that their Treaties oblige them no longer than when each King has Possession of his Kingdom Why will they not allow the same reason to hold for Subjects that they should be free from all Obligations to Princes when they no longer receive any Protection from them Seeing that was the only ground and sole cause of their paying them Allegiance and in truth they cannot be any longer obliged then the reason for obliging them holds For why should People be obliged when there is no reason they should be so no Laws can bind any longer than the reason for Enacting them holds good and when the sole reason that made them Laws ceaseth the Laws themselves must so too much more must any particular Law be null and void when not only the reason of keeping it ceaseth but the keeping it does thwart the general intent and design of all Laws which is the good and happiness of the Societies to which all Laws are but means and there is no reason that the means should oblige when the end for whose sake the means were ordained cannot be obtained by those means much less when they become destructive of the sole end for which they were ordained If there were a Law that Ships should sail on such aside of the Channel and the sole reason whether expressed or not were for avoiding the dangerous Sands that were on the other side if the Sands should chance to be removed to the safe side of the Channel the Pilot would be so far from being bound upon the account of that Law to run his Ship upon the Sands that he would break the Law if he kept to the Letter of it and would observe the Law by going contrary to the Letter So again if a Law that required Obedience to one particular Person should happen to be destructive of the Publick good and of fatal consequence to the Community the Letter of the Law would oblige no more in one case than in the other nay the reason of not observing the last would be stronger upon the account of the disproportion of the number But the true meaning and intent of the Law would in one case as well as the other oblige People to act contrary to the letter of the Law and people would be as much bound to pay Obedience where it would be for the Publick Good as in the other case the Ship would be to sail on the safe side of the Channel The occasion of not a few Mistakes in this important Controversie ariseth from mens judging by the same rules tho the reasons are extremely different in cases which concern the Supreme Powers as they do in those which relate to private Persons In cases between private Persons there is a Superior to decide all controversies and to do right and justice for which end he was made their Superior So that if any one by Fraud or Violence possesseth himself of another's Right the Law is open and redress may be had without any danger to the Publick nay The Publick Safety consists in having private mens wrongs redressed But as to the Supreme Powers whatever Right or Titles they have people are obliged to submit to those in Possession because there is no Superior Court as in case of private persons to judge of their Rights and Possession by all Laws gives a man a Right till he be legally dispossessed and if a man cannot be turned out by Course of Law as it is evident he that is in Possession of the Government cannot he ought still to enjoy what he possessed For it is against the Nature of all Civil Societies to appeal to the Sword to prevent which they were instituted Besides Force can never decide Civil Controversies nor can the Sword be a proper Judge of Wrong or Right it can only determine who is the strongest not who has the best Cause and the pretended Remedy would be infinitely worse than the Disease for Civil War as long as it continueth destroyeth all Civil Rights If the next Heir whether Brother or Son should get Possession of the Government by Murdering his King the people instead of giving him that Punishment which by the Law of Nature and God's Positive Law is due to such Crimes are obliged to pay him Obedience to which he can have no other Right but Possession for whilst his King was alive and in Possession of the Government he could have no Right and certainly an Action so barbarous as murdering him that was suppose both his Father and King which is against all Right Law and Justice could never give him any Right or Just Title because it is against all Conscience and Reason that a man should reap any advantage by an Act so monstrously wicked and any Law that should allow a man any benefit by so enormous a Crime would be as sinful it self Nor can a man in any other case reap any advantage by his own Turpitude but here because there is no superior to punish him nor can Obedience be refused him without Injury to the Publick it is peoples Duty instead of punishing him to pay him Obedience And certainly the same Reason will hold for paying Obedience to any that get Possession of the Government since none can get it more unjustly All Legal Rights must depend upon the Laws and all Laws for their Authority upon the Government and when that Government is at an end all the Laws that concern it must be so too and can no more oblige than the English Laws can in a Foreign Countrey because a Power to put Laws in execution whereby people are protected is essential to all Laws because it is essential to all Government on which the Laws depend and without such a Power no Civil Society and by consequence no Civil Laws can subsist No particular Law can bind in those circumstances where all Laws would cease to bind and there is no reason that some Laws should oblige when all Laws would have no obligation as they would not oblige if there were no Power to put them in execution because men when there is no Power to restrain them from acting as they have a mind to would be in the state of Nature and consequently without any Laws but those of Nature Without a Coercive Power the Laws become a dead Letter or at best but Advice so that there can be no Laws that can oblige people to act against the present Powers because by being against the present Powers they cease to be Laws If a Law that should oblige people not to pay Obedience to the actual Possessors of the Throne had they not a Legal Title to it were not in its own nature null or could subsist after that Government to which it required Obedience was destroyed it would be void upon account of its Impiety because as long as the Legal Princes continue dispossessed which might extend to some Centuries it would overturn all Government and all Civil Society which are instituted for the good
obedience to the Laws when they are put in execution for his sake because in it wholy consists his Protection and he that is willing the Government should have power over all other people upon his account ought to be willing the Government should have the same power over him for the sake of others except he would be the only man in the Nation without Government and is unwilling to do that himself which he would have all others whatever their Principles are to do If the Nonjurers do desire to be protected and do actually receive the protection of the Government though at the same time they pretend it is against their Consciences it is manifest they do own the Government and by their Actions consent to submit to it and what force can a Protestation have against their own Acts Do not the Jacobites upon all occasions â—â—y for protection to the Government and apply themselves to those Ministers as Legal Officers who act by no other Authority than their Majesties And have they not constant recourse to the Courts whose Proceedings are in their Majesties names and authority Do not all Writs run in their names and do they not Prosecute people in their Majesties names as acting against the Crown and Dignity of our Sovereign Lord and Lady King William and Queen Mary c. And do they not apply themselves to the King's Ministers for the benefit of those very Laws which are enacted by the present Government and by consequence own the Authority that makes them How then can they own the Ministers and not own the Authority by which they act and if the taking a Commission from the King for the administration of publick Justice or in defence of the Kingdom be owning the Authority of the King why must not the complying with them as such be owning the Authority by which they act but if they don't own the Ministers to act by Lawful Authority then they must confess their Sentences are so many Robberies and Murthers because they have no just Authority for what they do and they make themselves accessary since it is at their request they commit them Is it not esteemed by all Laws owning the Authority of a Court to appeal to it Is it not owning the Pope's Authority to appeal to him or any Commissioned by him Is it not by the Law of Nations and an universal consent of Mankind an acknowledging a Government to receive Protection from it Do not all that go into a Foreign Prince's Dominions during their stay by receiving the Protection of the Government own themselves subject to it except Ambassadors over whom Soveraigns have agreed to suspend the exercise of their Right and are they not obliged equally with the Natives to pay Allegiance and a like guilty of Treason and so tried if they attempt any thing against it And upon this head all private attempts upon a Prince in his own Countrey have been abhorred by all Nations and those that designed any thing of this Nature have not been treated as just Enemies though in time of War because the presumption is They enter as Subjects into the Dominions of that Prince that protects them If applying to a King as such for his protection and receiving it be not owning his Authority Princes have but a small security for the obedience of the greatest numbers of their Subjects who have no otherwise obliged themselves to own their Government but by receiving protection from them The denying That addressing to a Government for protection and receiving it is owning That Government layeth a mighty gap open to Rebellion by destroying the obligation of all Allegiance but what is built upon verbal Promises So that Men of those Principles ought to be looked upon as Enemies of all Order and Government By examining what it is that gives Government a right to the obedience of men who are by nature free it will the better appear what right the present Government has to the Allegiance of those it protects The reason that is usually given why people are obliged to obey any particular Government is no Prince being so ridiculous as to pretend a right as the First-born in a direct Line from Adam or Noah because it was the intent of those who first formed the Society that such persons and their Successors if they made the Government Hereditary should have a right to govern the Nation for ever But how could they whose Authority with their Being ceased so long since oblige the Consciences of those who were not then in being or how could any Acts or Compacts of their Ancestors take away the natural Liberty of those that were born so many years after and who have the same right to freedom as they had Or how could their Compacts oblige those that are not descended from them but come from other Countries into the Society and make it a sin in them not to obey the present Governors of any Society upon whose Authority alone and not upon the Founders of the Society depends the validity of all former Laws which can only bind because it is the will of the present Powers they should otherwise no Laws could be repealed if their very being did not depend upon the pleasure of the present Supream Powers who design they shall oblige until they declare the contrary Others say That being born in a Countrey makes one a Subject for all his life to the Government of that Countrey but why should being in a Countrey by being born in it make one become a Subject more than being in the same Countrey at another time Besides common Experience shews this to be false because whoever is born in a Countrey where his Parents are Foreigners may as it is allowed by all leave that Countrey when he pleaseth But perhaps it may be said he is a Subject to that Prince where his Parents were born What if they were born under the same Circumstances or suppose his Parents are of different Countreys as if a Dutch Woman and an English Man have a Child in France since France does not pretend to him which of the Nations can claim him for their Subject or must he be divided So that the difficulty still remains how people come to be obliged to obey any particular Government which I think can only thus be solved Every person though he be born free yet he is for the sake of his own safety obliged to part with his Liberty and put himself under the protection of Government Nor can he be secure in what he enjoys but by it Nor can he have a right in a Countrey that is already possest to any thing but by owning the Government of that Countrey And by pretending to the Priviledges the rest of the Society enjoy he has owned himself a Member of the Society and a Subject of the Government of it And this is the only way that any except by verbal Promises consent to become subject to Government The consent of
proved But between Independent Nations where force on one side is lawful where there is no superior Judge to determin the differences or to judge whether force were justly imposed both sides either thinking or pretending they are in the Right all Leagues and Covenants by whatever forcible means obtained are valid and the Good of Mankind which is a sufficient Reason does require it should be so otherwise Wars would be perpetual or not to be ended but by the utter Ruin of the Weaker or Conquered Party because there could be no manner of Agreement or Peace between them if they had a Liberty under pretence of Force of breaking their Promises whenever they had an opportunity In all such cases it is Lawful to Promise there being no Superior as amongst private persons to take from them the Liberty of making such Contracts and the Good of Mankind does oblige People to fulfil those Lawful Promises They cannot properly be said to be forced to Promise because it was in their power to avoid Promising Nor is their Consent Conditional but Absolute and it is their greater Good either presumed or real that obliges them to make such Contracts For the same reason all Prisoners of War are obliged to stand to their Paroles and to pay whatever they promise for their Liberties The reason is the same for paying Allegiance to the New Government whether by a just or unjust way the old one was dissolved and Mankind have all along equally submitted to Conquerors whether the Cause of Conquest were Just or not As few Conquerors have had a Just Cause for all the Mischiefs they have done The reason for Submission is not how one Man gets others into his Power or whether he had a just Cause of destroying the former Prince's Power but whether they consent to be Governed by him after they are in his Power It is for their own sake and not for his that they submit to his Government They may act against their own Good in not submitting to the Conqueror but they deny him no Right if they do not submit It is not the Conquest it self let it be never so just but the after-consent that makes them Subjects A Just Cause of War may make it no injustice to Dethrone a King becanse he gave sufficient Provocation but how can one Prince's injuring another absolve Subjects of their Oaths of Allegiance and give the Injured Prince a Right to Command them who if he hath any Right besides their Consent when he has put them into a capacity to Consent must have it before the Conquest for mere Force cannot give or take away a Right it can only put him in Possession of his Right and if he had any Right to their Allegiance before Conquest I cannot see but that in Conscience they were bound to Transfer their Allegiance and join with him against their former Prince who by giving a just cause of War had Forfeited his Crown Though the Nation be not Conquered yet no reason can be urged for submitting to Conquerors but what will hold as strongly for paying Allegiance to the present Government Has not the Late King as much lost his Power to Protect the People as if he had been driven out by Conquest Is it not the Present Government alone that makes the People a Civil Society Is it not by it that they are Protected in their natural Rights or can claim any Legal ones which are the only reasons which oblige People to submit to Conquerors And are not they that endeavour to disturb it as much within the power and reach of the Government as if they were Conquered And has not the King and Parliament as Absolute a Power as any Conqueror The only difference is That without feeling any of those fatal Miseries which attend Conquest they enjoy the Protection of the Government and owe their Preservation to it and the Nation instead of losing any of their Rights and Liberties enjoy greater and are secured from the worst of Slaveries which otherwise they had inevitably fallen into So that they have infinitely stronger obligations to pay Allegiance than if they had been Conquered to which their Zeal and Loyalty ought to be proportionable CHAP. IX Of Possession ALL Writers I think allow That after a Possession of a long continuance though they extreamly differ how much time is necessary a Right does accrue to the Possessor though there are some of the Right Line still in being If it be unjust to pay the first Possessor Obedience I cannot see how a long Possession can alter the case A continuance in an injustice may make the injustice greater but not alter the nature of things and make the greatest Wrong to be Right Though all things are done in Time yet Time it self operates nothing This Mistake as a great many others are is occasioned by the parallel men draw between private Persons who are tyed up by Laws that are Enacted by the Supreme Powers and the Supreme Powers themselves By the Laws of most Nations if private men neglect to make a Legal demand of their Rights in a certain time appointed by the Laws they lose them and a Right does accrue to the possessor but this depends upon a Law Enacted by the Supreme powers who have a Right to dispose of private Estates as they judge best for the publick good whose Laws can oblige none but their own Subjects But what authority have the Subjects or the possessor to dispose of the Legal Prince's Rights Besides it might justly be imputed to a private man 's own neglect if when the Law is open he does not recover his Right It may well be presumed he hath relinquished it But that cannot be said of a Prince who has no Court of Justice to appeal to or any other likely way to recover his Right yet by bearing the Arms and Title and by other ways still asserts his Right How numerous are the instances of Princes possessed of Territories belonging to others and who have been so for a great many years Yet none dare affirm the Subjects that pay them allegiance are and have been all along Traitors To give but one instance amongst hundreds The Kings of England have a Right to the Kingdom of France and have constantly claimed it by causing themselves to be stiled Kings of France and by bearing the Arms of that Crown yet none will condemn the French as Traitors who have all along paid allegiance to the French Kings But if the Kings of England by tract of time have lost their Right to the Obedience of the French and before that time it was Treason for those of that Nation to pay allegiance to the French Kings I should be glad to know what Month or Year it ceased to be Treason for it is a thing of mighty consequence to know how long it is Treason to obey a King in possession and when it becomes Treason not to obey him In short if a King can have a