An examination of the political part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan.: By George Lawson, rector of More in the county of Salop.

CAP. VIII. Of the Second Part, the Twenty fourth of the Book; Of nutrition and procreation of a Common-wealth.

TWO things only in this Cap. I question:

• the 1. Concerning the original of propriety.
• The 2. Concerning a standing revenue of the Crown.

The 1. he deriveth from the Soveraign, in manner as followeth.

T. H.

Propriety in all kinds of Common-wealths belongs to the Soveraign power. And again, propriety is the act only of the Soveraign, who distributes to every man his own by Law; and this distribution is first of Land, as of the Land of Promise by Eleazer and Joshua, &c.

G. L.

This is the summe and brief substance of many more words, and cannot be true. For

• 1. we find propriety of goods and lands in several families, which are of no Common-wealth.
• 2. The Consti∣tution of any Common-wealth doth presuppose this propriety, without which there can be no buying, selling, exchanging, stealing, restitution; other∣wise the eighth Commandment, Thou shalt not steal,

• could not be a Law of nature, nor bind any man, ex∣cept in a Common-wealth; and so before a Common∣wealth be instituted in a Community or people, there could be no sin in stealing.
• 3. All that may be grant∣ed in this point, is, That the Soveraign may preserve and regulate propriety, both by Laws and Judge∣ments. Yet the Author makes all men brutes, nay wild and ravenous beasts, and birds of prey, until they have made themselves slaves unto some absolute Soveraign, and such they must be, either beasts by the Law of nature, or slaves by the Laws of a civil State.
• 4. As for his instance in the Land of Canaan divided by lots to be chosen before Eleazer the high Priest, and Joshua the general, its impertinent and false. For,
  • 1. Israel before it was molded into a Common-wealth, had propriety in their goods.
  • 2. The propriety of that Land was at the first, and continued in God; for they were but Gods Tenants, in a special and peculiar manner, so as no people in the world was; therefore no man could alienate nor morgage beyond the year of Jubilee: at which time God seemed to renue their Leases, after the Jubilee-Sabbath.
  • 3. When they had in common conquered, and taken possession of the Land, it was theirs, so far as God had conveyed it, in common.
  • 4. It was for peace and order, as also for to preserve the distinction of Tribes divided, yet so as the Sove∣raign dividing it was God, who ordered the lot.

Eleazer and Joshua were but Superintendents of the lot, and no Soveraigns; neither had they any the least propriety more then others of the people. The Text expresly saith, That when they had made an end of dividing the Land, they gave Joshua Timnath

Serah in Mount Ephra in for his inheritance, Joshua 19.49, 50. where it is to be observed, That the peo∣ple gave it him.

T. H.

The propriety of the subject excludes all other sub∣jects from the use of them, and not the Sove∣raign.

G. L.

It doth not only exclude other subjects, but the Soveraign too. For,

• 1. The Soveraign is bound to observe the Laws of nature, which are the moral Laws of God; and propriety as by the Law of na∣ture.
• 2. Imperium nihil aliud esse sapientes definiunt, nisi curam salutis alienae, saith one very well. For civil supreme power was never given by any people to de∣stroy their propriety, but to defend it. Otherwise no intelligent people in the world would advance one person or more to take away their goods, and so put themselves in a worse condition then they were by the Laws of nature.
• 3. It may be granted, that the Soveraign hath dominium eminens, so far as to com∣mand not only the estates, but the lives of the sub∣jects for the publike safety; but what is this to pro∣priety properly taken?
• 4. If his assertion were true, then that distinction of Civilians, and the Au∣thors of Politicks, whereby they put a difference inter res & possessiones publicas and privatas, were in vain and false; but so it is not.
• 5. By the Sove∣raigns in England, he means the Kings, who were

• no Soveraigns at all, nor could at any time raise any moneys, or impose any subsidy upon the people with∣out their consent in Parliament, as not only English men, but forrein Ministers of State, who have either read our Histories, or our Laws, or our practice, do well know, and have made it known to others.
• 6. There may be a device in Law, to pass all the land in England upon the Crown, for to derive all tenures from thence, or to confirm propriety to the subjects, for that every one might not only know, but keep and recover his own the better: Yet this gives the King no more propriety, then a Peoffee in trust may have; and that is none.

T. H.

The publick is not to be dieted: in the Mar∣gint.

G. L.

His meaning is, that the Soveraign cannot be con∣fined to a certain revenue, as sufficient to defray the publick charge. Yet the wisest States in the world have certainly defined a constant standing revenue for the publick use. For we read of the Dominion of France, which though the Kings could neither alie∣nate, nor justly impare, yet Henry the fourth hath wo∣fully mangled, and given occasion of those heavy op∣pressions of the people of that State; and also we are not ignorant of the Crown lands, and revenue of England. And this is but agreeable to Scripture, where we read that God commanded, in the division

of the holy Land, that the Prince should have his portion, that he may no more oppress, Ezek. 45.7, 8. For the Land must be divided into three parts; The first must be for God to maintain the Priests and Levites: The second for the Prince, the third for the people: and thus some say the Land in England was divided in the time of the pious Saxon Kings. Yet it must be confessed, that sometimes the publick charge may be so great, as that a standing revenue cannot defray it, and then the subjects for the gene∣ral good and safety, are bound and may be command∣ed to contribute. But if this in a time of peace and safety be embezelled and mispent by a prodigal Prince, and his favourites and followers, this will no waies warrant him to fly upon the spoyl, and plun∣der his subjects. What William the Conqueror here in England did, it matters not much. For if he did derive his title from Edward the Confessor, as some Histories say he did pretend, then he was no Sove∣raign. If he did act as Conquerer, then all compact and right upon Covenant is void, as his successors, who insist upon that title of conquest, give full liber∣ty to the English to fight against them, and depose them if they can, and deal with them as enemies.

As for making Laws for the regulation of Traffick, Trade, Exchange, the value, stamp and coining of moneys, the sending out of Colonies for new Plan∣tations, as also to make them as Provinces, or ex∣empt them from subjection, because they will not al∣low protection, I grant all these are prerogatives of the Soveraign.