the Laws to which he was Sworn he should be Perjured And by what reason can a man be obliged to observe his Oath to a person that being mutual obliged to him hath notoriously violated his Oath and becomes a perjur'd Person it is well resolved by Amesius de Juramento l. 4. c. 22. Quum aufertur ratio Juramenti Juramentum cessat ratione eventus Qui easus est eorum qui Juraverunt se obedituros domino aut prinoipi alieui qui postea cessat esse talis When the reason of an Oath doth cease the obligation of the Oath ceaseth also by reason of the event which is the case of such who have sworn to obey a Lord or Prince who afterward ceaseth to be so King John's Confirmation of an Original Contract Anno 1214. upon granting the great Charter and that of the Forest it was enacted at Running-Mead That 25 Barons should be elected as Conservators of the Liberties thereby granted who upon Violation of them might no redress being made within 40 days after notice enforce the King by seizing his Castles and Lands and as a Security the four chief Captains of the Castles of Northampton Kenelworth Nottingham and Scarborough were sworn to the Barons and that none should be placed in them but such as the Barons thought to be faithful and also the Castles of Rochester and others which of right belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury were delivered up and others to the Barons But the King by help of some Forreigners regain'd them all and was Master of all England except the City of London whose Suburbs he burnt And then the Bishops and Barons swore at St. Edmonds on the high Altar That if King John did not observe his Grants they would compel him to it by withholding their Allegiance and seizing his Castles and when the King would not restore their Liberties and Properties they raise an Army under Robert Fitz-Walker and regain all their Castles enter London and resolved never to desist until their Charters were better secured The King being generally forsaken having not above seven Knights with him whereas the Barons and Knights were reckoned 2000. besides Esquires of good Note He sent to the King of Morocco offering the Kingdom to him who having enquired into the difference between the King and his People despised the offer as Matthew Paris relates it He offered it also to Pope Innocent to be made Tributary to him if he would excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Barons that he might be revenged on them all which notwithstanding they maintain the War and they elect Lewis of France for their King and their Actions were approved by the Peers of France assembled at Lyons I have read that in the Clause of the Charter confirm'd by H. 3. it was provided that if the King should invade those Rights it was lawful for the Kingdom to rise against him and do him what injury they could as owing him no Allegiance And much to this purpose is quoted out of King John's Charter in these words Et illi Barones cum communa totius terrae destringent gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus poterint scilicet per captionem Castrorum terrarum possessionem aliis modis donec fuerit emandatum secundum arbitrium eorum And the practice of the Nobles and Commons in those days do evidence that they had some such Grants from their Kings for their justification and perhaps much more then doth now appear for it was made an Article against Richard the Second that he had erazed and imbezled the Records to the great dammage of the People and the disinherison of the Crown But this King Henry the Third upon a grant of the thirtieth part of his Subjects Goods ratified their Charters and Swore to preserve them inviolably as he was a Man a Christian and a King crowned and anointed and the Archbishop of Canterbury with the other Bishops denounced a Sentence of Excommunication against all such as should invalidate the Priviledges granted by the Charters throwing down on the ground the lighted Candles which were in their hands and saying So let every one who incurs this Sentence be extinct in Hell. And here I cannot forbear to repeat that Article of the Magna Charta which yet appears in the original Grant or Confirmation which the Bishop of Salisbury says he hath in his own hands under the great Seal See the Bishop of Sarum 's Pastoral Letter p. 27. whereby it is provided That in case the King should violate any part of the Charter and should refuse to rectifie what be had done amiss it should be lawful for the Barons and the whole People of England to distress him by all the ways they could think on such as the seizing on his Castles Lands and Possessions provision being only made for the safety of the persons of the King and Queen and their Children Now this being a fundamental Law and Contract and never repealed may abundantly justifie all that hath been done by the People of England in the late Revolution For whereas it is objected that the late Laws and Declaration That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms and that it is unlawful for both Houses of Parliament to levy War offensive or defensive against the King and the Recognition made the first of King James do supersede all former Laws I answer That such fundamental Laws cannot be abrogated without a particular recital of them and an express abrogation so that those Laws mentioned in the Charters for the restraint of illegal Actions and those that gave the Heretochs the power of the Militia and Officers by Sea and Land not being particularly repealed cannot be abrogated by those hasty Acts which have been since made for though the Militia be by those hasty Acts granted to the King yet it must be understood that they were so granted in trust and confidence that it should be imployed for the protection and safety of the People and Sir Edward Cooke in his Institutes on Magna Charta alloweth that the King hath no power over the Militia to Muster his Subjects but only in such cases and in such manner as the Parliament by special Acts hath prescribed and therefore those Heretochs or Lord-Lieutenants which had the power of the Militia for the word Heretoch by Selden in his Titles of Honour p. 603. is compounded of Here which signifies Exercitus and Togen ducere signifies Dux exercitus sive navalis sive terrestris and signifies a Commander of an Army by Sea or Land. See Spelman p. 232 348. That the Sheriffs of every County who had the Posse Comitatus or the power of raising the Militia were to be chosen by the People in the County-Courts is evident by express words of King Edward the Confessor's Laws Cap. de Herotochiis as Lambard's Arch. p. 135. and Sir Edward Cooke 3 Edw. 3. c. 17 19. And by the Articles against Richard the Second
charging him that he put out divers Sheriffs elected by the Freeholders and put in his own Favourites subverting the Laws contrary to his own Oath and Honor. And Anno 1261. the Barons by vertue of an Ordinance of Parliament made at Oxford 45. H. 3. made Sheriffs in divers Counties and called them Guardians of the Counties discharging them whom the King had made Novos repulere virilitur Vicecomites And in the 28th of Edw. 1. ch the King granteth to the People as of right that they shall have the Election of the Sheriffs And ch 13. for as much as the King hath granted to the Commons the Election of Sheriffs the King wills that they shall chuse such Sheriffs that shall not charge them c. And Sir Edward Cooke on Magna Charta proves p. 147. c. that the right of electing Sheriffs was anciently in the People as it was and is in London York Bristol Glocester and in all great Cities which are Counties and in Middlesex And generally all the great Officers of the Kingdom were chosen in Parliament So were the Heretoches or Lord-Lieutenants in every County chosen by a full Folkemote in every County of the Realm And it is evident throughout our Histories that the Kings of England never did or could raise or maintain a War without the consent and aid of their Parliaments Anno 1242. Henry the Third summoned a Parliament requiring their aid for a War against France to which he had sworn for recovering of his Rights but they answered That they would grant no Aids nor make any War till the Truce with France was expired and though he closeted the Nobles one by one and by persuasions and threats sought to ingage them yet they answered That they admired that without their Counsel and Consent he would undertake so difficult business So that unless the Nation by their late Acts did intend to destroy all their ancient Rights and Liberties we cannot suppose it to be their sence but that their General Rules might admit of some Exceptions and Restraints Suppose a King persuaded by Evil Counsellors and detained by them do break his Solemn Oaths raiseth a War against his Kingdom for subversion of the Laws and in defence of such Counsellors as persuaded him thereunto do appear in their Army where his person is in danger whether may the Subjects raise Arms and fight against such an Army wherein the King is personally ingaged Answ This was the Case of Henry the Third who with his Son Prince Edward was taken Prisoner in the Battel of Lewis by the Earl of Leicester who to countenance his designs carried him about as a Prisoner whereupon the Nobles raised an Army and in the Battel of Evesham slew the Earl and the King himself was wounded nigh to death as Matth. Paris relates yet in a Parliament at Winchester Anno 1266. the Earl and his Army were adjudged Traytors and Rebels and the Nobles and their Army were rewarded If the Owner of a Park grant to a Keeper a Lease thereof for Life the Condition though it be not express'd yet by Law is this that if he suffer the Deer to be killed and destroyed through his neglect or their Pasture eaten up he forfeiteth his Grant in the judgment of the Common Law. And though such a Keeper to preserve his Deer do wound or kill the Robber he is held guiltless by a Statute of 21 E. 1. as Rastal of Forrests 19. and Stamford's Pleas l. 1. c. 5 6. Doth the Law take care for Beasts and not for Subjects and are not these much better than they or their Goods Liberties and Properties than the Grass for Deer Some Kings have been so hardy as to ingage themselves in single Tilts and Combats with their Subjects to shew their Valor as Henry the Eighth did in the sixteenth Year of his Reign against the Earl of Suffolk wherein the King was like to be slain and Henry the Second of France Anno 1559. was slain in a Just by the Earl of Montgomery his Subject whose Spear pierced through his Eye to the Brain but these being provoked thereunto by their Kings were not adjudged Traytors having no design of evil against their Kings So that if a Prince voluntary ingage himself in an unnecessary Combate with his Subjects and they in defence of their Laws Liberties and Lives do chance not intentionally wound or slay their Prince I see not but they are as excusable as the others the blame lyeth on the wilful assaulter and not on them that defend themselves Charles the First King of France fell distracted in the head of his Army and slew some of his Souldiers whereupon they disarmed him and kept him close prisoner as a Bedlam till he was recovered nor were any questioned as Traytors for so doing The Case seems not much unlike to that of Walter Terril who shooting at a Deer by a a casual glance of the Arrow slew the King William Rufus Thus in cases of Manslaughter when one kills another se defendendo a Pardon by Law is granted of course It appears that David offered to assist the King of Achish in his Wars against Saul wherein Saul was slain by which it may also appear that an oppressed Subject may assist a Prince that gives him protection in a lawful War against his oppressing Soveraign though the Soveraigns life be in hazard of being destroyed in that War. This will appear in the Case of Saul and David Saul was Father-in-Law to David who was appointed by God to succeed him in due time for which cause among others it is probable that Saul hated him especially because the People extolled David above him Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands and sought occasion to slay him and to make void his Right of Succession of the Truth whereof David being informed by Jonathan he got about four hundred Men as a Life Guard seeing he could not confide in the Promises of Saul and Abiathar the high Priest complained of the Tyranny of Saul that he had commanded the Priests of God to be slain upon the Accusation of Doeg and David entertains Abiathar and such as fled to him for refuge 1 Sam. 22.23 Abide thou with me fear not for he that seeketh thy life seeketh my life but with me thou shalt be in safety Hereupon he with his Men got into Keilah and Saul raiseth his People to assault him but David enquireth of the Lord intending no doubt to make resistance against Saul whether Saul would come against him and whether the Men of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul and being answered that they would he leaves Keilah and flies into the Mountains where doubtless if Saul had assaulted him he would have defended himself but being too weak Saul's Men being more than six to one he roves up and down as he could and to shew that he only sought the defence of his own Life not the destruction of Saul's he spared it twice when
he was a very wise man and well acquainted with the Constitution of the Roman Government for by the Lew Regia granted by the Senate to Augustus it was declared Quicquid per Epistolum statuit cognoscons decrevit aut pro edictum perpalaâ—it Lâ—â— esto And Cicero De Legibus Regio Imperio duo sunto Militiae summum jus habento nemini parento So Dion of Augustus That he was free and of Absolute Authority both over himself and over the Laws for the Emperour is a Living Law and commands as much by word as the Law doth by writing But we are not under the Laws of the Romans Turks or Tartars And if God should for our sins now or had he in the late King's raign permitted the French King to invade us with his Dragoons I doubt not but we might Vim vi repellere resist his Tyranny and Usurpation And as to the Protestants under Q. Mary none of them were put to death until she had procured a Parliament to make Laws against them and then it was their Duty to submit And we are bound with all thankfulness to bless God who prevented the late King from procuring such a Parliament and such Sanguinary Laws which he had well nigh effected to the Extirpation of our Religion Laws and Liberties and fastning those heavy Yoaks of Popery and Slavery on us and the Posterities that were to succeed us This was the Lord's doing and as it is marvellous in our eyes so it ought with all humble thankfulness to be acknowledg'd and accepted But it is objected from Sir E. Cooke That the Regal Authority is so inherent in the person of the King that no separation can be made so that as long as he lives our Allegiance is due to him and to no other Ans Whatever that great Lawyer says the Law says otherwise for even while a rightful Prince is in possession the Law makes a difference between his private and his publick Capacity and as while the King acts by the Laws we owe him our Obedience so in those things wherein he acts arbitrarily by his own Will contrary to Law our Allegiance is not due in such cases Object We are sworn to the King and to his lawful Heirs and Successors now as the King while he lives can have no Heir to whom in his life time we owe our sworn Allegiance so when he dies there can be no lawful Successor but the Heir if there be any that survives Ans In the sence of the Oath there can be no Heir till the death of the King and in our case there is no obligation due from our Oaths to the Heir until he or she be actually King or Queen of England as our Law expounds itself And when the King dies in a natural or civil and political sence by deserting his Government and going over to an avowed Enemy to the Nation their Religion and Liberties or hath submitted his Kingdom to the Usurpations of the Pope and so renders himself not only as useless as if he were buried in a Cloyster but as destructive as an open Enemy there is in such cases a Demise made of the Crown and it descends to the Heir 2ly In this case if he that is not the next Heir by Bloud be by the unanimous consent of the people as well as by the good liking of the lawful Heir chosen and admitted into the actual possession of the Government all Rights that were due to the Heir become due to such a Successor in the eye of the Law So Bracton determins it Heredis verbo omnes significari successores si verbis non sint expressi So Littleton in his Tenures Title of Homage Sect. 85. Allegiance is due to every one in possession that becomes King and to no other Judge Popham in his Reports f. 16 17. mentions a Case to this purpose Richard the Third granted certain Priviledges to the City of Glocester with a Salvo to his Heirs in Q. Elizabeth's reign it was questioned whether the Salvo did pass to her she being not Heir to King Richard but Successor onely and all the Judges did resolve that the Salvo did pass to the Queen Grotius l. 2. c. 9. s 8 9. If a King dye without Issue in an Hereditary Kingdom the Empire remains in the Body of the People who may create another and limit him the People being sui Juris Now in such a case a Convention of the People duly assembled in their Representatives is the most August Assembly even beyond a Parliament for to be able to make a King is more than to be a King and as the Original of Majesty is fundamentally in the people a Parliament hath a great dependance on the King being his Subjects the Convention is Absolute and Independent it makes bounds for the Monarch and whereas one Parliament may repeal the Acts of another a Parliament cannot alter the fundamental Constitutions of a Convention when it first constitutes a Monarchy And this hath been the most ancient manner in cases of great Necessity the people assembled in a Folke mote in the several Counties and chose their Wittena Gemote or Meeting of Wisemen Object The King was forced to leave his Kingdom his Subjects failing to assist him against the Invaders Ans The question that comes here to be considered iâ— Whether the Kings departure were voluntary or forced It is certain that the actions of reasonable men are generally influenced by the proposed end for Omnes beati esse volunt nec possunt velle contrarium as all men desire to be happy so they cannot will any thing which they conceive to have a tendency to the contrary These two are generally the Originals of Humane actions viz. Necessity and Choice and Necessity is either that which we draw on ourselves or is imposed on us by others Pharaoh's Oppression of Israel was at first voluntary while he hardned his heart against the Command of God but when God gave him up to that hardness of heart though the execution of what he did became necessary yet the principle that led him to it was voluntarily espoused 'T is a Rule given by Rainaudus a good Casuist Modo preluceat notitia absit coactio intervenit voluntarium Where the understanding is satisfied concerning any design and there be no force to withhold the prosecution of it there our actions are voluntary The end which the late King had long endeavoured and with too much success had by many means well nigh effected was to make Popery the established Religion of the Nation He declared his desire that all his Subjects were of the same perswasion with himself and his actions tended to make them such and doubtless he was not willing to have all his labours frustrated when therefore he was reduced to some straits being such as he wilfully brought on himself he could not properly be said to act by constraint But this was not the King's case that he did deliberate whether to go
Homage and Fealty required of every Lord from his Tenants hath the same expressions as the present Oath yet this Oath was not intended to assert the Lord's Title in point of right nor did it oblige the Tenant in case the Lord should forfeit alienate or be disseiz'd 4. An actual Obedience is sufficient to secure the Government and therefore we cannot presume that it requires more it doth not look backward to what is past but respect only the future time 5. If these reasons make not the case clear yet they render it doubtful and then this Maxim takes place Contra eum qui a pertius potuit loqui facienda interpretatio But of this more hath been said in Bishop Sanderson's Resolution of the Case of the Ingagement against which if it be objected That there is more included in the word Allegiance than in those of being true and faithful I answer There seems to be less required by that word for Allegiance signifies Obedience according to Law and not in illegal cases in which there is no Obedience due because there is no authority to require it Concerning the Lawfulness of Self-Defence 1. If the English people are so far at the Prince's disposal as to have no right to defend their Lives against his illegal Assaults then they are in the state of Slaves and Captives but we are not in such a state but Freemen and Proprietors as the Magna Charta and the Petition of Right do evidence 2. If to preserve our lives c. we may not use a defence then we prefer the means before the end but this is absurd therefore the first is so And if any Government do deprive us of that priviledge which Nature grants us it were better to have continued in a state of Nature and Anarchy then to come under such a Government 3. The Laws cannot be so interpreted as to be illusory but to bound the King's power and to give the people Rights and yet to suffer him to destroy all at his pleasure is a meer illusion of the Laws 4. What hath been publickly done and never been censur'd in the most setled times may be presumed lawful but the Defence of the Peoples Rights as in the Barons Wars was never publickly censured but the matters contended for were confirmed by several Charters ratified by dreadful Imprecations and vindicated by the expence of the Lives of the Nobles and People therefore it may be presumed to be lawful 5. What is permitted by the Law of God and Nature and is not forbidden by the Law of the Land is lawful but Self-defence is permitted c. and is not forbidden by the Law of the Land therefore it is lawful Object The Declaration that says It is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms c. forbids it Ans General Prohibitions must not be extended to such extraordinary Cases as would have been expresly excepted if they had been expresly proposed And they who united into Government and made Laws to preserve their Lives would never have consented to give one man power to cut all their Throats 6. Treason includes Felony and Felony Malice propense but self-defence implies no propense Malice therefore it is neither Fellony nor Treason Consider these Maxims Quod quisque obtutelam corporis sui fecerit jure fecisse videtur quando copiam sibi Judicis qui jus reddat non habet vim vi repellere omnia jura permittunt a jure civile approbatur modenamen inculpatae tutelae So Grotius Si corpus impetatur vi presente cum periculo vitae non aliter vitabili tunc bellum est licitum etiam cum interfectionem periculum inferentis ratio Natura quemque sibi commendat jus est cuilibet se defendendi contra immanem saecutiam So Barcl cont Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. Non sunt expectanda verbera sed vel terrorem armorum sufficere vel minas Of the King's Abrenunciation 1. To destroy the Government is to renounce and disclaim it for Animus perdendi retinendi non consistunt Nolle habere is the same with Renunciare but King James attempted to destroy the Government for to destroy the Essence and Form of a Government and alter its species is to destroy it 2. If the defence be lawful in the People and the Invasion in the Prince then the loss of the Crown or Right to govern doth legally follow But the Defence and Invasion c. therefore the loss of the Crown and Right of Goverment is ceased and consequently so is our Allegiance 3. To forsake a Kingdom and leave it in a state of Nature is to disclaim it but the late King did so therefore he disclaimed it The Major is clear because Government is necessary by an Antecedent Necessity to a particular Person 's being made a Governour and therefore rather than to continue a disbanded Multitude a particular Man's Right or Title must cease The Minor is clear because he suspended the Laws stopt their course carrying away the Broad Seal discharging the Judges and then withdrew leaving us in confusion If it be objected that he was forced to withdraw Answ It was what by many voluntary Acts he had drawn on himself and the last Act partakes of the Nature of those Actions from whence it flowed Object It will be a very great Scandal to the Nation and Church of England to disclaim their lawful King without Treating with him and seeking Reconciliation upon redress of their Grievances Ans The Clergy and Nobles did often Treat by way of Petition and humble Advice but were rejected with Contempt The Prince of Orange began to Treat with the late King's Commissioners who were returning with an Answer but the King left the City the day before and ever since hath put himself out of a Condition to Treat having given up himself to the Conduct of such as are Irreconcileable Enemies to our Nation and Religion None were more fit to Treat with the King than a free Parliament which as the King had made impossible by his Method so if it had been duly called and chosen yet a force would have been pretended while the Prince of Orange had any Army in the Nation And what if the King had complied as Christiern the Second King of Denmark who after his desertion was received again upon renewing his Oath and subscribing to Conditions who not only brake them all but inviting the Nobles and their Children to a Feast caused them all to be slain The King of France shews what Faith may given to the solemn and repeated Acts of Ambitious Princes and the observance of the Coronation Oaths and many publick Declarations by our King. 2. As to the case of Scandal I know not any sort of Christians that can justly be scandalized at such proceedings or condemn that practice in others which they allow in themselves As for the Papists the principles of their Religion oblige them not to endure a Prince of a different perswasion who
to their Power and beyond it have endeavoured to depose any Prince whom they judge Heretical the not owning of the Pope's Supremacy is thought a sufficient cause for excommunicating first and then deposing such a Prince and incouraging the People to withdraw their Allegiance and take Arms against them witness the Bull of Pope Pius against Queen Eliz. and the approbation of that hellish Powder Plot against King James for the contrivance whereof Garnet was numbred among their Saints at Rome and the deposing of Kings and Emperors of the Romish Communion hath been often practised by the Pope in Germany France and other Countries on frivolous pretences as the History of former and later times doth abundantly manifest And our own Chronicles shew what was practised by the English Nation when it was wholly at the devotion of the Pope in deposing one King and choosing another And God forbid that any Protestant Nation should be guilty of such Principles or Practices as have been received and allowed of by the Romanists Our case is vastly different as is evident by the Declaration of the Lords and Commons the many Grievances therein mentioned and the occasion of a just War given to the present King reduced the late King who had wholly destroyed the Foundation and Species of the Government to desert the Nation and to fly to France for refuge leaving his People in Confusion and made it necessary for them to do what they have done to prevent their utter destruction by those Flames which he having kindled fled from them for his own security Nor can any Protestant Nation be scandalized at our Transactions they having done the same thing on a like occasion Thus the Swedes excluded Sigismond the Third and his Heirs for altering the established Religion by introducing Popery and sending his Son to be educated a Papist for violating his Oath altering the Laws raising Souldiers and exacting Money contrary to Law causing a Nobleman to be assassinated for diswading him from his illegal Practices punishing such as would not receive the Romish Religion and deserting his Country without consent of his People for which causes he was adjudged to have Abdicated his Kingdom and the Nation chose Charles Duke of Sudermannia to succeed him Christiern the Second King of Denmark was so dealt with by his People and what the Hollanders did against the King of Spain and the Scot against Queen Mary is generally known and neither of these can be scandalized at us who have acted more innocently than the best of them Object From the Act of 13 of Q. Eliz. which makes it high Treason during her Reign and forfeiture of Goods ever after in any wise to hold or affirm that an Act of Parliament is not of sufficient Force and Validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation and inheritance thereof It is objected that this Act concerns not the present case seeing what is to be done for the descent and limitation of the Crown is to be done by an Act of Parliament but a Convention is no Parliament and that Act was made only to serve the present Interest of the Queen against the Claims of the Queen of Scots Answ That in the circumstances wherein we were left there was this Remedy left us and no other the late King having immediately before his departure destroyed the Writs for calling a Parliament though he had prepared the Elections for such a one as might serve his purpose And an extraordinary Distemper requires unusual Applications yet this was the most usual and proper means for what could heal our Distractions but an unanimous agreement of the People in choosing a Convention when a Parliament could not be had And who were more able or likely to consult for the common welfare than the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Representatives of the People duly Elected with whom the King having left them in Person left his Authority with them and they became as August an Assembly as ever any Senate of the Ancient Romans when the Empire became void who had the Power to create an Emperor which also had been often practised by the Ancient Britains Nor was it fit that the Nation should continue without a King least every Man should have done what seemed good in his own Eyes as when there was no King in Israel And though a Convention have not the formality of a Parliament yet that being not to be had it hath a greater Power than a Parliament because they act not as Subjects but a free People who may choose their King and make such Laws for Government as shall not be in the Power of the King and Parliament to dissolve without the Dissolution of the Government itself as when the Foundations are destroyed the Fabrick must fall nor was there any one to invalidate the Acts of a free Convention as the King in Parliament might do by his Negative Voice 2. And whereas it is objected that the Act of 13 Eliz. respected only the Title of that Queen and was made to serve the present turn this is contrary to the express Letter of the Act which provides that ever after it should be punishable with forfeiture of Goods in any wise to hold or affirm that an Act of Parliament was not of sufficient force c. So that this Act still continues in force as the reason of it doth viz. to prevent the dangerous disputes concerning the Succession Object But the Convention ought to have set the Crown on the right Heir as the most likely means to prevent all Disputes Answ Quod fieri non debuit factum valet That which ought not to be done in more peaceable times may be warrantably done in case of imminent danger and Necessitas cogit defendit The Affairs of the Nation were involved in so many Intricacies by reason of a Confederacy of the Popish Princes against the Protestants throughout all Europe and the delivering up of Ireland into the Possession of the Papists who also had the Command of the strength of England by Sea and Land that the Courage and Conduct of a Woman though never so well qualified could not be thought competent to wrestle with so many and great difficulties and who more fit to unite so Noble but distorted a Member as the Kingdom of England to the Body of the Protestants than he who by mutual Consent of the Princes of that perswasion was chosen to be their Head who also being of the Bloud Royal and having married the right Heir was by her consent and by the consent of the Princess Anne as well as by the unanimous consent of the Nation chosen to stand as a Skreen between them and the Fury of the French King to defend their Title to the Crown which he had so successfully recovered from a lost condition Or who so fit to wear the Crown as he that won it for himself and the Right Heirs when otherwise they might have