his Uncles Death was declared Tutor and Governour without any remission or being restored and if his Cousin King James had died without Issue he had been declared the true Successour of the Crown We have a memorable Instance of this in H. 7. who when he came to the Crown called his Parliament and the Judges having determined that those Members of the House that had been outlawed by the Parliament in Richard the Third's time and been declared Rebels should absent themselves till a Bill were brought in for their restoring It was moved among the Judges what should be done about the King who had been condemned and declared Traytor c. and it was by the unanimous consent of all the Judges saith the learned (q) St. Alban's Hist H. 7. p. 29. Chancellor declared That the Crown removed all the obstructions in the Blood which might in any manner impede its descent and from that time the King took the Crown Coronam ipsam omnes sanguinis oppilationes quae descensum Coronae ullatenus impediunt deobstruere Vt Regi opera Parliamentaria non fuisset opus the fountain of his Blood was purged and all the Corruptions and Impurities taken away so that he had no need of any Parliamentary help to supply him Thirdly The Consideration of the Oaths which the Subjects are bound to take and observe gives some further Proof of the Obligation of all the Subjects to maintain this lineal Succession The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy bind the Subjects to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against altering Succession his Heirs and lawful Successors and that to their Power they shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted to the King's Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and of those Priviledges c. I think none will deny but that Hereditary Succession is one of the principal Prerogatives intended by those Oaths We are not in these only sworn to His Majesty but his Lawful Successors which word Lawful is inserted to cut off the Pretences of such as should not succeed by Law and the insolent Arbitrariness of such as being but Subjects themselves think they may chuse their King These being promissory Oaths as well to the Successors when their Right shall fall as to the present King they have every of them in their respective degrees and orders and indispensible Right confirmed to them by this Oath So that the Predecessor hath no legal right to deprive his Successor as hereafter I shall clear nor to remit the Peoples Obligation to him as lawful Heir and Successor (r) Address part 3. p. 64. much less can the two Houses do it for they are all within the Obligation of this Oath and it is unreasonable that Men should dispence with their own promissory Oaths to others for this would destroy all Faith and Confidence amongst Men and pull up the very roots of Society and Government Whereas some object out of my Lord (s) Coke on Littleton p. 8. Coke Objection That none is Heir before the death of his Ancestor but Heir apparent It is to be considered Answered that it must be the Heir presumptive or apparent that is here understood otherwise the inserting the word Heir were superfluous if by the Oaths were not intended he that is next Heir upon the Death of the King and if any Person think to evade it by affirming that if the Parliament declare any Person to be no next Heir he ceaseth to be so as also not to be lawful Successor because by such an Act he is outlawed Let such Persons consider that this is neither better nor worse than palpable Aequivocation For we swear in the common Sence of the words and so by Heir we understand such as by proximity of Blood have greatest right to succeed in the Inheritance It may be farther considered that the Lord Chancellor Treasurer and Judges (t) See 18 E. 3. all the great Officers of State the Privy-Council c. are all sworn to defend the Rights of the Crown and that they shall not concurr or assent to any thing which may turn to the King in Damage or Dis-herison How then can any of these much less the Judges who are to expound and interpret the Law consent without palpable violation of their Oaths to the changing of the Essence of the Monarchy I shall now endeavour to prove Acts of Parliament cannot alter Lineal Succession that no Parliament by a compleat Act can legally alter the Succession in an Hereditary Monarchy For first all (u) Jus Reg. p. 153. Kings and Parliaments are subordinate to the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and Nations So that unless we give the Inferior Power and Jurisdiction over the Superior no Act of Parliament can be binding to overturn what those three Laws have have established and I hope I have proved under all these Heads in the preceding part of this discourse that the right of Succession is founded on them As to the Law of God it is clear not only from the general dictates of Religion but 28 H. 8. c. 7. the Parliament uses these words For no Man can dispence with God's Laws which we also affirm and think As to the Laws of Nature they are acknowledged to be immutable from the Principles of Reason So the (w) Sect. sed naturale Institut de Jure naturali Law it self confesseth Naturalia quaedam Jura quae apud omnes gentes observantur divina quadam providentia constituta semper firma atque immutabilia permanent Certain natural Laws which are observed by all Nations and such is that of Primogeniture by Divine Providence being constituted remain always firm and immutable So when the Law declares that a supreme Prince is free from the obligation of Laws solutus Legibus yet Lawyers (x) Voet. de Statutis sect 5. c. 1 Accursius in L. Princeps F. de Leg. Clementina pasturalis de re Judicata still acknowledge that this does not exclude these Supream Powers from being liable to the Laws of God Nature and Nations as is evident by all that treat of that Point Nor can the Law of Nations be overturned by private municipal Laws so all Statutes to the prejudice of Ambassadors who are secured by the Law of Nations are confessed by all to be null and the highest Power whatsoever cannot take off the denouncing of a War before a War can be lawful Besides secondly a Parliament cannot do more than (y) Jus Reg. p. 154. any absolute Monarch in his own Kingdom for they when joyned are but in place of the supreme Power sitting in Judgment We must not think our Parliaments have an unlimited Power de jure so as they may make a forfeiture or take away Life without a cause or pass Sentence against the Subjects
together with Judges and King's Council Citizens Burgesses of Parliament and Barons of the Cinque-Ports being usually summoned to the one but to the other some few Spiritual and Temporal Lords only without (x) Brief Register part 1. pag. 187. to 192. any Judges Assistants Knights Citizens Burgesses or Barons of the Cinque-Ports or some few of them only and divers who were no usual Lords or Barons of Parliament as Mr. Prynn hath made evident and the Rolls themselves in the Margin notes them by de Concilio summonito or deveniendo ad Concilium which some Antiquaries having not noted have confounded them SECT 4. Of the Judicature of the House of Lords IT is evident that the Lords in Parliament have ever been the usual Judges not only in all criminal and civil causes 6. The Lords Judicature proper for Parliaments to judg or punish and Writs of Errors but likewise in all cases of Precedencies and Controversies concerning Peers and Peerage which Power was in them as the King 's Supreme Court before there were any Knights Citizens or Burgesses summoned to our Parliaments So Hoveden (y) Annal. pars poster p. 561. ad 566. is express in the case of Sanctius King of Navar and Alphonsus King of Castile Comites Barones Regalis Curiae Angliae adjudicaverunt Anno 1177. 23 H. 2. So Fleta in Ed. the First 's time writes (z) Habet enim Rex Curiam suam in Concilio suo in Parliamentis suis praesentibus Pralatis Comitibus Baronibus Proceribus aliis viris peritis ubi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum Lib. 2. c. 2. p. 66. thus The King hath his Court in his Council in his Parliaments there being present the Prelates Earls Barons Nobles and other skillful Men viz. the Judges Assistants where are ended the doubts of Judgments This Particular of the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords is so fully in every Branch of it proved by Mr. Prynn in his Plea for the Lords House that it were an Injury to the inquisitive Reader not to referr him to that Treatise for full Satisfaction therefore I shall only pick out a very few out of a Manuscript I have of the Priviledges belonging to the Baronage of England and Mr. Prynn In the fourth of King (a) Roâ— Parl. 4 E. 3. m. 7. num 3. Judgment of Lords on John Mautravers Edward the Third the Peers Earls and Barons assembled at Westminster saith the Record have strictly examined and thereupon assented and agreed that John Mautravers is guilty of the death of Esmon Earl of Kent Uncle of our Lord the King that now is wherefore the said Peers of the Land and Judges of Parliament judged and awarded that he the said John should be drawn hanged and beheaded In the first of R. 2. John Lord of (b) Rot. Par. 1 R. 2. m. 6. num 38 39. Gomenys and William de Weston were brought before the Lords sitting in the white Chamber On John Lord of Gâ—menys and William Weston for delivering up Forts to the Enemy and were severally charged at the Commandment of the Lords by Sir Richard Scroop Knight Steward of the Kings House William Weston being accused for rendring the Castle of Outhrewike and John Lord of Gomenys for rendring the Castle of Ards. They both made plausible defences and Sir Rich. Scroop Steward tells William that the Lords sitting in full Parliament do adjudge him to death But because our Lord the King is not yet informed of the manner of this Judgment the execution thereof shall be respited till the King be informed thereof and the like Sentence he passed upon John Lord of Gomenies only adding that he being a Gentleman and Banneret should be beheaded There are many more Examples of Judgments given in Capital matters upon Bergo de Bayons 4 E. 3. m. 7. num 4. Thomas de Gurny eadem membrana num 5. and others and for Offences not Capital of Richard Lions 59 E. 3. m. 7. William le Latymer 42 E. 3. m. 2. William Ellis ibid num 31 John Chichester and Botesha 1 R. 2. num 32. Alice Piers Ibid. num 41. Mr. Antiquity of Judgment by Peeâ—s Prynn (c) Plea for Lords p. 203. Hist lib. 4. shews this Jurisdiction out of Historians even from Cassibellan out of Geoffrey of Monmouth Also Anno 924. of Elfred a Nobleman who opposed King Aethelstan's Title and had his Lands adjudged by the Peers forfeit to him the Words of the King are Et eas accepi (d) Malmsb. de Gest is Reg. lib. 2. c. 6. p. 62. Spelman Conc. Tom. 1. p. 407 408. Anno 1043. quemadmodum judicaverunt omnes â—ptimates Regni Anglorum So Earl Godwin having murdred Prince Alfred Brother to King Edward the Confessor being fled into Denmark and hearing of King Edward's Piety and Mercy returned and came to London to the King who then held a Great Council and denied the Fact and put himself upon the (e) vnde super hoc pono me in consideratione Curiae vestrae Chron. Brompton col 937 938. consideration of the Kings Court and the King speaks to the Earls and Barons thus Volo quod inter nos in illa appellatione rectum judicium decernatis debitam justiciam faciatis and after it is said Quicquid judicaverint per omnia ratificavit So in the Constitutions of (f) An. 1164. M. Paris 94. Sicut Barones caeteri debent interesse judiciis Curiae Regis cum Baronibus quousque perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem The House of Lords the King's Court of Barons Clarendon it is appointed That the Archbishop Bishops and those Clergy that held in Capite as by Barony should be Parties in the Judgments of the Kings Court as other Barons ought with the other Barons till it come in Judgment to the loss of Member or to Death So in the Case of Tho. Becket Archbishop of Canterbury Anno 1165. 11 H. 2. we find in Hoveden parte post p. 494 495. that Barones Curiae Regis judicaverunt eum esse in misericordia Regis and afterwards when he would not yield to the Kings Will he (g) Dixit Baronibus suâ—s Cito facite mihi judicium de illo qui homo meus Ligeus est stare Juri in Curia mea recusat saith to his Barons Quickly make to me Judgment of him who is my Liege Man and refuseth to stand to the Law in my Court The Barons going out judg'd him fit to be seiz'd on and sent to Prison and the Historian saith tunc misit Rex Reginaldum Comitem Cornubiae Robertum Comitem Leicestriae ad indicandum ei judicium de illo factum Anno 1208. King (h) Anno 10 Johan Mat. Paris p. 218. John exacted Pledges of his Subjects and amongst others of William de Breause who said If he had offended the King he would be ready to answer his Lord and that without Hostages secundum judicium
Issue according to the present interests of his Affairs and Passions that such contradictory Acts could not be all true and though the Responses from Delphos or any Oracles of the Gentile ages might miss the truth as much yet by their dubious answers they forfeited not their reputations so much We may also note (l) Jus Regium p. 178 179. that by God Almighty's Providence and the care of his own Laws the Duke of Richmond was removed by death to prevent the unjust Competitors and Prince Edward was born and by the same Providence and the sence the Subjects had of the great Fundamental of Hereditary Succession contrary to some of these Acts and what Edward the Sixth did in setling the Crown upon the Lady Jane Grey proved of no force for Queen Mary succeeded though she was a Papist and Queen Elizabeth succeeded her though she was declared Bastard The rights of Blood prevailing over the Formalities of Divorce and the Dispensations of the Popes and the Laws made to gratify Henry the Eighth's pleasure as the strength of nature doth often prevail over Poisons and to evince the greater certainty of their being void so little notice was taken of those and the subsequent Acts Anno 1535. that the Heirs of the Blood succeeded without repealing that Act as an Act in it self invalid from the beginning For such Acts are past by without being repealed as we find in the Act of Recognition of Queen Elizabeth no notice was taken of the Act of Parliament against her and Blackwood (m) P. 45. observes very well that so conscious were the makers of these Acts Jus Regium p. 179. of the illegality of them and of their being contrary to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that Kings Testament wherein he did nominate a Successor conformable to the power granted by those Acts but that as soon as they were freed by his Death from the violent oppressions that had forced them to alter a Successor three several times and at last to swear implicitly to whomsoever he should nominate they proclaimed first Queen Mary and after her decease Queen Elizabeth Therefore all these Acts both of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth are to be looked upon as Politick interims to serve for some present ends And as we observe the trepidations vibrations and as we may say uneasiness of things in all that have been displaced till reseated again whereby we have a certain Indicium of any thing Natural so may we note the naturalness of Hereditary Succession by the Tragical Convulsions and unsetledness of things in any State where great force and policy have usurped the Crown till it hath returned to the right owner So we see after the force was removed by the expiration of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth things returned again into their pristin State according to the Laws of the Crown I shall now pass to consider other Reasons and First it may be observed Fundamentals in Government not to be altered That the Venerable Age of such Fundamental Laws should have another kind of respect pay'd to them than to be made obsolete because they will not sort with some new-fashioned Intrigue For it is a most true Maxime Non magis aliunde floret respublica quam si legum vigeat Authoritas So in the first Parliament (n) Cap. 2. of King James the First it is fully expressed That to alter and innovate the Fundamental ad Ancient Laws See Commission for Union 16â—4 Priviledges and good Customs of the Kingdom whereby not only the Kings Regal Authority but the Peoples securities of Lands Livings and Priviledges both in general and particular are preserved and maintained and by the abolishing or alteration of the which it is impossible but that present confusion will fall upon the whole State and frame of Government is of most dangerous consequence whence we may well infer That to endeavour to alter the right of Succession of the Crown in the direct line is one of the most dangerous Innovations of all others as drawing innumerable mischiefs after it Now there can be no greater fundamental right than the Succession of our Monarch The Hereditary Succession is a Fundamental That our Monarchy is Hereditary is the great Basis upon which most of all the positions of the Laws are established which every where we meet with in the Writings of Lawyers viz. That the King never dies the next Successour in Blood is legally King from the very moment in which the last King dies that there needs neither Coronation or Recognition of the People to intitle him to the exercise of his Regal Authority that his Commissions are valid all Men are liable to do him Homage and hold their rights of him and his Heirs he may call Parliaments dispose of the Lands belonging to the Crown and all that oppose him are Rebells Generally this Principle runs through all the Veins of our Laws it is that which gives Life and Authority to our Statutes but receives none from them which are undeniable marks and Characters of a Fundamental Right in all Nations Secondly Such further provision hath the Law made to secure the Succession in the direct line that if the right Heir of the Blood or the Father or Mother of the right Heir be attainted of High Treason by Parliament the Attainder is no obstruction to the descent If he who were to succeed had committed Murther or were declared Traytor formerly to the Crown for open Rebellion against the King and Kingdom yet upon his coming to the Crown he need not to be restored by Act of Parliament but his very right of Blood would purge all these Imperfections For tanta est Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminare patiatur saith a (o) Craig learned Lawyer and the Reasons given are For that no Man can be a Rebel against himself nor can the King have a Superior and consequently there can be none whom he can (p) Jus Reg. p. 169. offend and it would be absurd that he who can restore all other Men should need to be restored himself Also the Punishments of Crimes such as Confiscations c. are to be inflicted by the Kings Authority or to fall to the Kings Treasury and it would be most absurd that a Man should exact from himself a Punishment So Richard Plantaginet Duke of York and Edward the Fourth his Son were both attainted yet Edward the Fourth was rightful King and no impediment in the Succession accrued by it So Charles the Seventh of France though banished by Sentence of Parliament did afterwards succeed to the Crown and though Lewis the Twelfth forfeited for taking up Arms against Charles the Eighth yet he succeeded and Alexander Duke of Albany and his Descendants being declared Traytors by his Brother King James the Fourth yet his Son John being called home upon
Entries fol. 446 447. Trin. 1 Eliz. not in the Commons House as the Statutes and Precedents in the Law-Books resolve So that he saith how the Commons are now become sole Judges of all false Returns and Elections and that perlegem consuetudinem Parliamenti against all these Acts and Precedents let Sir Edward Coke and others resolve him and the Intelligent when they are able for late and arbitrary Priviledges are of no value but ancient usage and Law of our Parliaments and solid Reason which cannot be produced to justify these late Innovations and Extravagances The Statute of 8 H. 6. Rot. Parl. 8 H. 6. num 391. Petitions from the Commons to the King and Lords about Elections to prevent Tumults Uproars and Disorders in the Elections is grounded upon a Petition from the Commons that the King by advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal would seclude all but Freeholders of forty Shillings a Year Lands above all Reprizals which was more than forty Pound a Year now being the twentieth part of a Knights Fee In 18 H. 6. Rot. Parl. 18 H. 6. m. 13. num 18. it was shewed to the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal That Gilbert Hore Sheriff of the County of Cambridge made no Return of Knights upon the King 's Writ Whereupon the King by Advice and Assent of the Lord Spiritual and Temporal ordered a new Writ So that then there were no other but the King that had the Power to cause new Elections with Advice and Consent of the Lords and so the King issued out new Writs Anno 29 H. 6. Nicholas Stynecle Knight Richard Bevel c. and other notable Esquires Gentlemen and other Men holding Fees who may expend 40 s. per Annum beyond Reprizes chose Robert Stonham and John Stynecle notable Esquires To this is annexed a Petition to the King our Gracious and Sovereign Lord Petition of Subjects to the King about Elections signed by 140 Gentlemen and Freeholders in behalf of those against one Henry Gimber who was not of Gentile Birth chosen by the number of 70. and the Under-Sheriff countenanced him and his Party and would not suffer these 140 to be examined about their Estates and give Voice thoue he might clearly yarely expend 20 Mark without that we should have offended the Peace of Yow our most doutye Soveraign Lord and so we departed for dread of the said Inconveniences that was likely to be done of Manslaughter and what the Sheriff will return in this behalf we can have no notice For which Causes we your true humble Suggets and Liegemen in our most lowly Wise beseeching you our most douty Sovereign Lord and King these Premisses may be considered for Your most Aid and our Freedom that the said Sheriff may be by Your great Highness streightly charged to return the said Robert Stoneham c. Thus far the Petition From this memorable Petition Mr. Prynne makes many observations the principal of which are that the King himself was to redress and rectify all false and undue Returns Secondly That this is the only clear Declaration and Record he hath met with complaining against a Sheriff giving of an Oath A Sheriffs denying the Poll petitioned against and Poll to some Freeholders and denying it to others Thirdly That when legal Electors cannot be sworn or polled without breach of the Peace or Manslaughter they may justly depart and ought to make such a complaint and declaration under their hands and Seals Fourthly That Ignoble persons who are not of Gentile birth ought not to be elected Knights of Shires Whoever desires to peruse more concerning the ancient usage in Elections may peruse Mr. Prynne's Plea for the Lords from page 371. to 416. his Second Part of Brief Register p. 118 119 139 140. and several other places I shall only add what Queen Eliz. Freeholders Grand Inquest p. 60. D' Ewes's Journal fol. 393. 18 Regni said in this case That she was sorry the Commons medled with chusing and returning Knights of the Shire for Norfolk it is to be presumed the like she might have said of any other County if there had been occasion a thing impertinent for the House to deal with and only belonging to the Office and Charge of the Lord Chancellor from whom the Writs issue and are returned Having thus given a brief account of the ancient Usage I come to the modern way which according to Mr. Hackwell Memorials c. 6. p. 20. The modern Use of Regulating Elections is that a general order hath usually been made in the beginning of the Session to Authorize the Speaker to give Warrant for new Writs in case of Death of any Member or of double Returns where the Party makes his choice openly in the House during that Session as it was ordered in the beginning of the Parliament 18 and 21 Jacobi primi and where such general Order is not made Writs have issued by Warrant of the Speaker by Vertue of special Order upon motion in the House and this Warrant is to be directed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery by order of Parliament 13 Nov. 1601. The Committee of Privileges 24 March 21 Jacobi making their Report a question was put Whether Sir Thomas Holland and Sir John Corbet were well elected Knights for Norfolk the House were divided and it was over-ruled by the House that the No's should go forth So that now the House of Commons are the sole Judges of the validity or invalidity of Elections and I suppose the King and Lords judging the House the competentest Persons to make enquiry and being willing to be eased of the trouble of such Matters as relate only to the Members of the House of Commons have rather by connivence than by any positive Ordinance in the House of Lords dismissed this to the House of Commons against which Mr. Prynne sadly complains Plea for the Lords p. 413. saying That since the Committees of Privileges have interposed in them their Proceedings have been very irregular and illegal in respect all the Witnesses they examine touching them are unsworn and give their Testimonies without Oath upon which they ground their Vote and for the most part very partially for which cause it is usually stiled the Committee of Affection In 35 Eliz. Sir Simon D' Ewes's Journal p. 494. In Queen Elizabeth's time Application made to the Chancellor or L. Keeper Sir Edward Coke being then Speaker he was ordered to attend the Lord Keeper to move his Lordship to direct a new Writ for chusing a Burgess for Southwark instead of Richard Hutton supposed to be unduly elected and another for allowing Sir George Carew who was duly elected but not returned to be Burgess of Gamelsford in Cornwal and a third for changing the name of John Dudley returned Burgess for New Town in the County of Southampton into the name of Thomas Dudley the Christened Name being mistaken But the L. Keeper would