considering that Popery was so long professed in this Nation To that a short Answer will serve That the Pope's Authority was never establish'd here by Law altho' he was allowed many things by reason of the Superstition and Blindness that then overspread this Island yet the King and Parliament could never agree to give him any power by Law nay when he grew immodest in his Encroachments upon the Church they made Laws to restrain him but the Truth is it was the Resolution of the Parliament and especially of the Lords that protected the Nation against the Pope but if Popery should now come in we should have it to all intents and purposes for it would possess both Church and State it must have all Q. Marys days are a sufficient Warning what we must expect from a Popish Successor and how far their Promises are to be relyed on for by the assistance of the Men of Norfolk and Suffolk it was that she did her business and what Promises did she make to them not to make any alteration in Religion and said many other fine things yet as soon as she was setled on the Throne the first thing she did was to alter Religion with the greatest violence and effusion of Blood that was possible and these Men of Suffolk and Norfolk felt the first stroke of her Hand and perhaps the greatest heat of her Fury But I have too far digressed from my first Argument which is That if Protection from the King is not given to his Subjects or Obedience in the Subjects is not paid to the King then if one side fail the other is discharged and the Condition being broken the Obligation is void And this was the reason why Vortigern the Saxon King was deposed by his Lords for he was grown too friendly to Heugist the Dane and the Lords perceiving that he intended to betray the Land to him they to prevent the Common Destruction and because by this practice he had absolved them of their Allegiance therefore they deposed him and set up his Son Vortimer because he was a true lover of his Country There are several other Instances of the like nature which would be needless to be cited because I should rather amuse than satisfie you of the Truth should I recount them all In the next place I do conceive that the King until he be Crowned is not so much King to all intents and purposes as he is after he is Crowned for if the crowning of the King be but a meer Ceremony or Compliment of State and not essential in giving him a Right to the Allegiance of the Subject then certainly no King of England would be troubled with the Ceremony of being formally crowned because then there will lye no Obligation upon him to take the Coronation Oath and so he may be more at liberty to act according to his Will because his Conscience will not be clogged with the weight of so solemn an Oath and then with less Infamy and Reflection he may suspend or pervert the Laws and therefore with submission to better Judgments I am not convinced that the King whilst he is uncrowned has that Right in our Allegiance as he has after that the Crown is set upon his Head in the same way that it ought to be done for before the Crown is set upon his Head by the Archbishop or other person appointed to do it the Nobility and People are asked if they will do their Homage and Service to him which by the way implies that the People are at liberty in the thing and that if he be Crowned it is by their Leave and Election then if the People consent the King takes the Coronation Oath which is to preserve the Church our Laws Liberties and Properties and to administer Justice indifferently and thus when he has Sworn to us the Crown is immediately put upon his Head and then the Nobility and People do their Homage to him and according to this has been the Practice ever since there were Kings in England And I believe there is scarcely an Instance where the People ever swore to the King before be had taken his Oath to them If there be any such President it is to be look'd upon as irregular and not to be a Direction to us for it is not impossible but such a thing may happen but however is it reasonable that one or two Instances shall be sufficient to invalid a Practice of several hundred years to the contrary And is it not a piece of nonsence that we should adventure our Religion and Properties and all we have in the Hand of him that for ought we know has an Obligation on him to ruine or give us up to a Foreigner and not in the first place to take Security from him that he will defend and do us right before we repose so great a Trust in him for otherwise such Confusion and such Contradictions would follow that the Wit of Man cannot invent how to salve them But I acknowledge there are some Instances where the People have sworn to the Succession in the life-time of the Father and thence some do inferr that the King is entitled to our Allegiance before the Crown is set on his Head but this under correction will not hold for it does not appear but that the intended Successor swore to them also at the same time and it is very probable he did yet if he did not it cannot thence be concluded that the King has Right to our Allegiance before he is Crowned for whenever it happen'd that the Successor was sworn to in the life-time of his Father if afterwards he came to the Crown he took the Coronation Oath before the People swore Allegiance to him And therefore it is very plain that an Oath taken to the Successor in the life-time of his Father is nothing more but a declaring the good liking they have of the Successor and that if in case he will promise to defend them and their Properties when his Father or Predecessor dies they will elect him for their King as possibly it might now fall out if in case the Duke of Monmouth were legitimate Don't you think that the People would be very inclinable to swear to his Succession next after the King And I believe you will never find it done but when the King had the Hearts of the People or out of the hopes they had in the Successor for English Men if the King pleases them he may have all they have even to their Skins as a wise man said If an English King will be kind to the People he can never want their Heads Hands and Purses and therefore it is that in the most peaceable and tranquil times that ever the Land saw when King and People had a mutual Confidence of each other we find things done by the King that are more irregular in those times of agreement than was done in times of greater confusion and the reason is because
distinctly besides they are different in the manner of Proof for that which is necessary to prove the one does in no sort prove the other and furthermore the one may be effected and the other never so much as intended or designed as that the King may be Murdered and no War levyed nor intended And moreover in the one Case it is Treason as well to intend as to execute it without relation to or being joyned with any thing else but it is not so in the other for it is Treason absolutely in it self as well to compass the Kings Death as to Kill him But an Intention to Levy War and the doing of all things in order to it is not Treason unless the War be levyed except by Misplication or Inference and thus much may serve to prove that they are distinct Species of Treason As to the Fourth No doubt that every Statute is to be construed most strictly to restrain the Mischief against which it was enacted For the Uninterrupted course of all Judgments and Resolutions have been accordingly and nothing can more directly thwart common Sence than to make it otherwise and therefore if the State be absolute the more forcibly that it is construed to restrain the Mischief the more truly is the intent of the Statute pursued for how shall any evil be supprest if the remedy must be applyed but by halves For the Law would then be rather a Mockery than a means to redress the Mischief if it shall not be taken most strongly against it either it is or it is not a restraint of the Evil if it is not why was it made If it is It must be understood in that Sence by which the Mischief or Evil may be effectually prevented and suppressed As to the Fifth The Answer will be best understood by Considering first the Significations of these two words apart Viz. Provably and Overt Provably Signifies To prove or make good by Evidence Argument Reason or Testimony Overt has all these Significations open clear plain apparent manifest notorious evident known undoubted certain perspicuous This then being the Significations of those Words what then can follow more Naturally than that to be provably attainted by Over Deed is that the Fact must not only be direct apparent and notorious to the point but it must also be proved clearly evidently plainly and perspicuously void of all doubt or obscurity and those two Words being taken together do the better Expound each other and seem to be choice Words culled out by the penners of that Statute as the most expressive against all Implications and Inferences which might be made in Case of Treason These things being premised which are as easily proved as alledged there will remain very little for them to maintain their Opinion who say That a Conspiracy to Levy War is an Overt Act of compassing the Death of the King The things which are commonly and chiefly urged for that Opinion are these two First It would be of dangerous consequence if a Conspiracy to Levy War may not be interpreted an Overt Act of Compassing the King's Death because there is no means left to prevent it and the Mischiefs attending it when the War is Levyed Secondly If a War be levyed the Death of the King must needs be intended and will certainly ensue if the Rebels prevail In answer to these it may be replyed That the one of them is but a bare Objection and that the other is no substantial Argument because it begs the Question and then surely that must be a feeble Opinion that has no better a Foundation But a more particular answer to them will discover the Sandy Foundation upon which this Opinion is built And it will be more proper to begin with the Second because in giving an answer to that the other will in a great measure receive an Answer also Therefore as to the Second It may be observed that the Death of the King is made so certain and necessary a Consequence of Levying of War that by reason of that certainty a Conspiracy to Levy War is an Over Act of Compassing the Kings Death Now therefore if that certainty will not hold but that many Cases may be put and Instances produced wherein the Kings Death is not intended nor did it ensue upon the prevailing of the Party then is the whole weight and strength of that Argument of None Effect The Hugonots in France have heretofore Assembled together in Arms and tho' they repeated it several times yet in which of those Occasions does appear either by the cause of their coming together in that manner or by the issue of it that it was Levelled at the Kings Life No the Cause of their rising in Arms was for the asserting of their Religion and just Rights for as soon as their Reasonable Demands were satisfyed they laid down their Arms more willingly than they took them up neither did they attempt any thing against the Kings Life when he was in their power but after they were answered in those things to which they had Right both by the Laws of Nature and the Government immediately they returned home in peace and upon all other occasions proved the most firm and Loval Subjects of all that Kings Dominions and as this present King of France must witness for them if he will do them Justice If the Protestants in France should at this time take up Arms upon so just a provocation as they now have it would be very senceless to suppose that they Levy'd the War with a principal Design to Murder the King and not for the Defence of themselves and their Rights which are so inhumanly and against all Law and Justice at the same time invaded and ravisht from them Story is full of like Cases and Instances to this but to speak more particularly to England What was the Barons Wars the answer to which must be that they took up Arms to assert their Rights and Liberties which the King contrary to his Oath withheld from them and that it lasted near 40 Years yet the Kings Death was never intended nor his Life in any danger for as soon as their just demands were answered they put up their Swords and every man returned home and pray'd for the life of the King And out of English Story what one instance can be produced where the cause of War was declared to be against the Kings life or if that party prevailed the King was put to death by their general consent and approbation For tho' it be true that there are some instances where they have been Murdered after the War yet it is also as true that it was by private Assacination and not by the consent and privity of those who levyed the War for all those that were concerned in the Murder were condemned and executed for it as Traitors as in the Case of Edw. 2d and Richard 2d And as for that of Charles the First which is so much pressed and urged
affected to prevail with the King to adjourn prorogue and dissolve Parliaments when they were doing thiâ—â—â— of the greatest moment for the Nation and on purpose to defeat those very matters they had in hand If he will adventure to do these things whilst he is a Subject what may we not justly expect from him if he happen to be King But notwithstanding all this some will say That the Word of God will not allow us to put by the next Heir to the Crown be he what he will because by Moses 's Law the next of Blood must inherit Truly I am for that too when we are in a good Breed but as our Case stands I cannot yield to it But under favour I conceive that this Text also obliges no otherwise than according to the constitution of every Government for if the Mosaick Law be our Direction then the Duke will be King of a third part of these Dominions before his Brother is dead for by that Law the Eldest was only to have a double Portion and no more and then I pray what Absurdities will follow upon this Doctrine But it is most plain that this Law related only to private Families and had no regard to the setting up or pulling down of Kings for when the Law was given the Children of Israel had no King nor any prospect of it and it was several Ages after that before they petitioned God for a King and Saul was the first and the Practice after Saul puts the Matter out of Controversie for when Saul was dead David was anointed though there remained several of the Seed of Saul After David Solomon was anointed tho' Adonijah was his elder Brother and his Mother the honester Woman of the two When Solomon was dead Jeroboam rent away ten Tribes from Rehoboam and so on But these Instances are sufficient to prove that the Israelites did not believe that they were obliged to chuse him for their King that was next of Blood And if they might do this who had the presence of God amongst them and his immediate Direction more than any other People certainly then we cannot be said to sin against the Light And besides in all private Families there is care taken to preserve the continuance of them by disinheriting the eldest Son when it is perceived that he will ruine the Estate if he be ever possessed of it but to this some will answer That it is seldom seen that ever any Family prospered long where the right Heir was set aside I think so too when the right Heir is deprived of his Birthright for no just cause but we find that several Families have continued many Generations after that the right Heir has been rejected and yet tho' an ill Fate should always attend that Family where this is done yet is it not better to continue it two or three Successions longer tho' with a certainty of Ruine at last rather than suffer it to come into the Hands of him who will in a few years perhaps months bring it to nothing You cannot but have heard of Maud the Empress who was Daughter to Henry I. what Trouble and Bloodshed she caused in England in the days of K. Stephen and this is often insisted on to shew what evil Consequences there will follow upon secluding the Duke It is true she made a great bustle but she had that to pretend which the Duke has not for the Nation had taken an Oath to her in the life-time of her Father and from that she might presume very much but the Conditions were not performed upon which the Oath was taken and therefore the Obligation was void and the People were at liberty to chuse whom they pleased But besides whether the Duke get the Crown or no much Blood must be spilt for we must either fight or burn and whether it be not better to exclude the Duke by a Law and adventure our Lives in defence of that and all our Laws and Religion into the bargain than to let him come to the Crown and at best hand hang up Thousands of worthy Men if he do not extirpate their Name and Families but to be sure all those who gave their Votes to the Bill nay all that have declared their Approbation of it and all their Friends and Relations are destin'd by him and the Pope for Destruction if not all them who voted to elect them Members of Parliament And how far this will extend let any man consider Sir I am now come to your last Doubt which is How far we ought to obey the Duke if he happen to be King and there be no Law I mean no Act of Parliament to exclude him This is truly a tender place and ought to be handled only in the Parliament House but because I dare trust you in this captious Age I will lay before you some things that I think cannot be denied It is a known Maxim in our Law That protectio trahit subjectionem subjectio trahit protectionem These are plain words and are of as clear a sense that is not equivocal or capable of a double construction and I take them to be the mutual Bonds between a King and his People and one introduces the other and they cannot be separated for if Protection draws after it Subjection and Obedience incites Protection then whether or no can there be Protection where there is no Subjection or can there be Obedience where there is no Protection and then if it be not done on the one part how can it be required from the other for if the King shall go about to destroy the Government or take away our Properties does he not disown us and deny us his Protection and then I pray what Obedience is due to him that regards us not Or if the Subjects shall not obey the King's Writs or other Commands which by Law he may require from them do not they disown him and forbid him to concern himself with them and then I pray what has he to do but to do to them as they have done to him And this will be the case should the Duke being a Papist come to the Crown We see already that his Inclinations are for our Destruction and besides his Religion obliges him to it and therefore what Protection can we hope to have from him whose Conscience and Desire are united for our Ruine for it is not in the power of a Popish King to preserve us for if he will protect us and the Pope command our Destruction he must either violate his own Conscience or give us up to Ruine So dangerous a thing it is to depend upon the Conscience of a Papist who cannot be tyed or obliged by any Oaths or Obligations and it is safer to have a Protestant King tho' he has no Morality rather than to live under a Popish King tho' he be the best Man living Altho' I have heard many say How came it to pass that we retain'd our Properties
so great draw him aside and then we shall see Peace in our Israel I doubt not Gentlemen but you will do your Parts and this is all that I have to trouble you with at this time THE LEGALITY Of the Convention-Parliament Though not called by Writ IT 's a new sort of Doctrine That where there is a Power to do a greater thing there cannot also be to do a less The Lords who are born Counsellors to the King and Kingdom the Members of the House of Commons were all duely chose by such as had Right to Elect Members for Parliament The two Houses meet at the same day and first declare the Throne vacant and then fill it with this King and Queen and they thus Elected these Lords acknowledge to be our Rightful and Lawful Soveraign Lord and Lady which is the greatest thing that the two Houses are capable of doing and have thereby according to the Maxims of those very Lords altered the Government in a most Essential point of it and yet say they All Subsequents tho' with the Concurrence and Consent of this lawful King and Queen are invallid unless supported by the Authority of this or some other Parliament because the last was not called by Writ in due form of Law So that the Representatives of the Nation Assembled without a Writ can only do one thing and that the highest to make a King And by like Reason If when Assembled by Writ can do every thing but the greatest But it is against all manner of Reason and Policy to suppose that the Power that can make a King cannot do every thing else that is necessary to settle the Government If those Gentlemen had understood the true meaning of Writs and been so ingenious as to confess it they would not have made that an Objection against the Validity of the last Parliament Writs are necessary in their proper time but not so necessary as to give the Essence to a Parliament for if there be any weight in this Reason a Writ is as necessary as the Consent of the Nation by their Legal Representatives to Establish any thing into a Law Writs can amount to no more than the Means by which the Parliament is concerned It will be granted that the present Writ of Summons was Established by the Government and not by the King and it cannot be deny'd that wherever the power of the Government rests it may if it see Cause direct that Parliaments shall be convened in any other manner or by any other means than by Writ For it is not the Writ that makes a man a true Representative but the Election of those who have right to choose for that place For otherwise the Sheriff or other Officer might have return'd whom he saw good and Elections would be needless But the Law has more expresly shewed that it is the Election that makes the Person a Right Member and so consequently the Election of the People is that which gives the Essence to a Parliament because the Law has under greivious pains commanded That Election shall be free And since the Constitution of the Government makes choice of Writs for the Canvening of the Representative Body of the Nation why was not the Parliament as duely concerned and the Acts they passed as good since it was impossible to be Summoned in due form and these Gentlemen might as well have insisted That a Nation may want a Power to help it self as to object against the Validity of the last Parliament because called without Writ By the Weight that they lay upon a Writ they do seem to make a Writ more necessary to a Parliament than our Allegiance is to the Government and if that be so that which is only a Circumstance in the Government is more to be regarded than what is necessary to the Peace of it But to grant that Absurdity What is it that has given the Sanction to these new Oaths that our sitting and Voting in Parliament has not put us under all the Disabilities of 30 Caroli for we are certainly within that Statute if the last Parliament had not power to alter those Oaths and if it had what else they did is as valid for all or none of those Acts are good If it be destructive of the Monarchy to declare those Laws to be good it may be also said to be alike destructive when the proper and only means to support it is made use of For the Nation had no other way left of coming to a Settlement A RESOLUTION OF Two Important Questions I. Whether the Crown of England be Hereditary II. Whether the Duke of York ought to be excluded SIR THE Questions that you have proposed to me are of such a nature that they require a very strict consideration because they are of the greatest moment in our present condition and therefore you have done me a great honour to command my Thoughts upon them in regard you might have had your Queries resolved by persons much more able than I am but since you desire my Opinion I will give it you very faithfully As I remember the first thing that you was in doubt of was Whether the Crown of England be Hereditary or no and to that I answer negatively That it is not Hereditary And in order to the clearing of this I will in the first place give you a short historical account of Matter of Fact till K. James I think it will not be denied that from the first known Times in this Island after that they had Kings till the Conquest but that the People Elected him for their King whom they best liked without regard had to the Issue of the deceased King and also that they deposed them very frequently and set up others in their stead when upon tryal they were found unfit for the purpose He that says otherwise confesses himself either not to have read our English Story or that he understood not what he read and if your self doubts the truth of what I affirm I will at any time give you a particular account of it till the entrance of the Normans William the First commonly called the Conqueror we must begin with him who it 's most certain had no Right or Title to the Crown by Inheritance or Descent and it is as true that he did not gain it by Conquest for Edgar Etheling who was alive and in England when William came in had an unquestionable right by Descent and therefore whilst he was alive William could not pretend any Title by Inheritance but must find out some other way to come to the Crown and therefore he pretended one while a Compact between him and Harold and again That it was left to him by Edward the Confessor by his Will yet he found that all these were but empty sounds for although he had a potent Army by which he might have done great things yet that Army only brought him into England but it was the Election of the People that
gave him the Crown and he soon perceived that there was no Rest for the Sole of his Foot till he had taken the Coronation Oath and had sworn to maintain their Laws and Properties Some little Irregularities must be admitted in a time when things are unsettled but it will scarcely be found that any man was disceased of his Freehold but only such whose Demerits render'd them unworthy of them and from his time the Norman Government proceeded upon the Saxon Principles for King William by the Advice of his Nobles caused a select number of Men out of every County to be summoned who were to set down their Laws what they were in Edward the Confessor's time for it was he who had collected the Laws which at this day is called the Common Law Then after him William II. and Hen. I. succeeded each other and their Title was by Election of the People for Robert their elder Brother was alive and saw them both preferred to the Crown and he never enjoy'd it for he died a Prisoner at Cardiff Castle in the time of Hen. I. The next was K. Stephen who was second Son to Adela Daughter to William the Conqueror he was chosen by the People for he had an elder Brother whose Name was Theobald and there was Maud the Empress Daughter to Henry I. and both these were nearer by descent than he After him came Hen. II. he came in by Compact between K. Stephen himself and the Nobles and the good liking of the People for Maud his Mother was alive and by descent it belonged to her Then Richard I. was elected in his Father's Life-time and received Homage from the Peers King John was chosen by the People or else Arthur his elder Brother's Son who was then living would have succeeded Richard I. Henry III. came in by Election for Lewis the French Prince pretended to the Crown several of the Nobility having called him into their aid against King John and had sworn to him but the Fall of Pembrook who had married Henry's Aunt stuck to him and got him crowned by the consent of the Nobles and People after that he had taken the Coronation Oath and made other promises to the People Edward I. being out of the Land when his Father died was chosen by the consent of the Lords and Commons and I find that the Nation was sworn to the Succession of Edward I. before he went to the Holy Land Edward II. being mis-led by his Favourites was deposed and his Son Edward III. was declared King in his Life-time Richard II. Son to Edward the Black Prince was deposed for his Evil Government Henry IV. came in by Election of the People and though upon occasion sometimes he might pretend to several other Titles yet he found them unstable and to make sure he got the Crown entailed by Act of Parliament and so came in Henry V. and then his Son Henry VI. but he being found unmeet for Government enclining too much to the Counsels of his Wife who was a Foreigner and neglecting the Advices of his Parliament he was deposed and Edward IV. who was E. of March whose Father the D. of York by Act of Parliament was declared Heir apparent to the Crown and afterwards slain in the Battel at Wakefield He I say was Elected and afterwards Henry was restored and Edward set aside but at last Edward was setled and dies and the Crown came to his Son Edward V. who lived no longer than to be put into the Catalogue of our English Kings and then Richard III. was confirmed King by Act of Parliament for Elizabeth Daughter to Edw. IV. was living who afterwards was married to Henry VII and by right of descent the Crown belonged to her and he had no Title but what the People gave him Henry VII came in by Election for his Wives Title preceded his and there was also Edward Plantaginet Son to George D. of Clarence had an unquestionable Right before him if Descent might take place but to clear all doubts he got the Crown setled by Act of Parliament upon him and the Heirs of his Body successively for ever and upon that came in Henry VIII and in his time the Crown was limited three several times by Act of Parliament and there succeeded upon those limitations first Edward VI. then his Sister Queen Mary by Katherine Widow to Prince Arthur and then Q. Elizabeth by Ann Daughter to Sir Thomas Bullen and in the thirteenth year of her Reign a Law was made whereby it is made penal if any say that the Parliament cannot limit the Succession And now Sir I have given you a just account how the Crown has been disposed and if I should say no more I think that this of it self might convince any impartial man that the Crown till King James was in the Peoples dispose But that I may leave no place for doubt I will say something to those things which are so frequently objected and I will begin with that which says as follows Although there be many Instances where the Crown has leaped over the right Heir by descent and has lit upon the Head of another yet say they there are several Instances both before the Conquest and since where the Son has succeeded to the Father and that these are chiefly to be regarded because most agreeable to the Word of God which tells us That by me Kings reign c. and that the presidents that are otherwise are no better than Usurpation and not to be esteemed as legal but to be forgotten as Errors in the Government I acknowledge there is such a Text of Scripture but I must deny that it is to be taken in the literal sence for otherwise the King must be look'd upon to receive his Soveraign Power immediately from God without any regard had to our Laws and Constitutions and then he is King Jure divino and no Bounds or Limits of Humane Contrivance can be set to his Will but we are wholly at his Mercy and Pleasure and Magna Charta and the Petition of Right are waste Paper nay it not only destroys our Government but it puts an end to all other Constitutions in the World But the true meaning of the Words are That Kings are to be obeyed and that they are to govern under God according to the Laws of that Government and that they are to administer the Laws and Justice according to the Rules and Directions of that Constitution and not that Kings hereby shall have a Warrant to be unjust or govern arbitrarily But because there are some Instances where the Son has succeeded to the Father that therefore the Crown comes by descent I cannot grant for this Island has seldom been free from War and then the People are not at leisure to regard every Particular of their Right but are willing to have it at an end upon any terms and are not then so regardful under whom they enjoy their Liberties and Properties as that they