9. Ed. 3. saith Whereas the Knights Citizens and Burgesses desired our Soveraign Lord the King in his Parliament by their Petition that for his Profit and the Commodity of his Prelates Earls Barons and Commons it may please him to provide remedy our Soveraign Lord the King desiring the profit of his people by the assent of his Prelates Earles Barons and other Nobles of his Council being there hath ordained In the Parliament primo Edwardi the Third where Magna Charta was confirmed I find this Preamble At the Request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King and His Council in Parliament by the assent of the Prelates Earles Barons and other Great Men Assembled it was Granted The Commons presenting a Petition unto the King which the King's Council did mislike were content thereupon to mend and explain their Petition the Form of which Petition is in these words To their most redoubted Soveraign Lord the King praying the said Commons That whereas they have pray'd Him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Eyre c. Which Petition seemeth to His Council 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 which should fall in Disinherison of Him or His Crown perpetually as of Escheators c. but of Trespasses Misprisions Negligences and Ignorances c. In the time of Henry the Third an Order or Provision was made by the King's Council and it was pleaded at the Common Law in Bar to a Writ of Dower The Plantiffs Attorney could not deny it and thereupon the Judgment was ideo â—sine die It seems in those days an Order of the Council-Board was either parcel of the Common-Law or above it The Reverend Judges have had regard in their Proceedings that before they would resolve or give Judgment in new Cases they consulted with the King 's Privy Council In the Case of Adam Brabson who was assaulted by R. W. in the presence of the Justices of Assize at Westminster the Judges would have the Advice of the Kings Council For in a like Case because R. C. did strike a Juror at Westminster which passed in an Inquest against one of his Friends It was adjudged by all the Council that his right hand should be cut off and his Lands and Goods forfeited to the King Green and Thorp were sent by Judges of the Bench to the Kings Council to demand of them whether by the Statute of 14. Ed. 3. cap. 16. a Word may be amended in a Writ and it was answered that a Word may well be amended although the Statute speak but of a Letter or Syllable In the Case of Sir Tho. Oghtred Knight 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 stayed 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 Case should come we should not go to Judgment without good advice therefore the Judges Conclusion was Sues au Counseil comment ils voillet que nous devomus faire nous volume faire auterment nient en cest case Sue to the Council and as they will have us to do we will and otherwise not in this Case 18. In the last place we may consider how much hath been attributed to the Opinions of the Kings Judges by Parliaments and so find that the Kings Council hath guided and ruled the Judges and the Judges guided the Parliament In the Parliament of 28. Hen. 6. The Commons made Suit That William de la Poole D. of Suffolke 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 Judges 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 In another Parliament 31. Hen. 6. which was prorogued in the Vacation the Speaker of the House of Commons was condemned in a thousand pound dammages in an Action of Trespass and was committed to Prison in Execution for the same When the Parliament was re-assembled the Commons made suit 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 priviledge of Parliament upon the Judges answer it was concluded That the Speaker should still remain in Prison according to the Law notwithstanding the priviledge of Parliament and that he was the Speaker Which Resolution was declared to the Commons by Moyle the King's Serjeant at Law and the Commons were commanded in the Kings Name by the Bishop of Lincolne in the absence of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury then Chancellour to chuse another Speaker In septimo of Hen. 8. a question was moved in Parliament Whether Spiritual Persons might be convented before Temporal Judges for Criminal Causes There Sir John Fineux and the other Judges delivered their Opinion That they might and ought to be and their Opinion was allowed and maintained by the King and Lords and Dr. Standish who before had holden it the same Opinion was delivered from the Bishops If a Writ of Errour be sued in Parliament upon a Judgment given 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 Law and for their Judgment therein they are to be informed by the advice and counsel of the Judges who are to inform them what the Law is and so to direct them in their Judgment for the Lords are not to follow their own Opinions or Discretions otherwise So it was in a Writ of Errour brought in Parliament by the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield against the Prior and Covent of Newton-Panel as appeareth by Record See Flower Dew's Case P. 1. H. 7. fol. 19. FINIS 1 Kings 20. 16. Gen. 27 29. Arist Pol. Lib. 1. c. 2.
â—re still Printed amongst them The Statute made for Correction â—f the 12 th Chapter of the Statute of â—locester was Signed under the Great â—eal and sent to the Justices of the â—ench after the manner of a Writ Paâ—â—nt with a certain Writ closed dated â—y the Kings Hand at Westminster reâ—iring that they should do and Execute â—â— and every thing contained in it although the same do not accord with the â—atute of Glocester in all things The Statute of Rutland is the Kings â—tters to his Treasurer and Barons of his â—cchequer and to his Chamberlain The Statute of Circumspecte Agis â—â—s The King to his Judges sendeth â—eeting There are many other Statutes of the â—he Form and some of them which â— only in the Majestique Terms of The â—g Commands or The King Wills or â— Lord the King hath established or Our Lord the King hath ordained or His Especial Grace hath granted Without mention of Consent of the Commons or People insomuch that some Statutes rather resemble Proclamations than Acts of Parliament And indeed some of them were no other than meeâ— Proclamations as the Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly oâ— the Prelates and Nobility for the Cornation of the King and his Queen Eleanoâ— which begins Provisum est in Câ—ria Domini Regis apud Merton Also a Provision was made 19. Hen. 3. de Assisa ultimoe Prâ—sentationis which was continued and allowed for Law until Tit. West 2. an 13. Eâ—â— 1. cap. 5. which provides the contrary iâ— express words This Provision begins Prâ—visum fuit coram Dom. Rege Archiepiscopiâ— Episcopis Baronibus quod c. It seeâ— Originally the difference was not greâ—â— between a Proclamation and a Statutâ— this latter the King made by Commâ—â— Council of the Kingdom In the form he had but the advice only of his greâ—â— Council of the Peers or of his Privâ—â—â— Council only For that the King had great Council besides his Parliament aâ—pears by a Record of 5. Hen. 4. aboâ—â— an Exchange between the King and the Earl of Northumberland Whereby the King promiseth to deliver to the Earl Lands to the value by the advice of Parliament or otherwise by the Advice of his Grand Council and other Estates of the Realm which the King will Assemble in case the Parliament do not meet We may find what Judgment in later times Parliaments have had of Proclamations by the Statute of 31. of Hen. Cap. 8. in these Words Forasmuch as the King by the advice of his Council hath set forth Proclamations which obstinate Persons have contemned not considering what a King by his Royal Power may do Considering that sudden Causes and Occasions fortune many times which do require speedy Remedies and that by abiding for a Parliament in the mean time might happen great prejudice to ensue to the Realm And weighing also that his Majesty which by the Kingly and Reâ—al Power given him by God may do many things in such Cases should not be driâ—en to extend the Liberties and Supreâ—ity of his Regal Power and Dignity by willfulness of froward Subjects It is therefore thought fit that the King with the Advice of his Honourable Council should set forth Proclamations for the good of the People and defence of his Royal Dignity as necessity shall require This Opinion of a House of Parliament was confirmed afterwards by a Second Parliament and the Statute made Proclamations of as great validity as if they had been made in Parliament This Law continued until the Government of the State came to be under aâ— Protector during the Minority of Edward the Sixth and in his first year it was Repealed I find also that a Parliament in the 11th year of Henry the Seventh did so great Reverence to the Actions or Ordinances of the King that by Statutâ— they provided a Remedy or Means to levy a Benevolence granted to the King although by a Statute made not long before all Benevolences were Damneâ— and Annulled for ever Mr. Fuller in his Arguments against the proceedings of the High-Commission Court affirms that the Statute of 2. H. 4. cap. 15. which giveth Power to Ordinaries to Imprison and set Fines on Subjects was made without the Assent of the Commons because they are not mentioned in the Act. If this Argument be good we shall find very many Statutes of the same kind for the Assent of the Commons was seldom mentioned in the Elder Parliaments The most usual Title of Parliaments in Edward the 3d Rich. 2. the three Henries 4. 5. 6. in Edw. 4. and Rich. 3. days was The King and his Parliament with the Assent of the Prelates Earles and Barons and at the Petition or at the special Instance of the Commons doth Ordain The same Mr. Fuller saith that the Statute made against Lollards was without the Assent of the Commons as appears by their Petition in these Words The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented nor Granted â—y the Commons but that which was done â—herein was done without their Assent 17. How far the Kings Council hath directed and swayed in Parliament hath in part appeared by what hath been already produced For further Evidence we may add the Statute of Westminster The first which saith These be the Acts of King Edward 1. made at His First Parliament General by His Council and by the assent of Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm c. The Statute of Bygamy saith In presence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Council for as much as all the King's Council as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in Writing and observed The Statute of Acton Burnell saith The King for Himself and by His Council hath Ordained and Established In Articuli super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the Request of his Prelates Earls and Barons we find these Passages 1. Nevertheless the King and His Council do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the King Right c. 2. And notwithstanding all these things before-mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Council and all they that were present at the making of this Ordinance will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved to him in all things Here we may see in the same Parliament the Charter of the Liberties of the Subjects confirmed and a saving of the Kings Prerogative Those times neither stumbled at the Name nor conceived any such Antipathy between the Terms as should make them incompatible The Statute of Escheators hath this Title At the Parliament of our Soveraign Lord the King by his Council it was agreed and also by the King himself commanded And the Ordinance of Inquest goeth thus It is agreed and Ordained by the King himself and all his Council The Statute made at York
to ordain over themselves a King or Consul or other Magistrates and if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy Thus far Bellarmine in which passages are comprised the strength of all that ever I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject Before I examine or refute these Doctrines I must a little make some Observations upon his Words First He saith that by the Law of God Power is immediately in the People hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate for a Democracy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude If this be true not only Aristocracies but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful as being ordained as he thinks by Men whenas God himself hath chosen a Democracy Secondly He holds that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them but only power to give away their Power whereby it followeth that there can be no Democratical Government because he saith the people must give their Power to One Man or to some Few which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate which the Multitude is tyed to do even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power And why then doth he say the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy Thirdly He concludes that if there be lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause â—f the Multitude for I see no Body else can then this is a pestilent and dangerous Conclusion 3 I come now to examine that Argument which is used by Bellarmine and â—s the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People It is thus framed That God hath given or ordained Power is evident by Scripture But God hath given it to no particular Person because by Nature all Men are Equal therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude To Answer this Reason drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature I will first use the help of Bellarmine himself whose very words are these If many men had been together created out of the Earth they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity In these words we have an Evident Confession that Creation made man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Father-hood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmie deny this also That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly Power their Deeds do testifie for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with subordination to the First Parent whâ— is Lord-Paramout over his Children Children to all Generations as being the Grand-Father of his People 4 I see not then how the Children of Adam or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents And this subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself It follows that Civil Power not only in general iâ— by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents which quite takes away thaâ— New and Common distinction which refers only Power Universal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the Special Form of Government to the Choice of the people This Lordship which Adam by Comâ—â—nd had over the whole World and Right descending from him the Paâ—â—â—archs did enjoy was as large and â—ple as the Absolutest Dominion of â—y Monarch which hath been since the â—eation For Dominion of Life and â—eath we find that Judah the Father â—onounced Sentence of Death against â—amar his Daughter-in-law for playâ—â—g the Harlot Bring her forth saith 〈◊〉 that she may be burnt Touching â—ar we see that Abram commanded an â—rmy of 318 Souldiers of his own Faâ—ily And Esau met his Brother Jacob â—ith 400 Men at Arms. For matter of â—eace Abraham made a League with â—â—imelech and ratified the Articles with â— Oath These Acts of Judging in Caâ—al Crimes of making War and conâ—â—uding Peace are the chiefest Marks of â—overeignty that are found in any Monarch 5 Not only until the Flood but â—fter it this Patriarchal Power did conâ—â—nue as the very name Patriarch doth â—â— part prove The three Sons of Noah â—ad the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them â—â— the whole World over-spread according to the Benediction given to him aâ— his Sons Be fruitful and multiply aâ— replenish the Earth Most of the Civilâ— Nations of the Earth labour to fetâ— their Original from some One of tâ—â— Sons or Nephews of Noah which weâ— scattered abroad after the Confusion Babel In this Dispersion we must certainly find the Establishment of Regâ— Power throughout the Kingdoms of tâ—â— World It is a common Opinion that at thâ— Confusion of Tongues there were â—â— distinct Nations erected all which weâ— not Confused Multitudes without Heaâ—â— or Governours and at Liberty to chooâ—â— what Governours or Government theâ— pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even iâ— the Confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families for so plainly it appears by the Text First after the Enumeration of the Sonâ— of Japhet the Conclusion is By these â—ere the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations so â—t is said These are the Sons of Ham â—fter their Families after their Tongues â—â— their Countreys and in their Nations The like we read These are the Sons of â—hem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood In this Division of the World some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it others affirm he â—ayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years and as he went about appointed to each Son his part and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia Africa and Europe according to the Number of his Sons â—he Limits of which Three Parts are all â—ound in that Midland Sea 6 But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes Amongst these was Nimrod who nâ— doubt as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was by good Right Lord or King over his Family yet against Right did hâ— enlarge his Empire by seizing violentlâ— on the Rights of other Lords of Families And
in this sense he may be saiâ— to be the Author and first Founder oâ— Monarchy And all those that do attribute unto him the Original Regal Power do hold he got it by Tyranny oâ— Usurpation and not by any due Election of the People or Multitude oâ— by any Faction with them As this Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham Isaac and Jacob even until the Egyptian Bondage so we find it amongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau Iâ— is said These are the Sons of Ismael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their families their places by their nations 7 Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but â—ome petty Lords under some greater Kings because the number of them are so many that their particular Territories â—ould be but small and not worthy the Tiâ—e of Kingdoms but they must consider â—hat at first Kings had no such large Dominions as they have now adays we find â— the time of Abraham which was about â—00 years after the Flood that in a little â—orner of Asia 9 Kings at once met in Baâ—â—il most of which were but Kings of â—ities apiece with the adjacent Territoâ—es as of Sodom Gomorrah Shinar c. In â—he same Chapter is mention of Melchiseâ—ck King of Salem which was but the Ciâ—â— of Jerusalem And in the Catalogue of â—â—e Kings of Edom the Names of each â—ing's City is recorded as the only Mark â— distinguish their Dominions In the â—and of Canaan which was but a small cirâ—it Joshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings â—nd about the same time Adonibeseck had â—o Kings whose Hands and Toes he had â—t off and made them feed under his Taâ—â—e A few years after this 32 Kings came â— Benhadad King of Syria and about Seventy Kings of Greece went to the Wars of Troy Caesar found more Kings in France than there be now Princes there and at his Sailing over into this Island he found four Kings in our County of Kent These heaps of Kings in each Nation are an Argument their Territories were but small and strongly confirms our Assertion that Erection of Kingdoms came at first only by Distinction of Families By manifest Footsteps we may trace this Paternal Government unto the Israelites coming into Aegypt where thâ— Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction was intermitted because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites ouâ— of Bondage God out of a special Caâ— of them chose Moses and Josuah successively to govern as Princes in thâ— Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers and after them likewise for a time hâ— raised up Judges to defend his People in time of Peril But when God gavâ— the Israelites Kings he reestablished thâ— Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special Person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently â—n the Person of the Father although the Father only was named in the Graunt 8. It may seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers And therefore we find that God told Cain of his Brother Abel His Desires shall be subject â—nto thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy Brethren and â—et the Sons of thy Mother how before thee As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more Significant to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy by this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae 9. It may be demanded what becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in Case the Crown does escheate for want of an Heir Whether doth it not then Devolve to the People The Answer is It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir for an Heir there always is If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die it is certain that there is One Man and but One in the World who is next Heirâ— although the Knowledge who should be that one One Man be quite lost 2. This Ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supreme Power is devolved to the Multitude and that they have Power to Rule and Chose what Rulers they please No the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and independent Heads of Families for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made By the Uniting of great Families or petty Kingdoms we find the greater Monarchies were at the first erected and into such again as into their first Matter many times they return again And because the dependencie of ancient Families is â—oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge â—herefore the wisdom of All or Most Princes have thought fit to adopt many times â—hose for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enobled them or Made them fit and capable of such Reâ—al Favours All such prime Heads and â—athers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Sovereign Authority on whom they please And he that is so Elected claims not his Power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an Universal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People If it please God for the Correction of the Prince or punishment of the People to suffer Princes to be removed and others to be placed in their rooms either by the Factions of the Nobility or Rebellion of the People in all sucâ— cases the Judgement of God who haâ—â— power to give and to take away Kingdoms is most just yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgment without Commission is sinful and damnable God doth but use and
Benefit of the King's Prerogative over Laws 9. The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10. The King Judge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11. The King and his Council have anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12. Of Parliaments 13. When the People were first called to Parliament 14. The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from Grace of the Princes 15. The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16. Governs both Houses as Head by himself 17. By his Council 18. By his Judges 1. HItherto I have endeavour'd to shew the Natural Institution of Regal Authority and to free it from Subjection to an Arbitrary Election of the People It is necessary also to enquire whether Humane Laws have a Superiority over Princes because those that maintain the Acquisition of Royal Jurisdiction from the people do subject the Exercise of it to Positive Laws But in this also they Erre for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet or all this every Father is bound by the â—aw of Nature to do his best for the preâ—ervation of his Family but much more â— a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general ground That the safety of the Kingdom be his â—hief Law He must remember That he profit of every man in particular and of all together in general is not always One and the same and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private â—nd that the force of Laws must not be â— great as Natural Equity it self which â—nnot fully be comprised in any Laws â—hatsoever but is to be left to the Reâ—â—gious Atchievement of those who â—â—ow how to manage the Affaires of â—tate and wisely to Ballance the particular profit with the Counterpoize of â—e Publick according to the infinite Vaâ—ety of Times Places Persons a proof â—nanswerable for the Superiority of Princes above Laws is this That there were â—ings long before there were any Laws or a long time the Word of a King â—as the only Law and if Practice as â—â—th Sir Walter Raleigh declare the â—eatness of Authority even the best Kings of Judah and Israel were not tyed to any Law but they did what-soever they pleased in the greatest matters 2 The Unlimitted Jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel that it hath given Occasion to some to Imagine that it was but either a Plot or Trick of Samuel to keep the Government himself and Family by frighting the Israelites with the mischiefs in Monarchy or else a prophetical Description only of the future III Government of Saul But the Vanity of these Conjectures are judiciously discovered in that Majestical Discourse of the true Law of free Monarchy Wherein it is evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must Suffer yet not so that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go Unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for Patient Obedience is due to both â—ho Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in Crying and praying unto God in that Day But howsoever in a Rigorous Construction Samuel's description be applyed to a Tyrant yet the Words by a Benigne Interpretation may agree with the manners of a Just King and the Scope and Coherence of the Text doth best imply the more Moderate or Qualified Sense of the Words for as Sir W. Raleigh confesses all those Inconveniences and Miseries which are reckonâ—ed by Samuel as belonging to Kingly Government were not Intollerable but such as have been born and are still born by free Consent of Subjects towards their Princes Nay at this day and in this Land many Tenants by their Tenures and Services are tyed to the same Subjection even to Subordinate and â—nferior Lords To serve the King in his Wars and to till his ground is not only agreeable to the Nature of Subjects but much desired by them according to their several Births and Conditions The like may be said for the Offices of Women-Servants Confectioners Cooks and Bakers for we cannot think that the King would use their Labours without giving them Wages since the Text it self mentions a Liberal reward of his Servants As for the taking of the Tenth of their Seed of their Vines and of their Sheep it might be a necessary Provision for their Kings Household and so belong to the Right of Tribute For whereas is mentioned the taking of the Tenth it cannot agree well to a Tyrant who observes no Proportion in fleecing his People Lastly The taking of their Fields Vineyards and Olive-trees if it be by Force or Fraud or without just Recompence to the Dammage of Private Persons only it is not to be defended but if it be upon the publick Charge and General Consent it might be justifyed as necessary at the first Erects on of a Kingdome For those who wiâ—â— have a King are bound to allow hiâ— Royal maintenance by providing Revenues for the CROWN Since it both for the Honour Profit and Safety too of the People to have their King Glorious Powerful and abounding in â—iches besides we all know the Lands â—nd Goods of many Subjects may be oftâ—mes Legally taken by the King either â—y Forfeitures Escheat Attainder Outâ—wry Confiscation or the like â—hus we see Samuel's Character of a â—ng may literally well bear a mild â—nse for greater probability there is at Samuel so meant and the Israelites understood it to which this may be â—ded that Samuel tells the Israelites â—s will be the manner of the King that â—ll Reign over you And Ye shall â—â— because of your King which Ye shall â—e chosen you that is to say Thus â—â—ll be the common Custom or Fashiâ— or Proceeding of Saul your King as the Vulgar Latine renders it this â—l be the Right or Law of your King â— meaning as some expound it the â—â—al Event or Act of some individuâ—â—agum or indefinite King that might â—en one day to Tyrannise over them â—hat Saul and the Constant practice Saul doth best agree with the Liteâ— Sense of the Text. Now that Saul â—no Tyrant we may note that the â—le asked a King as All Nations had God answers and bids Samuel to hear the Voice of the People in all things which they spake and appoint them a King They did not ask a Tyrant and to give them a Tyrant when they asked a King
had not been to hear their Voice in all things but rather when they asked an Egge to have given them a Scorpion Unless we will say that all Nations had Tyrantâ— Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much aâ— Blamed for committing any of thoâ—â— Acts which Samuel describes and if Sâ—muel's drift had been only to terrifie thâ— People he would not have forgottâ— to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty â—â— Murthering 85 innocent Priests aâ— smiteing with the Edge of the Swoâ— the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites neâ— shrank at these Conditions proposed bâ— Samuel but accepted of them as such â—â— all other Nations were bound uâ—â— For their Conclusion is Nay but we â—â— have a King over Us that We also may â—â— like all the Nations and that Our Kâ—â—â— may Judge us and go out before us to â—â— our Battels Meaning he should â—â— his Privileges by doing the work â—â— them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples Crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument â—f their Living under a Tyrant No man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to â—ehoboam is Make thou the grievous Serâ—ice of thy Father Solomon and his heaâ—y Yoke which he put upon us lighter and â—e will serve thee To conclude it is â—rue Saul lost his Kingdom but not â—or being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his â—ubjects but by being too Merciful to â—is Enemies his sparing Agag when he â—hould have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal â—ower By giving to Caesar those things â—at were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but Gods Law to hinder our Obedience It was the Answer of a Christian to the Emperour We only worship God in other things we gladly serve you And it seems Tertullian thought whatsoever was not God's was the Emperours when he saith Bene opposuit Caesari pecuniam te ipsum Deo alioqui quid erit Deisi omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Coesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Coesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apologie for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Legâ— bus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferrâ— The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment and not to say What dost Thou because Where the Word of a King is there is Power and All that he pleaseth he will do If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his words are speaking of the â—ing Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo â—â—si tantum sub Deo c. All are under â—m and he under none but God onâ—â— If he offend since no Writ can go â—ainst him their Remedy is by Petiâ—ning him to amend his Fault which he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as Revenger Let none presume to Search to his Deeds much less to Oppose â—â—em When the Jews asked our Blessed Saâ—ur whether they should pay Triâ—e he did not first demand what the â—w of the Land was or whether there â—â— any Statute against it nor enquired â—ether the Tribute were given by â—â—nsent of the people nor advised â—â— to stay their payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Jews for in this he gave direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Usurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these word to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems S. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood Monarch that carryed a Sword Wiâ—â— thou not be afraid of the Power that iâ— the Ruler that carryeth the Sword foâ— he is the Minister of God to thee â—â— he beareth not the Sword in vain It not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the Râ—ler or Magistrate so they that say thâ—â— Law governs the Kingdom may as weâ—â— say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And S. Paul concludes for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Render therefore Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom He doth not say give as a gift to Gods Minister But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render or Restore Tribute as a due Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul where he saith Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Here the very self same Word Supreme or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul coupleth with Power St. Peter conjoineth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to maniest that King and Power are both one Also St. Peter expounds his own Words of Humane Ordinance to be the King who is the Lex Loquens a Speaking Law he cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human Ordinance since St. Paul calls the Supreme Power The Ordinance of God and the Wisdom of God saith By me Kings Reign But his meaning must be that the Laws of Kings are Human Ordinances Next the Governours that are sent by him that is by the King not by God as some corruptly would wrest the Text to justifie Popular Governours as authorized by God whereas in Gramatical Construction Him the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is King Besides the Antithesis between
Cases some-what â—ike have been delivered by former â—udges who all receive Authority from the King in his Right and Name to give sentence according to the Rules and Presidents of Antient Times And where Presidents have failed the Judges have resorted to the General Law of Reason and accordingly given Judgment without any Common Law to direct them Nay many times where â—here have been Presidents to direct â—hey upon better Reason only have Changed the Law both in Causes Crimical and Civil and have not insisted so much on the Examples of former Judges as examined and corrected their â—easons thence it is that some Laws are â—ow obsolete and out of use and the â—ractice quite contrary to what it was in Former Times as the Lord Chancellor Egerton proves by several Instances Nor is this spoken to Derogate from the Common Law for the Case standeth so with the Laws of all Nations although some of them have their Laws and Principles Written and Established for witnesse to this we have Aristotle his Testimony in his Ethiques and in several places in his Politiques I will cite some of them Every Law saith he is in the General but of some things there can be no General Law when therefore the Law sqeaks in General and something falls out after besides the General Rule Then it is fit that what the Law-maker hath omitted or where he hath Erred by speaking Generally it should be corrected or supplyed as if the Law-maker himself were Present to Ordain it The Governour whether hâ— be one Man or more ought to be Lord â—ver all those things whereof it was impossible the Law should exactly speak because it is not easie to comprehend all things under General Rules whatsoever the Law cannot Determine it leaves to the Governours to give Judgment therein and permits them to rectifie whatsoever upon Tryal they find to be better than the Written Laws Besides all Laws are of themselves Dumb and some or other must be trusted with the Application of them to Particulars by examining all Circumstances to pronounce when they are broken or by whom This work of right Application of Laws is not a thing easie or obvious for ordinary capacities but requires profound Abilities of Nature for the beating out of the truth witness the Diversity and sometimes the contrariety of Opinions of the learned Judges in some difficult Points 10 Since this is the common Condition of Laws it is also most reasonable that the Law-maker should be trusted with the Application or Interpretation of the Laws and for this Cause anciently the Kings of this Land have sitten personally in Courts of Judicature and are still Representatively present in all Courts the Judges are but substituted and called the Kings Justices and their Power ceaseth when the King is in place To this purpose Bracton that learned Chief Justice in the Reign of Henry the Third saith in express terms In doubtful and obscure points the Interpretation and Will of our Lord the King is to be expected since it is his part to interpret who made the Law for as he saith in another place Rex non Alius debet Judicare si Solus ad id sufficere possit c. The King and no body else ought to give Judgment if He were able since by vertue of his Oath he is Bound to it therefore the King ought to exercise Power as the Vicar or Minister of God but if our Lord the King be not able to determine every cause to ease part of his Pains by distributing the Burthen to more Persons he ought to chuse Wise men fearing God c and make Justices of them Much to the same purpose are the words of Edward the First in the beginning of his Book of Laws written by his appointment by John Briton Bishop of Hereford We will saith he that our own Jurisdiction be above all the Jurisdictions 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 such Judgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right truth as Judges Neither may this be taken to be meant of an imaginary Presence of the King's Person in His Courts because he doth immediately after in the same place severally set forth by themselves the Jurisdictions of his Ordinary Courts but must necessarily be understood of a Jurisdiction remaining in the King 's Royal Person And that this then was no New-made Law or first brought in by the Norman Conquests appears by a Saxon Law made by King Edgar in these words as I find them in Mr. Lambert Nemo in lite Regem appellato nisi quidem domi Justitiam consequi aut impetrare non poterit sin summo jure domi urgeatur ad Regem ut is Onus aliqua ex parte Allevet provocato Let no man in Suit appeal to the King unless he may not get Right at home but if the Right be too heavy for him then let him go to the King to have it eased As the Judicial Power of Kings was exercised before the Conquest so in those setled times after the Conquest wherein Parliaments were much in use there was a High-Court following the King which was the place of Soveraign Justice both for matter of Law and Conscience as may appear by a Parliament in Edward the First 's time taking Order That the Chancellour and the Justices of the Bench should follow the King to the end that He might have always at hand able men for His Direction in Suits that came before Him And this was after the time that the Court of Common-Pleas was made Stationary which is an Evidence that the King reserved a Soveraign Power by which he did supply the Want or correct the Rigour of the Common Law because the Positive Law being grounded upon that which happens for the most part cannot foresee every particular which Time and Experience brings forth 12. Therefore though the Common Law be generally Good and Just yet in some special Case it may need Correction by reason of some considerable Circumstance falling out which at the time of the Law-making was not thought of Also sundry things do fall out both in War and Peace that require extraordinary help and cannot wait for the Usual Care of Common Law the which is not performed but altogether after one sort and that not without delay of help and expence of time so that although all Causes are and ought to be referred to the Ordinary Processe of common Law yet rare matters from time to time do grow up meet for just Reasons to be referred to the aid of the absolute Authority of the Prince and the Statute of Magna Charta hath been understood of the Institution then made of the ordinary Jurisdiction in Common Causes and not for restraint of the Absolute Authority serving only in a few rare and singular Cases for though the Subjects were put to great dammage by False
Accusations and Malitious Suggestions made to the King and His Council especially during the time of King Edward the Third whilst he was absent in the Wars in France insomuch as in His Reign divers Statutes were made That provided none should be put to answer before the King and His Council without due Processe yet it is apparent the necessity of such Proceedings was so great that both before Edward the Third's days and in his time and after his Death several Statutes were made to help and order the Proceedings of the King and his Council As the Parliament in 28. Edw. 1. Cap. 5. did provide That the Chancellour and Justices of the King's Bench should follow the King that so he might have near unto him some that be learned in the Laws which be able to order all such matters as shall come unto the Court at all times when need shall require By the Statute of 37. Edw. 3. Cap. 18. Taliation was ordained in case the Suggestion to the King proved untrue Then 38. Edw. 3. Cap. 9. takes away Taliation and appoints Imprisonment till the King and Party grieved be satisfied In the Statutes of 17. Ric. 2. Cap. 6. and 15. Hen. 6. Cap. 4. Dammages and Expences are awarded in such Cases In all these Statutes it is necessarily implyed that Complaints upon just Causes might be moved before the King and His Council At a Parliament at Glocester 2. Ric. 2. when the Commons made Petition That none might be forced by Writ out of Chancery or by Privy Seal to appear before the King and His Council to answer touching Free-hold The King's Answer was He thought it not reasonable that He should be constrained to send for His Leiges upon Causes reasonable And albeit He did not purpose that such as were sent for should answer Finalment peremptorily touching their Free-hold but should be remanded for Tryal thereof as Law required Provided always saith he that at the Suit of the Party where the King and His Council shall be credibly informed that because of Maintenance Oppression or other Out-rages the Common Law cannot have duly her Course in such case the Council for the Party Also in the 13th year of his Reign when the Commons did pray that upon pain of Forfeiture the Chancellour or Council of the King should not after the end of the Parliament make any Ordinance against the Common Law the King answered Let it le used as it hath been used before this time so as the Regaâ—lity of the King be saved for the King will save His Regalities as His Progeniâ—tors have done Again in the 4th year of Henry the Fourth when the Commons complained against Subpoena's and other Writs grounded upon false Suggestions the King answered That He would give in Charge to His Officers that they should abstain more than before time they had to send for His Subjects in that manner But yet saith He it is not Our Intention that Our Officers shall so abstain that they may not send for Our Subjects in Matters and Causes necessary as it hath been used in the time of Our Good Progenitors Likewise when for the same Cause Complaint was made by the Commons Anno 3. Hen. 5. the King's Answer was Le Roy s'advisera The King will be advised which amounts to a Denyal for the present by a Phrase peculiar for the Kings denying to pass any Bill that hath passed the Lords and Commons These Complaints of the Commons and the Answers of the King discover That such moderation should be used that the course of the common Law be ordinarily maintained lest Subjects be convented before the King and His Council without just cause that the Proceedings of the Council-Table be not upon every slight Suggestion nor to determine finally concerning Free â—old of Inheritance And yet that upon â—ause reasonable upon credible Information in matters of weight the King's â—egallity or Prerogative in sending for â—is Subjects be maintain'd as of Right ought and in former times hath been â—onstantly used King Edward the First finding that â—ogo de Clare was discharged of an Acâ—usation brought against him in Parliament for that some formal Imperfections â—ere found in the Complaint commanded him nevertheless to appear before Him and His Council ad faciendum â—cipiendum quod per Regem ejus Conciâ—â—m fuerit faciendum and so proceeded â—â— an Examination of the whole Cause â—â— Edw. 1. Edward the Third In the Star-Chamâ—â—r which was the Ancient Council-Chamâ—â—r at Westminster upon the Complaint â—â— Elizabeth Audley commanded James â—udley to appear before Him and His â—ouncil and determin'd a Controversie between them touching Lands contain'd the Covenants of her Joynture Rot â—aus de an 41. Ed. 3 Henry the Fifth in a Suit before Him and His Council for the Titles of the Mannors of Seere and S. Laurence in the Isle of Thenet in Kent took order for the Sequestring the Profits till the Right were tryed as well for avoiding the breach of the Peace as for prevention of waste and spoil Rot. Patin Anno 6 Hen. 5. Henry the Sixth commanded the Justices of the Bench to stay the Arraignment of one Verney of London till they had other commandment from Him anâ— His Council because Verney being indebted to the King and others practised tâ— be Indicted of Felony wherein he might have his Clergy and make his Purgation of intent to defraud his Creditors 3. Hen. 6. Rot. 37. in Banco Regis Edward the Fourth and His Council 〈◊〉 the Star-Chamber heard the Cause of the Master and Poor Brethren of S. Leonard in York complaining that Sir Hugh Haâ—ings and others withdrew from them great part of their living which consisted chiefly upon the having of Thrave of Corn of every Pâ—ough-Land within the Counties of York Westmerâ—nd Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. â—aten de Anno 8. Ed. 4. Part 3. Memb. 14. Henry the Seventh and His Council in â—â—e Star-Chamber decreed That Margery â—nd Florence Becket should Sue no further in their Cause against Alice Radley â—idow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumâ—ad in Kent for as much as the Matter â—d been heardfirst before the Council of â—ng Ed. 4. after that before the Presiâ—â—nt of the Requests of that King Hen. and then lastly before the Council of said King 1. Hen. 7. What is hitherto affirmed of the Deâ—dency and Subjection of the Comâ—on Law to the Soveraign Prince the â—e may be said as well of all Statute â—â—ws for the King is the sole immediâ— Author Corrector and Moderator them also so that neither of these â— kinds of Laws are or can be any â—inution of that Natural Power â—â—ch Kings have over their People by â—t of Father-hood but rather are an â—ument to strengthen the truth of it for Evidence whereof we may in some points consider the nature of Parliaments because in them only all Statutes are made 12. Though the Name of Parliament as Mr. Cambden saith be of no great Antiquity but brought in
out of France yet our Ancestors the English Saxons had a Meeting which they called The Assembly of the Wise termed in Latine Conventum Magnatum or Proesentia Regis Procerumque Prelaterumque collectorâ—â— The Meeting of the Nobility or the Presence of the King Prelates anâ— Peers Assembled or in General Magnuâ— Concilium or Commune Concilium anâ— many of our Kings in elder times madâ— use of such great Assemblies for to Consult of important Affaires of State aâ— which Meetings in a General sense maâ— be termed Parliaments Great are the Advantages which bâ—â— the King and People may receive by well-ordered Parliament there is nâ—thing more expresseth the Majesty a Supreme Power of a King than such Assembly wherein all his People knowledge him for Soveraign Lord and make all their Addresses to him by humble Petition and Supplication and by their Consent and Approbation do strengthen all the Laws which the King â—â—at their Request and by their Advice and Ministry shall ordain Thus they facilitate the Government of the King by making the Laws unquestionable either to the Subordinate Magistrates or â—refractory Multitude The benefit which â—â—crews to the Subject by Parliaments is That by their Prayers and Petitions Kings are drawn many times to redress their Just grievances and are overcome by their importunity to grant many â—hings which otherwise they would not â—ield unto for the Voice of a Multitude is easilier heard Many Vexations of the People are without the knowledge of the King who in Parliament seeth â—nd heareth his People himself whereas â— other times he commonly useth the â—yes and Ears of other men Against the Antiquity of Parliaments â—e need not dispute since the more anâ—ent they be the more they make for â—e Honour of Monarchy yet there be certain Circumstances touching the Forms of Parliaments which are fit to be considered First we are to remember that until about the time of the Conquest there could be no Parliaments assembled of the General States of the whole Kingdom of England because till those days we cannot learn it was entirely united into one Kingdom but it was either divided into several Kingdoms or Governed by several Laws When Julius Coesar landed he found 4 Kings in Kent and the British Names of Dammonii Durotriges Belgaeâ— Attrebatii Trinobantes Iceni Silures and the rest are plentiful Testimonies oâ— the several Kingdoms of Brittains wheâ— the Romans left us The Saxons divide us into 7 Kingdoms when these Saxonâ— were united all into a Monarchy they had always the Danes their Companions or their Masters in the Empire tiâ— Edward the Confessors Days since whoâ— time the Kingdom of England hath continued United as now it doth But for a Thousand years before we cannot finâ— it was entirely setled during the Timâ— of any one Kings Reign As under thâ— Mercian Law The West Saxons were confined to the Saxon Laws Essex Norfolk Suffolk and some other Places were vexed with Danish Laws The Northumbrians also had their Laws apart And until Edward the Confessors Reign who was next but one before the Conquerour the Laws of the Kingdom were so several and Uncertain that he was forced to Cull a few of the most indifferent and best of them which were from him called St. Edwards Laws Yet some say that Eadgar made those Laws and that the Confessor did but restore and mend them Alfred also gathered out of Mulmutius laws such as he translated into the Saxon Tongue Thus during the time of the Saxons the Laws were so variable that there is little or no likelihood to find any constant Form of Parliaments of the whole Kingdom 13 A second Point considerable is whether in such Parliaments as was â—n the Saxon's times the Nobility â—nd Clergy only were of those Assemâ—lies or whether the Commons were also called some are of Opinion that â—hough none of the Saxon Laws do mention the Commons yet it may be gathered by the word Wisemen the Commons are intended to be of those Assemblies and they bring as they conceive probable arguments to prove it from the Antiquity of some Burroughs that do yet send Burgesses and from the Proscription of those in Antient Demesne not to send Burgesses to Parliament If it be true that the West-Saxons had a Custom to assemble Burgesses out of some of their Towns yet it may be doubted whether other Kingdoms had the same usage but sure it is that during the Heptarchy the People could not Elect any Knights of the Shire because England was not then divided into Shires On the contrary there be of our Historians who do affirm that Henry the First caused the Commons first to be Assembled by Knights and Burgesses of their own Appointment for before his Time only certain of the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm were called to Consultation about the most Important Affairs of State If this Assertion be true it seems a meer matter of Grace of this King and proves not any Natural Right of the People Originally to be admitted to chuse their Knights and Burgesses of Parliament though it had been more for the Honour of Parliaments if a King whose Title to the Crown had been better had been Author of the Form of it because he made use of it for his unjust Ends. For thereby he secured himself against his Competitor and Elder Brother by taking the Oaths of the Nobility in Parliament and getting the Crown to be setled upon his Children And as the King made use of the People so they by Colour of Parliament served their own turns for after the Establishment of Parliaments by strong hand and by the Sword they drew from him the Great Charter which he granted the rather to flatter the Nobility and People as Sir Walter Raleigh in his Dialogue of Parliaments doth affirm in these words The great Charter was not Originally granted Legally and Freely for Henry the First did but Usurp the Kingdom and therefore the better to assure himself against Robert his Elder Brother he flattered the Nobility and People with their Charters yea King John that Confirmed them had the like respect for Arthur Duke of Brittain was the undoubted Heir of the Crown upon whom King John Usurped and so to conclude these Charters had their Original from Kings de facto but not de jure the Great Charter had first an obscure Birth by Usurpation and was Secondly sostered and shewed to the World by Rebellion 15. A third consideration must be that in the former Parliaments instituted and continued since King Henry the First 's time is not to be found the Usage of any Natural Liberty of the People for all those Liberties that are claimed in Parliament are the liberties of Grace from the King and not the Liberties of Nature to the People for if the liberty were Natural it would give Power to the Multitude to assemble themselves When and Where they please to bestow Soveraignty and by Pactions to limit and direct the Exercise of