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
speak and write French correctly as they do now in the Court of France and wherein all that is dark superfluous and deficient in other Grammars is plain short and methodically supplied Also very useful to Strangers that are desirous to learn the English Tongue for whose sake is added a short but very exact English Grammar The Third Edition with Additions By Peter Berault Truth brought to light or the History of the first 14 Years of King Iames I. In Four Parts c. Travels into divers parts of Europe and Asia undertaken by the French King's order to discover a new way by land into China containing many curious Remarks in Natural Philosophy Geography Hydrography and History Together with a Description of Great Tartary and of the different People who inhabit there Done out of French To which is added a Supplement extracted from Hakluyt and Purchas giving an Account of several Journeys over Land from Russia Persia and the Mogul's Country to China together with the Roads and distances of the Places Saul at Endor or the Ghost of the Marquess de Louvois consulted by the French King concerning the present Affairs Done out of French An Answer to the late King Iames's Declaration dated at St. Germains April the 7th S. N. 1693. Licensed by Mr. Secretary Trenchard Reflections upon two Pamphlets lately published one called A Letter from Monsieur de Cross concerning the Memoirs of Christendom And the other An Answer to that Letter pretended to have been written by the Author of the said Memoirs By a Lover of Truth A true and exact Account of the Retaking a Ship called The Friends Adventure of Topsham from the French after she had been taken six days and they were upon the Coasts of France with it four days where one Englishman and a Boy set upon seven Frenchmen killed two of them took the other five Prisoners and brought the Ship and them safe to England c. A Project of a Descent upon France By a Person of Quality A Compendious History of the Taxes of France and of the Oppressive Methods of Raising of them An Impartial Enquiry into the Advantages and Losses that England hath received since the beginning of this Present War with France The Gentleman's Journal Or the Monthly Miscellany In a Letter to a Gentleman in the Country Consisting of News History Philosophy Poetry Musick Translations c. Sold by R. Baldwin Where are to be had compleat Sets for the two last years or single ones for every Month. Nevil Pain 's Letter and some other Letters that concern the Subject of his Letter With short Notes on them for the clearer Information of the Members of Parliament in order to Nevil Pain 's Trial. A True Relation of the Wonderful Cure of Mary Maillard lame almost ever since she was born on Sunday the 26th of November 1693. With the Affidavits and Certificates of the Girl and several other Credible and Worthy Persons who knew her before and since her being Cured To which is added a Letter from Dr. Welwood to the Right Honourable the Lady Mayoress upon that Subject A Second Five years struggle against Popery and Tyranny Being a Collection of Papers Published by Samuel Iohnson Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Book Intituled the Case of Resistance Reflections on the History of Passive Obedience An Argument proving that the Abrogation of King Iames by the People of England from the Regal Throne and the Promotion of the Prince of Orange one of the Royal Family to the Throne of the Kingdom in his stead was according to the Constitution of the English Government and Prescribed by it In Opposition to all the false and treacherous Hypotheses of Usurpation Conquest Desertion and of taking the Powers that Are upon Content An Essay concerning Parliaments at a certainty Notes upon the Phoenix Edition of the Pastoral Lteters par 1. These last Six Books By Mr. Samuel Iohnson * Vid. Mirror of Iustice Cap. 1. Sect. 2. †Vid. Modum Antiq. tenendi Parl. * Vid. the year-book Ter. Pasch. †Vid. 1 o Will. Mar. * Chap. 1. Sect. 2. * Vid. Spel. Concil 1 Vol. p. 29. †Vid. Vitam Alfredi Edit Oxon. * See the Old Form of the Coronation Oath before the Conquest and after in Mr. Attwood's Treatise of the Antiquity of an Oath of Abjuration p. 94. to the end * See the Forms of those Coronations in Stow Holinshed and others * Vid. Mat. West p. A. D. 1301. 435. 436. * See his Coronation-Oath in Mr. Atwood's Treatise of the Oath of Abjuration p. 96. * Vid. Lambert's Saxon Laws Leg. Guil. â—h 6. 7. p. 60. †Lib. 2. Chap. 2. * i. e. Nobiles Minores * Vid. the Act of 2 o. Mariae confirming the Treaty of Marriage with King Philip. * Vid. Par. Rolles 1. H. 7. N. 16. * Chap. 1.
by those that chose them not to alter the Fundamental Constitution of the Government but to strengthen and confirm it so that if by this Act of Non-resistance the Government might easily be altered and the Legislative Power as well as that of raising Money may be taken out of the Power of the King and the Two Houses and should be put solely in the King's person the whole frame of the Government would not only be altered but actually dissolved and consequently Resistance in this case would not be a crime but a duty since Parliaments were instituted for the maintenance of the King 's Legal and not Tyrannical Power and for preserving the people in that share of the Government which by the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom belonged to them F. But pray tell me Sir Is there any express Law for this Resistance for indeed I could never hear of any such and therefore I doubt that if those Noblemen and Gentlemen who went in lately to help his present Majesty when Prince of Orange had been taken Prisoners and himself defeated by the King's Army but they would have all of them been guilty of High Treason by the Statute of 25 of Edward the Third and sure it would have been no good Plea to be allowed by the Judges that they took not up Arms against the King of Government because the Government was dissolved by the King 's exercising an Arbitrary Power I. I would not argue with you what would have happened if the King had got the better and either taken the Prince of Orange prisoner or driven him out of the Kingdom for I never knew in all the Histories I have read but that a Prince who had the Armed Force of the Nation on his side could hang whom he pleased and will always find Judges and Jury-men enough ready to side with him in it as we have found by many late Examples But this is no Argument for the Right or justice of such Proceedings for we know King Charles the First was tried and condemned by the Pretended Authority of the Rump Parliament notwithstanding his denying that they had any Authority over him and though it be true there is no express Act of Parliament to tell us when the Government is dissolved and when and in what case men may resist the King or those commissioned by him yet does it not follow that no such thing can ever be lawfully done for it is sufficiently proved from the reason and necessity of the thing it self though no express Law or Conditions be made for it which may be also observed in all Moral or Religious Promises or Contracts Thus if I promise or swear to a man never upon any account whatsoever to beat or kill him this-is still so to be understood that he does not go about to beat or kill me for then my right of self-defence will take place notwithstanding my Oath so when people are married they mutually promise each other to live together till death do part yet no man will say a man or woman commits a sin or breaks this solemn Promise if the former by reason of Adultery in the Wife or the latter by the extream Cruelty or Harshness of the Husband do separate from each other and that perhaps for ever But I shall now shew you that there is a Resistance allowed even by the Law it self in some cases against those that have the King 's personal Commission as may appear by this Instance Suppose an Officer with a Company of Soldiers should under a colour of such a Commission take upon them to keep possession of a House contrary to Law do you not believe but the Sheriff may upon a legal Process issued out thereupon raise the Posse Comitatus and restore the Possession by Force to the Right Owner notwithstanding this Commission and the Reason is plain because though the Officer may have the King 's personal Command for so doing yet it is the Sheriff alone who acts by a Legal Authority and who alone can justifie the using of this Force Now if any man should be killed in this Action no doubt but the Officer and his Soldiers and not the Sheriff and the men that assisted him would be found guilty of murther F. I grant this may be so but is not this the true reason of it because the Sheriff acts by the King 's implyed Authority without which no man can lawfully take up Arms But how can this be justified in case Arms were taken up upon supposition the Government is Dissolved which is all one as to affirm That the King is no longer King I. I allow that great part of what you say is true but not all for in the first place it is plain that there is a Legal Resistance of those Commissions though issued by the King and which is justifiable by Law as appears by this instance which rule holds good as long as the Laws can be permitted to have their due course But what if the King will not permit that they shall but will take part with this wicked Officer and his Soldiers and maintain them in these violent Actions and either not let the Law pass upon them or if it does should constantly Pardon them as soon as they had committed any such violent illegal Acts by his Commands contrary to Law Can any man believe that such Proceedings if commonly practiced would not quickly dissolve the Government and make such a King cease to be so since he refused to Govern and Protect his Subjects according to Law and his own Coronation Oath which virtually contains those Conditions on which he holds his Crown for when there is no Justice to be had in the Kings Courts it then becomes a meer Anarchy wherein there can be nothing but Rapine and Confusion and consequently puts men in a State of War F. I have I know not what to say to this But can you shew me any express Law for the King 's ceasing to be so in case he thus leave off to Protect his People and Govern them according the Laws of the Land I. Yes that I can for I can shew you a good old Law of King Edward the Confessor which is also among those that were confirm'd by K. Will. I. whereby it is expresly declared That the King who is God's Lieutenant is appointed to this end That he defend his Kingdom and People and above all things Reverence his Holy Church and Defend it from Injuries and take away Wicked doers from it which unless he do not so much as the name of King shall remain to him neo nomen Regis in eo constabit as it is in the Latine which is likewise confirmed by Bracton an ancient Lawyer who tells us That it is the King's Crown or Authority to do Justice and Judgment and to maintain Peace without which it follows That this Crown or Authority cannot Consist or be retained So in another place he says That it
grounds and this hath been the course of all Parliaments that have been called immediately after any great and general Resistance or Revolution made upon the Accounts abovementioned This I could prove to you from several Instances in divers Kings Reigns since the Conquest were it worth my pains but still in all those Cases the first opposition hath been from the great Body of the Clergy Nobility and People together as you may particularly read in the Reign of King Iohn not long before the great Council at Runney Mead. F. But pray Sir can you also justify those Lords and Gentlemen who took up Arms and declared for the Prince of Orange and also those Lords together with the Officers and Soldiers who deserted the King and went into the Prince's Army Pray Sir did you look upon the Government to be then actually dissolved when they went in to him and that the King by the breach of the Original Contract was then no longer King I. I do not say so for though those Violations if obstinately persisted in without amendment were enough to create such a Dissolution and consequently a Forfeiture of the Crown as they wrought at the last yet the Government can never be dissolved so long as there remain any hopes that the King will amend those Violations he has made in a Free Parliament for the obtaining of which as it was the chief cause of his Highness's coming over so was it also of those Lords Gentlemen and Officers going in to him or declaring for him and this I think they may very well justify both in Honour and Conscience And though there be no express Law for it yet it is no more than what the Nobility Gentry and People of other Kingdoms as well as this have many times done before in former Ages when their Kings being misled and deluded by evil Councellors or Ministers of State have made the like Breaches upon their Liberties And though I confess such taking up of Arms have not always met with the desired Success yet for the most part they have and then such wicked Judges and Councellors have not failed to be punished and those Lords Gentlemen and others who so nobly and stoutly stood up for the Rights and Liberties of the Nation have been also pardoned by Act of Parliament and that with the King 's own consent when those wicked men were once removed but the King himselff was never touched till by his own wilful and obstinate persisting in such violent courses he let the Nation see that he was wholely irreclaimable and obstinately bent to destroy our Liberties and set up Arbitrary Government and Tyranny in this Kingdom as I could shew you from several Instances in the Reigns of King Iohn Henry III. Edward I. and Richard II. if it were necessary to give you a particular History of all those Transactions so that I suppose a twofold Right of Resistance in the People the one warranted by the Laws and Constitution of the Government which may well consist with our Loyalty to the King and to the intent only to obtain a Free Parliament to redress Grievances and punish those evil Councellors who have been the chief Ministers and Designers of Arbitrary Power as in the Case of King Iames before his departure the other Natural when the Government by the King 's wilful and obstinate refusal to redress such Grievances by ceasing to govern us according to Law he thereby also ceases to be King and then the Commonwealth or Civil Society being without a Head to execute Common Justice was absolutely dissolved F. What then is meant by these words in the late Vote and Declaration of the Convention viz. That King James having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom hath abdicated the Government Do you believe that the King 's bare delertion of the Kingdom when he declared he could not help it should be looked upon as in Abdication of the Government methinks that seems somewhat hard to conceive I. To deal freely with you I never understood the word Abdicate in that Sense but only according to all the precedent Clauses in this Vote viz. That the King by endeavouring to break the Original Contract between the King and his People and by the Advice of Iesuits and wicked Persons having violated the Fundamental Laws and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom hath abdicated the Government Where you may observe that the word Abdicated relates to all the Clauses aforegoing as well as to his deserting the Kingdom or else they would have been wholely in vain so that the meaning of this word in this place is no more than that King Iames by violating the Original Contract abovementioned and by endeavouring to subvert the Fundamental Constitution and by refusing to restore it to its former Condition all which was expressed by his withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom hath abdicated the Government that is by refusing to govern us according to that Law by which he held the Crown he hath implicitly renounced his Title to it as when for example a Tenant for Life aliens in Fee though he take back from the Grantee a Lease for Life or Years yet he thereby forfeits his Estate and the Tenant in Reversion may enter and the reason is because he parts with that Estate which he held by Law and will hold by another Title which the Law doth not allow for abdicare in the Latin Tongue signifies no more than to renounce or disclaim as I could shew you from divers Phrases in that Language were you a Scholar good enough to understand them and this may be done by divers other means besides express words For if Kingship be a Trust for the preservation of the Rights and Liberties of the People than such Actings contrary to that Trust as plainly strike at the very Fundamentals of the Constutution are not only a breach of that Trust but a tacite Renunciation of it also which I prove thus the doing of any Act that is utterly inconsistent with the Being and End of the thing for which it is ordained is as true a Renouncing or Abdication of that thing as if it were made in express words as I have now proved in the Case of Tenant for Life F. I confess this is more than ever I heard before but pray What do you think was the reason that the Convention made use of this Hard word Abdicate which I confess to us Country Fellows seem'd as bad as Heathen Greek when they might as well have made use of plain Expressions such as Renounce or Forfeit which you have now made use of I. I will tell you Neighbour my Opinion of this Matter and if I am out you must pardon me because those Wise men in the Convention who had the Wording of this Vote were afraid that those plainer words you mention would have been of too hard digestion to a great part of the Country Gentlemen who had been bred up with different Principles and
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