Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	duke_n	king_n	normandy_n	8,526	5	11.2327	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85742	A reply, to a namelesse pamphlet, intituled, An answer to a speech without doors, &c. Or, a defence of Master Chaloner's speech. Wherein the question is rightly stated, the interest of the kingdome and Parliament vindicated, and all moderate men answered. / By G.G. a lover of his countrey. Published according to order.	G. G.	1646 (1646)	Wing G21; Thomason E362_26; ESTC R201222	5,015	8

wealth that always comming to make peace or continue it that they have from the beginning had the priviledge to be protected in all Countreys where they shall happen to be and our Laws of England are so agreeable to the Civill Law that the subjection an Embassadour is in by them is agreeable to that Law of Nations that maintaineth their freedome wherefore although they are not excepted from it yet are they not liable to prejudice by it therefore any reasonable creature may judge whether the honour of the Kingdom and Parliament can for this be brought in question by Forreigners This civill protection to Commissioners or Embassadours is in Scotland as well as England and although he will have the contrary yet will the Parliament of Englands Commissioners residing in Scotland claime as their Jus the same protection and priviledge there as they and other Embassadours enjoy in England and will beyond all peradventure have it But in page 5 on these words of Master Chaloners That if a King of Scotland had come into England before the union his person might have been disposed of by the sole authority of the Laws of England He insinuates that by this principle the Prince of Wales his person is to be disposed of by the authority of the Laws of France and the King and Parliament have no authority to recall him and is not this a good salve for the honour of the Parliament sayth he This is a further discovery of his quibling and little ability to judge on such things for want of knowledge in the proceedings of former ages in such cases He needed not have gone further for presidents then his own Countrey if he be an English man in this case for the taking prisoner of Richard the first King of England by the Duke of Austria as he passed through his Countrey at his return from the termed Holy Warre notwithstanding they were both ingaged in it and the securing of the person of Mary Queen of Scots in the Reigne of Queen Elizabeth But if any shall say they were both enemies to England as well the Queen of Scots as the Duke of Austria and therefore to take all advantages against each other It is most sure that the King of England and the Duke of Austria wereboth in amity and kept good correspondencie as was necessary for Princes whose Countreys lay so far distant one from the other and the Queen of Scots had severall Ties on the Queen of England that might obliege her friendship to her as that of kinred the leaving out of her Coat the Armes of England which the Kingdom of France had adjudged her a right to beare and assurance from the Queen Elizabeth of her welcome and safety in England had shee staid in her own Countrey till it came into her hand and as there was no certain peace so there was no war between them Wherefore if the Prince of Wales is gone into France without assurance from that Kingdom of his safety there and liberty to return he may for ought I know have the same fortune that these Princes had and as his going was without the consent of the Parliament so if it should happen he should suffer there they are free from blame of his misfortune A little further he sayth Master Chaloner hath it thus No man can be sayd to be Rex but in Regno wherefore sayth he by just Analogy the Parliament of England cannot be acknowledged a Parliament but in England only Neyther can there Commissioners in any other Kingdom or State being admitted to propound declare treat or conclude in name of both Houses These are fine Oxford Inferences for as a King of England by being in France loseth not his Title of King of England he gaineth not the Title of King of France And they may take him as Subject of France and King of England as we know they have done those Kings as have been Dukes of Normandy And if they will admit the King of England his Title of England he being in France Master Chaloner only denying Forreign King the Title of that Countrey where he shall happen to comeunto and not the Title of his own that he brought with him they will admit whom he appoint his Messengers or Agents as servant of the King of England when they shall reside there from him and the Parliament when they send their Commissioners thither or to any other Countrey desireth not the title of the Parliament of that Countrey nor their Commissioners to be so accepted But those that will allow them the title and power of the Parliament of England in England may accept of their Commissioners in any other Countrey as servants to the Parliament of England without prejudice of the Parliament of that Countrey where their Commissioners shall so reside And although in England we would not admit of Mary as Queen of England yet was shee acknowledged Queen of Scots at her being here A few lines further Master Chalenor sayth he in his pag. 9 telleth us If the Scots be our fellows why come they not to our Parliaments on which sayth he if it can be made to appear that they be our fellows equals and brethren they may come to our Parliaments and see how the priviledges of Parliament is mainteined doth it make a breach of priviviledge of Parliament to doe justice in it And when the Scots can make it appear that they are in that capacity that M. Chalenor and all the Kingdom knoweth them to want God forbid but they should have right and then how could that be against the honour of the Parliament On what M. Chaloner sayth of John King pf England in his Speech in this Answerers pag. 6. he will have it much to strengthen the Scotch papers for sayth he if the King of England must be disposed of by the sole authority of both Houses of Parliament what shall become of the person of the King of Scotland There is no more cause of doubt in them of that then we ought to make of their disposing of the King of England whom they have in their custody and as he is in England they are unjust in deteining him but if they shall get him into Scotland as they have no right in him in England we could pertein as little to him he being in Scotland and though M. Chaloner pleadeth for a sole power in both Houses to dispose of him in England yet doth he not plead for it out of England as their suggestion will have it which discovers this Answer of a false calumner and that he hath an insight into his disability to answer other mens and therefore he will make questions of his own This pretended Answer to M. Chaloners Speech is no better then that of this Answerers fellow Collegian where telling a sheepherd he was a sheep and he would prove him so the shepherd desiring to know how he replyed That the sheepherd had a head and a sheep had a head ergo he was a sheep The rest that commeth from this Subtilist is no answer but a malicious aspersion on M. Chaloner and the honourable Parliament and as he endeth so do I with my desire of God that from such Apostates from their native Country and Countrymen he would deliver us FINIS