Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAP. XXXIV.

Chancellor. You would cease to wonder, my Prince, if you would please seriously to consider the nature and occasion of the attempt. I have already given you to understand that there is a very noted sentence, a favourite maxim, or rule in the Civil Law, that, That which pleases the Prince has the effect of a Law. The Laws of England

a 66

Quod Principi placet, legis habet vigorem." The entire passage as translated from the Institutes of Justinian by Gibbon, is this: "The pleasure of the Emperor has the vigor and effect of the law, since the Roman people, by the Royal Law, have transferred to the Prince the full extent of their own power and sovereignty." A fragment in copper of the Lex Regia which was passed by the Roman people in favor of Vespasian has been preserved; but there cannot be collected from it any expressions to warrant the law in the extraordinary terms in which it is stated in the Institute. (Gruter's Inscriptions.) The passage in the text is attributed, in the compilation of Justinian, to the lawyer Ulpian. But the avowal which has been made, by the persons engaged in the formation of that great work, destroys the credit to be attached to the authorities they cite. "Nomina quidem veteribus servavimus, legum autem veritatem nostram fecimus: Itaque si quid erat in illis seditiosum, multa autem talia erant ibi reposita, hoc decisum est et definitum." The manner in which the passage from the Roman Law in the text is cited and explained by our ancient writers, Bracton, Fleta and Thornton, is the most singular circumstance contained in their works. They have had recourse to an absolute forgery upon the Institutes of Justinian, for the purpose of giving an interpretation to it consistent with the existence of rational liberty. Selden expresses himself overwhelmed with astonishment at the method in which they have avoided its obvious import, at the same time treating it as a part of the Law of England. (Diss. ad Fletam. Hurd's Dialogues on the Constitution.) It is to be observed, that some of the most distinguished Commentators of the Civil Law have considered, that the terms of the Lex Regia did not confer an absolute

authority

admit of no such maxim, or any thing like it. A King of Englaud does not bear such a sway over his subjects, as a King merely, but in a mixed political capacity: he is obliged by his Coronation Oath to authority on the Prince. (Heineccius's Antiq. lib. i. Tit. 2. c. 66. Duck de ortu et progressu juris civilis, lib. i. c. 3.— Hallifax's Introduction to his Analysis. Taylor's Civil Law, p. 140.) But that the jealousy entertained of this law by Fortescue was well founded, is confirmed by some particulars which Lord Lyttleton relates in his History of Henry II, respecting a controversy on the construction to be given to the passage in the text, which occurred in the dominions of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa: and which terminated in a declaration, that to entertain doubts of the Roman Emperor being the absolute master of the whole world and of all the goods of individuals, so that he might dispose of them at his pleasure, was a heresy.

b An Oath has been required from the Sovereigns of this Country, at their Coronation, from the earliest times to which our historical information extends. The form of the Coronation Oath administered to a Saxon King is perserved. (Hickes's Institutiones Grammatica Anglosaxonica.) The Conqueror appears to have taken oaths on two several occasions, obliging him to maintain the ancient laws of the Country. (Hoveden Pars Prior, p. 258. Malmesb. de Quest. Pontif. p. 154 b. Mat. Paris in vitâ Freth. Abbatis, fol. 48; and see for the more ancient Oaths, Mirror of Justices, c. 1. Sect. 2. Bracton, lib. iii. c. 9. The Oath in Bracton implies an Obligation not wantonly to molest Foreign Nations, Barr. on 2 Edw. III. n.) King Henry VIII, corrected the Coronation Oath with his own hand. (Book of Oaths, A. D. 1689.) In the time of Charles I, a serious charge was made against the King and Laud for altering the Oath by striking out the words " quas vulgus elegerit," and inserting these "agreeable to the King's prerogative." (Heylin's Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 141. et seq. Milton's Iconoclastes, §.6. Defensio Pro. Pop. Angl. c. 8. Prynne's Canterbury's Doom, p. 69, Whitelock's Mem. 84 b. Brog. Brit. Art. Laud. And see the arguments collected, Harris's Life of Charles I, p. 198, n.) A similar accusation has been brought against James II. (Sir R. Atkins's Tracts, p. 418.) The Coronation Oath was changed at the Revolution, because, as the Statute alleges, it had been framed in doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws and constitutions at that time un known. (St. 1 W. and M. c. 6; and see Debate on Coronation Oath, Vol. V. Parl. Hist.)-Some very important questions have arisen respecting the interpretation of several passages in the Coronation Oath. As, in the time of Charles I, whether the King was bound to give his assent to whatever laws the Par

liament

the observance of the laws, which some of our kings have not been well able to digest, because thereby they are deprived of that free exercise of dominion liament had previously agreed on: a discussion which embraced the constitutional topic of the independency of the respective branches of the Legislature. (Clarendon's History, Book V, p. 452, 483. May, p. 128. Oldcastle's Remarks, Letter 7. Burke's Thoughts on the present Discontents. Debates, Tem. Will. III. respecting the Exercise of the Veto. Parl. Hist. Vol. V.) Another point respecting the construction of the Coronation Oath was canvassed in the reign of the same King; whether the Sovereign was bound by the terms of his Oath to resist any change in the established religion, although sanctioned by the national consent, and approved of by his own judgment. (2 Neale's History of the Puritans, p. 229, et. seq. the Argument between Charles I, and Henderson upon the Subject.) A difficulty was felt by William III, upon the same ground, who conceived that the language of the Oath, in the terms in which it was framed, was inconsistent with his views of religious toleration. In the present day it has been contended, that a King of England would be prohibited by his Coronation Oath, from giving an ear to the claims of the Roman Catholics, although his own conviction and the voice of the nation, conspired to advocate them. Such scruples seem to indicate in the minds of the persons entertaining them the most derogatory conceptions of the Divine Attributes: but a king, who honestly felt himself under the influence of these bigotted impressions, would be solicitous to abdicate his throne, rather than they should stand an impediment to the completion of the vows of his people. Foster, in his discourse upon High Treason, censures the expressions of some writers of eminence, who have spoken of the ceremony of Coronation as a bare notification of the descent of the Crown. (Foster, p. 189. 3 Inst. 7. 1 Hale, P. C. 61. 101.) In ancient times it was considered a solemnity of great importance: Not to dwell upon the extraordinary proceedings against Thorpe in the reign of Edward III, who was condemned to be hanged because he was found "Sacramentum Domini Regis fregisse;" (3 Inst. 223.) Several facts are collected by Mr. Hallam from early English History, tending to shew that the ceremony of the Coronation gave a right, as it were, by seisin, to the throne. The taking of the Coronation Oath does, in a slight degree, countenance the hypothesis of an original compact. (See this Subject considered in Mr. Bentham's Fragment on Government, p. 42. et. seq. For the Forms of the Coronation Oaths at different Periods, Matt. Paris, p. 153. Rapin, Edw. II. Rich. II. Report of the Lords' Committees respecting the Peerage, p. 230. Prynne's Signal Loyalty. 1 Bl. Comm. p. 235 n. The Book of Oaths, published A. D. 1689. Strutt's Antiq. Vol. II. p. 55. et seq.)

over their subjects, in that full extensive manner, as those kings have, who preside and govern by an absolute regal power; who, in pursuance of the laws of their respective kingdoms, in particular, the Civil Law, and of the aforesaid maxim, govern their subjects, change laws, enact new ones, inflict punishments, and impose taxes, at their mere will and pleasure, and determine suits at law in such manner, when, and as they think fit. For which reason your ancestors endeavoured to shake off this political frame of government, in order to exercise the same absolute regal dominion too over their subjects, or rather to be at their full swing to act as they list: not considering, that the power of both kings is really, and in effect equal, as is set forth in my aforesaid treatise, de Natura Legis Naturæ, viz. that it is not a restraint, but rather a liberty to govern a people by the just regularity of a political government, or rather right reason; that it is the greatest security both to king and people, and takes off no inconsiderable part of his royal care. That this may the better appear, you will please to consult the experience you have had of both kinds of government; to begin with the regal, such as the king of France exercises at present over his subjects; and, in the next place, you will please to consider the effect of that regal political government which kings of England exercise over their subjects.

CHAP. XXXV.

You may remember, most worthy Prince, in what a condition you observed the villages and towns of France to be, during the time you sojourned there. Though they were well supplied with all the fruits of the earth, yet they were so much oppressed by the king's troops, and their horses; that you could scarce be accommodated, in your travels, not even in the great towns: where, as you were informed by the inhabitants, the soldiers, though quartered in the same village a month or two, yet they neither did nor would pay any thing for themselves or horses; and, what is still worse, the inhabitants of the villages and towns where they came, were forced to provide for them gratis, wines, flesh, and whatever else they had occasion for; and if they did not like what they found, the inhabitants were obliged to supply them with better from the neighbouring villages: upon any noncompliance, the soldiers treated them at such a barbarous rate, that they were quickly necessitated to gratify them. When provisions, fuel and horse meat fell short in one village, they marched away full speed to the next; wasting it in like manner. They usurp and claim the same privilege and custom not to pay a penny for necessaries, either for themselves or women (whom they always carry with them in great numbers) such as shoes, stockings, and other wearing apparel, even to the smallest trifle of a lace, or point; all the inhabitants, where

« PreviousContinue »