Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	france_n	french_a	king_n	29,861	5	4.6110	4	true

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.

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeschines Epist 11. Senatui Populoque Atheniensi For I heare that some incite you to new things Alexander being dead but I would advise you those things which are fit for the future I Did before give a sufficient account of my selfe and of my faithfulnesse to the Parliament and I must now say that the Authours of these Pamphlets have been extreamly mistaken and very unhappy in their Auguries concerning me The Scripture which was prefixed in the Title of my Animadversions For the transgrassion of a Land many are the Princes thereof Prov. 28.2 was not intended against the Parliament and the Pamphlet which hath put this notion in the heads of people hath done but a disservice to the Parliament For my part I am no such Guifted Brother as to draw from 〈◊〉 what is not in it neither did I make any other use of my Text as he cals it then any Minister of H. M. his Ordination may doe But it was intended against change of Government which the Speech without Doors did and the defences of it doe too too much drive at Amongst other Judgements which came upon a Land for the transgression thereof one and a chiefe one is the change of Government or Governours in a State 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Xenophon All changes of Governvernment are mortiferous And what more dangerous or deadly then an alteration of the fundamentall Government of this Kingdome by the King and both Houses of Parliament Nor doth it want its owne danger to have many voided places in Parliament and so a frequent succession of many new Members or to have the chiefe Officers Civill and Military put into many new hands if the persons intrusted be not extraordinary well principled The state of the Question between the Speech without Doors and my Animadversions upon it doth not concerne the maintaining of the Law of the Land which one of the Pamphlets would now draw into the Dispute I will according to my power maintaine the Law of the Land as much as any and am obliged so to do though not upon the reason given in that Pamphlet because We are by Covenant obliged to maintaine as well the Law of the Land as the Person of the King It seemes this man is not well acquainted with the Covenant read it againe finde this in it Et Phyllida solus habeto Neither yet is our Question whethet His Majesties Person is to be disposed of solely and singly by the Houses of Parliament I said not a word against M. Chaloners result or conclusion which his defenders chiefly speake to or in defence of the Scotch Papers of which I say still let them speake for themselves My Dispute was and is against that Speech for arguing against the Scotch Papers from such principles as are inconsistent with and destructive to the honour of the Parliament and interest of England When M. Challoner shall bring convincing reasons to prove his conclusion I shall therein joyne with him mean while my exceptions against his Speech ought not to be challenged as exception against the Votes of Parliament concerning their right to dispose of the Kings Person And whereas it is pleaded in the justification of the Speech pag. 13. That since the Gentleman doth but assert their the Parliaments Votos they would be very forgetfull of their owne interest if they should be offendod thereat This is a most presumptuous and unsufferably injurious imputation to the Parliament as if their Interest did engage them to approve of every Speech or Pamphlet which undertaketh to assert their Votes without examining the principles and arguments of such an Assertion whether they be good or bad true or false consistent or inconsistent with their Honours He that will tell a notorious lie if so be he do it to assert the Votes of Parliament may by this rule have an easie excuse But the Speech without Doors holdeth forth to the world not onely a ridiculous Assertion but a ridiculous sense of those Votes of Parliament For the Kingdoms are contending said M. Challoner about the Kings Person not who shall have it but who shall not have it which inferreth by consequence that the Parliament either did not wisely or not uprightly in that Vote that the Person of the King is to be disposed of as both Houses shall thinke fit He that writes the justification of M. Challoners Speech pardon me if this expression be Identicall doth indeed confute M. Challoner while he goeth about to prove that the Parliament did both uprightly and wisely in that Vote Sure if the Parliament voted wisely M. Challoner spake not wisely when he did upon the matter deliver I will not say he did intend this sense of the Vote That both Houses are to dispose as they shall think fit of a Person whom they desire not to have in their Power nor in the Kingdom If therefore any hurt hath or shall come to that Vote of the Honourable Houses it cometh by the dangerous Arguments for it and the ridiculous sense of it first delivered and now defended in M. Challoners Speech for my part I have said nothing against their Vote but vindicated their Honour This premised and the Question stated as before I will speake so much the more freely what I thinke because none of these Pamphlets have dared to avouch against me that M. Challoners Speech was printed as it was spoken in the House which was before pretended in the Title Page yea the Justification of his Speech tells me that the Gentleman neither ownes the printing nor the Title-page whereby he hath so far justified me as that I have not presumed to examine any thing spoken within Doors neither did I in professing this at first contradict my selfe as I am now charged by reporting somewhat spoken by M. Challoner in the House but not printed 'T is one thing to intermeddle by examining another thing to make a simple Narration I hope all words spoken within those walls are not unlawfull to be uttered againe Well the Speech which was out is not yet in we are still without Doors and now also without the Lines of Communication where at the first view I find him who digged for me the ditch of selfe-contradiction fallen into it himselfe For pag. 9. he holds that the King of one Kingdome being in another Kingdome is still a King Rex though not in Regno Yet pag. 10. he will not admit the King of Scotland being in England to be any more then a Subject Now if I were resolved to defend the Scotch Papers as I am not there is no need of it for there is not so much as one of our Brethrens Arguments repeated touched or answered either in the Speech or in the Defences of it So that whereas the Authour of one of the