The History of England from the
Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Revolution of 1688

David Hume

Chapter 46, Footnote #48
Abstact vs. Concrete Kingship


It may not be unworthy of observation that James, in a book called ``The True Laws of Free Monarchies'', which he published a little before his accession to the crown of England, affirmed ``that a good king, although he be above the law, will subject and frame his actions thereto for example's sake to this subjects, and of his own free-will, but not as subject or bound thereto.'' In another passage, ``According to the fundamental law already alleged, we daily see that in the Parliament (which is nothing else but the head court of the king and his vassals) the laws are but craved by his subjects, and only made by him at their rogation and with their advice. For albeit the king make daily statutes and ordinances, enjoining such pains thereto as he thinks meet without any advice of Parliament or estates, yet it lies in the power of no Parliament to make any kind of law or statute without his sceptre be to it for giving it the force of a law.''---King James's Works, p. 202. It is not to be supposed that at such a critical juncture James had so little sense as directly, in so material a point, to have openly shocked what were the universal established principles of that age. On the contrary, we are told by historians that nothing tended more to facilitate his accession than the good opinion entertained of him by the English on account of his learned and judicious writings. The question, however, with regard to the royal power was at this time become a very dangerous point; and without employing ambiguous, insignificant terms, which determined nothing, it was impossible to please both king and Parliament. Dr. Cowell, who had magnified the prerogative in words too intelligible, fell this session under the indignation of the Commons.---Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 221. The king himself, after all his magnificent boasts, was obliged to make his escape through a distinction which he framed between a king in abstracto and a king in concreto. An abstract king, he said, had all power; but a concrete king was bound to observe the laws of the country which he governed---King James's Works, p. 583. But how bound? By conscience only? Or might his subjects resist him and defend their privileges? This he thought not fit to explain. And so difficult is it to explain that point that to this day, whatever liberties may be used by private inquirers, the laws have very prudently thought proper to maintain a total silence with regard to it.


[Back to:]
Histeng, Chapter 46 Reign of James 1.