Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66454
|
An answer to sundry matters contain'd in Mr. Hunt's postscript to his argument for the bishops right in judging capital causes in Parliament ... whereunto is added a query to be put to the scrupulous and dissenting brotherhood : with an advertisement how usurpers of the crown ought to be dealt with / by Wa. Williams of the Middle Temple, a barrister at law.
|
Williams, Walter, of the Middle Temple.
|
1683
(1683)
|
Wing W2773A; ESTC R7863
|
19,108
|
36
|
you and I should make an Agreement in writeing that you should call at my House once a Year and afterwards by another Agreement Reciting the former Agreement whereby you were obliged to call once a Year we agree that for the future you shall not omit calling once in three Years Surely you would not think your self after this last Agreement obliged to call every Year Just so it is in the Kings case as to those Statutes of Edw. the 3d. for a Statute is but an Agreement between the King and His two Houses of Parliament and whereas by the Statute of the 4 Edw. 3. cap. 14. It is mentioned that it was Accorded that the Parliament should be holden every Year once and oftner if need be and by the Statute of 36. Ed. 3. cap. 10. to the like effect afterwards his now Majesty and both Houses of Parliament in the Sixteenth Year of His Reign come to a new Agreement touching Parliaments thereby Reciting the said Statutes of Edward the 3d. and do Agree that Parliaments shall not be discontinued above three Years Doubtless this last Statute and Agreement is by Implication of Law a Repeal of the Statutes of Edw. the 3d. as to calling Parliaments once a Year and is as much in effect as if it had been mentioned in the last Statute that notwithstanding the said Statutes of Edw. the 3d. it is sufficient if the King calls a Parliament once in three Years and moreover this last Statute that Parliaments should not be discontinued above three Years had been a vain Statute as to that particular if after this was made the King was still obliged to call a Parliament every year it is almost Sacriledge in some cases to think that the Parliament should offer any thing that 's vain to the King and by your pardon Sir there be other maximes in Law viz. Leges posteriores priores contraries abrogant later Laws differing from the former do make the former void and Lex nil frustra facit the Law or if you please the Legislative Authority doth nothing in vain which maximes I must tell you had been of better use in the Exposition of those Statutes of Edw. the 3d. than your notions of a firmatory Law for it had been in vain to have made a Statute that required Parliaments every three Years if they intended the other should be inforce And I conceive it may with better Reason be affirmed that a wilful publishing that the King hath neglected the Law especially when he hath not is a publishing of words to stir up the People to a dislike of His Majesties Person and Government and in my judgment affirms you an Offender within the Statute of 13 Ca. 2. cap. 1. though you very confidently like the rest of your Gang in the close of your darling Postscript say you were moved to what is there set down by nothing but a hearty Love and Affection to the King but I hope neither His Majesty nor any of His Loyal Subjects will believe you nor them any more To convince you further of your Error that the King hath not neglected those Laws of Edw the 3d. as to calling Parliaments for by the first of the Laws that is the 4. of Edw. the 3d. cap. 14. It is not absolutely required that a Parliament should be held once every Year but it is conditionally if need should require which you deceitfully omit to mention in the charge upon the King for you well knew it was the King was the judge when need required a Parliament and this may the better appear because from the next Year that Statute was made viz. that 5. of Edward the 3d. there was a discontinuance of Parliaments until the 9th and the other Act of the 36 of Edw. the 3d. cap. 10. sayes Parliaments shall be held once a Year as at another time was ordained that is under the same condition as the other Statute was but perhaps after all this you may be that Fool that though bray'd in a Morter would not forsake his folly The next thing I have taken notice of in your Postscript and which I suppose was the main matter and drift thereof and to maintain it you have used the best of your skill is another Conclusion of yours drawn I dare say for your Credit be it known only from your own mere natural parts and notions for I am sure it cannot be either from Divine Precept or Example Humane Experience of past Ages nor the present practice of any considerable part of the World of which I have taken some consideration and it is that which you set down in page the 43. of the Postscript line the 14. that the Succession of the Crown is Hereditary because the People so appointed it would have it so or consented to have it so yet as you say in a particular Case for saving the Nation forsooth when by the by it is in no danger the whole Line and Monarchy it self may be altered by the unlimited power of the Legislative Authority but Suppose the Nation were in such danger as you say which I shall manifest to the World it is not I hope no King of England which you your self admit to have a part in the Legislative Authority will ever make a Law though the Parliament should desire it either to alter the Government of Monarchy in this Kingdom nor the Succession thereof till they see the Nation cannot be saved without it or find greater Cause and better Reasons for it than the World ever yet produced though your Fools Bolt Sir is already shot but hath missed the mark you aimedat And I hope will ever do so In order to maintain your Assertions you inveigh extreamly against those that affirm Kingly Government to be of Divine Right and Institution for which I must say the World affords more Arguments and far more convincing than any you have Coyn'd against it However I will add my mite to the Mint and more than that I dare enter the Lists to maintain it against you that Kingly Government yea Hereditary Kingly Government is the only Government of Divine Institution in the World My Reasons for it shall follow but in the first place I will propose you are no Atheist and that you will not deny but that God is the Supream King and Governour of all things and that he takes some care of the World and knows best by what ways and methods to Govern it and that what he ordains is of Divine Institution for it is a maxim in Logick quod contra negantem Principium non est disputandum There 's no Reasoning with such as will not admit fundamental Truths no more than any buildings unless Castles in the Air can be raised without laying a foundation These premises being admitted which I know you will not gainsay whatever you think I would represent to your observation that when God had that great Work to do both to govern and deliver out of
AN ANSWER To sundry Matters contain'd in Mr. HVNT'S Postscript To His Argument For the Bishops Right in judging Capital Causes in PARLIAMENT VIZ. 1. As to his publishing a scandalous LETTER of the Clergy 2. As to his wrongfully charging His Majesty with neglect of the LAW if he call'd not a Parliament once a year 3. As to his false Affirmations that the Succession of the CROWN is the Peoples Right and that not only the Line of Succession but Monarchy it self may be alter'd Whereunto is added A Query to be put to the Scrupulous and Dissenting Brotherhood WITH An Advertisement how Usurpers of the Crown ought to be dealt with By Wa. Williams of the Middle Temple a Barrister at LAW Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos LONDON Printed for Charles Harper and are to be sold by Walter Davis at Amen-Corner 1683. A POSTSCRIPT Anteposited SIR I Had a long time since framed this ensuing Answer to yâ—â—â— most celebrated Postscript but having done it the câ—â—sideration of the wise Kings Advice Answer not a Foâ—â—â— and Answer a Fool wrought such a Conflict within 〈◊〉 as hindred my sending it until of late I found by your wâ—â—â— Defence of the Charter that you were become wise in yâ—â—â— own Conceit Therefore to indeavour to move that â—â—stemper in your self and to undeceive such as may be inâ—â—cted with the State-Heresie I at length Resolved to 〈◊〉 it in hopes it may effect your and their Reformation wâ—â—â—â— is desired by W.W. TO THOMAS HVNT Esq SIR HAving occasion lately to pass through several parts of the Kingdom and in my Journies discoursing with several Gentlemen that had been Members of the Honourable House of Commons in some of our late Parliaments concerning the late Bill of Exclusion of His Royal Highness from the Succession of the Crown I found some of them who once had no great opinion neither of the necessity nor honesty of that Bill begin to entertain some favourable thoughts of it and that which induc'd them to it as I was inform'd was the powerful Arguments they met with in a very ingenious Piece as they term'd it call'd Mr. Hunt's Postscript which was in great plenty very industriously dispersed about by some Newtrue-Protestants and magnified by them equally with if not above the Scriptures This great Character and the mighty Effects it had wrought set my Curiosity upon enquiry after this sublime Fabrick of Politicks but having found it I must tell you without Complement it proved a mere heap of confused scandalous Rubbish situate like the Firebrands in the Tails of Sampson's Foxes tacked to the hinder end of a plausible thing viz. Your Argument for the Bishops Right c. Your self suspecting as I guess by the matter of it that it had never found the way into our standing Corn without the help of some such Fox-like trick it being stuffed with nothing but Railings false Recitals of Scripture History Fallacies and Chicaneries which in plain English are nothing but subtle impertinent quirks and quillets First you act the slanderer by Proxie and as I apprehend it you feign a Letter from a Friend containing very scandalous things of the Clergie amongst the rest page the 2d belying them that they are all for a Popish Successor and no Parliament and that they do as much as in them lies give up our ancient Government the Protestant Religion the true Christian Faith to the absolute will of a Popish Successor wherein you have done extreamly ill notwithstanding you have declared your own opinion that you believe that there are but few of them guilty of that charge for your supposed Letter hath deeply wounded their Reputation with the credulous People and given them too great an occasion to hunt after Conventicles in search for supposed more Godly Teachers and I dare affirm it that your declaring your own opinion of them is but a very ineffectual Plaister for their broken Heads Whether you could have Argued better for them or not I cannot say but if you could not your inability will no more excuse you than it did the young Conjurer that raised the Devil but could not lay him and though you would father the Lye upon another I conceive however that you have committed an Offence against the Statutes of Westminster the first and the 2d of R. 2. Touching Reporters of false News whereby slander may arise to the Bishops of this Realm for by Clergy is understood the Bishops as well as the inferiour Ministers your Friends tale being the most scandalous thing that could have been invented and most likely to make the People hate all the Orthodox and Conformable Clergie in the Nation for which I wish you your condign Punishment Another matter you have taken great pains in page 29. of the Postscript and thereabouts is to represent to the World a Statute as in force which is Repealed and by Colour thereof you take the freedom to asperse even His Majesty himself for you say that by the Statutes of Edward the 3d. Parliaments are to be holden every Year and thar the Statute of this King requires a Parliament every three Years which as you say being an affirmatory Law doth not derogate from those of Edward the 3d. And you say farther that if the King doth not call a Parliament once a Year He neglects those Laws and if he delays calling a Parliament in three Years He neglects the other Law of His own time This renders you an audacious man that dares thus openly and bare-faced Libel your Prince but it will never give you the Reputation of a great Lawyer a good Logician nor a dutiful Subject for this Argument of yours is as gross a Solecism and non-consequence as any Sophister to render it more intelligible any Deceiver ever yet attempted to cheat the World with And to Demonstrate it so consider with your self If I should make you a Lease of a House at the Rent of Twenty pound payable Yearly and afterwards should make you another Lease of the same House at Twenty pounds payable once in Three Years would not you say that this last Lease did disanul and make void the first Lease the making and accepting of a new Lease being a surrender in Law of the old one and whereas by the first Lease you were to pay Twenty pound every Year would you not then think your self obliged to pay your Twenty pound but once in three Years I dare say you would however you may pay Twenty pound every Year if you will notwithstanding the new Lease and so may the King call a Parliament once every Year or oftner if He please but is not nowbound to do so by the old Statute any more than you are bound by the old Lease after a new one made of the same thing To make this matter more plain I will give you another instance to this purpose according to what a Reverend Father in the Law sayes Examples do not perplex but clear the point Suppose