The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 06 (of 11) — Thomas Hobbes — John Shaqi
The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 06 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
_L._ Truly the question is difficult; and there have been many suits
about it, wherein the question has been, whose jurisdiction it is in.
_P._ Nor do I see how it can be decided but by the King himself, in case
it be not declared in the Lord Admiral’s letters-patent.
_L._ But though there be in the letters-patent a power given to hold
plea in some certain cases, not contrary to any of the statutes
concerning the Admiralty, the justices of the common-law may send a
prohibition to that court, to proceed in the plea, though it be with a
_non-obstante_ of any statute.
_P._ Methinks that that should be against the right of the Crown, which
cannot be taken from it by any subject. For that argument of Sir Edward
Coke’s, that the King has given away all his judicial power, is worth
nothing: because, as I have said before, he cannot give away the
essential rights of his Crown, and because by a _non-obstante_ he
declares he is not deceived in his grant.
_L._ But you may see by the precedents alleged by Sir Edward Coke, the
contrary has been perpetually practised.
_P._ I see not that perpetually. For who can tell but there may have
been given other judgments, in such cases, which have either been not
preserved in the records, or else by Sir Edward Coke, because they were
against his opinion, not alleged? For this is possible, though you will
not grant it to be very likely. Therefore I insist only upon this, that
no record of a judgment is a law, save only to the party pleading until
he can by law reverse the former judgment. And as to the proceeding
without juries, by two sufficient witnesses, I do not see what harm can
proceed from it to the commonwealth, nor consequently any just quarrel
that the justice of the common-law can have against their proceedings in
the Admiralty. For the proof of the fact in both courts lieth merely on
the witnesses; and the difference is no more, but that in the imperial
law, the judge of the court judgeth of the testimony of the witnesses,
and the jury doth it in a court of common-law. Besides, if a court of
common-law should chance to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the
Admiral, may not he send a prohibition to the court of common-law to
forbid their proceeding? I pray you tell me what reason there is for the
one, more than for the other?