THE THE CASE OF THE Forfeitures IN IRELAND Fairly Stated c. THE CASE OF THE Forfeitures IN IRELAND Fairly Stated WITH The Reasons that induced the Protestants there to Purchase them LONDON Printed in the Year 1700. THE CASE OF THE Forfeitures IN IRELAND Fairly Stated c. SInce the Expedition of King Henry II. into Ireland now about 530 years the Lands of that Kingdom have by reason of the many Rebellions frequently chang'd their Proprietors insomuch that there are very few Acres in that Country which have not more than once been vested in the Crown by Forfeitures All the Lands forfeited in that Kingdom since that time except what in the Rebellion of 1641 was by Act of Parliament secur'd to the Adventurers for the Money they then rais'd in the necessity of Affairs here have all along been bestow'd by the Kings of England according to their own pleasure His present Majesty following the Example of those who went before him has been pleas'd to grant Lands to several great Persons and others whom he esteem'd deserving of his Favour on which all the Chief Judges of that Kingdom other Judges and Great Men in the Law and others encourag'd by their Example have as Purchasers laid out considerable sums of Money This they did because they knew that a Grant under the Great Seal is a good and legal Title and That by which the English there have all along held their Estate In regard of the Bill that is offer'd to resume those Grants 't is humbly represented to the Lords and Commons in Parliament that they in making Laws are in their Great Goodness and Wisdom always very tender of every Man 's Right That the Grantees and those who purchas'd under them have a just and legal right to the Lands granted by his Majesty that barring an Irish Act of Parliament which in this case is not consider'd as appears by the E. of Athlone's Grant the Duke of Ormond's and all the Estates granted since 41 and in former times may as well be resum'd as those given by his Majesty since we are told that no time occurs to the King and Parliament 'T is said that Grants have frequently been ressum'd by Parliaments therefore they have a just right to do it And if so neither the Grantee nor Purchaser has reason to complain since the former is depriv'd of that which Parliaments have frequently dispos'd of and the later suffers as one who purchas'd under an uncertain and bad Title and forgot what the Law says Caveat Emptor If this were so it might perhaps be decent not to urge it in the present Case considering the infinite Obligations His Majesty has laid upon us and how reasonable it is he should be allowed to reward those whom he knew deserved great marks of his bounty and Favour But laying these considerations aside I will allow that if indeed the nature of our constitution be such that a Person who holds a Forfeited Estate by the Kings Grant and he that purchases under that Grant has but an uncertain and bad Title and that it appears to be so by the frequent resuming of Estates then there is some weight in the Objection But if the Parliament has never declar'd That the King has no right to dispose of such Forfeitures to the Crown if the Judges the Interpreters of our Laws have always agreed That such Titles are good in Law if they are the Titles by which the Lands of that and this Kingdom have always been held I humbly conceive the Case is otherwise A Late Author has taken a great deal of pains to shew that Parliaments in former times have made such Resumptions He says which he could not avoid owning That Our constitution seems to have been that the Kings always might make Grants and that those Grants if pass'd according to the forms of prescribed by Law were valid and pleadable not only against him but his Successors If the Kings may make Grants and they are valid Does not an Act of Resumption deprive a man of that which he has a Just and Legal right to And will it not be too great a hardship on the King as well as the Persons concern'd in his Grants to force him to take away what he has granted and so to injure his Subjects whom he has always tenderly protected and with the hazard of his blood preserved That Author is of another opinion for he tells us ' T is likewise manifest that the Legislative Power has had an uncontested right to look into those Grants and to make them void whenever they are thought EXORBITANT If ' t is only Exorbitant Grants that are to be look'd into and made void Will not a general Resumption which voids all Grants without examining what the Merits or Rewards of Persons are be still a Hardship What an Exorbitant Grant is I don't understand nor has the Legislative Power ever determin'd the exact boundaries between a Grant that is and is not Exorbitant Because this Author would have His Majesties Grants voided 't is plain he thinks them Exorbitant But if many former Kings have made Grants vastly greater which never were look'd into or made void If many of His Majesty's greatest Grants put together will not equal the value of one Grant made by the Parliament since His Majesty's Reign to one Person and a Foreigner too for which he is not the more in our Author's esteem can they with any decency be reckoned amongst those Exorbitant Grants which ought to be resum'd 'T is hard to say what the Legislative Power can't do Id potest quod jure potest So that whosoever affirms they have power to resume the King's Grants if they please I believe will not deny that they may likewise Repeal former Acts of Parliament and consequently dissolve the Right that Men enjoy by them He has indeed in his List of resumptions which are nothing to the present purpose instanced one such as it is whereby Grants were made void altho' confirmed by Parliament This Author when he says That they have had such a Power must mean only that they have exercised such a Power and frequently resumed Estates which being vested in the Crown by Forfeiture have been granted away by the Kings of this Realm His Impartial and Intelligent Reader I believe will own That he has demonstrated nothing of this He has he says taken a vast deal of pains but to what purpose Has he in his laborious search discovered any Act that voided the vast Grants made after the Rebellion in 1641 or that resum'd the escheated Counties and other Lands disposed of by King James the First or that broke the many and great Grants of Forfeitures made by Queen Elizabeth Does he know of any Resumption of the great multitude of Estates given by King Henry the VIIIth No though they were acquired by Act of Parliament and not by the King in War yet the King dispos'd of them as he pleas'd and the Grantees and
were voidances of Grants made by Usurpers as they were call'd and vesting them in the prevailing Kings Sixthly That these Resumptions many of them brook through Acts of Parliament and uravel'd things for several Reigns backward Seventhly That these cou'd not properly be called Acts but rather Addresses to the King For had they been positive Acts of Resumption how cou'd they be defeated as our Author owns they were Eightly That However this be yet 't is certain that in all the resuming Acts the King's Prerogative was always reserv'd and Saving and Exceptions allow'd to as many as he pleas'd From what has been said it appears what weight there is in this Gentleman's Precedents what conclusions may be drawn from them and how justly they are propos'd to influence the Legislative Power at this time Former Kings impoveris'd the Crown by their extravagant Grants in the heighth of this misery the Commons pray'd the King wou'd resume into his hands the Revenues of the Crown for the support of his Family but preserve what he pleas'd for his Friends Therefore 't is reasonable that we shou'd now resume all that our King has dispos'd of all the Lands forfeited by Rebells whom he subdu'd with the hazard of his Life This is an extraordinary Inference 'T is the King's Prerogative his undoubted right to dispose of such Forfeitures 'T is a right that never was deny'd to any former Prince And a positive resumption of his own Grant is what has never been required from any King of England Before this Gentleman who seems to be mightily concern'd for the good of his Country had press'd it so violently I wish he had considered First Whether such a Resumption as this would not reflect too much on the avraice of the present age Secondly Whether his Majesty who has rescu'd us from Slavery and Popery who has Fought our Battles Abroad who has restor'd the Balance of Europe and thereby retriev'd the Honour and Glory of the English Nation ought to be deny'd that which was the undoubted Prerogative of his Predecesssors Thirdly Whether this be agreeable to our former Acts whether it will not sound odd here after in our Annals and make us seem to our Neighbours a wavering and uncertain People Fourthly Whether it be not dangerous and unpolitick to tell the World and our Posterity in so solemn a manner that is shall not be in the power of our King to reward the services of Men who hazard their Lives and Fortunes in the times of greatest danger Fifthly Whether it be not too great a hardship to turn Men out of the Possessions which they enjoy by the Laws of this Land and thereby ruine multitudes of Families To silence the murmuring and complaints of all Persons whether Grantees or Purchasers and to justifie a Resumption we are told of a claim made by the House of Commons and of His Majesty's promise If the Parliament claim'd these Estates to apply to the use of the War and His Majesty promis'd it should be so were not those who obtain'd Grants afterwards and laid out Money upon them very faulty are such practices to be encourag'd and do not they justly suffer This câ—ution here given this claim put in by the House of Commons cannot I humbly conceive in Equity be pleaded against the Earl of Rumney and those who Purchase under him not only because his Grant was before any such caution but because likewise there was afterwards a saving for him in the Bill that passed the Commons House The same may be said of the Earl of Athlone and those who purchased under him since besides an Irish Act of Parliament which has been always reckoned solid enough to settle Lands in that Country there were Addresses to the King in his behalf here in England But let us see what the claim was which the House of Commons made to these Estates and what 't was the King promis'd We find in Octob. 1690 't was the opinion of the Committee of the whole House that Ten Hundred thousand Pounds should be rais'd upon the credit or by sale of the forfeited Estates in Ireland 'T was resolved that a Bill should be brought in for applying the same to the charge of the War The Bill pass'd the Commons House but fell in the House of Lords His Majesty's promise was made just five days after it pass'd in the lower House The words were these I do likewise think it proper to assure you that I shall not make any Grant of the forfeited Lands in England or Ireland till there be another opportunity of settling the matter in Parliament in such manner as shall be thought most expedieent Here we see what the King's promise was 't was that he would not make any Grants till there was another opportunity of settling that matter in Parliament as should be thought most expedient To me it seems that the matter was settled by the Lords and that they by letting the Bill fall shew'd what they thought most expedient viz. To let things go in the ancient course not to break in upon the Kings Prerogative but suffer him to dispose of the Estates that were vested in him By this Fate of the Bill in the upper House to me it seems plain that the King Was discharg'd of his promise and that the claim as 't is call'd of the House of Commons was determin'd for with the Bill lost in the House of Peers the opportunity was lost of settling that matter in Parliament and this likewise concluded the Commons and put an end to their claim The next year another Bill was brought in to vest these forfeited Estates in their Majesties this Bill fell in the lower as the other had done in the upper House The same fortune had the several other Bills afterwards in the years following as 92 93 94 95 97 98. From this account it appears that this claim put in by the House of Commons which ought to have deterr'd people from meddling with the forfeitures was in the year 1690 That so long ago people saw the Lords thought it unreasonable by their letting it fall in their House that in all the years following when 't was propos'd which was in seven several Sessions and 't was rejected perpetually in the Commons House 'T was but reasonable that the English there who suffered for adhering to England and were miserably ruined by the rapine of their Enemies should be allow'd after a longer tract of time than we allot to the Life of Man at last to Plant the Country and settle themselves A Resumption they could not fear 't was what they never knew practiced to defrate the King's Title and they could not imagine that it would have its rise in this Reign or be let loose upon them to unsettle and ruin them again who had done so much and had been so long wasted by the miseries of War Since then the States of the Nation did not think fit nine years since when the Bill was brought
is a King unless he have Power to Reward and Punish Some may be so warmed with a zeal for the Publick that without any hopes of reward they may fight for it and that so resolutely too that they neither will give nor ask quarter But there is not in all Men so much Vertue and Piety towards their Country Some are excited to perform great Things out of hopes of the same Reward that others have reap'd before them And if it should not lie in the power of the Prince to do it his Subjects may suffer greatly for want of their Services All the Lands that are in the King's Dominions are suppos'd to have been given by him and whenever he gave if any murmuring followed upon it the reason of it was not because he had not a right to give but because he gave away that which was necessary even to the support of his Family and 't will appear even from what this Author says That 't was then only that assumptions were thought of He tells us that the first Regular assumption was in the Reign of Henry the VIth He does not then approve of the assumption made by William Rufus who alienated many of the Crown-Lands and took them again to give to others Nor that of King Stephen who play'd the same trick of giving and taking to give again Nor that of Henry the II. who laid his hands upon the Regni reditus or dominia dispos'd of by King Stephen among his Followers Nor that of King Richard the 1st his Son who to furnish himself for his expedition to the Holy Land sold several parcels of the Crown Revenue and resum'd them afterwards These resumptions are exploded as irregular being made only by the Kings themselves who thought of their Gifts as the old Irish Proprietors do of their Estates That they cannot so dispose of them but that they still have still a good Title The Regular resumption made in the Reign of Henry the VIth when the occasion and circumstance of that Act are consider'd will I believe appear to be as little the purpose and very groundlesly produc'd for a precedent at this time The Act was made in the 28th year of Henry the VIth The occasion of it is very well known Sir John Fortescue then Lord Chief Justice of the Kings-bench tells us pag. 257 that that Prince had after he came to the Crown in Lordships Lands Tenements and Rents near hand to the fifth part of his Realm above the Possessions of the Church which was a greater Revenue he said than that of the King of France or the Sultan of Babylon or of any King that then Reigned over a Christian People This great Revenue had in his time been so wasted with extravagant Grants that 't was but a little more than the fifth part of what was necessary to defray the charge of his House for the necessary expences of his houshold besides all other ordinary charges came to 24000 l. yearly but the Revenue of the Crown was but 5000 l. per. ann as is set forth in the preamble of the Act. Besides the Commons tell the King that 't was made out in the former Parliament that the King was indebted 372000 l. This Sum which had swollen bigger now was a vast one as Money went in those days In this poor and low estate of Affairs when as a Reverend Person who liv'd in those times tells us vid. p. 355 The Revenues of the Crown were so rent away by ill Counsel that the King was forc'd to live DE TALLAGIIS POPVLI and was grown in debt 500000 l. when the poor Commons as they say in the Act by finding Victuals for his houshold c. were well nigh destroyed This first Regular Resumption as 't is call'd was enacted The occasion of it we see 'T was the low and miserable condition to which the Crown exhausted by extravagant Grants was reduc'd and the great Poverty of the Kingdom If this shou'd in good earnest be assigned for a reasonable and necessary cause of a resumption now our murmuring might be well reckoned among our other iniquities which we have reason to fear will pull down the Vengeance of God upon us But after all what was this Act does it contain any thing that gives the least colour of a precedent for that which is now propos'd Was it not made in favour of the King to get him bread Was he not to resume the Lands for the Crown Was there any invasion upon his Prerogative No 'T was not insinuated that he had not a right to make such Grants Sir John Fortescue then Chief Justice of the Kings-bench by whom our Author thinks this Law was modelled informs us how the King's Revenues were dispos'd of and the Crown impoverish'd And among other things says That some of the said livelihood HIS GOOD GRACE had given to such as served so notably that as their Renown will be Eternal so it did befit the King's Magnificence to make their Rewards Everlasting in their Heirs to his Honour and their perpetual Memory Here we have the opinion of a venerable and Learned Lawyer as he is justly call'd to assure us that 't was not only the right of the King but well becoming his Majesty to make Grants of Lands of the Crown to deserving Persons and their Heirs for ever And tho' a great many not so deserving had by their solicitations wrought themselves into his Possessions almost to the utter disherison of his Crown yet that worthy man in such a low and deplorable state of Affairs propos'd that they would give the King a subsidy to gratifie Persons in case of a resumption A plain demonstration of 〈◊〉 that 't was thought unreasonable then to pray the King to resume the Revenues of the Crown for this after so much noise that is made will appear to be the whole that either this or the following Acts do contain which he had profusely given away without enabling him in some sort to reprise the Persons whose Grants he should resume But in a Case so very plain what need many words In this Act there is no restraint upon the King he is pray'd to resume but this Prayer is in favour of himselfe that his baskets and coffers might be fuller There is no necessity laid upon him to enter into the Possessions of his Friends and together with them to ruin multitudes of his Subjects 'T is so far from this that the King when he agrees to the Petition and Resumption excepts all those that he shall be pleas'd to grant savings to And accordingly we find that besides 16 savings inserted by the Commons there were 185 made by the King Which abundantly shews what this Act of resumption was it shews it indeed to be a Regular one as the Author calls it and the Reader sees that 't is an excellent precedent for the present Bill Among other things concerning this Act the Author observes That the great Earl of SHREWSBVRY who
to raise a Cloud of Witnesses and alarum people with a great noise of Resumptions in former times tho there be nothing at all in them On the miscarriage of these anothor Act is made 10 Edw. IV. But 't is with such provisions and exceptions as by the K. shall be made who tells the Commons he will reward every of his Subjects for their merits We are told by this Author that a great number of exceptions are brought by the King but these don't seem of that nature as if 't were design'd they should defeat the intentions of the House of Commons This Gentleman in giving an account of these Resumptions had done well if he had told us how they happen'd this would sufficiently inform us what they were Every one knows how Edward the IV. came to the Thrown that he was Crown'd several years before the Death of Hen. VI. Our History tells us that to raise some with the ruin of others he distributed the Lands and Possessions of those that sided with King Henry amongst his own Favourites and Followers having the better to paliate his own proceedings firâ—t made Proclamation that whosoever of the contrary Faction would come in and submit should be received to Grace and restor'd to their Patrimonies Trust. Hist pag. 183. In the 10th Year of his Reign we find King Henry gets the ascendent again K. Edward IV. 1. Proclaimed an Usurper is forc'd to quit the Kingdom Then the Parliament was assembled at Westminster wherein King Edward and his Friends and Followers are Attainted of High-Treason and their Goods and Lands seised to King Henry's use Trust Hist pag. 194. This accounts for the Resumption made three Years after 13. Edward VI. last mention'd when King Edward got the better again 'T was an Act to re-invest Crown-Lands and Goods which King Edward IV. had in the beginning of his Reign which as I 've shewn were afterwards seiz'd by Parliament for King Henry's use and had by him been disposed of among his Friends So that this it seems was only an Act to resume from King Henry's Friends to vest them in the Crown and in effect to give them to King Edward's Favourites for giving the Royal assent he told the Commons That the Bill should not withstand that Right and Equity which obliged him to do to every of his Subjects according to their Merits Anno 1. Henry VII Another Act of Resumpiion passes by this the K. is to seize and assume into his hands whatever Henry VI. his Unkle had the 2 d. day of October in the 34 th Year of his Reign and it makes void all Grants made by King Edward IV. King Edward V. and Richard III. By Authority of Parliament or otherwise Here is an excellent precedent for Resumptions one that shews how a great deal of Money may be raised if we will but Copy after this Exemplar For this looks backward thro' three entire Reigns and seizeth what was given even by Act of Parliament Either this is a Regular Resumption or it is not If it be not why is it mentioned If it be this Gentleman shews where England may raise a vast Sum upon an extraordinary occasion 'T will be only resuming what has been forfeited in Ireland since 1641 or if that should be too little carrying the Act up to Queen Elizabeth's time which according to what he has delivered in his Doctrine of Resumptions and Conquest together may very well be done This Gentleman when he in order to influence the Parliament to resume deliver'd this among his many other excellent Precedents ought to have told us the true cause of this very extraordinary Act. 'T was in the 1 st of Henry VII who was Nephew to Henry VI. depos'd by Eward IV. in the 34th year of his Reign This Edward together with Edward V. his Son and Richard III. kept Henry VI. and his Heirs out of the Throne for many Years When therefore the Crown return'd into the Lancastrian Line and Hen. VII was Crown'd the Parliament call'd in the first year of his Reign made all the Grants of the former Usurpers void and vested in the King all that his Unkle possessed at the time he was Depos'd Is this any thing to the purpose in the present Case and is taking from Usurpers and their Favourites and vesting it in the King any invasion upon the King no Hen. VII in giving the Royal assent reserv'd a power to himself to make what exceptions he pleas'd and to reward the Merits of his Friends The last Resumption of Crown Lands made by the Kings of England was in this Kings Reign After this now mentioned our Author tells us there were some particular ones as anno 11. Henry VII An Act of Resumption of divers Castles Mannors Lands and Tenements which were formerly given by King Edw. III. and King Richard II. to Edmond de Langley Duke of York Though this would suit better with times which some expect hereafter but I hope never will see yet it ought not to be omitted here because it affords a Precedent for looking further backward and shews that when we are resuming we may rake deep into Antiquity and grasp at things that were given 120 years before This our Author is not for he is for confining his Resuming Act within the Grants of the present Reign this we can't ascribe to any extravagant respect he has for His Majesty nor can I tell whether we owe it to his Moderation for had he advised a large retrospect he had perhaps been too disobliging and defeated the designs of his Book If we would follow him 't is hard to know what measures to take when he proposes a Pattern for us to imitate in our retrospection he lays before us the Example of those Kings who resumed their own Grants without assistance of Parliament vid. pag. 428. In another he tells us that these are irregular and when he comes to give account of the regular he mentions such as either had no manner of effect at all or else took a very large compass and went very far back in their way breaking over Acts of Parliaments On the whole matter these Observations may be made First That all his noise about Resumptions has been of Grants of Lands and Revenues of the Crown Secondly That such Grants as these are not contrary to the Common or Statute Laws of this Kingdom Thirdly That they were never complained of but in the lowest and most deplorable Circumstances of the Crown and then not upon the account of their being illegal but upon the account of the indigency of the Prince and the necessities of his Family Fourthly That the first Regular Resumption as 't is call'd was in the reign of a Prince who had committed the most wasts upon the Crown and had lessen'd almost all the revenues of it And yet neither this nor those that follow'd had any manner of effect Fifthly That the Resumptions afterwards in the Reigns of Edw. IV. and H. VII
Purchasers have not as yet complained of the hardship of a Resuming Act. Have then the Grants of all the Princes since the Reformation created good Titles in Ireland and passed current and free from all Resumptions Yes 't is certain they have and that Author is challenged to shew the contrary This me-thinks shews a custom ancient enough to secure the Grants of His present Majesty to whom we owe more than to all the Kings before him 'T will be ask'd whether there were no such Resumptions before the Reformation if there were why considering the streights we are in shou'd not the same course be taken now to ease the Nation of Taxes In order to give this question a clear and satisfactory answer I shall observe that the Grants made by our Princes have been of two sorts First of Lands that have fallen to the Crown by Rebellion or Conquest Secondly of Lands or Hereditaments that were of the Demesnes or ancient Revenues of the Crown All Estates of the First sort are undoubtedly by our Laws in the gift of the King our constitution does not only allow him to dispose of these but supposes he will do it 'T is so far from being a Crime in any of his Ministers to countenance the Kings doing this that on the contrary should they advise him not to make Grants but to keep his Acquisitions in his own hands they ought to be censur'd for it Because it might prove a thing of ill consequence to our Country for if all the Revenues that fall to the Crown were kept there the King would in time become absolute Possessor and Lord of all and his People must be his Slaves As it is certain then that the King may and for a very good reason ought by our constitution to Grant away such Lands as these so it is as certain that not only since the Reformation but Norman Conquest likewise an Act never has passed to resume Grants of this kind As to the other sort of Grants I mean of the Lands or Hereditaments that were of the Demesnes or Ancient Revenue of the Crown it must be own'd that they in former times have made some noise in this Kingdom All that a late Author has said in a discourse too long for the Argument relates only to such sort of resumptions Therefore his precedents will not touch the Irish Grants though among other things his Book was plainly Calculated for them But since 't is possible many at this time may be induc'd to entertain too harsh and wrong sentiments concerning Grants of this kind since the prejudices of these Men if they should reckon that the Case of the one differs not from the other will reach to forfeitures and suggest to them that a resumption is highly reasonable I will give the plainest and shortest account I can of thosse resumptions I mean of Grants of the Crown Revenues and that taken from what the Author himself says and leave it to all True English Men who love this Government to Judge whether all his noise and clamour and ill-tim'd reflections might not in justice as well as good breeding be spared He tells us pag. 302 that anciently it seemed a fundamental that the Crown-Lands were not alienable To whom did it seem so anciently Not to the Kings themselves for they all along made Grants of the Revenues of the Crown and that so commonly that this Author will be hardly able to name two since the Reign of William I. that have not made Grants of some of the Revenues of the Crown and thus broken in to this fundamental Nor to the Parliament for they never have condemned such Grants never made an Act of Parliament to prohibit them This appears from the Act made 27. Hen. 8 c.11 to secure the Fees belonging to the Clerk of the signet or if the Author will have it so vid. pag. 298 To inforce by a positive Law the ancient steps in passing grants from the Crown Tho' in this he is mistaken in the Judgment of Lawyers mention'd by himself p. 30 who say that these methods are directive not coercive or as Hobart says Hob. Rep. Colt and Glover p. 146 That these kind of Statutes were made to put things in ordinary form and to ease the Sovereign of Labour but not to deprive him of Power But however that be this is certain that to make such Grants as these is what is permitted our Kings even by the Statute Law and the Law never prescribes a rule for doing that which it allows not to be done But does not this Author tell us that 11. Hen. 4. 'T was plainly and directly enacted That all manner of Hereditaments which from thence forward should fall into the Crown should not be alienable but remain to the King This he says is positive unrepeal'd as we know and still as much in force as Magna Charta pag. 303. Here this Gentleman has been guilty of great inadvertency in citing this as a Positive Act and strong as Magna Charta for prohibiting alienations of the Revenues of the Crown I hope he only forgot how he mentioned this Act in the foregoing part of this Book p. 145. I must desire the Reader to turn to the place he quotes the very same year of Henry the IV th and the same Parl. Roll. There he tells us The Commons pray the King That for ever hereafter no Grant might be made of any Hereditaments or other profits of the Crown except Offices and Bailiwicks till the King shall be quite out of Debt and unless there be remaining in his Coffers sufficient for the Provision of his Family The Act as 't is here deliver'd is differing from the Magna Charta the positive Law he mention'd before And yet here he has given the Original a very dextrous turn for the French in the Act is En Temps ensuivants which is no more than for the future but he has render'd it for ever hereafter and so would infer that That which 't is plain was no more than a Petition to the King not to Grant away the Hereditaments of the Crown till he had sufficient for the support of his Family was a positive Law which was to stand for ever like Magna Charta to Guard the Revenues of the Crown and restrain the King from making Grants This Gentleman is mistaken the Wisdom of this Nation never did and I 'm sure never will make such an everlarsting Law as he mentions They foresaw what the Power of the King in time would grow to if there should never be any alienation and that this fundamental would shake the foundation of the Government They know better things My Lord Coke tells us 2 d. Institut pag. 496 497 That the King's Prerogative is part of the Law of England and that this is shewn in his Letters Patents for Lands Tenements and other things Without this Prerogative I can't see how he can Govern and discharge that great duty incumbent upon him What