Selected quad for the lemma: land_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A43971
|
The art of rhetoric, with A discourse of the laws of England by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury.; Art of rhetoric
|
Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679.
|
1681
(1681)
|
Wing H2212; ESTC R7393
|
151,823
|
382
|
of the Caesars that could write or read The right to the Government was either Paternal or by Conquest or by Marriages Their succession to Lands was determined by the pleasure of the Master of the Family by Gift or Deed in his life time and what Land they disposed not of in their life time descended after their death to their Heirs The Heir was the Eldest Son The issue of the Eldest Son failing they descended to the younger Sons in their order and for want of Sons to the Daughters joyntly as to one Heir or to be divided amongst them and so to descend to their Heirs in the same manner And Children failing the Uncle by the Fathers or Mothers side according as the Lands had been the Fathers or the Mothers succeeded to the inheritance and so continually to the next of blood And this was a natural descent because naturally the nearer in Blood the nearer in kindness and was held for the Law of nature not only amongst the Germans but also in most Nations before they had a written Law The right of Government which is called Jus Regni descended in the same manner except only that after the Sons it came to the eldest Daughter first and her Heirs the reason whereof was that Government is indivisible And this Law continues still in England La. Seeing all the Land which any Soveraign Lord possessed was his own in propriety how came a Subject to have a propriety in their Lands Ph. There be two sorts of Propriety One is when a Man holds his Land from the gift of God only which Lands Civilians call Allodial which in a Kingdom no Man can have but the King The other is when a Man holds his Land from another Man as given him in respect of service and obedience to that Man as a Fee The first kind of propriety is absolute the other is in a manner conditional because given for some service to be done unto the giver The first kind of propriety excludes the right of all others the second excludes the right of all other Subjects to the same Land but not the right of the Soveraign when the common good of the People shall require the use thereof La. When those Kings had thus parted with their Lands what was left them for the maintenance of their Wars either offensive or defensive or for the maintenance of the Royal Family in such manner as not only becomes the dignity of a Soveraign King but is also necessary to keep his Person and People from contempt Ph. They have means enough and besides what they gave their Subjects had much Land remaining in their own hands afforrested for their recreation For you know very well that a great part of the Land of England was given for Military service to the great Men of the Realm who were for the most part of the Kings kindred or great Favourites much more Land than they had need of for their own Maintenance but so charged with one or many Souldiers according to the quantity of Land given as there could be no want of Souldiers at all times ready to resist an invading Enemy Which Souldiers those Lords were bound to furnish for a time certain at their own Charges You know also that the whole Land was divided into Hundreds and those again into Decennaries in which Decennaries all Men even to Children of 12 years of age were bound to take the Oath of Allegiance And you are to believe that those Men that hold their Land by the service of Husbandry were all bound with their Bodies and Fortunes to defend the Kingdom against invaders by the Law of nature And so also such as they called Villains and held their Land by baser drudgery were obliged to defend the Kingdom to the utmost of their power Nay Women and Children in such a necessity are bound to do such service as they can that is to say to bring Weapons and Victuals to them that fight and to Dig But those that hold their Land by service Military have lying upon them a greater obligation For read and observe the form of doing homage according as it is set down in the Statute of 17 Edw. 2. which you doubt not was in use before that time and before the Conquest La. I become your Man for Life for Member and for worldly Honour and shall owe you my faith for the Lands that I hold of you Ph. I pray you expound it La. I think it is as much as if you should say I promise you to be at your Command to perform with the hazard of my Life Limbs and all my Fortune as I have charged my self to the reception of the Lands you have given me and to be ever faithful to you This is the form of Homage done to the King immediately but when one Subject holdeth Land of another by the like Military service then there is an exception added viz. saving the faith I owe to the King Ph. Did he not also take an Oath La. Yes which is called the Oath of Fealty I shall be to you both faithful and lawfully shall do such customs and services as my duty is to you at the terms assigned so help me God and all his Saints But both these services and the services of Husbandry were quickly after turned into Rents payable either in Money as in England or in Corn or other Victuals as in Scotland and France When the service was Military the Tenant was for the most part bound to serve the King in his Wars with one or more Persons according to the yearly value of the Land he held Ph. Were they bound to find Horse-men or Foot-men La. I do not find any Law that requires any Man in respect of his Tenancie to serve on Horseback Ph. Was the Tenant bound in case he were called to serve in Person La. I think he was so in the beginning For when Lands were given for service Military and the Tenant dying left his Son and Heir the Lord had the custody both of Body and Lands till the Heir was twenty one years old and the reason thereof was that the Heir till that Age of twenty one years was presum'd to be unable to serve the King in his Wars which reason had been insufficient if the Heir had been bound to go to the Wars in Person Which methinks should ever hold for Law unless by some other Law it come to be altered These services together with other Rights as Wardships first possession of his Tenants inheritance Licenses for Alienation Felons Goods Felons Lands if they were holden of the King and the first years profit of the Lands of whomsoever they were holden Forfeitures Amercements and many other aids could not but amount to a very great yearly Revenue Add to this all that which the King might reasonably have imposed upon Artificers and Tradesmen for all Men whom the King protecteth ought to contribute towards their own protection and consider then whether the
the sustaining of his Soveraign power is to destroy the Propriety he pretends to The next thing I will ask you is how you distinguish between Law and Right or Lex and Jus. La. Sir Ed. Coke in divers places makes Lex and Jus to be the same and so Lex Communis and Jus Communis to be all one nor do I find that he does in any places distinguish them Ph. Then will I distinguish them and make you judge whether my distinction be not necessary to be known by every Author of the Common Law for Law obligeth me to do or forbear the doing of something and therefore it lies upon me an Obligation but my Right is a Liberty left me by the Law to do any thing which the Law forbids me not and to leave undone any thing which the Law commands me not Did Sir Ed. Coke see no difference between being bound and being free La. I know not what he was but he has not mention'd it though a man may dispense with his own Liberty that cannot do so with the Law Ph. But what are you better for your Right if a rebellious Company at home or an Enemy from abroad take away the Goods or dispossess you of the Lands you have a right to Can you be defended or repair'd but by the strength and authority of the King What reason therefore can be given by a man that endeavours to preserve his Propriety why he should deny or malignly contribute to the Strength that should defend him or repair him Let us see now what your Books say to this point and other points of the Right of Soveraignty Bracton the most authentick Author of the Common Law fol. 55. saith thus Ipse Dominus Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâ est Dei Vicarius habet ea quae sunt Pacis habet etiam coercionem ut Delinquentes puniat habet in potestate suâ Leges nihil enim prodest Jura condere nisi sit qui Jura tueatur That is to say our Lord the King hath all Right in his own Hands is Gods Vicar he has all that concerns the Peace he has the power to punish Delinquents all the Laws are in his power To make Laws is to no purpose unless there be some-body to make them obeyed If Bracton's Law be Reason as I and you think it is what temporal power is there which the King hath not Seeing that at this day all the power Spiritual which Bracton allows the Pope is restored to the Crown what is there that the King cannot do excepting sin against the Law of God The same Bracton Lib. 21. c. 8. saith thus Si autem a Rege petitur cum Breve non curret contra ipsum locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis sufficit ad poenam quod Dominum expectet Vltorem nemo quidem de factis ejus praesumat disputare multo fortius contra factum ejus venire That is to say if any thing be demanded of the King seeing a Writ lyeth not against him he is put to his Petition praying him to Correct and Amend his own Fact which if he will not do it is a sufficient Penalty for him that he is to expect a punishment from the Lord No Man may presume to dispute of what he does much less to resist him You see by this that this Doctrine concerning the Rights of Soveraignty so much Cryed down by the long Parliament is the Antient Common-Law and that the only Bridle of the Kings of England ought to be the fear of God And again Bracton c. 24. of the second Book sayes That the Rights of the Crown cannot be granted away Ea vero quae Jurisdictionis Pacis ea quae sunt Justitiae Paci annexa ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam Dignitatem Regiam nec a Corona separari possunt nec a privata persona possideri That is to say those things which belong to Jurisdiction and Peace and those things that are annexed to Justice and Peace appertain to none but to the Crown and Dignity of the King nor can be separated from the Crown nor be possest by a private Person Again you 'l find in Fleta a Law-Book written in the time of Edw. 2. That Liberties though granted by the King if they tend to the hinderance of Justice or subversion of the Regal Power were not to be used nor allowed For in that Book c. 20. concerning Articles of the Crown which the Justices Itinerant are to enquire of the 54th Article is this you shall inquire De Libertatibus concessis quae impediunt Communem Jâ—stitiam Regiam Potestatem subvertunt Now what is a greater hindrance to Common Justice or a greater subversion of the Regal Power than a Liberty in Subjects to hinder the King from raising Money necessary to suppress or prevent Rebellions which doth destroy Justice and subvert the power of the Soveraignty Moreover when a Charter is granted by a King in these words Dedita coram pro me Haeredibus meis The grantor by the Common-Law as Sir Edw. Coke sayes in his Commentaries on Littleton is to warrant his Gift and I think it Reason especially if the Gift be upon Consideration of a price Paid Suppose a Forraign State should say claim to this Kingdom 't is no Matter as to the Question I am putting whether the Claim be unjust how would you have the King to warrant to every Free-holder in England the Lands they hold of him by such a Charter If he cannot Levy Money their Estates are lost and so is the Kings Estate and if the Kings Estate be gone how can he repair the Value due upon the Warranty I know that the Kings Charters are not so meerly Grants as that they are not also Laws but they are such Laws as speak not to all the Kings Subjects in general but only to his Officers implicitly forbidding them to Judge or Execute any thing contrary to the said Grants There be many Men that are able Judges of what is right Reason and what not when any of these shall know that a Man has no Superiour nor Peer in the Kingdom he will hardly be perswaded he can be bound by any Law of the Kingdom or that he who is Subject to none but God can make a Law upon himself which he cannot also as easily abrogate as he made it The main Argument and that which so much taketh with the throng of People proceedeth from a needless fear put into their minds by such Men as mean to make use of their Hands to their own ends for if say they the King may notwithstanding the Law do what he please and nothing to restrain him but the fear of punishment in the World to come then in case there come a King that fears no such punishment he may take away from us not only our Lands Goods and Liberties but our Lives