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Parliament which made those Acts had no Power at the time of making them being by the express words of a former Statute repealed Triennial Act 16 Car. 1.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
omitted The Objections from the Oath 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 Swedeland 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 pag. 57. 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 An. 789. 2. From the Practice 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 pag. 72. CHAP. IX The Fourth Head of Positive Law A short Recapitulation of what has been prov'd An actual Discharge of Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. shewn from the Authority of the Judgment past His usurping a Legislative Power leaving the Kingdom without providing for the Administration of Justice and going into France This confirmed by Rastal Lord Hobart Justinian's Digest The Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian Pufendorf de Officio hominis civis His Elementa Juris prudentiae His Treatise de Jure Gentium Grotius Pufendorf de Inter-regnis Knichen's Opus Pol. Philip Paraeus A particular Consideration of what the Learned Knight Sir R. Pointz says seeming against these Authorities but shewn in truth to confirm them and to bring the Rules of the Civilians to our side That the Crown came not by Right of Descent to the next in Blood after the discharge of the Allegiance to J. 2. The Arguments for the People's being restor'd to the Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown enforc'd from a particular Consideration of the State of the Settlement Where is it shewn how the word Heirs may be look'd on as restrain'd in the first Settlement on Heirs by Gomezius his Rule The Titles of H. 6. E. 4. H. 7. and H. 8. His several Settlements and their Effects in relation to the Queen Mary and Elizabeth and J. 1. The Recognition to J. 1. not extending to his Heirs And question'd Whether the Recognition was not his best if not only Title With a modest Inference pag. 84. CHAP. X. The Fifth Head of Positive Law The effect of the Dissolution of the Contract The use 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 the late Assembly would be conclusive to the Nation Neither forty days Summons nor Writs nor yet Summons to a Parliament Essential And this confirmed not only by the Precedent 12 Car. 2. but by two Precedents of the time of H. 1. The Subjects in the time of E. 1. said to have held a Parliament by themselves and of their own appointing The Objection of want of Form answered out of the Civil Law and its Reasons applied to our Case Objections made by the Author of Elimenta Politica considered The Conclusion pag. 98. APPENDIX Among other things SIR Robert Filmer and some of our Divines plaid against one another in relation to Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and Sir Robert against Himself pag. 1. Allegations in behalf of the High and Mighty Princess the Lady Mary now Queen of Scots against the Opinions and Books 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 Reflections on Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book THE Fundamental Constitution OF THE English Government PROVING KING WILLIAM and QUEEN MARY our Lawful and Rightful King and Queen CHAP. I. The Vniformity tho unprofitableness of Truth The Insufficiency of false Mediums to defend this Government us'd by Men who thereby seek only themselves Quietism in Allegiance advanced by some The Supposition of a Conquest made by his present Majesty or his Succession in the Line no way for his Service That Lawyers are the best Casuists in this matter Mr. Lessey's Protestation when he took the Oath of Allegiance Lord Clarendon's Complaint of Divines busying themselves in Matters of State Mr. Tirrel and the Author of two late Treatises about Government set against Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Dr. Heylin's Opinion of Sir Robert The Judgment of Hooker touch'd upon concerning the Derivation of Power The present Bishop of Worcester's Judgment Cragius his A large Account of the Derivation of Power from the People of Rome to their Emperors brought to explain what our ancient Lawyers mean when they receive the Roman Lex Regia The Sense of Grotius Plato Conringius Pufendorf of the Subject or Seat of Power That all Empires and other Civil Societies must have been founded in Contract A right to design the Person if not to confer the Power admitted in the People by the greatest Asserters of Monarchy The Dispute here chiefly of the Right to design the Person what that is referred to
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
them Had English Men at that time known their Duty to their Prince Homilies the sixth Sermon against wilful Rebellion last Ed. 383. set forth in God's holy Word would English Subjects have sent for and receiv'd the Dauphin of France with a great Army of French-Men into the Realm of England would they have sworn Fidelity to the Dauphin of France breaking their Oath of Fidelity to their natural Lord the King of England and have stood under the Dauphin's Banner display'd against the King of England To which I answer 1. That our Church pretends not to Infallibility nor will it be any Imputation upon it to have err'd in relation to Fact or the Constitution of the Government without regard to which it is not to be suppos'd that the Fathers of our Church would apply the Duty of Subjects set forth in God's Word Pseudomartyr Chap. 6. p. 172. And I doubt not but Dr. Donne Dean of St. Paul's in the time of C. 1. very well understood the Scriptures and our Homilies and yet he tells us that some ancient Greek States are call'd Laconica because they were shortned and limited to certain Laws And some States in our time seem to have conditional and provisional Princes between whom and Subjects there are mutual and reciprocal Obligations which if one side break they fall on the other This he supposes to be where-ever there is not a Pambasilia in the hands of one Man that is as he explains it that Soveraignty which is a Power available to the main ends One of the main ends of Government must needs be making Laws and levying Taxes if that be not vested in any single Person he has not the Pambasilia and if he have not the Pambasilia according to him he is but a conditional or provisional Prince and if he be a conditional Prince the Obligations between him and his Subjects are mutual and reciprocal and the Subjects may take the advantage of a failure on the Prince's side History p. 40. This being taken from an Authority cited in the History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation shews what Limitations may be put upon those Passages in the Homilies which seem like the late King's Declaration to Scotland to require Obedience without reserve Vid. sup c. 2. Mr. Falkner as appears above had carried the Point as high as the Homilies have done and yet he admits that if those extraordinary Cases happen which as he contends ought not to be suppos'd in such Cases Subjects may resist notwithstanding Oaths for Passive Obedience without any such Exception in the words 2. Whatever Obligation may be upon the Clergy from their Assent and Consent none is given by the Laity and they may do all that is requisite to make them true Members of the Church of England without being concluded by the Opinion of Church-men about Civil Government 3. Even Clergy-men look upon the very Articles but as Articles of Peace that they may not disturb the Government by publick maintaining what is contrary to them but surely cannot think that they are oblig'd to disturb the Government for the sake of any matter meerly as it is contain'd in the Articles or Homilies 4. The Doctrinal matter contain'd in the Homily That a natural Lord is not to be resisted may be true and yet this may not in the least condemn resisting an unnatural Tyrant And the Application of their Doctrine to the Case of inviting and joyning with Lewis may have been grounded upon a false State of the fact as if King John had done nothing whereby he truely ceased to be King And that they went upon a false state of the Fact is the rather to be believed because Archbishop Parker Antiquitates Brit. f. 148. by whom we may well gather the sense of these Fathers tho' he admits King John to have been an ill Man and to have joyn'd with the King of France against his Natural Lord and King R. 1. yet will have it that he was justifiable in his Actions against his Rebellious Subjects and excuses his very Abdication in resigning his Crown to the Pope as an act of mere necessity being compell'd to it by the Artifice and Turbulency of the Clergy Ib. f. 131. Eodem annno Alexander Papa Turonense Concilium celebravit cui Arch. Prelati Angliae Regis permissione licentiâ interfuerunt ac à dexâ—ris Papae Thomas cum suis suffraganeis a sinistris verò Ebor. Arch. cum solo Dunelm Episcopo sederunt ibi Capto de Ecclesiasticâ quadam super regiam libertate pertinaciter retinendâ concilio A Papâ ocyus dimissi in Angliam reversi sunt Post hoc Turonense concilium cum omnibus pene in rebus Clerus se a populo disjunxisset cepit in Angliâ de Regni atque sacerdotii authoritate atque vi multo varioque sermone disceptari factaque perturbatio gravis de prerogativâ atque privilegiis ordinis Clericalis which he observes to have carried on a separate Interest divided from the Nation ever since the Council of Tours in the year 1163. But Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury in King John's time is to be presum'd better acquainted with the Justice of the Arms on either side than Archbishop Parker or the Composers of the Homilies upon that King 's gathering Forces against his Barons the Archbishop tells him that he would break the Oath that he took at his Absolution si absque judicio Curiae suae contra quempiam bella moveret Mat. Par. f. 137. if he wag'd War against any body without the judgment of his Court referring it seems to that part of his Oath wherein he Swore That He would judge all his Men according to the just judgment of his Court Nay farther yet Mat. Par. f. 268. King John had brought over Forces against his Barons from Poictou Gascony and Flanders before they had recourse to any Foreigners 5. The Case of Swearing Allegiance to Lewis cannot be brought as a parallel to Swearing Allegiance to our present King and Queen because Lewis was never receiv'd by the whole Collective or Representative Body of the Nation the last of which has receiv'd and declar'd for King William and Queen Mary upon a solemn Judgment given by them the proper Judges of the Fact That the late King had broken the Original Contract and thereby ceased to be King CHAP. VI. The Barons Wars in the time of H. 3. particularly considered H. 3. Crown'd by a Faction Had no right but from Election as his Father had That no right could descend to him from his Father Lewis while here as much King as H. 3. Three express Contracts enter'd into by H. 3. besides the Confirmations of the Great Charter Those applied to the consideration of the Wars Three of them under such as seem like the Roman Tribunes of the People Dr. Falkner's Objection against those Wars answer'd The Answer confirm'd by a full instance in the time of E. 1.
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
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
Salus Populi the preservation of Three Kingdoms is concern'd and in danger If then an Alteration of the Course of Descent in case of Necessity is so far from a Change of the Constitution that 't is by vertue of the Chief Fundamental Law the Salus Populi I hope it will be allowed That the Representatives of the People have upon the Vacancy of the Throne from a former Possessor which he yields to have been in the Case in question a right to judge wherein their own Safety lies Otherwise they have a Law of which they can have no benefit And since our Representatives have made so wise a determination they that do not submit to it may well be lookt upon as Persons who abdicate themselves from the benefit of this Government Nay further the Doctor confesses that for his part he knows no Law against the possibility either of a Vacancy in the Throne or an Interregnum in extraordinary Cases such as himself yields ours was But the remaining Question is Whether the Convention shewed that they meant such a Vacancy as caus'd an Interregnum Their Words as he observes are these P. 38 King James the second having Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby vacant So far he is in the right That the Convention went upon the Supposition of a Vacancy but their supposition did not make one neither did it make an Abdication But 't is evident that the supposition of the Vacancy as Consequent upon the Abdication was the Ground of setling the Government as it is and that they look'd upon the Vacancy as more than a freedom from the last Possessor appears by their preferring His Majesty in the Settlement Which preference had been justifiable even according to what the Doctor receives tho this King had not been of the Blood-Royal But for a farther Evidence The Stat. 1 W. M. for reviving of Actions and Process lately depending in the Courts of Westminster and Discontinued by the not holding of Hillary Term and for supplying other defects relating to proceedings at Law Consid touching the Oath in the Title page that the Throne was absolutely Vacant in the eye of the Law and so judg'd and declar'd to all Men by the Convention and Their Majesties concurring in a Parliamentary Act The Doctor may please to consider the Statute for Supplying defects relating to proceedings at Law Which provides that for Crimes committed between the 11 th of December and the 13 th of February following Informations or Indictments shall have only the year of our Lord God instead of the year of the King's Reign And where Conclusions used to be contra pacem Domini Regis they shall conclude contra pacem Regni Let not Divines therefore go to argue us out of our Government but let them submit to that Rule which Dr. Whitby cites Optima regula quâ nulla est verior aut firmior in jure neminem oportet esse sapientiorem Legibus Object 2 'T is urged That the Hereditary Right contended for has not been interrupted by the Peoples Elections so often as it should seem by the Breaches in the Succession for that many who came in before them who stood next were Testamentary Heirs of the appointment of the Predecessor Which argues an Inheritance in him that Disposes And Dr. Brady thinks he produces an Example Brady's Hist of the Succession f. 8 9. where the Election of the People was bound and limited by the nomination of the Predecessor But if he had duely weighed the Presidents of this kind he might have understood That an Election without a Nomination had full effect while a bare Nomination had none And he might have learnt from Grotius That among the Germans from whom we descend Kingdoms did not use to pass by Wills and that Wills were but Recommendations to the Peoples Choice but not Dispositions Mezray in the Life of Clotair 2. And that thus it was in France appears by their Historian Mezray who shews That anciently the King 's of France were chosen out of the Royal Race But that Three Conditions were ordinarily requir'd 1. Birth for they were to be Legitimate 2. The Will of the Father 3. The Consent of the Great Men which commonly used to follow the other two Object 3 I find it urged That as anciently as the time of E. 3. the Realm declared Vid. Debates about Deposing That they would not consent to any thing in Parliament to the Disherison of the King and his Heirs or the Crown whereunto they were Sworn Answ If any colour of evidence can be produced that the Subjects of England so early as that Swore Allegiance to the King and his Heirs this were to the purpose Knighton f. 248. Indeed I find that before this 24 E. 1 a Foreign Prince the King of Scotland Feudatory to the Crown of England did Homage to the King and his Heirs but the like not being exacted of the Subjects of England till particular Acts whereby the Crown was setled it argues strongly as indeed appears from the Subject matter That the Homage paid by a Foreign Prince was due to none but the present King and his Successor to the Kingdom whoever was next of Blood And by parity of Reason the Disherison of the King and him her or them who succeeded to the Crown was all that could be referr'd to when they urged the Obligation of their Oath to the King and his Heirs or the Crown Which appears farther Leges Sancti Edwardi tit Greve Conjurati fratres ad defendendum Regnum c. honores illius omni fidelitate cum eo servare So Leges W. 1. tit De Fide obsequio erga Regem Quod Willielmo Domino suo fideles esse volunt honores illius c. defendere Bracton Lib. 2. Cap. 29. not only from the old Oath of Allegiance to which they must needs have reference whereby they are bound to defend the Rights of the Crown but even from the Matter then in question which was not of the Right of Succession but of a Flower of the Crown Bracton puts this out of Dispute when he tells us That Inheritance comes not from an Heir but an Heir from Inheritance And that Inheritance is the Succession to all the Right which the Predecessor had by any sort of Acquisition Vid. Sir P. P. As Successors are Heirs so Dr. Brady tells us Gloss f. 18. That Prepossessor one that possessed the Land before the present possessor without any relation to Blood or Kindred is Ancestor in Doomsday and in the Writ de Morte Antecessoris Sir P. P's Obligation of Oaths f. 302. F. 298. F. 300. With Bracton agrees the Civil Law Haeredis significatione omnes significari successores credendum est etsi verbis non sint expressi By Heirs we are to believe all Successors to be signified altho' not expressed in words And again Nihil est aliud haereditas quam Successio in universum jus
to keep Men in obedience to him who has the Power of punishing the disobedient Wherefore the meaning may be That no Man who departs from his Duty of Allegiance to the present King shall save himself by pleading that he had been in Arms or had done him any signal Service In short this was to be no Corban to Answer for any following departure from Duty But as the body of the Act provides only for the Indemnity of them who pay due Allegiance to the King de facto this Proviso may be particularly for the Kings own Security in affirmance of the Common Law which makes all Resisting the Possessors of Crowns Treason in single persons And the sense may run thus Provided that whoever declines from Allegiance to the King in possession to help another to the Crown shall not if the first happen to be Restor'd plead that the other became King de facto However this does not in the least diminish the Obligation of Allegiance to the King who shall obtain possession by the Ousting another And I suppose by this time 't is pretty evident That both the Body of the Act and the Proviso relate only to a King de facto and endeavour to free the Nation from nice speculations about the Right to the Crown For confirmation of what I have shewn to prove that the English Monarchy has been Elective within the Royal Family it may not be improper to observe how it has been anciently in Germany and France See this distinction in Nauclerus Aimonius lib. 1. c. 4. Les Soupirs de la France esclave Mem. 6. p. 83. P. 84. or France Germanick from whence we came and France Gallick branch'd out from the Ancient Germans Aimonius says ' That the Francs chose a King and plac'd him upon the Throne in imitation of other Nations which the Author of the Sighs of France inslav'd renders the other Nations of the Gauls and Germans And that Author puts it by way of question implying the stronger affirmation Whether it does not appear throughout the whole History that the French have preserved to themselves the Right to chuse within the Royal Family him who appeared to them the most fit to Protect Defend and Govern them well The German Conringius Esse quid hoc dicam vivis quod fama negatur Conringius de Negotiis Conventuum Imperii p. 417. being an Author already possess'd of that Credit which may spring out of the French man's grave I shall transcribe Conringius to this Point more at large Altho says he some think that our Kings anciently came to their Power by Succession others by Election yet it seems fit to say that a middle way was in use That the Children of Kings or Emperors did not succeed unless approv'd of by the States and yet were not pass'd by if they were worthy of the Empire For they who were come from the Royal Stock were believed to tread in the steps of their Ancestors and that they would not only preserve but exceed the glory of their Progenitors according to that of Aristotle Aristot Rhet. lib. 2. c. 16. They who are of Noble Birth are desirous of Praise and Glory For it is the nature of men to desire to encrease not to diminish or lose the goods which they had before But when the Royal Family was extinct then it was permitted the States to raise to the Empire whomsoever they pleased by an Election in every respect free So the Caroline Family being extinct the Kingdom of the Western Francs was conferr'd upon Henry afterwards called Auceps by a most free Election of the Francs and Saxons of which Translation of Power Regino in his Chronicles of the year 920 says thus Duke Henry is chosen King by the Consent of the Francs Almains Bavarians Thuringians and Saxons when however he had no prior Right to the Empire before the other Princes In the same manner afterwards Lothair a Saxon Conrade 2. a Suede Otho 4. a Saxon and many more obtain'd the Empire of Germany in the right of pure Election as Onuphrius witnesses ' But whether they were of the Royal Family Onuph Panvin c. 5. de Comitiis Imp. or obtaind the Kingdom ' only and merely by Election they were chosen by the States and People in full Conventions For which he instances in the Elections of Sigebert the Son of Dagobert In plenis Comitiis Charles and Charlemain chosen together upon the death of their Father Pipin Of Charles upon the death of his Brother and Lewis the Pious after him This manner of Chusing within the Royal Family he observes to have remain'd in the Empire to the time of H. 4. but that it was interrupted by Pope Gregory 7. who under shew of advancing the Liberties of Germany made way for the Papal Influence and Tyranny Having observed the mischief of absolute Elections he adds Indeed I should not wholly prefer mere Succession Election being quite taken away but I think this manner of Election to be best where great account is had of Blood and no Son worthy to succeed his Father is put by That the way of constituting Kings mixt with Hereditary Succession and free Election was very suitable to the manner of Ancient Germany appears at least from hence that afrer that meer free Election had been introduc'd by Hildebrand all things in Germany were in Commotion and Disorder CHAP. IX The Fourth Head of Positive Law A short Recapitulation of what has been prov'd An actual Discharge of Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. shewn from the Authority of the Judgment past His Vsurping a Legislative Power Leaving the Kingdom without providing for the Administration of Justice and going into France This confirmed by Rastal Lord Hobart Justinian's Digests The Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian Pufendorf de Officio hominis civis His Elementa Juris prudentiae His Treatise de Jure Gentium Grotius Pufendorf de Inter-regnis Knichen's Opus Pol. Philip Paraeus A particular consideration of what the Learned Knight Sir R. Pointz says seeming against these Authorities but shewn in truth to confirm them and to bring the Rules of the Civilians to our side That the Crown came not by Right of Descent to the next in Blood after the discharge of the Allegiance to J. 2. The Arguments for the People's having been restor'd to that Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown enforc'd from a particular Consideration of the State of the Settlement Where it is shewn how the word Heirs may be lookt on as restrain'd in the first Settlement on Heirs by Gomezius his Rule The Titles of H. 6. E. 4. H. 7. and H. 8. His several Settlements and their effects in relation to the Queens Mary and Elizabeth and J. 1. The Recognition to J. 1. not extending to his Heirs And question'd Whether the Recognition was not his best if not only Title With a modest Inference That the People of England were lately restor'd
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
the late Assembly would be conclusive to the Nation Neither Forty days Summons nor Writs nor yet Summons to a Parliament Essential And this confirmed not only by the President 12 Car. 2. but by two Presidents of the time of H. 1. The Subjects in the time of E. 1. said to have held a Parliament by themselves and of their own appointing The Objection of want of Form Answered out of the Civil-Law and its Reason applied to our Case Objections made by the Author of Elementa Politica considered The Conclusion THE Power having upon the Dissolution of the Contract between J. 2. and his former Subjects returned to the People of Legal Interests in the Government according to the Constitution there can be no doubt with unbiassed Men but this takes in them only who have Right of being in Person or by Representation in those Assemblies where is the highest Exercise of the Supream Power But there are two Extreams opposite to the late Election made by such an Assembly The First is of them who would have all things go on in the same Form as under a Monarch which was impossible and therefore the Supream-Law the Publick-Safety must needs supply the want of Form Nor can be justly controverted till the Lawfulness of the end is disprov'd For all Means necessary to such an End are allowable in Nature and by all Laws But if this should still be disputed all their Darling-Laws made by the Long-Parliament which met after that Convention Anno 1660. will fall to the ground according to the former application of the Statute above-mentioned 16 Car. 1. Vid. Sup. Nay the attempt of Repealing that Statute being in a Parliament which had been actually Dissolved before by that very Law which it went about to Repeal that Form which was usual before is in default of King and Officers supplied by another Provision for the Regular Meeting of Lords and Commons And what hinders but the people had as much Power to vary from the Common Form when there was no King and that Form could not be observ'd as when there was a King and a possibility of having that Form Here I may observe these two things 1. If as I have shewn at large the Right of Succession to the Crown was not fixed to the next in Blood neither before the reputed Conquest nor since if there have been several vacancies of the Throne and the People had right to chuse upon every such Vacancy then whatever they did in order to the choice must necessarily have been freed from the Forms which were required under a King 2. Even where the Kingdom has gone by descent there may have been a necessity for the people to take the Government upon them as if the present Possessor has turned Madman or he who stood next in the Succession were under age without any Guardian appointed in the Life-time of his Father or out of the land when his Father died which were the cases of R. 1. and of E. 1. the account of the last of which deserves particular notice The Annals of Waverly having mentioned the Death of H. 3. add Hoc anno scilicet post Festum S. Hillarii Annales Waverleiensis f. 227. factâ convocatione omnium Prel aliorum Magnatum Regni apud Westm postmortem illustris Regis H. convenerunt Arch. Ep. Com. Bar. Abbates Priores de quolibet Comitatu quatuor Milites de qualibet civitate quatuor qui omnes in presentiâ Dom. Will. scil Arch. Ebor. Rob. de mortuo Mari R. Burnet Cler. qui in loco Domini Regis Anglorum Edwardi praefuerunt Sacramentum eidem Domino Ed. tanquam terrae Principi susceperunt ubi Dominus W. de Mertone Cancellarius constitutus est ut moram trahat apud Westm tanquam in loco publico usque ad adventum Principis Et ibi provisum est quod nulli sint Justiciarii itinerantes usque ad adventum Principis sed in Banco Dominica prima Quadragesimae 4 Id. Martii consecratus fuit frater R. de Kilderlii in Arch. Cant. Item concessa est decima Ecclesiarum Religiosorum Domuum Domino Ed. ejus Germano ad supplicationem Domini Papae ut sit pro duobus Annis F. 228. In this year to wit after the Feast of St. Hillary all the Prelates and other great Men of the Kingdom being call'd together at Westminster after the Death of the Illustrious King Henry there met the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons Abbots and Priors and Four Knights from every County and Four from every City which all in the presence of William Archbishop of York Robert Mortimer and R. Burnet Clerk who presided in the stead of Edward their Lord and King of England took an Oath to the said Lord Edward as Governor of the Realm Where the Lord William of Merton is constituted Chancellor and that he should abide at Westminster as in a publick place till the Prince's coming And there it was provided that there should be no Justices itinerant before the Prince his coming but only in the Bench. The first week of the Quadragesima to wit on the Fourth of the Ides of March Father R. of Kilderly is consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Westminster of the same time says Mat. West Rege igitur Supulto sicut mos est regibus sepeliri Gilbertus Johannes Comites Gloverniae Warenniae nec non Clerus Populus ad magnum Altare Ecclesiae Westm ' celeriter properarunt Ed. primogenito Regis fidelitatem jurantes qui si viveret penitus ignorarunt Agebat enim in partibus transmarinis contra Christi adversarios bellaturus Postmodum ad novum Templum Londini Nobiliores Regni pariter convenerunt Et facto sigillo novo constituerunt fideles ministros Custodes qui Thesaurum Regis Pacem Regni fideliter custodirent The King therefore being buried in that state in which Kings us'd to be buried Gilbert and John Earls of Gloster and Waren as also the Clergy and People as soon as might be hastned to the great Altar of Westminster-Church swearing Fealty to Edward the King 's eldest Son tho they were wholly ignorant whether he were alive or no for he was in Foreign Parts fighting against the Enemies of Christ After this the Nobility of the Kingdom likewise met and a new Seal being made they constituted faithful Ministers and Keepers who might faithfully keep the King's Treasure and the Peace of the Kingdom The Annals and Matthew Westminster differ in circumstances tho they agree in substance but it would seem as if the same Convention had been adjourn'd from Westminster to the Temple and therefore its Acts might have been said to have been at either of the places It at least appears from Matthew Westminster that prior to that Solemn Convention which the Annals mention there had been a great confluence of people headed by the Earls of Glocester and Waren at that meeting 't is
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
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
Obedience to Governours p. 75. Last Ed. p. 165. who hath such a former Right to govern the Vsurper as cannot lawfully be taken away so that it cannot be just for an Vsurper to take advantage of his own unlawful Acts or create himself a Title by continuation of his own Injustice which aggravates and never extenuates his Crime and if it never can be an Act indifferent for the Vsurper himself to disobey his Lawful Soveraign much less can it be indifferent for him to command another to do that to which he hath no Right himself So that Usurpation is the unjust taking away or dispossessing another of Power and for it to be unjust it must be the Act of a Subject against a Lawful Prince wherefore none but a Rebel can usurp this Man by continuance of his Injustice can never gain a Title Yet in another place in express terms he contradicts himself Directions for Obed. p. 155. last Ed. and affirms that he may and does not so much as take in Prescription in a Man and his Heirs against the Party dispossess'd and his Heirs to strengthen it and indeed that could not well be urg'd by him because that Directions for Obedience p. 70. last Ed. p. 158. he tells us comes in by positive Humane Laws which can signify nothing against any Grants or Gifts which have their Original from God or Nature as the Power of Kings and Fathers has But let 's take his words and see whether any thing can be a more direct Contradiction Anarchy p. 275. last Ed. p. 253. Many times by the Act of an Vsurper himself or of those that set him up the true Heir of the Crown is dispossest God using the Ministery of the wicked'st Men for the removing and setting up of Kings in such Cases the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along and wait upon God's Providence who only hath right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt Subjects into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power So that he makes a Government by wrongful Election or Conquest still to be the Fatherly Government and such as the People are bound to obey for he puts the case of the Usurpers being set up by others as well as his own Act. But the poor Prince it seems has in neither Case right to the Peoples Obedience and he avows the Conclusion which he condemns upon Mr. Hobbs his grounds Preface to Obs on Hobbs his Leviathan viz. The Rights of Soveraignty may be forfeited for the Subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a Conqueror unless his former Subjection be forfeited for want of Protection But he tells us the Subject is at liberty when the true Heir is dispossest Ergo. But he has a very fine Notion to evade the Consequence of Forfeiture and yet justify the Peoples Obedience to the Usurper Direct for Obed. to Government p. 72. If a Superiour cannot protect it is his part to desire to be able to do it which he cannot do in the future if in the present they be destroyed for want of Government therefore it is to be presum'd that the Superiour desires the preservation of them that should be subject to him and so likewise it may be presum'd that the Vsurper in general doth the Will of his Superiour by preserving the People by Government And it is not improper to say that in obeying an Vsurper we may obey primarily the true Superiour so long as our Obedience aims at the Preservation of those in subjection and not at the Destruction of the true Governour With this pious Intention and mental Reservation we may it seems obey an Usurper though the Prince have not forfeited his Right And yet he says The Subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a Conquerour unless his former Subjection be forfeited for want of Protection If by a Conquerour he means a Foreign Prince as by Usurper he means a Subject the Argument is much stronger that an Usurper ought not to be obey'd whereas he says he ought which cannot be unless the former Subjection be forfeited the first Vsurper he tells us has the best Title being in possession by the permission of God But if he be dispossest the second or last has a better than what continues with the first or his Heirs if the People are adopted into another fatherly Power Yet according to this substratum there can be no Title but what comes in a more natural way from Fatherhood Pref. to Observ on Arist for Adam being commanded to multiply and people the Earth and to subdue it and having dominion given him over all Creatures was thereby Monarch of the whole World none of his Posterity had any right to possess any thing but by his Grant or Permission or by Succession from him The Earth saith the Psalmist hath he given to the Children of Men. Which shews most plainly to one of sublimated reason that the Title comes from Fatherhood For it could not have been given to the Children diffusively unless they had a Father for if there had been no Father there could be no Child I must confess I know no Man who has a better faculty of arguing against himself I thought he was for the Absolute Power of every King within his own Dominion that is his drift if he be steady to any Design but Confusion yet he directly opposes it and is only for one King over all and therefore he says When we find Patriarcha p. 17. that in the time of Abraham which was about 300 Years after the Flood in a little Corner of Asia five Kings at once met in Battel most of which were but Kings of Cities a-piece c. We must conclude that these were but some petty Lords under One great King For since Nature hath not distinguish'd the habitable World into Kingdoms Anarchy p. 268 nor determin'd what part of a People shall belong to one Kingdom and what to another it follows that the Original Freedom of Mankind being suppos'd every Man is at liberty to be of what Kingdom he pleases and so every petty Company hath a right to make a Kingdom by it self and not only every City but every Village and every Family nay and every particular Man a liberty to chuse himself to be his own King if he please and he were a Mad-man that being by Nature free would chuse any Man but himself to be his own Governour Thus to avoid the having but of one King of the whole World we shall run into a liberty of having as many Kings as there are Men in the World His Argument if he makes any is this If Mankind were free by Nature there would be as many Kings as there are Men in the World but they are not free Therefore there is but One King of the whole World nor can it ever be otherwise Anarchy p. 266 For the Monarchical Power of Adam the Father of all Flesh was
Mr. Lawson's Opinion Bp Bilson's whose Authority is confirm'd by the Objection made to it in the History of Passive Obedience To which is added the Divine Plato FOR the Equity and reserv'd Cases I think it appears in the nature of the thing that they for whose benefit the Reservation is must be the Judges as in all Cases of Necessity he who is warranted by the Necessity must judg for himself before he acts tho whether he acts according to that Warrant or no may be referr'd to an higher Examen But where the last Resort is there must be the Judgment which of necessary Consequence in these Cases must needs be in the People the Question being of the Exercise of their Original Power and where they have by a general Concurrence past the final Sentence in this case their Voice is as the Voice of God and ought to be submitted to The late Earl of Clarendon Survey of the Leviathan p. 86. speaking even of a Contract wherein the absolute Power of a Man's Life is supposed to be submitted says He was not bound by the Command of his Soveraign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable Offices but in such cases Men are not to resort so much to the Words of the Submission as to the Intention which Distinction he will have applicable to all that monstrous Power which Mr. Hobbs gives his Governour to take away the Lives and Estates of his Subjects without any Cause or Reason upon an imaginary Contract which if never so real can never be supposed to be with the Intention of the Contractors in such Cases * Cocceius de Principe p. 197. Leges fundamentales Regni vel Imperii quae vel disertè pactae sunt cum Principe antequam imperium ineat c. Cocceius holds the fundamental Laws of any Kingdom or Empire to be not only those for which there has been an express Contract with a Prince before or upon his assuming the Government but such also as seem tacitè inesse rei publicae to be implied as belonging to every Community or Civil Society For the direction of Mens Judgments in such Cases they need not consult voluminous Authors but may receive sufficient Light from those excellent Papers The Enquiry into the present State of Affairs The Grounds and Measures of Submission and The brief Justification of the Prince of Orange ' s Descent into England and of the Kingdom 's late Recourse to Arms. Which I shall here only confirm by some Authorities The first as being of most Credit among them who raise the greatest Dust Sanderson de Juramenti obligatione p. 41. shall be Bishop Sanderson Of the Obligation of an Oath who shews several Exceptions or Conditions which of Common Right are to be understood before an Oath can oblige in which I shall not confine my self to the Order in which he places them 1. If God permit because all things are subject to the Divine Providence and Will Nor is it in any Man's Power to provide against future Accidents Wherefore he who did what lay in him to perform what he promis'd has discharg'd his Oath 2. Things remaining as they now are Whence he who swore to marry any Woman is not oblig'd if he discovers that she is with Child by another These two Exceptions sufficiently warrant Submission to such Government as God in his Providence shall permit notwithstanding Oaths to a former King And if he cease to treat his People as Subjects the Obligation which was to a Legal King determines before his actual withdrawing from the Government 3. As far as we may as if one swear indefinitely to observe all the Statutes and Customs of any Community he is not oblig'd to observe them farther than they are lawful and honest 4. Saving the Power of a Superior Whence if a Son in his Father's Family swear to do a thing lawful in it self but the Father not knowing it commands another thing which hinders the doing that which is sworn he is not bound by his Oath because by the Divine Natural Law he is bound to obey his Father And he who has sworn not to go out of his House being cited to appear before a lawful Judg is bound to go out notwithstanding his Oath the Reason is because the Act of one ought not to prejudice the Right of another These two last Instances added to the Consideration of a Legal King Vid. Stat. 13. car 2. c. 1. will qualify the Oath 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 or aginst those that are commissioned by him This I think I may say with warrant from Bishop Sanderson That no Man is bound by this Oath to act against Law Vid. infra p. under colour of the King's Commission Vid. Grounds and Measures of Submission Salus Populi suprema Lex nor to permit such Actions if it be in his Power to hinder them the common Fundamental Law being in this Case the Superior which he is to obey and which is to explain and limit the Sense of Acts of Parliament seeming to the contrary To Bishop Sanderson I may add Grotius Vid. Johannis à Felde Annotata ad Grot. c. 3 4. who runs the Prerogative of Kings as far as any Man in reason can Yet he allows of reserved Cases in which Allegiance may be withdrawn tho there is no express Letter of Law for it As 1. Where the People being yet free Grot. de jure Belli Pacis c. 3. p. 60. Vid. Pufendorf Elementa Juris prud p. 256. Nemo alteri potest quid efficaciter injungere per modum praecepti in quem nihil potestatis legitimae habet Grot. c. 4. p. 86. habet pro derelicto command their future King by way of continuing Precept Whether there be any such with us can be no doubt to them who read the Coronation Oaths from time to time required and taken upon Elections of some Kings and the receiving others by reason of prior Elections and Stipulations with their Predecessors 2. If a King has abdicated or abandon'd his Authority or manifestly holds it as derelict indeed he says he is not to be thought to have done this who only manages his Affairs negligently But surely no Man can think but the Power of J. 2. is direlict And he cites three Cases wherein even Barclay the most zealous Asserter of Kingly Power allows Reservations to the People 1. If the King treats his People with outragious Cruelty 2. If with an hostile Mind he seek the Destruction of his People 3. If he alien his Kingdom This Grotius denies to have any effect and therefore will not admit among the reserved Cases Vid. Mat. Par. Addit f. 281. The King of France his Attorny General speaking of King John 's resigning his Crown to the Pope Etsi dare non potuit potuit tamen
dimittere But if no Act which is ineffectual in Law will justify the withdrawing Allegiance then none of the Instances will hold for to that purpose they are equally ineffectual Yet who doubts but the King doing what in him lies to alien his Kingdom gives pretence for Foreign Usurpations as King John did to the Pope's And whoever goes to restore the Authority of the See of Rome here be it only in Spirituals endeavours to put the Kingdom under another Head than what our Laws establish and to that purpose aliens the Dominion Vid. Bellarm. how the Pope hooks in Temporals in ordine ad Spiritualia Nor can it be any great Question but the aliening any Kingdom or Country part of the Dominion of England will fall under the same Consideration which will bring the Case of Ireland up to this where the Protestants had been disarm'd and the Power which was arm'd for the Protection of the English there Vid. Leges S. Edwardi put into the Hands of the Native Papists nor is it now likely to be restor'd to its Settlement at home or dependance upon England without vast Expence of Blood and Treasure Even the Author of Jovian owns Dr. Hick 's his Jovian p. 280. Ib. p. 192 193. that the King's Law is his most Authoritative Command and he denies that the Roman Emperor had any Right to enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government where the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is c. No Clergy-man of the last or foregoing Reign having treated of Civil Government with more Temper and Judgment and yet with greater Applause of the warmest Men of his own Gown Falkner 's Christian Loyalty Ed. An. 1679. than the Learned Mr. Falkner of Lyn I shall be the longer in giving an account of his Discourse of Christian Loyalty which will prove an Authority on my side beyond what could be hop'd for considering the time when his Book came out with License and a Dedication to the Archbishop of Canterbury it being when Mr. Johnson by way of Composition against a threatned Suspension was oblig'd to drink his Coffee at home lest he should inlighten his Brethren who fill'd all places of publick Resort with their Pulpit-Law and the Dictates of their Guide Sir Roger. I must own that Mr. Falkner was in some things carried away with that Tide which if any of that Cloth besides Mr. Johnson had the Courage to stemm they had at least the good fortune to be less observ'd but the shewing wherein the Author of Christian Loyalty gave too much way to the Fashion or the Noise may yield farther strength and light to that Truth which will arise out of those very Clouds with which he might think requisite to obscure it His Treatise is in two Parts in the first he vindicates and endeavours to explain the Oath of Supremacy 1. In relation to the Regal Power as it is receiv'd in our Church or at least by Church-men or as it is acknowledged by our Laws 2. As the Oath renounces all Foreign Jurisdiction the last of which falls no otherwise under Consideration here than as it shews the King's Duty to preserve his Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Supremacy and not to alienate either In the second part this Worthy Author considers the publick Declarations against Subjects taking Arms. Page 14. 1. In the first he rightly affirms That the asserting the Supremacy of Government is never design'd meaning I supppose by the Law in any wise to violate either Divine or Christian Institutions or to assert it lawful for any Prince to invade that Authority and Right which is made particular thereby whether in Matters Temporal or Spiritual Where by Christian Institutions Page 3. 't is plain that we are to understand the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws of Christian States or the Laws of others not contrary to Christianity and thus he deservedly blames them who nourish false Conceptions and mistaken Opinions concerning the CIVIL POWER beyond due Bounds exalting it so high as not to reserve that Respect which belongeth to God and Christian Institutions Page 15. and rightly observes that the Supremacy does not exclude the Subject from a real Propriety in his own Estate And that there are some Kingdoms where without any Disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince Page 11. they are govern'd by the fixed Rules of the Civil Law and others where other Laws established by their Predecessors are standing Rules Page 391. And particularly in relation to the People of this Realm he says in the second Part The English Constitution doth excellently and effectually provide against injurious Oppressions Of which more in its place 1 Canon An. 1640. However I cannot but here observe that even the Canons of 1640. which he receives as speaking the Sense of the Church of England own that the Subject has a Propriety but withal say that Tribute Custom and Aid and all manner of necessary Support and Supply are due to Kings from their Subjects by the Law of God Nature and Nations yet tho it is the Duty of Subjects to supply the King it is part of the Kingly Office to support his Subjects in the Propriety and Freedom of their Estates Still it seems subject to the King's Judgment of necessity which is right Sibthorpism and Manwarinism afterwards eccho'd to by the Courts at Westminster in the Resolution about Shipmoney and of late in that of the Dispensing Power I think in two things what Mr. Falkner writes upon the first Head lies open to Exception 1. That generally by Civil Power Page 356. he seems to mean the Person of the King and that not according to his own Definition of a King which he says doth denote the Royal Person who governs which himself owns to be according to the respective Limitations in those places where they govern many having the Title of a King Page 339. who had not such Royal Power as is allowed by our Constitution but he ascribes to a King generally speaking and particularly to ours such a Soveraignty as carries with it the absolute and arbitrary Exercise of that Civil Power whereby a Nation is govern'd Thus he asserts with St. Austin That Subjests may and ought to obey their Prince's Commands where they are certain Page 302. that what he commands is not against the Command of God And hence he attributes to the Kings of England even more Power than he allows to the Roman Christian Emperors as will soon appear And it appears that this is not only a casual dash with his Pen Page 123. for having before in one place spoken of the business of the Civil Power describ'd by St. Peter Page 131. in another he mentions the Authority with which he supposes Kings and Princes to be
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