who are not truer Enemies to our Reformed Religion, than French Counfels to the Liberty and Property of Subjects.

But, Secondly, His Religion is inconfiftent with our Safety, either in our Properties or in our Religion; and this we had Experience enough of, one would think, already; too much, to make us fond of trying the Experiment over again. Let it but be confidered, that by his Religion and by fuch Power, he is obliged upon Pain of forfeiting his Kingdoms, to extirpate Heretics, to deftroy every Proteftant in England; and that by the Conditions made he will be at least obliged to fecure the Nation in their Proteftant Religion, and in their Properties, and then I would ask fuch a Perfon, what the best and the fafeft Conditions can avail in these Circumstances? If an Obligation to destroy us, and an Obligation to preferve us, be inconfiftent; and no Man in the World can perform both; I think the Talk about Conditions ought to be at an end, fince there is no way to bring thefe Contradictions to agree.

The wifeft Part, my Lord, of thofe who are diffatisfied, do very eafily fee into the Vanity and Inconfiftency of this Project about Conditions, and grant that they would be ufelefs. And therefore fince Conditions are vain, and that the late King was unfit for Government, they were for having a Regency fet up during the late King's Life, he retaining only the Title of King; and this they thought would falve their Oaths to him, and their Confciences. But this cannot do the Bufinefs, fince it is plain that fuch a Regency would have been as much against the Oath of Allegiance, as the prefent Settlement; and a fubmitting to that would have been as direct a Violation of the Oath of Allegiance, as they fuppofe a Submiffion to the prefent Settlement is.

To prove this then: By a Regency the King would have been divested of all Power, which the Regent must have been intrufted with; of the Revenue too, which must have been annexed to the Power wherever that is lodged, becaufe by it the Regent must have been fupported in the Exercife of his Power; he would have had no Command nor Authority left him, nothing but the bare Title of King, and to have all Business run in his Name, though he have nothing to do with it. Now is not this as directly against the Oath of Allegiance as a Thing can be? By the Oath, as long as it obliges, every one is bound to preferve to the King and maintain his Crown and Dignity. By a Regency the King is divefted of all his Power and Authority of making Laws, of having the Militia in his Hands, and of the Administration of the Government, which are the chief, if not only Branches of Royalty of his Crown and Dignity. And thefe Gentlemen think that a Regency and their Oath of Allegiance to the late King are confiftent; whereas by a Regency he is deprived of every thing but his bare Title, and by their Oaths of Allegiance they are bound to preferve to him every Thing elfe as well as his Title. I can fee no more oppofition in the prefent Settlement to the Oath of Allegiance, than would have been in their Regency, fince the Kingly Power of King James is equally deftroyed by both; and Oaths do concern Matters of fubftance and not meer Shadows, fuch as the bare Title of a King is, where there is not the leaft jot of Power left. So that there is not any confiderable Difference betwixt the prefent Settlement, and their Regency, upon the Oaths Account; and I wonder that fo much ado fhould be made, and so much infifting upon leaving to the late King the bare Title of

yet

King, whereas a Title is a Thing of no worth; and if the Laws of St. Edward the Confeffor might but be heard, this Controverfy about the meer Title would have fallen; fince by them a King by Mifgovernment, verum nomen Regis perdit, forfeits the Title of King as well as the Power.

But I will fuppofe further, that this Project of a Regency had taken, and that a Regent had been chofen for the late King's Life, I muft now afk what they would have done with the King himself? either they muft have had him kept in fafe Cuftody, or let him, as he did, efcape away. If they would have had him fecured, I would fain know whether it had been confiftent with that Oath of Allegiance which they took to King James, and think themfelves obliged ftill by. But if he was to be let go whither he would, and should have got back into England with the fame Affiftance by which he is now got into Ireland, I ask them whether they should not look upon themselves as obliged to defend that Regency which was fet up for the abfolute good of the Nation, and to which they had fworn Allegiance; and whether this would not have obliged them to oppofe King James, who was come to break the Regency; and, though all had judged him and knew him unfit for Government, was yet for regaining it by Force. Either they muft, notwithstanding his Unfitnefs for our Government, have quietly fubmitted, because of their former Oath of Allegiance to him, or they muft, in defence of the Regency, have fought against the late King himself, notwithstanding that former Oath to him.

My Lord, if those diffatisfied Gentlemen who were for the Regency will but reflect upon what I have been able to say about it, I do not fear their being any longer of opinion that a Regency was the only way could fettle the Nation in fafety, and secure Men's Confciences in Peace; and I hope they will for the future not be fo fharp and fevere against the prefent Settlement, as contrary to our Oaths of Allegiance; fince I have fhewn, that their own Regency is every jot as much. I humbly beg of them, that they would examine things impartially, and lay by all Prejudices upon other Accounts, and then I am confident that they which did defire and contend for a Regency notwithstanding their late Oaths of Allegiance, will fee reafon to fubmit to the prefent Settlement under their Majefties, notwithstanding those very Oaths, which I am fure are no more against the prefent Settlement than against their Regency.

I am afraid I have tired your Lordship, and muft beg pardon for this tedious Letter; which, though it should be fo unhappy as to do no Service to any of thofe Perfons for whom it was defigned, yet will do myself a great one, in being a Witness for me, how ready I am to obey your Lordship's Commands, and in giving me this further opportunity of affuring your Lordship how much I am,

Gloria Cambria: Or, The SPEECH of a Bold Britain in Parliament, against a Dutch Prince of Wales,

By Mr. PRICE.

1702.

[Robert Price, Esquire, was made a Baron of the Exchequer, Anno 1701, and in King George the First's Reign a Justice of the Common-Pleas. He died at Kenfington, Feb. 1, 1732, aged 75, lamented by all.]

Mr. Speaker,

T

HE Petition now prefented to you on the Behalf of ourselves and Coun trymen, though fubfcribed by a few Hands, yet has the Senfe and Approbation of thoufands, who are not influenced by their own Intereft, but for the Honour they have for the Crown, and the Welfare of the British Nation.

If I could conceive that the Glory of England was, or could be upheld by a poor landlefs Crown, and a miferable neceffitous People, I could then be easily perfuaded to believe, that his Majefty was well advised to grant away all the Revenues of the Crown and that the Government thereby would be well fecured, and the People beft protected, when they had little or nothing left them, I am fure they are not English, but Foreign Politicians, who may reverence the King, but hate us.

The Kings of England always reigned beft, when they had the Affections of their Subjects; and of that they were fecure, when the People were fenfible that the King was entirely in their Intereft, and loved the English Soil as well as the People's Money: When Kings had a candid Intereft coupled with their Power, then it was moft ftable and durable; as is manifeft by the antient demefne Lands, and other the large and royal Revenues, the many and great Tenures which the People then held their Eftates under, which caufed fuch an indifpenfible Union and Dependency, that they fupported each other; and 'tis obfervable, that the Separation of the Revenues from the Crown, has in all Ages been the Means of rendering the English Government precarious; and that it might not be fo, the Petition (with a dutiful Deference to his Majefty) does reprefent to you (the great Council of the Nation) this, theirs, and the People's Eafe for Redrefs and Remedy, according to your Wifdom.

Give me Patience, and Pardon, and I'll lay before you the true Estate of the Fact upon the Petition, and Manner of Grant, and what is granted.

The great Lordships of Denbigh, Bromfield, and Yale in the County of Denbigh, for fome Centuries, have been the Revenues of the Kings of England, and Princes of Wales; by which Lordships, the Petitioners and fifteen hundred more are Tenants, pay Rents and Suits of Courts, and other Royal Services. Thefe Lordships are four Parts in five of the whole Country, and thirty Miles

in Extent; the present Rents to the Crown are but 1000l. per Annum, befides Reliefs, Mifes, Waftes, Eftreats, Perquifites of Courts, and other contingent Profits; there are alfo great profitable Waftes of feveral thousand Acres of rich and valuable Mines, befides other great Advantages, a mighty Favourite and great Courtier might make. The Petitioners being cafually informed the laft Summer, That a Grant to the Earl of Portland was in the Treasury, in order to be paffed: The Petitioners did oppose the said Grant, and they found, not only the three Lordships, but near 3000 l. per Annum of the Petitioner's and Countrymen's ancient Inheritance exprefly granted: So that if all had been prefented that was comprised in the Grant, it had been a very noble Royal Gift, worth at least 100,000l. Nor was that Grant for any fhort Time to this noble Lord, it being to him and his Heirs for ever; and yet not much to the Advantage of the Crown, having only a Refervation of Six Shillings and Eight-pence per Annum to the King and his Succeffors.

The Facts were laid before the Lords of the Treasury by the Petitioners, who cannot fay but they were all well heard, well understood, and I hope, well reprefented; only with this Remark, that the Day defign'd by the Lords of the Treasury for the Grant, was dated, and came to the Privy Seal, a Month before the Lords of the Treasury had appointed the Petitioners to be heard at the Treasury against the Grant. The next Stage that we had, was to attend the Grant from the Treasury to the Privy Seal, where, I must confefs, the Reason and Complaints against the Grant, were heard and received with all Candour and Goodnefs, of that noble Lord, who had the Cuftody of the Seal; and I truly believe he has represented the whole Affair; and that is the Reason at prefent, that this Grant halts; I fuppofe, till the Parliament rifes, and then I doubt not but it will find Legs to take its Journey.

Having made the Applications in their proper Places to ftop the faid Grant, and that without Succefs, it became a Grievance, and we hope this honourable. House will redress it. These Lordships have been for many Years the Revenues of the Kings of England, and the Support of many Princes of Wales, have been fettled upon them and their Heirs, and the Kings of England by fundry Patents, and confirmed by many Acts of Parliament.

These royal Dominions in moft Reigns have been attacked by great and powerful Favourites; for in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, fome part of thefe Revenues were granted to fome of her Creatures; but attended with fo many Law-Suits, and general Distractions, that the Queen interpofed, and the Freeholders gave large Compofitions for their Peace, the Queen confirming their Eftates by a Charter.

In the fourth Year of King James I. thefe Lordships were fettled on Prince Charles, and his Heirs, Kings of England; but his Servants (as moft Courtiers are willing to make ufe of the Opportunity) got fome Grant, of moft Part of that Revenue, which proved fo vexatious and troublesome to their Country, that the Freeholders came to another Compofition, and gave 10,000l. for their Peace, and had another Charter of Confirmation of their Rights, and for the fettling of their Eftates, Tenures, &c. which was confirmed in Parliament in the fifth of King Charles the Firft; in the late Reign (however calumniated) there were many and great Applications made for fome Grants of fome Lands

of these Lordships, which were always rejected, as too powerful for a Subject. If Part were fo, what would the whole be?

History and Records tell us, That the Grant of thefe Lordfhips have been very fatal to the Prince or Potentate, the one either lofing his Crown, or the other his Head: It is therefore dangerous meddling with fuch ominous Bounties.

I must likewise obferve to you, That the Long Parliament in Charles the Second's Reign, when they paffed an Act for the Fee-Farm Rents, excepted thofe within the Principality of Wales, which is a plain Intimation, that the Parliament thought them not alienable, or fitting to be aliened; but rather to be preferved for the Support of the Prince of Wales.

There is a great Duty lies upon the Freeholders of thefe Lordships on the Creation of the Prince of Wales: They pay the Prince of Wales 800 l. for Mizes; which is fuch a Duty, Service, or Tenure, which is not to be fever'd from the faid Prince of Wales; and it will be very difficult to find how this Tenure can be made reconcilable to this noble Lord's Grant.

If we are to pay thefe Mizes to this noble Lord, then he is quafi a Prince of Wales, for this Duty was never paid to any other; but if it is to be paid to the Prince of Wales, and this noble Lord too, then we are doubly charged: But if it be to the Prince of Wales, when he has no Royalty left in that Dominion, and not to this noble Lord (who, by this Grant is to have the whole Lordships) it relates a Repugnancy in the Tenure of our Eftates.

But I fuppofe the Grant of this Principality is the Fore-runner of the Honour too; and then I fhall fancy we are returning to our original Contract: For, as Story tells us, we were brought to entertain a Prince of Wales, by recommending him to us, as one who did not understand the English Tongue; and our Forefathers thence inferred, that he must be our Countryman, and no Foreigner, but one that understood the British Language. How we were deceived therein, is plaufible! I fuppofe this Lord does not understand our Language; nor is it to be fuppofed he will come amongst us, to learn it! nor fhall we be fond of learning his!

But fince I have minded you of the Welch Original Contract, which is of fo long ftanding; I would not have you forget another Contract, made about seven or eight Years fince, which is the Foundation of our prefent Government; I mean the Bill of Right and Liberties, and fettling the Succeffion of the Crown, which is so much forgot, touching the Difcourfe, and Practice, that I have not heard it named in Parliament but once in the laft Seffions, and I find it was much forgot in the Adminiftration. I would gladly know from thofe who are better verfed in the Prerogative Learning than my felf, whether his Majefty can, by the Bill of Rights, without the Confent of Parliament, aliene, or give away the Inheritance, as an abfolute Fee of the Crown-Lands? If he can, I would know to what Purpofe the Crown was fettled for Life, with Remainder in Succeffion, if the Tenant for Life of the Crown, can grant away the Revenues of the Crown, and what is incident to it? Or, can the King have a larger Eftate in the Revenues, than he has in the Crown to which it belongs? Far be it from me to fpeak any thing in Derogation of his Majefty's Honour or Care for us; it cannot be expected he should know our Laws, who is a Stranger to us, and we to him,

any