De laudibus legum Angliæ writen by Sir Iohn Fortescue L. Ch. Iustice, and after L. Chancellor to K. Henry VI. Hereto are ioind the two Summes of Sir Ralph de Hengham L. Ch. Iustice to K. Edward I. commonly calld Hengham magna, and Hengham parua. Neuer before publisht. Notes both on Fortescue and Hengham are added

Here the Prince compendiously abridgeth all that the Chauncellor afore hath dis∣coursed at large. Cha. 14. (Book 14)

CVi Princeps, Effugasti, Can

cellarie, declaratio∣nis tuae lumine te∣nebras, quibus ob∣ducta erat acies mē∣tis meae, quo claris∣sime iam conspicio, quod non alio pa∣cto gens aliqua, proprio arbitrio, vnquam se in reg∣num corporauit, nisi vt per hoc, se & sua, quorum dis∣pendia formida∣bant, tutius quam antea possiderent, quasi proposito gēs huiusmodi frauda∣retur, si exinde fa∣cultates eorum eri∣pere possit Rex su∣us, quod antea face∣re vlli hominum nō licebat. Et adhuc graui{us} multo popu∣lus talis laederetur,

si deinde peregri∣nis legibus, etiam ipsis forsan exosis, regerentur. Et max∣ime, si legibus illis, eorum minorare∣tur substantia, pro cuius vitāda iactu∣ra, vt pro suorum tutela corporum, ipsi se Regis impe∣rio, arbitrio pro∣prio, submiserunt, non potuit reuera potestas huiusmodi ab ipsis erupisle: & tamen si non ab ip∣sis, Rex huiusmodi super ipsos nullam obtineret potesta∣tem. E regione, a∣liter esse concipio de regno, quod Regis solum aucto∣ritate & potentia incorporatum est,

qui non alio pacto gēs talis ei subiecta est, nisi vt eius legi∣bus, quae sunt illius placita, gens ipsa, quae eodem placito regnum eius effecta est, obtemperaret & regeretur. Neque, Cancellarie, a mea hucusque memoria elapsum est, quod alias in tractatu de natura legis naturae, horum duorū regū aequalem esse potē∣tiam, doctis rationi∣bus ostendisti, dum potestas, qua eorū alter perperam age∣re liber est, libertate hm̄di nō augetur, vt posse languescere, moriue, potentia nō est, sed propter pri∣uationes inadiecto,

impotentia poti∣us denominandum. Quia vt dicit Bo∣etius, potentia non est nisi ad bonum, quod posse male a∣gere, vt potest Rex regaliter regnans, liberius quam Rex politice dominans populo suo, poti us eius potestatem miniut, quam aug∣mentat. Nam san∣cti spiritus, iam confirmati in glo∣ria, qui peccare nequeunt poten∣tiores nobis sunt, qui ad omne fa∣cinus liberis gau∣demus habenis. Solum igitur mi∣hi iam superest a te sciscitandum, si Lex Angliae,

ad cuius disciplina∣••um me prouocas, bona & efficax est ad regimen regni illius, vt lex ciuilis, quasa∣crum regulatur im∣periū▪ sufficiens arbi∣tratur ad orbis regi∣men vniuersi? Si me in hoc, demonstra∣tionibus congruis, indubium reddide∣ris, ad studiū legis illius ilico me cō••e∣rā nec te postulatio nib{us} meis super his, amplius fatigabo.

TO whom the Prince thus answered. You

haue, good Chancellour, with the cleare light of your declaratiō quite dri∣uen away the cloudy mist, wherewith the brightnes of my mind was darkned: so that I do most euidētly see that no natiō did euer of their owne voluntarie minde incorporate them∣selues into a kingdom for any other intent, but only to the end, y^t thereby they might with more safetie then before maintaine thē selues, & enioy their goods from such misfortunes & losses as they stood in fear of, And of this intēt shuld such a natiō be vtterly de∣frauded, if then their king might spoile them of their goods, which before was lawfull for no man to do. And yet should such a peo∣ple be much more iniured,

if they should afterward bee gouerned by forreine and straunge Lawes, yea and such as they per∣aduenture deadly hated and abhorred. And most of all, if by those Lawes, their substance should bee diminished, for the safegard whereof, as also for the defence of their own bodies, they of their owne free will sub∣mitted themselues to the gouernance of a King, no such power surely could haue proceeded frō them: And yet if they had not beene, such a King could haue had no power ouer them. Now on the other side I perceiue it to stande muche otherwise with a kingdome, which onely by the authoritie of a king is incorporate,

For such a Nation is no otherwise subiect vnto him, but that the same Natiō which by his plea∣sure is made his king∣dome, should obey his Lawes, and bee ruled by the same beeing nothing else but his like pleasure. Neither haue I yet, good Chauncellour, forgotten that, which in your trea∣tise of the nature of the Lawe of Nature, you haue with pithie reasons clarkely prooued: con∣cerning that the power of these two kings is equal. Howbeit y^e power of the one, whereby hee is at li∣berty to deale wrōgfully, is not by such liberty aug∣mented and increased, as to be of habilitie to decay and dy, is no hability, but in respect of y^e priuation

and feblenes in the thing, it is rather to be called a dishabilitie. Because that as Boetius saith: hability and power is not but to good: So that to bee of habilitie or power to doe euill, (as is the king that Regally doth rule, and that with much more li∣bertie, then the King that hath a politike dominion ouer his people) is rather a diminution then an in∣crease of power. For the holy spirits, which are now established in glorie, and cannot sinne, doe in power far excell and passe vs which haue a delight & pleasure to run headlōg into all kinde of wicked∣nes. Now therfore I haue but this one only questiō to demande of you, whe∣ther the law of England,

to the studie whereof you exhort me, be as good and effectuall for the gouern∣ment of that kingdome, as the Ciuill law, whereby the holy empire is gouern∣ned, is thought sufficient for the gouernment of the whole world? If w^t sound reasons and apparant de∣monstrations you resolue me in this point, I will streight yeeld mee to the studie of the Lawe, with∣out further troubling you with my questions in this matter.