the Worship of God their King and from the Obedience of his Laws I see not that the Kingdom of God was cast off by the Election of Saul since Saul was chosen by God himself and governed according to Gods Laws The Government from Abraham to Saul is no where called the Kingdom of God nor is it said that the Kingdom of God was cast off at the Election of Saul Mr. Hobs allows that Moses alone had
of Government they please The Text not warranting this Right of the People the Foundation of the Defence of the People is quite taken away there being no other Grant or proof of it pretended 2. Where it is said that the Israelites desired a King though then under another Form of Government in the next line but one it is confessed they had a King at the time when they desired a King which was God himself and his Vice-roy Samuel and so saith God They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them yet in the next Verse God saith As they have forsaken me so do they also unto thee Here is no Shew of any other Form of Government but Monarchy God by the Mediation of Samuel reigned who made his Sons Judges over Israel when one man constitutes Judges we may call him a King or if the Having of Judges do alter the Government then the Government of every Kingdom is altered from Monarchy where Judges are appointed by Kings it is now reckoned one of the Duties of Kings to judge by their Judges only Where it is said He shall not multiply to himself Horses nor Wives nor Riches that he might understand that he had no Power over others who could Decree nothing of himself extra Legem if it had said contra legem Dei it had been true but if it meant extra legem humanam it is false 4. If there had been any Right given to the People it seems it was to the Elders onely for it is said it was the Elders of Israel gathered together petitioned for a King it is not said it was all the People nor that the People did choose the Elders who were the Fathers and Heads of Families authorized by the Judges 5. Where it is said I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me To set a King is not to choose a King but by some solemn publick Act of Coronation or otherwise to acknowledge their Allegiance to the King chosen It is said thou shalt set him King whom the Lord thy God shall choose The Elders did not desire to choose a King like other Nations but they say now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations III. As for Davids Covenant with the Elders when he was annointed it was not to observe any Laws or Conditions made by the People for ought appears but to keep Gods Laws and serve him and to seek the Good of the People as they were to protect him 6. The Reubenites and Gadites promise their Obedience not according to their Laws or Conditions agreed upon but in these words All that thou cammandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendst us we will go as we harkened to Moses in all things so will we harken unto thee only the Lord thy God be with thee as he was with Moses Where is there any Condition of any humane Law expressed Though the rebellious Tribes offered Conditions to Rehoboam where can we find that for like Conditions not performed all Israel deposed Samuel I wonder Mr. Milton should say this when within a few Lines after he professeth that Samuel had governed them uprightly IV. Ius Regni is much stumbled at and the Definition of a King which saith His Power is supreme in the Kingdom and he is accountable to none but to God and that he may do what he please and is not bound by Laws it is said if this Definition be good no man is or ever was who may be said to be a Tyrant p. 14. for when he hath violated all divine and humane Laws nevertheless he is a King and guiltless jure Regio To this may be answered That the Definition confesseth he is accountable to God and therefore not guiltless if he violate Divine Laws Humane Laws must not be shuffled in with Divine they are not of the same Authority if humane Laws bind a King it is impossible for him to have Supreme Power amongst men If any man can find us out such a kind of Government wherein the supreme Power can be without being freed from humane Laws they should first teach us that but if all sorts of popular Government that can be invented cannot be one Minute without an Arbitrary Power freed from all humane Laws what reason can be given why a Royal Government should not have the like Freedom if it be Tyranny for one man to govern arbitrarily why should it not be far greater Tyranny for a multitude of men to govern without being accountable or bound by Laws It would be further enquired how it is possible for any Government at all to be in the World without an arbitrary Power it is not Power except it be arbitary a legislative Power cannot be without being absolved from humane Laws it cannot be shewed how a King can have any Power at all but an arbitrary Power We are taught that Power was therefore given to a King by the People that he might see by the Authority to him committed that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose upon us his own therefore there is no Royal Power but in the Courts of the Kingdom and by them pag. 155. And again it is said the King cannot Imprison Fine or Punish any man except he be first cited into some Court where not the King but the usual Iudges give Sentence pag. 168. and before we are told not the King but the Authority of Parliament doth set up and take away all Courts pag. 167. Lo here we have Mr. Milton's perfect Definition of a King He is one to whom the People gave Power to see that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose his own Whereas all other men have the Faculty of Seeing by Nature the King only hath it by the Gift of the People other Power he hath none he may see the Judges keep the Laws if they will he cannot compell them for he may not Imprison Fine nor punish any man the Courts of Justice may and they are set up and put down by the Parliament yet in this very Definition of a King we may spy an arbitrary Power in the King for he may wink if he will and no other Power doth this Description of a King give but only a Power to see whereas it is said Aristotle doth mention an absolute Kingdom for no other Cause but to shew how absurd unjust and most tyrannical it is There is no such thing said by Aristotle but the contrary where he saith that 〈◊〉 King according to Law makes no sort of Government and after he had reckoned up five sorts of Kings he concludes that there were in a manner but two sorts the Lacedemonian King and the Absolute King whereof the first was but as General in an Army and therefore no King at all and then fixes and rests upon the Absolute King who ruleth according to
to keep Gods Laws and the Laws of the Countrey We find that the Rulers of Israel took an Oath at the Coronation of Iehoash but we find no Oath taken by that King no not so much as to Gods Laws much less to the Laws of the Countrey XII A Tyrant is he who regarding neither Law nor the Common Good reigns onely for himself and his Faction p. 19. In his Defence he expresseth himself thus He is a Tyrant who looks after only his own and not his Peoples profit Eth. l. 10. p. 189. 1. If it be Tyranny not to regard the Law then all Courts of Equity and Pardons for any Offences must be taken away there are far more Sutes for relief against the Laws than there be for the observation of the Laws there can be no such Tyranny in the World as the Law if there were no Equity to abate the rigour of it Summum Ius is Summa Injuria if the Penalties and Forfeitures of all Laws should still be exacted by all Kings it would be found that the greatest Tyranny would be for a King to govern according to Law the Fines Penalties and Forfeitures of all Laws are due to the Supreme Power onely and were they duely paid they would far exceed the Taxes in all places It is the chief happiness of a Kingdom and their chief Liberty not to be governed by the Laws Only 2. Not to regard the Common Good but to reign only for himself is the supposition of an impossibility in the judgment of Aristotle who teacheth us that the despotical Power cannot be preserved except the Servant or he in subjection be also preserved The truth of this strongly proves That it is in Nature impossible to have a Form of Government that can be for the destruction of a People as Tyranny is supposed if we will allow People to be governed we must grant they must in the first place be preserved or else they cannot be governed Kings have been and may be vitious men and the Government of one not so good as the Government of another yet it doth not follow that the Form of Government is or can be in its own nature ill because the Governour is so it is Anarchy or want of Government that can totally destroy a Nation We cannot find any such Government as Tyranny mentioned or named in Scripture or any word in the Hebrew Tongue to express it After such time as the Cities of Greece practised to shake off Monarchy then and not till then which was after Homer's time the name of Tyrant was taken up for a word of Disgrace for such men as by craft or Force wrested the Power of a City from a Multitude to one man onely and not for the exercising but for the ill-obtaining of the Government but now every man that is but thought to govern ill or to be an ill man is presently termed a Tyrant and so judged by his Subjects Few remember the Prohibition Exod. 22. 28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People and fewer understand the reason of it Though we may not one judge another yet we may speak evil or revile one another in that which hath been lawfully judged and upon a Tryal wherein they have been heard and condemned this is not to judge but onely to relate the judgment of the Ruler To speak evil or to revile a Supreme Judge cannot be without judging him who hath no Superiour on Earth to judge him and in that regard must alwayes be presumed innocent though never so ill if he cannot lawfully be heard I. M. That will have it Tyranny in a King not to regard the Laws doth himself give as little Regard to them as any man where he reckons that Contesting for Privileges Customs Forms and that old entanglement of Iniquity their gibrish Laws are the Badges of ancient Slavery Tenure pag. 3. a Disputing Presidents Forms and Circumstances pag. 5. I. M. is also of opinion That If at any time our Fore-fathers out of baseness have lost any thing of their Right that ought not hurt us they might if they would promise Slavery for themselves for us certainly they could not who have alwayes the same Right to free our selves that they had to give themselves to any man in Slavery This Doctrine well practised layeth all open to constant Anarchy Lastly If any desire to know what the Liberty of the People is which I. M. pleads for he resolves us saying That he that takes away from the People the Right of Choosing what Form of Government they please takes away truly that in which all Liberty doth almost consist It is well said by I. M. that all Liberty doth almost consist in Choosing their Form of Government for there is another liberty exercised by the People which he mentions not which is the liberty of the Peoples Choosing their Religion every man may be of any Religion or of no Religion Greece and Rome have been as famous for Polytheisme or multitudes of gods as of Governours and imagining Aristocratie and Democratie in Heaven as on Earth OBSERVATIONS UPON H. Grotius DE IURE BELLI PACIS IN most Questions of Weight and Difficulty concerning the Right of War or Peace or Supreme Power Grotius hath Recourse to the Law of Nature or of Nations or to the Primitive Will of those men who first joyned in Society It is necessary therefore a little to lay open the Variety or Contrariety in the Civil and Canon Law and in Grotius himself about the Law of Nature and Nations not with a Purpose to raise any Contention about Words or Phrases but with a Desire to reconcile or expound the Sense of different Terms Civilians Canonists Politicians and Divines are not a little perplexed in distinguishing between the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations about Ius Naturae and Ius Gentium there is much Dispute by such as handle the Original of Government and of Property and Community The Civil Law in one Text allows a threefold Division of Law into Ius Naturae Ius Gentium and Ius Civile But in another Text of the same Law we find only a twofold Division into Ius Civile and Ius Gentium This latter Division the Law takes from Gaius the former from Ulpian who will have Ius Naturale to be that which Nature hath taught all Creatures quod Natura omnia animalia Docuit but for this he is confuted by Grotius Salmasius and others who restrain the Law of Nature only to men using Reason which makes it all one with the Law of Nations to which the Canon Law consents and saith That Ius Naturale est commune omnium nationum That which Natural Reason appoints all men to use is the Law of Nations saith Theophilus in the Text of the Civil Law and in the second Book of the Instit. cap. 1. Ius Naturae is confounded with Ius Gentium As the Civilians sometimes confound and sometimes separate the Law of Nature
the People may choose what Form of Government they please and their Will is the Rule of Right Populus eligere potest qualem vult gubernationis formam neque ex praestantia formae sed ex voluntate jus metiendum est lib. 1. c. 3. Also that the People choosing a King may reserve some Acts to themselves and may bestow others upon the King with full Authority if either an express Partition be appointed or if the People being yet free do command their future King by way of a standing Command or if any thing be added by which it may be understood that the King may be compelled or else punished In these Passages of Grotius which I have cited we find evidently these Doctrines 1. That Civil Power depends on the Will of the People 2. That private men or petty Multitudes may take up Arms against their Princes 3. That the lawfullest Kings have no Propriety in their Kingdoms but an usufructuary Right only as if the People were the Lords and Kings but their Tenants 4. That the Law of Not resisting Superiours is a humane Law depending on the Will of the People at first 5. That the Will of the first People if it be not known may be expounded by the People that now are No Doubt but Grotius foresaw what Uses the People might make of these Doctrines by concluding if the chief Power be in the People that then it is lawful for them to compel and punish Kings as oft as they misuse their Power Therefore he tells us he rejects the Opinion of them who every where and without Exception will have the chief Power to be so the Peoples that it is lawful for them to compel and punish Kings as oft as they misuse their Power and this Opinion he confesseth if it be altogether received hath been and may be the Cause of many Evils This cautelous Rejection qualified with these Terms of every where without Exception and altogether makes but a mixt Negation partly negative and partly affirmative which our Lawyers call a negative Repugnant which brings forth this modal Proposition that in some Places with Exception and in some sort the People may compel and punish their Kings But let us see how Grotius doth refute the general Opinion that People may correct Kings He frames his Argument in these words It is lawful for every man to yield himself to be a private Servant to whom he please What should hinder but that also it may be lawful for a free People so to yield themselves to one or more that the Right of governing them be fully set over without retaining any part of the Right and you must not say That this may not be presumed for we do not now seek what in a doubtful case may be presumed but what by Right may be done Thus far is the Argument in which the most that is proved if we gratifie him and yield his whole Argument for good is this that the People may grant away their Power without retaining any part But what is this to what the People have done for though the People may give away their Power without Reservation of any part to themselves yet if they have not so done but have reserved a part Grotius must confess that the People may compel and punish their Kings if they transgress so that by his Favour the Point will be not what by Right may be done but what in this doubtful case hath been done since by his own Rule it is the Will and Meaning of the first People that joyned in Society that must regulate the Power of their Successours But on Grotius side it may be urged that in all Presumption the People have given away their whole Power to Kings unless they can prove they have reserved a part for if they will have any Benefit of a Reservation or Exception it lies on their part to prove their Exception and not on the Kings Part who are in Possession This Answer though in it self it be most just and good yet of all men Grotius may not use it For he saves the People the Labour of proving the primitive Reservation of their Forefathers by making the People that now are competent Expositors of the meaning of those first Ancestors who may justly be presumed not to have been either so improvident for themselves or so negligent of all their Posterity when by the Law of Nature they were free and had all things common at an Instant with any Condition or Limitation to give away that Liberty and Right of Community and to make themselves and their Children eternally subject to the Will of such Governours as might misuse them without Controul On the behalf of the People it may be further answered to Grotius that although our Ancestors had made an absolute Grant of their Liberty without any Condition expressed yet it must be necessarily implyed that it was upon condition to be well-governed and that the Non-performance of that implyed Condition makes the Grant void Or if we will not allow an implicit Condition then it may be said that the Grant in it self was a void Grant for being unreasonable and a violation of the Law of Nature without any valuable Consideration What sound Reply Grotius can return to such Answers I cannot conceive if he keep himself to his first Principle of natural Community As Grotius's Argument against the People is not sound so his Answer to the Argument that is made for the People is not satisfactory It is objected that he that ordains is above him that is ordained Grotius answers Verum duntaxat est in ea constitutione cujus effectus perpetuò pendet à voluntate constituentis non etiam in ea quae ab initio est voluntatis postea verò effectum habet necessitatis quomodo mulier virum sibi constituit cui parere semper habet necesse The Reply may be that by Grotius's former Doctrine the very Effect of the Constitution of Kings by the People depends perpetually upon the Will of them that Constitute and upon no other Necessity he will not say that it is by any necessity of the Law of Nature or by any positive Law of God he teacheth that non Dei praecepto sed sponte men entred into Civil Society that it is an Humane Ordinance that God doth onely approve it ut humanum and humano modo He tells us further that Populus potest eligere qualem vult gubernationis forâ—…am ex voluntate jus metiendum est that the People may give the King as little Power as they will and for as little time as they please that they â—…ay make temporary Kings as Dictators and Protectors jus quovis tempore revocabile id est precarium as the Vandals in Africa and the Goths in Spain would depose their Kings as oft as they displeased them horum enim actus irriti possunt reddi ab his â—…i potestatem revocabiliter dederunt ac proinde non idem est
is void being made by any Owner whatsoever against the â—…ules of Parsimony In both these times the Right of Ruling and Compelling is as Grotius acknowledgeth comprehended so far forth as Children are to be compelled to their Duty or amended although the Power of a Parent dâ—…th so follow the person of a Father that it cannot be pulled away and transferred upon another yet the Father may naturally pawn or also sell his Son if there be need In the third time he saith the Son is in all things Free and of his own Authority always that Duâ—… remaining of Piety and Observance the cause of which is perpetual In this triple distinction though Grotius allow Children in some cases during the second and in all cases during the third time to be free and of their own Power by a moral Faculty yet in that he confesseth in all cases Children are bound to study always to please their Parents out of Piety and Duty the cause of which as he saith is perpetual I cannot conceive how in any case Children can naturally have any Power or moral Faculty of doing what they please without their Parents leave since they are alwayes bound to study to please their Parents And though by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of Discretion have Power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by Positive and Humane Laws onely which are made by the Supreme Fatherly Power of Princes who Regulate Limit or Assume the Authority of inferiour Fathers for the publick Benefit of the Commonwealth so that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceaseth by any Separation but only by the Permission of the transcendent Fatherly power of the Supreme Prince Children may be dispensed with or privileged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents Touching the Point of dissolving the Vows of Children Grotius in his last Edition of his Book hath corrected his first for in the first he teacheth that the Power of the Father was greater over the Daughter dwelling with him than over the Son for her Vow he might make void but not his But instead of these words in his last Edition he saith that the Power over the Son or Daughter to dissolve Vows was not perpetual but did indure as long as the Children were a part of their Fathers Family About the meaning of the Text out of which he draws this Conclusion I have already spoken Three wayes Grotius propoundeth whereby Supreme Power may be had First By full Right of Propriety Secondly By an Usufructuary Right Thirdly By a Temporary Right The Roman Dictators saith he had Supreme Power by a Temporary Right as well those Kings who are first Elected as those that in a lawful Right succeed to Kings elected have Supreme Power by an usufructuary Right some Kings that have got Supreme Power by a just War or into whose Power some People for avoiding a greater Evil have so yielded themselves as that they have excepted nothing have a full Right of Propriety Thus we find but two means acknowledged by Grotius whereby a King may obtain a full Right of Propriety in a Kingdome That is either by a just War or by Donation of the People How a War can be just without a precedent Title in the Conquerour Grotius doth not shew and if the Title onely make the War just then no other Right can be obtained by War than what the Title bringeth for a just War doth onely put the Conquerour in possession of his old Right but not create a New The like which Grotius saith of Succession may be said of War Succession saith he is no Title of a Kingdome which gives a Form to the Kingdom but a Continuation of the Old for the Right which began by the Election of the Family is continued by Succession wherefore so much as the first Election gave so much the Succession brings So to a Conquerour that hath a Title War doth not give but put him in possession of a Right and except the Conquerour had a full Right of Propriety at first his Conquest cannot give it him for if originally he and his Ancestors had but an usufructuary Right and were outed of the possession of the Kingdom by an Usurper here though the Re-conquest be a most just War yet shall not the Conquerour in this case gain any full Right of Propriety but must be remitted to his usufructuary Right onely for what Justice can it be that the Injustice of a third Person an Usurper should prejudice the People to the devesting of them of that Right of Propriety which was reserved in their first Donation to their Elected King to whom they gave but an usufructuary Right as Grotius conceiveth Wherefore it seems impossible that there can be a just War whereby a full Right of Propriety may be gained according to Grotius's Principles For if a King come in by Conquest he must either conquer them that have a Governour or those People that have none if they have no Governour then they are a free People and so the War will be unjust to conquer those that are Free especially if the Freedom of the People be by the primary Law of Nature as Grotius teacheth But if the People conquered have a Governour that Governour hath either a Title or not If he have a Title it is an unjust War that takes the Kingdom from him If he have no Title but only the Possession of a Kingdom yet it is unjust for any other man that wants a Title also to conquer him that is but in possession for it is a just Rule that where the Cases are alike he that is in Possession is in the better condition In pari causa possidentis melior conditio Lib. 2. c. 23. And this by the Law of Nature even in the judgment of Grotius But if it be admitted that he that attempts to conquer have a Title and he that is in possession hath none here the Conquest is but in nature of a possessory Action to put the Conquerour in possession of a primer Right and not to raise a new Title for War begins where the Law fails Ubi Iudicia deficiunt incipit Bellum Lib. 2. c. 1. And thus upon the matter I cannot find in Grotius's Book de Iure Belli how that any Case can be put wherein by a just War a man may become a King pleno Jure Proprietatis All Government and Supreme Power is founded upon publick Subjection which is thus defined by Grotius Publica Subjectio est qua se Populus homini alicui aut pluribus hominibus aut etiam populo alteri in ditionem dat Lib. 2. c. 5. If Subjection be the Gift of the People how can Supreme Power pleno Iure in full Right be got by a just War As to the other means whereby Kings may get Supreme Power in full Right of Propriety Grotius will have it to be when some People for avoiding a
greater Evil do so yield themselves into anothers Power as that they do except nothing It would be considered how without War any People can be brought into such danger of Life as that because they can find no other wayes to defend themselves or because they are so pressed with Poverty as they cannot otherwise have means to sustain themselves they are forced to renounce all Right of Governing themselves and deliver it to a King But if such a Case cannot happen but by a War onely which reduceth a People to such terms of Extremity as compells them to an absolute Abrenuntiation of all Sovereignty then War which causeth that necessity is the prime means of extorting such Sovereignty and not the free Gift of the People who cannot otherwise choose but give away that Power which they cannot keep Thus upon the Reckoning the two ways propounded by Grotius are but one way and that one way in conclusion is no way whereby Supreme Power may be had in full Right of Propriety His two ways are a Iust War or a Donation of the People a just War cannot be without a Title no Title without the Donation of the People no Donation without such a Necessity as nothing can bring upon the Donors but a War So that howsoever Grotius in words acknowledges that Kings may have a full Right of Propriety yet by consequence he denies it by such circular Suppositions as by coincidence destroy each other and in effect he leaves all People a Right to plead in Bar against the Right of Propriety of any Prince either per minas or per dures Many times saith Grotius it happens that War is grounded upon Expletive Iustice Iustitiam Expletricem which is when a man cannot obtain what he ought he takes that which is as much in value which in moral Estimation is the same For in War when the same Province cannot be recovered to the which a man hath a Title he recovers another of the like value This recovery cannot give a full right of Propriety because the Justice of such a War reacheth no farther than to a compensation for a former Right to another thing and therefore can give no new Right I am bound to take notice of a Case put by Grotius amongst those Causes which he thinks should move the People to renounce all their Right of Governing and give it to another It may also happen saith he that a Father of a Family possessing large Territories will not receive any man to dwell within his Land upon any other condition And in another place he saith that all Kings are not made by the People which may be sufficiently understood by the Examples of a Father of a Family receiving Strangers under the Law of Obedience In both these Passages we have a close and curt acknowledgment that a Father of a Family may be an absolute King over Strangers without Choice of the People now I would know whether such Fathers of Families have not the same absolute Power over their own Children without the Peoples Choice which he allows them over Strangers if they have I cannot but call them Absolute proprietary Kings though Grotius be not willing to give them that Title in plain terms for indeed to allow such Kings were to condemn his own Principle that Dominion came in by the Will of the People and so consequently to overthrow his Usufructuary Kings of whom I am next to speak Grotius saith that the Law of Obeying or Resisting Princes depends upon the Will of them who first met in Civil Society from whom Power doth flow to Kings And that men of their own accord came together into Civil Society from whence springs Civil Power and the People may choose what Form of Government they please Upon these Suppositions he concludes that Kings elected by the People have but an Usufructuary Right that is a Right to take the Profit or Fruit of the Kingdom but not a Right of Propriety or Power to alienate it But why doth he call it an Usufructuary Right It seems to me a term too mean or base to express the Right of any King and is derogatory to the Dignity of Supreme Majesty The word Usufructuary is used by the Lawyers to signifie him that hath the Use Profit or Fruit of some Corporal thing that may be used without the Property for of fungible things res fungibiles the Civilians call them that are spent or consumed in the Use as Corn Wine Oyl Money there cannot be an Usufructuary Right It is to make a Kingdom all one with a Farm as if it had no other Use but to be let out to him that can make most of it whereas in truth it is the Part and Duty of a King to govern and he hath a Right so to do and to that End Supreme Power is given unto him the taking of the Profit or making Use of the Patrimony of the Crown is but as a means onely to enable him to perform that great work of Government Besides Grotius will not onely have an elected King but also his lawful Successors to have but an Usufructuary Right so that though a King hath a Crown to him and to his Heirs yet he will allow him no Propriety because he hath no Power to alienate it for he supposeth the primary Will of the People to have been to bestow Supreme Power to go in Succession and not to be alienable but for this he hath no better proof than a naked presumption In Regnis quae Populi voluntate delata sunt concedo non esse praesumendum eam fuisse Populi voluntatem ut alienatio Imperii sui Regi permitteretur But though he will not allow Kings a Right of Propriety in their Kingdoms yet a Right of Propriety there must be in some body and in whom but in the People for he saith the Empire which is exercised by Kings doth not cease to be the Empire of the People His meaning is the Use is the King 's but the Property is the Peoples But if the Power to alienate the Kingdom be in him that hath the Property this may prove a comfortable Doctrine to the People but yet to allow a Right of Succession in Kings and still to reserve a Right of Property in the People may make some contradiction for the Succession must either hinder the Right of Alienation which is in the People or the Alienation must destroy that Right of Succession which by Grotius's confession may attend upon elected Kings Though Grotius confess that Supreme Power be Unum quiddam and in it self indivisible yet he saith Sometimes it may be divided either by parts potential or subjunctive I take his meaning to be that the Government or the Governed may be divided an Example he gives of the Roman Empire which was divided into the East and West but whereas he saith fieri potest c. It may be the People choosing a King may reserve some Actions to themselves and in others
they may give full power to the King The Example he brings out of Plato of the Heraclides doth not prove it and it is to dream of such a Form of Government as never yet had name nor was ever found in any settled Kingdom nor cannot possibly be without strange Confusion If it were a thing so voluntary and at the pleasure of men when they were free to put themselves under Subjection why may they not as voluntarily leave Subjection when they please and be free again If they had a liberty to change their Natural Freedom into a voluntary Subjection there is stronger reason that they may change their voluntary Subjection into natural Freedom since it is as lawful for men to alter their Wills as their Judgments Certainly it was a rare felicity that all the men in the World at one instant of time should agree together in one mind to change the Natural Community of all things into Private Dominion for without such an unanimous Consent it was not possible for Community to be altered for if but one man in the World had dissented the Alteration had been unjust because that Man by the Law of Nature had a Right to the common Use of all things in the World so that to have given a Propriety of any one thing to any other had been to have robbed him of his Right to the common Use of all things And of this Judgment the Jesuit Lud. Molina seems to be in his Book De Iustitia where he saith Si aliquis de cohabit antibus c. If one of the Neighbours will not give his Consent to it the Commonwealth should have no Authority over him because then every other man hath no Right or Authority over him and therefore can they not give Authority to the Commonwealth over him If our first Parents or some other of our Forefathers did voluntarily bring in Propriety of Goods and Subjection to Governours and it were in their power either to bring them in or not or having brought them in to alter their minds and restore them to their first condition of Community and Liberty what reason can there be alleged that men that now live should not have the same power So that if any one man in the World be he never so mean or base will but alter his Will and say he will resume his Natural Right to Community and be restored unto his Natural Liberty and consequently take what he please and do what he list who can say that such a man doth more than by Right he may And then it will be lawful for every man when he please to dissolve all Government and Destroy all Property Whereas Grotius saith That by the Law of Nature all things were at first Common and yet teacheth that after Propriety was brought in it was against the Law of Nature to use Community He doth thereby not onely make the Law of Nature changeable which he saith God cannot do but he also makes the Law of Nature contrary to it self THE ANARCHY OF A Limited or Mixed MONARCHY THE PREFACE WE do but flatter our selves if we hope ever to be governed without an Arbitrary Power No we mistake the Question is not Whether there shall be an Arbitrary Power but the only point is Who shall have that Arbitrary Power whether one man or many There never was nor ever can be any People govern'd without a Power of making Laws and every Power of making Laws must be Arbitrary For to make a Law according to Law is Contradictio in adjecto It is generally confessed that in a Democracy the Supreme or Arbitrary Power of making Laws is in a multitude and so in an Aristocracy the like Legislative or Arbitrary Power is in a few or in the Nobility And therefore by a necessary Consequence in a Monarchy the same Legislative Power must be in one according to the Rule of Aristotle who saith Government is in One or in a Few or in Many This antient Doctrine of Government in these latter days hath been strangely refined by the Romanists and wonderfully improved since the Reformation especially in point of Monarchy by an Opinion That the People have Originally a Power to create several sorts of Monarchy to limit and compound them with other Forms of Government at their pleasure As for this natural Power of the People they finde neither Scripture Reason or Practice to justifie it For though several Kingdoms have several and distinct Laws one from another yet that doth not make several sorts of Monarchy Nor doth the difference of obtaining the Supreme Power whether by Conquest Election Succession or by any other way make different sorts of Government It is the difference only of the Authors of the Laws and not of the Laws themselves that alters the Form of Government that is whether one man or more than one make the Laws Since the growth of this new Doctrine Of the Limitation and Mixture of Monarchy it is most apparent that Monarchy hath been crucified as it were between two Thieves the Pope and the People for what Principles the Papists make use of for the Power of the Pope above Kings the very same by blotting out the word Pope and putting in the word People the Plebists take up to use against their Soveraigns If we would truely know what Popery is we shall finde by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm that the main and indeed the only Point of Popery is the alienating and withdrawing of Subjects from their Obedience to their Prince to raise Sedition and Rebellion If Popery and Popularity agree in this Point the Kings of Christendome that have shaken off the Power of the Pope have made no great bargain of it if in place of one Lord abroad they get many Lords at home within their own Kingdoms I cannot but reverence that Form of Government which was allowed and made use of for God's own People and for all other Nations It were Impiety to think that God who was careful to appoint Iudicial Laws for his chosen People would not furnish them with the best Form of Government or to imagine that the Rules given in divers places in the Gospel by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles for Obedience to Kings should now like Almanacks out of date be of no use to us because it is pretended We have a Form of Government now not once thought of in those days It is a shame and scandal for us Christians to seek the Original of Government from the Inventions or Fictions of Poets Orators Philosophers and Heathen Historians who all lived thousands of Years after the Creation and were in a manner ignorant of it and to neglect the Scriptures which have with more Authority most particularly given us the true Grounds and Principles of Government These Considerations caused me to scruple this Modern piece of Politicks touching Limited and Mixed Monarchy and finding no other that presented us with the nature and means of Limitation
themselves and us to a supream power As the Scripture teacheth us that supream power was originally in the fatherhood without any limitation so likewise Reason doth evince it that if God ordained that Supremacy should be that then Supremacy must of necessity be unlimited for the power that limits must be above that power which is limited if it be limited it cannot be supream so that if our Author will grant supream power to be the ordinance of God the supream power will prove it self to be unlimited by the same ordinance because a supream limited power is a contradiction The Monarchical power of Adam the Father of all flesh being by a general binding ordinance setled by God in him and his posterity by right of fatherhood the form of Monarchy must be preferr'd above other forms except the like ordinance for other forms can be shewed neither may men according to their relations to the form they live under to their affections and judgments in divers respects prefer or compare any other form with Monarchy The point that most perplexeth our Author and many others is that if Monarchy be allowed to be the ordinance of God an absurdity would follow that we should uncharitably condemn all the Communities which have not that form for violation of Gods ordinance and pronounce those other powers unlawful If those who live under a Monarchy can justifie the form they live under to be Gods ordinance they are not bound to forbear their own justification because others cannot do the like for the form they live under let others look to the defence of their own Government if it cannot be provd or shewd that any other form of government had ever any lawful beginning but was brought in or erected by Rebellion must therefore the lawful and just obedience to Monarchy be denied to be the ordinance of God To proceed with our Author in the 3 page he saith the Higher Power is Gods ordinance That it resideth in One or more in such or such a way is from humane designment God by no word binds any people to this or that form till they by their own act bind themselves Because the power and consent of the people in government is the burden of the whole Book and our author expects it should be admitted as a magisterial postulation without any other proof than a naked supposition and since others also maintain that originally Power was or now is in the People that the first Kings were chosen by the People they may not be offended if they be asked in what sence they understand the word People because this as many other words hath different acceptions being sometimes taken in a larger otherwhiles in a stricter sence Literally and in the largest sence the word People signifies the whole multitude of mankind but figuâ—…tively and synecdochically it notes many times the â—…ajor part of a multitude or sometimes the better or the richer or the wiser or some other part and oftentimes a very small part of the people if there be no other apparent opposite party hath the name of the people by presumption If they understand that the entire multitude or whole people have originally by nature power to chuse a King they must remember that by their own principles and rules by nature all mankind in the world makes but one People who they suppose to be born alike to an equal freedome from subjection and where such freedome is there â—…ll things must of necessity be common and therefore without a joynt consent of the whole people â—…f the world no one thing can be made proper 〈◊〉 any one man but it will be an injury and an â—…urpation upon the common right of all others â—…rom whence it follows that natural freedome beâ—…ing once granted there cannot be any one man â—…osen a King without the universal consent of all the people of the world at one instant nemine contradicente Nay if it be true that nature hath made all men free though all mankind should concur in one vote yet it cannot seem reasonable that they should have power to alter the law of nature for if no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a murtherer of himself how can any people confer such a power as they have not themselves upon any one man without being accessories to their own deaths and every particular man become guilty of being felo de se If this general signification of the word people be disavowed and men will suppose that the people of particular Regions or Countries have power and freedome to chuse unto themselves Kings then let them but observe the consequence Since nature hath not distinguished the habitable world into Kingdomes nor determined what part of a people shall belong to one Kingdome and what to another it follows that the original freedome of mankind being supposed every man is at liberty to be of what Kingdome he please and so every petty company hath a right to make a Kingdom by it self and not onely every City but every Village and every Family nay and every particular man a liberty to chuse himself to be his own King if he please and he were a madman that being by nature free would chuse any man but himself to be his own Governour Thus to avoid the having but of one King of the whole world we shall run into a liberty of having as many Kings as there be men in the world which upon the matter is to have no King at all but to leave all men to their natural liberty which is the mischief the Pleaders for natural liberty do pretend they would most avoid But if neither the whole people of the world nor the whole people of any part of the world be meant but only the major part or some other part of a part of the world yet still the objection will be the stronger For besides that nature hath made no partition of the world or of the people into distict Kingdomes and that without an universal consent at one and the same instant no partition can be made yet if it were lawful for particular parts of the world by consent to chuse their Kings nevertheless their elections would bind none to subjection but only such as consented for the major part never binds but where men at first either agree to be so bound or where a higher power so commands Now there being no higher power than nature but God himself where neither nature nor God appoints the major part to bind their consent is not binding to any but only to themselves who consent Yet for the present to gratifie them so far as to admit that either by nature or by a general consent of all mankind the world at first was divided into particular Kingdomes and the major part of the people of each Kingdome assembled allowed to chuse their King yet it cannot truly be said that ever the whole people or the
major part or indeed any considerable part of the whole people of any nation ever assembled to any such purpose For except by some secret miraculous instinct they should all meet at one time and place what one man or company of men less than the whole people hath power to appoint either time or place of elections where all be alike free by nature and without a lawful summons it is most unjust to bind those that be absent The whole people cannot summon it self one man is sick another is lame a third is aged and a fourth is under age of discretion all these at some time or other or at some place or other might be able to meet if they might chuse their own time and place as men naturally free should In Assemblies that are by humane politique constitution the superior power that ordains such assemblies can regulate and confine them both for time place persons and other circumstances but where there is an equality by nature there can be no superior power there every Infant at the hour it is born in hath a like interest with the greatest and wisest man in the world Mankind is like the sea ever ebbing or flowing every minute one is born another dies those that are the people this minute are not the people the next minute in every instant and point of time there is a variation no one time can be indifferent for all mankind to assemble it cannot but be mischievous always at the least to all Infants and others under age of discretion not to speak of women especially Virgins who by birth have as much natural freedome as any other and therefore ought not to lose their liberty without their own consent But in part of salve this it will be said that Infants and Children may be concluded by the votes of their Parents This remedy may cure some part of the mischief but it destroys the whole cause and at last stumbles upon the true original of government For if it be allowed that the acts of Parents bind the Children then farewel the doctrine of the natural freedome of mankind where subjection of Children to Parents is natural there can be no natural freedome If any reply that not all Children shall be bound by their Parents consent but onely those that are under age It must be considered that in nature there is no nonage if a man be not born free she doth not assign him any other time when he shall attain his freedome or if she did then Children attaining that age should be discharged of their Parents contract So that in conclusion if it be imagined that the people were ever but once free from subjection by nature it will prove a meer impossibility ever lawfully to introduce any kind of government whatsoever without apparent wrong to a multitude of people It is further observable that ordinarily Children and Servants are far a greater number than Parents and Masters and for the major part of these to be able to vote and appoint what Government or Governours their Fathers and Masters shall be subject unto is most unnatural and in effect to give the Children the government over their Parents To all this it may be opposed What need dispute how a people can chuse a King since there be multitude of examples that Kings have been and are now adays chosen by their people The answer is 1. The question is not of the fact but of the right whether it have been done by a natural or by an usurped right 2. Many Kings are and have bin chosen by some small part of a people but by the the whole or major part of a Kingdom not any at all Most have been elected by the Nobility Great men and Princes of the blood as in Poland Denmarke and in Sweden not by any collective or representative body of any Nation sometimes a sactious or seditious City or a mutinous Army hath set up a King but none of all those could ever prove they had right or just title either by nature or any otherwise for such elections We may resolve upon these two propositions 1. That the people have no power or right of themselves to chuse Kings 2. If they had any such right it is not possible for them any way lawfully to exercise it You will say There must necessarily be a right in somebody to elect in case a King die without an Heir I answer No King can die without an Heir as long as there is any one man living in the world It may be the Heir may be unknown to the people but that is no fault in nature but the negligence or ignorance of those whom it concerns But if a King could die without an Heir yet the Kingly power in that case shall not escheat to the whole people but to the supream Heads and Fathers of Families not as they are the people but quatenus they are Fathers of people over whom they have a supream power devolved unto them after the death of their soveraign Ancestor and if any can have a right to chuse a King it must be these Fathers by conferring their distinct fatherly powers upon one man alone Chief fathers in Scripture are accounted as all the people as all the Children of Israel as all the Congregation as the Text plainly expounds it self 2 Chr. 1. 2. where Solomon speaks to All Israel that is to the Captains the Iudges and to every Governour the CHIEF OF THE FATHERS and so the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel 1 King 8. 1. and the 2 Chr. 5. 2. If it be objected That Kings are not now as they were at the first planting or peopling of the world the Fathers of their People or Kingdoms and that the fatherhood hath lost the right of governing An answer is That all Kings that now are or ever were are or were either Fathers of their people or the Heirs of such Fathers or Usurpers of the right of such Fathers It is a truth undeniable that there cannot be any multitude of men whatsoever either great or small though gathered together from the several corners and remotest regions of the world but that in the same multitude considered by it self there is one man amongst them that in nature hath a right to be the King of all the rest as being the next Heir to Adam and all the others subject unto him every man by nature is a King or a Subject the obedience which all Subjects yeild to Kings is but the paying of that duty which is due to the supream fatherhood Many times by the act either of an Usurper himself or of those that set him up the true Heir of a Crown is dispossessed God using the ministry of the wickedest men for the removing and setting up of Kings in such cases the Subjects obedience to the fatherly power must go along and wait upon Gods providence who only hath right to
give and take away Kingdomes and thereby to adopt Subjects into the obedience of another fatherly power according to that of Arist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government Ethic. l. 8. c. 12. However the natural freedome of the people be cried up as the sole means to determine the kind Government and the Governours yet in the close all the favourers of this opinion are constrained to grant that the obedience which is due to the fatherly power is the true and only cause of the subjection which we that are now living give to Kings since none of us gave consent to government but only our Fore-fathers act and consent hath concluded us Whereas many confess that Government only in the abstract is the ordinance of God they are not able to prove any such ordinance in the Scripture but only in the fatherly power and therefore we find the Commandment that enjoyns obedience to superiours given in the terms of Honour thy Father so that not onely the power or right of government but the form of the power of governing and the person having that power are all the ordinance of God the first Father had not only simply power but power Monarchical as he was a Father immediately from God For by the appointment of God as soon as Adam was created he was Monarch of the World though he had no subjects for though there could not be actual government until there were Subjects yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be Governour of his posterity though not in act yet at least in habit Adam was a King from his Creation And in the state of innocency he had been Governour of his Children for the integrity or excellency of the subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the Governour Eve was subject to Adam before he sinned the Angels who are of a pure nature are subject to God which confutes their saying who in disgrace of civil Government or power say it was brought in by sin Government as to coactive power was after sin because coaction supposeth some disorder which was not in the state of innocency But as for directive power the condition of humane nature requires it since civil society cannot be imagined without power of Government for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done yet things indifferent that depended meerly on their free will might be directed by the power of Adams command If we consider the first plantations of the world which were after the building of Babel when the confusion of tongues was we may find the division of the earth into distinct Kingdomes and Countries by several families whereof the Sons or Grand-children of Noah were the Kings or Governours by a fatherly right and for the preservation of this power and right in the Fathers God was pleased upon several Families to bestow a Language on each by it self the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom as appears by the words of the Text Gen. 10. These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their generations in their Nations and by these were the Nations divided in the earth after the floud Every one after HIS TONGUE AFTER THEIR FAMILIES in their Nations The Kings of England have been gratiously pleased to admit and accept the Commons in Parliament as the representees of the Kingdom yet really and truly they are not the representative body of the whole Kingdom The commons in Parliament are not the representative body of the whole Kingdom they do not represent the King who is the head and principal member of the Kingdom nor do they represent the Lords who are the nobler and higher part of the body of the Realm and are personally present in Parliament and therefore need no representation The Commons onely represent a part of the lower 〈◊〉 inferior part of the body of the People which are the Free-holders worth 40 s. by the year and the Commons or Free-men of Cities and Burroughs or the major part of them All which are not one quarter nay not a tenth part of the Commons of the Kingdom for in every Parish for one Free-holder there may be found ten that are no Free-holders and anciently before Rents were improved there were nothing neer so many Free-holders of 40 s. by the year as now are to be found The scope and Conclusion of this discourse and Argument is That the people taken in what notion or sense soever either diffusively collectively or representatively have not nor cannot exercise any right or power of their own by nature either in chusing or in regulating Kings But whatsoever power any people doth lawfully exercise it must receive it from a supream power on earth and practice it with such limitations as that superior power shall appoint To return to our Author He divides Monarchy into Absolute Limited Absolute Monarchy saith he is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limits or bounds under God but his own will This definition of his I embrace And as before I charged our Author for not giving us a definition of Monarchy in general so I now note him for not affording us any definition of any other particular â—…nd of Monarchy but onely of absolute it may peradventure make some doubt that there is no other sort but only that which he calls absolute Concerning absolute Monarchy he grants that such were the antient Eastern Monarchies and that of the Turk and Persian at this day Herein he saith very true And we must remember him though he do not mention them that the Monarchs of Iudah and Israel must be comprehended under the number of those he calls the Eastern Monarchies and truly if he had said that all the antient Monarchies of the world had been absolute I should not have quarreld at him â—…or do I know who could have disproved him Next it follows that Absolute Monarchy is when 〈◊〉 people are absolutely resigned up or resign up themselves to be governed by the will of One man Where men put themselves into this utmost degree of subjection by oath and contract or are born and brought unto it by Gods providence In both these places he acknowledgeth there may be other means of obtaining a Monarchy besides the contract of a Nation or peoples resigning up themselves to be governed which is contrary to what he after saies that the sole mean or root of all Soveraignty is the consent and fundamental contract of a Nation of men Moreover the Author determines that Absolute Monarchy is a lawful government and that men may be born and brought unto it by Gods providence it binds them and they must abide it because an oath to a lawful thing is obligatory This Position of his I approve but his Reason doth not satisfie for
he may enjoy this it seems our Author is not confident in this neither and some others do deny it him our Author speaking of the government of this Kingdome saith The choice of the Officers is intrusted to the judgment of the Monarch for ought I know he is not resolute in the point but for ought he knows and for ought I know his Monarch is but titular an empty title certain of no power at all The power of chusing Officers onely is the basest of all powers Aristotle as I remember saith The common people are fit for nothing but to chuse Officers and to take accompts and indeed in all popular governments the multitude perform this work and this work in a King puts him below all his Subjects and makes him the onely subject in a Kingdome or the onely man that cannot Govern there is not the poorest man of the multitude but is capable of some Office or other and by that means may sometime or other perhaps govern according to the Laws onely the King can be no Officer but to chuse Officers his Subjects may all Govern but he may not Next I cannot see how in true sence our Author can say his Monarch is the head and fountain of power since his doctrine is that in a limited Monarchy the publick society by original constitution confer on one man power is not then the publick society the head and fountain of power and not the King Again when he tells us of his Monarch that both the other States as well conjunctim as divisim be his sworn subjects and owe obedience to his commands he doth but flout his poor Monarch for why are they called his Subjects and his Commons he without any complement is their Subject for they as Officers may govern and command according to Law but he may not for he must judge by his judges in Courts of Justice onely that is he may not judge or govern at all 2. As for the second particular The sole or chief power in capacitating persons for the Supream power And 3. As to this third particular The power of convocating such persons they are both so far from making a Monarch that they are the onely way to make him none by choosing and calling others to share in the Supream power 4. Lastly concerning his Authority being the last and greatest in the establishing every Act it makes him no Monarch except he be sole that hath that Authority neither his primity of share in the Supream power nor his Authority being last no nor his having the greatest Authority doth make him a Monarch unless he have that Authority alone Besides how can he shew that in his mixed Monarchy the Monarchs power is the greatest The greatest share that our Author allows him in the Legislative power is a Negative voice and the like is allowed to the Nobility and Commons And truely a Negative voice is but a base term to express a Legislative power a Negative voice is but a privative power or indeed no power at all to do any thing onely a power to hinder an Act from being done Wherefore I conclude not any of his four nor all of them put into one person makes the State Monarchical This mixed Monarchy just like the limited ends in confusion and destruction of all Government you shall hear the Authors confession That one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments which I shewed to be in limited Governments there can be no constituted legal Authoritative Iudge of the Fundamental Controversies arising between the three Estates If such do rise it is the fatal disease of those Governments for which no salve can be applyed It is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government of this question there is no legal judge The accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience The appeal must be to the community as if there were no Government and as by evidence Consciences are convinced they are bound to give their assistance The wit of man cannot say more for Anarchy Thus have I picked out the flowers out of his Doctrine about limited Monarchy and presented them with some brief Annotations it were a tedious work to collect all the learned contradictions and ambiguous expressions that occur in every page of his Platonick Monarchy the Book hath so much of fancy that it is a better piece of Poetry then Policy Because many may think that the main Doctrine of limited and mixed Monarchy may in it self be most authentical and grounded upon strong and evident reason although our Author perhaps have failed in some of his expressions and be liable to exceptions Therefore I will be bold to enquire whether Aristotle could find either reason or example of a limited or mixed Monarchy and the rather because I find our Author altogether insists upon a rational way of justifying his opinion No man I think will deny but that Aristotle was sufficiently curious in searching out the several forms of Common-wealths and Kingdoms yet I do not find that he ever so much as dreamed of either a limited or mixed Monarchy Several other sorts of Monarchies he reckons up in the Third Book of his Politicks he spends three whole Chapters together upon the several kinds of Monarchy First in his fourteenth Chapter he mentions four kinds of Monarchy The Laconique or Lacedemonian The Barbarique The Aesymnetical The Heroique The Laconique or Lacedemonian King saith he had onely Supream power when he was out of the bounds of the Lacedemonian Territories then he had absolute power his Kingdom was like to a perpetual Lord General of an Army The Barbarique King saith Aristotle had a power very near to Tyranny yet they were lawful and Paternal because the Barbarians are of a more servile nature than the Grecians and the Asiatiques than the Europeans they do willingly without repining live under a Masterly Government yet their Government is stable and safe because they are Paternal and lawful Kingdoms and their Guards are Royal and not Tyrannical for Kings are guarded by their own Subjects and Tyrants are guarded by Strangers The Aesymnetical King saith Arist. in old time in Greece was an Elective Tyrant and differed onely from the Barbarian Kings in that he was Elective and not Paternal these sorts of Kings because they were Tyrannical were Masterly but because they were over such as voluntarily Elected them they were Regal The Heroique were those saith Aristotle which flourished in the Heroical times to whom the people did willingly obey and they were Paternal and lawful because these Kings did deserve well of the multitude either by teaching them Arts or by Warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands amongst them these Kings had Supreme power in War in Sacrifices in Iudicature These four sorts of Monarchy hath Aristotle thus distinguished and after sums them up together and concludes his Chapter as if he had
I read that the Senators who are all chosen out of the Nobility and seldom exceed the number of 28 with the chief of the Realm do chuse their King They have always in a manner set the Kings eldest Son upon the Royal Throne The Nobility of Denmarke withstood the Coronation of Frederick 1559 till he sware not to put any Noble-man to death until he were judged of the Senate and that all Noble-men should have power of life and death over their Subjects without appeal and the King to give no Office without consent of the Councel There is a Chancelour of the Realm before whom they do appeal from all the Provinces and Islands and from him to the King himself I hear of nothing in this Kingdom that tends to Popularity no Assembly of the Commons no elections or representation of them Sweden is governed by a King heretofore elective but now made hereditary in Gustavus time it is divided into Provinces an appeal lieth from the Vicount of every territory to a Soveraign Judge called a Lamen from the Lamens to the Kings Councel and from this Councel to the King himself Now let the Observator bethink himself whether all or any of these three Countries have found out any art at all whereby the people or community may assume its own power if neither of these Kingdomes have most Countries have not nay none have The people or Community in these three Realms are as absolute vassals as any in the world the regulating power if any be is in the Nobility Nor is it such in the Nobility as it makes shew for The election of Kings is rather a Formality than any real power for they dare hardly chuse any but the Heir or one of the blood Royal if they should chuse one among the Nobility it would prove very factious if a stranger odious neither safe For the Government though the Kings be sworn to raign according to the Laws and are not to do any thing without the consent of their Councel in publick affairs yet in regard they have power both to advance and reward whom they please the Nobility and Senators do comply with their Kings And Boterus concludes of the Kings of Poland who seem to be most moderated that such as is their valour dexterity and wisdome such is their Power Authority and Government Also Bodin saith that these three Kingdoms are States changable and uncertain as the Nobility is stronger than the Prince or the Prince than the Nobility and the people are so far from liberty that he saith Divers particular Lords exact not onely Customs but Tributes also which are confirmed and grow stronger both by long prescription of time and use of Iudgments The End AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE JURY-MEN of ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES ADVERTISEMENT To the JURY-MEN OF ENGLAND THE late Executon of Witches at the Summer Assises in Kent occasioned this brief Exercitation which addresses it self to such as have not deliberately thought upon the great difficulty in discovering what or who a Witch is To have nothing but the publick Faith of the present Age is none of the best Evidence unless the universality of elder times do concur with these Doctrines which ignorance in the times of darkness brought forth and credulity in these days of light hath continued Such as shall not be pleased with this Tractate are left to their liberty to consider whether all those Proofs and Presumptions number'd up by Mr. Perkins for the Conviction of a Witch be not all Condemned or confessed by himself to be unsufficient or uncertain He brings no less than eighteen signs or proofs whereby a Witch may be discovered which are too many to be all true his seven first he himself confesseth to be insufficient for Conviction of a Witch His eight next proofs which he saith men in place have used he acknowledgeth to be false or insufficient Thus of his Eighteen proofs which made a great shew fifteen of them are cast off by himself there remains then his sixteenth which is the Confession of a Witch yet presently he is forced to yield That a bare Confession is not a sufficient proof and so he cometh to his seventeenth proof which is two credible witnesses and he here grants that the League between the Devil and the Witch is closely made and the practices of Witches be very secret that hardly a man can be brought which upon his own knowledge can aver such things Therefore at last when all other proofs fail he is forced to fly to his eighteenth proof and tells us that yet there is a way to come to the knowledge of a Witch which is that Satan useth all means to discover a Witch which how it can be well done except the Devil be bound over to give in evidence against the Witch cannot be understood And as Mr. Perkins weakens and discredits all his own proofs so he doth the like for all those of King James who as I remember hath but Three Arguments for the discovery of a Witch First the secret Mark of a Witch of which Mr. Perkins saith it hath no power by Gods Ordinance Secondly The discovery by a fellow Witch this Mr. Perkins by no means will allow to be a good proof Thirdly the swimming of a Witch who is to be flung cross ways into the water that is as Wierus interprets it when the Thumb of the right Hand is bound to the great Toe of the left Foot and the Thumb of the left Hand to the great Toe of the right Foot Against this Tryal by water together with a disability in a Witch to shed Tears which King James mentions Delrio and Mr. Perkins both argue for it seems they both write after King James who put forth his Book of Daemonologie in his youth being in Scotland about his age of thirty years It concerns the people of this Nation to be more diligently instructed in the Doctrine of Witch-craft than those of Forraign Countries because here they are tyed to a stricter or exacter Rule in giving their sentence than others are for all of them must agree in their Verdict which in a case of extream difficulty is very dangerous and it is a sad thing for men to be reduced to that extremity that they must hazard their Consciences or their Lives A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN An English and Hebrew WITCH THE Point in Question is briefly this Whether such a Witch as is Condemned by the Laws and Statutes of this Land be one and the same with the Witch forbidden by the Law of Moses The Witch Condemned by our Statute-law is 1 Iacob Cap. 12. One that shall use practice or exercise any Invocation or Conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit or consult covenant with entertain or employ feed or reward any evil or wicked spirit to or for any intent or purpose or take up any dead man woman or child out of his her or their grave or any other place where the dead body resteth or the
Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX Bona agere mala pati Regium est Page 1 THE Free-holders GRAND INQUEST Touching Our Sovereign Lord the KING And His PARLIAMENT To which are added OBSERVATIONS UPON FORMS OF GOVERNMENT Together with Directions for Obedience to Governours in Dangerous and Doubtful Times By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Knight Claudian de laudibus Stiliconis Fallitur egregio quisquis sub Principe credit Servitium Nunquam Libertas gratior extat Quà m sub Rege pio LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX The Author's PREFACE THere is a general Belief that the Parliament of England was at first an Imitation of the Assembly of the Three Estates in France therefore in order to prepare the Understanding in the Recerche we have in hand it is proper to give a brief Accompt of the mode of France in those Assemblies Scotland and Ireland being also under the Dominion of the King of England a touch of the manner of their Parliaments shall be by way of Preface 1. In France the Kings Writ goeth to the Bailiffs Seneschals or Stewards of Liberties who issue out Warrants to all such as have Fees and Lands within their Liberties and to all Towns requiring all such as have any Complaints to meet in the Principal City there to choose two or three Delegates in the name of that Province to be present at the General Assembly At the day appointed they meet at the Principal City of the Bailiwick The King 's Writ is read and every man called by name and sworn to choose honest men for the Good of the King and Commonwealth to be present at the General Assembly as Delegates faithfully to deliver their Grievances and Demands of the Province Then they choose their Delegates and swear them Next they consult what is necessary to be complained of or what is to be desired of the King and of these things they make a Catalogue or Index And because every man should freely propound his Complaint or Demands there is a Chest placed in the Town-Hall into which every man may cast his Writing After the Catalogue is made and Signed it is delivered to the Delegates to carry to the General Assembly All the Bailiwicks are divided into twelve Classes To avoid confusion and to the end there may not be too great Delay in the Assembly by the Gathering of all the Votes every Classis compiles a Catalogue or Book of the Grievances and Demands of all the Bailiwicks within that Classis then these Classes at the Aslembly compose one Book of the Grievances and Demands of the whole Kingdom This being the order of the Proceedings of the third Estate the like order is observed by the Clergy and Nobility When the three Books for the three Estates are perfected then they present them to the King by their Presidents First the President for the Clergy begins his Oration on his knees and the King commanding he stands up bare-headed and proceeds And so the next President for the Nobility doth the like But the President for the Commons begins and ends his Oration on his knees Whilst the President for the Clergy speaks the rest of that Order rise up and stand bare till they are bid by the King to sit down and be covered and so the like for the Nobility But whilst the President of the Commons speaks the rest are neither bidden to sit or be covered Thus the Grievances and Demands being delivered and left to the King and His Counsel the General Assembly of the three Estates endeth Atque ita totus actus concluditur Thus it appears the General Assembly was but an orderly way of presenting the Publick Grievances and Demands of the whole Kingdom to the consideration of the King Not much unlike the antient Usage of this Kingdom for a long time when all Laws were nothing else but the King's Answers to the Petitions presented to Him in Parliament as is apparent by very many Statutes Parliament-Rolls and the Confession of Sir Edw. Coke 2. In Scotland about twenty dayes before the Parliament begins Proclamation is made throughout the Kingdom to deliver in to the King's Clerk or Master of the Rolls all Bills to be exhibited that Sessions before a certain day then are they brought to the King and perused by Him and onely such as he allows are put into the Chancellour's hand to be propounded in Parliament and none others And if any man in Parliament speak of another matter than is allowed by the King the Chancellour tells him there is no such Bill allowed by the King When they have passed them for Laws they are presented to the King who with his Scepter put into His hand by the Chancellor ratifies them and if there be any thing the King dislikes they raze it out before 3. In Ireland the Parliament as appears by a Statute made in the Tenth year of Hen. 7. c. 4. is to be after this manner No Parliament is to be holden but at such Season as the King's Lieutenant and Councel there do first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the Causes and Considerations and all such Acts as they think fit should pass in the said Parliament And such Causes and Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for that Land And His Licence thereupon as well in affirmation of the said Causes and Acts as to summon the Parliament under His Great Seal of England had and obtained That done a Parliament to be had and holden after the Form and Effect afore rehearsed and if any Parliament be holden in that Land contrary to the Form and Provision aforesaid it is deemed void and of none Effect in Law It is provided that all such Bills as shall be offered to the Parliament there shall first be transmitted hither under the Great Seal of that Kingdom and having received Allowane and Approbation here shall be put under the Great Seal of this Kingdom and so returned thither to be preferred to the Parliament By a Statute of 3 and 4 of Philip and Mary for the expounding of Poynings Act it is ordered for the King 's Passing of the said Acts in such Form and Tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the Change of them or any part of them After this shorter Narrative of the Usage of Parliaments in our Neighbour and Fellow Kingdoms it is time the inquisitio magna of our own be offered to the Verdict or Iudgment of a moderate and intelligent Reader REFLECTIONS Concerning the ORIGINAL OF GOVERNMENT Upon I. Aristotle's Politiques II. Mr. Hobs's Leviathan III. Mr. Milton against Salmasius IV. H. Grotius De Iure Belli V. Mr. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy VI. Another Treatise of Monarchy by a nameless Author Arist. Pol. Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX THE ANARCHY OF A LIMITED OR MIXED Monarchy OR A
Succinct Examination of the Fundamentals of Monarchy both in this and other Kingdoms as well about the Right of Power in Kings as of the Original or Natural Liberty of the People A Question never yet Disputed though most necessary in these Times Lucan Lib. 3. LIBERTAS Populi quem Regna coercent Libertate Perit Neque enim Libertas gratior ulla est Quà m Domino servire bono Claudian LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE Jury-Men OF ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES Together with a Difference between An ENGLISH AND HEBREW Witch LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX The Argument A Presentment of divers Statutes Records and other Precedents explaining the Writs of Summons to Parliament shewing I. That the Commons by their Writ are onely to Perform and Consent to the Ordinances of Parliament II. That the Lords or Common Councel by their Writ are only to Treat and give Counsel in Parliament III. That the King Himself only Ordains and makes Laws and is Supreme Iudge in Parliament With the Suffrages of Hen. de Bracton Jo. Britton Tho. Egerton Edw. Coke Walter Raleigh Rob. Cotton Hen. Spelman Jo. Glanvil Will. Lambard Rich. Crompton Will. Cambden and Jo. Selden THE Free-holders GRAND-INQUEST Touching Our Sovereign Lord the King and His Parliament EVery Free-holder that hath a Voice in the Election of Knights Citizens or Burgesses for the Parliament ought to know with what Power he trusts those whom the chooseth because such Trust is the Foundation of the Power of the House of Commons A Writ from the King to the Sheriff of the County is that which gives Authority and Commission for the Free-holders to make their Election at the next County-Court-day after the Receipt of the Writ and in the Writ there is also expressed the Duty and Power of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses that are there elected The means to know what Trust or Authority the Country or Free-holders confer or bestow by their Election is in this as in other like Cases to have an eye to the words of the Commission oâ—… Writ it self thereby it may be seen whether that which the House of Commons doth act be within the Limit of their Commission greater or other Trust than is comprised in the Body of the Writ the Free-holders do not or cannot give if they obey the Writ the Writ being Latine and not extant in English few Free-holders understand it and fewer observe it I have rendred it in Latine and English Rex Vicecomiti salut ' c. QUia de Advisamento Assensu Concilii nostri prâ—… quibusdam arduis urgentibus Negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae Ecclesâ—… Anglicanae concernen ' quoddam Parliamentum nostruâ—… apud Civitatem nostram West duodecimo die Novembrâ—… prox futur ' teneri ordinavimus ibid. cum Praelatâ—… Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquiuâ—… habere tract Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentâ—… quod facta proclam in prox comitat ' tuo post receptioneâ—… hujus brevis nostri tenend ' die loco praedict duos miliâ—… gladiis cinct ' magis idoneos discretos comit ' praedictâ—… de qualib civitate com' illius duos Cives de quâ—…libet Burgo duos Burgenses de discretior ' magis suffcientibus libere indifferenter per illos qui proclam ' hâ—…jusmodi interfuerint juxta formam statutorum inde edâ—… provis ' eligi nomina eorundum milit ' civium â—… Burgensium sic electorum in quibusdam indentur ' intâ—…te illos qui hujusmodi election ' interfuerint inde confidend ' sive hujusmodi electi praesentes fuerint vel absentes inseri eósque ad dict' diem locum venire fac ' Ita quod iidem milites plenam sufficientem potestatem pro se communitate comit ' praedicti ac dict' Cives Burgenses pro se communitat ' Civitatum Burgorum praedictorum divisim ab ipsis habeant ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibid ' de communi Consilio dicti reg nostri favente Deo contigerint ordinari super negotiis ante dictis Ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi seu propter improvidam electionem milit ' civium aut Burgensium praedictorum dicta negotia infecta non remaneant quovismodo Nolumus autem quod tu nec aliquis alius vic' dicti reg nostri aliqualiter sit electus Et electionem illam in pleno comitatu factam distincte aperte sub sigillo tuo sigillis eorum qui electioni illi interfuerint nobis in cancellar ' nostram ad dict' diem locum certifices indilate remittens nobis alteram partem indenturarum praedictarum praesentibus consut ' una cum hoc breve Teste meipso apud Westmon The King to the Sheriff of Greeting WHereas by the Advice and Consent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the State and Defence of our Kingdom of England and the English Church We have ordained a certain Parliament of ours to be held at Our City of the day of next ensuing and there to have Conference and to treat with the Prelates Great men and Peers of our said Kingdom We command and straitly enjoyn you that making Proclamation at the next County-Court after the Receipt of this our Writ to be holden the day and place aforesaid You cause two Knights girt with Swords the most fit and discreet of the County aforesaid and of every City of that County two Citizens of every Borough two Burgesses of the discreeter and most sufficient to be freely and indifferently chosen by them who shall be present at such Proclamation according to the Tenor of the Statutes in that case made and provided and the Names of the said Knights Citizens and Burgesses so chosen to be inserted in certain Indentures to be then made between you and those that shall be present at such Election whether the Parties so elected be present or absent and shall make them to come at the said day and Place so that the said Knights for themselves and for the County aforesaid and the said Citizens and Burgesses for themselves and the Commonalty of the aforesaid Cities and Boroughs may have severally from them full and sufficient Power to Perform and to Consent to those things which then by the Favour of God shall there happen to be ordained by the Common-Councel of our said Kingdom concerning the Businesses aforesaid So that the Business may not by any means remain undone for want of such Power or by reason of the improvident Election of the aforesaid Knights Citizens and Burgesses But We will not in any case you or any other Sheriff of Our said Kingdom shall be elected And at the Day and Place aforesaid the said Election made in the full County-Court you shall certifie without Delay to Us in our Chancery under your Seal and the Seals of them which shall be present
Barons made an Ordinance touching the Exemption of the Abby of Bury from the Bishops of Norwich In the tenth year of the Conquerour Episcopi Comites Barones regni regia potestate ad universalem Synodum pro causis audiendis tractandis convocati saith the Book of Westminster In the 2 year of William 2. there was a Parliament de cunctis regni Principibus another which had quosque regni proceres All the Peers of the Kingdom In the seventh year was a Parliament at Rockingham-Castle in Northampton-shire Episcopis Abbatibus cunctique regni Principibus una coeuntibus A year or two after the same King de statu regni acturus c. called thither by the Command of his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Kingdom At the Coronation of Hen. 1. All the People of the Kingdom of England were called and Laws were then made but it was Per Commune Concilium Baronum meorum by the Common Councel of my Barons In his third year the Peers of the Kingdom were called without any mention of the Commons and another a while after consensu Comitum Baronum by the consent of Earls and Barons Florentius Wigoriensis saith these are Statutes which Anselme and all the other Bishops in the Presence of King Henry by the assent of his Barons ordained and in his tenth year of Earls and Peers and in his 23. of Earls and Barons In the year following the same King held a Parliament or great Councel with His Barons Spiritual and Temporal King Hen. 2. in his tenth year had a great Councel or Parliament at Clarendon which was an Assembly of Prelates and Peers 22. Hen. 2. saith Hovenden was a great Councel at Nottingham and by the Common Councel of the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons the Kingdom was divided into six parts And again Hovendeâ—… saith that the same King at Windsor apud Windâ—… shores Communi Concilio of Bishops Earls and Barons divided England into four Parts And in hiâ—… 21 year a Parliament at Windsor of Bishops Earlâ—… and Barons And another of like Persons at Northampton King Richard 1. had a Parliament at Nottingham in his fifth year of Bishops Earls and Barons Thiâ—… Parliament lasted but four days yet much was donâ—… in it the first day the King disseiseth Gerard de Canvil of the Sherifwick of Lincoln and Hugh Bardolâ—… of the Castle and Sherifwick of York The second day he required judgment against his Brother Iohn who was afterwards King and Hugh de Novaâ—… Bishop of Coventry The third day was granted to thâ—… King of every Plow-land in England 2 s. He required also the third part of the Service of every Knights Fâ—… for his Attendance into Normandy and all the Wooâ—… that year of the Monks Cisteaux which for that 〈◊〉 was grievous and unsupportable they fine for Moâ—…ny The last day was for Hearing of Grievancesâ—… and so the Parliament brake up And the same yeaâ—… held another at Northampton of the Nobles of thâ—… Realm King Iohn in his fifth year He and his Great mâ—…met Rex Magnates convenerunt and thâ—… Roll of that year hath Commune Concilium Bâ—…ronum Meorum the Common Councel of my Baronâ—… at Winchester In the sixth year of King Henry 3. the Nobleâ—… granted to the King of every Knights Fee two Markâ—… in Silver In the seventh year he had a Parliament at London an Assembly of Barons In his thirteenth year an Assembly of the Lords at Westminster In his fifteenth year of Nobles both Spiritual and Temporal M. Par. saith that 20. H. 3. Congregati sunt Magnates ad colloquium de negotiis regni tractaturi the Great men were called to confer and treat of the Business of the Kingdom And at Merton Our Lord the King granted by the Consent of his Great men That hereafter Usury should not run against a Ward from the Death of his Ancestor 21. Hen. 3. The King sent his Royal Writs commanding all belonging to His Kingdom that is to say Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots and Priors installed Earls and Barons that they should all meet at London to treat of the Kings Business touching the whole Kingdom and at the day prefixed the whole multitude of the Nobles of the Kingdom met at London saith Mat. Westminster In his 21 year At the Request and by the Councel of the Lords the Charters were confirmed 22. Hen. 3. At Winchester the King sent his Royal Writs to Arch-bishops Bishops Priors Earls and Barons to treat of Business concerning the whole Kingdome 32. Hen. 3. The King commanded all the Nobility of the whole Kingdom to be called to treat of the State of His Kingdom Mat. Westm ' 49. Hen. 3. The King had a Treaty at Oxford with the Peers of the Kingdom M. Westminster At a Parliament at Marlborow 55. Hen. 3. Statutes were made by the Assent of Earls and Barons Here the Place of Bracton Chief Justice in thiâ—… Kings time is worth the observing and the ratheâ—… for that it is much insisted on of late to make foâ—… Parliaments being above the King The words iâ—… Bracton are The King hath a Superiour God also thâ—… Law by which he is made King also his Court viz the Earls and Barons The Court that was said iâ—… those days to be above the King was a Court of Earls and Barons not a Word of the Commons or thâ—… representative Body of the Kingdom being any paâ—… of the Superiour Court Now for the true Senâ—… of Bractons words how the Law and the Court 〈◊〉 Earls and Barons are the Kings Superiours theâ—… must of Necessity be understood to be Superiours 〈◊〉 far only as to advise and direct the King out of hiâ—… own Grace and Good Will only which appeaâ—… plainly by the Words of Bracton himself wherâ—… speaking of the King he resolves thus Nec potest 〈◊〉 necessitatem aliquis imponere quod injuriam suam corrigâ—… emendat cum superiorem non habeat nisi Deum 〈◊〉 satis ei erit ad poenam quod Dominum expectat ultoreâ—… Nor can any man put a necessity upon Him to correâ—… and amend his Injury unless he will himself sinâ—… he hath no Superiour but God it will be sufficieâ—… Punishment for him to expect the Lord an avengeâ—… Here the same man who speaking according to somâ—…mens Opinion saith the Law and Court of Earls aâ—… Barons are superiour to the King in this place telâ—… us himself the King hath no Superiour but God thâ—… Difference is easily reconciled according to the Dâ—…stinction of the School-men the King is free from tâ—… Coactive Power of Laws or Councellors but may be suâ—…ject to their Directive Power according to his owâ—… Will that is God can only compell but thâ—… Law and his Courts may advise Him Rot. Parliament 1 Hen. 4. nu 79. the Commons expresly affirm Iudgment in Parliament belongs to the King and Lords These Precedents shew that from the Conquest untill a great
part of Henry the Third's Reign in whose dayes it is thought the Writ for Election of Knights was framed which is about two hundred years and above a third part of the time since the Conquest to our dayes the Barons made the Parliament or Common Councel of the Kingdom under the name of Barons not only the Earls but the Bishops also were Comprehended for the Conquerour made the Bishops Barons Therefore it is no such great Wonder that in the Writ we find the Lords only to be the Counsellours and the Commons Called only to perform and consent to the Ordinances Those there be who seem to believe that under the word Barons anciently the Lords of Court-Baâ—…ons were Comprehended and that they were Called to Parliament as Barons But if this could be proved to have been at any time true yet those Lords of Court-Barons were not the representative Body of the Commons of England except it can be also proved that the Commons or Free-holders of the Kingdome chose such Lords of Court-Barons to â—…e present in Parliament The Lords of Manors â—…ame not at first by Election of the People as Sir Edw. Coke treating of the institution of Court-Baâ—…ons resolves us in these words By the Laws and Ordinances of ancient Kings and especially of King Alâ—…red it appeareth that the first Kings of this Realm â—…ad all the Lands of England in Demean and les grand Manors and Royalties they reserved to themselves and of the remnant they for the Defence of the Realâ—… enfeoffed the Barons of the Realm with such Iurisdiction as the Court-Baron now hath Coke's Instituteâ—… First part Fol. 58. Here by the way I cannot but note that if thâ—… first Kings had all the Lands of England in Demean 〈◊〉 Sir Edward Coke saith they had And if the firâ—… Kings were chosen by the People as many thinâ—… they were then surely our Forefathers were a verâ—… bountiful if not a prodigal People to give all thâ—… Lands of the whole Kingdom to their Kings witâ—… Liberty for them to keep what they pleased and tâ—… give the Remainder to their Subjects clogg'd anâ—… cumbred with a Condition to defend the Realmâ—… This is but an ill sign of a limited Monarchy by original Constitution or Contract But to conclude thâ—… former Point Sir Edward Coke's Opinion is thâ—… in the ancient Laws under the name of Barons were comprised all the Nobility This Doctrine of the Barons being the Commâ—… Councel doth displease many and is denied aâ—…tending to the Disparagement of the Commons anâ—… to the Discredit and Confutation of their Opinioâ—… who teach that the Commons are assigned Councelloâ—… to the King by the People therefore I will call in Mâ—… Pryn to help us with his Testimony He in his Booâ—… of Treachery and Disloyalty c. proves that before thâ—… Conquest by the Laws of Edward the Confessoâ—… cap. 17. The King by his Oaths was to do Iustice 〈◊〉 the Councel of the Nobles of his Realm He also resolves that the Earls and Barons in Parliament aâ—… above the King and ought to bridle him when he exorâ—…tates from the Laws He further tells us the Peers anâ—… Prelates have oft translated the Crown from the right Heâ—… 1. Electing and Crowning Edward who was illegitimate and putting by Ethelred the right Heir after Edgars decease 2. Electing and Crowning Canutus a meer Foreigner in opposition to Edmund the right Heir to King Ethelred 3. Harold and Hardiknute both elected Kings successively without title Edmund and Alfred the right Heirs being dispossessed 4. The English Nobility upon the Death of Harold enacted that none of the Danish bloud should any more reign over them 5. Edgar Etheling who had best Title was rejected and Harold elected and crowned King 6. In the second and third year of Edw. 2. the Peers and Nobles of the Land seeing themselves contemned entreated the King to manage the Affairs of the Kingdome by the Councel of his Barons He gave his Assent and sware to ratifie what the Nobles ordained and one of their Articles was that he would thenceforward order all the Affairs of the Kingdom by the Councel of his Clergy and Lords 7. William Rufus finding the greatest part of the Nobles against him sware to Lanfranke that if they would choose him for King he would abrogate their over-hard Laws 8. The Beginning saith Mr. Pryn of the Charter of Hen. 1. is observable Henry by the Grace of God of England c. Know ye That by the Mercy of God and Common Councel of the Barons of the Kingdom I am Crowned King 9. Maud the Empress the right Heir was put by the Crown by the Prelates and Barons and Stephen Earl of Mortain who had no good Title assembling the Bishops and Peers promising the amendment of the Lawâ—… according to all their Pleasures and Liking was by thâ—… all proclaimed King 10. Lewis of France Crowned King by the Barons in stead of King John All these Testimonies from Mr. Pryn may satisfie that anciently the Barons were the Common Councel or Parliament of England And if Mr. Pryn could have found so much Antiquity and Proof for thâ—… Knights Citizens and Burgesses being of the Common Councel I make no doubt but we should have heard from him in Capital Characters but alas he meets not with so much as these Names in those elder Ages He dares not say the Barons were assigned by the People Councellors to the King for he tells us every Baron in Parliament doth represent hiâ—… own Person and speaketh in behalf of himself alone but in the Knights Citizens and Burgesses are represented the Commons of the whole Realm therefore every one of the Commons hath a greater voice in Parliament than the greatest Earl in England Nevertheless Masteâ—… Pryn will be very well content if we will admiâ—… and swallow these Parliaments of Barons for the representative Body of the Kingdom and to that Purpose he cites them or to no Purpose at all But to prove the Treachery and Disloyalty of Popish Parliaments Prelates and Peers to their Kings which iâ—… the main Point that Master Pryn by the Title of hiâ—… Book is to make good and to prove As to the second Point which is That untill the time of Hen. 1. the Commons were not called to Parliament besides the general Silence of Antiquity which never makes mention of the Commons Coming to Parliament untill that time our Histories say before his time only certain of the Nobility were called to Consultation about the most important affairs of the State He caused the Commons also to be assembled by Knights Citizens and Burgesses of their own Appointment much to the same Purpose writes Sir Walter Raleigh saying it is held that the Kings of England had no formal Parliaments till about the 18th year of King Hen. 1. For in his Third year for the Marriage of his Daughter the King raised a Tax upon every Hide of Land by the Advice of His Privy Councel alone And
the Subjects saith he soon after this Parliament was established began to stand upon Terms with their King and drew from him by strong hand and their Swords their Great Charter it was after â—…he establishment of the Parliament by colour of it that â—…hey had so great Daring If any desire to know the â—…ause why Hen. 1. called the People to Parliament â—…t was upon no very good Occasion if we believe Sir Walter Raleigh The Grand Charter saith he was not originally granted Regally and freely for King Hen. 1. did but usurp the Kingdom and therefore the â—…etter to assure himself against Robert his elder Brother â—…e flattered the People with those Charters yea King John â—…hat confirmed them had the like Respect for Arthur Dâ—… Britain was the undoubted Heir of the Crown upon whom John usurped so these Charters had their original â—…rom Kings de facto but not de jure and then afterwards his Conclusion is that the Great Charter had â—…rst an obscure Birth by Usurpation and was fostered and â—…ewed to the World by Rebellion in brief the King calâ—…ed the People to Parliament and granted them Magna Charta that they might confirm to him the Crown The third Point consists of two parts First that â—…he Commons were not called unto Parliament until Hen. 3. dayes this appears by divers of the Precâ—…dents formerly cited to prove that the Barons weâ—… the Common Councel For though Hen. 1. called aâ—… the People of the Land to His Coronation and agaiâ—… in the 15. or 18. year of his Reign yet alwayes hâ—… did not so neither many of those Kings that diâ—… succeed him as appeareth before Secondly for calling the Commons by Writ find it acknowledged in a Book intituled The Privilege and Practice of Parliaments in these words lâ—… ancient times after the King had summoned His Parliament innumerable multitudes of People did maâ—… their Access thereunto pretending that Privilege â—… Right to belong to them But King Hen. 3. haviâ—… Experience of the Mischief and inconveniences by occasion of such popular Confusion did take order that noâ—… might come to His Parliament but those who were specâ—…ally summoned To this purpose it is observed bâ—… Master Selden that the first Writs we find accompaniâ—… with other Circumstances of a Summons to Parliamenâ—… as well for the Commons as Lords is in the 49 â—… Hen. 3. In the like manner Master Cambden speaking of the Dignity of Barons hath these Words King Hen. 3. out of a great Multitude which wâ—… seditious and turbulent called the very best by Writ â—… Summons to Parliament for he after many Troubles aâ—… Vexations between the King himself and Simon â—… Monefort with other Barons and after appeased dâ—…decree and ordain That all those Earls and Barons uâ—…to whom the King himself vouchsafed to direct Hâ—… Writs of Summons should come to his Parliament anâ—… no others but that which he began a little before hâ—… Death Edward 1. and his Successours constantly oâ—…served and continued The said prudent King Edwarâ—… summoned always those of ancient Families that were most wise to His Parliament and omitted their Sons after their Death if they were not answerable to their Parents in Understanding Also Master Cambden in another place saith that in the time of Edw. 1. select men for Wisdom and Worth among the Gentry were called to Parliament and their Posterity omitted if they were defective therein As the power of sending Writs of Summons for Elections was first exercised by Hen. 3. so succeeding Kings did regulate the Elections upon such Writs as doth appear by several Statutes which all speak in the Name and Power of the Kings themselves for such was the Language of our Fore-fathers In 5 Ric. 2. c. 4. these be the words The King Willeth and Commandeth all Persons which shall have Summons to come to Parliament and every Person that doth absent himself except he may reasonably and honestly excuse him to Our Lord the King shall be amerced and otherwise punished 7 Hen. 4. c. 15. Our Lord the King at the grievous complaint of his Commons of the undue Election of the Knights of Counties sometimes made of affection of Sheriffs and otherwise against the Form of the Writs to the great slander of the Counties c. Our Lord the King willing therein to provide Remedy by the Assent of the Lords and Commons Hath Ordained That Election shall be made in the full County-Court and that all that be there present as well Suitors as others shall proceed to the Election freely notwithstanding any Request or Command to the contrary 11 Hen. 4. c. 1. Our Lord the King Ordained that a Sheriff that maketh an undue Return c. shall incur the Penalty of 100 l. to be paid to Our Lord the King 1 H. 5. c. 1. Our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of the Lords and the special Instance and Request of the Commons Ordained that the Knights of the Shire be not chosen unless they be resiant within the Shire the day of the date of the Writ and that Citizens and Burgesses be resiant dwelling and free in the the same Cities and Burroughs and no others in any wise 6 Hen. 6. c. 4. Our Lord the King willing to provide remedy for Knights chosen for Parliament and Sheriffs Hath Ordained that they shall have their Answer and traverse to Inquest of Office found against them 8 Hen. 6. c. 7. Whereas Elections of Knights have been made by great Out-rages and excessive number of People of which most part was of People of no value whereof every of them pretend a Voice equivalent to Worthy Knights and Esquires whereby Man-slaughters Riots and Divisions among Gentlemen shall likely be Our Lord the King hath Ordained That Knights of Shires be chosen by People dwelling in the Counties every of them having Lands or Tenements to the value of 2 l. the year at the least and that he that shall be chosen shall be dwelling and resiant within the Counties 10. H. 6. Our Lord the King ordained that Knightâ—… be chosen by People dwelling and having 2 l. by the year within the same County 11 H. 6. c. 11. The King willing to provide for the Ease of them that come to the Parliaments and Councels of the King by his Commandment hath ordained that if any Assault or Fray be made on them that comâ—… to Parliament or other Councel of the King the Parâ—… which made any such Affray or Assault shall pay doublâ—… Damages and make Fine and Ransom at the Kings Wilâ—… 23. H. 6. c. 15. The King considering the Statutes of 1 H. 5. c. 1. 8. Hen. 6. c. 7. and the Defaults of Sheriffs in returning Knights Citizens and Burgesses ordained 1. That the said Statutes should be duely kept 2. That the Sheriffs shall deliver Precepts to Maiors and Bayliffs to chuse Citizens and Burgesses 3. The Penalty of 100 l. for a Sheriff making an untrue Return concerning the election of
be Kings in Fact and Kings themselves to be but Subjects We read in Sir Roâ—…ert Cotton that towards the end of the Saxons and â—…he first times of the Norman Kings Parliaments stood 〈◊〉 Custom-grace fixed to Easter Whitsontide and Christmas and that at the Kings Court or Palace Parliaments sate in the Presence or Privy Chamber from whence he infers an Improbability to believe the King excluded His own Presence and unmannerly fâ—… Guests to bar Him their Company who gave them theâ—… Entertainment And although now a-days the Parliament sit not in the Court where the Kings housholâ—… remains yet still even to this day to shew that Parliaments are the Kings Guests the Lord Steward oâ—… the Kings Houshold keeps a standing Table to entertain the Peers during the sitting of Parliament and he alone or some from or under him as the Treasurer or Comptroller of the Kings Houshold takeâ—… the Oaths of the Members of the House of Commoâ—… the first day of the Parliament Sir Richard Sâ—…roop Steward of the Houshold of our Sovereign Lord the King by the Commandment of the Lords sitting in full Parliament iâ—… the Great Chamber put I. Lord Gomeniz and William Weston to answer severally to Accusations broughâ—… against them The Necessity of the King's Presence in Parliamenâ—… appears by the Desire of Parliaments themselves iâ—…former times and the Practice of it Sir Robert Cottoâ—… proves by several Precedents whence he concludeâ—… that in the Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King wâ—… not only present to advise but to determine also Whensoever the King is present all Power of judging which is derived from His ceaseth The Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the finaâ—… Judgment is only the Kings Indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of theiâ—… Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of Use by which means it is comâ—… to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late been left to the Judgment of the Peers who in Quality of Judges extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in His absence to determine such matters as are properly brought before the King Himself sitting in Person attended with His great Councel of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the Kings Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from the Confirmation of Him who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Judge All Judgement is by or under Him it cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton that ancient Chief Justice in Hen. 3. time An ancient Precedent I meet with cited by Master Selden of a judicial Proceeding in a Criminal Cause of the Barons before the Conquest wherein I observe the Kings Will was that the Lords should be Judges â—…n the Cause wherein Himself was a Party and He â—…atified their Proceeding The case was thus Earl Godwin having had a Trial before the Lords under King Hardicanute touching the Death of Alfred Son to King Ethelbert and Brother to him who was afterward Edward the Confessor had fled out of England and upon his Return with Hope of Edward the Confessor's Favour he solicited the Lords â—…o intercede for him with the King who consulting together brought Godwin with them before the King to obtain his Grace and Favour But the King â—…resently as soon as he beheld him said Thou Traytor Godwin I do appeal thee of the Death of my Brother Alfred whom thou hast most trayterously slain Then Godwin excusing it answered My Lord the King may it please your Grace I neither betrayed nor killed your Brother whereof I put my self upon the Iudgment of your Court Then the King said You noble Lords Earls and Barons of the Land who are my Liege men now gathered here together and have heard My Appeal and Godwins Answer I Will that in this Appeal between Us ye decree right Iudgment and do true Iustice. The Earls and Barons treating of this among themselves were of differing Judgments some said that Godwin was never bound to the King either by Homage Service or Fealty and therefore could not be his Traytor and that he had not slain Alfred with his own hands others said that neither Earl nor Baron nor any other Subject of the King could wage his War by Law against the King in his Appeal but most wholly put himself into the Kings Mercy and offer competent Amends Then Leofric Consul of Chester a good man before God and the World said Earl Godwin next to the King is a man of the best Parentage of all England and he cannot deny but that by his Counsel Alfred the Kings Brother was slain therefore for my part I consider that He and his Son and all we twelve Earls who are his Friends and Kinsmen do go humbly before the King laden with so much Gold and Silver as each of us can carry in our Arms offering him That for his Offence and humbly praying for Pardon And he will pardon the Earl and taking his Homage and Fealty will restore him all his Lands All they in this form lading themselves with Treasure and coming to the King did shew the Manner and Order of their Consideration to which The King not willing to contradict did ratifie all that they had judged 23 Hen. 2. In Lent there was an Assembly of all the Spiritual and Temporal Barons at Westminster for the determination of that great Contention between Alfonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre touching divers Castles and Territories in Spain which was by compromise submitted to the Judgment of the King of England And the King consulting with his Bishops Earls and Barons determined it as he saith Himself in the first Person in the Exemplification of the Judgement 2 Of King Iohn also that great Controversie touching the Barony that William of Moubray claimed against William of Stutvil which had depended from the time of King Hen. 2. was ended by the Councel of the Kingdom and Will of the King Concilio regni voluntate Regis The Lords in Parliament adjudge William de Weston to Death for surrendring Barwick Castle but for that Our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Judgment the Constable of the Tower Allen Buxall was commanded safely to keep the said William untill he hath other Commandment from our Lord the King 4 Ric. 2. Also the Lords adjudged Iohn Lord of Gomentz for surrendring the Towns and Castles of Ardee and for that he was a Gentleman and Bannaret and had served the late King he should be beheaded and for that our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Iudgment the Execution thereof
Maurice Justicer of Ireland The Explanations of the Statute of Gloucester made by the King and His Iustices only were received alwayes for Statutes and are still printed with them Also the Statute made for the correction of the twelfth Chapter of the Statute of Gloucester was Signed under the Great Seal and sent to the Justices of the Bench after the manner of a Writ Patent with a certain Writ closed dated by the Kings hand at Westminster 2 Maii 9 Edw. 1. requiring that they should do and execute all and every thing contained in it though the same do not accord with the Stat. of Gloucester in all things The Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly of Prelates and the greater part of the Earls and Barons for the Coronation of the King and his Queen Elinor are in the form of a Proclamation and begin Provisum est in Curia domini Regis apud Merton 19 Hen. 3. a Provision was made de assisa praesentationis which was continued and allowed for a Law untill the Stat. of West 2. which provides the contrary in express words In the old Statutes it is hard to distinguish what Laws were made by Kings in Parliament and what out of Parliament when Kings called Peers only to Parliament and of those how many or whom they pleased as it appears anciently they did it was no easie matter to put a difference between a Councel-Table and a Parliament or between a Proclamation and a Statute Yet it is most evident that in old times there was a distinction between the Kings special or Privy Councel and His Common Councel of the Kingdom and His special Councel did sit with the Peers in Parliament and were of great and extraordinary Authority there In the Stat. of Westm. 1. it is said These are the Acts of K. Edw. 1. made at His first Parliament by His Councel and by the Assent of Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm The Stat. of Acton Burnell hath these words The King for Himself and by His Councel hath Ordained and Established In articulis super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the Request of the Prelates Earls and Barons are found these two provisions 1. Nevertheless the King and his Councel do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the Kings Right 2. Notwithstanding all these things before-mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Councel and all they that were present Will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of His Crown shall be saved to Him in all things The Stat. of Escheators hath this Title At the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King By His Councel it was agreed and also by the King himself commanded 1 Edw. 3. where Magna Charta was confirmed this Preamble is found At the request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King and His Councel in Parliament by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons c. The Statute made at York 9 Edw. 3. goeth thus Whereas the Knights Citizens and Burgesses desired Our Sovereign Lord the King in His Parliament by their Petition c. Our Sovereign Lord the King desiring the profit of His People By the Assent of His Prelates Earls Barons and other Nobles of His Realm and by the Advice of His Councel being there Hath Ordained 25. Edw. 3. In the Statute of Purveyors where the King at the request of the Lords and Commons made a Declaration what Offences should be adjudged Treason It is there further said if per-case any man ride Armed with Men of Arms against any other to slay him or rob him It is not the Mind of the King or of His Councel that in such cases it shall be adjudged Treason By this Statute it appears that even in the case of Treason which is the Kings own Cause as whereas a man doth compass or imagine the Death of Our Lord the King or a man do wage War against Our Lord the King in His Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving to them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere in all these cases it is the Kings Declaration onely that makes it to be Treason and though it be said that Difficult points of Treason shall be brought and shewed to the King and His Parliament yet it is said it is the mind of the King and his Councel that determines what shall be adjudged Treason and what Felony or Trespass 27 Edw. 3. the Commons presenting a Petition to the King which the Kings Councel did mislike were content thereupon to amend and explain their Petition the Petition hath these words To their most redoubted Sovereign Lord the King Praying Your said Commons that whereas they have prayed him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Eyre c. which Petition seemeth to his Councel to be prejudicial unto him and in Disinherison of his Crown if it were so generally granted His said Commons not willing nor desiring to demand things of Him or of his Crown perpetually as of Escheats c. But of Trespasses Misprisions Negligences Ignorances c. And as in Parliaments the Kings Councel were of Supereminent Power so out of Parliament Kings made great Use of them King Edw. 1. finding that Bogo de Clare was discharged of an Accusation brought against him in Parliament commanded him nevertheless to appear before him and his Councel ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus Concilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to the Examination of the whole Cause 8 Edw. 1. Edw. 3. In the Star-chamber which was the ancient Councel-table at Westminster upon the complaint of Eliz. Audley commanded Iames Audley to appear before Him and His Councel and determined a Controversie between them touching Land contained in her Jointure Rot. claus de An. 41 Edw. 3. Hen. 5. In a Suit before Him and His Councel For the Titles of the Manors of Serre and St. Lawrence in the Isle of Thanet in Kent took order for the Sequestring the Profits till the Right were tried Hen. 6. commanded the Justices of the Bench to stay the Arraignment of one Verney in London till they had other Commandment from Him and His Councel 34 Hen. 6. rot 37. in Banco Edw. 4. and his Councel in the Star-Chamber heard the Cause of the Master and poor Brethren of Saint Leonard's in York complaining that Sir Hugh Hastings and others withdrew from them a great part of their Living which consisted chiefly upon the having of a Thrave of Corn of every Plow-land within the Counties of York Westmorland Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. pat de an 8. Edw. 4. part 3. memb 14. Hen. 7. and his Councel in the Star-Chamber decreed that Margery and Florence Becket should sue no further in their cause against Alice Radley Widow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumsted in Kent for as much as the matter had been heard
first before the Councel of Edw. 4. after that before the President of the Requests of that King Hen. 7. and then lastly before the Councel of the said King 1 Hen. 7. In the time of Hen. 3. an Order or Provision was made by the Kings Councel and it was pleaded at the Common Law in Bar to a Writ of Dower the Plaintifs Atturney could not deny it and thereupon the Judgment was ideo sine die It seems in those days an Order of the Kings Councel was either parcell of the Common Law or above it Also we may find the Judges have had Regard that before they would resolve or give Judgment in new Cases they consulted with the Kings Privy Councel In the case of Adam Brabson who was assaulted by R. W. in the Presence of the Justices of Assise at Westminster the Judges would have the Advice of the Kings Councel for in a like Case because R. C. did strike a Juror at Westminster which passed against one of his Friends It was adjudged by all the Councel that his right hand should be cut off and his Lands and Goods forfeited to the King Green and Thorp were sent by the Judges to the Kings Councel to demand of them whether by the Stat. of 14 Edw. 3. 16. a word may be amended in a Writ and it was answered that a word may be well amended although the Stat. speaks but of a Letter or Syllable In the Case of Sir Thomas Ogthred who brought a Formedon against a poor man and his Wife they came and yielded to the Demandant which seemed suspitious to the Court whereupon Judgment was staid and Thorp said that in the like case of Giles Blacket it was spoken of in Parliament and we were commanded that when any like should come we should not go to Judgment without good Advice therefore the Judges Conclusion was Sues an counseil comment ils voilent que nous devomus faire nous volums faire autrement nient en oest case sue to the Councel and as they will have us to do we will do and otherwise not in this Case 39 Edw. 3. Thus we see the Judges themselves were guided by the Kings Councel and yet the Opinions of Judges have guided the Lords in Parliament in Point of Law All the Judges of the Realm Barons of Exchequer of the Quoif the Kings learned Councel and the Civilians Masters of Chancery are called Temporal Assistants by Sir Edw. Coke and though he deny them Voices in Parliament yet lie confesseth that by their Writ they have Power both to treat and to give Councel I cannot find that the Lords have any other Power by their Writ the Words of the Lords Writ are That you be present with Us the Prelates Great men and Peers to treat and give your Counsel The words of the Judges Writ are that you be present with Us and others of the Counsel and sometimes with Us only to treat and give your Counsel The Judges usually joyned in Committees with the Lords in all Parliaments even in Queen Eliz. Reign untill her 39th Year and then upon the 7th of November the Judges were appointed to attend the Lords And whereas the Judges have Liberty in the upper House it self upon Leave given them by the L. Keeper to cover themselves now at Committees they sit always uncovered The Power of Judges in Parliament is best understood if we consider how the judicial Power of Peers hath been exercised in matter of Judicature we may find it hath been the Practice that though the Lords in the Kings Absence give Judgment in Point of Law yet they are to be directed and regulated by the Kings Judges who are best able to give Direction in the difficult Points of the Law which ordinarily are unknown to the Lords And therefore if any Errour be committed in the Kings Bench which is the highest ordinary Court of Common Law in the Kingdom that Errour must be redressed in Parliament And the Manner is saith the Lord Chancellor Egerton If a Writ of Errour be sued in Parl. upon a Iudgment given by the Iudges in the Kings Bench the Lords of the higher House alone without the Commons are to examine the Errours The Lords are to proceed according to the Law and for their Iudgments therein they are to be informed by the Advice and Councel of the Iudges who are to inform them what the Law is and to direct them in their Iudgment for the Lords are not to follow their own Discretion or Opinion otherwise 28 Hen. 6. the Commons made Sute that W. de la Pool D. of Suffolk should be committed to Prison for many Treasons and other Crimes the Lords of the higher House were doubtful what Answer to give the Opinion of the Iudges was demanded their Opinion was that he ought not to be committed for that the Commons did not charge him with any particular Offence but with general Reports and Slanders this Opinion was allowed 31. Hen. 6. A Parliament being prorogued in the Vacation the Speaker of the House of Commons was condemned in a thousand Pounds Damages in an Action of Trespass and committed to Prison in Execution for the same when the Parliament was re-assembled the Commons made sute to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered The Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges whether he might be delivered out of Prison by Privilege of Parliament upon the Judges Answer it was concluded that the Speaker should remain iâ—… Prison according to the Law notwithstanding the Privilege of Parliament and that he was Speaker which Resolution was declared to the Commons by Moyâ—… the Kings Serjeant at Law and the Commons were commanded in the Kings name by the Bishop 〈◊〉 Lincoln in the absence of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury then Chancellor to chuse another Speaker 7 Hen. 8. A Question was moved in Parliament Whether Spiritual Persons might be convented before Temporal Iudges for criminal Causes there Sir Iohn Fineux and the other Judges delivered their Opinion that they might and ought to be and their Opinion allowed and maintained by the King and Lords and Dr. Standish who before had holden the same Opinion wâ—… delivered from the Bishops I find it affirmed that in Causes which receive Determination in the House of Lords the King hath 〈◊〉 Vote at all no more than in other Courts of ministerial Iurisdiction True it is the King hath no Vote at all if we understand by Vote a Voice among others for he hath no partners with Him in giving Judgement But if by no Vote is meant he hath no Power to judge we dispoil him of his Sovereignty It is the chief Mark of Supremacy to judge in the highest Causes and last Appeals This the Children of Israel full well understood when they petitioned for a King to judge them if the dernier resoâ—… be to the Lords alone then they have the Supremacy But as Moses by chusing Elders to judge in small Causes did
not thereby lose his Authority to be Judge himself when he pleased even in the smallest matters much less in the greatest which he reserved to himself so Kings by delegating others to judge under them do not thereby denude themselves of a Power to judge when they think good There is a Distinction of these times that Kings themselves may not judge but they may see and look to the Iudges that they give Iudgment according to Law and for this Purpose only as some say Kings may sometimes sit in the Courts of Justice But it is not possible for Kings to see the Laws executed except there be a Power in Kings both to judge when the Laws are duely executed and when not as also to compell the Judges if they do not their Duty Without such Power a King sitting in Courts is but a Mockery and a Scorn to the Judges And if this Power be allowed to Kings then their Judgments are supream in all Courts And indeed our Common Law to this Purpose doth presume that the King hath alâ—… Laws within the Cabinet of His Breast in Scrinio pectoris saith Crompton's Jurisdiction 108. When several of our Statutes leave many things to the Pleasure of the King for us to interpret all those Statutes of the Will and Pleasure of the Kings Iustices only is to give an absolute Arbitrary Power to the Justices in those Cases wherein we deny it to the King The Statute of 5 Hen. 4. c. 2. makes a Difference between the King and the Kings Iustices in these words Divers notorious Felons be indicted of divers Felonies Murders Rapes and as well before the Kings Iustices as before the King himself arreigned of the same Felonies I read that in An. 1256. Hen. 3. sate in the Eâ—…chequer and there set down Order for the Appearance Sheriffs and bringing in their Accounts there wâ—… five Marks set on every Sheriffs Head for a Fine bâ—…cause they had not distrained every Person that migâ—… dispend fifteen pounds Lands by the Year to receive tâ—… Order of Knighthood according as the same Sherifâ—… were commanded In Michaelmas Term 1462. Edw. 4. sate thâ—… dayes together in open Court in the Kings Bench. For this Point there needs no further Proofs bâ—…cause Mr. Pryn doth confess that Kings themselvâ—… have sate in Person in the Kings Bench and other Couâ—… and there given Iudgment p. 32. Treachery and Dâ—…loyalty c. Notwithstanding all that hath been said for tâ—… Legislative and Judicial Power of Kings Mr. Pryâ—… is so far from yielding the King a Power to maâ—… Laws that he will not grant the King a power to hinder a Law from being made that is 〈◊〉 allows Him not a Negative Voice in most case which is due to every other even to the Meaâ—…est Member of the House of Commons in his Judgment To prove the King hath not a Negative Voice 〈◊〉 main and in truth his only Argument insisted oâ—… is a Coronation-Oath which is said anciently soâ—… of our Kings of England have taken wherein thâ—… grant to defend and protect the just Laws and Customâ—… which the Vulgar hath or shall chuse Iustas Legâ—… Consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit Hence Mâ—… Pryn concludes that the King cannot deny any Iaâ—… which the Lords and Commons shall make choâ—… of for so he will have vulgus to signifie Though neither our King nor many of His Predecessors ever took this Oath nor were bound to â—…ake it for ought appears yet we may admit â—…hat our King hath taken it and answer we may be confident that neither the Bishops nor Privy Councel nor Parliament nor any other whosoever they were that framed or penn'd this Oath ever intended in this word Vulgus the Commons in Parliament much less the Lords they would never so much disparage the Members of Parliament as to disgrace them with a Title both base and false it had been enough if not too much to have called them Populus the People but Vulgus the Vulgar the rude Multitude which hath the Epithet of Ignobile Vulgus is a word as dishonourable to the Composers of the Oath to give or for the King to use as for the Members of the Parliament to receive it being most false for the Peers cannot be Vulgus because they are the prime Persons of the Kingdom next the Knights of the Shires are or ought to be notable Knights or notable Esquires or Gentlemen born in the Counties as shall be able to be Knights then the Citizens and Burgesses are to be most sufficient none of these can be Vulgus even those Free-holders that chuse Knights are the best and ablest men of their Counties there being for every Free-holder above ten of the Common People to be found to be termed the Vulgar Therefore it rests that vulgus must signifie the vulgar or common People and not the Lords and Commons But now the Doubt will be what the Common People or vulgus out of Parliament have to do to chuse Laws The Answer is easie and ready there goeth before quas vulgus the Antecedeâ—… Consuetudines that is the Customs which the Vulghath or shall chuse Do but observe the Nature 〈◊〉 Custom and it is the Vulgus or Common People only who chuse Customs Common Usage time out 〈◊〉 mind creates a Custom and the commoner 〈◊〉 Usage is the stronger and the better is the Custom no where can so common an Usage be found 〈◊〉 among the Vulgar who are still the far greatâ—… part of every Multitude if a Custom be commoâ—… through the whole Kingdom it is all one with the Common Law in England which is said to be Common Custom Thus in plain Terms to protect the Customs which the Vulgar chuse is to swear to protect the Common Laws of England But grant that Vulgus in the Oath signifies Lordâ—… and Commons and that Consuetudines doth not signifie Customs but Statutes as Mr. Pryn for a desperate Shift affirms and let elegerit be the Future or Preterperfect Tense even which Mr. Pryn please yet it cannot exclude the Kings negative Voice for as Consuetudines goeth before quas vulgus so doth justas stand before leges consuetudines so that not all Laws but only all just Laws are meant If the sole Choice of the Lords and Commons did oblige the King to protect their Choice without Power of Denial what Need or why is the Word justas put in to raise a Scruple that some Laws may be unjust Mr. Pryn will not say that a Decree of a General Councel or of a Pope is infallible nor â—… think a Bill of the Lords and Commons is infallible just and impossible to erre if he do Sir Edward Coke will tell him that Parliaments have been utterly deceived and that in eases of greatest Moment even iâ—… case of High Treason and he calls the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. an unjust and strange Act. But it may be Mr. Pryn will confess that Laws chosen by the Lords and
Commons may be unjust so that the Lords and Commons themselves may be the Judges of what is just or unjust But where a King by Oath binds his Conscience to protect just Laws it concerns him to be satisfied in his own Conscience that they be just and not by an implicite Faith or blind Obedience no man can be so proper a Judge of the Justness of Laws as he whose Soul must lie at the Stake for the Defence and Safeguard of them Besides in this very Oath the King doth swear to do equal and right Iustice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth in all His Iudgments facies fieri in omnibus judiciis tuis aequam rectam justitiam discretionem in Misericordia Veritate if we allow the King Discretion and Mercy in his Iudgments of Necessity he must judge of the Justness of the Laws Again the clause of the Oath quas vulgus elegerit doth not mention the assenting unto or granting any new Laws but of holding protecting and strengthning with all his Might the just Laws that were already in Being there were no need of Might or Strength if assenting to new Laws were there meant Some may wonder why there should be such Labouring to deny the King a negative Voice since a negative Voice is in it self so poor a thing that if a man had all the Negative Voices in the Kingdom â—…t would not make him a King nor give him Power to make one Law a negative Voice is but a â—…ivative Power that is no Power at all to do or act any thing but a Power only to hinder the Power of another Negatives are of such a malignant or destructive Nature that if they have nothing else to destroy they will when they meet destroy one another which is the reason why two Negatives make an Affirmative by destroying the Negation which did hinder the Affirmation A King with a Negative Voice only is but like a Syllogisme of pure negative Propositions which can conclude nothing It must be an Affirmative Voice that makes both a King and a Law and without it there can be no imaginable Government The reason is plain why the Kings negative Voice is so eagerly opposed for though it give the King no Power to do any thing yet it gives him a Power to hinder others though it cannot make Him a King yet it can help him to keep others from being Kings For Conclusion of this Discourse of the negative Voice of the King I shall oppose the Judgment of a Chief Iustice of England to the Opinion of him that calls himself an utter Barister of Lincolns Inn and let others judge who is the better Lawyer of the two the words are Bracton's but concern Mr. Pryn to lay them to heart Concerning the Charters and Deeds of Kings the Iustices nor private men neither ought nor can dispute nor yet if there rise a Doubt in the Kings Charter can they interpret it and in doubtful and obscure Points or if a word contain two Senses the Interpretation and Will of Our Lord the King is to be expected seeing it is his part to interpret who makes the Charter full well Mr. Pryn knows that when Bracton writ the Laws that were then made and strived for were called the Kings Charters as Magna Charta Charta de Foresta and others so that in Bracton's Judgment the King hath not only a Negative Voice to hinder but an Affirmative to make a Law which is a great deal more than Master Pryn will allow him Not only the Law-maker but also the sole Iudge of the People is the King in the Judgment of Bracton these are his words Rex non alius debet judicare si solus ad id sufficere possit the King and no other ought to judge if He alone were able Much like the words of Bracton speaketh Briton where after that he had shewed that the King is the Viceroy of God and that He hath distributed his Charge into sundry portions because He alone is not sufficient to hear all Complaints of His People then he addeth these words in the Person of the King Nous volons que nostre jurisdiction soit sur touts Iurisdictions c. We Will that Our Iurisdiction be above all the Iurisdictions of Our Realm so as in all manner of Felonies Trespasses Contracts and in all other actions Personal or Real We have Power to yield or cause to be yielded such Iudgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right Truth as Iudges Neither was this to be taken saith Mr. Lambard to be meant of the Kings Bench where there is only an imaginary presence of His Person but it must necessarily be understood of a Iurisdiction remaining and left in the King 's Royal Body and Brest distinct from that of His Bench and other ordinary Courts because he doth immediately after severally set forth by themselves as well the authority of the Kings Bench as of the other Courts And that this was no new-made Law Mr. Lamâ—…d puts us in mind of a Saxon Law of King Edgars Nemo in lite Regem appellato c. Let no man iâ—… Suit appeal unto the King unless he cannot get Right aâ—… home but if that Right be too Heavy for him then lâ—… him go to the King to have it eased By which iâ—… may evidently appear that even so many years agâ—… there might be Appellation made to the Kings Persae whensoever the Cause should enforce it The very like Law in Effect is to be seen in the Laws of Canutus the Dane sometimes King of thâ—… Realm out of which Law Master Lambard gatheâ—… that the King Himself had a High Court of Iustia wherein it seemeth He sate in Person for the words bâ—… Let him not seek to the King and the same Court â—… the King did judge not only according to meeâ—… Right and Law but also after Equity and gooâ—… Conscience For the Close I shall end with the Suffrage â—… our late Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary he saith Omnis Regni Iustitia solius Regis est c. All Iustice of the Kingdom is only the King 's and Hâ—… alone if He were able should Administer it but thâ—… being impossible He is forced to delegate it to Ministers whom he bounds by the limits of the Laws the positive Laws are only about Generals in particular Cases they are sometimes too strict sometimes too remisâ—… and so oft Wrong instead of Right will be done if wâ—… stand to strict Law also Causes hard and difficult dâ—…ly arise which are comprehended in no Law-books â—… those there is a necessity of running back to the King tâ—… Fountain of Iustice and the Vicegerent of God himself who in the Commonwealth of the Iews took such Cause to His own cognisance and left to Kings not only the Example of such Iurisdiction but the Prerogative also Of Privilege of Parliament WHat need all this ado will some say to
of the Dutchy were sent by the House to the Lord Keeper in the name of the whole House to require his Lordship to revoke two Writs of Subpoena's which were served upon M. Th. Knevit a Member of the House since the Beginning of Parliament The Lord Keeper demanded of them whether they were appointed by any advised Consideration of the House to deliver this Message unto him with the word Required in such manner as they had done or no they answered his Lordship yea his Lordship then said as he thought reverently and honourably of the House and of their Liberties and Privileges of the same so to revoke the said Subpoena's in that sort was to restrain Her Majesty in Her greatest Power which is Iustice in the Place wherein he serveth under Her and therefore he concluded as they had required him to revoke his Writ so he did require to deliberate Upon the 22 of February being Wednesday 18 Eliz. Report was made by Mr. Attorney of the Dutchy upon the Committee for the delivering of one Mr. Hall's man that the Committee found no Precedent for setting at large by the Mace any Person in Arrest but only by Writ and that by divers Precedents of Records perused by the said Committee it appeareth that every Knight Citizen or Burgess which doth require Privilege hath used in that case to take a Corporal Oath before the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper that the party for whom such Writ is prayed Came up with him and was his Servant at the time of the Arrest made Thereupon M. Hall was moved by the House to repair to the Lord Keeper and make Oath and then take a Warrant for a Writ of Privilege for his Servant It is accounted by some to be a Privilege of Parliament to have power to Examine Misdemeanours of Courts of Justice and Officers of State yet there is not the meanest Subjest but hath liberty upon just cause to question the misdemeanour of any Court or Officer if he suffer by them there is no Law against him for so doing so that this cannot properly be called a Privilege because it is not against any publick Law It hath been esteemed a great Favour of Princes to permit such Examinations For when the Lords were displeased with the Greatness of Pierce Gaveston it is said that in the next Parliament the whole Assembly obtain of the King to draw Articles of their Grievances which they did Two of which Articles were First that all Strangers should be banished the Court and Kingdom oâ—… which Gaveston was one Secondly that the business of the State should be treated of by the Councel of the Clergy and Nobles In the Reign of King Henry the sixth one Mortimer an Instrument of the Duke of York by promising the Kentish men a Reformation and freedom from Taxations wrought with the people that they drew to a Head and made this Mortimer otherwise Iack Cade their Leader who styled himself Captain Mend-all He presents to the Parliament the Complaints of the Commons and he petitions that the Duke of York and some other Lords might be received by the King into favour by the undue Practices of Suffolk and his Complices commanded from his Presence and that all their Opposites might be banished the Court and put from their Offices and that there might be a general amotion of corrupt Officers These Petitions are sent from the Lower House to the Upper and from thence committed to the Lords of the Kings Privy Councel who having examined the particulars explode them as frivolous and the Authors of them to be presumptuous Rebels Concerning Liberty or freedom of Speech I find that at a Parliament at Black Friars in the 14 of Henry the Eighth Sir Tho. More being chosen Speaker of the House of Commons He first disabled himself and then petitioned the King that if in Communication and Reasoning any man in the Commons House should speak more largely than of duty they ought to do that all such Offences should be pardoned and to be entred of Record which was granted It is observable in this Petition that liberty or freedom of Speech is not a power for men to speak what they will or please in Parliament but a Privilege not to be punished but pardoned for the offence of speaking more largely than in duty ought to be which in an equitable construction must be understood of rash unadvised ignorant or negligent Escapes and Slips in Speech and not for wilful malicious Offences in that kind And then the Pardon of the King was desired to be upon Record that it might be pleaded in Bar to all Actions And it seemeth that Ric. Strood and his Complices were not thought sufficiently protected for their free Speech in Parliament unless their Pardon were confirmed by the King in Parliament for there is a printed Statute to that purpose in H. 8 ths time Touching the freedom of Speech the Commons were warned in Q. Eliz. dayes not to meddle with the Queens Person the State or Church-government In her time the Discipline of the Church was so strict that the Litany was read every morning in the House of Commons during the Parliament and when the Commons first ordered to have a Fast in the Temple upon a Sunday the Queen hindred it 21 Ian. Saturday 23 Eliz. the Case is thus reported Mr. Paul Wentworth moveth for a Publick set Fast and for a Preaching every morning at 7 of the clock before the House sate the House was divided about the Fast 115 were for it and an 100 against it it was ordered that as many of the House as conveniently could should on Sunday fortnight after Assemble and meet together in the Temple-Church there to hear Preaching and to joyn together in Prayer with Humiliation and Fasting for the Assistance of God's Spirit in all their Consultations during this Parliament and for the Preservation of the Queens Majesty and Her Realms And the Preachers to be appointed by the Privy Councel that were of the House that they may be Discreet not medling with Innovation or Unquietness This Order was followed by a Message from Her Majesty to the House declared by Mr. Vice-chamberlain that Her Highness had a great Admiration of the rashness of this House in committing such an apparent Contempt of her express Command as to put in execution such an Innovation without Her privity or pleasure first known Thereupon Mr. Vice-chamberlain moved the House to make humble submission to Her Majesty acknowledging the said Offence and Contempt craving a Remission of the same with a full purpose to forbear the Committing of the like hereafter and by the Consent of the whole House Mr. Vice-chamberlain carried their Submission to her Majesty 35 Eliz. Mr. Peter Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley delivered a Petition to the Lord Keeper desiring the Lords of the upper House to be Suppliants with them of the lower House unto her Majesty for entailing the Succession of the Crown Whereof a Bill
their favourable and courteous Offer of Conference and to signifie that the Commons cannot in those Cases of Benevolence or Contribution joyn in conference with their Lordships without prejudice to the Liberties and Privileges of the House and to request their Lordships to hold the Members of this House excused in their not-assenting to their Lordships said Motion for Conference for that so to have Assented without a Bill had been contrary to the Liberties and Privileges of this House and also contrary to the former Precedents of the same House in like cases had This Answer delivered to the Lords by the Chancellor of the Exchequer their Lordships said they well hoped to have had a Conference according to their former Request and desir'd to see those Precedents by which the Commons seem to refuse the said Conference But in conclusion it was agreed unto upon the Motion of Sir Walter Raleigh who moved that without naming a Subsidy it might be propounded in general words to have a Conference touching the Dangers of the Realm and the necessary Supply of Treasure to be provided speedily for the same according to the Proportion of the Necessity In the 43 Eliz. Serjeant Heal said in Parliament he marvail'd the House stood either aâ—… the granting of a Subsidy or time of Payment wheâ—… all we have is her Majesties and She may lawfull at her Pleasure take it from us and that she had â—… much right to all our Lands and Goods as to anâ—… Revenue of the Crown and he said he could proâ—… it by Precedents in the time of H. 3. K. John and K. Stephen The ground upon which this Serjeant at Law went may be thought the same Sir Edw. Coke delivers in his Institutes where he saith the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demesne and the great Manors Royalists they reserved to themselves of the remnant for the defence of the Kingdom enfeoffed the Barons from whence it appears that no man holds any Lands but under a condition to defend the Realm and upon the self-same Ground also the Kings Prerogative is raised as being a Preheminence in cases of Necessity above before the Law of Property or Inheritance Certain it is before the Commons were ever chosen to come to Parliament Taxes or Subsidies were raised and paid without their gift The great and long continued Subsidy of Dane-gelt was without any Gift of the Commons or of any Parliament at all that can be proved In the 8 H. 3. a Subsidy of 2 Marks in Silver upon every Knights fee was granted to the King by the Nobles without any Commons At the passing of a Bill of Subsidies the words of the King are the King thanks his loyal Subjects accepts their good Will also will have â—…so le Roy remercie ses loyaux Subjects accept leur â—…enevolence ausi ainsi le veult which last words of ainsi le veult the King wills it to be so â—…re the only words that makes the Acts of Subâ—…idy a Law to bind every man to the Payâ—…ent of it In the 39 Eliz. The Commons by their Speaker complaining of Monopolies the Queen spake in private to the L. Keeper who then made answer touching Monopolies that Her Majesty hoped her dutiful and loving Subjects would not take away Her Prerogative which is the chiefest Flower in her Garland and the principal and head Pearl in Her Crown and Diadem but that they will rather leave that to Her Disposition The second Point is that the Free-holders or Counties do not nor cannot give Privilege to the Commons in Parliament They that are under the Law cannot protect against it they have no such Privilege themselves as to be free from Arrests and Actions for if they had then it had been no Privilege but it would be the Common Law And what they have not they cannot give Nemo dat quod non habet neither do the Free-holders pretend to give any such Privilege either at their Election or by any subsequent Act there is no mention of any such thing in the return of the Writ nor in the Indentures between the Sheriff and the Free-holders The third Point remains That Privilege of Parliament is granted by the King It is a known Rule that which gives the Form gives the Consequences of the Form the King by his Writ gives the very Essence and Form to the Parliament therefore Privileges which are but Consequences of the Form must necessarily flow from Kings All other Privileges and Protections are the Acts of the King and by the Kings Writ Sir Edw. Coke saith that the Protection of mens Persons Servants and Goods is done by a Writ of Grace from the King At the presentment of the Speaker of the House of Commons to the King upon the first day of Parliament The Speaker in the Name and Behoof of the Commons humbly craveth that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to grant them their accustomed Liberties and Privileges which Petition of theirs is a fair Recognition of the Primitive Grace and Favour of Kings in bestowing of Privilege and it is a shrewd Argument against any other Title For our Ancestors were not so ceremonious nor so full of Complement as to beg that by Grace which they might claim by Right And the Renewing of this Petition every Parliament argues the Grant to be but temporary during only the present Parliament and that they have been accustomed when they have been accustomably sued or petitioned for I will close this Point with the Judgment of King Iames who in his Declaration touching his Proceedings in Parliament 1621. resolves that most Privileges of Parliament grew from Precedents which rather shew a Toleration than an Inheritance therefore he could not allow of the Style calling iâ—… their ancient and undoubted Right and Inheritance but could rather have wished that they had said their Privileges were derived from the Grace and Permission of his Ancestors and Him and thereupon he concludes He cannot with Patience endure his Subjects to use suâ—… Antimonarchicall words concerning their Liberties except they had subjoyned that they were granted unto them by the Grace and Favourâ—… of his Predecessors yet he promiseth to be careful of whatsoever Privileges they enjoy by long Custom and uncontrolled and lawful Precedents OBSERVATIONS UPON Aristotle's Politiques TOUCHING Forms of Government Together with DIRECTIONS FOR Obedience to Governours in Dangerous and Doubtful Times THE PREFACE IN every Alteration of Government there is something new which none can either Divine or Iudge of till time hath tried it we read of many several wayes of Government but they have all or most of them been of particular Cities with none or very small Territories at first belonging to them At this present the Government of the Low-Countries and of Swisserland are not appropriated either of them to any one City for they are compounded of several petty Principalities which have special and different Laws and
can be saved whence it may be inferred That if the Masterly Government of Tyrants cannot be safe without the Preservation of them whom they govern it will follow that a Tyrant cannot govern for his own Profit only and thus his main Definition of Tyranny fails as being grounded upon an impossible Supposition by his own Confession No Example can be shewed of any such Government that ever was in the World as Aristotle describes a Tyranny to be for under the worst of Kings though many particular men have unjustly suffered yet the Multitude or the People in general have found Benefit and Profit by the Government It being apparent that the different kinds of Government in Aristotle arise onely from the difference of the number of Governours whether one a few or many there may be as many several Forms of Governments as there be several Numbers which are infinite so that not onely the several Parts of a City or Commonweal but also the several Numbers of such Parts may cause multiplicity of Forms of Government by Aristotle's Principles It is further observable in Assemblies that it is not the whole Assembly but the major part onely of the Assembly that hath the Government for that which pleaseth the most is alwayes ratified saith Aristotle lib. 4. c. 4. by this means one and the same Assembly may make at one Sitting several Forms of Commonweals for in several Debates and Votes the same number of men or all the self-same men do not ordinarily agree in their Votes and the least Disagreement either in the Persons of the men or in their number alters the Form of Government Thus in a Commonweal one part of the Publick Affairs shall be ordered by one Form of Government and another part by another Form and a third part by a third Form and so in infinitum How can that have the Denomination of a Form of Government which lasts but for a moment onely about one fraction of Business for in the very instant as it were in the Twinkling of an eye while their Vote lasteth the Government must begin and end To be governed is nothing else but to be obedient and subject to the Will or Command of another it is the Will in a man that governs ordinarily mens Wills are divided according to their several Ends or Interests which most times are different and many times contrary the one to the other and in such cases where the Wills of the major part of the Assembly do unite and agree in one Will there is a Monarchy of many Wills in one though it be called an Aristocracy or Democracy in regard of the several Persons it is not the many Bodies but the one Will or Soul of the Multitude that governs Where one is set up out of many the People becometh a Monarch because many are Lords not separately but altogether as one therefore such a People as if it were a Monarch seeks to bear Rule alone L. 4. c. 4. It is a false and improper Speech to say that a whole Multitude Senate Councel or any Multitude whatsoever doth govern where the major part only rules because many of the Multitude that are so assembled are so far from having any part in the Government that they themselves are governed against and contrary to their Wills there being in all Government various and different Debates and Consultations it comes to pass oft-times that the major part in every Assembly differs according to the several Humours or Fancies of men those who agree in one Mind in one Point are of different Opinions in another every Change of Business or new Matter begets a new major part and is a Change both of the Government and Governours the Difference in the Number or in the Qualities of the Persons that govern is the only thing that causes different Governments according to Aristotle who divides his Kinds of Government to the Number of one a few or many As amongst the Romans their Tribunitial Laws had several Titles according to the Names of those Tribunes of the People that preferr'd and made them So in other Governments the Body of their Acts and Ordinances is composed of a Multitude of momentary Monarchs who by the Strength and Power of their Parties or Factions are still under a kind of a civil War fighting and scratching for the legislative miscellany or medly of several Governments If we consider each Government according to the nobler Part of which it is composed it is nothing else but a Monarchy of Monothelites or of many men of one Will most commonly in one Point only but if we regard only the baser part or Bodies of such Persons as govern there is an interrupted Succession of a Multitude of short-lived Governments with as many Intervalls of Anarchy so that no man can say at any time that he is under any Form of Government for in a shorter time than the word can be spoken every Government is begun and ended Furthermore in all Assemblies of what Quality soever they be whether Aristocratical or Democratical as they call them they all agree in this one Point to give that honourable Regard to Monarchy that they do interpret the major or prevailing part in every Assembly to be but as one man and so do feign to themselves a kind of Monarchy Though there be neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture nor yet any Reason alledged by Aristotle for any Form of Government but only Monarchy yet it is said that it is evident to common Sense that of old time Rome and in this present Age Venice and the Low-Countries enjoy a Form of Government different from Monarchy Hereunto it may be answered That a People may live together in Society and help one another and yet not be under any Form of Government as we see Herds of Cattel do and yet we may not say they live under Government For Government is not a Society only to live but to live well and vertuously This is acknowledged by Aristotle who teacheth that the End of a City is to live blessedly and honestly Political Communities are ordained for honest Actions but not for living together only Now there be two things principally required to a blessed and honest life Religion towards God and Peace towards men that is a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. Here then will be the Question Whether Godliness and Peace can be found under any Government but Monarchy or whether Rome Venice or the Low-Countries did enjoy these under any popular Government In these two Points let us first briefly examine the Roman Government which is thought to have been the most glorious For Religion we find presently after the Building of the City by Romulus the next King Numa most devoutly established a Religion and began his Kingdom with the Service of the Gods he forbad the Romans to make any Images of God which Law lasted and was observed 170 Years there being in
all that time no Image or Picture of God in any Temple or Chappel of Rome also he erected the Pontifical Colledge and was himself the first Bishop or Pontifex These Bishops were to render no Account either to the Senate or Commonalty They determined all Questions concerning Religion as well between Priests as between private men They punished inferiour Priests if they either added or detracted from the established Rites or Ceremonies or brought in any new thing into Religion The chief Bishop Pontifâ—… Maximus taught every man how to honour and serve the Gods This Care had Monarchy of Religion But after the Expulsion of Kings we do not find during the Power of the People any one Law made for the Benefit or Exercise of Religion there be two Tribunitian Laws concerning Religion but they are meerly for the Benefit of the Power of the People and not of Religion L. Papirius a Tribune made a Law called Lex Papiria that it should not be lawful for any to consecrate either Houses Grounds Altars or any other things without the Determinatin of the People Domitius Aenobarbus another Tribune enacted a Law called Domitia Lex that the Pontifical Colledge should not as they were wont admit whom they would into the Order of Priesthood but it should be in the Power of the People and because it was contrary to their Religion that Church-Dignities should be bestowed by the common People hence for very Shame he ordained that the lesser part of the People namely seventeen Tribes should elect whom they thought fit and afterwards the Party elected should have his Confirmation or admission from the Colledge thus by a Committee of seven Tribes taken out of thirty five the ancient Form of Religion was alter'd and reduced to the Power of the lesser part of the People This was the great Care of the People to bring Ordination and Consecration to the Laity The Religion in Venice and the Low-Countries is sufficiently known much need not be said of them they admirably agree under a seeming contrariety it is commonly said that one of them hath all Religions and the other no Religion the Atheist of Venice may shake hands with the Sectary of Amsterdam This is the Liberty that a popular estate can brag of every man may be of any Religion or no Religion if he please their main Devotion is exercised only in opposing and suppressing Monarchy They both agree to exclude the Clergy from medling in Government whereas in all Monarchies both before the Law of Moses and under it and ever since all Barbarians Graecians Romans Infidels Turks and Indians have with one Consent given such Respect and Reverence to their Priests as to trust them with their Laws and in this our Nation the first Priests we read of before Christianity were the Druides who as Caesar saith decided and determined Controversies in Murder in Case of Inheritance of Bounds of Lands as they in their Discretion judged meet they grant Rewards and Punishments It is a Wonder to see what high Respect even the great Turk giveth to his Mufti or chief Bishop so necessary is Religion to strengthen and direct Laws To consider of the Point of Peace It is well known that no People ever enjoyed it without Monarchy Aristotle saith the Lacedemonians preserved themselves by Warring and after they had gotten to themselves the Empire then were they presently undone for that they could not live at Rest nor do any better Exercise than the Exercise of War l. 2. c. 7. After Rome had expelled Kings it was in perpetual War till the time of the Emperours once only was the Temple of Ianus shut after the end of the first Punique War but not so long as for one year but for some Moneths It is true as Orosius saith that for almost 700 years that is from Tullus Hostilius 〈◊〉 Augustus Caesar only for one Summer the Bowels 〈◊〉 Rome did not sweat Blood On the Behalf of the Romans it may be said that though the Bowels of Rome did always sweat Blood yet they did obtain most glorious Victories abroad But it may be truly answered if all the Roman Conquests had no other Foundation but Injustice this alone soils all the Glory of her warlike Actions The most glorious War that ever Rome had was with Carthagâ—… the Beginning of which War Sir Walter Raleigâ—… proves to have been most unjustly undertaken by the Romans in confederating with the Mamertines and Aiding of Rebels under the Title of protecting their Confederates whereas Kings many times may have just Cause of War for recovering and preserving their Rights to such Dominions as fall to them by Inheritance or Marriage a Popular Estate that can neither marry nor be Heir to another can have no such Title to a War in a Foreign Kingdom and to speak the Truth if it be rightly considered the whole time of the Popularity of Rome the Romans were no other than the only prosperous and glorious Thieves and Robbers of the World If we look more narrowly into the Roman Government it will appear that in that very Age wherein Rome was most victorious and seemed to be most popular she owed most of her Glory to an apparent kind of Monarchy For it was the Kinghâ—… Power of the Consuls who as Livy saith had the same Royal Iurisdiction or absolute Power that the Kings had not any whit diminished or abated and held all the same Regal Ensignes of supreme Dignity which helpt Rome to all her Conquests whiles the Tribunes of the People were strugling at home with the Senate about Election of Magistrates enacting of Laws and calling to Account or such other popular Affairs the Kingly Consuls gained all the Victories abroad Thus Rome at one and the same time was broken and distracted into two Shewes of Government the Popular which served only to raise Seditions and Discords within the Walls whilest the Regal atchieved the Conquests of Foreign Nations and Kingdomes Rome was so sensible of the Benefit and Necessity of Monarchy that in her most desperate Condition and Danger when all other Hopes failed her she had still Resort to the Creation of a Dictator who for the time was an absolute King and from whom no Appeal to the People was granted which is the royallest Evidence for Monarchy in the World for they who were drawn to swear they would suffer no King of Rome found no Security but in Perjury and breaking their Oath by admitting the Kingly Power in spight of their Teeth under a new name of a Dictator or Consul a just Reward for their wanton expelling their King for no other Crime they could pretend but Pride which is most tolerable in a King of all men and yet we find no particular Point of Pride charged upon him but that he enjoyned the Romans to labour in cleansing and casting of Ditches and paving their Sinks an Act both for the Benefit and Ornament of the City and therefore commendable in the King But the
That there is no Form of Government but Monarchy only 2 That there is no Monarchy but Paternal 3. That there is no Paternal Monarchy but Absolute or Arbitrary 4. That there is no such thing as an Aristocratie or Democratie 5. That there is no such Form of Government as a Tyranny 6. That the People are not born Free by Nature DIRECTIONS FOR Obedience to Government IN Dangerous or Doubtful Times ALL those who so eagerly strive for an original Power to be in the People do with one Consent acknowledge that originally the Supreme Power was in the Fatherhood and that the first Kings were Fathers of Families This is not only evident and affirmed by Aristotle but yielded unto by Grotius Mr. Selden Mr. Hobbs Mr. Ascam and all others of that Party not one excepted that I know of Now for those that confess an original Subjection in Children to be governed by their Parents to dream of an original Freedom in Mankind is to contradict themselves and to make Subjects to be Free and Kings to be Limited to imagine such Pactions and Contracts between Kings and People as cannot be proved ever to have been made or can ever be described or fancied how it is possible for such Contracts ever to have been is a boldness to be wondred at Mr. Selden confesseth that Adam by donation from God was made the general Lord of all things not without such a private Dominion to himself as without his Grant did exclude his Children And by Donation or Assignation or some kind of Concession before he was dead or left any Heir to succeed him his Children had their distinct Territories by Right of Private Dominion Abel had his Flocks and Pastures for them Cain had his Fields for Corn and the Land of Nod where he built himself a City It is confessed that in the Infancy of the World the Paternal Government was Monarchical but when the World was replenished with multitude of people then the Paternal Government ceased and was lost and an Elective kind of Government by the People was brought into the World To this it may be answered That the paternal Power cannot be lost it may either be transferr'd or usurped but never lost or ceaseth God who is the giver of Power may transferr it from the Father to some other he gave to Saul a Fatherly power over his Father Kish God also hath given to the Father a Right or Liberty to alien his Power over his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and gift of Children to have been much in Use in the beginning of the World when men had their Servants for a possession and an Inheritance as well as other Goods whereupon we find the power of Castrating and making Eunuchs much in Use in old times As the power of the Father may be lawfully transferr'd or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped And in Usurpation the Title of an Usurper is before and better than the Title of any other than of him that had a former Right for he hath a possession by the permissive Will of God which permission how long it may endure no man ordinarily knows Every man is to preserve his own Life for the Service of God and of his King or Father and is so far to obey an Usurper as may tend not only to the preservation of his King and Father but sometimes even to the preservation of the Usurper himself when probably he may thereby be reserved to the Correction or Mercy of his true Superiour though by Humane Laws a long Prescription may take away Right yet Divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away Every man that is born is so far from being Free-born that by his very Birth he becomes a Subject to him that begets him under which Subjection he is always to live unless by immediate Appointment from God or by the Grant or Death of his Father he become possessed of that power to which he was subject The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God for the preservation of Mankind if it be usurped the Usurper may be so far obeyed as may tend to the preservation of the Subjects who may thereby be enabled to perform their Duty to their true and right Sovereign when time shall serve in such Cases to obey an Usurper is properly to obey the first and right Governour who must be presumed to desire the Safety of his Subjects the Command of an Usurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the destruction of the Person of the Governour whose Being in the first place is to be looked after It hath been said that there have been so many Usurpations by Conquest in all Kingdoms that all Kings are Usurpers or the Heirs or Successors of Usurpers and therefore any Usurper if he can but get the possession of a Kingdom hath as good a Title as any other Answer The first Usurper hath the best Title being as was said in possession by the Permission of God and where an Usurper hath continued so long that the knowledge of the right Heir be lost by all the Subjects in such a case an Usurper in possession is to be taken and reputed by such Subjects for the true Heir and is to be obeyed by them as their Father As no man hath an infallible Certitude but onely a moral Knowledge which is no other than a probable perswasion grounded upon a peaceable possession which is a warrant for subjection to Parents and Governours for we may not say because Children have no infallible or necessary certainty who are their true Parents that therefore they need not obey because they are uncertain it is sufficient and as much as Humane Nature is capable of for Children to rely upon a credible perswasion for otherwise the Commandement of Honour thy Father would be a vain Commandment and not possible to be observed By Humane positive Laws a Possession time out of mind takes away or barrs a former Right to avoid a general Mischief of bringing all Right into a disputation not decideable by proof and consequently to the overthrow of all Civil Government in Grants Gifts and Contracts between man and man But in Grants and Gifts that have their original from God or Nature as the Power of the Father hath no Inferiour power of man can limit nor make any Law of Prescription against them upon this ground is built that common Maxim that Nullum tempus occurrit regi No time bars a King All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly power there being no other original to be found of any Power whatsoever for if there should be granted two sorts of power without any subordination of one to the other they would be in perpetual strife which should be Supreme for two Supremes cannot agree if the Fatherly power be supreme then the power of the People must be subordinate and depend on it if the power of the People be
and the Law of Nations so other-whiles they make them also contrary one to the other By the Law of Nature all men are born free Iure naturali omnes liberi nascuntur But Servitude is by the Law of Nations Iure Gentium Servitus invasit saith Ulpian And the Civil Law not only makes the Law of Nature and of Nations contrary but also will have the Law of Nations contrary to it self War saith the Law was brought in by the Law of Nations Ex jure gentium introducta bella and yet the Law of Nations saith Since Nature hath made us all of one Kindred it follows it is not lawful for one man to lye in Wait for another Cùm inter nos cognitionem quandam natura constituit consequens est hominem homini insidiari nefas esse saith Florentinus Again the Civil Law teacheth that from the Law of Nature proceeds the Conjunction of man and women the Procreation and Education of Children But as for Religion to God and Obedience to Parents it makes it to be by the Law of Nations To touch now the Canon Law we may find in one place that men are governed either by the Law of Nature or by Customs Homines reguntur Naturali jure aut moribus The Law of Nations they call a Divine Law the Customs a humane Law Leges aut divinae sunt aut humanae divinae naturâ humanae moribus constant But in the next place the Canon Law makes Ius to be either Naturale aut Civile aut Gentium Though this Division agree in Terms with that of Ulpian in the Civil Law yet in the Explication of the Terms there is Diversity for what one Law makes to belong to the Law of Nature the other refers to the Law of Nations as may easily appear to him that will take the Pains to compare the Civil and Canon Law in these Points A principal Ground of these Diversities and Contrarieties of Divisions was an Error which the Heathens taught that all things at first were common and that all men were equal This Mistake was not so heinous in those Ethnick Authors of the Civil Laws who wanting the Guide of the History of Moses were fain to follow Poets and Fables for their Leaders But for Christians who have read the Scriptures to dream either of a Community of all things or an Equality of all Persons is a Fault scarce pardonable To salve these apparent Contrarieties of Community and Property or Equality and Subjection the Law of Ius Gentium was first invented when that could not satisfie to mend the matter this Ius Gentium was divided into a Natural Law of Nations and an Humane Law of Nations and the Law of Nature into a Primary and a Secondary Law of Nature Distinctions which make a great sound but edifie not at all if they come under Examination If there hath been a time when all things were common and all men equal and that it be otherwise now we must needs conclude that the Law by which all things were common and men equal was contrary to the Law by which now things are proper and men subject If we will allow Adam to have been Lord of the World and of his Children there will need no such Distinctions of the Law of Nature and of Nations For the Truth will be that whatsoever the Heathens comprehended under these two Laws is comprised in the Moral Law That the Law of Nature is one and the same with the Moral may appear by a Definition given by Grotius The Law of Nature saith he is the Dictate of Reason shewing that in every Action by the agreeing or disagreeing of it with natural Reason there is a moral Honesty or Dishonesty and consequently that such an Action is commanded or forbidden by God the Author of Nature I cannot tell how Grotius would otherwise have defined the Moral Law And the Canon Law grants as much teaching that the Law of Nature is contained in the Law and the Gospel Whatsoever ye will that men do c. Mat. 7. The Term of Ius Naturae is not originally to be found in Scripture for though T. Aquinas takes upon him to prove out of the 2. to the Romans that there is a Ius Naturae yet St. Paul doth not use those express Terms his words are The Gentiles which have not the Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves He doth not say Nature is a Law unto them but they are a Law unto themselves As for that which they call the Law of Nations it is not a Law distinct much less opposite to the Law of Nature but it is a small Branch or Parcel of that great Law for it is nothing but the Law of Nature or the moral Law between Nations The same Commandment that forbids one Private man to rob another or one Corporation to hurt another Corporation obliges also one King not to rob another King and one Commonwealth not to spoil another the same Law that enjoyns Charity to all men even to Enemies binds Princes and States to shew Charity to one another as well as private Persons And as the Common or Civil Laws of each Kingdom which are made against Treason Theft Murder Adultery or the like are all and every one of them grounded upon some particular Commandment of the moral Law so all the Laws of Nations must be subordinate and reducible to the moral Law The Law of Nature or the moral Law is like the main Ocean which though it be one entire Body yet several Parts of it have distinct Names according to the diversity of the Coasts on which they border So it comes to pass that the Law of Nations which is but a part of the Law of Nature may be sub-divided almost in infinitum according to the Variety of the Persons or Matters about which it is conversant The Law of Nature or the divine Law is general and doth only comprehend some Principles of Morality notoriously known of themselves or at the most is extended to those things which by necessary and evident Inference are consequent to those Principles Besides these many other things are necessary to the well-governing of a Common-wealth and therefore it was necessary that by Humane Reason something more in particular should be determined concerning those things which could not be defined by Natural Reason alone hence it is that Humane Laws be necessary as Comments upon the Text of the Moral Law and of this Judgment is Aquinas who teacheth that necessitas legis humanae manat ex eo quod Lex naturalis vel Divina generalis est solum complectitur quaedam principia morum per se nota ad summum extenditur ad ea quae necessaria evidenti elatione ex illis principiis consequuntur praeter illa verò multa alia sunt necessaria in republica ad ejus rectam Gubernationem ideo necessarium fuit ut
forgot himself and reckons up a fifth kind of Monarchy which is saith he When one alone hath Supream power of all the rest for as there is a domestical Kingdom of one house so the Kingdom of a City or of one or many Nations is a Family These are all the sorts of Monarchy that Aristotle hath found out and he hath strained hard to make them so many first for his Lacedemonian King himself confesseth that he was but a kind of Military Commander in War and so in effect no more a King than all Generals of Armies And yet this No-king of his was not limited by any Law nor mixed with any companions of his Government when he was in the Wars out of the Confines of Lacedemon he was as Aristotle stiles him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of full and absolute command no Law no companion to govern his Army but his own will Next for Aristotles Aesymnetical King it appears he was out of date in Aristotles time for he saith he was amongst the antient Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle might well have spared the naming him if he had not wanted other sorts for the honour of his own Nation for he that but now told us the Barbarians were of a more servile nature than the Grecians comes here and tells us that these old Greek Kings were Elective Tyrants The Barbarians did but suffer Tyrants in shew but the old Grecians chose Tyrants indeed which then must we think were the greater slaves the Greeks or the Barbarians Now if these sorts of Kings were Tyrants we cannot suppose they were limited either by Law or joyned with companions Indeed Arist. saith some of these Tyrants were limited to certain times and actions for they had not all their power for term of life nor could meddle but in certain businesses yet during the time they were Tyrants and in the actions whereto they were limited they had absolute power to do what they list according to their own will or else they could not have been said to be Tyrants As for Aristotles Heroick King he gives the like note upon him that he did upon the Aesymnet that he was in old time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Heroick times The thing that made these Heroical Kingdoms differ from other sorts of Kingdoms was only the means by which the first Kings obtained their Kingdoms and not the manner of Government for in that they were as absolute as other Kings were without either limitation by Law or mixture of companions Lastly as for Arist. Barbarick sort of Kings since he reckoned all the world Barbarians except the Grecians his Barbarick King must extend to all other sorts of Kings in the world besides those of Greece and so may go under Aristotles fifth sort of Kings which in general comprehends all other sorts and is no special form of Monarchy Thus upon a true accompt it is evident that the five several sorts of Kings mentioned by Aristotle are at the most but different and accidental means of the first obtaining or holding of Monarchies and not real or essential differences of the manner of Government which was always absolute without either limitation or mixture I may be thought perhaps to mistake or wrong Aristotle in questioning his diversities of Kings but it seems Aristotle himself was partly of the same mind for in the very next Chapter when he had better considered of the point he confessed that to speak the truth there were almost but two sorts of Monarchies worth the considering that is his first or Laconique sort and his fifth or last sort where one alone hath Supream power over all the rest thus he hath brought his five sorts to two Now for the first of these two his Lacedemonian King he hath confessed before that he was no more than a Generalissimo of an Army and so upon the matter no King at all and then there remains onely his last sort of Kings where one alone hath the Supream power And this in substance is the final resolution of Aristotle himself for in his sixteenth Chapter where he delivers his last thoughts touching the kinds of Monarchy he first dischargeth his Laconick King from being any sort of Monarchy and then gives us two exact rules about Monarchy and both these are pointblank against limited and mixed Monarchy therefore I shall propose them to be considered of as concluding all Monarchy to be absolute and Arbitrary 1. The one Rule is that he that is said to be a King according to Law is no sort of Government or Kingdom at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The second rule is that a true King is he that ruleth all according to his own will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This latter frees a Monarch from the mixture of partners or sharers in Government as the former rule doth from limitation by Laws Thus in brief I have traced Aristotle in his crabbed and broken passages touching diversities of Kings where he first finds but four sorts and then he stumbles upon a fifth and in the next Chapter contents himself onely with two sorts of Kings but in the Chapter following concludes with one which is the true perfect Monarch who rules all by his own will in all this we find nothing for a regulated or mixed Monarchy but against it Moreover whereas the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy affirms it as a prime principle That all Monarchies except that of the Iews depend upon humane designment when the consent of a society of men and a fundamental contract of a Nation by original or radical constitution confers power He must know that Arist. searching into the original of Government shews himself in this point a better Divine than our Author and as if he had studied the Book of Genesis teacheth That Monarchies fetch their Pedigree from the right of Fathers and not from the gift or contract of people his words may thus be Englished At the first Cities were Governed by Kings and so even to this day are Nations also for such as were under Kingly Government did come together for every House is governed by a King who is the eldest and so also Colonies are governed for kindred sake And immediately before he tells us That the first society made of many Houses is a Village which naturally seems to be a Colony of a House which some call foster-brethren or Children and Childrens Children So in conclusion we have gained Aristotles judgment in three main and essential points 1. A King according to Law makes no kind of Government 2. A King must rule according to his own will 3. The Original of Kings is from the right of Fatherhood What Aristotles judgment was two thousand years since is agreeable to the Doctrine of the great modern Politician Bodin Hear him touching limited Monarchy Unto Majesty or Soveraignty saith he belongeth an absolute power not subject to any Law Chief power given unto a Prince with condition is not properly
the remedy proved worse than the disease In all great distresses the body of the people were ever constrained to rise and by force of the major party to put an end to all intestine strifes and make a redress of all publick grievances But many times calamities grew to a strange height before so cumbersome a body could be raised and when it was raised the motions of it were so distracted and irregular that after much spoil and effusion of blood sometimes only one Tyranny was exchanged for another till some was invented to regulate the motions of the peoples moliminous body I think Arbitrary rule was most safe for the World but Now since most Countries have found an art and peaceable order for publick Assemblies whereby the people may assume its own power to do it self right without disturbance to it self or injury to Princes he is very unjust that will oppose this art or order That Princes may not be Now beyond all limits and Laws nor yet to be tyed upon those limits by any private parties the whole Community in its underived Majesty shall convene to do justice and that the Convention may not be without intelligence certain times and places and forms shall be appointed for its reglement and that the vastness of its own bulk may not breed confusion by vertue of election and representation a few shall act for many the wise shall consent for the simple the vertue of all shall redound to some and the prudence of some shall redound to all and surely as this admirably-composed Court which is now called a Parliament is more regularly and orderly formed than when it was called mickle Synod of Wittena-gemot or when this real body of the people did throng together at it so it is not yet perhaps without some defects which by art and policy might receive farther amendment some divisions have sprung up of late between both Houses and some between the King and both Houses by reason of incertainty of Iurisdiction and some Lawyers doubt how far the Parliament is able to create new forms and presidents and has a Iurisdiction over it self all these doubts would be solemnly solved but in the first place the true priviledges of Parliament belonging not only to the being and efficacy of it but to the honour and complement of it would be clearly declared for the very naming of priviledges of Parliament as if they were chimera's to the ignorant sort and utterly unknown unto the Learned hath been entertained with scorn since the beginning of this Parliament In this large passage taken out of the Observator which concerns the Original of all Government two notable Propositions may be principally observed First our Observator confesseth arbitrary or absolute government to be the first and the safest government for the world Secondly he acknowledgeth that the Iurisdiction is uncertain and the priviledges not clearly declared of limited Monarchy These two evident truths delivered by him he labours mainly to disguise He seems to insinuate that Arbitrary Government was but in the infancy of the World for so he terms it but if we enquire of him how long he will have this infancy of the world to last he grants it continued above three thousand years which is an unreasonable time for the world to continue under-age for the first opposers he doth finde of Arbitrary power were the Ephori Tribuni Curatores c. The Ephori were above three thousand years after the Creation and the Tribuni were later as for his Curatores I know not whom he means except the Master of the Court of Wards I cannot English the word Curator better I do not believe that he can shew that any Curatores or caetera's which he mentions were so antient as the Ephori As for the Tribuni he mistakes much if he thinks they were erected to limit and bound Monarchy for the State of Rome was at the least Aristocratical as they call it if not popular when Tribunes of the people were first hatched And for the Ephori their power did not limit or regulate Monarchy but quite take it away for a Lacedemonian King in the judgment of Aristotle was no King indeed but in name onely as Generalissimo of an Army and the best Politicians reckon the Spartan Common-wealth to have been Aristocratical and not Monarchical and if a limited Monarchy cannot be found in Lacedemon I doubt our Observator will hardly find it any where else in the whole World and in substance he confesseth as much when he saith Now most Countries have found out an art and peaceable order for publick Assemblies as if it were a thing but new done and not before for so the word Now doth import The Observator in confessing the Iurisdiction to be incertain and the priviledges undetermined of that Court that should bound and limit Monarchy doth in effect acknowledge there is no such Court at all for every Court consists of Iurisdictions and Priviledges it is these two that create a Court and are the essentials of it If the admirably composed Court of Parliament have some defects which may receive amendment as he saith and if those defects be such as cause divisions both between the Houses and between the King and both Houses and these divisions be about so main a matter as Iurisdictions and Priviledges and power to create new Priviledges all which are the Fundamentals of every Court for until they be agreed upon the act of every Court may not onely be uncertain but invalid and cause of tumults and sedition And if all these doubts and divisions have need to be solemnly solved as our Observator confesseth Then he hath no reason at all to say that Now the conditions of Supream Lords are wisely determined and quietly conserved or that Now most Countries have found out an art and peaceable order for publick affairs whereby the people may resume its own power to do it self right without injury unto Princes for how can the underived Majesty of the people by assuming its own power tell how to do her self right or how to avoid doing injury to the Prince if her Iurisdiction be uncertain and Priviledges undetermined He tells us Now most Countries have found an art and peaceable order for publick Assemblies and to the intent that Princes may not be Now beyond all limits and Laws the whole community in its underived Majesty shall convene to do Iustice. But he doth not name so much as one Country or Kingdome that hath found out this art where the whole Community in its underived Majesty did ever convene to do Justice I challenge him or any other for him to name but one Kingdome that hath either Now or heretofore found out this art or peaceable order We do hear a great rumor in this age of moderated and limited Kings Poland Sweden and Denmark are talked of for such and in these Kingdomes or nowhere is such a moderated Government as our Observator means to be found
A little enquiry would be made into the manner of the Government of these Kingdoms for these Northern people as Bodin observeth breath after liberty First for Poland Boterus saith that the Government of it is elective altogether and representeth rather an Aristocracie than a Kingdome the Nobility who have great authority in the Diets chusing the King and limiting His Authority making His Soveraignty but a slavish Royalty these diminutions of Regality began first by default of King Lewis and Jagello who to gain the succession in the Kingdom contrary to the Laws one for his daughter and the other for his son departed with many of his Royalties and Prerogatives to buy the voices of the Nobility The French Author of the book called the Estates of the world doth inform us that the Princes Authority was more free not being subject to any Laws and having absolute Power not onely of their estates but also of life and death Since Christian Religion was received it began to be moderated first by holy admonitions of the Bishops and Clergy and then by services of the Nobility in war Religious Princes gave many Honours and many liberties to the Clergy and Nobility and quit much of their Rights the which their successors have continued The superiour dignity is reduced to two degrees that is the Palatinate and the Chastelleine for that Kings in former times did by little and little call these men to publike consultations notwithstanding that they had absolute power to do all things of themselves to command dispose recompence and punish of their own motions since they have ordained that these Dignities should make the body of a Senate the King doth not challenge much right and power over His Nobility nor over their estates neither hath he any over the Clergy And though the Kings Authority depends on the Nobility for His election yet in many things it is absolute after He is chosen He appoints the Diets at what time and place He pleaseth He chooseth Lay-Councellors and nominates the Bishops and whom He will have to be His Privy Councel He is absolute disposer of the Revenues of the Crown He is absolute establisher of the Decrees of the Diets It is in His power to advance and reward whom he pleaseth He is Lord immediate of His Subjects but not of His Nobility He is Soveraign Iudge of his Nobility in criminal causes The power of the Nobility daily increaseth for that in respect of the Kings election they neither have Law rule nor form to do it neither by writing nor tradition As the King governs His Subjects which are immediately His with absolute Authority so the Nobility dispose immediately of their vassals over whom every one hath more than a Regal power so as they intreat them like slaves There be certain men in Poland who are called EARTHLY MESSENGERS or Nuntio's they are as it were Agents of Iurisdictions or Circles of the Nobility these have a certain Authority and as Boterus saith in the time of their Diets these men assemble in a place neer to the Senate-House where they chuse two Marshals by whom but with a Tribune-like authority they signifie unto the Council what their requests are Not long since their authority and reputation grew so mightily that they now carry themselves as Heads and Governours rather than officers and ministers of the publick decrees of the State One of the Councel refused his Senators place to become one of these officers Every Palatine the King requiring it calls together all the Nobility of His Palatinate where having propounded unto them the matters whereon they are to treat and their will being known they chuse four or six out of the company of the EARTHLY MESSENGERS these deputies meet and make one body which they call the order of Knights This being of late years the manner and order of the government of Poland it is not possible for the Observator to finde among them that the whole Community in its underived Majesty doth ever convene to do Iustice nor any election or representation of the Community or that the people assume its own power to do it self right The EARTHLY MESSENGERS though they may be thought to represent the Commons and of late take much upon them yet they are elected and chosen by the Nobility as their agents and officers The Community are either vassals to the King or to the Nobility and enjoy as little freedom or liberty as any Nation But it may be said perhaps that though the Community do not limit the King yet the Nobility do and so he is a limited Monarchy The Answer is that in truth though the Nobility at the chusing of their King do limit his power and do give him an Oath yet afterwards they have always a desire to please him and to second his will and this they are forced to do to avoid discord for by reason of their great power they are subject to great dissentions not onely among themselves but between them and the order of Knights which are the Earthly Messengers yea the Provinces are at discord one with another and as for Religion the diversity of Sects in Poland breed perpetual jars and hatred among the people there being as many Sects as in Amsterdam it self or any popular government can desire The danger of sedition is the cause that though the Crown depends on the election of the Nobility yet they have never rejected the Kings successour or transferred the Realm to any other family but once when deposing Ladislaus for his idleness whom yet afterward they restored they elected Wencelaus King of Bohemia But if the Nobility do agree to hold their King to his conditions which is not to conclude any thing but by the advice of his Councel of Nobles nor to choose any wife without their leaves then it must be said to be a Common-weal not a Royalty and the King but onely the mouth of the Kingdom or as Queen Christina complained that Her Husband was but the shadow of a Soveraign Next if it be considered how the Nobility of Poland came to this great power it was not by any original contract or popular convention for it is said they have neither Law Rule nor Form written or unwritten for the election of their King they may thank the Bishops and Clergy for by their holy admonitions and advice good and Religious Princes to shew their piety were first brought to give much of their Rights and Priviledges to their Subjects devout Kings were meerly cheated of some of their Royalties What power soever general Assemblies of the Estates claim or exercise over and above the bare naked act of Councelling they were first beholding to the Popish Clergy for it it is they first brought Parliaments into request and power I cannot finde in any Kingdom but onely where Popery hath been that Parliaments have been of reputation and in the greatest times of Superstition they are first mentioned As for the Kingdom of Denmarke