Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	king_n	power_n	5,492	5	5.0298	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94044	A shield against the Parthian dart, or, A word to the purpose, shot into Wallingford-House. Answered in defence of the present actions of state here in England, that produced the late change of government. By J.S.	Streater, John, fl. 1650-1670.; Spittlehouse, John, attributed name.	1659 (1659)	Wing S5950; Thomason E988_11; ESTC R208075	13,837	23

A SHIELD Against the Parthian Dart OR A WORD to the Purpose SHOT INTO Wallingford-House Answered in Defence of the present ACTIONS of STATE here in England that produced the late Change of GOVERNMENT By J. S. Printed in the Year 1659. A Shield against the Parthian Dart. PAge the 10th the Authour hath this Quaere upon which he raiseth his Insuing Discourse viz. Whether the Men met together at Westminster where the Commons use to meet be at this day a Lawfull Parliament according to the Fundamental Laws of this Nation to bind the People to obey their Commands He admitteth That power derived from the People createth a Supremacy and that it is fixed somewhere there in one or more and that the Commons did and had power to Elect a Representative though they were formerly known by no other names then Petitioners I shall briefly answer every particular and then Assert a general defence of the now-Sitting of the Parliament at Westminster whom God direct and preserve That the Commons were sometimes Petitioners to the Kings of this Nation I grant but from thence it is not to be inferr'd That what they petitioned for if it were refused by the King that they could not command it they never petitioned the King but in case of obstinacy as in the case of the Petition of Right the Parliament when they could not draw the King to consent to the thing propounded by Argument they did by Prayer entreat or Petition Although they did so it doth not therefore argue That the King's power was superiour to the Parliament for that the Kings power of Consenting to the Passing of Acts of Parliament was no other than as if A. should make a Letter of Attorney to B B. refuseth to Act by that Authority A. giveth him by vertue of that Letter of Atturney therefore he intreateth and prayeth B. to accept of the Letter of Attorney and to act by it B. consulteth his own Interest and saith If it be made in such and such a manner and form I will act by it A. finding that B. is the fittest person either living upon the place where it is to be put in Execution or for some other Reasons condescendeth to B. Even so hath it been in times past between the King and the people The People Represented in Parliament make Laws or Letters of Atturney to their standing Officer the King for which he received his Fees the Revenues of the Crown and was their Atturney He having by several descents gained footing upon the Interest of the People standeth upon his Tearms and will not accept of Laws made in this manner or in that manner but consulteth his own Interest the Parliament seeing that it is convenient to have their Atturney's Consent or Opinion do apply themselves to him by Petition or Intreaty This doth not argue but that the power is in those who Grant or Appoint and that he that is to put it in Execution is any other but the Inferiour to that power the Petition or Intreaty doth not make him Superiour To this purpose see Sir Ed Coke chap. High-Courts of Parliament folto 14. The Lords and Commons in Parliament upon demand of Ayd in the behalf of the King by any new Device answered That they tendered the King's Estate but they could not consent to this new device without Conference with their Counties for which they served This saith he is the ancient Custome of Parliaments and it is according to Law That the Great Councel of the Commons is much more Ancient than these Petitions spoken of by the Authour is evident by Tacitus in the Life of Agricola speaking how easily the Brittish Princes were overcome by the Romans saith he It was because they did not consult with their Common-Councel Time by th' Events hath Reproved that mode of Petitioning for it was the occasion of the claiming of a Negative Voyce unto which the Kings had no Right at all But it may be Objected That an Atturney hath a Negative Voyce Why should not the King also have the same To which I answer That one that is not bound by his Office 't is true may refuse to accept of that Authority and omit the Execution thereof In this case you may Elect another Atturney The King was bound by his Office to execute the Lawes it was below the Commons to pray any thing of him they did but betray themselves in so doing The words of the Oath of the Coronation are expresly these I do swear to Govern according to such Lawes as the People shall choose to be Governed by And therefore when he refused so to do the Commons might have laid him aside and elected another for either his doing more or for his doing less then he ought to do To prove this I shall give an Instance out of what hath been written by Mr. Will. Prynne one that the Authour hath a very high Esteem of bu● it is for his last depraved writings in which he hath laid aside his Reason and onely exerciseth his Passion as may soon be discerned by comparing his late Railing wording and unreasonable works with his former Laborious and praise-worthy writings in his Soveraign Power of Parliaments as in the 4th Part. page 201. Kings saith he are of no more Divine Institution then any other Inferiour Magistrates Officers or Princes whatsoever the Scriptures do abundantly evidence that they are questionable and Censurable and deposable for their Tyranny and wickedness Also a little farther from a Case stated touching the Clergy he doth infer That the King may be executed also Other proofs to this Assertion I could produce but I suppose he will take it better from his hand then any other Page the 2d This Authour describeth the power of Parliaments to consist 1. In making Lawes for the good of the people 2. According to the Ancient Custome First from hence he concludeth That the Parliament are not to make Lawes to undo the People nor perpetuate Heavy bu●dens There is no man that is in his Wits will say otherwise and no doubt but the Parliament will do otherwise this Authour cannot charge them as yet with that 'T is true that the charge of the late War hath been heavy that the Care of the management of the War prevented them of settling the Government of the Nation that they should dissolve before is unreasonable to expect besides their own Vote hath decided that Controversie viz. That this Session shall determine May 1660. Secondly he saith That they are to Govern according to the Ancient Customes of this Realm that is to joyn with their Fellows not to Govern Peremptorily and Sawcily What those Fellowes are the Author mentioneth not that their Fellowes ought not to submit to Acts against Reason that is true it is the Reasonableness of a Command that carrieth the Authority along with it and produceth obedience it is for that for the which it is to be given obedience unto those Commands that are

unreasonable are to be resisted The Author here doth seem to conclude That the Expelling of some of the Members is unreasonable the taking the King away is unreasonable the changing of Government is unreasonable and the like He further saith in the Sect. That the People did Intrust the Parliament onely with Advising with the other Estates and that the said Trust did not Impower them to lay aside the other Estates That may be easily answered by this known Maxim Salus Populi Suprema Lex When that the other Estates by their corrupt Interest did become a barr to the Peoples safety they might be laid aside by the Trustees of the People and those Trustees may exercise the Supream Authority as in the Case aforementioned made use of by Mr. Prynne in his Asserting the Soveraign Power of Parliaments That the King may be deposed by Authority of Parliament Edward the second of England was deposed by Parliament and Edward the third Elected in his room Our Author citeth the Case of the Abbots being Expelled their sitting in Parliament and slightly mentioneth the Expulsion of the Bishops late being expelled their sitting in Parliament this was done by the three Estates They were Members of the Parliament it cannot be denyed according to ancient Custome and of a distinct qualification from the other Estates they being the Head of the Clergy Now if that the Clergy may be expelled and excluded from having a share of Supream Authority why may not the Nobility also as well as the King and the Clergy when any or all of their Interests shall be found inconsistent with the Interest of the Publick and more especially when their Interest is grown to that heighth that the preservation of it must be the destruction of the publike He further putteth a Case of a Bayliff The which case would hold if it were onely in behalf of private Interest but where there is publike Interest on foot it will not hold Rules of Law can live onely in time of Peace but upon War and Change of Government Necessities of State must and ever did over-rule If the Bayliff taketh other mens goods and keeps them for his own he erreth Yet notwithstanding the unsuitableness of the Case it serveth thus far viz. If the Parliament being intrusted with the Supream Power shall take upon them that power to their own profit and not Communicate it for defence of publick good then they do that which is besides the intent of their Trust But on the contrary if they do otherwise they do according to their Trust for they have no other Rule to walk by nor limitation than The preservation of the People And the same may be said to that which he reckoneth up amongst the Transgressions of the Times The Parliaments Turning out of one half of themselves that as for several Just Reasons of State good preserving policy Abbots Priors Bishops Lords nay Kings may be expelled the Councels of Legislators when their Interest doth not consist with publick Interest which is the end for which they received their being So when the one half of a Councel shall conspire against the other either to overthrow the Interest of the publick or to obstruct the settlement of Affairs they may be lawfully Expelled There is none are so absurd to think That if one or two of the Members should consult or conspire against the Common good but that they may be expelled nay further prosecuted If so it will hold good also in a greater Number Is it not lawful for the lesser part of the power to oppose the greater in that which is evil It hath been known that the greatest part of a Councel hath promoted wicked Counsel Is it not then lawful for the lesser and better part to betake themselves to such means as may prevent the putting in execution of such wicked Counsel and vanquish them if they can The Law is made onely to Rule people in their distinct and private Capacities and not in the Capacity of them all together considered as one In this case what shall be a Law unto them That is not a Law that cannot be administred in such kind of Emergencies of State Lawes and Prescriptions cannot be Rules to act by nay in several private small petty Contracts Title and the like there doth every Tearm arise so many Intricacies and Riddles that all the Gentlemen of the Long Robe cannot determine but hab Nab as my Lord Richardson once said by all the Records Statutes and Cases that are Extant Would our Authour then have so high proceedings as these so many vast Interests to be considered as in this case to be made parallell and determined by the Example of a Case of Thomas Mouse and William Frog as he doth of a Case between J. S. and J. N. nothing to the purpose in hand He bringeth in another Case viz. the Judgment of Judge Ro●s and Judge Ask in Mr. Streater's Case that discontinuance of a Parliament is a dissolution also he further urgeth his Assertion That the Parliament is no Legal Parliament because it determined by the death of the King and because that Oliver Cromwell did summon other Parliaments the People did thereby Re-assume their authority and withdrew it from the present Parliament To this I answer That it was no discontinuance at all For suppose that the Parliament were Sitting and by reason of Fire or other Accident they should be disturbed and Interrupted that they should all fly the House without Adjourning untill the next day would this be a Dissolution to that Session No verily for although it be a Custome for them to continue their Session by adjourning in such a case the Necessity of Affairs requiring their present service they may Sit and Execute their power and it will be as good as if they had adjourned for adjourning is but a Circumstance and if the not performing of a Circumstance should be a forfeiture of the power when it is occasioned by some force or accident it would be monstrous strange and not in the least to consist with Reason besides the Kings death cannot occasion the Dissolution of this Parliament because of that Act which the Authour ingenuously mentioneth which is That they shall not be dissolved without their own Consents That Parliament of Edward the second did depose him after which there was an Interregnum he was dead in Law yet the Parliament during that Interregnum do Invest Edward the third with the Kingly Office which was an Exercise of the Supream Authority in them in that Interval I grant that when there was no pressing Reasons of State for so doing Parliaments did look upon their determination at the death of the King King Henry the sixth was not crowned untill the eighth year of his Reign yet in the 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6th years of his Raign divers Parliaments were holden the Judges of the Land did then Resolve That formalities must be dispensed with in great Actions that are above