Selected quad for the lemma: act_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33904
|
The desertion discuss'd in a letter to a country gentleman
|
Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing C5249; ESTC R18889
|
10,218
|
8
|
Answer That the Convention may send to his Majesty for an Expedient now if they please And I hope they will for I hear his Majesty has been so gracious as to send to them But 2. If these Commissioners were unlimited it would be in their Power to do a great many things prejudicial to the Crown In such a Case they might alter the Monarchy into a Commonwealth or Sign the Deposing of his Majesty if such Bills should happen to be offered And though there may be many Persons of Honor and Conscience enough to lodge such a Trust with Yet in regard his Majesty has been lately mistaken in some of whose Fidelity he had so great an Assurance he has small encouragement to be over-confiding for the Future Indeed no Wise Prince will Trust so vast a Concern as a Kingdom with the Honesty of another especially when many of his Subjects are Disaffected and in a Ferment So that nothing can be more unreasonable than to expect such Plenipotentiary and Absolute Commissioners 3. I shall prove in the last place That we have no Grounds either from the Laws of the Realm or from those of Nature to pronounce the Throne void upon such a Retreat of a Prince as we have before us 1. To begin with the Laws of the Realm which are either Acts of Parliament or those we call Common Laws Now there is no Statute so much as pretended to support this Deserting Doctrin and if there was it 's certain no such can be produced Indeed a Prince must be xery weary of Governing and void of the common Inclinations of Mankind who would Sign a Bill of this Nature and give his Subjects such a dangerous Advantage against Himself and his Posterity Neither has this Opinion any better Countenance from Common Law For Common Law is nothing but Antient Usage and Immemorial Custom Now Custom supposes Precedents and Parallel Cases But it 's granted of all Hands That the Crown of England was never judged to be Demised by the withdrawing of the Prince before now And therefore it follows by undeniable Consequence that this Opinion can have no Foundation in the Common Law because there is not so much as one Ruled Case to prove it by Nay our Laws are not only silent in the maintenace of this Paradox but against it as I shall make good by Two Precedents 1. From the Case of Edward the Fourth who having not sufficient Force to Encounter the Earl of Warick who had raised an Army for King Henry was obliged to fly the Kingdom but that he deputed any Persons to Represent him our Histories don't give us the least Intimation Neither was it Objected at his return that he had Abdicated the Government by omitting to Constitute a Regent Neither is it material to Object that all Disputes of this Nature were over-ruled by his Victorious Army For if it had been the known Law of this Realm that a Prince had ipso facto forfeited his Crown by going beyond Sea without leaving a Deputation though his Departure should happen to be Involuntary If this I say had been the Law of the Kingdom it would not only have been a great Advantage to Henry the Sixth and made the Nation ring of it of which there is altum Silentium but we may be well assured King Edward would not have confer'd Honor worn the Crown and taken the State and Authority of a King upon him till he had been reestablished by Parliaments But that he did Exercise all Acts of Sovereignty before the calling of a Parliament appears from Daniell Sâ—ew and Baker And when the Parliament was Convened those who had taken up Arms against him were found Guilty of Treason and his Adherents were restored to Blood and Estate Daniell But there was no Confirmation or Resisting of his Title which is a Demonstration there was no need of it and that this Abdicating Doctrin was perfectly unknown to that Age. 2. To come nearer our own Times what Seals or Commissioners did Charles the Second leave behind him after Worcester Fight And yet I believe no Mortal ever urged this as an Argument against his Restauration If it be Answered that there was much more Danger in this case than in that before us To this I reply that if we Examine the Matter more narrowly we shall find the disparity very inconsiderable For was there not a numerous Army of Foreigners and Subjects in the Field against his present Majesty at his retiring What Power or Authority or so much as Liberty was there left him And I am afraid that at that time he had fewer Friends to stand by him than his Brother after that unfortunate Battle in 51. And since this pretended Dereliction has no manner of Protection from the Constitution it has no other Refuge but the Laws of Nature to fly to but a very little Storming will serve to drive it from this last Retrenchment For the Law of Nature is nothing but the Reason of the Thing Now impartial Reason has always a regard to the Circumstances of Action and makes Allowances for Surprise for Straitness of Time for Resentment upon extraordinary Provocation and never takes Advantage of an Omission which may be fairly Interpreted from any or all of these Causes I mention this not that the present Case needs any such Allowance but to show that the Law of Nature would Admit it if Occasion required 'T is true written Laws either through the ambiguity of the Words or the defectiveness of the Sense are often abused by ill Men and wrested contrary to the Design of the Legislators But the Law of Nature is not tyed up to the Alphabet nor bound to determine by the Imperfections of former Ages Therefore this Principle will give the Enquirer no just Advantages against his Majesty for Equity has no Quirks in it nor ever lyes at Catch Reason is always just and generous it never makes Misfortune an Accusation nor judges in favour of Violence Indeed what can be more Unrighteous though the Case was private and inferior than that any one should Suffer for being Injured and be barred his Right for the Faults of others If a Man should forfeit his House to those who set it on Fire only because he quitted it without giving some formal Directions to the Servants and be obliged to lose his Estate for endeavouring to preserve his Life I believe it would be thought an incomprehensible sort of Justice If to proceed in this manner be not to establish Wickedness by a Law I have done If Princes may be thus roughly treated their Birth is a Misfortune to them and we may say they are Crown'd rather for Sacrifice than Empire At this rate the People must e'en Govern themselves for the Throne will be a Place of too much Danger to sit on any longer We have an Excellent Church and we do well to take due Care to continue its Establishment but to dispossess our Prince upon this Score has as little Divinity as Law in it To endeavour to preserve our Religion by such Methods will make it more Fatal to us in the event than Atheism it self T is a mistake to think the World was made for none but Protestants and if Dominion was founded in Grace I am afraid our share would not be great in the Division If it is Objected That his Majesty 's not sending to his People upon his Removal is an Argument that he intended to govern them no longer To this I Answer 1. That I am pretty well assured That no Man who makes this Objection believes the truth of it and therefore I might safely leave it to his own Conscience to confute him Secondly His Majesty was scarcely Landed in France before the Administration was conferred upon the Prince of Orange which Action might very well discourage his Majesty from sending any Messages so soon as he intended But since it 's known his Majesty has sent Letters if not to the Privy Council as some affirm yet to the Convention Thirdly Those who were the Occasion of his Majesty's Departure should one would think have waited on him and invited him back For without Question the injuring Person ought to make the first step towards an Accommodation especlally when Wrong is done to his own Prince Now whether his Majesty has been well used in this Revolution or not I leave the World to judge now but God will do it afterwards Thus SIR I have ventured to give you my Thoughts upon this Subject and am Affectionately yours FINIS
of Ill Administration and that nothing less than subverting the Fundamentals of Government will justify an Opposition Now I am much mistaken if Deposing of Kings is not Resisting them with a Witness But besides his self Contradiction the case is not to his purpose For 1. These Parliaments were called in Tumultuous times when the Subjects were so hardy as to put their Kings under Confinement Now if it is against the Constitution of Parliaments to Menace the Two Houses out of their Liberty of Voting freely then certainly Kings ought not to be overawed by Armies and Prisons These Parliaments therefore are very improper to make Precedents of 2. These Princes were wrought upon so far as to resign their Crowns which each of them did though unwillingly Let this Enquirer produce such a Resignation from His Majesty and he says something 3. He is much mistaken in saying these judgments as he calls them have not been vacated by subsequent Parliaments For all those subsequent Parliaments which declare it Unlawful to take up Arms against the King do by necessary implication condemn these Deposing Precedents for it 's impossible for Subjects to Depose their Princes without Resisting them 2. By Act of Parliament the First of Edw. 4. yet remaining at large upon the Parliament Rolls and for the greater part recited verbatim in the Pleadings in Bagâ—tt's Case in the Year Books Trin. Term. 9. Edw. 4. The Title of Edw. 4. by Descent and Inheritance and is set forth very particularly And that upon the Decease of Rich. 2. the Crown by Law Custom and Conscience Descended and Belonged to Edmund Earl of March under whom King Edw. 4. claimed It is likewise further declared That Hen. 4. against Law Conscience and Custom of the Realm of England Usurped upon the Crown and Lordship thereof and Hen. 5. and Hen. 6. occupied the said Realm by Unrighteous Intrusion and Usurpation and no otherwise And in 39. Hen. 6. Rot. Parl. when Richard Plantagenet Duke of York laid claim to the Crown as belonging to him by right of Succession it was 1. Objected in behalf of Hen. 6. that Hen. 4. took the Crown upon him as next Heir in Blood to Hen. 3. not as Conqueror To this it was Answered That the pretence of Right as next Heir to Hen. 3. was False and only made use of as a Cloak to shadow the violent Usurpations of Hen. 4. 2. It was Objected against the Duke of York That the Crown was by Act of Parliament Entailed upon Hen. 4. and the Heirs of his Body from whom King Hen. 6. did Lineally Descend The which Act say they as it is in the Record is of Authority to defeat any manner of Title To which the Duke of York replied That if King Hen. 4. might have obtained and enjoyed the Crowns of England and France by Title of Inheritance Descent or Succession he neither needed nor would have desired or made them to be granted to him in such wise as they be by the said Act the which takes no Place nor is of any Force or Effect against him that is right Inheritor of the said Crowns as it accordeth with Gods Laws and all Natural Laws Which Claim and Answer of the Duke of York is expressly acknowledged and recognized by this Parliament to be Good True Iust Lawful and Sufficient Cotton's Abridgment Fol. 665 666. From these Recognitions it plainly follows 1. That the Succession cannot be interrupted by an Act of Parliament especially when the Royal Assent is given by a King De Facto and not De Iure 2. The Act 9. of Edw. 4 by declaring the Crown to Descend upon Edmund Earl of March by the Decease of Rich. 2. does evidently imply That the said Richard was rightful King during his Life and consequently that his Deposition was Null and Unlawful If it 's demanded Why his Majesty did not leave Seals and Commissioners to supply his Absence This Question brings me to the Second Point viz. to shew That the leaving sufficient Representatives was impracticable at this Juncture For 1. When the Nation was so much embroiled and the King's Interest reduced to such an unfortunate Ebb it would have been very difficult if not impossible to have found Persons who would have undertaken such a dangerous Charge That Man must have had a Resolution of an extraordinary Size who would venture upon Representing a Prince who had been so much disrespected in his own Person whose Authority had been set aside and his Ambassador clapt up at Windsor when he carried not only an inoffensive but an obliging Letter But granting such a Representation had been ingaged in the Commissions must either have extended to the Calling of Parliaments or not if not they would neither have been Satisfactory noâ— absolutely necessary Not Satisfactory For the want of a Parliament was that which was accounted the great Grievance of the Nation as appears from the Prince of Orange's Declaration Where he says expresly That his Expedition is intended for no other Design but to have a Free and Lawful Parliament assembled as soon as is possible Declar. P. 12. Secondly This Expedient was not absolutely Necessary for the Administration of Justice might have proceeded Regularly without any such Deputation by Virtue of those Commissions which the Judges and Justices of the Peace had already from the King. This I shall prove 1. From a parallel Instance King Charles the I. took a Journy into Scotland in 41 during the Session of Parliament at Westminster where though he appointed Five Lords to sign Bills in his Name The Continuation of Bak. Chron. yet the Judges and Justices acted by Virtue of their former Commissions without any new Authority from any Representatives of his Majesty Now Scotland is as much a distinct Kingdom from England as France and France as much his Majesty's Dominions as Scotland And therefore if Commissions will hold in the King's Absence in one Place why not in the other Secondly The present Judges met in Ianuary last at Westminster to dispatch some Business in order to keep the Term but were forbidden to proceed by the Prince of Orange's Secretary So that it is plain it was the Opinion of these Reverend Judges that their Commissions from his Majesty were still in Force But in the next place If his Majesty had deputed any Persons to Represent him in Parliament this Method would have been attended with new and insuperable Difficulties For 1. If they had been Limited they would not have given Satisfaction For it being impossible to foresee the Business and Votes of a Parliament at a distance If they had been restrained to certain Points in all probability they would have wanted Power to have passed all the Bills and so their Deputation would not have Answered the Desire of the Houses and the greatest part of their Grievances might have been counted unredressed If it 's said that the Parliament might have requested an Enlargement of their Commission from his Majesty To this I