་

by the inevitable necessity which caused them, yet acknowledging his crime does not extenuate their guilt that forced him to it. It was bad on both sides, but the revenge was not so wicked as the treason; for it was a voluntary act of theirs, and a compelled one of his. The short on't is, he took a violent course to cut up the Covenant by the roots; and there is your quarrel to him.

Now for a long-winded panegyrick of the King of Navarre; and here I am sure they are in earnest, when they take such over pains to prove there is no likeness where they say I intended it. The hero at whom their malice is levelled 'does but laugh at it, I believe; and amongst the other virtues of that predecessor, wants neither his justice nor his clemency to forgive all the heads of the League, as fast as they submit. As for obliging them, (which our authors would fain hook in for an ingredient,) let them be satisfied that no more enemies are to be bought off with places and preferments; the trial which has been made in two Kings' reigns will warn the family from so fruitless and dangerous an expedient. The rest is already answered in what I have said to Mr. Hunt; but I thank them by the way, for their instance of the fellow whom the King of Navarre had pardoned, and done good to, yet he would not love him; for that story reaches home somewhere.

I must make haste to get out of hearing from this Billingsgate oratory; and indeed, to make an end with these authors, except I could call rogue

and rascal as fast as they. Let us examine the little reason they produce concerning the Exclusion.

"Did the pope, the clergy, the nobility and commonalty of France, think it reasonable to exclude a prince for professing a different religion, and will the papists be angry, if the protestants be of the same opinion? No sure, they cannot have the impudence."

First, here is the difference of religion taken for granted, which was never proved on one side, though in the King of Navarre it was openly professed. Then the Pope and the three Estates of France had no power to alter the succession, neither did the King in being consent to it; or afterwards, did the greater part of the nobility, clergy, and gentry adhere to the exclusion, but maintained the lawful King successfully against it, as we are bound to do in England by the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, made for the benefit of our Kings and their successors; the objections concerning which oath are fully answered by Dr. Hickes, in his Preface to JOVIAN, and thither I refer the reader.

They tell us, that what it concerns protestants to do in that case, enough has been heard by us in parliament debates.

I answer, that debates coming not by an act to any issue, conclude that there is nothing to be done against a law established and fundamental of the monarchy. They dare not infer a right of

taking up arms by virtue of a debate or vote, and yet they tacitly insinuate this. I ask them, what it does concern protestants to do in this case, and whether they mean any thing by that expression? They have hampered themselves before they were aware; for they proceed in the very next lines to tell us, they believe," the crown of England being hereditary, the next in blood have an undoubted right to succeed, unless GOD make them, or they make themselves, uncapable of reigning :" so that, according to them, if either of those two impediments shall happen, then it concerns the protestants of England to do that something, which, if they had spoken out, had been direct treason. Here is fine legerdemain amongst them: they have acknowledged a vote to be no more than the opinion of an house; and yet from a debate, which was abortive before it quickened into a vote, they argue after the old song, " that there is something more to be done which you cannot choose but guess. In the next place, there is no such thing as incapacity to be supposed in the immediate successor of the crown; that is, the rightful heir cannot be made uncapable on any account whatsoever to succeed. It may please GOD that he may be inhabilis or inidoneus ad gerendam rempublicam,unfit or unable to govern the kingdom; but this is no impediment to his right of reigning: he cannot either be excluded or deposed for such imperfection; for the laws which have provided for private men in this case, have also made pro

vision for the Sovereign and for the publick; and the council of state, or the next of blood, is to administer the kingdom for him. Charles the Sixth of France (for I think we have no English examples which will reach it) forfeited not his kingdom by his lunacy, though a victorious King of England was then knocking at his gates; but all things under his name, and by his authority, were managed. The case is the same betwixt a King non compos mentis, and one who is nondum compos mentis; a distracted or an infant King. Then the people cannot incapacitate the King, because he derives not his right from them, but from GoD only; neither can any action, much less opinion of a Sovereign, render him uncapable for the same reason, excepting only a voluntary resignation to his immediate heir, as in the case of Charles the Fifth; for that of our Richard the Second was invalid, because forced, and not made to the next successor.

Neither does it follow, as our authors urge, that "an unalterable succession supposes England to be the King's estate, and the people his goods and chattels on it;" for the preservation of his right destroys not our propriety, but maintains us in it. He has tied himself by law not to invade our possessions, and we have obliged ourselves as subjects to him, and all his lawful successors; by which irrevocable act of ours, both for ourselves and our posterity, we can no more exclude the successor, than we can depose the present King.

The estate of England is indeed the King's, and I may safely grant their supposition as to the government of England; but it follows not that the people are his goods and chattels on it, for then he might sell, alienate, or destroy them as he pleased; from all which he has tied himself by the liberties and privileges which he has granted us by laws.

There is little else material in this pamphlet: for to say "I would insinuate into the King a hatred to his capital city," is to say, he should hate his best friends, the last and the present Lord Mayor,3 our two honourable Sheriffs, the Court of Aldermen, the worthy and loyal Mr. Common Serjeant, with the rest of the officers, who are generally well affected, and who have kept out their factious members from its government. To say I would insinuate a scorn of authority in the city, is in effect to grant the parallel in the play; for the authority of tumults and seditions is only scorned in it,―an authority which they derived not from the crown, but exercised against it. And for them to confess I exposed this, is to confess that London was like Paris.

They conclude with a prayer to Almighty God, in which I therefore believe the poet did not club. To libel the King through all the pamphlet, and to pray for him in the conclusion, is an

3 Sir John Moore, and Sir William Pritchard. 4 Shadwell's conversation is represented by his contemporaries to have been extremely immoral and profane,