II. form to be found. Secondly, for those forms that are, the DisCOURSE Parliament Rolls refer us to the Bishops' Registers. Thirdly, few of those forms have the word "elegerit" or "choose" in them, and those that have it, have it doubtfully, either "have chosen," or "shall choose." Fourthly, admitting the signification to be future, yet the limitation which is expressed 553 in the oath of Richard the Second ("justè et rationabiliter"—___ "justly and reasonably)," must of necessity be understood in all, otherwise the oath is unlawful in itself, to oblige the king to perform unjust and unreasonable propositions, and binds not. Whether it be expressed or understood, it leaves to the king a latitude of judgment, to examine what is just and reasonable, and to follow the dictate of his own understanding; the practice of all Parliaments in all ages confirms this exposition. Lastly, admitting, but not granting, the word elegerit" to be future, and admitting that the limitation of "justè et rationabiliter" could be suspended, yet it would not bind the king to confirm all laws that are tendered, but only exclusively, to impose no other laws on his subjects but such as shall be presented and approved in Parliament. It hath been questioned by some, in whom the legislative power did rest by law; whether in the king alone (as some old forms do seem to insinuate,-" Concessimus,"-" Rex concedit,"-" Rex ordinat," "Rex statuit," "Dominus Rex de communi suo concilio statuit,"-" Dominus Rex in Parliamento statuit""), or in the king and Parliament jointly and what is the power of Parliaments in legislation, receptive, consultive, approbative, or co-operative: and whether the making of laws by Parliament be (as some have said) "a merciful policy to prevent complaints not alterable without great peril;" or (as it seems rather) an absolute requisite in law, and a matter of necessity, there being sundry acts inferior to law-making, which our lawyers declare invalid, unless they be done by king and Parliament. Yet, howsoever it be, abundans cautela non nocet' for greater caution, it yields more satisfaction to the people to give such an oath, that if the king had no such [The forms referred to may be found in the Statutes of Westm.; I, 1 Edw. I. an. 1275, preamb.,-II, 13 Edw. I. an. 1285 stat. 1, preamb., -III, 18 Edw. I. an. 1290 Stat. 1, : c. 1; of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I. an. PART II. power, he would not usurp it, if he had such a power, yet he would not assume it. And this is clearly the sense of that oath of Edward the Sixth,-"That he would make no new laws, but by the consent of his people, as had been accustomed." And this may be the meaning of the clause in the statute;"Sith the law of the realm is such, that upon the mischiefs and damages which happen to this realm he is bound by his oath, with the accord of his people in his Parliament, thereof to make remedy and law." Though it is very true, that this being admitted (as then it was) to be a law in act, the king is bound by another clause in his oath, and even by this word " elegerit" in the perfect tense-"hath chosen," as well or rather more than if it were in the future "shall choose." And so it follows in that statute plainly, that there was a statute-law, a remedy then in force not repealed, which the king was bound by his oath to cause to be kept, though by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary." So the obligation there intended, is to the execution of an old law, not the making of a new. Richard the Second confesseth, that he was bound by his oath to pass a new grant to the justices of peace. But first it appears not that this was a new bill: secondly, if it did, yet Richard the Second was then but fourteen years old: and, thirdly, if his age had been more mature, yet if the thing was just and beneficial to the people, without prejudice to the rights of his crown, and if his own reason did dictate so to him, he might truly say that he was bound to do it both by his oath and his office. Yet his grandfather Edward the Third revoked a statute, because it was prejudicial to the rights of his crown, and was made without his free consent'. SECTION THE THIRTEENTH. Observ.-"That which results from hence is, if our kings receive all royalty from the people, and for the behoof of the people, and that by a special trust of safety and liberty expressly by the people limited, and by their own grants and oaths • 25 Edw. III. [Stat. 6. § 2. anno Dom. 1350; Stat. of Provisors.] [Ibid., § 3.] [3 Rich. II. anno 1380. See Prynne, Treach. and Disloyalty of Papists &c., Pt. II. p. 80; and Tyrrell, 1341.] II. ratified, then our kings cannot be said to have so incondi- DISCOURSE tionate and high a propriety in all our lives, liberties, and possessions, or in any thing else to the crown appertaining, as we have in their dignity or in ourselves; and indeed if they had, they were not born for the people, but merely for themselves; neither were it lawful or natural for them to expose their lives and fortunes for their country, as they have been bound hitherto to do, according to that of our Saviour, [John x. 11.] 'Bonus Pastor ponit vitam pro ovibuss? servator's with his Answ.-" Ex his præmissis necessario sequitur collusio." [The Ob-All your main pillars are broken reeds, and your building conclumust needs fall. For our kings do not "receive all royalty from sions fall the people," nor only "for the behoof of the people," but partly premisses.] for the people, partly for themselves and theirs, and principally for God's glory. Those conditionate reservations and 554 limitations which you fancy, are but your own drowsy dreams; neither doth his Majesty's charter, nor can his oath, extend to any such fictitious privilege as you devise. The "propriety" which his Majesty hath in our "lives, liberties, and estates," is of public dominion, not of private possession. His interest in things "appertaining to the crown," is both of dominion and possession. The right which we have in him, is not a right of dominion over him, but a right of protection from him and under him; and this very right of protection which he owes to us, and we may expect from him, shews clearly that he is born in part for his people, and is a sufficient ground for him to expose his life and fortunes to the extremest perils for his country. The author's inference, that it is not "lawful or natural" according to these grounds,―is a silly and ridiculous collection, not unlike unto his similitude from the shepherd, whom all men know to have an absolute and inconditionate dominion over his sheep, yet is he bound to expose his life for them. SECTION THE FOURTEENTH. Observ.-" But now of Parliaments. Parliaments have the same efficient cause as monarchies, if not higher : truth, the whole kingdom is not so properly the aut II. PART essence itself of Parliaments; and by the former rule it is 'magis tale,' because we see ipsum quid quod efficit tale.' And it is I think beyond all controversy, that God and the law operate as the same causes, both in kings and Parliaments for God favours both, and the law establishes both, and the act of men still concurs in the sustentation of both. And not to stay longer on this, Parliaments have also the same final cause as monarchies, if not greater; for indeed public safety and liberty could not be so effectually provided for by monarchs, till Parliaments were constituted, for supplying of all defects in that government." [II. Of PARLIA Answ. The Observer, having shewed his teeth to moMENTARY narchs, now comes to fawn upon Parliaments. The Italians POWER.] have a proverb, "He that speaks me fairer than he useth to [The Parliament not above the king.] do, either hath deceived me, or he would deceive me"." Queen Elizabeth is now a saint with our schismatical Marprelates; but when she was alive, those railing Rabshakehs did match her with Ahab and Jeroboam". Now their tongues are silver trumpets to sound out the praises of Parliaments; it is not long since they reviled them as fast, calling them courts without conscience or equity". God bless Parliaments, and grant they may do nothing unworthy of themselves, or of their name, which was "Senatus Sapientum." The commendation of bad men was the just ground of a wise man's fear. But let us examine the particulars. "Parliaments" (you say) "have the same efficient cause as monarchies, if not higher" (it seems you are not resolved whether). "Higher?" How should that be? Unless you have devised some hierarchy of Angels in Heaven to overtop God, as you have found out a court "paramount" over His vicegerent in earth. But you build upon your old sandy foundation, that all kings derive their power from the people. I must once more tell you, the monarchy of this kingdom is not from the people as the efficient, but from the King of kings. The only argument which I have seen pressed with any show of probability (which yet the Observer u [Ibid., p. 5.] [Chi ti fa meglio che non suole, "Ingannato ti ha o ingannar ti vuole."] [See Bancroft's Dang. Positions, He calls them; he by virtue of his writ That the Parliament II. hath not met with), is this,—that upon deficiency of the DISCOURSE royal line the dominion escheats to the people as the lord paramount. A mere mistake. They might even as well say, that because the wife upon the death of her husband is loosed from her former obligation, and is free either to continue a widow or to elect a new husband, that therefore her husband in his life-time did derive his dominion from her; and that by his death dominion did escheat to her as to the lady paramount. Yet, if all this were admitted, it proves but a respective equality. Yes; you add, that the Parliament is the "very essence" of the kingdom, that is to say, the cause of the king; and therefore, by your Lesbian rule of "quod efficit tale," it is in itself more worthy and more powerful. Though the rule be nothing to the purpose, yet I will admit it, and join issue with the Observer. Whether the king or the Parliament be the cause of the other, let that be more worthy. That the king is the cause of the Parliament, is as evident as the noon-day light. dissolves them; they are his council; they do, otherwise they cannot, sit. should be the cause of the king, is as impossible, as it is for Shem to be Noah's father. How many kings in the world have never known Parliament, neither the name nor the 555 thing. Thus the Observer,-"In the infancy of the world .. most nations did choose rather to submit themselves to the discretion of their lords, than to rely upon any limits;" and a little after, "Yet long it was ere the bounds and conditions of supreme lords were so wisely determined or quietly conserved as now they arez." It is apparent then, kings were before Parliaments, even in time. Our French authors do affirm, that their kingdom was governed for many ages by kings without Parliaments, happily and prosperously. Philip the Fair was the first erecter of their Par- [A.D. 1302] liaments of Paris and Montpeliera. As for ours in England, will you hear Master Stow our annalist; thus he, in the sixteenth of Henry the First, in the name of our historiographers, not as his own private opinion,-"This do the historiographers note to be the first Parliament in England, |