incapacity from his Bastardy Besides his Wife Maud was descended from a Daughter of King Alfred married to Baldwin Earl of Flanders upon which account a Commentator on the Grand Custumary of Normandy held him to be the first or chief Heir Edward Son to Edmund Ironside was at one time designed by the Confessor for his Successor if he could prevail with the Nation to consent but that Edward dying before the Confessor his Son being a Minor seems never then to have been thought of Harold's design was covert nor does he appear to have been a Pretender till the Confessor lay upon his death-bed But Duke William had long been promis'd his Cousin King Edward's interest in order whereunto we may well believe he in the year 1651. came over to England and doubtless to ingratiate him to the Nation was by the Confessor carried up and down the Kingdom In the year 1657. or 1658. the design was brought to bear and in a Great Council of the whole Nation William was declared Successor or as the Law received by him has it agreeing with a Charter pass'd in Parl. 15. of his Reign was adopted Heir or as another Charter has it Edward instituted him adopted Heir That this Adoption or Institution of an Heir to the Crown was with a Consent truly National I shall elsewhere have occasion to prove at large at present shall only observe that the above-cited Law says that Edward caused the Kingdom to swear to William that Wilnot Earl Godwin's Son and Hacun his Grandson were sent Hostages to William to secure the future Allegiance of that Family that Robert Archbishiop of Canterbury and Harold were successively with the Duke to assure him of his being declared Heir to the Crown which Harold swore to endeavour to preserve to William But notwithstanding the Nations and his own Oath while the Nobility and People were at the Confessor's Funeral at Westminster Harold got a Party together at Lambeth where as some have it he set the Crown upon his own Head The mad Englishman as a contemporary Writer has it would not stay to see what the Publick Election would appoint Harold's Possession whatever it was prov'd very short lasting but nine Months nor was he ever fully recogniz'd or submitted to by the States or the Body of the Nation he never held any Parliament or Convention of the States which I take to be the reason that no Charter of his is to be seen nor have I met with any mention of one They who fought for him against William were judged Traytors and their Estates forfeited and it is rightly observ'd by the Lord Coke that in Demesday Harold who usurped the Crown of England after the decease of King Edward the Confessor is never named per nomen Regis sed per nomen Comitis Haroldi Wherefore he leaves him out of his Lift of our Kings William according to some Authors was encouraged to his attempt from the consideration that Harold was neither of the Saxon nor Danish Royal Stock When William Landed he claimed the Crown from his Cousins Gift with the consnt of the Nobility of the Kingdom confirmed by Oath and lays his qualification in being thought the most deserving of all that were nearly related to the Confessor Harold had nothing to plead against that but the suggestion that the Crown had not been setled by a Consent sufficiently formal that it was made without a Convention and Law of the Senate and People which 't is no wonder that he should pretend tho' there were never so formal an Election Notwithstanding the Right with which the Norman Duke Landed he proffered to submit to what the English should decree and therefore to a new election if they thought fit Upon Harold's death some of the English who dreaded the consequence of receiving William after a bloody Battle set up Edgar Atheling for King who tho' but the second degree from a Bastard and tho' his Father never had Possession was look'd upon as the true Heir of the Crown that is the Person of the last Regnant Branch of the Royal Family who ordinarily would have succeeded by common consent of the States if of sufficient Merit and reasons of State or other obligations did not interpose But the learned Monk Guitmond who could bot but know the constitution in this matter held him to be but one Heir among many of the Line of the Royal Family However the generallity of the Clergy thought themselves bound to maintain the Title with which King William Landed and that'twas Rebellion to oppose him yet before his being received for King he at Berkhamsted made a League or Contract with the People headed by the Great Earls Edwin and Morcar who came up with the Forces from the North which had never been in the Battle against the Duke Part of the League made with the People of England was that he should be Crown'd as the manner of the English Government requires at his Coronation the consent of the People was ask'd in the due and accustomed manner and the account Historians give of the Oath he then took shews it to be that which stood in the Saxon Ritual After which he more than once received and swore to that Body of the Common-Law of England which had obtain'd the name of King Edward's Laws which as has been observ'd declare the end for which a King is Constituted and that he loses the Name or ceases to be King when he answers not that end Indeed Dr. Brady who is as free with his Conquerors Memory as with the Liberties of England which he calls the Grants and Concessions of the King of this Nation will have it that William the I. regarded his Oath only in the beginning of his Reign and that by notorious violations of his contract with the People of England he acquired the Right of a Conqueror and thereby put an end to the ancient Constitution of this Monarchy and those Liberties and Priviledges of the Subject which manifestly appear to have been of elder date than the Monarchy Upon which if one would return the Freedom of his Censures against others it might be said that this was not only to make the then King the Successor of a Conqueror but with a prospect of applying the Rights which he ascribes to a supposed Qonquest to justifie what should be practised upon the late intended Conquest of this Nation That the Judgment and Practice of William the I. was very contrary to the Doctor 's Imaginations will be proved by numerous Instances and that it was so as to that part of the Constitution which concerns the Succession to the Crown appears by that King's Death-bed Declaration which some would set up for a will disposing of the Crown at that very time when he owns that it is not his to give
been intended or implied by that Statute that there was or could be any other King besides the King for the time being For 1. To take it in that sense would be to make the Statute fight against it self and not only to admit that he were but a King not the King but to require the Subjects to fight for and against one and the same Person 4. H. 7. And his Parliament could not be thought to admit that he was an Usurper or a King contrary to Law or Right But H. 7. certainly intended to provide for the indempnity of those that should pay Allegiance to him as well as of those that should pay Allegiance to future Kings for the time being And indeed upon some of the Words it may seem doubtful whether the enacting part was intended to reach beyond his time and whether any other Sovereign Lord for the time being was intended but he who was at that time But if in relation to the King whose Parliament passed this Act the King for the time being was supposed to be the only Lawful and Rightful King it must be so taken in relation to all other Kings for the time being if either the enacting Part or the Preamble extend to ' em 5. If this Act should carry a plain implication that some other besides the King for the time being was the King of Right this would be so far from being for the Security of the King for the time being as must have been then intended as well as the indemnity of his Subjects that it must needs have the like effect with their Discourses who will have it that the present Government is not Rightful but yet that a sort of Allegiance is due to it because of God's Authority tho' contrary to Right Whenever these Men speak out it appears that they allow no Authority to the King for the time being but what is derived from the Tacit or implied Consent of their King of Right But this Jesuitism was not thought of at the making of that Statute 6. I desire to know what Person besides H. 7. was so much as imagined to be Rightful King or Queen of England when that Act was made However whether it can be thought that in the Judgment of that Parliament any Person besides H. 7. had Right to the Crown after a former Parliament had Ordained Established and Enacted that the Inheritance of the Crown of England and France should be stand and remain in King H. 7. and the Heirs of his Body and in no other Person That they held this Settlement to have been duely and righfully made and that without any relation to his marrying the supposed Heiress to the Crown appears by three other Acts of the same Parliament One of which attaints R. 3. for traiterously conspiring against their Sovereign Leige Lord H. 7. Another indempnifies Men for Trespass or taking Goods in maintenance of the Title of H. 7. for the time that his Banner was displaied against Richard late Duke of Gloucester Usurper of the Realm Another goes farther and indemnifies them who came from beyond-Sea with H. 7. or were in Sanctuary or Hidel for his Quarrel and Title and speaks of the Battle against his Enemies in recovering and obtaining his Just Title and Right to his Realm of England Wherein H. 7 ths Right and R. 3 ds Usurpation consisted shall afterwards be considered 7. When the Parliament 11 H. 7. speaks only of the King or Prince or Sovereign Lord for the time being without giving any discription whereby it should be known who is the Prince unless what relates particularly to H. 7. It must be presumed that no King is intended but he that was the Sovereign or Leige Lord in the Eye and Reputation of Law which as appears by the Case of R. 3. an Usurper continuing so was not then taken to be But who ever was in the Possession of the Throne without Usurpation was always lawful and rightful King 8. It cannot be thought the Parliament 11 H. 7. would have made an Act directly contrary to three others of the same Reign but they would have expresly repealed the former Acts or have offered some reason to palliate or colour their Proceedings to the contrary But take the Statute of 11 H. 7. in this Lawyers Sense only with an Exception that as to the Matter in Question it was a Declaratory Law as the words plainly shew and it will farther appear and it is evident that the Statutes against R. 3. and indemnifying them that acted for H. 7. before the displaying his Banner as well as after while R. 3. was in Possession of the Throne were contrary to this Lawyer 's Sense of the Statute 11 H. 7. according to which they who assisted H. 7. must have acted contrary to their Duty of Allegiance to the King for the time being Wherefore it plainly follows that R. 3. was not King for the time being according to the true meaning of the Statute 11 H. 7. and yet H. 6. who was of the younger House was in his time the only King for the time being in the Judgment of that very Parliament which supposes R. 3. not to have been so as appears by their reversing the Attainder of H. 6. and declaring the Act of Attainder to have been contrary to the Allegiance of the Subject against all right wiseness honour nature and duty inordinate seditious and slanderous and reversing the Attainders of others for their true and faithful Allegiance and Service to Hen. 6. and yet those Attainders were in a Parliament of a King by many supposed to be the only Person that had Right to be King and that after his being formally recognized by the States and then in Possession of the Power of the Kingdom Obj. But it may be objected if the Act 11 H. 7. was made only to indemnifie them that paid Allegiance to Rightful Kings there was no manner of need of it Answ 1. Many needless Statutes have been made in affirmance of the Common-Law out of abundant caution 2. It could not be needless to obviate mens fears upon pretences which might be set up against the King for the time being by removing the supposal that Allegiance could be due to any body else 3. The enacting part extends to indemnifie Men for what they out of Loyalty should do in time of War against the mind and will of the Prince for which the caution was but reasonable Effectually to prove that the Judgment of Hen. 7 ths Parliament That there could be but one Rightful King at a time except where they were Partners in Power is according to the fix'd and known Constitution of this Monarchy and that this manifests His present Majesty to be our only lawful and rightful Sovereign Lord and that the late King neither is nor of Right ought to be King I shall as briefly as well as I can give an Abstract of what will appear to any
King of Denmark Landing with an additional Force this with Ethelred's sloath and unacceptableness to his own People drove him to an Abdication Upon Swane's death the English invited back the Abdicated King on condition he would govern better than he had done for which his Son Edward undertook Ethelred returning as an Author who lived about the time has it a contract was established between the King and his People and firm friendship and it was enacted with an Oath that there never more should be a Danish King in England After this Cnute the Son of Swane laid claim to the Crown of England as a Saxon as well as Dane deriving from King Ethelbald who doubtless was that Son of an elder Brother of King Alfred who oppos'd Edward the elder Notwithstanding this tho' the Danes elected Cnute the English adhered to Ethelred Upon whose death they chose his Son Edmund Ironside who as appears by the stream of ancient Authorities was a Bastard Upon i Edmund's death Cnute was Crown'd King of England by the Election of all and according to Florence of Woster he swore to be Faithful Lord as the People did to be Leige Subjects At Cnute's death his two Sons Harold who was a Bastard or rather Spurious and Hardecnute his legitimate Son by Ethelred's Widow were by Leofric and all the Nobility on the North-side of the River Thomes elected Kings over all England as partners in Power and co-heirs But Duke Godwin and other Noblemen in West-Saxony opposed and prevailed It appears by an Author who wrote in the Confessor's Time and whose words are transcrib'd by several that they prevailed for the total rejection of Hardecnute because he made not sufficient haste to take the Administration upon him Therefore Harold who however would have been King of Mercia and the Northumbrian Kingdom was elected over all England by the Princes and all the People or as an other of like antiquity has it is elected King by all the People of England Upon Harold's death and not before Hardecnute was received in what manner appears by the then standing Ritual for the Coronation of Kings But Emmae's Sons by Ethelred Alured and Edw. as Malms observes were despised almost by all rather through the remembrance of their Fathers sloathfulness than by reason of the Power of the Danes Yet they two without preference of one before the other were accounted Heirs of the Kingdom and accordingly Cnute while he was in fear of the then Duke of Normandy offer'd half his Kingdom to Edward and his Brother Alured Upon Hardecnute's death Earl Godwin was chosen Administrator or Protector of the Kingdom during the vacancy and till a fit Person should be elected King Godwin summons a Convention of the States where he nominated Ethelred's only surviving Son by Emma whom the Saxons call'd Elgive After some debates all consented to the election of Edward He being so elected was in the sense of those times Heir of the Kingdom to the last Possessor Hardecnute his Brother by the half blood And yet it is observable that according to a Charter of Edward's pass'd in Parliament at the latter end of his Reign the Hereditary Succession was hazarded by the Danes that is according to what I before observ'd the Anglo-Saxon regnant branch of the Royal Family was kept back and was likely never to have been restored 'T is evident that it was not for Edward to carry this Point farther for besides the Danish Royal Family claiming from King Ethelbald and Fretheric Abbot of St. Albans in his time coming from the ancient Saxons and Danes and lineally descended from King Cnute there was the Historian Ethelwerd or his immediate Ancestor of the Family of King Ethered and in all probability there were several descendants either from Ethelstan Ethelwolfs elder Brother or from his Sons Ethelbald and Ethelbert What was the known Law in the Confessor's time both as to the Succession and the continuing King besides the former Evidences appears beyond contradiction from that King's Laws according to which 1. The Monarchy was founded in election which explains in what Sense a King is there taken to be Constituted 2. If the King do not answer the end for which he had been Constituted not so much as the name of King shall continue in him 3. It receives as a Rule in all Kingdoms and particularly here the Judgment of Pope Zachary encouraging the Franks to depose their King Childeric With Edward the Confessor end the Saxon and Danish Successions of Kings Harold the Son of Earl Godwin as I shall shew never was King nor reputed King by any but his own Party Here I may observe 1. That Dr. Brady is mightily mistaken in his assertion that the Saxons did in their subjection owning of and submission to their Princs acknowledge both proximity of blood and nomination of their Princes often both sometimes only one of them but never followed any other rule 2. The chief rule of Succession upon the death or disability of any King was a proper election of a worthy Person of the Regnant Branch of the Royal Family 3. Dr. Bradie's notion that Elegerunt signifies no more than recognoverunt they acknowledged owned submitted unto him as their King is by no means true the recognition being manifestly subsequent to or in consequence of the election nor is any thing more plain than that the States did from the beginning of the Monarchy downwards rightfully declare an Heir to the Kingdom and then acknowledge his Right tho' neither next upon the Royal Line nor representing the next nor yet nominated by the Predecessor And indeed till a rare and noted instance in the case of Hen. 5. on whom the Crown had before been entailed in Parliament no Prince was known to have been formally recogniz'd till he had taken the Coronation Oath 4 If according to any good authority of the Saxon or Danish Times it should seem that any man came to the Crown by the Gift of his Predecessor it must have been made with such solemnity as was requisite even for the granting of Lands As that of Egbert's above-mentioned or Athelstan's in an Assembly of the Bishops Abbots Dukes or Earls and the Procurators or Representatives of the Country or an other before the Plebs or Commons or Edgar's in the open air with the privity of the Great or Wisemen of his whole Kingdom In the Confessor's life time there were three Competitors for the Crown Atheling's Father and Son to Edmund Ironside Harold who was High Steward of England and the most powerful of any Man tho' not his Fathers eldest Son and William Duke of Normandy Grand Nephew to Emma who had been Crown'd Queen of England nor as has appear'd above was William under any