Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	agree_v	french_a	king_n	2,498	5	4.4302	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38981	An Examination of the impartial state of the case of the Earl of Danby in a letter to a member of the House of Commons.		1680 (1680)	Wing E3727; ESTC R5161	24,243	38

say the King is a Papist or shall any ways by Word or Writing publish or utter any thing to incite people to the hatred or dislike of the Kings Person I would desire any to consider whether any of these Crimes would be answered by Pleading that what was said was spoken by the Kings knowledge and allowance it would appear the King that can do no wrong cannot avow the wrong done to him and his people If this should appear rigorous to any let them but equally compare the inconveniencies on both sides and it will appear by this way some particular men of shaken Consciences and Principles may suffer by their own folly but by the other way the Publick may suffer under the protected guilt of a few Corrupted or Ambitious persons And since in all Ages it appears how soft men are to the Impressions of Wealth and Power how just will it seem there should be no excuse for ill Councils and those that will undertake the care of great things ought to bear the weight and hazard of the Employment This would increase the care of doing well and opposing ill and great men would find it better and safer to depend upon their own Vertues than on their Flatteries and Truth will then appear the best Policy when Falshood becomes the greatest danger And I will venture to adde this farther Remark That this Lord has been bolder in this way than ever any Subject was and it looks like an ill return to his Gracious and Bountiful Master that he never entitles him to any thing for his Honour but as I observed before in the business of the Goldsmiths he wholly attributes the good Action to himself and would make the Kings Treasure purchase his honour and esteem I have heard of such generous Friends that have charg'd themselves with their Friends Misfortunes to make themselves capable to suffer for them but this Lord has not acted so for his King but on the contrary would fix ill things on him for if what was charg'd upon him had been avowable there was no need to make any other Plea than what might proceed from the nature of the thing This brings me to consider the Expression about the Parliament which he might justly indeed suppose had been a principal cause of giving offence Having now with just duty separated the King from the concern of this matter I dare proceed to consider it with the reason of the Paragraph I agree with the Author That the Clause that gave the Parliament Offence he might have added and every English-man that read it besides was this In case the Conditions of the Peace shall be accepted the King expects to have Six Millions of Livres yearly for three years from the time that this agreement shall be signed betwixt His Majesty and the King of France because it will be two or three years before he can hope to find his Parliament in an humour to give him Supplies after the having made any Peace with France The reason given for this Clause is remarkable That it was inserted onely for a Motive to perswade the King of France to give a greater Sum than six Millions of Livres because otherwise in the ill posture things stood in the French King might suspect whether the King of England would agree to any Peace at all I cannot imagine the force of this Argument unless it be to shew That there was no Motive to the French King to give Money largely nor to make him believe the King of England was firm to him but the Conditions of keeping off Parliaments How clearly does it now appear That this way onely the French believed their Interest was to be supported and as if the old Arts of Adjournments and Prorogations had not been sufficient it is projected now to let a Lease of Parliaments to the French for three years and 't is reasonably guest they would have been out of humour to grant Supplies when Supplies were gotten from others to destroy them but how after three years the Parliament should be brought in humour is not to be supposed 't is more probable that the Lease would have been renewed The next Objection to this Letter he says has been That it was Writ the 25th of March 78. which was five days after the Parliament had past an act to raise Money for an actual War with France This is confest to be true but Answered First That an Act to raise Money for a War is no Declaration of the War But that Act was grounded upon a Message from the King to the Parliament for an Actual War and 't was so declared to be by one of the Secretaries in the House of Commons but now 't will be hard for this impartial Friend to advise his Lord which to stand to whether the King was Author of the Message sent by the Secretary or of the Clause in his Letter for sure though he has been very bold with the King yet he would not make him own Contradictions at the same time The second is That till such Declaration all Treaties are lawful and even then too if the King pleases in whom the sole power of making Peace and War is made by Law There is no question but in the time of War declared the King may treat of Peace but whether this Lord may treat for it in such a way as by the clause of the Letter is the more proper Question Thirdly he says That the Kings Embassadours were then at Nimegen treating of Peace and were indeed never recall'd nor forbidden to treat the Peace and can it be thought a fault for a Minister to obey the Kings Orders at home on the same Subject upon which other Ministers were acting at the same time abroad This is the usual manner of Arguing but it it affords some new matter of Answer which arises from observing that the Ministers abroad treated upon the same Subject as this Lord did at home which implies they all treated for so much Money to be the price of Parliaments or else this Minister may be in fault though the others were not But I suppose the Ministers were not so bold upon this point abroad as this Minister was at home and if not the Argument is at an end The fourth Argument is composed of no new matter till at the latter end 't is said That had it been a Crime his Majesties Embassadour at Paris must be in as much if not more fault to have obeyed the Kings Orders at second hand as this Lord was to obey his Majesties immediate Commands from his own mouth and signed by his hand I have before taken notice how little it adds or diminishes to any Offence to compare it with what others have committed it being onely just and proper that every thing should bear its own weight But if it were not so I should not trouble my self to dispute whether the same fault was greatest in the first or second concoction but possibly the