does not cease, but becomes a mode of possession, narrowed by a condition and not unlike temporary sovereignty. . . XVII. In the fourth place, it is to be noted that sovereignty, though in itself a unit and indivisible, composed of those parts which we have enumerated, with the addition of irresponsibility, may be divided in possession. Thus the Roman imperial power, though one, was often divided, so that one ruler had the East, another the West; or even into three parts. So too it may happen that a people when it chooses a king may reserve certain acts to itself, and commit others to the king pleno jure. This is not the case whenever the king is bound by certain promises, as we have shown above. But it is to be understood to happen when the partition of power is expressly instituted, concerning which we have already spoken; or if a people, hitherto free, lay upon the king some perpetual precept; or if anything be added to the compact, by which it is understood that the king can be compelled or punished. For a precept is the act of a superior, at least in the thing commanded. To compel is not always the act of a superior; for by natural law a creditor has the right of coercing his debtor; but to compel is at variance with the nature of an inferior. Therefore, in the case of such compulsion, a parity of powers, at least, follows, and sovereignty is divided. Many persons allege many inconveniences against such a twoheaded sovereignty. But in political matters nothing is entirely free from inconvenience. And law is to be measured not according to what seems best to this or that person, but by the will of him who is the origin of law. . . . Such engagements as we have been speaking of have been made not only between kings and their peoples, but also among different kings and different peoples, and between kings and neighboring peoples, each giving a guarantee to the other. XVIII. Those are very much mistaken who consider that there is a division of sovereignty when kings allow certain of their own acts not to be valid except when approved by a senate or some other assembly. For when in such cases acts of the king are rescinded they are to be understood as being rescinded by the authority of the king, who provided such a caution against fallacious representations. Thus Antiochus the Third sent a rescript to the magistrates, that if he commanded anything contrary to the laws, they should not obey him; and Constantine directed that widows and orphans should not be compelled to come to the emperor's court for judgment, though a rescript of the emperor to that effect should be produced. The case is like that of a testament in which it is added that no subsequent testament shall be valid; for this clause has the effect of making a later testament presumed not to be the real will of the testator. But as such a clause may be rescinded by an express and special signification of the writer, so may the direction of the king. Life and Times: SELECTED REFERENCES White, Seven Great Statesmen, pp. 53-78, 103-110. Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. v, §§ 1 and 2. Figgis, Studies of Political Thought, from Gerson to Grotius, pp. 191-200, 211-219. Franck, Réformateurs et publicistes de l'Europe, dix-septième siècle, pp. 253–266. Pradier-Fodéré, Essai biographique et historique sur Grotius et son temps. Luden, Hugo Grotius nach seinen Schicksalen und Schriften. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. v, §§ 3-6. Franck, Réformateurs et publicistes de l'Europe, dix-septième siècle, pp. 266– 332. White, Seven Great Statesmen, pp. 79-102. Hallam, Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries, Vol. II, pp. 548-584. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 227-234. XIII. JOHN MILTON (1608-1674) INTRODUCTION In the combat between Puritans and Royalists in England in the middle of the seventeenth century, the protagonists of republican ideas founded their doctrines upon general principles of political justice, not upon English law and precedent. In the pamphlets of this era we find that conclusions concerning the rights of the people are derived through arguments similar to those employed by continental pamphleteers of the preceding century. In clear statement of republican doctrine and in specific analysis of the content of the sphere of original human rights, English writers advanced beyond their continental predecessors. The English. republican theory was set forth most eloquently and logically in the polemical writings of Milton. Milton's political essays constitute the major part of his literary output between 1640 and 1660. The graceful style and philosophic tone of these essays gave great currency and influence to his views. Milton was actively identified with the movements which he expounded and defended. He entered first into the controversy concerning church government; in this affair he belonged to the party which advocated complete separation of church and state, the abrogation of the episcopal organization, and the substitution of an order similar to that of the Scotch Presbyterian church. He was a zealous partisan of the Parliamentary party during the civil war. In one conspicuous instance, however, he took strong stand against the action of his party. The occasion of his opposition was the "Printing Ordinance" issued by Parliament in 1644, which required all publications to be licensed by an official censor. Milton fell under charges of contempt of Parliament for having issued a pamphlet in justification of divorce (following his own divorce) without obtaining a license for the publication. After the charge of contempt was made he published an essay entitled Areopagitica: a Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, to the Parliament of England. In this essay |