Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	according_a	law_n	parliament_n	2,488	5	6.5410	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37313	The debate at large, between the House of Lords and House of Commons, at the free conference, held in the Painted Chamber, in the session of the convention, anno 1688 relating to the word, abdicated and the vacancy of the throne in the Common's vote.	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Lords.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1695 (1695)	Wing D506; ESTC R14958	49,640	162

changing of the Monarchy from an Hereditary to an Elective E. of N m. After this long Debate pray let us endeavour to come as near as we can to an Agreement We have proposed some Questions about which my Lords desired to be satisfied You Gentlemen have not been pleased to give an Answer to them and we have no great Hopes of getting one from you as this Debate seems to be managed On your part you have declared That you do acknowledge the Monarchy is Hereditary and Successive in the Right Line then I cannot see how such an Acknowledgment consists with the Reasons you give for your Vacancy for I cannot imagine how a Kingdom can be an Hereditary Kingdom and that King who hath Children now in being at the time of his forsaking the Government can have the Throne Vacant both of him and his Children The Course of Inheritance as to the Crown of England is by our Law a great deal better provided for and runs stronger in the right Line of Birth than of any other Inheritance No Attainder of the Heir of the Crown will bar the Succession to the Throne as it doth the Descent to any common person The very Descent by Order of Birth will take away any such Defect And so was the Opinion of the great Lawyers of England in the Case of Henry the seventh Then cannot I apprehend how any Act of the Father's can bar the Right of the Child I do not mean that an Act of Parliament cannot do it I never said so nor thought so but I say no Act of the Father's alone can do it since even the Act of the Son which may endanger an Attainder in him cannot do it so careful is the Law of the Royal Line of Succession This is declar'd by many Acts of Parliament and very fully and particularly by that Statute 25 Henry the Eighth Cap. 22 entituled An Act concerning the King's Succession where the Succession of the Crown is limited to the King's Issue-Male first then Female and the Heirs of their Bodies one after another by course of Inheritance according to their Ages as the Crown of England hath been accustomed and ought to go in such Cases If then the King hath done any thing to divest himself of his own Right it doth not follow thence that That shall exclude the Right of his Issue and then the Throne is not Vacant as long as there are any such Issue for no Act of the Father can Vacant for himself and Children Therefore if you mean no more than but the divesting his own Right I desired you would declare so And then suppose the Right gone as to him yet if it descend to his Lineal Successor it is not Vacant And I told you One Reason my Lord 's did stand upon against agreeing to the Vacancy was Because they thought your Vote might extend a great deal further than the King 's own Person But your all owning it to be a Lineal Inheritance and this Vacancy methinks do not by any means consist You declare you never meant to alter the Constitution then you must preserve the Succession in its ancient course So I did hear a worthy Gentleman conclude it to be your Intention to do But by what methods can it be done in this Case by us I desire to be satisfied in a few things about this very matter I desire first to know Whether the Lords and Commons have Power by themselves to make a binding Act or Law And then I desire to know Whether according to our ancient Legal Constitution every King of England by being seated on the Throne and possessed of the Crown is not thereby King to him and his Heirs And without an Act of Parliament which we alone cannot make I know not what Determination we can make of his Estate It has been urged indeed That we have in Effect already agreed to what is contain'd in this Vote by Voting That it is inconsistent with our Religion and Laws to have a Popish Prince to Rule over us But I would fain know Whether they that urge this think that the Crown of Spain is Legally and Actually excluded from the Succession by this Vote No Man sure will undertake to tell me That Vote of either House or both Houses together can Alter the Law in this or any other point But because I am very desirous that this Vote should have its Effect I desire that every thing of this Nature should be done in the antient usual Method by Act of Parliament GOD forbid that since we are happily deliver'd from the Fears of Popery and Arbitrary Power we should assume any such Power to our selves What Advantage should we then give to those who would quarrel with our Settlement for the Illegality of it Would not this which we thus endeavour to crush break forth into a Viper For that Record of 1. Henry the Fourth I acknowledge the words of the Royal Seat being Vacant are us'd But since you your selves tell us of it That Henry the Fourth did claim by Inheritance from his Grandfather that methinks may come up to what I would have the declared sence of both Houses upon this Question to wit The Throne might be Vacant of Richard the Second but not so Vacant but the claim of the immediate Successor was to take place and not be excluded but entirely preserved And Richard the Second seems to have had the same Opinion by delivering over his Signet to them Our Laws know no Inter regnum but upon the Death of the Predecessor the next Heir is in uno eodem instanti It was so Resolv'd even in Richard the Second's own Case for at his Grandfather's Death it was a Question Whether King Richard the Second or the Eldest Son of his Grandfather then living should succeed and it was Resolved That he ought to have it because of his Right of Inheritance which is the more remarkable because of the contest And when Richard the Third usurped his Crown to make his Claim good to the Right of Inheritance he Bastardized his own Nephews And so it was in all the Instances of the Breaches that were made upon the Line of Succession which were some Seven but all illegal for such was the Force of the Laws that the Usurpers would not take the Crown upon them unless they had some specious pretence of an Hereditary Title to it That which I would have Avoided by all means is the Mischievous Consequences that I fear will ensue upon this Vacancy of the Throne to wit the utter Overthrow of the whole Costitution of our Government For if it be so and the Lords and Commons only remain as parts of it Will not this make the King one of the Three Estates Then is he the Head of the Commonwealth all united in one Body under him And if the Head be taken away and the Throne Vacant by what Laws or Constitutions is it that we retain Lords and Commons For they are

of our Nation in his time and his Works are very worthily Recommended by the Testimony of King Charles the First He alloweth That Government did Originally begin by Compact and Agreement But I have yet a greater Authority than this to influence this Matter and that is your Lordships own who have agreed to all the Vote but this Word Abdicated and The Vacancy of the Throne And therefore so much enough to be said to that and go back to Debate what is not in Difference is to confound our selves instead of Endeavouring to compose Differences And truly my Lords by what is now Proposed I think we are desired to go as much too far fowards when the Vacancy of the Throne is proposed to be the Question to be first Disputed before the Abdication from which it is ●●●●rred But sure I am it is very much beyond what the Vote before us doth lead us unto To talk of the Right of those in the Succession For that goes farther ●han the very last Part of the Vote and it is still to lead us yet farther to say any thing about makeing the Crown Elective For I hope when we come to answer your Lordships Reasons we shall easily make it out that it is not in this Case neither was there any Occasion given by this Vote to infer any such thing VVe shall therefore keep the Points as they are both in Order of Place in the Vote and of Reason in the thing and as we have done hither to speak to the words Abdicated and Deserted the words to be Disputed about in the First Place Another Lord did give One Reason against the useing the VVord Abdicated Because it is a Word belongs to the Civil Law and said He would by no means exchange our own English Common Law for that I intirely concur with that Noble Lord in that Point but he did agree to us also That there is no such Word in our Common Law as Deserted that is which should signifie by the Stamp the Law puts upon it any Sence applicable to the Matter in Hand Then if we must not use our VVord because unknown to our Common Law neither must we use your Lordships for the same Reason and so shall be at an entire loss what VVord to use and so indeed they may well come to consider the Conclusion first who leave us at Uncertainties on what Terms we are to Discourse and there cannot be a greater Confusion in any Debate than to state a Conclusion without the Premises which we must doe if we cannot agree how to word the Fact we infer from My Lords I shall not much differ from what in general has been said concerning the Sence of the Word Abdicated for it seems to be agreed on all Hands that it is a Renuntiation Neither will I contend for an Involuntary Abdication because I think it means a Voluntary Act But truly what your Lordships mean in your Reason against it by the Word Express I cannot so well understand That a King may Renounce his Kingship I think may be made out both in Law Fact as well as any other Renuntiation and that as far as I can discern by your Lordships Reasons and this Days Debate hitherto is not intended to be denyed by any Indeed some of my Lords have told us That there 't is meant of the Exercise of a Right which may be Renounced without Renouncing that Right Whether that be a true Distinction or no is not very Material but if it be that the very Kingship it self as including a Right to Govern may be Renounced and hath been it will be no Difficulty to make out by Instances in all Countries not only where the Crown is or was Elective but also where it was Hereditary and Successive If a King will Resign or Renounce he may do so as particularly Char. 5th Earl of P k. That was an express Solemn Renuntiation Sir George T by My Lords the particular manner of Doing it is I take it not matter in Debate just now before us till it be settled whether a King can Abdicate at all or Resign or Renounce his Kingship at all this then being granted That a King may Renounce may Resign may Part with his Office as well as the Exercise of it then the Question indeed is Whether this King hath done so or no That he may do it I take it for granted it being an Act of the VVill Then let us now inquire into the Facts as set out in the Vote VVhether this VVill of his be manifest for that you have heard it may be discovered several ways the Discovery may be by VVriting it may be by VVords it may be by Facts Grotius himself and all Authors that treat of this Matter and the Nature of it do agree That if there be any Word or Action that doth suffitiently manifest the Intention of the Mind and Will to part with his Office that will amount to an Abdication or Renouncing Now my Lords I beg leave to put this Case That had King James the II. come here into the Assembly of Lords and Commons and expressed himself in VVriting or VVords to this Purpose I was Born an Heir to the Crown of England which is a Government limited by Laws made in full Parliament by King Nobles and Commonalty and upon the Death of my last Predecessor I am in Possession of the Throne and now I find I cannot make Laws without the Consent of the Lords and Representatives of the Commons in Parliament I cannot suspend Laws that have been so made without the Consent of my People this indeed is the Title of Kingship I hold by Original Contract and the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government and my Succession to and Possession of the Crown on these Terms is Part of that Contract this Part of the Contract I am weary of I do Renounce it I will not be obliged to Observe it nay I am under an invincible Obligation not to comply with it I will not Execute the Laws that have been made nor suffer others to be made as my People shall desire for their Security in Religion Liberty and Property which are the Two main Parts of the Kingly Office in this Nation I say suppose he had so exprest himself doubtless this had been a plain Renouncing of that Legal Regular Title which came to him by Descent If then he by Particular Acts such as are enumerated in the Vote has declared as much or more than these Words can amount to then he hath thereby declared his Will to Renounce the Government He hath by these Acts mentioned manifestly declared that he will not Govern according to the Laws made Nay he cannot so doe for he is under a Strict Obligation yea the strictest and Superior to that of the Original Compact between King and People to Act contrary to the Laws or to Suspend them By the Law he is to administer Justice aand to Execute his Office according to