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 |
|
A91220
|
The cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His reply to H.P. barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, answered.
|
Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.
|
1647
(1647)
|
Wing P400A; Thomason E393_9; ESTC R201593
|
18,740
|
33
|
above those provocations which were pretended by the two Spencers 3. The Spencers by pretext of governing in aide of the King intended to oppresse all the Nobility Gentry Communaltie of the Land but this is impossible to be suspected in a Parliament which consists of the choice and are a considerable part of all these 5. The 5. particular now offers it selfe wherein Mr. Ienkins maintaines that every King of England and only the King in England can grant pardons and that in all cases and for this he cites Stanfords pleas 99. It was not nor is denied to M. Ienkins that the Kings of England have power to pardon delinquencies so farre as themselves are parties suffering But the question is whether the Kings of England onely can and alwayes can pardon delinquencies and whatsoever Master Ienkins thinkes the authorities of Stanford and Dier are not full to prove the affirmative and certainly if it were proprium quarto modo for the Kings of England to pardon in all cases it were very unproper for generall acts of indemnity to be passed by all three estates frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora if one of the estates be sufficient to what purpose doe the other 2 concurre Secondly all remedy by appeale would be cut off from subjects For either my appeale must make void the Kings pardon or if the Kings pardon be not void in this case and as to this murder committed my appeale must be dismissed It had been candid in Mr. Ienkins if he would have replied some thing to this objection about appeales for now it may be supposed he replied nothing therein because he could reply nothing to the purpose besides if the Kings pardon cannot frustrat my appeale as Mr. Ienkins knowes well it cannot why should the same destroy the remedy and justice that is due to a whole state Treason may be committed against the State aswell as against the King even as murder may damnifie me aswell as the King and shall it be held lesse contrary to justice that the State should be deprived of its remedy by the Kings pardon then that I should Good Mr. Ienkins policy is not to be superseded by Law but Law is to be improved by policie and as in quiet times and private cases 't is safer to follow Law then Policy so in times of troubles and in affairs of generall and great concernment 't is safer to observe Policy then Law The same may be said of not pardoning for doubtlesse the King has as much latitude to refuse as to grant pardon yet when his power in either may be mischievous his power in both must submit to reason of State and Law is not violated but better improved when true reason of State takes place above it 6. I am now to proceed to the sixth particular where Mr. Ienkins will not indure that the King shall be said to retain the right or habit of governing at the same time when he is said not to be actually in a condition to govern he intimates that the Law makes no such distinction infers ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum by this it should seem it is not allowable that a Lawyer should make use of any distinctions for which he has not some book authority though the difference of things be never so pregnant A miserable confinement to Lawyers and sure 4 or 500 years past if Lawyers had been so confined wee had now left us no prints of any distinctions at all All other Schollars besides Lawyers nay all Lawyers that are not meer Lawyers I meane by meer Lawyers such as have made no improvement of their reason by Logick Policie and other humane literature are of a contrary opinion and hold it more true qui bene distinguit bene docet But what a ridiculous thing is this because Hen. 6. lying in his cradle not able to speak write read or do any act of power has a right to governe therefore I must grant hee is in a condition to govern for feare of distinguishing when the Law does not distinguish so of Edw. 2. and Ri. 2. because they had a right to the Crown in that moment of time when they abdicated the same and pronounced themselves unfit to governe therefore I am obliged to believe that they were not abdicated nor made unfit for government Next Mr. Ienkins likes not this distinction that the King is not barred simply from returning to his Parliament though he be barred secundum quid that is from returning unreconciled or armed against his Parliament hee professes that he and the whole City knowes the contrary how the City should know the Parliaments intentions so exquisitly or M. Ienkins be assur'd of the Cities knowledge so infallably I cannot imagine but I wish M. Ienkins which takes upon him to be a Priest as well as a Lawyer by vertue of Iustinians Commission were such a Priest indeed as that we might expect nothing but knowledge and truth from his lips 7. The seventh particular comes now in order where M. Ienkins puts us in minde of the oath of Supremacy taken by all members of the House at their first sitting and askes H. P. why he stiles the King Supreme governour in all all causes and over all persons c. and leaves out onely Supreme surely not to detract any thing from the Kings celsitude but because the word seemed superfluous for he that swears the King to be Supreme over all persons sweares him to bee only Supreme over all persons inasmuch as there cannot be more Supreme persons over all then one but away with these frivolous logomachies The argument runs thus If the King be only Supreme governour in all causes then in Parliament causes if over all persons then over both Houses and if so then how is he become a prisoner and how doe the Houses Act by vertue of their prisoners writ It was answered before that the King is granted to be Supreme or only Supreme over all persons but yet still {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and not beyond the Law nor beyond that community for which and by which the Laws themselves were made The Duke of Venice the like may be said also of all elective conditionate Kings and Potentates has no person in any cause whatsoever superior or equall to him yet he has his bounds set him by the Law and as the Law is above him whom it bounds so that power which can make and alter Law in Venice is above the Law it selfe M. Ienkins himselfe confesses that the King is not above the Law nor above the safety of the people but in regard that the King is Supreme in all causes aswell Parliamentary as other and over all persons aswell the Lords and Commons in Parliament as others M. Ienkins supposes there is no other Judge of the Law safety of the people but the K. but this is not to be admitted by us because we know