A Brief enquiry into the ancient constitution and government of England as well in respect of the administration, as succession thereof ... / by a true lover of his country.

A Brief enquiry into the ancient constitution and government of England as well in respect of the administration, as succession thereof ... / by a true lover of his country.

Table of contents

Title page

THE Publisher's PREFACE TO THE READER.

A BRIEF ENQUIRY INTO THE Ancient Constitution and Government of England, ctc. In a Dialogue between a Justice of Peace, and an Understanding Freeholder.

Books Sold by Richard Baldwin.

A BRIEF ENQUIRY INTO THE Ancient Constitution and Government of England, ctc.
In a Dialogue between a Justice of Peace, and an Understanding Freeholder.

[Page]

[Page]

I.

GOOD Morrow Neighbour; What brings you hither so early? If you want a Warrant, I'll call my Clerk, and then hear your Business.

F.

No, I assure your Worship, the Business I come about is of greater concern, and that no less than the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, as well as the Power and Prerogative of our Kings; which though I heard you. Treat of in your late Charge to the Grand Jury last Quarter-Sessions, yet since I could not come near enough to hear it distinctly, not being of [Page] that Jury my self, pray give me the substance of that Discourse; and I the rather desire it, because I have since heard it much censured by some of our Neighbours as savouring of Commonwealth Principles: But to save you the labour of a needless repetition, I will ask you those Questions which I desire most to be satisfied in.

I.

Pray use your discretion, and begin when you please; I will do my endeavour to satisfie you as well as I can, though without putting my self to the trouble of quoting many Authors, which perhaps you never heard of; and therefore pray believe, that whatever I shall tell you, I have not only Reason, but Authorities also for what I then said.

F.

I have no cause to doubt what you say; therefore, pray Sir, in the first place tell me, what you then said about the Natural state of Mankind as to Civil Liberty: Pray Sir, what think you, Were men at first Born Subjects, or did they become so by some Human means?

I.

As to this, Adam (for example) being the First man, could not, as a Husband to Eve, or as a a Father to Cain, Abel, and the rest of his Children, be an Absolute Lord or Monarch over them: His Power, as that of all other Fathers of Families, not being a Civil Power, but that of a Husband, or Father, only for the direction of his [Page] Wife in all things relating to the affairs of the Family; and over his Children in order to their good Education in the Fear of God, and for their Maintenance whilst they continued Members of it; so that Subjection to Government could never begin from mens being born Servants, or Subjects, as some will have it.

F.

Pray then tell me, Sir, what is Civil Government?

I.

I think Civil Government is God's Ordinance, which he has ordained for the Good and Happiness of Mankind, to preserve men from the Violence both of Foreign and Domestick Enemies, since the nature of man depraved by the Fall of Adam is too apt otherwise to fall into all manner of mischiefs and enormities, as well towards himself as others.

F.

How then did it begin? Was it by any Divine Precept, or else by the Consent of many men who had found the Inconveniencies of living without it?

I.

Before the Flood there is no mention in Scripture of any sort of Civil Government, or any Precept left for it; the first that seems to prescribe it, being after the Flood, when God gave Noab that positive Precept, Gen. 9. 6. That whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; whence Divines argue a necessity of Magistrates for putting this Law in execution; but who [Page] were to appoint them, the Scripture is wholly silent; and though indeed there is mention made of Kings in Genesis very early in the world, yet is it not there told us how those Kings were made; therefore it is most reasonable to suppose, that they either at first began by the tacit Consent or Election of the Masters of Families, and other Freemen of the same Lineage, or Nation; or else by Conquest of other Nations by force of Arms.

F.

But, pray Sir, is there not an account given us in Scripture of Judges and Kings made by God's own Appointment among the Iews?

I.

Yes; but that concerned no other Nation but them; who are the only People, that I know of, that had a Civil Government, as well as Divine Law, from God's own Appointment.

F.

But, Sir, did not God's thus giving the Iews Kings, or Persons at least endued with Kingly Power, (though not under that Title) render Monarchy to be of Divine Right, so as that all other Nations are thereby obliged to have no other Government but that?

I.

No sure, not at all; for till the time of Saul they had no visible King over them; God himself was their King, and those that Governed under him could do nothing of moment without his express Command; [Page] and where that did not interpose, the Government was by Moses and a Senate of Seventy Elders, and also by the Heads or Princes of the several Tribes as Subordinate to them; and after his Decease, by Ioshua and the other Judges whom God raised up; who if they had been Kings in Power, but not in Title, it would have been in vain for the Israelites to have desired a King to be like other Nations; and you see when they desired such a King, God was angry with them, as if they had rejected himself; so that there is no other consequence to be drawn from all these Examples, but that Kingly Government is the most Antient, and may also be the best, if kept within due limits.

F.

Pray whence then do Kings now-a-days derive their Power, (since God hath long since left off making any Kings by Divine Precept)? Whether is it from God, or from the People?

I.

I told you before, that all Power is from God, and consequently Kingly Power must be so too; yet this is so to be understood, that this Power cannot Rightfully be acquired without the People's Consent; I mean all those who being Master's of Families, and Free-men at their own dispose, had at first a Power of setting up what sort of Government they pleased; and hence it is that we find so many sorts of Governments [Page] in the world; as for example, Monarchy, which is either Absolute, as in France and Turkey; or Limited, as in England, and as it was not long since in all the Northern Kingdoms of Europe; or else Aristocracy, that is, the Government of the best sort, or Nobility; or else Democracy, where the Common People Govern alone, or else have the predominant Power. But all these, as they derive their Power from God, are alike ordained by him; though in respect also of men, who first found out and instituted these several Governments, they are also called by St. Peter, the ordinance of men, or a human creature, as the Original words it.

F.

But do we not also find in Scripture, that most of the great Kingdoms or Monarchies of the world have began from Conquest? Does not therefore Conquest of a Nation by Arms give the Conqueror a Power from God to Rule over that People without their Consents?

I.

I will not dispute what Authority the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman Monarchies might have over those Nations they conquered, by a particular Donation from God, who had long before foretold those Monarchies by Daniel, and the other Prophets; and as for the first of these Empires, the Iews are particularly Commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah, to serve the [Page] King of Babylon; the like is foretold by Isaiah of Cyrus; yet for all this, I think no other Conquerors can pretend to the like Right over any Nation at this day; since all Conquest is either by a just, or an unjust War; that the latter can give no right at all to the Conqueror, all Writers agree; and that even the former can give no right without the Peoples consent, either tacit or exprest, seems also as certain, since in respect of them who are not capable Judges of the right or wrong of the Quarrel, it can lay no obligation of Obedience, farther than they please by some act of their own to acknowledge the Conqueror for their Lawful Prince; which being once done voluntarily, is all one in respect of themselves, as if it were by their Election, or that of their lawful Representatives: Nor could the first Conqueror (mighty Nimrod, for example) ever conquer the neighbouring Nations by the sole assistance of his own Children and Servants, without the conjunction of other Fathers of Families, and Freemen, who 'tis most likely followed him for a share of the Spoil, and upon certain Conditions agreed upon between them; for the like we find of all other Conquerors in Ancient as well as Modern Histories.

F.

But pray shew me, Sir, how this can be, since most Nations have been conquer'd at some time or other; but few of them [Page] have given their Consents (as I know of) either in a whole Assembly of all that Nation, or else by their lawful Representatives, as we do in England.

I.

'Tis true, they have not given their Consents all at once, but singly, and one by one, they have done, and constantly do it every day in Towns and Countries that pass from one King to another by Conquest; for it is certain that all such Subjects as do not like the Religion or Government of the Conquering Prince or Commonwealth, may lawfully retire out of the conquer'd City or Countrey, and carry their Estates with them, or else sell their Lands, and carry away the Money if they can, without any crime; so that it is apparent it is only from the Acknowledgment or Recognition of each particular Person who stays there, that this Conqueror comes to have any Right to the Subjects Allegiance.

F.

Pray how is this Consent or Acknowledgment given, since Oaths of Allegiance (as I am inform'd) are not exacted in all places of the world where Conquests are made?

I.

I grant it; but where they are not so imposed nor taken, the persons that have not sworn to this new Government, can never be oblig'd to an Active Obedience, or to fight for, or serve the Conquering Prince, against perhaps their former lawful Sovereign; [Page] yet I think thus much I may justly maintain, That whatever Prince, be he a Conqueror, or Usurper (who is much the same thing in respect of the Subjects) who shall take upon him to administer the Civil Government, by protecting the conquer'd people, punishing Malefactors, and doing equal Justice by himself or his Judges between man and man; whosoever of this conquer'd people will continue in that City or Countrey, and receive his Protection, and enjoy all the other Rights of other Subjects, is so far obliged by virtue of that Protection he receives, as to yield a Passive Submission to all the Laws that such a Conqueror shall make, and not to conspire against, or disturb his Government by Plots or Rebellions. But indeed this tacit Consent or Acknowledgment of the Conqueror's Authority, because not given by the People at once, makes many men believe that their Consent is not at all necessary to make a Conqueror's Power obligatory as to them; not but that I do acknowledge that Oaths of Allegiance are of great use in any Kingdom or Commonwealth, to bind men to a stricter Observance of their Duty, and also to an Active Obedience to all their Conqueror's lawful Commands, even to venturing their Lives for the Government, since it is for the Publick Good of the Community, if they are so required.

[Page]F.

I am well enough satisfied as to the Original of Government, and the Right that all Kings and Commonwealths have to their Subjects Allegiance, whether they began at first by the express Consent or Election of the People, or else by Conquest and their subsequent Consents; but pray satisfy me in the next place concerning the Government of England; you said it was a Limited Monarchy, and I have never heard that questioned; but how did this Limitation begin? whether from the very first Institution of the Government, or else by the gracious Concessions of our Kings?

I.

Without doubt, Neighbour, from the very Institution of the Government; for our first English Saxon Kings were made so by Election of the People, in their great Councils, or Parliaments (as we now call them) and could do nothing considerable either as to Peace or War without its Consent; and this Council was to meet of course once a year, without any Summons from the King, and oftner by his Summons, if there was any occasion for it; and it is certain that the Freemen of England have always from beyond all times of memory enjoyed the same Fundamental Rights and Privileges (I mean in substance) that they do at this day.

F.

Pray, Sir, what are those Fundamental Rights and Privileges that you say we [Page] have so long enjoy'd; tell me what they are.

I.

I will in as few words as I can: First then, The Freemen of England were never bound to observe any Laws, either in matters Civil or Religious, but what were made by the King, with the Consent of the Great Council, consisting of the Clergy, Nobility, and Commons, assembled in Parliament.

Secondly, That no Taxes could be lawfully imposed upon the Nation, or any man's Property taken away without the Consent of this Council. 3. That this Great Council had ever a power of hearing and redressing all Grievances and Complaints of the Subjects, not only against the * Oppressions of any of the King's great Officers or Ministers, ‘who were too great to be called to an account in any other Court; but also the particular Wrongs of the King himself, the Queen, or their Children.’

F.

Pray how could this be done, since the King may at this day dissolve the Parliament whenever he pleases?

I.

I grant it is so now; but certainly it was otherwise when Parliaments met of course at a certain place once a year without any summons from the King; yet after that time, I find it in the Ancient Treatise, called [Page] The Manner of holding Parliaments: † ‘That the Parliament ought not to be dissolved whilst any Petition or Bill dependeth undiscussed, or at least whereto no determinate Answer is given; and that if he do, or permit the contrary, perjurus est,’ i. e. he is perjur'd: And even at this day the Two Houses may justly refuse the King any supply of Money, whilst he refuse to redress their just Grievances.

F.

This is more than I ever heard of before; but pray proceed to tell me, what are the rest of the Liberties and Priviledges of an Englishman?

I.

In short, they are these; Not to be banisht the Realm, or imprisoned, without just cause; nor to be kept there only as a punishment, but in order to a legal Trial; not to be tried, condemned, or executed, without a lawful Jury of his Peers first passed upon him, (unless in time of War, by Martial-Law); lastly, no man is oblig'd to quarter Soldiers without his own consent, and then paying for what they have. There are other less Rights and Priviledges, exprest in the Petition of Right, acknowledged and confirmed in Parliament by King Charles I. all which I omit; but these being the chiefest that concern our Lives, Liberties and Estates, were only insisted upon in my said Charge.

[Page]F.

But pray, Sir, tell me, as to the King, Is he not the sole Supream Power in England?

I.

No certainly; for then he could make Laws, and raise Money without the Peoples Consent; but every printed Act of Parliament will shew you where the Supream Power resides, wherein it is expresly recited in these words, Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons of this Realm, and the Authority of the same; or as I can shew you in several Statutes of King Henry the VIIIth. wherein it is recited thus, Be it enacted by the Assent and Consent of our Sovereign Lord the King, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by Authority of the same; whereby you may see, that not only the words Assent and Consent, but the word Authority is referred, as well to all the Three Estates, as to the King.

F.

This, I confess, is plain enough, but what are the King's chief Prerogatives.

[Page]I.

I will tell you in as few words as I can; his Majesty's chief Prerogatives (for to enumerate them all would be endless) are these, First, to call Parliaments once a year, or oftner, and Dissolve them if he pleases; to give the last hand, or sanction to all Laws for raising of Taxes, and for the enacting all other things that his Majesty, joining with the Two Houses of Parliament, shall think fit to be Enacted; to appoint Judges to Try, Condemn, and Execute Traytors, and all other Malefactors for Treason and other Crimes; and to grant Pardons for those Crimes, if his Majesty shall think fit (yet still according to his Coronation Oath); to grant Commissions to all other Magistrates and Officers, both Civil and Military, no Arms being regularly to be Rais'd but by his Authority; also by the Advice of his Privy-Council, to issue Proclamations according to Law, and for the Publick Good for enforcing the observation of such Laws, as shall be thought fit, in case those that are entrusted with the execution of them prove too remiss: Lastly, to make War and Peace, though the latter, as well as the former of these, were anciently very seldom made without the Advice and Consent of Parliament. These are the chief Prerogatives which I mentioned in my [Page] Charge, tho' I grant there are divers others, tho' less material.

F.

But, pray Sir, cannot the King by his Prerogative do some things against the Laws, and Dispence with them in all cases which he himself may judge for the Common Good of the Kingdom?

I.

The King had anciently no Power to Dispence with Statutes, with non Obstantes; and so it is solemnly declared in the Kings Bench in the 39th. of K. Edward the 3d. * by all the Justices as a Rule in Law, well known at that time, and I could tell you (were it not too tedious) how this Prerogative of Dispensations first began; but even then the King could not Dispence with any thing that was morally Evil in it self, or with what was Enacted by Authority of Parliament for the common Good and Safety of the whole People, or Nation in General: And this is the true reason why the Late King Iames could not Dispence with all Statutes concerning the taking away the Test, because the whole Nation had an Interest in them; nor could he Dispence with any Act which conferred a particular. Right [Page] or Priviledge on a third Person; and lastly, he could not commonly Dispence with any Statute wherein there was a particular provision to prevent the King from Granting Charters with Clauses of Non-obstantes; But now all Dispensations with such Statutes, are taken away by a particular Clause in the late Act of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject † which you may see if you please; and which I take to be no more than a Solemn Declaration of what was the Ancient Law of England, before non obstantes came up.

F.

I am very well satisfied in this; but, pray Sir, tell me the reason, Why the King cannot, as the Supreme Executive Power of the Kingdom, exercise his Royal Prerogative, though it were to the prejudice of some particular Persons?

I.

I can give you a very good reason for this, because this would be contrary to that Trust which was at first reposed in the King by the Representative Body of the Nation when this Limited Monarchy was first instituted, and which that ancient Treatise, called the Mirror of Iustices, * writ above [Page] Four hundred years since, very well sets forth the Common Law of England as it stood before the Conquest, as also the Original of the Government of this Kingdom by one Person, or Monarch; which he thus recites, ‘That when Forty Princes (that is, Aldermen, or Earls of Counties) did Elect one King (viz. Egbert) to Reign over them, to Maintain and Defend their Persons and Goods in Peace by Rules of Right; they made him at first to Swear, That he would maintain with all his Power, the true Christian Faith, and would Govern his People by Right without any respect of Persons; and would also be Obedient to suffer Right (i. e. Justice) as well as others of his People.’ By which it appears, That all the Prerogatives of the Crown are trusted in the King by Law, for the Good and Preservation of his People, and not for the exercise of an Arbitrary Will, or Power contrary thereunto. As also Sir Iohn Fortescue, once Lord Chancellor to King Henry the VIth. in his Treatise in Praise of our English Laws, has thus handsomely set forth, viz. ‘That the King was Made, or Elected, for the safeguard of the Law, the Bodies and Goods of his Subjects; and he hath this Power derived from the People; so that he cannot long Govern them by any other’ [Page] Power; and he also gives us the reason why he cannot regularly Dispence with Acts of Parliament; ‘Because, says he, they are made by the general Consent of the King, and the whole Realm; and if there be any thing in them that proves inconvenient, the King may quickly, or in a short time, call another Parliament to amend it;’ but not without that, as it certainly would if the King had an Absolute and Unlimited Power of Dispensing with all Laws. So that you see the King is entrusted with his Prerogative by Law (that is, by the Consent of the People only for their Benefit and Preservation); therefore if the Judges, or any other inferior Officer act contrary thereunto, though by the King's express Letters, or Messages, they are Forsworn, and may be punished for it; and in this sence it is, that the King, whilst acting thus by his subordinate Officers or Ministers, is said to do no wrong, because they are liable to be questioned for it; and if he acts otherwise by his own personal Power, or Commands, it is not as King of England, but as a private Person; so that if we will consider our own happiness, we Englishmen are blest with such noble Priviledges and Liberties, that I think there is no Nation in the world where all degrees and ranks of men may live more happily [Page] than we do: And as for the King, though it is true he hath not an Absolute Unlimited Power of doing whatever he will, yet he hath sufficient to Protect his Subjects, and bountifully to Reward those that serve him faithfully; and whenever he undertakes any Foreign War with the general Consent and Assistance of his People in Parliament, he most commonly proves a Terror to those who dare oppose him.

F.

I am very sensible of this Happiness we enjoy; and therefore when I think how miserably the poor Country-men live in France and other Countries, we of the Yeomanry have all the reason in the world to venture our lives in the defence of our Ancient Constitution; since if ever we should be reduced to an Arbitrary Government, either by a standing Army at home, or a Conquest from abroad, we can expect no better than Wooden-Shoes and Canvass-Breeches, and to drink nothing but Water with the miserable French Peasants; and, I doubt, if things should once come to that pass, you Country-Gentlemen would be but in little better condition.

But since the greatest part of your Charge was to justifie the Right of their present Majesties to the Throne, and that you insisted [Page] pretty long upon that Head; yet methoughts you were a little too short in telling us only that King Iames (who was once our Lawful King) could cease to be so; for you seem to rest contented with the bare words of the Convention's late Vote, viz. ‘That King Iames having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the original Contract between the King and the People, and that having violated the Fundamental Laws, by withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom, he had Abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was thereby become Vacant.’ So that tho you speak pretty largely of King Iames's Violations by Raising of Money without Consent of Parliament, and of exercising his Dispensing Power; yet methoughts you seem chiefly to place this Vacancy of the Throne upon King Iames's Abdication, or Desertion of it; which, let me tell you, as plain a Country Fellow as I am, will not down with me; for I can never believe the King would have deserted the Government, if he thought he could have staid here with safety; therefore, pray tell me your meaning of these hard words, Constitution of the Kingdom, Original Contract, and Abdication of the Throne.

[Page]I.

I was not willing to insist too long in the face of the Country upon these nice Points, which were not proper to be handled before an Assembly of ordinary Countrymen; but since you have always appeared to me to be above the ordinary Capacity of those of your Rank, I will tell you what I conceive was the true Sense of the Convention in every one of those expressions: first for the Constitution of the Kingdom, which King Iames went about to violate, I take that to be the Government by King, Lords and Commons in Parliament, which he endeavour'd to violate, by his taking away of Charters from Corporations, and doing his utmost to impose a Parliament upon the Nation, of such men as would not only take off the Penal Laws from Papists, and all other Dissenters, but who would also have confirmed to the King that Arbitrary Power of dispensing with what Laws he pleased; which would indeed have render'd Parliaments wholely useless, and was as good as putting the whole Legislative Power into the sole Person of the King.

F.

But the Original Contract puzzles us yet more than all the rest, and I heard Parson-Slave-all, at a neighbouring Gentleman's [Page] house the other day, ask, Whether the Speaker of the Convention had not the keeping of it under his Cushion? for he could never yet light upon it in any English History or Law-Book.

I.

Pray tell that witty Parson next time you meet him, that if he pleases to look over our Histories and Law-Books, that in the very same Leaf where the Divine Hereditary Right of Succession to the Crown in a Right Line is established as an unalterable and fundamental Law, in the very next Clause he may find this Original Contract. But not to banter you, I will tell you my sense of this expression, which, in my opinion, signifies no more than that Compact or Bargain which was first entred into between King Iames's Ancestors or Predecessors, (and under whose Title he enjoy'd the Crown) whereby they bound themselves by a solemn Oath, when they took the Crown upon them, at their Coronation, to keep and maintain the Laws of the Realm, and to govern the People according to these Rules of Justice and Mercy, that is in short, acting according to Law. Which Oath, or the substance of it, having been constantly renewed every fresh Succession to the Crown, as soon as the King was capable of taking it, sufficiently declares, that as the [Page] King upon observing this Compact, by governing according to Law, had a Right to his Subjects Allegiance; so if he refused to act according to it, but would wilfully violate the Ancient Constitution of the Kingdom, he thereby ceases to be King by Law, and by destroying his own Title to the Crown, thereby also dissolves that Bond of Allegiance which before bound his Subjects to him as well in Duty as Affection.

F.

But how can you prove that this Contract was mutual, or that the King was to enjoy his Crown only upon this Condition, That he observe the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom? since I have heard it positively asserted by those that are very well skilled in our Laws, that the King is as much King before ever he is crowned, as afterwards; and that he may chuse whether he will ever take any Coronation Oath or not.

I.

I will not now dispute that Point with you; but yet let me tell you, if a King should at this day refuse, to be crowned, because he had no mind to be tied by his Coronation Oath, I doubt whether the People, if they understood the force of that Oath his Predecessors [Page] have all along taken for so many Successions, might not as well refuse to take him for their King, since he refused to hold the Crown upon those Conditions that his Ancestors at first took it; and so might look upon themselves as good as discharged of all Oaths of Fidelity to him, since those Oaths were no doubt at first instituted on this mutual Consideration, that both should observe their part, and not that one side should be loose, and the other fast; but to shew you in the first place, that every Coronation Oath was in the Saxon times, and long after the Conquest, a Renewal of this Original Contract may appear from these Considerations:

1. That all the Kings of the West Saxons were elected, or at least confirmed by the great Council or Parliament *; and I can shew you a particular Law of a General Synod or Parliament of all England, wherein is particularly set down the Laws or Rules for the electing of their Kings, as that they were not to be Bastards, &c. And pursuant to this Law of electing their Kings, this great Council † often preferred the Younger Brother before the Elder, or the [Page] Uncle before the Nephew, when either greater Merit, or the pressing Necessities of the Kingdom required it, which when once agreed upon by the Bishops, and great men of the Kingdom in the great Council, after their Election, and upon the day of their Coronation, the Archbishop of Canterbury (whose Right it has always been to crown the King) went to the King Elect, and before ever he proceeded to the Coronation, tender'd him a solemn Oath *, whereby he was to swear three things:

First, That God's Church, and all the Christian People of his Kingdom should enjoy true Peace and Quiet.

Secondly, That he should forbid Rapine, and all Injustice to all sorts of men.

Thirdly, That he would command Justice together with Mercy in all Judgments: And then (and not till then) was the Crown set upon his Head, and the Scepter put into his Hand by the Archbishop; and till this was done, the Prince Elect was not looked upon as King, nor had any Right to the Subjects Allegiance. And thus stood this [Page] immemorial Custom unaltered, not only during the Saxon times, but long after the coming in of the Normans; for the first seven Kings after William I. who till their Coronations were never owned nor stiled Kings until King Edward I. who was Elected (or Recognized) for King, in a great Convention of the Estates, who then assembled of their own Accord, when he was in the Holy Land, and they caused an Oath of Fealty to be taken to him two Years before his arrival in England; and though I grant since that time the Crown hath been claimed as Hereditary, yet has it rather been by vertue of those Entails that have been successively made of it by express Acts of Parliament, and not from any Fundamental Law or Constitution of the Kingdom. This was the ancient Form of electing and making our Kings, the Footsteps of which Election still remain to later times, when the Archbishop used to lead the King or Queen to all parts of the Scaffold, as at the several Coronations of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth *: asked all the People standing below, Whether they would have this Person to be their King or Queen?

[Page]F.

I confess you tell me more of this matter than ever I knew before; but yet I am still to seek, how this old Coronation Oath, exprest in so few words, should tie those Princes to observe the Laws of the Kingdom, since it seems that by this Oath, he was rather to govern according to Equity, than Law.

I.

That is, because you do not understand the Legal Force of those words contained in this Oath; for by the first Branch of it, whereby God's Church, and all Christian People should enjoy true Quiet, is meant not only that the Clergy in particular should under him enjoy all their lawful Rights and Priviledges, but also all the other Lay-Members of Christ's Church should enjoy the free Profession of the Christian Religion as by Law establisht, without any molestation or disturbance.

2. By forbidding Rapine and all Injustice, is meant not only his hindring Robberies, and all violent takings of his Subjects Goods, but also the illegal taking them by his own personal Commands, or by his inferior Officers or Ministers.

3. By commanding Justice together with Mercy in all his Judgments, is meant no more, than his not pardoning the Guilty [Page] when condemned, and also not to condemn the Innocent, or such whose particular Circumstances might deserve Mercy, and is no more than what was afterwards granted by Magna Charta, the sense of which is, ‘That the King there promises neither to deny nor defer, nor yet to sell Justice to any man;’ which extends likewise as well to his great Officers and Judges, as himself, since they being the Keepers of the King's Oath and Conscience, he is guilty of the like Perjury, if he either connive, or is a wilful Partaker or Encourager of their Injustice. And it was also declared for Law by the Judges, in the Reign of King Edward III. That not only the King, but the Prelates, Nobles, Governors, and Justices, &c. of this Realm, were tied by their Oaths to maintain the ancient Laws, Franchises and Customs of the Kingdom of England. And also in a Letter sent from the Parliament in the 29th of Edward I. to the Pope *, the States of the Kingdom do there declare, ‘That since the Premises required by the Pope, were to the disherison of the Crown, and subversion of the Kingdom, and to the prejudice of the Liberties, [Page] Customs and Laws of their Country, and to whose observance and defence they were bound by the Oaths they had taken, and which they would defend to the utmost of their power; nor would permit even the King himself, although he would do it, to attempt the same.’ Now pray tell me what greater Assertion of a right of Resistance in some Cases, than this Letter from the Parliament, sent by the King's own privity and consent.

F.

But you have not yet shewn me how the King, who is an Hereditary Monarch at this day, can be tied by the Oath of his Predecessors, since (as your self cannot deny) he is King before ever he is Crowned.

I.

I will not deny, but the Law is taken to be so at this day; yet it is also as true, that from the beginning it was not so, as I have here sufficiently made out; and yet for all this, I can prove, that tho the Succession to the Crown is now become Hereditary, and so may alter the manner of acquiring it, (and this for the avoiding of Contests between Competitors at Elections) yet notwithstanding this Hereditary Succession, it does no ways alter the Conditions on which the Crown was at first conferred, any more than if the [Page] Office of Lord High-Constable, or Earl-Marshal of England, having been at first granted for Life, and being afterwards by subsequent Grants made Hereditary, those that thus enjoyed them should have pretended that they were now no longer forfeitable for any Male-administration, tho never so enormous. Now, let us but apply the Case of those great Offices of Trust to that of Kingship, which is certainly an Office of the highest Trust, and then we may easily discover, that whether it be for life, or else entail'd to them, and their Heirs, they are still obliged by the first Contract of their Ancestors, which is for memory sake still renewed at every King's Reign; so that tho the manner of their Accession to the Crown be alter'd from what it was at first, yet the Conditions on which it was first taken, remain the same as long as the Oath it self continues; so being renewed at every King's Reign. And hence it is, that our Kings enjoy their Crowns, be it for Life or Intail. Now it is certain, that this Solemn Oath or Contract which was taken by the first King, ought by Law to be renewed at the beginning of every King's Reign; and hence it is, that our Kings are not only bound by their own express Oaths or Contracts with their Subjects, but also by the implied Oaths or Compacts of [Page] their Predecessors under whose Title they claim.

And King Iames I. was so sensible of this double Contract, that he expresly mentions it in one of his Speeches to 1609. both Houses of Parliament, where he very well distinguishes between both those Contracts, telling them, ‘That a King in a setled Kingdom binds himself by a double Oath to the Observation of the Fundamental Laws of his Kingdom, tacitly as being a King [that is claiming under his Ancestors] and so bound to protect them as well as the Laws of his Kingdom; and expresly by his own Oath at his Coronation: So as every Just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that Paction or Covenant made to his People by his Laws, in forming his Government agreable thereunto, according to that Paction which God made to Noah, &c. And then goes on to tell them, That therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom, leaves to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws. And then concludes, That all Kings who are not Tyrants, nor Perjured, will be glad to bind themselves within the limits of their Laws; and they that perswade them otherwise, are the worst Vipers and Pests [Page] both against them, and the Commonwealth.’

So that you see here by King Iames's own Concession, that there are not only Fundamental Laws, but an Original Contract (which he there calls a Paction or Covenant) to observe them from the time of the first King or Monarch to this day, and that when he ceases to Govern according to this Compact (which he here calls his Laws) he then becomes a Tyrant.

F.

But I have heard some say, That William the First, after he had conquered England, distributed almost all the Lands to his Norman and French Followers; and that if there were any Original Contract ever entred into by the English Saxon Kings, it was quite void upon the Conquerors obtaining the Crown, and subduing all the People of this Nation; so that whatever Liberties we now enjoy, they were but the gracious Concessions of himself, and his Successors, without any such Original Compact.

I.

I confess it is so alledged by some high flying Gentlemen, who, if they could, would make us all Slaves to the King's Absolute Will; but without any just grounds [Page] in my Opinion, since every one of their Suppositions are either false, or built upon rotten Foundations. For in the first place, a: Conquest in an Unjust War (as I have already proved) can confer no Right on the Conqueror over a free People; and if this War were never so Just, yet could not he thereby have acquired any Right over the whole Kingdom, since the War was not made against the English Nation, but Harold only, who had usurped the Crown contrary to Right: so that King William could have no Right to it without the People's Consent in their Great Council or Parliament, which most of the Historians of those times say he obtained; but indeed, King William (whom you call the Conqueror) never claimed by that Title, but by the Donation or Testament of King Edward the Confessor, and the Consent or Election of the People of England, as all his English-Saxon Predecessors had done before him; nor did he give all, nor yet a third part of the Lands of England to his Norman Followers, as you suppose; or if he had, would it do the business for which it is urged, since his Norman and French Followers to whom he gave those Lands, were never conquered, but were (if any thing) the Conquerors of others, and from them most of our Ancient English [Page] Nobility and Gentry are lineally descended, or else claim under their Titles by Purchases, Mariages, &c. and so succeed to all their Rights and Priviledges. And at the worst, supposing King William to have in some Cases governed Arbritrarily, and like a Conqueror over the English; this was not so, till he was provoked to it by their frequent Plots and Conspiracies against him; and yet even that was done contrary to his Coronation-Oath, which was the same that all the Saxon Kings had taken before, only with this Addition, That he should govern as well his French as his English Subjects by equal Law or Right * so that his wilful Breach of this Oath could not give him, or his Successors any just Right by the Sword over the Lives, Estates, or Liberties of any Englishman, who had never fought against him, nor offended his Laws. And tho I should grant that this King, and his Son William Rufus, governed his Norman, as well as his English Subjects very Arbitrarily, and contrary to his own Laws; yet did his Brother, King Henry 1st, make both his English and Norman Subjects large [Page] amends by the great Charter of their Ancient Liberties, which he granted immediately after his Election to the Crown by the Chief Bishops, Lords, and Free-men of the Kingdom; and upon which the great Charter of England, renewed by King Iohn, and afterwards confirmed by his Son, Henry the 3d, were founded, being but larger Explanations thereof.

F.

I confess this is more than ever I knew before; but what if a King of England (as King Iames lately did) will cease to govern like a legal or limited King, and prove a Tyrant by breaking this original Compact, which his Predecessors made with the people, does it therefore follow that he may be resisted if he does? or can he ever cease to be King, or forfeit his Royal Dignity, if he acts never so Tyrannically? for sure if all resistance of his Power be unlawful, as being so declared by several Acts of Parliament in King Charles the Second's Reign, he can never cease to be King, except he will wilfully turn himself out of the Throne.

I.

I am very well satisfied that those Acts you mention were only made upon this Supposition, That the King would never violate the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, by [Page] which he became King, or go about to change the Constitution of the Government; since that had been to give the King an Irresistible Power to make us all Slaves whenever he pleased; so that our Religion, Lives, and Civil Liberties, would lye not only at the King's mercy, but at the mercy of those Ministers that govern him; and therefore as it can never be supposed to have been the intent of that Parliament to tye up themselves, and the whole people of this Nation to the King on such hard terms; nay, supposing that the Parliament had done it, I do not think they had any right so to do, since they were intrusted by those that chose them, not to alter the Fundamental Constitution of the Government, but to strengthen and confirm it; so that if by this Act of Non-resistance the Government might easily be altered, and the Legislative Power, as well as that of raising Money, may be taken out of the Power of the King, and the Two Houses, and should be put solely in the King's person, the whole frame of the Government would not only be altered, but actually dissolved, and consequently Resistance in this case would not be a crime, but a duty; since Parliaments were instituted for the maintenance of the King's Legal, and not Tyrannical Power, and for preserving the people in that share of the Government, which by the Fundamental [Page] Constitutions of the Kingdom belonged to them.

F.

But pray tell me, Sir, Is there any express Law for this Resistance; for indeed I could never hear of any such? and therefore, I doubt, that if those Noblemen and Gentlemen, who went in lately to help his present Majesty, when Prince of Orange, had been taken Prisoners, and himself defeated by the King's Army; but they would have all of them been guilty of High Treason, by the Statute of 25 of Edward the Third; and sure it would have been no good Plea, to be allowed by the Judges, that they took not up Arms against the King of Government, because the Government was dissolved by the King's exercising an Arbitrary Power.

I.

I would not argue with you what would have happened if the King had got the better, and either taken the Prince of Orange prisoner or driven him out of the Kingdom; for I never knew in all the Histories I have read, but that a Prince, who had the Armed Force of the Nation on his side, could hang whom he pleased; [Page] and will always find Judges and Jury-men enough ready to side with him in it, as we have found by many late Examples.

But this is no Argument for the Right or justice of such Proceedings; for we know King Charles the First was tried and condemned by the Pretended Authority of the Rump Parliament, notwithstanding, his denying that they had any Authority over him; and though it be true there is no express Act of Parliament to tell us when the Government is dissolved, and when, and in what case men may resist the King, or those commissioned by him; yet does it not follow that no such thing can ever be lawfully done; for it is sufficiently proved from the reason and necessity of the thing it self, though no express Law or Conditions be made for it; which may be also observed in all Moral or Religious Promises or Contracts. Thus if I promise, or swear to a man, never upon any account whatsoever to beat or kill him, this-is still so to be understood, that he does not go about to beat, or kill me; for then my right of self-defence will take place, [Page] notwithstanding my Oath: so when people are married, they mutually promise each other to live together till death do part, yet no man will say a man or woman commits a sin, or breaks this solemn Promise, if the former, by reason of Adultery in the Wife, or the latter, by the extream Cruelty or Harshness of the Husband, do separate from each other, and that perhaps for ever.

But I shall now shew you that there is a Resistance allowed even by the Law it self in some cases, against those that have the King's personal Commission, as may appear by this Instance. Suppose an Officer with a Company of Soldiers should under a colour of such a Commission take upon them to keep possession of a House, contrary to Law, do you not believe, but the Sheriff may upon a legal Process issued out thereupon, raise the Posse Comitatus, and restore the Possession by Force to the Right Owner, notwithstanding this Commission; and the Reason is plain, because though the Officer may have the King's personal Command for so doing, yet it is the Sheriff alone who acts by a Legal Authority, and who [Page] alone can justifie the using of this Force: Now if any man should be killed in this Action, no doubt but the Officer and his Soldiers, and not the Sheriff, and the men that assisted him, would be found guilty of murther.

F.

I grant this may be so; but is not this the true reason of it, because the Sheriff acts by the King's implyed Authority, without which no man can lawfully take up Arms? But how can this be justified, in case Arms were taken up upon supposition the Government is Dissolved, which is all one as to affirm, That the King is no longer King?

I.

I allow that great part of what you say is true, but not all; for in the first place it is plain, that there is a Legal Resistance of those Commissions, though issued by the King, and which is justifiable by Law, as appears by this instance; which rule holds good as long as the Laws can be permitted to have their due course: But what if the King will not permit that they shall, but will take part with this wicked Officer and his Soldiers, and [Page] maintain them in these violent Actions, and either not let the Law pass upon them, or if it does, should constantly Pardon them as soon as they had committed any such violent illegal Acts by his Commands contrary to Law? Can any man believe that such Proceedings, if commonly practiced, would not quickly dissolve the Government, and make such a King cease to be so, since he refused to Govern and Protect his Subjects according to Law, and his own Coronation Oath, which virtually contains those Conditions on which he holds his Crown? for when there is no Justice to be had in the Kings Courts, it then becomes a meer Anarchy, wherein there can be nothing but Rapine and Confusion, and consequently puts men in a State of War.

F.

I have I know not what to say to this; But can you shew me any express Law for the King's ceasing to be so, in case he thus leave off to Protect his People, and Govern them according the Laws of the Land?

I.

Yes that I can, for I can shew you a good old Law of King Edward [Page] the Confessor, * which is also among those that were confirm'd by K. Will. I. whereby it is expresly declared, ‘That the King, who is God's Lieutenant, is appointed to this end, That he defend his Kingdom and People, and above all things Reverence his Holy Church, and Defend it from Injuries, and take away Wicked doers from it; which unless he do, not so much as the name of King shall remain to him; neo nomen Regis in eo constabit,’ as it is in the Latine; which is likewise confirmed by Bracton, † an ancient Lawyer, who tells us, That it is the King's Crown or Authority to do Justice and Judgment, and to maintain Peace, without which (it follows) That this Crown or Authority cannot Consist, or be retained: So in another place he says, That it is not the King, where only Will, and not Law Governs; and in another place he gives this reason for it, Because the King was Elected to do Iustice to all men. Therefore when he thus abuses his [Page] Power, and deviates from the main end of his Creation, his Authority ceases, or is at an End; so that nothing seems plainer to me, than that all our Ancient Laws and Lawyers have declared, that a King who willfully Acts contrary to these known Laws of the Land, by turning Tyrant, and by endeavouring to alter the Ancient Constitution, and by thus breaking his Contract above-mentioned, looses or forfeits all his Regal Dignity and Power.

F.

But, pray Sir, How can this be, since our late Statutes declare the King not to be subject to any Coercive Power of the Two Houses of Parliament?

I.

I grant the Law to be so now; but from the beginning it was not so (as I said but now); many of the Saxon▪ Kings before the Conquest, were Deposed by the great Council of the Kingdom; and since that time King Edward and Richard the IId. were solemnly Deposed by Authority of Parliament; and that proceedings against them were never expresly Condemned or repealed by any subsequent Statute [Page] that I know of; but admit the Law is not so now, does it not therefore follow, that because the King is not Punishable, nor Accountable to the Parliament, that therefore he is wholly also Irresistable, and can never fall from his Royal Dignity, let him behave himself as he will towards his People? for sure it is one thing to be accountable, or Punishable by the Parliament as his Superior, and another to be Disobeyed and Resisted by the whole Nation, when it shall judge he has broken this Original Contract made by himself and his Predecessors, in violating the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Government, by vertue of which he became King; since the former course of Proceedings must be according to some Law▪ but for this there is no Law now extant, but the contrary declared by several Statutes; whereas Resistance in those cases I have now put upon a total breach of the Original. Contract, is not only justifiable from the very Constitution of the Government; but also from the Right of Nature, viz. Self-defence; whereby, whoever violently Assaults me in Life, Liberty, or Estate, I am justified in Defending my self against him; for otherwise [Page] any Right were wholely insignificant, if it might not be Defended by Force, when endeavoured by Force to be taken away.

F.

But methinks this seems hard, and of evil consequence? to take this Power of Judging the King's Actions, whether Legal or not, out of the Parliament, and to place it in the diffusive Body of the whole Nation, whereby we of the high shoos would be made as capable of Judging when this Original▪ Contract is broken, as the best Gentleman of you all; which, the temper of the meaner and beggarly sort of People considered, seems very dangerous, since this would give them a Right to Rebel, and take Arms whenever they had a mind to it, as I have read in our Chronicles they did in Richard the IId. and Henry the VIth. and Henry the VIIth's time; and as they did lately in Plundering, Pulling down, and Burning Popish Gentlemen's Houses, &c.

I.

You very much mistake me, for I do not put this power of Judging any where, but where it ever was, much less to give a Power of taking [Page] up Arms, and raising Rebellion to the Mob, or most common sort of People; but first to shew you, that every man in his several Station, and at his Peril, is to judge of the Legality and Illegality of the King's Commissions, or Proclamations: Pray let me ask you this question, Suppose that the King grants a Commission to certain of us Country Gentlemen, to raise a Tax contrary to Law, are we obliged to Obey it, or not?

F.

No sure, you are not, because you should be Punished, not only in Parliament, but at Common Law, if you did.

I.

Well then, it seems that we Justices and Deputy-Lieutenants may judge in this Case, but, pray tell me, suppose we should notwithstanding order this Tax to be levied, and you were High-Constable of the Hundred, Do you think your self obliged blindly to obey our Orders, being so Notoriously contrary to Laws?

F.

I think truly I should not, but should plainly tell your Worships, that I was not obliged either by Law or [Page] in Conscience to have any hand in oppressing my self and my Neighbours, and should desire you to put this ungrateful Task upon some Body else, since I thought my self liable to be called to Account one time or other, if I did it.

I.

Very well; but if you and the other High-Constable of the Country should agree with us Justices to raise this Tax, Do you think the Petty-Constables and Assessors were obliged to act by this New Commission contrary to Law?

F.

I do not think that if we High-Constables should be such Fools and Knaves, the Petty-Constables and Assessors were obliged to be so too.

I.

Well then, you see that not only we Gentlemen, but you Yeomen can judge, (nay, are obliged at your Perils to do it) when things are imposed upon you contrary to Law; nay, and to refuse to execute them too.

F.

I grant all this is true, but this is not Resistance by force; but I suppose [Page] you Gentlemen would count it downright Rebellion in us Country-Fellows, if you should tell us such a Tax already imposed was according to Law; and we should be so far from paying it, as to raise the Country, and fall upon you Commissioners that went about to raise it by distraining or imprisoning the Refusers.

I.

By your favour, Neighbour, your very Refusal to levy this Tax is a Civil Resistance; since all Disobedience to the Command of Superiors is so, as proceeding from a Right that those that disobey suppose they have of judging of the Legality or Illegality of such Commands; but as for forceable Resistance, though I do not allow it to you, or any man else, as long as no Force is used against them, yet so much let me tell you, that if we Deputy-Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace, should ever be so foolishly wicked as to take upon us to assist the King by the power of the Trainbands, or a standing Army, to levy any Tax without Act of Parliament, or colour of Law at least, but that not only you of this County, but of all the Counties in England, might lawfully stand upon your defence, and [Page] resist this Rapine and Violence; since if this were once permitted, it would in a moment alter the Constitution of the Government in a main Fundamental Point. The like I may say of any other matter of the same nature, if it should be imposed upon you by Force, contrary to Law, that is, contrary to, or without any Act of Parliament to warrant it.

Nor would this justify all the Rebellions you mention to have been raised by the Common People in those several Kings Reigns; since those were raised upon levying of Taxes imposed by the King and Parliament, which is the sole Supreme Legislative Power of the Nation, where I grant it is Rebellion to resist; whereas that Resistance, which I only now suppose to be Lawful, is against the King's personal Commands or Commissions in opposition to known Laws, which is not to resist the Supreme Power of the Nation, but only the King's Person, when he acts not as King, but as a private man.

F.

But, pray Sir, is not this to separate the King's Personal, from his Politick Capacity, to suppose the man may [Page] be resisted, and not the King; or the King's Personal, but not his Legal Commissions or Commands? for to do this, I have heard, has been declared to be Treason?

I.

This is also justifiable by Law in some Cases; for if the King should happen to prove mad, (as divers Kings have) pray do not his Servants about him hold or tie the Madman, and yet how can they do this, without binding the King? And, pray tell me, what difference is there between Madness, which is a Natural Disability and Tyranny, which is a moral incapacity to govern? since both are alike destructive to the Common Good of the Nation. And when you suppose we may lawfully disobey the King's personal Commands, what do we but then by disobeying the King, distinguish between the King's politick and his personal Capacity; that is, when he acts legally as King, and when he issues out his Commissions or Commands, without any Law to warrant him? or else when the Persons commissioned are made by Law incapable of the King's Commissions, as the Popish Officers lately were? since otherwise we were all obliged to yield the [Page] same Obedience to the one as well as to the other.

Nor is it at all harder, but much easier to judge, when such Commissions or Commands are attended with Force and Violence, and when they are not; since certainly every plain Country-Fellow can much better tell, when a thing contrary to Law, is put upon or exacted of him by Force, than when it is only barely commanded or required of him by a Commission or Proclamation; seeing the latter only reaches the Understanding, but the former not only touches the Understanding, but the outward Senses of Hearing, Seeing and Feeling▪ To conclude, I would not have you therefore believe that I allow this general Resistance to the whole Nation, but only when by a General Violation of our Fundamental Liberties, the whole Constitution of the Government comes to be in danger of an utter Ruine and Subversion, by breach of the Original Contract abovementioned: and that these Violations and Oppressions do some way or other concern the whole Body of the People of this Nation, that is, all Orders and Degrees of men, and then only (and not till then) I look upon such a general Resistance of the King, and those [Page] commissioned by him to be lawful; that is, when all other Remedies are become absolutely desperate and impracticable, thro' the King's wilful Obstinacy to amend such Violations.

F.

I grant this seems very reasonable, but pray tell me what those grand Violations are, that can thus alter the Fundamental Constitution of the Government, and can make a total breach of this Original Contract?

I.

They do, I conceive, consist but in a few Points, and they are these.

First, If the King should take upon him to make Laws, either concerning Religion, or Civil Matters, and to impose then upon the People without their Consent in Parliament.

Secondly, If he take upon him to dispense with all Laws, and especially when his hands are tied up, by a particular Clause to the contrary, that he shall not so dispense with them.

Thirdly, If he take upon him of his own head, without the Advice or Opinion of his Judges, to raise Money upon the Nation: Or,

[Page] Fourthly, If he corrupt the Judges to give their Opinions according to his humour, either by promising of Rewards, or threatning them if they refuse; and will put none into those places, who will not do whatever he commands them, or turns them out as soon as they act otherwise.

Fifthly, If he go about to alter the ancient Constitution of Parliaments, and bring the Election of the Members of the House of Commons, only into the hands of those of his own Party or Opinion, whereby our Liberty of Electing and Voting by our Lawful Representatives would be quite taken away. The like I may also say of the House of Peers, if he should go by Force either to exclude the Bishops or Temporal Lords, who have a Right of sitting there by Prescription; and should, under pretence of his Prerogative, bring such as had no Right to sit there at all.

Sixthly, and lastly, If he should go about commonly or generally, to take away the Subjects Lives, Liberties or Estates, by an Arbitrary Power, contrary [Page] to Law, upon pretended Crimes, and without such due Trial as the Law requires.

Now I think you cannot but acknowledge, that most (if not all) of these Heads, are easily to be judged of by all the People of England, when they are come to that extremity that we can have no reason to doubt of it.

F.

But, pray Sir, tell me who shall judge of these Violations, or what number may be allowed to rise and redress them?

I.

The Judges are, I told you before, the whole Body of the Nation or People, every one in his private Capacity; that is, not the Clergy alone, or the Lords alone, or the * less Nobility or Gentry, and much less you Yeomen, or landed men, and least of all the meer Rabble or Mob, but all men of all Orders and Conditions taken together; and as for the number, it is any, though never so small, that are able to make a head till more can come into their Assistance.

[Page]F.

But would not a Free Parliament be a much better Judge of these Violalations, than this general Body of the People?

I.

I grant it, if a Parliament may be had that were free and unbiass'd; but what if the King resolves not to call any? or, if he does, will not give them leave to sit till they have redrest our Grievances? Or, what if he will not call one, till he thinks he can make or pack it according to his own mind? The Nation may at this rate be enslaved as much, nay worse, by having the appearance of a Parliament to confirm the King's Arbitrary Power, than if he had acted by none at all; so that in these Cafes there can be no other Remedy left us, but an Appeal to the General Body of the People, with whom that Original Contract I mentioned was at first made; not but that a Free Parliament or Convention, when ever it can meet, may be of excellent use to examine what the People (who thus take up Arms) have acted in defence of their just Rights and Liberties, and to judge and declare it to have been well or ill done, and upon what grounds; and this hath been the course [Page] of all Parliaments that have been called immediately after any great and general Resistance or Revolution, made upon the Accounts abovementioned. This I could prove to you from several Instances in divers Kings Reigns since the Conquest, were it worth my pains; but still in all those Cases the first opposition hath been from the great Body of the Clergy, Nobility and People together, as you may particularly read in the Reign of King Iohn, not long before the great Council at Runney Mead.

F.

But, pray Sir, can you also justify those Lords and Gentlemen who took up Arms, and declared for the Prince of Orange; and also those Lords, together with the Officers and Soldiers, who deserted the King, and went into the Prince's Army? Pray, Sir, did you look upon the Government to be then actually dissolved when they went in to him, and that the King, by the breach of the Original Contract, was then no longer King?

I.

I do not say so; for though those Violations, if obstinately persisted in without amendment, were enough to create such a Dissolution, and consequently a [Page] Forfeiture of the Crown, as they wrought at the last; yet the Government can never be dissolved, so long as there remain any hopes that the King will amend those Violations he has made, in a Free Parliament; for the obtaining of which, as it was the chief cause of his Highness's coming over, so was it also of those Lords, Gentlemen and Officers going in to him, or declaring for him: and this, I think, they may very well justify both in Honour and Conscience. And though there be no express Law for it, yet it is no more than what the Nobility, Gentry and People of other Kingdoms as well as this, have many times done before in former Ages, when their Kings being misled and deluded by evil Councellors or Ministers of State, have made the like Breaches upon their Liberties. And though I confess such taking up of Arms have not always met with the desired Success, yet for the most part they have, and then such wicked Judges and Councellors have not failed to be punished, and those Lords, Gentlemen and others, who so nobly and stoutly stood up for the Rights and Liberties of the Nation have been also pardoned by Act of Parliament, and that with the King's own [Page] consent, when those wicked men were once removed; but the King himselff was never touched, till by his own wilful and obstinate persisting in such violent courses, he let the Nation see that he was wholely irreclaimable, and obstinately bent to destroy our Liberties, and set up Arbitrary Government and Tyranny in this Kingdom, as I could shew you from several Instances in the Reigns of King Iohn, Henry III. Edward I. and Richard II. if it were necessary to give you a particular History of all those Transactions; so that I suppose a twofold Right of Resistance in the People, the one warranted by the Laws and Constitution of the Government, which may well consist with our Loyalty to the King, and to the intent only to obtain a Free Parliament, to redress Grievances, and punish those evil Councellors who have been the chief Ministers and Designers of Arbitrary Power, as in the Case of King Iames before his departure; the other Natural, when the Government by the King's wilful and obstinate refusal to redress such Grievances, by ceasing to govern us according to Law, he thereby also ceases to be King; and then the Commonwealth or Civil Society being without a Head to execute [Page] Common Justice, was absolutely dissolved.

F.

What then is meant by these words in the late Vote and Declaration of the Convention, viz. That King James having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath abdicated the Government? Do you believe that the King's bare delertion of the Kingdom, when he declared he could not help it should be looked upon as in Abdication of the Government. methinks that seems somewhat hard to conceive.

I.

To deal freely with you, I never understood the word Abdicate in that Sense, but only according to all the precedent Clauses in this Vote, viz.

That the King, by endeavouring to break the Original Contract, between the King and his People, and by the Advice of Iesuits and wicked Persons, having violated the Fundamental Laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, hath abdicated the Government.

Where you may observe that the word Abdicated, relates to all the Clauses aforegoing, as well as to his deserting the [Page] Kingdom, or else they would have been wholely in vain; so that the meaning of this word in this place is no more, than that King Iames, by violating the Original Contract abovementioned, and by endeavouring to subvert the Fundamental Constitution, and by refusing to restore it to its former Condition, (all which was expressed by his withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom) hath abdicated the Government; that is, by refusing to govern us according to that Law by which he held the Crown, he hath implicitly renounced his Title to it; as when, for example, a Tenant for Life aliens in Fee, though he take back from the Grantee a Lease for Life or Years, yet he thereby forfeits his Estate, and the Tenant in Reversion may enter; and the reason is, because he parts with that Estate which he held by Law, and will hold by another Title which the Law doth not allow; for abdicare in the Latin Tongue, signifies no more than to renounce, or disclaim, as I could shew you from divers Phrases in that Language, were you a Scholar good enough to understand them; and this may be done by divers other means, besides express words: For if Kingship be a Trust for the preservation of the Rights and Liberties [Page] of the People, than such Actings contrary to that Trust as plainly strike at the very Fundamentals of the Constutution, are not only a breach of that Trust, but a tacite Renunciation of it also, which I prove thus; the doing of any Act that is utterly inconsistent with the Being and End of the thing for which it is ordained, is as true a Renouncing, or Abdication of that thing, as if it were made in express words, as I have now proved in the Case of Tenant for Life.

F.

I confess this is more than ever I heard before; but, pray, What do you think was the reason that the Convention made use of this Hard word Abdicate; (which I confess, to us Country Fellows, seem'd as bad as Heathen Greek) when they might as well have made use of plain Expressions, such as Renounce or Forfeit, which you have now made use of?

I.

I will tell you, Neighbour, my Opinion of this Matter, and if I am out you must pardon me; because those Wise men in the Convention, who had the Wording of this Vote, were afraid [Page] that those plainer words you mention, would have been of too hard digestion to a great part of the Country Gentlemen, who had been bred up with different Principles; and therefore used the word Abdicate, as that which though it implied both a Renunciation, and also a Forfeiture of the Royal Power, yet not being commonly so understood, made some men only to understand it of the King's Desertion of the Throne by his going away; a Notion, which because it served a present turn, mens heads were then very full of: But indeed if this Desertion be closely examined, it will not do the business for which it is brought, as you have already very well observed.

F.

I confess I never understood the true sence of this word Abdicate before, much less the reason why it was made use of; therefore commend me to the honest bluntness of the Scotch Convention, which (as I am informed) did not stick to declare, That King Iames by subverting the Fundamental Laws of that Kingdom, had forfeited the Crown: But, pray Sir, tell [Page] me, what those Acts, or Violations of this Original Contract were, which you suppose to cause this tacit Renunciation of the Crown?

I.

As for these I need not go far, since they are all plainly expressed in the Convention's late Declaration, as striking at the root, or very Fundamental Constitution of the Government it self, viz. Raising of Money contrary to Law, that is, without any Act of Parliament, as in the late Levying of the Customs, Excise, and Chimney-Money upon Cottages and Ovens, contrary to the several Statutes that conferred them on the Crown. 2dly. His Assuming a Legislative Power, by Dispensing with all Statutes for the Protestant Religion established by Law; whereby he at one blow took away above Forty Acts of Parliament; and he might at this rate as well have Dispensed with the whole Statute-Book at once by one general Declaration. 3dly. Raising a Standing Army in time of Peace, and putting in Popish Officers, contrary to the Statute provided against it; for these being but the King's half Subjects (as King Iames the 1st. called them [Page] in a Speech) might be looked upon when in Arms, as no better than Enemies to the State; so that by thus Arming our Enemies, it was in effect a declaring War upon the People, since it was abusing the power of the Militia, which is intrusted with the King for our Safety and Preservation in our Religion, Liberties and Civil Properties, and not for the destruction of them all, as we found by woful experience, must have inevitably befallen us. 4thly. The Quartering of this standing Army in Private houses contrary to Law, and the Petition of Right, acknowledged by the late King his Father. 5thly. His Erecting a new Ecclesiastical Court by Commission, contrary to the Statute that took away the High Commission Court. 6thly. And by the pretended Authority of this Court, suspending the Bishop of London from his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and turning out almost all the Fellows and Scholars of Magdalen Colledge, because they would not chuse a President uncapable of being Elected by that Colledge Statutes. 7thly. By Imprisoning the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Six other Bishops, only for Presenting [Page] him with an humble Petition not to impose the reading of his Declaration of Toleration, upon the Clergy of the Church of England, as being contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom; and then Trying them for this as a High Misdemeanor, though it was contrary to the Opinion of Two of the then Judges of that Court of Kings-Bench. There are also other things of lesser concernment, as Packing of Juries, and unjust and partial Proceedings in Tryals, with excessive Fines and cruel Whippings; which because they were done by the Lord Chief Justice Iefferies, and the other Judges, contrary to Law, I leave them to answer for it; whereas the instances I have now given, were in such grand Violations, as were done by the King's own personal Orders and Directions, or else could never have been done at all: So that by his willful acting these things, and obstinately refusing to let a Free Parliament sit to Settle and Redress them, but rather chusing to leave the Realm, than he would give way to it, when he might have done it: I think, upon consideration of the whole matter, it will [Page] appear, that the Convention had good and just Reasons for declaring the Throne Vacant, since the King had not only broke his first declaration he made in Council, to maintain the Church of England as by Law Established, and the Liberties and Properties of his Subjects; but his own Coronation-Oath besides, if he took the same his Predecessors did; and if he did not, he ought not to receive any benefit by his own default, but is certainly bound by the Oaths which his Grandfather King Iames, and his Father King Charles took before him.

F.

I confess these seem to be great breaches of the very Fundamentals of our Religion, Liberties, and Civil Properties, if done by the King's express Order and Directions; and if that he afterwards refused to disclaim them, and suffer the Authors to be Punished in Parliament, as they deserved, makes all those faults indeed fall upon the King himself, and consequently seem to amount to a Forfeiture of the Royal Dignity, according to that Law of Edward the Confessor, you have already cited, That if the King fail to Protect [Page] the Church, and Defend his Subjects from Rapine and Oppression; the very Name (or Title) of King shall no more remain to him.

But, pray Sir, shew me in the next place, how the Convention could justifie their Voting the Throne Vacant; for Granting that King Iames had implicitly Abdicated, or Renounced all his Right to the Crown by the Actions you have but now recited: Yet if this Kingdom (as I have always taken it to be) is Hereditary, and not Elective, I cannot conceive how the Throne can ever be Vacant, that is, void of a Lawful Heir, or Successor, as long as one of the Blood-Royal, either Male or Female, is left alive, since I have heard it laid down as a Maxim in our Law, That the King never dies.

I.

I grant this to be so upon all ordinary Deaths or Demises of a King or Queen (as the Lawyers term it): But there are great and evident Reasons why it could not be so upon this Civil, though not Natural, Death of the King; as First, the natural Person [Page] of the late King being still alive, none can claim as Heir to him whilst he lives, since it is a Maxim, as well in our Common as in the Civil Law, That no man can be Heir to a Person alive.

F.

I grant this may be so in ordinary Estates of Inheritance in Feesimple; but I take it to be otherwise in Estates Tail; for if a Tenant in Tail had become a Monk whilst Monasteries were in being in England, the next Heir in Tail might have entered upon the Estate, because the entering into a Religious Order, was looked upon as a Civil Death: now I take the Crown to be in the nature of such an Estate-Tail, where the Heir Claims not only as Heir to the last King, but to their first or common Ancestor, on whom the Crown was Entailed; otherwise Brothers or Sisters by the half Blood, could never Succeed to each other, as Queen Mary did to King Edward the VIth.

I.

Well, Neighbour, I see you have either read Littleton, or else been very well instructed in this Law concerning [Page] Entails, and therefore I will argue this Point no farther with you; but if the Throne were not Vacant, pray then tell me, whom think you the Convention should have immediately Declared King or Queen, whether the Titular, or pretended Prince of Wales, or the Princess of Orange; Since only one of these can Claim as Heir by vertue of the Entail you now mentioned?

F.

No doubt but the Prince of Wales would have been the Right Heir, could we have been assured of his being really born of the Body of the Queen; but since; I confess, there is a great doubt in most Persons throughout the whole Nation concerning it, I must so far agree with you, that he could not well be declared King till his Legitimacy were cleared, and those just suspicions we lye under to the contrary, taken away; but then on the other side, till this were done, I do not see how the Convention could well justifie their placing the Princess of Orange, or any Body else in the Throne.

[Page]I.

We shall come to that by and by, but in the mean time, pray observe, that here was a great and general doubt, who was the next lawful Heir, whether the Prince of Wales, or the Princess of Orange; now in Disputes of this nature, in all the hereditary, limited Monarchies in Europe, the States of the Kingdom have always been the sole Supream Judges of such Controversies; and whom they have owned, and admitted as next Heirs, have always been taken and owned for Lawful Kings, both at Home and Abroad; as I could shew you from divers Instances, not only in England, and Scotland, but France, Spain, and Portugal: And till this were done, the Throne must necessarily remain vacant, and all this without making the Crown Elective; for what is this vacancy of the Throne, but when through the Ignorance of the ordinary Subjects whom to place therein, by reason of divers Claims of different Competitors, none can be admitted to fill it, (that is, to the exercise of the Kingly Office) till these disputes could be decided by their proper Judges, viz. the Estates of the [Page] Kingdom, which is all one, as to declare the Throne to be vacant? since it must necessarily be so, till they were fully satisfied who ought to fill it.

F.

I confess, what you have now said, carries a great deal of reason with it; but how can you justifie the Convention's placing their present Majesties on the Throne, without ever so much as examining whether the supposed Prince of Wales were really born of the Body of the Queen. or not; which, in my Opinion, ought to have been the first thing to be enquired after; whereas I do not find that the Convention, nor yet the present Parliament, have taken any more notice of him, than if there had been no such thing in nature, as a Son then born, or pretended to be born, during the Marriage between the late King and Queen.

I.

If the Convention have done well in declaring the Throne vacant, I think I can easily justifie their filling it with their present Majesties; and that upon two several Considerations:

[Page] The First is, that I suppose the Prince of Orange, by his Victory over King Iames, sufficiently declared by his flying from Salisbury, and disbanding his Army, and then quitting the Kingdom, (if he had done nothing else) did thereby lose his Right to the Crown; and so consequently to the Peoples Allegiance; and the Nation being then free, and without any King, who had a better Right to be placed in the Throne, than the Prince of Orange their Deliverer? and besides this, in respect of the Nation, King Iames (as I have already proved) having Abdicated or Forfeited his Right to the Crown, by his notorious Breach of the Contract above-mentioned, and by his wilful persisting in it; I look upon the whole Nation at his departure as fully discharged from all Oaths of Allegiance, not only to King Iames, but to his Heirs likewise; and therefore were not obliged to look after this supposed Prince, nor to examine his Legitimacy as Heir apparent to the Crown.

F.

I cannot comprehend how this can consist with those Acts of Parliament [Page] of Queen Elizabeth, and King Iames, which oblige all the Subjects of this Realm to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to the King or Queen, and to their Heirs and Lawful Successors; and sure, I think, nothing less than an Act of Parliament can alter these former Statutes and solemn Declarations concerning the Succession in a Right Line: And I suppose you will not say, that the Convention (who certainly were no Parliament) could without the Authority of a Lawful King and Parliament, alter the Ancient Laws of Succession, since I have heard it is a Maxim in Law, that nothing can be undone, but by the same Power that made it; And therefore, in my Opinion, the Convention was too quick in Declaring their present Majesties King and Queen, before they had examined the Prince of Wales's Title; who was commonly reputed, and prayed for in all our Churches, as Heir Apparent to the Crown.

I.

I confess you have in few words urged all that can well be said against the late Act of the Convention, in declaring their present Majesties King [Page] and Queen: Therefore in Answer to this Objection, give me leave in the first place to tell you, that you have been misinformed, That because the Acts for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, obliged us to take it to the late King, and his Heirs and Lawful Successors; that therefore no Person can be such a Lawful Successor, unless he Claim in a right Line, by descent from the last King; since long before these Acts were made, by the Ancient Oath of Fidelity at Common Law, and which used to be required in all Court-Leets, men were as much obliged to the King, his Heirs and Successors, as they can be by any of these later Oaths, and yet no body then doubted, before those Acts were made, to pay Allegiance to that Person whom the Estates of the Kingdom had solemnly declared to be lawful King or Queen, without ever examining whether such Kings, or Queens, were really and truly next Heirs by Blood, or not; as I can shew you from divers Examples, had I now time for it.

And there is indeed great reason for their so doing; for since all disputes about [Page] the right of Succession to the Crown, must be decided by some proper Judges; or else be left wholly to the Decision of the Sword; and since (as I said but now) in all the limited Kingdoms of Europe, the Estates of such Kingdoms have been always appeal'd to by all the contending parties as their only proper Judges of their disputed Titles; it is but reason, that all private Subjects should submit and acquiesce in their final Judgments; since they are all virtually Represented in such Assemblies, as the Representative Body of the whole People, or Nation: Therefore, if the Convention of the Estates of England, have for divers weighty Reasons, thought fit to declare their present Majesties Lawful King and Queen, and to place them on the Throne, as then vacant by King Iames's Abdication, I think all the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound to bear true Allegiance to them, and to confirm it by the Oath appointed for that end, whenever they shall be lawfully required thereunto.

F.

Well, Sir, but is not this to alter one part of the Original Contract, [Page] which those that are against the present Settlement, suppose to be the Right of Hereditary Succession to the Crown, and that in a right Line: So that if the supposed Prince of Wales be lawful Heir to King Iames, to place any body else therein, seems to render the Crown for the future not Successive, but Elective; for if it may be bestowed now according to the humor of the present Convention, it may be done so again the next Succession, and so the right Heirs put by from time to time, for the same, or some like Reason as now.

I.

That does not at all follow; for if you will allow that the Throne was vacant by the Abdication of King Iames, and that her present Majesty Queen Mary is lawful Heir, if the pretended Prince of Wales were away; I will prove to you, that the late Convention and present Parliament, have done all they could or were obliged to do in this juncture, in placing Their present Majesties on the Throne, and Recognizing their Title, without taking any notice of this pretended Prince; of whose Birth, whether true [Page] or false, I shall not now say any thing one way or other; nor shall trouble my self to inquire into the Validity of those Suspitions that may render his Birth doubtful to the generality of the Nation: And therefore in the first place, I desire you only to take Notice, that this Child was carried away by his Mother, when he was scarce yet six Months Old; 2dly, That the Midwife and all the chief Witnesses, who could Swear any thing concerning the Queen's being really with Child, and brought to Bed of him, were likewise conveyed at the same time into France.

F.

I grant it; but what do you infer from hence.

I.

Why, only these two Conclusions:

1st. That neither the Convention nor Parliament are Obliged to take Notice of the Rights of any Person, tho' Heir to the Crown, that is out of the Dominions of England, if he be no necessary part, or Member of Parliament; if neither himself, nor any Body [Page] for him, will put in his Claim to the Crown, upon the Demise of the King, either by Death, or Abdication; as in the Case now before us, there being then a Claim made in the late Convention by his Highness the Prince of Orange on the behalf of his Consort the Princess, as Heir apparent to the Crown: The Convention were not obliged to look any farther after this supposed Prince, or to know what was become of him; whether he was Drowned, or taken at Sea by Pyrates, or he being Dead, another put in his place, or carried by his Mother into France: Since any of these might have happen'd for ought they knew, no body appearing to put in any Claim for him, or to desire that his Cause might first be heard, before he was Excluded.

2dly, That if such Claim had been made by any body for him, yet the Convention could by no means be obliged to do more than lay in their Power, or to hear, or examine the Validity of this Child's Birth; unless the Midwife, Nurses, and others, who were privy to all the Transactions concerning [Page] it, were likewise present, and sent back to give their Testimonies in this Case; for if the Convention had proceeded to examine this matter without sufficient evidence, they could only have heard it ex parie, on but one side, and so might have sat long enough, before they could have come to any true decision in this matter; whilst in the mean time, the whole Nation for want of a King, were in danger of utter Ruin and Confusion.

F.

But, pray Sir, why could not the Parliament have sent over Summons to those Witnesses (which they say are no further off than France) to come and give Testimony in this great Cause, before they had proceeded to have declared the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen?

I.

There may be several good Reasons given for it:

First, Because this Child being carried into the Dominions of a Prince who is a declared Enemy of our Religion, and Civil Interest of the English [Page] Nation, he would never have consented to his being sent over to be viewed by those that the Convention should appoint for that purpose; without which Inspection, the Nation could never have been morally assured that this was the same Child that was carried away; since every one knows, that Infants of that Age are not easily distinguisht one from another, but by those that have been about them from the very time of their Birth.

Secondly, Because his Reputed Parents counting themselves already injured by the Convention, in declaring that the King had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was thereby become vacant, would never have obeyed any Summons the Convention should have sent over, because they looked upon them not to have any Authority at all, as not being summon'd, nor sitting by vertue of that King's Writs.

Thirdly, Admitting that the French King would have permitted this supposed Prince to have been sent back, and that King Iames and his Queen would have obeyed this Summons, yet was it [Page] not for the safety of the Nation to stay for or rely upon it; since before this Question could have been decided, great part of this Year had slipt away, and we being left without a King to head us, nor any Parliament Sitting, able to raise Money (which cannot be legally done, without the King's Authority in Parliament) the French King might, whilst we were thus quarrelling amongst our selves about a Successor to the Crown, have sent over King Iames with a great Fleet, and an Army of old Soldiers, and so have placed him again in the Throne, more Absolute than ever he was before; since besides that Legal Right of Succession, (which I grant he, once had) he might also have set up a new Right by Conquest, over this Kingdom.

So that all things being seriously considered, since the safety of the People ought to be the Supream Law, as ever hath been agreed as an undoubted Principle by all wise Nations, I think we have done all that could well be done, in this Case; nor have broken the Hereditary Succession, in declaring King William and Queen Mary to be our [Page] Lawful King and Queen; since if she were Lawful Queen, they might also declare him to be King, and make it Treason to conspire against him as well as the Parliament could do in the case of Prince Philip of Spain, who was * declared King joyntly with Queen Mary, tho' he had no other Right, but by Act of Parliament: So that if the late Convention have declared, That the Administration of the Government should remain solely in▪ King William during his Life; this was only to put it out of all dispute, that none might at all doubt in whom the Supream Power lay, since it will not admit of any Division.

F.

All this seems reasonable enough; but pray how comes it to pass, that King William is to enjoy the Crown, not only during the Queens Life, but his own also? this I heard Squire High-Church, and the Parson I last mentioned, cry out upon, not only as a horrid Breach of the Hereditary Succession, [Page] but also as a great wrong to the Princess of Denmark, and her Heirs, were the supposed Prince of Wales now dead, since it is directly contrary to the Act of Recognition of King Iames I. whereby the Parliament do not only ‘declare him to be lawful and lineal Heir of the Crown, as descended from the Eldest Daughter of King Edward IV. But also they do thereby engage themselves, and their Posterity; to yield Obedience to King Iames, and his Right Heirs.’

I.

Pray satisfie those Gentlemen when you meet them, that if they once will grant that the late King Iames could Abdicate the Crown without his own express consent, and that declaring this supposed Prince to be King was altogether unpracticable and unsafe for the Nation, (as I have already proved) I think they need not be concerned, whether his present Majesty enjoys the Crown for Life, or not; as long as it is for the Peace and Safety of the Nation that it should be so; since it was for those ends alone that King Iames was set aside, and the supposed Prince past by, without so [Page] much as Enquiring into his legitimacy. If the Convention had lawful Authority to decide the greater points, they had certainly after they became a Parliament much more Authority to decide and settle the less material parts of this Controversie, viz. The settlement of the Crown after the Queens decease; since it is no more than what all former Parliaments have done in like cases: Thus Henry the IV. and Henry the VII. were, formally declared, (nay the latter recognized) for lawful Kings by Authority of Parliament; notwithstanding the lineal Heirs by blood were then alive and in being; and not only so, but before ever Henry the VII. married with the Princess Elizabeth, Daughter to King Edward the IV. the Crown was settled upon him, and the Heirs of his Body, by an Act which you may find in Print in our Statute-Books: Tho' he had no Right at all by Succession, since his Mother the Countess of Richmond, from whom all the Right he could pretend to the Crown was derived, was then alive, nor had made any Cession of it to him.

[Page] So that if this be true (which I am able to prove) that an Hereditary Succession in a right Line, was never any Fundamental Law of this Kingdom. And,

Secondly, That after the Crown came to be Claimed by an Hereditary Right, which was no older than Edward the Ist's time, the Parliament have, often taken upon them to break in upon this Hereditary Succession, whenever the safety and necessity of the Kingdom required it. And,

Thirdly, That all those Kings who have thus succeeded without this lineal Right of Succession, have been not only, during their own Reigns, owned for true and Legal Kings; Attainders (of Treason, holding good against all Persons that conspired against them) but also after their Reigns were ended; for we see all such Acts of Parliament made under them stand good at this day, unless it were those that were Repealed by subsequent Parliaments: and can there then be any Question made, but that the present Parliament have as much Power to settle the Crown upon his [Page] present Majesty for Life, as they had to settle it upon King Henry the IV. or Henry the VII. and the Heirs of their Bodies? since those Princes could not deserve more from the Nation, in freeing it from the Tyranny of the two Richards, the II. and III. than his present Majesty hath done by freeing us from the Arbitrary Power of King Iames. And let me tell you farther, that the Gentlemen you mention were mistaken in their Repetition of that Act of Recognition of King Iames the Ist's Title; for though it is true they acknowledged him for undoubted lineal Heir of the Crown, yet they do no where in that Act tie or oblige themselves and their Posterity to him, and his right Heirs, by that Act of Parliament; but only in general, that they promise Obedience and Loyalty to that King, and his Royal Progeny; and sure none will deny Their present Majesties to be the true Progeny of King Iames the Ist.

F.

I grant this seems very reasonable; but those Gentlemen I now mentioned also said, that Henry the IV. was in the Reign of King Edward the IV. declared an Usurper by Act of Parliament; [Page] and as for Henry the Seventh, he had either a Title from the House of Lancaster by the tacite concession of his Mother, or else from that of York by the like tacite concession of the Princess Elizabeth his Wife; or else if there were no such concession, he was an Usurper till he had Married the said Princess, she being Heiress of the Crown. Pray what say you, Sir, to this?

I.

Pray tell those Gentlemen from me, that they are quite out in their Suppositions; for if an Act of Parliament of Edward the Fourth, be of sufficient Authority to prove Henry the Fourth an Usurper, I can give you another Act of Parliament (though not Printed) which reverses the Attainder of King Henry the Sixth, Margaret his Queen, and Prince Edward their Son; wherein it is expresly declared, * ‘that King Henry the Sixth was contrary to all Allegiance and due order, attainted of High Treason in the first Year of King Edward the Fourth; wherefore it is by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual [Page] and Temporal, Assembled in Parliament, Enacted, That all Acts of Attainder, Forfeiture, and Disablement, made in the said Parliament against the said Blessed Prince King Henry, are made void, Annulled and Repealed.’ So that if the Attainder of Henry the Sixth was against all due Order and Allegiance, then certainly the said King must have been a Lawful King, and not an Usurper at the time of his Death; and if he were not so, then certainly the like must be affirmed of Henry the Fourth, from whom he was descended, and under whom he claimed: And as for Henry the Seventh, there was no formal Cession of their Right ever given by the Countess his Mother, or the Princess his Wife, either before, or after his coming to the Crown: And as for a tacite and implied Cession, expressed by saying nothing against it, pray tell me why we may not as well suppose a like tacite consent in the Princess of Denmark's not making any Opposition or Protestation against this Act, whereby the Crown was settled upon his Majesty during his Life, but rather agreeing to it? for I have heard that several of her Servants in both Houses, [Page] did declare, that the Princess did not design that her future Right should be any hindrance to the present Settlement. Pray therefore tell me, why may not King William hold the Crown after the Death of the Queen (if she should happen first to die) without any Usurpation, as well as King Henry the Seventh held it after the Death of his Queen, notwithstanding his two Sons, Prince Arthur and Henry both lived to be Married before their Father Died; and Henry the Eighth was then in his nineteenth or twentieth Year of his Age; old enough of conscience to govern himself?

F.

I confess these things were altogether unknown to me before, as they are I believe to most of my condition; and I give your Worship many thanks for your kind Information. But, pray Sir, resolve me one Question more, and I have done; Do you think a Man may Lawfully take the new Oath of Allegiance to Their present Majesties, notwithstanding King Iames is still alive? and do you think I could justifie it (in Law) should I be called to an account for it, if he should again by some unexpected means or other obtain the Throne?

[Page]I.

Well, Neighbour, to satisfie you as to the first of your questions, I answer thus; I doubt not but you may Lawfully take this Oath, since the Parliament have done no more in thus setling the Crown, than what many former Parliaments have done before in like Cases; whose Proceedings have been still looked upon as good, and held unquestioned unto this day; as appears by the President of Henry the VIIth. I now gave you; and upon which Declarations of Parliament (who are the only proper Judges, who have most Right to the Crown, in case of any dispute about it) the People of this Kingdom have still thought themselves sufficiently obliged to take such Oaths of Fidelity and Allegiance, as the Government thought fit to frame, and require of them according to Law.

But, I confess, the latter of your questions is somewhat harder to be answered, because it depends upon a matter that is farther remote, since we cannot tell whether if (ever at all) King Iames should re-obtain the Throne, by [Page] what means it may happen; for if it should be by the Force either of the Irish, or French Nations, I doubt not but we should be all made mere Slaves and Vassals, without any Law or setled Property, but his own Will: But if it should be by any Agreement or Composition with him upon his Engagement to Govern according to Law; the [...] le [...] me tell you, Not only your self but every other Subject that takes this Oath, will have a good Plea in Law for taking it, by the Statute of the 11th. of Henry the VIIth. * whereby it is expresly Enacted; ‘That every Subject, by the duty of his Allegiance, is bound to Serve and Assist his Prince and Sovereign Lord at all seasons, when need shall require; and then follows an Act of Indemnity for all those that shall personally serve the King, for the time being, in his Wars:’ Which were altogether unreasonable, if Allegiance had not been due before to such a King as their Sovereign Lord, mentioned in the Preamble; and if Allegiance were due [Page] to him, then certainly an Oath may lawfully be taken to observe it; since it is no more than what the Law hath ever required from Subjects to such a King, not only by this Statute, but at Common Law too, as appears by my Lord Cookes Comment on the Statute of Edward the IIId. where he asserts not only from the Authority of this Statute, but also from the old Year-Books, that a King de Facto, or for the time being, is our Lord the King, intended in that Statute; and that the other, who hath a Right and is out of Possession, is not within this Act.

So that, you see, according to this Act of Henry the VIIth. as also by the Judgment of the best Lawyers of England, whatever Person is once solemnly Crowned King of England, and hath been so Recognized by Authority of Pariiament (as Their Present Majesties have now been) are, and ever have been esteemed Lawful and Rightful Kings or Queens, though they had no Hereditary Right of Succession as next of Blood, as I have proved to you from the instance of [Page] King Henry the 4th. and 7th. and could do also by the Examples of Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth, (take which you please) since they could not both of them succeed as the Legitimate Daughters and Heirs of King Henry the Eighth: So that it is plain, one or other of these Queens had no better than a Parliamentary Title to the Crown: Therefore, upon the whole matter, whether Their present Majesties are Heirs to the Crown by Lineal Descent, is not the Question; but whether by the Law of England they are not to all intents and purposes Lawful and Rightful King and Queen; so that an Oath of Allegiance may be lawfully taken to them, and all men obliged to serve them in all their Wars and other Affairs, even against King Iames himself; since we cannot serve Two Masters, that is, owe Allegiance to Two Kings at once.

F.

I cannot deny but what you say seems not only very reasonable, but also according to Law; but I heard the Squire and the Parson we but now mentioned, positively assert, That the King [Page] and Parliament had no Power to alter the Succession to thē Crown, though they would; and that therefore this Statute of Henry the Seventh, you now mentioned, which indemnifies all those that take up Arms in defence of the King for the time being, is void: First, Because made by an Usurper who had no Right to make such a Law in prejudice of the true King, or the next Heirs of the Crown; but also because (as they said) it was but a Temporary Act, and was to last no longer than during his life; and lastly, because this Statute hath never been allowed, or held for good in any cases of Assisting Usurpers, since that time; for the Duke of Northumberland was Arraigned and Executed for Treason, in the time of Queen Mary, because he had Assisted and Taken up Arms on behalf of the Lady Iane Gray, who was Proclaimed Queen, and Reign'd as such for about a Fortnight; and yet, tho the Duke Pleaded afterwards that he had Acted nothing but by Order of the Queen and Council for the time being; yet this Plea was over-ruled by the Peers, who were his Judges, and he was Executed notwithstanding. Lastly, they said, That this Statute was implicitly, or by [Page] consequence Repealed by those Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King Iemes, which appoint the Oaths of Allegiance to be only taken to the King, his Heirs, and lawful Successors; besides a Statute of the 28th. of King Henry the Eighth, by which it is made Treason in any of those on whom he had setled the Crown, or should bequeath it by his last Will, to Usurp upon the Right of each other; which could never have been, if the King or Queen for the time being must have been Assisted and Obey'd by all the Subjects of this Realm, as if they were Rightfully so; and therefore they concluded, that this Statute of Henry the Seventh could make no alteration in the ancient Law concerning the Succession, but that it stands still as it did before that Statute was made, and as it was declared in the Case of Edward the Fourth, by which it was affirmed, That the Henries, the Fourth Fifth, and Sixth, were Kings only in Deed, and not of Right, and but pretended Kings, and that the Statute which setled the Crown upon Henry the Fourth and his Issue, was absolutely void, against the Duke of York and his Heirs.

I.

If this be all they had to say, I [Page] doubt not but to answer it well enough; and therefore as to their first Objection, which would make this Statute of Henry the VIIth. void, because made by an Usurper; methinks they might have been so civil as to have allowed him to be lawful King in Right of his Wife at least; this Statute being made during the time of his marriage with the Princess Elizabeth, but indeed nothing more betrays these Gentlemens ignorance in our Laws; since if they will but look on any ordinary Statute Book, they will find that the Statutes of those Kings they look upon as Usurpers, are of as much force at this day, as those enacted by Princes in a right line, unless it were such as have been since Repeal'd by some subsequent Statutes. 2dly. Their Objection of its being a Temporary Law, only during that King's Life, is also as vain, since the Statute it self mentions no such thing; but speaks of the King for the time being, in all succeeding times, without any mention of King Henry the VIIth. in particular. 3dly. That the Judges have lookt upon it as a void Law, or else Repeal'd it also as false; for the Case of the Duke of Northumberland, does not prove it to be so; for though the Duke did not, as we can ever find, [Page] plead this Statute at his Trial, yet I think if he had, it would not have helpt him, since the King or Queen, for the time, being within this Statute, I only take to be he or she that have been solemnly Crowned and Recognized by a free Parliament; or such a one on whom the Crown is entail'd by Statute; which it never was on the Lady Iane, on whom the Crown was only bestow'd by King Edward the VIth's Letters-Patents, and consequently had no Title by Act of Parliament. And lastly, that this Statute of 11th of Henry VIIth. was never Repeal'd by any subsequent Act, is likely as certain; for I never heard before, that any Act of Parliament could ever be Repeal'd by Implication, but only by express words: But indeed, none of those Statutes you mention have done it so much as by Implication; for though the Oaths of Allegiance, and Supremacy are to be taken to the King or Queen, and their Heirs, and Lawful Successors; yet who those Heirs or Lawful Successors shall be, can only be known by some Law or other; now who can declare what this Law is, or shall be, but the King and Parliament the sole Supream Legislators? And that this is Law at this day, appears by this undeniable Authority, [Page] that it is by the Statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, declared to be ‘Treason, during the Life of the Queen, for any Person to affirm that the Queen and Parliament had not Power to make Laws, to limit, and bind, and govern the Succession of the Crown, in Possession, Remainder, or Reversion; (and to shew you that this Statute is still in force) every Person so holding, or affirming after the said Queen's Decease, shall forfeit all their Lands, and Goods.’ But as for the Statute of Henry the VIIIth. that will help them least of all; for it appears by the Statute it self, that the Treason thereby Enacted, could only arise from thence, and extend no farther than the Persons therein mention'd; nor is the Succession of the Crown in a right line setled or confirmed by this Statute, but the clear contrary; since King Henry had Power by this Statute to bequeath the Crown by his last Will and Testament, under his Seal and Sign Manual; which he afterwards actually took upon him to do; so that the Law still continues as it did before that Act of Edward the IVth. you now mentioned was made, since it is declared by that unprinted Act of Henry the VIIth. I have now cited, that King Henry the VIth. was [Page] unjustly deposed, and his attainder reversed, and consequently his Right to the Crown is thereby declared to be good and valid to all intents and purposes.

F.

I confess you have throughly convinced me in this matter, and I think it highly reasonable that it should be so; for how can we ordinary Subjects know to whom to pay our Allegiance, in cases of any disputes that may arise about the different Titles of Princes to the Crown, without appealing to some proper Judges of it; and who can these Judges be, but the great Council of the Nation, in which every person thereof is either personally present, or vertually represented? and if this were the effect of your late Charge at our Sessions, I wonder any persons should be so malicious as to misrepresent you for a Commonwealthsman; but pray tell me what I shall say to those Gentlemen if I happen to come again into their Company?

I.

Pray assure them from me, that I am no more a Commonwealthsman, than themselves, and am not only for keeping up and defending the [Page] Original Constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, and the Rights and Liberties of the People; but am also for an Hereditary Monarchy by Lineal descent, by all those lawful means by which our Ancestors have maintained them, and that in all cases; except where the exigency of our Affairs, and the necessity of providing for the Publick Peace and Safety of the Commonwealth, have not obliged the Estates of the Kingdom several times to take a different course when it could not be avoided without inevitable Ruin; and, I suppose, the same Estates have still, by the very Constitution, the same Power and Right of Providing for the Peace and Safety of the Nation, and the Preservation of our Religion, Liberties, and Properties, as ever they had in all precedent times: So that granting the most that can be said, that the Convention have now exercised that ancient Power, in placing Their present Majesties on the Throne; yet this would be no more an Argument for our making a common course of it upon every Succession to the Crown, than it would be for you when you were a Travelling upon the Road to break into any bodies ground you pleased, because you may have been forced [Page] when the way has proved unpassable, either through Water or Dirt, to leap a Ditch (perhaps for safeguard of your life) into a Neighbour's Enclosure.

F.

Sir, I am so well satisfied with what your Worship hath now said in these grand Points, that, with your good leave, I shall not fail, not only to vindicate your Person from those aspersions, but also to maintain the lawfulness of our present Settlement upon the same Principle you have now laid down; since I know of none that seem to me more agreeable to Right Reason, and the Laws and Constitution of this Kingdom; and therefore I hope you will always believe me to be your honest Neighbour and humble Servant, and so I take my leave of your Worship.

I.

Neighbour, I am yours, and bid you heartily farewel.

FINIS.

Notes

*

Vid. Mirror of Iustice, Cap. 1. Sect. 2.

↵

†

Vid. Modum Antiq. tenendi Parl.

↵

*

Vid. the year-book, Ter. Pasch.

↵

†

Vid. 1o Will. & Mar.

↵

*

Chap. 1. Sect. 2.

↵

*

Vid. Spel. Concil. 1 Vol. p. 29.

↵

†

Vid. Vitam Alfredi. Edit. Oxon.

↵

*

See the Old Form of the Coronation Oath before the Conquest, and after, in Mr. Attwood's Treatise of the Antiquity of an Oath of Abjuration, p. 94. to the end.

↵

*

See the Forms of those Coronations in Stow, Holinshed. and others.

↵

*

Vid. Mat. West. p. A. D. 1301. 435. 436.

↵

*

See his Coronation-Oath in Mr. Atwood's Treatise of the Oath of Abjuration, p. 96.

↵

*

Vid. Lambert's Saxon Laws. Leg. Guil. [...]h. 6. 7. p. 60.

↵

†

Lib. 2. Chap. 2.

↵

*

i. e. Nobiles Minores.

↵

*

Vid. the Act of 2o. Mariae, confirming the Treaty of Marriage with King Philip.

↵

*

Vid. Par. Rolles 1. H. 7. N. 16.

↵

*

Chap. 1.

↵

§

[Page]

[Page]

A BRIEF ENQUIRY INTO THE Ancient CONSTITUTION AND Government of England.

As well in respect of the Administration, as Succession thereof.

Set forth by way of Dialogue, and fitted for Men of Ordinary Learning and Capacities.

By a True Lover of his Country.

LONDON: Printed for Richard Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane. 1695.

THE Publisher's PREFACE TO THE READER.

[Page]

[Page]

THERE being many Treatises already Publish'd upon the Subjects handled in this ensuing Discourse, you may think it needless to trouble the World with more of this kind; but those who think so, may be of another Opinion when they have considered, not only the Design of this Treatise, which is to Abridge into a small Manual what others have writ in many Volumes; but also the manner of handling the Matters herein treated of, which you will find to differ very much from most of [Page] the Books written before upon this Subject: some Writers having screwed up the King's Prerogative to so extravagant a height, as to place the whole Essential Frame of the Government in the King's Sole Will and Pleasure, not considering the Fundamental Rights and Liberties of a Free-born Nation, more than as the forced Concessions of some Weak Princes, not otherwise able to appease an Angry People; and which they may therefore contract, or wholy abrogate, as their Power or Opportunities may either dictate, or permit.

Whilst on the other side, there are some who have too much debased the Royal Prenogative, by placing all Power immediately in the People, and supposing the King accountable to their Representatives for every small Miscarriage in Government. There is without doubt an Error in both these Extremes; since as the King can have no Prerogative which is inconsistent with the Ancient Rights and Liberties of the Subject, set down in Magna Charta, and other Ancient Statutes, which were [Page] only declarative of the Common Law of England; So likewise, if the King be the Supreme Magistrate of the Nation, he cannot without a Soloecism in Government, be rendred accountable to any Power superior to his own; these things considered, hath induced the Author to chuse a middle, and more moderate Course, by preserving to the King all such Prerogatives as are inseparable from the Supreme Executive Power, and which are necessary for the Common Safety; yet, without leaving the King absolutely irresistible in all Cases whatsoever, and without a supposed impossibility of his falling from his Royal Dignity, in case of the highest Breaches of his Coronation Oath, and the utmost Violations of that Usual and Ancient Contract, which his Predecessors have so often renewed with the People of this Nation, upon their Succession to the Throne.

For the proving of which the Author hath made use of the best Authorities he could collect either from our ancient Histories, Records, or Law-Books, [Page] beginning with the Grounds and Institution of Civil Government in general, and ending with that of England in particular. And though he hath so far adapted this Discourse for men of ordinary Learning and Capacities, as not to stuff the Margin with many Quotations; yet he hath not fail'd to put them down, where-ever the Niceness or Uncommonness of the Subject might otherwise chance to shock the Understandings of Readers not thoroughly vers'd in things of this Nature: Not but that the Author is very well satisfied, that even where no Authorities are expresly cited, he is able to maintain what he there lays down by Arguments drawn from Law, as well as Reason, if any man shall think it worth while to call it in question; but if he requires larger and fuller Proofs on this Subject, he may, if he pleases, first consult the last Eight Dialogues of a late Treatise, called, Bibliotheca Politica; as also Mr. Atwood's Learned Treatise concerning the Antiquity and Justice of an Oath of Abjuration. And I [Page] hope he may thence receive sufficient satisfaction, that the Principles here laid down, are founded not only upon right Reason, but the ancient Constitution of the English Government.

This may suffice for the manner of handling this Argument. But now to say somewhat more of the ends of publishing this Discourse, and they are these: First, to make every man (though of never so common a Capacity) understand (as well as the Author is able to perform it) what is the true, ancient, and legal Government of this Kingdom. 2dly, What are the main and most considerable Prerogatives of the Crown. And lastly, What are the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the People. And that these are so far from being contradictory or inconsistent, that they rather serve to defend and strengthen each other; so that it hath been for the defence and preservation of all these, that this wonderful and happy Revolution hath been brought about, and Their Present Majesties placed upon the Throne; as also to convince [Page] those who traduce by the Nicknames of Whigs, and Commonwealths-men, those that have been in the worst of times the only true Assertors of this ancient limited Monarchy; so that if they plead for Resistance in some Cases, it is only in those of utmost and absolute necessity, and in order to preserve the Original Constitution, and to prevent the Head of the Legislative Power from devouring the Body: nor can they have any other Notions of Loyalty, but their Obedience to the Government establisht, and exercised according to Law, as the ancient Sense, as well as Etymology of that word imports.

To conclude, Whosoever shall think fit to bestow a little money to buy, and time to peruse this small Treatise, the Publisher hopes he will find the design to be truly English, that is, sincere and honest, that all good Subjects may know how to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods, without blindly sacrificing (under the will-worship [Page] of a pretended Loyalty) the Religion, Civil Liberties and Properties of their Country to Caesar's Will, as some of late Years have done, who made these the darling (because most gainful) Doctrines as well of the Pulpit, as the Bar and the Press.

Books Sold by Richard Baldwin.

[Page]

[Page]

THE Works of F. Rabelais, M D. In Five Books; or the Lives, Heroick Deeds and Sayings of the Good Gargantua and Pantagruel, and his Voyage to the Oracle of the Bottle. As also his Historical Letters. To which is added, the Author's Life, and Explanatory Remarks. By Mr. Motteux. Never before Printed in English.

Bibliotheca Politica: Or an Enquiry into the Ancient Constitution of the English Government; with Respect both to the just Extent of Regal Power, and to the Rights and Liberties of the Subject. Wherein all the chief Arguments, as well against as for the Late Revolution, are Impartially represented and considered. In XIII. Dialogues. Collected out of the best Authors both Ancient and Modern. To which is added, An Alphabetical Index to the whole Work.

The remarkable Sayings, Apothegms and Maxims of the Eastern Nations, Abstracted and Translated out of their Books written in the Arabian, Persian, and Turkish Language, with Remarks: by Monsieur Galland, who lived many Years in those Countries. Translated from the Paris Edition, into English Twelves, Printed for Richard Baldwin, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane.

The World bewitch'd, (is now publish'd) containing an Examination of the common Opinions concerning Spirits, their Nature, Power, Administration, and Operations; as also the Effects men are able to produce by their Communication. Divided into Four parts. By Belthazer Bekker. D. D. and Pastor at Amsterdam. Vol. I. Translated from a French Copy, Approved of, and Subscribed-by the Author's own hand.

[Page] A New and Easie Method to understand the Roman History. With an exact Chronology of the Reign of the Emperors; An Account of the most Eminent Authors, when they flourish'd; And an Abridgment of the Roman Antiquities and Customs. By way of Dialogue, for the use of the Duke of Burgundy. Done out of French, with very large Additions and Amendments, by Mr. Tho. Brown.

A Collection of Speeches of the Right Honourable Henry late Earl of Warrington, viz. I His Speech upon his being sworn Mayor of Chester, in November 1691. II. His Speech to the Grand Jury at Chester, April 13. 1692. III. His Charge to the Grand Jury at the Quarter-Sessions held for the County of Chester, on the 11th. of October, 1692. IV. His Charge to the Grand Jury at the Quarter-Sessions held for the County of Chester, on the 25th. of April, 1693.

Letters of State, Written by Mr. Iohn Milton, To most of the Sovereign Princes and Republicks of Europe. From the Year 1649. till the Year 1659. To which is added, An Account of his Life. Together with several of his Poems; And a Catalogue of his Works, never before Printed.

Mathematical Magick: Or the Wonders that may be performed by Mechanical Geometry. In Two Books. Concerning Mechanical Powers, Motions. Being one of the most easie, pleasant, useful, (and yet most neglected) part of Mathematicks, not before treated of in this Language.

Mercury; or the Secret and Swift Messenger Shewing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his Thoughts to a Friend at any distance. The Second Edition. By the Right Reverend Father in God, Iohn Wilkins, late Lord Bishop of Chester. Printed for Rich. Baldwin, where are to be had, The World in the Moon.

[Page] England's Interest; Or, a Discipline for Seamen: Wherein is proposed, a Sure Method for Raising Qualified Seamen for the well Manning Their Majesties Fleet on all Occasions. Also a Method whereby Seamen will be obliged mutually to Relieve each other on board the Men of War yearly, or thereabout; except where any Seaman by his own voluntary Consent shall be willing to stay longer. Likewise is shewed the Advantages which by these Methods will accrue to the Nation in general, and in particular to the Merchants and Seamen: For hereby the Wages now given in Merchant-Ships will be brought lower, and every Seaman will have the liberty of chusing his own Commander, after the first year, and continuing with him, if he so likes. By Captain George St. Lo.

An Answer to a Paper written by Count d'Avaux, the French King's Ambassador in Sueden, concerning the Proposals of Peace made by France to the Confederates.

An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supream Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions. With some Considerations touching the present Juncture of Affairs.

An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Sovereigns. With an Account of what was said at the Council-board by the Civilians upon the Question. Whether Their Majesties Subjects taken at Sea acting by the Late King's Commission might not be looked on as Pirates? With Reflections upon the Arguments of Sir T. P. and Dr. Ol. Both by Matth. Tyndal, Doctor of Laws. The Second Edition.

The Antiquity and Justice of an Oath of Abjuration. In answer to a Treatise, Entituled, The Case of an Oath of Abjuration considered.

A Sermon preached before the Right Honourable the Lord-Mayor, and the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, at St. Mary-le-Bow, on the [Page] 29th of May, 1694. By Iohn Trenchard, M. A Recto of Wrexhall in the County of Somerset, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Earl of Manchester.

A Poem on the Late Promotions of several Eminent Persons in Church and State. By N. Nate, Servant to Their Majesties.

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity placed in its due light, by an Answer to a late Book, Entituled, Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Book, &c. Also the Doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord asserted and explained.

Liturgia Tigurina: Or, the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies, usually practised, and solemnly performed in all the Churches and Chappels of the City and Canton of Zurick in Switzerland, &c.

The Tragedies of the Last Age, consider'd and examin'd by the Practice of the Ancients, and by the common sense of all Ages; in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepherd, Esq Part I. The Second Edition.

A short View of Tragedy; its Original, Excellency, and Corruption; with some Reflections on Shakespear and other Practitioners for the Stage. Both by Mr. Rimer, Servant to Their Majesties.

A New, Plain, Short, and Compleat French and English Grammar; whereby the Learner may attain in few months to speak and write French correctly, as they do now in the Court of France; and wherein all that is dark, superfluous, and deficient in other Grammars, is plain, short, and methodically supplied. Also very useful to Strangers that are desirous to learn the English Tongue; for whose sake is added a short, but very exact English Grammar. The Third Edition, with Additions. By Peter Berault.

Truth brought to light; or the History of the first 14 Years of King Iames I. In Four Parts, &c.

Travels into divers parts of Europe and Asia, undertaken by the French King's order, to discover a [Page] new way by land into China; containing many curious Remarks in Natural Philosophy, Geography, Hydrography, and History. Together with a Description of Great Tartary, and of the different People who inhabit there. Done out of French. To which is added a Supplement extracted from Hakluyt and Purchas, giving an Account of several Journeys over Land from Russia, Persia, and the Mogul's Country, to China, together with the Roads and distances of the Places.

Saul at Endor; or the Ghost of the Marquess de Louvois consulted by the French King, concerning the present Affairs. Done out of French.

An Answer to the late King Iames's Declaration, dated at St. Germains, April the 7th. S. N. 1693. Licensed by Mr. Secretary Trenchard.

Reflections upon two Pamphlets lately published; one called, A Letter from Monsieur de Cross, concerning the Memoirs of Christendom; And the other, An Answer to that Letter; pretended to have been written by the Author of the said Memoirs. By a Lover of Truth.

A true and exact Account of the Retaking a Ship called, The Friends Adventure of Topsham, from the French, after she had been taken six days, and they were upon the Coasts of France with it four days; where one Englishman and a Boy set upon seven Frenchmen, killed two of them, took the other five Prisoners, and brought the Ship and them safe to England, &c.

A Project of a Descent upon France. By a Person of Quality.

A Compendious History of the Taxes of France, and of the Oppressive Methods of Raising of them.

An Impartial Enquiry into the Advantages and Losses that England hath received since the beginning of this Present War with France.

The Gentleman's Journal: Or the Monthly Miscellany. In a Letter to a Gentleman in the [Page] Country. Consisting of News, History, Philosophy, Poetry, Musick, Translations, &c. Sold by R. Baldwin, Where are to be had compleat Sets for the two last years, or single ones for every Month.

Nevil Pain's Letter, and some other Letters that concern the Subject of his Letter. With short Notes on them, for the clearer Information of the Members of Parliament, in order to Nevil Pain's Trial.

A True Relation of the Wonderful Cure of Mary Maillard, (lame almost ever since she was born) on Sunday the 26th of November, 1693. With the Affidavits and Certificates of the Girl, and several other Credible and Worthy Persons, who knew her before and since her being Cured. To which is added, a Letter from Dr. Welwood to the Right Honourable the Lady Mayoress, upon that Subject.

A Second Five years struggle against Popery and Tyranny: Being a Collection of Papers, Published by Samuel Iohnson.

Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Book, Intituled the Case of Resistance.

Reflections on the History of Passive Obedience.

An Argument proving, that the Abrogation of King Iames by the People of England from the Regal Throne, and the Promotion of the Prince of Orange, one of the Royal Family, to the Throne of the Kingdom in his stead, was according to the Constitution of the English Government, and Prescribed by it. In Opposition to all the false and treacherous Hypotheses, of Usurpation, Conquest, Desertion, and of taking the Powers that Are upon Content.

An Essay concerning Parliaments at a certainty.

Notes upon the Phoenix Edition of the Pastoral Lteters, par. 1.

These last Six Books, By Mr. Samuel Iohnson.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A Brief enquiry into the ancient constitution and government of England as well in respect of the administration, as succession thereof ... / by a true lover of his country.

Edition statement

1695

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2003-07 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A64086

ID [STC]

Wing T3584

ID [STC]

ESTC R21382

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12180114

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12180114

ID [VID]

55608

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A64086)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 55608)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 901:55)

Source

— A Brief enquiry into the ancient constitution and government of England as well in respect of the administration, as succession thereof ... / by a true lover of his country., Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718..

Extent

[10], 101, [7] p.

Printed for Richard Baldwin ...,. London :: 1695.. (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.) (Advertisement: p. [2]-[7] at end.) (Attributed to James Tyrrell. cf. Wing.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.