Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	law_n	people_n	power_n	6,970	5	5.1237	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74788	The jovial tinker of England: willing to hammer the Covenant and Scots commissioners into English. And to mend the breaches, and stop the holes of the Crowne of England, (miserably torne and bruised, both within and without) with the best mettle he can get. And at a very reasonable rate. Provided, he be not compelled to take the Scots sense upon the Covenant. He will rather walk about the countries, & cry: Have you any work for a joviall tinker. / By Borialis guard.	Borialis, Guard.	1648 (1648)	Wing J1119; Thomason E424_3; ESTC R204544	10,341	16

it meerly an aliquid nihil But what if other men be of other mindes and have not we cause to bee so and to thinke it unsatisfactory for is not the Prince in his capacity as bad as the King principled by father and mother to begin where he leaves is not the Parliament put in trust by the people to provide for their security and shall they bee so base as to expose posterity had our forefathers been so selfish the Free-men of England might have been like the bondmen in Scotland where the common people speake broken French The reason of the negative voyce is as they affirme because regall power and authority is chiefly in making and enacting Lawes and therefore object That the new preface takes away the Kings negative voice and cuts off all royall power and right in Law-making wherein by the way they play the Sophysters being excellent School men in State matters for when they speake of the Militia which is lesse concerned in terminis in the Coronation oath which principally respects Civil matters yet they bring it for a proof as to that saying That all Kings are obliged by their Coronation oath to protect their Subjects but as to his negative voice the exclusion whereof is both the substance of that oath and this preamble they blanch it taking and leaving as makes for their turnes in Oaths and Covenants and making at best that oath as to the Lawes speake but the language of the Cavalliers whose interpretation of only protecting the Laws they take up and decline that of the Parliaments of confirming and making them so fully evinced in their Declarations to be the genuine sense thereof and in right reason and true construction it must needs be so That he sweares to confirme and grant all such Laws as his people shall choose to be observed not hath chosen for first the word concedis in that oath were then unnecessary the Lawes formerly enacted being already granted by foregoing Kings his predecessors and so need no more concession or confirmation else we must conclude that all our Lawes dye with the old King and receive their Being a new by the new Kings consent Secondly hereby the first and second clause in that interrogatory viz. Concedis justas leges permitt 〈◊〉 protegendas are confounded and doe but idem re●●●●●● Thirdly Quas vulgus elegerit implies only the act of the people in a dis-junctive sense from the act or consent of the King but Laws already made have more then Quas vulgus elegerit in them they have also the Royall consent too so that that phrase cannot mean those Laws wherein the act and consent of the King is already involved But though the Scots Commissioners approve not of it to be the meaning of that Oath yet they affirme it undeniably as a position of their owne That regall power is chiefly in making and enacting Laws that and protection being of the essence of Kings The Scots say its essentiall to the King to make Laws the Preamble to the Propositions sayes so too That it 's the duty of his office yet they that affirme that oppose this so that there must needs be some great mis-understanding for there is no difference which is this The Scots when they say It is essentiall to the King to make Laws speake by a figure incident to their dialect that is They speake one thing when they meane another you may finde the name of it in Hocus Pocus his politicks intending thereby That it is essentiall to him not to make Lawes elegantly asserting the negative which they contend for in the affirmative For they speake all in the plurall number Kings and Kingdomes nothing but joynt interests and equall jurisdiction municipall lawes are out of doores And let it be granted that it is a principall part of even our regall authority to make and enact Lawes for the Coronation oath saith as much That he is to confirme and grant such Lawes as his people shall present so also sayes this Preamble to the Propositions and what get they by it why then say they to take away the Kings negative voyce is to cut off all power and right in making Lawes nothing lesse this is a meer non sequitur for to make him that he cannot but make them is that to make him that hee cannot make them There are somethings that God himselfe cannot but doe which is as well his perfection and power not imperfection and impotency as those things he can chuse to doe and does that therefore imply that he cannot doe what he cannot but do Things essentiall are not arbitrary but necessary so is making Lawes to the Office of a King but so is not his not making them It seemes by the Scots creed translated into English for they are not of this faith at least not of this practice at home nothing's royall but what 's arbitrary a position fitter for Turkes and Infidels to maintaine then Christians and men of erudition that so preferres will to reason and the will of one man laps'd and relaps'd to the reason of a State making that which is the worst to rule by the sole or principall rule of all rule and Government They are now attain'd to that confidence as after all that 's done and suffered by the Parliament and Kingdome for an establishment of liberty and safety openly to advocate it for the King against these preferring their interest which is against them above their Covenant which is for them notwithstanding the profession they made to the contrary and the money viz. 600000. li. 100000. li. at their comming in 200000. li. at their going out 250000. li. for coales at Newcastle 50000. li. when they lay before Hereford are such another summe when they lay before Newarke besides free-quarter a●bitrary assesements and exactions which in computation during their long stay to little purpose amounted to above as much more They have had for their seeming serviceablenesse thereunto And now all the courtesie we must expect is onely this for they are their owne words It is not our desire that Monarchy should be at the absolute height of an arbitrary and tyrannicall power Implying an allowance or content of some yea a great deale of arbitrary and tyrannicall Monarchicall power and for this it seems they contend the whilst they go about to erect these two Pillars of it in the Crown a Negative voyce and a Regall Militia and indeed the Crowne having them what can hinder it of an arbitrary tyrannicall power even to the height thereof if he that weares it be so disposed for by the power of the one the people can have no Lawes but what hee le grant them and by the power of the other they are never the better for them nor surer of them when they have them the Militia investing the King with a negative power of undoing at pleasure what he of curtesie hath done or granted to them and so his people are stript

of all power or righ● both to get or keepe what 's for their weale or their posterities and all rendered at the Kings will and mercy and that by Law and Allegiance too then which I doe not well understand how there can be a more absolute height of Monarchicall arbitrary tiranny then by pretended Law and right to have it in his power to doe what he will absolute persian for so his will by law gives law to all lawes and the subjects benefit in his meere beneficence For if the Subject desire good lawes hee may stop their mouths and tell them that by Law he may deny them or if he be in a good mind and grant them and after change and be desirous either to unmake them or to breake them which yet the Medes could not doe ●s what 's more changeable then the will of a King whether he be Englands or Israels Solomon subject to alteration upon every puffe of passion or trade-wind of flattery c. And then if the Subject take armes for defence of their Lawes he soiles them at that guard too and and tells them by Law the Militia is his not theirs And if they reply but he is to use it for the publique weale he answers them I may chuse by my negative voyce and thus the poore English-man by Scotch sophistry is tost from post to pillar voide of all certainty and stability and is meerly ad placitum in substance though in shadow a freeman these are no Levellers these are Mountainers high landers but how can wee expect better when strangers and men of contrary interest to us are our Legis-lators and take upon them the highest Office of judicatory in this Kingdome next to making Lawes which they say is the Kings and therefore they will not take that from him viz. to interpret our Lawes and Liberties and so by a writ of alienation we are shared out 'twixt him and them he to make and they to interpret and thus the English Parliament betwixt two stooles falls to the ground and becomes a meere nullity and yet the Scots Commissioners the renewers of our miseries play the Courtiers and tell you in Latine instead of English that they professe ignorantiam facti juris alieni but their words and actions agree as did their words and swords promise much and doe nothing Further to make good these their assertions touching the Kings Right to the Militia and a Negative voyce they prove it by the Scepter and Sword which they say are badges of those powers to be in the King it may be so in Scotland but in England they signifie not the power of creation specially not of annihilation of Laws but of execution of civill and penall Justice else by this reason the Mayor of a Corporation whose badges in proportion import the same things should have a Negative voyce and be a Law-maker or law-refuser who indeed is the Laws Minister and so is the King the fountain of Justice not of Laws But to shew how inconsistent and irrationall it is for the King of England to have a Negative voyce for for the impertinencies of other Nations instanced by them there need no other answer but that we neither give nor take Laws from any but our selves t may appear by these following considerations 1. By the Kings not sitting in Parliament to debate and consult Lawes nor are they at all offered him by the Parliament to consider of but only to consent unto which yet are transmitted from one of the Houses to the other as well to consult as consent to shewing thereby that he hath no share in the consultory part of them for that it belongs only to the people in Parliament to discerne and consult their owne good but he comes only at the time of enacting bringing his royall authority with him as it were to set the seal therof to the Indenture already prepared by the people for the King is head of the Parliament as of the people in regard of his authority not in regard of his reason and judgement as if it were opposed to the reason and judgement of both Houses which is the reason both of King and Kingdome and therefore doe they as consult so interpret Laws without him supposing him to be a person replenished with honour and royall authority not skill'd in Lawes nor to receive information either of law or counsell in Parliamentary affaires from any saving from the supreme Court and highest Councell of the King and Kingdome which admits of no counterpoise being intrusted with all above all 2. Either the choice of the people in Parliament is to be the ground and rule of the Kings assent or nothing but his pleasure so all Bills though never so necessary for publique good and preservation and after never so much paines and consultation of both Houses may be voided and so they made meer cyphers and we brought to that passe as either to have no Lawes or such as come onely and inmediately from the King who oft is a man of pleasure and little seen in publicke affaires to be able to judge and so the Kingdomes great Councell must bee subordinated either to his meer will and then what difference between a free Monarchy and an absolute saving that the one rules without counsell and the other against it or at the best but to a cabinet councell consisting commonly ●f men of personall interests but certainly of no publick trust 3. By the practice of requiring the royall assent even unto those very acts of Subsidies which are granted to himselfe and for his owne use which it is supposed he will accept of and yet Honoris gratia his royall assent is asked and contributed thereunto Lastly from the Scots owne position which is this That regall power and authority is chiefly in making and enacting Lawes and in protecting and defending their subjects which are of the very essence and Being of all Kings Whence I argue that then he hath a negative power in neither no more in the one then in the other but as he is not to deny protection to his people so nor Lawes for as aforesaid things essentiall are necessary these then being so to the office of a King hee is not arbitrary in their dispensation but as he must doe the one viz protect not destroy his people so also the other viz. consent not dissent to their Lawes for to consent is either a meere act of his will and pleasure and then not essentiall to his place or the issue of his duty and then not of his meere will as it is of a Judge to do justice and therefore cannot that is ought not to be denyed this their owne position whereupon they would build the negative voyce quite destroyes it and concludes both against it and them In a word the Fundamentall Law of the Land is a setling of Government so as that it may be administred with honour and safety and therefore the people first consult their own safety and welfare in Parliament and then the King who is to be intrusted with it is to give an honourable confirmation to it and so to put an Impresse of Maj●sty and Royall Authority upon it The Legislative power in England is in the hands of the supreme Government not Governour here the people like Freemen offers Laws to be enacted doth not receive them so nor ought to be denyed them The King is to give life to such Acts and things as tend to publique good and protection which Acts depend not upon his pleasure but though they are to receive their greater vigour from him yet are they not to be suspended at pleasure by him for that which at first was intended by the Kingdoms for an honourable way of subsistence and administration must not be wrested contrary to the nature of this polity and Institution insomuch as if the King in his person decline his duty the King in his Parliament is to performe it Safety and Beeing is to be preferred to Honour and Well-being and Reallities to Formes which are usefull if not hurtfull Good Hand-maids but bad Mistresses being but Honourable Accidents not Essences like beauty to the face or Jewels to the Crown which though they be pawn'd it s not essentially impair'd Civill superstition may undo us as well as Ecclesiasticall which commonly goe together and one of them oft times is the punishment of the other Civill dissentions Prerogative Wars and Canterburian Altars began at once The peoples hearts were not prepared was of old the sin of many ages and the cause of many judgements God grant it be not so with Englands Israel FINIS Janua 29. 1647. Imprimatur Gilbert Mabbot