Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n john_n king_n normandy_n 5,766 5 11.9981 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A31558 An answer to the Scotch papers delivered in the House of Commons in reply to the votes of both houses of the Parliament of England, concerning the disposall of the Kings person, as it was spoken when the said papers were read in the House / by Thomas Chaloner. Chaloner, Thomas, 1595-1661. 1646 (1646) Wing C1801; ESTC R223270 6,754 18

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

father that hath no son nor no man a husband that hath no wife so no man can bee said to bee protected that is not withall thereby subjected And since without such protection every man may kill him and destroy him It seemes to stand with no proportion of Justice that a man should bee protected in Life Limbe or estate by any law that will not subject himselfe to that Law It cannot bee denyed but that there is a twofold subjection legall and locall the legall subjection is due from every subject to his naturall Prince the locall from any Forreigner to that Prince or State where his person doth reside And this though it be onely pro tempore and the other during life Yet it doth for the time totally obstruct the operation of the other subjection So that no King can command any subject of his living out of his Kingdome but such subject of his is to bee disposed of by the sole Authority of that supreame power where hee makes his Residence And since the question is onely about the person of a King of Scotland for I conceive they will not take upon them any Authority to dispose of the Person of a King of England I doe affirme that if a King of Scotland should have come into ENGLAND before the Union of both these Kingdomes hee had beene instantly a subject of England and his person to bee disposed of by the sole Authority of the Lawes of England For either wee must take him as a King or a Subject since betwixt them two there is no medium as a King wee cannot take him unlesse wee should commit Treason against our naturall Prince and subject our selves to any but to him it being most certaine that there is the same relation betwixt the King and his Subjects as betwixt the husband and his wife and as no man can be said to be a husband but to his own Wife So no man can be said to be a King but to his owne subjects and therefore we cannot admit of any Regality in the person of a King of Scotland comming into England unlesse at the same time to the same person we should confesse subjection For that it is most true that as none can be said to be Rex sine Regno so no man can be said to bee Rex but in Regno Therefore if a King of Scotland comming as afore said into England if against the Lawes of England hee doe offend by those Laws of England he must be tryed and by none other For ubi quis delinquit ibi punietur And it is most sure that we have disposed of the persons of Kings of Scotland comming into England both living and dead And if wee may dispose of the person of a King of Scotland without the consent of the Kingdome of SCOTLAND much more may wee dispose of the person of a King of ENGLAND hee being now in England without their privity or advice But if they have any power to dispose of him it is because they are either our Masters or our Fellows if they be our Masters let them shew the time when they conquerd us or the price for which we were sold unto them If they be our Fellows why come they not to our Parliaments why contribute they not to our necessities But as it is apparent that they being two distinct Kingdomes governed by two distinct Lawes so they ought not to intermeddle one with anothers interest but to content themselves with what doth naturally appertaine to each of them severally There is no doubt to be made but that every Husband hath as great an interest in the person of his wife as any Subject hath in the person of his Soveraigne and yet a man may lose that interest by some act of his Wives as if she commit Felony Murder or Treason the Law disposeth of her person and her husband cannot claime any right so much as to her dead body so fareth it with a King who by going out of his Kingdome or by being taken prisoner by his enemies his Subjects lose the interest they had in him and he is at the disposall of his enemies Iure belli Iohn King of England was cited to appeare at Paris to answer for the death of Arthur Plantagenet Duke of Britaine whom hee had murthered the State of England would not let him goe as holding it a great indignity and incongruity that a King of England should answer for any thing at Paris right or wrong The French answered that they cited him not as King of England but as Duke of Normandy as King of England they acknowledged to have nothing to doe with him he was in that respect without them and beyond them but as Duke of Normandy which he held in fee of the Crown of France he owed fealty and allegiance for the same to the Crowne of France and therefore ought to answer The English replied that if the Duke of Normandy did goe the King of England must goe and if the Duke of Normandy were beheaded they knew well enough what would become of the King of England Upon large debate hereof by all the Lawyers in France it was resolved that if Iohn had been in Normandy at the time of his summons he ought to have appeared but he being Extra jurisdictionem Regni Franciae at the time of his summons and insra jurisdictionem Regni Angliae though legally he were a subject of France yet loeally he being in England his summons was voyd and hee forfeied nothing by his non-appearance I will onely urge one argument more deduced from a knowne maxime of the Law not of England but of Scotland also which the Commissioners of Scotland the other day at the Conference did cite themselves in my opinion much against themselves and that is this Quando Duo I●●a in●o Duo Begna sayth a great Lawyer concurrant in unae persona aequum est ac si essent in diversis which is no more then this when two kingdomes held by two distinct Titles doe concur in one and the same person it is all one as if they were in two distinct persons I suppose here is our very case here are two kingdomes England and Scotland held by two distinct Titles which doe both concur in one Person in the person of King CHARLES it is all one sayth this rule and maxime of the Law as if they were under two severall persons why then put the case that there were one King of England and another of Scotland should the State of Scotland have any thing to doe to dispose of the person of a King of England he being in England I thinke you will say they could not Sir I am sorry that our brethren have moved this question at this time for all questions make debates and debates differences and this were a time for brothers to reconcile differences rather then to make them we have now lived 44 yeeres both under two Princes and in all this time