Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bring_v	king_n	scotland_n	3,716	5	8.3363	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76744	The speech without doores defended without reason. Or, A vindication of the Parliaments honour: in a rejoynder to three pamphlets published in defence of M. Chaloners speech.	Birkenhead, John, Sir, 1616-1679.	1646 (1646)	Wing B2972; Thomason E365_5; ESTC R201245	8,181	11

of Nations untill it be ratified forsooth by an Occumenicall Parliament But only the particular Contract confideracy and Agreement betwixt his the Embassadours Master and that Prince or State unto whom he is sent that can protect and defend him Then we must bid farewell to that of Livius generally approved by Polititians concerning the Embassadours of King Tarquinius inviolable with the Romans by the Law of Nations even when they were upon designes and practises against that State having corrupted many of their young Nobility against them Quanquam visisunt Legati comisisse ut hostium loco essent jus tamen Gentium valuit The instance of King John who was also Duke of Normandy I must still laugh at For M. Challenor and his Defenders take hold of the resolution of the Lawyers in France This peradventure might have seemed somwhat against the Scotch Papers If M. Challenor had not told withall what the State of England at that time pleaded against the State of France The English pleaded that although the Duke of Normandy be a Subject of France yet the French ought not so much as dispose of the person of that Subject of theirs because in so doing they should dispose of the person of the King of England which they held to be a great indignity to the Kingdome of England just so do our Brethren of Scotland plead I am now but stating matter of Fact that it were an indignity to that free Kingdom if the Parliament here should singly and without the advice and consent of the Parliament of Scotland dispose of the person of this Individuall King of England because in so doing they should dispose of the person of the King of Scotland If M. Challenor will say that in the debate about King John the French were in the right and the English in the wrong let him speake out I have another Answer for him But if he hold that the English were in the right against the French Then how will he make the very same Argument in point of right or wrong to be good in the mouthes of the English and bad in the mouthes of the Scotch Whereas I touched as to the mutuall interest of two Kingdoms and in reference to that resolution of the Lawyers in France concerning the Duke of Normandy the vast disproportion between him who is a King of one Kingdome and Subject of another and him who is King of more Kingdoms then one this is yeelded to me But withall I am told that I am out in another kind For there is also a vast disproportion between a King of two Kingdomes ruling in peace and Justice and one who hath been in war against his Kingdomes Now see him that makes this Objection here put out by himselfe For I shall only answer him in his own words the debate is not come so far yet as to question how the Kings Person shall be disposed of but by whom If the question were how to dispose of him I admit that disproportion which is objected But it is neither here nor there when the debate is by whom by both Kingdomes or by England singly The Close of the indifferent censure saith That the effects of the Kings shelter in the Scotch Army have been already very sad as by Jealousies here to keepe so many Armies at a needlesse charge and hinder the reliefe of poore Ireland But sith the effect could not be without the Cause say truth now Whether had the Armies been yet kept up although his Majesty had come to London when he went to the Scotch Army If they had and you Sir know they had then you dealt not fairely nor faithfully in this Observation However if you will let the King and the Scotch be put to it and offer made that the Parliaments Army in this Kingdome shall be forthwith disbanded or sent into Ireland upon his Majesties returning to his great Councell the Parliament and upon our Brethrens rendring of the Garrisons and marching away with their Army See whether upon such an offer or assurance his Majesty will not give a satisfactory Answer to the Propositions of peace and he returne to London and our Brethren home againe and then the Author of the Pamphlet who begins to doubt whether Newcastle be in Scotland for I never heard it doubted by another will be soone put out of doubt or if he will he may desire to have it presently resolved upon the Question that Newcastle is in England I have yet somewhat to add concerning that Pamphlet which ends with the bleating of sheepish Logick but begins in the Title page with a pretence to answer all moderate men T is well that he makes not himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as violent and injurious as he is he hath said more for me then against me If there be any thing materiall in him it is already touched I shall only take hold of his acknowledgments I had said that M. Challoners Speech without Doores presented him Goliah-like coming forth for the Parliament but stumbling wofully My Replier tells me that God did not permit me in this to lye I thanke him for his observation Hee acknowledgeth pag. 3. That the Scots are bound to maintain the Kings person if the Parliament should wrong his person And is not Mr. Challoners Speech here well defended much good may this defence doe him Amongst other inferences I had drawn this from Mr. Challenors Speech That the person of the King of England if he were in Scotland must be disposed of by the Supreame power of that Country without the advice and consent of the Parliament of England which I presume was far from M. Challenors meaning to admit for speaking of the Scots he said I conceive they will not take upon them any Authority to dispose of the Person of a King of England yet my inference is yeelded by the Replier in M. Challenors name who also in the Close saith That if the Scots shall get the King into Scotland as they have no right in him in England we could pertaine as little to him he being in Scotland My Inference is also confessed to be true by the Author of the largest Pamphlet pag. 4. And who is the Malignant now he that maintaines or they that yeeld up the Priviledge of Parliament and interest of England No man can be said to be Rex but in Regno said M. Challenor Then by just Analogy said I The Parliament of England cannot be acknowledged a Parliament but in England only The Replyer tells me that M. Challenor only denyeth a forraign King the Title of that Country he shall happen to come unto and not the Title of his owne that he brought with him And that although in England we would not admit of Marie as Queene of England yet was she acknowledged Queene of Scotch at her being here I confesse this is more then had been acknowledged in Scotland if she had been there at that time But however I do not see how it agreeth with M. Challoners Speech without doores admitting of no regality in the person of a King of Scotland coming into England before the Union and affirming that he must be taken as a Subject not as a King and I know as little who have ever affirmed or were to be contradicted for affirming That the King of one Kingdome coming by some accident into another Kingdome doth thereby become King of that Kingdome which he happeneth to come into But to passe that I shall be glad to have this riddle opened how these two things which the Replier holds in Mr. Challenors name can hang together that a King of England being in Scotland doth not lose his interest in England but is still King of England and yet his Subjects of England during his being in Scotland doe not pertain to him but lose their interest and right in him I shall at last observe that one part of the Speech without doores is disclaimed peradventure it shall fare so with other parts of it T is alledged that the Gentleman said not that England is as distinct in Interests from Scotland as Spaine but that England is as distinct a Kingdome from Scotland as Spaine Yet I find in that part of the Speech the words as distinst repeated and referred not to the Kingdomes but to Lawes Priviledges Interests It was this latter clause which I animadverted but since he passeth from it so doe I And now to conclude I acknowledge one Error in my Animadversions which none of the three Repliers have Animadverted and that was the putting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Printers mistake I am not yet convinced by my Antagonists and if I had been as apt to take fire as they were to give it my discourse had broken forth in a hot flame But I intend not oleum camino What ever some men drive at I trust the honourable Houses and all true hearted English-men and none more then my selfe shall endeavour the preservation of Union between the Kingdomes together with a sincere constant and reall pursuance of all the other ends expressed in the solemne League and Covenant FINIS Printed in the Yeare 1646.

Pamphlets observeth that my Answer did but catch at parts and instances of the Speech the Reader may observe that my Answer catched at much more of the Speech then either that Pamphlet catched of my Answer or the Speech catched of the Scotch Papers but we shall see anon whether he and his fellowes have not catched M. Challonor instead of me The Penman of that Pamphlet which I mentioned last is a pretender to be one of the State Wits but he accounts it a pedantike confinement for wisemen in discourses of State to speake properly and his owne language is suitable to his rule when he calls his Defence of M. Challoners Speech A indiffexent Censure of it He would gladly have the Authour of Lex Rex by him much mistaken to my best information to speak as improperly as M. Challonor and another of these Pamphlets strikes upon the same string although the Authour of that Book without maintaining the propriety of the terms of that distinction doth onely open the sense and meaning of it in other and better expressions neither will all this quibling of the Adiaphorist for so his Title of A indifferent Censure pretendeth make Persona to be Vox Concreta or if it be prethee what 's Personatus In the next place he would take off my exception against that most certaine truth as he calls it in the Speech that the Person either of Prince or private man being in a Forraign State is at the sole dispose of that State where he resides and to be ruled by their Lawes Looke you here what a fallacious diversion this is he knew well that the Commissioners from both Houses of Parliament are neither Princes nor private men and so he would be sure to exempt the Commissioners of Parliament from subjection to the Lawes and Jurisdiction of another State Concerning which I find a strange descrepance betweene the wit and the will of him that wrote the last and largest Justification of M. Challoners Speech pag. 7.8 his will is to decline that inference that the Commissioners of Parliament being in Scotland must be at the sole dispose of that State and subject to their Lawes and Jurisdiction yet this wit is such as doth upon the matter yeeld the same thing which he declineth leaving more Authority to the Parliament over their Commissioners being in Scotland then a Master dwelling in Scotland hath over his servants which cannot sure exempt them from being ruled by the Law of that Land and at most no more then is provided by Treaty or Contract between the Kingdomes which will amount to as much as nothing For I dare say there never was nor never will be any such Treaty or Contract between these Kingdomes that the Ambassadours or Commissioners sent from the one Kingdom shall not be subject to the Lawes nor at the sole dispose of the other Kingdome The Law of Nations was never yet so farre doubted of as to Minister the least occasion for such a Proviso But good now how shall M. Challonors principles be made good unlesse the Commissioners of Parliament being in Scotland be at the sole dispose of that State and be ruled by their Laws not by the Orders or Commands of both Houses For his Speech pag. 6 7. saith That the locall subjection for the time doth totally obstruct the operation of the other subjection and that any Subject coming from another Kingdom is to be disposed of by the sole Authority of that Supream Power where he makes his residence Hence chiefly grow mistakes in these debates because men would give unto others such measure as they will not be content to receive to themselves I do not know how happy the man that wrote the Indifferent censure may be in defending M. Challoner But I am sure he is no good defender of the Authority of King and Parliament He thinks no sober man will deny that Prince Charles is solely at the dispose of the State of France and that he cannot be recalled by King and Parliament If he mean de facto he is as wide from the thing in dispute as none-sense is from sense But if he mean de jure which was the only thing in debate or that King and Parliament have not an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lawfull and just Authority to recall Prince Charles but that by right and good reason he is at the sole dispose of the State of France then he hath spoken high Treason let him answer it as he can Sure his words doe more then leane this way when he addeth That Princes who by misfortune have been cast upon other Princes Countries may be detained without imputation of Tyranny for taking that advantage Where by the way he had done as well for the honour of the Nation to have spared the two Instances of that King in England and to have sought his instances somewhere else the Law of God provided better entertainment for afflicted strangers then to adde griefe to their sorrow If it must fare so ill with strangers whether Princes or Parliament men me thinks it were a good motion to revive the Law of the old Aedui that it be not lawfull for the Magistrate to go without his own territories As for my instance of Ambassadours which I brought against M. Challoner all three pamphlets say somewhat of the Protection and safety which Ambassadours ought to have but nothing to the defence of M. Challoners principles admitting of no protection to Embassadours in England without their subjection to the Lawes of England Here Here is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea a new light which cannot be found amongst all the Books of the learned Polititians who are by these more learned Pamphleters put in a marvellous great mistake for holding that Embassadours however subject unto and obliged by the Lawes of God Nature and Nations against which when they do grossely trespasse the Prince or State where they are resident doth usually make Remonstrance thereof to the Prince or State that sent them and so demanded Justice in such cases from those to whom it properly belongeth to judge or punish them yet they are not subjected to the Government Jurisdiction or municipall Lawes of that State unto which they were sent Surely he that holdeth the contrary leaves the safety of Embassadors in a most lubricous posture by subjecting them to two Princes or States whose ends Counsels opinions interests and Lawes are usually different and not seldome inconsistent So that Jus Legatorum which the Nations have accounted sacred and inviolable shall be more exposed to danger then Jus Subditorum and an Embassadour qui incolumis vel inter hostium tela versari possit as Tully saith shall be of all other men in least safety And if it be true which the Justifier of M. Challoners Speech saith That it is not the Law of Nations which by the way he confoundeth with the Law of Nature infused into all men and will acknowledge no Law by the consent