this would introduce great mischief and confusion in privte Families so would it likewise prove a Foundation of Rebellion against all Civil Powers whatsoever if Subjects who are the same thing in a Kingdom that Children are in a Family in the State of Nature should take upon them to resist their Prince when ever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes which would likewise serve to justify all the most horrid Rebellions in the World since all Rebels whatsoever may or do pretend that their Lives Liberties and Fortunes are unjustly invaded when indeed they are not and Likewise upon the least hardship or injustice in this kind inflicted upon any private Subject either by the Prince or his Ministers which abuses and violences do often happen even under the Best Governments any such private Person who shall think himself thus injured may upon this principle take up Arms and endeavour to right or defend himself against such violence by which means under pretence of securing a few Men in their Lives or Estates whole Kingdoms if such Persons can find follows enough may be cast into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War till the Prince and Government be quite destroyed F. I must confess the Arguments you now bring are the best you have yet produced since they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the common good and peace of mankind But I hope I shall make it plain to you that no such terrible consequences will follow from the Principles I have already laid down and therefore I must first take notice that you have in your answer confounded two Powers together which ought to be distingishued in the State of Nature viz. The Power which Fathers as Masters or Heads of Families may exercise over the Lives of their Children or Servants whilst they remain Members of their Family and that reverence and duty which Children must always owe their Fathers as long as they live even after they become Fathers or Masters of Families of their own In the first State I have already allowed that such Fathers as Masters of Families may Lawfully exercise a far greater Power over their Children whilst they are members of their Family than they can when they are seperated from it yet is not this Power in all Cases absolute or irresistible as I have already proved and therefore I do in the first place restrain this Right of self-defence only to such Cases where a Father would take away a Sons life in a fit of drunkenness madness or sudden passion without any crime committed or just cause given which I also limit to a bare self defence without injuring or taking away the life of the Father if it can possibly be avoided and in this Case if the Son who is like to suffer this violence may not judge when his life is really in danger to be destroyed because he may pretend so when really it is not This is no just reason to overthrow so great a Right as self Preservation since if this were a sufficient objection it would have the same force against all self defence whatsoever For it doth often happen that wicked and unreasonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take away the lives of others only to preserve their own when indeed it was altogether false and needless and they only killed them to satisfy their own malice or passion And therefore as there is no reason that the abuse of this natural Right should be used as an Argument against the use of all self-defence by any Man whatsoever So likewise neither ought the like abuse hereof by some wicked Children to be brought as an Argument against its being made use of at all by others who are never so unjustly assaulted and in danger of their Lives from their Fathers violence If the first principle be true on which this is founded that a Son may excercise this Right of self-defence in such Cases without any intrenchment upon his Fathers Paternal Authority or that Filial duty and respect which he must always owe him when ever he returns to himself and will behave himself towards him as becomes a Father and not like an Enemy or Cut-throat And as for the quarrels and confusions which you alledge may happen in Families between Fathers and Children in case such a liberty should be allowed those inconveniencies will prove very inconsiderable if you please to take Notice That first I do not allow this Right of resistance to be exercised by any Children before they attain to years of discretion Secondly that after they have attained to these years no resistance ought to be made against a Father whilst they remain part of their Fathers Family but only in defence of their own their Mothers Wives and Childrens Lives since I grant that a Son as long as he continues a member of his Fathers Family ought to bestow all his own labour for his Fathers profit and cannot acquire any property either in Lands or Goods without his Fathers consent And since you conceive this Right of self-defence if allowed to Children would be the cause of so great mischiefs in Families if Children should have no Right to judge when their Fathers abused their power over them let us a little consider on which side this abuse is most likely to happen for if you please but to look into the World and survey the Nature of Fathers and Children and set the faults of the one against the other you will find that as I confess it is the Nature of many Children to contradict and disobey their Fathers Commands and that most young people hate restraint and love too much liberty and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harsh or severe to them when really they are not yet doth such false surmises and disobedient actions seldom end either in absolute resistance or taking away their Fathers lives by force or if they do so it is really done for their own defence or whilst they are assaulted by them in their own Lives or those of their Children but is commonly acted privately to satisfie their own revenge or malice which I hold to be utterly unlawful so likewise let us consider on the other side those temptations that Fathers lye under of injuring their Children or taking away their Lives or uâ—ing them like Slaves without any just Cause you 'll find that they by reason of their age natural temper or infirmities may be easily transported to that degree of passion that not considering the follies of Youth they may oftentimes in their passion either beat them so cruelly as utterly to disable or maime them or else take away their Lives for little or no Cause And besides Fathers being often covetous and ill-natured which are the vices of old age may where there is no power over them to restrain them from it either keep them as Slaves themselves or else sell them to others for that purpose as I
his Death but should have his Portion presently and be gone And Farther we read Gen. 25.5 6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac but unto the Sons of the Concubines which Abraham had Abraham gave Gifts and sent them away from Isaac his Son while he yet lived that is Abraham having given Portions to all his other Sons and sent them away that which he had reserved being the greatest part of his Substance Isaac as Heir possessed after his Death but by being Heir he had no Right to be Lord over his Brethren For if he had why should Sarah desire to rob him of one of his Subjects or Slaves by desiring to have him sent away So likewise if you look into the first of Chron. chap. 5. v. 12. you will find a place that plainly confirms this Interpretation where it is said Reuben was the First-born but for as much as he defiled his Fathers Bed his Birth-right was given unto the Sons of Joseph the Son of Israel and the Genealogy is not to be reckoned after the Birth-right for Judah prevailed above his Brethren and of him came the Chief Ruler but the Birth-right was Joseph's tho' he was the Youngest Son and that this Birth right was Iacob's Blessing on Ioseph Gen. 58.28 tells us in these words Moreover I have given thee one Portion above thy Brethren which I took out of the hand of the Amorites with my Sword ' and with my Bow Whereby it is not only plain that the Birth-right was nothing but a double Portion but the Text in Chronicles is expresly against your Opinion and shews that Dominion was no part of the Birth-right for it tells us That Joseph had the Birth-right but Judah the Dominion So that unless you were very fond of this word Birth-right without considering in what sense it is to be taken you would never bring this Instance of Iacob and Esau to prove that Dominion belongs to the Eldest Son over his Brethren For if this Blessing of Isaac upon Iacob signifies any thing more than this it could not relate to his own Person who never Ruled over his Brother at all and therefore it is at most no more than a Prophecy shewing that the Jews as being descended from Iacob should in after-times Rule over the Edomites or Posterity of Esau according to what Rebekah had been foretold from God Two Nations are in thy Womb and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels and the one People shaâ—l be stronger than the other People and the Elder shall serve the Younger And so Iacob blessed Iudah and gave him tho' not in his own Person but in his Posterity the Scepter and Dominion From whence you might have argued as well that the Dominion belonged to the Third Son over his Brethren as well as from this Blessing of Isaac that it belonged to Iacob they being both but Predictions of what should long after happen to their Posterities and not declaring any Hereditary Right of Dominion in either Iacob or Iudah M. I will not rigorously insist that Primogeniture is such a Divine Right as cannot be altered by any Humane Act or Constitution but yet I take it to be such a Right that without the Father orders it otherwise in his life-time or that the Elder Brother doth of his own accord depart from his Right he will have a good Title to his Fathers Government or Kingdom and consequently to Command over the rest of his Brethren and therefore Grotius makes a great deal of difference between Hereditary and Patrimonial Kingdoms the former being to descend to the Eldest Son only but the latter are divisible amongst all the Sons if the Father please And hence I suppose it was that as Mankind encreased one petty Kingdom grew out of another Thus the Land of Canaan which was Peopled by six Sons of Canaan and Philistim the Son of Mizraim had eight or nine Kings in the time of Abraham and above thirty Kings in Ioshua's time which could proceed from no other Cause but the Fathers dividing their Kingdoms in their life-times or at their Death amongst their Sons and Descendants for we hear not of one Tittle of Popular Elections in those early days And I have proofs enough of this in Scripture Since thus we find it to have been among the Sons of Ishmael and Esau as appears by Gen. 25 and 26. where it is said These are the Sons of Ishmael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns c. Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their Families and their Places by their Nations And hence it is that in after Ages Princes did often divide their Kingdoms amongst their Children of which you may see divers Examples in Grotius de I. B. L. II Cap. 7. which Divisions when made and submitted to by the Eldest Son I doubt not but were good Yet I think it cannot be denied for all this that by the Law of Nature or Nations where there is no Will of the Father declared to the contrary the Eldest Son ought to inherit And this is the Judgment not only of Christian but Heathen Writers Thus Herodotus the most Antient Greek Historian lays it down for a general Custom of all People or Nations that the Eldest Son should enjoy the Empire and the Romans were likewise of this Opinion and therefore Livy when he speaks of two Brothers of the Allâ—broges contending for the Kingdom says The Younger was more strong in Force than Right And in another place he calls this Right of the Eldest Son the Right of Age and Nature as also doth Trogus Pompaeius in his Epitome of Iustine when he calls it the Right of Nations and in another place a Right of Nature when he says that Artabazanes the Eldest Son of the King of Persia challenged the Kingdom himself which the Order of his Birth and Nature it self appointed amongst Nations I could give you many other Authorities from more Modern Authors but I rather chuse to give you these because you cannot except against them as Writers prepossest by either Jewish or Christian Principles So that if this Right of Primogeniture be not absolutely Divine yet it is at least most Natural and Reasonable F. I see you are convinced that this Divine Right of Primogeniture is not to be proved out of Scripture and therefore you are contented to fall a Peg lower and to take up with the Right of Eldership by the Law of Nature or Nations which howsoever you are pleased to confound them are for all that two distinct things for if the Succession of the Eldest Son were by the Law of Nature it were no more to be altered by the Will of a Father than the Law of God it self and therefore notwithstanding all your Quotations your Right of Primogeniture amounts to no more than this
no Exorbitant heighth I think I am able to prove from many passages in his Patriarcha as well as other Works that no Author hath made bolder Assertions to render all Mankind Slaves instead of Subjects and all Princes Tyrants instead of Kings and that his Principles are so far from being safe that if they are duly lookt into and weighed they will prove destructive as well to the Rights of Princes as to the Liberties of the People M. I should be very glad to see that proved for I must always believe till you shew me to the contrary that this Excellent Author lays it down for a Ground that Princes being as Fathers to their People are bound to treat their Subjects as Children and not as Slaves and therefore waving this last Controversie which we have argued as far as it will go pray make out what you say from his own words and I will give up the Cause F. I wonder how you can be so partially blind as not to see this since you your self have already made use not only of a great deal of his Doctrins but also of his very words And therefore pray see his Obedience to Government in doubtful times as also in his Preface to the Observations upon Aristotle's Politicks where you will find he asserts That Adam was the Father King and Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first The Father had power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants Whence we find that at the first reckoning of Goods in Scripture the Man-servant and the Maid-servant are number'd among the Possessions and Substance of the Owner as other Goods were So that then if the Power of a Father and of a Monarch be all one and that all Monarchical Power is Despotical the Consequence is also as evident that all Subjects are also naturally Slaves unless their Princes shall please to lay an easier Yoke upon them M. Perhaps Sir R. F. may have carried this matter a little too far yet if you please to look into his Patriarcha Chap. 3. Par. 1. you will find that he hath this passage which plainly speaks the contrary The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons and Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet for all this every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general Ground That the Safety of his Kingdom be his Chief Law Whence you may observe that tho' he takes away all Remedy from Children against their Parents for being ill Governed yet doth he not set the Father free from all Obligation to preserve the Good of his Family of which sure a Man's Children are a principal part And if you please to look back to the second Chapter Par. 3. you will find these words To answer in particular to the first Text it may be said the sense of these words By the Law of Nature all Men are born free must needs mean a Freedom only that is opposite to such a Subjection as is between Father and Son This is made manifest by the Text of the Law For Ulpian in this place speaketh only of Manumission which is a setting at Liberty of Servants from Servitude and not of Emancipation which is the freeing of Children from the Fathers Tuition Servitude as the Law teacheth is a Constitution of the Law of Nations by which a Man is subject to the Dominion of any other Man against Nature So not every Subjection is Servitude but Subjection contrary to the Law of Nature Yet every Man is born subject to the Power of a Father This the Law it self saith In Potestate nostra Liberi nostri sunt So that you see here be maketh a difference between Servitude and that Subjection that is due to Fathers F. Give me leave to answer these two Instances before you proceed any farther and I shall in the first place make bold to answer your last Instance first because I shall be much shorter upon it But pray take notice by the way that this Author is very high and rigorous for the Absolute Power of Life and Death in all Fathers over their Children in the State of Nature and that they may exercise it for very slight Offences and therefore in this Chapter you have last quoted he seems very well satisfied with the Example of Cassius who threw his Son out of the Consistory for publishing the Agrarian Law for the Division of Lands and I think this was no such great Crime for which a Father might justifie the putting his Son to Death And in the Section before this he justifieth the Power of Fathers amongst the Romans as being ratified and amplified by the Laws of the XII Tables enabling Parents to sell their Children two or three times over So that these things considered I cannot see how this Distinction of Sir R. F. out of the Civil Law will do him any service For tho' I grant indeed that Manumission and Emancipation are two different words yet do they both signifie the same thing and tho' for the greater respect which they would shew to the Condition of Children above that of Slaves they were pleased to make use of different expressions yet whoever will look more closely into the Nature of the Subjection that Children were in under their Parents by the Roman Law will find that the Condition of Children was no better than that of Slaves For First The Father had such an Absolute Power over the Person of the Son that he could sell him three times whereas he could sell a Slave but once Secondly He had such an Absolute Power over his Life that he could take it away whenever he pleased Lastly A Son could have no Property in any Goods without his Fathers Consent till he was emancipated or made free So that if his Father were harsh and ill natured the Condition of a Son was worse than that of a Slave as long as his Father lived And therefore I am still of the Opinion of the Antient Civil Lawyers which assert the Natural Freedom of Mankind according to the Maxim you have now cited And they acknowledge that the Servitude or Absolute-Subjection of Children to their Fathers was not by the Law of Nature but by the Civil or Roman Law peculiar to themselves as I have already proved at our last meeting But to come to your first Quotation whereby you would justifie Sir R. F. for maintaining any unjust Severity in Fathers or Tyranny in Princes because they are both to endeavour the Common Good of the Family and Kingdom t is very true he says so but of this Common Good they themselves are the sole Iudges So that if
our ancient Tenures and manner of holding and enjoying our Lands and Estates as will appear by comparing our Antient Tenures with theirs F. I shall not deny but that a great part of the matter of Fact is true as you have now put it yet tho' I grant that the Bishop Abbots Chancellors Chief Justices and other great Officers of the Crown were all or the greatest part of them Normans during the Reigns of the two first Kings of the Norman Race it doâ—s not therefore follow that these Men must have made a change in the very substance of our Laws tho' in matters of form of pleading or judicial proceedings they might have introduced great alterations for as to the Civil or Municipal Laws of this Kingdom concerning the Descent and Conveyance of Estates they continued the same after the coming in of the Normans and Lands held by Knights Service descended to the Eldest Son and Lands in free Soccage and Gavel-kind to all the Sons alike so likewise there were Estates In tail and Fee simple as now and there were also the like Customs of the Courtesie of England Burrough English c. as there are also at this day as I can prove to you by several passages out of our English Saxon Laws so likewise for Conveyance of Estates those of the better sort of People called Bookland were conveyed by Deeds with Livery and Seisin either with or without warranty as they are now but that which was called Folâ—land held by the meaner sort were only by Livery and Seisin without any Writing And tho' I grant that the custom of sealing of Deeds is derived from the Normans yet that is an alteration only in matter of forn and as for Goods and Money they were bequeathable by a Man's last Will as well after as before your Conquest And if you can have the opportunity to peruse a Manuscript Treatise of Sir Roger Owen's upon this Subject you will find it there sufficiently proved That Livery of Seisin Licenses or Fines for Alienation Daughters to Inherit Trials by Juries Abjurations Utlaries Coroners disposing of Lands by Will Escheats Gaols Writs Wrecks Warranties Felons Goods and many other parts of our Law were here in being long before the time of King William this being so as to the common Law let us see what alterations there were in the Criminal or Crown part of the Law first as to Treason and wilful Murther they were punished with Death in the Saxon times as well as after as were also Robery and Burglary in the night time but as for lesser ofâ—ences such as Batteries Maims Robberies and other breaches of the Peace they were punished by Fine as well before the Conquest as after but as for the Law of Englisherie which was that if a Man were found Murthered it should be presumed he was an Alien or Frenchman and the Town thereupon where the Body was found was to be fined unless Englisherie was proved i. e. that the person was an Englishman this Custom tho' it lasted to the Reign of Edward the Third when it was taken away by a Statute made on purpose tho it may seem a badge of the Norman Conquest yet was it indeed a Law introduced by King Knute in behalf of his Danes who being often found killed and none could tell by whom he obtained this Law to be made to prevent it as you will see at large in Bracton and the Mirrour of Justices But as for trial of all offences it was either by Juries Fire or Water ordinal by Dewel or Battle or else by Witnesses or Compurgators upon Oath as well before as after King William's entrance so that I can find nothing material as to the alterations of the Laws either in matters Criminal or Civil from what they were in the Saxons time and this being so it is easily answered how the Judges and Officers might be Normans and yet the Laws continue English still for first it is certain that for four or five years in the beginning of K. William's Reign he made no great alteration in the Judges and other great Officers of the Kingdom and by that time those whom he was afterwards pleased to imploy in the Rooms of such as either died or were turned out might very well come to understand the Laws of England as far as they distered from those of Normandy which was not in many particulars since as your self very well observed the Saxons and Normans being both Northern People had many of the same Laws and Customs common to both and the same persons might in three or four years time have very well learned English enough to have under stood the Evidence that the Witnesses gave before them without any Interpreter But say you all the Pleadings and Judgments were in French and therefore the Lawyers and Pleaders must be Frenchmen which is likewise a false consequence for Pray tell me why might not the English Lawyers have learnt French enough to Plead in three or four years time which must necessarily be required before so great an alteration could be made or Lawyers enough he brought out of Normandy and sufficiently instructed in our Laws and Customs could be fitted for their employments again supposing all Pleadings and other Proceedings to have been in French it does not follow that this practice could have obtained in all the Courts of England for tho' I grant that in the Kings Court at Westminster where the Judges as you say were for the most part Frenchmen or Normans yet this could only have some effect either in that great Court or Curia Regis where the King often sat in person together with his Chief Justiciary and other Justices or else in the Court of Common Pleas which followed the Kings Court till it was ordained otherwise by Magna Charta or else the Court of Exchequer where in those days only matters concerning the Kings Debts Lands and Revenues were chiefly heard and dispatched but as for the Court of Chancery it was not then used as a Court of Equity nor long after till the Reign of Henry the IV V and VI. when it arose by degrees as you will find in Sir William Dugdale's Origines Iuridiciales So that granting all the proceedings in these Supream Courts to have been in French because the King himself who sat there with the chief Justice and the rest of the Judges were either Normans or Frenchmen yet was this of no great importance in comparison of the Suits and Causes which were first begun and try'd in the Inferiour Courts in the Country before ever they could be brought up to London by Writ of Errour or Appeal which could only be in Causes of great Moment or between the Kings Tenants in Capite So that now to let you see that what say I say is true we will Survey all the inferiour Courâ—s of that time beginning with the lowest and going up to the highest of them The first Court we find of this kind
make a part of that great aggregate body of mankind they are in all points equal to them that is as the Parents have a right to Life Happiness and Self-preservation so have they likewise and consequentially to all necessary means thereunto such as Food Cloaths Liberty I mean from being used as Slaves which Principles if true will likewise serve for a farther proof against that absolute Property and Dominion you supposed to be conferred on Adam over the Earth and all things therein exclusive to that of his Wife and Children For if they had a right to a Being and Self-preservation whether he would or not so had they likewise to all the means necessary thereunto and he was not only obliged to provide Food and Raiment for his Children whilst they were unable to do it for themselves but also when they grew up to Years of Discretion they might take it without his assignment and this by Virtue of that Grant in Genesis I before quoted And God said Gen. 1. viz. to the Man and the Woman and in them to all mankind then in their Loins Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the Earth c. Behold to you it shall be for meat So that sure you were too rash in affirming with Sir R. F. That a Son a Slave and a Servant were all one at the first For I hope I have proved the Father doth not acquire any absolute Property in the person of the Son either by his begetting him or bringing him up for then I grant a Son and a Slave would be all one But if you please better to consider it you will find that Fathers were never ordained by God for perpetual Lords and Masters over their Children but rather as Tutors and Guardians till they are of Years of Discretion and able to shift for themselves God having designed the Father to beget and bring up his Child nor for his own interest or advantage only but rather for the Child's happiness and preservation which by the Laws of God and Nature he is bound to procure For as it is the Son's Duty never to do any Action that may make his Father repent his begetting or bringing him up so on the other side the Father ought not to Treat his Son so severely as to make him weaay of his Family much less of his Life It is the Apostle's Precept Ephes. 6.4 Parents provoke not your Children to wrath which certainly he knew they were apt to do or else that precept had been needless Now pray tell me if Adam had used one of his Sons whom he loved worse than the rest so cruelly as to make him a Slave instead of a Son and when grown a Man should have put him to all the servile and hard labour imaginable with scarce Victuals enough to live upon or Cloaths to cover him What must this Son have done Born all patiently Or else do you think it had been a damnable sin if he had fled into the Land of Nod to Cain his elder Brother M. To answer your Question I think in the first place it had for I do not only take Cain to have been the first Murderer but Rebel too and in the next place this Question is needless for it can scarce be supposed that ever Adam or any Father can be so wicked and ill-natur'd as to use a Son thus cruelly without some just occasion but if he had I think he ought to have endured any thing from his Father rather than have left him without his leave since I cannot see how Children can ever set themselves free from their Father's Power whether they will or no. F. If that be the condition of Children they are then instead of Sons as absolute Slaves as any in Turkey whenever their Father pleases But you have already granted that Fathers ought not to use their Children like Slaves nor to sell them for such to others And tho I have no great kindness for Cain yet I know not what warrant you have to call him Rebel I am sure neither the Scripture nor Iosephus mention his going to the Land of Nod as an offence committed against his King and Father Adam but rather as a piece of compliance or obedience to God's Sentence who had made it part of his Curse so to do M. I shall not much trouble my self whether Cain was a Rebel or not I only tell you what some Learned men have thought of his quitting his Country but as for other Children tho I grant their Fathers ought not to use them like Slaves yet if they should happen to do so I think such Children ought to bear it as a Judgment inflicted by God for their Sins and should not by any means set themselves free tho their Fathers use them never so severely since it is God's will they should be Born and continue under the power of such severe Fathers F. But pray Sir tell me what if this Son had fallen into the power of a Stranger who would thus make a Slave of him Was he likewise bound to bear this as a punishment from God for his Sins and might he by no means set himself free Since this could not happen without God's permissive Providence at least and I think you will sâ—arce prove it more in the Case of the Father unless you will allow God to be the Author of Tyranny and Oppression M. I Grant that a Man that is made a Slave to a Stranger by force without just cause given by him may set himself free by what means he can But I deny he hath the same Liberty in respect of his Father since the Father's power over him is from God and so is not the Stranger 's F. What power of the Father do you mean That of making his Son a Slave or of using him as a Father ought to use a Son The latter of these I very well understand to be from God but not the former And if the Father hath no such power from God I cannot see how it can be any Act of disobedience in a Son to look to his own Liberty and Preservation since Cruelty and Tyranny can never be Prerogatives of Paternal Power as you your self confess M. I grant indeed a Father hath no such Power from God to treat his Son thus cruelly but if he does I say again That God having ordained the Son to be absolutely subject to his Father he must endure it let the consequence of it be what it will And I suppose you will not deny but that in case of necessity as when a Father hath not wherewithal to nourish and breed up his Children he may sell or assign his interest in them to any person who will undertake to provide for their Nourishment and Education and that the Children so sold or assigned do thereby become absolute Servants to the person to whom they were thus assigned as long as they lived and why this should be
will not affirm But least I tire you as well as my self in dwelling so long upon things so plain and obvious were not they by too much industry rendred obscure I come at last to the conclusion of your discourse which is no more then a repetition of what you had said at first that because all the Kingdom could not be Summoned to appear in Parliament and that Villains and Servants c. never paid to this Tax that therefore the words omnes de Regno are not to be understood literally a doughty discovery and therefore you have found an expedient to help this contradiction by your Tenants in Capite and Thy Knights Citizens and Burgesses for the Laity and by the Procuratores Cleri for the Inferiour Clergy whose Interpretation is most agreeable to truth I durst leave to any indifferent Judge for I must needs tell you once again I cannot see any manner of reason either from Authorities or from the Nature of the thing that your Tenants in Capite could be the omnes de Regno in a legal sense and as such did represent all the Freemen of Estates in the whole Kingdom therefore if you can prove this it may go far to convince me otherwise not M. Since you will not rest satisfied with those Authorities I have already produced to prove it pray let me discourse with you a little more particularly of the nature of Tenures by Knights Service I therefore suppose that the Dr. hath very well prove by several Records as also the two Writs of 19th Hen. III. to the Sheriffs of Somerset and Sussex that the King anciently by his Prerogative and his original Power and Right reserved upon Knights Fee did Tax the Military Tenants of his Tenants in Capite and their other ordinary Free Tenants and by his Writs caused them to pay both â—cutage Tax and Scutage Service and other reasonable Aids as often as necessity required F. I grant indeed the matter of fact to have been sometimes as you say since there is no averring against express Records but I say likewise that as for those Writs the Dr. has given us concerning the Kings Ordering the Sheriffs to distrain the Mesne Tenants of the Tenants in Capite for Scutage Service as to Marry their Daughters or for the finding of Men in any Warlike Expedition it was no more then those Mesne Tenants were bound to do by the Tenures of their Estates if they had failed to serve their Lords in Person or by sufficient Deputies and therefore the King might legally grant them Scutage upon such Tenants and perhaps might also change their Service in Person into a pecuniary Aid as appears by some of those Writs the Dr. has given us and this not by his Prerogative but by Law so likewise tho your Tenants in Capite could Tax themselves in their distinct Council or else in the Common Council of the whole Kingdom at what rate they pleased for the Knights Fees they held of the King and tho the King might sometimes undertake by this pretence to I evy a Scutage of two Marks on their Under-Tenants also yet does it not appear by either of those Records you have now cited that they gave for more then themselves alone the words in the Writs being only that they had given the King Esseâ—ax Auxilium of two Marks upon every Knights Fee as well Wards as others who held of him in Capite without any mention of their Mesne Tenants so that if the Sheriff was afterwards ordered to distrain these Mesne Tenants also for two Marks for each Knights Fee they held of their Lords this was straining a point of Prerogative and was expresly against Law for at this rate the King might by the lâ—ke Prerogative have Taxed all the Bishops Abbots great Lords and all other Tenants in Capite without their consents as well as their Mesne Tenants tho it was contrary to the express words of the Charters of King William I. and King Iohn which you your self cited at our former Meeting so that granting the matter of fact to have been practised sometimes as your Records make out this is no proof that this was a constant Law or settled Custom much less that the King had a right so to do M. I do not doubt but that I can prove to you that what this King then did in charging these mesne Tenants was according to his ancient Prerogative and what himself and his Predecessors had frequently done both before and after the Clause in King Iohn's Charter of Nullum Scutâ—gium vel Auxilium ponam in Regno meo â— was granted nay after it was granted Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. taxed their Demeasns through England tho not the whole Kingdom by the advice of their Privy Council until the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo was made in 34 Eâ—w 1. and both Rich. 1. and K. Iohn had taxed the whole Kingdom without common assent before the Grant of Magna Charta as also in the Reign of Rich. 1. as you may find in Hoveden who lived at that time the passage is long and therefore I shall only give you the beginning of it viz. that this King Anno 1198 Regno 9. accepit de unaquaque Carucata terrae totius Angliae V. solidos de Auxilio c. and then goes on to shew us the manner how it was raised and collected and 't is observable that he uses these words Auxilium and Tallagium for the same Tax so we find in Mat. Paris that King Iohn took a seventh part of all Moveables without common Assent and another time a Thirtieth the great Men and Clergy grumbling at it K. Hen. 3. also taxed all his Demeasn in the 33 d year of his Reign as appears by a Writ in the close Roll of this year whereby he also commands the Sheriff of Buâ—ks that he make Philip Basseâ— a Ratiâ—nabilâ— Tallagium de hominibus suis de eo tenentilus in Mannerio de Wycumb quod aliquando suit Dominicum Praedecâ—ssorum Râ—gis c. In the 39 th year this King as the Doctor shews us at large by a Recoâ—d in the keeping of the Remembrancer of the Exchequer he taxed all his Demeasn and among the rest the City of London at 3000 Marks which tho with some contest mentioned in this Record they were at last forced to pay because it was found upon Record that this King and his Father had several times â—alliated or Taxed the saiâ— City in like manner at the sums therein mentioned so that at last the Mayor and Citizens were fain to acknowledg themselves thâ—s Talliable by the King So in the 52. year of his Reign he Taxed all his Demeasn Lands beyond Trenâ— by his Escheators and this Right was acknowledged by all the Bishops Earls and Barons in the 33 d year of Edw. I. as appâ—aâ—s by their Petition to him in Parliament in these words Al Pâ—tiâ—ionem Arcâ—iepiscoporum Episporum
what'were the Commons of England as now represented by Knights and Citizens and Burgesses ever an Essential Constituent part of the Parliament from Eternity before man was created Or have they been so ever since Adam Or ever since England was Peopled Or ever since the Britains Romans and Saxons inhabited this Island Certainly there was a time when they began to be so represented and that is the Question between us concerning which whether you or my self be in the Right I durst leave to any impartial Judge F. But notwithstanding your Drs. Answer I think under favour the King and Lords did here allow the Substance of this Petition or Claim as the main Ground and Foundation on which it was built viz. That the Commons had ever been Members of Parliament and therefore that no Law or Statute should be made without their Assents which encroachment upon their Liberties 〈◊〉 seems had been before endeavoured by the King and Lords and therefore let me tell you that the Answer of the King in Parliament is rather a full Concession of the Truth of the Commons claim otherwise it is not to be imagin'd that the King and Lords would have left such a Claim as of ancient Right without any denial or Protestation against it but instead of this the Kings and Lords allow the whole to be true onely the King reserved to himself his Negative Voice of granting or denying what he pleased which the Commons themselves do also allow him in the Conclusion to the Petition it self as you may see if you please to read it at large And father that this Affirmation of the Commons was no other then a Renovation or Memorial of the Ancient Law of the Land in that Point is more fully explained and Confirmed by a Petition to King Edward 2d in Parliament of all the Bishops Prelates Counts Barons and others of the Commonalty in the 18th of his Reign about an 10◠years before this of 9th Henry the 5th setting forth that they held their Mannours of the King Capite as well within the Forests as without to which Mannours they held Gasz i. e. Wast Appendant and of which the Seignories had been rented out by the Acre half Acre and Rude in improving their said Mannours and that thereupon the Officers of the King had made Seisure thereof because they had not the Kings License so to do and therefore pray that they may improve their said Mannours c. to which Petition it was answered by the King and his learned Council in Parliament that this could not be done without a new Law to do which the Commonalty of the Land will never Assent and concludes Infra coram Rege from whence I make these Observations that the King and his Council do here declare it as the ancient Custom of England that no new Law could then be without the Assent of the Commons or Commonalty of the Land and also that this Commonalty was a distinct Body from the Commonalty of the Tenants in Capite before mentioned And besides this I can shew you divers precedents to the same purpose and particularly a Declaration or Protestation to Edward 3d. by the Commons in Parliament that they would not be obliged to any Statutes or Ordinances without the Assent of the said Commons which is also farther confirmed by another Petition of right or a Protestation of the Commons to King Richard the 2d as it is to be found in the Parliament Rolls of 6th Richard 2d Pt. 1. m. 52. wherein they pray against a pretended Statute made by the King and the Lords against those who in the Statute of Henry the 4th are called Lollards in which they set forth that the said Statute was never assented to by the Commons and therefore pray that it be annulled and pray observe the Reason for that it was not their intent to be justified nor to oblige themselves or their Successors to the Prelates more than their Ancestors have been in times pass'd From all which we may observe that the Commons do by all these Petitions and Protestations make as strong a claim by Prescription for themselves and their Ancestors not being bound by the Acts of the Bishops and Lords as the King could make for himself and his Ancestors touching his own Prerogative by Prescription But as for your Queries on this Petition since they are not your own give me leave to tell you I look upon them as impertinent for who ever suppos'd that the Commons claim'd a right by Prescription ever since the Creation or ever since the first Peopleing of this Island since any Body may see that this Word ever is to be understood according to the Nature of the Subject in hand viz. from the first Institution of the Saxon Government in this Island now pray give me leave to put you a Case suppose you should affirm that the Crown of England hath ever been Successive and not Elective wou'd it not be meer Cavilling to ask you Whither it was so pure Divino ever since Adam but as you will leave it to any impartial judge who is in the Right you or I so shall I likewise leave it to them to consider which is most likely that your Self your Dr. and some of our Modern Antiquaries should make the House of Commons no ancienter than about the latter end of Henry the 3d or middle of Edward the 1st Reign or the constant Judgment of both Houses of Parliament with the Assent of the King and his Learned Council who have insisted upon the Consent of the Commons as their ancient and undoubted Right beyond all time of Memory M. I must confess you have proved it plain enough that it was the constant opinion of more than one Parliament that the Commons had been before the 49th of Henry the 3d Members of the great Council of the Nation But how long before that they do not set forth but since Parliaments are no more infallible than general Councils I hope you will pardon me if I do not give absolute Credit to their Testimony since in an illiterate Age as that was in which the Commons make this Petition it might happen that not onely they but the King Himself and his Council at that time might not certainly know how long or how little a time the Commons had been summoned to Parliament therefore since all the Writs of summons to them before the 49th of Henry the 3d are lost I pray shew me from this general Right of Prescription you so much talk of that there must have been any Commons summoned to Parliament before that time for I have now somewhat very Material out of Mr. Prins Parliamentary Register to Object against Mr. Lambard's Argument from the Plea of the Tenants in ancient demesne being exempted by Prescription from paying to the wages of Knights of the Shires as you told me at our last Meeting but one but first let me hear the rest of your Arguments from this
Noblemen or Gentlemen who held Lands in divers Counties of England at the time when that Survey was made and for proof of this since so short a conversation as ours will not permit me to run into a long Bed-role of names I refer you to what the learned and ingenious Mr. Atwood in his Ius Anglorum ab antiqua has observed out of Doomesday book upon this subject where tho' he has not only gone thorough but gone over Fifteen Counties of Thirty that are surveyed in that book yet it will thereby sufficiently appear that your Dr. is much mistaken when he so positively affirms that there were few or no Englishmen that held Lands in England but to give you a taste of this I shall run through as many Counties as Mr. Atwood has given us the names of To begin which survey where besides the Earl of Morton above mentioned who tho' he was a Norman born yet he was here before the entrance of the Norman Duke and held Estrehaw in Tenrige Hundred in the time of King Edward there was also Hugo de Port an Englishman who was a very great Proprietor as may be found under this Title in Doomesday book Terra Hugonis de Port many Mannors he had and as thereby appears in Hampshire he had at least two Mannors Cerdeford and Eschetune from his Ancestors before King William's entrance and besides this Gentleman and the Earl above mentioned there are no less than Ten or Eleven who as it appears either by their English Names or else by this note which so frequently occurs Idem tenuâ—t T. R. E. i. e. tempore Edwardi Regis the like I may say for the other Counties there mentioned as Hampshire in the next place where besides Ralph de Mortimer who had several Lands T. R. E. there are no less than above Thirty Free-holders more who by their Saxon names and want of Sir-Names seem to be English divers of whom held the same Thane Lands which themselves or their Fathers did in the time of King Edwards and tho in Buckinghamshire and Barkshire indeed there are but five or six who held the same Lands which they or their Ancestors possessed in the time of their Conqueror but yet in Wiltshire and Dorcetshire there appears between Twenty and Thirty English Proprietors many of whom held whole Townships when this Survey was made in Sommersetshire Devonshire Staffordshire Yorkshire and Glostershire their does appear in most of them a dozen or more English Saxon names who held whole Mannors 't is true that in Nottinghamshire Lincoâ—shire and Herefordshire their appear fewest English names and yet the least of these have three a piece So much may suffice for Doomesday book and I doubt not if any one will take the pains to look over the Titles of the rest of the Counties he may find enough Instances of the like Nature sufficient to prove that the English were not wholly dispossessed of their Estates at the end of K. William's Reign when this Survey was made Not to mention Northumberland Westmorâ—land and the Bishoprick of Durham all which are omitted But that the number of English which held the Lands in the time of King William the first and second was very considerable may appear by William of Malmesburies relating how the Norman Lords then in England would have dethroned William Rufus and haâ—e set up his Brother Robert in his place there also shews the manner how that King prevented it Rex Videns Normannos pend in una Rabie conspiratos Anglos probos fortes viros qui adhuc residui â—rant invitatoriis scriptis arcessit quibus super injuriis suis Querimoniam faciâ—us bonasque Leges Tributorum livamen Liberasque venationes poâ—licens fidelitati suae obligavit where Residui must certainly be meant of the residue of those English Gentry whose Estates were still left and herein Ordericus Vitalis is more express that King William as soon as he saw the contrivance against him Lanfrancum Archiepiscopum cum Suffraganeis praesulibus Comites Anglosque Naturales convocavit Conatus Adversariorum velle suum expugnandi eos indicavit M. As for Mr. Atwood's Catalogue of English names from Doomesday book I have not yet examined them and tho' I grant there are may be divers who held the same Lands that they or their Fathers did yet they are but a few in respect of the rest nor are we certain that all these were Native English and not Normans who held Lands as well then as before the Conquest since the Normans and the English names were often the same and as for the want of Sir-names that is no argument that they must needs be English since in those days very few even of the Normans but persons of Quality and Estates had any as Mr. Cambden shews us in his remains but as for those expressions in the Charters of King William and his Sons wherein the English as well as the French Earls and Barons are mentioned those Charters might be either made during the three or four first years of King William's Reign when I grant the English were not wholly dispossessed of their Estates but that there were some of them that still held Earldoms and Baronies in their own right but when the same expressions occur after that time the word Angli or Angligenae must be understood in another sense tho' it seems to be put in opposition to Francis son as by these last are to be understood such French or Norman Barons who had Estates in England as well as in France so by the former could be only meanâ— such Frenchman or Normans who had their Estates in England only Or else tho' French by Original were Englishmen by Birth are here called Angli and Angligenae to distinguish them from such French Barons as are above mentioned oâ— from such as were born in Francâ—s and for the truth of this I desire you would consult Dr. â—â—'s learned Glossary at the end of the Folio Edition of his answer to Mr. P. and his two seconds Tit. Angli and Angligenae where he tells us that these Angli and Barones Anglae mentioned in these Authors and Ancient Charters were not English but Normans and those men of no mean or ordinary Ranks but Earls or Barons for they could never have met in such numbers as were requisite for them to do to protect and defend King William Rufus had not they been headed by such if they had either Power or Estates lest that depended not upon the Normans and if you or any man can shew me an English Saxon that was then either Eâ—â—l or Baron or had any share in the Government or any that had considerable Estates that did not hold them of the Normans or had at that time any great Woods Forests or Priviledges of Hunting in them then I will confess my self mistaken As for W. Malmesbury saying these were Angli probi qui residui grant these were only the antiqui
notwithstanding all you have alledg'd against it which yet is no more than what you said before that Duke Robert had an Hereditary Right and therefore he could not be put by which is to beg the Question for you cannot prove to me that he had this Right either by the Law of Nature the Law of England or the Law of Normandy not by the two former as I have already prov'd for your Conqueror himself being a Bastard had no better Title to the Dutchy of Normandy than his Father's last Will before he went to the Holy Land which was not good without the consents of the Nobility of that Dutchy as appears by the Historians of that time so that the greatest Objection you have to make against King Henry's being elected in a true Common-Council of all England is this that the time was so short between the Death of William Rufus and his Election that it was impossible for all the Parties that had Votes to be there present which is a very bold assertion for how can you or your Doctor tell that at the time when King William was kill'd he might not then have held a great Council at Winchester where he then Lay who might immediately upon his Death chuse his Brother Henry for their King for it is certain the Election was there the Day before his Coronation at London and therefore it is very rashly done to affirm that this Election was not in a Common-Council of the Kingdom when all the Historians and particularly W. Malmesbury tells us the manner of it and the Disputes there were about it viz. that Henry was elected King as soon as King William's Funerals were over Aliquantis tamen ante controversiis inter proceres agitatis c. and H. de Knyghton reciting the cause why Duke Robert was set aside viz. because he had been always contrary and unnatural to the Barons of England therefore quod plenario consensu consilio totius Communitatis Regni ipsum refutaverunt pro Rege omnino recusavâ—â—â—nt Henricum fratrem in Regem erexerunt which plainly shews that it was the opinion of all the Antient Writers out of whom Knyghton took this passage that this election was made by the free consent and in a full Council of all the whole Community of the Kingdom nor does the after claim of Duke Robert to the Crown at all alter the case for the reasons already given as also because the agreement that was made between them that he that surviv'd should succeed the other was never confirm'd or agreed to by the great Council of the Kingdom and therefore those Norman Lords that join'd with Duke Robert here in England are justly taxed by William of Malmesbury and the Saxon Chronicle with Infidelity and Rebellion and though I grant that Mat. Paris or rather Roger of Wendover whom he transcribes seems to condemn King Henry's taking the Crown as unjust and contrary to Right and that he therefore feared the Justice of God eò quod fratri suo primogenito cui jus Regni manifestè competebat temere usurpando injustè nimis abstulcrat yet this author writing about the middle of the Reign of King Henry III. who had succeeded his Father by a pretended right of Inheritance as well as Election it is no wonder if He who writ near a hundred years after this transaction should give his judgment in this matter according to the common opinion and prejudice of that age and must certainly speak by guess for how could he otherwise affirm unless he had been acquainted with that Kings thoughts as he doth in the same place that he felt conscientiam suam in obtentu Regni cauteriatam since no other Writer either of that time or after it does thus blame King Henry for taking the Crown But as for the account you give why Duke Robert never took upon him the Title of King if the Throne had not then been looked upon as vacant because of the agreement which he made with his Brothers by which he parted with his Right for a Pension during his Life is not at all satisfactory for in the first place neither of these agreements were made till above a year after his pretended Title did acrue to him by the Death of his Father and Brother and therefore he ought if he had look'd upon himself as true King to have immediately taken the Title upon him which he never did so likewise the agreement it self makes wholly against your notion of any hereditary succession to the Crown to be then setled since the main clause in both these agreements is that the survivor should be heir to him that died first unless he left Children of his own to succeed him which plainly shews that in the opinion of both those Princes and of the great men that swore on either side to see it observed they knew of no such setled Right of Succession in their Heirs which they themselves could not part with or else this Clause had been wholly in vain since both King William and King Henry's Children were to have succeeded to the Crown of England by vertue of both these agreements before the Sons of Duke Robert had his Son William who was only Earl of Flanders survived him But now if you please you may proceed with your other exceptions against the rest of the Instances I have here given you of the Vacancy of the Throne till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed whom to place therein M. As to what you have said in defence of the Vacancy of the Throne after the death of King Henry I. carries less shew of Reason than what you urged in the former Cases since all Writers agree that this was a manifest Usurpation in Stephen who could pretend no sort of Title to the Crown himself as well as Perjury in the Bishops Lords and great Men of England who having sworn Fealty to King Henry's Daughter Maud in his life-time made Stephen Earl of Blois their King therefore William of Malmsbury and all the Writers of those Times do accuse Stephen of down-right Perjury and Usurpation and likewise relate that he was advanced to the Crown through the power of the Londoners and Citizens of Winchester but yet all these Endeavours had been in vain unless he had been assisted by his Brother Henry Bishop of that City and then the Popes Legate in England and favoured by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Crowned him and yet for all this there was but a very small Faction of the Bishops and Lords who were for his Croonation for W. Malmsbury tells us Coronatus est ergo in Regem Angliae Stephanus tribus Episcopis praesentibus nullis Abbatibus paucissimis Optimatibus And many of the Nobility and great Men of England were so sensible of this that being headed by Robert Earl of Gloucester the Empresses base Brother they raised a War against Stephen which after her coming over hither was
if you say such a way of Election is now impossible I shall do so too but however it plainly shews the absurdity of supposing a King could ever now be fairly Elected were all the Blood-Royal totally extinct As for what you say concerning that Cession which the Princess of Denmark made of her Right to the Crown I never heard any thing of it before but admit it were so this could only serve in relation to her self and she could not give up the Right of her Brother the Prince of Wales no nor that of her own Children if God shall give her any F. This Objection concerning the total Dissolution of the Government proceeds from a wanâ— of your consideration of what the antient Government of England was not only before but a good while after your pretended Conquest which was not a setled Hereditary Monarchy but a Testamentary or Elective Kingdom where the Kings being often recommended by the Testament of the precedent King were chosen out of the Royal Family though not according to the Ruler of Succession now in use and therefore in all such Governments it is very well known that there was at the first institution of Kingly Government among them a great Council or Assembly of Estates of the whole Kingdom appointed who upon the death of the last King and vacancy of the Throne were still to meet of course to appoint a Successor which was commonly one of the Sons of the last King or at least some other Prince of the Royal Blood Thus it was till of late years in Denmark and Sweâ—den and so it was antiently in France during the Succession of the first Race as also in Spain during the Government of the Vandals and so it likewise was in England during the whole Succession of our English Saxon Kings and so I have also proved it continued till Edward the First And though since his time that the Crown hath been claim'd by right of Inheritance yet in all times precedent it is apparent that the great Council of the Kingdom upon the deaâ—h of every King Assembled by their own inherent Authority to consider whom they should place in the Throne which they then looked upon as vacant And therefore though I grant in the case of Edward the First the Parliament did not only ordain him Successor to his Father but also recogniz'd his â—ight by Blood yet for all this they still remain'd their anâ—ient Power of meeting without Summons from the King he being in the Holy Land and they not knowing whether he was alive or dead so that it is a false assertion to affirm that there can be no Government without a King since in all those vacancies of the Throne it is plain the Government devolved of course upon the geat Council of the Nation And though it is true there can be now no Parliament without a King according to the present notion and acceptation of that Term yet before that word was ever in use which is no older than about the middle of the Reign of Henry the Third it is plain that our great Councils often met by their own inherent Authority without any King and preserved the Peâ—ce of the Kingdom till a new King was either chosen or declared And though 't is true the Crown hath been long enjoy'd by those who have claim'd by Inheritance yet there is no reason for all that if the like cases should fall out as have done in former times why the Government should devolve to the mix'd Multitude now any more than it did then since it may be as well suppos'd that the same tacit Contract still continues of maintaining the Original constitution of great Councils which I have proved to be as Antient as Kingly Government it self And though perhaps the Form of chusing or sending thâ—se Representatives of the Nation may have been alter'd in divers particulars by for â—er Laws or received Customs yet this is nothing to the purpose as long as the thing it self remains the same in Substance as it was before for it can never be thought to have been the intent of the People who Established this form of Government that upon the extinction of the Royal Family the Government should be so quite dissolved as that it should be left to the confused Multitude to chuse what form of Government they should think fit Therefore to conclude I wish you would be perswaded to own this Government as it is now Established and to take 〈◊〉 Oath of Allegiance which is enjoyn'd by the Declaration of the Convention who are the only proper and legal Judges we can now have of conferring the Rights of those to whom our Allegiance is due And if in case a Dispute about the right Heir of the Crown the People of this Nation were not all bound to the decision of this Assembly we must necessarily fall together by the ears and fight it out as they do in the East-Indies where upon the death or deposition of a King he has still the Right who can Conquer his Competitors in Battel M. Well I wish there were not something very like it practised here of late for I think you will grant that if the Prince of Orange's Party had not prevail'd over the King 's the Convention would never have placed the Crown upon his head But I must beg your pardon if I cannot agree to your Proposals of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary since I have already taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to King Iames and I do not believe that any Power on earth can disengage me from that Oath as long as he and his Son the Prince of Wales are alive For as to your Doctrine of Abdication or Forfeiture they are too hard for my Reason to understand or for my Conscience to comply with and therefore it is all one to me whom your Convention places on the Throne since I am very well satisfied that none but the King can have a Right to it F. I wish I could see some better reasons for this opinion of yours than those you have already given for if you could convince that me the Nation hath done any thing in this Revolution which cannot well be justified by the Antient Customs and Constitution of the Kingdom I should come over to your opinion But if King Iames has truly Abdicated or Forfeited the Crown as I hope I have sufficiently made out and that your suppos'd Prince of Wales either is not really or else cannot now be proved to be the true Son of the Queen by reason of those Obstacles and Impediments I have shewn you I cannot see any thing to the contrary why you should not be wholly free and discharged from your former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames so that King William and Queen Mary being now placed on the Throne your Allegiance to King Iames and the suppos'd Prince of Wales is lawfully determined pray tell me therefore
also to those of justice and right reason for an Usurper not only to seize the Throne by force but if he can once get himself solemnly Crown'd and then recogniz'd by an Act of Parliament of his own calling which your self cannot deny but to have been ever too obsequious to the will and power of Usurpers as appears by those instances you have given me in Henry the IVth Henry the VIth and Richard the IIId the consequence will then be that the whole Nation would not be only bound to swear Allegiance to him but would be also oblig'd by this Act to desend him in his Tyranny and Usurpation to the utmost of their power and it would also indemnifie them for so doing which would be to establish iniquity by a Law and would destroy all the setled foundations of right and wrong which I affirm God himself is not able to alter without departing from those great attributes of immutability and Justice so essential to his Divine Nature F. It will not be very difficult to reply to these Arguments since they are grounded on such false Principles as are already answer'd As first that this Kingdom is by the fundamental constitution of it an Hereditary Monarchy and that consequently none but he who has a right by inheritance can require our Allegiance but pray tell me where you can find this fundamental constitution for I think I have sufficiently prov'd that there never was any such thing known in England till between four and five hundred years since that King Edward the First succeeded to his Father Henry the Third without any Bequest of the Crown by his Testament and before any Election or Coronation since he was then in the holy-Holy-Land But suppose it now to be an Hereditary Monarchy it doth not therefore follow that the Monarchy should continue always in such a Family for that may sail or may be changed by Conquest or Usurpation as has often been and the constitution continue So that the most that can be said is that when any particular Family by the Providence of God and the consent and submission of the People is placed in the Throne of right the Crown ought to descend to the Heir of that Family but suppose it does not must we pay Allegiance to no other person though pâ—ssessed of the Throne Pray Sir shew me that fundamental constiâ—ution for its being an Hereditary Monarchy does not prove it and according to the Judgement of the best Lawyers the Laws of the Land require the contrary viz. that we must pay our Allegiance to him who is actually King not to him who ought to have been King but is not and to think to confute this by pretending this fundamental constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy is to take that for granted which is still to be proved And therefore I am not at all frighted at the dreadful consequences which you suppose must follow if this Statute of Henry the VIIth should be Law viz. that it would be in the power of every Rebell and Usurper who could get himself Crown'd and then own'd to be King by a Parliament of his own calling to have a legal right to our Allegiance and that Cromwell if he could have got himself once Crown'd and recogniz'd might have been defended in his unjust Usurpation against King Charles the Second But admit this to have been so yet it is still to be understood that at this Coronation he had taken the Oath anciently taken by our Kings and that the Parliament he had summon'd to recognize his Title had consisted of the antient Lords and Commons consisting of Knights Citizens and Burgesses which never was observ'd in any of those Mock-Parliaments which Cromwell call'd had all these Conditions been observ'd I believe he would have been as legal a King within this Statute of Henry the VIIth as he himself ever was before he Married with the Princess Elizabeth which was not till near half a year after he had the Crown setled upon him by Act of Parliament So that though upon every translation of the Crown from one Family to another the first Prince of that Family could have no Hereditary Right to it yet we find such Princes to this day taken for Lawful Kings thus your William the Conquerour King Henry the IVth and King Henry the VIIth are each of them looked upon as true and lawful Kings according to our constitution as if they had been right Heirs of the Crown by lineal descent and though you may say that as to William I. he had a good right by Conquest that is only gratis dictum since I have already prov'd that he could be really no Conquerour And if the English Saxon Monarchy was hereditary before the Conquest as the Gentlemen of your opinion suppose he could be no other than an Usurper upon Edgar Athling the right Heir of the Crown by blood and as for Henry the IVth and Henry the VIIth though they both pretended a feigned Title to the Crown as Heirs by blood yet it is plain by the very Acts of Recognition I have cited that they durst not insist upon that Title since I have already prov'd there is no such thing mention'd in that Act of Parliament wherein the Estates of the Kingdom unanimously agreed that Henry Duke of Lancaster should Reign over them nor yet in the subsequent Act whereby the Crown was intail'd upon himself and his four Sons successively so likewise the Statute of the first of Henry the Seventh it is only drawn in general terms declaring that the Inheritance of the Crown of England c. shall rest remain and abide in the Person of King Henry the VIIth and the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming c. Nor is there indeed any breach made upon this Statute as you suppose nor yet upon the Act of Recognition of King Iames which you so much insist upon since the Crown is certainly setled upon two Princes who are not only lineally descended from them but who are also to be looked upon as right Heirs unto them since the Great Council of the Nation who are the Supream Judges have declar'd them to be so But as for the rest of your Speech whereby you would prove that this Act must needs be void because contrary to the Laws of Justice and right Reason this also depends upon your former errour in supposing that Princes have a Divine or Natural Right to their Crowns antecedent to the municipal Laws of their respective Kingdoms which is already sufficiently confuted so that tho' I grant it is not in the power of God himself to alter the natural foundations of right and wrong just and unjust yet it is likewise as certain that the Civil Rights of Princes as well as those of Subjects can no ways be accounted for according to those Natural Laws since all Civil property as well in Crowns as other Possessions must depend upon the particular Laws and Constitutions of each Kingdom and
Land though in words you deny it for every hereditary right is either a continued Usurpation by force which can give no right at all or a right by Law which is by the consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family which certainly is to make a King by Law that is by the consent of the People But if you will suppose that it was the Authority of the first King alone who thus intail'd the Crown upon himself and his right Heirs I desire you would shew me how the Crown could be so intail'd without the consent of the People so as that his Successor may not alter it and give it by his last Will or Testament to which of his Sons or Daughters he pleases since Sir Robert Filmer himself acknowledges that a testamentary heir to a Crown in an absolute Monarchy is as much by Divine right as if he had come in by Succession as appears by the instances he gives in Seth who could have no right to succeed his Father Adam in the Government of Mankind while Cain his Elder Brother was alive by the Will of Adam his Father the like I may say of Solomon who by his Fathers Crowning him King in his life time and thereby making him his Successor gave him a right to Rule over Adonâ—jah his Elder Brother so that I may very well ask you if the present Law of the Land did not proceed from the free consent of the People testified by long Custom or express Declaration of the People by their Representatives in Parliament I desire to know why the King of England cannot as well settle the Crown by his last Will upon which of the Blood-Royal he pleases as that it should be Lawful for the English Saxon Kings to exercise this Prerogative as Dr. Brady supposes they did before the Conquest without the consent of the Great Council of the Nation So that I think I may much better ask you what that Law was and who made it which you suppose to make Kings prior to and independent from the consent of the People since if there be any such Law it is either as yet unknown to Mankind or else all those who are once possess'd of Kingdoms have an equal Title to them by Divine Right But indeed it is only some Divines who were more scrupulous than knowing in Politicks who first started this question whereas indeed there is no such great Mystery in it for that Law by which the first King of England for Example was Elected was not in being before the King was made nor yet was the King in being before that but when the first King was made so by the consent and election of the People the King and the Law that made him so began both together that is the People by chusing of him to Govern upon certain Conditions and he by accepting the Crown upon those Conditions was that Law by which he then took the Crown and by which it has been held ever since that time So that if the Crown ought to be enjoy'd according to a legal right and that there must be some Judges appointed of this right when ever any Disputes may happen about it either every pretender to the Crown must judge for himself and then he will be both Judge and Party in his own Cause or else it must be left to the conscience of every individual Subject in England to side part with what Party he pleases that may thus pretend to it and so there may be a dozen Competitors for the Crown at once and all with equal right as for ought that any body knows or lastly this right must be left to the determination of some Civil Judges to judge whose Right it is and who can these Judges be who shall thus judge what are the antient Laws of Succession and Rules of Allegiance but the Great Council of the Nation therefore if they have already declar'd and recogniz'd King William and Queen Mary to be lawful King and Queen of this Realm I think every Subject of the same may very well justifie their Swearing Allegiance to them not only by vertue of this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth which requires Allegiance to be paid to the King in being but also from the equity and reasonableness of the thing it self to hinder the Nation from falling together by the ears and to entail Civil Wars from Generation to Generation if the Subjects were oblig'd by their former Oath of Allegiance to the King de jure to endeavour to restore him by force of Arms and therefore the Preamble to this Statute very well and truly sets forth that it is not reasonable but against all Law Reason and good Conscience that the Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord to the Wars any thing should lose or forfeit for doing this their true duty and service of Allegiance to the King for the time being M. But pray tell me is not this very strange and unjust and that by your own showing that a Prince should have a legal Right and Title to the Crown without a right to exercise the Authority belonging thereunto for they must now pay Allegiance to the King in being let him be never so great an Usurper so that indeed the preamble to this Act is expresly false since I think it is very unreasonable nay against all Law Reason and good Conscience to Swear Allegiance to an Usurper since by that means not only all good Subjects would be put out of a capacity of endeavouring to restore the King de jure to his Throne though never so unjustly depos'd or driven out as in duty they ought but also those who were instrumental in this Rebellion and in depriving the Lawful Prince of his just Rights may not themselves endeavour to restore him which would put them out of all possibility of making amends for the wrong they have done him and of making restitution by again restoring him to his Throne F. If this be all the difficulty that is left upon your mind I doubt not but to prove to you not only from the Law of the Land that Allegiance may be lawfully Sworn in this Case but also that it is for the common happiness and peace of the Nation which is the main end of all Government that it should be so and therefore I shall first freely grant that though it is Rebellion unjustly to deprive a King and his right Heirs of the Crown and that those who had a hand in it are bound in conscience to endeavour to restore him or them to their just rights again yet this must be done by no other methods but what are consistent with the publick peace and safety of the Common wealth for if a King de facto has once got possession of the Throne and has been Crown'd and Recogniz'd by Parliament from what has been already proved I think it is very plain that they ought to obey him not only from the