SInce the Expedition of King Henry II. into Ireland, now about 530 years, the Lands of that King­dom have, by reason of the many Rebellions, frequently chang'd their Proprietors, insomuch that there are [Page 2] very few Acres in that Country which have not more than once been vested in the Crown by Forfeitures.

All the Lands forfeited in that King­dom since that time, (except what in the Rebellion of 1641, was by Act of Parliament secur'd to the Adven­turers, for the Money they then rais'd in the necessity of Affairs here) have all along been bestow'd by the Kings of England, according to their own pleasure.

His present Majesty, following the Example of those who went before him, has been pleas'd to grant Lands to several great Persons, and others whom he esteem'd deserving of his Favour; on which all the Chief Judges of that Kingdom, other Judges and Great Men in the Law, and others encourag'd by their Example, have as Purchasers, laid out considerable sums of Money. This they did because they knew that a Grant under the Great Seal is a good and legal Title and That by which the English there have all along held their Estate.

[Page 3]In regard of the Bill that is offer'd to resume those Grants, 'tis humbly represented to the Lords and Com­mons in Parliament, that they in mak­ing Laws, are, in their Great Good­ness and Wisdom, always very tender of every Man's Right; That the Grantees, and those who purchas'd under them have a just and legal right to the Lands granted by his Majesty; that barring an Irish Act of Parliament, (which in this case is not consider'd as appears by the E. of Athlone's Grant) the Duke of Ormond's, and all the Estates granted since 41, and in former times, may as well be resum'd as those given by his Maje­sty, since we are told that no time oc­curs to the King and Parliament.

'Tis said that Grants have frequent­ly been ressum'd by Parliaments, therefore they have a just right to do it: And if so neither the Grantee nor Purchaser has reason to complain, since the former is depriv'd of that which Parliaments have fre­quently dispos'd of, and the later [Page 4] suffers as one who purchas'd under an uncertain, and bad Title, and forgot what the Law says, Caveat Emptor.

If this were so, it might perhaps be de­cent not to urge it in the present Case, considering the infinite Obligations His Majesty has laid upon us, and how rea­sonable it is, he should be allowed to re­ward those, whom he knew deserved great marks of his bounty and Fa­vour. But laying these considerations aside, I will allow that, if indeed the nature of our constitution be such, that a Person who holds a Forfei­ted Estate by the Kings Grant, and he that purchases under that Grant, has but an uncertain and bad Ti­tle, and that it appears to be so, by the frequent resuming of E­states, then there is some weight in the Objection. But if the Parliament has never declar'd, That the King has no right to dispose of such Forfei­tures to the Crown; if the Judges, the Interpreters of our Laws, have al­ways agreed, That such Titles are good in Law; if they are the Titles by which the Lands of that, and this [Page 5] Kingdom, have always been held, I humbly conceive the Case is other­wise.

A Late Author has taken a great deal of pains to shew, that Parliaments in former times have made such Resumptions.

He says (which he could not avoid owning) That, Our constitution seems to have been, that the Kings always might make Grants, and that those Grants if pass'd, according to the forms of prescri­bed by Law, were valid and pleadable not only against him, but his Successors. If the Kings may make Grants, and they are valid; Does not an Act of Resump­tion deprive a man of that which he has a Just and Legal right to? And will it not be too great a hardship on the King, as well as the Persons con­cern'd in his Grants, to force him to take away what he has granted, and so to injure his Subjects whom he has always tenderly protected, and with the hazard of his blood preserved? That Author is of another opinion; for he tells us, ' Tis likewise manifest, that [Page 6] the Legislative Power has had an uncon­tested right to look into those Grants, and to make them void whenever they are thought EXORBITANT. If' tis only Exorbitant Grants that are to be look'd into, and made void, Will not a general Resumption, which voids all Grants, without examining what the Merits or Rewards of Persons are, be still a Hardship? What an Exor­bitant Grant is, I don't understand, nor has the Legislative Power ever determin'd the exact boundaries be­tween a Grant that is, and is not Ex­orbitant. Because this Author would have His Majesties Grants voided, 'tis plain he thinks them Exorbitant; But if many former Kings have made Grants vastly greater, which ne­ver were look'd into, or made void. If many of His Majesty's greatest Grants put together, will not equal the value of one Grant, made by the Parliament, since His Majesty's Reign, to one Person, and a Fo­reigner too (for which he is not the more in our Author's esteem) can they with any decency be reckoned amongst those Exorbitant [Page 7] Grants which ought to be resum'd?

'Tis hard to say what the Legisla­tive Power can't do, Id potest quod jure potest. So that whosoever affirms they have power to resume the King's Grants, if they please, I be­lieve, will not deny that they may like­wise Repeal former Acts of Parliament, and consequently dissolve the Right that Men enjoy by them. He has in­deed in his List of resumptions (which are nothing to the present purpose) in­stanced one, such as it is, whereby Grants were made void altho' confir­med by Parliament.

This Author when he says, That they have had such a Power, must mean only that they have exercised such a Power, and frequently resu­med Estates, which being vested in the Crown by Forfeiture, have been granted away by the Kings of this Realm. His Impartial and Intelli­gent Reader, I believe, will own, That he has demonstrated nothing of this. He has, he says, taken a vast deal of pains; but to what purpose? Has he in his laborious search, discover­ed [Page 8] any Act that voided the vast Grants made after the Rebellion in 1641; or that resum'd the escheat­ed Counties, and other Lands dispo­sed of by King James the First; or that broke the many and great Grants of Forfeitures made by Queen Eli­zabeth? Does he know of any Re­sumption of the great multitude of Estates given by King Henry the VIIIth? No: though they were ac­quired by Act of Parliament, and not by the King in War, yet the King dispos'd of them as he pleas'd, and the Grantees and Purchasers have not as yet complained of the hard­ship of a Resuming Act.

Have then the Grants of all the Princes since the Reformation creat­ed good Titles in Ireland, and pas­sed current and free from all Re­sumptions? Yes, 'tis certain they have, and that Author is challenged to shew the contrary. This, me-thinks, shews a custom ancient e­nough, to secure the Grants, of His present Majesty, to whom we owe more than to all the Kings before him.

[Page 9]'Twill be ask'd whether there were no such Resumptions before the Reformation; if there were, why (considering the streights we are in) shou'd not the same course be taken now to ease the Nation of Taxes? In order to give this que­stion a clear and satisfactory answer, I shall observe that the Grants made by our Princes have been of two sorts. First, of Lands that have fal­len to the Crown by Rebellion or Conquest: Secondly, of Lands or Hereditaments that were of the De­mesnes, or ancient Revenues of the Crown.

All Estates of the First sort are undoubtedly, by our Laws, in the gift of the King; our constitution does not only allow him to dispose of these, but supposes he will do it. 'Tis so far from being a Crime in any of his Ministers to countenance the Kings doing this, that on the contrary, should they advise him not to make Grants, but to keep his Acquisitions in his own hands, they [Page 10] ought to be censur'd for it: Because it might prove a thing of ill consequence to our Country, for if all the Re­venues that fall to the Crown were kept there, the King would in time become absolute Possessor, and Lord of all, and his People must be his Slaves.

As it is certain then that the King may, and (for a very good reason) ought, by our constitution, to Grant away such Lands as these; so it is as certain that not only since the Reformation, but Norman Con­quest likewise, an Act never has pas­sed to resume Grants of this kind.

As to the other sort of Grants; I mean of the Lands or Hereditaments that were of the Demesnes or An­cient Revenue of the Crown, it must be own'd that they in former times, have made some noise in this King­dom. All that a late Author has said, in a discourse too long for the Argument, relates only to such sort of resumptions: Therefore his pre­cedents will not touch the Irish Grants, [Page 11] though among other things, his Book was plainly Calculated for them.

But since 'tis possible, many, at this time, may be induc'd to enter­tain too harsh and wrong sentiments concerning Grants of this kind; since the prejudices of these Men, (if they should reckon that the Case of the one differs not from the other) will reach to forfeitures, and suggest to them that a resumption is highly reasona­ble: I will give the plainest and shortest account I can of thosse re­sumptions; I mean of Grants of the Crown Revenues, and that taken from what the Author himself says; and leave it to all True English Men (who love this Govern­ment) to Judge whether all his noise and clamour, and ill-tim'd reflections might not, in justice, as well as good breeding be spared.

He tells us ( pag. 302) that ancient­ly, it seemed a fundamental that the Crown-Lands were not alienable.

[Page 12]To whom did it seem so ancient­ly? Not to the Kings themselves; for they all along made Grants of the Revenues of the Crown, and that so commonly, that this Author will be hardly able to name two since the Reign of William I. that have not made Grants of some of the Revenues of the Crown, and thus broken in to this fundamental: Nor to the Par­liament; for they never have con­demned, such Grants, never made an Act of Parliament to prohibit them. This appears from the Act made (27. Hen. 8.c.11.) to secure the Fees belonging to the Clerk of the signet: or, (if the Author will have it so, vid. pag. 298) To inforce by a positive Law, the ancient steps in passing grants from the Crown. Tho' in this he is mistaken in the Judgment of Law­yers (mention'd by himself, p. 30) who say that these methods are directive not coercive, or as Hobart says, (Hob. Rep. Colt and Glover, p. 146) That these kind of Statutes were made to put things in ordinary form, and to ease the Sovereign of Labour, but not to deprive [Page 13] him of Power. But however that be, this is certain, that to make such Grants as these, is what is permitted our Kings, even by the Statute Law, and the Law never prescribes a rule for doing that which it allows not to be done.

But does not this Author tell us that 11. Hen. 4. 'Twas plainly and di­rectly enacted, That all manner of Here­ditaments, which from thence forward should fall into the Crown, should not be alienable, but remain to the King. This, he says, is positive, unrepeal'd, (as we know) and still as much in force as Mag­na Charta, pag. 303.) Here this Gen­tleman has been guilty of great in­advertency, in citing this as a Posi­tive Act and strong as Magna Charta for prohibiting alienations of the Re­venues of the Crown. I hope he on­ly forgot how he mentioned this Act in the foregoing part of this Book. ( p. 145.). I must desire the Reader to turn to the place he quotes, the very same year of Henry the IV th. and the |same Parl. Roll. There he tells us, The Commons pray the [Page 14] King, That for ever hereafter, no Grant might be made of any Hereditaments or other profits of the Crown, except Offices and Bailiwicks, till the King shall be quite out of Debt; and unless there be remaining in his Coffers sufficient for the Provision of his Family. The Act as 'tis here deliver'd is differing from the Magna Charta, the positive Law he mention'd before: And yet here he has given the Original a very dextrous turn; for the French in the Act is En Temps ensuivants, (which is no more than for the future) but he has render'd it, for ever hereafter; and so would infer that That, which 'tis plain was no more than a Petiti­on to the King, not to Grant a­way the Hereditaments of the Crown till he had sufficient for the support of his Family, was a positive Law, which was to stand for ever, like Magna Charta, to Guard the Revenues of the Crown, and restrain the King from making Grants. This Gentle­man is mistaken, the Wisdom of this Nation never did, and, I'm sure, ne­ver will make such an everlarsting Law as he mentions. They foresaw [Page 15] what the Power of the King in time would grow to, if there should never be any alienation, and that this fun­damental would shake the foundation of the Government: They know bet­ter things. My Lord Coke tells us, (2 d. Institut. pag. 496, 497) That the King's Prerogative is part of the Law of England, and that this is shewn in his Letters Patents for Lands, Tenements, and other things. Without this Prero­gative I can't see how he can Govern, and discharge that great duty incumbent upon him. What is a King unless he have Power to Reward and Punish? Some may be so warmed with a zeal for the Publick, that, without any hopes of reward, they may fight for it, and that so resolutely too, that they neither will give nor ask quarter. But there is not in all Men so much Vertue, and Piety towards their Country. Some are excited to perform great Things out of hopes of the same Reward that others have reap'd before them: And if it should not lie in the power of the Prince to do it, his Subjects may suffer greatly for want of their Services. All the Lands that are in [Page 16] the King's Dominions are suppos'd to have been given by him, and when­ever he gave, if any murmuring fol­lowed upon it, the reason of it was, not because he had not a right to give, but because he gave away that which was necessary even to the support of his Family; and 'twill appear, even from what this Author says, That 'twas then only that assumptions were thought of.

He tells us that the first Regular as­sumption was in the Reign of Henry the VIth. He does not then ap­prove of the assumption made by William Rufus, who alienated many of the Crown-Lands, and took them again to give to others: Nor that of King Stephen, who play'd the same trick of giving, and taking to give again: Nor that of Henry the II. who laid his hands upon the Regni re­ditus, or dominia, dispos'd of by King Stephen among his Followers: Nor that of King Richard the 1st. his Son, who to furnish himself for his expe­dition to the Holy Land, sold se­veral parcels of the Crown Re­venue, [Page 17] and resum'd them afterwards.

These resumptions are exploded as irregular, being made only by the Kings themselves, who thought of their Gifts, as the old Irish Proprietors do of their Estates, That they cannot so dispose of them, but that they still have still a good Title.

The Regular resumption made in the Reign of Henry the VIth. when the occasion and circumstance of that Act are consider'd, will, I believe, ap­pear to be as little the purpose; and very groundlesly produc'd for a pre­cedent at this time.

The Act was made in the 28th. year of Henry the VIth. The occasi­on of it is very well known. Sir John Fortescue, then Lord Chief Justice of the Kings-bench, tells us ( pag. 257) that that Prince had, after he came to the Crown in Lordships, Lands, Te­nements, and Rents, near hand to the fifth part of his Realm, above the Possessions of the Church; which was a greater Revenue, he said, than that [Page 18] of the King of France, or the Sultan of Babylon, or of any King that then Reigned over a Christian People. This great Revenue had in his time been so wasted with extravagant Grants, that 'twas but a little more than the fifth part of what was necessary to defray the charge of his House; for the necessary expences of his houshold besides all other ordinary charges, came to 24000 l. yearly, but the Re­venue of the Crown was but 5000 l. per. ann. as is set forth in the pream­ble of the Act. Besides, the Com­mons tell the King, that 'twas made out in the former Parliament, that the King was indebted 372000 l. This Sum (which had swollen big­ger now) was a vast one, as Money went in those days. In this poor and low estate of Affairs, when (as a Re­verend Person who liv'd in those times, tells us, vid. p. 355) The Revenues of the Crown were so rent away by ill Coun­sel, that the King was forc'd to live DE TALLAGIIS POPƲLI; and was grown in debt 500000 l. when the poor Commons (as they say in the Act) by finding Victuals for his houshold, &c. [Page 19] were well nigh destroyed: This first Re­gular Resumption (as 'tis call'd) was enacted.

The occasion of it we see; 'Twas the low, and miserable condition to which the Crown, exhausted by ex­travagant Grants, was reduc'd, and the great Poverty of the Kingdom. If this shou'd, in good earnest be as­signed for a reasonable and necessary cause of a resumption now, our mur­muring might be well reckoned a­mong our other iniquities, which we have reason to fear will pull down the Vengeance of God upon us.

But after all, what was this Act, does it contain any thing that gives the least colour of a precedent for that which is now propos'd? Was it not made in favour of the King to get him bread? Was he not to resume the Lands for the Crown? Was there any invasion upon his Prerogative? No: 'Twas not insinuated, that he had not a right to make such Grants. Sir John Fortescue, then Chief Justice of the Kings-bench (by whom our [Page 20] Author thinks this Law was model­led) informs us how the King's Revenues were dispos'd of, and the Crown impoverish'd. And among other things, says, That some of the said live­lihood, HIS GOOD GRACE had given to such as served so notably, that as their Renown will be Eternal, so it did befit the King's Magnificence, to make their Rewards Everlasting in their Heirs, to his Honour, and their perpetu­al Memory.

Here we have the opinion of a ve­nerable and Learned Lawyer (as he is justly call'd) to assure us, that 'twas not only the right of the King, but well becoming his Majesty, to make Grants of Lands of the Crown, to deserving Persons and their Heirs for ever. And tho' a great many not so deserving, had, by their solicitati­ons wrought themselves into his Pos­sessions, almost to the utter disherison of his Crown; yet that worthy man, in such a low and deplorable state of Affairs, propos'd that they would give the King a subsidy to gratifie Persons in case of a resumption. A plain de­monstration [Page 21] of [...], that 'twas thought unreasonable then, to pray the King to resume the Revenues of the Crown (for this, after so much noise that is made, will appear to be the whole that either this or the following Acts do contain) which he had profusely given away, without enabling him, in some sort, to reprise the Persons whose Grants he should resume.

But in a Case so very plain, what need many words? In this Act there is no restraint upon the King, he is pray'd to resume, but this Prayer is in favour of himselfe, that his baskets and coffers might be fuller. There is no necessity laid upon him to en­ter into the Possessions of his Friends, and, together with them, to ruin mul­titudes of his Subjects. 'Tis so far from this, that the King when he agrees to the Petition and Resump­tion, excepts all those that he shall be pleas'd to grant savings to. And accordingly we find, that besides 16 savings inserted by the Commons, there were 185 made by the King. Which abundantly shews what this [Page 22] Act of resumption was, it shews it in­deed to be a Regular one, (as the Author calls it) and the Reader sees that 'tis an excellent precedent for the present Bill.

Among other things concerning this Act, the Author observes, That the great Earl of SHREWSBƲRY, who had done so many Heroick Actions, and had so valiantly fought for the Ho­nour of his Country, had but 100 l. per. ann. Pension for his Life, and some Lands in Ireland, then of no value, the said Earl having 'had no other recom­pence for his long services, which mode­ration of his is a reproach to the ava­rice of the present times.

I must with this Gentleman own, that the Heroick Actions of that No­ble Earl (whose name carries merit in it) deserved the greatest recom­pence that could be given: But con­sidering the Poverty of those times, and the great value of Money, the Recompence, tho' not equal to the Merits of the Man, yet was greater than he represents it.

[Page 23]He adds that he had besides some Lands in Ireland then of no value; the words of the Act are, Till then yeilding nothing being in the hands of Rebels. I can assure this Gentleman, that the Lands of that noble Lord, of which afterwards his Family was deprived by the Statute of Absentees made in Ireland, were more than all the Irish ferfeitures disposed of by his present Majesty, put together. This considered, he might with more Justice have said, That this shews the moderation of his Grace, the present Duke of Shrewsbury, who, notwithstanding the great Ser­vices of his Ancestors in Ireland, notwithstanding his own great Me­rit, has not beg'd any Grant of the King in that Kingdom, where he had so good a claim. But since in comparing Grants made formerly with those of the present time, he has mentioned the favours conferred on a Noble Lord of that Great and Honourable Family, to make His Ma­jesty's Grants look the greater, and more exorbitant; I will tell him what I find in my Lord Coke's 12th. Report (E. of Shrewsbury's Case) that [Page 24] King Henry VIII. did grant to George E. of Shrewsbury and his Heirs, the Ab­bey of Rufford, with the Lands there­to belonging in the County of Not­tingham; the Lordship of Rotheram, in the County of York; the Abbeys of Chesterfield, Shirbrook and Gossadel in the County of Derby, with divers o­ther Lands and Tenements of great value. This I mention here, being led into it by the Author, to shew that there were great Grants in for­mer times. Of which, more here­after.

What this Act of Henry VI. was, what force and operation it had, whether that which this Gentleman would suggest, the Reader may guess from what follows. Had all the Crown Lands dispos'd of by that King, (except those that were secu­red to the Grantees by the several reservations made by the Commons and the King himself) by that re­suming Act, been re-invested in the Crown; there could have been no place left for the complaints, and se­veral resuming Acts or Petitions that [Page 25] follow'd. By them the nature and validity of this Act, as well as their own force and operation is discover'd.

The very next year (29 th Hen. 6.) Another appears of the same nature with this. In it there are great com­plaints made by the Commons of their Poverty of many unportable char­ges laid upon them, and of there being no benefit of the former Resumption (how so I wonder, if 'twas a posi­tive resuming Act) Therefore in the most lowly wise to us possible, we (say the Commons) beseechen you most no­blay, graciously and tenderly to consider the great benefits that should grow unto you, and to this your Roialme, by the means of this resumption.

The King in answer to the Peti­tion tells them that by the advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal, his exellency is agreed to resume, &c. But 'tis with Provisions and Excep­tions for all that he pleases, as ap­pears by the assent.

[Page 26]Four years after this (33. Hen. 6.) another Act of Resumption passes, which shews what kind of Acts these were.

The Commons set forth, That not withstanding their large Grants of Goods, he was indebted in outragious Sums; that the Revenue of his Land did not suffice to sustain his houshold, whereof the People (say they) lament and sorrow piteously. What became then of the Lands vested in the Crown by the former Resumptions?

The King assents to this Petition as before; but with a Reserve for his Prerogative; and savings for what he pleased. This shews the meaning of those Acts: They were only Pray­ers and Petitions to the King to pity them, and the low Estate of his Crown, and to resume as much of the Revenues he had given away, as was sufficient to support his Fa­mily. What could there be more in such a Resuming Act, wherein the King, in the Royal Assent, inserts a [Page 27] saving for his Prerogative. This, I think, is plainly manifest by the effect, and operation of these Acts.

These were the Acts Resump­tion made by Henry VI.

Some may object, (says this Author) that Henry VI. under whose Reign these three Resumptions were made, was a weak Prince, unfortunate abroad, ingaged in Factions at home, and kept under by the house of York. I would ask that Gen­tleman what need there is of such an objection; for what effect had all these Petitions? what was this weak King forced to do? Did not he as­sert his Prerogative? Were there a­ny resumptions? by what followed 'twill appear whether there were or no.

This Gentleman was not aware that the insinuating this Objection makes greatly against him. For what opinion had the People of Resump­tions at that time, or of their right of claiming them, when in the Reign of so weak a Prince, their Acts (as they are called) avail'd no more.

[Page 28]About five years after (1 Edw. IV.) as soon as that King came to the Crown, his Subjects desir'd a Resumption: By this all Grants were to be resum'd that were made since the latter end of Rich. II. which was above sixty years: The reasons will be clear to any one that knows the History of England. This Gentleman does well to name this among the other Precedents, to let us know the moderation of those times, and to shew that no Prescription will secure Men against a resuming Act. This resumption, he says, was too large to have any good effect. Why so? The more Lands it seiz'd, the better the effect: But it seems it did no execution. For

Three years after ( Anno 3 and 4 Edw. IV.) there pass'd another Act. This Act as well as the former pass'd with such exceptions as it should please the King to make. A prodigi­ous number of these savings, it seems, there were; in so much that, our Au­thor says, they seem intirely to de­feat [Page 29] the design and intention of the Act. Therefore.

Three or four years after (7 Edw. IV.) we are told of another; this the King desires, for he tells them he is resolv'd to live of his own, and not be a charge to his Subjects. This passes, with what Provisions and Exceptions the King is pleas'd to make, but as ill luck would have it, the Exceptions, our Author tells us, frustrated the good intentions of the Commons. Thus ac­cording to him each of these three Acts was a Felo de se. Why then are they produc'd? 'Tis to raise a Cloud of Witnesses, and alarum peo­ple with a great noise of Resumptions in former times, tho there be nothing at all in them. On the miscarriage of these anothor Act is made.

10 Edw. IV. But 'tis with such pro­visions and exceptions as by the K. shall be made, who tells the Commons he will reward every of his Subjects for their merits. We are told by this Author that a great number of exceptions are [Page 30] brought by the King, but these don't seem of that nature, as if 'twere de­sign'd they should defeat the intenti­ons of the House of Commons.

This Gentleman, in giving an account of these Resumptions, had done well if he had told us how they happen'd; this would sufficiently inform us what they were. Eve­ry one knows how Edward the IV. came to the Thrown, that he was Crown'd several years before the Death of Hen. VI. Our History tells us that to raise some with the ruin of others, he distributed the Lands and Possessions of those that sided with King Henry amongst his own Favourites and Followers; having, the better to paliate his own proceed­ings, fir [...]t made Proclamation, that whosoever of the contrary Faction would come in and submit, should be received to Grace, and restor'd to their Patrimonies. Trust. Hist. pag. 183.

[Page 31]In the 10th. Year of his Reign, we find King Henry gets the ascen­dent again; K. Edward IV. 1. Proclaim­ed an Usurper; is forc'd to quit the Kingdom. Then the Parliament was assembled at Westminster, wherein King Edward and his Friends, and Followers, are Attainted of High-Treason, and their Goods and Lands seised to King Henry's use. Trust. Hist. pag. 194.

This accounts for the Resumption made three Years after (13. Edward VI. last mention'd) when King Ed­ward got the better again. 'Twas an Act to re-invest Crown-Lands, and Goods, which King Edward IV. had in the beginning of his Reign, which (as I've shewn) were afterwards seiz'd by Parliament, for King Hen­ry's use, and had by him been dispo­sed of among his Friends. So that this, it seems, was only an Act to resume from King Henry's Friends, to vest them in the Crown, and in effect to give them to King Edward's Favourites, for giving the Royal as­sent, [Page 32] he told the Commons, That the Bill should not withstand that Right and Equity which obliged him to do to every of his Subjects according to their Merits.

Anno 1. Henry VII. Another Act of Resumpiion passes, by this the K. is to seize and assume into his hands whatever Henry VI. his Unkle had, the 2 d. day of October, in the 34 th. Year of his Reign; and it makes void all Grants made by King Ed­ward IV. King Edward V. and Ri­chard III. By Authority of Parliament, or otherwise.

Here is an excellent precedent for Resumptions, one that shews how a great deal of Money may be raised, if we will but Copy after this Exem­plar: For this looks backward thro' three entire Reigns, and seizeth what was given even by Act of Parlia­ment. Either this is a Regular Re­sumption, or it is not: If it be not, why is it mentioned? If it be, this Gentleman shews where England may raise a vast Sum upon an extraordi­nary [Page 33] occasion. 'Twill be only resu­ming what has been forfeited in Ire­land since 1641, or if that should be too little, carrying the Act up to Queen Elizabeth's time; which, ac­cording to what he has delivered, in his Doctrine of Resumptions, and Conquest together, may very well be done.

This Gentleman, when he, in or­der to influence the Parliament to resume, deliver'd this among his ma­ny other excellent Precedents, ought to have told us the true cause of this very extraordinary Act. 'Twas in the 1 st. of Henry VII. who was Nephew to Henry VI. depos'd by Eward IV. in the 34th. year of his Reign. This Edward, together with Edward V. his Son, and Richard III. kept Henry VI. and his Heirs out of the Throne for many Years. When therefore the Crown return'd into the Lancastrian Line, and Hen. VII. was Crown'd, the Parliament call'd in the first year of his Reign made all the Grants of the former Usurpers void, and vested in the King all that [Page 34] his Unkle possessed, at the time he was Depos'd. Is this any thing to the purpose in the present Case, and is taking from Usurpers and their Fa­vourites, and vesting it in the King any invasion upon the King? no, Hen. VII. in giving the Royal assent reserv'd a power to himself, to make what exceptions he pleas'd, and to re­ward the Merits of his Friends,

The last Resumption of Crown Lands made by the Kings of Eng­land, was in this Kings Reign. Af­ter this now mentioned our Author tells us, there were some particular ones, as anno 11. Henry VII. An Act of Resumption of divers Castles, Man­nors, Lands, and Tenements, which were formerly given by King Edw. III. and King Richard II. to Edmond de Langley, Duke of York. Though this would suit better with times which some expect hereafter, but I hope never will see, yet it ought not to be omitted here, because it af­fords a Precedent for looking further backward, and shews, that when we are resuming, we may rake deep into [Page 35] Antiquity, and grasp at things that were given 120 years before. This our Author is not for, he is for con­fining his Resuming Act within the Grants of the present Reign; this we can't ascribe to any extravagant respect he has for His Majesty; nor can I tell whether we owe it to his Moderation, for had he advised a large retrospect, he had, perhaps, been too disobliging, and defeated the designs of his Book. If we would follow him, 'tis hard to know what measures to take; when he proposes a Pattern for us to imitate in our re­trospection, he lays before us the Ex­ample of those Kings who resumed their own Grants without assistance of Parliament, vid. pag. 428. In a­nother he tells us, that these are ir­regular, and when he comes to give account of the regular, he mentions such as either had no manner of ef­fect at all; or else took a very large compass, and went very far back, in their way breaking over Acts of Par­liaments.

[Page 36]On the whole matter, these Ob­servations may be made.

First, That all his noise about Re­sumptions, has been of Grants of Lands, and Revenues of the Crown.

Secondly, That such Grants as these are not contrary to the Common or Statute Laws of this Kingdom.

Thirdly, That they were never complained of, but in the lowest and most deplorable Circumstances of the Crown; and then not upon the ac­count of their being illegal, but up­on the account of the indigency of the Prince, and the necessities of his Family.

Fourthly, That the first Regular Resumption (as 'tis call'd) was in the reign of a Prince, who had committed the most wasts upon the Crown; and had lessen'd almost all the revenues of it: And yet neither this, nor those that follow'd had any manner of effect.

[Page 37] Fifthly, That the Resumptions after­wards in the Reigns of Edw. IV. and H. VII. were voidances of Grants made by Usurpers, as they were call'd, and vesting them in the prevailing Kings.

Sixthly, That these Resumptions many of them brook through Acts of Parliament, and uravel'd things for several Reigns backward.

Seventhly, That these cou'd not properly be called Acts, but rather Addresses to the King. For had they been positive Acts of Resumption, how cou'd they be defeated, as our Author owns they were.

Eightly, That, However this be, yet 'tis certain that in all the resum­ing Acts, the King's Prerogative was always reserv'd, and Saving and Ex­ceptions allow'd to as many as he pleas'd.

From what has been said, it ap­pears what weight there is in this Gentleman's Precedents; what con­clusions [Page 38] may be drawn from them, and how justly they are propos'd to influence the Legislative Power at this time. Former Kings impoveri­s'd the Crown, by their extrava­gant Grants; in the heighth of this misery, the Commons pray'd the King wou'd resume into his hands the Revenues of the Crown, for the support of his Family, but preserve what he pleas'd for his Friends; Therefore 'tis reasonable that we shou'd now resume all that our King has dispos'd of, all the Lands forfei­ted by Rebells, whom he subdu'd with the hazard of his Life. This is an extraordinary Inference.

'Tis the King's Prerogative, his undoubted right to dispose of such Forfeitures: 'Tis a right that never was deny'd to any former Prince: And a positive resumption of his own Grant is what has never been requi­red from any King of England. Be­fore this Gentleman, who seems to be mightily concern'd for the good of his Country, had press'd it so violent­ly, I wish he had considered.

[Page 39] First, Whether such a Resumpti­on as this would not reflect too much on the avraice of the present age.

Secondly, Whether his Majesty, who has rescu'd us from Slavery and Po­pery, who has Fought our Battles Abroad, who has restor'd the Balance of Europe, and thereby retriev'd the Honour and Glory of the English Na­tion, ought to be deny'd that, which was the undoubted Prerogative of his Predecesssors.

Thirdly, Whether this be agreeable to our former Acts, whether it will not sound odd here after in our Annals, and make us seem to our Neighbours a wavering and uncertain People.

Fourthly, Whether it be not dan­gerous and unpolitick to tell the World, and our Posterity, in so so­lemn a manner, that is shall not be in the power of our King to reward the services of Men who hazard their Lives and Fortunes, in the times of greatest danger.

[Page 40] Fifthly, Whether it be not too great a hardship to turn Men out of the Possessions which they enjoy by the Laws of this Land, and thereby ruine multitudes of Families.

To silence the murmuring and com­plaints of all Persons, whether Gran­tees or Purchasers, and to justifie a Resumption, we are told of a claim made by the House of Commons, and of His Majesty's promise. If the Parliament claim'd these Estates to apply to the use of the War, and His Majesty promis'd it should be so, were not those who obtain'd Grants afterwards, and laid out Money up­on them very faulty? are such pra­ctices to be encourag'd? and do not they justly suffer?

This c [...]ution here given, this claim put in by the House of Commons, cannot, I humbly conceive, in Equi­ty be pleaded against the Earl of Rumney, and those who Purchase un­der him; not only because his Grant was before any such caution, but be­cause [Page 41] likewise there was afterwards a saving for him in the Bill that pas­sed the Commons House. The same may be said of the Earl of Athlone, and those who purchased under him, since, besides an Irish Act of Parlia­ment (which has been always reckon­ed solid enough to settle Lands in that Country) there were Addresses to the King, in his behalf, here in England.

But let us see what the claim was which the House of Commons made to these Estates, and what 'twas the King promis'd.

We find in Octob. 1690, 'twas the opinion of the Committee of the whole House, that Ten Hundred thou­sand Pounds should be rais'd upon the credit, or by sale of the forfeited Estates in Ireland. 'Twas resolved that a Bill should be brought in for applying the same to the charge of the War. The Bill pass'd the Commons House, but fell in the House of Lords. His Majesty's promise was made just five days after it pass'd in the lower House. The words were these, I do likewise think it proper to assure you, that I shall not [Page 42] make any Grant of the forfeited Lands in England or Ireland, till there be another opportunity of settling the mat­ter, in Parliament, in such manner as shall be thought most expedieent.

Here we see what the King's pro­mise was, 'twas that he would not make any Grants till there was ano­ther opportunity of settling that mat­ter in Parliament, as should be thought most expedient. To me it seems that the matter was settled by the Lords, and that they, by letting the Bill fall, shew'd what they thought most expedient, viz. To let things go in the ancient course, not to break in upon the Kings Prerogative, but suffer him to dispose of the Estates that were vested in him. By this Fate of the Bill in the upper House, to me it seems plain, that the King Was dis­charg'd of his promise, and that the claim (as 'tis call'd) of the House of Commons was determin'd, for with the Bill lost in the House of Peers, the opportunity was lost of settling that matter in Parliament, and this likewise concluded the Commons, and put an end to their claim.

[Page 43]The next year another Bill was brought in to vest these forfeited E­states in their Majesties; this Bill fell in the lower, as the other had done in the upper House. The same for­tune had the several other Bills after­wards in the years following, as 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98.

From this account it appears, that this claim put, in by the House of Commons, which ought to have de­terr'd people from meddling with the forfeitures, was in the year 1690; That so long ago people saw the Lords thought it unreasonable by their letting it fall in their House; that in all the years following, when 'twas propos'd, which was in seven seve­ral Sessions, and 'twas rejected per­petually in the Commons House.

'Twas but reasonable that the English there, who suffered for adhering to England, and were miserably ruined by the rapine of their Enemies, should be allow'd, after a longer tract of time, than we allot to the Life of Man, at last to Plant the Country, and settle themselves.

[Page 44]A Resumption they could not fear, 'twas what they never knew practi­ced to defrate the King's Title; and they could not imagine, that it would have its rise in this Reign, or be let loose upon them, to unsettle and ruin them again, who had done so much, and had been so long wasted by the miseries of War. Since then the States of the Nation did not think fit nine years since, when the Bill was brought in, nor any time after, to vest the forfeitures of that King­dom in His Majesty to help to de­fray the charges of the War; 'tis humbly represented, that it will be too great a hardship to do it now. Whilst the Lands were the Parlia­ments own (that is, before the King made them the Properties of others) they might have done with them what they would: The Case is now otherwise; they have been suffered to go into other hands. Men have laid out great Sums in Building, in Improving, in Purchasing, in making good their titles at Law. These con­siderations, and many more that could be named, make a Resumption a [Page 45] greater severity than ever the Lords and Commons of England, who have been always not only Just, but Ge­nerous and Merciful, can practice on any people. They will not re­sume forfeitures, when Men of Eng­lish Blood and Religion are to suffer so much by it; they will not suffer an inquisition to go into that Coun­try, which will set every Man at variance with his Neighbour, and turn many thousand Protestant Fami­lies out of their habitations.

But this will not satisfie the Gen­tleman whom I have mentioned so often. He says the War of Ireland has cost England a vast Sum of Mo­ney; I know it has cost a great deal, but little in comparison of what he mentions. But what if it has? Why then he says, 'tis reasonable that the forfeitures there should go to pay part of the reckoning. If the for­feitures, in Justice, ought to go to them that the troubles, of Ireland have been most chargeable to, Eng­land, would find, when they came to a fair reckoning, that the Pro­testants of Ireland have the best claim [Page 46] to them: For the whole War, that we were so long ingag'd in has not cost us near so much as the Troubles of Ireland have cost them: I mean in proportion to the People, and Wealth of the Kingdom. This reckoning will be easily understood, when we consider, how long the Protestant Gentlemen of Ireland lost the whole income of their Estates; how many years after (and even to this day) their Estates yield but part of their ancient Rent; how almost all the Herds, Flocks, and Goods, and Wealth of the Protestants were plundr'd and seis'd by their Enemies. This will shew how reasonable it is by a re­sumption to make them pay again for what they have so severely paid for already.

Had one of the old Irish Kings rul'd absolutely in that Kingdom, England would have been satisfied in this War to lay out a much greater Sum to keep it out of the hands, or Alliance of France, without desiring to be reim­burs'd, any more than in Savoy or Flanders.

[Page 47]But 'tis said the K. has been misin­form'd in the value of his Grants, there­fore a resumption is highly reasonable. If he has, there is an old way chalk'd out to redeem that. The custom was to desire the King to consider the Merits of those whom he had given to. But has he been misinform'd in all? No sure: why then a General Resumption? But wherein has he been impos'd on? In the Persons; or the Grants? There can be no great mistake in the Persons; some might have been recommended to his fa­vour, and by their solicitations and importuning procure Grants, who had no great Merit: But the most considerable are persons whose Merits he knew; and what rewards they deserv'd; such as have accompanied him in his dangers; and have serv'd him in his Wars, and particularly in his Great and Glorious Expedition to restore our Laws and Religion, and to secure the Liberty of Europe. A­gainst some of these 'tis objected by some, that they are Foreigners, if they that came in to our Succour, to deli­ver us from Slavery are to be called [Page 48] Foreigners, I can't tell how the Sama­ritan in the Gospel could be call'd a Neighbour.

Some without excepting against ve­ry many of the persons, say the Grants are Exorbitant. They are not sure too Great for his Majesty to give. Many of the Kngs of England have given much more than all them put together to private persons in Ire­land, in former times. Henry Crom­well's Phsician pass d Patent for very near as many Acres of Land, as are even by the Commissioners return'd in the two best Grants of Forfeitures made by his Majesty. But supposing the Grants to be great as they are repre­sented: I humbly am of opinion, that 'tis more for the Honour and Interest of England, that they should stand, than that Roch, who by swiming into Derry with the hazard of his Life preserved that place, should in a Ge­neral Resumption lose his little Grant. Examples of our liberality in reward­ing may be of advantage to us, but it cannot be either profitable or honou­rable, to tell the world we will not reward. We may have occasion for [Page 49] the assistance of our Neighbours a­gain, for the things of this world are very instable. This consideration may make it seem greater Wisdom in us, to let the Monuments of our Libe­rality stand, to encourage others here­after, if occasion should be, to come to our Succour; than to deprive those of the Rewards of their Prince, who follow'd his Fortune and Dan­dangers, in his undertaking to Deli­ver and Preserve us.

But after all, let us see, whether these Grants are so extravagant or no. When we say they are too great, we mean that there is too much taken from the Publick; that they might have been sold for much, and the price given to help to bear the ex­pences of the War. When we talk of what is given from us, we are to take things as they were when we call'd them ours. Had the Forfeitures in Ireland been sold for the use of the Publick in the year 1690, or some years after, 'tis certain they would not have rais'd near 200000 l. What then are the Exorbitant Grants that the King has given from us? Has [Page 50] he given to all his Friends all that serv'd and suffer'd in that Ringdom twice as much as what the Parliament here gave to Duke Schomberg? 'Tis true the Grants now are represented to be much greater. 'Tis no won­der; 'twas the interest of those who did it, to make large returns, other­wise the Commission would have had an end. The Sum might very well be large, when they return'd forfei­ted Acres, one with another, about trible what they were valued by Sir W. Petty, who had as computing a head as other Men; (this is plain like­wise in the private Estate which is return'd at 26000 l. per annum, when 'twas never set for above 8000 l.) when they have returned so small incumbrances on Estate; when there are but four Intails return'd in all the forfeitures; when the Rent of 12000 l. per annum reserved to the Crown on those Grants is not consider'd; when the number as well as value of Acres is magnified. If it shall happen that four or 500000 l. could be now rais'd (which sure is the very utmost that can be) 'tis hardly worth England's while, [Page 51] considering how its gotten. It may be construed by some as a particular slight put upon the K. many must suffer who have deserv'd well of the Kingdom; legal Rights must be made void; great injury must be done to Purcha­sers and Improvers; and a grievous inquisition must afflict and unsettle that unhappy Kingdom.

This paper is written by a private disinterested person, one who inoffen­sively to each particular, sincerely de­sires the general happiness and pros­perity of this Kingdom: one who heartily wishes a firm and immutable establishment of this Government, and the Protestant Religion, in op­position to the incouragement of either Popery or Papist (whether Outlaw'd or others) to which we have reason to fear that we may be once again obnoxious, unless prevented by great Wisdom and care.