Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	writ_n	3,273	5	9.6734	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76829	Resolved upon the question· Or A question resolved concerning the right which the King hath to Hull, or any other fort or place of strength for the defence of the kingdome. Wherein is likewise proved, that neither the setling of the militia as tis done by the Parliament, nor the keeping of Hull by Sir Iohn Hotham, nor any other act that the Parliament have yet done is illegall, but necessary, just, and according to that power which the law hath given them. By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1642 (1642)	Wing B3162; Thomason E119_4; ESTC R10865	11,393	18

but he must praerogare too asking the consent of the Parliament Besides though what they doe cannot be binding by way of Act without his consent yet by way of Ordinance it may in term Micael 21. E. 3. fol. 60. b. In a case touching the exemption of the Abby of Saint Edmons Berry from the Bishop of Norwich there was an Ordinance made by the Parliament without the King and if you turne to the booke you shall finde these words in the judgement fuit ordeigne which you may read likewise in Seldens title of honour But if I should admit that there were no law to prove their Act legall yet sure I am there is good reason for it As first from the words of the writ nostro quibusdam arduis rebus et gotiis urgentibus statu et diffentionem regni nostri Angliae concernentibus which words rebus arduis et urgentibus negotiis proves they have power upon urgent occasions to do that which at the time of their doing it they had no law to enable them thereto for their calling by writ is authorty to enable them to sit in Parliament and then their consent is law enough to binde us and therefore if the Parliament doe grant Subsidies by way of Ordinance and the Kings hand is never put to it yet it is sufficient enough to force a Paiment from us because the Countries are bound by Indentures seald to the Sheriffe at the time of their election to stand to what they shall consent to in Parliament whom they have chosen but by way of Act6 it cannot force us because it cannot be pleaded as an Act but that upon a demurrer it will be overruled Now if the Parliament could do nothing but what they had a law to enable them to do what need the Country seal Indentures to wand to what they doe when as that law the Parliament went by would force them to obey it without that waxen ceremony Besides if the Parliament had not power to do an Act to the doing of which there was no law at the time of their summons to enable them then what need a Parliament be cald at any time for then any inferiour Court had had as much authority upon the matter as that but I conceave necessity is the law they are to look at fot they need not deferre the doing of that which is for the Kingdomes good for want of a law or a president to steere by for if in times past the grave law-makers had not done things according to their profound judgement and as they saw fit without Presidents how should any presidents have been left to future ages and to this present Parliament but surely they did and surely this Parliament may unlesse any one can prove the power of Parliament to be abated and lesse now then in former times I agree if a Parliament should assume to themselves that power to sway every thing and never aske the Kings consent it were an abridgement of that prerogative the King hath in him by law but there are many humble Petitions full of submission and alleagiance to his Majesty that can prove this Parliament not guilty were they not adjudged Traytors without tryall But again if the King forsake them and deny to passe those Bills they bring him for the good of the Kingdome I think necessity enables nay commands them to doe it without him I shall prove it all by one example the like I hope shall not bee heard of in our dayes hath no man heard of a king deposed by a Parliament Surely yes and what law had they for it that did it besides convenience and the common good and surely they did it without the Kings consent too or at least he consented whether he would or no for if he had had an absolute power of denying and by that could have frustrated their endeavours he would never have consented to his own deposing which proves strongly that they may do that which is for the good of the kingdom without the King if he refuse to joyne with them But this I desire not and the Parliament intend it not as they have declared themselves in severall Declarations and Petitions and I hope the most ignorantly violent of the vulgars and the greatest zealots of any Sect what ever will wish so much good to our kingdome as that it may long be governd by this our gracious King Charles and his posterity and that he may soon be free from those cruell engagements and inconveniences which the malignant party hath drawne him into This is my heart prayer onely I used that great argument to prove a lesser to argue a mejori ad minus for omn● majus continet in se minus FINIS

RESOLVED VPON THE QUESTION OR A Question Resolved concerning the Right which the King hath to Hull or any other Fort or place of strength for the defence of the Kingdome Wherein is likewise proved that neither the setling of the Militia as t is done by the Parliament nor the keeping of Hull by Sir Iohn Hotham nor any other Act that the Parliament have yet done is illegall but necessary just and according to that power which the Law hath given them By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne Gent. Printed for Matthew Walbancke 1642. TO THE WORTHY TO be honoured IOHN PYM Esquier one of the Members of the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled SIR WHen my reason is made known I hope my presumption in dedicating these poore lines to your worthy selfe will appeare more pardonable I wrote not out of an ambitious thought of instructing the profoundest iudgements but only to satisfie them that for want of knowledge lay scandalous imputations not only upon that honourable House of Parliament in generall whereof you are a member but especially and in particular upon your upright selfe for my owne part I am the least member of this distracted Kingdome but have as good a right to the benefit of those lawes this happie Parliament hath enacted as the greatest and therefore am bound by way of thankefulnesse to vindicate their iust intents and actions against the opprobrious language of malignant Spirits to the doing of which this is my weake but harty endeavour if you please to give it patronage it may deserve the presse therefore let your acceptance adde courage to the future imployments of him who is both to your selfe and to his country A faithfull servant PETER BLAND To the Reader READER WHo ere thou beest read with a spirit as free from Faction as your Authour who desires neither to trample on Maiestie nor despise the authority of so high a Court as that of Parliament but to give his due respects to both What you finde amisse gently correct his ambition is either to convince others more ignorant or be satisfied from others more knowing than himselfe He wrote not this as if the Parliament knew not Law sufficient to iustifie their own actions but to destroy their wonder whom he hath heard admire that the Parliament did not prove their own acts by visible Law as well as disprove the Kings time and greater engagements will not permit them to shew every private man the publicke necessities 'T is sufficient they discern them and this is argument enough to prove that sinister respects can never prevaile with them to do unlawfull acts viz. because it can be no benefit to them were it not the Kingdoms safety only that they aymd at to spend their time and hazard their lives and fortunes by steering in such cruell storms for 't were not wisedome in them that would fish to trouble the waters themselves FAREWELL The Question that is RESOLVED WHether the right which the King hath to Hull and all other Forts of strength for the defence of the Kingdom be by discent from the Blood-Royall or by way of trust And for my part I conceive He hath it by way of trust but to resolve this question I shall take leave of my selfe to use my owne method Which shall be first to shew the strongest arguments that can be urged by them of the contrary opinion who stand so much upon the discent as to drown the trust and afterwards I shall prove that notwithstanding all that they can say he hath it by way of trust only First then to argue for his discent thus I prove it If He have it in His naturall capacity then he hath it by discent but He hath it in His naturall capacity ergo The consequence will not be denied for I Intend by His naturall capacity as Charles the Sonne and Heire apparent of King Iames His Father of blessed memory and if it be granted He hath it so then surely the consequence must stand good Then for the Minor that He hath it in that capacity thus I prove it If the Treason which he commits that keepes one of those Forts and levieth War against the King and His Liege people be against the King in His naturall capacity then the minor is good and that that Treason when any one commits it is against him in that capacity thus I prove it But I desire not to be mistaken for I aym not at the worthy act of Sir Iohn Hotham for I hold it not levying of War within the letter of the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. if it were an offenc● th●t might tast of Treason but I hold it is not yet being out of the words of that Statute the Parliament and not the King himselfe nor his ●●●ge are to Judge of it by vertue of a clause in that act by which their ●erdecess●●●●●ve reserved that power for them But to goe forward with what I am to prove viz. that s●ch a Teason as is mentioned before nay any Treason is against him in his naturall capacity it appeares by the forme of indictment for Treason for they must and doe alwaies conclude contra ligeantiae suae debitum and so Cooke lib. 7. Calvins case which words proove that Treason is against him to whom ligeance is due and then pray if it be against him to whom ligeance is due is it not against the naturall King that is against the King in his naturall capacity for all that knowes but the definition of the politique capacity will confesse that ligeance or homage cannot bee done to such a body as is invisible And therefore of an Alien enemy come and possesse himselfe of any of the Kings Forts and levies warre against him and then is taken this is Treason and yet our law in this case doth refuse to try him as out of its jurisdiction because he cannot bee tried by indictment for being no liege man to the King the indictment cannot conclude that it was contra ligeantiae suae debitum and therefore hee shall bee put to death by Matiall law and so it was in 15. H. 7. Parking Warbecks case who being an Alien borne in Flanders fained himselfe to be one of the sonnes of Edward the Fourth and invaded this Realme with great power with an intent to take upon him the dignity royall But being taken in the warre it was resolved by the Justices that hee could not be punished by the Common Law but before the Constable and Marshall who had speciall commission to heare and determine the same according to Marshall Law he was sentenced to bee drawne hang'd and quartered which was done and executed accordingly and this appeares in the booke of Griffeth Attorney Generall and in the booke of Hobert Generall to Henry the Seventh and you may reade it likewise in Calvins case Cooke Lib. 7. fol. 6. b. and cases to the same purpose may reade in 4. Mar. br 32. 3. 4. Ph. Mar. Dyer 144.

I found the State troublesome every where and I leave it quiet even to the Britaines and the Empire sure and firme to my children if they be good but unsure and weake if they be bad My Lord Cooke in the first part of his Institutes fol. 60. b. observes that Littleton speakes of the Kings prerogative but twice in all his Booke and in both places saith Cooke he makes it part of the Lawes of England so that hence we may gather that though the working braines of these times plead his Prerogative to him y●t that cannot enable him to doe what the Law forbids for his Prerogative is but what power the Law gives him and that power cannot be made greater without the assent of the whole Realme Fort. fol. 40. ca. 18. and what is the reason of this our happinesse that the King cannot make new Lawes dam old ones without the Subjects consent but this because our Kingdom is not governed with a power onely royall but also politique Aristotle in 3. Pollitic saith melius est civitatem regi viro optimo quam lege optima it is better for a City to be governed by a good King then by a good Law But for as much as every King is not such a man therefore Saint Thomas in the Booke which he wrote to the King of Cyprus of the governance of Princes wisheth the State of a Realm to be such that it may not be in the Kings power to oppresse his people with tyranny For my part I did not looke upon our gracious King when I coated this for of himselfe I take him to be that vir optimus were he not misled and drawne to such engagements as will ruine himselfe his posterity and Kingdome if not by those of his best Councell prevented I meane the Parliament who are engaged both for the safety of the Kings Majesties person and posterity of themselves and the whole Kingdome to strike all those who perswade his Majesty to doe such acts as make the Lawes seeme but as cobwebs which by his Prerogotive may be stretched nay broken Some there are which Object that the Kings Majesty hath bin pleased to passe many gracious Acts already and therefore seeing we have so many tokens of his good intent why should he be doubted or his intent questioned Truely the Parliament and all the rest of his Subjects must acknowledge his Fatherly care of them in those Acts expressed But if he be perswaded nay resolved to breake those Acts againe by violence what are we the better to say we have beene happy in the making those Acts the breach of which is ten times a greater misery if a Father breeds his Sonne well or allowes him well whilest hee lives but when hee dyes leaves him nothing whereby both hee and his children and his childrens children may be the better surely the care and piety of a Father is not in him compleat So Kings if they make part of an age happy by governing well or making good Lawes but at last breakes them againe and does not leave them as Testaments whereby a perpetuity of good may descend to their Countrey they are but mortall and transitory benefactours I speake not this to incense the Subject against their lawfull Prince for I know no warrant for that for for his Majesties pure selfe His serious and often protestations command my Faith both for his maintaining our Protestant Religion and defence of his Subjects and their Liberttes and I discerne his words actuated his building or repairing of Temples his late Proclamations against Recusants his excluding them his Army that will not take the oath of Supremacy and Alleagiance are for the first his building of Shippes in these late times and his passing the Act for the continuance of this Parliament are testimonies for the second onely the danger is if those malignant spirits about him should prevaile with him which I hope is impossible to adde ill endings to those good Acts by changing the use they were pretended for Others there are that grant the KING hath it by way of trust but yet Object that by Law a trust cannot be countermanded and therefore Sir John Hothams keeping of Hull was against Law To which I answere thus I confesse that by law a trust cannot be countermanded but yet I shall take a difference between the trust of a private mans estate and a trust of a kingdome and if this difference should not stand good see what a mischiefe would follow and argumentum ab inconvenients is of great force in law if that were a good argument then our case in short were but thus We have intrusted the King with the whole Kingdome and this trust cannot be countermanded by us againe and if not then the Kings estate in the kingdome is as good as absolutely his owne in Fee and if so then he may doe what he will with the Crowne and if this mischiefe were remedilesse what estate or property had any man in his owne fortunes when they all lay open to so great a hazzard Again though for the avoydance of that mischiefe it might be thought countermandable yet that Act of Sir John Hotham is not a countermande but rather a strengthning of it for by common presumption the King being but one cannot prie into the actions and intents of all those that have procured his imployments so well as his Parliament may for plus vident oculi quam oculus and therefore they finding such treacherie and falsenesse in them which the King either does not see or else is wilfully impolliticke thought it fit as it was most seasonable indeed to imploy another whose faithfulnesse might prevent what they intended against both King and Kingdome to which truth so soone as his Majesty shall give credit and by that means they and the Kingdome be secured his trust will appear the same it ever was and he more able to discharge that trust reposed in him Others there are that doe object the authority of Parliament to be much but this is not binding which this Parliament does now because the King doth not joyne with them for t is no compleat Parliament the head of that body being absent But I shall prove by presidents and reason upon which law is partly grounded that the Parliament have that power in them which they so carefully make use of I confesse my Lord Cooke in the first part of his Institues thus derives the word Praerogativa a prae id est ante and rogare and saith he it carries with it this sence when an Act is passed by both houses of Parliament before it can be made a Law they must praerogare the Kings consent but this dirivation of the word does not prove that the King hath an absolute power of denying to passe any Bill that is brought him for the good of the Kingdom but it signifies on his part aswell that he cannot of himselfe enact any thing or lay any tax upon his Subject

I shall not raise arguments to prove that Ligeance is due to the King in his naturall capacity as it was adiugded in 6. Iacobi neither shall I mention how that the words of the letters pattents of qeniztion be that the Patentee shall behave himselfe tanquam verus et fidelis ligeus domini regis which proves that ligeance is due to the King in his naturall capacity for all this is not to my purpose but because the Kings Majesty himselfe whom I never think on but with reverence hath made use of the last argument and others may and doe urge the former I shall sert downe the definition of the Kings politipue capacity out of which the reader himselfe thgogh but of slender Iudgment may have reason sufficient to answer all the arguments hither to which seeme to be of such force The definition of it is this it is a body framed by the polocy of man invisible immortall not subject to any infirmity nonnage or infancy so t is definid in Calvins case And who cannot gather a reason from hence sufficient to deny the last Consequence and say that though treason commited against the King by keeping of those sorts from him be treason against his naturall capacity yet it doth not follow that he hath them it hath capacity for the King hath but two capacities his naturall and his pollitique now according to the definition of the latter their can be no treason committed against that cappacity it being an inanimate and invisible body therfore needs must indictments conclude the treason to be against the natuerall capacity but if that should bee a good consequence that therefore he holds them in that capacity then the next consequence would be that hee might sell them when hee please which is directly against the Law as was resolved by the whole Parliament in Ed. the thirds time at which Parliament King Iohn his resigning his Crowne and Kingdome of England to the Pope being discussed upon mature deliberation the Lords both Spirituall and Temporall and all the Commons resolved with one accord that no King can put his Realme nor his people under such subjection without their assent and contrary to his oath The next argument may be urged is this if immediately upon the death of any King the next heire is compleatly absolutely King without any essentiall ceremony or act to be done expost facto then hee that comes in as next heire hath it by discent and not by way of trust But when a King dieth immediately the next heire is King without any especiall ceremony ergo For the Minor thus I prove it it is expressly said in Calvins case that the King holds the Kingdome of England by birthright inherent by discent from the bloud Royall whereupon succession doth attend and therefore t is usually said to the King his Heires and Successors where the word Heires is first named in primo Maria Dyer 92. a. t is expressly said that the customes are annext to the Crowne and the King hath an inheritance in them In the first yeare of King Iames his raigne if I mistake not before his Majesties Coronation Watson and Clarke Seminarie Preists were of opinion that his Majestie was not compleat and absolute King before his Coronation Now if that were not Law the minor must needs fall for then though a right to the Crowne discended yet it was in the power of others to make him compleatly King by turning his possession in Law as it were into an actuall possession or else to hinder him from ragining But you shall find it resolved by all the Iudges of England then being con rary to the opinion of those Preists that presently by the descent his M●jesty was compleatly and absolutly King without that cerimony and that Corronation was but a Roy●ll ornament and outward sollemnisation of the discent for example You sh●ll find that Henry the sixt was not crownd untill the eight yeare of h●● Raigne and yet divers men before his Coronation were attain ed of treason which clearly proves he was King before that cerimony was performed for if he had not beene King how could any man h●ve beene attainted of treason for treason is a breach of allegeance and if there had been n● King there could be no allegeance due and ●f no ligeance had been due no bre●ch of it could be made and then no treason and this is made manifest by the reports of the 5. 6. 7. years of the same King which you may read at large in Cooks reports lib. 7. fol. 11. a. Another argument to prove that when any King of Eng. dies his next Heire is King presently by discent without any ceremony may be this If he should not be King presently upon the death of the Father or Ancstour but must stay for some other ceremony to be done then there would be an interregnum in Eng. which the Laws will not suffer And to prove that the Laws do not suffer an inter regnum 't is easily gathered from the case in 9. E. 4. 51. where it is sayd that if the King be seized of land by a defeaseable title and dieth seizd this discent shall toll the entry of him that hath right which proves that he that is next King coming in as Son hath it by discent otherwise the entry of him that hath right could not be taken away and it proves likewise that he must not stay for His Majesty till some Act or other be done for then there would be an inter regnum till that Act or ceremony were past and when that Act or ceremony were past then he should be in as it were from that Act and then the entry of him that hath right cannot be taken away and so is Litleton in his chap. of discents There is likewise another case in our books from whence you may draw the same conclusion viz. If the Prince commit treason or murder he must be tried according to Law as well as another subject for he is but a Subject for there can be but one King at the self same time in the selfe same Kingdome But now if the King dyes before the Prince be tried the very immediate discent of the Crown purgeth him of his treason or murder or what ever his fact be so that he shall not be arraigned or tried for it Which case proves that he hath the Crowne immediately upon the discent for if there were any ceremony that were essentiall to making him King that ceremony might be delaid and the Prince might be attainted If the Disseisor of an Infant convey the Land to the King who dieth seised this is such a discent as shall take away the entry of the Infant and so are the Books of 34. H. 6. 34. and 45. Ass pl. 6. Plowd com 234. which proves clearly the discent t is part of the oath of allegiance which is used to this day in every Leet That you shall be true and faithfull