â—or acknowledgement that any fault was in himself until he was a Prisoner but evermore laid all the blame on the Parliament 6. That in this long persistance he had wearied and beggered all his friends and assistants at home and abroad to the desolation of three flourishing Kingdoms by the continuation of his Hostility to the destruction of a million of poor Innocent souls without any remorse of so much blood spilt more then of one man his wicked * Straford Instrument 7. That when he protested most and to the height of imprecation the Parliament at last found by the Testimony of his own Letters under his hand-writing that he meant nothing less and more contrary then to his usual Protestations 8. That neither all the Honors Mannors and Lands of the Crown or his own blood without true repentance could be a sufficient expiation to God or recompence to his subjects for the infinite bloodshed rapines and dilapidatins made on the Natives of three Kingdoms 9. That such was his insensibility of bloodshed that the many Lords Gentlemen and infinite others of inferiour quality slaughtetered in his bloody quarrel he made no other reckoning of them then this viz. that they suffered no more then of duty they were bound to do for their King which he avouched on the death of the Earl of Northampton 10. That those unjust pretences which he made under the notion of his Royal Prerogatives viz. the Militia power of War Peace Leagues Treaties Array of the people his negative Voyce in all Parliaments pardoning of Murderers and Fellons condemned by the Laws of the Land were all at his only disposure whereas by the known Laws of the Realm they have been onely entrusted and conferr'd on our Kings by the indulgence of the people in their Representatives as hereafter shall manifestly appear 11. That all his Treaties with the Parliament for peace were persidious and his Propositions evermore umbrated under â—pecious pretexts subtilties subtersuges and mental reservations as 't was evident in that at Colebrook and Vxbridge and more apparent by his own Letters to the Duke of * Vide The Kings Letters to the Duke of Rich. mond with others to the Queen Richmond viz. Not to forget to cajole well the Scots and by that at Oxford by Registring in the Councel-books his calling them a Parliament with mental reservations though not ex animo so acknowledged yet summoned by his own Writs and often so esteemed and call'd by himself and acknowledged to be a legal Parliament by his own mungril Conventicle at Oxford 12 That in all his Declarations and Expresses to the Parliament he evermore seemed to have a tender regard both towards them and the people when he onely intended his own interests with the advance of the Soveraignty to absoluteness by the power of the sword and to convey his designs to his Successors as in the instance of the * Vide One of the Kings Expresses where he yeelds the Militia during his own life but not sor his Sons Militia is most perspicuous when he perceived that the Parliament would no longer trust so dangerous weapons in his hands 13. That some of his best friends suspected him to be too much vers't in the Florentine Principles as indoctrinated by a French and Italian party constantly resident in his own Court and stickled on by the inâ—usions of the Queen-Mother the Daughter both which had gained a great interest had chiefest influence on his Concels and as'tis well known was wholy governed as the Queen lifted and at last his inclinations so strictly tyed up as that they were not subject to any other alteration then as she prescribed which was a Rule to whatsoever he undretook 14. That he was not wanting to himself for promoting of his arbitrary designs to make use of Machiavels principle Divide impera evermore to sow divisions and to cherish any dissention arising between the Parliament and their friends thereby to ruine them by themselves Thus Gentlemen according to your desires I have given you an accompt of those Reasons which have been given me wherefore the Parliament enterprized on the change of the Government by cutting off the King and his Posterity the premises being so true and undenyable that they satisfied me and prevailed so sar on my belief that I conceive the Parliament could not otherwise possibly have secured the Nation from farther ruine as also that their resolutions therein were directed by the special hand of God considered together with the and great constant charge incident to Monarchy the often pressures and oppressions of the subject through the Tyranny ambition and prodigalitie of most of our Kings the two last having beggered and impoverished them most of all others on which considerations the Parliament in reason of State and as the state of the controyersie then was between them and the King they found it much better to quit themselves and the people of Regal Government and to change it into a Republick as a more safe and cheaper Government rather then any longer to hazard the common liberty on the Rule of any one Prince whatsoever especially not to trust those of the Sotch Nation all our Histories and the Parliaments sad experience having taught them that of late years the Soveraignty by the ambition and artifices of both the late Kings was strain'd and tentered up to so high a pitch that it would not stoop to a lower power then that of absolutenes Now more particularly to answer your Querie as concerning the King of Scots the two Dukes with the rest of the late Kings loyns it seems likewise that the Parliament knowing them to be the Sons of that father who had more wasted the Land then all of the Norman Race before him they had small hopes left them that any of the same line would be much better being tutor'd afore-hand by the Father and at present residing in a French Academy which if admitted to the Government in all likelyhood would be no other then the cause of more blood more charge trouble misery and sorrow to the people very few of our Kings having given the Nation any great cause to be over-much enamoured with their Governments but most of the best much repentance through their Tyrannies and oppressions Prel Sir I profess you have given me fuller satisfaction then I could expect and I believe that you have taken the right measure of the Parliaments foot with the true reasons wherefore they have not onely cut off the Father but excluded all his Discendants onely in the point of their changing the kingly Government into a Republick as more secure and cheaper for the Nation this is a riddle to me for lamentable experience enforms us that all the oppressions and grievances of the people by all or most of our Kings and those so much upbraided and caft in the face of the late King I dare affirm amounts not to the fisth part of the charge and
work to the enslaving of the Nation Of the Prerogatives Royall which the late King claimed as inseparables of the Crown 1. OF the Royal Power what it is 2. His sole and absolute power over the Militia 3. His Negative voyce in all Parliaments 4. His power to Array the people at will and pleasure 5. His Prerogative to call and dissolve Parliaments at pleasure 6. His Prerogative to pardon Murderers and Fellons 7. His Prerogative to dispose of Wards Mad-men and Lunaticks c. 8. Lastly that Tyrannous assertion of his own and his Father King Iames viz. That they were not bound to give account of their actions to any but to God alone These Prerogatives claimed by the late King as the Royalists say were invaded by the Parliament and the grounds of the late destructive Wars happily after-Ages as well as the present may be inquisitive to know whether they were so legally in the Kings absolute power that he stood bound to uphold them by the sword to the ruine of the Kingdom and whether the Parliament by their trust stood not more obliged to withstand them as encroachments on the common freedoms and liberties of the people We shall therefore for the general satisfaction briefly shew the extent of them all as they are either defined by our ancient Lawyers or confined and limited by our common Laws and Statutes The Royal power what it is FIrst then that this Royal power of our Kings hath never been any other then a limited and intrusted power to govern by Law to which their Coronation Oathes oblige them which may very well satisfie any rational man and save us the labour farther to dispute this point But we shall make it more plain that the highest of this Royal power was never more by the Law of the Land throughout all Ages then in the executive power Ius suum cuique tribuere to give to every subject his right neither can the King otherwise dispence this right or Law to the people but in and by his Courts of Judicature non per se tantum not by himself out of the law of his own breast for that 's plain Tyranny Stat pro ratione voluntas quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem which are the common principles of all Tyrants that That shall be the Law which the king wills which is more then the Grand Signior claims or exerciseth neither can this Royal power whatsoever of late times by flattering Lawyers hath been exposed to deceive the people enable the king to do that which the Law forbids What kings as Tyrants will do makes nothing to the matter in question but what they ought to do and what by the Law their Oath and duty of their Office they are bound to do is the true state of this Question Neither were any of our kings ever so absolute in power and Supremacy but that by the fundamental Laws of this Land they had their Superiours and those which were above them as one of the most eminent and ancient of our * Bracton Lawyers affirms often recited during the late Controversie viz. Rex habet superiorem scilicet legem per quam factus est Rex alterum scilicet curiam comites Barones which is The king hath a superiour to wit the Law by which he is made king another though very much scorned by the late king viz. The Court of Parliament composed of the Earls Barons and selected Gentry of the Land for this Court hath in it the Legislative power or the Authority of making Laws and who knows not the old principle Quod efficit tale est magis tale that which makes the thing is greater then the thing made And another of our eminent and learned Lawyers Fortiscue Chancellour to Henry the Sixth fol. 40. cap. 18. positively delivers it as a fundamental Law that the kings power is no other then that which the Law gives him and that cannot be farther extended or made greater without the assent of the whole Realm for should it be otherwise it follows that the king might then sell or dispose of the kingdom to whom he pleaseth which by the Law he cannot do neither by the ancient Laws of the Land can the king sell or alienate the Regalia and Jewels of the Crown though the late king took the liberty to sell them for Arms against the Parliament neither can the King by his own sole power dispose of the Cities Towns Forts and Castles of the Kingdom as the Scotch Lords 1639 told him in down-right terms on his fortifying of the Castles of Edenburgh and Dunbarton and the reasons they gave were valid both in Law and reason for that those Forts and Castles were built for defence security and safety of the people against Invadors and not for their offence to be man'd and fortified at the Kings pleasure against themselves And the reason of this Law is rendred by a most learned and expert * Novil 85. princi cap. 18. Jurist viz. Quod Magistratus sit nudus dispensator defensor Iurium Regni constat ex eo quod non possit alienare Imperium oppida urbes regionesve vel res subditorum bonave Regni quia Rex Regni non proprietarius Which is that a King or Magistrate is no more then a bare dispensor of the Laws of hâ—s Kingdom and the reason is manifest for that he cannot sell or alenate the Kingdom or the Cities Towns and Provinces thereof neither the Subjects goods or goods of the Kingdom because the King is onely the Director not the Owner and Propriator of the kingdom But Royalists and some jugling * Judge Ienkins Lawyers and ignorant Divines have both taught and written the contrary and made the late king believe that his power was absolute and without bounds which is fearful to imagine and shameful in those which continue to possess the people with such damnable untruths as lamentable it is to see the generality of the Nation to stand still unshaken in their belief that the kings rights were invaded and himself inforc'â— to make war for his own the contrary whereunto that his power stood bounded and limited by the Laws of the Land hath been so often alledged and prest upon him by the Parliament in their Answers and Expresses that the re inforcing of more Arguments on a subject so much overworn would be nauseous to all ingenious Readers To period this particular as 't is the gound-work of all the kings other Prerogative claims I shall onely put all Royalists in remembrance of that which the Earl of Strafford aver'd to the king 1640. viz. * Vide The Iuncto loose and absolved from all the reines of Government whether this assertion amongst other of the Deputies tended not to place the kings power above the known Laws of the Land I appeal to the judgement of any rational man for as a late a worthy * Mr. John Pim in his Speech to the Lords Member of
Parliament observed at the Earls tryal that the Laws were the boundaries and measures betwixt the Kings Prerogative and the peoples Liberty But whether the king throughout the whole course of the late destructive War and â—ome years before was not a prompt disciple in the Deputies doctrine I leave to Royalists to make their own judgement And whether that which after befell the king and his Fathers house was not rather of the justice of heaven then of men I leave to the judgement of all the world Sure we are the best Jurists maintain Si Rex hostili animo arma contra populum gesserit amittet Regnum which is that if a King with an hostile intent shall raise Arms against his people he loseth or forfeits his kingdom Now that the late king assumed to himself such a Royal power as to raise Arms against the great Councel of the Land I suppose no man in his right wits can deny Its most true a moderate Royal power to rule by the Laws is doubtless of Gods Ordinance but a Tyrannical power to cut their throats I am sure is of no Divine Institution and a Dominion fitter for beasts then men yet this is that power which Royalists would have fastned on the king and too many there are which constantly believe that the more injury was done him that he had it not as by the Laws of the Land they erroneously conceive he ought to have had The Power of the Militia how the Kings BRiefly now to the Militia and what kinde of power our kings by the Laws of England have had therein It hath been often told the late king all along the late Controversie that the power of the Militia was in him no other then fiduciary and not at his absolute dispose or that at his own will and pleasure he might pervert the Arms and strength of the kingdom from their proper use and against the intent of the Law as ' its visibly known he did even to the highest breach of trust wherein a king could be intrusted Now for proof that this power was onely fiduciary and by Statute Law first confer'd on * Anno 7. Edw. 1. apud Westminster Edw. 1. in trust and not his by the Common Law is most apparent by the Express words of the Statute it self which as they are commonly inserted were onely for the the defence of the Land and safety of the people salus populi being that grand Law and end of all Laws now such as are verst in our Historie know that this Prince was one of the most magnanimous kings that ever swayd the English Scepter and therefore it cannot be imaginable that he would clip his own power and so great a right belonging to him by the Common Law in accepting a less by Statute Law to his own loss of power or that ever he would have assented thereunto by an after Act of his own as follows in haec verba viz. Whereas on sundry complaints made to us by the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament that divers of the standing Bands have been removed and taken out of their respective Counties by vertue of our Commissions and sent to us out of their Shires into Scotland Gascoyn and Gwoyn and other parts beyond the Seas contrary to the Laws of the Land c. Our Soveraign Lord willeth that it shall be done so no more Agreeable to this we finde Anno 1. Edw. 3d. viz. The King willeth that no man henceforth be charged to arm otherwise then he was wont in time of our Progenitors the Kings of England and that no man be compell'd to go out of his Shire but where necessity requireth and the sudden coming in of strange Enemies into the Realm And in the same kings time there being a peace concluded between him and the French king wherein the Duke of Britain was included whom the French king shortly thereupon invaded whereof complaint was made to king Edward he instantly summons a Parliament and there moves the Lords and Commons both for their advice and assistance whereupon it was concluded that the king should be expeditiously supply'd in ayd of the Britton but the Act was made with such provisoes and restrictions as Royallists happily and others of late years would have deemed them too dishonourable and unbefitting the late kings acceptance howsoever this Act shews that the ordering of the Militia of those times was not solely left to the kings disposure but that which is of more note was that both the Treasure then granted was committed to certain persons in trust to be issued to the onely use for which it was given as also that no Treaty or any new peace or agreement with the French King should be made without the consent and privity of the Parliament By these instances all Royalists may make a clear judgement that the Militia of those times and the power of the Arms of the Kingdom were never so absolutely conferr'd on our kings as that their power therein extended to such a latitude as they might use them as they pleased and to turn that power provided for the onely defence of the people against themselves and therefore wheresover we finde the Militia by other Statutes conferr'd and yeelded to the disposal of our kings without any particular mention of the word trust which is necessarily imply'd or exprest in most of the Statutes or their preambles viz. * Note that these words viz. for the defence of the Realm or common profit are afore inserted â—ither in the Stat. themselves or in their preamb. In these wotds For the honour of God the Church common profit of the Realm or defence of our people No man in common reason can conceive the Militia to be such an inseparable flower of the Crown as if it had been brought into the world with the King and chain'd unto him as his birth-right but onely as a permissive power recommended unto him by the people in their Representatives as the most eminent and illustrious person to be intrusted with such choyce weapons in trust and confidence that he will use them no otherwise then to the end for which-they were concredited unto him as the Soveraign of the people and for their onely safety and defence which trusted him in honour of his person and place Many other Statutes there are though some of them repealed which prove the Militia is onely fiduciary and not absolutely inherent to the Crowns of our Kings Now for our conclusion of this senceless illegal Prerogative as to the absolute power thereof let us in a word take notice of the destructive consequence admitting this power should be left to the Kings absolute disposure it then follows that he may take all that the Subject hath for he that hath the power of the sword on the same ground may command the purse which the late King not onely intended but practised witness the many great sums of money plate jewels and other moveables whatsoever
taken either by his command or permission in the late Wars the instances whereof would amount to a volumn and as to his intentions without injury to his memory we may take notice of his own expressions in his Letters to the Queen viz. That though he wanted money yet good swords and Pistols would fetch it in Ex unque Leonis We may judge of the Lyons strength by his paw and of the kings intentions had he lighted on the fortune to have mastered the Parliament Of the Kings Negative Voyce in Parliament WE now come to that so much asserted and inseparable Flower of the Crown as the king and Royalists would have it believed viz. his Negative voyce in Parliament a claim so absurd and contrary to Law and Reason that wise men may laugh at it and fools discern the distructive consequence thereof for at one blast or breath of the kings it utterly frustrates the very Essence and Being of all Parliaments and obstructs all their Consultations and whatsoever they shall never so well advise and agree upon as a necessary Law shall be made of no effect with this one single word of the kings Negatur which is point blank against his Corronation Oath where he swears or ought to swear to Govern both by the old Laws per istas bonas leges quas vulgus eligerit though it pleased the Archbishop to emasculate that most essential part of the Oath so to leave the king at liberty and by such good Laws as the Parliament shall chuse so that the Legislative power hath always resided in that Soveraign Court to make and unmake Laws according to the vicissitude of times and change of mens manners and not at the kings choyce who hath only the distributive power when Laws are made to see them duly executed and the Law of the Land also limits that power for the king as before 't is noted cannot execute the Laws at his own pleasure but in and by his Courts of Justice But strange it is what a ridiculous construction Royalists have made of the verb eligerit to be meant in the preterpersect Tense and not of the future to make any new Laws though never so necessary but that the people must stand to their old Laws though some of them never so fit to be abrogated unless the king please to give way to the establishing of new or repealing of the old which is a most irrationall and destructive assertion Neither may we omit to shew what Royalists farther aver that such is the necessity and force of the Kings assent that be the Law never so useful and beneficial for the people to be established yet without the Kings fiat it can never have the force and stamp of a Law which is the same as when the King chosen Generalissimo and trusted with the conduct of the Kingdoms Armies will turn the mouth of the Canon from the Enemy on his own Souldiers and deny them to provide for their own safeties such absurdities have the late and present Licenciates of this time ran into as if men had been bewitch't to betray their own freedoms It is not denyed but that the Kings assent to a Law thought fit by the Parliament to be Enacted is very necessary yet it follows not that it must be of necessity for if the King out of a perverse humour will not after some time of consideration assent to such a Law which if not ratified by his fiat tends to the inevitable destruction of the Common-wealth shall the publick safety be neglected for the humoring of one mans obstinate will and in such a case ought not the States Assembled in Parliament provide against a common mischief Enact and Ordain for the publick indemnity as former Presidents in such cases may direct them and when no other remedy can be had The Lords in the time of king Richard the Second would not be so answered when they sent him word that if he would not come to the Parliament according to his promise and joyn his helping hand to theirs in redress of the publick grievances they would chuse such a King that should The Array of the People WE now come to the principal and practical part of the kings power over the Militia for the Array of the people is the grand piece of that usurpatious claim viz. That at his own will and pleasure he may send forth his Commissions to Array the people against themselves and this power under colour of Law and of right belonging unto him the universal Nation knows he forbore not to put in execution against their Representative summoned by his own Writs a president without president neither for the legality known either in our Histories or Law-books otherwise then by consent of Parliament and in cases of immiment danger for opposing of an invading Enemy but for a king trusted with the defence of his people in calms of peaceable times and on no necessity to put in execution such a reasonless and unlimited power as one of his Royal Prerogatives and to maintain it by the sword was besides the breach of his Royal trust such a daring action as none but a Tyrant in folio would have attempted 'T is true that heretofore during that long continued feud between the English and the Scots divers Gentlemen of the North parts and others on the Welch-Borders of the kings Tenants were by their Tenures bound to rise watch and wind * Cornage Tenure horns on all incursions of the Scots and of these kind of Tenures Littleton treats in his chapter of petty Serjeanty but I suppose none so very cowards though not bound by their Tenures but would take up Arms in the common defence and contribute their best assistance for the expelling of an invading Enemy though in this very case by the Law of the Land 'T is very dangerous for him that shall raise Forces without special Commission from the King and Parliament and * The Lords Cromwels Case Cromwel Earl of Essex in Henry the Eigth's Reign though at that time Lord President of the North dyed for no other cause then this that he raised an Army both for the suppression of an insurrection and expulsion of the Scots so nice and provident our Ancestors have ever been of levying Armies in the bowels of the Land on any pretence whatsoever But for the king first to raise an Army at York assuring the Parliament that it was to no other end then for a Guard to his Person and therewith to cause so many half-witted Lords then attending him to attest that for truth which was false as it manifestly appeared by his immediate marching to Nottingham where he set up his Standard of War as a summons of the people to his assistance against the Parliament when himself was both the first Assaulter and Invader and yet at that very instant of time to reassure the Parliament that he raised not his Standard against them and at the same conjunctureâ— of
was a known Tyrant an Usurper and a murtherer of his own Brothers children an Enemy to the Clergy and the greatest depopulator of the Kingdom that ever before it had and yet the States and Nobility forget all his Tyrannies misdeeds and after his poysoning at Swinsteed admitted of his innocent young Son after call'd by the name of Henry the third and soon quitted the Land of Lewis the Dolphin of France whom before they had call'd in to their assistance and to whom most of the great Lords had sworn fealty In like manner the Parliament after the deposiog of Edward the second for his Tyranny made choyce of his young Son Edward the third who proved a very galland Prince likewise on the Parliaments deposing of Richard of Burdeaux for his misgovernment the State made choyse of his cousin-german Henry of Bulling-brook who though not the next in blood and consequently an Usurper as to the right of Succession yet was he made King by consent of the Parliament and he approved himself a very wise and politick Prince whence it appears that the Parliaments and Nobility of those times had ever an eye on the next Successor or to such a one of the blood-Royal as in their judgements they conceived to be most capable and fit to undertake the kingly Government as it may be instanced in their Election of Steven Earl of Bulloyn in the absence of Maude the Empress next in blood and since that of Henry of Richmon after the killing of that Tyrant Richard of Glocester on these premises I beseech you a little extend your patience and tell me what you conceive to have been the reasons that the late Parliament not only took away the Kings life by a new president and under colour of a legal hearing to the great regret of the major part of the Nation but have rerejected the young Prince of mature years hopeful and able to govern together with the Duke of York and Glocester with all the discendents of King James and have changed the Royal Government into a Common-wealth have sold all the Lands Honours Mannors and Revenues anciently by right belonging to the Crown as the proper Inheritance of the Kings of England Now Sir By what Law of God man or reason of State they have attempted on so strange an enterprise passes my understanding especially the exclusion of the poor innocent Princes goes directly against my conscience yet if you please I shall willing hear what you can say for my better satisfaction Patri Doctor your questions necessarily will require a long search into the reasons wherefore the Parliament enterprized on so high a concernment yet in brief I shall tell you what hath been told me and by some of the late Members on the same Queres you have propounded First they say that on consideration of the Kings seldom calling and often dissolving of such Parliaments as he summoned without their due effects and that for ten years together he refused to summon any but ruled during so long an intermission at will and pleasure whereby the common interest and liberties of the people were so much invaded and so many grievances and oppressions crept both into the Church and State that when this late Parliament was through the extremity of his wants call'd the Assembly was to seek where to begin to rectifie and repair the decays of the Commonwealth which through his own misgovernment the prodigaltie and dissoluteness of the Court and Clergy had befallen the universal Nation which although he wholly then left to their rectification yet immediately thereupon he not onely went from his word and falsified his promise but by the continuance of innumerable practises and his uttermost endevors he sought nothing more then to obstruct their Reformation ruine the Parliament and put all the Kingdom into consusion by a most bloody and destructive war which the Assembly perceiving and that his intent in pursuing his designs full six years together and so long as he was able aimed at the utter overthrow of the Laws and envassaladge of the people and that he had entailed this quarrel on his Son and his Heirs-males in perpetuum how impossible then it was for the Parliament to settle a firm peace throughout the three Kingdoms by re-admitting the King full fraught though a prisoner with his wonted Principles and designs or to take in any of his Posterity afore-hand indoctrinated in their Fathers frauds and subtilties might amaze the wisest of men even Salomon himself to finde out any other way how to free the Nation from peâ—petual Tyranny and bloodshed but by cutting off both the Father and Son which were so deeply interessed in the controversie and to make the same use of their victories for the future security and indemnity of the people as the King himself intended to do in the behalf of himself and his Successor had the fortune of a Conquest befallen him thus much in general as to the grounds of the Parliaments resolution of cutting off the King and his Posterity as to the particular reasons I pray take them in their order 1. They alledge that they had no choyce left them whereby to save the Nation from utter ruine but were by the Law of necessity inforc't upon them by the King himself and of his own seeking both to cut off him and exclude his Postâ—rity 2. That having had so long patience and taken such infinite pains during all the wars after he had lost all and was a Prisoner to satisfie him from time to time in what possibly they could in all things questionable between them and on all his exceptions to reason the case all along with him in their several Answers and Replies to his Papers Expresses and Protestations attested before God and his Holy Angels pretending still how really he meant when by long and sad experience they found all his pretences fraudulent yet could they never satisfie him with any Arguments either of Law or Reason but that his own Reason his Will his Honour his Conscience must be the onely Directory to the Parliament theirs of no esteem with him 3. That notwithstanding their many Addresses and humble Petitions presented unto him after his causless recess from the Parliament for his return with honor and profit with this onely reservation to leave Delinquents to the judgement of his Supream Court they prevailed not but he defended them and was the skreen to most notorious Offendors professing still a willingness to peace and Treaties onely to get advantages when he most intended War and Conquest 4. That such was the obstinacy of his natural inclination which himself miscalls constancy from which they found it was impossible to disswade him or yeeld to any reason never so well measured by them but that they must yeeld to his though never so unreasonably prest by himself 5. That in this wilsull pursuance to obtain his most unjust ends he incorrigibly persisted to the last without the least reluctation