were voidances of Grants made by Usurpers as they were call'd and vesting them in the prevailing Kings Sixthly That these Resumptions many of them brook through Acts of Parliament and uravel'd things for several Reigns backward Seventhly That these cou'd not properly be called Acts but rather Addresses to the King For had they been positive Acts of Resumption how cou'd they be defeated as our Author owns they were Eightly That However this be yet 't is certain that in all the resuming Acts the King's Prerogative was always reserv'd and Saving and Exceptions allow'd to as many as he pleas'd From what has been said it appears what weight there is in this Gentleman's Precedents what conclusions may be drawn from them and how justly they are propos'd to influence the Legislative Power at this time Former Kings impoveris'd the Crown by their extravagant Grants in the heighth of this misery the Commons pray'd the King wou'd resume into his hands the Revenues of the Crown for the support of his Family but preserve what he pleas'd for his Friends Therefore 't is reasonable that we shou'd now resume all that our King has dispos'd of all the Lands forfeited by Rebells whom he subdu'd with the hazard of his Life This is an extraordinary Inference 'T is the King's Prerogative his undoubted right to dispose of such Forfeitures 'T is a right that never was deny'd to any former Prince And a positive resumption of his own Grant is what has never been required from any King of England Before this Gentleman who seems to be mightily concern'd for the good of his Country had press'd it so violently I wish he had considered First Whether such a Resumption as this would not reflect too much on the avraice of the present age Secondly Whether his Majesty who has rescu'd us from Slavery and Popery who has Fought our Battles Abroad who has restor'd the Balance of Europe and thereby retriev'd the Honour and Glory of the English Nation ought to be deny'd that which was the undoubted Prerogative of his Predecesssors Thirdly Whether this be agreeable to our former Acts whether it will not sound odd here after in our Annals and make us seem to our Neighbours a wavering and uncertain People Fourthly Whether it be not dangerous and unpolitick to tell the World and our Posterity in so solemn a manner that is shall not be in the power of our King to reward the services of Men who hazard their Lives and Fortunes in the times of greatest danger Fifthly Whether it be not too great a hardship to turn Men out of the Possessions which they enjoy by the Laws of this Land and thereby ruine multitudes of Families To silence the murmuring and complaints of all Persons whether Grantees or Purchasers and to justifie a Resumption we are told of a claim made by the House of Commons and of His Majesty's promise If the Parliament claim'd these Estates to apply to the use of the War and His Majesty promis'd it should be so were not those who obtain'd Grants afterwards and laid out Money upon them very faulty are such practices to be encourag'd and do not they justly suffer This câ—ution here given this claim put in by the House of Commons cannot I humbly conceive in Equity be pleaded against the Earl of Rumney and those who Purchase under him not only because his Grant was before any such caution but because likewise there was afterwards a saving for him in the Bill that passed the Commons House The same may be said of the Earl of Athlone and those who purchased under him since besides an Irish Act of Parliament which has been always reckoned solid enough to settle Lands in that Country there were Addresses to the King in his behalf here in England But let us see what the claim was which the House of Commons made to these Estates and what 't was the King promis'd We find in Octob. 1690 't was the opinion of the Committee of the whole House that Ten Hundred thousand Pounds should be rais'd upon the credit or by sale of the forfeited Estates in Ireland 'T was resolved that a Bill should be brought in for applying the same to the charge of the War The Bill pass'd the Commons House but fell in the House of Lords His Majesty's promise was made just five days after it pass'd in the lower House The words were these I do likewise think it proper to assure you that I shall not make any Grant of the forfeited Lands in England or Ireland till there be another opportunity of settling the matter in Parliament in such manner as shall be thought most expedieent Here we see what the King's promise was 't was that he would not make any Grants till there was another opportunity of settling that matter in Parliament as should be thought most expedient To me it seems that the matter was settled by the Lords and that they by letting the Bill fall shew'd what they thought most expedient viz. To let things go in the ancient course not to break in upon the Kings Prerogative but suffer him to dispose of the Estates that were vested in him By this Fate of the Bill in the upper House to me it seems plain that the King Was discharg'd of his promise and that the claim as 't is call'd of the House of Commons was determin'd for with the Bill lost in the House of Peers the opportunity was lost of settling that matter in Parliament and this likewise concluded the Commons and put an end to their claim The next year another Bill was brought in to vest these forfeited Estates in their Majesties this Bill fell in the lower as the other had done in the upper House The same fortune had the several other Bills afterwards in the years following as 92 93 94 95 97 98. From this account it appears that this claim put in by the House of Commons which ought to have deterr'd people from meddling with the forfeitures was in the year 1690 That so long ago people saw the Lords thought it unreasonable by their letting it fall in their House that in all the years following when 't was propos'd which was in seven several Sessions and 't was rejected perpetually in the Commons House 'T was but reasonable that the English there who suffered for adhering to England and were miserably ruined by the rapine of their Enemies should be allow'd after a longer tract of time than we allot to the Life of Man at last to Plant the Country and settle themselves A Resumption they could not fear 't was what they never knew practiced to defrate the King's Title and they could not imagine that it would have its rise in this Reign or be let loose upon them to unsettle and ruin them again who had done so much and had been so long wasted by the miseries of War Since then the States of the Nation did not think fit nine years since when the Bill was brought
THE THE CASE OF THE Forfeitures IN IRELAND Fairly Stated c. THE CASE OF THE Forfeitures IN IRELAND Fairly Stated WITH The Reasons that induced the Protestants there to Purchase them LONDON Printed in the Year 1700. THE CASE OF THE Forfeitures IN IRELAND Fairly Stated c. SInce the Expedition of King Henry II. into Ireland now about 530 years the Lands of that Kingdom have by reason of the many Rebellions frequently chang'd their Proprietors insomuch that there are very few Acres in that Country which have not more than once been vested in the Crown by Forfeitures All the Lands forfeited in that Kingdom since that time except what in the Rebellion of 1641 was by Act of Parliament secur'd to the Adventurers for the Money they then rais'd in the necessity of Affairs here have all along been bestow'd by the Kings of England according to their own pleasure His present Majesty following the Example of those who went before him has been pleas'd to grant Lands to several great Persons and others whom he esteem'd deserving of his Favour on which all the Chief Judges of that Kingdom other Judges and Great Men in the Law and others encourag'd by their Example have as Purchasers laid out considerable sums of Money This they did because they knew that a Grant under the Great Seal is a good and legal Title and That by which the English there have all along held their Estate In regard of the Bill that is offer'd to resume those Grants 't is humbly represented to the Lords and Commons in Parliament that they in making Laws are in their Great Goodness and Wisdom always very tender of every Man 's Right That the Grantees and those who purchas'd under them have a just and legal right to the Lands granted by his Majesty that barring an Irish Act of Parliament which in this case is not consider'd as appears by the E. of Athlone's Grant the Duke of Ormond's and all the Estates granted since 41 and in former times may as well be resum'd as those given by his Majesty since we are told that no time occurs to the King and Parliament 'T is said that Grants have frequently been ressum'd by Parliaments therefore they have a just right to do it And if so neither the Grantee nor Purchaser has reason to complain since the former is depriv'd of that which Parliaments have frequently dispos'd of and the later suffers as one who purchas'd under an uncertain and bad Title and forgot what the Law says Caveat Emptor If this were so it might perhaps be decent not to urge it in the present Case considering the infinite Obligations His Majesty has laid upon us and how reasonable it is he should be allowed to reward those whom he knew deserved great marks of his bounty and Favour But laying these considerations aside I will allow that if indeed the nature of our constitution be such that a Person who holds a Forfeited Estate by the Kings Grant and he that purchases under that Grant has but an uncertain and bad Title and that it appears to be so by the frequent resuming of Estates then there is some weight in the Objection But if the Parliament has never declar'd That the King has no right to dispose of such Forfeitures to the Crown if the Judges the Interpreters of our Laws have always agreed That such Titles are good in Law if they are the Titles by which the Lands of that and this Kingdom have always been held I humbly conceive the Case is otherwise A Late Author has taken a great deal of pains to shew that Parliaments in former times have made such Resumptions He says which he could not avoid owning That Our constitution seems to have been that the Kings always might make Grants and that those Grants if pass'd according to the forms of prescribed by Law were valid and pleadable not only against him but his Successors If the Kings may make Grants and they are valid Does not an Act of Resumption deprive a man of that which he has a Just and Legal right to And will it not be too great a hardship on the King as well as the Persons concern'd in his Grants to force him to take away what he has granted and so to injure his Subjects whom he has always tenderly protected and with the hazard of his blood preserved That Author is of another opinion for he tells us ' T is likewise manifest that the Legislative Power has had an uncontested right to look into those Grants and to make them void whenever they are thought EXORBITANT If ' t is only Exorbitant Grants that are to be look'd into and made void Will not a general Resumption which voids all Grants without examining what the Merits or Rewards of Persons are be still a Hardship What an Exorbitant Grant is I don't understand nor has the Legislative Power ever determin'd the exact boundaries between a Grant that is and is not Exorbitant Because this Author would have His Majesties Grants voided 't is plain he thinks them Exorbitant But if many former Kings have made Grants vastly greater which never were look'd into or made void If many of His Majesty's greatest Grants put together will not equal the value of one Grant made by the Parliament since His Majesty's Reign to one Person and a Foreigner too for which he is not the more in our Author's esteem can they with any decency be reckoned amongst those Exorbitant Grants which ought to be resum'd 'T is hard to say what the Legislative Power can't do Id potest quod jure potest So that whosoever affirms they have power to resume the King's Grants if they please I believe will not deny that they may likewise Repeal former Acts of Parliament and consequently dissolve the Right that Men enjoy by them He has indeed in his List of resumptions which are nothing to the present purpose instanced one such as it is whereby Grants were made void altho' confirmed by Parliament This Author when he says That they have had such a Power must mean only that they have exercised such a Power and frequently resumed Estates which being vested in the Crown by Forfeiture have been granted away by the Kings of this Realm His Impartial and Intelligent Reader I believe will own That he has demonstrated nothing of this He has he says taken a vast deal of pains but to what purpose Has he in his laborious search discovered any Act that voided the vast Grants made after the Rebellion in 1641 or that resum'd the escheated Counties and other Lands disposed of by King James the First or that broke the many and great Grants of Forfeitures made by Queen Elizabeth Does he know of any Resumption of the great multitude of Estates given by King Henry the VIIIth No though they were acquired by Act of Parliament and not by the King in War yet the King dispos'd of them as he pleas'd and the Grantees and
had done so many Heroick Actions and had so valiantly fought for the Honour of his Country had but 100 l. per. ann Pension for his Life and some Lands in Ireland then of no value the said Earl having ' had no other recompence for his long services which moderation of his is a reproach to the avarice of the present times I must with this Gentleman own that the Heroick Actions of that Noble Earl whose name carries merit in it deserved the greatest recompence that could be given But considering the Poverty of those times and the great value of Money the Recompence tho' not equal to the Merits of the Man yet was greater than he represents it He adds that he had besides some Lands in Ireland then of no value the words of the Act are Till then yeilding nothing being in the hands of Rebels I can assure this Gentleman that the Lands of that noble Lord of which afterwards his Family was deprived by the Statute of Absentees made in Ireland were more than all the Irish ferfeitures disposed of by his present Majesty put together This considered he might with more Justice have said That this shews the moderation of his Grace the present Duke of Shrewsbury who notwithstanding the great Services of his Ancestors in Ireland notwithstanding his own great Merit has not beg'd any Grant of the King in that Kingdom where he had so good a claim But since in comparing Grants made formerly with those of the present time he has mentioned the favours conferred on a Noble Lord of that Great and Honourable Family to make His Majesty's Grants look the greater and more exorbitant I will tell him what I find in my Lord Coke's 12th Report E. of Shrewsbury's Case that King Henry VIII did grant to George E. of Shrewsbury and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereto belonging in the County of Nottingham the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chesterfield Shirbrook and Gossadel in the County of Derby with divers other Lands and Tenements of great value This I mention here being led into it by the Author to shew that there were great Grants in former times Of which more hereafter What this Act of Henry VI. was what force and operation it had whether that which this Gentleman would suggest the Reader may guess from what follows Had all the Crown Lands dispos'd of by that King except those that were secured to the Grantees by the several reservations made by the Commons and the King himself by that resuming Act been re-invested in the Crown there could have been no place left for the complaints and several resuming Acts or Petitions that follow'd By them the nature and validity of this Act as well as their own force and operation is discover'd The very next year 29 th Hen. 6. Another appears of the same nature with this In it there are great complaints made by the Commons of their Poverty of many unportable charges laid upon them and of there being no benefit of the former Resumption how so I wonder if 't was a positive resuming Act Therefore in the most lowly wise to us possible we say the Commons beseechen you most noblay graciously and tenderly to consider the great benefits that should grow unto you and to this your Roialme by the means of this resumption The King in answer to the Petition tells them that by the advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal his exellency is agreed to resume c. But 't is with Provisions and Exceptions for all that he pleases as appears by the assent Four years after this 33. Hen. 6. another Act of Resumption passes which shews what kind of Acts these were The Commons set forth That not withstanding their large Grants of Goods he was indebted in outragious Sums that the Revenue of his Land did not suffice to sustain his houshold whereof the People say they lament and sorrow piteously What became then of the Lands vested in the Crown by the former Resumptions The King assents to this Petition as before but with a Reserve for his Prerogative and savings for what he pleased This shews the meaning of those Acts They were only Prayers and Petitions to the King to pity them and the low Estate of his Crown and to resume as much of the Revenues he had given away as was sufficient to support his Family What could there be more in such a Resuming Act wherein the King in the Royal Assent inserts a saving for his Prerogative This I think is plainly manifest by the effect and operation of these Acts. These were the Acts Resumption made by Henry VI. Some may object says this Author that Henry VI. under whose Reign these three Resumptions were made was a weak Prince unfortunate abroad ingaged in Factions at home and kept under by the house of York I would ask that Gentleman what need there is of such an objection for what effect had all these Petitions what was this weak King forced to do Did not he assert his Prerogative Were there any resumptions by what followed 't will appear whether there were or no. This Gentleman was not aware that the insinuating this Objection makes greatly against him For what opinion had the People of Resumptions at that time or of their right of claiming them when in the Reign of so weak a Prince their Acts as they are called avail'd no more About five years after 1 Edw. IV. as soon as that King came to the Crown his Subjects desir'd a Resumption By this all Grants were to be resum'd that were made since the latter end of Rich. II. which was above sixty years The reasons will be clear to any one that knows the History of England This Gentleman does well to name this among the other Precedents to let us know the moderation of those times and to shew that no Prescription will secure Men against a resuming Act. This resumption he says was too large to have any good effect Why so The more Lands it seiz'd the better the effect But it seems it did no execution For Three years after Anno 3 and 4 Edw. IV. there pass'd another Act. This Act as well as the former pass'd with such exceptions as it should please the King to make A prodigious number of these savings it seems there were in so much that our Author says they seem intirely to defeat the design and intention of the Act. Therefore Three or four years after 7 Edw. IV. we are told of another this the King desires for he tells them he is resolv'd to live of his own and not be a charge to his Subjects This passes with what Provisions and Exceptions the King is pleas'd to make but as ill luck would have it the Exceptions our Author tells us frustrated the good intentions of the Commons Thus according to him each of these three Acts was a Felo de se Why then are they produc'd 'T is