king does voluntarily abandon the government, it is a demise, and cessation of the government, according to Grotius, and other learned writers, by many arguments from the law of God. Grotius lays down some: Si princeps habet imperium pro direlicto,' &c. he is but a private man then, he certainly ceases to be a prince. Not that he was negligent in the administration of government, but did direlict; and we argue well, that a direliction is a desertion of the government. Hoffman, the civilian, says, 'If a prince relinquishes the government, he ceases to be a king.' Regu

that you will pass a vote, that it is the opinion of the committee, "That king James 2. having voluntarily forsaken the Government, and abandoned and forsaken the kingdom, it is a voluntary demise in him."

Mr. Arnold seconded the motion.

id est, a cession; and demised' is deserted the government.' This is evident in law, as it is evident in reason and authority. The meaning of the word demise is demisio, laying down; whether actually relinquishing the goverament, or passively by death; in either of which cases, it is a demise. In the necessity of government, all these cases have the same consequences. When the interruption is in the administration, or it is demised; where there is the same mischief, there must be the same remedy. It is the same thing for the king to withdraw his person, which makes a parenthesis in the government. By with-larly, I must end with a motion; which is, drawing the seal, the chancery ceases, and no justice can be obtained. The Cominon Pleas cannot be possessed of any cause without an original writ out of Chancery; and when these fail, the law fails; and, by consequence, it is a demise, for want of the administrators of the government; which the law cannot suffer. Sir Rd. Temple. This learned gentleman Qui cessat regnare cessat judicare.' There has said enough to convince us, that the grais one authority in the Rolls, instar omnium, in vity of this committee is great, and that we the case of Ed. 4. There was a rumour that have liberty to deliver the thoughts in every the earl of Warwick advanced towards him; man's breast. I shall farther declare, that the he fled from Nottingham beyond sea; which king has endeavoured to destroy the govern was a clear demise, and all proceedings in ment of the nation in parliaments, by practisWestminster-Hall ceased, and it was judged a ing to get votes before they meet, and to turn demise. In 14 Hen. 6. there are many re- all out of the government, who would not comsolutions of causes discontinued, by that de- ply with him in corporations to deliver up their mise; remansit sine die,' because le roi se charters. This has been so notorious, that I demise,' in effect felo de se. Writs of attach- shall not mention where; though it has been ment were discontinued, because justices came the rights and privileges of the people, yet they not into the country, and the king went be-shall not be chosen till they declare they will yond sea, without leaving a lieutenant. The great oracle of the law, judge Littleton, pronounced this departure of Edw. 4. a demise. Perhaps it may be objected, that Edw. 4. did return again to the administration of the government, and resumed the government by conquest, not in a legal way, but by the sword. There are two other authorities that carry force in them. Edw. 2. resigned the crown, but by duresse; yet he made the resignation the 25th of Jan, and immediately it was judged a demise. Rd. 2.'s Resignation was per minas, yet that was judged a demise (as in Rastall) Quod recordatum de regimine regni sui se demisit R. 2. &c.' These precedents seem stronger in our case, which is a voluntary departure, without duresse. But, that our king was frighted or forced away, others can better tell; but, by what is notorious to the world, there is a sufficient conviction that it was not force; but that he did abandon his palace by night, and did go to sea, and was taken and returned again to his own guards, that papists might not raise any disturbance in the apprehension of his being detained prisoner. But this weighs most with me; that it was not probable that he was driven away by force, when he stole away from his guards, and repeated the attempt to be gone. There is the king's Letter to lord Feversham, wherein he is obliged to follow the queen. We have not only our law in the case, but the authority of foreign writers. By the civil law, when the

destroy the government. How has Westminster-hall been tutored, judges packed for purposes, and turned out, unless they assert power in kings to dispense with the laws, so that Westminster-hall was become an instrument of slavery and popery, ordinary justice destroyed, and extraordinary ways promoted, in that little and short time of the late king James's reign! When a king attempts to destroy the roots of government, he differs in nothing from a tyrant. All he has done may be reduced to that head of the destruction of the Church, by suspending the ecclesiastical laws, to destroy all that will not comply with Popery. The mischiefs are so recent and conspicuous, that, when you come to give reasons, you will satisfy the nation that king James has rendered himself inconsistent with government. If there be not a Vacancy, and he has left the government, what do we do here? He has quitted the government, without assurance of any thing: he has suppressed the parliament writs: he has taken away the great seal; and here is an apparent end of the government. The king is fallen from the crown, and may think he is under an obligation of conscience to break the laws against Popery. He may say, I will never live in that torture: and if he has said so, would any man doubt but that this is a renunciation of the government? All his actions have tended this way. If he be recalled, he will do the same thing again, and tell the world, This is not from the lords,

but a company of miserable men of the house of commons, and they may go home again; for the king can do no wrong, nor can forfeit his crown by male adininistration.' But, suppose the case were of an infant, or lunatic, the nation may, in that case, provide for the government; and, were the king a person that took care of the government, he would never have left the nation thus. He has taken none, and therefore it is our duty to do it.

Sir Tho. Lee. When you have put the question, That there is an avoidance in the government,' then your second part is, how to provide for it.

Mr. Finch. The question now is of Vacancy in the government: that of the right and title, to fill it up comes too late after the other question. Your question is, Whether the right itself is gone?

Sir Christ. Musgrave. As to the matter of deposing kings, I shall leave that to the long robe, to exercise their abilities upon. I live near a kingdom (Scotland) where I know not how ill neighbours they will be, if they concur with your sense. I would be clear, whether the intention is to depose the king; and, if he has forfeited his inheritance to the crown, I would know from the long robe, whether you can depose the king, or no.

Mr. Comptroller Wharton. I am glad gentlemen have explained themselves. The gentleman makes a question, whether the king may be deposed? but, whether he may be deposed, or deposes himself, he is not our king. It is not for mine, nor the interest of most

here, that he should come again. Abdication and direliction are hard words to me, but I would have no loop-hole to let in the king; for I believe not myself nor any Protestant in England safe, if you admit him.

Sir Christ. Musgrave. I believe we are in great danger, should the king return again; but I would willingly know the opinion of the long robe; and I hope they have that candour and tenderness, that they will clearly give their thoughts in this great and extraordinary affair.

Serj. Maynard. I know not the meaning of this, but I am afraid of a meaning. The question is not, whether we can depose the king; but, whether the king has not deposed himself. It is no new project; our government is mixed, not monarchical and tyrannous, but has had its beginning from the people. There may be such a transgression in the prince, that the people will be no more governed by him. All governments, both military and civil, he disposes of, and because he asked a million for life, and we asked, the last parliament, but that some officers, not qualified by law, might be removed froin their places, the parliament was dissolved. It is a mistake, that Ireland was conquered; it was yielded to Hen. 2. by calling him to take possession of it; and for 500 years it was part of the monarchy of England. The last Rebellion was by the influence of the Priests and Jesuits, and in 1641, the Protestants were all massacred. They slew 200,000 Protestants; and all that has been done in Ireland, would have been done in England. All authority, civil and military, was in Irish bands. Was this done like a king of England? What shall we think of this? Ireland to be in Popish hands! Can the king give away that kingdom? This has been long creeping upon us. There is no Popish prince in Europe but would destroy all Protestants; as in Spain, France, and Hungary; and in Spain they destroyed a gallant young prince (don Carlos) whom they suspected to incline to the Protestants; and now they would make Magdalen College a new St. Omers.

"A gentleman of a noble family in Cumberland, whose life had been regular, and his deportment grave. He had lost a place in king James's time; for though he was always a high Tory, yet he would not comply with his designs. He had, indeed, contributed much to increase his revenue, and to offer him more than he asked; yet he would not go into the taking off the Tests. Upon the Revolution, the place out of which he had been turned was given to a man that had a good share of merit in it. This alienated him from Mr. Harbord. If the question be, whether the king; and he, being a man of good judg-you have power to depose the king, that may ment, came to be considered as the head of tend to calling him back again, and then we the party; in which he found his account so are all ruined. well, that no offers that were made him could ever bring him over to the king's interests. Upon many critical occasions, he gave up some important points, for which the king found it necessary to pay him very liberally." Burnet.

Eldest son of lord Wharton, to which title he succeeded on his father's death. He was one of the first of rank who joined the prince of Orange on his landing, and, upon his advancement to the throne, had considerable places under him, as he had also in the reign of queen Anne, being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, and created earl of Wharton, &c. In 1714, he was appointed by king George I. lord privy seal, and soon after was created a marquis. He died in 1715.

Mr. Howe. Some of the counsel talk as if they were instructing juries. I wish they would come plainly to the point.

Sir George Treby. I am sorry for this heat in a matter that requires our utmost deliberation. It is no less a question than, whether we shall be governed by Popery and arbitrary government, or whether we shall be rid of both. One gentleman would have the long robe declare, whether we have power to depose the king; though he speaks pertinent, yet it is not proper now; for we have found the crown vacant, and are to supply that defect. We found it so, we have not made it so. Mr. Finch would have it, the king going out of his wits, not out of the government. He

but before they came to a battle, they entered into treaty, and the king promised to call a parliament, and that religion should be settled; but before they met, he withdrew to the kingdom of Poland: so they settled Charles 8. upon that throne. First and last, the matter was jesuited, to change religion, subvert the government, and to withdraw from the kingdom. That withdrawing of Sigismund was much less than ours. He went to the kingdom he came from; ours has withdrawn to another kingdom, which has always been against the interest of England, and he cannot come out of the French king's power without his consent, and all to his advantage. Some have taken notice of things before, and some since, his desertion but the king's going to a foreign power, and casting himself into his hands, absolves the people from their allegiance. He sent an ambassador to Rome, received a nuncio from thence, received a foreign jurisdiction, and set up Romish bishops in England, that the Popish religion might intervene with the government, thereby to subject the nation to the Pope, as much as to a foreign prince. Ireland, which has cost England so much treasure to reduce, and now to deliver it up to the Irish, to subject it to a foreign power! And to do things by such hands, as, by the constitution of the kingdom, are incapable! The hands were as much out of the way as the design-just like Sigismund, after he had left the kingdom, to send away the seal, call a parliament, and then desert the nation! My motion is, That you will appoint a committee to draw a Vote upon the debate.'

satisfy the world abroad, if it be like other cases. Sigismund king of Sweden's case is parallel to ours. King James 1. (upon an occasion most have heard of) protested, That if his posterity were not Protestants, he prayed to God to take them from the throne.' Sigismund made the like imprecation. He was so considerable as to be chosen king of Poland. After the crown of Sweden descended to him, he sent to take the government upon him: he returned, when he had changed his religion, and brought Jesuits along with him, who were resty, and would disturb the government, and invade the laws, as they have ever done. The king prepared to force his way to the crown; Convention Parliament of 1688-9, he was member for Worcester, and was one of the managers of the Commons, at a Conference with tire Lords about the word Abdicated.' He was soon after made Solicitor-General and knighted, and in 1692 appointed Attorney General. In 1697, he was raised to the peerage, and made lord chancellor, but in 1700, he was removed from his high situation, and accused by the commons of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which, upon trial before his peers, he was acquitted. He now abandoned the struggles of political life for studious retirement, and was soon after chosen president of the Royal Society. He, however, occasionally laboured for the prosperity of his country in the house of lords, and projected the Union between Scotland and England. In 1708, he was president of the Council, but was removed by the change of ministry two years after. He grew so infirm, that he held no office under George 1. He died of an apoplectic fit, 26th as a master orator, a genius of the finest taste, April 1716, after surviving for some time the and as a patriot of the noblest and most expowers of his mind. He was never married. tensive views; as a man, who dispensed blessHe wrote various pieces, and translated Plu-ings by his life, and planned them for posterity. tarch's Life of Alcibiades, in the 'Lives by several hands,' and also Dido's Letter to Æneas from Ovid, &c."" Lempriere.

"He held the seals seven years, with a high reputation for capacity, integrity, and diligence, and was in all respects the greatest man I had ever known in that post. He was very learned in his own profession, with a great deal more learning in other professions, in divinity, philosophy, and history. He had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; for he was fair and gentle, perhaps to a fault, considering his post; so that he had all the patience and softness, as well as the justice and equity, becoming a great magistrate. He had always agreed in his notions with the Whigs, and had studied to bring them to better thoughts of the king (William) and to a greater confidence in him." Burnet.

"John, lord Somers, was one of those divine men, who, like a chapel in a palace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest is tyranny, corruption, and folly. All the traditional accounts of him, the historians of the last age, and its best authors, represent him as the most incorrupt lawyer, and the honestest stateman,

He was at once the model of Addison, and the touchstone of Swift: the one wrote for him, the other from him. The former, however, has drawn a laboured, but diffuse and feeble character of him in the Freeholder, neither worthy of the author nor his subject." Walpole's Royal and Noble Authors.

Mr. Seward, in the second volume of his Anecdotes, p. 273, has produced the following notitia of lord Somers from a MS. in the possession of the late Dr. Birch: "April 26, 1716, died John lord Somers. Burnet hath done him justice in several places, and Addison has given his character in colours so strong, that little remaineth to be added. His application and capacity were equally great and uncommon. At his first going to school he never gave himself any of the diversions of children of his age, for at noon the book was never out of hand. To the last years of his life a few hours of sleep sufficed: at waking, a reader attended, and entertained him with the most valuable authors. Such management raised him to the highest eminency in his own profession, and gave him a superiority in all kinds of useful knowledge and learning."