Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	great_a	king_n	name_n	5,555	4	4.7547	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26164	Additions answering the omissions of our reverend author	Atwood, William, d. 1705?	1681 (1681)	Wing A4166; ESTC R9859	18,503	48

the word Comitatus that is as he renders it all the Lands in the Counties and yet that besides whole Counties he gave a great proportion of Lands in them But since he taxes what I lay for the foundation of my Essay for precarious let 's see a little whether he does not render his own so where it opposes mine His whole Book in that respect resolves its self into these three Heads 1. That King John's Charter in affirmance of the Law imposed by William or in force before declares that the Tenents in Capite were the only Members of the General Council of the Kingdom 2. That from thence to the 49 H. 3. the practice or fact was for Tenents only to compose the Great or General Council 3. That none but Tenents in Capite were Nobles 1. If he himself yields that till King John's Charter there was no such Council as one made up only of Tenents in Capite he thereby renders all under this head precarious but this he does in two places at least One where he urges that if the Curia Regis Ordinaria which I say was the Court of the Kings Tenents and Officers exclusive of others went off by reason of the Clause in King John's Charter it certainly went off before it began that is such a Court began not before and agreeable to this he says that after the granting of this Charter by King John there were many General and Great Councils or Colloquiums summon'd by Edict according to the form there prescribed that is as he will have it after that the Tenents in Capite only were summon'd to the Great Council but not before for then began this form In another place though he charges upon me what are his own words he says King John resigned his Crown the 15. of May in the 14th of his Reign and he granted the great Charter of the Liberties three years after on the 15. of June in the 17. of his Reign and therefore could not resign it in such a Council as was Constituted three years after his Resignation And 't is a question whether he asserts not this in a third place where he affirms that before this Charter the Kingdom had been Taxt by our ancient Kings and their Privy-Council only 2. But in truth he not only yields that the Tenents in Chief were first made the General Council by King John's Charter but that after that more than such were Members not only the Tenents in Military Service of Tenents in Chief but other ordinary Freeholders So that he submits himself to be goard by both the horns of that Dilemma inforc't in my former Treatise viz. that King John's Charter was either declarative of the Law as 't was before or introductive of a new Law And yields the precariousness of his own vagaries 3. But does he not own that the Notion that Tenents in Capite only were Noble is precarious Since he yields that no kind of tenure does nobilitate or so much as make a man free who was not so before according to his Blood or Extraction Though according to this one that held of the King in Chief might have been a Subjects Villain yet none that held a certain Estate of Freehold could be a Villain because 't is contrary to the nature of a Freehold that it should be so no longer than another pleas'd that is only an Estate at will He will have it that Mr. Petyt is guilty of some horrible Design from the effects of which it seems this mighty Champion is to rescue the Government And for me I am a Seducer one who would seduce unwary Readers a malicious insinuation as if I would wheedle to my side a party against Truth and the Government but whether he who would set aside the evidences for the Rights of the Lords and Commons or they who produce them fair and would render them unquestioned is guilty of the worst design the World will judge and I doubt not but he has at home a thousand Witnesses who if he will hear their unbyast Testimonies will inform him whose are the groundless and designing interpretations But I must confess they are so weak that these sacred things need very little help to rescue them especially since their Enemies are so far from agreeing amongst themselves that 't is more easie to conquer than to reconcile them As on Mr. Petyts and my side the design can be no other than to shew how deeply rooted the Parliamentary Rights are So the Doctors in opposition to ours must be to shew the contrary a design worthy of a Member of Parliament and 't is a Question whether he yields these Rights to be more than precarious For according to him the Tenents in Capite were the only Members of the Great Council before 49 II. 3. and if others were after 't was by Usurping upon the Rights of Tenents in Capite who and not others when the new Government was set up began to be Represented by two Knights for every County out of their own number and they at first that is then Elected their own Representatives and yet these Tenents in Capite might be set aside if the King and his Council pleased nor was any power given to others to chuse till 10 H. 6. c. 2. which gave no new power and the Lords depend upon the Kings pleasure Therefore what the design is and at whose door the crime of it lies the thing it self speaks tho I should be silent But for fear he should seduce unwary Readers I must observe his Artifice in imposing upon them the belief that as it has ever since 49 H. 3. been at the Kings pleasure that any Lords came to the Great Council so the King could of right name to the Sheriff what Representatives for the Counties Cities and Burroughs he pleas'd as he observes in the Margent upon a Record 31 E. 3. but he is not so Candid to observe that though indeed at that time there was such a nomination yet that was not to any Parliament or to make any new Law or lay any kind of Charge upon the Nation or particular men but was a Summons of a Council to advise how what was granted by full Parliament legally Summon'd might be best answered juxta intentionem concessionis praedictae and in such Cases the Judges only who are but Assistants in Parliament might well be consulted but pro magnis urgentibus negotiis as when King Charles the First called the Magnum Concilium or Great Council of Peers to York upon the Scotch Rebellion the King call'd more to Advise with and the Counsellors might well be of his own Choice 'T will be urg'd that when the King appointed but one for every County they were impowr'd to consent to what de Communi Consilio contigerit ordinari and that such a Council made Laws as the Statute of

ADDITIONS Answering the OMISSIONS OF OUR Reverend AUTHOR LONDON Printed for Edward Berry 1681. ADDITIONS Answering the OMISSIONS c. SInce the Doctor thinks to flourish with some of his frivolous Omissions like running his Sword through me after he had slain me in imagination To shew that I am not quite killed I shall venture to try the length of his new whetted Animadverting Weapon and give him a few home thrusts in exchange for his intended ones Because I find him a gentle and easie Foe I shall advise him like a Friend Frange miser Calamos vigilataque praelia dele Your miserable Scribling pray give o're With such Polemicks vex the World no more Nor censure every thing as Impertinent Vnintelligible and Obscure that 's above the level of your understanding For proof of his great understanding he taxes three Paragraphs of mine with Obscurity and that darkness which is in his own mind 1. The first is that the City of London being charged with a Tallage their Common-Council dispute whether it were Tallagium or Auxilium which is there meant of voluntary aid not due upon the account of their Houses being of of the Kings Demeasn though indeed 't is then shewn that they had several times before been talliated Quid est quod in hâc Causâ defensionis egeat I must needs say I take all this to be so plain that I know not which part I ought to add any light to Is the difference between Tallage and a Voluntary Aid obscure Or is it not well known that the Kings Demeasns only were talliated and that the City having been talliated 't was in vain to urge that they paid only voluntary Aid But perhaps in the two next the obscurity may lye and yet by the Doctors Art of multiplying faults they may make three obscure Paragraphs 2. This explains that part of the Charter Simili modo fiat de Civitate London that is as in all Cases besides those excepted Escuage or Tallage should not be raised but by a Common-Council of the Kingdom that is of all the persons concerned to pay so for the City of London unless the Aid was ordered in Common-Council wherein they and all other Tenants in chief were assembled none should be laid upon any Citizens but by the consent of their own Common-Council and if the Ordinance were only in general Terms that all the Kings Demeasns should be talliated the proportions payable there should be agreed by the Common-Council of the City This consists of two parts First That where there was not the consent of a Common-Council of all the Tenents in chief the Citizens might of themselves give a Tallage which is not in dispute between us but is with admirable ingenuity turned into an assertion that Cities and Burroughs were not taxed or assessed towards any payments but by their own Common-Councils which is not to be inferred from the priviledge of one City suppose it were so for London nor can be gathered from my words which yield that even London might be Taxt or Assessed by the consent of the Common-Council of Tenents or that they as part of the Common-Council of the Land taxed themselves which is true but no man of sense can understand that to be the meaning of this part of the Obscure Paragraph but that something farther was intended 2. The second I need not explain since he understands for all his affected ignorance that after a Tax was imposed upon the City of London the Inhabitants or those who composed its Council met to proportion it so as it might be paid with as much equality as could be This he yields to my hand that they always did if they would it seems convinced by that Record which shews that when the Council of the City would not agree to the Sum demanded by the King 't was de voluntate omnium Baronum nostrorum Civitatis ejusdem that the King talliated his Tenents per se or per Capita so much upon every head 3. This clears the last Paragraph which I need not recite it having no meaning differing from the Record but if my Record give not sufficient light and strength he I thank him according to his usual Curtesie cites one clear enough Et cum praedicti Cives noluissent intrare finem praedict ' trium mille marcarum praedicti Thes alii voluerint assidere illud Tal. per Capita So that till the Citizens refused the the Sum in gross the King did not Talliate each man in particular But I am told that this is nothing to my purpose 't is strange that he who blames me in other places for not quoting more than is for my purpose when nothing behind makes against me should now tax me for not skipping over any part of that Clause which 't was needful to take and explain entire To clear up his understanding if possible though I thought to have left this Task I will obviate an objection which such as our Answerer may make that 't is obscure how the Record of the Common-Council of London's concerning its self about the Charge laid upon the City should explain that part of the Charter which sayes Simili modo fiat de Civitate London but surely practice is a good Interpreter of a Law and there is this further evidence that here is provision for the power of the Common-Council of the City because that holding in Capite and being mentioned distinct from all the other Tenents there named in general it must be for something else besides that for which 't is joyned with the other Tenents But Excedimus tenebris in crepusculum from this obscurity and darkness to be felt by the Doctors groaping hand we come to broad day light When in the 39th H. 3. Provisum fuit per Consilium Regis apud Merton that he should talliate his Demeasns though this was after King John 's Charter which was intended to restrain the King from levying publick Taxes without publick consent yet it seems to be plain by the Record that the King by the advice of his Privy Council taxed the City of London even without the consent of the Common Council of his immediate Tenents whom he makes the Common-Council for all manner of Aid and Escuage But it may be said a Tallage was no publick Tax though the Tax here spoke of is made no more publick than the consent required to charge it Which consent according to him was from immediate Tenents only so that Tallage might be a publick Tax as well as any other And to be sure Scutagium concerning the Kings Tenents only and the Cases in which the King reserv'd to himself power of taxing without publick consent in his sense relating only to them the Tax because of tenure must be provided for as well as other if any other were there meant by Auxilium vel Scutagium Nay he owns expresly that according to the Law