of this Law And by virtue of this extravagant Power in case his three Children died without Issue as afterwards they did he bequeathed the Crown to the House of Suffolk being the younger House and in defiance of all Laws and Brotherly Affection disinherited and totally excluded the elder House of Scotland And therefore all those Niceties and Designs considered it is most plain King Henry was constrain'd to pray in Aid of the People to give some Colour at leastwise to all the Contradictions and Impossiblities And therefore I conceive that no Man of common Reason or that bears true Faith and Allegiance to His Majesty that now is or his Crown will draw Arguments from the three Statutes above mentioned to prove that the Parliament of England may exclude the next Heir of the Blood So that upon the whole matter of this first Objection it appears most plainly That the Princes which submitted and stoop'd to these tumultuous and Statute-Kingships either it was because they invaded and usurp'd the Crown contrary to the Laws Divine Natural and Humane or to give a colour and varnish to Contradictions and Impossibilities and private Intrigues and Designs And yet after all these popular Establishments though munited and fenc'd about with the highest Penalties and Oaths that mortal Men could devise yet could not in reality transfer the Right from the next Heir of the Blood that being a Dowry as I have said which God reserves to his own immediate Donation and hath plac'd above the reach of a mortal Arm. For though an Act of Parliament shall command me to say That an Ethiopian is White and that under the highest Oaths and Penalties or That an Ape is a Man yet notwithstanding the Ethiöpian can never in truth change his Skin or Complexion nor the Ape his Species and commence a Creature rational Ay but saith another Why may not the Crown be transfer'd from the next Heir of the Blood by Parliament as well as all other Inheritances and Possessions whatsoever in the Kingdom may from the Right Heir of the Subject I Answer there is no similitude between the Cases For 1. Private Men derive their Inheritances from their Ancestors but the next Heir of the Blood Royal derives not the Crown from his Predecessor or the People but immediately from God as I have prov'd at large in this Discourse And no Person or Community can give away or transfer a Thing which they never had vested in them either in Possession or so much as Right Secondly The Law of the Crown which yet is a principal part of the Common Law of England differs from the Law of the Subject in Point of Descents and therefore that may be Law in case of the Crown which is not in case of thē Subject of which I shall here give some Instances A Private Man being an Alien Born cannot by our Law inherit Land here But the Crown shall descend upon the next Heir of the Blood though an Alien as it happened many years ago in the case of King Henry the second who was an Alien born and begot of a Father who was also an Alien And the like happened not long since in the case of King James of ever blessed Memory If a King of England have three Daughters and dye the Crown shall descend upon the Eldest alone but in case of a Subject the Inheritance shall go to all three Daughters Co. 1. Inst 165. a 25 H. 8. cap. 22. circa medium If a Subject marry an Heiress and hath Issue by her a Son and the Wife dye the Husband shall enjoy the Wive's Lands during his Life but if a Man marry a Queen Regnant of England and hath Issue by her a Son or a Daughter and then she dyes here the Crown descends immediately upon the Issue which becomes King or Queen presently though the Father be alive as ought to have been in the Case of King Henry the Seventh and his Son Prince Henry as I have before observed and would have been in the Case of Philip that married Queen Mary if she had dyed having Issue Ellesmere's Postnati 36. Lord Bacon's H. 7. fol. 4. 121 217 231. So the half Blood is no Impediment to the Descent of the Lands of the Crown as it happened in the Cases of Edward the Sixth and the two Queens Mary and Elizabeth and yet in the Cases of Subjects it is clearly otherwise Plowd Com. 245. a. Co. 7. Rep. 12. v. Postnati Co. Inst 15. v. So likewise if the Right Heir of the Blood or the Father or Mother of the Right Heir from whom the Crown descends are attainted of High Treason by Parliament these Attainders yet are no Obstructions to the Descent of the Crown as it happened in the Cases of our King Edward the Fourth and his Father Richard Plantagenet Duke of York who were both attainted of High Treason by Act of Parliament As also in the Case of King James as it is related to his Mother Mary Queen of Scots who was attainted of High Treason and executed and yet the Commissioners and Judges that gave Sentence upon her set forth a public Declaration That the Attainder of the Mother did not at all derogate from the Right of her Son to the Crown of England But all Men know 't is otherwise in the Case of Subjects whose Descents are obstructed by the Attainders of their Ancestors I could be infinite in Cases of this Nature but by these few Instances wherein the Law for ought I know is no more alterable by Parliament than the Succession it doth plainly appear That there is no small difference in Point of Law between the Descents of the Crown and Private Inheritances And therefore though an Inheritance may thus be given away from a Subject yet it doth not in any wise follow that the Crown may be dispos'd from the next Heir The third and last Objection is founded upon the Statute of 13 o Eliz. cap. 1. wherein it is enacted That if any Person shall affirm That the Parliament of England hath not full Power to bind and govern the Crown in Point of Succession and Descent that such Person during the Queen's life shall be guilty of High Treason and after her Death shall forfeit his Goods and Chattels c. I Answer First it is to be observed That this Law was made in the time of a Queen whose Title to the Crown depended upon Statute-Law as appears by the very Act recognizing her Title to the Crown and this Act of 13 o was made in affirmance and vindication of such Title to the Crown by Statute and this is plain from the Body of the same Act wherein it is expresly Enacted That if any Person shall affirm That any Statute for recognizing the Right of the Crown of England to be lawful in the Royal Person of the said Queen is not or ought not to be for ever of sufficient force to bind all
and that giveth the Kingdoms of men to whom he will as the holy Scriptures tell us And who being the Creator of Nature can alone when it pleaseth him controul her Methods and Operations as appeareth by the Interruptions of the Succession in the cases of David Solomon Jehu and the like And they that from these and other instances of this nature do fancy they may maintain the Lawfulness of impeaching the Succession of the Crown in the true Line may as well infer that they may lawfully rob and spoil their Neighbours because God commanded the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians In those cases we are bound to the Law but not to the Example I come now to Records of Parliament which shall be three in number First that of the 39 H. 6. wherein the daring Rich Plantagenet D. of York by his Council exhibited to the Lords in full Parliam a Writing containing his Right and Claims to the Crowns of England and France Against which Claim it was objected on the King's part That the same Crowns had been entailed by Act of Parliament upon the King's Grandfather King Henry the Fourth and the Heirs of his Body from whence the same King Henry the Sixth did lineally descend The which Act say the King's Friends there is of Autoritee to defeat eny mannere Title made to eny person for so are the words To which Objection the said Duke of York answereth I shall cite the words of the Record as they are entered up in the old English That if King Henry the Fourth might have obteigned and rejoysed the seyd Corones of England and Fraunce by Title of Enheritaunce Descent or Succession he neither needed nor would have desired or made them to be granted to him in such wise as they be by the seyd Act. The which taketh noo place neither is of any force or effect against him that is right Enheritor of the seyd Corones as it accordeth with God's Laws and all natural Laws saith the Roll. And this Answer of the Duke of York to the King's Title and his said Claim is afterwards by express Act of the same Parliament declar'd and recognized to be good true just lawful and suffisaunt as it is there worded And at the same time for preventing Effusion of Bloud an Accord by the free consent of the said Duke is likewise established That King Henry the Sixth shall during his Life enjoy the Crown and that from thenceforth the Duke of York should be reputed Heir Apparent to the Crown The next Record is that of 1 Ed. 4. wherein after that Parliament hath in a long Pedigree disclos'd the Title of the same King Edward to the Crown as being in a right line descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence third Son to King Edward the Third and upon the death of his Father the above mentioned Richard Plantagenet next Heir of the Bloud Royal they immediately add these very words Knowing also certainly without doubt and ambiguity that by God's Law and Law of Nature he i. e. King Edward the Fourth and none other is and ought to be true rightwys and natural Leige and Soveraigne Lord. And that he was in right from the death of the seyd noble and famous Prince his Father very just King of the same Realm of England So here it is most expresly declared by two Parliaments of different Complexion and Interest and therefore the more remarkable that the Succession of the Crown of England is inseparably annexed to Proximity of Bloud by the Laws of God and Nature And that a Title of this Sublimity and Grandeur is not at all impeachable even by Act of Parliament And besides the said Parliament of 39 H. 6. doth make the same Declaration to the manifest prejudice of the Title of the King in possession who was ordained also by the same Accord to reign over them during his Life and whom for that reason it must be presum'd they would have favour'd if they had found but the least colour so to have done The last Record is the Statute of Recognition made in the first year of King James by the whole Parliament in which among other things They do in most humble and lowly manner I shall all along use the very words of the Act beseech His most Excellent Majesty that as a Memorial to all Posterity it might be publickly declar'd and enacted in the High Court of Parliament That they being bound thereunto by the Laws of God and Man did with unspeakable Joy recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the Decease of Queen Elizabeth the Imperial Crown of the Realm ofEngland c. did by inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to His most Excellent Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Bloud Royal of this Realm And that by the goodness of God Almighty and lawful Right of Descent His Majesty was King of England c. And to this Recognition we do say they most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige our selves and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our bloud be spent And all the Judges of England some time after in the great Case of Calvin in the Exchequer Chamber do resolve That King James his Title to the Crown was founded upon the Law of Nature viz. by inherent Birthright and Descent from the Bloud Royal of this Realm So that this Parliament doth not in the least manner pretend to give any Title to King James or his Posterity by their own Act and Establishment but on the contrary doth expresly recognize that the same King 's Right and Title to the Crown doth accrue to him by the Laws of God and Man onely as the said Judges do by the Law of Nature viz. as next and sole Heir of the Bloud Royal. By all which it doth most manifestly appear That in the Opinion of the three several Parliaments the Succession of the Crown is united to Proximity and Nextness of Blood by the Laws Divine Natural and Human And a threefold Cord of this Sanctimony and Strength is not easily broken to say nothing of the said Resolution of all the Judges of England in the Point which as our Books tell us in matters of Law is of the most sacred Authority next unto the Court of Parliament This being thus made out I come now to prove That Statute-Laws contrariant to the Laws of God and Nature are ipso facto null and void And here I shall first observe That by a profound Polity of our Law the sole Power of expounding Statute-Laws whether relating to Church or State is intrusted and lodged in the Judges of the Common Law as King Charles the first hath noted in his Speech to both Houses upon passing the Bills of 3 d of his Reign And as the Authorities of Law are very clear now the Judges have exerted this constructive Power in expounding Statute-Laws sometimes even null and void
the true and legal Title abiding in the House of York See to prove this Brook Parl. pl. 105. 1 H. 7. 4. v. The second Instance is that of King Henry the Seventh This King while he was Earl of Richmond together with many Lords and Commons that took his part were all attainted of High Treason by the Parliament of Richard the Third Afterwards at the Battel of Bosworth the Earl obtain'd the Victory and slew Richard in the Field and on the same day assum'd the Crown upon him and presently afterward summon'd a Parliament On the first day of this Parliament say our Books of Law and Histories all the Judges of England were assembled in the Exchequer Chamber to resolve a very rare and perplex'd Case viz. What should be done about the reversal of the said Parlementary Attaindors of the King and divers Lords and many Knights Citizens and Burgesses that were to sit in Parliament that day And after mature Deliberation had among themselves they all Resolved That for all the Lords and Commons that were attainted they advised them not to sit in Parliament till an Act of Parliament was passed by the other Lords and Commons not attainted and assented to by the King for the reversal of those Attaindors and after the Reversal then all of them to sit in the Houses For that it was not convenient that any should sit as Judges in those Houses that were attainted But concerning the King himself they unanimously Resolved That the Crown takes away all defects in Bloud and Incapacities by Parliament And that from the time the King did assume the Crown the Fountain was cleared and all the said Attaindors and Corruptions of Bloud and other Impediments absolutely discharged And yet the said King Henry the Seventh was onely King de facto also the legal Title as I have before observed abiding in the House of York See to prove all this the Books of 1 H. 7. 4. v. Fitz. Parl. pl. 2. Brook P. Statutes pl. 37. 175. Plowden's Com. 238. v. Lord Barkley's case Co. 7 Rep. 12. â— Calvin's case Co. 1 Inst 16. a. Jenk centuries 203. Lord Bacon's Hist H. 7 fol. 13. All in express terms And if the Influence and Operation of Law be so forcible and vigorous in Cases of colourable and specious Title onely as that of the said King Henry the Seventh was as I shall demonstrate at large in the sequel of this Discourse how much more will it be where there is Proximity of Bloud and undoubted Right The last Instance is that of Queen Elizabeth an Instance of fresh and recent memory This Princess had been bastardiz'd and render'd incapable of Succession to the Crown by solemn Act of Parliament and yet notwithstanding upon the Death of Queen May the said Queen Elizabeth succeeded to the Crown And Sir Nicholas Bacon Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and Oracle of the Law in that Age and upon whom the Queen altogether relied in matter of Law and who no doubt in a Case of that Importance had consulted all the Judges of England was clear of Opinion saith Cambden That there needed not any formal Repeal of the said Act as there never was any because saith the same Author the Law of England had long before pronounced Coronam semel susceptam omnes omnino Defectas tollere That the Crown once obtain'd doth absolutely wipe out all Defects whatsoever And in this Point the Civil Law agrees also with the Common Law of England for Vpian a famous Doctor tells us That the possession of the Crown purgeth all Derects and maketh good the Act of him in Authority although he wanteth both Capacity and Right Moreover by the Laws of England the right Heir becomes absolute and perfect King in the very moment that the Crown descends upon him though he happen to be at the same time in the remotest parts of the World and before he be actually Crown'd And therefore King Edward the first though at the time of his Father's Death he was absent in the Holy Land in War against the Infidels yet he was immediately acknowledg'd here by the whole Realm for their King And in his return homewards did Homage to the French King for the Lands which he held of him in France and repressed certain of his Rebellious Subjects in Gascoign and yet he was not crown'd till almost two years afterwards And the Case of his Sacred Majesty that now is was very like for he began his Reign from the moment of that fatal and impious Stroke given to his Royal Father of ever glorious Memory and yet his present Majesty was not at that time in England And this is expresly resolved to be the Law of this Nation by all the Judges of England Mich. 1. Eliz. Dyer's Rep. 165. a. So King Henry the sixth Edward the fourth Henry the seventh summon'd Parliaments condemn'd Traitors made Grants and did all other Acts which a crowned King may do before their several Coronations And the like was done by King Henry the eighth Edward the sixth Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles the first and His Gracious Majesty that now is For coronation is but an Ornament and Solemnization of the Royal Descent but no part of the Title and the Kings of England are to all Intents and Purposes compleat and perfect Kings before Coronation and so it was expresly resolved by all the Judges of England 1 o Jacobi in the Cases of Watson Clarke and Sir Walter Raleigh which in a matter so clear shall suffice Having thus as I conceive made my Point good and impregnable Viz. That the next Heir of the Blood cannot be excluded from the Succession by Act of Parliament I come now to answer certain Objections which some Men I perceive are fond of and do not a little glory therein and the most considerable of them are three in Number First say they there are several Instances of Kings of this Realm whose Titles to the Crown depended purely upon the Election of the People and Acts of Parliament and not upon Proximity of Blood and Inherent Birth-right as to go no higher the Titles of King John Henry the fourth Henry the seventh Moreover Henry the eighth entail'd the Crown upon himself and his Children by Act of Parliament And these Establishments by Parliament were look'd upon as good Titles to the Kings in Possession and bars against the next Heirs I Answer they were never look'd upon as good Titles to the Kings in Possession or bars against the right Heirs neither ought they to be deemed so as doth most evidently appear by the former part of this Discourse And which I shall now farther demonstrate by Enquiry into the Titles and Circumstances of each particular King mentioned in the Objection First for King John it is plain he was King de facto but not de jure for he invaded the Crown against the Right of his Nephew
to be legitimated and made inheritable to all Preheminences Honours Dignities c. Exceptâ Regali Dignitate for so are the very words of the Record Excepting the Regal Dignity Besides Margaret Countess of Richmond and Derby the Mother of King Henry the Seventh through whom he must necessarily derive what ever Title he could pretend to died not till 1 H. 8. So then here are four plain Legal Impediments in the Title of King Henry the Seventh 1. He derived from a Bastard Stem or Slip. 2. Though the said Children by Katharine Swinford were legitimated by Parliament yet the Dignity Regal was excepted by the same Parliament and they remained illegitimate as to that 3. His Mother out-liv'd him And 4. which was worst of all the onely true and legal Title remained in Elizabeth eldest Daughter to King Edward the Fourth who descended lineally from Lionel Duke of Clarence John's elder Brother with which Elizabeth the said Henry afterwards married as I have observ'd And therefore this Prince having so many palpable Flaws and Impediments in his Title and well knowing that the Laws Divine Natural and Humane were all against him no man I suppose will wonder that he made his Courtship and Addresses to the People for their favour and good will and was so sollicitous of an Establishment by them And as the most considering and thinking men of that Age had no great opinion of this Prince's Parliamentary Title so it is plain that this King himself laid no great stress upon it which is the more remarkable because all our Historians do with one voice proclaim him one of the wisest and most sagacious Princes that ever sway'd the Scepter in this Realm Now that he himself relied not upon this Statute-Kingship is most plain from two Acts of Parliament which I that produce First by that very Statute Law by which the Crown was establish'd upon him for as my Lord Bacon hath observ'd he did not press to have that Act penn'd by way of Declaration or Recognition of Right as on the other side he avoided to have it by new Law or Ordinance but chose rather a kind of middle way by way of Establishment and that under covert and indifferent words viz. That the Inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. Which Words might equally be 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 and possession which no man denied was left fair to Interpretation every way Secondly from that Act of Parliament which he procur'd to be made in the 11th of his Reign in which it was ordain'd That no person that shall serve the King for the time being for so are the very words in his Wars shall therefore be attainted or impeach'd in his Person or Estate what fortune soever fall by chance in Battel against the mind and will of the same King for the time being This Law saith the Lord Chancellour Bacon who comments very handsomly upon it had in it parts of prudent and deep foresight for it took away occasion for the people to busie themselves in prying into the King's Title to the Crown for howsoever that fell out to be good or bad the People's Safety was already provided for And the same Author in the close of this King's Life reckons his opportune and seasonable Death among his greatest Felicities which withdrew him from any future blow of Fortune which certainly continues he in regard of the Title of his Son being then 18 years of Age and a bold Prince had not been impossible to have come upon him Because upon the decease of King Henry's Queen in whom as I have often said the true Title lodged and who died some years before the Crown immediately by the Law of England descended upon Prince Henry for there can be no Tenancy by the Courtesie of the Crown So then in the Opinion of the said Lord Chancellour also this King's Title by Statute was of small account in respect of that of his Son by Common Law By all which it plainly appears that this King had no legal or inherent Right of his own to the Crown and therefore full contrary to his own inclination he was constrain'd to stoop and truckle under an Establishment of the People which notwithstanding was invalid and null in Law as I have proved For King Henry the Eighth though no man ever doubted but that he was King de jure as bearing united in his own individual Person his Father's pretended Title of Lancaster and his Mother's legal and undoubted one of York yet there happened to fall out in this Prince's Case certain anomolous and odd Circumstances and Niceties and secret Intrigues which necessitated him contrary to his better knowledge and the native greatness of his Soul to allow his People a share or copartnership as I may say in the ordering the Succession of the Crown that so the matter might go as far as Human Power could carry it And therefore first by the Statute of 25 he confirms his Divorce from Katharine and bastardizeth Mary her Daughter and on the other hand corroborates his Marriage with Anne and legitimates Elizabeth her Daughter and makes her inheritable to the Crown The Legitimation or Bastardy of these two Daughters depending much upon the validity or weakness of the Papal Dispensation in the first Marriage and this point being a Vexata Quaestio in those days he had hoped to have cut this Gordian Knot which he could not untie with the Sword and pretended Omnipotency of a Parliament And then after he had done this he forthwith marries Jane Seymour and by the Statute of the 28 attaints his Wife Anne and bastardizeth Elizabeth her Daughter and so then according to the Poet Qui color albus erat nunc est contrarius albo And then breaking down the Boundaries of all Law and common Reason and with a prodigious wildness and extravagancy he procures it to be Enacted That in case he had no Issue by Jane he might dispose of the Crown to whatsoever Person he did in his own discretion think fit And the whole Nation was oblig'd by the Sanctimony of an Oath to the defence of this Law This he did that he might advance to the Throne his Natural Son Henry Fitz Roy Duke of Richmond whom he loved most passionately who yet died not long after and so to exclude for ever his Sister Margaret of Scotland and all her Descendents Then by the Statute of 35 he entails the Crown upon himself Prince Edward and the said Mary and Elizabeth and in case they happened to have no Issues of their Bodies then he was again impower'd by the same Act of Parliament to dispose of the Crown to what person or persons soever he pleased by his last Will and Testament And the whole Narion was likewise sworn to the Maintainance
contrariant to the Laws of God and Nature are ipso facto null and void So then I am here to prove two Things First That the Succession to the Crown is inseparably annexed to proximity of Blood by the Laws of God and Nature Secondly That Statute-Laws contrariant to those Laws are null and void That the Succession of the Crown by the Laws of God is inseparably annexed to proximity of Blood appears plainly by that Statute-Law or Statute of Judgment as it is there call'd which God himself with his own mouth pronounced for the ordering the Descent of Honors and Possessions Numb chap. 27. which are there by his immediate direction to be conferr'd by Birth-right and Propinquity of Blood and not by the Election or Discretion either of Moses their Supreme Magistrate or the Community of the People a part or both in conjunction And there Verses 9 and 10 it is expresly enjoyn'd by the same Divine Authority That if a Man have no Son or Daughter his Inheritance shall descend upon his Brother The preference likewise and prerogative of Primogeniture in point of Dignities and Possessions is of the same Divine Institution as appeareth in several places of the Holy Scriptures As where God said to Cain of his younger Brother Abel His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt rule over him Again where he forbiddeth the Father to disinherit the First-born of his double Portion because by right of Birth it is due unto him And lastly where he maketh choice of the First-born to be sanctifi'd and consecrated to himself Consonant hereunto are the Suffrages of the Fathers and Doctors of the Civil or Imperial Law St. Hicrom writeth That a Kingdom is due unto the First-born St. Chrysostome saith The First-born is to be esteemed more Honourable than the rest Bodine the Great French Lawyer tells us That it is not enough that the Kingdom go in Succession but that it descend also upon the eldest issue Male where he is next of the Blood sic enim Ordo non tantùm Naturae Divinae Legis sed etiam omnium ubique Gentium postulat For so saith he not only the Law of God and Nature but also of all Nations doth require And Baldus a famous Doctor of the Civil Law saith semper fuit semper erit c. Always it hath been and always it shall be That the First-born and next of Blood succeedeth in the Kingdom Wherein he is followed with open Cry of all the choice Interpreters both of the Canon and Civil Law as namely Panormitanus Hostiensis Corsetta Alciat and innumerable others Now what hath been said here of Primogeniture in Point of Succession to the Crown is said likewise with equal consequence of proximity of Blood For by the Civil Law if a King have issue five Sons and the First-born die before the Succession fall or if he being possess'd of the Kingdom die without Heirs of his Body his right of Primogeniture devolveth unto the next in Blood and if he dyeth in like manner then unto the third and so likewise to the next in Order And herein Albericus a famous Doctor is most express in Point And Baldus saith That Succession hath reference to the time of Death and respecteth the Priority that is then extant And again He is not said the First-born in Law who dyeth before the Fee openeth but he who at that time is eldest in Life And of the same Opinion is Alciate for as Celsus saith primus is dicitur ante quem nemo sit He is first who hath none before him And herein the Common Law of this Nation accordeth with the Civil Law And therefore the second Son of the King of England after the Death of the First-born is eldest Son within the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. where it is enacted That it shall be high Treason for a Man to compass the Death of the King 's eldest Son and Heir c. So if the first Son dye in the Life time of the King his Father the second Son forthwith becomes Primogenitus or First-born within the Charter of King Edw. 3. for the Dutchy of Cornwal as it was resolved in the case of Prince Charles upon the Death of his elder Brother Prince Henry By which it appeareth that Proximity of Blood is ennobled with all the Prerogatives and Preferences of Primogeniture But leaving this way of arguing the Point to be farther illustrated and pursued by the Church-men and Civilians I shall for the most part derive my own Proofs thereof from the Authority of the Common and Statute-Laws of England from Records of Parliament and other Eruditions of that kind as best sorting with my Person and Profession and a Discourse of this nature First then it is most evident That all the Human Acts and Powers in the World cannot hinder the Descent of the Crown upon the next Heir of the Blood I do agree they may hinder the possession and enjoyment and so they have often done by open Hostilities and Violence but I say they cannot hinder the Descent And the reason is plain because this is a Dowry which the great King of Kings hath reserved to his own immediate Donation and hath plac'd above the reach of a mortal Arm and Mankind can no more hinder or intercept this Descent than it can the Influences of the Stars or the Heavens upon the sublunary World or beat down the Moon And this though perspicuous enough in it self I shall farther prove anon in my last Reason of this Point by irrefragable Authorities of the Common Law of England and in my Answer to the second Objection This being so I shall add That in the very moment of the Descent the Person on whom it descends by the Law of this Nation becomes compleat and absolute King to all intents and purposes And so it was expresly Resolv'd by all the Judges of England 1 o Jacobi Watson and Clarks Case And the same Person being thus compleat and absolute King by the said Descent I do then farther add That the Ligeance and Fidelity of the Subject is due to that person by the immutable Law of Nature And so it was solemnly adjudged by the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England in the Exchequer Chamber in the great Case of Calvin 6 Jacobi Coke's 7th Rep. 12. v. 13. a. c. 25. a. And herewith concurs the Principal Secretary or Amanuensis of Nature I mean Aristotle who writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Law of Nature the Father hath the Rule over his Children and the King over his Subjects And Seneca the Philosopher hath a saying not unlike Natura commenta est Regem Nature saith he did first find out a King And for this Reason it is that our Statute-Laws do so frequently stile the King our Natural Liege Lord and the People Natural
for certain Reasons to them appearing As sometimes for Repugnancy and Impertinence and therefore where the Statute of Carlile enacted That the Common Seal of the Cistercian and Augustine Monks should be in the Custody of the Abbot and four others of the Covents And that any Deed seal'd with the same Seal not so kept should be of no effect This Statute was adjudged void for Repugnancy because the Seal being in the Custody of the four the Abbot could not Seal with it and when it was in the hands of the Abbot it was out of the Custody of the four And so by this Statute these two Orders could make no Deed valid in Law Sometimes for Absurdity as where the Statute of Edw. 6. gives Chantries to the King saving to the Donors and Founders all Services c. This Act was adjudged void as to the Services For it is absurd and contrary to Common Reason saith the Book that the King should hold of or do Service to his Subjects 14 Eliz. Dyer 3. 13. a. Mich. 16 17 Eliz. c. B. Strowd's Case Lastly the Judges have expounded Statute-Laws void in themselves when they are contrary to those of God and Nature and they are bound to adjudge them so when ever such Statute Laws come before them because the Laws of God and Nature are the Rays and Emanations of the Divinity they are eternal indelible immutable and therefore cannot be altered or Impeached by any human Power or Authority but only by the God of Nature it self who did originally ordain them And of this because it is the principal Matter now in hand I shall be the more plentiful in Instances And therefore if it should be enacted by Parliament That no Man should honour the King or love his Parents or Children or give Alms to the Poor or pay Tithes to the Parson of his Parish or the like these Acts are ipso facto void because they are contrary to the express Divine Commands Dr. Stud. lib. 1. cap. 6. 21 Hen. 7. 2. v. So where a Man was made Judge in his own Cause by Act of Parliament This Act hath been adjudged void because say our Books it is contrary to the Law of Nature that one and the same Person should be Judge and Party Cokes 8 Rep. a. v. Dr. Bonham's Case Hobart's Rep. 87. Day v. Savadge So an Act of Parliament can never make the Grant of an Ideot or Lunatic good for Jura Naturae sunt immutabilia saith the Book The Laws of Nature are immutable Hob. 224. Needler's Case By the Statute of the 25 Edw. 3. cap. 22. a Man attainted in a Praemunire is by express words out of the Kings protection generally and that it should be done with him as with an Enemy by which words any Man might have slain him as it is holden 28 Hen. 8. Title Crown Br. 197 until the Statute of 5 Eliz. 1. yet the King may protect him and pardon him Because the Protection of the Soveraign to the Subject is due by the Law of Nature Coke's 7th Rep. 14. a. Calvin's Case The Statute of 23 Hen 6. cap. 8. and several other Statutes enact That no Man shall be Sheriff of any County above one year and that any Patent of the King to any person for a longer Term though with an express Clause of Non obstante shall be absolutely void and of none effect and the Patentee perpetually disabled to bear the Office And yet notwithstanding it is resolved by all the Judges of England That these Acts of Parliament are void And that the King may by non obstante constitute a Sherif for Years Life or Inheritance And what is the Reason which the Judges give of this Resolution Why because say they in express words this Act of Parliament cannot bar the King of the Service of the Subject which the immutable Law of Nature doth give unto him for Obedience and Ligeance of the Subject add they is due to the Soveraign by the Law of Nature See 2 Hen. 7. 6. v. Calvin's Case 14. a. in Coke's 7th Rep. And thus upon the whole Matter of my first Reason I have as I conceive effectually prov'd these two Propositions First That the Succession of the Crown of England is inseparably annexed to Proximity of Blood by the Laws of God and Nature Secondly That Statute-Laws contrariant to those of God and Nature are ipso facto null and void And from hence it doth necessarily follow That the next Heir of the Blood Royal cannot be barr'd from the Succession by Act of Parliament Secondly The Succession of the Crown to the next Heir of the Blood Royal is a fundamental and primary Constitution of this Realm and indeed the Basis and Foundation of all our Laws Sir Ed. Coke says That the Kingdom of England is a Monarchy successive by inherent Birth-right of all others the most absolute and perfect form of Government excluding Interregnums and with it infinite inconveniences The Lord Chancellor Egerton tells us That in Cases of the Crown the Eldest sole or alone is to be prefer'd And this he reckons among the ancient Customs of this Nation against which there never hath been saith he nor ought to be any Dispute And indeed if the Parliament may alter so essential and fundamental a Custom or Constitution then the Monarchy of England which by the Law is and ever since we were a Nation hath been Hereditary will immediately become Elective and disposable at the Arbitry and Will of the People And by the same reason that they may exclude and reprobate the next Heir they may the next to that and so by consequence the whole Line For when Men have once transgress'd and broken down the Boundaries which the Law hath set and prefix'd the Progress is infinite and there is no stop And though the Common Law of England which as I have said doth superintend all Statute-Laws doth allow the Parliament to repair and amend and improve the Building yet it doth never allow them to pull it down and subvert the Foundations thereof And it is some odds that such Electors may in time believe that they have a Power to mar what they can so easily make and that with good Conscience they may destroy when they think fit their own Creature and Work of their own hands And therefore those Kings of England who have submitted their Necks to this popular or Statute-Kingship as I may call it it is plain they came not in at the Door but evermore at the Windows and have been constrain'd during their whole Reigns to stand upon their Guards and to defend their wrongful Possessions by Divine Right of the Sword as some in Raillery have call'd it as well even against the People that chose them as the Right Heirs As I shall anon Demonstrate at large And this alteration of the Monarchy in so fundamental a part thereof from Inheritance to Election may prove equally mischievous
also to a King in Possession though he claim too by Inherent and undoubted Birth-right for the same Reason which the People may think sufficient to exclude the Right Heir may when they please be deem'd valid enough also to depose and eject the lawful Possessor of the Crown Thirdly No Person or Community of Mankind can give away or transfer a thing which they never had in them to give And of this Nature is the Right of Succession to the Crown which is not the Gift of Man but the immediate Dowry of God Nature and the immutable Customs of the State This may be prov'd by the Scriptures Fathers Councils Canon Civil Common and Statute-Laws of which I shall give only a Tast Fourthly The Succession of the Crown to the next Heir of the Bloud is one of the highest most essential and undivided Rights of the Crown and a Pearl of the most transcendent Oriency and Magnitude in the Imperial Diadem of England And the Kings of England themselves their Chancellors Treasurers and all other the great Officers of State their Privy Counsellors and the Judges who are onely to expound all Statutes by which this Right of Succession may be violated are all by provision of the Law solemnly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists to maintain and defend the Rights of the Crown and that they suffer no Disinherison or Damage to accrue thereto And every Member of the Commons House who is to be a Party to the making these Laws of Reprobation by the Statute of Eliz. is obliged before he enter or have voice in the said House to swear that he will to his power defend all Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and if he do not he shall be deem'd no Member of that House and shall receive also further Punishment And the Oath at this day to be taken in the Court Leets all over the Kingdom by every Subject above 12 years old is That he will be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second and his Heirs c. And it is remarkable that in the Parliament of 42 Ed. 3. the Lords and Commons being demanded their Advice by the King in a matter relating to the Crown did answer with one voice That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the Disinherison of the King and his Heirs or the Crown whereunto they were sworn And Sir Edward Coke commenting upon that Record saith That it is Law and Custom of Parliament That no King can alien the Crown from the right Heir though by consent of the Lords and Commons And in another place he saith That King John 's Resignation of the Crown to the Pope was utterly void Because saith he the Royal ' Dignity is an Inherent inseparable to the Royal Bloud of the King descendable to the next of Bloud of the King and cannot be transferr'd to another thus he And which is much more the Parliament of 1 Jacobi do recognize That the Crown of England did descend upon King James by inherent Birthright as being lincally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Bloud Royal. And to this Recognition they do submit themselves and Posterities for ever untill the last drop of their Bloud be spilt And further do beseech his Majesty to accept of the same Recognition as the first fruits of their Loyalty and Faith not only to His Majesty but also and to his Royal Progeny and Posterity forever for so are the words So here this Parliament do oblige themselves and Posteritics which we are to defend and maintain the Succession of the Crown not onely to King James but also to his Royal Progeny and that not in a general way to any of his Bloud but onely to such Person to whom it shall be due by inherent Birthright and Proximity of Bloud as they recognize it was to the same King James So then the Succession of the Crown to the next Heir of the Bloud being a fundamental Right of the Crown and a Right annexed and secured to the same Heir not onely by the Laws Divine Natural and Humane but also as I have clearly proved by the Obligation and Sanctimony of National Lawful Recognitions and Oaths it doth evidently follow That the Parliament of England cannot by Law alter or violate the said Succession contrary to the same National and Legal Recognitions and Oaths Lastly The right Heir of the Crown cannot be barr'd or excluded by Act of Parliament Because the Accession and Descent of the Crown in an instant absolutely purgeth and dischargeth all Obstructions and Incapacities whatsoever created by the same Act of Parliament And the reason given in our Books of Law is Because say they upon Descent of the Crown immediately a Body Politic is superadded to the Body Natural of the King 's and these two Bodies in an instant become Consolidate Consubstantiate and Indivisible in one and the same Royal Person and thereupon the Body Politic which is the more worthy and sublime Nature and that is in no wise subject and obnoxious to the humane Imbecillities of Death Infancy Crime or the like draweth from the Natural Body all Imperfections and Incapacities whatsoever and in a moment endows and ennobles the same Natural Body with the Divine Embellishments and Perfections of the Politic. As it hath been frequently resolved by the Judges of England Plowd Com. 238. v. Lord Barkley's case Et ibid. 2 3. a. v. the case of the Dutchy of Lancaster Coke's 7th Rep. 10. a. Calvin's case And in the same Calvin's case 12. a. a Case argued by the Lord Chancellour and all the Judges of England it is affirmed That the King 's being a Body Politic is founded upon Necessity and the deepest Polities and Wisdom of our Law And why so Because saith that Case expresly Hereby the Attaindors and Disability of him that hath Right to the Crown are avoided lest in the interim there should be an Interregnum which the Law will not suffer This I shall now proceed to make good by two great and impregnable Instances drawn out of our Books of Common Law Histories and Records The first is that of King Henry the Sixth who being discomfited in Battel by King Edward the Fourth was in the first of the same King Edward disabled from all Regiment and attainted of High Treason by Act of Parliament The said King Henry some years afterwards by the assistance of the great Earl of Warwick was restor'd again to the Crown and held a Parliament And the Judges of that time were all of opinion That notwithstanding the Parliament of Edward had disabled Henry from all Government and attainted him of Treason that yet in the same moment that Henry reassumed the Crown the said Parliamentary Incapacities were to all intents discharged and avoided And yet Henry was at first but onely King de facto
Arthur of Britain who was the Son of Geossry John's Eldest Brother as all the Histories of that time do observe and lament And therefore wanting that Title which God Nature and the immutable Customs of this Realm give to the Right Heir he was constrain'd to pray in Aid of the People and to patch up a Title from them by Election The Story is this as I have extracted it out of Matthew Paris a learned Monk who lived in that time and who became afterwards Chronologer Royal to King Henry the third Son of the said King John John saith the Monk upon the Death of his Brother King Richard the first was advanced to the Throne by the favour and help of the great Ministers of State and at his Coronation in the presence of the Clergy Nobility and Populace Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England a Man of profound Subtilty and Reach tells them all in a very fine Harangue That no Man whatsoever was to succeed in the Kingdom here upon any previous Reason unless he were freely Elected by the universality of the People with consideration had of his Moralities and other personal Vertues after the Example of Saul's Election and then he added That John was a well qualified Person in that kind and that therefore they ought to choose him for their King But when the said Hubert was afterwards demanded why in so great an Assembly he durst broach so notorious a falshood viz. That the Monarchy of England was Elective O saith he this I did out of certain Revelations and Prophesies that I have received That John will at some time or other endanger the Realm and bring all into confusion Et ne haberet liberas habenas hoc faciendi ipsum Electione non Successione haereditaria eligi debere affirmavi for so are the Historian's Words And that I might curb him with this Bridle from effecting these things I did pronounce him admitted to the Crown by Election not by hereditary Succession So then we see here that the pronouncing the Monarchy of England to be Elective was done only by way of Umbrage and Dissimulation and to serve a turn at a certain Crisis and juncture of time And the truth is the People did accordingly afterwards check this unfortunate King with the same Bridle and reduc'd him to a very low condition and they chose Lewis the French King's Son their King And this was the consequence of King John's Election by the People and Invasion of the Right of his Nephew which Tenure was good only so long as he could maintain it with his Sword and so likewise is the Tenure of Pyrats and Robbers when they have ravish'd the Properties of other Men. Secondly For King Henry the fourth he was likewise King de facto only and not de Jure for he laid violent hands upon the Crown by the treasonable and barbarous Deposition and Murder of his natural Lord and Soveraign King Richard the second after whose Death without Issue the legal Title remain'd in the House of Clarence being the elder Line and so King Henry the fourth was constrain'd to truckle under an Election by the People and their Establishment in Parliament which Establishment was ipso facto void and null in Law against the House of York which married afterwards with the said House of Clarence as I have evidently proved by the Roll of Parliament of 39 o of Henry the sixth recited by me at large here in the beginning of this Discourse And indeed this very King Henry the fourth well knowing how much a Title to the Crown by the Common Law and Inherent Birth-right exceeded a Title by Statute and Suffrage of the People made his solemn Claim to the Crown in Parliament by Descent from King Henry the third which though it was the meerest figment and pretence that ever was as all the World knows yet he thought he might with more security rely upon that though fictitious than popular Establishment though real The Story is considerable and therefore I shall extract my Account thereof from the Roll of Parliament of that time Forthwith saith the Record upon vacancy of the Realm by Deposition of King Richard the second Henry Duke of Lancaster rising from his Seat and standing up so that he might be well seen by the People and humbly crossing his Forehead and Breast calling upon our Saviour's Cross he claim'd and challeng'd the Realm of England thus void in his Mother-Tongue under this very form of Words In the Name of Fader Sonne and Holy Gost I Henry of Lancastre challenge this Rewme of Ynglonde and the Crown with all the Membres and Appurtenances al 's I that am descendit be Ryght Lyne of the Blood comynge fro the gude Lord King Henry therde and thorghe that right that God of his Grace hath sent me with helpe of my Kin and of my frends to recover it and which Rewme was in poynt to be ondone for defaut of governance and un endoying of the gude Laws So we see here that the Title he laid stress upon was Al 's descendit be right line of the bloud comynge fro the gude Lord King Henry Therde he meant from Edmund second Son of King Henry the Third from whom the same Henry the Fourth by the Mother's side lineally derived and who would fain have fac'd down the World that the said Edmund was elder Brother to King Edward the First contrary to his own knowledge and that of all Mankind in that Age and the express Testimony of Matthew Paris who was Chronologer Royal to the said King Henry the Third at the time of the Birth of the said Edmund and Polydore Virgil and all our Historians Thirdly For King Henry the Seventh he was also King de facto but not de jure the legal Title abiding at that time in Elizabeth the eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth with which Elizabeth the same King Henry did afterwards marry Now because the Claim of the same King Henry the Seventh to the Crown is not generally understood and it will conduce much to my present purpose to clear that matter I shall crave leave here briefly to open it It is to be known then that King Henry the Seventh laid claim to the Crown as descending in a right line from John Duke of Somerset eldest Son to John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster by his third Wife Katharine Swinford by which Katharine the same John of Gaunt had Issue the said Duke of Somerset and other Children before Marriage with her and during his Marriage with his second Wife the Lady Constance Daughter and Heir of Peter King of Castile So the said Children were plainly all Bastards by our Law and by consequence not capable of inheriting any thing After the death of his second Wife John for the passionate affection which he bare to his Children by Katharine married her and some time after procured them by Act of Parliament
Persons and their Rights that in any wise may or might claim an Interest to the same Crown in Possession or otherwise shall during the Life of the Queen's Majesty be judged a High Traitor and therefore the same Queen had little reason to scruple the passing a Bill of this Nature But I much doubt whether a Common Law-Prince who owes his Title only to God Nature and the immutable Customs of the Nation unless under like Circumstances with King Henry the Eighth would have assented to an Act so derogatory to the Regalties for the manifest Inconveniencies that might insue to himself and posterity by such Assent and Condescention Some of which I have discovered in the beginning of this Discourse in my second Reason why the Succession of the Crown is annexed to Proximity of Blood Secondly Wise men do not only consider Things that are acted but more especially the Season and Junctures of Time when those things were acted and Sir Edward Coke a great Master in the Science of our Law doth frequently admonish us That the true Scope and Design of our Statute-Laws are oftentimes not at all intelligible without the help of the Chronicles and Memoirs of that Age wherein the said Statute-Laws were made Of which there cannot be a more pregnatn Instance than this here And therefore I will in Charity believe That the Contrivers of this Objection did never rightly inform themselves of the History and true Reason of making this Statute which in Truth was this Some time before this Statute Mary Queen of Scots Dowager of France and the Mother of our King James being discomfited in Battel by her own rebellious Vassals of Scotland she like a Dove pursued by Vultures fled into the bosom of her Kinswoman Elizabeth of England for Protection Elizabeth who inherited her Father's Malaversion to the House of Scotland and contrary to those Royal Sympathies which one Sovereign Prince ought to have for another in Distress and indeed against the Rules of common Hospitality commits Mary to a loathsom Prison The Pope with some of the Catholick Princes and others of her Friends thought this was no very kind Treatment and therefore endeavour not onely to set her at liberty but also to advance her to the Throne the generality of Mankind in that Age looking upon the said Mary's Title to be much clearer than that of the Queen in possession the later being bastardiz'd and render'd incapable of the Crown by solemn Act of Parliament which still stood unrepeal'd and therefore valid in Law at leastwise but a Statute-Queen as I prov'd before And the former deriving as is shew'd above by the Common Law and a direct true line from Margaret the eldest Daughter of King Henry the Seventh and Elizabeth his Queen And besides in the very year this Statute was made there was a Marriage warmly prosecuted between the said Queen Elizabeth and Henry Duke of Anjou who afterwards became King of France upon the death of his Brother Charles the Ninth and no small care was then taken for Establishment of the Succession upon the Issues proceeding from the same Marriage And there is a remarkable Clause among others in the same Statute of 13 viz. That every person or persons of what Degree and Nation soever they be shall during the Queen's Life declare or publish that they have any right to enjoy the Crown of England during the Queen's Life shall be disenabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession Inheritance or otherwise after the Queen's Death Which Clause was most apparently contriv'd against the same Mary and her Son King James So that the plain scope and design of this Statute was utterly and for ever to exclude and disinherit the same Mary Queen of Scots and all her Posterity and to extinguish absolutely that Right to the English Crown which the Laws of God and Nature and the Common Law of England had given to her and them And therefore how any man that pretends Loyalty or Allegiance to His Gracious Majesty that now is who derives his Title lineally from the said Mary Queen of Scots can object this Statute was a Precedent for Exclusion of the next Heir by Act of Parliament I cannot understand And the Objector may do well to consider how far he may enforce this Objection without hazard to his Person and Estate for no man can maintain the validity of this Statute without manifest Derogation and Injury unto his Majesty's Title Thirdly To affirm that the Parliament hath no Power to bind the Succession of the Crown in point of Descent and to affirm that the Parliament hath no power to exclude the next Heir of the Bloud Royal is the same Proposition Now I have proved above That the Succession of the Crown is annex'd to Proximity of Bloud by the Laws of God and Nature and that Acts of Parliament contrariant to those Laws are void So then the Case is no more than this An Act of Parliament ordains that no Person under a certain Penalty shall dare to affirm That Statute-Laws contrary to those of God and Nature are null and void I think no man ever did or doth or will doubt but that such Act of Parliament is absolutely void in it self and that the Judges are oblig'd to expound it so when ever it comes before them in Point of Judgment Lastly This Act of 13 being a Law made as I have proved above in diminution or rather in open and hostile Defiance of the Title of Scotland to this Crown it was by tacit and implied consent of the Law and the whole Nation utterly abrogated upon the first moment of the happy Union of the two Crowns in the person of King James or at leastwise by the solemn and express Repeal here of all hostile and unkind Laws between England and Scotland of which I am sure this of 13 was none of the least I shall draw towards a Conclusion with a certain apposite Note which one of our Latin Historians makes upon the nine days Reign of Jane Grey and the easie Admission of Queen Mary to the Crown Tali constanti veneratione nos Angli legitimos Reges prosequimur ut ab corum debito obsequio c. Such and so constant a Veneration saith he have we Englishmen for our lawful Princes that we are not to be drawn from our Allegiance and Loyalty to them by any colours or specious pretences whatsoever no not with the Bait even of Religion it self of which matter this Case of Jane may be a memorable and plain Instance For though the Foundations of her Government were laid as firm as was possible and the Superstructure also wrought with all the Art and Cunning in the world yet as soon as ever the lawful and undoubted Heir of the Crown appear'd and shew'd her self to the People all this fine and curious Frame presently fell to the ground and was ruin'd as it were in the twincle of an Eye and that principally by the
hands and industry to those very persons who upon the account of Religion were thought to have most favoured the Interest of Jane And though the Duke of Northumberland Jane's Father in Law and a man of prodigious Subtilty had instructed the Preachers of London to cry down the Title and blacken the person of Mary in their Pulpits by all the ways imaginable yet this Device was smoak'd and would not take even with the Londoners themselves no though Ridley their Bishop a man of singular Sanctity and Persuasion and whose Person they passionately revered laboured in the matter with all his Might c. So far the Historian Thus I have as I conceive answer'd all material Objections and have likewise made good my Proposition viz. That the Parliament of England cannot by the Laws of England exclude the next Heir of the Bloud from Succession to the Crown And I doubt not His Sacred Majesty that now is will not in his time suffer a Pearl of this Magnitude and Oriency to be ravish'd by any Hands out of the Imperial Diadem of this Realm Sir I doubt not but upon a serious and deliberate Perusal of this Discourse which I have compos'd at your earnest Intreaty you will gather some Notices and Knowledge which may be of use and satisfaction to you Whatever it be I beseech you to believe that I am SIR Your Faithful and Humble Servant E. F. FINIS 1. Reason a Gen. 4. 7. b Deut. 21. 17. c Exod. 13. 1. 22. 9. Numb 3. 13. Luc. 2. 23. d In Epist ad Onagr Et in Gen. 49. e Hom. 5. adversus Judaos f De Repub. lib. 6. cap. 5. g Lex hoc D. de Just Jure h Iac. licet de voto i Tract de Pot. Excell Regia q. 9. k In l. obvenire D. de verb. sig l In proaem D. Sect. Discipuli Et in 1. Donationes C. de Don. inter Vir. Vx m In L. 2. C. de Jur. Emph. n Per L. ex facto Sect. pen. D. ad Treb o Cons 275. lib. 2. p In L. proximus D. de Verb. Sig. q L. ex duobus D. de Vulg. pup r Cokes 3d. Inst 8. s Jac. The Case of the Dutchy of Cornwal * Cited in Coke's 7th Rep. 10. v 11. d. Calvin's Case t Arist Ethic. Nicomac lib. 8. cap. 13. u De Clemen lib. 1. cap. 19. x 24 H. 8. cap. 12. 34 H. 8. cap. 1. 23 Eliz. cap. 1. c. a 1 Sam. 16 1. c 2 Kings 9. 4. d Exod 11. 2. 12. 35. e Rot. Parl. 39. Hen. 6. Num. 10. 13 15 27. f Rot. Parl. 1 Ed. 4. num 8. c. 9 Ed. 4. 10. a. Bagot's Assise 1 Jac. c. 1. h 6 Jac. Co. 7 Rep. 10. v. 14. v. i Printed in Poulton's Statutes 3 Car. 1. k Coke's 1. Iast 344. a. l 27 Hen. 6. Fitch Title Annuity 41. m 1 Edw. 6. cap. 14. n Cited in Coke's 8. Rep. 118. v. Dr Bonham's Case 2 Reason o Preface to his fourth Rep. in principio p His Argument of the Case of the postnati pag. 36. 3 Reason 4 Reason * 18 Ed. 3. The Oath of the Judges printed in Poulton 5 Eliz. ca. 1. q Co. 7. Rep. 6. v. Calvin's case r Rot. Parl. 42 Ed. 3. nu 7. s 4 Inst 14. in margine t 12 Rep. 28. v 1 Jac. c. 1. A Recognition that the Crown of England is lawfully descended unto King James his Progeny and Posterity K. H. 6 Rot. Parl. 1 Ed. 4. num 12 22. K. H. 7. 28 H 8. cap. 7. Vita Eliz. Anâ— no 2. regni In Lib. Barbarious D. de Offic. Praesid Walsingham in vita Ed. 1. Dyer 165. a. b Coke's 7th Rep. 11. a. Post-nati 1 Objection Answer King John Vita Johannis fol. 197. Henry 4th Rot. Parl. 39. H. 6. Num. 10. 13 15. 27. Rot. Parl. 1 H. 4. Memb. 20. a Vita H. 3. fol. 488. 654. b In Ane Vitae H. 3. principio H. 4. Henry 7. c R. 2 num 29. Rot. Parl. 20. Rot. Parl. 20. Ri. 2. Pars secanda memb 6. Rot. Parl. 8 H. 4. Pars prima memb 14. d Lord Herbert H. 8. fol. 8. Bacon Hist. 11. 12. 11 H. 7. cap. 1. His History of H. 7. fol. 144. Ib. fol. 233. 217. Henry 8. 25 H. 8. c. 22. 28 H. 8. cap 7. Heylin's Ecclesia restaurata fol. 5. 35 H. 8. cap. 1. 2 Objection Answer Nil dat quod non habet 1. Inst. 11. v. 344. a. 〈…〉 Eliz. Reg. 28. 1586. 〈…〉 die saith Cambden 〈…〉 sententia in Scotorum Regia 〈◊〉 prolata est à Delegatis 〈◊〉 Judicibus declaratum erat â—â—rentiam iliam nihil derogare Jacobo Regi Scotorum in Jure aut â—â—onore sed ilium in eodem esse 〈◊〉 Ordine Jure ac si Sâ—mentia illa nunquam lata fuiset Fo. so are the very Words of the Historian 3 Objection Answer â— Eliz. cap. 3. 〈…〉 a. 28 H. 8. cap. 7. Cambden in 13 Eliz. 4 Jac. cap. 1. Rerum Anglicarum Annales lib. 3. Vita Mariae Ré