Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	answer_n	petition_n	revolt_v	143	3	16.8502	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64083	Bibliotheca politica: or An enquiry into the ancient constitution of the English government both in respect to the just extent of regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, as well against, as for the late revolution, are impartially represented, and considered, in thirteen dialogues. Collected out of the best authors, as well antient as modern. To which is added an alphabetical index to the whole work.; Bibliotheca politica.	Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718.	1694 (1694)	Wing T3582; ESTC P6200	1,210,521	1,073

to Parliament no otherwise but as 〈◊〉 in Capit● for tho' the said Petition re●ues that they hold the said Town of the K. in Capite yet they do not likewise say that they claim'th to appear there only by that Tenure for then they should have re●ired that they sicut caeteri Burgenses Tenentes in Capite and not sicut caeteri Burgenses Regni ad Parliamenti Regis venir● debeant And tho' it is true they set forth that they appeared there for all Services yet do they not say that their Tenure in Capit● was the only Cause of their appearance in Parliam since divers Towns and Burrought of the Kingdom which held not in Capite at all had the like Priviledge before of which I can give you divers Instances which I shall read to you ou● of this Note which a Lear●ed Friend of mine slace decea●'d hath taken out of the Rolls in the Tower tho' when he sent it me he thorough hast 〈◊〉 hath forgot to set down the number of the Roll to most of such Burroughs who never held in Capite and yet have always sent Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription as first the Burrough these of Arundel which always held of the Earls and never of the King being granted by Henry I. To Hugh Montgomery Earl of Arundel Secondly The City of Bath appears to hold of the Bishop of Bath and Wells Thirdly The City of Wells it self which always held of the Bishop and never of the King and is therefore called Villa Episcopi in all publick Writings belonging to that Church and was made a Free Burrough in the Third of King Iohn Fourthly Beverly was made a Free Burrough by Thurston Arch-Bishop of York which was confirmed by King Henry III. Hi●●hly Badmin which always held of the Earls of Cornwall Sixthly Bridgwater for King Iohn granted it to William Brewer Quod Brugwater sit liber Burgus Seventhly Coventry which was always held of the Earls of Chester and pleaded in the Reign of Edw. I. to have never been taxed with the King's Demesnes but with the Body of the County Eighthly Bishop Linne for King Iohn granted to Iohn Bishop of Norwich Quod Burgus de Lenna sit Liber Burgus inperpetuum all which by the Writs we have left us sent Burgesses to Parliament as early as any that held in Capite These I give you only for a Taste but I doubt not but if I had time I could give you three times as many especially in Cornwall where the Burroughs did almost all hold of the Earl of Cornwall and not of the King But besides the Doctors errour in supposing that no ancient Cities or Burroughs had any Right of sending Members to Parliament but only as they held of the King in Capite his mistake is yet much more gross in his construing those remarkable words in the King's Answer to the Burgesses of St. Albans Et tunc fiat eis super hoc Iustitia vocatis evocandis si necesse fuerit Thus And then let them have Iustice in this matter and such as have been called may be called if there be necessity Upon which words you have also from the Dr. put this pleasant gloss Hence 't is clear the King and his Council were equally judges when it was necessary to call them and for them to come as they were of their Rights and Pretences to come But I must needs tell you ● think nothing can be more absurd and contrary to the genuine sense of this Record than the Doctor 's construction who will needs have the words evocatis evocandis only to mean a Calling or Summoning to Parliament which is quite contrary to the true sense of the King's Answer to this Petition for if that had been his meaning that those only should be summoned to Parliament whom the King pleased to call to what purpose were these words scrutentur Rotuli c. de Cancell si temporibus Progenitorum Regis Burgenses praedicti solebant venire vel non For if their coming to Parliament had been a matter of meer grace and favour and not of right so wholly left in the King's breast whether they should come or not it was in vain for him to command the Rolls of Chancery to be searched whether the said Burgesses us'd to come to Parliament or not in the times of his Progenitors or if it had not been a matter of right why should it be here said that upon search of the Rolls Tunc fiat Iustitia let Justice be done i● there never was such a right of Prescription by which they claimed But I much wonder that the Dr. so great a Critick in Records should ever construe them evocatis evocandis a summoning or calling to Parliament and I desire you would shew me in what Parliament Roll or Ancient Record you can find eveca●● ad Parliamentum to summon to Parliament But I more admire that you who are a profest Civilian should no better understand the sense of your own Terms whereas if you would have but consulted any Civil Law Dictionary you might have found evoca●e Testes always signifies to summon Wi●nesses and I can shew you by twenty Precedents both from our Common Law Records as well as your Canon Law Forms that evocatis e●ocandis does always signifie the summoning such Witnesses as are to be summon'd in a Cause and in this sense it is to be understood in this Record that not only the Rolls should be search'd but also Witnesses summon'd to prove their Claim if any dispute or doubt should arise about the matter of fact M. I shall no longer contend with you about the genuine sense of these last words since perhaps you may be in the right but yet for all that it does not appear that the King and his Council did by this Answer allow this Petition of the Town of St. Albans to be true that they had sent Burgesses to Parliament in the time of his Predecessors much less that any other City of Burrough in England were then allowed such a right by Prescription F. I grant indeed that this Petition doth not absolutely allow the matter of fact as it concerns the matter in dispute between them and the Abbot to be true as it is there set forth neither yet does it condemn it for false but whether it were true or false it matters not for both the Petition and the Answer do sufficiently prove the Point for which we make use of it viz that it was then received for a general Custom or Law time out of mind that the Cities and Burroughs had sent Members to Parliament according as in the Petition is set forth otherwise it can scarce be supposed much less believed that the Burgesses of St. Albans or the Pen-man of this Petition should dare to tell the King and his Learned Council in the face of the Parliament so great and ridiculous a Novelty to be recorded to Posterity as that they and their Predecessors

been forc'd to fly into Scotland and 〈◊〉 to have defended himself with 1000 or 1500 of his Tenants and followers tho' without Fighting the Kings Forces that should have been se●● against him but flying into the High-lands and had there maintain'd himself as David did by Free Quarters or Con●ribu●ion of the Inhabitants till his Father dyed would not this have been cryed out upon in all the Pulpits in England as a most Horrid Rebellion of a Son and a Subject against his King and Father tho' he had never done any Act of Hostility against his Forces but always 〈◊〉 from them And yet he being Heir Apparent to the Crown might have pleaded as well as David that he kept these Soldiers about him only to keep himself from being Murdered by those Officious Persons whom his Father or Uncle might send to apprehend him and to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him as might render his advancement to the Throne more easie when ever his Father should dye I shall not urge as a farther proof of the Lawfulness of Davids Resistance of Sauls Forces his Intention to have slay'd in Keilah and to have fortified it against Saul had not he been informed that the Men of that City would have saved themselves by delivering him up to Saul Since I confess it doth not certainly appear by the Text whether David would have stayed any longer there than till Saul had approach'd near to that place whether the Keilites would have delivered him up or not much less shall I urge that other example which some Men make use of of Davids going to the last Battle against Saul with Achish King of the Philistines For tho' it be plain he march'd with them as far as Apbek in the Tribe of Issachar yet I confess it is not certain whether he really intended to have assisted them or not in this War against his Country since he might either have gone over to Saul at the beginning of the Battle or else have stood neuter tho' neither of them would have been very Honourable or Consonant with Davids Character therefore I shall say nothing of this since the Lords of the Philistines for fear he should prove a● adversary to them in the Battle made him retire again into the Land of the Philistines tho' he seemed to be very much troubled to be so distrusted that he might not fight against the Enemies of that King who had so good an Opinion of him And therefore I pray will you proceed to those other Ex●mples you have to produce out of the Old Testament M. Well since you are not fully satisfied with this Instance of David tho' I am glad you allow the Persons even of Tyrannical Princes to be Sacred therefore to proceed in the story Solomon who succeeded David in his Kingdom did all those things which God had expresly forbid the King to do He sent into Egypt for Horses He multiplied Wives and loved many strange Women together with the Daughter of Pharaoh VVomen of the Moabites Ammonites c. He Multiplied Silver and Gold For this God who is the only Iudge of Soveraign Princes was very angry with him and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him which was afterwards accomplish'd in the Days of Rehoboam but yet this did not give Authority to his Subjects to Rebel If to be under the Direction and Obligation of Laws makes a Limited Monarchy it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so There were some things which the King was expresly forbid to do as you have already heard and the Law of Moses was to be the Rule of his Government the standing Law of his Kingdom And therefore he was Commanded when he came to the Throne to write a Copy of the Law with his own hand and to read in it all his Days that he might learn to fear the Lord his God and to keep all the Words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and yet being a Soveraign Prince if he broke these Laws God was his Iudge and Avenger but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal nor do we find tho' there were so many wicked and Idolatrous Kings of Iudah who broke all the Laws of God given them by Moses that ever any of the Priests or Prophets stirred up the People to Rebel against them for it F. Neither of these Instances do reach the Case in hand For I grant that neither the Breach or non-observance of these Precepts enjoyned the Kings of Israel by God Nor yet their open Idolatry were a sufficient Cause for their taking up Arms or resisting their Kings in so doing since those were offences only against God and in which the People had nothing to do those being no part of that Tacit or implicit Compact of Protection and Preservation that goeth along with all Kingdoms and Supream Powers whatsoever And I have already excepted out of the Causes of Resistance or taking up Arms the Princes being of a different Religion from that of his Subject And tho' I must own that the Kings of Israel were under the direction or Obligation of the Law of Moses and so were limited Monarchs yet this limitation was not from the People but from God whose business it was to revenge the breach of it as often as they offended and if they broke those Laws God only was their Judge and Avenger as you your self very well observe who never failed severely to punish this breach of his Laws Nor yet were the People of the Iews always so nice and temperate as you make them For besides the example of Rehoboam which I have formerly made use of you will find in the 2d of Chronicles concerning Amaziah who when he turned away from following the Lord They viz. the People made a Conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and slew him there and made his Son Vzziah King in his stead nor do we read that any were punish'd for killing him as Am●ziab put to Death the Servants of his Father King Ioash for conspiring against him as it is related in the 10th Chap. of the 2d of Kings and you 'l find in the same Book that the City of Libna revolted which sure is the highest degree of Resistance from that wicked King Iehoram who had slain all his Brethren with the Sword and walked in the way of the Kings of Israel as did the house of Ahab and wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord c. And therefore it is said expresly in the Text that the City of Libna revolted from his hand because he had forsaken the God of his Fathers I bring not these Instances to Iustifie Rebellion but to let you see that it was sometimes practised amongst the Iews tho' you affirm to the contrary But much more lawful was the Resistance which Azariah and the 80 Priests that were with him

and Power granted to them in and by this general Clause in the Writs of Summons issued to Sheriffs for every County before every Parliament enjoyning them in these Words Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentes quod de Comitatu praedicto duos milites de qualibet Cititate duos cives de quolibet Burgo duos Burgesses at discretioribus c. sin● dilatione Eligi eos ad nos ad dictos diem locum venite facias c. By vertue of which general indefinite Clauses used in all Writs of Summons ever since 23d of Edward I. without designing what particular Cities or Burroughs by Name within each County the Sheriff should cause to Elect or send two Citizens or two Burgesses but leaving it wholy to each Sheriffs Liberty and Discretion to send the Writ directed to him to what Cities and Burroughs he pleased thereupon every Sheriff used a kind of Arbitrary Power in the Execution of this general Clause according as his Judgment directed or his Assertions Favour Partiality Malice or the Sollicitations of any private Burroughs to him or of Competitors for Citizens or Burgesses places within his County swayed him this is most apparent by some Sheriffs in several Counties returning more Burroughs and Burgesses then their Predecessors others fewer some omitting those Burroughs returned by their Predecessors others causing Elections and Returns to be made for such new Burroughs which never elected or sent any before nor after their Sherivalties as is evident from the Returns Annis 28.33 E. 1. and 34. of E. 3. for Div●n Anno 26. E. 1. for Yorkshire Anno 33 E. 1. for Oxfordshire Anno 28. of E. 1. for Hampshire Annis 33. and 34. of E. 3. for Sommerset Annis 25.27 and 28. H. 6 for Wilts c. So that the first Writs or Memorials of any extant on Record for electing Knights Citizens and Burgesses to come to Parliament are those of 49th of Henry 3d but these Writs onely commanded that the Sheriffs cause to come two Knights c. of each County and the like Writs were directed to the Cities of London Lincoln and other Burroughs of England to elect two Citizens and two Burgesses for each of them and the rest of the Cities and Burroughs in England the like Writs were also issued to Sandwich and the rest of the Cinque Ports without expressing their Names or Number in each County and this form I conceive says Mr. Pryn continued till 23d of Edward I. when the aforecited general Clause authorizing and intrusting every Sheriff to cause two Citizens and two Burgesses to be elected c. out of every City and Burrough in his County was first put into the Writs by Authority and Colour whereof every Sheriff sent Precepts to what Cities and Burroughs of his County he pleased F. I have with Patience heard this long History of Mr. Prins concerning the Election of Citizens and Burgesses from which I must notwithstanding make bold to differ for tho I own him to have been a man of great Learning and Industry in matter of Records yet I doubt he was often too quick in taking up of Opinions upon slender grounds therefore for the answering of him I shall first shew you the improbability of his Suppositions and in the next place shall make use of no other Confutations then what his own Book will afford us as to the Writs of Summons Returns and other things he lays so much stress upon in the first place for the Notion of Sheriffs sending Precepts to what Cities and Burroughs they pleased and consequently making as few or as many send Members to Parliament as they would that this was not so at first is evident from those very Writs of 49th of Henry the 3d by which it appears that they were not then directed to the Sheriffs for any more then to the Counties but as for the Citizens and Burgesses and Barons of the Cinque Ports they were then directed to themselves and he also confesses that this continued so from that time till the 23d of Edward I. so that all this while being about 28 Years it seems the Nomination of what Cities and Towns should send Members to Parliament did not depend upon the Will of the Sheriffs but upon somewhat else and I have asked you once tho without receiving any answer what Rule Simon Montfort went by to tell what Cities and Burroughs were to send Members and what not since the Words are onely in general de quolibet Burgo c. and therefore pray answer me now if you can M. I conceive in the first place as for the Cities Simon Montfort sent to those that were anciently esteem'd so viz. such as had Bishops Sees annext to them such as London Lincoln and particularly named in these Writs and others of the same rank and as for the Burroughs tho we have not the returns of them left us yet I suppose they were such Walled or other Towns as were of some considerable Note in England such as he thought were most proper for his turn F. That this could be no Rule appears by this clear Proof First That neither Coventry and Litchfield tho the Sees of the Bishops were not counted Cities in the time of Edward the first nor long after nor yet Ely for it appears by the Lists that Mr. Prin hath given us that it never sent Burgesses but only once and that to a great Council till of late years So that the Sees of the Bishops was it seems no general rule to make Places capable of sending or not sending of Citizens to Parliament And in the next place as to Burroughs that is pure Imagination that none but considerable or walled Towns sent any Burgesses at first whereas in the first List of returns which Mr. Pryn has here given us of the 26th and 28th of Edward I. which are the first extant for ought I know except those of 23d which I have never yet seen besides the Shire Towns of the Counties there are returns of a great many small Burroughs which never had any Walls nor yet for ought as we can find had any thing remarkable to make them be pircht upon to send Burgesses more than others but of these I shall speak more by and by onely shall remark this much that there must have have been some other Rule besides Montforts own Will for all this and what this rule could be unless an ancient Prescription in those Towns to send Members I desire you or your Dr. would shew any good Reason or Authority to the contrary And after the 23d of Edward the I. when Mr. Prin supposes that the Sheriffs by this general Clause in the Writs began to take upon them this new Authority of sending Precepts to and making Burroughs of what Towns they pleased this could not in the first place extend to such as were before that Counties of themselves such as London York Bristol c. nor yet such as were Ancient and

But it is very strange to me that none of them deposed any thing concerning their seeing any Milk come from Her Majesties Breasts after she was Delivered And perhaps there was good reason for it for I have had it from good hands that she had none afterwards whatever she had before the reason of which deserves to be enquired into since it is very rare But as for the Mid-Wife her deposition is equivocal That she took a Child from the Body of the Queen She is also a Papist and consequently a suspected witness in this cause Whereas all this might have been prevented had the Queen were she really with Child been perswaded to be Delivered not within the Bed but upon a Pallate where all the persons whose business and concern it was to be present might have seen the Child actually born nor needed there to have any men been by though I have heard that the late Queen of France was Delivered of the present King the Dake of Orleans not being only present in the Room but an Eye-witness of the Birth And so sure if somewhat of this nature had been done it might have saved a great deal of dispute and bloodshed which has already or may hereafter happen about it And therefore I do not at all wonder that the Prince of Orange should not take this partial Evidence that has been given for sufficient satisfaction so that whether this Birth of the Queens was real or not I shall not now farther dispute It is sufficient that if His Highness and His Princess had just and reasonable suspitions of an Imposture whilst they remain under them they had also a just cause of procuring a Free Parliament to examine this great affair and also to obtain it by force since it was to be got no other way M. I need not further dispute this business of the Prince of Wales with you since I durst appeal to your own Conscience whether you are not satisfied notwithstanding these supposed indiscretions in the management of the Queens Delivery that he is really Son to the Queen and I think it would puzzle you or I to prove the Legitimacy of our own Children by better evidence than this has been and I think all those of your party may very well despair of producing any thing against it since the Prince of Orange himself has thought it best to let it alone as knowing very well there was nothing material could be brought in evidence against him But I shall defer speaking further to this Head till I come to consider of the Conventions setling the Crown upon the Prince and Princess of Orange But before I come to this I have many things further to observe upon the Princes harsh and unjust proceedings with his Majesty and refusing all terms of Accommodation with him upon his last return to London In the first place therefore I must appeal to your self whether It were done like a Nephew and a Son-in-Law after the King was voluntarily returned to White Hall at the perswasion of those Lords who went down to attend him at Feversham when he had had scarce time to rest him after his journey and the many hardships he had indured since his being seized in that Port and when he had but newly sent my Lord Feversham with a kind Message and Complement to the Prince inviting him to St. Iames's together with some overtures of Reconciliation as I am informed the Prince should make no better a return to all this kindness than to clap up the Messenger contrary to the Law of Nations as his Majesty observes in his Late Paper I now mentioned And should without any notice given to the King of it order his men to march and displacing his Majesties Guards to seize upon all the Posts about White-Hall whereby his Majesties Person became wholly in his Power And not content with this he likewise dispatcht three Lords whose names I need not mention to carry the King a very Rude and Undutiful Message desiring him no less than to depart the next Morning from his Pallace to a private House in the Countrey altogether unfit for the reception of his Majesty and those Guards and attendance that were necessary for his security Nor would these Lords stay till the Morning but disturbing his rest delivered their Message at Twelve a Clock at Night nor did they give him any longer time than till the next Morning to prepare himself to be gone and then the King was carried away to Rochester under the conduct not of his own but of the Princes Dutch Guards in whose custody his Majesty continued for those few days he thought fit to stay there till his departure from thence in order to his passage into France by which means the Prince hath render'd the breach irreconcileable between his Majesty and himself for whereas if he had come to St. Iames's in pursuance of the Kings Invitation and had renewed the Treaty which was unhappily broke off by the Kings first going away there might have been in great probability a happy and lasting reconciliation made between them upon such terms as might have been a sufficient security for the Church of England as also for the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you so earnestly contend for whereas by the Conventions declaring the Throne vacant and placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein they have entail'd a lasting War not only upon us but our Posterity as long as his Majesty lives and the Prince of Wales and his Issue if he live to have any are in Being F. I confess you have made a very Tragical relation of this affair and any one that did not understand the grounds of it would believe that King Iames being quietly setled in his Throne and the Prince of Orange refusing all terms of reconciliation had seiz'd upon his Pallace and carried him away Captive into a Prison whereas indeed there was nothing transacted in all this affair which may not be justified by the strictest Rules of Honour and the Law of Nations for the doing of which it is necessary to look back and consider the state of affairs immediately after the Kings leaving Salisbury and coming to White-hall where one of the first things he did after he was arrived was to issue out a Proclamation for the calling a new Parliament which was so received with great satisfaction by the whole Nation and immediately upon this the King sent the Lords Hallifax Nottingham and Godolphin to treat with his Highness upon those Proposals of Peace which he then sent by them and to which the Prince return'd his answer the heads of which are very reasonable without demanding any other security for himself and his Army than the putting of the Tower and Forts about London into the Custody of that City now pray observe the issue of all those fair hopes before ever the terms propos'd by the Prince could be brought to Town the King following the ill advice of the