Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A31759
|
The Charge of a Tory plot maintain'd in a dialogue between the Observator, Heraclitus, and an inferior clergy-man at the Towzer-Tavern : wherein the first discourse publish'd under that title is vindicated from the trifling animadversions of the Observator, and the accusation justified / by the same author.
|
|
1682
(1682)
|
Wing C2052; ESTC R20652
|
20,385
|
42
|
be any distrusting of providence nor does it appear that the means in question are unlawful any further than supposing them so makes them so Obs Now you act the Whig to the life for demonstrate a thing never so plainly they 're so obstinate you shall ne'r convince them Herac. They 're very refractory fellows I must confess But have you not something somewhere concerning the Bill of Exclusion's reaching the King Obs Oh yes 't is N. 131. If the Exclusion should pass it would manifestly shew that the Government were outwitted for it would reach the King as well as the Duke Herac. Well I see the King and the Government are still convertible terms with you signifiying one and the same thing But methinks the King is in a fine case betwixt you and the Whigs for that may stand well enough for the House of Commons For they cry the King's person c. cannot be safe without the Exclusion and you that he cannot be safe with it But why do not you prove your assertion as they have pretended to do theirs Obs Why though I do it not in this very place yet look but in the page before and I have done it 'T is but drawing of one Stone out of the building many times that brings the whole fabrick upon your head Just so remove but the Duke and the King cannot stand Herac. But there 's an old rule That similitudes illustrate but do not prove And why should not the King stand though the House fall But now for my part I think the Whigs speak reason for seeing the King is reputed an Heretick by the Catholicks and when he is removed they have hopes of a Popish Successor He is apparently in double danger both as he 's taken for an Heretick and so it may be no sin to murther him and also because in their opinion he keeps a better man from the Crown and one that has more right to it And besides the Whigs still affirm and you dare not deny it that for these reasons there were several that actually undertook the Job and I know not that their designs or principles are yet changed But I care not for medling with these Edge-tools let 's pass to the power and priviledges of Parliament t is safe enough to speak freely there for mortui non mordent Obs As for the power of Parliaments The House of Commons are as much subjects to the King joyntly at severally N. 131. They are made choice of by subjects to represent as subjects Their Commission is Temporary and limited to the Ends for which they were call'd and chosen And those Ends and Powers must be circumscribed by the Qualifications and Capacities of those that chose them for the case is the same as betwixt a Trustee and his Principal N. 135. Herac. The summ of what you say is this That the House of Commons have no more power than those that chose them Now I am not of your mind Nor is there any correspondence between Free-holders and a House of Commons and a Principal and his Trustee For a Principal can both pitch upon the person and limit the Power of his Trustee but so cannot the Free-holders of their Representatives in Parliament For though they elect the Persons yet the Power is from the Law and can neither be enlarged nor abridged by the Electors You know no subject has power over the Life or Estate of his fellow-subject And yet when twelve are elected or nominated by the Sheriff they have a greater power than the King himself in depriving a man of either which they have not from their Elector but from the Law Obs No but they have their power from the King whose Minister the Sheriff is Herac. If we should grant that it would come still to the same thing for the King must owe it to the Law that he can give such a power For if he had it absolutely of himself he might himself adjudge any man to death that he thinks deserves it which you know he cannot do Obs Well but what 's this to the business Herac. 'T is only the very same case For as the King gives the Sheriff power to nominate the Jurors who after their Impannelling have a power which neither he that nominated them gave them nor themselves have singly and apart so by the several Writs directed to be proclaim'd by the Sheriffs Bailiffs c. the King gives the people a power to Elect Members for Parliament who being return'd and assembl'd in the House are by the Law and Constitution of the Government invested in a power which neither their Electors have nor themselves had before they were so assembled They have not such a power indeed as Jurors have but they have a power that is proper and peculiar to them AS they are one of the three Estates in Parliament Obs Well but with all this what kind of power is this these Commons have seeing the King is the SOLE Soveraign and they are only to do their part toward the furnishing of Materials for New Laws where they are Defective N. 135. Herac. The King indeed is a Monarch and that is as much as sole Governour not absolutely but in a limited sence and suo modo He 's sole Governour as to the Administration not sole in Legislation For I do not think the Lords and Commons to be only Labourers to serve up Materials to the King to build new Laws withal but to pursue your Metaphor they are Builders as well as He. Obs How can that be for let them Vote and Pass their Hearts out all signifies nothing without Le Roy le veult or Soit fait come il est desire Herac. 'T is true the King has a Negative Voice but consider it well and 't is no more than what either House have For let the Commons pass a Bill and the Lords can reject it and on the contrary though the rejecting House know that the King so much favour the Bill that he would most certainly pass it into an Act if they would but give their consent to it So that it is evident the consent of either House is as necessary in order to the making of an Act as the King 's is And indeed the usual preface to all Acts evidences this plainly viz. Be it Enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and CONSENT of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons in Parliament Assembled and by the AVTHORITY of the same Here you have the Consent and Authority of the two Houses linked with the King 's Seeing therefore part of the power of Making Laws is in the Commons Assembled in Parliament and they have no such power out of Parliament but can then only Obey them 't is plain they are not in all respects as much subjects joyntly as severally unless to make Laws and obey them be the same thing Nor do I know to what purpose you should so much