England's proper and only way to an Establishment in Honour, freedom, Peace and happiness.  
OR, The Norman Yoke Once more uncased, And the Necessity, Justice, and present seasonableness of breaking it in pieces demonstrated, In Eight most plain and true PROPOSITIONS with their PROOFS.  
By the author of Anti-normanism, and of the Plain English to the neglectors of it.  
Deo, Patriae, Tibi.  
LONDON, Printed for R. L. Anno Dom. 1648.   

To THE READER.  
READER,  
THou hast here once more my endeavour for to draw this our Nation from under the Right, Title, Effects, and Badges of the Norman (pretended) Conquest over us, to which by the iniquity of precedent times, and the ignorant negligence of the present, we remain still subject; Conquest (Saith Doctor Hudson) in its best attire is the most eminent of Curses, but sure it is a Curse far more eminent to be so difficult to be persuaded to come out of that quality, especially while undeniable Justice, power, and opportunity add their invitations: If what is here made manifest shall meet with due and timely regard, and produce effects according, we may happily recover that incomparable Freedom, Honour, Peace and happiness which we enjoyed under the glorious and our last right English King Saint EDWARD; but if such cold consideration shall attend it as seems to have befallen what hath been before sent abroad upon the same errand, I shall esteem it great pity, and am much deceived, if either by our old or some new conquerors we be not taught with more than words, what belongs to such as have not capacity to be either ingenuous Subjects or dutiful Slaves. Vale.  
JO: HARE.   

England's proper and only way to an establishment in Honour, freedom, Peace, and happiness.  

Proposition 1.  
That the Right and Title of a (pretended) Conquest over the English Nation, by foreigners called Normans, hath been heretofore set up and is still upheld in this Kingdom, and that all Englishmen by the mouths of their Parliaments and Lawyers have submitted and do still submit unto the same, and are governed in great part by Norman Innovations, being foreign Laws and customs introduced by the said Normans in despite of the English people, for marks and Monuments of the said Conquest.   

Proof.  
THat the Right and Title of such a Conquest is still on foot, and stands for the Basis of this Kingdom, I suppose needs no proof: That it is accordingly still submitted to, I have proved in my Plain English, pag. 3, 4. a sufficient part of which probation is this, (viz.) That by the mouths above said, we do acknowledge (how truly I shall show in my fifth Proposition) that the Duke of Normandy absolutely purchased with his Sword the Crown of England and our Allegiance (for otherwise he could not be as we name him our conqueror.) Secondly, That accordingly we do submit to his heirs, placing him the said Duke (specificated with his said Title of conqueror▪) for the Root and Alpha of our rightful Kings; so that it is plain that the said Conquest doth enjoy both our acknowledgement and professed allegiance; That the Norman Innovations are retained (to the almost exiling of our own proper Laws) is everywhere both 
* See Daniels Hist. p. 43.  legible and visible: That they were introduced in manner and for the purpose above said, and accordingly reseuted and reluctated against by the English people (while they understood themselves and their proprieties) may appear by their many exclamations made against them unto the (pretended) conqueror, by the Acts of the Kentishmen, and by the Londoners Petition in King Stephen's time, which also occasioned those many regal Oaths to be then and still taken (though not yet performed) for retracting these innovations and restoring the Laws of King Edward, So far are the said Innovations from being any part of our Legitimate Laws (though our wild Lawyers so repute them) the proper birth or stamp whereof is to be of the people's choosing, as the Coronation Oath testifies: And thus much for to show that while we dispute the duty of Subjects we profess the allegiance of Captives, while we spurn at English Proclamations we submit to Norman Laws, and that notwithstanding all our great Victories and Triumphs, we do still remain as much as ever, under the Title and in the quality of a conquered Nation; unto which what reasons we have to induce us, I shall show in my ensuing Propositions.   

Proposition 2.  
That the said Title of Conquest and Norman Innovations (while they continue in force in this Kingdom) are destructive to the Honour, freedom, and all other unquestioned Rights of this Nation, and much more to the present Legality and future validity of this Parliaments proceedings.   

Proof.  
A Great part of the injuriousness of this Title and Innovations, toward our Nation, I cannot better set forth then in the words of learned Fortescue (cited by Mr. Prin in his sovereign Power, part. 1. p. 37, 38.) though himself a Norman and arguing only against unlimited Prerogative in the crown which is but part of what is inseparably wrapped up in Title of Conquest, who having declared it to be the undoubted Right of Englishmen to have this twofold privilege (viz.) to be under Laws of their own choosing and Princes which themselves admit, (in which two consists a great part of their Honour and the sum of their freedom as I have showed in my Plain English p. 1.) adds, that of the Benefit of this their Right they should be utterly defrauded if they should be under a King that might spoil them of their Goods, (as our first pretended conqueror did, and as the heirs of his Title by the law of all Conquests still may,) And yet should they be much more injured if they should afterwards be governed by foreign and strange Laws and such peradventure as they deadly hated and abhorred (of which sort I have before showed these Innovations, to be,) And most of all, if by those laws their substance should be diminished (as it is by many of these Innovations particularly that of drawing the generality of Law suits to Westminster) for the safeguard whereof as also of their honour and of their own Bodies they submitted themselves to his government; Thus and more he; To which I may add, that this injuriousness were yet much more aggravated, if our Kings which were installed by our Admission and should thus patronize our Honour, &c. Should profess themselves to be of foreign blood, declare that they owe their Right to the crown unto none but their Sword, and write on our foreheads that we are their Conquered and Captive vassals (as our Princes while they retain the said Title, do;) In sum, the Title and Effects of this (pretended) Conquest are a yoke of Captivity, unto which while we continue our fond and needless Submission, we renounce Honour, Freedom and all absolute Right to any thing but just shame and oppression, being thereby in the quality of professed Captive Bondslaves unto the heirs of the Duke of Normandy and wearing the open livery of that Pofession; And although we enjoy a mitigation of our Slavery by Charters, yet are those Charters revokable at the King's pleasure (as 
* See M. Pryn's S. P. sol. 59 b.  K. Richard the Second well observed) while the Kingdom continues grounded on the Conquest, Which I have sufficiently proved (in the Preface to plain English) from the tenor of Magna Charta itself (which declares the said Charter to be an Act of mere grace and favour and grounded upon respect not somuch of Duty as of meritorious supererogating toward God, much less of duty (though benefit) to the Nation, and from a 
* See M. Pryn's citation last mentioned.  confession of Parliament, and is also otherwise no less clearly evincible, for that it is a maxim, that all Subjects of a Conquest, especially while they profess themselves such (as we simply still do) are in the quality of Tenants in villainage, subject and subservient in their persons and estates to the Will▪ Honour, and Benefit of their conqueror and his heirs, according to that axiom in 
* In lib. 1. de Bello Gallico.  Caesar (mentioned in my Plain English, pag. 7.) Jus est Belli ut hi qui vicissent his quo● vicissent quemadniodum vellent Imperarent, That the conquered are by the Laws of War under the arbitrary Rule and Government of their conquerors, and according to the practice in the Turkish Dominions, which are not more grounded on conquest than we yield ours to be; which Captive and slavish quality, how unseemly it is for Englishmen to continue in, especially toward a Norman Colony, and that while they may with justice and facility come out of it, I have shown in my anti-normanism: And as touching the consequent 
* The example of the extorting of Magna Charta makes nothing to the contrary, for that was done (as Daniels History testifies) by the Nobility of those times, under the notion and quality of Normans and coheirs of the conquest, which quality (I suppose) our Parliament will not (if they could) assume.  Illegality of this Parliaments proceedings (Until they either repeal this Title, or else renounce the quality of Englishmen) if it seem not evident enough from the premises, it may be seen in my Plain Engl. evinced and proved against all objections whatsoever; of which illegality, future invalidity is both the sister and daughter.   

Proposition 3.  
That the same are also derog●●ry to the Kings Right to the Crown, to his Honour, and to his just interest in the people's affections.   

Proof.  
FOr it is confessed on all sides (particularly by Master Martial and Master Pri● the Prolocutors of the Parliamentarians, and by Doctor Hudson the grand Royalist) that the Title of Conquest is 
* Likewise by our own Laws, obligations extorted by duresse (as is fealty to a conquest) are voidable.  unjust, as being gained by murderous Rapine; So that while we ground the King's Title on a Conquest, we make him a predonicall Usurper, and defraud him of his just Right founded on Saint Edward's legacy joined with this Nations Admission, besides his Heireship to the English blood, as I have shown in my Plain Engl. page the last, and in Anti-Norman, pag. 19 And as for his honour and just interest in the people's affections, they consist in his being Pater Patriae, as himself also also lately intimated; but the Title of the Conquest holds him in the quality not only of a foreigner, but also of the capital enemy of his Subjects, and so affords their minds more provocation unto hatred and revenge, then unto affection or allegiance, as I have plainly shown in my Preface to Plain Engl. and in Anti-Norm. pag. 20, 21. and may be discerned from those suitable fruits of it, which I shall hereafter specify. Neither do the Innovations (the Effects and badges of the (pretended) Conquest) want their share in the like effect, as being a just cause of the disrelishment and contempt of our Laws, (so Normanized both in matter and form) by understanding men, and (no doubt) the ground of that general and inbred hatred which still dwells in our common people against both our Laws and Lawyers.   

Proposition 4.  
That the same have been the Root and Cause of all the civil Wars (about temporal matters) that ever were in this Kingdom betwixt King and People, and are likewise for the time to come, destructive to all well grounded, firm and lasting unity, peace, and concord in this Realm, and consequently to the strength of the same.   

Proof.  
THe Narrative is evident from history, the rest from reason; for how can there be union in affection betwixt those that are professed strangers and enemies one to another as this Title and Innovations (the ensigns of hostility) render our Kings & people, moreover the said Title (by reason of the unlimited prerogative inseparably appendent) is apt to suggest seeds of Tyranny to the Crown (as it hath continually doubt) & consequently of insurrections to the subject, to the disturbance of the public peace, which is Confirmed by the said many civil wars we have had in this kingdom since these Abuses were set on foot, whereas before, we never had any; And weakness must needs wait upon that Body where there is such a disunion and antipathy betwixt the Head and Members.   

Proposition 5.  
That the introduction of the said Title and Innovations was, and the retaining of them is contrary to the fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom.   

Proof.  
FOr the Norman Duke was admitted as Legatee of Saint Edward, and upon his Oath to preserve our laws and 
Not any History or Record saith that he claimed the Crown (before he had it) as Conqueror of England, much less that he was acknowledged for such by the English or submitted to under that Title; therefore the assumption of that Title afterward was usurpatory: See my Anti-Norm. p. 15, 19  Liberties, and not as a conqueror nor yet for an Innovator, as the most authentic Historians testify, among whom honest Aemilius Veronensis an impartial stranger writing of this matter, saith expressly, non ipss homines sed causa defuncti victa extinct aque, that it was not the English Nation, but the Usurper Harrolld that was overcome, and as (in opposition to the Innovations) I shall make more clear in the confirmation of my next Proposition; Insomuch that the violent introduction of the said Abuses was, and the per●tinacious upholding of them is an usurpant▪ perjurious and perfidious robbing us of the Title and quality of a free Nation.   

Proposition 6.  
That the retaining of the same is contrary to the Coronation Oath of all our Kings, and to the Oaths and Duties of Parliament and People.   

Proof.  
FOr it is the first and chief part of the proper and solemn Oath of all our Kings at their Coronation (as it was the first Normans like Oath, either at his Coronation or (at least) 
* See M. Pryn's Pryn's citations of testimonies to this purpose, in his S. P. p. 51, 52. and my Anti-Norm▪ p. 15.  before his full admission and confirmation by the English State) to preserve our Laws and Liberties established by Saint Edward, which are inconsistent with the said Title and Innovations; Neither can any man say, that because the Oath binds also to the confirmation of other King's Grants, therefore these Innovations are included; for Grants imply a precedent asking, and how far these Innovations were from ever being asked I have before shown; And moreover the confirmation is especially limited to the Laws of King Edward, as being both the most desired and desirable. And for Parliament and People, they are bound both by their natural and official Duties, and moreover by their late solemn Covenant, unto the vindication of their national Rights and Liberties, of which tho said Title and Innovations are the greatest opposites, as I have before shown.   

Proposition 7.  
That until this Title and Innovations are abolished, there can be no Honour, freedom or happiness to this Nation; That the inception of that enterprise is the most hopeful means for curing the present Divisions, and that there is no colourable Objection against the performing it.   

Proof.  
FOr until the Cause be taken away the Effect is not like to cease, I have before shown how destructive these Abuses are to our Honour, Rights, and Unity, While they remain, we are in the quality of captive slaves, and our Kings in the semblance of foreign and usurping Lords; And as these evils were the cause of the first fracture and subsequent Antipathy in this Kingdom betwixt Crown and Subject, So there can be no solid closure between them until they are repealed; These being removed, the whole Nation (both King and people) will be restored into the quality of one natural Body, which (as 
* See M. Pryn's citation of him in his S. P. p. 38.  Fortescue hath aptly observed out of Aristotle) hath a set form of duty and affection constituted betwixt the Head and Members; And as touching this works expediency toward reuniting divided Englishmen, it is evident, for if the common honour and happiness of the Nation be the scope of their designs, they have no other high way to their end but this; also it may be learned from the common practice of distracted States, whose usual remedy is the assaulting of a common Enemy, of which sort are these Abuses, being a foreign usurpation that hath a more general, hostile, and mischievous malignity against our Nation, in it, than any other adversary we have at this day, save that it wants strength and formidableness, for that there is no man amongst us hath any colourable cause to defend it; Moreover, until this be redressed, all else that is done is but as building of Castles in the air, that have no firm foundation, but may be blown down with the King's arbitrary breath, as I have before proved; And if any object the troublesomeness and difficulty of rooting out the Innovations, I answer, that that particular may be consummated at leisure, that we have taken more pains about things of lower concernment, and that the restauration of our Rights ought not to seem unto us more laborious or difficult, then did to our enemies the introducing of the contrary.   

Proposition 8.  
That all English men that are active in maintaining the said Title and Innovations, are the most flagitious traitors both to their King and country that ever were.   

Proof.  
IT is apparent from the premises, it being also evident that in comparison of such, Strafford in his worst appearance was a good Patriot; And as for the defaults of former times in this particular, they are not now pretendible for excuse, for that now heaven holds forth power and opportunity far more liberally than ever heretofore or perhaps then hereafter, for asserting of Truth, and establishing righteousness in this Kingdom.   
FINIS.   

Imprimatur Gilbert Mabbot.