Barons made an Ordinance touching the Exemption of the Abby of Bury from the Bishops of Norwich In the tenth year of the Conquerour Episcopi Comites Barones regni regia potestate ad universalem Synodum pro causis audiendis tractandis convocati saith the Book of Westminster In the 2 year of William 2. there was a Parliament de cunctis regni Principibus another which had quosque regni proceres All the Peers of the Kingdom In the seventh year was a Parliament at Rockingham-Castle in Northampton-shire Episcopis Abbatibus cunctique regni Principibus una coeuntibus A year or two after the same King de statu regni acturus c. called thither by the Command of his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Kingdom At the Coronation of Hen. 1. All the People of the Kingdom of England were called and Laws were then made but it was Per Commune Concilium Baronum meorum by the Common Councel of my Barons In his third year the Peers of the Kingdom were called without any mention of the Commons and another a while after consensu Comitum Baronum by the consent of Earls and Barons Florentius Wigoriensis saith these are Statutes which Anselme and all the other Bishops in the Presence of King Henry by the assent of his Barons ordained and in his tenth year of Earls and Peers and in his 23. of Earls and Barons In the year following the same King held a Parliament or great Councel with His Barons Spiritual and Temporal King Hen. 2. in his tenth year had a great Councel or Parliament at Clarendon which was an Assembly of Prelates and Peers 22. Hen. 2. saith Hovenden was a great Councel at Nottingham and by the Common Councel of the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons the Kingdom was divided into six parts And again Hovendeâ—… saith that the same King at Windsor apud Windâ—… shores Communi Concilio of Bishops Earls and Barons divided England into four Parts And in hiâ—… 21 year a Parliament at Windsor of Bishops Earlâ—… and Barons And another of like Persons at Northampton King Richard 1. had a Parliament at Nottingham in his fifth year of Bishops Earls and Barons Thiâ—… Parliament lasted but four days yet much was donâ—… in it the first day the King disseiseth Gerard de Canvil of the Sherifwick of Lincoln and Hugh Bardolâ—… of the Castle and Sherifwick of York The second day he required judgment against his Brother Iohn who was afterwards King and Hugh de Novaâ—… Bishop of Coventry The third day was granted to thâ—… King of every Plow-land in England 2 s. He required also the third part of the Service of every Knights Fâ—… for his Attendance into Normandy and all the Wooâ—… that year of the Monks Cisteaux which for that 〈◊〉 was grievous and unsupportable they fine for Moâ—…ny The last day was for Hearing of Grievancesâ—… and so the Parliament brake up And the same yeaâ—… held another at Northampton of the Nobles of thâ—… Realm King Iohn in his fifth year He and his Great mâ—…met Rex Magnates convenerunt and thâ—… Roll of that year hath Commune Concilium Bâ—…ronum Meorum the Common Councel of my Baronâ—… at Winchester In the sixth year of King Henry 3. the Nobleâ—… granted to the King of every Knights Fee two Markâ—… in Silver In the seventh year he had a Parliament at London an Assembly of Barons In his thirteenth year an Assembly of the Lords at Westminster In his fifteenth year of Nobles both Spiritual and Temporal M. Par. saith that 20. H. 3. Congregati sunt Magnates ad colloquium de negotiis regni tractaturi the Great men were called to confer and treat of the Business of the Kingdom And at Merton Our Lord the King granted by the Consent of his Great men That hereafter Usury should not run against a Ward from the Death of his Ancestor 21. Hen. 3. The King sent his Royal Writs commanding all belonging to His Kingdom that is to say Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots and Priors installed Earls and Barons that they should all meet at London to treat of the Kings Business touching the whole Kingdom and at the day prefixed the whole multitude of the Nobles of the Kingdom met at London saith Mat. Westminster In his 21 year At the Request and by the Councel of the Lords the Charters were confirmed 22. Hen. 3. At Winchester the King sent his Royal Writs to Arch-bishops Bishops Priors Earls and Barons to treat of Business concerning the whole Kingdome 32. Hen. 3. The King commanded all the Nobility of the whole Kingdom to be called to treat of the State of His Kingdom Mat. Westm ' 49. Hen. 3. The King had a Treaty at Oxford with the Peers of the Kingdom M. Westminster At a Parliament at Marlborow 55. Hen. 3. Statutes were made by the Assent of Earls and Barons Here the Place of Bracton Chief Justice in thiâ—… Kings time is worth the observing and the ratheâ—… for that it is much insisted on of late to make foâ—… Parliaments being above the King The words iâ—… Bracton are The King hath a Superiour God also thâ—… Law by which he is made King also his Court viz the Earls and Barons The Court that was said iâ—… those days to be above the King was a Court of Earls and Barons not a Word of the Commons or thâ—… representative Body of the Kingdom being any paâ—… of the Superiour Court Now for the true Senâ—… of Bractons words how the Law and the Court 〈◊〉 Earls and Barons are the Kings Superiours theâ—… must of Necessity be understood to be Superiours 〈◊〉 far only as to advise and direct the King out of hiâ—… own Grace and Good Will only which appeaâ—… plainly by the Words of Bracton himself wherâ—… speaking of the King he resolves thus Nec potest 〈◊〉 necessitatem aliquis imponere quod injuriam suam corrigâ—… emendat cum superiorem non habeat nisi Deum 〈◊〉 satis ei erit ad poenam quod Dominum expectat ultoreâ—… Nor can any man put a necessity upon Him to correâ—… and amend his Injury unless he will himself sinâ—… he hath no Superiour but God it will be sufficieâ—… Punishment for him to expect the Lord an avengeâ—… Here the same man who speaking according to somâ—…mens Opinion saith the Law and Court of Earls aâ—… Barons are superiour to the King in this place telâ—… us himself the King hath no Superiour but God thâ—… Difference is easily reconciled according to the Dâ—…stinction of the School-men the King is free from tâ—… Coactive Power of Laws or Councellors but may be suâ—…ject to their Directive Power according to his owâ—… Will that is God can only compell but thâ—… Law and his Courts may advise Him Rot. Parliament 1 Hen. 4. nu 79. the Commons expresly affirm Iudgment in Parliament belongs to the King and Lords These Precedents shew that from the Conquest untill a great
the King at His Parliament of his special Grace and for Affection which he beareth to his Prelates Earls and Barons and others hath granted that they that have Liberties by Prescription shall enjoy them In the Stat. de finibus Levatis the Kings Words are We intending to provide Remedy in our Parliament have ordained c. 28. Edw. 1. c. 5. The King Wills that the Chancellor and the Iustices of the Bench shall follow Him so that he may have at all times some neer unto him thaâ—… be learned in the Laws and in Chap. 24. the words are Our Lord the King after full Conference and Debate had with his Earls Barons Nobles and other Great men by their whole Consent hath ordained c. The Stat. de Tallagio if any such Statute there be speaks in the Kings Person No Officer of Ours No Tallage shall be taken by Us We Will and Grant 1. Edw. 2. begins thus Our Lord the King Willeth and Commandeth The Stat. of 9. the same King saith Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and other great States hath Ordained 10. Edw. 2. It is provided by our Lord the King and his Iustices The Stat. of Carlile saith We have sent our Command in writing firmly to be observed 1. Edw. 3. begins thus King Edw. 3. at his Parliament at the request of the Commonalty by their Petition before him and his Councel in Parliament hath granted c. and in the 5th Chap. The King willeth that no man be charged to arm himself otherwise than he was wont 5. Edw. 3. Our Lord the King at the Request of his People hath established these things which He Wills to be kept 9. Of the same King there is this Title Our Lord the King by the Assent c. and by the Advice of his Councel being there hath ordained c. In his 10 year it is said Because Our Lord King Edw. 3. hath received by the Complaint of the Prelates Earls Barons also at the shewing of the Knights of the Shires and his Commons by their Petition put in his Parliament c. Hath ordained by the Assent c. at the Request of the said Knights and Commons c. The same year in another Parliament you may find these be the Articles accorded by Our Lord the King with the Assent c. at the Request of the Knights of the Shires and the Commons by their Petition â—…ut in the said Parliament In the year-Book 22 Edw. 3. 3. pl. 25. It is said The King makes the Laws by the Assent of the Peers and Commons and not the Peers and Commons The Stat. of 1. Ric. 2. hath this Beginning Richâ—…d the 2. by the Assent of the Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons and at the Instance and special Request of â—… Commons Ordained There being a Statute made 5 Ric. 2. c. 5. against Lollards in the next year the Commons Petition Him Supplient les Commons que come un estatute fuit fait c. The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented to nor Granted by the Commons but that which was done therein was done without their Assent In this Petition the Commons acknowledge it a Statute and so call it though they assented not to it 17 Ric. 2. nu 44. The Commons desire some pursuing to make a Law which they conceive hurtful to the Commonwealth That His Majesty will not pass it As for the Parliaments in Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Edw. 4. and Ric. 3. Reigns the most of them do agree in this one Title Our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of His Lords and at the special Instance and Request of the Commons Hath ordained The Precedents in this Point are so numerous that it were endless to cite them The Statutes in Hen. 7. days do for the most part agree both in the Titles and Bodies of the Acts in these words Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons iâ—… Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same hath ordained Unto this Kings time we find the Commons very often petitioning but not petitioned unto The first Petition made to the Commons that I meet with among the Statutes is but in the middle of this King Hen 7. Reign which was so well approved that the Petition it self is turned into â—… Statute It begins thus To the Right Worshipfuâ—… Commons in this present Parliament assembled Sheweth to your discreet Wisdoms the Wardens of the Fellowship of the Craft of Upholsters within London c. This Petition though it be directed to the Commons in the Title yet the Prayer of the Petition is turned to the King and not to the Commons for it concludes therefore it may please the Kings Highness by the Advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and his Commons in Parliament c. Next for the Statutes of Hen. 8. they do most part agree both in their Titles and the Bodies of the Acts with those of his Father King Hen. 7. Lastly In the Statutes of Edw. 6. Qu. Mary Q. Elizabeth K. Iames and of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is there is no Mention made in their Titles of any Assent of Lords and Commons or of any Ordaining by the King but only in general terms it is said Acts made in Parliament or thus At the Parliament were Enacted yet in the Bodies of many of these Acts of these last Princes there is sometimes Mention made of Consent of Lords and Commons in these or the like words It is Enacted by the King with the Assent of the Lords and Commons Except only in the Statutes of our Lord King Charles wherein there is no Mention that I can find of any Consent of the Lords and Commons or Ordaining by the King But the words are Be it Enacted by Authority of Parliament or else Be it Enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons as if they were all Fellow-Commissioners Thus it appears that even till the time of K. Ed. 6. who lived but in our Fathers dayes it was punctually expressed in every King's Laws that the Statutes Ordinances were made by the King And withal we may see by what degrees the Styles and Titles oâ—… Acts of Parliament have been varied and to whose Disadvantage The higher we look the more absolute we find the Power of Kings in Ordaininâ—… Laws nor do we meet with at first so much as thâ—… Assent or Advice of the Lords mentioned Nay 〈◊〉 we cast our eye upon many Statutes of those that bâ—… of most Antiquity they will appear as if they weâ—… no Laws at all but as if they had been made only to teach us that the Punishments of many Offencâ—… were left to the meere pleasure of Kings The punitive part of the Law which gives all the Vigoâ—… and Binding Power to the Law we find committed by the
Succinct Examination of the Fundamentals of Monarchy both in this and other Kingdoms as well about the Right of Power in Kings as of the Original or Natural Liberty of the People A Question never yet Disputed though most necessary in these Times Lucan Lib. 3. LIBERTAS Populi quem Regna coercent Libertate Perit Neque enim Libertas gratior ulla est Quà m Domino servire bono Claudian LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE Jury-Men OF ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES Together with a Difference between An ENGLISH AND HEBREW Witch LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXIX The Argument A Presentment of divers Statutes Records and other Precedents explaining the Writs of Summons to Parliament shewing I. That the Commons by their Writ are onely to Perform and Consent to the Ordinances of Parliament II. That the Lords or Common Councel by their Writ are only to Treat and give Counsel in Parliament III. That the King Himself only Ordains and makes Laws and is Supreme Iudge in Parliament With the Suffrages of Hen. de Bracton Jo. Britton Tho. Egerton Edw. Coke Walter Raleigh Rob. Cotton Hen. Spelman Jo. Glanvil Will. Lambard Rich. Crompton Will. Cambden and Jo. Selden THE Free-holders GRAND-INQUEST Touching Our Sovereign Lord the King and His Parliament EVery Free-holder that hath a Voice in the Election of Knights Citizens or Burgesses for the Parliament ought to know with what Power he trusts those whom the chooseth because such Trust is the Foundation of the Power of the House of Commons A Writ from the King to the Sheriff of the County is that which gives Authority and Commission for the Free-holders to make their Election at the next County-Court-day after the Receipt of the Writ and in the Writ there is also expressed the Duty and Power of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses that are there elected The means to know what Trust or Authority the Country or Free-holders confer or bestow by their Election is in this as in other like Cases to have an eye to the words of the Commission oâ—… Writ it self thereby it may be seen whether that which the House of Commons doth act be within the Limit of their Commission greater or other Trust than is comprised in the Body of the Writ the Free-holders do not or cannot give if they obey the Writ the Writ being Latine and not extant in English few Free-holders understand it and fewer observe it I have rendred it in Latine and English Rex Vicecomiti salut ' c. QUia de Advisamento Assensu Concilii nostri prâ—… quibusdam arduis urgentibus Negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae Ecclesâ—… Anglicanae concernen ' quoddam Parliamentum nostruâ—… apud Civitatem nostram West duodecimo die Novembrâ—… prox futur ' teneri ordinavimus ibid. cum Praelatâ—… Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquiuâ—… habere tract Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentâ—… quod facta proclam in prox comitat ' tuo post receptioneâ—… hujus brevis nostri tenend ' die loco praedict duos miliâ—… gladiis cinct ' magis idoneos discretos comit ' praedictâ—… de qualib civitate com' illius duos Cives de quâ—…libet Burgo duos Burgenses de discretior ' magis suffcientibus libere indifferenter per illos qui proclam ' hâ—…jusmodi interfuerint juxta formam statutorum inde edâ—… provis ' eligi nomina eorundum milit ' civium â—… Burgensium sic electorum in quibusdam indentur ' intâ—…te illos qui hujusmodi election ' interfuerint inde confidend ' sive hujusmodi electi praesentes fuerint vel absentes inseri eósque ad dict' diem locum venire fac ' Ita quod iidem milites plenam sufficientem potestatem pro se communitate comit ' praedicti ac dict' Cives Burgenses pro se communitat ' Civitatum Burgorum praedictorum divisim ab ipsis habeant ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibid ' de communi Consilio dicti reg nostri favente Deo contigerint ordinari super negotiis ante dictis Ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi seu propter improvidam electionem milit ' civium aut Burgensium praedictorum dicta negotia infecta non remaneant quovismodo Nolumus autem quod tu nec aliquis alius vic' dicti reg nostri aliqualiter sit electus Et electionem illam in pleno comitatu factam distincte aperte sub sigillo tuo sigillis eorum qui electioni illi interfuerint nobis in cancellar ' nostram ad dict' diem locum certifices indilate remittens nobis alteram partem indenturarum praedictarum praesentibus consut ' una cum hoc breve Teste meipso apud Westmon The King to the Sheriff of Greeting WHereas by the Advice and Consent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the State and Defence of our Kingdom of England and the English Church We have ordained a certain Parliament of ours to be held at Our City of the day of next ensuing and there to have Conference and to treat with the Prelates Great men and Peers of our said Kingdom We command and straitly enjoyn you that making Proclamation at the next County-Court after the Receipt of this our Writ to be holden the day and place aforesaid You cause two Knights girt with Swords the most fit and discreet of the County aforesaid and of every City of that County two Citizens of every Borough two Burgesses of the discreeter and most sufficient to be freely and indifferently chosen by them who shall be present at such Proclamation according to the Tenor of the Statutes in that case made and provided and the Names of the said Knights Citizens and Burgesses so chosen to be inserted in certain Indentures to be then made between you and those that shall be present at such Election whether the Parties so elected be present or absent and shall make them to come at the said day and Place so that the said Knights for themselves and for the County aforesaid and the said Citizens and Burgesses for themselves and the Commonalty of the aforesaid Cities and Boroughs may have severally from them full and sufficient Power to Perform and to Consent to those things which then by the Favour of God shall there happen to be ordained by the Common-Councel of our said Kingdom concerning the Businesses aforesaid So that the Business may not by any means remain undone for want of such Power or by reason of the improvident Election of the aforesaid Knights Citizens and Burgesses But We will not in any case you or any other Sheriff of Our said Kingdom shall be elected And at the Day and Place aforesaid the said Election made in the full County-Court you shall certifie without Delay to Us in our Chancery under your Seal and the Seals of them which shall be present
be Kings in Fact and Kings themselves to be but Subjects We read in Sir Roâ—…ert Cotton that towards the end of the Saxons and â—…he first times of the Norman Kings Parliaments stood 〈◊〉 Custom-grace fixed to Easter Whitsontide and Christmas and that at the Kings Court or Palace Parliaments sate in the Presence or Privy Chamber from whence he infers an Improbability to believe the King excluded His own Presence and unmannerly fâ—… Guests to bar Him their Company who gave them theâ—… Entertainment And although now a-days the Parliament sit not in the Court where the Kings housholâ—… remains yet still even to this day to shew that Parliaments are the Kings Guests the Lord Steward oâ—… the Kings Houshold keeps a standing Table to entertain the Peers during the sitting of Parliament and he alone or some from or under him as the Treasurer or Comptroller of the Kings Houshold takeâ—… the Oaths of the Members of the House of Commoâ—… the first day of the Parliament Sir Richard Sâ—…roop Steward of the Houshold of our Sovereign Lord the King by the Commandment of the Lords sitting in full Parliament iâ—… the Great Chamber put I. Lord Gomeniz and William Weston to answer severally to Accusations broughâ—… against them The Necessity of the King's Presence in Parliamenâ—… appears by the Desire of Parliaments themselves iâ—…former times and the Practice of it Sir Robert Cottoâ—… proves by several Precedents whence he concludeâ—… that in the Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King wâ—… not only present to advise but to determine also Whensoever the King is present all Power of judging which is derived from His ceaseth The Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the finaâ—… Judgment is only the Kings Indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of theiâ—… Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of Use by which means it is comâ—… to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late been left to the Judgment of the Peers who in Quality of Judges extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in His absence to determine such matters as are properly brought before the King Himself sitting in Person attended with His great Councel of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the Kings Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from the Confirmation of Him who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Judge All Judgement is by or under Him it cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton that ancient Chief Justice in Hen. 3. time An ancient Precedent I meet with cited by Master Selden of a judicial Proceeding in a Criminal Cause of the Barons before the Conquest wherein I observe the Kings Will was that the Lords should be Judges â—…n the Cause wherein Himself was a Party and He â—…atified their Proceeding The case was thus Earl Godwin having had a Trial before the Lords under King Hardicanute touching the Death of Alfred Son to King Ethelbert and Brother to him who was afterward Edward the Confessor had fled out of England and upon his Return with Hope of Edward the Confessor's Favour he solicited the Lords â—…o intercede for him with the King who consulting together brought Godwin with them before the King to obtain his Grace and Favour But the King â—…resently as soon as he beheld him said Thou Traytor Godwin I do appeal thee of the Death of my Brother Alfred whom thou hast most trayterously slain Then Godwin excusing it answered My Lord the King may it please your Grace I neither betrayed nor killed your Brother whereof I put my self upon the Iudgment of your Court Then the King said You noble Lords Earls and Barons of the Land who are my Liege men now gathered here together and have heard My Appeal and Godwins Answer I Will that in this Appeal between Us ye decree right Iudgment and do true Iustice. The Earls and Barons treating of this among themselves were of differing Judgments some said that Godwin was never bound to the King either by Homage Service or Fealty and therefore could not be his Traytor and that he had not slain Alfred with his own hands others said that neither Earl nor Baron nor any other Subject of the King could wage his War by Law against the King in his Appeal but most wholly put himself into the Kings Mercy and offer competent Amends Then Leofric Consul of Chester a good man before God and the World said Earl Godwin next to the King is a man of the best Parentage of all England and he cannot deny but that by his Counsel Alfred the Kings Brother was slain therefore for my part I consider that He and his Son and all we twelve Earls who are his Friends and Kinsmen do go humbly before the King laden with so much Gold and Silver as each of us can carry in our Arms offering him That for his Offence and humbly praying for Pardon And he will pardon the Earl and taking his Homage and Fealty will restore him all his Lands All they in this form lading themselves with Treasure and coming to the King did shew the Manner and Order of their Consideration to which The King not willing to contradict did ratifie all that they had judged 23 Hen. 2. In Lent there was an Assembly of all the Spiritual and Temporal Barons at Westminster for the determination of that great Contention between Alfonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre touching divers Castles and Territories in Spain which was by compromise submitted to the Judgment of the King of England And the King consulting with his Bishops Earls and Barons determined it as he saith Himself in the first Person in the Exemplification of the Judgement 2 Of King Iohn also that great Controversie touching the Barony that William of Moubray claimed against William of Stutvil which had depended from the time of King Hen. 2. was ended by the Councel of the Kingdom and Will of the King Concilio regni voluntate Regis The Lords in Parliament adjudge William de Weston to Death for surrendring Barwick Castle but for that Our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Judgment the Constable of the Tower Allen Buxall was commanded safely to keep the said William untill he hath other Commandment from our Lord the King 4 Ric. 2. Also the Lords adjudged Iohn Lord of Gomentz for surrendring the Towns and Castles of Ardee and for that he was a Gentleman and Bannaret and had served the late King he should be beheaded and for that our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Iudgment the Execution thereof
of the Dutchy were sent by the House to the Lord Keeper in the name of the whole House to require his Lordship to revoke two Writs of Subpoena's which were served upon M. Th. Knevit a Member of the House since the Beginning of Parliament The Lord Keeper demanded of them whether they were appointed by any advised Consideration of the House to deliver this Message unto him with the word Required in such manner as they had done or no they answered his Lordship yea his Lordship then said as he thought reverently and honourably of the House and of their Liberties and Privileges of the same so to revoke the said Subpoena's in that sort was to restrain Her Majesty in Her greatest Power which is Iustice in the Place wherein he serveth under Her and therefore he concluded as they had required him to revoke his Writ so he did require to deliberate Upon the 22 of February being Wednesday 18 Eliz. Report was made by Mr. Attorney of the Dutchy upon the Committee for the delivering of one Mr. Hall's man that the Committee found no Precedent for setting at large by the Mace any Person in Arrest but only by Writ and that by divers Precedents of Records perused by the said Committee it appeareth that every Knight Citizen or Burgess which doth require Privilege hath used in that case to take a Corporal Oath before the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper that the party for whom such Writ is prayed Came up with him and was his Servant at the time of the Arrest made Thereupon M. Hall was moved by the House to repair to the Lord Keeper and make Oath and then take a Warrant for a Writ of Privilege for his Servant It is accounted by some to be a Privilege of Parliament to have power to Examine Misdemeanours of Courts of Justice and Officers of State yet there is not the meanest Subjest but hath liberty upon just cause to question the misdemeanour of any Court or Officer if he suffer by them there is no Law against him for so doing so that this cannot properly be called a Privilege because it is not against any publick Law It hath been esteemed a great Favour of Princes to permit such Examinations For when the Lords were displeased with the Greatness of Pierce Gaveston it is said that in the next Parliament the whole Assembly obtain of the King to draw Articles of their Grievances which they did Two of which Articles were First that all Strangers should be banished the Court and Kingdom oâ—… which Gaveston was one Secondly that the business of the State should be treated of by the Councel of the Clergy and Nobles In the Reign of King Henry the sixth one Mortimer an Instrument of the Duke of York by promising the Kentish men a Reformation and freedom from Taxations wrought with the people that they drew to a Head and made this Mortimer otherwise Iack Cade their Leader who styled himself Captain Mend-all He presents to the Parliament the Complaints of the Commons and he petitions that the Duke of York and some other Lords might be received by the King into favour by the undue Practices of Suffolk and his Complices commanded from his Presence and that all their Opposites might be banished the Court and put from their Offices and that there might be a general amotion of corrupt Officers These Petitions are sent from the Lower House to the Upper and from thence committed to the Lords of the Kings Privy Councel who having examined the particulars explode them as frivolous and the Authors of them to be presumptuous Rebels Concerning Liberty or freedom of Speech I find that at a Parliament at Black Friars in the 14 of Henry the Eighth Sir Tho. More being chosen Speaker of the House of Commons He first disabled himself and then petitioned the King that if in Communication and Reasoning any man in the Commons House should speak more largely than of duty they ought to do that all such Offences should be pardoned and to be entred of Record which was granted It is observable in this Petition that liberty or freedom of Speech is not a power for men to speak what they will or please in Parliament but a Privilege not to be punished but pardoned for the offence of speaking more largely than in duty ought to be which in an equitable construction must be understood of rash unadvised ignorant or negligent Escapes and Slips in Speech and not for wilful malicious Offences in that kind And then the Pardon of the King was desired to be upon Record that it might be pleaded in Bar to all Actions And it seemeth that Ric. Strood and his Complices were not thought sufficiently protected for their free Speech in Parliament unless their Pardon were confirmed by the King in Parliament for there is a printed Statute to that purpose in H. 8 ths time Touching the freedom of Speech the Commons were warned in Q. Eliz. dayes not to meddle with the Queens Person the State or Church-government In her time the Discipline of the Church was so strict that the Litany was read every morning in the House of Commons during the Parliament and when the Commons first ordered to have a Fast in the Temple upon a Sunday the Queen hindred it 21 Ian. Saturday 23 Eliz. the Case is thus reported Mr. Paul Wentworth moveth for a Publick set Fast and for a Preaching every morning at 7 of the clock before the House sate the House was divided about the Fast 115 were for it and an 100 against it it was ordered that as many of the House as conveniently could should on Sunday fortnight after Assemble and meet together in the Temple-Church there to hear Preaching and to joyn together in Prayer with Humiliation and Fasting for the Assistance of God's Spirit in all their Consultations during this Parliament and for the Preservation of the Queens Majesty and Her Realms And the Preachers to be appointed by the Privy Councel that were of the House that they may be Discreet not medling with Innovation or Unquietness This Order was followed by a Message from Her Majesty to the House declared by Mr. Vice-chamberlain that Her Highness had a great Admiration of the rashness of this House in committing such an apparent Contempt of her express Command as to put in execution such an Innovation without Her privity or pleasure first known Thereupon Mr. Vice-chamberlain moved the House to make humble submission to Her Majesty acknowledging the said Offence and Contempt craving a Remission of the same with a full purpose to forbear the Committing of the like hereafter and by the Consent of the whole House Mr. Vice-chamberlain carried their Submission to her Majesty 35 Eliz. Mr. Peter Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley delivered a Petition to the Lord Keeper desiring the Lords of the upper House to be Suppliants with them of the lower House unto her Majesty for entailing the Succession of the Crown Whereof a Bill
and the Law of Nations so other-whiles they make them also contrary one to the other By the Law of Nature all men are born free Iure naturali omnes liberi nascuntur But Servitude is by the Law of Nations Iure Gentium Servitus invasit saith Ulpian And the Civil Law not only makes the Law of Nature and of Nations contrary but also will have the Law of Nations contrary to it self War saith the Law was brought in by the Law of Nations Ex jure gentium introducta bella and yet the Law of Nations saith Since Nature hath made us all of one Kindred it follows it is not lawful for one man to lye in Wait for another Cùm inter nos cognitionem quandam natura constituit consequens est hominem homini insidiari nefas esse saith Florentinus Again the Civil Law teacheth that from the Law of Nature proceeds the Conjunction of man and women the Procreation and Education of Children But as for Religion to God and Obedience to Parents it makes it to be by the Law of Nations To touch now the Canon Law we may find in one place that men are governed either by the Law of Nature or by Customs Homines reguntur Naturali jure aut moribus The Law of Nations they call a Divine Law the Customs a humane Law Leges aut divinae sunt aut humanae divinae naturâ humanae moribus constant But in the next place the Canon Law makes Ius to be either Naturale aut Civile aut Gentium Though this Division agree in Terms with that of Ulpian in the Civil Law yet in the Explication of the Terms there is Diversity for what one Law makes to belong to the Law of Nature the other refers to the Law of Nations as may easily appear to him that will take the Pains to compare the Civil and Canon Law in these Points A principal Ground of these Diversities and Contrarieties of Divisions was an Error which the Heathens taught that all things at first were common and that all men were equal This Mistake was not so heinous in those Ethnick Authors of the Civil Laws who wanting the Guide of the History of Moses were fain to follow Poets and Fables for their Leaders But for Christians who have read the Scriptures to dream either of a Community of all things or an Equality of all Persons is a Fault scarce pardonable To salve these apparent Contrarieties of Community and Property or Equality and Subjection the Law of Ius Gentium was first invented when that could not satisfie to mend the matter this Ius Gentium was divided into a Natural Law of Nations and an Humane Law of Nations and the Law of Nature into a Primary and a Secondary Law of Nature Distinctions which make a great sound but edifie not at all if they come under Examination If there hath been a time when all things were common and all men equal and that it be otherwise now we must needs conclude that the Law by which all things were common and men equal was contrary to the Law by which now things are proper and men subject If we will allow Adam to have been Lord of the World and of his Children there will need no such Distinctions of the Law of Nature and of Nations For the Truth will be that whatsoever the Heathens comprehended under these two Laws is comprised in the Moral Law That the Law of Nature is one and the same with the Moral may appear by a Definition given by Grotius The Law of Nature saith he is the Dictate of Reason shewing that in every Action by the agreeing or disagreeing of it with natural Reason there is a moral Honesty or Dishonesty and consequently that such an Action is commanded or forbidden by God the Author of Nature I cannot tell how Grotius would otherwise have defined the Moral Law And the Canon Law grants as much teaching that the Law of Nature is contained in the Law and the Gospel Whatsoever ye will that men do c. Mat. 7. The Term of Ius Naturae is not originally to be found in Scripture for though T. Aquinas takes upon him to prove out of the 2. to the Romans that there is a Ius Naturae yet St. Paul doth not use those express Terms his words are The Gentiles which have not the Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves He doth not say Nature is a Law unto them but they are a Law unto themselves As for that which they call the Law of Nations it is not a Law distinct much less opposite to the Law of Nature but it is a small Branch or Parcel of that great Law for it is nothing but the Law of Nature or the moral Law between Nations The same Commandment that forbids one Private man to rob another or one Corporation to hurt another Corporation obliges also one King not to rob another King and one Commonwealth not to spoil another the same Law that enjoyns Charity to all men even to Enemies binds Princes and States to shew Charity to one another as well as private Persons And as the Common or Civil Laws of each Kingdom which are made against Treason Theft Murder Adultery or the like are all and every one of them grounded upon some particular Commandment of the moral Law so all the Laws of Nations must be subordinate and reducible to the moral Law The Law of Nature or the moral Law is like the main Ocean which though it be one entire Body yet several Parts of it have distinct Names according to the diversity of the Coasts on which they border So it comes to pass that the Law of Nations which is but a part of the Law of Nature may be sub-divided almost in infinitum according to the Variety of the Persons or Matters about which it is conversant The Law of Nature or the divine Law is general and doth only comprehend some Principles of Morality notoriously known of themselves or at the most is extended to those things which by necessary and evident Inference are consequent to those Principles Besides these many other things are necessary to the well-governing of a Common-wealth and therefore it was necessary that by Humane Reason something more in particular should be determined concerning those things which could not be defined by Natural Reason alone hence it is that Humane Laws be necessary as Comments upon the Text of the Moral Law and of this Judgment is Aquinas who teacheth that necessitas legis humanae manat ex eo quod Lex naturalis vel Divina generalis est solum complectitur quaedam principia morum per se nota ad summum extenditur ad ea quae necessaria evidenti elatione ex illis principiis consequuntur praeter illa verò multa alia sunt necessaria in republica ad ejus rectam Gubernationem ideo necessarium fuit ut
give and take away Kingdomes and thereby to adopt Subjects into the obedience of another fatherly power according to that of Arist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government Ethic. l. 8. c. 12. However the natural freedome of the people be cried up as the sole means to determine the kind Government and the Governours yet in the close all the favourers of this opinion are constrained to grant that the obedience which is due to the fatherly power is the true and only cause of the subjection which we that are now living give to Kings since none of us gave consent to government but only our Fore-fathers act and consent hath concluded us Whereas many confess that Government only in the abstract is the ordinance of God they are not able to prove any such ordinance in the Scripture but only in the fatherly power and therefore we find the Commandment that enjoyns obedience to superiours given in the terms of Honour thy Father so that not onely the power or right of government but the form of the power of governing and the person having that power are all the ordinance of God the first Father had not only simply power but power Monarchical as he was a Father immediately from God For by the appointment of God as soon as Adam was created he was Monarch of the World though he had no subjects for though there could not be actual government until there were Subjects yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be Governour of his posterity though not in act yet at least in habit Adam was a King from his Creation And in the state of innocency he had been Governour of his Children for the integrity or excellency of the subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the Governour Eve was subject to Adam before he sinned the Angels who are of a pure nature are subject to God which confutes their saying who in disgrace of civil Government or power say it was brought in by sin Government as to coactive power was after sin because coaction supposeth some disorder which was not in the state of innocency But as for directive power the condition of humane nature requires it since civil society cannot be imagined without power of Government for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done yet things indifferent that depended meerly on their free will might be directed by the power of Adams command If we consider the first plantations of the world which were after the building of Babel when the confusion of tongues was we may find the division of the earth into distinct Kingdomes and Countries by several families whereof the Sons or Grand-children of Noah were the Kings or Governours by a fatherly right and for the preservation of this power and right in the Fathers God was pleased upon several Families to bestow a Language on each by it self the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom as appears by the words of the Text Gen. 10. These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their generations in their Nations and by these were the Nations divided in the earth after the floud Every one after HIS TONGUE AFTER THEIR FAMILIES in their Nations The Kings of England have been gratiously pleased to admit and accept the Commons in Parliament as the representees of the Kingdom yet really and truly they are not the representative body of the whole Kingdom The commons in Parliament are not the representative body of the whole Kingdom they do not represent the King who is the head and principal member of the Kingdom nor do they represent the Lords who are the nobler and higher part of the body of the Realm and are personally present in Parliament and therefore need no representation The Commons onely represent a part of the lower 〈◊〉 inferior part of the body of the People which are the Free-holders worth 40 s. by the year and the Commons or Free-men of Cities and Burroughs or the major part of them All which are not one quarter nay not a tenth part of the Commons of the Kingdom for in every Parish for one Free-holder there may be found ten that are no Free-holders and anciently before Rents were improved there were nothing neer so many Free-holders of 40 s. by the year as now are to be found The scope and Conclusion of this discourse and Argument is That the people taken in what notion or sense soever either diffusively collectively or representatively have not nor cannot exercise any right or power of their own by nature either in chusing or in regulating Kings But whatsoever power any people doth lawfully exercise it must receive it from a supream power on earth and practice it with such limitations as that superior power shall appoint To return to our Author He divides Monarchy into Absolute Limited Absolute Monarchy saith he is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no limits or bounds under God but his own will This definition of his I embrace And as before I charged our Author for not giving us a definition of Monarchy in general so I now note him for not affording us any definition of any other particular â—…nd of Monarchy but onely of absolute it may peradventure make some doubt that there is no other sort but only that which he calls absolute Concerning absolute Monarchy he grants that such were the antient Eastern Monarchies and that of the Turk and Persian at this day Herein he saith very true And we must remember him though he do not mention them that the Monarchs of Iudah and Israel must be comprehended under the number of those he calls the Eastern Monarchies and truly if he had said that all the antient Monarchies of the world had been absolute I should not have quarreld at him â—…or do I know who could have disproved him Next it follows that Absolute Monarchy is when 〈◊〉 people are absolutely resigned up or resign up themselves to be governed by the will of One man Where men put themselves into this utmost degree of subjection by oath and contract or are born and brought unto it by Gods providence In both these places he acknowledgeth there may be other means of obtaining a Monarchy besides the contract of a Nation or peoples resigning up themselves to be governed which is contrary to what he after saies that the sole mean or root of all Soveraignty is the consent and fundamental contract of a Nation of men Moreover the Author determines that Absolute Monarchy is a lawful government and that men may be born and brought unto it by Gods providence it binds them and they must abide it because an oath to a lawful thing is obligatory This Position of his I approve but his Reason doth not satisfie for
please to give him and such laws to govern by as they shall make choice of can he shew that ever any Monarch was so gracious or kind-hearted as to lay down his lawful power freely at his Subjects feet is it not sufficient grace if such an absolute Monarch be content to set down a Law to himself by which he will ordinarily govern but he must needs relinquish his old independent commission and take a new one from his Subjects clog'd with limitations Finally I observe that howsoever our Author speak big of the radical fundamental and original power of the people as the root of all Soveraignty yet in a better moode he will take up and be contented with a Monarchy limited by an after-condescent and act of grace from the Monarch himself Thus I have briefly touched his grounds of Limited Monarchy if now we shall ask what proof or examples he hath to justifie his doctrine he is as mute as a fish onely Pythagoras hath said it and we must believe him for though our Author would have Monarchy to be limited yet he could be content his opinion should be absolute and not limited to any rule or example The main Charge I have against our Author now remains to be discussed and it is this That instead of a Treatise of Monarchy he hath brought forth a Treatise of Anarchy and that by his own confessions shall be made good First he holds A limited Monarch transcends his bounds if he commands beyond the law and the Subject legally is not bound to subjection in such cases Now if you ask the Author who shall be judge whether the Monarch transcend his bounds and of the excesses of the soveraign power His answer is There is an impossibility of constituting a judge to determine this last controversie I conceive in a limited legal Monarchy there can be no stated internal Iudge of the Monarchs actions if there grow a fundamental â—…riance betwixt him and the community There can be no Iudge legal and constituted within that form of government In these answers it appears there is no Judge to determine the Soveraigns or the Monarchs transgressing his fundamental limits yet our Author is very cautelous and supposeth onely a fundamental variance betwixt the Monarch and the Community he is ashamed to put the question home I demand of him if there be a variance betwixt the Monarch and any of the meanest persons of the Community who shall be the Judge for instance The King commands me or gives judgement against me I reply His commands are illegal and his judgment not according to Law who must judge if the Monarch himself judge then you destroy the frame of the State and make it absolute saith our Author and he gives his reason for to define a Monarch to a Law and then to make him judge of his own deviations from that Law is to absolve him from all Law On the other side if any or all the people may judge then you put the Soveraignty in the whole body or part of it and destroy the being of Monarchy Thus our Author hath caught himself in a plain dilemma If the King be judge then he is no limited Monarch If the people be judge then he is no Monarch at all So farewell limited Monarchy nay farewell all government if there be no Judge Would you know what help our Author hath found out for this mischief First he saith that a Subject is bound to yield to a Magistrate when he cannot de jure challenge obedience if it be in a thing in which he can possibly without subversion and in which his act may not be made a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publick liberty Again he saith If the act in which the exorbitance or transgression of the Monarch is supposed to be bâ—… of lesser moment and not striking at the very being of that Government it ought to be born by publick patience rather than to endanger the being of the State The like words he uses in another place saying If the will of the Monarch exceed the limits of the law it ought to bâ—… submitted to so it be not contrary to Gods Law nor bring with it such an evil to our selves or the publick that we cannot be accessary to it by obeying These are but fig-leaves to cover the nakedness of our Authors limited Monarch formed upon weak supposals in cases of lesser moment For if the Monarch be to govern onely according to Law no transgression of his can be of so small moment if he break the bounds of Law but it is a subversion of the government it self and may be made a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publick liberty it strikes at the very being of the Government and brings with it such an evil as the party that suffers or the publick cannot be accessory to let the case be never so small yet if there be illegality in the act it strikes â—…t the very being of limited Monarchy which is to be legal unless our Author will say as in effect he doth That his limited Monarch must govern according to Law in great and publick matters onely and that in smaller matters which concern private men or poor persons he may rule according to his own will Secondly our Author tells us if the Monarchs act of exorbitancy or transgression be mortal and such as suffered dissolves the frame of Government and publick liberty then the illegality is to be sâ—…t open and redresment sought by petition which if failing prevention by resistance ought to be and if it be apparent and appeal be made to the consciences of mankind then the fundamental Laws of that Monarchy must judge and pronounce the sentence in every mans conscience and every man so far as concerns him must follow the evidence of Truth in his own soul to oppose or not to oppose according as he can in conscience acquit or condemn the act of the governour or Monarch Whereas my Author requires that the destructive nature of illegal commands should be set open Surely his mind is That each private man in his particular case should make a publick remonstrance to the world of the illegal act of the Monarch and then if upon his Petition he cannot be relieved according to his desire he ought or it is his duty to make resistance Here I would know who can be the judge whether the illegality be made apparent it is a main point since every man is prone to flatter himself in his own cause and to think it good and that the wrong or injustice he suffers is apparent when other moderate and indifferent men can discover no such thing and in this case the judgement of the common people cannot be gathered or known by any possible means or if it could it were like to be various and erronious Yet our Author will have an appeal made to the conscience of all Man-kind and
he may enjoy this it seems our Author is not confident in this neither and some others do deny it him our Author speaking of the government of this Kingdome saith The choice of the Officers is intrusted to the judgment of the Monarch for ought I know he is not resolute in the point but for ought he knows and for ought I know his Monarch is but titular an empty title certain of no power at all The power of chusing Officers onely is the basest of all powers Aristotle as I remember saith The common people are fit for nothing but to chuse Officers and to take accompts and indeed in all popular governments the multitude perform this work and this work in a King puts him below all his Subjects and makes him the onely subject in a Kingdome or the onely man that cannot Govern there is not the poorest man of the multitude but is capable of some Office or other and by that means may sometime or other perhaps govern according to the Laws onely the King can be no Officer but to chuse Officers his Subjects may all Govern but he may not Next I cannot see how in true sence our Author can say his Monarch is the head and fountain of power since his doctrine is that in a limited Monarchy the publick society by original constitution confer on one man power is not then the publick society the head and fountain of power and not the King Again when he tells us of his Monarch that both the other States as well conjunctim as divisim be his sworn subjects and owe obedience to his commands he doth but flout his poor Monarch for why are they called his Subjects and his Commons he without any complement is their Subject for they as Officers may govern and command according to Law but he may not for he must judge by his judges in Courts of Justice onely that is he may not judge or govern at all 2. As for the second particular The sole or chief power in capacitating persons for the Supream power And 3. As to this third particular The power of convocating such persons they are both so far from making a Monarch that they are the onely way to make him none by choosing and calling others to share in the Supream power 4. Lastly concerning his Authority being the last and greatest in the establishing every Act it makes him no Monarch except he be sole that hath that Authority neither his primity of share in the Supream power nor his Authority being last no nor his having the greatest Authority doth make him a Monarch unless he have that Authority alone Besides how can he shew that in his mixed Monarchy the Monarchs power is the greatest The greatest share that our Author allows him in the Legislative power is a Negative voice and the like is allowed to the Nobility and Commons And truely a Negative voice is but a base term to express a Legislative power a Negative voice is but a privative power or indeed no power at all to do any thing onely a power to hinder an Act from being done Wherefore I conclude not any of his four nor all of them put into one person makes the State Monarchical This mixed Monarchy just like the limited ends in confusion and destruction of all Government you shall hear the Authors confession That one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments which I shewed to be in limited Governments there can be no constituted legal Authoritative Iudge of the Fundamental Controversies arising between the three Estates If such do rise it is the fatal disease of those Governments for which no salve can be applyed It is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government of this question there is no legal judge The accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience The appeal must be to the community as if there were no Government and as by evidence Consciences are convinced they are bound to give their assistance The wit of man cannot say more for Anarchy Thus have I picked out the flowers out of his Doctrine about limited Monarchy and presented them with some brief Annotations it were a tedious work to collect all the learned contradictions and ambiguous expressions that occur in every page of his Platonick Monarchy the Book hath so much of fancy that it is a better piece of Poetry then Policy Because many may think that the main Doctrine of limited and mixed Monarchy may in it self be most authentical and grounded upon strong and evident reason although our Author perhaps have failed in some of his expressions and be liable to exceptions Therefore I will be bold to enquire whether Aristotle could find either reason or example of a limited or mixed Monarchy and the rather because I find our Author altogether insists upon a rational way of justifying his opinion No man I think will deny but that Aristotle was sufficiently curious in searching out the several forms of Common-wealths and Kingdoms yet I do not find that he ever so much as dreamed of either a limited or mixed Monarchy Several other sorts of Monarchies he reckons up in the Third Book of his Politicks he spends three whole Chapters together upon the several kinds of Monarchy First in his fourteenth Chapter he mentions four kinds of Monarchy The Laconique or Lacedemonian The Barbarique The Aesymnetical The Heroique The Laconique or Lacedemonian King saith he had onely Supream power when he was out of the bounds of the Lacedemonian Territories then he had absolute power his Kingdom was like to a perpetual Lord General of an Army The Barbarique King saith Aristotle had a power very near to Tyranny yet they were lawful and Paternal because the Barbarians are of a more servile nature than the Grecians and the Asiatiques than the Europeans they do willingly without repining live under a Masterly Government yet their Government is stable and safe because they are Paternal and lawful Kingdoms and their Guards are Royal and not Tyrannical for Kings are guarded by their own Subjects and Tyrants are guarded by Strangers The Aesymnetical King saith Arist. in old time in Greece was an Elective Tyrant and differed onely from the Barbarian Kings in that he was Elective and not Paternal these sorts of Kings because they were Tyrannical were Masterly but because they were over such as voluntarily Elected them they were Regal The Heroique were those saith Aristotle which flourished in the Heroical times to whom the people did willingly obey and they were Paternal and lawful because these Kings did deserve well of the multitude either by teaching them Arts or by Warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands amongst them these Kings had Supreme power in War in Sacrifices in Iudicature These four sorts of Monarchy hath Aristotle thus distinguished and after sums them up together and concludes his Chapter as if he had
I read that the Senators who are all chosen out of the Nobility and seldom exceed the number of 28 with the chief of the Realm do chuse their King They have always in a manner set the Kings eldest Son upon the Royal Throne The Nobility of Denmarke withstood the Coronation of Frederick 1559 till he sware not to put any Noble-man to death until he were judged of the Senate and that all Noble-men should have power of life and death over their Subjects without appeal and the King to give no Office without consent of the Councel There is a Chancelour of the Realm before whom they do appeal from all the Provinces and Islands and from him to the King himself I hear of nothing in this Kingdom that tends to Popularity no Assembly of the Commons no elections or representation of them Sweden is governed by a King heretofore elective but now made hereditary in Gustavus time it is divided into Provinces an appeal lieth from the Vicount of every territory to a Soveraign Judge called a Lamen from the Lamens to the Kings Councel and from this Councel to the King himself Now let the Observator bethink himself whether all or any of these three Countries have found out any art at all whereby the people or community may assume its own power if neither of these Kingdomes have most Countries have not nay none have The people or Community in these three Realms are as absolute vassals as any in the world the regulating power if any be is in the Nobility Nor is it such in the Nobility as it makes shew for The election of Kings is rather a Formality than any real power for they dare hardly chuse any but the Heir or one of the blood Royal if they should chuse one among the Nobility it would prove very factious if a stranger odious neither safe For the Government though the Kings be sworn to raign according to the Laws and are not to do any thing without the consent of their Councel in publick affairs yet in regard they have power both to advance and reward whom they please the Nobility and Senators do comply with their Kings And Boterus concludes of the Kings of Poland who seem to be most moderated that such as is their valour dexterity and wisdome such is their Power Authority and Government Also Bodin saith that these three Kingdoms are States changable and uncertain as the Nobility is stronger than the Prince or the Prince than the Nobility and the people are so far from liberty that he saith Divers particular Lords exact not onely Customs but Tributes also which are confirmed and grow stronger both by long prescription of time and use of Iudgments The End AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE JURY-MEN of ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES ADVERTISEMENT To the JURY-MEN OF ENGLAND THE late Executon of Witches at the Summer Assises in Kent occasioned this brief Exercitation which addresses it self to such as have not deliberately thought upon the great difficulty in discovering what or who a Witch is To have nothing but the publick Faith of the present Age is none of the best Evidence unless the universality of elder times do concur with these Doctrines which ignorance in the times of darkness brought forth and credulity in these days of light hath continued Such as shall not be pleased with this Tractate are left to their liberty to consider whether all those Proofs and Presumptions number'd up by Mr. Perkins for the Conviction of a Witch be not all Condemned or confessed by himself to be unsufficient or uncertain He brings no less than eighteen signs or proofs whereby a Witch may be discovered which are too many to be all true his seven first he himself confesseth to be insufficient for Conviction of a Witch His eight next proofs which he saith men in place have used he acknowledgeth to be false or insufficient Thus of his Eighteen proofs which made a great shew fifteen of them are cast off by himself there remains then his sixteenth which is the Confession of a Witch yet presently he is forced to yield That a bare Confession is not a sufficient proof and so he cometh to his seventeenth proof which is two credible witnesses and he here grants that the League between the Devil and the Witch is closely made and the practices of Witches be very secret that hardly a man can be brought which upon his own knowledge can aver such things Therefore at last when all other proofs fail he is forced to fly to his eighteenth proof and tells us that yet there is a way to come to the knowledge of a Witch which is that Satan useth all means to discover a Witch which how it can be well done except the Devil be bound over to give in evidence against the Witch cannot be understood And as Mr. Perkins weakens and discredits all his own proofs so he doth the like for all those of King James who as I remember hath but Three Arguments for the discovery of a Witch First the secret Mark of a Witch of which Mr. Perkins saith it hath no power by Gods Ordinance Secondly The discovery by a fellow Witch this Mr. Perkins by no means will allow to be a good proof Thirdly the swimming of a Witch who is to be flung cross ways into the water that is as Wierus interprets it when the Thumb of the right Hand is bound to the great Toe of the left Foot and the Thumb of the left Hand to the great Toe of the right Foot Against this Tryal by water together with a disability in a Witch to shed Tears which King James mentions Delrio and Mr. Perkins both argue for it seems they both write after King James who put forth his Book of Daemonologie in his youth being in Scotland about his age of thirty years It concerns the people of this Nation to be more diligently instructed in the Doctrine of Witch-craft than those of Forraign Countries because here they are tyed to a stricter or exacter Rule in giving their sentence than others are for all of them must agree in their Verdict which in a case of extream difficulty is very dangerous and it is a sad thing for men to be reduced to that extremity that they must hazard their Consciences or their Lives A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN An English and Hebrew WITCH THE Point in Question is briefly this Whether such a Witch as is Condemned by the Laws and Statutes of this Land be one and the same with the Witch forbidden by the Law of Moses The Witch Condemned by our Statute-law is 1 Iacob Cap. 12. One that shall use practice or exercise any Invocation or Conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit or consult covenant with entertain or employ feed or reward any evil or wicked spirit to or for any intent or purpose or take up any dead man woman or child out of his her or their grave or any other place where the dead body resteth or the