Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	4,616	5	7.4258	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50551	Jus regium, or, The just and solid foundations of monarchy in general and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland, maintain'd against Buchannan, Naphtali, Dolman, Milton, &c.	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1684 (1684)	Wing M163; ESTC R945	87,343	224

de facto till King Henry VII by his Marriage with the Lady Elizabeth eldest daughter to King Edward IV. did by her transmit a just Title to his Successor and therefore it was not strange that either of these should allow the Parliament to interpose when they owed to them the possession of the Throne But yet Henry VII himself as the Lord Bacon relates in his History shun'd to have the Parliament declare his Title to be just being content with these ambiguous words viz. That the inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. And upon this account it was that the same King caus'd a Law to be made that such as should serve the King for the time being in his Wars could not be attainted or impeach'd in their Persons or Estates As to Henry VIII his procuring an Act whereby the Parliament declares That in case he had no Issue by the Lady Jean Seymour he might dispose of the Crown to whatsoever person he should in his own discretion think fit It is answered That by a former Statute in the 25th year of his Reign he by Act of Parliament settles the Crown upon the Heirs-male of his own Body and for lack of such Issue to Lady Elizabeth and for lack of such Issue also to the next Heirs of the King who should for ever succeed according to the Right of Succession of the Crown of England which shews that the Succession to the Crown of England is establish'd by the Law of Nature and the Fundamental Laws of England upon the Heirs of Blood according to the Proximity of Degrees so that though that King did afterwards prevail with the Parliament to declare this Elizabeth a Bastard as he did also his daughter Mary by another Act and resolve to settle the Crown upon Henry Fitz-Roy Duke of Richmond Yet these Acts teach us how dangerous it is to leave Parliaments to the impression of Kings in the case of naming a Successor as it is to expose Kings to the Arbitrariness of Parliaments But such care had God of his own Laws that Mary succeeded notwithstanding she was Papist and Elizabeth succeeded her though she was declar'd Bastard the Rights of Blood prevailing over the Formalities of Divorce and the Dispensations of Popes as the strength of Nature does often prevail over Poisons And God remov'd the Duke of Richmond by death to prevent the unjust Competition and so little notice was taken of this and the subsequent Act Anno 1535. that the Heirs of Blood succeeded without repealing of that Act as an Act in it self invalid from the beginning for only such Acts are past by without being repeal'd And Blackwood pag. 45. observes very well that so conscious were the Makers of these Acts of the illegality thereof and of their being contrary to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that King's Testament wherein he did nominate a Successor conformable to the power granted by those Acts that as soon as they were freed by his death from the violent Oppressions that had forced them to alter a Successor three several times and at last to swear implicitly to whomsoever he should nominate a Preparative which this Age would not well bear though they cite it they proclaimed first Queen Mary their Queen though a Papist and thereafter Queen Elizabeth whom themselves had formerly declared a Bastard And as in all these Acts there is nothing declaring the Parliaments to have power to name a Successor but only giving a power to the King for preventing mischiefs that might arise upon the dubiousness of the Succession to nominate a Successor two of the legal Successors having been declar'd Bastards upon some Niceties not of Nature but of the Pope's Bulls for divorcing So this Instance can only prove that the King may nominate a Successor and that the Parliament may consent not to quarrel at it which is all that they do but does not at all prove that where the Right of Nature is clear the Parliament may invert the same And Strangers who considered more the dictates of Law than of Passion did in that Age conclude That no Statute could be valid when made contrary to the fundamental Law of the Kingdom Arnisaeus cap. 7. num 11. Henricus VIII Angliae Rex Eduardum filium primo deinde Mariam denique Elizabetham suos haeredes fecerat verum non aliter ea omnia valent quam si cum jure Regni conveniant Vid. Curt. Tract Feud Par. 4. Num. 129. There seems greater difficulty to arise from 13 Eliz. c. 2. by which it is enacted that if any person shall affirm that the Parliament of England has not full power to bind and govern the Crown in point of Succession and descent that such a person during the Queens life shall be guilty of High-Treason But to this Act it is answered that this Act does not debar the next legal and natural Successor and these words That the Parliament has power to bind and Govern the Succession must be as all other general expressions in Statutes interpreted and restricted by other uncontroverted Laws and so the sense must be that the Parliament is judge where there are differences betwixt Competitors in nice and controvertable Points which cannot be otherwise decided and both this and the former Acts made in Henry the VI. time are not general Laws but temporary Acts and personal Priviledges and so cannot overturn the known current of Law Quod vero contra rationem juris receptum est non est producendum ad consequentias And in all these instances it is remarkable that the restriction was made upon the desire of the Soveraign and not of the Subject And if we look upon this Act as made to secure them against Mary Queen of Scotland and to let her know that it was to no purpose for her to design any thing against the Right or Person of Queen Elizabeth as being declar'd a Bastard by Act of Parliament in England since her other Right as next undoubted Heir by Blood to the Crown might be altered or Govern'd we must acknowledge it to be only one of these Statutes which the Law sayes are made ad terrorem ex terrore only Nor was there ever use made of it by Queen Elizabeth nor her Parliaments so fully were they convinc'd that this pretended power was so unjust as that it could not be justified by an Act of Parliament being contrary to the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and of the Fundamental Laws of both Kingdoms But this Law being made to exclude Queen Mary and the Scottish line as is clear by that clause wherein it is declared that every Person or Persons of what degree or Nation soever they be shall during the Queens life declare or publish that they have Right to the Crown of England during the Queens life shall be disinabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession inheritance or otherwayes after the

Queens death It therefore follows that it was never valid For if it had King James might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeeded next to the Scottish Race For it 's undeniable that Queen Mary did during Q. Elizabeths Life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard And therefore the calling in of King James after this Act and the acknowledging his Title does clearly evince That the Parliament of England knew that they had no power to make any such Act The words of which acknowledgment of King James's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the Statute it self 1 Jac. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King James by inherent Birthright as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal. And to this Recognition they do submit themselves and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their Blood be spilt And further doth beseech His Majesty to accept of the same Recognition as the first Fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to His Majesty and to His Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever It may be also objected That by the 8 Act. Parl. 1. Ja. 6. it is provided in Scotland that all Kings and Princes that shall happen to Reign and bear Rule over that Kingdom shall at the time of their Coronation make their faithful promise by Oath in presence of the eternal God that they shall maintain the true Religion of Jesus Christ the preaching of the Holy Word and due and right Administration of the Sacraments now received and preach'd within this Kingdom from which two Conclusions may be inferr'd 1. That by that Act the Successor to the Crown may be restricted 2. That the Successor to the Crown must be a Protestant that being the Religion which was professed and established the time of this Act. To which it is answered That this Act relates only to the Crowning of the King and not to the Succession Nor is a Coronation absolutely necessary Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quam ad necessitatem Nec ideo Rex est quia coronatur sed coronatur quia Rex est Oldrad consil 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de coronat pag. 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crown'd in Scripture except Joas And Clovis King of France was the first who was Crown'd in Europe Nor are any Kings of Spain Crown'd till this day Sisenandus was the first who in the fourth Tolletan Council gave such an Oath amongst the Christians as Trajan was the first amongst the Heathen Emperours And we having had no Coronation Oath till the Reign of King Gregory which was in Anno 879. he having found the Kingdom free from all Restrictions could not have limited his Successor or at least could not have debarr'd him by an Oath Nullam enim poterat legem dictare posteris cum par in parem non habeat imperium as our Blackwood observes pag. 13. 2. There is no Clause irritant in this Act debarring the Successor or declaring the Succession Null in case his Successor gave not this Oath 3. The Lawful Successor though he were of a different Religion from his People as God forbid he should be may easily swear That he will maintain the Laws now standing And any Parliament may legally secure the Successor from overturning their Religion or Laws though they cannot debar him And though the Successor did not swear to maintain the Laws yet are they in little danger by his Succession since all Acts of Parliament stand in force till they be repeal'd by subsequent Parliaments and the King cannot repeal an Act without the consent of Parliament But to put this beyond all debate the 2d Act of this current Parliament is opposed whereby it is declared That the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolv'd upon the next lawful Heir after the death of the King or Queen and that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament can stop or hinder them in the free and actual Administration Which is an abrogation of the foresaid Act concerning the Coronation as to this Point for how can the administration be devolv'd immediately upon the Successor if he cannot administer till he be Crown'd and have sworn this Oath And therefore King James urges very well That sure immediately upon the death of the last King the Successor acquires a Right they who debar the Successor do not exclude a Successor from entering but debar a righteous King And by Act 2. Parl. 1. Sess 2. Ch. 2. It is declar'd Treason to suspend the King from the Stile Honour or Kingly Name And whereas Dolman urges That at all Coronations the People are ask'd If they will have such a King It is answered That this is no necessary Solemnity and is done rather to give the People occasion to shew their affection than their power even as a Gentleman in England is appointed to offer Due● to any who would controvert the King's Right who is to be Crown'd notwithstanding of which offer he who would controvert the Title would certainly commit Treason Nor can it be deni'd from our History but that many of our Kings have reign'd long before they were Crown'd and that those who rebell'd against them before their Coronation were as legally Traytors as those who rebell'd after it All Kings number the years of their Reign from their Predecessors death and not from their Coronation They grant new Commissions and Judicatures who should understand Law best of all others decide in their Name and by their Authority before they be Crown'd So that I cannot but smile at Dolman's Conceit who says That a King before his Coronation is betroth'd but not a King espous'd to the Commonwealth till his Coronation and consequently may till then be rejected But this is a meer Whimsie and Scholastick Conceit for sure he acts as King and since they who oppose him commit Treason it is certain that he cannot be rejected and the solid Right of Blood and not airy Formalities make Kings Nor can I understand how Election and Birth can be join'd to compleat the excellency of Hereditary Monarchy as Doleman teaches for make it our Elective upon the unfitness of the Successor and all Successors shall be call'd unfit and unable to govern when a Faction resolves to set up a Rival though he be really yet more unfit than the true Heir is The next Objection is That since the King and Parliament may by Act of Parliament alter the Successions of private Families though transmitted by the Right of Blood why may they not alter the Succession in the Royal Family To which it is answered that the reason of the difference lyes in this that the Heirs of the Crown owe not their Succession to Parliaments for they succeed by the Laws of God Nature and the Fundamental Laws of the Nation whereas private Families are

King Robert the Second with the Advice and Consent of the whole Three Estates That the Sons then born to the King by his first and second Wives and their Heirs should in order succeed to the King in manner after specified That is to say that his eldest Son by the first Marriage John Earl of Carrick should immediately succeed as had been already declar'd in the preceding Parliament and after him his Heirs And in case he dy'd without Issue that his Brother Robert Earl of Monteith the King 's second Son of that Marriage should succeed and his Heirs Which failing that Alexander Earl of Badenoch the King 's third Son of that Bed and his Heirs should inherit the Crown And in case that fail'd that David Earl of Strathern the King 's fourth Son by his second Wife and his Heirs should succeed And that failing that Walter the King 's fifth Son by the said second Wife and his Heirs should inherit the Crown And if it should happen that the said five Sons and their Issue should fail that then the next in Blood of the Royal Line should succeed Which Act all the Three Estates did for themselves and their Heirs for ever solemnly swear to observe as is more at large to be seen in the Original it self And if the pretended Defect be true it was a very palpable and a very undeniable one and could not but have been unanswerably known to the whole Nation And how can we imagine that the whole Parliament would have unanimously drawn upon themselves so dreadful a Perjury by excluding the lawful Heir against their National Oath in the Reign of King Kenneth the third whereby they swore to own always the immediate Heir or that they would have entail'd upon themselves a Civil War by preferring even a questionable Heir after the Miseries which they had lately then felt in the Competition betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol amongst which Seals the Seal of James Earl of Dowglas is one and how ridiculous is it to think that he would sit and declare a Bastard preferable to the Brother of his own Lady and to his own Lady who would have succeeded if her Brothers had died without Succession Which Act of Parliament does also clearly prove that Buchanan did not at all understand matters of Fact in this part of the History for he asserts that after the death of Euphan Ross the King married Elizabeth Muir and did by Act of Parliament obtain the Crown to be setled upon Robert the third Son to the said Elizabeth Muir upon whom he also bestow'd the Title of Carrick all which is most false for this Act of Parliament is dated in Anno 1371. and King Robert the second succeeded to the Crown that year nor did Euphan Ross die till the third year after he succeeded to the Crown and so not till the year 1374. and yet in Anno 1371. this Act is past designing him Heir to the Crown and Earl of Carrick and consequently he was so design'd before the death of Euphan Ross 5. I have seen a Charter granted by King Robert the 2 d when he was only Steward of Scotland in anno 1365 and so long before he was King In which Charter likewise John thereafter King by the name of Robert the 3 d is a conjunct Disponer with him under the express designation of the eldest Son and Heir Robertus Senescallus Scotiae Comes de Strathern Joannes Senescallus primogenitus haeres ipsius Dominus Baroniae de Kyle c. which Charter confirms to the Abbacy of Pasley several Lands disponed to them by Reginaldus More Father to Sir William More of Abercorn And I find that David Duke of Rothsay was alwayes in the Charters granted by his Father King Robert the first called Primogenitus and he was no Bastard nor can this designation be given to a Bastard as is clear by Covaruvias de Matrim part 2. cap. 8. § 2. num 4. But how can it be imagined that the Monks of Pasley would have taken a Right from a person as Heir to the Crown who was not for this would have infer'd Treason against them beside the annulling their Right or who could understand better the lawfulness of a Marriage than a body of Church-men living in the time and very near to the Residence of the married Persons and in whose Conventual-Church the said King Robert and Elizabeth Muir lie buried together Item I have seen in the Registers another Charter granted by King Robert the 2d in the first year of his Reign with the consent of John Earl of Carrick primogenitus haeres Allano de Lavidia terrarum de Whitslet And another granted by the said King 1. June anno primo regni confirming to Paulo Metire a Charter granted by the Earl of Ross Father to Euphan wherein the said John primogenitus haeres is a Witness And to shew that the said Euphan Ross was then living when he was so design'd Heir there is a Charter to her by the King upon the very same day of the Lands of Lochleaven As also there is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2 d the first year of his Reign to Alexander his Son and another to John Kennedy of the Barony of Dalrymole in both which the said John Earl of Carrick is call'd Primogenitus and is Witness with the Earl of Dowglas so that he has been design'd eldest Son and Heir openly uncontrovertedly and in all Papers and with the consent of the second Wife and her Relations 6. In the Parliament 1372. the said John Earl of Carrick is design'd to be Lieutenant of the Kingdom and all the Estates of Parliament swear to own him in his Government and which Statute is printed amongst the Statutes of King Robert the second Father to the said John and which must be during the Marriage with Euphan Ross for she liv'd three years after her Husband was King and he succeeded to the Crown Anno 1371. And this also confutes Buchanan who asserts that he was created Earl of Carrick after the death of Euphan Ross and it is against all sense and reason to think that he could have been acknowledg'd during her life if he had not been the true apparent Heir of the Crown and a lawful Son I have also seen in Fordon's History lib. 14. pag. 73. a Charter granted by King David to the Bishops with the consent of Robert his Nephew and his Sons giving power to the Bishops to dispose in Testament upon their own Moveables which before that time did by a corrupt custom fall to the King in which Charter the Witnesses are Robertus Senescallus Comes de Strathern Nepos noster Joannes Senescallus Comes de Carrict filius suus primogenitus haeres Thomas Comes de Mar Georgius de Dunbar Comes de March Gulielmus Comes de Dowglass so that here is not only the attestation of the Father before he was King naming John Earl of Carrick

thereafter King Robert the 2 d. his eldest Son and Heir but the attestation of the Grand-Uncle King David who could be no ways byassed in the Affair and here he is ranked before the three eldest Earls in the Nation who were then the three first Subjects therein and it is against all Sense to think that the whole Bishops would have sought the consent of the said John as Apparent Heir of the Crown if he had not been Apparent Heir I find also that Fordon calls him when he is crown'd King Primogenitus Roberti secundi nor was there the least opposition made to his Coronation nor to the Coronation of Annabella Drummond his Queen a Daughter of the House of Stob-hall now Pearth though both the Sons of the second Marriage were then alive I find also that Boetius himself acknowledges that the Earl of Marches Son George being pursu'd for having married clandestinely one of the Daughters of Eliz. Muir his defence was that he married her when she was the Daughter of a private Subject and before King Robert was King whereas if she had been only a Bastard-Daughter it could have been no Crime to have married her 7. Walter who they pretend should have succeeded to the Crown having kill'd his Nephew King James the first Son to King Robert the 3 d He was not only not own'd after the death of the said King James as certainly he had been if his Title had been good and his Right so recent and demonstrable having so many great and powerful Relations that his Father was induc'd upon their account to marry his Mother but yet the said Walter was by all the Parliament unanimously condemn'd as a Traitor for having conspir'd the death of his lawful Prince Nor does Boetius justifie Walter 's Title in the least but on the contrary magnifies the Parliament for their just Sentence As did likewise Aeneas Silvius the Popes learned Legat who exhorted the Parliament to condemn him 8. How is it imaginable that King Robert who had so lately and after a strong Competition come to the Crown would have adventur'd to make his Title yet more disputable by preferring a Bastard to the true Heir who had so many Friends by his Mother and who being an Infant had never disoblig'd him 9. If we will consider the opinion of the Civilians whom we and almost all Nations follow in the Cases of Succession we will find that the said King Robert the third was the eldest and lawful Son of King Robert the second Filius legitimus non legitimatus For 1. They conclude that a Son is prov'd to be a lawful Son by the Assertion of the Father Alciat tract praesumpt Reg. 1. praesumpt 2. numb 6. and certainly the Father is the best Judge in such Cases but so it is we have the Father owning the said Robert the 3 d. to be his eldest Son and Heir both in Charters and Acts of Parliaments which are the most solemn of all Deeds 2. Quando pater instituit aliquem tanquam filium suum which holds in this Case where the Father institutes and leaves him Heir and the Parliament swears Allegiance to him as the Heir Muscard de prob vol. 2. conclus 799. And in dubious Cases the Father's naming such a man as a Son presumes him to be a lawful Son nominatio parentis indueit filiationem in dubio l. ex facto § si quis Rogatus ff ad trebell 3. Even Fame and the common opinion of the People do in favours of these that are in Possession and in antient Cases prove filiationem legitimationem Mascard conclus 792. but much more where the Fame and common Opinion is supported by other Arguments fulgos consil 128. Panorm in cap. transmiss qui filii sunt legitimi 4. When Writs are produc'd calling a man a Son the Law concludes him to be a lawful Son Muscard vol. 2. conclus 800. num 15. all which can be easily subsum'd in our Case In which Robert the 3 d. is nam'd not only Son but Heir and Allegiance sworn to him even in the life-time of the second Wife and her Relations sitting in Paliament and all this acquiesc'd in for many hundreds of years and the Competitors punish'd as Traitors by the unanimous consent of all the Parliament I know that Buchannan does most bitterly inveigh against those Laws made by King Kenneth the 3 d as Laws whereby the ancient Right of Succession was innovated and whereby the Government was setled upon Children who were neither able to consult with the People nor to defend them and whereby those had the Government of the Nation conferr'd upon them who were not capable to Govern themselves To which my Answer is That in this Buchanan's Malice contradicts his History for his own History tells us That the Scots swore Allegiance to Fergus and his Posterity and consequently Fergus's Son ought by Law to have succeeded and not his Brother for his Brother was none of his Posterity and therefore those Laws made by King Kenneth did but renew the old Law and the Innovation introduc'd in favours of the Uncles was a subversion of the fundamental Law to which they had sworn 2. That the old Law was not abrogated but was in Being by vertue of the first Oath appears very clear by Buchanan himself who confesses that upon the death of Durstus a wicked Prince it was debated whether his Son should not succeed juxta sacramentum Fergusio praestitum veteremque esse morem servandum which acknowledgeth that the Succession was even in those days established by Law by Oath and by Custom and after the death of Fergus the second his Son Eugenius though a Minor was Crown'd and his Uncle Graemus allow'd to be his Guardian And Buchanan also brings in Bishop Kennedy lib. 12. praising this Law as made by Kenneth a most wise and glorious Prince with advice of all his Estates of Parliament and which rather confirms as he says the old Law than introduces a new one So far did Buchanan's Rage against Queen Mary prevail with him to praise and rail at the same individual Law and it is observable that it is very dangerous to recede once from fundamental Laws for Buchanan makes not only the Succession Elective but he makes no difference betwixt lawful Children and Bastards and excludes not only Minors during the Uncle's life but Women for ever 3. In all Nations where the Monarchy is Hereditary Minors succeed and so this innovation of causing the next Male succeed for all his Life was contrary to the Nature of the Monarchy and to the Customs of all Nations and God in Scripture gives us many instances of it Joas succeeded when he was seven years of age Josiah when he was eight Manasseh in twelve and Azariah in sixteen And yet in those days God is said to have chosen the King for it is said in Deuteronomy Thou shalt set over thee the King whom I have chosen and consequently the choice of