those princes who made no other but a right use of it… that is； for
the good of their people。
163。 And therefore they have a very wrong notion of government who
say that the people have encroached upon the prerogative when they
have got any part of it to be defined by positive laws。 For in so
doing they have not pulled from the prince anything that of right
belonged to him； but only declared that that power which they
indefinitely left in his or his ancestors' hands； to be exercised
for their good； was not a thing they intended him； when he used it
otherwise。 For the end of government being the good of the
community； whatsoever alterations are made in it tending to that end
cannot be an encroachment upon anybody； since nobody in government can
have a right tending to any other end； and those only are
encroachments which prejudice or hinder the public good。 Those who say
otherwise speak as if the prince had a distinct and separate
interest from the good of the community； and was not made for it；
the root and source from which spring almost all those evils and
disorders which happen in kingly governments。 And indeed； if that be
so； the people under his government are not a society of rational
creatures； entered into a community for their mutual good； such as
have set rulers over themselves； to guard and promote that good； but
are to be looked on as a herd of inferior creatures under the dominion
of a master； who keeps them and works them for his own pleasure or
profit。 If men were so void of reason and brutish as to enter into
society upon such terms； prerogative might indeed be； what some men
would have it； an arbitrary power to do things hurtful to the people。
164。 But since a rational creature cannot be supposed； when free； to
put himself into subjection to another for his own harm （though
where he finds a good and a wise ruler he may not； perhaps； think it
either necessary or useful to set precise bounds to his power in all
things）； prerogative can be nothing but the people's permitting
their rulers to do several things of their own free choice where the
law was silent； and sometimes too against the direct letter of the
law； for the public good and their acquiescing in it when so done。 For
as a good prince； who is mindful of the trust put into his hands and
careful of the good of his people； cannot have too much prerogative…
that is； power to do good； so a weak and ill prince； who would claim
that power his predecessors exercised； without the direction of the
law； as a prerogative belonging to him by right of his office； which
he may exercise at his pleasure to make or promote an interest
distinct from that of the public； gives the people an occasion to
claim their right and limit that power； which； whilst it was exercised
for their good； they were content should be tacitly allowed。
165。 And therefore he that will look into the history of England
will find that prerogative was always largest in the hands of our
wisest and best princes； because the people observing the whole
tendency of their actions to be the public good； or if any human
frailty or mistake （for princes are but men； made as others）
appeared in some small declinations from that end； yet it was
visible the main of their conduct tended to nothing but the care of
the public。 The people； therefore； finding reason to be satisfied with
these princes； whenever they acted without； or contrary to the
letter of the law； acquiesced in what they did； and without the
least complaint； let them enlarge their prerogative as they pleased；
judging rightly that they did nothing herein to the prejudice of their
laws； since they acted conformably to the foundation and end of all
laws… the public good。
166。 Such God…like princes； indeed； had some title to arbitrary
power by that argument that would prove absolute monarchy the best
government； as that which God Himself governs the universe by； because
such kings partake of His wisdom and goodness。 Upon this is founded
that saying； 〃That the reigns of good princes have been always most
dangerous to the liberties of their people。〃 For when their
successors； managing the government with different thoughts； would
draw the actions of those good rulers into precedent and make them the
standard of their prerogative… as if what had been done only for the
good of the people was a right in them to do for the harm of the
people； if they so pleased… it has often occasioned contest； and
sometimes public disorders； before the people could recover their
original right and get that to be declared not to be prerogative which
truly was never so； since it is impossible anybody in the society
should ever have a right to do the people harm； though it be very
possible and reasonable that the people should not go about to set any
bounds to the prerogative of those kings or rulers who themselves
transgressed not the bounds of the public good。 For 〃prerogative is
nothing but the power of doing public good without a rule。〃
167。 The power of calling parliaments in England； as to precise
time； place； and duration； is certainly a prerogative of the king； but
still with this trust； that it shall be made use of for the good of
the nation as the exigencies of the times and variety of occasion
shall require。 For it being impossible to foresee which should
always be the fittest place for them to assemble in； and what the best
season； the choice of these was left with the executive power； as
might be best subservient to the public good and best suit the ends of
parliament。
168。 The old question will be asked in this matter of prerogative；
〃But who shall be judge when this power is made a right use of？〃 I
answer： Between an executive power in being； with such a
prerogative； and a legislative that depends upon his will for their
convening； there can be no judge on earth。 As there can be none
between the legislative and the people； should either the executive or
the legislative； when they have got the power in their hands；
design； or go about to enslave or destroy them； the people have no
other remedy in this； as in all other cases where they have no judge
on earth； but to appeal to Heaven； for the rulers in such attempts；
exercising a power the people never put into their hands； who can
never be supposed to consent that anybody should rule over them for
their harm； do that which they have not a right to do。 And where the
body of the people； or any single man； are deprived of their right； or
are under the exercise of a power without right； having no appeal on
earth they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven whenever they judge
the cause of sufficient moment。 And therefore； though the people
cannot be judge； so as to have； by the constitution of that society；
any superior power to determine and give effective sentence in the
case； yet they have reserved that ultimate determination to themselves
which belongs to all mankind； where there lies no appeal on earth；
by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men； whether
they have just cause to make their appeal to Heaven。 And this
judgement they cannot part with； it being out of a man's power so to
submit himself to another as to give him a liberty to destroy him； God
and Nature never allowing a man so to abandon himself as to neglect
his own preservation。 And since he cannot take away his own life；
neither can he give another power to take it。 Nor let any one think
this lays a perpetual foundation for disorder； for this operates not
till the inconvenience is so great that the majority feel it； and
are weary of it； and find a necessity to have it amended。 And this the
executive power； or wise princes； never need come in the danger of；
and it is the thing of all others they have most need to avoid； as； of
all others； the most perilous。
Chapter XV
Of Paternal； Political and Despotical Power；
Considered Together
169。 THOUGH I have had occasion to speak of these separately before；
yet the great mistakes of late about government having； as I
suppose； arisen from confounding these distinct powers one with
another； it may not perhaps be amiss to consider them here together。
170。 First； then； paternal or parental power is nothing but that
which parents have over their children to govern them； for the
children's good； till they come to the use of reason； or a state of
knowledge； wherein they may be supposed capable to understand that
rule； whether it be the law of Nature or the municipal law of their
country； they are to govern themselves by… capable； I say； to know it；
as well as several others； who live as free men under that law。 The
affection and tenderness God hath planted in the breasts of parents
towards their children makes it evident that this is not intended to
be a severe arbitrary government； but only for the help；
instruction； and preservation of their offspring。 But happen as it
will； there is； as I have proved； no reason why it should be thought
to extend to life and death； at any time； over their children； more
than over anybody else； or keep the child in subjection to the will of
his parents when grown to a man and the perfect use of reason； any
farther than as having received life and education from his parents
obliges him to respect； honour； gratitude； assistance； and support；
all his life； to both father and mother。 And thus； it is true； the
paternal is a natural government； but not at all extending itself to
the ends and jurisdictions of that which is political。 The power of
the father doth not reach at all to the property of the child； which
is only in his own disposing。
171。 Secondly； political power is that power which every man
having in the state of Nature has given up into the hands of the
society； and therein to the governors whom the society hath set over
itself； with this express or tacit trust； that it shall be employed
for their good and the preservation of their property。 Now this power；
which every man has in the stat