common Ancestor on whom the Crown was Entailed otherwise Brothers or Sisters by the half Blood could never Succeed to each other as Queen Mary did to King Edward the VIth I. Well Neighbour I see you have either read Littleton or else been very well instructed in this Law concerning Entails and therefore I will argue this Point no farther with you but if the Throne were not Vacant pray then tell me whom think you the Convention should have immediately Declared King or Queen whether the Titular or pretended Prince of Wales or the Princess of Orange Since only one of these can Claim as Heir by vertue of the Entail you now mentioned F. No doubt but the Prince of Wales would have been the Right Heir could we have been assured of his being really born of the Body of the Queen but since I confess there is a great doubt in most Persons throughout the whole Nation concerning it I must so far agree with you that he could not well be declared King till his Legitimacy were cleared and those just suspicions we lye under to the contrary taken away but then on the other side till this were done I do not see how the Convention could well justifie their placing the Princess of Orange or any Body else in the Throne I. We shall come to that by and by but in the mean time pray observe that here was a great and general doubt who was the next lawful Heir whether the Prince of Wales or the Princess of Orange now in Disputes of this nature in all the hereditary limited Monarchies in Europe the States of the Kingdom have always been the sole Supream Judges of such Controversies and whom they have owned and admitted as next Heirs have always been taken and owned for Lawful Kings both at Home and Abroad as I could shew you from divers Instances not only in England and Scotland but France Spain and Portugal And till this were done the Throne must necessarily remain vacant and all this without making the Crown Elective for what is this vacancy of the Throne but when through the Ignorance of the ordinary Subjects whom to place therein by reason of divers Claims of different Competitors none can be admitted to fill it that is to the exercise of the Kingly Office till these disputes could be decided by their proper Judges viz. the Estates of the Kingdom which is all one as to declare the Throne to be vacant since it must necessarily be so till they were fully satisfied who ought to fill it F. I confess what you have now said carries a great deal of reason with it but how can you justifie the Convention's placing their present Majesties on the Throne without ever so much as examining whether the supposed Prince of Wales were really born of the Body of the Queen or not which in my Opinion ought to have been the first thing to be enquired after whereas I do not find that the Convention nor yet the present Parliament have taken any more notice of him than if there had been no such thing in nature as a Son then born or pretended to be born during the Marriage between the late King and Queen I. If the Convention have done well in declaring the Throne vacant I think I can easily justifie their filling it with their present Majesties and that upon two several Considerations The First is that I suppose the Prince of Orange by his Victory over King Iames sufficiently declared by his flying from Salisbury and disbanding his Army and then quitting the Kingdom if he had done nothing else did thereby lose his Right to the Crown and so consequently to the Peoples Allegiance and the Nation being then free and without any King who had a better Right to be placed in the Throne than the Prince of Orange their Deliverer and besides this in respect of the Nation King Iames as I have already proved having Abdicated or Forfeited his Right to the Crown by his notorious Breach of the Contract above-mentioned and by his wilful persisting in it I look upon the whole Nation at his departure as fully discharged from all Oaths of Allegiance not only to King Iames but to his Heirs likewise and therefore were not obliged to look after this supposed Prince nor to examine his Legitimacy as Heir apparent to the Crown F. I cannot comprehend how this can consist with those Acts of Parliament of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames which oblige all the Subjects of this Realm to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to the King or Queen and to their Heirs and Lawful Successors and sure I think nothing less than an Act of Parliament can alter these former Statutes and solemn Declarations concerning the Succession in a Right Line And I suppose you will not say that the Convention who certainly were no Parliament could without the Authority of a Lawful King and Parliament alter the Ancient Laws of Succession since I have heard it is a Maxim in Law that nothing can be undone but by the same Power that made it And therefore in my Opinion the Convention was too quick in Declaring their present Majesties King and Queen before they had examined the Prince of Wales's Title who was commonly reputed and prayed for in all our Churches as Heir Apparent to the Crown I. I confess you have in few words urged all that can well be said against the late Act of the Convention in declaring their present Majesties King and Queen Therefore in Answer to this Objection give me leave in the first place to tell you that you have been misinformed That because the Acts for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance obliged us to take it to the late King and his Heirs and Lawful Successors that therefore no Person can be such a Lawful Successor unless he Claim in a right Line by descent from the last King since long before these Acts were made by the Ancient Oath of Fidelity at Common Law and which used to be required in all Court-Leets men were as much obliged to the King his Heirs and Successors as they can be by any of these later Oaths and yet no body then doubted before those Acts were made to pay Allegiance to that Person whom the Estates of the Kingdom had solemnly declared to be lawful King or Queen without ever examining whether such Kings or Queens were really and truly next Heirs by Blood or not as I can shew you from divers Examples had I now time for it And there is indeed great reason for their so doing for since all disputes about the right of Succession to the Crown must be decided by some proper Judges or else be left wholly to the Decision of the Sword and since as I said but now in all the limited Kingdoms of Europe the Estates of such Kingdoms have been always appeal'd to by all the contending parties as their only proper Judges of their disputed Titles it is but reason that
so that if we will consider our own happiness we Englishmen are blest with such noble Priviledges and Liberties that I think there is no Nation in the world where all degrees and ranks of men may live more happily than we do And as for the King though it is true he hath not an Absolute Unlimited Power of doing whatever he will yet he hath sufficient to Protect his Subjects and bountifully to Reward those that serve him faithfully and whenever he undertakes any Foreign War with the general Consent and Assistance of his People in Parliament he most commonly proves a Terror to those who dare oppose him F. I am very sensible of this Happiness we enjoy and therefore when I think how miserably the poor Country-men live in France and other Countries we of the Yeomanry have all the reason in the world to venture our lives in the defence of our Ancient Constitution since if ever we should be reduced to an Arbitrary Government either by a standing Army at home or a Conquest from abroad we can expect no better than Wooden-Shoes and Canvass-Breeches and to drink nothing but Water with the miserable French Peasants and I doubt if things should once come to that pass you Country-Gentlemen would be but in little better condition But since the greatest part of your Charge was to justifie the Right of their present Majesties to the Throne and that you insisted pretty long upon that Head yet methoughts you were a little too short in telling us only that King Iames who was once our Lawful King could cease to be so for you seem to rest contented with the bare words of the Convention's late Vote viz. That King Iames having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom by breaking the original Contract between the King and the People and that having violated the Fundamental Laws by withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom he had Abdicated the Government and that the Throne was thereby become Vacant So that tho you speak pretty largely of King Iames's Violations by Raising of Money without Consent of Parliament and of exercising his Dispensing Power yet methoughts you seem chiefly to place this Vacancy of the Throne upon King Iames's Abdication or Desertion of it which let me tell you as plain a Country Fellow as I am will not down with me for I can never believe the King would have deserted the Government if he thought he could have staid here with safety therefore pray tell me your meaning of these hard words Constitution of the Kingdom Original Contract and Abdication of the Throne I. I was not willing to insist too long in the face of the Country upon these nice Points which were not proper to be handled before an Assembly of ordinary Countrymen but since you have always appeared to me to be above the ordinary Capacity of those of your Rank I will tell you what I conceive was the true Sense of the Convention in every one of those expressions first for the Constitution of the Kingdom which King Iames went about to violate I take that to be the Government by King Lords and Commons in Parliament which he endeavour'd to violate by his taking away of Charters from Corporations and doing his utmost to impose a Parliament upon the Nation of such men as would not only take off the Penal Laws from Papists and all other Dissenters but who would also have confirmed to the King that Arbitrary Power of dispensing with what Laws he pleased which would indeed have render'd Parliaments wholely useless and was as good as putting the whole Legislative Power into the sole Person of the King F. But the Original Contract puzzles us yet more than all the rest and I heard Parson-Slave-all at a neighbouring Gentleman's house the other day ask Whether the Speaker of the Convention had not the keeping of it under his Cushion for he could never yet light upon it in any English History or Law-Book I. Pray tell that witty Parson next time you meet him that if he pleases to look over our Histories and Law-Books that in the very same Leaf where the Divine Hereditary Right of Succession to the Crown in a Right Line is established as an unalterable and fundamental Law in the very next Clause he may find this Original Contract But not to banter you I will tell you my sense of this expression which in my opinion signifies no more than that Compact or Bargain which was first entred into between King Iames's Ancestors or Predecessors and under whose Title he enjoy'd the Crown whereby they bound themselves by a solemn Oath when they took the Crown upon them at their Coronation to keep and maintain the Laws of the Realm and to govern the People according to these Rules of Justice and Mercy that is in short acting according to Law Which Oath or the substance of it having been constantly renewed every fresh Succession to the Crown as soon as the King was capable of taking it sufficiently declares that as the King upon observing this Compact by governing according to Law had a Right to his Subjects Allegiance so if he refused to act according to it but would wilfully violate the Ancient Constitution of the Kingdom he thereby ceases to be King by Law and by destroying his own Title to the Crown thereby also dissolves that Bond of Allegiance which before bound his Subjects to him as well in Duty as Affection F. But how can you prove that this Contract was mutual or that the King was to enjoy his Crown only upon this Condition That he observe the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom since I have heard it positively asserted by those that are very well skilled in our Laws that the King is as much King before ever he is crowned as afterwards and that he may chuse whether he will ever take any Coronation Oath or not I. I will not now dispute that Point with you but yet let me tell you if a King should at this day refuse to be crowned because he had no mind to be tied by his Coronation Oath I doubt whether the People if they understood the force of that Oath his Predecessors have all along taken for so many Successions might not as well refuse to take him for their King since he refused to hold the Crown upon those Conditions that his Ancestors at first took it and so might look upon themselves as good as discharged of all Oaths of Fidelity to him since those Oaths were no doubt at first instituted on this mutual Consideration that both should observe their part and not that one side should be loose and the other fast but to shew you in the first place that every Coronation Oath was in the Saxon times and long after the Conquest a Renewal of this Original Contract may appear from these Considerations 1. That all the Kings of the West Saxons were elected or at least confirmed by the great Council or Parliament
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
Reign And hence it is that our Kings enjoy their Crowns be it for Life or Intail Now it is certain that this Solemn Oath or Contract which was taken by the first King ought by Law to be renewed at the beginning of every King's Reign and hence it is that our Kings are not only bound by their own express Oaths or Contracts with their Subjects but also by the implied Oaths or Compacts of their Predecessors under whose Title they claim And King Iames I. was so sensible of this double Contract that he expresly mentions it in one of his Speeches to 1609. both Houses of Parliament where he very well distinguishes between both those Contracts telling them That a King in a setled Kingdom binds himself by a double Oath to the Observation of the Fundamental Laws of his Kingdom tacitly as being a King that is claiming under his Ancestors and so bound to protect them as well as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his own Oath at his Coronation So as every Just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that Paction or Covenant made to his People by his Laws in forming his Government agreable thereunto according to that Paction which God made to Noah c. And then goes on to tell them That therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws And then concludes That all Kings who are not Tyrants nor Perjured will be glad to bind themselves within the limits of their Laws and they that perswade them otherwise are the worst Vipers and Pests both against them and the Common-wealth So that you see here by King Iames's own Concession that there are not only Fundamental Laws but an Original Contract which he there calls a Paction or Covenant to observe them from the time of the first King or Monarch to this day and that when he ceases to Govern according to this Compact which he here calls his Laws he then becomes a Tyrant F. But I have heard some say That William the First after he had conquered England distributed almost all the Lands to his Norman and French Followers and that if there were any Original Contract ever entred into by the English Saxon Kings it was quite void upon the Conquerors obtaining the Crown and subduing all the People of this Nation so that whatever Liberties we now enjoy they were but the gracious Concessions of himself and his Successors without any such Original Compact I. I confess it is so alledged by some high flying Gentlemen who if they could would make us all Slaves to the King 's Absolute Will but without any just grounds in my Opinion since every one of their Suppositions are either false or built upon rotten Foundations For in the first place a Conquest in an Unjust War as I have already proved can confer no Right on the Conqueror over a free People and if this War were never so Just yet could not he thereby have acquired any Right over the whole Kingdom since the War was not made against the English Nation but Harold only who had usurped the Crown contrary to Right so that King William could have no Right to it without the People's Consent in their Great Council or Parliament which most of the Historians of those times say he obtained but indeed King William whom you call the Conqueror never claimed by that Title but by the Donation or Testament of King Edward the Confessor and the Consent or Election of the People of England as all his English-Saxon Predecessors had done before him nor did he give all nor yet a third part of the Lands of England to his Norman Followers as you suppose or if he had would it do the business for which it is urged since his Norman and French Followers to whom he gave those Lands were never conquered but were if any thing the Conquerors of others and from them most of our Ancient English Nobility and Gentry are lineally descended or else claim under their Titles by Purchases Mariages c. and so succeed to all their Rights and Priviledges And at the worst supposing King William to have in some Cases governed Arbritrarily and like a Conqueror over the English this was not so till he was provoked to it by their frequent Plots and Conspiracies against him and yet even that was done contrary to his Coronation-Oath which was the same that all the Saxon Kings had taken before only with this Addition That he should govern as well his French as his English Subjects by equal Law or Right so that his wilful Breach of this Oath could not give him or his Successors any just Right by the Sword over the Lives Estates or Liberties of any Englishman who had never fought against him nor offended his Laws And tho I should grant that this King and his Son William Rufus governed his Norman as well as his English Subjects very Arbitrarily and contrary to his own Laws yet did his Brother King Henry 1st make both his English and Norman Subjects large amends by the great Charter of their Ancient Liberties which he granted immediately after his Election to the Crown by the Chief Bishops Lords and Free-men of the Kingdom and upon which the great Charter of England renewed by King Iohn and afterwards confirmed by his Son Henry the 3d were founded being but larger Explanations thereof F. I confess this is more than ever I knew before but what if a King of England as King Iames lately did will cease to govern like a legal or limited King and prove a Tyrant by breaking this original Compact which his Predecessors made with the people does it therefore follow that he may be resisted if he does or can he ever cease to be King or forfeit his Royal Dignity if he acts never so Tyrannically for sure if all resistance of his Power be unlawful as being so declared by several Acts of Parliament in King Charles the Second's Reign he can never cease to be King except he will wilfully turn himself out of the Throne I. I am very well satisfied that those Acts you mention were only made upon this Supposition That the King would never violate the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by which he became King or go about to change the Constitution of the Government since that had been to give the King an Irresistible Power to make us all Slaves whenever he pleased so that our Religion Lives and Civil Liberties would lye not only at the King's mercy but at the mercy of those Ministers that govern him and therefore as it can never be supposed to have been the intent of that Parliament to tye up themselves and the whole people of this Nation to the King on such hard terms nay supposing that the Parliament had done it I do not think they had any right so to do since they were intrusted
is not the King where only Will and not Law Governs and in another place he gives this reason for it Because the King was Elected to do Iustice to all men Therefore when he thus abuses his Power and deviates from the main end of his Creation his Authority ceases or is at an End so that nothing seems plainer to me than that all our Ancient Laws and Lawyers have declared that a King who willfully Acts contrary to these known Laws of the Land by turning Tyrant and by endeavouring to alter the Ancient Constitution and by thus breaking his Contract above-mentioned looses or forfeits all his Regal Dignity and Power F. But pray Sir How can this be since our late Statutes declare the King not to be subject to any Coercive Power of the Two Houses of Parliament I. I grant the Law to be so now but from the beginning it was not so as I said but now many of the Saxon Kings before the Conquest were Deposed by the great Council of the Kingdom and since that time King Edward and Richard the IId were solemnly Deposed by Authority of Parliament and that proceedings against them were never expresly Condemned or repealed by any subsequent Statute that I know of but admit the Law is not so now does it not therefore follow that because the King is not Punishable nor Accountable to the Parliament that therefore he is wholly also Irresistable and can never fall from his Royal Dignity let him behave himself as he will towards his People for sure it is one thing to be accountable or Punishable by the Parliament as his Superior and another to be Disobeyed and Resisted by the whole Nation when it shall judge he has broken this Original Contract made by himself and his Predecessors in violating the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Government by vertue of which he became King since the former course of Proceedings must be according to some Law but for this there is no Law now extant but the contrary declared by several Statutes whereas Resistance in those cases I have now put upon a total breach of the Original Contract is not only justifiable from the very Constitution of the Government but also from the Right of Nature viz. Self-defence whereby whoever violently Assaults me in Life Liberty or Estate I am justified in Defending my self against him for otherwise any Right were wholely insignificant if it might not be Defended by Force when endeavoured by Force to be taken away F. But methinks this seems hard and of evil consequence to take this Power of Judging the King's Actions whether Legal or not out of the Parliament and to place it in the diffusive Body of the whole Nation whereby we of the high shoos would be made as capable of Judging when this Original Contract is broken as the best Gentleman of you all which the temper of the meaner and beggarly sort of People considered seems very dangerous since this would give them a Right to Rebel and take Arms whenever they had a mind to it as I have read in our Chronicles they did in Richard the IId and Henry the VIth and Henry the VIIth's time and as they did lately in Plundering Pulling down and Burning Popish Gentlemen's Houses c. I. You very much mistake me for I do not put this power of Judging any where but where it ever was much less to give a Power of taking up Arms and raising Rebellion to the Mob or most common sort of People but first to shew you that every man in his several Station and at his Peril is to judge of the Legality and Illegality of the King's Commissions or Proclamations Pray let me ask you this question Suppose that the King grants a Commission to certain of us Country Gentlemen to raise a Tax contrary to Law are we obliged to Obey it or not F. No sure you are not because you should be Punished not only in Parliament but at Common Law if you did I. Well then it seems that we Justices and Deputy-Lieutenants may judge in this Case but pray tell me suppose we should notwithstanding order this Tax to be levied and you were High-Constable of the Hundred Do you think your self obliged blindly to obey our Orders being so Notoriously contrary to Laws F. I think truly I should not but should plainly tell your Worships that I was not obliged either by Law or in Conscience to have any hand in oppressing my self and my Neighbours and should desire you to put this ungrateful Task upon some Body else since I thought my self liable to be called to Account one time or other if I did it I. Very well but if you and the other High-Constable of the Country should agree with us Justices to raise this Tax Do you think the Petty-Constables and Assessors were obliged to act by this New Commission contrary to Law F. I do not think that if we High-Constables should be such Fools and Knaves the Petty-Constables and Assessors were obliged to be so too I. Well then you see that not only we Gentlemen but you Yeomen can judge nay are obliged at your Perils to do it when things are imposed upon you contrary to Law nay and to refuse to execute them too F. I grant all this is true but this is not Resistance by force but I suppose you Gentlemen would count it downright Rebellion in us Country-Fellows if you should tell us such a Tax already imposed was according to Law and we should be so far from paying it as to raise the Country and fall upon you Commissioners that went about to raise it by distraining or imprisoning the Refusers I. By your favour Neighbour your very Refusal to levy this Tax is a Civil Resistance since all Disobedience to the Command of Superiors is so as proceeding from a Right that those that disobey suppose they have of judging of the Legality or Illegality of such Commands but as for forceable Resistance though I do not allow it to you or any man else as long as no Force is used against them yet so much let me tell you that if we Deputy-Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace should ever be so foolishly wicked as to take upon us to assist the King by the power of the Trainbands or a standing Army to levy any Tax without Act of Parliament or colour of Law at least but that not only you of this County but of all the Counties in England might lawfully stand upon your defence and resist this Rapine and Violence since if this were once permitted it would in a moment alter the Constitution of the Government in a main Fundamental Point The like I may say of any other matter of the same nature if it should be imposed upon you by Force contrary to Law that is contrary to or without any Act of Parliament to warrant it Nor would this justify all the Rebellions you mention to have been raised by the Common People in
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
one in respect of themselves as if it were by their Election or that of their lawful Representatives Nor could the first Conqueror mighty Nimrod for example ever conquer the neighbouring Nations by the sole assistance of his own Children and Servants without the conjunction of other Fathers of Families and Freemen who 't is most likely followed him for a share of the Spoil and upon certain Conditions agreed upon between them for the like we find of all other Conquerors in Ancient as well as Modern Histories F. But pray shew me Sir how this can be since most Nations have been conquer'd at some time or other but few of them have given their Consents as I know of either in a whole Assembly of all that Nation or else by their lawful Representatives as we do in England I. 'T is true they have not given their Consents all at once but singly and one by one they have done and constantly do it every day in Towns and Countries that pass from one King to another by Conquest for it is certain that all such Subjects as do not like the Religion or Government of the Conquering Prince or Commonwealth may lawfully retire out of the conquer'd City or Countrey and carry their Estates with them or else sell their Lands and carry away the Money if they can without any crime so that it is apparent it is only from the Acknowledgment or Recognition of each particular Person who stays there that this Conqueror comes to have any Right to the Subjects Allegiance F. Pray how is this Consent or Acknowledgment given since Oaths of Allegiance as I am inform'd are not exacted in all places of the world where Conquests are made I. I grant it but where they are not so imposed nor taken the persons that have not sworn to this new Government can never be oblig'd to an Active Obedience or to fight for or serve the Conquering Prince against perhaps their former lawful Sovereign yet I think thus much I may justly maintain That whatever Prince be he a Conqueror or Usurper who is much the same thing in respect of the Subjects who shall take upon him to administer the Civil Government by protecting the conquer'd people punishing Malefactors and doing equal Justice by himself or his Judges between man and man whosoever of this conquer'd people will continue in that City or Countrey and receive his Protection and enjoy all the other Rights of other Subjects is so far obliged by virtue of that Protection he receives as to yield a Passive Submission to all the Laws that such a Conqueror shall make and not to conspire against or disturb his Government by Plots or Rebellions But indeed this tacit Consent or Acknowledgment of the Conqueror's Authority because not given by the People at once makes many men believe that their Consent is not at all necessary to make a Conqueror's Power obligatory as to them not but that I do acknowledge that Oaths of Allegiance are of great use in any Kingdom or Common-wealth to bind men to a stricter Observance of their Duty and also to an Active Obedience to all their Conqueror's lawful Commands even to venturing their Lives for the Government since it is for the Publick Good of the Community if they are so required F. I am well enough satisfied as to the Original of Government and the Right that all Kings and Commonwealths have to their Subjects Allegiance whether they began at first by the express Consent or Election of the People or else by Conquest and their subsequent Consents but pray satisfy me in the next place concerning the Government of England you said it was a Limited Monarchy and I have never heard that questioned but how did this Limitation begin whether from the very first Institution of the Government or else by the gracious Concessions of our Kings I. Without doubt Neighbour from the very Institution of the Government for our first English Saxon Kings were made so by Election of the People in their great Councils or Parliaments as we now call them and could do nothing considerable either as to Peace or War without its Consent and this Council was to meet of course once a year without any Summons from the King and oftner by his Summons if there was any occasion for it and it is certain that the Freemen of England have always from beyond all times of memory enjoyed the same Fundamental Rights and Privileges I mean in substance that they do at this day F. Pray Sir what are those Fundamental Rights and Privileges that you say we have so long enjoy'd tell me what they are I. I will in as few words as I can First then The Freemen of England were never bound to observe any Laws either in matters Civil or Religious but what were made by the King with the Consent of the Great Council consisting of the Clergy Nobility and Commons assembled in Parliament Secondly That no Taxes could be lawfully imposed upon the Nation or any man's Property taken away without the Consent of this Council 3. That this Great Council had ever a power of hearing and redressing all Grievances and Complaints of the Subjects not only against the Oppressions of any of the King 's great Officers or Ministers who were too great to be called to an account in any other Court but also the particular Wrongs of the King himself the Queen or their Children F. Pray how could this be done since the King may at this day dissolve the Parliament whenever he pleases I. I grant it is so now but certainly it was otherwise when Parliaments met of course at a certain place once a year without any summons from the King yet after that time I find it in the Ancient Treatise called The Manner of holding Parliaments That the Parliament ought not to be dissolved whilst any Petition or Bill dependeth undiscussed or at least whereto no determinate Answer is given and that if he do or permit the contrary perjurus est i. e. he is perjur'd And even at this day the Two Houses may justly refuse the King any supply of Money whilst he refuse to redress their just Grievances F. This is more than I ever heard of before but pray proceed to tell me what are the rest of the Liberties and Priviledges of an Englishman I. In short they are these Not to be banisht the Realm or imprisoned without just cause nor to be kept there only as a punishment but in order to a legal Trial not to be tried condemned or executed without a lawful Jury of his Peers first passed upon him unless in time of War by Martial-Law lastly no man is oblig'd to quarter Soldiers without his own consent and then paying for what they have There are other less Rights and Priviledges exprest in the Petition of Right acknowledged and confirmed in Parliament by King Charles I. all which I omit but these being the chiefest that concern our Lives
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