Selected quad for the lemma: country_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
country_n	great_a	king_n	title_n	1,392	5	6.9622	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28440	King William and Queen Mary, conquerors, or, A discourse endeavouring to prove that Their Majesties have on their side, against the late king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good title shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of Parliament, King James abdicated the government, &c. : written with an especial regard to such as have hitherto refused the oath, and yet incline to allow of the title of conquest, when consequent to a just war.	Blount, Charles, 1654-1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing B3309; ESTC R23388	40,332	68

to him as a Conqueror although he do not require me to swear on that Ground And it is sufficient to justify my doing of it that I know my former Soveraign is unable to protect me and I to defend my self in my Refusal and that he cannot be restored without great Detriment to my Country For as has been said the principal Reason that makes the Title of Conquest good is the same with the great End of Government viz. The Good and Safety of the Community and consequently my own Good and Safety and not that it is claimed or not claimed by the Victor 2. I have already said that King William conquered King James but not the Nation and therefore he acquired a Title to all the Rights of King James but not to any of the Rights of the Nation Now K. James had a Right to govern these Nations until by being conquered he lost it that Right K. William never gave him back again but insisted upon his Right and Conquest against him as appears by what I have already said of his treating him like a Prisoner and I now add what is very material his referring it to the Convention to settle the Government This he could not do but upon a Supposition that he had lost his Right to it Had he not claimed against him as Conqueror he must have left him in possession of his Dominions And this being so since he did not re-instate him he did not give him back his Right But then the Nation had also a Right to their King And since King William as I have said did not conquer the Nation nor ever had any Quarrel against it he did not acquire a Title to any of the Rights of the Nation nor particularly to that of being governed by K. James Wherefore he did what became a just Prince in leaving it to the Nation 's Representatives whether they would be any longer governed by him or no. And they having given up their Right to him and consented to accept our present Soveraigns and that their Act being owned by the major Part of the People they have an undoubed Right to the Crown and consequently to the Allegiance of the Subject a Right of Conquest against King James and a Right over the Nation by her own Consent which she cannot now recal And whether a Man be of an Opinion that the Convention did well or ill in consenting yet may he honestly enough swear to King William and Queen Mary because their Title of Conquest against K. James still remains so far from being overthrown that it is rather established by that Act of the Convention However 3. Their Majesties by referring the Matter to the Convention and making use of their Concurrence have no more prejudiced their Title of Conquest than Princes do by making use of such as they can draw to their Party of their Enemies Souldiers or Subjects to drive them either out of the whole or any part of their Dominions But the Convention did ill in giving up their Right to their King and the Nation did ill in owning that their Act and therefore we are bound to make all the Recompence we can for what has been amiss by denying Allegiance to the present Powers and doing all we can to re-inthrone our former Soveraign 1. I much question whether or no the Conclusion follow from the Premises Supposing the Convention did ill in giving up their Right to the King and the Nation in owning that their Act I very much doubt whether it follows from thence that therefore we ought to deny Allegiance to King W. and Queen M. and to do all we can to restore K. James For ought I know as things now stand we may very well deny that Consequence This is certain that many things that are ill done must not afterwards be undone But 2. I deny that either the Convention or the Nation have in this done ill They gave up no body's Right but their own K. James's was lost to the Conqueror And certainly the Nation might if she pleased recede from her own Right especially he having first abdicated and consequently given up his Right to her But we have all done ill in sitting still and suffering a Foreign Prince to expel our Soveraign and therefore upon that Account we owe him a Recompence and it should not be less than the restoring of him 1. The King had with him an Army sufficient to have expelled the Prince and his Forces an Army in which he confided without summoning other private Persons to come under his Standard or to arm on his Behalf And if some of them forsook him and he durst not adventure to head the rest against his Enemy what was that to the main Body of the Nation or to such as now refuse the Oath But 2. It is not true that as things then stood we were bound to fight for the King Subjects are not obliged to defend their King his Crown and Dignity when he makes it impossible for them to do it without apparent Ruine to the Nation If we had at that time enabled the King to drive the Prince of Orange out of the Nation we must have accepted of the Child as a genuine Prince of W. without ever inquiring into his Birth and have bid good-Night to all our Rights both Civil and Religious And this being the Case if we might not assist the Prince however we had no Reason to assist the King so that in sitting still we have done no Wrong and therefore have no Satisfaction to make Nor doth any thing that I have said justify Cromwel and his Usurpation or any of the illegal Powers that were about that time set up For as to Cromwel and what I say against him will equally affect those other Usurpations 1. He was a Subject and therefore ought not for any Provocation then given to have rebelled against his Soveraign much less to have held on the War when the Parliament had voted his Concessions satisfactory They must be extraordinary Circumstances that will justify a Subject's fighting against his Prince It is certain no illegal Administrations that are tolerable will Because the Mischiefs of Civil War are so great that they are not to be out-ballanced with such I think however less will not do it than that it is manifest that the Prince indeavours to overthrow the great End of Government and that without being resisted he will in all humane Probability effect his Purpose I do not say this will do it for I meddle not with the Argument but I think however less than this will not do it And there was nothing of this to justify the Doings of that wicked Traitor And therefore 2. He ought not to have made use of his Success against that best of Men who was always a very tolerable Prince and whom Experience had taught to amend such Errors as had been committed in the beginning of his Reign even before the War brake

against him amounts as to Matter of Right to a Conquest over him it must follow that they have acquired as great a Right against him as ever any Conquerors against such as they have vanquished and that is to all they can get the possession of In many Cases Conquest will justify the Subjects in transferring their Allegiance to the Victor when he had not a just Quarrel against the Vanquished although in such a Case the Victor sins in accepting of it But now in the Case of a just Quarrel both the Conqueror and the Subjects are justified the latter in transferring their Allegiance and the former in accepting And the Reason is plain When a Prince refuses to give Satisfaction to an injured Neighbouring Prince he puts the Matter to the Decision of the Sword For Princes have not like Subjects Courts of Law to implead each other in where the Injured may try their Cause and recover their Right Their Sword is their only Remedy nor can they have any other Redress than it gives And he that has once injured his Neighbour gives him to understand how he will use him if he overcomes him that he will follow his Fortune and extort from him all he can And therefore if he himself is overcome the same Measure may justly be meeted out to him Nor must it be said that the Conqueror in such a Case gains a Right only to what he demanded before the War for that was his Due before the Hazard and Expence of it and he is not only to be satisfied for that first Injury but also for the Hazard his Enemy has unjustly made him run and the Expence he hath put him to and he has Reason to be very well paid for both Nay as his Enemy hath unjustly made him run the Hazard of his own Life so has it always been understood that if afterwards he comes into his Hands he forfeits his Life in lieu of it And if so then if he escapes either with or without his Leave yet must the Victor have a Right to all of his that he can get possession of I grant what Grotius saith that in many Cases a Prince should be so merciful as not to make use of his Victory with Rigour but to accept of moderate Satisfaction and to take from the Vanquished nothing but the Power of Injuring as he cites it out of Crispus Sallustius But what if the Vanquished will rather give up or desert all than be abridged of that Power Was i● not so in the Case we are speaking of And what shall the Victor do in such a Case Certainly he should rather take all than leave the Vanquished still the Power of injuring For I assert what Grotius also grants that the Right I plead for is acquired and may be made use of Quatenus fert aut poenae nascent is ex delicto aut alterius debiti modus and that in using of a Victory all Circumstances are to be considered It is one thing to say a Man hath or hath not a Right and another to say Humanity or Christianity obliges him either to make use of it or not to make use of it A Man has a Right to every Penny of his Estate and if he will not give any thing to a poor Man he doth not injure him But yet may he be obliged upon the Score of Humanity or of Christianity to give largely And yet some Circumstances may free him from the Obligation of giving to that particular Man by laying greater upon him as in case his Father or other near Relation be fallen into such a Condition as to want every Penny that he can spare Or if that be the very Condition of his King or of his Country In such a Case he is excused from giving to that poor Man although in Want So here a Conqueror gains as I have said a Right to all of the Conquered that he gets possession of but yet it is a Point of Humanity and which is more of Christianity not to make use of his Fortune rigorously in ordinary Cases but still there may be Circumstances that free him from these Obligations yea and that do so alter the Case that it becomes a Point both of Humanity and Christianity to do it And that must be if ever when the Publick Good requires it when to leave the Vanquished the Possession of his Dominions would be to their apparent great Hurt and much more when it would also be to the Detriment of a considerable part of the World and to the Interest of the true Religion In such a Case the Conqueror not only may but ought to stand upon his rigorous Right against the Conquered yea although he be obliged to him in the strictest Bonds of Nature to speak plainly although the Vanquished be the Victor's Father For whatever Women or Children may think I hope no wise Man will say that a Man's Obligations to his Father are such as that for his single Interest he ought to do an Act highly prejudicial in its Consequences to the Good of a Kingdom to the Civil Rights and Liberties of Europe and which ought to weigh most to the Interest of the true Religion It is true I may not for all these put together do an Act in point of strict Right injurious to my Father or to any Man else For I may not do Evil that Good may come of it But I may go as far for the sake of these as strict Right will allow of and ought not to shew Favour or Kindness to any particular Man no not to my Father when the doing of it would be Cruelty to so many Millions Natural Affection is an indispensable Duty and is owing in an especial manner to a Father but it must not be indulged in this Instance for that would be against Reason that is against Nature I add that to ease a Man of the Cares that attend a Crown and reduce him to a private Life when at the same time you take from him the Power of oppressing and the Temptation to it is no such great Harm to a Man if he has but Philosophy enough to conquer his own Temper But some may say We grant the Prince and Princess had a just Quarrel against King James and conquered him And we also grant that Conquest would have been in this Case a good Title had it been stood upon But they have lost that Right for want of claiming and by leaving the Matter to the Determination of the Convention They did not as they should have done ascend the Throne as Conquerors but suffered themselves to be elected and made Soveraigns by the People So that they have now no Right of Conquest because they have receded from it 1. Although they should not formally insist upon that Title with the Subject yet it is not therefore destroyed When a Prince gains a Crown by Conquest and has other concurring Titles that I like not I think I may swear

out as appears by his many gracious Concessions at that time and especially to name no more by his passing the Bill for the Continuance of the Parliament not to be Prorogued or Adjourned but by Act of Parliament 3. If he would make any use of his Success it should have been to the Good of the Nation as settled under her lawful Prince But what had he and his Creatures to do to dissolve the Government especially to usurp the Supreme Power himself since he got it not either by the Consent of the King or of the Nation both which had been in his Case necessary A great deal more might be said to shew the Disparity between that and our present Settlement but I refer the Reader to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers where he will find the Prejudices raised from the Rump Parliament the Protector and the Committee of Safety removed Nor doth my asserting their Majesties Right acquired by Conquest at all thwart the Determination of the Convention viz. That the late King James Abdicated the Government and left the Throne Vacant For that the late King was Conquered and that he Abdicated the Government are not inconsistent It was by his own fault that he fell into such a Condition as that he thought it unsafe to stay in England yea and even to the last if he would have consented that the Ends of the Prince's Declaration might have been gained he needed not to have left us And since he rather chose to go away than to do Right either to Us or the Prince and did so without deputing a Vice-Roy what was this but to Abdicate us For certainly if a Prince rather chooseth to desert his People than to do what is just and reasonable when that and no more is made the Condition of his continuing with them he may be truly said to throw up the Government and to leave them to shift for themselves But of this enough That Vote of the Convention and the Methods of settling the Government thereupon taken have been justified by other Pens and the doing of it is not now my Province But then since it was the Success of the Prince's Arms that made him go away or rather since he would not have gone away had it not been for that Success it might be a Conquest too and I think I have proved it to have been so in the Sense I have explained my self that is it had attending it the principal Reasons that make Conquest a good Title and that is enough for our Satisfaction SECT IV. Concluding with some necessary Consequences of the three foregoing Propositions I Must now draw towards a Conclusion I hope I have proved my three Propositions 1. That King William and Queen Mary had a just Quarrel against King James 2. That they conquered him And 3. That Conquest is in this case a good Title I am sure I have offered nothing but what I thought to be Reason Nor have I baulk'd any Objection because it was too hard to be answered I will conclude with some Inserences from what I have written And 1. It follows That our most gracious Soveraigns King William and Queen Mary in order to gain these Kingdoms and in ascending the Throne have done nothing but what is consistent with Justice and Honour For if they had a just Cause of War with King James and have conquered him in the Sense I have said and Conquest be in this Case a good Title and it were absolutely necessary not only for the Interest of these Kingdoms but also for that of Europe and the Protestant Religion that they should make use of their Success then have they in so doing acted nothing but what became them And the asserting of this since it is true is a necessary piece of Gratitude to our glorious Deliverers And I the rather do it because I observe that many of the Tracts that have been written on the behalf of the Oath of Allegiance are rather in desence of the Subjects Submission and taking of it than of their Majesties Title So that the Authors seem rather concerned for their own than their Majesties Vindication and however glad they are of the unexpected Deliverance that hath been wrought for them yet are they over-regardless of the Honour of those blessed Princes who have been in God's Hands the Instruments of it 2. The Subject is justified in swearing and paying Allegiance to them and that as to Princes de jure For they have on their side all the Right of Conquest consequent to a just War and at a time when it was absolutely necessary to insist upon it 3. Those that refuse to swear Allegiance to their Majesties thereby doing what in them lies to weaken their Hands and so to hinder their good Purposes are guilty of a very great Sin And I the rather say this because I am apt to think a great many honest Men who are not very confident of the Unlawfulness of the Oath do judg it however best to refuse it because they believe they cannot sin in so doing but may in taking it Whereas whoever well considers our present Circumstances and the Matters depending must grant that if it be lawful to swear not-swearing is a Sin attended with much more dangerous Consequences than is Swearing supposing it to be unlawful And a Man's erring in the Negative has greater Aggravations than in the Affirmative 4. That King James hath totally lost his Right to these Kingdoms and therefore if he comes again with an Army he is to be looked upon by the Subjects with no other Eyes than any other Invader but is to be resisted by them Our Fleets and Armies without any scruple of Conscience to weaken their Hands may and ought to fight as becomes valiant Men in the defence of their present Soveraigns and their Countrey and that not only against the French King but likewise against the late King James if he should come along with a Fleet or head an Army against us 5. No Man need trouble himself with any Scruple as touching any Right of the Prince of Wales supposing him to be Genuine or of whatever other Issue the late King may since his Birth have had or may hereafter have For as to the pretended Prince his Birth being doubtful his Father declined the Arbitrement of a Parliament and put it to the Decision of the Sword and the Sword hath determined against him and therefore if he hath any Wrong done him he hath no body to blame but his Father And here I cannot but take notice of the Folly of some People who after King James was conquered and gone expected the Parliament should have examined the Birth of the Child as if when Princes fall out and the Injurer is utterly vanquished the injured Victor is still obliged to accept of the same Satisfaction that would have contented him before he drew his Sword Or as if when a Doubt about the Succession is

For both these suppose Men are obliged to be undone for no Reason and to no End Nor are we bound to be undone at the present in hopes that hereafter his late Majesty may recover his Throne For another Reason and indeed the chief why such a Conquest as we now speak of gives the Subject a Right to transfer his Allegiance is Because the ejected Prince cannot be restored without the very great Misery if not the utter Ruin of his Country But of this I shall say more in answer to the next Objection to the which I now proceed 4. It must not be dissembled that some are of an Opinion that it is no Conquest or rather that no Right to a Crown is acquired by Conquest without either the Death or at the least the Cession of the vanquished Prince And since this is a Scruple that mainly sticks with some that refuse the Oath I will give as full an Answer to it as I can Cession is either voluntary or forced The former of these is the same with voluntary Resignation and has no place here For whatever Prince being conquered resigns his Crown to the Conqueror it is against his Will it is not to be thought a voluntary Resignation The latter I think sufficient to give the Victor a Right to a Crown and to give the Subject a Right of transferring his Allegiance to him but I believe a great many are of an opinion that such a Resignation or Cession will bind the vanquished Prince no longer than he is under Force or Necessity For has it not been frequently said That whatever Promises a Prince makes for fear when under Force or for the gaining of his Liberty are all void as soon as the Necessity ceases Thus Francis the First King of France being the Prisoner of the Emperor Charles the Fifth bound himself by the Concord of Madrid solemnly swore to That when at liberty he should perform divers Conditions and amongst the rest restore the Dutchy of Burgundy not withstanding any Decrees of Parliaments Pretence of the Salique Law or other Claim whatsoever or else return a Prisoner to Charles And at their parting when he was dismissed Charles demanded of him If he well remembred all that was capitulated bet wixt them Francis answered Yes for further Confirmation repeating the most particular Articles Charles then demanded Are you willing to perform them Francis answered again Yes adding He knew no Man in his Kingdom would hinder him And when you find I do not keep my Word with you I wish and consent that you hold me for Laschs and Meschant By this Account it is manifest that Francis bound himself as falt as a King under restraint could and yet afterwards in a Cartel sent to Charles he thought it a good Excuse to say That no Man under Restraint can plight his Faith It is true the same Historian adds that this Answer was generally not approved of but yet he also says that if he had excused his not returning by his being a Publick Person and had said that his Obligation by Oath when he was crowned unto his People and Kingdom was a greater Tie than that of his particular Honour And together had alledged That he could not obtain their Consent either to perform his Promise for Restitution of Burgundy or to go single out of his Kingdom it was thought by some he might have vindicated himself in great part and even laid some Imputation on Charles for demanding things impossible to be performed The same Account as to the Substance of it is likewise given by the French Historian although he gloss over the matter as well as he can and he makes much what the same Excuse for Francis So that some for one Reason and some for another have been of opinion That whatever Promises are made and Engagements entred into by Kings under Force are not binding when they are at liberty and consequently if a Prince in such a Condition shall resign his Crown he may whenever he finds an Opportunity re-assert his Right and the Subject will be bound to assist him against the Victor So that the Cession of the Prince conquered will give some Men as little Satisfaction as his being reduced to such a Condition as to be unable to help his Friends gives those that pretend they would be satisfied with such a Cession As to those that would be satisfied with the Death of the conquered Prince although he should not resign his Crown but will be satisfi'd with no less the necessary Consequence of their Opinion is That one Prince must never take another Prisoner nor give him leave to escape if he aims at his Crown because while he is alive he can have no Assurance of the Subjects Loyalty And such Protestants as are of this Opinion must say That had K. William dispatched K. James when he was in his Power he had likewise dispatched all their Scruples nay and they will be tempted to wish he had done so How kindly K. James will take it I know not But I am perswaded if it ever is in his Power he will reward them for it partly after the same rate as for their other Services Having thus shewn my Reader some Inconveniences that seem to attend or follow from the Opinion that the Objection supposes to be true I now proceed to a direct Answer K. James is still alive and has not resigned his Kingdoms but has escaped out of the Victor's Hands who as soon as he was possessed of his Dominions required an Oath of Allegiance of the Subjects who have generally submitted and accordingly sworn Allegiance K. James in the mean time is in such a Condition and has been ever since his Flight that he is not able to protect those that refuse the Oath but their Lives and Safety are owing purely to the Mercy of the present Government The Question is Whether may those that have hitherto refused the Oath now suppose both their late King and themselves to be as to all the Ends of Government in the State of Conquest and so take the said Oath and pay Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary Or on the contrary are they still to believe it no Conquest and consequently to adhere to K. James Now when I say K. William and Q. Mary conquered K. James I do not mean nicely to consider the Meaning of the words Conquered and Conquest Nor to determine whether or no a Man may properly be said to be conquered who although he be fled away yet lies at all Advantages seeking for Opportunities of fighting with those that have brought him to this Necessity These are Niceties not necessary to be discussed at this time All I mean by it is That their Present Majesties have on their side the great Reason that makes Conquest a good Title and without which it would not be a good Title And if this appear to be true certainly it is in all reason sufficient for

any Man's Satisfaction Now how shall we decide the Doubt Shall we have recourse to the Holy Scripture Both the Old and New Testament seem all along in favour of a King in Possession without distinguishing nicely how he came by it But since they do not speak designedly to the Point since they do not shew us in express words when a Conquest is compleat and when the Right that it gives is gained and since what I think has been solidly enough urged from their Testimony by others has not given Satisfaction I am content to decline their Evidence at this time What then Shall we have recourse to the Laws of our Country they likewise seem to speak no less clearly than the Holy Scriptures in favour of the King de facto without considering how he came to be so But what may be said from them belongs to another Argument that has been very well managed by some others and therefore I will not meddle with it It remains therefore that we have recourse to the Law of Reason and by it determine the Matter in question And this will soon direct us to consider the End of Government as the best Mark to walk by in this Piece of doubtful Way That Opinion must be true that accords with the Reason and End of Government and not that which overthrows it It is beyond dispute that Government is for some End and if so then must we not espouse any Opinions about it that tend to overthrow or defeat that End Nor can we owe a Deference to any one particular Governor much less against the Reason and End of Government Now then for what End was Government instituted It must be for a wise and a gracious End if God be the Author of it as I suppose they that refuse the Oath believe he was Was it then that God hath such a particular Kindness for the comparatively very few Regal Families that are in the World or rather to the very few particular Men that are Kings that he is resolved to maintain their Greatness although at the expence of all other Mens Lives and Fortunes that are their Subjects Is this an End becoming infinite Wisdom and Goodness to make the Welfare and Happiness of Millions subservient to and at every Turn give way to the Greatness of one Man Certainly no Man will say this This is the End that Tyrants aim at but it was never intended by him that made and governs the World What then Is the Good of the Community the principal End of Government I hope that no Man in his Wits will deny it I know a great many have from this being granted deduced some dangerous Consequences that indeed did not follow But what of all that We must not give up a sound Principle because some Men have argued unsoundly from it Now then which of these two Opinions being believed and practised doth most correspond with the Reason and End of Government That the Subject be at liberty to transfer his Allegiance to the Conqueror as soon as his own Prince is dispossessed of his Dominions and in no Condition any longer to give Protection and cannot be re-inthroned without the unspeakable Miseries of War and the many dreadful unforeseen Consequences of it Or that he look upon himself to be obliged to adhere to his former Soveraign so long as ever he is alive and refuseth to resign his Crown and that for his sake he not only ought to adventure his own Life and Fortune but also to disturb his Country's Peace and Settlement under their new Soveraign whenever there is an Opportunity Certainly there wants nothing but a Mind free from Prejudices and a very small share of Reason to answer this Question aright Did I believe that the End for which the great and gracious Governour of the World instituted Civil Polities was the Grandeur of Kings and particularly that the chief End he aimed at in making James the Second King of these Islands was his single Greatness then should I think that the Right that Conquest gives were not gained until he himself had given up his Pretensions intentionally but since it is as clear as that it is Day when the Sun shines that in general the End of all Government and particularly of the English Government is the Good of the Community I cannot but think that our present Soveraigns had the Right that Conquest gives against him and that my Allegiance to him was at an end as soon as he was dispossessed and they had ascended the Throne Nor can I believe that his single Interest is of such moment as that out of some hopes of promoting it I may hazard my own Life and Fortune and act against the visible great Good of my Country now setled under other Princes especially when I add this further Consideration that They do with all their Might promote the Ends of Government which he did not do while he wore the Crown nor would do as I have all the Reason in the World to believe were he again possessed of it In short It is Loyalty enough to adhere to a Man's Prince so long as he defends his Subjects his Crown and Dignity but when he ceases to do that and the Nation is setled under others I am obliged not to hazard my own Interests and much more not to do what in me lies to cast the State new setled into miserable Convulsions by refusing the Oath or by joining in a Conspiracy against that Settlement And if Conquest consequent to a just Quarrel be a good Title and justify the Subject in transferring his Allegiance then must that be when the conquered Prince is no longer able to maintain his own Regalia and protect his Subjects but so far from it as to be forced to desert them although he be yet alive and refuseth to resign He that denieth this makes Allegiance to Governours hold in opposition to the End of Government and doth in effect say that Government was ordained for the sake of Governours and not for the sake of Societies Wherefore I conclude that Conquest is then compleat and the Right that it gives gained when a King is forced to leave his Dominions defenceless especially if thereupon the People generally submit to the Conqueror and that by a National Act Because he is now no more able to protect those that adhere to him And his being owned as King any longer is become inconsistent with the Ends of Government and all Indeavors to restore him tend directly to overthrow them And so much for the second thing to be proved Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary conquered King James SECT III. Conquest is in this their Majesties Case a good Title IT remains that I say something to the third General Conquest is in this their Majesties Case a good Title And here I need not be tedious For it being proved that their Majesties had a just Quarrel against K. James and that the Success they have had