Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45908
|
An Enquiry into the nature and obligation of legal rights with respect to the popular pleas of the late K. James's remaining right to the crown.
|
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing I218; ESTC R16910
|
35,402
|
66
|
For a legal Right as the Right to the Crown is may be lost by Conquest or parted with by Resignation or by Abdication and Desertion and that the late King has so deserted his Throne as to make it not only lawful but even necessary for his Subjects to fill it again I have already proved So that it is not enough for those who insist on King James's Right to say That he was Rightful Heir to the Crown and that he was once Rightful King which is all that they pretend to For though he was once a Rightful King he may now neither be a King nor have any Right to be King II. Another Question is Whether King William and Queen Mary be the Rightful King and Queen of England Now had King James died before the pretended Birth of the Prince of Wales this had been no Question for then Queen Mary had been the undoubted Heir to the Crown and in her Right and by Consent of the Princess Anne allowed and confirmed by the Authority of the Estates King William had been the Rightful and Legal King Now if King James parted with his Right and Crown together by forsaking his Government and leaving his Throne vacant and the Estates had a Right if they pleased to fill it there can be no more Pretence of Right upon the late King's Account than if he had been dead And as for the pretended Prince of Wales at best his Birth was so very doubtful that there was no reason for the Estates to reject the next undoubted Heir for him especially when the King refused to submit that Dispute to Parliament as the then Prince of Orange had done And had his Birth been never so unquestionable he could not be had without taking the late King again which was Reason enough for the Estates not to concern themselves with that Dispute but to place the next Heir upon the Throne that could be had The King withdrew himself and sent away him whom he called the Prince of Wales before him that we should not have him to make him King had we had never so much mind to it and had all the Royal Family deserted in the like manner or had they been conveyed away from us I see no reason why the Estates might not as well have chosen a new King as if all the Royal Family had been extinct And if this be the true State of the Case as certainly it is there can be no Dispute whether their Present Majesties be Rightful King and Queen III. A Third Question is How far those who are not satisfied in their own private Judgments whether the late King James have lost his Right and their Present Majesties are Rightfully advanced to the Throne may own and pay their Allegiance to their Present Majesties Now if we do but allow that this is matter of Dispute all Disputes about legal Rights must be determined by a legal Authority and private Subjects must acquiesce in such Determinations unless we will dissolve Civil Societies for the sake of some disputed legal Rights Since then the Estates of the Realm who are the Highest Atuhority when there is no King on the Throne have determined this Matter private Subjects have nothing now to do with it In Matters which concern Civil Government they must follow the publick Judgment which is the Rule and Measure of Civil Obedience in contradiction to their own private Opinions where the Dispute is only about Civil and Legal not about Natural and Moral Rights Private Subjects must own him for their King who is invested with the Royal Authority by the Estates of the Realm to whom alone it belongs to judge Authoritatively about such matters IV. But the last and great difficulty of all still remains viz. Supposing King James should land in England with a Military Force to demand the Crown what the Subjects of England are bound in Conscience to do Which Side they ought to take Whether they must fight for the late King James against their Present Majesties or for their Present Majesties against the late King James Now if King James has lost his Crown and his Right to it and King William and Queen Mary are Rightfully possessed of the Throne which I take to be the truth of the Case this will admit of no Dispute for it is certain we ought to fight for our Rightful King and Queen against One who has been King but is no King now nor has any Right ever to be King again But there is no absolute necessity of insisting upon Right it is sufficient to determine the Case only to say that the Laws of the Land require us to fight for our King against him who is no King and he is King whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is He who is placed on the Throne and invested with the Royal Authority with all usual and accustomed Solemnities by the Estates of the Realm A legal Investiture makes a legal King and the Law requires our Allegiance to such a King that is all legal Obedience and Defence and the Law is the measure of legal Rights Whatever Right then any Prince may pretend to the Throne if the Law does not allow private Subjects to take Cognizance of such Rights against a legal Possessor if it does not extinguish yet at least it limits suspends and sets aside such Rights in such Cases that they are to Subjects as if they were not And as the Law can make and create legal Rights so it can limit and set Bounds to them and determine in what Cases and to what Effect and Purposes they shall be Rights and they are legal Rights no farther But besides this it is worth observing That the Law does not allow Civil and Legal Rights to be disputed and determined by the Sword for that is a dissolution of Civil Authority and Civil Government and therefore no Subjects can be bound at any time by the Laws of the Land to fight for a supposed or pretended Right against a Legal Possessor We are bound to fight for our King to defend his Person Crown and Dignity but it is for a King whom the Laws own to be King that is who is invested with the Royal Authority by the Estates of the Realm and is actually on the Throne According to the Fundamental Constitution of all Civil Societies the Disputes about the Legal Rights must be determined by the Judgment and Sentence of a Competent Authority not by the Sword which can decide no Question but which side is strongest An Appeal to the Sword against the Sentence of the last Authority puts an end to the Authority of Laws and consequently is no part of Legal Obedience and Defence and then I cannot guess how any Subjects should be bound in Conscience to fight for the meer Right of a Prince whatever Opinion he may have of his Right against a Legal Possessor of the Throne nay it seems to me that Subjects are bound in Conscience not to do it as much as they are bound not to fight against Civil Authority and Government Nor is this to fight for Wrong or to fight against Right where ever we suppose the Right to be for we neither fight for or against either which the Laws and the very Nature of Civil Constitutions will not allow but we sight for our King against all his Enemies at home or abroad as the Laws of the Land require us to do And what Right soever any Prince has when he comes to dispute it with the Sword Subjects may and ought to defend the Possessor against him and to leave the dispute of Right of the Judgment and Determination of a proper Tribunal Thus the Prince of Orange his present Majesty did though he came with the Sword in his Hand it was not to try his Cause by the Sword but to referr his Cause to a free Parliament and to procure such a Parliament by the Sword which nothing but the Sword could obtain In short when a Prince challenges his Right by the Sword it is seldom seen that his own contents him if he wins his Crown he makes himself Master also of his Subjects Rights and may carve out what kind of Power or Government he pleases with a Conquering Sword And therefore whatever Obligation Subjects should be supposed to lie under to the Rightful Heir they are not bound to make him a Conqueror which is to make themselves Slaves if he pleases They cannot fight for his Right without fighting against their own and against the Rights and Liberties of their Country which is proof enough that no Civil Constitution can allow of fighting for the Crown Such things have been and such things will be but the Question is what Subjects are bound in Conscience in such Cases to do And unless they are bound to enslave themselves and their Country they can never be bound to suffer much less to assist any Prince whatever his Pretences be to seize the Crown by Conquest This is a good Argument against any Prince who will force his way to the Throne which is already filled by the Estates of the Realm but it is an unanswerable Argument in our present Case We know the late King James too well to trust him with a Conquest if we can help it and we know the French King too well to receive his Troops among us if we can keep them out and those whose Consciences command them to assist the late King to Conquer their Country need some other Cure than Arguments to convince them But this has been so fully stated in the two Letters to a Friend concerning the French Invasion that I shall referr my Readers for farther Satisfaction to those Letters FINIS
his Throne his Abdication is as perfectly his own Act as his Misgovernment was and then Subjects might very innocently take the Advantage which without their Fault he had put into their Hands to deliver themselves from Fear and Slavery The Prince of Orange now our Gracious Sovereign had very just Reasons for what he did His Princess was the next Presumptive Heir to the Crown of England and in Her Right he was immediately concerned in the Protection and Defenc of these Protestant Kingdoms at least so far as to secure the Succession The late King made great haste to subvert the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government to change our Laws and Liberties and Religion and both to effect and secure such Usurpations took care as fast as he could to put the whole Civil and Military Power into the Hands of Papists What an evil Aspect this had on Protestant Heirs and Successors besides the present Oppression of the Subject every one saw especially when it was pretended that the Queen had brought forth a Prince of Wales to inherit the Crown and to perfect that blessed Work of Slavery and Popery If this will not justifie the Prince of Orange's early Care for a Legal Redress of Abuses which would infallibly have altered the Succession and defeated his Right if they had proceeded any farther I think the Heir to the Crown is in an ill condition for it may be with the latest to put in his Claim when another is step'd into the Throne before Him It is no new thing for the Parliament of England to settle the Succession to the Crown while the King is living and to make all legal Provisions to secure the Succession and if this may be done during the Life of the King the Prince had great Reason to make his Appeal to a Free Parliament and to take Arms to obtain such a Free Parliament which the humble Addresses and Supplications of Subjects could not obtain and this was all the Prince did to put him into this Fright and if he had not done it he had in some degree deserted his Right as King James has now deserted his Throne As for the Subjects of England the great Body of the Nation stood still and neither assisted nor opposed King James though generally they wished well to the Prince And what was the Fault of this The most Passive Men have always declared That they are not bound actually to serve and defend the King in his illegal Oppressions or in his Usurpations upon the Laws and Liberties and Religion of their Country for no Man can be bound by Law to fight for the King against the Laws For the Right of the King which is only a Right by Law can never be more Sacred than all the Laws and it seems very hard to fight for one Law against all other Laws to fight for a King to make our selves and all his other Subjects Slaves The Prince of Orange came with an Army into England to demand a Free Parliament to redress the Miscarriages of Government to secure the Succession our Liberties and Religion which were beyond denial in danger What now should the Subjects of England do Should they fight for King James against the Prince What had that been but to fight against a Free Parliament our Laws and our Religion Those Protestants who are now the most zealous Assertors of the late King 's Right did at that time for these Reasons excuse themselves from the Obligation of fighting for him And yet Engish Subjects cannot be charged with denying to assist their King against the Prince of Orange for they were never required to do it There were no new Commissions granted them without which some are of Opinion according to strictness of Law it had been Criminal in them to take Arms though it had been to defend their King And it seems very hard if such a difficult Juncture as that was when there were two Armies in the Bowels of the Kingdom will not justifie those Gentlemen who took Arms and stood upon their own defence and that they declared to stand by the Prince of Orange till all Miscarriages should be redress'd by a Free Parliament seems to me little more than what those Bishops themselves did who now refuse the Oaths for when they were required to do it they would not sign an Abhorrence of the Prince's Undertaking and at Guild-hall they figned the Lords Address to the Prince wherein they promised him their Assistance to procure a Free Parliament And if neither the Prince nor the Subjects of England were to be blamed for what they did it is easie to guess where the whole Blame must lie And if he wilfully brought this Necessity upon himself of quitting his Kingdoms and rather chose to leave his Throne than satisfie the just Demands of the Prince and of his own Subjects he left his Throne for such Reasons as made it just and necessary for his Subjects to fill it If these Principles be true they furnish us with plain and easie Answers to all the Difficulties relating to our present Settlement which I shall briefly observe as the Sum of this whole Discourse 1. As first Whether the late King James be still of Right the King of England or of Right ought to be so The only Argument to prove King James's remaining Right is That he was the Rightful Heir to the Crown and was legally and rightfully possessed of it and therefore is Rightful King still or at least of Right ought to be King Now from what I have already said and I hope proved the Answer to this is plain 1. That as to his Right of Succession the Subjects of England owned it and actually gave him the Crown with all the accustomed Rites and Ceremonies of Coronation and therefore there is no dispute about that But the Question is Whether a King who loses or gives away or deserts his Crown and falls from the Regal Power have a new Right of Succession when the Throne is again filled that is Whether if he part with his Crown he can be Heir and Successor to himself and by the Right of Inheritance challenge his Abdicated Throne again 2. That he was once a Rightful King does not prove that he is King still For legal Right to a Relation and the legal Relation may be separated he may be no King who had once a legal Right and a legal Possession of the Throne and he may be the legal King or One whom the Law owns to be King who had no immediate antecedent Right to the Throne For though in Relations which are founded in Nature the Right and the Relation cannot be separated yet in legal Relations they may And if he who had or has a legal Right to the Crown may be no King Subjects can owe him no Allegiance for Allegiance is due only to the King 3. That he was once a Rightful King does not prove that he has any Right to be King now