unsufferable there is no good Christian that can say that a King can be depos'd for using ill Counsellors And as to Richard the III. his case is so fully examined and all the Articles brought both against him and Edward the II. so fully answered by the learn'd Arnisaeus a Protestant Lawyer and who had no other interest in that debate than a love to Truth and Law in that treatise Quod nullâ ex causâ subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere that we Protestants should be asham'd to bring again to the field such instances upon which Arnisaeus in answer to the 14. Article against Richard the II viz. that he refus'd to allow the Lawes made in Parliament does very well remark that this was in effect to consent to their being King and to transferre upon them the Royal power and this will be the event of all such undertakings The instances of Henry the IV. and Henry the VII are of no more weight than the other two since these were likewayes only Kings de facto till King Henry the VII by his marriage with the Lady Elizabeth eldest Daughter to King Edward the IV. did by her transmit a just title to his Successor therefore it was not strange that either of these should allow the Parliament to interpose when they behov'd to owe to them the possession of the Throne But yet Henry the VII himself as the Lord Bacon relates in his Historie shunn'd to have the Parliament declare his title to be just being content with these ambiguous words viz. that the inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. And upon this accompt it was that the same King caus'd make a Law that such as should serve the King for the time being in his warrs could not be attainted or impeach'd in their persons or Estates As to Henry the VIII his procuring an Act whereby the Parliament declares that in case he had no issue by the Lady Jean Seymour he might dispose of the Crown to whatsoever person he should in his own discretion think fit It is answered that by a former Statute in the 25 year of his Reigne he by Act of Parliament setles the Crown upon the Heirs male of his own body and for lack of such issue to Lady Elizabeth and for lack of such issue also to the next Heirs of the King who should for ever succeed according to the right of Succession of the Crown of England which shewes that the Succession to the Crown of England is establish't by the Law of Nature and the Fundamental Laws of England upon the Heirs of Blood according to the proximity of degrees so that though that King did afterwards prevaile with the Parliament to declare this Elizabeth a Bastard as he did also his Daughter Mary by another Act and resolve to setle the Crown upon Henry Fitz Roy Duke of Richmond yet these Acts teach us how dangerous it is to leave Parliaments to the impression of Kings in the case of naming a Successor as it is to expose Kings to the arbitrariness of Parliaments But such care had God of his own Laws that Mary succeeded notwithstanding She was Papist and Elizabeth succeeded her though she was declar'd Bastard the Rights of Blood prevailing over the formalities of divorce and the dispensations of Popes as the strength of Nature does often prevaile over poisons And God remov'd the Duke of Richmond by death to prevent the unjust competition and so little notice was taken of this and the subsequent Act Anno 1535 that the Heirs of Blood succeeded without repealing of that Act as ane Act in it self invalide from the beginning for only such Acts are past by without being repeal'd And Blackwood pag. 45. observes very well that so conscious were the Makers of these Acts of the illegality thereof and of their being contrarie to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that Kings Testament wherein he did nominat a Successor conform to the power granted by these Acts that how soon 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 whomever he should nominat a preparative which this age would not well bear though they cite it they proclamed first Queen Mary their Queen though a Papist and thereafter Queen Elizabeth whom themselves had formerly declared a Bastard And as in all these Acts there is nothing declaring the Parliaments to have power to name a Successor but only giving a power to the King for preventing mischiefs that might arise upon the dubiousness of the Succession to nominat a Successor two of the legal Successors having been declar'd Bastards upon some niceties not of nature but of the Popes Bulls for divorcing their Mothers so this instance can only prove that the King may nominat a Successor and that the Parliament may consent not to quarrell it which is all that they do but does not at all prove that where the Right of Nature is clear the Parliament may invert the same And strangers who considered more the dictats of Law than of Passion did in that age conclude that no Statute could be valide when made contrare to the fundamental Law of the Kingdom Arnisaeus Cap. 7. Num. 11. Henricus VIII Angliae Rex Eduardum filium primò deinde Mariam denique Elizabetham suos haeredes fecerat verùm non aliter ea omnia valent quà m sicum jure Regni conveniant Vid. Curt. Tract Feud Par. 4. Num. 129. There seems greater difficulty to arise from the 13 Elizabeth c. 2. by which it is enacted that if any persone shall affirme that the Parliament of England has not full power to bind and Governe the Crown in point of Succession and descent that such a persone during the Queens life shall be guilty of high treason But to this Act it is answered that this Act does not debarre the next legal and natural Successor And these words That the Parliament has power to bind and Govern the Succession must be as all other general expressions in Statutes interpreted and restricted by other uncontraverted Laws and so the sense must be that the Parliament are Judge where there are differences betwixt Competitors in nice and contravertable points which cannot be otherwise decided and both this and the former Acts made in Henry the VI. time are not general Laws but temporarie Acts and personal Priviledges and so cannot overturn the known current of Law Quod verò contrà rationem juris receptum est non est producendum ad consequentias And in all these instances it is remarkable that the restriction was made upon the desire of the Soveraigne and not of the Subject And if we look upon this Act as made to secure against Mary Queen of Scotland and to let her know that it was to no purpose for her to designe any
thing against the Right or Person of Queen Elizabeth as being declar'd a Bastard by Act of Parliament in England since her other right as next undoubted Heir by Blood to the Crown might be altered or Govern'd we must acknowledge it to be only one of these Statutes which the Law sayes are made ad terrorem ex terrore only Nor was there ever use made of it by Queen Elizabeth nor her Parliaments so fully were they convinc'd that this pretended power was so unjust as that it could not be justified by an Act of Parliament being contrair to the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and of the Fundamental Laws of both Kingdoms But this Law being made to exclude Queen Mary and the Scotish line as is clear by that clause wherein it is declared that every Person or Persones of what degree or Nation soever they be shall during the Queens life declare or publish that they have Right to the Crown of England during the Queens life shall be disinabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession inheritance or otherwayes after the Queens death It therefore followes that it was never valide For if it had King Iames might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeeded next to the Scotish race For it 's undeniable that Queen Marie did during Queen Elizabeths life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard And therefore the calling in of King Iames after this Act and the acknowledging his title does clearly evince that the Parliament of England knew that they had no power to make any such Act. The words of which acknowledgement of King James's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the statute it self 1. Ja. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King James by inherent Birthright as being lineally justly and Lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal. And to this recognition they do submit themselves and posterities for ever untill the last drop of their Blood be spilt And further doth beseech his Majesty to accept of the same recognition as the first Fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to his Majesty and to his Royal progeny and posterity for ever It may be also objected that by the 8 Act. Parl. 1. Ja. 6. It is provided in Scotland that all Kings and Princes that shall happen to reigne and bear Rule over that Kingdom shall at the time of their Coronation make their faithfull promise by Oath in presence of eternal God that they shall mantaine the true Religion of Iesus Christ the preaching of the Holy Word and due and Right Administration of the Sacraments now received and preach'd within this Kingdom from which two conclusions may be inferr'd 1. That by that Act the Successor to the Crown may be restricted 2. That the Successor to the Crown must be a Protestant that being the Religion which was Professed and established the time of this Act. To which it is answered that this Act relates only to the Crowning of the King and not to the Succession Nor is a coronation absolutly necessar Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quà m ad necessitatem Nec ideo Rex est quia coronatur sed coronatur quia Rex est Oldard consil 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de coronat pag 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crown'd in Scripture except Ioas. And Clovis King of France was the first who was Crown'd in Europe Nor are any Kings of Spaine Crown'd till this day Neither is ane Coronation Oath requisit Sisenandus being the first who in the 4. Tolletan Councel gave such an Oath amongst the Christians as Trajan was the first amongst the heathen Emperours And we having had no Coronation Oath till the Reigne of King Gregorie which was in Anno 879 he having found the Kingdom free from all Restrictions could not have limited his Successor or at least could not have debarr'd him by an Oath Nullam enim poterat legem dictare posteris cum par in parem non habeat imperium as our Blackwood observes pag. 13. 2. There is no clause irritant in this Act debarring the Successor or declaring the Succession null in case his Successor gave not this Oath 3. The Lawfull Successor though he were of a different Religion from his People as God forbid he should be may easily swear that he shall mantaine the Laws presently standing And any Parliament may legally secure the Successor from overturning their Religion or Laws though they cannot debarre him And though the Successor did not swear to mantaine the Laws Yet are they in litle danger by his Succession since all Acts of Parliament stand in force till they be repeal'd by subsequent Parliaments And the King cannot repeale an Act without the consent of Parliament But to put this beyond all debate the 2. Act of this current Parliament is opponed whereby it is declared that the Right and administration of the Government is immediatly devolv'd upon the nixt Lawfull Heir after the death of the King or Queen and that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament can stop or hinder them in the free and actual administration which is an abrogation of the foresaid Act concerning the Coronation as to this point for how can the administration be devolv'd immediatly upon the Successor if he cannot administrat till he be Crown'd and have sworn this Oath The next objection is that since the King and Parl. may by Act of Parl. alter the Successions of privat families though transmitted by the Right of blood why may they not alter the Succession in the Royal family To which it is answered that the reason of the difference lyes in this that the Heirs of the Crown owe not their Succession to Parliaments for they succeed by the Laws of God nature and the Fundamental Laws of the nation whereas privat Families are Subject to Parliaments and inferiour to them and owe their privat Rights to a municipal Law and so may and ought in point of Right to be regulated by them And yet I am very clear that a Parliament cannot arbitrarly debarr the eldest Son of a privat Family and devolve the Succession upon the younger and if they did so their Acts would be null But if this argument were good we might as well conclude by it that no persone born out of England or attainted of treason could succeed to the Crown Because he could not succeed to a privat Estate All which and many moe instances do clearly demonstrat that the Successor to the Crown cannot be debarr'd nor the Succession to the Crown diverted by Act of Parliament The last objection is that Robert the III. King of Scotland was by ane Act of Parliament preferr'd to David and Walter who as he pretends were truly the eldest lawful Sons of Robert the 2d because Euphan Daughter to the Earl of Ross was first lawful Wife
to King Robert the 2d and she bore him David Earl of Strathern and Walter Earl of Athol Alexander Earl of Buchan and Euphan who was married to James Earl of Dowglass after whose deceass he married Elizabeth Muir Daughter to Sir Adam Muir not so much as Buchanan observes from any design to marry a second Wife as from the great love he carried to Elizabeth Muir whom because of her extraordinary Beauty he had lov'd very passionatly in his youth and before he married the Earl of Rosses Daughter and from the love which he bore to the Sons whom Elizabeth had born before that first Marriage who were John Earl of Carrick who thereafter succeeded to the Crown by the Title of Robert the 3d and Robert Earl of Fife and Monteith he prevail'd with the Parliament to prefer John eldest Son by Elizabeth Muir to the two Sons which he had by the Earl of Rosses Daughter who was as they pretend his first lawful Wife In which though I might debate many nice points of Law relating to this Subject yet I choose only to insist on these few convincing Answers 1. That in a Case of so great moment Historians should be little credited except they could have produc'd very infallible Documents and as in general one Historian may make all who succeed him err so in this Case Boetius who was the first liv'd and wrot 200 years after the Marriage of King Robert the 2d and wrot his History at Aberdeen very remote from the Registers and Records by which he should have instructed himself nor did he know the importance of this point having touch'd it only transiently though it has been design'dly press'd by Buchanan to evince that the Parliaments of Scotland might prefer any of the Royal Line they pleas'd and it is indeed probable that King Robert the 2d did for some time make no great noise of his first Marriage with Elizabeth Muir least the meaness of the Match should have weaken'd his Interest upon his first coming to the Crown he being himself the first of the Race of the Stewarts and having so strong Competitors as the Earl of Dowglass who claim'd Right to the Crown in the Right of the Baliol and the Cummings as Boetius himself observes 2. King Robert the 3d. having succeeded as the eldest lawful Son and having been receiv'd as such by that Parliament and his Posterity by all succeeding Parliaments the Possession of the King and the Acquiescence of the People is the most infallible proof that can be adduc'd for proving that Robert was the eldest lawful Son nor have most Kings in Europe or the Heads of most private Families any other proof of their being the eldest and lawful Sons save that they succeeded and were acknowledg'd as such 3. To ballance the authority of these Historians I shall produce the Testimonie of the Learned Sir Lewis Stewart one of the most famous Lawyers we ever had and who ought much more to be believ'd than Buchanan not only because he was more disinterested but because he founds upon Acts of Parliament and old Charters which he himself had seen in the Registers in which Elizabeth Muir is acknowledg'd to have been the first Wife Buchananus lib. 9. in vitam Roberti 2. affirmat Euphaniam Comitis Rossenssis filiam primam Regis Roberti 2. uxorem fuisse eâ mortuâ Regem superinduxisse Elizabetham Moram ex qua prius Liberos ternos mares suscepisset â—am â—xâ—rem duxisse ejusque liberos regno destiâ—â—sse ut postea eorum natu maximus sucâ—â—essit quod quam falsum sit apparet ex archivis in carcere Edinburgensi reconditis ubi exstant separata acta duorum Parliamentorum subscripta manibus Ecclesiasticorum praesulum nobilium baronum aliorum statuum Parliamenti eorum sigillis roborata quibus Elizabetha Mora agnoscitur prima uxor Euphania Rosse secunda liberis ex Elizabetha Mora tanquam justis haeredibus Regni successive regnum dcernitur post eos liberis Euphaniae Rosse nec non ibidem cartae extant plurima factae per Davidem secundum eorum patruum magnum ex diversit terris Ioanni filio primogenito nepotis ejus Roberti dum Euphania Rosse viverit nec non Dar vidi filio natu maximo Euphaniae Rosse quem solum filium indigitat Roberti nepotis quod non fecisset si Elizabetha Mora non prius fuisset nupta Roberto ejus nepoti naâ— primogenitus nunquam attribuitur notho inâ— ego plures quam vigintâ— cartas in archivis inveni ubi etiam eas reliqui ex quibus sole clarius elucessit Elizabetham Moram primaâ—â— fâ—isse uxorem Euphaniam Rosse secundam nam extra contraversiam liberi Elizabethae Morae etate grandiores eraâ—t liberis Euphaniae Rosse which Paper I did get from the Lord Pitmeden who has himself written some learn'd Observations upon this point 4. I have my self seen an Act of Parliament found out by the industry of Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbet now Lord Register having the intire Seals of the Members of Parliament appended thereto by which the Parliament do swear Allegiance to Robert the 2d the first King of the Race of the Stewarts and after him Roberto Comiti de Carrict filio suo natâ— maximo his eldest Son in Anno 1371 which was the first year of his Reign and if the pretended defect be true it was a very palpable and a very undenyable one and could not but have been unanswerably known to the whole Nation And how can we imagine that the whole Parliament would have unanimously drawn upon themselves so dreadful a Perjury by excluding the lawful Heir against their National Oath in the Reign of K. Kenneth the 3d whereby they swore to own always the immediate Heir or that they would have entail'd upon themselves a Civil War by preferring even a questionable Heir after the Miseries which they had lately then felt in the competition betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol Amongst which Seals the Seal of James Earl of Dowglass is one and how ridiculous is it to think that he would sit and declare a Bastard preferable to the Brother of his own Lady and to his own Lady who would have succeeded if her Brothers had died without Succession Which Act of Parliament does also clearly prove that Buchanan did not at all understand matters of Fact in this part of the History for he asserts that after the death of Euphan Ross the King married Elizabeth Muir and did by Act of Parliament obtain the Crown to be settled upon Robert the 3d Son to the said Elizabeth Muir upon whom he also bestow'd the Title of Carrick all which is most false for this Act of Parliament is dated in Anno 1371 and King Robert the 2d succeeded to the Crown that year nor did Euphan Ross die till the 3d. year after he succeeded to the Crown and so not till the Year 1374 and yet in Anno 1371 this Act is
past designing him Heir to the Crown and Earl of Carrick and consequently he was so design'd before the death of Euphan Ross. 5. I have seen a Charter granted by King Robert the 2d when he was only Steward of Scotland granted in anno 1165 and so long before he was King In which Charter likewise John thereafter King by the name of Robert the 3d is a conjunct Disponer with him under the express designation of the eldest Son and Heir Robertus Senescallus Scotiae Comes de Strathern Ioannes Senescallus primogenitus haeresipsius Dominus Baroniae de Kyle c. which Charter confirms to the Abbacy of Pasley several Lands disponed to them by Reginaldus More Father to Sir William More of Abercorn And I find that David Duke of Rothsay was always in the Charters granted by his Father King Robert the first called Primogenitus and he was no Bastard nor can this designation be given to a Bastard as is clear by Covarâ—vâ—as de Matrim part 2. cap. 8. § 2. num 4. But how can it be imagined that the Monks of Pasley would have taken a Right from a person as Heir to the Crown who was not for this would have infer'd Treason against them beside the annulling their Right or who could understand better the lawfulness of a Marriage than a body of Church-men living in the time and very near to the Residence of the married Persons and in whose Conventual-Church the said King Robert and Elizabeth Muir ly buried together Item I have seen in the Registers another Charter granted by King Robert the 2. in the first year of his Reign with the consent of John Earl of Carrick primogenitus haeres Allano de Lavidia terrarum de Whitslet And an other granted by the said King 1. June anno primo regni confirming to Paulo M ctire a Charter granted by the Earl of Ross Father to Euphan wherein the said John primogenitus hares is a Witness And to shew that the said Euphan Ross was then living when he was so design'd Heir there is a Charter to her by the King upon the very same day of the Lands of Lochleaven As also there is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2d the first year of his Reign to Alexander his Son and another to John Kennedy of the Barrony of Dalrymple in both which the said John Earl of Carrick is call'd primogenitus and is Witness with the Earl of Dowglass so that he has been design'd eldest Son and Heir openly uncontravertedly and in all Papers and with the consent of the second Wife and her Relations 6. In the Parliament 1372 the said John Earl of Carrick is design'd to be Lieutenant of the Kingdom and all the Estates of Parliament swear to own him in his Government and which Statute is printed amongst the Satutes of King Robert the 2d Father to the said John and which must be during the Marriage with Euphan Ross for she liv'd three years after her Husband was King and he succeeded to the Crown anno 1371 And this also confutes Buchanan who asserts that he was created Earl of Carrick after the death of Euphan Ross and it is against all sense and reason to think that he could have been acknowledg'd during her life if he had not been the true Apparent Heir of the Crown and a lawful Son 7. Walter who they pretend should have succeeded to the Crown having kill'd his Nephew King James the first Son to King Robert the 3d He was not only not own'd after the death of the said King James as certainly he had been if his Title had been good and his Right so recent and demonstrable having so many great and powerful Relations that his Father was induc'd upon their account to marry his Mother but yet the said Walter was by all the Parliament unanimously condemn'd as a Traitor for having conspir'd the death of his lawful Prince Nor does Boetius justifie Walter 's Title in the least but on the contrary magnifies the Parliament for their just Sentence As did likewise Aeneas Silvius the Popes learned Legat who exhorted the Parliament to condemn him 8. How is it imaginable that King Robert who had so lately and after a strong competition come to the Crown would have adventur'd to make his Title yet more disputable by preferring a Bastard to the true Heir who had so many Friends by his Mother and who being an Infant had never disoblig'd him 9. If we will consider the opinion of the Civilians whom we and almost all Nations follow in the Cases of Succession we will find that the said King Robert the 3d was the eldest and lawful Son of King Robert the 2d filius legitimus non legitimatus For 1. They conclude that a Son is prov'd to be a lawful Son by the Assertion of the Father Alciat tract praesumpt Reg. 2 praesumpt 2. num 6. and certainly the Father is the best Judge in such Cases but so it is we have the Father owning the said Robert the 3d. to be his eldest Son and Heir both in Charters and Acts of Parliamnets which are the most solemn of all Deeds 2. Quando pater instituit aliquem tanquam filium sâ—um which holds in this Case where the Father institutes and leaves him Heir and the Parliament swears Allegiance to him as the Heir Mascard de prob vol. 2. conclus 799. And in dubious Cases the Father's naming such a man as a Son presumes him to be a lawful Son nominatio parentis inducit filiationem in dubio l. ex facto § si quis Rogatus ff ad trebell 3. Even Fame and the common opinion of the People do in favours of these that are in Possession and in ancient Cases prove filiationem legitimationem Mascard conclus 792. but much more where the Fame and common Opinion is adminiculated by other Arguments fulgos consil 128. Panorm in cap. transmiss qui filii sunt ligittimi 4. When Writs are produc'd calling a man a Son the Law concludes him to be a lawful Son Mascard vol. 2. conclus 800. num 15. all which can be easily subsum'd in our Case In which Robert the 3d. is nam'd not only Son but Heir and Allegiance sworn to him even in the lifetime of the second Wife and her Relations sitting in Parliament and all this acquiesc'd in for many hundreds of years and the Competitors punish'd as Traitors by the unanimous consent of all the Parliament I know that Buchanan does most bitterly inveigh against those Laws made by King Kenneth the 3d as Laws whereby the ancient Right of Succession was innovated and whereby the Government was settled upon Children who were neither able to consult with the People nor to defend them and whereby those had the Government of the Nation conferr'd upon them who were not capable to govern themselves To which my answer is That in this Buchanan's Malice contradicts his History for his own History tells us