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
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
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
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
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
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