especially till they leave off not only censuring but misrepresenting others who by a fair state of the Question are they alone who are directly contrary to them which himself is elsewhere sensible of when he says of the direct contraries in all probability one is true Pag. 35. but the direct contrary to what they hold is not that it is lawful for every Man to rebel when ever he thinks it necessary Pag. 2. much less when he pleases Pag. 37. Himself yeilds that non-assisting the late King was notoriously necessary for preservation of the Nation and what restrains others from judging when there is the like notoriety for resisting As he charges others with holding that they may resist when and whom they please they may say that he is for not assisting in the like latitude Pag. 37. and for cramping the Government if he has not the Courage to attempt against it We may resist when the Original Contract is notoriously broken and we must not resist when the Original Contract is notoriously broken are contrary and contradictory Propositions one of which I grant to be true But we must resist in no case and we may resist in any case Pag. 37. when every Man pleases or at least thinks it necessary are not Contraries Pag. 2. but Extreams and 't is odds but the Truth lies in the middle that we may resist in some case which cries aloud and justly stirs up a Nation as with the Voice of God This Gentleman does not observe that the Question is of one who ceases to be King according to that of Bracton non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex which is not barely his Opinion but warranted by that noble Transcript of the Original Contract the Confessor's Law which shews that if a King does not answer the true end for which he was chosen he loses the Name or ceases to be King which was very vvell understood by J. 1. who told his Parliament Vid. J. 1. his Speech in Parl. March 21. Anno 1609. that every just King is bound to observe that Paction made vvith his People by his Laws framing the Government thereunto and a King leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to govern by Law And thus the Protestants in Germany vvho resisted the Emperor notwithstanding their Oaths of Fidelity to him Hornii orbis Polit. p. 18. pleaded that they resisted him not as Caesar but qua non fuit Caesar Our Author confesses that the late King notoriously subverted our Constitution Pag. 2. did not treat us like English-Men but Slaves and says all grant his design vvas certainly to extirpate the Protestant Religion Pag. 16. to enslave and consequently to extirpate the English Nation And I dare appeal to Dr. Falkner's Christian Loyalty to try ours by in such case Dr. Falkner's Christian Loyalty where there vvas a manifest Renunciation of the Government as an English King And surely no Man of Sense vvill say that such a liberty for resisting as this Lay-Gentleman imputes to the Williamites can be the Consequence of resisting such a Prince as he describes and of exploding that Sycophantry which did encourage and would support him or that the best of Princes can need the influence of that Doctrine vvhich hurried on the other to his Ruin the insinuation of this is the greatest Reflection which can be put not only upon the Friends of their present Majesties but upon their Majesties themselves Tho some would have been so ungrateful to have sent his Majesty back uncrowned after he had rescued them from their present Fright which might soon have been laid vvith a fevv flattering Caresses the English Nation abhors such a Reproach nor can their Majesties so far depart from their own Nature to violate that Constitution which they have restored nor yet can the confuting their slavish Doctrine of Passive Obedience Pag. 36. in the least derogate from that religious Awe and Reverence which is due to Crowned Heads tho it may remove that Bugbear and Mormo with which some would fright Mankind out of love with them Nor can any good Prince's Crown be unsecure by rejecting the deceitful Officiousness of others since nothing can hazard it but such extravagant Actions as a well-dispos'd Prince can never fall into and which by natural Consequence as well as Equity provoke a whole Nation The Laws make all Risings against the King punishable with Death and therefore single Persons or Companies in their sound Minds will not attempt them but when the Cause is so apparent that they who suffer them to stand alone in it do but invite and encourage Attempts upon the Lives and Liberties of all But if as often such there are hot Men over-valuing themselves or the Strength of their Adherents will endeavour to destroy a good Government to raise their Faction or accomplish some low Ends of their own the Prince has sufficient Security with the Laws and Hearts of his People on his side And how strict soever the Laws are 't is a vain thing to expect Safety from them alone when any part of that Authority from which they flow is render'd cheap or invaded with an high hand And they who think to get above all Law will find their open Violations to give the same Freedom to others which they take to themselves It ought says the Lord Clarendon Lord Clarendon's Survey of the Leviathan p. 48. prudently to be consider'd whether People may not be very naturally dispos'd to use that Force against him that declares himself to be absolv'd from all Oaths Covenants and Promises and whether any Obligation of Reason or Justice can establish the Government in him who founds it upon so unrighteous a Determination As a judicious Person has well observ'd The new Oath of Allegiance justified Edit An. 1689. sold by Ran. Taylor If single Persons or many together be injur'd by the Prince they are oblig'd to suffer quietly rather than disturb the Publick Peace and in this case Passive Obedience is a Christian Duty and is necessary to the Quiet of every Nation since the best Governours may by mistake injure some few and if they do so that doth not break the Compact because all the People collectively or representatively were but one Party in the Stipulation and therefore those Acts by which a King must forfeit are such as are likely to take away the Rights of the whole People or aim at changing the Form of the Government subverting the Laws In such case Passive Obedience is not the Duty of a Community who have Rights and Liberties secured by Law and for the whole People to stand by silent and see that done is the greatest Folly and the highest Treachery to their Country and Posterity Doctrine of Non-resistance p. 1. But as this Gentleman asks What can the Friends of their present Majesties pretend to palliate their
their Sense and Interest which before was to be faithfully represented by their Tribunes When Lepidus was to incite the People against Sylla Oratio Lepidi Salustii op Ed. Par. An. 1530. p. 134. Jus judiciumque omnium rerum penes se quod populo Romano fuit he found nothing more moving than to tell them that the Tribunitial Authority would be overturned by him he adds in Explanation of it that he would have the Power and Judicature with him which did belong to the People upon which he pathetically enlarges If these things are thought by you Peace and Concord approve of the greatest Disturbance and Destruction of the Common-wealth yield to Laws impos'd upon you take Quiet with Servitude and transmit to Posterity an Example of betraying the Common-wealth at the price of ones own Blood It appears by Salust that the great Power to which Julius Caesar arrived was by siding with the Populacy of Rome Salust ad G. Caesarem de Rep. Ordinandâ p. 147. In te ille animus est qui jam à principio nobilitatis factionem disturbavit plebem Romanam ex Gravi Servitute in libertatem restituit p. 145. whose Rights had been invaded by the Senate 't was his great Mind which he tells him at the beginning disturb'd the Faction of the Nobility and restored the Populacy of Rome to Liberty from grievous Slavery and he reckon'd that upon his setling Affairs after his Victory renovata plebs erit the Plebeians will be renewed or have a new Life accordingly he advises him to cultivate good Manners among tnem and as Salust had express'd himself to Caesar a little before Magistratum Populo non creditorem gerere magnitudinem animi in addendo non demendo Reip. ostendere To shew himself a Magistrate and not a Creditor to the People and to evidence the Greatness of his Mind by adding to the Common-wealth and not taking from it This may give some tolerable account how Caesar came to be murder'd in the Senate-House and may raise his Character even above Brutus who has pass'd for the Hero of Common-wealths-Men Marcelli Donati Dilucidationes Ed. An. 1605. p. 392. Praeterea Caesarum temporibus Patritios Senatorios viros non modo Tribunatum appetivisse sed illos Imperatores inquam Tribunos Plebis factos Tribunitiam potestatem occupasse manifestum est Si quidem Julius Caesar teste Tacito per initia lib. 1. Annal. Consulem ferens ad tuendam Plebem Tribunitiâ Potestate contentus fuit Et Augustus ex Appiano l. 5. perpetuus Plebis Tribunus à Romanis dilectus fuit Et Suet. illum Tribunitiam Potestatem perpetuam recipisse scribit Quod Dion in illius vitâ confirmat Tacitus lib. Annal. 1. describens Pompam funeris Augusti ait de illo continuatâ per. 37. annos Tribunitia Potestate Et lib. 3. de Tribunitiâ Potestate loquens inquit Id summum vestigii vocabulum Augustus reperit ne Regis aut Dictatoris nomen assumeret c. Marcellus Donatus in his Comment upon Tacitus puts it out of doubt that the chief Power which the Roman Emperors had was as Tribunes of the People his Authorities for which are numerous and that sometimes they were entrusted with it for Years sometimes for Life sometimes the Consent express'd sometimes tacit and implied as it was assumed by the Emperors and permitted by the People The Application therefore will be easy to any one who reads our ancient Lawyers where they transcribe and comment upon the Roman Lex Regia Glanvil Bracton and Fleta differ from one another in very few words all to the same Sense The words of Fleta are these speaking of the King of England Fleta lib. 1. c. 17. Et licet omnes potentiâ praecellat cor tamen ipsius in manu Dei esse debet ne potentia sua maneat irrefraenata fraenum imponat temperantiae lora moderantiae ne trahatur ad injuriam qui nihil aliud potest in terrâ nisi id quod de jure potest Nec obstat quod dicitur quod Principi placet legis habet potestatem quia sequitur cum lege Regiâ quae de ejus Imperio lata est Quod est non quicquid de voluntate Regis tantoperè presumptum est sed quod Magnatum suorum Consilio Rege authoritate praestante habitâ super hoc deliberatione tractatu rectè fuerit definitum And altho he excels all in Power yet his Heart ought to be in God's Hand and lest his Power should remain unbridled he ought to apply the Bridle of Temperance and the Reigns of Moderation lest he be drawn to Injustice who can do nothing else whatever but that only which he may do by Right Nor is it an Objection that it is said that which pleases the Prince has the force of Law Vid. Seldens Dissert ad Fletam f. 467. because it follows since by the Law of the King which was made concerning his Power as some render it with the Law of the King as others That is to say not whatever is only presumed of the King's Will but that which shall be in due manner determined by the Counsel of his Great Men the King giving them Authority thereto which seems to relate to the King's Counsel in Parliament advis'd with in drawing Bills in Points of Law and the like Vid. Conring p. 11. in verbis Taciti De minoribus rebus Principes consultant de majoribus omnes ita tamen ut ea quoque quorum penes plebem arbitrium est apud Principes pertactentur ubi tamen cum Hugone Grotio summo sane viro legendum forte praetractentur there being had upon it a Deliberation and Treaty Since in this our Lawyers receive the Civil Law and give the same reason for the Royal Power which the Roman Law does that it was conferr'd by the People it being contain'd in the Lex Regia what I have shewn to prove that the Roman Emperors deriv'd their Power from the People of Rome equally shews that our Lawyers besides what they say of Elections of our Kings believ'd that the Royal Authority here came from the People of England I need not therefore scruple to affirm that our Law agrees with (a) Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis l. 3. p. 52. summae Potestatis subjectum commune est Civitas So where the Statute says the People of the Counties shall chuse the Sheriff this is limited to Freeholders vid. 2. Inst upon the Statute Grotius who holds that the Civitas is the common Subject of Power This in the most restrained Sense is meant of People of Legal Interests in the Government yet if they are intitled to any sort of Magistracy they become part of his subjectum proprium the proper or particular Seat of Power which is narrower than the Civitas and therefore I take Plato's (c) Schelius de jure Imperii p. 32. Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definit
have stood for the defence of their Liberties have served themselves How truly I esteem it hard for you and me to determine unless we were more throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries than I for my part am 1. Here his Interrogation strongly implies the Assertion that Subjects are not bound to give their Throats to be cut by their fellow Subjects or offer them without either humble Remonstrance or Flight to their Princes at their meer Wills against their own Laws and Edicts 2. The Argument from the Laws of Nature and Nations he represents with due strength and apparent marks of Favour All the Hesitance which he makes in pronouncing absolutely on their side is from his not being throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries Wherefore as he supposes not Christianity to lay any Obligation upon the Subjects beyond the Duty resulting from the particular Constitutions of the respective Governments so he does fully admit that the Laws ad Customs of some Countries may allow of Resistance in some Cases Hence it appears that no Man can truly say that he takes the Bishop's words by the wrong handle who would infer from him that it is neither unlawful nor impious for Subjects in some Countries and in some Cases to resist their Princes Nay without knowing the Constitution of France or of the Low-Countries he supposes that in such extraordinary Circumstances as the poor Protestants in both places lay under no Man can condemn them without approving of the barbarous Cruelty and Butchery of their Persecutors Page 446. Nay for Holland he particularly urges that the Kings of Spain were not absolute Lords there and says any reasonable Man may doubt Whether the Title of Earl to which they succeeded imported such a Power as they exercis'd which is as much as to say that since they assumed a greater Power than the Constitution warranted Arms against them were lawful and if thus much is not implied Bp Bedell p. 447. it must be own'd that the Bishop very impertinently affirms that the Kings of Spain were not absolute Lords in Holland No Man can doubt of his meaning thus much since he affirms positively that it is no hard matter to discern pretended Priviledges from true and Treason from Reason of State But says he to take Arms to change the Laws by the whole Estate established is Treason whatsoever the Cause or Colour be which may take in those that fight on the side of a King as well as those who fight against him Nor do I know what can well be said against what the judicious Mr. Lawson urges to this purpose Lawson's Politica sacra Civilis 362. last Edit Treason says he against Laws is more hainous than Treason against Persons and Treason against Fundamental Laws than Treason against Laws for Administration This Treason against the Fundamentals was charged upon the Earl of Strafford and the Personal Commands of the King could not excuse him yet it was not thought that the Judgment past upon him should be made a Precedent for Inferiour Courts because none but a Parliament could judg of and declare the Constitution and what is against it and what not Bishop of Christian Subjection Ed. 1586. p. 279 280. If says Bishop Bilson a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or change the form of the Common-wealth from Impery to Tyranny or neglect the Laws establish'd by common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be accounted Rebels And soon after he speaks of a Power for preserving the Foundation Freedom and Form of their Common-wealths which they fore-priz'd when they first consented to have a King Where his meaning cannot be restrain'd to express Provisions excluding such as may be equitably intended That which is offer'd in the History of Passive Obedience to qualify Bishop Bilson's Expressions History of Passive Obedience p. 27. I dare say will be a Confirmation of his Authority in the Judgment of any Man who impartially weighs the following Proofs of the nature of our Government At the time says the Historian when Bishop Bilson's Book was written Queen Elizabeth was assisting the Dutch against their and her common Enemy the Crown of Spain Now if in the Low Countries the Government was founded in Compact as many Learned Men say and that all their Priviledges Sacred and Civil contrary to that Agreement were invaded and the Inquisition introduced all their Petitions slighted and some hundred thousands barbarously murder'd this alters the Case while it can no ways hold good in Governments where there is no such Compact Passing by due Reflections upon the Impunity which he allows to the most barbarous Murders where the Government is not founded in Compact it will appear to be enough for us that where it is founded in Compact the Nobles and Commons may joyn in the Defence of their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws nor may they in such Case well be accounted Rebels And not to heap Authorities with this agrees the Divine Plato who after he had affirm'd that the highest degrees of Punishment belong to those who will misguide a Ship or prescribe a dangerous new way of Physick having brought in Socrates asking whether Magistrates ought not to be subject to the like Laws himself asks Platonis Politicus f. 299. Ed. Serrani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What shall be determined if we require all things to be done according to a certain Form and set over the Laws themselves one either chosen by the Suffrages of the People or by Lot who slighting the Laws shall for the sake of Lucre or to gratify his Lust not knowing what is fit attempt to do things contrary to the Institutions This Man both he and Socrates condemn as a greater Criminal than those which he mention'd whose Crime he aggravates as 't is an acting against those Laws which through a long Experience had been ordain'd by their Counsel and Industry who had opportunely and duly weighed every thing and had prevail'd upon the People to submit to them CHAP. III. Five Heads of positive Law mention'd Vpon the first Head are produc'd the Confessor's Laws Bracton Fleta and the Mirror shewing the Original Contract with the Consequences of the King 's breaking his part Some Observations upon the Coronation Oath with the Opinions of Sir Henry Spelman Cujacius and Pufendorf of the Reciprocal Contract between Prince and People The Objection from the pretended Conquest answer'd in short with reference to the second part The Sense of Dr. Hicks and Saravia upon the Coronation-Oath receiv'd with a Limitation from Grotius The Curtana anciently carried before our Kings explaining the Mirror A Passage in Dr. Brady against the Fundamental Contract touch'd upon referring the
and correct and that in other matters they share with the King in every part of the Soveraignty He adds If we have need of farther proof the name Parliament which all our Ancient Histories give the Assembly of States may furnish us with one This is the name which the English give this Assembly which partakes of the Soveraignty with their King The French and the Ancient Britains had the same Laws and the same Language they Governed themselves by States gave the same name to their Assemblies And without doubt they had the same Authority Nay it is certain that the States had formerly in France the same Power that the Parliaments have in England As this Author makes the Liberties of the English Nation and the Power of its Parliament an Argument of the Right of the French Nation Bodin who wrote after their Parliament at Paris had taken the place of the Assembly of States makes England a parallel to France Turky Persia Muscovy Bodin de Repub lib. 2. c. 4. ed. A Lyon p. 302. Ib. Cap. 3. p. 286. This was H. 2. for the absolute Soveraignty of their Princes but that he was little acquainted with the History of the Govenment of England appears in that he supposes that Henry who procured his Son to be Crowned in his life time to have been the Son of W. 1. Bodin p. 300. Even where a Prince is the most absolute he admits That if he Govern Tyrannically he may be lawfully killed by a Foreign Prince and that it is a noble and magnificent action for a Prince to take Arms to rescue a people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the Great Hercules who went about the World exterminating the Monsters of Tyrants and for his high exploits has been Deified So did Dion Timoleon Aratus and other generous Princes who have bore the Title of Chastisers and Correcters of Tyrants This says he was the sole cause for which Tamerlain Prince of the Tartars denounced War against Bajazet King of the Turks And when he Besieged Constantinople said he came to chastise his Tyranny and deliver his afflicted people And in fact he vanquished him in a pitch'd Battel in the Plain of Mount-Stellian and having killed and put to flight Three Hundred Thousand Turks he kept the Tyrant in a Golden-Cage till he died Ib. p. 301. And in such case it matters not whether the Virtuous Prince proceed against the Tyrant with Force or Art or way of Justice True it is if the Virtuous Prince has taken the Tyrant he will have more Honour if he make his Process and punish him as a Murderer or Parricide or Robber rather than to make use of the Law of Nations against him This passage in Bodin shews beyond contradiction That if he were now alive and not of the Romish Superstition he would have extolled and justified the Heroick undertaking of King William for the delivery of this Nation But the ground of the justification is That even the most absolute Soveraign may injure his Subjects as no doubt but he would if he treated them contrary to natural equity and his own established Laws Jovian p. 226. whereas the Author of Jovian having set up an Imperial Power above all Political Constitutions says In this Realm the Sovereign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws And by consequence not at all if the Political Laws are to give way to the Imperial Wherefore I wonder not to find him a Subscriber to the late Bishop of Chichester's Paper which condemns Swearing Allegiance to our present King and Queen But Bodin as he justifies our King William in freeing us from an oppressing Monarch no less clears the Subjects of England in joyning with him upon supposition that the Constitution of our Government is not rightly understood by him Bodin p. 301. But says he as to Subjects we ought to know whether the Prince be absolutely Soveraign or whether he is not absolutely Soveraign For if he is not absolutely Soveraign it is necessary that the Soveraignty be in the people or in the Lords In this case there is no doubt but it is lawful to proceed against the Tyrant by way of Justice if we can prevail against him or by way of Deeds and Force if we cannot have Reason otherwise as the Senate did against Nero in one case and against Maximin in another so that the Roman Emperors were nothing else but Princes of the Common-wealth that is to say the First and Chief the Soveraignty remaining with the people and the Senate As I have shewn this Common-wealth may be called a Principality Altho Seneca speaking in the person of his Scholar Nero says I alone among all Men living am elected and chosen to be God's Vicegerent on Earth I am Arbiter of Life and Death I am able at my pleasure to dispose of the estate and quality of any Man True it is that in fact he usurped this Power but of right the State was but a Principality where the people were Soveraign As also is that of the Venetians who condemned to death their Duke Falier and put to death others without form or figure of Process Insomuch that Venice is an Aristocratical Principality where the Duke is but Cheif and the Soveraignty remains with the States of the Venetian Noblemen And in the like Case the German Empire which also is but an Aristocratical Principality where the Emperor is chief and first the Power and Majesty of the Empire belongs to the States who in the year 1296. deposed the Emperor Adolph and after him Wenceslaus in the year 1400. in form of justice as having jurisdiction and power over them How much soever Bodin was mistaken in relation to the Government of England he seems herein less a Stranger to that of the German Empire The Learned Conringius in his account of the German Judicatures Hermanni Conringii Excercit De Judiciis p. 251. tells us 't is difficult to give an account of them for some Ages next after the time of the Francs But beginning with the Causes of Kings themselves whom he shews according to Ancient Custom to have been subject to some jurisdiction upon the account of their Government The Causes says he Ib. p. 252. of their Kings belonging to the administration of the Government as anciently so afterwards were frequently agitated in the Great Councils of the Kingdom So the Emperor H. 4. was accused in a Great Council and by its Authority divested of his Royal Dignity The same befel Otto 4. and * This about the year 1251. No new Emperor was chosen till Anno 1273. after Twenty two years vacancy Prideaux Introd p. 245. Frederic 2. But says he Two things sometimes hapned much differing from the ancient Usage One is That the Power of the Council of all the States began to pass to the Electors only after Charles 4. Novo more The Duke of Bavaria made
guerrae emergat c. Vid. Append. When any doubt or difficult case of War or Peace happens in the Kingdom or without let that Case be referr'd and brought in Writing into full Parliament and let it be treated of and debated among the Peers of Parliament and if need be let it be enjoyn'd by the King or in his Name to every degree of the Peers That every degree act by its self and let the Case be delivered to their Clerks in Writing and in the said place let them cause the said Case to be recited before them so that they may consider among themselves how it may in the best manner and most justly be proceeded upon as they would answer before God for the Person of the King and their own proper persons and also the proper persons of them whom they represent And let them report in Writing their Answers and Advice that all their Answers Counsels and Advices on all sides being heard it may be proceeded upon according to the better and more wholesom Counsel But if the Peace of the Kingdom or the Nation People or Commonwealth be weakned by reason of discord between the King and other Great Men so that it seems to the King and his Council What that Council was vid. 2d Part that the matter should be treated of and amended by the consideration of all the Peers of his Kingdom or if the King and Kingdom are disturbed by War or if a difficult Case arise before the Chancellor of England or a difficult Judgment is to be given before the Justices and the like And if it happen that in such deliberations all N 2 a Remedy where equally divided or at least the greater part cannot agree then the Earl Steward Earl Constable and Earl Marshal or Two of them shall chuse Twenty five persons from all parts of the Kingdom viz. Two Bishops and Three Proxies of the Clergy Two Earls and Three Barons Five Knights of Shires Five Citizens and Five Burgesses who make Five and Twenty Et condescendere in eos and they Five and Twenty may chuse Twelve out of themselves and be concluded by what they do The Twelve may chuse Six and be concluded by them The Six Three and be concluded by them But the Three cannot be reduced to fewer without leave of the King And if the King consent the Three may be brought to Two and the Two to One and so at last their Ordinance shall bind the whole Parliament and so by coming from Twenty five to One if the greater number cannot agree to an establishment at last one Person as is said shall Ordain for all because he cannot disagree from himself saving to the King and his Council That they may examin and amend such Ordinances after they are written if they can and will Provided they do this upon the place in full Parliament and with the consent of the Parliament and not out of Parliament According to which the High Steward Constable and Marshal being looked on as Hereditary Officers were entrusted with a means of composing the differences of the Nation when they should happen to be equally divided I find the Authority of the High Steward and Constable more express in a Translation of another Modus tenendi Parl. agreeing in substance with that which I have cited The MS. which I have used seems to be of the time of H. 7. MS. penes Authorem MS. penes Authorem thô Mr. Elsing says That which is in Sir Robert Cotton's Library was written temp E. 2. The Translation of the other was Printed with Royal Privilege in King James his time as I take it It was done in a very pedantick stile by one Anthony Bustard of Lyons-Inn He that wrote the Latine in his Preface speaks of it as the Order setled by W. 1. Pref. That Modus places the Power of chusing the Twenty five in the Steward and Constable It adds That if any of the Ministers act contrary to their Duty the King the Steward and others of the Parliament may remove them from their Office And says particularly That the Steward of England with the Constable and Nobles of the Realm shall send to evil Counsellors willing them to desist from giving Counsel and entreat the King not to listen to them and if they regard not such advertisement they were to send to the King to put such away from him And if King and Counsellors neglect such wholsom Advice then for the safety of the Commonwealth it hath been thought fit and lawful for the Steward and Constable and Nobles and others of the Commons of England with the King's Banner displayed the King's name omitted the said Counsellors to take and keep in Custody till the next Parliament and Seize their Goods Vid. Append. Lands and Hereditaments until they receive Judgment by consideration of the whole Parliament Sir Robert Cotton Of the High Steward c. There is no more in this than is warranted by Sir Robert Cotton's Letters in the Herald's Office part of which seem to be taken from a MS. joyn'd to the Modus in his Library under the name of Fleetwood The High-Steward's Office as I have before observed was annex'd to Land 4 Inst f. 127. Dyer f. 285. b. Kelway f. 170. and so was the Constable's of England as appears by our Law-Books in the Case of the Duke of Buckingham 6 H. 8. who pleaded That Humphrey de Bohun formerly Earl of Hereford was seiz'd in Fee of the Mannors of Harefield Newnam and Whitenhurst in the County of Glocester and held them by the service to be Constable of England which the Judges allowed of as a good Plea Dyer Indeed they held that thô the King might compel him who had the Land at his pleasure to execute the Office so he might at his pleasure resuse to have it Executed But as to that this being an honorary and profitable tenure by Grand Serjeanty it is to be considered 12 Car. 2. c. 4. that the Stat. 12 Car. 2. when it took away those Tenures of the Crown which were burthensom to the Subject provided that it shall not take away the Honorary Services of Grand Serjeanty But H. 8. Dyer thought it sufficient that he disclaimed the Service and the Reason of the disclaimer was because it was very high and dangerous and very chargeable to the King in Fees the last part of which shewed the Subject's property concerned in the question Upon the Duke of Buckingham's claim to this Office Kelway f. 171◠Nevil says it has been a common saying That the Constable of England by virtue of his Office in some case may Arrest the King himself and therefore held it necessary that the King should be appriz'd what Authorities belong to his Office Fineux Chief Justice says We know of no such Authority to belong to any Officer within the Realm by the Common Law of the Land Which he afterwards explains for
which Word was then of a large extent Wherefore I submit it to Consideration whether these are any Exceptions to the General Rule or are not at least such as confirm it 11 H. 7. c. 1. 9. The Parliament 11 H. 7. declares That it is against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that Subjects should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance to their Prince or Sovereign Lord for the time being that is to the King de facto as appears by the occasion of the Law which was to encourage the service of H. 7. who had no Title but from his Subjects And there is a Provision That any Act or Acts or other Process of Law to the contrary shall be void Which if it relates to Acts of Parliament being built upon the Supposition That according to the Fundamental Law the Peoples Choice gives sufficient Title perhaps is not vain and illusory Lord Bacon's Hist of H. 7. f. 145. as the Lord Bacon would have it but argues strongly that the Parliament then thought the Monarchy fundamentally Elective at least with that Restriction to the Blood which I yield And if this be part of the Fundamental Contract for which it bids very fair then perhaps no body of any other Stock may be King within this Statute But I take it not to be evident that the Acts here mention'd must needs be Acts of Parliament For they might and by the word other seem to be such Acts as are of the nature of ordinary Process or whereon such Process is grounded as Ordinances of the Lords in Parliament Orders of the Privy Council Judgments or Decrees in Courts of Law or Equity and the like However admit this Clause should be vicious and insignificant My Lord Bacon I am sure gives no countenance to a certain Dissenting Bishop's Argument in publick Discourse who undertook from hence to prove That the Statute it self is of no force Yet such sort of Arguments are of great service to men resolv'd upon a Conclusion nor can better be expected from them To what I have offer'd on this Head the following are all the Objections of seeming weight which have occurr'd to me Object 1 The Maxim in Law That the King never dies Or to use the words of Finch ' The Perpetuity which the Law ascribes to him Finch's Description of the Common Law French Edit An. 1613. f. 20. b. 21. a. The same made use of in Reflections upon our late and present Proceedings p. 10. having ' perpetual Succession and he never dies For in Law it is call'd the Demise of the King Answer To which I Answer 1. That neither that Book nor any Authority there cited is so ancient as the Settlement of the Crown above observ'd And that the Death of a King is but a Demise transferring the Right immediately to a Successor may be owing to the Settlement but is no Argument of any Right otherwise 2. Even where there is an Election Dyer f. 165. Anderson f. 44. He has it Le Successeur le Heir Elsewhere Heir on Successeur ib. f. 45. tho never so long after the Death of the Predecessor yet by way of Relation 't is as if there were a Demise or Translation of Interest without any Inter-regnum as it was resolved by all the Judges 1 Eliz. Of which the words of Lord Dyer are ' The King who is Heir or Successor may write and begin his Reign ' the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor dies With which agrees the Lord Anderson But that to many intents a King dies in his Politick Capacity as well as Natural Vid. 1. E. 6. c. 7. 7 Rep. f. 30. appears by the discontinuance of Process in Criminal Causes and such in Civil as was not return'd in the Life of the former King till kept up by Statute the determination of Commissions and the like Agreement betwixt the present and former Government Suppos'd to be Doctor Fulwood's P. 42. A Learned Author that he may reconcile our present Settlement to this suppos'd Maxim which appears not to have any foundation in Antiquity will have it That by the Vacancy of the Throne no more was meant by the Convention than its being free from the former Possessor but that it was full of a Successor and that there was no Interregnum For says he such a Vacancy we have upon every Demise of the Crown And so there was a Vacancy of the Throne and no Vacancy at all For in ordinary Demises 't is manifest there is none Freedom from the last Possessor is not a Vacancy of the Throne Two Grounds this Doctor goes upon to justify his Equivocation in this for I can call it no better 1. That otherwise this would be inconsistent with the nature of our Ancient Hereditary Monarchy 2. That the Convention shew that they meant it no otherwise than in his Sense 1. As to the First It is observable 1. That the Notion which himself goes upon P. 40. is as inconsistent with the ordinary Rule For he makes the Heir to have only jus in re and to want Livery and Seisin And consequently till the Coronation there is an Interregnum Tho it may afterwards be supplied by relation to the Descent of the Right But herein the Doctor is certainly out For in ordinary Descents or Demises Hales's Pleas of the Crown p. 40. Treason may be committed against the Heir as in full possession before any Recognition or Coronation But since he will hardly affirm that it could have been so in our Case he must grant that there was a more absolute Vacancy than that for which he contends P. 54. It is his own Argument that our present Sovereigns are really King and Queen because Treason may be committed against them within the purview of the Statute 25 E. 3. And by the same Reason they were not King and Queen before they were declar'd so unless Treason could have been committed against them before such Declaration 2. But 2. The Doctor owns that though upon some extraordinary Revolution and some absolute necessary Reason of State for our common preservation a Stranger none of the Blood-Royal should be advanced to the Throne for one or more turns whilst that necessity continues the Constitution of the Government would not be alter'd And yet would suppose P. 56. V. p. 41. Where he speaks as his own Sense what in the other place is put by way of Objection that if our King and Queen come in otherwise than by Descent it would be a Design'd Alteration or Change of the Ancient Constitution of this Hereditary Monarchy And yet himself owns That by the Law of Nature Salus Populi is both the Supream and the first Law in Government and the scope and end of all other Laws and of Government it self Nay he yields That the Oath of Allegiance that Sign or Testimony between King and Subject is discharged or dispenced with when
the Crown is settled subject to such Conditions as the King should make according to the Power there given first upon Prince Edward and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder in like manner upon the Ladies Mary and Elizabeth and the Heirs of their Bodies successively without taking off their Illegitimations And the same Power is given of disposing by Letters Patent Vid. 28 H. 8. sup 35 H. 8. or by Will as by the Statute 28. for which a memorable Reason is given in both Acts Lest if such Heirs should fail and no Provision made in the King's Life who should Rule and Govern this Realm for lack of such Heirs as in those Acts is mentioned that then this Realm should be destitute of a Lawful Governour E. 6. succeeded according to both those Acts After him Queen Mary by the last who at her coming to the Crown could not be looked on as of the Right Line because of the Acts which Illegitimated her and besides she was but of the Half-blood to E. 6. to whom she succeeded But in the first of her Reign the same Parliament takes off her Illegitimation and repeals the Acts 25 28 H. 8. And in this the Parliament seems rather to provide for the Honour of her Descent Hist of Succession f. 34. than as Dr. Brady would have it to declare the Succession to be in Inheritance by Right of Blood Whatever might be the secret Intention 1 2 P. M. c. 9. I am sure there is no such authoritative Declaration And the Acts 28 35 H. 8. seem to say quite the contrary 1 2 P. M. though there is no direct Settlement it is made Treason to compass the Deprivation or Destruction of K. P. during the Queen's Life 1 Eliz. c. 3. or of the Queen or of the Heirs of her Body lawfully begotten Queen Elizabeth succeeded by vertue of the Limitation 35 H. 8. And though Bastardiz'd by the Statutes 28 H. 8. and 1 M. and but of the Half-blood both to E. 6. and Queen Mary yet her first Parliament declares That she is Rightly Lineally and Lawfully descended and come of the Blood Royal of this Realm to whom and the Heirs of her Body the Royal Dignity c are and shall be united And Enacts That the Statute 35 H. 8. shall be the Law of the Kingdom for ever But the Fee of the Crown not having been disposed of according to the Power given by the Statute 28 and repeated 35 H. 8. And the 25 whereby it was limitted in Remainder to the Heirs of Henry the 8th being repealed upon the Death of Edward the 6th and the Queens Mary and Elizabeth without Issue there remaining no Heirs of the Body of H. 8 in the Judgment of two Parliaments the Realm was destitute of a Lawful Governour Indeed according to the Act of Recognition 1 J. 1. 1 Jac. 1. c. 1. the Crown came to him being lineally rightfully and lawfully descended of the Body of the most Excellent Lady Margaret the eldest Daughter of the most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England Thô this pompous Pedigree to avoid all Objections goes as high as E. 4. the Derivation of Title as appears above can be no higher than from the Settlement 1 H. 7. Nor does this Act 1 J. make any additional Provision but indeed seems to flatter the King into a Belief that there was no need of any telling him That they made that Recognition as the First-fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever But neither then or ever after till that in this present Parliament did the People make any Settlement of the Crown but it continued upon the same Foot as it did 1 H. 7. when it was entirely an Act of the People under no Obligation but from their own Wills Sir Robert Filmer's Power of Kings f. 1. And if we should use Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Impossible it is in Nature for Men to give a Law unto themselves no more than it is to command a Mans self in a Matter depending of his own Will There can be no Obligation which taketh State from the meer Will of him that promises the same Wherefore to apply this Rule Since the People that is now Vid. Pufend. de Interregn sup p. 288.289 in common presumption is the same with that which first settled the Succession and so are bound only by an Act of their own Will they have yet as arbitrary a Power in this Matter as Sir Robert and his Followers contend that the Prince has whatever Promises or Agreements he has entred into But not to lean upon such a broken Reed nor yet to make those many Inferences which this plain State of the Settlements of the Crown might afford Three things I shall observe 1. If the Settlement made 1 H. 7. who was an Usurper according to the Notion of Dr. Brady and his Set of Men was of no force then there being no Remainders since limited by any act but what are spent and no descendants of the whole Blood from Elizabeth Daughter to E. 4. and Wife to H. 7. but by Daughters the eldest of which was Married into Scotland If Acts of Settlement could not alter the Right of Descent of the Crown neither Queen Mary nor Queen Elizabeth had Right but after the death of E. 6. it belonged to the Scotch Family And if Acts of Settlement could dispose of the Crown and it should appear that from the time that the limitation came to a Foreigner not nam'd in the Settlement nor the immediate issue of a King or Queen of England it was spent in the eye of the Law then of necessity the People must have had Power of Chusing or there could have been no lawful Government since Queen Elizabeth's time when the last Settlement was spent except what is now made 2. The Declarations of two Parliaments 28 and 35 H. 8. fully ballance the Declaration 1 Jac. 1. if they do not turn the Scales considering that the Judges in the later Times seem to have had less Law or Integrity than they had in H. the Eighth's I will not take upon me to determine which was the Point of Two that they might go upon 1. That a Government shall not pass by Implication or by reason of a dormant Remainder But there having been so many Alterations since the Settlement 1 H. 7. and the whole Fee once disposed of nor ever any express Restitution of the Settlement 1 H. 7. the People were not to think themselves obliged to a Retrospect 'T is evident at least that they did not Or 2. Perhaps they might question whether they were oblig'd to receive for Kings the Issue
not be thought that I in the least derogate from the Honour due to him when I observe matter of fact not falling within his notice The Author of a late Paper in relation to these Times has this passage not to be neglected A Letter to a Friend advising in this extraordinary Juncture All Power is originally or fundamentally in the People formally in the Parliament which is one Corporation made up of three Constituent essentiating Parts King Lords and Commons so it was with us in England When this Corporation is broken when any one essentiating Part is lost or gone there is a Dissolution of the Corporation the formal Seat of Power and that Power devolves on the People When it is impossible to have a Parliament the Power returns to them with whom it was originally Is it possible to have a Parliament It is not possible the Government therefore is Dissolv'd Hence he would argue a necessity of having a larger Representative of the People Vid. Pufend. de Interregnis p. 267. sup in Marg. that the Convention may be truly National But had this Ingenious Person observed Pufendorf's two distinct Contracts by the first of which a Provision was made for a Monarchy before any particular Person was setled in the Throne he would have found no such necessity But if immemorially the People of England have been Represented as they were for this Assembly and no needful form or circumstance has been wanting to make the Representation compleat all men who impartially weigh the former Proofs of Elections not without a Rightful Power must needs think the last duly made Dr. Brady indeed with some few that led him the Dance and others that follow will have the present Representation of the Commons of England to have been occasioned by Rebellion 49 H. 3. But I must do him the honour to own him to be the first who would make the Barons to have no Personal Right but what depends upon a King in being for he allows none to have Right of coming to Parliament Brady's first Ed. p. 227. See this prov'd upon him in the Pref. to Jus Anglorum ab antiquo but such only to whom the King has thought fit to direct Writs of Summons Yet I dare say no man of sense who has read that Controversie believes him But were his Assertions true it might be granted that the Barons would have no more personal Right to be of any Convention upon the total Absence or Abdication of a King than they would have of coming to Parliament without His Writ Yet since the Right of the People in person or Representation is indubitable in such a Case what hinders the validity of the late Choice considering how many Elections of Kings we have had and that never by the people diffusively since the first Institution of the Government And the Representations agreed on tho I take them to be earlier setled for Cities and Burroughs than for the Freeholders in the Counties have ever since their respective settlements been in the same manner as now at least none have since the first Institution ever come in their own persons or been Electors but what are now present personally or representatively and their own Consent takes away all pretence of Error If it be said That they ought to have been Summoned Forty days before the Assembly held That is only a Privilege from the King which they may wave and have more than once consented to be Represented upon less than Forty days Summons Prynne 's Animadversions on 4 Inst f. 10. Mr. Prynne gives several Instances as 49 H. 3. 4 E. 3. 1 H. 4. 28 Eliz. and says he omits other Precedents of Parliaments Summoned within Fourty days after the Writs of Summons bear date upon extraordinary Occasions of publick safety and concernment which could not conveniently admit so long delay And Sir Robert Cotton being a strict Adherer to Form Vid. Rushw 1 Vol. f. 470. 3 Car. 1. upon an Emergency advised That the Writs should be Antedated which Trick could make no real difference To say however there ought to have been a Summons from or in the name of a King in being is absurd it being for the exercise of a lawful power which unless my Authorities fail the people had without a King or even against the consent of one in being Besides it appears That such Summons have not been essential to the Great Councils of the Nation Tacitus shews That the Germans Tacit. de Moribus German Coeunt nisi quid fortuitum subitum certis diebus c. V. Leges S. Ed. tit Greve In Capite Kal. Maij. Jus. Angl. c. 7. Vid. Append. from whom we descend had theirs at certain days unless when some extraordinary matter happened And by the Confessor's Laws received by W. 1. and continued downwards by the Coronaton Oaths requir'd to this very day the General Folcmot ought to be held annually without any formal Summons upon May-day By the time of E. 1. this custom to hold a Parliament upon May-day received a little alteration for the Pope having at the beginning of that King's Reign demanded eight years Arrears of an Annual payment which he claim'd for the Kingdom of England the King had put him off till the next Parliament which he said had us'd to be held in England about the Octaves of our Saviour's Resurrection This Parliament was held at the Octaves accordingly as the King acknowleges upon the Pope's second demand but pleads that it had been taken up with the great Affairs of the Nation till his want of Health occasion'd a Dissolution before they could consider oâ—… tt Matter which he promis'd should be brought before them at the next Parliament which he purposed to hold at Michaelmas then following The Statute 16 Car. 1. which our rigid Formalists must own to be in Force has wholly taken away the necessity of Writs of Summons from a King Stat. 12. Car. 2. c. 1. The Assembly of the Lords and Commons held Anno 1660. was summoned by the Keepers of the Liberties of England not by the Kings Writs yet when they came to Act in conjunction with the King they declare enact and adjudge where the Statute is manifestly declaratory of what was Law before That the Lords and Commons then sitting are and shall be the Two Houses of Parliament notwithstanding any want of the King 's Writ or Writs of Summons or any defect or alteration of or in any Writ of Summons c. Tho' this seems parallel to the present Case yet in truth ours is the strongest For the King then had been only King de jure no Authority could be received from Him nor could any Act of His be regarded in Law through defect either of Jurisdiction or Proof if not both Accordingly as not only the Reason of the thing but the Lord Coke shews 3 Inst f. 7. Sup. in Marg. a Pardon from one barely King de jure is of
W. 2. for he resolving to go take the Pall at Rome 't was declared to him in Parliament that if he went it should be without any hopes of returning again Upon this the See of Canterbury became vacant agreeably to what afterwards hapned in the case of Becket tho he was not banish'd but fled away voluntarily yet the French King having press'd H. 2. to let Becket have the Profits of the Archbishoprick the King told him Antiquitates Britan. f. 135. Restituere se nihil ei posse qui sponte Ecclesiam deseruerit itaque cum e Regni consuetudine Regisque dignitate Cantuariensis Ecclesiae quam Thomas fugâ voluntariâ pro derelicta fecit fructus vacantes certis jam personis contulisset nolle se dixit ea quae prout jure Regni potuit contulisset in irritum dubiumve revocari That he cannot restore any thing to him who left his Church of his own accord since therefore according to the custom of the Kingdom and the Royal Dignity he had conferr'd upon certain persons the vacant Fruits of the Church of Canterbury which Thomas by his voluntary Flight had made derelict he said he would not make void or call in doubt those things which he had granted according to the Law of the Kingdom If there might be any doubt of a Vacancy of the See in Becket's case at least there was none in Anselm's who had in the time of W. 2. been banish'd by Parliament never to return and yet the Convention 1 H. 1. being become a Parliament not only recall'd him from banishment in which they set aside an Act of a former Parliament but they call'd him to fill the See of Canterbury after it had been vacant which was equally a Parliamentary Act in those days as appears by the choice of Lanfranc in the time of W. 1. of this very Anselm in W. the 2 d's and of Becket in the Reign of H. 2. Concerning the Election of Lanfranc Arcbishop Parker tells us Ibid. f. 110. Celeberrima est autem hujus prae caeteris electio consecratio Electus enim est a majoribus Cantuariensis ecclesiae tum accessit Procerum atque Praesulum totiusque populi quasi Populi consensus in Aula Regis quod sane est ad instar Senatus seu Parliamenti Anglicani But this Election and Consecration was with more Solemnity than any other For he was chosen by the Chief of the Church of Canterbury To which was added the consent of the Peers and Prelates and as it were of the whole People in the King's Court which in truth is of the nature of an English Senate or Parliament Tho he will have this Election to have been more solemn than any other and that it was not in a real Parliament but in an Assembly of the same nature yet what himself says of the Elections of Anselm and Becket explain'd by more Ancient Authors shews that the Elections of other Archbishops us'd to be as solemn and that both that of Lanfranc and of the others were in a full Parliament or Great Council of the Nation Himself says That both Peers and People were so much for Anselm's being made Archbishop that W. 2. would not openly contradict Antiq. Brit f. 116. W. 2. Proffered Anselm the Archbishoprick but underhand disswaded him from it Sed cum neque hâc suasione quicquam profecisset proque certo comperisset Proceres Populumque Angliae adversos aut minus fidos sibi Anselmo favere eumque ad Archiep. munus jam oblatum flagitare apertè contradicere noluit Eadmerus who was always by Anselm's side shews that W. 2. being taken ill in the seventh year of His Reign Omnes totius Regni Principes coeunt Episcopi Abbates quique Nobiles There gathered together all the Princes of the Kingdom the Bishops Abbots and all the Nobles This as appears was upon notice given among themselves to provide for their Common safety To that Assembly the King makes solemn promises of Governing better than he had done And Anselm being there named for Archbishop Concordi voce sequitur acclamatio omnium ' The acclamation of all followed as with ' one voice And Eadmerus says that he was made Archbishop Secundum totius Regni Electionem ' according to the Election of the whole ' Kingdom And another Monk of the time says Gondulfus Roff. Ep. Monac Bec. inter Anselmi Epist lib. 3. the King made him Archbishop Consilio Rogatu Principum Cleri quoque populi petitione electione By the Counsel and Advice of the Peers and the Petition and Election of the Clergy and People Archbishop Parker speaking of the Consecration of Becket An. Dom. 1162. 7 H. 2. in the 7th of H. 2. says Consecrationi huic tam illustri interfuit H. Rs filius Antiq. Brit. f. 130. cum plerisque Regni Proceribus quatuordecim Cantuariensis Provinciae Episcopis innumerâque Plebis multitudine atque copiâ There were present at this Consecration Henry the King's Son with most of the Nobility of the Kingdom and Fourteen Bishops of the Province of Canterbury and an innumerable multitude and throng of the common people The former Presidents shew that they were consenting as well as present nor could the absence of the Bishops of the other Diocesses make their Meeting the less a Parliament Sir Henry Spelman cites an Authority proving that the Clergy were not conven'd at the Council of Rochingham 9 W. 2. Spelman Concil vol. 2. f. 16. In quo fermè totius Regni Nobilitas praeter Episcopos Clerum Convenitur which must be meant of not being Summoned for it appears by Eadmerus that Anselm and other Bishops were there And Bishop Jewel observes that in the time of E. 1. Jewel contra Hard. f. 455. a Parliament was held from which the Clergy was excluded From these Authorities it appears That as Anselm was chosen Archbishop in one Parliament and Banished in another nay tho he had gone away voluntarily his See became derelict and admit the King might have pardon'd his Banishment out of Parliament he could not have restor'd him to the exercise of his Office but in a Council which was reputed to have the Authority of a Parliament and such Authority 't is plain that they in that time thought that Convention to have had in which H. 1. was Crown'd and which after his Coronation acted as a Parliament Malms f. 88. It appears by Malmsbury that Anselm was call'd back in the same Assembly wherein Ranulph was committed to Prison and Matthew Paris who is not so precise as to the time of Anselm's being sent for says Ranulph was Imprison'd communi Concilio Gentis Anglorum ' In a ' Common-Council of the English Nation And it appears by Matthew Paris Mat. Par. f. 78 79. That Anselm upon his return was look'd on and acted as Archbishop And if this is not sufficient evidence that that Convention was reputed a Parliament or one
subjectam The chief Act of Government requires the chief or Supream Power But the making of Laws is the Supream Act of Government Therefore it cannot be exercised but by a Person having or at least by Virtue and from the Authority of the Person having Supream Power and Jurisdiction over the Community subject unto him Now in this the Doctor seems to be uniform to himself since he grants that the Clergy cannot exercise this Power without the consent of the King and so they act by virtue of his Authority But it will be justly question'd whether the Power be not in the King the Authority being his For a Legislative Power where-ever plac'd is uncontroulable and self-sufficient and so the Doctor tells us Potestas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if the Power the jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas be in the Clergy then that Power is self-sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by consequence their Act of Legislation made known obliges the Community Eodem omninò modo quo Princeps qui habet potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 84. ferendo leges obligat subditos ad ipsarum observationem But perhaps we may be told that a Difference is here to be taken between jus condendi Leges and potestas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but then the Doctor must be allowed not to talk with coherence For he takes it for granted Posse de novo condi leges de ritibus rebus personis Ecclesiasticis omnibusque sacri cultûs externi circumstantiis ad ordinem honestatem edificationem spectantibus extra eas quae sunt à Christo ejus Apostolis in Sacris Literis traditae which is in short that there is somewhere a Legislative Power in Matters Ecclesiastical not determin'd in the Scriptures Now this very Power Jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas he places in Ecclesiastical Persons wherefore the Power which he ascribes to them in Ecclesiastical Affairs is a Legislative Power And some will question how much soever the Clergy complement the King whether they take not the Restraint which they submit to to be a Condescension nay that Power is by him ascrib'd to the Clergy in the very same Expressions wherein he expresses the King's Power Pag. 189. For as he says Jus condendarum Legum Pag. 209. is penes unum Regem so he tells us Jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas is penes Episcopos c. I would gladly see the Difference rightly stated upon these Principles The Clergy have the Power of making Laws or the Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Matters yet the Exercise is restrainable by the King Jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas esse penes Episcopos Presbyteros aliasque personas à totius Regni Clero ritè electas legitimâ Synodo congregatas Ita tamen ut ejus juris exercitium in omni Republicâ Christianâ ex Authoritate Supremi Magistratûs politici pendere debeat Idque à parte ante à parte post The King has the Legislative Power in Civil Affairs yet the Exercise is restrainable by the People Cum dicimus penes unum Regem esse jus condendarum Legum Pag. 189. non id ità intelligendum quasi vellemus quicquam Regi libuerit jubere id continuò legis vim obtinere nam populi consensum aliquem aliaque non nulla ad Legem constituendam requiri mox ostendam Ergo Quere Whether Church-men are not Supream in Ecclesiastical Affairs as the King is in Civil It will be said Admit they are yet that Power may be very consistent with Monarchy for which purpose one need but transcribe with very little variation the Doctor 's words applying what he says of the Lawgiver in Temporal to the Ecclesiastical Law-givers Pag. 203. Posse duo haec Regis inquam consensum supremum ECCLESIASTICORVM in ferendis legibus potestatem simul amicè satis consistere praeterea quod in rebus ipsis nulla videtur esse repugnantia vel inde constare potest quod Angliae nostrae CLERICI quorum supremam potestatem in ECCLESIASTICIS ante infoelicissima haec tempora omnes hujus Regni incolae prolixissimè semper agnoverunt nunquam tamen legislativam suam potestatem ità exercuerunt ut sine Regum suorum consensu Leges aliquas condiderint Now whether the Doctor 's Reflections upon them that feign a Power coordinate with the King nay whether his imputation of Perjury upon them who deny the King a Legislative Power after having sworn that he is Supream Head and Governour over all Causes and Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil will not fall upon himself some will question Pag. 191. and they know not whether he were not one of them that believ'd Contradictoria posse simul esse vera And thus again they argue out of him Pag. 188. In statu Monarchico unius Regis personae inhaeret summa potestas In a Monarchy the Supream Power is inherent in the Person of the King only But ours is a Monarchy therefore the Supream Power is inherent in the Person of the King only Ibid. he is omnium personarum causarumque in suis Regnis Supremus imò solus supremus Moderator Making of Laws either in Ecclesiastical or Civil Matters is an Act of the Supream Power therefore the Right of making Laws Pag. 192. in the one as well 'tother is in the King in whom the Supream Power is inherent not in Church-men But if one may dispute the Authority of so great a Man one may be bold to ask what proof there is that what he asserts about Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is consentaneous Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Regni insimul legibus For take it in the largest sense not that the Clergy have the Legislative Power so qualified as aforesaid but that they and the King have a Power of making Laws in Ecclesiastical Matters which shall oblige the Community without any farther Consent or Ratification This some will say may for ought they know be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church or Church-men but where is the Law to warrant it they are to seek And besides the several adjudg'd Cases that the Laity are not oblig'd by any Canons of the Clergy or Ecclesiastical Laws though made with all the Circumstances taken in by the Doctor They urge the Authority of this King in his Parliament where 't was enacted that the Canons made in the Year 1640 13 Car. 2. c. 12. This was written before that Parliament was dissolved should not be confirm'd which shews that they stood in need of Parliamentary Confirmation to become Laws And 't is to be observed that there had been the Royal Assent to that Exercise of Ecclesiastical Power both à parte ante and à parte post Some Men possibly may tax this Great Author with Deceit in giving the King a Legislative Power in general without excluding those Ecclesiastical Matters which the Great
Honour Nature and Dewtie an inordinate seditious and slaundres Act was made agayns the most famous Prince of blessed memory Kinge Herrie the Sixte his Vncle in the Parliament holden at Westminster the fourth day of November the first Year of the Reigne of Edward the Fourth late King of England whereby his said Vncle contrary to due Allegianee and all due Order was attainted of High Treason Wherefore our same Soveraigne Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spirituals and Temporals and Comines in this present Parliament assembled and by Auctoritie of the same ordeineth enacteth and establisheth that the said Act and all Acts of Attainder Forfaiture and Disablement made or had in the said Parliament or else in any other Parliament of the said late King Edward ayenst the said most blessed Prince King Herrie or against the right famous Princess Margaret late Queen of England his Wife or the right victorious Prince Edward late Prince of Wales Son of the same blessed King Herrie and Margarett Jasper Duke of Bedford late Earl of Pembroke or Herrie late Duke of Somerset the which Jasper and Herrie late Duke of Somerset for their true and faithful Allegiances and Services done to the same blessed King Herrie were attainted of High Treason or any of them by what Name or Names they or any of them be named in any of the said Acts be ayenst the said blessed King Herrie Queen Margaret Edward late Prince and the same Dukes and the Heirs of every of them void annulled repelled and of no Force ne Effect N. X. Vid. CAP. F. 103. SAnctissimo in Christo Patri Domino Claus 3. E. 1. m. 9. Cedula In a Letter to the Pope Domino G. divinâ providentiâ Sacro-sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae universalis Ecclesiae summo Pontifici Edwardus ejusdem gratiâ Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae Dux Aquitaniae Cum reverentiâ honore salutem pedum oscula beatorum Mandavit nobis olim per literas Apostolicas quas pronâ mentis devotione recepimus vestra sanctitas reverenda ut annuum censum in quo Sacrosanctae Rom. Ecclesiae ratione Regni Angl. pro octo praeteritis annis asseritis nos teneri venerabili vestro Magistro R. de Nogeriis Capellano vestro assignari liberaliter ac integrè nomine pred Rom. Ecclesiae faceremus Nuper autem alias literas vestras recepimus cum Reverentiâ continentes quod cum nos respons Relationis solutionis Censûs annui memorati quam nobis pred Capel vester exposuit vestrae Ecclesiae Romanae Nomine diligenter Deliberatione Consilii Procerum Regni nostri in Parliamento quod circa Octabas Resurrectionis Dominicae celebrari in Angliâ consuerit pro eo duximus reservand quod tempore receptionis pred lit vestrae noviter ejusdem Regni gubernacula sumpseramus nunc de hujusmodi censu sine ulteriori procrast impendi faceremus eidem satisfac plen Capellano Fatemur enim S. Pater Domine ad Parliament nostrum in Octabis Resurrectionis Dominicae prox pret Regni nostri Praelatos Proceres evocasse ibique multa statuisse divinâ gratiâ favente quae meliorationem statûs Ecclesiae Anglicanae reformationem Regni ejusdem respiciunt communes profectus populi capiant incrementa Set antequam eidem Parl. propter negotiorum multitud quae reformationis remedio indigebant finem imponere valeremus Eodem Capellano vestro responsionem debitam sibi fieri instanter postulante quaedam gravis nos invasit sicut Domino placuit infirmitas corporalis quae perfectionem multorum aliorum negot deliberationem Petitionis Censûs annui supardict de quo dolemus non modicum impedivit Sicque cum occatione infirmitatis hujusmodi à quâ per Dei gratiam cujus est perimere mederi incepimus convalescere Idem Parl. fuerit dissolutum super hoc nequiverimus super Petitione Censûs ejusdem deliberationem habere cum Praelatis Proceribus antedictis sine quorum communicato consilio sanctitatae vestrae super predictis non possumus respondere Et jurejurando in coronatione nostra prestit sumus astricti quod jura Regni nostri servabimus illibata nec aliquod quod Diadema tangat Regni ejusdem absque ipsorum requisito consilio faciemus Reverende Benignitati vestrae humiliter supplicamus pro dono petimus spirituali quatenus molestè non ferat sanctitas vestra si ad praesens super pred sicut vellemus non possumus respondere Imo patientia vestra paterna si placet nos super hoc habere dignetur excutatos Pro firmo scituri pie Pater Domine quod in alio Parliamento nostro quod ad festum Sancti Michaelis prox fut intendimus dante Domino celebrare habito communicato Consilio cum Praelat Proc. memoratis vobis super praem ipsorum Consilio dabimus responsionem Conservet vos Dominus Ecclesiae Sanctae suae per tempora longaeva Teste meipso apud Westm 19. die Junii Anno Regni nostri 3o. The Present CONVENTION a Parliament N. XI Vid. CAP. 10. F. 111. I. THat the formality of the King 's Writ of Summons is not so essential to an English Parliament but that the Peers of the Realm and the Commons by their Representatives duly Elected may legally Act as the great Council and Representative Body of the Nation though not summon'd by the King especially when the Circumstances of the time are such that such Summons cannot be had will I hope appear by these following Observations First The Saxon Government was transplanted hither out of Germany where the meeting of the Saxons in such Assemblies was at certain fixed times viz. at the New and Full Moon But after their Transmigration hither Religion changing other things changed with it and the Times for their publick Assemblies in conformity to the great Solemnity celebrated by Christians came to be changed to the Feasts of Easter Pentecost and the Nativity The lower we come down in Story the seldomer we find these General Assemblies to have been held and sometimes even very anciently when upon extraordinary Occasions they met out of course a Precept an Edict or Sanction is mentioned to have issued from the King But the Times and the very Place of their ordinary Meeting having been certain and determined in the very first and eldest Times that we meet with any mention of such Assemblies which times are as ancient as any Memory of the Nation it self hence I inferr that no Summons from the King can be thought to have been necessary in those days because it was altogether needless Secondly The Succession to the Crown did not in those days nor till of late Years run in a course of Lineal Succession by right of Inheritance But upon the Death of a Prince those Persons of the Realm that Composed the then Parliament Assembled in order to the choosing of another That the Kingdom was then Elective though one or other of the Royal
Blood was always chosen but the next in Lineal Succession very seldom is evident from the Genealogies of the Saxon Kings from an old Law made at Calchuyth appointing how and by whom Kings shall be chosen and from many express and particular Accounts given by our old Historians of such Assemblies held for Electing of Kings Now such Assemblies could not be Summon'd by any King and yet in conjunction with the King that themselves set up they made Laws binding the King and all the Realm Thirdly After the Death of King William Rufus Robert his Elder Brother being then in the Holy Land Henry the youngest Son of King William the First procur'd an Assembly of the Clergy and People of England to whom he made large promises of his good Government in case they would accept of him for their King and they agreeing That if he would restore to them the Laws of King Edward the Confessor then they would consent to make him their King He swore that he would do so and also free them from some Oppressions which the Nation had groan'd under in his Brothers and his Fathers time Hereupon they chose him King and the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of York set the Crown upon his Head Which being done a Confirmation of the English Liberties pass'd the Royal Assent in that Assembly the same in substance though not so large as King John's and King Henry the Third's Magna Charta's afterwards were Fourthly After that King's Death in such another Parliament King Stephen was Elected and Mawd the Empress put by though not without some stain of perfidiousness upon all those and Stephen himself especially who had sworn in her Father Life-time to acknowledg her for their Sovereign after his decease Fifthly In King Richard the First 's time the King being absent in the Holy Land and the Bishop of Ely then his Chancellor being Regent of the Kingdom in his Absence whose Government was intolerable to the People for his Insolence and manifold Oppressions a Parliament was convened at London at the Instance of Earl John the King's Brother to treat of the great and weighty Affairs of the King and Kingdom in which Parliament this same Regent was depos'd from his Government and another set up viz. the Arch-Bishop of Roan in his stead This Assembly was not conven'd by the King who was then in Palaestine nor by any Authority deriv'd from him for then the Regent and Chancellor must have call'd them together but they met as the Historian says expresly at the Instance of Earl John And yet in the King's Absence they took upon them to settle the publick Affairs of the Nation without Him Sixthly When King Henry the 3 d. died his Eldest Son Prince Edward was then in the Holy Land and came not Home till within the third Year of his Reign yet immediately upon the Father's Death all the Prelates and Nobles and four Knights for every Shire and four Burgesses for every Borough Assembled together in a great Council and setled the Government till the King should return Made a new Seal and a Chancellor c. I inferr from what has been said that Writs of Summons are not so Essential to the being of Parliaments but that the People of England especially at a time when they cannot be had may by Law and according to our Old Constitution Assemble together in a Parliamentary way without them to treat of and settle the Publick Affairs of the Nation And that if such Assemblies so conven'd find the Throne Vacant they may proceed not only to set up a Prince but with the Assent and Concurrence of such Prince to transact all Publick Business whatsoever without a new Election they having as great Authority as the People of England can delegate to their Represantatives II. The Acts of Parliaments not Formal nor Legal in all their Circumstances are yet binding to the Nation so long as they continue in Force and not liable to be questioned as to the Validity of them but in subsequent Parliaments First The two Spencers Temp. Edvardi Secundi were banished by Act of Parliament and that Act of Parliament repealed by Dures Force yet was the Act of Repeal a good Law till it was Annull'd 1 Ed. 3. Secondly Some Statutes of 11 Rich. 2. and Attainders thereupon were Repealed in a Parliament held Ann. 21. of that King which Parliament was procur'd by forc'd Elections and yet the Repeal stood good till such time as in 1 Henry 4. the Statutes of 11 Rich. 2. were revived and appointed to be firmly held and kept Thirdly The Parliament of 1 Hen. 4. consisted of the same Knights Citizens and Burgesses that had served in the then last dissolved Parliament and those Persons were by the King's Writs to the Sheriffs commanded to be returned and yet they passed Acts and their Acts though never confirmed continue to be Laws at this day Fourthly Queen Mary's Parliament that restored the Popes Supremacy was notoriously known to be pack'd insomuch that it was debated in Queeen Elizabeth's time whether or no to declare all their Acts void by Act of Parliament That course was then upon some prudential Considerations declined and therefore the Acts of that Parliament not since repealed continue binding Laws to this day The reason of all this is Because no inferiour Courts have Authothority to judge of the Validity or Invalidity of the Acts of such Assemblies as have but so much as a colour of Parliamentary Authority The Acts of such Assemblies being Entred upon the Parliament-Roll and certified before the Judges of Westminster-Hall as Acts of Parliament are conclusive and binding to them because Parliaments are the only Judges of the Imperfections Invalidities Illegalities c. of one another The Parliament that call'd in King Charles the Second was not assembled by the King 's Writ and yet they made Acts and the Royal Assent was had to them many of which indeed were afterwards confirmed but not all and those that had no Confirmation are undoubted Acts of Parliament without it and have ever since obtained as such Hence I Infer that the present Convention may if they please assume to themselves a Parliamentary Power and in conjunction with such King or Queen as they shall declare may give Laws to the Kingdom as a legal Parliament ALLEGATIONS In behalf of the High and Mighty Princess THE LADY MARY NOW Queen of Scots Against the Opinions and Books set forth in the Part and Favour of the LADY KATHERINE And the rest of the Issues of the French Queen Touching the Succession of the Crown Written in the Time of QUEEN ELIZABETH London Printed by J. D. in the Year 1690. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER I Thought it not improper to subjoin the following Treatise written by a Lawyer in Queen Elizabeth's Time whether ever printed or no I cannot say in favour of the Title of the Queen of Scots against the Pretences of the Lady Katherine descended from the
to be the Doctrine of the Church of England equally proves that this is essential to the Controversies depending between the Friends of the late Government and the happy Subjects of this As a just Corollary from which we may affirm that no Man who is true to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience can bear Faith and true Allegiance to our King and Queen In consequence to which as I have above shewn such are bound to their Power to assist the late King and to maintain the Regal Rights which he still claims as King of England if they are entrusted with any of our King's Secrets to reveal them to the other and to employ all those Advantages which his Majesty's Favour may give them Preface to the Hist of Passive Obedience towards the advancing that Interest to which they believe themselves unalterably bound And tho our King with the Generosity of Alexander may trust himself with them of whose at least probable Designs he may have certain Information yet no Man need wonder that his Friends offer him the Notice and that they would have that Doctrine extirpated out of the World without vvhich it vvere impossible for him to have an Enemy in the English Nation but a Papist And even among them I dare say all but the bigotted Slaves to their Clergy are sensible of the benefit of his Protection and may encourage themselves in civil Obedience to him who is King over them from the Examples of St. Anselm with other holy Men and the generality of their Clergy who quietly obeyed the Power vvhich protected them without considering whether the Person who administred it stood next in the Line or no. And tho it may be excusable for a dying-Man to justify his own Sincerity to his private Friends yet when the matter vvhich he affirms is of such Consequence to the Peace of that Government which had rescued him and the Church in vvhich he had such a Trust from impending Ruin and afforded it and him sure Protection tho he had disabled himself from farther benefit he ought not certainly to have taken such Pains to transmit his Opinion to the knowledg of the unthinking Vulgar who vvere likely to be influenced by it unless he vvere certain beyond the least shaddow of doubt that this was not only a Truth but of such a nature that the Sin of Ignorance in others were damnable Or else that the Restoration of the late King were preferrable to Submission to this The last I hope his Admirers vvill not say and since the first evidently depends upon Points of Lavv tho ignorance of human Law cannot reasonably excuse before Men who know not the Heart and when the Plea ought to be allowed when not yet there is no doubt but it will before God But who would not be impatient to find our great Law-Casuist Dr. H. to justify his Disaffection to the Government under the Umbrage of the Bishop's Declaration and to boast himself a Confessor to this pretended Martyr vvithout producing more colour for it than a dying-Bishop's Belief that this is in Consequence of adhering to the Religion of the Church of England Had any one publish'd thus much in the Reign of Innuendoes when Dr. H. was the Trumpeter to the Imperial Power in Contradistinction to the Political one he vvould have met with Col. Sydney's Doom who suffered for publishing Hicksian Treason all over his own Study Jovian p. 236. And were Dr. H. to be judg'd by his own Law 't is certain he vvould be pronounc'd a Traitor if the Publication of this Paper vvere prov'd upon him For in his Jovian he says What tends to Treason is Traiterous The Lord Hollis his Book against the Bishop's voting in Capital Cases he says for the same Reason is an impious and treasonable Book because it abounds with Falsifications of Records c. and asserts that the King is one of the three Estates Pag. 237. And the Dialogue between the Tutor and Pulpit is a treasonable Piece because it misrepresents the English Government as if it were a Reciprocal Contract betwixt the King and the People and as if the Parliament ought whether or no the King pleas'd to sit till all Grievances were redress'd and Petitions answer'd By the last of which the Bishops were Traitors for their Proposals to King James And by the former Vid. the Bishops Proposals all those Passive-Obedience-Men are Traitors who publickly maintain an Opinion which necessarily implies that the Right of the last King could not be alter'd or diminish'd for any matter which induc'd King William to undertake our Deliverance If Men of the Doctor 's Opinion will be exasperated for being driven from their Coverts they should consider that they ought rather to be thankful that they are put to no further Mortification while they cease not to give jealousy to the Government by maintaining or patronizing what is inconsistent with that Peace vvhich they are bound to pray for But Dr. H. it should seem Jovian p. 104. now aims at the Glory of taking that boldness and liberty of speaking and acting vvhich he says was common among Confessors by which they shewed the greatness of their Zeal to suffer for God and how much they despis'd that Authority vvhich was over them in Competition with their Duty to God And this may be to retrieve his Reputation for not calling the late King an Idolater Ib. pag. 96 a Bread-worshipper a Goddess-worshipper a Creature-worshipper an Image-worshipper a Wafer-worshipper c. which we might have expected for the making good his Vapour before he came to the Trial. Did his then Silence agree with that supernaturul Courage Pag. 297. which he vvas fully perswaded God would inspire him with And does it not seem odd that the Inspiration should seize him to the Prejudice of that Government under which alone it can reasonably be expected that Protestancy can be supported but should be vvanting in a Popish Reign The Jews had a Divine Caution against receiving even those Prophets who vvrought Wonders if they labour'd to withdraw Men from the Worship of the true God And surely Protestants would not scruple to reject the Doctor 's Pretences to Inspiration Vid. Dr. H. his Raviliac Redivivus which some vvould be ready to ascribe to that Spirit vvhich himself had found out for the fluency of some Mens Prayers or rather to that lying Spirit in the Mouths of the Jewish Prophets which encouraged Ahab to go out to fight for what had formerly been in the Possession of the Crown of Israel 3. The Bishop will have this Doctrine of Passive Obedience to be the distinguishing Character of the Church of England and therein admits that she holds it in a manner differing from all other Protestant Churches And if this be so the acting or believing according to it can be incumbent only upon the unfeigned Assent and Consent-Men But we of the Laity vvho believe our selves to be
Preservation of the Constitution in vertue of which they might declare King William and Queen Mary King and Queen of England and Ireland with all their Dependencies tho J. 2. was alive at the time of such Declaration 2. That this rightful Power was duly exercis'd in the late Assembly of Lords and Commons and afterwards regularly confirmed by the same Body in full Parliament 1. As to the Nations rightful Power I shall not go about to refute the fond Notion of an absolute Patriarchal Power descending from Adam to our Kings in an unaccountable way because tho if this were true there could be no more Compact between Princes and their People than is between Fathers and Children for establishing the Rights of Fatherhood Patriarcha non Monarcha Ed. An. 1681. Two Treatises of Government In the former the false Princeples and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his Followers are detected and overthrown Ed. Anno 1690. Heylyn 's Certamen Epistolare p. 386 387. yet the difference between a Patriarchal and Monarchical Authority is so well stated and prov'd by my Learned Friend Mr. Tyrril that few besides the unknown Author of the two late Treatises of Government could have gained Reputation after him in exposing the false Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his Admirers one of which Dr. Heylyn in his Letter to Sir Edward Filmer the Son speaking of his Father says His eminent Abilities in these Political Disputes exemplified in his judicious Observations on Aristotle's Politicks as also in some Passages on Grotius Hunton Hobbs and other of our late Discoursers about Forms of Government declare abundantly how fit a Man he might have been to have dealt in this Cause which I would not willingly should be betrayed by unskilful handling and had he pleased to have suffer'd his excellent Discourse called Patriarcha to appear in publick it would have given such Satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Polity that all other Tractates in that kind had been found unnecessary This he says might have serv'd for a Catholicon or general Answer to all Discourses of this kind Since Sir Robert Filmer and Dr. Heylin were our late Observator's Predecessors in guiding the Inferior Clergy 't is not to be expected that they should nicely enquire into the Errors and Contradictions of their Leaders but the Doctor 's scandalous Reflections upon the Reformation in England and the Misfortunes of Charles the First in some measure at least occasion'd by the Countenance given to Sybthorpism Manwarism and Filmerism may justly raise a Prejudice against these Men and their Doctrines in the thinking Laity and those who are not able to think of themselves may take every Morning some Pages of the two Treatises of Government for an effectual Catholicon against Nonsense and Absurdities which have nothing to recommend them but Stile and Names cried up among a Party Vid. Dr. Heylyn's Stumbling-Block of Disobedience and Rebellion Wherefore I may well think that I may pass over the Stumbling-Blocks which such Men lay in the way to my Proof that the Power whereby this Nation is govern'd is originally under God derived from the People and was never absolutely parted with Hooker 's Ecclesiastical Polity lib. 1. f. 10. Many have cited the Authority of the Judicious Hooker till it is thread-bare to prove that it is impossible there should be a lawful Kingly Power which is not mediately or immediately from the Consent of the People where 't is exercised The present Bishop of Worcester whose Name will undoubtedly be held in no less esteem in future Ages Irenicum p. 132. is as express in his Irenicum That all civil Societies are founded upon CONTRACTS and COVENANTS made between them which saith he is evident to any that consider that Men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but who they shall judg fit That Dominion and Propriety were introduced by free Consent of Men and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit Agreement made and Submission acknowledged to these Laws else Men might plead their natural Right and Freedom still which would be destructive to the very Nature of those Societies When Men then did part with their natural Liberties two things were necessary in the most express Terms to be declared 1. A free and voluntary Consent to part with so much of their natural Rights as was not consistent with the well-being of Society 2. A free Submission to all such Laws as should be agreed upon at their entrance into Society or afterwards as they see Cause But when Societies were already entered into and Children born under them no such express Consent was required in them being bound by virtue of the Protection which they find from Authority to submit to it and an implicit Consent is suppos'd in all such as are born under that Authority The Account which the Learned Cragius gives of the first Institution of Kingly Government seems to deserve not to be omitted Quum multa iracundè multa libidinosè multa avarè fierent c. Cragius de Feudis f. 2. Vid. The like account in Sir Will. Temple 's admirable Treatise of Monarchy among his Miscellanies So Bracton Rex à regendo non à regnando Jus dicebant When many things were acted wrathfully many things lustfully many things avariciously the best Man of a Society was chosen who might take Cognizance of the Offence or Injury and determine what was equal among Neighbours Thus were Judges constituted in every City for the sake of distributing Justice These were call'd Kings for Kings at the beginning were no more than Judges having their Denomination from ruling Each presided over his own City that is administred Justice Hence that multitude of Kings in Holy Writ To descend from generals to the Romans in particular whose Emperors were suppos'd to have been the most absolute and that the Obedience to Higher Powers required in the Gospel is to be taken from the measures of Subjection due to them Dr. Hicks Dr. Hicks his Jovian the great Maintainer of the Absolute Power of Monarchs takes a great deal of Pains to shew that the Empire was not Hereditary and by Consequence that their Power was immediately vested in the particular Emperors by the Consent of the Legions or other People who set them up Saravia as careful of the Rights of Princes owns Saravia de Imp. Author f. 159. That by the Roman Law the Crime of Laesa Majestas or Treason is defin'd to be that which is committed against the People of Rome and its Security Where he confines it to Crimes against the People only Vid. Tacitus p. which indeed agrees with the dying Speech of an old Roman in Tiberius his time But that in the Eye of our Law there may be a Laesa Majestas Vid. Glanv p. 1 Crimen quod in legibus dicitur crimen Laesae Majestatis ut de nece vel seditione
Domini Regis vel Regni So Fleta de Crimine Laesae Majestatis c. 21 Vid. 26 H. 8. c. 2. 28 H. 8. c. 18. Traitors against the King and Realm Fortescue f. 6. temp H. 6. or Treason against the People of England is evident not only by Glanvil who wrote in the time of H. 2. and Fleta of Edw. 1. but by two Statutes made in the time of H. 8. who was as jealous of the Rights of Soveraignty as any Prince before or after him And is plainly enough suppos'd in the Statute 25. Ed. 3. which shews that there may be Treason against the Government as well as against the King or any of the other Treasons of which ordinary Judges are permitted to judg But since this Majesty of the People may have been given as well as reserv'd or left I shall not urge this as an undeniable Argument of the derivation of Power from them Nor yet shall I transcribe the many Passages in Fortescue proving such Derivation because tho his Book is of great Authority in our Law yet it was written in a King's Reign which some may think to stand in need of such a Justification Neither shall I here urge how far this Monarchy has been Elective because the particular Consideration of that will follow this I only observe of it here that so far as the Monarchy shall prove to have been Elective so far will it appear that all Power not ascertain'd by the Law of God contain'd in Scripture or the Book of Nature is mediately or immediately derived from the People But I think I may be able to shew from one of those Passages which seem the most to imply the absolute Authority of our Kings that whatever it is Crompt his Jurisdic of Courts p. 60. it was derived from the Consent of the People and that the Peoples Consent is still requisite for the Exercise of an Absolute Power according to the memorable Speech of H. 8. in Parliament where he thought himself to stand in his highest Estate Royal. The Civil Law of the Romans says Quod Principi placuit Legis habet vigorem that which has pleased the Prince has the force of Law Glanvil 's Prologom Bracton lib. 3. c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 19. but take this according to the Opinion of Glanvil Bracton Fleta and ancient Civilians who wrote about Bracton's time who as Mr. Selden informs us wrote according to what they found in the Governments establish'd throughout Europe The Principi placuit was no more than the Le Roy le veut with us The Civil Law shews that whatever Authority the Emperors had the ground of it was Selden ad Fletam f. 469. that the People in eum Imperium Potestatem conferret conferr'd Empire and Power upon him as Odofred a Civilian coeval with Bracton has it tho the following Copies have it omne suum as if the People conferr'd all their Power This may signify no more than all that Power which the Emperors had yet perhaps the other Sense was intended and may well be imputed to the Servility of later Times Saravia de Imp. Author f. 278. especially if we consider not only what Saravia says who besides the Majesty of the People above-mentioned out of him tells us that the Roman Emperors acted under the Peoples Authority which he proves in that their Acquisitions were in the Name of the People Sanderson 's Lectures Ed. An. 1660. p. 149 150 151. And even Bishop Sanderson having approved of the restrain'd Sense of the Roman Lex Regia us'd by our ancient Lawyers adds I do affirm and it is the common receiv'd Opinion that the Laws propounded and instituted by a Prince or Head of a Commonalty do not oblige Subjects nor have the Power of a Law unless they be received by the Commonalty themselves and are allowed by the Customs and Suffrages of those that use them According to Demosthenes the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Engagement of a City If peradventure his Authority be of less value because he lived in the Popular Common-wealth of the Athenians will you be pleased to hear the great Lawyer Julius who lived when the Roman Emperors had the fulness of Command his words in his 32 d Book De Legibus are these Ipsae Leges nullâ aliâ ex causâ nos tenent quà m quod judicio Populi receptae sunt The Laws do oblige for no other cause than that they are receiv'd by the Judgment of the People But if we observe how the Roman Emperors came by their Trust from the People and of what nature it was this I take in relation to the Legislation to which our Lawyers apply the Civil Law will appear to have been no more than the Tribunitial Authority The Tribunes of the People chosen by them were in their Name to deliver their placet or Consent to the Emperor or Senate nor did the greatest Emperors think it below them to court the Suffrages of the Populacy for this Before Julius Caesar arriv'd to an Imperial Power while the People of Rome govern'd all the Nations round about in all Emergencies they consulted Deputies Vid. Cic. in Catil Orat. 3. ut Comperi Legatos Allobrog belli transalpini tumultus Gallici excitandi causâ à P. Lentulo sollicitatos c. Tacitus Ed. Plant. p. 105. Tiberius vim Principatus sibi firmans Imaginem antiquitatis Senatui praebebat postulata Provinciarum ad disquisitionem patrum mittendo or Representatives of the several Provinces under them as appears in Cicero's third Oration against Catiline and after Julius even Tiberius then whom no Man could be more intent or more cunning to enslave his Subjects continued an Image of the ancient Usage by sending the Demands of the Provinces to the Disquisition of the Senate But the People of Rome were trick'd out of their Liberty by that artful Emperor by his removing the Comitia Tacitus in vitâ Tiberii Ed. Plant. p. 10. Tum primum è campo comitia ad patres translata sunt Nam ad eam diem etsi potissima arbitrio Principis quaedam tamen studiis Tribunorum fiebant neque populus ademtum jus questus est nisi inani rumore or Great Councils from the Fields where the Tribunes took their Directions from the People to the Senate-House where false Representations of the Sense of the People might be made behind their backs they vented their Resentments at this only in empty Murmurs and as the Satyrist has observed of them Qui dabat olim Juv. Imperium fasces legiones omnia nunc se Continet atque duas tantùm res anxius optat Panem Circenses They who their Laws and Magistracy chose Quietly gave up all for Bread and Shows Yet upon observing the steps by which the Emperors advanced to their Power with the People 't will be evident that it was but lodg'd as a Trust and Confidence that they would truly act according to
eum qui judiciorum particeps sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and (d) Hermanni Conringii Exercitationes Acad. de Civibus Imperii p. 3. Ordines Imperii Incolae Conringius his Cives to be too restrain'd the first limiting it to them that have shares in the Judicature and Magistracy the other to the States and Orders of the Empire allowing no others to be more than Inhabitants or Strangers Whereas the Civitas must manifestly reach to that diffus'd Body who are either capable of being part of the Ordines or Great Council or of being represented in it for otherwise the common subject of Power must needs fail as often as there are Intermissions of the States or Great Council And 't is plain that Conringius his Reason why none but the Status vel Ordines Imperii are more than Inhabitants reaches farther Every Civis he says is a Companion of the Civil Society and it is the part of a Companion to give his Suffrage and Judgment of things belonging to the Society This certainly he does virtually who gives his Suffrage in the choice of them who conclude the rest and if this should not make a Citizen there could be no means of exerting any moral or lawful Power in any Society upon the determination of the Authority of those particular Persons who had constituted any dissolv'd Assembly of States unless the sole Power resided entirely and absolutely in the Person or Persons with whom they had lodg'd a Trust for summoning them together that is giving publick notice of the Time and Place for meeting Indeed if none but the Ordines were part of the Civitas Grotius his Distinction between the common 〈◊〉 proper or particular Seat of Power would be very vain wherefore I take his Cives to be the same with Pufendorf's Quorum coitione consensu primò Civitas coaluit aut qui in illorum locum successerunt nempe Patres familiâs Sam. Pufendorf de officio Hominis Civis p. 265. By whose Conjunction and Consent the Civil Society first came together or they who succeeded into their rooms to wit the Masters of Families Indeed if we consider it will appear that never any Empire or other Civil Society was founded but there was an Original Contract or Agreement among the People for the founding of it How was the most absolute Authority of a single Person ever rais'd or maintain'd but by the undisciplin'd Rabble or disciplin'd one of an Army and what could keep them together but a Contract or Promise of Pay or Spoil to the Leaders or Officers who were to be undertakers to the common People or the Souldiers I remember Mr. Hobbs in his History of the Civil Wars of England Hobbs his History of the Civil Wars blames King Charles the First for engaging in a War against the Parliament while at the same time he pretended to justify what he did by Law and to leave all that that assisted him to answer to the Law when he should have encouraged them to have been hearty on his side by hopes of the Spoil of the Nation but whatever may be the Inducements to fight for an Authority lawfully establish'd before surely no People ever submitted to any without a prior Obligation but where they had hopes or expectations of Advantage or Ease the obtaining of which if not made a Condition was ever implied Suppose a Colony of some hundreds of Men among which one is chosen General Head or Leader without any particular or express Contract and his Son suffered to succeed after him Is the Power either of Father or Son antecedent or obligatory before the free Consent of the rest has past Or is it to be imagined that either the Father or his Successor have this People as an Inheritance given them from above to dispose of their Lives and Fortunes without any regard to the Good of All The most sensible of them who utterly deny that any Power can be derived from the People as fighting against their fancied Divine Right of Kingship own that the People have a Right to design the Person Vid. Sacrosanct Regum Majest Potestas designativa personae vel collativa Potestatis tho not to confer the Power only these Men will have it that the extent of the Power of a King is ascertained by God himself which I must needs say I could never yet find prov'd with any colour But to avoid a Dispute needless here since the Question is not so much of the Extent of Power as of the Choice of Persons or Derivation of it Whether any Choice is allowable for us must be determined by the fundamental or subsequent Contract either voluntary or impos'd by Conquest and 't is this which must resolve us whether the Government shall continue Elective or Hereditary to them that stand next in the course of Nature guided to a certain Channel by the common Law of Descents or limited only to the Blood with a Liberty in the People to prefer which they think most convenient all Circumstances considered And if our Constitution warrants the last then we may cut the Gordian Knot and never trouble our selves with Difficulties about a Demise or Cession from the Government or Abdication of it for which way soever the Throne is free from the last Possessor the People will be at Liberty to set up the most deserving of the Family or whom they judg so unless there be subsequent Limitations by a Contract yet in force between Prince and People which being dissolv'd no Agreements take place but such as are or have been made among themselves Vid. infra cap. In which Case whatever ordinary Rule they have set themselves they may alter it upon weighty Considerations And that the People of England have lawfully and rightfully renounc'd their Allegiance sworn to J. 2. and transferr'd it to the most deserving of the Blood notwithstanding any Oaths or Recognitions taken or made by them I shall evince not only from the Equity of the Law and Reservations necessarily implied in their Submission to a King but from the very Letter explain'd by the Practice of the Kingdom both before the reputed Conquest and since CHAP. II. Of Equity or implied Reservations Who judges of the Equity The Lord Clarendon's Judgment of such Cases Cocceius his A short Reference to three late Treatises of great use upon this Question Some Reservations which Bp Sanderson will have implied in all Oaths Grotius his Opinion and Quotations out of Barclay in relation to the withdrawing the Allegiance which had been due to Kings Even the Author of Jovian of some Service here Mr. Falkner's Christian Loyalty set in a true Light and shewn notwithstanding his being misled by the Canons of J. 1. and of 1640. to be wholly on our side in what relates to our present Enquiry and to joyn with Grotius Barclay Bp Bilson Lessius and Becanus So Bp Bedell tho a Cloud has been endeavoured to be drawn over his Opinion
to be King which sufficiently justifies that Vote of our Convention since confirm'd by the Parliament that a Popish King is inconsistent with this Protestant Kingdom 3. The last Question or rather part of a Question Page 527. which this learned Author takes notice of in the Resolution of which he agrees with Barclay and Grotius is Attempting to destroy the Kingdom or any considerable part of it Pag. 528 529. Whether if a Soveraign Prince should actually undertake to destroy his whole Kingdom or any considerable part thereof they may not in these Circumstances have liberty of defending themselves by taking up Arms Now we must allow him here to distinguish his Sentiments by inveighing against Junius Brutus Page 528. and other Subverters of Soveraign Power who start and urge this Question However it may not be amiss to take him into a Corner to know his Mind of the matter under the Rose Page 531. It must be remembred that he allowed of Barclay as a competent Judg in the Questions which he determines and as to a Soveraign Prince's undertaking to cut off Page 529. or to ruin and destroy the whole Body of his People he acknowledges that this is the other only Case in which Barclay esteemeth a Soveraign Prince to forfeit his Right of Government and that thereupon it may be lawful to resist him Tho as I observ'd before Grotius cites Barclay for a third Sup. f. 25. this which he receives as Barclay's second as he gathers from Barclay must not exceed the Bounds of meer Defence without any Attempts of invading or revenging yet it may be a Question how far this may be consistent with his yeilding that a former King in such case becomes a private Person And indeed I think he is in the right in allowing of no case to warrant Resistance till he who had been a King becomes a private Person Page 526. Accordingly neither Barclay nor he in the case of a King 's undertaking the Ruin of the Whole or in any other case will allow the taking Arms against the Soveraign Power because a Prince by such an undertaking as this loseth his Royal Authority and is no longer King se omni dominatu principatu exuit atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desinit Page 530. And the Reason given by Grotius in the same case is irrefragable consistere simul non possunt voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem Populi totius profitetur eo ipso abdicat Regnum A Will to govern and a Will to destroy cannot consist together wherefore he who professes himself an Enemy to his whole People in that very thing abdicates his Kingdom I cannot but observe that here is a Forfeiture own'd and an allowance of a Right in the People Page 529. or some of them at least to judg of the Forfeiture Barclay esteemeth a Soveraign to forfeit his Right c. Elsewhere Mr. Falkner says To assert that the People or Inferiors are of right Judges of the Cases in which they may resist their Superiors is as much as to say they are bound to Subjection only so far as themselves shall think fit and that they may claim an Authority over their Governours Page 365. and pass Judgment upon them and deprive them of their Dignity Authority and Life it self whensoever they shall think it requisite and needful Page 359. But this Inference here as well as his former Declaration shews that he speaks not of extraordinary Cases which as he has it we may well presume or hope may never be in act And if a judicial Power even in such extraordinary Cases sound harsh we may learn of him to soften it with the Terms in which he justifies the Exercise of a like Power over Kings in Spirituals Page 321. Tho says he all Christians upon manifest Evidence may in some cases see cause to disown a Soveraign Prince as was done in Julian from being any longer a Member of the Christian Society Page 322. yet in such Cases his Membership ceaseth and is forfeited by his own Act and not properly by a judicial Sentence and formal Process And some of the Romish Writers go much this way in giving an account how the Bishop of Rome whom they suppose to be Superior to all Men on Earth may by reason of Heresy or such Crimes be deprived of Christian Communion I must herein agree with Mr. Falkner that 't is not the Judgment which creates the Forfeiture but the Grounds of the Judgment which ought to be duly weighed Page 542. 4. The only thing which according to Mr. Falkner in this Case can farther be proposed is Whether if a Supream Governour should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by taking Arms This which he says is notional and speculative Page 543. has too sadly been reduced to Practice in Ireland especially After mentioning the Parisian Massacre he confesses that if ever any such strange Case as is propos'd really happen in the World Page 544. it would have great Difficulties Grotius says he thinks that in this utmost extremity the use of such Defence as a last Refuge ultimo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the Care of the common Good be preserved And says Mr. Falkner if this be true it must be upon this ground that such Attempts of ruining do ipso facto enclude a disclaiming the governing those Persons as Subjects Page 545. and consequently of being their Prince or King And then the Expressions of our Publick Declaration and Acknowledgment would still be secur'd that it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King In short Mr. Falkner's Judgment in these three or rather four Cases is this That these Cases are so extraordinary that they fall not under any Consideration as a pretence but will justify the Subjects taking Arms when they are real and that when any such Case happens the taking Arms is not so much authoriz'd by any Judicial Power in the People or their Representatives as by the Facts themselves whereby the King ipso facto without Sentence incurs a Forfeiture and ceases to be King And had he lived to apply his own Rules no Man can doubt but he would in Terms have justified our renouncing Allegiance to the late King Whether upon the account of the Forfeiture or the Judgment upon it or both is not very material especially considering that both Barclay and Grotius speak of an Absolute Prince not a Platonick Monarchy Vid. Pag. 398. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yok'd or coupled with Laws 'T is well known to have been Grotius his Opinion Page 348. That if the Supream Government be part in the People or Senate and
Common Council to provide for the Indemnity of the Crown of the Kingdom and for repressing the Insolence of Malefactors for the benefit of the Kingdom which as appears from the words and subsequent as well as former Practice besides the Opinions of ancient Lawyers did not except the King himself whatever Care is taken of the Crown of the Kingdom However 't is certain the Parliament 12 R. 2. referr'd to a known Statute when they mind him of an ancient one not long before put in practice Whereby if the King Knighton f. 2683. meaning the Case of E. 2. through a foolish Obstinacy Contempt of his People or perverse froward Will or any other irregular way shall alienate himself from his People and will not be govern'd and regulated by the Rights of the Kingdom and laudable Ordinances made by the Council of the Lords and Great Men of the Realm but shall headily in his mad Counsels exercise his own Arbitrary Will from thenceforth it is lawful for them with the common Assent and Consent of the People of the Realm to depose him from the Throne c. This Law is not now extant but was not then deny'd Knighton f. 1752. This observ'd after me by the Author of the Answer to the Popular Objections p. 44. and the Reason why it is not to be found is very evident from the Articles against this King some Years after In the 24 th Article they accuse him of causing the Rolls and Records concerning the State and Government of his Kingdom to be destroyed and razed to the great Prejudice of the People and Disherison of the Crown of the said Kingdom and this as is credibly believ'd in favour and support of his evil Governance More particularly in the Historian unmask'd by the same Author Mirror p. 9. The Mirror tells us That of Right the King must have Companions to hear and determine in Parliament all Writs and Plaints of Wrong done by the King c. And the Learned Hornius cites the Speculum Saxonicum Hornii orbis imperans p. 196. of the like Name and Nature with our Mirror the Author of which last was of his own Name The Saxon Mirror as he says was written before the Normans came hither The Justices or private Persons says he out of the Speculum neither ought nor can dispute of the Acts of Kings yet the King has Superiors in ruling the People Hornius p. 196. who ought to put a Bridle to him And Hornius says the old Saxon Lawyers limit that Maxim The King has no Peer to wit in exhibiting Justice but in receiving Justice they say he is the least in his Kingdom Tho Bracton seems to restrain this Rule to Cases wherein the King is Actor in judicio suscipiendo si petat Fleta who takes it from Bracton seems to correct the Copy and has it si parcat Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. If he spare doing Justice to which end both affirm that he was created and chosen King And Bracton himself shews elsewhere Bracton l. 3. c. 9. p. 107. that he means more by the Reason which he assigns why the King ought to be the least in receiving Justice Lest his Power should remain without Bridle This for certain he sufficiently explains Ibid. when he says That no Justices or private Persons may dispute of the King's Charters and Acts Bracton l. 2. c. 16. p. 34. but Judgment must be given before the King himself which must be meant of the King in Parliament as appears by a Petition in Parliament 18 E. 1. Vid. Ryly Plac. Parl. f. 20. Fleta supra Superiores So Mirror p. 9. Ceux Compagnions sont ore appelles Comites in Latine Comitatus where he takes in all that come up to Parliament from the Counties where Bracton's Rule is received But Bracton says he has God for his Superior also the Law by which he is made King also his Court that is to say the Earls and Barons for they are called Comites being as it were Companions to the King and he who has a Companion has a Master Therefore if the King acts without Bridle they are bound to bridle him and Bracton in one place says In receiving Justice the King is compar'd to the least of his Kingdom without confining it to Cases where he is Actor This puts a necessary Limitation to that Maxim That the King can do no Wrong that is not be adjudg'd so by the Judges Commissaries or Commission'd Judges Vid. Mirror p. 209. He there says Suitors are Judges ordinary and 274. speaks of Counties les autres Suitors having Jurisdiction in Causes which the King cannot determine by himself or by his Judges So Judg Crook's Argument in Hampden's Case p. 59. Whatever is done to the Hurt or Wrong of the Subjects and against the Laws of the Land the Law imputeth that Honour and Justice to the King whose Throne is establish'd by Justice that it is not done by the King but it is done by some unsound and unjust Information and therefore void and not done by Prerogative which the Mirror uses in Contradistinction to Judges Ordinary sitting by an Original Power yet this does not in the least interfere with the Judicial Power of the High Court of Parliament and it may be a Question Whether that Maxim as receiv'd in the Courts of Justice is ever taken to reach farther than either in relation to the Remedies which private Persons may there have against personal Injuries from the King as where 't is said The King cannot imprison any Man because no Action of false Imprisonment will lie against him or rather because of the ineffectualness in Law of his tortious Acts. But what the Nation or its Great Councils have thought of such Acts will appear by a long Series of Judgments from time to time past and executed upon some of their Kings Long before the reputed Conquest Sigibert King of the West-Saxons becoming intolerable by his insolent Actions Chronica de Mailros f. 137. Anno 756. Bromt. f. 770. Cōgregati sunt Proceres Populus totius regni eum providâ deliberatione à regno unanimi consensu omnium expellebant was expell'd the Kingdom and Bromton shews that this was done in a judicial manner by the unanimous Consent and Deliberation of the Peers and People that is in the Language of latter Ages by Lords and Commons in full Parliament Lambart's Pref. to Archaionomia Northumbrorum Imperii magnitudo ea fuit quae nunc est Ehoracensis Dunelmensis Northumbriae Cumbriae Westmorlandiae Comitat. atque reliquam praeterea Lancastrensis Com. partem complectebantur Chron. Mailros f. 138. Anno 774. Sin Dunelm 106. 107. Consilio consensu omnium Regiae Familiae ac principium destitutus societate exilio Imperii mutavit Majestatem And eighteen Years after Alcred King of the Northanimbrians that is Northumberland and other adjacent Counties was banish'd and
Family was barely which of the Competitors all Circumstances being considered was most likely to advance the Publick Interest of which the People were to be Judges whereas according to his Limitation they were bound to take the Person who was next in the Line if he lay not under a natural or moral Incapacity directly contrary to what he shews out of Malmsbury of the West Saxon Kingdom in which after Ina no Lineal Succession was observed When Athelstan Page 15. of his own shewing was chosen King were his Brothers Edward and Edwin under any natural or moral Incapacity Or were the Sons of Edmond Iron-side either way uncapable when Edward the Confessor was elected For Confirmation of what himself produces upon this Head I take leave to add one Authority from the Writer of the Life of King Alfred Vita Aelfredi lib. 1. f. 19. Many Examples says he are found among the Saxon Kings of a Brother's succeeding to the Brother before his Son especially if the Son had any Impediment from the Infirmity of his Age or other Ineptitude for governing Nay OFTEN BY REASON OF LESS MERIT I must admit that for the deposing one actually invested with the Regal Authority the Author's Limitations were to be observ'd tho they were not strictly kept to and I cannot but think that this Author confounds himself for want of this Distinction Either the frequent Examples of setting Kings aside whom the Nation judg'd uncapable of the Government through some natural or moral Defect or Excess or rather the continual Engagements in war with Foreigners had such Effect that from the time of King Edwin Nephew to the English Monarch Edred who was driven out of the Kingdom Anno 957 to the time of W. 1. being 109 Years I find no like Instance but one Anno 1014 52 Years before the suppos'd Conquest which was the case of Etheldred who abdicated the Government and went into Normandy from whence the Nation agreed to receive him again upon Condition si vel rectiùs gubernaret Flor. Wigorn. An. 1014. vel mitiùs eos tractare vellet if he would either govern more according to Law or treat them more mildly Upon which he promiss'd omnia Rege Populo digna All things which become a King to his People For the most part during the Saxon Government a King was but a more splendid General nor could he hope to maintain his Dignity but by hardy Actions and tender Usage of his People Even Will. 1. notwithstanding the Pretence made in after-Ages of his having broken the English Spirit Vid. second Part. was not only oblig'd to keep within Bounds as the following Discourse will evince but to renew his Compact with the People more than once Their extraordinary Power had slept very few Years after the Death of this reputed Conqueror Ed. Lond. Mat. Par. f. 19. Rex Willielmus videns omnes pene regni proceres una rabie conspiratos Anglos fortitudine probitate insignes faciles Leges tributorum lenamen liberasque illis venationem promittendo sibi primo devinxit for the Sickness of his Son W. 2. giving the English Nobility an opportunity of consulting together they almost as one Man were for declaring against him which he timely prevented by fair Promises to them Nay tho his Brother H. 1. came in with the universal Applause of the Nation yet a great part of his Navy deserted him and declar'd for his Brother Robert not because he was the elder Brother but because Henry was unmindful of that Contract which gain'd him the Preference Quia Rex jam tyrannazaverit as the Historian has it because the King prov'd a Tyrant King Stephen his immediate Successor after Allegiance sworn to him had it a while withdrawn for Maud the Empress Daughter to H. 1. but the People soon return'd to it again rejecting her who was nighest in Blood because she deny'd them the benefit of St. Edward's Laws And Discourse p. 21. as the Author of the learned Discourse about the New Separation observes out of Manuscript written by Fortescue Chancellor to H. 6. Maud was set aside and the Reversion of the Crown entail'd on her Son altho she was living and this was done in Parliament Communi Consensu Procerum Communitatis Regni Angliae By the common Consent of the Peers and Commons of England for which Fortescue whose Skill and Integrity no Man can justly question appeals not only to the Cronicles but to the Proceedings of Parliament However this Author will have it that the Commons were not there but as represented by the Barons being misled by the general Expressions of the Historians whose Authority he opposes to the Rolls of Parliament Yet for the purpose here it is enough that this was done by a Parliament of that Time that the Agreement then made was confirm'd by the Oaths of the Great Men and that the Publick Good which was the Foundation of the Agreement was thought to be the measure of the Obligation of such Oaths Hen. 2. came to the Crown by virtue of an Agreement with King Stephen to which the Nation consented for ought appears he was a strict Observer of the Constitution of the Government but being render'd uneasy by the Refractoriness of the Clergy and desirous that his Son should enjoy that Kingdom which he found a desirable Possession to them who would keep the Laws he took his Son into a Partnership of the Care and Dignity this occasion'd a Competition for Power which the Admirers of the traiterous St. Becket improv'd into a War which divided the People Archbishop Parker's Antiquitates Britanicae f. 130. salvâ fide Regi patri quamdiu viveret ac regno praeesse vellet but this being between two Kings both in Possession I should not look on as any Precedent to our Point did I not find that the Allegiance sworn to the Son at the receiving him to the Succession was with a Salvo for that which was due to his Father as long as he should live or think fit to reign CHAP. V. The Barons Wars in the time of King John That he had abdicated the Government That he had lost all means of being trusted by his People How unwilling they were to engage in a War against him They invite over Lewis the Dauphin of France His Case a Parallel to the late Abdication The Vacancy of the Throne insisted on by the French King's Advocate and that thereupon the Barons had right to chuse another King of the Blood Royal of England as Lewis was Why the Barons fell off from Lewis What the Homilies say concerning their inviting Lewis swearing Allegiance to him and fighting under his Banner against King John considered THE Power lodg'd in the People for the publick Good to be sure was rous'd and justified by the Tyrannical Reign of King John who tho he had effectually abdicated or unking'd himself by his giving up his Crown as much as in him
TO proceed to the Reign of H. 3. who was Crown'd by a Faction at Glocester while Lewis was in possession of London the Metropolis of the Kingdom That he came not to the Crown as Successor in an Hereditary Monarchy but upon a plain Election and Compact with part of the Nation at least in the Name of the rest who would come in under those terms may be prov'd beyond contradiction For tho' in the Language of the Homilies King John were Natural Lord to the Subjects of England yet as Arthur who was the next in the Line to King John's Predecessor had the Right of Blood Mat. Par. f. 278. as far as that could operate before King John which he insisted on in the Fourth of that King's Reign even while he was his Prisoner the same right had Eleanor Arthur's Sister all the remainder of King John's time and for some years during the Reign of H. 3. 2. The Father came to the Crown by virtue of a Free Election of the People as the Archbishop of Canterbury told him at his Coronation wherefore his Election could not invest him with more than a Personal Right unless more were express'd at the time But the Archbishop Hubert Mat. Par. f. 264. 1 Johan Audite universi noverint discretio vestra quod nullus praevia ratione alii succedere habet in regnum nisi ab universitate regni unanimiter invocatâ spiritus gratiâ Electus secundum morum suorum eminentiam praeelectus who spake in the name of the Community was so far from giving the least Umbrage to a Right that might extend to Heirs that he affirm'd That no man is Intituled to succeed to the Crown upon any other account previous to the unanimous choice of the Kingdom except only the eminence of his Virtue And being afterwards ask'd why he took such freedom of Speech He declar'd That he foresaw and was assur'd by Ancient Prophecies That King John would corrupt the Kingdom and Crown of England and precipitate it into great confusion And he asserted That he ought to be minded of his coming to the Crown by * Ne haberet liberas habâ—nas hoc faciendi Election not by Hereditary Succession least he should take a liberty to act as he fear'd 3. Since therefore what the Archbishop fear'd came to pass and that Contract in virtue of which King John assum'd the Royal Scepter was notoriously broken How can it be thought that a Right devolv'd upon his Son H. 3. especially considering the interruption that was made by a Choice of Lewis tho' not Universal I must confess there is no Evidence occurring to me that Lewis was ever Crown'd here yet considering that the Coronation as is agreed by most is but a Ceremony the bare want of it would not the less argue a breach in the Succession since the sounder part of the people took the benefit of that Forfeiture which King John manifestly made and if nothing but an Universal Concurrence in this could justify withdrawing Allegiance from him then it is hardly possible for any resisting of Tyranny to be lawful at the begining and he who is forwardest in the Cause of his Country must be always a Criminal But being there is a deep silence as to Lewis his Coronation Mat. Par. Illico Coronandus tho he was promis'd by the Barons at London to be Crown'd immediately upon his coming over I take the reason of the silence in this matter to be That if he were Crown'd in form it was by the Laity alone because the Pope was fast to the side of King John and his Son and Lewis lay under a Papal Sentence of Excommunication so that the Clergy durst not Communicate with him in those Acts of Religious Worship which accompany Coronations But these Ceremonies being to be performed by Clergy-men 't is most probable that the Laity contented themselves with the Substance and left those Ceremonies for a more convenient time But that Lewis was in Possession of the Crown and the Regalia is to be believed as London with the Tower where they us'd to be lodg'd had not only been in the Possession of his Friends from the beginning but held so till the second Year after H. had been Crown'd as it is to be presum'd with a Crown made for that purpose Whether Lewis were Crown'd or no he was as fully received by them that had withdrawn their Allegiance from King John as if he had been Crown'd and reciprocal Oaths past between them And he was so far lookt on as King Mat. Par. that Alexander King of Scots swore Homage to him for the Lands he held of the Crown of England But certain it is as the Circumstances evince that there were at least three Express and Binding Contracts which H. 3. entred into with his People either beyond or rather explanatory of what is included in the Coronation-Oath and which H. 3. was bound to observe as he would be King of England and these besides several Confirmations of the Great Charter purchas'd with the Peoples Money and one of the Grants of Aid so particularly Conditional that Treasurers for it were appointed in Parliament and the Money was to be returned upon the King 's not performing the Conditions of the Grant 1. The First Contract which I shall observe was that which Lewis perhaps induc'd to it by the Money which he borrowed of the Londoners oblig'd H. to before he would quit his Pretensions So that one was plainly the Condition of the other and as the Civilians have it ran into the other by way of Mutual Consideration Vid. inf Lewis for the reasons which I before touch'd upon finding his Interest daily decline thought good to come to terms with Henry whereby Lewis oblig'd himself by Oath to withdraw from England Mat. Par. fol. 400. with all his Followers never to return and to use his endeavours that his Father might restore all the Rights of the Crown of England which he had seiz'd on beyond Sea In consideration of which Henry the Earl Marshal of England and the Pope's Legat F. 423. N a. Discord not Rebellion f. 431. swore to the restoring to the Barons of England and all others all their Rights and Liberties for which there had been Discord between King John and his Barons This Agreement with Lewis the Great Council of the Nation afterwards insisted on 7º H. 3. when they urg'd a Confirmation of the Great Charter which they obtain'd not till 9º of that King 2. The Second particular Contract was that of which the Great Council or Parliament 28º H. 3. mind him and of which they then after much strugling purchas'd a Confirmation According to this among other things 28 H. 3. referring to 20. f. 864. Four Great Men were to be chosen by Common Consent as Guardians of the Kingdom to be the standing Council about the King with a very large Trust reposed in them The Chancellor Treasurer and
Chief Justice were to be chosen by the like Consent and neither any of the Council nor other Officers were to be amov'd but by Order of the Majority of the Council or in full Parliament This they insist on as sworn at a Coronation of that King Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury being Sponsor for the King's Performance This Contract was certainly 20º H. 3. at his Third Coronation when he was Crown'd with his Queen newly married and had the Curtein carried before him to admonish him of the Consequence of a Breach Vid. inf That this was 20º when he was Thirty years old and in as flourishing a condition as at any time of his Reign till the chance of War had subjected his Barons to a more imperious Sway appears in that the Ceremonies of his first Coronation were perform'd by the Bishop of Winchester and Bath and Wells The second by Archbishop Stephen Ao 1220. in the third year after Lewis his departure which it seems was the first time that he was publickly receiv'd for King with an universal consent special notice being taken that the Coronation was in the presence of the Clergy and People of the whole Kingdom Besides Edmund was not Consecrated till the year 1234. 18º H. 3. and the Historian is express That Archbishop Edmund perform'd the Ceremonies of the Coronation 20o. There is farther Evidence that the Charter mention'd 28º H. 3. was granted 20º for it appears that the great Officers were appointed 20º according to the Charter which the Parliament 28º insist on as granted at a Coronation where Archbishop Edmund was present and undertook for the King's performance Mat. Par. f. 563 Officium Cancellariae Angliae omnia officia ordinata sunt quae Regia sunt Assise in scaccario unde Cancellarius Camerarius Mareschallus Constabularius sibi ibidem sedem sumpserunt ratione Officii sicut Barones omnes in sui Creatione Fundamentum in Civitate Londinensi unde quilibet eorum suum ibi locum sortitur Vid. Flet. lib. 2. cap. 26. Matthew Paris writing of the Twentieth says The Office of the Chancery of England and all Offices belonging to the Regal State and Sittings in the Exchequer were setled Whereupon the Chancellor Chamberlain Marshal Constable took their Seats there by reason of their Offices as all Barons at their Creation had their Foundation in the City of London Vid. inf 2d part This Right of Places at London in which 't is plain Westminster was then included seems to imply a Reason why the Acts of the Barons at London past both at home and abroad for the Acts of the Baronage of the Kingdom Hence the King of France Lewis his Father lookt upon their Invitation of his Son as the Binding Act of all accordingly he both demanded and had Four and twenty de Nobilioribus Regni Mat. Par. f. 373 Implorantes Patrem ut filium mitteret in Angliâ regnaturum Filium ut veniret illico Coronandus ' of the Chief Nobility of the Kingdom as Hostages for their performing what they had promis'd his Son which was the Crowning him King of England 3. The Third particular Contract was contained in the Provisions at Oxford 42º H. 3. which Provisions are Printed at large in the Annals of Burton and referr'd to in many Records now in the Tower Vid. Annales Burtonenses f. 412. Rot. Par. 42. H. 3. m. 3. Mat. Par. but the Record of the Provisions has been imbezled since Mr. Selden's time whose Abridgment of them I have seen There had been a Parliament that year at London met on Hoke-Tuesday a fortnight after Easter at that Parliament the King demanded Money the Parliament a redress of Grievances but nothing being concluded on the Parliament was Adjourn'd to Oxford the Barons having promis'd to give the King Supplies if He would Reform the State of the Kingdom which condition the King accepted of promising that the State of the Kingdom should be Reform'd by Twelve faithful persons of his Council chosen in that Parliament at London and Twelve others to be chosen by the Barons The Parliament meeting at Oxford according to the Adjournment Twelve were chosen by the Earls and Barons to be added to the Twelve before chosen of Counsel with the King These Twenty four chose Four of their own Number who named Fifteen to be a standing Council to the King And among the Regulations besides the choice of Officers and the Custody of the King's Castles it was provided That there should be Three Parliaments every year the first at the Octaves of St. Michael the second in Candlemas week Ke Treis Parlements seint par An. the third the first day of June To these Parliaments Twelve prodes homes honest legal men were to come for sparing the cost of the Commons and at other times when the King sent for them upon occasion to treat of the business of the King and the Kingdom and the Community were to hold for establish'd what these Twelve should do These might seem not to have been Parliaments to make Laws but Ordinances or Provisions in the Intervals and for sparing the trouble of more numerous Assemblies that they were but such as were known in after days by the name of Great Councils distinguish'd from Parliaments would seem by a Record of the time which is a Commission to Four Knights chosen according to the Provisions then made 42 H. 3. m. 3. De Inquisitionibus faciendis per singulos Comitatus Rex Aluredo de Lancaster Joan. de Rochford Joan. de Stroda Willo. de Raymes de Com. Dors cum nuper in PARLIAMENTO nostro apud Oxon. Communiter fuerit ordinatum c. Et inquisit inde fact sub sigillis vestris sigillis eorum per quos facta fuerint deferatis apud Westm in Octavis S ◠Mich. in propriis personis vestris liberand Consilio nostro ib. by Juries duly returned to enquire into all Abuses Enormities and Transgressions within the County of Dorset in the same form with others in the respective Counties throughout England The Inquisitions were to be returned at the Octaves of St. Michael the first Parliament appointed by those Provisions and this was at that very time to be brought to Westminster as one would think to be delivered into Parliament but it is in the Record said only To be delivered to our Council And I find that Writs issued out after the Parliament at Oxford Rot. Par. 42 H. 3. m. 1. Nus volens otroiens kece ke nostre Consel la greignure partie de eus ki est esluz par nus la commune de nostre Roiaume a fet ou fera a honir de dieu nostre foi pur le profit de nostre Roiame sicum il ordenera seit ferm establi in touts choses a tuz jourz Commandous a tuz noz faus leaus en la fei kil nous devient kil fermement teignent jurent a tenir
meintenir les establisments que sunt fet ou sunt a fere par la dit Conseil declaring That all things provided or to be provided by the King's Council and the greater part of them who were chosen by the King and the Community of his Realm should be held firm and established and requiring all men to swear to hold and maintain the Establishments made or to be made by the said Council Vid. Flet. Habet Rex Consilium suum in Parliamentis c. But upon farther consideration I find that Council was the King's Council in Parliament and those Knights who were the Inquisitors for the Counties were not only oblig'd to come to deliver in their Inquisitions but their Consent was requisite to what the King should ordain by his Council in Parliament which then were a select number chosen as abovesaid Claus 42. H. 3. m. 1. dorso Quia Robertus Cambhen socii sui de Comitatu Northumb. de precepto Regis venerunt ad Regem apud West c. pro quibusdam negotiis Communitatem totius Communitatis praed tangentibus Mandatum est Quod prefatis quatuor militibus de Communitate praed rationabiles expensas suas in eundo redeundo habere faciat In another of the same time to Huntingtonshire they are said to have appeared coram Consilio nostro apud Westm in Parliamento Vide of this at large in the 2 d part since as it should seem all the Lords Certain it is there are Writs upon Record for the Expences of those Four Knights for every County as since there have been for Two The observing of the above-mentioned Contracts will give light to that Judgment which may by us at this distance be past upon the Wars between H. 3. and his Barons and not to mention any small disturbances and the Violations of the Rights of particular men and what they did in defence of them I find H. 3. four times opposed by the People in Arms in Three Wars and a Fourth rising which wanted only Numbers on the King's side to make it a War all manag'd under Heads formally chosen or seeming to have claim to the Conduct by virtue of their Offices 1. The first was under Lewis the Dauphin of France whom the Barons at London had chosen for King in this there was one King against another both standing in truth upon the same title the choice of the People Lewis had the greater part of the Chief Nobility on his side how much soever the Pope's Thunder might have frightned the more ignorant Vulgar and prevailed upon their interested Guides 2. The Second was under the Conduct of the Earl of Chester named first as 't is to be suppos'd for the reason before shewn The occasion of the Insurrection began Ao 1223. 7o. of that King when he being Seventeen years old obtain'd a Bull from the Pope declaring him of full Age and enabling him to order the Affairs of the Kingdom chiefly by the Counsel of his Domesticks that is such as he should chuse turning out those Officers which either had Hereditary Rights or had been chosen in Parliament according to what was insisted on at his Coronation 20o. as matter of Right wherefore his assuming all the Power into his own hands and countenancing the Exorbitances of Hubert de Burgh Mat. Par. Addit Chief Justice of England who indeed as appears upon his Defence afterwards when he came to be impeach'd had been chosen in one of King John's Parliaments but was continued in by H. 3. against the sense of his own Parliament sowed the Seeds of Discontent tho they did not break out into a general Rising but all seem'd to be quieted by his Confirming the Great Charter Ao. 1224. Yet soon after when he was in truth of full Age he was resolv'd to act as one out of Wardship 11 H. 3. and in a Parliament at Oxford declared himself free and by the advice of Hubert de Burgh cancell'd the Great Charter of the Liberties of the Forest as of no validity because granted in his minority and forc'd many who had Ancient Grants of Liberties to purchase them a-new at such Rates as the Chief Justice impos'd Besides Hubert had advis'd the King to act Arbitrarily with his own Brother Richard Duke of Cornwal which drove him to shelter himself under the Publick-Cause and glad were the Great Men to find his resentment contribute to such a general demand of Justice Mat. Par. as forc'd the King to compliance in a Parliament at Northampton 3. But by the Seventeenth of H. 3. Peter Bishop of Winchester An. 1233. Mat. Par. f. 413. Adhuc sub custodiam Petri Winton who had succeeded to William Earl Marshal in the custody of the King during his minority having been supplanted by Hubert the Chief Justice at last put the Dice upon the less subtile Layman and resolving not to fall again for want of flattering his Prince advis'd him in order to become Absolute to remove his Natural Subjects from the Great Offices and put Foreigners in their Places who were brought over in great numbers and oppressed and plunder'd the Nobility upon false accusations and pretences seiz'd their Castles and enjoy'd the Wardships of their Children This occasion'd a general insurrection under Richard Earl Marshal who as a Roman Tribune of the people went to the King and in their name demanded a redress of Grievances but the Bishop of Winchester having given an haughty answer justifying the King's calling over what Strangers he thought fit to reduce his Proud and Rebellious Subjects as he call'd them to due obedience The Marshal and the rest of the Great Men who were Witnesses to that insolence Swore to stand by one another to the last extremity in the Cause of their Country But the Earl of Chester another Tribune here sold his Country for a Sum of Money The Marshal finding himself deserted was obliged to have recourse to Leolin Prince of Wales for aid Upon this the King Proclaim'd him Traytor 9º Octob. Ao. 1233. But in a Parliament held at Westminster at the latter end of that year tho' the Earl Marshal was absent and in Arms the Parliament advis'd the King not to Banish Spoil or Destroy his Subjects without Legal Process nor to call them Traytors who endeavour'd the Peace of the Kingdom Mat. Par. last Ed. f. 388. and by whose Counsels the Government ought to be managed Which was a full justification of the Arms taken by the Marshal Nay the Bishops proceeded so far as to Excommunicate the Bishop of Winchester and others the King's Ministers and to lay upon them the imputation of disturbing the Peace of the Kingdom The Marshal carried all before him with universal applause The Bp. of Winchester and his Accomplices were punished in a Parliament held at Candlemas The King having sent to treat of Peace with the Marshal and Prince Leolin the evil Counsellors which were the Marshals chief
cause of Complaint being removed and his Estate in Ireland having received great damage from his Enemies he left Leolin to Treat for himself and his Friends and went over to Ireland where he was slain by Treachery The Treaty went on and among the terms it was provided That all Men on the one side or the other Rot. Claus 18. H. 3. N. 17. dors Homines etiam illi qui hinc inde recesserunt a fidelitate dominorum suorum se tenuerunt ex adversa parte libere revertantur Rot. Claus 18. H. 3. N. 20. dors who had receded from the fealty of their Lords and adher'd to the adverse Party should return with freedom And in the Credential Letters which were sent to Leolin with them that managed the Treaty on the side of King Henry He gives him to understand That before that he had restor'd the Lands to all people who had been disseiz'd by occasion of the War between him and the Earl Marshal where 't is far from being call'd a Rebellion on the Marshal's side and at the time of the Treaty the King found himself obliged to protest that he was clear of any consent to the Death of the Marshal and that his Seal was by the great importunity of his evil Counsellours set to Letters which encouraged the Treachery against him and pronounc'd him a Traytor But that he was wholly ignorant of the Contents of them Vid. Matthew Paris The Clergy the Historians the People of that Age in all things extol the Marshal would never allow him to have been a Traytor and were not his own Defence of himself too long to transcribe I should add it as an embelishment to these Remarks Dugdale's Baronage o Vol. 1. f. 752. Simon 16. H. 3. bore the Title of the Earl of Leicester and obtain'd from Almaric his Brother then bearing the Title of Constable of France a grant of all the Lands in England with the Stewardship of England This came to the Earls of Leicester with the Honour of Hinkley in Leicestershire from Petronil Daughter of Hugh de Grentesmenil Vid. Mat. West 20 H. 3. Simon Montfort holding the King's Bason at his Nuptials as Steward of England The Fourth War was that under the Great Simon Montfort Earl of Leicester another Tribune of the People as he was hereditary High Steward by Purchase from his Brother Almaric Constable of France the Stewardship of England having descended from their Mother Amicia eldest Sister to Robert Fitz Parnel Earl of Leicester who died without Issue Mat. Par. f. 1302. Whoever reads the History of H. 3. must needs conceive a mean opinion of him his Cowardise was as remarkable as that of one of his Successors who is said not to have been able to contain at the sight of a drawn Sword nor could H. bear the terrour of Thunder and Lightning yet when Simon Montfort endeavoured to remove one of his frights Quod scilicet Comes Leycestriae virilius perstitit ferventius in persequendâ provisione ut saltem Regem omnes adversantes suis astare consiliis cogerent c. he confest to him That he fear'd him most Which was suspected to proceed from Montfort's warm and strenuous pursuing the Provisions at Oxford at least his being for compelling the King and all opposers to stand to the Counsel of his Barons Simon thinking the execution of the Oxford Provisions to be well secur'd Fol. 1314. went beyond Sea upon which Richard the King's Brother prepar'd to come into England with intention and hopes as it should seem to get them vacated as being made without consulting him But the rest of the Barons tho' they were in great fear because of Simon 's absence Ib. f. 1315. Juramentum quale Barones Angliae reipub Zelatores exigebant would not suffer Richard to Land till he had oblig'd himself under his hand to take such an Oath as the Barons of England who were zealous for the Commonweal or Publick-good required the form of which follows I Richard Earl of Cornwal will be faithful and diligent to reform the Kingdom of England with you hitherto too much deform'd by the Counsel of Evil-men And I will be your effectual helper to expel the Rebels and disturbers of the said Kingdom Notwithstanding the seeming agreement between the King and People and Security taken for his performance Foreigners invited and supported by him became an intolerable burden and the King being kinder to them than to his People obtain'd from the Pope an Absolution from his Oath Mat. Par. F. 1322. to make good the establishment at Oxford But the Barons resolutely insisted upon the Establishment and when the King sent Itinerent Justices into Herefordshire Ibid. the Barons of that County would not suffer them to execute their Office there as being contrary to the Provisions at Oxford which contrariety seems to lye in the King 's directing enquiries of misdemeanours to be judged of in the Countries when according to what was then Enacted the Inquisitions were to be return'd before the Parliament or at least such Council as was chosen in a Parliament But the King having procur'd an Absolution from his Oath thought himself free to act by the Counsels of Foreigners which his Great men would not bear Wherefore the Earl of Leicester and others met together in Arms at Oxford resolving either to dye for the Peace of their Country F. 1323. or to drive out the Foreigners The Foreigners met at the same place but finding themselves out-number'd and that the Lords were resolv'd to call them to account for their violations of the Government and make them swear to observe with them the Provisions made for the profit of the Realm they fled away by Night but were pursued by the Barons and forc'd to quit the Land Yet soon after this the King as the Historian says Anno 1260. 44 H. 3. 45 H. 3. by the evil Counsel of some fell from the pact which he had made with his Great Men betook himself to the Tower of London and compell'd the Citizens to swear to be true to him without regard to the terms before setled and rais'd what Forces he could Whereby it is evident That he began the War and that it was an open violation of his Contract made with the people at Oxford The Barons took Arms against him in their own defence F. 1331. Communiter prestitum and sent Messengers to him to entreat him to observe the Oath which had been sworn to by all Which Message he slighted at first but afterwards was prevail'd upon to consent that he should chuse one and the Barons another to arbitrate their differences the Arbitrators having power to chuse an Vmpire but that this should be respited till the King's Son Edward came from abroad When his Son came home he was so fully convinced of his Father's being in the wrong that he joyn'd with the Barons and they resolv'd together to drive
away all the evil Counsellors which the King perceiving again betook himself to the Tower But an agreement being made with some of the Barons by the Queens mediation the King having left the Tower in the Custody of one in whom he confided went a progress and found his Barons very quiet and peaceable but he soon discover'd that he was resolv'd to act without regard to the Provisions at Oxford Violently seiz'd several Castles and coming to Winchester displaced the Chief Justice and Chancellor which had been constituted by the Baronage F. 1335. the Barons met him at Winchester with a considerable Force upon which the King hastens again to the Tower of London The Barons one would have thought were now in a fair way of securing the performance of the last Contract made at Oxford but now the Clergy had their Game to play and acted it like Men who knew how to manage the Nation against its interest they keeping a correspondence with the Clergy of France were Authors of advice to the Barons That all things in difference should be referred to the Determination of the French King no doubt making the Barons believe that they had assurance of that King 's good Wishes for the Prosperity of England Both the King and Barons agreed upon the reference upon which as was to be expected the French King gave Sentence for the King against the Barons and for annulling the Statutes at Oxford with all Provisions Ordinances and Obligations thereunto belonging With this Exception that he intended not by that Sentence in the least to derogate from the Ancient Charter of King John granted to the Kingdom of England Qui habebant sensus exercitatos Which Exception says the Historian oblig'd the Earl of Leicester and others of sound Judgments to resolve firmly to keep the Statutes of Oxford which were founded upon that Charter And Matthew Paris condemns those as guilty of Perjury who upon this A fidelitate Comitis Leicestriae receded from their Faith to the Earl of Leicester who fought for Justice He grew so strong and so successful that the King came again to Terms with him and with the other Barons the Terms were these Mat. Par. f. 1327. That Henry his Brothers Son should be deliver'd out of Prison That all the Kings Castles throughout England should be put into the Custody of the Barons That the Provisions of Oxford should be inviolably observed That all Foreigners shall depart the Kingdom within a certain time excepting only them whose stay should be permitted by unanimous Consent as being faithful to the Kingdom Mat. Par. But notwithstanding all Pacts Promises and Oaths the King sends to have Windsor-Castle besieg'd but was disappointed by the Earl of Leicester After this a Parliament met at London in which several deserted the Earl and adher'd to the King so that he seem'd the strongest The Barons writ him a Submissive Letter declaring That they had no evil Intentions against his Person but complain of his Counsellors The King in his Answer justifies his Counsellors and says their Enemies are his The Barons on the King's side send a defiance to the others and particularly to the Earl of Liecester and to Gilbert de Clare Earl of Glocester and Hereford undertaking to prove them Traytors in the King's Court. Which Tryal the Barons thought they then had Reason to decline but the Barons offer the King 30000 l. for his Damage sustained by the War 1329. provided the Statute of Oxford may be observed but their Proposals not being accepted they came to a pitch'd Battel at Lewis wherein the King was totally routed and taken Prisoner and his Son Edward soon after yielded himself Upon which followed a form of Peace solemnly sworn to while the King and his Son were in Prison Pat. 48. H. 3. m. 6. dors but the Son making his Escape took the Advantage of a Difference between the Earls of Leicester and Glocester Vide Cave de Scriptoribus Eccles f. 716. His Character of that Bp. who animated the Barons Vir erat ut pietatem vitae Sanctimoniam reliquasque virtutes Christiano Praesule dignas praetermittam ingentis animi acris ingenii in re literariâ quantum ea ferebant tempora ad summum pen̄e apicem evectus totum encyclopediae circulum emensus in literis sacris pariter prophanis c. and over-powering Montfort gained an entire Victory at Evesham by the Death of that Earl who as Matthew Paris's Continuator tells us laid out himself for the Relief of the Poor the Assertion of Justice and the Right of the Kingdom and was incited to it by the Famous Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln who always affirmed that they who died in that Cause would be Martyrs The King being victorious no wonder that a Parliament called immediately upon it at Winchester condemned the Conquered for Rebels but it is evident that more Parliaments justified such as then were Rebels for being beaten Falkner's Christian Loyalty p. 349. and methinks Mr. Falkner does not argue with his usual fairness when he urges the unfortunate conclusion of the Barons Wars in the later end of H. 3. as sufficient evidence that if we look into the Records of the former ages we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an authority to bear arms against the King The Dictum de Kenelworth 51 H. 3. mentioned by him as an evidence of the sense of another Parliament besides that of Winchester is plainly an abatement of the rigours of that Parliament and was only a determination and award made after Simon Montfort the younger Vid. Brady's Hist f. 655. had submitted to any terms that should be imposed saving his Life and Limbs and excepting perpetual Imprisonment Mr. Falkner adds Anno 52. P. 351. The Statute of Marlbridge mentions it as a great and heavy mischief and evil that in the time of the late Troubles in England many Peers and others refused to receive Justice from the King and his Court as they ought to have done which is more expresly contained in the Original Latin than in the common English Translation Justitiam indignati fuerint recipere per dominum Regem curiam suam prout debuerunt consueverunt and did undertake to vindicate their own Causes of themselves P. 352. Now to declare that all Peers and all other Persons ought to have received Justice only from the King and his Courts and not to revenge themselves or be Judges in their own cases doth more especially condemn the entring into War its self which is an Undertaking founded upon a direct contrary Proceeding And thus we have a sufficient Censure in our English Laws upon that War against the King which those who have pleaded for the Lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms do account the most plausible Instance for their purpose as our Chronicles can furnish them with Answer But to any who consider
that Statute 't will appear beyond contradiction 1. That the rule of submitting to the judgment of the King's Court will be of no service to Mr. Falkner's purpose the Court which is presum'd to be intended if it relates to the Controversies between the King and his Barons being the Parliament where they would be Judges in their own cases which Mr. Falkner says they ought not to be 2. The Statute of Marlborough does not in the least condemn the Barons Wars For 1. The Subject of that Act is to remedy the abuses of Distresses which are matters within the Jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts of Justice and no way extends to the great questions of the Kingdom determinable only in the highest Court 2. The Statute does not call those Wars a time of Rebellion Vid. Stat. Marlb Fleta p. 25. but of Dissention and Troubles suitably to which even in the time of E. 1. among the Articles of the Crown in charge to the Justices in their Circuits one provides for enquiry after them who have substracted Suits of Shires c. after the War moved between King Henry the Third and his Barons Mat. Par. f. 373. 3. Tho the Barons once threatned H. 3. That unless he would send away the Foreigners they would all by the Common-Council of the whole Realm drive Him and his wicked Councellors out of the Kingdom and would consider of making a new King yet it appears by the Circumstances and Events of the several Insurrections that their design was only to bring him to reason they still were for continuing him King and therefore it might not be improper for the Parliament at Marlborough to hold That for all matters of private differences even while Armies were in the Field the Course of ordinary Justice was to go on and that it was not to be look'd on as a state of War This may be enough to remove the Objections made by Mr. Falkner against the Barons Wars in the time of H. 3. which he supposes to be the most plausible Instance brought by them against whom he writes and I take it that the Reign even of E. 1. one of the most warlike of our Kings affords an Instance no less plausible Ao. 1297. Knighton f. 2510. Libratas In the twenty-first year of his Reign he summoned all who had twenty Pounds a Year â—… Land of whomsoever they held to attend him at London with Horse and Arms in order to go with him to Flanders When they met at London he was advised to be reconciled to some of the Great Men with whom he had been at variance He complied with the Advice excusing himself for former Exactions and desiring their farther Assistance since what he was engaged in was not his own private concern Mat. West f. 430. but the concern of the whole People as he was their Protector and Defender And he intreated them to pray for him which the Historian says very few did heartily But Humphrey Bohun Earl of Hereford and Essex High-Constable of England and Roger Bygot Earl Marshal withdrew from the King whereupon he discharged them of their Offices and gave them to others Yet the King found himself obliged to send some Persons to mediate between Him and Them To whom they declared That it was not their own Cause alone but the Cause of the whole Community which they undertook Knighton f. 2511. For not only They but the whole Community of the Land was agrieved with unjust Vexations Tallages and Levies and chiefly That they were not treated according to the Liberties in Magna Charta Wherefore they drew up a Remonstrance of their Grievances which if the King would command to be redressed they were ready to follow him to the Death Knighton f. 2512. The King gave a dilatory Answer excusing himself through the absence of some of his Council and having desired them not to do any thing to the prejudice of Him or his Kingdom passed the Seas notwithstanding the dissatisfaction that he left behind concluding 't is likely That that Success which commonly attended him in his Wars would gain him a more absolute ascendant over his People The King being gone the Constable and Marshal with their Adherents forbad the Chancellor and Barons of the Exchequer to issue out Process for levying the eighth Peny which had been granted the King in Parliament and which yet they said was granted without their Consent either as they had not due Summons or were upon just Cause absent They continuing together in Arms the King's Son who had been constituted Vicegerent found a necessity of giving them satisfaction To which end he calls a Parliament Knighton f. 2523. where through the mediation of the Arch-bishop whom Knighton blesses for it it was agreed That the King should confirm Magna Charta and the Charter of the Forrest That for the future Magnates he should not ask or take any Aid of the Clergy or People without the good will and assent of the Great Men. And that he should remit all Rancor to them and their Adherents In the Charter or Act of Parliament which then passed there are these Words Remisimus Humfredo de Bown Comiti Herfordiae Esekes Constabulario Angliae Rogero Bygot Comiti Norfork Mareschallo Angliae c. rancorem nostrum malam voluntatem quam ex causis praedictis erga eos habuimus etiam transgressiones si quas nobis vel nostris fecerint utque ad praesentis Cartae confectionem We have remitted to Humphrey de Bowne Earl of Herford and Essex Constable of England Roger Bygot Earl of Norfolk Marshal of England c. the rancour and ill-will which we had against them for the foresaid causes and also all Transgressions or Offences if they have committed any against us or ours to the making of this Charter Here was a quiet conclusion of an Insurrection managed under two Tribunes of the People whose Union had such an effect that what they did was not lookt on by the Parliament to be so much as a Misdemeanor CHAP. VII The known Cases of Ed. 2. and R. 2. touched upon The power of the people manifested in the Wars and Settlements of the Crown occasion'd by the Disputes between H. 6. and E. 4. Why the instances from those times to the late Abdication omitted The Objections from the Oaths against taking Arms and from the Declaration against a Coercive Power over Kings removed by Sherringham and the Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. Pufendorf's Due Restraint of the Power of the People Instances of the like Power in other Nations particularly Denmark Sweedland and Norway when under the same King For France Hottoman Sesellius the Author of Les Soupirs de la France esclave Bodin explain'd and shewn to justify King William in his descent hither and the People of England in their asserting the true Constitution of the Government For the German Empire Bodin and Conringius An occasion taken from him to
shew the Antiquity and Power of a Palatine in Germany and England Gunterus used to shew that Office in several Countries Loyseau concerning it in France The Distinction in the Author of Les Soupirs between Officers of the King's House and Officers of the Crown The Antiquity and Authority of the Offices of Constable of England of the High Steward and the Earl Marshal which with the Earl of Chester have been as so many Tribunes of the People TO proceed to E. 2. Son to E. 1. 't is certain that the sentence threatned H. 3. was executed upon his Grandson E. 2. who was formally Deposed in Parliament for his misgovernment Walsingham f. 107. Rex dignitate regali abdicatur filius substituitur His Case with his next Successor's but one R. 2. by what I have observed before appear to have been no Novelties in England Nor was it long before the like was again put in practice more than once Hollingshead f. 637. Ib. f. 639 640. H. 6. being a weak mis-led Prince gave occasion to Richard Duke of York whose Line was put by to cover his designs for restoring the elder Family with the pretence of redressing publick Grievances A Crown over a Branch of lights in the H. of Commons and another from the top of Dover-Castle falling about the same time ib. f. 659. The Crown he was so far from pretending to at first that himself swore Allegiance to H. 6. in a very particular manner But having afterwards an advantage given by the Divisions of them who had driven him out of the Land he in a fortunate hour with lucky Omens as was believed challeng'd the Crown as his Right upon which there was an agreement ratified in Parliament That H. 6. should enjoy it during his Life and Richard and his Heirs after him Tho Richard Duke of York and his Son Edward afterwards E. 4. had sworn that H. 6. should enjoy the Royal Dignity during life without trouble from them or either of them yet Richard having been treacherously slain by the Queen's Army immediately after the solemn Pacification Edward at the Petition of some of the Bishops and Temporal Lords Ib. f. 661. took upon him the charge of the Kingdom as forfeited to him by breach of the Covenant established in Parliament Yet this gave him no sure footing for the popularity of the Earl of Warwick drove him out of the Kingdom without striking a stroke for it Ib. f. 678. Upon which H. 6. was again restor'd to his Kingly Power and Edward was in Parliament declared a Traytor to the Country and an Vsurper of the Realm the Settlement upon Richard and his Heirs revok'd and the Crown entail'd upon H. 6. and his Heirs Males with remainders over to secure against Edward's coming to the Crown But the Death of the Earl of Warwick having in effect put an end to King Henry's Power he was soon taken Prisoner and put to death as his Son had been before and then Edward procures a Confirmation in Parliament Hollingshead f. 693. of the Settlement under which he enjoyed the Crown Thus the Parliament from time to time determined the Controversie according to the Inclination of the People or Reason of State And as the power of the People of England or of Great Men of interest with them turn'd the scales sometimes one way sometimes another so their consent fixt them at last during the Life of E. 4. I might following the light of History take in the most material Occurrences from the Reign of E. 4. to the last Revolution but tho the unanimity which appeared at the first casting off the former Yoke made me with chearfulness undertake the justification of those who have contributed to the Change yet I must needs say I am checkt in that freedom which otherwise I might have justly used in relation to late times and tho I labour against prejudice in what I bring from faithful Memorials of ancient days yet I hope the prejudice will be free from that heat and passion which mixes with mens own concerns or the concerns of them from whom they immediately descend in Blood or Parties Object Vid. 13 C. 2. Stat. 2. c. 1.13 14 C. 2. c. 3.14 C. 2. c. 3 4.15 C. 2. c. 5.12 C. 2. c. 30. It may be said That whatever the Law or Practice has been anciently neither can now be of any moment by reason of the Oath required by several Statutes declaring it not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person And 2. The Clause in the Statute 12 Car. 2. whereby it is declared That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm What has before been observed from and upon Mr. Falkner's Answer Vid. Chap. 2. Christian Loyalty might make it needless to take notice of the Objection from either of these Clauses were it not that many either cannot or will not observe what lies at the least distance I shall not here insist in answer to the first part of the Objection on the necessity of a Commission and a King continuing legal in the Exercise as well as Possession of Power nor the difference between the Traiterous Acts of single Persons and the Revolt of a Nation nor yet upon the Authority of the Common Law whereby a Constable or other Officer chosen by the people Vid. Justin Pandec l. 1. tit 3. Nulla juris ratio aut aequitatis benignitas patitur ut quae salubriter pro utilitate hominum introducuntur ea nos duriore interpretatione contra ipsorum commodum producamus ad severitatem may act without any Authority from the King And for rhe latter part of the Objection as Coertion is restrained to the Person of the King the declaring against that is not contrary to the Authorities for discharging Allegiance by a judicial Sentence or otherwise by virtue of equitable and implied Reservations provided a tender regard to the Person be still observ'd But if proceedings to free our selves from his Authority fall under this Coertion then I shall offer something which may remove both this and the other from being objections to what I have above shewn To keep to what may equally reach to both Authorities I shall not urge here Vid. Rot. Parl. 39 H. 6. n. 18. That these Statutes being barely declaratotory and Enacting no Law for the future introduce none so that if the Fundamental Laws shall appear to be otherwise the Declarations do not supplant them Nor yet to insist upon a Rule in the Civil-Law That the Commonwealth is always a Minor Vid. Cujac
Tom. 4. f. 154. Resp circumscripta in integrum restituitur perinde ac pupillus vel adolescens Vid. Cic. de Legibus Salus populi Suprema Lex esto Inter Leges 12. Tabularum of which Tacitus says Accitis quae usquam egregia compositae duodecim Tabulae finis aequi juris Tacitus Ed. Plant. p. 90. and at liberty to renounce the obligations which it has entred into against its benefit which is the Supream Law But I shall stop their Mouths who object these Statutes and maintain That according to what themselves receive for Law the Parliaments which Enacted these Declarations had no power so to do and then the Law must stand as it did For this let us first hear Mr. Sheringham whose Authority few of these Men dispute They that lay the first foundation of a Commonwealth Sheringham of the King's Supremacy p. 41. have Authority to make Laws that cannot be altered by Posterity in the Matters that concern the Rights both of King and People For Foundations cannot be removed without the Ruin and Subversion of the whole Building Wherefore admit the Acts had been duely made according to him they would be void if the Fundamental Law were as I have shewn However I am sure I can irrefragably prove to them who will not have a Nation sav'd without strict form of Law That the Parliament which made those Acts had no Power at the time of making them being by the express words of a former Statute repealed Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. Nota There was no attempt to repeal this till 16 Car. 2. The Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. provides in a way not easily to be defeated not only for holding a Parliament once within three years at least but that all Parliaments which shall be Prorogued or Adjourned or so continued by Prorogation or Adjournment until the Tenth of September which shall be in the third year next after the last day of the last Meeting of the foregoing Parliament shall be thenceforth clearly and absolutely dissolved Now say I That Parliament which Enacted these Laws had sat beyond that time Ergo c. These were made in the Parliament next after the Convention which brought in the King Brook tit Commission N. 21. Ib. tit Officer n. 25. vid. Stat. 17. C. 1. Every thing or things done or to be done for the Adjournment Prorogueing or Dissolving of this Parliament contrary to this present Act shall be utterly void Anno 1647. Vid. Hist of the Civil-Wars f. 207. which they I am sure will not call a Parliament Wherefore we must go back to the first long Parliament which upon their own Rule Rex est caput finis Parliomenti was dissolv'd by the Death of C. 1. Anno 1648. notwithstanding the Act for making it perpetual which indeed by the words of it seems only to provide against any Act of the King to the contrary without their consent but by the Death of the King that Parliament lost the being which before it had as it was under him when it was Parliamentum nostrum the Parliament of Charles 1. and so expired Anno. 1648. by Act in Law And perhaps it s own breaking up in Confusion before was in Law an Adjournment sine die working a dissolution by either of which that Parliament was Dissolved more than three years before the meeting of that Parliament which made the Statute in question which Parliament Assembled Anno 1661. and was ipso facto dissolved when it attempted to make those Statutes it having been continued by Prorogation or Adjournment beyond the Tenth of September in the third year after the Dissolution of the last Parliament of Charles the first which was the next foregoing legal Parliament according to strict form For the Parliament which brought in Charles 2. Anno 1660. was not summoned by the King's Writs consequently the Parliament 1661. having according to them no power after it had continued as above whatever was the Ancient Law in this Matter remains as it did before those Laws If it be objected That the necessity of the times had dispensed with the Letter of the Triennial Act as to this Particular 1. They who would plead these Statutes cannot urge this since they will not allow of greater necessity to Authorize the Maintaining and Restoring the Constitution But surely however necessity might support our Laws it shall not such as alter the Constitution but every legal advantage shall be taken for restoring it 2. The necessity was not absolute for the first Parliament of Charles the Second might have continued together as long as they could sit without Prorogation or Adjournment and be good for a day at least time enough to have Repealed the former Statute as to that part and to qualify themselves for a longer continuance In short they with whom our Dispute is are either for the unalterableness of Fundamentals according to which what I have shewn remains notwithstanding all efforts to the contrary or else all of a sudden they have a mighty Zeal for the strict Letter of the Law by which that Parliament which endeavoured to alter the Fundamental Contract was ipso facto dissolved before such attempt However since the Question is not about a Coercive Power over Kings but barely concerning Allegiance to them Quum aufertur ratio juramenti juramentum cessat ratione eventus qui casus est eorum qui juraverunt se obedituros Domino aut Principi alicui qui postea cessat esse talis Amesius de Juramento lib. 4. c. 22. whenever he who was King ceases to be so either by the Act of God or the Law the Obligation of Allegiance necessarily determins as the subject matter of it fails But lest the Liberty allowed in extraordinary Cases be used as a Cloak for maliciousness I shall restrain it with the Authority of the Learned Pufendorf In Contracts by which one is made subject to Another Sam. Pufendorf de Interregnis p. 272. this has the Right of Judging what the Subject is to perform and has also a Power conferr'd of compelling him to performance if he refuses which Coercive Power is by no means reciprocal Wherefore he who Rules cannot be called in question for breaking his Contract Omnem Reipublicae curam abdicaverit dolo malo unless he either wholly Abdicate the Care of the Government or become of an Hostile mind towards his People or manifestly with evil Intention depart from those Rules of Governing upon observance of which as upon a Condition the Allegiance of the Subjects depends Which is very easie for any one who Governs always to shun if he will but consider that the highest of Mortals are not free from the Laws of Humane Chance But that the Judicial power of the people so qualified as above is not peculiar to England might appear by the Customs of most Neighbouring Nations For Denmark Sweedland and Norway which had anciently three distinct Negatives in the Choice of a
King I shall refer to Krantius Krantii Hist particularly in the remarkable Story of their King Eric who was Adopted Son of the Three Kingdoms Anno 1411. he having provoked his People by countenancing the outrages of his Officers and Common Soldiers was opposed with Force by one Engelbert a Danish Nobleman transmitted down to posterity with the fair Character of engaging in the Publick Cause neither out of Love of Rule nor greediness of gain but meer compassion to an oppressed people This generous undertaking was so justly popular that Eric not able to stem the Tide withdrew from Denmark where he usually resided to Sweedland Engelbert's Noble Cause found so few opposers there that the King as a pattern to James 2. privately ran away and recommended his Nephew to succeed him But they told him plainly he was made King by Adoption Ib. f. 188. and had no Right to surrogate another Himself there not being the inconsistency of a different Religion between the Head and Members of the same Body they would have received upon terms but he refusing the three Kingdoms unanimously chose one of another Family For the Authority of the people even in France Hottomanni Francogallia c. 23. insisted on no longer since then the time of Lewis 11. Hottoman gives a large proof in his Franco Gallia And I meet with an excellent Treatise of the French Government written originally in that Language by an eminent French Lawyer Claudius Sesellius soon after the death of Lewis 12. and dedicated to his Successour Francis 1. This Treatise the Learned German Sleidan Sleidani Dedicatio Ed. sexto Anno 1548. f. 263. Vid. Tres Gallicarum Rerum Scriptores Nobiliss A Johanne Sleidano e Gallico in Lat. Serm. convers Ed. Francofurti Anno 1578. turned into Latin and Dedicated it to our King E. 6. Sesel f. 268. Qui tutorio nomine Rempublicam procurant f. 269. Sesellius at that time looked upon France as an Hereditary Monarchy in which he admits that there may be great inconveniencies through the folly vice or minority of a Successour to a good Prince or the wickedness of those who execute the Government during his minority yet says he There are remedies at hand by which we may restrain a King Reigning Arbitrarily and them who have the care of one who cannot Govern for want of fit Age so that the King may have the Dignity which belongs to him and yet it may not be lawful for him to do what he pleases but what is agreeable to Law and Equity Provision is made for this by the best Laws and most Sacred Establishments which may not be violated without great hazard although sometimes force is offered to them He tells us their Kings have as it were three Bridles with which their Soveraign Power is restrained Sesellius f. 269. 1. Religion And if the awe of that is not sufficiently impressed upon him yet the reverence of some Holy Man may prevail it being allowable for any Bishop or other Ecclesiastical person of an unblameable life and in esteem with the people to admonish him of his Duty nor can he use any severities to his Admonisher without danger of alienating the affections of his people 2. The Jurisdiction of the Senate or Parliament whose Power he says Ut decretis ipsorum Rex quoque pareat Vid. Les Soupirs De la France Esclave Memoire 8. Histoire de l'origine du Parlement de Paris Sesellius f. 270. is such that even the King obeys its Decrees And yet when he wrote the Parliament of Paris the meer shadow of the Assembly of the States of the Kingdom and which in its institution was but a Committee chosen out of them had through the Artifice and Usurpation of their Kings driven out the substance 3. The Polity or Laws of the Kingdom which temper the Regal Authority this he says is greatly to the Honour of their Kings For if they could do every thing they would be much more imperfect And as it does not derogate from God Almighty that he cannot sin but his perfection is the more illustrious and to be admired for this very reason so Kings when they obey their Laws deserve the greater praise and come nigher to perfection than if they could command all things at their will and pleasure Sleidan in giving an account of Sesellius his Book to E. 6. says Sleidani Dedicatio ad E. 6. Although these things seem written in a peculiar manner in relation to the King of France yet they equally belong to all Kings For all Kings are Monarchs very few excepted And as they acknowledg no Power over them so they deserve great praise when they keep themselves within the bounds of those Laws with which they Govern their People And these are those Offices which he treats of as becoming a King and Prince Which if he neglects and thinks himself not to be obliged by any Law he loses in the eyes of good Men all Splendor Reputation and Glory and the very name of King A modern French Author Les Soupirs de la France Esclave Qui aspire apres la Liberte Ed. Anno 1690. Memoire 6. p. 82. who has with great diligence collected the Evidences of the Ancient Government of France supposes all the descendants from the old Germans as the Francs and we were to have had the same sort of Government and resemblance of Constitutions Among his several Arguments to refute the pretensions of the Court of France to Arbitrary Power one is Memoire 7. That nothing of great importance ought to be done within the Realm P. 97. but with the advice and consent of the Estates insomuch says he That the Government of France is rather Arstocratical than Monarchical or at least it is a Monarchy temper'd by an Aristocracy exactly such an one as England is The sum of his Authorities upon this Head he reduces to these particulars 1. ' The Estates of the Kingdom may Chuse and Depose their Kings Ib. p. 110. ' and by consequence may Judge them 2. ' They may Judge between the People and the King 3. ' They may Judge between King and King when more than ' one aspire and pretend to the Crown 4. ' They Determine the Differences which Kings have with their ' Subjects 5. ' They give Tutors to Kings and Regents to the Realm 6. ' They dispose of the great Offices of State 7. ' They make Ordinances which alone have the Force of Law ' within the Realm 8. ' They regulate the Affairs of Money 9. ' They appoint Impositions and Levies of Taxes 10. ' They are to be consulted upon all great Affairs 11. ' In fine They are of right to Correct all defaults of Government ' even those of which their Kings are Authors By all these particulars says he it appears Soupirs Mem 7. p. 110. that in some respects the States are superiour to the King for example when they chuse depose judge
been split into the Constable Chancellour Treasurer and the Grand Maistre du France or Count du Palais which he seems to resemble to an High-Steward with us The Author of the Sighs of France shews Les soupirs Mem. 7. p. 167. that when Childebert was chosen King they chose Grimoald for Maire du Palais And says he Through all our History we may always see a very clear distinction between the Officers of the King's House and those of the Crown This distinction remains to this day as a Monument of the Ancient Liberty of the French For we say the Great Master of the King's Houshold the Great Chamberlain c. But we say the Constable of France the Admiral of France the Chancellour of France And these last Charges do not dye with the King whereas the Officers of the King's House dye with the King and may be changed by his Successour The Reason of this difference comes from this That that which is given by one King may be taken away by another But the Officers of the Crown being made by the People and by the Realm cannot be turn'd out by the King alone And it is very remarkable that these Offices of the Crown which the States of the Kingdom may give and which they alone can take away may extend to the whole to the War to Justice and to the Finances or Treasury In a Book published in Queen Mary's Reign which at least went under the name of Bishop Poinet one of our Confessors History of Passive Obedience p. 38. who fled to Germany from the Marian Persecution such a Power as is above mentioned is affirmed to have belong'd to the High Constable of England Treatise of Politick Power Anno 1556. As God says the Author has ordained Magistrates to hear and determine private Matters and to punish their Vices so also will he that the Magistrates doings be call'd to account and reckoning and their Vices corrected and punished by the Body of the whole Congregation or Commonwealth As it is manifest by the meaning of the Ancient Office of High-Constable of England unto whose Authority it pertained not only to summon the King personally before the Parliament or other Courts of Justice to answer and receive according to Justice but also upon just occasion to commit him to Ward Theloal in his Digest of Writs Printed in the year 1579. 21 Eliz. Collects what is in the Year-Books concerning Summoning the King Theloal's Digest tit Roy. p 71. This was H. 3. Vid. 22. E. 3. f. 3. b. Trin. 24 E. 3. f. 55. b 43 E. 3.22 a. Wilby Justice Fuit dit H. 22 E. 3. que en temps le Roy Henry devant le Roy fuit impled come serroit autre home de people Mes Edward son fits ordein que home sueroit vers le Roy per petition Et issint dit suit T. 43. E. 3.22 que en temps le Roy Henry le Roy ne fuit mes come comune person car a ceo temps home averoit brief d'entre sur disseisin vers le Roy touts autres maners d'actions come vers auters persons c. Et Wilby dit T. 24. E. 3.23 que il avoit vieu tiel brief Precipe Henrico Regi Angliae c. En lieu de quel est ore done petition pur sa Prerogative It was says he held Hil. 22 E. 3. that in the time of King Henry and before the King was impleded as any other Man of his people but Edward his Son ordain'd That a Man shall sue to the King by Petition And so it was said Trin. 43 E. 3.22 That in the time of King Henry the King was but as a common person for at that time a Man might have a Writ of Entry upon Disseisin against the King and all other manner of Actions as against other persons c. And Wilby said Trin. 24 E. 3.23 That he had seen such a Writ Precipe Henrico Regi Angliae in lieu of which now a Petition is given for his Prerogative Sir Robert Cotton of the Constable of England MS. in the Herald's Office It may be difficult to distinguish between the Office of the Earl of Chester and the Constable of England who as Sir Robert Cotton held is Second to the King and has the Custody of his Sword the carrying which as appears by Matthew Paris belonged to the Earl of Chester by reason of his Palatinate and yet at the same time Humphrey de Bohun Earl of Hereford Constable of England was in full possession of his Office Dugdale 's Bar. 1. Vol. f. 180. 11 H. 3. he stood up with the Earl of Chester and others on the behalf of Richard the King's Brother and was alive and in England 20 H. 3. when the Earl of Chester carried the Sword as of Ancient Right so that one seemed to have the right to carry the other to keep the Sword The Office of Constable seems to have been no ancienter than the the time of W. 1. Vid. Patent to Earl Rivers Temp. E. 4. Vid. 2 d. Part. to which the Patents for the Office refer but the Earldom of Chester and its Rights were Ancienter Wherefore one would think that W. 1. erected the Office of Constable to ballance that of the Earl Palatine Sir Rob. Cotton Of Constable c. MS. sup The other Great Officers the High-Steward and Marshal are easily distinguishable from the Constable and as Sir Robert Cotton observes the Office of Constable was of Military that of the High-Steward of a Civil Jurisdiction The Marshal was in the nature of an High Sheriff Vid. Stat. 3. R. 2. Stat. 1. C. 2. Of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 60. Of the Steward and Marshal So Ryle 's Placita Parl. f. 126. 21 E. 1. Selden 's Bar. 2 d Part c. 5. f. 739 F. 743. to see to the Execution of the Process and Judgments of either and yet had a Judicial Power with both In some Cases all three acted with joynt authority as appears by the most Ancient Copies of the Modus tenendi Parliamenta which tho' it has been put into Latine since the Conquest and has the names of Things and Offices adapted to what was known and in use at the time of the Translation from the Saxon MS. yet certainly for substance gives a true account of what was before the Conquest Mr. Selden supposes it to have been no ancienter than about the time of E. 3. yet confesses that he had from Mr. Hackwel a Copy of an Inspeximus 12 H. 4. Exemplifying under the Great Seal most of the particulars that occur in the ordinary Modus for England fitted for Ireland as sent thither by H. 2. but it would have been very strange if there should have passed an exemplification under the Great Seal of what was a meer fiction The Modus says Modus tenendi Parl. Cum dubitatio vel casus difficilis pacis vel
being ask'd by the King upon the report made by the Justices of their resolution for the Duke what things the Constable can do by reason of his Office Sir says he this Point belongs to your Law of Arms of which we have no experience nor cognizance This may shew what occasion Cardinal Wolsey had to strain a point of Law against that Duke and to have one who durst insist upon a Right to be Constable of England by inheritance Vid. Inf. 2d Part. to be taken off by an High Steward out of Parliament made for that turn And what Fineux says of the Power of the Constable may account for the silence of Bracton Fleta and other Ancient Common-Lawyers in relation to the Authority of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 31. yet Fleta shews that the Constable had a Seat in the Exchequer and overlooked Accompts relating to Soldiers Forts and Castles and gives a shrewd hint concerning the Earl Marshal speaking of the Exchequer The Justices says he sitting there were all Barons Fleta lib. 2. c. 26. because Barons used to sit in their places while the Earl of Norfolk and Martial of England had his Place and Seat there as Chief Justice of the Kingdom of England whose Place the Treasurer possesses at this day but he cannot occupy his Office This shews that in the Exchequer the Earl Marshal had place above the Constable accordingly when 25 E. 1. they came into the Exchequer to forbid the Levying of the Tax The Barons in their account of this to the King say There came to the Bar of the Exchequer Vid. Append. the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Hereford and the Earl-Marshal and the others declared they would not suffer it to be Levied That this Office was of extraordinary Authority Rot. Pat. 42. H. 3. M. 4. appears by a Record 42 H. 3. which shews That the Precept for executing the Provisions at Oxford were by the King and his Council in Parliament deliver'd to the Earl-Marshal and if we consider the Authority exercised by the Earls Marshal in the time of H. 3. and E. 1. with the approbation of Parliaments Vid. Mat. Par. 28 H. 3. it may be thought that he was an hereditary Conservator of the Kingdom notwithstanding which in the 28th of H. 3. the Parliament insisted upon it as their right to have four Conservators chosen by them This Office perhaps is the only one which was enjoyed in gross and went along with the name of Marshal till the time of H. 3. when Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk Bar. 1. Vol. f. 133. Married Maud the Daughter of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke Sir William Dugdale says the first mention which he finds of the Name and Family of Mareschal Ib. f. 599. was in the time of H. 1. but in all probability that Name and Office went together from before the time of W. 1. I am sure Roger Mareschal was a very considerable Proprietor in Doomsday-Book Vid. 2 d Part. Indeed the first contest about the Office was in the time of H. 1. when it was adjudged to belong to the Family of the Mareschals Vid. Appendix Rot. Pat. 1. Johan N. 85. M. 12. as appears by the Record of the Confirmation 1º Johannis CHAP. VIII The Third Head of Positive Law The Kingdom founded in Monarchy yet Elective sub modo The Form of Government not dissolv'd with the Contract between Prince and People The Argument from Election of Kings as it is used by the Author of the Sighs of France enslaved The Crown of England proved Elective Sub modo 1. From the Saxon Pontifical and the Council of Calcuth Anno 789. 2. From the Practise till the supposed Conquest 3 From the Confessor's Law received by W. 1. and the Expressions of Ancient Historians and Lawyers since the time of W. 1. 4. The Common usage in asking the People's consent at Coronations 5. The Opinion of Kings themselves 6. The Old Oaths of Allegiance 7. The Liberty even after a Settlement of the Crown 8. The Breaches in the Succession 9. The Statute 11 H. 7. Answers to the Objections 1. That the King never dies 2. The supposition of a Testamentary Heir 3. The Declaration temp E. 3. against consenting to the disherison of the King and His Heirs 4. The claims of Right between Two Families 10. A qualified Election of Kings of England confirmed by observing how it has been in other Nations descended from the same Common Stock THE Kingdom I own is founded in Monarchy and so is Poland which yet is absolutely Elective Nor is there any consequence that the dissolution of the Contract between the immediate Prince and People This objected by the Author of Elementa Politica Of the Magistracy c. vindicated and others Vid. Pufendorf de Interregnis p. 267. Post decretum circa formam Regiminis novo pacto opus erit quando constituuntur ille vel illi in quem vel in quos Regimen coetûs confertur should destroy the form of Government for that depends upon a Prior Contract which the People entred into among themselves And that by virtue of this to avoid endless competitions our Kings have generally from the first erection of the English Monarchy been chosen out of the same Family appears beyond contradiction If our Monarchy will appear from the foundation to be no otherwise an inheritance than as it is setled on a Family with a latitude for choice within the Family no Man can doubt but it will tend greatly towards removing objections against our present Settlement 't is certain the Learned Author of The Sighs of France improves the Argument farther than is needful for us Soupirs de France Mem. ' It is says he indubitable That they who have power to Chuse ' have power to Depose Every Nation says he that makes a King P. 81. preserves to its self a right to unmake him when he goes beyond the bounds of his duty and when he ruines the Estate instead of preserving it and this very thing makes it appear That Elected Princes neither are nor can be Soveraigns of an Arbitrary Power I know some talk of a Birthright and Inheritance in the Crown of England which is not founded in the statutes Jovian p. 87. but on the original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is thought to be an hereditary Monarchy according to proximity of blood But I would desire all Men of this Opinion impartially to weigh these following particulars 1. Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour shews us the form of Prayer used at the Coronation of Saxon Kings wherein they pray God to bless him whom they chuse for King and call him one chosen to be Crowned King Et hunc electum in Regem coronandum bene Titles of Honour f. 157. Out of the Saxon Pontifical At Calcuth Anno 789. Spel. Concil 1 Vol. f. 291. dicere consecrare digneris
to a qualified Choice I Think I have with due regard to all colourable Objections made it appear That Allegiance may in some Cases be withdrawn from one who had been King till the occasion of such Withdrawing or Judgment upon it And this I have done not only from the Equity and reserved Cases necessarily implied but from the express Original and continuing Contract between Prince and People which with the Legal Judicature impowered to determine concerning it I have likewise shewn and exemplified by the Custom of the Kingdom both before the reputed Conquest and since And have occasionally proved That tho Oaths of Allegiance may reach to Heirs according to special Limitations as was 26 Hen. 8. yet in common intendment by Heirs of a King or Crown no more is meant than such as succeed to it according to the Law positive or implied And that whoever comes to the Crown upon either Allegiance is as much due to him by the Law of God and Nature as it was to the nighest in Blood Sanderson de Obligatione Juramenti Lect. 4 Or to use the words of Bishop Sanderson Dignity varies not with the change of Persons Whence if any Subject or Soldier swear Fealty to his King or General the Oath is to be meant to be made unto them also who succeed to that Dignity And when the Crown continues in the Blood this especially by what I have above-shewn puts the Obligation of Allegiance to the King in being out of Controversie unless it can be made appear that the Right of the former King remains or that there is some Settlement of the Crown yet in force which ties it strictly to the next I come now to prove That the People of England are actually discharged from their Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. and were lately restor'd to that Latitude of Choice which I have shewn to be their Original Right The Lords and Commons having a Judicial Power in this matter as hath been prov'd at large their Exercise of this Power in the nature of the Thing determines the Right unless an Appeal lies from them to some higher Court in this Nation But that no Power can legally question them or any of them in this matter appears more particularly in that there is no Statute now in force nor was since the Death of Car. 2. which makes it Treason to conspire to Depose a King or actually to Depose him Vid. Sir Rob. Atkins his Excellent Defence of the L. Russel f. 22 23. But this is of the Nature of those Common-Law-Treasons which are left to the Judgment of Parliament And they who are the only Judges of their own Actions have a pretty large liberty in them especially according to them who would infer the absolute Power of Princes from the supposition of no constituted Judges of their Actions Wherefore the Defence of their Proceedings might justly seem to be superseded were it not for an ungovernable sort of men who either cannot or will not judg according to the Rules of Right Reasoning but as they will hardly admit of any Doctrine as true for which they have not the Decision of some Father or Council will believe no Action not proceeding from their imperious Dictates justifiable even in Cases of the utmost necessity for the preservation of the true Religion and just Laws for which they have no warrant from the Examples of their Forefathers or Opinions of Men whose Books have past with their Allowance Which often drives me to the seeming Pedantry of Quotations to confirm the most obvious Considerations to which my own thoughts led me The either open or more covert Matters of Fact inducing the Declaration of Lords and Commons That J. 2. has broken the Original Contract I need not now inquire into All People must own that he has if they in the least attend to the Constitution of our Government and how apparently he by his general Dispensations usurp'd a Legislative Power for the Destruction of the Protestant Religion and Civil Rights which we were in a fair way of being Dragoon'd out of by a standing Army by degrees to have been totally under Popish or Complying Officers Yet if there were no more than his Leaving the Kingdom without making any Provision for keeping up the Justice of it and going into France a Country from whence all mischiefs have of late Years flow'd upon us and our Religion Who can deny but this alone would have been enough to set him aside Rastal's Entries tit Reattachment f. 544. b. Resum c. quia extra Regnum Angliae progres fecimus nullo locum tenente nostrum sive Custode Regni relicto c. The going out of the Realm without appointing a Custos was anciently in our Law a Discontinuance of Justice Hobart f. 155. And the Lord Hobart gives it as a Maxim Cessa Regnare si non vis Judicare ' Cease to Reign if you will not judg or maintain the ' Course of Justice Vid. Leges 12. Tab. de Magistrat Many I know upon these Questions rather regard the Civil Law and that I am sure gives a home thrust in the Case of deserting one's Country and going into such an one as France is to our Nation tho it has been in too strict Alliance with our Kings The Digests say Digest lib. 49. tit 15. De Captivis Postliminio Transfugae nullum postliminium est nam qui malo Consilio Proditoris animo patriam reliquit hostium numero habendus est c. transfuga autem non is solus accipiendus est qui aut ad hostes aut in bello transfugit sed ad eos cum quibus nulla amicitia est fide susceptâ transfugit A Deserter has no Right of being restored to his Countrey For he who left his Countrey with an evil and treacherous mind is to be held as an Enemy c. But we are to take not only him for a Deserter who runs over to Enemies in time of War but also during a Truce Or Who runs over to them with whom there is no Amity either after undertaking to be faithful to his Country or else undertaking to be faithful to the other Either of which senses the words will bear 'T is likely to be said That this out of the Civil Law is improperly applied to the Prince who according to that is exempt from all Laws Imp. Theod. Valentin Caes ad Volusianum Praefectum Proetorio Digna vox est Majestate Regnantis Legibus adligatum se Principem profiteri Adeo de auctoritate juris nostra pendet auctoritas re verâ majus imperio est submittere Legibus principatum Et oraculo praesentis Edicti quod nobis licere non patimur aliis indicamus But I would desire such besides what I have observed upon the Roman Lex Regia to read the Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian wherein they thus declare 'T is an Expression suitable to the Dignity of
Therde But because this without consideration of his Merits in rescuing them from R. 2. entituled him to the Crown no more than another of the Blood therefore the Lords and Commons drew up an Instrument purporting their Election Ib. n. 55. 4. But admit none of the foregoing Arguments were enough to shew That upon James the second 's Abdication or at least losing his Interest in the Government the People of England were restor'd to that Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown which was in force till the Original Contract was broken by him yet I conceive the particular Consideration of the state of the Settlement might afford sufficient Argument Brady's Hist of the Succession f. 25. Henry the Fourth Fifth and Sixth if we believe Dr. Brady held the Crown by Usurpation Yet the earliest Settlement of the Crown farther than the first Son or Grandson was in the time of H. 4. Nor as I shall shew was the Crown enjoyed by J. 2. under better Title than they had H. 5. and 6. came in under an Entail of the Crown 7 H. 4. Vid. Rot. Parl. 8 H. 4. n. 60. confirm'd 8. The misgovernment of H. 6. having given occasion to Richard Duke of York of the Blood-Royal and Elder-house to assert the Peoples Rights not his own Henry and the Duke with the Consent of the Lords and Commons come to an agreement in Parliament That Richard and his Heirs should enjoy the Crown after the Death of Henry Tho here the word Heirs is mentioned without restraint yet considering that it is the first time that ever the Crown was setled so far Gomezius de Qualitatibus Contractuum f. 319. Hottomanni Com. de Verbis Juris usus-fructus est jus alienis rebus utendi fruendi salvâ rerumsubstantiâ Emphyteusis I know not whether it is not to be taken with Gomezius his Restriction of an Usufructuary or Emphyteutical Estate of the last of which much of the same nature with the other he says If it did not use to be granted to more than the first second or third Heirs the mention of Heirs simply ought to be restrain'd to those only because the Nature or Quality of the thing granted ought to be attended to After the Death of Richard Duke of York his Son Edward the Fourth as I before observ'd took the Government upon him as forfeited by breach of the Covenant estabish'd in Parliament However Vid. sup H. 6. being set up again ten Years after gets that Settlement by which E. 4. was to have benefit to be revok'd and the Crown to be entail'd on his Issue the Remainder to the Duke of Clarence younger Son to the Duke of York Afterwards E. 4. having success 13 E. 4. revives the Settlement 39 H. 6. Only that he attaints H. 6. Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. n 16. Vid. Append. H. 7. Son to Edmund Earl of Richmond Brother by Mother's Side to H. 6. with others of his Party Which Attainder was remov'd 1 H. 7. and declar'd contrary to due Allegiance and all due Order And not only the Attainder but that Act of Parliament it self was revok'd So that hitherto there had been no Title in the Heirs of Richard Duke of York or of Edward the Fourth but what was deriv'd under the Settlement of Henry 6. call'd an Usurper and Edward the Fourth's Treason depriv'd him of the Benefit even of that Settlement H. 7. Indeed married the eldest Daughter of E. 4. But before that Marriage having conquer'd Rich. 3. he claimed the Crown as his Words in Parliament were Tam per justum titulum haereditantiae Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. Vid. Append quam per verum Dei judicium in tribuendo sibi Victoriam de inimico suo As well by just Title of Inheritance as by the true Judgment of God in giving him the Victory over his Enemy If it be ask'd how he could have a Right of Inheritance when the Daughter of E. 4. and his own Mother were alive Vid. Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. n. 16. supra it seems in the Judgment of that Parliament That E. 4. having acted contrary to his Allegiance due to H. 6. he and his had lost the Benefit of the Settlement reviv'd by his successful Treason and that this was lost even before the Revival was destroy'd by Parliament And then tho' H. 7. could not come in without an Election yet he as H. 4. before might have a sort of Inheritance according to a very witty Author Vindiciae contra Tyrânnos Ed. Amstelodami p. 110. who speaking of the Kingdom of Israel says Concludere licet regnum Israelis si stir pem spectas haereditarium certè fuisse at sanè si personas omnino electivum We may conclude That the Kingdom of Israel if you look at the Stock was certainly Hereditary but if at the Persons altogether Elective Be this as it will the Lords and Commons so far regarded King Henry's Claim that they not only receiv'd him for King but it was enacted by the Authority of the then Parliament Rot. Parl. 1 H. 7. That the Crowns of the Realms of England and France should rest in him and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming perpetually and in NONE OTHER When they had thus done the Commons requested the King to Marry Elizabeth Daughter to E. 4. that by God's Grace there might be Issue of the Stock of their Kings So that this was only to preserve the Royal Blood not to give any new Countenance or Confirmation to his Title H. 8. enjoy'd the Crown not as Heir to his Mother but under the Settlement upon H. 7. Nor can it be said that he was in by Remitter since that Act under which his Mother should have deriv'd was Repeal'd And had it stood in force yet it would not have made the Title more Sacred unless it can be shewn that the Mother had a Title prior to the Act of Settlement 39 H. 6. the contrary to which appears by the former Account from Law and History H. 8. procur'd several Settlements of the Crown according as Love or Jealousie prevail'd in him 25 H. 8. c. 22. In the 25th of his Reign 't was settled upon Himself and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten on Queen Anne c. declaring the Marriage with Queen Katherine unlawful Remainder to the Lady Elizabeth Remainder to his own Right Heirs 26 H. 8. c. 2. 28 H. 8. c. 7. 26 H. 8. an Oath was enjoyn'd for that purpose 28 H. 8. the two former Acts 25 26 are Repeal'd the Illegitimation of Mary Daughter to Queen Katherine is confirmed the like declared of Elizabeth Daughter to Queen Anne and the Crown entail'd upon his Heirs Males by Queen Jane or any other Wife Remainder to Heirs Females by that Queen or any other lawful Wife Remainder to such Person or Persons and according to such Estates as he should appoint by Letters Patent or by Will 35.
of Foreign Princes That this was a Question in Q. Elizabeth's time appears by a Letter from Lethington Secretary of Scotland to Cecil Secretary to Q. Eliz. Appendix to Vol. 2. of the Hist of the Ref. f. 269. This appears farther from the Treatise at the end of the Appendix which seems to admit That the Right to the Crown would have been in the issue of the younger Daughter being born in England if the Birth had been without blemish since there was no means of being sufficiently inform'd of the Circumstances of the Birth neither the Common or any Statute-Law affording any Means of proving it as appears by the Statute 25 E. 3. which for the Children of Subjects only born out of the King's Allegiance in Cases wherein the Bishop has Conusance allows of a Certificate from the Bishop of the Place where the Land in question lies if the Mother pass'd the Seas by the King's License But if our Kings or Queens should upon any occasion be in Foreign Parts 't is to be presum'd that they would have with them a Retinue subject to our Laws who might attest the Birth of their Children and be punish'd if they swear falsly Stat. 25. E. 3. Wherefore 25 E. 3. 't is declar'd to be the Law of the Crown That the Children of the Kings of England ENFANTZ DES ROYS as the Record has it in whatever Parts they be born be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the Death of their Ancestors Yet this is most likely to be meant of those private Inheritances which any of the Kings had being no part of the Demeasns of the Crown since the Inheritance of the Crown was not mentioned nor as has been shewn was it such as the King's Children were absolutely entitled to in their Order The most common acceptation of Children is of a Man's immediate Issue Vid. 1. Anderson f. 60 61. A Devise to the Wife after her Decease to the Children Vid. Wild 's C. 6. Rep. In Shelley 's C. 1. Rep. f. 103. A Gift to a Man semini suo or prolibus suis or liberis suis or exitibus suis or pueris suis de corpore As where Land is given to a Man and his Children Who can think any remote Descendants entitled to it Nor could it extend farther in the Settlement of a Crown 37 E. 3. c. 10. a Sumptuary Law was made providing for the Habits of Men according to their Ranks and of their Wives and Children ENFANTZ as in the former Statute of the same Reign Now altho' this should extend to Childrens Children born in the same House it could never take in the Children of Daughters Vid. Sir James Dalrimple's Institutions of the Laws of Scotland f. 52. forisfamiliated by Marriage nay nor to those of such Sons as were educated in a distinct Calling from their Parents Farther the very Statute of which the Question is cuts off the Descendants from Females out of the number of a King's Children when among other Children not of the Royal Family it makes a particular Provision for Henry Son of John Beaumond Vid. Dugdale 's Bar. 2. Vol. Beaumont who had been born beyond Sea and yet Henry was by the Mother's Side in the Fourth Degree from H. 3. for she was Daughter to Henry Earl of Lancaster Son of Edmund Son to H. 3. Had this Henry been counted among the Children of a King 't is certain there had not been a special Clause for him among other Children of Subjects Nor does the Civil Law differ from ours in this Matter for tho under the name of Children are comprehended not only those who are in our Power but all who are in their own either of the Female Sex or descending from Females yet the Daughters Children were always look'd on as out of the Grandfather's Family Just Inst lib. 1. tit 9. So Bracton l. 1. c. 9. Greg. Tholos Syntagma juris universi f. 206. Spiegelius tit Liberi Non procedere in privilegiis quae generaliter publicae utilitati derogant Vid. Antonii Perezi Inst Imperiales p. 21. Vid. Cujac ad tit de verborum significatione p. 147 230. according to the Rule in the Civil-Law transcribed by our Bracton They who are born of your Daughter are not in your power And Privileges derogating from Publick Vtility were never thought to reach them as a Learned Civilian has it A Daughter is the end of the Family in which she was born because the name of her Father's Family is not propogated by her And Cujacius makes this difference betweene Liberi and Liberi Sui Sui he says is a Legal Name the other Natural The former are only they who are in a Man's power or of his Family and Liberi strictly taken he will have to go no farther But in truth Considering the purview of the Statute which we are here upon Children in it seems to be restrain'd to Sons and Daughters without taking in the Descendants from either the occasion of the Law being the Births of several ENFANTZ in Foreign Parts which could be but Sons or Daughters to the immediate Parents whether Kings or Private Persons 3. But however this may be enough for my purpose That there is no colour of any Settlement in force but that 1 H. 7. And admitting that to have continued till J. 2. had broken the Original Contract yet that being broken the present Assembly of Lords and Commons had full as much Authority to declare for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY as the Parliament 1 H. 7. had to Settle the Crown For H. 7. could give them no Power but what he had received immediately from them Nor is it material to say He was Crown'd first since as I have shewn the Crown Confers no Power distinct from what is deriv'd either from an immediate or prior Choice But if there is reason from what I have shewn to believe that even the limitations in Henry VII th's Settlement were all long since spent then at least it is not to be doubted but the interest of J. II. being determined the People of England might lawfully and rightfully declare for King William and Queen Mary as being the most deserving of the Blood Royal which if they were free to do not to submit to be Gover'n'd by Their present Majesties would have been the highest Ingratitude that could be CHAP. X. The Fifth Head of Positive Law The effect of the Dissolution of the Contract The Vse of the Triennial-Act 16 Car. 1. against the necessity of Common Form The Form and proceedings of the Convention assembled upon the death of H. 3. The Dilemma used by the Formalists Answer'd with a Distinction Pufendorf's Answer to Hobbs Another passage of his applied to a passage in a late excellent Treatise against Sir Robert Filmer And to a Letter upon this Juncture Tho what Dr. Brady says against the Rights of Lords and Commons were true yet it is shewn that the Acts of
no force Besides the Keepers were an upstart Power imposing themselves upon the People without any formal consent at least not so fully received to the publick Administration as our present King was who at the request of a very large Representative of the People pursued the late Method of Calling a more solemn Assembly If that Anno 1660. had Power acting with the King to declare it self a Parliament Why had not this in defect of a King to declare or chuse one Sure I am prudent Antiquity regarded not so much the Person calling or the End for which a General Council was call'd as who were present That Notice which they complied with being always sufficiently formal Anno 1127. Vid. Spelm. Con. 2 Vol. f. 1. De modo habendi Synodos in Angliâ primaevis temporibus Vid. Jan. Ang. fac nov and Jus. Ang. Flor. Wigorn f. 663. Confluxerant quoque illuc magnae multitudines Clericorum Laicorum tam divitum quam mediocrium factus est Conventus grandis inestimabilis Quaedam determinata quaedam dilata quaedam propter nimium aestuantis turbae tumultum ab audientiâ judicantium profligata c. Rex igitur cum inter haec Londoniae moraretur auditis Concilii gestis consensum praebuit confirmavit Statuta Concilii a Willielmo Cant. c. celebrati Wherefore a General Ecclesiastical Council being Summoned in the Reign of H. 1. by William Archbishop of Canterbury thither according to the known Laws of those times the Laity came I cannot say they sate there for the Numbers were so great as they commonly were at such Assemblies before the Freeholders agreed to Representations That happy was the Man whatever his Quality that could have a convenient standing After the Ecclesiastical Matters were over in the Council I now speak of they fell upon Secular Some they determined some they adjourned some the Judges of the Pole or Voices could make nothing of by reason of the great Crowd and Din And when the King heard their Determinations and confirm'd them they had full Legal Force The consideration of the time and circumstances of the Coronation of H. 1. and the Force which the things then agreed on were reputed to have at that time and some of them ever since till alter'd by subsequent Laws may abundantly prove that there is no need of strict form for the doing what is agreable to the sense of a Nation tho not formally express'd at the time H. 1. did not stand next in the Line his eldest Brother Robert who was set aside for W. 2. was then alive Nor was it possible for all people of legal interests to have been conven'd at that time Collectively or by a regular Representation it being within four days after the Death of his Brother W yet hear what Malmsbury says upon that occasion Occiso Rege Willielmo in Regem electus est Itaque edicto statim per Angliam misso injustitias a fratre Ranulpho institutas prohibuit pensionum Malms f. 88. de H. 1. vinculorum gratiam fecit effeminatas Curiâ propellens lucernarum usum noctibus in Curiâ restituit qui fuerat tempore fratris intermissus Aliquarum moderationem Legum revocavit in solitum Sacramento suo omnium procerum ne luderentur corroborans Laetus ergo dies visus est revirescere populis cum post tot anxietatum nubila Serenarum promissionum infulgebant lumina Et nequid profecto gaudio accumulato abesset Ranulpho nequitiarum faece tenebris ergastularibus incluso Anselmum pernicibus nunciis directum Quapropter certatim plausu Plebeio concrepante in Regem Coronatus Londoniae nonis Augusti quarto post obitum fratris die Haec eo studiosius celebrebantur ne mentes procerum electionis quassarentur poenitudine quod ferebatur rumor Robertum Comitem ex Apuliâ adventantem jamjamque affore King William being slain He was chosen King whereupon by Proclamation presently sent throughout England He forbad the Injustices set up by Father Ranulph he remitted Debts and Imprisonments driving effeminate persons from the Court He restor'd the use of Candles by Night in the Court which had been intermitted in the time of his Brother He moderated some Laws according to former usage corroborating them by His own Oath and the Oaths of all His Peers that they might not be eluded upon any account A joyful day to the people seem'd again to flourish since the Lights of Serene Promises shone upon them after so many Anxieties And that in truth nothing might be wanting to their accumulated Joy Ranulph the Dregs of Villanies being sent to Prison Messengers were immediately sent for Anselm Wherefore He was Crown'd King at London on the Nones of August the fourth day after His Brother's Death with the eager acclamations of throngs of the Common people These things were celebrated with the greater earnestness least the minds of the Great Men should be shaken with repenting of their choice because there was a Rumour that Earl Robert was coming out of Normandy and that he would be here immediately Hereby it appears that the Honest Mob urg'd on and secur'd this Election which otherwise some of the formal Nobility would have disputed at the beginning or soon have repented of upon expectation of making some particular terms for themselves not regarding the Publick Good for which H. 1. had so largely provided To set the proceedings of that time in a true light it may be requisite to transcribe part of what Matthew Paris took from the Historians of the time and particularly from Sigebert Defuncto itaque Rege Willielmo Mat. Par. 81. Sigisbertus Gemblacensis Monachus huc usque cronica sua satis eleganter digessit Mat. Par. f. 74. cum Magnates Angliae ignorarent quid actum esset de Roberto Duce Normanorum Regis defuncti fratre primogenito qui jam per quinquenneum in expeditione Hierosolymitanâ moram pertraxerat timuerunt diu sine regimine vacillare Quod fratrum ultimus juvenis sapientissimus cum callidè cognovisset congregato Londoniis Clero Angliae populo universo promisit emendationem legum quibus oppressa fuerat Anglia tempore patris sui fratris nuper defuncti ut animos omnium in sui promotionem accenderet amorem ut illum in Regem susciperent patronum Ad haec Clero respondente Magnatibus cunctis quod si animo volente ipsis vellet concedere chartâ suâ communire illas libertates consuetudines antiquas quae floruerunt in regno tempore SANCTI REGIS EDWARDI in ipsum consentirent in Regem unanimiter consecrarent Henrico autem hoc libenter annuente se id facturum cum juramento affirmante consecratus est in Regem apud Westmonasterium favente Clero populo cui continuo a Mauritio Londinensi Episcopo a Thomâ Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Corona capiti imponitur Cum fuerat diademate insignitus has libertates subscriptas in Regno ad
of the General Councils of the Kingdom at least the Charter which he then granted as I before observed makes full proof of it Vid. Sup. f. 172 178. 'T is obvious that the Convention 1 H. 1. was far less solemn and had much less ground to be look'd on as a Parliament than ours and yet it being for removing a Vacancy and Setling the Government when the Nation was threatned with an Invasion from Duke Robert they thought the necessity of time would sufficiently excuse the absence of Form But had there been no Warrant from former times for the late manner of proceeding the people of Legal Interests in the Government having been restor'd to their Original Right Who can doubt but they had an absolute power over Forms That they were not call'd a Parliament I hope will not be an Objection since the Word is much less Ancient than such Assemblies Nay I find it us'd in the 25th of E. 1. for a Meeting of the People without the King Vid. Append. to consult for the Publick-Good of which Matthew of Westminster says Parliamentum suum statuerunt Vid. Sup. Cap. 1. Since the Cives the Common Subject of the National Power have made their determination in our Case this according to that Positive Law which I have shewn above ought to quiet the Debate and command a submission And yet were there not Positive Law on their side the equitable Reservations before observed might be sufficient Warrant Nor is the Civil-Law wanting to enforce this Matter One Barbarius a run-a-way Servant not known to be so got in favour with Anthony at the time of the Triumvirate and by his means came to be Praetor Upon this a great Question arose Whether what he did or was done before him during his Praetorship were valid Hottom Illust Quest 17. Vlpian decides in the affirmative and Hottoman upon that Question says ' The suffrages of the People have the force of a ' Law Gotofredus de Electione Magistratûs inhabilis per errorem factâ p. 6. The Reasons given for the Resolution as they are in Gotofred who best reconciles the various Readings will greatly strengthen our Case He tells us That tho the Question there is only concerning a Servant the Reason of it reaches to Emperors and all Secular and Ecclesiastical Dignities The Reasons why Vlpian holds the Acts of such good are 1. In regard of Common Utility and the Inconvenience it would be to those who had business before him if it were otherwise 2. From the Power of the People to give a Servant this Honour Gotofred thinks If this may be done with certain knowledg that he was a Servant much more through mistake for if the People who have the Supream Power may with certain knowledg for the sake of the Publick-Good not only design a Servant for Praetor but in this Case by a just Election take a Servant away from his Master How much more may it be done as in the Case propounded not to make a Servant wholly a true Praetor not to take him from his Master but only by a commodious interpretation to have what is done by him or with him sustain'd and that so long the Error of the People and Servitude of the Person chosen should not prejudice what is done Gotofred goes yet further and says of Magistrates and Judges constituted by Tyrants the manner of Judgments being kept Gotofred Sup. p. 25. the things done according to form of Law or Transacted according to their Wills have been held good Sponte transacta And yet in this Case the defect seems greater being the Power is collated by one inhabil and so a substantial form is wanting Wherefore in this Part there seems no difference between the inhability of the Elector or the Elected And if ever the Common Utility or Publick Good might warrant Actions out of the Common Course certainly this could never have been pleaded more forcibly than in the Case of this Nation which unless it had declared for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY which they did in the most regular way that the Nature of the thing would bear had in all likelyhood by Irish and French Forces by this time been reduc'd to the miserable condition of the poor Protestants in Ireland who are by no means beholden to the nice Observers of unnecessary and impracticable Forms However such Formalizers would do well to answer the French King's Advocate in the Case of King John who shews a Vacancy of a Throne and to whom in such Case the care of the Kingdom belongs And they being the Barones Regni I need not now stand to prove that in the Language of that time 't would comprehend all such as were Members of our late Assembly of Lords and Commons For admit it were to be restrain'd to the Lords only then at least the Commons now were but supernumerary And since the Lords Voted by themselves and not in the same House with the Commons for the majority of united Votes to carry it the Settlement Voted by the Lords were enough to conclude the Nation But for the farther conviction of those who still urge That to hold that there may be a Parliament without being summoned by the King 's Writ would be of pernicious consequence to the Constitution of the Legal Monarchy under King WILLIAM and Queen MARY I shall refer them to a Paper which came out not long since entituled Vid. Append. The Present Convention a Parliament which I have transcrib'd at large into the Appendix As that Paper gives an abstract of what might be prov'd by Authorities those which I have produced give confirfirmation to that Paper Part 1. Object Here I ought not to pass by some Objections of the Author of Elementa Politica in relation to the suppos'd want of due Form in proceeding to Judgment or of Actions leading to it which if they were unwarrantable the Judgment must have been so too being founded upon the belief that there was just occasion for those Actions The Substance of his Objections may be reduced to these Heads 1. Part of the Legislative Power is in the King Whence it follows Elementa Pol. p. 5. Since published with the Title of Vindiciae Juris Regii that the whole Body of the People is not the Supream Authority nor consequently can call their Prince to account without his own consent 2. That Part of the Legislative Power which is lodg'd in the People is not given at large to be exerted at their pleasure but depends upon stated Rules and Limitations and can only be exerted by their Representatives in Parliament Nay it is so precarious a Privilege that without the King's leave they can never make use of it For it is neither lawful for them to Convene themselves nor yet to sit any longer than the King pleases Which is in different words but the same with Mr. Hobbs his position Where there is already erected a
Soveraign Power Leviathan f. 97. by which he means a single person in possession of Power There can be no other Representative of the same People but only to certain particular ends limited by the Soveraign If this were meant of Power in the abstract no Man neeed dispute the point with either of the Authors But to proceed with the Elements Elementa Pol. 3. The Liberties of the Subject were Acts of Grace from the Crown and since they had no Right to demand them by Force they must take them upon such Conditions as they are offer'd Nor is it to be suppos'd that Kings would forgo their Irresistible Power unless they had Sign'd it away in so many words 4. The Militia is by Law lodg'd in the King Most of the Nation is oblig'd to Declare against taking up Arms upon any pretence whatsoever against Him or any persons Commissioned by Him And the two Houses themselves swear Allegiance 5. That Clause for Resistance in King John's Charter contrary to this is of no force now and however is an Authority against the Deposing-Power there being an express Proviso for saving the King's Person and Royalty and His being obey'd as formerly upon Redress of Grievances Answ Not to observe the inconsequence from a qualified Legislative to a Judicial Power in which the Dernier Resort is with the Lords nor the mistake as if that Meeting and Sitting of Parliament which the Law has provided for within and till a certain time were wholly precarious Viz. Till all Petitions are Answer'd and that is certain which is reduceably to a Certainty Vid. Sup. Nor the former Objection against the Militia-Acts for want of a due Repeal of the Triennial 16 Car. 1. which this Author calls but a Proposal nor yet that the Allegiance sworn must be according to the Constitution For a full Answer to all it will appear even by his own confession That these Restrictions have no place but while the Constitution is preserv'd Himself admits That had the Legislative Power been invaded and the Constitution of Parliaments dissolv'd it would have superceded his Niceties But denies both because forsooth the Judgments against Charters were begun in a Protestant Reign and applauded by the loyal part of the Nation And the Dispensing Power was affirm'd by the Judges which is only a justifying Crimes by their Authors of which too many may say Pudet haec opprobria nobis Et dici potuisse non potuisse refelli Nor may it be impertinent here to observe Tacitus his Account of the steps by which Julius Caesar advanced himself to an arbitrary Power Leaving the Application to others When he had wheedled the Soldiers with large Pay the People with Freedom from Taxes all with the sweetness of Peace Tacit. ed. Plaut p. 1. and 2. Ubi militem donis populum annonâ cunctos dulcedine otii pellexit munia Senatus Magistratuum legum in se trahere nullo adversante cum feracissimi per acies aut proscriptione cecidissent ceteri Nobilium quanto quis Servitio promptior opibus honoribus extollerentur ac novis ex rebus aucti tuta presentia quam vetera periculosa mallent Neque Provinciae illum Statum abnuebant suspecto Senatûs Populique imperio ob certamina potentium avaritiam Magistratuum invalido legum auxilio quae vis ambitu postremo pecuniâ turbabuntur he rose by degrees to draw the Offices of the Senate Magistrates Laws to himself without opposition When the most fierce had faln in the Wars or were driven from their Country the rest of the Nobility being as any of them was the more forward for Servitude rais'd to Wealth and Honour and profited by the Change chose rather present Safety than the former State not to be retrieved without hazard Nor did the Provinces decline the Yoke the Government of the Senate and People becoming cheap through great mens quarrels and the Avarice of Magistrates the Law being enervated and its course interrupted by Force Solicitations and at last Bribery The Author of the Elements supposes that if the Government were subverted by the late King all Rights whatsoever are lost as well as his which I have shewn by no means to follow But particularly as to the Resisting-Clause in King John's Charter which he observes to be turn'd into an Excommunication in H. 3 d's 't is to be consider'd That as a King could not be thought to subvert the Constitution upon the first Breach of some particular Articles there that Clause was in this respect an Addition to the Constitution but being only in the Affirmative could not derogate from it Himself says If with reference to the present Case the Government is actually subverted then I grant the King's Authority is destroyed Elem Pol. part printed And if the Government as to the King's share in it is subverted and his Authority destroyed then there is no doubt but the People are freed from all those Forms to which his Presence or Consent were otherwise needful This Author yields in another place Print p. 13. that where the People are not forc'd into Submission but freely elect their Monarch there all remote inferences and doubtful cases ought to be interpreted in favour of the Subject because the Form of Government had its beginning from them and in this case Liberty proves its self This he admits supposing that he had prov'd a Conquest of the Nation by W. 1. which I shall examine in its place tho what I have said above might take off the Inference from his Hypothesis Vid. sup especially considering the broken Succession since W. 1. and what Authority the Constitution has given to the Peoples Choice which W. 1. as appears by his Death-bed Declaration and what followed immediately upon it left untouch'd CONCLUSION I Cannot think that I have followed Truth too nigh at the heels for my Safety in the present Government which I take to be built upon this staple Foundation and that Protestant fondly flatters himself who thinks to retain his Religion and Security upon any Terms at a return of the Former which some who were Instruments in setting up this seem madly to contend for But could men hope to find their private Accounts in such a Change yet surely the dismal Prospect of Common Calamities to ensue should induce them to sacrifice such low Ends to the Interest of their Religion and their Country I am not sensible that I have misrepresented any Fact or Authority tho I have not urg'd them with that strength which might have been by a better Pen. Perhaps what I have offer'd may give another Notion of the Succession than what many have imbib'd who will think I violate what is sacred I have not urg'd the Illegitimation of the Children of E. 4. by Richard the Third's Parliament because tho he was a King de facto if the Character fix'd on him be true he was a Tyrant as well as Usurper
Cancellario Angliae emergat seu judicium difficile coram Justiciariis fuerit reddendum hujusmodi si forte in hujusmodi deliberationibus omnes vel saltem major pars concordare non valeant tunc Comes Senescallus Comes Constabularius Comes Marescallus vel duo illorum eligent viginti quinque personas de omnibus paribus Regni scilicet duos Episcopos tres Procuratores pro Clero duos Comites tres Barones quinque Milites Comitatuum quinque Cives quinque Burgenses qui faciunt viginti quinque Et illi viginti quinque possunt eligere ex seipsis duodecim condescendere in eis ipsi duodecim sex condescendere in eis ipsi sex ad tres condescendere in eis illi tres in paucioribus se condescendere non possunt nisi optentâ licentiâ à Domino Rege Et si Rex consenceat ipsis tres possunt in duos de illis duobus aliter poterit in alium descendere Et ita demum stabit sua ordinatio super totum Parliamentum ita condescendendo à viginti quinque personis usque unam solam personam nisi numerus major concordare valeat ordinare tandem una persona ut est dictum pro omnibus ordinabit quòd cum seipsâ discordare non potest Salvo Domino Regi ejus Consilio quod ipsi hujusmodi ordinationes postquam Scriptae fuerint examinare emendare valeant si hoc facere sciant velint Ita quod hoc faciant ibidem tunc in pleno Parliamento de consensu Parliamenti non retro Parliamentum N. VII Vid. CAP. 7. F. 70. SEneschallia Angliae pertinet ad Comitem Leicester pertinet ab Antiquo Et sciendum est Sir John Cotton 's Library Tit. Tiberius n. 8 De Officio Seneschalliae quod ejus officium est supervidere regulare sub Rege immediate post Regem totum Regnum Angliae omnes ministros legum infra idem Regnum temporibus pacis guerrae c. Item officium Seneschalliae est quod si Rex habeat malos Consiliarios circa eum qui sibi dant Consilia ad faciend talia quae sunt apta prona ad dedecus suum aut exhaeredationem suam ad publicum malum destructionem populi sui tunc Seneschallus Angliae assumpto secum Constabulario aliis Magnatibus aliis de Communitate Regni Angliae mittent ad hujusmodi Consiliarium Regis quod ipsum Regem ita ducere consulere desistat de hujusmodi malis consiliis prius Regi factis mentionem faciend Quod ab eo ejus presentiâ recedat moram cum eo quod dedecus suum damnum publicum ut predictum est non faciat Quod si vero faciat tum mittent ad Regem quod ipsum ab eo amoveri faciat ejus consilium non audiat pro eo quod à toto populo malus Consiliarius inter Regem suum Populum praesumitur Quod si Rex non fecerit aliâs pluries mittent tam Regi quam ei Quod si demum non Rex nec hujusmodi Consiliarius de hujusmodi missionibus supplicationibus advertat sed ea potius facere neglexerit tum pro bono publico licebit Seneschallo Constabulario Angliae Magnatibus aliis de Communitate Regni capere corpus ejus salvum custodire usque ad proximum Parliamentum seisire res redditus omnes possessiones suas donec judicium suum attenderit subierit per considerationem istius rni in Parliamento N. VIII Vid. CAP. 7. F. 72. JOhannes Dei gratiâ c. sciatis nos concessisse presenti cartâ nostrâ confirmasse dilecto fideli nostro Willielmo Marescallo Comiti Pembroke haeredibus suis Magistratum Marescalciae Curiae nostrae quem Magistratum Gilbertus Marescallus H. Rs. avi patris nostri Johannes filius ipsius Gilberti disrationaverunt coram praed Rege H. in Curiâ suâ contra Rob. de Venoiz contra Willielmum de Hastings qui ipsum Magistratum calumpniabantur Et hoc judicium quia defecerunt se de recto ad diem quem eis inde constituerat Quare volumus firmiter precipimus quod predictus Willielmus heredes sui post eum habeant teneant pred Magistratum cum omnibus ad illum pertinen bene in pace liberè quietè integrè honorificè de nobis heredibus Testibus W. Lond. E. Elyens H. Sarum Ep. Dat. per manus H. Cant. Arch. N. IX Vid. CAP. 9. F. 93. Rot. Parl. 1. H. 7. Presentatio Praelocutoris SUbsequenterque idem dominus Rex prefatis communibus ore suo proprio eloquens ostendendo suum adventum ad jus Coronam Angliae fore tam per justum titulum haereditanciae quam per verum Dei Judicium in tribuendo sibi victoriam de inimico suo in Campo declaravit quod omnes subditi sui cujuscunque statûs gradûs seu conditionis fuerint haberent tenerent sibi haeredibus suis omnia terras tenementa redditus haereditamenta sua eisdemque gauderent exceptis talibus personis quales suam Majestatem Regiam ostenderunt qui juxta eorum demerita in presentis Parliamenti Curiâ aliter essent plectendi Titulus Regis Item Quaedam Billa exhibita fuit praefato Domino Regi in praesenti Parliamento per Communitates Regni Angliae in eodem Parliamento existentes hanc seriem verborum continens To the Pleasure of Almighty God the Wealth Prosperity and Suertie of this Realm of England to the singular comforth of all the King's Subjects of the same and in avoiding of all Ambiguities and Questions Be it ordeigned Stablished and Enacted by Auctoritee of this present Parliament that the Inheritance of the Crounes of the Realmes of England and of France with all the preeminence and dignitie Roiall to the same pertaining and all other Signeries to the King belonging beyond the See with th' Appurtenaunces thereto in eny wise due or perteineing be rest remaine and abide in the moost Roiall Personn of oure nowe Soveraigne Lord King Henrie the vii th and in the Heires of his Body lawfully comeing perpetually with the Grace of God so to endure and in none other Quà quidem Billâ in Parliamento praedicto lectâ auditâ maturâ deliberatione intellectâ eidem Billae de assensu Dominorum Spiritualium Temporalium in dicto Parliamento existen ad requisitionem Communitatis praedictae necnon authoritate ejusdem Parliamenti respondebat eidem in formâ sequenti Nostre Seigneur le Roy del assent des Seigneurs Espirituelx Temporelex esteaniz en cest Parlement a la request des Commens avantditz le voet en toutz poyntz The King our Soveraigne Lord remembering Restitutio Henrici Sexti 1. H. 7. n. 16. how ayenst all Rightwisnes
a Royall Dignitie (k) Barthol Bal. in l. eam quam C. de fide con And the Reason is that whosoever is borne Bastard though he be after made legitimate is ever reputyd notwithstandinge as infamous (l) Bal. in lege generaliter §. cum autem C. de inst substi sub condi factis Alexan in 3. ff de il post And these Reasons may serve also to the Allegations before sayd of the innocency of the Queene and the contynuance of the Matrimony without controversy for they do declare playnly that although the Lawes where they entreate of eny other Enheritance shuld make as legitimate the Children so borne the which indeede they no ways can do as we have partly proovyd notwithstanding that the same Laws could never be alledgid in case of Succession to eny great Dignite and chiefly vnto a Royal Dignitie in the which the whole state of the Common Wealth hath interest And besydes touching the dooble Bastardy before remembryd though we shuld admitte that of the legitimacion of the Lady K. there wer no doubt or question yet such hath ben her Life and Behavour and so much hath she stayned her self and issue as she is to be thought unworthy of the Crown for she was maryed as ye know to the Lord Herberd The Mariage was perfected by all necessary Circumstances ther was consent of the Parties consent of the Parentes open solemnizinge contynuance after till lawfull Years of consent and in the mean time carnall Copulation all which save the last are commonly knowne by dyuers that sawe theim and the last which to all other might be most doubtfull is known by the confession of them both and so made the more lykely to be true bicause she her self though in such thinges that Sexe be most covert and shamefast hath yet earnestly acknowledgid the same after which Consummacion every Man knowith that albeit the Matrimony had been before for lacke of Years not vaylable that yet thereby it commith and is made perfect and of full force and valor In sorte that the Divorce and Sentence that was so dryven procured and practised by the means of the Erle of Penbroke in Queen Maryes Reign for respects then well ynough knowne agyinst both the Parties Wills as most manifestly appeeryd not onely by their greate unwillignesse unto it then but also by their affectionate and willinge manner of lyving continent meny Years after continuing in mutuall Love testified by sondrey means meny Tokens Messingers and other signes of the same cannot be of eny force to breake the sayd Matrimony nisi de facto (m) De sponsal cap. 30. is qui fidem But during this delay she by daliance fell to carnall company with th' Erle of Herforde which was not descryed till the bignesse of her Belly bewrayd her yll happ In which what was commityd on both theire behalfes while he th' Erle unlawfullie companyed with the Wyfe of an other Man and she the Wife of one Man did gyve her Body to be used of an other Man unlawfully ye may easely judge But this done the L. Herbert seeinge himself thus deceyvid by his Wyfe did as he might lawfully joyne himselfe in Marying with an other Woman and that Lyfe and Usage betweene the Lady K. and the Erle beinge confirmid by dooble Issue as it was utterly unlawfull before God so was it founde unlawfull before such Bishoppes and other Commissioners as had the heeringe of the same and their Issue bastardid wherupon doth fall out as ye see greate wickednes and lashnes of Life in the Mother and bastardy in the Children And it is not unknowne to those conversant in the Historyes that meny Princes settlid in their Kingdomes have ben judged unworthy of their Callinge for lyving in Whoredom And how can she be countyd worthy to come to a Kingdome which as her Case standith cannot but lyve in lyke manner Surely yf she were the next Heire of the Bloud Royal her Fault is much the greater so fowlie to have spottyd the same For as by this Whordome she hath deservyd grevous Punishment in disparaginge and disablinge the Bloud so hath she by vyolatinge Maryage cut off all hope of havinge lawfull Issue by her to succeede and possesse the Crowne heerafter For by the Law that God gyveth (n) Deut. 23. Deut. 23. A Bastard and unlawfull borne Person may not beare Rule in the Church or Common-Weale He is counted a Stranger as the Hebrewe word importith and to the perpetuall detestation of Whoredome was this Lawe made to punishe the Parentes Faultes justly in their Children The Civil Lawe lykewyse doth not onely punishe such Personnes as make such unlawfull Matches but removith the Issue so borne from the Inheritance or takinge by Legacy eny thinge of the Parentes (o) Co. de incest inut nup. And thus do yow see by the way thus much of this double Bastardie and what Stay Comfort or Consolacion is lykely to come to this Realme of England by the L. K. and such Issue as she now hath or is lykely to haue heerafter though she her self were by her Parentes free from Bastardy as by the Proces and Allegacions before alledgid doth playnly appeere she is not Wherfore to retourne to the Mater before in hand and to conclude therof Since eny Spotte or suspicion of eny is sufficient barre from th' Inheritance of a Crowne much more cause is this playne and open Bastardy for we ar all bounde in reason to haue alwayes more regard to the State and Dignitie of the whole Weale Publique then of the pryvate Preferment or Commodyte of eny particuler Person And so doth it appeere that by no way neither by the Divine Lawe nor by the Common Lawe of this Realme nor yet by the Canon or Civill that the Children descendid of the sayd Queene and Duke can be capable of the Crowne by their Birth But touchinge the other Parte they alledge in favour of the Lady Katheryne Kinge Henry the Eight his Will by which they say she is lefte as Heire Which may be as playnly and easely answerid For it is as certeyn that Kinge Henry shuld have had no Auctoritie or Power to dispose of the Crowne by Will yf by Parliament it had not ben gyven him And therfore as much as the Force and Autorytie of the Parliament dothe extend unto so much might he do and no more And the words of the same Statute though they be generall they may not for all that be so largely taken or understandid as they may be stretched vnto For who will say that by those wordes there is Power or Facultie gyven to appoynt or gyve the Crowne to eny Person that accordinge to the Lawe and Dignitie of this Realme is not meete or capable of the same As vnto a Turke ☜ an Infidele an infamous or opprobrious Person to a Foole a Madde-man or generally to eny kynde of such Person as of the which if special
so happe as God forbidd but also it is so penall that if such ill Chaunce shuld unfortunately befall it makith Traytors of those that will clayme their Inheritance although their intent were but to try their Titles And it is a Learninge by the Common Lawes of England that longe hath ben so receyvid that in every such case as eny of these happen no Exposition is to be allowed but the Lawe willith us to cleve to the Letter without eny further wrestinge therof then the Letter naturally and strictly will reache unto So that if it be not a stricte observation of the Letter according to his natural entent in any of these cases the Common Lawe allowith it not And the rather the Lawe is precise herin for that it is a newe Statute which seldome ar taken by equite in eny point because they ar all pennyd at large As for Example I will remember one or twoe which may suffice to such as be Learnyd to search for other of lyke effect wherof ther ar not a few In Anno 1. of Kinge Edward the 6 th ther was a Statute made That if eny were condemnid for the stealinge of Horses and Mares they should lose their Clergy and because the words Horses and Mares were the plurall nombre it was taken not to extende to one Horse or to one Mare And so for that cause a new Statute was made Anno 2. of the same K. that made lyke Lawe for stealinge one Horse or one Mare And the chief cause of this was because it is a Penall Statute in takinge from a Man that wherby his Lyfe might be savid In K. Richard the 3 ds Tyme there was a Statute made to Auctorize Cest a que use to enter vpon his Feoffees and make Feoffementes And it was in question in Anno 9. of H. the 7 th yf he made a Letter of Atturney whether this were good by the Statute and lefte therfore a doubtfull question by reason the Statute gyveth auctoryte onely which must in all poyntes be observed And ther is a greate deale more coulour to make that Feoffement goode being by Letter of Atturney then to make this Will to this purpose goode not signed with the Kinges owne Hande For if eny other put his Hande therunto and not the Kinge himself then it is signed with an other Hande and not the Kinges Hande And yf I gyve Auctorytie to my Executors to sell my Landes and say no further then yf they sell the same by Wrytinge or without Wrytinge it is sufficient but if I adde these wordes That they shall sell my Landes so that they do it by Wrytinge signed with their proper Handes yf now they sell the same and th' one cause the Residue in all their presence to wryte all their Names as thoughe every one had severally subscrybed I hold it no question but this Sale is not good for they must pursue their Auctorytie strictlye and otherwyse it is of no effect And consyderinge as is partly before remembryd how greate a mater it was to committe such a Trust it were a greate lacke and slander to the whole Parliament to thinke that they wold condiscend to the committinge of so high and weightie a Confidence as wherof the whole Estate and Weale of the Realme shuld depend but that they did forsee that their doinges therein shuld not be blynded by a Wrytinge signed with a Stampe The same thing was urg'd by Lethington the Secretary of Scotland in a Letter to Sir Will. Cecil Appendix to the 2d Vol. of the Hist of the Ref. F. 269. which might be put vnto either when the Kinge was voyde of Memory or els when he was deceassid as indeed it after happenyd as most manifestly appeeryd by open declaration made in Parliament by the late L. Paget and others that King Henry did not signe it with his owne Hande as it is playne and probable inough by the Pardon obteynid for one William Clerke for puttinge the Stampe vnto the sayde Will after the Kinge was departid and who doubtith but yf his meaninge had ben such so to haue disposed of the Crowne but that he wold have put this mater out of doubte by signifyenge the same with his owne proper Hande And touchinge the two chief Examples that ar brought foorth the one of the 21 and 33 of K. H. th' Eight wherby K. H. was aucthorized to gyve his Royall Assent to Actes of Parliament by his Letters Patentes and so foorth and th' other for that Queene Mary omittyd the style that was apoyntid by Parliament in 35 of H. th' Eight in her Parliament Writts howe little they make to the matter every Man may judge For the Statutes of 21 and 33 of H. 8. were only made in affirmance of the Common Lawe and such a Royal Assent wold suffice by Letters Patents without eny assurance thereof by the Signe And this Statute was but to put such matter out of question for if the Common Law had ben such before there is no doubt but that he must haue signed every Patent with his proper Hande and so these Cases are no way lyke And touchinge the seconde yf the Statute that conteynith the King's Style be well consyderid there wold be made thereof no such Collection For the same apoyntith a punishment to such Subjects as of purpose depryve the K. of the Realm of that Stile But there is no doubt but the Writts that wantyd the Stile were in Lawe sufficyent and the Parties that made the same punishable So that these Examples cannot be wrestid to serve eny whit for the purpose And where ther is made a great mater by reason the Will was inrollid in the Chancery and Constats thereof made under the Broade Seale and the Legacyes thereof in all poyntes performyd To that may be answerd That all that is therein affirmed may easily be confessed and yet it proovith nothinge to th' intent applied for it was his Will is ever he condescendid thervnto though he did never signe it with his Stampe nor with his Hande and a goode and a perfect Will to all Entents and Purposes whereof he had by Common Lawe Authoritye to make his Will of But it is not or cannot be the more a perfect Will to this respect or purpose vnlesse he did execute the auctoritie apoyntid by the Statute of 35 of H. 8. as is before remembryd Since then the Duke had a Wyfe lyvinge when he maryd the Frenche Queene and by the Statute ther is nothinge to be Claymid onles K. Henry had passed eny things either by his Letters Patentes under the Broade Seal of Englande or ells by his last Will signed with his most gracious Hande And that it is trewe that he had a Wyfe lyvinge when he maryd the Frenche Queene that so if it were requisite or hereafter may be there mought be avouchid more then one with much other matter touchinge that poynt of Illegitimacion and Inhabilitie as well in
Corporations the managing Juries and improving Religious and lawful Civil Assemblies into Riots nay Consults for Treason had not then been brought to Perfection And the Dispensing Power having been attempted but receded from he says The true Religion is established by our Laws Page 542. and no Law can be repealed or altered to the Prejudice of English Subjects by the Pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers and the Representatives of the Commons of England And indeed the good Man takes a great deal of Pains from the Duty Honour and Interest of the Prince the danger to evil Instruments and the like to prove that it ought not to be presumed that any such Case as we have known will happen which at this time looks like a Philosophical Argument against Motion and deserves the like Confutation However Page 532. looking upon such Violations as but simply possible he maintains that the Declarataion against taking Arms ought to be in general Terms for that such extraordinary Cases as may be put fall not under Consideration Page 361. I may add till they happen for then they must be put and remembred to justify what they have render'd necessary Nay himself restrains the general Terms to a Subject's taking Arms without any Command from his Prince Page 360. against those who act by virtue and in pursuance of his Commission REGVLARLY granted to them Page 346. I will yield to him that it would be an high Reflection upon the Laws of our Realm if there were need of consulting skilful Lawyers for the general Rule of Duty and to whom Men ought to yeild Obedience and Submission Yet if learned Men will confound the plain Rule of Submission to the Powers which are in being by setting up a supposed inseparable Right in a Power which once had a being but is become a meer Shadow and Spectre 't will be requisite to have recourse to them who have taken some pains in enquiring into the Constitution of the Government to see what Remedy is thereby allowed in extraordinary Cases Christian Loyalty p. 521. And whereas speaking of Officers suppos'd by some to have Authority of resisting in such Cases he seems to know of none but by Charter or Commission having their Authority depending upon the King a little Skill in the Law or in Antiquity would have inform'd him of several others at least such as were not so dependent Vid. inf of the Earl Marshall c. Vid. The Act of Pacification between the English and the Scots Temp. Car. 1. which provides that it shall be lawful for the Subjects of either Nation to fall upon the Forces which shall come out of one into the other without the Consent of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms not only hereditary Great Officers and other Great Men of the Kingdom but other Officers chosen by the People the Heretochii or Lords Lieutenants and the Sheriffs anciently and the Officers in Boroughs by Prescription and Constables at this day I will be as ready as he to maintain that for the future such Supposals as he touches with great Fear and Tenderness will be very remote Possibilities and being look'd upon in our Law as vain in the Apprehension are thought not to stand in need of any particular Provision but he mentions three Cases in which upon yeilding the Suppositions Page 531. he grants the Answer given by Barclay to two of them and to all three by Grotius to be true To the general Question May there no Cases fall out in which the People by their Authority may take Arms against the King Page 515. Barclay answers Certainly none as long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat which is pregnant with the Affirmative that there may be some Case wherein he by Law or of Right ceases to be King And Barclay manifestly allows of two Grotius adds a third branch'd into a fourth in which Mr. Falkner concurs with him as well as with Barclay and Grotius in the other two Pag. 525 527. The first particular Case upon which he delivers his own Opinion Voluntary Resignation or Cession or Abdication without referring to Authorities is of a King 's voluntarily relinquishing and laying aside his Crown and Government of this several Examples are mentioned and among the rest nine of our Saxon Kings Page 426. and he rightly observes that if such Persons should act against the settled Government of their respective Kingdoms after they are fixed in the next Heir in an Hereditary Kingdom or in another King according to the Constitution of Elective Principalities the resisting any of them is not the taking Arms against the King but against him who now is a private Person If therefore the late King's Abdication were such a relinquishing as he means Vid. sup f. 13. which it must be if he receive Grotius or if he hold to the other Cases in which as it will appear he yields that he would be devested of Soveraignty in all such Cases every thing is lawful against the late King that would be lawful against any other private Person 2. The second Case agreed by all three and by Bishop Bilson Page 526. is of a Prince ' s undertaking to alienate his Kingdom Alienation of the Kingdom or to give it up to the Hands of another Soveraign Power against the Mind of his Subjects And he thinks Barclay Grotius and Bishop Bilson truly to assert that such an Act of Alienation or of acknowledged Subjection especially if obtained by evil Methods as was done in the Case of King John is null and void and therefore can neither give any Right of Soveraignty to another nor dispossess the King himself thereof But if any such Prince shall actually and forcibly undertake to bring his Subjects under a new Supream Power who have no Right thereto and shall deliver up his Kingdom to be thereby possess'd Grotius saith he doubteth not but he may be resisted in his undertaking but then says Mr. Falkner this Resolution must proceed upon this ground that this Action includeth his devesting himself of his Soveraignty together with his injurious proceeding against those who were his Subjects And Barclay who allows only two Cases in which a Prince may be devested of his Royal Dignity doth account this to be one of them Not to mention the notorious truckling to France and Pupilage under that bribing and imposing Monarch since the Kings of England are Supream in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs and the late King by Force and open Violation of the Laws against the universal Bent and Mind of his People renounc'd his own Supremacy in yielding to the Pope's and since the People might resist him therein but that which justified their resisting him devested him of his Soveraignty 't is evident that according to Mr. Falkner and the Learned Men whose Authority he receives the late King thereby ceas'd