Note 32 — DIALOGUE VI. ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT. SIR JOHN MAYNARD, MR. SOMERS, BISHOP BURNET.

The doctrines of divine right, as propagated by the churchmen of that time in their books and sermons, are well known.—Those of the lawyers were such as these—It had been alleged on the part of Mr. Hampden, in the great cause of ship-money, “that by a fundamental policy in the creation of the frame of this kingdom, in case the monarch of England should be inclined to exact from his subjects at his pleasure, he should be restrained, for that he could have nothing from them, but upon a common consent of parliament.” Sir Robert Berkeley, one of the judges of the king’s-bench, affirmed—“That the law knows no such king-yoking policy:”—Sir Thomas Trevor, one of the barons of the exchequer, “That our king hath as much power and prerogative belonging to him as any prince in Christendom:”—The attorney-general, Sir John Banks, “That the king of England hath an entire empire; he is an absolute monarch: nothing can be given to an absolute prince! but is inherent in his person.” State Trials, vol. i. Such was the language of the guardians of the LAW, that temple or sanctuary, as it has been called, whither the subject is to run for shelter and protection. Had not Mr. St. John then much reason for saying, as he did on that occasion, “We have the fabric of the temple still; but the Gods, the Dii Tutelares, are gone?” There is the more force and propriety in this censure, as it comes from a man who was himself of the profession. And another of the same order, the best and wisest perhaps that frequented the temple of law in those days, proceeds with a just indignation still further—“These men (said Mr. Hide, in a speech to the lords) have, upon vulgar fears, delivered up the precious forts they were trusted with, almost without assault; and, in a tame easy trance of flattery and servitude, lost and forfeited (shamefully forfeited) that reputation, awe, and reverence, which the wisdom, courage, and gravity of their venerable predecessors had contracted and fastened to their places; and have even rendered that study and profession, which in all ages hath been, and I hope now shall be, of honourable estimation, so contemptible and vile, that, had not this blessed day come [the day of impeachment of the six judges], all men would have had that quarrel to the Law itself, which Marcius had to the Greek tongue, who thought it a mockery to learn that language, the masters whereof lived in bondage under others.”—Thus these eloquent apologists for law and liberty. The conclusion is, that though in the great bodies of churchmen and lawyers, some will always be found to dishonour themselves, there have never been wanting others to do justice to the public, and to assert, maintain, and preserve, the dignity of their respective professions.