attempts So dangerous it is upon any pretence to put by the next in Succession to the Crown This Henry the first left but one Daughter and by her a young Son named Henry to whom he appointed the Succession of the Realm and took an Oath of all the Bishops and likewise of the Nobility to remain faithful unto them after his decease Yet you write that because Stephen Son of Adela Sister to King Henry was thought by the States more fit to govern he was by them admitted to the Crown In which assertion you cannot be deceived you do not err but your passion doth pull you from your own Knowledge and Judgement Polydore writeth that he possessed the Kingdom contrary to his Oath for which cause the minds of all men were exceedingly moved some did abhor and detest the impiety others and those very few unmindfull of Perjury did more boldly then honestly allow it and followed his part Further he saith that he was crowned at Westminster in an assembly of those Noble Men who were his Friends Nubrigensis affirmeth that violating his Oath he invaded the Kingdom William Malmesbury who lived in King Stephen's time saith that he was the first of all Lay-men next the King of Scots who had made Oath to the Empresse Maud and that he was Crowned three Bishops being present of whom one was his Brother no Abbot and a very few of the Nobility Henry Huntington who lived also in the same time saith that by force and impudence tempting God he invaded the Crown Afterward he reporteth that being desirous to have his Son Eustace Crowned King with him the Bishops withstood it upon Commandement from the Pope because he took upon him the Kingdom against his Oath Roger Hoveden writeth that he invaded the Crown in manner of a tempest This is the report of those Writers who came nearest both to the time and truth of this action whom other Authors do likewise follow Polydore and after him Hollingshead do write that he took upon him the Crown partly upon confidence in the power of Theobald his Brother Earl of Blois and partly by the aid of Henry his other Brother Bishop of Winchester Walsingham adaddeth that Hugh Bigot who had been King Henries Steward took an Oath before the Archbishop of Canterbury that King Henry at his death appointed Stephen to be his Successour Whereupon the Archbishop and a few others were over-lightly led like men blinded with security and of little foresight never considering of dangers until the means of remedy were past You write that they thought they might have done this with a good conscience for the good of the Realm But what good conscience could they have in defiling their faith Such consciences you endeavour to frame in all men to break an oath with as great facility as a Squirrell can crack a Nut. What good also did ensue unto the Realm The Nobility were set into factions the common people into division and disorder and as in Wars where discipline is at large there insolencies are infinite so in this confusion of the State there was no action which tended not to the ruin thereof the Lives and Goods of Men remaining in continual pillage Polydore saith Matrons were violated Virgins ravished Churches spoiled Towns and Villages rased much Cattle destroyed innumerable Men slain Into this miserable face of extremities the Realm did fall and into the same again you strive to reduce it But you say that for the ending of these Mischiefs the States in a Parliament at Wallingford made an Agreement that Stephen should be King during his life and that Henry and his Off-spring should succeed after his death A man would think you had a mint of Fables there is no History which you handle but you defile it with apish untruths All our Histories agree that King Stephen unable to range things into better form did adopt Henry to be his Successor The second Huntington saith that this agreement was mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester who repented him of the furtherance he gave to the advancement of King Stephen when he saw what Miseries did thereupon ensue The like doth Hoveden report and Holingshead setteth down the form of the Charter of agreement between them whereby it is evident that it was a transaction between them two and no compulsory act or authority of the State I deny not but some Authors affirm that the King assembled the Nobility but neither were they the States of the Realm neither were they assembled to any other end but to swear Fealty unto Henry saving the King's Honour so long as he should live After the death of King Richard the first you affirm that the Succession was again broken for that Iohn Brother to King Richard was admitted by the States and Arthur Duke of Britain Son to Geoffry Elder brother unto Iohn was against the ordinary course of Succession excluded Well Sir I arrest your word remember this I pray you for I will put you in mind thereof in another place That which here you affirm to be against the ordinary course of Succession you bring in another place for proof that the Uncle hath right before the Nephew You do wildy waver in variety of Opinion speaking flat contrary according as the Ague of your passion is either in fit or intermission The History of King Iohn standeth thus King Richard the first dying without issue left behind him a Brother named Iohn and a Nepew called Arthur Son of Geoffry who was Elder Brother unto Iohn This Arthur was appointed by King Richard to succeed in his Estate as Polydore writeth Nubrigensis saith that he should have been established by consent of the Nobility if the Britains had not been so foolishly either suspicious or fond that when King Richard sent for him they refused to commit him into his Uncles hands But after the death of King Richard his Brother Iohn seized upon his Treasure in Normandy came over into England and in an Assembly only of the Nobility was crowned King Of these many he won with such liberal Protestations and Promises as men careless of their word are wont to bestow others were abused by the persuasions of Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury and a few others saith Polydore not well advised Nic. Trivet saith that Iohn pretended for his Title not the election of the People but propinquity of Blood and the testament of King Richard The same also is affirmed by Walsingham And this is the Question between the Uncle and the Nephew of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter But Polydore saith That divers Noble-men did account this to be a fraudulent Injustice and thereupon did ominate those Evils which afterward did ensue And when the Archbishop was charged That under colour of Reason partly subborned and partly weak he had beene
ensign of the never-dying Majesty of the Crown In regard of this certain and incontinent succession the Glossographer upon the Decrees noteth That the Son of a King may be called King during the life of his Father as wanting nothing but administration wherein he is followed with great applause by Baldus Paenormitane Iason Carol. Ruinus Andreas Iserna Martinus Card. Alexander Albericus Fed. Barbatius Philip Decius and Ant. Corsetta Fra. Luca Matthe Afflict And the same also doth Servius note out of Virgil where he saith of Ascanius Regemque requirunt his Father Aeneas being yet alive But so soon as the King departeth out of life the Royalty is presently transferred to the next Successour according to the Laws and Customs of our Realm All Writs go forth in his Name all course of Justice is exercised all Offices are held by his Authority all States all Persons are bound to bear to him Allegeance not under supposal of approbation when he shall be Crowned according to your dull and drousie conjecture but as being the true Soveraign King of the Realm He that knoweth not this may in regard of the affairs of our State joyn himself to St. Anthony in glorying in his ignorance and professing that he knoweth nothing Queen Mary Reigned three months before she was Crowned in which space the Duke of Northumberland and others were condemned and executed for Treason for Treason I say which they had committed before she was proclaimed Queen King Edward the first was in Palestina when his Father died in which his absence the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled at London and did acknowledge him for their King In his return homeward he did homage to the French King for the lands which he held of him in France He also repressed certain Rebels of Gascoine amongst whom Gasco of Bierne appealed to the Court of the King of France where King Edward had Judgment that Gasco had committed Treason and thereupon he was delivered to the pleasure of King Edward And this hapned before his Coronation which was a year and nine months after he began to reign King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth year of his Reign and in the mean space not only his Subjects did both profess and bear Allegeance but the King of Scots also did swear Homage unto him What need I give any more either instance or argument in that which is the clear Law the uncontrouled custom of the Realm Against which notwithstanding your weather-beaten forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind Opinion that Heirs apparent are not true Kings although their Titles be just and their predecessors dead This you labour to prove by a few dry conjectures but especially and above all others you say because the Realm is asked three times at every Coronation whether they will have such a man to be their King or no. First we have good reason to require better proof of this question than your bare word Secondly although we admit it to be true yet seeing the answer is not made by the Estates of the Realm assembled in Parliament but by a confused concourse necessary Officers excepted of all sorts both of Age and Sex it is for Ceremony only and not of force either to give or to increase any right Another of your Arguments is for that the Prince doth first swear to Govern well and justly before the Subjects take their Oath of Allegeance which argueth that before they were not bound And further you affirm that it hapned onely to King Henry the fifth among his predecessors to have fealty done unto him before he was crowned and had taken his Oath I confess indeed that Polydore and Stow have written so but you might easily have found that they write not true the one of them being a meer stranger in our State the other a man more to be commended for endeavour than for art King Iohn being in Normandy when his Brother died sent into England Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Marshal Earl of Strigvile and Geoffry Fitzpeter Lord Chief Justice who assembled the States of the Realm at Northampton and took of them an Oath of obedience to the new King Also King Henry the Third caused the Citizens of London the Guardians of the Cinque-ports and divers others to swear fealty to Prince Edward his son who being in Palestina when his Father died the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled in the new Temple at London and did acknowledge him for their King And in like manner King Edward the Third took an Oath of all the Nobility of the Realm of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales and so did King Henry the first for his Daughter Mawde and her young son Henry After the death of King Henry the Fifth that Subjects did often swear allegeance before the Coronation and Oath of the King you had neither Countenance nor Conscience to deny but it was neither of these two which did restrain you it proceeded onely from the force of truth which will manifest it self whatsoever art we use to disguise it For otherwise what Countenance what Conscience had you to affirm that it is expresly noted by our English Historiographers That no Allegeance is due unto Kings before they be crowned Who are these Historiographers Where do they so write You that search every dusty corner of your Brains for a few ragged reasons to uphold your Heresie should not either have mentioned or omitted such pregnant proofs For in that you affirm and do not express them you condemn your self by your own silence If you mean that which you alleadge out of Polydore and Stowe That an Oath of fealty was never made before Coronation until the time of King Henry the Fifth it is neither true nor to any such sence If you mean that of Polydore in terming Henry the Fifth Prince and not King before he was crowned in writing also that the States did consult in Parliament Of creating a new King after the custom of their Ancestors It is a sleepie jeast to strain every word in such an Author to propriety of speech You might better have cited what certain Cities in France not long since alleadged for themselves That because they had not reputed Henry the Fourth for their King because they had not professed Alleageance unto him they were not to be adjudged Rebels Whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolve that forasmuch as they were original Subjects even Subjects by birth they were Rebels in bearing Arms against their King although they had never professed alleageance And this is so evidently the Law of the Realm that it is presumption in us both in you to assay by your shallow Sophistry to obscure or impugn in me to endeavour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same But the admission of the people you say hath often prevailed against
plainly to break beyond the bounds of all truth or grossely for I cannot now say artificially to disguise it with many false and deceiveable terms But to conclude for the state of France which is also to exclude whatsoever you have said under the Reign of Charles the fift for the better establishment of this right and for cutting off those calamities which accompany usurpation there was a Law made that after the death of any King the eldest Son should incontinently succeed We are now come to our English examples of which you might have omitted those of the Saxon Kings as well for that there could be no setled form of Government in those Tumultuous times as also for that our Histories of that Age are very imperfect not leading us in the Circumstances either of the manner or occasion of particular actions they declare in Gross what things were done without further opening either how or wherefore But both these do make for your advantage for who seeth not that your examples are chiefly bred in Tempestuous times and the obscuritie of Histories will serve for a shadow to darken your deceit Well let us take both the Times and Histories as they are How will you maintain that Egbert was not next Successor to Briticus by propinquitie of Blood Briticus left no Children and Egbert was descended of the Blood Royal as Polydore affirmeth William Malmesbury saith that he was â—he only Man alive of the Royal Blood beâ—ng descended of Inegild the Brother of King Ina. How then is it true which you say that Briticus was the last of the royal Descent and if it had been so indeed the right of Election should then have been in the State And thus you Stumble at every step you entangle your self without Truth or End You snatch at the words of Polydore where he saith He is created King by consent of all which do imply no other sense but that which a little after he saith That he was saluted King by all So we finde also that the like Improper speech was used at the Coronation of Philip the Second King of France whereby the Archbishop of Reimes did Challenge power in the right of his See to make Election of the King That Adelstane was illegitimate you follow Polydore a Man of no great either Industry or Judgement William Malmesbury accounted Egwina the Mother of Adelstane to be the first Wife of King Edward his Father he termeth her also a noble Woman contrary to that which Polydore fableth Henry Huntington Roger Hoveden and others write no otherwise of him but as of one that was lawfully Born And in that you english these words of Polydore Rex dicitur Rex a populo salutatur He was made King by the People In that you affirm also that for the opinion of his valour he was preferred before his Brethren which were lawfully born whom you acknowledge to be Men of most Excellent both Expectation and proof you do plainly shew that use hath made you too open in straining of truth Eldred did first take upon him but as Protector because of the minoritie of the sonnes of Edmund his elder brother and afterward entred into full possession of the Crown But that his Nephewes were put back by the Realm it is your own idle invention it was no more the act of the realme than was the usurpation of King Richard the third That Edwin was deposed from his estate it is inexcusably untrue Polydore writeth that the Northumbrians and Mercians not fully setled in subjection made a revolt Malmesburie saith that he was maimed of a great part of his kingdome by the stroke of which injurie he ended his life And whereas you write in commendation of Kind Edgar his next successor that he kept a Navie of 6600 shippes for defence of the Realme you discover your defective judgement in embracing such reports for true In that you say that many good men of the Realm were of opinion not to admit the succession of Etheldred after the death of his brother I dare confidently affirm that you do not only tell but make an untruth having no author either to excuse or countenance the same In that you write also that between the death of Edmund Ironside and the reigne of William Conquerour it did plainly appear what interest the Common-wealth hath to alter titles of succession it doth plainly appear that both you reason and your conscience is become slavish to your violent desire For what either libertie or power had the Common-wealth under the barbarous rage and oppression of the Danes when Canutus had spread the wings of his fortune over the whole Realm none having either heart or power to oppose against him what choice was then left unto the people what room for right what man not banished from sobrietie of sense would ever have said that he was admitted king by the whole Parliament and consent of the Realme It is true that after he had both violently and unjustly obtained full possession of the Realme slain the brother of Edmund Ironside and conveyed his Children into Sueden he assembled the Nobilitie and caused himself to be crowned king but neither the form nor name of a Parliament was then known in England and if coronation were sufficient to make a title no king should be accounted to usurp Of Harold the first the natural Son of Canutus our Histories doe verie differently reporâ— Saxo Grammaticus writeth that he was never king but that he died before his Father Henry of Huntington reporteth that he was appointed but as Regent for his brother Hardicanutus Others write that apprehending the opportunitie of his Brothers absence he invaded Northumberland and Mercia by force of the Danes who were in England whereupon the Realm was divided one partholding for Harold and another for Hardicanutus who was in Denmark But because he delayed to come into England they all fell rather not to deny then to acknowledge Harold for their king Take now which of these reports you please for all do serve to your purpose alike Hardicanutus after the death of Harold came out of Denmark into England and the people having their courages broken with bondage were easie to entertain the strongest pretender But after his death divers of the Nobility especially Godwin Earl of Kent rising into hope to shake off their shoulders the importable yoke of the Danes advanced Edward the Son of Etheldred to the Crown as being the next of the Race of the Saxon Kings though not in blood yet at hand for Edward the Outlaw his elder Brother was then in Hungary and fear being the only knot that had fastened the people to the Danish Kings that once united they all scattered from them like so many birds whose Cage had been broken Edward being dead Harold the Son of Godwine usurped the Kingdom for as Malmesbury saith By extorted faith from the nobility he fastned upon the Crown a forceable gripe