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
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
upon the Statute of Glocester made in the sixt year of Edward the first extant amongst the printed Statutes and following immediately after the said Statute in these words After by the King and his Justices certain expositions were made upon some of the articles above mentioned that is to wit to the first article for entries by disseisin damages shall run from the time of the Statute published In the same wise in writs of entre upon disseisin in all writs of Mortdauncester Cousenage Aiel or Befaiel of intrusion by one act by any manner of writ damages shall run after the writ purchased against them that held by Statute albeit their ancestors died seised thereof c. Here we see to whom the interpretation of the law belongeth the Judges by themselves have a power to interpret it judicialiter they could not otherwise proceed to judgement but being called by the King with him and under him they have a power to interpret it authoritative as hath been the practice and is the known law of the Land But for the two houses besides that they can do nothing joyntly together unless the King doth actually concurre with them their structure is such that they are altogether uncapable and unfit to interpret law For the power that interprets law must be always existent to act as new occasions shall arise which requires the exercise of that power which the two houses are not And yet were they alwayes existent both houses having a negative voyce upon any disagreement between them the interpretation of the law must be retarded and all controversies depending thereupon undecided and this disagreement might perhaps endure for ever and so a final determination in such suites would be impossible Now these are inconveniences which ought not to be admitted in any common-wealth for it derogates both from the honour and wisdome of a Nation to be so moulded and framed that justice cannot have a free passage in all contingencies I will yet adde for the further clearing of this point that not only the legislative power it self but the very exercise of the power also so far as it is essential to government is in the King alone for he can by edicts and proclamations provide for all necessary occasions and special emergencies not provided for by fixed and certain laws which is one of the most excellent and eminent acts of the legislative power and a sufficient remedy against all mischiefs in case the two houses should refuse to concur with him in those things which concern the benefit of the Kingdome He may also grant immunities liberties and priviledges to any colledge town city or incorporation and authorise the said communities to make such local Statutes as shall oblige every member thereof so far as they contradict not the general Statutes of the Land which are all acts of the legislative power that he can exercise without the concurrence of the two houses Now concerning the Kings negative voice 12. H. 7.10 4. H. 7.18 7. H. 14. Judge Jenkins fol. 18. it is the known law that the King hath a power of dissenting and that no act of Parliament can have any authority except either in person or under his seal he signifies his assent Thirdly allegeance or ligeancy is due to the King and none but the King by the Common law as Sir Edward Coke sheweth at large in Calvins case from the resolution of the Judges By that which hath been said appeareth saith he that this ligeance is due onely to the King so as therein the question is not now cui sed quomodo debetur It is true that the King hath two capacities in him one a natural body being discended of the blood Royal of the realm and this body is of the creation of almighty God and is subject to death infirmity and such like The other is a politick body or capacity so called because it is framed by the policy of man and in the 21. E. 4.39 B. is called a mystical body and in this capacity the King is esteemed to be immortal invisible not subject to death infirmity infancy nonage c. Vide Pl. Com. in le Case de Seigmor Barclay 238. Et in the case del duchie 213. vide 6. E. 3.291 26. ass pl. 54. Now seeing the King hath but one person and several capacities and one politick capacity for the realm of England and another for the realm of Scotland it is necessary to be considered to which capacity ligeance is due and it was resolved that it was due to the natural person of the King which is ever accompanied with the politick capacity and the politick capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity and is not due to the politick capacity onely that is to the crown or Kingdome distinct from his natural capacity In the same case a little after it followeth And where divers books and Acts of Parliament speak of the ligeance of England as the 31. E. 3. tit Cosinage 5.42 E. 3.2.13 E. 3. tit Bre. 677.25 E. 3. Statut. 2. De natisultra mare All these and divers other spenking briefly in a vulgar manner for loquendum ut vulgus and not pleading for sentiendum ut docti are to be understood of the ligeance due by the people to the King For no man will affirm that England it self taking it for the continent thereof doth owe any ligeance or faith or that any ligeance of faith should be due to it but it manifestly appeareth that the ligeance or faith of the subject is proprium quarto modo to the King omni soli semper Fourthly the power of making Judges and all such State officers as exercise any jurisdiction is in the King alone by the Common law and can not nor ought not to be separated from him for it is not reasonable that delegate Judges should be substituted by any but those whose delegates they are nor can a King execute justice according to his oath which next the Glory of God is the chief end of Government by a naked title onely His subjects may be vexed by the rapine and exactions of unjust Judges they may be wearied by delayes exhausted by insupportable fees opprest many several ways and the King in the mean time must stand still and look on if his hands be bound and he disabled from punishing their delinquencies deputing others into their places And therefore this power cannot be disunited from the crown but ought to be de jure as it hath alwayes been de facto a part of the Kings prerogative Bracton lib. 3. tit de actionibus cap. 10. Et si ipse Dominus Rex ad singulas causas terminandas non sufficiat ut levior sit illi labor in plures personas partito onere eligere debet de regno suo viros sapientes timentes Deum in quibus sit veritas eloquiorum qui ederunt avaritiam quae inducit cupiditatem ex illis constituere Justiciarios
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
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
Vicecomites alios Ballivos Ministros suos quibus referantur tam quaestiones super dubiis quam querimoniae super injuriis i. e. And if our Lord the King be not sufficient to determine all controversies himself he ought to select wise men fearing God and hating coveteousness and out of them constitute Justices Sheriffs Bailies and other officers to whom controversies and complaints may be referred The practice of the law hath alwayes been the same since Bracton's time and all Judges and chief officers appointed by writ patent or commission from the King Hence it is that all patents and commission of Judges and other such officers are determined by the common law at the Kings death Coke tit discontinue de proces c. part 7.30 Al common ley per demise le Roy le plea fuit discontinue le proces que fuit agard nient returne devant le mort le Roy fuit perde Car per le breve del predecessor rien poit estre execute in le temps del novel Roy si non que il soit in especial cases car le mort le Roy non solement les justices de lū Bank de laūt Barons del exchequer mes les viconts auxi eschetors touts commissions de Oyer Terminer Goale delivery justices de peace sont determine per le mort le predecessor qui eux fist i. e. By the Common law all pleas were discontinued by the death of the King and process awarded and not returned before his death was lost for by the writ of the predecessour nothing can be executed in the time of the new King except it be in some special causes for by the death of the King not onely the justices of both the benches and the Barons of the exchequer but Sheriffs also and Escheatours and all commissions of Oyer and Terminer Goal delivery and Justices of peace are determined by the death of the predecessor that made them Fifthly the power of making leagues and contracting alliance as also of making war with foraign States is in the King alone Coke lib. 7.25 Leagues between our Soveraign and others are the means to make aliens friends foedera percutere to make leagues onely and wholly pertaineth to the King wars do make aliens enemies and bellum indicere belongeth onely and wholly to the King and not to the subject as appearath in 19. E. 4. fol. 6.6 It hath been resolved by the Judges 19. E. 4.46.22 E. 4. Fitz. jurisdiction last placite Judge Jenkins fol. 17. that if all the people of England collectively taken should break the league made with a forraign Prince without the Kings consent the league holds and is not broken There are yet other rights of Majesty as the power of Coynage the power of granting letters patents of Denization the power of dispensing with such laws as are dispensable and the power of pardoning the transgression of them with divers others all which belong to the King by the Common law but because they are not called in question I will pass them over CHAP. VI. The Kings Supremacy both in general and particular shewed by reasons depending upon the laws and customes of the Land ALthough I esteem positive Laws and customes more demonstrative then deductions and inferences yet these have also their weight and importance I will therefore in the last place add such reasons as shall sufficiently confirm the Kings Supremacy although the laws had positively declared or the Judges resolved nothing concerning it First that power which is so under controul that it can be annihilated at the will of another must needs be inferiour to that power which doth so overrule and master it Now such is the condition of Parliaments that the King by law can annihilate them at his pleasure for they depend upon him quoad existentiam for their existence and continuance If it should be granted that Parliaments are in actu signato by original constitution yet the precise time of their existence and continuance hath alwayes been at the Kings appointment it being in his power to call them and dissolve them when he please so that they must needs be subordinate to him and depend upon him for their operation when they depend upon him for their existence Answer To this the reverent Divines answer for the convention of Parliaments the State hath authority in some eases to meet together in Parliament without a legal warrant from the King as if the King be a prisoner in the enemies hands or distracted and have done it de facto in the infancy and minority of some Kings and for the dissolution of Parliaments they say that they have heard wise men affirm that by law a Parliament can not be dissolved whilst there are any petitions of grievances or such matters of importance depending and unfinished Reply What needed the reverent Divines to have cited these wise men Could they not as easily have said themselves that Parliaments could not be dissolved by the Kings command as they said they might be called without it Perhaps they thought that such notorious falsities would never pass currently amongst the people if they were not confirmed by the authority of wise men as well as by their owne yet I beleeve the wise men they speak of were not so wise as Thales Milesius but whatsoever they were their magisteriall dictates must not passe for law for both that which these wise men affirm and that which they affirm themselves is manifestly opposit to law and truth There was never yet since the first foundation of the Monarchie a Parliament called without a legall warrant from the King nor can a Parliament be called without it for the cases put by them are altogether impertinent and can not be supposed the King according to his politique capacity can not be a prisoner or an infant or distracted but in case his condition be such as make him uncapable to guide and manage his charge in person as in case of infancy or distraction the law hath made sufficient provision who shall exercise the regall power in such occurrencies if he be prisoner in the enemies hands he may substitute others or if he be so closely kept as that can not be permitted in such events also the law is not deficient but in all these cases nothing can be acted by authority inherent in the people but by the Kings authority which can never be in prison nor is it subject to infancy or distraction and Parliaments called at such time by those that have authority by law to exercise the Royall power are called by a legall warrant from the King and without such a legall warrant they never were nor can be called It there have been any generall Conventions without it as the reverent Divines who should have done well to have quoted their authors and their words assure us their acts were never esteemed lawes nor such Conventions Parliaments And that the King
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
own confession In the first year of Queen Elizabeth another Act was made wherein she is declared supream head of the Realm in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal and an Oath injoyned to be taken by divers both Ecclesiastical and Lay persons wherein they were to acknowledge her supremacy and to promise faith and true Allegiance the Oath was this I A. B. do utterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queens Highnesse is the only supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other her Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no forraign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all forrain jurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the Queens Highnesse her Heirs and lawful successors and to my power shall assist and defend all jnrisdictions priviledges preheminences and authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness her Heirs and Successors or united annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm so help me God and the Contents of this Book Answer 1 They answer first That this Statute was made to exclude a forraign power and therefore all that can be collected out of it is that the Queen was above all forraigners but not above the People and their Deputies in Parliament Reply It is no matter wherefore the Statute was made the Queen is there positively declared to be the only supreme Governour of the Realm the words of a Statute whatsoever the end was are alwayes supposed to be true and are pleadable in their usual and Gramatical sense to all purposes But was the Oath framed onely to exclude a forraign power are they sure of that When God shall make inquisition for blood and call the Reverend Divines the fuller Answerer the Treatiser and the rest of their Complices to account for all the murders oppressions and injustice whereof they have been the Authors and Abettors by stirring up the people to Rebellion and teaching them lies they will be found to have broken the oath of Allegiance now his Majesties rights have been invaded by the pretended Parliament as well as if they had been invaded by a forreigner For the Statute was made as well to declare who was the Supream Governour of the Realm as to declare who was not The Pope challenged no Superiority over the Queen in Temporal matters and yet in the Oath the Queen is acknowledged the supreme Governour of the Realm as well in Temporal as in Ecclesiastical causes This had been very superfluous if it had been composed and given only to exclude the Pope and was neither true nor a fit expression if the two Houses had been coordinate with her neither had they sufficiently excluded a forraign power by this Act which they say was the only end was aimed at for the Pope claimed supreme jurisdiction over all in Ecclesiastical causes as well over the two houses as over the Queen yet in this act provision is made for none but the Queen by the title of the Statute all ancient jurisdictions are restored to the Crown but there is no restantation of dignity or jurisdiction to the people or to their substitutes in Parliament Answer 2 Secondly they answer That the Queen is declared to be supreme in respect of particular persons but not in respect of the people collectively taken or their Substitutes in Parliament Reply The Queen is declared in the oath to be supreme Governour of the Realm and the Realm includes the People collectively taken Besides supremacy cannot admit of that distinction for they that have any above them or coordinate with them are not supreme although they be greater then any one in particular Answer 3 Thirdly they answer That the Queens supremacy was to be understood in curia non in camera in her Courts and not in her private capacity Reply The Queen by communicating her authority to her courts did not part with it her self Mr. Lambert in his Discourse upon the high Courts of Justice almost at the end of his Book speaks punctually to this exception Thus have I saith he run along our Courts of all kinds and have said as I was able severally of these lay and mixed Courts of record deriving them from the Crown their Original and drawing by one and one as it were so many roses from the garland of the Prince leaving nevertheless the garland it self un-despoiled of that her soveraign vertue in the administration of justice or as Bracton saith well Rex habet ordinariam jurisdictionem omnia jura in manu sua quae nec ita delegari possunt quin ordinaria remaneant cum ipsc Rege And therefore whatsoever power is by him committed over unto other men the same nevertheless remaineth still in himself in so much as he may take knowledge of all causes unless they be felony treason or such other wherein because he is a party he cannot personally sit in judgment but must perform it by his delegates The Kings authority then is as well in his person in regard of his private as in his Courts in regard of his politique capacity and according to the Acts of Soveraignty and Majesty onely in his person for a delegate power can not be Supreme not but that it is the same authority whereby he acts himself in person and his judges in his courts but because it is not all the same authority but restrained in his Judges by commission writ or law In the first year of Edward the sixt an Act was made wherein the King is acknowledged to be the Supreme head of the Church and Realm and that all power and authority was derived from him Whereas the Archbishops and Bishops and other Spiritual persons in this Realm do use to make and send out their summons 1 E. 6. cap. 2. citations and other processe in their own names in such form and manner as was used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome contrary to the form and order of the summons and process of the common law used in this Realm 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 and so justly acknowledged by the cleargy of the said Realms and that all courts Ecclesiastical within the said two Realms be kept by no other power or authority either forraine or within the Realm but by the authority of his most excellent Majesty Be it therefore further enacted c. Is it not evident from hence that the two houses of Parliament are subordinate to the King and that they have their power by derivation from him who is the fountain of all authority These
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
categorically they may take an accompt what is done by his Majesty in his inseriour courts yet they would have the people think them to have such a power and therefore they lay it down as a supposition which they seem to take for granted although they know it to be false If they were a full and legal Parliament they might indeed take an accompt what is done in his Courts by subordinate Officers but not what is done by his Majesty who as King can do no wrong His authority is from God and if injustice be committed in his Courts his Kingly authority is not the cause thereof but the corruption of his judges who abuse it and his Majesty may take an accompt of them either privately or in his Parliament but is not himself accountable for their abuses For although the judgement of his courts may and is termed in law the judgement of the King yet that is to be understood of the act it self which cannot be effected without his influence and concurrence K. H. 7.4 not of the obliquity and deviation from justice which is in it Nor is he yet accomptable to any but God for his perfonal actions by the lawes of the land he cannot be obnoxious to any guilt had he committed treason or any other crime before he was King by taking the Crown upon him all attainder of his person is purged ipso facto Enough hath been said already to prove both the Houses and the Members thereof as well collectively as severally taken to be his inferiour delegate and subordinate ministers that derive their authority from him and in case of grievance are to sue unto him by petition which is all the help the law giveth in such exigencies for they are so far from having any jurisdiction over him in matters of misdemeanour that they cannot take knowledge of those cases wherein Majesty without disparagement may submit it self to a legal triall as in controversies of right or of title to land c. except he be pleased to have the businesse decided in that Court. In Haedlows case before mentioned it is resolved by all the Justices that controversies which concetn the King cannot be determined in Parliament 22. E. 3.6 and it is there added above what hath been cited that Kings may not be judged by others then themselves and their justices unques Roys ne serra adjuge si non per eux mesmes lour justic And this is true as it was resolved by Scrope in the Bishop of Winchesters case not only in respect of others but in respect of the Members of Parliament themselves for although they are to be tryed by their own respective houses in things which concern the Parliament if the fact touch not the King yet if it touch the King and the case be prosecuted by him they cannot then take cognisance of it except he thinks it expedient who hath power if he please to try it in any of his other Courts Fitz. tit coron p. 3. E. 3. p. 161. Ceux queux sount judges in Parliament sount judges de lour Pieres mes le Roy naver Piere in sa terre demesne per que il ne doit per eux estre judge ne ailours faire son suite vers cestui qui luy trespassa quam la ou luy pleist i. e. They which are judged in Parliament are judged of their Peers that is the Lords by the House of Lords and the Commons by the House of Commons bur the King can have no Peer in in his own Land and therefore he ought not to be judged by them nor to make his processe against him that offends but where he please himself Object 3 Last of all they charge the King for atttibuting too much power and authority to himself And it is preached to the People in the Kings Declarations that by the Supremacy is meant a power inherent in the Kings person without above against all his Courts the Parliament not exceped whereby the excellent Lawes are turned into an Arbitrary Government It is no wonder if the Members of the Pretended House were more inclined to hear what their own seditious Divines preached in Saint Margarets then what the King preached in his Declarations yet I believe it had been better for them if they had entertained his Majesties Person and Declarations with more respect and duty However for the present may seem to have ruined him and his people too yet they which have mounted to places of dignity and profit upon the dead bodies of the King and People may find in the end that Rebellion and Murder sit not so high but that vengeance and divine Justice sit above them As for the charge which they bring against his Majesty it is partly false his Majesty never used such expressions as they pin upon him where doth he say that he hath a personal power above and against the Parliament let any man produce the words out of which he can force such a sense Their Charge is also partly vain and frivolous for whereas they accuse him for saying his Supremacy was inherent in his Person they might as well accuse him for saying he was King Supremacy is an essential attribute of Majesty and cannot be seperated without the corruption of its Subject to say the Kings Supremacy is in his Courts and not in his person is not only to contradict the Lawes but the Common principles of reason This hath been demonstrated in divers places yet because occasion is offered again I will hear adde the resolution of all the Judges made in the first year of Henry the seventh concerning this matter for a Parliament being then called and both the King himself and divers of the Members being attainted of high Treason it was resolved by the Judges that the Attainder of the Members ought to be adnulled before they could sit in the house but touching the King it was resolved that his attainder was adnulled upon his admittance to the crown because the King is personable that is because his Kingly authority was inherent in his Person by reason whereof he was discharged of all guilt against the Laws 1. H. 7.4 Et donques fuit move un question que serra dit pur le Roy mesme pur ceo que il fuit atteint puis communication ew entor eux touts accordront que le Roy fuit Personable discharge de ascune atteind eo facto qil prist sur luy le Reigne ee Roy. i. e. And then a Question was moved what shall be said of the King himself for he was also attainted and after communication had amongst them all agreed that the King was Personable and discharged from all attainder in the very act that he took the Kingdome upon him and became King Nor is the other part of their charge lesse frivolous and vain wherein they accuse his Majesty as if he had committed a great crime in saying his Supremacy was a power inherent
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