Legitimi Barones who as Ordericus tells us came in with his Father and setled themselves here after the Conquest But as for your Quotations out of William of Malmesbury and Ordericus Vitalis â—â—ncerning the English assisting King William Rufus against his Brother Robert by using the common bait of Liberty viz. promising that he would alleviate the Rigid Laws of his Father and give free Liberty of Hunting in his Forests 't is true he thereupon raised an indifferent Army consisting chiefly of English who as Mathew Paris tells us were no better than Mercenary or Stipendary Souldiâ—â—â— and who had either no Estates or else had been turned out of them before so that this does not prove that they were men of any Fortunes who thus assisted William Rufus F. As for what you have now said against the citations of the names out of Doomesday book is not material since if English names were then common to the Normans and them then the Norman names might be as well common to the English and then many of those in England whom by their names we suppose to have been Normans might be Native Englishmen and as for what you urge against the express words of the Charters I have now cited I think it is a downright wresting of the words Francis and Anglis since no Author that I know of but your Dr. and is of that opinion For that the word Franci or Franâ—igenae does signifie such Frenchmen who held Baronies in England is granted on all hands but how Angli must also signifie Frenchmen seems a Paradox to me for how could these Frenchmen or Normans be termed Englishmen only because they held Estates here and not in Normandy for if the having such and such Estates in England would have turned Frenchmen into Englishmen there needed no such distinction to have been made between French and English Barons in these Charters since according to your Doctors Notion the French Barons could be no other ways mentioned here but as they had Estates here and therefore could be only writ to in that capacity since as meer Frenchmen they had nothing to do here so that if this Epithete was so in respect of the Tenure of their Lands they would have been stiled English Barons as well as the other nor is your other evasion more to the purpose that by the Angli might be meant in the Charters of Henry the I. such Norman or French Barons who because they were born in England might therefore be called English for who can believe that in so small a time as from the beginning of the Reign of King William the I. to that of King Henry the I. which was but a little above 30 years so many of the Norman Nobility were dead as should make it necessary to use this distinction of French and English Barons since by their Tenures they were both alike English and thus to make Angli signifie Normans is to confound and make all words tho' never so plain uncertain and equivocal but that a residue of the English And as for what Ordericus says of the old Norman Barons it would have signified if you could have proved he had called them Englishmen as he does not But if you carry it further to the time of the Empress Maud and King Stephen when all the Old Race of Normans were certainly dead then there was much less need of this distinction when all that were born in England were English alike and therefore the word French could only extend to those few Barons who being born in Normandy had Estates here But since you are forced to confess that for the first four or five years of King William the I. Reign there were both English Earls and Barons till the King had by degrees rooted them out there cannot be a better argument against your pretended right of Conquest since it is plain King William could never pretend to take away their Honours and Estates as a Conqueror since by his Coronation Oath he was sworn to restrain all Rapines and unjust Judgments and that he would behave himself modestly toward his Subjects and Treat both the English and French with equal right so that if he afterwards took away the estates of English Nobility or Gentry it was either because they deserved it by Rebelling against him then it was justly done or else it was done without any cause at all but only to oppress and root out the English Proprietors and if so such actions being contrary to his own claim from Edward the Confessor as also to his Coronation Oath could no more give him any such right to Rob or Spoil Men of their Estates without any just cause then it could give him a right to Rob the Churches and Monasteries of all the Plate Money and Jewels which he found in them even to the very Chalaws and Shrines as Matthew Paris and other Authors tell us he did in the fourth year of his Reign when likewise according as you your self set forth he began to shew himself a Conqueror or rather a Tyrant in the taking away the Estates of the English without any just cause But however the Authors of that time do not make so great a Tyrant of your Conqueror as the Doctor for William of Poictou expresly tells us who was Chaplain to this King concerning his taking away the Estates of the English and giving them to the Normans that nulli tamen Gallo datum est quod Anglo cuiquam injustè fuerit ablatum And Ordoricus Vitalis speaking of his dealing with the English it the beginning of his Reign says expresly neminem nisi quèm non damnare iniquum foret damnavit and therefore Sir Henry Spelman shews us in his Glossary out of an Ancient Manuscript belonging to the Family of Shurnborn in Norfolk That Edwin of Sharborn and several others that were ejected out of their Estates and Possessions went to the Conqueror and told him that never either before or in or after the Conquest they were against him the said King either by their Advice or any other aid but kept themselves peaceably and quietâ—y And this they were ready to make out which way soever the King pleased to appoint whereupon the said King ordered an Inquisition to be made throughout all England whether it were so or no which was plainly proved therefore he presently commanded that all those who so kept themselves peaceably in manner aforesaid as these had done should be repossessed of all their Estates and Inheritances as fully amply and quietly as ever they had or held them before this Conquest This is so plain an Authority that it needs no Comment I shall now conclude with a reply to what you have said to evade the Authorities of those Ancient Authors I have brought to prove that in the beginning of the Reign of King William the Second there were many English Gentlemen left of considerable Estates which you and your Doctor would â—ain make
Heirs within age of such Tenants but this extended not to the Tenures of the Subjects by Knights Service as it appeareth by Bracton Dicitur Regale seâ—vitium quia spectat ad dominum Regem non alium secundum quod in Conquestis fuit adinventum c. Whereupon Sir E. C. notes in the Margent the Tenure as before it appeareth was not then invented but the fruits of this Tenure of the K. viz. Wardship and Marriage which was Bracton's meaning so as the Conqueror provided for himself but other Lords at the first by special reservation since the Conquest provided upon gifts of Lands for themselves Regis ad exemplum totuâ— componitur orbis wherein that which we had from the Conqueror we freely confess F. I shall not dispute his matter since it is doubtful whether this custom of Wardship was Norman or whether it was derived from the Saxons who possibly might have some respect to Orphans in such cases to train them up for the publick Service in point of War especially being possessors of a known right of Relief as well as Alfred the Saxon King did undertake the work for the training of some particular persons in learning for the service of the publick in time of Peace and Civil Government and tho' Sir H. Spelman is of opinion in his Title de Wardiâ— that Wardship of the Heir came in with the Conqueror yet Sir Iohn his son who was also a learned Antiquary in his Epilogue to his second book of K. Alfred's Life Printed at Oxford speaking of Military Fees granted to the Kings Thanes has this passage Haec etiam Fioda baeredibus sub Hereoti siâ—e relevaminis cujus piam quod haeres in terrae redemptionem Regi solvere tenebatur conditione plerumque transibat si haeres minor natu à Patre moriente relinquebatur Regi educatio â—jus utpoâ—â— Regis Hominis committebatur in utilitatem etiam commodum ipsius Regis But whether the Wardship of the Body of the Heir was in use in K. William's time or before is uncertain for the land is in the Charter of Henry the first in Mat. Paris granted either to the Widdow or next heir But let these customs be derived from whence you please it is a plain case it could be no badge of Conquest upon the People of this Nation and that by the Doctors own shewing for were it a Norman custom never so much if your Conqueror first of all imposed it upon those he brought over along with him it could never be a badge of Slavery upon the English Nation but rather upon the Normans upon whom it was chiefly imposed and if they afterwards granted Lands to the English upon the same terms they held them themselves they were no more Slaves to whom they were granted than they were under whom they held them but indeed this was so far from being looked upon as my badge of servitude that if the Dr. himself is to be believed these were the only Freemen and their services Bracton says were so notoriously free that in Writs of Right it was never mentioned because so well known Notandum in servitio Militari non dicitur per Liberum servitium ideo quod Constat Quia tale Servitium Liberum est And hower Rigorous the Feudal Law might be at the beginning it was when your Conqueror came in so far mitigated as to the rigour of it that the Tenants by Knight Service were not only free by K. William's Law from all Arbitrary Taxes and Tallies but also obtained a setled Inheritance to them and their Heirs as appears by that clause in K. William's Charter and therefore in the Reign of Henry the Third when William of Warren Earl of Surrey was questioned after the Statute of Quo Warranto by the Kings Justices by what Warrant he held his Lands pulling out an old Sword he answered to this Effect behold my Lords here is my warranty my Ancestors came into this Land with William the Bastard and obtained those Lands by the Sword and I am resolved with this Sword to defend them against any whosoever shall go about to dispossess me for the K. did not himself alone Conquer the Land but our Progenitors were sharers with him and assistants therein As for what you say That the Laws in the Customary of Normandy are the same with the Laws of England It is no more than what divers French Writers have taken notice of but do not attribute their agreement to their being borrowed from the Normans but quite contrary for in the first place most of the Learned Men say That the first establishing of the Customary of Normandy was in Henry the first 's time and afterwards again about the beginning of Edward the seconds time when Normandy was not under the King of England and Sâ—querius a French Author relates that K. Henry I established the English Laws in Normandy and with him do also agree Gulielmus Brito Rutilarius and other French Writers who mention also that the Laws in the Customary of Normandy are the same with the Laws collected by our English K. Edward the Confessor who was before the Conqueror an additional Testimony hereof is out of William de Reville de Alenson who in his Latin Comment upon the Customary proves and demonstrates that the Laws and Customs of Normandy came from the English Laws and Nation either not long before or after Edward the Confessor's time In the Customary there is a Chapter of Nampes or Distresses and it is there decreed that one should not bring his action upon any seisure but from the time of the Coronation of K. Richard and this must be our K. Richard the first because no K. of France was ever of that name and the words Nampes and Withernams were Saxon words taken out of the English Laws signifying a Pawn or Distress and in the same sense are used in the Customary But if you have nothing more to object against what I have now said pray proceed to your last head and let me see how you will prove that the English lost all their antient Liberties and Priviledges which they enjoyed under the English Saxon Kings M. I never heard so much before concerning the Original use of the French Tongue in our Reports and Law Books but yet this much I think you will not deny first that the Norman French was never used in our Courts of Justice till after the Conquerors entrance Secondly That he did his endeavour totally to root out the English Tongue by ordering of Children to learn the first rudiments of their Grammer in French and as for what you have said concerning the Customary of Normandy being especially as to Tenures derived from the English Laws and Customs I do not deny but that it may be the opinion of some French Writers that it was so but I shall believe it when they can prove that the Wardships and Marriage of the Heir of the
without Children should be Heir to the Deceased And so far were they from thinking this Agreement stood in need of Ratification of a great Council that there was but twelve of the Principal Men on each side sworn to see it duly observed But if we come to consider the next putting by of Duke Robert from his Right to the Crown you will find it to have been done with a far less colour of Right than the former for he being then absent in the Holy Land at the time of Rufus's death Henry his Younger Brother laid hold of the opportunity and assembling divers of the great Men of the Kingdom he promised them to make a full Restitution of all their Antient Laws and Liberties and confirm them by his Charter and abrogate such severe ones as his Father had made thereupon they did unanimously consent to Crown him King Now I cannot see how this managed with so much Artifice corruption can properly be call'd an Election since that ought to be a deliberate sedate Action and at which all the persons concern'd ought to be present but this could not possibly be for King William was kill'd on the second of August and buried the next day and the day after that being Sunday this pretended Election was made and the Saxon Chronicle tells us That those great Men who were near at hand chose his Brother Henry King So that this looks more like the Combination of a Faction of Bishops Lords and great Men than the free Election of a King since it was impossible for all that were or ought to be present from all parts of the Kingdom to have notice to assemble and dispatch that great Business in two days time But to let you see that Duke Robert did not fit down contented with this Usurpation upon his Right for as soon as ever he came from the Holy Land he straight made War upon his Brother and many great Men of the Normans took his part and this War was eagerly carried on for some time and Duke Robert Landing in England with an Army K. Henry marcht against him with all his Forces but as the Saxon Chronicle also tells us some principal Men going between them brought them to an Agreement upon conditions that K. Henry should pay Duke Robert 3000 Marks Pension yearly and that he of the Brothers who surviv'd the other should be Heir of all England and Normandy unless the party deceas'd should have Children of his own so that though I grant King Henry recites in his Charter in Matthew Paris that he was Crowned King by the Common Council of the Barons of England yet his saying so could not give him a Right and he must say this or nothing for no other pretence or Title he could have and there never was any other Usurper in his circumstances but must say that or some such thing to make out a Title and therefore to answer your Question why Duke Robert took not upon himself the Title of King neither upon the death of his Father nor after that of his Elder Brother I think this may serve for an Answer that he parting with his Right to both his Brothers successively he then lookt upon it as needless to take the Title of King upon him as not looking upon himself then to be so F. I confess you have from your Dr. together with some assistance of your own made a very cunning gloss upon these two great Instances of Vacancy and Election to evade if it were possible that Right which the Common Council of the Kingdom then challeng'd to themselves and therefore I shall make bold strictly to examine what you have now said In the first place as to the Title of King William Rufus though I grant it was founded upon his Fathers Testament yet you see that this was not good alone without the consent and approbation of the Common Council of the Kingdom I think I have sufficiently prov'd at our last Meeting but one when we discourst of the Force of the like Testament made by King Edward the Confessor to King William the First which according to the English Saxon Law that â—as still observed was never valid until confirm'd by the consent of the Wittena Gemot or Great Council and he that had both these whether next Heir by Blood or not was always esteem'd as lawful King as I have also proved from the Testament of King Alfred and though you will take no notice of it yet was this Testament of King William I. then produced and read in the Common-Council of the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom as appears by all the Antient Historians who treat of this matter I shall only give you a taste of them Matthew Paris expresly relates the circumstances of it in these words Optimates frequenteâ— â—d Westmonasterium in concilium convenere ubi loci post long am consultationem Gulielmum Rusum Regem fecere and Abbot Brompton tells us that it was done in a full Council Convocatis Terrae magnatibus so that here was nothing wanting to a full Election or Confirmation at least of King William's Title and till this was done it is plain the Throne was Vacant But as for the claim that Duke Robert made to the Crown though I do not deny but he might think himself to have a just Title to it by a received custom among divers Nations by which the eldest Son is looked upon to have a right before the younger yet that this is no Law of Nature or Reason and consequently not Divine I think I have sufficiently prov'd at our second meeting But that this right of Succession of the eldest Son to be no fundamental Law of this Kingdom I think I can sufficiently prove from our English Saxon Histories as well as Laws and as for what you say concerning those Norman Lords and Bishops who joyn'd with Duke Robert after his Brother was Crown'd King it is call'd no better than Treason by all the Writers of those times for Florence of Worcester and Sim of Durham both tell us that the King thereupon call'd together the English and open'd unto them the Treason of the Normans and the Saxon Chronicleâ— who seem'd to have lived about that time compares the Treason of Bishop Odo to that of Iudas Iscariot against our Lord and though I grant King William might make such an agreement with his Brother Duke Robert as you mention yet as for the 3000 Marks Pension which you say he was to pay him I very much doubt it since no Historian but Matthew of Westminster who lived between two and three hundred years after makes mention of it and therefore I think it is to be referr'd to the following agreement betwixt this Duke and his Brother King Henry which the Saxon Chronicle expresly mentions Having now examin'd and clear'd the Title of King William Rufus I come next to justifie that of King Henry I. to the Crown notwithstanding all you have alledg'd against it which yet is no more than what you said before that Duke Robert had an Hereditary Right and therefore he could not be put by which is to beg the Question for you cannot prove to me that he had this Right either by the Law of Nature the Law of England or the Law of Normandy not
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
ADVERTISEMENT THE Author hath thought fit for the Reasons he hath given you to alter the Method he laid down in his Preface to the First Dialogue and to propose the Subjects he treats of in this following Method Bibliotheca Politica OR AN ENQUIRY INTO The Ancient Constitution OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT Both in respect to the just extent of Regal Power and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject Wherein all the Chief Arguments as well against as for the late Revolution are impartially Represented and considered in Thirteen Dialogues Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern To which is added an Alphabetical INDEX to the whole Work LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where may be had the First Second Tâ—ird Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelvth and Thirteenth Dialogues 1694. THE QUESTIONS Debated in the Ensuing Dialogues WHETHER Monarchy be Iure Divino Dialogue the First Whether there can be made out from the Natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Dialogue the Second Whether Resistances of the SVPREAM POWER by a whole Nation or People in cases of the last extremity can be justified by the Law of Nature or Rules of the Gospel Dialogue the Third Whether Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Regormed Church of England Dialogue the Fourth Whether the King be the Sole Supream Legislative Power of the Kingdom and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments be a Fundamental Part of the Government or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings Dialogue the Fifth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Dialogue the Sixth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Thâ— Second Parâ—â— Dialogue the Sevenâ—h A Continuation â—f tâ—e former Discourse concâ—rnâ—ng the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined With an Entrance upon the Question of Non Resistance The Third Part Dialogue the Eighth Whether by the Ancient Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King or of those Commissioned by him are expresly forbid upon any pretence whatsoever And also whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William either before or after his coming over are guilty of the breach of this Law Dialogue the Ninth I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom II. Whether King William commonly stiled the Conquerour did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm for Himself and his Heirs as can never be lawfully resisted or forfeited for any Male-Administration or Tyranny whatever Dialogue the Tenth I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what Sense may be also from the People II. Whether His Present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a just Cause of War against King Iames the II. III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the late Convention in respect of the said King Iames is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Dialogue the Eleventh I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant can be justified from the Ancient Constitution and Customs of this Kingdom II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England may be justified by the said Constitution III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown was according to Law Dialogue the Twelfth I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto or for the time being II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever or else to a bare submission to their Power III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties could be lawfully deprived of their Bishopricks Dialogue the Thirteenth ADVERTISEMENT THE Author writing these Dialogue purely for the discovery of Truth and for giving a full and impartial account of all the considerable Arguments and Authorities that have been urged on either side in the Controversies discussed in the foregoing Dialogues if therefore any Person who having perused them is dissatisfied with any of the Arguments Answers or Authorities there made use of and supposes he could confute them or else put better in their stead if such Persons do not think it worth while to write a Treatise on purpose on this Subject they may if they please send their Animadversions to the Publisher of these Dialogues who will undertake to communicate them to the Author who hereby also engages to Publish them fairly without any Alterations or Additions together with his Answers or Replys to them if the Subject will admit it the Persons concerned may follow the Method used in the foregoing Appendix of Additions but are desired to send in their Animadversions by the beginning of next Michaelmas Term when if sent they shall be Publish'd Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER MONARCHY BE IVRE DIVINO Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the First LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms 1694. The Epistle Dedicatory To all Impartial and unprejudiced Readers especially those of our Hopeful and Ingenious Nobility and Gentry HAving out of Curiosity for some years before the late wonderful happy Revolution as well aâ— since for the satisfaction of my own Conscience carefully perused all Treatises of any value that have been published of late years concerning the Original and Rights of Civil Government aâ— well of Monarchy aâ— the other kinds thereof as also of the Antient Government and Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom I have found it necessary in order to my better retaining of what I had read and making a more certain Iudgment thereupon to commit to writing the most considerable Arguments on both sides as well of those who have Monarchy to be Jure Devino as of those who only allow it to Government in general of those who hold an Absolute Subjection or Passive Obedience as their Phrase is as well as
the People may sometimes happen to abuse this Natural Right of Iudging and resisting by exerting it when there is no real and absolute necessity so on the other side if they are wholy debarred from it because they may happen sometimes to abuse it the Freest People in the World viz. our selves for Example may easily be reduced into a Condition of absolute Slavery and Beggery and that without all Remedy by any Humane means that I can think of and which is the worst mischief of these two I leave to your self or any indifferent Man to Iudge M. If you will have my Opinion in this pointâ— I must freely tell you that it is a hard matter to find out a mischief so destructive to the People and which they should exchange for this miserable State of War which you suppose may prove so beneficial to them and yet I doubt if it be throughly lookt into not only the Doctrine it self but also the lasting Wars and miseries it may produce would sufficiently prove the contrary since the cruellest Tyranny Slavery and loss of Estates or any thing else almost may be better born with in Peace and Unity than a Civil War with the greatest Liberty and Plenty seeing all such comforts would quickly be devoured like Pharaoh's Fat Kine by such a Cruel Mâ—nster feeding in their bowels And therefore since Civil War is one of the greatest Calamities and Punishments that God uses to send upon a Nation it seems evident to me that the Wellfare of any State or People requires them to be Obedient unto the Supream Powers tho' they be never so great Oppressors or Cruel Tyrants For when once they enter into this dismal State of War who can tell whether it will have an End without almost the total destruction of the Nation or at least by bringing them into a far worse Condition of Slavery and Suffering than they were before since the State of Princes or other Supream Powers can never be so mean and inconsiderable in the World as not to find when like to be Opprest by such insurrections and Rebellions of their Subjects sufficient assistance from Neighbouring Princes or States who making the Cause of such a Prince their own will be sure to assist him to the utmost of their Power it being found true by experience as Tully long ago observed That the afflicted State of Kings do easily draw the help and Pity of many others especially of those who are either Kings themselves or do live in a Kingdom the Regal Name being by them esteemed to be great and Sacred And farther how ready a way it is to subvert the State of any such distractâ—d Kingdom and to bring it under the Subjection of Foreigners we need not seek a plainer Proof than by an Example no farther off than Ireland where Dermâ—t King of Leinster being forced by his Rebellious Subjects to â—rave the Aid of King Henry the II. for his Restoration to his Kingdom his assistance to recover his Right produced that effect which we now see viz. That the Irish lost their Domiâ—ion and became Subject to the Crown of England even to this day And supposing that the Subjects might likewise be assisted by some Foreign Prince who would undertake their deliverance they would not be in a much bâ—ttâ—r condition since if he were an Absolute Monarch himself he would be 〈◊〉 for example sake as well as for their own security to carry as strict a hard over tâ—em and use them more severely than their own Prince had done before and I doubt not but if Lewis Prince of France had been Crowned King of this Kingdom as he was very near it toward the latter end of King Iohn's Reign but that he would have been more cruel and Tyrannical than ever King Iohn had been before So that they would have got nothing by the bargain but a change of Masters and a heavier Yoke imposed upon them by a Foreigner And so much the Viscount Melun confessed upon his Death bed to many of the English nobility which was the reason of their returning again to their Allegiance to Henry the third So that I think it had been much better for the Barons and Nobility of this Kingdom never to have stirred or Rebell'd at all against their Lawful Prince F. You seem so in Love with slavery and all the Consequences of it that it is an hundred pities but that you should feel the smart of it a little while provided no body was to suffer by it but your self and those of your Opinion But could you see the miserable Condition those poor People are in who live under Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government I doubt not but you would be of another mind and preferr a War tho' never so Violent before such a Peace for when Men are once reduced to so desperate a Condition as neither to be secured of their Lives Liberties or Estates they may have some hope to redress themselves by Resistance but need not fear to be reduced to a worse Condition than they were before and therefore I cannot understand how all the Comforts of a Civil Life would then be lost by a Civil Waâ— when I have already put-it as a chief part of the Case that Subjects are never to make such a Resistance but when the Supream Powers are just about to begin or else have actually entered into a State of War against their Subjects For what can any foreign Enemy do more if he Conquers them than take away their Lives Liberties and Estates So that this is so far from being a State of Peace that indeed the People are already exposed to all the Calamities of War but a War which you suppose may be made without any resistance whilst the Subjects forsooth are bound to keep the Peace but much such another Peace as would be in a House unto which Thieves having broken and the Inhabitants retiring into some upper Rooms there stand upon their Guard and make Resistance whilst the Thieves having Seized upon all they have below one of them should make such a speech as this I pray Sirs come down and submit your selves to us for we assure you we intend not to Kill you but only to Bind you and take away all you have And is not slavery and loss of Goods better with Peace and safety than by assaulting us to provoke us to fire the House and Kill you all for if you once enter into a State of War with us it is very likely to end with your total destruction For if you continue to resist us or think to call in Company to your Assistance we can likewise call in many more of our Party to come and help us and then eâ—pâ—â—t no mercy Now pray tell me would not this be a very rational Argument to move these People to come down and surrender themselves to these Thieves and partake of the benefits of this excellent Peace they propos'd and whether they would not tell
and in all the Statutes of Praemunire made by Edward the Third the King's Soveraignty independent from the See of Rome is expresly Asserted and the Statute of the 16th of Richard the Second expresly declares That the Crown of England hath ever bin so free that it is under no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the Crown and to no other And the Statutes of the 24th and 25th of Henry the Eighth expresly declare That this Realm of England is an Empire Governed by one Supream Head and King and the Crown or Royal Authority is also thereby declared Imperial and the Kings of England are therein Stiâ—ed Kings or Emperors of this Realm So that I think no Man needs to doubt where the Supream or Soveraign Power of this Kingdom resides F. I will not deny any of those Authorities you have now made use of Since Titles alone are no proofs of Power for it is very well known that the Germane Emperor yet notwithstanding that great Title is not therefore Vnaccountable or Irresistible Since the Colledge of the Princes Electors may Depose him for Male-administration or for Violating any of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Empire And Mr. Selden hath very well observed in his Titles of Honour that this Supremacy or Freedom from all Subjection is not only challenged by our English Soveraigns but also by the Kings of Denmark Sweden and Poland The former of which yet was so far from being an absolute Monarch that before the Reign of this King's Father he might have bin Deposed for Tyranny for Misgovernment by the Estates of the Kingdom as the King of Poland may at this Day And therefore these Titles may indeed prove a Freedom from all Foreign Jurisdiction but doth not prove that the King is Endued with an Absolute Soveraign Power within the Kingdom as you may see in these Examples I have now given you M. If you are not Satisfied with these Proofs I doubt not but to give you other Authorities both out of Antient and Modern Lawyers as also Acts of Parliament which sufficiently declare where the Supream or Soveraign Power Resides In the first place I suppose you will not deny but that it hath bin the Prerogative of the Kings of England time out of mind to Coâ—â— Money Dispose of all Offices and Create new Dignities as he should think fit as also to make War and Peace to make Laws and in short to do all things whatsoever that are Essential to a Monarch and that he alone is the Sole Soveraign Power in this Kingdom Exclusive of all others Our Ancient Lawyers Glaâ—vil and Fortescue plainly declare The former of which says thus Rex nullum â—abâ—re potest parem multò minùs Superiorem The same thing is also repeated by Bracton and a very good Reason given for it in these words Omnis quidem sub eo ipse sub nullo nisi tantum Sub Deo parem non habet in Regno Suo quia Sic amitteret praeceptum cum par in parem non â—abeâ— Imperium Item nâ—c multò fortius Superiorem nec Potentiorem habere debeâ— quia sic esset inferior sibi Subjectis inferiores pares esse non possunt potentioribus F. But pray read what immediately follows Ipse autem Rex non debet esse Sub bomine Sed Sub Deo Sub Lâ—ge quia Lex facit Regem attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod Lex attribuit ei viz. Dominatiorem Potestatem non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Voluntas â—on Lex And though I grant the King is Subject or Inferior to no particular private Man Yet that he hath a Superior or Master within the Kingdom besides God and the Law and so is not the Sole Supream Power appears by a Passage out of the same Author in the Second Book Rex habet Superiorem Deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam Suam viz. Comites Barones quia Comites dicuntur quasi Sociè Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum ideo si Rex fuerit sinâ— froena i. e. Lego debent ei froenum ponere From which words it seems apparent to me that this Author thought the King was not only Inferior to the Law but was also to his Court of Parliament called here Curia Baronâ—â— who might Bridle or Restrain him if he Transgres't the Laws which are here called the King's Briale Nor can I conceive how this could be done without some kind of Force or Constraint if he refuse to receive this Bridle they would lay upon him M. I do not desire at this time to enter upon this Question concerning that Power which I know some Parliaments have pretended too of Câ—â—bing and Resisting the King by force if they supposed He Invaded the Fundamental Rights and Lâ—bâ—râ—ies as they call them of the Nation and that foâ— two Reasons First because it is not pertinent to our present purpose of proving that the King is not the Sole Supream Power as also because you very well know that both Houses did in 13 Car. 2. by an Act of Parliament concerning the Militia Solemnly Renounce all Coercive Power over the King or any Right in either or both of the Two Houses of making Offensive or Defensive War against him But if you have a mind hereafter to course further on this Subject I doubt not but to prove to you from divers other Passages out of Bracton and that old Treatise called Fleta that it was no Political Superiority in the Curia Baronum but only a Directive Power or moral Superiority which they had of Advertizing the King of any Arbitrary Proceeding or Injustice he should happen to do and by Complaint Admonition and Entreating to impose upon him to amend the same according to his Oath but not by Coaction or Constraint And in this Sense they may be said in a Moral way to put the Bridle of the Law upon him which may be called Civil Resistance but as for Military Resistance against an Unjust King it is as Inconsistent with our English Government as with any other Monarchy in the World But you very much mistake if you suppose that the King of England is not Supream because he is Limited by Laws which realy is no Objection Because a Soveraign without any Diminution to his Soveraignty may be limited in the Exercise of his Soveraign Power either by his own Acts or Condescensions or else by those of his Predecessors under whom he claims This is so certain that there is no Supream Power in Heaven or in Earth which is not limited and confined in the exercise thereof Thus the Omnipotent Power of God himself is limited by his own Wisdom Goodness and Justice which are himself So likewise the Powers of all Absolute unlimited Monarchs are only so comparatively with respect to positive Laws but as for the Laws of God and Nature which
Mr. Lambard I Ina by or with Gods Gift King of the West-Saxons with the Advice or Council of Cenred my Father and Heddes my Bishop and Ercenwold my Bishop and with my Aldermen and Eldest Wites or Wisemen of my Kingdom do command c. Then in the first Chapter the King speaks in the first person plural We Bid or Command that all our People shall after hold fast or observe these Laws and Dooms From this Preface you may observe I. That Kings are the Gift of God and that Gods Gift signified the same with Dei Gratia they are not the Creature of the People 2. That Princes or the better Government of their People in the Setling of Laws in Church and State did then Consult Deliberate and Advise with their Bishops Noblemen and eminently Wise Men of their Kingdoms whom for their Wisdom they Honour'd with publick Imployments in their Dominions 3. That after such Consultation Deliberation and Advice to the Soveraign Establisheth and makes the Laws The next Instance I shall make use of is out of the same Author in the Laws of King Alfred where in the Conclusion of his Laws about Religion and Prefatory to the Secular Laws He saith I Alfred King have gathered these Sanctions together and caused them to be written and then Recites that those that he liked not with the Council of his Wits he had Rejected and those he liked he had or commanded to be holden And we may observe that the King here speaks in the Single Person that He himself Collected or Chose aad also Rejected what Laws he pleased The next material illustration where the Legislative Power then Resided may be found in the Laws of King Edward the Elder where after the Charge given to the Judges the first Law begins I will and so in others in the fourth it is thus expressed Edward the King with his Wits that were at Exeter strictly enquiâ—ing by what means it might be better provided for Peace and Tranquility c. In the 2d and 3d. Chap. it is We also Declare Pronounce or Sentence And in the 7th and I will In which Laws we have none mentioned with the King but his Wits and his Commanding Willing or Pronouncing in the Imperative Mood is observable The next Laws I find are those of King Athelstan which begin thus I Athelstan King with the Advice of Walfelm my High Bishop and other my Bishops Commanded or bid all my Rieves i. e. Praefects of what degrees soever to pay Tythes c. And this He commanded his Bishops his Aldermen and Praepositi who were the Judges in the Country Courts to do the same In these Laws We cwaedon is used which I suppose is something more than Somner understands by his â—uide a Saying Speech or Sentence and properly is we will But the absoluteness of the King appears most in the 26th Chap. wherein it is expressed Tâ—at if any of the Graeves i. e. Iudges do not perform these Commands or be more Remiss in the Execution of those he hath enjoyned He shall be punished for his Excess of Contumacy according to the Fines there set down King Edmund is the next of our Kings whose Laws are Transferr'd to us and the Proem tells us that King Edmund Assembled a Great Synod or Council to London on the Holy Easter-Tide and the Persons Summoned are Stiled Godskind and Worldskind i. e. Clergy and Laicks After the first six Chapters of Laws in the Proem to the 2d part of them the King Signifies to all Men Old and Young That he had asks Advice in the Assembly of his Wites both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks and in the Laws it is often said Thonne cwaedon These we pronounce or appoint and sometimes the single person is used and in other places us betweonan Heolâ—an it is holden betwixt us Here we find the Great Council Summoned by the King and the Constituent Parts of it to be the Clergy and Laiâ—y yet still we find the Legislative Power in the King alone So likewise in the Title to King Edgars Ecclesiastical Laws it is thus The Laws which King Edgar in a frequent Assembly or Council of the Servants of God hath ordained whereby you may see that the Enacting Part Relates wholy to himself The same King Edgar in his Charter to Glastonbury Abby concludes it thus â—aâ—e privilegij paginam Rex Edgarus XII Regni sui sacro scripto apud Londoâ—iam communi Concilio optimatum suorum confirmavit So that though it appears this was in the Presence of a Great Council Yet the Granting and Enacting part proceeded wholy from himself The Preface to the Laws of King Canutus by Sir Henry Spelman runs thus These are the Worldly Constitutions that I will with my Wites advice that Men hold all over England In most of the Chapters it is said We Teach We Bid or Command We forbid and in the Conclusion it is in the single Person of the King Now I command all and bid every Man in God's Name And the Preface to the Latin Version of them saith Haec sunt Instituta Cnude Regis Anglorum Dacorum Norwegarum vene rando Saplentum Concilio ejus ad Laudem Gloriam Dei suam Regalitatem c. Of this Canutus William of Malmsbury saith that He commanded to be observed for ever all the Laws of Ancient Kings especially those made by King Ethelred his Predecessor under the Penalty of the Kings Fine to the observing of which He saith in his time it was Sworn under the Name of King Edwards Laws not that He had appointed them but had observed them So that I think upon the whole matter nothing is more plain than that our English Saxons and Danish Kings did not only call Councils and preside in them but that the Legislative Power was lodged solely in themselves F. I perceive the Authority of our Ancient Lawyers is a little too hard for you to answer with your usual Distinctions and therefore you seemingly deny their Authority though in effect you grant it as I shall shew you by and by But as for your Quotation out of the Year-Book which you think sufficient to Counterballance all the Authorities I have brought I think I may much better question the Judgment of those that gave that Opinion since I can shew you that you your self cannot allow it in all points for Law For in the first place it is not there said that it was so judged by all the Lords and Judges who were appointed to hear the Cause there mentioned but only Fuit dit que le Roy c. By which it seems to have bin the private opinion only of some one or more of the Lords and Judges there present For it is not said fuit adjuge And if you will have it to have bin the Opinion of them all pray read what follows after Fuit dit quen temps le Roy Henry devant le Roy fuit implede comme Seroit
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
Inferiour had either themselves in person or else by their Representatives a place in the Saxon Witten Gemots or Mycel Synods and made together with the Laity one entire Council or general Assembly without the joynt consent of both which no Laws or Constitutions whether Ecclesiastical or Civil could be enacted for proof of this we need go no farther than Sir H. Spelman's first Volume of Saxon Councils and particularly in the Councils or Synods of Clovesho first and second that of Kingston A. D. 838. that held under King Egbert and Withlafe King of the Mercians and that of Winchester under the same King Egbert in which Tithes were first granted in all which you will find that both the Clergy as well the Inferiour below the degree of Bishops and Abbots as also the Laity below your Earls and great Aldermen and Wites had a share And that this continued so both in and after the Norman Times appears by the first great Councils we have left us that were held under the first Kings of the Norman Race M. I should be very glad to see that proved for I always hitherto believed that none of the Clergy had then any Votes in the Great or Common Council of the Kingdom but those Bishops Abbots and Priors who all held in Capite of the King alone and tho' it is true there was also a Synod or Convocation of the Clergy often held at the same time when the Common Council of the Kingdom was assembled yet was it no part of that Council and as the Clergy had nothing to do in the making of Temporal Laws so had the Laity no hand in the making of Ecclesiastical Canons or Constitutions for the Popes Legate or Arch-Bishop of Canterbury often held these Synods at other times when the Common Council of the Kingdom was not assembled at all and thus it continued till the 25th and 26th of Henry the 8th when the King was first by the Clergy in Convocation and afterwards by the whole Parliament recognized and declared Supreme Head of the Church of England under Christ and from that time the King reassumed the Power which the Pope had before usurped and his consent alone under the great Seal is the only Ratification of all Canons or Ecclesiastical Constitutions passed in either of the Convocations of Canterbury or York at this day F. I grant that for between three hundred and four hundred years the matter of fact hath been as you say but that it was not so from the beginning is also as certain for first in the Saxon times before the Popes Usurpation came in it is evident from the Councils or Synods I have now cited that the King had no more power to make or confirm any general Ecclesiastical Laws or Constitutions without the consent of the Wittena Gemot or Mycel Synod consisting of the Clergy as well as Laity than he had to make Temporal Laws without it So far were they in those times from having any notion of any personal Supremacy in the King in Spiritual more than in Temporal matters and that this continued so till the Pope did not only usurp upon the King 's Right but that of the whole Kingdom in general may appear by those Memorialâ— we have left us of such common Councils or Synods in the Reigns of our first Norman Kings For the Proof of which I shall begin with the Reign of William l. in whose 14 th Year the Priviledges of the Abby of Westminster were Confirmed by that King in a Common Council as well of all the Clergy as Laity of the whole Kingdom as may be proved by a Charter still to be sound at large in the Old Charâ—ulary of the Abby of Westminster now in the Corronian Library Collected by Sulcardus an ancient Monk of that Abby the Conclusion of which Charter of Priviledges makes it very plain of what Members this Council then consisted and who gave their Consents to the Acts of it which pray read In solemnitate Pentecostâ— haebito consilio in celeberrino loco praescripti Westmonast a nostra regia Majâ—sâ—ate Conventis in unum cunctis Regni nostri Primatibus ad audiendes confirmandas quosdam Synodalis decreti causas necessarias communi consensu maxime Episcoporum Abbatum alioâ—um insignium Procerum c. Scripta est haec Charta sigillata ab ipso Regâ— supradicâ—is personis testificata confirmat auctorizata in Dei nomine c. This being one of the first and most remarkable Councils of this Kings Reign I cannot let it pass without observing First That all the chief men of the Kingdom were there as well of the Clergy as of the Laity and that the Words Primates and Proceres here mentioned are very Comprehensive and may take in many others besides your great Lords and Tenants in Capite I have already proved at our last Meeting but one Secondly Pray observe that this Charter of Priviledges tho' all of them concern meer Temporal Things is authorised Confirmed by the common Consent and Subscriptions of all the chief men as well of the Clergy as Laity from all which nothing can appear more plain to me than that in the Reign of this King the Clergy and Laity made one Common Council without whose joynt Consents nothing could be transacted in the Legislative Whether of Ecclesiastical or Civil Concernment I could give you more Instances of this kind in this King's Reign but I make haste to that of his Son William II. in whose 7th Year Eadmeâ—â—s tells us there was a Common-Council held at Rockingham about the difference between Archbishop Anselme and the King at which were present Episcopi Abbates Principes ac Clericorum ac Laicorum numerosa multitudo noâ— that by Principes or Chief Men may be here meant many more than your Tenants in Capite I have already sufficiently proved and that this Numerosa multitudo must mean somewhat more than those I shall prove fâ—rther by and by In the long Reign of Henry I. I could give you many Instances of this kind buâ— let these suffiâ—e In the 7th Year of this King Bromton tells us in his History speaking of the Council in which this King gave up his Right of Investituâ—es Clero Populo ad Concilium Londoniae congregato and who this Clerus and Populus then were he immediately explains himself thus Astantibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis caeteraq multitudine maxima Procerum Magnatum under which words I have already proved that divers others besides your Tenants in Capite might be comprehended and their great number shews them to have been more than those But tho' this Author does not here expresly say it yet that the Inferiour Clergy were likewise at these Councils appears from Sim. of Durham and the Câ—ntinuator of Florence of Worcester A. D. 1126. being the 25. of this King where they both make mention of a Synod or Council held at London at which were
translates the Clergy and Commons together with the Nobility being summoned And in 1 of Richard I. R. Hoveden also tells us of a great Council held at Pipewel Abby in Northamptonshire where the Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King William I. Coram Rege Vniversis Episcopis Clero Populo And an ancient Charter of primo of King Iohn now in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Library entituled Charta Moderationis seod magni sigilli recites the said King to have been Crowned Mediante tam Cleri quam Populi unanimi consensu savore and tho the rest of his Reign was Turbulent yet the Author of the Manuscript Eulogium quoted by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour mentions a great Council at London in the 16 th Year of King Iohn where the Archbishop of Canterbury was present Cum toto Clero tota secta Laicali i. e. says Dr. Heylin in the same place The Clergy of both Ranks and Orders with all the Laity called here Secta Laicalis and the Lords and Commons had then their places in Parliament and the Dr. proceeds thus and in possession of this Right the Clergy stood when Magna Charta was set forth by King Henry the 3 d. Wherein the Freedom Rights and Priviledges of the Church of England of which this evidently was one was Confirmed to them i. e. the whole Clergy in general I have here shewed you what Dr. Heylins sense was to let you see that a Person of great Learning and a high Churchman thought it no Heresie to be of our Opinion and to maintain as he does all along in that Chapter that the Inferior Clergy and the Commons were a Constituent Part of the Common Council or Parliament long before the 49 th of Henry 3 d and that the Inferior Clergy continued to be so till the Reign of Henry the 4 th at least But that their Consents was also anciently asked in the making of Laws we need go no farther than the Authority I have now given you from the Continuation of Florence of Worcester And farther that they were once a part of this great Council or Parliament besides the Testimony of the Modus tenendi Parliamentum who tho he be exploded as an ancient Author yet certainly is a good Witness for his own time viz. that of Edward the third where the Procuratores Cleri are reckoned among the Constituent Members or States of Parliament which is also confirmed by the two first Writs of Summons we have left us on the Rolls viz. the 23 d of Edward I. where in this Clause of Praemunâ—entes Clerum is particularly exprest which pray read from your Drs. Answer to Mr. P. Praemunientes Priorem Capitulum Ecclesiae vestrae Archidiaconos totumque Clerum vestrae Diocaesis facientes quod iidem Prior Archidiac in propriis Personis suis dictum Capitulum per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulis Clero habentes una vobiscum intersint modis omnibus tunc ibidem ad tractandum ordinandum faciendum nobiscum cum coeteris Praelatis Proceribus aliis Incolis Regni nostri qualiter sit hujusae modi periculis obviandum viz. The dangers in the Writ mentioned to be threatned from France and that this was not the first time this Clause of Praemunientes was inserted in the Writs of Summons to Bishops might be easily proved had we all the Writs of Summons before the 23 d of Edward I. as well as since But we may hence observe that the Inferior Clergy are not onely summoned to treat with the Prelates but are as well as they here authorised to Treat Ordain and Act with them and the Lords and Knights Citizens and Burgesses for so your Dr. himself here in the Margin translates Aliis Incolis Regni and how they could thus Consult and Act with them if they had not beeâ— then as well as the Prelates a part of the same Body of the great Council or Parliament of the Kingdom I confess surpasses my Capacity to understand nor is this Clause found in this Writ alone but is also in most other Writs of the Bishops Summons to Parliament as low as our own times and that these Writs were not to Convocation but Parliament appears in Pryns Parliament Register plainly by the Letters of Procuration made by the Prior and Chapter of Bath to William Swynham and Iohn de Merston appointing them to appear and Act for them as their Lawful Procurators in the Parliament summoned Ann. Dom. 1299. being the 27 th of Edward I. which is of a different form from another Letter of Procuration of the same Prior and Chapter Ann. Dom. 1295. 231. Edward I. to their Procurators therein named to act for them in the Convocation then summoned at Westminster the same difference is also observed in all the Writs of Summons to Convocation different from those whereby the same Persons are summoned to Parliament the former being directed onely to the two Archbishops or their Vicar Generals to Summon all the Bishops Abbots Priors and Clergy of their respective Provinces without any particular Writs issued to any other Bishops Abbots Priors or Clergy-men as in Summons to great Councils or Parliaments wherein there are commonly particular Orders to the Bishop to warn all the Inferior Clergy in the manner but now mentioned as Mr. Pryn very well observes in his first part of his said Parliamentary Register where you may see there is a Writ of Summons to Parliament of the 31 st Edward 3 d to the Archbishop of Canterbury reciting that he intended a Parliament for divers arduous and urgent Businesses concerning Himself and Crown and the necessary Defence of the Kingdom and Church of England And then proceeds thus Et quia Negotia praedicta perquam Ardua sine Maxima deliberatione tam Praelatorum Cleri quam Magnatum Communitatis ejusdem Regni c. and therefore it behoved him to Summon the said Clergy Great Men and Commons and then requires him to summon all the Bishops Abbots and Deans and Priors and Arch-deacons to appear personally and the rest of the Clergy by two Procurators with full Power ad tractandum consulendum super praemissis una vobiscum ad consentiendum Illis quae tunc ibidem super dictis negotiis divina savente Clementia contigerit ordinari M. But what can you say to their being omitted to be summoâ—ed in divers Writs to Parliament as appears in Pryns Register you now cited and from whence himself has there made this Observation That there is no Clause of Praemunientes c. in any Writs of Summons to Councils of State but onely to Parliaments and that not always but at the Kings Pleasure Which shews plainly that tho they were sometimes summoned as a part yet were certainly no Essential Constituent part of this general Council since they were omitted in so many of them
the Kingdom of the West Saxons I have now instanced in but in almost all the other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy in which there are to be found many more Instances of the Deposition of their Kings thaâ— what were in the West Saxon Kingdom this waâ— then very just and necessary since these Kingdoms were all Elective and none of them Hereditary and that the general Meeting of the great Council of the Nation was always at set and constant Times and did not depend upon the Will and Pleasure of the King either to call or dissolve them as I have already proved and that this Power was no unusual thing I appeal to all the Antient Kingdoms of Europe founded after the same Model as ours and which I mentioned at our last Meeting so that nothing is more frequent in their Histories and Annals than the Deposing of their Kings for the above-mentioned Crimes of Tyranny or Misgovernments But that some of these Gothick Kingdoms as Denmark and Sweden whilst they continued Elective have exercised this Power even till of late is so notorious in matter of fact that it needs no proof since the Kings of those Kingdoms held their Crowns at this day by that Title and on those Conditions which the Nobility and People gave them after the Deposition of their Predecessors But tho this were so anciently also in England it does not therefore follow that it must be so now for since the Crown of this Kingdom became Hereditary and that the Calling and Dissolving of great Councils or Parliaments came to depend wholly upon the King's Will I must allow that the Case is quite altered and that the Two Houses of Parliament have now no power to depose the King for any Tyranny or Misgovernment whatsoever The first Parliament of King Charles the Second in the Act for attainting the Regicides have actually disclaimed all Coercive Power over the King and yet for all that the Nobility and People of England may still have a good and sufficient Right left them of defending their Lives Religion and Liberties against the King or those commissioned by him in case of a general and universal Breach and Invasion of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom or Original Contract if you will call it so and not to lay down those Defensive Arms till their said just Rights and Liberties are again restored and sufficiently secured to them So that tho' I will not bring the Custom of the English Saxons as a precedent for the Parliament's Deposing of the King yet I think I may make use of it thus far that this Nation has ever exercised this necessary Right of defending their Liberties and Properties when invaded by the King or his Ministers either by colour of Law or open Force And that this hath been the constant practice from almost the Time of the Conquest down to later Ages I think I can make out from sufficient Authorities both from Histories and Records M. Tho' your Doctrine is not so bad as I expected yet it is still bad enough and I never knew this Right of Resistance carried home but that it always ended in Deposing and Murdering of the King at the last as we have seen in our own Times But let the constant practice have been as it will I am sure such Resistance hath been always condemned by our Ancient Common Law as well as Modern Statutes as I shall prove farther to you by and by and therefore pray give me leave to tell you that the never so constant practice of an unlawful thing can no more justifie the doing of it than that constant usage time out of mind for Thieves to Rob between London and St. Albans not that I fore-judge you or refuse to hear any Instances and Authorities from Histories or Records to make good your Assertion F. I thank you for your patience what therefore if I prove that such Resistance has been not only actually exercised by the Clergy Nobility and People in former Ages but that it hath been also allowed by our Kings and approved of by great Councils or Parliaments in those Times for lawful and the Actors in it wholly indemnified and saved harmless nay a power given them and that by the King himself to resist him and defend themselves in case he broke his Charters and Agreements made to and with his Nobility and People or else with some Forein Prince may appear from this remarkable Instance of King Henry II at the end of whose Reign Hoveden in his Annals gives us the Conditions of the Peace made in the last Year of this King between him and Philip King of France with the Consent of their Bishops Earls and Barons where among other Articles you will find this for one particularly relating to the Barons of England who were also to swear to the Peace in these Terms Et omnes Barones Angliae jurabunt quod si Rex Angliae noluerit has Conditiones tenere quod ipsi tenebunt cum Rege Franciae Comite Richardo cos adjâ—vabunt pro posse contra Regeâ— Angliae c. Whence we may without doubt conclude that the Resistance of Subjects in some cases against their Kings was then allowed of even by the King himself and thought not inconsistent with the Allegiance they bore him tho' it might suspend it for a time M. I confess this Instance would be of some weight were it not for the Critical Time when this Peace was made viz. when Richard Earl of 〈◊〉 the King 's Eldest Son had Rebelled against his Father and taken part with the King of France and had drawn over a great many of the Norman and Pictavian and English Barons to his Party which when King Henry perceived this very Author you have quoted here tells you Quod Rex Angliae in arcto positus Pacem fecit cum Rege Philippo that is was constrained to make Peace with him so that King Henry being in this streight the King of France and Earl Richard with the Barons of his Party forced King Henry to sign what Conditions they pleased for there it no such Clause so much as mentioned for the French Barons But make the most of it it is but a Temporary Relaxation of Allegiance from King Henry to his Barons and the King might surely thus release them if he pleased But it is plain they could not have acted thus without this Condition had been expresly inferred F. Well supposing King Henry to have been never so much constrained to the making of these Conditions and that it was his own Act that rendred it lawful it still proves as much as I urge it for viz. that neither the Kings of France or England then thought this Resistance absolutely unlawful for then the King 's own Act could never have dispensed with it But to shew you farther that the People of this Nation have ever maintained this Right of Resistance even with the allowance of our Kings themselves and for the doing
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
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
disobeying of the Parliament out of his hands much less will I justifie the Murder of this King or of any others above-mentioned as being no necessary consequences of that Resistance I only allow for lawful viz. that of the whole or major part of the Nation nor were Edw. the Second or Richard the Second put to death by any Act or Order of Parliament but were murdered In Prison and the Murderers of Edward the Second were afterwards attainted by Act of Parliament and Executed as they deserved But as for the Murder of King Charles the First it is not to be taken into this account it being not done by the Authority of the Lords and Commons in Parliament but by a Factious Rump or Fag-End of the House of Commons who fate by the power of the Army after far the major part of the Members who were for the King were shut out of doors and the Lords Voted useless and dangerous M. I confess you have made as good an Apology for these Actions as the matter will bear but that neither of the Two Houses can at this day have any Coercive Power over the King or to call him to an account for any thing he has done appears by the express Declaration of both Houses in the Statute of the 12th of Charles the Second as also in those but now cited in which they utterly disclaim all making War whether offensive or defensive against His Majesty much less can he be subject to any other Coercive or Vindictive Power or ought any ways to be resisted by private persons therefore supposing I should grant as I do not that the Parliaments had formerly a power of Deposing of their Kings or that the Clergy Nobility and People had formerly a right of taking up Arms against the King in case of notorious Tyranny and Misgovernment yet is all such Resistance expresly renounced and declared unlawful by the Oath and Declarations now cited so that tho' in the dark Times of Popery such Resistance might be counted lawful not only by Laity but also by the Bishops and Clergy who ought to have taught the people better Doctrine yet I think it had been much better for the Nation to have endur'd the worst that could have happen'd from the Tyranny of Kings than to have transgrest the Rules of the Gospel and the constant Doctrine of the Primitive Church by Resistance and Rebellion against the Supreme Power of the Nation F. I shall not now maintain that the Two Houses of Parliament have any Authority at this day to Depose the King or maintain a War against him upon any account yet that they have still a power to judge of the King's Actions whether consonant to Law or not and whether he has not broke the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom is no where given up as I know of But that Resistance in some cases is not contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel I have already proved and that it was not directly contrary to the Laws of the Land before these Statutes you do partly grant But since the main strength of your Cause lies in this Oath appointed by these Acts of Parliament therefore if I can give a satisfactory Account of the true meaning and sense of these Acts to be otherwise than you suppose I hope you will grant that Resistance may still be lawfully made by the whole body of the people in the Cases I have now put against any persons who under colour and pretence of the King's Commission should violently assault their persons in the free exercise of their Religion as it is by Law Established or should go about to Invadeâ— their Just Liberties and Properties which the Fundamental Laws of England have conferr'd upon every Free-born Subject of it And in order to the clearer proof of this I shall make use of this Method I shall first explain the Terms of this Declaration and then I shall proceed to shew you that in a legal sense all Defensive Arms or Resistance of the King's Person in some cases or of those Commissioned by him is not forbidden nor intended to be forbid by these Statutes and Declarations First then By taking Arms against the King is certainly meant no more than making War against the King according to the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third which declares making War against the King to be Treason and this is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever Secondly The Clause by his Authority against his Person is only to be understood of the King 's Legal Authority and by his Person is meant his Natural and Politick Person when acting together for the same ends as I shall shew you by and by So that both these Statutes are but declaratory of the Ancient Common Law of England against taking up Arms and making War against the King and do not introduce any new Law concerning this matter so that whatever was Treason by the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third is Treason by these Statutes and no more viz. all taking up Arms or actual making War against the King in order to kill depose or imprison him c. as Sir Edward Coke shews us in his third Institut in his Notes upon this Statute yet notwithstanding after this Statute of the 25th of Edward the third the Clergy Nobility and People of England assembled in Parliament did suppose it still lawful to take up Arms against those illegally Commissioned by the King in case of notorious Misgovernment and breach of the Fundamental Laws of the Nation as appears by that general Resistance made by reason of the evil Government of the Duke of Ireland and those concerned with him in the 11th of Richard the Second which as I have already proved was allowed for lawful by Act of Parliament and consequently by the King 's own consent without which it could never have been so declared The like I may say for that Resistance which was made in King Henry the Sixth's Reign by Richard Duke of York and the Earls and Barons of his Party agaist the Evil Government of the Queen and the Duke of Sommerset who governed all Affairs in an Arbitrary and yet unsuccessful manner by reason of the easiness and weakness of King Henry But tho' this Resistance was also approved of in the next Parliament of the 33d Year of this King yet I shall not so much insist upon it because I know you will alledge that this was made by the lawful Heir of the Crown against an Usurper since the Crown was not long after adjudged to be his right tho' King Henry was allowed to wear it during his life yet however it shews the Opinion of the Clergy Nobility and People of England at that time concerning the lawfulness of such Resistance before this Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom concerning the Legality of the Duke of York's Title was made in the Parliament above-mentioned Thirdly That the Parliament by these Statutes of the
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
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
tho' they themselves remained free men but your Dr. from whom you borrow this is very much out in his application of those passages he cites for neither of those Authors do affirm this of all owners of Lands whatsoever but only there to give us the Original of Soccage Tennants on the Kings Demeasnes as appears by Bracton's Title to that Chapter from whence the Dr. cites this passage which is de diversis conditionibus personarum tenentium in dominicis Domini Regis and the first words of this chapter make it yet plainer beginning thus in Dominico Domini Regis plura sunt genera hominum sunt enim ibi servi sive Nativi ante Conquestum in Conquestu post Conquestum and under these last ranges the persons you mentioned but Fleta is more exact in his Chapter de Sokemannis where he tells us that these men were Tenants of the Kings Ancient Mannors in Demeasne quia hujusmodi cultores Regis dignoscuntur provisa fuit quies nâ— sectas facerent ad Comitatum vel hundredum tamen pro terra quorum congregationem tune socam appellarunt hinc est quod Sokemanni hodie dicuntur esse So that tho' King William might permit his Ancient Tenants to be thus outed of their Estates they held in his own Demeasnes yet does it not therefore follow that he took away the Estates of the Ancient Owners all over England of whatsoever Tenure they were or of whomsoever held But as for your quotation out of Mat. Paris it proves no more than what I readily grant that King William after his return out of Normandy liberally rewarded his Followers with the Estates of the English which might he only of such as fought against him at the Battle of Hastings and as for that little which was left them which he says was put under the Yoak of a perpetual servitude he means no more by this expression than that new Tenure of Knights service which King William imposed upon them as this Author in the very next leaf speaking of the Lands of the Bishopricks and Abbies which were held before free from all secular servitude sub servitute statuit Militari and therefore you seem to contradict your self when contrary to your own Author Sir William Dugdale you deny the truth of any part of the Story because that in Doomesday book the name of Edwin of Sharnborn is not to be found and that William de Albeni is not named amongst the owners of that Mannor which is not material since this William might obtain a share therein after this Survey was made and as for Sharnborn himself his not being there mentioned is no argument that he had no Lands within that Mannor or the other that is mentioned in that Narrative since oftentimes the chief Lords of the Fee are only mentioned in Doomesday book tho' all the Proprietors under them are not particularly named but it is in vain to discourse any longer with you upon the Subject of your Conquerors taking away the Lands of English owners I have given you my opinion and the reasons against it and if you are not of my mind I cannot help it therefore pray go on to your next head and shew me by sufficient Authorities that King William as a Conqueror altered all the Laws and Customs of this Kingdom M. I will not undertake to prove that he altered all the Laws of England and brought in quite new ones yet that he did so in great part and that by his sole Authority I think I can prove by sufficient Testimonies and therefore I shall begin with that of Eadmer a Monk of Canterbury a companion of Archbishop Lanfranc's who tells us in his History that William designing to establish in England those Usages and Laws which his Ancestors and he observed in Normandy made such persons Bishops Abbots and other Principal men through the whole Nation who could not be thought so unworthy as to be guilty of any reluctancy and disobedience to them knowing by whom and to what they were raised all Divine and Humane things he ordered at his pleasure And after the Historian hath recounted in what things he disallowed the Authority of the Pope and Archbishop he concludes thus But what he did in secular matters I forbear to write because it is not my purpose and because also any one may from what hath been delivered guess what he did in seculars From which I think nothing is plainer than that K. William did not only design to alter many things in the Laws and Customs of England but did also actually do it since to that end he made the Bishops Abbots and other Principal men who were to be Judges in all Courts such as he could wholly confide in now that K. William govern'd the Nation as Conqueror and did so live and repute himself so to be and as such brought in and imposed new Laws upon the People of this Nation is as clear as I shall prove from these particulars first The Justiciaries or cheif Justices the Chancellors the Lawyers the Ministerial Officers and under Judges Earls Sheriffs Bailiffs Hundre duties were all Normans from his first coming until above a hundred years after as I can make it out by particular instances and undeniable Reasons were not the Catalogues too long to be here inserted If therefore the Justiciaries Chancellors Earls Sheriffs Lords of Mannors such as heard Causes and gave Judgment were Normans if the Lawyers and Pleaders were also Normans the Pleadings and Judgments in their several Courts musts of necessity have been in that Language and the Law also I mean the Norman Law otherwise they had said and done they knew not what and Judged they knew not how especially when the controversies were to be determined by Military Men as Earls Sheriffs Lords of Mannors c. that understood not the English Tongue or Law or when the cheif Justiciary himself was a Military Man as it often happen'd and understood only the Norman Language and 't is hardly to be believed these Men would give themselves the trouble of learning and understanding the English Law and Language Secondly Tho' we have many Laws and Customs from the Northern People and North parts of Germany from whence both Saxons and Normans came yet after the Conquest the Bulk and Main of our Laws were brought hither from Normandy by the Conqueror from whence we received the Tenures and the manner of holding our Estates in every respect from whence also have we received the Customs incident to those Estates And likewise the Quality of them being most of them feudal and enjoyed under several Military Conditions and services so that of necessary consequence from thence we must receive the Laws also by which these Tenures and the Customs incident to them were regulated and by which every mans right in such Estates was secured according to the Nature of them from Normandy and brought in by the Conqueror we received most if not all
English and if it were so in this cause it will follow for the same reason in all other Counties all over England Lastly That these Gentlemen were well skilled in the Antient Laws and Customs of England which had been in vain if they had been altered as you suppose M. I will not deny but that in the beginning of the Conquerors Reign many Englishmen might have Estates left them which might not be taken away till some years after and Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour places this Tryal between Earl Odo and Arch-bishop Lanfranc about the first year of K. William and I suppose that it happened before the fifth year of his Reign when Matthew Paris tells us that the Earls Eadwin Morcar and Siward together with Egelwin Bishop of Durham as also many thousands of Clerks and Laicks not being able to bear the severity of K. William fled into Woody and Desart places and from thence got into the Isle of Ely where they fortified themselves and whither K. William followed them and taking the Island made them submit to mercy and then this Author tells us that the K. put the Bishop of Durham in Prison and as for the rest some of them he killed some he put to ransom and others he commited to perpetual imprisonment so that I reckon from this time the King took away most of the Englishmens Estates as not trusting them any more F. If this had all happened as you have put it yet would it not prove what you have maintained for if those Englishmem who had not been engaged with Harold or else had been pardoned for it still held their Estates and as you say they forfeited them afterwards for Rebellion then it is certain K. William did not proceed against the English as a Conqueror since if he had he would have taken away their Estates Iure belli which since as you your self confess he did not whatever Estates he took away afterwards was either for Treason committed by the English or else wrongfully if the former he did it as a lawful King if wrongfully then as a Tyrant and as such could obtain no just right against the English Nation by his unjust proceedings But indeed after all you are quite out in your account concerning this matter for as to the great Tryal you now mentioned it could not be in the first or second year of King William's Reign nor could happen sooner than the sixth or seventh of his Reign for Arch-bishop Stigand was not deposed till the year 1070. which was the Fourth year of K. William and in the next year being 1071. the Annals of Mailros as also the Chronicle of Thomas Wiks place Archbishop Lanfranc's Coâ—secration and fetching of his Pall from Rome so that it could not be until the year after this Rebellion at the soonest when Lanfranc was setled in his Bishoprick that this suit was commenced by him against Earl Odo and therefore a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry had still Estates let them after this Rebellion And that they continued to have so some years after this time appears by those Writs of K. William which Mr. Atwood hath given us in his Ianus Aâ—glorum c. concerning the restitution of the Lands belonging to the Church of Ely which are also transcribed and allowed by your Dr. in his answer to it and I desire you particularly to consider that writ of K. William's directed to Arch-bishop Lanfranc Roger E. of Morton and Ieoffery Bishop of Constance commanding them to cause to be assembled all those shires who were present at the Plea had concerning the Lands of the Church of Ely before the Queen went last into Normandy the rest being most material to the cause in hand I shall give you in Latin Cum quibus â—tiam sinc de Baronibus mâ—is qui competenter adesse potâ—â—unt praedicto placito intersuerunt qui terâ—â—s ejusdem Ecclesiae tenent Quibus in â—num congragatis eligantur plures de illis Angliâ— quisciunt quo modo terrae jacebant praefatae Ecclesiae die qua Rex Edwardus obiit quod inde dixerint ibidem jurando testentur From whence we may also gather that this Tryal concerning the Lands which is here ordered was to be in like maâ—ner and by a Jury of the same sort of Englishmen who tryed the cause between Earl Odâ— and Arch bishop Lanfranc that is they were English Gentlemen of sufficient Estates or Tenants in Capite if you please Now. let us look into the time when this happened since the Writ doth not tell us when it was only that it refers to a Plea held concerning the Church of ELy before the Queens last going into Normandy so that this tryal here mentioned could not happen till after the fourteenth year of K. William's Reign which I prove thus this Queen did not come over into England till the year 1068. when the King returned with his Queen out of Normandy after his Coronation at which she was not present after which K. William went not into Normandy till the seventh year of his Reign when he went over and took Mans and then whether he carried the Queen with him is uncertain but the Annals of Waverly tells us he went over again the next year and then he might carry the Queen with him which might be the first time she returned into Normandy but it appears by the same Annals that the King went over the year after and staying but a little while returned into Normandy to fight against his Rebellious Son Prince Robert where staying not long he returned as soon as he had driven his Son out of Normandy nor do we find he went over again till the 14 year of his Reign being the year 1080. and then I suppose since he stayed there for some time he carried the Queen with him and to this last going over I suppose this Writ we have cited refers for tho' the Queen went over again after this yet she returned no more because she died in Normandy in the year 1083. as Iogulph who was then alive relates the use I make of these particulars is this that long after the time you suppose the English to have lost all their Estates we here find a great Jury of Englishmen summoned out of several shires in England to try this great Cause concerning the Lands which the Church of Ely had been unjustly Disseised of so that here you see after the fourteenth year of this King the English still continued to keep their Estates and to serve upon Juries and consequently the Pleadings before them as well as their Verdict must have been in English M. I shall not insist upon this point any farther yet this much you cannot deny but that all the Pleadings and Proceedings at Wâ—stminster as also the old Law books were all in French as appears by the Mirror of Justices Britton not to mention those of latter days as Littleton's Tenures and others and so were
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
during his confinement there sent a Lady I could name on a message to two reverend Prelates of our Church together with an Emrauld Ring from his Finger as a Testimony of the Truth of her Commission to this effect That his Majesty being sensible of the sad condition the Church of England as well as he himself was in and that there was no way so likely for him to get out of it as by granting his Subjects and particularly the Church of England such securities for the enjoyment of their just Rights and Liberties as they could in reason demand therefore he wholly left it to the discretion of those Bishops to make to the Peers and Bishops that were then to meet suddenly whatever proposals they should think reasonable on his behalf for the satisfaction of the Church and safety of the Nation and that he would be ready to grant and ratifie them whensoever he should be required F. This is indeed more than ever I heard before and can scarce believe but did the Lady go and deliver her message And pray what answer did those Bishop give to this fair proposal M. Yes the Lady did deliver her message and these Bishops answer'd both to the same effect that they had a real duty and affection for his Majesty and a great desire to serve him but that considering the great Power of the Prince of Orange and his present aversion to any agreement with his Majesty they very much feared that the Peers would not venture to give the Prince any such advice or to interpose with him on his Majesties behalf which in my opinion was very meanly and cowardly done of them who considering their duty to him as King and also those particular obligations they owed him as their Benefactor and who had been the greatest means of their being raised to those dignities in his Brothers Reign now I desire to know if this message had received its intended effect what greater demonstration his Majesty could have given to satisfie the World that he really intended to set all things right again had he been permitted to do it F. I will not farther question the Truth of this Relation though perhaps I might have sufficient reason for it since you say you had it from a person of good credit and who was privy to this transaction nor yet will I be so inquisitive as to know the names either of the Bishops or of the Lady since you make it a secret but yet notwithstanding I do still very much question whether the King did ever really design to do what he then offer'd and did not intend to put a sham upon their Lordships to serve his present occasion and to see if he could divide the Bishops and Peers of the Church of England from the Prince of Oranges Interest and so by making them offer such Proposals as the Prince should not think fit to agree to might make them declare against his proceedings which would have created great divisions and heart-burnings between those of the high Church of England party and the Prince and thereby have involved us again in fresh disturbances of which no doubt the King and the Popish Faction were like to receive the greatest advantage for you know the old saying divide impera But to let you see that I do not speak without just grounds for my opinion let us examine every circumstance of this matter first if the King had meant really is it likely that he would have trusted a business of that high moment to a Woman When he had then the Lords of Alesbury and Arron besides other Protestant Gentlemen then waiting on him and they were much fitter to be trusted than this Lady let her be whom she will Or can any one believe if the King had meant really that he would not have sent his Proposals in Writing since he very well knew from the Princes Declaration as well as the Bishops Petition and Addresses to him what the whole Nation and the Church of England in particular required at his hands But that he must send a loose and uncertain Message which it was in his power to disown whenever he pleased by saying the foolish Woman mistook his meaning and she also might be so much his Creature as to take the fault wholly upon her self whenever it should serve the Kings turn so to do and therefore I think it was very wisely and honestly done of those reverend Prelets to refuse medling in such a ticklish affair since it is plain by his not making any such proposals to the Prince of Orange himself or the Lords about him that he was not to be made privy to it but rather it should be carried on whether he would or no and without giving him any satisfaction in his particular concern as to the Prince of Wales and lastly I desire you farther to consider whether the King might not hereafter when ever he had power have made void whatever agreements or concessions he should have then granted either to the Church of England or to the Nation by pleading afterwards that they were obtained by decrees whilst he was not sui juris but under the Power of the Prince of Orange I have but one thing more to add which I before omitted which is to make some reply to what you said concerning the mischief that the Mob has done upon Houses Forests and Praks since his Majesty's first departure and therefore granting the matter of Fact that much mischief and spoil has been committed yet I deny that it is more than has been done by the most Arbitrary Kings since the Conquest to this day as you are pleased to affirm for I believe you forget the Thirty Parish Churches and Towns which our Historian tell us your William the Conquerour and his Son Ruâ—us destroyed when they inlarged new Forrests and therein acted contrary to their Oaths like true despotick Tyrants you likewise forget the miserable spoil and waste which King Iohn and Henry the III. made upon the Houses Castles and Estates of the Barons and Gentry of England who opposed them in their unjust and illegal violations of Magna Charta besides other Tyrannical actions of the same kind committed by King Edward and Richard the II. too long here to relate but if these mischiefs were done you speak of who have we to thank for it but the King who stealing away on the sudden without leaving any orders for the Government of the Kingdom all persons in Commission either Civil or Military doubted whether their Commissions were noâ— at an end by the Kings deserting the Government as he did besides you very well know that the Common People were so enraged against the Popish Faction for so many insolent actions they had committed in King Iames's Reign and so many apparent breaches and contempts of all the Laws made against them that you cannot wonder if when they were rid of the fear of the Irish and of King Iames's Army they kept
Act are declared absolutely void yet the said Lord Chief Justice likewise proves that this Clause of Non-obstante is void and he makes this out not only from constant practice in other Statutes of like nature but also from the opinions of Plowden and the said Lord Cook first as to the Statutes there is a Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI. that no man shall be Sheriff for above a year 2. That all Letters Patents made for Years or Lives shall be void 3. That no Non-obstante shall make them good which shews that the Parliament thought the King could otherwise have dispenc'd with this act by a Non obstante there is likewise in this Act a Penalty of 200 l. and the party is also disabled from bearing the Office of Sheriff in any County of England and also every Pardon for such Offence shall be void so that in all respects this Statute answers that of King Charles the II. now in dispute only in this the Penalty to the Prosecutor is higher viz. 500 l. and the disability is not only from holding that Office but any other whatsoever for the future And yet it was resolved by all the Judges of England in the second of Henry the VII in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Kings Power of Dispensing with this Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI. that the Kings Dispensation with that Statute was good and so it hath been held ever since for it is very well known that the King hath not only exercised this Prerogative of Dispensing with this Statute for divers Sheriffs holding more than a year but hath also granted this Office for Life aâ— appears by the same case cited by Plowden in his Commentaries between Grendon and the Bishop of Lincoln where he expresly says That notwithstanding this Statute of Henry the VI. the Kings Grant to the Earl of Northumberland to be Sheriff during Life ought to have a Clause of Non-obstante because of the precise words of the Statute before mentioned and with such a Clause of Non-obstante the Patent to the Earl was good But yet my Lord Cook is more express in his opinion concerning these Dispensations for in his twelfth Report he has these words No act can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseparable to his Person but that he may Dispence with it by a Non-obstante as a Sovereign Power to command any of his Subjects to serve him for the publick Weal and this solely and inseparably is annext to his person and this Royal Power cannot be restrained by any Act of Parliament neither in Thesâ— nor in Hypothesi but that the King by his Royal Prerogative may Dispence with it for upon the commandment of the King and obedience of the Subject do's his Government consist and therefore for this reason he allows this Judgment of all the Justices in England in the second of Henry the VII to have been according to Law that Judg'd the Kings Dispensation with this Statute of Henry the VI. to be good and he also instances in another Statute in the fourth of Henry IV. in which it is ordain'd That no Welshman should be Justice Chamberlain c. nor any other Officer whatsoever in any part of Walts notwithstanding any Patent made to the contrary with Clause of Non-obstante licet sit Wallicus natus and yet without question the King may grant those now Offices to Welshmen with a Non obstante and the said Lord Cook in Calvin's case tells us That the same was resolved by all the Judges of England viz. in 2. of Hen. VII that every Subject is by his natural Allegiance bound to serve and obey his sovereign c. and he then proceeds to recite the Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI. and the opinion of the Judges above mentioned and gives us this reason for it for that the act could not barr the King of the service of his Subject which the Law of Nature did give unto him This is there reported as the sense of all the Judges of England in King Iames his time and therefore since this has been ever the opinion of the Judges and a constant Prerogative exercis'd by the King ever since I desire you would shew me any difference why the Kings Dispensation to a Sheriff should be good for the holding of his Office for above a year norwithstanding the Statute of Henry the VI. and yet a Dispensation for the taking or holding any Office or Command Civil or Military without taking the Oaths and Tests appointed by the 25. of Charles the II. should be declar'd a breach of our Fundamental Laws for I can see no manner of difference between them since their preambles set forth the designs of the Law much to the same purpose viz. That of making the Statute of Henry the VI. is the insupportable damage of the King and his People Perjury Man-slaughter and great Oppression and in the Statute of King Charles the II. the mischiefs recited are of a much less nature viz. for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants and quieting the minds of his Majesties good Subjects So that the Subject of neither of these Acts being Mala in se but only Mala prohibita if the King might Dispence with the one he may certainly do as much with the other for the same reasons Therefore if this be so I need not say much against the second Article in the Declaration of the Convention against the Kings proceedings viz. His committing and prosecuting divers worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed Power for if by the opinion of all or most part of the then Judges the Kings Power of Dispensing with this Statute of King Charles the II. was good it was certainly much more lawful in Dispensing with all other Statutes against Papists and Non-conformists since they are no more than bire Penal Statutes without any Clauses of Non-obstante and though I grant that King Charles's Declaration giving a Toleration to Papists and Dissenters by Dispensing with all the Acts against Masses and Conventicles were declared Illegal by the House of Commons in the year 1672. and that the King to get a good lump of Money did recal that Declaration yet was it never declared by him to be Illegal only that it should not be drawn into consequence for the future and you know an Address or Declaration of the House of Commons alone was never looked upon as a Declaration of Parliament and the opinion of the Judges hath ever been that no Statute or Judgment of Parliament can bar the King of his Lawful Prerogatives of which this of Dispensing with such Penal Laws is one so that it was certainly very undutifully done of the Bishops not only to deny distributing his Majesties Late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience in their several Diocesses but also to have the confidence to give him a Petition wherein they desir'd
void Clause then how came it to be so afterwards pray say what alteration has been made in the Laws of England by Act of Parliament as to this point since the time that these Acts have been made for if not how comes a clause that had force in 23 Henry VI. to have none in a Henry VII could the Twelve Judges in the Exchequer Chamber by giving their Opinions destroy the force of an Act of Parliament M. I do not say they can only I affirm with my Lord Coke and all the Judges That no Act can bind the King from any Prerogative which is inseparable from his Royal Person but he may dispense with it by a new Obstante as a Sovereign power to command any of his Subjects to serve him for the publick-weal Nor can this Royal Power be restrain'd by any Act of Parliament And upon this ground it is that my Lord Coke in the 12th Report from whence I have taken this Conclusion maintains that such Dispensations made by Sheriffs are good and upon the same ground the Dispensation lately granted by the King to Sir Edward Hales and all other Popish Officers and Ministers as well Civil as Military must be also good F. But admit I shew you that there was never any such Judgment in the Exchequer Chamber in the 2 of Henry the VII as my Lord Coke and late Lord Chief-Justice Herbert supposes will it not then follow that all their Arguments that are wholly founded upon this Statute will fall to the ground M. Yes indeed that will be something but how will you prove that can you believe so many learned Judges should be mistaken in this matter and those of your opinion only should make this discovery F. I do not desire you should believe me but your own eyes and therefore look upon the Year Book it self here you see that it is indeed so far true that all the Justices were of opinion that the Grant of the Sheriffdom of the County of Northumberland to the E. of that County for Life was good but do not tell us all the reasons whereon their judgment was grounded tho it seems to have been because the Sheriffdom of that County had been commonly granted for life before this Statute of Henry the VI. was made as appears by these Words in the Year Book Iudgment for it is such a thing as may be well granted for Term of Life or Inheritance as divers Counties have Sheriffs by Inheritance which began by the King 's Grant then was shewn a Resumption I suppose it meant an Act of Resumption of the Sheriffalty as appears by the following Words and then was shewn a Proviso for it Count. de N. and if so the King had a right to grant it only for Life again but none save Radcliff one of the Barons of the Exchequer cites the Statutes of the 28 th and 42 d. of Edw. the III. against Sheriffs holding for above a year but doth not cite this Statute of the 23 d of Hen. the VI. at all nor doth he or any other of the Judges nor the Court ground their Opinion upon any Non-obstantes express'd in the said Acts for if you please to consult them you will find there is no Clause of Non obstante in any of them before the 23 d of Henry the VI. which is not at all mention'd here therefore I wonder how Fitz Herbert in his Abridgment comes to vary so far from the Year Book from whence he must have took it as to make the Judgment to have been grounded upon the Non obstante in that Statute of Henry VI. for none but Radcliff speaks any thing of the Patents being good with a Non-obstante to those Statutes and the Court in all the rest of the Case agree the Patent to be good by reason of the said Proviso in an Act of Resumption and then fall into debates concerning the other point how this Patent was to be understood M. I must confess if this be so as it seems to be prima facie I wonder my Lord Coke and other Learned Lawyers have laid so great a stress upon and drawn so many Arguments from this Judgment of the Judges tho I must needs also tell you that tho only Radcliff insists upon the Non-obstante yet since the rest of the Judges did not contradict him it seems to me that they all concurr'd with him since according to the Proverb Silence often gives consent But this much I suppose you cannot deny but that ever since Henry VIII time at least Sheriffs have been frequently continued for above a year and the Judges have been also dispenced with to go the Circuit in their own County and Welchmen have been commonly made Judges and other Officers in Wales by vertue of the King's Dispensations notwithstanding the particular Clauses of Non-obstante in the Statutes of Richard the II. Henry the IV. and Hen. the VI. by which they are expresly prohibited F. I do not deny what you have now said as to matter of Fact only let me tell you I conceive that the Reason why the King has taken upon him to dispence with those Statutes you mention was because that the Causes for which they were first made have long since ceased For when those Statutes against Judges going the Circuit in their own Counties and Sheriffs holding for above a year were made both the Judges and Sheriffs were found the one by going their Circuits in their own Counties where they had great Interest and Acquaintance to have too much awed the Common-juries and the other by their great Estates and Commands in the Country to have made partial returns of Jurys and also by their long continuance in their Office to have learnt a trade of oppressing the people so when by the stop that was put to those Abuses by these Statutes you have mentioned there was no need of a strict observation of these Laws and also when after the Civil Wars between York and Lancaster and all things became setled under King Henry the VII who was of a Welcâ—â— Family there was then no more need of observing the Statute of Henry the IV. against Welchmens beating Offices especially after the Stat. of the 27th of Henry the VIII when Walâ—s became incorporated with England and had by that Statute a right conferr'd upon it of sending Members to Parliament tho the Parliament might not think fit or at least forgot to repeal them and yet finding that the Kingdom received no prejudice but rather benefit by such Dispensations and not caring to quarrel with their Kings for sometimes using a Prerogative by which they were rather benefited than grieved those Dispensations have ever since passed without any complaint in Parliament which would certainly have been before this time had they sound the same Grievances and Reasons to have still continued for the strict observance of those Laws as there were at first for the making of them tho if they will have my private Opinion
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
by the two former as I have already prov'd for your Conqueror himself being a Bastard had no better Title to the Dutchy of Normandy than his Father's last Will before he went to the Holy Land which was not good without the consents of the Nobility of that Dutchy as appears by the Historians of that time so that the greatest Objection you have to make against King Henry's being elected in a true Common-Council of all England is this that the time was so short between the Death of William Rufus and his Election that it was impossible for all the Parties that had Votes to be there present which is a very bold assertion for how can you or your Doctor tell that at the time when King William was kill'd he might not then have held a great Council at Winchester where he then Lay who might immediately upon his Death chuse his Brother Henry for their King for it is certain the Election was there the Day before his Coronation at London and therefore it is very rashly done to affirm that this Election was not in a Common-Council of the Kingdom when all the Historians and particularly W. Malmesbury tells us the manner of it and the Disputes there were about it viz. that Henry was elected King as soon as King William's Funerals were over Aliquantis tamen ante controversiis inter proceres agitatis c. and H. de Knyghton reciting the cause why Duke Robert was set aside viz. because he had been always contrary and unnatural to the Barons of England therefore quod plenario consensu consilio totius Communitatis Regni ipsum refutaverunt pro Rege omnino recusavâ—â—â—nt Henricum fratrem in Regem erexerunt which plainly shews that it was the opinion of all the Antient Writers out of whom Knyghton took this passage that this election was made by the free consent and in a full Council of all the whole Community of the Kingdom nor does the after claim of Duke Robert to the Crown at all alter the case for the reasons already given as also because the agreement that was made between them that he that surviv'd should succeed the other was never confirm'd or agreed to by the great Council of the Kingdom and therefore those Norman Lords that join'd with Duke Robert here in England are justly taxed by William of Malmesbury and the Saxon Chronicle with Infidelity and Rebellion and though I grant that Mat. Paris or rather Roger of Wendover whom he transcribes seems to condemn King Henry's taking the Crown as unjust and contrary to Right and that he therefore feared the Justice of God eò quod fratri suo primogenito cui jus Regni manifestè competebat temere usurpando injustè nimis abstulcrat yet this author writing about the middle of the Reign of King Henry III. who had succeeded his Father by a pretended right of Inheritance as well as Election it is no wonder if He who writ near a hundred years after this transaction should give his judgment in this matter according to the common opinion and prejudice of that age and must certainly speak by guess for how could he otherwise affirm unless he had been acquainted with that Kings thoughts as he doth in the same place that he felt conscientiam suam in obtentu Regni cauteriatam since no other Writer either of that time or after it does thus blame King Henry for taking the Crown But as for the account you give why Duke Robert never took upon him the Title of King if the Throne had not then been looked upon as vacant because of the agreement which he made with his Brothers by which he parted with his Right for a Pension during his Life is not at all satisfactory for in the first place neither of these agreements were made till above a year after his pretended Title did acrue to him by the Death of his Father and Brother and therefore he ought if he had look'd upon himself as true King to have immediately taken the Title upon him which he never did so likewise the agreement it self makes wholly against your notion of any hereditary succession to the Crown to be then setled since the main clause in both these agreements is that the survivor should be heir to him that died first unless he left Children of his own to succeed him which plainly shews that in the opinion of both those Princes and of the great men that swore on either side to see it observed they knew of no such setled Right of Succession in their Heirs which they themselves could not part with or else this Clause had been wholly in vain since both King William and King Henry's Children were to have succeeded to the Crown of England by vertue of both these agreements before the Sons of Duke Robert had his Son William who was only Earl of Flanders survived him But now if you please you may proceed with your other exceptions against the rest of the Instances I have here given you of the Vacancy of the Throne till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed whom to place therein M. As to what you have said in defence of the Vacancy of the Throne after the death of King Henry I. carries less shew of Reason than what you urged in the former Cases since all Writers agree that this was a manifest Usurpation in Stephen who could pretend no sort of Title to the Crown himself as well as Perjury in the Bishops Lords and great Men of England who having sworn Fealty to King Henry's Daughter Maud in his life-time made Stephen Earl of Blois their King therefore William of Malmsbury and all the Writers of those Times do accuse Stephen of down-right Perjury and Usurpation and likewise relate that he was advanced to the Crown through the power of the Londoners and Citizens of Winchester but yet all these Endeavours had been in vain unless he had been assisted by his Brother Henry Bishop of that City and then the Popes Legate in England and favoured by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Crowned him and yet for all this there was but a very small Faction of the Bishops and Lords who were for his Croonation for W. Malmsbury tells us Coronatus est ergo in Regem Angliae Stephanus tribus Episcopis praesentibus nullis Abbatibus paucissimis Optimatibus And many of the Nobility and great Men of England were so sensible of this that being headed by Robert Earl of Gloucester the Empresses base Brother they raised a War against Stephen which after her coming over hither was
ordered and disposed of all publick Affairs conferr'd Offices and Bishopricks as if they were lawful Kings before your pretended Election or the ceremony of their Coronation and also had Ambassadors sent to them from Foreign Princes as appears from your own Quotation out of Hoveden Of those that were sent by the King of Scots to King Iohn before he was crowned though it is true he there stiles him no more than Duke of Normandy And this also may further appear by that passage I have cited out of the same Author that King Richard had Fealty Sworn to him as King of England by all the Freemen of England before he was Crown'd and you your self acknowledge the same Oath to be taken by the same persons to King Iohn before he came over to take the Crown And Lastly To make it yet plainer that there was no Vacancy or Inter-regnum in all these Successions you have mention'd consult what Chronologer you please or look into the most ancient Tables of the Succession of our Kings of England or into our old Printed Statutes or Law Books and you will still find the Reign of the Suceeding Prince to commence from the Death of his next Predecessor without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between And these I think to be a great deal surer marks of their succeeding to their Royal Dignity by a pretence at least of a right of Inheritance from their Father or Brother rather thau this fancy of yours that you lay so much stress upon That because of their not being stiled Kings by our Historians till their pretended Election and Coronation was over they were not so indeed And I hope this may serve to satisfie this mighty Objection F. I must beg your pardon if I still declare my self not satisfied with your answers for though I grant that if this Argument of the Historians not stiling them Kings had stood single without any thing else to support it that your answers might have signified something But if you please better to consider it you will find that of these Princes taking in William your Conqueror claimed as your self must acknowledge not by any Hereditary right but by the Testament of the deceased Predecessor and if so where was your setled right of Succession by right of Blood Secondly It is likewise as plain that these four were never admitted or acted in England as lawful Kings till those Testaments were confirmed by the Election of the Great Council before whom they declar'd their Rights And till this was done how the Throne could be otherwise than Vacant I cannot for my Life conceive But as for two of them whom you call downright Usurpers viz. Henry the I and King Stephen it is certain they could have no colour of a Title till their Elections and if not till then and that neither your next Heir of the Crown nor yet they themselves took upon them the Title of Kings Was not this a Vacancy of the Throne in the mean time Suppose that time to have been but for the space of three or four days as it was after the death of King William Rufus In the next place pray consider that upon the death of every one of these Princes we do not find the Great Council of the Kingdom which still assembled to Elect the Successor was ever call'd in their names but met by their own Inherent Authority for how could they be summon'd by the King before he took that Title upon him which as your self are forced to acknowledge he never did till after his Coronation Lastly Pray remember farther that whoever was thus Elected and Confirm'd by the Great Council whether he was next Heir by Blood or not was always looked upon as Lawful King and has always passed for such in all our Chronicles and Laws and not those that claimed as the right Heirs by Blood and if this be not sufficient to prove that these Princes had no true and compleat right to the Crown till this Election was past I desire you would shew me my mistake These things premis'd I think it will be very easie to reply to every one of those answers you pretend to have made to my Query Therefore as to your First That they were really Kings before their Election or Coronation because they order'd and dispos'd of all publick affairs I do not deny but that some of them who Succeeded either as Heirs by Testament or by right of Blood might do many publick Acts by reason that they looked upon themselves as Heirs Apparent to the Kingdom and whom the Great Council I grant could not without high Injustice set aside and upon this account they might also receive Ambassadors from Foreign Princes in Affairs relating to Peace or War that they might know how to deal with them or what to expect from them after they were setled in the Throne yet that they sent not to them by the Title of Kings appears by that passage I cited out of Hoveden but I defie you to shew me any one instance that any of these Princes above mention'd ever took upon them to exercise any of those Prerogatives of Sovereign Power such as making War or Peace Enacting Laws Coining of Money before their Election and Coronation which though in some of them was done both at once yet in others it appears plainly to have been at different times and not upon the same day as it happen'd in the case of Henry I. whose Election was at Winchester upon Saturday and his Coronation was not till the next day as also that of Henry the 3 d. whose Election was upon St. Simon and Iude's Day but his Coronation not till the day after But as for your next reply which I grant to have been the strongest you have made that King Richard I. and King Iohn had both of them Homage and Fealty sworn to them as Kings by all the Freemen of England before they were Crowned this were a material argument if it were made out as I think it cannot for in the first place the bare swearing of Homage and Fealty to a Prince doth not make him immediately King though I grant it might give him in that Age a right to be looked upon as Heir Apparent to the Crown thus Henry the I. made all the Lords and Great Men of England to swear Homage and Fealty to Prince William his Son and so after his being drown'd to the Empress Maud his Daughter which was the true reason why she looked upon her self afterwards as Heiress to the Crown so likewise King Stephen a little before his Death at the great Council I have mention'd caus'd all the great men of the Kingdom to Swear Homage and Fealty to Henry Duke of Anjou as his immediate Successour so that you see this swearing of Fealty was in those days often perform'd â—efore the persons that received it were Kings indeed and so I believe it was done in both those instances you now give me for though I
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
Parliament for as to Queen Mary it is plain that at her coming to the Crown she could not be looked upon as Heir by right of blood because by the Statute of the 25 th of Henry the VIII th his Marriage with Queen Catherine her Mother was declar'd unlawful and the Crown setled upon the King and the Heirs of his Body lawfully begotten on Queen Anne Bullen and besides all this she was but Sister by the half blood to King Edward the VI th and so could not inherit as heir to him and though in the first year of her Reign the Parliament t is true took off her illegitimation and repeal'd the Acts of the 25 th and 28 th of Henry VIII whereby she was declar'd illegitimate yet in this the Parliament seems rather to provide for the honour of her descent than as you would have it to declare her Succession to be Inheritance by right of blood because the Statute of the 35 th of Henry the VIII th whereby the Crown was setled upon Prince Edward and the Heirs of his Body the remainder upon the Ladys Mary and Elizabeth and whereby the King had also power given him of disposing the Crown by Letters Patents or by Will was not at all repeal'd and for which a memorable Reason is given in both these Acts least if such Heirs should fail and no provision made in the King's Life who should Rule and Govern this Realm for lack of such Heirs that then this Realm should be destitute of a Lawful Governour whereby it seems plain that the Parliament then esteemed no Heirs to have a Right by Law farther than had been declar'd by these Statutes So likewise for Queen Elizabeth her Title was more apparently by Act of Parliament and that she looked upon her self sufficient to have succeeded by vertue of the limitation of the Statute of the 35 th of Henry the Eighth last mention'd appears in that she never procured her Mothers Marriage to be declared good and consequently her own illegitimation to be taken off so that take it which way you will it is certain that either Queen Mary's or Queen Elizabeths Title must have been only by Act of Parliament since she was born whilst Queen Catherine King Henry's first Wife was living and therefore when the Parliament you mention in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth declar'd that she was Rightly Lawfully and Lineally descended and come of the blood Royal of this Realm yet these words can only be understood of such a lineal and lawful descent as is here declar'd to be so by vertue of this as well as the former Statute and not according to any hereditary descent at Common-Law since it is very well known that as long as the Popes dispensation for King Henrys Marriage with the Princess Catherine his Brothers Wife was allowed for good as it was till the latter end of Henry the VII ths and all the first 25 years of Henry the VIII ths Reign the Princess Mary was looked upon as the only presumptive Heiress of the Crown this I tell you not to invalidate Queen Elizabeths Title but to let you see that Acts of Parliament if they declare that which is apparently false in matter of Law or Fact are not to be credited unless you will give them more power than God himself who cannot as all Divines agree make that to have been done which was never done or that not to have been done which hath once come to pass I come now in the last place to examine the Act of Recognition of King Iames the Firsts Title to the Crown which I will not dispute to have been by right of blood since none of the descendants of King Henry the VII th could have any Title before him for though it is true it was otherwise ordain'd by King Henry the VIII ths Will yet that as you your self show was not only cancell'd in Queen Marys time but was also void in it self for whereas by the Statute of the 35 th of Henry the VIII th there was a power given him to dispose of the Crown either by his Letters Parents or else by his last Will Signed with his Hand yet was this power never legally executed for those that have argued against this Will have told us that he never Sign'd it in his life time but that a stamp of his Name was put thereunto after his decease as most manifestly appeared by open declaration made in Parliament of this matter by the Lord Paget and others that King Henry did never Sign it with his own Hand as was also proved by the Pardon obtain'd for one William Clerke for puting the Stamp unto the said Will after the King was departed So that though I grant that King Iames had a very good Title to the Crown of England by Inheritance yet whether it was from King Henry the VII th alone or from Queen Elizabeth his Wife is not there declar'd only that he was lawfully descended of Lady Margaret Eldest Daughter to King Henry the VII th and Queen Elizabeth his Wife Eldest Daughter of King Edward the IV th and therefore that they are bound both by the Laws of God and Man to Recognize his Majesty as sole Heir of the blood Royal of this Realm all which is so far true if by Gods Law and Mans Law you will thereby understand such Laws as God impowers the King and Parliament to make for otherwise there is no more heed to be taken of this Declaration than that which was made before to Richard the III d which also declared him to have a good Title to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature and the Laws and Customs of this Realm So that I see nothing in all this Act of Recognition that at all contradicts my notion that King Iames's Title is wholly derived from the Act of Settlement made on King Henry the VII th from whom he was lineally descended so that though his Pedigree be also derived from Queen Elizabeth Eldest Daughter to King Edward the IV th yet this was only ex abundanti to show that he had every way a Title to the Crown and if she her self had any Title it was wholly by vertue of those Acts of Parliament of the 39 th of Henry the VI th and 1 st of Edward the IV th which vested the Crown in Richard Duke of York and King Edward the IV th his Son and which last Act first declar'd that the three Henrys of the House of Lancaster were only Kings in deed and not of right for before that time I defie you to show me in all our Histories or Law-books any such distinction In all foregoing times he that was solemnly Annointed and Crown'd King in Deed was also looked upon so to be in point of right and therefore let those Statutes you so much insist upon talk never so much of any Kings being so by any fundamental hereditary right precedent to and independent from
the power of the two Houses of Parliament I am very well satisfied that such a Declaration must be void in it self since I have sufficiently proved that there was no such Law of Succession ever setled by any general Custom or Common Law since it hath been near as often broken as observed and as for any positive or Statute-Law enacting any hereditary right of Succession you do not so much as pretend to show it so that I think I have sufficiently proved the three Propositions I laid down viz. That ever since the time of Edward the First though the Crown has been claim'd by right of blood yet has it not been very often enjoy'd by Princes who had no just pretence to that Title Secondly that the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding that claim placed or at least fixed the Crown upon the heads of those Princes who they very well knew could have no hereditary right to it Thirdly That such Princes have been always taken for lawful Kings all their Laws standing good at this day without any Confirmation by their Successours M. I did not think that you who were so great an admirer of the two Houses of Parliament should now be so much against their power in joyning with the King to declare what the true right of Succession to the Crown is and hath ever been from time beyond memory But I see Acts or Declarations of Parliament signifie nothing with you if they are against your Hypothesis or else you would never go about thus to expose those Acts of Parliament of King Edward the IVth and King Iames the Ist. Whereby they are declared both by the Law of God and Man undoubted Heirs of the Crown And the last Act I cited viz. That of King Iames the Ist. doth sufficiently confute your Notion of a Vacancy of the Throne Where it is expresly declared That immediately upon the decease of Queen Elizabeth the Crown of England with all the Dominions belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and Undoubted Succession descend and come to his Majesty King Iames. So that if there then were no Vacancy of the Throne I cannot see how there could be any such thing now the next Heir to the Crown be He who they will being certainly not so far removed from King Iames the Ist. as himself was from King Henry the VIIth under whom he claimed F. I must still confess my self to have a great veneration for the solemn Declarations of King and Parliament made by any Statute yet not so as to Idolize them or to look upon all their Declarations as infallible I grant indeed that whosoever is by them Declared and Recognized for King or Queen of England is to be acknowledged and obeyed as such by all the Subjects of this Kingdom without farther questioning his Title But if not content with this they will also take upon them to declare that such Kings or Queens have an undoubted Hereditary Right by the Laws of God and Nature When I plainly find from the Holy Scriptures as well as the History of matter of Fact and the knowledge of our Laws that they have no other Tiâ—le than what the Laws of the Land have conferred upon them and therefore you your self cannot deny but that it was gross flattery in the two Houses of Parliament to declare that Richard the IIId for-example had a true and undoubted Right to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature and also by the Laws and Customs of this Realm when you know he was a notorious Usurper upon the Rights of his Brother King Edward's Children now how can I be assur'd that the like Declaration made to Kâ—ng Iames the I. was not lâ—kewise a piece of Courtship of the Representative of the Kingdom to this King then newly setled in his Throne since we find the People of this Nation when they are in a kind fit never think they can say or do too much for their Princes and therefore I must freely tell you that it is not the bare Declaration of a Parliament that this or that has been always the Law or Custom of this Realm when we can find from History that it has never been so held for above four hundred years at least and therefore not beyond the memory of Man as you suppose since that must be before the Reign of Richard the First as I have already proved to you at our Eighth Meeting But to answer your Objection against the vacancy of the Throne I do freely grant that aâ— often â—s the Crown descends by lineal Succession there can be no vacancy of the Throne as it did in the Case of King Iames the First yet doth it not therefore follow that there can never be any such Vacancy in any Case whatsoever since certainly it may so happen that all the Heirs Male of the Blood-Royal may fail as it happen'd in the Case of Scotland when Iohn Balioll and Robert Bruce contended for the Crown which not being to be decided by the Estates of the Kingdom they were forced to referr it to our King Edward the First and as also happen'd in France when Philip of Valois and our Edward the III d both claim'd the Crown which was decided by a great Assembly of the Estates of France in the favour of the former who claim'd as Heir of the Male Line against King Edward who was descended by a Woman and if King Iames's Abdication or Forfeiture call it which you will is good pray give me a sufficient Reason why the Convention of the Estates of England should not have as much Authority as those of France or Scotland this being as much or more a limited Kingdom thau either of the other ever were M. I do not deny that but pray shew me any sufficient Reason why the Convention should now Vote a Vacancy of the Throne since there was certainly an Heir Apparent not long since in England and I hope is now safe in France who ought to fill it or at least there should have been some sufficient cause alledged against him to prove that he was not true Son either of the King or Queen and till this was done they could not with any Right or good Conscience place any other Relation of his in the Throne since every Person ought to be esteem'd the Son of that Father and Mother that publickly own him for such for it is a Maxim in our as well as your Law Filiatio non potest probari F. How this could be performed without first declaring the Throne vacant I cannot apprehend for you your self must grant that there have been great doubts and suspitions of the Realty of this Prince of Wales and therefore that being one great reason of the Prince of Orange's coming over The truth of this Child whether he was really born of the of the body of the Q. is first to be examin'd and determin'd before he can be declar'd K. of England in the
the Prince of Wales to have been either dead or justly laid aside now make it out to me how you can justifie the placing the Prince and Princess of Orange in the Throne when the Crown is really her right after the Prince of Wales and not her Husbands as also the putting the Government solely into his hands since this can no ways agree with the Act of Recognition to King Iames the First which you your self cannot deny but ought to be observed when it may be done without any apparent hazard or prejudice to the Protestant Religion and the Constitution of our Government which I think might have been as well if not better secured by letting it have gone in the right Line that by placing the Crown upon the Head of a Prince who though it is true is of the Blood-Royal by his Mother yet being a Foreigner is a meer Stranger to our Government and Laws and has been bred up in Calvinistical Principles and upon that score is not like to have any good intentions towards the Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England as appears by his late agreeing to abolish Episcopacy in Scotland upon his accepting that Crown from the Presbyterian Convention F. If these be all the objections you have to make against placing King William and Queen Mary in the Throne I hope they will not be of any great moment to your self or any other considerate man for if that upon the Abdication of King Iames and the impossibity of determining your Prince of Wales's Title if it be one a Regency was impracticable and unsafe for the Nation at this conjuncture of time when we want a King to hold a Parliament as well to raise Money to defend us against the Power of France as also to make new Laws for the ease and reformation of the Kingdom all which a Regents acting without Royal Authority could never do by the constitution of this Kingdom so that if there was now a necessity of placing some body in the Throne for the Common Good and Safety of the whole Common-Wealth I think you your self cannot but acknowledge that the Princess of Orange had an Hereditary right to the Crown and if her Highness had the Prince her Husband also ought to Govern the Kingdom in her Right during her life and those who deny King Henry the VIIth to be Lawful King before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth will yet grant he was so in her Right after his Marriage and this has not been only the Custom in England but also in other Kingdoms of Europe as I can give you several Instances For upon this ground it was that Ferdinand King of Arragon by Marrying with Isabella Queen of Castile Governed that Kingdom during his Life so also Anthony Duke of Bourbon marrying with Iane Queen of Navarre did in her Right administer the Government of that part of it which was left unconquer'd by the Spaniards and here at home Philip Prince of Spain by his Marriage with Queen Mary had certainly in her Right Govern'd this Kingdom and had enjoyed something more than the bare Title of King had he not by the Articles of Marriage confirm'd by Act of Parliament been expresly debar'd from it M. Admit all this to be true yet this was only the enjoyment of a bare Matrimonial Crown and held no longer than during the Lives or Marriage with those Queens you mention But pray tell me how can the Convention according to the antient constitution of this Kingdom justifie the settlement of the Crown not only on King William during the Queens Life But for his own Life also to the prejudice not only of his own Issue if ever he have any by the Princess but also of the Princess of Denmark and her Heirs F. I doubt not but to shew you that this may be easily justified by the constitution of the Kingdom and former Precedents of what hath been done in the like cases First as to the Constitution I have already proved that upon the deposition of a King which is all one with a Forfeiture of the Crown the Great Council or Parliament hath taken upon them to Elect or Admit either the next Heir by Blood or some Prince tho' more remote of the Royal Family to the Crown thus King Henry the IVth upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Richard the Ild. was placed in the Throne by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury after the two Houses had Voted and consented he should Reign over them though I grant that by right of Blood Edmund Earl of March ought to have succeeded to it but he being then a Child was passed by unmention'd Duke Henry being then powerful and having deliver'd the Kingdom from the Tyranny and Evil Government of Richard the â—Id I shall pass by Richard the IIId because I own his Government to have begun by Unsurpation and to have been established by the Murther of his Nephews But as for Henry the VIIth I have already shew'd you that the Parliament before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth setled the Crown upon him and the Heirs of his Body by vertue of which he held it all his Reign whereas there is no such thing done in the present case of King William since he hath only the Crown setled upon him during his own Life with the remainder after his decease without Issue by the Queen to her and not his Right Heirs and as for such Children as he may have by her it is agreeable to reason that he should hold the Crown by that which we call the Courtesie of England during his Life and not from a King to become a Subject to his own Children in case he should desire to live here after her Majesties decease which I hope God will prevent M. I confess you have drest up a pretty plausible Title for King William but yet all that you have said amounts to no more than this that because other Kings have been Usurpers he may be so too for as to all the instances you have brought they have been only from depositions or manifest usurpations both which our Laws have condemned as absolutely unlawful as I have shew'd you hath been declar'd by two Acts of Parliament against the Title of Henry the IVth and his Descendents but since you will not insist upon the right of Richard the IIId I pass to that Act of Henry the VIIth which as I told you before so I must repeat it again that it was done upon his supposed Right by Blood as Heir to the House of Lancaster and upon that pretence he claimed the Crown as his Right in his Speech to the first Parliament he called besides the Princess Elizabeth the Queen de Iure made no claim to the Crown and so did tacitly resign it which seemed to make him de Iure as well as de Facto King and if it were done otherwise I look upon that whole Act as void in it self because made by him
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
should be so for it is not meerly a legal Title by descent but a legal investitute and recognition by Parliament that makes a legal King or a King in Law as it makes a legal Magistrate and then all Kings de facto who are placed in the Throne by a Legal Authority and with all Legal and acustomed Ceremonies are legal Kings and as such may require a legal Allegiance so that all those hard words in the Statute of the first of Edward the IVth that call those Kings of the House of Lancaster Kings in Deed and not of Right or pretended Kings mean no more than this that they were Kings for the time being and according to the Laws which had made them so though not according to that hereditary Right of Succession which those Statutes require If you have any thing to reply to this tell me or else I will proceed to answer your two other Arguments M. I will not at present say more to this than I have done and therefore you may proceed if you please F. Your two next Arguments are from the attainders of Richard the IIId and his principle Assistants which were by Act of Parliament as to that Prince himself as also his adherents the attainders of Kings de facto and their Assistants in after Parliaments do not prove that Subjects cannot be guilty of Treason against a King in possession nor does the Statute of Treason relate to a King de jure only for that Statute was not made to secure Princes Titles but the quiet of their Government whilst they sate upon the Throne for though a King if he be an Usurper when ever the Rightful King regains the Possession of his Throne if he were a Subject before may be attainted of Treason for his Usurpation as was Richard the IIId for Treason against his own Nephew King Edward the Vth yet this does no way prove that Richard the IIId was no true King during his Usurpation but only shews the Parliaments abhorrence of his Treason and to deterr others from falling into the like attainted him and several of his Accomplices who had assisted him in his said Usurpation for that they were not barely attainted for defending King Richard's Title appears from this that the Earl of Surrey Son to the Duke of Norfolk and divers other Noblemen and Gentlemen who fought for King Richard at Bosworth-Field were never attainted at all But as for the Pardon that you say passed in that Parliament of the 1 st of Henry the VIIth you are very much mistaken in the purport of it for if you please to look upon it again you will find that it was not a General Pardon for the Common People who had fought on the behalf of Richard the Third but of all those who had come over with Henry the VIIth himself or who were with him in the Field against Richard the Third for all manner of Murthers Spoils and Trespasses committed by them in taking part with King Henry against his Enemies so that you see the assisting of a King de facto was not only justifiable but those that had fought against him thought themselves not safe till they had their Pardons Nay farther that Attainders passed in Parliament are no proof that the Princes against whom they were passed were not lawful Kings appears from hence that when Edward the Fourth was driven out of the Kingdom and dispossessed of the Throne the next Parliament under Henry the Sixth passed an Act of Attainder against him and his Adherents But as for the Attainder of Henry the Sixth you are very much mistaken to suppose that it was for any Treason committed against Edward the Fourth but it was for breach of the agreement made with his Father the Duke of York and in making War again upon him for had he not done this he had continued lawful King during his life by the Duke of Yorks own consent for in the Parliament Roll you your self have already cited it is thus expressed That considering the possession of the said King Henry the Sixth and that he had before this time been named taken and reputed King of England and France and Lord of Ireland the said Duke is content agreeth and consenteth that he be had reputed and taken for King of England and of France with the Royal Estate Dignity and Preheminence belonging thereto and Lord of Ireland during his life natural and for that time the said Duke without hurt or prejudice of his said Right and Title shall take worship and honour him for his Sovereign Lord So that you see that by the Judgement of the Parliament and by the express consent of the Right Heir of the Crown a King de facto was to be own'd by this Right Heir for his true and lawful Sovereign and therefore could not be attainted for detaining the Crown from him or his Son M. I will not dispute this point any further but yet methinks though Treason might be comitted against the King de facto whilst he continues King yet this is not for any Allegiance due to him but because such Treason being against the due order of Government and the common peace of the Nation such actions are therefore Treason from the presumed or tacit consent of the King de jure F. I grant indeed that such Acts are against the Order of Government and very destructive to it which is the only reason why they are made Treason by Law and this is as good a reason why the Law should make them Treason against a King de facto as against a King de jure for they ere equally against the order of Government and destructive to it whoever is King and that is the only reason why they made it Treason at all Now this presumed or tacit consent of the King de jure is a very pretty notion and serves you for a great many good turns it makes Laws and it makes Treason and gives Authority to the unauthoritative Acts of a King de facto that is to say or you say nothing that the presumed consent of a King de jure invests the King de facto at the time with his Authority for if he have no Authority of his own unless what the presumed consent of the King de jure give him that cannot make any Treasonable Act done against him to be Treason for it cannot alter the nature of things nor make a Man guilty of Treason against any person to whom he ows no duty of Allegiance And if the presumed consent of the King de jure can invest the King de facto with his Authority it must transfer the Allegiance of the Subjects too and then Subjects are as safe in Conscience as if the King de jure were on the Throne for it seems there is his Authority and tacit consent though not his person But indeed this is all meer trifling the King de facto has Authority or else none of his Acts
p. 539.540 King how far Gods Lieutenant D. 9. p. 663. W. His Authority is different from his Personal Will and Commands Ib. p. 645. to 648. His Person how far Sacred and Inviolable Ibid. p. 638.651 to 657. Kings Commission how far and in what cases resistible notwithstanding the Declarations of of the two first Parliaments of King Charles the Second Ib. p. 636. to 655. W. He hath any Authority to act against Law Ib. p. 644 to 649. Kings Commissions how far good in Law Ib. p. 640. Kings since the Conquest W. endued with the sole Legislative Power D. 5. p. 338 to 345. D. 9. p. 650 651. hath no Peer or Equal in the Kingdom D. 5. p. 354. His presence W. it will authorize all illegal actions so as to render them irresistible D. 9. p. 653 654. His Officers in what case resistible Ib. The Kings being irresistible how far different from being unaccountable D. 9. p. 644 645. Kings of England W. absolute and unaccountable or W. limited by Law D. 10. p. 693 to 698. Most High in their State-Royal when they appear in their Great Councils or Parliament D. 9. p. 643. The first Eight Kings after the Conquest never were so stiled till after their Coronations D. 12. p. 840. to 858.895 King though he have no Peer yet he had anciently Comites or Companions D. 5. p. 364 365. W. He can at this day abdicate or forfeit his Crown by the wilful violation of our fundamental Laws D. 10. p. 694 to 709. D. 11. p. 832 833. Kingly Power the end of its Institution in this Kingdom D. 5. p. 349. King de facto or for the time being W. within the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third and whether Allegiance be due to him by the Statute of the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh D. 13. p. 905. to 940. What constitutes a legal King in England D. 12. p. 889 890. Kingdoms of Judah and Israel W. when given by Gods appointment it gave the issue of that King a like Divine Right to succeed D. 2. p. 99 100. Kingdoms Patrimonial and Hereditary their difference Ib. 84 85. Knights of Shires frequently stiled Magnates and Grantz in Ancient Records D. 6. p. 424. vid. Append. W. They were anciently chosen out of the Tenants in Capite and none others p. 425. Knights Citizens and Burgesses W. the first Writs of Summons of them that can be found is the 49th of Henry the Third D. 7. p. 519. W. This was the first time that they were summoned Ibid. p. 525 to 530. W. They were summoned no more till the Eighteenth of Edward the First Ibid. p. 522. to the end D. 8. p. 559. to 563. p. 571 to 576. L Lancaster W. that Families pretended Title to the Crown claim'd by Inheritance D. 12. p. 861 862. Laws how far they oblige Princes according to Sir R. F's Principles D. 2. p. 120 121. Laws Imperial of all Goâ—vernments W. they require a Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance in all cases whatsoever D. 3. p. 149.154 Law of Nations W. it differs from the Law of Nature D. 1. p. 26 to 31. Laws of English Saxon Councils the Titles to most of them D. 5. p. 314. to 319. Laws of Normandy W. the same in most things with those of England D. 10. p. 752.753 Laws fundamental of the Kingdom W. there are any such things and where to be found D. 9. p. 666. to 669. D. 10. p. 704. D. 11. p. 810. to 814. Law of Edward the Confessour concerning the Kings ceasing to be so if he prove a Tyrant and W. it be genuine or not D. 10. p. 705. to 712. Private League with France what Reasons there are for and against its reality D. 11. p. 800. to 802. Liberi Homines and Liberi Tenentes mentioned in Ancient Statutes and Records who they were anciently D. 6. p. 419.426 to 431. W. They were only Tenants in Capite or chose by Military service to them D. 7. p. 449. to 453.514 M Magna Charta W. obtained by Rebellion D. 3. p. 186. Magnates W. the Commons were not sometimes comprehended under that Title D. 6. p. 372.396 397. Queen Mary W. she had any Title save by the Statute of Henry the Eighth D. 12. p. 872. Our present Queen Mary W. she hath a right to succeed upon her Fathers abdication Ib. p. 853. 884. Maud the Empress why she never stiled her self Queen of England notwithstanding fealty had been sworn to her D. 12. p. 846. Several Maxims in the Civil Law considered and explained D. 1. p. 17 18 21.30 The ancient Members of the German Diets or Great Councils D. 6. p. 375. The Milites mentioned in ancient Statutes and Records who they were D. 6. p. 431 432. W. They were only Tenants in Capite or any other Tenants by Military or Socage service D. 7. p. 481.489 490. Mischiefs that may befall a People from their resistance of the Supream Power considered D. 3. p. 184. to 189. Monarchy W. of Divine Right from any Precepts or Examples in the Old or New Testament D. 2. p. 130 131. Or from Adams Patriarchical Power D. 1. p. 19. to 26. Monarchies or Commonwealths which are most Tyrannical D. 2. p. 110.111 Mixt Monarchy W. it be a Contradiction D. 5. p. 345. to 348. Sim. Montfort W. he first called the Knights Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament in the 49th of Henry the Third D. 8. p. 596.597 Moses and Joshua W. Monarchs over the Children of Israel and Successors to the Patriarchical Power D. 2. p. 92. to 100. Multitudo Cleri Populi the signification of those words in our ancient Histories D. 8. p. 569. to 571. N W. A whole Nation may resist the Supream Power in some Cases of extremity but not particular Persons D. 3. p. 146. to 150.161 162. D. 4. p. 236. to 239.272 to 275. Negative voice W. the two Houses of Parliament have it not in some Cases as well as the King D. 5. p. 341. Noah W. he was sole Proprietor of the Earth or else was Tenant in common with his own Children D. 1. p. 74 75. W. His Grandsons were all alike Princes over their several Families Ib. p. 75. to 81. W. from Noahs Seven Precepts may be deduced the Law of Nature D. 1. p. 36 37. Nobilis Nobilitas the several significations of those Titles D. 6. p. 374 388.410 W. Meer Commoners were not often comprehended under the Title of Nobiles Ib. 396 397. Non Obstantes the Clause when first inserted in our Kings Charters D. 11. p. 820. Non Resistance W. the Doctrine tend to make Princes better or else more Tyrannical to their Subjects D. 2. p. 116 117. Normandy W. its Dukes were absolute or limited Princes D. 10. p. 727. O Oath of the King at his Coronation how far obliged according to Sir F's Principles D. 2. p. 122.123 It s ancient form according to the Mirour D. 5.364 W. The taking the Coronation Oath renders the Crown forfeitable if it
Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any Pretence whatsoever is at least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God And tho' they do not invade but only resist St. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves Damnation From which you may plainly see that this Convocation which consisted of as great Men as I think had been for divers Ages do clearly maintain Monarchy to be of Divine Right and Resistance to be in no Case lawful F. I should grant the Canons of this Convocation to be a good Proof of the Iudgment of the Church of England were it not for two very good Reasons I have against them The one I will tell you presently and the other I will keep a while to my self In the first place therefore I suppose you cannot but very well know that this Convocation sate and passed these Canons which likewise received the King's Confirmation after the Parliament that was summoned together with this Convocation was dissolved And I suppose you know that by the Law of England the Convocation having from all times been looked upon as an Appendix to the Parliament was till then always dissolved with it For which Reason all Acts and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned and declared null and void by the Long Parliament that began to fit the latter End of the same Year And which is more was likewise condemned by the first Parliament after the Restauration of King Charles the second And therefore I think I have very little Reason to own thâ—se Canons as Conclusive M. In the first place I might reply to what you have now said that that very Parliament which first condemned these Canons afterwards ruined the Monarchy it self In the next place that in old time the General or Provincial Synods were not Dependant upon the Assembly of the States at the same time And I likewise farther Answer that these Canons were made and confirmed in a full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury and York and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King which was all that was of old required in such Cases and tho' the Convocation sate after the Dissolution of the Parliament yet this is not without President even in the Happy Days of Queen Elizabeth not to look back unto Henry the eighth or the Primitive times And as for your Objection that these Canons were reprobated since the Restitution of Charles the II. I say that I quote them not as Law but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time F. Your first Answer in behalf of these Canons is altogether Invidious For it was not this Parliament that ruâ—ned the Monarchy but only the Rump or Fag end of it after it had suffered divers Violences and Exclusions of Members by the Army and that the House of Lords being by this Iunto voted useless and dangerous were shut out of doors nor is your second Answer any more true for antiently in the Saxons time the Wittena Gemot or Great Counsel and the General Synod made one and the same Assembly consisting both of Clergy-men and Lay men and then all matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline were enacted and confirmed by the King as also the Spiritual as well as Temporal States Nor can you shew me an Example of any General or Provincial Synod which met independently and without the States of the Realm until after the Reign of Henry the first when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority as also upon our Civil Rights and by his Legaâ—s to call Synods and make Ecclesiastical Constitutions in which neither the King nor the States of the Kingdom had any thing to do And tho' I grant that upon the Reformation the King was restor'd to those Rights as Supream Governour of the Church which the Pope had before usurped yet is not this Act of the Supremacy to be so understood as to give the King all that Power which the Pope unjustly took upon him to execute before for that had been to make their Case no better than 〈◊〉 was before and therefore this Act of the Supremacy being only an Act of Restoration of the King to his Pristine Rights of which that of Calling Synods and Convocations was one of the Principal the King could not call nor continue those Assemblies in any other form or after any other manner than they were held before the Popes Usurpation in taking upon him to call such Independant Synods and notwithstanding what you tell me I am confident you cannot shew me any Precedent of a Convocation so turned into a Synod as this was in all the Reigns of Henry the eighth and Queen Elizabeth But as for your last reply that you quote not these Canons for a Law that obliges the Church but as the Sense of the Church of England at that time if they do not now oblige the Church neither in Point of Belief nor Practice as you may seem to grant it signifieth no more to me what was the Sense of the greatest part of the Members of that Convocation in this matter nor doth it any more shew me what is the true Doctrine of the Church of England than if I should tell you that because in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Major part of the Bishops and Clergy of our Church were rigid Calvinists in the Interpretation of that Article about Predestination that therefore Calvinism was then the Doctrine of the Church of England but is not so now And therefore we ought not to take that for a Doctrine of any National Church unless the Synod or Assembly that declares such Doctrine be solemnly and Lawfully assembled according to the Laws and Customs of that Nation or Country wherein they are so declared M. Since you so much contest the Authority of these Canons I shall no longer insist upon them but I shall here shew you out of the Books of Homilies to which all the Clergy in England are bound to subscribe by Act of Parliament as well as to the Articles and Canons as containing wholesome Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God so that these Homilies do indeed thereby become a part of the known Laws of the Land that in these very Homilies there are divers passages so very full and Plain against all Resistance of the Sovereign Powers for any Cause whatsoever that if you are a true Church of England Man as I hope you are you can have no just Reason to deny their Authority The Homily or Exhortation to Obedience was made An. 1547. in the Reign of King Edward the sixth in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience we are told in these Words which I desire you to read along with me That it is the Calling of God's People to be patient and on the suffering side
the Aldermen or Burgesses of Towns Represent those which we now call the Commons And supposing that then there were no Knights of Shires yet these being then the only Proprietors of any considerable Estates of Land in the Nation might very well represent all their Vâ—ssals or Vnder-Tenents as Tenents for years and at Will are at this day by the Knights of Shires tho they have no Votes at their Elâ—ction To conclude tho I grant that the King 's of England are the Fountain of that Honour which we call Peerage Yet it is only in Pursuance of that Ancient Constitution which their Ancestors brought out of Old Saxony and Normandy along with them as the firmest defence of Kingly Power against the Insolency and Encroachments of the Common or Meaner sort of People as well as Tyranny in their Princes And therefore in all Monarchies where there is no Hereditary Nobility the Prince hath no surer â—ay to maintain his Power than by Standing Armies to whose Humours and Pactions he is more Subject and is also more liable to be Murdered or Deposed by them when discontented with him than ever any limited Prince yet was or can be by his Nobility or People As I could shew you from a multitude of Examples not only from the Roman but Moorish Arabick and Turkish Histories and therefore to constitute a lasting stable limited Monarchy as ours is it must be according to the Model I have here Proposed M. I shall not contradict the latter part of your Discourse but I must freely tell you that if as you your self grant there were no Knights of Shires in the Saxon times I cannot see how those we call the vulgar or Commons of England had then any Representatives in the Great Council since those Thanes or Lords of Mannors whom you suppose to have Represented their Tenants or Vassals were never chosen by them and consequently could not properly be their Representatives But I think it will be easy enough to prove that none of your Inferior or middle Thanes but only the Chiâ—f or Superior had places in those Assemblies So that these Feudal Thanes or such as held of the King in Chief by Military Service were of the sam Kind with them that were after the Norman times Honorary or Parliamentary Barons and their Thainlands alone were the Honorary Thainlands and such as were afterwards Parliamentary Baronies Nor can I find any Footsteps in our Ancient English Histories of Cities and Buroughs sending any Representatives to those Great Councils So that admit I should own at present that the Bishops and some Great Abbots had from the first Setling of Christianity in this Island an Indisputable place in the Great Councils and likewise that the Earls Aldermen or Great Nobility had also Votes in those Assemblies and that the Chief Thanes or less Nobles had also their places there by reason of the Tenure of their Estates yet certainly the House of Commons was of a much later Date and owed its being either to the Grace and Favour of our Kings of the Norman Race or else to those that had Vsurp't their Power And this I think Dr. Brady hath very well proved against Mr. Petyt and I think I could convince you also of the Truth of it by his as well as other Arguments were it not now too late to enter upon so long a Subject F. Therefore pray let us defer any further Discourse of this Question till the next time we meet wherein I hope I may shew you that if you owe that Opinion to the Doctors Arguments he hath led you into a very gross mistake And I shall only at present take my leave of you and bid you good night M. I wish you the like ADVERTISEMENT A Brief Discourse of the Law of Nature according to the Principles and Method laid down in the Reverend Dr. Cumberland's now Lord Bishop of Peterborough's Latin Treatise on that Subject As also his Confutations of Mr. Hobb's Principles put into another Method With the Right Reverend Author's Approbation FINIS Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER The Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Ancient and Modern Dialogue the Sixth LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth and Fifth Dialogues 1693. Authors made use of and how denoted 1. Mr. Pettit's Ancient Right of the Commons of England Asserted P.R.C. 2. Dr. Brady's Answer thereunto Edit in Folio B. A. P. 3. The said Doctor 's Glossary at the end of it B. G. 4. Anamadversions upon Treatise Ianii Anglorum forces novo B. A. I. 5. The Author of Ianus c. his Confutation of the said Doctor entituled Ianus Anglorum ab Antique I. A. A. 6. Dr. Brady's Preface to his History B. P. H. 7. Dr. Iohnston's Excellency of Monarchical Government I. E. M. G. THE PREFACE TO THE READER HAving in my last Discourse treated of the Legislative Power of this Kingdom as also the Ancient Constitution of our English Government by great Councils or Parliaments the former of which questions I should scarce have dwelt so long upon had I then known of a Learned Treatise now 〈◊〉 to be publisht on that Subject I am at last arrived at the hardest and most important though perhaps in the Iudgment of some the driest and most unpleasant part of my Task viz. Who were anciently the constituent Parts or Orders of Men who made up thâ—se Assemblies That the Bishops Abbots Priors Earls and Chief Thanes or Barons were Principal Members is granted by all Parties but whether there were from the very Original of these Great Councils nay till long after the coming in of the Normans any Representatives for the Commons as we now call them in distinction from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is a doubt which as it was for ought I can find first raised by an Italian who writ the History of England in the last Age so hath it been continued by some Antiquaries of our present Age though the first that ever appeared to prove the contrary was a Treatise published by James Howel in the Cottoni Posthuma under the Name of Sir Robert Cotton about 1654. but whether it was his or no I know not only it was supposed to be so by Mr. Pryn in his Preface to the Collection of Records which he published under the Name of the same Author in 1657. and after him this Notion of the Bishops Lords and other Tenants in Capite being the Sole Representative for the whole Nation in those Councils was next printed in the Second part of Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Tit. Parliamentum where King John's Charter is made use of at the main Argument to prove that Assertion The next who appear'd in Prâ—nt on
this Question was Sir Will. Dugdale in his Origines Juridiciales who though he Transcribed the same Notion and Arguments from the 〈◊〉 mentioned Glossary yet allows the Commons of England to have been always after some manner represented in Parliament though not by Representatives of their own chusing yet agrees with the Author of the passage in the Glossary that the Commons first began by Râ—bâ—llion in the 49th of Henry the Third Which Opinions being looke upon not only as Novel and Erronâ—ous but dangerous to the Parlamental Rights and Liberties of the People of this Nation were opposed by William Petyt Esq in his Treatise intituled The Rights of the Commons of England assertio which was also seconded by the Author of the Treatise called Jani Anglorum facies Nova but it was not long before both these Books were animadverted upon by Dr. Brady in two several Editions of his Answers to them and these were again vindicated by the Author of Jani Anglorum c. in another Treatise intituled Jus Anglorum ab Antiquo which hath not been yet answered I have been the more particular in giving an account of these Authors because the Controversie having been largely debated in them I have for the saving your trouble of reading so many several Books reduced all the material Arguments and Authorities man use of by both Parties in this weighty Controversie into this Dialogue and the next since so copious an Argument could not be dispatch'd in a less compasâ— And 〈◊〉 have not here given you all the Arguments and Authorities that are there made use of but only the most material and indisputable yet I hope I have used this Liberty with that sincerity and respect to those Learned Authors that none of them shall have any just caâ—â—t to complain of any Partiality And therefore I have as near as I could confined my self to the Words of those Authors as you will find by the Quotations in the Margin But I must own that having had the happiness of a long and familiar acquaintance with Mr. Petyt I have been furnished by him with divers Authorities both Manusâ—â—â—p and Printed not hitherto taken notice of by any on this Subject And had I the like opportunity of being personally known to the Dr I should have desired the same favour of 〈◊〉 for such Replies as he might perhaps make to them Therefore all I can now do in this Case is that if the Dr. or any Friend of his shall think it worth their while to peruse and impartially to consider these Discourses and shall then remain unsatisfied with any of the Authorities or Arguments here made use of if either he or they shall think fiâ— to mâ—â—â— any Observations on them and will communicate their Papers to the Publisher of these Dialogues I do here ingage to take care that they shall be fairly and truly published with Answers to them if they will admit of any in an Appendix at the end of the whole Work when it is finished I have little more to trouble you with than to assure you That all the Authorities here made use of from our English Historians and Records are truly cited without leaving out or concealing any thing that I thought made for or against either Opinion but as for the Records they are either such as having been sufficiently tried have passed for current between the Dr and his Antagonists or else such as I have seen and examined with my own Eyes and considered the purport of them But I hope you will pardon me if I seem too prolix in the beginning of this Disâ—â—â—se in the interpretation of divers Words and Phrases used by the Dr. and his Opponents in a quite different sense from our Ancient Historians Records and Statutes for if the â—â—â—ous use and equivocal meaning of those Expressions be truly stated and laid open according to the several Ages in which those Authors lived or such Laws were made I reckâ—â— this great Dispute as good as half ended All that I shall farther desire of you is carefully and diligently to peruse the Arguments and Authorities and to examine the truth of them your self if you doubt of any thing in them weighing and comparing Historian with Historian and Record with Record and sometimes both together as the Subject-Matter requires and then I kept you will be able to make a right and impartial Iudgment on the 〈◊〉 For as I have 〈◊〉 in my Province fairly to report other mens Arguments and Notions so it is yours to judge of them which I heartily desire may be without any unjust Byass or Partiality to 〈◊〉 Side THE Sixth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian M. SIR You are welcome and since you were pleased to send me word that you would come and sit with me this Evening I have been looking over all the Saxon Councils collected by Mr. Lambard and Sir H. Spelman and yet I cannot find in them any mention of Knights of Shires or Burgesses for Cities or Burroughs the only persons there mentioned as Members of those Great Councils being Archbishops Bishops Abbots and Great Lords and Iudges often called by the general 〈◊〉 Names of Magnates Principes Proceres Optimates or Primates Regni which were all comprehended under the Saxon Word VVites i. e. 〈◊〉 by whom as Sir H. Spelman shews us in his Glossary 〈◊〉 meant only Senators or Wise-men that is either Noblemen 〈◊〉 Great Lawyers VVite in Somner's Saxon Dictionary being first â—â—endred Optimas a Noble Man and then Sapiens a Wise-man So 〈◊〉 these VVites or Sapientes so often mentioned in our Ancient 〈◊〉 Laws when they are put alone signifie all the Ecclesiastic 〈◊〉 well as Lay-Members of the great Council such as Earls Alâ—â—â—men and Thanes and Judges as Dr. B. more particularly proves in his Glossary 〈◊〉 the end of his first Volume But by Principes and Optimates can only be meant Nobles or Chief Men as the Word Princeps Magnas and Optimas do alâ—â—ys signifie in the Latin Tongue That is to say such of the King 's great Officers Noblemen and Judges of the Kingdom as he pleased to chuse out and 〈◊〉 to his Great Councils either for their great Wisdom or Estates to make 〈◊〉 of their Advice and Assistance for the making of Laws Therefore pray shew me where there are any Commons once mentioned in any of these Councils or any that represented them Here are indeed particularly mentioned Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots Aldermen Wites Great-men and Chief-men or Noblemen These were all the Orders of men that were then the constituent 〈◊〉 of those Great Councils Wittena-Gemotes And if the Commons as now taken and understood were then Members of them they must be comprehended amongst the Wites or Sapientes the Wise-men But that it cannot probably be so I shall prove 1. That most of the Saxon Laws in their Prefaces are said to be made and ordained by their Kings
but to shew you that for above an hundred years after that time none but the Bishops Abbots Earls Barons or Tenants in Capite were summoned by the Great Council or Parliament till the time I have so often mentioned F. I see you do all you can to perplex very plain and evident Proofs For as to the Queens being often present at the Great Councils of those times it is no more than what was usual in these Elder times and that in France as well as here as any man that will but peruse the Charters of some of the Kings of France of the second Race as they are in Father Mabilion de Rediplomatica may easily satisfie themselves and as for the Abbesses whom we find sometimes mentioned to have been there before the Conquest they might also according to the Custom of those times have appeared in Person in the Great Councils in the Right of their Monasteries and of those great Possessions they held or else they might have been often represented by their Oecomi or Stewards who transacted all business for them and your own Civil Law doth always suppose that what any Persons perform by their Lawful Proxies it is said to be done by themselves and that the Abbesses and Prioresses did together with the other Spiritual Tenants in Capite joyn to grant Scrutage upon the Knights Fees they held I shall shew you before we have finished this Discourse But since I think I have sufficiently proved the Commons being in possession of this Right by a long Prescription I shall now leave it to you to prove that they did not enjoy it after the Conquest and that not until the time you suppose M. Since you are pleased to impose this Task upon me I shall willingly submit to it and therefore before I proceed farther pray let us see how far we are agreed In the first place I think you will grant that till about the latter end of Edward I. Reign there is no express mention made in our Records or Historians of any Representatives for the Commons either by Knights of Shires Citizens or Burgesses of Towns much less the word Commons mentioned by them in the sense it is now taken For if we peruse Ingulph or Eadmerus or any other Ancient Historian of William the Conqueror or his Sons time when they have occasion to mention the Great Councils of that Age we can find none mentioned besides the Bishops but Principes Proceres Primates or Optimates Regni or else in the following Age under the Titles of Optimates or Magnates Regni by Matt. Paris and Matt. of Westminster who are often comprehended under the more particular Titles of Comites Barones or Baronagium Regni or else by the more general of Nobilitas Universitas or Communitas Regni that is the whole University Community or Body of the Kingdom represented in Parliament by the Bishops Abbots Earls and Barons thereof As for most of these words I have given you my sense of them already in the Times before the Conquest and tho I grant there may be other Persons sometimes mentioned after the Barons as Milites Liberi Homines or Tenentes yet I think Dr. B. very plainly proves by those Authorities he produces in his Answer to Mr. P. as also in his Glossary at the end of it that by all the Words before-mentioned which are used in our Ancient Historians can only be understood either the Greater Barons or else the Less who were Tenents in capite and were a part of the Baronage or Nobility of those Times and whose Votes did then conclude all their Subfeudotaries or Mesne Tenents who held of them and these together with the Bishops and Abbots c. did represent all degrees of Men in the Kingdom and being often comprehended under the General Titles of Clerus and Populus or else Plebâ— or Valgus or else under these Titles as yet more generally expressed by Regnum and Sacerdotium i. e. the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom the Words Populus and Plebs or Vulgus signifying no more in those days in our Historians when they treat of Parliamentary Affairs than the Lay-Earls and Barons with the other Less Tenants in capite So that the Vulgar or Common People neither by themselves nor their Representatives had then any Place in our Great Councils And therefore I think I may boldly affirm with Dr. B. first That the Commons represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were not introduced nor were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the Third Secondly That before that time the Body of the Commons of England or Freemen as now understood or as we now frequently call them collectively taken had not any Share or Votes in making of Laws for the Government of the Kingdom nor had any Communication in Affairs of State unless as they were represented by the Tenents in capite And these two Propositions I think I shall be able to prove by undeniable Evidence drawn from our Ancient Historians the Laws and Charters of our Kings as also from those Parliament Rolls Records and Acts of Parliament we have yet left us F. I confess you have made a very bold challenge and if you can make it out I grant you will carry the day and I shall then willingly submit to your Opinion But since I find the greatest part of our Arguments do consist in the equivocal use of those words by which I confess the Commons in Parliament are generally expressed in our Ancient Historians I shall in the first place shew you to avoid all unnecessary dispute about words that by every one of these Expressions you have mentioned the Commons might very well be comprehended as well after the Conquest as before And therefore to take the words in the same order as you have recited them I shall begin with the word Principes which I have already proved signified before the Conquest no more than Chief or Principal Men and that it means no more after the Conquest I shall shew you by several Authorities and though I grant that word is most commonly used by Eadmerus yet could it not be meant in the sense it is now understood there being then never a Prince nor so much as a Duke in England but what was understood by this Expression in after-times we must appeal to Historians Mat. of Westminster in his Flores Histor. Anno Dom. 1280. being the 7th Year of Edward the First which was but 15 years after the 49 Hen. 3. thus reckons up the constituent parts of that Parliament Rex Pontifices Principes Anglicani convenerunt in unum c. Yet in Rot. Claus. 7. Edward 1. It is called a Parliament and at which the Statute of Mortmain was Enacted And that the Commons were there as well as they are now I shall prove when I come to those times But as for the word Proceres in the ancient Manuscript Chronicle
Charter in the same words as they are in the Charter it self only before Dederunt there is also added the word Concesserunt which shews that the Author of this part of those Annals who might very well write at the same time or presently after the Charter was granted by his Paraphrase of Concesserunt seemed to intend to prevent any such mistake in the the signification of the word Dederunt And that this was the constant opinion of all Historians and Antiquaries to this day I will shew you from Henry de Knighton who lived within 100 Years after this Charter was granted in his History hath this passage in this Yera viz. 9. of Hen. III. Post haec Rex Henricus concessit Magnatibus terrae duas Chartos unam de Foresta aliam de Libertatibus ob quam causam Communes Regni concesserunt 15. partem mobilium in mobilium From whence it appears plainly that at the time when this Author writ it was generally believed that the Commons called Milites Libri Tenentes in this Charter granted this 15th of all their Goods I shall conclude with a modern Authority of a Person who you will own to be a Man of great Judgment and Learning viz. Sir Henry Spelman who in his Discourse of Magna Charta inserted in his Glossary hath this remarkable passage Demum Anno. 9. Regis Henrici concedente Clero Populo cum Magnatibus Qâ—intodeceimam partem omnium rerummobilium totius Regni Angliae renovantur Chartae Lib rtatum prout sub Rege Iohanne prius erunt conditae where it is plain that by Populus he meant the Commons as distinct from the Lords and Clergy As for what you say further whereby you would set up the Authority of Mat. Paris against the express â—ords of the Charter it self I suppose you or the Dr. from whom you borrowed this Nâ—tion are the first who interpret ancient Statutes and Records according to the general Words of Historians Whereas I always thought till now that the sense of Historians ought to have been understood by Records and not vice versa since the former differ one from another in their manner of expression of the constituent parts of our great Councils or Parliaments and for brevity sake express themselves in as few words as they can But notwithstanding the Conciseness of those expressions which we find in Mat. Paris and other ancient Authors yet I think even in this place now cited there are words enough to prove there were other Lay Persons at this Council besides Earls and Barons there mentioned or else what is the meaning of these words Aliis Uâ—iversis immediately after Baronibus to whom Hubert de â—urgh proposed the Kings Demands and who also gave their answer to them And if these Gentlemen were not Barons as certainly they were not or else to what purpose was this distinction made then they were meet Commoners and so we find that there were Commons in Parliament from the Authority of Mat. Paris before the 49. Hen. III. which is likewise proved by the Statute of Mertoâ— which I have lately cited in the conclusion of its Preface runs thus Ita provijum fuiâ— concâ—ssum tâ—m à predictis Archi-piscopis Episcopis Comiâ—ibus Baronibus quam ab ipso Rege Aliis Now pray tell me who these Alii were if not the Commons for you did not answer this Question when I last mentioned this Statute M. I shall tell you my thoughts of these Alii by and by when I come to these words omnes de Regno but in the mean time give me leave to give you the Drs. Interpretation of this word Milites put here after Barones which Milites were not Knights of Shires as you suppose but Tenants in Capiâ—e by Military Service as appears by the Assize or Statute of Richard the I. quoted by R. Hovelen in his History which is said to have been made per Assensum Consilium Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Abbarum Câ—miutum Baronum Militum Now these Milites were often stiled Barons and the Barons Milites Nam Miles saith Sir Henry Spellmaâ— quem Baronem vocibant non à Militari Cingulo quo Equite crebantur sed a Militari â—edo quo alias possessor liberè Teneus num upatus est nomen sumpsit that is such as had Lands given them for or such as held Lands by Military Service and did Homage and Fealty to those of whom they held their Lands and in this sense Mat. Paris calls all the Temporal Nobility Milites when in the Parliament 37. of Hen. III. he says a Militibus Concessum est Scutagium illo Anno. ad Scutum tres Marcâ—t F. I think your Interpretation of the word Milites iâ— forced and quite contrary to the true meaning of this Charter now pray shew me the consequence that because the Barons were anciently stiled Milites that therefore your Tenants in Capiâ—e were then stiled Barones too which is not true and quite contrary to this Charter it self where these Milites whoever they were are put after the Barones as a distinct Order of Men from them whereas if the terms had been then reciprocal the words Baronâ—s or Milites chuâ—e which you please would have comprehended both but indeed this Title of Miles was then of a much larger signification and took in all Knights of whatsoever Tenancy whether by Military Service or Socage as appears by those Writs of the 25 th and 26 th of Henry the Third which I have already cited whereby those that held Estates sufficient to maintain themselves de Tenemento â—o tam militari quam Socâ—gi were a like Summoned in to take the Order of Knighthood and when Knighted were certainly as good Milites as the best of your Tenants in Capitâ— and so might very well be reckon'd amongst the Milites in this Charter But pray tell me what say you to these following words Liberi Tenentâ—s omnâ—s de Regno M. These likewise bear a like Interpretation for by these libere Tenentes that immediately follow in this Chaâ—ter after Milites I suppose were meaâ—t no other than the lesser Tenants in Capiâ—e who having scanty Knights Fees or part of Knights Fees desired not Knighthood or had compounded or fined for it that they might not be made Knights and who not being actual Knights are here called Free Tenants or Freeholders as I have already told you at our last meeting F. Pray give me leave to answer this Interpretation of the word liberi Tenentes before we proceed farther You may remember that I have answered all your Authorities whereby you would prove that the Tenants in Capiâ—e were at this time the only proper Freeholders of the Kingdom which is false since I then proved to you from Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary that any Freeman having an Estate of Inheritance was as much Libere Tenens a Freeholder as the best Tenant in Capite in England
I grant all the lesser Barons or Tenants in Capite were to be Summonld by the Sheriff to come to the Common Council of the Kingdom the King might have only call'd some of the greatest and wisest of them and such as he thought most fit to advise him in making Laws and imposing Taxes upon the Nation And the like Prerogative his Son Henry the Third resumed during the greater part of his Reign as I shall shew you from divers old Statutes by and by And that our Kings did often take upon them to call whom they pleased and omit whom they pleased of these Tenants in Capite may appear by those who were called Pares Baronum or alios Magnates who are put after the Barons and of these there are many instances of their being called to Parliament and again omitted in several Kings Reigns after the Commons were a third Estate as represented as at this day F. I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your opinion notwithstanding what you now have said since I do not find your reason to come up to what you intend therein for you only suppose but without any proof that the words Populus and Communitas must signifie only Tenants in Capite in the ancient Scotish Charters and Statutes All the Argument you bring to the contrary is that I cannot shew you any Law by which it was altered to what it is now and therefore that the Constitution has been always the same as at this day Now pray consider whether this will not press altogether as hard upon you in relation to England for you cannot shew me any Law whereby the Tenants in Capite were excluded here and Knights of Shires introduced in their fleads and therefore by the same Rule let the Scottish Parliaments have been of what they will yet ours have been still the same they are now But if you say that this contrary usage hath been introduced either by the Kings Prerogative or by the silent consent of the People or by some Law that is now lost are not all the same Arguments to be made use of in the case of the Scotish Parliaments which I may upon as good Grounds suppose to have deviated from their original Constitution as you do that our English Parliaments have done it So that if those Arguments are of any weight they will serve for England as well as Scotland but if they are not it is in vain to make use of them at all The like I may say as to Burroughs in Scotland since it is as easie to suppose that divers Burroughs in Scotland might voluntarily desist from sending their Deputies to Parliament that did not hold of the King in Capite as it is that divers Burroughs in England did Petition to be exempted from sending Burgesses to Parliament by reason of their inability to pay the Expences of their Burgesses as I could shew you by divers Precedents some of which are in Print had I now time As for the rest of your Discourse I cannot imagin to what it tends for if the Tenants in Capite had any place in or right to come to Parliament how came they to have it but by reason of the great Freehold Estates they held of the King and if so I can see no reason why those that had as good or better Freehold Estates than they should be all excluded Or why a small Tenant in Capite of but one Knights Fee held of the King in Capite should give him a right to a place in Parliament and get that a Mesne Tenant or Vavasour as he was then called who held ten Knights Fees of some Bishop or Abbot who perhaps did not hold in Capite at all should have no right of appearing there nor of choosing any Representative for him since notwithstanding all you have now said the Doctor either contradicts himself or you when he tells us expressly in his Answer to Mr. P. That the Tenants in Capite who were no Barons represented only themselves and not the Commons but how this will agree with what he says in his Introduction that the Body of the Commons had no share in making Laws c. before 49 th of Henry the Third unless they were represented by thd Tenants in Capite and if so must then certainly represent those that he here calls the Body of the Commons of England Collectively taken But as for your notion of the Parliament's being the King's Court Baron tho you have borrowed it of a Learned Scotch Lawyer Sir George Meâ—â—ensy yet let me tell you it was never true for it is well known that the Great or Common Councils both in England and Scotland are much more ancient than the Tennres of Lands by Knights Service or then the very Institution of Mannors in this Kingdom which the Doctor tells us are of no higher an original than the Norman Conquest But admit I should allow your notion of the Parliaments being anciently the Kings Court Baron then certainly all the Tenants in Capite had a right to appear there and to be not only Suitoâ—s but Judges of all differences arising among the Tenants in the Lords Court where neither the Lord himself nor his Steward were Judges and that of right and not by savour whereas you suppose such a Court-Baron as was never heard of where the Lord could admit or exclude whom of his Tenants he pleased to which if they had a right ratione Tenurae certainly he could never do So that instead of a Court-Baron and a Common Council according to King Iohn's Charter whereby all the Tenants in Capite were to be Summoned to this Council or pretended Court Baron you suppose the King still retained a Prerogative of calling or omitting whom he pleased which instead of confirming the validity of the Charter and that it was to be a Rule how such Councils should be called for the future you make to signifie just nothing and that no Common Council was ever called according to that Model But pray shew me a Court-Baron wherein the Tenants ever took upon themselves a Power of giving Taxes out of their Estates that did not hold of the mannour though they were resident within it But indeed you are out in the whole matter for the Doctor himself grants in his answer to Mr. P. when he gives us King Iohn's Letters of Summons to a Council directed to the Barons and Knights and as he translates Eidelibus Feudatories or Vassals of all England wherein he lets them know that he had sent his Letters to every one of them if it might have been done Now what reason had he to write thus if these Gentlemen had no right to be consulted or that the King might have called or left out whom of them he pleased But the Barons and Tenants in Capite were in another mind when in the 37th of King Hen. III. as Mar. Paris tells us they refused to Act or Proceed upon any thing
French Peasants at this day and so were not Reckoned among the Freemen all Freedom consisting then in so much Freehold Lands held in a Man 's own right or being Freemen of some City or Burrough Town and this gives us a reason why Copy-holders and Tenants for years have no Vote in Parliament at this day since it is certain and all our Law Books allow it that at the first all Copy-hold Estates were held by Villenage and the owners of them at first the Villani or Tillers of the Demefnes of the Lord of that Town there being at first no Free-hold less then that of a whole Township since a Mannour and therefore all Copy-holders and Tenants for years or at Will though Freemen are not admitted to have Votes at this day because as I said before Freedom anciently consisted in the Inheritance or Free-hold Estate of Land or in Riches in Trade or Traffick Leases for Life and Years being not known or at least not commonly in Use in those days and hence it is that when Estates of Free-hold came to be divided into small Parcels all Free-holders till the Statutes of Henry IV. and VI. which we have before cited were as much capable of giving their Votes at the Election of Knights of Shires as the best and greatest Tenant in Capite in England till it was reduced by those Statutes to 40 s. Freehold per Annum these Freeholders and Burgesses of Towns being anciently looked upon in the Eye of the Law as the only Freemen and it was these Freeholders alone who owed Suit and Service to the County Court and were amerced if they did not appear This being premised and sufficiently understood will give us a very good account why Copy-holder and Lease-holders for years do not give any Votes at Elections of Knights of Shires and yet the Parliament may still continue the Representative of all the Freemen of the Nation as the People of Rome and the Territories about it were of all the Romans though there were a great many Liberti and in Inqui lini who sure were Freemen and not Slaves and yet had no Votes in theirs Comitiis Centuriatis or general Assemblies of all the Roman Citizens But that the Liberi homines Libere Tenentes de Regno must take in more than your Tenants in Capite the Doctor himself is at last forced to confess in his Glossary notwithstanding his maintaining the contrary in the body of his Book viz. that the Liberi Homines Libere Tenentes mentioned in Iohn's Magna Charta were not only the Tenants in Capite but their Retinue and Tenants in Military Service also and whom he there supposes to have been then the only men of Honour Faith and Reputation in the Kingdom and if so might certainly have been chosen Knights of Shires as well as any of the Tenants in Capite though this is but Argumentum ad Hominem for the truth is that the Mesne Tenants by Military Service were not the only men of Faith and Honour in those times since it is certain the Kings Tenants in Peâ—yt Serjeantry and of some Honour or Castle or else his Tenants in Socage besides those who held of other Mesne Lords and the Tenants of those Abbots and Priors who did not hold in Capite and yet were very numerous were men of as much Faith and Honour as those that did since many of them possest as good if not better Estates than the Tenants in Capite themselves so that you are certainly mistaken in matter of Fact when you say the whole force and strength of the Nation lay in their hands for if you mean Legal force I have already proved that the Tenants in Capite had no Legal right to give away the Estates of their Mesne Tenants or to make Laws for them without their consents who were altogether as free as themselves Servitiis suis debitis solum-modo exceptis as Bracton tells us much less for so great a Body of Men as I now mentioned who never held of them at all and consequently could not upon your own Hypothesis be ever represented by them but if you mean a Physical strength or force though this can give no Natural much less Legal right for one Man to Lord it over another yet even this was much farther from truth since the Mesne Tenants of all sorts as well by Military Service as in Socage together with those above mentioned who never held of the Tenants in Capite at all made six times a greater Body of Men both for numbers as well as Estates then all the Tenants in Capite taken together But to conclude neither is your remark upon my Authorities from Gheller and Durham at all to the purpose for I have sufficiently proved that those County Palatines were not at first concluded within the general Laws and Taxes of the Kingdom since they had their particular Councils for both within themselves as the Supplication of the Estates of the County Palatine of Chester sufficiently declares and certainly Durham had the like Priviledges since I never heard that the Men in that County were more Slaves to their Bishop then the Cheshire Men to their Earl and tho I grant that about the confused Times of King Hen. VI. there was a great breach made on the ancient Liberties of these two Counties Palatines and if the King and Parliament made Laws for and Levyed Taxes upon them though they had no Representatives therein this proceeded partly from their being over-powered by the rest of the Nation and partly by the ease they found in being excused from the Expences of Knights of Shires and Burgesses which all the rest of the Kingdom was at that time liable to and which came to a great deal of Money Four shillings per diem being in those days more then Forty Shillings now and yet you see at last they were aware of their Errour and at their request got the Priviledge of having Representatives in Parliament of their own choosing as well as the rest of the Kingdom and if this had not been a certain right of English Subjects how came the Welsh Counties which were anciently no part of the Kingdom of England to have been admitted to choose one Knight for each County and Burgesses for each Burrough Town as well in North Wales as South Wales though both these were Conquered Countries at the first and incorporated to England by particular Statutes and therefore we have no reason to deny the Truth of Bracton's and Fortescue's assertion that no Laws are made nor Taxes imposed in England sine consensu communi â—uius Regni or as the latter truly adds in Parliamento and certainly this word common Assent must take in all their Assents who had Estates either in Land or other Riches at that time when this Law was Established But leaving this dispute about Scotland and the County Palatines pray make an end for it grows late and give me the rest of your Reasons
and Power granted to them in and by this general Clause in the Writs of Summons issued to Sheriffs for every County before every Parliament enjoyning them in these Words Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentes quod de Comitatu praedicto duos milites de qualibet Cititate duos cives de quolibet Burgo duos Burgesses at discretioribus c. sinâ— dilatione Eligi eos ad nos ad dictos diem locum venite facias c. By vertue of which general indefinite Clauses used in all Writs of Summons ever since 23d of Edward I. without designing what particular Cities or Burroughs by Name within each County the Sheriff should cause to Elect or send two Citizens or two Burgesses but leaving it wholy to each Sheriffs Liberty and Discretion to send the Writ directed to him to what Cities and Burroughs he pleased thereupon every Sheriff used a kind of Arbitrary Power in the Execution of this general Clause according as his Judgment directed or his Assertions Favour Partiality Malice or the Sollicitations of any private Burroughs to him or of Competitors for Citizens or Burgesses places within his County swayed him this is most apparent by some Sheriffs in several Counties returning more Burroughs and Burgesses then their Predecessors others fewer some omitting those Burroughs returned by their Predecessors others causing Elections and Returns to be made for such new Burroughs which never elected or sent any before nor after their Sherivalties as is evident from the Returns Annis 28.33 E. 1. and 34. of E. 3. for Divâ—n Anno 26. E. 1. for Yorkshire Anno 33 E. 1. for Oxfordshire Anno 28. of E. 1. for Hampshire Annis 33. and 34. of E. 3. for Sommerset Annis 25.27 and 28. H. 6 for Wilts c. So that the first Writs or Memorials of any extant on Record for electing Knights Citizens and Burgesses to come to Parliament are those of 49th of Henry 3d but these Writs onely commanded that the Sheriffs cause to come two Knights c. of each County and the like Writs were directed to the Cities of London Lincoln and other Burroughs of England to elect two Citizens and two Burgesses for each of them and the rest of the Cities and Burroughs in England the like Writs were also issued to Sandwich and the rest of the Cinque Ports without expressing their Names or Number in each County and this form I conceive says Mr. Pryn continued till 23d of Edward I. when the aforecited general Clause authorizing and intrusting every Sheriff to cause two Citizens and two Burgesses to be elected c. out of every City and Burrough in his County was first put into the Writs by Authority and Colour whereof every Sheriff sent Precepts to what Cities and Burroughs of his County he pleased F. I have with Patience heard this long History of Mr. Prins concerning the Election of Citizens and Burgesses from which I must notwithstanding make bold to differ for tho I own him to have been a man of great Learning and Industry in matter of Records yet I doubt he was often too quick in taking up of Opinions upon slender grounds therefore for the answering of him I shall first shew you the improbability of his Suppositions and in the next place shall make use of no other Confutations then what his own Book will afford us as to the Writs of Summons Returns and other things he lays so much stress upon in the first place for the Notion of Sheriffs sending Precepts to what Cities and Burroughs they pleased and consequently making as few or as many send Members to Parliament as they would that this was not so at first is evident from those very Writs of 49th of Henry the 3d by which it appears that they were not then directed to the Sheriffs for any more then to the Counties but as for the Citizens and Burgesses and Barons of the Cinque Ports they were then directed to themselves and he also confesses that this continued so from that time till the 23d of Edward I. so that all this while being about 28 Years it seems the Nomination of what Cities and Towns should send Members to Parliament did not depend upon the Will of the Sheriffs but upon somewhat else and I have asked you once tho without receiving any answer what Rule Simon Montfort went by to tell what Cities and Burroughs were to send Members and what not since the Words are onely in general de quolibet Burgo c. and therefore pray answer me now if you can M. I conceive in the first place as for the Cities Simon Montfort sent to those that were anciently esteem'd so viz. such as had Bishops Sees annext to them such as London Lincoln and particularly named in these Writs and others of the same rank and as for the Burroughs tho we have not the returns of them left us yet I suppose they were such Walled or other Towns as were of some considerable Note in England such as he thought were most proper for his turn F. That this could be no Rule appears by this clear Proof First That neither Coventry and Litchfield tho the Sees of the Bishops were not counted Cities in the time of Edward the first nor long after nor yet Ely for it appears by the Lists that Mr. Prin hath given us that it never sent Burgesses but only once and that to a great Council till of late years So that the Sees of the Bishops was it seems no general rule to make Places capable of sending or not sending of Citizens to Parliament And in the next place as to Burroughs that is pure Imagination that none but considerable or walled Towns sent any Burgesses at first whereas in the first List of returns which Mr. Pryn has here given us of the 26th and 28th of Edward I. which are the first extant for ought I know except those of 23d which I have never yet seen besides the Shire Towns of the Counties there are returns of a great many small Burroughs which never had any Walls nor yet for ought as we can find had any thing remarkable to make them be pircht upon to send Burgesses more than others but of these I shall speak more by and by onely shall remark this much that there must have have been some other Rule besides Montforts own Will for all this and what this rule could be unless an ancient Prescription in those Towns to send Members I desire you or your Dr. would shew any good Reason or Authority to the contrary And after the 23d of Edward the I. when Mr. Prin supposes that the Sheriffs by this general Clause in the Writs began to take upon them this new Authority of sending Precepts to and making Burroughs of what Towns they pleased this could not in the first place extend to such as were before that Counties of themselves such as London York Bristol c. nor yet such as were Ancient and
make so light of this Testamentary Doâ—â—tion of Edward the Confessor which the greatest part of the Writers nearest that time do suppose to have been really made on the behalf of Duke William and that notwithstanding this bequest Harold unjustly and contrary to his own Oath did by force set the Crown upon his own Head without any precedent Election of the Clergy Nobility and People as was required at that time since it was impossible for them to meet in so short a time for King Edward dying on the Eve of Epiphany was buried on Twelfth day and on the same day Harold took upon himself the Crown by the consent of some of the Bishops and Nobility of his Faction then at London so that he was certainly no better than an Usurper and therefore by the Conquest of Harold and his party your Conqueror could acquire no right upon the free People of England since they never gave their consents to place Harold on the Throne and consequently K. William could have no just cause of making a conquest upon the whole Nation since neither did he ever in all his Reign as I can find call a common Council of the Kingdom to recognize or confirm his Title and tho' it is true Harold proving a Valiant and Popular Prince got the good will of the common People by divers Acts of Grace which he had lost by his violent taking the Crown while Edgar Atheling the only remaining Male Heir of the Saxon Race was in being and found very many who were willing to fight for him not only against the King of Norway who had a little before Invaded the Kingdom but also against Duke William yet all those in his Army could amount to nothing near the whole Kingdom who never contributed to the War by any publick Vote or Tax and therefore did not countenance it by giving Money or raising of Men as you suppose so that D. William could not pretend a right of making War against any body but only Harold and his Accomplices but as for the Testamentary Donation of Edward the Confessor tho' you make so light of it yet Ingulph says expresly that Edward the Confessor some time before his Death sent Robert Archbishop of Canterbury as his Ambassador to D. William to let him know That he had designed him his Successor not only by Right of Kindred but by the merit of his Vertue and that after this Harold coming into Normandy promised upon Oath to assist him in it and Will. Malmesbury says also that Edward the Father of Edgar Atheling dying almost as soon as he came into England K. Edward his Cozen being dead gave the Succession of this Kingdom to William Duke of Normandy with whom also agree Florence of Worcester and William of Poiâ—tou and all the rest of the Historians of that Age as well English as Normans nor do I know any of them except Simeon of Durham and Roger Hoveden who make Harold to have been appointed Successor by K. Edward or to have been so much as solemnly Crowned by the Archbishop of York But I confess your main objection is still to be answered viz. what precedent Right Duke Wâ—lliam could have to the Crown of England by this Testament of King Edward since it was then either an Elective or else an Hereditary Kingdom and so this Donation could confer no right on this Duke in Prejudice of the Peoples right to Elect or else of the next Heir to succeed In answer to which I must tell you that which perhaps you may have never considered that the Crown was then neither properly Elective nor Successive but a mixture of both M. That seems a kind of a Paradox and what I never heard before pray explain your self for I do not understand how it could be F. Why then I will tell you the Crown of England in those times was very like what the Crowns of Denmark and Sweden were not long since and as the Empire is at this day in which tho' the Estates or Diet might chuse whom they pleased for King or Emperor yet they still kept to the same Family or Line as long as there were any Males left of iâ— fit to succeed which custom often gave the King in Being a power which by degrees came to be looked upon as a kind of Right either upon his Death Bed or else at any time before to nominate one of his Sons or near Kinsmen to be his Successors by his last Will or Testament especially if he had no Sons of his own as happen'd in the case of King Edward the Confessor now this nomination tho' it did not alone confer a right to the Crown yet it made the person so named the fairest candidate for it and was such a recommendation to the Estateâ— or great Council of the Kingdom as they never passed by or denied as I can ever find by the best inquiry I have made and for proof of this I shall appeal to the Testament of K. Alfred as you will find it Printed from an Ancient Manuscript in the second Appendix to his Life in Latine publisht at Oxford Which begins thus Ego Alfredus Divino munere labore ac Studio Athelredi Archiepiscopi nec non totius Westsaxoniae Nobilitatis consensu pariter assensu occidentalium Saxonum Rex quos in Testimonium meae ultimae voluntatis complementi ut sint advocati in disponendis pro salute animae meae regali electione confirmo tam de haereditate quam Deus at Principes cum senioribus Populi misericorditer ac benigne dederunt quam de haereditate quam Pater meus Aethelwulfus Rex nobis tribus fratribus delegavit viz. Aethelbaldo Aethelredo mihi ita quod qui nostrum diutius foret superstes ille totius Regni dominio congauderet c. From whence you may collect first that tho' this King in the very beginning of his Testament ascribes his obtaining the Crown not to any Hereditary Right but the consent and assent of the Nobility of West-Saxony yet he also here mentions the entail of the Crown by his Fathers Will upon his two Elder Brothers and himself successively before any of his Elder Brother's Sons who were living at the time of the making of this Testament of K. Alfred's as appears by the Will it self in which they are expresly mentioned now how could this be that he was King as well by the consent or election of the West-Saxon Nobility as by his Father's Will unless both these had been required to make him so Also Will. of Malmesbury tells us of K. Athelstan the Grandson of K. Alfred that Iussu Patris in Testamento Aethelstanus in Regem est acclamatus but in the beginning of this chapter he also tells us that Aethelstanus electus apud Regiam aulam quae vocatur Kingston Coronatus est quamvis quidem Alfredus cum factiosis suis obviare tentasset upon that pretence that Athelstan was a Bastard so that you may
our ancient Tenures and manner of holding and enjoying our Lands and Estates as will appear by comparing our Antient Tenures with theirs F. I shall not deny but that a great part of the matter of Fact is true as you have now put it yet tho' I grant that the Bishop Abbots Chancellors Chief Justices and other great Officers of the Crown were all or the greatest part of them Normans during the Reigns of the two first Kings of the Norman Race it doâ—s not therefore follow that these Men must have made a change in the very substance of our Laws tho' in matters of form of pleading or judicial proceedings they might have introduced great alterations for as to the Civil or Municipal Laws of this Kingdom concerning the Descent and Conveyance of Estates they continued the same after the coming in of the Normans and Lands held by Knights Service descended to the Eldest Son and Lands in free Soccage and Gavel-kind to all the Sons alike so likewise there were Estates In tail and Fee simple as now and there were also the like Customs of the Courtesie of England Burrough English c. as there are also at this day as I can prove to you by several passages out of our English Saxon Laws so likewise for Conveyance of Estates those of the better sort of People called Bookland were conveyed by Deeds with Livery and Seisin either with or without warranty as they are now but that which was called Folâ—land held by the meaner sort were only by Livery and Seisin without any Writing And tho' I grant that the custom of sealing of Deeds is derived from the Normans yet that is an alteration only in matter of forn and as for Goods and Money they were bequeathable by a Man's last Will as well after as before your Conquest And if you can have the opportunity to peruse a Manuscript Treatise of Sir Roger Owen's upon this Subject you will find it there sufficiently proved That Livery of Seisin Licenses or Fines for Alienation Daughters to Inherit Trials by Juries Abjurations Utlaries Coroners disposing of Lands by Will Escheats Gaols Writs Wrecks Warranties Felons Goods and many other parts of our Law were here in being long before the time of King William this being so as to the common Law let us see what alterations there were in the Criminal or Crown part of the Law first as to Treason and wilful Murther they were punished with Death in the Saxon times as well as after as were also Robery and Burglary in the night time but as for lesser ofâ—ences such as Batteries Maims Robberies and other breaches of the Peace they were punished by Fine as well before the Conquest as after but as for the Law of Englisherie which was that if a Man were found Murthered it should be presumed he was an Alien or Frenchman and the Town thereupon where the Body was found was to be fined unless Englisherie was proved i. e. that the person was an Englishman this Custom tho' it lasted to the Reign of Edward the Third when it was taken away by a Statute made on purpose tho it may seem a badge of the Norman Conquest yet was it indeed a Law introduced by King Knute in behalf of his Danes who being often found killed and none could tell by whom he obtained this Law to be made to prevent it as you will see at large in Bracton and the Mirrour of Justices But as for trial of all offences it was either by Juries Fire or Water ordinal by Dewel or Battle or else by Witnesses or Compurgators upon Oath as well before as after King William's entrance so that I can find nothing material as to the alterations of the Laws either in matters Criminal or Civil from what they were in the Saxons time and this being so it is easily answered how the Judges and Officers might be Normans and yet the Laws continue English still for first it is certain that for four or five years in the beginning of K. William's Reign he made no great alteration in the Judges and other great Officers of the Kingdom and by that time those whom he was afterwards pleased to imploy in the Rooms of such as either died or were turned out might very well come to understand the Laws of England as far as they distered from those of Normandy which was not in many particulars since as your self very well observed the Saxons and Normans being both Northern People had many of the same Laws and Customs common to both and the same persons might in three or four years time have very well learned English enough to have under stood the Evidence that the Witnesses gave before them without any Interpreter But say you all the Pleadings and Judgments were in French and therefore the Lawyers and Pleaders must be Frenchmen which is likewise a false consequence for Pray tell me why might not the English Lawyers have learnt French enough to Plead in three or four years time which must necessarily be required before so great an alteration could be made or Lawyers enough he brought out of Normandy and sufficiently instructed in our Laws and Customs could be fitted for their employments again supposing all Pleadings and other Proceedings to have been in French it does not follow that this practice could have obtained in all the Courts of England for tho' I grant that in the Kings Court at Westminster where the Judges as you say were for the most part Frenchmen or Normans yet this could only have some effect either in that great Court or Curia Regis where the King often sat in person together with his Chief Justiciary and other Justices or else in the Court of Common Pleas which followed the Kings Court till it was ordained otherwise by Magna Charta or else the Court of Exchequer where in those days only matters concerning the Kings Debts Lands and Revenues were chiefly heard and dispatched but as for the Court of Chancery it was not then used as a Court of Equity nor long after till the Reign of Henry the IV V and VI. when it arose by degrees as you will find in Sir William Dugdale's Origines Iuridiciales So that granting all the proceedings in these Supream Courts to have been in French because the King himself who sat there with the chief Justice and the rest of the Judges were either Normans or Frenchmen yet was this of no great importance in comparison of the Suits and Causes which were first begun and try'd in the Inferiour Courts in the Country before ever they could be brought up to London by Writ of Errour or Appeal which could only be in Causes of great Moment or between the Kings Tenants in Capite So that now to let you see that what say I say is true we will Survey all the inferiour Courâ—s of that time beginning with the lowest and going up to the highest of them The first Court we find of this kind
also the ancient year Books or Reports of cases all written in Norman French even in our own age so that since this proceeded from that great alteration which the Conqueror made in our Laws it is also a badge of that yoak which he imposed upon the Nation by his Conquest and to make this yet more plain that very Copy of K. Edward the Confessors Laws is in old Norman French which together with K. William's Additions to them Ingulph tells us he brought down with him to his Monastery and which he has inserted into his History as you may find them in the last Edition Printed at Oxford and were before published by Mr. Seldâ—n in his Notes upon Eadmerus F. I cannot deny but that some part of the matter of fact to be as you have here laid down yet it will not follow that this common use of the French Tongue in our Reports and Laws did proceed from the Norman Conquest or is any badge of Conquest for first the most Ancient Laws of K. William which we find in Spelman and Lambert's Collections are in Latine as they were before the pretended Conquest I grant indeed those you mention in Ingulph are in French but they being most of them criminal or penal laws or else concerning Tenures it is no wonder that they were publisht in the Language of his Country that the Normans and other Frenchmen he brought over with him might understand them and tho' they were written in French yet they were proclaimed in the English Tongue that the English as well as Normans might take notice of them but after these Laws you will not find any ancient Charter or Statute in French till the Statute of West I. which was above 200 years after your pretended Conquest for all the Charters of this K. William are in Latine or Saxon as that particularly granted by him to the City of London so likewise were all the Ancient Charters and Laws of the other succeeding Kings as those of K. William Rufus Henry I. Henry II. King Stephen Richard I. are all in Latine or Saxon and none of them in French as appears by several of them still to be seen in the Arch-bishops Library at Lambeth and in Sir Robert Cotton's and also Magna Charta and all other Statutes and Charters of K. Iohn and Henry the third till the Statute of West I. above mentioned and therefore it is not likely that this custom should have taken its original from Normandy for if it had it would have been begun immediately after your Conquest and as for our Law Books tho' I grant those you mentioned to be written in French yet is it not the Norman French since it differs very much from the Language in which K. Edward's Laws are written which are in Ingulph the French of which is so obsolete and obscure that he that understands our Law French very well can scarcely make any sense of them but our first Writers concerning the Laws of England writ in Latine and not in French as you may see by Glanvil Bracton and Fletâ— who writ before Horn's Mirrour of Justices or Britton's Treatise of the Laws of England As for your Books and Reports I grant they are in French but that this custom was not derived from Normandy is also as certain since the first Reports we have begin with the first year of Edward the second except some few Memorandums of cases aâ—judged in the Exchequer in the Reign of his Father above 200 years after K Wâ—lliam's coming in as I but now noted nor could they be writ in the Norman dialect since we had then nothing to do in that Dutchy which had been Conquered by the French in the beginning of K. Iohn's Reign above eighty years before any Report or Law book was writ in French at all and therefore we must ascribe the original of this custom to some other cause than the meer will and pleasure of your Conqueror and for this we must go as high as the Reign of K. Edward the Confessor who as Ingulph tells us having lived long in Normandy and bringing over divers Normans with him the whole Nation began under this K. to forsake the English customs and to imitate the French manners in many things so that all great men looked upon it as a piece of good breeding to speak French in their Houses and to make their Deeds and Charters after the French manner so that it was very easie for K. William after his coming in who as Ingulph also tells us abhorred the English Tongue to make the Laws of the Land to be pleaded in the French Tongue and to make the Boys to learn at School the first rudiments of their Grammer in French and also the Saxon or English hand to be altered and the French hand to come in use in all Books and Writings and tho' I confess most of the chief Justices and Judges were Frenchmen or Normans during the three or four first Kings of that Race yet that alone could not have caused this Tongue to be so generally used not only in the Kings Court but also in all the Courts at Westminster after Englishmen began again to sit there had it not been for the Tacite consent not only of the King and People of Quality but also of the Lawyers themselves for the Law Terms being for the most part French they did not only thereby make the Law the greater mystery to the Vulgar but they also supposed that these Terms being French could not be rendered into any other Language but for all that it had been impossible for this Tongue which was spoke by so small a number of Persons in respect of the whole Nation to have prevailed so long among the better sort of People had not our Kings for many Ages enjoyed large Territories in France which occasioning their frequent going over thither about affairs of War or Peace as also the French Gentry and Nobilities frequent coming over hither it is no wonder if that Tongue being the Language of the Court was generally understood and spoken by all Noblemen Gentlemen and Lawyers so that I have heard it from a very good hand a person who is very well versed in Antiquity that a Gentleman being returned on a Jâ—ry in the Reign of Edward II. was excepted against because he did not understand French and hence it is that not only the Terms of our Law but also those of Heraldry Hawking and Hunting are almost all French to this day and tho' by the Statute of Edward the third which you but now mentioned all Pleas should be in English and not in French yet I desire you to take notice that this did no way extend to any matters of Process upon which suits are founded but that the Writs Declarations and all other matters of Record were always entered and enrolled in Latine from before the Conquest to this very day so that there was never any alteration as to that point these
Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire and I could shew you from divers Records of Parliament in the Reign of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. that they never intruâ—ed the Crown with an absolute power of Dispensing with those Statutes but only for a time as till the next Parliament or longer as they thought fit But since I have not now so much time to give you so many Presidents at length I shall only tell you that as to the main instance you relye upon viz. the Kings Dispensing with the Statute of Sheriffs that at first it was not taken for Law appears by several Acts of Parliament as in 28. of Henry the VI. whereby those Sheriffs that had held their Offices for more than a year are pardon'd likewise in the Act of Edw. IV. there is a like Statute pardoning those Sheriffs Who by reason of the late troubles in the Realm had held for above a year yet nevertheless confirms all former acts concerning Sheriffs for the time to come and this held as far as the sixth of Henry VIII which is long after the Judgment you mention in the Exchequer Chamber of all the Justices in England to the contrary for there was then an Act made which reciting all the former Statutes about Sheriffs as then in full force it Enacts that the Sheriffs and under Sheriffs of the City of Bristol may continue to occupy their Offices in like manner as the under Sheriffs and other Sheriffs Officers in London do without any Penalty or Forfeiture for the same the said Acts or any other Acts to the contrary notwithstanding From all which Statutes I think it sufficiently appears that neither the Sheriffs of those times nor the City of Bristol nor the whole Parliament when that Act was made did believe the King had Power to Dispense with the Act of the 25 of Henry the VI. concerning Sheriffs for if they had certainly it had been much easier and cheaper for them to have obtain'd the Kings Dispensation than to have got an Act of Parliament for it M. I believe you may have cited these Statutes right enough but yet I think they are not sufficient proof against so solemn an Opinion as that of all the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber 2 d of Henry the 7 th and whatever the Parliament might have declared in the Case of this or that Particular Statute I confess carries some Authority with it yet ought it not to be counterval'd by so solemn a Judgment as that of all the Judges and Lawyers of England together with the King 's constant Exercise of this Prerogative not only since but before that time and that without any question or dispute with the Parliament about it as in the Case I have already put of the Statute that forbids any Welchman being an Officer in Wales to which I may add divers other Cases of like nature such as the Statute against a Judges going the Circuit in his own Country as also those Statutes that prohibit the King from granting Pardons to Persons convict nay condemned for Murther with several other Penal Statutes I could name were though the King's hands are tied up by particular Clauses of Non-obstante yet has His Majesty and his Predecessors at all times exercised their Prerogative of dispensing in all those Cases notwithstanding those Acts of Parliament with Non-obstantes to the contrary And though I grant you have given me several Presidents of the Parliaments sometimes restraining the King in this Exercise of the Dispensing Power yet they are all or the greatest part of them before the beginning of Henry the VII th's Reign when I grant the Law first began to be setled in this matter and since the Judgment of all the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber is the only Rule of Law we can have in the Intervals of Parliament and that this case of Dispensations being by them adjudged and ever since setled and own'd for Law without the least dispute I can see no reason we have to question it now But as for the Statute of the 6 th of Henry the VIII which you urge as a President to the contrary since the Reign of Henry the VII I think it will not reach the Point in question for the Act you now cited seems to me no more than a private Act for the Sheriffs of Brestol alone who being it seems afraid to rely upon the King's Dispensations because they thought them too chargeable to be taken out as often as they should have need of them did think it a great deal less charge and trouble to pass an Act of Parliament to indemnify themselves which I grant put that matter beyond all dispute But since this Act of Henry the VIII I find no contest between the Parliament and the King about his Power of dispensing with Penal Laws till the Reign of King Charles the II. when I grant the House of Commons did address to His Majesty That Penal Statutes in matters Ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament as also the last Address of the House of Commons in 1685. against the King's dispensing with the Officers of the Army their holding Employments without taking the Oaths and Test according to the Act whereby they were appointed But these being only against the King's Power of dispensing with Laws Ecclesiastical as concerning Liberty of Conscience can no ways be extended to their excepting against the King's Power of dispensing with divers other Penal Laws I will not say all which have Non obstantes in them F. Since I see not only your Opinion but also that of most of the Judges and Lawyers of England concerning this matter of the King's Dispensations with Penal Laws has been chiefly if not only founded upon that Opinion of all the Judges in King Henry VII i me give me leave to examine the validity of that Judgment for if that can be proved not to have been according to Law or elâ—e never given at all I suppose you must grant that my Lord Coke and all others who have founded their Opinions upon this adjudged Cause of Hen. the VII were mistaken Now pray give me leave to argue a little with you in point of Reason If a Non obstante from the King be good when by Act of Parliament a Non-obstante is declar'd void what doth an Act of Parliament signifie in such a case must we say it is a void Clause But then to what purpose was it put in Did the Lords and Commons who drew this Act of the 23 d of Henry the VI. as also those Acts concerning Sheriffs understand this Clause of Non-obstante to be void when they put it in If it were so and contrary to the King's Prerogative why did the King pass this Act without any refusal or protestation against it certainly it was then thought otherwise and if so we have the Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against the Opinion of the Judges But if it were not a
by you from the Parliament Roll yet for all that it doth not follow that the Parliament allowed this Kings seigned and false claim to be good by their not contradicting it For though the Record says That upon the hearing of this Challenge or Claim all the Estates of the Kingdom being then asked their Judgments severally they declared that the same States without any difficulty or delay unanimously agree'd that the said Duke should Reign over them For considering the Dukes great Power it was not safe telling him to his face that he had no true Right by Inheritance therefore they only declared in general words without expresly denying or affirming his said Claim That he should Reign over them Which words do rather amount to an Election of him to be King without declaring what Title he had to be so And this they thought they might very well justifie not only for his having delivered them from the Tyranny of King Richard but also because they then looked upon it as their Right not only to Depose the King in case of an apparent violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom but also to place in his stead any of the Blood-royal tho' not next Heir by Blood according to the Message the whole Parliament had formerly sent to K. Richard in the beginning of his Reign by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his Uncle the D. of Gloucester which I gave you at our ninth Meeting as I remember And pray take notice the words were Et propinqai rem aliquem de stirpe Regia loco ejus in Regnisolio sublimare Where observe that the words were not the next of Blood but some near Kinsman of the Blood Royl And though it is true that both King Henry the Vth. and VIth might both seem to succeed to the Crown by Right of Blood yet I do rather attribute their right of Succession to an Act of Parliament made in the seventh and confirmed in the eighth year of Henry the IVth whereby the Crown was entailed upon all his Sons by Name and the Right Heirs of their Bodies By vertue of which settlement both Henry the Vth. and VIth Succeded thereunto For if he had thought his own feigned Hereditary Title to have been sufficient he would never have troubled himself to have procured the Crown to be setled upon himself and his Children by Act of Parliament M. All this signifies nothing for I have already sufficiently proved that in the 39th year of Henry the VIth upon a solemn hearing before the Paliament of the Claim of Richard Duke of York to the Crown the said Act was set aside And it was there expresly declared that the said Dukes Title could no ways be defeated And this agreement is still on Record between Henry the then possessor of the Crown and the said Duke whose Right it was and the Judgment of the Parliament was then given in the behalf of proximity of Blood as to have always been the foundation and ground of Succession to the Crown of England and of taking it from the Son of Henry the VIth and restoring it to the Duke of York and his Issue as right Heirs thereof As appears by the Title and Pedegree of the said Duke set down at large in the first Article of this Agreement confirmed by Parliament that is by King Henry the VIth himself who was then King de Facto tho' not de Iure F. I will not deny the matter of fact to be as you have set forth yet if you will but please to consider the time when this Declaration and Agreement was obtained and the manner how it was done you will quickly find that it was rather got by force and constraint upon that poor Prince Henry the VIth than by any real Right the Duke of York had to the Crown after its being setled for three Descents in the House of Lancaster For the proof of which I desire you in the first place to take notice that at this time the whole Kingdom was under general discontent noâ— only for the loss of all our Conquests in France but also for the great mismanagement of Affairs at home by reason of the exorbitant power of the Queen and her two favourites the Dukes of Somerset and Suffolk who made the King a meer Cypher and had without his consent made away Humphrey Duke of Gloucester the Kings only Uncle then living contrary to Law so that affairs being in this ill posture it was very easie for the Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick to procure a sufficient Interest in the Nobility and Great men of the Kingdom to raise an Army upon pretence at first only of reforming the grievances of the Kingdom and bringing the said Dukes of Justice the issue of which War was that the Duke not being strong enough at first to oppose the Kings Forces was forced to surrender himself and to obtain his Pardon took a Solemn Oath never to Rebel against the King again but being afterwards Attainted at a Parliament held at Coventry for new Conspiracies he then again Rebelled together with the Earl of Warwick and then that King Henry being carried to head his Army was by the Duke of York taken Prisoner in the Battle near Northampton and being thence by him brought up to London a Parliament was call'd in the Kings name though without his consent wherein the Duke of York had the confidence to seat himself in the Royal Throne and to make that challenge of the Crown you have recited and under how great a terror all the Friends and Servants of this poor Prince was at that time appears plainly from this that neither the Kings Attorney nor any of his Council durst undertake to plead his Cause before the Parliament nor yet would the Judges give their opinions in a matter of such great moment but they all answer'd That this Matter passed the Learning of the Justices and also that they durst not enter into any Communication in that matter and besought all the Lords to have them excused for giving any Advice or Council therein but the Lords would not excuse them and therefore by their Advice and Assistance it was concluded by all the Lords that the Articles following should be objected against the Claim and Title of the Duke So that you see from the Record it self that the Judges were with much ado prevail'd with to object any thing against the Dukes Title Therefore considering the great contempt the Kings Person was then under by reason of his weakness and the great hatred and weariness the Nation had then of the evil Government of the Queen and her Favourites it was no more difficult for the Duke of York to procure this Judgment in Parliament in savour of his Title than that Henry the 4 th should after he had put Richard the 2 d in Prison get him Depos'd and make his own Title to be allow'd for good and certainly if it were
of Government can have any for that which is done by a person who has no Authority can lay no obligation upon us whence then has he this Authority since he has no legal Right to the Throne not sure from the presumed consent of the King de jure which is nonsence to suppose but from the possession of the Throne to which the Law it self as well as the Principles of Reason have annexed the Authority of the Government M. I am so far of Bishop Sanderson's Opinion in his Case concerning taking the Engagement that when Usurpers or Kings de facto have taken upon them the Government they are obliged to administer it for the common good and safety of the People and as far as that comes to we are also obliged to live peaceable under them and to yield obedience to them in things absolutely necessary for the upholding civil Society within the Realm such as are the defence of the Nation against Foreigners the furtherance of publick Justice the maintenance of Trade and Commerce and the like But sure this is no argument for transferring our Allegiance from the lawful King and his Heirs whilst they are alive and therefore I must still suppose that this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth can do no service to the present Government because it s vertually repeal'd by several Statutes as first by the 28th of Henry the VIIIth concerning the Succession of the Crown wherein it is expresly provided that if any of his Children should Usurp upon each other or if any of those to whom he should bequeath the Crown by his last Will or Letters Patents should take the Crown in any other manner than what should be thereby limited that such Children or others should be guilty of Treason for so doing Now it is plain such Treason must only have been committed against the right Heir and consequently the person so taking the Crown was not to be looked upon as King de facto It is also vertually repealed by the Statute of 1 o Elizabeth by which we are obliged to swear to be true to the Queen her Heirs and Lawful Successors i. e. those who have a right to the Crown by proximity of Blood as also by the Oath of Supremacy Enacted in the 4th of King Iames by which we are likewise sworn to bear true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors from which Oaths I argue first that if we are sworn by Act of Parliament to pay Allegiance to the Heirs of a King de fure who never were in possession than a fortiori to a King de jure who besides the legality of his Title had been actually recognized as Sovereign and enjoy'd an uncontested administration of the Regal Power Secondly If our Laws oblige us to swear subjection to the Heirs c. of a Rightful Prince than by undeniable consequence we are bound not to translate our Allegiance to those who are unjustly set up by the People for without all question the words Heirs and Lawful Successors were made use of on purpose to secure the hereditary Rights of the Monarchy and to prevent all Usurpations upon the direct Line And since by vertue of that Statute which framed the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy we are not to acknowledge any pretended Governours to the prejudice or disinherison of the Heirs of the King de jure then most certainly we ought not to do this in opposition to the King de jure himself so that now we can have no pretence to make Right the necessary consequence of meer possession of the Crown any more than in private Estates F. In the first place I agree with you in what you have said that Kings de facto are to be obeyed in all things tending to the publick good of Society but then it will also follow that Allegiance is due to them from that great Law of prosecuting the same publick good since it were much better that Kings de jure should lose their Right than that a Nation should be involved in a long and cruel War to the weakning and impoverishing thereof and to the destruction of so many thousands of ordinary as well as Noble Families as was seen in the long Civil Wars between the Families of Lancaster and York so that I cannot but think it would have been much better for this Nation if that Family had continued to Govern us unto this day rather than that Edward the IVth should have obtained the Crown with so great a destruction of the People of this Nation and so great cruelty as was then exercised upon King Henry the VIth and the Prince his Son as you may read in the History of those times But I come now to answer the rest of your Arguments whereby you will prove this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth to be vertually repeal'd and here by the way I must tell you Gentlemen of this Opinion that I cannot but admire your wondrous sagacity in discovering this Act to be repeal'd when my Lord Coke and all the rest of our Lawyers do still suppose it to be in force but indeed the reason you give for it is not urged like a Common Lawyer and therefore I think it will signifie little for though I grant that an Act of Parliament may be vertually repeal'd by a subsequent Act yet it is only in such Cases where they are absolutely contradictory and inconsistent with each other but if they are not so an Act of Parliament can never be said to be vertually repeal'd and therefore I shall now show you that notwithstanding the Statute of Henry the VIIIth and the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance you have now mention'd this Statute may very well continue in force and unrepeal'd First as to the Statute of Henry the Eighth whereby it was declar'd Treason for any one of his Children upon whom the Crown was setled to Usurp upon each other yet that part of the Statute which makes this Treason was repeal'd by the first of Edward the the Sixth and by the first of Queen Mary or admit it had not been so yet this Clause in the Statute of Henry the Eighth would haue been absolutely void in it self against any such Usurper when actually possessed of the Crown since it was held by all the Judges in the Case of Henry the Seventh who at the time of his coming into England stood attainted by Act of Parliament that this attainder need not be reversed since Possession of the Crown takes away all precedent defects But as to the Statutes of the first of Queen Elizabeth and the fourth of King Iames by which the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were Enacted I conceive neither of these Oaths can amount to a vertual repeal of this Act for though I grant one end of these Oaths may be to secure the right of the King or Queens Heirs by lineal descent yet it will not therefore follow that a King de facto
Act of Parliament and therefore I must still tell you that you go upon a wrong ground when you suppose that there can be now any dispute who is rightful King of England since I have often told you that he can neither abdicate or forfeit his Right to the Crown and that no Parliament whatever much less a Convention could have any power to declare he had abdicated the Government and that thereby the Throne was become vacant for though I grant the judgement of the Estates of the Kingdom when legally assembled ought to be received with great submission and respect yet must it be only in such matters which they have a legal cognizance of and which they are impower'd by the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom to determine but since their Voting him whom you your self cannot deny to have been their lawful King to have abdicated the Throne when indeed he had not and then not only to declare the Throne vacant but also to place those therein whom you your self dare not affirm to be the next Heirs by blood are things quite out of their Element and beyond the Sphere of their Authority and though I grant that they may sometimes judge concerning the Succession of the Crown and who is next heir to it yet is this only to be understood as far as they judge according to the Common Laws of the Succession already laid down at our last Meeting and not when they go quite contrary to them and therefore though I own the Parliament might justly declare Henry the VIth to be an Usurper and consequently might be deposed yet doth it not therefore follow that they had a like right to declare Edward the IVth an Usurper and to pass an Act of Attainder against him as I confess they did after that Prince had held the Crown for ten years together since that was beyond their power to enact or declare by the fundamental constitution of the Government F. I am sorry your answer can afford nothing new but only the repetitions of the same false Principles and Arguments that have been already so often answered in our former Conversations for in the first place I have sufficiently proved that neither the Laws of God nor Nature have ordain'd any such thing as a lineal Succession of Kings or any irresistible or unforfeitable power in them which they can never fall from let them act never so tyrannically for I think I have sufficiently prov'd that not only in absolute Monarchies but also in limited Kingdoms where the King has not the sole Supream power a King may not only be resisted but may be also declar'd to have abdicated or forfeited his right to Govern in case of any apparent obstinate violations of the fundamental Constitution in those great points that make that Government to differ from a despotick Monarchy and that if they had not this right all their liberties will signifie nothing and their Lives Liberties and Estates would lie wholly at the Kings mercy to be invaded and taken away when ever he pleas'd I am forced to repeat this to remind you of the Reasons upon which those Principles are founded and therefore you do but fall into your old mistake when you affirm that by the fundamental constitution of the Government the Great Council of the Nation which was but the same with our late Convention had no power to declare the King to have broken the Original Contract between him and his People Therefore what you say concerning the want of Authority in this Great Council to declare the Throne vacant is altogether precarious unless you could also prove that it is against the fundamental constitution so to do whereas I have so far proved the contrary that the Throne has been declared vacant no less than eight times since the Conquest which makes up almost a third part of the Successions of all the Kings and Queens that have Reigned since that time so that if the custom and practice of Great Councils or Conventions and those not condemn'd by any subsequent Statutes can be the only Rule or Guide for the Consciences of all the Subjects of this Nation we have certainly had that as solemnly declar'd now as in any other Great Council or Convention that has been ever held in this Kingdom but as to what you say concerning the want of power in those Councils to declare or recognize who are the right Heirs to the Crown but not to make them so is very pleasant since that were all one as if two Men who contended for an Estate should bring the matter before the House of Peers and when that was done and the Case solemnly heard by Council on both sides that party who had lost the Cause should declare that this Court tho' the highest in the Kingdom had no power to judge in prejudice of himself who had an undoubted right to the Estate which were only to give the Lords power to give judgment only for one side and why the other Party if the judgment had been given against him should not have made the like Plea I cannot understand So that such a Judgement would be altogether in vain Therefore to apply this to our purpose though the Parliament being prevail'd upon by the strength and faction of the Duke of York did as I granted at our last Meeting declare that his Title could in no wise be defeated yet Henry the VIth being then in the Throne they might have certainly given a contrary judgement if they had pleased and then I suppose the Title of the House of York might have been so defeated as that the Nation had never been troubled with it again and so also when by the power of Edward the IVth a Parliament met and declared him to be lawful King from the time of his Fathers death yet when the said King was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of Warwick and King Henry the VIth restored to the Throne a Parliament was summon'd in the 49th of this King wherein Edward the IVth was declared an Usurper and himself attainted and to which Parliament the Duke of Clarence Brother to King Edward the IVth is first Summoned as well as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury with all the other Bishops Temporal Lords and Judges of whom Littleton the Authour of the Book of Tenures was one so likewise upon King Edwards recovery of the Crown the year following King Henry was again deposed and a Parliament called wherein all the Dukes Earls and Barons with the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York and most of the rest of the Bishops Swore to Prince Edward after called Edward the Vth as Right Heir of the Crown Now I desire to know what other Law or Rule there was then for the Subjects Allegiance but the solemn judgement or declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom assembled in Parliament since their Acts and Judgements were in this dispute directly contradictory to each other so that it is evident
also to those of justice and right reason for an Usurper not only to seize the Throne by force but if he can once get himself solemnly Crown'd and then recogniz'd by an Act of Parliament of his own calling which your self cannot deny but to have been ever too obsequious to the will and power of Usurpers as appears by those instances you have given me in Henry the IVth Henry the VIth and Richard the IIId the consequence will then be that the whole Nation would not be only bound to swear Allegiance to him but would be also oblig'd by this Act to desend him in his Tyranny and Usurpation to the utmost of their power and it would also indemnifie them for so doing which would be to establish iniquity by a Law and would destroy all the setled foundations of right and wrong which I affirm God himself is not able to alter without departing from those great attributes of immutability and Justice so essential to his Divine Nature F. It will not be very difficult to reply to these Arguments since they are grounded on such false Principles as are already answer'd As first that this Kingdom is by the fundamental constitution of it an Hereditary Monarchy and that consequently none but he who has a right by inheritance can require our Allegiance but pray tell me where you can find this fundamental constitution for I think I have sufficiently prov'd that there never was any such thing known in England till between four and five hundred years since that King Edward the First succeeded to his Father Henry the Third without any Bequest of the Crown by his Testament and before any Election or Coronation since he was then in the Holy-Land But suppose it now to be an Hereditary Monarchy it doth not therefore follow that the Monarchy should continue always in such a Family for that may sail or may be changed by Conquest or Usurpation as has often been and the constitution continue So that the most that can be said is that when any particular Family by the Providence of God and the consent and submission of the People is placed in the Throne of right the Crown ought to descend to the Heir of that Family but suppose it does not must we pay Allegiance to no other person though pâ—ssessed of the Throne Pray Sir shew me that fundamental constiâ—ution for its being an Hereditary Monarchy does not prove it and according to the Judgement of the best Lawyers the Laws of the Land require the contrary viz. that we must pay our Allegiance to him who is actually King not to him who ought to have been King but is not and to think to confute this by pretending this fundamental constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy is to take that for granted which is still to be proved And therefore I am not at all frighted at the dreadful consequences which you suppose must follow if this Statute of Henry the VIIth should be Law viz. that it would be in the power of every Rebell and Usurper who could get himself Crown'd and then own'd to be King by a Parliament of his own calling to have a legal right to our Allegiance and that Cromwell if he could have got himself once Crown'd and recogniz'd might have been defended in his unjust Usurpation against King Charles the Second But admit this to have been so yet it is still to be understood that at this Coronation he had taken the Oath anciently taken by our Kings and that the Parliament he had summon'd to recognize his Title had consisted of the antient Lords and Commons consisting of Knights Citizens and Burgesses which never was observ'd in any of those Mock-Parliaments which Cromwell call'd had all these Conditions been observ'd I believe he would have been as legal a King within this Statute of Henry the VIIth as he himself ever was before he Married with the Princess Elizabeth which was not till near half a year after he had the Crown setled upon him by Act of Parliament So that though upon every translation of the Crown from one Family to another the first Prince of that Family could have no Hereditary Right to it yet we find such Princes to this day taken for Lawful Kings thus your William the Conquerour King Henry the IVth and King Henry the VIIth are each of them looked upon as true and lawful Kings according to our constitution as if they had been right Heirs of the Crown by lineal descent and though you may say that as to William I. he had a good right by Conquest that is only gratis dictum since I have already prov'd that he could be really no Conquerour And if the English Saxon Monarchy was hereditary before the Conquest as the Gentlemen of your opinion suppose he could be no other than an Usurper upon Edgar Athling the right Heir of the Crown by blood and as for Henry the IVth and Henry the VIIth though they both pretended a feigned Title to the Crown as Heirs by blood yet it is plain by the very Acts of Recognition I have cited that they durst not insist upon that Title since I have already prov'd there is no such thing mention'd in that Act of Parliament wherein the Estates of the Kingdom unanimously agreed that Henry Duke of Lancaster should Reign over them nor yet in the subsequent Act whereby the Crown was intail'd upon himself and his four Sons successively so likewise the Statute of the first of Henry the Seventh it is only drawn in general terms declaring that the Inheritance of the Crown of England c. shall rest remain and abide in the Person of King Henry the VIIth and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming c. Nor is there indeed any breach made upon this Statute as you suppose nor yet upon the Act of Recognition of King Iames which you so much insist upon since the Crown is certainly setled upon two Princes who are not only lineally descended from them but who are also to be looked upon as right Heirs unto them since the Great Council of the Nation who are the Supream Judges have declar'd them to be so But as for the rest of your Speech whereby you would prove that this Act must needs be void because contrary to the Laws of Justice and right Reason this also depends upon your former errour in supposing that Princes have a Divine or Natural Right to their Crowns antecedent to the municipal Laws of their respective Kingdoms which is already sufficiently confuted so that tho' I grant it is not in the power of God himself to alter the natural foundations of right and wrong just and unjust yet it is likewise as certain that the Civil Rights of Princes as well as those of Subjects can no ways be accounted for according to those Natural Laws since all Civil property as well in Crowns as other Possessions must depend upon the particular Laws and Constitutions of each Kingdom and
in pleyn Parliament that is in full Parliament where both Lords and Commons were present that the Proceedings of the Lords against those that were no Peers should not be drawn into Example c. Now pray see the Commentaries of the most Learned and Reverend Author of the Grand Question upon these words in this Record This hath all the formality of an Act of Parliament and therefore all the Estates were present so likewise in the same year in the next Roll but one Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy son Counsell in Plein Parliament which was an Act of Parliament concerning those that had followed the Earl of Lancaster So in the 5 th of this King we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who make a full Parliament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy Prelates Counts Barons autres Grands de Roiaâ—me in pleyn Parliament So in the 6 th of Edward the Ill d the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Oration in pleyn Parliament which is thus explained en le presence nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Prelats autres Grantz And in another Roll si est accorde assentu per tous in pleyn Parliament and who these were we are told in the same Roll viz. les Prelats Counts Barons tous les autres Summons à misme Parliament Now this is the clearest explication of these words in full Parliament viz. in the presence of all those who were Summon'd so that if the Commons were then Summon'd to this Parliament as certainly they were they must have given their Assents under the Title of Grantz since the Prelats Earls and Barons were particularly mention'd before To Dialogue the 10 th p. 706. after these words be Reformed by them or not read thus And that King Iames the First himself was satisfied of this Original Contract may appear by his own words in a Speech to both Houses of Parliament 1609. where he expresly tells them that the King binds himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom Tacitly as being a King and so bound to Protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation so as every King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws in framing the Government as agreeable thereunto according to that paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge c. To Dialogue 12. p. 874. after their Successors add this So that all the Modern Acts of Parliament for intailing the Crown being made and ordained by the Counsel and Assent of the Lords and Commons are so many plain declarations and evident Recognitions what the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government was in that grand Point To Dialogue the 12 th p. 898. after the words of the said Parish read thus and that not only all the Private Acts of that Parliament but some Publick ones also tho' never confirmed in the following Parliament of the 13th of Charles the Second are yet held good in Law appears by these that follow viz. 1. An Act for Continuance of Process and Iudicial Proceedings Continu'd By which all Writs Pleas Indictments c. then depending were ordered to stand and proceeded on notwithstanding want of Authority in the late Usurpers and therein it was farther ordained that Process and Proceedings in Courts of Justice should be in the English Tongue and the generall Issue be Pleaded till August 1. 1660. as if the Acts made during the Usurpation for that purpose had been good and effectual Laws And upon this foot only stand many Fines Recoveries Judgments and other Proceedings at Law had and passed between April 25 1660 and August 1. 1660. 2. An Act for Conforming and Restoring of Ministers This Act is usually to this day set forth and pleaded in Quare impedits tho' it was said to be refused upon debate to be confirmed in the House of Commons 13th of Car. II. when divers other Acts of the same time were confirmed yet both these Acts having no other Authority but from that Convention as you call it have been Judged and Constantly allowed to be good Laws for above these 30 years To Dialogue the 13 th p. 966. after these words were still alive read this And to shew you that the King and Parliament have deprived even Bishops of their own Communion and that such deprivations have been held good and that the King hath nominated new Bishops upon the vacancy you may see in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and in the Appendix to it where you will find a memorable Act of Parliament of the 25 th of Henry the VIII before his departure from his obedience to the See of Rome whereby Cardinal Campegio and Hieronimo de Ghinicci were deprived of the Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester which they had held for near 20 years and Campegio had without doubt been installed in it when he was in England The Act it self being so remarkable I shall give you some passages out of it verbatim first the Preamble sets forth that whereas before this time the Church of England by the Kings most Noble Progenitors and the Nobles of the same hath been founded ordained and establish'd in the Estate and degree of Prelacy Dignities and other Promotions Spiritual c. which sufficiently confirms what I but now asserted that all the Bishopricks were founded by our Kings with the consent of their Grand Councils or Parliaments and then it proceeds to recite that whereas all Persons promoted to Ecclesiastical Benefices ought to reside within the Realm for Preaching the Laws of Almighty God and keeping hospitality and since these Prelates had not observed these things but lived at Rome and carried the Revenues of their Bishopricks out of the Kingdom contrary to the intention of the Founders and to the great prejudice of the Realm c. in consideration whereof it is Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament that the said two Sees and Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester and either of them henceforth shall be taken reputed and accounted in the Law to be void vacant and utterly destitute of any Incumbent or Prelate and then follows a Clause enabling the King his Heirs and Successors to nominate and appoint Successors being the Natives of this Realm to the said Sees and the King did nominate Successors according to the said Act. A Table of ERRATA THE Authors Occasions not permitting 〈…〉 Town whilst most of these Dialogue were in the Press begs pardon for the many Erratas in some of them and desires you to Correct such gross ones that alter or disturb the sense viz. Dial. 1. p. â—0 l 24. for Author r. Authority p. 52. l. 37. for 4th r. 5th p. 36. l. 38. for Rights r. Rites Dial. 2. p. 80. l. 25. del hundred r thousand p. 80 l. 22. d. Greek p. 84.
bind their Consciences as firmly as any Civil Laws they are bound to observe them and exercise their Soveraign Power within those Limits which they set and prescribe For whether they have their Supream Power from Goâ— as we say or from the People as you alledge it it is all one as to this matter for they can have no Right neither from God nor the People to make Vnjust and Tyrannical Laws And this Political Limitation of their Power in the exercise of it doth no more destroy the Essence thereof than its flowing in Pipes or Channels destroys the Essence of a Spring since it is still the same whether it runs confined through Pipes or flows free and unconfined through the open field The Application is obvious But as for the precedent words in this place of Braâ—ton which seems to intimate that the King owâ— his Authority to the Law He there only means the King in Opposition or Contradiction to a Tyrant who makes his Will his Law according to that of Chancellor Forâ—escue Rex est ubi bene regit Tyrannus dum populum sibi orediâ—um violentâ opprimiâ— Dominatione quod hoc sanxit Lex humana quod Leges ligant Suum Latorem Where you may observe that this Author makes a King's governing well i. e. according to Law a mark of Distinction from a Tyrant who oppresses his Subjects by a violent Domineering over them And though he here supposes the King to be obliged by the Laws yet that this Obligation is only Moral appears by what immediately follows when he says the Laws do oblige their Legislator Now if the King be the Sole Legislator as He here seems to intimate He must also be the Sole Supream Power and if so cannot be accountable to or under the Coercion of any Superior Power for then he would not be Supream as you your self have granted long since F. Since you are not willing to enter upon that Ancient Power which you cannot deny but the Great Council formerly had of putting a Bridle upon the King and Restraining his Actions in Case he Invaded the Rights or Liberties of the People I shall not â—â—sist farther upon it now for the Reasons you have given only I must make bold to tell you thus much that if they have not a Power of defending their just Rights if forceably Invaded by the King it would be all one as if they had none at all Tho' I grant that what you have said concerning the Limitation of the Exercise of Soveraign Power that it doth not Derogate from the Absoluteness of the Power it self is very true in all such Limitations which proceed from the Intrinsick Nature and Perfection of the Being in which it Resides as in your Example of God's infinite Power being Limited by his other Attributes So likewise all Human Powers I own are limited by the Revealed Laws of God or those of Nature But as to positive Laws you your self assert that absolute Monarchs are only obliged by them as long as they please and consequently that they may alter them or Derogate from them as oft as they think good as the Roman Emperors could revoke any Priviledges or Immunities they had formerly granted to particular Persons Cities nay to Tributary Kings or Common-Wealths and all this very justly because as all such Grants were made only for the publick good of the Empire So they being the sole Judges thereof when ever they found such Confessions to prove prejudicial to it they might justly alter or revoke them Now if the Power of our Kings be as absolutely Soveraign as that of the Roman Emperors and only limited by their own free Grants or Condescensions to the People and not from any Power ab extra Such Grants or Condescensions though never so Solemnly past into Laws in the Parliament or Assembly of the States are still no more than positive Laws And then if the King is the Sole Soveraign Power unlimited by any thing ab extra how can He so tye up his own Hands as that he may not Break or Rescind all those Concessions he had made and those limitations which he had put upon himself if he think or declare it is for the better benefit of the Common-Wealth so to do I cannot Comprehend if He be by the Original Constitution the sole Lawmaker and Judge of what is for the publick Good Much less can I understand how he can oblige his Successors who must still be supposed as Absolute Monarchs as himself to observe them And therefore if all our Civil Rights and Liberties were no other than what you would have them the free Condescensions or Self-Limitations of Soveraign Power I desire you would shew me what security we can have for the Enjoyments of them longer than the King pleases For it seems plain to me that when ever He shall fancy the Liberties and Properties of the Subjects both which you suppose were derived from him to be injurious to or inconsistent with his Prerogative or Soveraign Power he may lawfully Disannul or revoke them and in what Case we then should be considering how things had like to have gone lately I leave any indifferent Man to Judge Nor Is your Interpretation of Bracton's words Lex facit Regem c. Any more than an absolute Wresting of them from their true meaning which is not as you would have it to Distinguish a King that governs by Law from a Tyrant that makes his Will his Law for every absolute Monarch that doth so is not a Tyrant provided he direct his Actions according to the Laws of God and Nature as you your self assert and a Prince may as well govern thus as the Great Turk Czar of Muscovy and all the Eastern Monarchs do at this Day who are not counted Tyrants in so doing But certainly you will say that He would make a very Scurvy English King who would observe no other Rule Nor do you less wrest Fortescue's words when you render them Rex est ubi bene regit Tyrannus c. Supposing the meaning of it to be that this Author makes a King's governing that is say you according to Law the only thing to Distinguish him from a Tyrant c. Whereas he says no such matter but only Rex est ubi bene regit which he may do without any Set Laws as well as with them as the first Kings you suppose did before they were limited by Laws But as for Fortescue's supposing the King to be the Sole Legislator that word Sole is of your own Addition for if he had said so he would have contradicted himself as I shall shew you presently It is true the King hath a great share in the Legislative yet hath he two other Bodies to joyn with him by a Concurrent or Cooperative Power in it And I think I have all the Ancient Lawyers of England on my side To begin therefore with Ranulph de Gâ—anville who was Chief Justicear in the Reign of Henry the
Second He gives us in his Prologue to his Treatise of the Laws of England this Testimony Leges namque Anglicanas liceâ—â—on Scriptas Leges appellari non videtur absurdum cum boc ipsum Lex sit quod Principi placet Legis habet vigorem â—as Scilicet quas super dubljs in conâ—ilio definiendis Procerum quidem consilio Principis accadente Authoritate constat esse promulgatas So likewise Bracton in his very first Chapter speaks much to the same purpose Cum Legis vigorem habeat quicquid de Consilio de Consâ—nsu Magnatum Reipublicae commâ—ni Sponsione Authoritate Principis prâ—ceâ—â—nte justè fuerit definiâ—um approbatum And also in his third Book Chap. 2. When he speaks of the Antient manner of making Laws in England he says Quae quidem fuerint approbate concensu utentium Sacramento Râ—gum confirmaâ—ae non possunt mutari atâ— destrui fine communi consensu utentium consilio eorum quorum consilio Consensu fuerint promulgata Where you may see these Ancient Authors plainly declare that nothing hath the force of a Law in this Kingdom but what is approved of and consented to by all Orders of Men either by themselves or their Representatives And which is very Remarkable Bracton supposes the King's Authority or Royal Sanction of a Law may precede the Consent of the Great Council which quite destroys that Notion That it is the Kings giving his last Assent which gives it the Essence and Vigour of a Law And with these more Antient Sages of the Law Fortescue also agrees in his 9th Chap. Dâ— Laudibus Legum Angliae where he says Rex Angliae Populum gubernaâ— non mera potesâ—â— to Regid sed politica Populus enim ijs Legibâ— guberâ—â—tur quas ipse fert c. What follows is word for word the same with what Bracton had before in his first Chap and therefore needs not to be Repeated so likewise in the 18 Chap. speaking of the Absolute Legislative Power of Kings in some other Kingdoms he thus proceeds Sed non Sic Angliae Statuta oriri possunt dum nelum Principis voluntate sed toâ—ius Regni Assensu ipsa conduntur quo Populi laesuram nequiunt vel non eorum Commodum procurare But if they after prove inconvenient he immediately adds Concito reformari ipsa possunt sed non fine Communitatis Proterum Regni illius Assensu quali ipsa primitùs emanarunt To which I may also add an Authority out of that Learned Author St. German who in his Dialogue called the Dr. and Student written in Latin in the 10th Chap. Entituled de Sexto fundamento Legis Angliae The Student thus speaks Sexium Fundamentum Legis Angliae sâ—at in diversis Statutis per Dominum Regem Progenitores suos per Dominos spirituales Temporales per Communitatem totius Regni in Parliamentis Editis ubi Lex Rationis Lex Diviâ—a Consuetudines Maxima sive alia fundamenta Legis Anglia prià s Sufficere minimè videbantur Where you see the Legislative Power is here Attributed to the Lords and Commons joyntly with the King And therefore my Lord Coke in his Notes upon the Statute of Westminster I calls it a Compleat Parliament as consisting of all the Estates necessary thereunto for says he a Parliament concerning making or enacting Laws Consists of the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons and 〈◊〉 is no Act of Parliament unless it be made by the King Lords and Commons M. I shall not much concern my self with what your Common Lawyers either Ancient or Modern have writ upon this matter much less what Sir Edward Coke a known Enemy to the Kings Prerogative doth maintain Since I have as good or a better Authority than he viz. that of the Year-Book of 22 Ed. 3. Wherein it is expresly declared by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the Case of one Headlow and his Wife who had a Suit with the King That the King makes the Laws by the Assent of the Lords and Commons and not the Lords and Commons and that He could have no Peer in his own Land and that the King ought not to be Judged by them So that it is I think evident that the Laws are primarily and properly made by the King and that the two Houses have a Cooperation but no Co-ordination of Power with him And though at this Day I grant that Custom hath made the Assent of the Lords and Commons necessary to the passing of all Laws yet it is still the King's word or le Royâ—le veulâ— that makes them so and I much doubt whether even this were part of the Ancient Constitution of this Kingdom or not or proceeded at first from the Gracious Favour and Permission of former Kings as I could shew by the whole Series of Councils in the Saxon times if it were not too tedious to mention them particularly therefore I shall only Select some of the most Remarkable For though I confess the English Saxon Kings performed all Great and Considerable things by the Counsel and Advice of their Bishoâ—s and Noblemen comprehended under the general names of Wits yet you will find by the Titles of almost all the Councils in Spellman Lambard and that these Kings alone made their Laws though by the Advice and Council of their Wittena Gemote which was then no other than the King 's Greater Council Since He called what Great Men and Bishops he pleased to it and omitted the rest And it is never mentioned that they were made by their Consent as necessary thereunto Nay sometimes we find that some of the Ancient Saxon Kings made Laws without the Assent of their Great Council Thus Offâ— King of the Mercians being at Rome out of his Royal Munificence gave to the Support of the People of his Kingdom that should come thither a penny to be paid Yearly for ever out of every Family by all whose Goods in the Fields exceeded the value of Thirty pence And this He made a perpetual Constitution throughout all his Dominions excepting the Lands Conferred upon the Monastery of St. Albans This Imposition and Law continued a long while in force though we find it not Confirmed by any great Councils in the time of his Successors only in the Laws of King Edgar and King Edward it is enjoyned to be paid as the King's Alms which implies it was the King's Gift and that Solely without the consent of a Great Council But to give you a more particular Proof of the Supream and Absolute Power of our Saxon Kings as well during the Heptarchy as afterwards in making ad establishing Laws I shall begin with the first we have extant which are those of Ina King of the West-Saxons who began his Reign Anno. 712. In the Preface to his Laws we find it thus express't which I shall render out of the Saxons Copy Published by
or for the time being may not be legally defended in the Throne for as for that part of the Oath which was taken to King Iames himself it can hold no longer than whilst he continued King If therefore the Estates of the Kingdom have adjudged him to have forfeited or abdicated the Crown the whole Nation ought to take this as to have been legally done since it was done by the judgment of the highest Authority in the Nation when King Iames had deserted the Throne the like I may also say for the other part of the Oath of Allegiance whereby we are obliged to his Heirs and Lawful Successors for since there has been a dispute concerning the succession of the Crown between the Princess of Orange and your Prince of Wales if the Convention who are the sole proper Judges in this Case have thought fit for the reasons I have already given you at our last Meeting to declare King William and Queen Mary the lawful King and Queen of England all the Nation ought to accept them for such since it was done by the highest Authority at that time extant in the Nation and the only proper Judges of that right and if disputes about legal rights of which certainly that of succeeding to the Crown is of the highest importance ought to be decided by Law and not by the Sword which is not the decision of civil Authority but of force the sentence of competent Judges must end the dispute and if the Estates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of such Disputes that concern the right to the Crown there can be none and if they be Subjects must acquiesce in their Judgments or it is all one as if there had been none for if Men may pretend Conscience and adhere to their own private Opinions as sole Judges the dispute must end in blows which is contrary to the reason and nature of humane Societies which were instituted to prevent Civil Wars and to end all Controversies by a legal Judgment without the Sword And to let you see farther that as to the Allegiance of the Subjects it is all one in respect of us who are Subjects whether the Convention have judged right or wrong in this case Let us suppose a Person who has only a pretence but no true right to an Estate should commence a Suit of Law for it and at last obtaine a Verdict of the Jury and also a Judgment of the Court of Kings-Bench for his Title can any Man deny but that the Sheriff is by vertue of this Verdict and Judgment oblig'd to put this Abator into possession of this Estate notwithstanding he may know of his own knowledge that the person who has obtain'd this Judgment has no true right to the Estate or will any Lawyer doubt whether all the Tenants of the Mannour are not oblig'd to swear homage and fealty to this suppos'd Lord if they are required by him so to do Now though the true Heir or owner has the legal right to the Estate yet by the supream Law of all Societies which refers the decision of all personal rights to a legal Authothority he who by a legal judgment is possessed of it has the legal right in the Estate against all other claims and legal Authority must desend him in it and all who will submit to Laws and Legal Authority must acquiesce in it And thus it must be with respect to the Rights of Princes as well as of Subjects the right to the Crown has been often disputed as we all know and to say that when such disputes happen there is no Authority in the Nation to decide them is to say that Princes have no rights to their Crowns by the Laws of that Nation for there can be no Civil Rights of which there neither are nor can be any Civil Judges for no man no not a Prince can be judge in his own Cause and if Princes have no legal rights they can lose no legal rights when they lose their Crowns and I doubt their natural rights swill affect the Consciences of very few Subjects Therefore every independent Civil Society which is not wholly governed by the Sword must from the nature of such Societies and the reason of their institution have authority within it self to decide all Controversies which may arise about the rights of every member of that Society and to preserve it self from falling into a state of War which is a dissolution of all Civil Government and if there ought to be such an Authority in every Civilized Nation when this Supream Authority has given sentence in such Disputes this must also determine all the Subjects and ought likewise to have the same effect upon the contending Princes themselves and no right or pretence of right ought to affect the Conscience after such a final Judgment unless Civil Rights can oblige Subjects to dissolve Civil Governments and to dispute Civil Rights not by the Law but by the Sword which is to overthrow all Civil Rights and put an end to the Authority of Laws I hope this may serve to shew you how much you are mistaken to suppose that there can be no King in an hereditary Monarchy but the next lineal Heir and tho' I grant no Allegiance can be due or ought to be paid to him who is no King yet will it not follow that none can be due to any Prince if he be not the next heir for that no obedience can be due to him who is no King I readily grant but yet he may be a legal King in this Kingdom who is not the next Heir by blood as almost half of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not and yet have been always own'd and obey'd as legal Kings M. I confess what you say would go a great way to satisfie me could you prove that there was no difference between the succession to Crowns and private inheritances where I grant that the judgement of the Supream Court of the Nation is to determine not only the possession but the right too in respect of the person who loses his Estate by an unjust verdict or illegal judgment whereas it is otherwise in the Title of Crowns to which Princes have a right as well by the Laws of God and Nature as also by the receiv'd setled Laws and Customs of the Kingdom concerning the Succession by descent which is call'd in the 13th of Queen Elizabeth in the Statute we have so much debated at our last Meeting the Common Laws of this Realm and it is there declared that it ought to direct the right of the Crown of England and it is there made Treason during the Queens life to affirm the contrary and this course of lineal Succession at Common Law was also declar'd by solemn judgment in Parliament in the case I have so often urg'd of the Duke of York's Title to the Crown against Henry the VIth that it could no way be defeated by