fifty years ago but I do not look upon them as the Antient Establisht Doctrine of our Church because these Canons are not confirmed but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments and consequently never legally Established as they ought to be by the publick Saction of the King and Nation Our Old Queen Elix Divines such as Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines nay teaching in several places of their Writings the quite contrary Noâ— was this Doctrine of absolute Subjection and Non-Resistance ever generally maintained until about the middle of King Iame's Reign when some Court Bishops and Divines began to make new Discoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity and did by their Preaching and Writings affirm that the King had an absolute Power over Mens Estates So that it was unlawful in any Case to disobey or resist his Personal Commandâ— if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God as may appear by Dr. Harsâ—et then Bishop of Chichester his Sermon upon this Text Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's wherein he maintained That all the Subjects Goods and Money were Caesar's that is the Kings and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the publick use which Sermon thô order'd by the Lords and Commons to be Burnt by the Hangman yet was so grateful to the Court that he was so far from being out of Favour for it that he was not long after Translated to Norwich and from thence to the Archbishoprick of York So likewise about the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First Dr. Manwaring preached before him the substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher than the former viz. That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land not to impose Taxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament and that when they were so imposed the Subjects were oblieged in Conscience and upon pain of Damnation to pay them which if they refused to do they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebelion For which Sermon he was Impeacht by the Commons in Parliament 4. Car. I and thereupon Sentenced by the House of Lords to be Disabled to hold or receve any Ecclesiastical Living or Secular Office whatever and also to be Imprisoned and Fined a Thousand Pound Notwithstanding all which we find him presently after the Parliament was disolved not only at Liberty but also presented by the King to a Rich Benefice in Essex and not long after made Bishop of St. Davids So likewise one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Asâ—ize Sermon at Northamtâ—n on Rom. 13.7 wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines as that it was the King alone that made the laws and that nothing could excuse from an active Obedience to his Commands but what is against the Law of God and Nature And that Kings had Power to lay Pole Money upon their Subject Heads But this much I have read that this Sermon was Licensed by Dr. Laud then Bishop of St. Davids because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law for which he was very much frwoned upon at Court and it is supposed to have been one of the main causes of his Suspension from his Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction which not long after happened But as for this Siothâ—rp tho he lived long after even till the Kings Return yet being as Archbishop Abbot describes him a man of but small Learning I cannot learn that he was ever preferred higher than the Parsonages of Barchley and in Northamptonshire But I find a New Doctrine broach'd by some Modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of King Iames the first That Monarchy was of Divine Right or Institution at least so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful and of this New Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written several Treatises to prove this Doctrine and which is worse That all Monarchs being Absolute they cannot be limited or obliged either by Oaths Laws or Contracts with their People farther than they themselves shall think fit or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives of which they only are to be the Sole Judges So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings what strong inclinations they had to render themselves Absolute and that few Divines or Common or Civil Lawyers were preferr'd in their Reigns to any considerable Place either in Church or State who did not maintain these New Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit You need not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way if so many were carried away with it since it was but to expose themselves to certain misery if not to utter ruin to oppugn it All who offered by Speaking or Writing to maintain the contrary being branded with the odious Names of Puritans Common-wealths-men Whigs c. Some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned Fined nay Whipt for so doing So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought nor could any thing but the imminent danger upon our Laws Religion and Properties proceeding from the Kings illegal practices have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen Gentlemen and Clergy who contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue did generously venture both their Lives and Estates to joyn their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings M. I do not doubt notwithstanding all you have said to prove before I have done these Doctrines of Non-Resistance and of the Divine institution of Monarchy to be most consonant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and also to that of our Reformed Church of England Nor were those Divines you mention in K. Iames the First 's time the Authors or inventers of these Doctrines which were publickly received and Decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began in the first Year of K. Iames and continued till the Year 1610. as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins late Bishop of Durham besides a very fair Copy now to be seen in the Archbishops Library at Lambeth which if you please to peruse you may be quickly satisfied that the Church of England long before ever Sir R. F. writ thoses Treatises you mention held that Civil Power was given by God to Adam and Noah and their Descendants as also that absolute subjection and obedience was due to all Soveraign Powers without any resistance as claiming under those Original Charters These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted as the Doctrines of our Church So that you deal very unjustly with the memory of those Divines as also of Sir R. F. to
make them the first breachers of it whereas you may find that it was the opinion of the whole Convocation for many years before ever those Divines or that Gentleman began to Preach or write upon this subject Nor were these the only men who maintained these Principles but Archbishop Usher and Bishop Sanderson whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines you so much condemn as any of that party you find fault with and have very well proved all resistance of the Supream Powers to be unlawful not only in absolute but limited Monarchies Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfie your self if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bishops viz. The Lord Primate Usher's Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it as also the said Bishop's Treatise de Iura nouto written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford F. I must beg your pardon Sir if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention much less of the opinions therein contained since there is no mention made of their proceedings in any History or Record of those times either Ecclesiastical or Civil as I know of But this much I am certain of That these Determinations or Decrees you mention call them which you please never received the Royal Assent much less the confirmation of the King and Parliament one of which if not both is certainly requisite to make any opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doctrine of the Church of England otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience tho' they stand at this day condemned by Act of Parliament so that however even according to your own Principles you cannot urge this Book as the Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent which you your self do not affirm they had for you very well know that as in Civil Laws no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King hath refused to give his Royal Assent to it so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Lay-men till they have received the confirmation of the King and the two Houses of Parliament or otherwise the consequence would be that if the King who hath the nomination of all the Bishopricks and Deaneries as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England of which the Convocation chiefly consists should nominate such men into those places which would agree with him to alter the present establisht Reformed Religion â—n Governmenâ— and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it or at least to submit without any contraditioâ— to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make which of how fatal a consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom this Kings choice of Bishops and Deans such as he thought most fit for his turn would have taught â—s when it had been too late M. You very must mistake me Sir if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons which I grant must have the Royal Assent but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament I very much question since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church and diverse Canons made under Queen Elizabeth and King Iames are good in Law at this day tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you to let you see that these Doctrines are more Antient than the time you prescribe and also that the Major part of the Bishops and â—lergy of the Church of England held these Doctrines which you so much condemn long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention medled with this controversie and I suppose we may as well quote such a Convocation Book as a Testimony of their sense upon these subjects as we do the French Helvetian or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines tho' without any confirmation of the Civil Power F. If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony and not Authority I shall not contend any further about it but then let me tell you that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation though never so much confirmed by King and Parliament do no further oblige in Conscience than as they are agreable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures sure their determinations without any such Authority can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reuerence for the Judgments of so many Learned Men yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book I think notwithstanding that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason and express Testimonies of Scripture by either of which when I see you can convince me of the falshood of my Tenets I shall count my self happy to be beâ—â—er informed But as for those Treatises of Bishop Usâ—er and Bishop â—anderson which you now mentioned I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately writen and tho' I am against Rebellion as much as any man and do believe that subjects may too often be guilty of it yet am I not therefore convinced that it is absolutely unlawful in all cases whatsoever even in the most Absolute and Arbitrary sort of Civil Government for the People when violently and intolerably opprest to take up Arms and resist such unjust violence or to join with any Foraign Prince who will be so generous as to take upon him their deliverance So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bishops you mention were very Pious and Learned men â—im â—hat I bear great reverence to their memories yet doth it not therefore follow that I must oâ—â— them to be Infallible or as great Polititians as they were Learned Divines or that they understood the Laws of England as well as they did the Scriptures or Fathers and perhaps there may be a great deal more said on their behalfe than can be for divers others who have since Wâ—â—een and Prâ—â— so much upon those subjects for if you please to consider the times of their writing those Treatises you will find them written about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars which they supposed to be begâ—n and carried on contrary to all Law and Justice under the pretenced Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against King Charles the First and therefore it is no wonder if they thought themselves obliged to Write very high for the Prerogatives
Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any Pretence whatsoever is at least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God And tho' they do not invade but only resist St. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves Damnation From which you may plainly see that this Convocation which consisted of as great Men as I think had been for divers Ages do clearly maintain Monarchy to be of Divine Right and Resistance to be in no Case lawful F. I should grant the Canons of this Convocation to be a good Proof of the Iudgment of the Church of England were it not for two very good Reasons I have against them The one I will tell you presently and the other I will keep a while to my self In the first place therefore I suppose you cannot but very well know that this Convocation sate and passed these Canons which likewise received the King's Confirmation after the Parliament that was summoned together with this Convocation was dissolved And I suppose you know that by the Law of England the Convocation having from all times been looked upon as an Appendix to the Parliament was till then always dissolved with it For which Reason all Acts and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned and declared null and void by the Long Parliament that began to fit the latter End of the same Year And which is more was likewise condemned by the first Parliament after the Restauration of King Charles the second And therefore I think I have very little Reason to own thâ—se Canons as Conclusive M. In the first place I might reply to what you have now said that that very Parliament which first condemned these Canons afterwards ruined the Monarchy it self In the next place that in old time the General or Provincial Synods were not Dependant upon the Assembly of the States at the same time And I likewise farther Answer that these Canons were made and confirmed in a full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury and York and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King which was all that was of old required in such Cases and tho' the Convocation sate after the Dissolution of the Parliament yet this is not without President even in the Happy Days of Queen Elizabeth not to look back unto Henry the eighth or the Primitive times And as for your Objection that these Canons were reprobated since the Restitution of Charles the II. I say that I quote them not as Law but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time F. Your first Answer in behalf of these Canons is altogether Invidious For it was not this Parliament that ruâ—ned the Monarchy but only the Rump or Fag end of it after it had suffered divers Violences and Exclusions of Members by the Army and that the House of Lords being by this Iunto voted useless and dangerous were shut out of doors nor is your second Answer any more true for antiently in the Saxons time the Wittena Gemot or Great Counsel and the General Synod made one and the same Assembly consisting both of Clergy-men and Lay men and then all matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline were enacted and confirmed by the King as also the Spiritual as well as Temporal States Nor can you shew me an Example of any General or Provincial Synod which met independently and without the States of the Realm until after the Reign of Henry the first when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority as also upon our Civil Rights and by his Legaâ—s to call Synods and make Ecclesiastical Constitutions in which neither the King nor the States of the Kingdom had any thing to do And tho' I grant that upon the Reformation the King was restor'd to those Rights as Supream Governour of the Church which the Pope had before usurped yet is not this Act of the Supremacy to be so understood as to give the King all that Power which the Pope unjustly took upon him to execute before for that had been to make their Case no better than 〈◊〉 was before and therefore this Act of the Supremacy being only an Act of Restoration of the King to his Pristine Rights of which that of Calling Synods and Convocations was one of the Principal the King could not call nor continue those Assemblies in any other form or after any other manner than they were held before the Popes Usurpation in taking upon him to call such Independant Synods and notwithstanding what you tell me I am confident you cannot shew me any Precedent of a Convocation so turned into a Synod as this was in all the Reigns of Henry the eighth and Queen Elizabeth But as for your last reply that you quote not these Canons for a Law that obliges the Church but as the Sense of the Church of England at that time if they do not now oblige the Church neither in Point of Belief nor Practice as you may seem to grant it signifieth no more to me what was the Sense of the greatest part of the Members of that Convocation in this matter nor doth it any more shew me what is the true Doctrine of the Church of England than if I should tell you that because in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Major part of the Bishops and Clergy of our Church were rigid Calvinists in the Interpretation of that Article about Predestination that therefore Calvinism was then the Doctrine of the Church of England but is not so now And therefore we ought not to take that for a Doctrine of any National Church unless the Synod or Assembly that declares such Doctrine be solemnly and Lawfully assembled according to the Laws and Customs of that Nation or Country wherein they are so declared M. Since you so much contest the Authority of these Canons I shall no longer insist upon them but I shall here shew you out of the Books of Homilies to which all the Clergy in England are bound to subscribe by Act of Parliament as well as to the Articles and Canons as containing wholesome Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God so that these Homilies do indeed thereby become a part of the known Laws of the Land that in these very Homilies there are divers passages so very full and Plain against all Resistance of the Sovereign Powers for any Cause whatsoever that if you are a true Church of England Man as I hope you are you can have no just Reason to deny their Authority The Homily or Exhortation to Obedience was made An. 1547. in the Reign of King Edward the sixth in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience we are told in these Words which I desire you to read along with me That it is the Calling of God's People to be patient and on the suffering side
Constitution to have bin in all the Neighbouring Kingdoms in Europe which have bin raised according to the Gothic Model of Government upon the Ruins of the Roman Empire now let us look into Scotland and there we shall find this Institution as Ancient as any History or Record they have If we pass into France we shall find their Assembly of Estates or Great Council to have bin as Ancient as their first Kings and to have had as much Power as any where else in Europe Since they not only frequently Elected but also Deposed their Kings of the first Race and disposed of the Succession of the Crown as they thought fit If we look into Spain we shall find in the two greatest and most Considerable Kingdoms viz. Castile and Arragon the like Assemblies the Power of which was so great in the latter that they could even Depose the King himself if he Tyranniz'd over or Oppress 't them If we go more Northward we shall find in the Ancient Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden and Norway that their Assembly of Estates or Dyets Elected their Kings and could likewise Depose them till those Kingdoms became Hereditary which was but of modern times I shall omit Poland because perhaps you may dispute whether it is a Kingdom or a Commonwealth But if we pass into Hungary which was Instituted by the Huns a Nation of Gothic Original we shall find not only the like Assembly of Estates as in the other Kingdoms but also that they had a Magistrate called the Palatine who was as it were the Conservator of the People's Liberties and who could Resist even the King himself if he invaded them and which is also very remarkable in all these Kingdoms except Denmark the Representatives of the Cities or Principal Towns which constituted the third Estate or Commons in those Kingdoms had always a place in those Great Councils So that to conclude it is almost impossible to conceive how these Kingdoms I have now mentioned could all agree to fall into the same sort of Government about the same time unless it had proceeded from the particular temper and Genius of the Germane and Gothick Nations from which they were derived Or who can believe that all these Nations and their Kings finding the like Conveniences from these Great Councils and Inconveniences by the want of them should all Conspire to set them up in each of these particular Kingdoms M. I will not deny but that the Institution of Great Councils or Assemblies of the Estates might be as Ancient as the Government it self in several of those Kingdoms you mention which were at first Elective but what is that to England where our Monarchy hath bin by Succession from the first Institution of it and not Elective as you suppose Nor do I much value the Authority of the Mirrour as to the Great Antiquity he Ascribes to this Assembly of Counts or Comites as Bracton calls them and in which by the way no Commons are mentioned And tho I grant the Iudicial Power of the House of Peers is very Ancient Yet that it wholy proceeded at first from the Indulgence of our Kings appears from hence that there was always a necessity of the King's Presence in Parliaments which is very well proved by Sir Robert Cotton in a Learned Treatise written on that Subject wherein he proves that in all Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King was not only present to Advise but also to Determine And whensoever the King is present all Power of Iudging which is derived from his ceaseth the Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the Final Iudgment is only the Kings But indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of their Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of use by which means it is come to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late bin left to the Iudgment of the Peers who in quality of Iudges Extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in his Absence to determine such matters as were Anciently brought before the King himself sitting in Person attended by his Great Council of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the King's Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from his Confirmation of them who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Iudge All Judgments are by or under him and cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton so that nothing seems plainer to me than that the Iurisdiction which the House of Peers have hitherto exercised for the Hearing and Determining all Causes as well Civil as Criminal by way of Appeal not only between Subjects but also in all Accusations against the Lords themselves proceeds wholy from the Kings which may appear by an Ancient Precedent mentioned by Abbot Brampton in his History It is the Case between King Edw. the Confessor and Godwin Earl of Kent whom the King accused for the Death of his Brother Prince Alfred before the House of Peers and there you will find that after the Earl had put himself upon the Iudgment of the Kings Court the King thereupon said You Noble Lords Earls and Barons i. e. Thanes of the Land who are my Liege-Men now gathered here together and have heard my Appeal and Godwin's Answer I will that in this Appeal between us ye Decree Right Iudgment and do true Iustice And upon their Judgment that the Earl should make the King sufficient Satisfaction in Gold and Silver for the Death of his Brother the King being thereof informed and not willing to contradict it the Historian there sayeth He ratified all they had judged I could give you many other Precedents of latter Date were it not too tedious But this is sufficient to shew that what the Pâ—ers acted in this matter was by the King 's Sole Will and Permission I shall only conclude with one Precedent more in Case of some what alike Nature It is that of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Rich. 2d who was accused foâ— joyning with the French The Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that the Cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of Câ—mmon Right and Ancient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholy belong to our Lord the King and no other From all which I infer that the Iudicial Power exercised by the House of Peers is meerly derivative from and Subservient to the Supream Power resiâ—â—ing in the King From whence it also follows that if the Peers have no Power nor Honour but what proceeds from the Prince and that the Commons
were of a much later Date then both the Being and Priviledges of both Houses had but one and the Self-same Original viz. nothing else but the meer Grace or Favour of our Kings I have only added this the better to enforce my former Argument And therefore I desire you would now answer them both together F. I am very glad your last Argument doth not prove so formidable as you suppose for to remove that out of the way I must tell you that you now very much mistake the Question which is not only concerning the Iudicial power of the Peers alone but the Legislative Power of the House of Peers and Commons taken together which is the Subject of our present Dispute And therefore if I should grant you that the Iudicial Power of the Peers is derived wholy from the King Yet would it not at all â—mpaiâ— the Legislative Power of either of the Houses which no Historian or Law-book that I know of that is of any Credit or Antiquity ascribes to the King's Favour as you suppose Nor is it true that the House of Peers can give no Iudgment either Civil or Criminal without the King's Consent or Approbation which is never so much as askt let the Cause be what it will nor is his Presence at such Judgments at all 〈◊〉 but indeed you confound the King's Council in Parliament where I have shewed you already he sat and dispatched divers Causes in a Room or Chambeâ— distinct from that of the Peers with the House of Lords But to come to your main Argument that our Parliament must owe its Original to the King because each of the Estates of which it consists doth so This I hope will prove as weak when throughly considered For first of all I could shew you that those Councils could not owe their Original to the K. since the Saxon Kings rather owed their Original to them by whom they were most commonly Elected as I could shew you out of our Ancient Historians if it were now a proper time for it But as for our Bishops and Abbots c. which anciently made so great a figure in our Saxon Great Councils which I can shew you were then both Civil and Ecâ—lâ—siasticâ—l Assemblies I have already proved out of Tacitus that among the Ancient Germans a part of whom our Ancient English Saxons were their Priests who were their Clergy had a Considerable Authority in their Common Councils And can any body believe that a sort of People so Powerful and Subâ—ile as the Priests then were would lose their Power after they came over into England And we find in Bede that Edwin King of Northumberland consulted with a Council of his Great Mâ—n and Priests concerning his embracing the Christian Râ—ligiâ—n and when it was generally received can any body think that the Christian Bishâ—ps and Clergy would not expect to Succeed in the same Station which the Heathen Priests before held in their Councils And that they enjoyed this Power very early appears from hence that the same Ethelbert could not endow the Church and Monastery of Canterbury Sine Assensu Magnatum Principum tam Cleri quam Populi But indeed you are as much mistaken in the manner of the Ancient Elections of Bishops and Abbots in England For tho I own that at the time of the Conquest and somewhat before there might be no such Elections of them as the Ancient Canons required Yet that this was not so at the first you may see in Bede's Ecclesiastical History and other Historians where it is often mentioned that Bishops were chosen according to the Canons by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Province and Abbots by their Convent Nor was the Kings investing of them per annulum Bacculum then lookt upon as any Derogation to their Canonical Election that being no more than either a Ceremony of investing them with their Temporalities or a token of the King's Confirmation of the Election And that this was so appears by King Edgars Charter to the Abby of Glastenbury wherein he retains to himself and his Heirs jus tribuendi fratri Electo baculum pastoralem But that which so much Scandalized both Ingulf and Malmsbury was a Custom then in use as also long before the Conquest of confirming the Bishop Elect in a full Synod or Parliament And to this Custom Ingulf refers when he tells us A multis annis retroactis nulla eras Electio Prelatorum merè Libera Canonica Sed omnes Dignitates tam Episcoporum quam Abbatum Regis Curia pro suâ— complacentia conferebat Where by Curia Regis you must not understand the King's Court in the Sense it is commonly taken but for the Great Council or Mikel Synod as it was then called and which dispatched Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs in the same Sense as Curia Regis is used by Brompton in the Case of King Edw. and Earl Godwin which you but now cited And in which Sense it is always used by Ingulph when he speaks of the Great Councils under the two Williams I will not be very tedious on this Subject and shall therefore give you but one Authority on this Head and it is that of Walslan who was made Bishop of Worcester in the time of Edw. the Confessor and that as Mat. Paris tells us Vnanimi consensu tam Clâ—ri quam totius Plebis Rege ut quem vellent sibi eligerent praesulem annuente in Episcopum ejusdem loci eligitur And then he goes on thus Nam licet fratrum non deesset electio Yet that there concurred to it Plebis petitio Voluntas Episcoporum Gratia Procerum Regis Authoritas All which amounts to no more than that he was Elected Chosen and Confirmed by the King and all the Three Estates For here is the Petition of the Commons joyned with the Good-will of the Lords and both backt by the Kings Authority Yet that all this did not hinder him from being invested per Baculum Annulum as the Custom then was may appear by the Speech this Bishop Wulstan made at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor whither he went to resign his Pastoral Staff after his being deprived of his Bishoprick by Arch-Bishop Lanfrank and the Synod And the Conclusion of this Speech is remarkable Tibi Scil. Edwardo Baculum resigno qui dâ—disti Curam â—orum dimitto quos mihi commendasti A like Example I could give you of the Election of this Arch-Bishop Lanfrank himself in the Kings Curia or Great Council not long after the Entrance of K. William but for this I refer you to Eadmerus But admitting that the King alone had in those days conferred all Bishopricks does it therefore follow that his Nomination of Bishops in the Pursuance of that Trust which the Kingdom reposed in him did likewise make them to derive all the Right they had to sit in the Great Council from the King 's Sole Authority you might indeed with as much Reason urge
that because the Emperour Theodosius as likewise divers of his Predecessours did Nominate Bishops to Sees therefore they did likewise receive from them all the Authority they had of appearing and acting in General Councils which I am sure you are too good a Church of England Men to affirm M. I must confess I never did so closely examine the Ancient Form of conferring of Bishopricks before the Conquest as I find you have done and I will better Examine your Authorities and if I find this Custom to have been constant and uniform I shall come over to your opinion tho' I doubt it will not prove to have been so general as you would make it since by the Authority you have now brought out of Mat. Paris it appears that it was the King who gave leave to this Election of Bishop Wulstan in the Great Council which I am not yet convinc'd did then take upon them to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters without the Kings Consent but since you have spoken enough concerning the Right and Antiquity of the Bishops sitting in our Great Councils it is time you now speak of the Right of the Peers or Temporal Lords which certainly could have no place there but from the Favour and Concession of our Kings So that whether we consider those Lords in the Saxon time as Rulers of Counties called in old English Earls or Aldermen in Latin Duces or Comites or else as Judges or Counsellors called in old Saxon Wites or Wisemen in Latin Sapientes or lastly as Thanes in Latin Ministri who were either Military Tenants or Civil Ministers or else Officers of the King in his Court or other Employments none of them were Hereditary in those times but all of them either depended upon the King's VVill or else owed their Honours and â—states to his Favour F. I hope notwithstanding the Confidence you put in this part of the Argument that it hath no more weight in it than the former For tho' I grant there was no such thing as Hereditary Earldoms before the coming in of the Normans so that tho both the Earls and Aldermen might have places in the Great Councils ratione officii as the Earl Mareschal of England has at this day and not by Tenure as they did after that time Yet I very much doubt whether they sate there only ratione officii and not as Thanes or by reason of their great Lordships or Estates in Lands but if they sate there as Earls or Aldermâ—n yet might they not be the only Persons that sate in those Councils by that Title For there were besides these Aldermen of Cities and Burrougâ—s who were Elected by those Places and who it is very likely appeared for them as their Representatives in those Councils until by Succession of time those Towns began to send two Burgesses in their stead some Footsteps of which still remain in London where the Aldermen of every Ward are first proposed to be Elected Parliament Men before any other and it is certain that these Aldermen in the most Ancient Cities as London York Lincoln â— are not Elected by any Grant or Charter from the Crown but by an immemoâ—ial Right of Prescription But admitting that these Earls or Aldermen appeared in these Councils by reason of their Offices or Dignities which the King conferred upon them yet doth it not prove that the very Office it self proceeded 〈◊〉 from him since we find the Authority of those chief Men whom 〈◊〉 calls Princes and which Answer these Earls to have been used among the Ancient Germans long before when he tells us in the same Chapter where we cited the rest Iura per Pagâ—â— Viâ—osque Principes reddunt â—enteni Singulis ex plebe Comites Consilium simul auctoritas adsunt Which exactly answers our County and Hundred Courts under the Saxon Kings wherein the Alderman of the County or his Deputy the Sheriff preâ—ided and the Free Men of the County or Hundred were the Iudges of all matters of Fact So that tho the King might appoint these Princes or Governours of Provinces or Counties yet doth it no more follow that they owed their Being and Place in the great Council wholy to his Will than as I said before supposing that the King had Anciently the Nomâ—nation of all the Bishops and Abbots in England that therefore they must also owe their Place in our great Councils or Synods wholy to them since the King performed both of them as a Publick Trust committed to him by the Common Weal in the one case as much as in the other But indeed I think the greatest part of the Members of this Assembly besides Aldermen and Burgesses for Cities and Towns consisted of those Thanes whose Names are often found in the Subscription of the Anâ—ient Charters of our Saxon Kings after the Principes Duces and Comâ—â—â—s and that tho many of them might be the Kings Feudal Thanes or 〈◊〉 Grand Serjeanty or Knights Sâ—rvice in Chief as Mr. Sâ—lden tells us in his Titles of Honour yet that Author no where excludes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. middle or less Thanes from having Voices in those Assemblies who were afterward Stiled Vavissours or Lords of Townships afterwards called Maunors with Courts annexed to them under the Names of Sac Soc which were the same with our Court 〈◊〉 and Court-Baron Especially if you please farther to consider what a vast nâ—mber of Alâ—dariâ— or Free Tenants there were then who held their Lands Discharged of all Services but the Common Burthens and Taxes of the Nation none but the Lands of the Kings Thanes being held by Military Sâ—rvices before the Entrance of the Normans So that whoever will but consider the Nature of our Saxon Councils will find that the Greatest part of the Persons that appeared there did not owe their 〈◊〉 to their being the King's Ministers or Officers as you suppose but to their holding such Lands and Possâ—ssions as Capacitated them and gave them a Right to have places in those Great Councils And that this was 〈◊〉 we need go no further than the Laws of King Athelâ—â—an where you will find Gâ—mility it self annexed to an Estate in Land For if you will but be pleased to Consult King Athelston's Laws you will there find that if a Villaâ—aus or Câ—eorl could so thrive as to get an Estate of five Hides in Lands he was reckon'd a Thane i. e. a Gentleman or Nobleman as they were promiscuoully reckoned at that time So that tho I suppose there might not be in those times that exact distinction between Peers and Commons as there hath bin established since the coming in of the Normans Yet was it the same thing in effect since the Bishops Earls or Aldermen of Shires tho not enjoyed as Hereditary Honours might make then the Greater Nobility or Peers as the Thanes were the Less Nobility Gentlemen or Freeholders who all appearing in person might together with
refer but to this very Letter which was assented as well per procuratores Communitatis Regni as by your Barons here called Nobiles Regni And this Application thereof is given by Mr Pryn himself when he makes use of these Records But to let you see farther that the Lords and Commons for all this Author Opinion to the contrary might joyn in a Letter ro the Pope I shall shew you by that which was writ in the Name of the whole Parliament to the Pope in the 17 th of Edw. III. about the Provisions of Benefices which then grew so exorbitant that Walsingham tells us in his History Quod Rex tota Nobilitas Regni pati noluit c. which Phrase the Letter it self will best explain The beginning and conclusion of which I shall give you in English as you may find it in Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs To the Most Holy Father in God Lord Clement by the Grace of God of the Holy Church of Rome and of the Universal Church Chief and high-High-Bishop His humble and devout Children the Princes Dukes Earls Barons Knights Citizens and Burgesses and all the Communalty of the Realm of England assembled at a Parliament holden at Westminster the 15 th Day of May last past c. In witness whereof we have hereunto set Our 〈◊〉 Given in the full Parliament at Westminst on the 18th Day of May Anno Drâ— 1343. And it still appears by the Parliament Roll of this Year viz. 17th Edw. III. n. 59. that the Commons petitioned the King that the Lords might stay at the Parliament till they had perfected and seal'd this Letter And that there was such a Letter then written by the Parliament appears by the King's Letter to the Pope about the same Matter still among the Tower Records In which he imitated his Grandfather Edw. I. and Great Grandfather Hen. III. who also seâ— Letters to the Pope on such like occasions but in those to excuse the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury from being the Author of those Complain he had this Passage that since it was the Judgment tam Procerum Nobilium quaâ— Communitatis Regni in ultimo Parliamento contra Provisorum Exercitum To conclude I think nothing is plainer than that under the Universitas Regâ—â— in the first Letter to the Pope 29th Hen. III. and under the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Letter of the 29th Edw. I. were meant the same Estates or Orders of Men as were more particularly recited in this present Letter viz. The 〈◊〉 Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled M. I must freely tell you I am not yet satisfied with the Sense you now put â—pon these Words Universitas and Communitas Regni before the Commons were summoned to Parliament for you your self must grant that as the word Universitas Regni takes in the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom so likewise the word Communitas signifies no more than the same whole Body or Community thereof Therefore if I prove to you that in those times this Universâ—â—y or Community consisted only of the Earls Barons and Tenants in capite that word Communitas Regni ought never to be interpreted by the English word Commoâ—â—lty or Commons of England till after the time that I allow the Commons were admitted to make a constituent part of the Great Council or Parliament nor always then neither And Mr. P. in his Book which we have so often cited hath done very unfairly to make the Universitas and Communitas Regni to comprehend the Commons of England before they everappeared in Parliament at all and so hath he likewise abused the Word Populus as I have already observed to signifie the Commons when indeed there is no more thereby meant than the whole Assembly of the Laity which at that time consisted of no more than the Earls Barons or other Tenants in Capite And tho I grant that by Communitas Praelatorum or Baronum are often understood the Body of the Prelates or greater Barons only called by way of Eminency Proceres Magnates yet most frequently these with all the other Tenants in capite did make the whole Body of the King 's immediate Tenants in Military Service and were altogether called the Baronage of England the Community of the Land or Community of the Kingdom and for this I think I shall give you undeniable proofs by and by F. I am very well aware that the Word Populus often signifies the whole Body of the Laity yet not excluding the Commons as I have already sufficiently proved For then the word must signifie quite contrary to its genuine Signification instead of People the Greater Nobility only yet that when it is put after as distinct from Magnates it must mean the Commons as now understood I shall shew you by and by But that this word Populus does not always signifie the whole Body of the Nobility only but takes in oftentimes the Commons too pray see Matt. VVest who tells us King Edw. I. in the 34th year of his Reign making his Son a Knight Pro hac melitia silii Regis concessus est Regi zomus Denarius a Populo Clero Mercatores vero vicesâ—mum concesserunt Upon which your Dr. in his Glossary very well remarks that it is evident upon Record who were the Populus meant by the Historian viz. the Comites Barones alii Magnates nec non Milites Comitatuum So that unless the Knights of Shires were Lords it is plain Populus takes in the Commonâ— too But Universitas Regni and Communitas Regni called in French le Communâ— Dangletterre is often taken for the whole Community or Body of the whole Parliament and this Sir Edward Coke owns expresly in his 2d Instit. upon these Words In Articulis supâ—â— Chartas Thus here Le Commune is taken for People so astout le Commune is here taken for all the People and this is proved by the Sense of the Words For Magna Charta was not granted to the Commons of the Realm but generally to all the Subjects of the Realm viz. to those of thâ— Clergy and to those of the Nobility and to the Commons also And this is a Rational as well as Grammatical Interpretation For as the Word Universitas is derived from the Adjective Universus which signifies the VVhole 〈◊〉 Universal So the Word Communitas is derived from the Adjective 〈◊〉 Common or General So that these two Words when used simply in a Political 〈◊〉 Legal Sense ought to take in the whole Body of the Kingdom or all sorts and conditions of Freemen appearing themselves or their Lawful Proxies or Representatives in Parliament But I have already sufficiently proved that under those General words used in our Historians and Records viz. Principes Proceres Nobiles Magnates Barones alii de Regno were then comprehended either all the considerable Freeholders oâ— Lords of Manners or else the Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses So
of this I shall proceed with the earliest Instances of this kind after the Conquest viz. in the Time of King Richard the First during whose absence in the holy Land he had committed the Government of his Kingdom to William Bishop of Ely who abused his Power by an Arbitrary and Insolent Carriage affronting and oppressing Iohn Earl of Morton the King 's own Brother and Geoffry Arch-Bishop of York the King 's base Brother whereupon they rose up against him and having the Bishops the Earls and Barons of their side appointed the said Bishop a day to answer to his Crimes in the King's Court or great Council of the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite then called Curia Regis where when he refused to appear they all with one consent came to London and fought with the Followers and Adherents of the said Chancellour by the way when they came to Town Earl Iohn with the Arch-Bishops of York and Rouen with all the Earls and Barons together with the Citizens of London met in St. Paul's Church-Yard and there it was proposed that the said Chancellour should for his Evil Government he deposed and banisht the Kingdom and so he immediately was by the general Consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom so that you see the Nobility Clergy and People had then no notion of an Irresistible Power in the King and those put in Commission by him when they found their Power to grow Tyrannical and Insupportable M. But if I forget not you omit one material Circumstance in this Affâ—ir which seems to make against you which is that Arch-Bishop of Rouen and William the Earl Mareschal did at that time produce the King's Letters signed with his 〈◊〉 wherein he had appointed that they two should be associated in the Government with the Bishop of Ely and that he should do nothing without their privity and consents and of those associated with him in the business of the Kingdom and that if he offered to do otherwise he should be deposed So that it seems what they now acted was not so muchin opposition to the King's Commission as to the Bishops who had refused to obey his Commands F. I confess it was as you set forth yet this makes nothing against my Opinion since it is apparent that Arms were taken and this Resistance made by the major part of the Bishops Earls and Barons together with the Londoners before ever it was known that such Letters were written by the King And so it seems they would have done much the same thing if there had been no such Letters sent by the King at all You may also rememâ—er that all these proceedings also were approved of and confirmed by the King himself But that I may proceed in my History of Non-Resistance I come to the Reign of King Iohn his Brother who when he had refused the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and all the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom to confirm the great Charter of King Henry the First they together with the rest of the great Men and People of the Kingdom of all degrees and conditions took up Arms and made a vast Army resolving never to lay them down till he had new granted and confirmed the Charters of Liberties and Forrests till at last the King finding himself almost quite forsaken so that he had scarce five Knights left about him he was at last forced to meet the said Bishops Earls Barons and People at Runne-Mead and there to grant them that great Charter which has been the Subject of so much discourse between us so that you see here that the Church of England in those Times if the Bishops and Clergy are the Representatives of this Church had then no notion of this Doctrine of Passiâ—e Obedienâ—e to the King 's Absolute Will and Commands M. I cannot deny the matter of fact to be as you say but yet you may remember that the same Author tells us that the Pope thought the King hardly dealt withal in this matter so that he gave Audience to the King's Ambassadors concerning the Rebellions and Injuries which the Barons of England had committed against their King and that upon a solemn hearing of the whole business and after a consultation with his Cardinals he did as Supreme Lord of Engâ—and after King Iohn's Resignation of his Crown to him by his Bull then published make void the said great Charters of Liberties and Forrests and condemn all the Barons proceedings as against their Duty and Allegiance to the King their Soveraign Lord so that it seems this was not approved of any where but by the Actors the Pope thereupon Excommunicating the Barons and Suspending the Arch-Bishop of Caâ—terbury for joyning with them F. I believe you will make nothing of this Objection for it appears from the same Author that the Pope had before this Excommunicated the King and as far as lay in his power depriv'd him of his Kingdom and absolved all his Subjects of their Allegiance so that it is plaiâ— it was not out of any true Principle or hatred of Rebellion and Resistance in Subjects that the Pope had thus acted but purely to gratifie the King at this juncture of time and to defend him in his Tyranny and breach of his own Charters because he was then become his Vassal and so he cared not how much he oppressed his Subjects because he was thereby the more able to pay him the Tribute before promised and he could also expect the more securely to extort Money from the whole Kingdom But that this Bull of the Popes was contrary to the King 's own Express Act and Agreement appears plainly by that Clause which is still to be found in a Charter under the Seal of this King and which seems to have been the Heads of the great Charter according to which it was drawn into the Form we now find it in Mat. Paris in which it is expresly provided and granted by the said King that in case he should go about to break or infringe any Clause in the said Charter and shall not amend it within the space of forty days that then Iâ—li Barones cum Communia totius Terrae distringent gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus pouerint aut scil per captionem Castrorum Terrarum possessionum aliis modis quibus potuerint donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum salva Persona nostra Reginâ—e nostra Liberorum nostrorum cum â—uerit emendatum intendent nobis sient prius fecerunt So that you see here in the Judgment even of the King himself they might freely resist and take up Arms against him till he made good every Article of these Charters if violated and were not to return to their Obedience till it was amended and the like Clause almost word for word is also to be found in the conclusion of the great Charters published in Mat. Paris M. I grant the Clause is there as
make so light of this Testamentary Doâ—â—tion of Edward the Confessor which the greatest part of the Writers nearest that time do suppose to have been really made on the behalf of Duke William and that notwithstanding this bequest Harold unjustly and contrary to his own Oath did by force set the Crown upon his own Head without any precedent Election of the Clergy Nobility and People as was required at that time since it was impossible for them to meet in so short a time for King Edward dying on the Eve of Epiphany was buried on Twelfth day and on the same day Harold took upon himself the Crown by the consent of some of the Bishops and Nobility of his Faction then at London so that he was certainly no better than an Usurper and therefore by the Conquest of Harold and his party your Conqueror could acquire no right upon the free People of England since they never gave their consents to place Harold on the Throne and consequently K. William could have no just cause of making a conquest upon the whole Nation since neither did he ever in all his Reign as I can find call a common Council of the Kingdom to recognize or confirm his Title and tho' it is true Harold proving a Valiant and Popular Prince got the good will of the common People by divers Acts of Grace which he had lost by his violent taking the Crown while Edgar Atheling the only remaining Male Heir of the Saxon Race was in being and found very many who were willing to fight for him not only against the King of Norway who had a little before Invaded the Kingdom but also against Duke William yet all those in his Army could amount to nothing near the whole Kingdom who never contributed to the War by any publick Vote or Tax and therefore did not countenance it by giving Money or raising of Men as you suppose so that D. William could not pretend a right of making War against any body but only Harold and his Accomplices but as for the Testamentary Donation of Edward the Confessor tho' you make so light of it yet Ingulph says expresly that Edward the Confessor some time before his Death sent Robert Archbishop of Canterbury as his Ambassador to D. William to let him know That he had designed him his Successor not only by Right of Kindred but by the merit of his Vertue and that after this Harold coming into Normandy promised upon Oath to assist him in it and Will. Malmesbury says also that Edward the Father of Edgar Atheling dying almost as soon as he came into England K. Edward his Cozen being dead gave the Succession of this Kingdom to William Duke of Normandy with whom also agree Florence of Worcester and William of Poiâ—tou and all the rest of the Historians of that Age as well English as Normans nor do I know any of them except Simeon of Durham and Roger Hoveden who make Harold to have been appointed Successor by K. Edward or to have been so much as solemnly Crowned by the Archbishop of York But I confess your main objection is still to be answered viz. what precedent Right Duke Wâ—lliam could have to the Crown of England by this Testament of King Edward since it was then either an Elective or else an Hereditary Kingdom and so this Donation could confer no right on this Duke in Prejudice of the Peoples right to Elect or else of the next Heir to succeed In answer to which I must tell you that which perhaps you may have never considered that the Crown was then neither properly Elective nor Successive but a mixture of both M. That seems a kind of a Paradox and what I never heard before pray explain your self for I do not understand how it could be F. Why then I will tell you the Crown of England in those times was very like what the Crowns of Denmark and Sweden were not long since and as the Empire is at this day in which tho' the Estates or Diet might chuse whom they pleased for King or Emperor yet they still kept to the same Family or Line as long as there were any Males left of iâ— fit to succeed which custom often gave the King in Being a power which by degrees came to be looked upon as a kind of Right either upon his Death Bed or else at any time before to nominate one of his Sons or near Kinsmen to be his Successors by his last Will or Testament especially if he had no Sons of his own as happen'd in the case of King Edward the Confessor now this nomination tho' it did not alone confer a right to the Crown yet it made the person so named the fairest candidate for it and was such a recommendation to the Estateâ— or great Council of the Kingdom as they never passed by or denied as I can ever find by the best inquiry I have made and for proof of this I shall appeal to the Testament of K. Alfred as you will find it Printed from an Ancient Manuscript in the second Appendix to his Life in Latine publisht at Oxford Which begins thus Ego Alfredus Divino munere labore ac Studio Athelredi Archiepiscopi nec non totius Westsaxoniae Nobilitatis consensu pariter assensu occidentalium Saxonum Rex quos in Testimonium meae ultimae voluntatis complementi ut sint advocati in disponendis pro salute animae meae regali electione confirmo tam de haereditate quam Deus at Principes cum senioribus Populi misericorditer ac benigne dederunt quam de haereditate quam Pater meus Aethelwulfus Rex nobis tribus fratribus delegavit viz. Aethelbaldo Aethelredo mihi ita quod qui nostrum diutius foret superstes ille totius Regni dominio congauderet c. From whence you may collect first that tho' this King in the very beginning of his Testament ascribes his obtaining the Crown not to any Hereditary Right but the consent and assent of the Nobility of West-Saxony yet he also here mentions the entail of the Crown by his Fathers Will upon his two Elder Brothers and himself successively before any of his Elder Brother's Sons who were living at the time of the making of this Testament of K. Alfred's as appears by the Will it self in which they are expresly mentioned now how could this be that he was King as well by the consent or election of the West-Saxon Nobility as by his Father's Will unless both these had been required to make him so Also Will. of Malmesbury tells us of K. Athelstan the Grandson of K. Alfred that Iussu Patris in Testamento Aethelstanus in Regem est acclamatus but in the beginning of this chapter he also tells us that Aethelstanus electus apud Regiam aulam quae vocatur Kingston Coronatus est quamvis quidem Alfredus cum factiosis suis obviare tentasset upon that pretence that Athelstan was a Bastard so that you may
he was made King nor can I see how their taking of Lands from Him could make him become an Absolute and Irresistible Monarch over them and their Descendants so that if upon your supposition all the owners of Lands in England at this day hold their Estates either by descent or purchase from those Antient Normans or French Proprietors they must also succeed to the same Liberties and Priviledges as those under whom they claim did formerly enjoy But before I conclude I cannot but take notice of what you have said against my proofs of the formal election of King William for if the keeping of a guard about the place where the King is Elected and Crowned should void the freedom of the Election I doubt whether the election of any elective Kings or Monarchs no not of the German Emperor himself would hold goods as for the other reason that they could not chuse but â—lect him that is yet mâ—re trivial for there being no more than one thaâ— stood to be chosen they could indeed chuse no other but if not having a Liberty to refuse must void the Right of Election pray consider as I told you before whether there be any Canonical Election of Bishops in the Church of England at this day therefore I doubt not but that King William I. was as lawfully and freely elected as K. Edward the Confessor his Predecessor whom all Authors agree to have had no other Title and Williâ—lmus Gemeticensis in the place I now cited tells us he was Elected King as well of the Norman as English Nobles and if the custom had not â—â—en â—â—cen to Elâ—â—â— the King before he was Crowned it is not likely thaâ— your Conqueror would have introduced a new custom to the prejudice of his pretended right by Conquest but indeed there is not only more cogent argument to prove that the Crown was formerly elective than â—he constant usage as you your self confess ever since your preâ—ended Conquest to this day of asking the People whether they are content to have such a one for their King As for your Doctors quotation out of William of â—oictoâ— pray take notice that he places your Conquerors Hereditary bequest together with the Oaths of the English as his best Title and the right of War last by which this Author did not understand a Conquest of the People of England but his prevailing against Harold M. I do own with the learned Dr. B. that the Descendants of those ancient Norman and Freâ—â—h Earls and Baâ—ons than came in with the Conquerour and their Posterity afterwards seeing the Yoke of feudâ—l Tenures and other prerogatives this King and His Descendants exercised over them to press as hard upon them as the Antient English were those that made such a disturbance for their Right and Liberties in the Reigns of H. Iohn and Henry the third and tho' I grant their Ancestors were never conquered and consequently could not be obliged to him as to a Conqueror 〈◊〉 may for all this maintain that they and their Posterity were as much bound to an Absolute Subiection without any resistance aâ— the English whom they conquer'd for they were either his own Subjects in Aâ—â—mandâ— before his coming oâ—eâ— hither or else were such Volunteers who followed him but of hopes of Estates and Brâ—ferment was for all those of the former 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 were his subjects before they were tied not only by their 〈◊〉 Oaths of a Regiance which they had taken in Normandy but were also bound by the same obligation of Non resistance as all other subjects must always be both in that and all other Governments to all which was added another Obligation in respect of those who were not his subjects before his entrance since this whole Kingdom was by Conquest the Conqueâ—ors as appears in that he bestowed the 〈◊〉 part of 〈◊〉 his Followeâ—â— whose blood runs at this day in the Veins of most of our English Genâ—ry and Nobility as a reward for their Service and Assistance tho' he might have some part to the English Natives and their Heirs yet so aâ— that he altered the Tenure and made it descend with such burdens as he pleased to lay upon them so that as well â—his own Countrymen Normans as those of all other Nations who thus became Subjects and Feudataries to him for all the Lands they possessed in England since he was the only Directus Dominus or Lord Paramount of the whole Kingdom were also his Vassals and Subjects for in case of Treason and Rebellion or Death without Heir those Lands were to return to him again and to be aâ— his dispossal so that all subjects as well Normans as other Foreigners who had Lands granted to them by the Conqueror thus became his homines Ligei Liegemen and did owe Faith and true Allegiance to him as their Supream and Liege Lord as the King is called in several Statutes and the definition of Liegeancy is set down to the grand Customary of Normandy Ligeantia est ex quâ domino tementur vasalli sui c that is Liegeancy is an obligation upon all subjects to take part with their Liege Lord against all men living to aid and assist him with their Bodies and Goods and with their advice and power 〈◊〉 to lift up their hands against him nor to support in any wise those who oppose him and tho' I grant that the Supream or Liege Lord is likewise bound to govern and defend his Liege People according to the Rights Customs and Laws of the Countrey yet is he not liable to resistance much less forfeiture if he neglect it For tho' if Subjects break their Covenants and prove disloyal all their Lands and other Rights are forfeited to the King yea if the King or Supream Lord break his Oaâ—â—â— notwithstanding his sailing therein neither his Crown nor any Rights belonging to his Royal Dignity are thereby â—orfeiâ—ed the reason of this inequality is because the King gave Laws to the â—eople but the People did not give Laws to him so that it is plain that however you 〈◊〉 the Conquerors entrance whether by the Sword or to avoid the Envy of the Title of a Conqueror by a voluntary submission of the English Nation to him as to their Sovereign the conclusion cannot vary because the duty of Non-resistance arises from their own Act they taking an Oath of Allegiance to be his True and Loyal Subjects with which Oath Resistance can by no means consist F. I must beg your pardon if I cannot take what you have now said for a satisfactory answer since I doubt it will do you little service whether you make use of it either in respect of the Normans or other Foreigners for as to the soâ—mâ—r it appears from the Antient Constitution of Normandy that the Duke was no absolute Monarch there but Feudaâ—ary to the King of France and farther could make no Laws nor impose Taxes in Normandy without the consent of the Estates of that Dutchy as
same right by which they took upon them to make this Declaration by the same right not only every Curate of a Parish but also every Layman in England was free to Judge of the Kings breach of this Law and consequently of denying obedience thereunto which disobedience if it once prove general will quickly make the Kings personal commands wholly insignificant So that it seems it is not the Peopleâ— Judging of the Illegality of the Kingâ— Actions and Commands which is the thing you 〈◊〉 fault with since when these Bishops acted thus all the high men of the Church of England praised it to the Skie So that it seems it is now the bare Censuring and Disobedience that makes it a crime but it is the iâ—sisting such Violent and Illegal orders and commands and at last Declaring that Power void and forfeited by which they were made That sticks in your stomach which is as much as to say that this Judging and Disobedience in its self is no Crime but the pushing it home and doing it in such a way as that it may be mended for the future though this is never lawful to be done but when things come to that extremity that all milder remedies are become ineffectual But to answer your Objections a little more closely the consequences of my Opinion are not so dangerous as you suppose them if you will please to consider what I have already laid down at our last Meeting As first That this Resistance is never to be made but when this violent breach of the Laws becomes evident and undeniable not to the Rabble alone but to the whole Nation that is all sorts and degrees or men and as long as there is any question about it I acknowledge it is by no means to be used And lastly As to declare the Regal Power forfeited this likewise is never to be done but when the King becomes so obstinately resolved to pursue those evil and illegal coâ—â—es as that he is utterly irreclaimable and refuses all propositions and terms of amending or redressing them And as to what you say that the King is hereby depriv'd of all means of justifying himself or vindicating his Actions that is not so since if a War be once begun he may do this either by Declaration or Treaties as King Charles the First did in his War with the Parliament by which means he gain'd a great many both of the Nobility Gentry and Commonalty to his Party who were before absolutely set against him But if you will needs have a Parliament to Judge and examine the reality of this forfeiture I so far joyn with you that though every private man may first judge thereof yet is it not become absolute and an Act of the whole People till the Estates of the Kingdom have by some solemn Vote or Declaration made it so M. Well I see you do all you can to make the best of a bad Cause but though I think nothing of what you have said can give Subjectâ— any right to resist much less to cast off all Allegiance to their Natural Prince yet I shall not now dispute this point any longer with you but will proceed to the merits of the Cause and shall lâ—â— you see that even upon your own principles the King has not been dealt 〈◊〉 in all this whole transaction either like an Ally by the States General of the United Provinces or like a near Relation or a Son in-law by the Prince of Orange or like a King by his own Subjects To begin with the Estates in the first place it is apparent that they have acted treacherously with the King and contrary to the last Treaty of Peace and Alliance in furnishing the Prince 〈…〉 their Captain General and 〈◊〉 holder both with Ships Men and Money and make this late Expedition against England without so much as ever declaring the cause of their Quarrel or demanding any satisfaction if any occasion of difference had been given But the Prince of Orange his dealing with the King his Father-in law has been much less justifiable for in the first place he is not only guilty of the same fault with his Masters the Dutch in beginning a War without ever declaring the causes of it or demanding any satisfaction or â—eparation if he had been injur'd till it was too late to go back and that his Fleet was ready and the Army shipt for the Expedition but which was more unkind from a Nephew and a Son-in-law who had reason to expect all the satisfaction which a King an Uncle and a Father-in-law could give though indeed to speak the truth the whole War was in my Opinion altogether unjust on the Pâ—â—nces side since his chief pretences were to redress Grievances and to re-establish the Bishops and Church of England with the Colledges in their just Rights and also restore the whole Nation to the just Execution of the Laws by a Free Parliament and Priviledges Now I desire to know what the Prince of Orange had to do either as a Neighbour or a Son-in-law to concern himself with the Mis-government of the Affairs of England much less to countenance and take the part of those many Male contents and Traitours who have ever since the Duke of Manmouth's Rebellion gone over into Holland So that upon the whole matter I can find but one thing which he had so much as a pretence of making War about if it had been real viz. the pretended suppoâ—â—â—tioâ—s Birth of the Prince of Wales and yet even for this he ought not to have made War till such time as all reasonable satisfaction in this matter had been demanded and denied him and that the next Parliament which the King had before declared should meet in November last had been either hindered from medling in it or that they had faâ—â—'d to make a due enquiry into it But if we look home F. Pray Sir before you come to consider what has been done here give me leave to iustifie the late proceedings of the States General and the Prince of Orange in this matter First as to the Estates it is a very great mistake for you affirm that they made this War upon the King in their own names or furnish'd the Prince of Orange with Ships or Men as their Sâ—adt-holder or General but only as a free Independent Prince whom they looked upon to have a good Cause of making War against the King of England as one they had great cause to believe was so far engag'd in the France interesâ— as instead of standing 〈◊〉 in this War with the Empire which they every day expected when he would joyn with France and declare War against them as they had reason to â—ear by several angry Memorials which the French King's Eâ—voy in Holland had not long before given them so that indeed it was but according to the Rules of Self-preservation to begin first especially when it might be done without their appearing in it at allâ— but granting
during his confinement there sent a Lady I could name on a message to two reverend Prelates of our Church together with an Emrauld Ring from his Finger as a Testimony of the Truth of her Commission to this effect That his Majesty being sensible of the sad condition the Church of England as well as he himself was in and that there was no way so likely for him to get out of it as by granting his Subjects and particularly the Church of England such securities for the enjoyment of their just Rights and Liberties as they could in reason demand therefore he wholly left it to the discretion of those Bishops to make to the Peers and Bishops that were then to meet suddenly whatever proposals they should think reasonable on his behalf for the satisfaction of the Church and safety of the Nation and that he would be ready to grant and ratifie them whensoever he should be required F. This is indeed more than ever I heard before and can scarce believe but did the Lady go and deliver her message And pray what answer did those Bishop give to this fair proposal M. Yes the Lady did deliver her message and these Bishops answer'd both to the same effect that they had a real duty and affection for his Majesty and a great desire to serve him but that considering the great Power of the Prince of Orange and his present aversion to any agreement with his Majesty they very much feared that the Peers would not venture to give the Prince any such advice or to interpose with him on his Majesties behalf which in my opinion was very meanly and cowardly done of them who considering their duty to him as King and also those particular obligations they owed him as their Benefactor and who had been the greatest means of their being raised to those dignities in his Brothers Reign now I desire to know if this message had received its intended effect what greater demonstration his Majesty could have given to satisfie the World that he really intended to set all things right again had he been permitted to do it F. I will not farther question the Truth of this Relation though perhaps I might have sufficient reason for it since you say you had it from a person of good credit and who was privy to this transaction nor yet will I be so inquisitive as to know the names either of the Bishops or of the Lady since you make it a secret but yet notwithstanding I do still very much question whether the King did ever really design to do what he then offer'd and did not intend to put a sham upon their Lordships to serve his present occasion and to see if he could divide the Bishops and Peers of the Church of England from the Prince of Oranges Interest and so by making them offer such Proposals as the Prince should not think fit to agree to might make them declare against his proceedings which would have created great divisions and heart-burnings between those of the high Church of England party and the Prince and thereby have involved us again in fresh disturbances of which no doubt the King and the Popish Faction were like to receive the greatest advantage for you know the old saying divide impera But to let you see that I do not speak without just grounds for my opinion let us examine every circumstance of this matter first if the King had meant really is it likely that he would have trusted a business of that high moment to a Woman When he had then the Lords of Alesbury and Arron besides other Protestant Gentlemen then waiting on him and they were much fitter to be trusted than this Lady let her be whom she will Or can any one believe if the King had meant really that he would not have sent his Proposals in Writing since he very well knew from the Princes Declaration as well as the Bishops Petition and Addresses to him what the whole Nation and the Church of England in particular required at his hands But that he must send a loose and uncertain Message which it was in his power to disown whenever he pleased by saying the foolish Woman mistook his meaning and she also might be so much his Creature as to take the fault wholly upon her self whenever it should serve the Kings turn so to do and therefore I think it was very wisely and honestly done of those reverend Prelets to refuse medling in such a ticklish affair since it is plain by his not making any such proposals to the Prince of Orange himself or the Lords about him that he was not to be made privy to it but rather it should be carried on whether he would or no and without giving him any satisfaction in his particular concern as to the Prince of Wales and lastly I desire you farther to consider whether the King might not hereafter when ever he had power have made void whatever agreements or concessions he should have then granted either to the Church of England or to the Nation by pleading afterwards that they were obtained by decrees whilst he was not sui juris but under the Power of the Prince of Orange I have but one thing more to add which I before omitted which is to make some reply to what you said concerning the mischief that the Mob has done upon Houses Forests and Praks since his Majesty's first departure and therefore granting the matter of Fact that much mischief and spoil has been committed yet I deny that it is more than has been done by the most Arbitrary Kings since the Conquest to this day as you are pleased to affirm for I believe you forget the Thirty Parish Churches and Towns which our Historian tell us your William the Conquerour and his Son Ruâ—us destroyed when they inlarged new Forrests and therein acted contrary to their Oaths like true despotick Tyrants you likewise forget the miserable spoil and waste which King Iohn and Henry the III. made upon the Houses Castles and Estates of the Barons and Gentry of England who opposed them in their unjust and illegal violations of Magna Charta besides other Tyrannical actions of the same kind committed by King Edward and Richard the II. too long here to relate but if these mischiefs were done you speak of who have we to thank for it but the King who stealing away on the sudden without leaving any orders for the Government of the Kingdom all persons in Commission either Civil or Military doubted whether their Commissions were noâ— at an end by the Kings deserting the Government as he did besides you very well know that the Common People were so enraged against the Popish Faction for so many insolent actions they had committed in King Iames's Reign and so many apparent breaches and contempts of all the Laws made against them that you cannot wonder if when they were rid of the fear of the Irish and of King Iames's Army they kept
Wales though it is true he is carried out of England ought to have been immediately declar'd King as was done in the Case of Edward the 3 d. who was so declar'd upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Edward the 2 d. F. Though I grant ever since the Crown has been claim'd by Descent the Law has gone as you have cited it and that Finches Law lays it down for a Maxim I shall not deny but that from the beginning or original of Kingly Government whether we look before or after you Conquest it will appear that the Throne was often vacant till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed who should fill it and to shew you I do not speak without good Authority pray tell me if this Maxim had then obtain'd why after the Death of William the First his Eldest Son Robert Duke of Normandy did not immediately take upon him the Title of King of England or at least had done it after the Death of William Rufus who you know was placed on the Throne â—not by Right of Inheritance but by his Fathers Testament confirm'd and approv'd of according to the Antient English-Saxon Custom of Succession by the common Consent of the great Council of the whole Kingdom and yet notwithstanding after the Death of this William Henry his younger Brother succeeded him by the free Election and Consent of the same Common Council and yet that Duke Robert should never in all his Life-time take upon him the Title of King Pray tell me likewise if this Maxim had been then known why Maud the Empress immediately upon the Death of her Father King Henry the First did not take nor yet her Husband the Duke of Anjou in her Right the Title of King and Queen of England though she had had Homage paid her and Fealty sworn to her in the Life-time of her Father as the immediate Successor to the Crown and yet notwithstanding the utmost Title she could assume was that of Domina Anglorum Lady or Mistress not Queen of the English whilst Stephen who had no other Title but the Election of the great Council of the Nation held both the Crown and Title of King as long as he lived As also why Arthur Duke of Britain who according to the now received Rules of Succession was the next Heir to the Crown upon the Death of King Richard the First never took upon him the Title of King unless it were that he very well knew that his Uncle King Iohn had been placed in the Throne by the Common Consent and Election of the great Council of the Kingdom So likewise after the Death of King Iohn why Henry his Son was not immediately proclaim'd King till such time as the great Council of the Clergy Nobility and People had met and agreed to send back Prince Lewis whom they had chosen for their King though not being Crowned he never took upon himself that Title and so chose Henry the Third then an Infant for their King Lastly Why all these Princes viz. Henry the Second Richard the First and Henry the Third who according to your notions were undoubted Heirs of the Crown never took upon them the Title of Kings of England nor are so stiled by any of our Historians till after their Elections and Coronations if it had not been then received for Law that it was the Election of the People and Coronation subsequent thereunto that made them Kings and till this was performed though they might look upon themselves as never so lawful Successors the Throne was notwithstanding esteem'd in Law vacant Therefore as for your Iâ—stance of King Edward the Third 's immediately succeeding upon the Resignation of his Father if you please better to consider of it that makes against you for it is plain from Th. Walsingham and H. de Knyghton that Prince Edward succeeded not to the Crown by Succession but the Election of the great Council or Parliament the words are express Huic Electioni universus Populus consensit and this was also owned by Edward the Second himself who when the Commissioners of all the Estates of Parliament came in all their Names to renounce their Homage to him yet in the midst of all his sorrow he gave them thanks quod Filium suum Edwardum post se Regnaturum eligissent which plainly shews that the Parliament had then such a Notion of a Forfeiture proceeding from his Deposition for violating the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom that the Eldest Son and Successor could pretend no other Right to it even in the Judgment of the late King himself but what proceeded from their Election M. I cannot deny but what you have now urged from matter of fact may appear very plausible to your self and those of your Notions yet if it be looked closer into I doubt not but the known Laws then receiv'd and the Notions the people had then of a Lineal Succession by Right Inheriâ—ance will prove directly contrary to the matter of fact For you know very well à facto ad Ius non valte consequentia but that all the Princes you mention'd except the three last were really Usurpers and not Lawful Kings I shall let you see by evident Authorities from the Historians of those Times For in the first place though I grant William Rufus succeeded to the Crown by his Fathers last Will which was certainly unlawful as being contrary to the receiv'd Laws of Succession in Normandy as well as England yet was it not by Election of the people as you suppose but by the kindness of Arch-Bishop Lanfranc his God-father and the favour of the greater part of the Norman Barons who came over with his Father as well as out of hatred to Duke Robert his Elder Brother that he was thus made King so that William Rufus claimed as a Testamentary Heir and by reason of that Claim was advanced to the Throne by the Assistance of Lanfranc's and the Bishop's Faction who then swayed the people but yet never owned any Election from them so that if you rightly consider this Story you cannot call it an Election but a Designation or Nomination by his Father William the Conqueror and consented to by the major part of the Bishops and Lords of the Kingdom but not by their Election or Decree as a Common Council as you suppose But that for all this Duke Robert his Brother being assisted by Odo Bishop of Bayenx and Earl of Kent his Uncle as also divers other Norman Lords who being satisfied of his Right raised a War in England against William and great mischief was done on both sides till at last a Peace was made between them upon these conditions among others as Matthew Westminster relates it that because of the manifest Right Duke Robert had to the Crown he should have a Yearly Pension of three thousand Marks out of the Revenue of England and he of the two Brothers that surviv'd the other if he died
carried on with great vigour and though I grant that after divers changes of fortune the Empress was at last forced to quit the Kingdom yet her Son Duke Henry did not fail to continue his claim to the Crown in right of his Mother and coming over into England renewed the War against King Stephen which was at last compos'd by an agreement between them which as Matthew Paris and Mat. Westminster relate it was thus That King Stephen acknowledged in an Assembly of Bishops and other great men of the Kingdom that Duke Henry had an Hereditary right to the Crown and the Duke thereupon as kindly granted that King Stephen should peaceably possess it during his Life so that it is certain till this agreement even by his own acknowledgment he had no right to it and though I grant that the Empress Maud for some reasons we are not able to give a true account of never took upon her the Title of Queen yet it is very certain that she acted as such during all the time she was in England receiving Homage and Fealty from those Lords and others who came over to her side and also granting Charters and conferring Honours by the Title of Anglorum Domina which shews she look'd upon her self to be the Supream Governess of the Kingdom though not under the Title of Queen so that I think you can find nothing in this transaction that can support your Notion of Vacancy F. Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said before you proceed farther first I cannot excuse neither King Stephen for taking the Crown nor the Bishops and Great men that set it on his Head from perjury and injustice since the Emperess Maud had been before in a Common-Council of the whole Kingdom declared the Lawful Successor and that Fealty had been sworn to her as such All that I insist upon in this affair is this that Quod furi non debâ—t factum valet And though this ought not to have been done yet when once done did stand good and therefore if whilst the Throne was vacant King Stephen by the Election and Consent of the Bishops and Great Men of England was placed therein he was there looked upon as true and legal King as long as he lived And this was the reason why the Emperess never took upon her the Title of Queen of England no not when she had taken King Stephen prisoner and one would have thought might have justly done it as a Conqueress But yet she forbore it because that Title was not then to be taken without the consent of the Great Council of the Kingdom which I cannot find she ever held her party being not great enough to make one And though I cannot deny but that she might in some particulars exercise some prerogatives of Royal Power yet this was only upon a pretence of her being Elected and Stiled by this Title of Lady of the English in a Synod of the Clergy at Winchester by the procurement of Henry the then Bishop of that See and the Popes Legat who was now turned against his brother King Stephen For she was never generally received nor own'd as Queen nor did she ever exercise those great prerogatives of Sovereign Power viz. Calling of Great Councils making of Laws raising of Taxes or Coining Mony But whereas you represent King Stephen to have been Elected but by a very small party of the Bishops and Noblemen of England yet it is very much to be doubted whether William of Malmesbury who Dedicated his History to Robert Earl of Gloucester King Stephens greatest Enemy being no friend to his Title is to be altogether credited in this matter For Henry of Huntington who lived not long after tells us expresly that Omnes qui Sacramentum juraverant tam Praesules quam Consules Principes assensum Stephano praebutrunt hominium fecerunt And it is also as certain that the Earls of Gloucester and Chester the two greatest men of England did then likewise swear Allegiance to him and own his Title though they afterwards revolted from him again Yet could they do nothing considerable against him till his own Brother the Bishop of Winchester revolted also from him upon pretence that the King had violated the Rights of the Church And though it is true that after the Empresses departure out of England Duke Henry her Son came over and prosecuted the War against King Stephen yet could it not be in his own but his Mothers Right who was then alive Nor could the agreement you mention be made between the King and the Duke as having then a right to the Crown in his own Person since we read of no concession the Empress his Mother had made to him of it And therefore whatever Title Henry could claim thereunto Upon the death of King Stephen it was wholly due to this Kings adopting him for his Son and declaring him his Successor upon condition that he himself should enjoy the Crown during his life which agreement was solemnly confirmed and ratified and that by Oath in a full Assembly of all the Bishops Lords and great men of the Kingdom For Ordericus Vitalis in his Annals p. 989. Is very express in the manner of this great Transaction in these words Sic tamen in praesentiarum ipse Rex Caeteri Potentes Sacramento â—irmarent quod Dux post mortem Regis si tempore eum superviveret pacifice aâ—â—que contâ—adâ—ctione Regnum haberet therefore as long as the Empress Maud lived who died after her Son King Henry's coming to the Crown ' â—is plain he could have no Hereditary Right to it notwithstanding what Matthew Paris and Matthew Westminster who lived long after these Transactions have said to the contrary and therein are to be looked upon as Authors that speak their own sense rather than that of the Writers of those times M. I confess what you have urged in this matter concerning Duke Henry's being admitted as Heir of the Kingdom during the Life of his Mother the Empress Maud seems to the purpose and there could be nothing said against it but that this was done by the Concession of the Empress her self who surrender'd all her pretentions to her Son tho' we have no particular account of it or else which is more likely in my opinion that the Government of Women being then unknown in England and Normandy and consequently odious to the English and Norman Nobility and for which reason chiefly they had before set this Empress aside they thought they did in effect perform their Oath to her when they acknowledged her Title in her Son Duke Henry who is said by the Historians of those times to have succeeded Stephen Iure Haereditario which could not at all agree with your notion of his receiving his Title from the Consent or Election of the great Council But I shall pass over this and come to your next instance of the Vacancy of the Throne which you pretend
was a man and better acquainted with England and having the Interest of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and most of the great men were of his party and yet for all that Hoveden who was alive at this time speaks not a word of his being Elected but only that upon his coming into England he was received by the Nobility and Crown'd by Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury so that there is not one word there of any Election by but only a submission from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to King Iohn and a recognition that he was their King nor indeed could he need it if it be true what the same Author tells us That when King Richard despar'd of Life he devised to Iohn his Brother the Kingdom of England and all his other Lands and caus'd all those that were present to do him Fealty and this is related by Hoveden in all probability an Eye Witness of these transactions So that the first Author we find to mention any thing of the particulars of this pretended Election is Mâ—tthew Paris who has given us the Speech which the Arch-bishop made at this supposed Election and also reciting the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls and Barons and all others who ought to be at his Coronation the Arch-bishop standing in the middle of them said thus Hear all of you your Discretion shall know that no man hath right to succeed in this Kingdom unless after seeking God he be unanimously chosen by the University of the Kingdom that is those that are here said to meet at London the rest of the Speech needs no repeating only he lays it down for Law which I think was never heard of before That if any of the Progeny of the dead King did excel others they ought more readily to consent to the Election of him and so upon this Speech made in behalf of Earl Iohn and full of a great deal of fulsom slattery he was declar'd King But to let you see what a sort of Man this Arch bishop Hubert was here see what the same Author tells us in the same place that being asked afterward why he said these things answer'd That he guested and was thought ascertained by certain Prophecies that Iohn would bring the Kingdom and Crown into great Confusion and therefore lest he he might have too much liberty in doing he affirmed he ought to come in by Election and not by Hereditary Succession Now though this Learned Doctrine of the Arch bishop asserts a right of Election in the Convention of Bishops Earls Barons c. yet by his own answer when he was asked why he said these things it clearly discovers it to be only a design and artifice in the Archbishop to cause them to set up and make Iohn King and in which also he denies any such right of Election but since Hoveden nor any other of our antient historians make mention of this Election but only of his Coronation and the Bishops Earls and Barons assisting at it not giving their consents to it it may very well be that that story of an Election and this Speech of Arch bishop Hubert might be only an invention of Matthew Paris or rather of Roger of Wendover from whom he took most of his History but that this doctrine of the Arch-bishop concerning the Election of our Kings if meant according to the modern understanding of it was then new Gervase a Monk of Canterbury in the year 1122. who also speaking of the Coronation of Henry the First says it was manifest and known almost to all men that the King 's of England were only obliged and bound to God for the possession of the Kingdom and to the Church of Canterbury for their Coronation manifestum est autem omnibus fire notum Reges Angliae soli Deo obligari teneri ex ipsius regni adeptione Ecclesiae Cantuariensi ex Coronatione But that King Iohn was looked upon as an Usurper is very certain since besides some of the honest English Nobility that took Duke Arthurs part the King of France did also make War upon King Iohn upon his Nephews account because he looked upon him as true Heir to the Crown and therefore when K. Iohn had privately made away his said Nephew in prison the K. of France summon'd him as Duke of Normandy and Peer of France to answer for the Murther in an Assembly of the Peers of France at Paris where for his refusing to appear he was condemn'd to death and his Dukedom of Normandy declar'd forâ—eited to the King of France F. I confess you have said as much as can be to prove that King Iohn had no Hereditary Right to the Crown nor was so solemnly Elected to it as Matthew Paris relates but yet for all this I think I may very justly oppose all that you have now said upon this Head for in the first place it was then very much disputed as it hath been also since that time if an Elder Brother died and left a Son a Mâ—nor whether his Younger Brother or the Son should succeed for though the People of Anjou and those of Guienne own'd Duke Arthur for their Prince yet the States of Normandy were of another mind and as well by vertue of King Richard's Testament he was immediately after his Death invested with that Dukedom nor was he then at all opposed in it by the King of France though Supreaâ— Lord of the Fee and as for England besides his Brothers Testament whereby he left him Heir of all his Territories it was also then generally held in England as most consonant to the Antient English Saxon Law of Succession that the Uncle should succeed to the Crown before the Nephew therefore it is no wonder if Duke Arthur found so small a party here not any Bishop Earl or Baron as I read of owning his Title and as for the King of France it is also as certain that he did at first own King Iohn for lawful King of England and Duke of Normandy and entred into a Treaty of Peace and made a League with him as such though it is true that afterwards when he had a mind to pick a quarrel with that King he then set up Duke Arthur's Title And though this Duke was made away in the beginning of King Iohn's Reign yet did not the King or Peers of France ever take any notice of it till about twelve or thirteen years after when he had now unjustly Conquered all Normandy and almost all that Kings other Territories in France and then wanting a Title to keep them he began this Prosecution you mention against him and upon his non appearance he was condemned unheard but that the King of France himself and all the great men of that Kingdom did look upon him to have been lawful King of England appears by that Speech which Matthew Paris relates to have been made after King Iohn's Deposition by the Barons of England by a Knight whom Prince Lewis
no Reason since they are only Declarative and Persuant to the late Act of the Convention whereby after the Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects King William and Queen Mary are Declared That they were and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Soveraign Leige Lord and Lady and King and Queen of England c. M. Well it is late and besides to no purpose to argue this Point any longer since it concerns not me nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you make and impose upon those whose Consciences will never permit us to take them What I have said was only to shew you the Folly and Weakness of such Oaths and Consequently that they can be subservient to no other end then a renewal and aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us which God forgive this sinful Nation among the many crying Sins it now growns under Yet give me leave still to mind you that you have not given any answer to the Objection I have made concerning the Schism that is like to follow from the depriving of all such Bishops and Clergy that shall refuse to take the new Oath by such a time which Deprivation being uncanonically ordain'd by the meer lay power of the Convention without the authority of a Convocation or Synod such proceedings are sufficient cause for all of our way to break off all Church Communion with you as soon as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops shall happen to be deprived and new ones put in their Places since all Church Communion wholly depends upon the lawfullness of the Bishops who are the supreme Pastors of our Church F. I forgot to say any thing of this because I said so much to answer concerning the new Oath I proposed as sit to taken by those in places of Trust but since you desire it I shall say somewhat though not so large as I could speak upon this Subject First I must tell you it is altogether a new Notion and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it is declared that the Kings of this Realm have the same Power with Persons in the Church as the Kings of Iudah and Israel had among the Jews therefore you must either depart from the Doctrine of this Canon or else the King and Parliament who are certainly as much the supreme Power of the Nation as the Kings of Iudah were to that of the Jews may as well deprive the Arch Bishop of Canterbury for Example for Treason or Disobedience to the Government as Solomon did Abiathar for Anointing his Brother Adonijah King and besides this I can shew you many Examples of the like power exercised by the Roman and Greek Emperours in depriving and banishing not only Bishops but Patriarchs for the matters of State without any Sentence or Judgment of a Synod or general Council of other Bishops if your Doctrine were true the poor Greek Church would be in a sad Condition and all her Members in a perpetual Schism for some Ages past that there hath been scarce any Canonical Elections or Deprivations of the Patriarchs of any of the great Seats viz. Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria but they are all nominated and put in and out at the Grand Seigniors nay Visiers Will and Pleasure as any Man who will but peâ—uâ—e Sr. Paul Rycauts account of the Greek Church may easily see But indeed you fall into this Errour for want of considering the original of Bishop-pricks in England and the true meaning of this intended Deprivation for pray take Notice that though Episcopacy was setled in England in the time of the Britains yet all the Seas and Jurisdictions of the Bishops of this Realm in respect of such and such Diocesses have been wholly oweing to the bounty of our Kings and the Authority of our Great Councils which were also confirmed by the Popes Bulls and since the Reformation to the Authority of the King and Parliament as were all the Bishop-pricks erected in Henry the VIII ths Reign so that let the Bishops meer Spiritual Power of Ordaining Excommunicating c. be derived immediately from Christ if you please yet the Exercise thereof as limited and appointed to this or that Precint or See is as meer a temporal Institution as that of Parishes which was not introduced till long after Christianity was settled in this Island So that the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the See of Canterbury for Example being a Civil Institution it hath anciently belonged to Supream Powers not only to confer this Power as appears by their ancient Investitures of our Bishops per Baculum Annulum but also to take it away for Treason or Disobedience against the State since the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their Spiritual Character or Episcopal Orders but only of their right to exercise it within such Sees or Diocesses thus although the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishops of London and Wichester with the rest of the Popish Bishops were deprived by Act of Parliament in 1 o th of Elizabeth for not taking the Oath of Supremacy the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade those Bishops of their Episcopal Orders but only to forbid their acting as Bishops in their former respective Diocesses and therefore I doubt not but that notwithstanding this Depriviation those Bishops might if they had pleased have ordained Priests and confirmed Children and that such Ordinations and Confirmations would been good even in our Protestant Church if such Priests or Children had afterwards turned Protestants since 't is very well known that the Church of England ownes the orders of the Church of Rome to be valid which is more then we do for the ordinations of meer Presbyters coming from those Protestant Countrys where there are no Bishops at all the like I may say for their Confirmations too But pray Sir consider how upon your Principles this Schism can be so Universal as to influence and involve all England in it for if the Arch Bishop of Yorke for example will rather take this Oath then suffer Deprivation and that the rest of the Bishops of his Province should be of the mind as I am credibly informed they will pray tell me how the People of that Province being a distinct Church or body Ecclesiastical from that of Canterbury as to all Spiritual matters as having a distinct Convocation of their own can ever be involved in this Schism by the deprivation of the Arch Bishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury And pray also tell me in the next place how all the Members of the two Universities can ever be involv'd in this intended Schism since they owe no Canonical Obedience to the arch-Arch-Bishops of Canterbury or York nor to any other Bishop but only to their Chancellour and the Vice-Chancellour as his Deputy who exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the said Universities and therefore their Church
Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Uncanonical deprivation of any Bishops in England I desire you to consider these things as a Canon-Lawyer and give me your answer if you can against the next time we meet and then tell me whether the causes of this threatned Schism be so just and apparent that it is like to involve so many of the Wisest and most Considerate of the Clergy and Laity into open separation from the Church as you suppose it will not but that I will grant there be many of the Clergy of this Opinion who as well out of Conscience as for their own interest will be contented to set up and encourage such a separation thereby to make themselves heads of separate Congregations when they shall be deprived of their present Benefices and Imployments upon their refusal of this Oath M. I must confess I never heard so much said upon this head before and if you could make out to me all the matters of fact you have now instanced in I know not but that I may come over to your Opinion tho' let me tell you this is the first time that ever you can shew me that any Bishops were deprived in England by the meer Lay Authority of the King and a Great Council or Convention of the Laity whilst they continued of the same Church-Communion with those Bishops for as to your instance of the Popish Bishops deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I doubt you will find it does not come up to the Point in question since the Queen and Parliament having then newly declared themselves Protestants did not own them for true and Orthodox Bishops and consequently thought they might justly depart from their Communion and upon the same account might deprive them and the Queen might then nominate others of their own Religion in their Places F. I cannot but differ from you in the matter of fack as you now relate it for Queen Elizabeth and the Parliament were when they made this Act so far from being separated from the outward Communion of the Church of Rome that Mass was then said and the Romish Priests still continued in all the Parishes and Churches of England and yet they still maintain'd an outward Communion though their Bishops were deprived by the Civil â—ower and others ordain'd in their stead So that it is plain the Papists themselves had then no notion of this new cause of Schism by reason of their Bishops being Uncanonically deprived nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Legality of our Reformation if the Protestant Bishops who succeeded in the places of those who were thus deprived by Act of Parliament could not be Canonical because their Predecessors deprived by the Lay Power were still alive But admit this was the first time that ever it had been thus practiced yet if it were then reasonable and done upon good grounds I cannot see but when the necessity of the Church and State require it and that the Clergy in Convocation are so wilfull and wedded to some old false notions as not to consult the peace and safety of the Church and Kingdom why the King and Queen who are acknowledged to be Supream over Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Persons may not together with the two Houses of Parliament make the like Law now as was done in the first of Queen Elizabeth for a less matter for none of those Popish Bishops though they believed Queen Elizabeth to have no better than a Parliament Title to the Crown yet ever denied her to be their lawful and rightful Queen only they would not own her Supremacy in Spiritual Matters But leaving the farther discussion of this Point to those who better understand it I would gladly know of you what you intend to do and what you would have us do who are like to be made Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace for if as you your self allow there be a necessity that some Civil Government be maintain'd during King Iames's absence I desire to know of you how it can be managed and who shall manage it in case all the Gentlemen of England were of your Principle and should positively refuse the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties for if King Iames be never so much our lawful King it is not now possible for us to be Govern'd by him since he is goâ—e and God knows whether ever he may return again since then you cannot have him if you would and that there is a necessity we should be Govern'd by some body And since it is also as certain that those who actually Govern us will exact this or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us as were due to their Predecessors and that no man must expect to enjoy or execute any Place or Office not only of profit but of burthen and charge for the necessary execution of Justice and the maintenance of Civil Government without which we cannot live or subsist without taking this new Oath of Allegiance as the only means to qualifie them for it if then the end viz. Civil Government be absolutely necessary and the taking of this Oath is the only means allow'd of to qualifie men for it this seems as evident to me that taking of this Oath is not only justifiable by Law but by Reason and good Conscience since it is done for the highest and noblest end viz. the publick good of the whole Nation or Common wealth which you grant cannot subsist without some kind of Civil Government amongst us M. I will say something in answer to what you have now alledged concerning the necessity of taking of the Oath in order to the maintenance of some Civil Government without which I grant the Kings good Subjects cannot subsist till his return since I confess this is the strongest Argument you have yet brought all I can say to it at present it that if all your Country Gentlemen and all the Lawyers in England would be so firm in their Loyalty to his Majesty as unanimously to declare that they cannot take this Oath with a safe Conscience the consequence then would be that either the present Usurped Power must be forced to give up the Government to the right owner or else they must at least desist from pressing this Oath upon you F. You know well enough this is altogether a vain supposition since you cannot but be sensible that their Majesties have not only a sufficient force both of Native Englishmen and Foreigners on their side who can force those that should make any opposition to the taking it and that there are also many Fanaticks and Common-wealths Men who not looking upon themselves as at all oblig'd by your notions of Natural Allegiance and the obligations of any former Oath of Allegiance will get into all the Offices and Imployments of the Kingdom to the great prejudice and destruction not only of the Church but the Monarchy it self which is as yet preserv'd tho the Person
the Aldermen or Burgesses of Towns Represent those which we now call the Commons And supposing that then there were no Knights of Shires yet these being then the only Proprietors of any considerable Estates of Land in the Nation might very well represent all their Vâ—ssals or Vnder-Tenents as Tenents for years and at Will are at this day by the Knights of Shires tho they have no Votes at their Elâ—ction To conclude tho I grant that the King 's of England are the Fountain of that Honour which we call Peerage Yet it is only in Pursuance of that Ancient Constitution which their Ancestors brought out of Old Saxony and Normandy along with them as the firmest defence of Kingly Power against the Insolency and Encroachments of the Common or Meaner sort of People as well as Tyranny in their Princes And therefore in all Monarchies where there is no Hereditary Nobility the Prince hath no surer â—ay to maintain his Power than by Standing Armies to whose Humours and Pactions he is more Subject and is also more liable to be Murdered or Deposed by them when discontented with him than ever any limited Prince yet was or can be by his Nobility or People As I could shew you from a multitude of Examples not only from the Roman but Moorish Arabick and Turkish Histories and therefore to constitute a lasting stable limited Monarchy as ours is it must be according to the Model I have here Proposed M. I shall not contradict the latter part of your Discourse but I must freely tell you that if as you your self grant there were no Knights of Shires in the Saxon times I cannot see how those we call the vulgar or Commons of England had then any Representatives in the Great Council since those Thanes or Lords of Mannors whom you suppose to have Represented their Tenants or Vassals were never chosen by them and consequently could not properly be their Representatives But I think it will be easy enough to prove that none of your Inferior or middle Thanes but only the Chiâ—f or Superior had places in those Assemblies So that these Feudal Thanes or such as held of the King in Chief by Military Service were of the sam Kind with them that were after the Norman times Honorary or Parliamentary Barons and their Thainlands alone were the Honorary Thainlands and such as were afterwards Parliamentary Baronies Nor can I find any Footsteps in our Ancient English Histories of Cities and Buroughs sending any Representatives to those Great Councils So that admit I should own at present that the Bishops and some Great Abbots had from the first Setling of Christianity in this Island an Indisputable place in the Great Councils and likewise that the Earls Aldermen or Great Nobility had also Votes in those Assemblies and that the Chief Thanes or less Nobles had also their places there by reason of the Tenure of their Estates yet certainly the House of Commons was of a much later Date and owed its being either to the Grace and Favour of our Kings of the Norman Race or else to those that had Vsurp't their Power And this I think Dr. Brady hath very well proved against Mr. Petyt and I think I could convince you also of the Truth of it by his as well as other Arguments were it not now too late to enter upon so long a Subject F. Therefore pray let us defer any further Discourse of this Question till the next time we meet wherein I hope I may shew you that if you owe that Opinion to the Doctors Arguments he hath led you into a very gross mistake And I shall only at present take my leave of you and bid you good night M. I wish you the like ADVERTISEMENT A Brief Discourse of the Law of Nature according to the Principles and Method laid down in the Reverend Dr. Cumberland's now Lord Bishop of Peterborough's Latin Treatise on that Subject As also his Confutations of Mr. Hobb's Principles put into another Method With the Right Reverend Author's Approbation FINIS Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER The Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Ancient and Modern Dialogue the Sixth LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth and Fifth Dialogues 1693. Authors made use of and how denoted 1. Mr. Pettit's Ancient Right of the Commons of England Asserted P.R.C. 2. Dr. Brady's Answer thereunto Edit in Folio B. A. P. 3. The said Doctor 's Glossary at the end of it B. G. 4. Anamadversions upon Treatise Ianii Anglorum forces novo B. A. I. 5. The Author of Ianus c. his Confutation of the said Doctor entituled Ianus Anglorum ab Antique I. A. A. 6. Dr. Brady's Preface to his History B. P. H. 7. Dr. Iohnston's Excellency of Monarchical Government I. E. M. G. THE PREFACE TO THE READER HAving in my last Discourse treated of the Legislative Power of this Kingdom as also the Ancient Constitution of our English Government by great Councils or Parliaments the former of which questions I should scarce have dwelt so long upon had I then known of a Learned Treatise now 〈◊〉 to be publisht on that Subject I am at last arrived at the hardest and most important though perhaps in the Iudgment of some the driest and most unpleasant part of my Task viz. Who were anciently the constituent Parts or Orders of Men who made up thâ—se Assemblies That the Bishops Abbots Priors Earls and Chief Thanes or Barons were Principal Members is granted by all Parties but whether there were from the very Original of these Great Councils nay till long after the coming in of the Normans any Representatives for the Commons as we now call them in distinction from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is a doubt which as it was for ought I can find first raised by an Italian who writ the History of England in the last Age so hath it been continued by some Antiquaries of our present Age though the first that ever appeared to prove the contrary was a Treatise published by James Howel in the Cottoni Posthuma under the Name of Sir Robert Cotton about 1654. but whether it was his or no I know not only it was supposed to be so by Mr. Pryn in his Preface to the Collection of Records which he published under the Name of the same Author in 1657. and after him this Notion of the Bishops Lords and other Tenants in Capite being the Sole Representative for the whole Nation in those Councils was next printed in the Second part of Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Tit. Parliamentum where King John's Charter is made use of at the main Argument to prove that Assertion The next who appear'd in Prâ—nt on
have already proved that the whole Parliament as well the Lords Spiritual and Temporal as Commons were both before and after this time comprehended under these words Nobilitas Angliae and if you yet doubt of it I can give you a plain Authority out of VValsingham for it is in his Life of Edw. II. Anno 1327. where relating the manner of that King's Deposition he tells us That when the Queen and Prince came to London there then met Tota Regni Nobilitas to depose the King and chuse his Son in his stead and then there was sent to the King being Prisoner in Kenelworth Castle on behalf of the whole Kingdom two Bishops two Earls two Abbots and of every County three Knights and also from London and other Cities and Great Towns especially the Cinque Ports a certain number of persons who informed him of the Election of his Son and that he should renounce the Crown and Royal Dignity c. This Proof is so plain it needs no Comment As for the rest of your Argument the strength of it chiefly consists in this that the Tax there mentioned is said to be granted à Militibus or Tenants in capite as you would have it of three Marks upon every Knight's Fee But in the first place I desire you to take notice that this Scutage is not Scutage Service but a general Land Tax or Manner of taxing according to Knights Fees and which was continued long after Hen. III. Reign as it appears by this Passage in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Tit. Scutagium Edwardus primus habuit 40 Soli de quolibet 〈◊〉 Anno Regni 13 Dom. 1285. pro expeditione contra VVallos And it was also granted by the Lords and Commons after the 18th of Edw. I. when you and the Dr. supposes the Commons to have then came to Parliament and if so I desire to know why a Militibus here mentioned by this Author must only signifie Tenants in capite by Knights Service and not the Knights of Shires since it is not here said a Militibus qui de Rege tenuerunt in capite And therefore it is a forced Interpretation of the Dr.'s and without any Authority to limit these words Militibus libere Tenentibus omnibus de Regno nostro which you omit with an c. as also the omnibus Hominibus Liberis Regni nostri only to the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Prelates of England and to the Earls Barons Knights and Free Tenants or Tenants in Military or Knight's Service because they were only such as paid Scutage VVhereas you have already acknowledged that Magna Charta was granted to all the people of England who had all a benefit by it and who paid towards the aid there granted as well as the Tenants in capite But if Knights Fees alone were Taxed and that by the Tenants in capite only I desire to know by what Right all Tenants in Petit Serjeanty and by Burgoge oâ— Sâ—occage Tenure who made a greater Body of men in this Kingdom in those Times could pay this Scutage since they held not by Knights Service but by certain Rents or other Services and so not appearing in Person could have no Representatives in this or any other Parliament of those Times But if you will tell me they might pay according to the value that Knights Fees were then reckoned at viz. for every 20 l. a years Estate I desire to know how this could be called Scutage or how the Tenants in capite or other Lords from whom they held those Lands could give away their Money for them And in the next place I desire also to know how all the Cities and Burroughs in England could be charged with this Tax a great many of them is you your self grant holding of the King in capite or else of Bishops Abbots or other Mesâ—e Lords by Soccage or Bargage Tenure So that this Tax if granted only by the Tenants in capite by Knights Service could reach them and no other persons but if by this Word a Militibus may be understood Knights of Shires then the Tax was general as well upon Soccage Tenants as those by Knights Service But for the other Words you insist upon viz. the Liberi Tenentes which you translate Tenants by Military Service if that had been the meaning of these words then they had been altogether in vain since you have already told me that the â—â—lites were so called non a Militari Cingulo sed a Feodo and if it were no Name of Dignity then certainly the Word Milites would have served to comprehend all your Liberi Tenentes or Tenants in capite without any other addition But that these Words Laberi Tenentes do not here signifie Tenants by Military Service pray see Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Tit. Liber Homo liber Tenens where he there gives us a more general Signification of thesewords thus Ad Nobilesolim spectabant isti 〈◊〉 à majoribus ortos omnino Liberis and then ends thus vide Ingenuus Legalis 〈◊〉 Francus Tenens Liberè alias Liber Tenent quo etiam sensu occurrit interdum Homo 〈◊〉 which upon every one of these Titles he makes to signifie all one â—â—d the same thing viz. an ordinary Freeholder And therefore it is a very forced Interpretation of yours to limit these Words Communitas Populi only to the Community or Body of the Earls Barons and Tenants in capite Tho I confess you are very kind in one main Point in únderstanding the Communitas Populi to mean the Community of the Lesser Tenants in capite that were no Barons and then do what you can these Words must here signifie Meer Commoners or Commons unless you can shew us a Third Sort of Men who tho neither Lords nor Commons yet had a place in Parliament So that these Gentlemen notwithstanding their Tenure were no more Noble than their Feudatory Tenants or Vavafors themselves my than the Knights of Shires are at this day And then granting as I doubt not but I shall be able to prove that the Cities and Boroughs had then also their Representatives there I pray tell me whether or no there were not Commons in Parliament before 49 Hen. III. or not which is contrary to your Dr.'s Assertion in divers places of his Answerâ— to Mr. P. And that the Word Populus must here signifie the Commons and not the whole Body of the Laity appears plainly by this place you have quoted since it is restrained by your self to mean not the whole Community of the Kingdom but only the Community of Lesser Tenants in capite who were not Lords But that Matt. Paris doth also in another place take the Word Populus for the Commoners and not for the whole Body of the Laity pray again remember what he says in Anno 1225. where relating the manner how Magna Charta came to be confirmed in 9th Hen. III. he tells us Rex Henricus ad Natale tenuit Curiam suam apud VVestm
to the Judgment of every indifferent person These then were the men the only Legal men that named and chose Juries and served on Juries themselves both in the Countrey and Hundred Courts and dispatched all Countrey Business under the Great Officers as will appear by the next Law with a little Explication Ut Iura Regia illaesa servare pro viribus câ—entur subditi Statuimus etiam firmiter praecipimus ut omnes Liberi Homines totius Regni praedicti sint Fratres conjurati ad Monarchiam nostram ad Regnum nostrum pro viribus suis facultatibus contra inimicos pro posse suo defendendum viriliter servaâ—um Pacem Dignitatem Coronae nostrae integram observandam ad Iudicium Recâ—um Iustitiam constanter omnibus modis pro posse suo sine dolo sine dilatione faâ—endam Now the Judgment they were to give and the Justice they were to do by this Law besides that in their own Courts and Jurisdictions was principally as they were Jurors or Recognitors upon Assizes c. tho some of the greatest of their Milites were often Sheriffs Hundredaries and other Under Iudges and Ministerial Officers of Justice in their several Counties as may be seen in Glanâ—ille every where but especially Lib. 2. c. 10 11. lib. 9. c. 7. c. 17. lib. 13. throughout This of being Suitors to the County and Hundred Courts c. being a Service incident to their Tenures and before them many times anciently in the County and Hundred Courts and not privately in a Chamber were Executed Deeds Grants and Donations of Lands contained in very small pieces of Pâ—rchment witnessed by Thomas of such a Town Iohn of another Richard of a third c. which were Knights and Liberi Tenentes in Military Service in those Towns of considerable Estates and not the lower sort of people And this Execution of Sales and Assurances in open Courts was as publick and notorious and as secure as if at that time there had been a publick Register for them F. Before I answer your Conclusion from King VVilliam's Laws I must tell you I am not at all satisfied neither with the Account you give how the Commonâ— of England could come in to be a part of the Parliament without any noise or notice taken of it either by our Acts of Parliament or Historians since it is not only improbable but also quite contrary to Matter of Fact and History it self as I shall I hope make good when we come to treat of that Subject Nor is your Argument of any weight since it doth not follow that because VVilliam the Conqueror so subjected the Lands of Bishops and Abbots to Tenure by Knights Service that therefore this was done by his sole Power without any Law for it made by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom Since I observe in the first Law of King VVilliam which you have now cited that the very Services which you say were reserved upon the Lands he had bestowed are said to be so appointed or setled by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom and therefore certainly the Services of the Bishops and Abbots must be so likewise And therefore I must confess my self to be of Mr. Selden's Opinion in this Matter who presumes there was a Law for it tho now lost and cannot believe that this King how powerful soever should attempt to introduce so great a yoak upon all the Bishops and so many of the Abbots and Pâ—â—ors of England without their consents expresly given to a Law and made in the Great Council concerning it tho that Law as many others of this King is not now to be found But to come to the main Design of your present Discourse which is to shew that none but Tenants by Military Service in capite were in the first times after the Conquest properly the only true Freemen or Freeholders of the whole Kingdom I shall shew you that first the Notion is quite new and never heard of till the Dr. from whom you have borrowed it first broach'd it neither Mr. Lambard Mr. Somneâ— nor Sir Henry Spelman nor any of our English Antiquaries or Lawyers ever discovered any such thing before your Dr. arose to disperse these Clouds every man of the Kingdom who was no Villain being look'd upon as a Freeman and every Owner of Lands of Inheritance though of never so small a proportion reckoned a Freeholder and his Estate called his Franc Tenement or Freehold as well in our Ancient as Modern Laws and that Freehold was not restrained only to Military Service within a hundred years after the Conquest appears by King Iohn's Magna Charta In which it is expresly recited that Nullus distriâ—â—tur ad faciendum majus servitium de Feodo Militis nec de alio Libero Tenemento quâ—â— inde debetur and that Socage Tenants tho by Villain Services were as much Freemen as your Tenants in capite see Spelman's Glossary Tit. Socman where he says thus Socmannus in natura brevinan brevi de Recto propriè talis est qui Liâ—e est tenet de Rege seu de alio Domino in antiquo dominico terras suas seu Tenementâ— in Villenagio Libro Sancti Albani Tit. Honcton Chap I. Rege Angliae manerium de Hâ—â—cton tenuerunt in dominico omnes Tenentes Liberi scil custumarii per sokam defendebant tenementa sua c. ex quo patet sokmans liberos 〈◊〉 significare But since you seem to make a distinction between Freemen and Freeholders properly or improperly so called since King VVilliam's Laws you have now cited do not warrant any such Distinction I must beg your excuse if I am not of your Opinion for the First Law you have quoted warrants no such thing it only says That all Freemen in general shall take an Oath of Fealty to the King to maintain him his Lands and Honours against 〈◊〉 Enemies and Strangers Now it is apparent that this Law extended to all Freemen who were by the Ancient Saxon Laws recited in the Addition to the Laws of King Edward to take the very same Oath in the Folkmote as they were after your Conquest to do according to this Law either in the County Courts or Sheriffs Tourne Nor will the next Law do the business any more than this for the Words are That all Freemen of our said Kingdom may have and hold their Lands and Possessions free from all â—njust Taillage Exactions c. Which Word Possessions extends not only to Lands of Inheritance much less to Lands held by Knights Service but also to Estates for Life and all other Chattels or Possessions as well real as personal Nor doth the Words Servitium Liberum extend only to those Services which were reserved upon Lands held by Knights Service in capite but also to those Common Services called Trinoda necessitas which I have formerly mentioned â—iz The building and repairing of Castles and Bridges and Expedition against Foreign Enemies
accepit c. Now pray tell me what Common Council was this Of the Bishops and chief Men of the Kingdom that Anselm referred himself to Was it not ex more by Custom You cannot find in Eadmer any Summons to it neither Rex asâ—ivit nor praecepâ—o Regis convenerunt nor Rex sanctione suâ adunavit In short not to multiply Examples look where you will in Eadmerus or any other of the ancient Historians you have cited and you will still find that the Persons who met ex more and without any Summons were the same who Assembled by the Kings Summons at other times that is the Principes and Episcoâ—i Regni or Terrae or called more generally Priâ—ates utriusque ordinis or the Barones or Majores Regni who did at these great â—easts pro more go to Court and hold a solemn Curia or great Council there And that these made up the Vniversity or whole Body of the Kingdom pray see what Matt. Paris says In die Pentecostes Dominus Rex Anglorum Loâ—dini Festum tenens Magnum serenissimum â—unc compositâ per Regni Vniversitatem Eleganti Epistolâ c. This was about the Pope's Exactions as hath been before delivered And Hen. III. in his Letter to the Pope calls the same Persons Magnates Angliae which in his Letter to the Cardinals about the same matter he calls Magnates Nostri as you may see in the former Citations of them F. But pray give me leave to ask you this question might not our first Norman Kings often Summon the Common Council of the Kingdom at one of the said usual Feasts since it was so much for the conveniency of the Bishops great Lords and Tenants in Capite who I grant were then all Members of the Great Council to meet all the rest of the Kingdom or Representatives of the Commons at the same time Though the Writers you have quoted may not mention their being Summoned at all And as for the Writs of Summons those of much later Parliaments being lost how can it be expected we should now prove their being Summoned so many Year before M. I confess it might be so that upon extraordinary business and when the occasion was great and the King desired a great and full appearance they might also receive an express Summons at those times But then I must desire you to shew us any mention of a Summons to any of these Common Councils which when called at other times are most constantly mentioned in this Author And I desire to know of you what you will say to those words pro more convenit which is spoken of the most general Councils when the Community of the Kingdom met at the King's Court You cannot deny but that the Tenants in Capite were the Kings Barones Milites Magnates c. Upon this we will joyn issue And I affirm without bringing Proofs which are infinite in this Case that all the Bishops Earls and Barons of England did hold their Lands Earldoms and Baronies of the Crown or which is all one of the King as of his Person and that was in Capite William the Conqueror as I said before divided most of the Lands in England amongst his great followers to hold of him he made Earls and Barons such as he pleased They and their Descendants held upon the same Terms with the first grantors which was to find so many Horse and Arms and do such and such Services both Titles and Lands were Forfeitable for Treason or Felony to the King did Homage for them and every Bishop Earl and Baron of England was in those circumstances and held of the King after this manner Other Lands were given to other Persons for meaner Services as to his Woodwards Foresters Hunts-men Faulconers Cooks Chamberlains Gouldsinlibs Bayliffs of Mannours in his own hands and many other Officers which in Doomsday-Book are called Terrae Thanorum Regis and sometimes servientium Regis And I doubt not whatever the Notion of Petyt Sergeanty now is but that originally this holding of Lands was the true Tenure not but presenting the Lord with a Bow an Arrow a pair of Spurs every Year c. might also be called Petyt Serjeanty though not so properly as the other F. Not to multiply words to no purpose I think your Reply is far from being Satisfactory for in the first place it is very unreasonable to demand that we should now shew the express Summons to these common Councils which were not held de more since you know that all antient Records of that kind are destroyed and lost for if we could produce them at this day the difference between us and those of your Opinion would quickly be at an end as appears by those great Councils which are said expresly by the Historians I have cited to have been summoned and yet no such Writs of Summons are to be found nor is it any good Argument that because our ancient Historians mention no distinct Summons to the great Councils when met at the usual times of the meeting of the Tenants in Capite that therefore there were none such since we find they often pass by much more material Matters than this And though I grant that the Tenants in Capite were then part of the great Council of the Barones Milites Magnates Regni yet does it not follow for all this that none but the Kings Barons and Tenants in Capite were Members of this great Council since there might be in those times other Barons or great Freeholders who though they held their Lands of the Tenants in Capite yet might be there as Knights of Shires or else appear in Person at those Assemblies as well as the other and besides there were others who though they did not hold of the King in Capite but of some great Honor or Castle or else of some Abbot or Prior yet were Men of very great Estates and very numerous all which must otherwise have had their Estates tax'd and Laws made for them without nay against the consent of themselves or any to represent them Nor is your Assertion at all true That William the Conqueror divided most of the Lands in England to be held of him in Capite For besides those Servants and Officers you last mentioned above two third parts of the Lands of the Abbies and Priories in England were not held as also much other Lands in Kent and other Countries per Baroniam or Knights Service but in libera Elecmosina only or Socage as I have already prov'd and consequently neither they nor their Tenants could according to your Hypothesis have any Representatives in Parliament And farther you your self grant that those Lands you mention which were given out by your Conqueror to his Woodwards Foresters c. did not capacitate them to appear in Parliament since their Tenure was only by Petyt Serjeanty and not by Knights Service Nor could they become the King's Tenants in ancient Demesne because such Tenants
held wholly by Socage Tenure whereas it appears plainly by Littleton that Tenants in Petyt Serjeanty were subject to Wardship Marriage and Relief So that whoever will but consider that near half the Lands in England were held by Bishops Abbots Priors c. and of whom not a third part held by Knights Service of the Crown and will then likewise consider what a vast number of Tenants those Abbots Priors Deans and Chapters who were not Tenants in Capite at all must have had and who either held Estates in Fee or else for Life under them in Socage as well as by Knights Service as also all the other sorts of Tenures I have already mentioned which either held of the King as of some Honor or Castle or else of other Mesne Lords by other Tenures than Knights Service must certainly conclude that not above one half of the Lands of the whole Kingdom was held either immediately of the King or else of other Mesne Lords by that Tenure So that if all these Persons which were far the greater Number of the Free-holders in England should have been thus excluded from having any thing to do in our Great Councils I doubt not but we should have found sufficient Clamour in our Histories against so unjust a Constitution and when the whole Body of the Kingdom was in Arms against King Iohn at Running-Mead they would likewise have inserted a Clause for themselves if they had not had their Suffrages there before either by themselves in their own Persons or by their lawful Representatives And therefore upon the whole matter I durst leave it to the Consideration of any unprejudiced Man whether it is not much more probable that the Constitution of Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses appearing in Parliament should be much more antient then the time you assign than that so small a Body of Men as the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite should represent all the Freeholders and People of England who never held of them by Knights Service at all Nor have you yet answered the Quotation I have brought out of Bracton in my last Discourse to the contrary And whoever will but consult that Author in his Chapter of Tenures will find that the Tenants in Capite were so far from having a Power of charging all the Mesne Tenants at their Pleasure that in his Chapter de Tenuris it appears that a Mesne Tenant in Capite having purchased an Estate for a valuable Consideration was lyable to no other Services and Conditions than what his Tenure express'd which once performed the Lord had no more to say to him and if so be he laid any further Burthens upon him he might have had a Writ of acquital out of the King's Court against him directed to the Sheriffs several Forms of which you may see in Glanville and in the old Register M. We are not to rest upon meer Probabilities for some things that now appear to us unreasonable at this instant of time might then be very just for if the Feudatary Tenants of the Bishops Barons and other Tenants in Capite were well enough contented with the Constitution of the Kingdom as it then was and that it plainly appears by matter of fact that there was but one Common Council for the whole Kingdom and that of the Bishops Abbots Great Lords and less Tenants in Capite only it is in vain to argue of any unreasonableness in or Inconveniencies that might arise from such a Constitution though perhaps a great part of the Kingdom did not hold in Capite nor yet by Knights Service and therefore though the Feudatary Tenants of the Tenants in Capite were upon the performance of their Services acquitted of all other Charges yet this was still to be understood only of such ordinary Services as those Tenants were to perform by virtue of their Tenures such as was Scutage Service or the attending upon their Lords when they went out to War along with the King but did not extend to such Scutages as were granted in Parliament or as a Tax upon Land by the common consent of the Nation for then the Tenants in Capite were not only the Grantors but the Collectors too of such Scutage Tax from their Military Tenants and the Writs to the Sheriffs were different from those for Scutage Service and for proof of this I desire you would peruâ—e that Writ which the Dr. Quotes of the 19th of Hen. III. which is still to be seen in the close Roll of that Year Rex Vice Comiti Sussex salutem Scias quod Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Priâ—reâ— Comites Barones omnes alii de Regno nostro Angliae qui de nobis tenent in Capite spontanea voluâ—â—â—te suâ— sine Conâ—uetudine concesserunt nobis Efficax Auxilium ad magna Negotia nostra Expedienda unde provisum 〈◊〉 de Consilâ—o illorum quod habeamus de feodis Militum Wardis quae de nobis Tenent in Gapite duâ—s Marcas ad predictum Auxilium faciendum unde proviâ—erint reddere nobis unam medietatem ante Festum sancti Micâ—aelis Anno Regni 19. aliam Medictatem ad Pasche Anno Regni â—osirâ— 20. Ideo tibi precipimus quod ad Mandatum venerabilis Patris R. Cicestren Episcopi Cancellarii nostri sine dilatione Distringas omnes Milites liberos Tenentes qui de eo Tenent per Servitium Militare in Balliva tua ad redlendum ei de singulis feotis militum Wardis duas Marcas ad predictum Auxilium nobis per manum suam Reddendum in Terminis predictis Sic scribitur pro aliis Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Magnatibus Now I desire you to tell me whether any thing can be more plain than that this Tax was granted by a Common Council of the Kingdom according to that Clause of King Iohn's Charter I have now cited Wherein it is first especially provided that no Aid or Scutage shall be imposed upon the Kingdom unless by the Common Council thereof and yet you see by this Writ that the Archbishops c. with the Barons there mentioned together with the other Tenants in Capite alone granted an Aid or Scutage Tax of two Marks for every Knights Fee which they held of the King and that by virtue thereof not only those Knights Fees they held in their hands but also all those Subseudatary Tenants called here Freeholders who held of them by Knights Service were likewise charged for every Knights Fee so held the like Summ of two Marks Now I think nothing can be more plain from this Record than that this was a Common Council of the whole Kingdom and yet consisted of Tenants in Capite only and therefore I desire you to shew me some better Proofs than you yet have done that these Tenants in Capite ever made a distinct Council different from the Common Council of the whole Kingdom F. I grant this seems at first sight to be a good Authority for
of the great Council and the common University of the whole Kingdom for it is obvious that when all the Lay Lords Earls and Barons to whom you may also add your Tenants in Capite if you please being met together were asked by the Bishops Abbots and Priors then present whether they would agree with them or not the Eaâ—ls and Barons answered for themselves that they would do nothing without the Common Vniversity which could not possibly be only the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Tenants in Capite since it is plain they were now all here and referred themselves to another distinct order of Men different from themselves who were not there present as also from the Bishops Abbots and Priors who demanded there Consents to what they had agreed upon Now if the Temporal Lords and Tenants in Capite had concurred here had been the consent of the Common Vniversity of Lords and Tenants in Capite but besides the consent of all these there was notwistanding it seems required the Consent of another body of Men called here the Communis Vniversitas by which must be meant the Commons or no body since otherwise they might have all agreed together without any more ado M. I confess this Story out of Mat. Paris looks somewhat plausible at the first on your side but I doubt not if it be better considered it will do you little Service for what if by this Common Vniversity is to be understood the whole body of lesser Tenants in Capite who not â—itting with the Lords at that time they would do nothing without their Consents till it was proposes to them but that they did afterwards all agree pray read the rest of this Narration and it will make it clear enough that this Common Vniversity of Tenants in Capite did also agree with the Lords Bishops and Abbots the words immediately following in Mat. Paris are these Tunc de communi assensu electi fuerunt ex parte cleri Blectus Cantuariensis Wintoniensis Lincolniensis Wigoriensis Episcopi ex parte Laicorum Richardus Comes Frater Domini Regâ—â— Comes Bigod Comes Legr S. de Monteforti Comes Maresâ—ballus ex parte vero Baronum Richardus de Montfiâ—hes Iohannes de Baliol de Sancto Edmundo Rameseit Abbates ut quod isli duodecim providerâ—nt in communi recitaretur nec aliqua forma Domino Regi ostenderetur Authoritate duodecim nisi omnium communis assensus interveniret from which last passage it appears plain to me that in this Parliament the several Orders of men that were the constituent parts of it were only the Bishops Abbots Priors Earls and Barons and that all these put together were termed the Common Vniversity which is more comprehensive then University simply taken now if the Commons as at this day represented had been there we must have had some mention of them one way or other as well as of the Committees of the other Orders which made up the general Committee of Twelve so that it is plain beyond doubt that the Commons were not part of the Common Vniversity F. Then pray tell me who they were for the Historian tells that when all these Bishops Abbots Priors had now met together with the Earls and Barons yet these last â—ell them that without the Common University they could do nothing which had been nonsense if as your Doctor supposes the whole University or Community of the Kingdom had been all present M. I must confess this is a material Objection but what if to help him out I should tell you that by the Common University here mentioned is to be understood the body of the inferior Tenants in Capite under the degree of Barons and this Common University of Tenants in Capite might not have been present and sat with the Earls and Barons at that time when the Bishops and Abbots made this Proposal therefore the Lords might very well answer that till they had consulted the Common Universty or Body of Tenants in Capite they could do nothâ—ng and though this Body of Tenants in Capite did not then actually sit with the Earls and Barons yet doth it not follow that they made a distinct Estate by themselves different from that of the Lords or greater Tenants in Capite for then the Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots c. who are here expresly said to have consulted by themselves must have done so likewise therefore though our Author is not so particular as he might have been yet certainly this Common University were thereupon consulted and gave their Assents to the choice of this Committee of Twelve who were to draw up their answer to the King for the words are tunc ex communi assensu electi fuerunt which seem to refer to the Common University or Body of Tenants in Capite or else the Lords Excuse as well as the Election of these Persons by the Bishops Earls c. had been very insignificant F. This seems to me to be a precarious assertion and without any due proof for tho the words are Tunc ex Communi Assensu yet I very much doubt whether these words do refer to the Common Vniversity of the whole Kingdom or not for your self confess that Mat. Paris is short in this point and that it was not so seems most likely to me by this material circumstance that not one Person of the Twelve but was either a Bishop Earl or great Baron For that Richard de Monâ—sichet and Iohn de Baliot were so Sir William Dugdale hath proved in his Baronage of England Whereas if the University or Body of the Tenants in Capite had joyned in this Election it is not likely but they would have chosen some of their own Body to represent them in this Committee who were not Earls or Barons Since your self must confess that they then were a great Body of Men who were not Lords nor did at this time Sit or Act Joyntly with the Lords or greater Barons in this Assembly and likewise it farther seems highly probable that this Common Vniversity of Tenants in Capite take it in your sense did not give any Resolution in this matter since we do not find any Mony given in answer to the King's Request but only Complaints of and orders about Redressing of Grievances which was in those days often done in a great Council of the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite But I shall shew you now by some other Records which the Dr. himself hath made use of that there often was a distinct Assembly or Council of the Lords and Tenants in Capite different from that of the Commons or Commonalty of the whole Kingdom The first Record is to be found among the Patent Rolls of the 42. Hen. III. beginning thus Rex omnibus c. cum negotiis nostris arduis nos Râ—gnum nostrum contingentibus Proceres Fideles Regni nostri ad nos London in Quindena Paschae proximae praeterita faceremus convocari
of Parliament and Taxed with the rest of the Kingdom as often as there were Laws made and Taxes given when their Bishop or Earl was present which was not so for in the first place as for the County of Chester if the Earl had been the Representative in Parliament of his Tenants by Knights Service or otherwise as also of all the Abbeys and the City of Chester it self and all other great Towns in that County his Vote in Parliament would have obliged all of them and there would have been no need of a Common Council or Parliament of the States of the whole County in which they then made Laws and Taxed themselves as a Separate Body from the rest of the Kingdom as may appear from these following Records which Mr. A. hath given us the first of which is a Writ of K. Edw. I. directed Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Prioriâ—us Baronibus Militibus omnibus â—liis Fidelibus suis in Comitat. Câ—striae reciting that whereas the Prelates Counts Barons alii de Regno had given him a 15 th of their Moveables He desires that they also would of their Benevolence and Courtesie in Latin Curialitate grant him the like Subsidy which Note could not be done out of a Common Council So likewise in another Writ of the 20 th of this King reciting that whereas the Probi Homines Communitas Cestriae sicut caeteri de Regno nostro 15 mam partem omnium mobilium suorum nobis concesserunt gratiose Now supposing as the Doctor always does that these Probi Homines were the Earls Tenants in Capite what can this word Communitas here signifie but another sort of men distinct from them viz. the Communalty or Commons of that County And which is also remarkable this County was now fallen to the Crown for want of Heirs male of the last Earl and so according to the Doctors notion the King being their sole Representative needed not to have been beholding to them for these Subsidies since tho not as King yet as Earl of Chester he might have Taxed them himself which yet he thought not fit to do because he knew it was contrary to the Rights and Priviledges of that County which had ever since the grant of it to Hugh Lupus by Will I. always been Taxed by themselves Which Priviledges are also expressly set forth in a Supplication of all the Estates of this County Palatine to K. Henry the Sixth which Mr. P. has given us from an Ancient Copy of it then in the hands of Sir Thomas Manwaring of that County Baronet Wherein the Abbots Priors and Clergy Barons Knights Esquires and Commonalty set forth that they with the consent of the Earl did make and admit Laws within the same c. and that no Inheritors or Possessors within the said County were chargeable or lyable or were bounden charged or hurt of their Bodies Liberties Franchises Lands Goods or Possessions unless the said County had agreed unto it Now what can here be meant by County but the Common Council or Parliament thereof since otherwise they could make no Laws nor do any other publick Act The like I may say for the County Palatine of Durham which from the Grant thereof by William Rufus to the then Bishop had always been Taxed by themselves and not by the Bishop in Parliament and that as low as the Reign of Edw. 3. as appears by this Record of the 14 th of that King containing a Letter or Commission to R. Bishop of Durham reciting that whereas the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commons of Counties had given him a 9th of their Goods there mentioned that therefore the Bishops should convene the Magnates Communitatem Libertatis vestrae to wit of his County Palatine ad certum diem locum with all convenient speed and that done to perswade and excite the said Magnates Communitas to grant the King the like or a larger Subsidy or Aid towards the maintainance of his Wars which had been altogether in vain if the Bishop or the King could in those days have Taxed this County at their Pleasure Now if these great Tenants in Capite could not Tax their Mesne Tenants without their consents much less could the rest of the Tenants in Capite in England impose Taxes on their Tenants in Military Service or in Socage without their consents which last had a much less dependance upon them M. I must confess I never considered these Precedents of the County Palatine of Chester and Durham and therefore can say nothing to them at present since it is matter of fact but as to Reason and Law I think it is consonant to both that not only Tenants in Military Service but Socage Tenure should be found by the Acts of their Superior Lords of whom all the Lands of England were formerly held by Knights Service And tho in Process of time many of these Estates and Lands became free Tenements or were holden in Socage that is were Free holders yet the Lords retained Homage which in the times we now write of was no idle insignificant word and by that a Dominion over the Estate whereby upon Disobedience Treachery or Injury done to the Lords c. the Lands were Forfeited to them and although the Lands nor the Tenants of them which were termed Free-holders were subject to any base Services or Servile works yet the Lords had a great Power over these Tenants by reason of their doing Homage to them which tho now antiquated yet eo nomine their Lands were many ways liable to Forfeiture and Taxes too So that upon all thesâ— accounts it was then as reasonable that the Tenants in Capite should in those days make Laws and grant Taxes for all the rest of the Kingdom as the Tenants in Capite in Scotland should do so to this very day for all the Inhabitants of that Kingdom of never so great Estates and to this Argument which is certain in matter of fact you have yet answered nothing nor do I believe can F. I cannot see notwithstanding what you have now said that the Superior Lords by reason of Homage should have an absolute Power over their Tenants Estates For tho in the Profession of Homage to the Lords I grant the Tenant thereby promised to become the Lords Man yet he never thereby meant to become his slave and there were mutual Duties on both sides so that if the Lord failed to protect his Tenant in his Estate or unjustly oppressed him he might have refused nay renounced his Homage till the Lord had done him right nor can I see how a bare right of having the Forfeiture of the Estate in the Cases you have put which yet let me tell you were never so strict in respect of Socage as Military Tenure as I could shew you were it worth while for if this right of Forfeiture alone could give the Superiour Lord a Power over his Tenants Estate to make Laws for
of the Marginal References to his answer to Mr. Petyr but since the Doctor knows very well how to distinguish his own from the Authors Matter and that those who are conversant in his Wâ—itings may do so likewise he hopes both the Doctor and the Reader will the more easily forgive it Especially since you will find him so fair a Representer as not to curtail the Doctors Arguments but rather to enlarge them whâ—â— he thought he had a just occasion FINIS Bibliotheca Politica OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE BEING A Continuation of the former Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined With an Entrance upon the Question of Non-Resistance c. The Third Part. Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Eighth LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth and Seventh Dialogues 1693. The Authors chiefly made use of in this Discourse and how denoted in the Margin P. R. C Mr. Petyts Rights of the Commons asserted B. A. P. Dr. Bradyes Answer To Mr. Petyts Treatise B. A. A. Dr. Bradyes Answer To Mr. Cookes Treatise intitled Argumentum Antinormannicum THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Must beg your Pardon if I have made my Publisher tell you an Untruth before I was aware in the Advertisement at the end of the last Dialogue when he told you there were but two or three Sheets behind upon this Subject whereas indeed this Dialogue is almost wholy taken up in discussing these Reasons and Authorities that have been formerly brought by Mr. Petyt or are now newly added by me to prove that the Commons had Representatives in Parliament long before the 49th of Henry the 3d in doing which if I have been too long I hope you will pardon it since so weighty a Question could not be dismist without saying the most I could find had been alledged as well for as against it And since I was to explain the meaning of those Words Clerus Populus in the times immediately after the Conquest it was fit to let you know that anciently the Inferiour Clergy who did not hold in Capite had Places and made a part of the 3d Estate as well the Bishops and Abbots in our general Councils or Parliaments There was likewise a necessity of shewing that the Commons of England claim to appear in Parliament by Prescription Time beyond Memory and consequently of shewing how that time is to be understood in all our Law Books which are the onely proper Interpreters of that Law Term of Time of which there is no Memory to the contrary And since there is no Writer that I know of who hath opposed this Notion of the Right of Prescription in the Commons but Mr. Prin. I have Impartially consider'd what he has writ against it in his 2d and 3d. part of his Parliamentary Register and put down the Substance of it in this Discourse with what may be reasonably replyed thereunto so that considering the many fresh Authorities from Historians and Records that are here inserted and that have never been Publisht altogether before I think I may safely affirm that there hath never been so much hitherto put together of this kind nor perhaps will be till Mr. Petyt shall please to publish at large his Learned and Elaberate Collections from Ancient Monuments of Antiquity Histories both Manuscript and Print as also from Parliamentary and other Records on this important Subject many of which you will here find Abbreviated and to whose Learning and Knowledg in matters of this kind I must own my self beholding for the Arguments from the Inferior Clergy's who were not Tenants in Capite being anciently part of the great Council of the whole Kingdom as also that of applying the Right of Prescription to the House of Commons But if Dr Brady or any Friend of his shall think fit to animadvert upon any thing that hath been here laid down I shall be so far from being concerned at it that I shall rather be very well satisfied sâ—nce as a fair Representer of other mens Opinions who write not for Victory but the Discovery of Truth I shall be glad if the Dr. or any other Learned Person shall think fit to give the World greater Light on this Subject by publishing somewhat that is now and more convincing then what hath been heretofore done For had it appeared so to me I declare I should not have taken so much Pains to set down the Arguments on both sides which I shall still continue to do if any thing shall be performed material in this kind I have to make up this Discourse just entred upon the Question of Non-Resistance but cannot go far in it now but shall leave what is to be fâ—rther said upon that important Subject to the next Dialogue which will be speedily Published THE Eighth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman M. I Am glad to see you again so soon for indeed I am very impatient to make an end of this great Question concerning the Antiquity of the Commons appearing in Parliament and therefore pray go on where you left off and give me those plain proofs you promised me whereby you would make out that both the Knights of Shires as well as the Citizens and Burgesses had a right to be there ever since the Conquest for I desire to go no higher F. I thought I had said enough on that Subject at our last Meeting to satisfie any reasonable person I am sure more than you were able fairly to answer especially as to my Replies to the best Authorities you brought from the Doctor and therefore pray before we proceed farther tell me your Opinion upon second thoughts of those Authorities and Arguments I then gave you M. I must confess they do somewhat shock me but I hope you will pardon me if I cannot come over to you without first hearing what may be said by the other side and to this end I have writ to the Learned Dr. for his Solution to several difficulties that I confesâ— upon his Hypothesis I know not how to solve but doubt not but to receive farther satisfaction from him as to those Points in a short time but in the mean while let us proceed in our intended design and examine the rest of the Arguments you have to produce on your side F. I shall obey your Commands and therefore in the first place you cannot expect more than is in our power to give you For since all the Parliament-Rolls and Writs of Summons except those of the 49th of Henry the Third are lost till after the times in question between us you must be contented with what other proofs we can produce provided they are sufficient to satisfie any unbyast indifferent Person And to this end I shall sort the Authorities I intend to
to examine this Quotation because I confess it seems very specious at first sight but if it be throughly examined will make nothing at all for you And to this end pray let us read the Dr's Observations on this Passage at the end of his Answer to Argumentum Antinormaunicum F. But you need not read from the beginning of that Paragraph since I so far agree with the Dr. as that by Principes diversi Ordinus are not to be understood as this Author renders them whom the Dr. here writes against the Chief or Principal Men of several ranks or conditions but the Chief and Principal Men of both Orders viz. of the Clergy and Laity yet will it not therefore follow as the Dr. here would have it that these Principes diversi Ordinis were only Bishops â— Abbots and great dignified Clergy-men only and the Procenes and Magnates the Earls Barons and Temporal Nobility alone for though I grant he produces several Quotations out of Florence of Worcester Malmsbury Eadmer to prove that Principes Regni Ecclesiastici Secularis Ordinis Primates Regni utriusque Ordinis c. were at these Councils yet I have already proved that the words Principes and Primates do not in their proper signification signifie none but Bishops or dignified Clergy-men on the Temporal Nobility only since these words mean no more than Chief Principal or most considerable men both of the Clergy and Laity who had by reason of their Offices Dignities or Estates any place in our General Councils at that time and which did certainly comprehend the Inferiour Clergy also tho' the Dr. has made bold to pass them by without any notice taken of them and if they were then there by the same Rule the lesser Nobility or Commons were also summoned from divers Provinces Cities and great Towns M. Well But pray see here does not the Dr. prove plain enough that this Gentleman he writes against is mistaken in his Translation and applying the words Provinciis Vrbibus for Chief Lay-men from divers Countreys Cities and Burroughs whereas the Dr. here proves that the words mentioned in this passage cannot here mean Lay-men sent from County to Cities but only the Bishops whose Seats are here called Vrbes and which as the Dr. shews us were by a great Council held at London in the year 1077. being the 11th of King William translated from Villages to Cities as were Sherburn in Dorsetshire removed to Sarum Selsey to Chichester Litchfield to Chester which was before this Council at Westminster cited by Sulcardus which this Author places in the 14th of this King And the Dr. here farther proves from these words following pro causis cujuslibet Christianae Ecclesiâ—e that this Universal Synod being called for hearing and handling the Causes of every Christian Church that these words every Christian Church must certainly mean many Churches in England which in reason and probability could not be meant of the small Parish-Churches all the Nation over and therefore must be understood of Cathedrals or Churches where Bishops Seats then were or where they had been or were to be removed F. Pray give me leave to answer this Comment of your Doctors before we proceed farther In the first place suppose I grant him that by Vrbes may here be meant such Cities as had Bishops Seats yet does it not therefore follow that it shall signifie no other Cities or Towns but Bishops Seats only for tho' I grant in the Modern acceptation of this word Vrbs here in England a City and a Bishops Seat are one and the same yet it is plain that at first it was not so for then there had been no need of the Law you mention whereby it was ordained that Bishops Sees should be removed from Villages to Cities nor it seems were all of them so removed at this Council you mention since the Dr. shews us from this very place here cited that some of them still remained in Villis Vicis in Villages and small Towns and therefore it is here said Dilatum est ad Regis Audientiam qui in partibus transmarinis tunc Temporis bella gerebat â—And tho' the Dr. here supposes tho I know not on what grounds that the persons summoned by the King to this Synod from Provinces and Cities were such as were concerned or able to advise the King in this matter of the conveniency of the places whither the Removals were to be made as Deans Arch-Deacons and other dignified persons and Church Officers as well of the Clergy as Laity c. And also the Principes Regni the great Nobility who were in those days present in those Assemblies Now I shall only observe from these words of the Doctors that even in his own supposition all Cities had not yet Bishops Seats annext to them and therefore the word Vrbibus cannot mean Bishops Seats alone but any other great or walled Towns But the worst of it is it falls out very unluckily for the Dr. that this Charter we now mentioned bears date A. D. 1075. two years before this Law for removing Bishops Sees to Cities was made so that all his Learned Comment on that matter signifies just nothing and this is one of the Doctors very rational conclusions which have no other ground than his own Fancy to support them In the next place pray observe the Dr. owns that by these Principes universi Ordinis were meant the chief Clergy-men and Nobility he there musters up but passes by or else did not consider the whole Context of these words hii autem illo tempori diversis Provinciis Vrbibus ad universalem Synodum Convocati which must certainly refer to the Principes Regni diversi Ordinis to the chief and considerable Men both of the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom who were alike summoned from divers Countreys and Cities and great Towns to this Synod Now pray do you or your Dr. tell me if he can what Earls Barons or great Noble-men were then summoned from Cities or great Towns as well as the Bishops and Deans of Cathedrals which if you cannot do I see no reason why we may not understand these Principes Regni who were also summoned from the Countreys and Cities for the Representatives of the Commons of those Cities and Towns at that time In the next place I think the Dr. is as much out in his interpretation of the word pro causis cujuslibet Ecclesiae for the causes of every Cathedral Church since it must certainly mean not only Cathedral Churches but all other Churches whether Parochial or Conventual for that it takes in the latter appears by one great cause of the summoning this Council which was chiefly for the confirmation of the Priviledges of the Abby of Westminster which sure was no Cathedral Church and yet must be some Church or Ecclesiastical Corporation or else this Synod could have had nothing to do with it And I doubt not but this General
Drink F. Very well I think I shall easily Answer your and the Dr's Learned Observations First as for the Monkish Hyperbolical Phrases of innumerae or numerosa Cleri Populi multitude I confess you might suppose there was somewhat in them if they had been peculiar only to one or two of them but when all these Writers do with one consent agree in almost the same words to express all the Members of such Councils I cannot see how they could have writ thus unless they intended to be understood literally that there were great Numbers both of Clergy-Men and Laicks who appeared as Members of those Assemblies far more than the Dr's Tenants in Capite that they had also Votes therein appears by that Passage in the Conclusion of King Stephen's Charter which I quoted but now out of Sulcardus when speaking of this very Council in the 3d of King Stephen which we last mentioned that not only the Comites Barones Regni but the innumera multitudo cleri Populi were not only present but Religioso favore voluntatem Assensum Authoritati nostrae paginae Privilegio praebuerunt i. e. yielded their good wills and consents to this Charter of Priviledges to the Abby of Westminster And to shew you farther that this infinite multitude of Clergy-men and Laics were also part of this Council Pray remember the passage I but now cited out of Florence of the Council held at London cum innumera Cleri Populi multitudine who all alike gave their consents to the Constitutions by placet placet placet and consider what the same Sulcardus has said in the next Council of the 4 th of King Stephen when after Concilio adunato Cleri Populi and a recital of the Bishops he concludes with Monachorum Clericorum Plebisque infinitae multitudinis as all alike Members of it Now I shall leave it to your self or any sober unprejudiced person to consider whether it is likely that so grave and august a thing as the R. Charter of a Prince should take notice of the frothy consent and applause of the meer Rabble or Mob whether of the Clergy or Laity or so judicious a Writer as this Author and the rest of the Historians now cited should have nothing else to do but to record to Posterity for a very remarkable Transaction that a great multitude of the oâ—â—uary or vulgar sort of People came to these Assemblies only to shout and make a noise for good Victuals and Drink and therefore the Dr. and you I hope will pardon me if I still keep my former Opinion that both the Arch-Bishops Lanfranc and Anselm were not only named or proposed by K. William the First and Second in the Common or General Council of the Kingdom but were also therein Elected or Chosen by the Citrus and Populus according to the manner of that Age and the literal meaning of those Ancient Authors whose words the Dr. either leaves out of strives to wrest to quite another seâ—ses nor to his Objections against the Election of Lanfranc at all considerable For as to the first Objection against the literal sense of the Old Author â—â—â—nted at the end of Taylor 's Gavel kind that he could not be Elected consensu totius Populi Angliae because who can believe that all the People of England or the hundredth part of them ever knew or understood of Lanfranc's being made Arch-Bishop Now pray let me ask you this Question supposing this Election had been made in a General 〈◊〉 of the Clergy alone and the words had been instead of totius Populi totius Cleri Anglicae would it not have been meer cavilling to ask how all the Clergy of England could leave their Livings and come up to give their Consents at this Election or that the hundredth part of them ever knew of it since every body is sensible those words are not to be understood in a literal but legal sense that is the whole Clergy are said to give their Consents to a thing when they do it by their lawful Representatives the Bishops and Procurators of the Inferiour Clergy And why may not the whole People of England be as well said to give their Consents to this Election by their lawful Representatives at that time But that we are not singular in this Opinion pray see what Arch-Bishop Parker says in his Antiquitates Brittannicae of this Election of Lanfranc's celeberrima est autem hujus prae caeteris Electio c. Electus est enim à Majoribus Cantuarensis Ecclesiae tâ—n accessâ—t Procerum atque Praesulum totiusque quasi Populi consensus in Aula Regis quod sanè est inslar Senatus seu Parliamenti Anglicani As for the next Objection against this Election of Lanfranc's it is yet weaker than the former because the Dr. has answered this Question himself how the English Saxon Bishops Barons and the whole People should chuse a Stranger a Person they had never known and postpone all their deserving Countrey-men Now pray read a very good Solution to this difficulty if he may be believed in his Answer to Mr. P. wherein he tells us that King William had taken away from the English their Estates and gave them to his Normans and that this he did from his very first coming in and then reckons up the Earldoms he gave to his Norman followers Now if the English had then no Estates they could sure have no Places or Votes in that great Council when Lanfranc was chosen but if to solve this you will say as the Dr. does in his Answer to Antinâ—s mannicum that this Council was held about the fourth year of the Conqueror some years before he had made an absolute Conquest and that the English Bishops and Barons and Freemen had still some Estates left and therefore might then make the major part of this great Council when Lanfranc was made Bishop so would never have Elected him had it been left to their choice Pray tell me if the fear of refusing be a sufficient Objection that he was not Elected whether or no it will not be as strong an Objection against his being Elected by the Seniors of the Church of Canterb. aâ— Gervase tells us expresly he was because says the Dr. they did it by order and direction from King William and their proceeding no other than it is now by the Chapters of other Churches upon a Conge dé Estire they could not refuse him And now supposing his Power to have been as great as a Conqueror in the Common Council of the Kingdom as in the Chapter of Canterbury why may we not say almost in the same words they could not they durst not refuse him who was already Elected by the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury for fear of â—â—â—ing their Estates But if an Election that cannot be refused is none at all the Dr. may do well to consider whether there was then or is now any Canonical Elections of Bishops in
the Kingdom of the West Saxons I have now instanced in but in almost all the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy in which there are to be found many more Instances of the Deposition of their Kings thaâ— what were in the West Saxon Kingdom this waâ— then very just and necessary since these Kingdoms were all Elective and none of them Hereditary and that the general Meeting of the great Council of the Nation was always at set and constant Times and did not depend upon the Will and Pleasure of the King either to call or dissolve them as I have already proved and that this Power was no unusual thing I appeal to all the Antient Kingdoms of Europe founded after the same Model as ours and which I mentioned at our last Meeting so that nothing is more frequent in their Histories and Annals than the Deposing of their Kings for the above-mentioned Crimes of Tyranny or Misgovernments But that some of these Gothick Kingdoms as Denmark and Sweden whilst they continued Elective have exercised this Power even till of late is so notorious in matter of fact that it needs no proof since the Kings of those Kingdoms held their Crowns at this day by that Title and on those Conditions which the Nobility and People gave them after the Deposition of their Predecessors But tho this were so anciently also in England it does not therefore follow that it must be so now for since the Crown of this Kingdom became Hereditary and that the Calling and Dissolving of great Councils or Parliaments came to depend wholly upon the King's Will I must allow that the Case is quite altered and that the Two Houses of Parliament have now no power to depose the King for any Tyranny or Misgovernment whatsoever The first Parliament of King Charles the Second in the Act for attainting the Regicides have actually disclaimed all Coercive Power over the King and yet for all that the Nobility and People of England may still have a good and sufficient Right left them of defending their Lives Religion and Liberties against the King or those commissioned by him in case of a general and universal Breach and Invasion of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom or Original Contract if you will call it so and not to lay down those Defensive Arms till their said just Rights and Liberties are again restored and sufficiently secured to them So that tho' I will not bring the Custom of the English Saxons as a precedent for the Parliament's Deposing of the King yet I think I may make use of it thus far that this Nation has ever exercised this necessary Right of defending their Liberties and Properties when invaded by the King or his Ministers either by colour of Law or open Force And that this hath been the constant practice from almost the Time of the Conquest down to later Ages I think I can make out from sufficient Authorities both from Histories and Records M. Tho' your Doctrine is not so bad as I expected yet it is still bad enough and I never knew this Right of Resistance carried home but that it always ended in Deposing and Murdering of the King at the last as we have seen in our own Times But let the constant practice have been as it will I am sure such Resistance hath been always condemned by our Ancient Common Law as well as Modern Statutes as I shall prove farther to you by and by and therefore pray give me leave to tell you that the never so constant practice of an unlawful thing can no more justifie the doing of it than that constant usage time out of mind for Thieves to Rob between London and St. Albans not that I fore-judge you or refuse to hear any Instances and Authorities from Histories or Records to make good your Assertion F. I thank you for your patience what therefore if I prove that such Resistance has been not only actually exercised by the Clergy Nobility and People in former Ages but that it hath been also allowed by our Kings and approved of by great Councils or Parliaments in those Times for lawful and the Actors in it wholly indemnified and saved harmless nay a power given them and that by the King himself to resist him and defend themselves in case he broke his Charters and Agreements made to and with his Nobility and People or else with some Forein Prince may appear from this remarkable Instance of King Henry II at the end of whose Reign Hoveden in his Annals gives us the Conditions of the Peace made in the last Year of this King between him and Philip King of France with the Consent of their Bishops Earls and Barons where among other Articles you will find this for one particularly relating to the Barons of England who were also to swear to the Peace in these Terms Et omnes Barones Angliae jurabunt quod si Rex Angliae noluerit has Conditiones tenere quod ipsi tenebunt cum Rege Franciae Comite Richardo cos adjâ—vabunt pro posse contra Regeâ— Angliae c. Whence we may without doubt conclude that the Resistance of Subjects in some cases against their Kings was then allowed of even by the King himself and thought not inconsistent with the Allegiance they bore him tho' it might suspend it for a time M. I confess this Instance would be of some weight were it not for the Critical Time when this Peace was made viz. when Richard Earl of 〈◊〉 the King 's Eldest Son had Rebelled against his Father and taken part with the King of France and had drawn over a great many of the Norman and Pictavian and English Barons to his Party which when King Henry perceived this very Author you have quoted here tells you Quod Rex Angliae in arcto positus Pacem fecit cum Rege Philippo that is was constrained to make Peace with him so that King Henry being in this streight the King of France and Earl Richard with the Barons of his Party forced King Henry to sign what Conditions they pleased for there it no such Clause so much as mentioned for the French Barons But make the most of it it is but a Temporary Relaxation of Allegiance from King Henry to his Barons and the King might surely thus release them if he pleased But it is plain they could not have acted thus without this Condition had been expresly inferred F. Well supposing King Henry to have been never so much constrained to the making of these Conditions and that it was his own Act that rendred it lawful it still proves as much as I urge it for viz. that neither the Kings of France or England then thought this Resistance absolutely unlawful for then the King 's own Act could never have dispensed with it But to shew you farther that the People of this Nation have ever maintained this Right of Resistance even with the allowance of our Kings themselves and for the doing
you quote it yet I much doubt whether it was of any validity being no doubt drawn up by the Barons then in Arms and which the King durst not at that time refuse and so he was indeed under a kind of duresâ— when he did it And besides pray mark the conclusion of this Clause this Resistance was to be Salva Persona nostra Reginae nostrae Liberorum nostrorum cum fuerit emendatum intendent nos sicut prius fecerunt Now how this Security here reserved for the King's Person could consist with that open War the Barons made afterwards against his very Person and casting off all their Allegiance to their Natural Prince and calling in Prince Lewis Son to the King of France I cannot understand F. I think all this may very easily be solved For in the first place K. Iohn was no more compelled to agree to this Clause than he was to the Charters themselves and if those were lawful and reasonable so was this Resistance too since there was no other way or means lest to preserve them in case the King should go from his own Acts and break through all he had done so that if the ends were lawful the means to preserve it must be so too or else those Charters would have signified nothing any longer than the King pleased As for the other part of the Objection that this Resistance was still to be saving the Person of the King and Queen c. and that this did not consist with the Barons after making War against his Person and casting off all Allegiance to him It was not their faults but the King 's if they could not perform this Agreement since the King by making War upon the Clergy Nobility and People by his open and notorious breach and recalling of these Charters calling in Strangers to his assistance and declaring he would no longer govern according to Law had made it absolutely unpracticable to preserve their Allegiance to him any longer so that they never cast off their duty as Subjects till he had cast off his duty as a King and then what was there else left to be done but to provide for their own safety by calling in a Forein Prince to their Assistance as soon as they could since there was no other way left them to defend themselves against those Troops of Strangers the King had invited over and though many of them with their Captain Hugh de Boves had been cast away and drowned in a Tempest at Sea yet more were daily expected So that if Tyrants should suffer nothing for the breach of their own Charters and Oaths they would be in a better condition by their violation than the observing of them â—or by the making them they for the present quiet the Minds of their discontented Subjects and when they please may break them all again when they have got power if no body must presume to resist them or not think them as much Kings when they destroy and oppress their People as when they protect and preserve them by governing according to the Laws of the Kingdom But pray what have you to say against that general Resistance that was made by almost all the Bishops Barons and great Men of England against his Son Henry the Third about the frequent and notorious violations of the great Charters which his Father and himself had so often sworn to and confirmed and for which he had received such great Benevolences and Subsidies from the Nation M. Before I answer this Question pray take notice that I am not at all satisfied with your Arguments that when ever Subjects shall think themselves injured and oppressed by their Soveraigns that then they may cast off their Allegiance to them if they cannot have the Remedy they desire since this were to make them both Judges and Parties too in their own Cause which is altogether unjust and unreasonable between private Men much more between Kings and Subjects But passing by this at present I shall tell you my Opinion of this Resistance of Simon Montfort and the Earls and Barons his Adherents that it was down-right Rebellion and tended only to dethrone the King and make him a meer Cypher and to devolve the whole Government upon themselves as appears by the Oxford Provisions recited by so many Authors of that Age and which were afterwards condemned and consequently those violent means by which they were obtained by Lewis the Ninth King of France who in an Assembly of his Estates upon a solemn hearing of the whole difference between King Henry the Third and his Barons declared these Oxford Provisions null and void So far was this good and pious King from countenancing any Rebellion or Resistance as you term it of Subjects against their lawful Soveraign F. For all this I cannot find that the King of France did then at all condemn this defence the Earls and Barons had before made of the Liberties granted them by the great Charters for tho' he restored the King to his former Power by avoiding the Oxford Provisions yet at the same time when this was done as the Continuator of Mat. Paris tells us he expresly excepted the Ancient Charters of King Iohn Vniversâ—li seil Angliae concessae and from which per illam sententiam in nullo intendibat penâ—tus derogare and if he did not in the least intend to derogate from them he could not with any Justice condemn the only means the Barons had to maintain them after so many Trials and fresh Promises and Oaths of this fickle inconstant King all broken and laid aside so that you may as well or better alledge the Pope's shameful Absolution of this King from this Oath he had made to observe the great Charters as an Argument why they should not be any longer bound by them nor the Barons obliged to defend them as this Sentence of the King of France to render the Resistance the Barons had made in defence of the great Charters to be unlawful And that King Henry himself did afterwards allow this Resistance for good and lawful Pray see the Agreement which was not long after made in full Parliament in the 49th between the King the Prince and all the Prelates Earls and Barons of England whereby he obliged himself to observe all the Articles and Ordinances which had been before agreed upon at London in the 48th Year of his Reign And then follows this Clause in the Record which the Doctor himself has printed in his Appendix at the end of the first Volume of his Introduction to English History which I shall here translate out of French because it is very old and obscure it is thus And if our Lord the King or Monsieur Edward viz. the Prince shall go against the Peace and Ordinance aforesaid or shall grieve the Earls of Leicester or Gloucester or any of their Party by reason of any of the things aforesaid that then the great Men and Commons of the Land
by his Majesty and those of the Popish â—unto that advised him to issue out the late Declaration so expresly contrary to Law and the sense of both Houses of Parliament and which gave the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of his Brethren a sufficient ground of petitioning against it and this was so evident that a Jury in which the greatest part were high Prerogative Men could not upon a fair trial but acquit them M. I shall not further dispute this point since you have dwelt so long upon it though I must still tell you I do not look upon this as a sufficient cause for the Nations taking up arms for a reason I shall shew you by and by and therefore I shall now proceed to the next head complain'd of in the Princes late Declaration viz. the late Commission for erecting a new Court for Causes Ecclesiastical but as I will not enter upon the question of the Legality of it so on the other side it was also done by colour of Law and the King as supream head of the Church was told by his Ministers that he had power to erect what new Court Ecclesiastical he pleased provided it was not of the same kind with the High Commission Court which had been abrogated by the Stat. of the 17th of King Charles the I. as likewise particularly excepted in the Proviso in the Stat. of the XIIth of King Charles the II. for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Bishops Courts so that admitting that Court was not legal yet the Persons who advised the King to erect it and the Commissioners who sate in it were only answerable for it in the next Parliament and though the Bishop of London was suspended and the President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge were unjustly expelled by this Court yet sure none of these miscarriages could give the Subjects of this Kingdom any just pretences to take up Arms to redress them being done as I said before by colour of Law without any force or violence and was also submitted to by the Parties against which these Decrees were given and was at the most but a matter of particular concern and reacht no farther than the said Bishop and Colledge and did not touch the Religion and Civil Liberties of the whole Kingdom and consequently was not of that general importance as to be any just cause of the whole Kingdoms taking Arms much less for the Kings Officers and Souldiers to run over to the Prince of Orange as they lately have done F. To answer what you have now said concerning the Ecclesiastical Commission that I must also tell you was issued forth without so much as any colour of Law for it and though the late Chancellor and some of the worst and most Mercenary Judges countenanced it by appearing for and acting in it yet it is very well known that it was never proposed to all the Judges to be argued in the Exchequer Chamber as it ought to have been before a thing of that great importance to the whole Nation had pass'd the Seals as to what you say that the Kings Ministers told him it was according to Law and that they alone ought to answer for it in the next Parliament and that no publick disturbance ought to have been made about it because the things that that pretended Court did were but of a particular concern and only reacht the Bishop of London and one single Colledge that is but a fallacy which you put upon your self for sure if you had better consider'd of it you would find that what these Commissioners have already done is of a little more publick concernment than you are aware of for pray tell me why by the same Law by which the Bishop of London was suspended for his refusal to silence Dr. Sharp all the Bishops in England might not have been suspended one after another by that pretended Court if they had refused to obey or execute any Letters or Orders from the King tho' never so illegal or unreasonable since what command could be more illegal than the King 's positive order to the Bishop to suspend a Clergyman from his Diocess without first hearing him or giving him leave to answer for himself So likewise for the case of Magdalen Colledge by the same Law by which these Ecclesiastical Commissioners took upon them to turn out the President and Fellows for disobeying the Kings Mandamus by the same Law the King might put upon any other Colledge in either University Popish Heads and Popish Fellows till instead of Nurseries for the education of our youth in the Protestant Religion they may become as absolute Popish Seminaries as the Colledges of Doway or St. Omers and though I grant that the persons concerned in these unjust Decrees might have patiently submitted to them without any protestations against the jurisdiction of that pretended Court since they might for some prudential reasons have thought fit to submit to them without making any such protestation and yet for all that not allow their Authority but indeed the matter of fact was far otherwise for when a part of these Commissioners sate at Magdalen Colledge to expel the said President and Fellows from their places contrary to Law and the express Statutes of the Colledge they did all severally protest against their whole proceedings and appealed to the Kings Courts at Westminster And it is a plain proof how willingly Dr. H. the President of this Colledge submitted to this Sentence by his locking the Doors of his Lodgings and leaving the Commissioners to break them open before they could get in and put in his pretended Successour by force But as to what you say that the King was told he might as supream Head of the Church set up what new Court he pleased for the execution of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it is certainly a great mistake for I utterly deny that the King has power to erect any new Courts either Ecclesiastical or Civil unless by Authority of Parliament the Kings power to make a Vicar general being only confirmed by the Statute of King Henry the Eighth as was also the Authority of the high Commission by the Statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth and if either of those high spirited Princes hadâ— believed themselves to have been invested with such an unbounded Prerogative they would certainly have exercised it without being beholding to the Parliament but indeed it is but a subterfuge to alledge that this Court was not of the same Nature with that of the high Commission because it did not take upon it to â—â—ne or commit Men to Prison nor to administer the Oath ex Officio to those that were convened before them since it is not the different name or some small difference in the manner of the judicial proceedings but the Causes or Matters that a Court pretends to take Cognizance of that can make it a Court of a quite different nature now it is notoriously known that this late Ecclesiastical
of this necessity as certainly he is in the intervals of Parliament it can never be supposed that the first Prince or his Successors that first parted with these Priviledges to the People ever intended to be so straitly tied to them as that in no case whatever tho' never so pressing they should not depart from them much less that he should forfeit his Crown if he should wholly break them nay should persist so to do and resolve to turn this limited into an absolute despotick Monarchy since the observation of these Laws being but concessions of his own or his Predecessors can never be looked upon as conditions of his holding the Crown nor of the Subjects Allegiance to it there being as you your self confess no such clause exprest in either part neither in the Kings Coronation Oath nor yet in their Allegiance to him as you your self cannot but acknowledge and tho' it is true the King swears at his Coronation to keep and maintain the Laws yet Grotius tells us Lib. 1. cap. 3. that an Empire does not cease to be Absolute altho' he who is to rule promise some things to God or to his Subjects even such which may appertain to the manner of the Empire and that not only concerning the observation of the natural or divine Law but of certain Rules to which without a promise he were not obliged So that in all Promises of this kind the manner of the obligation is not reciprocal or of the same sort on both sides as for example it is only moral in respect of the King and it is lefâ— wholly to God to judge between the King and his Subjects and to punish him when he breaks his part but to the King as God's Lieutenant on Earth it belongs not only to judge of his Subjects breach of their Oath and Contract but also to punish them for so doing and compel them to the performance of it and of this Judgment are all the Modern Civilians as for Bodin I have given you his opinion in the chapter I last cited concerning this matter and he as well as Grotius is clearly of opinion that Absolute Monarchs such as he reckons the King of England to be are not to be called in question or destroyed let their breach of Laws and Tyranny be never so notorious much less can they forfeit their Royal Dignity for such male-administration and tho' Grotius is of opinion that in cases of great and evident danger of Life Subjects may have a right of resistance against absolute Princes and those commissioned by them what is this to the case in hand viz. a resistance against an Absolute Monarch for violation of those Priviledges and Liberties that were granted by himself or his Ancestors and without which Subjects may very well live and subsist as we see they do under the most Absolute Despotick Monarchies where they enjoy no such thing tho' perhaps they do not live so well and freely as we do nay Pufendorf the Author you so much make use of in his seventh Book will not allow Subjects to take up Arms or resist Absolute Princes nor for too great cruelty in punishment nor for imposing too immoderate Taxes since the presumption of Justice and necessity for the doing of these things is always on the Princes side nay if his Promises are not kept or priviledges formerly granted are taken away if the Prince be Absolute and will pretend any fault necessity or remarkable benefit thereby to the common-wealth he shall be deemed to have acted by a right of which the faculty of judging is wholly wanting to the Subjects since all Priviledges have this exception unless the welfare or necessity of the Common weal forbid them to be observed F. Since your last Discourse consists of two parts matter of Fact and matter of right deducible from that fact I shall speak to each of them in order first as to the matter of Fact it is a great mistake in you and Dr. Brady to maintain that K. William I. was really a Conqueror and by his Sword without any other Title obtain'd such an entire Victory over K. Harold and the whole English Nation as gave him an Hereditary Right for himself and his Heirs to the Absolute Allegiance of the whole English Nation without any reserve or conditions whatever so that all our Ancient Liberties and Priviledges being thereby lost and forfeited this Nation can claim nothing of that kind but from the grants and concessions of that King or his Successors every one of which Propositions contain so many notorious mistakes in matter of Fact for in the first place King William never claim'd the Crown by Conquest but by the adoption and Testament of King Edward the Confessor and I desie you to shew me any Ancient Law or Charter either of his own or any of his immediate descendants wherein he is stiled Conqueror 't is true in his Charter to the Abby of Westminster he says in one that by the Edge of the Sword he obtain'd the Kingdom by the Conquest of Harold and his accomplices yet does not found his Right in that Victory alone but on the donation of King Edward his Cozen the words are remarkable in ore gladii adeptus sum Regnum Anglorum devicto Haraldo Rege cum suis complicibus qui mihi Regnum divinâ providentiâ destinatum beneficio concessionis Domini Cognati mei gloriosi Regis Edwardi concessum conati sunt auferre And this donation he calls an Hereditary Right in divers other Charters as particularly in one also recorded by inspeximinus beginning thus In nomine Patris Filii spiritus sancti Amâ—n Ego Willielâ—us Rex Anglorum haereditatio Iure factus So likewise his Son K. Henry I. in his Charter to the Abbot of Ely creating him a Bishop calls himself the Son of William the Great not the Conqueror Qui Edwardo Regi Haereditario jure successit in Regnum And in vertue of this Donation he was after his Victory against Harold by publick and full consent of the whole Nation or People of England as also of the Normans he brought with him Elected and Crowned King and at his Coronation took the same Oath at the High-Altar at Westminster which his Predecessors the Saxon Kings had taken before him with this one Clause farther which was very necessary to be done at that time viz. quod aquo Iure Anglos Francos tractaâ—t so that let his Title by Conquest have been what it would it was either by a just right of War to recover his due or by none at all if the former he could only succeed to such Rights as K. Edward the Confessor before exercised and enjoyed since he came hither only to take the Crown that was so bequeathed to him and to hold it under that Title but if he had no Title at all but his Sword he then could obtain no just right to the Crown of England either for himself or
appears by the Title to the Latin Customs of Normandy which are at the End of the Old French Edition of the Constumiers de Normandy Printed at Râ—aâ— 1515. The Title of which is thuâ— Iura Consuetudines Ducatus Noâ—maniae The Prologue to which begins thus Quoniam Leges Instituta quae Normanorum Principes non sint magna provisionis Industria Praelatorum Comitum Baronum nec non Caeterorum virorum prudentum consilio Assensu ad salutem humani foederis Statuerunt Whereby it is apparent that the Antient Laws of Normandy were made by the Advice and Consent of the Estates for the Preservation of that humane Covenant they had formerly made with their first Duke Rollo when he had that Dutchy granted him by the King of France and whoever will consult the antient Histories and Laws of that Dutchy will find theâ—â— Dukes of Normandy no more absolute Monarchs there than the Kings of Norway from whence they came so that if their Duke should have gone about to take away their Estates or inslave the Persons of the Norman Nobility and People he might justly have been resisted by them and therefore their taking Lands from K. William after his pretended Conquest here must either have conferred an Estate upon them according to the Laws of England or Normandy not according to the former for you assert that Tenures in Capite and Knight's service were generally introduced by his coming so that if they were by the Normans Law as you suppose they were then no farther subjects to their Duke by that Tenure when made King of England than they were whilst he was Duke of Normandy viz. only according to the Laws and Customs by which they held these Estates so that if their Duke was not irresistible by them in case of Tyranny in his own Country so he was also here by the same reason since whatever he did in respect of the English he could acquire no new right over them And that an Oath of Homage alone doth not make the Person to whom it is taken irresistible if he makes an unjust War upon his Vassals appears by the Dukes of Normandy themselves who tho' they held that Dutchy by Homage to the King of France and took the same Oath to him upon every Kings Accession to the Crown of being his Liegeman and to be True and Faithful to his Lord the King of France for the said Dutchy of Normandy yet might the Dukes of Normandy without any Imputation of Rebellion have resisted the King of France in case he made an unjust War upon them nor were ever the Dukes of Normandy accused of Rebellion for so doing in all the Wars that they had with the Kings of France And therefore the holding of an Estate by Homage doth not suppose that the Lord of whom it is held was irresistible nor doth the word of Allegiance signifie any more than that duty which the Liegemen by the Old Norman Law owed to their Supream Lord of whom they held their Lands and therefore when the King or Supream Lord of the Fee did not perform his part of the Contract but went about to turn them out of their Estates or to invade any of their just rights by force it was usual for the Tenants to defie the Lords and renounce their Homage to them for which they used the Barbarous Latin word diffidare in French to defie that is to renounce that Faith and Allegiance which before they owed them and the supream Lords also oftentimes defied their Tenants thus Mat. Paris tells in Anno 1233. that K. Henry the Third by the Counsel of the Bishop of Winchester defied Richard the Earl Mareschal and the year following we find the Earl justifying himself in this manner being then in Ireland First I answer that I never acted Treasonably against the King for he has unjustly spoil'd me of my Office of Mareschal without the Judgment of my Peers and has Proclaim'd me banisht thorough all England he has burnt my Houses destroyed my Lands c. he has more than once defied me when I was always ready to stand to the Judgment of my Peers from which time said he I ceased to be the Kings Liegeman and was absolved from his Homage not by my self but by him and whereas you say that tho' the King or Supream Lord cannot forfeit his Right tho' he breaks his part of the Compact because of the inequality which there is between a King and a Subject then this Prerogative of Non-resistance doth not belong to the King as he is Supream Lord of the Land but as he is King and giveth Law to the Subjects which may have some colour of Truth in Absolute Monarchies but was of no Force either in the Government of Normandy or England where the Duke or King without the consent of his Estates never could alone make Laws but as I will not deny our Government to be a Monarchy so it is as certain that it is limited in the very constitution either by the Saxons or Normans begin where you please and therefore my conclusion still holds good that if the English have now succeeded to those very Lands and Priviledges which the Normans anciently enjoyed then whatsoever Right or Liberty the English Proprietors of Estates do at this day enjoy they do not only hold them as the Successors and Descendants of those Normans and Frenchmen but are also restored to them Iure postliminii as you Civilians Term it since they never submitted themselves or took an Oath of Allegiance to King William and his heirs but only to himself Personally there being no such clause in any Oath of Allegiance till it was so ordained many ages after in the Reign of K. Henry the fourth nor was this Oath ever taken by our English Ancestors to K. William as to a Conqueror but the lawful Successor of K. Edward the Confessor and K. Williams actual taking away the Estates of a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry contrary to his own Oath and without any just oâ—use could no more give him a right so to do than if Henry the fourth or Henry the seventh both which came to the Crown by the assistance of a Foreign force should upon a pretence of being Conquerors have govern'd by an Army and so have taken away whose Estate they pleased and given them to their followers that came over with them M. I shall not dispute this matter with you any further therefore pray proceed to the other Point you took upon you to prove that King William did not take away so great a share of the Lands of England as the Dr. and those of our Opinion affirm F. I shall observe your commands and therefore in the first place I desire you to take notice that according to the Doctors own shewing your Conqueror never took away the Lands of all the Bishops and Abbots of England much less those that belonged to Deans and Chapters or
to private Churches and if his Nobles or Followers had unjustly dissieâ—ed any Bishop or Abbot of their Estates the King caused them to be restored again as appears by many Presidents of this kind which are to be found in Ingulphus and Eadmerus this being premised let us see in the next place what proportion the Lands belonging to the Church did in those days bear to the rest of the Lands in England now we find in Sprot's Chronicle as also from the old Legierbook cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour and particularly from that Secretum Abbotis formerly belonging to the Abby of Glassenbury and now in the Library of the University of Oxon that there were not long after your Conquest 60215 Knights fees in England of which the Bishops Abbots and other Church-men then enjoyed 28015. When it is supposed this account was taken then it will follow that in the Reign of your Conqueror there were above 28000 Knights Fees which belonged to the Church and in these we do not any where find that K. William dispossessed their Tenants of their Estates most of which were held in Fee under them and those Tenants were great and powerful men in their Countries and hence we read in the ancient Records and Legier Books of the Barons and Knights that held of divers Bishops and great Abbots several examples which you will find in Sir Henry Spellman Title Baro now it is certain that King William could not turn all these men out of their Estates and give them to his followers without committing sacriledge and invading the Rights of the Church which that King durst not commonly do so that the utmost that you can suppose he could do was to take the forfeitures of all such Tenants of the Church who had taken part with King Harold or had any ways committed Treason against himself which were far from the whole number of them so that here goes off at once almost a half of all the Lands held by Knights service which the King did never dispossess the ancient owners of to these may be also added all Tenants in ancient Demesne all Tenants in Socage as also all Tenants in Gavel kind which in those days made at least two thirds of the Lands of Kent which by the way was never conquer'd but surrender'd upon Terms to â—are their ancient Customs and Tenures as Mr. Cambden himself acknowledges in his description of this County besides what was held in other Counties by the same Tenure as you will find in Mr. Taylor 's History of Gavel kind all which being not Tenures in chief by Knights Service are not Register'd in Domesday book nor does it appear that the owners were ever dispossessed of them to which may also be added the Lands of those smaller Thanes or Officers of King Edward whose names are found in Domesday book who held their Lands ratione officii To all these we may also add all such Norman Noblemen and Gentlemen who having come into England in Edward the Confessors time and having Honours and Lands given them by him had continued here ever since and these were so numerous that it was thought worth while by King William to make a particular Law concerning them that they should partake of all the Customs the Rights and Priviledges of Native Englishmen and pay Scot and Lot as they did of these was the Earl of Moâ—ton besides many others whose names appear in Doomesday book and not only these men but also divers Cities and Towns held Lands of King William by the same Rents and Services as they had formerly paid in the time of King Edward the Confessor as Oxford for example But to give an answer to some of your instances as when you say that King William gave away whole Counties as all Cheshire to Hugh Lupus and the greatest part of Shropshire to Roger de Montgomery c. It is a great error to suppose that these Earls had all the Lands mentioned in these Counties to dispose of at their Pleasure and that they turned out all the Old Propâ—ietors which it is certain they did not as I could prove to you by several instances of Antient English Families who have held their Lands and enjoyed the same seats they had in the Conquerors time so that you see there is a great deal of difference between a grant of all the Land of a County and that of the whole County what is meant by the former is plain but as for the latter it generally implies not any thing more than the Government of that County Thus whereas your Dr. would have it that the greatest part of Shropshire was given to Roger de Montgomery Doomesday says only that he had the City of Shrewsbury totum Comitatum and the whole County But that is soon explained by what follows totum Dominum quod Rex ipse tenebat where it is plain that by Dominium is meant no more than that power to govern it which King Edward had for otherwise the Grant of totum Comitatum had been sufficient M. I confess this is more than I ever heard or considered before concerning this matter but you do not give me any positive proof that at the time when Doomes day Book was made there were any Englishmen who held Earldoms or Baronies or other great Estates of the King or any of his great Men so that what you have said hitherto tho' it carry a great shew of probability yet is no positive proof against the Doctors assertion F. I shall not go about to deny what William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntington so positively affirm that for sometime before the end of King William's Reign there was no Englishman a Bishop Abbot or Earl in England yet does it not therefore follow that it was thus thorough his whole Reign or if it were so that it will therefore follows that there were few Englishmen who when Domesday Book was made possessed any Lands in England but that in part of King William's Reign there were many English Earls and Barons appears by above a dozen Charters cited by Sir William Dugdale in the Saxon and Latin Tongues in his Monast. Anglic. which are either directed by K. William to all his Earls and Thains or else in Latin Omnibus Baronibus Francigenis Anglis or else Omnibus Baronibus Fidelibus suis Francis Anglis salutem the like Charters also appear of Henry J. and the Empress Maud his Daughter so that if Francigena and Francus signifie a Frenchman and Anglus and Englishman and if Fidelis does as your Dr. would have it signifie a Tenant in Capite then I think nothing is plainer than that there were for great part of King William's Reign both Earls Barons and Tenants in Capite of English Extraction But to come to particular persons it will appear by the Saxon or English names in Doomesday book as also by several recitals therein that there were divers English
Tenants by Knights service as also those aids they were to pay the King or any other Lord they held of towards making his eldest Son a Knight and Marrying his eldest Daughter were in use in England before the Conqueror came over But to observe your commands I shall now proceed to shew that by the Conquest the English for a time lost all their ancient Rights and Priviledges till they again obtained them either by their mixing with the Normans so that all distinction between them and the English were taken away or else they were restored by the Charters of K. Henry the first K. Iohn and K. Henry the third I shall therefore divide the priviledges of Englishmen into these three heads first Either such as concerned their Offices or Dignities Or secondly Such as concerned their Estates Or lastly Such as concerned the Tryal for their lives in every one of which if I can prove the English Natives as well of the Clergy and Nobility suffered confideracie lesses and abridgments of their ancient 〈…〉 liberties which they formerly enjoyed I think I shall sufficiently prove the point in hand As to the first head Ingâ—ph telâ—s us that the English were so hated by the Normans in his time that how well soever they deserved they were driven from their Dignities and strangers tho' much less fit of any Nation under Heaven were taken in their places and Malmesbury who lived and writ in the time of Henry the first says that England was then become the habitation of foreigners and the Rule and Government of strangers and that there was at that day no Englishman an Earl Bishop or Abbot but that strangers devoured the Riches and gnawed the Bowels of England neither is there any hope of ending this misery So that it is plain they were now totally deprived of all Offices and Dignities in the Common Weal and consequently could have then no place in the great Council the Parliament of the Nation both for the raising of Taxes and the making of Laws and tho' I grant Mr. Petyt and your self suppose you found a clause in the Conquerors Magna Charta whereby you would prove that all the Freemen of this Kingdom should hold their Lands and Possessions Well and in Peace free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage so as nothing be exacted or taken unless their Free-services which of right they ought and are bound to perform to us and as it was appointed to them and given and granted to them by us as a perpetual right of Inheritance by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom This Common Council will not help you for without doubt here were no Englishmen in it for certainly they would not grant away their own Lands to strangers These were the Saxon Lands which William had given in Fee to his Soldiers to hold them under such services as he had appointed them and that by right of Succession or Inheritance We will now come to the second point viz. the Priviledges the Englishmen lost as to their Estates for whereas before the Conquest you affirm the K. could nor make Laws nor raise Taxes without the Common Coâ—ncil of the Kingdom it is certain K. William and his immediate Successors did by their sole Authority exercise both these Prerogatives as for his Legislative power it appears from the words of his Coronation Oath as you your self have repeated it out of Florence of Worcester and Roger Hoveden the conclusion of which Oath is se velle reâ—â—am legem statuere tenere Rapinas Injustaque Iudicia penitus interdicire Now the Legislative power was then lodged in him why else did he swear to appoint right Laws For if the constitution had been setled as it is at present the Parliament could have hindered him from making any other and that he could do so appears by that yoak of servitude which Matthew Paris as well as other Authors tells us K. William by his own Authority imposed upon the Bishopricks and Abbies in England which held Baronies which they had hitherto enjoyed free from all secular servitude he now says he put under Military service sessing all those Bishopricks and Abbies according to his pleasure how many Knights or Souldiers each of them should find to the King and his Successors and putting the Rolls of this Ecclesiastical Service in his Treasury he caused to fly out of the Kingdom many Ecclesiasticks who opposed this wicked constitution now if he could do this upon so powerful a Body as the Bishops and Abbots were at this time he might certainly as well raise what Taxes he pleased upon all the People of England and therefore Henry of Huntington tells us that K. William upon his return out of Normandy into England Anglis importabile tributum imposuit Lib. 3. p. 278. And that his Son William Rufus imposed what Taxes he would upon the People without consent of the Parliament appears by that passage of William of Malmesbury which he relates in the Reign of this K. as also in his third book de Gestis Pontificâ—m concerning Ranulâ— whom from a very mean Clerk he made Bishop of Duâ—ham and Lord Treasurer the rest I will give you in Latine Isle siquando edictum regium processisset ut nominatum tributum Anglia penderet duplum adjiciâ—bat subinde idente Rege ac dicente solum esse hominem qui sciret sic agitare ingenium nec aliorum curares odium dummodo complaceret dominum So that you may here see that the Kings Edict or Proclamation did not only impose the Tax at his pleasure but his Treasurer could double it when he had a mind to it without consent of the great Council or Parliament as we now call it and this Prerogative was exercised by divers of his Successors till the Statute de Tallagiâ— non concedendo was made But to come to the last head concerning the alteration of Tryals for mens Lives and Estates by the Conqueror from what they were before it is certain that whereas before the Conquest there were no other Tryals for mens lives but by Juries or else by Fire or Water Ordeal which was brought in by the Danes the Conqueror tho' he did not take way these yet also added the law then in use in Normandy of Trying not only Criminal but Civil Causes by Duel or Combat all the difference was that in criminal cases where there was no other Proof the accuser and accused fought with their Swords and the party vanquished was to lose his Eyes and Stones but in civil causes they only fought with Basâ—oons headed with Horn and Bucklers and he or his Champion who was overcome lost the Land that was contended for from whence you may take notice also of a great alteration in the Law not only concerning Tryals but capital Punishments so that whereas before the Conquest all crimes even Man slaughter it self were either â—ineable according to the Quality of the Person and the Rates set upon
quantity of Pamphlets that have been written upon these Subjects as also that such as have perused them may find together in this and the following Discourse all that hath been urged on the one side or other upon these important Subjects And since the great number of Treatises of this kind have rather served to confound than instruct ordinary Readers I resolved to make use of the words of very few of them only to take the chiefest and strongest Arguments on either side and fairly to represent them at once to the Readers View who I hope hath the discretion to judge which are best since I declare I write for no Party but purely for Truth and therefore I have now and shall still endeavour to avoid all Personal Reflections in this as well as the ensuing Dialogue not only on Their Present Majesties but also on King James since I remember he was a Crowned Head and is still the Father of our Illustrious Queen let his failings have been what they will But I hope the Reader will not be scandalized if I have so far followed the opinions of the ablest Divines as well as Lawyers of this and other Nations in making one of the Parties in this Dialogue assert the consent of the People us the only just and natural means of conferring a just right to Civil Power since the learned Mr. Hooker in his first book of Ecclesiastical Policy lays it down as a Principle that in every Politick Societyâ—â—â—t is impossible that any should have compleat lawful Powâ—â— buâ—â—y the consent of men or the immediate appointment of God and Chancellor Fortescue in his Discourse de Laudibus Legum Angliae 12 and 13. Chapters supposes all Kingly â—ower as well what is Absolute as that which is Politick or limited by Laws to have proceeded at first from the Peoples consent not that the Power it self is otherwise than from God only he has made use of the People as an Instrument whereby to convey it and I hope none of those who are still for King James's Interest will be offended at this Doctrine since those that have writ with the greatest Iudgment for his absolute indefeasible Title to the Crown have placed it in his Legal Right to it by the Laws of the Land which all must own could not have been made without the Peoples Consent I have but one thing more to desire of you which is your Patience and Attention if some of the Speeches in this Dialogue are longer than ordinary since they are upon subjects that would not well bear interruption and to tell you farther the Press staying for the Sheets I had not time to make them shorter THE Eleventh Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman F. DEar Sir you are welcome to Town you have been absent a long time and indeed I wonder how you could stay away so long when such greaâ— things as the King to have Abdicated and placing his Son and Daughter in the Throne have been transacted M. I thank you kindly Sir but yet I must tell you that I have been so little satisfied with what your Convention has done in these matters that the very hearing of it hath been a great affliction to me and it would have certainly been a much greater had I been upon the place and seen such horrid things as the Deposition of a King the disinheriting of his right Heir and the setting up the Prince and Princess of Orange who certainly could have no right to the Crown as long 〈◊〉 the King lives nor yet after his death as long as the Prince of Wales is in being F. I confess these are very high Charges if they would hold but if you please to consider the Hypothesis I proposed at our last Meeting That the King had by breach of the Original Contract made between his Ancestors and Predecessors and the People of this Nation to observe the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom forfeited his Right to the Crown All that hath been done in this great Affair I suppose may be very well maintain'd and justified from the necessity of the thing and of maintaining the Fundamental Constitution of the Government and therefore pray give me leave to put you in mind how far I have proceeded in the pâ—ooâ— of this Assertion First I have made out that the King of this Realâ— is not the sole Supreme Power thereof neither ever was so from the very Institution of Kingly Government in this Island Secondly I have also prov'd that the King not having the sole Power must hold that share thereof which he enjoys upon this imply'd or tacit condition that if he usurp what do's not belong to him and the People do assert their Right by opposing his Unjust Violence and Usurpations and that he still obstinately persists in this Violation he certainly thereby loses and forfeits not only that part of the Power which he so unjustly usurped but also his own too and for this I gave you the Authority of the Learned Grotius at our last Meeting Thirdly I have also answered your main Argument of King William the Conquerors obtaining by the Sword and Conquest of King Harold an Absolute Right and uncondition'd Power foâ— himself and his Successorâ— descended from him over the People of this Kingdom for I think I have sufficiently made out that King William had no other Right to the Crown of England than by the Testament of King Edward the Confessor and the Eâ—ection and Recognition of the People and this I have prov'd from the unexceptionable Authorities of the best Historians of that Time so that if he afterwards acted otherwise and contrary to his Coronation Oath it was not as a Lawful King but as a Tyrant and an Usurper on the Rights and Liberties of the People and could not by his own Unjust Act acquire any Lawful Power so to Govern this Kingdom and therefore whatever Title King William or his Successors can pretend to it must be by vertue of the Election of the first King of the Saxon Line from whom all the Kings of England since Henry Y. are descended and consequently aâ—e oblig'd to hold the Crown under the same Conditions on which it was first conferr'd And tho' I grant that ever since the Reign of Edward I. the Crown has been no longer claim'd by Election but by Succession of him that really was or else was presum'd to be the Right Heir yet this different way of acâ—uiring the Crown do's not at all alter the condition or manner of holding it sâ—â—e ouâ— Kings have always after that time as before been tyed to the same or rather â—â—â—cter Terâ—â— in their Coronation Oaths to observe and keep the Laws and Customs of this Realm and also that the Power of the Great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament making Laws raising Taxes and redressing of Grievances arising 〈◊〉 the Unjust Exercise and Illegal Encroachments of the Kings Prerogative hath been exerted
this War had been made in their own names it had been but a just Return for what had been done to them before by the Late King who made actual War upon them without ever giving them the least notice or demanding satisfaction for any wrongs or damages receiv'd and this was the more justifiable because his present Majesty when Duke of York was looked upon to have a very great hand in those Councils which begun that unhappy War in which he himself serv'd as Admiral But as to the Prince of Orange there is much more to be said in his justification for in the first place tho' in some respects he was a Subject by living under and enjoying divers Lands and Territories and Commands within the Dominions of the United Provinces yet as he is Prince of Orange he is a free independent Prince and as such has a right of making War and Peace and if so all that is to be further enquired into is whether the Prince had any just cause of making War upon the King or â—ot therefore to answer your first Objection against the Prince's making War upon an Uncle and a Father-in-law without first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if he could not obtain it I confess this were a good Objection if you could once prove to me that the Prince could have been sure to have had granted him whatever he could in reason demand both in respect of the Church of England the security of the Protestant Religion the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England and his own particular concerns in respect of the Prince of Wales but whoever will impartially consider the Terms that the Prince and King were upon just before his coming over will find that he was not obliged to give the King notice of his intentions by first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if it had been denyed since the King might then have joyned his own with the French Fleet and sent for French Forces into England and then all that the Prince could have done in behalf of himself and the Nation had been altogether in vain And then though I grant that such satisfaction ought to be demanded in most cases yet will it not hold in this where if the Prince had sooner discovered his designs the King might have easily prevented them And how near this was to have been put in Execution may appear by this That Succours were actually offered by the French King and if they were refused by ours it was partly because it was too late for the French Fleet to be then put out and partly out of a Politick consideration that besides the losing of the Hearts of his English Subjects it might give the French such a footing here that they would not be easily gotten out again But indeed it seems as if the old formal way of making War was quite out of fashion since Charles the Second made War against the Dutch and the King of France so lately against Spain the Elector Palatine and the Emperor without any Observation of those formalities But if we consider the Grounds and Causes of this War as they are set forth in the Princes late Declaration they may be reduced to these three Heads First The Restoration of the Church of England with the Bishops and Colledges to their just Priviledges Secondly The securing of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject from the Dispensing Power and those other Incroachments that had been made upon them by the partial Judgments of Popish Ignorant or Corrupt Judges And Lastly The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales In all which the Prince was so reasonable as to refer the decision of these differences to the Judgment of a Free Parliament Now as for the first of these That the Prince as a Neighbour and of the same Religion with us might justly secure the interest of the Protestant Religion here and also redeem the Clergy from the persecution they lay under is very evident Since it has always been held lawful for Princes to take the part and espouse the interest of those of the same Religion with themselves though Subjects to another Prince Thus Eusibius makes it a good cause of War by the Emperor Constantine against Licinius because he persecuted the Christians living under his Dominions So likewise of later Ages Queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Protestants of the united Provinces and those of France against the Persecutions and Oppressions they suffered from their own Princes As to the French Protestants King Charles the I. sent a Fleet and an Army to their Assistance in 1627. But as to the next Head the Oppressions we lay under in respect of our Civil Liberties the Prince had as great or rather greater right to vindicate these than the former For Bodin and Barclay though they suppose it unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince though never so highly Opprest yet they count it not only lawful but Generous and Heroick for a Neighbouring Prince to rescue injur'd and opprest Subjects from the Tyranny of their Kings So that if the King had by his Dispensing Power his Levying of Taxes without Law and taking away the freedom of Elections for Parliament men almost totally dissolved the Government and brought it to the condition of an absolute Monarchy it was high time for the Prince to put a stop to those Encroachments both in respect of his own particular interest and also of the States whose General and Stadâ—holder he is Of the former since if this Kingdom should once become of the Popish Religion by the means of a standing Army and those other methods that have been taken to make it so granting the Prince of Wales to be truly born of the Queen yet should he happen to die the Popish faction here in England would in all likelihood debar the Prince and Princess of Orange from their lawful Succession to the Crown or at least would never admit them but upon conditions of establishing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England the former of which is as contrary to their consciences as the latter is to their principles and inclinations So on the other side if the Prince of Wales be not the Queens true Son he had certainly a much greater interest as the presumptive Heir of the Crown to demand satisfaction in that great point which so nearly concerned their right of Succession For then certainly they might justly demand satisfaction especially when they desired no more but to have this business left to the inspection of the Estates of the Kingdom as the only proper Judges of the same For as to the Privy Council who by the Kings command though without any president had taken upon them to hear and determine this matter their Highnesses certainly had no reason to be satisfied with it since besides the incompetency of the Judges the King himself appeared too partial and interested in the affair for them to set down by
notwithstanding all you have alledg'd against it which yet is no more than what you said before that Duke Robert had an Hereditary Right and therefore he could not be put by which is to beg the Question for you cannot prove to me that he had this Right either by the Law of Nature the Law of England or the Law of Normandy not by the two former as I have already prov'd for your Conqueror himself being a Bastard had no better Title to the Dutchy of Normandy than his Father's last Will before he went to the Holy Land which was not good without the consents of the Nobility of that Dutchy as appears by the Historians of that time so that the greatest Objection you have to make against King Henry's being elected in a true Common-Council of all England is this that the time was so short between the Death of William Rufus and his Election that it was impossible for all the Parties that had Votes to be there present which is a very bold assertion for how can you or your Doctor tell that at the time when King William was kill'd he might not then have held a great Council at Winchester where he then Lay who might immediately upon his Death chuse his Brother Henry for their King for it is certain the Election was there the Day before his Coronation at London and therefore it is very rashly done to affirm that this Election was not in a Common-Council of the Kingdom when all the Historians and particularly W. Malmesbury tells us the manner of it and the Disputes there were about it viz. that Henry was elected King as soon as King William's Funerals were over Aliquantis tamen ante controversiis inter proceres agitatis c. and H. de Knyghton reciting the cause why Duke Robert was set aside viz. because he had been always contrary and unnatural to the Barons of England therefore quod plenario consensu consilio totius Communitatis Regni ipsum refutaverunt pro Rege omnino recusavâ—â—â—nt Henricum fratrem in Regem erexerunt which plainly shews that it was the opinion of all the Antient Writers out of whom Knyghton took this passage that this election was made by the free consent and in a full Council of all the whole Community of the Kingdom nor does the after claim of Duke Robert to the Crown at all alter the case for the reasons already given as also because the agreement that was made between them that he that surviv'd should succeed the other was never confirm'd or agreed to by the great Council of the Kingdom and therefore those Norman Lords that join'd with Duke Robert here in England are justly taxed by William of Malmesbury and the Saxon Chronicle with Infidelity and Rebellion and though I grant that Mat. Paris or rather Roger of Wendover whom he transcribes seems to condemn King Henry's taking the Crown as unjust and contrary to Right and that he therefore feared the Justice of God eò quod fratri suo primogenito cui jus Regni manifestè competebat temere usurpando injustè nimis abstulcrat yet this author writing about the middle of the Reign of King Henry III. who had succeeded his Father by a pretended right of Inheritance as well as Election it is no wonder if He who writ near a hundred years after this transaction should give his judgment in this matter according to the common opinion and prejudice of that age and must certainly speak by guess for how could he otherwise affirm unless he had been acquainted with that Kings thoughts as he doth in the same place that he felt conscientiam suam in obtentu Regni cauteriatam since no other Writer either of that time or after it does thus blame King Henry for taking the Crown But as for the account you give why Duke Robert never took upon him the Title of King if the Throne had not then been looked upon as vacant because of the agreement which he made with his Brothers by which he parted with his Right for a Pension during his Life is not at all satisfactory for in the first place neither of these agreements were made till above a year after his pretended Title did acrue to him by the Death of his Father and Brother and therefore he ought if he had look'd upon himself as true King to have immediately taken the Title upon him which he never did so likewise the agreement it self makes wholly against your notion of any hereditary succession to the Crown to be then setled since the main clause in both these agreements is that the survivor should be heir to him that died first unless he left Children of his own to succeed him which plainly shews that in the opinion of both those Princes and of the great men that swore on either side to see it observed they knew of no such setled Right of Succession in their Heirs which they themselves could not part with or else this Clause had been wholly in vain since both King William and King Henry's Children were to have succeeded to the Crown of England by vertue of both these agreements before the Sons of Duke Robert had his Son William who was only Earl of Flanders survived him But now if you please you may proceed with your other exceptions against the rest of the Instances I have here given you of the Vacancy of the Throne till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed whom to place therein M. As to what you have said in defence of the Vacancy of the Throne after the death of King Henry I. carries less shew of Reason than what you urged in the former Cases since all Writers agree that this was a manifest Usurpation in Stephen who could pretend no sort of Title to the Crown himself as well as Perjury in the Bishops Lords and great Men of England who having sworn Fealty to King Henry's Daughter Maud in his life-time made Stephen Earl of Blois their King therefore William of Malmsbury and all the Writers of those Times do accuse Stephen of down-right Perjury and Usurpation and likewise relate that he was advanced to the Crown through the power of the Londoners and Citizens of Winchester but yet all these Endeavours had been in vain unless he had been assisted by his Brother Henry Bishop of that City and then the Popes Legate in England and favoured by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Crowned him and yet for all this there was but a very small Faction of the Bishops and Lords who were for his Croonation for W. Malmsbury tells us Coronatus est ergo in Regem Angliae Stephanus tribus Episcopis praesentibus nullis Abbatibus paucissimis Optimatibus And many of the Nobility and great Men of England were so sensible of this that being headed by Robert Earl of Gloucester the Empresses base Brother they raised a War against Stephen which after her coming over hither was
of France had made his Procurator to treat with the Popes Legat about his coming over hither where when he had recited that King Iohn had been condemn'd by his Peers for the Death of his Nephew Arthur and that he had been also for his great cruelties and other wickedness Deposed by the Barons of England and farther reciting that the said King without the assent of his Nobility had resign'd his Kingdom to the Pope to hold it of him at an Annual Tribute of a thousand marks the rest I will give you in Latine because you your self shall translate it etsi Coronam Angliae sine Baronibus alicui dare non potuit potuit tamen dimittere tam quam statim cum resignaverit Rex esse desiit Regnum sine Rege vacavit vacans itaque Regnum sine Baronibus ordinari non debuit c. so that you may see that by the order of Prince Lewis and the allowance of the King of France himself every one of our opinions are maintain'd for good first That King Iohn was before the resignation of his Crown to the Pope true and lawful King Secondly That by that resignation to the Pope he did dismiss or abdicate his Right to it for so I suppose the word demittere Regnum is here to be render'd Thirdly That upon this dismission of the Crown the Throne became Vacant Fourthly That upon this Vacancy the Kingdom could not be conferr'd without the consent of the Barons that is the great Council of the Kingdom But let King Iohn's Right to the Crown have been what it would it is certain that he could not take it upon him until such time as this Great Council had both heard and allow'd his Title and that this was in the nature of an Election notwithstanding his Brothers Will appears by that account which Roger Wendover and Matthew Paris have given us of it which though Hoveden and other Writers have omitted yet doth it not therefore follow that this was all the pure invention of Roger of Wendover or Matthew Pariâ— since the former he living near that time might write from the relation of â—oâ—e that were then present and as for the latter I look upon him though a Monk as a man of too great integrity to invent any thing of his own Head and though I confess the account that Arch-bishop Hubert gives why he put King Iohn's Title rather upon Election than Succession looks very suspicious since the Arch-bishop must thereby have made himself a Knave and a Hypocrite and seems also to contradict what Matthew Paris had before said viz. That all those that heard his Speech dares not so much as doubt of these things knowing that the Arch-bishop had not thâ—s judged of this matter without cause and therefore I grant that this part of the relation concerning the Arch-bishops vindicating of himself for thus giving his Judgment might be a Story commonly taken up and being told to this Authour was by him inserted in his History at a time when I grant the Crown of England began to be thought successive by reason that King Henry the III. had succeeded as the eldest Son of his Father though he was noâ— for all that admitted without Election as I shall prove by and by but that King Iohn was made King by Election though he claim'd it from his Brother by successiâ—n likewise appears from his own Charter still to be seen at this day in the Arch-bishops Archives at Lambeth wherein he recites that he came to the Crown Iure hereditario mediante tam Cleri quam populi unanimi consensu favore where you see plainly that he derives his Title from the consent and favour of the Clergy and People as well as his own Hereditary Right M. Notwithstanding what you have now said I cannot agree with you that by these words you have now cited from this Charter is to be understood any formal Election of the Clergy and People but that this unanimous consent mention'd in it was rather their acknowledgment of his Title and submission to him than any thing else for according to Hoveden's relation of his coming to the Crown which I think the most exact extant the whole Nation submitted and swore Fealty to him against all men before he came over into England But as for his Son Henry the III. it is much more plain that he succeeded by Succession and not by Election as being the Eldest Son of the Late King his Father as appears by the relation of his Coronation in Matthew Westminster who tells us thus Henricus Iohannis primogenitus in Regem inunctus solemniter Coronatus est and tho from the Speech which was made to the Clergy and Nobility that was then at Gloucester by the Earl Mareshall 't is pretended that Henry was Elected yet I dare say if any one do but impartially consider the tenour of it he will find that the design of it was rather to persuade all those then present to return to their duty and acknowledge Him for their King whom God and Nature had designed for that great charge for the Earl begins his discourse to 'em thus as it is in Knighton Ecce Rex Vester which certainly could not then be true if an Election was necessary to make him such but amongst the rest of his Arguments he urges this Hunc igitur libeat regem dicere cui ipsum Regnum debetur you ought to chuse him to whom the Kingdom is due which surely it can be to none if it be not Hereditary and what puts all out of doubt that the Kingdom was not then and if not then I am sure never since Elective is the answer of Hubert de Burgh to Lewis when he summon'd him to deliver up Dover Castle to him since his Master for whose use and service he held it was dead but see his answer If my old Master say's he he dead he has left behind him Sons and Daughters to succeed him A thing he never would have asserted had he not thought there had been a Divine Right somewhere else than in the People F. Before I speak any thing to King Henry the III ds Election give me leave to reply to what you have said against the express words of King Iohns Charter for if Favor and Consensus does not signifie somewhat more than a bare acknowledgement and submission I understand neither English nor Latine Nor is this any answer to the express testimony of Roger of Wendover and Mat. Paris to the contrary And as for Roger Hoveden he does not say he was not Elected but only omits the manner of it as divers other Historians do So that at the best this is but a negative Argument And yet that Hoveden himself did not look upon him as King even after the whole Nation had sworn Fealty to him before his Coronation may appear from this passage a little before his coming over Wâ—â—ielmus Rex Scotorum misit
ordered and disposed of all publick Affairs conferr'd Offices and Bishopricks as if they were lawful Kings before your pretended Election or the ceremony of their Coronation and also had Ambassadors sent to them from Foreign Princes as appears from your own Quotation out of Hoveden Of those that were sent by the King of Scots to King Iohn before he was crowned though it is true he there stiles him no more than Duke of Normandy And this also may further appear by that passage I have cited out of the same Author that King Richard had Fealty Sworn to him as King of England by all the Freemen of England before he was Crown'd and you your self acknowledge the same Oath to be taken by the same persons to King Iohn before he came over to take the Crown And Lastly To make it yet plainer that there was no Vacancy or Inter-regnum in all these Successions you have mention'd consult what Chronologer you please or look into the most ancient Tables of the Succession of our Kings of England or into our old Printed Statutes or Law Books and you will still find the Reign of the Suceeding Prince to commence from the Death of his next Predecessor without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between And these I think to be a great deal surer marks of their succeeding to their Royal Dignity by a pretence at least of a right of Inheritance from their Father or Brother rather thau this fancy of yours that you lay so much stress upon That because of their not being stiled Kings by our Historians till their pretended Election and Coronation was over they were not so indeed And I hope this may serve to satisfie this mighty Objection F. I must beg your pardon if I still declare my self not satisfied with your answers for though I grant that if this Argument of the Historians not stiling them Kings had stood single without any thing else to support it that your answers might have signified something But if you please better to consider it you will find that of these Princes taking in William your Conqueror claimed as your self must acknowledge not by any Hereditary right but by the Testament of the deceased Predecessor and if so where was your setled right of Succession by right of Blood Secondly It is likewise as plain that these four were never admitted or acted in England as lawful Kings till those Testaments were confirmed by the Election of the Great Council before whom they declar'd their Rights And till this was done how the Throne could be otherwise than Vacant I cannot for my Life conceive But as for two of them whom you call downright Usurpers viz. Henry the I and King Stephen it is certain they could have no colour of a Title till their Elections and if not till then and that neither your next Heir of the Crown nor yet they themselves took upon them the Title of Kings Was not this a Vacancy of the Throne in the mean time Suppose that time to have been but for the space of three or four days as it was after the death of King William Rufus In the next place pray consider that upon the death of every one of these Princes we do not find the Great Council of the Kingdom which still assembled to Elect the Successor was ever call'd in their names but met by their own Inherent Authority for how could they be summon'd by the King before he took that Title upon him which as your self are forced to acknowledge he never did till after his Coronation Lastly Pray remember farther that whoever was thus Elected and Confirm'd by the Great Council whether he was next Heir by Blood or not was always looked upon as Lawful King and has always passed for such in all our Chronicles and Laws and not those that claimed as the right Heirs by Blood and if this be not sufficient to prove that these Princes had no true and compleat right to the Crown till this Election was past I desire you would shew me my mistake These things premis'd I think it will be very easie to reply to every one of those answers you pretend to have made to my Query Therefore as to your First That they were really Kings before their Election or Coronation because they order'd and dispos'd of all publick affairs I do not deny but that some of them who Succeeded either as Heirs by Testament or by right of Blood might do many publick Acts by reason that they looked upon themselves as Heirs Apparent to the Kingdom and whom the Great Council I grant could not without high Injustice set aside and upon this account they might also receive Ambassadors from Foreign Princes in Affairs relating to Peace or War that they might know how to deal with them or what to expect from them after they were setled in the Throne yet that they sent not to them by the Title of Kings appears by that passage I cited out of Hoveden but I defie you to shew me any one instance that any of these Princes above mention'd ever took upon them to exercise any of those Prerogatives of Sovereign Power such as making War or Peace Enacting Laws Coining of Money before their Election and Coronation which though in some of them was done both at once yet in others it appears plainly to have been at different times and not upon the same day as it happen'd in the case of Henry I. whose Election was at Winchester upon Saturday and his Coronation was not till the next day as also that of Henry the 3 d. whose Election was upon St. Simon and Iude's Day but his Coronation not till the day after But as for your next reply which I grant to have been the strongest you have made that King Richard I. and King Iohn had both of them Homage and Fealty sworn to them as Kings by all the Freemen of England before they were Crowned this were a material argument if it were made out as I think it cannot for in the first place the bare swearing of Homage and Fealty to a Prince doth not make him immediately King though I grant it might give him in that Age a right to be looked upon as Heir Apparent to the Crown thus Henry the I. made all the Lords and Great Men of England to swear Homage and Fealty to Prince William his Son and so after his being drown'd to the Empress Maud his Daughter which was the true reason why she looked upon her self afterwards as Heiress to the Crown so likewise King Stephen a little before his Death at the great Council I have mention'd caus'd all the great men of the Kingdom to Swear Homage and Fealty to Henry Duke of Anjou as his immediate Successour so that you see this swearing of Fealty was in those days often perform'd â—efore the persons that received it were Kings indeed and so I believe it was done in both those instances you now give me for though I
grant that Hoveden as you cite him relates that Homage to be made and Fealty sworn to Richard the I. by the Title of King yet is it very much to be doubted whether this was not only by a Prolepsis or perhaps a slip of the Pen in this Author since he writ this History long aâ—ter King Richard's Death and therefore without we had the very words of this Oath there is no certain conclusion to be drawn from thence and I think we may as well credit the Chronicle of Abbot Brompton who likewise lived about the same time and recites all this affair almost in the same words with those in Hoveden but there the Oath does not run exactly in the same words as in this Author but thus quod unusquesque liberorum hominum totius regni Iuraret quod sidem portaret Domino Richardo Domino Angliae filio Domini Regis Henrici c. ficut legio Domino suo contra omnes mortales where you see the Oath is not made to King Richard as King but only as Lord of England and that there is a great deal of difference between those two Titles not only in name but in Substance I have already prov'd when I spoke of the Empress Maud's stiling her self Domina and not Regina Anglorum tho' she had Homage rendred and Fealty sworn to her not only in her Fathers Life time but also after her coming over again into England in the Reign of King Stephen by all that own'd her Title and that Hoveden himself meant no more than this appears by that passage I have already taken notice of viz. that Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William the Earl Marshal being sent over to keep the Peace made all the men of the Kingdom as well of Cities as Burroughs with the Earls Barons and Free-holders Iurare fidelitatem pacem Iohanni Normanorum duci filio Henrici regis filii Matildis Imperatricis contra omnes homines where you see the Oath is taken to him only as Duke of Normandy and not as King at all and therefore you are mistaken to say that Hoveden mentions the like Oath to be taken to Duke Iohn as it was before to King Richard But I come now to answer your last argument whereby you would prove that there was no Vacancy or inter-regnum in this Age which is because that our Chronicles and Tables of Successions do still begin the Reigns of each King from the day of the Decease of his Predecessors without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between them to which I reply That none of our antient Chronicles or Historians reckon thus as I know of but rather acknowledge a Vacancy of the Throne to have been between each Succession and as for the Tables of the Succession of our Kings when you can shew me one more antient than the time from which I grant the Crown of England began to be looked upon as a Successive and not an Elective Kingdom I shall be of your opinion but admit it were so since the Succession to the Crown has been for the most part mixt partly Elective and partly Hereditary our Kings might to maintain the honour of their Title still reckon their coming to the Crown immediately from the death of the last Predecessor tho' there has been oftentimes some days and weeks between the one and the other as I have now proved and shall prove farther by and by which being but small fractions of time are not taken notice of in the whole account which may be notwithstanding very agreeable to Law for both my Lords Dyer and Anderson in their Reports do agree That the King who is Heir or Successor may Write and begin his Reign the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor dies M. It will be to no purpose to dispute this point with you any longer since I must confess that there were so many Usurpations in the Succession of most of those first Kings after the Conquest that it is a difficult matter to prove any setled rule of Succession to have been then observed in England and therefore I only desire you to take notice that though it is true King Henry the 3 d was an Usurper for the first Twenty five years of his Reign yet for all the rest of it which was near Thirty more he was a true and lawful Prince for Elianor his Cousin being dead in Prison without issue and there being no more of that Line left her Right wholly devolved upon King Henry and he and his Children are to be from henceforth reckon'd to have a true Hereditary Right to the Crown without any Competitors And that this was so will plainly appear from the Testament of King Henry the 3 d. a Copy of which I have by me where tho' he Bequeaths a great many of his Jewels to the Queen and a great deal of Money to charitable uses yet for this Kingdom and other Territories in France and Ireland he makes no Bequest of them at all either to Prince Edward his Eldest or to Edmund his youngest Son tho' his Father King Iohn had bequeathed the Kingdom to him by his Will as you have already shewed and what could be the reason of this But that there being now no Title left to contest with his Son there was no need of it and therefore tho' Prince Edward was absent in the Holy Land when his Father Died yet a great Council being call'd in his Name at London he was there only recognized and acknowledged to be their natural Leige Lord and Lawful Successor to his Fathers Throne pray read the words as they are in Walsingham's Life of this King Edwardum absentem Dominum suum Leigium recognoverunt paternique successorem honoris ordinaverunt we meet not here with any thing like Election which no doubt we should not fail to do if there had been any such thing practised So likewise upon this King's death his Son King Edward the 2 d. by the like Right succeeded as Heir to his Father and tho' this Prince by suffering himself to be too much guided by his Minions fell at length into such Arbitrary and Irregular courses as procured him the hatred and ill will of his Subjects to that Degree that by the Disloyal and Ambitious practices of his Lascivious Queen he being made Prisoner a Parliament was call'd in his name who took upon them to Depose him for his misgovernment contrary to all Law and Right and though his Son Prince Edward had hitherto join'd with his Mother against his Father yet is he herein so far to be commended that tho' the Crown was offered him by Election of the Great Council yet the same Author tells us he swore that without his Father's consent he would never accept it whereupon divers Messengers or Delegates being dispatched from the Parliament to the King then Prisoner at Kenel-worth Castle who told him what had been done and concluded of at London required him to resign his Crown and
Crown yet the pretended hereditary right of blood was the main ground of his Establishment But as for King Henry the VII th tho' he could claim the Crown by no true Right of Inheritance yet would he never own it to be an Election by Parliament for as soon as King Richard was slain in the Battle of Bosworth the Lord Stanley put his Crown upon Henry's head who immediately stiling himself King as well by right of Conquest as by being sole Heir Male of the House of Lancaster He as such caused himself to be Crowned King and though he afterwards call'd a Parliament in which he procured his Title to be recognised yet as my Lord Bacon very well observes he was afraid to take the Crown by his only true Title in right of the Lady Elizabeth his Queen for fear he should only be King by Courtesie and must upon the Queens death have resign'd it again and should he take it by Election he knew there was a very great difference between a King that holdeth his Crown by a Civil Act of the Estates and one mind that that holdeth it originally by the Law of Nature and descent of Blood and therefore upon these Considerations he resolved to rest upon the Title of the House of Lancaster as his main Right and thereupon he caus'd an Act of Parliament to pass wherein his Title was acknowledged as my Lord Bacon there tells us not by way of Declaration or Recognition of Right as on the other side he avoided to have it by a new Law of Ordinance but chose rather a kind of a middle way by way of establishment and that under covert and indifferent words that the inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. which words might be equally applied that the Crown should continue to him but whether as having former right to it which was doubtful or having it then in fact or possession which no Man denied was left fair to interpretation either way I speak not this to justifie all his actions but to let you see that he chiefly insisted upon his right of inheritance and absolutely disown'd any Title by Election from the People F. I cannot deny the matter of fact concerning King Richard the III ds Deposing his Nephew and Usurping the Crown to have been very wicked and contrary to the received Law of England concerning the Succession at that time and likewise that by Bastardizing his Brother the late King's Issue without due course of Law and by attainting the blood of his other Brother the Duke of Clarence he would have made the World believe that he was Lawful Heir by right of blood yet you will not deny but that for all this he was so sensible of the weakness of his Title that though it is true his right by blood is declar'd in the first place in that Act of Recognition yet it is plain he would not rely upon that alone and therefore you see the Parliament there also insists upon his right by Election and Coronation which they would never have done had it not been that they looked upon it for good Law that whoever was Crowned King and call'd a Parliament and had his Title therein Recognized and Confirmed was thenceforth true and lawful King to all intents and purposes therefore though you have omitted it I shall proceed to shew you what this Statute also farther declares For after they had declar'd the said King's Title as grounded upon the Antient Laws and Laudable Customs of the Realm according to the Judgement of all such Persons as were learned in them they proceed thus Yet nevertheless for as much as it is consider'd that the most part of the People is not sufficiently learned in the aforesaid Laws and Customs whereby truth and right in his behalf of likelihood may be had and not clearly known to all People and thereupon put in doubt and question and over this how that the Court of Parliament is of such Authority that a Declaration made by the three Estates and by the Authority of the same maketh before all other things most faithful and certain quieting of Mens Minds and removeth the occasion of doubts and seditious Language therefore they also declare that he was the undoubted King Whence 't is evident that the reason of this Law supposeth that the Subjects in general are not capable of understanding the Laws and Customs upon which the Titles of our Kings depend and that the best satisfaction that the generality of the People can possibly have in those high Matters was to rest on the judgment and determination of the Kingdom declared by Act and Authority of Parliament and therein to acquiesce for the preventing Sedition so much as in Language therefore what I said before in the Case of King Stephen is also true in this quod fieri non debuit factum valet and all the Acts made in the Reign of this King Richard though â— horrid Usurper were never repeal'd but stand good at this day As to what you say concerning the manner of King Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown is also true but as for his Title to it by right of Succession that was certainly false for his Mother the Countess of Richmond was then alive by whom he Claim'd the Crown and liv'd divers years after he was King so that though I grant that it is recited in the Parliament Roll that he claim'd the Crown in Parliament tam per justum titulum haereditantiae quam per verum Dei judicium in tribuendo sibi victoriam de Inimico suo in campo tho' the latter of these Titles may be true Viz. the Conquest of King Richard especially when once he was confirm'd and recognized in Parliament yet that the former could not be so is plain from what I have now said so that it is certain that King Henry the VII ths best Title was neither by Inheritance nor Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth but by the Act of Parliament as appears by the unprinted Statute it self still upon the Roll which since you did not repeat I will the Title is Titulus Regis and it runs in these words To the Pleasure of Almighty God the Wealth Prosperity and Surety of this Realm of England to the singular comfort of all the Kings Subjects of the same and in avoiding of all ambiguities and questions be it Ordained Established and Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament that the inheritance of the Crowns of the Realms of England and of France with all the preeminence and dignity Royal to the same pertaining and all other Seignouries to the King belonging beyond the Sea with th' Appurtenances thereto in any wise due or pertaining be rest remain and abide in the Most Royal Person of our now Sovereign Lord King Henry the VII th and in the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming perpetually with the grace of God so to endure and in none
other Now this was done some time before he Married with the Princess Elizabeth for as soon as this Act was made the Commons requested the King to marry Elizabeth the Daughter of King Edward the fourth that by God's Grace there might be Issue of the stock of their Kings as their own words were and that this was rather to preserve the Blood Royal than to give any new confirmation to his Title appears from hence that there was never any other Act after the Marriage to declare the right of the Crown to be in the King and Queen or so much as to entail it on the issue of their Bodies so that it is plain he enjoy'd it not in his Wives but in his own right since he held it after her death by vertue of this Statute which plainly shows that in the judgement of that Parliament the House of Lancaster was lookt upon to have the better Title And though it is true that the King procured the Pope's Bull now in the Cotton Library to strengthen his Title threatning all those with Excommunication that should offer to rebell against him yet even that Bull tho' his right by Inheritance and Conquest be first mentioned concludes with his Title by the Election of the Prelates Nobility and People of England and the Decree or Statute of the three Estates in their Convention call'd the Parliament as this Bull it self expresses it M. I must confess you have told me more of these matters than ever I heard of before for I always thought that there had been no Act of Settlement upon King Henry the VII th until after his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth for till then I look upon him as an Usurper upon her right as he was also after her death upon his Sons successively so that if you will have my Opinion I conceive that this Statute being made before he had a lawfull right to the Crown is wholly void as is also that of the repeal of the attainder of King Henry the VI ths for the same reason But let his Title be what it will it is ceâ—â—ain his Son King Henry the VIII th Succeeded to the Crown as Heir rather to his Mother than his Father and so was in by remitter but as for King Edward the VI th he was undoubted Heir by right of blood as being the only Heir Male to his Father and though it is true that King Henry made divers Statutes whereby he alter'd the Succession of the Crown as to his two Daughters Mary and Elizabeth sometimes declaring them both illegitimate and then again giving them a right to Succeed by Act of Parliament yet these Acts of Succession were obtained purely by the King's Sollicitation and Command and tho' at last he got himself impower'd to make a Will whereby he might settle and entail the Crown on whom he pleas'd yet all these Acts of Parliament as also this will signifie just nothing after his death for tho' his said Daughters Queen Mary and Elizabeth did one after another succeed his Son King Edward the VI th yet was it not by vertue of any of these Acts of Parliament or by the aforesaid Will but by pure right of inheritance or colour of it at least and therefore in the first of Queen Mary there is an Act declaring the Queens Highness to have been born in most just and faithful Matrimony and also repealing all Acts of Parliament and Sentence of Divorce made or had to contrary Now certainly the intention of this Act was to declare her Succession to be Inheritance by right of blood so likewise in the first of Elizabeth the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do declare and confess that Queen Elizabeth is in very deed and of meer right by the Laws of God and by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm their most rightfull and lawfull Sovereign Queen and that she was rightly lineally and lawfully descended and come of the Blood-Royal of this Realm of England all which whether it were true or not in her yet the lineal and lawful descent of Queen Elizabeth was the ground upon which she was declar'd to be their Rightfull and Lawfull Queen And though I grant that King Henry the VIIIth had by his Last Will and Testament post poned all the Issue of his Sister Margaret Queen of Scots and preferred the Children of his younger Sister the Queen Dowager of France which she had by Charles Duke of Suffolke before them Yet was this Will afterward cancelled and torn off from the Rolls in Chancery where it was Recorded and that by order of Queen Mary as is supposed So that Iames the VIth King of Scotland was by Right of Blood Declared and Proclaimed King of England immediately upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth as right Heir of the Crown And in the first Parliament after his Coronation his Title is by them particularly recognized in the words which I desire you to read with me Where after setting forth his Pedigree as lineally descended from the Lady Margaret eldest Daughter of King Henry the VII th and Queen Elizabeth his Wiâ—e Daughter of King Edward the IV th they farther acknowledge King Iames their Lawful and rightful Leige Lord and Sovereign and farther say as being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and Man that they do recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England and all Kingdoms Dominions belonging to the same did by inherent Birth-right and lawfull and undoubted Succession descend and come to his Most Excellent Majesty being lineally lawfully and justly next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm and thereunto they do most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their bloods be spent I have been the more particular in the recital of this Act because it stands not only as a perpetual Declaration of the sense of the Representatives of the whole Nation for an hereditary Succession of the Crown without any vacancie or election but also because it contains their solemn engagement for themselves and their posterities for ever to King Iames and his issue and consequently to his right Heirs for ever so that nothing can be more directly contrary than this Act to the late proceedings of the Convention first in declaring the Throne vacant and then placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein F. I will not deny but that King Henry the VIII th and Edward the VI th both succeeded by right of inheritance but whether the former claim'd it as Heir to his Mother or his Father is much to be doubted since being Heir to both of them he never declar'd by what Title he held the Crown But as for his two Daughters Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth it is certain their best Titles were from these Acts of
the power of the two Houses of Parliament I am very well satisfied that such a Declaration must be void in it self since I have sufficiently proved that there was no such Law of Succession ever setled by any general Custom or Common Law since it hath been near as often broken as observed and as for any positive or Statute-Law enacting any hereditary right of Succession you do not so much as pretend to show it so that I think I have sufficiently proved the three Propositions I laid down viz. That ever since the time of Edward the First though the Crown has been claim'd by right of blood yet has it not been very often enjoy'd by Princes who had no just pretence to that Title Secondly that the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding that claim placed or at least fixed the Crown upon the heads of those Princes who they very well knew could have no hereditary right to it Thirdly That such Princes have been always taken for lawful Kings all their Laws standing good at this day without any Confirmation by their Successours M. I did not think that you who were so great an admirer of the two Houses of Parliament should now be so much against their power in joyning with the King to declare what the true right of Succession to the Crown is and hath ever been from time beyond memory But I see Acts or Declarations of Parliament signifie nothing with you if they are against your Hypothesis or else you would never go about thus to expose those Acts of Parliament of King Edward the IVth and King Iames the Ist. Whereby they are declared both by the Law of God and Man undoubted Heirs of the Crown And the last Act I cited viz. That of King Iames the Ist. doth sufficiently confute your Notion of a Vacancy of the Throne Where it is expresly declared That immediately upon the decease of Queen Elizabeth the Crown of England with all the Dominions belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and Undoubted Succession descend and come to his Majesty King Iames. So that if there then were no Vacancy of the Throne I cannot see how there could be any such thing now the next Heir to the Crown be He who they will being certainly not so far removed from King Iames the Ist. as himself was from King Henry the VIIth under whom he claimed F. I must still confess my self to have a great veneration for the solemn Declarations of King and Parliament made by any Statute yet not so as to Idolize them or to look upon all their Declarations as infallible I grant indeed that whosoever is by them Declared and Recognized for King or Queen of England is to be acknowledged and obeyed as such by all the Subjects of this Kingdom without farther questioning his Title But if not content with this they will also take upon them to declare that such Kings or Queens have an undoubted Hereditary Right by the Laws of God and Nature When I plainly find from the Holy Scriptures as well as the History of matter of Fact and the knowledge of our Laws that they have no other Tiâ—le than what the Laws of the Land have conferred upon them and therefore you your self cannot deny but that it was gross flattery in the two Houses of Parliament to declare that Richard the IIId for-example had a true and undoubted Right to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature and also by the Laws and Customs of this Realm when you know he was a notorious Usurper upon the Rights of his Brother King Edward's Children now how can I be assur'd that the like Declaration made to Kâ—ng Iames the I. was not lâ—kewise a piece of Courtship of the Representative of the Kingdom to this King then newly setled in his Throne since we find the People of this Nation when they are in a kind fit never think they can say or do too much for their Princes and therefore I must freely tell you that it is not the bare Declaration of a Parliament that this or that has been always the Law or Custom of this Realm when we can find from History that it has never been so held for above four hundred years at least and therefore not beyond the memory of Man as you suppose since that must be before the Reign of Richard the First as I have already proved to you at our Eighth Meeting But to answer your Objection against the vacancy of the Throne I do freely grant that aâ— often â—s the Crown descends by lineal Succession there can be no vacancy of the Throne as it did in the Case of King Iames the First yet doth it not therefore follow that there can never be any such Vacancy in any Case whatsoever since certainly it may so happen that all the Heirs Male of the Blood-Royal may fail as it happen'd in the Case of Scotland when Iohn Balioll and Robert Bruce contended for the Crown which not being to be decided by the Estates of the Kingdom they were forced to referr it to our King Edward the First and as also happen'd in France when Philip of Valois and our Edward the III d both claim'd the Crown which was decided by a great Assembly of the Estates of France in the favour of the former who claim'd as Heir of the Male Line against King Edward who was descended by a Woman and if King Iames's Abdication or Forfeiture call it which you will is good pray give me a sufficient Reason why the Convention of the Estates of England should not have as much Authority as those of France or Scotland this being as much or more a limited Kingdom thau either of the other ever were M. I do not deny that but pray shew me any sufficient Reason why the Convention should now Vote a Vacancy of the Throne since there was certainly an Heir Apparent not long since in England and I hope is now safe in France who ought to fill it or at least there should have been some sufficient cause alledged against him to prove that he was not true Son either of the King or Queen and till this was done they could not with any Right or good Conscience place any other Relation of his in the Throne since every Person ought to be esteem'd the Son of that Father and Mother that publickly own him for such for it is a Maxim in our as well as your Law Filiatio non potest probari F. How this could be performed without first declaring the Throne vacant I cannot apprehend for you your self must grant that there have been great doubts and suspitions of the Realty of this Prince of Wales and therefore that being one great reason of the Prince of Orange's coming over The truth of this Child whether he was really born of the of the body of the Q. is first to be examin'd and determin'd before he can be declar'd K. of England in the
if you say such a way of Election is now impossible I shall do so too but however it plainly shews the absurdity of supposing a King could ever now be fairly Elected were all the Blood-Royal totally extinct As for what you say concerning that Cession which the Princess of Denmark made of her Right to the Crown I never heard any thing of it before but admit it were so this could only serve in relation to her self and she could not give up the Right of her Brother the Prince of Wales no nor that of her own Children if God shall give her any F. This Objection concerning the total Dissolution of the Government proceeds from a wanâ— of your consideration of what the antient Government of England was not only before but a good while after your pretended Conquest which was not a setled Hereditary Monarchy but a Testamentary or Elective Kingdom where the Kings being often recommended by the Testament of the precedent King were chosen out of the Royal Family though not according to the Ruler of Succession now in use and therefore in all such Governments it is very well known that there was at the first institution of Kingly Government among them a great Council or Assembly of Estates of the whole Kingdom appointed who upon the death of the last King and vacancy of the Throne were still to meet of course to appoint a Successor which was commonly one of the Sons of the last King or at least some other Prince of the Royal Blood Thus it was till of late years in Denmark and Sweâ—den and so it was antiently in France during the Succession of the first Race as also in Spain during the Government of the Vandals and so it likewise was in England during the whole Succession of our English Saxon Kings and so I have also proved it continued till Edward the First And though since his time that the Crown hath been claim'd by right of Inheritance yet in all times precedent it is apparent that the great Council of the Kingdom upon the deaâ—h of every King Assembled by their own inherent Authority to consider whom they should place in the Throne which they then looked upon as vacant And therefore though I grant in the case of Edward the First the Parliament did not only ordain him Successor to his Father but also recogniz'd his â—ight by Blood yet for all this they still remain'd their anâ—ient Power of meeting without Summons from the King he being in the Holy Land and they not knowing whether he was alive or dead so that it is a false assertion to affirm that there can be no Government without a King since in all those vacancies of the Throne it is plain the Government devolved of course upon the geat Council of the Nation And though it is true there can be now no Parliament without a King according to the present notion and acceptation of that Term yet before that word was ever in use which is no older than about the middle of the Reign of Henry the Third it is plain that our great Councils often met by their own inherent Authority without any King and preserved the Peâ—ce of the Kingdom till a new King was either chosen or declared And though 't is true the Crown hath been long enjoy'd by those who have claim'd by Inheritance yet there is no reason for all that if the like cases should fall out as have done in former times why the Government should devolve to the mix'd Multitude now any more than it did then since it may be as well suppos'd that the same tacit Contract still continues of maintaining the Original constitution of great Councils which I have proved to be as Antient as Kingly Government it self And though perhaps the Form of chusing or sending thâ—se Representatives of the Nation may have been alter'd in divers particulars by for â—er Laws or received Customs yet this is nothing to the purpose as long as the thing it self remains the same in Substance as it was before for it can never be thought to have been the intent of the People who Established this form of Government that upon the extinction of the Royal Family the Government should be so quite dissolved as that it should be left to the confused Multitude to chuse what form of Government they should think fit Therefore to conclude I wish you would be perswaded to own this Government as it is now Established and to take 〈◊〉 Oath of Allegiance which is enjoyn'd by the Declaration of the Convention who are the only proper and legal Judges we can now have of conferring the Rights of those to whom our Allegiance is due And if in case a Dispute about the right Heir of the Crown the People of this Nation were not all bound to the decision of this Assembly we must necessarily fall together by the ears and fight it out as they do in the East-Indies where upon the death or deposition of a King he has still the Right who can Conquer his Competitors in Battel M. Well I wish there were not something very like it practised here of late for I think you will grant that if the Prince of Orange's Party had not prevail'd over the King 's the Convention would never have placed the Crown upon his head But I must beg your pardon if I cannot agree to your Proposals of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary since I have already taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to King Iames and I do not believe that any Power on earth can disengage me from that Oath as long as he and his Son the Prince of Wales are alive For as to your Doctrine of Abdication or Forfeiture they are too hard for my Reason to understand or for my Conscience to comply with and therefore it is all one to me whom your Convention places on the Throne since I am very well satisfied that none but the King can have a Right to it F. I wish I could see some better reasons for this opinion of yours than those you have already given for if you could convince that me the Nation hath done any thing in this Revolution which cannot well be justified by the Antient Customs and Constitution of the Kingdom I should come over to your opinion But if King Iames has truly Abdicated or Forfeited the Crown as I hope I have sufficiently made out and that your suppos'd Prince of Wales either is not really or else cannot now be proved to be the true Son of the Queen by reason of those Obstacles and Impediments I have shewn you I cannot see any thing to the contrary why you should not be wholly free and discharged from your former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames so that King William and Queen Mary being now placed on the Throne your Allegiance to King Iames and the suppos'd Prince of Wales is lawfully determined pray tell me therefore
why you cannot take this new Oath of Allegiance since you have the Judgment and Declaration of the Convention which is the Representative of the whole Nation to justifie you in so doing M. I must tell you once again that I think Allegiance is not only due to the King by the Law of the Land but also by the Laws of God and Nature and consequently cannot be dissolved by any subsequent Judgment of a Convention who are and always ought to be Subjects to him and his Right Heirs as long as they are in Being and therefore I should not allow the Prince and Princess of Orange for such were the King now actually dead nay if King Iames himself had stayed in England and had been so over awed by fear or overcome by persuasions as to have declar'd in Parliament that the Prince of Wales was not his true and lawful Son born of the Queen and had thereupon setled the Crown upon the Princess of Orange as his Heir Apparent I could never have thought my self oblig'd to swear Allegiance to her or to own her for my lawful Sovereign as long as the Prince of Wales or the Heirs of his Body are in Being since I am very well satisfied and that by unexceptionable proofs that he is really the Son of the King and Queen for I think I have sufficiently made out by several Declarations of Parliament that the Hereditary Right of the Crown can never be defeated nor alter'd by any Statute whatsoever but according to the Act of Recognition of King Iames the first 's Title which I have already urged the Crown ought to descend to the next Heir by Blood according to the rules of Descent I have now laid down F. I cannot but admire your obstinacy in this matter which proceeds from your old errour of believing that there is a Natural or Divine Right of Succession to Crowns different or abstracted from the Civil and Political Laws and Constitutions of particular Kingdoms which I think I have already confuted by shewing you that there was no such thing in Nature as a Patriarchal Right in Adam or Noah or their Heirs nor yet to any other King as their Assigns or Representatives and therefore though I grant that Allegiance to every lawful King is due by the Laws of God and Nature yet who that King is or who is to be his lawful Successor in limited or mixt Monarchies as ours is can only be determined by the Assembly of Estates of the whole Nation for notwithstanding all you have said there is a very great difference between the Legal Rights of Princes and the natural Rights of Fathers and Husbands which yet may cease and be dissolved in some cases as I have already sufficiently proved for I think it is evident that not only a Legal Title and Legal Authority may be parted from each other but that Legal Titles and Legal Authority may be rightfully separated from the persons to whom they were once due which natural Rights can never be A King may cease to be a King though a Father can never cease to be a Father for Laws have not the same force and power that nature has Now all men confess this separation may be made by a voluntary resignation as also by Conquest in a just War both which will divest such a Prince of all Right and Authority to Govern and if it may be done by either of these ways his Right and Authority is not inseparable from his Person since then there is no natural inherent property in Lands or Kingdoms but what proceeds from the particular Laws of each Kingdom or Common-Wealth therefore who ever the Supream Power appointed by the Constitution of such Kingdoms shall Judge or Determine to have a true and legal Right to the same are to be own'd and esteemed as the true legal owners and possessors thereof by all the Subjects so that if a King can part with his Kingship it is possible he may lose it too since there are more ways than one of parting with that which may be parted with If then a voluntary Resignation of a Crown or Conquest in a just War can give another Prince a just Title to it I cannot see why a â—acit Abdication or Forfeiture of a Crown upon a limited Kings total breach of the Fundamental Laws and Constitution of the Kingdom should not as much discharge all the Subjects of their Allegiance to him and also give the great Council as the Representative of the Nation a like Right of Ordaining a Successor upon such a Vacancy of the Throne and who being once placed therein all the people of the Nation ought to pay the same Allegiance to him as they did to his Predecessors But as for the latter part of your supposition that the right Heirs of the Crown by blood must always necessarily succeed to it that is likewise sounded upon two very false principles first that a lineal hereditary succession to the Crown is established by the Fundamental Laws and Customs of the Kingdom Secondly That the Succession to it cannot be limited by the Parliament or Great Council of the Nation the former of which suppositions I have confuted at our last meetting and as for the other you cannot deny but the Crown has been frequently setled and limited by Act of Parliament contrary to the common rules of Succession as hath been sufficiently proved by the Statute above mentioned of Henry the VII th as also by those several Acts concerning the Succession in Henry the VIII ths time and so it continues at this day by the Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth whereby it is declared Treason during the Queens Life for any person to affirm that the Queen and Parliament had not power to make Laws to limit and bind the descent and inheritance of the Crown or that this Act was not of sufficient force to bind limit and govern all Persons their Rights and Titles that in any way claim any Interest or possibility in or to the Crown of England in Possession Remainder Succession Inheritance or otherwise howsoever and every Person so holding or affirming after the decease of the Queen shall forfeit all his Goods and Chattels So that I can see no just reason you can have to refuse Swearing Allegiance to Their present Majesties and Their Successors according to the limitation in the said Act. M. Well I see it is in vain to argue these Points any longer with you since it would only force me to repeat the same things over again which will neither edifie you nor my self only give me leave to tell you this much that the last part of your Argument which is the only thing that is new in all your Discourse is founded upon a very wrong ground for though I should grant as I do not since this Act you last mentioned is expired that the Crown may be limited or intail'd by Act of Parliament contrary to the due Rules
Act that it is Declaratory of the former Laws of England made in King Henry the VII th and VIII ths and other Kings Reigns whereby the Succession of the Crown had been frequently entail'd upon those who were not the next Heirs by Blood and tho' the Queen be only mentioned in it yet it certainly as much concerns her Successors as all future Parliaments as the Oath of Allegiance in which the Queen is only mentioned does all future Kings and Queens And it is not only made Treason during her Life but also there is a loss of Goods and Chattels to be inflicted on all those who shall maintain after her decease that the Queen and Parliament had not Power to Limit the Succession And if the Parliament in her Reign could do this I desire to know whence it is that the present Parliament may not have the like Power As to what you alledge concerning the Judgment against the two Spencers being revers'd in â—1 th of Richard II. because done whilst Edward II. was still alive I desire you would take notice that this Parliament of Richard the Second was wholly made and pact by King Richard after the Banishment of the Dukes of Lancaster and Norfolk and that as well the Lords as Commons were in such fear of the Arbitrary Power he then exercised that they past whatever he would And in this Parliament it was that the Proceedings against the Chief Justice Tresilian and his fellow Judges who had been Condemned and Executed by Judgment in Parliament in the 11 th of this King were reverst And no prove the Illegality of this Parliament you need but consult the Statute-Book in 1 st of Henry the IV th where you will find one of the first Statutes after his coming to the Crown is to repeal all Acts and Proceedings made in that last Parliament of Richard the II d. M. I doubt this will not do the business for we maintain that Henry the IV th also his Son and Grand-Son were Usurpers and consequently all the Acts made in their Reigns were null and void F. I will grant you for once that Henry the IV th was an Usurper and that Edward the III d. was so also during his Fathers Life-time but then it doth not follow that all the Laws and Statutes made during those Times were null and void since you must needs know the contrary for even in that Parliament of the 21 th of Richard the II d. though 't is true that Judgment against the Spencers was revers'd for the Reason you have given yet did that Repeal extend to no other Statutes but that tho' made in the same Parliament of Edward the III d. whilst his Father was yet living But they are all of them held for good at this day as are also all the Statutes of the three Henry's whom you suppose to be Usurpers which have not been repealed by any subsequent Statutes as I can assure you those of the first of Henry the IV th are not and therefore are good Laws at this day So that nothing can be a plainer proof than this that let the King's Title to the Crown have been it would yet Allegiance was due to them as long as they continued in the Throne Therefore to conclude let me tell you I think it behoves you if you mean to keep that Office you hold under the Government to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties since you owe your Protection to their Government which certainly deserves a Temporary Allegiance as long as you enjoy the benefit of it And indeed the Oath it self is so loosly worded that methinks any Man may take it without any scruple since it doth no ways declare that the present King and Queen have an Hereditary Right to the Crown but only the Person swears to bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary which I think even Strangers and Denizens are bound to take as long as they continue in the Kingdom M. I am sorry you should think me after so long an acquaintance capable of doing any thing against my Conscience for any Worldly advantage whatsoever and therefore I must freely tell you that as for the Imployment I hold I will rather part with it if it were never so great than do any thing against my Conscience and that reputation I have hitherto maintained in the World of being an Honest Man And therefore I cannot take the Oath as a meer Denizen that owes Protection to the present Government Not only because this Oath is inconsistent with that I have already taken but also there is much more required of those that owe a Natural Allegiance to their rightful King than can be required of Strangers till they become Naturaliz'd by Act of Parliament And therefore it is that when any War breaks out between Neighbouring Princes all such Denizens who do not become absolute Subjects of this Kingdom by Naturalization if they will act like Honest Men must look upon themselves as oblig'd either to quit the Kingdom in case a War be declar'd against their natural Prince or at least are oblig'd not to act any thing to his prejudice though they may still inhabit and Traffick here which is a quite different Case from those who are not only born the King's Subjects but have also taken the Oath of Allegiance to him And therefore I can by no means think it Lawful to take this New Oath to King William and Queen Mary though it were required in no higher a sense than as King and Queen de facto since it can no ways consist with that Oath which I have already taken to King Iames and his right Heirs as I shall prove to you another time since it is now very late from the true sense and meaning of those words I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance c. which can only be sworn to such Kings and Queens who besides a bare Possession have also a Legal and Hereditary Right to the Crown F. I shall be very glad to hear you farther upon this Question for if that can be made out I fear too many of the Clergy as well as Laity by mistaking the true Sense of this Oath have been Forsworn But pray tell me when I shall wait on you and hear what you have further to say upon this Important Subject M. Pray let me see you two or three days hence and then I shall be at leisure in the mean time am your humble Servant F. And I am yours FINIS Bibliothera Politica OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE On these following Questions I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto or for the time being II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever or else to a bare submission to their Power III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance
or for the time being may not be legally defended in the Throne for as for that part of the Oath which was taken to King Iames himself it can hold no longer than whilst he continued King If therefore the Estates of the Kingdom have adjudged him to have forfeited or abdicated the Crown the whole Nation ought to take this as to have been legally done since it was done by the judgment of the highest Authority in the Nation when King Iames had deserted the Throne the like I may also say for the other part of the Oath of Allegiance whereby we are obliged to his Heirs and Lawful Successors for since there has been a dispute concerning the succession of the Crown between the Princess of Orange and your Prince of Wales if the Convention who are the sole proper Judges in this Case have thought fit for the reasons I have already given you at our last Meeting to declare King William and Queen Mary the lawful King and Queen of England all the Nation ought to accept them for such since it was done by the highest Authority at that time extant in the Nation and the only proper Judges of that right and if disputes about legal rights of which certainly that of succeeding to the Crown is of the highest importance ought to be decided by Law and not by the Sword which is not the decision of civil Authority but of force the sentence of competent Judges must end the dispute and if the Estates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of such Disputes that concern the right to the Crown there can be none and if they be Subjects must acquiesce in their Judgments or it is all one as if there had been none for if Men may pretend Conscience and adhere to their own private Opinions as sole Judges the dispute must end in blows which is contrary to the reason and nature of humane Societies which were instituted to prevent Civil Wars and to end all Controversies by a legal Judgment without the Sword And to let you see farther that as to the Allegiance of the Subjects it is all one in respect of us who are Subjects whether the Convention have judged right or wrong in this case Let us suppose a Person who has only a pretence but no true right to an Estate should commence a Suit of Law for it and at last obtaine a Verdict of the Jury and also a Judgment of the Court of Kings-Bench for his Title can any Man deny but that the Sheriff is by vertue of this Verdict and Judgment oblig'd to put this Abator into possession of this Estate notwithstanding he may know of his own knowledge that the person who has obtain'd this Judgment has no true right to the Estate or will any Lawyer doubt whether all the Tenants of the Mannour are not oblig'd to swear homage and fealty to this suppos'd Lord if they are required by him so to do Now though the true Heir or owner has the legal right to the Estate yet by the supream Law of all Societies which refers the decision of all personal rights to a legal Authothority he who by a legal judgment is possessed of it has the legal right in the Estate against all other claims and legal Authority must desend him in it and all who will submit to Laws and Legal Authority must acquiesce in it And thus it must be with respect to the Rights of Princes as well as of Subjects the right to the Crown has been often disputed as we all know and to say that when such disputes happen there is no Authority in the Nation to decide them is to say that Princes have no rights to their Crowns by the Laws of that Nation for there can be no Civil Rights of which there neither are nor can be any Civil Judges for no man no not a Prince can be judge in his own Cause and if Princes have no legal rights they can lose no legal rights when they lose their Crowns and I doubt their natural rights swill affect the Consciences of very few Subjects Therefore every independent Civil Society which is not wholly governed by the Sword must from the nature of such Societies and the reason of their institution have authority within it self to decide all Controversies which may arise about the rights of every member of that Society and to preserve it self from falling into a state of War which is a dissolution of all Civil Government and if there ought to be such an Authority in every Civilized Nation when this Supream Authority has given sentence in such Disputes this must also determine all the Subjects and ought likewise to have the same effect upon the contending Princes themselves and no right or pretence of right ought to affect the Conscience after such a final Judgment unless Civil Rights can oblige Subjects to dissolve Civil Governments and to dispute Civil Rights not by the Law but by the Sword which is to overthrow all Civil Rights and put an end to the Authority of Laws I hope this may serve to shew you how much you are mistaken to suppose that there can be no King in an hereditary Monarchy but the next lineal Heir and tho' I grant no Allegiance can be due or ought to be paid to him who is no King yet will it not follow that none can be due to any Prince if he be not the next heir for that no obedience can be due to him who is no King I readily grant but yet he may be a legal King in this Kingdom who is not the next Heir by blood as almost half of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not and yet have been always own'd and obey'd as legal Kings M. I confess what you say would go a great way to satisfie me could you prove that there was no difference between the succession to Crowns and private inheritances where I grant that the judgement of the Supream Court of the Nation is to determine not only the possession but the right too in respect of the person who loses his Estate by an unjust verdict or illegal judgment whereas it is otherwise in the Title of Crowns to which Princes have a right as well by the Laws of God and Nature as also by the receiv'd setled Laws and Customs of the Kingdom concerning the Succession by descent which is call'd in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth in the Statute we have so much debated at our last Meeting the Common Laws of this Realm and it is there declared that it ought to direct the right of the Crown of England and it is there made Treason during the Queens life to affirm the contrary and this course of lineal Succession at Common Law was also declar'd by solemn judgment in Parliament in the case I have so often urg'd of the Duke of York's Title to the Crown against Henry the VIth that it could no way be defeated by
Nation as I have already sufficiently made out And therefore though I grant that all Legal Authority ought still to go according to just or rightful Titles yet since God makes no Kings at this day â—ut those who are made Kings by some humane Acts and have a legal right to Kingship by some humane Laws Now how can you prove from hence that in England none can have a legal right to govern but those who have the rightful Title of a Lineal Succession for if the Title alone does not conferr the the Authority but that the Law says a legal investiture by Coronation and Recognition by Parliament shall also conferr it it is evident that an Hereditary Title and a Legal Authority may be separated and yet the Authority continue Legal still for Legal Authority must be conveyed in such manner and by such forms as the Law has prescribed or appoints to that purpose for there is no other way of conveying it and then that Authority which is so given in form of Law and that only is the Legal Authority If then the Estates of the Realm who are the only proper Judges of such Disputes have adjudged the Crown to one whom we will at present suppose to have no antecedent legal Title to it yet he thereby becomes legally possessed not only of the external force and power but of the legal Authority of the Government also and therefore he may challenge as his due all Legal Obedience which is the true notion of Allegiance for nothing more than Legal Obedience can be due to a meer Legal Authority so that because he is invested with the Legal Authority the Crown is his Legal Property against all other Claims and his Subjects must defend him in it as the Legal Properties of private Persons being once determined by Judgements of inferiour Courts of Law are also to be defended by the Civil Power against the force of him who perhaps may have the better Title to the Estate by right of blood And if God makes Kings by humane Acts I hope it is no injustice in God to make him a King whom the Law makes a King and to enjoyn our Obedience to a Legal King which Legal Authority may be said to be annexed to the Legal Title while there is no Legal Judgement against it which was not the Case of Queen Mary and the Lady Iane her Competitor nor yet of King Charles the Second and Oliver Cromwell since neither the one ' or the other were ever Crowned or acknowledged as Lawful Queen or King by Parliament and therefore could obtain no Legal Title against the Right Heirs but on the other side when one is solemnly declar'd King or Queen being Crown'd or plac'd on the Throne by the Estates of the Realm he is then Legal King and has the Legal Authority as the Royal Estate and Dignity was owned to be in Henry the VIth when the Duke of York claimed the right to the Crown M. I am not yet convinc'd I am mistaken in this matter for waving at present any Natural or Divine Rights of Princes I think this Act of Henry the VIIth if suppos'd to be now in force is no ways to be reconcil'd with the former declar'd Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom much less can this last pretended Act of Recognition of King William and Queen Mary reverse the Statute of Recognition made to King Iames the First whereby the Parliament does not only own him for true and lawful King by descent from Henry the VIIth and Edward the IVth but also engaged themselves and their Posterities to his Majesty and his Royal Progeny for ever And they do likewise conclude in these words I have not yet mention'd which Act if Your Majesty shall be pleased as an argument of your gracious acceptation to adorn with your Majesties Royal Assent without which it can neither be compleat and perfect nor remain to all Posterity according to our most humble desires as a Memorial of your Princely and tender affection towards us we shall add this also to the rest of our Majesties unspeakable and inestimable benefits Here they plainly acknowledge these two things First that the Crown descendâ— by proximity of blood and that immediately even before any Ceremony of Coronation or otherwise so that there can be no inter-regnum or vacancy of the Throne and accordingly it is a maxim in Law that Rex non meritur Secondly That the Assent of the King is that which gives the life being and vigour to the Laws without which they are of no force therefore I shall plainly prove these Acts to the contrary to be void It is a Maxim in our Civil as well as your common Law ' that every Sâ—natus-Consultum or Decree of the Senate as also every Statute or Act of Parliament must be abrogated and repeal'd by the same Authority by which it was made since therefore that Act of the first of Edward the IVth whereby he was declar'd to be Lawful King as descended from Lâ—â—nel Duke of Clarence third Son of Edward the Third by Philippa his Daughter and Heir and that Henry the Fourth and Henry the Sixth who had successively held the Crown were Usurpers and only pretended Kings it would necessarily follow that none can after this so Solemn Law and Declaration lawfully succeed to the Crown of this Realm but such as have a true and just right as Heirs by blood according to the course of descent allow'd of by the common Laws of this Kingdom and therefore Henry the VIIth being an Usurper and enjoying no more than a Matrimonial Crown could not joyn with a Parliament in making any Law contrary to that of the first of Edward the IVth which had been so solemnly past and setled in Parliament by a King whose Title was by descent indisputable So likewise in the matter now in dispute between us I can never apprehend how a pretended Statute made in a Convention and not in a Lawful Parliament summon'd by the King can first declare the Throne vacant and then appoint those to fill it who certainly can have no just Title to it according to that Act of Recognition of King Iames which expresly declares that they themselves could not have made that Act to be compleat and perfect to remain to all posterity without his Royal Assent which being once past into a Law by a King whose Title was indisputable can never afterwards be alter'd if ever it can be at all but by a Parliament as legally call'd and that by a King whose Title is also as Legal as that of King Iames the First 's this Objection though I have often urg'd in other words yet could I never yet obtain a satisfactory answer from you F. Though I have already in part answer'd this Objection at our last Meeting and have also partly done it already in this yet since I see you so much insist upon it and do also urge it again in other words with a fresh
and sober Morals and of a quiet different Interest to those imploy'd in the two last Reigns and therefore I am so far from taking away the present Oath of Allegiance that I rather wish that there were a new one more strict and full then the present ordain'd to be taken by all those who shall take Offices and Employments of Trust or Profit whereby they should not only declare their present Majesties to be true and lawfull King and Queen of this Realm but also that they will defend them against all their Enemies King Iames himself not excepted M. I confess I cannot expect so great a Tenderness from this Government which has been introduced by so much Artifice that they should absolutely take away all Oaths of Allegiance whatsoever since I doubt not but it will assume to it self all those advantages which any former usurped Power could pretend to yet this much I must needs tell you as a Friend the depriving those Bishops and Dignified Clergymen who shall refuse this new Oath will be highly ungrateful since many of them have been as violent opposers of Popery and Arbitrary Government as any Men in England as appears by their late Petition to the King if therefore the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops I know to be so averse to this Oath should be deprived upon the refusal of it since it will be done uncanonically by the Temporal Power of an Act of this Convention without the Sentence of the two Houses of Convocation I doubt that it will be thought by many to be a sufficient Cause of departing from the present Church Communion and of seting up distinct Congregations by those who will be deprived and turned out of their Livings for refusing this Oath and what the consequence of that may prove God knows But whereas you think this present new Oath not full enough and therefore wish there were another made declaring the present King and Queen to be lawfully and rightfully so c. since this would amount to as good as an Oath of Abjuration of King Iames and his Title I doubt it were better let alone for I do not think the present Government will get any thing by it since the intent of the Oath you propose can only serve either to gain the present Government more new Friends or else to fix the old ones faster to it or else to discover secret Enemies now if I can prove it will not serve for any of these three ends I suppose you will grant that it were better to let it alone now that it will be so far from gaining it more Friends that it will rather serve to drive away a great many from it is apparent since many men are now in Offices and Imployments who think they may lawfully take this new Oath of Allegiance as long as the present King and Queen are not therein declared to be lawfully and rightfully so and I believe may serve them faithfully enough in their several stations who if they should come to be put to it to declare and swear that they were rightful and lawful King and Queen would rather lose their places than take it neither will it fix those that are for this Government faster to it since those that are zealous for it will be so whether they took any Oath or not and I have already proved that by the word Allegiance in this Oath it is implied that the present King and Queen are to be defended as lawfully so by the Swearer to it which is the main reason that I and those of my Opinion can by no means think it lawful to take it Nor lastly will it discover any secret Enemies to your Government since those who being rightly instructed in the true sence of this Oath and what is thereby required shall notwithstanding take it against their Conscience will I doubt take any Oath whatever the Convention shall think fit to impose since nothing but the fear of losing their present Imployments or else the desire of getting new ones could have made them take the Oath as it is since to my knowledge it hath been taken by many now in Places much against their own judgement and I doubt the conviction of their Consciences too I speak this only in relation to some of loose Principles but as to my self and many more of my Acquaintance who refuse this Oath we should be so far from taking any Place of Trust under this Government that we should not do it tho' no Oath were at all required of us since I think it not only wicked and dishonourable for any honest man to serve a Party only to watch an opportunity to betray it but I also believe my self obliged by my former Oaths as well as the duty of a natural Allegiance which I owe the King and his right Heirs not to serve those whom we look upon as Usurpers of their just Rights But if you would also have this new Oath to be an absolute abjuration of the King and his Title it will not only be unjust but impossible since who can tell but either by the help of a foreign Force or the general consent of the Nation tired out by a long expensive War either his Majesty or the Prince of Wales may be again placed upon the Throne and then sure whenever they shall call a Parliament to recognize their Title they will be even according to your own hypothesis more lawful and rightful Kings than King William and Queen Mary since they will not be only Kings de facto but de jure too and therefore I believe it was out of this Consideration that in all those long and various Contests which so often happen'd between Competitors for the Crown they never presumed to proposed to the Parliament the passing any Act to impose an Oath to abjure the Title or Person of the Rival Prince Thus in all the long Wars between King Stephen and Maud the Empress as also between the two Houses of York and Lancaster each of whom as they prevail'd in their turns were very well contented to make the Subjects take the ordinary Oath of Fidelity to themselves without abjuring each others Title and even in the later times of the Rump Parliament when the most violent and hot-headed Commonwealths-Men would have imposed an Oath of Abjuration of Charles Stuart and all his Family as they then termed his late Majesty the most Wise and Moderate Men among them such as Lenthal their Speaker and others stifly oppos'd it saying it would be a fighting against Providence to take an Oath never to own his Majesty for their King if once he should come in again without their assistance and I think there is as much if not more reason now against such an Oath of Abjuration as ever there was then F. I cannot deny but you have spoken like an honest Man in absolutely refusing to act under this Government though without an Oath unless you could be satisfied of
E. I. ib. p. 554. Rot. cl 31. Ed. III. ib. p. 555. Rot. Pat. 54 H. III. ib. 573. Rot. Wal. 11. Ed. I. ib. 574.575 Rot. cl 28. E. I. Rot. Pat. 8. Ed. II. ib. 576. Rot. Pat. 52. H. III. ib. p. 578. Bundel Brev. 5. Ed. II. Rot. Pat. 40. Ed. III. ib. p. 581. Rot. Pat. 2. H. V. ib. p. 582. Placit Parl. 18. E. I. Rot. Parl. 18. Ed. III. ib. p. 584. inter Com. brev in Scac. 34. Ed. I. Prins Par Reg. p. 26.28.30 Ed. I. ib. p. 586. Parl. Reg. 8. Ed. II. 887. Rot. cl 15. E. II. Rot. cl 2. E. III. Rot. cl 50. E. III. p. 588. Rot. Pat. 42. E. III. p. 599. Rot. Pat. 17. Ed. III. Rot. Parl. 51. E. III. p. 605. A Regency W. legal or practicable in England upon King James's departure D. 12. p. 877. Religion in what Cases we are bound to suffer for it without any resistance D. 4. p. 222. to 235. The Remedies against Tyranny the People of England can have without Resistance considered D. 4. p. 262. to 664. Resistance of Fathers Husbands and Masters by their Wives Children and Servants W. ever lawful D. 1. p. 41. to 44. to 52.60 Resistance of the Supream Powers in what cases absolutely lawful D. 3. p. 146. to 149 D. 4. p. 270. In what cases absolutely unlawful D. 3. p. 176 177. All the evil Consequences of such Resistance considered D. 4. p. 261. to 264. D. 9. p. 649 659 to 666. W. All resistance be forbidden by God in the Old Testament D. 3. p. 190. to the end W. Forbidden by the word of God in the New Testament D. 4. p. 220. to 264. W. Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England Ib. p. 283. Resistance of the King and those in Commission by him W. absolutely â—orbid by the Statute of the seventh of Edward the First against bearing of Arms D. 8. p. 612. W. Contrary to the 25th of Edward the Third concerning Treasons Ib. to the end Resistance of Arbitrary Power in our Kings W. lawful both before and since the Conquest D. 9. p. 615 to 637. Such Resistance granted to be lawful by some of our Kings themselves D. 9. p. 617.620.622 Rights and Liberties of the Subject what they are D. 9. p. 666 to 669. Rolls Clause how many wanting in the Reigns of King John and Henry the Third D. 7. p. 517 518. S Sapientes its signification in Ancient Histories D. 6. p. 377. Late Schism upon the Deprivation of the Bishops W. justifiable D. 13. p. 963 to 966. Scotland W. it s ancient constitution were the same with England D. 7. p. 503. to 505. D. 8. p. 559. W. None but Tenants in Capite ever appeared at the Great Councils of the Kingdom Ib. to 510. Scutage Service W. different from a Scutage Tax D. 7. p. 439. to 440.479 to 481. Sermons for the Kings Absolute Power censured in Parliament D. 1. p. 5. Servants and Sons W. all one in the State of Nature D. 1. p. 54. Sheriffs Pardoned by Act of Parliament for holding above one year D. 12. p. 821. States General of the Vnited Provinces W. their making War upon King James the Second were justifiable D. 11. p. 781 782. Ancient Statutes W. the three Estates have not always given their Assent to them as well as the King D. 5. p. 330. to 348. Notwithstanding the different forms of Penning them Ibid. D. 7. p. 484 485.525.528 529. Statue of the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh Cap. 1. W. still in force D. 13. p. 909. to 933. Statute of the Thirteenth of Elizabeth Chap. 1. W. still in force D. 12. p. 894. to 898. All Statutes though made by Vsurpers W. they hold good till repeal'd D. 12. p. 909 911 912. Doctor Stories Case D. 13. p. 950. Subjects how different from Slaves D. 4. p. 251. to 261. W. Particular Subjects may resist the Supream Powers for satisfaction of their own private injuries D. 4. p. 252. Succession to Crowns no certain procepts to be found about it in Scripture or the Law of Nature D. 2. p. 89. to 90. Succession to the Crown of England W. always Hereditary since the Conquest without any vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 839 to 875. Sufferings of Christ how far an Example to us D. 4. p. 227. to 233. Suffering for Religion without Resistance when necessary Ib. p. 231. T Tenants in Capite W. they were all Barons D. 6. p. 399.400 W. They could anciently Tax the whole Kingdom at their pleasure as well the Lands held of them as what was not D. 7. 440.479 to 483.500 W. They or else Tenants by Knights service were anciently the only Persons who served upon Iuries D. 10. p. 741. to 746. W. They represented all their under Tenants in Parliament D. 7. p. 512. Tenants in Sâ—â—age W. they were bound by the Acts of those of whom they held their Estates D. 6. p. 420. Tenants in Demesne claimed to be discharged from the Knights Wages by prescription D. 8. p. 588 589. Tenure by Knights service W. in use before King Wil. I. D. 10. p. 750 751. A new Test Oath opposed by a great party of the Poeâ—s in the Reign of King Charles the Second D. 9. p. 659. Testaments W. valid in the meer State of Nature D. 2. p. 86 87 91. The several Texts of Scripture made use of for or against absolute Non-resistance examined viz. in the Old Testament D. 3. p. 190. to the end Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament urged for the like purpose D. 4. p. 220. to 279. Thanes the ancient signification of that Title discussed D. 6. p. 374. to 379. The divers sorts of them amongst the English Saxons D. 5. p. 370. Treason against the Kingdom anciently as well as against the King D. 5. p. 344. Trials by Combate W. in use before the Conquest D. 10. p. 758. Trust committed by the People to the Supream Powers W. unaccountable and irrevocable D. 3. p. 152.154 Insupportable Tyranny W. worse than the State of Nature Ib. 155. Tyrants W. Ordained of God D. 4. 245 246. U Vavasors or mesne Tenants W. anciently reckon'd as part of the Baronage of the Kingdom D. 6. p. 405 406. Universitas Baronagii Angliae Regni what it signified and W. the Commons were comprehended under that Title D. 6. p. 408 409 415 416. Universitas Communis the meaning of that Phrase in Matthew Paris D. 7. p. 470. W. It comprehended no more than the less Tenants in Capite Ib. 471. Primate Ushers Opinion in his Treatise of the Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject considered D. 4. p. 271 272. Vsurpers by Sir R. Filmers Principles to be obeyed before the Lawful Prince and his Heirs D. 2. p. 126 127. When Vsurpers may be obeyed before the Lawful Prince and his Heirs D. 4. p. 246. Usurpation W. it gives a rightful Title after three Generations D. 2. p. 128. Vulgus what that word signified in the
he could not have brought his whole design within the compass of Eight Dialogues as he at first intended and still hopes to do and therefore to ease you of the trouble of buying or reading more Discourses on these Subjects then what he takes to be absolutely necessary he hath reduced all that he had prepared for the Fifth Discourse upon the Subject above mentioned into the two last Dialogues wherein he designs to treat of the Justice and Lawfulness of the late Revolution and the Settlement of the Crown upon their present Mâ—jesties where the then Questions he intended to treat of will properly enough fall in But it is time to speak somewhat concerning this present Discourse since it treat of a Question to be decided only from the History and Laws of this Nation And the Author bids me assure you that he hath lay'd down nothing therein on either side but what he hath produced good Authorities for either from the Histories and Governments of our own or other Neighbouring Nations or from the Colleâ—â—ions of our English Saxon Laws and ancient as well as modern Writers upon the Laws of England and lastly from our Statutes or Acts of Parliament since the reputed Conquest which he found necessary to these Subjects without omitting any Authority that he judged material to be urged on either side But as for the Quotations themselves I hope they are truly cited for the Author assures me upon the word of a Geâ—tleman that he is not conscious of any unfair dealing in that kind either by any wilful omission or concealment and as for the Books Chapters or Pages here quoted if there be any error or mistake of that kind I pray impute it to the Press and not to the Author as well in this as all the rest of these Discourse since he could not be in Town to correct them himself but he intends God willing to rectifie all such mistakâ—s by a Table of Errata at the end of the whole work to which he intends also to add an Exact Index of all the Principal Matters that are debated in it but though I take the Author for an honest Gentleman and one who scorns the mean advantage of a false Quotation yet since many Writers like Montebanks are apt to cry up their own sincerity even when they deceive you most the best advice I can give you is that if you have the leâ—st distrust of any thing here quoted you consult the Authors or Books themselves from whence he hath transcribed them and then you will be best able to judge how far you may trust him another time As for those Parliamentary Records here cited they are either such as have been already Printed from the Rolls in the Tower or other Offices at Westminster and so are allowed for Authentic or else are sâ—ch as have not yet been made publick as for which as well as the former if you have the least distrust of any of them I leave you to search the Records themselves which are I hope now communicated without any reserve to all that are willing to take the pains to consult them I have no more to add but to assure you not from my own but better Iudgments that you will find more in this small Treatise than ever was yet publisht at once or perhaps at all upon these important Subjects Note If the Author hath made one of his Opponents call the Entrance of King William 1. into England and his taking the Crown upon the same condition as his English Predecessors a Conquest it may be understood in the largest Acceptation of that word and for Brevity sake only Authors made use of and how Denoted 1. Harmony of Divinity and Law H. D. L. 2. Dr. Iohnstons Excellency of Monarchical Government I. E. M. G. 3. Huntons Treatise of Monarchy H. T. M. 4. Sir R. Filmers Freeholders Grand Inquest F. F. G. Anarchy of a mixt Monarchy F. A. M. M. 5. Dr. Heylin's Stumbling-Block of Rebellion S. B. R. The Folio Edition 6 Mr. Petyt's Preface to his Ancient Rights of the Commons of England Asserted P.P.R.C. 7. Dr. Brady's Answer to the said Treatise B. A. P. The Folio Edition THE Fifth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman M. YOU are welcom Sir I pray set down by the Fire I was thinking before you came in of the best method of managing this Important Question whether by the Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom it can in any Case whatever be Lawful to Resist the King or those that Act by Vertue of his Commissions I shall therefore proceed in the next place to the Proof of the Second Proposition in the Argument I at first proposed or to speak Logically the Minor in the Syllogism viz. That the King of England is the Sole Supream or Soveraign Power in this Kingdom and therefore is irresistible and that not only as to his own Person but also with respect to all such who act by his Orders or Commissions though the things commanded be in themselves Illegal F. I do not dislike your method though if you could never so plainly make out to me the truth of this Minor Proposition yet it will come too late to prove that all Resistance of Supream Powers is unlawful in all Cases whatever since I think you have failed in the Proof of that your fiâ—st Proposition But since I do not deny the truth of this second Proposition in some sense I pray be as short as you can in the proof of it M. I shall observe your desire and shall briefly recite some Authorities as well Ancient as Modern as also Acts of Parliament which declare an Absolute and Imperial Power to be Solely in the King To begin with the Saxon times First as to the Title of King or Emperour used Promiscuously Our King Edgar frequently in his Charters caâ—s himself Albionis Anglorum Baâ—ileus and the Grecians esteemed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be of full as Eminent a Signification as Emperour and King Edâ—arâ— the Confessor in a Charter to the Abby of Peterburg Stiles himself Rex Anglorum and his Government a Monarchy And King Ethelred in his Charter to Canterbury Stiles himself Angligenum Orcadarum necnon in Gyrojacentium Monarcha Anglorum Induperator So that you hereby may see that the Kings of England long before the Conquest look'd upon themselves as Emperors or absolute Civil Soveraigns So likewise after that time we find W. Rufus Dates his Charter to the Monastry of Shaftsbury Secundo anno Imperiâ— mei And tho' the Title of Emperor hath bin disused yet we shall find the Substance of it sufficiently Challenged in that Letter of W. Rufus to Archbishop Anselm telling him That he had all the Liberties in his Kingdom which the Emperor challenged in the Empire And the like was challenged by Henry the First in all his Disputes with the Pope concerning the Investiture of Bishops and Abbots
and in all the Statutes of Praemunire made by Edward the Third the King's Soveraignty independent from the See of Rome is expresly Asserted and the Statute of the 16th of Richard the Second expresly declares That the Crown of England hath ever bin so free that it is under no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the Crown and to no other And the Statutes of the 24th and 25th of Henry the Eighth expresly declare That this Realm of England is an Empire Governed by one Supream Head and King and the Crown or Royal Authority is also thereby declared Imperial and the Kings of England are therein Stiâ—ed Kings or Emperors of this Realm So that I think no Man needs to doubt where the Supream or Soveraign Power of this Kingdom resides F. I will not deny any of those Authorities you have now made use of Since Titles alone are no proofs of Power for it is very well known that the Germane Emperor yet notwithstanding that great Title is not therefore Vnaccountable or Irresistible Since the Colledge of the Princes Electors may Depose him for Male-administration or for Violating any of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Empire And Mr. Selden hath very well observed in his Titles of Honour that this Supremacy or Freedom from all Subjection is not only challenged by our English Soveraigns but also by the Kings of Denmark Sweden and Poland The former of which yet was so far from being an absolute Monarch that before the Reign of this King's Father he might have bin Deposed for Tyranny for Misgovernment by the Estates of the Kingdom as the King of Poland may at this Day And therefore these Titles may indeed prove a Freedom from all Foreign Jurisdiction but doth not prove that the King is Endued with an Absolute Soveraign Power within the Kingdom as you may see in these Examples I have now given you M. If you are not Satisfied with these Proofs I doubt not but to give you other Authorities both out of Antient and Modern Lawyers as also Acts of Parliament which sufficiently declare where the Supream or Soveraign Power Resides In the first place I suppose you will not deny but that it hath bin the Prerogative of the Kings of England time out of mind to Coâ—â— Money Dispose of all Offices and Create new Dignities as he should think fit as also to make War and Peace to make Laws and in short to do all things whatsoever that are Essential to a Monarch and that he alone is the Sole Soveraign Power in this Kingdom Exclusive of all others Our Ancient Lawyers Glaâ—vil and Fortescue plainly declare The former of which says thus Rex nullum â—abâ—re potest parem multò minùs Superiorem The same thing is also repeated by Bracton and a very good Reason given for it in these words Omnis quidem sub eo ipse sub nullo nisi tantum Sub Deo parem non habet in Regno Suo quia Sic amitteret praeceptum cum par in parem non â—abeâ— Imperium Item nâ—c multò fortius Superiorem nec Potentiorem habere debeâ— quia sic esset inferior sibi Subjectis inferiores pares esse non possunt potentioribus F. But pray read what immediately follows Ipse autem Rex non debet esse Sub bomine Sed Sub Deo Sub Lâ—ge quia Lex facit Regem attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit ei viz. Dominatiorem Potestatem non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Voluntas â—on Lex And though I grant the King is Subject or Inferior to no particular private Man Yet that he hath a Superior or Master within the Kingdom besides God and the Law and so is not the Sole Supream Power appears by a Passage out of the same Author in the Second Book Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam Suam viz. Comites Barones quia Comites dicuntur quasi Sociè Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum ideo si Rex fuerit sinâ— froena i. e. Lego debent ei froenum ponere From which words it seems apparent to me that this Author thought the King was not only Inferior to the Law but was also to his Court of Parliament called here Curia Baronâ—â— who might Bridle or Restrain him if he Transgres't the Laws which are here called the King's Briale Nor can I conceive how this could be done without some kind of Force or Constraint if he refuse to receive this Bridle they would lay upon him M. I do not desire at this time to enter upon this Question concerning that Power which I know some Parliaments have pretended too of Câ—â—bing and Resisting the King by force if they supposed He Invaded the Fundamental Rights and Lâ—bâ—râ—ies as they call them of the Nation and that foâ— two Reasons First because it is not pertinent to our present purpose of proving that the King is not the Sole Supream Power as also because you very well know that both Houses did in 13 Car. 2. by an Act of Parliament concerning the Militia Solemnly Renounce all Coercive Power over the King or any Right in either or both of the Two Houses of making Offensive or Defensive War against him But if you have a mind hereafter to course further on this Subject I doubt not but to prove to you from divers other Passages out of Bracton and that old Treatise called Fleta that it was no Political Superiority in the Curia Baronum but only a Directive Power or moral Superiority which they had of Advertizing the King of any Arbitrary Proceeding or Injustice he should happen to do and by Complaint Admonition and Entreating to impose upon him to amend the same according to his Oath but not by Coaction or Constraint And in this Sense they may be said in a Moral way to put the Bridle of the Law upon him which may be called Civil Resistance but as for Military Resistance against an Unjust King it is as Inconsistent with our English Government as with any other Monarchy in the World But you very much mistake if you suppose that the King of England is not Supream because he is Limited by Laws which realy is no Objection Because a Soveraign without any Diminution to his Soveraignty may be limited in the Exercise of his Soveraign Power either by his own Acts or Condescensions or else by those of his Predecessors under whom he claims This is so certain that there is no Supream Power in Heaven or in Earth which is not limited and confined in the exercise thereof Thus the Omnipotent Power of God himself is limited by his own Wisdom Goodness and Justice which are himself So likewise the Powers of all Absolute unlimited Monarchs are only so comparatively with respect to positive Laws but as for the Laws of God and Nature which
England at this day M. I shall not farther dispute this matter at this time therefore pray go on to the rest of your Authorities out of our English Historians proving that any Knights Citizens and Burgesses appeared in Parliament before the times we allow them to have been there F. Tho I think I have sufficiently at our last Meeting from the Charters of King Iohn and Henry the 3 d as also from the Words Communitas and le Commune that the Common Council of the Kingdom consisted of many more Members than your Tenants in Capite yet to let you see that the Historians and Armalists of those times did comprehend all the several Orders under the general Titles of Clerus and Populus or Magnates and Proceres you may see in the Chron. of Thom. Wikes A. D. 1237. Where it is only said in general that the Clerus and Populus Regni did in that Year being the 9 th of Henry the 3 d grant the King a 30 th of all their Moveables for the Confirmation of Magna Charta and which is more remarkable the Parliament which was held in 1264. being 49 th of this King is onely thus mentioned by this Author in an historical way transacto siquidem viceâ—mo die Nâ—tivitatis Dominicae sacta est London pes Comitem seil Leyeestriae Convocatio non minima Procerum Anglicorum c. Where in the Annals of Waverly in this Year it is onely said Factum est Parliamentum magnum Londonia c. Now pray observe that either the Commons are mentioned by Wikes under the Name of Proceres or not at all and that under the Word Parliamentum the Commons were then comprehended appears by the Agreement between the King and the Barons there extant which is said to be made De unanimi assensu voluntate nostra sâ—ili Regis Edwardi Filii nostri Praeletorum Vomitum Baronum Communitatis dicti Regni nostri now it must be granted since it appears by the Writs of Summons of 49 H. 3. that the Commons were there and consequently must be comprehended under this Phrase of Communitatis Regni and if this had been the first time they had been summoned 't is strange none of these Authors should take any notice of so remarkable an Alteration and change of the Constituent parts of our English Parliaments But that the Knights Citizens and Bâ—rgesses were also summoned in the next year in a Parliament of the 50 th of this King you may see in the said Wikes Chronicle Ann. Dom. 1265. where He sets down all the Constituent Estates of Parliament which were summoned to meet at Westminster at the Translation of St. Edwards Reliques in these Words Convocatis universis Angliae Praelatis Magnatibus nec non cunctarum Regni sui Civitatum paritir Burgorum potentioribus ut Translationis Solemnia Celebrius illustrarent wherethe Knights of Shires are comprehended under Magnates and the Citizens and Burgesses are here stiled Potentiores Civitatum Burgorum And that this was not only for a meer Ceremony but for Parliament Business also see the next page where he tells us Celebratae tundem tuntae translationis solemnitate â—â—perunt Nobiles i. e. all the Estates above mentioned ut assolent Parliamentationis genere de Regis Regni negotiis pertracture c. And in which Parliament the King so far prevailed as to obtain a 20 th part of all Moveable Goods of the Laity And yet the Continuator of Mat. Paris in the Affairs of this year takes no notice of this Parliament but only says in General that St. Edwards Body was this Year translated into its new Shrine And the Annals of Waverly Printed in the same Volume under this Year make mention of this Parliament in general terms thus Facta Convocatione Episcoporum Comitum Baronum Abbatum Priorum multerum aliorum So uncertain a thing it is wholly to depend upon the general Expressions of Monkish Writers without comparing them and the Records together and considering the Subject matter about which they treat nor can we suppose that the Constituent parts of our Parliaments were shope and changed as often as they did their Phrases and ways of expressing the parts of them For they not foreseeing the differences that might arise about these matters had no Reason particularly to recite the Constituent Members or Estates of Parliament as often as they had occasion to mention them it being very well known who they were at that time But to prove further that it was not likely there was any Alteration in the Constituent parts of the Parliament from what it was in the 49 th may appear by his Writ still extant among the Parent Rolls of the 54 th of this King where it is expresly recited that it not seeming safe to the Praelatis Magnatibus Communicati Regni nostri that both Himself and his Son Prince Edward should be both out of the Kingdom at once in the Holy Land and that therefore he gives the whole Subsidy of a 20 th granted him by the whole Kingdom to his said Son and that it continued so in the beginning of Edward the firsts Reign appears by a Protestation in the 4 th of this King as it is found in the Patent Rolls wherein he recites a 15 th to have been granted him of all Moveables by the Comites Barones ac alii Magnates Communitas Regni nostri So that unless the Sense of these Words Communitas Regni must alter every Year there is no Reason for us to believe any change to have been in the Constituent parts of Parliament since the 49 th of Henry the 3 d. this I think may be sufficient to shew you that before the time you mention nor only the Knights of Shires but the Citizens and Burgesses did appear in Parliament both before your 49 th of Henry 3 d and 18 th of Edward I. M. I believe the Commons might be comprehended under the general Words Magnates Proceres by Wikes's Chronicle in the 49 th of Henry the 3 d or else not be mentioned at all which I rather incline to believe and I must also confess that the other Passage out of the same Author concerning the Citizens and Burgesses being summoned either to a great Council or Parliament in the Reign of Henry the 3 d is more than I before ever took notice of Yet since this Author does not tell us whether it was to the one or the other nor how many of them were there whether one onely or more for each City and Burrough Town or whether they were elected by the People or nominated by the King to appear there does not appear from this Author but as for the Words Communitas Regni mentioned in the Agreement of the 49 th of Henry 3 d tho it might signifie the Body of the Commons in that Record yet if they were not again summoned to Parliament till the 18 th of Edward the
wanting to the making such a Master of a Family a lawful and absolute Prince provided he was endued with such power as to be able to protect them yet all this while without supposing any new Divine Authority to be infused by God upon his accession to this Dignity M. I confess you have given me a more exact account concerning your sense of this matter than ever I had before and therefore I shall not further dispute this point with you only let me tell you that upon this Hypothesis of yours is founded that desperate Opinion concerning the real Authority or Majesty of the People which the Common-Wealths men suppose still to reside in the diffusive body thereof after the Government is Instituted And by vertue of which they suppose there still remains a power in them to call their Kings or Governours to an Account and punishing them for Tyranny or any other supposed Faults against the fundamental constitution of the Government or the Original Contract as those of your party are pleased to term it F. Well then to let you see I am none of those Common-Wealths men who maintain any such desperate Doctrine Here I do freely own that where the People have parted with their whole Power either to a Monarch or else to a Supream Council or Senate from thenceforth they have nothing at all to do to call such Governours to an Account or to punish them for the highest Tyranny or Oppression they can commit The utmost I have allowed as lawful to be done in this case in all the Conversations we have had is no more than this That the People in case they see themselves like to be destroy'd and ruin'd both in their Persoâ—â— Consciences and Estates may even under the most Absolute Governments stand upon their own defence and prevent their being thus totally ruined and may also cast off all Allegiance to such Powers in case they refuse to treat them with greater justice and moderation for the futureâ— But as for such limitted or mixt Governments as ours are where the People have still retain'd a share in the Legislature and also in the raising of publick Taxes yet since the King is by Law exempted from punishment or rendring any account of his Actions either to the People or their Representatives the utmost that I contend for is that since the King receives only a Limited Power of ruling according to such and such Laws and will Usurp that share of the Government that do's not belong to him In such cases if he refuse to amend then they may resist his Officers and Ministers nay himself in Person in the executions of such Violent and Illegal Actions And if he still prsist and rceâ—use to amend that then at last they may proceed to Declare that he hath forfeited his Crown or Regal Right of Ruling over them And then in such Case I hold that it again devolves to the People from whom it first proceeded and that this is no new Doctrine I have the Authority of Fortescut on my side who in his Treatise De Laudibusâ— Legum Angliae Where after having shewn that all Political or Limited Governments proceeded at first from the consent of the People proceeds thus Addressing himself to Prince Henry Son of King Henry the VI. For whom he composed this work Habâ—s ex hâ—c 〈◊〉 Princâ—â—s institutionis Politici Regni formam ex qâ—â— metiri poteris potestatem quam Rex eju◠〈◊〉 legis ipsius aut subditos valeat exercire Ad Tutelam â—amous legis ac subdit orum â—â—rum Corporum â—onorum Rex hujuâ—modi erectus est ad hanc Potestatem a Populo affluxam ipsi habet quo eiâ—noâ— licâ—t potestate aliâ suâ— Populâ— Dâ—minarâ— From whence we may observe that he calls the Government of this Kingdom not Regnum Simply but Regnum Politicum that is a Politick or Limited Kingdom in opposition to Regnum Absolutum made up of divers parts This he calls a â—ower flowing or proceeding from the People and if it thus proceeds from the People it must certainly return to them again upon the failure of the conditions to be performed on his part Noâ— do's this suppose any real Majesty or Authority in them who take this forfeiture any more than is â—o's suppose it in the People according to your own Hypothesis when the Civill Authority do's again devolve to them upon the Death of a King without Lawful Heirs M. I do now very well understand your Hypothesis but I think Princes are not thereby in a better condition by being thus unaccountable to and unpunishable by the people But that they are father in a much worse since you say they may resist nay kill them when they are once entered into a state of War against them For whereas where Princes are accountable to their People or Senate they may then be admitted to be heard to make their defence in case of any Oppression or Misgovernment laid to their charge As the King of Poland may at this day to the great Assembly of Estates or Dyeâ— of the Nation Whereas in the case of the King as you have put it though he is not accountable to the Parliament yet he is still lyable to that which is more dangerous viz. To be Judged Censured and Declared forfeit by every â—onsiderable fellow of the Rabble on pretence of violating this Original Contract and having broken the fundamental constitution of the Government and so shall be condemned unheard and perhaps without any just cause So that I think a man had as good be a Bâ—â—ward as a King upon such Term. F. The men of your Principles I see are not to be pleased unless Princes may do whatever they have a mind to without controul or any mans judging or opposing the Illegality of their Actions For if a Parliament takes upon its self to judge of the Kings Actions this is calling their Princes to an Account and a thing against the Laws of the Land as also that of Nations If the whole Body of the People take upon them to judge when he has violated the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and broken the Original Contract and thereupon resist him This is making the King liable to be Judged and Censured by every mean fellow of the Rabble But to let you see that both Judging and Disobeying the Kings commands if contrary to Law is not a thing of such dangerous consequence as you would make it appears by the late Petition of the Seven Bishops wherein they take upon them to Judge that the Kings 〈◊〉 Declaration of Liberty of Conscience being against several Acts of Parliament they cannot with a safe Conscience Publish it or agree to the Reâ—ding of â—t in the Churches Now I desire to know whether this be 〈◊〉 a making the Kings Actions liable to be Judged and Censured by every one of the Rabble since these Bishops acted thus neither as Privy Councellors noâ— as Peers in Parliamentâ— for by the