Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A59475
|
A letter from a person of quality to his friend in the country
|
Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of, 1621-1683.; Locke, John, 1632-1704.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing S2897; ESTC R3320
|
30,815
|
37
|
that they justly and rightly claim And therefore neither our Ancestors nor any other Country free like ours whilst they preserv'd their Liberties did ever suffer any mercenary or standing Guards to their Prince but took care that his Safety should be in Them as theirs was in Him Though these were the Objections to this Head yet they were but lighty touch'd and not fully insisted upon until the debate of the second Head where the Scope of the Design was opened clearer and more distinct to every Man's capacity The second was And that I do abhorr that Trayterous Position of taking Armes by His Authority against His person To this was objected That if this be meant an Explanation of the Oath of Allegiance to leave men without pretense to oppose where the individual person of the King is then it was to be considered that the proposition as it is here set down is universal and yet in most cases the position is not to be abhorred by honest or wise men For there is but one case and that never like to happen again where this position is in danger to be Trayterous which was the Case of the Long Parliament made perpetualâ— by the King 's own Act by which the Government was perfectly altered and made inconsistent with its self but it is to be supposed the Crown hath sufficient warning and full power to prevent the falling again into that danger But the other cases are many and such as may every day occurr wherein this position is so far from Traiterous that it would prove both necessary and our duty The Famous instance of Hen. 6. who being a soft and weak Prince when taken Prisoner by his Cousin Edward 4. that pretended to the Crown and the great Earl of Warwick was carryed in their Armies gave what orders and Commissions they pleased and yet all those that were Loyal to him adhered to his Wife and son fought in a pitcht battel against him in person and retook him This was directly taking up Armes by His Authority against his person and against those that were Commission'd by Him and yet to this day no Man hath ever blamed them or thought but that if they had done other they had betray'd their Prince The great Case of Charles 6. of France who being of a weak and crazie Brain yet govern'd by himself or rather by his Wife a Woman of passionate and heady humour that hatâ—ed her Son the Dolphin a vigorous and brave Prince and passionately loved her Daughter so that She easily being pressed by the Victory of Hen. 5. of England comply'd to settle the Crown of France upon Him to marry her Daughter to Him and own his Right contrary to the Salique Law This was directly opposed with Armes and Force by the Dolphin and all good French Men even in his Father's life time A third instance is that of King Iames of blessed Memory who when he was a Child was seized and taken Prisoner by those who were justly thought no friends to His Crown or Safeâ—y and if the case should be put that a future King of England of the same temper with Hen. 6. or Charl. 6. of France should be taken prisoner by Spaniard Dutch or French whose overgrowing power should give them thoughts of vast Empire and should with the person and commission of the King invade England for a Conquest were it not suitable to our Loyalty to joyn with the Son of that King for the defence of His Fathers Crown and Dignity even against his Person and Commission In all these and the like Cases it was not justified but that the stâ—ict Letter of the Law might be otherwise coâ—strued and when wisely considerd fit it should be so yet that it was not safe either for the Kingdom or person of the King and His Crown that it should be in express words Sworâ— against for if we shall forswear all Distinctions which ill Men have made ill use of either in Rebellion or Heresy we must extend the Oath to all the particulars of Divinity and Politiques To this the aged Bishop of Winchester reply'd That to take up Armes in such cases is not against but for the person of the King But his Lordship was told that he might then as well nay much better have leâ—t it upon the Old Oath of Allegiance then made such a wide gapp in his new Declaration The thâ—rd and last part of the Deâ—laration was or against those that are Commissioned by him Here the mask was plainly pluckt off and Arbitrary Government appear'd bare-faced and a standing Army to be established by Act of Parliament for it was said by several of the Lords That if whatever is by the Kings Commission be not opposed by the King's Authority then a standing Army is Law when â—ver the King pleases and yet the King's Commission was never thought sufficient to Protect or justify any man where it is against his Authority which is the Law this allowed alters the whole Law of England in the most essential and Fundamental parts of it and makes the whole Law of property to become Arbitrary and without effect whenever the King pleases For instance if in a Suit with a great Favourite a man recovers House and Lands and by course of Law be put into Possession by the Sheriff and afterwards a Warrant is obtain'd by the interest of the person to command some Souldiers of the standing Army to take the possession and deliver it back in such a case the man in Possession may justify to defend himself and killing those who shall violently endeavour to enter his house the party whose house is invaded takes up Armes by the King's Authority against those who are Commissioned by him And it is the same case if the Souldiers had been Commissioned to defend the House against the Sheriff when he first endeavored to take the possession according to Law neither could any Order or Commission of the King 's put a stop to the Sheriff if he had done his duty in raising the whole force of that Count to put the Law in execution neither can the Court from whom that Order proceeds if they observe their oaths and duty put any stop to the execution of the Law in such a case by any command or commission from the King whatsoever Nay all the Guards and standing forces in England cannot be secured by any Commission from being a direct Riot and unlawful Assembly unless in time of open War and Rebellion And it is not out of the way to suppose that if any King hereafter shall contrary to the petition of Right demand and levie Money by Privy-Seal or otherwise and cause Souldiers to enter and distrain foâ— such like illegall Taxes that in such a case any Man may by Law defend his house against them and yet this is of the same nature with the former and against the words of the Declaration These instances may seem somwhat rough and not with the usual
dangerous thing to secure by Oath and Act of Parliament those in the exercise of an Authority and power in the King's Country and over His Subjects which being received from Christ himself cannot be altered or limitted by the King's Laws and that this was directly to set the Mitre above the Crown And it was farther offered that this Oath was the greatest attempt that had been made against the King's Supremacy since the Reformation for the King in Parliament may alter diminish enlarge or take away any Bishoprick He may take any part of a Diocess or a whole Diocess and put them under Deans or other Persons â—or if this be not lawful but that Episcopacy should be jure divino the maintaining the Government as it is now is unlawful since the Deans of Hereford and Salisbury have very large tracts under their jurisdiction and several Parsons of Parishes have Episcopal jurisdiction so that at best that Government wants alteration that is so imperfectly settled The Bishop of Winchester affirmed in this debate several times that there was no Christian Church before Calvin that had not Bishops to which he was answered that the Albigenses a very numerous People and the only visible known Church of true beleivers of some Ages had no Bishops It is very true what the Bishop of Winchester replyd that they had some amongst them who alone had power to ordain but that was only to commit that power to the Wisest and Gravest Men amongst Them and to secure ill and unfit Men from being admitted into the Ministery but they exercis'd no jurisdiction over the others And it was said by divers of the Lords that they thought Episcopal Government best for the Church and most suitable for the Monarchy but they must say with the Lord of Southampton upon the occasion of this Oath in the Parliament of Oxford I will not be sworn not to take away Episcopacie there being nothing that is not of Divine Precept but such circumstances may come in humane affairs as may render it not Eligible by the best of Men. And it was also said that if Episcopacy be to be received as by Divine Precept the King's Supremacy is overthrown and so is also the opinion of the Parliaments both in Edw. 6. and Queen Elizabeths time and the constitution of our Church ought to be altered as hath been shewd But the Church of Rome it self hath contradicted that Opinion when She hath made such vast tracts of ground and great numbers of Men exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction The Lord Wharton upon the Bishops claim to a Divine Right asked a very hard question viz. whether they then did not claim withall a power of Excommunicating their Prince which they Evading to answer and being press'd by some other Lords said they never had done it Upon which the Lord Hallifax told them that that might well be for since the Reformation they had hitherto had too great a dependance on the Crown to venture on that or any other Offence to it and so the debate passed on to the third Clause which had the same exceptions against it with the two former of being unbounded How far any Man might meddle and how far not and is of that extent that it overthrew all Parliaments and left them capable of nothing but giving Money For what is the business of Parliaments but the alteration either by adding or taking away some part of the Government either in Church or State and every new Act of Parliament is an alteration and what kind of Government in Church and State must that be which I must swear upon no alteration of Time emergencie of Affairs nor variation of humane Things never to endeavor to alâ—er Would it not be requâ—site that such a Government should be given by God himself and that withall the Ceremonie of Thunder and Lightening and visible appearance to the whole People which God vouchsafed to the Chrildren of Israel at Mount Sinaj and yet you shall no where read that they were sworn to it by any oath like this nay on the Contrary the Princes and the Rulers even those recorded for the best of them did make severâ—l variations The Lord Stafford a Noble Man of great Honor and Candour but who had been all along for the Bill yet was so far convinced with the debate that he freely declared there ought to be an addition to the Oath for preserving the freedom of debates in Parliament This was strongly urged by the never to be forgotten Earl of Bridgwater who gave reputation and strength to this Cause of England as did also those worthy Earls Denbigh Clarendon and Aylisbury Men of great Worth and Honor. To Salve all that was said by these and the Other Lords The Lord Keeper and the Bishops urged that there was a Proviso which fully preserved the Priviledges of Parliament and upon farther enquiry there appearing no such but only a Previous vote as is before mention'd they allowâ—d that that Previous vote should be drawn into a Proviso and added to the Bâ—ll and then in their opinion the Exception to the Oath for this cause was perfectly removed but on the other side it was offered that a positive absolute Oath being taken a Proviso in the Act could not dispence with it without some reference in the body of the Oath unto that Proviso but this also was utterly denied untill the next day the debate going on upon other matters the Lord Treasurer whose authority easily obtained with the major Vote reassumed what was mentioned in the Debates of the proceeding days and allow'd a reference to the Proviso so that it then past in these words I A. B. do swear that I will not endeavor to alter the Protestant Religion now by Law Establisht in the Church of England nor the Government of this Kingdom in Church or State as it is now by Law established and I do take this Oath according to the meaning of this Act and the Proviso contain'd in the same so help me God There was a passage of the very greatest observation in the whole debate and which with most clearness shewd what the great Men and Bishops aimed at and should in order have come in before but that it deserved so particular a consideration that I thought best to place it here by it self which was that upon passing of the Pâ—oviso for preserving the Rights and Priviledges of Parliaments made out of the Previous Votes It was excellently observ'd by the Earl of Bullingbrook a Man of great Abilitie and Learning in the Laws of the Land and perfectly stedfast in all good English Principles that though that Proviso did preserve the freedom of Debates and Votes in Parliament yet the Oath remain'd notwithstanding that Proviso upon all Men that shall take as a prohibition either by Speech or Writing or Address to endeavor any alteration in Religion Church or State nay also upon the Members of both Houses otherwise then as they speak and vote in