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 |
|
A63900
|
An argument in defence of the hospitaller of St. Thomas Southwark and of his fellow-servants and friends in the same house
|
Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing T3300; ESTC R9444
|
36,427
|
31
|
strong and run upon him with so fierce a Stream that I suspect the soundness of his understanding for offering to attempt a thing in which he could reasonably propose nothing but infamy and disgrace to himself he seems to me to be got into the predicament of Dr Rolls and that even Hellebore and Anticyra it self are unable to restore him to his right mind so far are his Wits run a Woolgathering from it And now upon the whole matter I am very sure of the Victory which I have allready obtain'd by dint of Argument against him though he may possibly run away with the Triumph and I had much rather lose so fair a cause as mine is then gain a Scandalous Conquest by succeeding in his Victrix câ—usa Deis placuit sed victa Catoni POSTSCRIPT I Have two things further to add which occur-now newly to my mind and are I think material to the purpose the First as to the Regulation in generall the design of which seems to have been to displace all that were not at that time Communicants of the Church of England that being the interest which the Court thought fit at that juncture to encourage It is not my business in this place to weigh the Merits of Causes or of Persons neither do I at all intend by this to reflect upon the Persons Ejected as if they were defective in the discharge of their trust the contrary of which bating only what concerns my Friend Mr Hughes is that which I did always and do still very firmly believe but this I say that by this it appears that it was a Regulation not only made by him that had a Legall right to do it of which I have already spoken very largely but it was also such a Regulation as the Laws of this Land if they did not Expicitely enjoyn yet they did manifestly encourage and abett it being very incongruous to prosecute the same Persons upon account of their Religion which was no more then what the Laws put in Execution would certainly have done and yet at the same time to reward them with publick Salaries for the same services that Members of the Establish'd Communion were capable of performing with equall if not greater advantage to the House I say greater in reference to that part of the Governors to whom their service will always be most acceptable who have without question the most of the Gentleman in them and will at the long run prove the most generous Benefactors to us if they be not disobliged for he hath no Honour that hath no resentment I appeal to the greatest favourers of Mr. H. and others if a set of Papists were put into the House to fill up the respective Offices belonging to it whether they would then grumble at a Royall Regulation whether they would not allow the King a Power of Visiting in this Case whether they would not agree that the Ejection of such Persons was not only necessary but Legall too and Lastly whether they would not think it a very unreasonable thing that they that stand impeached and Condemned by so many Laws should be Encouraged with Salaries out of the publique Kevenue and preferred before those upon whom the Laws never look but with a kind and favourable aspect I do not in this make any odious comparison betwixt a Papist and Protestant Dissenter as if the one were as much to be discountenanced as the other but yet I challenge any man to shew a reason why a Papist should be Ejected which will not in the dry consequence and Inference of the matter affect and reach a Protestant Dissenter to whose dissent I cannot help it that the Laws are no friends and that he cannot be encouraged in an affair of this Nature without something that squints towards a dispensing Power Not to preferr can never be thought a piece of Persecution and the Government will always chuse its own Servants as it is but reason it should so that this Regulation being made by a Legall Power for a reason agreeable to the Laws I think it hath all the Validity and Strength that any Act in the World can be supposed to have Secondly the second thing I must Suggest is only in Fayrness to the other Side that I may not seem to conceal or smuggle any thing that hath a favorable Appearance towards them It is that our Orders run only during Pleasure therefore the Question is upon the Dissolution of the Commission whether that pleasure be not dissolved and I answer not because first durante beneplacito signifies till that Court otherwise determine which they never did Secondly though these express words had not been inserted yet the thing it self was plainly supposed we being all of us at the pleasure of that Court and of the King from whom they derived their Commission and holding by no other Tenure so that all the question here is whether all their Acts were vacated by their dissolution which I conceive they were not and I hope I have given some reason for it Thirdly and Lastly that pleasure being a reall Power can never dye like matter and motion that are always equall and the same taken in the gross neither can a greater pleasure be swallowed up in a less any more then a greater quantity can be and for this reason the pleasure or Power of the Commissioners can never be the pleasure or Power of the Court of Aldermen but returns back again to its Eountain the King to whose Royall Justice Goodness and Wisdom I am very willing to referr my Cause if Mr Hughes think fit to make his appeal to it In the mean time I would willingly see a reason before I abandon and relinquish my possession FINIS
and unaccountable Judge What therefore can the man do that cometh after the King Eccl. 2. 12. Or what inferiour Authority can annull that which the Supreme hath ordered and appointed To be plain in a Case that is not to be dallyed with my meaning is this that during the Life of that Glorious Blessed Prince King Charles the Second it would not have been Lawful for any inferiour Authority though the Charter had been restored to displace any Officer of his Appointment in this house by virtue of any Arbitrary Power lodged in them without a cause of Misdemeanor or of incapacity particularly assigned represented to the King himself whose gifts that are properly and Legally in his disposall cannot be taken away by any subordinate Power without his consent First had and obtained in the matter But yet I grant that now after the decease of that incomparable Prince and the Restitution of the Charter all the Trusts that were Formerly lodged in the City do naturally return together with it and that the ordinary Visitation of this Hospitall is in them unless the King and Queen shall please to interpose which they may by Law do as often as they think Fit and take the Jurisdiction in General or the ordering of any particular matter or affair into their own hands but yet still it continues good that that which was Legally Establish'd by a Lawfull and rightfull King cannot and ought not to be changed or altered by any Subordinate Power or Authority whatsoever without a Cause assigned without a Grievance prov'd without a fault alledg'd in the Person that is intended to be displac'd because this is not so much to claim a Jurisdiction over A. or B. to whom I grant as Governors they are Superiour but to Challenge and Arrogate a Power to themselves Superior to that From which alone they derive it and that is From the King which all Men must needs see to be impossible absurd Neither let any man here object that we were placed here by the Kings Commissioners not by the King himself and that the Commission was Arbitrary and Illegall For First it is a Maxim in Law and reason quod quis facit per alium Facit perâ—se what the King does by his Commissioners he does by himself and though I will not meddle with the Legality of the proceeding in the avoidance of the Charter and entring up Judgment against it yet thus much I will say that the Charter whether right or wrong being Actually voided there was no way left to manage the Affairs of the City but by Commission from the King and that what is necessary in the present Circumstances for the quiet and peaceable Administration of so Populous a City may be said at least to have Secondary Lawfnllness a Lawfullness deriving and holding from that necessity though that which gave occasion to it should be allowed and admitted to be Illegall a Controversy with which I have nothing to do which I do not pretend to understand but as for that part of the Commission which concern'd the Hospital it was in Vertue of a Power which was always vested in the King and which he might always delegate to whom he pleased so that all the Acts they did in this affair were unquestionably valid and Lawfull in themselves and cannot be cancell'd or evacuated by any less Authority without a reason of Equity or an Emergent reason of necessity assiign'd Suppose the King and Queen should graciously commit to the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty of the City the care and management of the Tower of London and the disposall of the Places of Constable and Lieutenant and Master of the Ordinance c. they shall still be presumed notwithstanding this to reserve a Power of Visitation to themselves it is reserved in the nature of the trust though it were not expressly and positively provided for and so it is here the Kings Charity is as much and as naturally in his own disposall whenever he pleaseth to concern himself about it as his Arsenalls or Magazins and indeed the difference between these two is no more then that by the one the King provides for the Safety and defence of his Subjects and by the other he relieves the necessities of those by an effect of his mercy whom all his power cannot defend against the wants and Infirmities that are and will be always incident to humane Nature and it is but fit he should be satisfy'd whenever he desires it as to the Conduct and management of one of these trusts as well as of the Other If the King notwithstanding such Commission should after Enquiry and Visitation made displace the respective Officers in the Tower and put others in their stead there is no man living I believe in this case that will pretend to dispute his unquestionable right in doing it neither would it be Lawfull to displace them without his consent though in all other matters and in all Future Elections when a Vacancy shall happen the Commission should still continue the powers to act under it remain entire as before but their Commission cannot extend to things already determin'd by the King because the Kings authority is the Fountain of their power and to reverse his determination without a reason of equity or necessity is to disown that authority under which they act and by consequence to disannull their own for rivers must be dry when the Fountain is destroyed If a man be Tenant to a Landlord and have a lease under him he performing the Covenants that are stipulated between them he cannot be ejected out of his Farm or deprived of his Tenant-right which is a sort of secondary Frcehold so that he may renew his lease from time to time and ought to be considered caeteris paribus beyond any other pretender this being a kind of Charter-Office under the Lord of the Fee but if a man take a Servant without any other condition then that of paying him wages for his service he may part with him at pleasure for a good reason or for none at all for the law does not tell us who shall be are servants â— or oblige us to â—â—ep them who her we will â—â—honi which were in some sense â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 our 〈◊〉 our 〈◊〉 and I to 〈◊〉 order of Government 〈◊〉 of things but we may kâ—â—â— whom we please and as long as we please and dismiss them 〈◊〉 humour as well as for a reason If therefore â—â—e in this Hospitall are Servants to aâ— Master receiving wages and Salaries for our work which Master is first of all the King and Secondly a Corporation entrusted by and under him there is 〈◊〉 question but that the King in whom the first power is lodged may eject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mr. 〈◊〉 at his pleasure and we cannot complain of any legall wrong neither can we renew any pretentions for the future 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of a legall right we never having had any other sort of right