Page:The Leveller movement; a study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War (IA levellermovement01peas).djvu/40

 causes” of both regal and parliamentary powe Power and authority, he decided, were originall inherent in the people, and were nothing else bu “that might and vigour which such or such societie of men containes in itselfe.” The societ could transfer this inherent power to a ruler onl by a law “of common consent and agreement. This law, when so transferring power, had Godl assent; “and so man is the free and voluntar Author, the Law is the Instrument, and God is th establisher of both.” Hence it followed that “a the founding of authorities, when the consent o societies convayes rule into such and such hands it may ordaine what conditions, and prefix what bounds it pleases, and that no dissolution ough to be thereof, but by the same power by which i had its constitution.”

As might be expected, Parker adopted a for of the salus populi argument. The charter o nature, he asserted, entitled “all Subjects of a Countries whatsoever to safetie by its supream Law.” The postulate that “the subject shall liv both safe and free” limited the prerogative of al princes, no matter what the constitutions of th nations they ruled. Thus the necessity of th people’s safety guided and defined the prince’ prerogative of calling and dismissing Parliaments and of assenting to their laws; of the measure required to secure the safety of the nation, a Parliament was supreme judge.