But let us Consider what this Parliament did when once they were come together After some few Preliminaries we find them Entring on the Grand Debate Concerning the Articles of the Protectors instrument of Government and that in such a manner as made him jealous of their proceedings and then he thought it High time to impose a Recognition upon them which they were to Sign before they were suffer'd to sit again in the House This Recognition which may be seen in the Memoirs can in no sense be call'd a Publick Act since it was not first Voted in the House And Effectually upon this many of them left that pretended Parliament and they who did Sign it presently Voted that it should not be Constru'd to Comprehend the whole instrument Consisting of Forty-two Articles which was as much as to say they reserv'd still to themselves a Power to Break with him in Case they could not Agree afterwards upon the said Articles And if we still Trace on their Proceedings we find them always very Busy in their Debates about the Government and never able to come to any Conclusion about it unless I think upon Two Articles in Forty-two till the Protector being jealous of them in great Heat Dissolv'd them His second Parliament Met September 17. 1656. And it must be confest that this Parliament did as far as they were able Confirm his Usurp'd Authority But nothing is more Evident than that this was a packt Number of his own Creatures and as the Business was then Manag'd it is Ridiculous to think they could speak the Peoples sense in this matter For they were not only Crampt as the former Parliament had been but as our Author observes none of them were suffer'd to enter the House without a Certificate that they were approv'd by the Protectors Council And when almost an Hundred of the Members who were Secluded upon that Account demanded Entrance it was slavishly voted by the rest that they should make their Application to the Council for their Approbation This produc'd a most Sharp Remonstrance Sign'd with their own Hands as may be seen at Large in the Memoirs page 640 And if there were nothing more this is enough to Void and Null all their Proceedings This is sufficient to shew that this was possibly the most packt Assembly that ever pretended to the Name of a Parliament and that there is not the least Colour of Reason to say that what they did could any ways be the Act of the People Tho' this was the best Title the Protector had to his Government as he himself thought not being Solemnly Inaugurated before this pretended Submission of the People in Parliament as he call'd it I Should now proceed to Consider the Case of Richard but there need not many words to Blow off his Title since the only Parliament He Had as its freedom was questionable on the former accounts and because of the Exclusion of some Members who it seems were unworthy because they had been in Arms against the Rump Parliament so they never came to any Conclusion about the Recognition of his Authority And after all if those pretended Parliaments had own'd both Oliver and his Son after Him yet we could not call it the Consent of the Nation because of the Violent Exclusion of the True House of Peers As for what follow'd Richard until the return of King Charles every body knows it was perfect Anarchy and confusion It is certain however there never was any Parliament to Confirm the Authorities then in being and since that is the only Legal way to Testify the consent of a People we may safely Conclude the Usurpation was never Settl'd I might proceed in this Argument and at least make it probable that if Cromwels Government had been Confirm'd as far as the free Consent of our Representatives could have Settl'd it yet it would not have been the duty of all Private Men to own his Authority which tho' it be not at all necessary to maintain my opinion I shall by way of Digression insist a little upon Now this may seem a contradiction to what I have already Asserted or at least Inconsistent with the Doctrine Taught in Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book but I presume it is neither and I only urge it that the True State of the Controversy betwixt us and some of our brethren may the better be conceiv'd who insinuate as if it were one and the same thing to pay Obedience to the present Government or to that of the late Protector or any other in his Circumstances What has been said already does sufficiently shew the Vanity of these Men and therefore it must be observ'd that if I fail in this attempt it will not Prejudice those Principles I undertook to maintain therefore what I say on this head must stand or fall alone and I only propose it to the Consideration of Wiser Men. What I have to say Runs upon this Supposition that an Usurp't Authority is not to be Obey'd nor judg'd to be the Ordinance of God until it be Throughly Settl'd It may be ask'd then If there be quiet possession and it be confirm'd by our Representatives what distinction can excuse us from paying Obedience to such Powers I Answer our Representatives had no Authority to destroy the Monarchy And therefore if they had thus Transgrest the Limits of their Power it would not have Oblig'd those whom they Represented If it be Urg'd that they have an Unlimited Power I Answer it is True but not unless when they Act in their own Sphere and in Conjunction with the King Obj. But it may further be Objected that at this rate our Representatives could not Transfer our Allegiance to their Majesties since they could not make any binding Act without a King Ans. I deny it This they can do as I shall shew you by and by but it is an Exception from this Rule They alone can do no other Act that can Oblige us for instance they cannot impose Taxes or make Laws that shall Oblige us In these and in all other Cases except this instance now before us of Confirming the Authority of a New King it is our interest and security that nothing should be Enacted but by the Consent of the King and our Representatives and therefore since we Commission them to Act only with the King they can never Act without him Thus for instance If a Conqueror has got the whole power into his hand they may Transfer our Allegiance to him Or if the Royal Family should be Extinct they may proceed to a New Election But if they pretend to Govern us themselves without a King this is more power than we have given them for we never Trusted the whole Legislative Authority in their hands and I know not how they should come by it otherwise Obj. But some will say in such a Case it is Devolv'd to them Ans. I deny it they may have Power to dispose of the Crown as they please but not
not defeat the Design of the Law To say That a King without a Title is a King de Iure is a Contradiction but to suppose that he that originally wants a Title does by an Act of Recognition receive a Title this we may suppose without straining or forcing our Reason I am sure it does not sound so harsh as to require Obedience to an Illegal Government for Conscience sake On other Occasions we make no Scruple to say That a Sentence in a Court of Judicature gives a Man a Title to an Estate and upon this the Tenants and Vassals though it were procur'd corruptly are to look upon him and pay him Homage as the Legal Possessor and the like may be said in the Case before us if our Representatives without any good Reason had plac'd His Majesty on the Throne he had then been a King de Facto a Legal Possessor in the Eye of the Law but if they acted according to Reason and Conscience as I presume they did he is then King de Iure And if this were allow'd for Sence we should not be driven to say That God Almighty requires our Obedience to Illegal Governments which I cannot yet assent to notwithstanding all the Authorities which are brought to support this Doctrine I acknowledge once for all That God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings as He pleases He is not bound by Humane Laws as we are and when He has set up a New King He must be obey'd but an Usurp't Soveraignty must not be ascrib'd to God or it does not appear to be His Act until the New King gets quiet possession together with an Act of Recognition it is then soon enough to ascribe the Revolution to the Hand of God When God means to carry things to this Length He does by one means or other dispose the Peoples Hearts to receive such a Prince and then he hath God's Authority Obj. But it may be urg'd That this Explication defeats the Design of the Law which as they say was Enacted to indemnify such as assisted Henry the Seventh in case of a New Revolution because originally he had no good Title to the Crown for if quiet Possession and the Recognition of our Representatives gives a Title it may be said there was no need of this Law Ans. First Abundans Cautela non nocet They could never make themselves too secure and therefore lest their Enemies as it was in the Fable should say that their Ears were Horns they did wisely provide against it fencing themselves with an Act of Parliament tho' really there was little Occasion for it but lest their Enemies might afterwards pretend That Henry the 7th was not King de Iure they declar'd it Lawful to Obey a King de Facto though at the same time there was no great Reason to Enact it barely on his Account And I presume the rather to make this Construction of it because it is scarce credible That Henry the 7th who had so many Claims to the Crown viz. Blood Conquest Marriage and all strengthen'd by an Act of Recognition should suffer his People to say that he had no Rightful Title to the Crown whereas it is said he was the most suspicious Prince then living and therefore it is very improbable he should own such a Blot in his Title which must be if he made himself thus a King de Facto only Secondly If this be an empty groundless Surmise His Majesty is yet a Legal King because this Law supposes we may have such a King And I may say King Iames was no more for though he had his Authority from God the Law only was our Evidence of his Authority just as we say Marriage is the Ordinance of God yet if a Man be not Marryed by the Form which the Law prescribes we presume to call it no Marriage But after all we are very unfortunate if this Law which was made to Govern and Direct us in our Obedience should prove the main Foundation of all our Scruples for perhaps if our Fore-Fathers had not troubled us with this nice distinction of a King de jure and a King de facto we should not have coin'd it on this occasion but have generally submitted to their Majesties as Lawful and Rightful King and Queen Obj. But Secondly against this Hypothesis may be Urg'd our Vulgar Maxim That Conquest gives Right for if there be any Truth in this saying there is no need of our Consent Ans. This I have in part answer'd before and if the Maxim be ill grounded it must shift for it self Secondly I allow there is some Truth in it Conquest may give a Prince Right to the Conquered Dominions When we are Conquer'd we lose our Property But I cannot conceive that he should have Right to our Obedience and our Persons as so many Cattle and Stock upon the Ground and in short if you would make this the sense of it the condition of a Conquer'd People would be most intolerable since we thus bind their consciences without Reserving them any Property it being agreed by all that a Conqueror has the whole Property in the Conquer'd Country and we only plead to have their consciences free until they can make Terms for themselves which I think ought not to be included in this Maxim or if it be I had rather quit the Maxim than lose my Liberty I Should now have done only it may be convenient to draw some Conclusions from this Hypothesis which may not be disagreeable to men of our Principles As first If this be true then it was not his Majesties Sword nor his Armies that gave him his Authority over us but our Representatives in the Condition we were in did justly Transfer our Allegiance to him as I have already Demonstrated This therefore must be great satisfaction to us all that notwithstanding this great Revolution things have run in the Right Channel and that he did not get into the Throne by Illegal means which being suppos'd we may the better hope for prosperity under his Government Secondly If these Principles be True then his Majesty was not Elected as some affirm for in as much as the Late King was not able or willing to Protect us the Crown Naturally Devolv'd on his Majesty for if Her Majesty and Her Royal Highness the Princess of Denmark be pleas'd to postpone their Right what is that to us and if his Majesty upon the Late Kings Leaving the Kingdom did not presently take it but left the doubt to be decided by our Representatives it is no more than might be done upon a Descent if there were two pretenders to the Royal Dignity which being thus determin'd I presume would not be Deem'd an Election their Act does not so much give the Crown as determine to whom it did belong And I think this is much the same Case to that which is now before us viz. The Consent of the Estates to place his Majesty on the Throne does no more Derogate
is a Subject without his own Consent or Submission but before I proceed to build upon this Principle it may be necessary to remove the scruples of one sort of men for they are no Arguments against what is advanc'd Object They may say if Subjects give their Prince his Authority they may take it away again if they please Ans. But we say they give Him not his Authority tho' he has it not without their Consent or Submission they are only the Pipes or the Channels whereby God Almighty conveys his Authority to him For as I said before to shorten my discourse I take it for granted that all Government is the Ordinance of God and therefore tho' the subjects may Elect the Person it is God that gives Him his Authority It is a Womans own Consent that makes her Subject to the Law of her Husband but yet Marriage being Gods Ordinance as well as Government when it is done she cannot Recall or Re-assume her Liberty But only for Argument's sake we will suppose all Authority deriv'd from the People yet then I say it cannot be recall'd but by the Consent of all Parties concern'd And tho' our Representatives may presume the Consent of the People yet the King having a Negative Voice nothing of this Nature according to our Constitution can be done without him whilst he is able and willing to protect us But if he abandons his People and cannot or will not come to protect us and our Representatives to prevent the utter ruin of the Common-wealth do then agree and declare the Soveraignty to be in the next Heir that can protect us and thus settle him in the full Administration of the Government we must then submit not upon Mr. Hobbs his base Principle because dominion is founded in Power but by Virtue of the Determination of our Representatives which is lookt upon as the Act of the whole People and includes the Consent of every Particular Person which as it appears by this discourse is the only Visible means of conveighing a Soveraign Authority to any Person And if this quiet possession together with the free Consent of our Representatives will not be thought a Through Settlement I can think of nothing that can strengthen it unless it be the Resignation of the Late King which I presume ought never to be expected and would as much be wanted upon the most Evident Conquest as it is in this Case here before us And therefore I hope I may Conclude that our Government is now Throughly Settl'd and that we who submit to it cannot be charg'd with Hobbism since we do not say that any Prince who has quiet possession of the Throne can Claim our Obedience but only such as are Confirm'd and Settl'd in it by the Determination of our Representatives This I think is a very Natural Explication of those Passages in Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book which require our Obedience to a Government Throughly Settl'd for that Government must needs be very Slippery and Tottering which our Representatives who are suppos'd to have the Hearts and to be the Mouth of the People will not Confirm And for as much as I was satisfied that my own submission was both just and rational without bordering upon Mr. Hobbs his base Principle which I always detested on this Occasion I thought it Necessary to Recollect my thoughts on this subject and commit them to writing that I might the more closely examine how well my Reasons Hung together But I could not set them in a True Light without spinning them out to this length before I came to the matter in hand which I chiefly design'd viz. To shew what a Vast Difference there is betwixt Mr. Hobbs his Opinion of Government and our own His comes from the Father of Lyes Ours I hope from the God of Truth his is the dictate of self-interest ours the Resolves of Reason and Conscience He says all Soveraignty or all dominion is Founded in Power we say no such thing The greatest Conqueror cannot Compel us to be his Subjects without our own submission tho' he has Power over our Country and our persons yet he can lay no Obligation upon our Consciences to become his Subjects This must be our own act either in person or by our Representatives And if this Notion will bear the Light there is no pretence to say as Mr. Hobbs does that his having the Power of the Sword makes us become his Subjects And as this Hypothesis does entirely Wipe off the Stain of Hobbism so likewise is it a great support or at least not dangerous to the Thrones of good Princes for one would suspect that his thoughts were ill grounded if they oblig'd him to maintain such Principles and indeed it is a Melancholy thing to think that we should be oblig'd as good Subjects to pay Obedience to the first Conqueror that shall get quiet possession of the Throne as Mr. Hobbs has taught us But according to this Hypothesis the Government of the New Prince is never Throughly Settl'd until he has acquir'd the Consent of the People there is no Obedience due to him until they Confirm his Authority And this I call a great Security to all good Princes for supposing it necessary to have their Consent to Confirm a Government that began perhaps in Usurpation and settle it I know nothing more that a Good but Dispossess'd Prince can desire to maintain his Hopes of an happy Turn of Affairs to Re-instate him in his Dominions For Men may say what they will and suggest That every Body is ready to Adore the Rising Sun and that the worst Title provided it be prosperous never wants hands to support and strengthen it but for my part I could never be Tempted nor do I think we ever had reason to make such odious general Censures And as I hope we now want not many honest Patriots who would have supported the late King Iames to the last drop of Blood had his Government been so Legal as to have merited such a Sacrifice so even in this Age to the Honour of our Holy Religion we want not many Generous Instances of Mens Integrity to this rational Principle For though Cromwel had as quiet Possession of the Three Kingdoms as any Conqueror could hope for though he had all our Persons naked and helpless in his Power and at one Time no Armed Force against him either at home or abroad yet he could never compass the Consent of the People in a Free Convention or Parliament as I shall shew you by and by This therefore may extreamly exalt the hopes of all good dispossess'd Princes who being just and innocent may rationally expect that the Free Representatives of the People will not own the Usurped Power and so long as this is not done they may as rationally hope for Succour from their Subjects on the first fair Occasion Obj. But some may say How can this be Is it probable that an Usurper in the quiet Possession of
the Throne should not though with some Difficulty procure an Acknowledgment of his Authority from our Free Chosen Representatives Ans. I say it is probable and this late Instance of a lasting Usurpation where it could not be done is a Convincing Proof That it may be so again if we should ever see the like unhappy Occasion I will grant that we live in a wicked Generation and that the worst Tyrant will have many Followers if it be but for Spoil and Plunder He may be able to influence some by his Favours others by his Threats others again may go along with him out of pure Zeal to reform such Grievances as he shall please to Object against But what is this towards influencing the Whole or the Major part of the Nation The Power of our Representatives is deriv'd from so many Persons that the Usurpers Bounty can reach but few of them his Menaces when they are so general lose much of their Force and as soon as he pretends to the Soveraignty many of his most Zealous Followers prove his worst Enemies If he should pretend to Corrupt the Representatives themselves it is too considerable a Body to be aw'd by Menaces too numerous for his Favours generally of too great Integrity to accept his Bribes and of better Fortunes than to need them so that on this Score a Dispossess'd Good Prince might well promise himself an After-Game Obj. But again it may be Objected That if it be not Lawful to pay Allegiance to those Usurpers whose Authority is not Confirm'd by our Representatives then our Condition at such Times must needs be extreamly hazardous and desperate being naked and destitute and expos'd to the Fury of those who have all the Power in their hands Ans. I cannot but say these are most unhappy Circumstances but in a general Calamity every good Man should be willing to bear his Share and venture his Security and even sacrifice his private Interest to preserve the Ancient Government and Royal Family Besides in such Cases the Danger is not so great as we generally presume it is Indeed it can hardly be thought but the Usurpers will sacrifice some Worthy Patriots to their Ambition as those did in the late Times but when they find a good Title cannot be attain'd without a Sea of Blood and much present Danger to themselves they generally sit down as contented as they can only with a quiet Possession And as for those Leading Men whose Zeal may have exasperated the Usurpers Fury they may live conceal'd or generously follow their Unhappy Master into Exile and there patiently wait the Happy Hour Nor as the World goes with them will they look upon this Honourable Banishment as an hard Choice since if it were just to submit to the Usurpers they could not but expect to be look't upon with an evil Eye and perhaps to be Crush'd at the first Opportunity And this I hope is sufficient to Convince any reasonable Man That these Principles are not dangerous to the Thrones of Princes for we do not Assert with Mr. Hobbs That as soon as any Prince or Rebel has got Possession of the Throne we immediately thereby become his Subjects Nay though they should get and keep quiet Possession of it we yet say there is no Obedience due from us until their Usurped Power be Settled and Confirm'd by our Representatives whom we stile the Fathers of our Country who are the most knowing in these Affairs and being at the Helm can best judge Whether things be come to that Extremity or not But Morally speaking this Recognition cannot be procur'd from them but in the utmost Extremity and in short then only when they are entirely in the Power of a Conquerour and sufficiently weary of their Dispossess'd Prince by reason of his Arbitrary and Illegal Proceedings Thus it literally happen'd after the late Civil War for notwithstanding all the Endeavours that were us'd by the Usurpers they could never procure an Acknowledgment of their Authority from our Free Chosen Representatives as I shall now shew you by representing the true Matter of Fact from Mr. Whitlock's Memoirs who must be allow'd to speak as favourably to this Point as the Case would bear And here I suppose it will not be necessary I should say any thing of that part of the Parliament commonly called the Rump they indeed usurp'd the Government but there was not so much as the Face of a general Consent in the Nation Much less need I mention those 120 Persons whom Oliver as General of the Army call'd together who at last devolv'd what Authority they had on him It was never pretended they had any other Parliaments or Representative Body of the People to confirm their Power So that we are already come to Cromwel's Government as Protector in which alone if any where this Settlement is to be found Now Cromwel had but Two Conventions or Parliaments as he call'd them both which we will consider as also what they did towards Settling his Authority by a Free Parliamentary Submission which we here presume to be necessary to make a Through Settlement His first Parliament was Summon'd Iune 9th 1654. and there is very good Reason to suspect there could be no free Election because there were such Restrictions and Limitations which the Sheriff was to lay upon the People e're they could be admitted to give their Votes Another Circumstance which must necessarily prejudice the Freedom of this Parliament was a strange Innovation made by the Protector in admitting Thirty Scotch and Thirty Irish Members into it For could we suppose all the English Members Freely Chosen so great an Accession of Strangers must needs be a great Clog to the English For if we may suppose these Sixty Strangers at the Protector 's Devotion they with the Help of some Friends they were sure to find here might probably do things in Favour of the Protector against the Sense of the People of England whose Opinions are best known by our own Members And that these Sixty Strangers were the Protectors Creatures is no improbable Supposition because he would not otherwise have made this Innovation or have fetch'd them so far for nothing Besides Five Sheriffdoms in Scotland return'd that not one fit to be a Representative was to be found within their Liberty which shews That the Protector and his States-men were very nice in their Choice I might also Object against this Parliament and let it be Observ'd That the former and this Objection lyes also against his last Parliament That it was not Free because the Protector took upon him to call only so many Persons as he pleas'd augmenting the Number of Representatives in some places and diminishing in others according to his own Humour without any Colour of Law and having taken this Liberty you may imagine he was careful to call most of the Representatives from those places where he had most Creatures as I might easily make it appear if it were worth my Time
to Assume the whole Soveraignty to themselves By this means they will Lessen our Security for whereas now we are Oblig'd only by Laws made by the King and our Representatives we should then be Obliged by Laws made only by themselves which I may say is contrary to our Fundamental Law viz. To be Govern'd by a King and our Representatives The Chain of my Discourse hath led me into these untrodden paths I will Disentangle my self as soon as I can but all this was necessary to prove the thing I am aiming at But to proceed Obj. Against this it may be Objected that if the ROYAL FAMILY were Extinct the whole Power would be Lodg'd in the Hands of our Representatives and who may Resist them Ans. To prevent the Dissolving of the Government it is Necessary they should take the Sword into their Hands but if they will not declare a New King according to Custom I cannot see why they may not be Compell'd to it since they have their Power only in Trust not in their own Right Thus in Poland upon the Death of the King if the Representatives of the People who on that occasion are Entrusted with the whole Power should pretend to be Lords Paramount and would not proceed to a New Election I know not why the People should not demand their Right which is to be Govern'd by a King Now this would have been our Case if our Representatives in the late times had patcht up a Government without a King Tho' this had been done by our Representatives it could not properly be call'd the Act of the People because we never gave them such Authority This you cannot but grant unless you will presume that we Commission them to destroy the Monarchy which as you find can hardly be suppos'd in an Elective Kingdom upon the Death of their King but it is perfect Nonsense to suppose it in an Hereditary Government whilst the Royal Family is yet in being It may be suppos'd that we Commission them to Elect a King in Case the Royal Line should Fail or finding two pretenders to declare who has the best Title or to appoint a Protector in Case of Infancy or Lunacy Or to receive a Conqueror into the Throne in case our Natural Prince be Fled out of His Kingdom and incapacitated to protect us and they in no condition to make opposition or to invest the next Heir with Royal Authority in case of Desertion especially if the deserting Prince dare not or cannot come to protect us their enquiry not being how he came into that condition but whether he be in a Capacity to Protect us and if he be not they are then free to invest the next Heir with the Royal Authority In all these Cases our Representatives may well presume on our Consent tho' they Act without the King because it is almost Absolutely necessary these things should be done and intolerable inconveniencies would ensue perhaps to the utter Ruin of the Common-wealth if they were not done But to presume that we give them Authority to take and keep the whole Legislative Power in their own Hands or to destroy the Monarchy this is a strain beyond my comprehension at least it is not Properly the Act of the People and therefore they whom they represent must Ratify it in their own Persons ere they can pretend a Through Settlement But then if the People all the while shew great uneasiness under this Usurpation if their crys be loud and clamorous and many of them absolutely refuse to own the Authority This has not the Face of a Settlement Here is nothing that looks like a general consent and that tho' we should suppose our Representatives to have own'd the Usurpt Authority for as by the Fundamental Laws of the Nation we only Authorise them to act with the King so whatever they shall do without a King is not valid unless it be in the Cases before mention'd which both Necessity and Reason will allow whereas neither Necessity nor Reason can be pleaded in the former Instance But I do not pretend that what I have said on this Point will amount to any thing like a Demonstration a short-sighted Man may chance to find greater Flaws in it than I am now aware of Perhaps my Zeal for Monarchy has too much heated my Imagination and I can only say in my Excuse That I have no pleasing Idea's of a Common-Wealth and therefore would willingly shut the door against it But if this will not stand the Test of a Judicious Reader let this Long Parenthesis pass for nothing we need no such precarious Principles our Case is good without it as you may find in the other parts of this Discourse And now I have nothing more to trouble my Reader with but only to Answer Two or Three Objections which could not so conveniently be consider'd in the Body of this Discourse and then draw some Conclusions from it Obj. First then it may be Objected That according to these Principles we are now Settled upon a Legal and Rightful Government Ans. First If this be well prov'd so much the better it is then no Argument against me Secondly I can see no good Reason Why we should not own it to be a Legal and Rightful Government unless it be that our Heads are perplex'd with the nice Distinction of a King de Iure and a King de Facto By a King de Iure we commonly mean a Prince who has the Crown by Right of Inheritance and it is thought that any other Person can be at best but a King de Facto Upon this many suppose that His Present Majesty cannot be King de Iure at least during the Life of King Iames but yet may be obey'd because the Law made in the 11 th of Henry 7 th determines our Obedience to a King de Facto It is True that Law indemnifies those who shall obey the King in the time being as the Words of the Act run that is the King in possession Whether he Claims the Crown by Right of Inheritance or otherwise But if Interpreters shall say That he only is a King de Iure who Claims his Crown by Right of Inheritance it is a visible Mistake for all Mankind as far as I know are agreed That a Conquerour who makes a just War upon the Submission of the Conquered Nation becomes a King de Iure and if in this present Case His Majesty is justly invested with the Royal Authority he is so likewise as I think I have prov'd So that you find this common Interpretation is imperfect a King de Iure should not so peremptorily be restrained to a King by Inheritance but we run away with the Mistake and without Considering seem to yield the Point as if His Present Majesty were only a King de Facto I cannot say Whether such as are skill'd in the Laws will allow of this Interpretation but with submission I presume it is agreeable to reason and does