24.
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 particuler titles of all such as do or may pretende within Ingland or without, to be the next successior. Whereunto is also added a new and perfect arbor or genealogie of the discents of all the kinges and princes of Ingland, from the Conquest unto this day, whereby each man's pretence is made more plaine. Directed to the Right Honourable the earl of Essex, of her Majesties privy councell, and of the noble order of the Garter. Published by R. Doleman. Imprinted at N. with licence, MDXCIIII.
The intention of this book was to support the title of the Infanta against that of King James, after the death of Queen Elizabeth. The real authors were Robert Parsons the Jesuit, Cardinal Allen, and Sir Francis Englefield; and the printer is said to have been hung, drawn, and quartered.
It was rigorously suppressed, and by the Parliament of 35 Elizabeth it was enacted that "whosoever should be found to have it in his house should be guilty of high treason." It was also condemned by the University of Oxford on account of its dangerous positions, particularly that which says "Birthright and proximity of blood do give no title to rule or government;" and was burnt in the School Quadrangle there in July, 1683.
According to Camden, in his Life and Reign of Queen Elizabeth, (p. 576) the purport of this book, which quite laid aside the business of birthright, was: That the ancient laws of the land relating to hereditary succession ought to be altered. That new laws ought to be made about the choice of a King, and that none but a Roma Catholick, how near akin soever to the Crown, ought to succeed to it. Most of the Kings of England they traduced as mere usurpers, and all of the blood-royal in England as illegitimate, and so uncapable of succession. The King of Scots' title to the crown, though most certain and indisputable, they attempted to invalidate; and by sham tricks and devices endeavoured to set up the Infanta Isabella, the King of Spain's daughter, purely for being a Roman Catholic; a thing I am ashamed to mention, because the Priest's lips ought to preserve knowledge, and they should stand having their loins girt about with truth. Their first plea was, because, as this book pretends, she fetches her pedigree from Constance, the daughter of William the Conqueror, King of England, and wife to Alan Fergant, Earl of Bretagne; whereas notwithstanding Gulielmus Gemeticensis, who lived about that time, declares in his last book, that she died without issue, and he is followed by the consent of all the writers of the affairs of Bretagne. The next pretence was, because she had her descent from Eleanor, the eldest daughter of King Henry II, who was married to Alphonsus IX, King of Castile, whereas Pope Innocent III makes it out in Matthew Paris, (p. 381), that Maud, the wife of Henry Leo, Duke of Saxony, and mother of the Emperor Otho IV was his eldest daughter; and Robert, abbot of St. Michael's Mount, who christened her affirms that she was born 1162. A third argument was, because she was a descendant from Blanch, the eldest daughter of the said Eleanor, which was proved to be false both by Roderigo, Archbishop of Toledo, in his ninth book, and Pope Innocent, a writer of better credit, and both of them living in the same age. Another reason alleged was because she came originally from Beatrice, the daughter of Henry III, King of England, though 'twas forgot, in the mean time, that she had two brethren, Edward I, King of England, and Edward, Earl of Lancaster, from whom a great part of the nobility of England were lineally descended, besides the Royal Family. Again they asserted the Infanta's claim by the House of Portugal, and maintained on the same bottom the title of the Dukes of Parma and Braganza, from Philippa, the daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, whom they make to be his eldest daughter by his wife Blanch; whereas Frosard, who was a courtier at that time, proves (fol. 169 of the second part of his history) that his eldest daughter was Elizabeth, wife to John Holland, afterwards Duke of Exeter, from whose loins proceeded a large race of nobility, all the kingdom over.
Among the Domestic State Papers of the reign of Queen Elizabeth there is extant a copy of a letter from Robert Parsons to an unknown recipient, dated June 15th, 1599, concerning the book now under description. It is as follows:—
Doctour Gifforde hath a lettere to prove this discourse is of Parsons' doinge.
"The opinion and judgmente of C. A. before his death, concerninge the late printed booke of the Successyon, and certayne pointes therunto appertayninge.
"For that you are desirous my lovinge Frennd to understande of certayntie whether C. A. before his death had reade the late publyshed booke aboute the Successyon, and what his opinyon, judgment, and censure was of the same, and of all that affaires; and for that you shewe in your lettere, that greate difference and varyetie in judgmentes, discourses, reasons, and affectyons doe beginne to discover themselves ther, where you are about this matter, I shall answere your whole demaunde as truly and perticulerly as the compasse of a lettere will give me leave; havinge had (as you knowe) noe small meanes (by reason of my intrinsicall familliarrytie with C. A. and in his most secrette affaires) to knowe his meaninge fully in the cause. First, when I did assure you that C. A. reade over the booke more then once, and that with much attention, and liked the same excedinge well for the whole subjecte and argumente therof, esteminge yt very necessary for all sortes of English people that such a booke should be written, to give them lighte in a matter importinge them soe highlye as doth the successyon of the Crowne, wherof all dependeth, that is to say, (as he was wonte to saye), both life, honor, goodes, and a greate peace of the soule; and he woulde often affirme that noe lawe in the worlde could be more unjuste or more contrary to all reason or conscience then to forbide men to speake or treate of that which above all thinges concerneth them moste. Secondly, I can tell you also that C. A. had studyed much this matter of successyon before his death, and had gathered divers notes and observatyons together with intention as yt seemeth to have written a discourse therof himselfe, if he had not bynne prevente by this other booke, which did soe much contente and satisfye him, as presently he lefte of that cogitation, and sente all his papers, or the most parte therof, unto Mr. Fra. Peter, with whome he had conferred largly not longe before his deathe, by letteres of this affayre, doubtinge somwhat whether the time for some circumstances were fitte or noe to let the booke goe abroade, thoughe on the other side he were full of opinion that if it founde free passage it coulde not chose but doe infinite good. And as for the firste parte therof, which treateth of matter more in generall, and sheweth that propinquity and ancetry of bloude alone, althoughe it weare certaynely knowne, is not suffycyente to challenge admissyon to a crowne, excepte other conditions and circumstances requisite be founde alsoe in the person that doth pretende; as namely, witte, reason, and above all other thinges true religion; and that many nexte in bloude Royall have bynne justly barred and putt backe, and some alsoe deprived which were in posessyon, for these and lesser defectes, in all Christyan countryes throughout the worlde, and that this was allowed and ratifyed by God himselfe, and that all Christyan commonwealthes had authoritye, yea obligation, to doe and followe the same when just occasyon shoulde be offred.