Enquirers Concessions Thirdly From a considerable Instance in our own Government First From the common Notion of a Trust For what is more generally understood by trusting another than that we lodge our concerns with him and put them out of our own disposal When I trust a Man with my Life or Fortune all People agree that I put it in his Power to deprive me of both For to deliver any Property to another with a Power of Revocation is to trust him as we say no farther than we can throw him He that can recover a Sum of Money he has deposited when he pleases to speak properly has it still in his Custody and trusts his Friend no more than he does his own Coffers And therefore if we consult our thoughts we shall find that a Trust naturally implies an entire reliance upon the Conduct and Integrity of another which makes us resign up our Liberty or Estate to his Management imagining them safer in his Hands than in our own In short a Trust where there is no third Person to judg of the performance as in these Pacts between Subjects and Soveraign there is not In this case a Trust includes a Translation of Right and in respect of the Irrevocableness of it is of the Nature of a Gift so that there seems to be only this difference between them that a Gift ought to respect the Benefit of the Receiver whereas a Trust is generally made for the Advantage of him who conveys it Secondly By our Author 's own Concessions a Trustee is sometimes unaccountable for he grants a Man may Sell himself to be a Slave p. 1. And when he has once put himself into this condition his Master has an Absolute Soveraignty over him and an indefeasable right to his service so that notwithstanding all the unreasonable Usage he may meet with he can never come into his Freedom again without the consent of his Lord. This I take to be an uncontested Truth and if it was not St. Peter's Authority ought to over-rule the dispute Who charges those who were in this state of servitude to be subject to their Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward 1 Ep. 2. 18. Thirdly I shall prove the unaccountableness of a Trust from a considerable Instance in our own Government The House of Commons V. g. are certainly Trustees for the Towns and Counties who choose them the People resign up the disposal of their Rights and Properties into their Hands in hopes of a good management But suppose they prevaricate in their Employment and betray their Electors does this Impower the People to lay their Representatives by the heels when they come into the Country or to punish them farther as their Wisdoms shall think convenient If so then the last resort of Justice must lie in the Sovereign Multitude who have neither capacity to understand the reasons of Government nor temper and tenderness to manage it 'T is pitty the Mobile in Henry the 6th his Reign had not this discovery when the Right of choosing Members was limitted to Forty Shillings per Annum Free-hold whereas before all Tenures if not all Persons had the liberty to elect without exception but this Act in all likelihood barr'd no less then a Fifth of the Nation from this principal Post in the Government And if Columbus had not given them a lift by finding out the West-Indies and abating the value of Money their Grievance had continued to this day as heavy as ever We see therefore that the Author's Notion of a Trust will not hold Water and if it would it can do him no Service for I shall prove in the Second place that the Kings of England hold their Crown by Right of Conquest and Succession and consequently are no Trustees of the People I shall begin with the Point of Succession which because it's generally received I shall only mention an Act of Parliament or Two for the proof of it In the first of Edward the Fourth Rot. Parl. where the Proceedings against Richard the Second are repealed it 's said That Henry Earl of Derby afterwards Henry the Fourth Temerously against RightWiseness and Iustice by Force and Arms against his Faith and Ligeance rered Werre at Flint in Wales against King Richard the Second Him took and Imprisoned in the Tower of London in great Violence and Usurped and Intruded upon the Royal Power Estate and Dignity And a little after they add That the Commons being of this present Parliament having sufficient and evident knowledge of the said Unright-wise 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 Soveraign Lord thereunto true and that by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature He and none other is and ought to be their true right-wise and Natural Leige and Soveraign Lord and that He was in Right from the Death of the said Noble and Famous Prince his Father Richard Duke of York very just King of the said Realms of England do take and repute and will for ever take and repute the said Edward the Fourth their Soveraign and Leige Lord and Him and his Heirs to be Kings of England and none other according to his said Right and Title In the first of Richard the Third there is another Statute very full to this purpose which begins The Three Estates c. But I shall pass over this and proceed to the Act of Recognition made upon King Iames the First his coming to the Crown Wherein it 's declared That He was Lineally Rightfully and Lawfully Descended of the Body of the Most Excellent Lady Margaret Eldest Daughter of the Most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife Eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being Eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England In consideration whereof the Parliament doth acknowledge King Iames their only Lawful and Rightful Leige Lord and Soveraign And as being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and Man They do recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the Dissolution and Decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England and all the Kingdoms Dominions and Rights belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and undoubted Succession Descend and come to his Most Excellent Majesty as being Lineally Iustly and Lawfully next and SOLE HEIR of the BLOOD Royal of this Realm as it is aforesaid And thereunto they do most Humbly and Faithfully submit and oblige themselves they Heirs and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their Bloods be spent So much concerning the Succession where by the way we may observe the Deposing Doctrine is directly pronounced unlawful as appears from the
in a Publick and Peaceable Way These Unproclaimed Expeditions have been always thought unjustifiable and contrary to the Law of Nature and Nations For those who have a Just Tenderness for the Lives of Men who have any Regard to Justice or the Repose of Christendom will try all other Arguments before they Dispute the Cause at the Swords Point For besides the Roughness of such a Method if Princes should make a practise of Invading each other without warning Men would be almost obliged to sleep in Armour and the World must be always kept up in a posture of Defence for fear of being surprized Now this would be a very troublesome and expensive way of Living and make all Neighbouring Kingdoms especially very distrustful of and disaffected towards each other I know His most Christian Majesty complains in his Memorial That He has been ill used by the Court of Vienna but then He might have pleased to have told the Emperor so before the Siege of Philipsburgh And the Action was still more Unaccountable if he went as who knows but he might upon the bare Presumption of an Injury and relyed upon the Intelligence of a few Sceptical Obnoxious and Discontented Germans who lay under the Imperial Bann And to mention nothing further if this very Disputable Right was only an Expectancy which would have admitted of Slow Forms and kept cold well enough till had fallen as any one might fairly conclude from the Numbers and Inclinations of his Friends in the Empire this was a further Aggravation of the Unreasonableness of his War. I confess if all these hard things are true of the French King I don't wonder if the Enquirer has levelled a whole Paragraph against Him and I wish the Emperor may recover just Damages for so Secret and Violent an Invasion All this while we have been Kings and Emperors but now we must Reign over our selves no longer but descend into the Melancholy state of Subjection However to do the Author right he has put the Yoak on so favourably that whenever we find it galls us we may throw it off again and return to our former Independency For he gives us to to understand Sect. 3. That the True and Original Notion of Civil Society and Government is that is a Com-promise made by such a Body of Men by which they resign up the right of demanding Reparations either in the way of Iustice against one another or in the way of War against their Neighbours to such a single Person or to such a Body of Men as they think fit to trust with this Now not to Examine how our Author comes to know that the Original Notion of Society was the True one It 's pretty apparent his Notion of it is neither Original nor True not Original because it does not comprehend the most Antient beginning of Government viz. Paternal Authority and Conquest in which Cases Men have not the liberty of Articling for Priviledges but must submit to their Parents and Conquerors whether they think fit to trust them or not Secondly His Notion is defective in Point of Truth for he has only restrained his Men from Acting Arbitrarily upon one another or from Fighting a Foreign State without Commission but as for their Governours they may resist them for all his Diffinition when they please for having resigned nothing but their right of demanding Reparations either in the way of Justice or War against their Fellow Subjects or Neighbouring States it follows that one Branch of their Natural Liberty is reserved to them to Fight their Prince with upon Occasion This Conclusion if we had nothing else to infer it follows evidently from his own Principle for since Government is only a Trust committed by the People to a Single Person c. and all Trusts as he affirms in this Section by their Nature import that those to whom they are given are accountable Nothing is more plain then that they may discharge themselves from Subjection whenever they shall think fit to say Their Governours have not kept Touch with them He proceeds to tell us That the Executive Power when separated from the Legislative is a plain Trust and no more than a Subordinate Authority From hence we may observe First That by this Authors Concessions the People have not the Legislative Authority for he owns part of it is in the King from whence it follows that the whole Body of the People is not the Supream Authority nor consequently can call their Prince to Account without his own Consent Secondly That part of the Legislative Authority which is lodged in the People is not given them at large to be exerted at their pleasure but depends upon Stated Rules and Limitations and can only be exercised by their Representatives in Parliament Nay it 's so precarious a Privilege that without the King's leave they can never make use of it for it 's neither Lawful for them to Convene themselves nor yet to Sit any longer than the King pleases For though there is an Act for a Triennial Parliament yet if the King Omits the Calling of them within that time there is no provision made to Assemble themselves which is an Evidence this Power was never conveyed to them by this Act For if it had the Methods of putting it in Execution would have been Adjusted And if the King should refuse to Issue out Writs the Chancellor would have been Authorized to do it Which Power upon the Suppositition of intermediate Failures would have been handed down as low as the petty Constables as it was proposed by the Parliament Assembled in 40 to Charles the First Now if the People have no share in making of Laws but by Representation in Parliament and the Being of this Assembly depends upon the Prince's pleasure then either the King is the Supream Authority in the Intervals of Parliament which may be as long as the Crown thinks fit or else there is no such thing as a Supream Authority in the Nation and consequently no Government Further when the Two Houses are actually Convened when they are Dictating Law and Justice to the Nation and Cloathed with all the Advantages of Solemnity and Power they are then no more than Subjects they are lyable to the highest Penalties if they are proved guilty of those Crimes which deserve them for Felony and Treason are expresly excepted out of their Privileges But to consute the Author's Notion of Government more fully and especially to make his Application of it Unserviceable I shall endeavour to prove Two things against him First That a Trust does not always imply the Person accountable to whom it 's made Secondly That the Kings of England hold their Crown by right of Conquest and Succession and consequently are no Trustees of the People 1. A Trust does not always imply the Person accountable to whom it 's made which I shall briefly make good these Three ways First From the common Notion of a Trust. Secondly From the
first of Edward the Fouâ—h which Act continues still unrepealed I shall proceed to prove the Norman Conquest for I need go no higher which I shall make good from the best Historians who lived either in or near that time from Doomeseday Book and Acts of Parliament 1. From Historians c. Eadmer Hist. Nov. Fol. 6. a Monk of Canterbury at the time of the Conquest and very intimate with Arch-bishop Lanfrank and with him when News came of the Conqueror's Death Writes That William designing to Establish those Laws and Usages in England which his Ancestors and Himself observed in Normandy made such Persons Bishops Abbots and other Principal Men who could not be thought so unworthy as to be guilty of any incompliance with his new Model knowing by whom and to what Station they were raised All Religious and Secular Affairs He managed at his pleasure And after the Historian had related in what Points 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 's not to my purpose and likewise because any one may guess by what has been delivered already at what rate He ordered the State. The next Testimony shall be fetched out of Ingulph Abbot of Croyland an English Man born Secretary to William when Duke of Normandy and made Abbot by him This Author informs us That by hard Usage He made the English submit that He gave the Earldems Baronies Bishopricks and Prelacies of the whole Nation to his Normans and scarce permitted any English Man to enjoy any place of Honour Dominion or Power Hist. Croyl f. 512. But Gervace of Tilbury a considerable Officer in the Exchequer in the Time of Henry the Second and who received his Information from Henry of Blois Bishop of Winchester and Grand-child to the Conquerour is more full to this purpose which he thus delivers After the Conquest of the Kingdom and the just Subversion of Rebels when the King himself and his great Men had viewed and surveyed their new acquests there was a strict Enquiry made who there were which had fought against the King and secured themselves by Flight From these and the Heirs of such as were Slain in the Field all hopes of Possessing eiâ—er Lands or Rents were cut off for they counted it a great Favour to have their Lives given them But such as were called and solicited to Fight against King William and did not if by an humble Submission they could gain the Favour of their Lords and Masters they then had the Liberty of Possessing somewhat in their own Persons but without any right of leaving it to their Posterity Their Children enjoying it only at the Will of their Lords To whom when they became unacceptable they were every where outed of their Estates neither would any restore what they had taken away And when the miserable Natives represented their Grievances publickly to the King informing him how they were spoiled of their Fortunes and that without Redress they must be forced to pass into other Countries At length upon Consultation it was Ordered That what they could obtain of their Lords by way of Desert or Lawful Bargain they should hold by unquestionable Right but should not Claim any thing from the Time the Nation was Conquered under the Title of Succession or Descent Upon what great Consideration this was done is manifest says Gervace For they being obliged to compliance and obedience to purchase their Lords Favour therefore whoever of the Conquered Nation Possessed Lands c. Obtained them not as if they were their Right by Succession or Inheritance but as a Reward of their Service or by some Intervening Agreement Gervase of Tilbury or the Black Book in the Exchequer Lib. 1. Cap. de Murdro de necessar observ The next Testimony I shall produce is out of Gulielmus Pictaviensis who lived about the time of Ingulph This Writer speaking of King William's Coronation adds cujus Liberi atque nepotes c. i. e. whose Children and Posterity shall Govern England by a just Succession which he Possessed by an Hereditary Bequest Confirmed by the Oaths of the English and by the Right of his Sword Gul. Pict fol. 206. Farther Ordericus Vitalis who lived in the Reign of William the Second tells us How William the First Circumvented the Two great Earls of Mercia and that after Edwin was Slain and Morcar Imprisoned then King William began to show himself and gave his Assistants the best and most considerable Counties in England and made Rich Colonels and Captains of very mean Normans Oder Vital fol. 251. The same Author relates That after the Norman Arms overcame England and King William had reduced it under the Government of his own Laws he made Fulcard a Monk of St. Omers Abbot of Thorney Ibid. fol. 853. Henry Arch-deacon of Huntington who lived in the Reign of King Stephen is full to the same purpose Anno Gratiae 1066. perfecit Dominus Dominator c. i. e. In the Year c. the great Ruler of Kingdoms brought that to pass which he had long intended against the English for he delivered them over to be destroyed by the Rough and Politick Nation of the Normans fol. 210. And in another place more particularly When the Normans had Executed the just Decree of God upon the English and there was not any Person of Quality of English Extraction remaining but all were reduced to Servitude and Distress insomuch that it was Scandalous to be called an English Man William the Author of this Iudgment dyed in the Twenty first Year of his Reign Ibid. fol. 212. Matthew Paris Who wrote towards the end of the Reign of Henry the Third agrees with the forementioned Testimonies his Words are these fol. 5. Dux Normannorum Willielmus c. i. e. Duke William having fortified the Cities and Castles and Garrisoned them with his own Men Sailed into Normandy with English Hostages and abundance of Treasure whom when he had Imprisoned and Secured he hastened back into England that he might liberally distribute the Lands of the English who were forcibly disseized of their Estates amongst his Norman Soldiers who had helped him at the Battle of Hastings to subdue the Country and that little that was left he put under the Yoak of perpetual Servitude And in another place he tells us That King William brought Bishopricks and Abbys under Military Service which before that time had been free from all Secular Servitude but then every Bishoprick and Abby was Enrolled according to his Pleasure and charged how many Knights or Horse-men they should find for him and his Successors in times of War fol. 7. I might add many more Authorities of Antient Historians but these I suppose are sufficient As for Modern Writers I shall only cite Mr. Cambden who thus delivers his Sence of this matter Britan. p. 109. Victor Gulielmus c. i. e. William the Conqueror as it were to make his
Victory the more remarkable Abrogated the greatest part of the English Laws brought in the Customs of Normandy and ordered the Pleadings to be in French And outing the English of their Antient Inheritances Assigned their Lands and Mannors to his Soldiers Yet so as he reserved the Paramount Lordship to himself and his Successors by Homage That is that they all should hold their Estates by the Feudal Laws and that none but the King should be Independent Proprietors but rather a sort of limited Trustees and Occupants in Tenancy From these Citations we have all imaginable Marks of an entire Conquest The Laws and Tenures and in some measure the Language of the Country were changed The Saxons were Transplanted into Normandy and dispossed of their Estates as appears not only from the forementioned Historians but from Doomse-day Book where we find that almost all the great Proprietors were Normans Now this Survey was made at the latter end of the Conqueror's Reign many Years after his taking the Oath which is by some so much insisted upon as appears from Ingulphus If it 's Objected that William the First granted King Edward's Laws To this I Answer 1. That most of King Edward's Laws were only Penal and respected Criminals as we may learn from Ingulph Hist. Croyland in fine Secondly These Laws of King Edward were not granted by the Conqueror without his own Amendments and Refinings upon them as is evident from the Charter of Henry the First as it stands in Matthew Paris fol. 55. Lagam Regis Edvardi vobis reddo cum eis Emendationibus quibus Pater eam Emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum i. e. I Grant you King Edward ' s Laws with those Amendments which my Father made in them by the advice of his Barons And that these last Words may not be thought to weaken the Testimony it 's not improper to observe that these Alterations are said to be made only by the Advise not by the Authority of the Barons and yet these Barons were Normans too as is sufficiently plain from what has been discoursed already But To Conclude the proofs of this Argument several of our Parliaments acknowledge William the First a Conqueror The Acts all of which it would be very tedious to name run thus in the Preamble Edward V. g. by the Grace of God the Fourth after the Conquest c. Now this is a plain Concession that the Rights of the Subjects were derived from the Crown and in all likelihood was intended to hint as much And therefore unless the Norman Conquest had been evident and unquestionable the Lords and Commons who were always very Tender of their Liberties would never have consented that the Statutes should have been Penned in such a Submissive Style If it be Objected That the Conqueror took an Oath to observe the Laws of the Realm In Answer to this I observe 1. That we have seen already in some measure what sort of Laws these were and how they were managed by him Secondly Neither Pictaviensis Eadmerus Ordericus Vitalis Henry of Huntington or Matth. Paris Write of any Oath taken by the Conqueror Florence of Worcester is the first that mentions it Flor. Wigorn. fol. 635. The Words of the Oath are these Se velle Sanctas Dei Ecclesias ac Rectores earum defendere nec non cunctum Populum sibi subjectum justa Regali Providentia Regere rectam Legem Statuere tenere Rapinas Injustaque Iudicia penitus interdicere i. e. That he would protect Holy Church and the Hierarchy that he would Govern all his Subjects fairly and take a Royal care of their welfare That he would make Equitable Laws and observe them and wholy Prohibit Rapine and Perverting of Iustice. From this I observe Two things First That the Legislative Power was all of it lodged in the Conqueror Why else did he Swear to make Equitable Laws For if the Constitution had been settled as it is at present the Parliament could have hindred him from making any other Secondly The Oath is Couched in very general Terms and admits of a great Latitude of Exposition so that the Conqueror was in a manner left at his liberty to interpret the Obligation as he thought fit Thirdly This Oath was voluntarily taken by the King some Years after he had forced the whole Nation to Swear Allegiance to him We are therefore if it were only for this reason to interpret the Oath to his advantage And to suppose that he would not Swear himself out of his Conquest and Reign at the Discretion of those he had so entirely Subdued so that it should be in their Power to Unking him either upon a real or pretended Breach of his Oath Fourthly We may observe that the Kings of England are in full Possession of the Crown immediately upon the Death of their Predecessors and therefore King Iohn Edward the First and Henry the Fifth had Allegiance Sworn to them before their Coronation From whence it follows that as Swearing does not make them Kings so neither can Perjury though truly Objected un-make them again which will appear more evidently if we consider Fifthly That Perjury in it self does not imply a forfeiture of any Natural or Civil Right Indeed the dread of it ties up a Man's Conscience faster and if he proves guilty makes him lyable to a severer Vengance from God Almighty than simple unfaithfulness upon which account an Oath is counted a considerable security for the performance of a promise And therefore for the greater satisfaction of their Subjects Princes usually Swear to observe those Stated Measures of Justice which were either fixed by themselves or their Predecessors And if they happen to fail in the performance though they forfeit their Honor and the Divine Protection yet there accrues no Right from thence to the People to re-enter upon their fancied Original Liberty For the Duty of those under Authority except where it 's expresly conditional is not Cancelled and Discharged by the mis-behaviour of their Superiors For Example supposing a Father Swears to remit some part of his Authority in the Family and that he will Govern only by such a prescribed Rule his forgeting his Oath afterwards does not void or lessen his Power nor excuse the Children in their Disobedience And to make the Instance more direct if possible The Kings of Persia were Soveraign Monarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch calls them and were Worshiped as the Images of God and could never be set aside but by Death Yet these Princes took an Oath at their Inauguration as Grotius observes from Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus Neither was it lawful for them to alter certain Laws as appears from Daniel and Iosephus The Kings of Aegypt likewise as Grotius relates from Diodorus Sic. had a full and unaccountable Authority they did as he speaks summo Imperio uti yet they were bound to the observance of a great many things which if they neglected to perform they could not be
charged with these Failures while they were living But after they were dead the Custom was to Arraign their Memories and deny them the Honor of a Funeral Solemnity Which punishment was likewise inflicted upon the Iewish Kings who had been very irregular and oppressive in their Government 2 Chron. 24 25 and 28. 27. From all which it appears that a King 's Swearing at his Coronation does not make his Crown forfeitable or subject him to the Censure of the People And since the Breach of an Oath does not imply a forfeiture of Right since the Kings of England claim their Authority by Conquest and Succession from hence these Two Corollaries naturally follow First That with us Power always proves it self unless it appears that it 's given up or limited by any special Agreement Secondly That the Liberties of the Subjects are not founded upon the Reservations of an Original Contract For a Conquered People must not pretend to make their own Terms And therefore their Priviledges are not of their own Creating but Acts of Royal Favour and Condescentions of Soveraignty Indeed when the People are not forced into Submission but freely Elect their Monarch there all remote Inferences and doubtful Cases ought to be Interpreted in favour of the Subject because the Form of the Government had its Beginning from them and in this Case only it is that Liberty proves it self But where the Limitations of a Monarchy are the Condescentions of a Conqueror or his Successors there we are not to stretch the Priviledge of the Subject beyond express Grant. So that whatever Rights or Branches of Government are not plainly conveyed away must be supposed to be still lodged in the Crown For since the Prince was once Vested with Absolute Power and has afterwards bounded himself by his own Voluntary Act The Abatements of his Authority are to be measured by his own evident Declarations and not by any conjectural and consequential Arguings And here that Celebrated Maxim takes undoubted place That all Acts which are made in destruction of Common Law or Antecedent Right are to be Construed strictly and not drawn out into Corollaries and parallel Cases From whence it follows That if it was unlawful at first for the Subjects to resist their Soveraign it must still continue so unless they can prove he has relinquished this part of his Prerogative and given them an express Liberty to take up Arms when they think it convenient which I believe will be hard to find in our Constitution I Confess there is a Resistance Charter granted by King Iohn but such a one as is no ways serviceable to our Author For First It 's a plain Concession from the Crown and consequently far from the nature of a Mutual and Original Contract Secondly Here is no Deposing Power given in case the Articles were broken But on the contrary upon the supposition of a Rupture there is an express Proviso for the security of the King's Person and Royalty for a little after the Clause of Salva Persona nostra we have these remarkable Words Et cum fuerit Emendatum Intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt That is if the King should fail in his Promise and constrain them to make use of Force When their Grievances were redressed and they had put themselves in Possession of their Rights They should then be obliged to obey him as formerly Matth. Par. p. 219. Thirdly This Charter was extorted from the King in a Menacing and Military manner The Barons were up in Arms the City of London declared for them and received them and the King was deserted by his own Army whereas before this Grant the Subjects had no colour of Authority to Levy Arms against the King. Now Rebellion is a very ill bottom to found our Liberties upon The advantages which are gained by such Monstrous Violences as these are no more to be insisted on than the Acquisitions of Piracy and therefore Fourthly This Charter being obtain'd in such an undutiful and illegal way is without doubt one great reason among others why it has been always counted a Nullity for that it 's no part of our Law I shall fully evince First From the Transactions in the Reign of Henry the Third for first in this King's Charter there is no notice taken of any Grant made by King Iohn whereas in the Confirmation of Magna Charta by Edward the First the granting it by Henry the Third is expresly mentioned and the Liberty recited at large Which is a plain Evidence that the one was not looked upon to have the same Authority with the other Secondly That the Magna Charta of Henry the Third was a pure Act of Grace to the Subject and no Confirmation of an Antecedent Right appears from the Instrument it self where in the Preamble the King declares That out of Our meer and free Will We have given c. And towards the end That for this Our Gift and Grant of these Liberties Our Arch-bishops Earls c. have given us the fifteenth part of their Moveables Now besides the wording of the Act which runs as clear for a Voluntary Concession as is possible the very consideration which was given the Crown is a sufficient Argument that the Subjects had no Title to these Liberties before For who can imagine they would have purchased that which was their own already at so dear a rate Thirdly This Charter of Henry the Third though it contains much the same Liberties with the former yet it has none of the same Ratification there are no Proviso's for Resistance in it but instead of Distraining and taking of Castles c. there was a Solemn Excommunication denounced by the Bishops against all Violators of this Law. So that now the Subjects were evidently returned to their former State of Passive Obedience And therefore those Barons who towards the latter end of this King's Reign took up Arms in defence of their Privileges as Matth. Paris relates were disinherited by a Parliament at Winchester which was soon after confirmed in another Parliament at Westminster Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. Ap. 31. More to the same purpose may be seen in the Law called Dictum de Kenilworth For though this Order was made by no more than a Committee of Twelve Peers yet they having an Absolute Delegation as to this Point from the King and the Members of Parliament what they agreed upon has the full Validity of a Law. Fourthly That King Iohn's Charter which warrants Resistance though within a Rule had never any Legal Authority is evident from the Militia Act 14 Car. 2. where the Parliament declares That the Militia was ever the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Predecessors But this was a great Mistake if King Iohn's Grant had been Law For by vertue of that Charter provided the King receded from his Articles the Militia was lodged in the Barons and the People were obliged by Oath to assist them against the Crown Now if the case