all the Laws of their Kingdoms yet no man can think it reason that Kings should be more bound by their Voluntary Oaths than Common Persons are by theirs Now if a private person make a Contract either with Oath or without Oath he is no further bound than 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 Since the Laws in many Cases give the King a Prerogative above Common Persons I see no Reason why he should be denyed the Priviledge which the meanest of his Subjects doth enjoy Here is a fit place to examine a Question which some have moved Whether it be a sin for a Subject to disobey the King if he Command any thing contrary to his Laws For satisfaction in this point we must resolve that not only in Human Laws but even in Divine a thing may be commanded contrary to Law and yet Obedience to such a Command is necessary The sanctifying of 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 and Judge whether his Master Sin or no in so Commanding for there may be a just Cause for a Master to keep his Servant from Church as appears Luke 14. 5. yet it is not fit to tye the Master to acquaint his Servant with his Secret Counsels or present Necessity And in such Cases the Servants not going to Church becomes the Sin of the Master and not of the Servant The like may be said of the King 's 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 Commission to Judge of the Titles of Kingdoms or Causes of War nor hath any Subject Power to Condemn his King for breach of his own Laws 8. Many will be ready to say It is a Slavish and Dangerous Condition to be subject to the Will of any One Man who is not subject to the Laws But such men consider not 1. That the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws for the good only of them that are under the Laws and to defend the Peoples Liberties as His Majesty graciously affirmed in His Speech after His last Answer to the Petition of Right Howsoever some are afraid of the Name of Prerogative yet they may assure themselves the Case of Subjects would be desperately miserable without it The Court of Chancery it self is but a Branch of the Kings Prerogative to Relieve men against the inexorable rigour of the Law which without it is no better than a Tyrant since Summum Ius is Summa Injuria General Pardons at the Coronation and in Parliaments are but the Bounty of the Prerogative 2. There can be no Laws without a Supreme Power to command or make them In all Aristocraties the Nobles are above the Laws and in all Democraties the People By the like Reason in a Monarchy the King must of necessity be above the Laws there can be no Soveraign Majesty in him that is under them that which giveth the very Being to a King is the Power to give Laws without this Power He is but an Equivocal King It skills not which way Kings come by their Power whether by Election Donation Succession or by any other means for it is still the manner of the Government by Supreme Power that makes them properly Kings and not the means of obtaining their Crowns Neither doth the Diversity of Laws nor contrary Customs whereby each Kingdom differs from another make the Forms of Common-Weal different unless the Power of making Laws be in several Subjects For the Confirmation of this point Aristotle saith That a perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King rules all things according to his Own Will for he that is called a King according to the Law makes no kind of Kingdom at all This it seems also the Romans well understood to be most necessary in a Monarchy for though they were a People most greedy of Liberty yet the Senate did free Augustus from all Necessity of Laws that he might be free of his own Authority and of absolute Power over himself and over the Laws to do what he pleased and leave undone what he list and this Decree was made while Augustus was yet absent Accordingly we find that Vlpian the great Lawyer delivers it for a Rule of the Civil Law Princeps Legibus solutus est The Prince is not bound by the Laws 9 If the Nature of Laws be advisedly weighed the Necessity of the Princes being above them may more manifest it self we all know that a Law in General is the command of a Superior Power Laws are divided as Bellermine divides the Word of God into written and unwritten not for that it is not Written at all but because it was not Written by the first Devisers or Makers of it The Common Law as the Lord Chancellor Egerton teacheth us is the Common Custom of the Realm Now concerning Customs this must be considered that for every Custom there was a time when it was no Custom and the first President we now have had no President when it began when every Custom began there was something else than Custom that made it lawful or else the beginning of all Customs were unlawful Customs at first became Lawful only by some Superiour which did either Command or Consent unto their beginning And the first Power which we find as it is confessed by all men is the Kingly Power which was both in this and in all other Nations of the World long before any Laws or any other kind of Government was thought of from whence we must necessarily infer that the Common Law it self or Common Customs of this Land were Originally the Laws and Commands of Kings at first unwritten Nor must we think the Common Customs which are the Principles of the Common Law and are but few to be such or so many as are able to give special Rules to determine every particular Cause Diversity of Cases are infinite and impossible to be regulated by any Law and therefore we find even in the Divine Laws which are delivered by Moses there be only certain Principal Laws which did not determine out only direct the High-priest or Magistrate whose Judgment in special Cases did determine what the General Law intended It is so with the Common Law for when there is no perfect Rule Judges do resort to those Principles or Common Law Axiomes whereupon former Judgments in Cases some-what like have been delivered by former Judges who all receive Authority from the King in his Right and Name to give Sentence
the 12th Chapter of the Statute of Glocester was Signed under the Great Seal and sent to the Justices of the Bench after the manner of a Writ Patent with a certain Writ closed dated by the Kings Hand at Westminster requiring that they should do and Execute all and every thing contained in it although the same do not accord with the Statute of Glocester in all things The Statute of Rutland is the Kings Letters to his Treasurer and Barons of his Exchequer and to his Chamberlain The Statute of Circumspecte Agis runs The King to his Iudges sendeth Greeting There are many other Statutes of the same Form and some of them which run only in the Majestique Terms of The King Commands or The King Wills or Our Lord the King hath established or Our Lord the King hath ordained or His Especial Grace hath granted Without mention of Consent of the Commons or People insomuch that some Statutes rather resemble Proclamations than Acts of Parliament And indeed some of them were no other than meer Proclamations as the Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly of the Prelates and Nobility for the Coronation of the King and his Queen Eleanor which begins Provisum est in Curia Domini Regis apud Merton Also a Provision was made 19. Hen. 3. de Assisa ultimae Praesentationis which was continued and allowed for Law until Tit. West 2. an 13. Ed. 1. cap. 5. which provides the contrary in express words This Provision begins Provisum fuit coram Dom. Rege Archiepiscopis Episcopis Baronibus quod c. It seems Originally the difference was not great between a Proclamation and a Statute this latter the King made by Common Council of the Kingdom In the former he had but the advice only of his great Council of the Peers or of his Privy Council only For that the King had a great Council besides his Parliament appears by a Record of 5. Hen. 4. about an Exchange between the King and the Earl of Northumberland Whereby the King promiseth to deliver to the Earl Lands to the value by the advice of Parliament or otherwise by the Advice of his Grand Council and other Estates of the Realm which the King will Assemble in case the Parliament do not meet We may find what Judgment in later times Parliaments have had of Proclamations by the Statute of 31. of Hen. Cap. 8. in these Words Forasmuch as the King by the advice of his Council hath set forth Proclamations which obstinate Persons have contemned not considering what a King by his Royal Power may do Considering that sudden Causes and Occasions fortune many times which do require speedy Remedies and that by abiding for a Parliament in the mean time might happen great prejudice to ensue to the Realm And weighing also that his Majesty which by the Kingly and Regal Power given him by God may do many things in such Cases should not be driven to extend the Liberties and Supremity of his Regal Power and Dignity by willfulness of froward Subjects It is therefore thought fit that the King with the Advice of his Honourable Council should set forth Proclamations for the good of the People and defence of his Royal Dignity as necessity shall require This Opinion of a House of Parliament was confirmed afterwards by a Second Parliament and the Statute made Proclamations of as great validity as if they had been made in Parliament This Law continued until the Government of the State came to be under a Protector during the Minority of Edward the Sixth and in his first year it was Repealed I find also that a Parliament in the 11th year of Henry the Seventh did so great Reverence to the Actions or Ordinances of the King that by Statute they provided a Remedy or Means to levy a Benevolence granted to the King although by a Statute made not long before all Benevolences were Damned and Annulled for ever Mr. Fuller in his Arguments against the proceedings of the High-Commission Court affirms that the Statute of 2. H. 4. cap. 15. which giveth Power to Ordinaries to Imprison and set Fines on Subjects was made without the Assent of the Commons because they are not mentioned in the Act. If this Argument be good we shall find very many Statutes of the same kind for the Assent of the Commons was seldom mentioned in the Elder Parliaments The most usual Title of Parliaments in Edward the 3d Rich. 2. the three Henries 4. 5. 6. in Edw. 4. and Rich. 3. days was The King and his Parliament with the Assent of the Prelates Earles and Barons and at the Petition or at the special Instance of the Commons doth Ordain The same Mr. Fuller saith that the Statute made against Lollards was without the Assent of the Commons as appears by their Petition in these Words The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented nor Granted by the Commons but that which was done therein was done without their Assent 17. How far the Kings Council hath directed and swayed in Parliament hath in part appeared by what hath been already produced For further Evidence we may add the Statute of Westminster The first which saith These be the Acts of King Edward 1. made at His First Parliament General by His Council and by the assent of Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm c. The Statute of Bygamy saith In presence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Council for as much as all the King's Council as well Iustices as others did agree that they should be put in Writing and observed The Statute of Acton Burnell saith The King for Himself and by His Council hath Ordained and Established In Articuli super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the Request of his Prelates Earls and Barons we find these Passages 1. Nevertheless the King and His Council do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the Kings Right c. 2. And notwithstanding all these things before-mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Council and all they that were present at the making of this Ordinance will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved to him in all things Here we may see in the same Parliament the Charter of the Liberties of the Subjects confirmed and a saving of the Kings Prerogative Those times neither stumbled at the Name nor conceived any such Antipathy between the Terms as should make them incompatible The Statute of Escheators hath this Title At the Parliament of our Soveraign Lord the King by his Council it was agreed and also by the King himself commanded And the Ordinance of Inquest goeth thus It is agreed and Ordained by the King himself and all his Council The Statute made at York 9. Ed. 3. saith Whereas the Knights Citizens and Burgesses desired
Tyrants Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much as Blamed for committing any of those Acts which Samuel describes and if Samuel's drift had been only to terrifie the People he would not have forgotten to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty in Murthering 85 innocent Priests and smiteing with the Edge of the Sword the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites never shrank at these Conditions proposed by Samuel but accepted of them as such as all other Nations were bound unto For their Conclusion is Nay but we will have a King over Vs that We also may be like all the Nations and that Our King may Iudge us and go out before us to fight our Battels Meaning he should earn his Privileges by doing the work for them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples Crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument of their Living under a Tyrant No man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to Rehoboam is Make thou the grievous Service of thy Father Solomon and his heavy Yoke which he put upon us lighter and we will serve thee To conclude it is true Saul lost his Kingdom but not for being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his Subjects but by being too Merciful to his Enemies his sparing Agag when he should have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal Power By giving to Caesar those things that were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but Gods Law to hinder our Obedience It was the Answer of a Christian to the Emperour We only worship God in other things we gladly serve you And it seems Tertullian thought whatfoever was not God's was the Emperours when he saith Bene opposuit Caesari pecuniam te ipsum Deo alioqui quid erit Dei si omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Caesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Caesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apologie for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Legibus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferre The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment and not to say What dost Thou because Where the Word of a King is there is Power and All that he pleaseth he will do If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his words are speaking of the King Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo c. All are under him and he under none but God only If he offend since no Writ can go against him their Remedy is by Petitioning him to amend his Fault which if he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as a Revenger Let none presume to Search into his Deeds much less to Oppose them When the Iews asked our Blessed Saviour whether they should pay Tribute he did not first demand what the Law of the Land was or whether there was any Statute against it nor enquired whether the Tribute were given by Consent of the people nor advised them to stay their payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar. Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Iews for in this he gave direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Vsurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these words to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems S. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood a Monarch that carryed a Sword Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power that is the Ruler that carryeth the Sword for he is the Minister of God to thee for he beareth not the Sword in vain It is not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the Ruler or Magistrate so they that say the Law governs the Kingdom may as well say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And S. Paul concludes for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Render therefore Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom He doth not say give as a gift to Gods Minister But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render or Restore Tribute as a due Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul where he saith Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Here the very self same Word Supreme or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul coupleth with Power St. Peter conjoineth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to maniest that King and Power are both one Also St. Peter expounds his own Words of Humane Ordinance to be the King who is the Lex Loquens a Speaking Law he cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human Ordinance since St. Paul calls the Supreme Power The Ordinance of God and the Wisdom of God saith By me Kings Reign But his meaning must be that the Laws of Kings are Human Ordinances Next the Governours that are sent by him that is by the King not by God as some corruptly would wrest the Text to justifie Popular Governours as authorized by God whereas in Gramatical Construction Him the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is King Besides the Antithesis between Supreme and Sent proves plainly that the Governours were sent by Kings for if the Governours were sent by God and the King be an Humane
according to the Rules and Presidents of Antient Times And where Presidents have failed the Judges have resorted to the General Law of Reason and accordingly given Judgment without any Common Law to direct them Nay many times where there have been Presidents to direct they upon better Reason only have Changed the Law both in Causes Criminal and Civil and have not insisted so much on the Examples of former Judges as examined and corrected their Reasons thence it is that so no Laws are now obsolete and out of use and the Practice quite contrary to what it was in Former Times as the Lord Chancellor Egerton proves by several Instances Nor is this spoken to Derogate from the Common Law for the Case standeth so with the Laws of all Nations although some of them have their Laws and Principles Written and Established for witnesse to this we have Aristotle his Testimony in his Ethiques and in several places in his Politiques I will cite some of them Every Law saith he is in the General but of some things there can be no General Law when therefore the Law sqeaks in General and something falls out after besides the General Rule Then it is fit that what the Law-maker hath omitted or where he hath Erred by speaking Generally it should be corrected or supplyed as if the Law-maker himself were Present to Ordain it The Governour whether he be one Man or more ought to be Lord over all those things whereof it was impossible the Law should exactly speak because it is not easie to comprehend all things under General Rules whatsoever the Law cannot Determine it leaves to the Governours to give Iudgment therein and permits them to rectifie whatsoever upon Tryal they find to be better than the Written Laws Besides all Laws are of themselves Dumb and some or other must be trusted with the Application of them to Particulars by examining all Circumstances to pronounce when they are broken or by whom This work of right Application of Laws is not a thing easie or obvious for ordinary capacities but requires profound Abilities of Nature for the beating out of the truth witness the Diversity and sometimes the contrariety of Opinions of the learned Judges in some difficult Points 10 Since this is the common Condition of Laws it is also most reasonable that the Law-maker should be trusted with the Application or Interpretation of the Laws and for this Cause anciently the Kings of this Land have sitten personally in Courts of Judicature and are still Representatively present in all Courts the Judges are but substituted and called the Kings Justices and their Power ceaseth when the King is in place To this purpose Bracton that learned Chief Justice in the Reign of Henry the Third saith in express terms In doubtful and obscure points the Interpretation and Will of our Lord the King is to be expected since it is his part to interpret who made the Law for as he saith in another place Rex non Alius debet Iudicare si Solus ad id sufficere possit c. The King and no body else ought to give Iudgment if He were able since by vertue of his Oath he is Bound to it therefore the King ought to exercise Power as the Vicar or Minister of God but if our Lord the King be not able to determine every cause to ease part of his Pains by distributing the Burthen to more Persons he ought to chuse Wise men fearing God c and make Iustices of them Much to the same purpose are the words of Edward the First in the beginning of his Book of Laws written by his appointment by Iohn Briton Bishop of Hereford We will saith he that our own Iurisdiction be above all the Iurisdictions of our Realm so as in all manner of Felonies Trespasses Contracts and in all other Actions Personal or Real We have power to yield such Iudgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right truth as Iudges Neither may this be taken to be meant of an imaginary Presence of the King's Person in His Courts because he doth immediately after in the same place severally set forth by themselves the Jurisdictions of his Ordinary Courts but must necessarily be understood of a Jurisdiction remaining in the King 's Royal Person And that this then was no New-made Law or first brought in by the Norman Conquests appears by a Saxon Law made by King Edgar in these words as I find them in Mr. Lambert Nemo in lite Regem appellato nisi quidem domi Iustitiam consequi aut impetrare non poterit sin summo jure domi urgeatur ad Regem ut is Onus aliqua ex parte Allevet provocato Let no man in Suit appeal to the King unless he may not get Right at home but if the Right be too heavy for him then let him go to the King to have it eased As the Judicial Power of Kings was exercised before the Conquest so in those setled times after the Conquest wherein Parliaments were much in use there was a High-Court following the King which was the place of Soveraign Justice both for matter of Law and Conscience as may appear by a Parliament in Edward the First 's time taking Order That the Chancellour and the Iustices of the Bench should follow the King to the end that He might have always at hand able men for His Direction in Suits that came before Him And this was after the time that the Court of Common-Pleas was made Stationary which is an Evidence that the King reserved a Soveraign Power by which he did supply the Want or correct the Rigour of the Common Law because the Positive Law being grounded upon that which happens for the most part cannot foresee every particular which Time and Experience brings forth 12. Therefore though the Common Law be generally Good and Just yet in some special Case it may need Correction by reason of some considerable Circumstance falling out which at the time of the Law-making was not thought of Also sundry things do fall out both in War and Peace that require extraordinary help and cannot wait for the Usual Care of Common Law the which is not performed but altogether after one sort and that not without delay of help and expence of time so that although all Causes are and ought to be referred to the Ordinary Processe of common Law yet rare matters from time to time do grow up meet for just Reasons to be referred to the aid of the absolute Authority of the Prince and the Statute of Magna Charta hath been understood of the Institution then made of the ordinary Jurisdiction in Common Causes and not for restraint of the Absolute Authority serving only in a few rare and singular Cases for though the Subjects were put to great dammage by False Accusations and Malitious Suggestions made to the King and His Council especially during the time of King Edward the Third whilst he
was absent in the Wars in France insomuch as in His Reign divers Statutes were made That provided none should be put to answer before the King and His Council without due Processe yet it is apparent the necessity of such Proceedings was so great that both before Edward the Third's days and in his time and after his Death several Statutes were made to help and order the Proceedings of the King and his Council As the Parliament in 28. Edw. 1. Cap. 5. did provide That the Chancellour and Iustices of the King's Bench should follow the King that so he might have near unto him some that be learned in the Laws which be able to order all such matters as shall come unto the Court at all times when need shall require By the Statute of 37. Edw. 3. Cap. 18. Taliation was ordained in case the Suggestion to the King proved untrue Then 38. Edw. 3. Cap. 9. takes away Taliation and appoints Imprisonment till the King and Party grieved be satisfied In the Statutes of 17. Ric. 2. Cap. 6. and 15. Hen. 6. Cap. 4. Dammages and Expences are awarded in such Cases In all these Statutes it is necessarily implyed that Complaints upon just Causes might be moved before the King and His Council At a Parliament at Glocester 2. Ric. 2. when the Commons made Petition That none might be forced by Writ out of Chancery or by Privy Seal to appear before the King and His Council to answer touching Free-hold The King's Answer was He thought it not reasonable that He should be constrained to send for His Leiges upon Causes reasonable And albeit He did not purpose that such as were sent for should answer Finalment peremptorily touching their Free-hold but should be remanded for Tryal thereof as Law required Provided always saith he that at the Suit of the Party where the King and His Council shall be credibly informed that because of Maintenance Oppression or other Out-rages the Common Law cannot have duly her Course in such case the Council for the Party Also in the 13 th year of his Reign when the Commons did pray that upon pain of Forfeiture the Chancellour or Council of the King should not after the end of the Parliament make any Ordinance against the Common Law the King answered Let it be used as it hath been used before this time so as the Regality of the King be saved for the King will save His Regalities as His Progenitors have done Again in the 4 th year of Henry the Fourth when the Commons complained against Subpoena's and other Writs grounded upon false Suggestions the King answered That He would give in Charge to His Officers that they should abstain more than before time they had to send for His Subjects in that manner But yet saith He it is not Our Intention that Our Officers shall so abstain that they may not send for Our Subjects in Matters and Causes necessary as it hath been used in the time of Our Good Progenitors Likewise when for the same Cause Complaint was made by the Commons Anno 3. Hen. 5. the King's Answer was Le Roy s'advisera The King will be advised which amounts to a Denyal for the present by a Phrase peculiar for the Kings denying to pass any Bill that hath passed the Lords and Commons These Complaints of the Commons and the Answers of the King discover That such moderation should be used that the course of the common Law be ordinarily maintained lest Subjects be convented before the King and His Council without just cause that the Proceedings of the Council-Table be not upon every slight Suggestion nor to determine finally concerning Free hold of Inheritance And yet that upon cause reasonable upon credible Information in matters of weight the King's Regallity or Prerogative in sending for His Subjects be maintain'd as of Right it ought and in former times hath been constantly used King Edward the First finding that Bogo de Clare was discharged of an Accusation brought against him in Parliament for that some formal Imperfections were found in the Complaint commanded him nevertheless to appear before Him and His Council ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus Concilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to an Examination of the whole Cause 8. Edw. 1. Edward the Third In the Star-Chamber which was the Ancient Council-Chamber at Westminster upon the Complaint of Elizabeth Audley commanded Iames Audley to appear before Him and His Council and determin'd a Controversie between them touching Lands contain'd in the Covenants of her Joynture Rot. Claus. de an 41. Ed. 3. Henry the Fifth in a Suit before Him and His Council for the Titles of the Mannors of Seere and S. Laurence in the Isle of Thenet in Kent took order for the Sequestring the Profits till the Right were tryed as well for avoiding the breach of the Peace as for prevention of waste and spoil Rot. Patin Anno 6. Hen. 5. Henry the Sixth commanded the Justices of the Bench to stay the Arraignment of one Verney of London till they had other commandment from Him and His Council because Verney being indebted to the King and others practised to be Indicted of Felony wherein he might have his Clergy and make his Purgation of intent to defraud his Creditors 34. Hen. 6. Rot. 37. in Banco Regis Edward the Fourth and His Council in the Star-Chamber heard the Cause of the Master and Poor Brethren of S. Leonards in York complaining that Sir Hugh Hastings and others withdrew from them a great part of their living which consisted chiefly upon the having of a Thrave of Corn of every Plough-Land within the Counties of York Westmerland Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. Paten de Anno 8. Ed. 4. Part 3. Memb. 14. Henry the Seventh and His Council in the Star-Chamber decreed That Margery and Florence Becket should Sue no further in their Cause against Alice Radley widow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumstead in Kent for as much as the Matter had been heard first before the Council of King Ed. 4. after that before the President of the Requests of that King Hen. 7. and then lastly before the Council of the said King 1. Hen. 7. What is hitherto affirmed of the Dependency and Subjection of the Common Law to the Soveraign Prince the same may be said as well of all Statute Laws for the King is the sole immediate Author Corrector and Moderator of them also so that neither of these two kinds of Laws are or can be any Diminution of that Natural Power which Kings have over their People by right of Father-hood but rather are an Argument to strengthen the truth of it for Evidence whereof we may in some points consider the nature of Parliaments because in them only all Statutes are made 12. Though the Name of Parliament as Mr. Cambden saith be of no great Antiquity but brought in out of France yet our Ancestors the English Saxons had a Meeting which they
in Parliaments are restrained both for Time Place Persons and other Circumstances to the Sole Pleasure of the King The People cannot Assemble themselves but the King by his Writs calls them to what place he pleases and then again Scatters them with his Breath at an instant without any other Cause shewed than his Will Neither is the whole Summoned but only so many as the Kings Writs appoint The prudent King Edward the First summoned always those Barons of ancient Families that were most wise to his Parliament but omited their Sons after their Death if they were not answerable to their Parents in Understanding Nor have the whole people Voices in the Election of Knights of the Shire or Burgesses but only Free-holders in the Counties and Freemen in the Cities and Burroughs yet in the City of Westminster all the House-holders though they be neither Free-men nor Free-holders have Voices in their Election of Burgesses Also during the time of Parliament those priviledges of the House of Commons of freedom of Speech Power to punish their own Members to examine the Proceedings and Demeanour of Courts of Justice and Officers to have access to the King's Person and the like are not due by any Natural Right but are derived from the Bounty or Indulgence of the King as appears by a solemn Recognition of the House for at the opening of the Parliament when the Speaker is presented to the King he in the behalf and name of the whole House of Commons humbly craves of His Majesty That He would be pleased to grant them their Accustomed Liberties of freedom of Speech of access to his Person and the rest These Priviledges are granted with a Condition implyed That they keep themselves within the Bounds and Limits of Loyalty and Obedience for else why do the House of Commons inflict punishment themselves upon their own Members for transgressing in some of these points and the King as Head hath many times punished the Members for the like Offences The Power which the King giveth in all his Courts to his Judges or others to punish doth not exclude Him from doing the like by way of Prevention Concurrence or Evocation even in the same point which he hath given in charge by a delegated Power for they who give Authority by Commission do always retain more than they grant Neither of the two Houses claim an Infallibility of not Erring no more than a General Council can It is not impossible but that the greatest may be in Fault or at least Interested or Engaged in the Delinquency of one particular Member In such Cases it is most proper for the Head to correct and not to expect the Consent of the Members or for the Parties peccant to be their own Judges Nor is it needful to confine the King in such Cases within the Circle of any one Court of Justice who is Supreme Judge in all Courts And in rare and new Cases rare and new Remedies must be sought out for it is a Rule of the Common Law In novo Casu novum Remedium est apponendum and the Statute of Westminst 2. cap. 24. giveth Power even to the Clarks of the Chancery to make New Forms of Writs in New Cases lest any man that came to the King's Court of Chancery for help should be sent away without Remedy A President cannot be found in every Case and of things that happen seldom and are not common there cannot be a Common Custom Though Crimes Exorbitant do pose the King and Council in finding a President for a Condigne Punishment yet they must not therefore pass unpunished I have not heard that the people by whose Voices the Knights and Burgesses are chosen did ever call to an account those whom they had Elected they neither give them Instructions or Directions what to say or what to do in Parliament therefore they cannot punish them when they come home for doing amiss If the people had any such power over their Burgesses then we might call it The Natural Liberty of the people with a mischief But they are so far from punishing that they may be punished themselves for intermedling with Parliamentary Business they must only chuse and trust those whom they chuse to do what they list and that is as much liberty as many of us deserve for our irregular Elections of Burgesses 15 A fourth point to be consider'd is that in Parliament all Statutes or Laws are made properly by the King alone at the Rogation of the people as His Majesty King Iames of happy memory affirms in His true Law of free Monarchy and as Hooker teacheth us That Laws do not take their constraining force from the Quality of such as devise them but from the Power that doth give them the Strength of Laws Le Roy le Veult the King will have it so is the Interpretive Phrase pronounced at the King 's passing of every Act of Parliament And it was the ancient Custom for a long time till the days of Henry the Fifth that the Kings when any Bill was brought unto them that had passed both Houses to take and pick out what they liked not and so much as they chose was Enacted for a Law but the Custom of the later Kings hath been so gracious as to allow always of the entire Bill as it hath passed both Houses 16 The Parliament is the King's Court for so all the oldest Statutes call it the King in his Parliament But neither of the two Houses are that Supreme Court nor yet both of them together they are only Members and a part of the Body whereof the King is the Head and Ruler The King 's Governing of this Body of the Parliament we may find most significantly proved both by the Statutes themselves as also by such Presidents as expresly shew us how the King sometimes by himself sometimes by his Council and other-times by his Judges hath over-ruled and directed the Judgments of the Houses of Parliament for the King we find that Magna Charta and the Charter of Forrests and many other Statutes about those times had only the Form of the Kings Letters-Patents or Grants under the Great Seal testifying those Great Liberties to be the sole Act and Bounty of the King The words of Magna Charta begin thus Henry by the Grace of God c. To all Our Arch-Bishops c. and Our Faithful Subjects Greeting Know ye that We of Our meer free-Will have granted to all Free-men these Liberties In the same style goeth the Charter of Forrests and other Statutes Statutum Hiberniae made at Westminster 9. Februarii 14. Hen. 3. is but a Letter of the King to Gerrard Son of Maurice Justice of Ireland The Statute de anno Bissextili begins thus The King to His Iustices of the Bench Greeting c. Explanationes Statuti Glocestriae made by the King and his Iustices only were received always as Statutes and are still Printed amongst them The Statute made for Correction of
CAROLUS Secundus Dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae et Hiberniae Rex Fidei Defensor etc. Patriarcha OR THE Natural Power OF KINGS By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Baronet Lucan Lib. 3. Libertas Populi quem regna coercent Libertate perit Claudian Fallitur egregio quisquis sub Principe oredit Servitium nusquam Libertas gratior extat Quam sub Rege pio LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Walter Davis Book-binder in Amen-Corner near Pater-noster-row 1680. The COPY OF A LETTER Written by the Late Learned Dr. PETER HEYLYN to Sir Edward Filmer Son of the Worthy Author concerning this Book and his other Political Discourses SIR HOW great a Loss I had in the death of my most dear and honoured Friend your deceased Father no man is able to conjecture but he that hath suffered in the like So affable was his Conversation his Discourse so rational his Judgment so exact in most parts of Learning and his Affections to the Church so Exemplary in him that I never enjoyed a greater Felicity in the company of any Man living than I did in his In which respects I may affirm both with Safety and Modesty that we did not only take sweet Counsel together but walked in the House of God as Friends I must needs say I was prepared for that great Blow by the loss of my Preferment in the Church of Westminster which gave me the opportunity of so dear and beloved a Neighbourhood so that I lost him partly before he died which made the Misery the more supportable when I was deprived of him for altogether But I was never more sensible of the infelicity than I am at this present in reference to that satisfaction which I am sure he could have given the Gentleman whom I am to deal with His eminent Abilities in these Political Disputes exemplified in his Judicious Observations upon Aristotles Politiques as also in some passages on Grotius Hunton Hobbs and other of our late Discoursers about Forms of Government declare abundantly how fit a Man he might have been to have dealt in this cause which I would not willingly should be betrayed by unskilful handling And had he pleased to have suffered his Excellent Discourse called Patriarcha to appear in Publick it would have given such satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Politie that all other Tractates in that kind had been found unnecessary Vide Certamen Epistolare 386. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of the People New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine and some Contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The Dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 And from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and of their Agreement CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or Chose Governours 1 ARistotle examined about the Fredom of the People and justisied 2 Suarez disputes against the Regality of Adam 3 Families diversly defined by Aristotle Bodin and others 4 Suarez contradicting Bellarmine 5 Of Election of Kings 6 By the major part of the People 7 By Proxie and by Silent Acceptation 8 No example in Scripture of the Peoples Choosing their King Mr. Hookers judgement therein 9 God governed alwayes by Monarchy 10 Bellarmine and Aristotles judgement of Monarchy 11 Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12 Rome began her Empire under Kings and perfected it under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13 VVhether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or whether they crept in by stealth 14 Democraties vilified by their own Historians 15 Popular Government more Bloody than Tyranny 16 Of a mixed Government of the King and People 17 The People may not judge nor correct their King 18 No Tyrants in England since the Conquest CHAP. III. Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings 1 REgal Authority not subject to Positive Laws Kings were before Laws The Kings of Judah and Israel not tyed to Laws 2 Of Samuel's Description of a King 3 The Power ascribed to Kings in the New Testament 4 VVhether Laws were invented to bridle Tyrants 5 The Benefit of Laws 6 Kings keep the Laws though not bound by the Laws 7 Of the Oaths of Kings 8 Of the Benefit of the Kings Prerogative over Laws 9 The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10 The King Iudge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11 The King and his Councel anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12 Of Parliaments 13 VVhen the People were first called to Parliaments 14 The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from the Grace of Princes 15 The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16 He Governs Both Houses by himselfe 17 Or by His Councel 18 Or by His Iudges ERRATA Page 4. line 3. for Calume read Calvin CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of Mankind New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine Some Contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 and from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and their Agreement SInce the time that School-Divinity began to flourish there hath been a common Opinion maintained as well by Divines as by divers other Learned Men which affirms Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection and at liberty to choose what Form of Government it please And that the Power which any one Man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude This Tenent was first hatched in the Schools and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity The Divines also of the Reformed Churches have entertained it and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to Flesh and Blood for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude who magnifie Liberty as if the height of Humane Felicity were only to be found in it never remembring That the desire of Liberty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam But howsoever this Vulgar Opinion hath
Council have anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12. Of Parliaments 13. When the People were first called to Parliament 14. The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from Grace of the Princes 15. The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16. Governs both Houses as Head by himself 17. By his Council 18. By his Iudges 1. HItherto I have endeavour'd to shew the Natural Institution of Regal Authority and to free it from Subjection to an Arbitrary Election of the People It is necessary also to enquire whether Humane Laws have a Superiority over Princes because those that maintain the Acquisition of Royal Jurisdiction from the people do subject the Exercise of it to Positive Laws But in this also they Erre for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet for all this every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general ground That the safety of the Kingdom be his Chief Law He must remember That the profit of every man in particular and of all together in general is not always One and the same and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private And that the force of Laws must not be so great as Natural Equity it self which cannot fully be comprised in any Laws whatsoever but is to be left to the Religious Atchievement of those who know how to manage the Affaires of State and wisely to Ballance the particular profit with the Counterpoize of the Publick according to the infinite Variety of Times Places Persons a proof unanswerable for the Superiority of Princes above Laws is this That there were Kings long before there were any Laws For a long time the Word of a King was the only Law and if Practice as saith Sir Walter Raleigh declare the greatness of Authority even the best Kings of Iudah and Israel were not tyed to any Law but they did what-soever they pleased in the greatest matters 2 The Unlimitted Jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel that it hath given Occasion to some to Imagine that it was but either a Plot or Trick of Samuel to keep the Government himself and Family by frighting the Israelites with the mischiefs in Monarchy or else a prophetical Description only of the future Ill Government of Saul But the Vanity of these Conjectures are judiciously discovered in that Majestical Discourse of the true Law of free Monarchy Wherein it is evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must Suffer yet not so that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go Unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for Patient Obedience is due to both no Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in Crying and praying unto God in that Day But howsoever in a Rigorous Construction Samuel's description be applyed to a Tyrant yet the Words by a Benigne Interpretation may agree with the manners of a Just King and the Scope and Coherence of the Text doth best imply the more Moderate or Qualified Sense of the Words for as Sir W. Raleigh confesses all those Inconveniences and Miseries which are reckoned by Samuel as belonging to Kingly Government were not Intollerable but such as have been born and are still born by free Consent of Subjects towards their Princes Nay at this day and in this Land many Tenants by their Tenures and Services are tyed to the same Subjection even to Subordinate and Inferior Lords To serve the King in his Wars and to till his ground is not only agreeable to the Nature of Subjects but much desired by them according to their several Births and Conditions The like may be said for the Offices of Women-Servants Confectioners Cooks and Bakers for we cannot think that the King would use their Labours without giving them Wages since the Text it self mentions a Liberal reward of his Servants As for the taking of the Tenth of their Seed of their Vines and of their Sheep it might be a necessary Provision for their Kings Household and so belong to the Right of Tribute For whereas is mentioned the taking of the Tenth it cannot agree well to a Tyrant who observes no Proportion in fleecing his People Lastly The taking of their Fields Vineyards and Olive-trees if it be by Force or Fraud or without just Recompence to the Dammage of Private Persons only it is not to be defended but if it be upon the publick Charge and General Consent it might be justifyed as necessary at the first Erection of a Kingdome For those who will have a King are bound to allow him Royal maintenance by providing Revenues for the CROWN Since it is both for the Honour Profit and Safety too of the People to have their King Glorious Powerful and abounding in Riches besides we all know the Lands and Goods of many Subjects may be oft-times Legally taken by the King either by Forfeitures Escheat Attainder Outlawry Confiscation or the like Thus we see Samuel's Character of a King may literally well bear a mild Sense for greater probability there is that Samuel so meant and the Israelites so understood it to which this may be added that Samuel tells the Israelites this will be the manner of the King that shall Reign over you And Ye shall cry because of your King which Ye shall have chosen you that is to say Thus shall be the common Custom or Fashion or Proceeding of Saul your King Or as the Vulgar Latine renders it this shall be the Right or Law of your King not meaning as some expound it the Casual Event or Act of some individuum vagum or indefinite King that might happen one day to Tyrannise over them So that Saul and the Constant practice of Saul doth best agree with the Liteteral Sense of the Text. Now that Saul was no Tyrant we may note that the People asked a King as All Nations had God answers and bids Samuel to hear the Voice of the People in all things which they spake and appoint them a King They did not ask a Tyrant and to give them a Tyrant when they asked a King had not been to hear their Voice in all things but rather when they asked an Egge to have given them a Scorpion Unless we will say that all Nations had
Ordinance then it follows that the Governours were Supreme and not the King Or if it be said that both King and Governours are sent by God then they are both equal and so neither of them Supreme Therefore St. Peter's meaning is in short obey the Laws of the King or of his Ministers By which it is evident that neither St. Peter nor S. Paul intended other-Form of Government than only Monarchical much less any Subjecton of Princes to Humane Laws That familiar distinction of the Schoolmen whereby they Subject Kings to the Directive but not to the Coactive Power of Laws is a Confession that Kings are not bound by the Positive Laws of any Nation Since the Compulsory Power of Laws is that which properly makes Laws to be Laws by binding men by Rewards or Punishment to Obedience whereas the Direction of the Law is but like the advice and direction which the Kings Council gives the King which no man says is a Law to the King 4 There want not those who Believe that the first invention of Laws was to Bridle and moderate the over-great Power of Kings but the truth is the Original of Laws was for the keeping of the Multitude in Order Popular Estates could not Subsist at all without Laws whereas Kingdoms were Govern'd many Ages without them The People of Athens as soon as they gave over Kings were forced to give Power to Draco first then to Solon to make them Laws not to bridle Kings but themselves and though many of their Laws were very Severe and Bloody yet for the Reverence they bare to their Law-makers they willingly submitted to them Nor did the People give any Limited Power to Solon but an Absolute Jurisdiction at his pleasure to Abrogate and Confirm what he thought fit the People never challenging any such Power to themselves So the People of Rome gave to the Ten Men who were to chuse and correct their Laws for the Twelve Tables an Absolute Power without any Appeal to the people 5. The reason why Laws have been also made by Kings was this when Kings were either busyed with Wars or distracted with Publick Cares so that every private man could not have accesse to their persons to learn their Wills and Pleasure then of necessity were Laws invented that so every particular Subject might find his Prince's Pleasure decyphered unto him in the Tables of his Laws that so there might be no need to resort to the King but either for the Interpretation or Mitigation of Obscure or Rigorous Laws or else in new Cases for a Supplement where the Law was Defective By this means both King and People were in many things eased First The King by giving Laws doth free himself of great and intolerable Troubles as Moses did himself by chusing Elders Secondly The people have the Law as a Familiar Admonisher and Interpreter of the King's pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the Presence and Majesty of the King Also the Judges and Magistrates whose help in giving Judgment in many Causes Kings have need to use are restrained by the Common Rules of the Law from using their own Liberty to the injury of others since they are to judge according to the Laws and not follow their own Opinions 6. Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King Iames teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he seems to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws Rigorous or Doubtful he may mitigate and interpret General Laws made in Parliament may upon known Respects to the King by his Authority be Mitigated or Suspended upon Causes only known to him And 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 Common-Weale doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positive Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the Best or Only Means for the Preservation of the Common-Wealth By this means are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerours bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipial Law of the Land 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 their Subjects 7. Others there be that affirm That although Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy Iudgments indifferent and upright Iustice and to use Discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee These two are the Articles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in General to which the King answers affirmatively Being first demanded by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of Ancient Times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People Especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the famous King Edward We may observe in these words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the Upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The Word Upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in Henry the Eighth's days the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Justice with Discretion and Mercy or as Bracton hath it aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Iudgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to Equity of his Conscience join'd with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellour rather than of a Judge and if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament which would be very mischievable to the State But let it be supposed for truth that Kings do swear to observe
called The Assembly of the Wise termed in Latine Conventum Magnatum or Praesentia Regis Procerumque Prelaterumque collectorum The Meeting of the Nobility or the Presence of the King Prelates and Peers Assembled or in General Magnum Concilium or Commune Concilium and many of our Kings in elder times made use of such great Assemblies for to Consult of important Affaires of State all which Meetings in a General sense may be termed Parliaments Great are the Advantages which both the King and People may receive by a well-ordered Parliament there is nothing more expresseth the Majesty and Supreme Power of a King than such an Assembly wherein all his People acknowledge him for Soveraign Lord and make all their Addresses to him by humble Petition and Supplication and by their Consent and Approbation do strengthen all the Laws which the King at their Request and by their Advice and Ministry shall ordain Thus they facilitate the Government of the King by making the Laws unquestionable either to the Subordinate Magistrates or refractory Multitude The benefit which accrews to the Subject by Parliaments is That by their Prayers and Petitions Kings are drawn many times to redress their Just grievances and are overcome by their importunity to grant many things which otherwise they would not yield unto for the Voice of a Multitude is easilier heard Many Vexations of the People are without the knowledge of the King who in Parliament seeth and heareth his People himself whereas at other times he commonly useth the Eyes and Ears of other men Against the Antiquity of Parliaments we need not dispute since the more ancient they be the more they make for the Honour of Monarchy yet there be certain Circumstances touching the Forms of Parliaments which are fit to be considered First we are to rememember that until about the time of the Conquest there could be no Parliaments assembled of the General States of the whole Kingdom of England because till those days we cannot learn it was entirely united into one Kingdom but it was either divided into several Kingdoms or Governed by several Laws When Iulius Caesar landed he found 4 Kings in Kent and the British Names of Dammonii Durotriges Belgae Attrebatii Trinobantes Iceni Silures and the rest are plentiful Testimonies of the several Kingdoms of Brittains when the Romans left us The Saxons divided us into 7 Kingdoms when these Saxons were united all into a Monarchy they had always the Danes their Companions or their Masters in the Empire till Edward the Confessors Days since whose time the Kingdom of England hath continued United as now it doth But for a Thousand years before we cannot find it was entirely setled during the Time of any one Kings Reign As under the Mercian Law The West Saxons were confined to the Saxon Laws Essex Norfolk Suffolk and some other Places were vexed with Danish Laws The Northumbrians also had their Laws apart And until Edward the Confessors Reign who was next but one before the Conquerour the Laws of the Kingdom were so several and Uncertain that he was forced to Cull a few of the most indifferent and best of them which were from him called St. Edwards Laws Yet some say that Eadgar made those Laws and that the Confessor did but restore and mend them Alfred also gathered out of Mulmutius laws such as he translated into the Saxon Tongue Thus during the time of the Saxons the Laws were so variable that there is little or no likelihood to find any constant Form of Parliaments of the whole Kingdom 13 A second Point considerable is whether in such Parliaments as was in the Saxon's times the Nobility and Clergy only were of those Assemblies or whether the Commons were also called some are of Opinion that though none of the Saxon Laws do mention the Commons yet it may be gathered by the word Wisemen the Commons are intended to be of those Assemblies and they bring as they conceive probable arguments to prove it from the Antiquity of some Burroughs that do yet send Burgesses and from the Proscription of those in Antient Demesne not to send Burgesses to Parliament If it be true that the West-Saxons had a Custom to assemble Burgesses out of some of their Towns yet it may be doubted whether other Kingdoms had the same usage but sure it is that during the Heptarchy the People could not Elect any Knights of the Shire because England was not then divided into Shires On the contrary there be of our Historians who do affirm that Henry the First caused the Commons first to be Assembled by Knights and Burgesses of their own Appointment for before his Time only certain of the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm were called to Consultation about the most Important Affairs of State If this Assertion be true it seems a meer matter of Grace of this King and proves not any Natural Right of the People Originally to be admitted to chuse their Knights and Burgesses of Parliament though it had been more for the Honour of Parliaments if a King whose Title to the Crown had been better had been Author of the Form of it because he made use of it for his unjust Ends. For thereby he secured himself against his Competitor and Elder Brother by taking the Oaths of the Nobility in Parliament and getting the Crown to be setled upon his Children And as the King made use of the People so they by Colour of Parliament served their own turns for after the Establishment of Parliaments by strong hand and by the Sword they drew from him the Great Charter which he granted the rather to flatter the Nobility and People as Sir Walter Raleigh in his Dialogue of Parliaments doth affirm in these words The great Charter was not Originally granted Legally and Freely for Henry the First did but Vsurp the Kingdom and therefore the better to assure himself against Robert his Elder Brother he flattered the Nobility and People with their Charters yea King John that Confirmed them had the like respect for Arthur Duke of Brittain was the undoubted Heir of the Crown upon whom King John Vsurped and so to conclude these Charters had their Original from Kings de facto but not de jure the Great Charter had first an obscure Birth by Vsurpation and was Secondly fostered and shewed to the World by Rebellion 15. A third consideration must be that in the former Parliaments instituted and continued since King Henry the First 's time is not to be found the Usage of any Natural Liberty of the People for all those Liberties that are claimed in Parliament are the liberties of Grace from the King and not the Liberties of Nature to the People for if the liberty were Natural it would give Power to the Multitude to assemble themselves When and Where they please to bestow Soveraignty and by Pactions to limit and direct the Exercise of it Whereas the Liberties of Favour and Grace which are Claimed
our Soveraign Lord the King in his Parliament by their Petition that for his Profit and the Commodity of his Prelates Earls Barons and Commons it may please him to provide remedy our Soveraign Lord the King desiring the profit of his people by the assent of his Prelates Earles Barons and other Nobles of his Council being there hath ordained In the Parliament primo Edwardi the Third where Magna Charta was confirmed I find this Preamble At the Request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King and His Council in Parliament by the assent of the Prelates Earles Barons and other Great Men Assembled it was Granted The Commons presenting a Petition unto the King which the King's Council did mislike were content thereupon to mend and explain their Petition the Form of which Petition is in these words To their most redoubted Soveraign Lord the King praying the said Commons That whereas they have pray'd Him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Eyre c. Which Petition seemeth to His Council to be prejudicial unto Him and in Disinherison of His Crown if it were so generally granted His said Commons not willing nor desiring to demand things of Him which should fall in Disinherison of Him or His Crown perpetually as of Escheators c. but of Trespasses Misprisions Negligences and Ignorances c. In the time of Henry the Third an Order or Provision was made by the King's Council and it was pleaded at the Common Law in Bar to a Writ of Dower The Plantiffs Attorney could not deny it and thereupon the Iudgment was ideo sine die It seems in those days an Order of the Council-Board was either parcel of the Common-Law or above it The Reverend Judges have had regard in their Proceedings that before they would resolve or give Iudgment in new Cases they consulted with the King 's Privy Council In the Case of Adam Brabson who was assaulted by R. W. in the presence of the Iustices of Assize at Westminster the Judges would have the Advice of the Kings Council For in a like Case because R. C. did strike a Juror at Westminster which passed in an Inquest against one of his Friends It was adjudged by all the Council that his right hand should be cut off and his Lands and Goods forfeited to the King Green and Thorp were sent by Judges of the Bench to the Kings Council to demand of them whether by the Statute of 14. Ed. 3. cap. 16. a Word may be amended in a Writ and it was answered that a Word may well be amended although the Statute speak but of a Letter or Syllable In the Case of Sir Tho. Oghtred Knight who brought a Formedon against a poor Man and his Wife they came and yielded to the Demandant which seemed suspitious to the Court whereupon Iudgment was stayed and Thorp said That in the like Case of Giles Blacket it was spoken of in Parliament and we were commanded that when any like Case should come we should not go to Iudgment without good advice therefore the Judges Conclusion was Sues au Counseil comment ils voillet que nous devomus faire nous volume faire auterment nient en cest case Sue to the Council and as they will have us to do we will and otherwise not in this Case 18. In the last place we may consider how much hath been attributed to the Opinions of the Kings Iudges by Parliaments and so find that the Kings Council hath guided and ruled the Iudges and the Iudges guided the Parliament In the Parliament of 28. Hen. 6. The Commons made Suit That William de la Poole D. of Suffolke should be committed to Prison for many Treasons and other Crimes The Lords of the Higher House were doubtful what Answer to give the Opinion of the Iudges was demanded Their Opinion was that he ought not to be committed for that the Commons did not charge him with any particular Offence but with General Reports and Slanders This Opinion was allowed In another Parliament 31. Hen. 6. which was prorogued in the Vacation the Speaker of the House of Commons was condemned in a thousand pound dammages in an Action of Trespass and was committed to Prison in Execution for the same When the Parliament was re-assembled the Commons made suit to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered the Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges whether he might be delivered out of Prison by priviledge of Parliament upon the Judges answer it was concluded That the Speaker should still remain in Prison according to the Law notwithstanding the priviledge of Parliament and that he was the Speaker Which Resolution was declared to the Commons by Moyle the King's Serjeant at Law and the Commons were commanded in the Kings Name by the Bishop of Lincolne in the absence of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury then Chancellour to chuse another Speaker In septimo of Hen. 8. a question was moved in Parliament Whether Spiritual Persons might be convented before Temporal Iudges for Criminal Causes There Sir Iohn Fineux and the other Judges delivered their Opinion That they might and ought to be and their Opinion was allowed and maintained by the King and Lords and Dr. Standish who before had holden it the same Opinion was delivered from the Bishops If a Writ of Errour be sued in Parliament upon a Judgment given in the Kings Bench the Lords of the higher House alone without the Commons are to examine the Errours the Lords are to proceed according to Law and for their Judgment therein they are to be informed by the advice and counsel of the Judges who are to inform them what the Law is and so to direct them in their Judgment for the Lords are not to follow their own Opinions or Discretions otherwise So it was in a Writ of Errour brought in Parliament by the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield against the Prior and Covent of Newton-Panel as appeareth by Record See Flower Dew's Case P. 1. H. 7. fol. 19. FINIS 1 Kings 20. 16. Gen. 27 29. Arist. Pol. Lib. 1. c. 2.
But the vanity of this Fancy is too evident it is a meer Impossibility or Contradiction for if a King but once admit the People to be his Companions he leaves to be a King and the State becomes a Democracy at least he is but a Titular and no Real King that hath not the Soveraignty to Himself for the having of this alone and nothing but this makes a King to be a King As for that Shew of Popularity which is found in such Kingdoms as have General Assemblies for Consultation about making Publick Laws It must be remembred that such Meetings do not Share or divide the Soveraignty with the Prince but do only deliberate and advise their Supreme Head who still reserves the Absolute power in himself for if in such Assemblies the King the Nobility and People have equal Shares in the Soveraignty then the King hath but one Voice the Nobility likewise one and the People one and then any two of these Voices should have Power to over-rule the third thus the Nobility and Commons together should have Power to make a Law to bind the King which was never yet seen in any Kingdom but if it could the State must needs be Popular and not Regal 17 If it be Unnatural for the Multitude to chuse their Governours or to Govern or to partake in the Government what can be thought of that damnable Conclusion which is made by too many that the Multitude may Correct or Depose their Prince if need be Surely the Unnaturalness and Injustice of this Position cannot sufficiently be expressed For admit that a King make a Contract or Paction with his people either Originally in his Ancestors or personally at his Coronation for both these Pactions some dream of but cannot offer any proof for either yet by no Law of any Nation can a Contract be thought broken except that first a Lawful Tryal be had by the Ordinary Judge of the Breakers thereof or else every Man may be both Party and Judge in his own case which is absur'd once to be thought for then it will lye in the hands of the headless Multitude when they please to cast off the Yoke of Government that God hath laid upon them to judge and punish him by whom they should be Judged and punished themselves Aristotle can tell us what Judges the Multitude are in their own case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Judgment of the Multitude in Disposing of the Soveraignty may be seen in the Roman History where we may find many good Emperours Murthered by the People and many bad Elected by them Nero Heliogabalus Otho Vitellius and such other Monsters of Nature were the Minions of the Multitude and set up by them Pertinax Alexander Severus Gordianus Gallus Emilianus Quintilius Aurelianus Tacitus Probus and Numerianus all of them good Emperours in the Judgment of all Historians yet Murthered by the Multitude 18 Whereas many out of an imaginary Fear pretend the power of the people to be necessary for the repressing of the Insolencies of Tyrants wherein they propound a Remedy far worse than the Disease neither is the Disease indeed so frequent as they would have us think Let us be jugded by the History even of our own Nation We have enjoyed a Succession of Kings from the Conquest now for above 600 years a time far longer than ever yet any Popular State could continue we reckon to the Number of twenty six of these Princes since the Norman Race and yet not one of these is taxed by our Historians for Tyrannical Government It is true two of these Kings have been Deposed by the people and barbarously Murthered but neither of them for Tyranny For as a learned Historian of our Age saith Edward the Second and Richard the Second were not insupportable either in their Nature or Rule and yet the people more upon Wantonness than for any Want did take an unbridled Course against them Edward the second by many of our Historians is reported to be of a Good and Vertuous Nature and not Unlearned they impute his defects rather to Fortune than either to Council or Carriage of his Afsairs the Deposition of him was a violent Fury led by a Wife both Cruel and unchast and can with no better Countenance of Right be justifyed than may his lamentable both Indignities and Death it self Likewise the Deposition of King Richard II was a tempestuous Rage neither Led or Restrained by any Rules of Reason or of State Examin his Actions without a distempered Judgment and you will not Condemne him to be exceeding either Insufficient or Evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any Truth or of great moment Hollingshed writeth That he was most Unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his Youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his Estate yet in no Kings Days were the Commons in greater Wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the Evil guided Strength of their will took head against him to their own headlong destruction afterwards partly during the Reign of Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own People in Executing those who Conspired with him against King Richard But more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this Disorder more English Blood was spent than was in all the Foreign Wars together which have been since the Conquest Twice hath this Kingdom been miserably wasted with Civil War but neither of them occasioned by the Tyranny of any Prince The Cause of the Baron's Wars is by good Historians attributed to the stubbornness of the Nobility as the Bloody variance of the Houses of York and Lancaster and the late Rebellion sprung from the Wantonness of the People These three Unnatural Wars have dishonoured our Nation amongst Strangers so that in the Censures of Kingdoms the King of Spain is said to be the King of Men because of his Subjects willing Obedience the King of France King of Asses because of their infinite Taxes and Impositions but the King of England is said to be the King of Devils because of his Subjects often Insurrections against and Depositions of their Princes CHAP. III Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings 1. REgal Authority not subject to the Positive Laws Kings before Laws the King of Judah and Israel not tyed to Laws 2. Of Samuel 's Description of a King 1 Sam. 8. 3. The Power ascribed unto Kings in the New Testament 4. Whether Laws were invented to bridle Tyrants 5. The Benefit of Laws 6. Kings keep the Laws though not bound by the Laws 7. Of the Oathes of Kings 8. Of the Benefit of the King's Prerogative over Laws 9. The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10. The King Iudge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11. The King and his