FORMERLY, men who excelled in power, being ambitious of honor and renown, subdued the nations which were round about them by force of arms; they obliged them to a state of servitude, absolutely to obey their commands, which they established into laws, as the rules of their government. By long continuance and suffering whereof, the people, though under such subjection, finding themselves protected by their governors from the violence and insults of others, submitted quietly to them, thinking it better to be under the protection of some government, than to be continually exposed to the ravages of every one, who should take it in their heads to oppress them. From this original and reason some kingdoms date their commencement, and the persons invested with the power, during such their government, à regendo (from Ruling) assumed and usurped to themselves the name of Rex (Ruler, or King) and their power obtained the name of Regal. By these methods it was, that Nimrod first acquired to himself a kingdom, though he is not called a king in the Scripture, but, a mighty hunter before the Lord. For, as an hunter behaves towards beasts, which are naturally wild and free; so did he oblige mankind to be in servitude and to obey him. By the same methods Belus reduced the Assyrians; so did Ninus by the greatest part of Asia: thus the Romans arrived at universal empire: in like manner kingdoms began in other parts of the world. Wherefore, when the children of Israel desired to have a king, as all the nations round about them then had, the thing

displeased God, and he commanded Samuel to shew them the manner of the king who should reign over them, and the nature of his government; that is, mere arbitrary will and pleasure, as is set forth at large, and very pathetically, in the first Book of Samuel. And thus, if I mistake not, most excellent Prince, you have had a true account how those kingdoms first began, where the government is merely Regal: I shall now endeavour to trace the original of those kingdoms, where the form of government is political; that so, the first rise and beginning of both being known, you may more easily discern the reason of that wide difference which occasioned your question.

CHAP. XIII.

ST. AUSTIN, in his book, de Civitate Dei, has it, "That a people is a body of men joined together in society by a consent of right, by an union of interests, and for promoting the common good;" not that a people so met together in society can properly be called a body, as long as they continue without a head; for, as in the body natural, the head being cut off, we no longer call it a body, but a trunk; so a community, without a head to govern it, cannot in propriety of speech be called a body politic. Wherefore, the philosopher, in the first of his politics, says, "Whensoever a multitude is formed into one body or society, one part must govern, and the rest be governed." Wherefore, it is absolutely necessary, where a company of men combine and form themselves into a body politic, that some one should preside as the governing principal, who goes usually under the name of King. In this order, as out of an embrio, is formed an human body, with one head to govern and control it; so, from a confused multitude is formed a regular kingdom, which is a sort of a mystical body, with one person, as the head, to guide and govern. And, as in the natural body (according to the philosopher) the heart is the first thing which lives, having in it the blood, which it transmits to all the other members, thereby imparting life, and growth and vigour; so, in the body politic, the first thing which lives and moves is the intention of the people, having in it the blood, that is, the prudential care and provision for the public good, which it transmits and

communicates to the head, as the principal part; and to all the rest of the members of the said body politic, whereby it subsists and is invigorated. The law, under which the people is incorporated, may be compared to the nerves or sinews of the body natural; for, as by these the whole frame is fitly joined together and compacted, so is the law that ligament (to go back to the truest derivation of the word, lex à ligando) by which the body politic, and all its several members are bound together and united in one entire body. And as the bones, and all the other members of the body preserve their functions, and discharge their several offices by the nerves; so do the members of the community by the law. And as the head of the body natural cannot change its nerves or sinews, cannot deny to the several parts their proper energy, their due proportion and aliment of blood; neither can a king, who is the head of the body politic, change the laws thereof, nor take from the people what is their's, by right, against their consents". Thus you have, Sir, the formal institution of every political kingdom, from whence you may guess at the power which a king may exercise with respect to the laws and the subject. For he is appointed to protect his subjects in their lives, properties and laws; for this very end and purpose he has the delegation of power from the people; and he has no just claim to any other power but this. Wherefore, to give a brief answer to that question of your's concerning the different

a

In Hobbes's Leviathan, a metaphor is pursued at great length, which closely resembles the one contained in the text; and in another part of his singular work, that writer explains the generation of the great Leviathan, or a commonwealth, very much in the same manner, that Fortescue accounts for the origin of a State. But these authors are at total variance, in the principles of government, which they deduce from their views of the formation of society, (See Clarendon's Survey of the Leviathan, for the Propositions contained in that work which are subversive of liberty, p. 190.)

powers which kings claim over their subjects, I am firmly of opinion that it arises solely from the different natures of their original institution, as you may easily collect from what has been said. So the kingdom of England had its original from Brute and the Trojans, who attended him from Italy and Greece, and became a mixt kind of government, compounded of the regal and political". So Scotland, which was formerly in subjection to England in the nature of a dutchy, became a government partly regal, partly political. Many other

"Brute and the Trojans." This hero was supposed to be the great grandson of Æneas: the first account of him is in the History of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who in the reign of Henry the Second, published a History of Britain, translated, as he pretends, out of the British tongue. The story may be perused in most of the old Chronicle writers, and even Milton has introduced it, into his History of England: Whitelocke, in his notes upon the Parliamentary Writ, gravely rests a part of his speculations upon the truth of that tradition; and some writers have been so persuaded of the real existence of this personage, as to engage in a controversy, respecting his coat of arms. The city of London, availed themselves of the fiction, in several of their petitions, for the purpose of referring the origin of their customs and privileges, to the times of ancient Troy. Camden in his Britannia, says, "That to reject the story, would be to wage war against time, and fight against a received opinion;" he has, however, adduced several arguments, which divest the tradition of every title to belief. The circumstances of the history of Brute, have suggested to several persons the design of an epic poem, and have been frequently celebrated in verse, (Lord Teignmouth's Life of Sir W. Jones, Appdx. Johnson's Life of Pope, p. 84. Verses of Gildas in Virunnius's History, p. 6. Drayton's Polyolbion. And see further concerning this story, Selden's Notes to Drayton's Polyolbion. Leyland's Assertio Arturii, p. 8. Sir W. Temple's History of England. Letter of Edw. I. to Pope Boniface. X Scriptt. 2483. For the Claim of the City, Stow's Survey, p. 6.)

C

The question respecting the subjection of Scotland to the English Crown, has given rise to a multitude of treatises, and has been advocated on different sides, by authors of high literary reputation. A short statement of the authorities, upon which the question depends, will be found in Dr. Duck's Treatise, “de Usu et Auctoritate Juris Civilis:" and it is a necessary caution, in reading the text of Fortescue, to bear in mind, that Rapin, who collects the proofs at large, on both sides, in his history, decides the case in favour of the Scotch.