conspire against him as well as the Parliament could do in the case of Prince Philip of Spain who was declared King joyntly with Queen Mary tho' he had no other Right but by Act of Parliament So that if the late Convention have declared That the Administration of the Government should remain solely in King William during his Life this was only to put it out of all dispute that none might at all doubt in whom the Supream Power lay since it will not admit of any Division F. All this seems reasonable enough but pray how comes it to pass that King William is to enjoy the Crown not only during the Queens Life but his own also this I heard Squire High-Church and the Parson I last mentioned cry out upon not only as a horrid Breach of the Hereditary Succession but also as a great wrong to the Princess of Denmark and her Heirs were the supposed Prince of Wales now dead since it is directly contrary to the Act of Recognition of King Iames I. whereby the Parliament do not only declare him to be lawful and lineal Heir of the Crown as descended from the Eldest Daughter of King Edward IV. But also they do thereby engage themselves and their Posterity to yield Obedience to King Iames and his Right Heirs I. Pray satisfie those Gentlemen when you meet them that if they once will grant that the late King Iames could Abdicate the Crown without his own express consent and that declaring this supposed Prince to be King was altogether unpracticable and unsafe for the Nation as I have already proved I think they need not be concerned whether his present Majesty enjoys the Crown for Life or not as long as it is for the Peace and Safety of the Nation that it should be so since it was for those ends alone that King Iames was set aside and the supposed Prince past by without so much as Enquiring into his legitimacy If the Convention had lawful Authority to decide the greater points they had certainly after they became a Parliament much more Authority to decide and settle the less material parts of this Controversie viz. The settlement of the Crown after the Queens decease since it is no more than what all former Parliaments have done in like cases Thus Henry the IV. and Henry the VII were formally declared nay the latter recognized for lawful Kings by Authority of Parliament notwithstanding the lineal Heirs by blood were then alive and in being and not only so but before ever Henry the VII married with the Princess Elizabeth Daughter to King Edward the IV. the Crown was settled upon him and the Heirs of his Body by an Act which you may find in Print in our Statute-Books Tho' he had no Right at all by Succession since his Mother the Countess of Richmond from whom all the Right he could pretend to the Crown was derived was then alive nor had made any Cession of it to him So that if this be true which I am able to prove that an Hereditary Succession in a right Line was never any Fundamental Law of this Kingdom And Secondly That after the Crown came to be Claimed by an Hereditary Right which was no older than Edward the Ist's time the Parliament have often taken upon them to break in upon this Hereditary Succession whenever the safety and necessity of the Kingdom required it And Thirdly That all those Kings who have thus succeeded without this lineal Right of Succession have been not only during their own Reigns owned for true and Legal Kings Attainders of Treason holding good against all Persons that conspired against them but also after their Reigns were ended for we see all such Acts of Parliament made under them stand good at this day unless it were those that were Repealed by subsequent Parliaments and can there then be any Question made but that the present Parliament have as much Power to settle the Crown upon his present Majesty for Life as they had to settle it upon King Henry the IV. or Henry the VII and the Heirs of their Bodies since those Princes could not deserve more from the Nation in freeing it from the Tyranny of the two Richards the II. and III. than his present Majesty hath done by freeing us from the Arbitrary Power of King Iames. And let me tell you farther that the Gentlemen you mention were mistaken in their Repetition of that Act of Recognition of King Iames the Ist's Title for though it is true they acknowledged him for undoubted lineal Heir of the Crown yet they do no where in that Act tie or oblige themselves and their Posterity to him and his right Heirs by that Act of Parliament but only in general that they promise Obedience and Loyalty to that King and his Royal Progeny and sure none will deny Their present Majesties to be the true Progeny of King Iames the Ist. F. I grant this seems very reasonable but those Gentlemen I now mentioned also said that Henry the IV. was in the Reign of King Edward the IV. declared an Usurper by Act of Parliament and as for Henry the Seventh he had either a Title from the House of Lancaster by the tacite concession of his Mother or else from that of York by the like tacite concession of the Princess Elizabeth his Wife or else if there were no such concession he was an Usurper till he had Married the said Princess she being Heiress of the Crown Pray what say you Sir to this I. Pray tell those Gentlemen from me that they are quite out in their Suppositions for if an Act of Parliament of Edward the Fourth be of sufficient Authority to prove Henry the Fourth an Usurper I can give you another Act of Parliament though not Printed which reverses the Attainder of King Henry the Sixth Margaret his Queen and Prince Edward their Son wherein it is expresly declared that King Henry the Sixth was contrary to all Allegiance and due order attainted of High Treason in the first Year of King Edward the Fourth wherefore it is by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Assembled in Parliament Enacted That all Acts of Attainder Forfeiture and Disablement made in the said Parliament against the said Blessed Prince King Henry are made void Annulled and Repealed So that if the Attainder of Henry the Sixth was against all due Order and Allegiance then certainly the said King must have been a Lawful King and not an Usurper at the time of his Death and if he were not so then certainly the like must be affirmed of Henry the Fourth from whom he was descended and under whom he claimed And as for Henry the Seventh there was no formal Cession of their Right ever given by the Countess his Mother or the Princess his Wife either before or after his coming to the Crown And as for a tacite and implied Cession expressed by saying nothing against it pray tell me why we may
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
common Ancestor on whom the Crown was Entailed otherwise Brothers or Sisters by the half Blood could never Succeed to each other as Queen Mary did to King Edward the VIth I. Well Neighbour I see you have either read Littleton or else been very well instructed in this Law concerning Entails and therefore I will argue this Point no farther with you but if the Throne were not Vacant pray then tell me whom think you the Convention should have immediately Declared King or Queen whether the Titular or pretended Prince of Wales or the Princess of Orange Since only one of these can Claim as Heir by vertue of the Entail you now mentioned F. No doubt but the Prince of Wales would have been the Right Heir could we have been assured of his being really born of the Body of the Queen but since I confess there is a great doubt in most Persons throughout the whole Nation concerning it I must so far agree with you that he could not well be declared King till his Legitimacy were cleared and those just suspicions we lye under to the contrary taken away but then on the other side till this were done I do not see how the Convention could well justifie their placing the Princess of Orange or any Body else in the Throne I. We shall come to that by and by but in the mean time pray observe that here was a great and general doubt who was the next lawful Heir whether the Prince of Wales or the Princess of Orange now in Disputes of this nature in all the hereditary limited Monarchies in Europe the States of the Kingdom have always been the sole Supream Judges of such Controversies and whom they have owned and admitted as next Heirs have always been taken and owned for Lawful Kings both at Home and Abroad as I could shew you from divers Instances not only in England and Scotland but France Spain and Portugal And till this were done the Throne must necessarily remain vacant and all this without making the Crown Elective for what is this vacancy of the Throne but when through the Ignorance of the ordinary Subjects whom to place therein by reason of divers Claims of different Competitors none can be admitted to fill it that is to the exercise of the Kingly Office till these disputes could be decided by their proper Judges viz. the Estates of the Kingdom which is all one as to declare the Throne to be vacant since it must necessarily be so till they were fully satisfied who ought to fill it F. I confess what you have now said carries a great deal of reason with it but how can you justifie the Convention's placing their present Majesties on the Throne without ever so much as examining whether the supposed Prince of Wales were really born of the Body of the Queen or not which in my Opinion ought to have been the first thing to be enquired after whereas I do not find that the Convention nor yet the present Parliament have taken any more notice of him than if there had been no such thing in nature as a Son then born or pretended to be born during the Marriage between the late King and Queen I. If the Convention have done well in declaring the Throne vacant I think I can easily justifie their filling it with their present Majesties and that upon two several Considerations The First is that I suppose the Prince of Orange by his Victory over King Iames sufficiently declared by his flying from Salisbury and disbanding his Army and then quitting the Kingdom if he had done nothing else did thereby lose his Right to the Crown and so consequently to the Peoples Allegiance and the Nation being then free and without any King who had a better Right to be placed in the Throne than the Prince of Orange their Deliverer and besides this in respect of the Nation King Iames as I have already proved having Abdicated or Forfeited his Right to the Crown by his notorious Breach of the Contract above-mentioned and by his wilful persisting in it I look upon the whole Nation at his departure as fully discharged from all Oaths of Allegiance not only to King Iames but to his Heirs likewise and therefore were not obliged to look after this supposed Prince nor to examine his Legitimacy as Heir apparent to the Crown F. I cannot comprehend how this can consist with those Acts of Parliament of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames which oblige all the Subjects of this Realm to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to the King or Queen and to their Heirs and Lawful Successors and sure I think nothing less than an Act of Parliament can alter these former Statutes and solemn Declarations concerning the Succession in a Right Line And I suppose you will not say that the Convention who certainly were no Parliament could without the Authority of a Lawful King and Parliament alter the Ancient Laws of Succession since I have heard it is a Maxim in Law that nothing can be undone but by the same Power that made it And therefore in my Opinion the Convention was too quick in Declaring their present Majesties King and Queen before they had examined the Prince of Wales's Title who was commonly reputed and prayed for in all our Churches as Heir Apparent to the Crown I. I confess you have in few words urged all that can well be said against the late Act of the Convention in declaring their present Majesties King and Queen Therefore in Answer to this Objection give me leave in the first place to tell you that you have been misinformed That because the Acts for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance obliged us to take it to the late King and his Heirs and Lawful Successors that therefore no Person can be such a Lawful Successor unless he Claim in a right Line by descent from the last King since long before these Acts were made by the Ancient Oath of Fidelity at Common Law and which used to be required in all Court-Leets men were as much obliged to the King his Heirs and Successors as they can be by any of these later Oaths and yet no body then doubted before those Acts were made to pay Allegiance to that Person whom the Estates of the Kingdom had solemnly declared to be lawful King or Queen without ever examining whether such Kings or Queens were really and truly next Heirs by Blood or not as I can shew you from divers Examples had I now time for it And there is indeed great reason for their so doing for since all disputes about the right of Succession to the Crown must be decided by some proper Judges or else be left wholly to the Decision of the Sword and since as I said but now in all the limited Kingdoms of Europe the Estates of such Kingdoms have been always appeal'd to by all the contending parties as their only proper Judges of their disputed Titles it is but reason that
all private Subjects should submit and acquiesce in their final Judgments since they are all virtually Represented in such Assemblies as the Representative Body of the whole People or Nation Therefore if the Convention of the Estates of England have for divers weighty Reasons thought fit to declare their present Majesties Lawful King and Queen and to place them on the Throne as then vacant by King Iames's Abdication I think all the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound to bear true Allegiance to them and to confirm it by the Oath appointed for that end whenever they shall be lawfully required thereunto F. Well Sir but is not this to alter one part of the Original Contract which those that are against the present Settlement suppose to be the Right of Hereditary Succession to the Crown and that in a right Line So that if the supposed Prince of Wales be lawful Heir to King Iames to place any body else therein seems to render the Crown for the future not Successive but Elective for if it may be bestowed now according to the humor of the present Convention it may be done so again the next Succession and so the right Heirs put by from time to time for the same or some like Reason as now I. That does not at all follow for if you will allow that the Throne was vacant by the Abdication of King Iames and that her present Majesty Queen Mary is lawful Heir if the pretended Prince of Wales were away I will prove to you that the late Convention and present Parliament have done all they could or were obliged to do in this juncture in placing Their present Majesties on the Throne and Recognizing their Title without taking any notice of this pretended Prince of whose Birth whether true or false I shall not now say any thing one way or other nor shall trouble my self to inquire into the Validity of those Suspitions that may render his Birth doubtful to the generality of the Nation And therefore in the first place I desire you only to take Notice that this Child was carried away by his Mother when he was scarce yet six Months Old 2dly That the Midwife and all the chief Witnesses who could Swear any thing concerning the Queen's being really with Child and brought to Bed of him were likewise conveyed at the same time into France F. I grant it but what do you infer from hence I. Why only these two Conclusions 1st That neither the Convention nor Parliament are Obliged to take Notice of the Rights of any Person tho' Heir to the Crown that is out of the Dominions of England if he be no necessary part or Member of Parliament if neither himself nor any Body for him will put in his Claim to the Crown upon the Demise of the King either by Death or Abdication as in the Case now before us there being then a Claim made in the late Convention by his Highness the Prince of Orange on the behalf of his Consort the Princess as Heir apparent to the Crown The Convention were not obliged to look any farther after this supposed Prince or to know what was become of him whether he was Drowned or taken at Sea by Pyrates or he being Dead another put in his place or carried by his Mother into France Since any of these might have happen'd for ought they knew no body appearing to put in any Claim for him or to desire that his Cause might first be heard before he was Excluded 2dly That if such Claim had been made by any body for him yet the Convention could by no means be obliged to do more than lay in their Power or to hear or examine the Validity of this Child's Birth unless the Midwife Nurses and others who were privy to all the Transactions concerning it were likewise present and sent back to give their Testimonies in this Case for if the Convention had proceeded to examine this matter without sufficient evidence they could only have heard it ex parie on but one side and so might have sat long enough before they could have come to any true decision in this matter whilst in the mean time the whole Nation for want of a King were in danger of utter Ruin and Confusion F. But pray Sir why could not the Parliament have sent over Summons to those Witnesses which they say are no further off than France to come and give Testimony in this great Cause before they had proceeded to have declared the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen I. There may be several good Reasons given for it First Because this Child being carried into the Dominions of a Prince who is a declared Enemy of our Religion and Civil Interest of the English Nation he would never have consented to his being sent over to be viewed by those that the Convention should appoint for that purpose without which Inspection the Nation could never have been morally assured that this was the same Child that was carried away since every one knows that Infants of that Age are not easily distinguisht one from another but by those that have been about them from the very time of their Birth Secondly Because his Reputed Parents counting themselves already injured by the Convention in declaring that the King had abdicated the Government and that the Throne was thereby become vacant would never have obeyed any Summons the Convention should have sent over because they looked upon them not to have any Authority at all as not being summon'd nor sitting by vertue of that King's Writs Thirdly Admitting that the French King would have permitted this supposed Prince to have been sent back and that King Iames and his Queen would have obeyed this Summons yet was it not for the safety of the Nation to stay for or rely upon it since before this Question could have been decided great part of this Year had slipt away and we being left without a King to head us nor any Parliament Sitting able to raise Money which cannot be legally done without the King's Authority in Parliament the French King might whilst we were thus quarrelling amongst our selves about a Successor to the Crown have sent over King Iames with a great Fleet and an Army of old Soldiers and so have placed him again in the Throne more Absolute than ever he was before since besides that Legal Right of Succession which I grant he once had he might also have set up a new Right by Conquest over this Kingdom So that all things being seriously considered since the safety of the People ought to be the Supream Law as ever hath been agreed as an undoubted Principle by all wise Nations I think we have done all that could well be done in this Case nor have broken the Hereditary Succession in declaring King William and Queen Mary to be our Lawful King and Queen since if she were Lawful Queen they might also declare him to be King and make it Treason to
the 28th of King Henry the Eighth by which it is made Treason in any of those on whom he had setled the Crown or should bequeath it by his last Will to Usurp upon the Right of each other which could never have been if the King or Queen for the time being must have been Assisted and Obey'd by all the Subjects of this Realm as if they were Rightfully so and therefore they concluded that this Statute of Henry the Seventh could make no alteration in the ancient Law concerning the Succession but that it stands still as it did before that Statute was made and as it was declared in the Case of Edward the Fourth by which it was affirmed That the Henries the Fourth Fifth and Sixth were Kings only in Deed and not of Right and but pretended Kings and that the Statute which setled the Crown upon Henry the Fourth and his Issue was absolutely void against the Duke of York and his Heirs I. If this be all they had to say I doubt not but to answer it well enough and therefore as to their first Objection which would make this Statute of Henry the VIIth void because made by an Usurper methinks they might have been so civil as to have allowed him to be lawful King in Right of his Wife at least this Statute being made during the time of his marriage with the Princess Elizabeth but indeed nothing more betrays these Gentlemens ignorance in our Laws since if they will but look on any ordinary Statute Book they will find that the Statutes of those Kings they look upon as Usurpers are of as much force at this day as those enacted by Princes in a right line unless it were such as have been since Repeal'd by some subsequent Statutes 2dly Their Objection of its being a Temporary Law only during that King's Life is also as vain since the Statute it self mentions no such thing but speaks of the King for the time being in all succeeding times without any mention of King Henry the VIIth in particular 3dly That the Judges have lookt upon it as a void Law or else Repeal'd it also as false for the Case of the Duke of Northumberland does not prove it to be so for though the Duke did not as we can ever find plead this Statute at his Trial yet I think if he had it would not have helpt him since the King or Queen for the time being within this Statute I only take to be he or she that have been solemnly Crowned and Recognized by a free Parliament or such a one on whom the Crown is entail'd by Statute which it never was on the Lady Iane on whom the Crown was only bestow'd by King Edward the VIth's Letters-Patents and consequently had no Title by Act of Parliament And lastly that this Statute of 11th of Henry VIIth was never Repeal'd by any subsequent Act is likely as certain for I never heard before that any Act of Parliament could ever be Repeal'd by Implication but only by express words But indeed none of those Statutes you mention have done it so much as by Implication for though the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are to be taken to the King or Queen and their Heirs and Lawful Successors yet who those Heirs or Lawful Successors shall be can only be known by some Law or other now who can declare what this Law is or shall be but the King and Parliament the sole Supream Legislators And that this is Law at this day appears by this undeniable Authority that it is by the Statute of the 13th of Elizabeth declared to be Treason during the Life of the Queen for any Person to affirm that the Queen and Parliament had not Power to make Laws to limit and bind and govern the Succession of the Crown in Possession Remainder or Reversion and to shew you that this Statute is still in force every Person so holding or affirming after the said Queen's Decease shall forfeit all their Lands and Goods But as for the Statute of Henry the VIIIth that will help them least of all for it appears by the Statute it self that the Treason thereby Enacted could only arise from thence and extend no farther than the Persons therein mention'd nor is the Succession of the Crown in a right line setled or confirmed by this Statute but the clear contrary since King Henry had Power by this Statute to bequeath the Crown by his last Will and Testament under his Seal and Sign Manual which he afterwards actually took upon him to do so that the Law still continues as it did before that Act of Edward the IVth you now mentioned was made since it is declared by that unprinted Act of Henry the VIIth I have now cited that King Henry the VIth was unjustly deposed and his attainder reversed and consequently his Right to the Crown is thereby declared to be good and valid to all intents and purposes F. I confess you have throughly convinced me in this matter and I think it highly reasonable that it should be so for how can we ordinary Subjects know to whom to pay our Allegiance in cases of any disputes that may arise about the different Titles of Princes to the Crown without appealing to some proper Judges of it and who can these Judges be but the great Council of the Nation in which every person thereof is either personally present or vertually represented and if this were the effect of your late Charge at our Sessions I wonder any persons should be so malicious as to misrepresent you for a Commonwealths-man but pray tell me what I shall say to those Gentlemen if I happen to come again into their Company I. Pray assure them from me that I am no more a Commonwealths-man than themselves and am not only for keeping up and defending the Original Constitution of King Lords and Commons and the Rights and Liberties of the People but am also for an Hereditary Monarchy by Lineal descent by all those lawful means by which our Ancestors have maintained them and that in all cases except where the exigency of our Affairs and the necessity of providing for the Publick Peace and Safety of the Commonwealth have not obliged the Estates of the Kingdom several times to take a different course when it could not be avoided without inevitable Ruin and I suppose the same Estates have still by the very Constitution the same Power and Right of Providing for the Peace and Safety of the Nation and the Preservation of our Religion Liberties and Properties as ever they had in all precedent times So that granting the most that can be said that the Convention have now exercised that ancient Power in placing Their present Majesties on the Throne yet this would be no more an Argument for our making a common course of it upon every Succession to the Crown than it would be for you when you were a Travelling upon the Road to break into any bodies ground you