Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	stephen_n	5,689	5	11.2407	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37464	The works of the Right Honourable Henry, late L. Delamer and Earl of Warrington containing His Lordships advice to his children, several speeches in Parliament, &c. : with many other occasional discourses on the affairs of the two last reigns / being original manuscripts written with His Lordships own hand.; Works. 1694	Warrington, Henry Booth, Earl of, 1652-1694.	1694 (1694)	Wing D873; ESTC R12531	239,091	488

disposition and temper not to prescribe or necessitate them to any particular form And then consequently it will follow that what lawful Right or Power every King claims is by reason of the constitution of the Government and not from Nature If there be any such thing as this Natural Right it must be inherent in all lawful Kings for if some of them have it why not all of them And if any have every King else has the same And if this be so where was the Natural Right of King Stephen and Henry II both born out of the Realm their Fathers Forraigners and at the same time there were others who by right of descent were nearer to the Crown than either of them It was not this natural right that invented the coronation oath neither is it by reason of it that every King of England is bound to take it before they can require any of their Subjects to do them homage and fealty If there be any such thing as this natural right then it will follow that all the Kings of the earth but one are Usurpers because this natural right must arise from Primogeniture and there can be but one man at the same time who is the rightful Heir and Successor to Adam and consequently all others that pretend to be Kings usurp upon his right So that this notion of a natural right pulls down the thing it pretends to set up When a Common-wealth is changed into a Monarchy is it this natural right that makes him King who is first set up Or when a Family is extinct that has been long in possession of the Crown and the Body of the People chuse a King from amongst themselves is it by this natural right that he attains to this dignity But as a multitude of other absurdities would follow upon it so the Apostle puts the thing out of dispute when he says That Kings are the Ordinance of man And here I will leave Kings to resolve which is their best title whether this natural right or the constitution of the Government Differences and disputes do but too frequently arise betwixt the King and People and therefore I will tell you what I conceive to be advisable when such ill humours are afloat Consider whose demands do best suit the common good For by a serious and impartial examination of that you will be able to discover who is in the right For if you follow this rule exactly it will not misguide you And take this Observation along with you When the State is distempered you will find for the most part if not always that the cause of offence proceeds from the Court. And the reason of it is very evident Because so long as English men injoy their rights they have no occasion to quarrel with the King for they need nothing else But Kings as they are always think they are too short in power and those that are about them are too apt to incourage those desires in Kings because the more absolute he is the more able he is to gratifie his Creatures Now in this case let not the opinion of the Clergy govern you for none are blinder Guides than they and no one thing hath done more mischief in this Nation than their politicks If you happen to be on the prevailing side use your advantage with Moderation This you are obliged to do as you are a good Christian and self-interest pleads for it for since the events of all things are uncertain there may come another turn and then in reason you may expect fair quarter from them whom you treated so well in the day of your power If your Party come by the worst remember these two things First don't think the worse of your Cause by reason of the Success Neither make any mean submission nor do any other sordid thing to get out of your trouble use only lawful and honest means for if you are in the right sooner or later it will prevail and then in the end you will come off with double honour 2. If you are examined as a criminal confess nothing only argue against the insufficiency of what is objected against you For First It is an argument of your courage and resolution Secondly By confessing any thing you help them to evidence against your self and others for you furnish them with time and place and then it is an easie matter for a Knight of the Post to give such an evidence against you as is not easily disproved Thirdly It 's very seldom that you will meet with better usage though you confess never so much unless you will turn accuser of others and give evidence against them which is so base a thing that I would advise you to undergoe any extremity rather than do that For as your own Party will for ever abhor you and your Memory so the other side will despise and slight you as soon as you have done their business and all that you can do for the future will never wipe off such a blot If you are concerned in the prosecution of any publick Criminal let your proceedings be tempered with Justice and Moderation For I have seen it fatal to several who have strained and forced the Law to the destruction of others yet in the end fell into the Pit they digged for others and perished by their own Law When the State is so sore that it makes a Man an Offender for a Word and the times are so evil that the prudent keep silence Then are all meetings to be avoided save only such as are upon real business recreation or for Neighbourly Visits and those too in as small numbers as may be for Spyes and Informers will thrust themselves into Consults and Cabals and of all others will say the hottest and most violent things in hopes that believing that all proceeds from the fervency of their Zeal you may thereby be induced to say something that will bring you within the compass of the Law Or if you have the discretion or good hap to say nothing yet your very being in the same Company where such things have been said or uttered may either make you criminal or at best hand involve you into a great deal of trouble without bringing any advantage to the Cause you do assert And besides he that herds in Cabals must implicitely adhere to the opinion of that Company for by asserting his own Judgment in opposition to theirs though he be never so much in the right he runs the hazard of being reproached for a Spye or Deserter As you ought not to refuse any danger when a proportionable advantage will thereby accrue to the Cause you would support so in such sore times you ought to avoid the doing of any thing unnecessary hot and provoking unless where you or the Cause will reap benefit thereby For young men either through the heat of their years or the instigation of more crafty people are too often prevailed upon to do many things that in

affected to prevail with the King to adjourn prorogue and dissolve Parliaments when they were doing thi●●● of the greatest moment for the Nation and on purpose to defeat those very matters they had in hand If he will adventure to do these things whilst he is a Subject what may we not justly expect from him if he happen to be King But notwithstanding all this some will say That the Word of God will not allow us to put by the next Heir to the Crown be he what he will because by Moses 's Law the next of Blood must inherit Truly I am for that too when we are in a good Breed but as our Case stands I cannot yield to it But under favour I conceive that this Text also obliges no otherwise than according to the constitution of every Government for if the Mosaick Law be our Direction then the Duke will be King of a third part of these Dominions before his Brother is dead for by that Law the Eldest was only to have a double Portion and no more and then I pray what Absurdities will follow upon this Doctrine But it is most plain that this Law related only to private Families and had no regard to the setting up or pulling down of Kings for when the Law was given the Children of Israel had no King nor any prospect of it and it was several Ages after that before they petitioned God for a King and Saul was the first and the Practice after Saul puts the Matter out of Controversie for when Saul was dead David was anointed though there remained several of the Seed of Saul After David Solomon was anointed tho' Adonijah was his elder Brother and his Mother the honester Woman of the two When Solomon was dead Jeroboam rent away ten Tribes from Rehoboam and so on But these Instances are sufficient to prove that the Israelites did not believe that they were obliged to chuse him for their King that was next of Blood And if they might do this who had the presence of God amongst them and his immediate Direction more than any other People certainly then we cannot be said to sin against the Light And besides in all private Families there is care taken to preserve the continuance of them by disinheriting the eldest Son when it is perceived that he will ruine the Estate if he be ever possessed of it but to this some will answer That it is seldom seen that ever any Family prospered long where the right Heir was set aside I think so too when the right Heir is deprived of his Birthright for no just cause but we find that several Families have continued many Generations after that the right Heir has been rejected and yet tho' an ill Fate should always attend that Family where this is done yet is it not better to continue it two or three Successions longer tho' with a certainty of Ruine at last rather than suffer it to come into the Hands of him who will in a few years perhaps months bring it to nothing You cannot but have heard of Maud the Empress who was Daughter to Henry I. what Trouble and Bloodshed she caused in England in the days of K. Stephen and this is often insisted on to shew what evil Consequences there will follow upon secluding the Duke It is true she made a great bustle but she had that to pretend which the Duke has not for the Nation had taken an Oath to her in the life-time of her Father and from that she might presume very much but the Conditions were not performed upon which the Oath was taken and therefore the Obligation was void and the People were at liberty to chuse whom they pleased But besides whether the Duke get the Crown or no much Blood must be spilt for we must either fight or burn and whether it be not better to exclude the Duke by a Law and adventure our Lives in defence of that and all our Laws and Religion into the bargain than to let him come to the Crown and at best hand hang up Thousands of worthy Men if he do not extirpate their Name and Families but to be sure all those who gave their Votes to the Bill nay all that have declared their Approbation of it and all their Friends and Relations are destin'd by him and the Pope for Destruction if not all them who voted to elect them Members of Parliament And how far this will extend let any man consider Sir I am now come to your last Doubt which is How far we ought to obey the Duke if he happen to be King and there be no Law I mean no Act of Parliament to exclude him This is truly a tender place and ought to be handled only in the Parliament House but because I dare trust you in this captious Age I will lay before you some things that I think cannot be denied It is a known Maxim in our Law That protectio trahit subjectionem subjectio trahit protectionem These are plain words and are of as clear a sense that is not equivocal or capable of a double construction and I take them to be the mutual Bonds between a King and his People and one introduces the other and they cannot be separated for if Protection draws after it Subjection and Obedience incites Protection then whether or no can there be Protection where there is no Subjection or can there be Obedience where there is no Protection and then if it be not done on the one part how can it be required from the other for if the King shall go about to destroy the Government or take away our Properties does he not disown us and deny us his Protection and then I pray what Obedience is due to him that regards us not Or if the Subjects shall not obey the King's Writs or other Commands which by Law he may require from them do not they disown him and forbid him to concern himself with them and then I pray what has he to do but to do to them as they have done to him And this will be the case should the Duke being a Papist come to the Crown We see already that his Inclinations are for our Destruction and besides his Religion obliges him to it and therefore what Protection can we hope to have from him whose Conscience and Desire are united for our Ruine for it is not in the power of a Popish King to preserve us for if he will protect us and the Pope command our Destruction he must either violate his own Conscience or give us up to Ruine So dangerous a thing it is to depend upon the Conscience of a Papist who cannot be tyed or obliged by any Oaths or Obligations and it is safer to have a Protestant King tho' he has no Morality rather than to live under a Popish King tho' he be the best Man living Altho' I have heard many say How came it to pass that we retain'd our Properties

the Laws have been more frequently stiled or called the Laws of the Land than the King's Laws and therefore if the Denomination of them declares the right the King will be found to have no very strong Title But if they had constantly been called the King's Laws yet that is a very Sandy Foundation to build a power upon of suspending and dispensing with them at his pleasure Now if they are the King's Laws then he only made them but if the Lords and Commons also had their share in the contriving and making of them then that Advice and Consent of theirs gives them such a Title to an Interest in them that they cannot be changed or altered no more than they could be enacted without their Consent for nothing can destroy a thing but the same Power that made it and therefore unless the King alone be the same power that enacted the Laws they cannot be properly called his Laws so as that at his will and pleasure he may dispense with them But if the Laws were made and enacted by him only yet it does not follow that the King may dispense with the Laws when to him it shall seem meet for there is no King so absolute but may be limited Thus we see the Eastern Kings who were as absolute as any Princes upon Earth yet were limited and restrained by their own Promises and Acts. Even that great King Abasuerus who had Ruled over 127 Provinces when he had made a Decree he could not revoke change or dispense with it for the Writing which is written in the King's Name and sealed with the King's Ring may no man reverse Esth 8.8 no nor the King himself which is clear from that famous case of the Decree to destroy the Jews to reverse or suspend which it 's plain he wanted not Inclination and if ever would then have exerted his full power for he was prick'd on by all the Spurs and Inducements that could be in any case yet all he could do was to give the Jews leave to defend themselves therefore if those Heathen Kings were so bound by their Word and Laws of the Country it 's reasonable to suppose that Christian Princes should be as much tyed up by their Words and the Laws and if the King be bound by his Word and the Laws which he shall not pass then is he under the same obligation as if he had actually given his assent to every Law that is now in force because he has given his Word and taken an Oath to preserve and maintain all the Laws And it seems something strange to hear of a power to dispense with Penal Laws there being so late a Judgment against it the late King in Parliament disclaiming it and the whole Case is very remarkable for during the interval of a Parliament he grants a Declaration of Indulgence and at the meeting of the Parliament tells them Nothing of force or constraint brought him to make that Confession but the Truth was too evident to be denied he had done it and would stand by it and should be very angry with any man that should offer to disswade him against it Yet though he had thus braved the Parliament within ten days openly in Parliament he disclaimed it and confessed that he could not dispense with a General Law and had ordered the Seal to be pulled from the Declaration Surely the Case must be very plain that the King after he had justified the thing so solemnly yet should so suddenly eat his words and confess himself in the wrong and to that Parliament too which had almost unhinged the Government to please him which no doubt would have complied with him in it had it been less than to lift the Government quite off of the Hooks And indeed to say that the King can dispense with Penal Laws is nothing less than to dissolve the Government and resolve all into the King's Will and Pleasure for our Parliaments are then but a piece of Pageantry or Puppet-show because in a word the King can annihilate all that they shall do in many Ages all the Provisions that they shall make for the Good of the Nation are but airy notions and painted shews they are and they are not just as the King pleases Now if the King can do this to what purpose have several things been done what means the Statute de Prerog Regis 17 Ed. II for certainly it 's a thing of a much higher and transcendent nature to have power to dispense with all Penal Laws than to have the Preheminence of the Subjects in some particular cases only That he has it not in all originally is plain from that of Appeals for in case of Murder the Appeal at the suit of the Party was to be tryed before the Indictment which was the King's Suit and this was so till Henry VII's time when it was alter'd by Act of Parliament and this carries in it a great probability that there is something in England that is his Superiour but Bracton and Fleta say That Rex habet superieres in regno nempe Deum Legem Parliamentum Nay the Custom of the Mannor shall bind the King Statutes to prevent Fraud shall bind the King The King cannot give the Penalty of any Statute to any Subject he cannot pardon a common Nusance how manifestly preposterous is it then to suppose that the King can dispense with Penal Laws and is restrain'd in these and multitudes of other things of the like nature It has always been taken for Law that where the Subject has an Interest the King cannot pardon and therefore he cannot pardon one found guilty upon an Appeal at the Suit of the Party But if he can dispense with all Penal Laws he may also pardon where the Subject has an Interest and so consequently dispense with all Laws whatever and then no man's Title to his Estate is good nor can any man settle his Estate securely for Fines and Recoveries being now the means used in Settlements and those being directed by particular Acts of Parliament if therefore the King for some particular necessary Reasons shall think fit to suspend those Laws all the Settlements in England will be strangely confused and of how excellent a use upon occasion it may be to dispense with those Statutes which direct Fines and Recoveries is very easie to comprehend Now this power of dispensing seems to be of a very late date for Fortescue who wrote in Henry VI's time tells us That the Kings of England cannot alter nor change the Laws of his Realm at his pleasure and the reason he gives of it is because he governs his People by Power not only royal but also politick which is by such Laws as they themselves desire and gives a very pregnant Reason why the King cannot alter nor change the Laws because the Laws of Men are holy And he shews likewise That this Restraint is no diminution to his Power but does rather aggrandize him it