Monarchy the Consequence will be That there is a Forfeiture of the whole Right and then that Hereditary Succession is cut off which I believe is not intended by the Commons There is indeed one Instance of the Use of such an Abdication in Monarchy and that is that of Poland and such an Abdication there makes the Throne Vacant and those with and in whom the Power is Invested of making Laws to wit the Senate appoint one to Fit it But that and whatever other Instances of the like kind these may be all of Elective Kingdoms for though some of them are or may be in Kingdoms now Hereditary yet they were in those times Elective and since altered into Hereditary Successions But here is One thing that is mentioned in this Vote which I would have well considered for the Preservation of the Succession and that is the Original Compact We must think sure that meant of the Compact that was made at the first Time when the Government was first Instituted and the Conditions that each Part of the Government should observe on their Part of which this was the most Fundamental That King Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled should have the Power of making New Laws and altering of Old Ones And that being one Law which settles the Succession It is as much Part of the Original Compact as any Then if such a Case happens as an Abdication in a Successive Kingdom without Doubt the Compact being made to the King his Heirs and Successors the Disposition of the Crown cannot fall to us till all the Heirs do Abdicate too There are indeed many Examples and too many Interruptions in the Lineal Succession of the Crown of England I think I can instance in Seven since the Conquest wherein the Right Heir hath been put by But that doth not follow that every Breach of the First Original Contract gives us Power to Dispose of the Lineal Succession especially I think since the Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King James the first that have Established the Oath of Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors the Law is stronger against such a Disposition I grant that from King William the First to King Henry the Eighth there has been Seaven Interruptions of the Legal Line of Hereditary Succession but I say those Statutes are made since that time and the making of New Laws being as much a Part of the Original Compact as the Observing Old Ones or any thing else we are Obliged to pursue those Laws till altered by the Legislative Power which singly or joyntly without the Royal Assent I suppose we do not pretend to and these Laws being made since the last Interruption we are not to go by any President that was made before the making those Laws So that all that I conceive ought to be meant by our Vote is But a Setting aside the Person that Broke the Contract And in a Successive Kingdom an Abdication can only be a Forfeiture as to the Person himself I hope and am perswaded that both Lords and Commons do agree in this Not to break the Line of Succession so as to make the Crown Elective And if that be declared that this Abdication of King James the Second reacheth no farther than himself and that it is to continue in the Right Line of Succession that I hope will make all of One Mind in this important Affair Earl of C n. As I remember Mr. Sommers who spoke to the signification of the Word Abdicated did Quote Grotius Galvin's Lexicon and other Civil Lawyers where the Express Words make it to be a Voluntary Act and so are all the Instances that ever I Read or Heard of that is there either was some Formal Deed of Renuntiation or Resignation or some Voluntary Act done of the Party 's own and such whereby they have shewn they did Devest themselves of the Royalties I think truly Gentlemen it is very apparent that the King in this Case hath done nothing of this Nature It is indeed said by that learn'd and ingenious Gentleman Mr. Sommers That it may arise from the Facts that in the Vote it has been declar'd he hath done breaking the Fundamental Laws and the Original Contract and endeavouring to Subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom I will not discourse the Particulars that have been alledged to make out this Charge But I may say this much in General That this Breaking the Original Contract is a Language that hath not been long used in this Place nor known in any of our Law-Books or Publick Records It is sprung up but as taken from some late Authors and those none of the best received and the very Phrase might bear a great Debate if that were now to be spoken to Mr. Sommers did likewise speak something to the particular Case and the Grounds of the Vote he said The King is Bounded by Law and bound to perform the Laws made and to be made That is not denyed I would take Notice that his Obligation thereunto doth not proceed from his Coronation Oath for our Law saith He is as much King before he is Crowned as he is afterwards And there is a Natural Allegiance due to him from the Subjects immediately upon the Descent of the Crown upon him And though it is a very requisite Ceremony to put him under a farther Obligation by the Conscience of his Oath yet I think it will not nor can be denyed but that as King he was bound to Observe the Laws before and no Body will make that Oath to be the Original Contract as I suppose But my Lords and Gentlemen if you do admit that it was never intended by the House of Commons to relate any further than to this King himself I believe my own Opinion would concur to secure us against his Return to Govern us But then Why is there such a Contention about a Word Doth all this imply more than Desertion But it is said that Abdication doth imply a perfect Renuntiation which I cannot see how it is in this Case so as to leave us at Liberty to supply as we please and break the Line of Succession Mr. Serjeant Maynard says That it is not indeed to make the Government perpetually Elective I would know what he means by Perpetually Our Breaking through the Line now by a Choice out of the Lineal Course is an Alteration and a President And why may not others take the same Liberty we doe And Will not that make it Perpetually Elective But truly I think no Act of ours can alter the Lineal Succession for by all the Laws we have now in Being our Government appears to be Hereditary in a Right Line of Descent And upon any Descent when any one ceaseth to be King Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heirs as Successor before Coronation as after I was in great Hopes that you would have offer'd something in Answer to One of my Lord's Reasons against that part of the Vote
of our Nation in his time and his Works are very worthily Recommended by the Testimony of King Charles the First He alloweth That Government did Originally begin by Compact and Agreement But I have yet a greater Authority than this to influence this Matter and that is your Lordships own who have agreed to all the Vote but this Word Abdicated and The Vacancy of the Throne And therefore so much enough to be said to that and go back to Debate what is not in Difference is to confound our selves instead of Endeavouring to compose Differences And truly my Lords by what is now Proposed I think we are desired to go as much too far fowards when the Vacancy of the Throne is proposed to be the Question to be first Disputed before the Abdication from which it is â—â—â—â—rred But sure I am it is very much beyond what the Vote before us doth lead us unto To talk of the Right of those in the Succession For that goes farther â—han the very last Part of the Vote and it is still to lead us yet farther to say any thing about makeing the Crown Elective For I hope when we come to answer your Lordships Reasons we shall easily make it out that it is not in this Case neither was there any Occasion given by this Vote to infer any such thing VVe shall therefore keep the Points as they are both in Order of Place in the Vote and of Reason in the thing and as we have done hither to speak to the words Abdicated and Deserted the words to be Disputed about in the First Place Another Lord did give One Reason against the useing the VVord Abdicated Because it is a Word belongs to the Civil Law and said He would by no means exchange our own English Common Law for that I intirely concur with that Noble Lord in that Point but he did agree to us also That there is no such Word in our Common Law as Deserted that is which should signifie by the Stamp the Law puts upon it any Sence applicable to the Matter in Hand Then if we must not use our VVord because unknown to our Common Law neither must we use your Lordships for the same Reason and so shall be at an entire loss what VVord to use and so indeed they may well come to consider the Conclusion first who leave us at Uncertainties on what Terms we are to Discourse and there cannot be a greater Confusion in any Debate than to state a Conclusion without the Premises which we must doe if we cannot agree how to word the Fact we infer from My Lords I shall not much differ from what in general has been said concerning the Sence of the Word Abdicated for it seems to be agreed on all Hands that it is a Renuntiation Neither will I contend for an Involuntary Abdication because I think it means a Voluntary Act But truly what your Lordships mean in your Reason against it by the Word Express I cannot so well understand That a King may Renounce his Kingship I think may be made out both in Law Fact as well as any other Renuntiation and that as far as I can discern by your Lordships Reasons and this Days Debate hitherto is not intended to be denyed by any Indeed some of my Lords have told us That there 't is meant of the Exercise of a Right which may be Renounced without Renouncing that Right Whether that be a true Distinction or no is not very Material but if it be that the very Kingship it self as including a Right to Govern may be Renounced and hath been it will be no Difficulty to make out by Instances in all Countries not only where the Crown is or was Elective but also where it was Hereditary and Successive If a King will Resign or Renounce he may do so as particularly Char. 5th Earl of P k. That was an express Solemn Renuntiation Sir George T by My Lords the particular manner of Doing it is I take it not matter in Debate just now before us till it be settled whether a King can Abdicate at all or Resign or Renounce his Kingship at all this then being granted That a King may Renounce may Resign may Part with his Office as well as the Exercise of it then the Question indeed is Whether this King hath done so or no That he may do it I take it for granted it being an Act of the VVill Then let us now inquire into the Facts as set out in the Vote VVhether this VVill of his be manifest for that you have heard it may be discovered several ways the Discovery may be by VVriting it may be by VVords it may be by Facts Grotius himself and all Authors that treat of this Matter and the Nature of it do agree That if there be any Word or Action that doth suffitiently manifest the Intention of the Mind and Will to part with his Office that will amount to an Abdication or Renouncing Now my Lords I beg leave to put this Case That had King James the II. come here into the Assembly of Lords and Commons and expressed himself in VVriting or VVords to this Purpose I was Born an Heir to the Crown of England which is a Government limited by Laws made in full Parliament by King Nobles and Commonalty and upon the Death of my last Predecessor I am in Possession of the Throne and now I find I cannot make Laws without the Consent of the Lords and Representatives of the Commons in Parliament I cannot suspend Laws that have been so made without the Consent of my People this indeed is the Title of Kingship I hold by Original Contract and the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government and my Succession to and Possession of the Crown on these Terms is Part of that Contract this Part of the Contract I am weary of I do Renounce it I will not be obliged to Observe it nay I am under an invincible Obligation not to comply with it I will not Execute the Laws that have been made nor suffer others to be made as my People shall desire for their Security in Religion Liberty and Property which are the Two main Parts of the Kingly Office in this Nation I say suppose he had so exprest himself doubtless this had been a plain Renouncing of that Legal Regular Title which came to him by Descent If then he by Particular Acts such as are enumerated in the Vote has declared as much or more than these Words can amount to then he hath thereby declared his Will to Renounce the Government He hath by these Acts mentioned manifestly declared that he will not Govern according to the Laws made Nay he cannot so doe for he is under a Strict Obligation yea the strictest and Superior to that of the Original Compact between King and People to Act contrary to the Laws or to Suspend them By the Law he is to administer Justice aand to Execute his Office according to
the Tenour of those Laws and the Coronation Oath obligeth him likewise to consent to such Laws as the People shall choose But on the contrary by that unfortunate Perswasion in Point of Religion that he hath Embraced he is Obliged to Suspend the Laws that defend the Established Religion and to Treat it as it has been as we well know called as the Northern Heresy and under Pain of Damnation to Extirpate it And in order to it did set aside and Repeal all the legal Fences of it without Consent of Parliament What the Endeavours and Practices of that kind have been in the last Reign I suppose we are not now to be told of or Instructed in and if as is very Plain this doth amount to a manifest Declaration of his Will no longer to Retain the Exercise of his Kingly Office thus Limitted thus Restrained then in common Sence as well as legal Acceptation he has suffitiently declared his Renouncing of the very Office As for his Departure out of the Kingdom 't is not material whether it was Voluntary or Involuntary but it is suffitient that his Actings declare quo Animo he went away he no longer would pursue what he designed and was so strongly Obliged unto the contrary by the Duty of his Office and Relation and the Obligation of the Original Contract as likewise his own Coronation Oath and then he desires no longer to be here So that taking both these things together that he will not nay he cannot as thus perswaded in Point of Religion Govern according to Law and thereupon hath withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom It is a manifest Declaration of his Express Renouncing and Parting with his Kingly Office And therefore I cannot depart from insisting upon this word Abdicated which doth so well correspond to the Fact of the Case and so well express the true Meaning of the Commons in their Vote Nor can we Consent to the Postponeing this Point till the other about The Vacancy of the Throne be determined for this is the very Foundation upon which we are to to proceed for Establishing the Superstructure of the other Conclusion Earl of N m. This Learned Gentleman that spoke last says It is necessary to prefer the Premises before the Conclusion as being the Foundation of the Superstructure Truly I apprehend that this word Abdicated was part of the Conclusion and not of the Premises The Vote runs thus That by Breaking the Original Contract having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom and having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom he has Abdicated the Government and the Throne is thereby Vacant I take it to be as I say part of the Conclusion the other part being joyned by a Copulative therefore that which is but the other part of the Conclusion is not to be inferred from the other part of the Premises But take it to be as you say that The Vacancy of the Throne is another Distinct Conclusion from all that preceded as the Premises and therefore it is to be considered last I would then beg the Favour of You Gentlemen of the House of Commons to answer me one Question about this Point of Abdication Whether you mean by Abdication a Renouncing for Himself or for himself and his Heirs If You mean only Abdication for Himself it will have a different Influence upon the Debate and Resolution of the Case as to the meaning of that You call the Conclusion for then How can the Throne be Vacant But if it be meant for himself and his Heirs then I apprehend it is no more than what you say at the end That the Throne is indeed Vacant and then this Abdication cannot be Part of the Premises but must be the same Thing with or Part of the Conclusion I will not undertake to dispute Whether a King of England may or may not Renounce his Kingdom For my own Part I think he can and I may go so far in Agreement with those that have spoken to this Point To yield that he may do it by implicit Acts contrary to the Kingly Office For a King to say He will not govern according to Law and for a King to act wholly contrary to Law and do that which would Subvert the Constitution is I think the same thing But then I must say also That I think there is a Difference between Saying so and Doing something inconsistent with what the Laws require for every Deviation from the Law is a kind of Breach of the fundamental Laws for I know no Law as Laws but what are Fundamental Constitutions as the Laws are necessary so far as to support the Foundation But if every Transgression or Violation of the Law by the Prince's Connivance or Command were such a Breach of the Fundamental Laws as would infer an Abdication then were it in vain to call any of his Ministers or Officers to Account for any such Action Then the Action is the King 's and not Theirs and then adieu to the Maxim of A King 's not doing Wrong And we may have Recourse to that other Respondent Superior as more effectual Satisfaction I take this Matter to be so plain as to the Distinction that I have mentioned that nothing can be more and it has been thought so essentially necessary to have it clear and manifest That those two great Instances of Edward the Second and Richard the Second were express solemn Renunciations and those confirm'd in Parliament by the Lords and Commons by the Act of Deposing them Therefore I cannot infer from the Facts enumerated in the Vote That this should be an Abdication for himself and his Heirs But therefore because in this first Point it is disputable what is meant by a Word not known of Signification in the Law it might I think do well to consider what is to be inferred from it And therefore all I have now said is only to this purpose That either Both make One Conclusion or else the Latter cannot be inferred from the Former Sir George T y. I beg Leave to say something to what this Noble Lord has last spoke unto When I call this Point of the Vacancy of the Throne a Conclusion I did not mean altogether to exclude Abdication from being a Conclusion from the Particulars enumerated before for indeed it is the nature of a double Conclusion One from the particular Facts mentioned That thereby King James has Abdicated the Government The Other from the Abdication That thereby the Throne is Vacant By the instanced Acts he hath Abdicated the Government and by his Abdicating the Government the Throne is vacant As to the rest of that which his Lordship is pleased to say I perceive he does as he must agree to me That a King may Renounce by Acts as well as Words or Writings But then I would add and agree with his Lordship also That God forbid every Violation of the Law or Deviation from it should be reckon'd an Abdication of the
agree there is One and no more than one to whom a Right does belong of Succeeding upon failure of King James Has he no Heir known Mr. Serjeant M d. I say No Man can be his Heir while he lives If he has any it is in Nubibus our Law knows none and What shall we do till he be dead It cannot descend till then E. of P e. You agree That notwithstanding King Charles the Second was abroad at his Father's Death and did not actually Exercise the Government yet in Law immediately upon his Father's Decease he was not the less Heir for that nor was the Throne Vacant Mr. Serjeant M d. That is not like this Case neither because the Discent was Legally immediate but here can be no such thing during King James's Life as an Hereditary Discent So that either here must be an everlasting War entail'd upon us his Title continuing and we opposing his return to the Exercise of the Government or we have no Government for want of a Legal Discent and Succession Pray my Lords consider the Condition of the Nation till there be a Government no Law can be executed no Debts can be compelled to be paid no Offences can be punish'd no one can tell what to do to obtain his Right or defend himself from Wrong You still say The Throne is not Void and yet you will not tell us who Fills it If once you will agree That the Throne is Vacant it will then come orderly in debate How it should according to our Law be Filled E. of N m. The Objection as I take it that is made to these Reasons the Lords have sent for their insisting upon the Amendments is That we have not fully answered in them the Reasons given by the Commons for their not agreeing to those Amendments Mr. S l. My Lords we say you have not fully answered the first of our Reasons E. of N m. Gentlemen I intend to state the Objection so That first Reason of yours I take to be this in effect That our word Deserted being apply'd to the Government implies our Agreeing that the King hath Deserted the Throne those two being in true construction the same and then by our own Confession the Throne is Vacant as to him To this you say my Lords have given no Answer Truly I think it is a clear Answer that the word Deserted may have another sence and doth not necessarily imply Renouncing entirely of a Right but a ceasing of the Exercise But then if that does not Vacant the Throne as to him the other Reason comes to be considered How came you to desire the Prince of Orange to take the Administration upon him and to take care of Ireland till the Convention and to write his Letters circulary for this Meeting And to renew your Address to the Prince and to appoint a Day of Publick Thanksgiving In answer to that my Lords say That tho the King 's Deserting the Government as they agree he has done did imply the Throne to be Vacant yet they might justly do all those Acts mentioned in the Commons Reasons because if barely the Exercise of the Government were deserted there must be a supply of that Exercise in some Person 's taking the Administration and as none so fit because of the Prince's relation to the Crown and his presence here to Address unto about it so none so proper to make that Address as the Lords for in the absence of the King they are the King and Kingdoms great Council and might have done it by themselves without the Commons but being met in a full representative Body they joyned with them Mr. P n indeed has said There is no distinction in Law between the Kingship and the Exercise of it And That it is the same Crime in consideration of Law to take away the Exercise as to take away the Kingship I shall not dispute with that learned Gentleman whom I very much honour for his Knowledge in the Profession of the Law what Offence either of them would be now for we are not discoursing concerning a Regency how the Government should be Administred but we are barely upon the Question Whether the Throne be Vacant so that we may have another King But if we should grant a Vacancy as to the King himself we are then told the next in Succession cannot take because no one can be Heir to one that is alive Yet I think the Answer given by my Lords before is a very good one That tho the King be not dead Naturally yet if as they infer he is so Civily the next of course ought to come in as by Hereditary Succession for I know not any distinction between Successors in the case of a Natural Death and those in the case of a Civil one For I would know if the next Heir should be set aside in this case and you put in another whether that King shall be King of England to him and his Heirs and so being once upon the Throne the ancient Lineal Succession be altered If that be so then indeed it is sufficiently an Elective Kingdom by taking it from the right Heir If it be not so then I would ask Whether such King as shall be put in shall be King only during King James's Life That I suppose for many Reasons is not their meaning but at least he must be made King during his own Life and then if there be a Distinction made as to the Succession between a Natural and a Civil Death if King James should dye during the Life of the new King what would become of the Hereditary Monarchy Where must the Succession come in when the next Heir to King James may not be next Heir to the present Successor Therefore we must reduce all to this point which my Lords have hinted at in their Reasons Whether this will not make the Kingdom Elective for if you do once make it Elective I do not say that you are always bound to go to Election but it is enough to make it so if by that President there be a breach in the Hereditary Succession for I will be bold to say you cannot make a stronger Tye to observe that kind of Succession than what lyeth upon you to preserve it in this Case If you are under an Obligation to it it is part of the Constitution I desire any one to tell me what stronger Obligation there can be and that I say is Reason enough for my Lords to disagree to it it bringing in the Danger of a Breach upon the Constitution Next Gentlemen I would know of you if the Throne be Vacant whether we be oblig'd to fill it if we be we must Fill it either by our old Laws or by the Humour of those that are to chuse if we Fill it by our own old Laws they declare That it is an Hereditary Kingdom and we are to take the next to whom the Succession would belong and then there would be no
changing of the Monarchy from an Hereditary to an Elective E. of N m. After this long Debate pray let us endeavour to come as near as we can to an Agreement We have proposed some Questions about which my Lords desired to be satisfied You Gentlemen have not been pleased to give an Answer to them and we have no great Hopes of getting one from you as this Debate seems to be managed On your part you have declared That you do acknowledge the Monarchy is Hereditary and Successive in the Right Line then I cannot see how such an Acknowledgment consists with the Reasons you give for your Vacancy for I cannot imagine how a Kingdom can be an Hereditary Kingdom and that King who hath Children now in being at the time of his forsaking the Government can have the Throne Vacant both of him and his Children The Course of Inheritance as to the Crown of England is by our Law a great deal better provided for and runs stronger in the right Line of Birth than of any other Inheritance No Attainder of the Heir of the Crown will bar the Succession to the Throne as it doth the Descent to any common person The very Descent by Order of Birth will take away any such Defect And so was the Opinion of the great Lawyers of England in the Case of Henry the seventh Then cannot I apprehend how any Act of the Father's can bar the Right of the Child I do not mean that an Act of Parliament cannot do it I never said so nor thought so but I say no Act of the Father's alone can do it since even the Act of the Son which may endanger an Attainder in him cannot do it so careful is the Law of the Royal Line of Succession This is declar'd by many Acts of Parliament and very fully and particularly by that Statute 25 Henry the Eighth Cap. 22 entituled An Act concerning the King's Succession where the Succession of the Crown is limited to the King's Issue-Male first then Female and the Heirs of their Bodies one after another by course of Inheritance according to their Ages as the Crown of England hath been accustomed and ought to go in such Cases If then the King hath done any thing to divest himself of his own Right it doth not follow thence that That shall exclude the Right of his Issue and then the Throne is not Vacant as long as there are any such Issue for no Act of the Father can Vacant for himself and Children Therefore if you mean no more than but the divesting his own Right I desired you would declare so And then suppose the Right gone as to him yet if it descend to his Lineal Successor it is not Vacant And I told you One Reason my Lord 's did stand upon against agreeing to the Vacancy was Because they thought your Vote might extend a great deal further than the King 's own Person But your all owning it to be a Lineal Inheritance and this Vacancy methinks do not by any means consist You declare you never meant to alter the Constitution then you must preserve the Succession in its ancient course So I did hear a worthy Gentleman conclude it to be your Intention to do But by what methods can it be done in this Case by us I desire to be satisfied in a few things about this very matter I desire first to know Whether the Lords and Commons have Power by themselves to make a binding Act or Law And then I desire to know Whether according to our ancient Legal Constitution every King of England by being seated on the Throne and possessed of the Crown is not thereby King to him and his Heirs And without an Act of Parliament which we alone cannot make I know not what Determination we can make of his Estate It has been urged indeed That we have in Effect already agreed to what is contain'd in this Vote by Voting That it is inconsistent with our Religion and Laws to have a Popish Prince to Rule over us But I would fain know Whether they that urge this think that the Crown of Spain is Legally and Actually excluded from the Succession by this Vote No Man sure will undertake to tell me That Vote of either House or both Houses together can Alter the Law in this or any other point But because I am very desirous that this Vote should have its Effect I desire that every thing of this Nature should be done in the antient usual Method by Act of Parliament GOD forbid that since we are happily deliver'd from the Fears of Popery and Arbitrary Power we should assume any such Power to our selves What Advantage should we then give to those who would quarrel with our Settlement for the Illegality of it Would not this which we thus endeavour to crush break forth into a Viper For that Record of 1. Henry the Fourth I acknowledge the words of the Royal Seat being Vacant are us'd But since you your selves tell us of it That Henry the Fourth did claim by Inheritance from his Grandfather that methinks may come up to what I would have the declared sence of both Houses upon this Question to wit The Throne might be Vacant of Richard the Second but not so Vacant but the claim of the immediate Successor was to take place and not be excluded but entirely preserved And Richard the Second seems to have had the same Opinion by delivering over his Signet to them Our Laws know no Inter regnum but upon the Death of the Predecessor the next Heir is in uno eodem instanti It was so Resolv'd even in Richard the Second's own Case for at his Grandfather's Death it was a Question Whether King Richard the Second or the Eldest Son of his Grandfather then living should succeed and it was Resolved That he ought to have it because of his Right of Inheritance which is the more remarkable because of the contest And when Richard the Third usurped his Crown to make his Claim good to the Right of Inheritance he Bastardized his own Nephews And so it was in all the Instances of the Breaches that were made upon the Line of Succession which were some Seven but all illegal for such was the Force of the Laws that the Usurpers would not take the Crown upon them unless they had some specious pretence of an Hereditary Title to it That which I would have Avoided by all means is the Mischievous Consequences that I fear will ensue upon this Vacancy of the Throne to wit the utter Overthrow of the whole Costitution of our Government For if it be so and the Lords and Commons only remain as parts of it Will not this make the King one of the Three Estates Then is he the Head of the Commonwealth all united in one Body under him And if the Head be taken away and the Throne Vacant by what Laws or Constitutions is it that we retain Lords and Commons For they are
need of standing upon a Vacancy If we are to Fill it according to the Humour of the Times and of those that are to make the Choice that diverts the course of Inheritance puts it into another Line And I cannot see by what Authority we can do that or change our Ancient Constitution without committing the same Fault we have laid upon the King These are the Objections against the Vacancy of the Throne which occur to me and We my Lords desire a Satisfaction to them before we agree to the Vacancy And I think the Answering them will lead us unto that which I take to be the main point in question Whether the Vacancy of the Throne and Filling it again will not as my Lords say endanger the turning this Hereditary Monarchy of ours into an Elective one Mr. S l. My Lords it seems very strange to us that this Question should be asked us when we come to shew That your Lordships Reasons for leaving out this part of our Vote are not satisfactory neither do answer the Reasons we gave for our not agreeing to your Lordships Amendmonts And it is much stranger that we should be asked Whether this Vacancy extend to the Heirs when you will not tell us whether it be Vacant as to King James himself You put it upon us to say the Execution or Exercise of the Government is ceased but you will not say the Throne is vacant so much as to him And if it be not what have we to do or consider or debate of any consequence whether it will infer an Election or not We desire of your Lordships that which we think is very proper first to know whether the Throne be vacant at all If it be then our Proposition in the conclusion of our Vote is true That the Throne is thereby vacant My Lords I think we come here very much in vain till this Point be setl'd What Satisfaction can it be to your Lordships or Us or the Nation to know that such things as are mentioned in the Votes have been done by King James and that he has deserted as you say the Government if he still retain a Right to it and your Lordships will not declare he hath no Right but amuse the Kingdom with the doubtful words of the Exercise as to him Ceasiug If that be all you mean what need the Question be asked how far it is vacant for it should seem it is not vacant at all E. of N m. Will you please to suppose it Vacant as to King James that is that he hath no Right Then let us go on to the next step Mr. S l. That my Lords we cannot do for all our business is to maintain our own That the Throne is Vacant Mr. S s. My Lords your Lordships as a Reason against the word Abdicate say It is not a word known in our Common Law But the word Vacant about which we are now disputing cannot have that Objection made to it for we find it in our Records and even apply'd in a parallel Case to this of ours in 1 Hen. IV where it is expresly made use of more than once and there it doth import what I think it doth import in this Vote of the House of Commons now in debate and to require any further or other Explication of it than the Record gives will be very hard and unreasonable for we are here to give the Commons Reasons for maintaining their own Vote and nothing else If your Lordships please to look into the Record in that case there was first a Resignation of the Crown and Government made and subscribed by King Richard the Second and this is brought into the Parliament and there they take notice that the Sedes Regalis those are the words fuit vacua and the Resignation being read both in Latin and in English in the Great Hall at Westminster where the Parliament was then assembled it was accepted by the Lord's and Commons After that it proceeds further and there are Articles exhibited against Richard the Second and upon these Articles they went on to Sentence of Deposition and Deprivation and then followeth the words in the Record Et confessim ut constabat ex proemissis eorum occasione Regnum Angliae cuui pertinentiis suis vacare Then Henry the Fourth riseth up out of his place as Duke of Lancaster where he sate before and standing so high that he might be well enough seen makes this Claim to the Crown The words in the Record are Dictum regnum Angliae sic ut praemitur Vacans una cum Corona vendicat After that the Record goeth on That upon this Claim the Lords and Commons being asked What they thought of it they unanimoufly consented and the Archbishop took him by the Hand and led him ad Sedem Regalem Proedictum c. Nay and after all this it is there taken notice of and particularly observed that prius Vacante sede Regali by the Leasion and Deposition aforesaid all the publick Officers ceased there is care taken for Hen. IV's taking the Royal Oath and granting of new Commissions My Lords the Commons do therefore apprehend that with very good Reason and Authority they did in their Vote declare the Throne to be Vacant But as to the going further to enquire into the Consequences of that or what is to be done afterwards is not our Commission who came here only to maintain their Expressions in their Vote against your Lordships Amendments E. of R r. In a free Conference the Points in question are freely and fully to be debated and my Lords in order to their agreement with the Commons are to be satisfied what is meant and how far it may extend You Gentlemen that are the Managers for the House of Commons it seems come with a limited Commission and will not enter into that Consideration which as our Reasons express hath a great weight with my Lords Whether this Vote of the Commons will not make the Monarchy of England which has always heretofore been Hereditary to become Elective That the Vacancy of the Throne will infer such a Consequence to me appears very plain And I take it from the Argument that that last Gentleman used for the word Vacant out of the Record of Richard the Second's time that is cited for a President for that word But as that is the only President yet it is attended with this very Consequence for it being there declared That the Royal Seat was Vacant immediately did follow an Election of Henry the Fourth who was not next in the Right Line Did not then this Hereditary Monarchy in this Instance become Elective When King Charles the Second died I would fain know whether in our Law the Throne was Vacant No sure the next Heir was immediately in the Throne And so it is in all Hereditary Successive Governments Indeed in Poland when the King dyes there is a Vacancy because there the Law knows no certain Successor So that the
difference is plain that where-ever the Monarchy is Hereditary upon the Ceasing of him in possession the Throne is not Vacant where it is Elective 't is Vacant Earl of C n. I would speak one word to that Record which Mr. S s mentioned and which the Lord that spake last hath given a plain Answer unto by making that difference which is the great Hinge of the matter in debate between Hereditary and Elective Kingdoms But I have something else to say to that Record First It is plain in that Case King Richard the Second had absolutely resigned renounced or call it what you please Abdicated in Writing under his own Hand What is done then After that the Parliament being then sitting they did not think it sufficient to go upon because that Writing might be the Effect of Fear And so not voluntary thereupon they proceed to a formal Deposition upon Articles and then comes in the Claim of Hen. IV After all this Was not this an Election He indeed saith That he was not the next Heir and claimed it by Descent from Henry the Third yet he that was really the next Heir did not appear which was the Earl of Maroh so that Henry the Fourth claimed it as his indubitable Right being the next Heir that then appeared But Gentlemen I pray consider what follow'd upon it All the Kings that were thus taken in we say Elected but the Election was not of God's Approbation scarce passed any one Year in any of their Reigns without being disturbed in the possession Yet I say he himself did not care to owe the Crown to the Election but Claimed it as his Right And it was a plausible Pretence and kept him and his Son though not without interruption upon the Throne But in the time of his Grandson Henry the Sixth there was an utter Overthrow of all his Title and Possession too For if you look into the Parliament Roll 1 Edw. 4. the Proceedings against King Richard the Second as well as all the rest of the Acts during the Usurpation as that Record rightly calls it are annul'd repeal'd revok'd revers'd and all the words imaginable used and put in to set those Proceedings aside as illegal unjust and unrighteous And pray what was the Reason That Act deduceth down the Pedigree of the Royal Line from Henry the Third to Richard the Second who dy'd without Issue and then Henry the Fourth saith the Act Usurped but That the Earl of March upon the Death of Richard the Second and consequently Edward the Fourth from him was undoubted King by Conscience by Nature by Custom and by Law The Record is to be seen at length as well as that 1 Hen. 4. and being a later Act is of more Authority And after all this I pray consider it well the Right Line is restored and the Usurpation condemned and repealed Besides Gentlemen I hope you will take into your consideration what will become of the Kingdom of Scotland if they should differ from us in this Point and go another way to work then will that be a divided Kingdom from ours again You cannot but remember how much Trouble it always gave our Ancestors while it continued a divided Kingdom and if we should go out of the Line and invest the Succession in any point at all I fear you will find a Disagreement there and then very dangerous Consequences may ensue Sir R H d. My Lords The Proceedings and Expressions of the House of Commons in this Vote are fully warranted by the President that hath been cited and are such as wherein there has been no interruption of the Government according to the Constitution The late King hath by your Lordships concession done all those things which amount to an Abdication of the Government and the Throne 's being thereby Vacant And had your Lordships concurred with us the Kingdom had long e're this been setled and every body had peaceably followed their own business Nay had your Lordships been pleased to express your selves clearly and not had a mind to speak ambiguously of it we had saved all this Trouble and been at an end of Disputing Truly my Lords this Record that hath been mentioned of Henry the Fourth I will not say is not a President of Election for the Arch-Bishop stood up and looked round on all sides and asked the Lords and Commons Whether they would have him to be King and they asserted as the words of the Roll are That He should Reign over them And so it is done at every Coronation As to his Claim they did not so much mind that for they knew that he Claimed by Descent and Inheritance when there was a known Person that had a Title before him For that which a Noble Lord spoke of touching the Publick Acts that have been done since the King left us I may very well say we think them legally done and we do not doubt but that Power which brought in another Line then upon the Vacancy of the Throne by the Leasion of Richard the Second is still according to the Constitution residing in the Lords and Commons and is legally sufficient to supply the Vacancy that now is That Noble Lord indeed said That your Lordships might not only with the Commons advise the Prince of Orange to take upon him the Administration and joyn with us in the other things but that you might have done it of your selves as being in the absence of the King the Great Council of the Nation My Lords I shall not say much to that point your Lordships Honours Privileges are great and your Councils very worthy of all Reverence and Respect But I would ask this Question of any Noble Lord that is here Whether had there been an Heir to whom the Crown had quietly descended in the Line of Succession and this Heir certainly known your Lordships would have assembl'd without his calling or would have either Administer'd the Government your selves or advised the Prince of Orange to have taken it upon him I doubt you had been pardon me to say it all guilty of High-Treason by the Laws of England if a known Successor were in possession of the Throne as he must be if the Throne were not Vacant From thence my Lords your Lordships see where the Difficulty lyes in this matter and whence it ariseth because you would not agree the Throne to be Vacant when we know of none that possess it We know some such thing hath been pretended to as an Heir Male of which there are different Opinions and in the mean time we are without a Government and Must we stay till the Truth of the matter be found out What shall we do to preserve our Constitution while we are without a safe or legal Authority to act under the same according to that Constitution and in a little time it will perhaps through the distraction of our Constitution be utterly irremediable I do not deny but that your Lordships have very great Hardships