Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A47998
|
A letter from a gentleman in the city to one in the country concerning the bill for disabling the Duke of York to inherit the imperial crown of this realm
|
Gentleman in the city.
|
1680
(1680)
|
Wing L1390; ESTC R14744
|
12,544
|
26
|
more safely and better than if they should continue separated and alone Nor did ever any condescend on this or that mode and form of Government but with a prospect and upon a supposal that the Priviledges Rights and Liberties of Men should be preserved unto them And therefore as all Government is founded in Trust and setled in such a person or limitted to such a Family for the safety and advantage of the people as well as of the Ruler so there can be supposed no primitive Agreements in reference to such and such links of Succession where the ruine of the people is unavoidable without a break in the Chain If an Ideot may be justly put by from Succeeding in the Royal line because he is uncapable of understanding the interest of his people or protecting them in their Rights much more may one who hath designed and resolved to destroy them and overthrow every thing for which Kingship was both erected and submitted unto be debarred all Plea and Title to inherit For to what purpose serve Laws betwixt King and People but to instruct us not only concerning the Fealty and Obedience which we are to pay to our Prince but what we may claim and expect from him that is to be advanced to that Grandure and Dignity Yea were there any Laws for the Establishment of a Mortal Enemy over us on this alone supposal that he were of next affinity to the foregoing and lawful Prince such Laws were revocable and ought to be repealed as inconsistent with the safety and happiness of Subjects For though our Ancestors might restrain and limit us in the usage of those things which we derive from them yet they could not restrain and limit us in such things which we have a right unto by the Law of Nature That is and blessed be God they never attempted it they could not deprive us of nor abdicate from us a right to protect and defend our selves from our declared Adversary So that if the people of England be but acknowledged to have a right to preserve their Lives maintain their Proprieties or secure their Religion it is lawful for them to disable the Duke of York to Inherit the Imperial Crown of this Realm as having already not only rendred himself unsafe to the Nation in all these but Proclamed by his Actions that he is an open Enemy to every one of them Sect. 10. Tenthly It is remarkable that there was never a conveyance of the Crown of England to any person but upon the tacite concurrance and with the virtual or implicite consent of the people And indeed though a people may be made Slaves without their Consent yet it is impossible that they should be free Subjects but with it And therefore anciently before any King of England was actually Crowned the people being first acquainted with the day appointed for that Solemnity were three several times publickly ask'd whether they would have such a person to Rule over them And till the consent of the people was thus obtained and declared they who held in Fee of the King together with the Nobility were not obliged neither were they called to do Homage to him And though these kind of Tenures be since abolished by Act of Parliament yet it plainly shews that heretofore the Nation had a great interest in recognizing the Right of their King Now the people of England are no where so Universally present as when Represented in Parliament by those whom they have chosen and delegated to act in their Places and Names as well as for their interests And therefore what is the Language of the House of Commons 1s the unanimous Voice of all the People of England Yea were the several Individuals of the Nation to be demanded their Opinion they would harmoniously resound the Vote of that House namely that they will not have James Duke of York to Reign over them Sect. 11. Eleventhly The Parliament of England have from time to time so disposed of the Crown of this Râ—alm as both to settle and limite the Succession in referrence to the English Throne It was a Parliament that Deposed Richard the 2d and chose Henry the 4th to Reign in his stead It was a Parliament which limitted the Crown to Henry the 6th only for his Life with an exclusion of his Posterity from all Title to it and setled the Succession upon Richard Duke of York And it is observable that they who afterwards took part with the said Henry the 6th and fought by his Authority as well as under his Banner at the Battel of Wakefield where Richard Duke of York was killed were in the 1st of Edward the 4th attainted of Treason because they fought against and slew a person who was by Act of Parliament declared Heir after Henry to the Crown It was a Parliament who chose and advanced Richard the 3d though Edward the 4th had not only left behind him a Brothers Son whose Title was Prior to Richards but two Sons of his own It was the Parliament that entailed the Crown in Henry the 4ths time and setled the Inheritance of the Realms of England and France c. Upon his Sons by Name and upon all of them successively in case He or They upon whom the settlement was first made should die without Heirs Yea our Parliaments during the Reign of Henry the 8th made a threesold Settlement and Entail of the Crown and that with such various Limitations and Provisions as they thought the interest of the Kingdom conducted them unto These three Entails were made and enacted the 25th of Henry the 8th the 28th of Henry the 8th and the 35th of Henry the 8th But to omit more Instances it was the Parliament that having by Statute Recognised Queen Elizabeths Title to the Crown in the first Year of her Reign afterwards Entailed it upon her and the Heirs of her Body in case she should come to have any in the 13 of her Raign Now it is very remarkable that in diverse of these Entailes and Settlements our Parliaments proceeded without any regard to Legitimacy their sole will and pleasure under the Influence which the interest of the Kingdom had upon them being both the best motive into which we can resolve diverse of those Settlements and the only Standard according to which we must account for the Limitations contained in some of those Entails And can we be so silly as to believe that the most Magnanimous and Victorious Princes that ever Reigned over this Nation would have suffered Parliaments to interpose about the Succession and meddle in the disposal of it if it had not appertained unto them by the constitution of the Kingdom and the ancient Usages thereof Surely bequeathment of the Inheritance of the Crown by the Regnant Prince would have better become the Prerogative of our Kings if they had not believed that it belonged to the Parliament in conjunction and Cooperation with their Kings to dispose and to settle that matter Sect.
12. Twelfthly Nor hath the supreme Court of Parliament in their interposure about the disposal of the Crown of this Realm confined themselves to nearness and proximity of Blood as if it had been to descend without interruption or be conveyed to the next in the Royal Line And therefore whosoever consults our Laws and Histories they will find that our Parliaments in their choice and designation of Princes to ascend the Throne have often diverted from the next of Kin and regulated themselves in their Election and Appointments by the alone Measures of Publick Good and the safety and happiness of the Kingdom And to begin with William the Conquerour that Norman Prince had no right but from the Peoples Election of him For whereas he pretended to derive a Title to the Crown of England from the Will and Testament of Edward the Confessor that very Edward had no hereditary right himself However by the peoples advancing William the Norman to the Throne of this Realm Edgar Etheling the nearest Prince to the Crown if respect had been shewn to Blood was excluded and shut out And no sooner was William the Conquerour dead but William Rufus was preferred before Robert who being his eldest Brother would otherwise have had the better right Yea upon the decease of Rufus Robert was again put by though upon an Agreement between them two he had been promised the Crown in Reversion after him and Henry the First was advanced in his room And if we proceed a little farther we shall find that King John was advanced before his eldest Brothers Son who must needs have had the best right if nearness of Blood had obtained and taken place And to pass by other Examples it is easie to determine whether any regard was had to the next of Kin when Richard the Third was preferred before the two Sons of Edward the Fourth Sect. 13. Lastly The Bill depending before the Parliament about disabling the Duke of York to inherit the Imperial Crown of England is not introductive of a new Law but corroborative and explanatory of those which we have already And indeed all the Laws which we are provided of against Popery are not only weak fenses to withstand the irruption of it but in themselves null and void unless we admit that there is this intended in them that no Popish Prince shall ever be allowed to Reign in England And this being of some consequence to be known I shall therefore insist somewhat the more largely upon it Every one knows that there is a vast difference between a persons right to an Estate and persons remote Title only to Govern For an Estate is a mans Property whereas the advancing one to Rule over a Nation is but the recognizing of a Right originally inclusive of a Trust And therefore if our Laws have made Papists to forfeit their Estates or any part of them for meer Recusancy We may very rationally suppose that they intended that every Popish Recusant should forfeit and be incapable of all Regal Authority seeing that is but a Trust limited to such a Family in order to the preserving us in our due Rights Now that our Laws have made Papists liable to forfeit all their Goods and two Thirds of their real Estates notwithstanding all Title either by Birthright or Purchase which they may have in them is evident and beyond all contradiction to whosoever reads the Statute of the 29. of Eliz. cap. 6. and the Statute of the 3. of James cap. 4. Besides our Laws provide that no Recusant Convict shall be a publick Officer or shall exercise any publick Office or Charge in the Commonwealth but that every Recusant shall be utterly disabled to exercise the same by himself or by his Deputy Sat. 3. of Jam. cap. 4. Yea that they shall be disabled in Law to receive take or have any Office Ministry or Service in this Realm Stat. 1. of Eliz. cap. 1. And can it after all this be thought that they who Enacted those Laws intended that it should be lawful for a Popish Prince to ascend the Throne and be trusted with the exercise of Soveraign Rule over us Moreover our Laws have ordained and declared That every Papist who is convicted shall be disabled to be an Executor Administrator or to have the Custody of any Child as Guardian and that if any Wards be granted to such they shall be utterly void and of none effect Stat. 3. of James cap. 4. And can we then suppose that they who enacted that Law ever thought or intended that a Papist should be capable of having the Guardianship of the whole Nation Our Parliaments have provided both by a Statute of the 13. Eliz. cap. 2. and by one of the 23. of Eliz cap. 1. and by another of the 3. of James cap. 4. That it shall be Treason to be reconciled to the Church of Rome Now as those Laws are wholly insignificant as to ends for which they were made if a Papist be left still capable of inheriting the Crown so I cannot therefore but think that they do in effect exclude all such who suffer themselves to be seduced to Popery and who thereupon are brought to acknowledge a forraign Jurisdiction from all Right Claim and Title to the Throne of this Realm Iâ— is also provided by a Statute of the 5. of Eliz. cap. 1. That it shall be Treason by Deed or Act c. to hold or stand with extoll maintain or defend the Authority Jurisdiction or Power of the Bishop of Rome or his See Now what doth this Law amount unto or of what use is it to the preserving the established Religion If he that both doth all this and also glories in it be held still capable of mounting the Throne Again the Statute of the 3d of James which appointeth and injoyneth the Oath of Allegience doth in reality and in the drift and Scope of it debar a Papist from being admitted to Reign in England For as the Design of that Oath was to extirpate Popery so that is impossible to be compassed should we be liable to admit a Popish Successor Nor can there be any thing more silly and ridiculous to be required of us than that we should swear Allegiance to a Papist in opposition to Popery And not to pursue this point any further the Statute of the 1 of Eliz. Concerning the Oath of Supremacy can no ways be adiusted to Principles of Reason and Wisdom if notwithstanding any thing contained in that Law a Popish Recusant remains in a condition to inherit the Imperial Crown of this Realm In a word that and all other Statutes made against Popery serve only to reduce us into a worse condition than ever we were if this do not run thorough and enliven them with sense as well as vertue namely that no Papist can have right or is ever to be suffered to Reign over this Nation SIR You see with what Freedom I have represened my thoughts unto you in relation to the Bill for Disabling James Duke of YORK to Inherit the imperial Crown of this Realm And indeed it is a Bill of vast importance not only to our selves and posterity but to all of other Nations who have forsaken the Fellowship of the Papal Church I could have not only enlarged upon the several heads but have reasoned from more Topicks But I think there is enough already said for one Letter and shall therefore reserve the rest till I receive your Advice whether it be necessary to say any more or whether you dare trust the farther manage of it in so weak and mean a Hand And shall only add that our Church-Men are like to be strangly entangled should the Bill once pass into an Act. For if they omit to Pray for the Illustrious Prince James Duke of York they will be thought to offend against the Obligations they are under of reading the whole Liturgy and should they continue to pray for him in the wonted form they may perhaps not only meet with some affront from the angry and incenced Multitude but be judged by wiser Heads to bespeak a publick Calamity at the hands of God and entreat him to inflict the worst of Judgments upon the Nation I am Sir Your most affectionate and willing Servant Lond. Nov. 8. 1678. FINIS