of God forget to pursue revenge For albeit King Edward his Son enjoyed both a long and prosperous Reign yet his next Successor King Richard the second was in the like violent manner imprisoned deprived and put to death I will prosecute the successive revenge which hereof also ensued being a strange matter and worthy to be rung into the ears of all Ages King Henry the Fourth by whom King Richard was deposed did exercise the chiefest Acts of his Reign in executing those who conspired with him against King Richard His Son had his Vertue well seconded by Felicity during whose Reign by means of the Wars in France the humour against him was otherwise employed and spent but his next Successor King Henry the Sixth was in the very like manner deprived and together with his young Son Edward imprisoned and put to death by King Edward the Fourth This Edward died not without suspicion of poyson and after his death his two Sons were in like manner disinherited imprisoned and murthered by their cruel Unkle the Duke of Gloucester who being both a Tyrant and Usurper was justly encountred and slain by King Henry the Seventh in the field So infallible is the Law of Justice in revenging Cruelties and Wrongs not always observing the presence of times wherein they are done but often calling them into reckoning when the Offenders retain least memory of them Likewise the deposition of King Richard the Second was a tempestuous Rage neither led nor restrained by any Rules of Reason or of State not suddenly raised and at once but by very cunning and artificial degrees But examine his actions without distempred judgment and you will not condemn him to be exceeding either insufficient or evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any truth or of great moment Hollingshead writeth that he was most unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his estate yet in no Kings days the Commons were in greater wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the evil-guided strength of their Will took head against him to their own headlong-destruction afterward partly during the Reign of King Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own people but more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this disorder more English bloud was spent than was in all the forraign Wars which had been since the Conquest Three causes are commonly insinuated by you for which a King may be deposed Tyranny Insufficiency and Impiety But what Prince could hold his State what People their Quiet assured if this your Doctrine should take place How many good Princes doth Envy brand with one of these marks What action of State can be so ordered that either blind Ignorance or set Malice will not easily strain to one of these heads Every execution of Justice every demand of Tribute or Supply shall be claimed Tyranny every infortunate Event shall be exclaimed Insufficiency every kind of Religion shall by them of another Sect be proclaimed Impiety So dangerous it is to permit this high power to a heedless and headless Multitude who measure things not by Reason and Justice but either by Opinion which commonly is partial or else by Report which usually is full of uncertainties and errours the most part doing because others do all easie to become slavish to any mans ambitious attempt So dangerous it is to open our ears to every foolish Phaeton who undertaking to guide the Chariot of the Sun will soon cast the whole Earth into combustion You proceed that King Henry the Sixth was also deposed for defects in Government Let us yield a little to you that you may be deceived a little that you may be carried by your affections How can you excuse these open untruths wherein it cannot be but the Devil hath a finger You cannot be ignorant that the onely cause which drew the Family of York into Arms against King Henry was the Title which they had unto the Crown by vertue whereof it was first enacted That Rich. Duke of York should succeed King Henry after his death but for that he made unseasonable attempts he was declared by Parliament incapable of succession and afterwards slain at the Battel of Wakefield Then Edward his Son prosecuting the enterprize and having vanquished King Henry at the Battle of St. Albans obtained possession of the State caused King Henry to be deposed and himself to be proclaimed and Crowned King Afterward he was chased out of the Realm and by Act of Parliament both deprived and disabled from the Crown Lastly he returned again and deprived King Henry both from Government and from Life It is true that some defects were objected against King Henry but this was to estrange the hearts of the people from him The main cause of the War did proceed from the right of the one party and possession of the other The contrariety of the Acts of Parliament was caused by the alternative Victories of them both Your last example is of King Richard the Third of whom you write First that although he sinned in murthering his Nephews yet after their death he was lawful King Secondly that he was deposed by the Common-wealth who called out of France Henry Earl of Richmond to put him down Philosophers say that dreams do commonly arise by a reflection of the phansie upon some subject whereof we have meditated the day before It may be that your drowsie conceit was here cast into a dream of that whereon it had dozed in all this Chapter Or at the best that you are like unto those who have so often told a lie that they perswade themselves it is ture King Edward the fourth left other children besides those that were murthered the Duke of Clarence also who was elder Brother to King Richard left Issue in life all which had precedence of right before him And as for the second point tell me I pray you by what Parliament was King Richard deposed where did the States assemble when did they send for the Earl of Richmond to put him down by what Decree by what Messengers There is no answer to be made but one and that is to confess ingenuously that you say untrue and that it is your usual manner of deceiving to impute the act of a few unto all and to make every event of Arms to be a judicial proceeding of the Common-wealth For it is manifest that the Earl of Richmond had his first strength from the King of France and that after his descent into England more by half both of the Nobility and common people did stand for King Richard than stir against him You adjoyn for a special consideration that most excellent Princes succeeded these whom you affirm to be deposed I will not extenuate the excellency of any Prince but I
Haro Lord of Biscay to procure him to be advanced to the succession of the Kingdom before his Nephews D. Lope undertook the devise and drawing some other of the Nobility to the party they so wrought with the King that in an Assembly of the States at Segovia Sancho was declared Successor and the Children of Ferdinand appointed to be kept in Prison But Sancho either impatient to linger in expectation or suspitious that his Father grew inclinable towards his Nephews made a League with Mahomed Mir King of Granado a Moor by whose aid and by the Nobility of his Faction he caused himself to be declared King Hereupon Alphonso was enforced to crave assistance of Iacob Aben Ioseph King of Morocco who before had been an Enemy to Alphonso but upon detestation of his unnatural Rebellion he sent Forces to him protesting notwithstanding that so soon as the War should be ended he would become his Enemy again So Alphonso by help partly of the Morocco Moors and partly of his Subjects which remained loyal maintained against his son both his Title and State during his life but not without extremity of bloodshed and opportunity for the Moors being assistant to both parties to make themselves more strong within the Countries of Spain For this cause Alphonso disinherited his son by his Testament and cast a cruel curse upon him and his Posterity and afterward it was ordained in an Assembly of the States holden at Tero that the Children of the elder Brother deceased should be preferred before their Uncle How then will you verifie your two points by this History First that Alphonso was deprived by a publick Act of Parliament Secondly that it turned to the great Commodity of the State It is not a million of Masses that are sufficient to satisfie for all your deceitful and malicious untruths I marvel how the Rebellion of Absolon against King David his Father escaped you Oh it wanted success and you could not easily disguise the Report You write that the Commonwealth of Spain resolving to depose Don Pedro the cruel sent for his Brother Henry out of France and required him to bring a strength of Frenchmen with him But hereby you make it plain that the Commonwealth was not fully agreed The truth is that this was a dangerous division of the State between two Concurrents some holding for Henry and some for Pedro Henry obtained forraign Assistance by the French Pedro by the English In the mean time whilst Peter was thrown out of State by the Forces of France and after that Henry by the Arms of England and again Peter dejected both from dignity and life the poor Country became a Spectacle for one of your Enterludes Your Example of Don Sancho Capello King of Portugal containeth many intollerable untruths for neither was he deprived of his dignity neither did the Pope and Council of Lions give either authority or consent that he should be deprived neither was he driven out of his Realm into Castilla neither died he in banishment neither was Alphonso his Brother King during his liâ—e These five untruths you huddle into one heap The Council of Lions wholly opposed against the deposing of Don Sancho notwithstanding many disabilities were objected against him in regard whereof they gave direction that Alphonso his Brother should be Regent of the Realm as in that case it is both usual and fit But Sancho taking this to dislike did seek Aid of the King of Castile and in that pursuit ended his life without Issue whereby the right of Succession devolved to Alphonso To your Examples of Greek Emperours I will answer by your words which are That for the most part they came not orderly to the Crown but many times the means thereof were tribulent and seditious The deposing of Henry King of Polonia I acknowledge to be both true and just I have nothing to except against it When the Crown of France did descend unto him he forsook Polonia and refused to return again to that swaggering Government whereupon they did depose him Give us the like case and you shall be allowed the like proceeding but you esteem your Examples by tale and not by touch being not much unlike a certain mad Fellow in Athens who imagined every Ship which was brought into the Haven to be his For whatsoever you find of a King deposed you lay claim unto it as both lawfully done and pertaining to your purpose whereas one of these doth always fail Concerning your two Examples one of Sweden and the other of Denmark I shall have occasion to speak hereafter The Nobility of those Countries pretend that their Kings are not Soveraign but that the power in highest matters of State pertaineth unto them If it be thus the Examples are not appliable to the Question if it be otherwise then the Princes had wrong We are now come to our domestical Examples the first whereof is that of King Iohn who was deposed by the Pope you say at the suit of his own people All this people was the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Ely at whose complaint the Pope did write to Philip King of France that he should expel King Iohn out of his Realm If not Conscience if not ordinary Honesty pure Shame should have drawn you to another form of writing He was also deprived you say afterwards by his Barons Hâ—avy Beast call you this a Deprivation The Commons were never called to consent the Clergy were so opposite to those that stood in Arms against King Iohn that they procured Excommunication against them first â—â—â—â—câ—ally then by name lastly Lewes the French Kings son was also included Of the Nâ—bâ—lity which is onely the third State of the Realm I make no doubt but some reserved themselves to be guided by success others and namely the Earls of Warren Arundel Chester Pembrooke Ferrers Salisbury and divers Barons did openly adhere unto King Iohn You may as well call any other Rebellion a Deprivation as affirm that the rest either did or might deprive him And whereas you bring in King Henry the Third as a most worthy Successor after this Deprivation I will derogate nothing from his worthiness but there was never King in England who without concurrent in the Title of the Crown did draw more bloud out of the sides of his Subjects Your second Example is of King Edward the Second whom many of our Histories report to be of a good and courteous nature and not unlearned imputing his defects rather to Fortune than either to counsel or carriage of his Affairs His Deposition was a violent fury led by a Wife both cruel and unchast and can with no better countenance of right be justified than may his lamentable both indignities and death which thereupon did ensue And although the Nobility by submitting themselves to the government of his Son did break those occasions of Wars which do usually rise upon such Disorders yet did not the hand
ensign of the never-dying Majesty of the Crown In regard of this certain and incontinent succession the Glossographer upon the Decrees noteth That the Son of a King may be called King during the life of his Father as wanting nothing but administration wherein he is followed with great applause by Baldus Paenormitane Iason Carol. Ruinus Andreas Iserna Martinus Card. Alexander Albericus Fed. Barbatius Philip Decius and Ant. Corsetta Fra. Luca Matthe Afflict And the same also doth Servius note out of Virgil where he saith of Ascanius Regemque requirunt his Father Aeneas being yet alive But so soon as the King departeth out of life the Royalty is presently transferred to the next Successour according to the Laws and Customs of our Realm All Writs go forth in his Name all course of Justice is exercised all Offices are held by his Authority all States all Persons are bound to bear to him Allegeance not under supposal of approbation when he shall be Crowned according to your dull and drousie conjecture but as being the true Soveraign King of the Realm He that knoweth not this may in regard of the affairs of our State joyn himself to St. Anthony in glorying in his ignorance and professing that he knoweth nothing Queen Mary Reigned three months before she was Crowned in which space the Duke of Northumberland and others were condemned and executed for Treason for Treason I say which they had committed before she was proclaimed Queen King Edward the first was in Palestina when his Father died in which his absence the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled at London and did acknowledge him for their King In his return homeward he did homage to the French King for the lands which he held of him in France He also repressed certain Rebels of Gascoine amongst whom Gasco of Bierne appealed to the Court of the King of France where King Edward had Judgment that Gasco had committed Treason and thereupon he was delivered to the pleasure of King Edward And this hapned before his Coronation which was a year and nine months after he began to reign King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth year of his Reign and in the mean space not only his Subjects did both profess and bear Allegeance but the King of Scots also did swear Homage unto him What need I give any more either instance or argument in that which is the clear Law the uncontrouled custom of the Realm Against which notwithstanding your weather-beaten forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind Opinion that Heirs apparent are not true Kings although their Titles be just and their predecessors dead This you labour to prove by a few dry conjectures but especially and above all others you say because the Realm is asked three times at every Coronation whether they will have such a man to be their King or no. First we have good reason to require better proof of this question than your bare word Secondly although we admit it to be true yet seeing the answer is not made by the Estates of the Realm assembled in Parliament but by a confused concourse necessary Officers excepted of all sorts both of Age and Sex it is for Ceremony only and not of force either to give or to increase any right Another of your Arguments is for that the Prince doth first swear to Govern well and justly before the Subjects take their Oath of Allegeance which argueth that before they were not bound And further you affirm that it hapned onely to King Henry the fifth among his predecessors to have fealty done unto him before he was crowned and had taken his Oath I confess indeed that Polydore and Stow have written so but you might easily have found that they write not true the one of them being a meer stranger in our State the other a man more to be commended for endeavour than for art King Iohn being in Normandy when his Brother died sent into England Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Marshal Earl of Strigvile and Geoffry Fitzpeter Lord Chief Justice who assembled the States of the Realm at Northampton and took of them an Oath of obedience to the new King Also King Henry the Third caused the Citizens of London the Guardians of the Cinque-ports and divers others to swear fealty to Prince Edward his son who being in Palestina when his Father died the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled in the new Temple at London and did acknowledge him for their King And in like manner King Edward the Third took an Oath of all the Nobility of the Realm of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales and so did King Henry the first for his Daughter Mawde and her young son Henry After the death of King Henry the Fifth that Subjects did often swear allegeance before the Coronation and Oath of the King you had neither Countenance nor Conscience to deny but it was neither of these two which did restrain you it proceeded onely from the force of truth which will manifest it self whatsoever art we use to disguise it For otherwise what Countenance what Conscience had you to affirm that it is expresly noted by our English Historiographers That no Allegeance is due unto Kings before they be crowned Who are these Historiographers Where do they so write You that search every dusty corner of your Brains for a few ragged reasons to uphold your Heresie should not either have mentioned or omitted such pregnant proofs For in that you affirm and do not express them you condemn your self by your own silence If you mean that which you alleadge out of Polydore and Stowe That an Oath of fealty was never made before Coronation until the time of King Henry the Fifth it is neither true nor to any such sence If you mean that of Polydore in terming Henry the Fifth Prince and not King before he was crowned in writing also that the States did consult in Parliament Of creating a new King after the custom of their Ancestors It is a sleepie jeast to strain every word in such an Author to propriety of speech You might better have cited what certain Cities in France not long since alleadged for themselves That because they had not reputed Henry the Fourth for their King because they had not professed Alleageance unto him they were not to be adjudged Rebels Whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolve that forasmuch as they were original Subjects even Subjects by birth they were Rebels in bearing Arms against their King although they had never professed alleageance And this is so evidently the Law of the Realm that it is presumption in us both in you to assay by your shallow Sophistry to obscure or impugn in me to endeavour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same But the admission of the people you say hath often prevailed against
will you say is nature immutable It is in abstracto but it is not in subjecto Or thus In it self it is not changed in us by reason of our imperfections it is Or else more plainly it is not changed but it is transgressed But nature you say is alike to all Not so good sir because all are not apt alike to receive her even as the sun beams do not reflect alike upon a clean and clear glass and upon a glass that is either filthy or course And in many not only men but nations evil custom hath driven nature out of place and setteth up it self in stead of nature Your third conclusion that no particular form of Government is natural doth not find so easie acceptance Your only proof is that if it were otherwise there should be one form of Government in all Nations because God and nature is one to all But this reason I have encountred before and yet you take pains to puff it up with many wast words how the Romans changed Government how in Italy there is a Pope a King and many Dukes how Millaine Burgundie Loraine Bavier Gascoine and Britain the less were changed from Kingdoms to Dukedoms how Germany was once under one King and is now divided among Dukes Earles and other supreme Princes How Castile Aragone Portugall Barcelona and other countries in Spain were first Earldoms then Dukedoms then several Kingdoms and now are united into one how Boeme and Polonia were once Dukedoms and now are Kingdoms how France was first one Kingdom then divided into four and lastly reduced into one How England was first a Monarchy under the Britains then a Province under the Romans after that divided into seven Kingdoms and lastly reduced into one how the People of Israel were first under Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Iacob then under Captains then under Judges then under high Priests then under Kings and then under Captains and high Priests again I will not follow you in every by way whereinto your errors do lead for who would have adventured to affirm that the Children of Israel were under Abraham and Isaac and that the Britains at the first were under one King whereas Caesar reporteth that he found four Kings in that Country which is now called Kent but I will only insist upon the principal point in regard whereof all this bundel of words is like a blown bladder full of wind but of no weight For first you do but trifle upon tearms in putting a difference between Kings Dukes and Earls which hold their state with Soveraign power We speak not of the names but of the Government of Princes Supreme Rulers may differ in name they may change name also either by long use or upon occasion and yet in Government neither differ nor change Secondly it is a more vain jeast to put a difference in this regard between a great territory and a small If a Kingdom be enlarged or streightned in limits the Government is not thereby changed if many Kingdoms be united into one if one be divided into many the nature of Government is no more altered then is the tenure of land either when partition is made or when many parts accrewe into one The knot of doubt is whether it be not natural that one state be it great or small should rather be commanded by one person howsoever intitled then by many And if we descend into true discourse we shall find that the very sinews of Government do consist in commanding and in obeying But obedience cannot be performed where the commandments are either repugnant or uncertain neither can these inconveniencies be any ways avoided but by union of the Authority which doth command This union is of two sorts first when one commandeth secondly when many do knit in one power and will The first union is natural the second is by means of amity which is the only band of this collective body and the more they are who joyn in Government the less natural is their union and the more subject to dissipation For as Taciâ—us saith equality and amity are scarce compatible Natural reason teacheth us that all multitude beginneth from one and the ancient Philosophers have held that from unity all things do proceed and are again resolved into the same Of which opinion Laertius reporteth that Museus of Athens was Author who lived long before Homer but afterwards it was renewed by Pythagoras as Plutarch Alexander and Laertius do write who added thereunto that Unity is the original of good and duality of evil And of this opinion Saint Hierome was alâ—o whose sentence is repeated in the canonical decrees but under the title name of Saint Ambrose Hereupon Homer doth oftentimes call good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyeth the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to affliction trouble Hereupon Galen also writeth that the best in every kind is one Plato produceth all things from one measureth all things by one and reduceth all things into one The whole world is nothing but a great state a state is no other then a great family and a family no other then a great body As one GOD ruleth the World one master the family as all the members of one body receive both sence and motion from one head which is the seat and tower both of the understanding and of the will so it seemeth no less natural that one state should be governed by one commander The first of these arguments was used by Soliman Lord of the Turks Who having strangled Sultane Mustapha his son because at his return out of Persia he was received by the soldiers with great demonstrations of joy he caused the dead body to be cast forth before the armie and appointed one to cry There is but one God in Heaven and one Sultane upon Earth The second was used by Agesilaus to one that moved the Spartans for a popular government go first said he and stablish a popular Government within your own doors To the third Tacitus did allude when he said The body of one Empire seemeth best to be governed by the soul of one man In the Heavens there is but one Sun which Serinus also applyeth unto Government in affirming that if we set up two Suns we are like to set all in combustion Many sociable creatures have for one company one principal either Governour or guide which all Authors take for a natural Demonstration of the Government of one And if you require herein the testimony of men you shall not find almost any that writeth upon this subject but he doth if not allege yet allow that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Lord one King Plutarch declareth both his own Judgment concerning this point and also the consent of others in affirming that all men did acknowledge that the Government of a King is the most excellent benefit that God hath given unto Men. Callimachus saith that Kings proceed from God Homer
of the King of Tombute did enterprize to attain Soveraignty above them which by violence he effected and left the same to his posterity And because I will not be tedious in running through particulars give you an instance of any one people which hath not divers times received both Prince and Government by absolute constraint Et Phillida solus habito and I will yield to all that you affirm But failing herein you shall be enforced to confess that in many yea in most if not in all Countries the people have received liberty either from the grant or permission of the victorious Prince and not the Prince authority from the vanquished people What helps now do you imagine that the people have assigned to their Prince The first you affirm to be the direction of Laws But it is evident that in the first heroical Ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 people were not governed by any positive Law but their Kings did both Judge and Command by their word by their will by their absolute power and as Pomponius saith Omnia manu a regibus gubernabantur Kings governed all things without either restraint or direction but onely of the Law of Nature The first Law was promulged by Moses but this was so long before the Laws of other Nations that Iosephus writeth It was more ancient than their Gods Affirming also that the word Law is not found in Homer or in Orpheus or in any Writer of like antiquity· Of this Law of Nature Homer maketh mention in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they who keep the Laws which God hath prescribed And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncivil and unjust is he and wanting private state Who holdeth not all civil War in horror and in hate And of the Justice of Kings he writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on In which verses Chrysostom affirmeth by the judgment of Alexander that Homer hath delineated the perfect Image of a King but that he maketh mention of any positive Laws I do rather doubt than assuredly deny For Kings in ancient times did give judgment in person not out of any formality in Law but onely according to natural equity Virgil saith Hoc Priami gestamen erat cum jura vocatis Moredaret populis This was the Robe which Priamus did always use to wear When he the People to him call'd their causes for to hear Which he doth also affirm of Aeneas Dido and of Alcestes This like doth Herodotus report of Midas King of Phrygia who consecrated his Tribunal to Apollo and the like also doth Plutarch of divers Kings of Macedonia Philarchus affirmeth in Athenaeus that the Kings of Persia had Palm-trees and Vines of Gold under which they did sit to hear Causes But because it grew both troublesome and tedious for all the People to receive their Right from one man Laws were invented as Cicero saith and Officers also appointed to execute the same Another Original of Laws was thus occasioned When any People were subdued by Arms Laws were laid like Logs upon their necks to keep them in more sure subjection which both because it is not doubtful and to avoid prolixity I will manifest onely by our own example When the Romans had reduced the best part of this Island into the form of a Province as they permitted liberty of Law to no other Country under their obedience so here also they planted the practice of their Laws and for this purpose they sent over many Professors and among others Papinian the most famous both for Knowledge and Integrity of all the Authors of the Civil Law Again when the Saxons had forced this Realm and parted it into seven Kingdoms they erected so many sets of Law of which onely two were of continuance the Mercian Law and the West-Saxon Law After these the Danes became victorious and by these new Lords new Laws were also imposed which bare the name of Dane-law Out of these three Laws partly moderated partly supplied King Edward the Confessor composed that body of Law which afterwards was called St. Edward's Laws Lastly the Normans brought the Land under their power by whom St. Edward's Laws were abrogated and not onely new Laws but new Language brought into use insomuch as all Pleas were formed in French and in the same Tongue Children were taught the principles of Grammar These causes we find of the beginning of Laws but that they were assigned by the people for assistance and direction to their Kings you bring neither Argument nor Authority for proof it is a part of the dross of your own device The second help which you affirm that Commonwealths have assigned to their Kings is by Parliaments and Privy-Councils But Parliaments in all places have been erected by Kings as the Parliament of Paris and of Mâ—ntpellier in France by Philip the Fair the Parliament in England by Henry the First who in the sixteenth year of his Reign called a Councel of all the States of his Realm at Salisbury which our Historiographers do take for the first Parliament in England affirming that the Kings before that time did never call the common People to Councel After this the Privy-Council at the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury was also established and since that time the Counsellors of State have always been placed by election of the Prince And that it was so likewise in ancient times it appeareth by that which Homer writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First he established a Council of honorable old men And likewise by Virgil gaudet regno Trojanus Acestes Indicitque forum patribus dat jura vocatis Acestes of the Trojan Bloud in Kingdom doth delight He sets a Court and Councel calls and gives each man his Right I will pass over your coarse foggy drowsie Conceit that there are few or none simple Monarchies in the world for it would tire a Dog to toyl after your impertinent errours and will now rip up your Packet of Examples whereby you endeavour to shew that the Power of Kings hath been bridled by their Subjects But what do you infer hereby what can you inforce will you rake over all Histories for examples of Rebellion and then argue a facto ad jus that every thing is lawful which you find to have been done Iustinian saith Non exemplis sed legibus judicandum We must judge Facts by Law and not Law by Facts or by Examples which Alciate and Deeiane do term a Golden Law because there is no Action either so impious or absurd which may not be paralleled by Examples Will you prove it lawful to use carnal familiarity with the Sister with the Mother-in-law with the natural Mother You have the example of Cambyses for the first Caracalla for the second Dionysius and Nero for the third The Iews upon whom God had setled his
Duty That which you report also that Thomas Becket did write unto King Henry the Second importeth nothing else but an acknowledgment of Duty Remember said he the Confession which you made I cannot omit your description of the manner of the Coronation in England First you say the King is sworn then the Archbishop declareth to the people what he hath sworn and demandeth if they be content to submit themselves unto him under those conditions whereunto they consenting he putteth on the Royal Ornaments and then addeth the words of commission Stand and hold thy place and keep thy Oath And thus you have hammered out a formal Election supposing that you draw together the pieces of falshood so close that no man can perceive the sâ—am The truth is that King Henry the Fourth being not the nearest in Bloud to the inheritance of the Crown did countenance his violence with the election of the people not at his Coronation but in a Parliament that was holden before And therefore you do impudently abuse us first in joyning them together as one Act secondly by falsifying divers points in both lastly by insinuating that the same order was observed by other Kings The points which you falsifie are these The interrogation of the Archbishop to the people the absurd straining of these words Stand hold thy place to be a Commission the alleadging also out of Stow 1. That the Archbishop did read unto the people what the King was bound unto by Oath 2. That the Earl of Northumberland did shew a Ring unto the people that they might thereby see the Band whereby the King was bound unto them 3. That the King did pray that he might observe his promise In whiâ—h composition of Conceits you shew how active you are in counterfeiting any thing that may make to your purpose perswading your self that it is no fraud unto God to deceive the World in a lye for advantage King Edward the Fourth also because his Right was litigious and another was in possession of the Crown strengthened or rather countenanced his Title with the approbation of the People But where you write that at the Coronation of King Edward the Sixth Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the consent and acceptation of the people was demanded First we have no cause to credit any thing that you say then although it be true yet not being done in Parliament it addeth no right unto the Prince but is onely a formality a circumstance onely of Ceremony and Order Hereupon you conclude that a King hath his authority by agreement and contract between him and the people insinuating thereby that he loseth the same if he either violate or neglect his word The contrary opinion that onely succession of Bloud maketh a King and that the consent of the people is nothing necessary you affirm to be absurd base and impious an unlearned fond and wicked assertion in flattery of Princes to the manifest ruine of Commonwealths and perverting of all Law Order and Reason I did always foresee that your impostumed stomach would belch forth some loathsome matter But whosoever shall compare this confident conclusion with the proofs that you have made he will rather judge you mad than unwise This bold blast upon grounds that are both foolish and false bewrayeth rather want than weakness of wits I am ashamed I should offer any further speech in so evident a truth but since I have undertaken to combate an Heresie since the matter is of so great consequence and import I purpose once again to give you a Gorge Learn then heavy-headed Cloisterer unable to manage these mysteries of State learn of me I say for I owe this duty to all Christians the Prophets the Apostles Christ himself hath taught us to be obedient to Princes though both Tyrants and Infidels This ought to stand with us for a thousand reasons to submit our selves to such Kings as it pleaseth God to send unto us without either judging or examining their qualities Their hearts are in Gods hand they do his service sometimes in preserving sometimes in punishing us they execute his judgment both ways in the same measure which he doth prescribe If they abuse any part of their power we do not excuse we do not extenuate it we do not exempt them from their punishment let them look unto it let them assuredly expect that God will dart his vengeance against them with a most stiff and dreadful arm In the mean season we must not oppose our selves otherwise than by humble suits and prayers acknowledging that those evils are always just for us to suffer which are many times unjust for them to do If we do otherwise if we break into tumult and disorder we resemble those Giants of whom the Poets write who making offer to scale the Skies and to pull Iupiter out of his Throne were overwhelmed in a moment with the Mountains which they had heaped together Believe it Cloisterer or ask any man who is both honest and wise and he will tell you It is a Rule in Reason a Tryal in Experience an Authority confirmed by the best That Rebellion produceth more horrible effects than either the tyranny or insufficiency of any Prince An Answer to the sixth Chapter whereof the title is What is due to onely Succession by Birth and what interest or right an Heir apparent hath to the Crown before he is crowned or admitted by the Commonwealth and how justly he may be put back if he hath not the parts requisite YOu begin after your manner with a carreer against Billay but because both I have not seen what he hath written and dare not credit what you report I will not set in foot between you In breaking from this you prefer Succession of Princes before free Election as well for other respects as for the pre-eminence of Ancestry in birth which is so much priviledged in the Scripture and yet not made so inviolable you say but upon just causes it might be inverted as it appeareth by the examples of Iacob Iudah and Solomon And this liberty you hold to be the principal remedy for such inconveniencies as do ensue of the course of Succession as if the next in birth be unable or pernicious to govern in which cases if he be not capable of directions and counsels you affirm that the remedy is to remove him And so you make Succession and Election the one to be a preservative to the other supposing that the difficulties of both are taken away First if ordinarily Succession taketh place then if upon occasion we give allowance to Election For the Prerogative of Birth as also for the special choice which God hath often made of the youngest I will remit my self to that which I have written before At once in those particular actions which God hath either done or by express Oracle commanded contrary to the general Laws which he hath given us as in the Robbery of the Egyptians the extirpation of the Amalekites
the insurrection of Iehu and such like we are bound to the Law and not to the Example God hath given us a natural Law to prefer the first-born he hath often made choice of the youngest because he commonly worketh greatest effects by means not onely weak but extraordinary as it appeareth by the birth of Isaak But that these special Elections of God are not proposed for imitation to us hereby it is evident because they have been for the most part without defect in the one or demerit in the other And especially in this example of Iacob and Esau St. Paul saith that it was not grounded upon their works but upon the will and pleasure of God for before they had done good or evil before they were born God said The eldest shall serve the youngest Which if we might imitate the priviledge of birth were given in vain For your device in joyning Election to Succession whereby one of them should remedy the difficulties of the other it is a meer Utopical conceit What else shall I term it an imposture of State a Dream an Illusion fit only to surprise the judgement of the weak and ignorant multitude These toys are always hatched by the discoursive sort of men rather than the active being matters more in imagination than in use and herein two respects do principally oppose against you The first is for that in most Nations of the world the people have lost all power of Election and Succession is firmly setled in one discent as before I have declared The second is for that more fiery factions are hereby kindled than where Succession or Election are meer without mixture For where one claimeth the Crown by Succession and another possesseth it by Title of Election there not a disunion only of the people not a division in arms but a cruel throat-cutting a most immortal and mercyless butchery doth usually ensue It is somewhat inconvenient I grant to be governed by a Prince either impotent or evil but it is a greater inconvenience by making a breach into this high point of State to open a way to all manner of ambitions perjuries cruelties and spoil whereto the nature of the common-people would give a great furtherance who being weak in Wisdom violent in Will soon weary of quiet always desirous of change and most especially in matters of State are easily made serviceable to any mans aspiring desires This I have manifested before by the examples of King Edward and King Richard both surnamed the Second who were not insupportable either in nature or in rule and yet the people more upon wantonness than for any want did take an unbridled course against them And thus is your high Policy nothing else but a deep deceipt thus whilst you strive with the wings of your wit to mount above the Clouds of other mens conceit you sink into a sea of absurdities and errours After this you determine two questions The first is What respect is to be attributed to propinquity of bloud only Whereto you answer that it is the principal circumstance which leadeth us to the next Succession of the Crown if other circumstances and conditions do â—oncur which were appointed at the same time when the Law of Succession was established Assuredly you can never shew either when or by whom this Law of Succession was first instituted except perhaps by some Nimrod when he had brought the neck of a people under his sword at which time what conditions he would set down to be required from his Successour any ordinary judgment may conjecture at ease Well since you set us to seek for proof of this to that which you have written before I will also send you back to the same place for your answer The second question is What interest a Prince hath to his Kingdom before he be Crowned This you resolve by certain comparisons and first you write that it is the same which the German Emperour hath before his Coronation But that is so large that some Emperours have never been Crowned others have deferred it for many years among which Crantzius writeth that Otho the First received the Crown of the Empire in the eight and twentieth year of his Reign And yet is not this comparison full to the question propounded because in elective States there is not held one perpetual continuance of Royalty as is in those that are successive And Panormitane saith That an argument a similibus is not good if any difference can be assigned Much more unfitly do you affirm that it is no greater than a Mayor of London hath in his Office before he hath taken his Oath For it is odiously absurd to compare the Authority of an absolute Prince by succession to the Authority of an Officer both elective and also subject But it is the example of marriage you say whereby this matter is made more plain for as in this contract there is an espousal by promise of a future act and a perfect marriage by yielding a present consent the first is when both parties do mutually promise that they will The second that they do take one the other for Husband and Wife So an Heir apparent by propinquity of blood is espoused only to the Commonwealth and married afterward at his Coronation by Oaths of either party and by putting on the Ring and other Wedding-garments But how were Kings married in former ages how are they now married in those Countrys where they have neither Ring nor Wedding-garment nor also any Oath What is every Office and Degree which is taken with Ceremony to be esteemed likewise a Marriage Or if you will have Coronation onely to be a Marriage what else can it resemble but the publick celebration of Matrimony between man and woman which addeth nothing to the substance of contract but onely manifesteth it to the world These pitiful proofs naked of authority empty of sence deserve rather to be excused than answered I will help therefore in some sort to excuse them They are the best that your both starved cause and conceit can possibly afford and you have also some fellows in your folly Heliogabalus did solemnly joyn the statues of the Sun and of the Moon in marriage together Nero was married to a man and took also a man to his Wife The Venetians do yearly upon Ascention-day by a Ring and other ceremonies contract marriage with the Sea But now in earnest men do die whensoever it pleaseth God to call them but it is a Maxime in the Common-Law of England Rex nunquam moritur The King is always actually in life In France also the same custom hath been observed and for more assurance it was expresly enacted under Charles the fifth That after the death of any King his eldest Son should incontinently succeed For which cause the Parliament-Court of Paris doth accompany the funeral-obsequies of those that have been their Kings not in mourning attire but in Scarlet the true
plainly to break beyond the bounds of all truth or grossely for I cannot now say artificially to disguise it with many false and deceiveable terms But to conclude for the state of France which is also to exclude whatsoever you have said under the Reign of Charles the fift for the better establishment of this right and for cutting off those calamities which accompany usurpation there was a Law made that after the death of any King the eldest Son should incontinently succeed We are now come to our English examples of which you might have omitted those of the Saxon Kings as well for that there could be no setled form of Government in those Tumultuous times as also for that our Histories of that Age are very imperfect not leading us in the Circumstances either of the manner or occasion of particular actions they declare in Gross what things were done without further opening either how or wherefore But both these do make for your advantage for who seeth not that your examples are chiefly bred in Tempestuous times and the obscuritie of Histories will serve for a shadow to darken your deceit Well let us take both the Times and Histories as they are How will you maintain that Egbert was not next Successor to Briticus by propinquitie of Blood Briticus left no Children and Egbert was descended of the Blood Royal as Polydore affirmeth William Malmesbury saith that he was â—he only Man alive of the Royal Blood beâ—ng descended of Inegild the Brother of King Ina. How then is it true which you say that Briticus was the last of the royal Descent and if it had been so indeed the right of Election should then have been in the State And thus you Stumble at every step you entangle your self without Truth or End You snatch at the words of Polydore where he saith He is created King by consent of all which do imply no other sense but that which a little after he saith That he was saluted King by all So we finde also that the like Improper speech was used at the Coronation of Philip the Second King of France whereby the Archbishop of Reimes did Challenge power in the right of his See to make Election of the King That Adelstane was illegitimate you follow Polydore a Man of no great either Industry or Judgement William Malmesbury accounted Egwina the Mother of Adelstane to be the first Wife of King Edward his Father he termeth her also a noble Woman contrary to that which Polydore fableth Henry Huntington Roger Hoveden and others write no otherwise of him but as of one that was lawfully Born And in that you english these words of Polydore Rex dicitur Rex a populo salutatur He was made King by the People In that you affirm also that for the opinion of his valour he was preferred before his Brethren which were lawfully born whom you acknowledge to be Men of most Excellent both Expectation and proof you do plainly shew that use hath made you too open in straining of truth Eldred did first take upon him but as Protector because of the minoritie of the sonnes of Edmund his elder brother and afterward entred into full possession of the Crown But that his Nephewes were put back by the Realm it is your own idle invention it was no more the act of the realme than was the usurpation of King Richard the third That Edwin was deposed from his estate it is inexcusably untrue Polydore writeth that the Northumbrians and Mercians not fully setled in subjection made a revolt Malmesburie saith that he was maimed of a great part of his kingdome by the stroke of which injurie he ended his life And whereas you write in commendation of Kind Edgar his next successor that he kept a Navie of 6600 shippes for defence of the Realme you discover your defective judgement in embracing such reports for true In that you say that many good men of the Realm were of opinion not to admit the succession of Etheldred after the death of his brother I dare confidently affirm that you do not only tell but make an untruth having no author either to excuse or countenance the same In that you write also that between the death of Edmund Ironside and the reigne of William Conquerour it did plainly appear what interest the Common-wealth hath to alter titles of succession it doth plainly appear that both you reason and your conscience is become slavish to your violent desire For what either libertie or power had the Common-wealth under the barbarous rage and oppression of the Danes when Canutus had spread the wings of his fortune over the whole Realm none having either heart or power to oppose against him what choice was then left unto the people what room for right what man not banished from sobrietie of sense would ever have said that he was admitted king by the whole Parliament and consent of the Realme It is true that after he had both violently and unjustly obtained full possession of the Realme slain the brother of Edmund Ironside and conveyed his Children into Sueden he assembled the Nobilitie and caused himself to be crowned king but neither the form nor name of a Parliament was then known in England and if coronation were sufficient to make a title no king should be accounted to usurp Of Harold the first the natural Son of Canutus our Histories doe verie differently reporâ— Saxo Grammaticus writeth that he was never king but that he died before his Father Henry of Huntington reporteth that he was appointed but as Regent for his brother Hardicanutus Others write that apprehending the opportunitie of his Brothers absence he invaded Northumberland and Mercia by force of the Danes who were in England whereupon the Realm was divided one partholding for Harold and another for Hardicanutus who was in Denmark But because he delayed to come into England they all fell rather not to deny then to acknowledge Harold for their king Take now which of these reports you please for all do serve to your purpose alike Hardicanutus after the death of Harold came out of Denmark into England and the people having their courages broken with bondage were easie to entertain the strongest pretender But after his death divers of the Nobility especially Godwin Earl of Kent rising into hope to shake off their shoulders the importable yoke of the Danes advanced Edward the Son of Etheldred to the Crown as being the next of the Race of the Saxon Kings though not in blood yet at hand for Edward the Outlaw his elder Brother was then in Hungary and fear being the only knot that had fastened the people to the Danish Kings that once united they all scattered from them like so many birds whose Cage had been broken Edward being dead Harold the Son of Godwine usurped the Kingdom for as Malmesbury saith By extorted faith from the nobility he fastned upon the Crown a forceable gripe
Henry Huntington also and out of him Polydore do write that upon confidence of his power he invaded the Crown which usurpation gave both encouragement and successe to the Enterprise of the Normans This short passage of History you do defile with so many untruths that it seemeth you have as natural a gift to falsifie as to eat drink or sleep But where you write that William the Conqueror formed any title by consent of the Realm you grow into the degree of ridiculous We find that he pretended the Institution of King Edward which had neither probability nor force and that he was nearer to him in blood than Harold the Usurper but that he ever pretended the Election of the People it is your own clouted conceit For when he had routed the English Army in the field when he had sacked their Towns harrassed their Villages slain much people and bent his Sword against the breasts of the rest what free Election could they then make Your self acknowledge also in another place that he came to the Crown by dint of Sword and at his death his own conscience constrained him to confesse that he took it without right And in that the Pope and the French King favoured his enterprise it is not material this is not the first injustice which they have assisted Neither was it the Popes hallowed Banner as you affirm but the Bow and the Arrow the only weapon of advantage long time after to this Nation whereby he did obtain the Victory One help he had also within the Realm for that King Edward had advanced divers Normans to high place both of Dignity and Charge who gave unto him much secret both incouragement and assistance in his Attempt And thus in all these turbulent times you are so far from finding five or six that you are short of any one who was made King by free Authority of the People King William Rufus made no other Title to the Crown but the Testament of his Father For often use hath confirmed it for Law that a Victor may freely dispose of the Succession of that State which he hath obtained by the purchase of his Sword The Conqueror disinherited his Eldest Son Robert for that joining with Philip King of France he invaded wasted and spoiled Normandy and joyned in open battel against his Father wherein the Father was unhorsed and wounded and brought to a desperate distress of his Life Hereupon he cast forth a cruel Curse against his Son which he could never be intreated to revoke in so much that upon his death-bed he said of him that it was a miserable Countrey which should be subject to his Dominion for that he was a proud and foolish Knave and to be long scourged with cruel Fortune And whereas you write that at the time of his Fathers death he was absent in the war of Ierusalem it is a very negligent untruth But it is an idle untruth that you write that Henry the first had no other Title to the Crown but the Election of the People He never was Elected by the People he never pretended any such Title Nubrigensis and after him Polydore do report that he laid his Title because he was born after his Father was King Malmesbury saith Henry the youngest Sons of William the Great being an Infant according to the desires and wishes of all men was excellently brought up because he alone of all the Sons of William was Princely born and the Kingdom seemed to appertain unto him He was born in England in the third year after his Father entred into it And this was the like Controversie to that which Herodotus reporteth to have happened between the Sons of Darius the Son of Hystaspis King of Persia when he prepared an expedition against the Grecians and Aegyptians because by the Laws of Persia the King might not enter into enterprise of Arms before he had declared his Successor Darius had three Children before he was King by his first Wife the Daughter of Gobris and after he attained the Kingdom he had other four by Anrosa the Daughter of Cyrus Artabazanes was eldest of the first sort Xerxes of the second Artabazanes alledged that he was eldest of all the Kings children and that it was the Custom amongst all men that the eldest should enjoy the Principality Xerxes alledged that he was begotten of Atossa the daughter of that King by whose puissance the Persians had gained not onely Liberty but also Power Before Darius had given sentence Demaratus the son of Aristo cast out of his Kingdom of Sparta came unto Xerxes and advised him to alledge further that he was the eldest son of Darius after he was king and that it was the Custom of Sparta that if any man had Children in private estate and afterward another son when he was King this last son should be his Successor upon which ground Darius pronounced in the bealf of Xerxes The same History is reported by Iustine and touched also by Plutarch although they differ both from Herodotus and one from the other in some points of circumstances Hereto also agreeth that which Iosephus writeth in reprehending King Herod for excluding Alexander and Aristobulus his Sons and appointing Antipater born to him in private estate to succeed in his Kingdom Many great Lawyers have subscribed their opinions to this kind of title and namely Pet. Cynus Baldus Albericus Raph. Fulgosius Rebuffus and Anto. Corsetta delivereth it for a common opinion But with this exception if the kingdom be acquired by any other title then by succession according to proximity in blood for in this case because the dignity is inherent in the stock the eldest Son shall succeed although he were born before his father was King And therefore Plutarch writeth that after the kingdom of Persia was setled in succession when Darius the King had four Sons Artaxerxes the Eldest Cyrus the next and two other Parysatis his wife having a desire that Cyrus should succeed in the kingdom pressed in his behalf the same reason wherewith Xerxes had prevailed before affirming that she had brought forth Artaxerxes to Darius when he was a private man but Cyrus when he was a king Yet Plutarch writeth that the reason which she used was nothing probable and that the eldest was designed to be King Howsoever the right stood between Robert Duke of Normandie and his younger brothers the fact did not stand either with the quiet or safetie of the Realm For during the reigne of William Rufus it was often infested upon this quarrel both with foreign arms and civil seditions which possessed all places with disorder and many also with fire rapine and bloud the principal effects of a licentious war These mischiefs not onely continued but encreased in the reigne of King Henry untill Robert the eldest brother was taken prisoner in the field which put a period to all his
attempts So dangerous it is upon any pretence to put by the next in Succession to the Crown This Henry the first left but one Daughter and by her a young Son named Henry to whom he appointed the Succession of the Realm and took an Oath of all the Bishops and likewise of the Nobility to remain faithful unto them after his decease Yet you write that because Stephen Son of Adela Sister to King Henry was thought by the States more fit to govern he was by them admitted to the Crown In which assertion you cannot be deceived you do not err but your passion doth pull you from your own Knowledge and Judgement Polydore writeth that he possessed the Kingdom contrary to his Oath for which cause the minds of all men were exceedingly moved some did abhor and detest the impiety others and those very few unmindfull of Perjury did more boldly then honestly allow it and followed his part Further he saith that he was crowned at Westminster in an assembly of those Noble Men who were his Friends Nubrigensis affirmeth that violating his Oath he invaded the Kingdom William Malmesbury who lived in King Stephen's time saith that he was the first of all Lay-men next the King of Scots who had made Oath to the Empresse Maud and that he was Crowned three Bishops being present of whom one was his Brother no Abbot and a very few of the Nobility Henry Huntington who lived also in the same time saith that by force and impudence tempting God he invaded the Crown Afterward he reporteth that being desirous to have his Son Eustace Crowned King with him the Bishops withstood it upon Commandement from the Pope because he took upon him the Kingdom against his Oath Roger Hoveden writeth that he invaded the Crown in manner of a tempest This is the report of those Writers who came nearest both to the time and truth of this action whom other Authors do likewise follow Polydore and after him Hollingshead do write that he took upon him the Crown partly upon confidence in the power of Theobald his Brother Earl of Blois and partly by the aid of Henry his other Brother Bishop of Winchester Walsingham adaddeth that Hugh Bigot who had been King Henries Steward took an Oath before the Archbishop of Canterbury that King Henry at his death appointed Stephen to be his Successour Whereupon the Archbishop and a few others were over-lightly led like men blinded with security and of little foresight never considering of dangers until the means of remedy were past You write that they thought they might have done this with a good conscience for the good of the Realm But what good conscience could they have in defiling their faith Such consciences you endeavour to frame in all men to break an oath with as great facility as a Squirrell can crack a Nut. What good also did ensue unto the Realm The Nobility were set into factions the common people into division and disorder and as in Wars where discipline is at large there insolencies are infinite so in this confusion of the State there was no action which tended not to the ruin thereof the Lives and Goods of Men remaining in continual pillage Polydore saith Matrons were violated Virgins ravished Churches spoiled Towns and Villages rased much Cattle destroyed innumerable Men slain Into this miserable face of extremities the Realm did fall and into the same again you strive to reduce it But you say that for the ending of these Mischiefs the States in a Parliament at Wallingford made an Agreement that Stephen should be King during his life and that Henry and his Off-spring should succeed after his death A man would think you had a mint of Fables there is no History which you handle but you defile it with apish untruths All our Histories agree that King Stephen unable to range things into better form did adopt Henry to be his Successor The second Huntington saith that this agreement was mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester who repented him of the furtherance he gave to the advancement of King Stephen when he saw what Miseries did thereupon ensue The like doth Hoveden report and Holingshead setteth down the form of the Charter of agreement between them whereby it is evident that it was a transaction between them two and no compulsory act or authority of the State I deny not but some Authors affirm that the King assembled the Nobility but neither were they the States of the Realm neither were they assembled to any other end but to swear Fealty unto Henry saving the King's Honour so long as he should live After the death of King Richard the first you affirm that the Succession was again broken for that Iohn Brother to King Richard was admitted by the States and Arthur Duke of Britain Son to Geoffry Elder brother unto Iohn was against the ordinary course of Succession excluded Well Sir I arrest your word remember this I pray you for I will put you in mind thereof in another place That which here you affirm to be against the ordinary course of Succession you bring in another place for proof that the Uncle hath right before the Nephew You do wildy waver in variety of Opinion speaking flat contrary according as the Ague of your passion is either in fit or intermission The History of King Iohn standeth thus King Richard the first dying without issue left behind him a Brother named Iohn and a Nepew called Arthur Son of Geoffry who was Elder Brother unto Iohn This Arthur was appointed by King Richard to succeed in his Estate as Polydore writeth Nubrigensis saith that he should have been established by consent of the Nobility if the Britains had not been so foolishly either suspicious or fond that when King Richard sent for him they refused to commit him into his Uncles hands But after the death of King Richard his Brother Iohn seized upon his Treasure in Normandy came over into England and in an Assembly only of the Nobility was crowned King Of these many he won with such liberal Protestations and Promises as men careless of their word are wont to bestow others were abused by the persuasions of Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury and a few others saith Polydore not well advised Nic. Trivet saith that Iohn pretended for his Title not the election of the People but propinquity of Blood and the testament of King Richard The same also is affirmed by Walsingham And this is the Question between the Uncle and the Nephew of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter But Polydore saith That divers Noble-men did account this to be a fraudulent Injustice and thereupon did ominate those Evils which afterward did ensue And when the Archbishop was charged That under colour of Reason partly subborned and partly weak he had beene