Liberties and Estates were only insisted upon in my said Charge F. But pray Sir tell me as to the King Is he not the sole Supream Power in England I. No certainly for then he could make Laws and raise Money without the Peoples Consent but every printed Act of Parliament will shew you where the Supream Power resides wherein it is expresly recited in these words Be it therefore enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of this Realm and the Authority of the same or as I can shew you in several Statutes of King Henry the VIIIth wherein it is recited thus Be it enacted by the Assent and Consent of our Sovereign Lord the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by Authority of the same whereby you may see that not only the words Assent and Consent but the word Authority is referred as well to all the Three Estates as to the King F. This I confess is plain enough but what are the King 's chief Prerogatives I. I will tell you in as few words as I can his Majesty's chief Prerogatives for to enumerate them all would be endless are these First to call Parliaments once a year or oftner and Dissolve them if he pleases to give the last hand or sanction to all Laws for raising of Taxes and for the enacting all other things that his Majesty joining with the Two Houses of Parliament shall think fit to be Enacted to appoint Judges to Try Condemn and Execute Traytors and all other Malefactors for Treason and other Crimes and to grant Pardons for those Crimes if his Majesty shall think fit yet still according to his Coronation Oath to grant Commissions to all other Magistrates and Officers both Civil and Military no Arms being regularly to be Rais'd but by his Authority also by the Advice of his Privy-Council to issue Proclamations according to Law and for the Publick Good for enforcing the observation of such Laws as shall be thought fit in case those that are entrusted with the execution of them prove too remiss Lastly to make War and Peace though the latter as well as the former of these were anciently very seldom made without the Advice and Consent of Parliament These are the chief Prerogatives which I mentioned in my Charge tho' I grant there are divers others tho' less material F. But pray Sir cannot the King by his Prerogative do some things against the Laws and Dispence with them in all cases which he himself may judge for the Common Good of the Kingdom I. The King had anciently no Power to Dispence with Statutes with non Obstantes and so it is solemnly declared in the Kings Bench in the 39th of K. Edward the 3d. by all the Justices as a Rule in Law well known at that time and I could tell you were it not too tedious how this Prerogative of Dispensations first began but even then the King could not Dispence with any thing that was morally Evil in it self or with what was Enacted by Authority of Parliament for the common Good and Safety of the whole People or Nation in General And this is the true reason why the Late King Iames could not Dispence with all Statutes concerning the taking away the Test because the whole Nation had an Interest in them nor could he Dispence with any Act which conferred a particular Right or Priviledge on a third Person and lastly he could not commonly Dispence with any Statute wherein there was a particular provision to prevent the King from Granting Charters with Clauses of Non-obstantes But now all Dispensations with such Statutes are taken away by a particular Clause in the late Act of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you may see if you please and which I take to be no more than a Solemn Declaration of what was the Ancient Law of England before non obstantes came up F. I am very well satisfied in this but pray Sir tell me the reason Why the King cannot as the Supreme Executive Power of the Kingdom exercise his Royal Prerogative though it were to the prejudice of some particular Persons I. I can give you a very good reason for this because this would be contrary to that Trust which was at first reposed in the King by the Representative Body of the Nation when this Limited Monarchy was first instituted and which that ancient Treatise called the Mirror of Iustices writ above Four hundred years since very well sets forth the Common Law of England as it stood before the Conquest as also the Original of the Government of this Kingdom by one Person or Monarch which he thus recites That when Forty Princes that is Aldermen or Earls of Counties did Elect one King viz. Egbert to Reign over them to Maintain and Defend their Persons and Goods in Peace by Rules of Right they made him at first to Swear That he would maintain with all his Power the true Christian Faith and would Govern his People by Right without any respect of Persons and would also be Obedient to suffer Right i. e. Justice as well as others of his People By which it appears That all the Prerogatives of the Crown are trusted in the King by Law for the Good and Preservation of his People and not for the exercise of an Arbitrary Will or Power contrary thereunto As also Sir Iohn Fortescue once Lord Chancellor to King Henry the VIth in his Treatise in Praise of our English Laws has thus handsomely set forth viz. That the King was Made or Elected for the safeguard of the Law the Bodies and Goods of his Subjects and he hath this Power derived from the People so that he cannot long Govern them by any other Power and he also gives us the reason why he cannot regularly Dispence with Acts of Parliament Because says he they are made by the general Consent of the King and the whole Realm and if there be any thing in them that proves inconvenient the King may quickly or in a short time call another Parliament to amend it but not without that as it certainly would if the King had an Absolute and Unlimited Power of Dispensing with all Laws So that you see the King is entrusted with his Prerogative by Law that is by the Consent of the People only for their Benefit and Preservation therefore if the Judges or any other inferior Officer act contrary thereunto though by the King 's express Letters or Messages they are Forsworn and may be punished for it and in this sence it is that the King whilst acting thus by his subordinate Officers or Ministers is said to do no wrong because they are liable to be questioned for it and if he acts otherwise by his own personal Power or Commands it is not as King of England but as a private Person
by those that chose them not to alter the Fundamental Constitution of the Government but to strengthen and confirm it so that if by this Act of Non-resistance the Government might easily be altered and the Legislative Power as well as that of raising Money may be taken out of the Power of the King and the Two Houses and should be put solely in the King's person the whole frame of the Government would not only be altered but actually dissolved and consequently Resistance in this case would not be a crime but a duty since Parliaments were instituted for the maintenance of the King 's Legal and not Tyrannical Power and for preserving the people in that share of the Government which by the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom belonged to them F. But pray tell me Sir Is there any express Law for this Resistance for indeed I could never hear of any such and therefore I doubt that if those Noblemen and Gentlemen who went in lately to help his present Majesty when Prince of Orange had been taken Prisoners and himself defeated by the King's Army but they would have all of them been guilty of High Treason by the Statute of 25 of Edward the Third and sure it would have been no good Plea to be allowed by the Judges that they took not up Arms against the King of Government because the Government was dissolved by the King 's exercising an Arbitrary Power I. I would not argue with you what would have happened if the King had got the better and either taken the Prince of Orange prisoner or driven him out of the Kingdom for I never knew in all the Histories I have read but that a Prince who had the Armed Force of the Nation on his side could hang whom he pleased and will always find Judges and Jury-men enough ready to side with him in it as we have found by many late Examples But this is no Argument for the Right or justice of such Proceedings for we know King Charles the First was tried and condemned by the Pretended Authority of the Rump Parliament notwithstanding his denying that they had any Authority over him and though it be true there is no express Act of Parliament to tell us when the Government is dissolved and when and in what case men may resist the King or those commissioned by him yet does it not follow that no such thing can ever be lawfully done for it is sufficiently proved from the reason and necessity of the thing it self though no express Law or Conditions be made for it which may be also observed in all Moral or Religious Promises or Contracts Thus if I promise or swear to a man never upon any account whatsoever to beat or kill him this-is still so to be understood that he does not go about to beat or kill me for then my right of self-defence will take place notwithstanding my Oath so when people are married they mutually promise each other to live together till death do part yet no man will say a man or woman commits a sin or breaks this solemn Promise if the former by reason of Adultery in the Wife or the latter by the extream Cruelty or Harshness of the Husband do separate from each other and that perhaps for ever But I shall now shew you that there is a Resistance allowed even by the Law it self in some cases against those that have the King 's personal Commission as may appear by this Instance Suppose an Officer with a Company of Soldiers should under a colour of such a Commission take upon them to keep possession of a House contrary to Law do you not believe but the Sheriff may upon a legal Process issued out thereupon raise the Posse Comitatus and restore the Possession by Force to the Right Owner notwithstanding this Commission and the Reason is plain because though the Officer may have the King 's personal Command for so doing yet it is the Sheriff alone who acts by a Legal Authority and who alone can justifie the using of this Force Now if any man should be killed in this Action no doubt but the Officer and his Soldiers and not the Sheriff and the men that assisted him would be found guilty of murther F. I grant this may be so but is not this the true reason of it because the Sheriff acts by the King 's implyed Authority without which no man can lawfully take up Arms But how can this be justified in case Arms were taken up upon supposition the Government is Dissolved which is all one as to affirm That the King is no longer King I. I allow that great part of what you say is true but not all for in the first place it is plain that there is a Legal Resistance of those Commissions though issued by the King and which is justifiable by Law as appears by this instance which rule holds good as long as the Laws can be permitted to have their due course But what if the King will not permit that they shall but will take part with this wicked Officer and his Soldiers and maintain them in these violent Actions and either not let the Law pass upon them or if it does should constantly Pardon them as soon as they had committed any such violent illegal Acts by his Commands contrary to Law Can any man believe that such Proceedings if commonly practiced would not quickly dissolve the Government and make such a King cease to be so since he refused to Govern and Protect his Subjects according to Law and his own Coronation Oath which virtually contains those Conditions on which he holds his Crown for when there is no Justice to be had in the Kings Courts it then becomes a meer Anarchy wherein there can be nothing but Rapine and Confusion and consequently puts men in a State of War F. I have I know not what to say to this But can you shew me any express Law for the King 's ceasing to be so in case he thus leave off to Protect his People and Govern them according the Laws of the Land I. Yes that I can for I can shew you a good old Law of King Edward the Confessor which is also among those that were confirm'd by K. Will. I. whereby it is expresly declared That the King who is God's Lieutenant is appointed to this end That he defend his Kingdom and People and above all things Reverence his Holy Church and Defend it from Injuries and take away Wicked doers from it which unless he do not so much as the name of King shall remain to him neo nomen Regis in eo constabit as it is in the Latine which is likewise confirmed by Bracton an ancient Lawyer who tells us That it is the King's Crown or Authority to do Justice and Judgment and to maintain Peace without which it follows That this Crown or Authority cannot Consist or be retained So in another place he says That it
those several Kings Reigns since those were raised upon levying of Taxes imposed by the King and Parliament which is the sole Supreme Legislative Power of the Nation where I grant it is Rebellion to resist whereas that Resistance which I only now suppose to be Lawful is against the King's personal Commands or Commissions in opposition to known Laws which is not to resist the Supreme Power of the Nation but only the King's Person when he acts not as King but as a private man F. But pray Sir is not this to separate the King 's Personal from his Politick Capacity to suppose the man may be resisted and not the King or the King 's Personal but not his Legal Commissions or Commands for to do this I have heard has been declared to be Treason I. This is also justifiable by Law in some Cases for if the King should happen to prove mad as divers Kings have pray do not his Servants about him hold or tie the Madman and yet how can they do this without binding the King And pray tell me what difference is there between Madness which is a Natural Disability and Tyranny which is a moral incapacity to govern since both are alike destructive to the Common Good of the Nation And when you suppose we may lawfully disobey the King's personal Commands what do we but then by disobeying the King distinguish between the King 's politick and his personal Capacity that is when he acts legally as King and when he issues out his Commissions or Commands without any Law to warrant him or else when the Persons commissioned are made by Law incapable of the King's Commissions as the Popish Officers lately were since otherwise we were all obliged to yield the same Obedience to the one as well as to the other Nor is it at all harder but much easier to judge when such Commissions or Commands are attended with Force and Violence and when they are not since certainly every plain Country-Fellow can much better tell when a thing contrary to Law is put upon or exacted of him by Force than when it is only barely commanded or required of him by a Commission or Proclamation seeing the latter only reaches the Understanding but the former not only touches the Understanding but the outward Senses of Hearing Seeing and Feeling To conclude I would not have you therefore believe that I allow this general Resistance to the whole Nation but only when by a General Violation of our Fundamental Liberties the whole Constitution of the Government comes to be in danger of an utter Ruine and Subversion by breach of the Original Contract abovementioned and that these Violations and Oppressions do some way or other concern the whole Body of the People of this Nation that is all Orders and Degrees of men and then only and not till then I look upon such a general Resistance of the King and those commissioned by him to be lawful that is when all other Remedies are become absolutely desperate and impracticable thro' the King's wilful Obstinacy to amend such Violations F. I grant this seems very reasonable but pray tell me what those grand Violations are that can thus alter the Fundamental Constitution of the Government and can make a total breach of this Original Contract I. They do I conceive consist but in a few Points and they are these First If the King should take upon him to make Laws either concerning Religion or Civil Matters and to impose then upon the People without their Consent in Parliament Secondly If he take upon him to dispense with all Laws and especially when his hands are tied up by a particular Clause to the contrary that he shall not so dispense with them Thirdly If he take upon him of his own head without the Advice or Opinion of his Judges to raise Money upon the Nation Or Fourthly If he corrupt the Judges to give their Opinions according to his humour either by promising of Rewards or threatning them if they refuse and will put none into those places who will not do whatever he commands them or turns them out as soon as they act otherwise Fifthly If he go about to alter the ancient Constitution of Parliaments and bring the Election of the Members of the House of Commons only into the hands of those of his own Party or Opinion whereby our Liberty of Electing and Voting by our Lawful Representatives would be quite taken away The like I may also say of the House of Peers if he should go by Force either to exclude the Bishops or Temporal Lords who have a Right of sitting there by Prescription and should under pretence of his Prerogative bring such as had no Right to sit there at all Sixthly and lastly If he should go about commonly or generally to take away the Subjects Lives Liberties or Estates by an Arbitrary Power contrary to Law upon pretended Crimes and without such due Trial as the Law requires Now I think you cannot but acknowledge that most if not all of these Heads are easily to be judged of by all the People of England when they are come to that extremity that we can have no reason to doubt of it F. But pray Sir tell me who shall judge of these Violations or what number may be allowed to rise and redress them I. The Judges are I told you before the whole Body of the Nation or People every one in his private Capacity that is not the Clergy alone or the Lords alone or the less Nobility or Gentry and much less you Yeomen or landed men and least of all the meer Rabble or Mob but all men of all Orders and Conditions taken together and as for the number it is any though never so small that are able to make a head till more can come into their Assistance F. But would not a Free Parliament be a much better Judge of these Violalations than this general Body of the People I. I grant it if a Parliament may be had that were free and unbiass'd but what if the King resolves not to call any or if he does will not give them leave to sit till they have redrest our Grievances Or what if he will not call one till he thinks he can make or pack it according to his own mind The Nation may at this rate be enslaved as much nay worse by having the appearance of a Parliament to confirm the King's Arbitrary Power than if he had acted by none at all so that in these Cafes there can be no other Remedy left us but an Appeal to the General Body of the People with whom that Original Contract I mentioned was at first made not but that a Free Parliament or Convention when ever it can meet may be of excellent use to examine what the People who thus take up Arms have acted in defence of their just Rights and Liberties and to judge and declare it to have been well or ill done and upon what
so that if we will consider our own happiness we Englishmen are blest with such noble Priviledges and Liberties that I think there is no Nation in the world where all degrees and ranks of men may live more happily than we do And as for the King though it is true he hath not an Absolute Unlimited Power of doing whatever he will yet he hath sufficient to Protect his Subjects and bountifully to Reward those that serve him faithfully and whenever he undertakes any Foreign War with the general Consent and Assistance of his People in Parliament he most commonly proves a Terror to those who dare oppose him F. I am very sensible of this Happiness we enjoy and therefore when I think how miserably the poor Country-men live in France and other Countries we of the Yeomanry have all the reason in the world to venture our lives in the defence of our Ancient Constitution since if ever we should be reduced to an Arbitrary Government either by a standing Army at home or a Conquest from abroad we can expect no better than Wooden-Shoes and Canvass-Breeches and to drink nothing but Water with the miserable French Peasants and I doubt if things should once come to that pass you Country-Gentlemen would be but in little better condition But since the greatest part of your Charge was to justifie the Right of their present Majesties to the Throne and that you insisted pretty long upon that Head yet methoughts you were a little too short in telling us only that King Iames who was once our Lawful King could cease to be so for you seem to rest contented with the bare words of the Convention's late Vote viz. That King Iames having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom by breaking the original Contract between the King and the People and that having violated the Fundamental Laws by withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom he had Abdicated the Government and that the Throne was thereby become Vacant So that tho you speak pretty largely of King Iames's Violations by Raising of Money without Consent of Parliament and of exercising his Dispensing Power yet methoughts you seem chiefly to place this Vacancy of the Throne upon King Iames's Abdication or Desertion of it which let me tell you as plain a Country Fellow as I am will not down with me for I can never believe the King would have deserted the Government if he thought he could have staid here with safety therefore pray tell me your meaning of these hard words Constitution of the Kingdom Original Contract and Abdication of the Throne I. I was not willing to insist too long in the face of the Country upon these nice Points which were not proper to be handled before an Assembly of ordinary Countrymen but since you have always appeared to me to be above the ordinary Capacity of those of your Rank I will tell you what I conceive was the true Sense of the Convention in every one of those expressions first for the Constitution of the Kingdom which King Iames went about to violate I take that to be the Government by King Lords and Commons in Parliament which he endeavour'd to violate by his taking away of Charters from Corporations and doing his utmost to impose a Parliament upon the Nation of such men as would not only take off the Penal Laws from Papists and all other Dissenters but who would also have confirmed to the King that Arbitrary Power of dispensing with what Laws he pleased which would indeed have render'd Parliaments wholely useless and was as good as putting the whole Legislative Power into the sole Person of the King F. But the Original Contract puzzles us yet more than all the rest and I heard Parson-Slave-all at a neighbouring Gentleman's house the other day ask Whether the Speaker of the Convention had not the keeping of it under his Cushion for he could never yet light upon it in any English History or Law-Book I. Pray tell that witty Parson next time you meet him that if he pleases to look over our Histories and Law-Books that in the very same Leaf where the Divine Hereditary Right of Succession to the Crown in a Right Line is established as an unalterable and fundamental Law in the very next Clause he may find this Original Contract But not to banter you I will tell you my sense of this expression which in my opinion signifies no more than that Compact or Bargain which was first entred into between King Iames's Ancestors or Predecessors and under whose Title he enjoy'd the Crown whereby they bound themselves by a solemn Oath when they took the Crown upon them at their Coronation to keep and maintain the Laws of the Realm and to govern the People according to these Rules of Justice and Mercy that is in short acting according to Law Which Oath or the substance of it having been constantly renewed every fresh Succession to the Crown as soon as the King was capable of taking it sufficiently declares that as the King upon observing this Compact by governing according to Law had a Right to his Subjects Allegiance so if he refused to act according to it but would wilfully violate the Ancient Constitution of the Kingdom he thereby ceases to be King by Law and by destroying his own Title to the Crown thereby also dissolves that Bond of Allegiance which before bound his Subjects to him as well in Duty as Affection F. But how can you prove that this Contract was mutual or that the King was to enjoy his Crown only upon this Condition That he observe the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom since I have heard it positively asserted by those that are very well skilled in our Laws that the King is as much King before ever he is crowned as afterwards and that he may chuse whether he will ever take any Coronation Oath or not I. I will not now dispute that Point with you but yet let me tell you if a King should at this day refuse to be crowned because he had no mind to be tied by his Coronation Oath I doubt whether the People if they understood the force of that Oath his Predecessors have all along taken for so many Successions might not as well refuse to take him for their King since he refused to hold the Crown upon those Conditions that his Ancestors at first took it and so might look upon themselves as good as discharged of all Oaths of Fidelity to him since those Oaths were no doubt at first instituted on this mutual Consideration that both should observe their part and not that one side should be loose and the other fast but to shew you in the first place that every Coronation Oath was in the Saxon times and long after the Conquest a Renewal of this Original Contract may appear from these Considerations 1. That all the Kings of the West Saxons were elected or at least confirmed by the great Council or Parliament
Reign And hence it is that our Kings enjoy their Crowns be it for Life or Intail Now it is certain that this Solemn Oath or Contract which was taken by the first King ought by Law to be renewed at the beginning of every King's Reign and hence it is that our Kings are not only bound by their own express Oaths or Contracts with their Subjects but also by the implied Oaths or Compacts of their Predecessors under whose Title they claim And King Iames I. was so sensible of this double Contract that he expresly mentions it in one of his Speeches to 1609. both Houses of Parliament where he very well distinguishes between both those Contracts telling them That a King in a setled Kingdom binds himself by a double Oath to the Observation of the Fundamental Laws of his Kingdom tacitly as being a King that is claiming under his Ancestors and so bound to protect them as well as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his own Oath at his Coronation So as every Just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that Paction or Covenant made to his People by his Laws in forming his Government agreable thereunto according to that Paction which God made to Noah c. And then goes on to tell them That therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws And then concludes That all Kings who are not Tyrants nor Perjured will be glad to bind themselves within the limits of their Laws and they that perswade them otherwise are the worst Vipers and Pests both against them and the Common-wealth So that you see here by King Iames's own Concession that there are not only Fundamental Laws but an Original Contract which he there calls a Paction or Covenant to observe them from the time of the first King or Monarch to this day and that when he ceases to Govern according to this Compact which he here calls his Laws he then becomes a Tyrant F. But I have heard some say That William the First after he had conquered England distributed almost all the Lands to his Norman and French Followers and that if there were any Original Contract ever entred into by the English Saxon Kings it was quite void upon the Conquerors obtaining the Crown and subduing all the People of this Nation so that whatever Liberties we now enjoy they were but the gracious Concessions of himself and his Successors without any such Original Compact I. I confess it is so alledged by some high flying Gentlemen who if they could would make us all Slaves to the King 's Absolute Will but without any just grounds in my Opinion since every one of their Suppositions are either false or built upon rotten Foundations For in the first place a Conquest in an Unjust War as I have already proved can confer no Right on the Conqueror over a free People and if this War were never so Just yet could not he thereby have acquired any Right over the whole Kingdom since the War was not made against the English Nation but Harold only who had usurped the Crown contrary to Right so that King William could have no Right to it without the People's Consent in their Great Council or Parliament which most of the Historians of those times say he obtained but indeed King William whom you call the Conqueror never claimed by that Title but by the Donation or Testament of King Edward the Confessor and the Consent or Election of the People of England as all his English-Saxon Predecessors had done before him nor did he give all nor yet a third part of the Lands of England to his Norman Followers as you suppose or if he had would it do the business for which it is urged since his Norman and French Followers to whom he gave those Lands were never conquered but were if any thing the Conquerors of others and from them most of our Ancient English Nobility and Gentry are lineally descended or else claim under their Titles by Purchases Mariages c. and so succeed to all their Rights and Priviledges And at the worst supposing King William to have in some Cases governed Arbritrarily and like a Conqueror over the English this was not so till he was provoked to it by their frequent Plots and Conspiracies against him and yet even that was done contrary to his Coronation-Oath which was the same that all the Saxon Kings had taken before only with this Addition That he should govern as well his French as his English Subjects by equal Law or Right so that his wilful Breach of this Oath could not give him or his Successors any just Right by the Sword over the Lives Estates or Liberties of any Englishman who had never fought against him nor offended his Laws And tho I should grant that this King and his Son William Rufus governed his Norman as well as his English Subjects very Arbitrarily and contrary to his own Laws yet did his Brother King Henry 1st make both his English and Norman Subjects large amends by the great Charter of their Ancient Liberties which he granted immediately after his Election to the Crown by the Chief Bishops Lords and Free-men of the Kingdom and upon which the great Charter of England renewed by King Iohn and afterwards confirmed by his Son Henry the 3d were founded being but larger Explanations thereof F. I confess this is more than ever I knew before but what if a King of England as King Iames lately did will cease to govern like a legal or limited King and prove a Tyrant by breaking this original Compact which his Predecessors made with the people does it therefore follow that he may be resisted if he does or can he ever cease to be King or forfeit his Royal Dignity if he acts never so Tyrannically for sure if all resistance of his Power be unlawful as being so declared by several Acts of Parliament in King Charles the Second's Reign he can never cease to be King except he will wilfully turn himself out of the Throne I. I am very well satisfied that those Acts you mention were only made upon this Supposition That the King would never violate the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by which he became King or go about to change the Constitution of the Government since that had been to give the King an Irresistible Power to make us all Slaves whenever he pleased so that our Religion Lives and Civil Liberties would lye not only at the King's mercy but at the mercy of those Ministers that govern him and therefore as it can never be supposed to have been the intent of that Parliament to tye up themselves and the whole people of this Nation to the King on such hard terms nay supposing that the Parliament had done it I do not think they had any right so to do since they were intrusted
is not the King where only Will and not Law Governs and in another place he gives this reason for it Because the King was Elected to do Iustice to all men Therefore when he thus abuses his Power and deviates from the main end of his Creation his Authority ceases or is at an End so that nothing seems plainer to me than that all our Ancient Laws and Lawyers have declared that a King who willfully Acts contrary to these known Laws of the Land by turning Tyrant and by endeavouring to alter the Ancient Constitution and by thus breaking his Contract above-mentioned looses or forfeits all his Regal Dignity and Power F. But pray Sir How can this be since our late Statutes declare the King not to be subject to any Coercive Power of the Two Houses of Parliament I. I grant the Law to be so now but from the beginning it was not so as I said but now many of the Saxon Kings before the Conquest were Deposed by the great Council of the Kingdom and since that time King Edward and Richard the IId were solemnly Deposed by Authority of Parliament and that proceedings against them were never expresly Condemned or repealed by any subsequent Statute that I know of but admit the Law is not so now does it not therefore follow that because the King is not Punishable nor Accountable to the Parliament that therefore he is wholly also Irresistable and can never fall from his Royal Dignity let him behave himself as he will towards his People for sure it is one thing to be accountable or Punishable by the Parliament as his Superior and another to be Disobeyed and Resisted by the whole Nation when it shall judge he has broken this Original Contract made by himself and his Predecessors in violating the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Government by vertue of which he became King since the former course of Proceedings must be according to some Law but for this there is no Law now extant but the contrary declared by several Statutes whereas Resistance in those cases I have now put upon a total breach of the Original Contract is not only justifiable from the very Constitution of the Government but also from the Right of Nature viz. Self-defence whereby whoever violently Assaults me in Life Liberty or Estate I am justified in Defending my self against him for otherwise any Right were wholely insignificant if it might not be Defended by Force when endeavoured by Force to be taken away F. But methinks this seems hard and of evil consequence to take this Power of Judging the King's Actions whether Legal or not out of the Parliament and to place it in the diffusive Body of the whole Nation whereby we of the high shoos would be made as capable of Judging when this Original Contract is broken as the best Gentleman of you all which the temper of the meaner and beggarly sort of People considered seems very dangerous since this would give them a Right to Rebel and take Arms whenever they had a mind to it as I have read in our Chronicles they did in Richard the IId and Henry the VIth and Henry the VIIth's time and as they did lately in Plundering Pulling down and Burning Popish Gentlemen's Houses c. I. You very much mistake me for I do not put this power of Judging any where but where it ever was much less to give a Power of taking up Arms and raising Rebellion to the Mob or most common sort of People but first to shew you that every man in his several Station and at his Peril is to judge of the Legality and Illegality of the King's Commissions or Proclamations Pray let me ask you this question Suppose that the King grants a Commission to certain of us Country Gentlemen to raise a Tax contrary to Law are we obliged to Obey it or not F. No sure you are not because you should be Punished not only in Parliament but at Common Law if you did I. Well then it seems that we Justices and Deputy-Lieutenants may judge in this Case but pray tell me suppose we should notwithstanding order this Tax to be levied and you were High-Constable of the Hundred Do you think your self obliged blindly to obey our Orders being so Notoriously contrary to Laws F. I think truly I should not but should plainly tell your Worships that I was not obliged either by Law or in Conscience to have any hand in oppressing my self and my Neighbours and should desire you to put this ungrateful Task upon some Body else since I thought my self liable to be called to Account one time or other if I did it I. Very well but if you and the other High-Constable of the Country should agree with us Justices to raise this Tax Do you think the Petty-Constables and Assessors were obliged to act by this New Commission contrary to Law F. I do not think that if we High-Constables should be such Fools and Knaves the Petty-Constables and Assessors were obliged to be so too I. Well then you see that not only we Gentlemen but you Yeomen can judge nay are obliged at your Perils to do it when things are imposed upon you contrary to Law nay and to refuse to execute them too F. I grant all this is true but this is not Resistance by force but I suppose you Gentlemen would count it downright Rebellion in us Country-Fellows if you should tell us such a Tax already imposed was according to Law and we should be so far from paying it as to raise the Country and fall upon you Commissioners that went about to raise it by distraining or imprisoning the Refusers I. By your favour Neighbour your very Refusal to levy this Tax is a Civil Resistance since all Disobedience to the Command of Superiors is so as proceeding from a Right that those that disobey suppose they have of judging of the Legality or Illegality of such Commands but as for forceable Resistance though I do not allow it to you or any man else as long as no Force is used against them yet so much let me tell you that if we Deputy-Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace should ever be so foolishly wicked as to take upon us to assist the King by the power of the Trainbands or a standing Army to levy any Tax without Act of Parliament or colour of Law at least but that not only you of this County but of all the Counties in England might lawfully stand upon your defence and resist this Rapine and Violence since if this were once permitted it would in a moment alter the Constitution of the Government in a main Fundamental Point The like I may say of any other matter of the same nature if it should be imposed upon you by Force contrary to Law that is contrary to or without any Act of Parliament to warrant it Nor would this justify all the Rebellions you mention to have been raised by the Common People in
grounds and this hath been the course of all Parliaments that have been called immediately after any great and general Resistance or Revolution made upon the Accounts abovementioned This I could prove to you from several Instances in divers Kings Reigns since the Conquest were it worth my pains but still in all those Cases the first opposition hath been from the great Body of the Clergy Nobility and People together as you may particularly read in the Reign of King Iohn not long before the great Council at Runney Mead. F. But pray Sir can you also justify those Lords and Gentlemen who took up Arms and declared for the Prince of Orange and also those Lords together with the Officers and Soldiers who deserted the King and went into the Prince's Army Pray Sir did you look upon the Government to be then actually dissolved when they went in to him and that the King by the breach of the Original Contract was then no longer King I. I do not say so for though those Violations if obstinately persisted in without amendment were enough to create such a Dissolution and consequently a Forfeiture of the Crown as they wrought at the last yet the Government can never be dissolved so long as there remain any hopes that the King will amend those Violations he has made in a Free Parliament for the obtaining of which as it was the chief cause of his Highness's coming over so was it also of those Lords Gentlemen and Officers going in to him or declaring for him and this I think they may very well justify both in Honour and Conscience And though there be no express Law for it yet it is no more than what the Nobility Gentry and People of other Kingdoms as well as this have many times done before in former Ages when their Kings being misled and deluded by evil Councellors or Ministers of State have made the like Breaches upon their Liberties And though I confess such taking up of Arms have not always met with the desired Success yet for the most part they have and then such wicked Judges and Councellors have not failed to be punished and those Lords Gentlemen and others who so nobly and stoutly stood up for the Rights and Liberties of the Nation have been also pardoned by Act of Parliament and that with the King 's own consent when those wicked men were once removed but the King himselff was never touched till by his own wilful and obstinate persisting in such violent courses he let the Nation see that he was wholely irreclaimable and obstinately bent to destroy our Liberties and set up Arbitrary Government and Tyranny in this Kingdom as I could shew you from several Instances in the Reigns of King Iohn Henry III. Edward I. and Richard II. if it were necessary to give you a particular History of all those Transactions so that I suppose a twofold Right of Resistance in the People the one warranted by the Laws and Constitution of the Government which may well consist with our Loyalty to the King and to the intent only to obtain a Free Parliament to redress Grievances and punish those evil Councellors who have been the chief Ministers and Designers of Arbitrary Power as in the Case of King Iames before his departure the other Natural when the Government by the King 's wilful and obstinate refusal to redress such Grievances by ceasing to govern us according to Law he thereby also ceases to be King and then the Commonwealth or Civil Society being without a Head to execute Common Justice was absolutely dissolved F. What then is meant by these words in the late Vote and Declaration of the Convention viz. That King James having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom hath abdicated the Government Do you believe that the King 's bare delertion of the Kingdom when he declared he could not help it should be looked upon as in Abdication of the Government methinks that seems somewhat hard to conceive I. To deal freely with you I never understood the word Abdicate in that Sense but only according to all the precedent Clauses in this Vote viz. That the King by endeavouring to break the Original Contract between the King and his People and by the Advice of Iesuits and wicked Persons having violated the Fundamental Laws and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom hath abdicated the Government Where you may observe that the word Abdicated relates to all the Clauses aforegoing as well as to his deserting the Kingdom or else they would have been wholely in vain so that the meaning of this word in this place is no more than that King Iames by violating the Original Contract abovementioned and by endeavouring to subvert the Fundamental Constitution and by refusing to restore it to its former Condition all which was expressed by his withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom hath abdicated the Government that is by refusing to govern us according to that Law by which he held the Crown he hath implicitly renounced his Title to it as when for example a Tenant for Life aliens in Fee though he take back from the Grantee a Lease for Life or Years yet he thereby forfeits his Estate and the Tenant in Reversion may enter and the reason is because he parts with that Estate which he held by Law and will hold by another Title which the Law doth not allow for abdicare in the Latin Tongue signifies no more than to renounce or disclaim as I could shew you from divers Phrases in that Language were you a Scholar good enough to understand them and this may be done by divers other means besides express words For if Kingship be a Trust for the preservation of the Rights and Liberties of the People than such Actings contrary to that Trust as plainly strike at the very Fundamentals of the Constutution are not only a breach of that Trust but a tacite Renunciation of it also which I prove thus the doing of any Act that is utterly inconsistent with the Being and End of the thing for which it is ordained is as true a Renouncing or Abdication of that thing as if it were made in express words as I have now proved in the Case of Tenant for Life F. I confess this is more than ever I heard before but pray What do you think was the reason that the Convention made use of this Hard word Abdicate which I confess to us Country Fellows seem'd as bad as Heathen Greek when they might as well have made use of plain Expressions such as Renounce or Forfeit which you have now made use of I. I will tell you Neighbour my Opinion of this Matter and if I am out you must pardon me because those Wise men in the Convention who had the Wording of this Vote were afraid that those plainer words you mention would have been of too hard digestion to a great part of the Country Gentlemen who had been bred up with different Principles and
therefore used the word Abdicate as that which though it implied both a Renunciation and also a Forfeiture of the Royal Power yet not being commonly so understood made some men only to understand it of the King's Desertion of the Throne by his going away a Notion which because it served a present turn mens heads were then very full of But indeed if this Desertion be closely examined it will not do the business for which it is brought as you have already very well observed F. I confess I never understood the true sence of this word Abdicate before much less the reason why it was made use of therefore commend me to the honest bluntness of the Scotch Convention which as I am informed did not stick to declare That King Iames by subverting the Fundamental Laws of that Kingdom had forfeited the Crown But pray Sir tell me what those Acts or Violations of this Original Contract were which you suppose to cause this tacit Renunciation of the Crown I. As for these I need not go far since they are all plainly expressed in the Convention's late Declaration as striking at the root or very Fundamental Constitution of the Government it self viz. Raising of Money contrary to Law that is without any Act of Parliament as in the late Levying of the Customs Excise and Chimney-Money upon Cottages and Ovens contrary to the several Statutes that conferred them on the Crown 2dly His Assuming a Legislative Power by Dispensing with all Statutes for the Protestant Religion established by Law whereby he at one blow took away above Forty Acts of Parliament and he might at this rate as well have Dispensed with the whole Statute-Book at once by one general Declaration 3dly Raising a Standing Army in time of Peace and putting in Popish Officers contrary to the Statute provided against it for these being but the King 's half Subjects as King Iames the 1st called them in a Speech might be looked upon when in Arms as no better than Enemies to the State so that by thus Arming our Enemies it was in effect a declaring War upon the People since it was abusing the power of the Militia which is intrusted with the King for our Safety and Preservation in our Religion Liberties and Civil Properties and not for the destruction of them all as we found by woful experience must have inevitably befallen us 4thly The Quartering of this standing Army in Private houses contrary to Law and the Petition of Right acknowledged by the late King his Father 5thly His Erecting a new Ecclesiastical Court by Commission contrary to the Statute that took away the High Commission Court 6thly And by the pretended Authority of this Court suspending the Bishop of London from his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and turning out almost all the Fellows and Scholars of Magdalen Colledge because they would not chuse a President uncapable of being Elected by that Colledge Statutes 7thly By Imprisoning the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Six other Bishops only for Presenting him with an humble Petition not to impose the reading of his Declaration of Toleration upon the Clergy of the Church of England as being contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom and then Trying them for this as a High Misdemeanor though it was contrary to the Opinion of Two of the then Judges of that Court of Kings-Bench There are also other things of lesser concernment as Packing of Juries and unjust and partial Proceedings in Tryals with excessive Fines and cruel Whippings which because they were done by the Lord Chief Justice Iefferies and the other Judges contrary to Law I leave them to answer for it whereas the instances I have now given were in such grand Violations as were done by the King 's own personal Orders and Directions or else could never have been done at all So that by his willful acting these things and obstinately refusing to let a Free Parliament sit to Settle and Redress them but rather chusing to leave the Realm than he would give way to it when he might have done it I think upon consideration of the whole matter it will appear that the Convention had good and just Reasons for declaring the Throne Vacant since the King had not only broke his first declaration he made in Council to maintain the Church of England as by Law Established and the Liberties and Properties of his Subjects but his own Coronation-Oath besides if he took the same his Predecessors did and if he did not he ought not to receive any benefit by his own default but is certainly bound by the Oaths which his Grandfather King Iames and his Father King Charles took before him F. I confess these seem to be great breaches of the very Fundamentals of our Religion Liberties and Civil Properties if done by the King 's express Order and Directions and if that he afterwards refused to disclaim them and suffer the Authors to be Punished in Parliament as they deserved makes all those faults indeed fall upon the King himself and consequently seem to amount to a Forfeiture of the Royal Dignity according to that Law of Edward the Confessor you have already cited That if the King fail to Protect the Church and Defend his Subjects from Rapine and Oppression the very Name or Title of King shall no more remain to him But pray Sir shew me in the next place how the Convention could justifie their Voting the Throne Vacant for Granting that King Iames had implicitly Abdicated or Renounced all his Right to the Crown by the Actions you have but now recited Yet if this Kingdom as I have always taken it to be is Hereditary and not Elective I cannot conceive how the Throne can ever be Vacant that is void of a Lawful Heir or Successor as long as one of the Blood-Royal either Male or Female is left alive since I have heard it laid down as a Maxim in our Law That the King never dies I. I grant this to be so upon all ordinary Deaths or Demises of a King or Queen as the Lawyers term it But there are great and evident Reasons why it could not be so upon this Civil though not Natural Death of the King as First the natural Person of the late King being still alive none can claim as Heir to him whilst he lives since it is a Maxim as well in our Common as in the Civil Law That no man can be Heir to a Person alive F. I grant this may be so in ordinary Estates of Inheritance in Fee-simple but I take it to be otherwise in Estates Tail for if a Tenant in Tail had become a Monk whilst Monasteries were in being in England the next Heir in Tail might have entered upon the Estate because the entering into a Religious Order was looked upon as a Civil Death now I take the Crown to be in the nature of such an Estate-Tail where the Heir Claims not only as Heir to the last King but to their first or
one in respect of themselves as if it were by their Election or that of their lawful Representatives Nor could the first Conqueror mighty Nimrod for example ever conquer the neighbouring Nations by the sole assistance of his own Children and Servants without the conjunction of other Fathers of Families and Freemen who 't is most likely followed him for a share of the Spoil and upon certain Conditions agreed upon between them for the like we find of all other Conquerors in Ancient as well as Modern Histories F. But pray shew me Sir how this can be since most Nations have been conquer'd at some time or other but few of them have given their Consents as I know of either in a whole Assembly of all that Nation or else by their lawful Representatives as we do in England I. 'T is true they have not given their Consents all at once but singly and one by one they have done and constantly do it every day in Towns and Countries that pass from one King to another by Conquest for it is certain that all such Subjects as do not like the Religion or Government of the Conquering Prince or Commonwealth may lawfully retire out of the conquer'd City or Countrey and carry their Estates with them or else sell their Lands and carry away the Money if they can without any crime so that it is apparent it is only from the Acknowledgment or Recognition of each particular Person who stays there that this Conqueror comes to have any Right to the Subjects Allegiance F. Pray how is this Consent or Acknowledgment given since Oaths of Allegiance as I am inform'd are not exacted in all places of the world where Conquests are made I. I grant it but where they are not so imposed nor taken the persons that have not sworn to this new Government can never be oblig'd to an Active Obedience or to fight for or serve the Conquering Prince against perhaps their former lawful Sovereign yet I think thus much I may justly maintain That whatever Prince be he a Conqueror or Usurper who is much the same thing in respect of the Subjects who shall take upon him to administer the Civil Government by protecting the conquer'd people punishing Malefactors and doing equal Justice by himself or his Judges between man and man whosoever of this conquer'd people will continue in that City or Countrey and receive his Protection and enjoy all the other Rights of other Subjects is so far obliged by virtue of that Protection he receives as to yield a Passive Submission to all the Laws that such a Conqueror shall make and not to conspire against or disturb his Government by Plots or Rebellions But indeed this tacit Consent or Acknowledgment of the Conqueror's Authority because not given by the People at once makes many men believe that their Consent is not at all necessary to make a Conqueror's Power obligatory as to them not but that I do acknowledge that Oaths of Allegiance are of great use in any Kingdom or Common-wealth to bind men to a stricter Observance of their Duty and also to an Active Obedience to all their Conqueror's lawful Commands even to venturing their Lives for the Government since it is for the Publick Good of the Community if they are so required F. I am well enough satisfied as to the Original of Government and the Right that all Kings and Commonwealths have to their Subjects Allegiance whether they began at first by the express Consent or Election of the People or else by Conquest and their subsequent Consents but pray satisfy me in the next place concerning the Government of England you said it was a Limited Monarchy and I have never heard that questioned but how did this Limitation begin whether from the very first Institution of the Government or else by the gracious Concessions of our Kings I. Without doubt Neighbour from the very Institution of the Government for our first English Saxon Kings were made so by Election of the People in their great Councils or Parliaments as we now call them and could do nothing considerable either as to Peace or War without its Consent and this Council was to meet of course once a year without any Summons from the King and oftner by his Summons if there was any occasion for it and it is certain that the Freemen of England have always from beyond all times of memory enjoyed the same Fundamental Rights and Privileges I mean in substance that they do at this day F. Pray Sir what are those Fundamental Rights and Privileges that you say we have so long enjoy'd tell me what they are I. I will in as few words as I can First then The Freemen of England were never bound to observe any Laws either in matters Civil or Religious but what were made by the King with the Consent of the Great Council consisting of the Clergy Nobility and Commons assembled in Parliament Secondly That no Taxes could be lawfully imposed upon the Nation or any man's Property taken away without the Consent of this Council 3. That this Great Council had ever a power of hearing and redressing all Grievances and Complaints of the Subjects not only against the Oppressions of any of the King 's great Officers or Ministers who were too great to be called to an account in any other Court but also the particular Wrongs of the King himself the Queen or their Children F. Pray how could this be done since the King may at this day dissolve the Parliament whenever he pleases I. I grant it is so now but certainly it was otherwise when Parliaments met of course at a certain place once a year without any summons from the King yet after that time I find it in the Ancient Treatise called The Manner of holding Parliaments That the Parliament ought not to be dissolved whilst any Petition or Bill dependeth undiscussed or at least whereto no determinate Answer is given and that if he do or permit the contrary perjurus est i. e. he is perjur'd And even at this day the Two Houses may justly refuse the King any supply of Money whilst he refuse to redress their just Grievances F. This is more than I ever heard of before but pray proceed to tell me what are the rest of the Liberties and Priviledges of an Englishman I. In short they are these Not to be banisht the Realm or imprisoned without just cause nor to be kept there only as a punishment but in order to a legal Trial not to be tried condemned or executed without a lawful Jury of his Peers first passed upon him unless in time of War by Martial-Law lastly no man is oblig'd to quarter Soldiers without his own consent and then paying for what they have There are other less Rights and Priviledges exprest in the Petition of Right acknowledged and confirmed in Parliament by King Charles I. all which I omit but these being the chiefest that concern our Lives
and I can shew you a particular Law of a General Synod or Parliament of all England wherein is particularly set down the Laws or Rules for the electing of their Kings as that they were not to be Bastards c. And pursuant to this Law of electing their Kings this great Council often preferred the Younger Brother before the Elder or the Uncle before the Nephew when either greater Merit or the pressing Necessities of the Kingdom required it which when once agreed upon by the Bishops and great men of the Kingdom in the great Council after their Election and upon the day of their Coronation the Archbishop of Canterbury whose Right it has always been to crown the King went to the King Elect and before ever he proceeded to the Coronation tender'd him a solemn Oath whereby he was to swear three things First That God's Church and all the Christian People of his Kingdom should enjoy true Peace and Quiet Secondly That he should forbid Rapine and all Injustice to all sorts of men Thirdly That he would command Justice together with Mercy in all Judgments And then and not till then was the Crown set upon his Head and the Scepter put into his Hand by the Archbishop and till this was done the Prince Elect was not looked upon as King nor had any Right to the Subjects Allegiance And thus stood this immemorial Custom unaltered not only during the Saxon times but long after the coming in of the Normans for the first seven Kings after William I. who till their Coronations were never owned nor stiled Kings until King Edward I. who was Elected or Recognized for King in a great Convention of the Estates who then assembled of their own Accord when he was in the Holy Land and they caused an Oath of Fealty to be taken to him two Years before his arrival in England and though I grant since that time the Crown hath been claimed as Hereditary yet has it rather been by vertue of those Entails that have been successively made of it by express Acts of Parliament and not from any Fundamental Law or Constitution of the Kingdom This was the ancient Form of electing and making our Kings the Footsteps of which Election still remain to later times when the Archbishop used to lead the King or Queen to all parts of the Scaffold as at the several Coronations of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth asked all the People standing below Whether they would have this Person to be their King or Queen F. I confess you tell me more of this matter than ever I knew before but yet I am still to seek how this old Coronation Oath exprest in so few words should tie those Princes to observe the Laws of the Kingdom since it seems that by this Oath he was rather to govern according to Equity than Law I. That is because you do not understand the Legal Force of those words contained in this Oath for by the first Branch of it whereby God's Church and all Christian People should enjoy true Quiet is meant not only that the Clergy in particular should under him enjoy all their lawful Rights and Priviledges but also all the other Lay-Members of Christ's Church should enjoy the free Profession of the Christian Religion as by Law establisht without any molestation or disturbance 2. By forbidding Rapine and all Injustice is meant not only his hindring Robberies and all violent takings of his Subjects Goods but also the illegal taking them by his own personal Commands or by his inferior Officers or Ministers 3. By commanding Justice together with Mercy in all his Judgments is meant no more than his not pardoning the Guilty when condemned and also not to condemn the Innocent or such whose particular Circumstances might deserve Mercy and is no more than what was afterwards granted by Magna Charta the sense of which is That the King there promises neither to deny nor defer nor yet to sell Justice to any man which extends likewise as well to his great Officers and Judges as himself since they being the Keepers of the King's Oath and Conscience he is guilty of the like Perjury if he either connive or is a wilful Partaker or Encourager of their Injustice And it was also declared for Law by the Judges in the Reign of King Edward III. That not only the King but the Prelates Nobles Governors and Justices c. of this Realm were tied by their Oaths to maintain the ancient Laws Franchises and Customs of the Kingdom of England And also in a Letter sent from the Parliament in the 29th of Edward I. to the Pope the States of the Kingdom do there declare That since the Premises required by the Pope were to the disherison of the Crown and subversion of the Kingdom and to the prejudice of the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Country and to whose observance and defence they were bound by the Oaths they had taken and which they would defend to the utmost of their power nor would permit even the King himself although he would do it to attempt the same Now pray tell me what greater Assertion of a right of Resistance in some Cases than this Letter from the Parliament sent by the King 's own privity and consent F. But you have not yet shewn me how the King who is an Hereditary Monarch at this day can be tied by the Oath of his Predecessors since as your self cannot deny he is King before ever he is Crowned I. I will not deny but the Law is taken to be so at this day yet it is also as true that from the beginning it was not so as I have here sufficiently made out and yet for all this I can prove that tho the Succession to the Crown is now become Hereditary and so may alter the manner of acquiring it and this for the avoiding of Contests between Competitors at Elections yet notwithstanding this Hereditary Succession it does no ways alter the Conditions on which the Crown was at first conferred any more than if the Office of Lord High-Constable or Earl-Marshal of England having been at first granted for Life and being afterwards by subsequent Grants made Hereditary those that thus enjoyed them should have pretended that they were now no longer forfeitable for any Male-administration tho never so enormous Now let us but apply the Case of those great Offices of Trust to that of Kingship which is certainly an Office of the highest Trust and then we may easily discover that whether it be for life or else entail'd to them and their Heirs they are still obliged by the first Contract of their Ancestors which is for memory sake still renewed at every King's Reign so that tho the manner of their Accession to the Crown be alter'd from what it was at first yet the Conditions on which it was first taken remain the same as long as the Oath it self continues so being renewed at every King's
not as well suppose a like tacite consent in the Princess of Denmark's not making any Opposition or Protestation against this Act whereby the Crown was settled upon his Majesty during his Life but rather agreeing to it for I have heard that several of her Servants in both Houses did declare that the Princess did not design that her future Right should be any hindrance to the present Settlement Pray therefore tell me why may not King William hold the Crown after the Death of the Queen if she should happen first to die without any Usurpation as well as King Henry the Seventh held it after the Death of his Queen notwithstanding his two Sons Prince Arthur and Henry both lived to be Married before their Father Died and Henry the Eighth was then in his nineteenth or twentieth Year of his Age old enough of conscience to govern himself F. I confess these things were altogether unknown to me before as they are I believe to most of my condition and I give your Worship many thanks for your kind Information But pray Sir resolve me one Question more and I have done Do you think a Man may Lawfully take the new Oath of Allegiance to Their present Majesties notwithstanding King Iames is still alive and do you think I could justifie it in Law should I be called to an account for it if he should again by some unexpected means or other obtain the Throne I. Well Neighbour to satisfie you as to the first of your questions I answer thus I doubt not but you may Lawfully take this Oath since the Parliament have done no more in thus setling the Crown than what many former Parliaments have done before in like Cases whose Proceedings have been still looked upon as good and held unquestioned unto this day as appears by the President of Henry the VIIth I now gave you and upon which Declarations of Parliament who are the only proper Judges who have most Right to the Crown in case of any dispute about it the People of this Kingdom have still thought themselves sufficiently obliged to take such Oaths of Fidelity and Allegiance as the Government thought fit to frame and require of them according to Law But I confess the latter of your questions is somewhat harder to be answered because it depends upon a matter that is farther remote since we cannot tell whether if ever at all King Iames should re-obtain the Throne by what means it may happen for if it should be by the Force either of the Irish or French Nations I doubt not but we should be all made mere Slaves and Vassals without any Law or setled Property but his own Will But if it should be by any Agreement or Composition with him upon his Engagement to Govern according to Law the◠le◠me tell you Not only your self but every other Subject that takes this Oath will have a good Plea in Law for taking it by the Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth whereby it is expresly Enacted That every Subject by the duty of his Allegiance is bound to Serve and Assist his Prince and Sovereign Lord at all seasons when need shall require and then follows an Act of Indemnity for all those that shall personally serve the King for the time being in his Wars Which were altogether unreasonable if Allegiance had not been due before to such a King as their Sovereign Lord mentioned in the Preamble and if Allegiance were due to him then certainly an Oath may lawfully be taken to observe it since it is no more than what the Law hath ever required from Subjects to such a King not only by this Statute but at Common Law too as appears by my Lord Cookes Comment on the Statute of Edward the IIId where he asserts not only from the Authority of this Statute but also from the old Year-Books that a King de Facto or for the time being is our Lord the King intended in that Statute and that the other who hath a Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act. So that you see according to this Act of Henry the VIIth as also by the Judgment of the best Lawyers of England whatever Person is once solemnly Crowned King of England and hath been so Recognized by Authority of Pariiament as Their Present Majesties have now been are and ever have been esteemed Lawful and Rightful Kings or Queens though they had no Hereditary Right of Succession as next of Blood as I have proved to you from the instance of King Henry the 4th and 7th and could do also by the Examples of Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth take which you please since they could not both of them succeed as the Legitimate Daughters and Heirs of King Henry the Eighth So that it is plain one or other of these Queens had no better than a Parliamentary Title to the Crown Therefore upon the whole matter whether Their present Majesties are Heirs to the Crown by Lineal Descent is not the Question but whether by the Law of England they are not to all intents and purposes Lawful and Rightful King and Queen so that an Oath of Allegiance may be lawfully taken to them and all men obliged to serve them in all their Wars and other Affairs even against King Iames himself since we cannot serve Two Masters that is owe Allegiance to Two Kings at once F. I cannot deny but what you say seems not only very reasonable but also according to Law but I heard the Squire and the Parson we but now mentioned positively assert That the King and Parliament had no Power to alter the Succession to thē Crown though they would and that therefore this Statute of Henry the Seventh you now mentioned which indemnifies all those that take up Arms in defence of the King for the time being is void First Because made by an Usurper who had no Right to make such a Law in prejudice of the true King or the next Heirs of the Crown but also because as they said it was but a Temporary Act and was to last no longer than during his life and lastly because this Statute hath never been allowed or held for good in any cases of Assisting Usurpers since that time for the Duke of Northumberland was Arraigned and Executed for Treason in the time of Queen Mary because he had Assisted and Taken up Arms on behalf of the Lady Iane Gray who was Proclaimed Queen and Reign'd as such for about a Fortnight and yet tho the Duke Pleaded afterwards that he had Acted nothing but by Order of the Queen and Council for the time being yet this Plea was over-ruled by the Peers who were his Judges and he was Executed notwithstanding Lastly they said That this Statute was implicitly or by consequence Repealed by those Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King Iemes which appoint the Oaths of Allegiance to be only taken to the King his Heirs and lawful Successors besides a Statute of
pleased because you may have been forced when the way has proved unpassable either through Water or Dirt to leap a Ditch perhaps for safeguard of your life into a Neighbour's Enclosure F. Sir I am so well satisfied with what your Worship hath now said in these grand Points that with your good leave I shall not fail not only to vindicate your Person from those aspersions but also to maintain the lawfulness of our present Settlement upon the same Principle you have now laid down since I know of none that seem to me more agreeable to Right Reason and the Laws and Constitution of this Kingdom and therefore I hope you will always believe me to be your honest Neighbour and humble Servant and so I take my leave of your Worship I. Neighbour I am yours and bid you heartily farewel FINIS Books Sold by Richard Baldwin THE Works of F. Rabelais M D. In Five Books or the Lives Heroick Deeds and Sayings of the Good Gargantua and Pantagruel and his Voyage to the Oracle of the Bottle As also his Historical Letters To which is added the Author's Life and Explanatory Remarks By Mr. Motteux Never before Printed in English Bibliotheca Politica Or an Enquiry into the Ancient Constitution of the English Government with Respect both to the just Extent of Regal Power and to the Rights and Liberties of the Subject Wherein all the chief Arguments as well against as for the Late Revolution are Impartially represented and considered In XIII Dialogues Collected out of the best Authors both Ancient and Modern To which is added An Alphabetical Index to the whole Work The remarkable Sayings Apothegms and Maxims of the Eastern Nations Abstracted and Translated out of their Books written in the Arabian Persian and Turkish Language with Remarks by Monsieur Galland who lived many Years in those Countries Translated from the Paris Edition into English Twelves Printed for Richard Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane The World bewitch'd is now publish'd containing an Examination of the common Opinions concerning Spirits their Nature Power Administration and Operations as also the Effects men are able to produce by their Communication Divided into Four parts By Belthazer Bekker D. D. and Pastor at Amsterdam Vol. I. Translated from a French Copy Approved of and Subscribed-by the Author 's own hand A New and Easie Method to understand the Roman History With an exact Chronology of the Reign of the Emperors An Account of the most Eminent Authors when they flourish'd And an Abridgment of the Roman Antiquities and Customs By way of Dialogue for the use of the Duke of Burgundy Done out of French with very large Additions and Amendments by Mr. Tho. Brown A Collection of Speeches of the Right Honourable Henry late Earl of Warrington viz. I His Speech upon his being sworn Mayor of Chester in November 1691. II. His Speech to the Grand Jury at Chester April 13. 1692. III. His Charge to the Grand Jury at the Quarter-Sessions held for the County of Chester on the 11th of October 1692. IV. His Charge to the Grand Jury at the Quarter-Sessions held for the County of Chester on the 25th of April 1693. Letters of State Written by Mr. Iohn Milton To most of the Sovereign Princes and Republicks of Europe From the Year 1649. till the Year 1659. To which is added An Account of his Life Together with several of his Poems And a Catalogue of his Works never before Printed Mathematical Magick Or the Wonders that may be performed by Mechanical Geometry In Two Books Concerning Mechanical Powers Motions Being one of the most easie pleasant useful and yet most neglected part of Mathematicks not before treated of in this Language Mercury or the Secret and Swift Messenger Shewing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his Thoughts to a Friend at any distance The Second Edition By the Right Reverend Father in God Iohn Wilkins late Lord Bishop of Chester Printed for Rich. Baldwin where are to be had The World in the Moon England's Interest Or a Discipline for Seamen Wherein is proposed a Sure Method for Raising Qualified Seamen for the well Manning Their Majesties Fleet on all Occasions Also a Method whereby Seamen will be obliged mutually to Relieve each other on board the Men of War yearly or thereabout except where any Seaman by his own voluntary Consent shall be willing to stay longer Likewise is shewed the Advantages which by these Methods will accrue to the Nation in general and in particular to the Merchants and Seamen For hereby the Wages now given in Merchant-Ships will be brought lower and every Seaman will have the liberty of chusing his own Commander after the first year and continuing with him if he so likes By Captain George St. Lo. An Answer to a Paper written by Count d'Avaux the French King's Ambassador in Sueden concerning the Proposals of Peace made by France to the Confederates An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supream Powers and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions With some Considerations touching the present Juncture of Affairs An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations and the Rights of Sovereigns With an Account of what was said at the Council-board by the Civilians upon the Question Whether Their Majesties Subjects taken at Sea acting by the Late King's Commission might not be looked on as Pirates With Reflections upon the Arguments of Sir T. P. and Dr. Ol. Both by Matth. Tyndal Doctor of Laws The Second Edition The Antiquity and Justice of an Oath of Abjuration In answer to a Treatise Entituled The Case of an Oath of Abjuration considered A Sermon preached before the Right Honourable the Lord-Mayor and the Court of Aldermen of the City of London at St. Mary-le-Bow on the 29th of May 1694. By Iohn Trenchard M. A Recto of Wrexhall in the County of Somerset and Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Earl of Manchester A Poem on the Late Promotions of several Eminent Persons in Church and State By N. Nate Servant to Their Majesties The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity placed in its due light by an Answer to a late Book Entituled Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Book c. Also the Doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord asserted and explained Liturgia Tigurina Or the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies usually practised and solemnly performed in all the Churches and Chappels of the City and Canton of Zurick in Switzerland c. The Tragedies of the Last Age consider'd and examin'd by the Practice of the Ancients and by the common sense of all Ages in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd Esq Part I. The Second Edition A short View of Tragedy its Original Excellency and Corruption with some Reflections on Shakespear and other Practitioners for the Stage Both by Mr. Rimer Servant to Their Majesties A New Plain Short and Compleat French and English Grammar whereby the Learner may attain in few months to