after the Reduction of the Castles that held out in John's Favour summoned a Parliament at Nottingham such as the Parliament was then on the Thirtieth of March 1194. Trigesima Die mensis Martii feria quarta Ricardus Rex Angliae celebravit primum Concilii sui diem apud Nottingham as R. Hoveden pag. 737. where were present Elianor the King's Mother the two Archbishops David the King of Scotland's Brother the Bishops and the Barons And on the Day following the King demanded Justice should be done him on his Brother John who against his Oath of Allegiance had seised on his Castles destroyed his Countries both at home and abroad and Leagued against him with the King of France his Enemy And it was adjudged that Earl John should be cited to appear within Forty Days and stand to the Law and that if he did not Judicaverunt Comitem Johannem demeruisse regnum saith Hoveden Ipsum Fratrem suum Rex exhaeredavit Annal. Waverl An. 1194. Omne jus pristinum honorem impensum solenni judicio Procerum suorum abjudicavit saith J. Brompton from W. Hemingford whom he constantly Copies and Cites by the Name of Walter de Giseburn pag. 1278. lin 19. Judicio Procerum omni honore privavit saith H. Knighton l. 2. pag. 2408. But the Annales De Margan put out by the most excellently Learned Dr. Gale in 1691 go to my thinking a great way farther than all the rest The Passage is somewhat long but remarkable enough to make you amends for the Patience of Reading it Thus then in the Year M C XC IX After Richard's Death John his Brother in the Octaves of Easter having entred upon the Dukedom of Normandy coming over into England was Crowned King on Ascension-Day at Westminster May 27. against the Judgment and Decree of the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons and all the rest of the Great Men of England which they had passed at Nottingham in the Presence of King Richard his Brother where for the Treason he had acted against the King and Kingdom in Confederacy with the King of France he was disinherited and depriv'd abjudicatus which I cannot construe better not only of all the Lands he had in England but also of all Honors which he might hope for or expect to have from the Crown of England It was also decreed that he should be summoned to appear in such a space of time within the King's Courts to answer and defend himself if he could upon the War and Treason aforesaid Raised and Committed whilst his Brother was abroad and detain'd in Germany but he came not himself nor sent any other to answer for him Upon which Three Earls his Peers were sent to the Court of France there to convict him of the same Treason but neither did he make his appearance there or answer for himself And yet against this Judgment and Decree he is Crowned King William de Breuse together with his Faction pressing instantly for his Coronation In which Coronation all that were concerned offended grievously as well because John had no Right to the Kingdom Arthur his elder Brother's Son being then alive as also that if he had been Heir of the Kingdom yet by and for the above repeated Treason he had been deprived and difinherited This is a famous Passage and makes very much for a Bill of Exclusion at least if I mistake not and there was so much in it that when the Pope's Legat was dissuading the King of France from sending his Son Lewis into England as the Barons and Great Men had by express Messengers desir'd him to do and told him England then was S. Peter's Patrimony by the Resignation of King John the King of France told him that England never was John's to give as well because no King can give away his Kingdom without their Consent as also because he had forfeited all Right to the Crown if Right he had had by his Treasons against Richard of which he stood Convict and had had Sentence passed upon him as a Traitor by Hugh de Pudsey Bishop of Durham Thus Matth. Westm. tho Matth. Paris represents it a little otherwise But tho the King and Parliament proceeded to an Act of Exclusion yet they put no one upon abjuring John by Name They thought it enough to secure the present King by an Oath of Allegiance and to put by John from succeeding him but no one ever was constrain'd to swear he never should nor ought to be King They hurt John as much as they could by freeing the Subject from swearing to him but they intended not to hurt the Subjects by compelling them to swear against him Methinks there is great deal of Difference betwixt these two Points and that 's the Use I would have you make of this long Story which I will conclude when I have added That tho John afterwards did actually succeed his Brother Richard tho Arthur had been declared Successor to Richard tho it was the Opinion of all the World both abroad and at home that Arthur was the undoubted Heir of the Crown tho many Nobles sided with him tho he claim'd the Crown himself openly and gave John abundance of Trouble and alarm'd him daily yet did John never attempt to get him abjured by the Nation nor to secure himself any other way than by the common Oath of Allegiance He afterwards caught him and in all likelyhood ordered him to be made away privately but that was nothing to the People of England He died 't is thought about 1203 but his Sister Ellinor commonly called The Damosel of Britanny lived till after 1240. Tho she undoubtedly was the Heiress of the Crown if the Nation had regarded the Lineal and immediate Succession as much in those as in these latter Days which it is manifest they did not The long and troublesome Reign of Henry the Third the Times of Edward the First and Second afford me nothing to my present purpose They had no Rivals or Competitors to fear nor consequently any occasion of securing themselves by any Oath of Abjuration When Edward the Third was Crowned King upon the Deposition of his Father tho Edmond of Kent and others attempted to deliver him from his Imprisonment and re-instate him again yet the young King sought not his Safety and Establishment by any Oath of Abjuration of his Father It was enough that the several Estates of the Kingdom had by Deputies appointed for the purpose solemnly renounced their Allegiance to him and chosen his Son to Reign in his stead and taken the usual Oath of Allegiance to him this was then esteemed sufficient Security for the young King without concerning the whole Kingdom in an Oath of Abjuration And this was the Case of Henry the Fourth when Richard the Second was deposed the Crown was entail'd by Parliament on him and his Sons but there was no Abjuring Richard by an Oath to be taken by the Subjects The Estates of the Realm Deposed him very solemnly
his Queen's Sister and had the County of Flanders and other strong Places put into his hands by which he created great Troubles to his Uncle Henry till he was unfortunately wounded at a Siege and being unskilfully dressed died in a Monastery five days after in the Year 1128. But what did Henry do with regard both to his Brother Robert and this vigorous Prince young William who had sworn severely to revenge his Father's Injuries and Eyes why he contented himself to swear his own Son who was also called William into the Succession of Normandy in the Year 1115 and of England in 1116 having for that purpose called a Parliament at Salisbury Conventio Optimatum Baronum totius Angliae apud Searesberiam xiv kal. Aprilis facta est Qui in praesentia Regis Henrici homagium Filio suo Wilielmo fecerunt fidelitatem ei juraverunt Sim. Dunelm an 1116. And as Annales de Margan have it 1116. Filius Regis Henrici juratur ab omnibus Haeres Patris fieri But in the Year 1120 William and the rest of the King's Children with a great Company of People of Quality were unfortunately drowned the Ship being run upon a Rock not far from the Shoar from whence they put to Sea by the Mariners and Pilot who were got drunk The Prince might have been saved had he not hearkned over-tenderly to the Cries and Lamentations of one of his poor Sisters that continued in the Ship whom thinking to take into his Boat so many of the Ship leap'd presently into it as sunk it immediately and so they all perished together The King had now but one Daughter left which was Maud first married to the Emperor of Germany whose Widow she became in the Year 1125 and afterwards in 1127 to Geofry Plantagenet Earl of Anjou but before the King sent his Daughter away to this second Husband upon news of his Nephew William's Promotion to the Earldom of Flanders and his attempting great Matters by the Assistance of the King of France he was exceedingly distressed and troubled and calling his Parliament together saith Brompton Thomas Wikes and Chron. Saxon. and every body else at Westminster or as others at Windsor he made both David King of Scotland all the Archbishops and Bishops Abbots and great Men take the Oath of Fidelity and do Homage to his Daughter and her Heirs lawfully begotten in case himself should die without any Issue Male which they accordingly did and amongst the rest none forwarder to do it than Stephen Earl of Blois who either administred the Oath himself to the rest after he had taken it himself or else contrived the Form thereof for I know not well which is the Construction of those Words in Tho. Wikes's Chronology in the Year 1127. Non solum in Persona propria sacramentum fidelitatis emisit sed aliis Regni Proceribus jurisjurandi formam praestruxit But you see I hope plainly that Henry was apprehensive enough of the growing Power of his Nephew William and yet thought fit to take no other Security of the Nation against him than a common Oath of Allegiance there was no Talk or Offers after an Oath of Abjuration in those days tho it had been much to his purpose and he had Power enough had it been otherwise convenient This Oath of Fidelity was again renewed to Maud at Northampton in 1131. Habitoque non parvo procerum conventu apud Northantonam priscam fidem apud eos qui dederant novavit ab iis qui non dederant accepit saith W. of Malmesbury Hist. Novel l. 2. p. 177. Which I mention not as if it were done out of Fear of any particular Person for William died as I have said in 1128 but in all probability to exclude Geofry her Husband from ruling with whom he was exceedingly offended I have it from Wil. of Malmesbury who tells us that when King Henry lay on his Death-bed de Successione interrogatus Filiae omnem Terram suam citra ultra mare legitima perenni Successione adjudicavit Marito ejus subiratus quod eum minis injuriis aliquantis irritaverat Notwithstanding all this Caution and Security and this last Declaration of the dying King in favour of his Daughter 1135 Stephen Earl of Blois his Nephew by his Sister Adeliza Daughter of the Conqueror got over from Normandy into England and tho he was repulsed at Dover and by the Men of Kent yet he was entertained by the Londoners and by the dexterous Management of his Brother the Bishop of Winton who promised for him all that could be wanted or desired he was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury whose Scruples about the former Oath to Maud were satisfied by the Oath of a bold Nobleman who swore he heard King Henry on his Death-bed disinherit his Daughter Maud and appoint E Stephen to succeed him in the Kingdom Some of our Historians tell us that there was but a poor Show of Bishops and Great-men at the Coronation and that many ill Omens were seen thereat others say otherwise and tell us it was performed annuentibus Praesulibus Próceribus Regni and that they pitch'd on Stephen because that Maud had no Children and they wanted a considerable Person to look after the Affairs of the Kingdom But all of them in general cry out aloud upon the sudden Change of the English Nobility had so lately sworn Fidelity to Maud Omnis Anglia quasi in ictu oculi ei subjecta est saith Walt. Hemingford from Malmesbury c. 56. Even Robert of Gloucester swore to Stephen tho with a very evil Mind undoubtedly because he could not otherwise be in any Capacity of serving his Sister-in-law Maud and her Son for now she was brought to bed of her Son Henry this reason Wil. of Malmesbury his Client gives for him He was afraid of his former Oath to Maud and he was afraid he should never do her any Service if he swore not to Stephen and therefore he did it tho conditionally that he should preserve his Honor and his Covenants Robert was the only Man alive he feared for he was wise and valiant to a wonder in those days and he was glad to have any hold at all of such a Man and therefore accepted of his Conditional Homage You shall take the words and see what you can make of them your self Itaque Homagium Regifecit sub conditione quadam scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suam integrè custodiret sibi pacta servaret Spectato enim jamdudum Regis ingenio instabilitatem ejus fidei praevidebat Malmsb. Hist. Novel l. 1. p. 179. I am greatly afraid there are many Roberts of Gloucester now alive that have taken the Oaths to their present Majesties with no better design than to capacitate themselves to do them a shrewd turn when it lies in their way although they see no shadow of Unfaithfulness or ill design in them but this is a Remark out of my way which you will
even without any notice taken of his Resignation though after he had made it objecting such and such Crimes as deserv'd it which they might well have spar'd and surely would have done it even for pities sake if they had not intended thereby to shew and exercise a Power they thought inherent in them on such extraordinary Occasions I will not trouble you with the Instance of Henry VI. with regard to Richard Duke of York who made claim upon him nor of Edward IV. with regard to Henry VI. neither of which Princes thought of securing themselves by any Oath of Abjuration Because you may say there was no need of their doing so since both of them looked upon themselves as Rightful Possessors of the Throne and what need was there of causing the Subjects to Abjure the Right of one who had no Right at that time nor as they thought at any time besides For I make no question but Henry VI. look'd on himself as most Rightful King and truly the Succession of three Generations and the Possession for above threescore years of Royalty might have made a more Devout and Conscientious Prince than Henry was if it could be believe so too Neither will it serve to my purpose to instance in Richard III. with regard to the Son and Daughter of his Elder Brother George Duke of Clarence because he confided so far in the Attaindour of the Father that he had no suspicion of the Children he Bastardiz'd Depos'd and Murther'd the Children of his Brother Edward IV. but he thought the Act of Parliament had secur'd him against the Family of Clarence and therefore was regardless of them We have no reason to think he acted out of any better Principle towards them And it was not then perhaps so clear in Law as since That the Crown takes away all Defects and stops in Blood and that from the time the King assumes the Crown the Fountain is cleared and all Attaindors and Corruption of Blood discharged which was the Resolution of the Judges in the Case of Henry VII The Instances I have mentioned before from Edgar Atheling to Richard II. are enow and sufficient to my Purpose or none are And I hope from them you will be able to see what I design'd to shew you in the first place That though we have had so many Occasions where an Oath of Abjuration was full as Reasonable as Convenient and as Necessary as it can possibly be at this day yet we have never had one And therefore that an Oath of Abjuration would be altogether Strange and New in England And if you do not also see as it were by the by from these Collections that the Oaths of Fidelity and Allegiance have been constantly imposed on and taken by the Subjects of the Land concern'd to take them to such Persons as were by the Consent and Approbation of the Three Estates of the Kingdom invested with the Regal Power although they could not lay claim thereto by Lineal and Legal Succession If you do not see this I shall think I have represented Matter but confusedly Believe me then in short an Oath of Allegiance was always taken but an Oath of Abjuration never I am now in the Second place to shew you according to my Skill that an Oath of Abjuration is altogether Needless If it be needful it is only needful to the securing their Present Majesties in the Possession of the Throne which they in our Opinion I am sure fill most deservedly But this is not to be done by an Oath of Abjuration if it will not be done by an Oath of Allegiance And I may well presume that such as refuse the Oath of Allegiance will never take an Oath of Abjuration so that here will be no New Subjects gain'd we may be sure and if it will neither gain New Subjects nor fasten the Old ones closer to their Majesties Interest where is the Necessity of imposing it Do their Majesties I pray want any thing more than Allegiance and Fidelity from all or any of their Subjects in the respective Stations they stand related to their Princes in No one I think will say they do If all men therefore would fulfil their Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity what need would there be of imposing any New ones It is not taking New Oaths but keeping the Old ones that must secure their Present Majesties and will any Man that does not make a Conscience of fulfilling the Oaths he has taken be scrupulous of either taking or breaking any New Ones What should hinder one from taking an Oath of Abjuration who has no regard to his Oath of Allegiance And what security can you have against the breach of a Second Oath from one who shews apparently he values not his First Do you not therefore see that such as knowingly break their Allegiance Oath will take at last though not without some kind of scruple neither the Oath of Abjuration and break it when it is convenient full as knowingly We see Men frequently that are nice and squeamish with respect to some Offences who yet make very bold with others altogether as heinous but it is seldom seen that a Man grows tenderer in a Point wherein he has once or twice offended He who has taken the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties and yet will Comfort and Abett and Correspond with any of their Enemies will take the Oath again and proceed to whatever Oath you shall impose and still retain the same mind and pursue the same design and he may do it all upon the same Principle by which he acts when he breaks his Oath of Allegiance So that an Oath of Abjuration will neither gain their Majesties any New Friends nor fix the Old Ones faster to them nor yet discover any Old or New Enemies And what is an Oath good for that will answer to none of these ends and purposes That will neither discover Truth nor Falshood That will neither make nor keep Men Honester or more Loyal than they were before nor yet prevent them from being False and Traiterous or shew us when they are so I make no doubt but this is the pretence and plea for an Oath of Abjuration that it will discover who are Enemies to the Present Government and this is that which may make it appear most reasonable to be imposed If it will not therefore do this it will do nothing or it will do mischief This I conclude it will never do i. e. discover who are Enemies to the Government for this Reason Because supposing all along that none will take an Oath of Abjuration who have refused to take the Oath of Allegiance and therefore that they alone who have taken the Oath of Allegiance will take the Abjuration Oath they who have taken the Oath of Allegiance malâ fide who design or whether they design or no do actually do it to serve and succour the Late King will also certainly take the Abjuration Oath They who have