Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	death_n	king_n	treason_n	2,352	5	9.2422	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61547	A discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation, on account of the oaths with an answer to the History of passive obedience, so far as relates to them.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1689 (1689)	Wing S5584; ESTC R16935	31,376	50

of threescore Years against him surely Matters of Fact which were necessary to the disproving his Title were then so far out of Memory that it was impossible to make clear Evidence about them and others were not examin'd as whether the Duke of Clarence were absent so long from his Wife abroad when Philippa was born Whether one Sir Iames Awdely suffer'd about it Whether he was divorced from her upon it Whether E. 3. after the Death of the Duke of Clarence did entail the Crown on his Heirs male Whether upon the Deposition of R. 2. the Claim of Right on behalf of the Duke of Clarence's Heir ought not to have been made How far Edmond Mortimer's owning the Title of H. 5. and the Duke of Cambridge's Attainder did affect him Whether he had not renounced his own Pretentions by owning H. 6. to be his Supream and Soveraign Lord as he had often done in a most solemn manner particularly in his Oaths at the Altar at St. Pauls which is to be seen in the Book of Oaths p. 146. and elsewhere But at that time H. 6. was under the Power of the Duke of York and that was a very unfit time to clear a sinking Title But however the Lords in Parliament were concerned for their Oaths to H. 6. and proposed the former Expedient not only for the publick Welfare but in regard to their Oaths notwithstanding that they allow'd the Duke's Title to be good Their Words are It was concluded and agreed by all the said Lords that since it was so that the Title of the said Duke of York cannot be defeated and in eschewing the great Inconvenience that might ensue to take the Mein above rehearsed the Oaths that the said Lords had made unto the King's Highness at Coventry and other places saved From whence it is plain that they look'd on their Oaths to Hen. 6. as consistent with owning the Right to be in the Duke of York and that Possession was a sufficient Ground for continuing their Oaths 3. In 1 E. 4. where the Right and Title of the D. of York is most amply set forth yet there this Agreement 39 H. 6. is recited and the Proceedings against H. 6. are grounded upon his Breach of it Which shews farther that those Parliaments which did assert the Right of Succession highest among which this of E. 4. ought to be reckon'd yet it was never disputed whether those who had taken the Oaths to H. 6. were perjured for they look on the Possession of the Crown as a sufficient Ground for the Allegiance required But it may be said That from hence we see that he was look'd on as having the best Title who had the best Right by lineal Succession I answer that we are not enquiring into Titles but searching into the Reasons and Measures of Oaths of Allegiance and whether those do require full Satisfaction about the best Title Or supposing one unsatisfied about that he may not yet be satisfied in taking such an Oath as the D. of York and his Sons did But such Precedents prove nothing unless they be agreeable to our Laws and Constitution Yes a great deal while we are enquiring into our Legal Constitution and we find such things allowed in Parliaments and not only so but in such Parliaments which allow'd not the Title of the King to whom those Oaths were made Our Law owns no King meerly as in Possession but the Right Heir is the legal King whether in Possession or not Our Law does own a King in Possession if Treason may be committed against Him and for this we have not only the Authority of Sir E. C. but of the Year-Books 9 E. 4. Where it is deliver'd for Law at that time and with a particular Respect to H. 6. Et home sera arraigne de Treason fait a dit Roy. H. and therefore Sir E. C. had good Authority for what he said and that not in the Reign of a King de facto but when a King thrust out another for want of Right and derived his whole Right from a lineal Succession Bagot's Case goes farther than Grants and judicial Proceedings of a King de facto for therein it is declared Treason to compass the Death of a King de facto and it is very absurd to imagine Treason against one whom the Law doth not own for Treason is a high Violation of the Law and how can the Law be violated against one whom the Law doth not own Besides in Bagot's Case there is a distinction made between a meer Vsurper and one on whom the Crown is setled by Parliament and so H. 6. is denied to be a meer Usurper Et six le dit Roy H. de fait Merement come Vsurper Car le Corone fuit taille a luy per Parliament So that by our Constitution a great Deference is to be shew'd to the Judgment of the three Estates in matters that concern the Right of the Crown Or else an Entail made by them could make no difference but the whole Resolution must be into the lineal Desent And thus I look on the Statute 11 H. 7. as agreeable to our Constitution for if it be Treason to compass the Death of a King de facto there is great Reason there should be Indemnity for those who act for Him. But what doth this signify to the Consciences of Men Very much if they are to be satisfied by our Constitution I grant meer Indemnity doth not clear a Man's Mind but its agreeableness to former Proceedings and Judgments shews how far our Constitution allows us to go and that there is no Argument from thence which can hinder the Satisfaction of Conscience so far But suppose a King de jure be in Possession of this Act and another comes and dispossesses Him and so is King de facto Doth this Law indemnify those who Fight against the King de jure for the King de facto Whosoever is in actual and quiet Possession of the Crown by Consent of Parliament hath the Right to challenge the Benefits of this Act for those who serve Him. But I do not say that this Act gives any Man Right to oppose a Rightful King but it only provides for the Indemnity of those who assist the present Possessor although another had the Right by Descent For after the D. of York's challenging the Crown by Right of Succession against the Possessor there were two Parties in the Nation the one was for the Right of Succession and the other for the Right of Possession by a National Consent And the Disputes between these two continued as long as the Differences between the Houses of York and Lancaster lasted When H. 7. was setled in the Throne without regard to the Right of Succession although there was a general Submission yet there was still a great Dissatisfaction in the York Party which occasion'd all the Disturbances of H. 7th's Reign from setting up an Heir of the House of York And Sir William