his Father and to be Exiled from the Realm of England and that therefore the King that now is and the Queen his Mother being in so great Jeopardy in a strange Countrey and seeing the destructions and disinherisons which were notoriously done in England upon holy Church the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalty of the same by the said Spencers Robert Baldock and Edmund Earl of Arundel by the Encroachment of Royal Power to themselves and seeing they might not remedy the same unless they came into England with an Army of Men of War and have by the Grace of God with such puissance and the help of the great Men and Commons of the Realm vanquished and destroyed the said Spencers c. therefore our Soveraign Lord the King by the Common Council of the Prelates Earls Barons and other great Men and of the Commons of the Realm have provided and ordained c. as follows That no great Man nor other of what Estate Dignity or Condition soever he be that came in with the said King that now is and with the Queen in Aid of them to pursue their said Enemies and in which pursuit the King his Father was taken and put in Ward c. shall be impeached molested or grieved in person or in goods in any of the King's Courts c. for the pursuit and taking in hold the body of the said King Edward nor for the pursuit of any other persons not taking their goods nor for the death of any Man nor any other things perpetrated or committed in the said pursuit from the day of the King and Queens Arrival until the day of the Coronation of the said King This Act of Indemnity is so full a Justification of the necessity and lawfulness of the Resistance that was then made against King Edward the Second and his wicked Councellors the Spencers that it needs no Comment And tho' King Edward the Third took warning by the example of his Father and was too wise then to follow the like Arbitrary Courses yet Richard the Second his Grandson being a wilful hot headed young Prince fell into all the Errours of his great Grand-father and found the like if not greater Resistance from his Nobility and People for when he had highly mis-governed the Realm by the Advice of his favourites Alexander Arch-Bishop of York the Duke of Ireland and others a Parliament being called in the 10th Year of his Reign the Government of the Kingdom was taken out of their hands and committed to the Bishops of Canterbury and Ely with Thomas Duke of Gloucester the King's Uncle Richard Earl of Arundel and Thomas Earl of Warwick and nine or ten other Lords and Bishops but notwithstanding this the King being newly of Age refused to be governed by the said Duke and Earls but was carried about the Kingdom by the said Duke of Ireland and others to try what Forces they could raise and also to hinder the said Duke and Earls from having any Access to him But see what followed these violent and arbitrary courses as it is related by Henry de Knighton who lived and wrote in that very time and is more exact in this King's Reign than any other Historian he there tells us that when Thomas Duke of Gloucester and the other Bishops and Earls now mentioned sound they could not proceed in the Government of the King and Kingdom according to the Ordinance of the preceding Parliament through the hinderance of Mich. de la Poole Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland Nich. Brembar and Robert Tresillian Chief Justice and others who had seduced the King and made him alienate himself from the Council of the said Lords to the great damage of the Kingdom whereupon the said Duke of Gloucester and the Lords aforesaid with a great Guard of Knights Esquires and Archers came up towards London and quartered in the Villages adjacent and then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Lord Lovat the Lord Cobham the Lord Eures with others went to the King in the name of the the Duke and Earls and demanded all the persons above-mentioned to be banished as Seducers and Traitors to the King and all the Lords then swore upon the Cross of the said Arch-Bishop not to desist till they had obtained what they came for the conclusion of this Meeting was that the King not being able to withstand them was forced immediately to call that remarkable Parliament of the 11th Year of his Reign in which Mich. de la Poole and the Duke of Ireland were attainted and Tresillian and divers other Judges sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn upon the Impeachment of the said Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel for delivering their Opinions contrary to Law and the Articles the King had not long before proposed to them at Nottingham I shall omit the Resistance which Henry Duke of Lancaster made after his Arrival by the Assistance of the Nobility and People of the North of England against the Arbitrary Government of this King being then in Ireland not only because it is notoriously known but because it was carried on farther than perhaps it needed to have been and ended in the Deposition of this King Only in the first Year of Henry the 4th there was the same Act of Indemnity almost word for word passed for all those that had come over with that King and had assisted him against Richard the Second and his evil Councellors as was passed before in primo of Edward the Third I shall not also insist upon the Resistance of Richard Duke of York in the Reign of King Henry the 6th who took up Arms against the Evil Government of the Queen and her Minion the Duke of Suffolk because you may say that this was justifiable by the Duke of York as right Heir of the Crown nor will I instance in the Resistance made by the Two Houses of Parliament during the late Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First since it is disputed to this day who was in the fault and began this Civil War whether the King or the Parliament Only thus much I cannot omit to take notice of that the King in none of his Declarations ever denied but that the People had a right to Resist him in case he had made War upon them or had introduced Arbitrary Government and expresly owned in his Answer to one of the Parliaments Messages that they had a sufficient power to restrain Tyranny but denied himself to be guilty of it and still asserted that he took up Arms in defence of his just Right and Prerogative to the Command of the Militia of the Kingdom which they went about to take from him by force M. I have with the greater patience hearkened to your History of Resistance in all the Kings Reigns you have mentioned because I cannot desire any better Argument to prove the unlawfulness of such Resistance than those Acts of Pardon and Indemnity You cannot but confess have
you quote it yet I much doubt whether it was of any validity being no doubt drawn up by the Barons then in Arms and which the King durst not at that time refuse and so he was indeed under a kind of duresâ— when he did it And besides pray mark the conclusion of this Clause this Resistance was to be Salva Persona nostra Reginae nostrae Liberorum nostrorum cum fuerit emendatum intendent nos sicut prius fecerunt Now how this Security here reserved for the King's Person could consist with that open War the Barons made afterwards against his very Person and casting off all their Allegiance to their Natural Prince and calling in Prince Lewis Son to the King of France I cannot understand F. I think all this may very easily be solved For in the first place K. Iohn was no more compelled to agree to this Clause than he was to the Charters themselves and if those were lawful and reasonable so was this Resistance too since there was no other way or means lest to preserve them in case the King should go from his own Acts and break through all he had done so that if the ends were lawful the means to preserve it must be so too or else those Charters would have signified nothing any longer than the King pleased As for the other part of the Objection that this Resistance was still to be saving the Person of the King and Queen c. and that this did not consist with the Barons after making War against his Person and casting off all Allegiance to him It was not their faults but the King 's if they could not perform this Agreement since the King by making War upon the Clergy Nobility and People by his open and notorious breach and recalling of these Charters calling in Strangers to his assistance and declaring he would no longer govern according to Law had made it absolutely unpracticable to preserve their Allegiance to him any longer so that they never cast off their duty as Subjects till he had cast off his duty as a King and then what was there else left to be done but to provide for their own safety by calling in a Forein Prince to their Assistance as soon as they could since there was no other way left them to defend themselves against those Troops of Strangers the King had invited over and though many of them with their Captain Hugh de Boves had been cast away and drowned in a Tempest at Sea yet more were daily expected So that if Tyrants should suffer nothing for the breach of their own Charters and Oaths they would be in a better condition by their violation than the observing of them â—or by the making them they for the present quiet the Minds of their discontented Subjects and when they please may break them all again when they have got power if no body must presume to resist them or not think them as much Kings when they destroy and oppress their People as when they protect and preserve them by governing according to the Laws of the Kingdom But pray what have you to say against that general Resistance that was made by almost all the Bishops Barons and great Men of England against his Son Henry the Third about the frequent and notorious violations of the great Charters which his Father and himself had so often sworn to and confirmed and for which he had received such great Benevolences and Subsidies from the Nation M. Before I answer this Question pray take notice that I am not at all satisfied with your Arguments that when ever Subjects shall think themselves injured and oppressed by their Soveraigns that then they may cast off their Allegiance to them if they cannot have the Remedy they desire since this were to make them both Judges and Parties too in their own Cause which is altogether unjust and unreasonable between private Men much more between Kings and Subjects But passing by this at present I shall tell you my Opinion of this Resistance of Simon Montfort and the Earls and Barons his Adherents that it was down-right Rebellion and tended only to dethrone the King and make him a meer Cypher and to devolve the whole Government upon themselves as appears by the Oxford Provisions recited by so many Authors of that Age and which were afterwards condemned and consequently those violent means by which they were obtained by Lewis the Ninth King of France who in an Assembly of his Estates upon a solemn hearing of the whole difference between King Henry the Third and his Barons declared these Oxford Provisions null and void So far was this good and pious King from countenancing any Rebellion or Resistance as you term it of Subjects against their lawful Soveraign F. For all this I cannot find that the King of France did then at all condemn this defence the Earls and Barons had before made of the Liberties granted them by the great Charters for tho' he restored the King to his former Power by avoiding the Oxford Provisions yet at the same time when this was done as the Continuator of Mat. Paris tells us he expresly excepted the Ancient Charters of King Iohn Vniversâ—li seil Angliae concessae and from which per illam sententiam in nullo intendibat penâ—tus derogare and if he did not in the least intend to derogate from them he could not with any Justice condemn the only means the Barons had to maintain them after so many Trials and fresh Promises and Oaths of this fickle inconstant King all broken and laid aside so that you may as well or better alledge the Pope's shameful Absolution of this King from this Oath he had made to observe the great Charters as an Argument why they should not be any longer bound by them nor the Barons obliged to defend them as this Sentence of the King of France to render the Resistance the Barons had made in defence of the great Charters to be unlawful And that King Henry himself did afterwards allow this Resistance for good and lawful Pray see the Agreement which was not long after made in full Parliament in the 49th between the King the Prince and all the Prelates Earls and Barons of England whereby he obliged himself to observe all the Articles and Ordinances which had been before agreed upon at London in the 48th Year of his Reign And then follows this Clause in the Record which the Doctor himself has printed in his Appendix at the end of the first Volume of his Introduction to English History which I shall here translate out of French because it is very old and obscure it is thus And if our Lord the King or Monsieur Edward viz. the Prince shall go against the Peace and Ordinance aforesaid or shall grieve the Earls of Leicester or Gloucester or any of their Party by reason of any of the things aforesaid that then the great Men and Commons of the Land
this Letter I now mentioned was writ to the Pope which transaction I shall give you almost verbatim out of Mat. of Westminster and Henry de Keyghton in Anno 1297. being the 26th of Edward the First when the King having extorted a great sum of Money from the Clergy and People contrary to Law and being then going into Flanders he called a Parliament at Westminster where most of the Earls and Barons refused to appear until such time as their Petitions for the ease of their Countrey were heard and that the King would again confirm Magna Charta Yet nevertheless the King upon his confession of his Male Administration which he made before all the People with Tears in his Eyes and promise of amendment then obtained of the Commons an Aid of the Eighth Penny of their Goods But as soon as the King was gone over the Constable and Earl Mareschal with other Earls and Barons went to the Exchequer and there forbad the Judges to levy the said Tax upon the People by the Sheriffs because it was done without their knowledge without whose consent no Tax ought to be exacted or imposed so that the said Earls and Barons being thus gathered together and the greater part of the People joyning with them at last Prince Edw. then Lieutenant of the Kingdom was forced to call a Parliament to which the Earls and Barons came attended with great multitudes both of Horse and Foot but would not enter the City of London till the Prince had in his Fathers name confirmed the great Charters and had passed the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo both which were afterwards again confirmed by the King his Father some time after his Return And this will serve to explain the last Article in this Statute which comprehends the King's Pardon or Remission to Humphrey Earl of Herâ—ford and Essâ—x then Constable and Roger Bigot Earl of Norfolk Mareschal of England the two principal Leaders in the late Resistance with all other Earls Barons Knights and Esquires of their Party all Leagues and Confederacies as also all Rancour and Ill-will with all other Transgressions against them And pray see Sir Edward Coke's Comment on these words you compare our English Histories with this Act of Parliament the Old saying shall be verified That Records of Parliamentâ— the truest Histories The King had conceived a deep displeasure against the Constable Mareschal and others of the Nobility Gentry and Commons of the Realm for denying that which he so much desired yet for that they stood in defence of their Laws Liberties and Free Customs c. I suppose he refers to the Resistance but now mentioned whereupon he did not only restore the same to them as aforesaid but granted special Pardon to those against whom he had conceived so heavy a displeasure c. and such a one as you will scarce read the like and after a short gloss upon the words Rancour and Ill-will he thus comments on these words etiam transgressiones si qâ—as fecâ—inâ— here the words si quaâ— sicâ—iâ—t were added lest by acceptance of a pardon they should confess they had transgressed So careful were the Lords and Commons to preserve their Ancient Laws Liberties and Customs of their Countrey so that it is plain that Sir Edward Coke then thought the Lords and Commons had not transgressed in thus standing up tho' with force of Arms for their just Rights and Liberties and which sufficiently proves that this Author did not conceive such a Resistance to be making War against the King and so Treason at that time at Common Law and consequently not to be afterwards Treason by the Statute of 25th of Edward the Third as you would have it since that Statute dâ—es not make any other Overt-acts to be Treason but what had been so by Common Law before this Statute was made But in the Reign of this King's Son Edward the Second there were much more pregnant and fatal proofs of the exercise of this Right of Resistance by the Earls Barons and People of England against Peirce Gaveston whom having been before for his Mis-government of the King banisht the Realm by Act of Parliament and coming over with the King's License but without any reverse of the said Act Thomas Earl of Lancaster the King's Uncle with the rest of the Earls Barons and Commons of the Land took up Arms against him And tho' he raised some Forces by the King's Commission yet they fought with him and took him Prisoner and beheaded him near Warwick Some years after which the said Thomas Earl of Lancaster with Humphrey de Bohun Earl of Hereford together with divers other Earls and Barons took Arms and spoiling the Lands of the two Spencers Father and Son came up to London where the King had called a Parliament in which the King was forced to banish the said Spencers out of the Kingdom tho' they quickly returned again against whom when the said Earls above mentioned and divers other Barons and Knights again took Arms but being fail'd by some of their Consederates were over-power'd by the King's Party and the Earl being taken Prisoner was attainted and beheaded at Portfract yet was the this Judgment against the Earl and those of his Party afterwards reversed in Parliament in 1 mo Edward the Third and their Heirs restored in blood as also to the Lands of their Fathers as besides the Act it still to be seen upon the Rolls appears more plainly by a Writ of this King 's reciting that whereas at a Parliament at Westminster among other things it was agreed by the King the Prelates Earls Barons and Commons of the Kingdom that all those who were in the Quarrel with Thomas E. of Lancaster against the Spencers should have their Lands and Goods restored because the said Quarrel was found and adjudged by the King and the whole Parliament to be good and just and that the Judgments given against them were null and void and therefore commands restitution of the Lands and Tenements now in the Crown to the Executors of the said Earl and the like Writs are found for the other Lords and Gentlemen that had been of his Party And further that not only this Resistance made by this Earl and the rest of his followers but also that which this King himself made together with Queen Isabel his Mother against the Mis-government of the King his Father through the evil Counsel of the two Spencers appears by the Act of Indemnity passed in the first Year of this King in the preamble of which there is recited a short History of the wicked Government and Banishment of the Spencers Father and Son and also how Thomas late Earl of Lancaster was by their procurement pursued taken executed disinherited and how the said Spencers and Robert Baldock and Edmund Earl of Arundel by the Royal Power they had usurped had caused the King that now is and the Queen his Mother to be utterly forsaken of the King
to private Churches and if his Nobles or Followers had unjustly dissieâ—ed any Bishop or Abbot of their Estates the King caused them to be restored again as appears by many Presidents of this kind which are to be found in Ingulphus and Eadmerus this being premised let us see in the next place what proportion the Lands belonging to the Church did in those days bear to the rest of the Lands in England now we find in Sprot's Chronicle as also from the old Legierbook cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour and particularly from that Secretum Abbotis formerly belonging to the Abby of Glassenbury and now in the Library of the University of Oxon that there were not long after your Conquest 60215 Knights fees in England of which the Bishops Abbots and other Church-men then enjoyed 28015. When it is supposed this account was taken then it will follow that in the Reign of your Conqueror there were above 28000 Knights Fees which belonged to the Church and in these we do not any where find that K. William dispossessed their Tenants of their Estates most of which were held in Fee under them and those Tenants were great and powerful men in their Countries and hence we read in the ancient Records and Legier Books of the Barons and Knights that held of divers Bishops and great Abbots several examples which you will find in Sir Henry Spellman Title Baro now it is certain that King William could not turn all these men out of their Estates and give them to his followers without committing sacriledge and invading the Rights of the Church which that King durst not commonly do so that the utmost that you can suppose he could do was to take the forfeitures of all such Tenants of the Church who had taken part with King Harold or had any ways committed Treason against himself which were far from the whole number of them so that here goes off at once almost a half of all the Lands held by Knights service which the King did never dispossess the ancient owners of to these may be also added all Tenants in ancient Demesne all Tenants in Socage as also all Tenants in Gavel kind which in those days made at least two thirds of the Lands of Kent which by the way was never conquer'd but surrender'd upon Terms to â—are their ancient Customs and Tenures as Mr. Cambden himself acknowledges in his description of this County besides what was held in other Counties by the same Tenure as you will find in Mr. Taylor 's History of Gavel kind all which being not Tenures in chief by Knights Service are not Register'd in Domesday book nor does it appear that the owners were ever dispossessed of them to which may also be added the Lands of those smaller Thanes or Officers of King Edward whose names are found in Domesday book who held their Lands ratione officii To all these we may also add all such Norman Noblemen and Gentlemen who having come into England in Edward the Confessors time and having Honours and Lands given them by him had continued here ever since and these were so numerous that it was thought worth while by King William to make a particular Law concerning them that they should partake of all the Customs the Rights and Priviledges of Native Englishmen and pay Scot and Lot as they did of these was the Earl of Moâ—ton besides many others whose names appear in Doomesday book and not only these men but also divers Cities and Towns held Lands of King William by the same Rents and Services as they had formerly paid in the time of King Edward the Confessor as Oxford for example But to give an answer to some of your instances as when you say that King William gave away whole Counties as all Cheshire to Hugh Lupus and the greatest part of Shropshire to Roger de Montgomery c. It is a great error to suppose that these Earls had all the Lands mentioned in these Counties to dispose of at their Pleasure and that they turned out all the Old Propâ—ietors which it is certain they did not as I could prove to you by several instances of Antient English Families who have held their Lands and enjoyed the same seats they had in the Conquerors time so that you see there is a great deal of difference between a grant of all the Land of a County and that of the whole County what is meant by the former is plain but as for the latter it generally implies not any thing more than the Government of that County Thus whereas your Dr. would have it that the greatest part of Shropshire was given to Roger de Montgomery Doomesday says only that he had the City of Shrewsbury totum Comitatum and the whole County But that is soon explained by what follows totum Dominum quod Rex ipse tenebat where it is plain that by Dominium is meant no more than that power to govern it which King Edward had for otherwise the Grant of totum Comitatum had been sufficient M. I confess this is more than I ever heard or considered before concerning this matter but you do not give me any positive proof that at the time when Doomes day Book was made there were any Englishmen who held Earldoms or Baronies or other great Estates of the King or any of his great Men so that what you have said hitherto tho' it carry a great shew of probability yet is no positive proof against the Doctors assertion F. I shall not go about to deny what William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntington so positively affirm that for sometime before the end of King William's Reign there was no Englishman a Bishop Abbot or Earl in England yet does it not therefore follow that it was thus thorough his whole Reign or if it were so that it will therefore follows that there were few Englishmen who when Domesday Book was made possessed any Lands in England but that in part of King William's Reign there were many English Earls and Barons appears by above a dozen Charters cited by Sir William Dugdale in the Saxon and Latin Tongues in his Monast. Anglic. which are either directed by K. William to all his Earls and Thains or else in Latin Omnibus Baronibus Francigenis Anglis or else Omnibus Baronibus Fidelibus suis Francis Anglis salutem the like Charters also appear of Henry J. and the Empress Maud his Daughter so that if Francigena and Francus signifie a Frenchman and Anglus and Englishman and if Fidelis does as your Dr. would have it signifie a Tenant in Capite then I think nothing is plainer than that there were for great part of King William's Reign both Earls Barons and Tenants in Capite of English Extraction But to come to particular persons it will appear by the Saxon or English names in Doomesday book as also by several recitals therein that there were divers English
Tenants by Knights service as also those aids they were to pay the King or any other Lord they held of towards making his eldest Son a Knight and Marrying his eldest Daughter were in use in England before the Conqueror came over But to observe your commands I shall now proceed to shew that by the Conquest the English for a time lost all their ancient Rights and Priviledges till they again obtained them either by their mixing with the Normans so that all distinction between them and the English were taken away or else they were restored by the Charters of K. Henry the first K. Iohn and K. Henry the third I shall therefore divide the priviledges of Englishmen into these three heads first Either such as concerned their Offices or Dignities Or secondly Such as concerned their Estates Or lastly Such as concerned the Tryal for their lives in every one of which if I can prove the English Natives as well of the Clergy and Nobility suffered confideracie lesses and abridgments of their ancient 〈…〉 liberties which they formerly enjoyed I think I shall sufficiently prove the point in hand As to the first head Ingâ—ph telâ—s us that the English were so hated by the Normans in his time that how well soever they deserved they were driven from their Dignities and strangers tho' much less fit of any Nation under Heaven were taken in their places and Malmesbury who lived and writ in the time of Henry the first says that England was then become the habitation of foreigners and the Rule and Government of strangers and that there was at that day no Englishman an Earl Bishop or Abbot but that strangers devoured the Riches and gnawed the Bowels of England neither is there any hope of ending this misery So that it is plain they were now totally deprived of all Offices and Dignities in the Common Weal and consequently could have then no place in the great Council the Parliament of the Nation both for the raising of Taxes and the making of Laws and tho' I grant Mr. Petyt and your self suppose you found a clause in the Conquerors Magna Charta whereby you would prove that all the Freemen of this Kingdom should hold their Lands and Possessions Well and in Peace free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage so as nothing be exacted or taken unless their Free-services which of right they ought and are bound to perform to us and as it was appointed to them and given and granted to them by us as a perpetual right of Inheritance by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom This Common Council will not help you for without doubt here were no Englishmen in it for certainly they would not grant away their own Lands to strangers These were the Saxon Lands which William had given in Fee to his Soldiers to hold them under such services as he had appointed them and that by right of Succession or Inheritance We will now come to the second point viz. the Priviledges the Englishmen lost as to their Estates for whereas before the Conquest you affirm the K. could nor make Laws nor raise Taxes without the Common Coâ—ncil of the Kingdom it is certain K. William and his immediate Successors did by their sole Authority exercise both these Prerogatives as for his Legislative power it appears from the words of his Coronation Oath as you your self have repeated it out of Florence of Worcester and Roger Hoveden the conclusion of which Oath is se velle reâ—â—am legem statuere tenere Rapinas Injustaque Iudicia penitus interdicire Now the Legislative power was then lodged in him why else did he swear to appoint right Laws For if the constitution had been setled as it is at present the Parliament could have hindered him from making any other and that he could do so appears by that yoak of servitude which Matthew Paris as well as other Authors tells us K. William by his own Authority imposed upon the Bishopricks and Abbies in England which held Baronies which they had hitherto enjoyed free from all secular servitude he now says he put under Military service sessing all those Bishopricks and Abbies according to his pleasure how many Knights or Souldiers each of them should find to the King and his Successors and putting the Rolls of this Ecclesiastical Service in his Treasury he caused to fly out of the Kingdom many Ecclesiasticks who opposed this wicked constitution now if he could do this upon so powerful a Body as the Bishops and Abbots were at this time he might certainly as well raise what Taxes he pleased upon all the People of England and therefore Henry of Huntington tells us that K. William upon his return out of Normandy into England Anglis importabile tributum imposuit Lib. 3. p. 278. And that his Son William Rufus imposed what Taxes he would upon the People without consent of the Parliament appears by that passage of William of Malmesbury which he relates in the Reign of this K. as also in his third book de Gestis Pontificâ—m concerning Ranulâ— whom from a very mean Clerk he made Bishop of Duâ—ham and Lord Treasurer the rest I will give you in Latine Isle siquando edictum regium processisset ut nominatum tributum Anglia penderet duplum adjiciâ—bat subinde idente Rege ac dicente solum esse hominem qui sciret sic agitare ingenium nec aliorum curares odium dummodo complaceret dominum So that you may here see that the Kings Edict or Proclamation did not only impose the Tax at his pleasure but his Treasurer could double it when he had a mind to it without consent of the great Council or Parliament as we now call it and this Prerogative was exercised by divers of his Successors till the Statute de Tallagiâ— non concedendo was made But to come to the last head concerning the alteration of Tryals for mens Lives and Estates by the Conqueror from what they were before it is certain that whereas before the Conquest there were no other Tryals for mens lives but by Juries or else by Fire or Water Ordeal which was brought in by the Danes the Conqueror tho' he did not take way these yet also added the law then in use in Normandy of Trying not only Criminal but Civil Causes by Duel or Combat all the difference was that in criminal cases where there was no other Proof the accuser and accused fought with their Swords and the party vanquished was to lose his Eyes and Stones but in civil causes they only fought with Basâ—oons headed with Horn and Bucklers and he or his Champion who was overcome lost the Land that was contended for from whence you may take notice also of a great alteration in the Law not only concerning Tryals but capital Punishments so that whereas before the Conquest all crimes even Man slaughter it self were either â—ineable according to the Quality of the Person and the Rates set upon
Rebellion for the Duke of Lancaster to take up Arms against King Richard the 2 d and to Depose him I cannot see why according to your own Principles it should not be the same crime in the Duke of York to take up Arms against King Henry the 6 th to whom he had more than once sworn Faith and Allegiance and having taken him Prisoner to call a Parliament whereby himself was declared Protector of the Kingdom and the Son of King Henry disinherited after a quiet possession in three descents during the space of above sixty years which if it will not give a thorough settlement after two Acts of Parliament to confirm it I know not what can M. I confess you have given me a more exact account of this transaction than ever I had yet and I should very much incline to be of your opinion were it not that I am satisfied that our Kings have a Right to the Crown by Gods Law as well as mans as also by the Law of Nature and that more than one Parliament have been of my opinion in this matter I shall shew you from several Statutes and Declarations of Parliament which though not Printed are yet to be seen at this day upon the Parliament Rolls for after that Henry the 6 th or rather his queen for him had broken the aforesaid solemn agreement made between this King and Duke in Parliament whereby it was accorded that if King Henry made War again upon the Duke of York he should then forfeit his present Right to the Kingdom during his Life whereupon Queen Margaret and her Son Prince Edward who would not submit to this agreement renewed the War and fighting another Battle at Wakefield the said Duke was slain but though he did not live to enjoy his right yet his Son Edward Earl of March again recovered it and having in the second Battle of St. Albans taken K. Henry Prisoner triumphantly Marching to London he there declar'd himself King and having immediately call'd a Parliament it was therein declar'd that all the proceedings against K. Richard the ad are repeal'd and the taking him Prisoner by Henry Earl of Darby was declared against his Faith and Allegiance and that with violence he had usurped upon the Royal Power and Dignity c. and that he had by cruel Tyranny Murther'd and Destroy'd the said King Richard his Liege and Soveraign Lord against Gods Law and his own Oath of Allegiance And then they proceed further to declare in these words That the Commons being of this present Parliament having sufficient and evident knowledge of the said unrightwise Usurpation and intrusion by the said Henry late Earl of Derby upon the said Crown of England knowing also certainly without doubt and ambiguity the Right and Title of our said Sovereign Lord viz. King Edward the 4 th thereunto true and that by Gods Law Mans Law and the Law of Nature he and none other is and ought to be their True Rightwise and Natural Leige and Sovereign Lord and that he was in Right from the death of the said noble and famous Prince his Father very just King of the said Realm of England and will for ever take accept and repute the said King Edward the â—ourth their Sovereign and Liege Lord and him and his Heirs to be Kings of England and none other according to the said Right and Title And that the same Henry unrightwisely against Law Conscience and the Customs of the said Realm of England Usurped upon the said Crown and that he and also Henry late call'd K. Henry the 5 th his Son and Henry Late called Henry the 6 th his Son occupy'd the Realm of England and Lordship of Ireland and exercised the Governance thereof by Unrightwise Intrusion Usurpation and no otherwise that the â—motion of Henry late called King Henry the 6 th from the Exercise Occupation Usurpation Intrusion Reign and Governance of the said Realm and Lordship done by our Sovereign Lord King Edward the 4 th was and is rightwise Lawful according to the Laws and Customs of the said Realm and so ought to be taken holden reputed and â—ccupied I have been the larger on this point because it is a full and free Declaration of the whole Parliament nor only against all past as well as future Parliaments having any thing to do in the disposal of the Crown but is also as express a Declaration as words can make against any Vacancy of the Throne upon the Death of the Predecessor and therefore I hope you will pardon me if I have been a little too tedious in reciting these Records F. I cannot blame you for being very exact in this point because the whole strength of your Cause depends upon it but yet I doubt not but to shew you that this Parliament was as much awed by King Edward's Power being now Conqueror as ever those Parliaments were that Depos'd Edward and Richard the 2 d for you your self have sufficiently set forth the manner of it that it was not till after a great Victory obtain'd against King Henry the 6 th and I never found in all my reading that a Victorious Prince ever wanted power enough to get a Parliament call'd to settle himself in the Throne and declare his Competitor an Usurper as I shall shew you more fully by and by but that this Act of Parliament which thus posiâ—ively declares Edward the 4 th to be their Sovereign Lord by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature I think can no ways consist either with Scripture Reason or Matter of Fact for in first place I think I have sufficiently proved that there is no Divine Right of Succession for the Heirs of Crowns any more than of other Inheritances either by the Law of God or that of Nature and as for Man's Law I think I have here also proved that the Succession to the Crown by right of Blood alone was never establisht by any positive Law nor yet setled by any constant or interrupted Custom when this Declaration was made for the Crown had then never descended from Father to Son for above two Descents without a deposition or possessed by those who claim'd by Right of Blood without any other Title for as for the three Kings of the House of Lancaster I have already proved and your self must also own it that they could have no Title to the Crown but from the Acts of Entail of the 7 th and 8 th of Henry the 4 th above mention'd so that according to Man's Law that is Custom and also the Statute Law of this Kingdom the House of Lancaster had all that time the better Title But to shew you what uncertain things Parliaments are when King Edward the 4 th had Reign'd ten years he was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of Warwick's turning suddenly against him and in his absence he replaced King Henry the 6 th upon the Throne who had been all this while kept
in Prison and the first Act this King did after his Restoration was to call a Parliament which revoked all the former Statutes and Declarations of the 39 th of Henry the 6 th and 1 st of Edward the 4 th and then entail'd the Crown anew upon the issue of King Henry the remainder to the Duke of Clarence who then took part with King Henry against his own Brother 'T is true indeed that King Edward the 4 th returning again not long after into England and regaining the Crown from King Henry the 6 th the said King was not only murther'd together with his Son Prince Henry but in the next Parliament was also attainted of Treason with all others of his Party and yet lot let you see that this very Act is now null and void against King Henry the 6 th and his Son Prince Edward see an Act of Parliament of the first of Henry the 7 th not Printed which because it is not commonly known I will read it almost verbatim The King our Sovereign remembring how against all rightwiseness honour nature and duty an inordinate seditious and slaunderous Act was made against the most famous Prince of blessed memory King Henry the sixth his Uncle at the Parliament holden at Westminstey the fourth day of November the first year of the Reign of Edward the 4 th Late King of England whereby his said Uncle contrary to the due Allegiance and all due order was attainted of High Treason wherefore our same Sovereign Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by Authorities of the same ordaineth enacteth and establisheth that the same Act and all Acts of Attainder Forfailure or Disablement made or had in the said Parliament or else in any other Parliament of the said Late King Edward against the said most blessed Prince King Henry or against the right famous Princess Margaret Late Queen of England his Wife or the right Victorious Prince Edward Late Prince of Wales Son of the same blessed Prince K. Henry and Margaret c. are void annulled and repealed and of no force nor effect so that by vertue of this Act the Title of the House of Lancaster was again declared to be good But to conclude I cannot but take notice of one mistake you have fallen into by saying that all proceedings against King Richard the 2 d. are repeal'd by that Parliament of the first of Edward the 4 th which is not so for though I grant that the dealings of Henry Earl of Darby as he is there call'd in imprisoning the said King and Usurping the Royal Power is there expresly condemned and his Murthering of him said to be against Gods Law and his own Oath of Allegiance as certainly it was yet the Deposition of the said King Richard by Parliament is no ways repeal'd by this Act for then all the Records thereof would have been quite Cancell'd and taken off the Rolls whereas they still remain to be seen at this day and you see by this Act I now recited That the attainder of King Henry the 6 th is declar'd contrary to due Allegiance and all due order and all forfeitures and disablements of the said King and Prince are quite annull'd and made void M. I must confess you have so stagger'd me with this Act that I know not what to say to it but that it was made in the first Parliament of King Henry the 7 th and before he had married the Princess Elizabeth and consequently had no good Title to the Crown himself therefore till then I look upon him as an Usurper but I shall now proceed to shâ—w you that that very King nay even Richard the 3 d. himself chiefly relied not upon any Parliamentary Election but upon their own pretended Titles of being right Heirs by Blood for after the death of Edward the 4 th his Son Edward the 5 th was proclaim'd King and might have quietly enjoy'd it if his ambitious Uncle Richard Duke of Gloucester had not plotted to defeat him of it and knowing very well that he had no way to bring it about but by inciting a corrupt party of the Bishops and Lords together with the Lord Mayor of London and some of his Party in the City to set forth by way of Petition to the Duke then Protector of the King and Realm That all the Children of K. Edward the 4 th were Bastards supposing that King to have been Contracted with a certain Woman called Eleanor Boteler before he Married Queen Elizabeth moreover that the Blood of his Elder Brother George Duke of Clarence deceased was attainted so that none of the Lineal Blood of Richard Duke of York could be found uncorrupted but in himself and there was at the conclusion of that Roll an Address to him from the Lords and Commons of the Kingdom that he would take the Government upon himself this fine artifice assisted on one side with his feigned excuses which induced the less thinking sort of People to believe he desir'd not the Royalty and prompted on the other side with the fear of his power procured his accession to the Throne so that at last he and his Wife Anne were solemnly Crowned King and Queen at Westminster and by these steps did that inhumane Prince who had no Title to the Crown either by descent or by merit ascend the English Throne see you that not by Election but by pretence of blood and by bastardising and attainting his Nephews he set himself up for the only true Heir of the Crown and therefore in the Parliament he call'd immediately after his Coronation when they had declar'd almost the very same things as were before in the said Petition they proceed further To declare that the Right Title and Estate which King Richard the III d had to and in the Crown and Royal Dignity of the Realm of England with all things thereunto within the said Realm and without it annexed and appertaining was just and lawfull as grounded upon the Laws of God and Nature and also upon the antient Laws and laudable Customs of this said Realm as also taken and reputed by all such Persons as were learned in the above-said Laws and Customs and proceeds farther thus therefore at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land Assembled in this present Parliament and by the Authority of the same it is pronounced decreed and declared that our said Soveraign Lord the King was and is the very undoubted King of this Realm of England with all things thereunto belonging within the said Realm and without it united annexed and appertaining as well by right of Consanguinity and Inheritance as by lawfull Election Consecration and Coronation So that you see tho' they put in his Election as also his Coronation as means of obtaining the
against himself therefore if Richard the IIId had been a King in the sence of this Law we may be sure he would not have had such an infamous censure past upon him after his death Bradshaw and his High Court of Justice were the first that were so hardy as to pronounce a King of England guilty of Treason Fourthly If this notion of a King de facto had been allowed in the 11th of Henry the VIIth the Principal Assistants of Richard the IIId could not have been attainted for Richard being actually in the Throne he was according to your Modern way of arguing Rightful King and consequently the People ought to own him as such and defend him against all opposers and if so certainly they ought not to be condemned as Traytors for doing their duty as we find many of those were who fought for King Richard Fifthly at the end of this Parliament Henry the VIIth granted a General Pardon to the common people who had appeared against him in the behalf of Richard the IIId now Pardon supposes a fault and the breach of a Law which they could not have been charged with if the plea of a King de facto had been warranted by the Constitution F. I must freely tell you that you do not argue so much like a Lawyer in this Argument as you did in your former and you have in that forgot to what end those Statutes you mention were made and what is the purport of them or else some body hath misinformed you for though I grant that all those hard expressions you mention are given of the Kings of the Lancastrian Line in those Statutes of the 1 st of Edward the IVth yet do none of these expressions prove that they were not true and legal Kings in the eye of the Law all the while they Reign'd since divers Persons were attainted for High Treason against them whose attainders were never reversed but stand good to this day as in particular the attainder of the Earls of Kent Salisbury and of Huntingdon who were all attainted by Act of Parliament in the second of Henry the IVth and also the Earl of Northumberland and his Son the Lord Piercy attainted in the 5th of this King all which attainders were never reversed So likewise Richard Earl of Cambridge was found guilty of Treason by his Peers and his Attainder confirmed by Act of Parliament in the second of Henry the Vth and though it is true this Attainder was afterwards reversed in the first of Edward the IVth because the said Richard was not only his Grandfather but was also Condemned for endeavouring to make Edmund Earl of March his Brother-in-law King of England from whose Sister King Edward the IVth claimed the Crown yet the very reversing this Attainder by Act of Parliament declares it to have been good untill that Repeal since it was not declared void all which are plain and evident proofs that Treason may be committed against the King de facto and consequently that Allegiance is also due to him and not to the King de jure I have likewise also proved that all those Statutes which were made by those Kings and are not repealed stand good at this day without any confirmation by King Edward the IVth and this you have no way to answer but by instancing in Patents of Honour or Charters of Priviledges granted by those Kings and confirmed by Edward the IV th from whence you would inferr that some other Acts of like nature were in the same condition which let me tell you in no good argument against them for if you please to read that Statute of Edward the IVth you mention and you will there plainly see that the Grants Patents and other things there confirmed or either judicial Proceedings in the Courts of Justice or else such Charters or Patents which being thought to the prejudice of the Crown were ex abundanti cautela thought necessary to be confirmed by those particular Persons Religious Houses and Corporations who thought themselves concerned nor were all others of like nature who were not so confirmed thereby void since they hold good at this day and if you understand any thing of our Law you cannot but know that no Grants of the King can be made void by implication and to shew you farther that the Letters Patents made by Henry the VIth were looked upon as good in the Reign of Edward the IVth appears good from Bagot's Case in the Year-Book of the ninth of that King where a Patent of Naturalization granted by Henry the VIth though it were not confirmed by that Statute of Edward the IVth was by the greatest part of the Judges held to be good and the reasons there given for it are very remarkable since it was urged by the Council in behalf of the Plaintiff that King Henry was then King in Possession and it behoves that the Realm should have a King and that the Laws should be kept and maintain'd and therefore though he was in only by Usurpation nevertheless every judicial Act done by him concerning Royal Jurisdiction shall hold good and bind the King de jure when he returns c. So likewise a Charter of Pardon of Felony and Licenses of Mortmain shall be good and also the King that now is shall have the advantage of every forfeiture made to the said King Henry c. and mark this farther it is there also held that a Man shall be Arraigned for Treason done against the said King Henry in compassing his death and the reason is very remarkable because the said King indeed was not meerly a Usurper for the Crown was intail'd upon him by Parliament and this being not at all contradicted by the Court is still taken for Law and upon this report and not only upon the Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth did my Lord Coke found his Opinion I now mention'd that a King de facto was within the Statute of the 25th of Edward III. and though now it is true that the farther arguing of this Case of Bagots adjourned to a farther day when the Justices did not argue but the Serjeants and Apprentices at Law that is the Baristers as we now call them yet it seems to have been allowed by the whole Court that if King Edward who was then King had made his Charter before he was declared so it should be void at that time for every one who shall make a Charter of Pardon ought to be King in Deed at the time of the making thereof M. Pray Sir give me leave to reply to what you have now said against my first two Arguments before you go on to answer the rest for I confess the Authorities you bring seem so express against me that if I cannot take them off there will be no further need for your answering the rest I will not therefore deny but that all publick Acts and Proceedings at Law which are for the publick good and safety of the
it would be left in her Power not only to govern her self but by marrying to chuse a King for her Subjects whom they do not approve of And therefore we read that in diverse of the Antient Kingdoms of the World Women were excluded from the Succession Nor are these the only questions that either might then or else have in latter Ages been started concerning Succession in Kingdoms and Principalities and have been the cause of great disputes between Pretenders to Crowns where a King Dies without Lawful Issue as whether a Grandson by a Younger Daughter shall inherit before a Grand-daughter by an Elder Daughter Whether the Elder Son by a Concubine before the Younger Son by a Wife From whence also will arise many Questions concerning Legitimation and what by the Laws of Nature is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine All which can no ways be decided but by the Municipal or Positive Laws of those Kingdoms or Principalities It may further be enquired whether the eldest Son being a Fool or Madman shall inherit this Paternal Power before the Younger a Wise Man And what degree of â—olly or madness it must be that shall exclude him and who shall be the Judges of it Also whether the Son of a Fool so excluded for his Folly shall succeed before the Son of his Wiser Brother who last Reigned Who shall have the regal Power whilst a Widdow Queen is with Child by the Deceased King until she be brought to Bed These and many more such difficulties might be proposed about the Title of Succession and the Right of Inheritance to Kingdoms and that not as idle speculations but such as in History we shall frequently find examples of not only in our own but likewise other Kingdoms From all which we may gather that if the Laws of God or Nature had prescribed any set rules of Succession they would have gone farther than one or two cases as concerning the Succession of Elder Sons or Brothers where an Elder Son dies without Issue and would also have given certain infallible rules in all other Cases of Succession besides these and not have left it to the Will or particular Laws of diverse Nations to have established the succession so many several ways as I am able to shew have been practised in the World M. I must confess you have taken a great deal of pains to perplex the Succession to Adam which seems designed for nothing else but to make me believe that if Adam or any of his Sons were Kings or Princes it must have been by the Consent or Election of their Children or Descendants which is all one as to say that those Antient Princes derived their Titles from the Iudgment or Consent of the People the contrary to which is evident as well out of Sacred as Civil History F. Since you appeal to History to History you shall go and to let you see that I have not invented these doubts about Succession of my own Head and that there might have very well been a real dispute about the Succession to Adam in the Cases I have put may appear by the many disputes and quarrels that have been in several Nations concerning the Right of Succession between the Uncle and the Nephew of which Grotius is so sensible that he confesses in the latter end of the Chapter last cited that where it could not be decided by the Peoples Iudgment it was fain to be so by Civil Wars as well as private Combats and therefore he is forced ingenuously to confess that this hath been practised divers ways according to the different Laws and Customs of Nations and he gives us here a distinction between a direct Lineal Succession and a transversed and acknowledges that amongst the Germans as also the Goths and Vandales Nephews were not admitted to the Succession of the Crown before their Uncles the like may be said of the Saxons and Normans and therefore we find in our Antient English History that before the Conquest the Uncle if he were Older always enjoyed the Crown before the Nephew which I can more particularly shew you if you think fit to question it The like manner of succession was also amongst the Irish-Scotch for above 200 years after â—â—rgus their first King The like Custom was also observed among the Irish as long as they had any Kings amongst them and is called the Law of Tanistry The same was also observed in the Kingdom of â—astile where after the death of Alphonso the fifth the States of that Kingdom admitted his Younger Son Sancho to be King putting by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grand-Son to the late King by his Eldest Son tho' he had the Crown left him by his Grand-Father's Will So likewise in Sicily upon the Death of Charles the Second who left a Grand Son behind him by his Eldest Son as also a Younger Son named Robert between whom a difference arising concerning the Succession it being referred to Pope Clement V. He gave Judgment for Robert the Younger Son of Charles who was thereupon Crowned King of Sicily and for this reason it was that Earl Iohn Brother to King Richard the second was declared King of England by the Estates before Arthur Earl of Brittain Son of Ieoffrey the Elder Brother and Glanvil who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry the second in that little Treatise we have of his makes it a great question who should be preferred to an Inheritance the Uncle or Nephew But as for Daughters whether they shall inherit at all or not or at least be preferred before their Uncles is much more doubtfull since not only France but most of the Kingdoms of the East at this day from Turkey to Iapan do exclude Women from the Throne And it was likewise as much against the Grain of the Antient Northern Nations and hence it is that we find no mention of any Queen to have reigned amongst the Antient Germans or Irish-Scots and never but two among the English-Saxons and those by Murder or Usurpation and not by Election as they ought to have done And upon this Ground it was that the Nobility and People of England put by Maud the Emperess and preferred Stephen Earl of Blois to the Crown before her for tho' he derived his affinity to the Crown by a Woman yet as being a Man he thought himself to be preferred before her So likewise in the Kingdom of Aragon Mariana in his History tells us that Antiently the Brother of the King was to inherit before the Daughter examples may also be given of divers of the other instances but these may suffice M. I Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little for by these examples you would seem to infer that these Laws about setling the succession of Crowns in several Kingdoms depended upon the Will of the People whereas I may with better reason suppose that if such Laws and Alterations have been in such successions they were made by
the sole Will of the first Princes in which the People had no hand for in the most Antient Monarchies there was a time when the People of all Countreys were Governed by the Sole Wills of their Princes which by degrees came to be so well known in several instances that inferior Magistrates needed not resort to them in those cases and the People being for a considerable time accustomed to such Usages they grew easie and Familiar to them and so were retained tho the Memory of those Princes who first introduced them was lost and after Kings finding it better to continue what was so received than to run the hazard and trouble of changing them were for their own ease and the good of their Subjects contented they should be still from Age to Age so continued Which custom may hold as well in Laws about Succession as other things And therefore we find that even in those Monarchies where the People have nothing to do in making Laws Women are excluded which could proceed at first from nothing else but the declared Will or Law of the first Monarchs So likewise the Original of the Salique Law is wholly ascribed to Pharamond the first French King and Mariana whom you lately cited tells us that Alphonso King of Arragon made a Law that where Heirs Male were wanting the Sons of a Daughter should be preferred before the Aunt which Law is wholly attributed to the King for he adds presently after Sic saepe ad Regum arbitrium jura regnandi commutantur F. Granting all this true that you have said you cannot but confess that the Laws of God and Nature have established nothing in this matter or else it could not be in the Power of Kings to make or alter Laws concerning the succession as your last Quotation intimates they may yet even in the most absolute Monarchies the Laws about the Succession of the Crown must wholly depend upon the Consent of the People who are to see them observed or else every Monarch might alter these Laws of Succession at his pleasure and the Great Turk or King of France now the Assembly of Estates is lost might leave the Crown to a Daughter if either of them pleased and disinherit the next Heir Male. But as for the Original of this â—alique Law in France you 'l find your self much mistaken if you suppose that that Law was made by the Sole Authority of Pharamond for the Antient French Histories tell us that the Body of Salique Laws which are now extant were made by the Common Consent of the whole Nation of the Francs who committed the drawing of them up to three Judges or Commissioners and which Laws Pharamond did only confirm and any one that will but consult those Histories may see that Kings were so far from having the Sole Legislative Power in their own hand that they were frequently Elected by the Estates nor is it truer that you suppose from Mariana that the Kings of Arragon had Power alone to make Laws it appears quite contrary from the Constitutions of that Kingdom where the King could do nothing of this kind without the Consent of the Estates and was not admitted to the Crown without taking an Oath to the Chief Justice in the name of the People that he would observe the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom otherwise that they would not be obliged to obey him But at once to let you see that about the Succession of the Sons or Descendants by Daughters the Cases are much more nice and intricate and that when such Cases happen in limited Monarchies where there is an Assembly of Estates they are the Sole Iudges of such differences may appear by two famous examples in modern History The first is in Scotland about four hundred years ago when after the Death of King Alexander III who died without Issue when two or three several competitors claim'd a Right to the Crown as descended from several Daughters of David Earl of Huntington great Uncle to the last King the Chief of which being Iohn Bayliol and Robert Bâ—uâ—â— the Estates of the Kingdom not being able to decide it they agreed to refer it to Edward I. King of England who adjudged the Crown to Bayliol yet did not this put an end to this great controversie for not long after Bayliol being deposed Bruce revived his Title and the States of Scotland declared him King whose Posterity enjoy it at this day A like Case happened in the last Age in Portugal after the Death of Henry surnamed the Cardinal without Issue when no less than four Eminent Competitors put in their Claim some claiming from the Daughters of Don Durate youngest Brother to the last King Henry But the King of Spain and other Princes as Sons to the Sisters of the said King Henry dying without Issue left ten Governours over the Kingdom to decide together with the Estates the Differences about the Succession who quarrelling among themselves as also with the Estates before it was decided Philip the second King of Spain raised an Army and soon conquered Portugal And yet we have seen in his Grand son's time that the Estates of Portugal declared this Title void and the Crown was settled in the Posterity of the Duke of Braganza who still enjoy it And how much even Kings themselves have attributed to the Authority of the Estates in this matter appears by the League made between Philip the Long King of France and David King of Scots wherein this condition was exprest That if there should happen any Difference about the Succession in either of these Realms he of the two Kings which remained alive should not suffer any to place himself on the Throne but him who should have the Judgment of the Estates on his side and then he should with all his Power oppose him who would after this contest the Crown To conclude I cannot see any means how if such Differences as these had arisen in the first Generation after Adam I say how they could ever have been decided without a Civil War or else leaving the Judgment thereof to the Heads or Fathers of Families that were then in being Which how much it would have differed from the Judgment or Declaration of the States of a Kingdom at this day I leave it to your self to judge M. I shall not trouble my self to determine how far Princes may tye up their own hands in this matter of the Succession and leave it to the States of the Kingdom to limit or determine of it but from the beginning it was not so and therefore give me leave to trace this Paternal Government a little farther For tho' I grant that when Iacob and his twelve Sons went into Egypt together with their Families they exercised a Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction which was intermitted because they were in Subjection to a stronger Prince Yet after the return of these Israelites out of Bondage God from a special
well gather that this was none of the King 's Ordinary or Privy Council or else to what purpose was this Cause adjourned to the meeting of the next Parliament Since if it had been to be determined by the Privy Council it might have been done forthwith I shall give you but one Instance more out of the Close Roll of the 41 of this King wherein a Cause between Elizabeth Wife of Nicholas D'Audley and Iames D'Audley in a Controversie between them touching certain Lands contained in in the Covenants of her Marriage is said to have been adjudged Devant Son Conseil c'est a scavoir Chanceller Thresorier Iustices Aâ—ires Sages assemblez en la Chambre des Etoiles i. e. Before his Council viz. the Chancellor Treasurer Justices and other wise men assembled in the Star-Chamber So that when any thing in our old Statutes is said to be Ordained by the King and his Council it is always to be understood not as if this Council were a fourth Estate whose Assâ—nt or Advice was as necessary to the making of Laws as that of the Lordi Spiritual Temporal and Commons for then they would have had the same Power still but only according to the Custom of those times when most Acts of Parliament were drawn by them and that the King past none without their advice it was then said to be done by the King and his Council viz. in Parliament and I conceive the Power of this Council continued till the beginning of the Reign of Henry the Seventh when this Court being by Act of Parliament annexed to that of the Star-Chamber where also this Council of the King used to meet before as appears by the Case I have last cited and having afterwards only to do with Criminal Causes and that as well out of as in Parliament and that King Hen. 7 th not caring to exercise his Iudicial Power in private Causes as his Predecessors had done or to make use of their advice either in the drawing or passing of Bills which now began to be drawn by Committees in either house wherein those Bills were preferred this Council came by degrees to grow quite out of use as it is at this day I hope you will pardon this long digression which I have been drawn into to rectifie a Common mistake of the Gentlemen of your opinion who when they find any thing in our ancient Statutes or Records wherein the King's Council is mentioned presently entertain strange fancies of the Antiquity and Authority of the Privy Council M. I am so far from thinking this Discourse you have now made to be at all tedious that I give you many thanks for it since it gives me a light into many things which I confess I did not know before and I shall better consider the Authorities you have now given me and if I find they will hold shall come over to your opinion in that point tho I am not as yet satisfied as to the Legistative Power of the two Houses and therefore pray proceed to answer the rest of the Presidents I have brought on that Subject F. I shall readily comply with your Commands and therefore to come to those Statutes of the 15 th and 20 th of Edw. 3. which you suppose to have been repealed by that King without the Consent of the Lords and Commonâ— I grant indeed that the Statutes you mention were intended to be repealâ—d by the King without Assent of Parliament Yet was this not done by himself and his Council alone as you suppose but by a Council of Earls Barons and Commons which the Kings of England in those days were wont to call upon emergent occasions and for the doing of that which they thought Parliaments could not so speedily perform as in this pretended repeal of the Statute you mention And tho I grant this was a great brâ—â—ch upon the fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom yet that it was done in such a Great Council as I have now mentioned I refer you to this pretended Statute its self and to your recital of it And that the King often called such Great Councils appears by an agreement of Exchange made for the Castle of Berwick between King Hen. IV. in the fifth year of his Reign and the Earl of Northumberland where the King promiseth to deliver to the Earl Lands and Tenements to the value of the Castle by these words which I shall render out of French from the Original which remains in the Tower By the advice and â—ssent of the Estates of the Realm and of his Parliament so that the Parliamâ—nt happen before the Feast of St. Lucie otherwise by the Assent of his Great Council and other Estates of his said Realm which the King will cause to be assembled before the said Feast in case the Parliament do not happen c. And yet notwithstanding this high strain of Prerogative King Edw. III. himself was not satisfied with this repeal of those Statutes you have mentioned but in the next Parliament held in his 17 th year he procured a formal and Legal repeal of them as by the Parliament Rolls of that year remaining in the Tower doth plainly appear And which I could give you at large did I not fear to be too tedâ—ous But I think it fit to let you know this because most ordinary Readers seeing no more appear in Print in our Statute Books are apt to imagin that the Kings of England in those days did often take upon them without Authority of Parliament to make and repeal Laws But as for your next Instance of the Statute of Edw. III. it is much weaker since tho I confess that in the Preface to these Acts there is only mention of the Great Men or Grantz as it is in our old French and other wise Men of our Council yet I shall prove at another time that under this word Grantz were meant the Lords in Parliament as by the wise men of our Council are understood the Commons And therefore it seems most reasonable to interpret the sense of many ancient Statutes wherein the King alone is said to make and ordain Laws by those later or more modern ones wherein the King by the Consent of the Lords and Commons or by Authority of Parliament is said to have Ordained them Since the true Stile and Meaning of ancient Laws which were penned with the greatest brevity ought to be still Interpreted by the Modern ones and not the Modern ones by the Ancient So that I am of the Learned Mr. Lambardâ— opinion who in his Arcbâ—ion or Discourse upon the High Courts of Justice in England expressly tells us That whether the Laws are said to be made by the King and his Wise Men or by the King and his Council or his Common Council or by the King his Earls Barons and other Wise Men or after such other like Phrases whereof you meet with many in the Volumes of Parliaments It comes all to this one
that because the Emperour Theodosius as likewise divers of his Predecessours did Nominate Bishops to Sees therefore they did likewise receive from them all the Authority they had of appearing and acting in General Councils which I am sure you are too good a Church of England Men to affirm M. I must confess I never did so closely examine the Ancient Form of conferring of Bishopricks before the Conquest as I find you have done and I will better Examine your Authorities and if I find this Custom to have been constant and uniform I shall come over to your opinion tho' I doubt it will not prove to have been so general as you would make it since by the Authority you have now brought out of Mat. Paris it appears that it was the King who gave leave to this Election of Bishop Wulstan in the Great Council which I am not yet convinc'd did then take upon them to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters without the Kings Consent but since you have spoken enough concerning the Right and Antiquity of the Bishops sitting in our Great Councils it is time you now speak of the Right of the Peers or Temporal Lords which certainly could have no place there but from the Favour and Concession of our Kings So that whether we consider those Lords in the Saxon time as Rulers of Counties called in old English Earls or Aldermen in Latin Duces or Comites or else as Judges or Counsellors called in old Saxon Wites or Wisemen in Latin Sapientes or lastly as Thanes in Latin Ministri who were either Military Tenants or Civil Ministers or else Officers of the King in his Court or other Employments none of them were Hereditary in those times but all of them either depended upon the King's VVill or else owed their Honours and â—states to his Favour F. I hope notwithstanding the Confidence you put in this part of the Argument that it hath no more weight in it than the former For tho' I grant there was no such thing as Hereditary Earldoms before the coming in of the Normans so that tho both the Earls and Aldermen might have places in the Great Councils ratione officii as the Earl Mareschal of England has at this day and not by Tenure as they did after that time Yet I very much doubt whether they sate there only ratione officii and not as Thanes or by reason of their great Lordships or Estates in Lands but if they sate there as Earls or Aldermâ—n yet might they not be the only Persons that sate in those Councils by that Title For there were besides these Aldermen of Cities and Burrougâ—s who were Elected by those Places and who it is very likely appeared for them as their Representatives in those Councils until by Succession of time those Towns began to send two Burgesses in their stead some Footsteps of which still remain in London where the Aldermen of every Ward are first proposed to be Elected Parliament Men before any other and it is certain that these Aldermen in the most Ancient Cities as London York Lincoln â— are not Elected by any Grant or Charter from the Crown but by an immemoâ—ial Right of Prescription But admitting that these Earls or Aldermen appeared in these Councils by reason of their Offices or Dignities which the King conferred upon them yet doth it not prove that the very Office it self proceeded 〈◊〉 from him since we find the Authority of those chief Men whom 〈◊〉 calls Princes and which Answer these Earls to have been used among the Ancient Germans long before when he tells us in the same Chapter where we cited the rest Iura per Pagâ—â— Viâ—osque Principes reddunt â—enteni Singulis ex plebe Comites Consilium simul auctoritas adsunt Which exactly answers our County and Hundred Courts under the Saxon Kings wherein the Alderman of the County or his Deputy the Sheriff preâ—ided and the Free Men of the County or Hundred were the Iudges of all matters of Fact So that tho the King might appoint these Princes or Governours of Provinces or Counties yet doth it no more follow that they owed their Being and Place in the great Council wholy to his Will than as I said before supposing that the King had Anciently the Nomâ—nation of all the Bishops and Abbots in England that therefore they must also owe their Place in our great Councils or Synods wholy to them since the King performed both of them as a Publick Trust committed to him by the Common Weal in the one case as much as in the other But indeed I think the greatest part of the Members of this Assembly besides Aldermen and Burgesses for Cities and Towns consisted of those Thanes whose Names are often found in the Subscription of the Anâ—ient Charters of our Saxon Kings after the Principes Duces and Comâ—â—â—s and that tho many of them might be the Kings Feudal Thanes or 〈◊〉 Grand Serjeanty or Knights Sâ—rvice in Chief as Mr. Sâ—lden tells us in his Titles of Honour yet that Author no where excludes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. middle or less Thanes from having Voices in those Assemblies who were afterward Stiled Vavissours or Lords of Townships afterwards called Maunors with Courts annexed to them under the Names of Sac Soc which were the same with our Court 〈◊〉 and Court-Baron Especially if you please farther to consider what a vast nâ—mber of Alâ—dariâ— or Free Tenants there were then who held their Lands Discharged of all Services but the Common Burthens and Taxes of the Nation none but the Lands of the Kings Thanes being held by Military Sâ—rvices before the Entrance of the Normans So that whoever will but consider the Nature of our Saxon Councils will find that the Greatest part of the Persons that appeared there did not owe their 〈◊〉 to their being the King's Ministers or Officers as you suppose but to their holding such Lands and Possâ—ssions as Capacitated them and gave them a Right to have places in those Great Councils And that this was 〈◊〉 we need go no further than the Laws of King Athelâ—â—an where you will find Gâ—mility it self annexed to an Estate in Land For if you will but be pleased to Consult King Athelston's Laws you will there find that if a Villaâ—aus or Câ—eorl could so thrive as to get an Estate of five Hides in Lands he was reckon'd a Thane i. e. a Gentleman or Nobleman as they were promiscuoully reckoned at that time So that tho I suppose there might not be in those times that exact distinction between Peers and Commons as there hath bin established since the coming in of the Normans Yet was it the same thing in effect since the Bishops Earls or Aldermen of Shires tho not enjoyed as Hereditary Honours might make then the Greater Nobility or Peers as the Thanes were the Less Nobility Gentlemen or Freeholders who all appearing in person might together with
Soccage must needs have been so numerous that what Room nay what Field or Place was able to contain so great a Multitude Or how could any business have been transacted therein without the greatest confusion imaginable F. So then you your self must also grant that when all your Greater and Less Barons or Tenents in capite appeared in Person Parliaments were much more numerous than they are now since according to the Dr.'s Catalogue out of Dooms-Day-Book in his Appendix to the English History Vol. 1. of all the Tenants in capite or Serjeanty that held all the Lands in every County of King William they did besides the Bishops Abbots Earls and Barons altogether amount to about 700. and these in the 49th of Hen. III. by forfeiture and new Conveyances from the Crown or by those other ways you have now mentioned might be multiplied into twice as many more and those also of sufficient Estates to maintain the Port of a Member of Parliament or Knight Since 15 Pounds a year was in the Reign of King Iohn and Henry III. reckoned as a Knight's Fee and he that had it was liable to be Knighted And if so I pray according to your own Hypothesis how could so great an Assembly be managed as of about 3000 or 4000 Persons without strange confusion and disorder but upon our Principles there will follow no more Absurdities or Inconveniencies than in yours for either these Barons of Counties Burgesses and Inhabitants of Towns and Cities were always represented by Knights and Citizens as they are now or else these Barons of Counties appearing for themselves were Lords of Mannors or Freeholders of good Estates who were not so numerous or inconsiderable as you imagine the Freehold Lands in England being in those days but in a few hands in comparison to what they are now And for this Opinion I have Sir H. Spelman of my side who in the place already quoted under Barones Câ—â—itatus expresly tells us Hoc nomine contineri videtur antiquis paginis omnis 〈◊〉 â—eodalium specier in uno quovis Comitara degentium Proceres nempè 〈◊〉 Domini nèc non liberè quique Tenentes hoc est fundorum proprietarii Anglicè Freeholders ut Superiù◠dictum est Normidum autem est hoc liberè Tenentes nec tam â—iles 〈◊〉 fuisse nèc tam Vulgares ut hodiè deprehonduntur nam villas Dominia in 〈◊〉 Hareditates non dum distrahebant Nobiles sed ut vidimus in Hibernia penes se retinentes agros per precarios excolebant adscriptitios So that you see Sir H. Spelman then believed that the Mannors and Great Freehold in England were not then parcell'd out into so many small Shares as you imagine and that such Inferior Barons whether they held in caâ—â—â—e or not were also called Proceres see the Laws of Henry I. Chap. 25. the Title whereof is de Privilegits Procerum Angliae The law runs thus Si exurgat placitum inter homines allcusus Baronum foenam habentium tractâ—tur placitum in Curia Domini sui Now that this Socha was no more than Soc. in old Saxon see Spel. Gloss. Tit. Soc. i. e. secta de hominibus in curia Domini secundum consuetudinem so likewise in Titulo Socha vel dicitur Soc. a Saxon socâ— i. e libertas Franchesia vide manerium qd dicitur etiam Soca dictum est From all which we may observe that these Lords of Mannors here called Proceres Barones had Court Barons which took their Name from their Lords tho Feudatory Tenents or Vavaâ—ours But granting that about the end of King Iohn or beginning of the Reign of Hen. III. Supposing that these Lords of Mannors and Great Freeholders whether Tenents In capite or others might amount in all to 5 on 6000 persons I do not see why such an Assembly might not be as orderly and well managed as one of 1000. or 4000. supposing your Greater Barons and Less Tenants in capite to have than made about that number especially if we consider that most business or Acts of any consequence and for which Parliaments were called might be prepared and drawn up by the King and his Council before they met So that take it which way you will fewer Inconveniences and Improbabilities attend my Hypothesis than yours M. That the Earls and Greater Barons both Spiritual and Temporal together with the Tenants in capite then made the Body of the Baronage of England I have very good Authority on my side but that any Feudatory Barons or Tenants of a Lesser Degree ever had any Places or Votes in those Assemblies I think you can give me no sufficient Authority for it 'T is true Mr. P. in his Treatise of the Rights of the Commons asserted gives us two Modern Quotations the one out of Mr. Câ—â—den's Britannia the other out of Mr. Selden to prove it As for the former it is in the Introduction to the Britannia first published in Quarto The Words are these Verum Baro ex illis non imbus videatur qua tempus paulatim moliara molliora reddidit nam longo post tempore non Milites sed qui liberi erant Domini Thani Saxombus dicebantur Barones vocari caperunt nec dum magni honoris erat paulo autem postea meaning after the Normans entrance eò honoris pervenit ut nomine Baronagii Angliae omnes qâ—â—dammodo Regni ordines continerentur But he doth not tell us that this Learned Author in his last Edition of this Work in Folio being sensible of his mistake hath added the Word Superiores before Ordines whereby it is plain he now restrains it only to the Earls and Barons as they are now understood Mr. P's other Quotation is out of Mr. Selden's Notes upon Raâ—â—â—rus where commenting on the Word Barones he saith Vocabulum nempe alio notione usurpari quam vulgo neque eos duntaxat ut hodie significare quibus peculiaris ordinum Comitiis locus est but then conceals this that follows which makes directly against him Sed universos qui Regiae munificentiae ad formulam Iuris nostre Clientelaris quod nullius Villae Regiae glebam sed ipsum tantum modo Regem spectat Tenure en Chief Phrasi forensi dicimus sive Tenura in capite lati fundiâ— pessidebant whereby you may see that he expresly restrains this Word Barones to Tenents in capite only tho your Author takes no notice of it Nor indeed in his Title of Honour doth Mr. Selden give us any other Description of a Baron I mean such who had a Vote in Parliament but such in the Sense that is taken in Henry I. his Charter as it is recited in Matt. Paris Siquis Baronum meorum Comitum vel aliorm qui de me tenent mortuus fuerit i. e. One who was either one of the Earls or Greater Barons or otherwise held in capite F. Mr. P. is not at all to be blamed as you make him
in these two Quotations since in that out of Camden you cannot deny but he hath truly quoted that Author as it was in his First Edition and if he afterwares altered it it may very well be questioned whether he did not add the Word Superiores rather out of fear of displeasing the Greater Nobility whom that Quotation had before Shockt than out of any sense of his being in the Wrong as it appears by the Words immediately following when he tells us out of a nameless Manuscript Author That Henry III. out of so great a multitude of Barons which was seditious and turbulent called the best and chiefest of them only by Writ to Parliament By which it plainly appears that he supposed all those Less Barons or Tenants in capite tho no Lords as now understood who were thus excluded to have been only Nominal and not Real Barons and if so Commoners or else he must extend the Peerage of England to at least Three or Four Thousand Persons For so many Tenents in capite might very well be at that time The same I may likewise say as to the Quotation out of Mr. Selden for by the Words quibus peculiaris in ordinum Comitiis locus est 't is plain he supposed that all the rest of those Tenents in capite were but meer Commoners yet he no where affirms that none but these appeared in Parliament for all the Commons of England for he very well knew the unreasonableness of that Supposition Since besides these Barons or Tenants in capite Bracton in his first Book tells us of divers other Orders of Men of Great Dignity and Power in this Kingdom about the time when you suppose this marvellous Alteration to have happened His Words are these Et sub iis viz. Regibus Duces Comites Barones Magnates sive vavassores Milites etiam Liberi Villani deversa Potestates sub Rege constitutae and a little farther sunt alti Potentes sub Rege qui dicuntur Barones hoc est Robur belli sunt alii qui dicuntur Vavassores viri 〈◊〉 Dignitatis From which Words I desire you to observe that he here makes the Magnates and the Vavassores or Feudatory Tenants to be all one and also ranks them before the Milites Now whether these Vavassores and Milites who did not all hold of the King in capite were men of so great Dignity and Power as these whom he here reckons immediately after the Earls and Great Barons should have no Votes in Parliament neither by themselves nor their Representatives is altogether improbable And agreeable to this of Bracton Du Fresne in his Lexicon Tit. Vavasor tells us that Vavassorum duo erant ordines sub majorum apellatione implectuntur qui Barones apellantur sub â—norum vero quos vulgò Vavassores dicunt ut leges Henrici I. Reg. Ang. Thaines minores respectu Thainorum majorum qui Baronibus aequiparantur But that these Lesser Thanes or Vavassors were also stiled Barones Sir H. Spelman tells us expresly in his Glossary Tit. Baro etiam Barones Comitum Procer umque hoc est Barones subalterni Baronum Barones sâ—pissime leguntur and of this he gives us many Examples and particularly of the Chief Tenants of the Abby of Ramsey above mentioned So likewise the same Author a Leaf or two farther speaking of the Barones of London mentioned in the Charter of King Henry I. understands them pro civibus praestantioribus qui socnas suas consuetudines i. e. Curias habuerunt Privilegia eorum instar qui in Comitatu Barones Comitatus dicuntur c. Nor did this Title of Barones extend to London alone but he also immediately tells us in the same place Sic Barones de Ebaraco de Cestria de Warwico de Soe Feversham plurium Villaram Regiis Privilegiis insignium cum in Anglia tum in Gallia c. and that Barons of Counties were no more than Lords of Mannors I have just now proved for Socna means no more than a Court Baron or Court of a Mannor So that here arises a plain distinction between the Barones Regis the King 's Great Barons or Tenants in capite and these Lesser Barons we now are here speaking of called Medmesse Thegnes and Burgh Thegnes by the Saxons till they 〈◊〉 on the Word Parliamentum to signifie the Common Council of the Kingdom who tho no Peers yet were Barones Regni Barons or Noblemen of the Kingdom according to the general acceptation of the Word Nobiles in that Age and is such made up the Body of the Baronage called by Matt. Paris and other Authors Baronagium or Communitas Baronagit totius Angliae M. I see you do all you can from the equivocal use of the Word Barones to croud in new and unknown men into the Great Council of the Kingdom viz. your Barons of Counties Cities and Towns whom since you dare not affirm there were then any Knights of Shires you suppose to have served instead of them and these you would have to be not Barones Regis but Regni or Terrae forsooth i. e. of the Land or Kingdom whereas we never had any True Barones held by mean Tenures here in England this if you deny you must deny all History and all our Ancient Laws and Law-Books too and if you grant it you must confess that every Baron was a Tenant in capite and by your own Concession he must then be the King's Baron or Baro Regis I grant indeed there were Nominal or Titular Barons such as you mention many in those Times such as were Tenants to Great Lords Bishops or Abbots of whom we find frequent mention in our Ancient Histories Records and Charters But these are not the men who had ever any Place in our Great Councils and I desire you would prove to me that ever they appeared there before the Times I assign and I would also have you inform your self of the Gentlemen of whom you borrow this Notion if they can prove that there were any such kind of Tenure as Tenura de Terra or de Regno or whether there was ever any man that held an Estate de Regno Whether forfeitures or Escheats were to the Kingdom And whether Fealty was sworn or Homage done to the Kingdom Or whether an Earl was invested or Girt with the Sword of the County by the Kingdom Or whether the ancient Ceremonies used at the Creations of Earls and Barons were done by the Kingdom Thus all the Barons of England held of the King and thus all these things were performed and done to our Ancient Kings and by them which are most manifest Notes of the King 's immediate Jurisdiction over the Barons and that they were his Tenants in capite and by consequence his Barons only which you cannot deny and of which Tenants in capite the Earls and Greater Barons always created by Investiture of Robes or other Ceremonies were summoned by particular Write
and the other Less Barons or Tenants in capite ever since the 17th of King Iohn were summoned by one Common Writ directed to the Sheriff of the County since which time if not some time before I grant these Tenants in capite were not look'd upon as Barons or Peers of the Kingdom properly so called Yet did their Votes in Parliament still conclude and charge their Tenants in the making and imposing of Taxes or Laws which they alone together with the Bishops and greater Barons still performed until the Times I assign F. I see you are in a Wood and do not know well under what Class to rank your Tenants in capite for if they were at first all Lords or Peers how could they serve upon Juries in Hundred or County Courts If they were meer Commoners then there were Commons in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. and why might not others as considerable Commoners have Places in the Great Council as well as they whether they were the Kings Barons or Tenents in capite or not But in answer to this you tell me that we never had any Barons held by mean Tenure here in England this is plainly equivocal for if you mean it of Baronies in capite it is true if of other Baronies it is false by your own Confession And Sir H. Spâ—lman tells us in the Title last quoted that the Barons of Burford pleaded to hold of the King per Baroniam and yet he was never any Baron of the Kingdom Now I desire you to shew me if he and such like Barons as himself had no place in Parliament who it was represented them there And therefore in answer to your Dilemma I grant that every Baron by Tenure was a Tenant in capite but every Tenant in capite was not a Baron and this I think is so plain that you your self cannot deny it But in answer to your next Question I can answer it without asking the Gentleman from whom you suppose I borrow the Notion that there might be other Barons or Lords of Mannors who by reason of their Estates might have Places in Parliament supposing Knights of Shires were not introduced till after Henry the II. or King Iohn's Time when such Freeholders became too numerous all to appear in person and yet these might not be Barons by Tenure And therefore all your Questions conclude nothing For you suppose that which is still to be proved That because all the Barons of England properly so called held of the King in capite and were consequently his Barons that therefore none but Bâ—rons and Tenants in capite had any place in our Great Councils which is the thing you only suppose and I as positively deny M. Well Sir since you put it to that issue I hope I shall fully convince you that none but the Persons I have mentioned were the constituent Members of the Common Council or Parliament before 49th Hen. III or 18th Edw. I and who done gave assent to all Laws that were made and all Taxes that were to be imposed on themselves and their Under-Tenants who were then concluded by the Acts of their Superior Lords But not to wrangle with you any longer about the signification of the Word Barones I grant there were Nominal or Titular Barons very many such as I have mentioned nay that there were several other Great Subjects who had Tenants that held 5 6 7 8 〈◊〉 nay more Knights Fees under them and who had the Name and Title of Barons But what is this to the purpose I desire you would prove to me by any direct proof that these sort of men had any Voices either by themselves or their Representatives in our Great Councils till after the time we allow them and this besides the Proofs I have already brought I think is sufficient Since it is plain that the Barones Regni or Terra and the Milites and Homines sui are all one and the same Persons that is they were the King 's Great Barons or Tenents in capite who alone constituted the Baronage or University of the Baronage of England or of the Kingdom in our Great Councils or Parliaments And for the farther proof of this I need go no farther than those very Arguments your own Author Mr. P. hath made use of in his Right of the Commons asserted wherein he would prove from certain Letters that were sent from the Baronage or University of the Baronage of England to the Pope against the Church of Rome's Exactions here in England And therefore I shall not bring only Fragments Phrases or single Words out of the Records or Histories which seem to countenance my Opinion contrary to the true meaning of those Records and the sense of the Historians as some of your men do but shall give you the Quotations out of those Authors whole and entire and shall make such reasonable Deductions from them as I think you will have no reason to deny to be fairly raised from the Words themselves And also as Matt. Paris relates in the 29th Hen. III. the Earls and Barons sent Letters to the Pope then at the Council of Lions to complain of the Pope's Exactions which Letters are said by this Author to be directed A Magnatibus Universitate Regni Angliae And tho it is also true that in the same Year there were other Letters sent thither from the same Parties to the Cardinals there assembled which are recited by the Old Manuscript to have sent Messengers to the Cardinals and the Old Manuscript in the Cottonian Library that they sent to the Cardinals assembled at the Council of Lyons Letâ—ers a Baronibus Militibus universis Baronagii Regni Angliae per procuratores 〈◊〉 Rogeram Bigod Comitem Norff. Willielmum de Cantelupo Iohannem silium Galfriâ—â—â— Radulphum filium Nicholas Philippum Basset Barones Procuratores Baronagii Angâ—â—â— tunc temporis Innocentio Papa Quarto celebrante Concilium ibi generale Anno Gratia 1245. And the Letters are thus directed Venerabilibus in Christo Fratribus uniâ—â—sis Singulis Dei Gratia Salutem Barones Milites Universitas Baronagii Regis Angliae And that Matt. of Westminster does likewise agree in this Relation only stiles the Persons last named Milites whom Matt. Paris calls Viri Nobiles discreti But this will make no difference as I shall shew you by and by And to these Matt. of Westminster adds Mr. William Powic Clark who seems to have been their Secretary But notwithstanding it will appear that all these Persons so sent named Barones Milites universitas Baronagii did not represent the Commons of England at all but only the Great Earls Barons and Tenants in Capite For first it appears from Sir W. Dugdale's Baronage of England that every one of the Persons here named was either an Earl Baron or Great Tenant in capite and nâ—â— Common Persons as your Author would have them And tho it true the Cottonian Manuscript
answer it I confess it appears very specious at first sight but what if I shew you that this Letter was written by the Lords only from Lincoln after the Commons had been dismissed from thence by proâ—ogation or Adjournment For tho it is commonly story'd but erroneously that this whole Parliament or at least the Temporal Lords and the Commons wrote to the Pope concerning the Jurisdiction and Superiority of the Kings of England over the Kingdom of Scotland Yet it cannot be so for this Parliament met on the Octaves of Hillary or the 20th of Ianuary and sate but eight days the Writs for the Commons Expences bear date Ianuary the 30th of the same Year and the Letter to the Pope signed by the Temporal Lords for themselves and the whole Community of the Kingdom of England is dated Feb. 12 th next following at Lincoln after the Commons had been discharged 14 Days So that you see the Barons still continued to stile themselves the Community of England and both Spiritual and Temporal Barons and other of the King's Council did stay and dispatch much Business after all others were dismissed according to the Tenor of the there recited Proclamation and may be fully proved from the Proceedings of that Paâ—liament as they are to be found in Ryley's Plâ—cita Parliamentaria So that nothing seems plainer to me than that the whole Community of England for whom the Barons there named set their Seals to that Letter you mentioned were the Community of the Barons only F. I confess Mr. Pryn in his Animadversions upon my Lord Coke's 4th Institutes was the first who started this Objection That the Commons could not be present as parties to this Letter Yet he still supposes that the Lords who stayed behind and made a kind of a Great Council at Lincoln signed it not only for themselves but for the Commons also tho not actually there and is not so extravagant as your Dr. to suppose that by the Words in this Letter Tam pro Nobis quam pro tota Communitate c. are to be understood the Community of Barons only for that would have been a Tauâ—ology indeed For so the last Word Communitas c. would have signified no more than that they subscribed for themselves and themselves and that the Word Cummaâ—â—tas Regni which I can prove to you by many Examples did then signifie the Commons of England must here mean more than your Community of the Earls and Barons For pray take notice that the Tenants in capite had now by your own concession left off to appear in Parliament in a Body as being now represented by the Knights of Shires c. So that Sir Edward Coke very well observes in his Fourth Institute that this Letter was sealed by above 104 Earls and Barons by the assent of the whole Commonalty in Parliament and Mr. Pryn is so far convinced of this in his exact History of Papal Usurpations that he â—tiles this Letter The Memorable Epistle of the Earls Barons Great Men and Commons of England c. But to shew you farther that there was no change neither of the constituent parts of our Ancient Parliaments nor of the Terms by which they are expressed our Ancient Records appears by a Plea among Mr. Ryley's printed Pleas of Parliament in 35th of Edw. I. where it is recited that in a Parliament at Carlisle Will. de Testa the Pope's Clerk was impeach'd per Comites Barones alios Magnates Communitatem totius Regni concerning divers new and intolerable Grievances laid upon them by the Pope Where you see there is no change of this Word Communitas after the Commons were as you suppose certainly present in this Parliament and why the same Word should not signifie the same thing in the beginning of this King's Reign as well as now you had need give me very good Authority to prove the contrary against such clear evidence as this But this Record goes on and farther recites that these Letters were sent to the Pope Ex parte Communitatis praedictae and in which Clerus Populus dicti Regni set forth the said grievances to the full Now as the Word Clerus here expresses all sorts of degrees of Clergy as well Superior as Inferior represented in Parliament and Convocation so much Populus here signifie the Laity of both Orders as well the Commons as Lords since the Commons were certainly present at this Parliament and why the Word Populus should not signifie the same thing long before I can see no Reason for it but the Dr.'s bear Assertion And as for what you say that the Commons could be no parties to this Letter because it appears by the Writs of Expences that they were discharged before this Letter was written admitting it were so it makes nothing against my Assertion For why could not the Commons agree upon the Substance of the Letter and leave the Lords to draw it up and subscribe it for them after they were gone home And that it was so appears by the Letter if self which recites That the King had caused the Pope's Letter In medio or pleno Parliamento exhiberi ac scriose nobis fecit exponi unde habito tractatu deliberationâ— Diligenti super câ—â—tentis in literis vestris memoratis communis concors unanimus omnium singulâ—râ—m consensus suit c. Now every one knows that understands any thing of Parliamentary Affairs that when any thing is said in an Act of Parliament or other Record to have been agreed upon in full Parliament that is always understood to have been done all the Estates being there present Nor can I see any reason why this Letter should not be called the Letter of the Commons as well as of the Lords since the very Statutes of that Age were often said to have been assented to by the Commons tho it is clear they were not drawn up into form till after the Parliament was dismissed But that the Commons were certainly parties to this Letter appears by a Record of the beginning of Edw. III. time printed by Mr. Pryn keeper of the Records of the Tower and which he tells us he found among the Rolls in the White-Town which Record contains the Heads of a Defence compiled by the King's Council in order to a stronger Defence against the Pope's taking cognizance in the Court of Rome concerning the King of England's Superiority over Scotland in the conclusion of the 2d of which Records there is a remarkable Article relating to this very Letter now before us in these Words Item ad finem quod Nobiles Regni Angliae Procuratores Crâ—munitatis subditorum Regni praedicti admittantur per ipsum Domiâ—â—â— Regem ad hujusmodi defensiones propenend prout corum Antecessores ab Avo Dicti Domâ—â—â— Regis nostri â—rant admissi Now to what Transaction of this kind in the Reign of Edw. I. this King's Grandfather can this passage
refer but to this very Letter which was assented as well per procuratores Communitatis Regni as by your Barons here called Nobiles Regni And this Application thereof is given by Mr Pryn himself when he makes use of these Records But to let you see farther that the Lords and Commons for all this Author Opinion to the contrary might joyn in a Letter ro the Pope I shall shew you by that which was writ in the Name of the whole Parliament to the Pope in the 17 th of Edw. III. about the Provisions of Benefices which then grew so exorbitant that Walsingham tells us in his History Quod Rex tota Nobilitas Regni pati noluit c. which Phrase the Letter it self will best explain The beginning and conclusion of which I shall give you in English as you may find it in Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs To the Most Holy Father in God Lord Clement by the Grace of God of the Holy Church of Rome and of the Universal Church Chief and High-Bishop His humble and devout Children the Princes Dukes Earls Barons Knights Citizens and Burgesses and all the Communalty of the Realm of England assembled at a Parliament holden at Westminster the 15 th Day of May last past c. In witness whereof we have hereunto set Our 〈◊〉 Given in the full Parliament at Westminst on the 18th Day of May Anno Drâ— 1343. And it still appears by the Parliament Roll of this Year viz. 17th Edw. III. n. 59. that the Commons petitioned the King that the Lords might stay at the Parliament till they had perfected and seal'd this Letter And that there was such a Letter then written by the Parliament appears by the King's Letter to the Pope about the same Matter still among the Tower Records In which he imitated his Grandfather Edw. I. and Great Grandfather Hen. III. who also seâ— Letters to the Pope on such like occasions but in those to excuse the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury from being the Author of those Complain he had this Passage that since it was the Judgment tam Procerum Nobilium quaâ— Communitatis Regni in ultimo Parliamento contra Provisorum Exercitum To conclude I think nothing is plainer than that under the Universitas Regâ—â— in the first Letter to the Pope 29th Hen. III. and under the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Letter of the 29th Edw. I. were meant the same Estates or Orders of Men as were more particularly recited in this present Letter viz. The 〈◊〉 Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled M. I must freely tell you I am not yet satisfied with the Sense you now put â—pon these Words Universitas and Communitas Regni before the Commons were summoned to Parliament for you your self must grant that as the word Universitas Regni takes in the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom so likewise the word Communitas signifies no more than the same whole Body or Community thereof Therefore if I prove to you that in those times this Universâ—â—y or Community consisted only of the Earls Barons and Tenants in capite that word Communitas Regni ought never to be interpreted by the English word Commoâ—â—lty or Commons of England till after the time that I allow the Commons were admitted to make a constituent part of the Great Council or Parliament nor always then neither And Mr. P. in his Book which we have so often cited hath done very unfairly to make the Universitas and Communitas Regni to comprehend the Commons of England before they everappeared in Parliament at all and so hath he likewise abused the Word Populus as I have already observed to signifie the Commons when indeed there is no more thereby meant than the whole Assembly of the Laity which at that time consisted of no more than the Earls Barons or other Tenants in Capite And tho I grant that by Communitas Praelatorum or Baronum are often understood the Body of the Prelates or greater Barons only called by way of Eminency Proceres Magnates yet most frequently these with all the other Tenants in capite did make the whole Body of the King 's immediate Tenants in Military Service and were altogether called the Baronage of England the Community of the Land or Community of the Kingdom and for this I think I shall give you undeniable proofs by and by F. I am very well aware that the Word Populus often signifies the whole Body of the Laity yet not excluding the Commons as I have already sufficiently proved For then the word must signifie quite contrary to its genuine Signification instead of People the Greater Nobility only yet that when it is put after as distinct from Magnates it must mean the Commons as now understood I shall shew you by and by But that this word Populus does not always signifie the whole Body of the Nobility only but takes in oftentimes the Commons too pray see Matt. VVest who tells us King Edw. I. in the 34th year of his Reign making his Son a Knight Pro hac melitia silii Regis concessus est Regi zomus Denarius a Populo Clero Mercatores vero vicesâ—mum concesserunt Upon which your Dr. in his Glossary very well remarks that it is evident upon Record who were the Populus meant by the Historian viz. the Comites Barones alii Magnates nec non Milites Comitatuum So that unless the Knights of Shires were Lords it is plain Populus takes in the Commonâ— too But Universitas Regni and Communitas Regni called in French le Communâ— Dangletterre is often taken for the whole Community or Body of the whole Parliament and this Sir Edward Coke owns expresly in his 2d Instit. upon these Words In Articulis supâ—â— Chartas Thus here Le Commune is taken for People so astout le Commune is here taken for all the People and this is proved by the Sense of the Words For Magna Charta was not granted to the Commons of the Realm but generally to all the Subjects of the Realm viz. to those of thâ— Clergy and to those of the Nobility and to the Commons also And this is a Rational as well as Grammatical Interpretation For as the Word Universitas is derived from the Adjective Universus which signifies the VVhole 〈◊〉 Universal So the Word Communitas is derived from the Adjective 〈◊〉 Common or General So that these two Words when used simply in a Political 〈◊〉 Legal Sense ought to take in the whole Body of the Kingdom or all sorts and conditions of Freemen appearing themselves or their Lawful Proxies or Representatives in Parliament But I have already sufficiently proved that under those General words used in our Historians and Records viz. Principes Proceres Nobiles Magnates Barones alii de Regno were then comprehended either all the considerable Freeholders oâ— Lords of Manners or else the Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses So
have already proved that the whole Parliament as well the Lords Spiritual and Temporal as Commons were both before and after this time comprehended under these words Nobilitas Angliae and if you yet doubt of it I can give you a plain Authority out of VValsingham for it is in his Life of Edw. II. Anno 1327. where relating the manner of that King's Deposition he tells us That when the Queen and Prince came to London there then met Tota Regni Nobilitas to depose the King and chuse his Son in his stead and then there was sent to the King being Prisoner in Kenelworth Castle on behalf of the whole Kingdom two Bishops two Earls two Abbots and of every County three Knights and also from London and other Cities and Great Towns especially the Cinque Ports a certain number of persons who informed him of the Election of his Son and that he should renounce the Crown and Royal Dignity c. This Proof is so plain it needs no Comment As for the rest of your Argument the strength of it chiefly consists in this that the Tax there mentioned is said to be granted à Militibus or Tenants in capite as you would have it of three Marks upon every Knight's Fee But in the first place I desire you to take notice that this Scutage is not Scutage Service but a general Land Tax or Manner of taxing according to Knights Fees and which was continued long after Hen. III. Reign as it appears by this Passage in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Tit. Scutagium Edwardus primus habuit 40 Soli de quolibet 〈◊〉 Anno Regni 13 Dom. 1285. pro expeditione contra VVallos And it was also granted by the Lords and Commons after the 18th of Edw. I. when you and the Dr. supposes the Commons to have then came to Parliament and if so I desire to know why a Militibus here mentioned by this Author must only signifie Tenants in capite by Knights Service and not the Knights of Shires since it is not here said a Militibus qui de Rege tenuerunt in capite And therefore it is a forced Interpretation of the Dr.'s and without any Authority to limit these words Militibus libere Tenentibus omnibus de Regno nostro which you omit with an c. as also the omnibus Hominibus Liberis Regni nostri only to the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Prelates of England and to the Earls Barons Knights and Free Tenants or Tenants in Military or Knight's Service because they were only such as paid Scutage VVhereas you have already acknowledged that Magna Charta was granted to all the people of England who had all a benefit by it and who paid towards the aid there granted as well as the Tenants in capite But if Knights Fees alone were Taxed and that by the Tenants in capite only I desire to know by what Right all Tenants in Petit Serjeanty and by Burgoge oâ— Sâ—occage Tenure who made a greater Body of men in this Kingdom in those Times could pay this Scutage since they held not by Knights Service but by certain Rents or other Services and so not appearing in Person could have no Representatives in this or any other Parliament of those Times But if you will tell me they might pay according to the value that Knights Fees were then reckoned at viz. for every 20 l. a years Estate I desire to know how this could be called Scutage or how the Tenants in capite or other Lords from whom they held those Lands could give away their Money for them And in the next place I desire also to know how all the Cities and Burroughs in England could be charged with this Tax a great many of them is you your self grant holding of the King in capite or else of Bishops Abbots or other Mesâ—e Lords by Soccage or Bargage Tenure So that this Tax if granted only by the Tenants in capite by Knights Service could reach them and no other persons but if by this Word a Militibus may be understood Knights of Shires then the Tax was general as well upon Soccage Tenants as those by Knights Service But for the other Words you insist upon viz. the Liberi Tenentes which you translate Tenants by Military Service if that had been the meaning of these words then they had been altogether in vain since you have already told me that the â—â—lites were so called non a Militari Cingulo sed a Feodo and if it were no Name of Dignity then certainly the Word Milites would have served to comprehend all your Liberi Tenentes or Tenants in capite without any other addition But that these Words Laberi Tenentes do not here signifie Tenants by Military Service pray see Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Tit. Liber Homo liber Tenens where he there gives us a more general Signification of thesewords thus Ad Nobilesolim spectabant isti 〈◊〉 à majoribus ortos omnino Liberis and then ends thus vide Ingenuus Legalis 〈◊〉 Francus Tenens Liberè alias Liber Tenent quo etiam sensu occurrit interdum Homo 〈◊〉 which upon every one of these Titles he makes to signifie all one â—â—d the same thing viz. an ordinary Freeholder And therefore it is a very forced Interpretation of yours to limit these Words Communitas Populi only to the Community or Body of the Earls Barons and Tenants in capite Tho I confess you are very kind in one main Point in únderstanding the Communitas Populi to mean the Community of the Lesser Tenants in capite that were no Barons and then do what you can these Words must here signifie Meer Commoners or Commons unless you can shew us a Third Sort of Men who tho neither Lords nor Commons yet had a place in Parliament So that these Gentlemen notwithstanding their Tenure were no more Noble than their Feudatory Tenants or Vavafors themselves my than the Knights of Shires are at this day And then granting as I doubt not but I shall be able to prove that the Cities and Boroughs had then also their Representatives there I pray tell me whether or no there were not Commons in Parliament before 49 Hen. III. or not which is contrary to your Dr.'s Assertion in divers places of his Answerâ— to Mr. P. And that the Word Populus must here signifie the Commons and not the whole Body of the Laity appears plainly by this place you have quoted since it is restrained by your self to mean not the whole Community of the Kingdom but only the Community of Lesser Tenants in capite who were not Lords But that Matt. Paris doth also in another place take the Word Populus for the Commoners and not for the whole Body of the Laity pray again remember what he says in Anno 1225. where relating the manner how Magna Charta came to be confirmed in 9th Hen. III. he tells us Rex Henricus ad Natale tenuit Curiam suam apud VVestm
Voluntate Precipto Domini Regis nec non â—â—â—datorum Baâ—onium ac etiam Communitatis tunc ibidem praesentium M. I think the Dr. hath given us full satisfaction as to this Record in his Answer to Mr. P. the substance of which I shall here give you in short First It is certain that at the making of this forced Peace Simon Mountford and his Faction then held the King and Prince as also Richard Earl of Cornwal the King's Brother as good as Prisoners and made them do what he pleased and he carried the King and Prince along with him until he had taken in all the strong places of the Kingdom and when he had done then he called this Parliament which could not be one in the sense it is now taken since there was none there but the Earls Barons and Heads of the Rebels which had the King and Prince in their power and as you your self set forth were the same persons that sealed it for themselves and the other Barons and the whole Community of the Kingdom of England which Community must be the Community of the Barons and Great Men or Tenants in capite by Military Service and no other for how can the Lords and Barons sign any thing for the Commons as at this day understood They did not then nor now do represent them But I shall give you another Authority to make this clearer of some years before related in Matt. Paris viz. Anno Dom. 12â—â— 42 d Hen. III. where Letters are said to be sent a Communitate Angliae to the Pope concerning Aymer de Valence Bishop Elect of Wachester the Direction is thus Sanctissimo in Christo Patri c. Communitas Comitum Procerum Magnatum Aliorumque Regni Angliae cum subjectione debita Pedum Osrâ—â—â— c. And to put the Matter beyond all doubt it is certain that these Letters were sealed by six Earls and five Barons onely vice totius Communitatis I need 〈◊〉 give you their Names since you may find them in the Author himself as also cited by the Dr. And as for H. Bigod the Chief Justice and the four Persons named after him they are proved by Sir VVilliam Dugdale in his Baronage of England to have been the Greatest Barons in the Kingdom Now pray let me ask you this Question Did these Eleven Persons all Great Earls and Barons represent the whole Commons or Community of England as at this day understood or did they represent the Community of the Barons only together with the Alios the Milites which held by Military Service of the Great Barons and the Less Tenants in capite for the whole Community here intended must be one of them take which you please you 'l lose the Cause For certainly these Great 〈◊〉 and Barons that sealed this Letter vice totius Communitatis were not chosen nor sent by the Commons to this Parliament or Meeting nor were the Commons represented as at this Day by them as you your self have already granted F. I hope I shall not need to make any long Reply to this Answer of youâ—â— or rather of your Dr.'s since it is built upon the same false Supposition with the other viz. that the Words Cum Communitate tot â Regni Angliae must always mean only the Community of the Tenants in capite which Supposition if it be false in your former Argument is also as falfe in this of the Lords and Commons too and therefore it is impertinent to repeat my Answer to it But if this were no true Parliament because Simon Mountford had then the King and Prince in his power This would likewise serve to unparliament that of the 49 th of this King from whence the Gentlemen of your Opinion date the first coming of the Commons to Parliament since the King and Prince were as much in Simon Mountford's power then as now and yet no man as I know of ever questioned the validity of it tho I cannot also omit that you pass by in this Letter the words Magnatum aliorumque Regni under which Words as I have already proved might very well be comprehended all the Knights of Shires as well as Citizens and Burgesses unless the words had run thus as they should have done to have made out your Assertion aliorumque qui de Rege Tenent in capite But to come to the main point you insist upon which is How these Great Earlâ— and Barons could seal this Form of the Peace and these Letters to the Pope in the Name of all the Commons of England Before I answer to that I pray give me leave to ask you one Question You have already allowed that the ordinary Tenants in capite of which that numerous Body chiefly consisted tho called by courtesy Barones Minores were really no Barons nor Peers of the Realm and if so were but Commoners Now pray tell me how these Great Earls and Barons you mentioned to have signed this Peace and this Letter to the Pope could put their Seals for those who were no Barons themselves by your own confession and you cannot say they represented them for they were as good Tenants in capite as the Greatest Lords But if you say they did it by their order and consent pray why might not these Great Lords or Barons as well do the like for the Knights of Shires and Burgesses by their appointment Since I have already proved that the Lords did act thus in the Letters which were sent to the Pope concerning the Business of Scotland And besides I must here observe that the Dr. and you do not deal fairly with your Adversaries in citing this Authority of the Lords and Barons signing these Letters to the Pope Vice tâ—tius Communitatâ—s Angliae since I acknowledge in this place the Word Communitas being put alone doth mean no more than the Community of the whole Kingdom But in the Authority I have quoted it is put after the Earls and Barons and so then must mean the whole Commonalty or Body of the Commons in the Sense they are now taken and as it hath been always used in French as well as in Latin when it comes after the Earls and Barons as I have already noted And for this pray see the Stat. of Westm. I. made 3 d Edw. I. but eleven years after the 49 th of Hen. III. Per l'assâ—ntments des Aechievesques Evesques Abbes Priors Counts Barons tout le Comminalty de la terre illonques summones Which Phrase I can shew you to have continued the same in most of our French Statutes during the Reign of this King and all his Successors in many Records and Acts of Parliament whilst they were writ in Latin or French which I shall omit reciting because I suppose you your self will allow it I have a great deal more to say concerning the true sense of the Words Communitas le Commune le Communalty which because it is long and it now grows late I shall
accepit c. Now pray tell me what Common Council was this Of the Bishops and chief Men of the Kingdom that Anselm referred himself to Was it not ex more by Custom You cannot find in Eadmer any Summons to it neither Rex asâ—ivit nor praecepâ—o Regis convenerunt nor Rex sanctione suâ adunavit In short not to multiply Examples look where you will in Eadmerus or any other of the ancient Historians you have cited and you will still find that the Persons who met ex more and without any Summons were the same who Assembled by the Kings Summons at other times that is the Principes and Episcoâ—i Regni or Terrae or called more generally Priâ—ates utriusque ordinis or the Barones or Majores Regni who did at these great â—easts pro more go to Court and hold a solemn Curia or great Council there And that these made up the Vniversity or whole Body of the Kingdom pray see what Matt. Paris says In die Pentecostes Dominus Rex Anglorum Loâ—dini Festum tenens Magnum serenissimum â—unc compositâ per Regni Vniversitatem Eleganti Epistolâ c. This was about the Pope's Exactions as hath been before delivered And Hen. III. in his Letter to the Pope calls the same Persons Magnates Angliae which in his Letter to the Cardinals about the same matter he calls Magnates Nostri as you may see in the former Citations of them F. But pray give me leave to ask you this question might not our first Norman Kings often Summon the Common Council of the Kingdom at one of the said usual Feasts since it was so much for the conveniency of the Bishops great Lords and Tenants in Capite who I grant were then all Members of the Great Council to meet all the rest of the Kingdom or Representatives of the Commons at the same time Though the Writers you have quoted may not mention their being Summoned at all And as for the Writs of Summons those of much later Parliaments being lost how can it be expected we should now prove their being Summoned so many Year before M. I confess it might be so that upon extraordinary business and when the occasion was great and the King desired a great and full appearance they might also receive an express Summons at those times But then I must desire you to shew us any mention of a Summons to any of these Common Councils which when called at other times are most constantly mentioned in this Author And I desire to know of you what you will say to those words pro more convenit which is spoken of the most general Councils when the Community of the Kingdom met at the King's Court You cannot deny but that the Tenants in Capite were the Kings Barones Milites Magnates c. Upon this we will joyn issue And I affirm without bringing Proofs which are infinite in this Case that all the Bishops Earls and Barons of England did hold their Lands Earldoms and Baronies of the Crown or which is all one of the King as of his Person and that was in Capite William the Conqueror as I said before divided most of the Lands in England amongst his great followers to hold of him he made Earls and Barons such as he pleased They and their Descendants held upon the same Terms with the first grantors which was to find so many Horse and Arms and do such and such Services both Titles and Lands were Forfeitable for Treason or Felony to the King did Homage for them and every Bishop Earl and Baron of England was in those circumstances and held of the King after this manner Other Lands were given to other Persons for meaner Services as to his Woodwards Foresters Hunts-men Faulconers Cooks Chamberlains Gouldsinlibs Bayliffs of Mannours in his own hands and many other Officers which in Doomsday-Book are called Terrae Thanorum Regis and sometimes servientium Regis And I doubt not whatever the Notion of Petyt Sergeanty now is but that originally this holding of Lands was the true Tenure not but presenting the Lord with a Bow an Arrow a pair of Spurs every Year c. might also be called Petyt Serjeanty though not so properly as the other F. Not to multiply words to no purpose I think your Reply is far from being Satisfactory for in the first place it is very unreasonable to demand that we should now shew the express Summons to these common Councils which were not held de more since you know that all antient Records of that kind are destroyed and lost for if we could produce them at this day the difference between us and those of your Opinion would quickly be at an end as appears by those great Councils which are said expresly by the Historians I have cited to have been summoned and yet no such Writs of Summons are to be found nor is it any good Argument that because our ancient Historians mention no distinct Summons to the great Councils when met at the usual times of the meeting of the Tenants in Capite that therefore there were none such since we find they often pass by much more material Matters than this And though I grant that the Tenants in Capite were then part of the great Council of the Barones Milites Magnates Regni yet does it not follow for all this that none but the Kings Barons and Tenants in Capite were Members of this great Council since there might be in those times other Barons or great Freeholders who though they held their Lands of the Tenants in Capite yet might be there as Knights of Shires or else appear in Person at those Assemblies as well as the other and besides there were others who though they did not hold of the King in Capite but of some great Honor or Castle or else of some Abbot or Prior yet were Men of very great Estates and very numerous all which must otherwise have had their Estates tax'd and Laws made for them without nay against the consent of themselves or any to represent them Nor is your Assertion at all true That William the Conqueror divided most of the Lands in England to be held of him in Capite For besides those Servants and Officers you last mentioned above two third parts of the Lands of the Abbies and Priories in England were not held as also much other Lands in Kent and other Countries per Baroniam or Knights Service but in libera Elecmosina only or Socage as I have already prov'd and consequently neither they nor their Tenants could according to your Hypothesis have any Representatives in Parliament And farther you your self grant that those Lands you mention which were given out by your Conqueror to his Woodwards Foresters c. did not capacitate them to appear in Parliament since their Tenure was only by Petyt Serjeanty and not by Knights Service Nor could they become the King's Tenants in ancient Demesne because such Tenants
of the great Council and the common University of the whole Kingdom for it is obvious that when all the Lay Lords Earls and Barons to whom you may also add your Tenants in Capite if you please being met together were asked by the Bishops Abbots and Priors then present whether they would agree with them or not the Eaâ—ls and Barons answered for themselves that they would do nothing without the Common Vniversity which could not possibly be only the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Tenants in Capite since it is plain they were now all here and referred themselves to another distinct order of Men different from themselves who were not there present as also from the Bishops Abbots and Priors who demanded there Consents to what they had agreed upon Now if the Temporal Lords and Tenants in Capite had concurred here had been the consent of the Common Vniversity of Lords and Tenants in Capite but besides the consent of all these there was notwistanding it seems required the Consent of another body of Men called here the Communis Vniversitas by which must be meant the Commons or no body since otherwise they might have all agreed together without any more ado M. I confess this Story out of Mat. Paris looks somewhat plausible at the first on your side but I doubt not if it be better considered it will do you little Service for what if by this Common Vniversity is to be understood the whole body of lesser Tenants in Capite who not â—itting with the Lords at that time they would do nothing without their Consents till it was proposes to them but that they did afterwards all agree pray read the rest of this Narration and it will make it clear enough that this Common Vniversity of Tenants in Capite did also agree with the Lords Bishops and Abbots the words immediately following in Mat. Paris are these Tunc de communi assensu electi fuerunt ex parte cleri Blectus Cantuariensis Wintoniensis Lincolniensis Wigoriensis Episcopi ex parte Laicorum Richardus Comes Frater Domini Regâ—â— Comes Bigod Comes Legr S. de Monteforti Comes Maresâ—ballus ex parte vero Baronum Richardus de Montfiâ—hes Iohannes de Baliol de Sancto Edmundo Rameseit Abbates ut quod isli duodecim providerâ—nt in communi recitaretur nec aliqua forma Domino Regi ostenderetur Authoritate duodecim nisi omnium communis assensus interveniret from which last passage it appears plain to me that in this Parliament the several Orders of men that were the constituent parts of it were only the Bishops Abbots Priors Earls and Barons and that all these put together were termed the Common Vniversity which is more comprehensive then University simply taken now if the Commons as at this day represented had been there we must have had some mention of them one way or other as well as of the Committees of the other Orders which made up the general Committee of Twelve so that it is plain beyond doubt that the Commons were not part of the Common Vniversity F. Then pray tell me who they were for the Historian tells that when all these Bishops Abbots Priors had now met together with the Earls and Barons yet these last â—ell them that without the Common University they could do nothing which had been nonsense if as your Doctor supposes the whole University or Community of the Kingdom had been all present M. I must confess this is a material Objection but what if to help him out I should tell you that by the Common University here mentioned is to be understood the body of the inferior Tenants in Capite under the degree of Barons and this Common University of Tenants in Capite might not have been present and sat with the Earls and Barons at that time when the Bishops and Abbots made this Proposal therefore the Lords might very well answer that till they had consulted the Common Universty or Body of Tenants in Capite they could do nothâ—ng and though this Body of Tenants in Capite did not then actually sit with the Earls and Barons yet doth it not follow that they made a distinct Estate by themselves different from that of the Lords or greater Tenants in Capite for then the Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots c. who are here expresly said to have consulted by themselves must have done so likewise therefore though our Author is not so particular as he might have been yet certainly this Common University were thereupon consulted and gave their Assents to the choice of this Committee of Twelve who were to draw up their answer to the King for the words are tunc ex communi assensu electi fuerunt which seem to refer to the Common University or Body of Tenants in Capite or else the Lords Excuse as well as the Election of these Persons by the Bishops Earls c. had been very insignificant F. This seems to me to be a precarious assertion and without any due proof for tho the words are Tunc ex Communi Assensu yet I very much doubt whether these words do refer to the Common Vniversity of the whole Kingdom or not for your self confess that Mat. Paris is short in this point and that it was not so seems most likely to me by this material circumstance that not one Person of the Twelve but was either a Bishop Earl or great Baron For that Richard de Monâ—sichet and Iohn de Baliot were so Sir William Dugdale hath proved in his Baronage of England Whereas if the University or Body of the Tenants in Capite had joyned in this Election it is not likely but they would have chosen some of their own Body to represent them in this Committee who were not Earls or Barons Since your self must confess that they then were a great Body of Men who were not Lords nor did at this time Sit or Act Joyntly with the Lords or greater Barons in this Assembly and likewise it farther seems highly probable that this Common Vniversity of Tenants in Capite take it in your sense did not give any Resolution in this matter since we do not find any Mony given in answer to the King's Request but only Complaints of and orders about Redressing of Grievances which was in those days often done in a great Council of the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite But I shall shew you now by some other Records which the Dr. himself hath made use of that there often was a distinct Assembly or Council of the Lords and Tenants in Capite different from that of the Commons or Commonalty of the whole Kingdom The first Record is to be found among the Patent Rolls of the 42. Hen. III. beginning thus Rex omnibus c. cum negotiis nostris arduis nos Râ—gnum nostrum contingentibus Proceres Fideles Regni nostri ad nos London in Quindena Paschae proximae praeterita faceremus convocari
him and Tax him as he pleased then by the same Rule the King as Supream Lord over all his Tenants in Capite should have had the like Power over them of making what Laws for them and imposing what Taxes he pleased upon them without their consents and so there would have been no need of Common Councils or Parliaments at all since upon your Hypothesis the Tenants in Capite were the only Persons that had any right to appear there But if neither the Wardship Marriage nor Relief of the Heir could give the King such a Power over his Tenants in Capite much less could they attain the like right over all their Mesne Tenants by Knights Service for that would have given them a greater Power over their Tenants then the King himself had over them therefore if those great Tyes of Wardship Marriage and Relief of the Heir could neither give the King nor yet any Tenant in Capite power over the Estate or Liberty of his Tenants by Knights Service much less over their Tenants by Socage Tenure who were not under this subjection and farther if a right of Forfeiture alone in some Cases could have given the Lords a Power of making Laws and granting Taxes for his Tenants in Socage then they should have kept that right by this Rule since all Lords had a right of Forfeiture even upon their Tenants in Socage in some Cases before the Statute of taking away Knights Service and the Court of Wards and Liveries in the second year of King Charles the Second as I could prove were it worth while As to Scotland I shall not deny the matter of fact to be as you say that it hath at this day no other Representatives in their Parliament but the Tenants in Capite yet whether it was so or not anciently I very much doubt since I find the very same words and Phrases made use of in the Titles of their old Statutes as also in their Records to express the Constituent parts of the great Council of that Kingdom as were used in England to express those of England at the same time For proof of which pray see the old Charters of King Malcolme III. and David I. as you may find them at the end of the 2d Vol. in Mr. Dugdales Monâ—st Angliâ— and you will see the former to have bin made by the Assent of the Comites Barones Regni Clero adquie cent que Populo c. and as I shall also shew you from Sir Iohn Skenes Collection of Scotish Laws to begin with the most ancient there Extant viz. an Assize or Statute made in the time of King William Sir named the Lyon who began his Reign Anno. Dom. 1105. in the Fifth of our Hen. I. to the observance whereof it is there expressed that the Epiâ—copi Abbates Comites Barones Thani tota Communitas Regni tenere firmiter juraverunt so likewise King Alexander II. who began to Reign Anno. 1214. which was the Sixteenth year of our King Iohn and he made his Laws de confilio assensu venerabilium Patrum Episcoporum Abbâ—tum Baronum ac proborum hominum suorum Scotiae and who these were may also farther appear by the begining of certain Statutes made by the said King Alexander in the same Year which begin thus Statuit Rex per consilium assensum totius communitatis suae c. I shall next produce the Title of a Parliament holden the 13th of Rob. I. who began his Reign Anno. Dom. 1306. the 3d. of our Edward I. In Dei nomine Amen Roberâ—us Dei Gratia Rex Scotorum Anno Regni suo Decimo tertio die Dominica proxima c. habito solenni tractatiâ— cum Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Baronibus aliis Magnatibus de Communitate totius Regni ibidem congregatis and which Title concludes thus de Communi consilio exprâ—sso conâ—ensu omnium Prelatorum libere Tenentium predictorum ac totius Communitatis predicte ordinavit condidit c. Statuta infra Scripta c. So likewise in an ancient Manuscript called Scoto-Chronicon formerly in the Possession of the Right Learned and Honourable Arthur Earle of Anglesey and now in the Herald Office you will find the Entail of the Crown of Scotland to have been made by this King Robert Anno. Dom. 1315. in a general Council or Assembly of the whole Kingdom of Scotland as well Clergy as Laity which as this Author tells us who lived within Sixty Years after was held Dominica proxima ante festum Apostolorum Congregati apud Aere in Ecclesia Parochiali ejusdem Laici Episcopi Abbates Priores Archidiaconi nec non Diaceni caeteri Ecclesiarum Praelati Comites Barones Milites caeteri de Communitate Regni Scotiae tam Cleri quam Laici c. from which it is apparent There was a great Council of the whole Kingdom as in England more comprehensive then that of Tenants in Capite alone And that our English Records also agree with these Scotch Statutes you may see by 2 Records which Mr. Pryn has given us in his History of Papal Vsurpations out of the Rolls of the 17th of Edw. I. it is a Letter to Eric King of Norway concerning the Marriage of his Son Edward with his Grand-daughter then Heiress of Scotland and Norway reciting that the Custodes Scil. Regni Scotlae Magnates Praelati ac tota Communitas predicti Regni Scotiae unanimi expresso consensu had agreed to the said Marriage So likewise in another Letter of this King Edwards about the same Marriage he declares that he had by his Procurators therein named treated and agreed with the Custodibus Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus tota Communitate ejusdem Regni and it presently follows ac praedicti nobiles tota Communitas Regni Scotiae praedicti Now whom can this word Communitas signifie put here distinct from the Earls Barons and Nobles but the Commons of that Kingdom So likewise in the 14th year of King Robert I. there was a Letter sent from the Parliament of Scotland to the Pope complaining against the violence of the King of England which is to be seen in Manuscript and is also Printed by Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation and by which it plainly appears that the Comites Barones Libere Tenentes tota Communitas Scotiae agreed to this Letter And that the Cities and Burrough Towns were at that time part of this Communitas appears by the League made betwen this King Robert and the King of France in the 28th year of our Edw. I. which is to be seen in a Roll of this year still Extant in the Tower which League was ratified and confirmed in their Parliament by King Iohn de Bayliol ac Praelatos nobiles Vniversitates Communitates civitatum villarum praedicti Regni Scotiae and I suppose you will not deny that in Scotland the Cities
why the Commons could not be represented in Parliament before the 49th of Hen. III. and 18th of Edw. I. M. I will proceed to do it and for this end shall reduce my Arguments to these three Heads the first is some Writs found out and produced by the Doctor whereby he proves that the Commons were not Summoned during the Reign of Hen. III. till the 49th secondly the general silence of all Statutes in Hâ—n III. Reign wherein is not one word mentioned of the Commons but rather to the contrary thirdly the critical Time viz. in the 49th of Hen. III. when the Commons were first called during Monsfords Rebellion fourthly their discontinuance from that time till the 18th of Edw. I. there being no mention made of them in all the rest of the Reign of Hen. III. nor yet of Ed. I. till the 18th in which the Doctor shews you a Writ not taken notice of before by which the Commons were Summoned a new to Parliament Lastly from the uncertainty of the manner of the Writs of Summons whether for one Knight or two Knights and sometimes no Citizens and Burgesses at all which sufficiently prove the Novelty of the Institution as also of some Parliamentary Forms relating to the Commons which shew that neither their number nor manner of Election was settled long after the Reign of Edw. I. To begin therefore with the first Head I know the Gentlemen of your opinion make a great Noise about the loss or rather defect of the Writs of Summons and Parliament Rolls of all the Kings till the 23d or 25th of Edw. I. So that we cannot be so well assured what was done in Parliaments of those times as we may be afterwards Yet there are still some Writs of Summons Extant upon the Close Rolls before and in those times by which the Bishops Earls and Barons were Summoned to Parliaments or great Councils And we have all the Close Rolls of King Iohn and Henry III. on the Dorseâ— of which anciently most of the Writs of Summons to the Commons in other King's Reigns are entred few on the Patent Rolls which we have likewise 'T is therefore very strange if the Commons were then represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses and Summoned to Parliament as at this day that there cannot be found any Summons to them upon these Rolls as well as to the Lords But the Learned Doctor hath for our Satisfaction found out three Writs of Summons to the Lords one in King Iohn's Reign and two other of Hen III. The first is in the Close Roll 6th of King Iohn directed to the Bishop of Salisbury which is needless here to be repeated Verbatim only pray take notice of the material words of this Writ where after the Cause of the Summons particularly expres'd it concludes thus expedit habere vestrum Consilium aliorum Magnatum Terrae nostrae quos ad diem ilium Locum fecimus convocari The second is in the Close Roll of the 26th Hen. III directed to W. Arch-bishop of York wherein he is likewise Summoned ad tractandum Nobiscum una cum caeteris Magnatibus nostris quos similiter fecimus convocaâ—i de arduis Negotiis nostris statum nostrum totius Regni nostri specialiter tangentibus with this note underneath eodem modo Scribitur omnibus Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus The third is of the 38th of the same King directed to Boniface Arch-bishop of Canterbury whereby he is Summoned to be at Westminster within Fifteen days after Hillary next coming before the Queen and Richard Earl of Cornwail about the Affairs of Gascony and this very Council Mat. Paris Anno. Dom. 1254. calls a Parliament to which all the Magnates or great Men of England came together the Day of which Meeting he makes to have been the 6th of the Calends of February being St. Iulian's day and which fell one within Fifteen days after St. Hillary's Day which was that appointed for the Meeting of this Parliament by the aforesaid Writ of Summons and who were the Constituent parts of this Parliament may be be farther made out by a Letter of the Queen and Earl Richard to the King then in Gascony which is recited by Mat. Paris in his Additaments in these words Domino Regi Angliae c. Regina Richardus Comes Cornubiae Salutem Recipimus literas Vestras ad Natale Domini proximae praeteritum quod in Crastino Sancti Hillarii Convocaremus Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Priores Comites Regni Angliae ad ostendendum c. Whereby it appears who were then the Constituent parts of Members of our English Parliaments viz. the Archbishops Bishops c. Earls and Barons of the Kingdom So that there is no such Universal silence concerning the Constituent Parts of our Parliaments as you and those of your Party suppose from the loss of the Parliament Rolls of those times most of which though I confess are lost yet there are enough left to satisfie any reasonable Person that there were then no Commons in Parliament in the sense they are now taken F. You cannot give me a better demonstration of the loss of the Parliament Rolls and Writs of Summons than what you now offer for if we have all the Close Rolls of King Iohn and Henry III. on the Dorses of which you tell me the Writs of Summons use to be entered then certainly those to the Lords were there entered also and if so how comes it to pass that in above Eighty Years time in which there must be above Eighty Parliaments you can shew me but three Writs of Summons and those only to as many Bishops and to no Temporal Lords at all If so be these were Parliaments and not great Councils of the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite only as I rather believe they were for you rely too much upon you Doctors credit when you alledge that we have all the Close Rolls of King Iohn and Henry III which is a great mistake for I have had a Friend who has given me a note of what Close Rolls are still Extant in those Reigns and what are lost which you may here see To begin with King Iohn pray observe that all the Close Rolls of the first Five years of his Reigns are gone and so they are in the 9th 10th 11th 12th and 13th for certainly there were some in those as well as in the succeeding years In the next place till the 18th there is but one Roll left of each year but then there are three and after that but one or two in a year to the very end now pray tell me how we can be assured that there was not more then one Roll in every precedent year as well as in the 15th the like I may say for the Reign of Hen. III. which though I grant are more entire then those of King Iohn there being some left us of every year but the 23d yet they are but
that that Dr. has with so much artifice put upon them still using them like Charms to bewitch and impose upon his unwary Readers especially since a right Notion of these words is absolutely necessary for the right understanding the true sense and meaning of our Ancient English Historian 〈…〉 after all this pother the Dr. makes about the signification of those words Populus Plebs Vulgus as synonimous as he grants them to be they must all signifie the whole Body of the People as well the Commons as the Lords represented in Parliament by his own confession or else I leave it to your self to consider who of the two is guilty of levelling Notions your Dr. or Mr. P. since one does but allert with the general consent of Ancient and Modern Writers that the words Barones and Baronagium Angliae did anciently take in more than the Lords and Tenants in Capite And the Dr. straight calls him a man of Levelling Principles and that jambles the Commons together with the Lords whereas your Dr. can when he pleases make the words Plebs and Vulgus to to signifie the great Lords and Tenants in Capite contrary to the subject matter on which he discourses and to their Genuine signification either in Ancient or Modern Latine M. I must consess you have now told me more than I ever yet heard or read of or indeed thought could have been urged for the Inferior Clergies having been once a part of the Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Council of the Kingdom and I will consider farther of it But in the mean time let me tell you you have not been yet so clear in your Explanation of the other opposite word Populus for admitting I should grant you that there were in some sort Commons in Parliament as represented by the lesser Tenants in Capite who were not Lords yet does it not therefore follow that there must have been another rank or order of Persons beneath or different from them since as I said it is but how 't is only the Custom and Law of each Countrey that can determine what is the Community or Representative Body of the People so that there is no such certain Analogy between the Clerus when taken for the Inferior Clergy and the Populus when taken for the lesser Nobility or Tenants in Capite Since in Scotland tho' their great Council or Parliament might consist of the Abbots and Inferior Clergy as with us who did not hold in Capite yet you cannot deny but that the Temporal Estate or Layety at least of late Ages wholly consisted of the Earls Barons Lairds or smaller Barons together with the Burgesses of Royal Boroughts all which held in Capite and for ought as I can see from any clear Proofs you have brought to the contrary did so from Times beyond all memory and so it might have been in England too for ought as I know for tho' you have taken a great deal of pains to Answer the Dr's and my Arguments against the Tenants in Capite being the Representatives of the whole Kingdom in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the Third and 18th of Edward the First and also to prove that the words made use of in our ancient Historians Records and Acts of Parliament are of a more comprehensive signification than to be confined to them alone But you have not as yet proved that these Gentlemen who you suppose to have had Places in our great Councils besides the Tenants in Capite were Knights Citizens and Burgesses or whether all the Lords of Mannours or great Freeholders in England appeared there in person for themselves and their under Tenants therefore I pray be a little more clear in this point and shew me some Authorities that the Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses have been always constituent Members of Parliament ever since the Conquest for methinks you waver in this Matter and sometimes you seem to assert the former and sometimes the latter F. I confess it is not my humour to be positive in any thing that is in the least doubtful or obscure and therefore as I will not maintain that Knights of Shires always a constituent part of Parliament before your Conquest or presently were after tho' it is positively asserted by the Author of the Modus tenendi Parliamentum since the Antiquity of that Piece is justly questioned by Mr. Selden and other Modern Antiquaries so on the other side I shall not assert that they were not there at all but this much I think I am able to prove that they were Summoned to Parliament long before the 49th of Henry the Third or 18th of Edward the First But as for the Cities and Boroughs that they had their Representatives in Parliament at or presently after your Conquest I think I can prove from as undeniable Testimonies as can be expected Since all the most ancient Rolls and Records of great Councils and Parliaments are long since lost and destroyed Yet to shew you that we have some very ancient Authors that seem to mention not only the Citizens and Burgesses but Knights of Shires to have been summoned before the times you insist upon and if it prove so whether they were there from the very Time of the Conquest is not material since if I confute your and your Dr's Opinion of the 49th of Henry the Third and 18th of Edward the First I carry the Cause and you may then invent if you can some other Epocha whereon to fix their first appearing at our great Councils I shall therefore give you another Quotation out of the same old Monk Sulcardus which immediately follows the conclusion of the Charter of K. William the First to the Abby of Westminster but now cited and it has been made use of not only by Mr. P. in his Ancient Rights of the Commons c. but by Sir William Dugdale himself in his Origines Iuridiciales as also by the Author of Argumentum Aâ—tinormaunicum to prove the Commons to have been summoned to a great Council in the 9th Year of K. William the First Anno Dom. 1075. the words as cited in Sir William Dugdale are these That after the King had Subscribed his Name to this Charter with the Sign of the Cross adding many of the Bishops Abbots and Temporal Nobility instead of Cum multis aliis hath these words Multis praeterea illustrissimis virorum personis Regni Principibus diversi Ordinis omissis qui huic Confirmationi piisimo affectu testes â—autores fuerunt Hii autem illo tempore à Regia potestate diversis Provinciis urbibus ad universalem Synodum pro causis cujuslibet Christiane Ecclesâ—e audiendis tractandis ad praescriptum celeberriumum Coenobium quod Westmonasterium dicitur Convoceti Now I shall only observe from this Author that Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour and Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary do render Provincia for a County or Shire M. I pray give me leave
no man will say that their Acclamations and crying yea yea will make our Kings Elective any more than it could do it in the Case of K. William who had a Title by Conquest precedent to this prâ—tended Election tho' I grant this custom may have been in use ever fined this Coronation of the Conqueror But that King William claimed indeed by Conquest and by no other Title let us not mind his specious colourable pretences but his actions which are the best Interpreters of the Thoughts of Princes and we shall find that thorough all his Reign he Governed this Kingdom as a Conqueror and this I shall prove by making good the three Instances I have already given of his great alterations of the Property Laws and Civil Liberties of the People of this Nation to begin with the first of these For the proof of which I shall make use of the Authority of Gervace of Tiâ—bury a considerable Officer in the Exchequer in the time of Henry the Second and who received his information from Henry of Bloâ—s Bishop of Winchester and Grand-child to the Conqâ—eror who is most full to that purpose which he thus delivers in the Manuscript Treatise called the black book of the Exchequer which I shall read to you according to the Learned Dr. B's Translation of it After the Conquest of the Kingdom and the just subversion of the Rebels when the King himself and his great men had viewed and surveyed their new acquests there was a strict enquiry made who they were which had fought against the King and secured themselves by Flight from these and the Heirs of such as were slain in the Field all hopes of possessing either Lands or Rents were cut off for they counted it a great favour to have their Lives given them But such as were called and sollicited to fight against King William and did not if by an humble submission they could gain the Favour of their Lords and Masters they then had the liberty of possessing somewhat in their own persons but without any right of leaving it to their Posterity their Children enjoying it only at the Will of their Lords to whom when they became unacceptable they were every way outed of their Estates neither would any restore what they had taken away And when the miserable Natives represented their Grievances publickly to the King informing him how they were spoiled of their Fortunes and that without redress they must be forced to pass into other Countries At length upon consultation it was ordered that what they could obtain of their Lords by way of Desert or Lawful Bargain they should hold by â—unqestionable Right but should not claim any thing from the time the Nation was Conquered under the Title of Succession or Descent upon what great consideration this was done is manifest says Gervacâ— for they being obliged to compliance and obedience to purchase their Lords â—avour therefore whoever of the Conquered Nation Possessed Lands c. obtained them not as if they were their Right by Succession or Inheritance but as a reward of their service or by some intervening agreement This alone were sufficient coming from an Author of such Credit and living so very near the time but besides his I shall give you the Authority of divers other Authors to the same purpose and particularly Ordericus Vitalis whom you but now cited tells us how William the first circumvented the two great Earls of Moreâ—a and that after Edwin was slain and Morcar imprisoned then King William began to shew himself and gave his Assistants the best and most considerable Counties in England and made Rich Collonels and Captains of very mean Normans and that he thus disposed of whole Counties to divers great men appears by Domesday Book wherein it is seen that the whole County of Chester was given by the Conqueror to â—upus a Norman so likewise the greatest part of Shropshire was given to Monâ—gomery And further he took away from the English their Estates and gave them to his Normans and this he did from his first coming in for Fitz-Osbern was made Earl of Arundel and Hereford at his first coming in and was Lord of Bettivil in Normandy and established the Laws of that Town at Hereford Alan Earl of Bâ—itain had all Earl Edwin's Lands given to him at the Seige of York about three years after his arrival to these I may add the 795 Mannors Robert Earl of Morâ—ton in Normandy and Cornwal in England had given to him by K. William so likewise â—lan Earl of Britain and Richmond 442 Mannors and Ieffery Bishop of Constance had 280 Mannâ—rs given him by the Conqueror besides many other Lands of the Saxon Earls Thains c. were all given to the Normans who took their Title from King William's Conquering Sword So that I think it is very evident that this King had distributed most of the Lands of the Nation to his Norman's long before the survey was begun and by that infallible Record it is clear that he gave near all the Lands of the Nation to his followers and very little or none to the English who held that they had hys new Title and new services from the Conqueror or his great Lords or became Tenants to or Drudges upon their own Lands as we heard before from Bracton and Fleta Here is enough to satisfie any unbyassed person that thâ— Conqueror did not lay by his Sword after the Battle of Hastings F. In answer to what you have now said concerning your Conquerors taking away the Lands of a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry it is so apparent in matter of Fact that it were a high piece of impudence to go about to deny it yet will it not therefore follow that what he thus disposed of were almost all the Lands of England as I shall shew you by and by but in the mean time to let you see that I am a fair adversary I will at present suppose that K. William took away all the Lands from the former owners and gave them to his followers who helpt him in his Conquest but these were not only the Normans his Subjects but French Flemmings Anjovins Britains Poictovins and People of other Natioâ—s who made up a great part of his Army and came in with him under great and considerable men their Leaders and whom your Dr. tells us came not out of staâ—k love and kindness without any consideration of sharing with and under him in the Conquest Now I desire to know by what Law or Act of theirs they thus constituted K. William an Absolute Monarch over them and their Descendants For as for the Normans tho' they were it's true his subjects yet they enjoyed divers considerable Rights and Priviledges at home and surely never intended to come over hither to make themselves as great Slaves as the People they had Conquered much less can it be supposed of these of other Nations who were not subjects to Duke William before
appears by the Title to the Latin Customs of Normandy which are at the End of the Old French Edition of the Constumiers de Normandy Printed at Râ—aâ— 1515. The Title of which is thuâ— Iura Consuetudines Ducatus Noâ—maniae The Prologue to which begins thus Quoniam Leges Instituta quae Normanorum Principes non sint magna provisionis Industria Praelatorum Comitum Baronum nec non Caeterorum virorum prudentum consilio Assensu ad salutem humani foederis Statuerunt Whereby it is apparent that the Antient Laws of Normandy were made by the Advice and Consent of the Estates for the Preservation of that humane Covenant they had formerly made with their first Duke Rollo when he had that Dutchy granted him by the King of France and whoever will consult the antient Histories and Laws of that Dutchy will find theâ—â— Dukes of Normandy no more absolute Monarchs there than the Kings of Norway from whence they came so that if their Duke should have gone about to take away their Estates or inslave the Persons of the Norman Nobility and People he might justly have been resisted by them and therefore their taking Lands from K. William after his pretended Conquest here must either have conferred an Estate upon them according to the Laws of England or Normandy not according to the former for you assert that Tenures in Capite and Knight's service were generally introduced by his coming so that if they were by the Normans Law as you suppose they were then no farther subjects to their Duke by that Tenure when made King of England than they were whilst he was Duke of Normandy viz. only according to the Laws and Customs by which they held these Estates so that if their Duke was not irresistible by them in case of Tyranny in his own Country so he was also here by the same reason since whatever he did in respect of the English he could acquire no new right over them And that an Oath of Homage alone doth not make the Person to whom it is taken irresistible if he makes an unjust War upon his Vassals appears by the Dukes of Normandy themselves who tho' they held that Dutchy by Homage to the King of France and took the same Oath to him upon every Kings Accession to the Crown of being his Liegeman and to be True and Faithful to his Lord the King of France for the said Dutchy of Normandy yet might the Dukes of Normandy without any Imputation of Rebellion have resisted the King of France in case he made an unjust War upon them nor were ever the Dukes of Normandy accused of Rebellion for so doing in all the Wars that they had with the Kings of France And therefore the holding of an Estate by Homage doth not suppose that the Lord of whom it is held was irresistible nor doth the word of Allegiance signifie any more than that duty which the Liegemen by the Old Norman Law owed to their Supream Lord of whom they held their Lands and therefore when the King or Supream Lord of the Fee did not perform his part of the Contract but went about to turn them out of their Estates or to invade any of their just rights by force it was usual for the Tenants to defie the Lords and renounce their Homage to them for which they used the Barbarous Latin word diffidare in French to defie that is to renounce that Faith and Allegiance which before they owed them and the supream Lords also oftentimes defied their Tenants thus Mat. Paris tells in Anno 1233. that K. Henry the Third by the Counsel of the Bishop of Winchester defied Richard the Earl Mareschal and the year following we find the Earl justifying himself in this manner being then in Ireland First I answer that I never acted Treasonably against the King for he has unjustly spoil'd me of my Office of Mareschal without the Judgment of my Peers and has Proclaim'd me banisht thorough all England he has burnt my Houses destroyed my Lands c. he has more than once defied me when I was always ready to stand to the Judgment of my Peers from which time said he I ceased to be the Kings Liegeman and was absolved from his Homage not by my self but by him and whereas you say that tho' the King or Supream Lord cannot forfeit his Right tho' he breaks his part of the Compact because of the inequality which there is between a King and a Subject then this Prerogative of Non-resistance doth not belong to the King as he is Supream Lord of the Land but as he is King and giveth Law to the Subjects which may have some colour of Truth in Absolute Monarchies but was of no Force either in the Government of Normandy or England where the Duke or King without the consent of his Estates never could alone make Laws but as I will not deny our Government to be a Monarchy so it is as certain that it is limited in the very constitution either by the Saxons or Normans begin where you please and therefore my conclusion still holds good that if the English have now succeeded to those very Lands and Priviledges which the Normans anciently enjoyed then whatsoever Right or Liberty the English Proprietors of Estates do at this day enjoy they do not only hold them as the Successors and Descendants of those Normans and Frenchmen but are also restored to them Iure postliminii as you Civilians Term it since they never submitted themselves or took an Oath of Allegiance to King William and his heirs but only to himself Personally there being no such clause in any Oath of Allegiance till it was so ordained many ages after in the Reign of K. Henry the fourth nor was this Oath ever taken by our English Ancestors to K. William as to a Conqueror but the lawful Successor of K. Edward the Confessor and K. Williams actual taking away the Estates of a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry contrary to his own Oath and without any just oâ—use could no more give him a right so to do than if Henry the fourth or Henry the seventh both which came to the Crown by the assistance of a Foreign force should upon a pretence of being Conquerors have govern'd by an Army and so have taken away whose Estate they pleased and given them to their followers that came over with them M. I shall not dispute this matter with you any further therefore pray proceed to the other Point you took upon you to prove that King William did not take away so great a share of the Lands of England as the Dr. and those of our Opinion affirm F. I shall observe your commands and therefore in the first place I desire you to take notice that according to the Doctors own shewing your Conqueror never took away the Lands of all the Bishops and Abbots of England much less those that belonged to Deans and Chapters or
was that of the free burrough or Tything wherein by the Laws of King Edward the Confessor the Tythingman or Head burrough was the Judge who as that Law tells us determined all suits and differences arising among Neighbours of the same Tything concerning petty Trespasses on one anothers grounds which if they could not be there determined might then be brought before the Court Baron which was incident to every Mannor and wherein the Suitors and not the Lord nor his Steward were the Judges and this as Sir Edward Coke tells us was first instituted for the ease of the Tenants and for the ending of Debts and Damages under Potty Shillings at home as it were at their own doors and let me tell you by the way that sorty Shillings was theo near as much as forty pound is now and if the business could not be ended here or was of too high a nature it was then brought into the Hundred Court where the Hundreder together with the Suitors were Judges and if they had not Justice there they might then remove it into the Court of Trithing or Lathe which was not the smaller Court of the Tithing mentioned nor yet the Court Leet but a particular Court consisting of three or four Hundreds which tho' now quite lost was in being at the time of the Statute of Merton as I shall shew you by and by and if the business could not be decided in the Trithing it was then removed to the Shire or County Court as Mr. Lambert shews in the Laws of King Edward which was then held as now from Month to Month and in which as well as in the Hundred Court the Suitors alone were Judges and tho' it can now only hold Pleas unless it be by Writ of Justices of any Debt or Damage to the value of Forty Shillings or above yet we â—ind from ancient Authors that this Court was so considerable that we have diverse examples of Causes between the greatest Persons of England and for Lands of great value begun and determined in this Court thus Eadmertes relates the great Trial at Pinnesden-heath between Odo Bishop of Bayenâ— half Brother to your Conqueror and by him created Earl of Kent and Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury concerning divers Mannors in Kent and other Counties whereof Earl Odo had diseized the See of Canterbury in the time of Arch-bishop Stigand his Predecessor whereupon the Arch-bishop Petitioned the King that Justice might be done him secundem Legem Terrae and the King thereupon sends forth a Writ to summon a County Court the debate lasted three days before the Freemen of the County of Kent in the presence of many Chiefmen Bishops and Lords and others skilful in the Laws and Judgment passed for the Arch-bishop Lanfrank by the Votes of the Freemen Or primorum or proboâ—â—â— hominum as the Historian calls them So that to conclude this head if no suit could be begun in those days but what was first commenced in the Hundred Court no distringas could issue forth till three demands were made in the Hundred and from thence to be removed to the County Court where regularly all civil causes were try'd by the Suitors as the only Judges as well as in the Hundred Court and Court Baron then it will necessarily follow that unless you can prove which I think is impossible that all the English were at that time Slaves and Villains and had no Free-hold of any sort left them that all Pleading and Proceedings in any of those Courts being before meer Englishmen must have been in English and no other Language so that after all this great cry nor a twentieth part of the Suits in England were brought to London And as for Criminal Causes unless in cases of Treason all Murthers and other Felonies were Tryed and Judged in the Country either within the particular Jurisdictions of Bishops Abbots or great Lords or else of such Cities and Towns who had the Priviledges of Infangthief and Outfangthief together with Fossa and Furca that is a Pit to drown and a Gallows to hang Malefactors and if the offence was done in the body of the County they were then tryed and condemned in the County Court Justices Itinerant not being in use till Henry the seconds Reign M I must confess you have given me a great deal of light in these matters more than I had before but as I shall not dispute whether in the lowest Courts such as the Tythings and Court Barons the smaller English Free-holders might not Judge of Petty causes amongst themselves yet that in those greater causes were brought in the Hundred and County Courts which only the greater Fleemen of the Hundred or County were Judges who these Freemen were Dr. B. hath sufficiently taught us in his Commenes upon the Conquerors Laws as also in his Glossary viz. That they were Tenants in Military Service who in those times were the only great Freemen of the Kingdom and quite different from our ordinary Free-holders at this day These were the Men the only legal Men that named and chose Juries and served on Juries themselves both in the County and Hundred Court and dispatched all Country business under the great Officers I do not deny but that there might be other lesser Freemen in those times but what their quality was farther than that their Persons and Blood was Free that is they were not Nativi or Bondmen it will give a knowing man trouble to discover it to us we find in every leaf of Doomesday Socmen liberi homines Possessors of small parcels of Land but what there quality was and of what interest in the Nation Dicat Apollo no Man yet hath made it out nor can it be done by the account we have of ordinary Free-men for a Century or two last past And for further proof of this That none but Tenants in Capite or Military Tenants at least could be Judges in the County Court appears by the Laws of King Henry the first wherein it is expresly said Regis Iudices Barones Comitatus qui liberas in t is terras habent per quos debent causae singulorum alterna prosecutione tractari c. So that these Barons of the County being certainly Feudal Tenants this service of being suitors to the County and Hundred Courts was a service incident to their Tenures and then it will also follow that those Primores and probi Viri who as you have now related tryed this Cause between Earl Odo and Archbishop Lanfranc and who let me tell you were not only of the County of Kent but of other Counties in England where the Mannors and Lands lay as Eadmerus shews us and who were the Jurors in this great Cause consisted of the great Military Tenants that were not Barons and the less which were the Probi Viri for it can be no ways probable that the ordinary Freemen which made the greatest number and were all bound to
each mans pepzylo or price of his head as you will find them set by the Laws of K. Athâ—lstan I shall not insist much upon divers lesser things which K. William as a Conqueror imposed upon the People of England as disarming them of all offensive Weapons forbidding them to Hunt or Kill any Deer in his Chases or Forrests under the penalties of loss of Eyes and Members as also keeping up and reinforcing the Ancient Laws of Decenaries or Tythings whereby every Ten Families were bound with their tenth man or tything man body for body of each others good abearance as also that Law forbidding all sitting up late at Night or Assemblies after eight of the clock but that every one should go to Bed and put out both Fire and Candle at the ringing of the Coverteâ— Bell these things I think are very sufficient to prove that K. William as a Conqueror did very much abridge and in some things wholly take away the Ancient Priviledges and Liberties of the Lâ—giâ—sh Nobility Clergy and Commons and did also make many and great alterations not only in the forms of Pleadings but also in the very 〈◊〉 of our Laws both Criminal and Civil and if he did not make more â—â—â—erations of thâ— kind it was wholly owing to his free Will and Pleasure since aâ— Eâ—dmerus tells us he ordered all Divine and Secular things acccording to his pleasure F. That I may the better answer what you have said I shall partly grant and partly deny the matters of Fact you have alledged and also further prove that if they had been all as you have laid them yet would they not prove your conclusion that K. William by his own Arbitrary and Tyrannical Actions could create any Right by Conquest either to him or to his Successors And therefore to begin with your first head viz. the Priviledges of the English Nobility as to Offices and Dignities tho' I grant it was true as the Authors you have cited relate that sâ—arce any Englishman was when they Writ either a Bishop Earl or Abbot yet this is to be understood only of the latter end and not the beginning of his Reigns for as to the Bishops and Abbots I do not read of any more than Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury and Egelric Bishop of Durham who being deprived of their Bishopricks had Successors put in their rooms in their life times and yet in the place of this last not any Norman but one Walcher an English man was named by the K. to succeed and as for the Earls of all those who had been against him and opposed his coming in there was not one but he received them into savour and continued in his Dignity and Estate as in particular the Earls Eadwin and Morchar Brothers together with Waltheof and Siward and Edgar Aâ—â—eling whom they had named K. of England all who kept their Earldoms and Estates till terrified by the Kings severe and Tyrannical proceedings the three first of these â—led away as you have already shewn tho' I confess Prince Edgar had for two or three years before this fled into Scotland but yet was afterwards restored to the Kings Favour and his Estate nor do I find any considerable alteration in the Kings manner of disposing of his Honours or Preferments either Ecclesiastical or Civil till Earl Waltheo being convicted of being in the Plot with Ralph de Waher Earl of Norfolk and other Lords as well English as Normans to expel K. William and from that time being the eighth year of his Reign I grant he changed his whole course of Government and put no more Englishmen into any places of honour or profit tho' W. Malmesbury endeavours to excuse the Kings severity in these words Inde prâ—positum regis fortassis meritò excusatur siâ—aliquando durior in Anglos â—uâ—rit quod penâ— nullum eorum fidelem invenerit tho' with this Authors good leave the K. had been the cause of this conspiracy by his own Tyranny and breach of Oaths as I shall shew you by and by So that either this K. was moved by just provocations thus to debar all Englishmen from being preferred to Dignities or Offices or he was not if the former and that he had just cause so to do it was no more than what any other Foreign Prince who had no Hereditary Right to the Crown would have done in the like case But if the latter it was not only contrary to Justice but also to his own Coronation Oath one clause of which as Malmesbury shews us in his de Gestis Pontificum was quod se modeste erga subditos ageret aequo jure Anglos Francos tractaret so that this Kings Arbitrary and violent proceedings after he had â—or some time governed as a lawful King tho' they might prove him a Tyrant yet they could by no means make him a Conqueror And as for the latter part of your Argument whereby you would prove that in his Reign there were no Englishmen in the great Councils of the Kingdom that can only be understood in the strictest sense of the times after the great Conspiracy I have now mentioned for before it is very evident that there were many Bishops Earls and Barons still left who must have been members of the great Council Nor can you prove that the Law I have mentioned against the King's taking the Taillage or Taxes without their consent was made after that time but let it be made when it will you shall never pâ—rsuade me it was enacted without any Englishmen's being present till yâ—u can prove to me that there were no English Tenants in Câ—pite towards the end of 〈◊〉 Reign and that there were then no Knights Citizens or Burgesses that represented the Commons in the great Council and can give a better answer to those Arguments I have given you to prove they were there especially that remarkable clause in the conclusion of this Kings Charter to the Abby of Westminster which mentions divers Principal Persons both of the Clergy and Laity to have been summoned to that famous Synod or great Council when this Charter was granted I come now to your next head whereby you would prove this King's Abridgment of English Priviledges as to their Estates and Properties to begin with that of the Legislative Power which as you say was then wholly in the King admit it were so it will not prove that for which you urge it viz. that it is a sign of the Kings Absolute Conquest over the English for if the great Council of the Kingdom had then lost its ancient right it was only his Normans and Frenchmen as well as the English that he bereaved of their Ancient Priviledge of giving their consent to Laws since it is very certain that neither the K. of France nor the D. of Normandy could at that time make any Laws without the consent of their Estates But the truth is that your Conqueror could not do it neither for if the Normans
Popish Faction instead of suffering the Elections for Parliament-Men to proceed as he had promised and as was hoped for by us all on a sudden he order'd the rest of the Writs for Elections that were not sent down to be burnt and a Caveat to be entred against the making use of those that were sent already into the Country and at the same time he sent Order to the Earl of Feversham to disband the Army and dismiss all the Souldiers with their Arms. But I had forgot to put you in mind that just before this the King had sent away the Queen with the Prince into France and that she carried the Great Seal of England along with her whereby it was plain the King intended to put it wholly out of his power to Issue out any Writs or Pass any publick Act wherein the Great Seal should be used and that this Seal was carried away appears by its being not long since drawn up out of the Thames by a Fisherman's Net near Lambeth Bridge where it 's supposed to have been thrown in by the Queen or some of Her Attendance in Her passage over the Water and farther that the King was resolved wholly to quit the Government of this Kingdom at least for the present appears by his so speedy following of the Queen within three days after stealing from his Pallace by Night in a Boat to Gravesend and from thence in a small Vessel to Feversham where how he was seis'd by the Mob of that Town and afterwards return'd to London as you have set forth I need take no further notice Now this being a true and fair Narrative of the whole Matter I shall only offer two or three questions to your consideration and desire you would give me a fair and satisfactory answer to them First pray tell me whether it was not the Kings fault that it was rendered impossible for Parliament-Men to be elected by burning of the Writs and sending away the Great Seal Secondly whether the King by first stealing away did not plainly confess himself conquer'd by the Prince and did thereby Abdicate the Government also by his obstinate refusal to redress the Grievances of the Nation hath forfeited his Crown and all Allegiance from his Subjects and was not after this to be own'd as King of England either by the Prince of Orange or any body else and therefore whatever treatment he after this received from the Prince it was not to be looked upon as done to a Lawful King but a Conquered Prince and his Highness might not only justly refuse to treat with him any more as a Crowned Head but might also have justified not only the taking him Prisoner but sending him into Holland if he had pleas'd but instead of this the Prince only desir'd his removal out of Town from that conflux of Papists that flocked to him and by securing his Person to put it out of their power to play an after-Game and rally the late disbanded Army of whom there was at least twenty thousand of the Scotch Irish and English who would have stood by the King till the last and therefore the English as well as the Dutch Counsel about the Prince did not think it safe for him to come to Town as long as the King had his Guards about him at White-hall since they might have been increased to an Army whenever he pleased And though I grant good breeding and manners especially to Kings as also respect from a Son-in-law to a Father are duties incumbent upon Princes as well as private Men yet when these lesser things stand in competition with their own welfare and safety as also of the whole Nation for which the Prince was now engaged if he might for these ends justly require the removing and securing the Kings Person it was no great matter what time of night he had notice to remove though this was not done neither with any design to affront or surprise him but happen'd indeed through pure accident for when it was resolved that the Princes Guards should March to London and secure White-hall it was also resolved that the King should have notice to remove and since it was not thought fit to let him know it till the Posts were all secur'd the ways being very deep and dirty between Windsor and London the Dutch Guards commanded by Count Solms could not reach the Town till past ten at night and after that it was near twelve before the English Guards about White-hall could be drawn off without fighting and till that was done it was not thought at all proper or safe to deliver to the King the Princes message for his departure so that indeed it was not of any design that either the Prince and his Counsel who ordered it or of these Lords who very well understand good breeding thus to deliver their message to him at that time of Night But tho he was in Bed yet that he was not a sleep is very probable since he had not been above half an hour in Bed and it is not very likely he should be a sleep when he very well knew before of the arrival of the Princes Troops about White-hall and therefore could not be without too much concern about it presently to compose himself to sleep But as for his removal from London it is plain that his Highness was so far from owning or receiving the King in the same capacity he was in before his departure that as soon as ever he heard he was at the Earl of Winchelsea's and about to return to London he sent away Monsieur Zulestein with a Letter to let him know that he desired him not as yet to come to London but to stay at Rochester till he himself should come to Town but Monsieur Zulestein missing of the King by the way he came to White-hall yet could not but know that his being there was not with the Princes consent since the same Gentleman followed him thither and there delivered him the Princes Letters so that this second Message by these Lords could be no new thing or surprise to him yet that his Highness never intended or acted the least violence towards the Kings Person may appear by this that he left it to the Kings choice what place he would go to as also what Guards or other Attendance he would take with him and the King refused to take his English Guards with him though they were offer'd him and indeed these Dutch Guards that attended him might in his Majesties judgment be very well trusted they being as well as their Officers for the most part Papists but that the Prince did not intend either to detain his Majesties Person as a Prisoner may appear in this that whilst he remain'd at Rochester none that would were debarr'd from access to him and that the Officers and Souldiers of the Guards were order'd to be under his command and every Night to take the Word from him and had it not been for the Kings
Wales though it is true he is carried out of England ought to have been immediately declar'd King as was done in the Case of Edward the 3 d. who was so declar'd upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Edward the 2 d. F. Though I grant ever since the Crown has been claim'd by Descent the Law has gone as you have cited it and that Finches Law lays it down for a Maxim I shall not deny but that from the beginning or original of Kingly Government whether we look before or after you Conquest it will appear that the Throne was often vacant till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed who should fill it and to shew you I do not speak without good Authority pray tell me if this Maxim had then obtain'd why after the Death of William the First his Eldest Son Robert Duke of Normandy did not immediately take upon him the Title of King of England or at least had done it after the Death of William Rufus who you know was placed on the Throne â—not by Right of Inheritance but by his Fathers Testament confirm'd and approv'd of according to the Antient English-Saxon Custom of Succession by the common Consent of the great Council of the whole Kingdom and yet notwithstanding after the Death of this William Henry his younger Brother succeeded him by the free Election and Consent of the same Common Council and yet that Duke Robert should never in all his Life-time take upon him the Title of King Pray tell me likewise if this Maxim had been then known why Maud the Empress immediately upon the Death of her Father King Henry the First did not take nor yet her Husband the Duke of Anjou in her Right the Title of King and Queen of England though she had had Homage paid her and Fealty sworn to her in the Life-time of her Father as the immediate Successor to the Crown and yet notwithstanding the utmost Title she could assume was that of Domina Anglorum Lady or Mistress not Queen of the English whilst Stephen who had no other Title but the Election of the great Council of the Nation held both the Crown and Title of King as long as he lived As also why Arthur Duke of Britain who according to the now received Rules of Succession was the next Heir to the Crown upon the Death of King Richard the First never took upon him the Title of King unless it were that he very well knew that his Uncle King Iohn had been placed in the Throne by the Common Consent and Election of the great Council of the Kingdom So likewise after the Death of King Iohn why Henry his Son was not immediately proclaim'd King till such time as the great Council of the Clergy Nobility and People had met and agreed to send back Prince Lewis whom they had chosen for their King though not being Crowned he never took upon himself that Title and so chose Henry the Third then an Infant for their King Lastly Why all these Princes viz. Henry the Second Richard the First and Henry the Third who according to your notions were undoubted Heirs of the Crown never took upon them the Title of Kings of England nor are so stiled by any of our Historians till after their Elections and Coronations if it had not been then received for Law that it was the Election of the People and Coronation subsequent thereunto that made them Kings and till this was performed though they might look upon themselves as never so lawful Successors the Throne was notwithstanding esteem'd in Law vacant Therefore as for your Iâ—stance of King Edward the Third 's immediately succeeding upon the Resignation of his Father if you please better to consider of it that makes against you for it is plain from Th. Walsingham and H. de Knyghton that Prince Edward succeeded not to the Crown by Succession but the Election of the great Council or Parliament the words are express Huic Electioni universus Populus consensit and this was also owned by Edward the Second himself who when the Commissioners of all the Estates of Parliament came in all their Names to renounce their Homage to him yet in the midst of all his sorrow he gave them thanks quod Filium suum Edwardum post se Regnaturum eligissent which plainly shews that the Parliament had then such a Notion of a Forfeiture proceeding from his Deposition for violating the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom that the Eldest Son and Successor could pretend no other Right to it even in the Judgment of the late King himself but what proceeded from their Election M. I cannot deny but what you have now urged from matter of fact may appear very plausible to your self and those of your Notions yet if it be looked closer into I doubt not but the known Laws then receiv'd and the Notions the people had then of a Lineal Succession by Right Inheriâ—ance will prove directly contrary to the matter of fact For you know very well à facto ad Ius non valte consequentia but that all the Princes you mention'd except the three last were really Usurpers and not Lawful Kings I shall let you see by evident Authorities from the Historians of those Times For in the first place though I grant William Rufus succeeded to the Crown by his Fathers last Will which was certainly unlawful as being contrary to the receiv'd Laws of Succession in Normandy as well as England yet was it not by Election of the people as you suppose but by the kindness of Arch-Bishop Lanfranc his God-father and the favour of the greater part of the Norman Barons who came over with his Father as well as out of hatred to Duke Robert his Elder Brother that he was thus made King so that William Rufus claimed as a Testamentary Heir and by reason of that Claim was advanced to the Throne by the Assistance of Lanfranc's and the Bishop's Faction who then swayed the people but yet never owned any Election from them so that if you rightly consider this Story you cannot call it an Election but a Designation or Nomination by his Father William the Conqueror and consented to by the major part of the Bishops and Lords of the Kingdom but not by their Election or Decree as a Common Council as you suppose But that for all this Duke Robert his Brother being assisted by Odo Bishop of Bayenx and Earl of Kent his Uncle as also divers other Norman Lords who being satisfied of his Right raised a War in England against William and great mischief was done on both sides till at last a Peace was made between them upon these conditions among others as Matthew Westminster relates it that because of the manifest Right Duke Robert had to the Crown he should have a Yearly Pension of three thousand Marks out of the Revenue of England and he of the two Brothers that surviv'd the other if he died
carried on with great vigour and though I grant that after divers changes of fortune the Empress was at last forced to quit the Kingdom yet her Son Duke Henry did not fail to continue his claim to the Crown in right of his Mother and coming over into England renewed the War against King Stephen which was at last compos'd by an agreement between them which as Matthew Paris and Mat. Westminster relate it was thus That King Stephen acknowledged in an Assembly of Bishops and other great men of the Kingdom that Duke Henry had an Hereditary right to the Crown and the Duke thereupon as kindly granted that King Stephen should peaceably possess it during his Life so that it is certain till this agreement even by his own acknowledgment he had no right to it and though I grant that the Empress Maud for some reasons we are not able to give a true account of never took upon her the Title of Queen yet it is very certain that she acted as such during all the time she was in England receiving Homage and Fealty from those Lords and others who came over to her side and also granting Charters and conferring Honours by the Title of Anglorum Domina which shews she look'd upon her self to be the Supream Governess of the Kingdom though not under the Title of Queen so that I think you can find nothing in this transaction that can support your Notion of Vacancy F. Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said before you proceed farther first I cannot excuse neither King Stephen for taking the Crown nor the Bishops and Great men that set it on his Head from perjury and injustice since the Emperess Maud had been before in a Common-Council of the whole Kingdom declared the Lawful Successor and that Fealty had been sworn to her as such All that I insist upon in this affair is this that Quod furi non debâ—t factum valet And though this ought not to have been done yet when once done did stand good and therefore if whilst the Throne was vacant King Stephen by the Election and Consent of the Bishops and Great Men of England was placed therein he was there looked upon as true and legal King as long as he lived And this was the reason why the Emperess never took upon her the Title of Queen of England no not when she had taken King Stephen prisoner and one would have thought might have justly done it as a Conqueress But yet she forbore it because that Title was not then to be taken without the consent of the Great Council of the Kingdom which I cannot find she ever held her party being not great enough to make one And though I cannot deny but that she might in some particulars exercise some prerogatives of Royal Power yet this was only upon a pretence of her being Elected and Stiled by this Title of Lady of the English in a Synod of the Clergy at Winchester by the procurement of Henry the then Bishop of that See and the Popes Legat who was now turned against his brother King Stephen For she was never generally received nor own'd as Queen nor did she ever exercise those great prerogatives of Sovereign Power viz. Calling of Great Councils making of Laws raising of Taxes or Coining Mony But whereas you represent King Stephen to have been Elected but by a very small party of the Bishops and Noblemen of England yet it is very much to be doubted whether William of Malmesbury who Dedicated his History to Robert Earl of Gloucester King Stephens greatest Enemy being no friend to his Title is to be altogether credited in this matter For Henry of Huntington who lived not long after tells us expresly that Omnes qui Sacramentum juraverant tam Praesules quam Consules Principes assensum Stephano praebutrunt hominium fecerunt And it is also as certain that the Earls of Gloucester and Chester the two greatest men of England did then likewise swear Allegiance to him and own his Title though they afterwards revolted from him again Yet could they do nothing considerable against him till his own Brother the Bishop of Winchester revolted also from him upon pretence that the King had violated the Rights of the Church And though it is true that after the Empresses departure out of England Duke Henry her Son came over and prosecuted the War against King Stephen yet could it not be in his own but his Mothers Right who was then alive Nor could the agreement you mention be made between the King and the Duke as having then a right to the Crown in his own Person since we read of no concession the Empress his Mother had made to him of it And therefore whatever Title Henry could claim thereunto Upon the death of King Stephen it was wholly due to this Kings adopting him for his Son and declaring him his Successor upon condition that he himself should enjoy the Crown during his life which agreement was solemnly confirmed and ratified and that by Oath in a full Assembly of all the Bishops Lords and great men of the Kingdom For Ordericus Vitalis in his Annals p. 989. Is very express in the manner of this great Transaction in these words Sic tamen in praesentiarum ipse Rex Caeteri Potentes Sacramento â—irmarent quod Dux post mortem Regis si tempore eum superviveret pacifice aâ—â—que contâ—adâ—ctione Regnum haberet therefore as long as the Empress Maud lived who died after her Son King Henry's coming to the Crown ' â—is plain he could have no Hereditary Right to it notwithstanding what Matthew Paris and Matthew Westminster who lived long after these Transactions have said to the contrary and therein are to be looked upon as Authors that speak their own sense rather than that of the Writers of those times M. I confess what you have urged in this matter concerning Duke Henry's being admitted as Heir of the Kingdom during the Life of his Mother the Empress Maud seems to the purpose and there could be nothing said against it but that this was done by the Concession of the Empress her self who surrender'd all her pretentions to her Son tho' we have no particular account of it or else which is more likely in my opinion that the Government of Women being then unknown in England and Normandy and consequently odious to the English and Norman Nobility and for which reason chiefly they had before set this Empress aside they thought they did in effect perform their Oath to her when they acknowledged her Title in her Son Duke Henry who is said by the Historians of those times to have succeeded Stephen Iure Haereditario which could not at all agree with your notion of his receiving his Title from the Consent or Election of the great Council But I shall pass over this and come to your next instance of the Vacancy of the Throne which you pretend
to have been upon the Death of King Henry the II. Now your only argument to prove this is that King Richard tho' his Eldest Son alive was only call'd Duke of Normandy and never King of England till after his Coronation but whoever will but consider the circumstances of this matter will find that he was indeed own'd for King of England before his pretended Election or Coronation for before his coming into England to be Crown'd Rocer Hoveden tells us That every Freeman of the whole Kingdom by the Command of his Mother Queen Elianor swore quod fideni portabit Regi Angliae Richardo Regis Hen. filio which plainly shews that he was then by common intendment looked upon as King before his Coronation and though I confess that this very Author also relates that all the Estates of the Kingdom being assembl'd at London by whose Council and Assent the said Duke was Consecrated and Crown'd King of England and though Ralph de Diceto then Dean of St. Paul's who in the Vacancy of that Church then supplied the Office of the Bishop at King Richard's Coronation hath this passage Comes itaque Pictavorum Richardus hereditario jure praemovendus in Regem post tam cleri quam populi solemnem debitam electionem involutas est triplici Sacramento c. Now what can this solemn and due election here signifie Or what can it mean farther than that Richard being King by Hereditary Right was so owned and recognized by the Clergy and Laity F. I desire I may reply to this before you proceed farther I confess what you say about the Empress Maud's surrender of her Right to her Son Duke Henry would be considerable if you had any Authorities from our Antient Historians to support it but since you have not I look upon it as no better than a meer surmise of those of your opinion that the Crown was then enjoy'd by an Hereditary Right without any consent or election of the people and so likewise is your other fancy that because Women were then looked upon as uncapable to Govern therefore the Bishops and great men of the Kingdom suppos'd they had sufficiently perform'd their Oath of Allegiance to her by acknowledging her Son Duke Henry for the right Heir of the Crown now if this had been so pray tell me to what purpose King Henry I. Father to the Empress should have made all the Estates of England swear fealty to his Daughter if a Woman had been then lookt upon as uncapable to Govern or to what purpose should the Clergy in the Council at Winchester chuse this Empress as the King's Daughter Lady both of England and Normandy as William of Malmesbury tells us expresly that they did and that he was present at it or how could the great Council of the Kingdom believe that they had sufficiently satisfied their Oath to the Daughter in conferring the Allegiance that was due to her upon her Son I am sure no Heiress of the Crown would look upon that as a good performance of their Oath at this day when you can answer me these queries I shall be of your opinion in this point but till then I beg your pardon But as to what you say against the Vacancy of the Throne upon the Death of King Henry the II. till King Richard was Elected and Crown'd I desire no better Authority to the contrary than those very Authors you have now cited for your opinion for first Hoveden in the very place you have quoted him says That the Duke was to be Crown'd King by the Council and Asâ—â—nt of all the Parties there present now if I understand any thing of Grammar or Sence he was not King before and therefore needed their Assent to make him so likewise in the next quotation from Ralph De Diceto the Duke is said Hereditario jure promovendus in Regem which words being in the Future Tense shew he was not then but was to be promoted to that dignity now if his Hereditary Right alone could have done it then to what purpose are all these words aforegoing so that though this Right gave him the fair pretence to succeed to the Crown yet it is plain from both the Authors you have quoted that he was not so till after the due Consent and Election of the Clergy and People so that after all your questions what can this solemn and due Election signifie or what can it mean farther than that Richard being King by an Hereditary Right was so own'd and recognized by the Clergy and Laity will receive a very easie answer from what has been already said till you can shew me out of any Dictionary that Consilium and Assensus which are the words of Hoveden and the words Solemnis debita electio ever signified an owning or recognition of an Hereditary Right I confess the only colour you have for your interpretation of those words in Hoveden which you have now cited of Queen Elianors making every Freeman of the Kingdom swear Fealty to Richard King of England as to their Liege Lord from whence you would infer that by common intendment of Law he was looked upon King of England before he was Crown'd and consequently there could be no Vacancy of the Throne now admit that he was commonly call'd King before he was Crown'd or that the Queen his Mother would make the People swear to him as such yet that could not make him so since the same Historians also tell us that Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury and William Earl Mareschal made the people of England take a like Oath to Earl Iohn as their Lord not King immediately after the death of King Richard his Brother and yet I suppose you will not affirm that their swearing Fealty to him as their Superiour Lord made him King or gave him a just Title to the Crown and I desire you or any indifferent man to tell me which was Hoveden's opinion whether this swearing Fealty was a sufficient Declaration of his â—eing King or else all those other expressions which signifie the contrary when immediately before his Coronation he only calls it ducem Richarâ—m qui Coronandus erat in Regem which I think is as plain a distinction of his being a Duke before he was Crown'd and a King afterwards as words can make M. I see it is in vain to urge this point any longer and therefore I shall proceed to your next instance of the Vacancy of the Throne after the death of King Richard until King Iohn was placed therein now though it is certain that this Prince was an Usurper upon his Nephew Duke Arthur yet whether he was ever Elected in a Common Council of the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom is very doubtful But suppose he were it was done wrongfully and to the prejudice of Arthur Duke of Britain the right Heir to the Crown who being young and a stranger it is no wonder if he were put by and his Uncle who
was a man and better acquainted with England and having the Interest of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and most of the great men were of his party and yet for all that Hoveden who was alive at this time speaks not a word of his being Elected but only that upon his coming into England he was received by the Nobility and Crown'd by Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury so that there is not one word there of any Election by but only a submission from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to King Iohn and a recognition that he was their King nor indeed could he need it if it be true what the same Author tells us That when King Richard despar'd of Life he devised to Iohn his Brother the Kingdom of England and all his other Lands and caus'd all those that were present to do him Fealty and this is related by Hoveden in all probability an Eye Witness of these transactions So that the first Author we find to mention any thing of the particulars of this pretended Election is Mâ—tthew Paris who has given us the Speech which the Arch-bishop made at this supposed Election and also reciting the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls and Barons and all others who ought to be at his Coronation the Arch-bishop standing in the middle of them said thus Hear all of you your Discretion shall know that no man hath right to succeed in this Kingdom unless after seeking God he be unanimously chosen by the University of the Kingdom that is those that are here said to meet at London the rest of the Speech needs no repeating only he lays it down for Law which I think was never heard of before That if any of the Progeny of the dead King did excel others they ought more readily to consent to the Election of him and so upon this Speech made in behalf of Earl Iohn and full of a great deal of fulsom slattery he was declar'd King But to let you see what a sort of Man this Arch bishop Hubert was here see what the same Author tells us in the same place that being asked afterward why he said these things answer'd That he guested and was thought ascertained by certain Prophecies that Iohn would bring the Kingdom and Crown into great Confusion and therefore lest he he might have too much liberty in doing he affirmed he ought to come in by Election and not by Hereditary Succession Now though this Learned Doctrine of the Arch bishop asserts a right of Election in the Convention of Bishops Earls Barons c. yet by his own answer when he was asked why he said these things it clearly discovers it to be only a design and artifice in the Archbishop to cause them to set up and make Iohn King and in which also he denies any such right of Election but since Hoveden nor any other of our antient historians make mention of this Election but only of his Coronation and the Bishops Earls and Barons assisting at it not giving their consents to it it may very well be that that story of an Election and this Speech of Arch bishop Hubert might be only an invention of Matthew Paris or rather of Roger of Wendover from whom he took most of his History but that this doctrine of the Arch-bishop concerning the Election of our Kings if meant according to the modern understanding of it was then new Gervase a Monk of Canterbury in the year 1122. who also speaking of the Coronation of Henry the First says it was manifest and known almost to all men that the King 's of England were only obliged and bound to God for the possession of the Kingdom and to the Church of Canterbury for their Coronation manifestum est autem omnibus fire notum Reges Angliae soli Deo obligari teneri ex ipsius regni adeptione Ecclesiae Cantuariensi ex Coronatione But that King Iohn was looked upon as an Usurper is very certain since besides some of the honest English Nobility that took Duke Arthurs part the King of France did also make War upon King Iohn upon his Nephews account because he looked upon him as true Heir to the Crown and therefore when K. Iohn had privately made away his said Nephew in prison the K. of France summon'd him as Duke of Normandy and Peer of France to answer for the Murther in an Assembly of the Peers of France at Paris where for his refusing to appear he was condemn'd to death and his Dukedom of Normandy declar'd forâ—eited to the King of France F. I confess you have said as much as can be to prove that King Iohn had no Hereditary Right to the Crown nor was so solemnly Elected to it as Matthew Paris relates but yet for all this I think I may very justly oppose all that you have now said upon this Head for in the first place it was then very much disputed as it hath been also since that time if an Elder Brother died and left a Son a Mâ—nor whether his Younger Brother or the Son should succeed for though the People of Anjou and those of Guienne own'd Duke Arthur for their Prince yet the States of Normandy were of another mind and as well by vertue of King Richard's Testament he was immediately after his Death invested with that Dukedom nor was he then at all opposed in it by the King of France though Supreaâ— Lord of the Fee and as for England besides his Brothers Testament whereby he left him Heir of all his Territories it was also then generally held in England as most consonant to the Antient English Saxon Law of Succession that the Uncle should succeed to the Crown before the Nephew therefore it is no wonder if Duke Arthur found so small a party here not any Bishop Earl or Baron as I read of owning his Title and as for the King of France it is also as certain that he did at first own King Iohn for lawful King of England and Duke of Normandy and entred into a Treaty of Peace and made a League with him as such though it is true that afterwards when he had a mind to pick a quarrel with that King he then set up Duke Arthur's Title And though this Duke was made away in the beginning of King Iohn's Reign yet did not the King or Peers of France ever take any notice of it till about twelve or thirteen years after when he had now unjustly Conquered all Normandy and almost all that Kings other Territories in France and then wanting a Title to keep them he began this Prosecution you mention against him and upon his non appearance he was condemned unheard but that the King of France himself and all the great men of that Kingdom did look upon him to have been lawful King of England appears by that Speech which Matthew Paris relates to have been made after King Iohn's Deposition by the Barons of England by a Knight whom Prince Lewis
from the constant practice of those times that the King de facto was always own'd as Lawful Sovereign and had Allegiance still paid him by all the People of this Kingdom except those who being the heads of one or the other Party were either attainted or else forced to â—lye the Kingdom But as for all others though different and contrary Oaths of Allegiance were impos'd upon the People sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other of those Kings according as they got possession of the Throne yet I can no where find that ever any body suffer'd for barely swearing Allegiance to the King then in Being for it was always taken for Law that Allegiance was due to the King de facto since ordinary Subjects are not suppos'd to understand the legal right or justice of the Kings Title M. I must still say that there was some colour for the Peoples thus acting as you say they did during the contest for the Crown between the two Families of Yorke and Lancaster when I grant it was somewhat a difficult matter to judge which of the two had the best right to the Crown by reason that the House of Lancaster had held it for three descents as also from the speciousness of their Title since it was founded upon a pretended claim by right of blood upon supposing that Edmund Sirnamed Cronch-back who was one of the Ancestors of this House of Lancaster was the Eldest Son to Henry the Third which had it been true would have given Henry the Fourth a good right to the Crown not only against Richard the Second but his own Grandfather Edward the Third likewise had he been then alive and this descent falling out long before the memory of any man then living who could confute the falsity of this pretended Pedigree The People of England might very well be excus'd for owning an Usurper and paying Allegiance to him since they did not know but his claim might have been right especially since it was approv'd of in full Parliament without any contradiction as I have already shewn you at our last Meeting But what is all this to the matter now in debate between us when the Lineal Succession of the Crown has been so often declared to be the only means of acquiring a just Title to it and every one knows very well who was own'd for lawful King of England within these three Months and also who was pray'd for in all our Churches as his Son and Heir apparent and therefore I must still tell you that your parallel between those Kings de facto of the House of Lancaster and those Princes whom the Convention have now voted to fill the Throne does not at all agree since every Subject of this Kingdom who has but sence enough to go to Market can very well tell if they will deal sincerely to whom their Allegiance is due F. As to what you have now said it is no more than a repetition of what you have already urged to evade the force of these clear Authorities but indeed it was all one when a Prince had been once recognized for Lawful King by Act of Parliament whether the People knew his Title not to be good by right of blood or not And this I have plainly proved to you from the instance of Richard the Third who though both his Elder Brothers Children were then alive and the Eldest of them had been Proclaim'd King and also own'd for such by himself and whose Title he had also sworn to maintain in his Brother King Edwards life time as appears by the Clause Roll of the 11th of Edward the Fourth yet when he had once depos'd him and had call'd a Parliament which recognized his Title his Acts and Judicial Proceedings stand good at this day and though he himself was attained and declar'd a Tyrant and an Usurper yet all the Subjects who acted under his Authority and had taken an Oath of Allegiance to him never needed an Act of Indemnity for so doing whereas those that came over with Henry the VIIth were sain to have an Act of Pardon past to Indemnifie them for fighting against Richard the Third as I have now show'd you And though this Parliament of the first of Henry the Seventh agreed to repeal divers Acts which the King found fault with yet as for all other Statutes made in the Reign of King Richard the Third which have not been since repealed they are still in force without any confirmation likewise when Henry the Seventh had prevail'd over Richard the Third and that he was slain in the Field though all the Nation very well knew that Henry the Seventh could not be Heir of the House of Lancaster because his Mother was then alive and had never formally given up her right if she had any as certainly she could have none as being descended from Iohn Earl of Somerset who was base Son to Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster by Catherine Swinford whilst his Wife was alive and though I grant after his Marriage with the said Catherine the Children born of that Bed were made legitimate by Act of Parliament in the 20th of Richard the Second yet that legitimation only respects such private Priviledges and Inheritances which they might enjoy or succeed to as Subjects and not in respect of the Crown the Succession of which they were expresly declared uncapable of by that very Act of Legitimation still to be seen upon the Parliament Roll. But for all this when Henry the Seventh had called a Parliament and was therein recogniz'd for their Lawful Sovereign and that the Crown was setled by Statute on the King and Heirs of his Body without any mention of the Princess Elizabeth who ought to have been Queen by right of blood yet none of the Subjects of this Kingdom as I can find ever scrupled to swear Allegiance to him before ever he married that Princess though they as well knew that he could have no right by blood as you can suppose that the People at this day can know whether King Iames has abdicated or forfeited the Crown or not or whether your Prince of Wales be his true and lawful Son for since they are both nice and difficult Points and having been determined by the Convention the Supream Judges in this Case in favour of their present Majesties and that they also recognized their Title after they became a Parliament I can see no manner of reason why all the Subjects of this Kingdom may not as well justifie their taking this new Oath of Allegiance to them notwithstanding their former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames and his Right Heirs as well as the People of England could justifie their taking an Oath of Allegiance to Henry the Seventh notwithstanding their former Oath to Edward the Fourth and his Right Heirs before ever Henry the Seventh had Married the Princess Elizabeth the Heiress of the Crown especially since this Act of the 11th of Henry the
ever they think they may now certainly it were very well to be rid of such false Friends if it were possible to discover them by such an Oath then to keep them where they are only to take an opportunity not only of doing a Mischief but of serving this Government very carelessly and lukewarmly whilst they are in those places they enjoy as also of favouring and assisting those that are the declare Asserters of King Iames's Right as far as they dare so that then all the dispute remains about those who having Consciences large enough to swallow any Oath whatever provided it will suit with their present advantage no Oath can tye them or serve to discover their private Sentiments as I cannot deny but that there too many Men of such large Consciences as you describe and could heartily wish they were fewer yet though I grant an Oath alone will not keep them out yet it might be in great part prevented if the King would take a true Character of the Men fit for publick Imployment from those about him of whose Worth and former Intergity he is already fully satisfied but admitting some such Men shall get into Places and consequently when they are in manage things for their own Advantage that is Vilely and Corruptly yet even these will not prove half so fatal to the Government as those Men of half Consciences who think they may take this Oath in their Own Sense and for their own present Advantage and also believe it no Breach of it to assist King Iames whenever safely they may because they hold their present Oath to be only Temporary but their former to have a perpetual Obligation upon them Whereas those of no Principles at all never Espouse any Interest longer then it serves their own turns so that as long as they can make their Fortunes under this Government they will never desire to change it for another in which they cannot but expect a much less free enjoyment of their Liberties and Properties which are things that all Men as well those who have no Principles as well as those that have desire to to enjoy And lastly some even of these Men that have been formerly notorious Asserters of and advanced in the Arbitrary Government of King Iames out of shame and as well as fear of the loss of their Credits with those of their own Party which they are not assur'd but may again prevail will stick to take this stricter Oath though they do not this that is now enjoyned since they can find an Evasion for the one but will scarce be able to do it for the other M. But pray tell me will not this new Oath declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawfull and Rightfull King and Queen of this Realm and that all Men that take it shall assist them against all their Enemies prove an implyed Oath of Abjuration of King Iames though not in express Words and you have not yet shewed me that such an Oath hath ever been Administred during all the various Contests that have been for the Crown since the Conquest F. I grant that such an Oath would be a Vertual and implied Abjuration of King Iames's present claim to the Crown and would also oblige all Persons to fight against him and hinder his regaining itâ— which though I grant to be the design of it Yet would not such an Oath oblige us at all to abjure the obeying King Iames should he ever by an irrestible Providence be again set over us since it is not abjuring of a Future but a present right which I now contend for and that all the Antient Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance as it is now called were of the like Nature and taken in the same Sence with this I propose I shall shew you from the form of the Oath of Fidelity which all Freemen were to take at Fourteen Years of Age as appears by King William the Firsts Law which I have so often cited Whereby all Freemen were to affirm upon Oath that within the Realm and without they will be True and Faithfull to King William their Lord and preserve his Lands and Honour with all Fidelity together with his Person and defend them against all his Enemies So likewise in the ancient Oath of Homage which was taken by all the Earls Barons and Tenants in Capite in England at the Coronation of our Kings It was in these words I N. N. become your Leigeman of Life and Limb and earthly Honour and Faith and Troth to you shall bear to live and die so help me God and in the latter Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance which Sir H. Spelman gives us out of the Customary of Normandy the words were much the same only the person is there sworn to be True and Faithful in the King and his Heirs which they were not before Edward the Firsts time And also what they would hear of no Evil or Damage against them which they would not hinder to their Power now pray tell me were not all these Oaths taken to the King for the time being as Lawfull and Rightfull King and since they were thereby to yield him Life and Limb that is were to defend him with their Lives against all his Enemies then certainly all others who might pretend to or claim the Crown were included within this number and though it is true in these ancient Oaths there is no Swearing to the present King as Lawfull and Rightfull King yet these words were needless in that Age when as I have proved at our last meeting there was no difference between a King de Iure and one de facto and whoever was crowned King and Elected or Recognized by the great Council of the Kingdom was looked upon as Lawfull and Rightfull King and as such was to be defended against all his Enemies so that it was till that distinction was broacht that there might be a King de de facto different from the King de jure which I have proved was not elder then Edward the IV ths Reign There was no need of any mention of such words in the Oath of Allegiance as lawfull King and lawfull Heirs which are first found in the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy prescribed by the Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames in the latter of which it is needless to recite it Verbatim it is first sworn That the King's Majesty is Lawfull and Rightfull King secondly There is an express abjuration of the pretended Authority of the Bishop of Rome which shews that the Abjuration of the Temporal as well as Spiritual Right of a Foreign Prince who claims it ever since King Iohns Resignation is no new invention and lastly there is an express abjuration or Engagement to defend the King's Person to the utmost of the Swearers Power against all Conspiracies at Attempts whatsoever and why the same words may not be inserted into this new Oath as well as it was in those I can see
8. p. 580 581. W. All Burroughs that sent Members antiently held in Capite of the King D. 8. p. 557 578. W. They sent such Members by an inherent Right or at the Discretion of the Sheriffs Ib. p. 593. 604. C Cain W. he forfeited his Birth-right by the Murther of his Brother D. 2. p. 67. W. His Eldest Son was a Prince over his Brethren Ib. Canons of 1640. their validity discussed D. 4. p. 284. to 286. King Charles the Firsts pretended Commission to Sir Philim O Neal considered D. 9. p. 636 637. Great Charter of King Iohnâ— W. it was the sole Act of that King or else made by the advice and consent of all the Freemen of England D. 5. p. 324. D. 7. p. 455 456. Great Charter of Hen. the Third W. all the Copies we have now of it were his or else Edward I. his Charters Ib. 461. Children how far and how long bound to be subject to their Parents D. 1. p. 45. to 52. Christians W. as much obliged to suffer for Religion now as in the Primitive Times D. 4â— p. 230. to 234. Chester its County W. the Earl thereof could charge all his Tenants in Parliament without their consent D. 7. p. 501. Church of England W. Passive Obedience be its distinguishing Doctrine from other Churches D. 4. p. 292 293. Cities and Burroughs more numerous in the Saxon times than now D. 6. p. 379. to 400. W. They had any Representatives in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the IIId D. 5. p. 565 572. Whether Cities and Burroughs had not always had Representatives in the Parliaments of Scotland D. 7. p. 505. Clerici terras habentes quae ad Ecclesias non pertinent who they were D. 7. p. 450.451 Clergy a part of the Great Council of the Kingdom in the Saxon Times and long after D. 8. p. 544 to 550. W. None of the Clergy but such as held in Capite appeared at such Councils Ibid. W. The Inferiour Clergy had their Representatives in Parliament different from the Convocation Ib. 546 to 558. Commandment Vth in what sence Princes are comprehended under it D. 2. p. 106. to 109 111. Communitas Regni W. that Phrase in ancient Records and Acts of Parliament does not often signifie the Commons as well before the 49th of Henry the Third as afterwards D. 7. p. 412 to 415. W. That Phrase does not also signifie the whole body of the Kingdom consisting of Peers and Commons D. 6. p. 416. The Drs. proofs to the contrary considered 417 to 423. W. It does also often signifie the Commons alone D. 8. p. 572. to 574. Their Declaration to the Pope in the 48th of Edward the Third D. 8. p. 581 to 582. Their Petition to Henry the Fifth Their Protestation in Parliament in Richard the Seconds time 584. Commons of Cities and great Towns had their Representatives in the Assemblies of Estates of all the Kingdoms in Europe founded by the ancient Germans and Gothes Ibid 607 to 612. Commons their request and consent when first mentioned in Old Statutes D. 5. p. 329. W. Ever summoned to Parliament from the 49th of Hen. the Third to the 18th of Edw. the First D. 7. p. 522. Commons W. part of the Great Council before the Conquest D. 5. p. 369 372. The words Commune de Commune les communes do frequently signifie the Commons before the 49th of Henry the Third D. 6. 423. D. 7. 423 to 484. Common-Council of the whole Kingdom W. different from the Common-Council of Tenants in Capite D. 7. p. 437. to 474. Communitas Scotiae W. it always signified none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. p. 505. to 508. Conquest alone W. it confers a right to a Crown D. 2. p. 128 129. W. It it gives a King a right to all the Lands and Estates of the Conquer'd Kingom D. 3. 168. to 170. W. Any Conquest of this Kingdom was made by King William the First D. 10. p. 715. to the end Constitutions of Clarendon their Title explained D. 6. p. 430 431. Contract Originel W. there were ever any such thing D. 10 p. 695 to 709. D. 12. p. 809 8â—3 Convention W. its voting King James to have abdicaâ—ed the Government be justifiable D. 11. p. 809 to 834. W. Its Declaration of King James's violations of our fundamental Rights be well grounded Ibid. p. 816 832. W. It s voting the Throne vacant can be justified from the ancient constitution of the Government D. 12. p. 839 to 883. W. Whether its placing K. W. and Q. M. on the Throne may be also justified by the said Constitution Ibid. p. 883 to 894. W. It s making an Act excluding all Roman Catholick Princes was legal Ibid. p. 894 to the end Convocation Book drawn up by Bishop Overal its validity examined D. 1. p. 6 8. Copy Holders why they to have no Votes at Elections to Parliament D. 5. p. 513. Great Councils or Convention the only Iudges of Princes Titles upon any dispute about the succession or vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 895. D. 13. p. 917. to 919 924. Council of the King in Parliament what it was anciently D. 5. p. 334. Great Council or general Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom W. legal without the Kings Summons D. 5. p. 353. D. 12. p. 894. to 898. Curia Regis what iâ— anciently was and W. it consisted of none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. 368. Crown W. it can by Law be ever forfeited D. 12. p. 833 834. D Defence of a Mans self in what case justifiable D. 3. p. 148 149. Declaration of the Convention setting forth King James's violation of the fundamental rights of the Nation W. justifiable or not D. 11. p. 816. to the end Private Divines their Opiâ—nions about Passive Obedience and Resistance of what Authority D. 4. p. 291 294. W. Many of them have not quitted the ancient Doctrine of the Church of England declaring the Pope to be Antichrist vid. Append. Dispencing Power W. justifiable by Law D. 12. p. 119 to 828. Dissolution of all Government W. it necessarily follows from the Conventions declaration of the vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 890 891. Durham W. its Bishop could lay Taxes in Parliament on the whole County Palatine without their consents D. 7. p. 501 502. E Earls of Counties their ancient Office and Institution D. 5 p. 363 to 370. King Edward the Second being deposed W. any vacancy of the Throne followed thereupon D. 12. p. 158 to 861. Queen Elizabeth W. she had any Title to the Crown but by Act of Parliament Ibid. p 872 873. England when first so called D. 5. p. 362. English-Men W. they lost all their Liberties and Estates by the Norman Conquest D. 10. p. 753. to the end English Bishops Earls and Barons W. then all deprived of their Honours and Estates Ib. 756 to 762. English Saxon Laws W. confirmed or abrogated by K. William D. 10. p. 760. Estates of the Kingdom
Noblemen or Gentlemen who held Lands in divers Counties of England at the time when that Survey was made and for proof of this since so short a conversation as ours will not permit me to run into a long Bed-role of names I refer you to what the learned and ingenious Mr. Atwood in his Ius Anglorum ab antiqua has observed out of Doomesday book upon this subject where tho' he has not only gone thorough but gone over Fifteen Counties of Thirty that are surveyed in that book yet it will thereby sufficiently appear that your Dr. is much mistaken when he so positively affirms that there were few or no Englishmen that held Lands in England but to give you a taste of this I shall run through as many Counties as Mr. Atwood has given us the names of To begin which survey where besides the Earl of Morton above mentioned who tho' he was a Norman born yet he was here before the entrance of the Norman Duke and held Estrehaw in Tenrige Hundred in the time of King Edward there was also Hugo de Port an Englishman who was a very great Proprietor as may be found under this Title in Doomesday book Terra Hugonis de Port many Mannors he had and as thereby appears in Hampshire he had at least two Mannors Cerdeford and Eschetune from his Ancestors before King William's entrance and besides this Gentleman and the Earl above mentioned there are no less than Ten or Eleven who as it appears either by their English Names or else by this note which so frequently occurs Idem tenuâ—t T. R. E. i. e. tempore Edwardi Regis the like I may say for the other Counties there mentioned as Hampshire in the next place where besides Ralph de Mortimer who had several Lands T. R. E. there are no less than above Thirty Free-holders more who by their Saxon names and want of Sir-Names seem to be English divers of whom held the same Thane Lands which themselves or their Fathers did in the time of King Edwards and tho in Buckinghamshire and Barkshire indeed there are but five or six who held the same Lands which they or their Ancestors possessed in the time of their Conqueror but yet in Wiltshire and Dorcetshire there appears between Twenty and Thirty English Proprietors many of whom held whole Townships when this Survey was made in Sommersetshire Devonshire Staffordshire Yorkshire and Glostershire their does appear in most of them a dozen or more English Saxon names who held whole Mannors 't is true that in Nottinghamshire Lincoâ—shire and Herefordshire their appear fewest English names and yet the least of these have three a piece So much may suffice for Doomesday book and I doubt not if any one will take the pains to look over the Titles of the rest of the Counties he may find enough Instances of the like Nature sufficient to prove that the English were not wholly dispossessed of their Estates at the end of K. William's Reign when this Survey was made Not to mention Northumberland Westmorâ—land and the Bishoprick of Durham all which are omitted But that the number of English which held the Lands in the time of King William the first and second was very considerable may appear by William of Malmesburies relating how the Norman Lords then in England would have dethroned William Rufus and haâ—e set up his Brother Robert in his place there also shews the manner how that King prevented it Rex Videns Normannos pend in una Rabie conspiratos Anglos probos fortes viros qui adhuc residui â—rant invitatoriis scriptis arcessit quibus super injuriis suis Querimoniam faciâ—us bonasque Leges Tributorum livamen Liberasque venationes poâ—licens fidelitati suae obligavit where Residui must certainly be meant of the residue of those English Gentry whose Estates were still left and herein Ordericus Vitalis is more express that King William as soon as he saw the contrivance against him Lanfrancum Archiepiscopum cum Suffraganeis praesulibus Comites Anglosque Naturales convocavit Conatus Adversariorum velle suum expugnandi eos indicavit M. As for Mr. Atwood's Catalogue of English names from Doomesday book I have not yet examined them and tho' I grant there are may be divers who held the same Lands that they or their Fathers did yet they are but a few in respect of the rest nor are we certain that all these were Native English and not Normans who held Lands as well then as before the Conquest since the Normans and the English names were often the same and as for the want of Sir-names that is no argument that they must needs be English since in those days very few even of the Normans but persons of Quality and Estates had any as Mr. Cambden shews us in his remains but as for those expressions in the Charters of King William and his Sons wherein the English as well as the French Earls and Barons are mentioned those Charters might be either made during the three or four first years of King William's Reign when I grant the English were not wholly dispossessed of their Estates but that there were some of them that still held Earldoms and Baronies in their own right but when the same expressions occur after that time the word Angli or Angligenae must be understood in another sense tho' it seems to be put in opposition to Francis son as by these last are to be understood such French or Norman Barons who had Estates in England as well as in France so by the former could be only meanâ— such Frenchman or Normans who had their Estates in England only Or else tho' French by Original were Englishmen by Birth are here called Angli and Angligenae to distinguish them from such French Barons as are above mentioned oâ— from such as were born in Francâ—s and for the truth of this I desire you would consult Dr. â—â—'s learned Glossary at the end of the Folio Edition of his answer to Mr. P. and his two seconds Tit. Angli and Angligenae where he tells us that these Angli and Barones Anglae mentioned in these Authors and Ancient Charters were not English but Normans and those men of no mean or ordinary Ranks but Earls or Barons for they could never have met in such numbers as were requisite for them to do to protect and defend King William Rufus had not they been headed by such if they had either Power or Estates lest that depended not upon the Normans and if you or any man can shew me an English Saxon that was then either Eâ—â—l or Baron or had any share in the Government or any that had considerable Estates that did not hold them of the Normans or had at that time any great Woods Forests or Priviledges of Hunting in them then I will confess my self mistaken As for W. Malmesbury saying these were Angli probi qui residui grant these were only the antiqui