and he shall find them managed much after the same rate Nor hath these differences onely divided these Monarchies where the Succession was never well settled at first but even those that have been better constituted and where one would belieev the Discent of the Crown had been sufficiently settled by a long Discent of Kings for many hundreds of years And of this Scotland hath been a famous Example where after the death of King Alexander III and his Grandaughter Margaret of Norway two or three several Competitors claimed a Right to succeed But omitting others it was agreed that it lay between John Baylliol and Robert Bruce Earl of Carick both of them drawing their Discent from David Earl of Huntingdon Great Uncle to the last King in whom they all agreed the Right to the Crown would have been had he survived Baylliol claimed as eldest Son to Dornagilla Grandaughter to Margaret the eldest Daughter of the said Earl David Robert Bruce claimed as eldest Son of Isabel the second Daughter of the said David So that if Baylliol alledged his Discent from the eldest Daughter Bruce was not behind-hand but pleaded though it was true he was descended but from the second Daughter yet he being a Grandson and a degree neerer ought to succeed whereas Baylliol was but great Grandson to Earl David And though Dornagilla Baylliol's Mother was in the same degree with himself yet he being a man ought to be preferred before a woman in the same Line and that if the Laws of Scotland would have given it to Dornagilla if it had been an ordinary Inheritance yet Discent of the Crown was not to be ruled by the Common Laws of other Inheritances In short this Dispute did so divide the Nobility into Factions and puzzle the Estates of the Kingdom that not being able to decide it they and all the Competitors agreed to refer the Controversie to Edward I. King of England one of the wisest and most powerful Princes of his time who upon long advice and debate with twelve of the learnedest men of both Kingdoms at last adjudged the Crown to Baylliol or as the Scotch Historians relate because he would do him Homage for it which Bruce being of a higher spirit refused Yet this did not put an end to this great Controversie for though Baylliol was thereupon admitted King yet falling out not long after with King Edward to whom he owed all his greatness and having the worst of it the Nobility and States of Scotland revived Bruce's Title and declared him King who after a long War with England enjoy'd the Crown quietly at last and left it to his Issue whose Posterity in our present King enjoy it to this day To this I shall adde one Example more from Portugal within these hundred years King Henry called the Cardinal dying without Issue there was a great Controversie who should succeed for he died suddenly just as the States of the Kingdom were assembled to settle the Succession for he declared himself unable to decide it So that he onely left by his Will twelve Governours of the Kingdom who should govern during the interregnum but that the Crown should descend to him that should appear to them to have the best Title Four eminent Competitors put in their claims 1. Antonio called the Bastard who nevertheless pretended that he was lawful Son to Don Lewis second Brother to Henry the last King So that he had no more to do but to prove himself Legitimate 2. Alexander Duke of Parma who claimed as Grandson to Mary eldest Daughter to Don Duarte youngest Brother to the last King Henry and Son to King Emanuel 3. The Duke of Braganza who claimed as Son to Katherine second Daughter of the said Don Duarte yet alledged his Title to be best because he was the next of the Bloud-Royal who was a Native of Portugal as the Heir of the Crown as he pretended ought to be by a Fundamental Law of that Kingdom yet it seems that Law was not then so well known or otherwise there was no reason why these Governors should not have admitted him King as soon as ever they met 4. Philip the second King of Spain who claimed as Son to Isabella Daughter of Emanuel King of Portugal and so a degree nearer than the rest to Henry the last King The States and Governours differing the States were dissolved and during their recess the Governours not agreeing among themselves the King of Spain raised an Army and entering Portugal seiz'd the City of Lisbon and consequently all the rest of the Kingdom submitted to him and so made himself King by force And yet we have seen in his Grandson's time the Estates of Portugal declare this Title void and the Crown setled in the Posterity of the Duke of Braganza who still enjoy it by vertue of this Fundamental Law And that this Fundamental Law could not be altered but by the consent of the Cortes or States appears by the late Alteration of this Constitution upon the Treaty of Marriage of the present Prince Regents Daughter with the Duke of Savoy And how much even Kings themselves have attributed to the Authority of their Estates appears by the League made between Philip the Long King of France and David King of Scots wherein this Condition was exprest That if there should happen any difference about the Succession in either of these Realms he of the two Kings which remained alive should not suffer any to place himself on the Throne but him who should have the Judgment of the Estates of his side and then he should with all his power oppose him who would after this contest for the Crown So that our Author without cause lays the fault upon the wilful ignorance of the People in not remembring or acknowledging the right Heir of the Crown when the ablest and wisest men of the Age they lived in could not by the meer Laws of Nature and Reason determine which was he And our Author should have done well to have set down some certain Rules how the People might be assured without a positive Law before made that they acknowledge the right Heir and not an Usurper to his prejudice CHAP. II. Observations on the Directions for Obedience in doubtful times and other places of his Patriarcha and other Treatises BUT since this Author rather than the disposal of a Crown shall fall to the decision of the People or States of the Kingdom will give an Usurper a good Right to it against all persons but him that hath the Right we will now examine how much of that is true which he lays down in his Directions for Obedience to Governours in doubtful times and how far men are bound in Conscience to obey an Usurper whilst he that hath Right is kept out by him First he takes it for granted that all those that so eagerly strive for an original Power to be in the People do with one accord acknowledge that originally the Supream Power was
Sons reign we find the Procurators of the Nobility and People of England declare in the Council of Lyons quod universitas Regni nunquam i.e. Patres nobilium vel ipsi never consented or would ever consent to the tribute unjustly extorted by the Court of Rome At which protestation his Holyness was so confounded that our Author tells us he never lift up his Eyes or had a word to reply And every Monarch hath as absolute a Propriety in his Kingdom as Noah had in the World as our Author supposes I know no reason why the King may not bequeath his Crown to which of his Sons he pleases no matter whether lawfully begot or not since Princes are above all Terms or positive Laws or he may divide it among them as Noah did the World to his three Sons So that upon these grounds the Testament of Henry VIII whereby he disinherited the Line of Scotland and that of Edward VI. whereby he excluded his Sisters from the Crown should have been valid but the Loyal Subjects of England beleived that neither of those Kings could disinherit the right Heir of the Crown by their Testaments alone but acknowledge them in the persons of Queen Mary and King James notwithstanding those pretended Wills I have been the larger upon this Subject that men that do not much consider nor are versed in these matters may see the absurd wicked consequences of this notion of an absolute Propriety and Dominion to be inseperable from Monarchy So that I doubt not but even those very men who love a smatch of arbitrary Government because it best suits with their tempers or interests cannot away with it unmixt when it comes to exert all its Prerogatives Thus some men think Musk and Ambergreece mixt whith other Ingredients makes an agreeable Perfume which if held to their noses in the Cod or whole Lump they are so far from thinking a good smell that they loath it I shall not affirm with Grotius That the Empire which is exercised by Kings doth not cease to be the Empire of the People For I suppose the People have passed over all their present interest in it to the Prince and his heirs and as long as that line lasts they have nothing to do with it and consequently cannot set up another Family over them and so on the other side the King hath no such absolute Property as that he can alter the succession otherwise than the fundamental laws of the Monarchy did first appoint which were made by consent of all the Estates and without which they cannot be altered nor is there any fear of a contradiction as the Author supposes That the Succession must either hinder the right of Alienation which is in the People or the alienation must destroy the right of succession which must attend upon elected Kings For we own no right of alienation in the People as long as there is a lawful Heir remaining and succeeding in his right to whom the Crown was first legally setled nor yet does therefore the succession diminish the right which the People had at first but that it may arise and take place again if the King should die without known heirs Having done with his observations upon Grotius Chap. VI. I am now come to his Anarchy of a limited or mixt Monarchy in which though I shall not undertake to maintain all which our Author if whom he writes against hath laid down in this treatise since many things in that it treats were written according to Irene's notions during the late Warrs yet I hope I may be able to shew that this Doctrine of a limited Monarchy is not but of Yesterâ—lay as our Author will have it But that all the learned men in the laws and constitutions of these Northern Kingdoms have held it to be no such damnable Doctrine but that the contrary would introduce â—ll Tyranny and Arbitrary Government among them which is at this day practiced in the Eastern parts of the world But it seems the Author allows 260. that there may be a mixt Government but not a mixt Monarchy because the word Monarchy is compounded of two Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one alone and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Govern or Rule and therefore Monarchy being the Government of one man alone cannot admit of any limitation or mixture But what if one should say that all this is nothing but wrangling about words since why may not he be called a Monarch who hath the Supreme though not the only Power in a Common-wealth if the custom of that Country allow it him though his Power be limited or mixt as well as for the Romanes to call their Monarch but Imperator or General or for the Florentines or Russians to call their Monarch great Duke Since it is not the names but the exercise of the power that creates the difference Nor is it any more a Bull or contradiction than to call that which I now write out of an Inkhorn though perhaps it is made either of Glass or Mettal So the first Monarch being absolute the Title of Monarch may now be by eustom well enough applyed to those that are not absolutely so but to pass by such Grammar niceties I shall endeavour to vindicate the writer of this Treatise of Monarchy whom the Author calls Mr. Hunton from giveing an Idea of a Government which is nothing but meer Anarchy and Fiction and that there hath been and yet is such a kind of Government as a limited Kingship which if the Author is so dogged as he will not allow it the name of a Monarchy we cannot help it let his Friends give it a more proper name if they please As for what he will prove out of that Authors words that every Monarch even his limited Monarch must have the Supreme Power of the state in himself so that his Power must no way be limitted by any power above his For then he were no Monarch but a subordinate Magistrate is true yet I do not see that the Author contradicts himself as the observatour will have him when he tells us in the same Page That in a moderate or limited Monarchy the supreme power must be restrained by some law according to which this power was given and by direction of which this power must act So that he will have his Supreme Power not limited and yet restrained Is not a restraint a limitation and if restrained how is it Supreme and if restrained by some law is not the Power of that law and of them that made it above his Supreme Power and if by the direction of such law only he must Govern where is the Legislative Power which is the cheif of supreme Powers when the law must rule and govern the Monarch and not the Monarch the law he hath then at best but a gubernative or executive Power and so proceeds to quote this Authors own words at large if his Authority transcends his bounds and if it command
Right ceased before that of the Legatees could begin So that it seems to me at present that the power of bequeathing either the persons of men or goods was but a consequence of an absolute Propriety in things which arises from Compact in a Common-wealth as I shall hereafter prove Therefore out of this State a Will cannot bind the persons of the Children or Servants so bequeathed And for this cause we find Abraham Gen. 24. v. 2 3. binding his Servant that ruled over his House with an Oath not to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land And Gen. 49. v. 29. Jacob taking an Oath of Joseph not to bury him in Egypt because they doubted whether they could oblige them to do it by their Testament But as for the Right of bequeathing Crowns or Kingdoms by Testament as I will not deny but that some Kingdoms may have been so bequeathable by their Constitution and others become so by Custom yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Monarch by the Law of God or Nature but proceeds purely from a continued Custom of the Kingdom or Civil Law thereof else why had not Henry VIII or Edward VI power to limit or bequeath the Crown to whom they pleased as well as William the Conquerour And to look into other Countries what now renders Women uncapable of succeeding to the Crown of France yet capable of inheriting that of England Spain and divers other Kingdoms of Europe but the Customs or particular Constitutions of the Estates of these Kingdoms which no Will or Testament can alter What else hinders the Grand Seignior that he cannot disinherit his eldest Son if he survive him Vid. Mezeray Abregé Chron. An. 1317. Phil. le Long. but the Custom of the Ottoman Empire And what is this Custom but as the Author himself acknowledges in the case of England the Commom Law of the Country Freeholders Inquest p. 62. which is said to be Common Custom Thus to protect the Customs which the Vulgar shall chuse is to protect the Common Laws of England So that it was the Will of the People and not the Prince alone that made this a Law for if this Law of the Succession of the Crown depended upon his Will then if he be an absolute Monarch that when sufficiently declared being the onely Law might alter it when he would 〈◊〉 and so he might bequeath the Crown to whom he pleased But every one that understands the present Laws of Descent of the Crown of France or the manner of Succession in the Ottoman Empire knows that i◠the King of France or Grand Seignior as absolute as they are should bequeath their Kingdoms to any other than the right Heir this Will would signifie nothing and no body would obey this Successor of their appointing And if any man think to evade this by saying That the Succession of the Crown is a Fundamental Law of the Government and that a Prince may be Absolute and yet not have a power to alter that as he may every thing else I would ask him who made this a Fundamental Law at first whether the King then in being or the King with the Consent of the People upon the first institution of the Government If the King made it alone since he is supposed to have made it at first for the good of the People of which he is the Judge and is supposed in Law never to die why then is not he as competent a Judge of what is good for the People now as a King that lived a thousand years agone was what was fit for the People then and consequently hath as much Right of altering the Succession for the Peoples benefit as he that established it at first since every Law may be altered by the same Power that made it But if he say it is a Fundamental Law because long custom hath made it so then it is apparent such a Law hath its force from the Consent of the People at first or since Custom being nothing else Or lastly if he will acknowledge that the Consent of the People was necessary to make this a Fundamental Constitution then it can neither be altered without their Consent and so consequently no Princes Testament is good as to that farther than the People or their Representatives give their assent thereunto And the same Law holds in the Father of a Family since this Author will have no difference between him and a King but onely secundum Magis Minus If then there be no Right in the state of Nature for a Father to bequeath his Dominion over his Children by his Testament let us return again to that of Descent and see if that will prove a better foundation to build this natural Right of Princes upon For my part I think that it is not onely impossible to know who was Adam's right Heir of his Fatherly Power now after five or six thousand years but might likewise be as uncertain as soon as ever the breath was out of his body For supposing Eve survived him why should not her natural Right of governing the Children which she her self brought forth and which out of Wedlock would have belonged to her revive and take place before any Right of her eldest Son to whom upon this ground she must have become subject if she would continue part of the Family or natural Commonwealth which she could not avoid there being none but her Children or Grandchildren in the world and it being against the nature of Government to allow two Absolute Heads in the same Family or Commonwealth So that for ought I see the Mother of the Family hath the best Right to the Government in the state of Nature after the Husbands death upon the Authors own grounds For if the Commandment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother signifie more than bare Reverence and Respect as appears by the Apostles Exposition of this Commandment Ephes 6. v. 1. Children obey your Parents in the Lord which he makes the same with Honour thy Father and thy Mother then this Obedience which was due to the Father belongs likewise to her when his power ceases But passing over this difficulty and allowing this Fatherly Authority to descend to Adam's next Heir it might have been a great Question who this next Heir was supposing Cain to have been disinherited for the murder of Abel and to have gone away and built a City and set up a Government by himself Yet let us suppose Abel left a Son behind him who survived Adam his Grandfather which he might very well do and yet the Scripture be silent in it since the intent of Moses in his Genealogies being onely to give us the Pedigree of the Jews and therefore says little of his other Children but by the by I would ask the Author or any man else who was Adam's Heir after his death whether this Son of Abel or Seth whom we will suppose likewise to
or Record the Prince in being hath onely a Right from Possession and can never create himself a Title by the continuation of his own Injustice or command any of his Subjects to fight against this true Heir since they are to obey this Vsurper p. 72. or his Heirs onely in such things as tend to their own preservation and not to the destruction of the true Governour By which Principle the Author at once renders the Titles of all the Crowns in Europe disputable and all Allegiance uncertain and questionable by their Subjects as I shall shew in several instances as I shall prove from Histories of unquestionable credit I shall begin with our own Country England If therefore as the Author will have it p. 69. the Usurper is onely then to be taken for the true Heir when the knowledge of the right Heir is lost by all the Subjects it will follow that all the Kings and Queens that reigned in England until the coming in of K. James were Usurpers for the Right of Succession to the Crown of England could not be obtained by Conquest alone And I suppose this Authour does not allow it to be bequeathable by Will as long as the right Heir was in being and could be known from authentick Histories and Traditions Now the Right of the Crown by Descent belonging after the death of Edward the Confessor to Edgar Atheling his Cousen he dying without Issue the Right fell to Mawd his Sister who married Malcolm III Buchanan de Rebus Scoticus lib. 7. King of Scotland and though her Daughter Mawd was married to Henry the first King of England from whom all our Kings are descended yet the Right was not in her but in Edgar King of Scotland her Brother from whom all the Kings of Scotland to King James were descended It is true the Kings of Scotland were too wise ever to set up this Title because they knew the Norman Race were quietly possessed of the Throne and had been admitted and confirmed for lawful Kings by many great Councils or Assemblies of the Clergy Nobility and People yet did not this absolve the People who might very well retain the traditional knowledge of this right Heir For divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away or barr'd by Prescription So that all Laws which were made to confirm the Crown either to Henry I. or any of his Descendants were absolutely void and unlawful by our Authors principles and so likewise all Wars made against the King of Scotland in person were absolutely sinful and unlawful since according to this Authors principle the command of an Usurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the destruction of the person of the true Governour So by the same Principle all Laws made in France about the Succession of the Crown are absolutely void and it would be a mortal sin in the French Nation to resist any King of England of this Line if he should make War in person upon the French King then in being since according to the ancient Laws of Descent in that Kingdom he is true Heir of the Crown of France Nor can the French here plead ignorance since there is scarce a Peasant there but knows our King stiles himself King of France and quarters the Arms of that Kingdom and so ought to understand the justness of his Title So likewise in Spain Mariana de Rebus Hisp lib. 13 cap. 7. all the Kings of Castile are likewise by this Rule Usurpers since the time of Sancho III who succeeded to the Crown after the death of Alphonso V his Father who had bequeathed it to Alphonso and Ferdinand de la Cerda his Grandsons by Ferdinand his eldest Son who died before him Yet notwithstanding this Testament and their Right as representing their Father the elder Brother Sancho their Uncle was admitted as King by the Estates of Castile and his Descendants hold that Kingdom by no better Right to this day Nor is this a thing stale or forgotten for the Dukes of Medina Coeli on whom by Marriage of the Heiress of the House de la Cerda the right descends do constantly put in their Claim upon the death of every King of Spain and the answer is The place is full Nor can those of this Author's opinion plead possession or the several Laws that have been made to confirm the Crown to the first Usurpers and their Descendants for it will be replied out of this Author p. 70. That the right Heir having the Fatherly Power in him and so having his Authority from God no inferiour Power can make any Law of Prescription against him and Nullum tempus ocurrit Regi And this were to make the Crown elective and disposable according to the Will of the Estates or People I shall now return to the Author's distinction and shew that his distinguishing the Laws or Commands of Usurpers into indifferent or not indifferent signifies nothing for suppose that an Usurper as several have been in England and other Kingdoms either dares not or thinks it not for his interest to alter the form of the Government but is contented for his own safety to govern upon the same Terms his Predecessors did and so will not raise any Money or make new Laws without the consent of the Estates whom he summons for that purpose Now they must either obey his Writs of Summons or they must not if they do not obey them he will perhaps be encouraged to take their Goods by force perhaps by a standing Army which he may have ready in pay and then say it is long of their own stubbornness who would not give it him freely when they might have done it and they shall likewise be without these good Laws the Author supposes he may make but if they meet he will not let them sit unless they first by some Oath or Recognition acknowledge his Title to be good and own him as their lawful Prince Now what shall they do in this case they must either lose their Liberties and alter the form of the Government or acknowledge him to the prejudice of their lawful Prince But if the Laws are once made and they appear evidently for the good of the Commonwealth they then are no longer indifferent since all private Interests are to give place to the publick Good of the Commonwealth since in the instance before given of the Father of a Family 's being driven out of doors by a Robber no doubt but every Member of the Family ought to obey this Rogue in case the house should be on fire or ready to fall and he would take upon him to give orders for the quenching or securing it from falling for they did this not to own his Authority but from the obligation they owe to their Father or Master who would have done the same had he been at home So to obey Laws made by an Usurper that tend to the apparent benefit of the Commonwealth is not
in the Assembly of Estates To which the answer is obvious that though it is true the Monarchs passing of Laws whether in the great Council or in his privy Council be but a matter of form if the Legislative power remain wholly in himself yet since even the forms and Circumstances in doing things are such essential things without which business cannot be done If therefore the people made it part of their original Contract with their Prince at first that he should make no laws but what should be of their proposing and drawing up and that he might refuse if he pleased the whole but should not alter any part of it This though in its self a matter of form yet being at first so agreed is indeed an original and fundamental constitution of the Government Therefore the Author is as much mistaken in his Divinity as his Law when Patriarcha P. 97. Resolves the question in the affirmative Whether it be a sin for a Subject to disobey the King if he command any thing contrary to his Laws That the Subject ought to break the laws if his King command him Where as as the Author hath put it nothing is more contrary to Law and Reason for so it would be no sin for Souldiers or others to give and take away mens Goods by force or turn them out of their houses if they could produce the Kings Commission for it and consequently it was no sin in those Irish Rebells that acted by a counterfeit Commission under Sr. Philim O Neal for though it was forged yet the forgery being known but to very few it was in respect of those who acted by vertue thereof all one as if it had been true and according to this Authors Divinity Part 1. Page 98. They were obliged to rise and cut the throats of all the English Protestants since the King by his Commission commanding a man to serve him in the Wars he may not examine whether the War be just or unjust but must obey since he hath no authority to judge of the causes of War which if spoken of such Wars as a King hath a right to make is true but of all warin general nothing is more false as appears by the instance before given nor are the examples the Author there brings at all satisfactory as that not only in humane Laws but also in Divine a thing may be commanded contrary to law and yet obedience to such commands is necessary the sanctifying the Sabbath is a Divine law yet if a Master command his Servant not to go to Church upon a Sabbath day the best Divines teach us that the Servant must obey this Command though it may be sinful and unlawful in the Master because the Servant hath no authority or liberty to examine or judge whether his Master sin or no in so commanding Where if the Author suppose as I do not that the Sunday which he improperly calls the Sabbath cannot be sanctified without going to Church or that going to Church on that day is an indispensible duty the Master commanding the contrary ought no more to be obeyed than if he should command his Servant to rob or steal for him but if going to Church be a thing indifferent or dispensible at some times then the Author puts a Fallacy upon his Readers arguing from the non-performance of a thing which is doubtful or only necessary secundum quid in which case the Subject or Servant is bound to obey Authority to a thing of another kind which is absolutely unlawful Since it is sinful for any Subjects to obey the King 's private or personal Commands in things unlawful and contrary to known positive laws The laws only seting the bounds of Property in all Commonwealths so that though it be no sin in Turky or Muscovy for an Officer to go and setch any mans head by vertue of the Grand Seigniors Commission without any trial or accusation I suppose any man that valued his life would say it were murder for any person to do the same by the Kings bare Commission in England and yet there is nothing but the Laws and Customs of each Government that creates the difference Not that I do affirm it were a sin in all Cases for a Subject to obey the King though contrary to Law since there are some Laws which the King hath power to dispence with and others which he hath not and others which he may dispence with but yet only for the publick good in cases of extreme necessity But to affirm as the Author does without any qualification or restriction that it is a sin to disobey the Kings personal Commands in all cases however issued out favours of Mr. Hobs Divinity as well as Law nor does the Author himself when he hath thought better on 't Patriark P. 99. assert the Kings Prerogative to be above all laws but for the good of his Subjects that are under the laws and to defend the peoples rights as was acknowledged by his late Majesty in his speceh upon his answer to the Petition of right So it is true the King hath a power to pardon all Felonies and Manslaughters and perhaps Murders too yet supposing this power should be exerted but for one year towards all Malefactors whatsoever any man may easily imagin what such a Prerogative would produce So that the publick good of the Kingdom ought to be the rule of all such Commands and where that fails the right of commanding ceases Ib. 99. As for the instance of the Court of Chancery it is not a breach of the Kings Preogative but part of the Common Law of this Kingdom so no man that understands any thing of Law or Reason will affirm that it is a Court of that exorbitant power that it is limited by no rules or bounds either of Common or Statute Law or of the Laws of aequum and bonum or that every thing that a Chancellour who is keeper of the Kings Conscience decrees must be well and truly decreed since this were to set up an absolute Tyrany But I shall now proceed to examine the rest of the reasons the Author gives either in this Treatise or his Patriarcha against the possibility of a limited Monarchy He finds fault with Mr. H. P. 281. ' For asserting that a Monarch can have any limitation ab Externo and that the sole means of Soveraignty is consent and fundamental contract which consent puts them in their power which can be no more nor other than is conveyed to them by such contract of subjection upon which our Author inquires thus if the sole means of a limited Monarchy be the consent and fundamental contract of a Nation how is it that he saith a Monarch may be limited by after condescent is an after condescent all one with a fundamentnl contract or with an original and radical constitution why yet he tells us it is a secundary original constitution A secundary original that is a second first
and if that condescent be an act of Grace doth not this condesent to a limitation come from the free determination of the Monarchs will if he either formally or virtually as the Author supposeth desert his absolute or Arbitrary power which he hath by conquest or other right Which last words of Mr. H. though I confess they are ill exprest yet I see no down right contradiction in the sence Mr. H. meant them if any man please to consult him he there says That a Monarch may either be limited by original constitution or an after condescent therefore these words the sole means of Soveraignty is the consent and fundamental contract is not meant of a limited Monarchy any more than of another but of any Soveraignty whatever So likewife though these words a secundary original constitution may seem to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to destroy each other yet as the Author explains himself you will find they do not in sense for he only supposes that a Prince who hath an absolute Arbitrary power either by succession or election finding it not so safe and easie as he conceives it would be for him if he came to new terms with his people would desert some of that despotick power and govern by let rules or Laws which he obliges himself and his Successors by Oath or some other conditions never to make or alter without the consent of his Subjects I see not why this may not in one sense be called a second original constitution for he was at first an absolute King by which was the original constitution and his coming to new Terms with them may be termed in respect of this a secundary original constitution or agreement of the government though founded upon the former old right which the Monarch had to govern as for a King by Conquest it cannot indeed in respect of him be properly called a secundary constitution since the Conquerour had no right to clame an absolute subjection from the Subjects until they submitted to him so as that they might not drive him out again if they were able until he came to some Terms with them Thus I think no sober man but will maintain that the people of England might lawfully have driven out William I. called the Conquerour supposing he had claimed by no other title but Conquest alone which when he had sworn to observe and maintain all the Laws and liberties of the people of England and had been thereupon Crown'd and received as King and had quitted his pretensions by Conquest or force and had taken the Oaths and homage of the Clergy Nobility and People they could not then without Rebellion endeavour to do And certainly had he not thought his title by Conquest not so good as the other of King Edward's Testament he would never have quitted the former and sworn to observe the Laws of his Predecessor so likewise Henry I. Mat. Paris from whom all the Kings and Queens of England have since claim'd upon his Election and Coronation for other title he had none granted a Charter whereby he renounced divers illegal practices which Flatterers may call Prerogatives which his Father and brother had exercised contrary to King Edward's Laws and their own Coronation Oaths so that here is an Example of one of the Authors absolute Monarchs who by a right of Conquest might pretend to the exercise of an arbitrary power yet renounced it and only retained so much as might serve for the well governing of his Subjects and his own security It is not therefore true which this Author affirms that this accepted of so much power as the people pleased to give him since they neither desired nor did he grant them any more but those just rights they had long before enjoyed under their former Kings before his Father's coming into England However I conceive this wise Prince was of the opinion of Theopompus King of Lacedemon Plut. in Lycurgo who when his wife upbraided him that he would leave the royal dignity to his Sons less than he found it no rather replyed he greater as more durable and therefore Plutarch in the same place ascribes the long continuance of the Lacedemonian Kingdom to the limited power of their Kings in these words ' and indeed when Envy is removed from Kings together with excess of power it followed that they had no cause to fear that which happened to the Kings of the Massenians and Argives from their Subjects But because this Author tells Mr. H. that if we should ask what proofs or examples he hath to justify his Doctrine of a limited Monarchy in the Constitution he would be as mute as a fish we will shew two or three examples of the antiquity of such limited Monarchies though they were not of the same model with those that are at this day found among the Germanes and other northern Nations descended from thence In Macedon the Kings descended of Caranus as Callisthenes says in Arrian did obtain an Empire over the Macedonians not by force but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Law So Curtius Lib. IV. The Macedonians were used to Kingly Government but in a greater appearance of liberty than other Nations For it is certain the lives of their Subjects were not at their disposal as appears from the same Author Lib. VI. The Army by an antient custom of the Macedonians did judg of Capital causes i. e. in time of War but in peace it belonged to the People the power of their Kings signified litle unless his Authority was before of some force And this was by original constitution for we do not find that ever the Kings of Macedon altered any thing in their original constitution yet they had the Soveraignty in most things and their persons were sacred So likewise among the antient Romans where Romulus from a Captain of Volunteers became a King Dyonisius Halicar Lib. II. Tells us that after Romulus had made a speech to his Souldiers and followers to this effect that he left it to them to consider what Government they would chuse for whatsoever they pitcht upon he should submit to it and though he did think himself unworthy the Principality yet he should not refuse to obey their Commands concluding that he thought it an Honour for him to have been declared the Leader of so great a Colony and to have a City called by his name Whereupon the people after some deliberation among themselves chose him their King or limited Monarch since both the Senate and people had from the very beginning their particular shares in the Government the Senates making this great Counsel which yet were for the greater part of them chosen out of the Patricians by the Tribes Dyon Hal. Lib. 11. and Curiae with these he consulted and referred all business of lesser moment which he did not care to dispatch himself for be reserved to himself the last Appeal in causes and to be Pontifex Maximus or Cheif Priest and Preserver
of the Laws and Customs of their Country as also to be cheif General in War but to the people were reserved these three Priviledges to create Magistrates to ordain Laws and to decree Peace and War the King referring it to them So that the Authority of the Senate did joyn in these things though this custom was changed for now the Senate does not confirm the decrees of the people but the people those of the Senate But he added both dignity and power to the Senate that they should judg those things which the King referred to them by Major part of the votes And this he borrowed from the Lacedemonian Commonwealth for the Lacedemonian Kings were not at their own liberty to do whatever they pleased but the Senate had power in matter appertaining to the Common-wealth But because these examples may seem too stale or remote Let us now consider all the Kingdoms that have been erected upon the ruins of the Roman Empire by those Northern Nations that over-ran it and see if there were so much as one Kingdom among them that was not limited As for the Kingdoms of the Goths and Vandals erected in Italy Africk and Spain the Author confesses they were limited or rather mixt since their Kings were deposed by the people whenever they displeased them So likewise for the Successors of those Gothick Princes in Castile Portugal Arragon and Navarre and the other Kingdoms of Spain He that will read the histories of those Kingdoms will find them to have been all limited or rather mixt and to have had Assemblies of the Estates Mariana Lib. XVIII without whose consent those Kings could antiently neither make Laws nor raise mony upon their Subjects and as for Arragon in particular they had a Popular Magistrate called the cheif Justiciary who did in all cases oppose and cancel the Orders and Judgments of the King himself where they exceeded the just bounds of his power and were contrary to the Laws though indeed now since the times of Ferdinand and Isabella the Kings relying upon their own power by reason of the Gold and Silver they received from the Judges and the great addition of Territories have presumed to infringe many of their Just rights and Priviledges And as for the Kingdoms erected by Francks in Germany and Gaule which we now call German Empire and Kingdom of France As for the former any one that willread the ancient French and German Historians will find that the Kings of Germany could not do any thing of Moment not so much as declare a Successor without the consent of their Great Counsell of Nobility and Clergy and as to the latter as absolute as it seems at present it was a few ages past almost as much limited if not more than its Neighbours For the Kings of France could not anciently make Laws raise any publick War wherein the Nobility and people were bound to assist him or Levy Taxes upon their Subjects without the consent of the Estates but those Assemblies being at first discontinued by reason of the continual wars which Henry V. and Henry the VI. Kings of England made upon them Phil. Com. Livre VI. Cap. 7. to which Mezeray in his History tells us France ows the loss of its Liberties and the change of its laws In whose time they gave their King Charles VII a power to raise mony without them which trick when once found out appeared so sweet to his Successors that they would never fully part with it again and Lewis the XI by weakening his Nobility and People by constant Taxations and maintaining Factions among them bragged that he had metre les Roys du France Com. Liv. V. Chap. XVIII brought the Kings of France hors du Page or out of worship Whereas the Author last mentioned remarks that he might have said with more truth les mettredu sense hors et de la raison and yet we find in the beginning of the Reign of Charles VIII the Assembly of the Estates gave that King the sum of two Millions and an half of Francks and promised him after two years they would supply him again It seems Comines in the same place did not look upon this as a thing quite gone and out of Fashion since he then esteemed this as the only just and Legal way of raising mony in that Kingdom as appears by these words immediately after Is it toward such Objects as these meaning the Nobility and People that the King is to insist upon his Prerogative and take at his pleasure what they are ready to give would it not be more just both towards God and the World to raise mony this way than by Violence and Force nor is there any Prince who can raise mony any other way unless by Violence and Force and contrary to the Laws So likewise in the same Chapter speaking of those who were against the Assembly of the Estates at that time that there were some but those neither considerable for quality or vertue who said that it was a diminution to the Kings Authority to talk of assembling the Estates and no less than Treason against him But it is they themselves who commit that crime against God the King and their Country and those who use these expressions are such as are in Authority without desert unfit for any thing but flattery whispering trifles and stories into the ears of their Masters which makes them apprehensive of these Assemblies lest they should take cognizance of them and their manners But I suppose it was for such honest expressions as these that Katherine de Midices Queen of France said that Comines had made as many Hereticks in Politicks as Calvin had done in Religion that is because he open'd Mens Eyes and made them understand a little of that they call King-craft But however in some Provinces of France as in Languedoc and Provence though the King is never denyed whatever he please to demand yet they still retain so much of the shadow of their antient Liberties as not to be taxed without the consent of the. Assembly of Estates consisting of the Nobility Clergy and Burgesses of great Towns and Cities which however is some ease to them not to have their mony taken by Edict So Hungary which was erected by the Huns a stirp of the European Scythians by which you may judge the antient form of Government was much the same as that of the Germanes All Histories grant that Kingdom to have been limited and to be of the same form with that of the other Northern Nations nay which is more to have had a Palatine who could hinder the King from ordaining any thing contrary to the Laws and as for Poland the Author cannot deny but it is limited in many things but as he only takes notice of those things in which the King hath power so he omits most of those in which he hath none as in raising of mony or making laws without the consent of the Diet. So
to them But Edward 1. that great Prince was of another mind who in his Letter to the Pope concerning the Tribure granted by King John Mat. Paris P. 435. Et super hoc nequiverimus ejusdem deliberationem habere cum Prelatis et proceribus ante dictis sine quorum Communicato Concilio Sanctitati vestrae non possumus respondere et jure jurando Coronatione nostra praestito sumus astricti quod Jura Regni servabimus illibita nec aliquid quod Diadema tangat regni ejusdem absque ipsorum re quisito comsilio facimus So likewise that Victorious Prince Edward III. in the preamble to the new Statute of Provisors Anno Regni 25. Which Statute viz. repealing a former Law viz. 35. Edward I. which said this Statute holdeth always his force and was never defeated or annulled in any point and by so much as he is viz. the King bound by his Oath to do the same to be kept as the Law of the Realm But I come now to the last main Objection which the Author makes against limited Monarchy and by which he hopes to prove it an absolute Monarchy I will set down the difference between our Author and Mr. H. upon whom he animadverts in their own words ' First Mr. H. holds that the King himself in a limited Monarchy is not to be resisted or punished any more then in absolute Monarchy and so can doe no wrong in his own person ' Yet if he this limited Monarch transcends his bounds if he commands against Law the subject is not Legally bound to obedience in such cases whereupon our Author asks who shall be Judge whether the Monarch transcend his bounds Mr. H. conceives that in a limited legal Monarchy there can be no stated external Judge of the Monarch's actions if there grow a fundamental variance betwixt him and the Community And in another place confesses that there can be no Judge Legal and constituted within that form of Government whereupon the Author thinks he hath got a great advantage over our Gentleman and therefore is resolved to put the question home and demands of him if there be a variance betwixt the Monarch and any of the meanest persons of the community who shall be judg for instance the King commands or gives Judgment against me I reply his commands are illegal and his Judgments not atcording to Law who must judge if the Monarch himself judge then you destroy the frame of the Government and make it absolute For saith Mr H. to confine a Monarch to a Law and then to make him Judge of his own deviations from that Law is to obsolve him from all Law and on the other side if any or all the People may Judg then you put the Soveraignty in the whole Body or part of it and destroy the Being of Monarchy and thus this Author says Sir R. A. hath caught himself in a plain Dilemma if the King be Judg then he is no limited Monarch if the people Judg then he is no Monarch at all so farewell limited Monarchy nay farewell all Government if there be no Judg. But as sure as this Author thinks he hath his Adversary at an Advantage yet I do not see that he hath given him so much as a Foyl much less a fair Fall for all this terrible Dilemma For first it is for this that if the people be Judg when the Princes commands are unlawful it will therefore destroy the being of Monarchy suppose a King should command all his Subjects to go to Mass which they being Protestants judg Idolatrous If they obey him they must commit Idolatry if they disobey him he is then no Monarch But perhaps it will be replied that it is true the Subjects may judg when the Command is unlawful but if they cannot yield active obedience yet they must yield a passive one and submit patiently to the Penalties he pleases to lay upon them for not going This Answer will not serve turn for the Authors Objection is general if the people judg he does not say resist he is no Monarch at all and refusing to go to Mass is a judging the Princes Command unlawful But Mr. Hobs from whom this Argument is borrowed drives it more home if the Authors friends will admit the Consequence affirms truely upon his own principles that if the Subject do judg in any case whatever of what is lawful or unlawful good or evil it quite destroys the Monarchy For the Monarch is sole Judg of all Actions whether they be Lawsul or not Now when the Monarch hath declared his Will that all his Subjects should go to Mass surely not to go is to disobey the Monarchs Command Since his will was they should absolutely go to Mass nor leave it to their discretion either to go to Mass or undergo the Penalty ordained for not going Lastly neither does the Judgment of the people concerning their own safty in many cases take away the absolute power of a Monarch For a General of an Army hath an absolute Power over the Lives of his Soldiers but does it derogate from his absolute power that he knowes he shall not be obeyed if he command his Men to leap down a Precipice or to kill each other ' But Mr. H. proposes two or three expedients to help this inconvenience of the want of a publick Judg. First He says a Subject is bound to yield to a Magistrate where he cannot de jure challeng obedience if it be in a thing in which he can possibly do it without subversion to the Goverment and in which his Act may not be made a leading Case and so bring on a prescription against public liberty And again he saith If the Act in which the Exorbitance or Transgression of the Monarch is supposed to be be of lesser moment and not striking at the very Being of the Government it ought to be borne by publick patience rather then to endanger the Being of the State But these Salvoes however moderate and sober will not please our Author at all Anarchy 285. ' For he will have them to be but Fig-leaves to cover the nakedness of Mr. H's limited Monarch formed upon weak supposals in cases of lesser moment For if the Monarch be to govern only according to Law no transgression of his can be of no small moment if he break the bounds of Law for it is a subversion of the Government it self and may be a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publick Liberty and strikes at the very being of the Government it self and let the case be never so small yet if there be illegality in the Act it strikes at the very being of limited Monarchy which is to be legal unless the Author will say as in effect he doth that his limited Monarch must govern according to Law in great publick matters only but that in smaller and which concern private Men he may rule according to his own will All which
although it look fine yet examined to the bottom signifies little for it is not true that every the least transgression of the bounds of Law is a subversion of the Government it self since if done perhaps only to one or a few persons it does not follow that therefore it must be a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publick Liberty in all cases Neither does the Subjects bearing with it not contribute otherwise then accidentally to this breach of Liberty Since he is obliged to bear it not because it is just but because he either may hope to have redress by the ordinary course of Law or else by petitioning the Assembly of Estates when they meet who are partly ordained on purpose to remonstrate the Grievances of Subjects to their Prince and thereupon to have them redressed Nor is this limited Monarch as the Author would infer less obliged to govern according to Law in smaller or private matters then in great and publick ones Only in many smaller matters Princes or their Officers may through ignorance or inadvertency sometimes transgress the true bounds of Law which they would not do perhaps if they were better informed And so likewise if the Subject bear it it is not from the Legality of the Act but from this great Maxime in Law and Reason that a mischief to some private men is better than an inconvenience in giving every private person power that thinks himself injured by the Prince or his Officers to be his own Judg and right himself by force since that were contrary to the great duty of every good Subject of endeavouring to preserve the common peace and happiness of his Country which ought to be preferred before any private mans Interest So on the other side if the oppression or breach of Laws be general and extend to all the People alike if the reason of the case alter why may not the practicedo so too ' But Mr. H. gives us another remedy in this case that if the Monarchs Act of Exorbitancy or Transgression be mortal and such as suffered dissolves the Frame of the Government and publick Liberty then the illegality is to be laid open and redressment sought by Petition Which is true for an Appeal to the Law from the violence of subordinate Ministers is really a Petition for Justice to the King himself who is by the Law supposed present in the persons of his Judges that represent him and this the Author himself in a better humour does confess in his Patriarcha P. 93. The people have the Law as a familiar interpreter of the Kings pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the presence and Majesty of the King also the Judges and Magistrates are restrained by the common Rules of Law from using their own Liberty to the injury of others since they are to judg according to the Laws and not to follow their own Opinions And because it might so happen that the King may be sometimes surprised or importuned to write Orders or Letters to the Judges to direct them to act contrary to the Law The King himself in Parliament hath declared See the Oath of the Justices 18. E. 3. what Oath these Justices shall take when they are admitted into their Office where among other things they swear thus And that ye deny no man common right by the Kings Letters nor none other mans nor for none other cause and in case such Letters do come to you contrary to the Law that ye do nothing by such Letters but certifie the King thereof and proceed to execute the Law notwithstanding the same Letters and concludes thus And in case ye be from henceforth found in default in any of the points aforesaid ye shall be at the Kings will of Body Lands or Goods thereof to be done as shall please him as God help you c. And the Lord Chief-Justice Anderson and his Fellow-Justices in the Common-Pleas who upon so great a point as Cavendishes Case was 35 El. having consulted with all the Judges of England delivered their Opinions solemnly in writing that the Queen was obliged by her Coronation-Oath to keep the Laws and if they should not likewise observe them they were forsworne Anderson p. 154 155. Which Will of the Kings is supposed to be as well declared by the House of Peers his supreme Court of Justice as by any other way See the Judgment upon Tresillian and the rest of his Brethren 21 Rich. 2. and the Impeachment of the House of Commons against the Judges that gave their Opinions contrary to Law in the case of Ship-money Vide the subsequent Act of Parliament 17 Car. 1. Chap. 14. declaring that upon the Tax called Shipmoney and the Judgment Entr. 1. H. 7. 4. b. the judicial opinions of the said Justices and Barons were and are contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and the Liberty of the Subjects c. which if it be truely observed there can never be any fear of a Civil War or popular Commotion since our Law supposes the King can do no wrong that is in his own person And therefore Sir John Markham when Chief Justice told King Edward the 4th That the King cannot arrest any Man himself for suspition of Treason or Fellony as other of his Lieges may for if it be a wrong to the party grieved he has no remedy Therefore if any Act or thing be done to the Subject contrary to the Law the Judges and Ministers of Justice are to be questioned and punished if the Laws are violated and no reflection made upon the King who is still supposed to do his Subjects Right Si factam fuerit injustum says Bracton per inde non fuerit factum Regis And thus much will serve for a further Answer to the Authors Query before mentioned Whether it be a sin for a Subject to disobey the King if he command any thing contrary to his Laws since all the Subjects both great and small are supposed to know what the Rights and Priviledges of the Subject are as well as what are the Prerogatives of the Crown nor are these reserved Cases so many or so difficult as the Anthor would make us believe but that they may be easily understood without Appealing to any other Judg then the Conscience of every honest man And though the King may for our common defence in time of War make Bulwarks upon another mans Land or command a House to be pull'd down if the next be on Fire or the Suburbs of a City to be demolished in time of War to make it serviceable though men may justify their obedience in such Cases yet it were folly and madness from thence to argue that the King were as much to be obeyed if he commanded us to pull down a whole Town for his Diversion or to take away all mens Lands or Goods at his Pleasure Since if he should be so weak as to command it it were his unhappiness
Confessors days Since whose time the Kingdom of England hath remained as it does In which passage the Author hath discovered either a great deal of Ignorance or inadvertency in the History and Government of his Country For first he Confesses that the English Saxons had a Meeting which they called the Assembly of the Wife termed in Latine Conventus Magnatum or Praesentia Regis Procerumque Prelatorum Collectorum or in general Magnum or Commune concilium c. All which Meetings may in a general sence be termed Parliaments yet he will not allow there could be any Parliaments assembled of the general Estates of the whole Kingdom for the reason he gives us before What he means by until about the time of the Conquest I know not but this is certain that from the time of King Egbert who is reckoned the first Monarch the great Council or Wittena Gemore consisted of the General Estates of the West-Saxon-Kindom and if the whole people of England had not their Representatives there it was because they were represented by their Tributary Princes or Kings who Governed Subordinately to this Monarch until the coming of the Danes Thus the West-angles had their particular Kings in the time of King Ethelwolf St. Edmund the last King being Conquered by the Danes So likewise had the Mercians their King Beorced their last King being driven out by the same Invaders about the same time and after the Kingdom was at Peace again and the Danes in great part subdued or quiet King Alfred Re-conquering the Mercian-Kingdom gave it in Marriage to a Saxon Nobleman called Etheldred who had Married his Daughter Elsteda who was long after her Husbands Death Lady or Queen of the Mercians Rerum Anglick Scriptores post Bedam Ed Fra. p. 857. yet did these feudatory Princes always appear and make a Part in the Wittena Gemore or great Council of the Monarch thus we may find in Jugulphus that Withlafe King of the Mercians made a promise of the Lands and Liberties of the Abby of Croyland which he after confirms by his Charter in Prisentia Dominorum meorum Egberti Regis Westo-Saxoniae Athelwolwafij filij ejus coram pontificibus proceribus totius Angliae in Civitate Lundini ubi omnes Congregati sumas pro consilio capiendo contra Danicos Pyratat Littora Angliae infestantes which certainly was a great Council And that these Kings were tributary to the West Saxon Monarch the same Author tells a little further that Bertulph Brother of Witlafe succeeded his Nephew Wimund Id. p. 860 861. and was Tributary to Athelwolf King of West Saxony and by his Charter confirms the same Lands and Liberties to the said Monastery which had been granted by his Predecessors and this was done and confirmed unanimi consensu totius praesentis concilij hic apud Kingsbury Anno incar Domini 881. c. pro Regni negotis congregati and is thus subscribed Ego Olflac Pincerna Legatus Domini mei Regis Ethelwolf Filiorum suorum nomine illorum omnium Westsaxonum istum Chirographum Regis Bertulphi plurimum Confirmavi Ego Bertulphus Rex Mericorum palam omnibus prelatis Proceribus Regni mei Which shews us that besides the General Council of the whole Kingdoms these Mercian Tributary Kings had a Particular Council or Parliament of their own Kingdom without whose consent as also of their Paramount Monarch they could not part with the Lands and Royalties belonging to their Crown So likewise in the same Author Beorced King of the Mercians Anno Domini 868 confirms his Charter to the same Monastery at Snotringham coram fratribus amicis omni populo meo in obsidione Paganorum Congregatis To which likewise his supreme Monarch Elthred King of the West Saxons gives his consent and subscribes after the Bishops the like form we find in the passing of all the other Charters to this Monastery quoted by the said Author which are all of them confirmed by the King then Reigning in praesentia Archiepiscop Episcop Procerum or optimatum Regni Collectorum And before the Kingdom came to be united under one supreme King or Monarch there was also one great Council or Synod of the whole Kingdom where the chief and most powerful King or Monarch of the Heptarchy presided and in which they made their general Ecclesiastical Canons and also Civil Laws that were binding to the whole People of England and to which Persons that had been grieved or wronged by their particular Kings appealed and were righted and to this general Wittena Gemote that antient Writer Will. Malmsbuny speaking of the antient Customs and Laws of England says were made per generalem Senatum populi Conventum edictum therefore we find the first Synod or Council of Clovesho Anno Christ. 747. called by Ethelbald King of the Mercians who was then chief King or Monarch as they called him of the English Saxons and at which were present the said King with all his Princes and great Men Malm. de gest pontific as also all the Bishops of this Island but it more plainly appears in the second Council held at the same place called by Beornulf King of Mercia who presided therein Spelman Council p. 332. You will find one of the first things they did was to inquire whether any person had been unjustly dealt with or unjustly spoil'd or opprest whereupon Wulfred Arch-Bishop of Canterbury complain'd of the violence and Avarice of Kenwulf late King of the West Saxons which beingfully proved the said Council ordered Kenedrith the Abbess the daughter and Heir of the said King to make satisfaction to the said Arch-Bishop which was done accordingly out of the Lands of the said King see it at large in Spelmans Councils and Mr. Somner that Learned Antiquary in his Glossary to the decem Scriptores is clearly of opinion Spelman Council pag. 393. that this was all one with a Parliament Synodus magna Parliamentum nuncupatur So likewise the Canons of the Synode or Council of Catchyck Annol were confirmed by Offa King of the Mercians then Chief Monarch of this Island Tam Rex quam Principes sui cum senatoribus terrae decreta signo Cracis firmarunt And further that each of the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy had its particular Councils or Wittena Gemotes appears by that famous Council called by Ethelbert King of Kent about Six Years after his Reception of the Christian Religion which was called commine concilium tam Cleri quam Populi And no doubt this custom came not in with Christianity the Clergy onely here succeeding in the room of the Pogan Priests who among the Germans had always a place in their common Councils as we find in Tacitus See the passage before Cited p. Spelman Con. pag. 126. So likewise the first Laws we have extant were made by Ina King of the West Saxons Per commune concilium assensum omnium Episcoporum Principum Procerum
comitum omnium Sapientum Seniorum Populorum totius Regni And whoever will but examine the said Collection of Sr. Henry Spelman will find almost all the Ecclesiastical Constitutions confirmed if not made in the Wittena Gemote the Great Synode or Council So that what this Author says of the difference of the Laws and Customs of the several Kingdoms during the Heptarchy makes nothing against us as long as we can prove that in the main the Government of them all was alike in the three great Liberties of the Subjects viz. Trial by a Mans equals and absolute Propriety in Lands and Goods which the Kings could not justly take from them and a Right to joyne in the making of all Laws and raising Publick Taxes or Contributions for War So that without doubt these Wittena Gemotes or great Councils were Ordained for some Nobler and Higher purpose then either to give the King advice what Wars to make or what Laws to make or barely to Remonstrate their grievances as this and some other Modern Authors would have it for what King would call so great a Multitude those Antient Parliaments consisted of to be his Councellors Or would call together the whole Body of a Nation only to be made acquainted with their grievances which he might have known with greater ease to himself and less charge to the Subjects by having them found by the Grand Inquest in the County-Court And so to have been presented to him by the Earl or Alderman of each particular County whereas we find these great Councils imploy'd in businesses of a higher Nature such as the confirmation of the Kings Charters the Proposing of Laws the Election of Archbishops other great Officers So that the Higher any Man will look back the more large uncontroulable he will find the Power of this great Assembly Since before the Conquest and afterwards too we find them to have often Elected Kings when the Children of their last King were either Minors or supposed unfit to Govern So that whoever will take the pains to consult our Ancient Saxon and English Historians will find that there was never Anciently any Fundamental or unalterable Law of Succession nor was it fixed for any two Discents in a right Line from Father to Son without interruption until Henry the Third and then it lasted so but Four Generations reckoning him for the first And as for these particular Laws or Customs the Author mentions whether King Edgar or Alfred first Collected them as were also Corrected and Confirmed by both the Edwards to wit the Elder and the Confessor they still owed their Authority to the King Vi. Lambert de priscis Anglorum Legibus p. 1â—9 and his Barons and his People as Malmesbury before asserts As for the Danish Laws they never prevail'd but in those Countrys which the Danes intirely Conquered which consisted mostly of them as Norfolk Suffolk and Cambridge-shire but as for the rest of England it was governed by its own Laws and enjoyed its Ancient Customs in the Reign of King Knute and his Successors of the Danish Race See the Charter of K. Knute quoted by Mr. Peâ—yt in his said Treatise pag. 146. But to come to the Authors next Reason why there can be no Fundamental Laws in this Kingdom viz. Because the Common Law being unwritten doubtful and difficult cannot but be an uncertain Rule to govern by which is against the Nature of a Rule which always ought to be certain This is almost the same Argument as the Papists make use of against the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith only their Reason is that the Scriptures are obscure because they are Written and need an Expositor viz. The Church or Tradition but with Authors it is contrary the Law is doubtful because unwritten whereas all that understand any thing of the Nature of the Laws of England know very well that the Common Law whose Authority depends not on any set Form of Words but the Sence and Reason of the Law is much less doubtful and makes fewer Disputes then the Statute-Law but though it be granted that many things in the Common Law are doubtful and difficult yet in the Main and Fundamental parts of it but just now recited it is plain enough As the Scriptures though doubtful or obscure in some things yet are plain and certain in all Points necessary for Salvation and why it is harder for an ordinary Countrey Fellow in a Civil Government to know when he is Condemned to be Hang'd without trial or to have his Goods or Money taken from him by a Fellow in a Red-coat without any Law then for him to judg in the State of Nature when another Man lies with his Wife or goes about to Rob or Murther him I know not His last Reason against making Common Law only to be the Foundation when Magna Charta is excluded from being according to Mr. H. a Fundamental Law and also all ' other Statutes from being limitations to Monarchy since the Fundamental Laws only are to be judg and these are Statute Laws or Superstructures This is also meer Sophistry since no Man in Metaphors or Similitudes ever expects an absolute Truth but what if the great part of the Magna Charta were Fundamental Laws before either King Stephen or King John granted it and that they did but restore what some of their Predecessors had before by oppression taken from their Subjects since there is little or none of it but was part of King Edward's Laws and consequently the Ancient Saxon Law before the Conquest and the like may be said of all other Constitutions in limited Monarchies as suppose in Denmark the Crown which was before Elective is now by the Concession of the Estates become Successive I believe no Men of this Authors Opinion will deny that this is not now a Fundamental Law in that Kindom and can never be altered without the Consent of the King and the Estates and yet this is a Law that follows after the Government was Instituted nor can I see any Reason why this Rule may not hold as well on the Peoples side as the Kings Why Rules of Play may not be made as well after the Gamesters are in at Play as when they first began and may not be as well called Fundamental Laws of the Game since if they are not observed it may be lawful for any of the Gamesters to fling up his Cards and play no more though he be at play with the Authors Natural Monarch his own Father But our Author will not leave off so but must give us one stabing Paragraph more against Fundamental Laws which is thus ' Truely the Conscience of all Mankind is a pretty large Tribunal for these Fundamental Laws to pronounce Sentence in It is very much that Laws which in their own Nature are dumb and always need a Judg to pronounce Sentence should now be able to speak and pronounce Sentence themselves Such a Sentence surely must
is but like the advice and direction which the Kings Councel gives the King which no man says is a Law to the King Igrant this distinction provided the Author will likewise admit another that though the King is not obliged by Laws or to any Judges of them as to Superiors or as to the compulsory Power of them Yet in respect of God and his own Conscience he is still obliged to observe them and not to dispence with them in those cases which the Law does not give him a power so to do and since it is true that it is the rewards and punishments annext that give laws their Sanction therefore there are certain rewards which will naturally bless Princes that keep their Laws such as peace of Conscience Security the affections of their People c. and if I call the contrary effects to these natural punishments that are commonly the consequences of the breach of them I think I should not speak absurdly since the Author himself tells us P. 93. Albeit Kings who make the Laws are as King James there teacheth us above Laws yet will they rule their Subjects by the Law and a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he seems to rule it is there printed in the Copy according which is nonsence contrary to his Laws and certainly a Tyrant can never promise himself security either from his own Conscience or from Men but whereas he says the direction of the Law is only like the advice which the Kings Councel gives him which no man says is a Law to him is false for the Kings Councel should never advise him to do that which he cannot whith a safe Conscience perform but the Kings Conscience can never advise him to break those Laws that are the boundaries between his Prerogatives and the Peoples just Rights and therefore though it is true in some cases where the King sees the Law rigorous or doubtful he may mitigate or interpret the Execution thereof by his Judges to whom he hath made over that power in the intervalls of Parliament and though perhaps some particular Statutes may be his Authority be suspended for causes best known to himself and Council Yet this does not extend to Laws of publick concernment and for that I will appeal to the Conscience of any true Son of the Church of England whether he thinks for Example that the Proclamation for indulgence contrary to the Statute made against Conventicles were binding or no Neither is this that follows consistent with what the Author hath said before That although a King do frame all his Actions to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good will and for good Example or so far forth as the general Law of the safety of the Commonwealth doth naturally bind him For in such sort only positive Laws may may be said to bind the King not by being positive but as they are naturally the best and only means for the preservation of the Common-wealth So that if a King thinks any the firmest and most indispensible Laws that have been made suppose Magna Charta or the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo for example not to be for the safety of the Commonweal it is but his declaring that he will have them no longer observed and the work is done nor will this that follows help it though true that all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerors are bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Laws so much as the natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-Fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick Good of the Subjects All which is very well but if this Monarch thus succeeding in the place of the natural Father is the sole Judge of what things are necessary for the common good what if he have a mind to keep these Children for Children and subjects slaves are all one with this Authour as some unnatural Fathers do as cheap as they can or to make the most of them will let them enjoy no more but the scanty necessaries of life and will think fair water brown bread and wooden shooes sufficient for a Farmer and 300 l. or 400 l. per annum enough in Conscience for a Country Gentleman or desiring to be absolute and therefore to have a constant standing Army to raise mony with as some Monarchs do and being resolved that for the future all the just rights and priviledges of his Clergy Nobility and People shall signifie nothing will take all the over-plus of his Childrens Estates eaving them no more then a poor and miserable subsistence he may lawfully do what he will with his own and it is all his upon the first intimation of his pleasure by Edict or Proclamation But perhaps some honest Divine may start up and tell him he will be damned for thus abusing his power or breaking his Coronation Oath what What if this Father of his people shall laugh at him for a fool and think himself too cunning to believe any such thing or what if his Son or Successor be resolved not to run his head any more into the snare of a Coronation Oath but finding himself invested in all the absolute power of his Predecessour without any unjust act of his own since we know Princes seldome loose any thing they have once got will exercise it as he pleases for his own humour or glory and thinks himself not obliged in Conscience to restore any of those rights his Predecessor hath ursuped upon his People I know not what benefit this may be to the Prince but this I am sure of it would very little mend the Subjects condition to be told their former Monarch was damned or that this may follow him when they are now slaves nor is this a mere Chimera since a Neighbouring people over against us lost their liberties by much such a kind of proceeding And therefore this Authour hath found out a very fit interpretation of the Kings Coronation Oath Vide Iuramenta Regis quando coronatur old Stat. ed 1556. for whereas he used to Swear that he will cause equal and upright justice to be administred in all his judgments and to use discretion with mercy and truth according to his power and that the just Laws and customes quas vulgus elegerit I will not translate it shall chuse to be observed to the honour of God Yet our Author will have the King obliged to keep no laws but what he in his discretion Judges to be upright which is to make the Oath signifie just nothing as I have proved already wherein he abominably perverts the sense of this Oath for that which he puts first is really last And the words by which he Swears to observe the Laws and customes granted by King Edward and other his Predecessors are absolute and without
any reservation or restriction and as for the last clause where the King Swears to observe and protect justas Leges consuetudines which he translates upright Laws and customes this word justas in this place is not put restrictively as any man may see that considers the sense of the words but only by way of Epithite supposing that the People would not chuse any laws to be observed but those that are just and upright but the Author omits here quas populus Elegerit as a sentence that does not at all please him though it be in all the Copies of the old Coronation Oaths of our Kings and he may as well deny that they tooke any other clause as this yet since the Author himself gives us an interpretation of these words in his Freeholders inquest pag. 62. which will by his own showing make these clauses justas Leges consuetudines not to extend to all laws and customes in general but those quas vulgus elegerit that is as he there interprets it the Customes which the vulgar shall chuse and it is the vulgus or common people only who chuse customes common usage time out of mind creates a custome no where can so common a usage be found as among the vulgar c. If a custome be common through the whole Kingdom it is all one with the common law in England which is said to be common custome that in plain terms to maintain the customes which the vulgar shall chuse is the common Laws of England so that in the Authours own sense it shall not signifie such Laws which the King himself hath already chosen and establisht but only those which the people have chosen and in this sense perhaps it was part of the Oath of Richard II. to abolish all evil unjust Laws that is evil vulgar customes and to abolish them whenever they should be offred him by bill But I do not read that any King or Queen since Richard II. took that clause he mentions and perhaps King Richard took it in the Authours sense and found such interpreters to his mind and that made him prove such a King as he was to endeavour to destroy all the Laws and liberties of this Nation burning and cancelling the Records of Parliament and indeed there was no need of any if it be true which he did not stick to affirme that the Laws of of England were only to be found in his head or his breast but the Authour though he grants for it were undutiful to contradict so wise a King as King James that a King Governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he seems to rule contrary to his Laws yet will by no means have this King counted a Tyrant But I will not trouble my self about trifles much less maintaine that the Lords or Commons had any Authority to use King Richard as they did since it is a contradiction that any power should Judge that on which it depends and who dieing that is immediatly dissolved since our Kings have ever been trusted with the Prerogative of calling and dissolving Parliaments and certainly they can never be supposed to let them sit to depose themselves And of this opinion was Bracton lib. 1. cap. 8. Si autem ab eo petatur cum breve non currat contra ipsum Locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendat quod si non fecerit satis sufficit ei ad paenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem But to return where we left off if it be granted that Kings do Swear to observe all the laws of their Kingdomes yet this Author is so good a casuist that he can as easily absolve their Consciences as the Pope himself For says he Patriarch p. 97. no man can think it reason that Kings should be more bound by their voluntary Oaths then Common persons are by theirs now if aprivate man make a contract either with or without an Oath he is no farther bound then the equity and justice of the contract ties him for a man may have relief against an unreasonable and unjust promise if either deceit or Errour or force or fear induced him thereunto Or if it be hurtful or grievous in the performance and since the Laws in many cases give the King a Prerogative above common Persons I see no reason why he should be denyed that Priviledg which the meanest of his Subjects doth enjoy I know not to what end the Author writ this Paragrph unless it were to make the world beleive that when when Kings take their Coronation Oaths they do it not freely but only are drawn in by the Bishops or over-awed by the great Lords that they do not understand what they do and so are meerly choused or frighted into it by Fraud or Force A very fine excuse for a Prince for so solemn an action and which he hath had time enough to consider of and advise with his own Conscience whether he may take it or no That he can be said to be induced by Fear or Force who was a lawful King before and only uses this ceremony to let his Subjects see the reallity of his intentions towards them And that nothing shall prevail with him to break his Oath which he hath made before God That he will preserve those Laws and rights of his Subjects which he does not grant but find them in possession of But as for this relief against an unreasonable or unjust promise as the Author terms it If by those words he means a promise or grant that may tend to some damage or inconvenience of the Promiser or Grantor to some right or Jurisdiction that the Grantor might have enjoyed had it not been granted away either by his Ancestors or himself If the Promise were full and perfect or the grant not obtained either by fear force or Fraud all Civilians and Divines hold that the Promiser or Grantor is obliged to the Promise and cannot take away the thing granted though it were in his power so to do For David makes it part of the Character of the upright man Psal XV. 4. and who shall dwell in Gods Tabernacle that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not But our Author hath found a way to set all men loose from their Oaths or contracts if they be any thing grievous or hurtful in the performance that is if the Promiser or Grantor think it so and Kings must have at least as much and in most cases a greater Prerogative than common Persons ' It was a thousand pitties this Author was not Confessor to King H. III. He might then have saved him the sending to Rome for a dispensation of his Oath for the observance of Magna charta which he had made before in Parliament at Oxford Anno Regni 21. and taught him and all Princes else a nearer way to be freed from their Coronation Oaths if ever they find them uneafie