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
vested to govern in Matters of Religion not as originally arising from their Christianity but from the general Right of Dominion and Soveraignty and says this includeth a Right of establishing by their Authority what is truly unblameable orderly useful and necessary with respect to Religion Accordingly he speaks of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Ina Page 153. and several other English Saxon Kings as if they were establish'd by them as having the Civil Power solely and absolutely in themselves And indeed if as Mr. Falkner has it elsewhere Page 41. the Soveraign Ruler hath a Right to promote God's Publick Worship and to establish it by a Civil Sanction it must follow either that these Kings were no Soveraigns or that they alone made those Ecclesiastical Laws giving them their Civil Sanction Yet that he denies even to the Emperor Constantine such a Power as he ascribeth to Kings and Princes and particularly to ours Pag. 172 173 174. is evident from his justifying Athanasius in his disobeying the Emperor's positive Command to restore Arius to his Church of Alexandria after a final Sâ—â—tence of Deprivation of the Council of Nice which Sentenc 〈…〉 g grounded upon his Heresy the Emperor might well think that subscribing and swearing to the Nicene Creed might render him a Person equally capable with any other to supply the Vacancy 2. Mr. Falkner's second Mistake in his first Part. Another Mistake Mr. Falkner seems to have been led into by thinking Ecclesiastical Canons to be of Authority in Points of Law or State Hence it is that he cites the second Canon 1 J. 1. which he says threatens Excommunication against them who shall affirm 2 Canon Vid. Christian Loyalty p. 50 51. that the King hath not the same Authority in Cases Ecclesiastical that the Godly Kings had among the Jews He might have observ'd that it excommunicates them ipso facto without admitting them to any Plea or Defence for themselves In which Comparison tho perhaps much was intended according to the Mos Regius described by Samuel I fear it proves too little nor would they who made those Canons have been willing to confine the Royal Power to that fundamental Law for it which we find in Deuteronomy Deut. 17. from ver 14. to the end where the Rule for the Election of Kings is stated that the Person whom they set over them should be no Stranger but one from among their Brethren and his Power is bounded within Moses his Law that his Heart be not lifted up above his Brethren And it is certain that the Stream of Learned Men are on the side of Petrus de Marca Falkner p. 89. who observes that they do not deserve well at the Hands of Christian Princes who would measure their Authority and Dignity from the Exercise of Royal Power under the Times of the Old Testament Ib. p. 75. Even Grotius will not allow the Government over the House of Israel to have been Monarchical Ib. p. 102 454. But leaving Mr. Falkner with his Canons to fight this out with De Marca Selden Grotius Schickard Bellarmine Baronius the greatest part of the Jewish Rabinnical Writers Blondel and even Josephus who says the King was not to act without the High Priest and the Consent of the Senators I shall but mention some Heads in which it will be difficult to disprove me 1. The Kings of Israel quatenus Kings had no Interest in the Legislative Power for that Government so far continued a Theocrasy that God who promised in an especial manner to dwell among them Exod. 29.45 was their sole Legislator and Mr. Falkner himself tells us Page 464. The Jewish Common-wealth was peculiarly order'd by God or as he has it elsewhere Page 438. peculiarly Theocratical 2. Where-ever any Alteration in the outward Administration or Circumstances of things appointed by God's Law delivered by Moses went under the Name of any King it will hardly be possible to prove that the King did not make it either as he himself was a Prophet or by the Direction of the chief Prophet or Seer whose Commission Jer. 1.10 if we may judg by that of Jeremiah's was very large being set over the Nations and over the Kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to build and to plant Orig. sacrae p. 150. The present Bishop of Worcester shews that God appointed a Succession of Prophets to make known his Mind to the Israelites and that there were Schools or Colledges of the Prophets which some think Samuel erected Pag. 154 164. where God Almighty ordinarily dispensed his Effusions Out of these the Kings had their Seers Gad was David's Seer and Jeduthun Josiah's after Israel and Judah were divided according to that Observation made by the Bishop neither were these Schools of the Prophets only in Israel but in Judah likewise was God known Page 463. 3. The Right of the Crown of Israel was not so fix'd to a Family but as Mr. Falkner owns God reserv'd to himself the Right of disposing the Soveraignty of that Kingdom By which as he would justify some Risings against Kings in Possession he must likewise admit that no Instances of Passive Obedience among the Jews can concern Governments more truly of Human Institution 4. For the Judicial Power it may be difficult to shew the King to have been more than the Head of the Sanhedrim and perhaps considering that the Law by which they were to judg was God's Law which the Priests Deut. 31.9 11. who bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord were to read to the People Exod. 28.29 30. the High Priest who was to bear the Judgment of the Children of Israel upon his Heart continually with his Vrim and Thummim the Breast-Plate of Judgment may bid fair for the chief Place in that Court And tho Moses their King Deut. 1.17 Vid. Dr. Heylin's Certamen Epistolare p. 290. Fortescue c. 1. p. 4. b. Moses call'd Dux Synagogae Orig. sacr p. 150. reserv'd to himself an Appeal from the Sanhedrim it will be difficult to shew that the Seer did not succeed him in that especially since he shews that his Right of being hearkened to or obey'd was as he was a Prophet and the present Bishop of Worcester holds that the Promise of a Prophet to be rais'd up to the People of Israel ought to be understood not only of Christ but also and more immediately of an Order or Succession of Prophets to be obey'd in all things 5. Whereas Mr. Falkner labours against Josephus Maimonides and Schickard to shew that the Kings of Israel might make Arbitrary War or War of choice without the Authority of the Sanhedrim he should have added or the Directions or allowance of any Prophet to have prov'd any thing to his purpose Falkner p. 97. and it will appear that the two Instances which he gives were from the Prophetical Power thus when he says Saul resolv'd upon War
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
particular Consideration of him to the second Part. TO proceed to positive Law I shall shew how the Contract between Prince and People stood and hath been taken both before the reputed Conquest and since Where 't will appear 1. That Allegiance might and may in some Cases be withdrawn in the Life-time of one who continued King until the occasion of such withdrawing or Judgment upon it 2. That there was and is an establish'd Judicature for this without need of recurring to that Equity which the People are suppos'd to have reserv'd 3. That there has been no absolute Hereditary Right to the Crown of England from the beginning of the Monarchy but that the People have had a Latitude for setting up whom of the Blood they pleas'd upon the Determination of the Interest of any particular Person except where there has been a Settlement of the Crown in force 4. That they were lately restored to such Latitude 5. The People of England have duly exercis'd their Power in declaring for King William and Queen Mary and recognizing them to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen 1. If the King not observing his Coronation-Oath in the main lose the Name of King then no Man can say that Allegiance continues But that so it was before the reputed Conquest appears by the Confessors Laws Vid. Leges Sancti Edwardi 17. de Regis Officio Nec nomen Regis in eo constabit where they declare the Duty of the King But the King because he is Vicar to the Supream King is constituted to this end that he should rule his Earthly Kingdom and the People of God and above all should reverence God's Holy Church and defend it from injurious Persons and pluck from it wrong Doers and destroy and wholly ruin them Vid. Bracton l. 2. c. 24. Est enim Corona Regis facere Justitiam Judicium tenere Pacem sine quibus non potest eā tenere which unless he does not so much as the Name of a King will remain in him c. To which Bracton seems to refer when he says The King cannot hold his Crown without maintaining Justice Judgment and Peace that therein consists his Crown or Royal Authority Hoveden shews how this Law was receiv'd by William 1. Hoveden f. 604. Rex atque Vicarius ejus Nota There was occasion for naming the Deputy by reason of the accession of Normandy requiring the King's Absence sometimes The King and his Deputy or Locum tenens in his Absence is constituted to this end c. in substance as above Which unless he does the true Name of King will not remain in him And as the Confessor's Laws have it in which there is some mistake in the Transcriber of Hoveden otherwise agreeing with them Pope John witnesses That he loses the Name of King who does not what belongs to a King which is no Evidence that this Doctrine is deriv'd from the Pope of Rome The Pope only confirms the Constitution or gives his Approbation of it Vid. The Case of Rehoboam inf in the Quotation out of Lord Clarendon f. 32. perhaps that the Clergy of those Times might raise no Cavils from a supposed Divine Right And to shew that this is not only for violating the Rights of the Church the Confessor's Laws inform us that Pipin and Charles his Son not yet Kings but Princes under the French King foolishly wrote to the Pope asking him if the Kings of France ought to remain content with the bare Name of King Lambert Qui vigilanter defendunt regunt Ecclesiam Dei Populum ejus By whom it was answer'd They are to be called Kings who watch over defend and rule God's Church and his People c. Hoveden's Transcriber gives the same in substance but through a miserable mistake in Chronology will have it that the Letter was written by Pipin and his Son to W. 1. Lambart's Version of St. Edward's Laws goes on to Particulars among others That the King is to keep without diminution all the Lands Honours Dignities Rights and Liberties of the Crown Barones Majores Minores Vita Aelfredi f. 62. Ego tria promitto populo Christiano meisque subditis c. That he is to do all things in his Kingdom according to Law and by the Judgment of the Proceres or Barons of the Realm and these things he is to swear before he is crown'd By the Coronation-Oaths before the reputed Conquest and since all agreeing in Substance every King was to promise the People three things 1. That God's Church and all the People in the Kingdom shall enjoy true (a) Nota Protection Peace 2. That he will forbid Rapine and all Injustice in all Orders of Men. 3. That he will promise and command Justice and Mercy in all Judgments And 't is observable that Bracton Bracton lib. 3. c. 9. who wrote in the time of H. 3. transcribes that very formulary or rather Abridgment of the Oath which was taken by the Saxon Kings In Bracton's time 't is certain the Oath was more explicit tho reducible to those Heads and 't is observable that Bracton says The King is created and elected to this end that he should do Justice to all Where he manifestly shews the King's Oath to be his part of a binding Contract it being an Agreement with the People while they had Power to chuse With Bracton agrees Fleta and both inform us Fleta lib. 1. c. 17. that in their days there was no scruple in calling him a Tyrant and no King who oppresses his People violatâ dominatione as one has it or violentâ as the other either the Rule of Government being violated or with a violent Government both of which are of the like import Mirror p. 8. The Mirrour at least puts this Contract out of dispute shewing the very Institution of the Monarchy before a Right was vested in any single Family or Person When forty Princes who had the Supream Power here chose from among them a King to reign over them and govern the People of God and to maintain the holy Christian Faith and to defend their Persons and Goods in quiet by the Rules of Right And at the beginning they caused the King to swear That he will maintain the holy Christian Faith with all his Power and will rule his People justly without regard to any Person and shall be obedient to suffer Right or Justice as well as others his Subjects And what that Right and Justice was in the last result the Confessor's Laws explain when they shew that he may lose the Name of King Vid. Seld. spicil ad Ead. merum f. 171. Dissert ad Flet. f. 591. Hoved. f. 608. Leges H. 1. confirming St. Edward ' s Laws Cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater meus emendavit consilio Baronum suorum Mat. Par. f. 243. Barones petierunt de Rege Johanne quasdam libertates Leges Regis Edwardi f.
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
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
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
Chief Justice were to be chosen by the like Consent and neither any of the Council nor other Officers were to be amov'd but by Order of the Majority of the Council or in full Parliament This they insist on as sworn at a Coronation of that King Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury being Sponsor for the King's Performance This Contract was certainly 20º H. 3. at his Third Coronation when he was Crown'd with his Queen newly married and had the Curtein carried before him to admonish him of the Consequence of a Breach Vid. inf That this was 20º when he was Thirty years old and in as flourishing a condition as at any time of his Reign till the chance of War had subjected his Barons to a more imperious Sway appears in that the Ceremonies of his first Coronation were perform'd by the Bishop of Winchester and Bath and Wells The second by Archbishop Stephen Ao 1220. in the third year after Lewis his departure which it seems was the first time that he was publickly receiv'd for King with an universal consent special notice being taken that the Coronation was in the presence of the Clergy and People of the whole Kingdom Besides Edmund was not Consecrated till the year 1234. 18º H. 3. and the Historian is express That Archbishop Edmund perform'd the Ceremonies of the Coronation 20o. There is farther Evidence that the Charter mention'd 28º H. 3. was granted 20º for it appears that the great Officers were appointed 20º according to the Charter which the Parliament 28º insist on as granted at a Coronation where Archbishop Edmund was present and undertook for the King's performance Mat. Par. f. 563 Officium Cancellariae Angliae omnia officia ordinata sunt quae Regia sunt Assise in scaccario unde Cancellarius Camerarius Mareschallus Constabularius sibi ibidem sedem sumpserunt ratione Officii sicut Barones omnes in sui Creatione Fundamentum in Civitate Londinensi unde quilibet eorum suum ibi locum sortitur Vid. Flet. lib. 2. cap. 26. Matthew Paris writing of the Twentieth says The Office of the Chancery of England and all Offices belonging to the Regal State and Sittings in the Exchequer were setled Whereupon the Chancellor Chamberlain Marshal Constable took their Seats there by reason of their Offices as all Barons at their Creation had their Foundation in the City of London Vid. inf 2d part This Right of Places at London in which 't is plain Westminster was then included seems to imply a Reason why the Acts of the Barons at London past both at home and abroad for the Acts of the Baronage of the Kingdom Hence the King of France Lewis his Father lookt upon their Invitation of his Son as the Binding Act of all accordingly he both demanded and had Four and twenty de Nobilioribus Regni Mat. Par. f. 373 Implorantes Patrem ut filium mitteret in Angliâ regnaturum Filium ut veniret illico Coronandus ' of the Chief Nobility of the Kingdom as Hostages for their performing what they had promis'd his Son which was the Crowning him King of England 3. The Third particular Contract was contained in the Provisions at Oxford 42º H. 3. which Provisions are Printed at large in the Annals of Burton and referr'd to in many Records now in the Tower Vid. Annales Burtonenses f. 412. Rot. Par. 42. H. 3. m. 3. Mat. Par. but the Record of the Provisions has been imbezled since Mr. Selden's time whose Abridgment of them I have seen There had been a Parliament that year at London met on Hoke-Tuesday a fortnight after Easter at that Parliament the King demanded Money the Parliament a redress of Grievances but nothing being concluded on the Parliament was Adjourn'd to Oxford the Barons having promis'd to give the King Supplies if He would Reform the State of the Kingdom which condition the King accepted of promising that the State of the Kingdom should be Reform'd by Twelve faithful persons of his Council chosen in that Parliament at London and Twelve others to be chosen by the Barons The Parliament meeting at Oxford according to the Adjournment Twelve were chosen by the Earls and Barons to be added to the Twelve before chosen of Counsel with the King These Twenty four chose Four of their own Number who named Fifteen to be a standing Council to the King And among the Regulations besides the choice of Officers and the Custody of the King's Castles it was provided That there should be Three Parliaments every year the first at the Octaves of St. Michael the second in Candlemas week Ke Treis Parlements seint par An. the third the first day of June To these Parliaments Twelve prodes homes honest legal men were to come for sparing the cost of the Commons and at other times when the King sent for them upon occasion to treat of the business of the King and the Kingdom and the Community were to hold for establish'd what these Twelve should do These might seem not to have been Parliaments to make Laws but Ordinances or Provisions in the Intervals and for sparing the trouble of more numerous Assemblies that they were but such as were known in after days by the name of Great Councils distinguish'd from Parliaments would seem by a Record of the time which is a Commission to Four Knights chosen according to the Provisions then made 42 H. 3. m. 3. De Inquisitionibus faciendis per singulos Comitatus Rex Aluredo de Lancaster Joan. de Rochford Joan. de Stroda Willo. de Raymes de Com. Dors cum nuper in PARLIAMENTO nostro apud Oxon. Communiter fuerit ordinatum c. Et inquisit inde fact sub sigillis vestris sigillis eorum per quos facta fuerint deferatis apud Westm in Octavis S ◠Mich. in propriis personis vestris liberand Consilio nostro ib. by Juries duly returned to enquire into all Abuses Enormities and Transgressions within the County of Dorset in the same form with others in the respective Counties throughout England The Inquisitions were to be returned at the Octaves of St. Michael the first Parliament appointed by those Provisions and this was at that very time to be brought to Westminster as one would think to be delivered into Parliament but it is in the Record said only To be delivered to our Council And I find that Writs issued out after the Parliament at Oxford Rot. Par. 42 H. 3. m. 1. Nus volens otroiens kece ke nostre Consel la greignure partie de eus ki est esluz par nus la commune de nostre Roiaume a fet ou fera a honir de dieu nostre foi pur le profit de nostre Roiame sicum il ordenera seit ferm establi in touts choses a tuz jourz Commandous a tuz noz faus leaus en la fei kil nous devient kil fermement teignent jurent a tenir
away all the evil Counsellors which the King perceiving again betook himself to the Tower But an agreement being made with some of the Barons by the Queens mediation the King having left the Tower in the Custody of one in whom he confided went a progress and found his Barons very quiet and peaceable but he soon discover'd that he was resolv'd to act without regard to the Provisions at Oxford Violently seiz'd several Castles and coming to Winchester displaced the Chief Justice and Chancellor which had been constituted by the Baronage F. 1335. the Barons met him at Winchester with a considerable Force upon which the King hastens again to the Tower of London The Barons one would have thought were now in a fair way of securing the performance of the last Contract made at Oxford but now the Clergy had their Game to play and acted it like Men who knew how to manage the Nation against its interest they keeping a correspondence with the Clergy of France were Authors of advice to the Barons That all things in difference should be referred to the Determination of the French King no doubt making the Barons believe that they had assurance of that King 's good Wishes for the Prosperity of England Both the King and Barons agreed upon the reference upon which as was to be expected the French King gave Sentence for the King against the Barons and for annulling the Statutes at Oxford with all Provisions Ordinances and Obligations thereunto belonging With this Exception that he intended not by that Sentence in the least to derogate from the Ancient Charter of King John granted to the Kingdom of England Qui habebant sensus exercitatos Which Exception says the Historian oblig'd the Earl of Leicester and others of sound Judgments to resolve firmly to keep the Statutes of Oxford which were founded upon that Charter And Matthew Paris condemns those as guilty of Perjury who upon this A fidelitate Comitis Leicestriae receded from their Faith to the Earl of Leicester who fought for Justice He grew so strong and so successful that the King came again to Terms with him and with the other Barons the Terms were these Mat. Par. f. 1327. That Henry his Brothers Son should be deliver'd out of Prison That all the Kings Castles throughout England should be put into the Custody of the Barons That the Provisions of Oxford should be inviolably observed That all Foreigners shall depart the Kingdom within a certain time excepting only them whose stay should be permitted by unanimous Consent as being faithful to the Kingdom Mat. Par. But notwithstanding all Pacts Promises and Oaths the King sends to have Windsor-Castle besieg'd but was disappointed by the Earl of Leicester After this a Parliament met at London in which several deserted the Earl and adher'd to the King so that he seem'd the strongest The Barons writ him a Submissive Letter declaring That they had no evil Intentions against his Person but complain of his Counsellors The King in his Answer justifies his Counsellors and says their Enemies are his The Barons on the King's side send a defiance to the others and particularly to the Earl of Liecester and to Gilbert de Clare Earl of Glocester and Hereford undertaking to prove them Traytors in the King's Court. Which Tryal the Barons thought they then had Reason to decline but the Barons offer the King 30000 l. for his Damage sustained by the War 1329. provided the Statute of Oxford may be observed but their Proposals not being accepted they came to a pitch'd Battel at Lewis wherein the King was totally routed and taken Prisoner and his Son Edward soon after yielded himself Upon which followed a form of Peace solemnly sworn to while the King and his Son were in Prison Pat. 48. H. 3. m. 6. dors but the Son making his Escape took the Advantage of a Difference between the Earls of Leicester and Glocester Vide Cave de Scriptoribus Eccles f. 716. His Character of that Bp. who animated the Barons Vir erat ut pietatem vitae Sanctimoniam reliquasque virtutes Christiano Praesule dignas praetermittam ingentis animi acris ingenii in re literariâ quantum ea ferebant tempora ad summum pen̄e apicem evectus totum encyclopediae circulum emensus in literis sacris pariter prophanis c. and over-powering Montfort gained an entire Victory at Evesham by the Death of that Earl who as Matthew Paris's Continuator tells us laid out himself for the Relief of the Poor the Assertion of Justice and the Right of the Kingdom and was incited to it by the Famous Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln who always affirmed that they who died in that Cause would be Martyrs The King being victorious no wonder that a Parliament called immediately upon it at Winchester condemned the Conquered for Rebels but it is evident that more Parliaments justified such as then were Rebels for being beaten Falkner's Christian Loyalty p. 349. and methinks Mr. Falkner does not argue with his usual fairness when he urges the unfortunate conclusion of the Barons Wars in the later end of H. 3. as sufficient evidence that if we look into the Records of the former ages we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an authority to bear arms against the King The Dictum de Kenelworth 51 H. 3. mentioned by him as an evidence of the sense of another Parliament besides that of Winchester is plainly an abatement of the rigours of that Parliament and was only a determination and award made after Simon Montfort the younger Vid. Brady's Hist f. 655. had submitted to any terms that should be imposed saving his Life and Limbs and excepting perpetual Imprisonment Mr. Falkner adds Anno 52. P. 351. The Statute of Marlbridge mentions it as a great and heavy mischief and evil that in the time of the late Troubles in England many Peers and others refused to receive Justice from the King and his Court as they ought to have done which is more expresly contained in the Original Latin than in the common English Translation Justitiam indignati fuerint recipere per dominum Regem curiam suam prout debuerunt consueverunt and did undertake to vindicate their own Causes of themselves P. 352. Now to declare that all Peers and all other Persons ought to have received Justice only from the King and his Courts and not to revenge themselves or be Judges in their own cases doth more especially condemn the entring into War its self which is an Undertaking founded upon a direct contrary Proceeding And thus we have a sufficient Censure in our English Laws upon that War against the King which those who have pleaded for the Lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms do account the most plausible Instance for their purpose as our Chronicles can furnish them with Answer But to any who consider
Salus Populi the preservation of Three Kingdoms is concern'd and in danger If then an Alteration of the Course of Descent in case of Necessity is so far from a Change of the Constitution that 't is by vertue of the Chief Fundamental Law the Salus Populi I hope it will be allowed That the Representatives of the People have upon the Vacancy of the Throne from a former Possessor which he yields to have been in the Case in question a right to judge wherein their own Safety lies Otherwise they have a Law of which they can have no benefit And since our Representatives have made so wise a determination they that do not submit to it may well be lookt upon as Persons who abdicate themselves from the benefit of this Government Nay further the Doctor confesses that for his part he knows no Law against the possibility either of a Vacancy in the Throne or an Interregnum in extraordinary Cases such as himself yields ours was But the remaining Question is Whether the Convention shewed that they meant such a Vacancy as caus'd an Interregnum Their Words as he observes are these P. 38 King James the second having Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby vacant So far he is in the right That the Convention went upon the Supposition of a Vacancy but their supposition did not make one neither did it make an Abdication But 't is evident that the supposition of the Vacancy as Consequent upon the Abdication was the Ground of setling the Government as it is and that they look'd upon the Vacancy as more than a freedom from the last Possessor appears by their preferring His Majesty in the Settlement Which preference had been justifiable even according to what the Doctor receives tho this King had not been of the Blood-Royal But for a farther Evidence The Stat. 1 W. M. for reviving of Actions and Process lately depending in the Courts of Westminster and Discontinued by the not holding of Hillary Term and for supplying other defects relating to proceedings at Law Consid touching the Oath in the Title page that the Throne was absolutely Vacant in the eye of the Law and so judg'd and declar'd to all Men by the Convention and Their Majesties concurring in a Parliamentary Act The Doctor may please to consider the Statute for Supplying defects relating to proceedings at Law Which provides that for Crimes committed between the 11 th of December and the 13 th of February following Informations or Indictments shall have only the year of our Lord God instead of the year of the King's Reign And where Conclusions used to be contra pacem Domini Regis they shall conclude contra pacem Regni Let not Divines therefore go to argue us out of our Government but let them submit to that Rule which Dr. Whitby cites Optima regula quâ nulla est verior aut firmior in jure neminem oportet esse sapientiorem Legibus Object 2 'T is urged That the Hereditary Right contended for has not been interrupted by the Peoples Elections so often as it should seem by the Breaches in the Succession for that many who came in before them who stood next were Testamentary Heirs of the appointment of the Predecessor Which argues an Inheritance in him that Disposes And Dr. Brady thinks he produces an Example Brady's Hist of the Succession f. 8 9. where the Election of the People was bound and limited by the nomination of the Predecessor But if he had duely weighed the Presidents of this kind he might have understood That an Election without a Nomination had full effect while a bare Nomination had none And he might have learnt from Grotius That among the Germans from whom we descend Kingdoms did not use to pass by Wills and that Wills were but Recommendations to the Peoples Choice but not Dispositions Mezray in the Life of Clotair 2. And that thus it was in France appears by their Historian Mezray who shews That anciently the King 's of France were chosen out of the Royal Race But that Three Conditions were ordinarily requir'd 1. Birth for they were to be Legitimate 2. The Will of the Father 3. The Consent of the Great Men which commonly used to follow the other two Object 3 I find it urged That as anciently as the time of E. 3. the Realm declared Vid. Debates about Deposing That they would not consent to any thing in Parliament to the Disherison of the King and his Heirs or the Crown whereunto they were Sworn Answ If any colour of evidence can be produced that the Subjects of England so early as that Swore Allegiance to the King and his Heirs this were to the purpose Knighton f. 248. Indeed I find that before this 24 E. 1 a Foreign Prince the King of Scotland Feudatory to the Crown of England did Homage to the King and his Heirs but the like not being exacted of the Subjects of England till particular Acts whereby the Crown was setled it argues strongly as indeed appears from the Subject matter That the Homage paid by a Foreign Prince was due to none but the present King and his Successor to the Kingdom whoever was next of Blood And by parity of Reason the Disherison of the King and him her or them who succeeded to the Crown was all that could be referr'd to when they urged the Obligation of their Oath to the King and his Heirs or the Crown Which appears farther Leges Sancti Edwardi tit Greve Conjurati fratres ad defendendum Regnum c. honores illius omni fidelitate cum eo servare So Leges W. 1. tit De Fide obsequio erga Regem Quod Willielmo Domino suo fideles esse volunt honores illius c. defendere Bracton Lib. 2. Cap. 29. not only from the old Oath of Allegiance to which they must needs have reference whereby they are bound to defend the Rights of the Crown but even from the Matter then in question which was not of the Right of Succession but of a Flower of the Crown Bracton puts this out of Dispute when he tells us That Inheritance comes not from an Heir but an Heir from Inheritance And that Inheritance is the Succession to all the Right which the Predecessor had by any sort of Acquisition Vid. Sir P. P. As Successors are Heirs so Dr. Brady tells us Gloss f. 18. That Prepossessor one that possessed the Land before the present possessor without any relation to Blood or Kindred is Ancestor in Doomsday and in the Writ de Morte Antecessoris Sir P. P's Obligation of Oaths f. 302. F. 298. F. 300. With Bracton agrees the Civil Law Haeredis significatione omnes significari successores credendum est etsi verbis non sint expressi By Heirs we are to believe all Successors to be signified altho' not expressed in words And again Nihil est aliud haereditas quam Successio in universum jus
quod defunctus habuit ' Inheritance is nothing else but Succession 'to all the Right which the deceased had Wherefore I cannot but wonder that so learned a Man as Sir P. P. should cite this to prove that Allegiance is due to the Heirs and Successors in a Legal Course of Descent That is as he explains or receives it out of Mr. Prynn by Proximity of Succession in regard of Line Nor is this Learned Man more fortunate in mentioning the Salvo which Littleton tells us is to be taken to the Oath of Homage to a Subject Salve la Foy que jeo doy a nostre Signior le Roy Sir P. P. f. 297. Littleton tit Homage Sect. 85. where there is not a word of Heirs But he tells us that Littleton cites Glanvil where the word Heirs is Whereas 't is the Lord Cook who makes the Quotation as he does of Bracton whose sense of the word Heirs we have seen And Littleton fully confirms it by leaving out the word Heirs as a Redundancy Allegiance being due to every one that becomes King and to no other But to put the Extent of Heirs to a King out of Controversy Popham 's Rep. f. 16 and 17. we have the resolution of all the Judges in B. R. in the time of Q. Eliz. on my side King R. 3. had granted certain Privileges to the Burgesses of Glocester with a saving to himself and his Heirs And it was agreed by all the Justices That although the words are saving to himself and his Heirs it shall be taken for a perpetual saving which shall go to his Successors This therefore they adjudged to reach the Queen who 't is well known was not Heir to R. 3. Object 4 The great Objection is That in the Contests for the Crown between the Families of York and Lancaster each side pretended Title by Proximity of Blood and as either prevail'd their Right was acknowledged to be according to God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature To which I answer As appears in the very Objection this was applied to those who had no Right of Proximity as well as to those who had And thus 't was to R. 3. as well as to E. 4. and even the Election of H. 4. after the Deposing and Relinquishing of R. 2. with his own express consent is by the same Parliament that says so much of the Title of E. 4. called an Usurpation upon R. 2. Wherefore if this Record be any way leading to our Judgments no Deposing or Resignation what ever be the Inducement can be of any force Whence 't is plain that all those are but Complements to the longest Sword However they neither set aside former Authorities nor establish any Right for the future at least not more for the Heirs of E. 4. than the Parliament of R. 3. did for His Heirs Yet whoever comes next by Right of Proximity according to any Settlement in being I will not deny that they enjoy the Crown according to God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature For Fortescue de laudibus legum Angliae c. 3. Jovian p. 253. as the great Fortescue has it All Laws published by Men have their Authority from God Upon which the Author of Jovian argues and supposes all Laws of Men to be the Laws and Ordinances of God Yet who can say but these Human Creatures or Ordinances of Men may be altered as they were made And thô it may seem strange to some yet I may with great Authority affirm That when the People had determined the Right on the side of R. 3. He was King as much according to God's Law as E. 4. For Peufendorf holds That where the Question is Peufendorf de Interregnis p. 288. Quod si dubitatur qui gradus aut quaelinea sitpotior declarata voluntas populi finem liti imponet c. What Degree or what Line is best The declared will of the People determines the Controversy since every one is presum'd to understand his own Intention And the people that is now is to be thought the same with that by which the Order of Succession was Constituted But let Men argue as nicely as they please for a Right or Sovereignty inseparable from the person of the next in Blood to the last Lawful King let this fall upon J. 2. the reputed Prince of Wales or any other person of unclouded Birth and Fame and let them argue upon the Declaration 1 E. 4. That Allegiance accordingly is due by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature Certain it is That the Statute 11 H. 7. abovementioned was not only made in an Age of greater Light but being a subsequent Law derogates from whatever is contrary in the former By this last it is declared to be against all Laws That Subjects should suffer for doing true Duty and Service of Allegiance to the King de facto Which is as much as if 't were expressed to be against God's Law Vid. 3 Inst f. 7. upon the Stat. of Treason 25 E. 3. referring in the Margin to this Statute This is to be understood of a King n possession of the Crown and Kingdom For if there be a King Regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto and not de jure yet He is Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute and the other who hath the Right and is out of possession is not within this Act. Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto and after the King de jure come to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto And a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void Man's Law and the Law of Nature By the necessary consequence of which Allegiance is due to a King de facto according to all these Laws Wherefore whoever denies Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary or maintains a contrary one to J. 2. offends against God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature Nor whatever some imagine can the Proviso at the end of this Statute in the least impair its force as to what I use it for The Proviso runs thus 11 H. 7. c. 1. Provided always That no person or persons shall take any benefit or advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Where said Allegiance shews it to be meant of Allegiance to the King de facto whose Service is called true Duty And no Man surely can think the meaning to be that if after such Service they turn to the other side or become Traitors to the present Power they shall suffer for the former Service as Traitors against him that had the Right either during the Reign of the King in being which would be an unlikely owning the Ejected Power or hereafter if that should come to be restor'd which would be far from answering the apparent end of the Clause which is
exaltationem Sanctae Ecclesiae pacem populi tenendam concessit c. King William being dead the Great Men of England not knowing what was become of Robert Duke of Normandy So R. 1. was call'd but Duke of Normandy till he was chosen King of England the deceased King's Elder Brother who had been five years at the Holy-war were fearful of wavering long without a Government Which when Henry the youngest Brother a very wise young Man cunningly observ'd the Clergy of England and all the people being assembled He promised an amendment of those Laws with which England had been oppressed in the time of his Father and his Brother newly deceas'd that he might stir up the minds of all to his promotion and Love and that they might receive him for King and Patron To these things the Clergy answering and then the Great Men That if with a willing mind he would Grant and Confirm with His Charter those Liberties and ancient Customs which flourish'd in the Kingdom in the time of Holy King Edward they would consent to have him and would unanimously consecrate him King And Henry freely consenting to this and affirming with an Oath that he would perform He was Consecrated King on our Lady day by the Consent of Clergy and People upon whose Head the Crown was immediately set by Maurice Bishop of London and Thomas Archbishop of York As soon as he was Crown'd He granted the under-written liberties for the exaltation of Holy-Church and preserving the Peace of the Kingdom Then follows his Charter containing some Alterations of the Law which had before obtained not only in relation to the Rights of the Crown but of the Subjects particularly whereas the Relief had been Cart. H 1. Siquis Baronum meorum Comitum vel aliorum qui de me tenent mortuus fuerit as Fines now in most Copy-hold Mannors at the Will of the Lords they were reduced to what was just and lawful according to St. Edward's Laws for which as should seem by the Charters of King John and H. 3. declaratory of the Common-Law there were known Rates and H. 1. restored all the Common-Law with the Statutes made for the amendment of it in the time of W. 1. He seem'd in two particulars wisely to have ingratiated himself with the people the first was in gaining to his side the Directers of their Consciences by a concession to the benefit of Church-men which was wholly new and that was That an Archbishop or Bishop or Abbat being dead Vid. Cart. H. 1. he would take nothing of the demean of the Church nor of its tenents until the Successor was inducted which was a departure from that Prerogative which belonged to the Crown upon the Vacancies as appears by the affirmation of H. 2. Vid. Anti. Brit. inf f. 135. Carta Johannis Haec omnia observentur de custodiis Arch. Episcopatuum Abbat Prior Eccles Dignitat vacantium quae ad nos pertinent c. Prerog Regis 17 E. 2. c. 14. the Charter of King John and the Statute of the King's Prerogative 17 E. 2. This Indulgence to the Church without special Provision for keeping it up was withdrawn by the next general Confirmation of the Confessor's Laws and therefore 't is no wonder that it is left out of subsequent Charters If he was not popular in this at least he was in another Action which was his imprisoning Ranulph who had been the great Instrument of oppression in the former Reign Mat. Par. f. 76. and that it was with intention of punishing him severely appears by Ranulph's making his escape out of Prison by means of those great Treasures which he had heaped up from the Spoils of the People Ranulph no doubt could at a much cheaper rate have applied himself to such a Lawyer as the Author of the Magistracy vindicated if such an one could have been found in that Age of less corruption Vid. the last part of the Magistracy and Government vindicated p. 8. I 'll not mention the Argument from the Vacancy that the Government was dissolved every thing reduced into its Primitive State of nature all Power devolved into Individuals and the particulars only to provide for themselves by a new Contract for if so there 's no new consent for punishment of Acts done before the dissolution and consequently revenge for that is at an end Vid. ib. p. 2. who might have advised him to rest satisfied that it would not be consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of a Prince who came in upon a Vacancy of the Throne as H. 1. did not standing next in the Line to punish any Criminals of the foregoing Reign but Ranulph was wiser in running away and perhaps more modest than to think that for his useful parts employed in the pillaging and destroying innocent men he might pretend to merit under the Successor H. 1. having truly shewn a Fatherly care of the people no man then raised any foolish scruple upon the manner of the Proceedings where the Substance was pleasing to all But that which has been done by them who could get together upon the intervals of Government has been held valid that the Vacancies might be as short as possible unless the general sense of the people has immediately appear'd against it and thus Harold having been Crown'd by surprize when the Friends of W. 1. were at the Confessors Buryal some Authors upon that very Account Vid. 2. part will have it that Harold was an Usurper But that it may be seen how little apt people are to dispute Forms when a King acts agreeably to the sense of a Nation I shall shew that H. 1. acted as King even before he was Crown'd immediately upon his Election for which Huntindon is my Author who having mentioned the death of W. 2. says Henricus frater ejus junior ibidem in Regem electus Hen. Huntin f. 216. b. de H. 1. dedit episcopatum Wincestriae W. Giffard pergensque Londoniam sacratus est ibi a Mauritio Londonensi Episcopo His younger Brother Henry being there chosen King gave the Bishoprick of Winchester to W. Giffard and going on to London was consecrated there by Maurice Bishop of London And I am much mistaken if what he did in relation to another Bishop Anselm who had been Archbishop of Canterbury in the time of W. 2. is not an additional evidence to what I have already produced that the Convention in which he was Crown'd was turn'd into a Parliament or acted as one Ordericus Vitalis says Anselmus enim Dorebornensis Archiep. exulabat Eadmerus f. 38 39 40. shews this was at a Council at Winchester ubi says he ex condicto venimus Mat. Far. f. 25. Trajacere quidem liberum esse sed inconsulte id facturum siquidem nullam revertendi spem in posterum ei futuram Eadmerus Anselm as appears by the circumstances of the story had been condemned to perpetual Banishment by Parliament in the time of
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
Obedience to Governours p. 75. Last Ed. p. 165. who hath such a former Right to govern the Vsurper as cannot lawfully be taken away so that it cannot be just for an Vsurper to take advantage of his own unlawful Acts or create himself a Title by continuation of his own Injustice which aggravates and never extenuates his Crime and if it never can be an Act indifferent for the Vsurper himself to disobey his Lawful Soveraign much less can it be indifferent for him to command another to do that to which he hath no Right himself So that Usurpation is the unjust taking away or dispossessing another of Power and for it to be unjust it must be the Act of a Subject against a Lawful Prince wherefore none but a Rebel can usurp this Man by continuance of his Injustice can never gain a Title Yet in another place in express terms he contradicts himself Directions for Obed. p. 155. last Ed. and affirms that he may and does not so much as take in Prescription in a Man and his Heirs against the Party dispossess'd and his Heirs to strengthen it and indeed that could not well be urg'd by him because that Directions for Obedience p. 70. last Ed. p. 158. he tells us comes in by positive Humane Laws which can signify nothing against any Grants or Gifts which have their Original from God or Nature as the Power of Kings and Fathers has But let 's take his words and see whether any thing can be a more direct Contradiction Anarchy p. 275. last Ed. p. 253. 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 Ministery of the wicked'st Men for the removing and setting up of Kings in such Cases the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along and wait upon God's Providence who only hath right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt Subjects into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power So that he makes a Government by wrongful Election or Conquest still to be the Fatherly Government and such as the People are bound to obey for he puts the case of the Usurpers being set up by others as well as his own Act. But the poor Prince it seems has in neither Case right to the Peoples Obedience and he avows the Conclusion which he condemns upon Mr. Hobbs his grounds Preface to Obs on Hobbs his Leviathan viz. The Rights of Soveraignty may be forfeited for the Subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a Conqueror unless his former Subjection be forfeited for want of Protection But he tells us the Subject is at liberty when the true Heir is dispossest Ergo. But he has a very fine Notion to evade the Consequence of Forfeiture and yet justify the Peoples Obedience to the Usurper Direct for Obed. to Government p. 72. If a Superiour cannot protect it is his part to desire to be able to do it which he cannot do in the future if in the present they be destroyed for want of Government therefore it is to be presum'd that the Superiour desires the preservation of them that should be subject to him and so likewise it may be presum'd that the Vsurper in general doth the Will of his Superiour by preserving the People by Government And it is not improper to say that in obeying an Vsurper we may obey primarily the true Superiour so long as our Obedience aims at the Preservation of those in subjection and not at the Destruction of the true Governour With this pious Intention and mental Reservation we may it seems obey an Usurper though the Prince have not forfeited his Right And yet he says The Subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a Conquerour unless his former Subjection be forfeited for want of Protection If by a Conquerour he means a Foreign Prince as by Usurper he means a Subject the Argument is much stronger that an Usurper ought not to be obey'd whereas he says he ought which cannot be unless the former Subjection be forfeited the first Vsurper he tells us has the best Title being in possession by the permission of God But if he be dispossest the second or last has a better than what continues with the first or his Heirs if the People are adopted into another fatherly Power Yet according to this substratum there can be no Title but what comes in a more natural way from Fatherhood Pref. to Observ on Arist for Adam being commanded to multiply and people the Earth and to subdue it and having dominion given him over all Creatures was thereby Monarch of the whole World none of his Posterity had any right to possess any thing but by his Grant or Permission or by Succession from him The Earth saith the Psalmist hath he given to the Children of Men. Which shews most plainly to one of sublimated reason that the Title comes from Fatherhood For it could not have been given to the Children diffusively unless they had a Father for if there had been no Father there could be no Child I must confess I know no Man who has a better faculty of arguing against himself I thought he was for the Absolute Power of every King within his own Dominion that is his drift if he be steady to any Design but Confusion yet he directly opposes it and is only for one King over all and therefore he says When we find Patriarcha p. 17. that in the time of Abraham which was about 300 Years after the Flood in a little Corner of Asia five Kings at once met in Battel most of which were but Kings of Cities a-piece c. We must conclude that these were but some petty Lords under One great King For since Nature hath not distinguish'd the habitable World into Kingdoms Anarchy p. 268 nor determin'd what part of a People shall belong to one Kingdom and what to another it follows that the Original Freedom of Mankind being suppos'd every Man is at liberty to be of what Kingdom he pleases and so every petty Company hath a right to make a Kingdom by it self and not only every City but every Village and every Family nay and every particular Man a liberty to chuse himself to be his own King if he please and he were a Mad-man that being by Nature free would chuse any Man but himself to be his own Governour Thus to avoid the having but of one King of the whole World we shall run into a liberty of having as many Kings as there are Men in the World His Argument if he makes any is this If Mankind were free by Nature there would be as many Kings as there are Men in the World but they are not free Therefore there is but One King of the whole World nor can it ever be otherwise Anarchy p. 266 For the Monarchical Power of Adam the Father of all Flesh was
Blood was always chosen but the next in Lineal Succession very seldom is evident from the Genealogies of the Saxon Kings from an old Law made at Calchuyth appointing how and by whom Kings shall be chosen and from many express and particular Accounts given by our old Historians of such Assemblies held for Electing of Kings Now such Assemblies could not be Summon'd by any King and yet in conjunction with the King that themselves set up they made Laws binding the King and all the Realm Thirdly After the Death of King William Rufus Robert his Elder Brother being then in the Holy Land Henry the youngest Son of King William the First procur'd an Assembly of the Clergy and People of England to whom he made large promises of his good Government in case they would accept of him for their King and they agreeing That if he would restore to them the Laws of King Edward the Confessor then they would consent to make him their King He swore that he would do so and also free them from some Oppressions which the Nation had groan'd under in his Brothers and his Fathers time Hereupon they chose him King and the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of York set the Crown upon his Head Which being done a Confirmation of the English Liberties pass'd the Royal Assent in that Assembly the same in substance though not so large as King John's and King Henry the Third's Magna Charta's afterwards were Fourthly After that King's Death in such another Parliament King Stephen was Elected and Mawd the Empress put by though not without some stain of perfidiousness upon all those and Stephen himself especially who had sworn in her Father Life-time to acknowledg her for their Sovereign after his decease Fifthly In King Richard the First 's time the King being absent in the Holy Land and the Bishop of Ely then his Chancellor being Regent of the Kingdom in his Absence whose Government was intolerable to the People for his Insolence and manifold Oppressions a Parliament was convened at London at the Instance of Earl John the King's Brother to treat of the great and weighty Affairs of the King and Kingdom in which Parliament this same Regent was depos'd from his Government and another set up viz. the Arch-Bishop of Roan in his stead This Assembly was not conven'd by the King who was then in Palaestine nor by any Authority deriv'd from him for then the Regent and Chancellor must have call'd them together but they met as the Historian says expresly at the Instance of Earl John And yet in the King's Absence they took upon them to settle the publick Affairs of the Nation without Him Sixthly When King Henry the 3 d. died his Eldest Son Prince Edward was then in the Holy Land and came not Home till within the third Year of his Reign yet immediately upon the Father's Death all the Prelates and Nobles and four Knights for every Shire and four Burgesses for every Borough Assembled together in a great Council and setled the Government till the King should return Made a new Seal and a Chancellor c. I inferr from what has been said that Writs of Summons are not so Essential to the being of Parliaments but that the People of England especially at a time when they cannot be had may by Law and according to our Old Constitution Assemble together in a Parliamentary way without them to treat of and settle the Publick Affairs of the Nation And that if such Assemblies so conven'd find the Throne Vacant they may proceed not only to set up a Prince but with the Assent and Concurrence of such Prince to transact all Publick Business whatsoever without a new Election they having as great Authority as the People of England can delegate to their Represantatives II. The Acts of Parliaments not Formal nor Legal in all their Circumstances are yet binding to the Nation so long as they continue in Force and not liable to be questioned as to the Validity of them but in subsequent Parliaments First The two Spencers Temp. Edvardi Secundi were banished by Act of Parliament and that Act of Parliament repealed by Dures Force yet was the Act of Repeal a good Law till it was Annull'd 1 Ed. 3. Secondly Some Statutes of 11 Rich. 2. and Attainders thereupon were Repealed in a Parliament held Ann. 21. of that King which Parliament was procur'd by forc'd Elections and yet the Repeal stood good till such time as in 1 Henry 4. the Statutes of 11 Rich. 2. were revived and appointed to be firmly held and kept Thirdly The Parliament of 1 Hen. 4. consisted of the same Knights Citizens and Burgesses that had served in the then last dissolved Parliament and those Persons were by the King's Writs to the Sheriffs commanded to be returned and yet they passed Acts and their Acts though never confirmed continue to be Laws at this day Fourthly Queen Mary's Parliament that restored the Popes Supremacy was notoriously known to be pack'd insomuch that it was debated in Queeen Elizabeth's time whether or no to declare all their Acts void by Act of Parliament That course was then upon some prudential Considerations declined and therefore the Acts of that Parliament not since repealed continue binding Laws to this day The reason of all this is Because no inferiour Courts have Authothority to judge of the Validity or Invalidity of the Acts of such Assemblies as have but so much as a colour of Parliamentary Authority The Acts of such Assemblies being Entred upon the Parliament-Roll and certified before the Judges of Westminster-Hall as Acts of Parliament are conclusive and binding to them because Parliaments are the only Judges of the Imperfections Invalidities Illegalities c. of one another The Parliament that call'd in King Charles the Second was not assembled by the King 's Writ and yet they made Acts and the Royal Assent was had to them many of which indeed were afterwards confirmed but not all and those that had no Confirmation are undoubted Acts of Parliament without it and have ever since obtained as such Hence I Infer that the present Convention may if they please assume to themselves a Parliamentary Power and in conjunction with such King or Queen as they shall declare may give Laws to the Kingdom as a legal Parliament ALLEGATIONS In behalf of the High and Mighty Princess THE LADY MARY NOW Queen of Scots Against the Opinions and Books set forth 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 London Printed by J. D. in the Year 1690. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER I Thought it not improper to subjoin the following Treatise written by a Lawyer in Queen Elizabeth's Time whether ever printed or no I cannot say in favour of the Title of the Queen of Scots against the Pretences of the Lady Katherine descended from the
Peace when he judges it fitting notwithstanding Mens Oaths to defend all the Regal Priviledges they were not bound to defend this especially if the War were against Protestants in which case the Subject would take to himself the Judgment of the Justice or Expedience of the War as much as others do of the necessity of resisting Or suppose yet farther that the late King had discharged his Mercenaries and commanded the Militia by Law establish'd for the Defence of the Kingdom to march and fight against his present Majesty had not this been a legal Command The King 's legal Commands he agrees with me that we are bound to obey yet he with all agrees that it was unlawful to assist the late King against This before he was crown'd How then can the matter be adjusted without yeilding that the late King lost his Regal Power by assuming a Tyrannical one This may suffice to shew that they who resisted the late King did it not out of Principles either Anti-christian or Anti-monarchical and that they who are for the non-resisting Doctrine as it past for current in the last Reign and the foregoing and yet pretend a Zeal for the present Government do but daub with untempered Mortar and as they were not to contribute to the late Revolution so much as in their Prayers but on the contrary were to pray for the late King's Victory over all his Enemies and in effect that God would keep and strengthen him in his Kingdom as well as in that Worship which they could not but know not to be God's true Worship So if that misguided Prince should desert Ireland and return into their Arms for a Punishment of those Opinions which occasioned his Ruine their pretended Loyalty to this King if they prove true to their Principles must fall to the ground And the least puff of Wind adverse to us but prosperous to the Jacobites would blow up that Fire covered with deceitful Ashes to the extinguishing of which I shall readily devote my Service The Lay-Gentleman who has extorted my Reflections by his indecent Censure of the Subjects of this Monarchy who contributed towards the late Revolution thinks it clear that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience is no way concern'd in the Controversies now depending between the Friends and no Friends if not Enemies to their present Majesties having in his vain Imagination put it past question that the Williamites were neither good Subjects under the late Administration nor good Christians and true Members of the Church of England And that his good Christians and true Members are the only Persons whose Principles may be relied on now Yet since he will have the Sense of the Church to be known from the Cry of the Clergy and a Bishop supposed to be a Martyr for it may be presum'd to give the Sense of that Truth which he would be thought to attest to the last If this Gentleman will not hear me let him hear the Church for his Conviction in this matter The late Bishop of Chichester's Paper BEing called by a sick and I think a dying Bed and the good Hand of God upon me in it to take the last and best Viaticum the Sacrament of my dear Lord's Body and Blood I take my self obliged to make this short Recognition and Profession That whereas I was baptized into the Religion of the Church of England and sucked it in with my Milk I have constantly adhered to it through the whole course of my Life and now if so be the Will of God shall die in it and I had resolved through God's Grace assisting me to have dy'd so tho at a Stake And whereas that Religion of the Church of England taught me the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive-Obedience which I have accordingly inculcated upon others and which I took to be the distinguishing Character of the Church of England I adhere no less firmly and stedfastly to that and in consequence of it have incurred a Suspension from the Exercise of my Office and expected a Deprivation I find in so doing much inward Satisfaction and if the Oath had been tendred at the Peril of my Life I could only have obey'd by Suffering I desire you my worthy Friends and Brethren to bear Witness of this upon occasion and to believe it as the Words of a dying Man and who is now engaged in the most Sacred and Solemn Act of conversing with God in this World and may for ought he knows to the contrary appear with these very Words in his Mouth at the dreadful Tribunal Manu propriâ subscripsi Johannes Cicestrensis This Profession was read and subscribed by the Bishop in the Presence of Dr. Green the Parish Minister who administred Dr. Hicks Dean of Worcester Mr. Jenkin his Lordship's Chaplain Mr. Powell his Secretary Mr. Wilson his Amanuensis who all communicated with him Here 't is observable 1. That the Bishop as fallible as an inferior Clergy-man died in that Opinion which he had profess'd and inculcated in his Life-time so warmly and so often that himself believ'd it Tho it may be a Question Whether he would on his Death-bed have affirmed as he had done in his Pulpit where Mens Affirmations ought to be as solemn as at the last moments of Life Sermon at Tunbridg That they could not enter into Heaven without particular Repentance who in derision were called Ignoramus Jury-men because they would enquire into the Credibility of Witnesses and scorned to enslave themselves to the Directions of Judges or more powerful Influences from White-hall And tho it seems the Tower had not wean'd him from his fondness of Passive Obedience perhaps it did from that which he had express'd towards our then Court's firm League with France while he believ'd it design'd to curb none here but the Fanaticks Vid. the Defence of his Profession concerning Passive Obedience and the new Oaths Ed. Anno 1690. These severe Truths tho in proof beyond Contradiction I should gladly let lie buried with him were not his Ghost still kept walking to do Mischief And if the Authority of a Man's Person or Office shall without any other ground be set up to condemn the far greatest number of Persons of at least equal Credit and Station it is no more than requisite to shew that this Man is not more than others exempted from Errors and the common Incidents to Humanity 2. The Bishop shews that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which he had inculcated as the Doctrine of the Church of England and which he found himself oblig'd to propagate at his Death is so far concern'd in the Controversies now depending that upon the account or in consequence of holding to it he had incurr'd Suspension and expected Deprivation for not taking the Oath of Allegiance to our present King and Queen wherein he abundantly confutes our Son of the Church And all the Authority which can be deriv'd from the Bishop's Dying-Declaration to prove the Doctrine of Passive Obedience
true Members of the Church of England may be allowed to act without any regard to that Principle which vvould distinguish us from all other Protestants And how much soever some may be concern'd to keep up the Distinction 't is to be hoped that we shall be more wise and more true to the Interest of the Church universal If as the Bishop says the Religion of the Church of England has taught this and this is the distinguishing Character of this Church vvill not Men say that he makes this Church to have a Religion as well as Ceremonies of its own The Mischief of Separation A Prelate more deservedly eminent tells us That the sign of the Cross is the Right of Admission into the Church of England as Baptism into the Catholick But according to this Bishop the Admission into our Church ought to be upon the Condition of subscribing this Doctrin Jovian p. 227. speaking of the Church of England and himself It is she that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a Parasite Sycophant and Murderer Poor Man he suck'd it in with his Mothers Milk which his God-fathers and God-mothers were to have promis'd and vow'd in his Name And then tho he had not like Dr. H. who perhaps herein played the Plagiary from Jovian suck'd in this Religion with his Milk he might well have been baptiz'd into it The Reasons of this Bishop's maintaining and endeavouring to propagate his Opinion to the Disturbance of our present Settlement next to his Obligations to the late King which the first misunderstanding was not to erace were apparently 1. The sourness of the Milk which he had suck'd in from his Nurse or Mother which is known to have a great influence upon the Constitution of the Body and that upon the Mind insomuch that Mr. Dreyden and some other such Philosophers have insinuated that the Soul is nothing else but the Temperament of the Body 2. The prejudice of his Education whereby he was taught to believe this to be part of his Baptismal Vow Which being the only Reason that he has thought fit to bless us with as judging it sufficient in following this Episcopal Authority he who was bred a Pagan ought to be a Pagan still And if we believe a topping Divine of the Church of England Vid. Warley's natural Fanatick dedicated to the then Chancellor of England F. the Pagans can produce better Reasons for their Infidelity not only than any we have yet had for this distinguishing Piece of Religion but than can be brought for Belief in the true God without having recourse to the Scriptures interpreted by the Church But the Church which he complemented being the Church of England the Popery of his Notion went down very glibly at that time as the Authority of this single Bishop does with many now 3. The Weakness of his Judgment which is obvious not only in the wording his dying-Paper in such a manner as either condemns his own Church of Singularity or all others of Corruption in departing from that Religion which she alone has the honour to profess but farther yet if he were in his sound Mind at the subscribing his own or Dr. H. his Confession of Faith he would have reflected that tho he might have done enough to quiet his own Mind he had not us'd due means for informing himself of what he ought to press upon others as a necessary matter of Belief having debated it either with Divines who are but second-hand Casuists for this or else with Lay-men of the Gentleman's Opinion who would maintain the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and yet exclude it out of the Controversy which it has rais'd and keeps up I speak not this without grounds for in debate with a Divine of our Church whose great Worth Learning Moderation and Integrity have justly rais'd him above all degrees in Station the Bishop did frankly confess that he believ'd the Question to issue in a Point of Law And for his Satisfaction he had discours'd with a certain eloquent Person whom he nam'd suppos'd to have suck'd in Law with his Milk as the Bishop did his new Divinity nurss'd up since Queen Elizabeth's days But this Person being one who has acted upon the same Principle and makes it his Glory not to have his Opinion alter'd by his place I think no Man who observes what lame work the Lay-Gentleman has made of endeavouring to reconcile the Doctrine of Passive Obedience with Submission to our present Government will wonder that he could not receive Satisfaction from one who held the same Premises with himself but denies the Conclusion This ground for the Bishop's Pertinaciousness I must own is not evident to all but his consulting Dr. H. is who I may well say is hardened and steel'd in his Profession beyond hopes of Conviction since by the Writer of this Vid. Letter to Jovian Ed. An. 1683. p. 14. he was long since admonish'd of having shamefully abus'd those Authorities on which he relied and of having by his Concessions and Contradictions fully set aside all that he would enforce and this at a time when this Writer ran the utmost hazard by exposing a Man thought so highly to have serv'd them who were in Power and called themselves the Government And when the Doctor by refuting the Objections might have had the Reward as vvell as boast of a Triumph Yet for the Comfort of them vvhom he then trampled upon he had disabled himself of his Sting vvhile he quitted the Authority of a Preacher of God's Law for a partial Reporter and Expounder of Man's His Errors or Perversions as far they concern our present Controversy and Government may be reduced to two Heads 1. The Estate in the Crown and Derivation of it 2. The Rights or Prerogatives of the Crown 1. For the first he says this Kingdom is originally hereditary Preface Pag. 13.11.9.78.5.53.60 Jov. p. 38. Pag. 25. Preface Pag. 55. in an inalienable indivisible lineal Succession by the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government ty'd to the next of the Blood Or as he has it elsewhere fix'd in one Family and lineally descending in Proximity of Blood With this Hereditary Monarchy an Interregnum or Vacancy of the Throne is inconsistent as also its descending upon two Heirs at once The Succession vvhich he describes he says is from God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordain'd that it should come to one of them after the Decease of another according to Birth-right and Proximity of Blood Pag. 58. But God's Providential Appointment of one to reign he grants not of it self to carry the Right beyond the Person in Possession by such Appointment Wherefore tho God's Providence had often given the Roman Empire to a Man and some of his lineal Descendants after him he contends Pag. 46. that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary but Elective by the Suffrage
of the Legions and the Consent of the Senate according to the Custom of the Empire And so was in his Sense a Republican sort of Monarchy Pag. 52. and Heirs says he among them is to be taken in the Sense it then had for chosen or constituted Heirs or Successors But the first rise of the Custom concurring with God's Providence to fix the Crown here Pref. p. 7. he makes to be the reputed Norman Conquest which first brought in this limited way of hereditary Succession unto one Line This I take to be a true and full Scheme of his Notion upon this Head whereby it appears That it wholly condemns our present Settlement Pref. p. 56. as against that absolute Right or Birth-right to exclude vvhich even in Reversion he says would be to oppose the Will of God And yet till he disprove what I shall offer against the belief of a Conquest made by W. 1. or shew either that Custom or Constitution which proves that the Crown of England has so much as since the supposed Conquest been strictly and indivisibly tied to him or her who either was in Possession or expected it as next of Blood I may affirm that according to his own Hypothesis God has not so given it in his Providence I vvould desire no greater scope to prove our Government to be fundamentally an Elective Monarcy keeping within a Family but not confin'd to the next of Blood than he takes to prove the Roman Empire to be Elective Nor vvould I desire any other Justification of the present Oath of Allegiance notwithstanding the former to the King his Heirs and Successors than what himself vvould allow of in the Roman Empire But if God has by his Providential Appointment transferred our Allegiance to our present Soveraigns Vid. the Preface to Predictions concerning this Government and no such Original Constitution or Custom as is pretended can be produced which I have formerly evinced and more at large in the following Treatise the Doctor 's Foundation of unalterable Allegiance to the last King failing 't is odds but an Agreement between a King with the Lords and a full Representative of the Commons of England will bid fairer for being according to the Original Constitution of our Government than the Doctor 's fancied Fundamental and indivisible Entail of the Crown If Conquest only without any Original Entail by the Conqueror or Consent of the Conquer'd has fix'd it to the next of Blood tho in truth the Providential Appointments till the Settlements occasioned by the Quarrels between the two Roses have generally been otherwise then 't is plain that this is such a Right as may be entirely lost by the conquer'd Possessor And as Will 1. conquer'd Harold tho he did not conquer the Kingdom Vid. inf having been design'd Successor in the Confessor's time and after invited by the Clergy chiefly and coming to a speedy Agreement with all in general So this King conquer'd the late for he who runs away without fighting is at least as much conquer'd as he who fights and is beaten nay in truth more absolutely for he that is beaten generally gets some Terms for himself whereas the other dares not stay to take them 2. As to the Rights or Prerogatives of the Crown by such an impious vvay of using Quotations as he unduly charges upon the Lord Hollis he goes about to prove that all that Soveraign Power by which the Nation is govern'd which must be equally absolute in all independent Governments in which sense all Crowns that are not Feudatory or any ways under a Foreign Power are Imperial is by our Constitution vested solely in the Person of the King In the English Government Pag. 240. says he tho the House of Commons bears the shew of a Democracy and the Peers look like an Aristocracy among us yet our Government is a perfect Monarchy because the Supream Power is as I have proved neither in the one nor in the other nor in both together but solely in the Person of the King Vid. Grot. de summâ potestate subjecto potestatis modo habendi potestatem Where he is not satisfied to have the Supream Power in the King in a supream manner so as neither Commons nor Lords nor both have it equally or co-ordinately but nothing less than the absolute manner will answer his Scheme as will appear farther I was the more willing says he to make this Observation that when I speak of Soveraign Princes Jov. p. 240. I may not be maliciously traduced as if I spoke of them exclusively of other Soveraigns as if Monarchy were of sole Divine Right For want of this Distinction other Writers have had this invidious Imputation laid upon them But this Reason of not resisting the Soveraign because he is God's Vicegerent and only subject to him is a common Reason of Passive Obedience to all Soveraigns as well as unto Kings and unto Kings as well as unto any other Soveraigns c. If the Government of Men as well as Angels be from God then it must follow That upon whomsoever God is understood to bestow the Soveraign Authority he must also be understood to bestow upon him all the essential Rights of Soveraignty 'T is manifest that this is upon Supposition that God has bestowed the Soveraignty absolutely for otherwise every one who has the Name of Soveraign would be equally entitled to all the Rights And where God has not bestowed all the Essential Rights 't is as evident that he has not bestowed the Soveraignty absolutely Accordingly himself owns Pag. 239. that the Soveraign must be always understood the real and compleat Soveraign because there are many seeming Soveraigns which are not really such and instances in the Kings of Sparta subject to the Ephori who being appointed by the People he says The People themselves were the real Soveraign next under God Upon which some may ask Whether if our Constitution in some case warrant taking up Arms without or against Command from the King that may not be done by the Authority vested in the People for preserving the Constitution without using the traiterous Position that the King's Authority may be turn'd against his Person And whether if there be such a real Soveraignty lodg'd with them to that end and the Constitution likewise in some Cases discharges Allegiance and makes the Person to whom it was sworn cease to be King this Right can be alter'd or diminish'd by the Declaration that it is not lawful to take up Arms against the King But to proceed with the Doctor Pag. 242. In all Soveraign Governments Subjects must be Slaves as to this particular they must trust their Lives and Liberties with their Soveraign Which with us he supposes he had prov'd to be the King according to all the Rights of absolute or compleat Soveraignty And having started up an Imperial Law or Common Law of Soveraignty Pag. 202. for the evacuating
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
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 HAving sufficient Experience of the Consequences of being always on the Forlorn Hope tho in the noblest Cause I should yeild to the Justice of my Friend 's kind Rebuke for engaging in so many unprofitable Battels wherein they who have raised neither Envy nor Provocation are suffered to carry away the Prize by the Consent of Friends as well as Enemies were it not that he who is mercenary and fights for Pay or for Spoil can be no fit Votary to Truth which may sometimes be consistent with Mens Worldly Interest rarely advances it but can never vary with it while they who court Truth for the Dowry are often driven to Inconsistences with her and themselves and must be content to serve themselves of her thinnest Disguises Which I take to be the case of them who pretend to justify this Government upon any other bottom than that on which it really stands and may flourish in spite of open Enemies if it be duly arm'd against false Friends who ground it upon their own Fictions and flattering Schemes prepared in times with which they suited and were but like the Hypotheses of Philosophers to answer the then present Phaenomena Such Men valuing their own Reputation and Interest too much above the Publick expose it to the Contempt of the more subtile Adversaries Vid. Considerations offered for taking the Oath of Allegiance said to be Dr. Whitby's reflected upon in a Treatise call'd The Charity and Loyalty of some of our Clergy who cannot but smile to see Quietism prevail in Allegiance as well as in Devotion and them to pretend to discharge the Duty of Subjects and to deserve Protection from the Government who not only make resisting the late King damnable which implies a scrupling to defend that Government which protects them but broadly insinuate that no personal Assistance is due to keep the King and Queen in their Station even tho they have sworn Allegiance to them which shews what is to be thought of some Mens Promise constantly to pay that Fidelity and Allegiance which they have all sworn When the fit of Quietism is over and the opportunity inviting they may in the sense of some of the Brethren with a safe Conscience fight for their King de Jure Wherein it is evident that no Provision is made for the Safety of this Government but only for securing to themselves their Places of Profit under it yet no Man can believe that the Law which requires the Oath of Allegiance can give the least scope for so gross an Evasion so serviceable to that pretence of Title which it rejects Vid. The Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience not concerning the Controversy Vid. the Preface Nor will the Jacobites be less thankful for their Doctrine who not only condemn all those whose active Zeal help'd to turn the Scale against them but allow no Title in our King unless it be by a real Conquest of the Nation or legal Succession in the Line The first of which the King not only disowns and the People would be loth to fight to maintain over themselves but according to the Objection in Elementa Politica Vid. Elementa Politica would have required a formal Denunciation of War And the last labours with such Difficulties as few can be able to resolve themselves or others in But as I am verily perswaded that our Government stands upon such a Rock as has been unmov'd for many Ages and has no need of a Lie for its Support I shall with the utmost Faithfulness address my self to its Defence wherein if I offend some of contrary Sentiments I must entreat them to answer me like Men with Reason and Authority and not in those Methods wherein they have hitherto been too successful All the Opposers of our present Settlement who pretend to talk Sense when press'd home grant that the Constitution of the English Government must be the Guide to their Consciences in this matter And tho I cannot commend those Justices of the Peace who permitted a Divine Thomas Lessey Rector of Laurence Lyddeard in Somersetshire Eminent in his Country and an Example to others to read a Protestation before his taking the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary yet I ought not to reject his Testimony that Lawyers are the best Directers of Conscience in this case The words according to a Copy of his written Paper now in my hand transmitted from the Country were these I am assured by Learned Men in the Law whom I have consulted as the best Directers of my Conscience of this case This was at last Christmas-Sessions for the County Sir Edward Philips being Chair-man that by the Laws of this Nation the Allegiance of the Subject is due to a King in Fact or in Possession of the Government provided they have been recognized by the three Estates of the Kingdom in a Publick Convention I am fully convinced of the Truth of this And this is a Reason prevails with me to swear Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary The great Unhappiness of this Nation is that Divines not only set up for the greatest States-Men but will pretend to be the best Lawyers and Casuists in these Points of which the truest Friends to them and the Church have complained Thus the late Earl of Clarendon having in his excellent Book against Mr. Hobbs Lord Clarendon's Survey of the Leviathan p. 75. tax'd some Divines of malicious Endeavours to render Monarchy insupportable by the unlimited Affections and Humours and Pretences and Power of a single Person Says others of them believe as unreasonably that the Disposition Natures and Hearts of the People cannot be applied to the necessary Obedience towards their Princes nor their Reverence and Duty be so well fix'd and devoted to them as by thinking that THEY HAVE NOTHING OF THEIR OWN but whatever they enjoy they have only by the Bounty of the King who can take it from them when he pleases Whatever such Casuists hold of the absolute and inseparable Soveraignty of Princes if I prove that King William and Queen Mary are Rightful King and Queen according to the ancient Constitution of the English Government how much soever my Endeavours of real Service to the Croâ—… may be misrepresented by Men of another Allegiance I shall hope at least to be thought to have served my Country too much infected with wrong Notions or distracted with false Mediums and to have done Justice to our Great Deliverer and those English Worthies who invited or embraced the Deliverance and by their steady adhering to the Interest of their Country avoid that Forfeiture of Protection which too many have incurred To which end I shall shew 1. That the People of England had a rightful Power lodg'd with them for the
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 FOR the Equity and reserv'd Cases I think it appears in the nature of the thing that they for whose benefit the Reservation is must be the Judges as in all Cases of Necessity he who is warranted by the Necessity must judg for himself before he acts tho whether he acts according to that Warrant or no may be referr'd to an higher Examen But where the last Resort is there must be the Judgment which of necessary Consequence in these Cases must needs be in the People the Question being of the Exercise of their Original Power and where they have by a general Concurrence past the final Sentence in this case their Voice is as the Voice of God and ought to be submitted to The late Earl of Clarendon Survey of the Leviathan p. 86. speaking even of a Contract wherein the absolute Power of a Man's Life is supposed to be submitted says He was not bound by the Command of his Soveraign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable Offices but in such cases Men are not to resort so much to the Words of the Submission as to the Intention which Distinction he will have applicable to all that monstrous Power which Mr. Hobbs gives his Governour to take away the Lives and Estates of his Subjects without any Cause or Reason upon an imaginary Contract which if never so real can never be supposed to be with the Intention of the Contractors in such Cases * Cocceius de Principe p. 197. Leges fundamentales Regni vel Imperii quae vel disertè pactae sunt cum Principe antequam imperium ineat c. Cocceius holds the fundamental Laws of any Kingdom or Empire to be not only those for which there has been an express Contract with a Prince before or upon his assuming the Government but such also as seem tacitè inesse rei publicae to be implied as belonging to every Community or Civil Society For the direction of Mens Judgments in such Cases they need not consult voluminous Authors but may receive sufficient Light from those excellent Papers The Enquiry into the present State of Affairs The Grounds and Measures of Submission and The brief Justification of the Prince of Orange ' s Descent into England and of the Kingdom 's late Recourse to Arms. Which I shall here only confirm by some Authorities The first as being of most Credit among them who raise the greatest Dust Sanderson de Juramenti obligatione p. 41. shall be Bishop Sanderson Of the Obligation of an Oath who shews several Exceptions or Conditions which of Common Right are to be understood before an Oath can oblige in which I shall not confine my self to the Order in which he places them 1. If God permit because all things are subject to the Divine Providence and Will Nor is it in any Man's Power to provide against future Accidents Wherefore he who did what lay in him to perform what he promis'd has discharg'd his Oath 2. Things remaining as they now are Whence he who swore to marry any Woman is not oblig'd if he discovers that she is with Child by another These two Exceptions sufficiently warrant Submission to such Government as God in his Providence shall permit notwithstanding Oaths to a former King And if he cease to treat his People as Subjects the Obligation which was to a Legal King determines before his actual withdrawing from the Government 3. As far as we may as if one swear indefinitely to observe all the Statutes and Customs of any Community he is not oblig'd to observe them farther than they are lawful and honest 4. Saving the Power of a Superior Whence if a Son in his Father's Family swear to do a thing lawful in it self but the Father not knowing it commands another thing which hinders the doing that which is sworn he is not bound by his Oath because by the Divine Natural Law he is bound to obey his Father And he who has sworn not to go out of his House being cited to appear before a lawful Judg is bound to go out notwithstanding his Oath the Reason is because the Act of one ought not to prejudice the Right of another These two last Instances added to the Consideration of a Legal King Vid. Stat. 13. car 2. c. 1. will qualify the Oath declaring it not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or aginst those that are commissioned by him This I think I may say with warrant from Bishop Sanderson That no Man is bound by this Oath to act against Law Vid. infra p. under colour of the King's Commission Vid. Grounds and Measures of Submission Salus Populi suprema Lex nor to permit such Actions if it be in his Power to hinder them the common Fundamental Law being in this Case the Superior which he is to obey and which is to explain and limit the Sense of Acts of Parliament seeming to the contrary To Bishop Sanderson I may add Grotius Vid. Johannis à Felde Annotata ad Grot. c. 3 4. who runs the Prerogative of Kings as far as any Man in reason can Yet he allows of reserved Cases in which Allegiance may be withdrawn tho there is no express Letter of Law for it As 1. Where the People being yet free Grot. de jure Belli Pacis c. 3. p. 60. Vid. Pufendorf Elementa Juris prud p. 256. Nemo alteri potest quid efficaciter injungere per modum praecepti in quem nihil potestatis legitimae habet Grot. c. 4. p. 86. habet pro derelicto command their future King by way of continuing Precept Whether there be any such with us can be no doubt to them who read the Coronation Oaths from time to time required and taken upon Elections of some Kings and the receiving others by reason of prior Elections and Stipulations with their Predecessors 2. If a King has abdicated or abandon'd his Authority or manifestly holds it as derelict indeed he says he is not to be thought to have done this who only manages his Affairs negligently But surely no Man can think but the Power of J. 2. is direlict And he cites three Cases wherein even Barclay the most zealous Asserter of Kingly Power allows Reservations to the People 1. If the King treats his People with outragious Cruelty 2. If with an hostile Mind he seek the Destruction of his People 3. If he alien his Kingdom This Grotius denies to have any effect and therefore will not admit among the reserved Cases Vid. Mat. Par. Addit f. 281. The King of France his Attorny General speaking of King John 's resigning his Crown to the Pope Etsi dare non potuit potuit tamen
dimittere But if no Act which is ineffectual in Law will justify the withdrawing Allegiance then none of the Instances will hold for to that purpose they are equally ineffectual Yet who doubts but the King doing what in him lies to alien his Kingdom gives pretence for Foreign Usurpations as King John did to the Pope's And whoever goes to restore the Authority of the See of Rome here be it only in Spirituals endeavours to put the Kingdom under another Head than what our Laws establish and to that purpose aliens the Dominion Vid. Bellarm. how the Pope hooks in Temporals in ordine ad Spiritualia Nor can it be any great Question but the aliening any Kingdom or Country part of the Dominion of England will fall under the same Consideration which will bring the Case of Ireland up to this where the Protestants had been disarm'd and the Power which was arm'd for the Protection of the English there Vid. Leges S. Edwardi put into the Hands of the Native Papists nor is it now likely to be restor'd to its Settlement at home or dependance upon England without vast Expence of Blood and Treasure Even the Author of Jovian owns Dr. Hick 's his Jovian p. 280. Ib. p. 192 193. that the King's Law is his most Authoritative Command and he denies that the Roman Emperor had any Right to enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government where the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is c. No Clergy-man of the last or foregoing Reign having treated of Civil Government with more Temper and Judgment and yet with greater Applause of the warmest Men of his own Gown Falkner 's Christian Loyalty Ed. An. 1679. than the Learned Mr. Falkner of Lyn I shall be the longer in giving an account of his Discourse of Christian Loyalty which will prove an Authority on my side beyond what could be hop'd for considering the time when his Book came out with License and a Dedication to the Archbishop of Canterbury it being when Mr. Johnson by way of Composition against a threatned Suspension was oblig'd to drink his Coffee at home lest he should inlighten his Brethren who fill'd all places of publick Resort with their Pulpit-Law and the Dictates of their Guide Sir Roger. I must own that Mr. Falkner was in some things carried away with that Tide which if any of that Cloth besides Mr. Johnson had the Courage to stemm they had at least the good fortune to be less observ'd but the shewing wherein the Author of Christian Loyalty gave too much way to the Fashion or the Noise may yield farther strength and light to that Truth which will arise out of those very Clouds with which he might think requisite to obscure it His Treatise is in two Parts in the first he vindicates and endeavours to explain the Oath of Supremacy 1. In relation to the Regal Power as it is receiv'd in our Church or at least by Church-men or as it is acknowledged by our Laws 2. As the Oath renounces all Foreign Jurisdiction the last of which falls no otherwise under Consideration here than as it shews the King's Duty to preserve his Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Supremacy and not to alienate either In the second part this Worthy Author considers the publick Declarations against Subjects taking Arms. Page 14. 1. In the first he rightly affirms That the asserting the Supremacy of Government is never design'd meaning I supppose by the Law in any wise to violate either Divine or Christian Institutions or to assert it lawful for any Prince to invade that Authority and Right which is made particular thereby whether in Matters Temporal or Spiritual Where by Christian Institutions Page 3. 't is plain that we are to understand the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws of Christian States or the Laws of others not contrary to Christianity and thus he deservedly blames them who nourish false Conceptions and mistaken Opinions concerning the CIVIL POWER beyond due Bounds exalting it so high as not to reserve that Respect which belongeth to God and Christian Institutions Page 15. and rightly observes that the Supremacy does not exclude the Subject from a real Propriety in his own Estate And that there are some Kingdoms where without any Disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince Page 11. they are govern'd by the fixed Rules of the Civil Law and others where other Laws established by their Predecessors are standing Rules Page 391. And particularly in relation to the People of this Realm he says in the second Part The English Constitution doth excellently and effectually provide against injurious Oppressions Of which more in its place 1 Canon An. 1640. However I cannot but here observe that even the Canons of 1640. which he receives as speaking the Sense of the Church of England own that the Subject has a Propriety but withal say that Tribute Custom and Aid and all manner of necessary Support and Supply are due to Kings from their Subjects by the Law of God Nature and Nations yet tho it is the Duty of Subjects to supply the King it is part of the Kingly Office to support his Subjects in the Propriety and Freedom of their Estates Still it seems subject to the King's Judgment of necessity which is right Sibthorpism and Manwarinism afterwards eccho'd to by the Courts at Westminster in the Resolution about Shipmoney and of late in that of the Dispensing Power I think in two things what Mr. Falkner writes upon the first Head lies open to Exception 1. That generally by Civil Power Page 356. he seems to mean the Person of the King and that not according to his own Definition of a King which he says doth denote the Royal Person who governs which himself owns to be according to the respective Limitations in those places where they govern many having the Title of a King Page 339. who had not such Royal Power as is allowed by our Constitution but he ascribes to a King generally speaking and particularly to ours such a Soveraignty as carries with it the absolute and arbitrary Exercise of that Civil Power whereby a Nation is govern'd Thus he asserts with St. Austin That Subjests may and ought to obey their Prince's Commands where they are certain Page 302. that what he commands is not against the Command of God And hence he attributes to the Kings of England even more Power than he allows to the Roman Christian Emperors as will soon appear And it appears that this is not only a casual dash with his Pen Page 123. for having before in one place spoken of the business of the Civil Power describ'd by St. Peter Page 131. in another he mentions the Authority with which he supposes Kings and Princes to be
in his Life-time who with the Consent of the Nation had sent a Solemn Embassy to the Norman Duke to assure him of the Succession Vid. inf Vid. Leges W. 1. de fide obsequio erga Regem 5. If William I. did gain the Right of a Conqueror it was personal and he never exacted this for his Heirs as appears not only by his Declaration when he came to die but by the Fealty or Oath of Allegiance which he requir'd in his Laws 6. If our Ancestors had made as absolute a Submission to Will I. as some pretend Lord Clarend Survey p. 51. in the Judgment of the Lord Clarendon it would not extend to us For says he if it can be suppos'd that any Nation can concur in such a Designation and devesting themselves of all their Right and Liberty it could only be in reason obligatory to the present Contractors Nor does it appear to us that their Posterity must be bound by so unthrifty a Concession of their Parents The King's Oath is the real Contract on his side and his accepting the Government as a Legal King the virtual one and so it is vice versâ in relation to the Allegiance due from the Subject Jovian p. 244. Thus far the Author of Jovian is in the right As in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King but what they are bound to perform unsworn so the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People but what in Justice and Equity he is bound to perform unsworn Vid. Dr. Stillingfl Irenicum p. 132 133. Saravia de Imperii authoritate f. 221. Grotius de jure Belli Pacis p. 59. Successio non est titulus Imperii sed veteris continuatio Lord Clarendon's Survey p. 74. The Description which Samuel made of the exorbitant Power of Kings was rather to terrify them from pursuing their foolish Demand than to constitute such a Prerogative as the King should use whom God would appoint to go in and out before them which methinks is very manifest in that the worst of Kings that ever reign'd among them never challeng'd or assum'd those Prerogatives nor did the People conceive themselves liable to those Impositions as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam on the Death of Solomon That he would abate some of that Rigor his Father had exercis'd toward them the rash Rejection of which contrary to the Advice of his wisest Counsellors lost him the greater part of his Dominion and when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to Obedience God would not suffer him because he was in the fault himself Upon which account I will yield to Saravia That in Hereditary Kingdoms the Coronation-Oath confers no new Right and therefore there may be a King before his Coronation Yet we must attend to Grotius his Rule who rightly observes That Succession is only a continuance of that Power which the Predecssor had so that if the first Possessor comes into Power qualified by express Contract this binds the Successor and he is to be thought to come in upon those Terms Nay even Dr. Whitby Considerations humbly offer'd for taking the Oath Pref. who to save the Credit of some of his Brethren rather than the Reputation of the Government argues as if our King were barely King de facto yet says he does by no means condemn those Writings which plead for taking the impos'd Oath upon such grounds as do more fully justify the Title of our present Governours And himself in answer to them who laugh at the Notion of an Original Compact shews very particularly that W. 1. was received upon Compact and that the same Compact has continued and been renew'd by our succeeding Kings One of the Terms before the time of W. 1. as appears by the Mirrour was that the King should suffer Right or Justice as well as his Subjects And St. Edward's Sword called the Curtana Vid. inf carried before our Kings at their Coronation was in the time of H. 3. as will afterwards more particularly appear a known Emblem and Remembrancer of this of the same nature with that Boy ordered every Morning to put Philip of Macedon in mind of his Mortality But surely whoever was entitled to carry the Curtana or to use a judicial Power in such Cases as above how much soever they continued their Allegiance to the King's Authority could not well be said to retain it to his Person Dr. Brady indeed says There never was any Pact between King and People no Fundamental Terms of Government agreed between them nor indeed says he ever was there or is it possible for any such thing to be in any Nation of the World Matter of Fact so long as we have any Memorials of it in these Kingdoms shews to the contrary If the Matter of Fact here could shew it not possible in any other Kingdom his might pass for an universal History but if the Authorities in this first Part do not take off from the Doctor 's Credibility in this Point as far as relates to England Vid. inf second Part throughout I will undertake before I have done with him in the second where his Notions fall more directly under Consideration to shew Jani Angl. facies nova that he deserves little more Credit than when he made my Tract maintaining the Rights of the Commons of England to be represented in Parliament Dr. Brady's Introd to his compleat History an Evidence of my being in a Plot against the Government 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 Mirrour the foreign Speculum Saxonicum Bracton and Fletá 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 Claims of their Rights in the times of W. 1. W. 2. H. 1. King Stephen H. 2. Leges St. Edward sup vid. ib. Rex debet omnia rite facere in regno suo de judicio Procerum suorum THere was and is an establish'd Judicature for the great Case in question as is implied by that part of St. Edward's Laws above-mention'd which supposes some Judg or Judges in the case and those Laws investing the Proceres with the supream Judicature withholds not this from them And the same Laws declare that a Folcmot or an Assembly of the People of every County Leges St. Ed. Tit. Greve Vid. second Part. as it is there explain'd was to meet every first of May in a
divested of his Soveraignty by the Counsel and Consent of all his Subjects (a) Ib. f. 108. Anno 779. Mailros Anno 794. f. 139. S. Dunelm f. 113. Five Years after this their King Ethelred was driven from the Throne and Kingdom for treacherously procuring the Death of three of his Great Men Alwlf Cynwlf and Ecga Within fifteen Years after this the People having without Example called back Ethelred from Exile slew him without any allowable Precedent and set up in his stead Osbald a Nobleman none of the Royal Stock and he not answering their Expectation they depos'd him in twenty eight days Milros f. 141. Anno 806. Ibid. f. 143. Anno 866. degenerem Ibid. 144 872. Twelve Years after they deposed their King Eardulf and remain'd long without chusing any Sixty Years after they depos'd their King Osbrich and chose Ella who still swerv'd from the Ends of Government Six Years after they expell'd their King Egbert For sixty nine Years the Kings and their People agreed without coming to any Extremities F. 148 941. F. 148 947. but then they renounc'd the Allegiance sworn to King Edmond and chose Aulaf King of Norway for their King Aulaf had not reigned six Years when they drove him away and tho they receiv'd him again they soon cast him off again and swore Allegiance to the English King Edred Then they rejected him and chose Egric a Dane with whom their independent Monarchy expir'd and turn'd into the Government of Earls I would not be thought to mention those numerous Examples with the least approbation 't is certain they argue great Levity in rejecting or Folly in chusing But if we are believ'd to receive many Laws and Customs from the Germans from whom we are more remotely deriv'd much more may the English Monarchy be thought to partake of the Customs of the contiguous Kingdoms which compose it and by this frequent Practice the Members of it were sufficiently prepar'd to understand that part of the Compact whereby the Prince was oblig'd to suffer Right as well as his Subjects Vid. Mirror sup Leges S. Edw. and that if he did not answer the End for which he had been chosen he was to lose the Name of King Indeed a very Learned Author Discourse concerning the Vnreasonableness of a new Separation on the account of the Oaths p. 15. in a Treatise for the most part unanswerable seems to set aside all the Precedents within the Kingdom of the Northumbers as if that were of no consequence to any other part of England I shall not says he meddle with the Kingdom of the Northumbers which alone was originally elective as appears by Matthew Westminster The words to which he refers are these Anno Gratiae 548 Regnum Northanhumbrorum exordium sumpsit Math. West f. 101. Cum enim Proceres Anglorum magnis Laboribus continuis patriam illam subjugassent Idam Juvenem nobilissimum sibi unanimiter praefecerunt In the Year of our Lord 548 Anno 548. the Kingdom of the Northumbers began For when the Great Men of England had with much and continual Labour subdued them they chose for King Ida a most Noble Young Man I cannot understand how the shewing the Foundation of one Kingdom in Election is any Argument against the Original Electiveness of others within the same Island Nay primâ facie without more of one side or other it gives ground to believe the others to have had the like Foundation and this Quotation particularly is so far from implying that this was the only Kingdom within the Isle Originally Elective that it supports the Authority of the Mirror which informs us that forty Princes at the beginning of the Monarchy chose one to reign over them Mirror sup for this speaks not of the English as then under one King or more in their respective Divisions but under several Proceres Great Men or Princes and that part of the Island seems to have been the first which chose a King but I know not by what Rule of Logick it can be gathered from this Passage in Matthew Westminster that other Kingdoms which chose their King afterwards were not equally Elective in their Foundation tho not so ancient or the time of the Commencement not so easily to be shewen Vid. inf Vid. Falkner p. 329. This called a Synod of all England 827.548.279 Malmsbury f. 13. Certain it is that the Council of Calcuth in the Year 789 which provides for the Election of Kings was Conventus Pananglicus and if it took not in the Northumbrian Kingdom as having been disjoin'd from the rest till the Reign of Egbert An. 827 being 279 Years it is to be presum'd that all England besides was included Nay this very Author produces Authorities which prove other Kingdoms here though their beginning is not so well known to have been as truly Elective as this which he waves 1. He shews Page 14. that Beornred being set aside by a Convention of the Nobility and People of the Kingdom of Mercia Offa was chosen King who was of the Royal Stem but not the next Heir And so says he William of Malmsbury observes in the West Saxon Kingdom after Ina that no Lineal Succession was then observ'd but still some of the Royal Line sat in the Throne and of Ina himself that he was rather put into the Throne for his Vertue than by Right of Succession Discourse sup p. 15. 2. He argues that if by the Fundamental Constitution Allegiance were indispensably due to the next rightful Heir in this Monarchy Athelstan whom he shews not to have stood next in the ordinary course of Descent would not have been chosen Magno Consensu Optimatum and gives several other Instances wherein he observes that Reason of State Page 17. and the publick Interest still over-ruled this matter 3. He shews that Reason of State and the Publick Interest over-ruled not only for Elections when the Throne was free from a Possessor but even for the removing Kings in Possession P. 13. An. 454. Vid. sup Anno. 756. P. 14. An. 758. An. 854 867. P. 16. An. 957. For which he cites the Cases of Vortigern under the British Government Sigebert King of the West Saxons Beornred of Mercia above-mentioned Aetheluph King of the West Saxons and the eldest Son of Edmund who was set aside because in Commisso regimine insipienter egit He acted foolishly in the Government committed to him After all he contends that ours is not only a true Original Monarchy but Hereditary where the Right of Succession and publick Good did not interfere and thus much I readily grant him but in restraining this to Cases where there was not a natural or moral Incapacity he plainly confines Reason of State and the Publick Good to narrower Limits than before he allowed for if these were to over-rule Page 17. as he before observ'd then the Question upon Competitions for the Crown between Persons of the Royal
meintenir les establisments que sunt fet ou sunt a fere par la dit Conseil declaring That all things provided or to be provided by the King's Council and the greater part of them who were chosen by the King and the Community of his Realm should be held firm and established and requiring all men to swear to hold and maintain the Establishments made or to be made by the said Council Vid. Flet. Habet Rex Consilium suum in Parliamentis c. But upon farther consideration I find that Council was the King's Council in Parliament and those Knights who were the Inquisitors for the Counties were not only oblig'd to come to deliver in their Inquisitions but their Consent was requisite to what the King should ordain by his Council in Parliament which then were a select number chosen as abovesaid Claus 42. H. 3. m. 1. dorso Quia Robertus Cambhen socii sui de Comitatu Northumb. de precepto Regis venerunt ad Regem apud West c. pro quibusdam negotiis Communitatem totius Communitatis praed tangentibus Mandatum est Quod prefatis quatuor militibus de Communitate praed rationabiles expensas suas in eundo redeundo habere faciat In another of the same time to Huntingtonshire they are said to have appeared coram Consilio nostro apud Westm in Parliamento Vide of this at large in the 2 d part since as it should seem all the Lords Certain it is there are Writs upon Record for the Expences of those Four Knights for every County as since there have been for Two The observing of the above-mentioned Contracts will give light to that Judgment which may by us at this distance be past upon the Wars between H. 3. and his Barons and not to mention any small disturbances and the Violations of the Rights of particular men and what they did in defence of them I find H. 3. four times opposed by the People in Arms in Three Wars and a Fourth rising which wanted only Numbers on the King's side to make it a War all manag'd under Heads formally chosen or seeming to have claim to the Conduct by virtue of their Offices 1. The first was under Lewis the Dauphin of France whom the Barons at London had chosen for King in this there was one King against another both standing in truth upon the same title the choice of the People Lewis had the greater part of the Chief Nobility on his side how much soever the Pope's Thunder might have frightned the more ignorant Vulgar and prevailed upon their interested Guides 2. The Second was under the Conduct of the Earl of Chester named first as 't is to be suppos'd for the reason before shewn The occasion of the Insurrection began Ao 1223. 7o. of that King when he being Seventeen years old obtain'd a Bull from the Pope declaring him of full Age and enabling him to order the Affairs of the Kingdom chiefly by the Counsel of his Domesticks that is such as he should chuse turning out those Officers which either had Hereditary Rights or had been chosen in Parliament according to what was insisted on at his Coronation 20o. as matter of Right wherefore his assuming all the Power into his own hands and countenancing the Exorbitances of Hubert de Burgh Mat. Par. Addit Chief Justice of England who indeed as appears upon his Defence afterwards when he came to be impeach'd had been chosen in one of King John's Parliaments but was continued in by H. 3. against the sense of his own Parliament sowed the Seeds of Discontent tho they did not break out into a general Rising but all seem'd to be quieted by his Confirming the Great Charter Ao. 1224. Yet soon after when he was in truth of full Age he was resolv'd to act as one out of Wardship 11 H. 3. and in a Parliament at Oxford declared himself free and by the advice of Hubert de Burgh cancell'd the Great Charter of the Liberties of the Forest as of no validity because granted in his minority and forc'd many who had Ancient Grants of Liberties to purchase them a-new at such Rates as the Chief Justice impos'd Besides Hubert had advis'd the King to act Arbitrarily with his own Brother Richard Duke of Cornwal which drove him to shelter himself under the Publick-Cause and glad were the Great Men to find his resentment contribute to such a general demand of Justice Mat. Par. as forc'd the King to compliance in a Parliament at Northampton 3. But by the Seventeenth of H. 3. Peter Bishop of Winchester An. 1233. Mat. Par. f. 413. Adhuc sub custodiam Petri Winton who had succeeded to William Earl Marshal in the custody of the King during his minority having been supplanted by Hubert the Chief Justice at last put the Dice upon the less subtile Layman and resolving not to fall again for want of flattering his Prince advis'd him in order to become Absolute to remove his Natural Subjects from the Great Offices and put Foreigners in their Places who were brought over in great numbers and oppressed and plunder'd the Nobility upon false accusations and pretences seiz'd their Castles and enjoy'd the Wardships of their Children This occasion'd a general insurrection under Richard Earl Marshal who as a Roman Tribune of the people went to the King and in their name demanded a redress of Grievances but the Bishop of Winchester having given an haughty answer justifying the King's calling over what Strangers he thought fit to reduce his Proud and Rebellious Subjects as he call'd them to due obedience The Marshal and the rest of the Great Men who were Witnesses to that insolence Swore to stand by one another to the last extremity in the Cause of their Country But the Earl of Chester another Tribune here sold his Country for a Sum of Money The Marshal finding himself deserted was obliged to have recourse to Leolin Prince of Wales for aid Upon this the King Proclaim'd him Traytor 9º Octob. Ao. 1233. But in a Parliament held at Westminster at the latter end of that year tho' the Earl Marshal was absent and in Arms the Parliament advis'd the King not to Banish Spoil or Destroy his Subjects without Legal Process nor to call them Traytors who endeavour'd the Peace of the Kingdom Mat. Par. last Ed. f. 388. and by whose Counsels the Government ought to be managed Which was a full justification of the Arms taken by the Marshal Nay the Bishops proceeded so far as to Excommunicate the Bishop of Winchester and others the King's Ministers and to lay upon them the imputation of disturbing the Peace of the Kingdom The Marshal carried all before him with universal applause The Bp. of Winchester and his Accomplices were punished in a Parliament held at Candlemas The King having sent to treat of Peace with the Marshal and Prince Leolin the evil Counsellors which were the Marshals chief
cause of Complaint being removed and his Estate in Ireland having received great damage from his Enemies he left Leolin to Treat for himself and his Friends and went over to Ireland where he was slain by Treachery The Treaty went on and among the terms it was provided That all Men on the one side or the other Rot. Claus 18. H. 3. N. 17. dors Homines etiam illi qui hinc inde recesserunt a fidelitate dominorum suorum se tenuerunt ex adversa parte libere revertantur Rot. Claus 18. H. 3. N. 20. dors who had receded from the fealty of their Lords and adher'd to the adverse Party should return with freedom And in the Credential Letters which were sent to Leolin with them that managed the Treaty on the side of King Henry He gives him to understand That before that he had restor'd the Lands to all people who had been disseiz'd by occasion of the War between him and the Earl Marshal where 't is far from being call'd a Rebellion on the Marshal's side and at the time of the Treaty the King found himself obliged to protest that he was clear of any consent to the Death of the Marshal and that his Seal was by the great importunity of his evil Counsellours set to Letters which encouraged the Treachery against him and pronounc'd him a Traytor But that he was wholly ignorant of the Contents of them Vid. Matthew Paris The Clergy the Historians the People of that Age in all things extol the Marshal would never allow him to have been a Traytor and were not his own Defence of himself too long to transcribe I should add it as an embelishment to these Remarks Dugdale's Baronage o Vol. 1. f. 752. Simon 16. H. 3. bore the Title of the Earl of Leicester and obtain'd from Almaric his Brother then bearing the Title of Constable of France a grant of all the Lands in England with the Stewardship of England This came to the Earls of Leicester with the Honour of Hinkley in Leicestershire from Petronil Daughter of Hugh de Grentesmenil Vid. Mat. West 20 H. 3. Simon Montfort holding the King's Bason at his Nuptials as Steward of England The Fourth War was that under the Great Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester another Tribune of the People as he was hereditary High Steward by Purchase from his Brother Almaric Constable of France the Stewardship of England having descended from their Mother Amicia eldest Sister to Robert Fitz Parnel Earl of Leicester who died without Issue Mat. Par. f. 1302. Whoever reads the History of H. 3. must needs conceive a mean opinion of him his Cowardise was as remarkable as that of one of his Successors who is said not to have been able to contain at the sight of a drawn Sword nor could H. bear the terrour of Thunder and Lightning yet when Simon Montfort endeavoured to remove one of his frights Quod scilicet Comes Leycestriae virilius perstitit ferventius in persequendâ provisione ut saltem Regem omnes adversantes suis astare consiliis cogerent c. he confest to him That he fear'd him most Which was suspected to proceed from Montfort's warm and strenuous pursuing the Provisions at Oxford at least his being for compelling the King and all opposers to stand to the Counsel of his Barons Simon thinking the execution of the Oxford Provisions to be well secur'd Fol. 1314. went beyond Sea upon which Richard the King's Brother prepar'd to come into England with intention and hopes as it should seem to get them vacated as being made without consulting him But the rest of the Barons tho' they were in great fear because of Simon 's absence Ib. f. 1315. Juramentum quale Barones Angliae reipub Zelatores exigebant would not suffer Richard to Land till he had oblig'd himself under his hand to take such an Oath as the Barons of England who were zealous for the Commonweal or Publick-good required the form of which follows I Richard Earl of Cornwal will be faithful and diligent to reform the Kingdom of England with you hitherto too much deform'd by the Counsel of Evil-men And I will be your effectual helper to expel the Rebels and disturbers of the said Kingdom Notwithstanding the seeming agreement between the King and People and Security taken for his performance Foreigners invited and supported by him became an intolerable burden and the King being kinder to them than to his People obtain'd from the Pope an Absolution from his Oath Mat. Par. F. 1322. to make good the establishment at Oxford But the Barons resolutely insisted upon the Establishment and when the King sent Itinerent Justices into Herefordshire Ibid. the Barons of that County would not suffer them to execute their Office there as being contrary to the Provisions at Oxford which contrariety seems to lye in the King 's directing enquiries of misdemeanours to be judged of in the Countries when according to what was then Enacted the Inquisitions were to be return'd before the Parliament or at least such Council as was chosen in a Parliament But the King having procur'd an Absolution from his Oath thought himself free to act by the Counsels of Foreigners which his Great men would not bear Wherefore the Earl of Leicester and others met together in Arms at Oxford resolving either to dye for the Peace of their Country F. 1323. or to drive out the Foreigners The Foreigners met at the same place but finding themselves out-number'd and that the Lords were resolv'd to call them to account for their violations of the Government and make them swear to observe with them the Provisions made for the profit of the Realm they fled away by Night but were pursued by the Barons and forc'd to quit the Land Yet soon after this the King as the Historian says Anno 1260. 44 H. 3. 45 H. 3. by the evil Counsel of some fell from the pact which he had made with his Great Men betook himself to the Tower of London and compell'd the Citizens to swear to be true to him without regard to the terms before setled and rais'd what Forces he could Whereby it is evident That he began the War and that it was an open violation of his Contract made with the people at Oxford The Barons took Arms against him in their own defence F. 1331. Communiter prestitum and sent Messengers to him to entreat him to observe the Oath which had been sworn to by all Which Message he slighted at first but afterwards was prevail'd upon to consent that he should chuse one and the Barons another to arbitrate their differences the Arbitrators having power to chuse an Vmpire but that this should be respited till the King's Son Edward came from abroad When his Son came home he was so fully convinced of his Father's being in the wrong that he joyn'd with the Barons and they resolv'd together to drive
that Statute 't will appear beyond contradiction 1. That the rule of submitting to the judgment of the King's Court will be of no service to Mr. Falkner's purpose the Court which is presum'd to be intended if it relates to the Controversies between the King and his Barons being the Parliament where they would be Judges in their own cases which Mr. Falkner says they ought not to be 2. The Statute of Marlborough does not in the least condemn the Barons Wars For 1. The Subject of that Act is to remedy the abuses of Distresses which are matters within the Jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts of Justice and no way extends to the great questions of the Kingdom determinable only in the highest Court 2. The Statute does not call those Wars a time of Rebellion Vid. Stat. Marlb Fleta p. 25. but of Dissention and Troubles suitably to which even in the time of E. 1. among the Articles of the Crown in charge to the Justices in their Circuits one provides for enquiry after them who have substracted Suits of Shires c. after the War moved between King Henry the Third and his Barons Mat. Par. f. 373. 3. Tho the Barons once threatned H. 3. That unless he would send away the Foreigners they would all by the Common-Council of the whole Realm drive Him and his wicked Councellors out of the Kingdom and would consider of making a new King yet it appears by the Circumstances and Events of the several Insurrections that their design was only to bring him to reason they still were for continuing him King and therefore it might not be improper for the Parliament at Marlborough to hold That for all matters of private differences even while Armies were in the Field the Course of ordinary Justice was to go on and that it was not to be look'd on as a state of War This may be enough to remove the Objections made by Mr. Falkner against the Barons Wars in the time of H. 3. which he supposes to be the most plausible Instance brought by them against whom he writes and I take it that the Reign even of E. 1. one of the most warlike of our Kings affords an Instance no less plausible Ao. 1297. Knighton f. 2510. Libratas In the twenty-first year of his Reign he summoned all who had twenty Pounds a Year â—… Land of whomsoever they held to attend him at London with Horse and Arms in order to go with him to Flanders When they met at London he was advised to be reconciled to some of the Great Men with whom he had been at variance He complied with the Advice excusing himself for former Exactions and desiring their farther Assistance since what he was engaged in was not his own private concern Mat. West f. 430. but the concern of the whole People as he was their Protector and Defender And he intreated them to pray for him which the Historian says very few did heartily But Humphrey Bohun Earl of Hereford and Essex High-Constable of England and Roger Bygot Earl Marshal withdrew from the King whereupon he discharged them of their Offices and gave them to others Yet the King found himself obliged to send some Persons to mediate between Him and Them To whom they declared That it was not their own Cause alone but the Cause of the whole Community which they undertook Knighton f. 2511. For not only They but the whole Community of the Land was agrieved with unjust Vexations Tallages and Levies and chiefly That they were not treated according to the Liberties in Magna Charta Wherefore they drew up a Remonstrance of their Grievances which if the King would command to be redressed they were ready to follow him to the Death Knighton f. 2512. The King gave a dilatory Answer excusing himself through the absence of some of his Council and having desired them not to do any thing to the prejudice of Him or his Kingdom passed the Seas notwithstanding the dissatisfaction that he left behind concluding 't is likely That that Success which commonly attended him in his Wars would gain him a more absolute ascendant over his People The King being gone the Constable and Marshal with their Adherents forbad the Chancellor and Barons of the Exchequer to issue out Process for levying the eighth Peny which had been granted the King in Parliament and which yet they said was granted without their Consent either as they had not due Summons or were upon just Cause absent They continuing together in Arms the King's Son who had been constituted Vicegerent found a necessity of giving them satisfaction To which end he calls a Parliament Knighton f. 2523. where through the mediation of the Arch-bishop whom Knighton blesses for it it was agreed That the King should confirm Magna Charta and the Charter of the Forrest That for the future Magnates he should not ask or take any Aid of the Clergy or People without the good will and assent of the Great Men. And that he should remit all Rancor to them and their Adherents In the Charter or Act of Parliament which then passed there are these Words Remisimus Humfredo de Bown Comiti Herfordiae Esekes Constabulario Angliae Rogero Bygot Comiti Norfork Mareschallo Angliae c. rancorem nostrum malam voluntatem quam ex causis praedictis erga eos habuimus etiam transgressiones si quas nobis vel nostris fecerint utque ad praesentis Cartae confectionem We have remitted to Humphrey de Bowne Earl of Herford and Essex Constable of England Roger Bygot Earl of Norfolk Marshal of England c. the rancour and ill-will which we had against them for the foresaid causes and also all Transgressions or Offences if they have committed any against us or ours to the making of this Charter Here was a quiet conclusion of an Insurrection managed under two Tribunes of the People whose Union had such an effect that what they did was not lookt on by the Parliament to be so much as a Misdemeanor 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 late Abdication omitted The Objections from the Oaths 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 Sweedland 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 TO proceed to E. 2. Son to E. 1. 't is certain that the sentence threatned H. 3. was executed upon his Grandson E. 2. who was formally Deposed in Parliament for his misgovernment Walsingham f. 107. Rex dignitate regali abdicatur filius substituitur His Case with his next Successor's but one R. 2. by what I have observed before appear to have been no Novelties in England Nor was it long before the like was again put in practice more than once Hollingshead f. 637. Ib. f. 639 640. H. 6. being a weak mis-led Prince gave occasion to Richard Duke of York whose Line was put by to cover his designs for restoring the elder Family with the pretence of redressing publick Grievances A Crown over a Branch of lights in the H. of Commons and another from the top of Dover-Castle falling about the same time ib. f. 659. The Crown he was so far from pretending to at first that himself swore Allegiance to H. 6. in a very particular manner But having afterwards an advantage given by the Divisions of them who had driven him out of the Land he in a fortunate hour with lucky Omens as was believed challeng'd the Crown as his Right upon which there was an agreement ratified in Parliament That H. 6. should enjoy it during his Life and Richard and his Heirs after him Tho Richard Duke of York and his Son Edward afterwards E. 4. had sworn that H. 6. should enjoy the Royal Dignity during life without trouble from them or either of them yet Richard having been treacherously slain by the Queen's Army immediately after the solemn Pacification Edward at the Petition of some of the Bishops and Temporal Lords Ib. f. 661. took upon him the charge of the Kingdom as forfeited to him by breach of the Covenant established in Parliament Yet this gave him no sure footing for the popularity of the Earl of Warwick drove him out of the Kingdom without striking a stroke for it Ib. f. 678. Upon which H. 6. was again restor'd to his Kingly Power and Edward was in Parliament declared a Traytor to the Country and an Vsurper of the Realm the Settlement upon Richard and his Heirs revok'd and the Crown entail'd upon H. 6. and his Heirs Males with remainders over to secure against Edward's coming to the Crown But the Death of the Earl of Warwick having in effect put an end to King Henry's Power he was soon taken Prisoner and put to death as his Son had been before and then Edward procures a Confirmation in Parliament Hollingshead f. 693. of the Settlement under which he enjoyed the Crown Thus the Parliament from time to time determined the Controversie according to the Inclination of the People or Reason of State And as the power of the People of England or of Great Men of interest with them turn'd the scales sometimes one way sometimes another so their consent fixt them at last during the Life of E. 4. I might following the light of History take in the most material Occurrences from the Reign of E. 4. to the last Revolution but tho the unanimity which appeared at the first casting off the former Yoke made me with chearfulness undertake the justification of those who have contributed to the Change yet I must needs say I am checkt in that freedom which otherwise I might have justly used in relation to late times and tho I labour against prejudice in what I bring from faithful Memorials of ancient days yet I hope the prejudice will be free from that heat and passion which mixes with mens own concerns or the concerns of them from whom they immediately descend in Blood or Parties Object Vid. 13 C. 2. Stat. 2. c. 1.13 14 C. 2. c. 3.14 C. 2. c. 3 4.15 C. 2. c. 5.12 C. 2. c. 30. It may be said That whatever the Law or Practice has been anciently neither can now be of any moment by reason of the Oath required by several Statutes declaring it not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person And 2. The Clause in the Statute 12 Car. 2. whereby it is declared That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm What has before been observed from and upon Mr. Falkner's Answer Vid. Chap. 2. Christian Loyalty might make it needless to take notice of the Objection from either of these Clauses were it not that many either cannot or will not observe what lies at the least distance I shall not here insist in answer to the first part of the Objection on the necessity of a Commission and a King continuing legal in the Exercise as well as Possession of Power nor the difference between the Traiterous Acts of single Persons and the Revolt of a Nation nor yet upon the Authority of the Common Law whereby a Constable or other Officer chosen by the people Vid. Justin Pandec l. 1. tit 3. Nulla juris ratio aut aequitatis benignitas patitur ut quae salubriter pro utilitate hominum introducuntur ea nos duriore interpretatione contra ipsorum commodum producamus ad severitatem may act without any Authority from the King And for rhe latter part of the Objection as Coertion is restrained to the Person of the King the declaring against that is not contrary to the Authorities for discharging Allegiance by a judicial Sentence or otherwise by virtue of equitable and implied Reservations provided a tender regard to the Person be still observ'd But if proceedings to free our selves from his Authority fall under this Coertion then I shall offer something which may remove both this and the other from being objections to what I have above shewn To keep to what may equally reach to both Authorities I shall not urge here Vid. Rot. Parl. 39 H. 6. n. 18. That these Statutes being barely declaratotory and Enacting no Law for the future introduce none so that if the Fundamental Laws shall appear to be otherwise the Declarations do not supplant them Nor yet to insist upon a Rule in the Civil-Law That the Commonwealth is always a Minor Vid. Cujac
King I shall refer to Krantius Krantii Hist particularly in the remarkable Story of their King Eric who was Adopted Son of the Three Kingdoms Anno 1411. he having provoked his People by countenancing the outrages of his Officers and Common Soldiers was opposed with Force by one Engelbert a Danish Nobleman transmitted down to posterity with the fair Character of engaging in the Publick Cause neither out of Love of Rule nor greediness of gain but meer compassion to an oppressed people This generous undertaking was so justly popular that Eric not able to stem the Tide withdrew from Denmark where he usually resided to Sweedland Engelbert's Noble Cause found so few opposers there that the King as a pattern to James 2. privately ran away and recommended his Nephew to succeed him But they told him plainly he was made King by Adoption Ib. f. 188. and had no Right to surrogate another Himself there not being the inconsistency of a different Religion between the Head and Members of the same Body they would have received upon terms but he refusing the three Kingdoms unanimously chose one of another Family For the Authority of the people even in France Hottomanni Francogallia c. 23. insisted on no longer since then the time of Lewis 11. Hottoman gives a large proof in his Franco Gallia And I meet with an excellent Treatise of the French Government written originally in that Language by an eminent French Lawyer Claudius Sesellius soon after the death of Lewis 12. and dedicated to his Successour Francis 1. This Treatise the Learned German Sleidan Sleidani Dedicatio Ed. sexto Anno 1548. f. 263. Vid. Tres Gallicarum Rerum Scriptores Nobiliss A Johanne Sleidano e Gallico in Lat. Serm. convers Ed. Francofurti Anno 1578. turned into Latin and Dedicated it to our King E. 6. Sesel f. 268. Qui tutorio nomine Rempublicam procurant f. 269. Sesellius at that time looked upon France as an Hereditary Monarchy in which he admits that there may be great inconveniencies through the folly vice or minority of a Successour to a good Prince or the wickedness of those who execute the Government during his minority yet says he There are remedies at hand by which we may restrain a King Reigning Arbitrarily and them who have the care of one who cannot Govern for want of fit Age so that the King may have the Dignity which belongs to him and yet it may not be lawful for him to do what he pleases but what is agreeable to Law and Equity Provision is made for this by the best Laws and most Sacred Establishments which may not be violated without great hazard although sometimes force is offered to them He tells us their Kings have as it were three Bridles with which their Soveraign Power is restrained Sesellius f. 269. 1. Religion And if the awe of that is not sufficiently impressed upon him yet the reverence of some Holy Man may prevail it being allowable for any Bishop or other Ecclesiastical person of an unblameable life and in esteem with the people to admonish him of his Duty nor can he use any severities to his Admonisher without danger of alienating the affections of his people 2. The Jurisdiction of the Senate or Parliament whose Power he says Ut decretis ipsorum Rex quoque pareat Vid. Les Soupirs De la France Esclave Memoire 8. Histoire de l'origine du Parlement de Paris Sesellius f. 270. is such that even the King obeys its Decrees And yet when he wrote the Parliament of Paris the meer shadow of the Assembly of the States of the Kingdom and which in its institution was but a Committee chosen out of them had through the Artifice and Usurpation of their Kings driven out the substance 3. The Polity or Laws of the Kingdom which temper the Regal Authority this he says is greatly to the Honour of their Kings For if they could do every thing they would be much more imperfect And as it does not derogate from God Almighty that he cannot sin but his perfection is the more illustrious and to be admired for this very reason so Kings when they obey their Laws deserve the greater praise and come nigher to perfection than if they could command all things at their will and pleasure Sleidan in giving an account of Sesellius his Book to E. 6. says Sleidani Dedicatio ad E. 6. Although these things seem written in a peculiar manner in relation to the King of France yet they equally belong to all Kings For all Kings are Monarchs very few excepted And as they acknowledg no Power over them so they deserve great praise when they keep themselves within the bounds of those Laws with which they Govern their People And these are those Offices which he treats of as becoming a King and Prince Which if he neglects and thinks himself not to be obliged by any Law he loses in the eyes of good Men all Splendor Reputation and Glory and the very name of King A modern French Author Les Soupirs de la France Esclave Qui aspire apres la Liberte Ed. Anno 1690. Memoire 6. p. 82. who has with great diligence collected the Evidences of the Ancient Government of France supposes all the descendants from the old Germans as the Francs and we were to have had the same sort of Government and resemblance of Constitutions Among his several Arguments to refute the pretensions of the Court of France to Arbitrary Power one is Memoire 7. That nothing of great importance ought to be done within the Realm P. 97. but with the advice and consent of the Estates insomuch says he That the Government of France is rather Arstocratical than Monarchical or at least it is a Monarchy temper'd by an Aristocracy exactly such an one as England is The sum of his Authorities upon this Head he reduces to these particulars 1. ' The Estates of the Kingdom may Chuse and Depose their Kings Ib. p. 110. ' and by consequence may Judge them 2. ' They may Judge between the People and the King 3. ' They may Judge between King and King when more than ' one aspire and pretend to the Crown 4. ' They Determine the Differences which Kings have with their ' Subjects 5. ' They give Tutors to Kings and Regents to the Realm 6. ' They dispose of the great Offices of State 7. ' They make Ordinances which alone have the Force of Law ' within the Realm 8. ' They regulate the Affairs of Money 9. ' They appoint Impositions and Levies of Taxes 10. ' They are to be consulted upon all great Affairs 11. ' In fine They are of right to Correct all defaults of Government ' even those of which their Kings are Authors By all these particulars says he it appears Soupirs Mem 7. p. 110. that in some respects the States are superiour to the King for example when they chuse depose judge
an eighth in the last age Vid. Apud Cujacium de feudis 4. tom lib. 5. a. f. 602. ad 1627. Mat. Par. ed. Lond. f. 563. had without precedent brought in the Dignity of the Septemvires The other was the Arrogance and Usurpation of the Pope The Golden Bull of C. 4. who as Conringius will have it brought in the Authority of the Electors of the Empire provides who shall sit Judg or High Steward when the Emperor is impeach'd By that the Palatine of the Rhine has the like power with that of which Matthew Paris shews the Earl of Chester to have carried the sign or emblem at the Coronation of H. 3. 20 of his Reign Anno 1236. Comite Cestriae gladium Sancti Edwardi qui Curtein dicitur ante Regem bajulante in signum quod Comes est Palatinus Regem si oberret habeat de jure potestatem cohibendi The Earl of Chester carrying St. Edward's Sword called the Curtein as a sign that he is an Earl Palatine and has of Right power to correct the King if he go astray It appears that this was no new grant to the then Earl of Chester for Matthew Paris informs us that the Great Men at that Coronation exercis'd what belong'd to them by ancient Custom and ancient Right That this Palatine-jurisdiction was with us before the entrance of the Norman Duke may well be thought by them Vid. 2 d Part. who shall consider the Record which I shall afterwards produce proving that Hugh Lupus enjoyed the Earldom of Chester in the time of W. 1. as heir to Leofric Earl of in the Confessor's Reign and that W. 1. confirm'd it to Lupus to hold as freely by the Sword as himself held the Kingdom The Sword which the Earl of Chester carried in the time of H. 3. being expresly said to be St. Edward's is an evidence that it was the same which Leofric carried in that time by reason of his Earldom and not of any particular Lands agreeable to what I find in the time of H. 3. in Inquisitions after the death of Hugh de Veer Earl of Oxford to whose Barony the Office of Chamberlain to the King is found to belong But that it may not seem strange that I should find a Palatine here before the Conquest when few of the German Writers place it higher than the time of our H. 3. Mr. Selden shews out of an Ancient Chronicle a Comes Palatii in France as early as the Reign of Clothar 3. about the year 660. Vid. Titles of Honour Ed. 4. Anno 1614. p. 242. This with several other considerable passages omitted in the Ed. f. And he observes upon the passage which he cites That the King and other great Courtiers seem'd to sit sometime but the chief Authority Delegate and Judiciary was in the Count du Palais and before him as Chief Justice were all Suits determined Crimes examined the Crown Revenue accompted and whatsoever done which to so great jurisdiction was competent Neither was there it seems always one only in this Office but sometime more That the Jurisdiction of Palatines was known here in the time of H. 2. appears beyond contradiction from John of Salisbury Joh. Sarisbur Epist 263. sicut alii Praesules in partem solicitudinis a summo Pontifice evocantur ut spiritualem exerceant gladium sic a Principe in ensis materialis communionem Comites quidam quasi mundani juris Praesules asciscuntur Et quidam qui hoc Officii gerunt in Palacio Juris Authoritate Palatini sunt a Bishop at that time who in a Letter to Nicholas then Sheriff of Essex says As other Prelates are called by the Pope into part of the care to exercise the Spiritual Sword so some Earls are by the Prince taken into Partnership of the Material Sword as Prelates of Worldly Right And some who bear this Office in the Palace by the Authority of Law are Palatines This fully justifies Matthew Paris in speaking with reference to the known power of a Palatine in the year 1236. One hundred and twenty years before the Bull of Charles 4. that being in the year 1356. This shews that however it might have been as to the other Electors of the Empire the Power of the Palatine was prior to the Bull of Charles 4. The Bull it self has sicut ex consuetudine introductum dicitur as 't is said to have been introduced by Custom this Custom Conringius supposes to have begun in the time of Frederic 2. but holds that there was no express Law for it till that Bull. Yet Frederic having been coeval with our H. 3. whose Sister he Married it would seem very strange if this Power or Office which had been so early in France and England should have been no earlier in Germany Titles of Honour ed. Ao. 1631. f. 382. Mr. Selden shews one Otto an Earl Palatine in Germany in the year 1154. and an other Otho who slew the Emperour Philip Anno 1208. and in the Margin refers to Eginhart who wrote the Life of Charles the Great who was Emperor over the Francs and Germans for proof that one Anselm was Comes Palatii or Earl Palatine under him Anno 812. Freherus gives an instance of the Palatine's Power in the Empire Freheri Orig. Palat. f. 113 119 120. before the Bull of Charles 4. in the Case of King Albert threatned to be deposed for killing his Leige Lord Adolph to whom he succeeded Anno 1290. With Freherus agrees Gunterus in his Octoviratus who says Prideaux his Introd Gunteri Thulemarii Octovirat cap. 18. That the Palatine of the Rhine Major Domo to the Emperour is by Custom Judge of the Emperour himself or rather in the highest matters declares the sense of the Electoral College He cites several Authors to prove the like Office or Power to have been in divers Kingdoms and Principalities and names France England Arragon Spain Denmark Poland Bohemia c. For France Loyseau who wrote within this Century Loyseau du droit des Offices ed. Anno 1610. f. 409 410. shews this Power to have belonged to their Major du Palais for he owns the Power to have been greater than the Roman Prefect of the Palace had and yet he cites the words of the Emperour Trajan giving his Prefect a naked Sword which he enjoyn'd him to use against himself if he misgovern'd And Loyseau says That this dangerous Office was put down by the Kings of the Third Line that they might perpetuate the Crown in their Family But the Author of the Sighs of France Soupirs de France Esclave Mem. 7. p. 116. shews the first interruption to the exercise of this Office to have been put by the States of the Kingdom who when Clothair pressed them to consent to the choice of a Major du Palais in the place of Warnhier then lately deceased would not consent declaring that they would not have that charge fill'd Loyseau supposes this Office to have
been split into the Constable Chancellour Treasurer and the Grand Maistre du France or Count du Palais which he seems to resemble to an High-Steward with us The Author of the Sighs of France shews Les soupirs Mem. 7. p. 167. that when Childebert was chosen King they chose Grimoald for Maire du Palais And says he Through all our History we may always see a very clear distinction between the Officers of the King's House and those of the Crown This distinction remains to this day as a Monument of the Ancient Liberty of the French For we say the Great Master of the King's Houshold the Great Chamberlain c. But we say the Constable of France the Admiral of France the Chancellour of France And these last Charges do not dye with the King whereas the Officers of the King's House dye with the King and may be changed by his Successour The Reason of this difference comes from this That that which is given by one King may be taken away by another But the Officers of the Crown being made by the People and by the Realm cannot be turn'd out by the King alone And it is very remarkable that these Offices of the Crown which the States of the Kingdom may give and which they alone can take away may extend to the whole to the War to Justice and to the Finances or Treasury In a Book published in Queen Mary's Reign which at least went under the name of Bishop Poinet one of our Confessors History of Passive Obedience p. 38. who fled to Germany from the Marian Persecution such a Power as is above mentioned is affirmed to have belong'd to the High Constable of England Treatise of Politick Power Anno 1556. As God says the Author has ordained Magistrates to hear and determine private Matters and to punish their Vices so also will he that the Magistrates doings be call'd to account and reckoning and their Vices corrected and punished by the Body of the whole Congregation or Commonwealth As it is manifest by the meaning of the Ancient Office of High-Constable of England unto whose Authority it pertained not only to summon the King personally before the Parliament or other Courts of Justice to answer and receive according to Justice but also upon just occasion to commit him to Ward Theloal in his Digest of Writs Printed in the year 1579. 21 Eliz. Collects what is in the Year-Books concerning Summoning the King Theloal's Digest tit Roy. p 71. This was H. 3. Vid. 22. E. 3. f. 3. b. Trin. 24 E. 3. f. 55. b 43 E. 3.22 a. Wilby Justice Fuit dit H. 22 E. 3. que en temps le Roy Henry devant le Roy fuit impled come serroit autre home de people Mes Edward son fits ordein que home sueroit vers le Roy per petition Et issint dit suit T. 43. E. 3.22 que en temps le Roy Henry le Roy ne fuit mes come comune person car a ceo temps home averoit brief d'entre sur disseisin vers le Roy touts autres maners d'actions come vers auters persons c. Et Wilby dit T. 24. E. 3.23 que il avoit vieu tiel brief Precipe Henrico Regi Angliae c. En lieu de quel est ore done petition pur sa Prerogative It was says he held Hil. 22 E. 3. that in the time of King Henry and before the King was impleded as any other Man of his people but Edward his Son ordain'd That a Man shall sue to the King by Petition And so it was said Trin. 43 E. 3.22 That in the time of King Henry the King was but as a common person for at that time a Man might have a Writ of Entry upon Disseisin against the King and all other manner of Actions as against other persons c. And Wilby said Trin. 24 E. 3.23 That he had seen such a Writ Precipe Henrico Regi Angliae in lieu of which now a Petition is given for his Prerogative Sir Robert Cotton of the Constable of England MS. in the Herald's Office It may be difficult to distinguish between the Office of the Earl of Chester and the Constable of England who as Sir Robert Cotton held is Second to the King and has the Custody of his Sword the carrying which as appears by Matthew Paris belonged to the Earl of Chester by reason of his Palatinate and yet at the same time Humphrey de Bohun Earl of Hereford Constable of England was in full possession of his Office Dugdale 's Bar. 1. Vol. f. 180. 11 H. 3. he stood up with the Earl of Chester and others on the behalf of Richard the King's Brother and was alive and in England 20 H. 3. when the Earl of Chester carried the Sword as of Ancient Right so that one seemed to have the right to carry the other to keep the Sword The Office of Constable seems to have been no ancienter than the the time of W. 1. Vid. Patent to Earl Rivers Temp. E. 4. Vid. 2 d. Part. to which the Patents for the Office refer but the Earldom of Chester and its Rights were Ancienter Wherefore one would think that W. 1. erected the Office of Constable to ballance that of the Earl Palatine Sir Rob. Cotton Of Constable c. MS. sup The other Great Officers the High-Steward and Marshal are easily distinguishable from the Constable and as Sir Robert Cotton observes the Office of Constable was of Military that of the High-Steward of a Civil Jurisdiction The Marshal was in the nature of an High Sheriff Vid. Stat. 3. R. 2. Stat. 1. C. 2. Of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 60. Of the Steward and Marshal So Ryle 's Placita Parl. f. 126. 21 E. 1. Selden 's Bar. 2 d Part c. 5. f. 739 F. 743. to see to the Execution of the Process and Judgments of either and yet had a Judicial Power with both In some Cases all three acted with joynt authority as appears by the most Ancient Copies of the Modus tenendi Parliamenta which tho' it has been put into Latine since the Conquest and has the names of Things and Offices adapted to what was known and in use at the time of the Translation from the Saxon MS. yet certainly for substance gives a true account of what was before the Conquest Mr. Selden supposes it to have been no ancienter than about the time of E. 3. yet confesses that he had from Mr. Hackwel a Copy of an Inspeximus 12 H. 4. Exemplifying under the Great Seal most of the particulars that occur in the ordinary Modus for England fitted for Ireland as sent thither by H. 2. but it would have been very strange if there should have passed an exemplification under the Great Seal of what was a meer fiction The Modus says Modus tenendi Parl. Cum dubitatio vel casus difficilis pacis vel
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
being ask'd by the King upon the report made by the Justices of their resolution for the Duke what things the Constable can do by reason of his Office Sir says he this Point belongs to your Law of Arms of which we have no experience nor cognizance This may shew what occasion Cardinal Wolsey had to strain a point of Law against that Duke and to have one who durst insist upon a Right to be Constable of England by inheritance Vid. Inf. 2d Part. to be taken off by an High Steward out of Parliament made for that turn And what Fineux says of the Power of the Constable may account for the silence of Bracton Fleta and other Ancient Common-Lawyers in relation to the Authority of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 31. yet Fleta shews that the Constable had a Seat in the Exchequer and overlooked Accompts relating to Soldiers Forts and Castles and gives a shrewd hint concerning the Earl Marshal speaking of the Exchequer The Justices says he sitting there were all Barons Fleta lib. 2. c. 26. because Barons used to sit in their places while the Earl of Norfolk and Martial of England had his Place and Seat there as Chief Justice of the Kingdom of England whose Place the Treasurer possesses at this day but he cannot occupy his Office This shews that in the Exchequer the Earl Marshal had place above the Constable accordingly when 25 E. 1. they came into the Exchequer to forbid the Levying of the Tax The Barons in their account of this to the King say There came to the Bar of the Exchequer Vid. Append. the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Hereford and the Earl-Marshal and the others declared they would not suffer it to be Levied That this Office was of extraordinary Authority Rot. Pat. 42. H. 3. M. 4. appears by a Record 42 H. 3. which shews That the Precept for executing the Provisions at Oxford were by the King and his Council in Parliament deliver'd to the Earl-Marshal and if we consider the Authority exercised by the Earls Marshal in the time of H. 3. and E. 1. with the approbation of Parliaments Vid. Mat. Par. 28 H. 3. it may be thought that he was an hereditary Conservator of the Kingdom notwithstanding which in the 28th of H. 3. the Parliament insisted upon it as their right to have four Conservators chosen by them This Office perhaps is the only one which was enjoyed in gross and went along with the name of Marshal till the time of H. 3. when Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk Bar. 1. Vol. f. 133. Married Maud the Daughter of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke Sir William Dugdale says the first mention which he finds of the Name and Family of Mareschal Ib. f. 599. was in the time of H. 1. but in all probability that Name and Office went together from before the time of W. 1. I am sure Roger Mareschal was a very considerable Proprietor in Doomsday-Book Vid. 2 d Part. Indeed the first contest about the Office was in the time of H. 1. when it was adjudged to belong to the Family of the Mareschals Vid. Appendix Rot. Pat. 1. Johan N. 85. M. 12. as appears by the Record of the Confirmation 1º Johannis 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 Anno 789. 2. From the Practise 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 THE Kingdom I own is founded in Monarchy and so is Poland which yet is absolutely Elective Nor is there any consequence that the dissolution of the Contract between the immediate Prince and People This objected by the Author of Elementa Politica Of the Magistracy c. vindicated and others Vid. Pufendorf de Interregnis p. 267. Post decretum circa formam Regiminis novo pacto opus erit quando constituuntur ille vel illi in quem vel in quos Regimen coetûs confertur should destroy the form of Government for that depends upon a Prior Contract which the People entred into among themselves And that by virtue of this to avoid endless competitions our Kings have generally from the first erection of the English Monarchy been chosen out of the same Family appears beyond contradiction If our Monarchy will appear from the foundation to be no otherwise an inheritance than as it is setled on a Family with a latitude for choice within the Family no Man can doubt but it will tend greatly towards removing objections against our present Settlement 't is certain the Learned Author of The Sighs of France improves the Argument farther than is needful for us Soupirs de France Mem. ' It is says he indubitable That they who have power to Chuse ' have power to Depose Every Nation says he that makes a King P. 81. preserves to its self a right to unmake him when he goes beyond the bounds of his duty and when he ruines the Estate instead of preserving it and this very thing makes it appear That Elected Princes neither are nor can be Soveraigns of an Arbitrary Power I know some talk of a Birthright and Inheritance in the Crown of England which is not founded in the statutes Jovian p. 87. but on the original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is thought to be an hereditary Monarchy according to proximity of blood But I would desire all Men of this Opinion impartially to weigh these following particulars 1. Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour shews us the form of Prayer used at the Coronation of Saxon Kings wherein they pray God to bless him whom they chuse for King and call him one chosen to be Crowned King Et hunc electum in Regem coronandum bene Titles of Honour f. 157. Out of the Saxon Pontifical At Calcuth Anno 789. Spel. Concil 1 Vol. f. 291. dicere consecrare digneris
And as anciently as the year 789. an Act was made in a General Convention of all England in Conventu Pananglico that their Kings should be Elected by the Clergy senioribus populi and Elders of the people that is such as were Members of their Great Councils or Witena Gemots Assemblies of Sage and Wise Men. This tho it was long before the reputed Conquest yet was never repealed or cut off by the Sword nay seems received with the Confessor's Laws as included in them 2. It appears by the several instances given in the fourth Chapter and the testimonies there both of Malmsbury and the Publisher of the life of King Alfred That no lineal Succession was observed here before the supposed Conquest 3. The Confessor's Law received by W. 1. Vid. Sup. and continued downwards as the noblest Transcript of the Common Law shews that the Kings of England were to be elected and the end for which they are chosen by the people After the same manner do the ancient Historians and Lawyers as well since that time as before commonly express accessions to the Throne and seem industriously to mind Kings of it that according to the caution given the Jewish Kings Deut. 17.20 their hearts be not lifted up above their Brethren 4. According to the usage from before the reputed Conquest downwards the People are asked Whether they are content to have such a Man King 5. The most absolute of the English Monarchs never believed Cambd. Brit. s 104. de W. 1 Neminem Anglici regi constituo Haredem sed a terno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim taâ—tum decus hereditario jure possedi c that then Children had a right to the Crown except the people consented that they should succeed as appears by King Alfred's Will and the Death-bed Declaration of William 1. And therefore some of our Kings against whom there has been no pretence of better Title in any particular Person or Family when they stood upon good Terms with their People have often prevail'd with them in their Lives-time to secure the Succession to their eldest Son and H. 2. to prevent hazarding the Succession endanger'd himself by getting his eldest Son Crown'd himself living But as the going no farther than the eldest argues that they looked on that as a Favour the pressing for a Settlement on their Issue in any manner argues That it was not look'd upon as a clear Point of Right without it Of later Times Settlements have been made in Tail which though they were occasion'd by Pretences to Titles are Records against an Hereditary Monarchy according to the common notion which is one that by the original Constitution descends to the next in the Line male or Female V. Leges W. 1. de Fide c. Statuimus etiam ut omnes liberi homines foedere sacramento affirment quod intra extra regnum Angliae Willielmo Regi Domino suo fideles esse volunt c. Leges S. Edw. tit Greve Vid. Juramentum homagii facti Regi 6. The Oaths of Allegiance required of all the Subjects were never extended to Heirs but were barely Personal till Settlements of the Crown were obtain'd upon the Quarrels between the Families of York and Lancaster and though H. 4. obtain'd in Parliament an Oath to himself the Prince and his Issue and to every one of his Sons successively and in the time of H. 6. the Bishops and Temporal Lords swore to be true to the Heirs of R. Duke of York yet perhaps no Oath of Allegiance to the King and his Heirs can be shewn to have been requir'd of the Subjects in general till that 26 H. 8. according to the Limitations of the Statute 25. 7. Even where the People had setled the Crown they seem'd to intend no more than to give a preference before other Pretenders not but that as Ideocy Frenzy or the like might set such an one aside so upon other weighty Reasons they might alter the Settlement Pryn 's Signal Loyalty p. 274. Pol. Virgil. 1. 22. sub initio as appears by Polydore Virgil who was never thought to lie on the Peoples side whatever Evidences for them he may have conceal'd or destroy'd whose words of H. 5. to whom the Crown had been limited by Parliament may be thus rendred Nota Proceres may take in the Nobiles minores Prince Henry having buried his Father causes a Council of Nobles to be conven'd at Westminster in which while they according to the Custom of their Ancestors consulted about making a King behold on a sudden some of the Nobility of their own accord swear Allegiance to him which officious Good-will was never known to have been shewn to any before he was declared King William 2. was elected during the Life of his eldest Brother who was set aside by the English against whom he had discovered Ill-will in spite of the Normans So H. 1. Stephen was elected while Maud the Daughter of H. 1. was alive and H. 2. succeeded in her Life-time upon an Agreement made with Stephen by the Peoples Consent R. 1. as within King John crown'd in the Life-time of his eldest Brother's Son Prince Arthur So was his Son H. 3. in the Life-time of Eleanor Prince Arthur's Sister E. 1. as within E. 2. elected E. 3. set up by the People in his Father's Life-time which the Father took for a Favour R. 2. declared Successor by Parliament in the Life-time of his Grandfather H. 4. of the younger House came in by the Peoples Choice upon their deposing R. 2. H. 5 6. Son and Grandson to H. 4. came in upon a Settlement E. 4. of the elder House came in under an Agreement made in Parliament between his Father who liv'd not to have the benefit of it and H. 6. His Son E. 5. was never crown'd R. 3. who set him aside was of the younger House H. 7. who vanquish'd him could have no Right of Proximity for the Daughter of E. 4. and his own Mother were before him All that came in since enjoy'd the Crown either under the various Settlements of H. 8. or that of H. 7. which took place again in J. 1. or from H. 6. at the highest 8. As the Practice of the Kingdom is an Evidence of its Right numerous Instances might be produc'd of Choices since the supposed Conquest not only so called by Historians but appearing so in their own Natures wherein no regard has been had to Proximity but barely to Blood And I believe no Man can shew me any more than Two since the reputed Conquest of whom it can be affirm'd with any semblance of Truth that they came in otherwise than upon Election express'd by the Historians of the Time or imply'd as they had no other Title or else a late Settlement of the Crown either upon themselves immediately or in Remainder The Two upon which I will yield
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
to a qualified Choice I Think I have with due regard to all colourable Objections made it appear That Allegiance may in some Cases be withdrawn from one who had been King till the occasion of such Withdrawing or Judgment upon it And this I have done not only from the Equity and reserved Cases necessarily implied but from the express Original and continuing Contract between Prince and People which with the Legal Judicature impowered to determine concerning it I have likewise shewn and exemplified by the Custom of the Kingdom both before the reputed Conquest and since And have occasionally proved That tho Oaths of Allegiance may reach to Heirs according to special Limitations as was 26 Hen. 8. yet in common intendment by Heirs of a King or Crown no more is meant than such as succeed to it according to the Law positive or implied And that whoever comes to the Crown upon either Allegiance is as much due to him by the Law of God and Nature as it was to the nighest in Blood Sanderson de Obligatione Juramenti Lect. 4 Or to use the words of Bishop Sanderson Dignity varies not with the change of Persons Whence if any Subject or Soldier swear Fealty to his King or General the Oath is to be meant to be made unto them also who succeed to that Dignity And when the Crown continues in the Blood this especially by what I have above-shewn puts the Obligation of Allegiance to the King in being out of Controversie unless it can be made appear that the Right of the former King remains or that there is some Settlement of the Crown yet in force which ties it strictly to the next I come now to prove That the People of England are actually discharged from their Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. and were lately restor'd to that Latitude of Choice which I have shewn to be their Original Right The Lords and Commons having a Judicial Power in this matter as hath been prov'd at large their Exercise of this Power in the nature of the Thing determines the Right unless an Appeal lies from them to some higher Court in this Nation But that no Power can legally question them or any of them in this matter appears more particularly in that there is no Statute now in force nor was since the Death of Car. 2. which makes it Treason to conspire to Depose a King or actually to Depose him Vid. Sir Rob. Atkins his Excellent Defence of the L. Russel f. 22 23. But this is of the Nature of those Common-Law-Treasons which are left to the Judgment of Parliament And they who are the only Judges of their own Actions have a pretty large liberty in them especially according to them who would infer the absolute Power of Princes from the supposition of no constituted Judges of their Actions Wherefore the Defence of their Proceedings might justly seem to be superseded were it not for an ungovernable sort of men who either cannot or will not judg according to the Rules of Right Reasoning but as they will hardly admit of any Doctrine as true for which they have not the Decision of some Father or Council will believe no Action not proceeding from their imperious Dictates justifiable even in Cases of the utmost necessity for the preservation of the true Religion and just Laws for which they have no warrant from the Examples of their Forefathers or Opinions of Men whose Books have past with their Allowance Which often drives me to the seeming Pedantry of Quotations to confirm the most obvious Considerations to which my own thoughts led me The either open or more covert Matters of Fact inducing the Declaration of Lords and Commons That J. 2. has broken the Original Contract I need not now inquire into All People must own that he has if they in the least attend to the Constitution of our Government and how apparently he by his general Dispensations usurp'd a Legislative Power for the Destruction of the Protestant Religion and Civil Rights which we were in a fair way of being Dragoon'd out of by a standing Army by degrees to have been totally under Popish or Complying Officers Yet if there were no more than his Leaving the Kingdom without making any Provision for keeping up the Justice of it and going into France a Country from whence all mischiefs have of late Years flow'd upon us and our Religion Who can deny but this alone would have been enough to set him aside Rastal's Entries tit Reattachment f. 544. b. Resum c. quia extra Regnum Angliae progres fecimus nullo locum tenente nostrum sive Custode Regni relicto c. The going out of the Realm without appointing a Custos was anciently in our Law a Discontinuance of Justice Hobart f. 155. And the Lord Hobart gives it as a Maxim Cessa Regnare si non vis Judicare ' Cease to Reign if you will not judg or maintain the ' Course of Justice Vid. Leges 12. Tab. de Magistrat Many I know upon these Questions rather regard the Civil Law and that I am sure gives a home thrust in the Case of deserting one's Country and going into such an one as France is to our Nation tho it has been in too strict Alliance with our Kings The Digests say Digest lib. 49. tit 15. De Captivis Postliminio Transfugae nullum postliminium est nam qui malo Consilio Proditoris animo patriam reliquit hostium numero habendus est c. transfuga autem non is solus accipiendus est qui aut ad hostes aut in bello transfugit sed ad eos cum quibus nulla amicitia est fide susceptâ transfugit A Deserter has no Right of being restored to his Countrey For he who left his Countrey with an evil and treacherous mind is to be held as an Enemy c. But we are to take not only him for a Deserter who runs over to Enemies in time of War but also during a Truce Or Who runs over to them with whom there is no Amity either after undertaking to be faithful to his Country or else undertaking to be faithful to the other Either of which senses the words will bear 'T is likely to be said That this out of the Civil Law is improperly applied to the Prince who according to that is exempt from all Laws Imp. Theod. Valentin Caes ad Volusianum Praefectum Proetorio Digna vox est Majestate Regnantis Legibus adligatum se Principem profiteri Adeo de auctoritate juris nostra pendet auctoritas re verâ majus imperio est submittere Legibus principatum Et oraculo praesentis Edicti quod nobis licere non patimur aliis indicamus But I would desire such besides what I have observed upon the Roman Lex Regia to read the Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian wherein they thus declare 'T is an Expression suitable to the Dignity of
And this is implied in restraining the assertion with the word Regularly to Matters within the ordinarily Rule But consider these severally 1. By perfect Contracts must be meant such wherein the Obligations are fixed and compleated at the beginning or from the nature of the Relation entred into And he says notwithstanding The Distinctions and Limitations in Contracts and Obligations Civil all agree That in those Duties which are mutual by the Laws of God and Nature as between the Father and the Son the Husband and the Wife the Lord and his Vassal the Prince and his Subjects the breach of Duty in the one is no discharge unto the other Not to observe how extensive he makes that Law of God or Nature which ascertains the Lords right over his Vassal and the Princes over his Subjects I much question Whether all agree that his Rule holds in such Cases as destroy the very nature of the Relation as the Adultery of the Wife or the like However himself yields that there may be an Obligation superiour to these for having produced Examples of Passive Obedience P. 96. he says ' We cannot here ground an Argument ' for justifying obedience to all Tyrants and invaders of our Country Omnes enim omnium Charitates una Patria complexa supergressa est c. filius sine scelere Proditorem Patriae licet Pater sit occidit In omni tempore bellum gerendum sit pro Defensione suâ Patriae Legum Patriae For our Country alone comprehends and goes beyond all private affections A Son without sin kills a Traitor to his Country tho he be his Father At all times War may be waged in Defence of ones self ones Country and the Laws of ones Country He owns expresly that Obedience is so far from being due to a Tyrant that it is not justifiable And he could not but know that the Civilians whose Rules he receives and applies under this Apellation include as well one who (a) Vid. Comment de Regno aut quovis principatu rectè tranquillè Administrando Advers Machiavellum Ed. Ao. 1577. p. 248. Bartolus duas species tyrannorum Statuit quarum unam juris seu tituli alteram exercitii sive usûs vocat Tyrannus titulo is est inquit qui sine ullo jure aut iniquo minimè legitimo titulo Principatum invadit Tyrannus exercitio sive usu is est qui legitimum quidem jus ad principatum habet sed eum injustè contra Leges exercet Itaque demum Statuit ejusmodi Tyrannis obsequium non deberi Sed è Magistratu deturbandos esse Ib. f. 249. having a lawful Title to Power uses it unjustly as one who usurps Power without any Title or other than what is unjust and illegal Wherefore since he makes no Distinction of Tyrants 't is not to be doubted but he with the Civilians particularly the Learned Bartolus discharges all Obedience and consequently Allegiance the Legal tye of Duty to a Tyrant in the exercise of Power as well as in Title Of both these Bartolus as a Judicious Author represents his sense held That Obedience is not due to them but that they are to be thrust out of the Government And the deservedly esteemed Great Man Mornay du Plessis Tractatus de Eccles per Phil. Mornaeum p. 68. in his Treatise of the Church cites Zabarel Baldus and Bartolus for the same distinction of Tyrants Nay observes that these Lawyers thô Papists held that even Popes might be Tyrants in either of these respects 2. As to the innominal Contracts Sir Roger's Rule is That the Breach of one will not justify the other to proceed towards the dissolving of the Contract which comes not up to any Case which does ipso facto dissolve it Besides this notwithstanding there may be either a Dissolution of the Contract a compelling to perform or satisfaction taken According to which in all Cases wherein the two last are insufficient a Dissolution of the Contract ought or may follow But farther the fixt Obligation of the Subject whatever the King shall do contrary to the Contract is by him founded upon the supposition either that the People of England have transfer'd the Power of the Nation to their Kings as absolutely as he supposes that the People of Rome had done to their Emperors Vid. Sup. or rather that W. 1. made a Conquest of this Nation If says he we cannot find any Law or Reason Sir Roger Poyntz p. 123. that the Romans or any other People who had in them the Supream Power could after they had transferr'd this Power to Kings and elected them reassume this Power again and when it doth please them depose their Kings or limit and restrain their Power by vertue of an habitual Power still remaining in the People as is suppos'd then undoubtedly we can find no Right in the People Vid. the punishment which the Senate decreed against Nero More majorum or in any Societies or Communities of People to Depose Restrain or Limit Kings of hereditary Succession especially those who have not their Right from the People but by Conquest as in England From such Kings of Hereditary Succession and Right all Jurisdictions do proceed and in them reside and unto them they return say the Lawyers Rex est lex animata And his Office and Function is Indesinens consulatus All other Rights and Liberties whatsoever have been as in other Kingdoms at the Will and Mercy of the Conquerors of our Island the Romans Saxons Danes Normans Our Rights and Liberties contain'd in Magna Charta granted and confirmed by divers Kings after much effusion of Blood we nor our Ancestors did nor could ever claim by Virtue of any Reservation made by the People or any others when they were Conquer'd Neither by any Original Right inseparably inherent and vested in the People and from them deriv'd Here 't is observable 1. That thô Sir Roger will not have any Original Right to be inseparable from the People yet he owns that in some places they may have Elected Kings and have had Supream Power in them till they transferr'd it to their Kings Sherringham's Supremacy asserted Introduct p. 11. Contrary to Mr. Sherringham who to make his Court at the coming in of C. 2. held that all Authority is originally in Kings or other Supream Magistrates themselves immedidiately from God Tanquam in primo creato Subjecto as in the first created Subject 2. Sir Roger with that Divine holds that W. 1. obtain'd the Crown by Conquest Sher. p. 53. Vid. 2 d Part. Mr. Sherringham indeed owns that there was a composition and agreement but will have it that this was not till after a Victory as if the Victory over Harold made a Conquest of the Nation Of which more in its place 3. Sir Roger goes no more beyond our Case when he argues upon supposition of a total Translation of the Power whereby a People or Nation is
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.
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 President 12 Car. 2. but by two Presidents 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 Reason applied to our Case Objections made by the Author of Elementa Politica considered The Conclusion THE Power having upon the Dissolution of the Contract between J. 2. and his former Subjects returned to the People of Legal Interests in the Government according to the Constitution there can be no doubt with unbiassed Men but this takes in them only who have Right of being in Person or by Representation in those Assemblies where is the highest Exercise of the Supream Power But there are two Extreams opposite to the late Election made by such an Assembly The First is of them who would have all things go on in the same Form as under a Monarch which was impossible and therefore the Supream-Law the Publick-Safety must needs supply the want of Form Nor can be justly controverted till the Lawfulness of the end is disprov'd For all Means necessary to such an End are allowable in Nature and by all Laws But if this should still be disputed all their Darling-Laws made by the Long-Parliament which met after that Convention Anno 1660. will fall to the ground according to the former application of the Statute above-mentioned 16 Car. 1. Vid. Sup. Nay the attempt of Repealing that Statute being in a Parliament which had been actually Dissolved before by that very Law which it went about to Repeal that Form which was usual before is in default of King and Officers supplied by another Provision for the Regular Meeting of Lords and Commons And what hinders but the people had as much Power to vary from the Common Form when there was no King and that Form could not be observ'd as when there was a King and a possibility of having that Form Here I may observe these two things 1. If as I have shewn at large the Right of Succession to the Crown was not fixed to the next in Blood neither before the reputed Conquest nor since if there have been several vacancies of the Throne and the People had right to chuse upon every such Vacancy then whatever they did in order to the choice must necessarily have been freed from the Forms which were required under a King 2. Even where the Kingdom has gone by descent there may have been a necessity for the people to take the Government upon them as if the present Possessor has turned Madman or he who stood next in the Succession were under age without any Guardian appointed in the Life-time of his Father or out of the land when his Father died which were the cases of R. 1. and of E. 1. the account of the last of which deserves particular notice The Annals of Waverly having mentioned the Death of H. 3. add Hoc anno scilicet post Festum S. Hillarii Annales Waverleiensis f. 227. factâ convocatione omnium Prel aliorum Magnatum Regni apud Westm postmortem illustris Regis H. convenerunt Arch. Ep. Com. Bar. Abbates Priores de quolibet Comitatu quatuor Milites de qualibet civitate quatuor qui omnes in presentiâ Dom. Will. scil Arch. Ebor. Rob. de mortuo Mari R. Burnet Cler. qui in loco Domini Regis Anglorum Edwardi praefuerunt Sacramentum eidem Domino Ed. tanquam terrae Principi susceperunt ubi Dominus W. de Mertone Cancellarius constitutus est ut moram trahat apud Westm tanquam in loco publico usque ad adventum Principis Et ibi provisum est quod nulli sint Justiciarii itinerantes usque ad adventum Principis sed in Banco Dominica prima Quadragesimae 4 Id. Martii consecratus fuit frater R. de Kilderlii in Arch. Cant. Item concessa est decima Ecclesiarum Religiosorum Domuum Domino Ed. ejus Germano ad supplicationem Domini Papae ut sit pro duobus Annis F. 228. In this year to wit after the Feast of St. Hillary all the Prelates and other great Men of the Kingdom being call'd together at Westminster after the Death of the Illustrious King Henry there met the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons Abbots and Priors and Four Knights from every County and Four from every City which all in the presence of William Archbishop of York Robert Mortimer and R. Burnet Clerk who presided in the stead of Edward their Lord and King of England took an Oath to the said Lord Edward as Governor of the Realm Where the Lord William of Merton is constituted Chancellor and that he should abide at Westminster as in a publick place till the Prince's coming And there it was provided that there should be no Justices itinerant before the Prince his coming but only in the Bench. The first week of the Quadragesima to wit on the Fourth of the Ides of March Father R. of Kilderly is consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Westminster of the same time says Mat. West Rege igitur Supulto sicut mos est regibus sepeliri Gilbertus Johannes Comites Gloverniae Warenniae nec non Clerus Populus ad magnum Altare Ecclesiae Westm ' celeriter properarunt Ed. primogenito Regis fidelitatem jurantes qui si viveret penitus ignorarunt Agebat enim in partibus transmarinis contra Christi adversarios bellaturus Postmodum ad novum Templum Londini Nobiliores Regni pariter convenerunt Et facto sigillo novo constituerunt fideles ministros Custodes qui Thesaurum Regis Pacem Regni fideliter custodirent The King therefore being buried in that state in which Kings us'd to be buried Gilbert and John Earls of Gloster and Waren as also the Clergy and People as soon as might be hastned to the great Altar of Westminster-Church swearing Fealty to Edward the King 's eldest Son tho they were wholly ignorant whether he were alive or no for he was in Foreign Parts fighting against the Enemies of Christ After this the Nobility of the Kingdom likewise met and a new Seal being made they constituted faithful Ministers and Keepers who might faithfully keep the King's Treasure and the Peace of the Kingdom The Annals and Matthew Westminster differ in circumstances tho they agree in substance but it would seem as if the same Convention had been adjourn'd from Westminster to the Temple and therefore its Acts might have been said to have been at either of the places It at least appears from Matthew Westminster that prior to that Solemn Convention which the Annals mention there had been a great confluence of people headed by the Earls of Glocester and Waren at that meeting 't is
probable that the three persons nam'd in the Annals were chosen to hold the Convention as Vicegerents to the King This when it met provided not only for swearing Allegiance to the King but for the administration of Justice chose the great Officers of the Kingdom made a new Great Seal and if occasion had been might have raised a Tax over the whole Kingdom as well as they did of the Clergy or permitted their Representatives to raise of the rest This Convention was not so full and solemn a Representative of the People as ours was and yet it being a Representation which the People consented to at that time was then look'd on as sufficient to conclude the whole and is a President in Point shewing that there was no necessity in such circumstances to use the same form of Proceedings as when they had a King before whom they were summoned But as the men of Form are too strict others are too loose in their notions and suppose the Consequence of a Dissolution of this Contract to be a mere Commonwealth or absolute Anarchy wherein every body has an equal share in the Government not only Landed-men and others with whom the Ballance of the Power has rested by the Constitution but Copy-holders Servants and the very Faeces Romuli which would not only make a quiet Election impracticable but bring in a deplorable Confusion But this Dilemma they think not to be answer'd Object Either the old Form as under a Monarch remains or it does not If it does the late Action of the Lords and Commons was irregular If it does not all the People are restored to their Original Rights and all the Laws which fetter'd them are gone Answ Here we must distinguish upon the word Form for if it be taken of the Form of Proceedings or Administration 't is no consequence that the Form of Government or Constitution should fail because we admit that the other does Mr. Hobbs indeed holds That when a Monarch for himself and his Children has left a Kingdom or renounces it the Subjects return to their absolute and natural Liberty Pufendorf de interregnis p. 282 Whom the Learned Pufendorf thus answers They who have once come together into a Civil Society and subjected themselves to a King since they have made that the Seat of their Fortunes cannot be presumed to have been so slothful as to be willing to have their new Civil Society extinct upon the Death of a King and to return to their Natural State and Anarchy to the hazarding the Safety now setled Wherefore when the Power has not been conferr'd on a King by Right of Inheritance or that he may dispose of the Succession at his pleasure it is to be understood to be at least tacitely agreed amongst them That presently upon the Death of a King they shall meet together and that in the place where the King fix'd his Dwelling Nor can there well be wanting among any people some Persons of Eminence who for a while may keep the others in order and cause them as soon as may be to consult the Publick Good The Author of the best Treatises of Civil Polity which I have met with in the English Tongue Two Treatises of Government In the former the false Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his Followers are detected and overthrown The latter is an Essay concerning the true Original Extent and End of Civil Government Ed. Anno 1690. who after the Confutation of Sir Robert Filmer's absurd Notions of Government establishes it upon the only true Foundation the Choice of the People that Original and Supreme Act of the Society antecedent to all Positive Laws in it seems not to have attended to the duplicity P. 379. or other particular nature of the Contract in relation to the English Government When says he treating of the Dissolution of Government Vid. Ca. 19. of the Dissolution of Government he who has the Supreme executive Power neglects and abandons that charge so that the Laws already made can no longer be put in execution This is demonstratively to reduce all to Anarchy and so effectually to dissolve the Government for Laws not being made for themselves but to be by their execution the bonds of the Society to keep every part of the Body-Politick in its due place and function when that totally ceases the Government visibly ceases and the people become a confused multitude without Order or Connexion Where there is no longer the Administration of Justice for the securing of mens Rights nor any remaining Power within the Community to direct the form or provide for the necessities of the Publick there certainly is no Government left But in whatever Community there is a Power remaining to provide for the necessities of the Publick upon the determination of the Interest of any single Person who had the Supreme Executive Power without recourse to the confus'd Multitude there 't is evident the Government may still continue and by consequence such a Government is more perfect being less subject to dissolution than that which upon the loss of its Supreme Governour has all its Bonds and Ligaments dissolv'd However this his Scheme of Government is not erected as the most perfect but seems designedly adapted to what he takes our Government to be tho not expresly named in which he supposes a single hereditary Person having the constant Supreme Executive Power P. 435.371 from whom all Inferior Magistrates derive all their several subordinate Powers or at least the greatest part of them Whereby it is plain that all Monarchies in any measure Elective and not only Co-ordinate Powers but all Officers who derive their Powers from the immediate Choice of the People or the Constitution are besides his state of the Question Vid. Cap. 3. of the state of war And whereas he argues That the people are by the Monarch's Violations of the Constitution restor'd to the state of nature there being no common Judg in that state of War to which his injuries force them no man who observes how clearly and consistently he always reasons can believe that he would apply this to such a state of the Question as I have shewn that our Constitution warrants which depends not upon a single Contract between the People and a Prince and his Heirs whom they had set over them whose Authority ceasing they were to new mold the Government or set up the like as they thought fit But there plainly was a farther Contract among themselves to prevent Anarchy and Confusion at any time when the Throne might be vacant and by vertue of this Contract they have regularly made those Elections which are frequent in our Histories and are authentick Presidents for our late Proceedings Yet since this Judicious Author's bringing the Government back to its first Principles sooner than our Constitution allows does not proceed from want of reasoning rightly in which I cannot say that he ever fails I hope it will
not be thought that I in the least derogate from the Honour due to him when I observe matter of fact not falling within his notice The Author of a late Paper in relation to these Times has this passage not to be neglected A Letter to a Friend advising in this extraordinary Juncture All Power is originally or fundamentally in the People formally in the Parliament which is one Corporation made up of three Constituent essentiating Parts King Lords and Commons so it was with us in England When this Corporation is broken when any one essentiating Part is lost or gone there is a Dissolution of the Corporation the formal Seat of Power and that Power devolves on the People When it is impossible to have a Parliament the Power returns to them with whom it was originally Is it possible to have a Parliament It is not possible the Government therefore is Dissolv'd Hence he would argue a necessity of having a larger Representative of the People Vid. Pufend. de Interregnis p. 267. sup in Marg. that the Convention may be truly National But had this Ingenious Person observed Pufendorf's two distinct Contracts by the first of which a Provision was made for a Monarchy before any particular Person was setled in the Throne he would have found no such necessity But if immemorially the People of England have been Represented as they were for this Assembly and no needful form or circumstance has been wanting to make the Representation compleat all men who impartially weigh the former Proofs of Elections not without a Rightful Power must needs think the last duly made Dr. Brady indeed with some few that led him the Dance and others that follow will have the present Representation of the Commons of England to have been occasioned by Rebellion 49 H. 3. But I must do him the honour to own him to be the first who would make the Barons to have no Personal Right but what depends upon a King in being for he allows none to have Right of coming to Parliament Brady's first Ed. p. 227. See this prov'd upon him in the Pref. to Jus Anglorum ab antiquo but such only to whom the King has thought fit to direct Writs of Summons Yet I dare say no man of sense who has read that Controversie believes him But were his Assertions true it might be granted that the Barons would have no more personal Right to be of any Convention upon the total Absence or Abdication of a King than they would have of coming to Parliament without His Writ Yet since the Right of the People in person or Representation is indubitable in such a Case what hinders the validity of the late Choice considering how many Elections of Kings we have had and that never by the people diffusively since the first Institution of the Government And the Representations agreed on tho I take them to be earlier setled for Cities and Burroughs than for the Freeholders in the Counties have ever since their respective settlements been in the same manner as now at least none have since the first Institution ever come in their own persons or been Electors but what are now present personally or representatively and their own Consent takes away all pretence of Error If it be said That they ought to have been Summoned Forty days before the Assembly held That is only a Privilege from the King which they may wave and have more than once consented to be Represented upon less than Forty days Summons Prynne 's Animadversions on 4 Inst f. 10. Mr. Prynne gives several Instances as 49 H. 3. 4 E. 3. 1 H. 4. 28 Eliz. and says he omits other Precedents of Parliaments Summoned within Fourty days after the Writs of Summons bear date upon extraordinary Occasions of publick safety and concernment which could not conveniently admit so long delay And Sir Robert Cotton being a strict Adherer to Form Vid. Rushw 1 Vol. f. 470. 3 Car. 1. upon an Emergency advised That the Writs should be Antedated which Trick could make no real difference To say however there ought to have been a Summons from or in the name of a King in being is absurd it being for the exercise of a lawful power which unless my Authorities fail the people had without a King or even against the consent of one in being Besides it appears That such Summons have not been essential to the Great Councils of the Nation Tacitus shews That the Germans Tacit. de Moribus German Coeunt nisi quid fortuitum subitum certis diebus c. V. Leges S. Ed. tit Greve In Capite Kal. Maij. Jus. Angl. c. 7. Vid. Append. from whom we descend had theirs at certain days unless when some extraordinary matter happened And by the Confessor's Laws received by W. 1. and continued downwards by the Coronaton Oaths requir'd to this very day the General Folcmot ought to be held annually without any formal Summons upon May-day By the time of E. 1. this custom to hold a Parliament upon May-day received a little alteration for the Pope having at the beginning of that King's Reign demanded eight years Arrears of an Annual payment which he claim'd for the Kingdom of England the King had put him off till the next Parliament which he said had us'd to be held in England about the Octaves of our Saviour's Resurrection This Parliament was held at the Octaves accordingly as the King acknowleges upon the Pope's second demand but pleads that it had been taken up with the great Affairs of the Nation till his want of Health occasion'd a Dissolution before they could consider oâ—… tt Matter which he promis'd should be brought before them at the next Parliament which he purposed to hold at Michaelmas then following The Statute 16 Car. 1. which our rigid Formalists must own to be in Force has wholly taken away the necessity of Writs of Summons from a King Stat. 12. Car. 2. c. 1. The Assembly of the Lords and Commons held Anno 1660. was summoned by the Keepers of the Liberties of England not by the Kings Writs yet when they came to Act in conjunction with the King they declare enact and adjudge where the Statute is manifestly declaratory of what was Law before That the Lords and Commons then sitting are and shall be the Two Houses of Parliament notwithstanding any want of the King 's Writ or Writs of Summons or any defect or alteration of or in any Writ of Summons c. Tho' this seems parallel to the present Case yet in truth ours is the strongest For the King then had been only King de jure no Authority could be received from Him nor could any Act of His be regarded in Law through defect either of Jurisdiction or Proof if not both Accordingly as not only the Reason of the thing but the Lord Coke shews 3 Inst f. 7. Sup. in Marg. a Pardon from one barely King de jure is of
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
Worship which though not contain'd in Scripture were us'd in the Primitive Church which is an Individium vagum which some confine to the Life-time of the Apostles some extend to the whole first three Centuries some even to this according to the Doctrine of Infallible Tradition Suppose for Example that in such Assemblies as are form'd with or without leave of the Civil Power the Sign of the Cross be used as a Symbol of dedicating to the Service of Christ those who are let into Catholick Communion and this they judg useful to the present and according to the Primitive Church it will be a Question Whether the retaining of this against a particular Interdict of the Civil Power which is supposable at least is to be justifi'd upon these Grounds Put this Argument into Form and you will find he has more or less in his Conclusion than in his Premises Rightly taken I conceive it lies thus If the Gospel contains a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth hath any right to prohibit But the Gospel does contain a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service Therefore such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth has Power to prohibit This being taken for granted he proceeds What no Authority upon Earth has right to prohibit may be done or perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But such Service ut supra no Authority upon Earth hath right to prohibit therefore it may be perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But he concludes contrary to the Laws of Arguing That those Christians who rightly worship God in the True Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such Assemblies for the Christian Worship as appear useful for the Church's Good Now if hereby he means that they who worship God according to the Scriptures even though taking in the Practice of the Apostles have not this Right unless they do it in the manner us'd till or at the end of the first three hundred Years after Christ which is the modestest acceptation of Primitive Times Here by adding of Circumstances his Conclusion has really less than the Premises because it ties up them whom the Scripture has left free and takes from the Authority of Scripture where the Foundation was laid and undermines it by going to support it with the specious words of Apostolical and Primitive which still are of doubtful Acceptation Whereas some believe that no manner of Worship is to be term'd Primitive which was not truly Apostolical that is us'd by the Apostles themselves others call every thing within those three Centuries at least Primitive and therefore Apostolical But to be sure here is a very false way of Arguing if he uses any or else 't is gratis dictum But take it for an Argument and then to his purpose there is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises for the Premises are only of such Publick Service as is contain'd and establish'd in the Gospel and thence he would conclude that whatever has been practis'd in the Primitive Church in the Publick Service of God may be continued notwithstanding the Interdict Nay he would go farther That they may in their Assemblies practise according to their own Judgment of what is useful for the Church's Good If it be said that he means no more than that they may hold such Assemblies for Christian Worship as appear useful that is of Five besides a single Family 22 Car. 2. c. 1. or more as appears useful if he means not that they may assemble and worship in such a manner as appears useful he excludes the Worship out of the Assembly and then it may be a Silent Meeting if the Civil Power please and is less than his Premises warrant I must confess he seems to intend the amusing rather than satisfying his Readers by putting in the true Catholick Communion for he must mean either that what-ever Publick Service is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church is in true Catholick Communion and so vice versa that what-ever is in true Catholick Communion is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church so that the Church becomes the Rule to the supplanting of Scripture or else that to worship God rightly and warrantably notwithstanding a Civil Interdict 't is not enough to be according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church unless it be in the true Catholick Communion that is with such Terms of Communion as Christ himself or his Apostles made Catholick and universally obliging and indeed in this sense though he has not observ'd it he comes up fully to the Force of his Argument The great Sanderson whose Judgment where it was according to that lumen siccum the general want of which is to be deplored is of great Authority has gone about to split the Hair between two Extreams in relation to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and lays down what he says is most consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Church of England and moreover to the Laws of the Kingdom Sanderson de Obligatione Conscientiaa Pag. 209. Quod Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Regni insimul Legibus maximè sit consentaneum Which by the way is an insinuation that the Church of England holds some Doctrine not consentaneous to Law and it may be the Canons of 1640 might be instanced in Now his Notion is that the jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas that is the Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs is in the Bishops Presbyters and other Persons duly elected by the Clergy of the whole Kingdom and duly assembled in a lawful Synod Upon this I would be bold to ask the Question Pag. 188. How this agrees with his Concession That the King is Supream Head and Governour over all Persons and Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil since his own Argument is That he who is Supream has the Power or Right to make Laws But the King is Supream wherefore P. 192. according to him the King and not the Clergy hath this Power This I think is the unforc'd Consequence from his other Assertion Potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est jus ferendi leges quae obligant totam communitatem esse penes eum solum Pag. 186. sive sit is singularis persona ut in statu Regiminis Monarchici sive plures ut in aliis qui cum summâ potestate toti communitati praest Nay he argues that it must needs be so in reason Praecipuus actus gubernationis praecipuam requiret potestatem c. Est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive legum latio actus gubernationis supremus praecipuus Non ergo potest exerceri nisia persona habente aut saltem in virtute ex authoritate habentis supremam authoritatem jurisdictionem in communitatem sibi
Ed. for every Law must always have some present known Person in being whose Will it must be to make it a Law for the present If the Independent Heads or Nobles are instead of One Prince to make choice of an Head which is a Law to that end then a Law may flow from the Will of many as well as from that of One. But take Sir Robert's Notion of Supream or Independent Heads and Fathers in the most sensible meaning that is of Natural Fathers these where there is no division into Tribes as was amongst the Jews will be numerous Yet all in the Case presuppos'd are allow'd by Sir Robert to be invested with Kingly Power and therefore the parting with it must be by their choice as he himself yields and yet according to his Principles they can never so part with it but they may resume it I must confess in this he doubly contradicts himself for the End of his Writings being to prove that the Government ought always to be in One absolutely here he yields it to be in many And when before he said That Civil Power not only in general Patriarc p. 12. is by Divine Constitution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parent here he acknowledges it to be in several Parents not in the Eldest only But that every such Parent as was at any time vested with this Power may resume it is the plain Inference from his Doctrine for he tells us Patriar p. 54. That although a King do frame all his Actions to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Those Laws which are the best or only means for the preservation of the Common-weal bind Princes Or so far forth as the general Law of the Safety of the Common-weal doth naturally bind him for in such sort only positive Laws may be said to bind the King not by being positive but as they are naturally the best or only Means for the preservation of the Common-weal Here still he opposes himself for he yields that Princes are bound to those Laws which are the best or only means for the preservation of the Common-weal and so asserts that exploded Sentence I will not call it Maxim Free-holders Grand Inq. p. 39 Anarchy p. 265 No Laws whatsoever bind Princes Salus Populi suprema Lex when at other times he tells us That 't was God's Ordinance that Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as all the Acts of his Will and as in him so in all others that have Supream Power That is as by Supream Power he means absolute every one that has Absolute Power ought to have Absolute Power But the Consequence from Adam's having had such Power is That the Right Heir from Adam in the natural course ought to inherit it But as he supposes several at the same time to be Heirs or to come into the stead of Adam's right Heir upon the Escheat of the Kingly Power these being so many Kings or at least making one King where however the Power is in many though they parted with their Power they might at any time resume it when they thought it for the Good of the Publick of which they as Princes should be Judges nay and their Heirs in Succession might Filmer's Power of Kings F. 2. And so Sir Robert's Maxim resteth That the Prince is not subject to his Laws nor the Laws of his Predecessors but well to his own just and reasonable Conventions Patriarc p. 97. Nay though they should swear to observe all the Laws of their Kingdoms yet no Man can think it Reason that Kings should be more bound by their voluntary Oaths than common Persons are by theirs I see not how upon his Principles an Answer can be given to his Question Patriarc p. 23. If Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a natural Law and Subjection to Princes but by mediation of an Humane Ordinance what Reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men as we see the Power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the Power of the Magistrate He affords no other Title to Princes than what Fathers have to be Princes each in his own Family nay he himself owns that the Kingly Power may escheat to all the Independent Fathers and that they may transfer it over to One. Now that 't is in this One not still in all or in some other must be of Humane Ordinance Upon which Grounds the answer to his Question is obvious which is that the Subjection due by Nature from Children to their Parents is not defeated by the Kingly Power 's being in One and therefore the Power of the Father over his Child does not give place to the Power of the Magistrate If it did this their natural Right the Parents may resume when 't is for the Good of their respective Families or thought so by them and indeed of one great Family they might resolve the Community into as many separate Governments as there are Families or Patres Familiâs at their Pleasures without any moral Obligation to the contrary If the Power whereby a Nation is govern'd were not wholly distinct from that whereby a private Family is and if both came by Nature since the true descent in Nature cannot now be made out for every Family to make a Kingdom by its self must be most natural and the only lawful Government unless Choice that is Humane Ordinance may warrantably cement them into one Government And this is very evident in the Case of Escheat and of any Translation of Kingly Power from Natural Fathers For the Kingly Power is in the Fathers before the transferring it over quatenus Fathers or it is not If it be in them quatenus Fathers then according to Sir Robert they may resume whatever is essential to the Soveraignty of Fathers being it was once lawfully vested in them at least they have a great deal of Latitude for their Claim because Power of Kings Fol. 2. Patriarcha p. 97. For the same Causes that a private Man may be relieved from his unjust and unreasonable Promise as for that it was so grievous or for that he was by Deceit or Fraud circumvented or induced thereunto by Error or Force or just Fear or by some great Hurt even for the same Causes the Prince or Princes may be restored in that which toucheth the diminishing of his or their Majesty It seems he grants that the Power once lawfully vested in any cannot be parted with but upon choice wholly free ex mero motu voluntate spontaneâ Yet being there was no Obligation upon them from God or Nature to devolve their Power upon one rather than another but purely what proceeded from their own wills this if he argues rightly they might resume when they list at least when they all agreed to the
Honour Nature and Dewtie an inordinate seditious and slaundres Act was made agayns the most famous Prince of blessed memory Kinge Herrie the Sixte his Vncle in the Parliament holden at Westminster the fourth day of November the first Year of the Reigne of Edward the Fourth late King of England whereby his said Vncle contrary to due Allegianee and all due Order was attainted of High Treason Wherefore our same Soveraigne Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spirituals and Temporals and Comines in this present Parliament assembled and by Auctoritie of the same ordeineth enacteth and establisheth that the said Act and all Acts of Attainder Forfaiture and Disablement made or had in the said Parliament or else in any other Parliament of the said late King Edward ayenst the said most blessed Prince King Herrie or against the right famous Princess Margaret late Queen of England his Wife or the right victorious Prince Edward late Prince of Wales Son of the same blessed King Herrie and Margarett Jasper Duke of Bedford late Earl of Pembroke or Herrie late Duke of Somerset the which Jasper and Herrie late Duke of Somerset for their true and faithful Allegiances and Services done to the same blessed King Herrie were attainted of High Treason or any of them by what Name or Names they or any of them be named in any of the said Acts be ayenst the said blessed King Herrie Queen Margaret Edward late Prince and the same Dukes and the Heirs of every of them void annulled repelled and of no Force ne Effect N. X. Vid. CAP. F. 103. SAnctissimo in Christo Patri Domino Claus 3. E. 1. m. 9. Cedula In a Letter to the Pope Domino G. divinâ providentiâ Sacro-sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae universalis Ecclesiae summo Pontifici Edwardus ejusdem gratiâ Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae Dux Aquitaniae Cum reverentiâ honore salutem pedum oscula beatorum Mandavit nobis olim per literas Apostolicas quas pronâ mentis devotione recepimus vestra sanctitas reverenda ut annuum censum in quo Sacrosanctae Rom. Ecclesiae ratione Regni Angl. pro octo praeteritis annis asseritis nos teneri venerabili vestro Magistro R. de Nogeriis Capellano vestro assignari liberaliter ac integrè nomine pred Rom. Ecclesiae faceremus Nuper autem alias literas vestras recepimus cum Reverentiâ continentes quod cum nos respons Relationis solutionis Censûs annui memorati quam nobis pred Capel vester exposuit vestrae Ecclesiae Romanae Nomine diligenter Deliberatione Consilii Procerum Regni nostri in Parliamento quod circa Octabas Resurrectionis Dominicae celebrari in Angliâ consuerit pro eo duximus reservand quod tempore receptionis pred lit vestrae noviter ejusdem Regni gubernacula sumpseramus nunc de hujusmodi censu sine ulteriori procrast impendi faceremus eidem satisfac plen Capellano Fatemur enim S. Pater Domine ad Parliament nostrum in Octabis Resurrectionis Dominicae prox pret Regni nostri Praelatos Proceres evocasse ibique multa statuisse divinâ gratiâ favente quae meliorationem statûs Ecclesiae Anglicanae reformationem Regni ejusdem respiciunt communes profectus populi capiant incrementa Set antequam eidem Parl. propter negotiorum multitud quae reformationis remedio indigebant finem imponere valeremus Eodem Capellano vestro responsionem debitam sibi fieri instanter postulante quaedam gravis nos invasit sicut Domino placuit infirmitas corporalis quae perfectionem multorum aliorum negot deliberationem Petitionis Censûs annui supardict de quo dolemus non modicum impedivit Sicque cum occatione infirmitatis hujusmodi à quâ per Dei gratiam cujus est perimere mederi incepimus convalescere Idem Parl. fuerit dissolutum super hoc nequiverimus super Petitione Censûs ejusdem deliberationem habere cum Praelatis Proceribus antedictis sine quorum communicato consilio sanctitatae vestrae super predictis non possumus respondere Et jurejurando in coronatione nostra prestit sumus astricti quod jura Regni nostri servabimus illibata nec aliquod quod Diadema tangat Regni ejusdem absque ipsorum requisito consilio faciemus Reverende Benignitati vestrae humiliter supplicamus pro dono petimus spirituali quatenus molestè non ferat sanctitas vestra si ad praesens super pred sicut vellemus non possumus respondere Imo patientia vestra paterna si placet nos super hoc habere dignetur excutatos Pro firmo scituri pie Pater Domine quod in alio Parliamento nostro quod ad festum Sancti Michaelis prox fut intendimus dante Domino celebrare habito communicato Consilio cum Praelat Proc. memoratis vobis super praem ipsorum Consilio dabimus responsionem Conservet vos Dominus Ecclesiae Sanctae suae per tempora longaeva Teste meipso apud Westm 19. die Junii Anno Regni nostri 3o. The Present CONVENTION a Parliament N. XI Vid. CAP. 10. F. 111. I. THat the formality of the King 's Writ of Summons is not so essential to an English Parliament but that the Peers of the Realm and the Commons by their Representatives duly Elected may legally Act as the great Council and Representative Body of the Nation though not summon'd by the King especially when the Circumstances of the time are such that such Summons cannot be had will I hope appear by these following Observations First The Saxon Government was transplanted hither out of Germany where the meeting of the Saxons in such Assemblies was at certain fixed times viz. at the New and Full Moon But after their Transmigration hither Religion changing other things changed with it and the Times for their publick Assemblies in conformity to the great Solemnity celebrated by Christians came to be changed to the Feasts of Easter Pentecost and the Nativity The lower we come down in Story the seldomer we find these General Assemblies to have been held and sometimes even very anciently when upon extraordinary Occasions they met out of course a Precept an Edict or Sanction is mentioned to have issued from the King But the Times and the very Place of their ordinary Meeting having been certain and determined in the very first and eldest Times that we meet with any mention of such Assemblies which times are as ancient as any Memory of the Nation it self hence I inferr that no Summons from the King can be thought to have been necessary in those days because it was altogether needless Secondly The Succession to the Crown did not in those days nor till of late Years run in a course of Lineal Succession by right of Inheritance But upon the Death of a Prince those Persons of the Realm that Composed the then Parliament Assembled in order to the choosing of another That the Kingdom was then Elective though one or other of the Royal
mention had ben made it is lykely that the Parliament wold never have consentyd or agreid thervnto as at the makinge of the same Statute yf eny had gone about to have pennyd it in this sorte that such shuld succeede and enjoye the Crowne as K. Henry either by his Letters Patentes or elles by his last Wyll signed with his most gracious Hand had namyd what Parsonnes soever they had ben although they were infamous madde impious or such other before rehearsed it is not lykely that in this maner or forme the Parliament wolde have allowed or passed such a Statute And that that is not lykely they wold have consentyd vnto by wordes in such sorte specially expressid It is not to be thought or understandid that such Persons shuld be capable and fit for that Callinge omni exceptione majores And it is playne and notoryous as is before-sayd that to be borne in Adultery or of eny other unlawfull sorte or matche is reputid and taken a Spotte and that a greate one not onely by the Lawes of Man but also by the Lawes of God (p) Sapien. 3 4. Deut. 2 3. and so unworthy and unfitte ar such to be thought capable of the Crowne that in all States where they use to gyve or graunte eny Seigniories Titles or Liberties in Fee as Baronyes Erleshippes Markeshippes and such other the Bastardes ar never thought worthy to be admittid unto the Succession although that they be made legitimate But they must specially be ablyd vnto the succession of the Fee by the Prince (q) Bartol Bald. in l. eam quam C. de fidei com And yf they cannot inherite or be capable of their Titles and Honours which ar not nor cannot be comparyd vnto a Royall Dignitie how shuld they be thought worthie or capable of a Crowne And that that is sayde of Bastardes is to be understandid also of those that pretendith the Succession as Heires of Bastardes And synce this Realme makith no lesse esteme of the Honour and Dignity of the same then eny other Nation doth of theires it is not lykely that specially they would graunt unto the Kinge Power or Authoryte to gyve or leve the Crowne to eny Person not legitimately borne or to their Children or to eny such Person upon whose Birth and Proceedinges there might growe such stryfe dispute or contention accordinge to the saying of Cesar and example of other a litle before remembryd And since it is not lykely that the Parliament wold haue condiscendid specially unto it it followith and we must conclude that such a Graunt cannot be comprehendid by general words But though he had Power or Authority to dispose of the Crowne to the Heires of the Lady Francys and the Lady Eleanor it is trewe yet notwithstandinge he could not do that but with the Condition and Forme that by Power of the Parliament was gyven him that is either by his Letters Patentes vnder the Greate Seale of England or ells by his last Will signed with his most Gratious Hande By Letters Patentes without doubt he hath not done it and so of the Will is the Controversy But beinge able to make a sufficient and perfect Will to all other intentes and purposes either in puttinge to his Hand or ells in not puttinge to his Hand yet yf the Kinge have made his Will without puttinge unto his Hand as ther be Wittnesses sufficient and some of those that subscribed the same Testament in that behalf can so truely and plainly testify that he hath as there is no such Cause left therfore either of such doubt or elles of such conferringe or comparinge the Prothocall with the Signe or Stampe as those that haue sette foorthe these Books wold seeme to make then it is playne and manifest that he hath not done it to this purpose accordinge to the forme and maner prescribed vnto him by the Statute And every Acte or Deede that is done without the Forme prescribed by Lawe is insufficient (r) L. 1. in pr. ff de stipula l. traditionibus C. de pac l. 1. C. de pred cur lib. 10. as well accordinge to th' Exposition and Rules of the Civill Lawe as ells by th' Exposition and Rules of the Common Lawe of this Realme for accordinge to the Civill Lawe it is playne and so taken though the Matters they entreate of be in favourable Causes yet the lacke of Forme is no wayes borne withall or excused (s) L. cum hi. §. si pretor ff de transa Bal. cons 324. volu 20. And much lesse heerin consideringe the Forme requyrid by the Statute is compiled with so meny greate goode important and probable Reasons For the Succession of the Crowne beinge a Cause of such greate weight and in which ther was so greate occasion to doubt so many hassardes of indirect or subtile dealinge they had goode cause to prescribe such a Maner and Forme to make the Will by as wherby they had least occasion to feare or suspect eny counterfetinge confuse or sinister behavour in the same And so accordinge to the Civill Lawe in that Testament that they call a Solempne Testament in the which there is required meny Circumstances yf eny of those do lacke the Testament or Will is of no force or valour (t) Justin de testa lege jube C. ibidem Besydes accordinge to the same Lawe all Statutes or Agreements made that takith away or correctith eny thinge of or from the Course or Body of the Lawe is reputed and taken as odious and ought to be taken strictly even accordinge to the Letter as the worde standith And this Statute wherof we now speake is such a One For wher the Succession of the Crowne shuld have gone whither the Common Lawe had apoynted or directid it as vnto the next by the Statute of 35 of Henry the Eighth K. Henry had Auctority to leve it to whome he lysted And therfore this Statute is to be interpretid strictly and precisely as the worde gyveth That is that Kinge Henry onely by his Letters Patentes vnder the Great Seale of England or elles by his last Wyll signed with his most gratious Hand might name whome he would to the Succession of the Crowne and not otherwyse And lykewise by the Common Lawe of this Realme the Statute is most plainly a direct abridgement of the same by reason it takith from the Common Lawe the naturall limitation of th' Inheritance of the Crowne and appointith it owte of the Rule of the Lawe to the Order and Limitation of Kinge Henry beinge in this respect authorized but as a private Person And it is in some degree a Penal Lawe for it takith the Title of a Kingedome from those that by the Common Lawe have a Right and makith in poynt of execution a Subject of a Prince and contrarywyse a Prince of a Subject which is not onely penall as hauinge respect to the losse of their Title to the Crowne yf it shuld
to be thought but that the Floude of Bloode from which God defend thee that otherwise might be shedde doth continually flowe before her Highnes pitifull and most mercifull Eyes And that her Maiestie taryeth but some goode tyde most carefully to provyde for the same as may be possible Which it may please God to graunte vnto her Highnes for th'Honer of Him and the greate Benifyte of the whole Realme with most convenyent speede Amen 20. Martii 1565. God save Queene Elizabeth REFLECTIONS ON Bishop Overall's CONVOCATION-BOOK M.DC.VI CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD's CATHOLICK CHURCH AND OF THE Kingdoms of the Whole World LONDON Printed in the Year M.DC.XC Reflections on Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book 1606. c. IT having been my purpose to consider all Objections of any weight in themselves or from the Authority of Persons which should occur to me against the Right of Their Present Majesties and the Justice of their Undertaking our Deliverance I ought not to pass by Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book compos'd in the time of James I. Licensed by the late Bishop of Canterbury since his disowning this Government and Printed as it is to be presumed with a manifest Intention of undermining it for every Man may discern that the Scheme of Government there drawn for the whole World is contrary to the Foundation of our Present Settlement but tho the Hypothesis is laid together with much Subtilty nothing but Infallibility can give it Authority and to me it seems a piece of Presumption only short of that of the Romish Church For having made a Collection from Sacred and Prophane History and the Apocryphal Writings tho of the last they say P. 64. they mean not to attribute any Canonical Authority unto them nor to establish any Point of Doctrine they Canonically condemn of Errors all that agree not to their Inferences and Conclusions upon a state of Fact which at least may be false This single Observation might make it needless to consider more particularly what is there said especially when I add this further That it would make Scripture Examples under the Jewish State to have the force of Precepts now which if they have then the Examples of Jehu in killing wicked King Joram then his Subject and of Othniel P. 46. 2 Kings Judges and Ehud who rescued the Israelites the one from the King of Moab the other from the King of Mesopotamia who had brought them under Subjection may serve for Rules in the like Cases If they do not then to what purpose do they in other Instances bring Presidents of God's dealing with the Jews of his chusing and anointing their Kings and the like With these Antidotes we may venture upon a further tast of the Doctrines The Foundation of all is the Patriarchal Power of Adam which they suppose to have been absolutely Monarchical all the World over that Noah had the like Authority all his Life but that he divided the whole World among his Three Sons upon which they conclude P. 84. That if any Man affirm Can. 35. That God ever committed the Government of all the World after Adam 's and Noah 's times to any one Man to be the sole and visible Monarch of it he doth greatly err And another Error which they Canonically condemn is of them who hold that Christ doth not allow the distributing of this his one Vniversal Kingdom Lib 2. Can. 4. p. 147. into divers Principalities and Kingdoms to be Ruled by so many Kings and Absolute Princes under him Upon the whole the Fatherly Power was absolute in Adam then in Noah then in his Three Sons together and ever after in all the Princes in the World Can. 2. and as they affirm in relation to Adam's Monarchical Power that it rose not from any choice of the People neither say they is it deduced by their Consents naturally from them P. 3. Which is meant of the Powers which now are in the World And yet if I mistake not they elsewhere own that the Consent of the People may be requisite to the legitimating some Governments when they justify Mattathias P. 67. who being moved with the Monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of Antiochus made open resistance the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance wherein the Consent or Submission of the People is owned to be material The consequence of which will reach a Prince that Exercises a Power beyond what has been submitted to or setled But admit their Notion of the Absolute Power of the Father should hold while the World was but one Family and the Father might be supposed to be the sole Proprietor I doubt they cannot advance one step further without meer Fictions of their own Imaginations or as vain and uncertain Tradition If we attend to the sacred Text freed from their imposing Comment Noah's Sons are by God himself made joynt Proprietors with him Gen. 9.1 2 For the Text says God blessed Noah and his Sons and said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea into your hand are they delivered If this Donation had no effect as to the Sons in the life-time of the Father neither according to the Patriarchal Scheme could the younger Sons have any Benefit in the life-time of the Elder wherefore either here was a joynt Propriety in all and consequently the Distribution must proceed from an express or tacit Consent of the Proprietors or else they must be beholden to Jewish Tradition for the establishing their Christian Canon concerning Government For two things I must confess we are obliged to them 1. For pathetically describing the unhappiness of the Jews and how Religion went in those days P. 72. when the Priests had gotten the Reins into their own Hands 2. For observing That the Pharisees the most proud and stubborn of the Jewish Sects P. 79. were the only Men who refused to swear Allegiance to Herod and Caesar Can. 30. yet they say If any Man shall affirm that Jaddus the Jewish High Priest having sworn Allegiance to Darius might have lawfully born Arms against him he doth greatly err This is in a Canon which they raise from the Fact in Josephus of Jaddus's refusing to assist Alexander in his Wars and becoming Tributary to the Macedonians as he had been to the Persians and this after Alexander had overthrown Darius who escaped by Flight The Jewish High Priest seems to put words into the Mouth of our late Archbishop returning for answer That he might not yield thereto because he had taken an Oath of Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived Compare this with the next Canon according to the Analogy of their Doctrine and see
how it provides for the Security of Princes and Obedience to their Governments Can. 31. If any Man therefore shall affirm either That the Jews generally both Priests and People were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them as they had been before the Subjects of Babylon and Persia or that they were not all bound to pray for the long Life and Prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire as they had been bound before to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the other said Kings and their Kingdoms whilst they liv'd under their Subjection or consequently that they might lawfully upon any occasion whatsoever have offered Violence and Destruction either to their Persons or to their Kingdoms for the long continuance and Prosperity whereof they were bound to pray or that after the Jews were deliverred from their Servitude under the Kings of Syria and the Government over them was setled in Mattathias's Posterity it was lawful for the People upon any occasion to have Rebelled against them or to have offered Violence to their Persons He doth greatly err The Justice or Injustice of the War on either side between Darius and Alexander are made no part of the question but here are two Princes both suppos'd Absolute with all Adam's Power over their respective People staking their Kingdoms upon the chance of Battle one of them is conquered and runs away yet according to our Canonists the Conqueror is not entituled to the Fatherly or Patriarchal Power over the other's People but it is suspended at least during the Life of the King that was beaten and the Authority not setled all that while and if the Monarchy was Hereditary it may be yet more difficult when to fix the Settlement If it is admitted to be Setled in the life-time of the ejected and conquer'd Prince and that it is a duty to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the Conqueror and upon no occasion to offer any Violence to his Person or Kingdom yet according to these Canonists they were bound at least during the Life of the Conquered Prince to give no active Assistance to the other in Person or Contribution And thus it might be allowable to mock God Almighty while they pray for that to which they will not contribute the means in their Power or else their Prayers were to have such a mental Reservation as some have who pray for King James while they pray for The King But if they were to pray for Alexander's Prosperity without reserve one would think it was lawful at least to Fight for him against Darius notwithstanding the Oath of Allegiance taken to Darius by reason of the Authority which he had lost If any one shall say That this Convocation-Book was innocently published at this time let him read the following Canon If any Man therefore shall affirm Can. 28. either that the Subjects when they shake off the Yoke of their Obedience to their Sovereigns and set up a Form of Government among themselves after their own Humours do not therein very wickedly or that it is lawful for any Bordering Kings through Ambition and Malice to Invade their Neighbours Or that the Providence and Goodness of God in using of Rebellions and Oppressions to execute his Iustice against any King or Country doth mitigate or qualify the Offences of any such Rebels or Oppressing Kings or that when any such new Forms of Government begun by Rebellion are after thoroughly Setled the Authority in them is not of God or that any who live within the Territories of such new Governments are not bound to be Subject to God's Authority which is there executed but may Rebel against the same Or that the Jews either in Egypt or Babylon might lawfully for any Cause have taken Arms against any of those Kings or have offered any Violence to their Persons He doth greatly Err. If this be taken according to any rational or so much as probable Account of Government in General particularly applied to the English Constitution I see no danger in admitting that People ought not to throw off the Yoke of Obedience and set up a Form of Government after their own Humours and that it is not justifiable in any Bordering King or Prince through Ambition and Malice to Invade his Neighbours And yet this would not in the least condemn either the People of England in shaking off a former illegal and arbitary Yoak while yet they retain the ancient Form and Fundamental Rights of the Government or our Present Sovereign in his Heroical Undertaking our Deliverance But if all Princes are as Absolute as their Notion makes them the Nation had no Ground of complaint and His Present Majesty's Expedition would fall under the Imputation of Ambitition or Malice 't is certain that no just cause could be assign'd for it upon their Principles and yet these would as well condemn our Dissenting Bishops of Disobedience to the Late King in not complying with the Commands of a Prince whom this Book would make Absolute And of this the Archbishop would have done well to have bethought himself when he gave his License for the Church-Militant to put on this old rusty Armor which hung up without use for above eighty years Vid. Advertisement called Anno 1603. continued to 1610. had been full three if not not six Years in hammering out and was brought forth in this Critical Time to do Wonders for their suppos'd King of Divine Right of their making at least if not of God's Whilest the Clergy in that and following times Wrote and Preached for Preferments and Condemn'd all Notions which lay in their way to it it is to be feared that they incurr'd the Curse pronounced from more Divine Authority against him that removes his Neighbours Land-mark And he that would Model the English Government by those of the East of old set up and maintain'd by Confusion would do well to transplant his Family into Turky where he may find one of the truest Patterns of the fancied Patriarchal Government But if that or the Anticyrae to which an old Romam would have advised them be too far for them to Travel in their Canonical Habit they may take a step into France where its Monarch assumes and exercises a Power according to their Primitive Stamp Yet the latter part of the foregoing Canon tells you That you are bound to be subject to God's Authority even in those new Governments which are set up after the Humours of the People So that fully to maintain their Passive Character even in the Case of Usurpation and Introducing a new Form contrary to the Fundamental Constitution they are bound to sit still and never to Assist to Restore their Rightful Prince or ancient Form of Government but should trust Providence or rather tempt it to forsake them to their utter destruction But they who would be led by the Authority of these Canons to condemn our present Settlement I hope will learn even from thence to submit to it and attempt nothing against it and then I doubt not but there are brave English Men enough to defend it from all Foreign Force FINIS