ANIMADVERSIONS Upon the Modern Explanation of 11 HEN. 7. Cap. 1. OR A KING de FACTO THough our Gentlemen of the Revolution seem well satisfied with their new Allegiance yet the Reasons if not the Degrees of their Compliance are very different 'T is true there are some few furnished with that variety of Demonstration as to be able to make out the Justice of the late Proceedings from no less than Four infallible Topicks Abdication Forfeiture c. but Men of this Compass of Thought are not commonly met with The more moderate Undertakers are content to maintain a single Post and think themselves well if the Cause will afford them one good Reason for what they do Now in this their Vindication they are no less divided from themselves than from their Neighbours of the old Government Some Men affirm That the Crown was lapsed to the People and that their Representatives have given it to the Prince of Orange by way of Gratitude Others thinking their Consciences not safe in this Bottom tell us That they are either Conquered or Undone and seem Uneasy because they don't argue in Chains In earnest our Circumstances must needs be hard when our best Friends who were so nicely Apprehensive of the least Incroachment desert us at this surprising Rate Who would have thought that these Keepers of the Liberties of England who declaim'd so heartily against Arbitrary Power and gave God solemn Thanks for their Deliverance should reverse their Devotions thus soon plead against Magna Charta and set all their Wits on work to make us as great Slaves as those in Turkey For that this glorious Condition is the Consequence of Conquest is a Truth so obvious to collect that a very little Reasoning will make it undeniable And as if Disputing and Printing against the freedom of their Country were not enough to make all sure they are pleased to ratify their Slavery with an Oath That they do no less is apparent for those that Swear to the new Establishment upon the Principle of Conquest Swear that the Laws of the Old Constitution are no longer in force And that the present Possessors may turn them out of their Freeholds and sell them to the West Indies without any Legal Injustice For when a People are Conquered their Lives and Fortunes lye at the Mercy of the Conquerour This Title makes his Sovereignty absolute and his Will a Law. But I shall take leave of these Submissive Gentlemen and proceed to consider the Arguments for a King de Facto Now it is asserted by some of the Long Robe That Possession of the Throne abstracted from any other Title is sufficient to challenge a full Obedience from the Subject and that the Right of a Lawful Prince expires upon his Dispossession This Opinion is founded upon Sir Ed. Coke's Authority who in his Institutes Part 3. Ch. High Treason maintains That the Word Roi mentioned 25 Ed. 3. is to be understood of a King in Possession though unjustly of the Crown and Kingdom The Grounds of this Conclusion are taken from 11 H 7. c. 1. Now supposing this Act did resolve all Right into Force and was as Extraordinary as some People would make it yet it could secure no more than thē Dominion of England to the present Possessors For First It cannot reach Scotland because it is an independent Kingdom and it has lately declared in Parliament when Duke Lauderdale was High Commissioner that the Prosperity of that Nation has been chiefly owing next under God to the absolute Power and uninterrupted Succession of their Kings So that it is plain a King de Facto has nothing to do there neither has he any better Colour of pretence to the Government of Ireland First For the Reason above-mentioned viz. because Ireland is a separate and distinct Dominion from England as Sir Ed. Coke undeniably proves Calvin's Case p. 22 23. Secondly If it be Objected That the Irish obliged themselves by Poyning's Act to be governed by the Laws of England To this I answer That the Irish bound themselves only to receive those Laws which were then made not such as should be made for the future and therefore that Kingdom is unconcerned with 11 H. 7. in regard it was Enacted a Year after the Statute of Poynings Besides in that Island the King de Iure and de Facto is the same person To return therefore to England I observe First That Sir Ed. Coke in his Notion of the Prerogatives of a King de Facto contradicts himself For in Calvin's Case he tell us That Allegiance and Faith are due to a King by the Law of Nature He must mean a Rightful King for the Law of Nature doth not incourage Injustice and Usurpation Secondly He affirms That the Law of Nature is part of the Law of England and cites Bracton Fortescue c. for this Point And Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable Calvin's Case p. 12. From hence I infer That if Allegiance is due to a Rightful King by the Law of Nature if this Law is incorporated into our English Constitution and of an immutable Obligation then it necessarily follows That as long as we have a King de Iure we must be de Iure his Subjects So that by Sir Ed. Coke's Argument It must be unlawful to assign over our Obedience to a Prince de Facto who hath nothing but meer Power to prove his Authority Farther he tells us That Rex de Facto non de Iure is Seignieur le Roi within the Purvieu of the Statutes sc. 25 Ed. 3. which he pretends to prove from 11 H. 7. c. 1. which being the First Authority he cites in confirmation of his Opinion he owns by Consequence That before the making this Statute a King de Facto was not within the Purvieu of 25 Ed. 3. And therefore upon his own Grounds the King for the time being mentioned 11 H. 7. c. 1. must be a King de Iure at least one that was presumed such because at that time the Constitution knew no other For that Possession was not a sufficient Title before 11 H. 7. will evidently appear from these following Remarks First Because we don't find so much as the Name of a King de Facto in our Statutes till 1 Ed. 4. c. 1. where all the Lancastrian Line are declared Kings de Facto but not de Iure in Deed but not in Right pretensed or pretended Kings 1 Ed. 4. c. 1. Secondly Henry the Sixth is said to be rightfully amoved from the Government And his Reign affirmed to be Intrusion and Usurpation and himself attainted for being in Arms against Edward the Fourth Cotton's Abridg. fol. 670 671. Baggot's Case 9 Ed. 4. Thirdly All Patents of Honour Charters and Priviledges which were granted by the House of Lancaster all Acts of Royal Authority which the Kings of England have a Right to execute by vertue of their sole Prerogative nay Acts of Parliament themselves particularly those
relating to Shrewsbury and some others which by parity of Reason supposes the rest in the same Condition all Acts of this Nature were confirmed by the first of Edw. the Fourth which is a good Argument that this Parliament believed the Authority by which they were performed to be Defective and Illegal For we never find any such general Confirmations as these pass upon the Grants of Kings de Iure Fourthly In the First Year of Hen. 7. Ric. 3. was attainted of High Treason in Parliament under the Name of Duke of Glocester Lord Bacon vit H. 7. p. 1004. from whence its plain That as there was no Statute so neither was there any Common Law to support the Title of a King de Facto for Treason is an Attempt against the King's Person his Crown and Dignity but no Man can commit Treason against himself Therefore if Ric. 3. had been a King in the Sense of the Law we may be sure he would not have had such an infamous Censure past upon him after his Death Bradshaw and his High Court of Justice were the First that were so hardy as to pronounce a King of England guilty of Treason Fifthly if this Notion of a King de Facto had been allowed in the 1 H. 7. the Principal Assistants of Ric. 3. would not have been attainted Lord Bacon ibid. for Richard being actually in the Seat of the Government he was according to our modern way of arguing Rightful King and consequently the People ought to own him as such and defend him against all Opposers And if so certainly they ought not to be condemned as Traytors for doing their Duty as we find many of those were who fought for King Richard. Sixthly At the end of this Parliament Hen. 7. granted a General Pardon to the common People who had appeared against him in the behalf of Ric. 3. Now Pardon supposes a Fault and the Breach of a Law which they could not have been charged with if the Plea of a King de Facto had been warranted by the Constitution The Consideration of these Things is sufficient to confute that new Notion which is advanced in a late Book The unreasonableness of a Separation c. p. 30. viz. That a King de Facto is in the Sense of our Law no Usurper The Instances of proof are made in the Three successive Henrys Thus this Author But we see unrepealed and unexceptionable Acts of Parliament say the contrary For not to sum up the whole Evidence are not these Lancastrian Princes called pretensed Kings Kings in Deed but not in Right Now what are pretended Kings who have no Right but are rightfully amoved from the Government what are such Kings but Usurpers If the detaining and exercising that Power or Property which by evident Declarations of Law belongs to another be not Usurpation then no Man can be an Usurper but all Titles are alike and there is no such thing as Right and Wrong But possibly this Author thinks the Crown to be Ferae Naturae and that its every Ones that can catch it If so the Parliament 1 Ed 4. was not of his Opinion For they condemn the Proceedings of Henry Earl of Darby as they call Hen. 4. in very sharp Expressions they affirm the Reign of Hen. 6. to be Intrusion and Usurpation They are very positive That he who is an Intruder at First must provided the Right Owners are known be an Usurper ever after and that the Continuation of an Injury cannot alter the Nature of it except it be to heighten the Crime Indeed it would go hard with honest Men if Dominion might be acquired by Injustice and Right depended upon Wrong This Parliament Rot. Parl. 1 E. 4. n. 9 10. c. and that of 1 Iac. 1. though possibly this Author may not think it material fix the Crown upon the Point of Proximity and declare That Ed. 4. and Iac. 1. are rightful Kings of England by virtue of their Lineal Descent by the Laws of God of Nature and those of the Land and that they will repute them and their Heirs for true Kings of England and no other in virtue of their said Right and Title and spend the last drop of their Blood in defence of it This one would imagine is sticking upon the point of Proximity to purpose And yet our Author is pleased to say That a King of England may challenge Obedience though he does not claim by an immediate Hereditary Right pag. 30. Now he that has Allegiance due to him must have the Prerogatives of Sovereignty For the Word Allegiance applied to Kings imports thus much in the Sense of our Laws 11 H. 7. c. So that by Consequence he may be King to all Intents and Purposes without an immediate Hereditary Right i. e. without any Hereditary Right at all For Hereditary Right is nothing but a Lineal Succession to the last Lawful Possessor and therefore it must be immediate in the very Notion of it For where the next in Blood may be Lawfully pretermitted the whole Family may be served so too and consequently can lay no claim to an Hereditary Right But as far as our Author can see our Laws require Allegiance to be paid to a King without such Hereditary Right I am sorry he could not see these Acts of Parliament nor the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy for then possibly he would have been of another Opinion There is an excellent Book called The Grand Question which had it lain in this Gentleman's way I believe the Authority and Reason of it would have inlightned him upon this Point For that Great Author proves That an Act made 1 Ed. 3. was not barely Repealed but declared in Parliament to be Unlawful because Ed. 2. was then Living and true King. Rot. Parl. 64. 21 Rich. 2. Grand Quest. p. 80 81. Secondly He takes it for granted between himself and his Adversary That Hen. 4. was an Usurper and consequently that the Repeal of 21 Rich. 2. was not Legally made especially considering Rich. 2. was then Living Id. p. 83. Thirdly He avers That Ed. 3. was an Usurper as long as his Father was Living and the Proceedings of the Parliament under him during that time null and void p. 85 86. And yet it must be granted That Ed. 3. had several Advantages which some Kings de Facto cannot pretend to For 1. He was Heir apparent to Ed. 2. 2. His Father had resigned the Crown though by constraint 3. The Parliament which adhered to him was summoned in Edw. 2. Name 4. There was no Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy enjoyned the Members of both Houses under the Penalty of nulling every Thing they did by omitting to Swear as there are since by express Statutes 7 Iac. 1. 30 Car. 2. Farther I desire to know of our Author Whether the English of a King de Iure is not one to whom the Government belongs according to the Constitution He grants thus much and affirms That he
who succeeds by proximity of Blood is such a King de Iure Now if a Prince who claims by Descent comes in by the Constitution then he who founds himself upon the Peoples Consent the Author's King de Facto must cross upon the same Constitution and consequently be an Unlawful King. For if the Laws tye the Crown to Succession as they evidently do then a Title drawn from the Peoples Consent is against Law Unless a Kingdom can be Elective and Hereditary at the same time i. e. unless the People may have a Liberty and no Liberty to chuse their King. Now if a King de Facto be neither de Iure nor a Usurper neither a Lawful nor as our Author affirms an Unlawful King then certainly he is no King at all For to aver That there is a Medium between these Two is to say That a Man may have a Title which is neither Right nor Wrong And then sure Aristotle is much to blame for exposing those Philosophers who asserted A Thing might be and not be at the same time For the one is not a greater contradiction in Nature than the other is in Morality Farther this 11 H. 7. though never so loosely Interpreted can do no Service to the present Settlement because it 's vertually repealed by 1 Eliz. by which we are obliged to Swear to be true to the King His Heirs and Lawful Successors i. e. those who have a Right to the Crown by Proximity of Blood. From whence I argue First That if we are Sworn by Act of Parliament to pay Allegiance to the Heirs of a King de Iure who never were in Possession then a Fortiori to a King de Iure who besides the Legality of his Title has been actually recognized as Sovereign and enjoy'd an uncontested Administration of the Regal Power Secondly If our Laws oblige us to Swear subjection to the Heirs c. of a Rightful Prince then by undeniable Consequence we are bound not to translate our Allegiance to those who are unjustly set up by the People For without all Question the Words Heirs and Lawful Successors were made use of on purpose to secure the Hereditary Rights of the Monarchy and to prevent all Usurpations upon the direct Line And since by virtue of the Statute which framed the Oath of Supremacy we are not to acknowledge any pretended Governors to the Prejudice or Disinhersion of the Heirs of the King de Iure then most certainly we ought not to do this in Opposition to the King de Iure himself So that now we have no Pretence to make Right the consequence of Possession in the Crown any more than in other private Cases But supposing this Statute of H. 7. was in full force it cannot be applied to the present Case First Because the Title to the Crown was then somewhat doubtful and intangled at least in the opinion of the People For notwithstanding the Right lay in the House of York yet that of Lancaster had possessed the Throne for Three Decents successively and pretended that Edmund Crouchback under whom they claimed was elder Brother to Ed. 1. The Case therefore being thus disputable and perplex'd with respect to the Multitude this Act as my Lord Bacon observes was made to indemnify the Subject who out of a principle of Integrity had serv'd the Crown it being thought unreasonable that the common People should suffer for their Loyalty They had not an Opportunity of examining Pedigrees and searching Records and therefore it would have been hard if they had been obliged to forfeit their Lives and their Estates only for their being so unfortunate as to pay a well meant Allegiance to a wrong Person And since at that time they were not so well qualified to find out the Right of their Prince it was thought sufficient for them to follow the Solemnities of Pomp and Power and to be exempt from Punishment provided they adher'd to him who was in present Possession But to apply this Statute to a Case where the Title is clear and uncontested is a very Illogical and Dangerous way of Arguing and has as little Warrant from the reason of the Act as from Equity it self It appears sufficiently from the History of those Times that this Act was only intended for the security of H. 7. who had a very lame Title and therefore being made upon a particular and singular occasion it ought not to be extended farther to the prejudice of Equity and Common-Law nor be interpreted in such an extravagant Sence as encourages Treason and Ambition to scramble for the Crown as often as they have any prospect of Succeeding in their Wickedness But Secondly To put the matter out of all doubt I shall prove from the very Words of the Act that it was no more then a Temporary Law and expir'd with the Life of the Prince who made it The Statute begins thus The King our Sovereign Lord calling to remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this Realm Afterwards the Enacting part follows sc. Those who attend upon the King for the time being and do him true and lawful Service of Allegiance c. shall be secur'd from all manner of Forfeitures and Molestations relating to their Persons or Estates 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 Now we know a Proviso is an Exception or Restraint upon the Latitude and Comprehensiveness of the Law and that all Statutes are perfectly Null so far as the Proviso reaches Having premised this I shall endeavour to prove that this Act was designed only for the security of that Reign in which it was made and cannot be stretch'd any farther To make this appear Let us suppose a Competition between a Prince de Iure and H. 7. i. e. an other de Facto and that the Subject ingages for the latter In this Case if the King de Facto prevails there is no need of the assistance of this Statute for we cannot imagine any Prince could be so Impolitick as to punish those who have ventur'd their All to maintain him in his Government This besides the ingratitude of the Action proclaims the Injustice of his Cause and is the way to ruin his Interest If it be Objected That if it had not been for the Indemnity of this Statute he would have been oblig'd to have punish'd them for opposing their lawful Prince To this I Answer First Do Kings de Facto always perform that which the Laws require If so they would never have been Kings de Facto since they could not make themselves Masters of the Sovereign Power without dispossessing those who are supposed the right Owners of it Secondly The Possessour would not so much as seem obliged to punish his Adherents upon a Competition except he own'd himself to be no more then a King de Facto that is unless he acknowledg'd the Acquisitions of his