Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A26178
|
Reflections upon a treasonable opinion, industriously promoted, against signing the National association and the entring into it prov'd to be the duty of all subjects of this kingdom.
|
Atwood, William, d. 1705?
|
1696
(1696)
|
Wing A4179; ESTC R16726
|
61,345
|
70
|
a sence very different from the Modern vulgar Notion Nor does the Judgment even of E. the 4th's own Parliament in the least favour the late King however if it did later Parliaments in the time of H. 7. have taken away all colour from such pretences That the Eldest Son even of the most Rightful Regnant King was not King upon the Death of his Father without a Parliamentary Settlement of the Crown upon him before his Fathers Death nor with it till the States of the Kingdom had actually received and recognized such Son will appear beyond contradiction And that the Eldest Son 's Right was only a Right to be declared King unless he was unfit to Reign or the exigencies of the Publick required the advancing some other Person of the Royal Family If a deserving Person was kept back or one so judged by his own Party or the Nation when he prevailed the least Complement they could make him was that of Right he ought to have been King before he was King but farther they never extended their Transports of Loyalty nor ever Authoritatively declared That he had such a Right as made him King while another possessed the Throne And till he got Possession it was never declared that he had Right Nor does the setting one aside before his coming to Possession or after make any difference in the Nature of the Right in question And I shall put it beyond Controversie that whenever a worthy Person of the Saxon Royal Family especially of that branch which for some Successions had been settled as the Regnant Family was solemnly recognized by the States of the Kingdom upon the Death or disability of a Person who stood forwarder in the Royal Line the Person so recognized became King de Jure and no other Person had any manner of Right unless such as was in Abeiance or in the Clouds and indeed no where till Possession brought it to Light and Being 3. Fully to shew this Gentleman his mistakes upon the Statute 11 H. 7. it will be requisite to transcribe the whole which is as follows The King our Sovereign Lord calling to remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm and that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the Defence of him and the Land against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him and with him to enter and abide in Service in Battle if case so require That for the same Service what Fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his Commandment within this Land or without any thing should leese or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance It be therefore Ordained Enacted and Established by the King our Sovereign Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by the Authority of the same That from henceforth no manner of Person or Persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this Land for the time being in his Person and do him true and faithful Service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his Commandment in the Wars within this Land or without that for the said deed and true Duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise Convict or Attaint of High-Treason or of other Offences for that Cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Proces of Law whereby he or any of them shall now forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chatals or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any Vexation Trouble or Loss And if any Act or Acts or other Proces of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Proces of Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void Provided always that no Person or Persons shall take any Benefit or Advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Here 't is observable 1st That whereas this Gentleman absurdly supposes that it is Treason to engage to fight against one whom one may lawfully kill and that one may enter into a contrary Allegiance but may not do any voluntary act of Allegiance it is evident by the Words that if Swearing Allegiance is safe so are all voluntary Acts of Allegiance for the Swearing is not expresly provided for by that Act or any otherwise than as it is a part of the Duty and Service of Allegiance to the Sovereign Lordâ— but if Associating for the Defence of the King's Person and Right be part of the Allegiance due then that is as much provided for as the Oath is and consequently this Gentleman must grant that the Statute 11 H. 7. indemnifies the present Associators That this is part of the Allegiance due appears by the Common-Law Oath of Allegiance affirmed in the Laws of W. 1. and continued down to this day in Substance and Obligation according to which all the Freemen of the whole Kingdom are to affirm with a League or Association and Oath that within and without the whole Kingdom of England they will be faithful to their Lord the King preserve his Lands and Honors with all fidelity together with his Person and defend them against Enemies and Strangers And in an other Chapter of that Law after Provision that all Freemen shall enjoy their Estates as had been before enacted and granted in a Common-Council of the whole Kingdom it adds We also enact and firmly enjoyn that all Freemen of the whole Kingdom be sworn Brethren or Associators to defend our Monarchy and our Kingdom according to their Strength and Faculties and manfully keep the Peace and preserve the Dignity of our Crown entire and constantly to maintain Right and just Judgment by all means according to their power without fraud and without delay What is this but an Association to defend the King and Kingdom against any Person whatever and by consequence to declare that the King for the time being is the only Rightful King Since his Person Crown and Dignity is to be preserved by all means in their Power This part of the Common-Law is affirmed by the Statute 11 H. 7. declaring it the Duty of Allegiance to defend the King and Land against every Power and Might and therefore as well against Pretenders to Title as others 2. This Act expresly indemnifies for voluntary Acts of Allegiance against the mind and will of the Prince 3. It can by no means have
been intended or implied by that Statute that there was or could be any other King besides the King for the time being For 1. To take it in that sense would be to make the Statute fight against it self and not only to admit that he were but a King not the King but to require the Subjects to fight for and against one and the same Person 4. H. 7. And his Parliament could not be thought to admit that he was an Usurper or a King contrary to Law or Right But H. 7. certainly intended to provide for the indempnity of those that should pay Allegiance to him as well as of those that should pay Allegiance to future Kings for the time being And indeed upon some of the Words it may seem doubtful whether the enacting part was intended to reach beyond his time and whether any other Sovereign Lord for the time being was intended but he who was at that time But if in relation to the King whose Parliament passed this Act the King for the time being was supposed to be the only Lawful and Rightful King it must be so taken in relation to all other Kings for the time being if either the enacting Part or the Preamble extend to ' em 5. If this Act should carry a plain implication that some other besides the King for the time being was the King of Right this would be so far from being for the Security of the King for the time being as must have been then intended as well as the indemnity of his Subjects that it must needs have the like effect with their Discourses who will have it that the present Government is not Rightful but yet that a sort of Allegiance is due to it because of God's Authority tho' contrary to Right Whenever these Men speak out it appears that they allow no Authority to the King for the time being but what is derived from the Tacit or implied Consent of their King of Right But this Jesuitism was not thought of at the making of that Statute 6. I desire to know what Person besides H. 7. was so much as imagined to be Rightful King or Queen of England when that Act was made However whether it can be thought that in the Judgment of that Parliament any Person besides H. 7. had Right to the Crown after a former Parliament had Ordained Established and Enacted that the Inheritance of the Crown of England and France should be stand and remain in King H. 7. and the Heirs of his Body and in no other Person That they held this Settlement to have been duely and righfully made and that without any relation to his marrying the supposed Heiress to the Crown appears by three other Acts of the same Parliament One of which attaints R. 3. for traiterously conspiring against their Sovereign Leige Lord H. 7. Another indempnifies Men for Trespass or taking Goods in maintenance of the Title of H. 7. for the time that his Banner was displaied against Richard late Duke of Gloucester Usurper of the Realm Another goes farther and indemnifies them who came from beyond-Sea with H. 7. or were in Sanctuary or Hidel for his Quarrel and Title and speaks of the Battle against his Enemies in recovering and obtaining his Just Title and Right to his Realm of England Wherein H. 7 ths Right and R. 3 ds Usurpation consisted shall afterwards be considered 7. When the Parliament 11 H. 7. speaks only of the King or Prince or Sovereign Lord for the time being without giving any discription whereby it should be known who is the Prince unless what relates particularly to H. 7. It must be presumed that no King is intended but he that was the Sovereign or Leige Lord in the Eye and Reputation of Law which as appears by the Case of R. 3. an Usurper continuing so was not then taken to be But who ever was in the Possession of the Throne without Usurpation was always lawful and rightful King 8. It cannot be thought the Parliament 11 H. 7. would have made an Act directly contrary to three others of the same Reign but they would have expresly repealed the former Acts or have offered some reason to palliate or colour their Proceedings to the contrary But take the Statute of 11 H. 7. in this Lawyers Sense only with an Exception that as to the Matter in Question it was a Declaratory Law as the words plainly shew and it will farther appear and it is evident that the Statutes against R. 3. and indemnifying them that acted for H. 7. before the displaying his Banner as well as after while R. 3. was in Possession of the Throne were contrary to this Lawyer 's Sense of the Statute 11 H. 7. according to which they who assisted H. 7. must have acted contrary to their Duty of Allegiance to the King for the time being Wherefore it plainly follows that R. 3. was not King for the time being according to the true meaning of the Statute 11 H. 7. and yet H. 6. who was of the younger House was in his time the only King for the time being in the Judgment of that very Parliament which supposes R. 3. not to have been so as appears by their reversing the Attainder of H. 6. and declaring the Act of Attainder to have been contrary to the Allegiance of the Subject against all right wiseness honour nature and duty inordinate seditious and slanderous and reversing the Attainders of others for their true and faithful Allegiance and Service to Hen. 6. and yet those Attainders were in a Parliament of a King by many supposed to be the only Person that had Right to be King and that after his being formally recognized by the States and then in Possession of the Power of the Kingdom Obj. But it may be objected if the Act 11 H. 7. was made only to indemnifie them that paid Allegiance to Rightful Kings there was no manner of need of it Answ 1. Many needless Statutes have been made in affirmance of the Common-Law out of abundant caution 2. It could not be needless to obviate mens fears upon pretences which might be set up against the King for the time being by removing the supposal that Allegiance could be due to any body else 3. The enacting part extends to indemnifie Men for what they out of Loyalty should do in time of War against the mind and will of the Prince for which the caution was but reasonable Effectually to prove that the Judgment of Hen. 7 ths Parliament That there could be but one Rightful King at a time except where they were Partners in Power is according to the fix'd and known Constitution of this Monarchy and that this manifests His present Majesty to be our only lawful and rightful Sovereign Lord and that the late King neither is nor of Right ought to be King I shall as briefly as well as I can give an Abstract of what will appear to any