Introduction: the Succession in History and Theory Pp. (1-12)

Home , Baron Wharton, Elizabethan government, George Treby (judge), Heir apparent, Henry Constable, Henry Coventry

Notes

Introduction: The Succession in History and Theory pp. (1-12)

1. Cooke, History of the Successions, p. 27. The story also figures in Shake• speare's history plays, having been taken by him from Holinshed's Chronicles and used in Henry W, Part 2. In Shakespeare's account of the deathbed scene between Henry and his heir apparent Hal, Henry says 'God knows, my son, By what bypaths and indirect crooked ways I met this crown' (IV, v, 183-5). For Shakespeare, however, Henry IV was not so much uncertain of his right as he was burdened by his gUilt. The king agonises over his claim to the throne and asks God's forgiveness for having taken it from Richard IT: 'How I came by the crown, 0 God forgive, .. .' (IV, v, 18). Hal, on the other hand, is free of his father's misgivings. 'My gracious liege,' he says, 'You won it, wore it, kept it; gave it me. Then plain and right must my possession be, .. .' (IV, v, 220-2). 2. Twysden, Certaine Considerations, p. 62. 3. In the eleventh century William I, a bastard, claimed as a conqueror and by right of nomination, the promise of the throne having been made to him by Edward the Confessor; William Rufus and Henry I succeeded in tum to their father's throne despite the better hereditary claim of their elder brother, Robert; the Empress Matilda was forced to yield her right to her cousin, Stephen, who seized the throne and enforced his claim by citing his election by the barons; and Matilda's son, Henry IT, took the crown at Stephen's death in 1154, pursuant to a treaty concluded the year before. Not until 1189, with the accession of Richard I, was an English king succeeded by his eldest son. This, however, did not signal the transition to succession by hereditary right. Ten years later, John, rather than the under-age Arthur (son of Geoffrey, Henry II's deceased second son; John was Henry's third son), succeeded Richard. 4. Maitland, Constitutional History, p. 98. 5. Ibid., pp. 97-8. See, too, Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. I, pp. 514-15. 6. Edward ITI, of course, came to the throne as a consequence of his father's having been deposed, but in his case the principle of election was both complicated and mitigated by the new boy king's having also been ac• knowledged as Edwllfd IT's heir. Edward ill was fifteen in 1327. 7. Rotuli Parliamentorum, vol. VI, p. 270. 8. Bacon, History, p. 46. 9. 1 Jac.I. c.l. Statutes of the Realm (SR), vol. IV, pt IT, p. 1018. 10. Actually, an even better case was to be made for the inheritance having come from both parents. The point had not been lost on James I who, in that first statute recognising his title, was careful to trace his own descent not only from Henry VII,but from 'the highe and noble princesse Queene Elizabeth his wife, eldest daughter of Kinge Edwarde the Fourthe' as well. SR, vol. IV, pt II, p. 1018. 11. Immediately upon learning of her brother's death Mary claimed the throne

259 260 Notes to pp. 4-9

by the 'provisions as have been made by act of Parliament and the testa• ment and last will of our late dearest father, King Henry VIII.' Letter to Sir Edward Hastings (9 July 1553), in Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. III, App. p. 3. Elizabeth's Act of Recognition (1 Eliz. c.3) not only cited the authority of Henry VIII's third Act of Succession, it went on to assert that 'the lymitacion and declaracion of the succession of this realme mentioned and conteined in ... [35 Hen. VIII. c.l] ... shall stande bee and remayne the law of this realme for ever.' SR, vol. IV, pt I, p. 359. 12. 13 Eliz. c.1. SR, vol. IV, pt I, p. 527. 13. Counting English 'civil wars' in the seventeenth century is not as historiographically dangerous as counting 'revolutions,' but it is still a tricky business and open to a number of conventions. My reference here is to 1642-46, 1648, and 1651. J. G. A. Pocock, in a recent article, extends the list to four. 'Fourth English Civil War,' pp. 151-66. 14. Dunham and Wood, 'Right to Rule,' pp. 739, 761. 15. Barrington, Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles, p. 51. 16. Dunham and Wood, 'Right to Rule,' passim. 17. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 198-9. 'Doleman' was Parsons' pseudonym. 18. Treason Unmask'd, p. 251. To be sure, the belief in an hereditary crown indefeasibly vested by divine right did not die with Anne. The accession of George I could be regarded as merely one more breach in the descent of the crown which would need eventually to be put right; but as Jonathan Clark has demonstrated, it did not render 'the doctrine [of indefeasibility] intellec• tually unavailable.' Clark, English Society 1688-1832, p. 125. 19. See Dickinson, 'Eighteenth-Century Debate on the "Glorious Revolution",' pp. 28-45; Dickinson, 'Eighteenth-Century Debate on the Sovereignty of Parliament,' pp. 189-210; and FrankIe, 'Parliament's Right to Do Wrong,' pp.71-85. 20. Deuteronomy 17:15. 21. Nalson, Common Interest of King and People, p. 88. 22. Barrington, Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles, p. 16. 23. Assheton, Royal Apology, p. 1. 24. Whig historians tended to overlook the values of certainty and continuity in the making of a stable political order and focused instead on the indefeas• ible right of hereditary succession as a support for absolutism jure divino. Macaulay, especially, was critical of what he believed was the slavish worship of hereditary monarchy. He regarded it as 'a good political institution,' but lamented that 'bigoted and servile theologians had turned it into a religi• ous mystery, almost as awful and as incomprehensible as transubstantiation itself.' Indefeasible right, he believed, was an 'abject and noxious super• stition' which had made hereditary monarchy 'a curse instead of a blessing to society.' Macaulay, History, vol. III, p. 1287. See also Speck, Reluctant Revolutionaries, pp. 2-3. 25. Kantorowicz, King's Two Bodies, pp. 11-12, n.9. 26. Coke, Third Institutes, p. 7. See, too, Coke's report of Calvin's Case. 7 Reports 18. 27. Cowell, Interpreter. 28. Coke, 7 Reports 17. Notes to pp. 10-17 261

29. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 185. 30. Wentworth, Discourse, p. 8. 31. Treason Unmask'd, p. 251. 32. Fortescue, De Laudibus, p. 87. 33. Any remedy that smacked of conquest was fraught with danger. Hooker, Bacon, and Coke, three of the era's best minds, worried that conceding a title by conquest would allow the conqueror 'the power of disannulling of laws and disposing of men's fortunes and estates'. Bacon, History, p. 40. See, also, Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book VIII. ch. 6.1; and Coke, Calvin's Case, 7 Reports 30. 34. Parliamentary History (PH). vol. III, p. 1125. 35. Mulgrave, Humanum est Errare, p. 5. 1 The Late Elizabethan Succession Question (pp. 13-25)

1. Other routes to Elizabeth's throne, especially attractive to those advocates whose candidates never got there, were more fanciful. The Jesuit, Robert Parsons, was drawn in 1596 to the notion that the Pope, as 'feudal overlord of England by virtue of King John's submission in 1212 to the legate Pandulphus', had the right to choose the queen's successor. P. Holmes, 'Authorship and Early Reception of A Conference,' p. 424. There was also the report in 1602 that the throne would go to no one, that the English intended, after Elizabeth's death, 'to govern the kingdom by States, as they do in the lowe Countries'. Letter, cited by Cheyney, History, vol. n, p. 558. 2. 13 Eliz., c.l. See also Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, pp. 119-20; Stafford, James VI, p. 8; and Hurstfield, 'Succession Struggle,' p. 107. 3. Smith, De Republica Anglorum, p. 49. 4. 13 Eliz. c.l. 5. 35 Henry VIII. c.1. 6. Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, pp. 208-9. 7. Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, pp. I, 10-11. 8. Ibid., pp. 21, 203. Yet even were it to be conceded that the children of Catherine Grey were illegitimate and thereby incapacitated from the succes• sion, there was still the cadet branch of the Suffolk line, descended from Catherine's younger sister Eleanor. See Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, p. 207. 9. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, p. 292. 10. Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, p. 132. 11. Letter from Father Parsons to Sessa, 1600, cited by Hicks, 'Sir Robert Cecil, Father Persons, and the Succession,' p. 120; Scaramelli, Venetian Ambas• sador, to the Doge, 1603. Calendar of State Papers . .. Venice . .. (CSP Venetian) (1603-1607) p. 49. Hicks asserted that 'a party was being won for the Infanta in the course of 1599 and 1600.' Hicks, p. 98. It was a devel• opment that the government took seriously. Hurstfield, 'Succession Strug• gle,' pp. 112-13. None the less, the Spanish procrastinated and ultimately took no action at all. Hicks, p. 130; Pollen, 'Accession of King James I,' p. 573; Pollen, 'Question of Queen Elizabeth's Successor,' p. 532. 12. Stafford, James VI, p. 287; Willson, King James VI and I, p. 157. 13. Bruce, Correspondence, xii; Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, p. 403. 262 Notes to pp. 17-19

14. Smith, Elizabeth Tudor, p. 218. See also Neale, 'Peter Wentworth,' p. 181; and Hurstfield, 'Succession Struggle', pp. 104-34. Hurstfield believed that James's accession was assured by the time of Blizabeth's death although he allowed for considerable uncertainty in the succession as late as 1599. 'Suc• cession Struggle', pp. 134, 113. 15. Wilbraham, Journal, p. 54 (entry for 20 March 1603). Henry Hooke, in 1601, had expressed his fear both of the 'enemy from without, as [well as] of seditious and mutinous people within the realm'. Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of Bngland,' fol. 14. 16. Cheyney, History, vol. II, p. 575. 17. Letter dated 3 April 1603 (24 March old style). CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 15. Similarly, the Venetian ambassador in France reported the relief of the Scottish community there 'that so important an event should have passed off quietly.' Ibid., p. 4. 18. Read and Read, Elizabeth of England, p. 105. 19. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, p. 403. See also Hurstfield, 'Succession Struggle,' p. 128; and Stafford, James VI, pp. 253-4. 20. Camden, History, p. 26. 21. Ibid., p. 27. 22. Ibid., p. 269. Camden also reported that Huic, the queen's physician, had dissuaded Blizabeth from marriage for an unidentified 'womanish Impot• ency'. Ibid., p. 83. 23. Harington did not identify Elizabeth's problem specifically, but he referred to her flirtatiousness with her courtiers as a strategem 'to hyde that debility, enduring rather to run into some obloquie among strangers of a fault that she could not committ, then to be suspected to want anythinge that belongs to the perfection of a faire ladie'. Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 40. 24. Patterson, Ben Jonson's Conversations, p. 30. 25. Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, pp. 1-3, 81; Levine, Early Elizabethan Suc• cession Question, p. 89; Neale, 'Peter Wentworth,' p. 176; Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, pp. 199-201. 26. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 1. See also Wilson, State of England, p. 2; and Cheyney, History, vol. II, pp. 557-9. 27. Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 32. 28. Neale, 'Sayings of Queen Blizabeth,' p. 216. 29. Northumberland to James, undated letter c.1601. Bruce, Correspondence, p. 57. Harington, however, citing an unidentified 'discreete Ladye' as his source, asserted that the queen once said 'the lyne of Scotland must needs be next heires.' Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 46. 30. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 410. See also Camden, History, p. 659. Elizabeth's jealousy of would-be successors can be attested as early as 1561, when she remarked that 'Princes cannot like their own children, those that should succeed unto them.' Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Ques• tion, p. 34. 31. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 259. 'Doleman' was the pseudonymn used by Parsons (see note 51 below); Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 75. 32. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, pp. 55, 66, 79-81. Notes to pp. 20-1 263

33. Wilson, State of England, p. 9. In 1598 Cecil reminded James that although Elizabeth was not disposed to it, she might 'take that offer which her people have often made her to receive into her own power by consent of the 3 estates the disposition (by nomination in her last will) of the crown of England'. Stafford, James VI, p. 192, citing State Papers Scotland, Ln, pp. 198-201. 34. Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England,' fols. 4V-5, 6V. Bruce, without citing any authority for the position, asserted that Elizabeth 'had some vague notion of her own prerogative right, as the last of a certain line of princes, to indicate her succession by her will'. Bruce, Correspondence, XI. See also Levbte, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 195. 35. Wentworth, Discourse, p. 37. 36. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, Part 2, p. 259. 37. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 53. 38. The only question expressed by most politically interested contemporaries was whether she had actually named James as her successor. On that issue there is a split between those who held that the queen said nothing con• clusive, but did make a definitive death-bed sign of her choice [R. Cary, Memoirs, pp. 119-20; Nicolo Molin, 'Report on England presented to the GovemmentofVenice in the year 1607,' CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 510], and those who accepted that the queen, in January, confided to Nottingham that she wished to be succeeded by James, and confinned that nomination to her counsellors orally on the eve of her death [Manningham, Diary, p. 245; Nichols, Progresses, vol. m, pp. 607-8; Marin Cavalli, Venetian Ambassador in France, to the Doge and Senate, CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 7] ..There were, however, some who were more skeptical. The French ambassador in London reported that the queen 'left no will, nor did she name her successor,' although within a fortnight of Elizabeth's death he had spOken to Nottingham and Cecil and, consequently, had revised his account. CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 16; Birch, Memoirs, vol. n, p. 508; Neale, 'Sayings of Queen Elizabeth,' p. 229. Another contemporary, John Clap• ham, the author of what may be the most properly circumspect rendering of these events, concluded that the 'reports, whether they were true indeed or given out of purpose by such as would have them so believed, it is hard to say.' Ellis, Original Leners, vol. m, p. 195; Read and Read, Elizabeth of England; p. 101. 39. Molin, 'Report on England,' CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 510. Scaramelli, the Venetian secretary in England, argued that the Council deliberately sup• pressed the queen's nomination of James so as to make the Council itself more important in the choice of James as the new king. CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 2. 40. Historians, too, have been circumspect in their recounting of Elizabeth's death-bed activities (see Willson, James VI and I, p. IS8, and Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 29), but they generally incline to Cheyney's judgement that 'the testimony to some such nomination is con• clusive.' Cheyney, History, vol. n, p. 575; Neale, 'Sayings of Queen Eliza• beth,' pp. 228-32; Stafford, James VI, p. 291. Camden, on the other hand, accepted as true the full story of Elizabeth's designation of James, and this ·264 Notes to pp. 21-3

was certainly the standard view throughout the Stuart period. See the 1703 translator's preface to Craig, Right of Succession; and Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, pp. 209-12. 41. Thomas Wilson, analysing the succession problem in 1601, observed that 'there are 12 competitors that gape for the death of that good old Princess the now Queen'. Wilson, State of England, p. 2. Of these, Joel Hurstfield conceded five, in the 15908, as worthy of serious consideration; and of those five, there were three who 'received the particular attention of the succes• sion speculators and the chanceries of Europe, namely James VI of Scot• land, Arabella Stuart, and the Infanta'. Hurstfield, 'Succession Struggle; p.108. 42. Lawson, Politica Sacra & Civilis, pp. 149-50. 43. Ibid., p. 150. 44. Hicks, 'Father Robert Persons S. J. and The Book of Succession,' p. 115. 45. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, p. 46. 46. Ibid., p. 25. 47. Ibid., pp. 7, 9, 10. 48. Ibid., p. 18. 49. Wentworth, Ibid., p. 30. See also Cheyney, History, vol. II, p. 279. 50. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, p. 8. Elizabeth took the opposite view. She was reported to have said that declaring her successor would ultimately produce bloodshed. Neale, 'Parliament and the Succession Question,' p.499. 51. It has for a long time been widely accepted that A Conference About the Next Succession to the Crowne of Ingland, also known as The Book ofTitles, is the work of the Jesuit Robert Parsons. What is not clear is whether Parsons was the sole author. Among Parsons' contemporaries, Thomas Wilson, for example, attributed the work to Parsons alone (Wilson, State of England, p. 5), while Camden believed that Cardinal Allen and Sir Francis Inglefield were, along with Parsons, joint authors (Camden, History, p. 482). Among modem scholars, Leo Hicks argues vigorously for the joint author• ship hypothesis (,Father Robert Persons S. J. and The Book of Succession,' pp. 126-8), while Charles Howard Mcilwain (James I, Political Works, xcii) and Pollen ('Question of Queen Elizabeth's Successor: p. 526) incline markedly the other way. More recently, Peter Holmes has argued persua• sively for Parsons as sole author, a truth that Parsons attempted to conceal because of the generally unfavourable reception that the book received among Catholics. P. Holmes, 'Authorship and Early Reception of A Conference,' pp.415-29. 52. Parsons made the hereditary case for the Infanta by tracing her back through the Portuguese royal line to Philippa, eldest daughter of John of Gaunt by his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 160-1. Parsons wasn't the only one with an interest in having the succession question confused. Harington claims that Elizabeth and her Council, while Mary Stuart was alive, 'thought as fitt that for a counterpoise to the Queen of Scottes pretence some other tytles should underhand be sett on foot at home.' Harington, Tract on the Succession, p.41. 53. James I, Political Works, xciii. Written in Latin, the Right of Succession was Notes to pp. 23-5 265

translated into English in 1703 when the uncertain prospects for a continued hereditary succession were once again a topic for concern and debate. 54. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. 258-61; Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 2-3, 405. 55. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 1. 56. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 241. 57. Bailey, Succession to the English Crown, p. 200. Stafford believed it to have been more likely that Burghley, early on, was a supporter of the Suffolk claim, but that later, from the mid-80s, he inclined towards James. Burghley, like his mistress, never committed himself, and James continued to regard the elder Cecil with deep suspicion. Stafford, James VI, pp. 204-5. See also Camden, History, p. 122. 58. Parsons appreciated Arabella's attractiveness as 'an Inglish woman, borne in Ingland, and of parents who at the tyme of her birth were of Inglish allegeance.' Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 124. 59. Stafford, James VI, p. 117. 60. Hicks, 'Sir Robert Cecil, Father Persons, and the Succession,' p. 113; Hurstfield, 'Succession Struggle,' p. 113. 61. Pollen, 'Accession of King James I,' p. 577; Pollen, 'Question of Queen Elizabeth's Successor,' p. 530. It was also rumoured that Robert Cecil had been despatched by Elizabeth in 1588 to propose a match between Arabella and Edward's elder brother, Ranuccio. CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 41. 62. Stafford, James VI, pp. 288-9. 63. Bailey, Succession to the English Crown, p. 201. 64. As Hicks noted, Cecil, Nottingham, and Buckhurst were politiques under• standably 'bent on securing a continuance of their power.' Hicks, 'Sir Robert Cecil, Father Persons, and the Succession,' p. 116. He believed that Cecil did an about face after the fall of Essex and switched his succession support from the Infanta to James, pp. 124, 136. Hurstfield, on the other hand, denied that Cecil was ever sympathetic to the Infanta's claim, and dis• missed the argument as a 'wishful delusion'. Hurstfield, 'Succession Struggle,' p. 114. 65. Essex, himself, had been another possibility for the succession. Camden noted that in 1599 the earl's 'Followers and Friends made great boasts, that he was descended from the Royal Family of the Scots ... and of the Bloud Royal of England ... : and that for this Reason he had a better Title to the Sceptre of England than any other of the competitours.' Camden, History, p. 568. See also Stafford, James VI, p. 198n. Yet whatever personal aspi• rations Essex harboured, he conspired in the last years of his life to secure the succession for James. Stafford, James VI, pp. 223-4; Cheyney, History, vol. II, p. 556; Elton, England Under the Tudors, p. 471. 66. Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. XVII. 67. Bruce, Correspondence, p. 60; Stafford, James VI, p. 274. James may also have been in touch with Rome, allowing for the possibility of the reconver• sion of Scotland and indirectly soliciting Catholic support for his claim to the English crown. Warner, 'James VI and Rome,' pp. 124-7. 68. Cheyney suggests that 'it is not impossible ... that it [the secret correspond• ence] was all laid before her.' Cheyney, History, vol. II, p. 557. Elton, hazarding a much bolder stance, asserts that Elizabeth 'knew what went on 266 Notes to pp. 25-9

but said nothing. ' Elton, England Under the Tudors, p. 474. Neither Cheyney nor Elton adduces, however, any evidence in support of Elizabeth's know• ledge of the Cecil-James negotiations. 2 God's Providence and Man's Presumption (pp. 26-54)

1. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 171. 2. Peter Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, p. 28. 3. Constable, Discovery of A Counter/ecte Conference (1600), pp. 36-7. This work has also been attributed alternatively to William Clitheroe and Charles Paget. See P. Holmes, Resistance and Compromise, p. 195; and P. Holmes, 'The Authorship and Early Reception of A Conference About the Next Suc• cession to the Crown of England,' p. 424. Also see 'Charles Paget'. Dic• tionary of National Biography, vol. XLm, p. 48. 4. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 11. 76. 5. Ibid., pp. 247-8, 379. 6. Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question. p. 109. See also Edward VI's Letters Patent for the limitation of the crown, 21 June, 1553, quoted in Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, pp. 167-8. 7. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. 91-3; Craig, Right ofSuccession, p. 248; Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question. p.l08. 8. Constable, Discovery of A Counter/ecte Conference, p. 44. 9. In response to the objection that James's alien status was a common law impediment to his inheritance of English land and a fortiori to his inherit• ance of the crown, it was noted by Parsons that there were ~hose who believed no maxim of the law applied to the descent of the crown 'except expresse mention be made thereof, and that the crowne is privileged in many pointes that other private heritages be not.' Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 113. See also Harington, Tract on the Suc• cession; and Lucas, 'Two Paths of Descent.' 10. James I, Political Works, p. 37. 11. Camden, History, p. 361. 12. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 34-5. 13. Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England,' fol. 16v. 14. Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 71. 15. Hayward, Answer to the First Part ofa Certaine Conference, cap. 3. In 1599 Hayward had published an account of Richard m's deposition. imprudently dedicated to the Earl of Essex. Although the work did not purport to justify the deposing of a monarch, Hayward was imprisoned by a nervous Eliza• bethan government and not released until after Essex's execution. 16. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 127. 17. Ibid., p. 127; also pp. 86-8. Robert Cecil who, at one point in his secret correspondence with James, sought to persuade the Scottish king of Eliza• beth's respect for the hereditary principle of succession, denied that his queen was inclined 'to cutt off the naturall branch, and graft uppon some wilde stocke.' Bruce, Correspondence, p. S. 18. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 126-7. If the king were Notes to pp. 29-33 267

to be a life tenant only, he would be, it was argued, much less mindful of the public weal. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 73-4. 19. Cooper, 'Patterns of Inheritance', pp. 206-S. 20. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 72. 21. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 127. 22. See also Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 72, 77. 23. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 129; Craig, Right of Succession, p. 11; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 52. 24. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certain Conference, cap. I, p. IS. 25. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 12S. 26. The crown did not pass by representative primogeniture in 1199 when Richard I died and was succeeded by John, rather than by Arthur, the child of John's deceased elder brother Geoffrey. Faced with this apparent inconsistency, Parsons argued, as he was always pleased to do, that here was one of many anomalies in the hereditary descent of the English crown. He noted that John took the throne because he was nearer in degree, a generation closer to Richard I than was John's nephew, and that this was a better rule to follow. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. S, 59, 7S,87-8, 146. Craig, on the other hand, believed in the consistency of the per stirpes rule and elected to dismiss the anomaly of John's accession by labelling it a usurpation. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 249-50, 311, 317. This inconsistency, however, could be explained: whereas per stirpes des• cent had not yet worked its way completely into the common law of inher• itance by the end of the twelfth century, it was, two hundred years later, firmly established. More important, the change demonstrated a reason to believe in an emerging rule of monarchical succession running parallel to that of private inheritance, and the possibility that as the rules of private descent continued to change, so too might those controlling the estate of the crown. 27. Bruce, Correspondence, p. 58. 28. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 133. 29. •... hee is their heritable over-lord, and so by birth, not by any right in the coronation, commeth to his crowne; ... For at the very moment of the expiring of the king reigning, the nearest and lawful heire entreth in his place.' James I, Trew Law, in Political Works, p. 69. See also Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 120; Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 200-3; Manningham, Diary, p. 242; and Colvill, Palinode, in Original Letters, n.p. 30. Peter Wentworth, Discourse, p. 95. 31. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 61-2. 32. Ibid., pp. 62, 123-4. 33. Wentworth, Discourse, pp. 47-8; Neale, 'Peter Wentworth,' pp. 199-200. 34. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 113; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 57; See also Wilson, State of England, p. 7. 35. See also Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, especially pp. 28-31; and Kantorowicz, King's Two Bodies, wherein these matters are discussed at length. 36. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 6; Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 71-3; Schramm, History of the English Coronation, 268 Notes to pp. 33-7

pp. 166-7; but see also Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 124, for a denial of this proposition. 37. This did not, however, suggest that officers of the crown would continue automatically after the death of a monarch. As a result there were those in Elizabeth's last hours who were especially concerned about the continuing of the 'King's Peace.' Wilbraham, Journal, p. 54; and see Larkin and Hughes, Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. I, p. 5. 38. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 65; Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 3; Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Ques• tion, p. 149. 39. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 120. 40. Higden. Defence of the View, p. 2. 41. Wentworth, Discourse, p. 47. 42. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 129. 43. Ibid., p. 131. 44. Ibid., pp. 120, 122-3. 45. Ibid., p. 130. 46. Ibid., p. 125; Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England,' f01.15. 47. Constable, Discovery of A Counterjecte Conference, p. 3. 48. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 35; and part 2, p. 140. 49. Ibid., pp. 129-130. 50. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 81. 51. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, preface and p. 1. 52. Hayward. Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. I. 53. Ibid. 54. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 1; Craig, Right of Succession, p. 95. 55. Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 77. 56. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 125. See also Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 104. Levine also comments on Mary Grey, younger sister of Catherine Grey, a dwarfish woman who married Thomas Keyes, reputed· to be the largest man at court. He observes that 'with such a consort she [Mary] could hardly be considered an appropriate prospect for the succession.' Ibid., p. 203. 57. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 83. 58. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, Advertisement 'To The Reader,' and p. 7. 59. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 83. 60. Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, p. 54; see also Pollard, Henry VIII, pp. 179-81. 61. Ibid., p. 180. 62. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 26. 63. Knox, 'First Blast of the Trumpet,' Works, vol. IV, pp. 377-8. 64. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, pp. 356, 403. 65. Bruce, Correspondence, ix, p. 55. 66. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 266. 67. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, p. 294. 68. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 233. 69. Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England,' fols. 9, 18v. 70. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 227. Notes to pp. 33-43 269

71. Ibid., pp. 27, 89, 83; Chrimes, English Constitutional Ideas, p. 63; Smith, 'Crown and Commonwealth', pp. 12.38. 72. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 181, 186; Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 220-1; Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 8. 73. Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, p. 16; Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 47; Craig, Right of Succession, p. 385. 74. Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, pp. 98-9. 75. Even as late as 1608 the practical consequences of Elizabeth's possible illegitimacy were still being discussed. In a letter to Dudley Carleton, John Chamberlain spoke of lingering legal issues of inheritance owing to the late queen's 'pretended bastardy.' Chamberlain, Letters, vol. I, p. 266. 76. Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, pp. 35, 138. 77. Camden, History, p. 18. 78. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 298. See, however, Thomas Wilson who, in considering the strengths and weaknesses of all the possible claimants to the throne, considered illegitimacy as a certain disqualification. Wilson, State of England, pp. 2-4. 79. Mary had her statutory illegitimacy reversed in her first parliament. 1 Mary, st. 2. c 1. Mortimer Levine suggests that Elizabeth did not reverse her own bastardy because of the respect, perhaps even awe, in which she held her father's judgements. 'She was not disposed to alter his acts without compel• ling cause, even those that touched her own legitimacy.' Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 33. 80. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, p. 9. 81. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 298; Smith, De Republica Anglorum, p. 49. 82. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 125, 377-8; Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 166. 83. 35 Henry vm, c.l. 84. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 212, 216; Stafford, James VI, p. 148. 85. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, p. 37; Pollen, 'Question of Queen Eliza• beth's Successor,' p. 519. Axton makes the point that prior to Mary's death, in 1587, Henry VIII's will and alien succession, not religion, were the principal concerns of the polemicists. 86. Wentworth, Discourse, p. 4. 87. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 218. Craig spoke of the possible failure of 'the whole Royal progeny,' by which he meant anyone descended from any English king. James, Craig's candidate for the succession, qualified as prog• eny under the penumbra of Henry VII. 88. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, preface and p. 132; Wilson, State of England, p. 37. 89. Collinson, 'Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I,' pp.4l8-21. 90. Ibid., p. 422. 91. Read "and Read, Elizabeth of England, p. 107. 92. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 31. Parsons was not nearly so troubled by an interregnum, as he supposed that the likeliest candidate would begin im• mediately to exercise rule. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p.133. Z70 Notes to pp. 43-9

93. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 126. 94. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 48. 95. Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England', f01.14; Wentworth, Discourse, pp. 2-3. 96. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 1; Man- ningham, Diary, p. 238. 97. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 64. 98. Ibid., p. 48. 99. Ibid., pp. 46-7. 100. Wentworth, Discourse, pp. 54-5; Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, p. 91. 101. Constable, Discovery of A Counteifecte Conference, p. 79. 102. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, title page. 103. Camden, History, p. 67. 104. Constable, Discovery of A Counteifecte Conference, p. 39. 105. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 8. 106. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 80. 107. Ibid.,pp~ 378, 382. 108. See Pollard, Henry VIII, p. 348; and Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 351. 109. Craig, whose distaste for nomination as a mode of succession was no greater than his dislike of election, argued that nomination was probably the more pernicious of the two. In an elective kingdom the choice would at least be made by all the estates rather than being dependent upon 'the pleasure of one man.' Craig, Right of Succession, p. 132. 110. Ibid., p. 131. 111. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, pp. 12-13. 112. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, p. 24. 113. Ponet, Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, ch.4. 114. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 134-5. 115. Ibid., pp. 130-3. Thomas Wilson, who agreed that the prince had no right to dispose of the crown unilaterally, believed none the less that the suc• cession could ~ settled by the king with the 'general consent of all in parliament.' Wilson, State of England, p. 37. 116. Wilson, p. 5. 117. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 8. 118. This was not to deny that ultimately God was responsible, only that he allowed his people some freedom of movement and choice when it came to toppling an evil king by force of arms. Parsons, for example, acknowledged that God might choose merely to strike a tyrant dead, but more likely he would allow his people to act on their own when it became necessary. 'God,' he suggested, 'hath left power uppon earth to do justice in his name when neede requireth.' Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 68. 119. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 212. 120. Parsons, although he was clearly in favour of an elective crown, asserted that God did sometimes choose to work his will through conquest, espe• cially as that seemed the only way to be rid of a malign ruler. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. 62, 72. 121. See, for example, Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 189, and part 2, p. 12; Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certain Conference, Notes to pp. 49-57 271

cap. 8. Craig was one ofvery few who was prepared to acknowledge William I as king by right of conquest alone, and this because he would have gone to any length to deny that there was even a trace element of election in the Conqueror's claim. 122. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 149. 123. Ibid., p. 316; Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 8. 124. Stephen of Blois may not have been a subject, but neither was he an inde• pendent sovereign. Stephen was a nephew and favourite of Henry I, and was, moreover, one of the largest English landholders. 125. Walpole, Historic Doubts, p. 198. 126. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 91. 127. Ibid., p. 181. 128. Ibid., p. 186. Parsons took a wholly contradictory view. Kings, he argued, must govern for 'the good of the people, ... which end being taken away or perverted, the king becometh a tyrant.' Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 61. 129. Read and Read, Elizabeth of England, p. 33. 130. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 193-4. Sir Thomas Smith had implied much the same conclusion when he denounced any• one 'who by force commeth to the monarchy against the will of the people. ' De Republica Anglorum, p. 16. See also Peter Wentworth, who argued for the critical importance of parliament's examining Henry's claim. Discourse, pp.33-4. 131. Peter Wentworth, 'Five Generall Answeres Unto This Objection,' an appendix to the Pithie Exhortation, p. 113. 132. Bruce, Correspondence, p. 62. 133. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 218-19. 134. Ibid., p. 250. 135. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 97. 136. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, publisher's advertisement 'To the Reader.' 137. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 407. 138. Ibid., pp. 251-2, 134, 342. 139. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. 158, 189. 140. Constable, Discovery of A Counter/ecte Conference, pp. 28-9; Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 91, 338. 141. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 34. 142. '[T]he successors of an usurper, by course and compasse of time, may prescribe a right; if they who have received wrong, discontinue both pursuit and claime.' Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 3. 143. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 338, and author's dedication. 3 Kings by Law, Lineal Succession, and Undoubted Right (pp. 55-71)

1. Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, Advertisement 'To the Reader.' 2. Wentworth, Discourse, p. 6; Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, pp. 5,48,51. 3. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 74; Camden, History, p. 563; Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England,' fol. 17v. 272 Notes to pp. 57-8

4. Wilson, State of England, p. 2; Wentworth, Pithie Exhortation, Advertise• ment 'To the Reader'; Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England,' fol. 13v; Harington, Tract on the Succession, passim. 5. Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 72; Camden, History, p. 563; Bailey, Succession to the English Crown, p. 198. 6. 'A Proclamation declaring the undoubted Right of our Soveraigne Lord King James, to the Crowne of the Realms of England, Fraunce and Ireland,' 24 March 1603. Larkin and Hughes, Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. I, p.2. 7. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 92; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 18. 8. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 347; Read and Read, Elizabeth of England, p. 45; Harington, Tract on the Succession, pp. 13-16. 9. Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 16; Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 250-1, 290-1. 10. 25 Edward III, st.t. II. There were two exceptions to this proscription, namely that children of kings of England were excepted as were any children born abroad to parents in the allegiance of the English king; but it would be difficult to fit James in either category. Unlike Henry n who was the son of an English queen, and Richard n who was the son of English parents, James I would be the first king of England to be born outside the country to parents who were neither English monarchs nor in the allegiance of the English crown. Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, pp. 99-107; Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, pp. 24-5. James would also fit the category of descent from an English king if 'children' were taken more broadly to mean 'issue.' Wilson, State of England, p. 7; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 58; Levine, Early Elizabethan Succesion Question, p. 116. 12. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 259; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 61; Wilson, State of England, p. 8; Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 122. The Venetian ambassador's report of James's accession observed that despite the law against alien inheritance, James 'having been born in the same island, they concluded not to reckon him an alien.' Nicolo Molin, 'Report on England presented to the Government of Venice in the year 1607.' CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 510. 13. Bruce, Correspondence, ix. 14. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 252-8; Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. 4-5, 113; Harington, Tract on the Succession, pp. 56- 7. 15. Craig, Right of Succession, pp. 290-1; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 60; Wilson, State of England, pp. 7-8. There was also the possibility of a counter argument, that Henry vm believed the matter to be precisely the other way round and, for that reason, knowing that the Stuarts could not inherit, he chose to exclude them from his will. 16. Stafford, James VI, pp. 39, 190. In 1588 James refused to support Philip of Spain only after Elizabeth promised him an English duchy. Once the threat of the Armada had passed, however, Elizabeth reneged. Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, pp. 76-7, 79. 17. Wentworth asserted that in the matter of the succession the statute had never been tested. James, he said, was the first 'stranger ... that could make any claim to the crown.' Discourse, pp. 9-10. Notes to pp. 58-62 273

18. 'The Catholics consider him illegitimate because there was no dispensation given for the marriage of his father and mother, who were closely related.' CSP Spanish (1587-1603) pp. 727, 731. 19. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 110-11. The pre• sumption was that a bastard could not take by right of descent. This meant that the senior branch of the ~uffolk line, the children of Catherine Grey, were probably barred from the throne because of the dubious legality of their mother's marriage to the Earl of Hertford. Wilson, State of England, pp. 2-3; Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 146; Willson, James VI and I, p. 138; Bailey, Succession to the English Crown, p. 205. In consequence of that barrier their right would pass to the junior Suffolks, which explains why Parsons believed that Margaret, Countess of Derby, and her issue may have had the best English claim to the throne. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, p. 265. 20. Levine, Early Elizabethan Succession Question, p. 11. 21. Wentworth, Discourse, pp. 7, 12-16; Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, part 2, pp. 109-10. 22. Willson, James VI and I, p. 139. 23. Bruce, Correspondence, xxi. 24. Willson, James. VI and I, pp. 95, 146; Pollen, 'Accession of King James I,' p.576. 25. Camden, History, p. 562. 26. Hicks, 'Sir Robert Cecil, Father Persons, and the Succession,' pp. 126-7; CSP Domestic (1603-1610) p. 8. 27. Harington, Tract on the Succession, pp. 51, 71, 82, 86; Wentworth, Dis• course, p. 84. 28. P. Holmes, 'Authorship and Early Reception of A Conference,' p. 423; Harington, Tract on the Succession, p. 84. 29. Harington, Tract on the Succession, pp. 89, 83, 84. 30. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 248; Harington, Tract on the Succession, pp. 86-7. 31. James I, Political Works, p. 12. 32. Harington, Tract on the Succession, pp. 90, 86, 85. 33. Letter from John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, 28 March 1621. Chamberlain, Letters, vol. n, p. 358. 34. Bruce, Correspondence, pp. 3, 16. 35. Larkin and Hughes, Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. I, vi, pp. 2-3; CSP Domestic (1603-1610) p. I; Read and Read, Elizabeth ofEng/and, pp. 103- 4. 36. 1 Hen. vn, c.l. SR, vol. n, p. 499. 37. 1 Jac.I, c.1 (,A mostejoyfull andjuste Recognition of the immediate lawfull and undoubted Succession Descent and Righte of the Crowne '). SR, vol. IV, p. 1018. 38. John Somers, writing towards the end of the seventeenth century, thought that it had. Somers' detennination to prove that the crown was in the dis• posal of parliament moved him to believe that 'the Act of Recognition made upon King James his coming to the Crown, doth particularly insist upon that title, which was raised by Act of Parliament to Henry the Seventh, and the heirs of his body.' Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 14. Robert Brady, answering Somers, appreciated explicitly that the Jacobean Act of 274 Notes to pp. 62-4

Recogniton had made no mention whatever of the Henrician entail. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 394. See also Brady, Great Point of Succession, p.24. 39. Dartmouth, in his comments on Burnet's treatment of the Act of Settlement (1701), contended that 'the legislature had a right to limit the crown [which] was never doubted, until king James the first's time, who was against law, because law was against him.' Burnet, History, vol. IV, p. 497. See also 'A Resolution of Two Important Questions: I. Whether the Crown of England be Hereditary. n. Whether the Duke of York ought to be excluded,' Delamer, Works, p. 546. 40. Wilkinson, Coronation in History, p. 20. 41. Ibid., p. 21. 42. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 136; Axton, Queen's Two Bodies, p. 94. 43. Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, cap. 6. See also Coke on Calvin's Case (7 Reports, lOb): 'Coronation is but a royal ornament and solemnization of the royal descent, but no part of the title,' quoted by Figgis, Divine Right of Kings, p. 10, nJ. 44. Wentworth, Discourse, p. 54. See also Craig, Right of Succession, p. 21. 45. Stafford, James VI, p. 273; Willson, James VI and I, p. 222. 46. CSP Domestic (1603-1610) pp. 22, 31; Foulis, History of Romish Treasons, p. 679; Weldon, Court and Character of King James, p. 32. 47. The issue to be decided in Calvin's Case was whether a child born in Scotland after James's accession to the English throne was to be regarded as an alien and therefore incapable of inheriting English land. Deciding in favour of the inheritance the court ruled that Scots born after Elizabeth's death (the post-nati) were to be treated as natural-born subjects in England. 48. Calvin's Case, Trio. 6 Jac. Coke, 7 Reports 17-18,24. See also Coke, 4 Reports preface; Kennet, Dialogue Between Two Friends, p. 15; Impudent Babbler Baffled, pp. 17-18. 49. CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 15. Interest in the possibility of Arabella's marrying and its implications for the succession were periodically trouble• some although Arabella was reported to have promised the king at his accession that she would marry no one without his approval. It had even been rumoured some two months after James's accession that in the event of the queen's (Anne of Denmark's) death the king was prepared to marry Arabella himself. Ibid., pp. 3,42. In 1609 Arabella was summoned to ap• pear before the Privy Council, probably because of a story that she was considering marriage to a foreign royal 'who might in her name lay claim to the crown of England.' Chamberlain, Letters, p. 292n. Eventually, in 1610, she took the misguided step of secretly marrying William Seymour, which led to her imprisonment and dying in the Tower in 1615. 50. Henry, born 19 February 1594; Elizabeth, born 19 August 1596; Charles, born 19 November 1600. Two other children born before James's accession, died in infancy. 51. James had shown earlier although probably not very serious signs of being prepared to alter the succession. In 1607 he was reported to have threatened Prince Henry 'that if he did not attend more earnestly to his lessons the crown would be left to his brother.' CSP Venetian (1603-1607) p. 513. Notes to pp. 65-9 275

52. PH, vol. m, p. 1151. 53. Ibid. 54. The wording of James's request is complicated further by his expressed concern for the Elector's issue rather than the issue of Elizabeth or even of Elizabeth and her husband. In other words, it appears from his choice of language, although it is hard to credit, that James would have welcomed a place in the succession for issue of the Elector from a subsequent marriage. Archbishop Abbott, on the other hand, thought that the idea was simply to 'declare the Lady Elizabeth and her offspring next in succession after the Prince.' CSP Domestic (1611-1614) p. 232. This is the most conservative interpretation of James's intentions, but it still suggests uncertainty about whether Elizabeth's place in the succession was thought to be secure with• out confinning legislation. 55. CSP Domestic (1623-1625) p. 512; CSP Domestic (1625-1626) p. 1. 56. Larkin, Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. n, pp. 1-2. 57. Ibid., p. 3. 58. Downing, Discourse Of The State Ecclesiasticall, p. 51. 59. Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 60-61. 60. Bennet, King Charle's Trial lustified, p. 4. 61. Maxwell, Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas, pp. 6, 36, 53. Maxwell compared the freehold from God to a crown in the gift of the people, which he regarded as a 'copy-hold ... no better than durante beneplacito plebis or communitatis, during the good will of the community,' p. 4. 62. Ibid., p. 173. 63. Directed to the issues of the mid-I640s that concern was only marginally relevant, but it provided an especially compelling reason for Maxwell's tract to be reissued in 1680 as a contribution to the debate over Exclusion. A second edition of the 1680 edition was published in 1686. 64. Inquisition After Blood, pp. 11-12. 65. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. n, p. 480. 66. Gardiner, Civil War, vol. IV, pp. 56~7, 85, 99-100; Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 89; Russell, Crisis of Parliaments, p. 381. 67. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. n, p. 481; Wedgwood, Trial of Charles I, p.79. 68. 'Another Relation from the La4y Elizabeth,' Charles I, Eikon Basilike, Appendix, p. 194. 69. Ludlow, Memoirs, vol. I, p. 217; Wedgwood, Trial of Charles I, p. 159. 70. 'A True Relation of the King's Speech to the Lady Elizabeth and the Duke of Gloucester, the Day Before His Death,' Charles I, Eikon Basilike, Ap• pendix, pp. 192-3. 71. Lockyer, Trial of Charles I, p. 86. For a similar distinction between heredit• ary and successive monarchy in the reign of Anne, see Queries to the New Hereditary Right-Men, p. 7. 72. Wedgwood, Trial of Charles I, p. 201. 73. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents, p. 291. Parliament was right to be concerned. There were reports of popular support for the Prince and ren• egade attempts to proclaim Charles as successor to his father by hereditary right. See, for example, the letter of Thomas Saunders to Sir Hardress Waller, 3 February 1649. Cary, Memorials of the Great Civil War, vol. n, p. 110. 276 Notes to pp. 69-76

74. Wedgwood, Trial of Charles I, p. 148, citing Francis White, The Copies of Several Letters . .. to Fairfax and Cromwell. 75. PH, vol. III, p. 1218. 76. PH, vol. III, p. 1125; Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. II, p. 457. 77. Cobbett, State Trials, vol. IV, p. 1070; Muddiman, Trial of King Charles the First, p. 78; Lockyer, Trial of Charles I, pp. 82-3. 78. Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances, vol. I, p. 1263; PH, vol. III, p. 1281. 79. Cook, King Charls his Case, p. 8. Prynne had taken the opposite tack, sug• gesting that elective monarchy led to tyranny: 'few elective kingdoms are long free; every new election producing commonly a new war.' PH, vol. III, p. 1216. 80. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 120, 122-3. 81. PH, vol. III, p. 1293. 4 A Settlement with Something of Monarchy in It (pp. 72-94)

1. Kevin Sharpe, who has argued at length against the image of Charles I as an absolutist, concluded that the king 'was committed to the traditional symbiosis of prerogative and law rather than any new theory of state.' Sharpe, Personal Rule of Charles I, p. 930. 2. Twysden, Certaine Considerations, p. 10. 3. CSP Domestic (1649-1650) pp. 4, 6-7. 4. Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances, vol. II, p. 3; CSP Domestic (1649-1650) p. 6. In 1650 and 1651, in the Acts reappointing the Council of State, the charge was repeated. Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances, pp. 336, 501. 5. Parker, True Portraiture, pp. 11, 14. 6. Ibid., pp. 8, 15. 7. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. III, pp. 372-4; Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. 2, pp. 75-6. 8. Coupling Whitelocke with John Maynard, another eminent lawyer for whom he had great regard, Clarendon wrote that 'they never led, but followed, and were rather carried away with the Torrent, than swam with the Stream; and failed through those Infirmities, which less than a general Defection, and a prosperous Rebellion could never have discovered.' Clarendon, Life, vol. I, pp.59-60. 9. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. III, pp. 373-4. 10. Ibid., vol. III, p. 470. 11. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, Vol. 2, p. 229; Nicholas, Papers, vol. I, p. 310. 12. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. III, pp. 472-4. 13. Especially useful for a broader understanding of the mid-century debate on allegiance to a de facto government are Wallace, 'Engagement Contro• versy,' and Judson, From Tradition to Political Reality. 14. Hall, Grounds and Reasons of Monarchy, pp. 13-14. 15. Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, p. 157. 16. Parker, True Portraiture, p. 42. 17. Rous, Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Government, pp. 11,7. 18. Dury, Case of Conscience, p. 121. 19. Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent,' p. 91. Notes to pp. 76-81 277

20. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, pp. 5, 18; Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, p. 146. 21. Nedham, Case of the Commonwealth, p. 30. 22. Rous, Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Government, p. 9. 23. See, for example, Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, pp. 3, 25; Dury, Case of Conscience, pp. 30, 163. 24. See, for example, Rous whose enunciated purpose was to prove 'that though the change of a government were beleeved not to be lawfuIl, yet it may lawfully be obeyed.' Rous, Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Government, p. 1. 25. Ibid., pp. 2, 5-6. 26. Ibid., p. 21. 27. Nedham, Case of the Commonwealth, p. 47. 28. Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, pp. 104, 32. 29. Judson, From Tradition to Political Reality, p. 68. 30. Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, pp. 104, 115, 148, 159; Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, p. 30; Rous, Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Govern• ment, p. 10. 31. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, p. 33. 32. Rous, Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Government, pp. 10-11. 33. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, p. 31. See too the discussion in Judson, From Tradition to Political Reality, chapter V. 34. Cobbett, State Trials, vol. IV, p. 1139; Lockyer, Trial of Charles I, p. 135. 35. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, p. 26; Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, p. 92; Nedham, Case of the Commonwealth, p. 30. 36. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, p. 30. 37. Armies Vindication, pp. I, 5. 38. Twysden. Certaine Considerations. pp. 42. 61. 66. 39. Nedham. Case of the Commonwealth, pp. 15, 27-8. 40. Dury, Case of Conscience, p. 162. 41. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds. p. 6. 42. B, Discolliminium, p. 13. 43. Parker. True Portraiture. pp. 15.39; Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions. p.33. 44. Downing, Discourse Of The State Ecclesiasticall. p. 51. 45. 'Serjeant Thorpe, Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit. his Charge'. 46. Hall. Grounds and Reasons of Monarchy, p. 13; Twysden, Certaine Con• siderations, p. 22; Nedham. Case of the Commonwealth. p. 38. 47. Parker. True Portraiture, pp. 14-15. 48. Rous. Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Government, p. 14; Nedham. Case of the Commonwealth, p. 46. 49. Inquisition After Blood, p. 11. Parker, arguing against the weight of histor• ical evidence. insisted that the crime of lese majesty could not be purged and that 'the treason of the father hath cut off the son.' Parker, True Por• traiture, p. 39. 50. Parker, True Portraiture, preface; Nedham. Case of the Commonwealth. pp. 119-20. 51. Parker, True Portraiture, pp. 8, 7, 5. 52. Ibid .• p. 8; Twysden, Certaine Considerations. p. 4. 278 Notes to pp. 81-7

53. Ascham, Bounds & Bonds, p. 13; Parker, True Portraiture, p. 3. 54. Twysden, Certaine Considerations, p. 8; Dury, Case of Conscience, p. 84. 55. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. m, p. 471. 56. According to Gardiner, 'It was taken for granted,' by May of 1653, 'that Cromwell intended to rule, and the only question appeared to be whether he was to be styled King or Protector.' Gardiner, Commonwealth and Pro• tectorate, vol. II, pp. 278-9. 57. Whitelocke, Memorials, vol. IV, p. 153; Burton, Diary, vol. I, li. 58. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. II, pp. 681, 684-5. 59. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. m, pp. 200-1. 60. R. G., Copy of a Letter from an Officer of the Army in Ireland, pp. 3, 13. 61. Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. m, p. 186. 62. Article 32 of the Instrument of Government provided that 'upon the death of the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith elected ... by the Council.' The constitutional arrangements advanced by the first parliament of the Protectorate were for the election to be by the parliament if it was in being at the time of a vacancy; otherwise it was to be by the Council. 63. Burton, Diary, vol. I, lvii. 64. Copy of a Letter Written to an Officer of the Army, pp. 8-9, 16-19. 65. Clarke Papers, vol. m, p. 16. 66. Ibid., p. 43; CSP Venetian (1655-1656) pp. 4, 7, 15, 17, 60. 67. Cromwell, Letters and Speeches, vol. II, p. 451. 68. Firth, Last Years of the Protectorate, vol. I, pp. 62-3. 69. 'We have great hope that His Highness will accept of kingship, which all men desire generally, and by that means we hope to come to a settlement. Our lawyers do press hard for it.' James Wainwright to Richard Bradshaw, 4 May 1655. 6 HMCR, App., p. 438. 70. CSP Venetian (1655-1656) p. 57. 71. Bonde to Charles X, 27 July 1655, Stockholm Transcripts, as quoted in Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. m, p. 332. 72. CSP Domestic (1655) p. 277; Clarke Papers, vol. m, pp. 48-9; Gardiner, Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. m, pp. 304-5; Firth, Last Years of the Protectorate, vol. I, p. 62. 73. CSP Venetian (1655-1656) p. 240. 74. Copy of a Letter Written to an Officer of the Army, pp. 26-7. 75. 6 HMCR, App., p. 441. 76. CSP Venetian (1655-1656) p. 269. 77. Three Propositions, p. 6. 78. CSP Venetian (1655-1656) pp. 244, 277, 282, 286-7, 295, 305-6. 79. Ibid., pp. 284, 312. 80. Chidley, To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, p. 4. 81. Copy of a Letter Written to an Officer of the Army, p. 15. 82. Firth, Last Years of the Protectorate, vol. I, p. 127. 83. Colonel John Bridge's argument that an elective protectorship was likely once again to lead the nation into civil war, and for that reason it was 'better to settle uppon the olde bottome.' Lansdowne MS 821, f.91, quoted by Firth, 'Cromwell and the Crown,' p. 440; Firth, Last Years of the Protec• torate, vol. I, p. 66. 84. Copy of a Letter Written to an Officer of the Army, p. 19. Notes to pp. 88-90 279

85. Burton, Diary, vol. I, pp. 362-3. 86. Ibid., p. 364. 87. Burton, Diary, vol. I, p. 399. See, too, the remarks of William Lenthal, Master of the Rolls ('the whole body of the law is carried upon this wheel'). Whitelocke, Monarchy Asserted, in Somers Tracts, vol. VI, p. 356; and Mercurius Politicus, March 26 to April 2, referring to 'king' as 'a title best known to our laws, most agreeable to their constitution, and to the temper of the people,' p. 99; also Clarke Papers, vol. m, p. 91 (an undated news• letter probably written on 23 or 24 February by John Rushworth); and Thurloe, State Papers, vol. VI, p. 183. 88. Whitelocke, Monarchy Asserted, p. 355. 89. Ibid., p. 401. 90. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. VI, p. 219. 91. Whitelocke, Monarchy Asserted, p. 366. 92. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. VI, p. 281. On 20 April Whitelocke recorded in his diary that Cromwell was 'satisfied in his private judgement' to take the crown, but decided not to, 'fearing a mutiny and defection of a great part of the Army in case he should assume that title and office.' Whitelocke, Diary, p. 462. 93. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. VI, pp. 243, 261. 94. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 142. Also see Firth, Last Years of the Protectorate, who regarded the settlement of 1657 as 'but a half-way house to monarchy, and the nation could not tarry there,' p. 200. 95. Burton, Diary, vol. I, p. 398. 96. Whitelocke, Monarchy Asserted, p. 359. 97. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. VI, p. 219. 98. Clarke Papers, vol. m, p. 94. 99. Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances, Vol. n, pp. 1048-9. 100. Catterall, 'Failure of the Humble Petition and Advice,' p. 41. 101. A similar scheme to keep the succession of the crown ultimately in the disposal of parliament was put into the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1689. See chapter 7. 102. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. vn, p. 365. 103. Ibid., p. 375. 104. Ibid., p. 372. 105. The range of questions and possibilities has been explored by B. Malcolm Hause, 'Nomination of Richard Cromwell,' pp. 185-209, who believes that Cromwell nominated Fleetwood to succeed him, and Austin Woolrych, 'Milton & Cromwell,' pp. 202-8, who accepts the official story that Cromwell, before he died, had named Richard. A London newsletter, dated September 4, 1658, referred to the Council's having met after Cromwell's death to open 'the writing the Lord Protector had sealed uppe,' but reported the directions in that writing to have been for the nomination of Richard, not Fleetwood. Clarke Papers, vol. m, p. 162. Ronald Hutton, reviewing the debate, concludes that whether Oliver did in fact designate Richard as his successor is essentially 'unprovable.' Yet as Hutton goes on to point out, 'What is certain, and what mattered, was that this was recognised by the majority of the Privy Council and communicated by them to Fleetwood.' Hutton, Restoration, p. 21. 280 Notes to pp. 91-9

106. [Declaration of Richard to be Protector) (London, 1658), p. 1. 107. Hirst, Authority and Conflict, p. 356. 108. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. vn, p. 374. Fleetwood, on the same day, re• ported similarly that the response to Richard's succession was a 'great quietnes.' Ibid., p. 375. 109. Ibid., p. 376. 110. Hall, True Cavalier, p. 102; Hunton, King of Kings, pp. 3,4, 13,36-8,77, 84. 111. Thurloe, State Papers, vol. VI, p. 183. 112. Ibid. See, too, Lord Chief Justice Glynne's remarks in favour of Oliver's accepting the crown: 'First, Because it is known to the law, his duty known in reference to the people, and the people's duty known in reference to him.' Whitelocke, Monarchy' Asserted, p. 371. 113. Burton, Diary, vol. ill, pp. 104-5. 114. Fell, Interest of England Stated, pp. 8-10. 115. Hall, True Cavalier, p. 104. 116. Three Propositions, p. 3. 117. Discourse For a King and Parliament, p. 13. 118. Ronald Hutton offers a balanced assessment of Richard Cromwell's protec• torate in part two, chapter one, of The Restoration, pp. 21-41. 119. Journals of the House of Lords (U). vol. XI, p. 7. 120. Lawson, Politica Sacra & Civilis, pp. 191. Also see True Account, p. 22. For a comprehensive treatment of Lawson's argument, see Condren, George Lawson's Politica. 121. Lawson prefigured the reality of the settlement of 1689 by allowing that even if the crown 'be granted to be elective. yet it's elective in a certain line.' Lawson, Politica Sacra & Civilis, p. 150. 5 The Need for a Certainty in the Succession (pp. 95-119)

1. 1 Jac.I. c.l. SR, vol. IV, pt n, p. 1018. 2. Somers Tracts, vol. 7, p. 430. 3. 12 Car.ll. c.l4. SR, vol. V, p. 237. 4. Clarendon, Life, vol. n, p. 392. 5. Pepys, Diary, vol. ill, pp. 238, 303. See, too, vol. IV, p. 134. 6. Lawrence, Marriage, p. 81. 7. Pepys, Diary, vol. ill, p. 238. 8. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 134. 9. CSP Domestic (1679-1680) p. 95. 10. Ibid., pp. 452, 454-5, 460, 502. 11. PH, vol. IV, p. 1034; Henning, History of Parliament, vol. ill, p. 372. 12. Assheton, Royal Apology, p. 20. 13. PH, vol. IV, p. 1329. 14. CSP Domestic (1679-1680) p. 519. 15. Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 205. 16. Pelling, Apostate Protestant, p. 5. 17. Both the proposal to bring Charles I to trial and the idea to make Cromwell king were supported by republications of selected parts of A Conference under different titles. See Sevel'all Speeches Delivered at a Conference Notes to pp. 99-103 281

Concerning the Power of Parliament to Proceed Against their King for Misgovernment (1648) and A Treatise Concerning the Broken Succession of the Crown of England (1655), respectively. The 1681 publication was an exact reprint of the 1594 edition. 18. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, pp. 62-3. 19. Assheton, Royal Apology, 'To the Reader,' n.p. 20. Thomas Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript, p. 172. 21. CSP Domestic (1679-1680) p. 102. It was understood that the papist design was to have Charles deposed for his failure to support the apostolic Catholic faith. Reminders of this alleged right of deposing kings for their 'impietie' dated back to the alarm provoked by Parsons' work. See Hayward, Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference. Those who were supporters of James's heritable right were no less able to trade on the same fear. See Brady, True and Exact History, p. 350. 22. PH, vol. IV, p. 1131. 23. Anti-Exclusionists, sensitive to this charge, pointed out that England's imperial monarchy did not admit of any superior authority. The oath of supremacy made clear 'that the King of England is no feudatory prince. and that he holds not his crown in fee. either from the Pope. or any Foraign Power whatsoever.' Assheton. Royal Apology. p. 9. 24. PH. vol. IV. pp. 1089. 1160. 1198. 1305. 25. Ibid., p. 1129. 26. PH. vol. IV. p. 1179 (Colonel Titus). See. also. p. 1177 (Sir Henry Capel) and p. 1182 (Colonel Birch). 27. Pereat Papa. p. 4. 28. Burnet. History. vol. n. p. 209. 29. PH. vol. IV. pp. 1131. 1132. 1136. 30. PH. vol. IV. p. 1126 (Sir John Knight and Colonel Birch). 31. Preamble to the first Exclusion Bill. PH. vol. IV. p. 1136; Commons Address. 30 December 1680. Ibid .• p. 1256. 32. Ibid .• p. 1125 (Mr Bennet) and p. 1132 (Sir George Hungerford). 33. Ibid .• p. 1180 (Mr H-). 34. Timberland. History and Proceedings of the House of Lords. vol. I. p. 251. 35. PH. vol. IV. pp. 1132. 1196. 1250, 1332. 36. Ibid., p. 1196. 37. Both the exclusion of all Catholics from the succession and the proscription against monarchs marrying Catholics were features of the Revolution Set• tlement in 1689. See chapter 7. 38. His Majesties Gracious Speech. p. 14. See. too. Williams. Answer to Sundry Matters. passim. 39. PH. vol. IV. p. 1187. See. too. Pereat Papa. p. 1; Lawrence. Right of Primogeniture, p. 139. 40. PH. vol. IV. p. 1252. See. too. Hampden's earlier remarks and those of Sir Thomas Player. Ibid .• pp. 1191 and 1126. 41. Sir William Jones. summarising the principal objections to the Bill of Exclusion on its third reading. 11 November 1680. PH. vol. IV. p. 1208. 42. Ibid .• p. 1188. 43. E.F.• Letter From a Gentleman of Quality. p. 18. 44. Pelling. Apostate Protestant. p. 28. 282 Notes to pp. 103-8

45. PH, vol. IV, p. 1187. 46. Pelling, Apostate Protestant, p. 57. See, too, Assheton, Royal Apology. 47. For the opponents of Exclusion election was theoretically permissible, but only in the unforeseen circumstance of the next in blood not being known. Mackenzie, Jus Regium, p. 6. See, too, Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 28. 48. Those who read history in the way Booth did were able to find election at work in just about every transfer of the crown. Even where there appeared to be a succession by conquest or a clear right of descent it was possible to find some element of election, whether in the coronation ceremony when the new monarch was acknowledged by his subjects or in the tracing of an inheritance back to its origins. In this latter way both Henry V and Henry VI were seen as having succeeded by virtue of parliament's having entailed the crown on Henry IV; Edward IV and Edward V were understood as having owed their crowns to the agreement worked out by Richard, Duke of York, Henry VI and the lords of parliament in 1460; and all three chil• dren of Henry VIII were alleged to have succeeded their father exclusively because of Henry's three Acts of Succession. Hunt, Short Historical Col• lection, p. 206; •A Resolution of Two Important Questions: I. Whether the Crown of England be Hereditary. II. Whether the Duke of York ought to be excluded,' in Delamer, Works, p. 545. 49. Delamer, Works, pp. 542-5. 50. PH, vol. IV, p. 1195; Delamer, Works, p. 98. 51. PH, vol. IV, pp. 1191-2 (John Hampden) and p. 1215 (John Trenchard). 52. Ibid., pp. 1191 and 1206 (Sir Leoline Jenkins). See, too, note 15 for the rephrasing of this same objection by Burnet. 53. PH, vol. IV, p. 1133 (Mr Hampden) and p. 1318 (Mr Montagu). 54. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 5. 55. Mackenzie, Jus Regium, n.p. 56. Dictionary of National Biography, vol. XXXV, p. 587. 57. Assheton, Royal Apology, p. 20; Mackenzie, Jus Regium, n.p. 58. Delamer, Works, p. 547. 59. Brady, Great Point of Succession, pp. 2, 6, 8,9, 18; Brady, True and Exact History, pp. 366, 373, 377, 389-90. 60. See, for example, Somers, Brief History ofthe Succession, p. 6; Hunt, Answer to a Book, pp. 196-7. 61. Brady, Great Point of Succession, pp. 35, 13. See, too, Brady, True and Exact History, p. 378; Cooke, History of the Successions; Baker, Chronicle of the Kings of England, p. 330. 62. Mackenzie, Jus Regium, Addendum; Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 5. 63. Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 36. See, too, Hickes, Jovian, Preface. 64. E. F., Letter From a Gentleman ofQuality, p. 9; and a rebuttal, Hunt, Answer to a Book, p. 196. 65. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 27. 66. W. G., Case of Succession, p. 15. 67. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, pp. 17-18. Somers chaired the committee that was responsible for the final draft of the Declaration of Rights, but it is no longer universally accepted that he was its author. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, pp. 287-90. Under William III Somers was a member of the Whig Junto and later Lord Chancellor. Notes to pp. 108-12 283

68. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 357; Pelling, Apostate Protestant, p.8. 69. Brydall, White Rose, p. 6; E. F., Letter From a Gentleman of Quality, p. 10; Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 36; Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p.28. 70. E. F., Letter From a Gentleman of Quality, p. 15; Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 44. 71. PH, vol. IV, p. 1195; Delamer, Works, p. 98. 72. See, for example, C. Blount, Appealfrom the Country to the City, p. 18. See also the same title under the pseudonym, Junius Brutus. 73. Hunt, Great and Weighty Considerations, p. 172. 74. For an extended discussion of the ways in which the private law was applied to matters of the succession during the Exclusion debates, see Nenner, By Colour of Law, pp. 145-54. 75. Pelling, Apostate Protestant, pp. 40-1. 76. Williams, Answer to Sundry Matters, p. 11. 77. Ibid., p. 29. See, too, Mackenzie, Jus Regium, n.p. 78. Brydall, White Rose, p. 9. 79. For a discussion of the Brady controversy see Pocock, Ancient Constitution, ch. 8 and his retrospective ch. 3. Also see Weston and Greenberg, Subjects & Sovereigns, ch. 7. 80. Brady, Great Point of Succession, pp. 1-2,9, 17,28,33,36,38; Comber, Religion and Loyalty, pp. 33-4; Brydall, White Rose, p. 2; Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 209. 81. Comber, Religion and Layalty, p. 10. 82. E. F., Letter From a Gentleman of Quality, p. 2. 83. PH, voL IV, p. 1330. 84. Ibid.; E. F., Leiter From a Gentleman of Quality, p. 6. 85. See, for example, Baker, Chronicle of the Kings of England, p. 587; Cooke, History of the Successions, p. 59. 86. Assheton, Royal Apology, p. 41; Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 16; Mackenzie, LaWful Successor, p. 20. 87. Assheton, Royal Apology, pp. 39-40; Baker, Chronicle of the Kings of England, p. 587. 88. Brydall, White Rose, p. 6; Assheton, Royal Apology, p. 40; E. F., Letter From a Gentleman of Quality, p. 11. 89. Delamer, Works, p. 556. 90. B. F., Leiter From a Gentleman of Quality, pp. 2, 17. 91. Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 35. 92. Assheton, Royal Apology, pp. 19-20; Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 36. 93. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 37; Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 21; Brydall, White Rose, p. 8; Hickes, Jovian, preface; John Somers, on the other hand, distinguishing between the empowering Act of Parliament and Henry's will, argued that only the validity of the latter was properly called into question. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, pp. 12-13. 94. PH, vol. IV, p. 1214. 95. Finch's argument did not succeed in arresting the passage of the Exclusion Bill, but the reasoning he used was later to appear in the 1681 Act of Suc• cession of the Scottish parliament. The purpose of that Act was categorically 284 Notes to pp. 112-16

and unequivocally to reject any constitutional right of Exclusion, and to 'recognize, acknowledge and declare that the right to the imperial crown of the realm is by the inherent right and nature of the monarchy, as well as by the fundamental and unalterable laws of this realm, transmitted and devolved by a lineal succession according to the proximity of blood.' Browning, English Historical Documents, p. 631. 96. Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 21. 97. PH, vol. IV, p. 1190-1 (Sir Leoline Jenkins); Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, pp. 1, 13, 18; Hickes, Jovian, preface; Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 13; E. F., Letter From a Gentleman of Quality, p. 6. 98. PH, vol. IV, p. 1207. 99. PH, vol. IV, p. 1328. Winnington's remark about statutes being void if they ran counter to common sense was in the context of his objection to a regency as an alternative to Exclusion. 100. Williams, Answer to Sundry Matters, p. 26. 101. House of Lords Record Office, Finch MSS., Political Papers 148, p. 2, as quoted in Horwitz, Revolution Politicks, p. 22. 102. PH, vol. IV, p. 1305. 103. Timberland, History and Proceedings of the House of Lords, vol. I, p. 250. 104. PH, vol. IV, p. 1289. 105. Timberland, History and Proceedings of the House of Lords, vol. I, p. 288. 106. Hickes, Jovian, preface; PH, vol. IV, p. 1327. 107. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 15. See, also, W. G., Case of Succession, p. 13. 108. Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 10. 109. Lawrence, Marriage, p. 133. 110. Pelling, Apostate Protestant, p. 33; PH, vol. IV, pp. 1132, 1207. Ill. Letter on the Subject of the Succession, pp. 2, 4. 112. Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 36. 113. See, for example, the November 1680 debate on bringing in a Bill of Exclusion. PH, vol. IV, p. 1183. 114. Letter on the Subject of the Succession, p. 3. 115. PH, vol. IV p. 1194; Delamer, Works, p. 96. 116. PH, vol. IV, p. 1209. 117. PH, vol. IV, pp. 1191 and 1205 (Sir Leoline Jenkins); Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 4; Hickes, Jovian, preface. 118. J. D., Word Without Doors, p. 4. 119. PH, vol. IV, p. 1211 (Sir Francis Winnington). 120. Ibid., p. 1207 (Laurence Hyde), 121. Hunt, Great and Weighty Considerations, p. 158; PH, vol. IV, p. 1209 (Sir William Jones). 122. Hunt, Great and Weighty Considerations, p. 162; PH, vol. IV, p. 1134 (Hugh Boscawen). 123. This rule of monarchical succession, only emerging in the later Stuart pe• riod, was fully in place by the middle of the eighteenth century. Blackstone observed in the Commentaries that • "heirs" necessarily implies an inherit• ance,' but "'successors" distinctly taken, must imply that this inheritance may sometimes be broke through; or that there may be a successor, without being the heir of the king.' This distinction was picked up and echoed in Notes to pp. 116-24 285

later editions of Giles Jacob's law dictionary. Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. I, p. 188; Jacob, Law-Dictionary, entry for 'King.' 124. This argument, which rendered the word 'heir' effectively meaningless, was picked up without comment by Burnet in his summary of the Exclusionist position: 'And whereas the oath of allegiance tied us to the king and his heirs; the word heir was a term that imported that person who by law ought to succeed: and so it fell by law to any person who was declared next in the succession.' Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 208. 125. PH, vol. IV, p. 1194 (Henry Booth); Delamer, Works, pp. 95-6. 126. Hunt, Answer to a Book, p. 200; Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript, p. 42. 127. See, for example, the definition of 'heyre' in any edition of two law diction• aries in common use at the time: Cowell, Interpreter, and T. Blount, Nomo• Lexicon. 128. Delamer, Works, p. 552. 129. Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 207. 130. Pereat Papa, p. 3. 131. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 12. 132. Delamer, Works, p. 548. 133. Hunt, Answer to a Book, pp. 199-200; Delamer, Works, p. 551. 134. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 17. 6 The Unsettling Prospect of an Elective Crown (pp. 120-46)

I. Journals ofthe House ofCommons (CJ), vol. IX, p. 651; PH, vol. IV, p. 1215. 2. PH, vol. IV, pp. 1035-6. 3. PH, vol. IV, p. 1182 (John Birch). 4. Ibid., p. 1252. 5. The fears expressed by Sir Hugh Cholmondeley and Sir Thomas Player. Ibid., p. 1126. 6. The king's message to the House of Commons, 9 November 16S0. CJ, vol. IX, p. 649. 7. Lawrence, Two Great Questions, p. 14. S. Burnet, History, Vol. II, p. 209. 9. To the extent that the right of national self-defence was to be regarded as fundamental, it was argued that any legislation in denial of that right was void. When 'there can be no safety, but general ruin and destruction expected from the next successor,' fundamental law dictates that there be 'a power in the parliament to remedy it'; and 'therefore no statute law can oblige to the contrary.' W. G., Case of Succession, p. 14. 10. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 226. II. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, pp. 34, II. 12. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, pp. 14-17,21. 13. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 16. 14. Hunt, Answer to a Book, p. 198. 15. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, p. 253. 16. Hunt, Answer to a Book, pp. 193-4. 17. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 12; E. F., Letter From A Gentleman of Quality, p. 9; Brydall, White Rose, pp. 3, 5. IS. Brady saw nomination operating in the transfer of the crown from Edward 286 Notes to pp. 124-9

the Confessor to William I; from William I to William Rufus; from Henry I to Stephen; from Stephen to Henry II; and from John to Henry m. Brady, True and Exact History, pp. 365-77. See, also, Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 19; Cooke, History of the Successions, pp. 10, 25; Cooke, Seasonable Treatise, vi, xl, cxxvii. [A Seasonable Treatise was a reissue of Cooke's earlier Argumentum Anti-Normanicum (1682)]. 19. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 363. 20. Ibid., pp. 366-72, 377. 21. Ibid., p. 392. 22. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 38. 23. Comber, Religion and Layalty, p. 30. 24. Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 6. 25. Lawrence, Right of Primogeniture, p. 192. 26. Shakespeare, Richard the Second, IV, i. 27. E. F., Letter From A Gentleman of Quality, p. 5; Williams, Answer to Sundry Matters, pp. 20-21. 28. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, pp. 1-3, 23. 29. Letter on the Subject of the Succession, p. 8; Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 35; Burnet, History, Vol. II, p. 211. 30. PH, vol. IV, p. 1132. 31. See PH, vol. IV, for the remarks of Laurence Hyde, p. 1181; Edward Seymour, p. 1186; Sir Richard Graham, p. 1186; and Colonel Legge, p.1330. 32. Ibid., p. 1133 (Henry Coventry); p. 1338 (Sir Leoline Jenkins). Jenkins as• serted that even if Exclusion succeeded a standing army 'will be necessary to support it', p. 1182. 33. Ibid., p. 1186. 34. Ibid., p. 1212. 35. Burnet, History, vol. n, p. 212. 36. Lawrence, Right of Primogeniture, p. 197. 37. PH, vol. IV, p. 1208. See, also, Ibid., p. 1189 (Hugh Boscawen). 38. For Capel's career see Henning, History of Parliament, vol. II, pp. 6-11. 39. See, too, the writings of Thomas Hunt. Warning of the consequences of James's coming to the throne, Hunt was certain that the mid-century civil wars were attributable to Ute doctrine of 'Monarchy ... Jure Divino, in such a sence that made the King absolute.' Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript, pp. 102- 3. 40. PH, vol. IV, p. 1317 (Sir Robert Clayton). 41. Ibid., p. 1284 (Sir William Jones). 42. Ibid., p. 1317 (Sir Robert Clayton). 43. Ibid., p. 1292 (William Leveson Gower). 44. Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript, preface. 45. Burnet, History, vol. n, p. 205. 46. E. F., Letter From A Gentleman of Quality, p. 8; Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 36. 47. Pelling, Apostate Protestant, p. 14; E. F., Letter From A Gentleman ofQuality, p. 8; Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, pp. 25-6; Brady, Great Point of Suc• cession, p. 37. 48. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 5; Mackenzie, Jus Regium, p. 43. Notes to pp. 129-35 287

49. Jones, Just and Modest Vindication, in Timberland, History and Proceed• ings of the House ofLords, vol. I, p. 293 (see also note 122, below, for other attributions of authorship); PH, vol. IV, p. 1308 (Richard Hampden). 50. PH, vol. IV, p. 1254 (Sir William Jones). 51. Ibid., p. 1257. 52. Ibid., p. 1237 (Ralph Montagu). 53. Ibid., p. 1330 (Colonel Legge). 54. Timberland, History and Proceedings of the House of Lords, p. 262. 55. Mackenzie, Jus Regium, p. 29; Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postcript, p. 44; Brady, True and Exact History, pp. 394-5; Somers, Brief History 0/ the Succession, p. 16. 56. Settle, Character of A Popish Successour, p. 21. 57. 'A Resolution of Two Important Questions: I. Whether the Crown of Eng• land be Hereditary. II. Whether the Duke of York ought to be excluded,' in Delamer, Works, p. 550. 58. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 7; Hunt, Short Historical Col• lection, p. 206. 59. Delamer, Works, p. 544. 60. Sidney, Discourses, chapter Two, section 11, pp. 136-1. See, also, Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, pp. 232, 253. 61. Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 10; Delarner, Works, p. 545. 62. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 384-9; Great Point o/Succession, p. 14; Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 27. 63. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 378. 64. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 34; Brady, Great Point ofSuccession, p. 19; Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 29. In their analyses both Mackenzie and Brady borrowed freely from Francis Bacon, History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh. 65. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 35; E. F., Letter From A Gentleman 0/ Quality, p. 14; Short Scheme of the Usurpations, p. 7. 66. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 390. 67. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 130. 68. SR, vol. IV, part I, pp. 526-8. 69. PH, vol. IV, p. 1214. 70. Ibid., p. 1323. 71. E. F., Letter From A Gentleman of Quality, pp. 1,8. 72. Hickes, Jovian, preface; E. F., Letter From A Gentleman o/Quality, p. 17. See, also, Williams, Answer to Sundry Matters, pp. 24-5, for the argument that 13 Eliz., c.l was nullified by the oath of allegiance to James I, his heirs and successors. 73. Brady, True and Exact History, pp. 398-400; E. F., Letter From A Gen• tleman of Quality, pp. 16-17. Another suggestion was that the law might now be disregarded because it was made 'only for fear or flattery of the present prince, and after, never observed.' BrydalI, White Rose, p. 6. 74. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 40. 75. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 32. 76. Mackenzie. Lawful Successor, pp. 38-9. 77. Delamer, Works, p. 545. John Somers took apparent pleasure in reminding anti-Exclusionist writers that in consequence of 13 Eliz., c.l, their denying 288 Notes to pp. 135-8

parliament a role in determining the succession opened them to treason. 'It were well if some rash men, who presume in their discourses to restrain the power of the Parliament, (that is, the King, Lords and Commons,) in the great business of the Succession, would be so wise as to remember this Act, (which is still in force) and the penalty to which they subject themselves by such sawcy Talk.' Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 14. 78. Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript, p. 31. 79. Hunt, Answer to a Book, p. 202; Hunt, Great and Weighty Considerations, p.132. 80. W. G., Case of Succession, p. 15. 81. Ibid., pp. 9, 14. 82. J. D., Word Without Doors, p. 2. 83. Exclusionist argument often went further than the assertion that God had left it to men to formulate a rule of monarchical succession. Henry Booth, as an example, argued that God did not institute monarchy among his peo• ple, but 'left [them] to themselves to frame such a government as suited best their inclinations.' PH, vol. IV, p. 1195; Delamer, Works, p. 97. In this construct God was not only disinterested in the rule of succession, he was indifferent as well to the form of government that men are permitted to choose for themselves. This idea tended to be threatening to the opponents of Exclusion as not only did it allow the possibility of elective monarchy, it also opened the way to a republic. 84. Burnet, History, vol. n, pp. 210-11. 85. Lawrence, Two Great Questions, p. 4. 86. Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript, p. 42. 87. One point frequently made was that the historical record demonstrated plainly that 'the succession was scarce ever kept for three kings reigns together, in a direct line of descent since the Conquest.' Settle, Character of a Popish Successour, p. 16. See, too, Somers, Brief History of the Succession, passim; Hunt, Great and Weighty Considerations, pp. 205-6; Cooke, History of the Successions, passim. 88. Hunt, Great and'Weighty Considerations, pp. 132, 140; W. G., Case of Succession, p. 13. 89. W. G., Case of Succession, pp. 8-9, 13; Pereat Papa, p. 3. 90. Sidney, Discourses, pp. 49, 53. 91. How, it was asked, could any rational man with a care for his country believe that 'the interest of one man shall outweigh that of three kingdoms.' Settle, Character of a Popish Successour, pp. 16-18; Burnet. History, vol. n, pp. 208-9. 92. Hunt, Mr Hunt's Postscript. pp. 38,42; Great and Weighty Considerations, p. 142; Answer to a Book, p. 190; Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 1'6; Lawrence, Two Great Questions. pp. 6-7. 93. Burnet, History, vol. n, pp. 207-8; Lawrence, Two Great Questions, p. 8. 94. Settle, Character of a Popish Successour, p. 21. Settle's vituperative Whig pen was turned with equal enthusiasm to Tory invective after the failure of Exclusion, and then back to Whig sensibilities after the Revolution. In 1691 Settle was appointed city poet for London. 95. Assheton, Royal Apology, p. 43. 96. Hunt. Mr Hunt's Postscript. p. 43. Notes to pp. 138-43 289

97. Lawrence, Two Great Questions, pp. 34-5. 98. Ibid., p. 7. 99. Ibid., p. 10. 100. Ibid., p. 16. 101. Ibid., pp. 13-14. 102. Ibid., pp. 15-16. 103, Ibid., pp. 5, 8. 104. Ibid., p. 8. 105. Brady, Great Point of Succession, pp. 21, 25; E. F., Letter From a Gen- tleman of Quality, p. 14. 106. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 11. 107. Nalson, Common Interest of King and People, p. 113. 108. Comber, Religion and Loyalty, p. 11. 109. Williams, Answer to Hunt's Postscript, p. 27. 110. Lawrence, Two Great Questions, p. 3. 111. Colonel Legge, Debate on the third reading of the Bill of Exclusion, 11 November 1680. PH, vol. IV, p. 1212. 112. Mary Tudor's first parliament reversed her legislated illegitmacy and sug• gested that she had taken the throne, not as an inheritance, but pursuant to her father's third Act of Succession. Elizabeth simply ignored any need to establish the basis of her claim, leaving it to be understood that she came to the throne via Henry's legislation or heritable right which cured her bastardy. 113. Lawrence, Right of Primogeniture, preface. 114. Blount, Appealfrom the Country to the City, p. 25. (The same pamphlet was also published under the pseUdonym, Junius Brutus). 115. Even Robert Brady recognised that the appeal of an elected monarchy re• sponsible to the people resided in its being a hedge against the possible excesses of rule. A king who was responsible to God alone might logically feel freer to do evil. Brady, True and Exact History, p. 376. 116. Burnet, History, vol. n, p. 279. 117. PH, vol. IV, p. 1322. 118. Mackenzie, Lawful Successor, p. 5; Brady, Great Point of Succession, p. 4; Burnet, History, vol. n, p. 211. 119. PH, vol. IV, p. 1325. 120. Ibid., p. 1321. 121. Ibid., p. 1329. 122. Ferguson, Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the Two Last Parliaments, p. 31. There is still uncertainty about the authorship of this anonymous pamphlet. Burnet has it 'at first penned by Sidney. But a new draught was made by Somers, and corrected by Jones.' Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 283. Blair Worden and Jonathan Scott assert that 'Sidney was its principal author,' Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, p. 186. The Folger Library Catalogue prefers Jones. Wing's attribution is to Robert Ferguson (F 741). On the question of treason, see too the remarks of Sir Nicholas Carew. PH, vol. IV, p. 1321. 123. Burnet, History, vol. n, pp. 276-7. Sir Robert Markham, in the Oxford Parliament. proposed the possibility of William and James 'administer[ing] the government jointly.' The proposal was reportedly greeted with laughter. 290 Notes to pp. 143-50

124. PH, vol. IV, p. 1323; Henning, History of Parliament, vol. II, p. 751. 125. PH, vol. IV, p. 1325 (Sir William Jones). 126. Ibid., p. 1136. 127. Haley, Sha/tesbury, p. 598. 128. Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 251. 129.. Sir Christopher Musgrave, PH, vol. IV, pp. 1184, 1196. See too the remarks of Sir Richard Graham, p. 1186; Sir Leoline Jenkins, p. 1193; Sir William Hickman, p. 1196; Daniel Finch, p. 1197. 130. Silius Titus argued that a successor could not be named because it was still possible that Charles might produce legitimate issue. PH, vol. IV, p. 1197. 131. Ibid., pp. 1196-7 (Col. John Birch and Sir Robert Howard). FAward Vaughan made the same argument in the Oxford Parliament, Ibid., p. 1329. 132. Lords MS 283. 'Manuscripts of the House of Lords 1678-1688,' 11 HMCR, App., part n, pp. 196-7. 133. PH, vol. IV, p. 1239 (William Harbord). 134. For a discussion of designation theory in the earlier part of the century, see Sommerv~lle, Politics and Ideology, pp. 22-7. 135. NatIOn, Common Interest of King and People, p. 15. 136. PH, vol. IV, p. 1091. 137. Burnet, History, vol. II, p. 207. 138. PH, vol. IV. p. 1211 (Sir Francis Winnington); p. 1290 (Colonel Titus); Somers, Brief History of the Succession, p. 15. 139. PH, vol. IV. p. 1209. 140. Ibid., p. 1182.

7 T"e Survival of Hereditary Monarchy and the End of Indefeasible Right (pp. 147-83)

1. Henning, History of Parliament, vol. I, p. 78. 2. Western, Monarcl,y and Revolution, p. 203. 3. Nottingham was also making the argument that the inheritance of the crown was superior to private patrimonies in that the crown cured all defects in the heir (infancy, lunacy, etc.). DAL, p. 160. See too William Petty's remarks in 1685 on 'The Powers of the K[ing] of England,' in which he observed that the king's 'coming to the Crown clears him from all punishments &c due before.' BL, Add. MS 27,989/3, foU8. 4. Sermon Preached, pp. 22-3. S. Straka, Anglican Reaction to the Revolution; Straka, 'Final Phase of Divine Right Theory', 638-58. 6. TImberland, History and Proceedings of the House of Lords. vol. I, p. 288. 7. CSP Domestic (1685) p. 61. 8. The same reasoning was applied as well to usurpations. The argument was that usurpation, although regarded as a form of tyranny, might ultimately lead to a settled government through consent. 'The want of a title or a bad one may be supplied by prescription. or the subsequent consent of the people. ' Esaay Upon the Original and Designe of Magistracie, p. S; Political Conference, p. 37. 9. Nalson. Common Interest of Kinll and PeoDle. D. 87. Notes to pp. 151-8 291

10. 'The Declaration of the Duke of Monmouth,' PRO 30/24/44n6. 11. As to the possibilities of claim open to Monmouth, see Nenner, 'Pretense and Pragmatism,' p. 88. 12. Burnet, History, vol. m, p. 255. 13. Once the queen was reported to be pregnant there was one chance in two that any child carried to term would be a male, with the result that the Princess of Orange would be displaced from her position as heir presump• tive. Some Catholics, however, believed that it made no difference whether the queen was delivered of a son or a daughter, that either would take precedence over Mary in the line of succession. The argument was 'that if the Queen had a daughter born after the King came to the Crown, it ought to succeed before a daughter born when he was only a Duke.' Wildman, Memorial from the English Protestants, in Collection of State Tracts, vol. I, p. 12. 14. Burnet, History, vol. m, p. 259; Van Der Zee, William and Mary, p. 233. 15. William, Declaration, p. 12; PH, vol. V, p. 9. 16. Discourse Concerning . .. the Present Conventions, p. 18; Four Questions Debated, p. 7. 17. Baxter, William JII, pp. 129,223-4; J. R. Jones, Charles II, p. 175. William was not the only one to have indulged himself in succession fantasies. During Mary of Modena's confinement some Catholics, anticipating the possibility of the queen's being delivered of a girl, were prepared to argue that any daughter born after the king was crowned would take precedence in the succession over Mary and Anne, both of whom were born while James was still Duke of York. Account of the Pretended Prince of Wales, p.8. 18. Some Reflections, in Somers Tracts, vol. IX, p. 293. 19. Animadversions upon the Declaration, p. 21. 20. See, for example, Answer to Two Papers, p. 17. 21. See, for example, Baxter, William JII, pp. 226, 29. 22. Edward Harley's letter to his son, Robert, 7 February 1689. BL, Add. MS 40,621, fol.18. 23. PH, vol. V, p. 10. 24. PH, vol. V, p. 9. According to William's biographer, Stephen Baxter, both Mary and Anne were convinced that the pregnancy was a fraud, but what the Prince actually believed is impossible to know. Baxter, William JII, p.229. 25. Wildman, Memorial from the English Protestants, in Collection of State Tracts, vol. I, pp. I, 14, 18, 22-3; Sidney Redivivus, p. 14. 26. 'Diary of Henry Hyde, 2nd Earl of Clarendon, for the year 1688,' BL, Stowe MS 770, fols.162-3. 27. VAL, pp. 159-72. 28. 'Proclamation (13 Feb) of the Lords and Commons,' Bohun, History of the Desertion, p. 129. 29. Macaulay, History, vol. m, p. 1310. 30. Memorials on Both Sides, p. 8. 31. '[I]f ever Man had a just cause of War, he had; and that creates a right to the thing gained by it: the King by withdrawing and disbanding his Army, yielded him the throne; and if he had, without any more ceremony, ascended 292 Notes to pp. 158-63

it, he had done noe more than all other princes do on the like occasions.' Bohun, History of the Desertion, p. 110. 32. William, Additional Declaration, p. 2. Macaulay also regarded conquest as unimaginable, but for an altogether different reason. For William to have been styled a conqueror would have been a gross affront to English pride and nothing less than a national disgrace. It would have meant that 'this great kingdom, with a mighty fleet on the sea, with a regular army of 40,000 men, and with a militia of 150,000 men, had been, without one siege or battle, reduced to the state of a province by 15,000 invaders.' Macaulay, History, vol. n, p. 525. 33. Ghest, Impartial Disquisition, p. 1. 34. Nenner, By Colour of Law, pp. 101-5. 35. Remonstrance and Protestation, p. 5. 36. Some Reflections, in Somers Tracts, vol. IX, p. 294. 37. Some Short Considerations Relating to the . .. Government, p. 4. 38. Morrice, 'Ent'ring Book,' vol. 2, pp. 378, 382. 39. DAL (Henry Pollexfen), pp. 97 and 99. The Commons were also to use this argument to demonstrate that the lords' address to William on 25 December, requesting that he assume 'the administration of publick affairs both civil and military,' meant that they recognised that the throne was vacant. DAL, pp.23-4. 40. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 31; Reasons for Crowning, p. 1; Four Questions Debated, p. 6; Leiter Which was sent to the Author, p. 33. 41. Reasons for Crowning, pp. I, 18; Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 37. 42. Political Conference, p. 41. 43. DAL, p. 138. 44. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 34. 45. Letter Which was sent to the Author, p. 14. 46. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 34. 47. Sherlock, Letter to A Member of the Convention, p. 4; Answer To Two Papers, p.32. 48. Filmer, Patriarcha, p. 61. 49. DAL (Nottingham), p. 117. 50. On January 29, 1689 the motion for a regency in the House of Lords was to fail by only three votes. 12 HMCR App., part vi, p. 15; U, vol. XIV, p. 110. For a discussion of the slight discrepancies in various reports of the number of lords voting on each side of the regency issue see Horwitz, 'Parliament and the Glorious Revolution,' p. 44, n.3; Cruickshanks et aI., 'Division in the House of Lords,' p. 59. 51. There were also those who were troubled by a regency in this instance because 'it is owning the king who hath forsaken the kingdom.' BL, Stowe MS 370, f.70v. 52. Answer To the Author, p. 2. 53. DAL, p. 103. 54. Sherlock, Letter to a Member of the Convention, p. 1. 55. Morrice, 'Ent'ring Book,' vol. 2, p. 393. 56. Speech of a Fellow Communer, p. 7. 57. DAL, p. 158. Notes to pp. 163-72 293

58. Reflections Upon the Present State of the Nation, p. 2. 59. Discourse Concerning . .. the Present Conventions, p. 16; Letter to a Friend, p. 14; Some Remarks upon Government, p. 27. 60. Morrice, 'Ent'ring Book,' vol. 2, p. 449; Reresby, Memoirs, p. 551. 61. DAL, pp. 28 and 106. 62. Ibid., p. 47. 63. BL, Stowe MS 371, fo.llv. 64. DAL, p. 165. See, too, Hickes, Word to the Wavering, p. 9. 65. Reflections Upon Our Late and Present Proceedings, p. 7. 66. Ibid., p. 9. 67. DAL, p. 33. 68. Ibid., pp. 172-3. 69. Ibid., p. 142. 70. Response to Lords' amendments to the Commons Resolution of 28 January. Ibid., p. 24. 71. Ibid., p. 108. 72. Ibid., p. 162. 73. See, for example, the Earl of Pembroke's remarks. Ibid., p. 155. 74. Ibid., p. 166 (Earl of Nottingham). 75. See, for example, Political Conference, p. 40. 76. Entry for 23 January 1689. Evelyn, Diary, vol. IV, p. 616. 77. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 127. 78. Address by Humphrey Gower, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cam• bridge (1681). BL, Add. MS 5847, fol.177. 79. James II's letter to his Privy Council from St Germain, 4 January 1989. His Majesties Letter, p. 13; Memorials on Both Sides, p. 37. 80. Dialogue Between Dick and Tom, p. 18. 81. Necessity of Setling the Crown, p. 6. 82. CI, vol. X, p. 15. 83. U, vol. XIV, p. 110. 84. See Horwitz, '1689 (and All That),' p. 26. 85. Williams, Eighteenth-Century Constitution, p. 32. 86. See the remarks of Sir Robert Howard. PH, vol. V. p. 98. 87. Stephens,Important Questions of State, p. 10. 88. Political Conference, p. 38. 89. DAL, p. 136. 90. Ibid., p. 157. 91. Letter Which was sent to the Author, p. 32. 92. DAL. p. 148. 93. Reresby, Memoirs, p. 546. 94. Account of the Pretended Prince of Wales, p. 9. 95. Answer to a late Pamphlet, p. 3. 96. Memorials on Both Sides, p. 36. 97. Ibid., p. 38. On the issue of honour in the Revolution see Nenner, 'Traces of Shame,' pp. 238-47. 98. Account of the Pretended Prince of Wales, p. 13. 99. Remonstrance and Protestation, p. 13. 100. Ibid., p. 12. For the most complete modem argument in support of the idea 294 Notes to pp. 172-7

that the Revolution brought about significant constitutional change, that it changed the kingship as well as the king, see Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights. . 101. Political Conference, pp. 27 and 37; also see Discourse Concerning . .. the Present Conventions, pp. 16-17. 102. Political Conference, p. 31. 103. DAL, p. 155. 104. Short Historical Account Touching the Succession, p. 2. 105. DAL, p. 107. Also see Four Questions Debated, p. 6. 106. 'Abdicated,' however, was ultimately preferable because it was understood to convey a sense of finality, whereas 'deserted' seemed to leave open the possibility of a return. BL, Stowe MS 371, fo1.20. 107. See, for example, the preface to Bohun, History of the Desertion, for the statement that James's actions amounted to 'a proper legal abdication, as it is distinguished from a voluntary resignation on the one hand, and a violent deposition on the other;' and see BL, Stowe MS 371, fol.10v., for the counter argument by the Lords in the Convention that 'in the most common acceptation of the CiviIl Law, abdication is a voluntary express act of renun• ciation, which is not in this case.' For a recent debate on the meaning of the word 'abdication' see Slaughter, '''Abdicate'' and "Contract";' John Miller, • "Contract" and "Abdication" Reconsidered;' and Slaughter, '''Abdicate'' and "Contract" Restored'. 108. See, for example, the 'Speech of [Heneage] Finch to the Convention against the Prince of Orange's assumption of the crown; 1688,' BL, Stowe MS 364, fols.67-67v. 109. Remonstrance and Protestation, p. 8. 110. Answer to the Desertion Discuss'd, p. 3. 111. Cl, vol. X, p. 14. 112. 12 HMCR, App., part VI, p. 14. 113. Collier, Desertion Discuss'd, p. 6; Answer to Two Papers, p. 36. 114. DAL, p. 83. 115. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 18. 116. Free Conference, p. 15. 117. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 18. 118. DAL, p. 137; Political Conference, pp. 46-7. Another ingenious variation on the theme of James's having dethroned himself was that as he had vio• lated the constitution prior to the birth of the Prince of Wales, it made no difference whether or not the birth was genuine. By the time it had hap• pened James, in effect, was no longer king and his heirs were of no consti• tutional consequence. Political Conference, p. 50. 119. PH, vol. IV, p. 1206. 120. DAL, p. 82. 121. Ibid., p. 28. 122. See Nottingham's remarks, Ibid., pp. 160-2. 123. Ibid., pp. 58-9. 'It is a maxime in Law that every right title and Interest in presenti or futuro may by consent of all parties be destroyed or taken away.' BL, Harley MS 4892/3, fo1.26. 124. Sidney Redivivus, p. 13. Notes to pp. 177-82 295

125. DAL, p. 59. 126. 12 HMCR, App., part VI, p. 18. 127. Bohun, History of the Desertion, part 2 (A Short Account of the Methods used for the Re-establishment of our Government), p. 123. 128. Reasons humbly offer'd, p. 18. 129. Reasons for Crowning, pp. 1, 19; Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 34; Four Questions Debated, p. 8. 130. Reasons for Crowning, p. 1. 131. Ibid., p. 1; Tarlton, "'Rulers Now On Earth",' p. 284. For a rejection of that argument see Reflections Upon the Present State of the Nation, p. 2. 132. Several Queries, pp. 2-3. See also Four Questions Debated, p. 7; Nenner, 'Traces of Shame,' pp. 238-47. 133. Several Queries, p. 2. See also Reasons humbly offer'd, p. 18. 134. John Shirley, writing two years before the Revolution and with no idea of what lay ahead, decried the male prerogative of 'rule and power' and men's efforts ,'to keep the softer sex in ignorance; and ... to possess her with a belief of her incapacities.' Shirley, Illustrious History of Women, p. 127. Shirley, however, demonstrated a remarkable, if innocent, prescience of what was to come: 'In her husbands absence, she officiates his place, in regarding and takeing care of his affaires, but when he is present, she intermeddles in his concerns no further than she is required,' p. 155. See, too, Schwoerer, 'Women and the Glorious Revolution, p. 215. 135. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 35. 136. Reasons for Crowning, p. 19; Political Conference, pp. 36-7, 41-2; Four Questions Debated, p. 7; Proposals Humbly offered, p. 5; Some Short Considerations Concerning the . .. Nation, p. 7. 137. Political Conference, p. 38. 138. Burnet, Enquiry, p. 10. 139. Burnet, History, vol. ro, pp. 137-8. 140. DAL (Earl of Pembroke), p. 154. 141. DAL (Sir George Treby), pp. 154-6. 142. Political Conference, p. 42; Four Questions Debated, p. 7. 143. Political Conference, pp. 34-5, 42; Discourse Concerning. , . the Present Conventions, p. 15. 144. Political Conference, p. 34. 145. Burnet, History, vol. ro, p. 139. 146. Ferguson, Brief Justification, p. 36. 147. Answer to a late Pamphlet, p. 1. 148. Several Queries, p. 3. 149. 'Declaration of Rights,' in D. L. Jones, Parliamentary History, p. 45. 150. Dalrymple, Memoirs, vol. I, pp. 204-5. 151. The Earl of Clarendon's diary entry for 27 January 1689. Singer, Corres• pondence, vol. II, pp. 254-5. On 3 February Sir John Reresby recorded being told that 'the Princesse of Denmark was very sensible what a mistake she had committed to leave her father to come into the Prince, who was now endeavouring to invade her right and to gett priority of succession before her.' Reresby, Memoirs, p. 551. 152. Dalrymple, Memoirs, p. 209. 296 Notes to pp. 182-90

153. Jones, Parliamentary History, p. 48. Sophia had earlier been reported to have been annoyed at not being named. Hatton, George I, p. 73 (citing Mary, Memoirs, William's letter of 10/20 Dec. 1689). 154. Some of the generalised discomfort about who might follow William was expressed pointedly in the contemporary polemical literature. 'But the hon• our I have for him [William] runs not to his posterity, for as a good man may not withstanding get a profligate son, so I should be loath to repose such a trust at a venture in the hands of anyone whom I do not know.' Some Remarks upon Government, p. 28. 155. Evelyn, Diary, vol. IV, p. 621. 156. Dalrymple, Memoirs, pp. 207, 209. 157. As important as Mary's difficulties in carrying a child to term were the reports by mid-1679 that William was sterile. Baxter, William lII, p. 163.

8 The Problem of Allegiance (pp. 184-218)

1. Johnson, Remarks Upon Dr Sherlock's Book, pp. 3-4. 2. Letter from an absent Lord, p. 3. 3. Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 27. The tract has also been attributed to the better known anti-Catholic divine, Daniel Whitby. 4. Ibid., p. 10. 5. Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. I, p. 184. 6. Letter from an absent Lord, pp. 3-4. 7. Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 7. 8. Comber, Letter to a bishop, pp. 22, 27. 9. C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, p. 3. 10. William Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 23. 11. Some Short Considerations Concerning the . .. Nation, p. 10. 12. Allegations in behalf of the High and Mighty Princess, p. 4. 13. Infinitely valuable and by far the most comprehensive treatment of the Allegiance Controversy is Goldie, 'Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument,' passim. 14. Sherlock, Vindication, p. 47. 15. Collier, Animadversions, p. 1. 16. Doleman, Conference About the Next Succession, p. 130. 17. James I, Political Works, xcii (C. H. McIlwain quoting Craig, Right of Succession, part ii, p. 386). 18. Brief Vindication. 19. Wagstaffe, Answer to a late Pamphlet, p. 1. 20. Enquiry Into the Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 40. 21. Samuel Johnson, Argument Proving, p. 58. 22. C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, pp. 57, 11. 23. Sherlock, Their Present Majesties Government, p. 33. 24. Ibid., p. 26; Letter From A French Lawyer, p. 6; Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 56. 25. The resolution of 28 January 1688/9, shrouded in ambiguity, read as follows: 'Resolved, that King James the Second, having endeavoured to subvert the Notes to pp. 190-6 297

Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the Original Contract between King and People; and, by the Advice of Jesuits, and other wicked Persons, having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom; has abdicated the Government; and that the Throne is thereby vacant.' CJ. vol. X, p. 14. 26. Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 43. 27. Some Considerations Touching Succession And Allegiance, p. 7. 28. Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, p. 79. 29. The re-issue, entitled A Seasonable Discourse, Wherein is Examined What is Lawfull during the Confusions and Revolutions of Government (London, 1689), was an abbreviated version of the 1649 work. The much shorter Seasonable Discourse was edited to emphasise the justification for releasing a subject from his oath of allegiance in the case of the king's deserting the kingdom. 30. Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement, p. 11. 31. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 50. 32. Kenyon, Revolution Principles, passim. 33. Johnson, Argument Proving, pp. 49-50. 34. Ascham, Confusions and Revolutions, p. 79. 35. An obvious one of the few was Edmund Ludlow. See Letter from Major General Ludlow. 36. Brief Account of the NUllity of King James's Title, pp. 5-6. 37. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, preface, iv; Letter from Major General Ludlow, p. 2. 38. Defoe, Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution, p. 24. 39. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 56. 40. Defoe, Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution, p. 49; Secret History, pp.205-6. 41. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance ... Stated, p. 56. 42. Johnson, Remarks Upon Dr Sherlock's Book, p. 23. The lWlguage was drawn from Danby's Non-Resisting Test Bill, defeated in 1675 because it was perceived at the time to be a government move towards arbitrary rule. 43. Browne, Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, p. 24. 44. New History of the Succession, p. 64. 45. Browne, Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, p. 25. 46. Some Considerations Touching Succession and Allegiance, p. 6. 47. Letter Which was sent to the Author, p. 17; Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 37; Letter to a Bishop, in Somers Tracts, vol. ix, p. 374. 48. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 14; Enquiry Into the Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 22. 49. Some Considerations Touching Succession and Allegiance, p. 23. 50. 'Maxims of State, or Observation on government by the late Marq. of H- 1694', BL, Sloane MS 2680, fol.9v. 51. Johnson, Argument Proving, pp. 11, 18,48. 52. Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlock's New Book, p. 14. 53. Defoe, Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution, p. 60. 54. Brief Vindication, p. 5. 55. Claridge, Defence of the Present Government, pp. 4-5; Claridge, Second 298 Notes to pp. 196-202

Defence, p. 26; Friendly Debate, p. 50; Brief Vindication, p. 46; Lords and Commons Reasons, pp. 1-2; Account of Mr Blunts late Book, p. 15. 56. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, p. 73. 57. Friendly Debate, p. 33. 58. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, p. 4. It is also worth noting that Locke's Two Treatises, making the same point, were first published in 1690. 59. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Further Consider'd, pp. 26-7; Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, pp. 24-5, 37; Sherlock, Their Present Maj• esties Government, p. 14; Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement, pp. 20, 59; Lloyd, Discourse, p. 16, 18-19; Brief Vindication, p. 5. 60. Ghest, Impartial Disquisition, p. 8; Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, preface, ix; Account of Mr Blunts late Book, pp. 16-17; Some Modest Remarks on Dr Sherlocks New Book, p. 23. 61. Some Considerations Touching Succession and Allegiance, pp. 8, II. 62. Ibid., pp. 16-17; Defoe, Advantages of the Present Settlement, p. 20; Friendly Debate, p. 32. The nonjurors of course categorically denied this reading of the constitution. 'For if the laws tye the crown to succession, as they evidently do; then a title drawn from the peoples consent is against law.' Collier, Animadversions, p. 4. 63. Some Considerations Touching Succession and Allegiance, pp. 11-12. 64. Brief Vindication, pp. 18-19. 65. Ghest, Impartial Disquisition, p. 6. 66. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 3S. 67. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, p. 2. 68. Nenner, 'Later Stuart Age', pp. 197-8; Schwoerer, 'Locke ... and the Glorious Revolution', p. 535. For the continuation of radical ideas in the decade following the Revolution see Goldie, 'Roots of True Whiggism,' passim. 69. Locke, Second Treatise, ch. XIX, sec. 222. 70. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, pp. 72, 102. 71. Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlock's New Book, p. 25; R. B., Satis- faction tendred to all, p. 20. 72. M. D., English Loyalty, p. 2. 73. Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlocks New Book, p. 23. 74. Lloyd, Discourse, p. 28. 75. Collier, Vindiciae Juris Regii, p. 6. 76. C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, preface. 77. Hickes, Apology For the New Separation, p. 6; Ghest, Impartial Disquisi• tion, p. 1; Letter formerly sent to Dr Tillotson, in Somers Tracts, vol. IX, p. 370; Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement, p. 20. 78. Enquiry into the Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 38. 79. C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, p. 50; Comber, Letter to a bishop, p. IS. SO. Bohun, Doctrine of Non-Resistance, p. 26; Comber, Letter to a bishop, pp.I9-20. 81. Letter Writ by a Clergy-Man, p. 12. 82. C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, p. 4; Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 31. 83. Bumet, Pastoral Letter, p. 20. Notes to pp. 202-9 299

84. Letter to the Bishop of Sarum, p. 22; PRO, SP 9/247nO. 85. Burnet, Pastoral Letter, p. 21; Bohun, Doctrine of Non-Resistance, pp. 9- 10. 86. Collier, Animadversions, p. 1. 87. Some Short Considerations Concermng the . .. Nation, p. 11. 88. Account of Mr Blunts late Book, p. 18. 89. Nenner, By Colour of Law, pp. 101-5. 90. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, preface, viii; Comber, Letter to a bishop, p. 21; C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, p. 31; Account of Mr Blunts late Book, p. 10; Masters, Case of Allegiance, p. 9. 91. C. Blount, King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, pp. 33, 56-7. 92. Sherlock, Their Present Majesties Government, pp. 6-7, 29-30. 93. Ghest,lmpartial Disquisition, p. 6; Johnson, Argument Proving, pp. 15-16. 94. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, dedication (to the Earl of Oxford, n.p.). 95. Stephens, Reflections Upon the Occurrences of the Last Year, p. 6; Tillotson, Sermon Preached at Lincolns-Inn-Chappel, p. 30. 96. Lloyd, Discourse, pp. 5, 20-21; Discourse Shewing that it is Lawfull, pp. 4, 8. 97. 'Dr Sherlock's Letter to Dr Sancroft A.Bp. of Cant. upon his being satisfied of the lawfullnesse of taking the oath to W. & M.,' 20 August 1690. BL, Add. MS 32,095, fo1.350. 98. Samuel Johnson's tract was written in part to meet that objection. Johnson, Remarks Upon Dr Sherlock's Book, p. 34. 99. Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement, p. 49. 100. Wagstaffe, Answer to a late Pamphlet, p. 3. 101. Sherlock, Vindication, p. 54. 102. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, pp. 13,26. 103. Sherlock, Vindication, p. 58. For an accurate but unsympathetic restatement of Sherlock's argument see Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement, p. 17. 104. Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement, p. 23. 105. Some Considerations Touching Succession And Allegiance, p. 25. 106. Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, pp. 9-11, 19-20. 107. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, pp. 52-3, 60; Some Modest Re• marks On Dr Sherlocks New Book, p. 13; Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 16; Claridge, Defence ofthe Present Government, p. 6; Stillingfteet, Discourse Concerning the Unreasonable• ness of A New Separation, pp. 13, 28. 108. Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, p. 74; Masters, Case of Allegiance, pp. 6-7; Kennet, Dialogue Between Two Friends, p. 8. 109. Burnet, Pastoral Letter, p. 10. 110. Stillingfteet, Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separa- tion, p. 25; Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 16. 111. Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 68. 112. Friendly Conference, p. 28. 113. Ibid., pp. 2-3; Letter Writ by a Clergy-Man, p. 10; Defoe, Advantages of the Present Settlement, p. 36. Others argued that the true meaning of the crown curing all defects was that there was no distinction between a de facto and a de jure king, that all kings in possession were de jure by definition. Vindication of the Revolution. BL, Stowe MS 291, fols.14v-15. 300 Notes to pp. 210-16

114. Stillingfteet. Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness ofA New Separa• tion. p. 30. 115. Atwood. Fundamental Constitution. p. 3; Brief Vindication. preface; Sherlock. Vindication. p. 16. 116. Claridge. Second Defence. pp. 22-3. 117. Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights. pp. 15. 22. 118. Sherlock. Case of Allegiance . .. Stated. p. 5. 119. Ibid .• pp. 9. 17-18. 120. Sherlock, Their Present Majesties Government. pp. 7. 15. 121. Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement. p. 71; Johnson. Remarks Upon Dr Sherlock's Book, p. 33; Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlocks New Book, p. 3; Sherlock. Vindication. pp. 69-70; Sherlock. Their Present Majesties Government. pp. 17.24-5; Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government. p. 64; Browne. Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance. p. 3. 122. Wagstaffe. Answer to a late Pamphlet. pp. 17-18; Proteus Ecclesiasticus. p. 9; Jenkin. Title of a Thorough Settlement. pp. 7. 17.48; Collier. Anim• adversions. p. 1. 123. Wagstaffe. Answer to a late Pamphlet, p. 5. 124. Letter Which was sent to the Author. p. 23. 125. Opinion of two eminent Parliament-Men, p. 34; Bohun. Doctrine of Non- Resistance, p. 31; M. D .• English Loyalty, p. 1. 126. Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlocks New Book. p. 4. 127. C. Blount. King William and Queen Mary Conquerors. pp. 35. 41. 128. Trimming Court-Divine. p. 10. 129. Defoe. Advantages of the Present Settlement, p. 20. 130. William Lloyd, Bishop of St Asaph, was one of the defendants in the trial of the Seven Bishops in 1688 and, unlike Sherlock. was committed to the Revolution settlement from the beginning. 131. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 48; Sherlock. Their Present Majesties Government, p. 9; Lloyd. Discourse. p. 51; Jenkin. Title of a Thorough Settlement. p. 6; Wagstaffe, Answer to a late Pamphlet. pp. 20- 21. 132. Ghest, Impartial Disquisition, p. 8. Some, of course. like Jeremy Collier, would make no concession to the passage of time, however long. Collier maintained that 'he who is an intruder at first. must (provided the right owners are known) be an usurper ever after'. Collier. Animadversions. p. 3. 133. Letter Writ by a Clergy-Man. p. 10; Jenkin, Title of a Thorough Settlement. p. 20-1; Wagstaffe. Answer to a late Pamphlet, p. 27. Defoe. based on his reading of Scripture, reckoned that four hundred years, although not neces• sarily the minimum required, would certainly be enough time to establish a right of prescription. Defoe, Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution. p.2. 134. Sherlock, Vindication, p. 16. 135. Atwood. Fundamental Constitution, p. U5. 136. Stillingfteet. Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness ofA New Separa• tion, pp. 15. 19,21; Masters, Case of Allegiance, p. 23; Brief Vindication. p. 39; Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights. p. 43. 137. Lords and Commons Reasons, p. 1. Notes to pp. 216-23 301

138. Brief Vindication, p. 40; Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 29. 139. Defoe, Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution, p. 62; Doctrine ofPassive Obedience and Jure Divino Disproved, p. 2. See, too, Enquiry Into the Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights, p. 42, for the Hobbesian argu• ment that 'No meer human laws, nor human authority can oblige in cases of extream necessity.' 140. Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlocks New Book, p. 4; Fullwood, Agree• ment Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, pp. 44-5; Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation ofLegal Rights, pp. 12, 39-40, 49; Sherlock, Their Present Majesties Government, p. 27. 141. Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p.46. 142. Some Considerations Touching Succession And Allegiance, p. 5; Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 11; Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, pp. 77-8. 143. Letter From A Lawyer in the Countrey, pp. 2-3; Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, pp. 78-9; Johnson, Argument Proving, p. 29. 144. Sherlock, Their Present Majesties Government, p. 9. 145. Browne, Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, p. 23. 146. Fullwood, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government, p. 25; Atwood, Fundamental Constitution, p. 3. 147. Maurice, Lawfulness of Taking the New Oaths Asserted, p. 11. 148. Sherlock, Case of Allegiance . .. Stated, p. 45; Atwood, Fundamental Constitution. p. 92; Allegations in behalf of the High and Mighty Princess, p. 3; Claridge. Defence of the Present Government, p. 3.

9 A Rightful and Lawful King and Queen (pp. 219-49)

1. Maurice, Lawfulness of Taking the New Oaths Asserted, p. 3. 2. Letter Writ by a Clergy-Man, p. 11; Letter from A French Lawyer, p. 14. 3. 1 Gul. & Mar. sess.2, cap.2. SR. VI, p. 144. 4. Brief Vindication, preface. 5. Johnson, Argument Proving, p. 3; Bohun. Doctrine ofNon-Resistance, p. 10. 6. Defoe. Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution, p. 50. 7. Brief Vindication. p. 58. 8. Defoe. Advantages ofthe Present Settlement, p. 26; Justification ofthe Whole Proceedings, pp. 20-1; Blount. King William and Queen Mary Conquerors. p. 2; Maurice, Lawfulness of Taking the New Oaths Asserted, p. 3. 9. Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights. p. 58. See too Masters. Case of Allegiance. p. 24. 10. Defoe. Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution, p. 50. 11. Collier. Animadversions. p. 6. 12. Grey, Debates, vol. IX, pp. 237-9. 13. There is a useful account of these proceedings in Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics. pp. 28-36. 14. Grey, Debates. vol. IX. p. 237. 15. Ibid .• pp. 237-41. 302 Notes to pp. 223-8

16. Ibid., p. 241. 17. Ibid., p. 345. 18. Burnet, History, vol. IV, p. 28. 19. Grey, Debates, vol. IX, p. 241. 20. SR, vol. VI, p. 144. 21. SR, vol. VI, p. 156. 22. Grey, Debates, vol. X, p. 46. 23. Ibid., p. 47. 24. Ibid., pp. 297-8. 25. Atwood, Proposals for Printing the Fundamental Constitution, p. 2. 26. U, vol. XV, p. 683; Chandler, History and Proceedings Of The House of Commons, vol. III, pp. 22, 24; Torbuck, Collection of Parliamentary Debates, vol. III, pp. 61-3; PH, vol. V, pp. 989, 991-2; Ralph, History, vol. I, pp. 632-3, Burnet, History, vol. IV, p. 306. 27. Burnet and Ralph agree that fifteen lords refused to sign the association, but disagree as to the number in the Commons. Burnet puts the number at 80, Ralph at 92. Burnet, History, vol. IV; Ralph, History, vol. I, p. 654. 28. Torbuck, Collection of Parliamentary Debates, vol. III, p. 64; 7 & 8 W.III, c.27 ('An Act for the better Security of His Majesties Royal Person and Government'). SR, vol. VII, p. 114. 29. SR, vol. III, p. 116; U, vol. XV, p. 746. 30. Burnet, History, vol. IV, p. 307. 31. SR, vol. VII, p. 117. 32. Defoe, Argument Shewing, pp. 8, 13; Defoe, Succession to the Crown, pp. 6, 20; Schonhorn, Defoe's Politics, pp. 74-5. 33. Animadversions On The Succession, p. 8. 34. Defoe, Argument Shewing, p. 13. 35. Defoe, Succession to the Crown, pp. 16-17, 19. 36. Ibid., p. 4; Defoe, Argument Shewing, p. 15. In Defoe's opinion the same disability did not attach to the late Duke of Monmouth's son. If, as he suggested, parliament undertook its responsibility to inquire into the poss• ibility that Monmouth might actually have been the legitimate son of Charles II and determined that he had been, there would be, to Defoe's mind, an easy solution to the succession question: upon William's death James, Earl of Dalkeith, would inherit the throne. Defoe, Succession to the Crown, pp. 9, 28; Schonhorn, Defoe's Politics, p. 72. 37. The fear of a commonwealth plot lurking behind the failure in 1689 to provide for the succession beyond the issue of Mary, Anne, and William, never quite died away. One writer who was not much troubled by that possibility, acknowledged none the less that there were those afraid that 'when our present settlement is run out, a common-wealth may be set up.' Stepney, Essay upon the Present Interest, in Somers Tracts, vol. XI, p. 209. Also see Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 277. There was also concern that the death of Gloucester would encourage support for 'the pre• tended Prince of Wales' to follow William and Anne in the succession. Burnet, History, vol. IV, p. 501. 38. L1, vol. XVI, p. 594; PH, vol. V, p. 1233; Torbuck, Collection of Parlia• mentary Debates, vol. III, p. 141; Chandler, History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, vol. III, p. 127. Notes to pp. 228-33 303

39. Animadversions On the Succession, p. 30. 40. Drake, History of the Lost Parliament, p. 28. 41. Stepney, Essay upon the Present Interest, p. 209. 42. Timberland, History and Proceedings of The House of Lords, vol. II, p. 19. 43. PH, vol. V, p. 1237; Torbuck, Collection of Parliamentary Debates, vol. Ill, p. 145; Chandler, History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, vol. m, pp. 129-30; Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 283. 44. PH, vol. V, p. 1237; Torbuck, Collection of Parliamentary Debates, vol. Ill, p. 147. 45. SR, vol. VII, p. 637. 46. U, vol. XVI, pp. 699, 738-9; PH, vol. V, p. 1294; Chandler, History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, vol. m, p. 161. 47. Grey, Debates, vol. IX, pp. 237-8. 48. SR, vol. VI, p. 144. 49. It is reasonably certain that no one at the time wanted to entertain the pos• sibility of the crown descending to one of William's collateral heirs, espe• cially as it could conceivably have been someone with no connection to the Stuart royal line. 50. Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. I, p. 209. 51. U, vC>1. XVII, p. 6; PH, vol. V, p. 1330. 52. U, vol. XVII, p. 8; PH, vol. V, p. 1332; Torbuck, Collection of Parlia• mentary Debates, vol. m, p. 233. 53. PH, vol. V, pp. 1332-3; Torbuck, Collection ofParliamentary Debates, vol. m, p. 234. 54. 13 & 14 WiI.m, c.3. SR, vol. VII, p. 739. 55. The Commons' bill had been amended by the Lords to include the queen in the attainder, but after the Commons pushed its insistence that it was dan• gerous to attaint someone of treason by an amendment, the Lords' amend• ment was dropped. The Lords then passed a separate bill for the attainder of the queen, 'but that was let sleep in the house of commons.' LI, vol. XVII, pp. 20, 22, 28, 31, 33-4; Burnet, History, vol. IV, pp. 548-9; PH, vol. V, p. 1334. 56. Thomson, 'Safeguarding of the Protestant Succession,' pp. 240-2. 57. 13 & 14 Will.m, c.6 ('An Act for the further Security of His Majesties Person and the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line and for extinguishing the Hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales and all othr Pre• tenders and their open and secret Abettors'). SR. vol. VII, p. 747. 58. Burnet, History, vol. IV. pp. 550-1; Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 301. 59. Burnet. History, vol. V, pp. 11-12. 60. U, vol. XVII, p. 63; Torbuck, Collection ofParliamentary Debates, vol. m, p.243. 61. Chandler, History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, vol. m, p. 199; Torbuck, Collection of Parliamentary Debates, vol. m, p. 242. 62. U, vol. xvn, p. 63. 63. Sacheverell, Defence of Her Majesty's Title, p. 10. 64. ToJand, Reasons for Addressing His Majesty, pp. 5-6, 15-16. 65. Ibid., p. 15; Leslie, Wolf Stript, p. 57. 66. Burnet, History, vol. IV, pp. 553-4. 304 Notes to pp. 233-9

67. SR, vol. VII, p. 750. In May 1702, shortly after Anne's accession, a resolu• tion of the Lords declared the rumour to be groundless. Timberland, His• tory and Proceedings of the House of Lords, vol. II, pp. 36-7; Torbuck, Collection of Parliamentary Debates, vol. III, pp. 247-8. 68. Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, p. 303. 69. G. Holmes, British Politics In The Age of Anne, p. 114. Also see Burnet, History, vol. V, pp. 231-3. 70.. 4 & 5 Anne, c.20. SR, vol. VIII, pp. 498-501. 71. Ibid., p. 498. 72. Speck, 'Anonymous Parliamentary Diary,' p. 57; Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne, p. 91. 73. Atwood, Superiority and Direct Dominion, pp. 304, 386, 405-6, 476, 574. 74. Ibid., p. 486. 75. Treason Unmask'd, p. 242; Parliamentary Right Maintain'd, p. 63. 76. Coke, 4 Reports, p. 18; Impudent Babbler Baffled, p. 15. 77. Impudent Babbler Baffled, pp. 13,26; Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Gov• ernment, pp. 75, 87. 78. Impudent Babbler Baffled, pp. 6, 11-12, 18; Old English Constitution, pp. 14-15. 79. Barrington, Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles, p. 75. 80. Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, p. 185. 81. Ibid., pp. 1, 12-13. Also see English Constitution Fully Stated, pp. 38, 41; Old English Constitution, pp. 7-8. 82. Others advanced the same analysis, Charles Leslie making the point that Richard Ill's bastardising of his nephews provided perhaps the most com• pelling evidence of the value of an hereditary title. Leslie, Constitution. Laws and Government, p. 28. See, however, another writer who believed that Gloucester· had done no service whatever for the cause of hereditary mon• archy. In rendering a somewhat more biting and sarcastic view of Richard's actions, he concluded that Richard was so fond of hereditary right that he murdered his nephews, 'bastardiz'd all his family, and made a whore of his mother to make himself a claim by it.' British Liberty Asserted, p. 47. 83. Higden rehearsed thirteen kings within this span who did not have hered• itary titles and only six who did. Higden, View of the English Constitution, p. 1; British Liberty Asserted, p. 43. ·84. Higden, View of the English Constitution, p. 2; Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, p. 19. 85. Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Government of England, pp. 4, 30, 82; Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, p. 10. 86. Leslie, Constitution. Laws and Government, p. 21; Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, p. 5; English Constitution Fully Stated, p. 75. 87. Higden restricted himself to explaining why Charles II, out of possession of the throne from 1649 to 1660 was still the lawful king: 'tho' he was not in possession, yet there was no king in possession against him'. Higden, Defence of the View, pp. 107, 118. What was necessary for Higden's model to be applied was that a king be 'possess'd of the throne and recognised therein by the States. Now this was not Oliver's case. He took not the title of King, but of Protector.' Sort of An Answer, p. 9. 88. Higden, View of the English Constitution, pp. 68-9. Leslie, in his attack on Notes to pp. 239-44 30S

Higden, picked up on this, noting that if Higden's point was that Jane Grey could not properly be regarded as queen because 'she had no recognition by Act of Parliament, then it seems ther is something else needed besides pos• session to give a right.' Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Government, p. 32. 89. Higden, Defence of the View, p. 8. 90. Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, p. 250. 91. Higden, View of the English Constitution, pp. 75, 86-7. 92. Ibid., p. 74. 93. Higden, Defence of the View, preface, p. 11. Higden's defenders made the same point in support of his argument: 'we say that ours is an hereditary monarchy, but yet that the succession to it is disposeable by the law of the land.' Sort of An Answer, p. 33. 94. Treason Unmask'd, pp. 226, 227, 236, 251: Asgill, Succession of the House of Hannover, pp. 10-11: Asgill, Assertion Is, p. 26: Asgill, Pretender's Declaration, p. 19. 95. British Liberty Asserted, pp. 46, 48, 54. Another pamphleteer, one who did not regilrd the circumstances of the Pretender's birth as irrelevant, but who believed that the imposture would be impossible to prove, also regarded Anne's title, like William and Mary's, as 'a legal, Revolution and Parlia• mentary one.' Queries to the New Hereditary Right-Men, p. 5. 96. Queries to the New Hereditary Right-Men, p. I: British Liberty Asserted, p. 8. Also see Leslie, Battle Royal, p. 195. 97. Parliamentary Right Maintain'd, pp. 237-8, 258. 98. Defoe, Reasons Against the Succession, p. 32. 99. Parliamentary Right Maintain'd, p. 241. 100. Report From the Committee of Secrecy, pp. 134-5. 101. Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Government, pp. 6, 20, 33, 88; Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, pp. 2, 11, 13-14: Treason Unmask'd, p. 17. 102. Leslie, Constitution,Laws and Government, p.. 18: Higden, Defence of the View, p. 174: Old English Constitution, pp. 3, 22-3. The anonymous author of English Constitution Fully Stated considered hereditary monarchy to be the norm when the body politic was healthy and past interruptions in the hereditary line as intermittent afflictions of 'disease' and 'distemper,' pp. 6- 7. In this same vein Old English Constitution characterised lane Grey's nine• day reign as a 'quotidian ague', p. 8. 103. Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Government, pp. 35-6. 104. Tory legitimists were not the only ones attracted to this idea. See Asgill, Assertion Is, p. 27; Treason Unmask'd, p. 126. 105. Harbin, Hereditary Right of the Crown, pp. 22-3. 106. Barrington, Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles, p. 50. 107. Nottingham University Library, Portland MS Pw2 Hy 1039, p. 11. 108. Hoadly, Jacobite's Hopes Reviv'd, p. 9. 109. Ibid., pp. 8, 11, 13, 16. Leslie, in several tracts, took specific issue with Hoadly, denying that 'the Queen came in upon the Revolution foot: and arguing that the Revolution was not founded on resistance, but rather on 'abdication ... a free and voluntary renouncing of the crown.' Leslie, Best Answer, pp. 3-4: Leslie, Best of All, p. 15: Leslie, Good Old Cause, p. 7. 110. Defoe, Reasons Against the Succession, p. 31: Defoe, Answer To A Ques• tion, pp. 13-14. 306 Notes to pp. 244-52

111. Macaulay, History, vol. nI, p. 1310. 112. Drake, History of the Last Parliament, pp. 130-1. 113. Higden, View of the English Constitution, p. 86; British Liberty Asserted, p.43. 114. Leslie, Finishing Stroke, p. 87. 115. Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Government, p. 59. II6. Leslie, Battle Royal, p. 168. II7. Leslie, Constitution, Laws and Government, p. 57; Leslie, Battle Royal, p.196. 118. Barrington, Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles, p. 12. Hoadly spoke to this issue as well, attempting to persuade his readers that 'a man may plead for the rights of a whole people, without pleading for the Mob; and that the principles of national liberty, are not mob-principles.' Hoadly, Jacobite's Hopes Reviv'd, p. 12. 119. Treason Unmask'd, p. 4. 120. Memorials on Both Sides, p. 74. 121. One of the practical arguments in favour of the Hanoverian succession was that it was 'the only way to fix a real balance of power, no less than to preserve all our liberties against univeral monarchy.' Toland, Art of Restoring, iii. 122. Defoe, Answer To A Question, p. 26; Defoe, Reasons Against the Succes- sion, pp. 27, 29; Parliamentary Right Maintain'd, p. 261. 123. Defoe, Reasons Against the Succession, pp. 5-7. 124. Defoe, Answer To A Question, p. 30. 125. 1 Jac.I. c.l, SR, vol. IV, p. 1018. 126. Defoe, And What if the Pretender should come?, p. 7; Defoe, Reasons Against the Succession, pp. 9-11, 18. 127. Defoe, Reasons Against the Succession, p. 12; Parliamentary Right Main• tain'd, p. 256; Hatton, George I, pp. 106-10; Shennan, 'Protestant Succes• sion in English Politics,' pp. 256, 259. 128. Toland, Art of Restoring, p. 2. Toland reckoned that the Hanoverians were more likely than the Stuart Pretender to govern by law because as monarchs created by law, they would be more dependent upon it. Toland, Grand Mystery Laid Open, p. 31. 129. Leslie, Battle Royal, p. 138; Parliamentary Right Maintain'd, preface. 130. Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. I, p. 188. Conclusion: The Persistence of Fiction (pp. 250-58)

I. Morgan, Inventing the People, p. 13. 2. Ibid., p. 14. 3. Craig, Right of Succession, p. 127. 4. Smith, De Republica Anglorum, p. 49. 5. Nenner, By Colour of Law, p. 21 and chapter 1, passim. It has been sug• gested by J. W. Gough that Coke's pronouncements, on their face contra• dictory, are reconcilable once it is appreciated that parliamentary sovereignty to Coke meant judicial and not legislative sovereignty. 'Parliament had the last word ... because as the highest court there was no appeal against its supreme authority.' Gough, Fundamental Law, pp. 42-3. Notes to pp. 254-8 307

6. For the context and impact of the wanning-pan fable, see Speck, 'Orangist Conspiracy' and Weil, 'Politics of Legitimacy.' 7. Even so, divine right and hereditary monarchy remained powerful intellec• tual arguments through the first half of the eighteenth century. In this regard see Clark, English Society, ch. 3, 'The Survival of the Dynastic Idiom.' 8. Nenner, By Colour of Law, especially chapters 3 and 4. By his use of the dispensing power James II was alleged to have 'overthrown the whole leg• islative part of the government, and subverted the very fundamental consti• tution of the realm'. Brief Justification, p. 140. See, too, Nenner, 'Liberty, Law, and Property,' pp. 100-5. 9. See, for example, a timely second edition of one of the polemical attacks on Harbin's Hereditary Right of the Crown. In it the anonymous author reaches into the arsenal of authority for parliament's right to settle the succession and cites, yet again, Thomas More's allegedly conceding to Richard Rich that 'parliament cou'd make, and depose a king as they thought fit'. Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles, p. 74. 10. Parliamentary Right Maintain'd, sect. 3, pp. 235-62. 11. Brief Justification, p. 135. 12. Essay Upon the Original and Designe ofMagistracie, p. 3. See, also, 'Nenner, Liberty, Law, and Property,' p. 99. 13. Clark, English Society, pp. 132-3. 14. Charles I, Eikon Basilike, p. 167. 15. Treason Unmask'd, p. 228. 16. Ibid. 17. Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. I, p. 211. 18. Ibid. See, too, Jacob, Law-Dictionary, entry for 'King.' 19. Ibid., p. 184. 20. Treason Unmask'd, p. 228. Bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES

An Account of Mr Blunt's late Book, Entituled King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, Ordered, By the House of Commons, to be Burnt by the hand of the common Hangman on Wednesday Morning next, at Ten of the Clock, in the Palace-Yard, Westminster, 2nd ed. (London. 1693). An Account of the Pretended Prince of Wales, and other Grievanses, that occa• sioned the Nobilities inviting, and the Prince of Orange's coming into England (1688). Allegations in behalf of the High and Mighty Princess The lAdy Mary. Now Queen of Scots, Against the Opinions and Books set forth in the Part and Favour of the lAdy Katherine, and the rest of the Issues of the French Queen, Touching the Succession ofthe Crown. Written in the Time of Queen Elizabeth (London. 1690). Animadversions On The Succession To The Crown of England, Consider'd. Publish'd by Captain D-by. With Remarks On a late Scandalous Pamphlet, suppos'd to be written by Mr Toland, Entituled, Limitation for the next Foreign Successor, &c. As Also Some Particular Observations on the Courts of the Electoress Dowager, and the Present Elector of Hannover, Occasion'd by the Resolution of Parliament, lately made in their Favour (London. 1701). An Answer to a late Pamphlet,lntituled. A Short Scheme of the Usurpations of the Crown of England; &c. (1689). An Answer To the Author of the Letter To A Member of the Convention (January 24. 168819). An Answer to the Desertion Discuss'd. in Eleventh Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London. 1689). An Answer To Two Papers Called A Lords Speech Without-Doors, And a Com• moners Speech. Wherein, The Objections Against the Present Management of Affairs are Dissolved (London. 1689). The Armies Vindication of this last Change. Wherein, Is plainly Demonstrated, the Equity, Power and Right of the Army to settle these Nations upon the Founda• tions of Righteousnesse and Freedome (London, 1659). [Anthony Ascham). The Bounds & Bonds of Publique Obedience. Or. A Vindica• tion oj our lawfull submission to the present Government, or to a government supposed unlawfull, but commanding lawfull things (London. 1649). --. OJ the Confusions and Revolutions of Governments. Wherein is examined, How forre a man may lawfully conforme to the Powers and Commands of those who with various successes hold kingdomes divided by Civill or Forraigne Warrs (London. 1649). [--). A Seasonable Discourse, Wherein is Examined What is Lawfull during the Confusions and Revolutions of Government; Especially in the Case of a King deserting his Kingdoms: And how far a man may lawfully conform to the Pow• ers and Commands ofthose who with various Successes hold Kingdoms. Whether it be lawful, I. In Paying Taxes. II. In Personal Service. 1Il. In Taking Oaths. W. In giving himself up to a final Allegiance (London. 1689).

308 Bibliography 309

John Asgill, The Assertion Is, That the Title of the House of Hannover to the Succession of the British Monarchy (on failure of Issue of her Present Majesty) is a Title Hereditary, and of Divine Institution, 3rd ed. (London, 1715). --, The Pretender's Declaration Abstracted from two Anonymous Pamphlets: The One Intitled Jus Sacrum: and the other, Memoirs of the Chevalier St George, 2nd ed. (London, 1715). --, The Succession of the House of Hannover Vindicated, Against The Pretend• er's Second Declaration in Folio, intitled, The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted, &c. (London, 1714). [William Assheton], The Royal Apology or, An Answer to the Rebels Plea: Wherein, The Most Noted Anti-Monarchical Tenents, First, Published by Doleman the Jesuite, to promote a Bill of Exclusion against King James. Secondly, Practised by Bradshaw and the Regicides in the actual Murder of King Charles the I st. Thirdly, Republished by Sidney and the Associators to Depose and Murder his Present Majesty, Are distinctly consider'd. With a Parallel between Doleman, Bradshaw, Sidney and others of the True-Protestant Party (London, 1684). Sir Robert Atkyns, An Enquiry Into the Power of Dispensing with Penal Statutes. Together with Some Animadversions upon a Book writ by Sir Edw. Herbert, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Entituled, A Short Account ofthe Authorities in Law, upon which Judgment was given in Sir Edward Hales's Case (London, 1689). William Atwood, The Fundamental Constitution of the English Government Prov- o ing King William and Queen Mary our Lawful and Rightful King and Queen. In Two Parts. In the First is shewn, The Original Contract, with its Legal Consequences allowed of in former Ages. In the Second All the Pretences to a Conquest of this Nation by WiII.I. are fully examin'd, and refuted. With a large Account of the Antiquity of the English Laws, Tenures, Honours, and Courtsfor Legislature, and Justice. And an Explanation of material entries in Dooms-day• Book. By W. A. Author of the first Answer to the late Chief Justice Herbert on the D~spensing Power (London, 1690). --, Proposals for Printing the Fundamental Constitution ofthe English Govern• ment. Shewing The Antiquity, Nature, and Excellence of the English Monarchy: how the Uberties of the Nation have been preserv' d thro' the several Revolutions in it: What the Bounds set to the Prerogative of the Prince, and Privileges of the Subject: and what Harmony the Constitution has kept between 'em [16951]. --, The Superiority and Direct Dominion of the Imperial Crown of England, Over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland, And the Divine Right of Succession to both Crowns Inseparable from the Civil, Asserted. In Answer to Sir Thomas Craig's Treatises of Homage and Succession, etc. (London, 1704). B, Discolliminium. Or, A most obedient Reply to a late Book, Called, Bounds & Bonds, So farre as concerns the first Demurrer and no further. Or Rather A Reply to Bounds onely, Leaving Bonds to the second Demurrer and Grand Casuist (London, 1650). R. B., Satisfaction tendred to all that pretend Conscience for Nonsubmission to our present Governours, and refusing ofthe New Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance. In a Letter to a Friend. By R. B.late Rector ofSt Michael Querne, Landon, And now Rector of Icklingham All-Saints, Suffolk, in Eleventh Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England and Scotland (London, 1689). 310 Bibliography

Francis Bacon, The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh, Roger Lockyer (ed.), Folio Society (London, 1971). --, The Works of Francis Bacon, James Spedding et al. (eds), 14 vols (London, 1857-74). Sir Richard Baker, A Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Time of the Romans Government unto the Death of King James (London, 1679). [William Baron], A Just Defence of the Royal Martyr K. Charles I. From the many false and malicious Aspersions in Ludlow's Memoirs, and some other virulent Libels of that Kind (London, 1699). [John Shute Barrington], The Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles Stated and Compar'd, The Constitution Explain'd and Vindicated, And the Justice and Necessity of Exduding the Pretender, Maintain'd against the Book Entituled, Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted, 2nd ed. (London, 1714). Robert Bennet, King Charle's Triall Iustified: or, Eight Objections against the same fully answered and cleared, by Scripture, Law, History and Reason. Being . the sum of a Charge given at the last Sessions held at Trewroe in the County of Cornwall, Aprill4, 1649 (London, 1649). Thomas Birch (ed.), Memoirs of the Reign of Elizabeth, from the Year 1581 till her .. Death, 2 vols (London, 1754). [Charles Blount], An Appeal from the Country to the City,for the Preservation of His Majesties Person, Liberty, Property, and the Protestant Religion (London, 1679). [-], King William and Queen Mary Conquerors: Or, A Discourse Endeavouring to prove that Their Majesties have on Their Side, against the Late King, the Principal Reasons that make Conquest a Good Title (London, 1693). Thomas Blount, Nomo-Lexicon: A Law Dictionary, 2nd ed. (London, 1691). [Edmund Bohun], The Doctrine of Non-Resistance or Passive Obedience No Way concerned in the Controversies Now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites (London, 1689). [--1, The History of the Desertion, Or An Account of all the Publick Affairs In England, From the beginning of September 1688 to the Twelfth of February following. With An Answer To a Piece call'd The Desertion Discussed: In a Letter to a Country Gentleman, 2nd ed. (London, 1689). Henry Booth. See Delamer. [Robert Brady], The Great Point of Succession Discussed. With a Full and Par• ticular Answer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, A Brief History of Succession, &c. (London, 1681). --, An Introduction to The Old English History, Comprehended in Three Sev• eral Tracts . ... The Third, The Exact History of the Succession of the Crown of England; The Second Edition, also very much Inlarged . ... By Robert Brady, Doctor in Physick (London, 1684). [--1, A True and Exact History of the Succession of the Crown of England, Collected out of Records and the Best Historians. Written at first for the Information of such as were Deluded and Seduced by the Pamphlet called, The Brief History of the Succession, &c. pretended to have been written for the satisfaction of the Earl of H. The Second Edition much inlarged. Together with Reflections upon the Bill of Exclusion, and a full and satisfactory Answer to Mr Hunt's Argument in his Post-script about the Succession of the Chil• dren oj Robert the Second, King of Scotland, by Elizabeth Mure his pretended Concubine, and Eufame his Wife (London, 1684). Bibliography 311

A Brief Account of the Nullity of King James's Title, And of the Obligation of the Present Oaths of Allegiance (London, 1689). A Brief Justification of the Prince of Orange's Descent into England, and of the Kingdom's late Recourse to Arms. With A Modest Disquisition of what may become the Wisdom and Justice of the Ensuing Convention in their Disposal of the Crown [n.d.], in Collection of State Tracts, vol. I. A Brief Vindication of the Parliamentary Proceedings Against the Late King James lid. Proving that the Right of Succession to Government (by Nearness of Blood) is not by the Law of God or Nature, but by Politick Institution. With Several Instances of Deposing Evil Princes,' Shewing That no Prince hath any Title Originally, but by the Consent of the People (London, 1689). The British Liberty Asserted: Being a Full Answer To a late Book, Entitu/' d, The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England, Asserted, &c. Said to be writ by the Reverend Mr B-r, and others of S. J. C. C. & C. Wherein the Author's whole Scheme is Refuted, from Original Charters, Records, and other approv'd Authorities (London, 1714). [Thomas Browne], An Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance to Sovereign Powers, In Defence of the Case of Allegiance To A King in Possession. In a Letter to a Friend (London, 1691). Andrew Browning (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1660-1714 (London, 1953). John Bruce (ed.), Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others in England, During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth,' With an Appendix Containing Papers Illustrative of Transactions Between King James and Robert Earl of Essex, Camden Society, old ser. (London, 1861). [John Brydall], The White Rose: Or A Wordfor the House of York, Vindicating the Right of Succession, In A Letter from Scotland To A Peer of this Realm (London, 1680). [Gilbert Burnet], An Enquiry into the Present State of Affairs: And in particular, Whether we owe Allegiance to the King in these Circumstances? And whether we are bound to Treat with Him, and call Him back again, or not? (London, 1689). --, The History of My Own Time, M. 1. Routh (ed.), 2nd ed., 6 vols (Oxford, 1833). --, A Pastoral Letter Writ By The Right Reverend Father in God Gilbert, Lord Bishop of Sarum, To the Clergy of his Diocess, Concerning the Oaths of Alle• giance and Supremacy To K. Williain and Q. Mary (London, 1689). --, The Royal Martyr Lamented, in a Sermon Preached at the Savoy on King Charles the Martyr's Day, 167415 (London, 1689). --, A Sermon Preached In the Chapel of St James's Before His Highness the Prince of Orange the 23d of December, 1688 (Edinburgh, 1689). Thomas Burton, Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq., Member in the Parliaments of Oliver and Richard Cromwell from 1656 to 1659: Now first published from the original manuscript. With an introduction containing an Account of the Parlia• ment of 1654; from the Journal of Guibon Goddard, Esq. M. P. also now first printed. John Towill Rutt (ed.). 4 vols (London. 1828). Charles Butler. The Feminine Monarchee, or A Treatise Concerning Bees and the Due Ordering of Them (Oxford. 1609). Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English Affairs Preserved In, Or Originally Belonging To, the Archives of Simancas. Martin A. S. Hume (ed.), 4 vols (London, 1892-99). 312 Bibliography

Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts. Relating to English Affairs. Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice. And in other Libraries of Northern Italy, Horatio F. Brown et aI. (eds), 38 vols (London, 1864-1947). Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1603-1610 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 161/-1614 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1623-1625 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1625-1626 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1649-1650 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1655 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1679-1680 Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1685 William Camden. The History of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princess Elizabeth. Late Queen of England, 4th ed. (London, 1688). John Canne, A Seasonable Word to the Parliament-Men (London, 1659). Henry Cary (ed.), Memorials of the Great Civil War in England from 1646 to 1652, 2 vols (London, 1842). Robert Cary. Memoirs. Sir WaIter Scott (ed.) (Edinburgh. 1808). The Case of the People of England In Their Present Circumstances Considered; Shewing How far they are. or are not Obliged By The Oath of Allegiance (London, 1689). John Chamberlain, The Letters ofJohn Chamberlain. Norbert Egbert McClure (ed.). 2 vols (Philadelphia, 1939). Richard Chandler (publ.), The History and Proceedings of The House of Commons From the Restoration To The Present Time, 14 vols (London, 1742-4). Charles I, The Letters. Speeches and Proclamations of King Charles I, Sir Charles Petrie (ed.) (London, 1935). [Charles I and John Gauden], Eikon Basilike: The Portraiture of his Sacred Maj• esty in His Solitudes and Sufferings, Philip A. Knachel (ed.) (Ithaca, NY, 1966). Charles II, His Majesties Gracious Speech. Together with the Lord Chancellors. To both Houses of Parliament. On Thursday the 23d of May. 1678 (London, 1678). --, His Majesties Most Gracious Speech to Both Houses of Parliament. On Saturday the 9th of November. 1678 (London, 1678). Samuel Chidley, To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England [1657]. Earl of Clarendon, The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon. Lord High Chancellor of England. And Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Containing. I. An Account of the Chancellor's Life from his Birth to the Restoration in 1660. II. A Continuation of the same. and of his History of the Grand Rebellion. from the Restoration to his Banishment in 1667, 3rd ed., 3 vols (Oxford. 1761). Clarendon's Diary. See Singer. [Richard Claridge], A Defence of the Present Government Under King William & Queen Mary. Shewing the Miseries of England under the Arbitrary Reign of the Late King James II. The Reasonableness of the Proceedings against him. and the Happiness that will certainly follow a peaceable submission to. and standing by King William and Q. Mary (London, 1689). --, A Second Defence of the Present Government Under K. William. and Q. Mary. Delivered in a Sermon Preached October the 6th 1689. At St Swithin's in Worcester. Wherein is shewed, what God hath done already for us by their Majesties means, in respect of our civil and religious rights. What present Bibliography 313

supports he affords us under their conduct. The prospect we have of his future care and protection; and the invalidity of the assertions of the refusers of the new oaths (London, 1689). The Clarke Papers, C. H. Firth (ed.), Camden Society, new ser. 4 vols (London, 1891-1901). William Clarke, A Replie Unto a certaine Libell.latelie setfoorth by Fa: Parsons. in the name of united Priests, intituled, A manifestation of the great folly and bad spirit, ofcertaine in England, calling themselves seculer Priests . ... (London, 1603). [John Cleveland], Majestas Intemerata. Or, The Immortality of the King (1689). William Clitheroe. See Constable. William Cobbett (ed.), The Parliamentary History of England. From the Norman Conquest, In 1066, To the Year 1803, 36 vols (London, 1806-20). William Cobbett, T. B. Howell et at. (eds), A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings For High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors, 42 vols (London, 1816-98). Sir Edward Coke, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England; Con• cerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, 4th ed. (London, 1669). --, The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Knt. In Thirteen Parts, 6 vols (London, 1826). --, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Concerning High Treason, and other Pleas of the Crown, and Criminal Causes, 4th ed. (London, 1669). A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England. See Torbuck. A Collection of State Tracts Publish'd on the occasion of the late Revolution in 1688 and during the Reign of King William III, 3 vols (London 1705-7). [Jeremy Collier], Animadversions Upon the Modern Explanation of I I Hen. 7. Cap. I. Or. A King de Facto [1689]. --, The Desertion Discuss'd. In a Letter to a Country Gentleman (1689). --. Vindiciae Juris Regii: Or, Remarques upon a Paper. Entituled An Enquiry Into The Measures of Submission To The Supream Authority (London, 1689). John Colvill, Original Letters of Mr John Colville. 1582-1603. To which is added His Palinode. 1600 (Edinburgh. 1858). [Thomas Comber], A Letter to a Bishop Concerning the Present Settlement. And the New Oaths (London, 1689). [--], Religion and Loyalty Supporting each other. Or. A Rational Account How the Loyal Addressors Maintaining The Lineal Descent of the Crown, is very consistent with their affection to the established Protestant Religion. By a true son of the Church ()f England (London, 1681). Henry Constable, A Discoverye of A CounterJecte Conference HeIde at a Coun• terJecte Place, by CounterJecte travellers. for thadvancement of a counterJecte tytle. and invented. printed. and published by one (PERSON) that dare not avow his name (Collen, 1600). John Cook, King Charls his Case: Or, An Appeal to all Rational Men. Concerning his Tryal at the High Court of Justice. Being for the most part that which was intended to have been delivered at the Bar. if the King had pleaded to the Charge. and put himself upon a fair Tryal (London. 1649). Edward Cooke, Argumentum Anti-Normannicum (1682). See his A Seasonable Treatise. 314 Bibliography

[--]. The History of the Successions of the Kings of England. From Canutus the First Monarch (l682). [--], A Seasonable Treatise; Wherein is proved. That King William (commonly call'd The Conqueror) Did not get the Imperial Crown ofEngland by the Sword, butby the Election and Consent of the People. To whom he swore to observe the Original Contract between King and People (London, 1689). A re-issue of Argumentum Anti-Normannicum. Copies of the Informations and Original Papers Relating to the Proof of The Horrid Conspiracy Against the Late King, His Present Majesty, and the Gov• ernment: As it was Order'd to be Published by His Late Majesty (l685). A Copy of a Letter Written to an Officer of the Army by A true Commonwealths• man, and no Courtier, Concerning the Right and Settlement of our present Government and Governors (l656). John Cowell, The Interpreter of Words and Terms used either in the Common or Statute Laws of this Realm (London, 170l). Sir Thomas Craig, The Right of Succession to the Kingdom of England, In Two Bookes; Against the Sophisme of Parsons the Jesuite, Who assum'd the Coun• terfeit Name of Doleman; By which he endeavours to overthrow not only the Rights of Succession in Kingdoms, but also the Sacred Authority of Kings themselves (London, 1703). OliveI: Cromwell, The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, With Elucidations by Thomas Carlyle, S. C. Lomas (ed.), 3 vols (London, 1904). --, Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, 1644-1658, Charles L. Stainer (ed.) (London, 1901). J. D., A Word without Doors Concerning the Bill for Succession [London, 1679]. M. D., English Loyalty: Or, The Case of the Oath of Faith and Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary examined and resolved: In a Letter from a Father to his Son, two Divines of the Church of England (London, 1689). Sir John Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland. From the Dissolution of the last Parliament of Charles II until the Sea-Battle off La Hogue 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1771-3). The Debate At Large, Between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, At the Free Conference, Held In the Painted Chamber, in the Session of the Convention. Anno 1688. Relating to the Word, Abdicated, and the Vacancy of the Throne, In the Common's Vote (London, 1695). [Declaration of Ric1!ard to be Protector] (London, 1658). The Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland, containing the Claim ofRight, and the Offer of the Crown to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. Together with the Grievances represented by the Estates, and Their Maj• esties Oath at Their Acceptance of the Crown (Edinburgh, 11 April 1689). [Daniel Defoe], The Advantages of the Present Settlement, And the Great Danger of A Relapse (London, 1689). [--1, And What if the Pretender should come? Or Some Considerations of the Advantages And Real Consequences Of The Pretender's Possessing the Crown of Great Britain (London, 1713). [--1, An Answer To A Question That Nobody thinks of, VIZ. But what if the Queen should die? (London, 1713). [~], An Argument, Shewing, That the Prince of Wales, Tho' a Protestant, has Bibliography 315

no just Pretensions to the Crown of England. With some Remarks On The late pretended Discovery of a Design to steal him away (London, 1701). [--1, Reasons Against The Succession Of The House ofHanover. With An Enquiry How far the Abdication of King James. supposing it to be Legal. ought to affect the Person of the Pretender (London, 1713). [--1, Reflections Upon the Late Great Revolution. Written by a Lay-Hand in the Country. For the Satisfaction of some Neighbours (London, 1689). [--J, The Succession to the Crown of England, Considered (London, 1701). Lord Delarner, Henry Booth, The Works of the Right Honourable Henry late L. Delamer. and Earl of Warrington (London, 1694). The Desertion Discussed (1689). See Collier. A Dialogue Between Dick and Tom; Concerning the Present Posture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). A Dialogue between two Friends, wherein the Church of England is Vindicated in joining with the Prince of Orange in his Descent into England, in A Ninth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). Difference Between An Usurper And a Lawfull Prince, Explained In their several Characters, for the satisfaction of all men (1657). A Discourse betwixt Lieut. Col. John Lilburn, close prisoner in the Tower of Landon, and Mr Hugh Peter: upon Friday. May 25, 1649 [n.d.]. A Discourse Concerning the Nature. Power. And Proper Effects Of the Pr~sent Conventions In Both Kingdoms Called by the Prince of Orange. In a Letter to a Friend (London, 1689). A Discourse For A King and Parliament: In four Sections (London, 1660). A Discourse Shewing That it is Lawfull, and our Duty to swear Obedience to King William. Notwithstanding the Oath of Allegiance taken to the Late King. By a . Divine in the North (London, 1689). The Doctrine of Non-Resistance. See Bohun. The Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Jure Divino Disproved. See Hickes. R. Doleman, A Conference About the Next Succession To The Crowne of Ingland, . Divided Into Two Partes. Whereof The First Conteyneth The discourse of a civill Lawyer, how and in what manner propinquity of blood is to be preferred. And the second the speech of a Temporall Lawyer, about the particular titles of all such as do or may pretende within Ingland or without, to the next succession (1594). John Downes, A True and Humble Representation of John Downes Esq; touching the Death of the Late King, so far as he may be concerned therein [1660]. C[alybute] D[owning], A Discourse Of The State Ecclesiastical of This Kingdome, in relation to the Civill, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1634). [James Drake], The History of the Last Parliament, Began at Westminster, The Tenth Day of February, in the Twelfth Year of the Reign of King William, An. Dom. 1700 (London, 1702). John Dury, A Case ofConscience Concerning Ministers Medling with State Matters In or out of their Sermons resolved more satisfactorily than heretofore (London, 1650). Henry Ellis (ed.), Original Letters Illustrative of English History, 11 vols (London, 1824-46). 316 Bibliography

The English Constitution Fully Stated: With Some Animadversions On Mr Higden's Mistakes about it, In a Letter to a Friend (London, 1710). An Enquiry Into The Nature and Obligation of Legal Rights: With Respect to the Popular Pleas of The Late K. James's Remaining Right To The Crown, 2nd ed. (London, 1696). An Essay Upon the Original and Designe of Magistraeie. Or A Modest Vindication of the Late Proceedings in England. By one who Equally hates Rebellion and Tyranny (1689). John Evelyn, The Diary ofJohn Evelyn, E. S. deBeer (ed.), 6 vols (Oxford, 1955). E. F., A Letter From A Gentleman of Quality in the Country, to his Friend, upon . his being chosen a Member to serve in the Approaching Parliament, and desir• ing his Advice. Being an Argument relating to the Point of Succession to the Crown: Shewing From Scripture, Law, History, and Reason, how Improbable (if not impossible) it is to Bar the next Heir in the Right Line from the Succession (1679). [John Fell], The Interest of England Stated: Or A faithful and just Account of the Aims of all Parties now pretending (1659). [Robert Ferguson], A Brief Justification of the Prince of Orange's Descent Into England, And of the Kingdoms Late Recourse to Arms. With a Modest Disqui• sition of what may Become the Wisdom and Justice Of the Ensuing Convention, In Their Disposal of the Crown (London, 1689). [--.], A Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the Two Last Par• . liaments [London, 1681]. Sir Robert Filmer, Patriarcha and Other Political Works, Peter Laslett (ed.) (Oxford, 1949). C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (eds), Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642- 1660, 3 vols (London, 1911). Sir John Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum Angliae (London, 1616). Henry FouUs, The History of Romish Treasons and Usurpations: Together with a Particular Account of many gross Corruptions and Impostures In the Church of Rome. Highly dishonourable and injurious to Christian Religion (London, 1671). Four Questions Debated (Re-printed in the year, 1689). A Free Conference Concerning the Present Revolution of Affairs in England (London, 1689). A Friendly Conference Concerning the New Oath ofAllegiance To K. William, and Q. Mary, Wherein The Objections against taking the Oaths are impartialiy Examined, And the Reasons of Obedience Confirm'd, from the Writings of the profound Bishop Sanderson, And proved to agree to The Principles ofthe Church of England, and the Laws of the Land. By a Divine ofthat Church (London, 1689). A Friendly Debate Between Dr Kingsman, a Dissatisfied Clergy-man, And Gratianus Trimmer, a Neighhbour Minister, Concerning The Late Thanksgiving-Day; the Prince's Desent into England; the Nobility and Gentries joining with him; and Acts of the Honourable Convention; the Nature of our English Government; the Secret League with France,' the Oaths ofAliegiance and Supremacy, &c. (London, 1689). [Francis Fullwood], Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government: Or, a Discourse of This Monarchy, whether Elective or Hereditary? Also, ofAb• dication, Vacancy,lnterregnum, Present Possession ofthe Crown, and the Reputa• tion ofthe Church of England (London, 1689). [Also attributed to Daniel Whitby]. Bibliography 317

R. G., A Copy of a Letter from an Officer of the Army in Ireland, to his Highness the Lord Protector, concerning his changing of the Government (1654). W. G., The Case of Succession to the Crown of England Stated, In a Letter to a Member of the Honorable House of Commons. Being an Answer to that Pam• phlet that pretends to prove the Parliament hath no Power to alter Succession (1679). Samuel Rawson Gardiner (ed.), The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1628-1660 (Oxford, 1889). [-- Ghest], An Impartial Disquisition, how far Conquest gives the Conqueror a Title [1689]. Good Advice before it be too Late: Being a Breviate for the Convention: Humbly Represented to the Lords and Commons of England, in The Eighth Collection ofPapers Relating to the Present Juncture ofAffairs in England (London, 1689). John Goodwin, The Obstructours of Justice, Or A Defence of the Honourable Sentence passed upon the late King, by the High Court ofJustice (London, 1649). Humphrey Gower, The Speech of Doctor Gower (Edinburgh, 1681). Anchitel Grey (ed.), Debates of the House of Commons from the year 1667 to the year 1694, 10 vols (London, 1763). J[ ohn] H[all], The Grounds and Reasons ofMonarchy, Considered and exemplified out of the Scottish History (Edinburgh, 1651). [John Hall], The True Cavalier Examined by his Principles: AndfouM Not Guilty of Schism or Sedition (London, 1656). [Henry Hammond], Dr Hammond's brief Resolution of that Grand Case of Con• science, (necessary for these Times) concerning the Allegiance due to a Prince ejected by Force out of his Kingdoms: and how far the Subjects may comply with a present Usurped Power [1689]. --, To the Right Honourable, The Lord Fairfax, And His Councell of Warre: The Humble Addresse of Henry Hammond (London, 1649). [George Harbin], The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted,' The History of the Succession since the Conquest clear'd: and the True English Constitution vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Dr Higden's View and Defence. Wherein Some Mistakes also of our Common Historians are rectify'd: and several particulars relating to the Succession, and to the Title of the House of Suffolk, are now first publish'd from Ancient Records and Original MSS: together with an Authentick Copy of King Henry VI/I's Will (London, 1713). Francis Hargrave, The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted. See Harbin. Sir John Harington, Nugae Antiquae: Being a Miscellaneous Collection of Origi• nal Papers in Prose and Verse, Thomas Park (ed.), 2 vols (London, 1804). --, A Tract on the Succession to the Crown (A.D. 1602), Clements R. Markham (ed.) (London, 1880). Harleian Miscellany, J. Malham (ed.), 12 vols (London, 1808-10). Sir John Hayward, An Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, Con• cerning Succession, Published not long since under the name of R. Dolman (London, 1603). Edward Herbert, A Short Account of the Authorities in Law, upon which Judg• ment was given in Sir Edw. Hales his Case. Written by Sir Edw. Herbert, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, In Vindication of Himself (London, 1688). [George Hickes], An Apology For the New Separation: In a Letter to Dr John 318 Bibliography

Sharpe. Archbishop of York; Occasioned By his Farewell-Sermon. preached on the 28th of June. at St Giles's in the Fields (London. 1691). [-'-], The Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Jure Divino disproved. And Obe• dience to the present government. proved from Scripture. Law, and Reason. Written for the satisfaction of all those who are dissatisfyed at the present government (London, 1689). [--], Jovian. Or. An Answer to Julian The Apostate. By a Minister of London (London. 1683). [--], A Word to the Wavering: Or An Answer To The Enquiry Into The Present State ofAffairs: Whether we owe Allegiance to the King in these Circumstances? &c. (London, 1689). William Higden, A Defence of the View of the English Constitution with Respect to the Sovereign Authority of the Prince. and the Allegiance of the Subject (London, 1710). --, A View of the English Constitution. With Respect To the Sovereign Authority of the Prince. And the Allegiance of the Subject. In Vindication of the Lawful• ness of Taking the Oaths. To Her Majesty. by Law Required (London. 1709). His Majesties Gracious Speech. Together with the Lord Chancellors. To both Houses of Parliament. On Thursday the 23d of May. 1678 (London, 1678). His Majesties Letter to the Lords and Others of his Privy Councel, in A Ninth collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh Report, Appendix, Part II. 'The Manuscripts of the House of Lords 1678-1688' (London, 1887). Historical Manuscripts Commission, Twelfth Report, Appendix, Part VI. 'The Manu• scripts of the House of Lords, 1689-1690' (London, 1889). The History and Proceedings Of The House of Commons From the Restoration To The Present Time. See Chandler. The History and Proceedings Of The House of Lords. From the Restoration in 1660. To The Present Time. See Timberland. [Benjamin Hoadly], The Jacobite's Hopes reviv' d By our late Tumults and Addresses: Or. Some necessary Remarks Upon a new Modest Pamphlet of Mr Lesly's Against the Government. Entituled. The Good Old Cause: Or. Lying in Truth. &c. (London, 1710). Henry Hooke, 'Of Succession to the Crowne of England', British Library, Royal MS 17 BJG. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Georges Edelen (ed.), 3 vols (Cambridge, MA, 1977). Paul L. Hughes and James F. Larkin (eds), Tudor Royal Proclamations, 2 vols (New Haven, 1964-9). [Thomas Hunt], An Answer to a Book, Published 1679.lntituled. A Letter from a Gentleman of Quality In the Country, to his Friend, &c. Relating to the point of Succession to the Crown, &c. (London, 1682). [--), The Great and Weighty Considerations Relating to the Duke of York, or Successor of the Crown, Offered to the King, and both Houses of Parliament: Considered. With An Answer to a Letter from a Gentleman of Quality in the Country to his Friend. relating to the Point ofSuccession to the Crown. Whereunto is added, A short Historical Collection touching the same (London, 1682). --, Mr Hunt's Postscript for Rectifying some Mistakes in some of the Inferiour Bibliography 319

Clergy, Mischievous to our Government and Religion. With Two Discourses about the Succession, And Bill of Exclusion. In Answer to Two Books Affirming the Unalterable Right of Succession, and the Unlawfulness of the Bill of Exclu• sion (London, 1682). [--], A Short Historical Collection touching the Succession ofthe Crown (London, 1682). S[amuel] H[unton], The King of Kings: Or The Sovereignty of Salus Populi, over all Kings, Princes, and Powers whatsoever (London, 1655). The Impudent Babbler Baffled: Or, The Falsity of that Assertion Utter'd by Bradshaw, In Cromwell's New-Erected Slaughter-House, Namely, That Charles I was no Hereditary, but an Elective King,· depending solely on the Votes and SI/frages of the People; Detected and Confuted, By Lawyers, Divines, Histor• ians, Records of Parliament, and Authentick Pedigrees, lic. (London, 1705). An Inquisition After Blood. To the Parliament in statu quo nunc, and To the Army Regnant; Or any other whether Royallist, Presbyterian, Independent or Leveller, whom it may concern (1649). James I, The Political Works ofJames I, intro. by Charles Howard McDwain (New York, 1965). --, The Speech of King James the I. To Both Houses of Parliament Upon his Accession to, and the Happy Union ofBoth the Crowns ofEngland and, Scotland, Regally pronounced and expressed by him to them, Die Jovis 22th Martii 1603 (London, 1689). [James m, His Majesties Letter to the Lords and Others of his Privy Council, in A Ninth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). [Robert Jenkin], The Title of a Thorough Settlement Examined; In Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of the Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers, lic. With an Appendix in answer to Dr Sherlock's Vindication (London, 1691). Samuel Johnson, An Argument Proving, That the Abrogation of King James 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, 4th ed. (London, 1692). [--], Jovian. See Hickes. [--], Remarks Upon Dr Sherlock's Book, Intituled, The Case of the Allegiance Due To Soveraign Princes, Stated and Resolved, lic. (London, 1690). David Lewis Jones (ed.), A Parliamentary History of the Glorious Revolution (London, 1988). WUliam Jones, A Just and Modest Vindication. See Ferguson. Journals of the House of Commons Journals of the House of Lords A Justification of the Whole Proceedings Of Their Majesties King William And Queen Mary, of their Royal Highnesses Prince George and Princess Ann, Of the Convention, Army, Ministers of State, and others, in this Great Revolution (London, 1689). W[hite] K[ennet], A Dialogue Between Two Friends, Occasioned by the late Revo• lution of Affairs, And the Oath of Allegiance (London, 1689). 320 Bibliography

John Knox, The Works ofJohn Knox, David Laing (ed.), 6 vols (Edinburgh, 1846- 64). James F. Larkin (ed.), Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. IT: Royal Proclamations of King Charles I. 1625-1646 (Oxford, 1983). James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughes (eds), Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. I: Royal Proclamations of King James I, 1603-1625 (Oxford, 1973). William Lawrence. Marriage by the Morall Law of God Vindicated Against all Ceremonial Laws of Popes and Bishops destructive to Filiation Aliment and Succession and the Government of Familyes and Kingdomes (1680). --, The Right of Primogeniture In Succession to the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland: As Declared By the Statutes of 25 E 3. Cap. 2 De Proditionibus, King of England, And of Kenneth the Third, and Malcolm Mackinneth The Second, Kings of Scotland. As Likewise of 10 H. 7. made by a Parliament ofIreland; With all Objections answered, and clear Probation made, That to Compass or Imagine the Death, Exile, or Disinheriting of the King's Eldest Son, is High Treason. To which is added. An Answer to all Objections against Dftclaring him a Protestant Successor, with Reasons shewing the Fatal Dangers of Neglecting the same (London, 1.681). [--], Two Great Questions Determined By the Principles of Reason & Divinity. I. Whether the Right to Succession, in Haereditary Kingdoms, be Eternal and Unalterable? Neg. 11. Whether some certain Politick Reasons may not be suf• ficient Grounds of Divorce? Affirm (London, 1681). George Lawson, Politica Sacra & Civilis: Or, A Model of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government. Wherein, Besides the positive Doctrine concerning State and Church in general, Are debated the principal Controversies of the Times concerning the Constitution of the State and Church of England, Tending to Righteousness, Truth, and Peace, 2nd ed. (London, 1689). [Charles Leslie], A Battle Royal Between Three Cocks of the Game. Mr Higden, Mr Hoadly, Mr Hottentote. By a Man of Leasure (London, 1711). [--], The Best Answer Ever was Made. And to which no Answer Ever will be Made. (Not to be behind Mr Hoadly in Assurance). In Answer to his Bill of Complaint Exhibited against the Lord Bishop of Exeter, For his Lordship's Sermon Preach'd before Her Majesty, March 8. 1708. Address'd in a Letter to the said Mr Hoadly Himself. By a Student of the Temple (London, 1709). [--], Best ofAll Being The Student's Thanks to Mr Hoadly. Wherein Mr Hoadly's Second Part of His Measures of Submission (Which he Intends soon to Publish) is fully Answer'd. 1/ this does not stop it. And the only Original of Government is fully Demonstrated. And that is a Law to all Ages. In a Letter to Himself, which he is Desir'd to send, as an Eye-Salve to his Under-sp,urleather Mr Stoughton the State-Haranguer in Ireland, 3rd ed. (London, 1710). [--], The Constitution, Laws and Government of England Vindicated. In a Letter to the Reverend Mr William Higden. On Account of his View of the English Constitution, with Respect to the Soveraign Authority of the Prince, &c. In Vindication of the Lawfulness of Taking the Oaths, &c. By a Natural Born , Subject (London, 1709). [--], The Finishing Stroke. Being A Vindication of The Patriarchal Scheme of Government, In Defence of The Rehearsals, Best Answer, And Best of All. Wherein Mr Hoadly's Examination ofthis Scheme in his late Book of the Original and Institution of Civil Government, is fully consider'd. To which are Added, Bibliography 321

Remarks on Dr Higden's late Defence, In a Dialogue between Three H-'s (London, 1711). [--1, The Good Old Cause, Further Discuss'd.In a Letter To The Author of the Jacobite's Hopes Reviv'd (London, 1710). [--], The WolfStript Of His Shepherd's Cloathing,In Answer to a late Celebrated Book Intitul'd, Moderation a Virtue, Wherein The Designs of the Dissenters against the Church: And their Behaviour towards Her Majesty both in England and Scotland are laid open. With the Case of Occasional Conformity Consid• ered, 4th ed. (London and Westminster, 1704). [Roger L'Estrangel, An Account of the Growth of Knavery, Under the Pretended Fears of Arbitrary Government, and Popery. With A Parallel betwixt the Re• formers of 1677, and those of 1641, in their Methods, and Designs (London, 1678). A Letter From A French Lawyer To An English Gentleman, Upon the Present Revolution (London, 1689). A Letter From A Lawyer in the Countrey To A Member of Parliament: Or,Indem• nity the Effect of Vacancy (London, 1689). A Letter From a Loyal Member OfThe Church ofEngland To A Relenting Abdicator (London, 1689). A Letter from an absent Lord to one of his Friends in the Convention (1689). A Letter from Major General Ludlow to Sir E. S. Comparing the Tyranny of the first four Years of King Charles the Martyr, with the Tyranny of the four Years Reign of the Late Abdicated King. Occasioned by the reading ofDoctor Pelling' s Lewd Harangues upon the 30th of January, being the Anniversary Dr General Madding-Day (Amsterdam, 1691). A Letter on the Subject of the Succession (London, 1679). A Letter to a Friend, advising in this Extraordinary Juncture, how to free the Nation from Slavery for ever (Jan. 5. 1688), in A Sixth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (1689). A Letter to the Bishop of Sarum: Being an Answer To his Lordships Pastoral Letter. From a Minister in .the Countrey (1690). The Letter Which was sent to the Author of The Doctrine ofPassive Obedience and Jure Divino Disproved, &c. Answered and Refuted (London, 1689). A Letter Writ by a Clergy-Man To His Neighbour. Concerning The Present Cir• cumstances of the Kingdom, and the Allegiance that is due to the King and Queen (London, 1689). William Lloyd, A Discourse of God's ways of Disposing of Kingdoms. Part I. By the Bishop of S. Asaph, Lord Almoner to Their Majesties. Published by Author• ity (London, 1691). John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett (ed.) (Cambridge: Cam• bridge University Press, 1960). Roger Lockyer (ed.), The Trial of Charles I (London, 1974). The Lords and Commons Reasons and Justifications for the Deprivation and Deposal of James II From the Imperial Throne of England. Being in full satisfaction to all the Princes of Europe, and in Answer to all Objections, Domestick and Foraign (Edinburgh, 1689). A Lord's Speech Without Doors, To the Lords upon the present Condition of the Government, in A Ninth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). 322 Bibliography

Edmund Ludlow, The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow. Lieutenant-General of the Horse in the Army of the Commonwealth of England. 1625-1672, C. H. Firth (ed.), 2 vols (Oxford, 1894). Charles Howard Mcllwain (ed.), The Political Works ofJames 1 (New York, 1965). Niccoli> Machiavelli, The Prince, Daniel Donno (ed.) (New York. 1966). Sir George Mackenzie, Jus Regium: Or. the Just. and Solid Foundations of Mon• archy.ln General. and more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland: Maintain'd against Buchannan. Naphthali. Dolman. Milton. &c. By Sir George Mackenzie. His Majesties Advocat (Edinburgh. 1684). --, That the Lawful Successor Cannot be Debarr'd From Succeeding to the Crown: Maintained against Dolman. Buchannan. and others. By Sir George Mackenzie. His Majesties Advocat (Edinburgh, 1684). John Manningham, The Diary of John Manningham of the Middle Temple. 1602- 1603, Robert Parker Sorlien (ed.) (Hanover, NH, 1976). [Samuel Masters], The Case ofAllegiance in our Present Circumstances Consider·d. In a Letter from a Minister in the City. to a Minister in the Country (London, 1689). [Henry Maurice], The Lawfulness ofTaking the New Oaths Asserted (London, 1689). [John Maxwell], Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas: Or The Sacred and Royal Pre• rogative of Christian Kings (London, 1680). Memorials on Both Sides. From the Year 1687. to the Death of K. James II. With divers original papers never before published. useful fo,. such as desire to be fully informed in the true state of the Revolution and the Birth of the Pretender (London, 1711). Mercurius Politicus (1657), in The English Revolution Jll: Newsbooks 5, vol. 15 (London, 1971). [John Milton], A Copy of a Letter from an Officer of the Army in Ireland. See title. Nicolo Molin, 'Report on England presented to the Government of Venice in the year 1601', in CSP Venetian, vol. X, pp. 501-24. Roger Morrice, 'The Ent'ring Book. Being an Historical Register of Occur• rences from April An: 1677 to April 1691', 4 vols, Dr Williams' Library, MS 31 Q. J. G. Muddiman (ed.), Trial of King Charles the First (Edinburgh, 1928). [Earl of Mulgrave], Humanum est Errare; or False Steps on Both Sides [1689]. John Nalson, The Common Interest of King and People: Shewing the Original. Antiquity and Excellency of Monarchy. Compared with Aristocracy and Demo• cracy. And particularly of Our English Monarchy: And That Absolute. Papal and Presbyterian Popular Supremacy Are utterly inconsistent with Prerogative. Property and Liberty (London, 1678). [--]. The Complaint of Liberty & Property Against Arbitrary Government: Dedicated to all True English Men. and Lovers of Liberty. Laws. and Religion (London, 1681). [--1, England Bought and Sold: Or. A Discovery of A Horrid Design To Destroy the Antient Liberty Ofall the Free-Holders In England, In the Choice ofMembers to Serve In the Honourable House of Commons In Parliament. By a Late Libel Entituled, The Certain Way to Save England. &c. (London, 1681). Sir Robert Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia,' or. Observations on the late Queen Elizabeth, her Times and Favourites, Sir Walter Scott (ed.) (Edinburgh, 1808). The Necessity of Setling the Crown of England (1689). Bibliography 323

Marchamont Nedham, The Case of the Commonwealth of England Stated, Philip A. Knachel (ed.) (Charlottesville, VA, 1969). A New History of the Succession of the Crown of England. And more particularly, From the Time of King Egbert, till King Henry the Eighth (London, 1690). Sir Edward Nicholas, The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence ofSir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, vol. I: 1641-1652, George F. Warner (ed.), Camden Society, new ser. (London, 1886). John Nichols (ed.), The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols (London, 1823). The Old English Constitution, ,In Relation to the Hereditary Succession of the Crown, Antecedent to the Revolution in 1688 (London, 1714). The Opinion of two' eminent Parliament-Men, justifYing the lawfulness of taking the Oaths of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, in Eleventh Col• lection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England and Scotland (London, 1689). [Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby], The Thoughts Of A Private Person; About the Justice of the Gentlemen's Undertaking at York. Nov. 1688. Wherein is Shewed, That it is neither against Scripture, nor Moral honesty, to defend their just and Legal Rights, against the Illegal Invaders of them (1689). John Overall, Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book, MDCVI. Concerning the Gov• ernment of God's Catholick Church, And the Kingdoms of the Whole World (London, 1690). Charles Paget. See Constable. [Henry Parker], The True Portraiture of the Kings of England,' Drawn from their Titles, Successions, Raigns and Ends. Or, A Short and Exact Historical descrip• tion of every King, with the Right they have had to the Crown, and the manner of their wearing of it; especially from William the Conqueror. Wherein is dem• onstrated, that there hath been no direct succession in the line to create an hereditary right, for six or seven hundred years,' faithfully collected out of our best histories, and humbly presented to the Parliament ofEngland (London, 1650). Parliamentary Right Maintain' d or the Hanover Succession Justify'd. Wherein The Hereditary Right to the Crown of England Asserted &c., is considered, in 1lI Parts (1714). Parsons, A Conference About the Next Succession. See Doleman. R. F. Patterson (ed.), Ben Jonson's Conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden (London, 1924). [Edward Pelling], The Apostate Protestant. A Letter to a Friend, Occasioned By the late Reprinting of a 1esuites Book. About Succession To The Crown of England, Pretended to have been written by R. Doleman (London, 1682). Samuel Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Robert Latham and William Matthews (eds), 11 vols (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970-83). Pereat Papa: Or Reasons Why a Presumptive Heir, or Popish Successor Should not Inherit the Crown [London, 1681]. A Political Conference Between Aulicus, a Courtier; Demas, a Country-man; and Civicus, a Citizen: Clearing the Original of Civil Government, The Powers and Duties of Soveraigns and Subjects (London, 1689). John Ponet, A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, and of the True Obedience which Subjectes Owe to Kynges and Other Civile Governours, With an Exhortacion to All True Naturall Englishe men (1556). 324 Bibliography

The Present Convention, A Parliament (1689). Proposals Humbly offered To the Lords and Commons in the present Convention, for Settling of the Government, &c, in The Eighth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). Proposals to this present Convention, for the perpetual Security of the Protestant Religion, and the Liberty of the Subjects of England. Humbly Offered by the Author of the Breviate, in The Eighth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). Proteus Ecclesiasticus: Or, Observations On Dr Sh---..! s, late Case of Allegiance, &c. In A Letter to Mr P. W. Merchant in London (London, 1691). Queries to the New Hereditary Right-Men (London, 1710). Sir Walter Ralegh, The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Thomas Birch (ed.), 2 vols (London, 1751). Evelyn Plummer Read and Conyers Read (eds.), Elizabeth of England: Certain Observations Concerning the Life and Reign of Queen Elizabeth by John Clap• ham (philadelphia, 1951). Reasonsfor Crowning the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen jointly; and for placing the Executive Power in the Prince alone, in A Ninth Collection ofPapers Relating to the Present Juncture ofAffairs in England (London, 1689). Reasons humbly offer'd, for placing his Highness the Prince of Orange, singly in the Throne during his Life, in The Eighth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London, 1689). Reflections upon our Late and Present Proceedings in England, in A Tenth Col• lection ofPapers Relating to the Present Juncture ofAffairs in England (London, 1689). Reflections Upon the Present State of the Nation [1688]. A Remonstrance and Protestation Of All The Good Protestants Of This Kingdom, Against Deposing their Lawful Sovereign King James II. With Reflections Thereupon (London, 1689). A Report From the Committee of Secrecy, Appointed by Order of the House of Commons to Examine Several Books and Papers laid before the House, relating to the late Negotiations of Peace and Commerce, &c. Reported on the Ninth of June, 1715. By the.Right Honourable Robert Walpole, Esq.; Chairman of the said Committee. Publish'd by Order of the House of Commons (London, 1715). Sir John Reresby, Memoirs of Sir John Reresby (London, 1734). The Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles Stated and Compar' d, The Consti• tution Explain'd and Vindicated, And the Justice and Necessity of Excluding the Pretender Maintain' d against the Book Entituled, Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted. By the Author of the Two Dissuasives against Jacobitism, 2nd ed. (London, 1714). Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols (London, 1832). [Francis Rous], The Lawfulnes of Obeying the Present Government. And Acting Un• der It, With some other Additions to aformer Edition. By one that Loves all Pres• byterian lovers of Truth and Peace, and is of their Communion (London, 1649). Henry Sacheverell, A Defence of Her Majesty's Title to the Crown, And A Justi• fication of Her Entring into a War with France and Spain: As it was Deliver'd in a Sermon Preach'd before the University of Oxford On the 10th Day of June 1702 . ... Being the Discourse referr'd to In the Doctor's Answer to the Articles of Impeachment against him, 2nd ed. (London, 1710). Bibliography 325

Salus Populi Suprema Lex: Or, The Free Thoughts of a Well-Wisher for a good Settlement in Scotland. In a Letter to a Friend (Edinburgh, 1689). The Secret History of the Reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II (1690). A Sermon Preached before Their Majesties K. James II and Q. Mary, at their Coronation in Westminster-Abbey, April 23, 1685, by Francis Lord Bishop of Ely, Lord Almoner to His Majesty (London. 1685). [Blkanah Settle], The Character of A Popish Successour, And What England May Expect From Such a One. Humbly offered to the Consideration of Both Houses ofParliament, Appointed to meet at Oxford, On the One and twentieth ofMarch, 168011 (London. 1681). Several Queries Relating to the present Proceedings in Parliament,' More especially recommended to the Consideration of the Bishops. in The Eighth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (London. 1689). Severall Speeches Delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parliament to proceed against their Kingfor Misgovernment (London, 1648). See Doleman. A Conference. Robert Sheringham. The King's Supremacy Asserted: Or a Remonstrance of the King's Right Against the Pretended Parliament. 3rd ed. (London. 1682). William Sherlock. The Case of the Allegiance Due to Soveraign Powers, Further Consider'd and Defended,' With A more particular Respect to the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience. Together With a Seasonable Perswasive to our New Dissenters (London. 1691). --. The Case of the Allegiance Due to Soveraign Powers, Stated and Resolved, According to Scripture and Reason. And The Principles of the Church of Eng• land, With A more particular Respect to the Oath, lately enjoyned, ofAllegiance to Their Present Majesties, K. William and Q. Mary. 2nd ed. (London, 1691). [--1. A Letter to A Member of the Convention (1688). [--1. Their Present Majesties Government Proved to be Thoroughly Settled, And That we may Submit to it, without Asserting the Principles ofMr Hobbs. Shewing also, That Allegiance was not Due to the Usurpers after the late Civil War. Occasion'd by some Late Pamphlets against the Reverend Dr Sherlock (London. 1691). --. A Vindication of the Case of Allegiance Due to Soveraign Powers, In Reply to an Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, Obedience and Submission to the Present Government, demonstrated from Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book,' with a Postscript in Answer to Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, &c. (London. 1691). John Shirley. The Illustrious History of Women, Or, A Compendium of the many Virtues that adorn the Fair Sex (London, 1686). A Short Historical Account Touching the Succession (1689). A Short Scheme of the Usurpations That have been made By several of our former Princes, upon the Rightful Heirs to this Crown; With the Sad and Desolate Effects that were Consequent thereupon [London. 1689]. Algernon Sidney. Discourses Concerning Government. Thomas O. West (ed.) (Indianapolis. 1990). --. A Just and Modest Vindication. See Ferguson. Sidney Redivivus: Or the Opinion of the Late Honourable Gollonel Sidney, As to Civil Government (London. 1689). Samuel Weller Singer (ed.). The Correspondence ofHenry Hyde, Earl ofClarendon, 326 Bibliography

and of his Brother, Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester; with the Diary of Lord Clarendon from 1687 to 1690, 2 vols (London. 1828). Sir Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum: A Discourse on the Commonwealth of England (New York, 1974). Some Considerations Touching Succession And Allegiance (London, 1689). Some Modest Remarks On Dr Sherlock's New Book About the Case of Allegiance Due to Soveraign Powers, &c. In a Letter to a Friend (London, 1691). Some Remarks upon Government, And particularly upon the Establishment of the English Monarchy Relating to this present Juncture. In Two Letters, Written by, and to a Member of the Great Convention, holden at Westminster the 22d of January, 1688/9 [1689]. Some Short Considerations Concerning the State of the Nation [1689]. Some Short Considerations Relating to the Settling Of The Government; Humbly ofjer'd to the Lords and Commons of England, Now Assembled at Westminster (London. 1689). [John Somers]. A Brief History of the Succession, Collected Out of the Records, and the most Authentick Historians [London, 1680]. John Somers. A Just and Modest Vindication. See Ferguson. Somers Tracts. A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts . .. Selected from . .. Public as well as Private Libraries, Particularly That of the Late Lord Somers, Sir Walter Scott (ed.), 13 vols (London. 1809-15). A Sort of An Answer To A Piece ofA Book Entitled A Battle Royal. In A Dialogue. To which is prefix'd an Epistle to the Author of the Rehearsals, alias The Student of the Temple, alias The Natural-Born-Subject, alias The Man of Lei• sure; &c.&c.&c. (London, 1711). W. A. Speck (ed.). An Anonymous Parliamentary Diary, 1705-6. Camden Society, 4th ser. (London, 1969). A Speech of a Fellow Communer of England to his Fellow Communers of the Convention (1689). Thomas Sprat, A True Account and Declaration of The Horrid Conspiracy Against the Late King, His Present Majesty, and the Government: As it was Order'd to be Published by His Late Majesty (1685). Statutes of the Realm. T. E. Tomlins et aI. (eds). 11 vols (London, 1810-28). Francis W. Steer (ed.). Orders For the Regulation of the Household of Charles Prince of Wales (Afterwards King Charles JJ) (Litchfield, 1959). [Edward Stephens], Important Questions Of State, Law, Justice and Prudence, Both Civil and Religious, Upon the Late Revolutions And Present State of These Nations. By Socrates Christianus (London, 1689). [--]. Reflections Upon the Occurrences Of The Last Year. From 5 Nov. 1688 to 5 Nov. 1689. Wherein the Happy Progress of the late Revolution, and the Unhappy Progress of Affairs since, are considered; The original of the latter discovered, and the proper Means for Remedy proposed and recommended (London, 1689). George Stepney, An Essay upon the present Interest of England (1701), in Somers Tracts, vol. ii (London. 1814). [Edward Stillingfieet]. A Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of A New Separation, On account of the Oaths. With An Answer to the History of Passive Obedience, So far as relates to Them (London, 1689). John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion, and Its Bibliography 327

Reformation, Under the Reigns ofKing Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary, 7 vols (London, 1816). [Nahum Tate], A Present for the Ladies: Being An Historical Vindication of the Female Sex (London, 1692). 'S~rjeant Thorpe, Judge of Assize for the Northern Circuit, his Charge; as it was delivered to the Grand Jury at York Assizes, the Twentieth of March, 1648', Harleian Miscellany, vol. ii (1965). Three Propositions From the Case of our Three Nations (London, 1659). John Thudoe, A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe, Thomas Birch (ed.), 7 vols (London, 1742). John Tillotson, A Sermon Preached at Uncolns-Inn-Chappel, on the 31th of Janu• ary, 1688. Being the Day Appointed for A Publick Thanksgiving To Almighty God For having made His Highness The Prince of Orange The Glorious Instru• ment tithe Great Deliverance of the Kingdomfrom Popery & Arbitrary Power (London, 1689). Ebenezer Timberland (publ.), The History and Proceedings ofThe House of Lords, From the Restoration in 1660, To The Present Time, 8 vols (London, 1741-2). [John Toland], The Art of Restoring. Or, The Piety and Probity of General Monk In bringing about The lasi Restoration, Evidenc'dfrom his own Authentic Let• ters: With a Just Account of Sir Roger, Who runs the Parallel as far as he can. In a Letter To A Minister of State, at the Court of Vienna (London, 1714). [--1, The Grand Mystery Laid Open; Namely, By Dividing of the Protestants to weaken the' Hanover Succession, and by defeating the Succession, to extirpate the Protestant Religion (London, 1714). [--1, I. Reasons for Addressing His Majesty to invite into England their High• nesses, the Electress Dowager and the Electoral Prince ofHanover. And likewise, II. Reasons for Attainting and abjuring the pretended Prince of Wales, and all others pret~nding any Claim, Right, or Title from the late King James and Queen Mary (London, 1702). [John Torbuck, (ed.)], A Collection of the Parliamentary De.bates In England, From The Year M,DC,LXVII. To the present Time, 21 vols (1739-42). Treason Unmask'd: Or the Queen's Title, The Revolution, And the Hanover Suc• cession Vindicated. Against the Treasonable Positions ofa Book lately Publish'd, Intitled, The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted,· the History of the Succession since the Conquest clear'd, and the true English Constitution vindicated, from the Misrepresentations of Dr Higden's View and Defence (London, 1713). A Treatise Concerning the Broken Succession of the Crown of England: Incul• cated, about the later end of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Not impertinent for the better 'com pleating of the general information intended (London, 1655). See Doleman, A Conference. The Trimming Court-Divine. Or Reflex/ons on Dr Sherlock's Book of the Lawful• ness of Swearing Allegiance to the Present Government (1690). A True Account of The Late Bloody and Inhumane Conspiracy Against His High• ness The Lord Protector, and this Commonwealth (London, 1654). Sir Roger Twysden, Certaine Considerations Upon the Government of England, John Mitchell Kemble (ed.), Camden Society, old ser. (London, 1849). A Vindication of the Revolution or a Hearty Endeavour to unite all the Members of the Church of England to the present Government in a Dialogue between 328 Bibliography

a Jacobite Tory and a Williamite Tory wherein the Common Scruples are endeavour'd to be answer'd & mistakes remov'd, BL, Stowe MS 291. [Thomas Wagstaffe], An Answer to a late Pamphlet, entituled, Obedience and Submission To The Present Government, Demonstrated From Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book. Together With a Particular Answer to Dr Sherlock's late Case of Allegiance, &c. (London, 1690). Earl of Warrington. See Delamer. Sir A[nthony] W[eldon], The Court and Character of King James. Whereunto is now added The Court of King Charles: Continued Unto the beginning of these unhappy Times (London, 1651). James Welwood, A Vindication of the present Great Revolution In England; In Five Letters Pass'd betwixt James We/wood, M. D. and Mr John March, Vicar . of Newcastle upon Tyne. Occasion'd by a Sermon Preach'd by him on January 30,168819. before The Mayor and Aldermen, for Passive Obedience and Non• Resistance (London. 1689). Peter Wentworth, A Pithie Exhortation to Her Majestie for Establishing Her Suc• cessor to the Crowne. Whereunto is Added a Discourse Containing the Authors Opinion of the True and Lawfull Successor to her Majestie (1598). --, A Treatise Containing M. Wentworths Judgement Concerning The Person of the True and lawfull successor to these Realmes of England and Ireland. Wherein The Title is Briefly and Plain lie Set down: Dolmans objections refuted, and inconveniences removed. Made two yeeres before his death, but published a yeere after his death for the publicke benefite of this Realme (1598). Daniel Whitby, Agreement Betwixt the Present and the Former Government. See Fullwood. Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs from the beginning of the Reign of Charles the First to the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second, 4 vo1s (Oxford, 1853). [--1, Monarchy Asserted, To be the best, most Ancient and legall form of Gov• ernment, in a conference had at Whitehall, with Oliver late Lord Protector & a Committee of Parliament (London, 1660). Sir Roger Wilbraham, The Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham, Solicitor-General in Ireland and Master of Requests,for the Years 1593-1616, Harold Spencer Scott (ed.), Camden Society, 3rd ser. (London, 1902). [John Wildman], A Memorial from the English Protestants, To their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange, Concerning their Grievances, and the Birth ofthe Pretended Prince ofWales [London, 1688], in A Collection of State Tracts, vol. I (London, 1705). William m, The Declaration of His Highness William Henry, By the Grace of God, Prince of Orange, &c. Of the Reasons inducing him to appear in Arms in the Kingdom of England, for preserving of the Protestant Religion, and for restoring the Laws and Liberties of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1688). --, His Highnesses Additional Declaration (1688). E. N. Williams (ed.), The Eighteenth-Century Constitution (Cambridge, 1960). Walter Williams, An Answer To Sundry Matters contain'd in Mr Hunt's Post- script, To His Argument, For the Bishops Right in judging in Capital Causes in Parliament. Viz . ... 3. As to his false Affirmations, that the Succession of the Crown is the Peoples Right; and that not only the Line of Succession, but Bibliography 329

Monarchy it self may be alter'd . ... By Wa. Williams of the Middle Temple, a Barrister at Law (London, 1683). Thomas Wilson, The State of England Anno Dom. 1600, F. J. Fisher (ed.), Camden Society, 3rd ser. (London, 1936). A Word to the Wise, For Setling the Government (London, 1689).

SECONDARY SOURCES

ALLEN, J. W. A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, reprint ed. (London: Methuen, 1977). AXTON, MARIE The Queen's Two Bodies: Drama and the Elizabethan Succes• sion (London: Royal Historical Society, 1977). BAlLEY, ALFRED The Succession to the English Crown (London: Macmillan, 1879). BAXTER, STEPHEN B. William III and the Defense of European Liberty, 1650- 1702 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966). BLACKSTONE, WILLIAM Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765). CATTERALL, R. C. H. 'The Failure of the Humble Petition and Advice', AHR, IX (1903) 36-65. CHEYNEY, EDWARD P. A History of England From the Defeat of the Armada to the Death of Elizabeth, reprint ed., 2 vols (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1967). CHRIMES, STANLEY B. English Constitutional Ideas In The Fifteenth Century (Cambridge: University Press, 1936). CLARK, J. C. D. English Society 1688-1832 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). COLLINSON, PATRICK 'The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth 1', Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, LXIX (1987) 394-424. CONDREN, CONAL George Lawson's Politica And The English Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). COOPER, J. P. 'Patterns of inheritance and settlement by great landowners from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries', in Jack Goody, et a1. (eds), Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800 (Cambridge: Cam• bridge University Press, 1976) 192-327. --, 'A Revolution in Tudor History?' P&P, 26 (1963) 110-12. CRUICKSHANKS, EVELINE, HAYTON, D., and JONES, C. 'Division in the House of Lords on the Transfer of the Crown and Other Issues, 1689-1694: Ten New Lists', BIHR, Lm (1980) 56-87. DALY, J. W. 'The Origins and Shaping of English Royalist Thought', Historical Papers of the Canadian Historical Association (Toronto: Canadian Historical Association, 1974) 15-35. Dictionary of National Biography, Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (eds), 63 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1885-1900). DICKINSON, H. T. 'The Eighteenth-Century Debate on the "Glorious Revolu• tion"', History, LXI (1976) 28-45. 330 Bibliography

--, 'The Eighteenth-Century Debate on the Sovereignty of Parliament', TRHS, 5th ser., XXVI (1976) 189-210. DUNHAM, WILLIAM HUSE, JR. and WOOD, CHARLES T. 'The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority, 1327-1485', AHR, LXXXI (1976) 738-61. ECHARD, LAWRENCE The History of England, 3 vols (London, 1707-18). EDIE, CAROLYN A. 'The Popular Idea of Monarchy on the Eve of the Stuart Restoration', HLQ, XXXIX (1976) 343-73. ELTON, G. R. England Under the Tudors, 3rd ed. (London: Methuen, 1991). FALKUS, CHRISTOPHER (ed.), The Private Lives of the Tudor Monarchs (London: Folio Society, 1974). FlGGIS, JOHN NEVILLE The Divine Right of Kings, pb. ed. (New York: Hatper & Row, 1965). FIRTH, C. H. 'Cromwell and the Crown', EHR, xvn (1902) 429-42 and XVllI (1903) 52-80. --, The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656-1658, 2 vols (London: Longmans, Green, 1909). FRANKLE, ROBERT J. 'Parliament'S Right to Do Wrong: The Parliamentary At• tainder Against Sir John Fenwick, 1696', Parliamentary History, 4 (1985) 71- 85. GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON History of the Commonwealth and Protector• ate, 1649-1656,4 vols (London: Longmans, Green, 1903). --, History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649, 4 vols (London: Longmans, Green, 1901). GOLDm, MARK 'Edmund Bohun and Jus Gentium in the Revolution Debate, 1689-1693', HI, 20 (1977) 569-86. --, 'The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument: An Essay and an Annotated Bibliography of Pamphlets on the Allegiance Controversy', Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 83 (1980) 473-564. --, 'The Roots of True Whiggism 1688-94', History of Political Thought, I (1980) 195-236. . GOUGH, J. W. Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). HALEY, K. H. D. The First Earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). HARRIS, TIM Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided So• ciety, 1660-1715 (London: Longman, 1993). HATION, RAGNHILD George 1: Elector and King (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978). HAUSE, B. MALCOLM 'The Nomination of Richard Cromwell', The Historian, xxvn (1965). HENNING, BASIL DUKE (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Com• mons, 1660-1690, 3 vols (London: Secker & Warburg, 1983). HICKS, L., S. J., 'Father Robert Persons S. J. and The Book of Succession', Recusant History, IV (1957) 104-137. HICKS, LBO 'Sir Robert Cecil, Father Persons, and the Succession, 1600-1601', Archivum Historicum Societatis lesu, XXIV (1955) 95-139. HIRST, DEREK Authority and Conflict: England, 1603-1658 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). Bibliography 331

HOLMES, GEOFFREY British Politics in the Age of Anne, rev. ed. (London: Hambledon Press, 1987). HOLMES, PETER 'The Authorship and Early Reception of A Conference About the Next Succession to the Crown of England', HI, 23 (1980) 415- 29. --, Resistance and Compromise: The Political Thought of the Elizabethan Catholics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). HORWITZ, HENRY 'Parliament and the Glorious Revolution', BIHR, XLVII (1974) 36-52. --, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977). --, Revolution Politicks: The Career ofDaniel Finch Second Earl ofNottingham, 1647-1730 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). --, '1689 (and all that)', Parliamentary History, 6 (1987) 23-32. HURSTFIELD, JOEL 'The Succession Struggle in Late Elizabethan England', in S. T. Bindoff, et al. (eds), Elizabethan Government and Society: Essays Pre• sented to Sir John Neale (London: Athlone Press, 1961), 369-96. HUTTON, RONALD The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658-1667 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). JACOB, GILES The Law-Dictionary (London, 1797). JONES, 1. R. Charles II: Royal Politician (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987). JUDSON, MARGARET From Tradition to Political Reality: A Study of the Ideas Set Forth in Support of the Commonwealth Government in England, 1649-1653 (Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press, 1980). KANTOROWICZ, ERNST H. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957). KATZ, STANLEY N. 'RepUblicanism and the Law of Inheritance in the American Revolutionary Era', Michigan Law Review 76 (1977) 1-29. KENYON, J. P. Revolution Principles: The Politics of Party. 1689-1720 (Cam• bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). LEVINE, MORTIMER The Early Elizabethan Succession Question 1558-1568 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966). --, 'A Parliamentary Title to the Crown of England' , HLQ, XXV (1961-62) 121- 7. --, Tudor Dynastic Problems. 1460-1571 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973). LOOMIE, ALBERT J., S. J., 'Philip III and the Stuart Succession in England, 16~1603', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire, XLm (1965) 492-514. LUCAS, PAUL 'Two Paths of Descent' (unpublished essay). MACAULAY, T. B. The History of England From the Accession of James the Second, C. H. Firth (ed.), 6 vols (London: Macmillan, 1913-15). MAITLAND, F. W. The Constitutional History of England, pb ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961). MAYFIELD, NOEL HENNING Puritans and Regicide: Presbyterian-Independent Differences over the Trial and Execution of Charles (1) Stuart (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988). MILLER, JOHN 'The Glorious Revolution: "Contract" and "Abdication" Recon• sidered', HJ, 25 (1982) 541-55. 332 Bibliography

--, 'The Later Stuart Monarchy', in The Restored Monarchy, 1660-1688, J. R. Jones (ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1979) 30-47. MILNE, DOREEN J. 'The Results of the Rye House Plot and their Influence upon the Revolution of 1688', TRHS, 5th ser., I (1951) 91-108. MORGAN, EDMUND S. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1988). MOYNIHAN, CORNELIUS J. A Preliminary Survey of the Law ofReal Property: An Historical Background of the Common Law of Real Property and its Modern Application (St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1940). MULLETI, CHARLES F. 'A Case of Allegiance: William Sherlock and the Revolution of 1688', HLQ, X (1946) 83-103. NEALE, J.E. 'Parliament and the Succession Question in 1562/3 and 1566', EHR, XXXVI (1921) 497-520. -, 'Peter Wentworth', EHR, XXIX, pts I & II (1924) 36-54, 175-205. --, Queen Elizabeth I: A Biography (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1957). --, 'The Sayings of Queen Elizabeth', History, X (1925-26) 212-33. NENNER, HOWARD By Colour ofLaw: Legal Culture and Constitutional Politics in England, 1660-1689 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977). --, 'The Later Stuart Age', in J. G. A. Pocock (ed.), The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 180-208. --, 'Liberty, Law, and Property: The Constitution in Retrospect from 1689', in J. R. Jones (cd.), Liberty Secured? Britain Before and After 1688 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992) 88-121. --, 'Pretense and Pragmatism: The Response to Uncertainty in the Succession Crisis of i689', in Lois G. Schwoerer (ed.), The Revolution of 1688-89: Changing Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 83-94. --, 'The Traces of Shame in England's Glorious Revolution', History, LXXm (1988) 238-47. OGO, DAVID England in the Reign of Charles II, 2nd ed., 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955-6). POCOCK, J. O. A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957; Reissue with a Retrospect, 1987). --, 'The Fourth English Civil War: Dissolution, Desertion and Alternative Histories in the Glorious Revolution', Government and Opposition: A Journal of Comparative Politics, 23 (1988) 151-66. POLLARD, A. F. Henry VJIJ (London: Longmans, Green, 1919). POLLEN, J. H. 'The Accession of King James 1', The Month, CI (1903) 572-85. --, 'The Question of Queen Elizabeth's Successor', The Month, CI (1903) 517- 32. RALPH, JAMES The History of England: During The Reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and King George the First, 2 vols (London, 1744-6). RUSSELL, CONRAD The Crisis of Parliaments: English History, 1509-/660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971). SACHSE, WILLIAM L. 'English Pamphlet Support for Charles I, November 1648- January 1649', in William A. Aiken and Basil D. Henning (cds), Conflict in Stuart England: Essays in Honour of Wallace Notestein (New York: New York Uni• versity Press, 1960) 147-68. Bibliography 333

SCARISBRlCK, J. J. Henry VIII (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali• fornia Press, 1968). SCHONHORN, MANUEL Defoe's Politics: Parliament. Power. Kingship. and Robinson Crusoe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). SCHRAMM, PERCY ERNEST A History of the English Coronation (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1937). SCHWOERER, LOIS G. The Declaration ofRights, 1689 (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). --, 'Locke, Lockean Ideas, and the Glorious Revolution', Journal of the History of Ideas, 51 (1990) 531-48. --, 'Women and the Glorious Revolution', Albion, 18 (1986) 197-218. SCOTT, JONATHAN Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis. 1677-1683 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). SHARPE, KEVIN The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992). --, Sir Robert Cotton, 1586-1631: History and Politics in Early Modern Eng• land (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). SHENNAN, J. H. and MARGARET 'The Protestant Succession in English Politics, April 1713-September 1715', in Ragnhild Hatton and J. S. Bromley (cds), William 111 and Louis XW: Essays 1680-1720 by and for Mark Thomson (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1968) 252-70. SIMPSON, A. W. B. An Introduction to the History of the Land Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). SKINNER, QUENTIN 'Conquest and Consent: Thomas Hobbes and the Engage• ment Controversy', in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1640-1660 (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1972) 79-98. SLAUGHTER, THOMAS P. '''Abdicate'' and "Contract" in the Glorious Revolu• tion', HJ, 24 (1981) 323-37. --, '''Abdicate'' and "Contract" Restored', HJ, 28 (1985) 399-403. SMITH, EDWARD O. JR., 'Crown and Commonwealth: A Study in the Official Elizabethan Doctrine of the Prince', Transactions of the American Philosoph• ical Sdciety, new ser., 66 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1976) 1-51. SMITH, LACEY BALDWIN Elizabeth Tudor: Portrait of a Queen (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975). SMOLLETT, TOBIAS, M. D., The History of Englandfrom the Revolution to the Death of George the Second, 5 vols (London, 1793). SOMMERVILLE, J. P. Politics and Ideology in England. 1603-1640 (London and New York: Longman, 1986). SPECK, W. A. 'The Orangist Conspiracy Against James II', HJ, 30 (1987) 453- 62. --, Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). STAFFORD, HELEN GEORGIA James VI of Scotland and the Throne of Eng• land (New York: Appleton-Century, 1940). STRAKA, G. M. Anglican Reaction to the Revolution of1688 (Madison, WI: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1962). --, 'The Final Phase of Divine Right Theory in England, 1688-1702', EHR, LXXVII (1962) 638-58. 334 Bibliography

STRONG, ROY and OMAN, JULIA TREVELYAN Elizabeth R (London: Book Club Associates, 1971). STUBBS, Wll..LIAM The Constitutional History of England, 2nd ed., 3 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875-8). TARLTON, CHARLES D. "'The Rulers Now on Earth": Locke's Two Treatises and the Revolution of 1688', HJ, 28 (1985) 279-98. THlRSK, JOAN 'The European Debate on Customs of htheritance, 1500-1700', in Jack Goody, et al. (eds), Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 177-91. THOMSON, MARK A. 'The Safeguarding of the Protestant Succession, 1702-18', in Ragnhild Hatton and J. S. Bromley (eds), William III and Louis XW: Essays 1680-1720 by and for Mark Thomson (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1968) 237-51. UNDERDOWN, DAVID Pride's Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Ox• ford: Clarendon Press, 1971). VAN DBR ZEE, HENRI and BARBARA William and Mary (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973). WALLACE, JOHN M. 'The Engagement Controversy 1649-1652: An Annotated List of Pamphlets', Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 68 (1964) 384-405. WALPOLE, HORACE Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard lIl, in Paul Murray Kendall (ed.), Richard 1Il: The Great Debate (New York: W.W. Norton, 1965). WARNER, G. F. 'James VI and Rome', EHR. XX (1905) 124-7. WEDGWOOD, C. V. 'European Reaction to the Death of Charles 1', in Charles H. Carter (ed.), From the Renaissance to the Counter Reformation: Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly (New York: Random House, 1965) 401-19. --, The Trial of Charles I (London: Collins, 1964). WElL, RACHEL J. 'The Politics of Legitimacy: Women and the Warming-Pan Scandal', in Lois G. Schwoerer (ed.), The Revolution of 1688-89: Changing Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 65-82. WESTERN, J. R. Monarchy and Revolution: The English State in the 1680s (London: Blandford Press, 1972). WESTON, C. C. and GREENBERG, J. R. Subjects and Sovereigns: The Grand Controversy over Legal Sovereignty in Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). WILKINSON, B. The Coronation in History (London: Historical Association, 1953). Wll..LSON, DAVID HARRIS King James VI and I (New York: Oxford Uni• versity Press, 1967). WOOLRYCH, AUSTIN 'Milton & Cromwell: "A Short but Scandalous Night of Interruption"?', in Michael Lieb and John T. Shawcross (eds), Achievements of the Left Hand: Essays on the Prose of John Milton (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1974) 185-218. Index

Abdication, 69, 163, 167, 174-5, in consideration of protection, 12, 176-7, 190, 191, 192,294n 165, 212, 213 Absolutism, 7, 12, 31, 117, 155,202, Ancient constitution, 93, 110, 175, 26Oo,276n 236,250-1 see alsf) tyranny Anjou, Duke of, 18 Acts of Parliament Anne, Queen, 10, 147,203,232-3, Abjuration Act (1702), 232, 233 240,244 Act of Association (1584), 15, 42 defers right of succession, 181, Act for the Attainder of the 221,242 Pretended Prince of Wales death, 248, 256 (1702),231 Anne of Denmark, 59 Act of Recognition (1603), 61-2, Anny, Remonstrance of, 11, 69-70 95, 110, 133, 236, 239, 251, Ascham, Anthony, 76, 77, 78, 79, 2590, 273n, 274n 190-91 Act of Recognition (1690), 224 Ashe, John, 88 Act of Security (Scotland) (1704), Assheton, William, 8, 99, 112, 137 234 Atwood, William, 196, 199, 215, 225, Act of Settlement (1701), 5, 10, 235-6,239 218, 223, 226, 229-30, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 244, 247, Bacon, Francis, 3 256 Bastardy, 37-9, 45, 141, 272n Act of Union (1707), 240 Beaufort, Margaret, 65, 221 Aliens Act (1705), 234 Belasyse, Thomas, 90 Bill of Rights (1689), 5, 108, 168, Birch, John, 146 177, 181-2, 185, 204, 220, Blackstone, William, 185,248-9 222-4,225,229,230,231,232, Commentaries on the Laws of 237 England, 230, 257 Instrument of Government (1653), Blood royal, 34, 45, 62, 64, 86, 124, 82, 83, 84, 85 193 Regency Act (1706),234-5,237 Blount, Charles, 141-2, 186,200, Statute of Wills (1540), 46, 118 203,213 Succession Acts (1534), 53; (1536), King William and Queen Mary 38; (1544), 4, 14; 16, 38, 39, Conquerors. 225 239,2600 Bohun.fkhnund, 178.201,202 Test Acts (1673 and 1678), 102, Bonner, Edmund, 47 151 Booth, Henry, 104, 108, 111. 115, Triennial Act (1667), 147 116-17, 131 Treasons Act (1571), 4, 13, 15, 41, Bracton, Henry of, 98 112, 133-5, 145, 192, 198, 235, Bradshaw. John, 83, 137 236,237,252,287-8n Bradshaw. Richard, 86 Alienage, 8, 64-5, 184 Brady, Robert, 107, 110, Ill, 112, Allegiance 114, 115, 124-5, 130, 132 controversy (post-Revolution), 75, True and Exact History of the 174, 188, 193, 200, 207, 215 Succession 0/ the Crown, 124

335 336 Index

Breda, Declaration of, 93 Cook, John. 70 Brooke, Henry, 63 Cooper. Anthony Ashley, 101. 109, Bruce, John, 17 122. 129, 143, 147 Brydall, John, 110 Coronation. 9. 31. 62-4. 111, 274n Burghley, Lord, see Cecil, William Coventry, Henry, 126 Burnet, Gilbert, 101, 127, 143, 145, Craig. Sir Thomas, 19. 27. 29, 30, 179,201-2,208,223,232 31-2. 35. 43. 122. 166. 187. History of His Own Time, 179 188,236 Pastoral Letter, 225 on alien inheritance. 58 on bastardy. 38-9 Calvin's Case, 9, 63-4, 193,236, on conquest, 49. 50 274n on election, 43 Camden, William, 18, 28, 38 on female rule. 36-7 Capel, Sir Henry, 127, 128, 129 on nomination. 20. 45. 47. 270n Catherine of Braganza, 96, 101, 138 on prescription. 51-2, 53-4 Catholics on trust. 47 barred from the succession, 10, The Right of Succession to the 168-9, 175, 227-8 Kingdom of England, 23 respect for law, 100, 102, 103, 120, Cromwell. Henry. 87, 88. 89,90. 175 91-2 Cecil, Robert, 17,23-4,25,60, 265n, Cromwell. Oliver, 68. 72. 130, 211. 266n 214, 238, 256 Cecil, William, 23, 28, 42, 265n as Protector, 75. 82-3, 84 Charles I, 4, 64, 65-6, 81, 191, 257 and revival of monarchy, 73-4, 75 trial and execution, 11, 68-70, 78 as candidate for the crown, 82-90 Charles n, Ill, 147 nomination of his successor, 90, as Prince of Wales, 68-9, 72 92. 279n restored to the throne, 95 death. 90, 91. 111 and Exclusion, 100, 113, 120-1 Cromwell. Richard. 82. 87, 90-1, 92. and Monmouth, 96-8 93 Chidley, Samuel, 87 Crown Churchill, John, Duke of cures all defects. 38. 80. 97. Marlborough, 181,235 107-8. 115. 139. 143, 209 Clapham, John, 17, 42 distinguished from king, 9. 32, 89. Clarendon, Earl of, see Hyde, Edward 193. 194. 195 Clarges, Sir Thomas, 224 possession of as measure of right, Clarke, .William, 63 9, 77-9, 186. 205, 207, 208, Cobham, Baron, see Brooke, Henry 209, 210-11. 212, 214, 238 Coke, Sir Edward, 9, 63-4, 109, 123, as property. 46-7. 136 125, 193, 194,236,252 see also king; monarchy Collateral heirs, 41, 171, 173 Collier, Jeremy, 187,200,222 Dalrymple. Sir John. 182 Comber, Thomas, 122, 125, 134, 185 Declaration of Rights, see Acts of Conquest, 1, 4, 7, 26. 31. 46. 47-51, Parliament: Bill of Rights 73.78-9, 80. 130-1. 132. De facto government, 75. 78. 79 157-9. 185. 186, 200-5. 225. see also monarchy: de facto 261n, 27On, 271n Defoe, Daniel. 192, 195. 214. 221. see also usurpation 227.228,240,244.246.247 Constable. Henry. 27. 34 Derby. Earl of. see Stanley. William Index 337

Desborough, John, 89 Elizabeth II, ix, 5 Designation theory, 136, 145, 197, Elizabeth of York, 3, 50, 132, 179, 237 221-2,259n de Vere, Elizabeth, 24 Engagement Debate (1649-52), 12, Devereux, Robert, 24, 25, 36, 265n 75-81, 190 Digges, Thomas, 42 Enquiry Into the Nature and Divine Right, see monarchy Obligation of Legal Rights, An, Dr Bonham's Case, 252 188, 201, 221 Doleman, R., see Parsons, Robert Essex, Earl of, see Devereux, Robert Downing, Calybute, 66, 79 Evelyn, John, 166, 182 Downing, George, 88 Exclusion, 5, 8, 10,40,56, 98, 99, Drake, James, 244 100-19, 120-46, 147-8, Dudley, John, 27 149-50, 167, 168, 189 Dunham, William, Jr, 4, 5 alternatives to, 100-1, 128-9, Dury, John, 76 142 and common law, 114-15 Edward I, 2, 35, 106 and election, 131 Edward II, 2, 259n and threat of civil war, 126-8, 139, Edward III, 2, 4, 30, 259n. 141, 143-5, 150 Edward IV, 2, 3, 4, 49 and threat of a republic, 129-30 Edward VI, 4, 20, 44, 57, 251 Edward VIII, 6 Famese, Edward, 24 Egerton, Sir Thomas, Baron Fauconberg, Lord, see Belasyse, Ellesmere, 9 Thomas Election, right of Fell, John, 92-3 and Charles I, 69-70 Ferguson, Robert, 89, 161 as consent rather than choice, 196, Filmer, Robert, 13,245 203 Patriarcha, 161 and designation theory, 197, 237 Finch, Daniel, second Earl of disadvantages, 43-4, 67, 82, 86, Nottingham, 99, 102, 112, 113, 122, 125, 161, 167 133, 148, 156, 163-4, 165, 175, and Elizabeth I, 42 176, 177 and Exclusion, 102, 104-6, 121, Finch, Heneage, Lord Chancellor, first 282n Earl of Nottingham, 100, 102, and Henry IV, 26 145 and King John, 2 Firth, C. H., 87 and William and Mary, 156, 160, Fitzroy, Henry, Duke of Richmond, 163, 177, 182, 189, 196, 197-9 38,45,97 see also monarchy: elective Fleetwood, Charles, 89, 90 Elizabeth I, 3, 4, 10, 18, 28, 29, 36, Foley, Paul, 164 41, 102 Fullwood, Francis, 184, 208-9, 216 and bastardy, 27, 38, 39, 97, 134, Fundamental law, 8, 10, 33, 93, 110, 269n, 289n 112-14, 121, 145, 146, 185, right to the throne, 27, 38, 53-4, 260n 191, 196, 197, 216, 217, 226, nomination of successor, 17, 240,241,250,252, 255-6, 18-19,20,21, 24, 44~7, 90-1, 285n 263n death, 13, 20-1, 263n Gardiner, s. R., 74 Treasons Act, see Acts of Parliament Gargrave, Thomas, 18 338 Index

Garland, Augustus, 84 coronation, 62 George I, 5, 230, 233, 248. 255 and election, 50 Gloucester. Duke of, son of Charles I. and treason, 27, 38, 108 see Henry. Duke of Gloucester Henry VIII, 3, 4, 22, 27, 29, 36, 90, Gloucester, Duke of, son of Queen 97, 125 Anne. see William. Duke of and bastardy, 38, 39 Gloucester and nomination, 20, 44 Glynne. John, 89 and prescription, 53 Goddard, Guibon. 83 his will, 4, 13, 14, 16, 22. 38. 47. Godden v. Hales, 151 58, 251, 260n, 272n Godolphin, Charles, 222 Succession statutes, see Acts of Goodrick, Sir Henry, 223 Parliament Grey, Catherine, 16, 56, 261n, 272n Henry. Duke of Gloucester, 68-9, 74, Grey, Lady Jane, 4, 27. 29. 61, 103, 232 110, 238-9, 251 Henry, Prince of Wales, son of James Grey, Mary, 268n I, 30-1, 64. 274n Grotius, Hugo Herbert, Thomas. 165, 173, 174 De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 201 Hereditary succession, I, 2. 3, 4. 6, 10, 26.55-6, 106, 148, 165-6, Hale, Sir Matthew, 202 173, 184, 220 Halifax, Marquis of, see Savile, Sir advantages of, 8, 28, 29, 30. 82. George 104, 109, 122, 124, 140, 141, Hall. John, 75 161, 166-7 Hampden, John, 102, 120 disadvantages of, 27, 80-1, 87, Hampden, Richard, 164 108, 131, 214, 257 Hanover, see George I; Sophia, indefeasible right of, 6, 7, 8, 10. Electress of Hanover 16, 20, 23, 33, 35, 72-3, 93. 95, Harbin, George, 237-8, 239, 241, 96, 98, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 242 116, 119. 121. 123. 126. 138. Harington. Sir John. 18, 19. 32, 44, 140, 146. 148. 168-70. 173. 58 184, 185, 204, 211, 212, 216, Harley, Edward, 155 236,241,242,249, 251, 252, Haselrigge, Sir Arthur, 92 255-6,260n Haversham, Lord, see Thompson, Sir as rebuttable presumption. 5, 10, John 27, 33, 34, 35, 55, 104, 133, Hawles, Sir John, 223 135,140,216,240,252 Hayward, Sir John, 28, 30. 33, 35, see also succession 45, 48, 50, 63 Hickes, George. 200, 205 Henry I, 49, 259n Higden, William, 238, 239, 241, 242, Henry II, 45, 259n 244 Henry III, I, 2, 106 Defence of the View of the English Henry IV, I, 2,4,26, 29, 37, 47-8, Constitution, 240 49-50, 131, 132, 213 Hirst, Derek, 91 Henry VI. 2, 29, 108 Hoadly, Benjamin. 243. 245 Henry VII, 15, 259n Hobbes, Thomas, 12, 121-2, 130, and bastardy, 37 199, 207, 211, 213 claim to the throne, 3, 4, 38, 65, Leviathan, 76 132, 179,221 Holmes, Geoffrey. 235 and conquest, 2. 49, 131-2 Hooke, Henry, 20, 28, 37,43 Index 339

Hooker, Richard birth, 151-2, 155, 156, 170, 171, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 196 192,243 Howard, Sir Robert, 160, 169 as Catholic, 168,234, 247-8 Humble Petition and Advice, 88-90 and indefeasible right, 241 Hume, David, 250 recognized by Louis XIV, 231 Hunt, Thomas, 100, 116, 128, 130, right to the throne, 228, 247-8 135, 136, 137-8 Jenkin, Robert, 206, 214 Hyde, Anne, 153 Jenkins, Sir Leoline, 105, 113 Hyde, Edward, 101 John, King, I, 2, 6, 259n, 267n Hyde, Laurence, 113 Johnson, Samuel Julian the Apostate, 195 Interregnum, 9, 33, 42-3, 64, 111, Jones, Sir William, 114, 115, 128, 164, 216-17 143, 146, 149 see also king: never dies Jonson, Ben, 18 Isabella, Spanish Infanta, 17, 23, 55, Judson, Margaret, 77 58, 261n, 264n Kantorowicz, Ernst, 8-9 Jacobites, 6, 8, 66, 159, 168, 189, Kenyon, J. P., 191 213, 233, 234, 237, 243-4, 248, King 254, 256, 257 can do no wrong, II, 68, 108, 192, James 1,4,9, 13, 16,29, 30-31,265n 253 as alien, 32, 57, 108, 266n, 272n never dies, 9, 32, 42, 64, 107, 111, .and bastardy, 58-9 125, 162, 216, 250, 253; see also and conquest, 51 interregnum and election, 59-60 time does not run against, 54, 214 and indefeasible right, 8, 15, 22, two bodies, 8, 9, 32, 34,64, 107 28, 31, 51, 60-62 see also crown; monarchy and Mary Stuart's treason, 15 Knight, Sir John, 100 possible claims to the throne, 16, Knox, John, 36 17,236 qualities for rule, 57, 59-60 Lambert, John, 87, 89 and religion, 40, 59 Law, see fundamental law; private secret correspondence, 24, 36, 50 law Basilikon Doron, 28, 30, 60 Lawrence, William, 114, 121, 125, Trew Law of Free Monarchies, 3, 127, 136, 138-40, 141 28,31, 167 Two Great Questions, 138 Act of Recognition, see Acts of Lawson, George, 21-2, 93-4 Parliament Legge, George, 110 James n, 68, 147,205 Leslie, Charles, 238, 241, 242, presumptive heir, 96, 98, 115-16, 244-5,248 127 Levine, Mortimer, 16 and indefeasibility, 148 Littleton, Sir Thomas, 133, 142, 144 as Catholic, 98, 100-1 Lloyd, William, Bishop of St Asaph, and Popish Plot, 108-9 214 abdication, 215 Discourse of God's Ways of demised in law, 190 Disposing of Kingdoms, 225 death, 231, 232, 245 Locke, John, 12, 207, 217 James, Prince of Wales, Pretender Two Treatises of Government, 199 (James Ill), 6, 246, 254 Louis XIV, 213, 229, 231 340 Index

Macaulay, T. B., 157, 219, 244, 260n Natural law, see fundamental law Mackenzie, Sir George, lOS, 107, Neale, J. E., 16, 17, 36, 38 112, 125, 126, 130, 134 Necessity. 10, 11, 12,21,22,75-7, Maitland, F. W., 1-2 135-6, 138, 168, 169, 184, 216, Marlborough, Duke of, see Churchill, 217,231, 244, 257 John see also reason of state; self-defence Marten, Henry, 66 Nedham, Marchamont, 77, 78-9, 80 Mary I, 4, 27, 29, 36, 103, 110, New History of the Succession, A, 193 170-71, 180, 259-60n Nomination, 4, 13,21,26,44-7, and bastardy, 27, 39, 97, 269n, 60-61, 123, 124, 125, 285-6n 289n Nonjurors, 163, 174, 191, 192, 194, Mary n, 143-4, 148, lSI, 163, 180 195, 200, 204, 205, 210, 212, see also William m and Mary II, 238 joint monarchs Non-resistance, see passive obedience Mary of Modena, 231 Northumberland, Duke of, see Maxwell, John, 67 Dudley, John Maynard, Sir John, 169, 174 Northumberland, Earl of, see Percy, McIlwain, C. H., 23 Henry Meres, Sir Thomas, 98 Nottingham, first Earl, see Finch, Monarchy Heneage advantages of, 93 Nottingham; second Earl, see Finch, de facto, 2, 82, 186, 209, 210, 214, Daniel 233, 238, 239; see also de facto government Original contract, 165, 173, 175, 196, divine right, 7, 31, 33,45-6,68, 197, 199,217,256. 87, 100, 109, 110, 113, 114, 137, Overall, John, Bishop of Norwich, 138, 139-40, 154, 155, 167, 210-11, 212 168, 169, 171, 173, 204, 205, Oxford Parliament, 98, 113, 129, 133, 213, 214, 216, 232, 240, 242, 144, 147, 149 243, 245, 250-51 elective, 5, 7, 11, 12, 31, 34, 73, Parker, Henry, 73, 76, 81 81, 149-50, 186; see also True Portraiture of the Kings of election, right of; parliament: England,73 right to determine the succession; Parliament sovereignty: parliamentary right to determine the succession, female, 36-7, 65, 81, 178-9, 1, 4, 5, II, 13, 14, 39, 41, 42, 295n 89, 98, 112, 133-6, 149, 151, hereditary, see succession: 155, 156, 189, 217, 228, 230, hereditary 232, 239; see also monarchy: as legitimate government, 8, 82, 88, elective; sovereignty: 92 parliamentary limited, 84, 88, 89 Parsons, Robert, 19, 31, 36, 55, 100, as trust, II, 47, 67, 70, 92, 93, 137, 188, 261n 197, 199,200 on alien inheritance, 58 see also crown; king on bastardy, 38, 39, 58 Monmouth, Duke of, see Scott, James on conquest, 23, 50 More, Sir Thomas, 251 on coronation, 63 Morgan, Edmund, 250 on necessity and public good, 10, Morrice, Roger, 159, 162 33-4 Index 341

Parsons, Robert - continued Ralegh, Sir Walter, 63 on nomination, 20 Reason, 75-7, 139-40, 142, 146, on prescription, 52-3 149, 169, 212, 214, 215-16 on primogeniture, 30 Reason of state, 136, 160, 184 on qualifications for rule, 35 see also necessity; self-defence on religion, 39-40 Regency, 34. 35. 142-3, 144. 161-2, on rule of succession, 26, 28, 32, 40 164 on succession alterable by Republic and republicanism. 66. 72, parliament, 6, 41-2, 43, 70, 138. 147, 162, 167, 197, 223. 132-3 261n,302n A Conference About the Next Reresby, Sir John, 170 Succession to the Crowne of Resistance. right of. 4, 5. 9. 194, 196, lngland, 23, 99, 108, 187, 220, 243, 254, 270n 264n Revolution and Anti-Revolution Passive obedience, 22, 191, 193, 194, Principles Stated and Com par' d, 195, 200, 201, 204, 212, 215, 6 254 Rich, Sir Richard, 251 Pelling, Edward, 99, 109 Richard I, 259n. 267n Pembroke, Earl of, see Herbert, Richard n. 2. 26. 30, 37. 50 Thomas Richard m, 2, 3. 4. 15, 27. 35, Pepys, Samuel, 96, 97 49-50, 304n Percy, Henry, 31, 36, 51 Rochester, Earl of, see Hyde. Philip II, 179-80 Laurence Pollexfen, Henry, 162 Rous. Francis. 76. 77. 78. 80 Ponet, John, 47 Rye House Plot, 147 Popish Plot, 100, 103, 108-9, 120-1, 138 Sacheverell, Henry, 233, 242. 243 Prescription, 26, 51-4, 79, 112, 185, Sacheverell, William, 98 214,238 Salic law, 8, 36, 153 Primogeniture, 8, 30, 33, 82, 91, 110, Salus populi, see public good 267n Savile. Sir George, 143. 194 Private law Sawyer. Sir Robert. 224 and succession, 27, 29, 32-3, 49, Scott, James, 96-8. 141-2, 143. 144, 54, 57-8, 105, 109, 117-18, 147. 150-51 136, 153-4, 174, 177, 179, Scott. Jonathan. 123 201-2, 209, 221, 236 Self-defence, 137. 146, 285n Protector, as office, 82-3, 89 see also necessity; reason of state Providence, 28, 41,45-6, 76, 109, Settle, Blkanah. 137 159, 185,204-7,208,213,224, Shaftesbury, Barl of, see Cooper, 231,238 Anthony Ashley Public good, 6, 10, II, 12, 21, 33, Shakespeare, William 34, 75-6, 88, 91, 93-4, 104, Henry IV, 259n 118, 136, 137, 138-40, 145-6, King Lear, 117 149, 160-61, 169, 188, 193, Sherlock, William, 187, 189,238 207,208, 212, 216, 217, 241, on election, 161, 197, 203 ~,245, 246,248, 253,256, on possession, 204, 208, 211 257 on prescription, 214-15 Pulteney, Sir William, 102, 103, 127, on providence, 205 143 on resistance, 191, 193, 217 342 Index

Sherlock, William - continued Toland, John, 233 on settled government, 186, Treason, 9, 63, 143, 192-3, 195, 235, 210-12,214 237 on treason, 192-3 by the king, 195 Sidney, Algernon, 123, 137, 147 cured by accession to the throne, 8, Discourses Concerning 15, 38, 107-8 Government, 131 see also Acts of parliament: Skinner, Quentin, 76 Treasons Act Smith, Sir Thomas, 13,252 Treby, Sir George, 170,229-30 Some Modest Remarks On Dr Trust, see monarchy: as trust Sherlock's New Book About the Tudor, Margaret, Queen of Scots, 14, Case of Allegiance, 213 57,58 Somers, John, 105, 107-8, 114, 119, Tudor, Mary, Duchess of Suffolk, 14 130, 131, 282n Turner, Francis, Bishop of Ely, 148, Sophia, Electress of Hanover, 182, 149, 176-7 223,229,235,244,248 Twysden, Sir Roger, I, 72, 78 Sovereignty Tyranny, 50-51, 70-71, 121, 192, parliamentary, 5, 7, 14, 82, 123, 201, 271n, 276n 145-6, 189, 239, 241, 242, see also absolutism 306n; see also monarchy: elective; parliament: right to Usurpation, 49, 77, 126, 132,200, detennine the succession 204,210 popular, 11, 103-4, 122, 160, 163, see also conquest 196, 197, 198, 199, 237, 245, 246, 250 Vacant throne, 161-5, 176-7, 185, Stafford, Helen, 17 197, 199 Stanley, William, 24 Vaughan, Edward, 143 Stephen, King, 45, 259n, 271n Stillingfieet, Edward, 208, 209-10 Wagstaffe, Thomas, 205, 214 Stuart, Arabella, 23, 24, 63, 64, 264n, Wainwright, James, 86 265n, 274n Walpole, Horace, 49 Stuart, Mary, Queen of Scots, 13, 14, Walter, Hubert, Archbishop of 15, 16, 28, 42, 45, 57, 58, 102, Canterbury, 2, 6, 105 133, 134 Walter, Lucy, 96, 98, 141, 150 Succession Watson, William, 63 rule of, 1, 3-5,7-12, 13-14, 16, Wentworth, Peter, 19,20,26-7,33, Ill, 124, 185 36,42,46,63,126 unsettled and ambiguous, 17, 22, on parliament to determine right of 23, 26, 30, 55, 90, 91, 98-9, succession, II, 14, 32, 55-6, 115, 157, 162, 173, 184, 186, 134, 189, 253 190, 208, 219 Pithie Exhortation to her Majestie see also hereditary succession for Establishing Her Successor to the Crowne, 22-3,33 Temple, Sir Richard, 162, 164 Wharton, Goodwin, 176 Thompson, Sir John, 242 Wharton, Philip, Baron Wharton, Throne, see crown; vacant throne 156 Throneworthiness, 105-6 Whitelocke, Bulstrode, 68, 74, 75, disabilities, 8, 13, 34, 35, 39-40 88 Thurloe, John, 88, 89, 90, 91 Widdrington, Sir Thomas, 74, 88, 89 Index 343

Wilbraham, Sir Roger, 17 standing in the succession, 153-5, William I, 37, 48-9, 131, 158, 201,221 259n death,232 William n, 49, 259n William ill and Mary II, joint William nI, 12, 228-9 monarchs, 159, 177-8, 186 association to defend him, 225-6 de facto monarchs, 208, 209, 210 attractiveness for the throne, 178, elected monarchs, 188,215,224,225 181, 182, 219 hereditary monarchs, 221-2 crown as reward, 219, 227 oath of allegiance, 220 crown matrimonial, 179-80, 221 prescriptive right, 214 Declaration (1688), 153, 155, 156, William, Duke of Gloucester, 183, 157-8, 170, 171 228-9,232 de facto king, 193 Williams, Walter, 109, 113 interest in the crown, 89, 155, 158 Willson, David Harris, 17 proposed as regent, 143 Wilson, Thomas, 41-2, 48, 50 right of conquest, 157-9, 201-3, Winnington, Sir Francis, 113 224, 225, 292n Wood, Charles, 4, 5