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
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
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
have survived his Father If he say that Adam might leave it to Seth by Will this is gratis dictum and it lies upon him to prove that Adam made a Will or if he did how it could bind his true Heir If he say that Seth ought to succeed and govern his Brethren as being nearer in bloud to Adam what reason was there that the eldest Son's son should be punished and lose his Birthright for that which was not his fault but misfortune viz. that his Father was murdered before his Grandfather died Nor could Seth claim being elder and consequently wiser than his Nephew for his Nephew must be older since Seth was not born until after Abel was killed But if it be affirmed that the eldest Son of Abel ought to succeed and represent his Father I ask by what Law If it be replied that it is to be supposed that Adam if he had made a Will would rather have had his Grandson succeed him than his younger Son this is gratis dictum and were to affirm that the Right of governing is bequeathable which I have already confuted But if it be said that this Son of Abels should succeed because he represents his Father I would ask them by what Law this Right of Representation should take place before propinquity of Bloud or how could the Fathers expectation onely confer a Right to his Son in that which the Father was never possessed of So that there being equal Reasons on both sides and neither Law nor Precedent in the case there remained no way to decide this Controversie but either Combate or the Judgment or Arbitration of the rest of Adam's Descendants I suppose the Author will not allow the former sufficient to confer a good Title since the best Title might have the worst success in that Appeal to the Sword If he allows the latter then this hereditary Monarchy of Adam became Elective and depended upon the Will of all the Heads of the Families which descended from Adam For it is not likely in so doubtful and material a point as who should govern any of them would lose the priviledge of giving his Vote And if so this Right of Succession depended upon their Wills which might give it to which of the two Competitors they liked best and this being once done might for quietness pass into a Custom or Law for the future And that this Right of Representation where the Son dies before his Father cannot be decided by the Law of Nature or Reason alone is evident in that divers Nations or distinct Tribes of People have had different Customs about it and have established this Right of Succession divers ways For though the Roman or Civil Law allow of this Right of Representation yet the Germans and all Nations descended from them did not admit it until very lately See Grotius de J. B. Li. cap. 7. which shews there is nothing but Custom in the case And upon this pretence the League in France admitted the Cardinal of Bourbon King by the name of Charles the X before his Nephew the King of Navar his elder Brothers Son who died before him And that this difficulty who shall succeed the Uncle or the Nephew hath still perplext mankind in all Countries where the Succession hath not been settled by positive Laws or long Custom which is but the continued Will of the People may appear by those different Judgments that have been in all Ages made on this matter for when there arose a Controversie between Areus Son of Acrotatus eldest Son to Cleomenes King of Lacedaemon and Cleomenes the second Son of the said Cleomenes the Senate adjudged the Royalty for Areus against Clomenes But in Spain Mariani l. 13. c. 3. after the death of Alphonso the V King of Castile the States of Spain acknowledged his younger Son Sancho to be King and put by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grandson to the late King by his eldest Son though he had the Crown left him by his Grandfathers Will. And when Charles the II King of Sicily died Vicerius in Vita Henry 7. and left a Grandson behind him by his eldest Son surnamed Martel and a younger Son called Robert the matter being referred to Pope Clement V he gave judgment for Robert the younger Son of Charles who was thereupon proclaimed King of Sicily And it seems Glanvil who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry II makes it a great Question who should be preferred to the Crown the Uncle or the Nephew So that it was no strange thing for King John to make himself King before his Nephew Arthur since it was a moot point among the Lawyers of that Age who ought to succeed And where no Power could intervene it was decided by War and sometimes single Combats which Historians mention to have been waged between Uncles and Nephews contending for the Principality and not onely in this case but in all others where the Succession of the Empire is not settled by such Laws or Customs it lies continually liable to be disputed between the Sons or Grandsons of the last Prince nor can ever be decided but by the Sword Of which there is an Example in one of the greatest and most absolute Monarchies in the world viz. the Empire of the Mogul where for want of settling the Succession at first by a positive Law See Bernier's Travels 1 part and Tavernier Lib. Sir Tho. Row's Embassie Purchas part Terrey's Relation of Indostan and making the Raias Omrahs or great Lords give their consent to it and swear to observe it and so have made and ascertained it as an inviolable Custom as it is in the Ottoman Empire now upon the death of an Emperour though he declare by his Will who shall be his Successor yet the Grandees who are so many petty Princes and lead the People under their Command after them as they please do not think themselves at all obliged to observe it much less to set the Crown upon the eldest Sons head but every man is for that Son of the last Mogul whom they like best that is him they conceive will suit best with their interests and designes Nor do the Brothers think themselves at all obliged to yield to their eldest Brother whom they are assured will put them to death or make them perpetual Prisoners So that every one provides for himself and makes his Party as strong as he can by Gifts and Promises among the Grandees against his Fathers death Nay lately this prize hath been played among the Sons even in their Fathers life-time as in the case of the late Sha-Jehan who lived to see all his Sons killed and his person made a prisoner by his youngest Son Aureng Zebe who is for ought I know Mogul at this day And if any man thinks this onely an Evil peculiar to this Empire and not to others let him but read the Histories of the several Revolutions and Changes in all Moorish and Eastern Monarchies
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
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