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
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
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
Westminster and at the dissolution were translated to the Kings Chappel at White-hall Also I read that Westminster-hall being out of Repair Ric. 2. caused a large House to be builded betwixt the Clock-tower and the Gate of the great old Hall in the midst of the Palace Court the House was long and large made of Timber covered with Tiles open on both sides that all might see and hear what was both said and done four thousand Archers of Cheshire which were the Kings own Guard attended on that House and had bouche a Court and 6 d. by the day Thirdly he saith The Commons are to chuse their Speaker but seeing after their Choice the King may refuse him the Use is as in the conge d'eslire of a Bishop that the King doth name a Discreet Learned man whom the Commons Elect when the Commons have chosen the King may allow of his Excuse and Disallow him as Sir John Popham was saith his Margin Fourthly he informs us That the first day of the Parliament four Iustices assistants and two Civilianâ—… Masters of the Chancery are appointed Receivers 〈◊〉 Petitions which are to be delivered within six dayes following and six of the Nobility and two Bishops calling to them the Kings Learned Councel when neeâ—… should be to be Tryers of the said Petitions whether theâ—… were reasonable good and necessary to be offered and propounded to the Lords He doth not say that any 〈◊〉 the Commons were either Receivers or Tryers 〈◊〉 Petitions nor that the Petitions were to be propounded to Them but to the Lords Fifthly he teacheth us that a Knight Citizen 〈◊〉 Burgess cannot make a Proxy because he is Electeâ—… and Trusted by multitudes of People here a Questioâ—… may be whether a Committee if it be Trusted to 〈◊〉 any thing be not a Proxy since he saith the Hiâ—… Power of Parliament to be committed to a few is holdâ—… to be against the Dignity of Parliaments and that 〈◊〉 such Commission ought to be granted Sixthly he saith The King cannot take notice of 〈◊〉 thing said or done in the House of Commons but by 〈◊〉 Report of the House Surely if the Commons saâ—… with the Lords and the King were present 〈◊〉 might take notice of what was done in His Presence And I read in Vowel that the old Usage wâ—… that all the Degrees of Parliament sate together 〈◊〉 every man that had there to speak did it openly befâ—… the King and his whole Parliament In the 35 Eliz. there was a Report that the Commons were against the Subsidies which was toâ—… the Queen whereupon Sir Henry Knivet said it should be a thing answerable at the Bar for any man to report any thing of Speeches or Matters done in the House Sir John Wolley liked the Motion of Secrecy except only the Queen from whom he said there is no reason to keep any thing And Sir Robert Cecil did allow that the Councel of the House should be secretly kept and nothing reported in malam partem But if the meaning be that they might not report any thing done here to the Queen he was altogether against it Seventhly he voucheth an Enditement or Information in the Kings Bench against 39 of the Commons for departing without License from Parliament contrary to the Kings Inhibition whereof six submitted to their Fines and Edmund Ployden pleaded he remained continually from the beginning to the end of the Parliament Note he did not plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court of Kings Bench but pleaded his constant Attendance in Parliament which was an Acknowledgment and submitting to the Jurisdiction of that Court and had been an unpardonable betraying of the Privileges of Parliament by so learned a Lawyer if his Case ought only to be tryed in Parliament Eighthly he resolves that the House of Lords in their House have Power of Iudicature and the Commons in their House and both Houses together He brings Records to prove the Power of Judicature of both Houses together but not of either of them by it self He cites the 33 Edw. 1. for the Judicature of both Houses together where Nicholas de Segrave was adjudged per Praelatos Comites Barones alios de Concilio by the Prelates Earls and Barons and others of the Councel Here is no mention of the Judgment of the Commons Others of thâ—… Councel may mean the Kings Privy Councel 〈◊〉 his Councel Learned in the Laws which are called by their Writs to give Counsel but so are not the Commons The Judgment it self saith Nicholâ—… de Segrave confessed his fault in Parliament and submitted himself to the Kings Will thereupoâ—… the King willing to have the Advice of the Earlâ—… Barons Great men and others of his Councel enjoyned them by the Homage Fealty and Allegâ—…ance which they owed that they should faithfull counsel Him what Punishment should be inflicteâ—… for such a Fact who all advising diligently saâ—… That such a Fact deserves loss of Life and Memberâ—… Thus the Lords we see did but Advise the Kinâ—… what Judgment to give against him that deserteâ—… the Kings Camp to fight a Duel in France Ninthly he saith Of later times see divers not abâ—… Iudgments at the Prosecution of the Commons by tâ—… Lords where the Commons were Prosecutors theâ—… were no Judges but as he termes them generâ—… Inquisitors or the Grand Inquest of the Kingdom Thâ—… Judgments he cites are but in King Iames his dayeâ—… and no elder Tenthly also he tells us of the Iudicature in tâ—… House of Commons alone his most ancient precedenâ—… is but in Queen Elizabeths Reign of one Tho. Lonâ—… who gave the Maior of Westbury 10 l. to be electâ—… Burgess Eleventhly he hath a Section entitled The Housâ—… of Commons to many Purposes a distinct Court anâ—… saith Nota the House of Commons to many Purposes 〈◊〉 distinct Court of those many Purposes he tells but one that is it uses to adjourn it self Commissioners thaâ—… be but to examine Witnesses may Adjourn themselves yet are no Court. Twelfthly he handles the Privileges of Parliament where the great Wonder is that this great Master of â—…he Law who hath been oft a Parliament-man could â—…ind no other nor more Privileges of Parliament â—…ut one and that is freedom from Arrests which he â—…aith holds unless in three cases Treason Felony and â—…he Peace And for this freedom from Arrests he cites Antient Precedents for all those in the House of Lords but he brings not one Precedent at all for the Commons Freedom from Arrests It is behooful for a Free-holder to consider what Power is in the House of Peers for although the Free-holder have no Voice in the Election of the Lords yet if the Power of that House extend to make Ordinances that bind the Free-holders it is necessary for him to enquire what and whence that Power is and how far it reacheth The chief Writ of â—…ummons to the Peers was in these words CAROLUS Dei Gratia c. Reverendissimo in Christo
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
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
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
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
at that Election sending back unto Us the other part of the Indenture aforesaid affiled to these Presents together with this Writ Witness Our Self at Westminster By this Writ we do not find that the Commons are called to be any part of the Common Councel of the Kingdom or of the Supream Court of Iudicature or to have any part of the Legislative Power or to Consult de arduis regni negotiis of the difficult Businesses of the Kingdom The Writ only sayes the King would have Conference and Treat with the Prelates Great men and Peers but not a word of Treating or Conference with the Commons The House of Commons which doth not minister an Oath nor fine nor imprison any but their own Members and that but of late in some Cases cannot properly be said to be a Court at all much less to be a part of the Supream Court or highest Judicature of the Kingdom The constant Custom even to this day for the Members of the House of Commons to stand bare with their Hats in their Hands in the Presence of the Lords while the Lords sit covered at all Conferences is a visible argument that the Lords and Commons are not fellow Commissioners or fellow Counsellors of the Kingdom The Duty of Knights Citizens and Burgesses mentioned in the Writ is only ad Faciendum Consentiendum to Perform and to Consent to such things as should be ordained by the Common Councel of the Kingdom there is not so much mentioned in the Writ as a Power in the Commons to dissent When a man is bound to appear in a Court of Justice the words are ad Faciendum recipiendum quod ei per curiam injungetur which shews that this word Faciendum is used as a Term in Law to signifie to give Obedience For this we meet with a Precedent even as ancient as the Parliament-Writ it self and it is concerning Proceedings in Parliament 33. Ed. 1. Dominus Rex mandavit vicecom ' quod c. summon ' Nicolaum de Segrave ex parte Domini regis firmiter ei injungeret quod esset coram Domino Rege in proximo Parl. c. ad audiendum voluntatem ipsius Domini Regis c. Et ad Faciendum recipiendum ulterius quod curia Domini Regis consideraret in Praemissis Our Lord the King commands the Sheriff to summon Nicholas Segrave to appear before the Lord our King in the next Parliament to hear the Will of the Lord our King himself and to Perform and receive what the Kings Court shall further consider of the Premises Sir Ed. Coke to prove the Clergy hath no Voice in Parliament saith that by the Words of their Writ their Consent was only to such things as were ordained by the Common Councel of the Realm If this argument of his be good it will deny also Voices to the Commons in Parliament for in their Writ are the self-same words viz. to consent to such things as were ordained by the Common Councel of the Kingdom Sir Edw. Coke concludes that the Procuratores Cleri have many times appeared in Parliament as Spiritual Assistants to Consider Consult and to Consent but never had voice there how they could consult and Consent without Voices he doth not shew Though the Clergy as he saith oft appeared in Parliament yet was it only ad consentiendum as I take it and not ad faciendum for the Word Faciendum is omitted in their Writ the cause as I conceive is the Clergy though they were to assent yet by reason of Clerical Exemptions they were not required to Perform all the Ordinances or Acts of Parliament But some may think though the Writ doth not express a Calling of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses to be part of the Common Councel of the Kingdom yet it supposeth it a thing granted and not to be questioned but that they are a part of the Common Councel Indeed if their Writ had not mentioned the Calling of Prelates Great men and Peers to Councel there might have been a little better colour for such a Supposition but the Truth is such a Supposition doth make the Writ it self vain and idle for it is a senseless thing to bid men assent to that which they have already ordained since ordaining is an Assenting and more than an Assenting For clearing the meaning and sense of the Writ and Satisfaction of such as think it impossible but that the Commons of England have alwayes been a part of the Common Councel of the Kingdom I shall insist upon these Points 1. That anciently the Barons of England were the Common Councel of the Kingdom 2. That until the time of Hen. 1. the Commons were not called to Parliament 3. Though the Commons were called by Hen. 1. yet they were not constantly called nor yet regularly elected by Writ until Hen. 3. time For the first point M. Cambden in his Britania doth teach us that in the time of the English Saxons and in the ensuing Age a Parliament was called Communâ—… concilium which was saith he Praesentia Regis Praelatorum Procerumque collectorum the Presence of the King Prelates and Peers assembled No mention of the Commons the Prelates and Peers were all Barons The Author of the Chronicle of the Church of Lichfield cited by M. Selden saith Postquam Rex Edvardus c. Concilio Baronum Angliae c. After King Edward was King by the Councel of the Barons of England he revived a Law which had layen asleep threescore and seven years and this Law was called the Law of St. Edward the King In the same Chronicle it is said that Will. the Conquerour anno regni sui quarto apud Londin ' haâ—… Concilium Baronum Suorum a Councel of his Barons And of this Parliament it is that his Son Hen. 1. speaks saying I restore you the Laws of King Edward the Confessor with those amendments wherewith my Father amended them by the Councel of his Barons In the fifth year as M. Selden thinks of the Conquerour was a Parliament or Principum conventus aâ—… Assembly of Earls and Barons at Pinenden Heath iâ—… Kent in the Cause between Lanfranke the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Odo Earl of Kent The King gave Commission to Godfrid then Bishop of Constanâ—… in Normandy to represent His own Person for Hearing the Controversie as saith M. Lambard and caused Egelrick the Bishop of Chichester an aged man singularly commended for Skill in the Laws and Customes of the Realm to be brought thither in a Wagon for his Assistance in Councel Commanded Haymo the Sheriff of Kent to summon the whole County to give in Evidence three whole dayes spent in Debate in the End Lanfranke and the Bishop of Rochester were restored to the Possession oâ—… Detling and other Lands which Odo hath withholden 21. Ed. 3. fol. 60. There is mention of a Parliament held under the same King William the Conquerour wherein all the Bishops of the Land Earls and
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
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
Knights Citizens and Burgesses 4. The Penalty of 40 l for Maiors or Bayliffs making untrue Returns 5. Due Election of Knights must be in the full County-Court between the Hours of Eight and Eleven before noon 6. The Party must begin his Suit within 3 Moneths after the Parliament began 7. Knights of the Shire shall be notable Knights of the County or such notable Esquires or Gentlemen born of the said Counties as shall be able to be Knights and no man to be such Knight which standeth in the Degree of a Yeoman and under The last thing I observe in the Writ for Election of Members for Parliament is That by the express words of the Writ Citizens and Burgesses for the Parliament were eligible at the County-Court as well as Knights of the Shire and that not only Free-holders but all others whosoever were present at the County-Court had Voices in such Elections see the Stat. 7. Hen. 4. cap. 15. I have the longer insisted on the Examination of the Writ being the Power and Actions of the House of Commons are principally justified by the Trust which the Free-holders commit unto them by virtue of this Writ I would not be understood to determine what Power the House of Commons doth or may exercise if the King please I confine my self only to the Power in the Writ I am not ignorant that King Hen. 7. in the Cause of the Duke of Britain and King Iames in the Business of the Palatinate asked the Councel of the House of Commons and not only the House of Commons but every Subject in particular by Duty and Allegiance is bound to givâ—… his best Advice to his Sovereign when he is thoughâ—… worthy to have his Councel asked 13. Edw. 3. nu 10. All the Merchants of England were summoned by Writ to appear at Westminster in proper Person to confer upon great business concerning the Kings Honour the Salvation of the Realâ—… and of themselves In Passages of publick Councel it is observable saith Sir Rob. Cotton that in ancient times the Kings of England did entertain the Commons with weighty Causes thereby to apt and bind them to a readiness of Charge and the Commons to shun Expence haâ—… warily avoided to give Advice 13. Edw. 3. The Lords and Commons were called to consult how the domestick Quiet may be preserved the Marches of Scotland defended and thâ—… Sea secured from Enemies The Peers and Commons having apart consulted the Commons desired Not to be charged to Councel of things of whicâ—… they had no Cognisance de queux ils n' ont pas de Cognisance 21. Edw. 3. Justice Thorp declaring to the Peeâ—… and Commons that the French War began by theiâ—… Advice the Truce after by their Assent accepted and now ended the Kings Pleasure was to havâ—… their Counsel in the Prosecution the Commons being commanded to assemble themselves and when they were agreed to give notice to the King and the Lords of the Councel after four days Consultation Humbly desire of the King that he would be advised therein by the Lords and others of more Experience than themselves in such Affairs 6. Ric. 2. The Parliament was called to consult whether the King should go in Person to rescue Gaunt or send an Army The Commons after two dayes Debate crave a Conference with the Lords and Sir Thomas Puckering their Speaker protests that Councels for War did aptly belong to the King and His Lords yet since the Commons were commanded to give their Advice they humbly wished a Voyage by the King 7. Ric. 2. At the second Session the Commons are willed to Advise upon View of Articles of Peace with the French whether War or such Amity should be accepted they modestly excuse themselves as too weak to Counsel in so weighty Causes But charged again as they did tender their Honour and the Right of the King they make their Answer giving their Opinions rather for Peace than War For fuller Manifestation of what hath been said touching the Calling Election and Power of the Commons in Parliament it is behooful to observe some Points delivered by Sir Edw. Coke in his Treatise of the Jurisdiction of Parliaments where First he fairly begins and lays his Foundation that the High Court of Parliament consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there and of the three Estates 1. The Lords Spiritual 2. The Lords Temporal 3. And the Commons Hence it is to be gathered that truly and properly it cannot be called the High Court of Parliament but whilst the King is sitting there in Person so that the Question now a days whether the Parliament be above the King is either false or idle false if you exclude and idle if you include the King's Person in the word Parliament The case truly put and as it is meant is whether the three Estates oâ—… which is all one the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament be above the King and not whether the King with the three Estates be above the King It appears also that they are much mistaken who reckon the King one of the three Estates as Mr. Pryn pag. 20. and many others do for the three Estates make the Body and the King is Caput Principium finis Parliamentor as confesseth Sir Edw. Coke Secondly Sir Edw. Coke delivers That certain it is both Houses at first sate together and that it appears in Edward the Third's time the Lords and Commons satâ—… together and the Commons had no continual Speaker If he mean the Lords and Commons did sit and Vote together in one Body few there be that will believe it because the Commons never were wont to lose or forego any of their Liberties or Privileges and for them to stand now with their Hats in their hands which is no Magistratical Posture there where they were wont to sit and Vote is an alteration not imaginable to be indured by the Commons It may be in former times when the Commons had no constant Speaker they were oft and perhaps for the most part in the same Chamber and in the presence of the Lords to hear the Debates and Consulations of the Great Councel but not to sit and Vote with them for when the Commons were to Advise among themselves the Chapter-house of the Abby of Westminster was oft-times their place to meet in before they had a settled House and their meetings not being very frequent may be the reason I conceive why the name of the House of Commons is not of such great Antiquity or taken notice of but the House of Lords was only called the Parliament-House and the Treatise called Modus tenendi Parliamentum speaks of the Parliament as but of one House only The House where now the Commons sit in Westminster is but of late Use or Institution for in Edward the Sixth's dayes it was a Chappel of the Colledge of Saint Stephen and had a Dean Secular Canons and Chorists who were the Kings Quire at his Palace at
patri G. eadem gratia Archiepiscopo Cantuarienâ—…i totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano salutem Quia de advisamento assensu Concilii nostri pro quiâ—…usdam arduis urgentibus negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae ecclesiae Anglicaâ—…ae concernentibus quoddam Parliamentum nostrum apud W. c. teneri ordinavimus ibidem vobiscum cum â—…aeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere tractatum Vobis â—…n fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter injungendo mandamus quod consideratis dictorum negotioruâ—… arduitate periculis imminentibus cessante quacunquâ—… excusatione dictis die loco personaliter intersitis Nobiscum cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribâ—… praedictis super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque concilium impensuri hoc sicut Nos Honorem nostrâ—…ac salvationem regni praedicti ac ecclesiae sanctae expeditionemque dictorum negotiorum diligitis nullatenus omittatiâ—… Praemonentes Decanum capitulum ecclesiae vestrae Caâ—…tuariensis ac Archidiacanos totumque Clerum vestrae Diâ—…cesis quod idem Decanus Archidiaconi in propriis peâ—…sonis suis ac dictum Capitulum per unum idemque Clerâ—… per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam sufficientem poâ—… statem ab ipsis Capitulo Clero habentes praedictis die â—… loco personaliter intersint ad consentiendum hiis quae tuâ—…ibidem de Commune Concilio ipsius Regni Nostri divinâ—… favente Clementia contigerint ordinari Teste Meipso apâ—… West c. CHARLES by the Grace of God c. To the moâ—… Reverend Father in Christ W. by the samâ—… Grace Arch-bishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of all England Health Whereas by thâ—… Advice and Assent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the Statâ—… and Defence of Our Kingdom of England and 〈◊〉 the English Church We have Ordained a certaâ—… Parliament of Ours to be holden at W. c. aâ—… there to have Conference and to treat with you thâ—… Prelats Great men and Peers of Our said Kingdoâ—… We straitly Charge and Command by the Faiâ—… and Love by which you are bound to Us that coâ—…sidering the Difficulties of the Businesses aforesaiâ—… and the imminent Dangers and setting aside all Excuse you be personally present at the Day and Place aforesaid to treat and give your Counsel concerning the said Businesses And this as you love Us and Our Honour and the Safeguard of the foresaid Kingdom and Church and the Expedition of the said Businesses you must no way omit Forewarning the Dean and Chapter of your Church of Canterbury and the Arch-deacons and all the Clergy of your Diocese that the same Dean and the Arch-deacon in their proper Persons and the said Chapter by one and the said Clergy by two fit Proctors having full and sufficient Power from them the Chapter and Clergy be personally present at the foresaid Day and Place to Consent to those things which then and there shall happen by the favour of God to be Ordained by the Common Councel of our Kingdom Witness Our Self â—…t Westm. The same Form of Writ mutatis mutandis concluding with you must no way omit Witness c. â—…s to the Temporal Barons But whereas the Spirituâ—…l Barons are required by the Faith and Love the Temporal are required by their Allegiance or Homage The Difference between the two Writs is that the Lords are to Treat and to Give Counsel the Commons â—…re to Perform and Consent to what is ordained By this Writ the Lords have a deliberative or a â—…onsultive Power to Treat and give Counsel in difficult Businesses and so likewise have the Judges Barons â—…f the Exchequer the Kings Councel and the Maâ—…ters of the Chancery by their Writs But over and â—…esides this Power the Lords do exercise a decisive or Iudicial Power which is not mentioned or found in their Writ For the better Understanding of these two different Powers we must carefully note the distinction between a Iudge and a Counsellor in a Monarchy the ordinary Duty or Office of a Iudge is to give Judgment and to command in the Place of the King but the ordinary Duty of a Counsellor is to advise the King what he himself shall do or cause to be done The Iudge represents the Kings Person in his absence the Counsellor in the Kings Presence gives his Advice Iudges by their Commission oâ—… Institution are limited their Charge and Power and in such things they may judge and cause their Judgments to be put in Execution But Counsellors have no Power to command their Consultations to bâ—… executed for that were to take away the Sovereignty from their Prince who by his Wisdom is to weighâ—… the Advice of his Councel and at liberty to resolvâ—… according to the Judgment of the wiser part of hiâ—… Councel and not always of the greater In a word regularly a Counsellor hath no Power but in thâ—… Kings Presence and a Iudge no Power but out oâ—… his Presence These two Powers thus distinguished have yet such Correspondency and there is so neeâ—… Affinity between the Acts of judging and counselling that although the ordinary Power of the Judgâ—… is to give Judgment yet by their Oath they arâ—… bound in Causes extraordinary when the King pleaseth to call them to be his Counsellors and oâ—… the other side although the proper work of a Counsellor be only to make Report of his Advice to his Sovereign yet many times for the Ease only and by the Permission of the King Counsellors are allowed to judge and command in Points wherein ordinarily they know the mind of the Prince and what they do is the act of the Royal Power it self for the Councel is always presupposed to be united to the Person of the King and therefore the Decrees of the Councel are styled By the King in his Privy Councel To apply this Distinction to the House of Peers we find originally they are called as Counsellors to the King and so have only a deliberative Power specified in their Writ and therefore the Lords do only then properly perform the Duty for which they are called when they are in the Kings Presence that He may have Conference and treat with them the very Words of the Writ are nobiscum ac cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus praedictis super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque concilium impensuri with Us and with the Prelates Great men and Peers to treat and give your councel the word Nobiscum implieth plainly the Kings Presence It is a thing in reason most absurd to make the King assent to the Judgments in Parliament and allow Him no part â—…n the Consultation this were to make the King â—… Subject Councel loseth the name of Councel â—…nd becomes a Command if it put a Necessiâ—…y upon the King to follow it such Imperious Councels make those that are but Counsellors â—…n name to
the King at His Parliament of his special Grace and for Affection which he beareth to his Prelates Earls and Barons and others hath granted that they that have Liberties by Prescription shall enjoy them In the Stat. de finibus Levatis the Kings Words are We intending to provide Remedy in our Parliament have ordained c. 28. Edw. 1. c. 5. The King Wills that the Chancellor and the Iustices of the Bench shall follow Him so that he may have at all times some neer unto him thaâ—… be learned in the Laws and in Chap. 24. the words are Our Lord the King after full Conference and Debate had with his Earls Barons Nobles and other Great men by their whole Consent hath ordained c. The Stat. de Tallagio if any such Statute there be speaks in the Kings Person No Officer of Ours No Tallage shall be taken by Us We Will and Grant 1. Edw. 2. begins thus Our Lord the King Willeth and Commandeth The Stat. of 9. the same King saith Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and other great States hath Ordained 10. Edw. 2. It is provided by our Lord the King and his Iustices The Stat. of Carlile saith We have sent our Command in writing firmly to be observed 1. Edw. 3. begins thus King Edw. 3. at his Parliament at the request of the Commonalty by their Petition before him and his Councel in Parliament hath granted c. and in the 5th Chap. The King willeth that no man be charged to arm himself otherwise than he was wont 5. Edw. 3. Our Lord the King at the Request of his People hath established these things which He Wills to be kept 9. Of the same King there is this Title Our Lord the King by the Assent c. and by the Advice of his Councel being there hath ordained c. In his 10 year it is said Because Our Lord King Edw. 3. hath received by the Complaint of the Prelates Earls Barons also at the shewing of the Knights of the Shires and his Commons by their Petition put in his Parliament c. Hath ordained by the Assent c. at the Request of the said Knights and Commons c. The same year in another Parliament you may find these be the Articles accorded by Our Lord the King with the Assent c. at the Request of the Knights of the Shires and the Commons by their Petition â—…ut in the said Parliament In the year-Book 22 Edw. 3. 3. pl. 25. It is said The King makes the Laws by the Assent of the Peers and Commons and not the Peers and Commons The Stat. of 1. Ric. 2. hath this Beginning Richâ—…d the 2. by the Assent of the Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons and at the Instance and special Request of â—… Commons Ordained There being a Statute made 5 Ric. 2. c. 5. against Lollards in the next year the Commons Petition Him Supplient les Commons que come un estatute fuit fait c. The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented to nor Granted by the Commons but that which was done therein was done without their Assent In this Petition the Commons acknowledge it a Statute and so call it though they assented not to it 17 Ric. 2. nu 44. The Commons desire some pursuing to make a Law which they conceive hurtful to the Commonwealth That His Majesty will not pass it As for the Parliaments in Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Edw. 4. and Ric. 3. Reigns the most of them do agree in this one Title Our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of His Lords and at the special Instance and Request of the Commons Hath ordained The Precedents in this Point are so numerous that it were endless to cite them The Statutes in Hen. 7. days do for the most part agree both in the Titles and Bodies of the Acts in these words Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons iâ—… Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same hath ordained Unto this Kings time we find the Commons very often petitioning but not petitioned unto The first Petition made to the Commons that I meet with among the Statutes is but in the middle of this King Hen 7. Reign which was so well approved that the Petition it self is turned into â—… Statute It begins thus To the Right Worshipfuâ—… Commons in this present Parliament assembled Sheweth to your discreet Wisdoms the Wardens of the Fellowship of the Craft of Upholsters within London c. This Petition though it be directed to the Commons in the Title yet the Prayer of the Petition is turned to the King and not to the Commons for it concludes therefore it may please the Kings Highness by the Advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and his Commons in Parliament c. Next for the Statutes of Hen. 8. they do most part agree both in their Titles and the Bodies of the Acts with those of his Father King Hen. 7. Lastly In the Statutes of Edw. 6. Qu. Mary Q. Elizabeth K. Iames and of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is there is no Mention made in their Titles of any Assent of Lords and Commons or of any Ordaining by the King but only in general terms it is said Acts made in Parliament or thus At the Parliament were Enacted yet in the Bodies of many of these Acts of these last Princes there is sometimes Mention made of Consent of Lords and Commons in these or the like words It is Enacted by the King with the Assent of the Lords and Commons Except only in the Statutes of our Lord King Charles wherein there is no Mention that I can find of any Consent of the Lords and Commons or Ordaining by the King But the words are Be it Enacted by Authority of Parliament or else Be it Enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons as if they were all Fellow-Commissioners Thus it appears that even till the time of K. Ed. 6. who lived but in our Fathers dayes it was punctually expressed in every King's Laws that the Statutes Ordinances were made by the King And withal we may see by what degrees the Styles and Titles oâ—… Acts of Parliament have been varied and to whose Disadvantage The higher we look the more absolute we find the Power of Kings in Ordaininâ—… Laws nor do we meet with at first so much as thâ—… Assent or Advice of the Lords mentioned Nay 〈◊〉 we cast our eye upon many Statutes of those that bâ—… of most Antiquity they will appear as if they weâ—… no Laws at all but as if they had been made only to teach us that the Punishments of many Offencâ—… were left to the meere pleasure of Kings The punitive part of the Law which gives all the Vigoâ—… and Binding Power to the Law we find committed by the
Statutes to the Kings meer Will and Pleasure as if there were no Law at all I will offer a few Precedents to the Point 3 Edw. 1. c. 9. saith That Sheriffs Coroners aâ—… Bailiffs for concealing of Felonies shall make grievoâ—… Fines at the Kings pleasure Chap. 13. Ordains That such as be found culpablâ—… of Ravishing of Women shall Fine at the Kings pleasure Chap. 15. saith The penalty for detaining a Prisoâ—…er that is mainpernable is a Fine at the Kings pleasure or a grievous Amercement to the King and he thâ—… shall take Reward for deliverance of such shall be at thâ—… Great Mercy of the King Chap. 20. Offenders in Parks or Ponds shall maâ—… Fines at the Kings pleasure Chap. 25. Committers of Champerty and Extortioners are to be punished at the Kings pleasure Chap. 31. Purveyors not paying for what they takâ—… shall be Grievously punished at the Kings pleasure Chap. 32. The King shall punish Grievously the Sheriff and him that doth maintain Quarrels Chap. 37. The King shall grant Attaint in Plea of Land where it shall seem to him necessary 7 Edw. 1. saith Whereas of late before certain Persons deputed to Treat upon Debates between Us and certain Great Men it was accorded that in our next Parliament provision shall be made by Us and the common Assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons that in all Parliaments for ever every man shall come without Force and Armour And now in our next Parliament the Prelates Earls Barons and Commonalty have said That to US it belongeth through Our Royal Signory straitly to defend Force of Armour at all times when it shall please Us and to punish them which shall do otherwise and hereunto they are bound to Aid Us their Sovereign Lord at all Seasons when Need shall be 13 Edw. 1. Takers away of Nuns from Religious Houses Fined at the Kings Will. If by the Default of the Lord that will not avoid the Dike Underwoods and Bushes in High-wayes murder be done the Lord shall make Fine at the Kings pleasure 28 Edw. 1. If a Gold-smith be attainted for not Assaying Touching and Working Vessels of Gold he shall be punished by Ransome at the Kings pleasure 2 Hen. 4. The Commons desire they may have Answer of their Petitions before the gift of any Subsidy to which the King answers He would conferr with the Lords and do what should be best according to their Adâ—…ice and the last day of Parliament He gave this Anâ—…er That that manner of Doing had not been Seen nor used in no time of his Progenitors or Predecessors that they should have any Answer of then Petitions or knowledge of it before they have shewed and finished all their other Business of Parliament be it of any Grant Business or otherwise and therefore the King would not in any wayes change the Good Customs and Usages Made and Used of Antient Times 5 Hen. 4. c. 6. Whereas one Savage did Beat and maime one Richard Chedder Esquire Menial Servanâ—… to Tho. Brook Knight of the Shire for Somerset-shire the Statute saith Savage shall make Fine and Ransom at the Kings Pleasure 8 Hen. 4. It is said POTESTAS PRINCIPIS NON EST INCLUSA LEGIBUS the Power of the Prince is not included in the Laws 13 Hen. 4. nu 20. we read of a Restitution iâ—… Bloud and Lands of William Lasenby by the King by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Commons omitting the Lords Temporal 2 Hen. 5. in a Law made there is a Clause That it is the Kings Regalty to grant or deny such of their Petitions as pleaseth Himself 6 Hen. 6. c. 6. An Ordinance was made for to endure As long as it shall please the King 11 Hen. 7. c. 1. hath this Law The King oâ—… Sovereign Lord calling to His remembrance the duty of Allegiance of His Subjects of this His Realm and that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in His Wars for the Defence of Him and the Land against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against Him and with Him to enter and abide in Service in Battel if Case so require and that for the same Service what fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battel against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time past hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon Him in His Person or being in other places by his Commandement within the Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance Be it therefore Enacted That no Person that shall attend upon the King and do Him true Service shall be attainted therefore of Treason or any other Offence by Act of Parliament or otherwise Also the 18 Chap. of the same Year saith Where every Subject by the Duty of his Allegiance is bounden to Serve and Assist his Prince and Sovereign Lord at all Seasons when need shall require and bound to give attendance upon his Royal Person to defend the same when He shall fortune to go in Person in War for Defence of the Realm or against His Rebels and Enemies for the Subduing and Repressing of them and their malitious purpose Christopher Wray Serjeant at Law chosen Speaker 13 Eliz. in his Speech to Her Majesty said that for the orderly Government of the Commonwealth three things were necessary 1. Religion 2. Authority 3. Law By the first we are taught not only our Duty to God but to obey the Queen and that not only in Temporals but in Spirituals in which Her Power is absolute Mr. Grivel in the 35 Eliz. said in Parliament He â—…ished not the making of many Laws since the more we make the less Liberty we have our selves Her Majesty not being bound by them For further proof that the Legislative Power is proper to the King we may take notice that in antient time as Sir Edw. Coke saith All Acts of Parliament were in form of Petitions if the Petitions were from the Commons and the Answer of them the King 's it is easie thereby to judge who made the Act of Parliament Also Sir Io. Glanvil affirms that in former times the course of Petitioning the King was this The Lords and Speaker either by Words or Writing preferr'd their Petition to the King this then was called the Bill of the Commons which being received by the King part He received part He put out and part he ratified for as it came from Him it was drawn into a Law Also it appears that Provisions Ordinances and Proclamations made heretofore out of Parliament have been alwayes acknowledged for Laws and Statutes We have amongst the printed Statutes one called the Statute of Ireland dated at Westminster 9 Feb. 14 Hen. 3. which is nothing but a Letter of the King to Gerard Son of
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
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
sift out what is comprised in the Writ for the Election of the Commons to Parliament since it is certain though the Writ doth not yet Privilege of Parliament gives sufficient Power for all Proceedings of the Two Houses It is answered that what slight Esteem soever be made of the Writ yet in all other cases the Original Writ is the Foundation of the whole business or action and to vary in Substance from the Writ makes a nullity in the Cause and the Proceedings thereupon and where a Commissioner exerciseth more Power than is warranted by his Commission every such Act is void and in many Cases punishable yet we will lay aside the Writ and apply our selves to consider the Nature of Privilege of Parliament The Task is the more difficult for that we are not told what the number of Privileges are or which they be some do think that as there be dormant Articles of Faith in the Roman Church which are not yet declared so there be likewise Privileges dormant in the House of Commons not yet revealed we must therefore be content in a generality to discourse of the Quality or Condition of Privilege of Parliament and to confine our selves to these three points 1. That Privilege of Parliament gives no power but only helps to the execution of the Power given by the Writ 2. That the Free-holders by their Elections give no Privilege 3. That Privilege of Parliament is the Gift of the King First The End or Scope of Privilege of Parliament is not to give any Power to do any publick Act not warranted by the Writ but they are intended as Helps only to enable to the Performance of the Duty enjoyned and so are subservient to the Power comprised in the Writ For Instance the grand Privilege of Freedom from Arrests doth not give any Power at all to the House of Commons to do any act but by taking away from the Free-holders and other Subjects the Power of Arrests the Commons are the better inabled to attend the Service to which they are called by the King In many other Cases the Servants oâ—… Ministers of the King are privileged and protected much in the same Nature The Servants in houshold to the King may not be arrested without special Licence Also the Officers of the Kings Courts of Justice have a Privilege not to be sued in any other Court but where they serve and attend and to this Purpose they are allowed a Writ of Privilege Likewise all such as serve the King in his Wars or are imployed on forreign Affairs for him are protected from Actions and Sutes Nay the Kings Protection descends to the privileging even of Laundresses Nurses and Midwives if they attend upon the Camp as Sir Edw. Coke saith quia Lotrix seu Nutrix seu obstetrix Besides the King protects his Debtors from Arrests of the Subject till his own Debts be paid These sorts of Protections are Privileges the Common Law takes notice of and allows and hath several Distinctions of them and some are Protections quia profecturus and others are quia moraturus some are with a Clause of volumus for stay of Suits others with a Clause of Nolumus for the safety of mens Persons Servants and Goods and the Kings Writs do vary herein according to the Nature of the Business But none of these Privileges or Protections do give any Power they are not positive but privative they take away and deprive the Subject of the Power or Liberty to arrest or sue in some cases only no Protection or Privilege doth defend in point of Treason Felony or Breach of the Peace Privileges are directly contrary to the Law for otherwise they should not be Privileges and they are to be interpreted in the strictest manner as being odious and contrary to Law we see the Use of Privileges they do but serve as a Dispensation against Law intended originally and principally for the expediting of the Kings Business though secondarily and by accident there do sometimes redound a Benefit by them to the Parties themselves that are protected Strictly and properly every Privilege must be against a publick or common Law for there is no Use or Need of a private Law to protect where there is no publick Law to the contrary Favours and Graces which are only besides and not against the Law do not properly go under the name of Privileges though common Use do not distinguish them I know no other Privilege that can be truly so called and to belong to the House of Commons which is so vast and great as this Privilege of their Persons Servants and Goods this being indeed against the Common Law and doth concern the whole Kingdom to take notice of it if they must be bound by it Touching this grand Privilege of Freedom from Arrests I read that in the 33 Hen. 8. the Commons did not proceed to the Punishment of Offenders for the breach of it untill the Lords referred the Punishment thereof to the Lower House The Case is thus reported George Ferrers Gentleman Servant to the King and Burgesse for Plymouth going to the Parliament House was arrested in London by Process out of the Kings Bench for Debt wherein he had before been condemned as Surety for one Welden at the Sute of one White which Arrest signified to Sir Thomas Moyl Speaker and to the rest the Serjeant called Saint-Iohns was sent to the Counter in Breadstreet to demand Ferrers The Officer of the Counter refused to deliver him and gave the Serjeant such ill Language that they fall to an Affray the Sheriff coming taketh the Officers part the Serjeant returned without the Prisoner This being related to the Speaker and Burgesses they would sit no more without their Burgess and rising repaired to the Upper House where the Case was declared by the Speaker before Sir Thomas Audley Chancellor and the Lords and Iudges there assembled who judging the Contempt to be very great referred the Punishment thereof to the House of Commons it self This Privilege of Freedom from Arrestâ—… is the only Privilege which Sir Edward Coke finds to belong to the House of Commons he cannot or at least he doth not so much as name any other in his Section of the Privileges of Parliament neither doth he bring so much as one Precedent for the Proof of this one Privilege for the House of Commons which may cause a Doubt that this sole Privilege is not so clear as many do imagine For in a Parliament in the 27 Eliz. Richard Coke a Member being served with a Subpoena of Chancery the Lord Chancellor thought the House had no such Privilege for Subpoena's as they pretended neither would he allow of any Precedents of the House committed unto them formerly used in that Behalf unless the House of Commons could also prove the same to have been likewise thereupon allowed and ratified also by Precedents in the Court of Chancery In the 39 of Eliz. Sir Edw. Hobby and Mr. Brograve Attorney
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
was ready drawn by them Her Majesty was highly displeased herewith as contrary to her former strait Command and charged the Councel to call the Parties before them Sir Thomas Henage sent for them and after Speech with them commanded them to forbear the Parliament and not to go out of their several Lodgings after they were called before the Lord Treasurer the Lord Buckhurst and Sir Thomas Henage Mr. Wentworth was committed by them to the Tower Sir Henry Bromley with Mr. Richard Stevens to whom Sir Henry Bromley had imparted the Matter were sent to the Fleet as also Mr. Welch the other Knight for Worcestershire In the same Parliament Mr. Morrice Attorney of the Court of Wards moved against the hard Courses of the Bishops Ordinaries and other Ecclesiastical Judges in their Courts used towards sundry Learned and godly Ministers and Preachers and spake against Subscription and Oaths and offer'd a Bill to be read against Imprisonment for refusal of Oaths Mr. Dalton opposed the Reading of it as a thing expresly against Her Majesties Command to meddle in Doctor Lewin shewed that Subscription was used even at Geneva At two of the clock the same day the Speaker Mr. Coke afterwards Sir Edward Coke was sent for to the Court where the Queen Her self gave him in Command a Message to the House She told him It being wholly in Her Power to Call to Determine to Assent or Dissent to any thing done in Parliament that the Calling of This was only that the Majesty of God might be more religiously observed by compelling by some sharp Laws such as neglect that Service and that the Safety of Her Majesties Person and the Realm might be provided for It was not meant they should meddle with matters of State or Causes Ecclesiastical for so Her Majesty termed them she wondred that any could be of so high Commandement to attempt they were Her own words a thing so expresly contrary to that which She had commanded wherefore with this She was highly offended And because the words spoken by my Lord Keeper are not now perhaps well remembred or some bâ—… now here that were not then present Her Majesties present Charge and express Command is that no Bill touching the said matter of State or Reformation in Causes Ecclesiastical be exhibited and upon my Allegiance saith Mr. Coke I am charged if any such Bill be exhibited not to read it I have been credibly informed that the Queen sent a Messenger or Serjeant at Arms into the House of Commons and took out Mr. Morrice and committed him to prison within few dayes after I find Mr. Wroth moved in the House that they might be humble Suitors to Her Majesty that She would be pleased to set at liberty those Members of the House that were restrained To this it was answered by the Privy Counsellors that Her Majesty had committed them for Causes best known to Her self and to press Her Highness with this Suit would but hinder them whose Good is sought that the House must not call the Queen to account for what she doth of Her Royal Authority that the Causes for which they are restrained may be High and Dangerous that Her Majesty liketh no such Questions neither doth it become the House to searcâ—… into such matters In the 39 Eliz. The Commons were tolâ—… their Privilege was Yea and No and thaâ—… Her Majesties Pleasure was that if the Speaker perceived any idle heads which would not stick to hazard their own Estates which will meddle with reforming the Church and transforming the Commonweal and do exhibit Bills to that purpose the Speaker should not receive them till they were viewed and considered by those whom it is fitter should consider of such things and can better judge of them and at the end of this Parliament the Queen refused to pass 48 Bills which had passed both Houses In the 28 of Eliz. the Queen said She was sorry the Commons medled with chusing and returning Knights of the Shire for Norfolk a thing impertinent for the House to deal withal and only belonging to the Office and Charge of the Lord Chancellor from whom the Writs issue and are returned 4 Hen. 4. The 10 of October the Chancellor before the King declared the Commons had sent to the King praying him that they might have Advice and Communication with certain Lords about Matters of Business in Parliament for the common good of the Realm which Prayer Our Lord the King graciously granted making Protestation he would not do it of Duty nor of Custom but of his special Grace at this time and therefore Our Lord the King â—…harged the Clark of the Parliament that this Protestation should be entred on Record upon the Parliament-Roll which the King made known to them by the Lord Say and his Secretary how that neither of Due nor of Custom our Lord the King ought to grant any Lords to enter into Communication with them of Matters touching the Parliament but by his special Grace at this time he hath granted their Request in this Particular upon which matter the said Steward and Secretary made Report to the King in Parliament that the said Commons knew well that they could not have any such Lords to commune with them of any Business of Parliament without special Grace and Command of the King Himself It hath heretofore been a question whether it be not an Infringing and Prejudice to the Liberties and Privileges of the House of Commons for them to joyn in Conference with the Lords in Cases of Benevolence or Contribution without a Bill In the 35 Eliz. on Tuesday the first of March Mr. Egerton Attorney general and Doct. Carey came with a Message from the Lords their Lordships desired to put the House in Remembrance of the Speech delivered by the Lord Keeper the first day for Consultation and Provision of Treasure to be had aginst the great and imminent Dangers of the Realm thereupon their Lordships did look to have something from the Houses touching those Causes before this time and yet the Parliament had sate but three dayes for it began Feb. 26. and therefore their Lordships had hitherto omitted to do any thing therein themselves And thereupon their Lordships desired that according to former laudable Usages between both Houses in such like Cases a Committee of Commons may have Conference with a Committee of Lords touching Provision of Treasure against the great Dangers of the Realm which was presently resolved by the whole House and they signified to their Lordships the willing and ready Assent of the whole House At the Meeting the Lords negatively affirm not to assent to less than three Subsidies and do insist for a second Conference M. Francis Bacon yielded to the Subsidy but opposed the joyning with the Lords as contrary to the Privileges of the House of Commons thereupon the House resolved to have no Conference with the Lords but to give their Lordships most humble and dutiful Thanks with all Reverence for
Government in Israel And what the Old Testament teacheth us we have confirmed in the New If Saint Paul had onely said Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers and said no more then men might have disputed whether Saint Paul by higher Powers had not meant as well other Governours as Kings or other Forms of Government as Monarchy but the good luck is Saint Paul hath been his own Interpreter or Comment for after the general Doctrine of Obedience to be given by all men to the higher Powers he proceeds next to charge it home and lay it to the Conscience under pain of Damnation and applies it to each particular mans Conscience saying Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power which Power he expounds in the singular number restraining it to one Person saying He is the Minister of God to thee it is not They are the Ministers to thee and then again He beareth not the Sword in vain and then a third time in the same verse lest thou should'st forget it he saith for He is the Minister of God a Revenger to Wrath c. upon thee if Saint Paul had said They are the Ministers of God or They bear not the Sword in vain it might be doubted whether they were meant of Kings onely or of other Governours also but this Scruple is taken away by the Apostle himself And as St. Paul hath expounded what he means by Higher Powers so St. Peter also doth the like for the self-same Word that St. Paul useth for Higher in Saint Peter is translated Supreme so that though in our English Bibles the words differ yet in the Original they are both the same so that St. Paul might have been Englished Let every Soul be subject to the Supreme Power or St. Peter might have been translated whether to the King as to the higher yet there is this difference that whereas St. Paul useth the word in the Plural number St. Peter hath it in the Singular and with application to the King It will be said Though St. Peter make the King Supreme yet he tells us the King is a humane Ordinance or a Creature of the People's But it is answered Kings may be called an humane Ordinance for being made of one of the People and not by the People and so are humane in Regard of their material Cause not of their efficient If St. Peter had meant that Kings had been made by the People he must also have meant that Governours had been made by the People for he calls the Governours as well an Ordinance of Man as the King for his woods are Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or whether it be to Governours but Saint Peter sheweth that Governours are not made by the People for he saith they that are sent by Him not by them for the punishment of Evil doers so that the Governours are sent by the King and not by the People some would have sent by him to be sent by God but the Relative must be referr'd to the next Antecedent which is the King and not God Besides if Governours be sent by God and Kings by the People then Governours would be Supreme which is contrary to Saint Peter's Doctrine and it will follow that the People have not the power of choosing Representers to Govern if Governours must be sent of God The safest sense of Saint Peter's words is Submit your selves to all Humane Laws whether made by the King or by his Subordinate Governours So the King may be called a Humane Ordinance as being all one with a Speaking Law the word in the Original is Be subject to every humane Creation it is more proper to call a Law made by a King a creation of an Ordinance than the Peoples choosing or declaring of a King a Creation of him But take the words in what sense soever you will it is most evident that Saint Peter in this place takes no notice of any Government or Governours but of a King and Governours sent by him but not by the People And â—…t is to be noted That St. Peter and St. Paul â—…he two chief of the Apostles wrote their Epistles at such a time when the name of a Popular Government or of the People of Rome was at least so much in Shew and in Name that many do believe That notwithstanding the Emperours by strong hand usurped a Military Power yet the Government was for a long time in most things then in the Senate and People of Rome but for all this neither of the two Apostles take any notice of any such Popular Government No nor our Saviour himself who divides all between God and Caesar and allows nothing that we can find for the People OBSERVATIONS UPON Aristotles Politiques TOUCHING Forms of Government WHAT cannot be found in Scripture many do look for in Aristotle for if there be any other Form of Government besides Monarchy he is the man best able â—…o tell what it is and to let us know by what name â—…o call it since the Greek Tongue is most happy in â—…ompounding Names most significant to express the nature of most things The usual terms in this Age of Aristocraty and Democraty are taken up from him â—…o express Forms of Government most different from Monarchy We must therefore make inquiry into Aristotle touching these two Terms True it is Aristotle seems to make three sorts of Government which he diâ—…inguisheth by the Soveâ—…ignty of one man or of a â—…w or of many for the â—…ommon Good These he saith are rigâ—… or perfect Governments 〈◊〉 those that are for the privaâ—… Good of one or of a few 〈◊〉 of a Multitude are Transgressions The Government of a Monarchy for the Common Good he calls a Kingdom The Government of a few more than one an Aristocratie either beeâ—… the best men govern or because it is for the best of 〈◊〉 governed when a Multitude governs for the comâ—… Good it is called by the common name of all Governments a POLITIE It is possible that one 〈◊〉 few may excell in Vertue but it is difficult for many excell in all Vertue except in Warlike Affairs for 〈◊〉 is natural in a Multitude therefore in this sort of Government their principal Use is to war one for another and to possess the Arms or Ammunition The Transgâ—…sions of Government before spoken of are these â—…ranny is the Transgression of the Kingdom and Dâ—…mocratie is the Transgression of the Politie For Tyâ—… is a Monarchy for the Benefit of the Monarch the Oligâ—…chy for the Profit of the Rich the Democratie for the â—…nefit of the Poor None of these are for the Comâ—… Good Here Aristotle if he had stood to his own Prinâ—…ples should have said an Oligarchy should be for 〈◊〉 Benefit of a few and those the best and not for the 〈◊〉 of the rich and a Democratie for the Benefit of 〈◊〉 and not of the
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
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
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
his own Will V. If it be demanded what is meant by the word People 1. Sometimes it is Populus universus and then every Child must have his Consent asked which is impossible 2. Sometimes it is pars major and sometimes it is pars potior sanior How the major part where all are alike free can bind the minor part is not yet proved But it seems the major part will not carry it nor be allowed except they be the better part and the sounder part We are told the sounder part implored the help of the Army when it saw it self and the Commonwealth betrayed and that the Souldiers judged better than the Great Councel and by Arms saved the Commonwealth which the Great Councel had almost damned by their Votes p. 7. Here we see what the People is to wit the sounder part of which the Army is the judge thus upon the matter the Souldiers are the People which being so we may discern where the Liberty of the People lieth which we are taught to consist all for the most part in the power of the Peoples Choosing what Form of Government they please pag. 61. A miserable Liberty which is onely to choose to whom we will give our Liberty which we may not keep See more concerning the People in a Book entituled The Anarchy p. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. VI. We are taught that a Father and a King are things most diverse The Father begets us but not the King but we create the King Nature gives a Father to the People the People give themselves a King If the Father kill his Son he loseth his life why should not the King also p. 34. Ans. Father and King are not so diverse it is confessed that at first they were all one for there is confessed Paternum imperium haereditarium p. 141. and this Fatherly Empire as it was of it self hereditary so it was alienable by Patent and seizable by an Usurper as other goods are and thus every King that now is hath a Paternal Empire either by Inheritance or by Translation or Usurpation so a Father and a King may be all one A Father may dye for the Murther of his Son where there is a Superiour Father to them both or the Right of such a Supreme Father but where there are onely Father and Sons no Sons can question the Father for the death of their Brother the reason why a King cannot be punished is not because he is excepted from Punishment or doth not deserve it but because there is no Superiour to judge him but God onely to whom he is reserved VII It is said thus He that takes away from the People the power of Choosing for themselves what Form of Government they please he doth take away that wherein all Civil Liberty almost consists p. 65. If almost all Liberty be in Choosing of the Kind of Government the People have but a poor Bargain of it who cannot exercise their Liberty but in Chopping and Changing their Government and have liberty onely to give away their Liberty than which there is no greater mischief as being the cause of endless Sedition VIII If there be any Statute in our Law by which thou canst find that Tyrannical Power is given to a King that Statute being contrary to Gods Will to Nature and Reason understand that by that general and primary Law of ours that Statute is to be repealed and not of force with us p. 153. Here if any man may be judge what Law is contrary to Gods Will or to Nature or to Reason it will soon bring in Confusion Most men that offend if they be to be punished or fined will think that Statute that gives all Fines and Forfeitures to a King to be a Tyrannical Law thus most Statutes would be judged void and all our Fore-fathers taken for Fools or Madmen to make all our Laws to give all Penalties to the King IX The sin of the Children of Israel did lye not in Desiring a King but in desiring such a King like as the Nations round about had they distrusted God Almighty that governed them by the Monarchical Power of Samuel in the time of oppression when God provided a Judge for them but they desired a perpetual and hereditary King that they might never want in Desiring a King they could not sin for it was but Desiring what they enjoyed by Gods special Providence X. Men are perswaded that in Making of a Covenant something is to be performed on both parts by mutual Stipulation which is not alwayes true for we find God made a Covenant with Noah and his Seed with all the Fowl and the Cattel not to destroy the Earth any more by a flood This Covenant was to be kept on Gods part neither Noah nor the Fowl nor the Cattel were to perform any thing by this Covenant On the other side Gen. 17. 9 10. God covenants with Abraham saying Thou shalt keep my Covenant every male child among you shall be circumcised Here it is called Gods Covenant though it be to be performed onely by Abraham so a Covenant may be called the Kings Covenant because it is made to him and yet to be performed only by the People So also 2 Kin. 11. 17. Iehoiada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King and the People that they should be the Lords People Between the King also and the People which might well be that the People should be the Kings Servants and not for the King 's covenanting to keep any Humane Laws for it is not likely the King should either Covenant or take any Oath to the People when he was but seven years of age and that never any King of Israel took a Coronation-Oath that can be shewed when Iehoiada shewed the King to the Rulers in the House of the Lord he took an Oath of the People he did not Article with them but saith the next Verse Commanded them to keep a Watch of the Kings House and that they should compass the King around about every man with his weapon in his hand and he that cometh within the Ranges let him be slain XI To the Text Where the word of a King is there is Power and who may say unto him What dost thou J. M. gives this Answer It is apparent enough that the Preacher in this place gives Precepts to every private man not to the great Sanhedrin nor to the Senate shall not the Nobles shall not all the other Magistrates shall not the whole People dare to mutter so oft as the King pleaseth to dote We must here note that the great Councel and all other Magistrates or Nobles or the whole People compared to the King are all but private men if they derive their Power from him they are Magistrates under him and out of his Presence for when he is in place they are but so many private men I. M. asks Who swears to a King unless the King on the other side be sworn
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
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
Soveraignty or power absolute except such conditions annexed to the Soveraignty be directly comprehended within the Laws of God and Nature Albeit by the sufferance of the King of England controversies between the King and his people are sometimes determined by the high Court of Parliament and sometimes by the Lord Chief Iustice of England yet all the Estates remain in full subjection to the King who is no ways bound to follow their advice neither to consent to their requests It is certain that the Laws Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no force but during their life if they be not ratified by the express consent or by sufferance of the Prince following especially Priviledges Much less should a Prince be bound unto the Laws he maketh himself for a man may well receive a Law from another man but impossible it is in nature for to give a Law unto himself no more than it is to command a mans self in a matter depending of his own will The Law saith Nulla obligatio consistere potest quae à voluntate promittentis statum capit The Soveraign Prince may derogate unto the Laws that he hath promised and sworn to keep if the equity thereof be ceased and that of himself without the consent of his Subjects The Majesty of a true Soveraign Prince is to be known when the Estates of all the people assembled in all humility present their requests and supplications to their Prince without having power in any thing to command determine or give voice but that that which it pleaseth the King to like or dislike to command or bid is holden for Law wherein they which have written of the duty of Magistrates have deceived themselves in maintaining that the power of the people is greater than the Prince a thing which causeth oft true Subjects to revolt from their obedience to their Prince and ministreth matter of great troubles in Common-wealths of which their opinion there is neither reason nor ground for if the King be subject unto the Assemblies and Decrees of the people he should neither be King nor Soveraign and the Common-wealth neither Realm nor Monarchy but a meer Aristocracie So we see the principal point of Soveraign Majesty and absolute power to consist principally in giving Laws unto the Subjects in general without their consent Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. To confound the state of Monarchy with the Popular or Aristocratical estate is a thing impossible and in effect incompatible and such as cannot be imagined for Soveraignty being of it self indivisible how can it at one and the same time be divided betwixt one Prince the Nobility and the people in common The first mark of Soveraign Majesty is to be of power to give Laws and to command over them unto the Subjects and who should those Subjects be that should yield their obedience to the Law if they should have also power to make the Laws who should he be that could give the Law being himself constrained to receive it of them unto whom himself gave it so that of necessity we must conclude That as no one in particular hath the power to make the Law in such a State that then the State must needs be a State popular Never any Common-wealth hath been made of an Aristocracy and popular Estate much less of the three Estates of a Common-weal Such States wherein the rights of Soveraignty are divided are not rightly to be called Common-weals but rather the corruption of Commonweals as Herodotus has most briefly but truly written Common-weals which change their state the Sovereign right and power of them being divided find no rest from Civil wars and broils till they again recover some one of the three Forms and the Soveraignty be wholly in one of the states or other Where the rights of the Soveraignty are divided betwixt the Prince and his Subjects in that confusion of state there is still endless stirs and quarrels for the superiority until that some one some few or all together have got the Soveraignty Id. lib. 2. c. 1. This Judgment of Bodin's touching Limited and Mixed Monarchy is not according to the mind of our Author nor yet of the Observator who useth the strength of his Wit to overthrow Absolute and Arbitrary Government in this Kingdom and yet in the main body of his discourse le ts fall such Truths from his pen as give a deadly wound to the Cause he pleads for if they be indifferently weighed and considered I will not pick a line or two here and there to wrest against him but will present a whole Page of his Book or more together that so we may have an entire prospect upon the Observators mind Without society saith the Observator men could not live without Laws men could not be sociable and without Authority somewhere to judge according to Law Law was vain It was soon therefore provided that Laws according to the dictate of Reason should be ratified by common consent when it afterward appeared that man was yet subject to unnatural destruction by the Tyranny of entrusted Magistrates a mischief almost as fatal as to be without all Magistracy How to provide a wholsome remedy therefore was not so easie to be invented it was not difficult to invent Laws for the limiting of Supream Governours but to invent how those Laws should be executed or by whom interpreted was almost impossible Nam quis Custodiet ipsos Custodes to place a Superiour above a Supream was held unnatural yet what a lifeless thing would Law be without any Iudge to determine and force it If it be agreed upon that limits should be prefixed to Princes and Iudges to decree according to those limits yet another inconvenience will presently affront us for we cannot restrain Princes too far but we shall disable them from some good long it was ere the world could extricate it self out of all these extremities or find out an orderly means whereby to avoid the danger of unbounded Prerogative on this hand and to excessive liberty on the other and scarce has long experience yet fully satisfyed the minds of all men in it In the Infancy of the world when man was not so artificial and obdurate in cruelty and oppression as now and Policy most rude most Nations did choose rather to subject themselves to the meer discretion of their Lords than rely upon any limits and so be ruled by Arbitrary Edicts than written Statutes But since Tyranny being more exquisite and Policy more perfect especially where Learning and Religion flourish few Nations will endure the thraldome which usually accompanies unbounded and unconditionate Royalty Yet long it was ere the bounds and conditions of Supream Lords was so wisely determined or quietly conserved as now they are for at first when as Ephori Tribuni Curatores c. were erected to poise against the scale of Soveraignty much blood was shed about them and States were put into new broils by them and some places