Corporations the managing Juries and improving Religious and lawful Civil Assemblies into Riots nay Consults for Treason had not then been brought to Perfection And the Dispensing Power having been attempted but receded from he says The true Religion is established by our Laws Page 542. and no Law can be repealed or altered to the Prejudice of English Subjects by the Pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers and the Representatives of the Commons of England And indeed the good Man takes a great deal of Pains from the Duty Honour and Interest of the Prince the danger to evil Instruments and the like to prove that it ought not to be presumed that any such Case as we have known will happen which at this time looks like a Philosophical Argument against Motion and deserves the like Confutation However Page 532. looking upon such Violations as but simply possible he maintains that the Declarataion against taking Arms ought to be in general Terms for that such extraordinary Cases as may be put fall not under Consideration Page 361. I may add till they happen for then they must be put and remembred to justify what they have render'd necessary Nay himself restrains the general Terms to a Subject's taking Arms without any Command from his Prince Page 360. against those who act by virtue and in pursuance of his Commission REGVLARLY granted to them Page 346. I will yield to him that it would be an high Reflection upon the Laws of our Realm if there were need of consulting skilful Lawyers for the general Rule of Duty and to whom Men ought to yeild Obedience and Submission Yet if learned Men will confound the plain Rule of Submission to the Powers which are in being by setting up a supposed inseparable Right in a Power which once had a being but is become a meer Shadow and Spectre 't will be requisite to have recourse to them who have taken some pains in enquiring into the Constitution of the Government to see what Remedy is thereby allowed in extraordinary Cases Christian Loyalty p. 521. And whereas speaking of Officers suppos'd by some to have Authority of resisting in such Cases he seems to know of none but by Charter or Commission having their Authority depending upon the King a little Skill in the Law or in Antiquity would have inform'd him of several others at least such as were not so dependent Vid. inf of the Earl Marshall c. Vid. The Act of Pacification between the English and the Scots Temp. Car. 1. which provides that it shall be lawful for the Subjects of either Nation to fall upon the Forces which shall come out of one into the other without the Consent of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms not only hereditary Great Officers and other Great Men of the Kingdom but other Officers chosen by the People the Heretochii or Lords Lieutenants and the Sheriffs anciently and the Officers in Boroughs by Prescription and Constables at this day I will be as ready as he to maintain that for the future such Supposals as he touches with great Fear and Tenderness will be very remote Possibilities and being look'd upon in our Law as vain in the Apprehension are thought not to stand in need of any particular Provision but he mentions three Cases in which upon yeilding the Suppositions Page 531. he grants the Answer given by Barclay to two of them and to all three by Grotius to be true To the general Question May there no Cases fall out in which the People by their Authority may take Arms against the King Page 515. Barclay answers Certainly none as long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat which is pregnant with the Affirmative that there may be some Case wherein he by Law or of Right ceases to be King And Barclay manifestly allows of two Grotius adds a third branch'd into a fourth in which Mr. Falkner concurs with him as well as with Barclay and Grotius in the other two Pag. 525 527. The first particular Case upon which he delivers his own Opinion Voluntary Resignation or Cession or Abdication without referring to Authorities is of a King 's voluntarily relinquishing and laying aside his Crown and Government of this several Examples are mentioned and among the rest nine of our Saxon Kings Page 426. and he rightly observes that if such Persons should act against the settled Government of their respective Kingdoms after they are fixed in the next Heir in an Hereditary Kingdom or in another King according to the Constitution of Elective Principalities the resisting any of them is not the taking Arms against the King but against him who now is a private Person If therefore the late King's Abdication were such a relinquishing as he means Vid. sup f. 13. which it must be if he receive Grotius or if he hold to the other Cases in which as it will appear he yields that he would be devested of Soveraignty in all such Cases every thing is lawful against the late King that would be lawful against any other private Person 2. The second Case agreed by all three and by Bishop Bilson Page 526. is of a Prince ' s undertaking to alienate his Kingdom Alienation of the Kingdom or to give it up to the Hands of another Soveraign Power against the Mind of his Subjects And he thinks Barclay Grotius and Bishop Bilson truly to assert that such an Act of Alienation or of acknowledged Subjection especially if obtained by evil Methods as was done in the Case of King John is null and void and therefore can neither give any Right of Soveraignty to another nor dispossess the King himself thereof But if any such Prince shall actually and forcibly undertake to bring his Subjects under a new Supream Power who have no Right thereto and shall deliver up his Kingdom to be thereby possess'd Grotius saith he doubteth not but he may be resisted in his undertaking but then says Mr. Falkner this Resolution must proceed upon this ground that this Action includeth his devesting himself of his Soveraignty together with his injurious proceeding against those who were his Subjects And Barclay who allows only two Cases in which a Prince may be devested of his Royal Dignity doth account this to be one of them Not to mention the notorious truckling to France and Pupilage under that bribing and imposing Monarch since the Kings of England are Supream in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs and the late King by Force and open Violation of the Laws against the universal Bent and Mind of his People renounc'd his own Supremacy in yielding to the Pope's and since the People might resist him therein but that which justified their resisting him devested him of his Soveraignty 't is evident that according to Mr. Falkner and the Learned Men whose Authority he receives the late King thereby ceas'd
Therde But because this without consideration of his Merits in rescuing them from R. 2. entituled him to the Crown no more than another of the Blood therefore the Lords and Commons drew up an Instrument purporting their Election Ib. n. 55. 4. But admit none of the foregoing Arguments were enough to shew That upon James the second 's Abdication or at least losing his Interest in the Government the People of England were restor'd to that Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown which was in force till the Original Contract was broken by him yet I conceive the particular Consideration of the state of the Settlement might afford sufficient Argument Brady's Hist of the Succession f. 25. Henry the Fourth Fifth and Sixth if we believe Dr. Brady held the Crown by Usurpation Yet the earliest Settlement of the Crown farther than the first Son or Grandson was in the time of H. 4. Nor as I shall shew was the Crown enjoyed by J. 2. under better Title than they had H. 5. and 6. came in under an Entail of the Crown 7 H. 4. Vid. Rot. Parl. 8 H. 4. n. 60. confirm'd 8. The misgovernment of H. 6. having given occasion to Richard Duke of York of the Blood-Royal and Elder-house to assert the Peoples Rights not his own Henry and the Duke with the Consent of the Lords and Commons come to an agreement in Parliament That Richard and his Heirs should enjoy the Crown after the Death of Henry Tho here the word Heirs is mentioned without restraint yet considering that it is the first time that ever the Crown was setled so far Gomezius de Qualitatibus Contractuum f. 319. Hottomanni Com. de Verbis Juris usus-fructus est jus alienis rebus utendi fruendi salvâ rerumsubstantiâ Emphyteusis I know not whether it is not to be taken with Gomezius his Restriction of an Usufructuary or Emphyteutical Estate of the last of which much of the same nature with the other he says If it did not use to be granted to more than the first second or third Heirs the mention of Heirs simply ought to be restrain'd to those only because the Nature or Quality of the thing granted ought to be attended to After the Death of Richard Duke of York his Son Edward the Fourth as I before observ'd took the Government upon him as forfeited by breach of the Covenant estabish'd in Parliament However Vid. sup H. 6. being set up again ten Years after gets that Settlement by which E. 4. was to have benefit to be revok'd and the Crown to be entail'd on his Issue the Remainder to the Duke of Clarence younger Son to the Duke of York Afterwards E. 4. having success 13 E. 4. revives the Settlement 39 H. 6. Only that he attaints H. 6. Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. n 16. Vid. Append. H. 7. Son to Edmund Earl of Richmond Brother by Mother's Side to H. 6. with others of his Party Which Attainder was remov'd 1 H. 7. and declar'd contrary to due Allegiance and all due Order And not only the Attainder but that Act of Parliament it self was revok'd So that hitherto there had been no Title in the Heirs of Richard Duke of York or of Edward the Fourth but what was deriv'd under the Settlement of Henry 6. call'd an Usurper and Edward the Fourth's Treason depriv'd him of the Benefit even of that Settlement H. 7. Indeed married the eldest Daughter of E. 4. But before that Marriage having conquer'd Rich. 3. he claimed the Crown as his Words in Parliament were Tam per justum titulum haereditantiae Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. Vid. Append quam per verum Dei judicium in tribuendo sibi Victoriam de inimico suo As well by just Title of Inheritance as by the true Judgment of God in giving him the Victory over his Enemy If it be ask'd how he could have a Right of Inheritance when the Daughter of E. 4. and his own Mother were alive Vid. Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. n. 16. supra it seems in the Judgment of that Parliament That E. 4. having acted contrary to his Allegiance due to H. 6. he and his had lost the Benefit of the Settlement reviv'd by his successful Treason and that this was lost even before the Revival was destroy'd by Parliament And then tho' H. 7. could not come in without an Election yet he as H. 4. before might have a sort of Inheritance according to a very witty Author Vindiciae contra Tyrânnos Ed. Amstelodami p. 110. who speaking of the Kingdom of Israel says Concludere licet regnum Israelis si stir pem spectas haereditarium certè fuisse at sanè si personas omnino electivum We may conclude That the Kingdom of Israel if you look at the Stock was certainly Hereditary but if at the Persons altogether Elective Be this as it will the Lords and Commons so far regarded King Henry's Claim that they not only receiv'd him for King but it was enacted by the Authority of the then Parliament Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. That the Crowns of the Realms of England and France should rest in him and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming perpetually and in NONE OTHER When they had thus done the Commons requested the King to Marry Elizabeth Daughter to E. 4. that by God's Grace there might be Issue of the Stock of their Kings So that this was only to preserve the Royal Blood not to give any new Countenance or Confirmation to his Title H. 8. enjoy'd the Crown not as Heir to his Mother but under the Settlement upon H. 7. Nor can it be said that he was in by Remitter since that Act under which his Mother should have deriv'd was Repeal'd And had it stood in force yet it would not have made the Title more Sacred unless it can be shewn that the Mother had a Title prior to the Act of Settlement 39 H. 6. the contrary to which appears by the former Account from Law and History H. 8. procur'd several Settlements of the Crown according as Love or Jealousie prevail'd in him 25 H. 8. c. 22. In the 25th of his Reign 't was settled upon Himself and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten on Queen Anne c. declaring the Marriage with Queen Katherine unlawful Remainder to the Lady Elizabeth Remainder to his own Right Heirs 26 H. 8. c. 2. 28 H. 8. c. 7. 26 H. 8. an Oath was enjoyn'd for that purpose 28 H. 8. the two former Acts 25 26 are Repeal'd the Illegitimation of Mary Daughter to Queen Katherine is confirmed the like declared of Elizabeth Daughter to Queen Anne and the Crown entail'd upon his Heirs Males by Queen Jane or any other Wife Remainder to Heirs Females by that Queen or any other lawful Wife Remainder to such Person or Persons and according to such Estates as he should appoint by Letters Patent or by Will 35.
lay to hold in Vassallage of the Pope as well as by other his Exorbitances yet was not set aside till the Nation was necessitated to it by the Success of his Usurpations and Ravages to which as he was encouraged and enabled by the Influence of the Pope's Authority over the less honest or less discerning so he thereby lost all means of gaining Trust from his People for the future The Earls and Barons of England having without any Writ from the King given one another notice of meeting demonstrated that they engag'd not out of any Affectation of Change but meerly to secure those Liberties which were their due by the Constitution for they agreed to wage War Mat. Pa. f. 339. and renounce Allegiance to him only in case that he would not confirm those Liberties which were contain'd in the Laws of Hen. 1. and the ancient Laws of King Edward the Confessor That they might proceed with such Deliberation as became them they appointed another Meeting for a peremptory Demand declaring that if he then refus'd them they would compel him to Satisfaction by seizing his Castles nor were they worse than their words and their Resolutions had for a while their desir'd Effect in obtaining a Confirmation of their Liberties which tho they were as forceable in Law before and his Promise to maintain them as little to be credited as ever yet his open Violation of them after his own solemn acknowledging them and granting that Petition of Right was likely to cast the greater Load upon him and his Courtiers when they should act to the contrary and to take from their side numbers of well-meaning Men who otherwise might be cheated with a pretence of Prerogative The Pope as was to be expected soon absolv'd the King and encourag'd him to break those legal Fetters which was ipso facto an Absolution to the People of more effect in Conscience than the Pope's ipso facto Excommunications They being thus discharged the wiser and sounder part of them stoutly casting off the Authority both of King and Pope proceeded to the Election of another King Lewis the Dauphin of France Mat. Par. lib. Addit An. 1216. The Account in Matthew Paris of a Debate which the French King and his Advocate or Attourny-General held with the Pope's Nuncio who would have disswaded the Dauphin's Expedition against King John the Pope's sworn Vassal is so exactly parallel to the Case now in question that many who will allow us no Precedent of ancient Times will be ready to say that some words at least were foisted in since our present happy Settlement The French King as became a Monarch spake his mind in few words Si aliquando fuit verus Rex postea Regnum forisfecit per mortem Arthuri de quo facto damnatus fuit in Curiâ nostrâ Item nullus Rex vel Princeps potest dare regnum suum sine assensu Baronum suorum qui regnum illud tenentur defendere If ever he were King he afterwards forfeited his Kingdom by killing Arthur of which Fact he was condemned in our Court. Besides no King or Prince can give his Kingdom without the Assent of his Barons who are bound to defend it That is to preserve the Kingdom against the King who has parted with it or any Demisee as appears by his Advocate 's Enlargement to whom he left the rest after himself had granted all Kingly Power to have this implied Limitation Mat. Par. Addit f. 281. The Advocate goes on addressing himself to the King Domine Rex Res notissima c. May it please your Majesty It is a thing well known to all that John called King of England was condemned to death in your Court for his Treachery to his Nephew Arthur whom he slew with his own Hands And was afterwards by the Barons of England for his many Homicides and other Enormities there committed rejected from reigning over them Whereupon the Barons waged War against him Ne regnaret super eos reprobatus ut ipsum solio regni immutabiliter depellerent that they might drive him from the Throne of the Kingdom never to return Moreover the said King without the Assent of his great Men gave his Kingdom to the Pope and the Church of Rome to receive it again to be held under the yearly Tribute of a thousand Marks Dare non potuit potuit tamen dimittere eam And altho he could not give the Crown of England to any one without his Barons he might demise it or devest himself of it which as soon as he resign'd he ceased to be King and the Kingdom was vacant without a King Therefore the vacant Kingdom ought not to have been administred without the Lords What difference between the Kingdoms being vacant without a King and the Throne vacant Vacans itaque Regnum sine Baronibus ordinari non debuit unde Barones elegerunt Dominum Ludovicum ratione Uxoris suae c. By reason of which the Barons chose Lord Lewis upon the account of his Wife whose Mother the Queen of Castile was the only Survivor of all the King of England's Brothers and Sisters This was so true and so convincing that the most plausible Return which the Pope's Nuncio could make to it was that King John had been sign'd with the Cross for the Service of the Holy Land and that therefore by the Constitution of a General Council he ought to have Peace and be under the Pope's Protection for four Years And you may be sure that the French King would not interrupt him in his Journey thither but was well satisfied that his Son should supply his place in England Who tho he had been received not only as one that rescued the Nation from King John's enormous Tyranny but as one that was in the Right of his Wife entitled to the Priviledg of the English Blood Royal and so duly chosen according to the standing Law of this Monarchy as has been mentioned and will hereafter more fully appear Vid. sup inf Yet the Clergy and all who were so weak as to be led by them in Civil Affairs being against Lewis Mat. Par. f. 384. as he stood excommunicated by the Pope besides it having been made known by the Death-bed-Declaration of one of Lewis his Confidents that his Master had evil Designs against those very Men who were the chief Instruments in his Advancement and that he look'd upon them who fought for him as Traitors he through the uncertainty and indifference of his Friends more than the strength of his Enemies was oblig'd to quit the Kingdom to Hen. 3. Object This would lead me to the particular Consideration of the Barons Wars with H. 3. were it not needful first to remove an Objection against their Proceedings with his Father which tho not founded on the Histories of the same Age may seem to have weight from the Authority of Divines of later times The Homilies pass this Censure upon
and correct and that in other matters they share with the King in every part of the Soveraignty He adds If we have need of farther proof the name Parliament which all our Ancient Histories give the Assembly of States may furnish us with one This is the name which the English give this Assembly which partakes of the Soveraignty with their King The French and the Ancient Britains had the same Laws and the same Language they Governed themselves by States gave the same name to their Assemblies And without doubt they had the same Authority Nay it is certain that the States had formerly in France the same Power that the Parliaments have in England As this Author makes the Liberties of the English Nation and the Power of its Parliament an Argument of the Right of the French Nation Bodin who wrote after their Parliament at Paris had taken the place of the Assembly of States makes England a parallel to France Turky Persia Muscovy Bodin de Repub lib. 2. c. 4. ed. A Lyon p. 302. Ib. Cap. 3. p. 286. This was H. 2. for the absolute Soveraignty of their Princes but that he was little acquainted with the History of the Govenment of England appears in that he supposes that Henry who procured his Son to be Crowned in his life time to have been the Son of W. 1. Bodin p. 300. Even where a Prince is the most absolute he admits That if he Govern Tyrannically he may be lawfully killed by a Foreign Prince and that it is a noble and magnificent action for a Prince to take Arms to rescue a people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the Great Hercules who went about the World exterminating the Monsters of Tyrants and for his high exploits has been Deified So did Dion Timoleon Aratus and other generous Princes who have bore the Title of Chastisers and Correcters of Tyrants This says he was the sole cause for which Tamerlain Prince of the Tartars denounced War against Bajazet King of the Turks And when he Besieged Constantinople said he came to chastise his Tyranny and deliver his afflicted people And in fact he vanquished him in a pitch'd Battel in the Plain of Mount-Stellian and having killed and put to flight Three Hundred Thousand Turks he kept the Tyrant in a Golden-Cage till he died Ib. p. 301. And in such case it matters not whether the Virtuous Prince proceed against the Tyrant with Force or Art or way of Justice True it is if the Virtuous Prince has taken the Tyrant he will have more Honour if he make his Process and punish him as a Murderer or Parricide or Robber rather than to make use of the Law of Nations against him This passage in Bodin shews beyond contradiction That if he were now alive and not of the Romish Superstition he would have extolled and justified the Heroick undertaking of King William for the delivery of this Nation But the ground of the justification is That even the most absolute Soveraign may injure his Subjects as no doubt but he would if he treated them contrary to natural equity and his own established Laws Jovian p. 226. whereas the Author of Jovian having set up an Imperial Power above all Political Constitutions says In this Realm the Sovereign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws And by consequence not at all if the Political Laws are to give way to the Imperial Wherefore I wonder not to find him a Subscriber to the late Bishop of Chichester's Paper which condemns Swearing Allegiance to our present King and Queen But Bodin as he justifies our King William in freeing us from an oppressing Monarch no less clears the Subjects of England in joyning with him upon supposition that the Constitution of our Government is not rightly understood by him Bodin p. 301. But says he as to Subjects we ought to know whether the Prince be absolutely Soveraign or whether he is not absolutely Soveraign For if he is not absolutely Soveraign it is necessary that the Soveraignty be in the people or in the Lords In this case there is no doubt but it is lawful to proceed against the Tyrant by way of Justice if we can prevail against him or by way of Deeds and Force if we cannot have Reason otherwise as the Senate did against Nero in one case and against Maximin in another so that the Roman Emperors were nothing else but Princes of the Common-wealth that is to say the First and Chief the Soveraignty remaining with the people and the Senate As I have shewn this Common-wealth may be called a Principality Altho Seneca speaking in the person of his Scholar Nero says I alone among all Men living am elected and chosen to be God's Vicegerent on Earth I am Arbiter of Life and Death I am able at my pleasure to dispose of the estate and quality of any Man True it is that in fact he usurped this Power but of right the State was but a Principality where the people were Soveraign As also is that of the Venetians who condemned to death their Duke Falier and put to death others without form or figure of Process Insomuch that Venice is an Aristocratical Principality where the Duke is but Cheif and the Soveraignty remains with the States of the Venetian Noblemen And in the like Case the German Empire which also is but an Aristocratical Principality where the Emperor is chief and first the Power and Majesty of the Empire belongs to the States who in the year 1296. deposed the Emperor Adolph and after him Wenceslaus in the year 1400. in form of justice as having jurisdiction and power over them How much soever Bodin was mistaken in relation to the Government of England he seems herein less a Stranger to that of the German Empire The Learned Conringius in his account of the German Judicatures Hermanni Conringii Excercit De Judiciis p. 251. tells us 't is difficult to give an account of them for some Ages next after the time of the Francs But beginning with the Causes of Kings themselves whom he shews according to Ancient Custom to have been subject to some jurisdiction upon the account of their Government The Causes says he Ib. p. 252. of their Kings belonging to the administration of the Government as anciently so afterwards were frequently agitated in the Great Councils of the Kingdom So the Emperor H. 4. was accused in a Great Council and by its Authority divested of his Royal Dignity The same befel Otto 4. and * This about the year 1251. No new Emperor was chosen till Anno 1273. after Twenty two years vacancy Prideaux Introd p. 245. Frederic 2. But says he Two things sometimes hapned much differing from the ancient Usage One is That the Power of the Council of all the States began to pass to the Electors only after Charles 4. Novo more The Duke of Bavaria made
guerrae emergat c. Vid. Append. When any doubt or difficult case of War or Peace happens in the Kingdom or without let that Case be referr'd and brought in Writing into full Parliament and let it be treated of and debated among the Peers of Parliament and if need be let it be enjoyn'd by the King or in his Name to every degree of the Peers That every degree act by its self and let the Case be delivered to their Clerks in Writing and in the said place let them cause the said Case to be recited before them so that they may consider among themselves how it may in the best manner and most justly be proceeded upon as they would answer before God for the Person of the King and their own proper persons and also the proper persons of them whom they represent And let them report in Writing their Answers and Advice that all their Answers Counsels and Advices on all sides being heard it may be proceeded upon according to the better and more wholesom Counsel But if the Peace of the Kingdom or the Nation People or Commonwealth be weakned by reason of discord between the King and other Great Men so that it seems to the King and his Council What that Council was vid. 2d Part that the matter should be treated of and amended by the consideration of all the Peers of his Kingdom or if the King and Kingdom are disturbed by War or if a difficult Case arise before the Chancellor of England or a difficult Judgment is to be given before the Justices and the like And if it happen that in such deliberations all N 2 a Remedy where equally divided or at least the greater part cannot agree then the Earl Steward Earl Constable and Earl Marshal or Two of them shall chuse Twenty five persons from all parts of the Kingdom viz. Two Bishops and Three Proxies of the Clergy Two Earls and Three Barons Five Knights of Shires Five Citizens and Five Burgesses who make Five and Twenty Et condescendere in eos and they Five and Twenty may chuse Twelve out of themselves and be concluded by what they do The Twelve may chuse Six and be concluded by them The Six Three and be concluded by them But the Three cannot be reduced to fewer without leave of the King And if the King consent the Three may be brought to Two and the Two to One and so at last their Ordinance shall bind the whole Parliament and so by coming from Twenty five to One if the greater number cannot agree to an establishment at last one Person as is said shall Ordain for all because he cannot disagree from himself saving to the King and his Council That they may examin and amend such Ordinances after they are written if they can and will Provided they do this upon the place in full Parliament and with the consent of the Parliament and not out of Parliament According to which the High Steward Constable and Marshal being looked on as Hereditary Officers were entrusted with a means of composing the differences of the Nation when they should happen to be equally divided I find the Authority of the High Steward and Constable more express in a Translation of another Modus tenendi Parl. agreeing in substance with that which I have cited The MS. which I have used seems to be of the time of H. 7. MS. penes Authorem MS. penes Authorem thô Mr. Elsing says That which is in Sir Robert Cotton's Library was written temp E. 2. The Translation of the other was Printed with Royal Privilege in King James his time as I take it It was done in a very pedantick stile by one Anthony Bustard of Lyons-Inn He that wrote the Latine in his Preface speaks of it as the Order setled by W. 1. Pref. That Modus places the Power of chusing the Twenty five in the Steward and Constable It adds That if any of the Ministers act contrary to their Duty the King the Steward and others of the Parliament may remove them from their Office And says particularly That the Steward of England with the Constable and Nobles of the Realm shall send to evil Counsellors willing them to desist from giving Counsel and entreat the King not to listen to them and if they regard not such advertisement they were to send to the King to put such away from him And if King and Counsellors neglect such wholsom Advice then for the safety of the Commonwealth it hath been thought fit and lawful for the Steward and Constable and Nobles and others of the Commons of England with the King's Banner displayed the King's name omitted the said Counsellors to take and keep in Custody till the next Parliament and Seize their Goods Vid. Append. Lands and Hereditaments until they receive Judgment by consideration of the whole Parliament Sir Robert Cotton Of the High Steward c. There is no more in this than is warranted by Sir Robert Cotton's Letters in the Herald's Office part of which seem to be taken from a MS. joyn'd to the Modus in his Library under the name of Fleetwood The High-Steward's Office as I have before observed was annex'd to Land 4 Inst f. 127. Dyer f. 285. b. Kelway f. 170. and so was the Constable's of England as appears by our Law-Books in the Case of the Duke of Buckingham 6 H. 8. who pleaded That Humphrey de Bohun formerly Earl of Hereford was seiz'd in Fee of the Mannors of Harefield Newnam and Whitenhurst in the County of Glocester and held them by the service to be Constable of England which the Judges allowed of as a good Plea Dyer Indeed they held that thô the King might compel him who had the Land at his pleasure to execute the Office so he might at his pleasure resuse to have it Executed But as to that this being an honorary and profitable tenure by Grand Serjeanty it is to be considered 12 Car. 2. c. 4. that the Stat. 12 Car. 2. when it took away those Tenures of the Crown which were burthensom to the Subject provided that it shall not take away the Honorary Services of Grand Serjeanty But H. 8. Dyer thought it sufficient that he disclaimed the Service and the Reason of the disclaimer was because it was very high and dangerous and very chargeable to the King in Fees the last part of which shewed the Subject's property concerned in the question Upon the Duke of Buckingham's claim to this Office Kelway f. 171◠Nevil says it has been a common saying That the Constable of England by virtue of his Office in some case may Arrest the King himself and therefore held it necessary that the King should be appriz'd what Authorities belong to his Office Fineux Chief Justice says We know of no such Authority to belong to any Officer within the Realm by the Common Law of the Land Which he afterwards explains for
that our King does not claim as lawful Successor if lawful be confined to Succession in the Line not only as the Predecessor is alive and two are invested vvith the Soveraignty annexed to the Crown of this Realm which according to Dr. H. and others of that Notion Vid. Dr. H. his Preface to Jovian p. 41. is void and null but if Conquest which could be no Foundation for Hereditary Succession in the Conqueror be out of the question according to this Lay-Gentleman's Principle there could be no colour for the Succession but a bare Desertion or leaving the Kingdom without providing for the Government which whether voluntary or involuntary he matters not and consequently Pag. 6. as this might be forced and submitted to animo revertendi that alone could not devolve a Right upon a Successor Shall no Misgovernment whatever put an end to this Right yet shall a suppos'd faultless Desertion How could any upon this Principle excuse the Attempts for restoring King Charles the Second Men cannot reasonably hope to serve their Party with Notions which would condemn more of them than they can pretend to justify Besides effectually to set aside the invidious Suggestion of a real Conquest over the Nation and absur'd one of a legal lineal Succession in such Circumstances as attend this Case his Majesty cannot be presumed to claim the Crown but as he received it nor to have receiv'd it but as it was offered which was upon the Vacancy of the Throne through the others Violation of the Original Contract between Prince and People But if for the sake of an unreasonably disaffected Party Men shall be allowed to reflect Pag. 36. not only upon those who being duly discharged from their Allegiance to the late King assisted this from the beginning in settling the Kingdom but upon the Proceedings of our true Representatives and the Settlement it self for fear lest the exposing their Insolence and Folly should exasperate them it would argue that distrust of the Cause which would be a greater Justification of their Insolencies than they can derive from any other colour But if as our Representatives have judged and thereby concluded us the Contract was broken before they determined so what ought to have restrain'd them who were so inclin'd and had opportunity from meeting our Great Deliverer as the Jews did Alexander with an High-Priest or Bishop in the Van And they who leave wholly to Providence what may require their Co-operation deserve an Epicurean God like unto themselves meerly Passive or unactive while the World goes round Pag. 34. This Gentleman tells us that as we had no disloyal Exhortations from Press and Pulpit to perswade Men to fight against their Prince tho he might have met with many a strong innuendo enough to have stigmatized a poor Whig so neither had we any to persâ—ade us to fight for him but the thing was committed to God to determine as he thought fit and he says if it were unlawful to resist him Pag. 7. it was also as unlawful to assist him and enable to destroy the true Religion the English Liberties and Immunities nay the very Nation Now it is evident that if our present King had not receiv'd Incouragement from many in this Nation who had promised and were ready to assist him as occasion might serve the bare non-resisting the late King and his Army had enabled him to destroy the English Nation which 't is granted that he was bent upon and therefore assisting our present King was not only no Sin but a Duty by the same reason that it was a Duty not to assist the other But they who are of a contrary Opinion can by no means excuse themselves for not fighting for the late King or endeavouring to assist him when he stood in need and required it of them for if he continued their lawful King whom they were bound not to resist upon any account whatsoever according to this Advocate for the Non-assisters they were obliged to obey all his legal Commands Pag. 5. and they were certainly equally bound as they would be true to their Oaths to bear him Faith and true Allegiance and to their Power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to him as King or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm This they were certainly bound to against a Foreign Force for Preservation of that Head of the Government which notwithstanding the most tyrannical Sway they will have still to be God's Ministers to them for good Vid. pag. 1. and which their Prayers and Tears joyn'd to temporal Arms might have rendred useful to their purposes Tho they were not obliged to assist him in the Execution of illegal Violences yet if they were to bear with him notwithstanding the utmost they were in other things to help him carry on the Government and their Sins of Omission must needs be as hainous as others of Commission Nor is this Gentleman more happy in appealing to Primitive Antiquity to justify the Non-assisting than he has been for the Non-resisting Doctrine For those Fathers who forbad a Souldier's Life did it not as 't was in the Service of Pagan Emperors but upon Supposition that the use of the Sword was unlawful for them to whom they gave the Precept to which end he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword was applied which yet was originally meant only of taking it up without a lawful Call But Tertullian on whose Authority our Non-resister relies agrees that they who had taken the Military Oath to Pagan Emperors before Baptism were bound to fight for them according to which they who had sworn Allegiance to King Charles the Second his Heirs and lawful Successors and to defend the Rights of the Crown nay all they who had sworn at any time before our Seers had their Eyes opened by their feeling the Effects of their own Doctrine were upon pain of Damnation to fight for the late King till the chance of War had decided the Controversy And whatever liberty of judging he charges as the Consequence of the resisting Doctrine will fall upon the non-assisting which is as truly a departure from Duty and as great a breach of the Oath of Allegiance while the Duty of Allegiance remains as the other Let him assign the time from whence it was a Duty not to assist and I shall not scruple to pronounce that from that very time Resistance was as warrantable and more honourable But suppose for once that the Primitive Fathers were against fighting for Pagan Emperors as they were Pagans and to bring it home to the late Case that the Protestant Jacobites were excusable from fighting for the late King as he was a Papist would not this be a virtual disabling him from being King of this Protestant Nation for otherwise as it is an undoubted Prerogative or Priviledg of this Imperial Crown for the King to make War and
I may add Flectere si nequeant superos Acheronta movebunt If neither Heav'n nor Earth afford them Aid They 'll try to fetch it from the Stygian Shade If such things as these do not shew that there was occasion for my gathering together those Precedents and Authorities which evince that in declaring for our present Soveraigns the Nation has proceeded according to their Inherent Power and in due form I at lest shall have the Satisfaction of having in my Capacity serv'd my Country and therein I shall have more than my Labour for my Pains which I may here close with that of Pliny to his Friend Tacitus C. Pliny Ep. lib. 9. Posteris an aliqua cura nostri nescio Nos certè meremur ut sit aliqua non dico ingenio id enim superbum sed studio sed labore reverentia posterûm Pergamus modò itinere instituto quod ut paucos in lucem famamque provexit ita multos è tenebris silentio protulit I know not whether they that come after will have any care of us we surely deserve from Posterity some Care and Esteem I do not say for Ingenuity for that would argue Pride but for Study and Labour Let us only go on in that way which we have enter'd upon which as it has rais'd some few Men to Splendor and Fame so it has drawn out many from Obscurity and Silence THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Vniformity tho unprofitableness of Truth The Insufficiency of false Mediums to defend this Government us'd by Men who thereby seek only themselves Quietism in Allegiance advanced by some The Supposition of a Conquest made by his present Majesty or his Succession in the Line no way for his Service That Lawyers are the best Casuists in this matter Mr. Lessey's Protestation when he took the Oath of Allegiance Lord Clarendon's Complaint of Divines busying themselves in Matters of State Mr. Tirrel and the Author of two late Treatises about Government set against Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Dr. Heylin's Opinion of Sir Robert The Judgment of Hooker touch'd upon concerning the Derivation of Power The present Bishop of Worcester's Judgment Cragius his A large Account of the Derivation of Power from the People of Rome to their Emperors brought to explain what our ancient Lawyers mean when they receive the Roman Lex Regia The Sense of Grotius Plato Conringius Pufendorf of the Subject or Seat of Power That all Empires and other Civil Societies must have been founded in Contract A right to design the Person if not to confer the Power admitted in the People by the greatest Asserters of Monarchy The Dispute here chiefly of the Right to design the Person what that is referred to the Constitution Allegiance to our present King and Queen undertaken to be prov'd lawful both by the Equity and Letter of our Fundamental Law explain'd by the Practice of the Kingdom pag. 1. CHAP. II. Of Equity or implied Reservations Who judges of the Equity The Lord Clarendon's Judgment of such Cases Cocceius his A short Reference to three late Treatises of great use upon the Question Some Reservations which Bp Sanderson will have implied in all Oaths Grotius his Opinion and his Quotation out of Barclay in relation to the withdrawing the Allegiance which had been due to Kings Even the Author of Jovian of some Service here Mr. Falkner's Christian Loyalty set in a true Light and shewn notwithstanding his being misled by the Canons of J. 1. and of 1640. to be wholly on our side in what relates to our present Enquiry and to joyn with Grotius Barclay Bp Bilson Lessius and Becanus So Bp Bedell tho a Cloud has been endeavoured to be drawn over his Opinion Mr. Lawson's Opinion Bp Bilson's whose Authority is confirm'd by the Objection made to it in the History of Passive Obedience To which is added the Divine Plato pag. 11. CHAP. III. Five Heads of positive Law mention'd Vpon the first Head are produc'd the Confessor's Laws Bracton Fleta and the Mirror shewing the Original Contract with the Consequences of the King 's breaking his part Some Observations upon the Coronation-Oath with the Opinions of Sir Henry Spelman Cujacius and Pufendorf of the Reciprocal Contract between Prince and People The Objection from the pretended Conquest answer'd in short with reference to the second part The Sense of Dr. Hicks and Saravia upon the Coronation-Oath receiv'd with a Limitation from Grotius The Curtana anciently carried before our Kings explaining the Mirror A Passage in Dr. Brady against the Fundamental Contract touch'd upon referring the particular Consideration of him to the second Part. pag. 28. CHAP. IV. The second Head of Positive Law The establish'd Judicature for the Case in question implied if not express'd in the Confessor's Law and asserted in Parliament 12 R. 2. with an account why the Record then insisted on is not now to be found Our Mirror the foreign Speculum Saxonicum Bracton and Fleta explaining the same The Limitation of that Maxim The King can do no Wrong Precedents from Sigibert King of the West Saxons to the Barons Wars in the time of King John confirm'd by occasion of an Objection to the Instances in the Northumbrian Kingdom How far this Monarchy was reputed Hereditary or Elective before the time of W. 1. there touch'd upon Instances of the Peoples Claim of their Rights in the times of W. 1. W. 2. H. 1. King Stephen H. 2. pag. 34. CHAP. V. The Barons Wars in the time of King John That he had abdicated the Government That he had lost all means of being trusted by his People How unwilling they were to engage in a War against him They invite over Lewis the Dauphin of France His Case a Parallel to the late Abdication The Vacancy of the Throne insisted on by the French King's Advocate and that thereupon the Barons had right to chuse another King of the Blood Royal of England as Lewis was Why the Barons fell off from Lewis What the Homilies say concerning their inviting Lewis swearing Allegiance to him and fighting under his Banner against King John considered pag. 41. CHAP. VI. The Barons Wars in the time of H. 3. particularly considered H. 3. Crown'd by a Faction Had no right but from Election as his Father had That no Right could descend to him from his Father Lewis while here as much King as H. 3. Three express Contracts enter'd into by H. 3. besides the Confirmations of the Great Charter Those applied to the Consideration of the Wars Three of them under such as seem like the Roman Tribunes of the People Dr. Falkner's Objections against those Wars answer'd The Answer confirm'd by a full instance in the time of E. 1. pag. 46. CHAP. VII The known Cases of Ed. 2. and R. 2. touched upon The Power of the People manifested in the Wars and Settlements of the Crown occasion'd by the Disputes between H. 6. and E. 4. Why the Instances from those Times to the Abdication
omitted The Objections from the Oath against taking Arms and from the Declaration against a Coercive Power over Kings removed by Sherringham and the Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. Pufendorf's due Restraint of the Power of the People Instances of the like Power in other Nations particularly Denmark Swedeland and Norway when under the same King For France Hottoman Sesellius the Author of Les Soupirs de la France esclave Bodin explain'd and shewn to justify King William in his descent hither and the People of England in their asserting the true Constitution of the Government For the German Empire Bodin and Conringius An occasion taken from him to shew the Antiquity and Power of a Palatine in Germany and England Gunterus used to shew that Office in several Countries Loyseau concerning it in France The Distinction in the Author of Les Soupirs between Officers of the King's House and Officers of the Crown The Antiquity and Authority of the Offices of Constable of England of the High Steward and the Earl Marshal which with the Earl of Chester have been as so many Tribunes of the People pag. 57. CHAP. VIII The Third Head of Positive Law The Kingdom founded in Monarchy yet Elective sub modo The Form of Government not dissolv'd with the Contract between Prince and People The Argument from Election of Kings as it is used by the Author of the Sighs of France enslaved The Crown of England proved Elective sub modo 1. From the Saxon Pontifical and the Council of Calcuth An. 789. 2. From the Practice till the supposed Conquest 3. From the Confessor's Law received by W. 1. and the Expressions of Ancient Historians and Lawyers since the time of W. 1. 4. The Common usage in asking the People's Consent at Coronations 5. The Opinion of Kings themselves 6. The old Oaths of Allegiance 7. The Liberty even after a Settlement of the Crown 8. The Breaches in the Succession 9. The Statute 11 H. 7. Answers to the Objections 1. That the King never dies 2. The supposition of a Testamentary Heir 3. The Declaration temp E. 3. against consenting to the disherison of the King and His Heirs 4. The Claims of Right between two Families 10. A qualified Election of Kings of England confirmed by observing how it has been in other Nations descended from the same common Stock pag. 72. CHAP. IX The Fourth Head of Positive Law A short Recapitulation of what has been prov'd An actual Discharge of Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. shewn from the Authority of the Judgment past His usurping a Legislative Power leaving the Kingdom without providing for the Administration of Justice and going into France This confirmed by Rastal Lord Hobart Justinian's Digest The Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian Pufendorf de Officio hominis civis His Elementa Juris prudentiae His Treatise de Jure Gentium Grotius Pufendorf de Inter-regnis Knichen's Opus Pol. Philip Paraeus A particular Consideration of what the Learned Knight Sir R. Pointz says seeming against these Authorities but shewn in truth to confirm them and to bring the Rules of the Civilians to our side That the Crown came not by Right of Descent to the next in Blood after the discharge of the Allegiance to J. 2. The Arguments for the People's being restor'd to the Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown enforc'd from a particular Consideration of the State of the Settlement Where is it shewn how the word Heirs may be look'd on as restrain'd in the first Settlement on Heirs by Gomezius his Rule The Titles of H. 6. E. 4. H. 7. and H. 8. His several Settlements and their Effects in relation to the Queen Mary and Elizabeth and J. 1. The Recognition to J. 1. not extending to his Heirs And question'd Whether the Recognition was not his best if not only Title With a modest Inference pag. 84. CHAP. X. The Fifth Head of Positive Law The effect of the Dissolution of the Contract The use of the Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. against the necessity of common Form The Form and proceedings of the Convention assembled upon the Death of H. 3. The Dilemma used by the Formalists answer'd with a Distinction Pufendorf's Answer to Hobbs Another Passage of his applied to a Passage in a late excellent Treatise against Sir Robert Filmer And to a Letter upon this Juncture Tho what Dr. Brady says against the Rights of Lords and Commons were true yet it is shewn that the Acts of the late Assembly would be conclusive to the Nation Neither forty days Summons nor Writs nor yet Summons to a Parliament Essential And this confirmed not only by the Precedent 12 Car. 2. but by two Precedents of the time of H. 1. The Subjects in the time of E. 1. said to have held a Parliament by themselves and of their own appointing The Objection of want of Form answered out of the Civil Law and its Reasons applied to our Case Objections made by the Author of Elimenta Politica considered The Conclusion pag. 98. APPENDIX Among other things SIR Robert Filmer and some of our Divines plaid against one another in relation to Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and Sir Robert against Himself pag. 1. Allegations in behalf of the High and Mighty Princess the Lady Mary now Queen of Scots against the Opinions and Books in the Part and Favour of the Lady Katherine and the rest of the Issues of the French Queen touching the Succession of the Crown Written in the time of Queen Elizabeth Reflections on Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book THE Fundamental Constitution OF THE English Government PROVING KING WILLIAM and QUEEN MARY our Lawful and Rightful King and Queen CHAP. I. The Vniformity tho unprofitableness of Truth The Insufficiency of false Mediums to defend this Government us'd by Men who thereby seek only themselves Quietism in Allegiance advanced by some The Supposition of a Conquest made by his present Majesty or his Succession in the Line no way for his Service That Lawyers are the best Casuists in this matter Mr. Lessey's Protestation when he took the Oath of Allegiance Lord Clarendon's Complaint of Divines busying themselves in Matters of State Mr. Tirrel and the Author of two late Treatises about Government set against Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Dr. Heylin's Opinion of Sir Robert The Judgment of Hooker touch'd upon concerning the Derivation of Power The present Bishop of Worcester's Judgment Cragius his A large Account of the Derivation of Power from the People of Rome to their Emperors brought to explain what our ancient Lawyers mean when they receive the Roman Lex Regia The Sense of Grotius Plato Conringius Pufendorf of the Subject or Seat of Power That all Empires and other Civil Societies must have been founded in Contract A right to design the Person if not to confer the Power admitted in the People by the greatest Asserters of Monarchy The Dispute here chiefly of the Right to design the Person what that is referred to
eum qui judiciorum particeps sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and (d) Hermanni Conringii Exercitationes Acad. de Civibus Imperii p. 3. Ordines Imperii Incolae Conringius his Cives to be too restrain'd the first limiting it to them that have shares in the Judicature and Magistracy the other to the States and Orders of the Empire allowing no others to be more than Inhabitants or Strangers Whereas the Civitas must manifestly reach to that diffus'd Body who are either capable of being part of the Ordines or Great Council or of being represented in it for otherwise the common subject of Power must needs fail as often as there are Intermissions of the States or Great Council And 't is plain that Conringius his Reason why none but the Status vel Ordines Imperii are more than Inhabitants reaches farther Every Civis he says is a Companion of the Civil Society and it is the part of a Companion to give his Suffrage and Judgment of things belonging to the Society This certainly he does virtually who gives his Suffrage in the choice of them who conclude the rest and if this should not make a Citizen there could be no means of exerting any moral or lawful Power in any Society upon the determination of the Authority of those particular Persons who had constituted any dissolv'd Assembly of States unless the sole Power resided entirely and absolutely in the Person or Persons with whom they had lodg'd a Trust for summoning them together that is giving publick notice of the Time and Place for meeting Indeed if none but the Ordines were part of the Civitas Grotius his Distinction between the common 〈◊〉 proper or particular Seat of Power would be very vain wherefore I take his Cives to be the same with Pufendorf's Quorum coitione consensu primò Civitas coaluit aut qui in illorum locum successerunt nempe Patres familiâs Sam. Pufendorf de officio Hominis Civis p. 265. By whose Conjunction and Consent the Civil Society first came together or they who succeeded into their rooms to wit the Masters of Families Indeed if we consider it will appear that never any Empire or other Civil Society was founded but there was an Original Contract or Agreement among the People for the founding of it How was the most absolute Authority of a single Person ever rais'd or maintain'd but by the undisciplin'd Rabble or disciplin'd one of an Army and what could keep them together but a Contract or Promise of Pay or Spoil to the Leaders or Officers who were to be undertakers to the common People or the Souldiers I remember Mr. Hobbs in his History of the Civil Wars of England Hobbs his History of the Civil Wars blames King Charles the First for engaging in a War against the Parliament while at the same time he pretended to justify what he did by Law and to leave all that that assisted him to answer to the Law when he should have encouraged them to have been hearty on his side by hopes of the Spoil of the Nation but whatever may be the Inducements to fight for an Authority lawfully establish'd before surely no People ever submitted to any without a prior Obligation but where they had hopes or expectations of Advantage or Ease the obtaining of which if not made a Condition was ever implied Suppose a Colony of some hundreds of Men among which one is chosen General Head or Leader without any particular or express Contract and his Son suffered to succeed after him Is the Power either of Father or Son antecedent or obligatory before the free Consent of the rest has past Or is it to be imagined that either the Father or his Successor have this People as an Inheritance given them from above to dispose of their Lives and Fortunes without any regard to the Good of All The most sensible of them who utterly deny that any Power can be derived from the People as fighting against their fancied Divine Right of Kingship own that the People have a Right to design the Person Vid. Sacrosanct Regum Majest Potestas designativa personae vel collativa Potestatis tho not to confer the Power only these Men will have it that the extent of the Power of a King is ascertained by God himself which I must needs say I could never yet find prov'd with any colour But to avoid a Dispute needless here since the Question is not so much of the Extent of Power as of the Choice of Persons or Derivation of it Whether any Choice is allowable for us must be determined by the fundamental or subsequent Contract either voluntary or impos'd by Conquest and 't is this which must resolve us whether the Government shall continue Elective or Hereditary to them that stand next in the course of Nature guided to a certain Channel by the common Law of Descents or limited only to the Blood with a Liberty in the People to prefer which they think most convenient all Circumstances considered And if our Constitution warrants the last then we may cut the Gordian Knot and never trouble our selves with Difficulties about a Demise or Cession from the Government or Abdication of it for which way soever the Throne is free from the last Possessor the People will be at Liberty to set up the most deserving of the Family or whom they judg so unless there be subsequent Limitations by a Contract yet in force between Prince and People which being dissolv'd no Agreements take place but such as are or have been made among themselves Vid. infra cap. In which Case whatever ordinary Rule they have set themselves they may alter it upon weighty Considerations And that the People of England have lawfully and rightfully renounc'd their Allegiance sworn to J. 2. and transferr'd it to the most deserving of the Blood notwithstanding any Oaths or Recognitions taken or made by them I shall evince not only from the Equity of the Law and Reservations necessarily implied in their Submission to a King but from the very Letter explain'd by the Practice of the Kingdom both before the reputed Conquest and since CHAP. II. Of Equity or implied Reservations Who judges of the Equity The Lord Clarendon's Judgment of such Cases Cocceius his A short Reference to three late Treatises of great use upon this Question Some Reservations which Bp Sanderson will have implied in all Oaths Grotius his Opinion and Quotations out of Barclay in relation to the withdrawing the Allegiance which had been due to Kings Even the Author of Jovian of some Service here Mr. Falkner's Christian Loyalty set in a true Light and shewn notwithstanding his being misled by the Canons of J. 1. and of 1640. to be wholly on our side in what relates to our present Enquiry and to joyn with Grotius Barclay Bp Bilson Lessius and Becanus So Bp Bedell tho a Cloud has been endeavoured to be drawn over his Opinion
to be King which sufficiently justifies that Vote of our Convention since confirm'd by the Parliament that a Popish King is inconsistent with this Protestant Kingdom 3. The last Question or rather part of a Question Page 527. which this learned Author takes notice of in the Resolution of which he agrees with Barclay and Grotius is Attempting to destroy the Kingdom or any considerable part of it Pag. 528 529. Whether if a Soveraign Prince should actually undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom or any considerable part thereof they may not in these Circumstances have liberty of defending themselves by taking up Arms Now we must allow him here to distinguish his Sentiments by inveighing against Junius Brutus Page 528. and other Subverters of Soveraign Power who start and urge this Question However it may not be amiss to take him into a Corner to know his Mind of the matter under the Rose Page 531. It must be remembred that he allowed of Barclay as a competent Judg in the Questions which he determines and as to a Soveraign Prince's undertaking to cut off Page 529. or to ruin and destroy the whole Body of his People he acknowledges that this is the other only Case in which Barclay esteemeth a Soveraign Prince to forfeit his Right of Government and that thereupon it may be lawful to resist him Tho as I observ'd before Grotius cites Barclay for a third Sup. f. 25. this which he receives as Barclay's second as he gathers from Barclay must not exceed the Bounds of meer Defence without any Attempts of invading or revenging yet it may be a Question how far this may be consistent with his yeilding that a former King in such case becomes a private Person And indeed I think he is in the right in allowing of no case to warrant Resistance till he who had been a King becomes a private Person Page 526. Accordingly neither Barclay nor he in the case of a King 's undertaking the Ruin of the Whole or in any other case will allow the taking Arms against the Soveraign Power because a Prince by such an undertaking as this loseth his Royal Authority and is no longer King se omni dominatu principatu exuit atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desinit Page 530. And the Reason given by Grotius in the same case is irrefragable consistere simul non possunt voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem Populi totius profitetur eo ipso abdicat Regnum A Will to govern and a Will to destroy cannot consist together wherefore he who professes himself an Enemy to his whole People in that very thing abdicates his Kingdom I cannot but observe that here is a Forfeiture own'd and an allowance of a Right in the People Page 529. or some of them at least to judg of the Forfeiture Barclay esteemeth a Soveraign to forfeit his Right c. Elsewhere Mr. Falkner says To assert that the People or Inferiors are of right Judges of the Cases in which they may resist their Superiors is as much as to say they are bound to Subjection only so far as themselves shall think fit and that they may claim an Authority over their Governours Page 365. and pass Judgment upon them and deprive them of their Dignity Authority and Life it self whensoever they shall think it requisite and needful Page 359. But this Inference here as well as his former Declaration shews that he speaks not of extraordinary Cases which as he has it we may well presume or hope may never be in act And if a judicial Power even in such extraordinary Cases sound harsh we may learn of him to soften it with the Terms in which he justifies the Exercise of a like Power over Kings in Spirituals Page 321. Tho says he all Christians upon manifest Evidence may in some cases see cause to disown a Soveraign Prince as was done in Julian from being any longer a Member of the Christian Society Page 322. yet in such Cases his Membership ceaseth and is forfeited by his own Act and not properly by a judicial Sentence and formal Process And some of the Romish Writers go much this way in giving an account how the Bishop of Rome whom they suppose to be Superior to all Men on Earth may by reason of Heresy or such Crimes be deprived of Christian Communion I must herein agree with Mr. Falkner that 't is not the Judgment which creates the Forfeiture but the Grounds of the Judgment which ought to be duly weighed Page 542. 4. The only thing which according to Mr. Falkner in this Case can farther be proposed is Whether if a Supream Governour should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by taking Arms This which he says is notional and speculative Page 543. has too sadly been reduced to Practice in Ireland especially After mentioning the Parisian Massacre he confesses that if ever any such strange Case as is propos'd really happen in the World Page 544. it would have great Difficulties Grotius says he thinks that in this utmost extremity the use of such Defence as a last Refuge ultimo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the Care of the common Good be preserved And says Mr. Falkner if this be true it must be upon this ground that such Attempts of ruining do ipso facto enclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects Page 545. and consequently of being their Prince or King And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secur'd that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King In short Mr. Falkner's Judgment in these three or rather four Cases is this That these Cases are so extraordinary that they fall not under any Consideration as a pretence but will justify the Subjects taking Arms when they are real and that when any such Case happens the taking Arms is not so much authoriz'd by any Judicial Power in the People or their Representatives as by the Facts themselves whereby the King ipso facto without Sentence incurs a Forfeiture and ceases to be King And had he lived to apply his own Rules no Man can doubt but he would in Terms have justified our renouncing Allegiance to the late King Whether upon the account of the Forfeiture or the Judgment upon it or both is not very material especially considering that both Barclay and Grotius speak of an Absolute Prince not a Platonick Monarchy Vid. Pag. 398. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yok'd or coupled with Laws 'T is well known to have been Grotius his Opinion Page 348. That if the Supream Government be part in the People or Senate and
Common Council to provide for the Indemnity of the Crown of the Kingdom and for repressing the Insolence of Malefactors for the benefit of the Kingdom which as appears from the words and subsequent as well as former Practice besides the Opinions of ancient Lawyers did not except the King himself whatever Care is taken of the Crown of the Kingdom However 't is certain the Parliament 12 R. 2. referr'd to a known Statute when they mind him of an ancient one not long before put in practice Whereby if the King Knighton f. 2683. meaning the Case of E. 2. through a foolish Obstinacy Contempt of his People or perverse froward Will or any other irregular way shall alienate himself from his People and will not be govern'd and regulated by the Rights of the Kingdom and laudable Ordinances made by the Council of the Lords and Great Men of the Realm but shall headily in his mad Counsels exercise his own Arbitrary Will from thenceforth it is lawful for them with the common Assent and Consent of the People of the Realm to depose him from the Throne c. This Law is not now extant but was not then deny'd Knighton f. 1752. This observ'd after me by the Author of the Answer to the Popular Objections p. 44. and the Reason why it is not to be found is very evident from the Articles against this King some Years after In the 24 th Article they accuse him of causing the Rolls and Records concerning the State and Government of his Kingdom to be destroyed and razed to the great Prejudice of the People and Disherison of the Crown of the said Kingdom and this as is credibly believ'd in favour and support of his evil Governance More particularly in the Historian unmask'd by the same Author Mirror p. 9. The Mirror tells us That of Right the King must have Companions to hear and determine in Parliament all Writs and Plaints of Wrong done by the King c. And the Learned Hornius cites the Speculum Saxonicum Hornii orbis imperans p. 196. of the like Name and Nature with our Mirror the Author of which last was of his own Name The Saxon Mirror as he says was written before the Normans came hither The Justices or private Persons says he out of the Speculum neither ought nor can dispute of the Acts of Kings yet the King has Superiors in ruling the People Hornius p. 196. who ought to put a Bridle to him And Hornius says the old Saxon Lawyers limit that Maxim The King has no Peer to wit in exhibiting Justice but in receiving Justice they say he is the least in his Kingdom Tho Bracton seems to restrain this Rule to Cases wherein the King is Actor in judicio suscipiendo si petat Fleta who takes it from Bracton seems to correct the Copy and has it si parcat Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. If he spare doing Justice to which end both affirm that he was created and chosen King And Bracton himself shews elsewhere Bracton l. 3. c. 9. p. 107. that he means more by the Reason which he assigns why the King ought to be the least in receiving Justice Lest his Power should remain without Bridle This for certain he sufficiently explains Ibid. when he says That no Justices or private Persons may dispute of the King's Charters and Acts Bracton l. 2. c. 16. p. 34. but Judgment must be given before the King himself which must be meant of the King in Parliament as appears by a Petition in Parliament 18 E. 1. Vid. Ryly Plac. Parl. f. 20. Fleta supra Superiores So Mirror p. 9. Ceux Compagnions sont ore appelles Comites in Latine Comitatus where he takes in all that come up to Parliament from the Counties where Bracton's Rule is received But Bracton says he has God for his Superior also the Law by which he is made King also his Court that is to say the Earls and Barons for they are called Comites being as it were Companions to the King and he who has a Companion has a Master Therefore if the King acts without Bridle they are bound to bridle him and Bracton in one place says In receiving Justice the King is compar'd to the least of his Kingdom without confining it to Cases where he is Actor This puts a necessary Limitation to that Maxim That the King can do no Wrong that is not be adjudg'd so by the Judges Commissaries or Commission'd Judges Vid. Mirror p. 209. He there says Suitors are Judges ordinary and 274. speaks of Counties les autres Suitors having Jurisdiction in Causes which the King cannot determine by himself or by his Judges So Judg Crook's Argument in Hampden's Case p. 59. Whatever is done to the Hurt or Wrong of the Subjects and against the Laws of the Land the Law imputeth that Honour and Justice to the King whose Throne is establish'd by Justice that it is not done by the King but it is done by some unsound and unjust Information and therefore void and not done by Prerogative which the Mirror uses in Contradistinction to Judges Ordinary sitting by an Original Power yet this does not in the least interfere with the Judicial Power of the High Court of Parliament and it may be a Question Whether that Maxim as receiv'd in the Courts of Justice is ever taken to reach farther than either in relation to the Remedies which private Persons may there have against personal Injuries from the King as where 't is said The King cannot imprison any Man because no Action of false Imprisonment will lie against him or rather because of the ineffectualness in Law of his tortious Acts. But what the Nation or its Great Councils have thought of such Acts will appear by a long Series of Judgments from time to time past and executed upon some of their Kings Long before the reputed Conquest Sigibert King of the West-Saxons becoming intolerable by his insolent Actions Chronica de Mailros f. 137. Anno 756. Bromt. f. 770. Cōgregati sunt Proceres Populus totius regni eum providâ deliberatione à regno unanimi consensu omnium expellebant was expell'd the Kingdom and Bromton shews that this was done in a judicial manner by the unanimous Consent and Deliberation of the Peers and People that is in the Language of latter Ages by Lords and Commons in full Parliament Lambart's Pref. to Archaionomia Northumbrorum Imperii magnitudo ea fuit quae nunc est Ehoracensis Dunelmensis Northumbriae Cumbriae Westmorlandiae Comitat. atque reliquam praeterea Lancastrensis Com. partem complectebantur Chron. Mailros f. 138. Anno 774. Sin Dunelm 106. 107. Consilio consensu omnium Regiae Familiae ac principium destitutus societate exilio Imperii mutavit Majestatem And eighteen Years after Alcred King of the Northanimbrians that is Northumberland and other adjacent Counties was banish'd and
Family was barely which of the Competitors all Circumstances being considered was most likely to advance the Publick Interest of which the People were to be Judges whereas according to his Limitation they were bound to take the Person who was next in the Line if he lay not under a natural or moral Incapacity directly contrary to what he shews out of Malmsbury of the West Saxon Kingdom in which after Ina no Lineal Succession was observed When Athelstan Page 15. of his own shewing was chosen King were his Brothers Edward and Edwin under any natural or moral Incapacity Or were the Sons of Edmond Iron-side either way uncapable when Edward the Confessor was elected For Confirmation of what himself produces upon this Head I take leave to add one Authority from the Writer of the Life of King Alfred Vita Aelfredi lib. 1. f. 19. Many Examples says he are found among the Saxon Kings of a Brother's succeeding to the Brother before his Son especially if the Son had any Impediment from the Infirmity of his Age or other Ineptitude for governing Nay OFTEN BY REASON OF LESS MERIT I must admit that for the deposing one actually invested with the Regal Authority the Author's Limitations were to be observ'd tho they were not strictly kept to and I cannot but think that this Author confounds himself for want of this Distinction Either the frequent Examples of setting Kings aside whom the Nation judg'd uncapable of the Government through some natural or moral Defect or Excess or rather the continual Engagements in war with Foreigners had such Effect that from the time of King Edwin Nephew to the English Monarch Edred who was driven out of the Kingdom Anno 957 to the time of W. 1. being 109 Years I find no like Instance but one Anno 1014 52 Years before the suppos'd Conquest which was the case of Etheldred who abdicated the Government and went into Normandy from whence the Nation agreed to receive him again upon Condition si vel rectiùs gubernaret Flor. Wigorn. An. 1014. vel mitiùs eos tractare vellet if he would either govern more according to Law or treat them more mildly Upon which he promiss'd omnia Rege Populo digna All things which become a King to his People For the most part during the Saxon Government a King was but a more splendid General nor could he hope to maintain his Dignity but by hardy Actions and tender Usage of his People Even Will. 1. notwithstanding the Pretence made in after-Ages of his having broken the English Spirit Vid. second Part. was not only oblig'd to keep within Bounds as the following Discourse will evince but to renew his Compact with the People more than once Their extraordinary Power had slept very few Years after the Death of this reputed Conqueror Ed. Lond. Mat. Par. f. 19. Rex Willielmus videns omnes pene regni proceres una rabie conspiratos Anglos fortitudine probitate insignes faciles Leges tributorum lenamen liberasque illis venationem promittendo sibi primo devinxit for the Sickness of his Son W. 2. giving the English Nobility an opportunity of consulting together they almost as one Man were for declaring against him which he timely prevented by fair Promises to them Nay tho his Brother H. 1. came in with the universal Applause of the Nation yet a great part of his Navy deserted him and declar'd for his Brother Robert not because he was the elder Brother but because Henry was unmindful of that Contract which gain'd him the Preference Quia Rex jam tyrannazaverit as the Historian has it because the King prov'd a Tyrant King Stephen his immediate Successor after Allegiance sworn to him had it a while withdrawn for Maud the Empress Daughter to H. 1. but the People soon return'd to it again rejecting her who was nighest in Blood because she deny'd them the benefit of St. Edward's Laws And Discourse p. 21. as the Author of the learned Discourse about the New Separation observes out of Manuscript written by Fortescue Chancellor to H. 6. Maud was set aside and the Reversion of the Crown entail'd on her Son altho she was living and this was done in Parliament Communi Consensu Procerum Communitatis Regni Angliae By the common Consent of the Peers and Commons of England for which Fortescue whose Skill and Integrity no Man can justly question appeals not only to the Cronicles but to the Proceedings of Parliament However this Author will have it that the Commons were not there but as represented by the Barons being misled by the general Expressions of the Historians whose Authority he opposes to the Rolls of Parliament Yet for the purpose here it is enough that this was done by a Parliament of that Time that the Agreement then made was confirm'd by the Oaths of the Great Men and that the Publick Good which was the Foundation of the Agreement was thought to be the measure of the Obligation of such Oaths Hen. 2. came to the Crown by virtue of an Agreement with King Stephen to which the Nation consented for ought appears he was a strict Observer of the Constitution of the Government but being render'd uneasy by the Refractoriness of the Clergy and desirous that his Son should enjoy that Kingdom which he found a desirable Possession to them who would keep the Laws he took his Son into a Partnership of the Care and Dignity this occasion'd a Competition for Power which the Admirers of the traiterous St. Becket improv'd into a War which divided the People Archbishop Parker's Antiquitates Britanicae f. 130. salvâ fide Regi patri quamdiu viveret ac regno praeesse vellet but this being between two Kings both in Possession I should not look on as any Precedent to our Point did I not find that the Allegiance sworn to the Son at the receiving him to the Succession was with a Salvo for that which was due to his Father as long as he should live or think fit to reign CHAP. V. The Barons Wars in the time of King John That he had abdicated the Government That he had lost all means of being trusted by his People How unwilling they were to engage in a War against him They invite over Lewis the Dauphin of France His Case a Parallel to the late Abdication The Vacancy of the Throne insisted on by the French King's Advocate and that thereupon the Barons had right to chuse another King of the Blood Royal of England as Lewis was Why the Barons fell off from Lewis What the Homilies say concerning their inviting Lewis swearing Allegiance to him and fighting under his Banner against King John considered THE Power lodg'd in the People for the publick Good to be sure was rous'd and justified by the Tyrannical Reign of King John who tho he had effectually abdicated or unking'd himself by his giving up his Crown as much as in him
TO proceed to the Reign of H. 3. who was Crown'd by a Faction at Glocester while Lewis was in possession of London the Metropolis of the Kingdom That he came not to the Crown as Successor in an Hereditary Monarchy but upon a plain Election and Compact with part of the Nation at least in the Name of the rest who would come in under those terms may be prov'd beyond contradiction For tho' in the Language of the Homilies King John were Natural Lord to the Subjects of England yet as Arthur who was the next in the Line to King John's Predecessor had the Right of Blood Mat. Par. f. 278. as far as that could operate before King John which he insisted on in the Fourth of that King's Reign even while he was his Prisoner the same right had Eleanor Arthur's Sister all the remainder of King John's time and for some years during the Reign of H. 3. 2. The Father came to the Crown by virtue of a Free Election of the People as the Archbishop of Canterbury told him at his Coronation wherefore his Election could not invest him with more than a Personal Right unless more were express'd at the time But the Archbishop Hubert Mat. Par. f. 264. 1 Johan Audite universi noverint discretio vestra quod nullus praevia ratione alii succedere habet in regnum nisi ab universitate regni unanimiter invocatâ spiritus gratiâ Electus secundum morum suorum eminentiam praeelectus who spake in the name of the Community was so far from giving the least Umbrage to a Right that might extend to Heirs that he affirm'd That no man is Intituled to succeed to the Crown upon any other account previous to the unanimous choice of the Kingdom except only the eminence of his Virtue And being afterwards ask'd why he took such freedom of Speech He declar'd That he foresaw and was assur'd by Ancient Prophecies That King John would corrupt the Kingdom and Crown of England and precipitate it into great confusion And he asserted That he ought to be minded of his coming to the Crown by * Ne haberet liberas habâ—nas hoc faciendi Election not by Hereditary Succession least he should take a liberty to act as he fear'd 3. Since therefore what the Archbishop fear'd came to pass and that Contract in virtue of which King John assum'd the Royal Scepter was notoriously broken How can it be thought that a Right devolv'd upon his Son H. 3. especially considering the interruption that was made by a Choice of Lewis tho' not Universal I must confess there is no Evidence occurring to me that Lewis was ever Crown'd here yet considering that the Coronation as is agreed by most is but a Ceremony the bare want of it would not the less argue a breach in the Succession since the sounder part of the people took the benefit of that Forfeiture which King John manifestly made and if nothing but an Universal Concurrence in this could justify withdrawing Allegiance from him then it is hardly possible for any resisting of Tyranny to be lawful at the begining and he who is forwardest in the Cause of his Country must be always a Criminal But being there is a deep silence as to Lewis his Coronation Mat. Par. Illico Coronandus tho he was promis'd by the Barons at London to be Crown'd immediately upon his coming over I take the reason of the silence in this matter to be That if he were Crown'd in form it was by the Laity alone because the Pope was fast to the side of King John and his Son and Lewis lay under a Papal Sentence of Excommunication so that the Clergy durst not Communicate with him in those Acts of Religious Worship which accompany Coronations But these Ceremonies being to be performed by Clergy-men 't is most probable that the Laity contented themselves with the Substance and left those Ceremonies for a more convenient time But that Lewis was in Possession of the Crown and the Regalia is to be believed as London with the Tower where they us'd to be lodg'd had not only been in the Possession of his Friends from the beginning but held so till the second Year after H. had been Crown'd as it is to be presum'd with a Crown made for that purpose Whether Lewis were Crown'd or no he was as fully received by them that had withdrawn their Allegiance from King John as if he had been Crown'd and reciprocal Oaths past between them And he was so far lookt on as King Mat. Par. that Alexander King of Scots swore Homage to him for the Lands he held of the Crown of England But certain it is as the Circumstances evince that there were at least three Express and Binding Contracts which H. 3. entred into with his People either beyond or rather explanatory of what is included in the Coronation-Oath and which H. 3. was bound to observe as he would be King of England and these besides several Confirmations of the Great Charter purchas'd with the Peoples Money and one of the Grants of Aid so particularly Conditional that Treasurers for it were appointed in Parliament and the Money was to be returned upon the King 's not performing the Conditions of the Grant 1. The First Contract which I shall observe was that which Lewis perhaps induc'd to it by the Money which he borrowed of the Londoners oblig'd H. to before he would quit his Pretensions So that one was plainly the Condition of the other and as the Civilians have it ran into the other by way of Mutual Consideration Vid. inf Lewis for the reasons which I before touch'd upon finding his Interest daily decline thought good to come to terms with Henry whereby Lewis oblig'd himself by Oath to withdraw from England Mat. Par. fol. 400. with all his Followers never to return and to use his endeavours that his Father might restore all the Rights of the Crown of England which he had seiz'd on beyond Sea In consideration of which Henry the Earl Marshal of England and the Pope's Legat F. 423. N a. Discord not Rebellion f. 431. swore to the restoring to the Barons of England and all others all their Rights and Liberties for which there had been Discord between King John and his Barons This Agreement with Lewis the Great Council of the Nation afterwards insisted on 7º H. 3. when they urg'd a Confirmation of the Great Charter which they obtain'd not till 9º of that King 2. The Second particular Contract was that of which the Great Council or Parliament 28º H. 3. mind him and of which they then after much strugling purchas'd a Confirmation According to this among other things 28 H. 3. referring to 20. f. 864. Four Great Men were to be chosen by Common Consent as Guardians of the Kingdom to be the standing Council about the King with a very large Trust reposed in them The Chancellor Treasurer and
to keep Men in obedience to him who has the Power of punishing the disobedient Wherefore the meaning may be That no Man who departs from his Duty of Allegiance to the present King shall save himself by pleading that he had been in Arms or had done him any signal Service In short this was to be no Corban to Answer for any following departure from Duty But as the body of the Act provides only for the Indemnity of them who pay due Allegiance to the King de facto this Proviso may be particularly for the Kings own Security in affirmance of the Common Law which makes all Resisting the Possessors of Crowns Treason in single persons And the sense may run thus Provided that whoever declines from Allegiance to the King in possession to help another to the Crown shall not if the first happen to be Restor'd plead that the other became King de facto However this does not in the least diminish the Obligation of Allegiance to the King who shall obtain possession by the Ousting another And I suppose by this time 't is pretty evident That both the Body of the Act and the Proviso relate only to a King de facto and endeavour to free the Nation from nice speculations about the Right to the Crown For confirmation of what I have shewn to prove that the English Monarchy has been Elective within the Royal Family it may not be improper to observe how it has been anciently in Germany and France See this distinction in Nauclerus Aimonius lib. 1. c. 4. Les Soupirs de la France esclave Mem. 6. p. 83. P. 84. or France Germanick from whence we came and France Gallick branch'd out from the Ancient Germans Aimonius says ' That the Francs chose a King and plac'd him upon the Throne in imitation of other Nations which the Author of the Sighs of France inslav'd renders the other Nations of the Gauls and Germans And that Author puts it by way of question implying the stronger affirmation Whether it does not appear throughout the whole History that the French have preserved to themselves the Right to chuse within the Royal Family him who appeared to them the most fit to Protect Defend and Govern them well The German Conringius Esse quid hoc dicam vivis quod fama negatur Conringius de Negotiis Conventuum Imperii p. 417. being an Author already possess'd of that Credit which may spring out of the French man's grave I shall transcribe Conringius to this Point more at large Altho says he some think that our Kings anciently came to their Power by Succession others by Election yet it seems fit to say that a middle way was in use That the Children of Kings or Emperors did not succeed unless approv'd of by the States and yet were not pass'd by if they were worthy of the Empire For they who were come from the Royal Stock were believed to tread in the steps of their Ancestors and that they would not only preserve but exceed the glory of their Progenitors according to that of Aristotle Aristot Rhet. lib. 2. c. 16. They who are of Noble Birth are desirous of Praise and Glory For it is the nature of men to desire to encrease not to diminish or lose the goods which they had before But when the Royal Family was extinct then it was permitted the States to raise to the Empire whomsoever they pleased by an Election in every respect free So the Caroline Family being extinct the Kingdom of the Western Francs was conferr'd upon Henry afterwards called Auceps by a most free Election of the Francs and Saxons of which Translation of Power Regino in his Chronicles of the year 920 says thus Duke Henry is chosen King by the Consent of the Francs Almains Bavarians Thuringians and Saxons when however he had no prior Right to the Empire before the other Princes In the same manner afterwards Lothair a Saxon Conrade 2. a Suede Otho 4. a Saxon and many more obtain'd the Empire of Germany in the right of pure Election as Onuphrius witnesses ' But whether they were of the Royal Family Onuph Panvin c. 5. de Comitiis Imp. or obtaind the Kingdom ' only and merely by Election they were chosen by the States and People in full Conventions For which he instances in the Elections of Sigebert the Son of Dagobert In plenis Comitiis Charles and Charlemain chosen together upon the death of their Father Pipin Of Charles upon the death of his Brother and Lewis the Pious after him This manner of Chusing within the Royal Family he observes to have remain'd in the Empire to the time of H. 4. but that it was interrupted by Pope Gregory 7. who under shew of advancing the Liberties of Germany made way for the Papal Influence and Tyranny Having observed the mischief of absolute Elections he adds Indeed I should not wholly prefer mere Succession Election being quite taken away but I think this manner of Election to be best where great account is had of Blood and no Son worthy to succeed his Father is put by That the way of constituting Kings mixt with Hereditary Succession and free Election was very suitable to the manner of Ancient Germany appears at least from hence that afrer that meer free Election had been introduc'd by Hildebrand all things in Germany were in Commotion and Disorder CHAP. IX The Fourth Head of Positive Law A short Recapitulation of what has been prov'd An actual Discharge of Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. shewn from the Authority of the Judgment past His Vsurping a Legislative Power Leaving the Kingdom without providing for the Administration of Justice and going into France This confirmed by Rastal Lord Hobart Justinian's Digests The Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian Pufendorf de Officio hominis civis His Elementa Juris prudentiae His Treatise de Jure Gentium Grotius Pufendorf de Inter-regnis Knichen's Opus Pol. Philip Paraeus A particular consideration of what the Learned Knight Sir R. Pointz says seeming against these Authorities but shewn in truth to confirm them and to bring the Rules of the Civilians to our side That the Crown came not by Right of Descent to the next in Blood after the discharge of the Allegiance to J. 2. The Arguments for the People's having been restor'd to that Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown enforc'd from a particular Consideration of the State of the Settlement Where it is shewn how the word Heirs may be lookt on as restrain'd in the first Settlement on Heirs by Gomezius his Rule The Titles of H. 6. E. 4. H. 7. and H. 8. His several Settlements and their effects in relation to the Queens Mary and Elizabeth and J. 1. The Recognition to J. 1. not extending to his Heirs And question'd Whether the Recognition was not his best if not only Title With a modest Inference That the People of England were lately restor'd
W. 2. for he resolving to go take the Pall at Rome 't was declared to him in Parliament that if he went it should be without any hopes of returning again Upon this the See of Canterbury became vacant agreeably to what afterwards hapned in the case of Becket tho he was not banish'd but fled away voluntarily yet the French King having press'd H. 2. to let Becket have the Profits of the Archbishoprick the King told him Antiquitates Britan. f. 135. Restituere se nihil ei posse qui sponte Ecclesiam deseruerit itaque cum e Regni consuetudine Regisque dignitate Cantuariensis Ecclesiae quam Thomas fugâ voluntariâ pro derelicta fecit fructus vacantes certis jam personis contulisset nolle se dixit ea quae prout jure Regni potuit contulisset in irritum dubiumve revocari That he cannot restore any thing to him who left his Church of his own accord since therefore according to the custom of the Kingdom and the Royal Dignity he had conferr'd upon certain persons the vacant Fruits of the Church of Canterbury which Thomas by his voluntary Flight had made derelict he said he would not make void or call in doubt those things which he had granted according to the Law of the Kingdom If there might be any doubt of a Vacancy of the See in Becket's case at least there was none in Anselm's who had in the time of W. 2. been banish'd by Parliament never to return and yet the Convention 1 H. 1. being become a Parliament not only recall'd him from banishment in which they set aside an Act of a former Parliament but they call'd him to fill the See of Canterbury after it had been vacant which was equally a Parliamentary Act in those days as appears by the choice of Lanfranc in the time of W. 1. of this very Anselm in W. the 2 d's and of Becket in the Reign of H. 2. Concerning the Election of Lanfranc Arcbishop Parker tells us Ibid. f. 110. Celeberrima est autem hujus prae caeteris electio consecratio Electus enim est a majoribus Cantuariensis ecclesiae tum accessit Procerum atque Praesulum totiusque populi quasi Populi consensus in Aula Regis quod sane est ad instar Senatus seu Parliamenti Anglicani But this Election and Consecration was with more Solemnity than any other For he was chosen by the Chief of the Church of Canterbury To which was added the consent of the Peers and Prelates and as it were of the whole People in the King's Court which in truth is of the nature of an English Senate or Parliament Tho he will have this Election to have been more solemn than any other and that it was not in a real Parliament but in an Assembly of the same nature yet what himself says of the Elections of Anselm and Becket explain'd by more Ancient Authors shews that the Elections of other Archbishops us'd to be as solemn and that both that of Lanfranc and of the others were in a full Parliament or Great Council of the Nation Himself says That both Peers and People were so much for Anselm's being made Archbishop that W. 2. would not openly contradict Antiq. Brit f. 116. W. 2. Proffered Anselm the Archbishoprick but underhand disswaded him from it Sed cum neque hâc suasione quicquam profecisset proque certo comperisset Proceres Populumque Angliae adversos aut minus fidos sibi Anselmo favere eumque ad Archiep. munus jam oblatum flagitare apertè contradicere noluit Eadmerus who was always by Anselm's side shews that W. 2. being taken ill in the seventh year of His Reign Omnes totius Regni Principes coeunt Episcopi Abbates quique Nobiles There gathered together all the Princes of the Kingdom the Bishops Abbots and all the Nobles This as appears was upon notice given among themselves to provide for their Common safety To that Assembly the King makes solemn promises of Governing better than he had done And Anselm being there named for Archbishop Concordi voce sequitur acclamatio omnium ' The acclamation of all followed as with ' one voice And Eadmerus says that he was made Archbishop Secundum totius Regni Electionem ' according to the Election of the whole ' Kingdom And another Monk of the time says Gondulfus Roff. Ep. Monac Bec. inter Anselmi Epist lib. 3. the King made him Archbishop Consilio Rogatu Principum Cleri quoque populi petitione electione By the Counsel and Advice of the Peers and the Petition and Election of the Clergy and People Archbishop Parker speaking of the Consecration of Becket An. Dom. 1162. 7 H. 2. in the 7th of H. 2. says Consecrationi huic tam illustri interfuit H. Rs filius Antiq. Brit. f. 130. cum plerisque Regni Proceribus quatuordecim Cantuariensis Provinciae Episcopis innumerâque Plebis multitudine atque copiâ There were present at this Consecration Henry the King's Son with most of the Nobility of the Kingdom and Fourteen Bishops of the Province of Canterbury and an innumerable multitude and throng of the common people The former Presidents shew that they were consenting as well as present nor could the absence of the Bishops of the other Diocesses make their Meeting the less a Parliament Sir Henry Spelman cites an Authority proving that the Clergy were not conven'd at the Council of Rochingham 9 W. 2. Spelman Concil vol. 2. f. 16. In quo fermè totius Regni Nobilitas praeter Episcopos Clerum Convenitur which must be meant of not being Summoned for it appears by Eadmerus that Anselm and other Bishops were there And Bishop Jewel observes that in the time of E. 1. Jewel contra Hard. f. 455. a Parliament was held from which the Clergy was excluded From these Authorities it appears That as Anselm was chosen Archbishop in one Parliament and Banished in another nay tho he had gone away voluntarily his See became derelict and admit the King might have pardon'd his Banishment out of Parliament he could not have restor'd him to the exercise of his Office but in a Council which was reputed to have the Authority of a Parliament and such Authority 't is plain that they in that time thought that Convention to have had in which H. 1. was Crown'd and which after his Coronation acted as a Parliament Malms f. 88. It appears by Malmsbury that Anselm was call'd back in the same Assembly wherein Ranulph was committed to Prison and Matthew Paris who is not so precise as to the time of Anselm's being sent for says Ranulph was Imprison'd communi Concilio Gentis Anglorum ' In a ' Common-Council of the English Nation And it appears by Matthew Paris Mat. Par. f. 78 79. That Anselm upon his return was look'd on and acted as Archbishop And if this is not sufficient evidence that that Convention was reputed a Parliament or one
of the General Councils of the Kingdom at least the Charter which he then granted as I before observed makes full proof of it Vid. Sup. f. 172 178. 'T is obvious that the Convention 1 H. 1. was far less solemn and had much less ground to be look'd on as a Parliament than ours and yet it being for removing a Vacancy and Setling the Government when the Nation was threatned with an Invasion from Duke Robert they thought the necessity of time would sufficiently excuse the absence of Form But had there been no Warrant from former times for the late manner of proceeding the people of Legal Interests in the Government having been restor'd to their Original Right Who can doubt but they had an absolute power over Forms That they were not call'd a Parliament I hope will not be an Objection since the Word is much less Ancient than such Assemblies Nay I find it us'd in the 25th of E. 1. for a Meeting of the People without the King Vid. Append. to consult for the Publick-Good of which Matthew of Westminster says Parliamentum suum statuerunt Vid. Sup. Cap. 1. Since the Cives the Common Subject of the National Power have made their determination in our Case this according to that Positive Law which I have shewn above ought to quiet the Debate and command a submission And yet were there not Positive Law on their side the equitable Reservations before observed might be sufficient Warrant Nor is the Civil-Law wanting to enforce this Matter One Barbarius a run-a-way Servant not known to be so got in favour with Anthony at the time of the Triumvirate and by his means came to be Praetor Upon this a great Question arose Whether what he did or was done before him during his Praetorship were valid Hottom Illust Quest 17. Vlpian decides in the affirmative and Hottoman upon that Question says ' The suffrages of the People have the force of a ' Law Gotofredus de Electione Magistratûs inhabilis per errorem factâ p. 6. The Reasons given for the Resolution as they are in Gotofred who best reconciles the various Readings will greatly strengthen our Case He tells us That tho the Question there is only concerning a Servant the Reason of it reaches to Emperors and all Secular and Ecclesiastical Dignities The Reasons why Vlpian holds the Acts of such good are 1. In regard of Common Utility and the Inconvenience it would be to those who had business before him if it were otherwise 2. From the Power of the People to give a Servant this Honour Gotofred thinks If this may be done with certain knowledg that he was a Servant much more through mistake for if the People who have the Supream Power may with certain knowledg for the sake of the Publick-Good not only design a Servant for Praetor but in this Case by a just Election take a Servant away from his Master How much more may it be done as in the Case propounded not to make a Servant wholly a true Praetor not to take him from his Master but only by a commodious interpretation to have what is done by him or with him sustain'd and that so long the Error of the People and Servitude of the Person chosen should not prejudice what is done Gotofred goes yet further and says of Magistrates and Judges constituted by Tyrants the manner of Judgments being kept Gotofred Sup. p. 25. the things done according to form of Law or Transacted according to their Wills have been held good Sponte transacta And yet in this Case the defect seems greater being the Power is collated by one inhabil and so a substantial form is wanting Wherefore in this Part there seems no difference between the inhability of the Elector or the Elected And if ever the Common Utility or Publick Good might warrant Actions out of the Common Course certainly this could never have been pleaded more forcibly than in the Case of this Nation which unless it had declared for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY which they did in the most regular way that the Nature of the thing would bear had in all likelyhood by Irish and French Forces by this time been reduc'd to the miserable condition of the poor Protestants in Ireland who are by no means beholden to the nice Observers of unnecessary and impracticable Forms However such Formalizers would do well to answer the French King's Advocate in the Case of King John who shews a Vacancy of a Throne and to whom in such Case the care of the Kingdom belongs And they being the Barones Regni I need not now stand to prove that in the Language of that time 't would comprehend all such as were Members of our late Assembly of Lords and Commons For admit it were to be restrain'd to the Lords only then at least the Commons now were but supernumerary And since the Lords Voted by themselves and not in the same House with the Commons for the majority of united Votes to carry it the Settlement Voted by the Lords were enough to conclude the Nation But for the farther conviction of those who still urge That to hold that there may be a Parliament without being summoned by the King 's Writ would be of pernicious consequence to the Constitution of the Legal Monarchy under King WILLIAM and Queen MARY I shall refer them to a Paper which came out not long since entituled Vid. Append. The Present Convention a Parliament which I have transcrib'd at large into the Appendix As that Paper gives an abstract of what might be prov'd by Authorities those which I have produced give confirfirmation to that Paper Part 1. Object Here I ought not to pass by some Objections of the Author of Elementa Politica in relation to the suppos'd want of due Form in proceeding to Judgment or of Actions leading to it which if they were unwarrantable the Judgment must have been so too being founded upon the belief that there was just occasion for those Actions The Substance of his Objections may be reduced to these Heads 1. Part of the Legislative Power is in the King Whence it follows Elementa Pol. p. 5. Since published with the Title of Vindiciae Juris Regii that the whole Body of the People is not the Supream Authority nor consequently can call their Prince to account without his own consent 2. That Part of the Legislative Power which is lodg'd in the People is not given at large to be exerted at their pleasure but depends upon stated Rules and Limitations and can only be exerted by their Representatives in Parliament Nay it is so precarious a Privilege that without the King's leave they can never make use of it For it is neither lawful for them to Convene themselves nor yet to sit any longer than the King pleases Which is in different words but the same with Mr. Hobbs his position Where there is already erected a
Regis Imperio Duo sunto iique Consules appellantur Let Two have Regal Power and let them be called Consuls Also the Judgment of Livy is that the Sovereign Power was translated from Consuls to Decemvirs as before from Kings to Consuls Yet in another Place our Learned Knight according to his usual Inconsistencies with himself tells us that but one of the Consuls had Regality for they govern'd by turns Which by his Favour I take it was only in the Wars which require but one General not at Rome However he confesses that all the Decemvirs had Regality for he pretends not that they govern'd by turns and he says they were chosen to make Laws and though some will question whether a Supream Gubernative implies a Legislative Power no Man will question but a Legislative takes in the other or at least may at the pleasure of him or them in whom it is vested But I would fain know which one of them had right to give Law to the rest or had the Soveraignty in him alone And for it to be in more than one Observ touching Forms of Gov. p. 47. is as we are inform'd by him quite contrary to the indivisible Nature of Soveraignty Yet he grants it may escheat to the Supream Heads of Families that is more than one within that which had been at least immediately before the same Community nay and that it may be exercised by many in other Acts besides the choice of one to head them which he owns in these words Ib. p. 60 61. Those Governments that seem to be popular are kinds of petty Monarchies which may thus appear Government is a Relation between the Governors and Governed the one cannot be without the other mutuò se ponunt auferunt Where a Command proceeds from a major part there those individual Persons that concurr'd in the Vote are the Governors because the Law is only their Will in particular Yet under correction though some of those alter their Wills and some which were against the Law become for it provided that the Ballance continue as 't was when the Law pass'd in this Case the Law cannot be chang'd by those very Persons which made it There can be no Obligation which takes state from the meer Will of him that promiseth the same Power of Kings Fol. 1. and therefore some things which receive Force from the meer Will of the Parties yet continue to oblige against their Wills and the Government is in the united Body not in those who made that Law for the Power cannot be derived from them who chang'd their Wills but out of the whole Body however no one of them were a Monarch and yet what hinders but that there was a Soveraign Power amongst them This Power it seems Sir Robert knows not how to distinguish from the Exercise or Act of Power The Supream Power being an indivisible Beam of Majesty he tells us cannot be divided or settled upon a Multitude God would have it fixt in one Person not sometimes in one part of the People and sometimes in another and sometimes and that for the most part no where as when the Assembly is Dissolv'd it must rest in the Air or in the Walls of the Chamber where they were assembled Agreeable to which he says elsewhere By this means one and the same Assembly may make at one Sitting several Forms of Common-Wealths So that he supposes the different Exercise to alter the form of Government and that it Dissolves when the Exercise ceases or is discontinued which Error is of kin to theirs whoever they are that make a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship But to wave these Niceties as above their reach who cannot of themselves discern palpable Contradictions and wherein Sir Robert under pretence of Friendship serves them as Joab did Abner I shall take from his thoughts their artificial Dress and lay them open in their naked Deformity that every rational at least honest Man and good Subject may start from them the Devil cannot be so far transform'd into the shape of an Angel of Light but that his cloven Foot must appear Sure I am that he undermines the Right of all present Kings or Families and makes the Right of Succession as doubtful as the Event of War admitting none but Rebels within the possibility of Usurping and thereby yielding that any Foreign Prince may lawfully dispossess one in the Throne or interrupt the Succession And if any Subject can prosper in his Rebellion though the lawful Prince or Heir be alive and He that takes upon him the Power of a Superior sins sufficiently and to purpose Yet God's Providence having dispossess'd the former Anarchy p. 273. Many times by the Act of an Vsurper himself or of those that set him up the True Heir of the Crown is dispossest God using the Ministry of the wickedest Men for the removing and setting up of Kings in such Cases the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along with and wait upon God's Providence who only hath a Right to give and take away Kingdoms and to adopt the Subjects into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power and declar'd in favour of the Usurper the People if we believe him are adopted into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power and not having Right to cast off this Father rais'd up by God himself who only hath Right to give and take away Kingdoms By his Doctrine It was written Tempore Car. 2. all the Endeavours towards his Majesty's Restoration are condemn'd for that 't was against the Title made by the Almighty and any voluntary Act of the People being vain not obliging them any longer than they please as all the Force came from their own Wills Besides no Act of the People having any binding or moral Effect since they are to be meerly Passive they being always and unalterably as to Humane Causes under the Power of the Natural Fathers By these Principles the Usurping Powers would still have lawful Authority But to be sure For in Grants and Gifts that have their Original from God or Nature as the Power of the Father hath no inferior Power of Man can limit nor make any Law of Prescription against them Ibid. according to him any Prince had equal Right with the Ejected Monarch to try for the Kingdom For though Sir Robert in his Preface to his Observations on Mr. Hobbs asks the Question Power of Kings F. 1. How a Subject by Covenant can get a Right of Soveraignty by Conquest when neither he himself hath Right to Conquer or Subjects a Liberty to Submit Yet he has not one Objection against the Lawfulness of a Foreign Prince's conquering at any Time or with any Circumstances which shews that his Definition of Usurpation was intended to take in all unlawful usurpings of Power without which 't is very lame But thus it runs Vsurpation is the resisting and taking away the Power from him Directions for