JAMES II.

109

fogative of the crown was again unanimously c 11 a p.affirmed 4 : And it became an established principle i.xx.in English jurisprudence, that, though the king 16S6 -

could not allow of what was morally unlawful,he could permit what was only prohibited bypositive statute. Even the jealous house of com-mons , who extorted the petition of right fromCharles I. made no scruple, by the mouth ofGlanville , their manager , to allow of the dis-pensing power in its full extent 7 \ and in the fa-mous trial of ship-money, Hoiborne , the popularlawyer, had, freely, and in the most explicitterms , made the fame concession 8 . Sir EdwardCoke, the great oracle of English law, had notonly concurred with all other lawyers in favor ofthis prerogative; but seems even to believe it soinherent in the crown, that an act of parliamentitself could not abolish it’. And he particularlyobserves , that no law can impose such a disabilityof enjoying offices as the king may not dispensewith; because the king, from the law of nature,has a right to the service of all his subjects. Thisparticular reason, as well as all the general prin-ciples , is applicable to the question of the tests ;nor can the dangerous consequence of grantingdispensations in that cafe be ever allowed to bepleaded before a court of~ judicature. Every

‘ Sir Edward Coke’s reports, seventh report,

7 State Trials, vol. vii. first edit. p. 20?. Parl. hist,vol. viii. p. 1; 2. State Trials, vol. v. first edit. p. 171.' Sir Edward Coke’s reports, twelfth report, p. 18.