A BRIEF ENQUIRY INTO THE Ancient CONSTITUTION AND Government of England As well in respect of the Administration as Succession thereof Set forth by way of Dialogue and fitted for Men of Ordinary Learning and Capacities By a True Lover of his Country LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane 1695. THE Publisher's PREFACE TO THE READER THERE being many Treatises already Publish'd upon the Subjects handled in this ensuing Discourse you may think it needless to trouble the World with more of this kind but those who think so may be of another Opinion when they have considered not only the Design of this Treatise which is to Abridge into a small Manual what others have writ in many Volumes but also the manner of handling the Matters herein treated of which you will find to differ very much from most of the Books written before upon this Subject some Writers having screwed up the King's Prerogative to so extravagant a height as to place the whole Essential Frame of the Government in the King 's Sole Will and Pleasure not considering the Fundamental Rights and Liberties of a Free-born Nation more than as the forced Concessions of some Weak Princes not otherwise able to appease an Angry People and which they may therefore contract or wholy abrogate as their Power or Opportunities may either dictate or permit Whilst on the other side there are some who have too much debased the Royal Prenogative by placing all Power immediately in the People and supposing the King accountable to their Representatives for every small Miscarriage in Government There is without doubt an Error in both these Extremes since as the King can have no Prerogative which is inconsistent with the Ancient Rights and Liberties of the Subject set down in Magna Charta and other Ancient Statutes which were only declarative of the Common Law of England So likewise if the King be the Supreme Magistrate of the Nation he cannot without a Soloecism in Government be rendred accountable to any Power superior to his own these things considered hath induced the Author to chuse a middle and more moderate Course by preserving to the King all such Prerogatives as are inseparable from the Supreme Executive Power and which are necessary for the Common Safety yet without leaving the King absolutely irresistible in all Cases whatsoever and without a supposed impossibility of his falling from his Royal Dignity in case of the highest Breaches of his Coronation Oath and the utmost Violations of that Usual and Ancient Contract which his Predecessors have so often renewed with the People of this Nation upon their Succession to the Throne For the proving of which the Author hath made use of the best Authorities he could collect either from our ancient Histories Records or Law-Books beginning with the Grounds and Institution of Civil Government in general and ending with that of England in particular And though he hath so far adapted this Discourse for men of ordinary Learning and Capacities as not to stuff the Margin with many Quotations yet he hath not fail'd to put them down where-ever the Niceness or Uncommonness of the Subject might otherwise chance to shock the Understandings of Readers not thoroughly vers'd in things of this Nature Not but that the Author is very well satisfied that even where no Authorities are expresly cited he is able to maintain what he there lays down by Arguments drawn from Law as well as Reason if any man shall think it worth while to call it in question but if he requires larger and fuller Proofs on this Subject he may if he pleases first consult the last Eight Dialogues of a late Treatise called Bibliotheca Politica as also Mr. Atwood ' s Learned Treatise concerning the Antiquity and Justice of an Oath of Abjuration And I hope he may thence receive sufficient satisfaction that the Principles here laid down are founded not only upon right Reason but the ancient Constitution of the English Government This may suffice for the manner of handling this Argument But now to say somewhat more of the ends of publishing this Discourse and they are these First to make every man though of never so common a Capacity understand as well as the Author is able to perform it what is the true ancient and legal Government of this Kingdom 2dly What are the main and most considerable Prerogatives of the Crown And lastly What are the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the People And that these are so far from being contradictory or inconsistent that they rather serve to defend and strengthen each other so that it hath been for the defence and preservation of all these that this wonderful and happy Revolution hath been brought about and Their Present Majesties placed upon the Throne as also to convince those who traduce by the Nick-names of Whigs and Commonwealths-men those that have been in the worst of times the only true Assertors of this ancient limited Monarchy so that if they plead for Resistance in some Cases it is only in those of utmost and absolute necessity and in order to preserve the Original Constitution and to prevent the Head of the Legislative Power from devouring the Body nor can they have any other Notions of Loyalty but their Obedience to the Government establisht and exercised according to Law as the ancient Sense as well as Etymology of that word imports To conclude Whosoever shall think fit to bestow a little money to buy and time to peruse this small Treatise the Publisher hopes he will find the design to be truly English that is sincere and honest that all good Subjects may know how to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods without blindly sacrificing under the will-worship of a pretended Loyalty the Religion Civil Liberties and Properties of their Country to Caesar's Will as some of late Years have done who made these the darling because most gainful Doctrines as well of the Pulpit as the Bar and the Press A BRIEF ENQUIRY INTO THE Ancient Constitution and Government of England ctc. In a Dialogue between a Justice of Peace and an Understanding Freeholder I. GOOD Morrow Neighbour What brings you hither so early If you want a Warrant I 'll call my Clerk and then hear your Business F. No I assure your Worship the Business I come about is of greater concern and that no less than the Rights and Liberties of the Subject as well as the Power and Prerogative of our Kings which though I heard you Treat of in your late Charge to the Grand Jury last Quarter-Sessions yet since I could not come near enough to hear it distinctly not being of that Jury my self pray give me the substance of that Discourse and I the rather desire it because I have since heard it much censured by some of our Neighbours as savouring of Commonwealth Principles But to save you the labour of a needless repetition I will
one in respect of themselves as if it were by their Election or that of their lawful Representatives Nor could the first Conqueror mighty Nimrod for example ever conquer the neighbouring Nations by the sole assistance of his own Children and Servants without the conjunction of other Fathers of Families and Freemen who 't is most likely followed him for a share of the Spoil and upon certain Conditions agreed upon between them for the like we find of all other Conquerors in Ancient as well as Modern Histories F. But pray shew me Sir how this can be since most Nations have been conquer'd at some time or other but few of them have given their Consents as I know of either in a whole Assembly of all that Nation or else by their lawful Representatives as we do in England I. 'T is true they have not given their Consents all at once but singly and one by one they have done and constantly do it every day in Towns and Countries that pass from one King to another by Conquest for it is certain that all such Subjects as do not like the Religion or Government of the Conquering Prince or Commonwealth may lawfully retire out of the conquer'd City or Countrey and carry their Estates with them or else sell their Lands and carry away the Money if they can without any crime so that it is apparent it is only from the Acknowledgment or Recognition of each particular Person who stays there that this Conqueror comes to have any Right to the Subjects Allegiance F. Pray how is this Consent or Acknowledgment given since Oaths of Allegiance as I am inform'd are not exacted in all places of the world where Conquests are made I. I grant it but where they are not so imposed nor taken the persons that have not sworn to this new Government can never be oblig'd to an Active Obedience or to fight for or serve the Conquering Prince against perhaps their former lawful Sovereign yet I think thus much I may justly maintain That whatever Prince be he a Conqueror or Usurper who is much the same thing in respect of the Subjects who shall take upon him to administer the Civil Government by protecting the conquer'd people punishing Malefactors and doing equal Justice by himself or his Judges between man and man whosoever of this conquer'd people will continue in that City or Countrey and receive his Protection and enjoy all the other Rights of other Subjects is so far obliged by virtue of that Protection he receives as to yield a Passive Submission to all the Laws that such a Conqueror shall make and not to conspire against or disturb his Government by Plots or Rebellions But indeed this tacit Consent or Acknowledgment of the Conqueror's Authority because not given by the People at once makes many men believe that their Consent is not at all necessary to make a Conqueror's Power obligatory as to them not but that I do acknowledge that Oaths of Allegiance are of great use in any Kingdom or Common-wealth to bind men to a stricter Observance of their Duty and also to an Active Obedience to all their Conqueror's lawful Commands even to venturing their Lives for the Government since it is for the Publick Good of the Community if they are so required F. I am well enough satisfied as to the Original of Government and the Right that all Kings and Commonwealths have to their Subjects Allegiance whether they began at first by the express Consent or Election of the People or else by Conquest and their subsequent Consents but pray satisfy me in the next place concerning the Government of England you said it was a Limited Monarchy and I have never heard that questioned but how did this Limitation begin whether from the very first Institution of the Government or else by the gracious Concessions of our Kings I. Without doubt Neighbour from the very Institution of the Government for our first English Saxon Kings were made so by Election of the People in their great Councils or Parliaments as we now call them and could do nothing considerable either as to Peace or War without its Consent and this Council was to meet of course once a year without any Summons from the King and oftner by his Summons if there was any occasion for it and it is certain that the Freemen of England have always from beyond all times of memory enjoyed the same Fundamental Rights and Privileges I mean in substance that they do at this day F. Pray Sir what are those Fundamental Rights and Privileges that you say we have so long enjoy'd tell me what they are I. I will in as few words as I can First then The Freemen of England were never bound to observe any Laws either in matters Civil or Religious but what were made by the King with the Consent of the Great Council consisting of the Clergy Nobility and Commons assembled in Parliament Secondly That no Taxes could be lawfully imposed upon the Nation or any man's Property taken away without the Consent of this Council 3. That this Great Council had ever a power of hearing and redressing all Grievances and Complaints of the Subjects not only against the Oppressions of any of the King 's great Officers or Ministers who were too great to be called to an account in any other Court but also the particular Wrongs of the King himself the Queen or their Children F. Pray how could this be done since the King may at this day dissolve the Parliament whenever he pleases I. I grant it is so now but certainly it was otherwise when Parliaments met of course at a certain place once a year without any summons from the King yet after that time I find it in the Ancient Treatise called The Manner of holding Parliaments That the Parliament ought not to be dissolved whilst any Petition or Bill dependeth undiscussed or at least whereto no determinate Answer is given and that if he do or permit the contrary perjurus est i. e. he is perjur'd And even at this day the Two Houses may justly refuse the King any supply of Money whilst he refuse to redress their just Grievances F. This is more than I ever heard of before but pray proceed to tell me what are the rest of the Liberties and Priviledges of an Englishman I. In short they are these Not to be banisht the Realm or imprisoned without just cause nor to be kept there only as a punishment but in order to a legal Trial not to be tried condemned or executed without a lawful Jury of his Peers first passed upon him unless in time of War by Martial-Law lastly no man is oblig'd to quarter Soldiers without his own consent and then paying for what they have There are other less Rights and Priviledges exprest in the Petition of Right acknowledged and confirmed in Parliament by King Charles I. all which I omit but these being the chiefest that concern our Lives
Liberties and Estates were only insisted upon in my said Charge F. But pray Sir tell me as to the King Is he not the sole Supream Power in England I. No certainly for then he could make Laws and raise Money without the Peoples Consent but every printed Act of Parliament will shew you where the Supream Power resides wherein it is expresly recited in these words Be it therefore enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of this Realm and the Authority of the same or as I can shew you in several Statutes of King Henry the VIIIth wherein it is recited thus Be it enacted by the Assent and Consent of our Sovereign Lord the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by Authority of the same whereby you may see that not only the words Assent and Consent but the word Authority is referred as well to all the Three Estates as to the King F. This I confess is plain enough but what are the King 's chief Prerogatives I. I will tell you in as few words as I can his Majesty's chief Prerogatives for to enumerate them all would be endless are these First to call Parliaments once a year or oftner and Dissolve them if he pleases to give the last hand or sanction to all Laws for raising of Taxes and for the enacting all other things that his Majesty joining with the Two Houses of Parliament shall think fit to be Enacted to appoint Judges to Try Condemn and Execute Traytors and all other Malefactors for Treason and other Crimes and to grant Pardons for those Crimes if his Majesty shall think fit yet still according to his Coronation Oath to grant Commissions to all other Magistrates and Officers both Civil and Military no Arms being regularly to be Rais'd but by his Authority also by the Advice of his Privy-Council to issue Proclamations according to Law and for the Publick Good for enforcing the observation of such Laws as shall be thought fit in case those that are entrusted with the execution of them prove too remiss Lastly to make War and Peace though the latter as well as the former of these were anciently very seldom made without the Advice and Consent of Parliament These are the chief Prerogatives which I mentioned in my Charge tho' I grant there are divers others tho' less material F. But pray Sir cannot the King by his Prerogative do some things against the Laws and Dispence with them in all cases which he himself may judge for the Common Good of the Kingdom I. The King had anciently no Power to Dispence with Statutes with non Obstantes and so it is solemnly declared in the Kings Bench in the 39th of K. Edward the 3d. by all the Justices as a Rule in Law well known at that time and I could tell you were it not too tedious how this Prerogative of Dispensations first began but even then the King could not Dispence with any thing that was morally Evil in it self or with what was Enacted by Authority of Parliament for the common Good and Safety of the whole People or Nation in General And this is the true reason why the Late King Iames could not Dispence with all Statutes concerning the taking away the Test because the whole Nation had an Interest in them nor could he Dispence with any Act which conferred a particular Right or Priviledge on a third Person and lastly he could not commonly Dispence with any Statute wherein there was a particular provision to prevent the King from Granting Charters with Clauses of Non-obstantes But now all Dispensations with such Statutes are taken away by a particular Clause in the late Act of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you may see if you please and which I take to be no more than a Solemn Declaration of what was the Ancient Law of England before non obstantes came up F. I am very well satisfied in this but pray Sir tell me the reason Why the King cannot as the Supreme Executive Power of the Kingdom exercise his Royal Prerogative though it were to the prejudice of some particular Persons I. I can give you a very good reason for this because this would be contrary to that Trust which was at first reposed in the King by the Representative Body of the Nation when this Limited Monarchy was first instituted and which that ancient Treatise called the Mirror of Iustices writ above Four hundred years since very well sets forth the Common Law of England as it stood before the Conquest as also the Original of the Government of this Kingdom by one Person or Monarch which he thus recites That when Forty Princes that is Aldermen or Earls of Counties did Elect one King viz. Egbert to Reign over them to Maintain and Defend their Persons and Goods in Peace by Rules of Right they made him at first to Swear That he would maintain with all his Power the true Christian Faith and would Govern his People by Right without any respect of Persons and would also be Obedient to suffer Right i. e. Justice as well as others of his People By which it appears That all the Prerogatives of the Crown are trusted in the King by Law for the Good and Preservation of his People and not for the exercise of an Arbitrary Will or Power contrary thereunto As also Sir Iohn Fortescue once Lord Chancellor to King Henry the VIth in his Treatise in Praise of our English Laws has thus handsomely set forth viz. That the King was Made or Elected for the safeguard of the Law the Bodies and Goods of his Subjects and he hath this Power derived from the People so that he cannot long Govern them by any other Power and he also gives us the reason why he cannot regularly Dispence with Acts of Parliament Because says he they are made by the general Consent of the King and the whole Realm and if there be any thing in them that proves inconvenient the King may quickly or in a short time call another Parliament to amend it but not without that as it certainly would if the King had an Absolute and Unlimited Power of Dispensing with all Laws So that you see the King is entrusted with his Prerogative by Law that is by the Consent of the People only for their Benefit and Preservation therefore if the Judges or any other inferior Officer act contrary thereunto though by the King 's express Letters or Messages they are Forsworn and may be punished for it and in this sence it is that the King whilst acting thus by his subordinate Officers or Ministers is said to do no wrong because they are liable to be questioned for it and if he acts otherwise by his own personal Power or Commands it is not as King of England but as a private Person
Reign And hence it is that our Kings enjoy their Crowns be it for Life or Intail Now it is certain that this Solemn Oath or Contract which was taken by the first King ought by Law to be renewed at the beginning of every King's Reign and hence it is that our Kings are not only bound by their own express Oaths or Contracts with their Subjects but also by the implied Oaths or Compacts of their Predecessors under whose Title they claim And King Iames I. was so sensible of this double Contract that he expresly mentions it in one of his Speeches to 1609. both Houses of Parliament where he very well distinguishes between both those Contracts telling them That a King in a setled Kingdom binds himself by a double Oath to the Observation of the Fundamental Laws of his Kingdom tacitly as being a King that is claiming under his Ancestors and so bound to protect them as well as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his own Oath at his Coronation So as every Just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that Paction or Covenant made to his People by his Laws in forming his Government agreable thereunto according to that Paction which God made to Noah c. And then goes on to tell them That therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws And then concludes That all Kings who are not Tyrants nor Perjured will be glad to bind themselves within the limits of their Laws and they that perswade them otherwise are the worst Vipers and Pests both against them and the Common-wealth So that you see here by King Iames's own Concession that there are not only Fundamental Laws but an Original Contract which he there calls a Paction or Covenant to observe them from the time of the first King or Monarch to this day and that when he ceases to Govern according to this Compact which he here calls his Laws he then becomes a Tyrant F. But I have heard some say That William the First after he had conquered England distributed almost all the Lands to his Norman and French Followers and that if there were any Original Contract ever entred into by the English Saxon Kings it was quite void upon the Conquerors obtaining the Crown and subduing all the People of this Nation so that whatever Liberties we now enjoy they were but the gracious Concessions of himself and his Successors without any such Original Compact I. I confess it is so alledged by some high flying Gentlemen who if they could would make us all Slaves to the King 's Absolute Will but without any just grounds in my Opinion since every one of their Suppositions are either false or built upon rotten Foundations For in the first place a Conquest in an Unjust War as I have already proved can confer no Right on the Conqueror over a free People and if this War were never so Just yet could not he thereby have acquired any Right over the whole Kingdom since the War was not made against the English Nation but Harold only who had usurped the Crown contrary to Right so that King William could have no Right to it without the People's Consent in their Great Council or Parliament which most of the Historians of those times say he obtained but indeed King William whom you call the Conqueror never claimed by that Title but by the Donation or Testament of King Edward the Confessor and the Consent or Election of the People of England as all his English-Saxon Predecessors had done before him nor did he give all nor yet a third part of the Lands of England to his Norman Followers as you suppose or if he had would it do the business for which it is urged since his Norman and French Followers to whom he gave those Lands were never conquered but were if any thing the Conquerors of others and from them most of our Ancient English Nobility and Gentry are lineally descended or else claim under their Titles by Purchases Mariages c. and so succeed to all their Rights and Priviledges And at the worst supposing King William to have in some Cases governed Arbritrarily and like a Conqueror over the English this was not so till he was provoked to it by their frequent Plots and Conspiracies against him and yet even that was done contrary to his Coronation-Oath which was the same that all the Saxon Kings had taken before only with this Addition That he should govern as well his French as his English Subjects by equal Law or Right so that his wilful Breach of this Oath could not give him or his Successors any just Right by the Sword over the Lives Estates or Liberties of any Englishman who had never fought against him nor offended his Laws And tho I should grant that this King and his Son William Rufus governed his Norman as well as his English Subjects very Arbitrarily and contrary to his own Laws yet did his Brother King Henry 1st make both his English and Norman Subjects large amends by the great Charter of their Ancient Liberties which he granted immediately after his Election to the Crown by the Chief Bishops Lords and Free-men of the Kingdom and upon which the great Charter of England renewed by King Iohn and afterwards confirmed by his Son Henry the 3d were founded being but larger Explanations thereof F. I confess this is more than ever I knew before but what if a King of England as King Iames lately did will cease to govern like a legal or limited King and prove a Tyrant by breaking this original Compact which his Predecessors made with the people does it therefore follow that he may be resisted if he does or can he ever cease to be King or forfeit his Royal Dignity if he acts never so Tyrannically for sure if all resistance of his Power be unlawful as being so declared by several Acts of Parliament in King Charles the Second's Reign he can never cease to be King except he will wilfully turn himself out of the Throne I. I am very well satisfied that those Acts you mention were only made upon this Supposition That the King would never violate the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom by which he became King or go about to change the Constitution of the Government since that had been to give the King an Irresistible Power to make us all Slaves whenever he pleased so that our Religion Lives and Civil Liberties would lye not only at the King's mercy but at the mercy of those Ministers that govern him and therefore as it can never be supposed to have been the intent of that Parliament to tye up themselves and the whole people of this Nation to the King on such hard terms nay supposing that the Parliament had done it I do not think they had any right so to do since they were intrusted
so that if we will consider our own happiness we Englishmen are blest with such noble Priviledges and Liberties that I think there is no Nation in the world where all degrees and ranks of men may live more happily than we do And as for the King though it is true he hath not an Absolute Unlimited Power of doing whatever he will yet he hath sufficient to Protect his Subjects and bountifully to Reward those that serve him faithfully and whenever he undertakes any Foreign War with the general Consent and Assistance of his People in Parliament he most commonly proves a Terror to those who dare oppose him F. I am very sensible of this Happiness we enjoy and therefore when I think how miserably the poor Country-men live in France and other Countries we of the Yeomanry have all the reason in the world to venture our lives in the defence of our Ancient Constitution since if ever we should be reduced to an Arbitrary Government either by a standing Army at home or a Conquest from abroad we can expect no better than Wooden-Shoes and Canvass-Breeches and to drink nothing but Water with the miserable French Peasants and I doubt if things should once come to that pass you Country-Gentlemen would be but in little better condition But since the greatest part of your Charge was to justifie the Right of their present Majesties to the Throne and that you insisted pretty long upon that Head yet methoughts you were a little too short in telling us only that King Iames who was once our Lawful King could cease to be so for you seem to rest contented with the bare words of the Convention's late Vote viz. That King Iames having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom by breaking the original Contract between the King and the People and that having violated the Fundamental Laws by withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom he had Abdicated the Government and that the Throne was thereby become Vacant So that tho you speak pretty largely of King Iames's Violations by Raising of Money without Consent of Parliament and of exercising his Dispensing Power yet methoughts you seem chiefly to place this Vacancy of the Throne upon King Iames's Abdication or Desertion of it which let me tell you as plain a Country Fellow as I am will not down with me for I can never believe the King would have deserted the Government if he thought he could have staid here with safety therefore pray tell me your meaning of these hard words Constitution of the Kingdom Original Contract and Abdication of the Throne I. I was not willing to insist too long in the face of the Country upon these nice Points which were not proper to be handled before an Assembly of ordinary Countrymen but since you have always appeared to me to be above the ordinary Capacity of those of your Rank I will tell you what I conceive was the true Sense of the Convention in every one of those expressions first for the Constitution of the Kingdom which King Iames went about to violate I take that to be the Government by King Lords and Commons in Parliament which he endeavour'd to violate by his taking away of Charters from Corporations and doing his utmost to impose a Parliament upon the Nation of such men as would not only take off the Penal Laws from Papists and all other Dissenters but who would also have confirmed to the King that Arbitrary Power of dispensing with what Laws he pleased which would indeed have render'd Parliaments wholely useless and was as good as putting the whole Legislative Power into the sole Person of the King F. But the Original Contract puzzles us yet more than all the rest and I heard Parson-Slave-all at a neighbouring Gentleman's house the other day ask Whether the Speaker of the Convention had not the keeping of it under his Cushion for he could never yet light upon it in any English History or Law-Book I. Pray tell that witty Parson next time you meet him that if he pleases to look over our Histories and Law-Books that in the very same Leaf where the Divine Hereditary Right of Succession to the Crown in a Right Line is established as an unalterable and fundamental Law in the very next Clause he may find this Original Contract But not to banter you I will tell you my sense of this expression which in my opinion signifies no more than that Compact or Bargain which was first entred into between King Iames's Ancestors or Predecessors and under whose Title he enjoy'd the Crown whereby they bound themselves by a solemn Oath when they took the Crown upon them at their Coronation to keep and maintain the Laws of the Realm and to govern the People according to these Rules of Justice and Mercy that is in short acting according to Law Which Oath or the substance of it having been constantly renewed every fresh Succession to the Crown as soon as the King was capable of taking it sufficiently declares that as the King upon observing this Compact by governing according to Law had a Right to his Subjects Allegiance so if he refused to act according to it but would wilfully violate the Ancient Constitution of the Kingdom he thereby ceases to be King by Law and by destroying his own Title to the Crown thereby also dissolves that Bond of Allegiance which before bound his Subjects to him as well in Duty as Affection F. But how can you prove that this Contract was mutual or that the King was to enjoy his Crown only upon this Condition That he observe the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom since I have heard it positively asserted by those that are very well skilled in our Laws that the King is as much King before ever he is crowned as afterwards and that he may chuse whether he will ever take any Coronation Oath or not I. I will not now dispute that Point with you but yet let me tell you if a King should at this day refuse to be crowned because he had no mind to be tied by his Coronation Oath I doubt whether the People if they understood the force of that Oath his Predecessors have all along taken for so many Successions might not as well refuse to take him for their King since he refused to hold the Crown upon those Conditions that his Ancestors at first took it and so might look upon themselves as good as discharged of all Oaths of Fidelity to him since those Oaths were no doubt at first instituted on this mutual Consideration that both should observe their part and not that one side should be loose and the other fast but to shew you in the first place that every Coronation Oath was in the Saxon times and long after the Conquest a Renewal of this Original Contract may appear from these Considerations 1. That all the Kings of the West Saxons were elected or at least confirmed by the great Council or Parliament