undoubted right of his majeſty, and his royal predeceſſors, kings and queens of England; and that both or either houſe of parliament cannot, nor ought to, pretend to the ſame.
This ſtatute, it is obvious to obſerve, extends not only to fleets and armies, but alſo to forts, and other places of ſtrength, within the realm; the ſole prerogative, as well of erecting, as manning and governing of which, belongs to the king in his capacity of general of the kingdom[1]: and all lands were formerly ſubject to a tax, for building of caſtles wherever the king thought proper. This was one of the three things, from contributing to the performance of which no lands were exempted; and therefore called by our Saxon anceſtors the trinoda neceſſitas: ſc. pontis reparatio, arcis conſtructio, et expeditio contra hoſtem[2]. And this they were called upon to do ſo often, that, as ſir Edward Coke from M. Paris aſſures us[3], there were in the time of Henry II 1115 caſtles ſubſiſting in England. The inconvenience of which, when granted out to private ſubjects, the lordly barons of thoſe times, was ſeverely felt by the whole kingdom; for, as William of Newbridge remarks in the reign of king Stephen, "erant in Anglia quodammodo tot reges vet potius tyranni, quot domini caſtellorum:" but it was felt by none more ſenſibly than by two ſucceeding princes, king John and king Henry III. And therefore, the greateſt part of them being demoliſhed in the barons' wars, the kings of after times have been very cautious of ſuffering them to be rebuilt in a fortified manner: and ſir Edward Coke lays it down[4], that no ſubject can build a caſtle, or houſe of ſtrength imbatteled, or other fortreſs defenſible, without the licence of the king; for the danger which might enſue, if every man at his pleaſure might do it.
It is partly upon the ſame, and partly upon a fiſcal foundation, to ſecure his marine revenue, that the king has the prero-
