Liberties and Estates were only insisted upon in my said Charge F. But pray Sir tell me as to the King Is he not the sole Supream Power in England I. No certainly for then he could make Laws and raise Money without the Peoples Consent but every printed Act of Parliament will shew you where the Supream Power resides wherein it is expresly recited in these words Be it therefore enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of this Realm and the Authority of the same or as I can shew you in several Statutes of King Henry the VIIIth wherein it is recited thus Be it enacted by the Assent and Consent of our Sovereign Lord the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by Authority of the same whereby you may see that not only the words Assent and Consent but the word Authority is referred as well to all the Three Estates as to the King F. This I confess is plain enough but what are the King 's chief Prerogatives I. I will tell you in as few words as I can his Majesty's chief Prerogatives for to enumerate them all would be endless are these First to call Parliaments once a year or oftner and Dissolve them if he pleases to give the last hand or sanction to all Laws for raising of Taxes and for the enacting all other things that his Majesty joining with the Two Houses of Parliament shall think fit to be Enacted to appoint Judges to Try Condemn and Execute Traytors and all other Malefactors for Treason and other Crimes and to grant Pardons for those Crimes if his Majesty shall think fit yet still according to his Coronation Oath to grant Commissions to all other Magistrates and Officers both Civil and Military no Arms being regularly to be Rais'd but by his Authority also by the Advice of his Privy-Council to issue Proclamations according to Law and for the Publick Good for enforcing the observation of such Laws as shall be thought fit in case those that are entrusted with the execution of them prove too remiss Lastly to make War and Peace though the latter as well as the former of these were anciently very seldom made without the Advice and Consent of Parliament These are the chief Prerogatives which I mentioned in my Charge tho' I grant there are divers others tho' less material F. But pray Sir cannot the King by his Prerogative do some things against the Laws and Dispence with them in all cases which he himself may judge for the Common Good of the Kingdom I. The King had anciently no Power to Dispence with Statutes with non Obstantes and so it is solemnly declared in the Kings Bench in the 39th of K. Edward the 3d. by all the Justices as a Rule in Law well known at that time and I could tell you were it not too tedious how this Prerogative of Dispensations first began but even then the King could not Dispence with any thing that was morally Evil in it self or with what was Enacted by Authority of Parliament for the common Good and Safety of the whole People or Nation in General And this is the true reason why the Late King Iames could not Dispence with all Statutes concerning the taking away the Test because the whole Nation had an Interest in them nor could he Dispence with any Act which conferred a particular Right or Priviledge on a third Person and lastly he could not commonly Dispence with any Statute wherein there was a particular provision to prevent the King from Granting Charters with Clauses of Non-obstantes But now all Dispensations with such Statutes are taken away by a particular Clause in the late Act of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you may see if you please and which I take to be no more than a Solemn Declaration of what was the Ancient Law of England before non obstantes came up F. I am very well satisfied in this but pray Sir tell me the reason Why the King cannot as the Supreme Executive Power of the Kingdom exercise his Royal Prerogative though it were to the prejudice of some particular Persons I. I can give you a very good reason for this because this would be contrary to that Trust which was at first reposed in the King by the Representative Body of the Nation when this Limited Monarchy was first instituted and which that ancient Treatise called the Mirror of Iustices writ above Four hundred years since very well sets forth the Common Law of England as it stood before the Conquest as also the Original of the Government of this Kingdom by one Person or Monarch which he thus recites That when Forty Princes that is Aldermen or Earls of Counties did Elect one King viz. Egbert to Reign over them to Maintain and Defend their Persons and Goods in Peace by Rules of Right they made him at first to Swear That he would maintain with all his Power the true Christian Faith and would Govern his People by Right without any respect of Persons and would also be Obedient to suffer Right i. e. Justice as well as others of his People By which it appears That all the Prerogatives of the Crown are trusted in the King by Law for the Good and Preservation of his People and not for the exercise of an Arbitrary Will or Power contrary thereunto As also Sir Iohn Fortescue once Lord Chancellor to King Henry the VIth in his Treatise in Praise of our English Laws has thus handsomely set forth viz. That the King was Made or Elected for the safeguard of the Law the Bodies and Goods of his Subjects and he hath this Power derived from the People so that he cannot long Govern them by any other Power and he also gives us the reason why he cannot regularly Dispence with Acts of Parliament Because says he they are made by the general Consent of the King and the whole Realm and if there be any thing in them that proves inconvenient the King may quickly or in a short time call another Parliament to amend it but not without that as it certainly would if the King had an Absolute and Unlimited Power of Dispensing with all Laws So that you see the King is entrusted with his Prerogative by Law that is by the Consent of the People only for their Benefit and Preservation therefore if the Judges or any other inferior Officer act contrary thereunto though by the King 's express Letters or Messages they are Forsworn and may be punished for it and in this sence it is that the King whilst acting thus by his subordinate Officers or Ministers is said to do no wrong because they are liable to be questioned for it and if he acts otherwise by his own personal Power or Commands it is not as King of England but as a private Person
grounds and this hath been the course of all Parliaments that have been called immediately after any great and general Resistance or Revolution made upon the Accounts abovementioned This I could prove to you from several Instances in divers Kings Reigns since the Conquest were it worth my pains but still in all those Cases the first opposition hath been from the great Body of the Clergy Nobility and People together as you may particularly read in the Reign of King Iohn not long before the great Council at Runney Mead. F. But pray Sir can you also justify those Lords and Gentlemen who took up Arms and declared for the Prince of Orange and also those Lords together with the Officers and Soldiers who deserted the King and went into the Prince's Army Pray Sir did you look upon the Government to be then actually dissolved when they went in to him and that the King by the breach of the Original Contract was then no longer King I. I do not say so for though those Violations if obstinately persisted in without amendment were enough to create such a Dissolution and consequently a Forfeiture of the Crown as they wrought at the last yet the Government can never be dissolved so long as there remain any hopes that the King will amend those Violations he has made in a Free Parliament for the obtaining of which as it was the chief cause of his Highness's coming over so was it also of those Lords Gentlemen and Officers going in to him or declaring for him and this I think they may very well justify both in Honour and Conscience And though there be no express Law for it yet it is no more than what the Nobility Gentry and People of other Kingdoms as well as this have many times done before in former Ages when their Kings being misled and deluded by evil Councellors or Ministers of State have made the like Breaches upon their Liberties And though I confess such taking up of Arms have not always met with the desired Success yet for the most part they have and then such wicked Judges and Councellors have not failed to be punished and those Lords Gentlemen and others who so nobly and stoutly stood up for the Rights and Liberties of the Nation have been also pardoned by Act of Parliament and that with the King 's own consent when those wicked men were once removed but the King himselff was never touched till by his own wilful and obstinate persisting in such violent courses he let the Nation see that he was wholely irreclaimable and obstinately bent to destroy our Liberties and set up Arbitrary Government and Tyranny in this Kingdom as I could shew you from several Instances in the Reigns of King Iohn Henry III. Edward I. and Richard II. if it were necessary to give you a particular History of all those Transactions so that I suppose a twofold Right of Resistance in the People the one warranted by the Laws and Constitution of the Government which may well consist with our Loyalty to the King and to the intent only to obtain a Free Parliament to redress Grievances and punish those evil Councellors who have been the chief Ministers and Designers of Arbitrary Power as in the Case of King Iames before his departure the other Natural when the Government by the King 's wilful and obstinate refusal to redress such Grievances by ceasing to govern us according to Law he thereby also ceases to be King and then the Commonwealth or Civil Society being without a Head to execute Common Justice was absolutely dissolved F. What then is meant by these words in the late Vote and Declaration of the Convention viz. That King James having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom hath abdicated the Government Do you believe that the King 's bare delertion of the Kingdom when he declared he could not help it should be looked upon as in Abdication of the Government methinks that seems somewhat hard to conceive I. To deal freely with you I never understood the word Abdicate in that Sense but only according to all the precedent Clauses in this Vote viz. That the King by endeavouring to break the Original Contract between the King and his People and by the Advice of Iesuits and wicked Persons having violated the Fundamental Laws and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom hath abdicated the Government Where you may observe that the word Abdicated relates to all the Clauses aforegoing as well as to his deserting the Kingdom or else they would have been wholely in vain so that the meaning of this word in this place is no more than that King Iames by violating the Original Contract abovementioned and by endeavouring to subvert the Fundamental Constitution and by refusing to restore it to its former Condition all which was expressed by his withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom hath abdicated the Government that is by refusing to govern us according to that Law by which he held the Crown he hath implicitly renounced his Title to it as when for example a Tenant for Life aliens in Fee though he take back from the Grantee a Lease for Life or Years yet he thereby forfeits his Estate and the Tenant in Reversion may enter and the reason is because he parts with that Estate which he held by Law and will hold by another Title which the Law doth not allow for abdicare in the Latin Tongue signifies no more than to renounce or disclaim as I could shew you from divers Phrases in that Language were you a Scholar good enough to understand them and this may be done by divers other means besides express words For if Kingship be a Trust for the preservation of the Rights and Liberties of the People than such Actings contrary to that Trust as plainly strike at the very Fundamentals of the Constutution are not only a breach of that Trust but a tacite Renunciation of it also which I prove thus the doing of any Act that is utterly inconsistent with the Being and End of the thing for which it is ordained is as true a Renouncing or Abdication of that thing as if it were made in express words as I have now proved in the Case of Tenant for Life F. I confess this is more than ever I heard before but pray What do you think was the reason that the Convention made use of this Hard word Abdicate which I confess to us Country Fellows seem'd as bad as Heathen Greek when they might as well have made use of plain Expressions such as Renounce or Forfeit which you have now made use of I. I will tell you Neighbour my Opinion of this Matter and if I am out you must pardon me because those Wise men in the Convention who had the Wording of this Vote were afraid that those plainer words you mention would have been of too hard digestion to a great part of the Country Gentlemen who had been bred up with different Principles and
all private Subjects should submit and acquiesce in their final Judgments since they are all virtually Represented in such Assemblies as the Representative Body of the whole People or Nation Therefore if the Convention of the Estates of England have for divers weighty Reasons thought fit to declare their present Majesties Lawful King and Queen and to place them on the Throne as then vacant by King Iames's Abdication I think all the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound to bear true Allegiance to them and to confirm it by the Oath appointed for that end whenever they shall be lawfully required thereunto F. Well Sir but is not this to alter one part of the Original Contract which those that are against the present Settlement suppose to be the Right of Hereditary Succession to the Crown and that in a right Line So that if the supposed Prince of Wales be lawful Heir to King Iames to place any body else therein seems to render the Crown for the future not Successive but Elective for if it may be bestowed now according to the humor of the present Convention it may be done so again the next Succession and so the right Heirs put by from time to time for the same or some like Reason as now I. That does not at all follow for if you will allow that the Throne was vacant by the Abdication of King Iames and that her present Majesty Queen Mary is lawful Heir if the pretended Prince of Wales were away I will prove to you that the late Convention and present Parliament have done all they could or were obliged to do in this juncture in placing Their present Majesties on the Throne and Recognizing their Title without taking any notice of this pretended Prince of whose Birth whether true or false I shall not now say any thing one way or other nor shall trouble my self to inquire into the Validity of those Suspitions that may render his Birth doubtful to the generality of the Nation And therefore in the first place I desire you only to take Notice that this Child was carried away by his Mother when he was scarce yet six Months Old 2dly That the Midwife and all the chief Witnesses who could Swear any thing concerning the Queen's being really with Child and brought to Bed of him were likewise conveyed at the same time into France F. I grant it but what do you infer from hence I. Why only these two Conclusions 1st That neither the Convention nor Parliament are Obliged to take Notice of the Rights of any Person tho' Heir to the Crown that is out of the Dominions of England if he be no necessary part or Member of Parliament if neither himself nor any Body for him will put in his Claim to the Crown upon the Demise of the King either by Death or Abdication as in the Case now before us there being then a Claim made in the late Convention by his Highness the Prince of Orange on the behalf of his Consort the Princess as Heir apparent to the Crown The Convention were not obliged to look any farther after this supposed Prince or to know what was become of him whether he was Drowned or taken at Sea by Pyrates or he being Dead another put in his place or carried by his Mother into France Since any of these might have happen'd for ought they knew no body appearing to put in any Claim for him or to desire that his Cause might first be heard before he was Excluded 2dly That if such Claim had been made by any body for him yet the Convention could by no means be obliged to do more than lay in their Power or to hear or examine the Validity of this Child's Birth unless the Midwife Nurses and others who were privy to all the Transactions concerning it were likewise present and sent back to give their Testimonies in this Case for if the Convention had proceeded to examine this matter without sufficient evidence they could only have heard it ex parie on but one side and so might have sat long enough before they could have come to any true decision in this matter whilst in the mean time the whole Nation for want of a King were in danger of utter Ruin and Confusion F. But pray Sir why could not the Parliament have sent over Summons to those Witnesses which they say are no further off than France to come and give Testimony in this great Cause before they had proceeded to have declared the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen I. There may be several good Reasons given for it First Because this Child being carried into the Dominions of a Prince who is a declared Enemy of our Religion and Civil Interest of the English Nation he would never have consented to his being sent over to be viewed by those that the Convention should appoint for that purpose without which Inspection the Nation could never have been morally assured that this was the same Child that was carried away since every one knows that Infants of that Age are not easily distinguisht one from another but by those that have been about them from the very time of their Birth Secondly Because his Reputed Parents counting themselves already injured by the Convention in declaring that the King had abdicated the Government and that the Throne was thereby become vacant would never have obeyed any Summons the Convention should have sent over because they looked upon them not to have any Authority at all as not being summon'd nor sitting by vertue of that King's Writs Thirdly Admitting that the French King would have permitted this supposed Prince to have been sent back and that King Iames and his Queen would have obeyed this Summons yet was it not for the safety of the Nation to stay for or rely upon it since before this Question could have been decided great part of this Year had slipt away and we being left without a King to head us nor any Parliament Sitting able to raise Money which cannot be legally done without the King's Authority in Parliament the French King might whilst we were thus quarrelling amongst our selves about a Successor to the Crown have sent over King Iames with a great Fleet and an Army of old Soldiers and so have placed him again in the Throne more Absolute than ever he was before since besides that Legal Right of Succession which I grant he once had he might also have set up a new Right by Conquest over this Kingdom So that all things being seriously considered since the safety of the People ought to be the Supream Law as ever hath been agreed as an undoubted Principle by all wise Nations I think we have done all that could well be done in this Case nor have broken the Hereditary Succession in declaring King William and Queen Mary to be our Lawful King and Queen since if she were Lawful Queen they might also declare him to be King and make it Treason to
speak and write French correctly as they do now in the Court of France and wherein all that is dark superfluous and deficient in other Grammars is plain short and methodically supplied Also very useful to Strangers that are desirous to learn the English Tongue for whose sake is added a short but very exact English Grammar The Third Edition with Additions By Peter Berault Truth brought to light or the History of the first 14 Years of King Iames I. In Four Parts c. Travels into divers parts of Europe and Asia undertaken by the French King's order to discover a new way by land into China containing many curious Remarks in Natural Philosophy Geography Hydrography and History Together with a Description of Great Tartary and of the different People who inhabit there Done out of French To which is added a Supplement extracted from Hakluyt and Purchas giving an Account of several Journeys over Land from Russia Persia and the Mogul's Country to China together with the Roads and distances of the Places Saul at Endor or the Ghost of the Marquess de Louvois consulted by the French King concerning the present Affairs Done out of French An Answer to the late King Iames's Declaration dated at St. Germains April the 7th S. N. 1693. Licensed by Mr. Secretary Trenchard Reflections upon two Pamphlets lately published one called A Letter from Monsieur de Cross concerning the Memoirs of Christendom And the other An Answer to that Letter pretended to have been written by the Author of the said Memoirs By a Lover of Truth A true and exact Account of the Retaking a Ship called The Friends Adventure of Topsham from the French after she had been taken six days and they were upon the Coasts of France with it four days where one Englishman and a Boy set upon seven Frenchmen killed two of them took the other five Prisoners and brought the Ship and them safe to England c. A Project of a Descent upon France By a Person of Quality A Compendious History of the Taxes of France and of the Oppressive Methods of Raising of them An Impartial Enquiry into the Advantages and Losses that England hath received since the beginning of this Present War with France The Gentleman's Journal Or the Monthly Miscellany In a Letter to a Gentleman in the Country Consisting of News History Philosophy Poetry Musick Translations c. Sold by R. Baldwin Where are to be had compleat Sets for the two last years or single ones for every Month. Nevil Pain 's Letter and some other Letters that concern the Subject of his Letter With short Notes on them for the clearer Information of the Members of Parliament in order to Nevil Pain 's Trial. A True Relation of the Wonderful Cure of Mary Maillard lame almost ever since she was born on Sunday the 26th of November 1693. With the Affidavits and Certificates of the Girl and several other Credible and Worthy Persons who knew her before and since her being Cured To which is added a Letter from Dr. Welwood to the Right Honourable the Lady Mayoress upon that Subject A Second Five years struggle against Popery and Tyranny Being a Collection of Papers Published by Samuel Iohnson Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Book Intituled the Case of Resistance Reflections on the History of Passive Obedience An Argument proving that the Abrogation of King Iames by the People of England from the Regal Throne and the Promotion of the Prince of Orange one of the Royal Family to the Throne of the Kingdom in his stead was according to the Constitution of the English Government and Prescribed by it In Opposition to all the false and treacherous Hypotheses of Usurpation Conquest Desertion and of taking the Powers that Are upon Content An Essay concerning Parliaments at a certainty Notes upon the Phoenix Edition of the Pastoral Lteters par 1. These last Six Books By Mr. Samuel Iohnson * Vid. Mirror of Iustice Cap. 1. Sect. 2. †Vid. Modum Antiq. tenendi Parl. * Vid. the year-book Ter. Pasch. †Vid. 1 o Will. Mar. * Chap. 1. Sect. 2. * Vid. Spel. Concil 1 Vol. p. 29. †Vid. Vitam Alfredi Edit Oxon. * See the Old Form of the Coronation Oath before the Conquest and after in Mr. Attwood's Treatise of the Antiquity of an Oath of Abjuration p. 94. to the end * See the Forms of those Coronations in Stow Holinshed and others * Vid. Mat. West p. A. D. 1301. 435. 436. * See his Coronation-Oath in Mr. Atwood's Treatise of the Oath of Abjuration p. 96. * Vid. Lambert's Saxon Laws Leg. Guil. â—h 6. 7. p. 60. †Lib. 2. Chap. 2. * i. e. Nobiles Minores * Vid. the Act of 2 o. Mariae confirming the Treaty of Marriage with King Philip. * Vid. Par. Rolles 1. H. 7. N. 16. * Chap. 1.
ask you those Questions which I desire most to be satisfied in I. Pray use your discretion and begin when you please I will do my endeavour to satisfie you as well as I can though without putting my self to the trouble of quoting many Authors which perhaps you never heard of and therefore pray believe that whatever I shall tell you I have not only Reason but Authorities also for what I then said F. I have no cause to doubt what you say therefore pray Sir in the first place tell me what you then said about the Natural state of Mankind as to Civil Liberty Pray Sir what think you Were men at first Born Subjects or did they become so by some Human means I. As to this Adam for example being the First man could not as a Husband to Eve or as a a Father to Cain Abel and the rest of his Children be an Absolute Lord or Monarch over them His Power as that of all other Fathers of Families not being a Civil Power but that of a Husband or Father only for the direction of his Wife in all things relating to the affairs of the Family and over his Children in order to their good Education in the Fear of God and for their Maintenance whilst they continued Members of it so that Subjection to Government could never begin from mens being born Servants or Subjects as some will have it F. Pray then tell me Sir what is Civil Government I. I think Civil Government is God's Ordinance which he has ordained for the Good and Happiness of Mankind to preserve men from the Violence both of Foreign and Domestick Enemies since the nature of man depraved by the Fall of Adam is too apt otherwise to fall into all manner of mischiefs and enormities as well towards himself as others F. How then did it begin Was it by any Divine Precept or else by the Consent of many men who had found the Inconveniencies of living without it I. Before the Flood there is no mention in Scripture of any sort of Civil Government or any Precept left for it the first that seems to prescribe it being after the Flood when God gave Noab that positive Precept Gen. 9. 6. That whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed whence Divines argue a necessity of Magistrates for putting this Law in execution but who were to appoint them the Scripture is wholly silent and though indeed there is mention made of Kings in Genesis very early in the world yet is it not there told us how those Kings were made therefore it is most reasonable to suppose that they either at first began by the tacit Consent or Election of the Masters of Families and other Freemen of the same Lineage or Nation or else by Conquest of other Nations by force of Arms. F. But pray Sir is there not an account given us in Scripture of Judges and Kings made by God's own Appointment among the Iews I. Yes but that concerned no other Nation but them who are the only People that I know of that had a Civil Government as well as Divine Law from God's own Appointment F. But Sir did not God's thus giving the Iews Kings or Persons at least endued with Kingly Power though not under that Title render Monarchy to be of Divine Right so as that all other Nations are thereby obliged to have no other Government but that I. No sure not at all for till the time of Saul they had no visible King over them God himself was their King and those that Governed under him could do nothing of moment without his express Command and where that did not interpose the Government was by Moses and a Senate of Seventy Elders and also by the Heads or Princes of the several Tribes as Subordinate to them and after his Decease by Ioshua and the other Judges whom God raised up who if they had been Kings in Power but not in Title it would have been in vain for the Israelites to have desired a King to be like other Nations and you see when they desired such a King God was angry with them as if they had rejected himself so that there is no other consequence to be drawn from all these Examples but that Kingly Government is the most Antient and may also be the best if kept within due limits F. Pray whence then do Kings now-a-days derive their Power since God hath long since left off making any Kings by Divine Precept Whether is it from God or from the People I. I told you before that all Power is from God and consequently Kingly Power must be so too yet this is so to be understood that this Power cannot Rightfully be acquired without the People's Consent I mean all those who being Master's of Families and Free-men at their own dispose had at first a Power of setting up what sort of Government they pleased and hence it is that we find so many sorts of Governments in the world as for example Monarchy which is either Absolute as in France and Turkey or Limited as in England and as it was not long since in all the Northern Kingdoms of Europe or else Aristocracy that is the Government of the best sort or Nobility or else Democracy where the Common People Govern alone or else have the predominant Power But all these as they derive their Power from God are alike ordained by him though in respect also of men who first found out and instituted these several Governments they are also called by St. Peter the ordinance of men or a human creature as the Original words it F. But do we not also find in Scripture that most of the great Kingdoms or Monarchies of the world have began from Conquest Does not therefore Conquest of a Nation by Arms give the Conqueror a Power from God to Rule over that People without their Consents I. I will not dispute what Authority the Babylonian Persian Macedonian and Roman Monarchies might have over those Nations they conquered by a particular Donation from God who had long before foretold those Monarchies by Daniel and the other Prophets and as for the first of these Empires the Iews are particularly Commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to serve the King of Babylon the like is foretold by Isaiah of Cyrus yet for all this I think no other Conquerors can pretend to the like Right over any Nation at this day since all Conquest is either by a just or an unjust War that the latter can give no right at all to the Conqueror all Writers agree and that even the former can give no right without the Peoples consent either tacit or exprest seems also as certain since in respect of them who are not capable Judges of the right or wrong of the Quarrel it can lay no obligation of Obedience farther than they please by some act of their own to acknowledge the Conqueror for their Lawful Prince which being once done voluntarily is all
and I can shew you a particular Law of a General Synod or Parliament of all England wherein is particularly set down the Laws or Rules for the electing of their Kings as that they were not to be Bastards c. And pursuant to this Law of electing their Kings this great Council often preferred the Younger Brother before the Elder or the Uncle before the Nephew when either greater Merit or the pressing Necessities of the Kingdom required it which when once agreed upon by the Bishops and great men of the Kingdom in the great Council after their Election and upon the day of their Coronation the Archbishop of Canterbury whose Right it has always been to crown the King went to the King Elect and before ever he proceeded to the Coronation tender'd him a solemn Oath whereby he was to swear three things First That God's Church and all the Christian People of his Kingdom should enjoy true Peace and Quiet Secondly That he should forbid Rapine and all Injustice to all sorts of men Thirdly That he would command Justice together with Mercy in all Judgments And then and not till then was the Crown set upon his Head and the Scepter put into his Hand by the Archbishop and till this was done the Prince Elect was not looked upon as King nor had any Right to the Subjects Allegiance And thus stood this immemorial Custom unaltered not only during the Saxon times but long after the coming in of the Normans for the first seven Kings after William I. who till their Coronations were never owned nor stiled Kings until King Edward I. who was Elected or Recognized for King in a great Convention of the Estates who then assembled of their own Accord when he was in the Holy Land and they caused an Oath of Fealty to be taken to him two Years before his arrival in England and though I grant since that time the Crown hath been claimed as Hereditary yet has it rather been by vertue of those Entails that have been successively made of it by express Acts of Parliament and not from any Fundamental Law or Constitution of the Kingdom This was the ancient Form of electing and making our Kings the Footsteps of which Election still remain to later times when the Archbishop used to lead the King or Queen to all parts of the Scaffold as at the several Coronations of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth asked all the People standing below Whether they would have this Person to be their King or Queen F. I confess you tell me more of this matter than ever I knew before but yet I am still to seek how this old Coronation Oath exprest in so few words should tie those Princes to observe the Laws of the Kingdom since it seems that by this Oath he was rather to govern according to Equity than Law I. That is because you do not understand the Legal Force of those words contained in this Oath for by the first Branch of it whereby God's Church and all Christian People should enjoy true Quiet is meant not only that the Clergy in particular should under him enjoy all their lawful Rights and Priviledges but also all the other Lay-Members of Christ's Church should enjoy the free Profession of the Christian Religion as by Law establisht without any molestation or disturbance 2. By forbidding Rapine and all Injustice is meant not only his hindring Robberies and all violent takings of his Subjects Goods but also the illegal taking them by his own personal Commands or by his inferior Officers or Ministers 3. By commanding Justice together with Mercy in all his Judgments is meant no more than his not pardoning the Guilty when condemned and also not to condemn the Innocent or such whose particular Circumstances might deserve Mercy and is no more than what was afterwards granted by Magna Charta the sense of which is That the King there promises neither to deny nor defer nor yet to sell Justice to any man which extends likewise as well to his great Officers and Judges as himself since they being the Keepers of the King's Oath and Conscience he is guilty of the like Perjury if he either connive or is a wilful Partaker or Encourager of their Injustice And it was also declared for Law by the Judges in the Reign of King Edward III. That not only the King but the Prelates Nobles Governors and Justices c. of this Realm were tied by their Oaths to maintain the ancient Laws Franchises and Customs of the Kingdom of England And also in a Letter sent from the Parliament in the 29th of Edward I. to the Pope the States of the Kingdom do there declare That since the Premises required by the Pope were to the disherison of the Crown and subversion of the Kingdom and to the prejudice of the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Country and to whose observance and defence they were bound by the Oaths they had taken and which they would defend to the utmost of their power nor would permit even the King himself although he would do it to attempt the same Now pray tell me what greater Assertion of a right of Resistance in some Cases than this Letter from the Parliament sent by the King 's own privity and consent F. But you have not yet shewn me how the King who is an Hereditary Monarch at this day can be tied by the Oath of his Predecessors since as your self cannot deny he is King before ever he is Crowned I. I will not deny but the Law is taken to be so at this day yet it is also as true that from the beginning it was not so as I have here sufficiently made out and yet for all this I can prove that tho the Succession to the Crown is now become Hereditary and so may alter the manner of acquiring it and this for the avoiding of Contests between Competitors at Elections yet notwithstanding this Hereditary Succession it does no ways alter the Conditions on which the Crown was at first conferred any more than if the Office of Lord High-Constable or Earl-Marshal of England having been at first granted for Life and being afterwards by subsequent Grants made Hereditary those that thus enjoyed them should have pretended that they were now no longer forfeitable for any Male-administration tho never so enormous Now let us but apply the Case of those great Offices of Trust to that of Kingship which is certainly an Office of the highest Trust and then we may easily discover that whether it be for life or else entail'd to them and their Heirs they are still obliged by the first Contract of their Ancestors which is for memory sake still renewed at every King's Reign so that tho the manner of their Accession to the Crown be alter'd from what it was at first yet the Conditions on which it was first taken remain the same as long as the Oath it self continues so being renewed at every King's
therefore used the word Abdicate as that which though it implied both a Renunciation and also a Forfeiture of the Royal Power yet not being commonly so understood made some men only to understand it of the King's Desertion of the Throne by his going away a Notion which because it served a present turn mens heads were then very full of But indeed if this Desertion be closely examined it will not do the business for which it is brought as you have already very well observed F. I confess I never understood the true sence of this word Abdicate before much less the reason why it was made use of therefore commend me to the honest bluntness of the Scotch Convention which as I am informed did not stick to declare That King Iames by subverting the Fundamental Laws of that Kingdom had forfeited the Crown But pray Sir tell me what those Acts or Violations of this Original Contract were which you suppose to cause this tacit Renunciation of the Crown I. As for these I need not go far since they are all plainly expressed in the Convention's late Declaration as striking at the root or very Fundamental Constitution of the Government it self viz. Raising of Money contrary to Law that is without any Act of Parliament as in the late Levying of the Customs Excise and Chimney-Money upon Cottages and Ovens contrary to the several Statutes that conferred them on the Crown 2dly His Assuming a Legislative Power by Dispensing with all Statutes for the Protestant Religion established by Law whereby he at one blow took away above Forty Acts of Parliament and he might at this rate as well have Dispensed with the whole Statute-Book at once by one general Declaration 3dly Raising a Standing Army in time of Peace and putting in Popish Officers contrary to the Statute provided against it for these being but the King 's half Subjects as King Iames the 1st called them in a Speech might be looked upon when in Arms as no better than Enemies to the State so that by thus Arming our Enemies it was in effect a declaring War upon the People since it was abusing the power of the Militia which is intrusted with the King for our Safety and Preservation in our Religion Liberties and Civil Properties and not for the destruction of them all as we found by woful experience must have inevitably befallen us 4thly The Quartering of this standing Army in Private houses contrary to Law and the Petition of Right acknowledged by the late King his Father 5thly His Erecting a new Ecclesiastical Court by Commission contrary to the Statute that took away the High Commission Court 6thly And by the pretended Authority of this Court suspending the Bishop of London from his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and turning out almost all the Fellows and Scholars of Magdalen Colledge because they would not chuse a President uncapable of being Elected by that Colledge Statutes 7thly By Imprisoning the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Six other Bishops only for Presenting him with an humble Petition not to impose the reading of his Declaration of Toleration upon the Clergy of the Church of England as being contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom and then Trying them for this as a High Misdemeanor though it was contrary to the Opinion of Two of the then Judges of that Court of Kings-Bench There are also other things of lesser concernment as Packing of Juries and unjust and partial Proceedings in Tryals with excessive Fines and cruel Whippings which because they were done by the Lord Chief Justice Iefferies and the other Judges contrary to Law I leave them to answer for it whereas the instances I have now given were in such grand Violations as were done by the King 's own personal Orders and Directions or else could never have been done at all So that by his willful acting these things and obstinately refusing to let a Free Parliament sit to Settle and Redress them but rather chusing to leave the Realm than he would give way to it when he might have done it I think upon consideration of the whole matter it will appear that the Convention had good and just Reasons for declaring the Throne Vacant since the King had not only broke his first declaration he made in Council to maintain the Church of England as by Law Established and the Liberties and Properties of his Subjects but his own Coronation-Oath besides if he took the same his Predecessors did and if he did not he ought not to receive any benefit by his own default but is certainly bound by the Oaths which his Grandfather King Iames and his Father King Charles took before him F. I confess these seem to be great breaches of the very Fundamentals of our Religion Liberties and Civil Properties if done by the King 's express Order and Directions and if that he afterwards refused to disclaim them and suffer the Authors to be Punished in Parliament as they deserved makes all those faults indeed fall upon the King himself and consequently seem to amount to a Forfeiture of the Royal Dignity according to that Law of Edward the Confessor you have already cited That if the King fail to Protect the Church and Defend his Subjects from Rapine and Oppression the very Name or Title of King shall no more remain to him But pray Sir shew me in the next place how the Convention could justifie their Voting the Throne Vacant for Granting that King Iames had implicitly Abdicated or Renounced all his Right to the Crown by the Actions you have but now recited Yet if this Kingdom as I have always taken it to be is Hereditary and not Elective I cannot conceive how the Throne can ever be Vacant that is void of a Lawful Heir or Successor as long as one of the Blood-Royal either Male or Female is left alive since I have heard it laid down as a Maxim in our Law That the King never dies I. I grant this to be so upon all ordinary Deaths or Demises of a King or Queen as the Lawyers term it But there are great and evident Reasons why it could not be so upon this Civil though not Natural Death of the King as First the natural Person of the late King being still alive none can claim as Heir to him whilst he lives since it is a Maxim as well in our Common as in the Civil Law That no man can be Heir to a Person alive F. I grant this may be so in ordinary Estates of Inheritance in Fee-simple but I take it to be otherwise in Estates Tail for if a Tenant in Tail had become a Monk whilst Monasteries were in being in England the next Heir in Tail might have entered upon the Estate because the entering into a Religious Order was looked upon as a Civil Death now I take the Crown to be in the nature of such an Estate-Tail where the Heir Claims not only as Heir to the last King but to their first or