Banks and the crown lawyers against Hambden, in the case of ship money, insist plainly and openly on the king's absolute and sovereign power; and the opposite lawyers do not deny it; they only assert, that the subjects have also a fundamental property in their goods, and that no part of them can be taken but by their own consent in parliament.

But that the parliament was instituted to check and control the king, and share the supreme power, would in all former times have been esteemed very blunt and indiscreet, if not illegal language.

We need not be surprised that governments should long continue, though the boundaries of authority in their several branches be implicit, confused, and undetermined.

This is the case all over the world.

Who can draw an exact line between the spiritual and temporal powers in Catholic states?
What code ascertained the precise authority of the Roman senate in every occurrence?
Perhaps the English is the first mixed government where the authority of every part has been very accurately defined; and yet there still remain many very important questions between the two houses, that, by common consent, are buried in a discreet silence.