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 |
|
A55705
|
The present settlement vindicated, and the late mis-government proved in answer to a seditious letter from a pretended loyal member of the Church of England to a relenting abdicator / by a gentleman of Ireland.
|
Gentleman of Ireland.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing P3250; ESTC R9106
|
56,589
|
74
|
with the private Intreigues of this sort Yet I can tell him of one Tucker that had not only his Estate granted from him but his Wife also perswaded to leave him and marry another Man and the poor Man after a miserable languishing in Gaol without that small support he was promised by those that perswaded him to plead Guilty to his Indictment of Treason has a Petition now lying before the House to be relieved in both and to have his Estate restored without the incumbrance of his Wife which is no extravagant request if It be true that she forsook him in his misery Though the Parliament were pleased to mention no other Grievances yet I would not have our Author too confident there were no other for certainly the displacing of the Judges so frequently and upon all occasions was a great one in it self and occasioned many more This made some of them stick closer to their directions from Court than to the Law in many Cases but for fear of this Judgment had never passed so quickly in Sir Edward Hale's Case I should be glad to know what our Author thinks of prosecuting the Subject with great rigour upon pretended Crimes As the Bishop of London for not Suspending Dr. Sharp the Seven Bishops for Petitioning him in the most humble manner Dr. Burnet for the slip of his Pen in a private Letter or for a less offence as we may judge by their quitting the first as soon as they had the other to lay hold on Mr. Baxter for his Notes on the New Testament these and many such like that might be instanced shewed as if the Government lay at catch and were glad of an opportunity no matter how just or honourable to be rid or revenged of any person they had no fancy to This kept all persons under jealousies and apprehensions Has our Author read the Statute of Charles the Second repealing the Act for Triennial Parliaments If he has let him tell me whether it was well observed if it had it might have prevented many of our other Grievances for the King would not have gotten Ministers so fool-hardy as to have executed his Orders if they had thought that a Parliament was likely soon to over-take them Lastly I should be glad to know what our Author thinks of those many Grievances relating to Ireland I shall only instance in my Lord Tyrconnel's Government that being the foundation and support of most of the rest The Sword was no sooner put into his hands but he displaces our Protestant Lord Chancellor Attorney-General and prime Serjeant and Lord Chief Baron before Term and the Judges who were always appointed in Hillary-Term for the Lent-Circuit waited beyond that for his Approbation the consequence whereof was That the two Protestant Serjeants were put by and Paplsts their Juniors sent in their stead His next blessing to the Nation was such a sett of Sheriffs the like whereof that or no other Nation ever saw and his Majesty was so eager for these Tools that Lord Clarendon was ordered not to name them and though usually the Sheriffs are named in November this Year waiting for his coming we had them not until the middle of February and then many of them were Men of no Estates To reprise the Country in case they injured them little understanding and less honesty to direct them in the due execution of their Offices which discouraged many so much that they chose rather to venture the loss of their Debts by not Suing than by Suing venture it in the Sheriff's hands and in that Vacation he attacked all the Corporations in the Kingdom with Quo Warranto's and soon afterwards disseised several persons of their Offices wherein they had Free-holds by putting others in their places as Bruno Talbot was made Chancellor of the Exchequer in the place of Sir Charles Meridith and Captain Giles Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance in the place of Sir Albert Coningham though they both had Patents of their Imployments for their Lives I might go on with the mention of other Injuries heaped by him on the Protestants to the length of a just Volume But in hopes that we shall not be any more troubled with him I will forbear Having so long followed our Author close to his own method without omitting any thing that he can judge material For the future I will only consider the principal of his Assertions and Insinuations having already been so much longer than I at first intended I have spoken to the late King's Concessions before the Prince's Landing To which I shall now add because our Author lays so great stress thereon That if his Intentions had been so Candid and Princely as the Author phrases it why did he not suffer the Parliament to meet in January as he promised Why was he so angry at the Peers that desired it the 17th of November Why did he so long resist its Sitting until he should be in a condition to keep his Word or not as he pleased This he denied to those Bishops our Author says he granted so much to Lastly It must be noted that though the King redressed some of our Grievances yet he did not take away the great Cause of our jealousie and complaint As for instance he cancelled the Ecclesiastical Commission but did not disclaim the Power of setting up another when he should think fit nay did not so much as promise not to do it And for any assurance that we had he might by another Court have punished these Bishops for their present presumption and medling with State-affairs neither did he ever disclaim his absolute Power over us nor lay aside his Dispensing Power by which alone he could have rendred all our relief in Parliament useless therefore so long as he kept that all that he could do for us could not satisfie because without it we could not be secure for any longer time than the Jesuit's fears kept them in order Next our Author would insinuate a strange Proposition That the States contributed to the Invasion with a design to ruin our Trade In answer to which I say That it cannot be supposed that they have forgotten what helped well if not laid the first foundation of their Trade and Greatness and why they should not expect as much profit from the struggles about Religion in King James's time as from those in Queen Mary's time I cannot tell Surely Popery is not less terrible to us now than it was then that we should more tamely submit to it than we did then We have seen in France some late effects of prevailing Popery that does not more surprize than instruct us to be on our Guards to which the danger of our Civil Rights being joyned all undermined by the Dispensing Power and Obedience without reserve Surely the same or worse effects as to us might have been expected now than followed in those days that only contended about Religion Where that Persecution forced an Hundred abroad in all probability King James
's or his King's word And though this were a sufficient reason for the mild course taken by the new Act injoyning the Oaths yet certainly the Nation does attribute that course very much to the mild Nature of the King who would not too hastily exact a Complyance nor too severely punish the want of it though certainly the accepting of him for King and swearing Allegiance to him is a matter of far greater moment than any opposition King James met with from the Church and so might deserve a severer punishment than for not obeying an illegal Mandate Our Author misses no opportunity of telling what is doing in Scotland but he is not so forward to tell us News from Ireland He tells us the Scotch Clergy are obliged to pray for the King and Queen under pain of Deprivation and pray why should they not But does not tell us that the Bishop of Dunkell was deprived by the late King for Voting or Arguing in Parliament according to his Conscience neither does he give us any account of the pretended Act of Parliament in Ireland taking away many of the Rights of the Clergy without any pretended fault nor of their Act repealing the Acts of Settlement which almost renders useless another of their Acts attainting our Nobility Gentry and Clergy only for being in England Here is Fangs and Claws with a witness and of so weak a Government that one would think these Acts were designed for nothing else than to shew the Temper of the Man and those that influence him The fourth Article is against the Court of the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes To which he says That the Statute repealing the first of Elizabeth hath a Salvo for the King's Supremacy so that there was an appearance of Law to justifie that Commission and that our Parliament meddle with Ecclesiastical matters also Our Author is pretty modest in this Answer pretending but to an Appearance of Law to justifie the late Commission-Court So that now I am not only to argue against the Court but also to shew how little that very Appearance really was which I think will be best done by considering the Statutes of 170 Car. primi C. 110. and the 13. Car. secundi Cap. 12. In the first we will find that the Clause of the Statute of the Queen which Erected the first Ecclesiastical Commission-Court is repealed In this I do not find any Salvo for the King's Supremacy but there is a Clause of another nature to wit That no new Court shall be Erected with the like Power Jurisdiction or Authority as the former had or pretended to have and that all such Commissions made or to be made by his Majesty his Heirs or Successors and all Sentences and Decrees by colour thereof shall be utterly void and of none effect By the 13th of King Charles the second part of this Statute is repealed but what relates to the High Commission or the new Erecting of such another Court is not this Statute has the Salvo I suppose our Author means So that now the matter is shortly thus The first Statute suppresses the High Commission-Court in being and prohibits the Erecting of any such other for the future and Enacts some other things forreign to this matter which by Charles the second 's Statute are repealed But as to the High Commission-Court it confirms the former with the Author 's Salvo that this Act shall not extend to abridge the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs Now though this Statute had by this Clause been Felo de se yet still by the first Statute the Erecting any such new Court is prohibited for the Salvo only is That nothing in that Act shall abridge the King's Supremacy but does not say that nothing in the former shall To obviate this our Author put his Salvo in the first rather than in the other But I say further That though the Salvo had been where our Author would have it or that the Clause had been That nothing in either of the Acts should abridge the Supremacy or to make the matter a little plainer Suppose it had been literally worded provided that the King by his Supremacy may Erect such a Court when he thinks fit the matter had been but little mended for the Enacting part that no such Court should be Erected had been good and the Proviso void for it is a known Rule in Law That the Proviso or Exception must not wholly destroy the preceding Grant though it may lessen or qualifie it As for instance If one grant to me all his Trees and afterwards adds a Proviso except all his Trees the Grant is good and the Proviso void because it would tender the Grant wholly useless but he may except all his Trees in such a place or twenty or any number by name because there is a subject both for the Grant and Exception So a Proviso in the Act might have preserved the Supremacy in Wales or any particular place but being general it is void or rather has no operation on the matter positively Enacted though it may preserve the Supremacy in other matters This Article complains as much of the Executing as the Issuing this illegal Commission To which since our Author says nothing I will only add That though the Law had been plain for the Prerogative in this case as to the Erecting of the Court yet since King Charles who was looked upon as a Protestant did not think fit to put this Power in execution during the Twenty-four years he lived after the Statute which implies That either there was no need of such a Court or that he thought he had no Power of Erecting it it was a bold step in the late King to venture on it but perfect madness as he managed the matter When the Statute was in force the Proceedings were for the Correction and Reformation of such Offences as by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction could lawfully be corrected and reformed during the continuance of that Court which was near an hundred years The Proceedings there were only against persons that disobeyed the King's Laws never one was punished by them for not obeying a Letter but the Bishop of London the disobeying the King 's Arbitrary and Illegal Mandates was never looked upon as a crime before the late times And for a further instance and proof of their illegal Proceedings the Commissioners that acted in pursuance of the Statute could not proceed against persons for small Crimes or such as could be remedied by the ordinary For which reason we find in our Books that a Prohibition went out of the Temporal Courts to stop their Proceedings against one for Adultery as Judge Hutton tells us in Isabel Peel's Case unless in such Cases as were very exorbitant and notorious Now unless we have lost another the most secret Adultery of the Commandments is a greater Offence and a little more expresly prohibited than the Contempts punished in that Court. In Drake's Case a Prohibition went to stop