or ligeance is due Now that allegiance or ligiance is due to the King and onely to the King will appear by several Acts of Parliament In the first year of King James the Lords and Commons declared that both the ancient and famous Realms of England and Scotland were united in allegiance and loyal subjection in his royal person 1. Jac. cap. 2. to his Majesty and his posterity for ever In 34. H. 8. cap. 1. and 35. H. 8. cap. 3. c. the King is called the liege Lord of his subjects and in the Acts of Parliament of 13. R. 2. cap. 5. 11. R. 2. cap. 1. 14. H. 8. cap. 2 c. subjects are called the Kings liege people By other Acts of Parliament divers oaths have been framed and given to the people the contents and effects whereof were that they should bear all faith and allegiance to the King and his heirs In the six and twenty year of Henry the eighth an oath was taken by all the Kings subjects for the surety of the succession of the crown of England 26. H. 8. cap. 2. the oath was this Ye shall swear to bear faith truth and obedience all onely to the Kings Majesty and to the heirs of his body of his most dear and intirely beloved lawful wife Queen Anne begotten and to be begotten and further to the heirs of our said Soveraign Lord according to the limitation in the statute made for surety of his succession in the crown of this Realm mentioned and conteined and not to any other within this Realm nor forrain authority or Potentate and in case any oath be made or hath been made by you to any person or persons that then ye repute the same as vain and adnihilate and that to your cunning wit and utmost of your power without guile fraude or other undue mean ye shall observe keep maintain and defend the said act of succession and all the whole effects and contents thereof and all other acts and statutes made in confirmation or for execution of the same or for any thing therein conteined And this ye shall do against all manner of persons of what estate dignity degree or condition soever they be And in no wise do or attempt nor to your power suffer to be done or attempted directly or indirectly any thing or things privately or apertly to the let hinderance damage or derogation thereof or of any part of the same by any manner of means or of any manner of pretence so help you God and all Saints and the holy Evangelists There are two things observable in this oath first that they swear inclnsivè to bear all faith truth and obedience to the Kings Majesty and his heirs and onely to them Secondly that they swear exclusivè to bear faith truth and obedience to no other either within the realm or without not to other persons nor to other authority by both which clauses of the oath it appears that the King 28. H. 8. cap. 7. and none but the King can challenge faith and allegiance from the people Afterwards in the eight and twenty year of King Henry the eighth the like oath was injoyned to be taken by all his subjects touching his succession by Queen Jane for the former Act touching his succession by Queen Anne was repealed but the oath injoyned was otherwise the same And in the five and thirty year of his reign an other oath was framed wherein besides the contents of the former touching allegiance due to the King and his heirs some other additions were inserted touching his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes because the former oaths were not thought full enough to that effect and purpose And these oaths were extraordinary and imposed by special appointment l. 35. But besides these there is another ordinary oath of Allegiance which was first instituted by King Arthur l. 59. and is mentioned amongst the laws of King Edward and confirmed by the laws of William the Conquerour this oath cominueth still in force and should by the law be given in every Leer The order and form of it appeareth in Britton who wrote in the reign of Edward the first and compiled a book of the Statutes and lawes which were then in use the effect of it is this Coke lib. 7. in Calvins case You shall swear that that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our soveraign Lord the King and his heirs and truth and faith shall bear of life and member and terrene honour and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or damage intended unto him that you shall not defend so help you almighty God By this it is clear enough that allegiance is due to the King the pretended house on the other side is so far from having authority to exact allegiance from the people that they were all bound themselves by law to take the oath of Allegiance before they were admitted to sit in the house and having every one taken the said oath how they should be absolved none but themselves can understand whose common practice hath been to play with oaths as children play with toyes and trifles seeming rather to make them their pastime then to esteem them religious acts or sacred obligations Fourthly to pardon the transgression of the laws to remit treason murder felony man-slaughter to appoint subordinate Judges to make leagues with forraign Princes and States all these are rights of soveraignty and all these are declared and determined by the Statutes of the land to belong to the Kings Majesty First the power of pardoning the transgressions of the law and of remitting treason murder felony manslaughter and such like offences is declared and determined to be in the Kings Majesty by a Statute made in the twenty seventh year of Henry the eighth 27. H. 8. c. 24. Where divers of the most ancient prerogatives and authorities of Justice appertaining to the imperial crown of this realm have been severed and taken from the same by sundry gifts of the Kings most noble progenitors Kings of this realm to the great diminution and detriment of the Royal estate of the same and to the hinderance and great delay of justice for reformation whereof be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that no person or persons of what estate or degree soever they be of from the first day of July which shall be in the year of our Lord God 1536. shall have any power or authority to pardon or remit any treasons murders manslaughters or felonies or any utlaries for any such offences aforesaid committed perpetrated done or divulged or hereafter be committed done or divulged by or against any person or persons in any part of this Realm Wales or the marches of the same but that the Kings highness his heirs and successors Kings of this Realm shall have the whole and sole power and authority thereof united and knit to the imperial crown of this realm as
of good right and equity it appertaineth any grants usages prescription act or acts of Parliament or any other thing to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Secondly the power of appointing subordinate judges is declared and determined to be in the King by the same Statute And be it also enacted by authority aforesaid that no person or persons of what estate degree or condition soever they be from the said first day of July shall have any power or authority to make any justices of Eire justices of assize Justices of peace or justices of Goale delivery but that all such Officers and Ministers shall be made by Letters Patents under the Kings great Seal in the name and by authority of the Kings highnesse and his Heirs Kings of this Realm in all Shires Counties Counties Palatine and other places of this Realm Wales and the marches of the same or in any other his Dominions at their pleasure and wills in such manner and form as justices of Eire justices of Assise and justices of peace and justices of Goale delivery be commonly made in every shire of this Realm any grants usages prescription allowance act or acts of Parliament or any other thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding Thirdly the power of making leagues with forraign Princes and States is declared to be in the King by a Statute made in the fourteenth year of Edward the fourth which begins thus 14. E. 4. cap. 4. Whereas divers and great offences and attempts have now of late been done and committed against the amities and leagues made betwixt our said soveraign Lord the King and strange Prince By this beginning of the Statute it is manifest that the power of making leagues and contracting alliance with forraign estates is a right belonging onely to the crown I could yet add divers other acts of Parliament to confirm this and all the other particulars above named but I suppose these which are already alledged are more then sufficient there are also other rights of Soveraignty which I could shew by the statutes to be in the King but because there is no contestation about them I will not fight with a shadow those above mentioned are the chiefest and inseparable from Majesty CHAP. IV. The Kings Supremacy in general shewed by the Common Law HAving shewed the Kings Supremacy from the Statutes I come now to the Common law which is the ground and foundation of it for Statutes are but declarations of the royal power the power it self with the several modifications and qualifications of it is more ancient then any statute and cannot be limited or restrained by an Act of Parliament in any thing that tends to the derogation or diminution of Majesty for the English Monarchy by the common law is an absolute Monarchy susceptible of no alteration in the rights and preheminences of Majesty First I say the English Monarchy is an absolute Monarchy by the Common Law admitting no mixture in the rights of Soveraignty the King alone being the onely supreme head and governour having none superiour to him or coordinate with him either singly or collectively taken this is expresly determined in Sir Edward Cokes reports If that Act of the first year of the late Queen had never been made it was resolved by all the judges that the King or Queen of England for the time being may make such an Ecclesiastical Commission as is before mentioned by the ancient prerogative and Law of England Coke lib. 5. in Caudreys case And therefore by the ancient Laws of the realm this Kingdom of England is an absolute Empire and Monarchy consisting of one head which is the King and of a body politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet agreeing members all which the law divideth into two general parts that is to say the Clergy and the laitie both of them next and immediately under God subject and obedient to the head also the King head of this Politick body is instituted and furnished with plenary and iutire power prerogative and jurisdiction to render justice and right to every part and member of this body of what estate degree or calling soever in all causes Ecclesiastical or Temporal otherwise he should not be head of the whole body This is further proved by Sir Edward Coke by divers Precedents and Acts of Parliament who concludeth his report after this manner Fol. 40.6 Thus hath it appeared as well by the ancient common lawes of this Realm by the resolutions and judgements of the judges and sages of the Lawes of England in all succession of ages as by authority of many acts of Parliament ancient and of later times that the Kingdome of England is an absolute Monarchy and that the King is the only supream governour as well over Ecclesiastical persons and in Ecclesiastical causes as temporal within this Realm to the due observation of which Laws both the King and Subject are sworn In the second year of King James in Hillary Terme letters being directed to the judges to have their resolution concerning the validity of a grant made by Queen Elizabeth under the great seal of the benefit of a penal Statute in which grant power was given to the Lord Chancelour or Keeper of the great Seal to make dispensations when and to whom he pleased after great deliberation it was resolved that when a Statute is made by Act of Parliament for the publick good the King could not give the power of dispensation to any Subject or grant the forfeitures upon penal lawes to any before the same be recovered and vested in his Majesty by due and lawful proceeding and the reason there alledged is because the King as head of the Common-wealth and the fountain of justice and mercy ought to have these rights of Soverainty annexed only to his Royal person Coke lib. 7. tit penall Statutes Car quant un statute est fait pro bono publico le Rey come le teste del bien publique le fountaine de justice mercie est par tout le realme trust ove ceo cest considence trust est cy inseparablement adjoyne annexe al Royal person del Roy in cy haut point de soveraigntie que il ne poit transferre ceo al disposition on poiar d'ascune privat person ou al ascune privat use that is For when a Statute is made for the publick good and the King as head of the Common-wealth and the fountain of justice and mercy is by all the Realm trusted with it that confidence and trust is so inseperably annexed to the Royal person of the King in so high a point of Soveraignty that he cannot transfer it to the disposition or power of a private person or to any private use I shall not need to explain and amplifie the matter by arguments and inferences drawn from these reports for the words are clear of themselves and do expresly declare and resolve the Monarchy of
posse Comitatus if need be to expell this Officer of the Kings and bring him to condigne punishment for resisting the Kings authority in his Lawes Here now is raising of Arms by the Kings legal authority against the Kings Title and the Kings Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the Kings personall command and that Officer hath a Writ of Rebellion sent against him and shall be punished by Law for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence ask the Lawyers whether in sence this be not the Law and ordinarily practised save that the King do not command the contrary but whether that would hinder Law or not the Parliament may then in case of necessity raise arms against the Kings personall command for the generall safety and keeping possession which is more necessary then the hope of regaining of the Houses Lands Goods Liberties Lives Religion and all and this by the Kings legall Authority and resisters of this are the Rebells in the Lawes account and not the instruments so imployed legally though with Arms by the Parliament Reply For matter of fact it was themselves that withheld Delinquents from a legall tryall the King detained none but when divers Members of the Parliament were assaulted in the streets driven from the house defamed by Libells and Justice not permitted to take place it was the office of the King to protect them in their Rights and Liberties and to force the due execution of the Lawes and if he refused to yield up those to their injustice which assisted him this was not to keep Delinquents from their tryall but to protect his loyall subjects according to law this for matter of fact But for matter of Right suppose the King had taken up arms unjustly the Law doth not permit his Courts to oppose him or to call any in question that are assistant to him when the King taketh up arms they which attend upon his Person or are imployed in other places about the same service may not be molested or troubled by processe of Law either in Parliament or in any of his Courts as is declared and enacted by a Statute made the eleventh year of Henry the seventh The King our Soveraign Lord calling to his remembrance the duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm 11. H. 7. cap. 1. and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince and Soveraign 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 battail if case so require and that for the same service what fortune ever fall by chance in the same battail against the mind and will of the Prince as in this Land sometime passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his Commandement within this Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true duty and service of Allegiance It be therefore ordained enacted and established by the King our Soveraign Lord by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and authority of the same that from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being in his person and do him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his Commandement in his Wars within this Land or without that for the said deed and true duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise convict or attaint of high treason ne of other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chattels or any other things but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or losse As for the case that is put by them it is very impertinent and the whole Objection made both by Mr. Bridge and themselves full of erronious passages and mistakes first they assume the two Houses to be the whole Parliament Secondly they assume them to be a Court of judicature Thirdly they assume the Judges to have a power of suppressing any Delinquents and maintaining themselves by arms The two former assumptions are absolutely false and the latter true only in some cases so far as they have order of Law and no man deny such a power to be in either of the Houses they may force Delinquents to appear before them in such cases and in such a manner as the Law hath provided for what is so done is done by the Kings Command in Law which is to be obeyed before his personal commands But they must proceed no further nor after any other manner then the King commands in Law And first although the Kings bare Command be not sufficient to warrant his Tenant or others to resist the sentence of his Courts yet if the King in Person taketh up arms and granteth Commissions to any to assist him his Courts must then forbear all processe of Law and desist from all further opposition as is provided in the foresaid statute And secondly although the King doth not authorize the fact in person or by Commission yet neither the two Houses in Parliament nor the Judges can make what Ordinances they please to raise arms or imploy their own instruments to bring in Delinquents but must proceed according to order of Law and commit the whole carriage of the businesse to such of the Kings Officers as are appointed for that purpose which are chiefly the high Sheriffs of Counties who are also confined by Law and may not exceed their Commission For both in the case put by the reverent Divines and also in all cases whatsoever if Delinquents grow so strong that they be able to resist the posse Commitatus and cannot be suppressed but by a War and by the Militia of the Kingdom the Sheriffe ought then to certifie the Court thereof and the prosecution of the matter must be left to the King to whom only it is reserved to preserve the peace of the Kingdome in such cases Object 2 Secondly against the Kings Negative voyce they urge the Oath taken at his Coronation whereby they say he is bound to give his assent to all Bills offered him by the Lords and Commons They have found out a form in Latin which they say was anciently used and ought now to be taken the Form is this Concedis just as leges consuetudines esse tenendas promittis pro te eas esse protegendas ad hónorem Dei corroborandas quas vulgus elegerit secundum vires tuas Resp Concedo
respect of the power it self the Monarchy is absolute simple pure independent without profanation of outward mixture the King alone without further influence from the two Houses having ful power and authority to do or cause to be done all acts of Justice The King alone makes Laws by the asscent of the two Houses and if the two Houses are said at any time to make Lawes it is by a delegate power and authority communicated to them from him and not by any power and authority which they have radically in themselves Secondly I say that the King alone is not onely invested with all the rights of Soveraingty but hath them also so inseperably annexed to hs Royal person by the Lawes of the Land that they cannot be separated from him by any Act of Parliament by any civil constitution or pragmattical Sanction by any Law or Ordinance whatsoever but in case the King himself should improvidently by Act of Parliament agree to any thing tending to the diminution of his Royal Dignity it is then in the power of the Common-law to controul such a Statute to make voyd all such acts as tend to the degradation much more such as tend to the annihilation of Majesty Having thus opened the state of the Question I will now proceed to demonstrate the truth by Statutes by Common-Law and by reasons depending upon the laws and customes of the land CHAP. II. The Kings Supremacy in general shewed by the Statutes of the land I Could both from Saxon and divers other lawes and antiquities shew the Kings of England to have ruled more absolutely and to have anciently exercised a larger Jurisdiction then hath of later years been exercised or challenged by their Successors but because many immunities and priviledges have been granted to the Subjects since their times I will therefore confine my self to such statutes as have been made since the giving of the great Charter And to avoyd tediousnesse I will omit many statutes wherein the King is by both Houses collectively taken acknowledged to be supreme for they frequently in the statutes style him Our gracious Soveraign Lord the King Our dreadful Soveraign Lord the King I will likewise omit many others wherein they acknowledge themselves to be his Subjects and that when they were in their site relation order and union in which posture the fuller Answerer fancies them to be coordinate for such expressions run through divers statutes Most humbly beseech your most excellent Majesty your faithful and obedient subjects the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons in this your present Parliament assembled In their most humble wise shewen unto your Royal Majesty your loving subjects the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons of this present Parliament assembled I will only alledge such statutes as have been made on purpose to declare to whom Supremacy and all power and jurisdiction belong for there hath been divers acts of Parliament made to that end upon several occasions wherein the Kings Supremacy hath been acknowledged and confirmed unto him In the four and twenty year of Henry the eighth an Act was made that no Appeals should be used but within the Realm the Reason alledged in the Statute is because the King alone is the onely Supreme head of the Realm and is furnished with plenary and entire power to do all acts of justice Where by divers sundry old authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and hath so been accepted in the world governed by one supreme head and King having the dignity and Royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in tearms and by names of spiritualty and temporalty been bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience he being also institute and furnished by the goodnesse and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire power preheminence authority prerogative and jurisdiction to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk resiants or subjects within this his Realm This clear testimomy of the Kings Supremacy is thus eluded by the fuller Answerer saith he Answer what is meant by governed by one supreme head such a one as is able to do all acts of needful justice which the King in his natural capacity cannot do he cannot make a law it must therefore be understood in his full and intire politick capacity which takes in Law and Parliament nor can it be said that by those words a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees the Parliament is properly meant but the Kingdome at large Reply The sum of his Answer is this that in this Statute by the King not the King alone but the King and the two Houses of Parliament are to be understood and so although he would have the Kings power to be lesse yet to make him amends he will have his name to signifie more then it did before But this is nothing else but the evaporation of his own brain for if in any place the word King could signifie the King and the two Houses of Parliament yet in this it must of necessity signifie the King alone 35. H. 8. cap. 1. these words having the dignity and Royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same can have reference to no other Besides in this Answer he contradicts his own Principles for if the two Houses be coordinate with the King and have power radically in themselves not derived from him they cannot be comprehended under his politick capacity Whereas he saith the King cannot make a Law and infer from thence that the King alone without taking in the two Houses hath not intire and plenary jurisdiction his inference is very infirm for it doth not diminish Majesty but redounds to the glory of it Argum. l. 8. c. de legibus to give lawes to the people by the counsel and assent of wisemen It hath been and is for the most part the practise in absolute Monarchies to make Lawes that shall bind posterity by general consent and agreement which yet doth not deprive the Monarch of his power or derogate any way from the plenitude and intirenesse thereof But I shall speak more of this when I come to answer their objections Whereas he saith that by a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees not the Parliament but the Kingdome at large is properly meant I know no man will contradict him yet I say the two Houses are comprehended under the Kingdome at large and are representative thereof in Parliament and representatives cannot be the head when the Kingdome at large whose Representatives they are is but the body And therefore here the fuller Answerer hath a little overshot himself for if by the body politick the Kingdome at large be understood then is the King major universis greater then all the people collectively taken by his
dignities gifts offices fees or annuities are bound to assist the King in his wars against all rebellions insurrections and powers raised against him And by the Parliament holden the fourth and fifth years of Queen Mary an Act was made wherein it was acknowledged that the Queen and her progenitors had power and authority to oppoint commissioners to muster and array the people and subjects and to levy such a number as they should think fit to serve them in their wars and a remedy provided against the abuses that had formerly been committed by divers who absented themselves from such musters and brought not their best furniture and array with them Coke lib. 7.7 B. I will omit the statutes made in the 11. H. 7. cap. 1. and the 2. E. 6. cap. 2. by which it appeareth that the subjects of England are bound to go with the King in his wars as well within the Realm as without I will also omit the act not printed made in the fifth year of Henry the fourth concerning the commission of array as also divers other acts and statutes made to that effect and purpose because so much hath been said about that subject already by his Majesty in his answer to the declaration of both houses of Parliament concerning the commission of array Secondly the legislative power is another right of soveraignty whereby Kings and supreme Magistrates are enabled by just and necessary laws to provide for the peace and safety of their people and this is wholely and entirely in the King although he be limited in the exercise of his power so as he can not make laws without the assent of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament And this is that whith the pretended house have stood so much upon because the Kings of England desiring to rule their people by lenity have out of princely clemency condiscended so far as not to impose upon them which they anciently did as I shall shew hereafter any new law or alter and repeal the old without their own consent they from the premises would make the people believe that their authority is equal to the Kings and that themselves as their deputies are coordinate with him and not content with the share which they unjustly challenged at first they afterwards layd claime to all wholely excluding the King and denying him his negative voyce usurping and taking upon themselves the whole power of making laws whereas they have no other interest or authority but what they derive from him the Statutes declare this in expresse tearms 5. R. 2. cap. 2. for their ordinary style is The King doth will and command and it is assented in the Parliament by the Prelates 7. H. 4. cap. 15. Lords and Commons Our Soveraign Lord the King by the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament hath ordained And that the meaning and true intention of these expressions is such as I have said 22. E. 3. will appear by the resolution of the Judges of which I shall speak hereafter Now that the King hath a negative voyce in making laws and that nothing can or ought to be esteemed an Act of Parliament without him is evident by divers Statutes In the first year of King James a Statute was made wherein the two Houses petitioning the King that the recognition of their duty and obedience as also of his Majesties right unto the Crown of England might be published in High Court of Parliament to remain as a memorial to all posterity conclude after this manner which if your Majesty shall be pleased as an argument of your gracious acceptation to adorn with your Majesties Royal assent without which it can neither be compleat and perfect nor remain to all posterity according to our humble desire as a memorial of your Princely and tender affection towards us we shall add this also to the rest of your Majesties unspeakable and inestimable benefits But in the fifteenth year of Edward the third a Statute was made on purpose to make voyd an Act whereunto the King had promised to set his Seal and seemed to assent which by some for that reason was esteemed a Statute because he had not actually assented and set to his seal Edward by the grace of God c. to the Sheriff of Lincoln greeting whereas at our Parliament summoned at Westminster in the 15. of Easter last past certain Articles expresly contrary to the lawes and customes of our Realm of England and to our Prerogatives and rights Royal were pretended to be granted by us by the manner of a Statute we considering how that by the bond of our Oath we be tyed to the observance and defence of such laws customes rights and prerogatives and providently willing to revoke such things to their own state which be so improvidently done upon conference and treatise thereupon had with the Earls Barons and other wise men of our said Realm and because we never consented to the making of the Statute but as then it behoved us we dissimuled in the premisses by protestations of revocation of the said statute if indeed it should proceed to eschew the dangers which by the denying of the same we feared to come forasmuch as the said Parliament otherwise had been without dispatching any thing in discord dissolved and so our earnest business had likely been ruinated which God prohibite and the said pretensed statute we promised then to be sealed It seemed to the said Earls Barons and other wise men that sithence the statute did not of our free will proceed the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a statute and therefore by their counsell and assent we have decreed the said statute to be void and the same in as much as it proceeded of deed we have agreed to be adnulled willing nevertheless that the articles conteined in the said pretensed statute which by other of our statutes or of our progenitors Kings of England have been approved shall according to the form of the said statute in every point as convenient is be observed and the same we do onely to the conservation and reintegration of the rights of our crown as we be bound and not that we should in any wise grieve or oppress our subjects whom we desire to rule by lenity and gentleness And therefore we do command thee that all these things thou cause to be openly proclaimed in such places within thy Bailiwick where thou shalt see expedient witness my self at Westminster the first day of October the fifteenth year of our reign Thirdly allegiance or ligeance is another right of soveraignty due onely to Supreme Rulers and Governours A coordinate Magistrate who hath but a parcel and share of authority can not alone challenge all obedience from the people for all that are coordinate and have their shares in the rights of Soveraignty joyntly taken together make up one supreme head to whom only allegiance
is it may be inherent in his own Person and yet be in others too as the light of the Sun is inherent in its own body and yet multiplyed and diffused through the world Now when it is separated from him after that manner it is commonly called their authority to whom it is committed because they are the seat and subject of it That light which the Stares derive from the Sun is usually called the light of the Stars and the Stars are said by the means thereof to concurre with the Sun and to have a causality and operation upon inferiour bodies it is no impropriety to say The light of the Sun and the light of the Stars inlightneth all the world although the light of the Stars be derived from the Sun But secondly what if it be granted that the Lords and Commons have authority of their own distinct from the Kings authority To speak my own opinion freely I think they have a distinct authority I mean not Supreme authority but an authority derived from the King yet distinct from his He that hath but a delegate power if it be committed to him for term of years term of life or perpetuity he doth by such a grant acquire an estate in the said power and an authority distinct from his that gave it him As in an Estate of lands wherein a man hath a perpetuall right in fee simple or in fee taile his right is distinguished from the Kings right of whom he holds it the King having the demeane of the Land and the other the demeane of the Fee so it is in an estate of power and authority if the King granteth an estate of power authority and jurisdiction in fee simple or in fee taile for term of years term of life or perpetuity their rights in the said authority are distinct the King hath the demean of the Power the other the demean of the use the King hath Dominium directum the other Dominum utile And this is the present case the Legislative power is wholely and intirely the Kings yet the Lords and Commons have a perpetual right in the use and exercise of some part thereof so that the King cannot actually make a law except they will also use the authority committed to them it being in their power to assent or not assent to use or not to use the said authority There is an authority then in the Lords and Commons distinct from the Kings authority which must necessarily be put forth in the making of lawes yet not supreme but subordinate to the King derived from him and depending upon him But this is more then can be forced out of the foresaid clause and I think more then is intended in it Object 4 Fourthly that Monarchy in which three estates are constituted to the end that the power of the one should moderate and restrain from excesse the power of the other is mixed in the root and essence of it but such is this as is confessed in the answer to the said propositions Reply The Antecedent and Consequent are both false The erection of Courts wherein the Judges have authority to proceed according to law notwhitstanding the personall and arbitrary Commands of the King hath alwayes been esteemed a strong and effectuall means to restrain and moderate the excesses of Monarchie Yet the Judges cannot be inferred from hence to be coordinate with the King in the rights of Soveraigntie or to have a mixed power with him in the Government of the Kingdome But the Consequent hath neither apparence nor shadow of truth Parliaments were ordained that the other estates might consult with the King about the weighty affairs of the Kingdome as often as he thought it needfull and agree to such laws as should be found profitable and expedient not that they should quarrell and contest with him It is true the two Houses do for the most part in time of Parliament gain an opportunity to have grievances redressed because they may otherwise deny the King the assistance he desire but they have no authority radically in themselves to redresse them or to restrain and moderate his excesses by force of armes nor were they constituted for that end If it should be granted that Parliaments are by originall constitution and agreement and that the People have alwayes given what lawes they pleased to the Conquerour as often as the Crown hath been obtained by conquest yet in probability they could have no such end as this Treatiser imagineth or to abuse the people seemeth to imagine had they purposed the three estates should moderate the excesses of one another in Parliaments they would never have granted the King authority to dissolve them at his pleasure whereby he might easily avoyd and frustrate their intention Besides Parliaments are so tempered as it is imposible to attain to that end by such a mixture one of the estates or any two of them having no authority to make an act of Parliament without the third which way can they moderate the excesses of one another by such acts further then the exorbitant estate shall be willing to be moderated Nor doth his Majesty as he imputeth to him any where confesse that three estates are constituted in this Monarchie to the end that the power of one should moderate and restrain from excesse the power of the other he should therefore have cited his words that the Reader might have judged of their sense These are the objections brought by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy which are partly taken out of the fuller Answerer and partly invented by himself In answering them to avoyd needlesse Controversies I have granted that a mixed form of government is possible although I be not ignorant that a mixed government is but the invention of later times and reputed impossible by authors of chiefest note I have admitted also that the King the Nobility and Commons are the three estates of Parliament although I know this contrary to the Statutes wherein the three Estates of Parliament are declared to be the Clergy the Nobility and the Commons I have insisted the longer upon these Objections because the Author of the foresaid Treatise is esteemed by some the chief Advocate of that side I intend not to derogate from the Author who I presume would have written more substantially had the case been capable of defence yet if a man may guesse at his humour by that Treatise he seemeth to be much more inclined to assert new principles then to shew reasons how they should be maintained That he might illude the Laws wherein the government of England is declared Monarchical he layeth down divers positions to this effect that where a transcendent interest Part 1. cap. 4. or primity of share is in one man it is sufficient to constitute a Monarchy although the other estates have their shares also in the rights of Soveraignty and supreme Authority but he doth not so much as offer to prove this either by law or
confident the last Parliament had been as great as blessing to the land as ever any was in former ages had not the ambition avarice and malice of some interrupted the course of the lawes But for this assembly of Traitors which hath a long time called themselves a Parliament sitting without the house of Lords and secluding from the house of Commons all that would not be as cruel barbarous and wicked as themselves it is a disturber of the Kingdoms peace an enemy and destroyer of the people and if we look upon their actions in their beginning in their raise and in their progress they may seem to have had alwayes a formal opposition to justice and to have acted by some occult and specifical quality not common to other Christians There was indeed at the first beginning of the Parliament much murmuring and discontent amongst the people partly caused by the monopolies and unusual taxation of Ship-mony and partly occasioned by the abuses of divers Courts Here the enemies of the Common-wealth finding a spacious overture to enter into this Rebellion began to act their parts and being too provident to loose such an advantage laboured to exasperate the minds of the people and to stir up those evil humours which began already to appear And although his Majesty offered all just satisfaction for what was past and the best securitie themselves should in reason require that the like Disorders might for ever after be prevented yet these turbulent and factious spirits being for the most part men of broken fortune and hoping to heal themselves by the ruin of others opposed all such motions and would needs themselves become Chyrurgions to the state and as Chyrurgions are wont to smooth and stroak the parts which they resolve shall bleed so they began to smooth and stroak the people promising them a new light in matters of Religion and that they would remove the grievances and sweeten the evils which affected the Common wealth although in stead of removing and sweetning them they have almost made them incurable By these perswasions mixed with many pretences of Religion they procured the people to meet together in great multitudes and in a tumultuous manner to assault divers of the Lords as they were going to the Parliament and to drive them back again not permitting them to speak in the house when their speech was most necessary for the service of the Kingdome Although it was easy for his Majesty to discover their intentions yet the love he bare his people made him to dissemble it and to give way to their proceedings hoping they might in time be brought by his favours to mitigate and correct their furious practises but finding at last that his patience served for nothing else but to fortifie and encourage them in their malice he thought himself obliged to take such wayes as he judged most convenient to stop the course of their proceedings the continuation whereof was like to bring so many mischiefs to the Commonwealth and seeing it was like to be prejudicial to the safety of the people as well as to his own to stay longer in a place where there was neither security for his person nor liberty for any other then those factious persons to vote according to the dictats of their own reason he was forced to withdraw himself from the Parliament to avoid the pernicious effects of those mens counsels which were resolved the whole commonwealth should sink rather then themselves not obtain those places of command and profit which they aimed at The King being gone it was not to be wondred if they which in his presence had the boldness to weave such pernicious designes against the state should in his absence endevour to corrupt the fidelity of his subjects for having the city of London wholy at their command they neither wanted means nor opportunity to draw the people to their faction who by such artificial devices as they used were easie to be insnared They tould them that by resisting the King they should not be rebels but an army authorised by those which were depositaries of the Kings authority that this resistance was an inspiration from heaven which promised the restauration of their ancient liberties which they said had been so often violated by the King They made them believe that the authority of the King and the whole commonwealth would be brought into confusion if they did not vigourously oppose those disorders were growing upon them and remove those evill counsellors from the King that did mislead and seduce him and withall they set out a Declaration promising to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and authority together with the liberties of the Kingdom assuring them they had no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness or any way to alter the constitution of the government or of Parliaments consisting of a King a house of Lords and a house of Commons But now we see the effects contrary to those words and promises which were so solemnly made to the whole Kingdome for they have not onely diminished his Majesties just power and greatness overthrown the nature and very being of Parliaments but most traiterously deprived his Majesty of his life and that afte he had condescended so far as to satifie all their unreasonable demands which fact of theirs although it hath been masked with many specious pretences and coloured with the fairest shews of justice yet was it the most execrable murder that ever was committed next that of our Saviour Christ and his ambitious judge hath gained this that next PILATE BRADSHAW of all such judges shall by posterity be esteemed the chief This murder of the King as it was most unjust so was it also most unseasonable considering the present disposition of the Kingdome whose strength being already too much weakened and attenuated ought not to have been further wasted and consumed by renewing the war which the death of the King did threaten But such motions could work nothing upon those which had long before resolved to make all other considerations give place to profit and ambition the people abused themselves whilst they thought this factious assembly would be more careful and tender of them then of the King for they have not onely brought a new war upon them which might have been avoided dashing them all against one another but have also themselves many wayes barbarously afflicted and destroyed them they have made the scaffold the Gibbet the prison and the grave the common places of their rendezvous and those which they have not devoured by their cruelty they devour by their unsatiable avarice whilst they declaim against Kings for oppressing the people by unjust taxations they have themselves as hath been computed by many squeesed more in one year from the Commonwealth then all the Kings of England have done since the conquest The lawful Magestrates are deprived of the liberty and honour of their functions and such as are the
words seeing that all authority of jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supreme head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland do clearly intimate the two houses to have no authority radically in themselves and to be no way coordinate with the Kings Majesty in the rights of soveraignty For conclusion of this Chapter I will add one Act more made in the first year of King James wherein the two houses of Parliament collectively taken made an humble recognition of their faith and obedience to him We your most humble and loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do from the bottome of our hearts yield to the Divine Majesty all humble thanks and praises not onely for the said inestimable benefit and blessings above mentioned but also that he hath further inriched your Highness with a most Royal progeny of most rare excellent gifts and forwardness and in his goodness is like to encrease the happy number of them and in most humble and lowly manner do beseech your most excellent Majesty that as a memorial to all posterities amongst the records of your high court of Parliament for ever to endure of our loyalty obedience and hearty and humble affection it may be published and declared in this high court of Parliament and enacted by authority of the same that we being bounden thereunto both by the laws of God and man do recognize and acknowledge and thereby express our unspeakable joys that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the imperial crown of the Realm of England and of the Kingdomes Dominions and Rights belonging to the same did by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted possession descend and come to your most excellent Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole heir of the blood Royal of this Realm as is aforesaid and that by the goodness of Almighty God and lawful right of discent under one imperial crown your Majesty is of the Kingdomes of England Scotland France and Ireland the most potent and mighty King and by Gods goodness more able to protect and govern us your loving subjects in all peace and plenty then any of your noble Progenitors And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully do submit and oblige our selves our heirs and posterities for ever until the last drop of our bloods be spent And do beseech your Majesty to accept the same as the first fruits of this high court of Parliament of our loyalty and faith to your Majesty and your Royal progeny and posterity for ever This is a far different strain from that which the present pretended Parliament have used to his Majesty who although bound both by oath and duty to have been as respectful and obedient towards him yet have they themselves after many insolences cōmitted against his person most audaciously and unadvisedly taken away his life and procured others by defamatory libels to blast his credit who according to the trust reposed in them cease not to traduce him and by malicious aspersions to stain his chiefest vertues creeping like Snailes over the sweetest flowers and leaving behind them their slime and filthiness CHAP. III. The Kings supremacy in particular shewed by the Statutes of the Land THe Kings supremacy in general being thus confirmed by several Acts of Parliament I will now descend into particulars and shew his Majesty to be legally invested with all the particular rights of soveraignty I will beginne with the Militia which is a right so essential to Majesty that it can not nor ought not to be separated from it For Majesty consists not in a bare and empty title but in the rights of soveraignty which he cannot be said to possesse who wants the Sword to protect the Scepter It was confessed by the pretended Parliament at the beginning of these dissentions that the Militia by right pertained to his Majesty and therefore at the first they laboured to have it assigned to them by his own assent but he opposing their unjust desires as knowing both his own and the ruin of his posterity would be the necessary consequences of such a grant they resolved seeing they could not gain it by surrender to take it by assault and assisted by men of like natures and inclinations they seised upon his Majesties forts and Magazins and have since exercised an arbitary and tyrannical power over the lives and estates of all that pleased them not and none could ever please them but such as are of the same humour and disposition with themselves I must confess I am amazed when I consider how confidently and desperately they have carried on their designs in a case so contrary to law and justice for they could not have begun a war or contested with his Majesty about a matter more clear then that of the Militia which is a right so inherent in the crown setled upon it by the fundamental Laws of the Land and confirmed by so many several acts of Parliament that although the pretended Parliamentarians have a great dextetity in coyning distinctions to elude the laws yet they will not easily coyn such as shall serve their turn in this particular In the seventh year of Edward the first a Statute was made to injoyn all men to go to Parliaments Treatises and general Assemblies without force and armes wherein the Kings power over the Militia is acknowledged The King to the justices of his bench sendeth greeteng Whereas of late before certain persons deputed to treat upon sundry debates had between us and certain great men of our Realm amongst other things it was accorded that in our next Parliament after provision shall be made by us and the common assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons that in all Parliaments Treaties and other Assemblies which should be made in the Realm of England for ever that every man shall come without all force and armour well and peaceably to the honour of us and the peace of us and our Realm And now in our next Parliament at Westminster after the said Treatise the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalty of our Realm there assembled to take advice of this business have said that to us it belongeth and our part is through our Royal seigniory straitly to defend force of armour and all other force against our peace at all times when it shall please us and to punish them which shall do contrary according to our laws and usages of our Realm and hereunto they are bound to aid us as their Soveraign Lord at all seasons when need shall be We command ye that ye cause these things to be read afore you in the said bench and there to be inrolled Given at Westminster the thirtieth day of October In another Statute made the eleventh year of Henry the seventh it is declared that all subjects of the Realm but especially those that have by the King any
England to be an absolute Monarchy the King alone to be the only supreme head and Governour of the whole body that is of all the people as well collectively as severally taken And hence it is namely in regard of the Kings Supremacy he being the only head of the Kingdome having no equal or Superiour but God alone whose Vicegerent he is upon earth that the Common law doth by way of fiction and similitude attribute unto him the Divine perfections 1. H. 7.10 Finch lib 2. del ley bap 1. Roy est le test del bien publike immediate desoubs Dieu desuis touts persons en touts causes Et pur ceo entant que il resemble le person del Dien port son image enter homes le Ley attribute a lui en un similitudinarie manner 7. E. 4.17 21. H. 7.2 Coke 7. f. 7. B. 43. El. Coke 5. fol. 114. B. 4. E. 6.31 5. E. 4.7 2. H. 4.7 1. H. 7.19 bombre del excelleneies que sont en Dien cest ascavoir SOVERAIGNTIE tout terre est tenu de de luy nul action gist vers luy car quis commandra le Roy POYAR il poit commaunder ses subjects daler hors de Realm en guerr poet faire ascune foreine coine currant icy per ses Proclamations MAJESTY ne poet prend ne departer ove oscune chose forsque per matter de record si non soit chattell ou tiel quia de minimis non curat lex INFINITENES en un manner 35. H. 6.26 esteant present en touts ses courts si come home poet dire en chescun lieu PERPETVITY ayant perpetuell succession ne unque mor. 10. El. 331. 35. H. 6.61 4. El. 246. PERFECTION car nul laches follie infancie ou corruption del sank est judge en lui VERITY ne serra unque estoppe JUSTICE ne poet esse disseisor ne faire ascun tort id est The King is head of the Common-wealth immediately under God over all persons and in all causes and therefore because he represents the person of God and bears his image the law attributeth unto him in a similitudinary manner a shadow of Divine excellencies namely SOVERAIGNTIE all lands are holden of him no action lyeth against him for who shall command the King POWER he may command his Subjects to go out of the Realm to War He may make any forraign coyn currant here by his Proclamations MAJESTY he can neither take nor part with any thing without matter of Record except it be chattel or such like because the law regards not such small matters INFINITENESSE after a Manner being present in all his courts and as it were in all places PERPETUITIE having perpetual succession and being not subject to dye PERFECTION for no laches folly infancy or corruption of blood can be judged in him TRUTH he cannot be estopped JUSTICE he cannot be a disseisor or do any wrong There are also divers prerogatives and priviledges by the Common law belonging to the King and divers Acts which the King may do or not do by reason of his Supremacy The King shall not in his writ give any man the style or title of Dominus because it is unbeseeming his Majesty to use that tearm to any he being himself omnium subditorum supremus Dominus the supream and soveraign Lord of all his subjects and in this case although there be variance between the Writ and Obligation 8. E. 6.23 B. 11. E 4.2 8. E. 4.2 or other specialty yet the Writ shall not abate which it shall in other cases as if they vary in the name or sirname or if they vary in the surn The King can hold land of no man As p. 1.18 Elizab. 498. because he can have no superiour but on the other side all lands either immediately or mediately ate holden of him as Soveraign Lord for although a man hath a perpetual right in his estate yet he hath it in the nature of a fee and whether it cometh to him by descent or purchase he oweth a rent or duty for it and therefore when in pleading a man would signifie himself to have the greatest right in his estate Littleton f. 3. he saith Que il est ou fuit seise de ceo en son demesne come de fee that he is or was seised thereof in his demeasne as of fee and if a man holds his estate immediately of the King as of his Crown or person this tenure is called a tenure in capite because he holds it of the supreme head of the Common-wealth If a man holdeth land both of the King and other inferiour Lords whereby his heir becometh a Ward the King alone shall have the custody both of the heir and land the reason which is rendered in law is because the King can have none coordinate with him or superiour to him Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 10. Si quis in Capite de Domino Rege tenere debet tunc ejus custodia ad Dominum Regem plene pertinet sive alios Dominos habere debeat ipse haeres sive non quia Dominus Rex nullum habere potest parem multo minus superiorem i. e. If any man houldeth land of our Lord the King in capite then his wardship shall wholly belong to our Lord the King whether he hath other Lords or not because the King can have no equal much less a superiour Bracton lib. 2. cap. 37. Si aliquis haeres terram aliquam tenuerit de Domino Rege in Capite sive alios Dominos habuerit sive non Dominus Rex aliis praefertur in custodia haeredis sive ipse haeres ab aliis prius fuerit feofatus sive posterius cùm Rex parem non habeat nec superiorem in regno suo i. e. If an Heir holdeth land of our Lord the King whether he hath other Lords or not our Lord the King shall have the wardship of the heir whether the heir were first or last infeoffed by others because the King hath no equal or superiour in his Kingdom The law is the same as well for whole Societies Incorporated and collective bodies as for Particular men if a man should make the two houses his heir leaving them lands holden of them by Knights service if the same persons held also of the King in capite by Knights service the King alone should have the wardship and custody of the heir and land though first infeoffed by the others and the reason in law of this prelation is saith Bracton and Glanvil because the King hath neither equall nor Superiour By the common law there lieth no action or writ against the King but in case he seiseth his subjects lands 21. H. 7.2 or taketh away their goods having no title or order of law petition is all the remedy the subject hath Stanford in his exposition of the Kings Prerogative c. 22. and this petition is called a petition of right The reason which is
the common law made void Stanford lib. 2.101 because they cut off part of the Kings prerogative So likewise to grant letters patents of Denization is esteemed by the common law inter jura Majestatis insignia summae potestatis Coke in Calvins case and is so inseparably and individually annexed to the Royal person of the King as it cannot be divided from it That which I have hitherto said of the rights and preheminences of Majesty is to be understood of those rights and preheminences that are so essential to it as they cannot be separted without the diminution or destruction of Majesty As the power of the Militia the power of making laws the power of appointing Judges and such like Acts of jurisdiction as also the power of dispensing with penal Statutes the power of pardoning the transgressions of the Law the power of prosecuting the law and such like supreme acts of justice and mercy some of which rights and preheminences cannot be taken away without giving a wound others not without bringing death and dissolution to Majesty yet there are other rights and preheminences that are called priviledges which are not so essential to Majesty but that they may by special grace of the King be separated Bracton lib. 2. cap. 24. Ea vero quae jurisdictionis sunt pacis ea quae sunt justitiae paci annexa ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam dignitatem Regiam nec à Corona separari poterunt cum faciant ipsam Coronam Ea vero quae dicuntur Privilegia licet pertineant ad Coronam tamen à Corona separari possunt ad privatas personas transferri sed de gratia ipsius Regis speciali id est Those things which belong to jurisdiction and peace and those which are annexed to justice and peace pertain to none but the Crown neither can they be separated from it because they make the Crown But those which are called Priviledges although they pertain to the Crown yet they may be separated from it and transferred to private persons but not without the special favour of the King It may seem strange that the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the House of Commons which are virtually the whole kingdome should not have power to make what Laws they please and to bind themselves and the whole kingdome by them in things not repugnant to the law of God yet if we consider the ground of this restraint we shall find it reasonable for they which lay the first foundation of a Common-wealth have authority to make lawes that cannot be altered by posterity in matters that concern the rights both of King and people for foundations cannot be removed without the ruin and subversion of the whole building As for example the division of things which is made at the first foundation of a Commonwealth whether the people took the countrey they divide from the Inhabitants by conquest in a just war or whether they did first actually possesse it themselves as being before emptie and vacant cannot be altered by posterity and a new division made without manifest injustice The Laws which they then make for the preservation of their right and propriety in the said division can not be disannulled by succeeding Parliaments nor can any particular man be deprived of his inheritance which descends unto him by virtue of that division or of any part or parcel or appurtenances thereof by any contrary law which shall be made by them I speak not what Parliaments may do by force but what they may justly do for they have not such an arbitrary power but that they are alwayes in a morall subjection to the rules of justice and natural equity And in this case the Kings condition ought not to be worse then the peoples but his share and rights in the said division are as firmly and unchangeably to be preserved as the share and rights of particular men And both the King and people are obliged to this not only by the rules of Justice and natural equity but by oath and by the municipal Lawes of the Land l. 17. to which they are both sworn That the King is bound to this appears by the Lawes of King Edward Debet vero de jure Rex omnes terras honores omnes dignitates jura libertates coronae regni hujus in integrum cum omni integritate sine diminutione observare defendere dispersa dilapidata amissa regni jura in pristinum statum debitum viribus omnibus omnibus revocare i. e. The King ought by right to maintain and defend all the Lands honours dignities rights and liberties of the Crown entirely without diminution and by all means to recall again those rights which are lost and separted from the Crown That the people are bound to this l. 35. l. 56. appears likewise by the Lawes of King Edward and of William the Conquerour who did a little inlarge the Lawes of King Edward in this particular Statuimus etiam firmiter praecipimus ut omnes liberi homines totius regni nostri praedicti sint fratres conjurati ad Monarchiam ad Regnum nostrum pro viribus suis facultatibus contra inimicos pro posse suo defendendum viriliter servandum pacem dignitatem coronae nostrae integram observandam ad judicium rectum justitiam constanter omnibus modis pro posse suo sine dilatione faciendam Hoc decretum sancitum est in civitate London i. e. we will and command that all free men of our Kingdom be sworn Brothers to defend and keep our Monarchy and Kingdome according to their power against the Enemies of the same and to maintain the peace and dignity of our Crown entire and to exercise right judgement and justice according to their power without deceit and delay This Decree was enacted in the City of London By the civil law also the rights of Soveraignty cannot be separated from the Prince and the reason alleadged is because they are essential to Majesty Suprema jurisdictio potestas regia etsi Princeps velit se separari non possunt sunt enim ipsa forma substantialis essentia Majestatis ergo manente ipso Rege ab eo abdicari non possunt Cabedo practic observ par 2. decis 40. n. 8. Io. Andr. in addit ad specul tit de jurisdict c. Cum Marthae de celebrat Missar i. e. Supreme jurisdiction and Kingly power cannot be separated from the Prince although he would himself for they are essential to Majesty and cannot be abdicated whilst he remaineth King CHAP. V. The Kings Supremacy in particular shewed by the Common Law I Come now to the particular rights of Soveraignty which are all by the Common law wholly in the power of the King First 19 E. 4.6 Coke 7.25 B. the Militia is his by the Common Law and to him it only pertaineth to make War with
forrain Princes and Estates as also to maintain the peace to suppresse Rebellions and to see justice executed at home within his own Kingdome Fleta lib. 1 cap. 17. Habet Rex in manu sua omnia jura quae ad Coronam Laitalem pertinent potestatem materialem gladium qui pertinet ad Regni gubernaculum i. e. The King hath all the rights in his hand which belong to the Crown and to Temporal jurisdiction and the power of the sword which belong to the Government of the Kingdome So likewise saith Bracton lib. 1. cap. 8. Sunt alii potentes sub Rege qui dicuntur Barones hoc est robut belli sunt alii qui dicuntur Vavasores viri magnae dignitatis vavasor enim nihil melius dici poterit quam vas fortium ad valetudinem sunt sub Rege milites s ad militiam exercendam electi i. e. There are other great men under the King which are called Barons and other which are called Vavasours men of great dignity There are also soldiers under the King chosen to exercise the Militia And in the beginning of his Book he saith that it is necessary this power should be in the King In rege quirecte regit necessaria sunt duo haec arma videlicet Leges quibus utrumque tempus bellorum pacis recte possit gubernari utrumque enim istorum alter us indiget auxilio quo tam res militaris possit esse tuta quam ipsae Leges usu armorum praesidio possint esse servatae Si autem arma defecerint contra hostes rebelle indomitos sic erit regnum indefensum Si autem Leges sic exterminabitur justitia i. e. In a King that governeth well two things are necessary armes and lawes by which he may be enabled to rule both in times of peace and war and both these help the need of one another whereby both armes and lawes may be preserved If arms be wanting against enemies and rebells the Kingdome shall be without defence if Lawes be wanting without justice This is also evident from the Tenures whereby most of the chief men in the Kingdome hold their estates for all that hold in capite by Knights service are bound for their fee to assist the King in his wars whensoever they shall be summoned by him whether it be to suppresse rebellion or to resist a forraign invasion And this hath been the known Law of the Land ever since the time of William the Conquerour in the fourth year of whose reign this right was confirmed unto him by Act of Parliament The words of the Statute are these Statuinus firmiter pracipimus ut omnes Comites Barones Milites Servientes universi liberi homines totitu regni nostri praedicti habeant teneant se semper bene in armis in equis ut decet oportet quod sint semper prompti parati ad servitium suum integrum nobis explendum peragendum cum semper opus adfuerit secundum quod nobis debent de feodis tenementis suis de jure facere sicut illis statuimus per commune consilium totius Regni nostri praedicti illis dedimus concessimus in feodis jure hereditario i. e. We will and command that all Earls Barons Knights Villeins and all Freemen of out whole kingdom be alwayes well provided with horse and armes as it behoveth them and that they be alwayes in a readinesse to serve us as often as need shall require according as they are bound by their Lands and Tenements and as we have appointed them to do by the Common-Councell of our whole Kingdome and for that consideration have given and granted them lands in Fee for ever Secondly The Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law the two Houses have authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent but the power that makes it a law the authority that animates it and makes it differ from a dead Letter is in the King who is the life and soul of the law by whose authority alone the lawes command and forbid and vindicate and punish offenders So saith Bracton lib. 1. cap. 2. Hujusmodi verò Leges Anglicanae consuetudines Regum authoritate jubent quandoque quandoque vetant quandoque vindicant puniunt transgressores i. e. These Lawes and customes of England by the Kings authority do sometimes command sometimes sorbid and sometimes chastise and punish transgressors This was also resolved by divers Earls and Barons and by all the justices in the time of Edward the third For one Haedlow and his wife having a controversy with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons and to all the justices to consider of the businesse it was resolved that the two houses were not coordinate with the King in the Legislative power but that the King alone made lawes by the assent of the two Houses that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm and that he could not be judged by the Parliament 22. E. 3.6 Fuit dit que le Roy fist les leis per assent des peres de la Commune non pas les peres le Commune Et que il ne avera nul pere en sa terre demesne que le Roy per eux ne doit estr ajuge i. e. It was resolved that the King makes lawes by the assent of the Lords and Commons and not the Lords and Commons and that he could have no Peer in his own land and that he could not be judged by them The Common practice of the law confirms this as well as the resolution of the Judges for the breach of any Statute whether it be by treason murder felony perjury or by any other way is an offence against the Kings authority alone and pleas made against such offences are called the pleas of the crown because they are done encounter la corone dignitie le Roy Stanford les plees del corone lib. 1. cap. 1. against the crown and dignity of the King So that it is not the dignity and authority of the Lords and Commons which is violated by contempt of the law but the dignity and authority of the King He may dispense also with such laws as forbid a thing which is not malum in se and pardon the transgression of others as Treason Felony and the like which in reason he ought no more to do then to dispense with the laws of Germany Spain or France or pardon the transgressours thereof if they were not made by his own authority Again it is an uncontroulable Maxime of Law Ejusdem est leges interpretari cujus est condere None can interpret the laws but the same power that makes them Now that the King calling the Judges to him hath this power is evident by his exposition
wings to be clipt before he made the said grant he caused all the Lawes and Customes that were in force in the time of King Edward to be written out and then after good deliberation finding nothing in them prejudicial to his Crown and Royal authority he ratified and confirmed them For whereas some of them say the Fundamental Lawes are not written that so they might cover their fraud and deceit who pretending fundamental Laws are able to alledge nothing out of them this is contrary to all the Histories and Records of those times which testifie that Willam the Conquerour commanded twelve of the wisest men to be chosen in every County who did upon oath declare all the Lawes and Customes which they knew not adding or omitting any thing Aldered Arch-bishop of York who had crowned him and Hugo Bishop of London as Chronicon Lichfieldense relateth writ them out with their own hands Yet he granted not these Lawes without some emendations Leges H. 1. c. 2. as appears by the Laws of Henry the first Lagam Regis EDWARD I vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus eam Pater meus emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum i. e. I restore unto you the Laws of King Edward with those emendations which my father by the advice of his Barons added unto them For although he let the old foundation stand yet he inlarged it and added divers new dignities and preheminencies to the Crown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 151. not wholely relinquishing the rights he had gained by conquest as some without ground or reason affirm but joyning the rights of law and conquest together And this was all done by consent and agreement of the people and confirmed by Act of Parliament Thirdly the two Houses of Parliament are but the Kings Counsell according to their usual style both in our Statutes and Law Books at first the Members of the Pretended Parliament gave themselves no other name and in propability would have been longer content with it upon condition his Majesty would have observed their counsells as Laws and have acknowledged himself bound to obey them for they were willing then he should have had the title of a King so themselves might have had all the power and authority belonging to the Crown But the truth is there is a great distance between Counsels and Commands Counsellours are but subordinate officers and may not impose their Counsells for Lawes upon those which they serve in that employment Answer 1 To this it is answered first That the two Houses are called the Counsel of the Realm as well as the Kings Counsell and are trusted by the People as well as by the King Reply Although in some respects they be trusted by the people yet as touching the office of Councellours they are trusted by the King and when they are called the Councel of the Realm it is all one as if they were called the Councel of the King for under divers phrases the same thing is signified it being an usual custome in law in expressions of this kind to take the Realm or kingdome for the King himself Coke lib. 7.12 And oftentimes in the reports of our Book cases and in acts of Parliament also the Crown or Kingdom is taken for the King himself as in FITZ NATVR BRE FOL 5. tenure IN CAPITE is a tenure of the Crown and is Signory in grosse that is of the person of the King and so is the 30. H. 8. Dyer fol. 44 45. a tenure in chief as of the Crown is meerly a tenure of the person of the King and therewith agreeth 28. H 8. tit tenure Br. 65. The Statute of the 4. Hen. 5. cap. ultimo gave Priors aliens which were conventual to the King and his heirs by which gift saith 34. H. 6.34 the same were annexed to the Crown And in the said Act of 25. E. 3. whereas it is said in the beginning within the ligeance of England it is twice afterward said in the ligeance of the King and yet all one ligeance due to the King So in the 42. E. 3. fol. 2. where it is first said the ligeance of England it is afterward in the same case called the ligeance of the King wherein though they used severall manner and phrases of speech yet they intended one and the same ligeance So in our usual Commission of Assize of Goale delivery of Oyer and Terminer of the Peace c. power is given to execute justice secundum legem consuetudinem regni nostri Angliae and yet Little lib. 2. in his Chapter of Villenage fol. 43. in disabling of a man that is attainted in a praemunire saith that the same is the Kings Law and so doth the Register in the writ of ad jura Regia style the same Answer 2 Secondly it is answered although the two Houses be the Kings Counsell yet they are not chosen by himself the Lords are consiliari nati born Counsellours and the Commons are consiliari dati Counsellours given him by Election of the people Reply Although the Lords be born Counsellours and the Commons chosen by the people yet they cannot sit in Counsell but at such times as the King is pleased to make use of them and when he is pleased to summon them and command them to sit the Lords cannot refuse to come or the people to send their Deputies nor doth it alter their condition whether they be born his Counsellours given him by the people or chosen by himself they which are born to places of dignity and jurisdiction or they which are chosen to them by the people cease not for all that to be subordinate to the King they are all his Subjects and Ministers and are so far from having authority to challenge obedience to their Counsels that if their Counsells be not such as they ought they are themselves obnoxious to a censure of Law A King is obliged in time of Parliament to follow the advice and direction of the two Houses and out of Parliament of his Privy Counsell when their advice and direction tendeth to the preservation of his person and of his Royal authority and to the preservation of his people and of their rights and priviledges not that Counsellours have authority over Kings but because the matter of their Counsels do morally oblige their consciences but if their advice and direction tend to the ruin of either he may and ought to recede from their Counsels and such a King is not a tyrant but such Counsellours traitors by the law This is mysteriously represented to the Lords when they are first preferred to that degree and dignity by the usuall solemnities then performed for if in stead of giving counsell for the King they give counsell against him they are not only by the Statutes of the Land declared to be traitors but if the Statutes were silent by a tacite condition of law annexed to their dignities and vayled under certain ceremonies used at their first creation
they are to be condemned for such and to forfeit their estates Coke in Nevils case lib. 7. fol. 34. Ceux que sont countees ount office de graund trust confidence sont create pur 2. purposes 1. ad consulendum regi tempore pacis 2. ad defendendum regem patriam tempore belli Et pur c. antiquitie ad done eux 2. ensignes a resembler ceux deux duties car primeremt lour teste est adorn ove un capoe de honor coronet lour corps ove unrobe in resemblance de counsel secundmt ilz sout succinct ove un espee in resemblans q. ilz serr Foiall loyal a defender lour Prince pays Donques quant tiel person encout le dutie fine de son dignitie prist non solemt counsel mes armes auxi eneout le Roy a luy de destroyer et de c. est attaint per due course del ley per ceo il ad forfeit son dignitie per un condition tacite annexe al estate de dignitie i. e. They which are Earles have an office of great trust and confidence and are created for two purposes first to counsell the King in time of peace secondly to defend the King and their Country in time of war and for this cause Antiquity hath given them two ensignes to represent these two duties for first their head is adorned with a cap of honour and a coronet and their body with a robe in resemblance of counsell secondly they are girt with a sword in resemblance that they shall be faithfull and loyal to defend their prince and countrey when such a person then against his outy and end of his dignitie take not onely counsell but armes against the King to destroy him and be attainted thereof by due course of law He hath thereby forfeited his dignitie by a tacite condition annexed unto it Fourthly the Parliament is one of the Kings courts as is apparent both by our Statutes and law books 1. Iac. cap 1. Bracton lib. 2. cap. 16. Fieta lib 2. cap. 2. the two Houses therefore must derive all their authority from him for the King is a full sea of anthority from whom all power and jurisdiction by commissions writs letters pattents c. as through so many channells run into all his courts if the two houses have authority radically in themselves by fundamentall constitution or if they derive their authority from any other then the King the court is none of his Answer The Treatiser having made divers suppositions which he telleth the Reader are the lawes of the land or to use his own words the modell and platform of the English Monarchy out of the said suppositions frameth this answer It is his Parliament because an assembly of his subjects convocated by his writ to be his counsell to assist him in making lawes for him to govern by yet not his as his other courts are altogether deriving their whole authority from the fulnesse which is in him Reply Whereas he calls the Parliament an assembly of his subjects whereas he faith they make lawes for him to govern by and that there is a fulnesse of power in him he doth but complement with his Majesty his suppositions and principles agrees not with such expressions for if the two Houses derive not their authority from his Majesty but have it radically in themselves how is there a fulnesse of power in him if the jura Majestatis be divided amongst them he hath not a fulnesse but his share onely of power or how do they assist him to make lawes to govern by they assist not him alone but all the three estates are mutually assistant to one another in making lawes to govern jointly where their joint concurrence is necessary or to govern in their severall charges where they may act severally Or lastly how can they be called his subjects subjection is due to the three estates acting together or to either of them in their severall places and jurisdictions as well as to him for it is due to him in the administration of that power which belong to him alone so is it likewise to them by his principles in things within the verge and composse of their authority And yet all that he saith if it were consistent with reason is not sufficient to make the Parliament his Majesties court except it deriveth all authority and jurisdiction from him it is not enough that they are an assembly of his subjects for in divers forrain Nations Ecclesiastical persons are subjects to the princes they live under yet Ecclesiastical courts belong not to those Princes but to the Sea of Rome nor is it enough which he addeth that they are summoned by his writ for the Judges of divers courts but chiefly of courts Christian have sent out citations and summons in their own name as the King doth by writ and yet they are not the proprietaries of those courts nor yet is it sufficient that they are his Councell for his Counsellours make it not his Court but his Authority It is authority that constitutes a court and inables it to proceed judicially he which ownes that is owner and Master of the Court. Fiftly Parliaments as they are now established consisting of three estates the King the Lords and the Commons are but of late existence and therefore such a composition and mixture of the said estates as is pretended can not be by originall constitution It is granted that Parliaments otherwise are of a long continuance and may plead the prescription of many hundred years for although the word Parliament hath been introduced as is probable since the Norman conquest yet a convention of that nature was in use in the time of the Saxon Kings who did seldom make lawes without the counsell and assent of their wise men and this assembly was called in the Saxon language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Councell and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Synode It is granted also that the Commons were sometimes called to such consultations but that was a thing not necessary or frequent but rare aibitrary and contingent There were no certaine persons designed by law whose concurrence was required to constitute a Parliament but the King used the advice of those onely which he pleased to call unto himself which were alwayes such as he thought most able to counsell and direct him in the matters that were to be consulted of and whose assent was likely to adde most credit and estimation to the lawes that were to be divulged Sometimes he made lawes without the assent of others for offa King of the Mercians In vita Offae 2. as Matthew Paris relateth being at Rome ordained that every Houshoulder in all his dominions which were three and twenty Provinces or Shires that had above thirty penny-worth of goods in the field should every year pay a Penny to the maintenance of the English School that then florished at Rome which in those times was a great taxation His igitur auditis
Rex quid dig ne tant a benig nitati compenset secum studiose pertractat I andem Divina inspirante Gratia consilium inivit salubre et in die crastina scolam Anglorum que tunc Romae floruit ingressus Dedit ibi ex Regali munificentia ad sustentationem Gentis Regni sui illuc venientis singulos argenteos de familiis singulis omnibus in posterum diebus singulis annis Quibus videlicet sors tantum contulit extra domos in pascius ut trig inta argenteorum pretium excederet Hoc autem per totam suam ditionem teneri in perpetuum constituit excepta tota terra Sancti Albani suo Monasterio bonferenda prout postea coliata privilegia protestantur i. e. The King hearing this considered with himself how he might recompence so great a courtesie at last by Divine Inspiration very Sound counsell was suggested unto him and going the next day into the English School that then flourished at Rome he gave to the sustentation of such as should come thither out of his own Kingdome a penny to be paid yearly for ever out of every family by all whose goods in the field exceeded the value of thirty pence And this he made a perpetuall constitution throughout all his dominions excepting onely the lands that were to be conferred upon the Monastery of Saint Albane as the priviledges afterwards granted doe witnesse This law continued a long time in force yet I find it not confirmed by act of Parliament either in his owne or in the reigns of his successours I find onely in the lawes of some Kings as of King Edgar and King Edward a strict provision made for the payment thereof L. 4. because it was the Kings Almes which reason doth imply that it was not given by the whole Kingdome in Parliament L. 10. but by the King alone But yet in those times laws were made commonly by the approbation and consent of the Nobles Archbishops and Bishops in a publike Synode or Parliament Sometimes the Queen was present sometimes the inferiour Clergie and sometimes also the Commons but that happened very seldome I have seen divers Charters both in the Saxon and Latine tongue granted to Churches and Monasteries confirmed by act of Parliament and attested by the Members of the same yet amongst them all I have not seen so much as one whereunto the assent or name of any of the Commons is subscribed I will here insert one for example sake granted to the Monastery of Saint Albane by Ecgfride Son of Offa because it is but short Auctar. add tament fol. 239 240. and extant in the last Edition of Matthew Paris where any one that please may see both that and divers others of like nature Ego Ecgfridus gratia Dei Rex Merciorum anno Dominicae incarnation is septingentesimo nonagasimo sexto Indictione quarta primo vero anno Regni nostri terram X. manentium nomino Thyrefeld cum terminis suis Domino meo Jesu Christo ejus pretioso Marteri Albano liberaliter eternaliter cum consensu testimonio optimatum meorum in jus Monasteriale pro anima mâ—a parentum meorum devotissimetribuo libenter concedi Sitque praedicta terra ab omui terrenae servitutis jugo semper aliena atque eadem libertate sit libera qua caeterae terrae Monesterii beati Albani conscriptae atque concessae sunt à glorioso Offa genitore meo †Ego Cynedrid Regina consensi †Ego Vnwona Episcopus †Ego Weohthunus Episcopus †Ego Beona Abbas †Ego Elfhun Episcopus †Ego Brorda Dux †Ego Wigbertus Dux †Ego Wicga Dux †Ego Cutbertus Dux †Ego Ethelheardus Archiepiscopus cons †Ego Eobing Dux †Ego Forthred Abbas †Ego Sighere filius Siger †Ego Esne Dux †Ego Cydda Dux †Ego Winbertus Dux †Ego Heardbertus Dux †Ego Brorda Dux Conscriptus est autem hic liber in loco qui dicitur Chelcyd in Synodo publico That is I Ecgfride by the grace of God King of the Mercians in the year of our Lord seven hundred ninety six in the fourth Indiction and first year of our reign do give grant for my own soul and the souls of my Ancestors with the assent and restimony of my Nobles ten Hydes of Land called Tyrefeld with the Bounds thereof unto the Monastery of Saint Albane and I exempt the said Lands from all Services and make them free with the same freedome which was granted to the rest of the Lands of the same Monastery by Offa our father of glorious memory This Charter was written at Chelehyd in a publike Synod By this Charter it is evident that Parliaments were holden in those times without the Commons for whereas it is specified by the King that the abovesaid lands were given cum consensu testimonio optimatum his meaning is that his grant was confirmed by the assent and testimony of Parliament and yet the word Optimates cannot be extended to the Commons neither was his grant confirmed by their testimony In the prefaces likewise of divers Saxon Lawes set out by Mr. Lambart the persons are expressed by whose counsell and assent the said Laws were enacted yet except only in the preface of King Inas Lawes there is no mention at all made of the Commons but several Kings made most of those Lawes by the advice and consent of their Bishops and wise men which were no other then their Privy Counsel Mr. Lambart in his Archaion affirmeth them to be the Nobility and Commons and to support his opinion he alleadgeth a passage out of the Preface of the Lawes of King Elfred which is neither material nor saithfully cited for there is no such passage to be found in that Preface But to make his errour apparent I shall need no other testimonies then two precedents mentioned by himself the first is of a Parliament holden by Edwin K. of Northumberland the second of a Parliament holden by Segebert K. of the East Saxons whereunto they called their friends and their wise men for Edwine being instigated by Paulinus to imbrace the Christian religion Beda Hist Eccles lib. 2. cap. 13. answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habban that he would speak with his friends and with his wise men in Parliament which he did accordingly and by their assent himself his whole Nobility and a great parr of the Commons were baptized In like manner Sigebert held a Parliament whereunto he called his friends and his wise men upon the like occasion Beda Eccles Hist lib. 3. cap. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then he held a Parliament with his wise men and friends and by their advice did and consent received the Christian faith From this I gather that their wise men could not be their Nobility and Commons as Mr. Lambart supposeth if Parliaments had
Fol. 125. the Kings alwayes most gravely and considerately repelled that sort of attempt The Kings supremacy then is inherent in his Person not in his Courts as the pretended House affirm for his politique capacity can not be seperated from his naturall but what power soever he maketh over unto his Courts the same and greater remaineth in Himself His authority is not separated from him by such a concession privitivè but Cumulativè onely as Civilians distinguish in Concessions of like nature made by the Emperour that is He loseth no authority by Communicating it to others but others hould that which is communicated together with himself As God loseth no authority by communicating it to Kings so Kings loseth it not by communicating of it to their Courts The Civilians give these reasons for the ground of their law not much different from those alleadged by Lambart out of Bracton and others Credendum non est Imperatorem ita fontes suos derivasse foras ut nihil penes se remanserit sed in quavis concessione semper authoritas persona ejus excepta censetur quis enim tam stolidus ut alii benefaciendo seipsum consumere velit cum etiam Principis sit ad offitium ejus proprie pertineat jus dicere Knichen d. superiorit territ cap. 1. num 518. Wurms evercit 3. num 15. Rosental d. feud cap. 5. conclus 13. Pruckman d. Regal cap. 1. num 17. Leipold d. Concurrent jurisdict quaest 1. i. e. It is not to be imagined that the Emperour should so empty his fountaines as to leave nothing in himselfe but it is to be conceived that in every concession his own person and authority is excepted for who is such a fool to consume himself by doing good to others it is also the essentiall property and office of a prince to doe justice The pretended House proceed And to speak properly only his high court of Parliament wherein he is absolutely supreme head and governour from which there is no appeale Reply They speak not more properly as they say but much more improperly then they did before it is the same authority that is in all his courts in his person too though not all the same authority for it is limited restrained in his courts by commission writ or law and according as as those limitations and restrictions are more or lesse so may courts be said to have a greater or lesse jurisdiction but not the King to be more or lesse supreme nor is their expression improper onely but also full of falshood and deceit for whereas they say there can be no appeale from the high court of Parliament they desire the people should so construe their words as to think the two Houses could jointly by reason of the Kings virtual presence take cognizance of a plea and give judgement upon it from which there could be no appeale which had they spoke out their falshood had been transparent for onely the Lords House is a court of judicature and from thence appeales may be made to the King who may and have reformed the undue proceedings of that Court Lambarts Archeion sol 133. for anno 18. Edward 1. Bogo de Clare being discharged of an accusation put against him in Parliament for some imperfections of form that were discovered in the complaint the King commanded him neverthelesse to appeare before himselfe ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus confilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to are-examination of the whole cause Neither is the former part of their words truer then the latter the Kings supreamacy they say to speak properly is onely in his high court of Parliament This in their sense is false the supreamacy of the King is no more in his high Court of Parliament by reason of his virtual presence or politique capacity then in his other Courts when he is personally there his supreamacy then together with his Person is in the Court not otherwise For I have shewed already in divers places that the rights of Soveraigntie are not onely individually inherent in his Person but so inseperably also annexed unto it that they can not be communicated to others by any grant or concession made by himself in private or by an act of Parliament I shall now adde Lib. 7. in Calvinet case that their conceit is called in Cooks reports a damnable and damned opinion and hath been at large confuted and condemned by all the judges as is there related it was first invented by the Spencers who to cover their treason said that homage and the oath of ligeance was more by reason of the Kings Crown that is by reason of his politique capacity then by reason of the Person of the King from which opinion they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King doe not demeane himself by reason his Leiges are bound by oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by suit of law that ought to be done per aspertee 3. That his Lieges are bound to govern in ayd of him all which were condemned by two parliaments one in the Reign of Edward the second called exilium Hugonâ—s le Spencer And the other anno 1. E. 3. cap. 1. And indeed their conceit is so irrationall that it might easily be prognosticated they would never make good Statsmen For when the King is not personally present in his Courts he can be there by reason of his politique capacity no other wayes but by virtuall emanation there can be in them no more authority then is delegated and committed to his judges now it is a common conception as evident as the first principles that a delegate power can not be supreme The exercise of supreme authority in some Commonwealths may but the power it selfe can not be delegated Kings may also abdicate and resigne up supreme authority but they can not delegate it In how generall tearmes soever say Civilians authority be granted by the Concessour to the concessary supreame authority can not be comprised under those termes Quocuuque modo Regalium concessio fiat nihilominus superius illud Majestaticum imperium ea largitione nunquam censeatur comprehensum sed potius major semper quam est concessa reservata retenta putetur potestas cap. Dudum ¶ Hoc igitur de praebend in 6. l. inquisitio Et ibi De c. de solut Periginus de jure sisci lib. 1. tit ult num 33. Kniken de jure territorii cap. 1. num 315. i. e. Which way soever Regalities are granted it may not be supposed that supreame authority is comprehended under such a grant but rather that a greater power then is granted is reserved to the Prince Object 2 Their second objection is If the Parliament may take an accompt what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour courts much more what is done by him without authority in any court Reply This if is well put in they say not
is no good colour or pretence much lesse a sufficient ground for such a coordination and mixture as is pressed by them Although their assents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the rights of Soveraigntie It is the common assertion of a Pannormit cap. gravem de fententia excommun Canonists b Bertol. in L. omnes populi ff de justitia jure q. 2. princip quoestiunc 5. num 20. Civilians and c Suarez lib. 1. de legibus lib. 1. cap. 8. num 9. Schoolmen nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any that the Legislative power is delegable d Besold de jurib Majest cap. 2. that such a concurrence is no argumeni of Supremacy or of such a mixture as they would inferre out of it e Arnisae doct polit lib. 1. cap. 8. Some call it therefore apparens mixtura because it seemeth to destroy a simple form of government and to make a mixture in the power it self but doth not though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof Grotius affirmeth to this purpose Istam legislationem quae alii quam summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae potestatis quod in Scholis dicunt cumulativè datam censeri non privativè He speaketh this of lawes made by generall conventions whose concurrence he saith doth not in the least manner diminish the rights of Majesty Such a mixture of the three estates hath been in other monarchies which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power In the Persian monarchie how absolute soever the other Estates had interest with the monarch in the legislative power as appeareth by that passage of Daniel wherein the Princes Governours and other officers of Darius sought to betray him by a law Then these Presidents and Princes assembled together to the King Dan. cap. 6. vers 7 8 9. and said thus unto him King Darius live for ever all the Presidents of the Kingdome the Gevernours and the Princes the Counsellours and the captaines have consulted together to Establish a Royall Statute and to make a firm decree that whosoever shall aske a petition of any God or man for thirty dayes save of thee O King he shall be cast into the den of Lyons Now O King Establish the decree and sign the writing that it be not changed according to the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not wherefore King Darius signed the writing and the decree These Princes Governors and Officers of Darius had the same authority in making laws that the Lords and Commons have in England yet were not coordinate with the King They had votum Consultivum and Decisivum these words have consulted to establish a Royal Statute include both an act of Counsel and an act of Authority and Jurisdiction Grotius saith they signed the Decree as well as the King and that they had this authority by the constiution of the Government And the sequele of the History doth imply as much In Dan. cap. 6. for had the act been his alone had he set out his Decree by way of Edict or Proclamation he might have altered it himself as Ahasuerus did the Decree he set out touching the destruction of the Jewes Esther 3.12 13. 8.10 13. but being made by the assent of others who had a concurrent authority with him by Law he could not alter it I shall not need to instance in the Roman Empire or in other Kingdomes for it is generally known that such a mixture was in that and hath been and is in most other Monarchies And not only whole representative bodies but divers particular free Cities have the same priviledge yet have not supreme authority In our own Kingdome the Common-Councill of every Incorporation have authority to make ordinances and constituions within their own Liberties for the good order and government of their body The Inhabitants of every Parish have authority to make Bylawes and Ordinances amongst themselves for their own profit where they have custome for it and for the publick good where they have no custome Coke part 5. in the Chamberlain of Londons Case tit Cases de Bilawes ordinances Inhabitants dun ville sauns auscun custome poyent faire ordinances ou Bylawes pur reparation del Eglise ou dun haut voy ou dascun tiel chose que est pur le bien publique generalmēnt in tiel case le greinder part lier touts sauns ascun custome Vide 44. E. 3.19 Mes si soit pur lour private profit dem comme pur le bien ordering de lour Common de pasture ou semblables la Sauns custome ils ne poient faire Bylawes i. e. The Inhabitants of a Parish without any custome may make Ordinances and Bylawes for the reparation of a Church or of the high way or any other thing that is for the publick good in general and in such a case the greater part shall bind the lesse But if it be for their own profit as for the ordering of their Common or the like there without Custome they cannot make Bylawes Why doth not the Treatiser and the Pretended Parliamentarians conclude from hence that every man is coordinate with the King in the rights of Soveraignty for this is done by the Legislative power and this authority they have by the constitution of the Government But secondly I answer to the consequent that the Legislative power is not radically in the three estates but in the King alone for although their assent be free and dependeth not upon his will yet their authority is derived from him he should have proved his consequent which he saith appeareth in the former question where indeed he doth confidently affirm the whole latitude of the Nomothetical power to be jointly in the three estates yet offereth not to prove it But there is scarcely any man in the Kingdom so much a stranger to the Laws but knows that the King alone hath power to dispence with the Statutes and to abate their rigour where a mischief would otherwise insue that he alone hath power by edicts and Proclamations to order all affairs for which there is no order taken by certain and perpetual laws that he with his Judges hath power to declare the meaning of the Law and to give an authentick interpretation to statutes of ambiguous and doubtful sense The King can exercise these and all other parts of the Nomothetical power which are of absolute necessity to government without the assent of the two houses whose concurrence is only necessary in making laws which shall bind posterity and may not be repealed without the consent of the people as well as of the King The whole latitude therefore of the Nomothetical power is not jointly in the three Estates but the power only of making certain and perpetual Lawes and when such laws are made it is the Kings
authority that gives life unto them they having otherwise no power to obleige the conscience then as they are his Commands This hath been sufficiently confirmed already yet I will here further illustrate the truth by the testimonies of a Lib. 3. cap. 9. Bracton and the Author of b Lib. 1. cap. 17. Fleta who applying that passage of the Civil Law Quod Principi placet legis habet potestatem to the King of England say That clause ought not to be understood of every thing that is rashly presumed to be his will but of that which is justly determined upon good advice and deliberation by the Councel of his Magistrates Rege Authoritatem praestante the King giving it Authority and confirming it for a law and from hence by an argument ab indecoro they shew that the King ought not to do unjustly Cum ipse sit Author juris non debet inde Injuriarum nasci occasio unde jura nascuntur When he himself is the Author of the Law injustice ought not to spring from the same fountain from whence the Law doth spring The Legislative power is in the King therefore as in its spring and fountain and in the other estates by derivation they have right and interest in the use and exercise of some parts of the power and may assent or dissent what shall be made a Law but the power it self is radically in him Now the Legislative power is either Architectonical or preceptive the Architectonical power is that which layeth the materials of a Law and it consisteth in two things First in determining what is just convenient or necessary they to whom this power is committed have no jurisdiction granted them but only and office and imployment to deliberate and consult Secondly in declaring and promulgating that to be actually made a law and enacted which upoo consultation is thought to be just convenient or necessary they to whom this power is committed have a jurisdiction granted them to define authoritatively what shall be a law The preceptive power is that which maketh the law sacred and inviolable and which giveth it force to oblige the conscience It is evident by that which have bin said that not the preceptive but the exercise only of the Architectonical power is committed to the two houses they have votum consultivum decisivum both authority to consult what is just convenient or necessary and also to decree what shall be made a law but this authority is derived from the King Pag. 39. The Treatiser in his reply to Dr. Fern seemeth to be unsatisfied with this answer doth there dispute against it after this manner my second argument saith he for radicall mixture is from the Legislative power being in all three He answers that phrase is satisfied and explained by that conncurrence and consent in the exercise of supreme power It seems that invention of his must serve all turns is a legislative power satisfied by a bare powerlesse consent I demand is that consent causal and authoritative or meerly consiliarie and unauthoritative And whereas I prove that they have an enacting authority by that received and set clause in the beginning of acts Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament He tell us a vote and power of assenting is a great authority I enquire not how great it is I aske whether that be all whether that clause which as expressely as words can asscribes an enacting authority to them be satisfied by such a power of assenting Here are many words heaped together yet not so much as one that toucheth the present controversie the question is not whether the two Houses have authority nor yet whether they have an enacting authority it is evident they could not sit as Judges in the court without authority nor enact without an enacting authority but the question is first whether their enacting authority spoken of in the foresaid clause be onely a power of assenting that such or such a law shall be established or a power that Commandeth and giveth life and vigour to the laws Secondly whether this power be radically in themselves or derived from the King To the first I say that it is onely a power of assenting 7 H. 7.14 11. H. 7.25 for it hath bin resolved by the judges that this clause which he alledgeth Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Lambarts Archeion f. 271. is no more in substance and effect then that which was used anciently The King with the assent of the Lord and Commons establisheth the words assenteth enacteth being equivalent in this case And to the second I say that their authority is derived from the King not radically in themselves For although this Treatiser knows not or will not seem to know how to put a difference between having an enacting authority and having the Legislative authority radically in themselves yet the Judges did and others doe For they may enact by a delegate authority that is by having the use and exercise of the Legislative power committed to them so far as is necessary to that act although it be not radically in them as their own But now the Treatiser Speaketh not a word to either of these points but sheweth onely that they have an enacting authority which is a point not controverted For their power of assenting and laying the materialls of a law is an enacting power although their activity be not equall to the Kings Subordinate Agents that are but Instruments of an other and work by a derived power when they concurre with the principall and supreme agent have their causality in producing the effect And therefore whereas he demandeth whether their consent be causall and authoritative or meerly consiliary and unauthoritative I answer that it is as causall and authoritative as if the legislative power were radically in themselves for he that worketh with an other mans tools is as much the cause of the work as if the tools he useth were his own whether the authority by which they enact be the Kings or radically in themselves the effect will be the same It may be further objected that these words Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the authority of the Lords Commons assembled in Parliament do imply distinct authorities the authority of the K. and the authority of the Lords and commons for theadition of these words And the authority of the Lords Commons is improper if lawes be enacted by the Kings authority alone To this I answer first that there is nothing more frequent when the K. acteth jointly with his subordinate Ministers then to ascribe a concurrent authority to those that act with him although their authority be derived from him for although his authority cannot be seperated from him privativè as hath been said yet cumulativè it may that
and Seat of supreme power to be a mixed subject but granted a mixture in the administration of power alone His second deduction is that the King granteth the power of interpreting 2. Deduction Reply to Doctor Fern. Pag. 34. and giving finall judgement of the sense of law to be in the two houses this he concludeth to be his Majesties meaning when he said The Lords being trusted with a judicatory power are an excellent screen and bank between the King and People by just judgments to preserve the law Reply The Lords may have a judicatory power be as a bank Screen between the King and People without the power of interpretation and giving finall judgment of the sense of Law It is sufficient that they have a power to interpret Law judicially in such cases as are cogniscible in the court although they have no power to interpret it authoritively which is a prerogative belonging to the King calling his Judges unto him But the best of all is that he inferreth from the words above said both the Houses to have a power of declaring law for whereas his Majesty in the premisses speaks onely of the House of Lords by a trick of more then Presbiterian Legerdemain he hath juggled the House of Commons into his inference Deduction 3 His third deduction is that his Majesty granteth the two Houses a power of forcible resistance in case they should judge his actions tyrannicall and unjust this he collecteth out of these words since therefore the power legally placed in both Houses is more then sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of tyranny This he says cannot be made good unlesse the Houses have a power of resistance for tyranny cannot be otherwise restrained It is evident that his Majesty speaks not in this place of a forcible but of a legall way of restraint Id possit quisquam quod jure possit Every man is said to have a power to doe that which he can doe by law although he may be hindered in the execution of it His Majesty grants them not an absolute power of restraining tyranny but let that be taken in which goeth immediately before and his words will bear no other sense but that they have a power of restraining it so far as humane prudence can by lawfull and just wayes provide Neither is forcible resistance a more certain means of restraining tyranny then other legal wayes lesse corrasive if the Houses had a power of resistance they are not sure alwayes to prevaile it is better therefore to tolerate a mischiefe then to use a remedy which is worse then the disease and uncertain too But they have by law a double power as effectuall as forcible resistance they may inflict examplary punishment upon evil instruments wherby others may be affraid to take upon them such imployments and they may refuse to give the King subsidies and other necessary assistance if he refuseth to moderate his excesses If a tyrant and his evill instruments be strong and in no necessity were it lawfull to resist and to levy war against them the successe would be doubtfull the dammage certain and if the best happen they should but cure the Common-wealth of an Ague by giving it the Plague But if he be necessitated either by insurrections or otherwise to crave the assistance of his Subjects they shall then have liberty to execute their power upon his evil instruments or to make use of any other means the law hath put into their hands Where Tyranny reigns such opportunities will in a short time assuredly be offered the best Princes cannot always suppresse rebellions by the help of their loyal Subjects how much lesse can Tyrants be able to do it without them Such Exigencies being considered I say the power legally placed in the Houses is more then sufficient to restrain Tyranny without a power of resistance Object 2 Secondly they alleadge the testimony of Bracton Rex habet superiorem Deum Item Legem per quam factus est Rex Item Curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones That is Lib. 2. cap. 16. The King hath God his Superiour and the Law by which he is made King and his Court namely his Earls and Barons Reply Some think that Bracton speaketh not this himself but supposeth only that some might make such an Objection for these words Sed dicere poterit quis which go immediately before seem to agree with that interpretation and to be appliable to that which is here cited and to all that followeth in the same Section But because the words may also admit of another construction and because I desire to satisfie the Reader in every regard I will a little more strictly inquire into the sense and meaning of them and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of this Objection if they could be proved to be his own for it is evident that these words cannot relate to any coercive power or civil jurisdiction the Earls and Barons have over the Person of the King but to a directive power alone which their Counsells ought to have over him in governing of the people For as both a Aquin. 2. Quest 96. art 5. Divines and b Cabedo part 2. decis 78. Num. 1. Navar. in Rub. de judiciis num 100. Lawyers usually distinguish one may be said to be superiour to another per potestatem Coërcivam in respect of a coercive power or civil jurisdiction he hath over him by virtue whereof he may command what he please within the extent of his jurisdiction and force him to obey it this is a Legal power and superiority which none but Magistrates have over their Subjects or per potestatem directivam in respect of a directive power he hath over him by which he ought in Conscience to be ruled although he cannot by legal process be forced to obedience this is a moral power or superiority which Subjects may have over their Magistrates for in this regard Masters are superiour to their Scholars Counsellours superiour to those that are guided by their Counsells and the Laws superior to the Law-Makers Bractons scope in this place if these words be spoken positively by himself and not as a supposed Objection can be nothing else but to assert the Earls and Barons in his Court to be Superiour to the King per potestatem directivam in respect of the directive power their Counsels ought to have over him which although they be no legal commands and cannot therefore civilly obleige him to obedience yet they do morally obleige his Conscience when he is convinced that they are just and necessary for the government of the Kingdome These words cannot in any other sense be reconciled to that which he saith in other places who when he speaketh of this Subject doth every where resolve the contrary if the Earls and Barons should be interpreted here to be his Superiors in respect of a coercive power civil jurisdiction whereof the places above mentioned are sufficient
instances to which I could yet add more if I thought it needful But it would be superfluous to illustrate and interpret this place by other when the words considered by themselves imply no more for he maketh no distinction of Superiority but calleth God and the Law and the Earls and Barons in his court superiour to the King after the same manner Now it is evident that God in this place is said to be superiour to him in respect of the directive power his Law hath over him for although God hath de jure a coercive power and jurisdiction over Kings and shall de facto after their death dispose of them as their Judge and in this life also doth often restrain them by his secret judgements yet Bracton speaketh not in this place as will appear immediately when the whole and intire period shall be cited of either of those kinds of jurisdiction but of giving present and open judgement upon the Kings fact and upon his charter which is a jurisdiction that he exerciseth not but giveth his Law only for direction by which all Princes ought to be regulated both in granting their charters and in the whole administration of their power It is also clear that the Laws of the Land are said to be superiour to him in respect of the directive power of them having otherwise no force or influence upon him Bracton therefore meaneth that the Earls and Barons in his Court are superiour to him in the same respect and not in respect of any jurisdiction they ought to exercise over him But if we look upon the coherence of these words and their dependence upon the precedent and subsequent matter Bracton's intention will more fully and easily be discerned I will therefore set down as much as is necessary to the present purpose and explain every clause of it and shew the relation and connexion one thing hath with another and let the Reader judge whether this testimony of Bracton doth not strengthen the Kings cause and might not rather be alledged for him then against him Nec factum Regis nec chartam potest quis judicare ita quod factum Domini Regis irritetur Sed dicere poterit quis quod Rex Justitiam fecerit bene si hoc eadem ratione quod male ita imponere ei quod injuriam emendet ne incidat Rex justiciari in judicium viventis Dei propter injuriam Rex autem habet superiorem Deum Item legem per quam factus est Rex item curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones quia Comites dicuntur quasi socii Regis qui habet socium habet Magistrum ideo si Rex fuerit sine frano i. e. sine lege debent ei fraenum ponere That is No man may judge of the Kings fact or his charter so as to make void the fact of our Lord the King But some may say the King hath done justice and well and if so by the same reason that he hath done ill and impose upon him to amend the injury lest he and his justices fall into the judgement of the living God for the injury But the King hath God his superiour and the Law by which he is made King and his Court namely his Earls and Barons for they are called Comites as being Companions to the King and he that hath a Companion hath a Master and therefore if the King be without a bridle that is without Law they ought to put a bridle upon him If this passage be well considered it will be clear that Bracton in the words alleadged calleth not the Earls and Barons superiour to the King in a civill and legall but in a moral regard alone First he saith No man may judge of the Kings fact or his charter so as to make void the fact of our Lord the King How can the words alledged agree with this if their exposition be admitted How can the Earls and Barons in his Court be superiour to the King in respect of a coercive power or civil Jurisdiction when they cannot judge his charter or his fact No man can have a coercive power or civil jurisdiction over another but he hath authority to judge him according to Law and to force the execution of his Sentence Secondly he saith But some may say the King hath done Justice and well and if so by the same reason that he hath done ill and impose upon him to amend the injury lest he and his Justices fall into the hands of the living God for the injury But the King hath God his superiour and the Law by which he is made King and his Court namely his Earls and Barons Having declared what power the Earls and Barons have not over the King here he declareth what power they have In case justice be not duly administred there are some he saith which may advertise him of it and impose upon him to reform what is amisse and those he declares to be the Earls and Barons in his Court who as well as God and the Laws of the Realm are superiour to him that is are superiour to him in the same manner namely by a directive power For he saith not that they should by constraint but by admonition impose upon him to amend the injury using this reason lest He and his Justices fall into the hands of the living God according to that which he saith in the place before quoted Cap. 4. p. 37. Satis sufficit ei pro poena quod Dominum expectet ultorem Thirdly he saith For they are called Comites as being Companions of the King and he that hath a Companion hath a Master Here he giveth a reason why the Earls and Barons may be called his Superiours namely because they are his Companions and he that hath a Companion hath a Master This reason holds good if he indevoureth by it to prove them his Superiours in respect of a directive power and moral superiority but is ridiculous if he should indevour by it to prove them his Superiours in respect of a coercive power or civil jurisdiction for every one cannot be Superiour to his Companions in respect of jurisdiction and be a leige Lord or Legal Master over all the rest But every one may instruct Counsell and direct all his Companions and be a moral Master over them in that respect all Companions may be mutually one anothers Masters Fourthly he saith And therefore if the King be without a bridle that is without Law they ought to put a bridle upon him This inference which he maketh out of the former words doth also confirm that Bracton calleth them not his Superiours in respect of a coercive power or civil jurisdiction for because they are his Companions and so in a moral regard his Masters they ought therefore he saith if he be without a bridle to put a bridle of the Law upon him This bridle then must be a bridle of Law and not a bridle of their own
Promitto The word Elegerit they say may and ought to be taken in the future tense and doth obleige the King to agree to all acts that shall be thought convenient by the Houses And to confirm this they alledge a Heraulds Book wherein they say the Oath is found so Englished They alledge also an ancient French Form wherein they say it is so taken The Form is this Sire grantes vous a tener garder les leis customes naturelles les quels la communaute de vostre Royaume aur ' eslue les defenderer efforceeer a l' honeur de Dieu a vostre poiare Resp je le grante promitte Reply In all the authentical Records of the Exchequer the word Elegerit is Englished in the Preterperfect tense and not in the future tense proposing no more unto the King but that he would uphold and maintain the Lawes and Customes only which are actually then in use when he taketh the said Oath not such as shall be offered him by the Houses The words in the oath taken by his Majesty following the usual presidents were these BISHOP Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Lawes and rightful Customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have and will you uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lyeth KING I grant and promise so to doe The ancient Oath which is upon record used in the time of Henry the eight in whose reign they say the Herauld whose Book they speak of lived was this That he shall keep and maintain the Liberties of the Holy Church Book of Oath Fol. 1. of old time granted by the righteous Kings of England and that he shall keep all the Lands honours and dignities righteous and free of the Crown of England in all manner holy without any manner of minishments and the rights of the Crown hurt decay or losse to his power shall call again into the ancient estate and that he shall keep the peace of the holy Church and of the Clergy and of the people with good accord and that he shall do in his judgement equity and right justice with discretion and mercy and that he shall grant to hold the Lawes and Customes of the Realm and to his power keep them and affirm them which the flock and people have chosen and the evil Laws and Customes wholly to put out and stedfast and stable peace to the people of his Realm keep and cause to be kept to his power As for the French Form I cannot but wonder they should alledge it for it doth manifestly contradict that which they say and indevour to prove by it word for word it is thus to be rendered in English Sir do you grant to hold and keep the rightful Laws and Customes which the Commonalty of your Reaelm shall have chosen and to defend them and give them force to your power Answ I grant and promise it Who is there that understands the French Tongue which sees not that these words aur ' eslue shall have chosen which are put in the future tense can have reference to no other Lawes and Customes but those only which the Commonalty shall have chosen when the King taketh the Oath for the Form should have run thus quels la Communaute de vostre Royaume eslirà that is which the Commonalty of your Realm shall choose if Laws which were afterwards to be made had been intended in the Oath But let it be granted that Elegerit ought to be taken is the future tense yet leges consuetudines cannot relate to the Laws which shall be presented to the King by the two Houses in Parliament for the word vulgus cannot be applyed to the Lords Yet let that also be given them the Oath binds him to protect and corroborate only just Lawes not all which they shall say are just for it is evident whether Elegerit be taken in the preter perfect tense or in the future tense that by justas leges consuetudines it is implied that he is not bound to protect and corroborate all Laws and Customes but only those which are just whereof he himself assisted by his Justices and Council at Law who ought to inform him were he wanteth information is to be the Judge To conclude let the word Elegerit and all the other words signifie what they please it is not much important to their cause for the said Latin Form was never used to be taken In the time of Henry the third the Kings Oath contained only these three things Bracton l. 3. Cap. 9. 1. Se esse praecepturum pro viribus opem impensurum ut Ecclesiae Dei omni populo Christiano vera pax omni suo tempore observetur 2. Ut rapacitates omnes iniquitates omnibus gradibus interdicat 3. Vt in omnibus judiciis aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam In later times the English Form above mentioned without any alteration importing their sense hath been used to be taken many ages together Now if they could shew which I believe they cannot that divers Kings have taken the Latin Form they speak of yet that is not sufficient to prove a Custome seeing the practise was formerly and is at the present otherwise Object 3 Thirdly some infer that the King hath not a power of dissenting from the usual answer which he giveth when he refuseth to passe a Bill Le Roy s'adviserâ wherein they say he doth not peremptorily deny his assent but only craveth time to deliberate upon it Reply To what purpose should he crave time to deliberate about that which cannot be avoided there is no consultation to be used de necessariis Yet he may answer otherwise if he please a Judge Jenkins Fol. 32. Roy ne veult or b Hollinsh vol. 1. Fol. 108. il ne plaist are usuall forms as well as that Object 4 Fourthly they alledge Presidents The Militia and the chief Officers of the Kingdome they say have been disposed of in Parliament Reply If I should give a particular Answer to all their Presidents I should weary the Reader with such impertinencies sometimes they alledge a seditious speech of some of the Members for an Act of Parliament sometimes they say such or such a thing was done by Act of Parliament and and cite an Authour in the margin whereas no such thing is to be found in the said Authour Sometimes they urge a President wherein the Houses denied to give the King such subsidies and assistance as he required to his wars because the said wars were undertaken without their assent and conclude from thence that the power of making war and treating with forain states belong to the two Houses when the reason of their deniall was the miscarriages of the war and the mis-imployment of former subsidies not that they challenged the power of making war or treating with forrain states to pertain unto them They thought it would have been more