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	king_n	kingdom_n	14,965	5	6.1241	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89552	The just measure of a personall treatie between the Kings Majesty, and both Houses of Parliament. Grounded on divinity, reason, history, divine and humane, common and civill lawes; with many other authentick authors. By R.M. of the middle Temple, Esquire.	R. M., of the Middle Temple, Esquire.	1648 (1648)	Wing M72; Thomason E451_40; ESTC R202844	16,371	20

The just measure of A Personall Treatie BETWEEN The KINGS Majesty And both Houses of PARLIAMENT Grounded on Divinity Reason History Divine and Humane Common and Civill Lawes with many other authentick Authors By R. M. of the middle Temple Esquire Printed in the Yeere 1648. The just measure of a personall Treaty between the Kings Majesty and both Houses of Parliament There are these only waies to reform these innovations and to prevent the ruin of the Kingdome 1. By a personall Treaty and how conditioned 2. If that may not be obtained so qualified from the Houses it is lawfull to levy Warre against them and that VVarre is hereby proved just A Personall Treaty between His Majestie and the two Houses of Parliament would be a Soveraigne remedy against the innovations and growing evills of this Kingdome and an assured meanes to settle a firme peace in it provided that this Treaty be thus qualified both for the manner and matter of it for if it be otherwise I am much afraid it will prove both unprofitable and ineffectuall First it ought to be when his Majestie is free and at liberty without any preingagement on his Majesties part either by concession of any thing which they demand as an inducement thereunto at least of the most materiall things which the Treaty should consist of such as the Militia the setling of Presbyteriall Government and the rest now lately offered to his Majesty to be granted unto them for untill his Majestie be set free and at liberty without any conditions preceding unto it His Majestie cannot properly or securely for the good of the people treat of any matter conducing to a Peace a Grotius de jure belli pacis lib. 3. cap. 10. sect 3. Nam as learned Grotius saith Rex qui aetatis est ejus quae judicii maturitatem non habet qui imminutae mentis est qui captivus aut exul pacem facere non potost A King that is under age of an infirme mind a captive or an exile cannot treat of or conclude a peace And else where b Grotius lib. 3. cap. 20. sect 2 Sicut Rex infans jus habet sed imperium exercere non potest sic furiosus captivus As a King that is an infant hath right to govern but cannot exercise his dominion no more can a King that is a mad man or a Prisoner and without the King there can be no peace made treated on or concluded in this Kingdome for the King having by the Law of England the Soveraigne or supreme power of the Realme as is amply manifested by the precedent discourse he hath the only power to make peace and war as the same Author observes c Grot. l. 3. c. 20. Sect. 2 Pactiones inire quae bellum finiant eorum est quorum est bellum Rei enim suae quisque est moderator unde sequitur ut in bello utroque publico hoc eorum sit qui summum imperii exercendi jus habent Regis igitur hoc erit in statu verè regio modò is Rex etiam jus non habet impeditum It is their office and to them it belongs to make leagues or pactions to end a warre to whom the right of making warre belongs for every one ought to be a moderator in his owne affaire from whence it followes that in every publique warre it is their right to make warre or peace which have the right to exercise the soveraigne power therfore it is the Kings right only to make warre or peace in his Kingdom so that the Kings right be not hindred in the exercise of it that is by infancy imprisonment or the like infirmities aforesaid this is the judgement of a most learned man what fruit then can be expected of or from a Treaty with his Majesty dureing his restreint or imprisonment certainly none nay if his Majesty should grant what they desire dureing his imprisonment and being inforced thereunto for his enlargement what validity were there in such a grant certainly none it being a cleere truth as that great Lawyer Bracton observes d Bract. l. 2 c. 5 sect 14. f. 17. Quod in nullo casu valet donatio cùm quis fuerit in Prisona vel quia hoc facit per coactionem quia potestatem sui non habet nec eorum quae sua esse debent potestatem habebit sicut ille qui in servitute fuerit nihil possidere poterit quia possidetur ita nec ille qui possidetur ab hostibus vel detentus fuerit a concession or grant is in no case valid so long as a man is in prison where he is in prison by force and not by right where he is inforced to make such grant because he hath not then the power of himselfe and having not power of himselfe he hath not power of any thing that is his for as he which is in servitude can possesse nothing because he is possest so neither can he which is in the possession of his enemies or deteined by them in prison neither can we from any rule of policie expect that whatsoever the King is inforced to grant by any restraint or coertion if the grant were in it selfe good the thing could be of any continuance since the nature of all grants and accords is to be voluntary therefore Clement Edmonds in his observations upon Caesars Commentaries well noteth e Clem. Edm. p. 629. That no accord made by force can be truely kept and Machiavel plainly excuses the breach of them saying f Mach. Discourse upon Livy pag. 629. that it is no dishonour to violate those promises grants or accords which by force a man is constreined to make and that promises or accords extorted regarding the publique wil be broken without the disgrace of him that breaks them upon this ground did the Estates g of France refuse to submit to that accord tréaty of Peace made between K. Edward of England and John King of France who was taken at the battell of Poitiers and brought by King Edward Prisoner into England where the said treaty and accord was made during his imprisonment upon the like ground did King Francis the first of that name King of France avoid his treaty and accord made which Charles the Emperor whilst he was Prisoner at Madrill in Spaine by which treaty he was obliged to grant unto the Emperor all his right in the Dutchy of Burgundy which after he was set at liberty he refused to doe because that accord was made during his restreint By these authorities presidents I conclude that it is necessary that the King should be set at liberty before he can be in a condition to grant or treat of any thing concerning the publique order for the good of the subject The place where the treaty must be is also of consideration for the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament can treat with the King in no other place then in the Lords house at

hominem to convince any of that side concerning this truth But I desire that it may be remembred that it is proved before to be the duty of every loyall Subject to arrest Traitors and suppresse Rebells and withall that the King is a close prisoner that all addresse to him is blocked up by Vote and Ordinance that he cannot send his Commissions abroad that it is impossible that he should that per legem nemo tenetur ad impossibilia it being impossible to obtain the Kings Commission to chastise Traitors suppresse Rebels it is as justifiable for the preservation of the King Kingdom to raise arms in this case as it is in case a forein enemy were landed and ready to possesse one of the strongest holds in the Kingdome and the people within it should make resistance against that enemy without the Kings Commission or that one seeing a conspirator ready to stab the King and should prevent the stroak before he asked the Kings authority to preserve him from murder which if he should stay to do it might be too late to save his lifes for as the Poet saith Ignis ab exigua nascens extinguitur unda Ovid. Sed postquam crevit volitantque ad sidera flammae Vix putei fontes fluvii succurrere possint Therefore we must not expect to see the King at Liberty to grant his Commissions before they act for the preservation of the King and Kingdome but must make a vertue of necessity alwaies takeing this for an authentique Maxime in Law Quod id semper justum est quod omnino est necessarium It is necessary the Kingdom should be preserved it is therfore lawful it matters not which way But the case of those that shall engage in this warre will be much better The certainty of the Royall line saith that great Lawyer * Hobarts Reports f. 332. the Lord Hobart is the peace of the realme The most excellent Prince of Wales Qui coruscat radiis Regis censetur una persona cum Rege as the Law saith m 8. Rep. Cook the Princes case 21. Ed. 3. Fitzh Praerog 16. who is the perfect Image of his Father and shines with the glistering beams of Kingly Majesty and is esteemed one person with the King n Stat. 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. 1. H. 5. f. 7. and who ought to enjoy all the antient Prerogatives of the Crowne whose death to imagine compasse or conspire is as high a treason as it is the Kings o Br. Treason pl. 27. and against whom to fight he coming in aid of the King p Stamf. pl. de Coron f. 1. I. his father or to fight against those that shall assist him therein is also High Treason Hee I say is sufficient Commission in himselfe had he not the Kings Commission but to avoid all scruples he hath the Kings warrant and authority and issues out Commissions to such as require them in his own name as Generalissimo under his Royall Father of the three Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland to all such as defire them whereby all that scruple may be satisfied in the Justice and formality of their ingagements though there needs no such wary caution for mens undertakeings in so just and necessary a war unlesse it be that they desire to support this rule Abundans cautela non nocet which speakes more of curiosity then of necessity wherein not onely the safety of the Royall person of his sacred Majesty their Royall Soveraigne the preservation of his Crowne and dignity wherein all the peoples protection and safety is included the maintenance of the Lawes of the Land the Liberties and properties of the free people of England is so much concerned Nay I may justly say the health welfare and being of three famous Kingdomes lies at stake they being now in a way of ruine and destruction But to leave it without scruple that if the Prince had not Commission from the King yet both he and all the Subjects of England in his assistance may lawfully take armes in defence and preservation of the Kings cause and person and for his redemption forth of prison and this I shall prove both by sufficient presidents and the most uncontrollable Lawes that are We read in the Chronicles of England q Daniels Chron. p. 152. Sir Rich. Bakers Chron. p. 86. That Anno Christi Incarnationis 1256. in the 49. yeare of his raigne King Hen. 3. of that name King of England and Prince Edward his eldest sonne and heire apparent to the Crowne afterwards King Edward the first were taken Prisoners by the douze Peers or the twelve Governours of the Kingdome and their adherents at the battell of Lewis in Sussex King Hen. himselfe was conveyed by them Prisoner to the Tower of London and Prince Edward to the Castle of Hereford the King remaining still a Prsoner the Prince made an escape forth of the Castle of Hereford and in Wales and the parts adiacent raised an army and at Evesham in Worcestershire fought with these douze Peeres the chiefe whereof was Simon Monfort Earle of Leicester who thinking to make their party the stronger thereby declared for the King took him out of the Tower and brought him to the battaile but kept him as a Prisoner But the Prince declaring also for the King his Father the people rise in armes with him and defeated the Earles army killing him in the place with many others of his confederates and redeemed the person of his Royall Father from his imprisonment restored him to his Crowne who enjoyed it in peace afterwards till his death the fact of the Prince was approved of by the Law but those that fought against him were declared traitors and Rebells by act of Parliament r Dictum de Kenilworth an 51. H. 3. and paid their fines and forfeitures The like president we find in King Hen. 6. his time which is thus Anno Domini 1459. King Hen. the 6. was taken Prisoner Å¿ Martins Chron. p. p. 258 259 260. at the battell of Northampton by Edward Earle of March eldest sonne to Richard Duke of York afterwards King Edward the fourth and by his then assistant Nevell the great Earl of Warwick the King was conveyed as a prisoner to the Tower of London and afterwards inlarged from thence and committed to the custody of the Duke of Norfolk Queen Margaret wife to King Hen. 6. and his eldest son Prince Edward levied an Army overthrew the Duke of York at Wakefield and afterwards defeated the Duke of Norfolk to whom the King was a prisoner redeemed the Person of the King and re-established him in his Throne notwithstanding that neither of them were armed with either of the Kings Commissions for the doing thereof these presidents we have of the like undertakings many others I could produce out of the Annalls of France and Scotland if desire of brevity did not prevent me but both these and all others of this nature are

Vicegerent of God he may give and deliver to every man that which of right belongs unto him It is not onely a most presumptuous offence against God and his Lawes a most injurious violation to the Lawes of this Realme nay even to the Lawes of nature a most barbarous and unparallell'd affront to and usurpation upon the Royall and sacreo Majesty but the most prodigious and destructive mischiefe to the generall peace and publique safety of his Majesties Dominions and the people inhabiting in them to imprison the King to detain him in prison under strong military guards to deny a personall Treaty with his Majesty for the setting of the Kingdomes though his Majesty hath often sought it and to vote an order that none of his Subjects shall make addresse unto him upon paine to incurre the punishment of High Treason what is this but to displace Gods Substitute to rob the Almighty of the honour of appointing his owne Deputy What is it but to subvert and overthrow the antient and fundamentall Lawes of England to take away and utterly to destroy the Liberty and property of the people of England to strip and rob them of the Kings protection the onely meanes to preserve them their families and posterities in a desired peace and an assured plenty to the end that they may pillage and plunder them of their goods disseize them of their estates and Lands deprive them of their offices and promotions imprison their persons nay take away their lives at pleasure without impunity of the King o Bract. l. 4. c. 24. sect 1. Qui solam habet jurisdictionem ut delinquentes puniat castiget as Braction for good Law assures us Who hath the onely jurisdiction to punish and chastise such Delinquents and to protect his good people from such violence and rapine or without the reprehension of the antient and established Lawes of England which I am too much afraid they intend to lay aside and subvert and never more to observe as being oppositely contrary to all their actions and purposes What then is there no legall remedy to prevent the Kingdomes destruction Yes there is and if there were no more to be said in it or for it then that which these men laid downe for a Maxime to ground all their rebellious practises upon falsly supposing causes of misgovernment in the King which the Kingdome now too sensibly feels under them raising of jealousies and fomenting of feare where no feare was yea even of the utter ruine and destruction of the Kingdome by the King as they then falsly alledged but by their owne actions have assured us will follow from themselves this their owne Maxime I say might serve q Declar. that a Kingdome must not be left without a means to preserve it self This mysterious rule were sufficient to warrant the whole Kingdome in case they will not admit the King to a personall Treaty and restore him to his Rights Prerogatives and Power of protecting his people to whom as a learned Authour in the Lawes of England observes r Gervas Tilburiensis in praefat ad Hen. 2. Ab ipso Deo singulariter ost credila cura subditorum Even from God himselfe the care of his Subjects are credited and committed to rise up in Armes to suppresse and subdue them but there are knowne Lawes of England and sufficient Presidents to warrant such a proceeding and without this manner of acting the work will never be done but the Kingdome must ruine Salus populi est suprema Lex the welfare of the people is the supreme Law it 's their owne Maxime and we agree to it but withall we say with that learned Sir Edw. Cook * Cooks Reports Beverl case ubi suprà Rex est caput salus reipublicae à capite bona valetudo transit in omnes The King is the head and health of the Common-wealth from whom all welfare is derived to the people therefore the welfare of the King is the chiefe Law to preserve him to serve him which is the health of all all men by nature are bound to it as is well observed by learned ſ Gerv. Tilbur ubi supra Oportet Regibus servire non in conservandis tantùm dignitatibus per quas gloria regiae Majestatis elucet verumetiam mundanarum facultatum copiis quae eis sui status ratione contingunt All Subjects ought to serve their King not only in maintaining those dignities by which the glory of the Kingly Majesty doth appeare but also in the strength and abundance of all those worldly faculties and powers which belong unto him by reason of their degrees Illa enim illustrant haec subveniunt the former do serve to make him famous but the latter ought to be aiding and assisting unto him saith he we ought not only that are subjects to the King to pitty him and to speak well of him to honor him with our lips and words only but we ought to honor him with our substance assist him with our armes for the recovery of his rights and of his liberty and for the subduing and suppressing of his enemies and of those that traiterously rise up and rebell against him The law t Plow Com. c. 319. doth not make the Subject greater then the King nor the servant then the Master the Law here compares the King to a Master a subject to a servant yet all men know that the Prerogative of the King over his Subject is larger and greater then the praeeminence of a Master over his servant even as much as the Law of Nature hath precedency of the civill Law or Law of Nations the Allegiance due from a Subject to the King being due u Calvins case ubi supra by the Law of Nature the duty that a servant owes to his Master being but grounded either upon his owne contract the Law of his country or at most the Law of Nations The duty then that a Subject owes to his King is more obligatory to him then that which a servant or a slave owes his Master and the Law doth more exact it at his hands and justifie him in the performance of it The law of England tells us that w 35. H. 6. f. 50 51. a servant by the Law may justifie the battery or beating a man in defence of his Master and to take bowes and arrowes or other invasive weapons x 9. Ed. 4. f. 28. 19. H. 6 f. 31 nay a servant may justifie the beating of any man for the defence of his Masters goods Nay yet more y 21. H. 7. f. 39. 3. Ed. 3. Fits Coron pl. 303. 305. 26. ass pl. 23. a servant may justifie by the Law the killing of any man in defence of the life of his Master of his house or goods Doth the Law protect a servant in his Masters defence to performe this duty and shall it not a Subject in the performance of his towards his King yes surely à