Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	child_n	king_n	son_n	4,367	5	5.1460	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52522	Wonderful predictions of Nostredamus, Grebner, David Pareus, and Antonius Torquatus wherein the grandeur of Their present Majesties, the happiness of England, and downfall of France and Rome, are plainly delineated : with a large preface, shewing, that the crown of England has been not obscurely foretold to Their Majesties William III and Mary, late Prince and Princess of Orange, and that the people of this ancient monarchy have duly contributed thereunto, in the present assembly of Lords and Commons, notwithstanding the objections of men and different extremes.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Grebner, Ezekiel.; Nostradamus, 1503-1566.; Pareus, David, 1548-1622.; Torquato, Antonio, 15th cent.	1689 (1689)	Wing N1401; ESTC R261	72,982	73

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 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 And eighteen Years after Alcred King of the Northanimbrians that is Northumberland and other adjacent Counties was banish'd and divested of his Soveraignty by the Counsel and Consent of all his Subjects Five Years after this their King Ethelred was driven from the Throne and Kingdom for treacherously procuring the Death of three of his Great Men Alwlf Cynwlf and Ecga Within fifteen Years after this the People having without Example called back Ethelred from Exile slew him without any allowable Precedent and set up in his stead Osbald a Nobleman none of the Royal Stock and he not answering their Expectation they depos'd him in twenty eight days Twelve Years after they deposed their King Eardulf and remain'd long without chusing any Sixty Years after they depos'd their King Osbrich and chose Ella who still swerv'd from the Ends of Government Six Years after they expell'd their King Egbert For sixty nine Years the Kings and their People agreed without coming to any Extremities but then they renounc'd the Allegiance sworn to King Edmund and chose Aulaf King of Norway for their King. Aulaf had not reigned six Years when they drove him away and tho' they receiv'd him again they soon cast him off again and swore Allegiance to the English King Edred Then they rejected him and chose Egric a Dane with whom their independent Monarchy expir'd and turn'd into the Government of Earls I would not be thought to mention those numerous Examples with the least approbation 't is certain they argue great Levity in rejecting or Folly in chusing But if we are believ'd to receive many Laws and Customs from the Germans from whom we are more remotely deriv'd much more may the English Monarchy be thought to partake of the Customs of the contiguous Kingdoms which compose it and by this frequent Practice the Members of it were sufficiently prepar'd to understand that part of the Compact whereby the Prince was oblig'd to suffer Right as well as his Subjects and that if he did not answer the Ends for which he had been chosen he was to lose the Name of King. Either these Examples or rather the continual Engagements in War with Foreigners had such effect that from this time to the Entrance of W. 1. excepting the Case of King Edwin Nephew to the English Monarch Edred who was driven out of the Kingdom Anno 957. I find nothing of the like nature A King was but a more splendid General nor could he hope to maintain his Dignity but by hardy Actions and tender usage of his People their extraordinary Power had slept but for few Years after the Death of the reputed Conqueror till the time of King Stephen the third Successor from W. 1. who after Allegiance sworn to him had it a while withdrawn for Maud the Empress but the People soon return'd to it again rejecting her who was nighest in Blood because she denied them the Benefit of St. Edward's Laws This Power of the People to be sure was rous'd by the extravagant Proceedings of King John upon which the Earls and Barons of England without the Formality of Summons from the King give one another notice of meeting and after a long private Debate they agreed to wage War against him and renounce his Allegiance if he would not confirm their Liberties and agreed upon another Meeting for a peremptory Demand declaring That if he then refus'd them they would compel him to Satisfaction by taking his Castles Nor were they worse than their words and their Resolutions had for a while their desir'd Effect in obtaining a Confirmation of their Liberties but the Pope soon absolv'd the King and encourag'd him to the violation of them till they stoutly casting off the Authority both of King and Pope proceeded to the Election of another King Lewis the Dauphin of France But the Dauphin assuming a Power not brook'd in the English Government upon the Death of King John they set up his Son H. 3. and without any solemn Deposing of Lewis compell'd him to renounce his Pretensions Henry treading in his Father's steps had many unhappy Contests with his Barons and having call'd in numbers of Foreigners they sent him a solemn Message That unless he would remove those troublesom Guests they would all by a Common Council of the whole Realm drive him and his wicked Counsellors out of the Kingdom and would consider of making a new King. Upon this both Sides had recourse to Arms and neither valued the others Judicial Sentence but for certain the Sentence threatned H. 3. was executed upon his Grandson E. 2. who was formally depos'd in Parliament for his Misgovernment whose Case with his next Successor's but one R. 2. by what I have observ'd before appear to have been no Novelties in England Nor was it long before the like was again put in practice more than once H. 6. being a weak misled 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 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 believ'd 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 R. and his Heirs after him And 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 took upon him the Charge of the Kingdom as forfeited to him by breach of the Covenant establish'd in Parliament Yet this gave him no sure Settlement for the Popularity of the Earl of Warwick drove him out of the Kingdom without striking a Stroke for it 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 R. 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 Yet 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 of the Settlement under which he enjoy'd the Crown Thus as the Power of the People or Great ones of Interest with them turn'd the Scales from time to time so 't was their Consent which fixt them at last during the the Life of E. 4. 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 requir'd 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 declar'd 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 hath or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm I shall not here insist in answer to the first 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 chose by the People may act without any Authority from the King. And for the latter as Coertion is restrain'd 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 vertue of equitable and supposed 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 That these Statutes being barely Declaratory 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 and at liberty to renounce the Obligations which it has entred into against its Benefit which is the Supreme 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 have Authority to make Laws that cannot be alter'd by Posterity in Matters that concern the Rights both of King and People For Foundations cannot be remov'd without the Ruine and Subversion of the whole Building Wherefore admit the Acts had been duly 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 repeal'd 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 Prorogu'd or Adjourn'd 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 and Sitting of the foregoing Parliament shall be thenceforth clearly and absolutely dissolv'd 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 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 Parliamenti 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 the First and so expired An. 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 dissolv'd more than three Years before the Parliament which made the Statute in question which Parliament assembled An. 1661. and was ipso facto dissolv'd 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 C. 2. Anno 1660. was not summon'd by the King's Writs consequently the Parliament 1661. having 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 dispens'd with the Letter of the Triennial Act as to this Particular 1. They who would plead these Statutes cannot urge it since they will not allow of greater Necessity to authorize the Maintaining and Restoring the Constitution But surely however Necessity might support other 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 continue together as long

Judgment of two Parliaments the Realm was destitute of a Lawful Governour Indeed according to the Act of Recognition 1 J. 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 Tho' 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. 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 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 of necessity the People must have had Power of Chusing or there could have been no lawful Government since Queen Elizabeth's time when was the last Settlement 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 of Foreign Princes since there was no means of being sufficiently inform'd of the Circumstances of the Birth neither the Common or any Statute-Law affording any Means of proving it as appears by the Statute 25 E. 3. which for the Children of Subjects only born out of the King's Allegiance in Cases wherein the Bishop has Conusance allows of a Certificate from the Bishop of the Place where the Land in question lies if the Mother pass'd the Seas by the King's License But if our Kings or Queens should upon any occasion be in Foreign Parts 't is to be presum'd that they would have with them a Retinue subject to our Laws who might attest the Birth of their Children and be punish'd if they swear flalsly Wherefore 25 E. 3. 't is declar'd to be the Law of the Crown That the Children of the Kings of England ENFANTZ DES ROYS as the Record has it in whatever Parts they be born be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the Death of their Ancestors Yet this is most likely to be meant of those private Inheritances which any of the Kings had being no part of the Demeasns of the Crown since the Inheritance of the Crown was not mentioned nor as has been shewn was it such as the King's Children were absolutely entitled to in their Order The most common acceptation of Children is of a Man's immediate Issue As where Land is given to a Man and his Children who can think any remote Descendants entitled to it Nor could it extend farther in the Settlement of a Crown 37 E. 3. c. 10. a Sumptuary Law was made providing for the Habits of Men according to their Ranks and of their Wives and Children ENFANTZ as in the former Statute of the same Reign Now altho' this should extend to Childrens Children born in the same House it could never take-in the Children of Daughters forisfamiliated by Marriage nay nor those of such Sons as were educated in a distinct Calling from their Parents Farther the very Statute of which the Question is cuts off the Descendants from Females out of the number of a King's Children when among other Children not of the Royal Family it makes a particular Provision for Henry Son of John Beaumond who had been born beyond Sea and yet Henry was by the Mothers Side in the Fourth Degree from H. 3. for she was Daughter to Henry Earl of Lancaster Son of Edmund Son to H. 3. Had this Henry been counted among the Children of a King 't is certain there had not been a special Clause for him among other Children of Subjects Nor does the Civil Law differ from ours in this Matter for tho' under the name of Children are comprehended not only those who are in our Power but all who are in their own either of the Female Sex or descending from Females yet the Daughter's Children were always look'd on as out of the Grandfather's Family according to the Rule in Civil Law transcribed by our Bracton They who are born of your Daughter are not in your power And Privileges derogating from Publick Vtility were never thought to reach them as a Learned Civilian has it A Daughter is the End of the Family in which she was born because the Name of her Father's Family is not propagated by her And Cujacius makes this difference between Liberi and Liberi sui sui he says is a Legal Name the other Natural The former are only they who are in a Man's

Power or of his Family and Liberi strictly taken he will have to go no farther But in truth considering the Purview of the Statute which we are here upon Children in it seems to be restrain'd to Sons and Daughters without taking in the Descendants from either the Occasion of the Law being the Births of several ENFANTZ in Foreign Parts which could be but Sons or Daughters to the immediate Parents whether Kings or Private Persons 4. But however this may be enough for my purpose that there is no colour of any Settlement in force but that 1 H. 7. and admitting that to have continued till J. 2. had broken the Original Contract yet that being broken the present Assembly of Lords and Commons had full as much Authority to declare for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY as the Parliament 1 H. 7. had to settle the Crown For H. 7. could give them no Power but what he had received immediately from them Nor is it material to say He was Crown'd first since as I have shewn the Crown confers no Power distinct from what is deriv'd either from an immediate or prior Choice 3d. The Power having upon the Dissolution of the Contract between J. 2. and his former Subjects return'd to the People of Legal Interests in the Government according to the Constitution there can be no doubt with unbyass'd 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 Supreme Power But there are two Extremes opposite the to 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 Supreme 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 strict Application of the Statute above-mentioned 16 Car. 1. nay the Attempt of Repealing that Statute being in a Parliament which had been actually dissolv'd 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 Others suppose the Consequence of a Dissolution of this Contract to be a meer Commonwealth or absolute Anarchy wherein every body has an equal Share in the Government not only Landed Men and others with whom the Ballance of the Power has rested by the Constitution but Copy-holders Servants and the very Foeces Romuli which would not only make a quiet Election impracticable but bring in a deplorable Confusion But this Dilemma they think not to be answer'd Either the old Form as under a Monarch remains or it does not If it does the late Action of the Lords and Commons was irregular If it does not all the People are restor'd to their Original Rights and all the Laws which fetter'd them are gone Here we must distinguish upon the word Form for if it be taken of the Form of Proceedings or Administration 't is no Consequence that the Form of Government or Constitution should fail because we admit that the other does Mr. Hobbs indeed holds That when a Monarch for himself and his Children has left a Kingdom or renounces it the Subjects return to their absolute and natural Liberty Whom the Learned Pufendorf thus answers They who have once come together into a Civil Society and subjected themselves to a King since they have made that the Seat of their Fortunes cannot be presum'd to have been so slothful as to be willing to have their new Civil Society extinct upon the Death of a King and to return to their Natural State and Anarchy to the hazarding the Safety now settled Wherefore when the Power has not been conferr'd on a King by Right of Inheritance or that he may dispose of the Succession at pleasure it is to be understood to be at least tacitly agreed among them That presently upon the Death of a King they shall meet together and that in the Place where the King fix'd his Dwelling Nor can there well be wanting among any People some Persons of Eminence who for a while may keep the others in order and cause them as soon as may be to consult the Publick Good. The Author of a late Paper in relation to these Times has this Passage not to be neglected 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 that the Convention may be truly National But had this Ingenious Person observ'd Pufendorf's two distinct Contracts by the first of which a Provision was made for a Monarchy before any particular Person was settled 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 righful Power must needs think the last duely 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 occasion'd 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 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 Assertion 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

first second or third Heirs the mention of Heirs simply ought to be restrain'd to those only because the Nature or Quality of the thing granted ought to be attended to After the Death of Richard Duke of York his Son Edward the Fourth as I before observ'd took the Government upon him as forfeited by breach of the Covenant establish'd in Parliament However H. 6. being set up again ten Years after gets that Settlement by which E. 4. was to have benefit to be revok'd and the Crown to be entail'd on his Issue the Remainder to the Duke of Clarence younger Son to the Duke of York Afterwards E. 4. having success revives the Settlement 39 H. 6. Only that he attaints H. 6. with others of his Party Which Attainder was remov'd 1 H. 7. and declar'd contrary to due Allegiance and all due Order And not only the Attainder but that Act of Parliament it self was revok'd So that hitherto there had been no Title in the Heirs of Richard Duke of York or of Edward the Fourth but what was deriv'd under the Settlement of Henry 6. call'd an Usurper and Edward the Fourth's Treason depriv'd him of the Benefit even of that Settlement H. 7. indeed married the eldest Daughter of E. 4. But before that Marriage having conquer'd Rich. 3. he claim'd the Crown As his Words in Parliament were Tam per justum titulum haereditantiae quàm per verum Dei judicium in tribuendo sibi victoriam de inimico suo As well by just Title of Inheritance as by the true Judgment of God in giving him the Victory over his Enemy If it be ask'd how he could have a Right of Inheritance when the Daughter of E. 4. and his own Mother were alive It seems in the Judgment of that Parliament that E. 4. having acted contrary to his Allegiance due to H. 6. he and his had lost the Benefit of the Settlement reviv'd by his successful Treason and that this was lost even before the Revival was destroy'd by Parliament And then tho' H. 7. could not come in without an Election yet he as H. 4. before might have a sort of Inheritance according to a very witty Author who speaking of the Kingdom of Israel says Concludere licet regnum Israelis si stirpem spectas haereditarium certè fuisse at sanè si personas omnino electivum We may conclude that the Kingdom of Israel if you look at the Stock was certainly Hereditary but if at the Persons altogether Elective Be this as it will the Lords and Commons so far regarded King Henry's Claim that they not only receiv'd him for King but it was enacted by the Authority of the then Parliament That the Crowns of the Realms of England and France should rest in him and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming perpetually and in NONE OTHER When they had thus done the Commons requested the King to Marry Elizabeth Daughter to E. 4. that by God's Grace there might be Issue of the Stock of their Kings So that this was only to preserve the Royal Blood not to give any new Countenance or Confirmation to his Title H. 8. enjoy'd the Crown not as Heir to his Mother but under the Settlement upon H. 7. Nor can it be said that he was in by Remitter since that Act under which his Mother should have deriv'd was Repeal'd And had it stood in force yet it would not have made the Title more Sacred unless it can be shewn that the Mother had a Title prior to the Act of Settlement 39 H. 6. the contrary to which appears by the former Account from Law and History H. 8. procur'd several Settlements of the Crown according as Love or Jealousie prevail'd in him In the 25th of his Reign 't was settled upon himself and his Heirs Males of his Body lawfully begotten on Queen Anne c. declaring the Marriage with Queen Katherin unlawful Remainder to the Lady Elizabeth Remainder to his own Right Heirs 26 H. 8. an Oath was enjoyn'd for that purpose 28 H. 8. the two former Acts 25 26. are Repeal'd the Illegitimation of Mary Daughter to Queen Katherine is confirmed the like declared of Elizabeth Daughter to Queen Anne and the Crown entail'd upon his Heirs Males by Queen Jane or any other Wife Remainder to Heirs Females by that Queen or any other lawful Wife Remainder to such Person or Persons and according to such Estates as he should appoint by Letters Patent or by Will. 35 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 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 mention'd 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 look'd on as of the Right Line because of the Acts which Illegitimated her 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 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 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. tho' there is no direct Settlement it is made Treason to compass the Deprivation or Destruction of K. P. during the Queen's Life 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 tho Bastardiz'd by the Statutes 28 H. 8. and 1 M. yet her first Parliament declare 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 dispos'd of according to the Power given by the Statute 28 and repeated 35 H. 8. And the 25 whereby 't was limited in Remainder to the Heirs of H. 8. being repeal'd upon the Deaths of E. 6. and the Queens Mary and Elizabeth without Issue there remaining no Heirs of the Body of H. 8. in the