Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	king_n	parliament_n	writ_n	1,771	5	9.5540	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76829	Resolved upon the question· Or A question resolved concerning the right which the King hath to Hull, or any other fort or place of strength for the defence of the kingdome. Wherein is likewise proved, that neither the setling of the militia as tis done by the Parliament, nor the keeping of Hull by Sir Iohn Hotham, nor any other act that the Parliament have yet done is illegall, but necessary, just, and according to that power which the law hath given them. By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1642 (1642)	Wing B3162; Thomason E119_4; ESTC R10865	11,393	18

but he must praerogare too asking the consent of the Parliament Besides though what they doe cannot be binding by way of Act without his consent yet by way of Ordinance it may in term Micael 21. E. 3. fol. 60. b. In a case touching the exemption of the Abby of Saint Edmons Berry from the Bishop of Norwich there was an Ordinance made by the Parliament without the King and if you turne to the booke you shall finde these words in the judgement fuit ordeigne which you may read likewise in Seldens title of honour But if I should admit that there were no law to prove their Act legall yet sure I am there is good reason for it As first from the words of the writ nostro quibusdam arduis rebus et gotiis urgentibus statu et diffentionem regni nostri Angliae concernentibus which words rebus arduis et urgentibus negotiis proves they have power upon urgent occasions to do that which at the time of their doing it they had no law to enable them thereto for their calling by writ is authorty to enable them to sit in Parliament and then their consent is law enough to binde us and therefore if the Parliament doe grant Subsidies by way of Ordinance and the Kings hand is never put to it yet it is sufficient enough to force a Paiment from us because the Countries are bound by Indentures seald to the Sheriffe at the time of their election to stand to what they shall consent to in Parliament whom they have chosen but by way of Act6 it cannot force us because it cannot be pleaded as an Act but that upon a demurrer it will be overruled Now if the Parliament could do nothing but what they had a law to enable them to do what need the Country seal Indentures to wand to what they doe when as that law the Parliament went by would force them to obey it without that waxen ceremony Besides if the Parliament had not power to do an Act to the doing of which there was no law at the time of their summons to enable them then what need a Parliament be cald at any time for then any inferiour Court had had as much authority upon the matter as that but I conceave necessity is the law they are to look at fot they need not deferre the doing of that which is for the Kingdomes good for want of a law or a president to steere by for if in times past the grave law-makers had not done things according to their profound judgement and as they saw fit without Presidents how should any presidents have been left to future ages and to this present Parliament but surely they did and surely this Parliament may unlesse any one can prove the power of Parliament to be abated and lesse now then in former times I agree if a Parliament should assume to themselves that power to sway every thing and never aske the Kings consent it were an abridgement of that prerogative the King hath in him by law but there are many humble Petitions full of submission and alleagiance to his Majesty that can prove this Parliament not guilty were they not adjudged Traytors without tryall But again if the King forsake them and deny to passe those Bills they bring him for the good of the Kingdome I think necessity enables nay commands them to doe it without him I shall prove it all by one example the like I hope shall not bee heard of in our dayes hath no man heard of a king deposed by a Parliament Surely yes and what law had they for it that did it besides convenience and the common good and surely they did it without the Kings consent too or at least he consented whether he would or no for if he had had an absolute power of denying and by that could have frustrated their endeavours he would never have consented to his own deposing which proves strongly that they may do that which is for the good of the kingdom without the King if he refuse to joyne with them But this I desire not and the Parliament intend it not as they have declared themselves in severall Declarations and Petitions and I hope the most ignorantly violent of the vulgars and the greatest zealots of any Sect what ever will wish so much good to our kingdome as that it may long be governd by this our gracious King Charles and his posterity and that he may soon be free from those cruell engagements and inconveniences which the malignant party hath drawne him into This is my heart prayer onely I used that great argument to prove a lesser to argue a mejori ad minus for omn● majus continet in se minus FINIS

I shall not raise arguments to prove that Ligeance is due to the King in his naturall capacity as it was adiugded in 6. Iacobi neither shall I mention how that the words of the letters pattents of qeniztion be that the Patentee shall behave himselfe tanquam verus et fidelis ligeus domini regis which proves that ligeance is due to the King in his naturall capacity for all this is not to my purpose but because the Kings Majesty himselfe whom I never think on but with reverence hath made use of the last argument and others may and doe urge the former I shall sert downe the definition of the Kings politipue capacity out of which the reader himselfe thgogh but of slender Iudgment may have reason sufficient to answer all the arguments hither to which seeme to be of such force The definition of it is this it is a body framed by the polocy of man invisible immortall not subject to any infirmity nonnage or infancy so t is definid in Calvins case And who cannot gather a reason from hence sufficient to deny the last Consequence and say that though treason commited against the King by keeping of those sorts from him be treason against his naturall capacity yet it doth not follow that he hath them it hath capacity for the King hath but two capacities his naturall and his pollitique now according to the definition of the latter their can be no treason committed against that cappacity it being an inanimate and invisible body therfore needs must indictments conclude the treason to be against the natuerall capacity but if that should bee a good consequence that therefore he holds them in that capacity then the next consequence would be that hee might sell them when hee please which is directly against the Law as was resolved by the whole Parliament in Ed. the thirds time at which Parliament King Iohn his resigning his Crowne and Kingdome of England to the Pope being discussed upon mature deliberation the Lords both Spirituall and Temporall and all the Commons resolved with one accord that no King can put his Realme nor his people under such subjection without their assent and contrary to his oath The next argument may be urged is this if immediately upon the death of any King the next heire is compleatly absolutely King without any essentiall ceremony or act to be done expost facto then hee that comes in as next heire hath it by discent and not by way of trust But when a King dieth immediately the next heire is King without any especiall ceremony ergo For the Minor thus I prove it it is expressly said in Calvins case that the King holds the Kingdome of England by birthright inherent by discent from the bloud Royall whereupon succession doth attend and therefore t is usually said to the King his Heires and Successors where the word Heires is first named in primo Maria Dyer 92. a. t is expressly said that the customes are annext to the Crowne and the King hath an inheritance in them In the first yeare of King Iames his raigne if I mistake not before his Majesties Coronation Watson and Clarke Seminarie Preists were of opinion that his Majestie was not compleat and absolute King before his Coronation Now if that were not Law the minor must needs fall for then though a right to the Crowne discended yet it was in the power of others to make him compleatly King by turning his possession in Law as it were into an actuall possession or else to hinder him from ragining But you shall find it resolved by all the Iudges of England then being con rary to the opinion of those Preists that presently by the descent his M●jesty was compleatly and absolutly King without that cerimony and that Corronation was but a Roy●ll ornament and outward sollemnisation of the discent for example You sh●ll find that Henry the sixt was not crownd untill the eight yeare of h●● Raigne and yet divers men before his Coronation were attain ed of treason which clearly proves he was King before that cerimony was performed for if he had not beene King how could any man h●ve beene attainted of treason for treason is a breach of allegeance and if there had been n● King there could be no allegeance due and ●f no ligeance had been due no bre●ch of it could be made and then no treason and this is made manifest by the reports of the 5. 6. 7. years of the same King which you may read at large in Cooks reports lib. 7. fol. 11. a. Another argument to prove that when any King of Eng. dies his next Heire is King presently by discent without any ceremony may be this If he should not be King presently upon the death of the Father or Ancstour but must stay for some other ceremony to be done then there would be an interregnum in Eng. which the Laws will not suffer And to prove that the Laws do not suffer an inter regnum 't is easily gathered from the case in 9. E. 4. 51. where it is sayd that if the King be seized of land by a defeaseable title and dieth seizd this discent shall toll the entry of him that hath right which proves that he that is next King coming in as Son hath it by discent otherwise the entry of him that hath right could not be taken away and it proves likewise that he must not stay for His Majesty till some Act or other be done for then there would be an inter regnum till that Act or ceremony were past and when that Act or ceremony were past then he should be in as it were from that Act and then the entry of him that hath right cannot be taken away and so is Litleton in his chap. of discents There is likewise another case in our books from whence you may draw the same conclusion viz. If the Prince commit treason or murder he must be tried according to Law as well as another subject for he is but a Subject for there can be but one King at the self same time in the selfe same Kingdome But now if the King dyes before the Prince be tried the very immediate discent of the Crown purgeth him of his treason or murder or what ever his fact be so that he shall not be arraigned or tried for it Which case proves that he hath the Crowne immediately upon the discent for if there were any ceremony that were essentiall to making him King that ceremony might be delaid and the Prince might be attainted If the Disseisor of an Infant convey the Land to the King who dieth seised this is such a discent as shall take away the entry of the Infant and so are the Books of 34. H. 6. 34. and 45. Ass pl. 6. Plowd com 234. which proves clearly the discent t is part of the oath of allegiance which is used to this day in every Leet That you shall be true and faithfull