Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	liberty_n	parliament_n	2,621	5	6.9289	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37421	An argument shewing, that a standing army, with consent of Parliament, is not inconsistent with a free government, &c.	Defoe, Daniel, 1661?-1731.	1698 (1698)	Wing D828; ESTC R20142	15,613	32

those Towns tho' they were immediately the Spaniards were really Bulwarks to keep the French the further off from his own Country and thus it is now And how our Militia can have any share in this part of the War I cannot imagine It seems strange to me to reconcile the Arguments made use of to magnifie the Serviceableness of the Militia and the Arguments to enforce the Dread of a Standing Army for they stand like two Batteries one against another where the Shot from one dismounts the Cannon of the other If a small Army may enslave us our Militia are good for nothing if good for nothing they cannot defend us and then an Army is necessary If they are good and are able to defend us then a small Army can never hurt us for what may defend us Abroad may defend us at Home and I wonder this is not consider'd And what is plainer in the World than that the Parliament of England have all along agreed to this Point That a Standing Army in time of Peace with Consent of Parliament is not against Law The Establishment of the Forces in the time of K. Charles II. was not as I remember ever objected against in Parliament at least we may say the Parliament permitted them if they did not establish them And the Present Parliament seems enclin'd to continue the Army on the same foot so far as may be suppos'd from their Vote to disband all the Forces raised since 1680. To affirm then That a Standing Army without any of the former Distinctions is Inconsistent c. is to argue against the General Sense of the Nation the Permission of the Parliament for 50 years past and the Present apparent Resolutions of the best Composed House that perhaps ever entred within those Walls To this House the whole Nation has left the Case to act as they see cause to them we have committed the Charge of our Liberties nay the King himself has only told them His Opinion with the Reasons for it without leading them at all and the Article of the Claim of Right is left in full force For this Consent of Parliament is now left the whole and sole Judge Whether an Army or no Army and if it Votes an Army 't is left still the sole Judge of the Quantity how many or how few Here it remains to enquire the direct Meaning of those words Vnless it be by Consent of Parliament and I humbly suppose they may among other things include these Particulars 1. That they be rais'd and continued not by a Tacit but Explicite Consent of Parliament or to speak directly by an Act of Parliament 2. That they be continued no longer than such Explicite Consent shall limit and appoint If these two Heads are granted in the word Consent I am bold to affirm Such an Army is not Inconsistent with a Free Government c. I am as positively assur'd of the Safety of our Liberties under the Conduct of King and Parliament while they concur as I am of the Salvation of Believers by the Passion of our Saviour and I hardly think 't is fit for a private Man to impose his positive Rules on them for Method any more than 't is to limit the Holy Spirit whose free Agency is beyond his Power For the King Lords and Commons can never err while they agree nor is an Army of 20 or 40000 Men either a Scarcrow enough to enslave us while under that Union If this be allow'd then the Question before us is What may conduce to make the Harmony between the King Lords and Commons eteernal And so the Debate about an Army ceases But to leave that Question since Frailty attends the best of Persons and Kings have their faux Pas as well as other Men we cannot expect the Harmony to be immortal and therefore to provide for the worst our Parliaments have made their own Consent the only Clause that can make an Army Legitimate But to say that an Army directly as an Army without these Distinctions is destructive of the English Monarchy and Inconsistent with a Free Government c. is to say then that the Parliament can destroy the English Monarchy and can Establish that which is Inconsistent with a Free Government which is ridiculous But then we are told that the Power of the Sword was first placed in the Lords er Barons and how they serv'd the King in his Wars with themselves and their Vassals and that the King had no Power to Invade the Priviledges of the Barons having no other Forces than the Vassals of his own Demeasnes to follow him And this Form is applauded as an extraodinary Constitution because there is no other Limitation of a Monarchy of any Signification than such as places the Sword in the hand of the Subject And all such Government where the Prince has the Power of the Sword tho' the People have the Power of the Purse are no more Monarchies but Tyrannies For not only that Government is tyrannical which is tyrannically exercis'd but all Governments are tyrannical which have not in their Constitution sufficient Security against the Arbitrary Power of their Prince that is which have not the Power of the Sword to Imploy against him if need be Thus we come to the Argument Which is not how many Troops may by allow'd or how long but in short No Mercenary-Troops at all can be maintain'd without Destroying our Constitution and Metamorphizing our Government into a Tyranny I admire how the Maintainer of this Basis came to omit giving us an Account of another Part of History very needful to examine in handing down the True Notion of Government in this Nation viz. of Parliaments To supply which and to make way for what follows I must take leave to tell the Reader that about the time when this Service by Villenage and Vassalage began to be resented by the People and by Peace and Trade they grew rich and the Power of the Barons being too great frequent Commotions Civil Wars and Battels were the Consequence nay sometimes without concerning the King in the Quarrel One Nobleman would Invade another in which the weakest suffered most and the poor Man's Blood was the Price of all the People obtain'd Priviledges of their own and oblig'd the King and the Barons to accept of an Equilibrium this we call a Parliament And from this the Due Ballance we have so much heard of is deduced I need not lead my Reader to the Times and Circumstances of this but this Due Ballance is the Foundation on which we now stand and which the Author of the Argument so highly applaudes as the best in the World and I appeal to all Men to judge if this Ballance be not a much nobler Constitution in all its Points than the old Gothick Model of Government In that the Tyranny of the Barons was intollerable the Misery and Slavery of the Common People insupportable their Blood and Labour was at the absolute