THis Author, who by his ſtile and the manner in which he treats all thoſe that have the misfortune to fall under his Cenſure, appears to be no mean perſon; ſeems every where throughout the whole Diſcourſe to be tranſported with ſo much Anger and Rage; that he was neither maſter of his own Reaſon, nor able to uſe that Learning he had to any good purpoſe: From whence we may ſuppoſe it hapned, that putting the Title of his Book in the firſt lines of it, he never more thought of the Juſtice or Modeſty pretended, but a Vindicative Spirit took ſuch poſſeſſion of him, as he never became his own man after. My Reader therefore, I hope, will pardon me, if his Paſſion happens to move one in me, in any part of theſe Reflections; becauſe is is difficult to converſe patiently with a man of this temper.

He begins thus: The Amazement which ſeized every good man, upon the unlooked-for diſſolution of two Parliaments within three Months, was not greater than at the ſight of a Declaration pretending to juſtifie and give Reaſons for ſuch extraordinary proceedings.

Thus my Author comes ſtaring upon the Stage, as one newly recovered out of one Amazement, and juſt then taken with another, he fanſies all the good men of the Nation under the ſame diſtraction of mind. And what was it that wrought ſo powerfully on him, that every man that was not ſo affected deſerved not the Title of a Good Man? Nothing in the world but the Diſſolution of the two laſt Parliaments, and the ſight of the before-mentioned Declaration. A frightful ominous ſight! He tells us afterwards there never appeared ſuch a Prodigy before,Pag. 3. but in 1628. and that was one of the firſt ſad Cauſes (though he does not prove it to be ſo much as an Occaſion) of the enſuing unhappy War; a ſoft name for a Rebellion, which as good men never had Cauſe, ſo ill men never wanted a Pretence to ſtir up.

I can aſſure him that there were many good men who obſerved all this as well as he, who did not inſtantly fall into fits upon it. Good men can truſt God and their King, and reſt quietly and free from Amazement in greater Accidents than theſe.

Having a little recovered himſelf out of the Muſe he was in, thus he proceeds. It is not to be denied but that our Kings have in a great meaſure been intruſted with the power of Calling, and Declaring the Diſſolutions of Parliaments. Have they ſo? Whoſe Truſtees are they? When did they firſt obtain this favour?

I proteſt now I was ſo dull as to think that this right of Calling and Diſſolving Parliaments was a Natural Right, inherent in the Crown,Pro. Dom. Rege dicit, quod cum placeat ei, Parliament ſuum tenere pro utilitate Regní ſui, de Regali poteſtate ſuâ facit ſummoneri ubi & quando, &c pro voluntate ſua. Cok. Juriſdict. p. 16. and as old as the Britiſh Monarchy, and that at the granting of the great Charter, and at all other times before or ſince, when the Kings of England granted any new Priviledges to their Subjects they ſtill reſerved to the Crown the power of calling Parliaments when and where they pleaſed, and to continue them as long as they thought fit, and then to Diſſolve or Prorogue them. Well, but if I was therein miſtaken, yet he allows our Kings a great meaſure of that truſt, and who claims the Remainder of it? Not the Petitioners, I hope. No, the Privy Council, he tells us, are to be adviſed with. Now that is matter of Expedience only, not of Right; for whatever His Majeſty can lawfully do with, doubtleſs he may as lawfully (though not in all caſes and circumſtances ſo prudently) do without, the Advice of his Privy-Council, who never claimed, that I have heard of, any co-ordinate right of managing affairs with our Kings; and matter ofThe Three Eſtates do but Adviſe as the Privy-Council doth, which if the King imbrace, it becomes the Kings own Act in the one; and the Kings Law in the other; for without the Kings Acceptation both the publick and private Advices be but as empty Egg-ſhells. Sir Walter Ralcighs Prerogative of Parliaments, pag. 57.—Vide & Grotium de imp. ſum. poteſt. circa Sacra. Cap. 6. Advice in its own nature ſuppoſes a liberty in the Perſon to whom 'tis given either to adhere to, or to reject it.

Well, Pag. 3. but whoever has the reſt of that Truſt, care hath been anciently taken, both for the Holding of Parliaments Annually; and that they ſhould not be Prorogued or Diſſolved till all the Petitions and Bills before them were Anſwered and Redreſſed. And for this my Author quotes two Acts of Parliament, which becauſe they are ſhort I will inſert here. The firſt is this:4. Ed. 3. c. 14. Item it is accorded that a Parliament ſhall be holden every year once, and more often if need be. Here is every word in that Statute. The ſecond follows:36 Ed. 3. c. 10. Item, for maintenance of the ſaid Articles and Statutes, and redreſs of divers miſchiefs and grievances which daily happen, a Parliament ſhall be holden every year, as another time was ordained by a Statute, which is the very ſame that I have recited before.2 R. 2 Num. 28. The Record which he 〈◊〉 I can ſay nothing to. So I agree with him that there are two Statutes provided for the holding of Parliaments Annually, and more often if need be, of which the Kings of England have ever ſince thought themſelves the Judges. But where are the Statutes to be found that theſe Parliaments ſhould not be prorogued nor diſſolved till ALL the Petitions and Bills before them were anſwered and redreſſed? Here is not one tittle of this in either of theſe he quotes, yet that is the main thing in controverſie, and which only needed proving. But he goes on. The Conſtitution had been equally imperfect and deſtructive of it ſelf, had it been left to the choice of the Prince whether he would ever Summon a Parliament; or put into his power to diſmiſs them Arbitrarily at his pleaſure. Then ſure it had been worth the while to have proved for what time they were to ſit, as well as how often. And if this can be made out that it is an Arbitrary, that is, in the ſenſe he would be underſtood in, an Illegal Act, for the King to prorogue or diſſolve a Parliament, till all the Petitions and Bills be anſwered and redreſſed, then will it be poſſible for a Parliament to perpetuate it ſelf for ever by an endleſs ſucceſſion of Petitions and Bills mixed with other great affairs, which as it is contrary to the practice of all our Kings ſince theſe Statutes, ſo if it were true, the Menarchy wuld not then be what it now is; but be much nearer a Commonwealth. So that be the Conſequence what it will, this learned Gentleman muſt yield, that it is at the choice of our Princes to ſummon Parliaments when they think it needful; and to diſmiſs them when they pleaſe. As for the word Arbitrarily, which he here uſeth, it is needleſs; and was ſuggeſted to him by his Spleen, and and not by his Reaſon.

That Parliaments ſhould thus meet (Annually) and thus ſit, Pag. 2. (till all the Petitions and Bills before them are anſwered and redreſſed) is ſecured to us by the ſame ſacred tye by which the King at his Coronation does oblige himſelf, to let his Judges ſit to diſtribute Juſtice every Term, and to preſerve inviclably all other Rights and Liberties of his Subjects. I thought the Law had been altered a little in the firſt particular, by a Statute made in the Seventeenth year of his now Majeſties Reign. Cap. 1. the words of which are as followeth. And, becauſe by the Ancient Laws and Statutes of this Realm, made in the Reign of King Edward the Third, Parliaments are to be held very often, Your Majeſties humble and loyal Subjects the Lords Spititual and Temporal, and the Commons in this preſent Parliament aſſembled, moſt humbly do beſeech your moſt Excellent Majeſty, &c. that hereafter the ſitting and holding of Parliaments ſhall not be intermitted or diſcontinued above three years at moſt, but that within three years from and after the Determination of this preſent Parliament, and ſo from time to time within three years after the determination of any other Parliament or Parliaments; or if there be occaſion more or oftener, your Majeſty your Heirs and Succeſſors do iſſue out your Writs for calling, aſſembling, and holding of another Parliament, to the end there may be a frequent calling, aſſembling, and holding of Parliaments once in three years at leaſt. So that ſurely his Majeſty may without breach of his Coronation Oath delay the calling of a Parliament three years, if there be no occaſion for one ſooner.Pag. 2. of which he is the Judge. Therefore (as he goes on) abruptly to diſſolve Parliaments at ſuch a time, when nothing but the Legiſlative Power, and the Ʋnited Wiſdom of the Kingdom could relieve us from our juſt fears, or ſecure us from our certain dangers, is very unſuitable to the great Truſt repoſed in the Prince, and ſeems to expreſs but little of that affection which we will always hope his Majeſty bears towards his People and the Proteſtant Religion. That there was then too much need of the Legiſlative Power and the Wiſdom of the Nation united in Parliament, is not to be denied, and that his Majeſty was very ſenſible of it appears, by his calling three Parliaments in twenty ſix Months, as my Author computes it, page 46. and we ſhall have occaſion hereafter to enquire by whoſe fault it came to paſs that they were all ſo abruptly diſſolved, and that will lead us to a probable conjecture why none hath been ſince called; notwithſtanding his Majeſties Affection to his People and the Proteſtant Religion is ſuch, that we have great reaſon to bleſs God for it, and to acknowledge it thankfully to him.

My Author goes on thus:Pag. 2. But it is not only of the Diſſolution it ſelf that we complain; the manner of doing it is unwarranted by the precedents of former times, and full of dangerous Conſequents. We are taught by the Writ of Summons, that Parliaments are never called without the advice of the Council, and the uſage of all Ages has been never to ſend them away without the ſame advice. To forſake this ſafe method is to expoſe the King perſonally to the reflections and Cenſures of the whole Nation for ſo ungrateful an Action. We may grant it the moſt uſual, and the beſt and ſafeſt way to conſult the Council in both theſe Caſes. But yet that will not preſently make the Act Arbitrary or Illegal, if it be omitted, and in this Caſe if it were otherwiſe it may poſſibly in the end appear to have been matter of neceſſity rather than choice.Colledges Trial, p. 37, 57, 73. We may very well remember that a great number of the Gentlemen of the Lower Houſe went to Oxford with armed men to guard them from the Papiſts, and ſome of them told the people at parting; They did never expect to ſee them again. The meaning of which is poſſible to be underſtood. And beſides theſe there were ſome other zealous men went; ſo that if his Majeſty did not think it fit, or ſafe to conſult his Council, and ſpend time in deliberating in the midſt of ſuch dangers, they muſt bear the blame who gave the occaſion, and made it neceſſary. So that theſe are the men, next ſuch as my Author, who are to be charged, tho not with adviſing, yet with neceſſitating the laſt diſſolution to be made, in the manner it was,Colledges Trial, p. 27, 30. for the ſecurity of his Majeſties Life and Liberty, which yet I would never have ſaid but to juſtifie his Majeſty.

But yet we muſt know all this Concern for the Council is not out of kindneſs or reſpect to them, Pag. 2. he ſaith, They are puniſhable for ſuch Orders as are irregular; nor can the Miniſters juſtifie any unlawful Action under colour of the Kings Commands, ſince all his Commands that are contrary to law, are void; (which is the true reaſon of that well known Maxim, that the King can do no wrong) a Maxim juſt in it ſelf, and alike ſafe for the Prince, and for the Subject; there being nothing more abſurd than that a Favourite ſhould excuſe his enormous Actings by a pretended Command, which we may reaſonably ſuppoſe he firſt procured to be laid upon himſelf. But we know not whom to charge with adviſing this laſt Diſſolution: it was a work of darkneſs, and if we are not miſinformed, the Privy Council was as much ſurprized at it as the Nation. The ſorrow was; that in the next Parliament this great Patriot would be at a loſs in his hunting for ſome body to blame for an Action ſo ungrateful, as he repreſents it, to the whole Nation; which in my judgment is a pretty way of ſpending his Reflections and Cenſures on the King.

And this is not all his vexation neither; for in the next Paragraph he tells us, Pag. 3. Nor will a future Parliament be able to charge any body as the Author or Adviſer of the late Printed Paper, which bears the Title of his Majeſties Declaration, tho every good Subject ought to be careful how he calls it ſo: for his Majeſty never ſpeaks to his People as a King, but either perſonally in his Parliament, or at other times under his Seal, for which the Chancellour or other Officers are reſponſible, if what paſſes them be not warranted by Law. Nor can the direction of the Privy Council enforce any thing upon the People unleſs that Royal and legal Stamp give it an Authority: but this Declaration comes abroad without any ſuch Sanction, and there is no other ground to aſcribe it to his Majeſty than the uncertain credit of the Printer, whom we will eaſily ſuſpect of an impoſture, rather than think the King would deviate from the approved courſe of his Illuſtrious Anceſtors, to purſue a new and unſucceſsful method.

So here is all the Credit of the Declaration gone, and the poor Printer left in the lurch to anſwer it to the next Parliament for putting this impoſture on the Nation. But what comfort is there in ſuch ſmall game? A Lord Chancellour, or other great Officer, is a Royal Game, and worth the purſuit of a Houſe of Commons to pull him down; but a pitiful Printer, who can find in his heart to imploy his Oratory againſt ſuch mean Mechanicks? and as for the Privy Council they can enforce nothing upon the People without the Seal, ſo that for time to come all Proclamations, and other publick Papers, may be ſecurely ſlighted except they come Sealed with the great Seal, or ſome body be ſent with them to aſſure us he ſaw it to the Original. Thus far the Hiſtorian went, but then the Prophet comes forth, and aſſures us, as this Method is new, ſo it will be unſucceſsful. How truly the World is not now to be told.

From the Effect of the firſt Declaration of this kind, which he ſaith was publiſhed in 1628. and filled the whole Kingdom with Jealouſies, and was one of the firſt Cauſes of the enſuing unhappy War;Pag. 3. he proceeds to tell us, That Declarations to juſtifie what Princes do, muſt always be either needleſs or ineffectual: their Actions ought to be ſuch as may recommend themſelves to the World, and carry their own Evidence along with them of their uſefulneſs to the publick; and then no Arts to juſtifie them will be neceſſary. Were all Mankind wiſe and honeſt, this Argument would be unanſwerable, but as long as ſome men out of Dulneſs, and others out of Obſtinacy and Intereſt ſhut their Eyes to the plaineſt and moſt evident demonſtrations of Reaſon, it muſt of neceſſity be ſometimes neceſſary and fit for Princes to Inform their Subjects of the reaſonableneſs of their Actions; and accordingly the ſame courſe hath ever been taken, and though it might fail of that end in 1628. yet it hath often heretofore, and doubtleſs will often again ſucceed, and the Jealouſies which then aroſe were not the effect of the Declaration, but of thoſe ill Arts by which ſuch a ſort of men as we have now to deal with, wheedled the Populace into an ill opinion of the beſt of Princes for Ends, that are now too well known to be again imbraced.

When a Prince deſcends ſo low as to give his Subjects Reaſons for what he has done, Pag. 3. he not only makes them Judges whether there be any weight in thoſe reaſons, but by ſo unuſual a ſubmiſſion gives cauſe to ſuſpect, that he is conſcious to himſelf, that his Actions want an Apology. I never thought before that the French Kings Logick was the only Argument that became a Prince, Car tel eſt noſtre plaiſir, For ſo our will and pleaſure is. And thoſe Subjects muſt be very ill natured that grow jealous upon the Condeſcentions of a Prince, and judge the Reaſons of a King to have the leſs weight becauſe he graciouſly offers them to the Judgment of his People; Sure I am ſometimes God Almighty is pleaſed to do it, who only hath a right to command our abſolute ſubmiſſion, upon the account of his infinite both Wiſdom and Soveraignty. So that to ſuſpect the want of of an Apology on no other grounds than a mans willingneſs to ſatisfie the World of the juſtice of a mans Cauſe, and the reaſonableneſs of his Actions, is a perverſeneſs to which common Knaves do ſeldom arrive; the Heroes of Villany do not often riſe to that pitch of Brutality without the help of Malmsbury Philoſophy. And I am perſuaded that our Author would have ſpared this Cavil againſt his Majeſties Declaration if he had before-hand conſidered that in natural conſequence he charges not only the King, but alſo the Three Eſtates with ſo many deliberate Acts of folly and injuſtice as there are Acts of Parliament containing the reaſons of Enacting ſo or ſo.

If a Princes Actions are indeed unjuſtifiable,Pag. 3. if they are oppoſite to the Inclinations, and apparently deſtructive of the Intereſts of his Subjects, it will be very difficult for the moſt eloquent or inſinuating Declaration to make them in love with ſuch things.

And if they be none of all theſe, if a Crafty man may but comment upon them, and by Ifs and Ands inſinuate into the heads of the Common People that he takes them for ſuch, it is poſſible all the Eloquence in the World may not be powerful enough to bring them into their right wits again, but yet this may fail too ſometimes.Pag. 3.

And therefore they did certainly undertake no eaſie task in pretending to perſuade men who ſee themſelves expoſed to the reſtleſs malice of their Enemies; who obſerve the languiſhing condition of the Nation, and that nothing but a Parliament can provide remedies for the great Evils which they feel and fear; that two ſeveral Parliaments, upon whom they had placed all their hopes, were ſo ſuddenly broken out of kindneſs to them, or with any regard to their advantage.

No, I ſuppoſe no body was ſo ſilly as to undertake ſuch an impoſſible task: but there was another ſort of men, who had looked better into things, and care was to be taken of them to confirm them, and a third ſort that were not yet well reſolved what to think of things, and they were to be directed and aſſiſted, and it was not impoſſible the Declaration might have a good effect upon them, as indeed it had; as for thoſe that had placed all their hopes upon the two laſt Parliaments, and were pleaſed with all they did; there was neither hopes nor deſign of working that Miracle upon them, but they were to be left to time to be cured. And in the interim I would adviſe them to ſtudy Colemans Declaration, of which my Author ſaith fine things, which I care not to tranſcribe.

But ſhould this Declaration be ſuffered to go abroad any longer under the Royal Name;Pag. 4. yet it will never be thought to have proceeded from his Majeſties Inclination or Judgment, but to be gained from him by the Artifices of the ſame ill men, who not being content to have prevailed with him to diſſolve two Paliaments, only to protect them from Publick Juſtice, do now hope to excuſe themſelves from being thought the Authors of that Counſel by making him openly to avow it. But they have diſcovered themſelves to the Kingdom, and have told their Names when they number amongſt the great Crimes of the Houſe of Commons, their having declared divers Eminent Perſons to be Ememies to the King and Kingdom.

So his Majeſties Inclination and Judgment being kindly abſolved from the guilt of this Declaration of purpoſe to abate the Eſteem it ought to have. And ſeeing it is not poſſible to keep it within doors, and that ſome may think the worſe of it becauſe there was a ſham Declaration found among Colemans Papers, as you know there was a ſham Plot in the Meal-Tub, and yet there may be others that are real. The next Inquiry, or rather Hue and Cry, is after the Authors, and thoſe he thinks he hath found by the paſſage he cites out of the Declaration, thoſe Eminent Perſons, or ſome of them, muſt needs out of Revenge and Fear be the Authors of this Peſtilent Declaration. His Reaſon is this:Pag. 4. None could be offended at the Proceedings of the Parliaments but they who were obnoxious, none could be concerned to vindicate the Diſſolution but they who adviſed it. But is my Author ſure of that, that never a man in the Nation was offended at their proceedings but ſuch as were obnoxious to them? I am of another mind, and ſo is all the world now. Is it impoſſible for any man to be concerned to vindicate the Actions of a Prince but they that adviſe him? What pitiful Sophiſtry this is. But were no men obnoxious to the proceedings of theſe Parliaments but theſe eminent men?Declaration. May not it be ſome of thoſe Subjects who were by Arbitrary Orders taken into Cuſtody for matters that had no relation to Priviledges of Parliament? They are mentioned before the Eminent Perſons tho of a Meaner degree. If I be not miſtaken, ſome Members too were very diſgracefully Expelled the Houſe. Might not ſome of them have a hand in it?Pag. 5. We are aſſured a little lower, that the Writer was of another Nation from this Galliciſm, It was a matter extremely ſenſible to us. So that this Gentleman is ſuſpitious it is but a Tranſlation of a French Copy, and the rather becauſe Monſieur Barillon, the French Embaſſadour, read it to a Gentleman three days before it was communicated to the Privy Council, if his intelligence did not deceive him. So here is fair Scope left to find, or ſuſpect at leaſt, other Authors beſides the Eminent Perſons, other Adviſers beſides thoſe that were obnoxious. For I ſuppoſe Monſieur Barillon doth not fear a Houſe of Commons. And as for this and other Galliciſms that may occur they are not to be wondred at in an Age that generally underſtands the French Tongue, in a Court where almoſt all the Great men ſpeak it; in a Prince who hath lived in France, and is deſcended of a French Mother. And the wonder is not ſo prodigious neither that the French Embaſſadour ſhould get a tranſcript of a Paper, intended to be publiſhed to the whole Nation, two or three days before it was read in Council. Theſe things make a great noiſe to ignorant people, whilſt I am perſuaded this Gentleman ſmiled to think how finely he was deluding them. But be theſe things as they will, the Eminent Perſons muſt expect to anſwer it.Pag. 4. And our Author thinks they cannot blame him or his Party for hoping one day to ſee juſtice done upon ſuch Counſellours. Pag. 5. And that the Commons had reaſon for their Vote, when they declared thoſe Eminent Perſons, who manage things at this rate, Enemies to the King and Kingdom, and Promoters of the French Intereſt. Pag. 6.

It is not ſtrange at all (that the Parliament at Oxford ſhould anger the Court more than that at Weſtminſter) for the Court did never yet diſſolve a Parliament abruptly, and in heat, but they found the next Parliament more averſe, and to inſiſt upon the ſame things with greater eagerneſs than the former. Engliſh Spirits reſent no affronts ſo highly as thoſe that are done to their Repreſentatives; and the Court will be ſure to find the effects of that reſentment in the next Election.

The truth of this as matter of Hiſtory is very apparent, for ſo it came to paſs in the Reign of his Majeſties Father, upon every Diſſolution, the Commons made choice of the ſame, or worſe, Members; till in 1640. they had fitted themſelves with a Parliament to their hearts deſire, who reſented, not the Affronts done to themſelves as the Peoples Repreſentatives, but the ſeveral Stops and Rubs that had been laid in their way, ſo highly, that the Court, i, e. the King, ſoon felt the effects of it. But did the Nation eſcape? No, but Bloud and Violence, Anarchy and Conſuſion took poſſeſſion of them to that height that the pious Martyr called it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cap. 15. A Hell of Miſery, and Chaos of Confuſion.

The Author in the next line acquaints us, That a Parliament does ever participate of the preſent temper of the People. Never were Parliaments of more different Complexions than that of 1640. and that of 1661. yet they both exactly anſwered the humours which were predominant in the Nation, •• lledge averred, that the 〈…〉 of 40. did 〈…〉 what they had juſt 〈…〉 for, and the Parliament 〈…〉 laſt at Weſtminſter 〈…〉 of the ſame opinon. 〈…〉 83. And to this 〈…〉 a great while 〈…〉 had excuſed the 〈…〉 from 〈…〉 War, and 〈…〉 King, which he 〈…〉 Papiſts did. when they were reſpectively choſen. It doth not become me to ſay whether that of 1680. were liker that of 1640. or 1661. but I muſt needs ſay, I wonder my Author could reflect ſo ſenſibly on the difference, and yet at the ſame time heighten the Popular Heats with inculcating the fears of France and Popery, and not rather endeavour to allay them by telling his Country-men, that twenty years Miſery followed the 1640 Parliament, and twenty years Peace the latter, which I cannot but eſteem a more Loyal and a more Prudent reflection than that he hath made; and much more neceſſary both for the Repreſentatives and Electors. Let them however now conſider ſeriouſly of it, and the next time ſend up men zealous to bring the real Incendiaries of the Nation to Juſtice, and then it is not to be doubted but ſome that are Country Favourites, will be found to promote the French and Popiſh Intereſt, as well as the Republick. And I dare then become their Sponſor (if it might not look too preſumptuouſly in ſo mean a perſon as I am) that by Gods mercy we ſhould enjoy another Score of Halſion years, to the confuſion of Popery, and the extreme damage of France. • . du Moulin's Vindication of the ſincerity of P. &c. p. 58. London. 1679. Both which do as certainly promote our preſent diſtempers as they did thoſe in Charles the Firſt his times; as have been made ſo apparent, that the Diſſenters, who were the Principals then as they are now, would fain perſuade the world that the Acceſſaries, Colledges Trial, • . 81, 82, 83. the French Emiſaries and Jeſuits, did all that miſchief that was then done. But as this is ridiculous and impoſſible, ſo, if duly conſidered, it might prevent a relapſe into the ſame miſery and confuſion, which is more to be deſired by all good Chriſtians than the moſt delightful revenge upon the Favorites.

But it is but reaſonable to expect all that I can ſay will ſignifie but little to this ſort of men, if the modeſt Gentleman I am examining may be preſumed better acquainted with their tempers than I am.Pag. 6. For ſurely (ſaith he) this DECLARATION (what great things ſoever may be expected from it) will make but very few Converts, not only becauſe it repreſents things as high Crimes, which the whole Kingdom (the contrary of which is now too apparent to be proved on one hand, or denied on the other) has been celebrating as meritorious Actions: but becauſe the People have been ſo often deceived by former Declarations, that whatſoever carries that Name will have no credit with them for the Future. This, I confeſs, is one good way to prevent the making too many Converts to Loyalty; for if a People can once be effectually perſuaded their Governours are faithleſs perfidious men, that ſeek nothing but an opportunity to delude and abuſe them by falſe pretences, there will be no great danger they will pay them too much reſpect and obedience. But ſurely the man that talks thus is ſome French Emiſary or Jeſuit, ſuch thoughts as theſe never aroſe from a Church of England Gentlemans heart, for the worſt enemy of England could not have breathed a worſe inſinuation into the hearts of his Majeſties Subjects.

They have not yet forgot the Declaration from Breda, Pag. 7. tho others forgot it too ſoon, and do not ſpare to ſay; that if the ſame diligence, the ſame earneſt ſolicitations had been made uſe of in that affair which have been ſince exerciſed directly contrary to the deſign of it, there is no doubt but every 〈◊〉 of it would have had its deſired effect, and all his Majeſt ••• Subjects▪ would have enjoyed the fruits of it, and 〈…〉 extolling a Prince ſo careful to keep his Sacred Promiſe • 〈…〉 People.

Before this unworthy Inſinuation can be 〈…〉 •• ſwered, I muſt tranſcribe ſo much of that Declaratio • 〈…〉 here ſuppoſed to have ſailed of its 〈…〉 followeth:

And becauſe the Paſſion and uncharitableneſs of the times have produced ſeveral opinions in Religion,Declaration from Breda. April 4. 1660. by which men are engaged in Parties and Animoſities againſt each other, which, when they ſhall hereafter unite in a freedom of Converſation, will be better underſtood, we do declare a liberty to tender Conſciences, and that no man ſhall be diſquieted, or called in queſtion, for differences of Opinion in matter of Religion,☞ which do not diſturb the Peace of the Kingdom, and that we ſhall be ready to conſent to ſuch an Act of Parliament, as upon mature deliberation ſhall be offered to us for the full granting that Indulgence.

Here is his Majeſtie, Royal Promiſe, wherein ought to be obſerved, that his Majeſty promiſed nothing to any Party that ſhould diſturb the peace of the Kingdom. Nor to them that did not, further than that he would conſent to ſuch an Act of Parliament when it ſhould be offered to him. So that he was not obliged to procure ſuch an Act, nor yet to do it without an Act. And now let us ſee how they behaved themſelves towards him.

Whilſt (ſays his Majeſty) we continued in this temper of mind and reſolution,Declaration concerning Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, Octob. 25. 1660. and have ſo far complied with the perſuaſion of particular perſons, and the diſtemper of the times, as to be contented with the exerciſe of our Religion in our own Chappel according to the conſtant practice and Laws eſtabliſhed, without enjoying that practice, and the obſervation of thoſe Laws in the Churches of the Kingdom, in which we have undergone the Cenſure of many, as if we were without that zeal for the Church which we ought to have, and which by Gods Grace we ſhall always retain; we have found our ſelves not ſo Candidly dealt with as we have deſerved, and that there are unquiet and reſtleſs ſpirits, who without abating any of their own diſtemper in recompence of the Moderation they find in us continue their bitterneſs againſt the Church, and endeavour to raiſe Jealouſies of us, and to leſſen our reputation by their reproaches,☜ as if we were not true to the Profeſſions we have made, and in order thereunto they have very unſeaſonably cauſed to be printed, publiſhed, and diſperſed throughout the Kingdom a Declaration heretofore printed in our Name during the time of our being in Scotland, of which we ſhall ſay no more than that the Circumſtances by which we were enforced to ſign that Declaration, are enough known to the World; & that the worthieſt & greateſt part of that Nation did even then deteſt and abhor the ill uſage of us in that particular, when the ſame Tyranny was exerciſed there by the power of a few ill men, which at that time had ſpread it ſelf over this Kingdom, and therefore we had no reaſon to expect that we ſhould at this Seaſon,☜ when we are doing all we can to wipe out the memory of all that hath been done amiſs by other men, and we thank God, have wiped it out of our own remembrance, have been our ſelf aſſaulted with theſe Reproaches, which we will likewiſe forget.

Since the Printing that Declaration ſeveral☜ ſeditious Pamphlets and Queries have been publiſhed and ſcattered abroad,There are ſome ſeditious Preachers who cannot be content to be diſpenced with for their full Obedience to ſome Laws Eſtabliſhed without reproaching and inveighing againſt thoſe Laws▪ how Eſtabliſhed ſoever, who tell their Auditors, that the Apoſtle meant when he bid them ſtand to their Liberties, that they ſhould ſtand to their Arms, &c. Lord Chancellors Speech, May 8. 1661. to infuſe diſlike and Jealouſies into the hearts of the People, and of the ARMY, and ſome who ought rather to have repented the former miſchief they have wrought, than to have endeavoured to improve it, have had the hardineſs to publiſh that the Doctrine of the Church, againſt which no man with whom we have conferred hath excepted, ought to be reformed as well as the Diſcipline.

This over-paſſionate and turbulent way of proceeding, and the impatience we find in many for ſome ſpeedy determination in theſe matters, whereby the minds of men may be compoſed, and the peace of the Church eſtabliſhed, hath prevailed with us to invert the Method we had propoſed to our Self, and even in order to the better calling and compoſing of a Synod (which the preſent Jealouſies will hardly agree upon) by the Aſſiſtance of Gods bleſſed Spirit, which we daily invoke and ſupplicate, to give ſome determination Our ſelf to the matters in difference, untill ſuch a Synod may be called, as may without prejudice or paſſion give us ſuch further aſſiſtance towards a perfect union of Affections, as well as ſubmiſſion to Authority, as is neceſſary: And we are the rather induced to take this upon us by finding upon the full Conferences we have had with Learned men of ſeveral Perſuaſions, that the miſchiefs, under which both Church and State do at preſent ſuffer, do not reſult from any formed Doctrine or Concluſion which either Party maintains or avows, but from the Paſſion, and Appetite, and Intereſt of particular perſons, who contract greater prejudices to each other from thoſe Affections, than would naturally riſe from their Opinions; and thoſe diſtempers muſt be in ſome degree allayed before the meeting in a Synod can be attended with better ſucceſs than their meeting in other places, and their diſcourſes in Pulpits have hitherto been; and till all thoughts of victory, are laid aſide, the humble and neceſſary thoughts for the vindication of Truth cannot be enough entertained.

We muſt for the honour of all thoſe of either perſuaſion, with whom we have conferred, declare, that the profeſſion and deſires of all for the advancement of Piety and true Godlineſs, are the ſame; their profeſſions of zeal for the peace of the Church, the ſame: of affection and duty for us, the ſame; They all approve Epiſcopacy; they all approve a ſet Form of Liturgy; they all diſapprove and diſlike the ſin of Sacriledge, and the Alienation of the Revenue of the Church; and if upon theſe excellent foundations, in ſubmiſſion to which there is ſuch a harmony of affections, any ſuperſtructures ſhould be raiſed, to the ſhaking thoſe foundations, and to the contracting and leſſening the bleſſed gift of Charity, which is a vital part of Religion; we ſhall think Our Self very unfortunate, and even ſuſpect that we are defective in that Adminiſtration of Government with which God hath entruſted us.

Page 18. of this Declaration, His Majeſty did again renew what he had formerly ſaid in his Declaration from Breda for the liberty of tender Conſciences, &c. and declared, if any have been diſturbed in that kind ſince Our Arrival here, it hath not proceeded from any Direon of ours.

His Majecty ſaith in the fifth page of this Declaration▪ The Presbyterians did only deſire modeſtly ſuch alterations in Epiſcopacy and the Liturgy, as without ſhaking foundations, might beſt allay the preſent diſtempers which the indiſpoſition of the time, and the tenderneſs of ſome mens Conſciences had contracted, for the better doing whereof we did intend upon our firſt Arrival in this Kingdom to call a Synod of Divines, as the moſt proper Expedient to provide a proper Remedy for all thoſe differences, and diſſatisfactions which had or ſhould ariſe, &c.

In the next Spring a Commiſſion was Iſſued out under the Great Seal to ſeveral Epiſcopal and diſſenting Divines to review and correct,Addreſs to the Freemen and Freeholders of the Nation, Part. 1. if they ſhould ſee cauſe, the Book of Prayer, and to make ſuch alterations in it as ſhould be thought fit; inſtead of which the Diſſenting Divines rejected the whole Book, and publiſhed a new one: So that this meeting, which was deſigned chiefly in favour of the Diſſenters, diſcovered the falſhood of all their Oyly pretences, and ſhewed they were neither for Liturgies or Epiſcopacy.

They had alſo made a ſtrong Party in the Army, of which an account hath been given already.

So that the Parliament ſeeing there was no peace to be had as long as theſe men might do what they liſted; and pervert the People, and incence them againſt the Government, paſſed the Act of Uniformity to Commence from St. Bartholomew, 1662.

During all this time his Majeſty, notwithſtanding their ill uſage of him, mentioned in the laſt Declaration I cited, continued ſo courteous to theſe firy men as to excuſe it to the Parliament, March 1. 1661. in theſe words:

Gentlemen, I hear you are very zealous for the Church, and very ſolicitous, and even jealous that there is not Expedition enough uſed in that Affair; and I thank you for it, ſince I preſume it proceeds from a good root of Piety and Devotion, but I muſt tell you, I have the worſt luck in the world, if, after all the reproaches of being a Papiſt, whilſt I was abroad, I am ſuſpected of being a Presbyterian now I am come home: I know you will not take it unkindly, if I tell you I am as zealous for the Church of England as any of you can be, and am enough acquainted with the Enemies of it, on all ſides; that I am as much in love with the Book of Common-Prayer, as you can wiſh, and have prejudice enough to thoſe who do not love it; who I hope in time will be better informed, and change their minds; and you may be confident, I do as much deſire to ſee a Uniformity ſettled as any amongſt you. I pray truſt me in that Affair, I promiſe you to haſten the diſpatch of it with all convenient ſpeed, you may relie upon me in it.

I have tranſmitted the Book of Common-Prayer, with thoſe Alterations and Additions, which have been preſented to me by the Houſe of Convocation, to the Houſe of Peers with my Approbation, that the Act of Uniformity may relate to it, ſo that I preſume it will ſhortly be diſpatched there: And when all is done we can, the well ſetling that Affair will require great Prudence and diſcretion, and the Abſence of all Paſſion and Precipitation.

The Act of Uniformity being ſetled and paſſed his Majeſty did not give over all his thoughts for the Diſſenters,By a Declaration publiſhed December 26. 1662. in which are theſe words: but in the year 1662. was again labouring to revive his Declaration from Breda for Liberty of Conſcience;We ſhall make it our ſpecial care, ſo far forth as in us lies, without invading the freedom of Parliament, to incline them to make ſuch an Act, &c. which the Houſe of Commons oppoſed, and drew up their reaſons againſt it, in the form of an Addreſs, wherein they particularly anſwer the pretences from the Declaration from Breda. Which tho the whole Addreſs is in the third part of the Addreſs to the Freemen and Freeholders of the Nation I will here tranſcribe, becauſe this Book may poſſibly fall into ſome hands which have not that.

Yet after all this, the Fifteenth of March 1671-2. his Majeſty publiſhed a Declaration for Liberty of Conſcience by the Advice of his Privy Council; which he was hardly perſuaded to depart from by the Commons in Feb. See the firſt part of the Addreſs to the Freemen, &c. 1672. The miſchiefs of which Toleration or Indulgence have been ſo great to his Majeſty in particular, and the whole Nation in general, that no man can well expreſs them.

And now who can enough admire the Inſolence of this diſcontented Gentleman, who dare ſay as he doth, That if the ſame diligence, the ſame earneſt ſolicitations had been made uſe of in that affair, which have ſince been exerciſed directly contrary to the deſign of it, there is no doubt but every part of it would have had the deſired ſucceſs, and all his Majeſties Subjects would have enjoyed the fruits of it, and have now been extolling a Prince ſo careful to keep ſacred his Promiſes to his People.

I ſay on the contrary, could his Majeſty have been prevailed on by the unanſwerable reaſons of that moſt Excellent and moſt Loyal Houſe of Commons, to have enforced the execution of the Laws againſt Diſſenters, he had never ſeen his Affairs reduced to that ill condition they were not long ſince in. And tho I queſtion not but by Gods bleſſing his Majeſty will in a ſhort time reſettle things, yet I will hope for time to come it ſhall be a Maxim in England, That the Strength of the Diſſenters is the Weakneſs of the Throne.

As for our Authors jeering reflection on his Majeſties other Declaration of April 20. 1679. concerning the Privy Council, and ſome perſons then taken into it, his Majeſty hath had but too much reaſon not to ſtick to the ſame when he ſee there were ſome men whom nothing could oblige to be faithful to him; but if his Majeſty hath not adviſed with them; he hath with ſome others, at leaſt as wiſe, and much honeſter than ſome of thoſe who were laid aſide, ſo that that Declaration hath been effectually made good to the Nation. And therefore we have no reaſon to queſtion his Majeſties Candor in this.

As for the Declaration read in our Churches the other day,Pag. 7. there needs no other Argument to make us doubt of the reality of the Promiſes which it makes, than to conſider how partially, and with how little ſincerity the things which it pretends to relate are therein repreſented, it begins with telling us in his Majeſties Name, That it was with exceeding great trouble that he was brought to diſſolve the two laſt Parliaments without more benefit to the People by the calling of them. We ſhould queſtion his Majeſties Wiſdom, did we not believe him to have underſtood that never Parliament had greater Opportunites of doing good to Himſelf and his People. He could not but be ſenſible of the dangers, and of the neceſſities of his Kingdom, and therefore could not without exceeding great trouble be prevailed upon for the ſake of a few deſperate men (whom he thought himſelf concerned to love now, only becauſe he had loved them too well, and truſted them too much before;) not only to diſappoint the Hopes and Expectations of his own People, but of almoſt all Europe. His Majeſty did indeed do his part, ſo far, in giving opportunities of proving for our good, as the calling of Parliaments do amount to, and it is to be imputed to the Miniſters only that the ſucceſs of them did not anſwer his and our Expectations.

Thus far my Author is recited verbatim, that it may appear I do him no wrong. By which diſcourſe of his (taking for the preſent no notice of his reflection on his Majeſty for a perſon whoſe Promiſes were not real) it is agreed that the two laſt Parliaments had great opportunities of doing good to his Majeſty and his People, and my Author goes further, and adds the Hopes and Expectation of almoſt all Europe to them. That his Majeſty called theſe Parliaments he owns. That one of them ſat a competent time for that purpoſe cannot be denied, viz. from Thurſday October 21. 1680. till Monday the tenth day of January following, which deducting the time ſpent in the Trial of Viſcount Stafford, was in ſome mens opinions ſufficient to have diſpatched much more buſineſs than was then done. And yet it doth not appear that his Majeſty was enclined to have prorogued them then if he had not been highly provoked by them.

What my Author means by thoſe few deſperate men that prevailed upon his Majeſty ſo much againſt his Will to part with that Parliament, I cannot gueſs, except they be the Eminent Perſons which were declared Enemies to the King and Kingdom: which if they were, they are neither ſo few, nor ſuch deſperate men as to be laid aſide barely upon a Vote of the Houſe of Commons, without any Order or Proceſs of Law, The Declaration. any hearing of their Defence, or any proof ſo much as offered againſt them. And I believe the meaneſt of them is equal to this Gentleman, as ſcornfully as he ſpeaks of them.

But then in the laſt place, whether or no the diſſolution be to be imputed to the Miniſters, or to the Parliament, i. e. the Houſe of Commons will appear beſt in the examination of his diſcourſe, and of the Declaration.

It is certain (ſaith my Author) it cannot be imputed to any of the proceedings of either of thoſe Parliaments; Pag. 7. which were compoſed of men of as good ſence and quality as any in the Nation, and proceeded with as great moderation, and managed their debates with as much temper, as ever was known in any Parliament. If all this is as certainly true as it is confidently aſſerted, then is it but a folly to diſpute any further about it. But becauſe his Majeſty in his Declaration hath ſaid ſome things that ſeem to look another way, my Reader may, if he pleaſe, ſuſpend his belief of this particular too; till his Majeſties Allegations and this Gentlemans defence are examined, and then he will be better able to paſs his Judgment.

If they ſeemed to go too far in any thing, his Majeſties Speeches or Declarations had miſled them, by ſome of which they had been invited to enter into every one of thoſe debates to which ſo much exception hath been ſince taken. Did he not frequently recommend the proſecution of the Plot to them, with a ſtrict and impartial inquiry? Did he not tell them, That he neither thought himſelf nor them ſafe,Speech. Octob. 21. 1680. till that matter was gone through with? Yes doubtleſs his Majeſty did all this; but then where is any exception taken againſt any thing of this Nature they have done?

Did he not in his Speech April 30,Pag. 8. 1679. aſſure them that it was his conſtant care to ſecure our Religion for the future in all events; and that in all things which concerned the Publick Security, He would not follow their Zeal, but lead it. But,Addreſs to the Freemen and Freeholders, Part II. pag. 22. Sir, did not his Majeſty then alſo let you know that he excepted one thing, in which he would neither lead, nor follow their Zeal, which was the altering the deſcent of the Crown in the right Line, or defeating the Succeſſion, which his Majeſty commanded to be further explained by the Lord Chancellour, in ſuch manner that it appeared to the whole Nation that his Majeſty was reſolved to do any thing for the freeing his People from their fears of Popery but what might tend to the diſinheriting the Duke of York, or any other Lawful Succeſſor? NowThough his Majeſty could not do that without acting contrary to his own judgment, ſtrengthened with the Opinion and Advice given by his Royal Grandfather, King James of bleſſed memory, to his Eldeſt Son Price Henry, in theſe words: But if God give you not Succeſſion, defraud never the neareſt by right, whatſoever conceit ye have of the perſon. For Kingdoms are ever at Gods diſpoſition, and in that caſe we are but live-rentars, lying no more in the Kings, nor Peoples hand to diſpoſſeſs the righteous Heir. Baſil. Doron. 62. ult. Ed. you, Sir, may remember that nothing but this would ſatisfie the Commons in either of the two laſt Parliaments, in which they were not miſled by any of his Majeſties Speeches or declarations, much leſs by this which was made of purpoſe to prevent the Bill before it was moved in the Houſe of Commons.

Has he not often wiſhed that he might be enabled to exerciſe a power of Diſpenſation in reference to thoſe Proteſtants, Pag. 8. who through tenderneſs of miſguided Conſcience did not conform to the Ceremonies, Speech, Octob. 26. 1662. Diſcipline, and Government of the Church: Speech, Dece • . 26. 1662. and promiſed that he would make it his ſpecial care to encline the wiſdom of the Parliament to concur with him in making an Act to that purpoſe? And did not that very Parliament draw up a long Addreſs to his Majeſty, containing the reaſons why they could not concur with him in that point? And is not this one good proof that his Majeſty was not unmindful of his Declaration at Breda, but was kept from doing what he was otherwiſe enclined enough to, not by a few deſperate men, but by the Parliament?

And leaſt the malice of ill men,Pag. 8. (i. e. the Diſſenters) might object, that theſe gracious inclinations of his continued no longer than while there was a poſſibility of giving the Papiſts equal benefit of a Toleration. Has not his Majeſty, ſince the diſcovery of the Plot, ſince there was no hopes of getting ſo much as a connivance for them in his Speech of March 6. 1678-9. expreſs'd his zeal not only for the Proteſtant Religion in general, but for an Ʋnion amongſt all ſorts of Proteſtants. His Majeſties words here are not truly recited, but are theſe: I meet you here with the moſt earneſt deſire that man can have to unite the minds of all my Subjects both to me and to one another, and I reſolve it ſhall be your faults if the ſucceſs be not ſuitable to my deſires, &c. And a little after; Beſides that end of Ʋnion which I aim at (and which I wiſh could be extended to Proteſtants abroad as well as at home) I propoſe by this laſt great ſtep I have made (the ſending away his Royal Highneſs the Duke of York) to diſcern whether Proteſtant Religion and the peace of the Kingdom be as truly aimed at by others as they are really intended by me, &c. By which it appears the Union his Majeſty here meant was not that Union that was afterwards ſet on foot in Parliament, and I cannot but ſuſpect theſe words were miſrecited of purpoſe.

And did not he comand my Lord Chancellour to tell them,Pag. 8. That it was neceſſary to diſtinguiſh between Popiſh and other Recuſants, between them that would deſtroy the whole flock, and them that only wander from it. Theſe words are indeed in the Lord Chancellors Speech but with this Preface, Neither is there, nor hath been theſe fifteen hundred years, a purer Church than ours,Speech. Mar. 6 1678-9. ſo 'tis for the ſake of this poor Church alone that the State hath been ſo much diſturbed. It is her Truth and Peace, her Decency and Order which they (the Plotters and Papiſts) labour to undermine, and purſue with ſo reſtleſs a malice; and ſince they do ſo, it will be neceſſary for us to diſtinguiſh between Popiſh and other Recuſants, between them that would deſtroy the whole Flock, and them that only wander from it. So that whatever diſtinction his Majeſty intended to allow between the Popiſh and Proteſtant Recuſants, it muſt be ſuch as was conſiſtent with the Truth, Peace, Decency, and Order of the Religion by Law eſtabliſhed, which I ſuſpect the Project of Union ſet on foot was not, much leſs the Vote of the tenth of January for the ſuſpending the execution of all Penal Laws made againſt them, as a weakening of the Proteſtant Intereſt, an encouragement to Popery, and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom.

Theſe things conſidered, Pag. 8. we ſhould not think the Parliament went too far, but rather that they did not follow his Majeſties Zeal with an equal pace. At this rate of concluding a man may draw any Concluſion from any premiſes if he hath a mind to it. His Majeſty would joyn with them in any courſe that might tend to the ſecurity of the Proteſtant Religion for the future,Lord Chancellors Speech, March 6. 167 • - • . ſo as the ſame extend not to the diminution of his own Prerogative, nor to alter the deſcent of the Crown in the right Line, nor to defeat the Succeſſion. Therefore when they brought in a Bill to diſinherit his Majeſties Brother againſt his expreſly declared reſolution, they did not go too far, but rather they did not follow his Majeſties Zeal with an equal pace. When his Majeſty thought it neceſſary to diſtinguiſh betwixt Popiſh Recuſants, and Proteſtant Diſſenters; that is, to favour the latter more than the former, they were for taking away all thoſe Laws at once that have diſtinguiſhed betwixt the Diſſenters and the Religion eſtabliſhed, and giving up this Pure Church into the hands of her bitter Enemies, that had but juſt before bid fair for her ruine; as if the only care had been, that the Papiſts might not have had the honour of deſtroying her, and yet we are not to believe they went too far in this neither.

The truth is,Pag. 9. if we obſerve the daily provocations of the Popiſh Faction, whoſe rage and inſolence were only increaſed by the diſcovery of the Plot, (ſo that they ſeemed to defie Parliaments, as well as inferiour Courts of Juſtice, under the Protection of the Duke, their Publickly Avowed Head;) who ſtill carried on their deſigns by new and more deteſtable methods than ever, and were continually buſie by Perjuries and Subornations, to charge the beſt and moſt conſiderable Proteſtants in the Kingdom with Treaſons as black as thoſe of which themſelves were guilty. If we obſerve what vile Arts were uſed to hinder the further diſcovery, what liberty was given to reproach the Diſcoverers, what means uſed to deſtroy or corrupt them; how the very Criminals were incouraged and allowed to be good Witneſſes againſt their Accuſers: We ſhould eaſily excuſe an Engliſh Parliament thus beſet, if they had been carried to ſome little Exceſſes not juſtifiable by the Laws of Parliament, or unbecoming the wiſdom and gravity of an Engliſh Senate.

Now other men may poſſibly be of another mind, and think that if the ſtate of things had been but half ſo deplorable as they are here deſcribed, the leaſt Exceſs had been then inexcuſable, for there is never more need of gravity than in great and eminent dangers; but what I ſhall ſay will, it is like, not be much regarded, hear then what the Chancellour of England ſaid:Speech Mar. 6. 1678-9. The Conſiderations which are now to be laid before you are as Ʋrgent and as Weighty as were ever yet offered to any Parliament, or indeed ever can be, ſo great and ſo ſurprizing have been our Dangers at home, ſo formidable are the appearances of danger from abroad, that the moſt Ʋnited Counſels, the moſt Sedate and the calmeſt Temper, together with the moſt dutiful and zealous affections that a Parliament can ſhew, are all become abſolutely and indiſpenſably neceſſary for our preſervation. So that little exceſſes are great crimes; when men are beſet with dangers tho they may be excuſed in times of Peace and Security, if I rightly underſtand this wiſe and honourable perſon.

But if we come to ſearch into the particulars here enumerated, there may poſſibly ariſe better Arguments to excuſe their Exceſſes. The Popiſh Faction about that time having tried all other ways to clear themſelves of the Plot, without any good ſucceſs, fell at laſt upon another Project, which was to ſtart a New Plot. They knew there were in London ſome Clubbs, and Coffee-houſe-Sets, of Presbyterians, Old Army Officers, diſcontented Gentlemen, and Republicans, which had cloſe Cabals, and private Meetings, and that the Court had a jealous eye upon them, as indeed there was good cauſe for it, and out of theſe materials they thought they might eaſily raiſe the ſtructure of a Presbyterian Plot againſt the State, but all the chief men of the Popiſh Faction being fled, impriſoned, or executed, this grand Deſign fell into the hands of people of no great either parts or reputation, to carry on ſo difficult an Undertaking, and it was not likely neither to be eaſily believed if it had no other Witneſſes but Papiſts to atteſt it. And it was not poſſible for them to bring over any other, of any reputation, in the low eſtate their affairs then were, ſo that the Contrivance miſcarried, and only tended to make the Papiſts more hated than they were before, and this is called the Meal-Tub Plot; which I ſhould rather have aſcribed to the rage and deſperation of the Papiſts, than to their Inſolence, which was then very well abated by the Execution of Coleman, Staley, the Murtherers of Sir Edmundbury Godfry, and the Jeſuits, which had reduced them to too low a condition to defie the meaneſt Courts of Juſtice in the Nation, and put them upon thoſe mean and baſe thoughts of Perjuries and Subornations, to avoid that ruine which they ſaw ready to overwhelm and deſtroy them.

But that which they were never able to effect themſelves the Diſſenters did for them, for from the moment the Popiſh Plot was diſcovered they entered into a project to make uſe of it another way againſt the King and Court on one hand, and againſt the Church and the Loyal Gentry on the other.

In order to this they had theſe cloſe Cabals, and private Meetings, (I laſt mentioned) where they invented and ſpread abroad a thouſand idle Stories to fright the Common People out of their little Wits; and alſo raiſed Money, which they liberally beſtowed amongſt the Informers to render them more obſequious to them, ſo that in a ſhort time Informing became a very thriving trade, if it would have held; and this great familiarity betwixt the diſcoverers of the Plot and the Whigs was the beſt colour afterwards for the Meal-Tub Presbyterian Plot.

By this means the People were eaſily deluded into a conceit that theſe Gentlemen who took ſuch care of the Diſcoverers, and their Party, who were always haranguing againſt Popery, were the only Proteſtants in the Nation that could ſave them out of the hands of the Papiſts. And on the other ſide, the Court and all the Loyal Gentry and Clergy became ſuſpected of want of zeal againſt Popery; and this was heightned by the Diſcoverers themſelves, who were for the moſt part men of no very great or good qualities, and were ſo puffed up by the flatteries and Liberalities of the Whigs, and their own high conceits of the Service they had done the Nation, that they thought no recompence, no reſpect which was beſtowed upon them was great enough, and ſo became inſolent both in their carriage and diſcourſes, by which means they became leſs reſpected rhan before, till at laſt they were forced to give themſelves up intrirely to the Whigs.

This had two very different effects upon ſeveral ſorts of men, ſome believed that there was no Popiſh Plot, after they ſaw the Diſſenters reap all the advantage by it. And others thought that all but the Diſſenters were more or leſs concerned in the guilt of it as well as the Papiſts, or at leaſt were favourers of the Papiſts and Popery.

Things being in this ſtate, eſpecially after the diſſolution of the Long Loyal Parliament, the Diſcoverers loſt much of their reputation, but that ever any vile Arts were uſed to hinder any further diſcovery of the Plot by any but the Papiſts, or that liberty was given to reproach, or any means uſed to corrupt or deſtroy them that were the Witneſſes, except it were by Papiſts, doth not appear, and in all thoſe caſes, all the care in the world was taken of the Witneſſes too, by the King and his Council. And as to that which my Author mentions in the laſt place, How the very Criminals were incouraged and allowed to be good Witneſſes againſt their Accuſers, I cannot imagine what he means by it; or when, or where it ſhould be done, tho I have read over all the Printed Trials, and therefore it is enough to deny this, and put him upon the proof of it.

But how did all theſe things tend to the advantage of the Popiſh Plotters in the end?

Firſt, As the Zeal of theſe people fired the Rabble, ſo it put the Long Loyal Parliament too into ſo great a fret, that it proved mortal; and then going downward, it put the Country into ſuch diſorder, that tho his Majeſty hath given us the opportunities of chuſing three Parliaments one after another, we have not been able to ſend up one, that has not fallen into thoſe little Exceſſes which have occaſioned their diſſolution before they had done us any conſiderable good. And at length his Majeſty is forced for ſome time to keep us without one; to try if Faſting will bring us into our ſenſes again, and in the mean time the noiſe of the Popiſh Plot is drowned, by new and more ſurprizing attempts of the Whigs, and that Popiſh Party, which whilſt it had none but real Papiſts in its Liſt, was the abomination of all Proteſtants, now the Whigs have joyned all the Church of England men to them by their lies and ſlanders, even that very Popiſh Party begin to be better thought of for their ſakes who are falſly joyned with them, and by theſe and many other ways the proſecution of the Popiſh Plot any further is thought by moſt men impoſſible. Whereas had not the Diſſenters been thus ſerviceable to them, there is reaſon to believe they would have ſuffered much more than they have done, and there would have been much ſharper Laws made againſt them, than they need fear now.

If all this be conſidered, it will eaſily appear, it was not the Protection of the Duke, whom this Gentleman can never prove the Publickly avowed Head of the Papiſts, but the over-doing of the buſineſs, that hath delivered the Popiſh Faction out of that fear and danger which the diſcovery of the Plot had caſt them into.

We muſt own (ſaith my Author) that his Majeſty has opened all his Parliaments at Weſtminſter with very Gracious Expreſſions,Pag. 9. nor have we wanted that Evidence of his readineſs to ſatisfie the deſires of his Subjects, but that ſort of Evidence will ſoon loſe its force if it be never followed by Actions correſpondent; by which only the World can judge of the ſincerity of Expreſſions or Intentions.

Had the two ſhort Parliaments at Weſtminſter been the only Parliaments his Majeſty had ever called ſince his return, there might have been ſome colour for this undutiful reflection, but all the World knows there were two there before them, and that his Majeſty complied with them in almoſt all they asked in a regular way, and when at any time he was neceſſitated to deny them any requeſt, he gave them ſuch reaſon for it, as they ſeemed to be well pleaſed with his denial.

It will appear to any man that his Majeſty hath paſſed more Acts in twenty years than any one of his Anceſtors have done in twice the time, that he hath abated more of his juſt and real Prerogative than any Prince we ever yet had could be brought to part with. The Court of Wards, and the Right of Purveyance, were great advantages to the Crown, and as troubleſom to the Subjects till his Majeſty generouſly gave them up, and theſe two Prerogatives were never Conteſted, and I might inſtance in ſome other if I did not think it ſit to be as ſhort as I can.

In almoſt twenty years that the Long Loyal Parliament ſate, I never heard of above one Bill that had paſſed both Houſes, which was denied his Royal Aſſent, and that was, The Bill for preſerving the peace of the Kingdom by raiſing the Militia, and continuing them in duty for two and forty days; which Bill was refuſed November 30. 1678. and then alſo his Majeſty gave this reaſon for it: That he did not refuſe to paſs it for the diſlike of the matter, but the manner, becauſe it put the Militia for ſo many days out of his power, and if it had been but for half an hour he would not have conſented to it, becauſe of the ill conſequences it might have hereafter, the Militia being wholly in the Crown, &c. Now I believe it would be difficult for my Author to make and prove the like inſtance, in any of our former Princes.

And in the firſt of the ſhort Weſtminſter Parliaments his Majeſty paſſed the Act for the better ſecuring of the Liberty of the Subject, and for preventing impriſonment beyond Seas, A ſeaſonable Addreſs to both Houſes of Parliament, pag. 4. to which an honourable Perſon adds, The Act againſt quartering of Souldiers upon the Subject, and ſaith, his Majeſty might have had many Millions for theſe Acts if he had inſiſted on a bargain, or known how to diſtinguiſh between his own private Intereſt and that of the Subject, or the truckling way of Bartering when the good of his People was concerned.

And in the laſt ſhort-lived Weſtminſter Parliament his Majeſty paſſed the Act againſt Importation of Iriſh Cattel, for no other viſible cauſe, but becauſe both Houſes had paſſed it, tho it tended to the Diminution of his Revenue. And now let us ſee how gratefully our Author treats him for all theſe Royal and Prince-like Favours.

Therefore the Favorites did little conſult his Majeſties Honour when they bring him in ſolemnly declaring to his Subjects,Pag. 9. that his intentions were as far as would have conſiſted with the very Being of the Government, to have complied with any thing that could have been propoſed to him to accompliſh thoſe Ends he had mentioned, which were the ſatisfying the deſires of his Subjects, and ſecuring them againſt all their juſt fears, when they are not able to produce an inſtance wherein they ſuffered him to comply in any one thing. Whatever the Houſe of Commons Addreſſed for, was certainly denied, tho it was only for that reaſon; and there was no ſurer way of Intituling ones ſelf to the favour of the Court, than to receive a Cenſure from the repreſentative body of the People.

As to the Addreſſes made by the Houſe of Commons alone, they were many of them ſuch as his Majeſty could not comply with without great miſchief to himſelf or them that had expreſt the greateſt Zeal for his Service, and when for that caſe only they ſeemed to be perſecuted, it would have been very impolitick in his Majeſty, tho he had been his own man, and not under the dominion of the Favorites (as it ſeems he was) to have yielded to the Commons againſt them.

But cannot the Favorites inſtance wherein they ſuffered his Majeſty to comply in any one thing with the Houſe of Commons? Did not his Majeſty at their ſingle requeſt Pardon a great many Informers againſt the Plotters? Did he not pardon B. Harris too, his 500 l. Fine and Impriſonment which he had incurred by Printing diſloyal and ſeditious Pamphlets? Did not his Majeſty upon their Addreſs diſcharge all the Proteſtant Diſſenters who were then under proſecution upon ſeveral Penal Statutes, without paying Fees, as far as it could be done according to Law, and promiſe alſo to recommend them to the Judges? There might many other inſtances be given, of moneys iſſued out, of perſons taken care for, and the like upon the ſingle requeſt of the Commons, ſo that I cannot but wonder where my Authors modeſty was when he preſſed the Favorites to give one inſtance of his Majeſties compliance with the Houſe of Commons.

But his Majeſty and the Court were kind to all that received any Cenſure from the repreſentative body of the People. They might thank themſelves for that who beſtowed their Cenſures ſo freely on men that had deſerved very well of his Majeſty and the Government, and yet I believe there may be ſome inſtances given of men whom they Cenſured or impriſoned, that have not been mightily advanced ſince by the Court, but let us examine thoſe few particular Examples my Author hath marked out.

Let it for the preſent be admitted (ſaith my Author) that ſome of the things deſired by that Parliament were exorbitant,Pag. 10. and (becauſe we will put the objection as ſtrong as is poſſible) inconſiſtent with the very being of the Government, yet at leaſt ſome of their Petitions were more reaſonable.

Doubtleſs there was ſome ſuch, which therefore were freely granted by his Majeſty, as I have proved.

The Government might have ſubſiſted though the Gentlemen put out of the Commiſſion of the Peace for their zealous acting againſt the Papiſts had been reſtored.Pag. 10.

And ſo might the Proteſtant Religion by Law eſtabliſhed be preſerved without the aſſiſtance of theſe zealous Gentlemen, and therefore his Majeſty was not to be inſtructed by theſe Repreſentatives, whom he ſhould imploy as Juſtices 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of the Peace, eſpecially after they had diſcovered ſo much kindneſs for the Diſſenters, who have ſomething an odd Notion of Papiſts and Popery.

Nor would a final Diſſolution of all things have enſued,Pag. 10. tho Sir George Jefferies had been removed out of all Publick Offices, or my Lord Hallifax himſelf from his Majeſties Preſence and Councils.

The firſt of theſe, Sir George Jefferies was then Recorder of London, Votes. Nov. 13. 1680. and was proſecuted by a part of the City, for that he by traducing and obſtructing Petitioning for the ſitting of that Parliament, had betrayed the Rights of the Subject. Now that Gentleman oppoſed them (as many others did) in obedience to his Majeſties Proclamation, and the Laws of the Land; and it was a little unreaſonable that his Majeſty ſhould joyn with the Commons to ruine him, though it could be made out that his Majeſties Proclamation was illegal, and that there were a miſtake alſo in the point of Law.

My Lord Hallifax was proſecuted only for oppoſing the Bill for diſinheriting the Duke of York in the Houſe of Lords, and no fault whatſoever laid to his charge. Now he being a Member of that Houſe, it had been very unreaſonable for his Majeſty to have puniſhed him for uſing his own juſt and legal freedom, in a caſe eſpecially wherein his Majeſty had declared his own reſolution ſo very often before.

Now, Sir, tho theſe two Perſons are not eſſentially neceſſary to the preſervation of the Government, yet it is abſolutely ſo, that his Majeſty do not give up thoſe that have faithfully and legally ſerved him in their proper Stations, either to pleaſe the People or their Repreſentatives, without a legal trial, and a juſt defence. We may all remember what the Conſequences of his Majeſties Fathers giving up the Earl of Strafford in the beginning of the late troubles were; and I hope I ſhall never live to ſee that ſort of compliance reacted again.

Had the Statute of 35.Pag. 10. Eliz. (which had juſtly ſlept for Eighty years, and of late, unreaſonably16 Car. 2. &c. 4. revived) been repealed, ſurely the Government might ſtill have been ſafe. And though the Fanaticks perhaps had not deſerved ſo well as that in favour to them, his Majeſty ſhould have paſſed that Bill, yet ſince the Repeal might hereafter be of great uſe to thoſe of the Church of England, in caſe of a Popiſh Succeſſor, (which Bleſſing his Majeſty ſeems reſolved to bequeath to his People) one would have thought he might have complied with the Parliament in that Propoſal.

It is very probable his Majeſty would have complied with them in that particular, tho it is paſt a perhaps the Fanaticks had not, nor ever will as long as they continue ſuch, deſerve that favour at his hands: But, modeſt Sir, how doth it appear that his Majeſty is reſolved to bequeath his People the Bleſſing of a Popiſh Succeſſor? Hath he promiſed the Duke to die before him? Hath his Majeſty obliged him to continue a Papiſt (if he be one) in ſpight of his Intereſt to the contrary? Is this your Juſtice? Is this your Modeſty?

But the Miniſters thought they had not ſufficiently triumphed over the Parliament by getting the Bill rejected unleſs it were done in ſuch a manner as that the precedent might be more pernicious to Poſterity,Pag. 10. by introducing a new Negative in the making of Laws, than the loſing the Bill, how uſeful ſoever, could be to the preſent Age.

That this Bill was not tendered to his Majeſty for his Aſſent appears by three Votes of the Commons at Oxford.

The Houſe then according to their order (the day before) took into conſideration the matter relating to the Bill which paſſed both Houſes in tbe laſt Parliament,Friday, March 25. 1681. entituled, An Act for the repeal of a Statute made in the 35 year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, but was not tendered to his Majeſty for his Royal Aſſent.

Reſolved, that a Meſſage be ſent to the Lords, deſiring a Conference with their Lordſhips in matters relating to the conſtitution of Parliaments, in paſſing Bills.

Ordered that a Committee be appointed to conſider of, and prepare the ſubject matter to be offered at the ſaid Conference.

Thus far that Parliament went in order to the diſcovery of the cauſe of the not tendering that Bill, and I have heard the Lords alſo were upon an inquiry what was become of it, but the diſſolution preventing them, I never heard that there was any diſcovery made then or ſince of the perſon or perſons that took it away.

Now where my Author had his intelligence that the Miniſters took it away to introduce a new Negative in the making of Laws, I ſhall not inquire.

This we may affirm,Pag. 10. That if the ſucceſs of this Parliament did not anſwer expectation, whoever was guilty of it, the Houſe of Commons did not fail in doing their part. Never did men husband their time to more advantage. They opened the Eyes of the Nation, they ſhewed them their danger, with a freedom becoming Engliſh men.

It was a Caution given by Queen Elizabeth in the end of a Parliament held in the 35th year of her Reign:Hiſtorical Collect. of the four laſt Parliaments of Q. Eliz. p. 47. That ſhe would not have the People feared with reports of great dangers, but rather encouraged witb boldneſs againſt the Enemies of the State, And what the effect of our new Politicks was once before we will remember.

They Aſſerted tbe Peoples right of Petitioning.

Yes, that they did too very effectually. Tho there was an Act of Parliament then in force, with this Preface. Whereas it hath been found by ſad experience that tumultuous and other diſorderly ſoliciting,13 Car. 2. ca. 5. and procuring of Hands by private perſons to Petitions, Complaints, Remonſtrances, and Declarations, and other Addreſſes to the King, or both or either houſes of Parliament, for alteration of Matters Eſtabliſhed by Law, redreſs of pretended Grievances in Church or State, OR OTHER PUBLICK CONCERNMENTS, have been made uſe of, to ſerve the Ends of factious and ſeditious perſons gotten into power, to the violation of the Publick Peace, and have been great means of the late unhappy Wars, Confuſions, and Calamities of this Nation, &c.

They Proceeded vigorouſly againſt the Conſpirators diſcovered,Pag. 10. and heartily endeavoured to take away the veryBy the Bill to diſinherit his Royal Highneſs. Root of the Conſpiracy. They had before them as many great and uſeful Bills as had been ſeen in any Parliament, and it is not to be laid at their doors that they proved abortive. This Age will never fail to give them their grateful Acknowledgments, And Poſterity will remember that Houſe of Commons with honour.

We come now to the particular enumeration of thoſe gracious things which were ſaid to the Parliament at Weſtminſter. Pag. 11. His Majeſty ask'd of them the ſupporting the Alliances he had made for the preſervation of the General Peace in Chriſtendom. It is to be wiſhed his Majeſty had added to his gracious asking of Money a gracious Communication of thoſe Alliances, that ſuch blind obedience had not been exacted from them as to contribute to the ſupport of they knew not what themſelves, nor before they had conſidered whether thoſe Alliances which were made, were truly deſigned for that End which was Pretended (very dutifully ſaid) or any way likely to prove effectual to it, ſince no precedent can be ſhewn, that ever a Parliament (not even the late Long Parliament, tho filled with Danby his Penſioners) did give money for maintaining any Leagues till they were firſt made acquainted with the particulars of them.

That Leagues have been communicated to Parliaments heretofore is not to be diſputed, but that they were ever tendered before they were asked for, is not ſo plain; Nor doth it appear this was denied. And as to his Parentheſis I deſire only that it may be obſerved for my excuſe, in caſe I happen to ſpeak any thing not reſpective enough of the renowned Parliament at Weſtminſter.

But beſides this,Pag. 11. this Parliament had reaſon to conſider well of the general Peace it ſelf, and the influence it might have, and had, upon our Affairs, before they came to any reſolution, or ſo much as a debate about preſerving it; ſince ſo wiſe a Miniſter as my Lord Chancellor (bleſſed be God we have one wiſe Miniſter, Lord Chancellors Speech. May 23. 1678. The words are theſe: The influence ſuch a Peace will have upon our Affairs are fitter for Meditation than Diſcourſe.—Therefore it will import us to ſtrengthen our ſelves at home and abroad, that it may not be found a cheap or eaſie thing to put an Affront upon us. they have all along hitherto in general terms been treated at ſuch a rare as if none of them had had either Wit or Honeſty) had ſo lately told us, that it was fitter for meditation than diſcourſe. He informed us in the ſame Speech, that the Peace then was but the effect of Deſpair in the Confederates, and we have ſince learnt by whoſe means they were reduced to that Deſpair, and what price was demanded of the French King for ſo great a Service.

It is an old Maxim, That men ſhould neither deliberate nor debate about thoſe things that are not in their power. Now, whatever this General Peace was, and whatever the effects of it might be, the right of Peace and War was in the King, and the Commons could not alter one tittle of it: And a ſmall degree of experience in the World will tell any man, that England was not then in a condition to break alone with that Monarch, which had tired out all Chriſtendom with a tedious expenſive War, when they were united againſt him: And therefore the beſt Expedient that could then have fallen into the Heads of the Commons had been to have ſhewn him, and all the Confederates, that we were reſolved to have ſtood by our King with our Lives and Fortunes, which would have heartned them on to a ſtout reſiſtance in caſe of his further encroachments upon them, and in likelihood have kept him in ſome aw; whereas the courſe that was taken had a quite contrary effect, and tended more a thouſand times to the diſcouragement of the Confederates than the fruitleſs attempt he hints at, made by the Earl of Danby, who was then in the Tower for it. So that I believe all Europe will bear me Witneſs, that all the great things the French King hath ſince done were in a great meaſure owing to theDr. Nalſon obſerves, that the like diſorders had the ſame effect in the time of His Majeſties Father, who (he ſaith by this means) loſt the opportunity of being able to ſupport his Friends and Allies, as alſo that Honour and Terrour among his Enemies Abroad, which the Union and hearty Affections of his Parliament, would have rendred great and dreadful, but now he became mean and contemptible; that Prince who hath not power o ••• his own Subjects at home being in no probable capacity of doing any great matters abroad. Preface to his impartial Collection. Pag. 61. diſorders of our Engliſh Parliaments, and their declared reſolution of giving the King no Supplies upon reaſonable terms, which rendered the Alliance and Enmity of our King abroad inconſiderable.

Amongſt the great things the French King hath done ſince the Peace, Pag. 11. my Author tells us this: His Penſioners at our Court have grown inſolent upon it, and preſumed that now He (the French King) may be at leiſure to aſſiſt them (the Penſioners) in ruining England, and the Proteſtant Religion together. (And they) have ſhaken off all dread of Parliaments, and have prevailed with his Majeſty to uſe them with as little reſpect, and to diſperſe them with as great contempt, as if they had been a Conventicle, and not the great Repreſentative of the Nation, whoſe Power and Wiſdom only could ſave him and us in our preſent Exigencies.

Surely the man that talks thus contemptuouſly of his Majeſty and all the Miniſters, durſt have told us, if he could, who were theſe French Pentioners, but it was not his deſign to point out the men; but to caſt out general Accuſations againſt the King, the Miniſters, and the whole Government, thereby to incenſe the People, and to make them ungovernable, that ſo his Majeſty might be the ſooner neceſſitated to ſubmit himſelf to that Power and Wiſdom that could only ſave him and us, but might alſo eaſily ruine both, if things were once put into ſuch a ſtate, as his Majeſty were no longer Maſter of that Power.

As to the Accuſation, or rather Calumny, that the Engliſh Miniſters are Penſioners to the French King, it will eaſily appear falſe to any man that doth but reflect on Colemans Letters, in 1674: when the King was in a much better condition to oppoſe and ruine the French deſigns and enterprizes, and the French King had all the Confederates United, and in an Actual War with him, and there was nothing to fear or hope for but in England, yet he then refuſed three hundred thouſand Pounds, tho it was pretended it would have aſſured the Diſſolution of that long Loyal Parliament, which France feared more than threeſcore ſuch as have followed it; and when at laſt Coleman deſcended to 200000 l. and at one time begged ſhamefully but for 20000 l. Colemans long Letter. He was denied it, Monſieur Rouvigni, the French Embaſſadour, uſually telling him, That if he could be ſure of ſucceeding in that deſign his Maſter would give a much larger Sum; but that he was not in a condition to throw away money upon uncertainties, Nor doth it appear that ever Coleman got one farthing at that time.

And after the diſcovery of the Plot, and the diſſolution of the long Loyal Parliament, the general Peace having delivered the French King from all Apprehenſions of good or hurt from England; His Majeſty having ſuch ill ſucceſs in the firſt ſhort Weſtminſter Parliament, and the Diviſions of England appearing more fully in the Election of the Second, and the year that paſſed betwixt that and its ſitting, (all which were as well known in Paris as in London) it is not to be doubted but he very well underſtood that there was then leſs reaſon to maintain Penſioners in England than before So that we may conclude from that time there hath come but little French Money over into England for Penſions to any Party, England being thought in France ſo inconſiderable by reaſon of her Domeſtick Feuds, Fears, and incurable Jealouſies; that there is nothing to be feared or hoped from it; whereas Penſions are to be imployed in Potent and United States.

I do not deſign by this to prove that no French Penſioners are now maintained in England, but that they are few, and gain but little by it, and therefore it is ridiculous to conceive that all our Miniſters of State are ſuch, and that they ſhould be ſuch fools as to conſpire with France to ruine England for nothing, or that which is next to it. And it is as ſilly a ſuppoſition that the Privy Council, and the reſt of the Miniſters of State, who are not Penſioners, ſhould not diſcover thoſe that are, as ſoon as this diſcontented Gentleman.

There is a lewd and impoſſible conceit ſpread underhand about the Nation that the King himſelf is a Penſioner to France: and all that is pretended to juſtifie it, is only his being able to ſubſiſt ſo long without Parliamentary Supplies. Now, this I believe is not credited by any men of underſtanding, but yet there are many ſuch, who for ill ends ſpeak it in ſome companies, and will ſhake their heads, and ſhrug their ſhoulders, and look gravely in other companies, that they may ſeem to fear what they durſt not ſpeak.

Now, if what I have ſaid before be applied to this inſtance, it will appear more ridiculous; for that Penſion that may tempt a hungry Courtier, who is to raiſe a Family, would be rejected with ſcorn if it were tendered to a meaner Prince than ours is. And it is not to be thought that the French King, who is obſerved to be as ſparing of his Wealth, as prodigal of his Souldiers, would ever be at ſuch an Expence as to maintain our Court and his own; for fear the King ſhould unite with a Parliament that would be an Enemy to France; no, all knowing men underſtand how little he cares for England if it were quiet at home, but as now things ſtand he ſcorns it, as beneath his Conſideration.

Well, but if neither the Miniſters, nor his Majeſty are to be ſuſpected, who are? I will tell you that in the words of a more knowing man than I dare pretend to be.

Thoſe that roar moſt againſt French Councils and Meaſures;A ſeaſonable Addreſs to the Parliament. Ʋnder-hand-bargains, and Agreements, between both the Kings,pag. 6, 7. know they belye their own Conſciences, and that the French have us in the laſt degree of Contempt. This the Earl of Danby Printed in his own vindication, perhaps not ignorant that ſome of their Miniſters did in the year 1677, and 78. before the breaking forth of the Plot, declare, That Monſieur L. had greater intereſt, and more Friends in England than the Duke of York; that the King had need be on his guard, for he was in great danger of running the ſame riſque with his Father, when it was likewiſe inquired what intereſt amongſt the People two great Peers had, who have ſince the Plot been great Pillars of the Proteſtant Religion, tho neither was ever reputed to have any, were Miniſters and Adviſers in 1670, and 71. very good Friends to France and Popery, Enemies to the Triple Alliance, and to Holland, &c. It was alſo ſaid, That 300000 l. a year beſtowed in Scotland and England, among the Factious and Diſcontented, would better ſerve the Intereſt of France, than any Bargain they could drive with the Miniſters. Thus far that noble Pen hath diſcovered who are the French Penſioners, and Reaſon ſpeaks the ſame thing: For if it be the Intereſt of France to divide England, it is their Intereſt too, to do it as cheap as they can, and there is no doubt to be made of it but 10000 l. a year, divided amongſt the London Holdersforth, and the Walling fordians, on no other condition but that they ſhould declaim ſtoutly againſt the King, the Court, the Miniſters, France, and Popery, (things which no money could make them forbear ſpeaking againſt) would more effectually engage them to go on in that courſe, than all the treaſures of France would the King and Miniſters to procure the Ruine of England, and the ſettlement of Popery; things which Nature and Education have taught them to abhor. And by this means England (as they might eaſily foreſee) would be ſo divided, that if a Civil War did not follow, yet at leaſt there would be no fear of its being in a condition to look abroad and ſuccour its Neighbours.

To theſe men is owing all that Contempt that hath fallen upon our Engliſh Parliaments both at home and beyond the Seas, who by putting the Houſe of Commons upon thoſe things that would diſguſt the King, and all the Gentry in the Nation, have done as much as they could to make them firſt feared, and then hated by almoſt one half of the Subjects, and tends as directly to the ruine of that ancient and excellent Conſtitution as the diſorders of the Tribunes of the People, did to the ruine of the Liberty of the Romans.

But alas if we look into the Speech made at the opening of the Parliament,Pag. 12. we ſhall find no mention of any new Ally except the Spaniard, whoſe Affairs at that time, through the defects of their own Government, and the Treachery of our Miniſters, were reduced to ſo deſperate a ſtate, that he might well be a burthen to us, but there was little to be hoped from a Friendſhip with him; unleſs by the name of a League to recommend our Miniſters to a New Parliament, and cozen Country Gentlemen of their Money.

Before I can anſwer this, I ought to Tranſcribe ſo much of his Majeſties Speech as concerns this buſineſs; which is as followeth:

Now all the Gentlemans Craft lay in the word New, there is no mention of any New Ally. No, but there is mention of an old one, double Confederated both with Spain and England to the ſame purpoſe, and theſe three States being thus United, as his Majeſty truly tells them, would in a little time draw in more if our Diviſions did not prevent it. Our Diviſions had that effect, and made the King a true Prophet againſt his will, and now all the blame is to be thrown upon the Miniſters, that is in reality upon the King.

Nay, our Miniſters (poor unfortunate men) muſt bear the reproach of Ruining not only England, but Spain too by their Treachery: but yet our kind Author doth not lay all that burthen upon their ſhoulders, but confeſſeth that their ill Governing had a part in it; but however it came to paſs, Spain was in ſo deſperate a ſtate then that it might be a burthen to England, but no ways beneficial. And yet before the end of this very Paragraph he is in a dreadful fear that Spain ſhould joyn with his Majeſties Succeſſor, and for the introduction of Popery make a War upon the People with all his Forces by Sea and Land. At this rambling rate does our Gentleman talk.

It cannot be denied but that the Affairs of Spain were very ill managed at that time, but then that was owing to the Minority of their King, the Factions in their Court, the Conteſts betwixt Don John and the Queen-Mother their Regent, and their two Parties, and it is not improbable the French King might have ſome few Penſioners in Spain as well as England; but yet that once moſt potent Kingdom was not ſunk to ſo low an Ebb of Fortune as to be only a burthen to its Allies, tho it had need of them, and ought by all the rules of Policy to have been ſo much the more carefully ſecured and ſupported by them, eſpecially by England.

And therefore our Country Gentlemen, who were too wiſe to be cozened of their money by the crafty Miniſters, will, I hope, not lay it to their charge too, that the Affairs of Spain have ever ſince viſibly declined, and the French King hath taken near as much from his Neighbours during the Peace, upon pretence of Dependencies by Proceſs, as he got in all the War by his Sword and potent Armies. For this ſeems in great part at leaſt, not ſo much owing to the Treachery of our Miniſters, as to the Tenacity and thriftineſs of theſe Country Gentlemen, that were ſo ſhie of being cozened of their Money.

But upon the peruſal of the League,Pag. 12. it appears by the 3, 4, and 5. Articles, that it was like to create us troubles enough, for it engages us indefinitely to enter into all the quarrels of the Spaniards, tho they hapned in the Weſt Indies or the Philippine Iſlands, or were drawn upon himſelf by his own injuſtice or cauſeleſs provocations.

Whether my Author have been any more faithful in his account of this League, than he was of the Kings Speech I cannot ſay; becauſe it is not in my power to examine thoſe Articles. But his mentioning our obligation to aſſiſt Spain in the Weſt-Indies and Philippine Iſlands, where it is impoſſible, againſt the Duke of Brandenburg, and the King of Portugal, where it would be unjuſt, and againſt his Proteſtant Subjects oppreſt by him, as they were by his Grandfather Philip, are ſuch things would make a man ſuſpect his ſincerity a little; and the rather, becauſe his Majeſty tells us, The League was ſuitable to that which he had before with the States of the Ʋnited Provinces, and they alſo had with Spain, conſiſting of mutual obligations of Succour and Defence.

Now, the account my Author gives of it is in part ſo impoſſible, and in the reſt ſo improbable, that no Mortal in his right Wits can believe that Spain ſhould deſire, or England grant, any ſuch things. And therefore if he had at all expected to have been believed, he ought to have Tranſcribed thoſe three Articles for a proof of what he had ſaid.Verbae ſtrictius quam fere proprietas, ſumenda erunt, ſi id neceſſarium erit ad vitandam iniquitatem, vel Abſurdltatem, atſi non talis eſt neceſſitas, ſed manifeſta aequitas vel utilitas in reſtrictione, ſubſiſtendum erit intra arctiſſimos terminos proprietatus niſi Circumſtantia aliud ſuadeant. Grot. de jure Belli & Pacis, lib. 2. cap. 16. ſect. 12. And whereas he tells us, it engages us indefinitely to enter into all the quarrels of the Spaniards. That, if true, will bear a fair Conſtruction, and will no more oblige us to thoſe things he mentions (if they be not expreſs'd, (nay, I think I may ſay, if they be) in plain terms) than it will to help the King of Spain to deſtroy our ſelves, in caſe he ſhould happen to have a quarrel with us hereafter. For no League can bind any further than as it is juſt and poſſible.

But that which concerns us yet nearer (ſaith my Author) in this League,Pag. 13. is, that this obligation of Aſſiſtance was mutual, ſo that if a Diſturbance ſhould happen hereafter in England upon any attempt to change our Religion, or our Government, tho it was in the time of his Majeſties Succeſſors. The moſt Catholick King is obliged by this League, (which we are ſtill to believe was entered into, for the ſecurity of the Proteſtant Religion, and the good of the Nation) to give aid to ſo pious a deſign, and to make War upon (their Majeſties) the People with all his Forces both by Land and Sea. And therefore it was no wonder that the Miniſters were not forward in ſhewing this League to the Parliament, who would have ſoon obſerved all theſe inconveniences, and have ſeen how little ſuch a League could contribute to the preſerving the General Peace, or to the ſecuring of Flanders, ſince the French King may within one months time poſſeſs himſelf of it, and we by our League are not obliged to ſend our Succours till three months after the Invaſion, ſo that they would upon the whole matter have been inclined to ſuſpect, that the main end of this League was only to ſerve for a handſom pretence to raiſe an Army in England, and if the People here ſhould grow diſcontented at it, and any little diſorders ſhould enſue; The Spaniard is thereby obliged to ſend over Forces to ſuppreſs them.

This is fraught with ſuch rare new Politicks, and he has taken ſuch care to make Rebellion ſafe, whether it happens in his Majeſties time, or in his Succeſſors, eſpecially if it were in order to the preſervation of our Religion and Government, (and wo be to the man that begins one on any other pretence) that I thought ſit to tranſcribe it intire.

But Sir, whatever the Spaniard hath promiſed, or the Miniſters intended againſt the People muſt needs come to nothing; for you know that his Affairs were lately, through the defects of his own Government, and the Treachery of our Miniſters, reduced to ſo deſperate a ſtate, that he might well be a Burthen to us, but there was little to be hoped for from a friendſhip with him; and therefore as little in haſt to be feared from his Forces too, if he ſhould be ſo Popiſhly inclined as to think it a Pious deſign to help the King to bring in Arbitrary Government, by the handſom pretence of an Army raiſed for his aſſiſtance: or that and Popery too in the time of his Majeſties Succeſſor, to which this Gentleman knows (no man better) the People have no Maw, tho the Miniſters have a filthy inclination, and therefore cunningly took care by their Treachery to reduce his Affairs (whoſe help they chiefly relied on) into that deſperate condition we lately ſee them in.

Well, but for all that he may recover ſome part of his ancient Power; yes, who doubts that, to hurt us, but not to help us. And now, no man can blame the Miniſters that they were not forward in ſhewing this League to the Parliament, who would doubtleſs have forthwith Addreſſed to the King againſt them, and uſhered it in with a Vote, that they were all of them Promoters of Popery, and Spaniſh Counſels, and Enemies to the King and Kingdom.

By this League in ſeems the King was not obliged to ſend over any Succours till three months after an Invaſion, (tho it is as plain as the Noſe on a mans face) that the French King may in one months time poſſeſs himſelf of Flanders. He may however take longer time, if he pleaſe, for any care was taken here to prevent it, ſo that if his Majeſty had taken a little too long a time to ſend in his Aids (which all things conſidered few men will think he did) yet they that ſhould have backed him in it have taken a longer time, and therefore ought not to complain.

The next thing (ſaith my Author) recommended to them was the further Examination of the Plot,Pag. 13. and every one who have obſerved what has paſſed for more than two years together, cannot doubt but that this was ſincerely deſired by ſuch as are moſt in credit with his Majeſty. And then ſurely the Parliament deſerved not to be cenſured upon this account, ſince the Examination of ſo many new Witneſſes, the Trial of the Lord Stafford, the great preparations for the trial of the reſt of the Lords, and their diligent inquiry into the Horrid Iriſh Treaſons, ſhew that the Parliament wanted no diligence to purſue his Majeſties good intentions in that affair.

Now Sir, If they had but ſuſpended the Bill for diſinheriting the Duke of York, and their Votes that followed upon the throwing it out in the Lords Houſe, and could but have held their hands from ſending for their fellow-Subjects into Cuſtody, till they had diſpatched this great Affair, & tried all the other Lords in the Tower; it is thought by wiſer men than I, they might have had time enough to have gone through with this buſineſs, but ſome body tells us the Plot was to be kept on foot, Seaſonable Addreſs, p 3. elſe they would be defeated. It was to be uſed like the Holy War, always a doing, never done withal, till it made way for ſome other deſigns that would not go merrily without the noiſe of a Plot to drive them.

When his Majeſty deſired from the Parliament their Advice and aſſiſtance concerning the Preſervation of Tangier, Pag. 13. the Commons did not neglect to give it its due Conſideration, as appears by their Addreſſes of November 29. and Decemb. 21. 1680. and they told him, no better could be expected of a Town for the moſt part under Popiſh Governours; and always filled with a Popiſh Garriſon.

Now this Gentleman might have done the World a Kindneſs to have told us how the Popery of the Governours or Garriſon contributed any thing to the preſent Exigencies of that place, into which it fell, not by any neglect or Treachery, but by a Siege laid about it by a potent Army of Moors.

They promiſed to aſſiſt him in defence of it,Pag. 13. as ſoon as ever they could be reaſonably ſecured, that any Supply which they gave for that purpoſe, ſhould not be uſed to augment the ſtrength of our Popiſh Adverſaries, and to encreaſe our dangers at home.

All the reſt is of the ſame kind with this. But Sir, can you tell what was meant by a reaſonable ſecurity? Or wherein the ſtate of England would have been mended if Tangier had been loſt? Or can you give us any reaſon why this Parliament ſeemed reſolved to run the Riſque of loſing this Town,April 7, and 9. 1678. when the former Parliament had Voted ſo ſtoutly for the Annexing it to the Crown? I might perhaps go near to anſwer all theſe queſtions from the exact Collection of Debates which are Printed, but the ſafer and ſhorter way is to refer my Reader to them for his ſatisfaction.

My Author owns that his Majeſty offered to concur in any Remedies that could be propoſed for the ſecurity of the Proteſtant Religion,Pag. 14. but (ſaith he) he was pleaſed to go no further, (how could he?) for thoſe Remedies the Commons offered were rejected, and thoſe which they were preparing were prevented by a diſſolution.

What was rejected is well enough underſtood, viz. the Bill of Excluſion, and if the Aſſociation was what was preparing, it is not great wonder it ſhould be prevented by a Diſſolution. But for this we muſt be contented to remain in ignorance.

His Majeſty had complained of Addreſſes in the name of Remonſtrances rather than Anſwers.Pag. 14. Now, here my Author cannot gueſs what the Miniſters would have the word Remonſtrance ſig • ifie; but he takes it to be a modeſt expreſſing the reaſons of their reſolution. Now, if this be the meaning of the Word, we muſt own his Majeſty hath in this particular charged the Commons wrongfully, for there was ſeldom too much modeſty joyned with their Reaſons, but they rather to us poor Country Folk, ſeemed to have altogether loſt that reſpect that was due to the Crown, as any body elſe would think that ſhould compare their Addreſſes with thoſe made in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Hiſt. Col. of the four laſt Parliaments of Q Eliz. particularly that made to thank her for taking away a part only of the Monopolies that oppreſſed them in the 44. year of her Reign, when the Speaker and the whole Houſe of Commons ſate a good while on their knees to her, but our Gentlemen treated our King at quite another rate, and not much unlike thoſe who remonſtrated to his Majeſties Father till they at laſt fairly brought him to the Block.

My Author conſiders in the next place that part of the Declaration which concerns the Arbitrary Orders for taking perſons into cuſtody, Pag. 15. for matters that had no relation to Priviledges of Parliament, &c. If (ſaith he) they (the Miniſters) intended by theſe general words to reflect on the Orders made to take thoſe degenerate Wretches into Cuſtody who publiſhed under their hands Abhorrences of Parliaments, and of thoſe who in humble and lawful manner petitioned for their ſitting, in a time of ſuch extreme neceſſity. Surely they are not in good earneſt; they cannot believe themſelves, when they ſay, that theſe matters have no relation to Priviledges of Parliament, if the Priviledge of Parliament be concerned when an injury is done to any particular Member, how much more when men ſtrike at Parliaments themſelves, and endeavour to wound the Conſtitution?

But, Sir, I hope it is no breach of Priviledge of Parliament now to beg a ſmall favour at your Worſhips hands, and that is to produce but one inſtance of one ſingle man that ever publiſhed an Abhorrence of Parliaments in general, or of that Parliament in particular before it ſate. It ſeems mighty probable to me, that theſe Wretches were a part of them, and the rather, becauſe my Author is fain to miſrepreſent the whole matter of Fact to make it ſeem juſt. Now, Sir, all the queſtion was, whether the manner of Petitioning, then taken up by the Rabble, was lawful or humble? You ſay it was both, but, Sir, your Sentence is neither Concluding, nor yet infallible; and therefore we appeal from it to the next Loyal Parliament, which we hope ſome at leaſt of thoſe Degenerate Wretches may live to ſee, and in the mean time there will ever be ſome ready to abhor a Petition ſigned by 60000 Shop-Keepers, Apprentices, &c. humbly pretending to inſtruct the King and Council, in ſpight of a Proclamation to the contrary, when its fit a Parliament ſhould ſit; which ſome are ſuch fools as to imagine may be done again without abhorring Parliaments; and conſequently without breach of Priviledge of Parliament. And becauſe this was all that was done then, to the beſt of our remembrance, and as it is conceived may be made appear by thoſe very abhorrences ſtill extant, therefore it is humbly conceived the Impriſonments thereupon were Arbitrary and illegal.

As to thoſe two Perſons my Author names, of them that were taken into Cuſtody by Order of Parliament Sheridon, and Thompſon, I will raiſe no Conteſt with him, becauſe their caſe will depend upon the general determination.

The King's Declaration lays down this as a Rule; that for the Houſe of Commons to take into Cuſtody any Subject, for matters that have no relation to priviledges of Parliament is Arbitrary, i. e. Illegal.

This the Author quarrels at, and by a very few Precedents endeavours to prove, That the Houſe of Commons may order men to be taken into Cuſtody for matters not relating to priviledge. Theſe two are directly contrary each to other, and I only deſire the liberty to enquire which of theſe ſeem likelieſt to be in the right.

The Priviledges of the Houſe of Commons are indeed our own, and they enjoy and ought to uſe them as our Truſtees, and for our good, and therefore it is folly in us to leſſen them when they are ſuch as are neceſſary: and it is a great injury in them to extend them beyond what they anciently were to the damage of the Crown; or of the Liberties of the Subjects, or on the other hand to abuſe thoſe they really have, and ought to enjoy, to our damage, or to the Detriment of the Kings Prerogative, which is as neceſſary for our preſervation as the Priviledges of Parliament themſelves are.

The Priviledges of Parliament are many, and relate either to the whole Body, the Three Eſtates taken Collectively, or to the Lords, or to the Commons.

Thoſe relating to the Commons reſpect either the King, or the Lords, or the reſt of the Subjects which are not Members of their Houſe, or the Members of their own Houſe.

Our Enquiry is only in this point concerning thoſe that relate to thoſe Subjects that are not Members of either Houſe, whether they may be impriſoned by Vote of the Commons for matters that have no relation to Priviledge of Parliament.

In the latter end of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth it was a queſtion whether the Commons could impriſon thoſe that were not Members of their own Houſe for matters that had a certain and apparent relation to the known Priviledges of Parliament,Proceedings of the four laſt Parliaments of Q. Eliz. p. 254. Anno Regni 44. It ſeems probable to me that this queſtion was then firſt reſolved, by the Arguments brought for it, which uſe not to be in plain caſes; and one Member oppoſed it, and another ſaid many were ſent for, but none appeared, none were puniſhed. as for Arreſting them or their Servants in time of Parliament, which hath been ſince gained, and is no longer Conteſted by any body, but is a ſtrong Argument that they had not then that power the Author claims, and for which he brings the Precedents, which are indeed of a later date except one, and that was in the Minority of Edward the Sixth.

Anciently if any man were impeached in Parliament, Cokes Inſtit. part. 4. of the proceedings in Parliament againſt abſents. p. 38. there was a Writ directed to the Sheriff to ſummon him to appear and Anſwer, as my Lord Coke acquaints us, and ſets down the form of the Writ; and upon the return of this Writ the Attachment it is likely went out of the Houſe of Lords, but of this Power of the Commons that great man ſpeaks not one word, which is a good Argument they had it not, and indeed the latter inſtances are all after his time.

It is not conſonant to reaſon that any Subject of England ſhould be impriſoned upon a bare ſuggeſtion without the Oath of the Accuſer: Now the Commons have no power to give an Oath in this caſe, and therefore it ſeems reaſonable that they ſhould not impriſon any man who is not a Member of their Houſe, much leſs whomſoever they pleaſe.

The Houſe of Commons is not a Court of Judicature, (except in matters of Priviledge and Elections) but all perſons accuſed in Parliament muſt be tried by the Owned by this Author. p. 39. Lords, therefore it is contrary to the Law of England that any man ſhould be impriſoned by the Commons, who * (Cokes Inſtit. part. 4. p. 24. as the Grand Jury of the Nation) are his Accuſers.

It is ſaid that a man taken into Cuſtody by Order of the Commons is taken in Execution,Debates of the Houſe of Commons pag. 217. A Commitment of this Houſe is always in nature of a Judgment, and the Party not Bailable. but it is contrary to the eternal Laws of Nature, and all Nations, that a man ſhould be taken in Execution before he have made his Defence, and a legal Sentence be paſſed upon him by Legal Proceſs and proof.

It is deſtructive of the Liberty of the Subject that any man ſhould be ſo taken by them into Cuſtody,Addreſs to the Freemen, &c. Part. 2. p 38. becauſe he is without all remedy, and if the thing happen to prove iujurious and oppreſſive, as it did in the Caſe of John Wilſon and Roger Beckwith Eſquires, two Torkſhire Juſtices of the Peace, who were notoriouſly injured by it.

For theſe reaſons, which I ſubmit to wiſer men than my ſelf, I am humbly of opinion that no man ought to be taken into Cuſtody by the Order or Vote of the Commons, that is not a Member of their Houſe; except it be for matters relating to the Priviledges of Parliament, and that ſuch Priviledges as are commonly known; for if they may call what they pleaſe a Priviledge of a Parliament, it will in the Event be the ſame thing as an unlimited power.

As to all his Inſtances they do not deſerve any conſideration except the firſt,4 Edw. 6. 18 Jac. 20 Jac. 3 Car. and that no man, as he relates it, can tell by whom the Commitment was made, without the Record which I cannot come at, and the latter were the Acts of Popular Parliaments which laid the foundations of our late troubles by ſuch proceedings.

My Author in the next place comes to juſtifie the Votes againſt the Miniſters, and lays down this as his foundation. The Commons in Parliament have uſed▪ Pag. 16. two ways of delivering their Country from pernicious and powerful Favourites, The one is in a Parliamentary Courſe of Juſtice by impeaching them which is uſed when they judge it needful to make them publick examples, by Capital, or other high puniſhments, for the terror of others: The other is by immediate Addreſs to the King to remove them as unfaithful or unprofitable Servants. Their Lives, their Liberties, or Eſtates are never endangered, but when they are proceeded againſt in the former of theſe ways: Then legal evidence of their guilt is neceſſary, then there muſt be a proper time allowed for their defence. In the other way the Parliament act as the Kings great Council, and when either Houſe obſerves that affairs are ill adminiſtred, that the Advice of Parliaments is rejected or ſlighted, the Courſe of Juſtice perverted, our Councils betrayed, Grievances multiplied, and the Government weakly and diſorderly managed, (of all which our Laws have made it impoſſible for the King to be guilty,) they neceſſarily muſt, and always have charged thoſe who had the Adminiſtration of affairs, and the Kings Ears, as the Authors of theſe miſchiefs, and have from time to time applied themſelves to him by Addreſſes for their removal from his preſence and Councils.

So here are all the Miniſters of State that are, or ever ſhall be, expoſed to the mercy of the Houſe of Commons, if proof can be brought againſt them, then have at all, Life, Liberty, and Eſtate muſt go for it; but if none can be had, then it is but voting them Enemies to the King and Kingdom, and Addreſſing to have them removed from his Majeſties Preſence and Councils for ever, and the work is done without allowing the liberty to anſwer for themſelves. And the reaſon that he gives for it is a pleaſant one; becauſe the King cannot be guilty, therefore they muſt. But may not a Houſe of Commons be miſtaken, and puniſh a man for what he never did? may not one man give the Advice, and another ſuffer for it at this rate of proceedings? But this is an old Cuſtom; What then, it is an unjuſt one.

There may be many things plain and evident beyond the teſtimony of any Witneſs,Pag. 17. which yet can never be proved in a legal way.

This is true; but I hope he will not infer from hence that any man ſhall be puniſhed for thoſe things without teſtimony. I always thought all theſe caſes were reſerved to the Tribunal of God Almighty. And I believe this Gentleman would be loth to be tried by his own rule.

The Parliament may be buſied in ſuch great Affairs,Ibid. as will not ſuffer them to parſue every Offender through a long proceſs.

Then they may let him alone; or leave him to the Common Law, but to condemn him unheard, for want of leiſure, is ſuch a piece of juſtice as no man would be willing to ſubmit to in his own Caſe.

There may be many reaſons why a man ſhould be turned out of Service,Pag. 17. which perhaps would not extend to ſubject him to puniſhment.

That there may be reaſons why a man ſhould be turned out of Service is undeniable, but then thoſe reaſons ought to be alledged and proved; for the turning a man out of Service is certainly in many caſes a great puniſhment, tho not equal to hanging.

The People themſelves are highly concerned in the great Miniſters of State,Ibid. who are Servants to the Kingdom as well as to the King; and the Commons, whoſe buſineſs it is to preſent all Grievances, as they are moſt likely to obſerve ſooneſt the folly and treachery of thoſe publick Servants, (the greateſt of all Grievances) ſo this repreſentation ought to have no little weight with the Prince.

Here is the true reaſon as long as the Miniſters look upon themſelves as the Kings Servants they will adhere to the Crown, but if they be taught once that they are Servants to the People too, then becauſe it is difficult to ſerve two Maſters, they will be more diſtracted, and act more timorouſly, eſpecially if according to the modern diſtinction the Country-Party get the Aſcendent of the Court-Party in a Parliament.

Queen Elizabeth told the Commons by the Lord Keeper,Proceedings of the four laſt Parl. p. 47. that ſhe miſliked that ſuch irreverence towards Privy-Counſellors, (who were not to be accounted as Common Knights and Burgeſſes of the Houſe, that are Counſellors but during the Parliament) whereas the other are ſtanding Counſellors, and for their Wiſdom and great Service are called to the Council of State.

They were not then thought to be ſuch publick Servants as might be treated at any rate, ſent to the Tower, or to carry up a Bill to the Lords, againſt which they had given their Vote, as if it were to triumph over them.

But Henry IV.Pag. 17. (a wiſe and a brave Prince) in the Fifth year of his Reign turned out four of his Servants, In hoc Parliamento conceſſa ſuit Regi taxa inſolita & incolis tricabilis, & valde gravis, Walſ. nec ſervarentur ejus Evidentiae in Theſauria Regia. Ibid. only becauſe the Commons deſired they might be removed. But then this Prince had no Title, and therefore was not in a capacity to diſpute any thing with them; Polid. Virgil. Sunorum crebris conjurationibus vexatus. and in this very Parliament too; they gave him ſo extraordinary a Tax, and ſo troubleſom to the Subject, that they would not ſuffer any Record of it to be left in the Treaſury; and he was obliged to grant them this extraordinary favour in recompence of it. He had but newly in Battel conquered one Rebellion, wherein Mortimers Title was at the bottom, and was ingaged then in a War with France. And he had reaſon to fear a general Defection of the Nation; King Richard being reported to be alive. And he was then in great want of Money, ſo that for ſuch a Prince ſo beſet to grant any thing was far from a wonder, but ought no more to be drawn into Example than that Tax they then gave him; and leaſt of all now, when things are in a very different poſture.

But then all theſe Miniſters are cenſured for doing that which was approved by two of the three Eſtates. The Reſolve was this.

That all perſons who adviſed his Majeſty in his laſt Meſſage to this Houſe,Jan. 7. 1680. to inſiſt upon an opinion againſt the Bill for Excluding the Duke of York, have given pernicious Counſel to his Majeſty, and are promoters of Popery, and Enemies to the King and Kingdom.

Now this Bill was before this thrown out by the Houſe of Lords, and therefore there was no reaſon to Vote the Miniſters Enemies to the King and Kingdom for doing that which was approved by two of the three Eſtates in Parliament.

But they ought not to have appealed to the People againſt their own Repreſentatives. Pag. 18. (Why not?) The unfortunate Reigns of Henry III. Edward II. Richard II. and Henry VI. ought to ſerve as Land-marks to warn ſucceeding Kings; from preſerring ſecret Councils to the wiſdom of their Parliaments.

And ſo ought the Example of his Majeſties Father to warn both his Majeſty and the whole Nation how they ſuffer the Miniſters of State to be trodden under foot by Factious men; and the Prerogatives of the Crown to be ſwallowed up, by pretended Priviledges of Parliament. for all theſe things have once already made way for the Ruine of the Monarchy; as that did for the enſlaving of the People.

The next thing my Author falls upon is the buſineſs of the Revenue, but here I cannot imagine what he would have, he makes a long Harangue againſt Alienation of the Revenues of the Crown, and about the reaſonableneſs of Reſumptions of thoſe that had been alienated. And tells us,Pag. 19. No Country did ever believe the Prince, how abſolute ſoever in other things, had power to ſell or give away the Revenue of the Kingdom, and leave his Succeſſor a Beggar. That the haughty French Monarch, as much power as he pretends to, is not aſhamed to own that he wanted power to make ſuch Alienations, and that Kings had that happy inability that they could do nothing contrary to the Laws of their Country.

This and much more my Author hath upon this occaſion learnedly, but very impertinently, written about theſe two Votes, believing his Reader could not diſtinguiſh betwixt an Alienation and an Anticipation.

But the beſt way to have this clearly underſtood is to inſert the Votes of the Commons, which are as followeth:

Reſolved,There were two Votes of the ſame nature paſſed in 1626 concerning Tonnage and Poundage. Nalſons Preface to his Collections. pag. 60. That whoſoever ſhall hereafter lend, or cauſe to be lent, by way of Advance, any money upon the Branches of the Kings Revenue, ariſing by Cuſtoms, Exciſe, or Hearth-money, ſhall be adjudged to hinder the ſitting of Parliaments, and ſhall be reſponſible for the ſame in Parliament.

Reſolved, That whoſoever ſhall accept or buy any Tally of Anticipation upon any part of the Kings Revenue (or whoſeever ſhall pay ſuch Tally hereafter to be ſtruck, ſhall be adjudged to hinder the ſitting of Parliaments, and ſhall be reſponſible therefore in Parliament.

Now what Advancing money upon the Revenues, and accepting Tallys of Anticipation have to do with Alienation of it I cannot deviſe. For certainly it is one thing to advance a Fine, and take a Farm ſo much the cheaper for three, four, or ſeven years, and another thing to purchaſe the ſame to a man and his Heirs for ever. And it is one thing to receive an Order to take ſuch a Sum of Money of the Tenant out of the next half years Rent. and a quite other thing to purchaſe the Feeſimple of an Eſtate, which is an Alienation.

The Revenues of the Crown of England are in their own nature appropriated to Publick Service, Pag. 19. and therefore cannot without injuſtice be diverted or Anticipated. May not an Anticipation be as well imployed upon the Publick Service as a growing Revenue when it is become due? Does Anticipation ſignifie miſpending or diverting from a Publick to a private uſe? Is it impoſſible the Publick ſhould at any time need a greater Sum of money than the Revenue will afford, and may not a Prince in ſuch a caſe Anticipate, and afterward get it up again by his good Husbandry: No, for

Either the Publick Revenue is ſufficient to anſwer the neceſſary occaſions of the Government,Pag. 19. and then there is no colour for Anticipations, or elſe by ſome extraordinary Accident the King is reduced to want an extraordinary ſupply, and then he ought to reſort to his Parliament.

Well, but ſuppoſe (as it may happen) the neceſſity is ſo urgent, that it cannot be put off till a Parliament can be called, and meet, and raiſe money. Or if you pleaſe, ſuppoſe a Parliament dare not truſt the King with money, or, which is all one, will pretend ſo. Or will not ſupply him unleſs he will paſs an Act that they ſhall ſit as long as they pleaſe; or unleſs he will let them turn out what Miniſters of State, Juſtices of the Peace, &c. they think ſit, and put in others as they pleaſe. May not a Prince relieve himſelf in theſe caſes by an Advance or Anticipation, but muſt ſubmit abſolutely to the Commons? I hope he will not ſay theſe are impoſſible accidents.

Our Anceſtors did wiſely provide that the King and his People ſhould have frequent need of one another,Pag. 20. and by having frequent opportunities of mutually relieving one anothers wants, be ſure ever to preſerve a dutiful affection in the Subject, and a Fatherly tenderneſs in the Prince. When the King had occaſion for the liberality of his People he would be well inclined to hear and redreſs their Grievances, and when they wanted eaſe from oppreſſions, they would not fail with alacrity to ſupply the occaſions of the Crown.

All this is certainly true, and was the very reaſon why the two firſt Parliaments of his Majeſties Reign, of whoſe Loyalty and hearty affections to the Crown no man ever doubted, ſetled part of the Revenue on his Majeſty for his Life only, that his Succeſſor might be obliged by a regrant of it. And the whole which they gave to this King was but equal to the conſtant and regular Expences of the Government, as they deſigned it, tho it is ſaid it falls ſhort of that too.

Now, might things be thus carried, as my Author tells us, they were deſigned to be, England would certainly be the happieſt Nation in the World. The King would be as rich as his People could make him, and the People as happy as a tender and good King could make them. But alas! there is ſprung up a new Generation of men who have taken ſuch an Averſion for Monarchy, and the juſt Prerogatives of the Crown, that till theſe Grievances (the greateſt Grievances that ever can betide a free-born people) be totally taken away, they can find no guſt in the removal of all thoſe other petty Grievances, of which our Anceſtors complained ſo often, and as often found redreſs.

There is alſo ariſen a ſort of ſober Proteſtants (as the Diſſenters will needs be called) who can neither agree one with another, nor with the Religion that is Eſtabliſhed, and to them it is an intolerable Grievance to ſee Epiſcopacy, a Liturgy, and a few innocent Ceremonies, which they call Popery, eſtabliſhed in the Church, and till theſe are extirpated Root and Branch, and every of their pious Whimſies ſetled ſucceſſively in the place of them, or tolerated at once, they, good men! cannot be at eaſe neither.

Theſe two have twiſted their intereſts together with a third ſort that have no Religion at all, but have a damnable inclination to the Spoils of the Church, and the Plunder of the Nation. And they by Popular Arts have wheedled and deluded great numbers of the Freemen and Freeholders of the Nation into a ſtrong belief that Popery is by our Governours deſigned to be ſet up in the Church, and Arbitrary Government in the State, things which theſe good men hate mightily, as there is good reaſon for it, but are very much abuſed by the Information, and much more by being perſuaded, as they have been, that the chuſing diſcontented men to be their Repreſentatives in the Houſe of Commons was the only way to prevent theſe two dreadful things from falling upon them.

Theſe men however have ſometimes got to be the major part of that Houſe, and the Conſequence hath ever been that the King could get no Supplies, be his neceſſities what they could be, unleſs he would grant ſuch things as tended immediately to the ruine of the Church and Monarchy. And if he were a little averſe to it, then he was preſently Libelled to the Nation as a favourer of Popery, and a deſigner of Arbitrary Government; but if it were not ſafe to attack him, then (according to the method of the late Rebels) the cry was raiſed againſt the Evil Counſellors, or the Corrupt Miniſters, and nothing would do, but the turning them out of their employments as treacherous Servants to the Kingdom, for being too faithful to the King.

And becauſe they can never effect theſe great things by other means, they have always turned this excellent Conſtitution againſt it ſelf, and that which was intended to endear the King and his People each to others, their mutual want of each others aſſiſtance, hath been made a Steppal to mount the Throne, and pluck down the Mitre. So that his Majeſty, who knew how things went in his Father's days, was not out when he told the Commons in his Speech, March 1. 1661. as followeth:

This Parliament underſtood things well, and provided accordingly, ſo that the nineteenth of May following, the Lord Chancellor, in a Speech made at their Prorogation, told them, They had wiſely, very wiſely provided ſuch a conſtant growing Revenue as may with Gods bleſſing preſerve the Crown from thoſe ſcandalous wants and neceſſities as have heretofore expoſed it and the Kingdom to thoſe diſmal miſeries,☜ from which they are but even now buoyed up; for whatſoever other humane cauſes may be aſſigned,☜ according to the ſeveral fancies and imaginations of men, of our late miſerable diſtractions, they cannot be ſo reaſonably imputed to any one cauſe, as to the extreme poverty of the Crown: the want of power could never have appeared, if it had not been for the want of money.

But ſince that, the riſing greatneſs of our Neighbours have mounted the Expences of the Crown above that growing Revenue that was then ſetled, and the Republical Party, as his Majeſty ſtiles them, promiſe themſelves the happineſs of bringing about another Revolution, by the ſame means the laſt was, in his Majeſties days, if it be poſſible, but however at his Death. And therefore if the Crown thus beſet ſhall at any time make uſe of Anticipations to relieve it ſelf; they only ought to be reſponſible for it, who have, or ſhall, make it neceſſary: For ſurely no Prince would borrow, when he might have it freely given upon reaſonable terms, unleſs he took a pride in counting the number of his Creditors.

And therefore (ſaith my Author) it has ever been eſteemed a Crime in Counſellors,Pag. 20. who perſuaded the King to Anticipate his Revenue, and a Crime in thoſe who furniſh'd money upon ſuch Anticipations in an extraordinary way, however extraordinary, the occaſion might be. For this cauſe it was that the Parliament in the 35 of Henry VIII. did not only diſcharge all theſe Debts which the King had contracted; but Enacted that thoſe Lenders, who had been before paid again by the King, ſhould refund all thoſe Sums into the Exchequer, as judging it reaſonable puniſhment to make them forfeit the Money they lent, ſince they have gone about to introduce ſo dangerous a precedent.

It is bad Logick that raiſeth general Concluſions from particular inſtances, and it will appear ſo in this that we have in hand; which, becauſe I cannot ſo well and creditably do it my ſelf, I will make appear by tranſcribing a paſſage out of my Lord Coke, tho it be ſomewhat long.

Now let my Reader judge if it be reaſonable to make what the Parliament did in the 25 of Henry VIII. a ſtanding Rule for all ſucceeding times, when it is morally impoſſible that ever any King of England ſhould have ſuch a Treaſure and Revenue as they had given this King within leſs than ſeven years, and a Subſidy but the very year before beſides. If we had ſuch Parliaments now, and it were poſſible to give the King ſuch Supplies as they did, I would freely give my Vote to have the next Lender Hanged.

The true way to put the King out of a poſſibility of ſupporting the Government,Pag. 20. is to let him waſte in one year that money which ought to bear the charge of the Government for ſeven.

But, Sir, to put you out of pain for that, this would neceſſitate the ſitting of Parliaments, and the yielding to whatſoever they could deſire. So this, tho true, was not the reaſon of the Vote, but directly contrary to it; but the King knows the Conſequence of that too well to need any reſtraint in that particular, for he knows as well as you; that this is the direct method to deſtroy not only the Credit of the Crown at home and abroad, but the Monarchy it ſelf.

If the King reſolves never to pay the money that he borrows,Ibid. what faith will be given to the Royal Promiſes, and the honour of the Nation will ſuffer in that of the Prince. And if it be put upon the People to repay it, this would be a way to impoſe a neceſſity of giving Taxes without end whether they would or no.

Omitting the undutifulneſs of theſe ſuppoſitions, it is very remarkable, that the great Anticipations upon the Revenue were made in the time of the laſt Dutch War, when they who now ſo much clamour againſt them were Miniſters, and they who now are ſuch, and bear all the blame, were not in a capacity to hinder it. Whether they had any ſuch intentions as theſe in it, they beſt know, but I am ſure one of them made it out powerfully that there was all the reaſon in the world that the Parliament ſhould pay off this debt. But, ſaith my Author, as mercenary as they were, the Penſioners would never diſcharge the Revenue of theſe Anticipations to the Bankers. Which is an Excellent and convincing Argument that they (how much ſoever they are ſlandered) were not ſuch mercenary Penſioners, as the world is now told they were.

Now, as he tells us, the W. Commons made this Vote purely to keep people from being again chouſed the ſame way, and in mere pity to the Cries of many Widows and Orphans. And truly, if they had taken care to have had thoſe that wanted this Caution firſt paid off, the world might have poſſibly thought ſo. And then a Declaration that ſuch ſecurities were void, and that no future Parliament could without breach of Truſt repay that Money which was at firſt borrowed only to prevent the ſitting of Parliaments, might have had a better reception in this Kingdom than the two Votes they made without it. As for his quotation of 1 R. 3. Cap. 2. againſt Loans, that and all the after Statutes is againſt involuntary and forcible taking of money.

But the Commons were very modeſt,Pag. 21. and reſtrained their Votes to only three branches of the Revenue, all which were by ſeveral Acts of Parliament given to his preſent Majeſty.

Sir, I think the laſt Vote is general, and extends to the whole Revenue, tho the firſt doth not, but only to thoſe three ſmall Branches of Cuſtoms, Exciſe, and Hearth money. A modeſt reſtraint indeed.

The Statute 12 Car.Pag. 21. 2. Cap. 4. ſays, That the Commons repoſing Truſt in his Majeſty, for guarding the Se • s againſt all perſons intending the diſtarbance of Trade, and the invading of the Realm to that intent do give him Toanage and Poundage, and this is as direct an appropriation as word, can make, and therefore as it is a manifeſt wrong to the Subject to divert any part thereof to other uſes, ſo for the King to Anticipate it, is plainly to diſable himſelf to perform the truſt repoſed in him.

Now here are ſeveral ill Conſequences from an undoubted true Principle. For it is no wrong to the Subject to divert a part of it to other uſes if the Seas can be guarded, and the Realm ſecured with leſs than the whole, ar they have been very well all his Majeſties Reign hitherto. Secondly, An Anticipation may be neceſſary to attain the ends of the truſt if Parliaments ſhall ſtill go on to refuſe the King extraordinary Supplies upon extraordinary occaſions.

The Statute of 12 Car.Ibid. 2, Cap. 23. which did impower the King to diſpoſe of the Exciſe did Enact, that ſuch Contracts ſhall be effectual in Law, ſo as they be not for longer time than three years. So that here is care taken before their Vote that no great Advance or Anticipation ſhall be taken upon that Branch.

The Statute of the 13.Pag. 22. and 14. of Car. 2. Cap. 10. declares that the Hearth-money was given that the publick Revenue might be proportioned to the Publick Charge, and it is impoſſible that ſhould ever be whilſt it is liable to be preingaged and Anticipated.

Is it ſo? Muſt a Prince act to the utmoſt of his power with leſs prudence and diſcretion than other men? Muſt I needs Sell or Morgage my Eſtate for as much as it is worth; becauſe I may do it, and no man can hinder me?

The Parliament took another care in relation to this Branch, Pag. 22. and made it penal for any one ſo much as to accept of any Penſion or Grant for years, or any other Eſtate, or any Sum of Money out of the Revenue ariſing by (Hearth-money) by virtue of that Act, from the King, his Heirs or Succeſſors, as my Author takes notice: and now what reaſon was there for him to make ſuch a Splutter as he did about Alienations and leaving the Succeſſor a beggar, when one of theſe Branches, the Cuſtoms and half the Exciſe is given to his Majeſty only for life, and ſuch care is taken to keep the third unchargeable by the very Act that gave it? If theſe things tend to the vindication either of my Author, or the Votes, I have loſt my Reaſon.

My Author concludes with this ſmart reflection on the Declaration, Pag. 22. This we are ſure of, that if the inviolable obſervation of theſe Statutes (it ſhould have been Votes) will reduce his Majeſty to a more helpleſs Condition than the meaneſt of his Subjects, he will ſtill be left in a better Condition than the richeſt and greateſt of his Anceſtors, none of which were ever matters of ſuch a Revenue.

The King complains of the Votes, and the Statutes are craftily laid in the way to bear the brunt; the intention of a thing may poſſibly never ſucceed, as I hope it never will here: But yet the complaint is juſt, if it apparently tended to ſuch an end, tho it never follow. But how his Majeſty can be in the moſt helpleſs and moſt wealthy condition at one and the ſame time, in fact, my Author muſt inform us. His Majeſties Expence as well as Revenue is above all his Royal Anceſtors, and whatever his Revenue is he was not beholden to theſe Voters for it, who gave him nothing but paper and trouble. And of the firſt of theſe his Majeſty had ſuch a quantity; that he is ſaid to have chid his Tailor for not making his Pockets big enough to receive it. His Coſſers in the mean time were not ſurcharged. nor like to ſurfeit.

The next thing my Author falls upon is the Vote for ſuſpenſion of the Execution of the Penal Laws againſt the Diſſenters; which he firſt recites, and then juſtiſieth, and I will follow him.

The Houſe of Commons are in the next place accuſed of a very high Crime,Pag. 22. the aſſuming to themſelves a power of ſuſpending Acts of Parliament, becauſe they declared it was their Opinion. That the proſecutier of Proteſtant Diſſenters upon the Penal Laws, is at this time grievous to the Subject, a weakning of the Proteſtant Intereſt, an incouragement to Popery, and dangerous to the Peace of the Nation. The Miniſters remembred that not many years ago, the whole Nation was juſtly Alarm'd upon the aſſuming an Arbitrary power of ſuſpending Penal Laws, and therefore they thought it would be very popular to accuſe the Commons of ſuch an Attempt.

Did the Miniſters remember how the Nation was Alarm'd, and had the Commons forgot it? Well. let us follow the Gentleman, and ſee how he will clear his Commons from the guilt of this high Crime which he acknowledgeth was ſo juſtly blamed in the Miniſters.

But how they (the Miniſters) could poſſibly miſinterpret a Vote at that rate,Pag. 22. how they could ſay the Commons pretended to a power of repealing Laws, when they only declare their opinion of the inconveniency of them, will never be underſtood till the Authors of this are pleaſed to ſhew their Cauſes and Reaſons in a ſecond Declaration.

The charge in the Declaration is that by this Vote, They aſſumed to themſelves a power of ſuſpending Acts of Parliament, without any regard to the Laws eſtabliſhed. This the Author could not deny, nor defend; and therefore he changeth the terms into a power of Repealing Laws, with which the Commons were never charged. Now, a power of Suſpending and a power of Recpealing are vaſtly different. Every Pardon is a ſuſpenſion of the Execution of the Law in relation to the Party pardoned, and ſo is every Diſpenſation; and when the King put forth the Declaration for Liberty of Conſcience, there was no deſign of repealing, but only of ſuſpending the Execution of the Penal Laws pro tempore; ſo that if the Commons deſigned this Vote or Declaration of theirs ſhould have any other effect than to ſhew their good will to the Diſſenters, it muſt extend tho not to a Repeal, yet to a ſuſpenſion of the Execution of the Penal Laws againſt them, which is all the Declaration charged the Commons with; and ſo the Diſſenters underſtood it, and have ſince pleaded this Vote in Bar to the Execution of thoſe Laws againſt them, tho they acknowledge they are not Repealed thereby.

Every impartial man will own that the Commons had reaſon for this opinion of theirs.Pag. 22.

Suppoſe they had reaſon for it, this will not give them a legal Power. The King hath good reaſon to do many things which yet if he ſhould offer at, they would clamour againſt him as an Uſurper of an Arbtrary Power; for reaſon gives no man any Author; to act, except he hath a lawful power to back his reaſon with. There may be great reaſon to repeat an Act of Parliament, and yet in all the Judges in Weſtminſter ſhould thereupon declare it to be either ſuſpended or repealed, I know what we ſhould hear of it quickly. Well, but let us hear their Reaſons.Pag. 22.

They had with great anxiety obſerved that the preſent deſign of the Papiſts was not againſt any one ſort of Preteſtants, but Ʋniverſal, and 〈◊〉 extirpating the Reformed Religion.

That this might be the ultimate deſign of the Plot, is not much to be doubted, but it was immediately bent only againſt the Religion eſtabliſhed, and accodingly therwere Succeſſors appointed to all the Biſhops and 〈◊〉 Clergy, but none to Mr. Baxter, Dr. Owen, and the reſt of that Fry that ever I heard of. So that this reaſon concludes not in favour of the Diſſenters, but of the Regular Clergy, who as they were in moſt danger ought to have been moſt taken care of. But this Vote left them in the ſame danger it found them of being deſtroyed by the Papiſts, and let looſe the Diſſenters upon them too, to encreaſe that danger.

2.Pag. 23. They ſaw what advantages theſe Enemies made of our Diviſions, and how cunningly they diverted us from perſecuting them by fomenting our Jealouſies of one another.

Did they not, Sir obſerve too how the Diſſenters took the occaſion of the Plot, and of the general hatred againſt Popery to ruine the Loyal and Conformable Clergy? How they preſently engroſſed the Title of Proteſtant, and endeavoured to make the Rabble believe that all but the Bobtail Holders forth and their Followers were Papiſts in Maſquerade, Tories, Tantivimen, &c. If they did not obſerve theſe things, others did. And alſo that all of a ſudden all the Jeſuits aſſumed the ſhapes of Nonconformiſts, and railed ſtoutly againſt Biſhops, Ceremonies, Humane Impoſitions, and Arbitrary Government. They knew there was no Poſſibility of eſcaping the vengeance of the Church of England men but by ſetting the Diſſenters upon them, and they needed no Spur. So this was a good Argument to have taught the Diſſenters more modeſty; but ſince they had not that, it was a ſtrong Argument to have ſuppreſs'd them vigorouſly as the only Auxiliaries of the Papiſts againſt the Church; and the great hinderers of the proſecution of the Plot.

3. They ſaw the ſtrength and nearneſs of the King of France, and judged of his inclinations by his uſage of his own Proteſtant Subjects.

4. They conſidered the number, and the bloudy Principles of the Iriſh. And

5. That Scotland was already delivered into the hands of a Prince, the known head of the Papiſts in theſe Kingdoms, and the occaſion of their Plots and Inſolencies, as more than one Parliament had declared. (It ſhould have been worded thus) as they had declared in more than one Parliament, for theſe were the ſame men in ſeveral Parliaments, who made theſe ſeveral Declarations.

Now I cannot conceive wherein the force of theſe three Arguments lies, the French King was powerful, and hated Proteſtants, therefore the Church of England muſt be prepared for ruine by giving as many as pleaſed a free liberty to ſeparate from her, and procure her deſtruction. The Iriſh Papiſts had ill deſigns juſt ripe for execution, therefore the Engliſh Nonconformiſts were to be tolerated that they might get ſtrength, and be able to riſe at the ſame time, to aſcertain the deſtruction of the Church.

But the fifth Reaſon is much better; Scotland was in the hands of the Duke, How came he by it? What, did he invade it by force and violence againſt his Majeſties Will? If he did, then let us make a mighty Combination againſt him: But if it were delivered to him by the proper Owner, who may govern it by whom he pleaſe, what occaſion is there for the Diſſenters ſervice here?

6.Pag. 23. They could not but take notice into what hands the moſt conſiderable Truſts both Civil and Military were put.

7. And that notwithſtanding all Addreſſes, and all Proclamations, for a ſtrict execution of the Penal Laws againſt Papiſts, yet their Faction ſo far prevailed that they were eluded, and only the Diſſenting Proteſtants ſmarted under the rage of them.

That they took very good notice who were imployed in Civil and Military Truſts appears by the Addreſs of December 21. 1680. not many days before this Vote, where they tell the King, That ſeveral Deputy Lieutenants and Juſtices of the Peace, fitly qualified for thoſe imployments, have been of late diſplaced, and others put in their room, who are men of Arbitrary Principles, and Countenancers of Papiſts and Popery. Theſe they would have had turned out, and others put in; who are men of Integrity and known affection to the Proteſtant Religion; and may be moreover men of Ability, of Eſtates and Intereſt in their Country. His Majeſty knew what they meant, but did not think fit to change his choice; and the truth is they gave him no great encouragement by their own carriage to have any more to do with theſe able, wealthy, popular men.

And therefore it ſeems this was one reaſon that moved them to Vote the Proteſtant Diſſenters free from Penal Laws, either to keep them out of the hands of theſe evil Truſtees both Civil and Military; or elſe to make a Party out of them not only againſt the Duke of York, but alſo againſt theſe Countenancers of Papiſts and Popery; that is, againſt his Majeſties Officers both Civil and Military. As if becauſe the French King, notwithſtanding his great Power and Averſion to the Proteſtant Religion, could not hurt the Church of England, therefore the Diſſenters were to be careſſed and cheriſhed, that they in a ſmall time might be in a capacity to do it. And now if theſe were not good reaſons for the Vote, let any impartial man (that is, any but a Church of England man) judge.Pag. 23.

In the midſt of ſuch Circumſtances was there not cauſe to think an Union of all Proteſtants neceſſary, and could they have any juſt grounds to believe that the Diſſenters, whilſt they lay under the preſſures of ſevere Laws, ſhould with ſuch Alacrity and Courage as was requiſite, undertake the defence of a Country where they were ſo ill treated?

Whether this queſtion relates to the French King and the Papiſts, or the Duke and the Civil and Military Officers may be a queſtion, and therefore it muſt be ſo anſwered. As to the firſt, there was all the reaſon in the world that they ſhould joyn heartily with the Government againſt the Papiſts and French, for they could not hope to mend their condition by falling into their hands, who they knew would treat them with other manner of ſeverities than thoſe they met with from the Laws; if they did not know this, any of the French Proteſtants that fled over 〈◊〉 England might have informed them ſufficiently. N • w, of evils the leaſt is to be choſen, and tho their con •• tion had not been equal to their deſires, yet it had been a madneſs to have made it worſe by delivering up themſelves and their Country into the hands of the French and Papiſts.

But if it relates to the Duke, and the Civil and Military Officers, then I hope he will excuſe me if I do not think it fit to have another Union of Proteſtants of that ſort again.

A long and ſad Experience had ſhewed,Pag. 23. how vain the endeavours of former Parliaments had been to force us to be all of oneSuppoſe that the Church of England were diſarmed of all thoſe Laws by which ſhe is guarded; and would not this turn a National Church into nothing elſe but a Tolerated Sect or Party? Would it not take away all appearance of Eſtabliſhment from it? Lord Chancellors Speech, April 13. 75. Would this Unite us in one Affection? Opinion, and therefore the Houſe of Commons reſolved to take a ſure way to make us all of one Affection.

This was the very reaſon of the Declaration of Liberty of Conſcience: But how unlike that courſe was to prevail, the Nation had ſufficient experience in a few years. And, Sir, I can aſſure you, it is above the power of a Houſe of Commons to unite thoſe men in Affection, who differ not only in Opinion, but Practice too, in matters of Religion.

For theſe reaſons my Author ſaith this Vote was made in order to a repeal of them by a Bill to be brought in, and preſently he grows Pettiſh,Pag. 24. and tells us, None but a Frenchman could have the confidence to declaim againſt a proceeding ſo regular and Parliamentary as this.

Your humble Servant Sir, I pray be a little pacified, you may poſſibly be miſtaken as well as another man, but would, I believe, take it a little unkindly to be called Monſieur preſently. They very firſt Vote they made that day was this: Reſolved, That whoſoever adviſed his Majeſty to Prorogue this Parliament, to any other purpoſe than in order to the paſſing of a Bill for the Excluſion of James Duke of York, is a betrayer of the King, the Proteſtant Religion, and of the Kingdom of England; a promoter of the French intereſt, and a Penſioner to France. So they knew they were to be Prorogued that very day, and as the Story goes, made more than ordinary haſte to paſs theſe Votes. Now, it was impoſſible that a Bill ſhould be brought in, much leſs paſſed in that Seſſion which was to end before night, and therefore this was not, nor could not be the cauſe of that Vote, and all your little Queries, founded upon this ſuppoſition, are ſilly and impertinent.Pag. 24.

There was not the leaſt direction or ſignification to the judges which might give any occaſion for the reflection which follows in the Declaration. The due and impartial execution of the Laws, is the unqueſtionable duty of the Judges, and we hope they will always remember that duty ſo well, as not to neceſſitate a Houſe of Commons to do theirs, by calling them to account for making private inſtructions the Rule of their judgments, and acting as men who have more regard to their Places than their Oaths.

So the Diſſenters may ſee they are miſtaken when they think the Judges or Juſtices may forbear executing the Laws againſt them upon the ſcore of this Vote.Ibid.

But tho the Judges are ſworn to execute all Laws, yet there is no obligation upon any man to inform againſt another.

No Sir, Is not every Grand-Jury man, every Conſtable, and Churchwarden ſworn to Preſent the breakers of our Laws as well as the Judges are to puniſh them? And as for the next Conundrams of yours, the comparing a parcel of Laws made within twenty years, to thoſe Antiquated ones about Caps, and Bows and Arrows, and killing of Lambs and Calves, and your buſineſs of Empſon and Dudley, they are ſuch ſtuff as a man of half your underſtanding would have been aſhamed to have menſioned in a good cauſe.

In the next place my Author acquaints us what are the cauſes uſually of diſuſing Laws,Pag. 25. alterations of the Circumſtances whereupon a Law was made; or if it be againſt the genious of a People, or have effects contrary to the intents of the Maker, none of which can be ſaid in this caſe. Nor is that true which follows, that the quiet, ſafety, or trade of our Nation hath been promoted by the not executing of theſe Laws, as any man may know that can remember but ten years backward. And therefore notwithſtanding the Vote of the Commons, the Judges may act wiſely and honeſtly if they ſhould encourage Informers, or quicken Juries by ſtrict and ſevere Charges. For the due and impartial execution of the Laws is the unqueſtionable duty of the Judges, according to my Author, and therefore I will hope they ſhall not be accounted Knaves or Fools for doing their unqueſtionable duty.

But then my Author hath another quarrel with the Miniſters, and that was for numbring this Vote amongſt the cauſes of the Diſſolution of that Parliament when the Black Rod was at the door of the Houſe,Pag. 25. to require them to attend his Majeſty at the very time when it was made.

Well, ſuppoſe we ſhould grant that this was not one of thoſe Votes that occaſioned the Prerogation, it not being then made when that was reſolved on, yet it might occaſion their Diſſolution, which hapned ſome time after. And was not this an excellent time to make Votes for the bringing in of Bills for the Repeal of Laws when the Black Rod was at the door to call the Houſe to a Prorogation?

After a little anger againſt the Miniſters for arraigning one of the Three Eſtates, in the face of the World, for uſurping power over the Laws, impriſoning their fellow Subjects, Arbitrarily expoſing the Kingdom to the greateſt dangers, and indeavouring to deprive the King of all poſſibility of ſupporting the Government,Pag. 11, 20. (the man hath forgot how often he hath arraigned the Long Loyal Parliament for a parcel of Mercenary Penſioners) he in the next place falls foul upon the Clergy for publiſhing this Declaration like an Excommunication in all Churches.Pag. 26.

But if they (the Miniſters) erred in the things they judged rightly in the choice of the perſons who were to publiſh it. Blind Obedience was requiſite, where ſuch unjuſtifiable things were impoſed, and that could be no where ſo intire as amongſt thoſe Clergy-men whoſe preferment depended upon it.

Yes, without doubt, ten thouſand Clergy-men did expect to be preferred preſently for this piece of blind Obedience. Yet he is at it again in the next page, a Set of Presbyterian Clergy would not have been ſo tame. Well, but this would not have done tho, If the Paper, which was to be read in the Desk, had not been ſo ſuitable to the Doctrine which ſome of them had often declared in the Pulpit. Then it did not go againſt their Conſciences.

It did not become them to inquire whether they had ſufficient Authority for what they did, ſince the Printer calls it the Kings Declaration.

No; Where, or of whom ſhould they have enquired? And it being Printed by the Kings Printer, with his Majeſties Royal Arms before it, and ſent them by their Ordinaries the Biſhops, they had no reaſon to queſtion whether it were the Kings or no. And there was as little reaſon that they ſhould concern themſelves, Whether they might not one day be called to an account for publiſhing it. They had reaſon to truſt that his Majeſty, who commanded them to do it, would protect them in their blind Obedience. And as for his Law-Quirks, whether what his Majeſty ſingly Ordered when he ſate in Council, and came forth without the Stamp of the Great Seal, gave them a ſufficient warrant to read in publickly. Theſe things never entered into their heads.

Well, but Sir, tho thoſe ſame Clergy-men, driven on by Ambition, might act in this without fear or ſhame, and think as little of a Parliament, as the Court Favourites, who took care to diſſolve that at Oxford, before they durſt tell us the faults of that at Weſtminiſter. Tho it might be ſo as you ſay, yet the Shoal of Addreſſors that came in to thank his Majeſty for that Declaration, they had more light; and, Sir, if you be reſolved to call all theſe Miniſters, all theſe Clergy-men, all theſe Addreſſors to an account in the next Parliament, pray for cold weather, and long days, and another Parliament, that may ſit for ever if it pleaſe, or you may happen to want time to go through with ſo pious and good a work.

But Sir, tho the Miniſters durſt not diſcover the faults of the Weſtminſter Parliament till they had taken care to diſſolve that Oxford, his Majeſty in his Speech there, did. Which he began thus:

The unwarrantable proceedings of the laſt Houſe of Commons were the occaſion of my parting with the laſt Parliament:The gracious Speech there made, and the gracious Declaration that followed, are ſo much of a piece that we may juſtly conclude the ſame perſons to have been the Authors of both. Pag. 27. of this Book. For I, who will never uſe Arbitrary Government my ſelf, am reſolved not to ſuffer it in others. I am unwilling to mention particulars, becauſe I am deſirous to forget faults, &c.

So that you may ſee if you pleaſe that the Oxford Parliament was told in general the faults of that which preceded in order to their avoiding them, if they could have made that good uſe of his Majeſties Advice, which will render them the leſs excuſable to all the world.

So now we come to that Parliament at Oxford, Pag. 27. which ſaith the Declaration was aſſembled as ſoon as that was diſſolved; and (ſaith my Author) might have added, Diſſolved as ſoon as Aſſembled, the Miniſters having imployed the People forty days in chuſing Knights and Burgeſſes to be ſent home in Right, with a Declaration after them, as if they had been called together only to be affronted.

As to the People, if their Knights and Burgeſſes came back ſooner than they expected, they had reaſon to thank themſelves,Pag. 6. who had twice before ſent up the ſame men; and as you obſerved before, the people do not change ſuddenly, ſo neither doth the Court, but doth as certainly ſend back a Parliament, that will not be governed, as the People ſend them. And the People were overjoyed too, to ſee them again, for when they went out they had told them, they never expected to come back again. So that ſo ſpeedy and ſafe a return was as welcome to them that ſent them, as could be imagined.

As for the Knights and Burgeſſes themſelves they had fair warning given them by his Majeſty before-hand, and if they would affront either Him, or the Upper Houſe, they did it at their apperil; and it was well they ſcaped ſo well, as to be ſent home with a Declaration after them.

My Author acknowledgeth that his Majeſty failed not to give good Advice unto them, Pag. 27. who were called together to Adviſe him. And ſo many; I might ſay, all our former Princes have done before his Majeſty; and commanded them too, not to meddle with ſuch and ſuch things; yea, and puniſhed private Members ſometimes for doing otherwiſe. The Lord Keeper in the 35 year of Queen Elizabeths Reign ſpoke thus to the Commons.

And whereas heretofore it hath been uſed that many have delighted themſelves in long Orations, Viide. p. 178. full of Verboſity and vain Oſtentations, more than in ſpeaking things of ſubſtance, the time that is precious would not be thus ſpent. And in the ſame Parliament, the Lord Keeper upon the uſual demands by the New Speaker, ſaid thus:

Now, let what his Majeſty ſaid at Oxford be compared with this, and let any man tell me whether the Parliament deſerved any commendation from my Author, for their having ſo much reſpect to the King, Pag. 27. as not particularly to complain of the great invaſion that was made upon their Liberty of Propoſing and Debating Laws, by his telling them before-hand what things they ſhould meddle with, and what things no reaſon they could offer ſhould perſuade him to conſent unto.

In that very Parliament I have mentioned,Feb. 24. 1592. 35 Eliz. Mr. Peter Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley delivered a Petition unto the Lord Keeper, therein deſiring the Lords of the Ʋpper Houſe to be ſuppliants with them of the Lower Houſe unto her Majeſty, for entailing the Succeſſion to the Crown; whereof a Bill was already drawn.

Her Majeſty was highly diſpleaſed therewith, after ſhe knew it, as a matter contrary to her former ſtreight Commandment, and charged the Council to call the Parties before them. Sir Thomas Henage preſently ſent for them, and after ſpeech with them, commanded them to forbear coming to the Parliament, and not to go out from their Lodgings,

The next day, Prerogative of Parliaments, Pag. 56. being Sunday, Mr. Peter Wentworth was ſent priſoner to the Tower; Sir Henry Bromley, one Mr. Richard Stephens, and Mr. Welch, the other Knight for Worceſterſhire, were ſent to the Fleet. And Sir Walter Rauleigh tells us, Wentworth died in the Tower, tho this Motion was but ſuppoſed dangerous to the Queens Eſtate.

Yet here was no expreſs Command againſt it, but only a general Command which I have recited; neither doth it appear that any diſheriſon of any right Heir to the Crown was intended. And in this very Parliament one Mr. Morris. Attourney of the Court of Wards, bringing in a Bill againſt the abuſes of the Biſhops, as he pretended, in Lawleſs Inquiſitions, injurious Subſcriptions, and binding Abſolution; he was the next day ſent for to Court, Feb. 28. 1592. and committed unto Sir John Forteſcues Keeping. And upon both theſe the Queen ſent this Meſſage to the Houſe by their Speaker.

The Calling of this Parliament was only that the Majeſty of God might be more religiouſly ſerved, and thoſe that neglected this Service might be compelled by ſome ſharper means to a more due Obedience,And accordingly in this Seſſion of Parliament was the ſharp Statute made againſt the Diſſenters, which was deſigned to have been repealed, when the Bill of Repeal was loſt in the Houſe of Lords. and a more true ſervice of God than there hath been hitherto uſed. And further, that the ſafety of her Majeſties Perſon and of this Realm might be by all means provided for againſt our great Enemies, the Pope and the King of Spain.

Her Majeſties moſt excellent pleaſure being then delivered unto us by the Lord Keeper, it was not meant we ſhould meddle with Matters of State, or in Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical; (for ſo her Majeſty termed them) ſhe wondered that any would be of ſo high Commandment to attempt (I uſe her own words) a thing contrary to that which ſhe had ſo expreſly forbidden, wherefore with this ſhe was highly diſpleaſed.

And in all her Reign after durſt no man attempt to meddle with either of theſe things. Now I have taken the pains to tranſcribe all this out of the tranſactions of her Reign rather than of any other, becauſe ſhe was never accuſed of affecting Arbitrary Government, or Popery, but was beloved of all her Subjects whilſt ſhe lived, and her Memory is, and ever will be had in honour by all Engliſh men, and ſhe ought to be a pattern for all her Succeſſors.

And now let us hear our modeſt Vindicator. Pag. 27. But every man muſt be moved to hear it charged upon them as an unpardonable diſobedience, that they did not obſequiouſly ſub mit to that irregular command of not touching on the buſineſs of the Succeſſion. Shall two or three unknown Minions take upon them, like the Lords of the Articles of Scotland to preſcribe unto an Engliſh Parliament what things they ſhall treat of? Do they intend to have Parliaments, inter inſtrumenta ſervitutis, as the Romans had Kings in our Country? This would quickly be if what was then attempted had ſucceeded, and ſhould be ſo purſued hereafter, that Parliaments ſhould be directed what they are to meddle with, and threatned if they do any other thing: For the loſs of Liberty of freedom of Debate in Parliament, will ſoon and certainly be followed by a general loſs of Liberty.

This is the right temper and Spirit of a good Commonwealth man, thus did your Fathers talk in the days of his Majeſties Father, till Priviledge of Parliament had eat up all the Prerogatives of the Crown, and the Liberties of the Subjects, and delivered us over to ſlavery, poverty, and confuſion, ſo that the Tyrannical, Arbitrary, bloudy Government of Oliver Cromwel was thought a bleſſing to the Nation, in compariſon of theſe Parliamentary Inſtruments of ſlavery, and their Legions, which I hope this Generation will ſo well remember as never to ſet it up, or ſuffer it to be ſet up more in my days.

My Author having told us in the next place, Pag. 28. That the King ought to diveſt himſelf of all private inclinations, and force his own affections to yield unto the Publick Concernments, and therefore his Parliaments ought to inform him impartially of that which tends to the good of thoſe they repreſent, without regard of perſonal paſſions, and might worthily be blamed if they did not believe that he would forgo them all for the ſafety of his People; Concludes, That therefore if in it ſelf it was lawful to propoſe a Bill for Excluding the Duke of York from the Crown, the doing it after ſuch an unwarrantable ſignification of his pleaſure would not make it otherwiſe.

To which I reply, that Parliaments as Subjects are more bound to comply with the natural and reaſonable Affections and Paſſions of their Princes, than Princes are in the ſame Circumſtances with thoſe of their Subjects. And that in this caſe his Majeſties own Perſonal ſafety and intereſt was wrapt up in that of his Brother; for if he might be Excluded, another might be Depoſed on the ſame pretence, as Coleman ſaid truly enough. And tho it ſhould be granted that Parliaments ought to inform Princes, yet it is certain, they ought not to force them; they had informed the King in the two former Parliaments what they thought of this Affair, and his Majeſty had rejected their Advice, and in the beginning of this Parliament at Oxford had told them, That what he had formerly, and ſo often declared touching the Succeſſion he could not depart from. And after all this for them to enter again upon it in the very firſt place, looked like an intended force: And then tho the thing were lawful in it ſelf, it may be thought unreaſonable thus to purſue it; and Queen Elizabeth would have made them have felt the Effects of her reſentment for preſuming to be of ſo high Commandment, if ſhe had been in his Majeſties place.

In the next place we are told his Majeſties unuſual ſtiffneſs upon this occaſion,Pag. 28. begins to be ſuſpected not to proceed from fondneſs to his Brother, much leſs from any thoughts of danger to the Engliſh Monarchy, by ſuch a Law, but from the influence of ſome few ill men upon his Royal mind, &c.

Now let all the World judge betwixt the King and this Party; they grant the King has been heretofore compliant enough to their deſires; and then in the rudeſt Language that ſpight and ſcorn could dictate, conclude, againſt ſenſe and reaſon, that it was not fondneſs to his Brother, nor kindneſs to the Monarchy, but the ill influence of a few men that had thus diſpoſed him. A likely thing, that he which could give up a Brother, and be ſo unconcerned for his Crown, ſhould be ſo ſtupid rather than ſtiff as to venture all for a few ill men.Ibid. Creatures to the Duke, and Penſioners to France, wicked Wretches who have infected him with the fatal Notion, that the Intereſts of his People are not only diſtinct, but oppoſite to his. No words I can write are ſharp enough to reprove this Miſcreant, that thus rails againſt his and my Sovereign the Lords Anointed, and therefore to God Almighty I leave it.

He tells us in the next place, his Majeſty doth not ſeem to doubt of his Power in Conjunction with his Parliament to Exclude his Brother. He very well knows this Power hath been often Exerted in the time of his Predeceſſors.

Yes, doubtleſs his Majeſty hath read the Engliſh Story, and obſerved at the ſame time, that more Princes have been depoſed by Pretended power of Parliament than Excluded; and he very well knows that if he ſhall yield that an Argument drawn from Example is valid, he will then ſtand upon ſlippery ground. He alſo knows that the right Heir was never put by but a good plenty of Miſeries, Wars, and Calamities followed upon it; and he is able to foreſee, that if the ſame ſhould happen again, the French King may eaſily poſſeſs himſelf of theſe miſerable Kingdoms, and therefore it is fairly probable love to his People as well as his Brother hath kept him from conſenting.

The reaſons he ſaith that his Majeſty hath aliedged are becauſe it concerned him ſo near in Honour,Pag. 28. Juſtice, and Conſcience, not to do it.

And are not theſe three powerful Arguments? But my Author can ridicule them, and turn them all againſt the King. It is not (ſaith he) honourable for a Prince to be true and faithful to his Word and Oath? To keep and maintain the Religion and Laws Eſtabliſhed? Yes, who doth queſtion it, but all this, and all that he hath ſaid beſides, may be done without Excluding his Brother, who would have juſt as much right (ſuppoſing the King dies without lawful Iſſue) to the Reverſion, as his Majeſty hath to the preſent Poſſeſſion. And can his Majeſty wrong him of that Right without a blemiſh to his Honour, Juſtice, and Conſcience? Who will ever after dare to relie upon his Majeſty if they once ſee him deſert his own Brother?

But that which follows is amazing.Pag. 29. All Obligations of Honour, Juſtice, and Conſcience, are comprehended in a grateful return of ſuch benefits as have been received, can his Majeſty believe that he doth duly repay unto his Proteſtant Subjects, the kindneſs they ſhewed him, when they recalled him from a miſerable helpleſs Baniſhment, and with ſo much dutiful affection placed him in the Throne, enlarged his Revenue above what any of his Predeceſſors had enjoyed, and gave him vaſter Sums of Money in twenty years, than had been beſtowed upon all the Kings ſince William the Firſt? Should he after all this deliver them up to be ruined by his Brother?

It ſhould have been, Should he after all this deliver them up to be ruined by the Diſſenter: and the Faction that Murthered his Father, drew up an Oath of Abjuration of the whole Family of the Stuarts, hanged, plundered, murthered, ſequeſtred, and deſtroyed ſo many of his Loyal Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy? Sir. I am not ſo ill bred as to Catechiſe my Sovereign, but I thing I may without offence ask the Whigs a few ſmall queſtions. Have you the impudence after all the Villanies you have done, to Uſurp the Loyalty that you never were guilty of: Was it not enough to baniſh your Sovereign,The Lord Chancellor told the Parliament May 1 • . 1662. that they had well provided for the Crown by the Bill of the Mil •••• , and the Act for the Additional Revenue, to their high Commendation • . How •• owa • d and indiſpoſed ſoever many are at preſent, who 〈◊〉 ſuch obſtructions laid in their way to Mutiny and Sedition, uſe all the Artifi • e they can to perſuade the people that yo • have not been ſoiretou enough for their Liberty, nor 〈◊〉 enough for their pro ••• , and 〈◊〉 labour to 〈◊〉 their reverence towards you which ſure was 〈◊〉 more due to any Parliament. and keep him twelve years in that miſerable helpleſs condition, but you muſt reproach him too with it? Did he not pardon you when you had ſormited your Lives and all you had to his Juſtice by all the Laws of God and man? Muſt he once more put himſelf into your power that he may try whether you will uſe him as you did his Father? Have you not repined at his Reſtitution, endeavoured to Baniſh him the ſecond time by all the Arts imaginable? Have you not murmur'd at all that has been given him? Slandered that Parliament that gave it whilſt it fate, and ſince it was diſſolved, laboured to repreſent it to the Nation as the worſt Parliament that ever ſate? Have not you, Sir, called them Danby's Penſioners, Mercenary Penſioners? &c. And can you ſhew any vaſt, or indeed competent Sums of Money given to the King ſince you know when? And after all this, have you the inſolence to call your ſelves Proteſtants, or own your ſelves Subjects? And expect the King ſhould, in pure gratitude for what you never did, lay all at your feet again? As for thoſe Proteſtant Subjects who, beſides all that you have falſely aſcribed to your ſelves, fought for him and his Father, they do not fear his Majeſties Brother would ruine them if he could, and therefore have by thouſands thanked his Majeſty for his care in preſerving the Succeſſion in its due and legal courſe of deſcent.

In the next Paragraph my Author is very Politick, and tells us, Pag. 30. Our Anceſtors have been always more careful to preſerve the Government inviolable, than to favour any perſonal pretences, and have therein conformed themſelves to the practice of all other Nations, whoſe examples deſeve to be followed.

That is, they have been more careful to preſerve the Mornarchy it ſelf, and the Liberties of the Subject, than the due and legal Deſcent in the Succeſſion. This is certainly true. And they have paid well for neglecting the other; as is apparent to any body that has read the Hiſtory of England. I will inſtance only in the Wars betwixt the Houſes of Lancaſter and York. Richard II. being depoſed and murthered, Henry IV. who had no Title, but was a brave Prince,The continuation of the Hiſtory of England by John Truſſel. was ſet up. But mark the Conſequence, before this Quarrel could be ended in B ſworth Field, there periſhed 80998 Private Souldiers, two Kings, one Prince, ten Dukes, two Marqueſſes, twenty one Earls, twenty ſeven Lords, two Vicounts, once Lord Prior, one Judge, one hundred thirty nine Knights, four hundred forty one Eſquires, and my Author knows not how many Gentlemen, in twelve Battels. The total, ſaith my Author, of all the perſons that have been ſlain is, 85628. Chriſtians, and moſt of them of this Nation. Is it fit to run the Riſque of ſuffering all this over again?

As to his Examples of Princes that have been Excluded upon the account of Religion, or for other ſmaller matters, they prove nothing, but that ill things have been done, but ought they therefore to be reacted? As for his railing Accuſations brought againſt his Royal Highneſs, they deſerve ſo much the leſs conſideration becauſe he treats the King at that abominable rate he doth; of whoſe Clemency, Juſtice, and Compaſſion all Europe are Witneſſes.

Having concluded there muſt be a War; Pag. 31. he ſaith, Let it be under the Authority of Law, let it be againſt a Baniſhed Excluded Pretender. There is no fear of the Conſequence of ſuch a War. No true Engliſhman can joyn with him, or countenance his Ʋſurpation; after this Act, and for his Popiſh and Forein Adherents, they will neither be more provoked, nor more powerful by the paſſing of it.

This man all along ſuppoſeth that neither the Duke nor the King have any natural Hereditary Right to the Crown; but talketh as if it were meerly at the pleaſure of the People and their Repreſentatives to make what man they pleaſe King of England, ſuppoſing that a Son of an Emperour of Germany, or of a King of Poland, were paſſed by or Excluded, and ſhould enter a War for the gaining of that Crown, to which for want of an Election he had never any legal right, he might be ſtiled a Pretender or an Uſurper; but in an Hereditary Kingdom it can never be ſo, if according to the before cited opinion of K. James, no Act of Parliament can extinguiſh the Dukes Right, which God and Nature hath given him, in caſe the King ſhould die before his Royal Highneſs without lawful Iſſue, tho it may prevent his obtaining it. So that he can never be an Uſurper or Pretender till the Monarchy of England is declared to be Elective. And this may be thought to be one reaſon why his Majeſty ſhould never yield the point. And as for my Authors confidence in the ſucceſs of ſuch a War, it ſpeaks nothing but his earneſt deſire of one, rather than not to have his Will, and I hope the Nation will have no occaſion to prove him a falſe Prophet.Pag. 31.

Nor will his Excluſion make it at all neceſſary to maintain a ſtanding Force, for preſerving the Government, and the peace of the Kingdom. The whole People will be an Army for that purpoſe, and every heart and hand will be prepared to maintain that ſo neceſſary, ſo much deſired Law.

If all this were true, there would be no need of an Army indeed, but then there would alſo be as little need of an Aſſociation too, for I never heard of a Prince that was able to compel three whole Nations to ſubmit to him againſt all their Wills, and without Forein Aids. But, Sir, the Houſe of Commons thought the latter neceſſary, or elſe they would never have deſired that his Majeſty would be likewiſe Graciouſly pleaſed to Aſſent to an Act whereby his Majeſties Proteſtant Subjects may be enabled to Aſſociate themſelves for the defence of his Majeſties Perſon, Addreſs of Decemb. 21. 1680. the Proteſtant Religion, and the ſecurity of your Kingdoms. This was thought as neceſſary as the Bill of Excluſion, and what kind of Aſſociation ſome men intended is well enough underſtood now by the whole Nation.

As to his Recrimination upon the Miniſters for the two Armies and the Guards; let him ſet his heart at reſt, for the World is very well ſatisfied, the one were never intended to be kept up, and it is hoped the other (the Guards) will be ever formidable to ſuch Gentlemen, as my Author, who in kindneſs to the Queen of Scots Title, and the Bill of Excluſion, is, like a good Proteſtant, contented to inſinuate that Queen Elizabeth was a Baſtard, though born in Matrimony. For ſo ſhe muſt be, if what the Papiſts ſay of her having no other Right but only that of an Act of Parliament, by which Mary Queen of Scots was Excluded, be true.

In the next Paragraph my Author endeavours to face his Majeſty down, Pag. 32. That nothing was intended by thoſe other ways which were darkly and dubiouſly intimated in his Majeſties Speech unto the Parliament at Oxford, and repeated in the Declaration; and he ſaith, that his Majeſty in his wiſdom could not but know that they ſignified nothing.

Now this is a ſtrange way of proceeding with Princes, and would anger a private man. The Regency ſignified nothing, the diſtinction betwixt the Kings Perſonal and Politick Capacity was unfeaſible; the Pope might abſolve him from all Oaths,Pag. 33. as he did King John, and Henry III. and it would be more fatal to us when Religion is concerned, which was not then in queſtion. His Confeſſor would excite him againſt us, and he who has made uſe of all the Power he has been intruſted with hitherto for our deſtruction, (witneſs his Naval Wars againſt the Dutch) would certainly Elude all Methods but the Bill of Excluſion, and if it were otherwiſe, there was no hopes of having any fruit of any Expedient without a War; and to be obliged to ſwear Allegiance to a Popiſh Prince, to own his Title, to acknowledge him ſupreme Head of the Church, and Defender of the Faith, ſeems (ſays my Author) a ſtrange way of entitling our ſelves to fight with him.

It doth ſo; and therefore all thoſe that are reſolved on a War will I ſuppoſe never do it. But are all theſe Titles annexed to the Crown as Proteſtant, or as imperial and ſubject to none but God? Did they belong to Henry VIII. or did they not? And ſuppoſing no Expedient ſhould be uſed, would not the Number, Conſtancy, and Reſolution of the Engliſh Nation, and Proteſtants in it, preſerve the Religion in one Prince's Reign, tho of a different Religion, without a War?

The Expedient propounded by his Majeſty. that if means could be found, That in caſe of a Popiſh Succeſſ • r, the Adminiſtration of the Government might remain in Proteſtant hands, whether it be feaſible or no, ſhews an inclination in his Majeſty to ſubmit to any thing but what will ruine both him and his Brother, as the Bill of Excluſion, backed with ſuch an Aſſociation, as was lately found, certainly will. In ſhort, this Caſe is beſet with ſo many and great difficulties that it baffles all humane wit and underſtanding to provide ſuch an Expedient for it, as may be ſecure and ſatisfie; and therefore when all is done that can be done, it muſt be left to God Almighty, who only can, and will determine it.

Having denied the charge in the Declaration, That there was reaſon to believe that the Parliament would have paſſed further to attempt ſome other great and important changes even at preſent, and according to his wont, ſchooled the King; and told the Miniſters, That they hate Parliaments, becauſe their Crimes are ſuch that they have reaſon to fear them. He relents a little, and tells us, if they (the Miniſters) by that expreſſion meant, Pag. 34. That the Parliament would have beſought the King that the Duke might no longer have the Government in his hands. This is a little hard to be underſtood, the Duke not being then in England. 2. That his Dependants (thoſe that had voted againſt the Bill) ſhould no longer preſide in His Councils, no longer poſſeſs all the great Truſts and Offices in the Kingdom. 3. That our Ports, our Garriſons, and our Fleets ſhould be no longer governed by ſuch as are at his devotion. 4. That Characters of Honour and Favour ſhould be no longer placed on men that the Wiſdom of the Nation (the Houſe of Commons without the Lords, for they have it ſeems lately got a Patent to Monopolize all the Wiſdom of the Nation) hath judged to be favourers of Popery, or Penſioners of France. Theſe are great and important Changes, but ſuch as it becomes Engliſhmen to believe were deſigned by that Parliament, and ſuch as will be deſigned and preſt by every Parliament, and ſuch as the People will ever pray may find ſucceſs with the King; without theſe Changes (and the Aſſociation forgotten by my Author) the Bill of Excluſion would only provoke, not diſarm our Enemies. Nay, the very money which we muſt have paid for it, would have been made uſe of to ſecure and haſten the Duke's return upon us.

Now this was all perhaps was meant by that paſſage in the Declaration,In plain Engliſh there muſt be a Change, we muſt neither have Popiſh Wife, nor Popiſh Favourite, nor Popiſh Miſtris, nor Popiſh Counſellor at Court, nor any new Convert. We want a Government and a Prince that we may truſt, &c. A Speech of a Noble Peer of the Realm. and the Conſequences of theſe things are ſuch that no beſeeching will ever obtain them, till his Majeſty is weary of all he hath, and therefore it well becomes all Engliſh men, that do not deſign another Rebellion, for time to come to deſign, and pray: and our Parliaments to preſs for ſome other things that may be fitter for them to ask, and his Majeſty to grant. I conclude with the Wiſemans Advice, My Son fear thou the Lord and the King: and meddle not with them that are given to change. Eſpecially to ſuch important changes.

We are now come to the conſideration of that only fault which was peculiar to the Parliament at Oxford, Pag. 35. and that was their behaviour in relation to the buſineſs of Fitz-Harris, the Declaration ſays, He was impeached of High Treaſon by the Commons, and they had cauſe to think his Treaſons to be of ſuch an extraordinary nature, that they well deſerved an examination in Parliament.

We ſhall by and by come to examine the reaſons that made them think ſo, and in the interim it is worth the while to recite the very words of the Declaration which are theſe:

The Votes are theſe:

And now let us follow my Authors account of Fitz-Harris his buſineſs, Pag. 35. who, he ſays truly, was a known Iriſh Papiſt, and it appeared by the Informations given in the Houſe, he was made uſe of by ſome very great perſons to ſet up a Counterfeit Proteſtant Conſpiracy,Oatos tells us, theſe were the Proteſting Lords, and the Leading men in the Houſe of Commons. Trial, pag. 28. and thereby not only to drown the noiſe of the Popiſh Plot, but to take off the Heads of the moſt eminent of thoſe who refuſed to bow their knees to Baal, &c. That this might look as unlike a Popiſh Deſign (and be the better received by the people) as was poſſible, they framed a libel full of the moſt bitter invectives againſt Popery and the Duke of York, it carried as much ſeeming zeal for the Proteſtant Religion as Colemans Declaration, and as much care and concern for our Laws, as the penners of this Declaration would ſeem to have: But it was alſo filled with the moſt ſubtile inſinuations, and the ſharpeſt expreſſions againſt his Majeſty that could be invented, and with direct and paſſionate incitements to Rebellion.

This Paper, Trial, pag. 21. as it appears by the account of it which was given at Fitz-Harris his Trial, was penn'd in the ſtile, and juſt like the Libels the ſober Proteſtants daily Print, and perhaps not much unlike our modeſt Vindicator, in the main, but had ſome things in it which they whiſper for the preſent, becauſe it is dangerous Printing of them. And ſome other things plainly ſpoken, which the other Party have a way to inſinuate craftily, ſo that it may be underſtood, and yet not hazard their ſweet lives.

This,Pag. 35. ſaith my Author, was to be conveyed by unknown Meſſengers (Oates ſays by the Penny Poſt) to their hands who were to be betrayed, and then they were to be ſeized upon, and thoſe Libels ſound about them, were to be a Confirmation of the truth of a Rebellion, which they had provided Witneſſes to ſwear was deſigned by the Proteſtants, and had before prepared men to believe by Private Whiſpers. And the credit of this Plot ſhould no doubt have been ſoon confirmed by ſpeedy Juſtice done upon the pretended Criminals.

And now it is time to give a little better account of this Libel, than perhaps the Author has given, it was penned by one Mr. Everard, by the direction of Fitz-Harris, he fearing he might be ſhamm'd, and that it was deſigned ſo, called in one Mr. Smith, and Sir William Waller into the buſineſs, that ſo he might clear himſelf of it, and trappan Fitz-Harris. Theſe two Gentlemen heard Fitz-Harris dictate the heads of it to Everard. and one of them heard him approve of it, when it was delivered to him. Mr. Everard was promiſed his reward for all this by the French Embaſſadour,Pag. 24. as Sir William Waller ſwears in the Trial he heard Fitz-Harris ſay; and upon Sir William Wallers giving the King an account of it, Fitz-Harris was taken with the Libel about him.

Being taken and committed to Newgate, Feb. 27. he was examined the tenth day of March by Sir Robert Clayton, and Sir George Treby, There he ſpeaks not one word of the Author of the Libel.Said Colledge, If you do not joyn with Fitz-Harris, and charge the King home, you are the baſeſt fellow in the world, &c. Colledge Trial. pag. 30. But being thus impriſoned, he found there was no way to ſave his life, but to curry favour with thoſe eminent men that had never bowed the knee to Baal. So that Story was ſet up, which he was not able to prove one Syllable of at his Trial, but however it was eaſily enough believed by them, who love to make the King and Court as odious as they can, as well as the Papiſts.

My Author goes on. The heinous nature of the Crime, and the greatneſs of the Perſons ſuppoſed to be concerned,Pag. 36. deſerved an extraordinary Examination, which a Jury, who were only to enquire whether Fitz-Harris was guilty of framing that Libel, could never make; and the Commons believed none but the Parliament was big enough to go through with it.

The Trial of this Perſon being extant, I muſt for brevity refer my Reader to it; and I ſee not how it had been poſſible for the Parliament to have ſifted that buſineſs of Fitz-Harris his being put upon this by the Court, to ruine the eminent men, more narrowly than it was at the Trial, and there was not one ſyllable proved by any of the Witneſſes he produced, which were many, and perſons of great worth, only Mr. Oates ſaid, he heard Everard ſay ſome ſuch thing, which Everard again denied upon his Oath. And Sir William Waller owned he had heard the King was diſcontented at his troubling him with this buſineſs; but Sir William Waller, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Everard proved it poſitively upon him that he had ordered the drawing of that Libel, had approved of it when it was drawn, and amended ſome words in it with his own hands. And now after all this to lay the Crime upon the Court, upon the ſuggeſtion of the Malefactor, was ſuch a piece of Juſtice as never was attempted.

Nor did they (the Commons) only fear the perverſion of Juſtice,Pag. 36. but the miſapplication of Mercy too, &c. becauſe when Fitz-Harris was inclined to Repentance, and had begun a Confeſſion, to the ſurprize of the whole Nation, without any viſible cauſe, he was taken out of the lawful cuſtody of the Sheriffs, and ſhut up a cloſe priſoner in the Tower.

That he had not only begun, but gone through with a Confeſſion appears by a Printed Narrative, taken by two, which I think were both of the Houſe of Commons, one I am ſure was. And when notwithſtanding this, ſome eminent men began to tamper with him to turn all this upon the Court; then, and not before, was he taken out of the cuſtody of the Sheriffs, and put into the Tower, that they might not make an ill uſe of him to the Damage of the King and the Government.

The Commons had therefore no other way to be ſecure that the proſecution ſhould be effectual,Ibid. the Judgment indifferent, and the Criminal out of all hopes of Pardon, (unleſs by an ingenuous Confeſſion be could engage both Houſes in a powerful mediation to his Majeſty in his behalf.) But by impeaching him they were ſure no pardon could ſtop their ſuit, tho the King might releaſe his own Proſecution by his Pardon.

What need there was here of any further or more ingenuous Confeſſion that he ſhould make, than what he had made I cannot imagine; but we may gueſs it was meant, that if Fitz-Harris ſhould lay the blame of this Libel on the Court, and ſay it was deſigned to Trappan the eminent men, then they would try to get him pardoned, but if he did not do this, then he ſhould have been hanged without mercy.

Well, But what if the King would not have conſented to the Pardon, which was to have been purchaſed with his diſhonour? Then the Commons would not have proceeded with their impeachment, and the Conſequence would have been (if the Lords had not rejected the Impeachment) that then no inferiour Court could have tried him, and ſo he ſhould never have been tried.

So that it is plain, that if the Lords had not rejected this Impeachment, it would, as the King ſaith in the Declaration, have been made uſe of to delay a Trial that We had directed againſt a profeſs'd Papiſt charged with Treaſons againſt Ʋs of an extraordinary nature: And certainly the Houſe of Peers did themſelves Right in refuſing to give countenance to ſuch a proceeding.

Part of the 36,Pag. 36, 37, 38, 39. and all the 37, 38, 39, Pages are ſpent by my Author to prove that a Commoner may be tried by the Peers in Parliament upon an Impeachment of the Commons; in which matter I will have no Controverſie with him becauſe he may be in the right for ought I know. And I have as little to ſay to him,Pag. 40. whether ſuch Commoners as are tried there ought to have any Juries, or whether the Lords rejecting the Impeachment was, or only looked, like a denial of Juſtice. For it is plain, that as good juſtice might be had, and in this caſe was had, in the Kings Bench as could have been had before the Lords, and if Fitz-Harris had been acquitted there, then the Commons might afterwards have impeached him of any branch of Treaſon that was not; or could not have been tried in the Kings Bench; ſo that the pretence he makes that part of his Treaſons were thought ſuch as could only be adjudged in Parliament, is impertinent, for the remainder were apparently ſuch as he ought to be hanged for, in an inferiour Court, and he could ſuffer but once, and the taking notice of the reſt would have been impertinent.

I think I may modeſtly ſay this, that the impeachment of Commoners before the Lords is ſo extraordinary a way, that it would be uſed as little as is poſſible; but theſe Gentlemen were for nothing elſe, and Thompſon, Sheridon, Verdon, and the Lord knows how many more, were to have been thus proceeded againſt, tho they were not perſons of ſuch extraordinary degree or quality, but they might full as well have been tried in any other Court, and the Conſequence of this would have been, that neither the Lords nor Commons would have had any leiſure for any thing elſe but this.

Might it not be well retorted by the People,Pag. 41. that it had been long a matter extremely ſenſible to them, that ſo many Prorogations, ſo many Diſſolutions, ſo many other Arts had been uſed to delay the Trials, which his Majeſty had often deſired and the Parliament prepared for, againſt the five profeſſed Popiſh Lords charged with Treaſons of an extraordinary nature.

The King might if he had pleaſed have charged this upon the Commons too, that notwithſtanding the long time they had been impriſoned, yet the Commons would not go on with their Trials, that they might legally and regularly be diſcharged. The Impeachment of the Earl of Danby before they had tried theſe five Lords occaſioned the diſſolution of the Long Loyal Parliament. A Controverſie betwixt the Lords and the Commons about the Trial of the ſaid Earl of Danby broke the next Parliament. Then comes the ſecond ſhort Weſtminſter Parliament, and having tried only one of them, the Earl of Stafford, when all the World were in expectation they would have gone on, and have tried the other four, they fell upon the Excluſion Bill, and that being rejected by the Lords, they fell upon the Revenue, and ſeemingly Voted the King a 〈…〉 the Third's time, they put down the Purveyor of the Meat for the maintenance 〈…〉 Houſe, as if the King had been a Bankrupt, and gave order that without ready Money he ſh ••• not take up a Chicken. Prerogative of Parliaments, p. 15. Bankrupt Jar. 7. by declaring that no man ought to truſt him further than he had ready money; nor lend him any, and Declared that ſeveral eminent men of the Privy Counſellors were favourers of Popery, and enemies to the King and Kingdom, and for which and the other things they were diſſolved; then comes that at Oxford, with the Votes I have recited, for which, and for inſiſting upon the Bill for Excluding the Duke of York they were diſſolved. Could none of theſe Parliaments have tried the Popiſh Lords without theſe things? Yes, doubtleſs they might, but they would not, but kept theſe Lords in the Tower, that whatever provocation they ſhould give the King to Diſſolve or Prorogue them, ſtill the clamour might be that it was to prevent their Trials. And I am fully perſuaded there are ſome men in England would almoſt chooſe to be hanged themſelves rather than be deprived of this glorious and popular pretence of inſenſing the People againſt the King and the Court.

If there be no other Evidence of the Unparliamentary and mean Solicitations uſed to promote this pretended Rejection of the Commons Accuſation,Pag. 41. than this ſcurvy Hint in my Author, which he acknowledgeth not fit to be remembred, tho he cannot forbear Printing it, I ſuppoſe it is but a ſmall part of the Nation that will be extremely ſenſible of it.

But yet however if their Impeachment had not been rejected, Fitz-Harris had long ſince been executed, or deſerved mercy by a full diſcovery of theſe malicious deſigns againſt the King and People, and the ſecret Authors of them. And that he would certainly have done to have ſaved his own life, and then we ſhould have had an opportunity to have made the World believe,Trial, p 54. that the King did hire Fitz-Harris to raiſe a Rebellion againſt himſelf, to defame himſelf, and inſenſe the minds of the People againſt him, for thus he defamed the King at his Trial. This was all he could do to merit a Pardon by, and this he did at his Trial, but was able to produce no teſtimony to back it.

But this Trial occaſioned ſtrange talk in Weſtminſter Hall, and Queſtions were raiſed of a ſtrange nature that will never have a determination in any inferiour Court, but will aſſuredly at one time or other have a further Examination. Pag. 41. Theſe queſtions were moved then by Fitz-Harris his Counſel, and need never be determined.

By the Term in the Declaration of the Lords having done themſelves right by refuſing to admit the Impeachment,Pag. 42. he hath diſcovered the Penman of the Declaration, and ſays, he has done himſelf and the Nation Right, and diſcovered himſelf by uſing his ordinary Phraſe upon this occaſion. Now I thought verily the next word would have been his Name; no, but ſtay you there. The Perſon is well known without naming him, who always tells men they have done themſelves no right, when he is reſolved to do them none. Now cannot I tell any more whom he means, by this private token than the man in the Moon, and if he had graciouſly vouchſafed to have whiſpered his name in my Ear, and I had known that he had uſually thus expreſſed himſelf, yet I ſhould ſtill be a little jealous ſome Frenchman or other might be the Author of it, becauſe my Author hath given full as good evidence, Page 5. to prove it was ſo.

As for the Commons nothing (ſays my Author) was carried on to extremity by them,Ibid. nothing done but what was Parliamentary, they could not deſire a Conference till they had firſt ſtated their own Caſe, and aſſerted by Votes the matter which they were to maintain at a Conference.

This was done effectually in the firſt part of the firſt and ſecond Vote, without adding, That the refuſal of the Lords to proceed in Parliament upon ſuch Impeachment, is a denial of Juſtice, and a violation of the Conſtitution of Parliaments, and in the ſecond Vote, and an obſtruction to the further diſcovery of the Popiſh Plot, and of great danger to his Majeſties Perſon, and the Proteſtant Religion.

Here the Declaration lays the ſtreſs of the buſineſs, and ſays, That when either of the Houſes are ſo far tranſported as to paſs ſuch Votes concerning the proceedings of the other, without Conferences firſt had to examine upon what grounds ſuch proceedings are made, and how far they might be juſtified; this puts the Two Houſes out of a Capacity of Tranſacting buſineſs together, and conſequently is the greateſt violation of the Conſtitution of Parliaments. Now ſurely the Houſe of Commons might have aſſerted their Right without theſe Expreſſions, which muſt needs inſenſe the Lords, eſpecially when they were Printed, and ſpread over the whole Nation.

But the Houſe of Commons was ſo far from thinking themſelves to be out of a Capacity of Tranſacting with the Lords any further that they were preparing to ſend a Meſſage for a Conference to Accommodate this difference,Pag. 42. at the very inſtant when the Black Rod called them to their diſſolution.

But this it is very probable was not known to his Majeſty, ſo that it came too late to ſave them.

If every difference in Opinion and Vote ſhould put the Two Houſes out of a Capacity of tranſacting buſineſs together, every Parliament muſt be diſſolved as ſoon as called.

Now, Sir, I could never have thought that it is ſo uſual a thing for the Two Houſes to make ſuch Votes as theſe againſt each other; I am perſuaded the Lords would never have treated with the Commons if a Conference had been demanded till the Concluſions of the firſt and ſecond Vote had been recanted.

But the Miniſters promoted this difference between the Two Houſes, (what, did any of them dictate theſe Votes?) and then broke the Parliament leſt it ſhould be compoſed. And for this my Author gives you his own honeſt word over again in the next Page, and hopes no man will be ſo hardhearted as not to believe him.

But my Author hath another quarrel againſt the Miniſters, becauſe they cenſure theſe Votes of the Commons as the greateſt violation of the Conſtitution of Parliaments; They ought certainly (ſays my Author) to have excepted the power which is here aſſumed of giving ſuch a Judgment,Pag. 43. and Publiſhing ſuch a charge, as being not only the higheſt violation of the Conſtitution, but directly tending to the deſtruction of it.

Well then, I for my part will never undertake to defend them in it. Aut I have obſerved one thing in theſe debates, that the Priviledges of the Houſe of Commons are not much unlike the Power claimed by the Pope, which is to judge all men, and to be judged by no man. So that whatever they are pleaſed to call Priviledge of Parliament I am bound to believe is ſo, with an implicit faith: For theſe Priviledges of Parliament are known to none but thoſe that ſit in St. Stephens Chappel, and if a man ſit there twenty years, yet he ſhall be allowed to know no more of them the day after he is turned out than I do.

The Declaration mentions one ſort of men who are fond of their old beloved Commonwealth Principles,Ibid. and others are aangry at being diſappointed in deſigns they had to accompliſh their own ambition and greatneſs. Surely (ſays my Author) if they know any ſuch perſons, the only way to have prevented the miſchiefs which they pretend to fear from them, had been to have diſcovered them, and ſuffered the Parliament to ſit to provide againſt the evils they would bring upon the Nation, by proſecuting them.

I cannot but fancy my Author ſmiled to himſelf when he made this pleaſant Propoſition.

In the next place my Author gives us a deſcription of men of Commonwealth Principles; he tells us, Ibid. They are men Paſſionately devoted to the publick good, and to the common ſervice of their Country, who believe that Kings were inſtituted for the good of the People, and Government ordained for the ſake of thoſe that are to be governed, and therefore complain or grieve when it is uſed to contrary ends, and that wiſe and honeſt men will be proud to be ranked in this number.

Now, as favourably as he hath drawn it, I aſſure him, I for my part am none of the number; for tho I know that if there were no People, there could hardly have been Kings, and that one main end of Government was the good of thoſe that are to be governed; yet I believe that God Almighty had ſome reſpect for Princes and Governours, and did not deſign only the good of the People, but their good too; and tho I can grieve, yet I am not apt to complain when things go amiſs.

My Author in the next place ſpends a great deal of learning to prove, That the word Commonwealth ſignifies the common good, in which ſenſe it hath been uſed by all good Authors, &c. Now, this I will yield him, with all my hearts, that till one thouſand ſix hundred and forty all the World thought that a good Commonwealth man and a good Subject were terms that might be promiſcuouſly and indifferently uſed; but the Author cannot be ignorant, that not long after the word Commonwealth was ſo wholly appropriated to an odious Democracy by the Rebels of the late times, whoſe uſurped Seal and Coyn bore the Image and Superſcription of the Beaſt, that it is no ways likely it ſhould ever recover its Primitive ſignification.

And I dare aſſure him, that many of the Engliſh Nation will never be pleaſed to find in Parliament ſuch men as have ſo great a kindneſs for the word, as implies a hankering after the thing it has obtained to ſignifie.

But if the Declaration (ſays my Vindicator) would intimate that there had been any deſign of ſetting up a Democratical Government,Pag. 44. in oppoſition to our Legal Monarchy, it is a Calumny juſt of a piece with the other thing which the Penners of the Declaration have vented, in order to the laying upon others the blame of a deſign to overthrow the Government, which only belongs to themſelves.

Now,There hath not been a Week (ſince Venners riſing) in which there have not been Combinations and Conſpiracies formed againſt his Majeſties Perſon, and againſt the Peace of the Kingdom, &c. Lord Chancellors Speech, May 8. 1661. Sir, This is not the firſt time that his Majeſty hath complained of a parcel of men who had ſuch a deſign; and if you pleaſe we will inquire a little into the reaſon of it. That there was in the Nation a great number of men that had imbibed a Notion, that all other kinds of Governments but what had ſomething of the Democratical form in them without a ſingle Perſon, were Arbitrary and Tyrannical, I ſuppoſe will not be denied, that theſe men did not all of them expire when his Majeſty landed from Breda is very probable, but his Majeſty being ſetled, and all things running quite contrary to their Intereſt, as you have told us, may appear by comparing the Parliaments that were ſent up in 1640.Pag. 6. and 1660. theſe men were forced to ſeem more loyal than they were, that they might one day appear what they were.

Now, Sir, it is not to be expected they ſhould openly declare for the Commonwealth of England, and deſire Charles Stuart to march off, and give them their right, when bleſſed be God they have neither Men nor Money to back ſuch an inſolence with, but yet we may be allowed to gueſs at their Deſigns by their Actions, and if that may be allowed, the Penners of the Declaration were not the only men that thought there was then, and is now, ſome Democratical or Commonwealth deſigns againſt the very Monarchy driving on, and you muſt excuſe me if I ſay the Calumny lies at your doors, get rid of it as well as you can.

It is ſtrange how this word ſhould ſo change its ſignificacation with us in twenty years.Pag. 44. All Monarchies in the world that are not purely Barbarous and Tyrannical have ever been called Commonwealths, &c. Sir, I will grant more than that, that all without exception have by ſome men been ſo ſtiled, and produced good Authors for it. But yet we that had ſo lately like to have been ruined by the word, and men that were fond of it, ſhall ever have reaſon to hate them and it,Tacitus in the end of the Reign of Auguſtus ſaith, Senes plerique inter Bella Civium nati, quotuſquiſque reliqu • s qui Rempub. vidiſſet? igitur verſus Civitatis ſtatus, nihil uſquam priſ • i & integri moris: Omnis exuta aequalitate juſſa Principis aſpectare. H. lib. 1. In which paſſage Monarchy is oppoſed to the ancient Liberty or Commonwealth. and a leſs ſpace of years than twenty ſuch as paſſed betwixt 40. and 60. might be allowed to render a word hateful, which in ſtrict propriety ſignifies the Publick Affairs of a People managed by many with equal Authority. I could eaſily anſwer all you have brought to defend the word, but the caſe being plain, I will not trouble my ſelf or my Reader; and therefore if you have no other Argument to prove men guilty of a fondneſs to Arbitrary Power than their averſion for this word, I ſhall never go about to contend with you.

No man can have a greater Veneration for Parliaments than I have, but then who are they that have diſordered things to that height they lately were? You ſay the Miniſters are the men, whom you repreſent as you uſe to do, with bitter reflections on his Majeſty, and not the Parliament; others ſay, it was ſuch men as your ſelf; and the caſe hath been by both Parties referred to the People, and they have by thouſands given their Verdicts againſt thoſe their Repreſentatives, which to me is a ſtrong Argument the caſe is not ſo difficult as you pretend, for I do not conceive it poſſible to delude (ſo great a part of the) People into an abhorrence of their own Repreſentatives,Pag. 45. without their having given them juſt cauſe.

And if we look about us, we ſhall find theſe who deſign a change, on either hand fomenting a miſunderſtanding between the King his Parliament and People, whilſt perſons who love the Legal Monarchy both out of Choice and Conſcience, are they who deſire the frequent and ſucceſsful meetings of the great Council of the Nation.

Sir, if you durſt have ſpoken your mind plainly, I might poſſibly have thought this the only honeſt paſſage in this whole Book; but as it now ſtands it is to me apparent that you would not let your Conſcience in this paſſage give your Paſſion in all the reſt the lie.

Now, if I might interpret your meaning I ſhould gueſs it to be this, They that on the one hand pretend to maintain the Legal Monarchy, but do really intend to advance it into an abſolute form, without any dependence upon Parliaments, and they who pretend the ſame thing, but deſign to throw off the Monarchy, and put the whole Power into the hands of the People, i. e. the Commonwealth Party, are the men that have brought things into the diſorder they are now in. Whilſt they who love the Legal Monarchy both out of Choice and Conſcience, (amongſt which perſons I will ſubſcribe my name when occaſion requires,) are they who deſire the frequent and ſucceſsful meetings of the Great Coucil.

Now, Sir, here ſeems to be a little Juſtice in this, for as it were a high and flagrant piece of injuſtice to ſay that all that made up the Houſe of Commons in the two laſt Parliaments deſigned to ruine the Monarchy, and ſet up another Parliamentary Commonwealth of England: So it is the ſame notorious and baſe injuſtice in you to traduce the Miniſters in general, as you do throughout the whole Pamphlet, when as it is apparent enough, firſt, That his Majeſty never did intend to ſet up one Dram of Arbitrary Government. Secondly,See the Preface to the firſt part of the Addre • s to the Freemen, &c. That it is not poſſible for the Miniſters to do it without his conſent. Thirdly, That it is ſcarce poſſible for him and them to do it, if they had deſigned to do it, till there hath been another War. Fourthly, That never any conſiderable perſon, or number of perſons amongſt the Miniſters, did ever yet make one ſtep towards it. For all thoſe Acts that have been ſo baſely traduced are fairly defenſible. Thoſe that look worſt, the Tranſactions about 1671. and 72. not excepted, one of which you your ſelf have excuſed,Pag. 19. viz. the Poſtponing of all Payments to the Bankers out of the Exchequer: And the Declaration for Liberty of Conſcience, though you ſtile it an Arbitrary Power aſſumed to ſuſpend Penal Laws, Pag. 22. and ſay the whole Nation was juſtly alarmed upon it; yet I believe ſhould his Majeſty do the ſame thing over again, thoſe that now make the greateſt noiſe againſt Arbitrary Power without cauſe, would willingly enough accept of it. And yet there is no reaſon that the preſent Miniſters ſhould bear the blame of theſe things, when they that promoted them are now, Sir, in your Intereſts.

And, Sir, that the meetings of the Great Council may be ſucceſsful as well as frequent, one of theſe things muſt be, that either the People change the Members of the Lower Houſe; or that thoſe Members change their Methods of Proceeding; and till this be done theſe meetings, how frequent ſoever, can never be ſucceſsful. For if things be carried in the next Convention as they were in the late Parliaments, neither can the King, neither will the Nation endure it; and for all our Threats you will find, when you come to bring it into Act, ſuch difficulties as I car not to foretel, tho I can foreſee them.

As for the other ſort of Peeviſh men,Pag. 45. of whom the Declaration gives us warning, who are angry at the diſappointment of their Ambitious Deſigns. If theſe words are intended to reflect on thoſe men of Honour and Conſcience, who being qualified for the higheſt imployments of State, have either left, or refuſed, or be removed from them becauſe they would not accept ro retain them at the Price of ſelling their Country, and inſlaving Poſterity: and who are content to ſacrifice their Safety as well as their Intereſt for the Publick; and expoſe themſelves to the malice of the men in power, and to the daily Plots, Perjuries, and Subornations of the Papiſts. I ſay, if theſe are the Ambitious Men ſpoken of, the People will have conſideration for what they ſay, and therefore it will be wiſdom to give ſuch men as theſe no occaſion to ſay they intend to lay aſide the uſe of Parliaments.

This your Appeal to the People hath ſpoiled all the fine things you had ſaid before, for ſuppoſing all the reſt had been true (as it is notoriouſly falſe) yet this making the People the Judges is a kind of attempt to ſeparate them from their Governours, and exaſperate them againſt the Government, from whence muſt ſpring as great inconveniences as thoſe you pretend to avoid; and therefore had I been one of theſe men, I would never have appealed to them; but to God and my own Conſcience, and have ſate ſtill till he had pronounced the Sentence in this World, or that which is to come. You know, Sir, the People are not able to examine any thing, but being once put into a rage by ſuch ſpecious Harangues as theſe are, ruſh into diſorder and confuſion, and take all that endeavour to quiet them for Enemies and Papiſts, and ſo the guilty eſcape, and then innocent are cut in pieces. And beſides all this, never was any diſorder in a Government rectified by the People, but by a greater and more fatal diſorder, as we had experience in the late times, and very often before.

But let the Event be what it will, you are reſolved to ſtir up the People to the utmoſt to revenge your caſe upon the Government; and to that purpoſe inſinuate there is a deſign to lay aſide the uſe of Parliaments: as if you ſhould have ſaid, Stand to your Arms, Gentlemen, againſt theſe Miniſters, for as they have laid us aſide, men of Honour and Conſcience, becauſe we would not ſell our Country, and enſlave Poſterity; ſo the next thing to be done is the laying aſide Parliaments, and you are the men that muſt by your conſideration of us prevent this great miſchief.

This was pretty well, Pag. 46. but the next is excellent. In good earneſt, the behaviour of the Miniſters of late gives but too juſt occaſions to ſay, that the uſe of Parliaments is already laid aſide; for tho the King has own'd in ſo many of his Speeches and Declarations the great Danger of the Kingdom, and the neceſſity of the aid and counſel of Parliaments, he hath nevertheleſs been prevailed upon to diſſolve four in the ſpace of twenty ſix months without making proviſion by their Advice ſuitable to our dangers or wants.

My Author was ſenſible that the People might think that the former hint proceeded from Paſſion, or was not ſerious, or at leaſt the danger was not eminent; and he comes now nearer to them, and tells them in good earneſt they had but too juſt occaſions to ſay that Parliaments were already laid aſide as to any uſe of them; and he proved it too: Four had been diſſolved in twenty ſix months; but three of them were called in that time. And this is an odd ſort of laying them aſide to call as many in twenty ſix months as heretofore have been called in ſo many years▪ Well, but there was no proviſion made by their Advice ſuitable to our Dangers or Wants. The fault, ſays the Declaration, was in them,Declaration. The King was willing to have done any thing which would have conſiſted with the very being of the Government. He paſſed every Bill that was tendred; connived ſo long at the proceedings of the laſt Parliament of Weſtminſter, that many men wondred, and ſome (that were neither Papiſts, nor Malefactors) murmured. And a grave man told the very Parliament, that he ſuſpected they were permitted to ſit there, Debates, p. 19 1. rather to deſtroy themſelves than to ſave their Country. And now after all this is his Majeſty to bear the blame that no proviſion was made by their Advice ſuitable to our wants and dangers. Well, but the People, to whom my Gentleman is appealing, they will never undeſtand nor conſider theſe things, nor any thing elſe, and therefore my Gentleman did wiſely to make them the Judges, but for the honeſty of it, or the truth of any of this I have nothing to ſay.

Nor can we hope the Court will ever love any Parliament better than the firſt of thoſe four,Pag. 46. wherein they had ſo dearly purchaſed ſuch a number of faſt friends, men who having firſt ſold themſelves, would not ſtick to ſell any thing after. And we may well ſuſpect they mean very ill at Court, when their deſigns ſhockt ſuch a Parliament.

The buſineſs of the Penſioners hath been conſidered elſewhere,Addreſs to the Freemen, p 39. part. 2. and need not here be repeated. Now, to me one of theſe things muſt be falſe, viz. that there was ſuch a number of men who had ſo ſold themſelves: Or that the Court are ſuch men as you, Sir, ſay they are. If theſe men had ſold themſelves, why did they not go on with the bargain? If the Court had ſuch an intereſt in them, and ſuch deſigns upon them and us, why did it part with them? Eſpecially when the Miniſters knew they loſt thereby a conſtant Revenue of extraordinary Supplies, as you ſay they did, and I may ſay they have had little enough ſince. Oh, the Reaſon was, they began in good earneſt to examine what was done, and what was doing. And therefore they were pack'd away. Well, the matter was not great, they were a company of Penſioners, men that had ſold themſelves, and would not ſtick to ſell any thing after. And, Sir, if it were ſo, the Nation has no reaſon to complain of the Court for that, and I hope I too ſhall be excuſed if I have dropt a few leſs reſpective words of the three Parliaments that have ſince followed; for they are not better, nor more ſacred than this, of which many of the Lord Chancellors have given high Encomiums, my Lord ofSpeech to the Parliament. Feb. 5. 1672. Shaftsbury not excepted.

Now let my Reader reflect on all this ſeriouſly, and tell me if any perſon, even Fitz-Harris himſelf, could poſſibly write any thing worſe than this; and which tended more to heighten the reſentments of the Nation, and put the People into diſorder and confuſion. Pag. 35. The moſt direct and paſſionate incitements to rebellion he uſed, are not more likely to ſtir them, than our Authors warm and earneſt applications on the behalf of theſe Ambitious men, as I perceive the Declaration rightly ſtiles them, for none but ſuch would ever deſire to ſee their Country imbroyled, and to that end appeal to the People. And ſuppoſing the People to be well diſpoſed that way,Pag▪ 6. it would be no wonder that the Miniſters dare not ſuffer a Parliament now to ſit, till the People are in a better temper to chuſe one; but then, Sir, this is owing to ſuch men as you, and ſuch Books as yours, and you muſt anſwer for it.

But we have gained at leaſt this one point by the Declaration,Ibid. that it is own'd to us, That Parliaments are the beſt Methods for healding the diſtempers of the Kingdom, and the only means to preſerve the Monarchy in Credit both at home and abroad. Own'd by theſe very men who have ſo maliciouſly rendered many former Parliaments ineffectual, and by this Declaration have done their utmoſt to make thoſe which are to come as fruitleſs, and thereby have confeſſed that they have no concern for healing the diſtempers of the Kingdom, and preſerving the credit of the Monarchy, which is in effect to acknowledge themſelves to be what the Commons called them, Enemies to the King and Kingdom.

Juſt before, Sir, you had been proving them deſigning to lay all uſe of Parliaments aſide, and now you bring them in owning what will certainly ruine that deſign; not long before that you had been convicting them of a deſign of making the Monarchy Arbitrary and abſolute, and now they are unconcerned for the very Credit of the Monarchy. Are you in your right Wits? Do you think thus to prove them Enemies to the King and Kingdom? Why muſt thoſe Parliaments that are to come be as fruitleſs as thoſe that are paſt? The Miniſters may be changed, or the People may change, or the very Parliament men may change; and time may be Gods grace have ſtrange effects. And in the mean time his Majeſty is not in 〈…〉 wants of a Parliament, but he 〈…〉 than a bad one, a Rending inſtead of a Healing Parliament. And in the interim his Majeſties good Subjects can rely as ſocurely upon his Royal Declaration that he intends not to lay aſide the uſe of Parliaments, as if there were one now actually ſitting at Weſtminiſter.

However we rejoyce,Pag. 47. that his Majeſty ſeems reſolved to have frequent Parliaments, and hope he will be juſt to himſelf and us, by continuing conſtant to this Reſolution. Yet we cannot but doubt in ſome degree when we remember the Speech made January 26. 1679. to both Houſes, wherein he told them, that he was unalterably of an Opinion, that long intervals of Parliaments were abſolutely neceſſary for compoſing and quieting the minds of the People. Therefore which we ought rather to believe the Speech or the Declaration, or which is likely to laſt longeſt, a Reſolution, or an unalterable Opinion, is a matter too nice for any but Court Criticks to decide. The effectual performance of the laſt part of the promiſe will give us aſſurance of the firſt.

When, or where this Speech was ſpoken by his Majeſty I cannot deviſe, for at the time aſſigned there could be none. The firſt ſhort Parliament was Prorogued May 27. 1679. And the ſecond met not till October 21. 1680. and was Prorogued the tenth of January following. I have read over all his Majeſties Speeches too about that time, and I find not one tittle in them to this purpoſe.

But if there ever were any ſuch Speech ſpoken (for I will not be poſitive there was not) it is fairly reconcileable with the very words of the Declaration, for the Statute made in his Majeſties Reign calls Triennial Parliaments,17 Car. 2. C. 1. A frequent calling, aſſembling and holding of Parliaments, which yet is a very long Interval in compariſon of the time his Majeſty hath hitherto interpoſed betwixt the Diſſolving or Proroguing of one Parliament and the ſitting of another; ſo that the matter was not ſo nice but it might have been • een determined by a meaner Critick than our Author, who hath ſhewn his great skill in the French Tongue in his learned Remarques on the Phraſe,Pag. 5. it is a matter extremely ſenſible to us: And in the Latine upon the word Republick or Commonwealth.Pag. 43, 44, If he had not from hence ſought an occaſion to call his Majeſties Fidelity in queſtion, which tho it may become a Republican, is very indecent in a good Subject.

When we ſee the real fruits of theſe utmoſt endeavours to extirpate Popery out of Parliament;Pag. 47. when we ſee the Duke of York no longer firſt Miniſter, or rather Protector of theſe Kingdoms; and his Creatures no longer to have the whole direction of Affairs; when we ſee that love to our Religion and Laws is no longer a Crime at Court, no longer a fore-runner of being diſgraced and removed from all Offices and Imployments in their Power.

That is, when the Duke of York is ruined, and not only his Popiſh, but his Church of England Creatures, who have ſhewn themſelves ſuch by Voting againſt the Bill of Excluſion be laid aſide. When our Religion, (which no man knows what it is) and that part of the Laws which we skulk behind now, to ruine all the reſt, and the King and Kingdom to boot, ſhall not hinder our Preferment whatever we do or ſay.

When the word Loyal (which is faithful to the Law) ſhall be reſtored to its own meaning,Ibid. and no longer ſignifie one who is for ſubverting the Laws.

That is, when men may ſafely pretend ſo much reſpect to the Laws, that they may affront his Majeſty who is the Fountain of all Laws, and the Protector of them, and us by them; when the word Loyal ſhall have no other relation to his Majeſty, than the ſame word (if in uſe there) hath in Venice, when ſpoken concerning their Duke.

When we ſee the Commiſſions filled with hearty Proteſtants, (that is, with Whigs and Republicans) and the Laws executed in good earneſt againſt the Papiſts, (and the Diſſenters paſſed by unpuniſhed.) The Diſcoverers of the Plot countenanced, or at leaſt heard, and ſuffered to give their Evidence, (except when they make bold with our ſelves, and ſuch a Colledge, and Fitz-Harris, and the Aſſociationmen, in which caſes they ought neither to be heard, nor believed.) The Courts of Juſtice ſteady, and not avowing a juriſdiction one day which they diſown the next, (but juſt ſuch as they were in the late times.) When we ſee no more Grand-Juries diſcharged leſt they ſhould hear Witneſſes; nor Witneſſes hurried away leſt they ſhould inform Grand-Juries, (tho it were againſt his Majeſty, and when all Grand-Juries are of the Family of Ignoramus the Lawyer, and will find according to their Conſcience, tho againſt both their Oath and their Evidence, eſpecially when a Precious man is in jeopardy to be hanged for ſomething done or ſaid againſt the King) When we ſee no more inſtruments from Court labouring to raiſe jealouſies of (Aſſociating Petitioning) Proteſtants, (who have a Patent from heaven to retail all the fears and jealouſies that ever ſhall from henceforward be put off in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and in all other his Majeſties Dominions and Countries whatſoever. And to that purpoſe have erected ſeveral Mints for the Coining of them in London, and the parts adjacent, and do maintain ſeveral Preſſes, and a great many Intelligencers to collect and diſperſe the ſame for the benefit of his Majeſties diſcontented Subjects, who receive much comfort by the worſt and falſeſt of them, and hope to have juſt ſuch another harveſt in the end, as they reaped from the ſame Seed in and about the years 1640, 41, 42, and ſo on till 1660.) When we ſee ſome regard had to Proteſtants abroad, (tho his Majeſty ſhould be, by our defaults, brought into ſuch ſtraits as hardly to be able to maintain the Government at home.) When we obſerve ſomewhat elſe to be meant by Governing according to Law, than barely to put them in execution againſt Diſſenters, (in whom our ſtrength againſt the Government doth chiefly conſiſt) the Laws made againſt Papiſts. (In which number we deſire the Church of England men, that is, all that ſtick to the Religion by Law Eſtabliſhed, Colledges Trial, p. 18. 25. may be included; and) then we ſhall promiſe our ſelves not only frequent Parliaments, (but everlaſting ones) and all the bleſſed effects of purſuing Parliamentary Councils, the Extirpation of Popery, (and Prelacy,) the redreſs of Grievances, the flouriſhing of Laws, and the perfect reſtoring the Monarchy to the credit (which it had in 1658, and 59.) both at home and abroad. There needs no time to open the Eyes of his Majeſties good Subjects (the Whigs,) and their hearts are ready prepared to meet him in Parliament, in order to perfect all theſe good Settlements and Peace (which are) now wanting in Church and State.

But whilſt there are ſo many little Emiſſaries imployed to ſow and encreaſe diviſions in the Nation,Pag. 48. as if the Miniſters had a mind to make his Majeſty head of a Faction, and joyn himſelf to one Party in the Kingdom, who has a juſt right of Governing all, (which Thuanus lib. 28. ſays was the notorious Folly, and occaſioned the deſtruction of his great-Grandmother Mary Queen of Scots) whilſt we ſee the ſame differences Promoted induſtriouſly by the Court, which gave the Riſe and Progreſs to the late troubles, and which were once thought fit to be buried in an Act of Oblivion.

What is meant by the little Emiſſaries here I know not, nor will I gueſs. Nor did I ever obſerve the Miniſters had a mind to make his Majeſty the Head of a Faction, which your Author much blames in Henry III. of France too, when he ſuffered the Holy League, the Prototype of the Aſſociation, to be ſet afoot, and propagated ſo far before he took notice of it, that he was forced at laſt to attempt to make himſelf the Head of it, which was properly a Faction combined by an Oath againſt the Right Heir to the Crown, and a part of the Natural Subjects of France; on pretence of Religion for the Excluſion of the firſt, and deſtruction of the latter, without, and againſt the conſent of the King; which cauſed a Rebellion in France, the deſtruction of the King, a ſooner Succeſſion of Henry IV. the right Heir, (upon changing his Religion) and if God had not prevented it, had betrayed France into the hands of the Spaniards, or Cantoned it into ſmall Principalities. Now, this is properly to make a Prince the head of a Faction without conſideration of the Riſe of our late Troubles; which ſprung from ſuch another League, but to countenance a Loyal Party more than a Rebellious one is not ſo, and whatever effect it had in the Reign of Queen Mary, his Majeſties Grandmother, ſeems the only way now to ſave England, and prevent the need of another Act of Oblivion and Indemnity for all thoſe Crimes that were pardoned by his Majeſty, but never repented of by them that acted them.

Whilſt we ſee then the Popiſh Intereſt ſo plainly countenanced,Pag. 48. which was then done with caution, when every pretence of Prerogative is ſtrained to the utmoſt height, when Parliaments are uſed with contempt and indignity, and their Judicature, and all their higheſt Priviledges brought in queſtion in inferious Courts, we have but too good reaſon to believe tho every Loyal and good man does, yet the Miniſters and Favourites do but little conſider the Riſe and Progreſs of the late troubles, and have little deſire or care to preſerve their Country from a relapſe.

All this is Party-per-pale a juſtification of the laſt, and an Exhortation to another Rebellion, upon the ſelfſame falſe pretences only a little aggravated, becauſe the People are more ſlow to a new Rebellion than they were to the laſt.

And who (the Miniſters) as they never yet ſhewed regard to Religion,Ibid. Liberty, or Property, ſo they would be little concerned to ſee the Monarchy ſhaken off, if they might eſcape the Vengeance of Publick Juſtice due to them for ſo long a courſe of Pernicious Counſels, and for Crowning all the reſt of their faults by thus reflecting upon that High Court, before which we do not doubt but we ſhall ſee them one day brought to Judgment.

Sir, I ſuppoſe my Reader is very well informed by this time that your Pen is no ſlander, and I aſſure you there is ſome hopes of ſeeing your Party one day brought in Judgment for all your ill Courſes which have ſo much diſhonoured Parliaments, and by theſe repeated Threats endeavoured to make them Odious as well as Dreadful to ſo many who are Loyal (not in your hide-bound Notion, Redde Reverentiam Praelato & Obedientiam quarum altera Cordis, altera Corporis eſt. Nec enim ſufficit exterius obtemperare majoribus noſtris, niſi ex intimo Cordis Affectu ſublimiter ſentiamus de tis. S. Bernard. Serm. 3. de Advent. This internal reverence due to the Sacred Majeſty of our Kings, above all other Superiours whatſoever is that which we expreſs by the word Loyalty. but) in the good old Chriſtian acceptation of the word, in the affection of their Souls, of which humane Laws can take no notice, and that not to the Law which is nonſenſe, but to the King. But, Sir, how can you be ſo poſitive in your Menaces, who in the Page before were in ſome degree of doubt there might be a long interval of Parliaments, and ſo you may not ſee this One deſirable day; but may happen to be brought to Judgment in the interim before a higher Court for all your ſlanders and defamations of your Sovereign the Lords Anointed?

And now,Concluſion. Sir, I have taken the ſame liberty in relation to you which you took with leſs modeſty and reaſon againſt all the Miniſters; and if you pleaſe you may reply, and for ought I know the Preſs is as open for you as me, and I had not taken all this pains but to ſhew the World, your ſheets are as weak, and as full of Errors; as of Malice againſt the Miniſters in pretence, but againſt his Majeſty in good earneſt. And if you had been pleaſed to have uſed the name▪ of Evil Counſellors inſtead of Miniſters, it would have been more apparent what you deſigned, and I do not in the leaſt queſtion but there are very many Perſons in his Majeſties Dominions who are not only of true Engliſh courage, but of greater intellectuals than to be Cajoled by ſuch a Pamphlet as yours into an ill opinion of the King, his Miniſters, or the Declaration, of which number in every reſpect I do acknowledge my ſelf to be one of the meaneſt.