Providence," etc. The Lord Chancellor proved the fact that the heir to a

peerage had been carried off, mutilated, and then restored. He did not

blame James II., who was, after all, the queen's father. He even went so

far as to justify him. First, there are ancient monarchical maxims. E

senioratu eripimus. In roturagio cadat. Secondly, there is a royal

right of mutilation. Chamberlayne asserts the fact.[19] Corpora et bona

nostrorum subjectorum nostra sunt, said James I., of glorious and

learned memory. The eyes of dukes of the blood royal have been plucked

out for the good of the kingdom. Certain princes, too near to the

throne, have been conveniently stifled between mattresses, the cause of

death being given out as apoplexy. Now to stifle is worse than to

mutilate. The King of Tunis tore out the eyes of his father, Muley

Assem, and his ambassadors have not been the less favourably received by

the emperor. Hence the king may order the suppression of a limb like the

suppression of a state, etc. It is legal. But one law does not destroy

another. "If a drowned man is cast up by the water, and is not dead, it

is an act of God readjusting one of the king. If the heir be found, let

the coronet be given back to him. Thus was it done for Lord Alla, King

of Northumberland, who was also a mountebank. Thus should be done to

Gwynplaine, who is also a king, seeing that he is a peer. The lowness of

the occupation which he has been obliged to follow, under constraint of

superior power, does not tarnish the blazon: as in the case of

Abdolmumen, who was a king, although he had been a gardener; that of

Joseph, who was a saint, although he had been a carpenter; that of

Apollo, who was a god, although he had been a shepherd."

In short, the learned chancellor concluded by advising the

643

The Man Who Laughs