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. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
Gentlemen, I intend to state the Ob∣jection so:
That first Reason of yours I take to be this in effect, That our word (Deserted) being apply'd to the Government, im∣plies our Agreeing that the King hath Deserted the Throne, those two being in true construction the same; and then by our own Confession, the Throne is Vacant as to him.
To this you say, my Lords have gi∣ven no Answer: Truly, I think it is a clear Answer, that the word (Deserted) may have another sence, and doth not
necessarily imply Renouncing entirely of a Right, but a ceasing of the Exercise. But then, if that does not Vacant the Throne as to him, the other Reason comes to be considered, How came you to desire the Prince of Orange to take the Administration upon him, and to take care of Ireland till the Conventi∣on, and to write his Letters circulary for this Meeting? And to renew your Address to the Prince, and to appoint a Day of Publick Thanksgiving?
In answer to that, my Lords say, That tho the King's Deserting the Go∣vernment (as they agree he has done) did imply the Throne to be Vacant, yet they might justly do all those Acts mentioned in the Commons Reasons; because if barely the Exercise of the Go∣vernment were deserted, there must be a supply of that Exercise in some Per∣son's taking the Administration; and as none so fit, because of the Prince's relation to the Crown (and his pre∣sence here) to Address unto about it, so none so proper to make that Address, as the Lords; for in the absence of the
King they are the King and Kingdoms great Council, and might have done it by themselves, without the Commons; but being met in a full representative Body, they joyned with them.
Mr. P—n indeed has said, There is no distinction in Law between the King∣ship and the Exercise of it. And That it is the same Crime, in consideration of Law, to take away the Exercise, as to take away the Kingship.
I shall not dispute with that learned Gentleman (whom I very much honour for his Knowledge in the Profession of the Law) what Offence either of them would be now, for we are not discoursing concerning a Regency, how the Government should be Administred, but we are barely upon the Question, Whether the Throne be Vacant, so that we may have another King. But if we should grant a Vacancy as to the King himself, we are then told, the next in Succession cannot take, because no one can be Heir to one that is alive. Yet, I think, the Answer given by my Lords
before is a very good one, That tho the King be not dead Naturally, yet if (as they infer) he is so Civily, the next of course ought to come in as by Heredi∣tary Succession; for I know not any di∣stinction between Successors in the case of a Natural Death, and those in the case of a Civil one.
For I would know if the next Heir should be set aside in this case, and you put in another, whether that King shall be King of England to him and his Heirs, and so being once upon the Throne, the ancient Lineal Succession be altered: If that be so, then indeed it is sufficiently an Elective Kingdom, by taking it from the right Heir.
If it be not so, then I would ask, Whether such King as shall be put in, shall be King only during King James's Life. That, I suppose for many Rea∣sons, is not their meaning; but, at least he must be made King, during his own Life; and then if there be a Di∣stinction made as to the Succession be∣tween a Natural and a Civil Death,
if King James should dye during the Life of the new King, what would be∣come of the Hereditary Monarchy? Where must the Succession come in, when the next Heir to King James may not be next Heir to the present Suc∣cessor?
Therefore we must reduce all to this point, which my Lords have hinted at in their Reasons, Whether this will not make the Kingdom Elective: for if you do once make it Elective, I do not say that you are always bound to go to Election, but it is enough to make it so, if by that President there be a breach in the Hereditary Succession, for I will be bold to say, you cannot make a stronger Tye to observe that kind of Succession, than what lyeth upon you to preserve it in this Case.
If you are under an Obligation to it, it is part of the Constitution. I desire any one to tell me what stron∣ger Obligation there can be; and that, I say, is Reason enough for my Lords
to disagree to it, it bringing in the Danger of a Breach upon the Consti∣tution.
Next, Gentlemen, I would know of you, if the Throne be Vacant, whether we be oblig'd to fill it; if we be, we must Fill it either by our old Laws, or by the Humour of those that are to chuse; if we Fill it by our own old Laws, they declare, That it is an Here∣ditary Kingdom, and we are to take the next to whom the Succession would be∣long, and then there would be no need of standing upon a Vacancy.
If we are to Fill it according to the Humour of the Times, and of those that are to make the Choice, that di∣verts the course of Inheritance, puts it into another Line: And I cannot see by what Authority we can do that, or change our Ancient Constitution, with∣out committing the same Fault we have laid upon the King.
These are the Objections against the Vacancy of the Throne, which occur to me; and We, my Lords, desire a Sa∣tisfaction to them before we agree to the Vacancy.
And, I think, the Answering them will lead us unto that which I take to be the main point in question, Whether the Vacancy of the Throne, and Filling it again, will not, as my Lords say, en∣danger the turning this Hereditary Mo∣narchy of ours into an Elective one.