Defense of the People of England, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
AFter having diſcours'd upon the Law of God, and of Nature, and handled both ſo untowardly, that you have got nothing by the bargain but a deſerved reproach of Ignorance and Knavery; I cannot apprehend what you can have farther to alledg in defence of your Royal Cauſe, but meer trifles. I for my part hope I have given ſatisfaction already to all good and learned men, and ſhall have done this Noble cauſe Right, ſhould I break off here; yet leſt I ſhould ſeem to any to decline your variety of arguing and ingenuity, rather than your immoderate impertinence, and tittle-tattle, I'le follow you where ever you have a mind to go; but with ſuch brevity as ſhall make it appear, that after having perform'd whatever the neceſſary defence of the Cauſe required, if not, what the dignity of it merited, I now do but comply with ſome mens expectation, if not their curioſity. Now, ſay you, I ſhall alledg other and greater arguments. What? greater arguments than what the Law of God and Nature afforded? Help, Lucina! The mountain Salmaſius is in labour! It is not for nothing that he has got a ſhe-husband. Mortals expect ſome extraordinary birth. If he that is, and is called a King, might be accuſed before any other power, that power muſt of neceſſity be greater than that of the King; and if ſo, then muſt that power be indeed the Kingly power, and ought to have the name of it: For a Kingly power is thus defined; to wit, the Supreme power in the State reſiding in a ſingle perſon, and which has no ſuperior. O ridiculous birth! a Mouſe crept out of the Mountain! Help Grammarians! one of your number is in danger of periſhing! The Law of God and of Nature are ſafe; but Salmaſius his Dictionary is undone. What if I ſhould anſwer you thus? That words ought to give place to things; that we having taken away Kingly Government it ſelf, do not think our ſelves concerned about its name, and definition; let others look to that, who are in love with Kings: We are contented with the enjoyment of our Liberty; ſuch an anſwer would be good enough for you. But to let you ſee that I deal fairly with you throughout, I will anſwer you, not only from my own, but from the opinion of very wiſe and good men, who have thought that the name and power of a King are very conſiſtent with a power in the people and the Law, ſuperior to that of the King himſelf. In the firſt place Lycurgus, a man very eminent for his wiſdom, deſigning, as Plato ſays, to ſecure a Kingly Government as well as it was poſſible, could find no better expedient to preſerve it, than by making the power of the Senate, and of the Ephori, that is, the power of the people, ſuperior to it. Theſeus in Euripedes, King of Athens was of the ſame opinion; for he to his great honour reſtored the people to their liberty, and advanced the power of the people above that of the King, and yet left the Regal Power in that City to his Poſterity. Whence Euripedes in his Play called the Suppliants, introduceh him ſpeaking on this manner: I have advanced the people themſelves into the Throne, having freed the City from Slavery, and admitted the people to a ſhare in the Government, by giving them an equal right of Suffrage. And in another place to the Herald of Thebes, In the firſt place, ſays he, you begin your Speech, Friend, with a thing that is not true; in ſtiling me a Monarch; for this City is not governed by a ſingle perſon, but is a free State; the people reigns here. Theſe were his words, when at the ſame time he was both called, and really was King there. The Divine Plato likewiſe in his Eight Epiſtle, Lycurgus, ſays he, introduced the power of the Senate and of the Ephori, a thing very preſervative of Kingly Government, which by this means hath honourably flouriſhed for ſo many ages, becauſe the Law in effect was made King. Now the Law cannot be King, unleſs there be ſome, who, if there ſhould be occaſion, may put the Law in execution againſt the King. A Kingly Government ſo bounded and limited, he himſelf commends to the Sicilians, Let the people enjoy their Liberty under a Kingly Government; let the King himſelf be accountable; let the Law take place even againſt Kings themſelves, if they act contrary to Law. Ariſtotle likewiſe in the third Book of his Politicks, Of all Kingdoms, ſays he, that are govern'd by Laws, that of the Lacedemonians ſeems to be moſt truly and properly ſo. And he ſays, all forms of Kingly Governments are according to ſetled and eſtabliſht Laws, but one, which he calls foreign, or Abſolute Monarchy, which he does not mention ever to have obtain'd in any Nation. So that Ariſtotle thought ſuch a Kingdom, as that of the Lacedemonians was, to be and deſerve the name of a Kingdom more properly than any other; and conſequently that a King, tho ſubordinate to his own people, was nevertheleſs actually a King properly ſo called. Now ſince ſo many and ſo great Authors aſſert that a Kingly Government both in name and thing may very well ſubſiſt even where the people, tho they do not ordinarily exerciſe the Su… Power, yet have it actually reſiding in them, and exerciſe it upon occaſion. Be not you of ſo mean a ſoul as to fear the down-fall of Grammer, and the … of the ſignification of words to that de…, as to betray the Liberty of Mankind, and the State, rather than your Gloſſary ſhould not hold water. And know for the future, that words muſt be conformable to things, not things to words. By this means you'l have more wit and not run on in infinitum, which now you're afraid of It was to no purpoſe then, for Seneca, you ſay, to deſcribe thoſe three forms of Government, as he has done. Let Seneca do a thing to no purpoſe, ſo we enjoy our Liberty. And if I miſtake us not, we are other ſort of men than to be enſlav'd by Seneca's flowers. And yet Seneca, though he ſays that the Soveraign Power in a Kingly Government reſides in a ſingle perſon, ſays withal that the power is the people's, and by them committed to the King for the welfare of the whole, not for their ruin and deſtruction; and that the people has not given him a propriety in it, but the uſe of it. Kings at this rate, you ſay, do not reign by God, but by the people. As if God did not ſo over-rule the people, that they ſet up ſuch Kings, as it pleaſes God. Since Juſtinian himſelf openly acknowledgeth, that the Roman Emperours derived their Authority from that Royal Law, whereby the people granted to them and veſted in them all their own power and authority. But how oft ſhall we repeat theſe things over and over again? Then you take upon you to intermeddle with the Conſtitution of our Government, in which you are no ways concerned, who are both a ſtranger and a foreigner; but it ſhows your ſawcineſs, and want of good manners. Come then, let us hear your Soloeciſms, like a buſie Coxcomb as you are. You tell us, but 'tis in falſe Latin, that what thoſe Deſperadoes ſay, is only to deceive the people. You Raſcal! was it for this that you a Renegado Grammarian, were ſo forward to intermeddle with the affairs of our Government, that you might introduce your Soloeciſms and Barbariſms amongſt us? But ſay, how have we deceiv'd the people? The form of Government which they have ſet up, is not Popular, but Military. This is what that herd of Fugitives and Vagabonds hired you to write. So that I ſhall not trouble my ſelf to anſwer you, who bleat what you know nothing of, but I'le anſwer them that hired you. Who excluded the Lords from Parliament, was it the people? Yea, it was the people; and in ſo doing they threw an intollerable yoke of Slavery from off their necks. Thoſe very Soldiers, who you ſay did it, were not foreigners, but our own Countrymen, and a great part of the people; and they did it with the conſent, and at the deſire of almoſt all the reſt of the people, and not without the authority of the Parliament neither. Was it the people that cut off part of the Houſe of Commons, forcing ſome away, &c. Yes, I ſay, it was the people. For whatever the better and ſounder part of the Senate did, in which the true power of the people reſided, why may not the people be ſaid to have done it? What if the greater part of the Senate ſhould chuſe to be ſlaves, or to expoſe the Government to ſale, ought not the leſſer number to interpoſe, and endeavour to retain their Liberty, if it be in their power? But the Officers of the Army and their Soldiers did it. And we are beholden to thoſe Officers for not being wanting to the State, but repelling the Tumultary violence of the Citizens and Mechanicks of London, who, like that Rabble that appear'd for Clodius, had but a little before beſet the very Parliament Houſe? Do you therefore call the right of the Parliament, to whom it properly and originally belongs to take care of the Liberty of the people both in Peace and War, a Military power? But 'tis no wonder that thoſe Traytors that have dictated theſe paſſages to you, ſhould talk at that rate; ſo that profligate faction of Anthony and his adherents uſed to call the Senate of Rome, when they armed themſelves againſt the enemies of their Country, The Camp of Pompey. And now I'm glad to underſtand that they of your party, envy Cromwell, that moſt valiant General of our Army, his undertaking that Expedition in Ireland, (ſo acceptable to Almighty God) ſurrounded with a joyful crowd of his Friends, and proſecuted with the well-wiſhes of the people, and the prayers of all good men: For I queſtion not but at the news of his many Victories there, they are by this time burſten with ſpleen. I paſs by many of your impertinencies concerning the Roman Soldiers. What follows is moſt notoriouſly falſe: The power of the people, ſay you, ceaſes where there is a King. By what Law or Right is that? Since it is known that almoſt all Kings of what Nations ſoever, received their Authority from the people upon certain conditions; which if the King do not perform, I wiſh you would inform us, why that Power, which was but a Truſt, ſhould not return to the people, as well from a King, as from a Conſul, or any other Magiſtrate. For when you tell us, that 'tis neceſſary for the Publick Safety, you do but trifle with us; for the ſafety of the Publick is equally concerned, whether it be from a King, or from a Senate, or from a Triumvirate, that the power wherewith they were entruſted, revert to the people, upon their abuſe of it; and yet you your ſelf grant that it may ſo revert from all ſorts of Magiſtrates, a King only excepted. Certainly, if no people in their right wits ever committed the Government either to a King, or other Magiſtrates, for any other purpoſe, than for the common good of them all, there can be no reaſon why, to prevent the utter ruin of them all, they may not as well take it back again from a King, as from other Governors; nay, and it may with far greater eaſe be taken from one, than from many And to inveſt any mortal creature with a power over themſelves, on any other terms than upon Truſt, were extreme madneſs; nor is it credible that any people ſince the Creation of the world, who had freedom of will, were ever ſo miſerably ſilly, as either to depart with the power for ever, and to all purpoſes, or to revoke it from thoſe whom they had entruſted with it, but upon moſt urgent and weighty reaſons. If diſſentions, if Civil Wars, are occaſioned thereby, there cannot any Right accrue from thence to the King, to retain that power by force of arms, which the people challenge from him as their own Whence it follows that what you ſay, and we do not deny, That Governors are not lightly to be changed, is true with reſpect to the peoples Prudence, not the King's Right; but that therefore they ought never to be changed, upon no occaſion whatſoever, that does not follow by no means; nor have you hitherto alledged any thing, nor made appear any Right of Kings to the contrary, but that all the people concurring, they may lawfully be depoſed, when unfit for Government; provided it may be done, as it has been often done in your own Countrey of France, without any Tumults or Civil Wars Since therefore the Safety of the People, and not that of a Tyrant, is the Supreme Law, and conſequently ought to be alledged on the peoples behalf againſt a Tyrant, and not for him againſt them, you that go about to pervert ſo ſacred and ſo glorious a Law, with your fallacies and juglings; you who would have this Supreme Law, and which of all others is moſt beneficial to mankind, to ſerve only for the Impunity of Tyrants, let me fell you, ſince you call us Engliſhmen ſo often Inſpired, and Enthuſiaſts, and Prophets; let me, I ſay, be ſo far a Prophet, as to tell you, That the Vengeance of God and man hangs over your head for ſo horrid a Crime; altho your ſubjecting all mankind to Tyranny, as far as in you lies, which in effect is no better than condemning them to be devoured by wild beaſts, is in it ſelf part of its own Vengeance, and whitherſoever you flye, and whereſoever you wander, will firſt or laſt purſue you with its Furies, and overtake you, and cauſe you to rave worſe than you do now. I come now to your ſecond Argument, which is not unlike the firſt: If the people may reſume their Liberty, there would be no difference, you ſay, betwixt a Popular State and a Kingdom; but that in a Kingdom one man rules, and in a Popular State many. And what if that were true; would the State have any prejudice by it? But you your ſelf tell us of other differences that would be notwithſtanding; to wit, of Time and Succeſſion; for in popular States, the Magiſtrates are generally choſen yearly; whereas Kings, if they behave themſelves well, are perpetual; and in moſt Kingdoms there is a Succeſſion in the ſame Family. But let them differ from one another, or not differ, I regard not thoſe petty things: In this they agree, That when the Publick Good requires it, the people may without doing injury to any, reſume that power for the Publick Saftety, which they committed to another for that end and purpoſe. But by the Royal Law, by the Romans ſo called, which is mentioned in the Inſtitutes, the people of Rome granted all their Power and Authority to the Prince. They did ſo by compulſion; the Emperor, being willing to ratifie their Tyranny by the Authority of a Law; but of this we have ſpoken before; and their own Lawyers commenting upon this place in the Inſtitutes, confeſs as much. So that we make no queſtion but the people may revoke what they were forced to grant, and granted againſt their wills. But moſt rational it is to ſuppoſe, that the people of Rome transferred no other power to the Prince, than they had before granted to their own Magiſtrates; and that was a power to govern according to Law, and a revocable, not an abſurd, tyrannical power: Hence it was that the Emperors aſſumed the Conſular Dignity, and that of the Tribunes of the people; but after Julius Caeſar, not one of them pretended to the Dictatorſhip: In the Circus Maximus they uſed to adore the people, as I have ſaid already out of Tacitus and Claudian. But as heretofore many private perſons have ſold themſelves into ſlavery, ſo a whole Nation may. Thou Gaol-bird of a Knight, thou day-ſpirit, thou everlaſting ſcandal to thy Native-Countrey. The moſt deſpicable Slaves in the world ought to abhor and ſpit upon ſuch a Factor for Slavery, ſuch a publick Pander as thou art. Certainly if people had ſo enſlaved themſelves to Kings, then might Kings turn them over to other Maſters, or fell them for money; and yet we know that Kings cannot ſo much as alienate the Demeſnes of the Crown: And ſhall he, that has but the Crown, and the Revenues that belong to it, as an Uſufructuary, and thoſe given him by the people, can he be ſaid to have, as it were, purchaſed the people, and made them his Propriety? Tho you were bored through both ears, and went bare-foot, you would not be ſo vile and deſpicable, ſo much more contemptible than all Slaves, as the broaching ſuch a ſcandalous Doctrine as this makes you. But go on, and puniſh your ſelf for your Rogueries, as now you do, tho againſt your will. You frame a long Diſcourſe of the Law of War; which is nothing to the purpoſe in this place: For neither did Charles conquer us; and for his Anceſtors, if it were never ſo much granted that they did, yet have they often renounced their Title as Conquerors: And certain it is, That we were never ſo conquered, but that as we ſwore Allegiance to them, ſo they ſwore to maintain our Laws, and govern by them: Which Laws, when Charles had notoriouſly violated, taken in what capacity you will, as one who had formerly been a Conqueror, or was now a perjured King, we ſubdued him by force, he himſelf having begun with us firſt: And according to your own opinion, Whatever is acquired by War, becomes his property that acquired it. So that how full ſoever you are of words, how impertinent ſoever a babler, whatever you prate, how great a noiſe ſoever you make, what Quotations ſoever out of the Rabbins, tho you make your ſelf never ſo hoarſe, to the end of this Chapter, aſſure your ſelf, That nothing of it makes for the King, he being now conquered, but all for us, who by God's aſſiſtance are Conquerors.