Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A61528
|
The case of an oath of abjuration considered and the vote of the honourable House of Commons vindicated in a letter.
|
Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing S5564; ESTC R19563
|
23,046
|
38
|
after the Reduction of the Castles that held out in John's Favour summoned a Parliament at Nottingham such as the Parliament was then on the Thirtieth of March 1194. Trigesima Die mensis Martii feria quarta Ricardus Rex Angliae celebravit primum Concilii sui diem apud Nottingham as R. Hoveden pag. 737. where were present Elianor the King's Mother the two Archbishops David the King of Scotland's Brother the Bishops and the Barons And on the Day following the King demanded Justice should be done him on his Brother John who against his Oath of Allegiance had seised on his Castles destroyed his Countries both at home and abroad and Leagued against him with the King of France his Enemy And it was adjudged that Earl John should be cited to appear within Forty Days and stand to the Law and that if he did not Judicaverunt Comitem Johannem demeruisse regnum saith Hoveden Ipsum Fratrem suum Rex exhaeredavit Annal. Waverl An. 1194. Omne jus pristinum honorem impensum solenni judicio Procerum suorum abjudicavit saith J. Brompton from W. Hemingford whom he constantly Copies and Cites by the Name of Walter de Giseburn pag. 1278. lin 19. Judicio Procerum omni honore privavit saith H. Knighton l. 2. pag. 2408. But the Annales De Margan put out by the most excellently Learned Dr. Gale in 1691 go to my thinking a great way farther than all the rest The Passage is somewhat long but remarkable enough to make you amends for the Patience of Reading it Thus then in the Year M C XC IX After Richard's Death John his Brother in the Octaves of Easter having entred upon the Dukedom of Normandy coming over into England was Crowned King on Ascension-Day at Westminster May 27. against the Judgment and Decree of the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons and all the rest of the Great Men of England which they had passed at Nottingham in the Presence of King Richard his Brother where for the Treason he had acted against the King and Kingdom in Confederacy with the King of France he was disinherited and depriv'd abjudicatus which I cannot construe better not only of all the Lands he had in England but also of all Honors which he might hope for or expect to have from the Crown of England It was also decreed that he should be summoned to appear in such a space of time within the King's Courts to answer and defend himself if he could upon the War and Treason aforesaid Raised and Committed whilst his Brother was abroad and detain'd in Germany but he came not himself nor sent any other to answer for him Upon which Three Earls his Peers were sent to the Court of France there to convict him of the same Treason but neither did he make his appearance there or answer for himself And yet against this Judgment and Decree he is Crowned King William de Breuse together with his Faction pressing instantly for his Coronation In which Coronation all that were concerned offended grievously as well because John had no Right to the Kingdom Arthur his elder Brother's Son being then alive as also that if he had been Heir of the Kingdom yet by and for the above repeated Treason he had been deprived and difinherited This is a famous Passage and makes very much for a Bill of Exclusion at least if I mistake not and there was so much in it that when the Pope's Legat was dissuading the King of France from sending his Son Lewis into England as the Barons and Great Men had by express Messengers desir'd him to do and told him England then was S. Peter's Patrimony by the Resignation of King John the King of France told him that England never was John's to give as well because no King can give away his Kingdom without their Consent as also because he had forfeited all Right to the Crown if Right he had had by his Treasons against Richard of which he stood Convict and had had Sentence passed upon him as a Traitor by Hugh de Pudsey Bishop of Durham Thus Matth. Westm. tho Matth. Paris represents it a little otherwise But tho the King and Parliament proceeded to an Act of Exclusion yet they put no one upon abjuring John by Name They thought it enough to secure the present King by an Oath of Allegiance and to put by John from succeeding him but no one ever was constrain'd to swear he never should nor ought to be King They hurt John as much as they could by freeing the Subject from swearing to him but they intended not to hurt the Subjects by compelling them to swear against him Methinks there is great deal of Difference betwixt these two Points and that 's the Use I would have you make of this long Story which I will conclude when I have added That tho John afterwards did actually succeed his Brother Richard tho Arthur had been declared Successor to Richard tho it was the Opinion of all the World both abroad and at home that Arthur was the undoubted Heir of the Crown tho many Nobles sided with him tho he claim'd the Crown himself openly and gave John abundance of Trouble and alarm'd him daily yet did John never attempt to get him abjured by the Nation nor to secure himself any other way than by the common Oath of Allegiance He afterwards caught him and in all likelyhood ordered him to be made away privately but that was nothing to the People of England He died 't is thought about 1203 but his Sister Ellinor commonly called The Damosel of Britanny lived till after 1240. Tho she undoubtedly was the Heiress of the Crown if the Nation had regarded the Lineal and immediate Succession as much in those as in these latter Days which it is manifest they did not The long and troublesome Reign of Henry the Third the Times of Edward the First and Second afford me nothing to my present purpose They had no Rivals or Competitors to fear nor consequently any occasion of securing themselves by any Oath of Abjuration When Edward the Third was Crowned King upon the Deposition of his Father tho Edmond of Kent and others attempted to deliver him from his Imprisonment and re-instate him again yet the young King sought not his Safety and Establishment by any Oath of Abjuration of his Father It was enough that the several Estates of the Kingdom had by Deputies appointed for the purpose solemnly renounced their Allegiance to him and chosen his Son to Reign in his stead and taken the usual Oath of Allegiance to him this was then esteemed sufficient Security for the young King without concerning the whole Kingdom in an Oath of Abjuration And this was the Case of Henry the Fourth when Richard the Second was deposed the Crown was entail'd by Parliament on him and his Sons but there was no Abjuring Richard by an Oath to be taken by the Subjects The Estates of the Realm Deposed him very solemnly