Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n good_a law_n work_n 2,920 5 6.2264 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A28102 A discourse of the happy union of the kingdoms of England & Scotland dedicated in private to King James I / by Francis Lord Bacon.; Briefe discourse touching the happie union of the kingdomes of England and Scotland Bacon, Francis, 1561-1626. 1700 (1700) Wing B281; ESTC R15038 12,436 24

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

shall be made Britain then Scotland is no more to be considered as Scotland but as a part of Britain no more than England is to be considered as England but as a Part likewise of Britain and consequently neither of these are to be considered as things entire of themselves but in the Proportion that they bear to the whole And therefore let us imagine Nam id monte possumus quod actu non possumus that Britain had never been divided but had ever been one Kingdom then the part of Soil or Territory which is comprehended under the Name of Scotland is in quantity as I heard it esteemed how truly I know not not past a Third Part of Britain and that Part of Soil or Territory which is comprehended under the Name of England is Two Parts of Britain leaving to speak of any Difference of Wealth or Population and speaking only of Quantity So then if for Example Scotland should bring to Parliament as much Nobility as England then a Third Part should countervail Two Parts Nam si inequalibus aequalia addas omnia erunt Inaequalia And this I protest before God and your Majesty I do speak not as a Man born in England but as a Man born in Britain And therefore to descend to the Particulars For the Parliaments 1. Parliament the Consideration of that Point will fall into Four Questions 1. The First What Proportion shall be kept between the Votes of England and the Votes of Scotland 2. The Second Touching the Manner of Proposition or possessing of the Parliament of Causes there to be handled which in England is used to be done immediately by any Member of the Parliament or by the Prolocutor and in Scotland is used to be done immediately by the Lords of Articles whereof the one Form seemeth to have more Liberty and the other more Gravity and Maturity and therefore the Question will be whether of these shall yield to other or whether there should not be a Mixture of both by some Commissions precedent to every Parliament in the Nature of Lords of the Articles and yet not excluding the liberty of propounding in full Parliament afterwards 3. The Third Touching the Orders of Parliament how they may be compounded and the best of either taken 4. The Fourth How those which by Inheritance or otherwise have Offices of Honour and Ceremony in both the Parliaments as the Lord Steward with us c. may be satisfied and Duplicity accommodated For the Councels of Estate 2 Counsels of Estate while the Kingdoms stand divided it should seem necessary to continue several Councels but if your Majesty should proceed to a strict Vnion then howsoever your Majesty may establish some Provincial Councels in Scotland as there is here of York and in the Marches of Wales yet the Question will be whether it will not be more convenient for your Majesty to have but one Privy Councel about your Person whereof the Principal Officers of the Crown of Scotland to be for Dignity sake howsoever their abiding and remaining may be as your Majesty shall imploy their Service But this Point belongeth meerly and wholly to your Majesties Royal Will and Pleasure For the Officers of the Crown 3. Officers of the Crown the Consideration thereof will fall into these Questions First In regard of the Latitude of your Kingdom and the Distance of Place whether it will not be matter of necessity to continue the several Officers because of the Impossibility for the Service to be performed by one The Second Admitting the Duplicity of Officers should be continued yet whether there should not be a difference that one should be the Principal Officer and the other to be but Special and subaltern As for example one to be Chancellor of Britain and the other to be Chancellor with some special Addition as here of the Dutchy c. The Third If no such Speciality or Inferiority be thought fit then whether both Officers should not have the Title and the Name of the whole Island and Precincts As the Lord Chancellor of England to be Lord Chancellor of Britain And the Lord Chancellor of Scotland to be Lord Chancellor of Britain but with several Proviso's that they shall not intromit themselves but within their several Precincts For the Nobilities 4 Nobilities the Consideration thereof will fall into these Questions The First of their Votes in Parliament which was touched before what Proportion they shall bear to the Nobility of England wherein if the Proportion which shall be thought fit be not full yet your Majesty may out of your Prerogative supply it for although you cannot make fewer of Scotland yet you may make more of England The Second is touching the Place and Precedence wherein to Marshal them according to the Precedence of England in your Majesties Stile and according to the Nobility of Ireland that is all English Earls first and then Scottish will be thought unequal for Scotland To Marshal them according to Antiquity will be thought unequal for England Because I hear the Nobility is generally more Ancient And therefore the Question will be Whether the indifferentest way were not to take them interchangeably As for Example First the Ancient Earl of England and then the Ancient Earl of Scotland and so Alternis Vicibus For the Laws 5. Laws to make an entire and perfect Vnion it is a matter of great difficulty and length both in the Collecting of them and in the Passing of them For First as to the Collecting of them there must be made by the Lawyers of either Nation a Digest under Titles of their several Laws and Customs as well Common Laws as Statutes that they may be Collated and Compared and that the Diversities may appear and be discerned of And for the Passing of them we see by experience that Patrius mos is dear to all Men and that Men are bred and nourished up in the Love of it and therefore how harsh Changes and Innovations are And we see likewise what Disputation and Argument the Alteration of some one Law doth cause and bring forth how much more the Alteration of the whole Corps of the Law Therefore the first Question will be Whether it be not good to proceed by Parts and to take that that is most necessary and leave the rest to Time The Parts therefore or Subject of Laws are for this Purpose fitliest distributed according to that ordinary Division of Criminal and Civil and those of Criminal Causes into Capital and Penal The second Question therefore is allowing the General Vnion of Laws to be too great a Work to embrace whether it were not convenient that Cases Capital were the same in both Nations I say the Cases I do not speak of the Proceedings or Trials That is to say whether the same Offences were not fit to be made Treason or Felony in both places The third Question is whether Cases Penal though not Capital yet if they concern the