Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	authority_n	law_n	power_n	2,872	5	4.6226	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44972	The power of parliaments asserted by G.H., in a letter to a friend, lately chosen a member of the House of Commons, in answer to an indigested paper by E.F. called, A letter from a gentleman of quality to his friend upon his being chosen a member to serve in the approaching Parliament, being an argument relating to the point of succession to the crown, &c.	G. H.	1679 (1679)	Wing H34; ESTC R23370	15,379	14

case besides how many times without regard to the Male Line it self hath that Line bin altered yet none disputes that Kings Title but to say the Truth the Pope who alone may dispose of Succession had a hand in advancing the Carolingian Line to the prejudice of the Merovinian which like Offa Cerbero a sop to Cerberus keeps the Cur from snarling How was that Law of Nature violated by the gui●t of the Dauphinale to the Crown of France by the Union of the Kingdom of Navarr and Dutchy of Britain to the said Crown By Virtue of which Union Britagne is enjoyed by the French King when the Right of Proxinity of Blood lyes in the House of Savoy to no purpose If Natures Law be Violable or hath bin violated in one place without Taxation of Injustice at the Discretion of the Supreme Power which in every Constitution of Government is lodged somwhere as by these Examples is made out then it may admit of Violations again under the like Circumstances that is of Safety and Security for those were the true ends of those Unions For that rule of Living Quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris what thou wouldst not have done to thy self do not to another improved by the Law of Grace to whatsoever you would that Men should do unto you that do unto them does not at all reach Communityes or Societyes of Men as may modestly be offered otherways Maiefactours might make use of that Plea against the security of the Laws in their concerns now a great Latitude must be allowed to the Legislative Power in making Laws upon emergent occasions to provide for the Publick safety otherwayes our Sanguinary Laws against Robbery and Polygamy being contrary to the Laws of God which directs otherways in the former and allowed the latter must fall under a severe censure I shall now hasten to Conclusion only subjoyn somwhat about Henry the Seventh Whose Laws E. F. says my Lord Bacon Comments because he says somthing in his Case very handsomly upon That King past two Notable Statutes as he says one that the Crown should rest and abide to himself and his Heirs c. The other that all persons should be indemnifyed that served the King for the time being in his Warrs This Law says my Lord Bacon had in it parts of prudent and deep foresight for it took away occasion for the People to busy themselves in prying into the Kings Title to the Crown for howsoever that fell out good or bad the peoples safety was provided for The same Author in the close of that Kings Life accounts it amongst his Blessings that he dyed so soon viz. before the Prince comes to mans Estate who in likelyhood considering his great Spirit would not have sitten down under the Law of settlement but have seazed the present Possession of the Crown as his Right by common Law the Curtesy not reaching the case of the Crown as has bin sayd before This E. F. is mighty fond on as coming from so great a Man but to examine the matter over again I cannot see notwithstanding my Lord Bacons Authority how the Peoples safety was provided for by the Law of indemnity if the Kings was not by the Statute of settlement For if once Henry the Seventh had fallen under the Power of his Son as there has often hapned such Cases or any other Pretender of the House of York the Statute of safety for the People as well as that of settlement for the King had bin equally out of Doors by alledging that Henry the Seventh was no Legall King so no Legall Parliament like those of the three Henryes and therefore nothing of that King binding I wonder therefore so great a Man as my Lord Bacon should branch at so empty a Rate but more that so palpable a nothing should pass upon a man that has such Skill in that Knotty way of Argumentation as E. F. pretends to have Now that something has been said to prove that Parliaments have done and do daily encroach upon the Law of Nature without the least grumbling imaginable I shall give some Scripture Presidents when Proximity of Blood the thing insisted upon in the Case of Government hath not been much regarded yet no absolute proof of Gods immediate Command in the Case Cain was set aside for Seth Sem is not agreed to have bin the Elder Brother whether Abraham was or no is likewise a Question but to be sure neither Isaac nor Jacob were Reuben Simeon and Levi were set aside for their Vices and the Dominion of all given to Judah but these Examples may be Objected against because the times before the Flood were dark and the other may be said to be in relation to Spirituals because none of them had as appears many to exercise a Royal Authority over but a Royal Power some did Exercise as is Evident by Abrahams Offering to Sacrifice his Son and Judah's commanding his Daughter in Law to be burnt which none but an unaccountable person could do From the time of Moses unto David Proximity of Blood was not regarded Joshuah of another Tribe succeeded Moses in the Monarchy the Succession going at the same race amongst all the Judges except in the Case of Abimelech whose manners and Success are not very Argumentative for the Traverse now That those Judges were Kings or so esteemed is plain from the Text In those days there was no King in Israel but every man c. because at that time when that Villany was committed by the Benjamites then was an Inter regnum none to Judge the People as formerly The Asmonaean Family or Machabees began at the same Rate for Mattathias who got a party to oppose the Wicked proceedings of that ungodly Antiochus Epiphanes when he dyed bequeathed the Captainship of Israel which he had exercised amongst them successfully for a while unto Judas his Third Son as the most fit setting aside Simon his Eldest though a worthy person which he made appear when he came after the Death of Jonathan his Younger Brother to the Administration of Publick affairs no immediate hand of God in this as may be said in the other for then there was no Prophet in Israel to direct them the Theocracy being determined as may appear from Mach. 1. Cap. 4. Ver. 46. And they laid up the Stones in the Mountain of the Temple in a convenient place until there should come a Prophet to shew what should be done with them For a parting blow now in Answer to what is or can be said in the Case I shall lay down this Thesis That Statute Laws though contrarient to the Laws of God are binding this I shall make out by pertinent Examples an unanswerable Argument of the Power though perhaps not of the Justice of Parliaments concerning their Power I will give you my Lord Cookes Sense whose Authority my Author seems to value elsewhere The Power and Jurisdiction of Parliament for making of Laws

Words of the Statute that may well labour that so they may be compelled to labour for their Living to be a good Statute for it observed the intent of the Law of God there is a later since made that so modifies Almes giving that it is not to be done at all times and all places under a penalty so that Authority makes nothing for his Case his other is like 151 Psalm no such thing in being for the last Act of H. 7. was in the 19 of his Reign as may appear by the Printed Statute which passes in all Courts for Record and uncontraversable Evidence Then Dictator like he concludes after all this foisting that he hath proved his two first Propositions That the Succession of the Crown in England is inseparably annexed to Proximity of Blood by the Laws of God and Nature and that Statutes contrarient to such are Voyd from whence it necessarily follows as he says That the Heir of the Blood Royal cannot be barr'd from Succession by Parliament what need he now say any more but being satisfied I suppose of proving nothing all this while he goes on to his second Reason That the Succession of the Crown to the next Heir of Blood is a Fundamental Constitution to confirm this now which no body will deny he Cites Sir Edward Cooke but now whither that or any other Fundamental or any thing so called be not alterable by Parliament is the Question about which Words the Gentleman seems to be fallacious for if by that Word he means only the major of Lords and Commons excluding the King as he seems to do by so slightly speaking of their Power he is in the right but if by Parliament he means as the Law means he is as I hope to make it appear mistaken now he would run down the reasonableness of their Authority from Consequences for if says he a Parliament may alter such a Constitution then the Monarchy of England will become Elective in a short space but why he does not so much as offer at but he says it and that 's enough well if it should be Elective as long as all parties concern'd are agreed no sin against the Holy Ghost I hope Poland is an Example in this Case which became an Elective Kingdom from Despotical upon the fayling of the Posterity of Crocus in Popielus the second as Denmark hath of late by consent of their Estates become an Hereditary from an Elective Monarchy but nothing of that can be here without the Royal Assent which as in probability it will never be demanded so it will never be granted to that then that fear is out of Doors Then he goes on with a company of lofty words about the Oriency of the Pearl of Succession and tells you that the Kings of England themselves their Chancellors Treasurers and all great Officers of State their Privy Councellors and Judges are all by the Provision of the Law sworn upon the Holy Evangelists to defend and maintain the Rights of the Crown and that they suffer no Disherison or Dammage to accrue thereto and very gravely cites Poulton for his Authority this is very disingeniously done for that President he so much raves on is only the Form of the Oath for Justices by which name Judges were then called to ●ake upon admittance which I suppose they may do at this day to their Offices which was amongst other things That they should not assent to any thing in Damage or Disherison to our Lord the King nor to know any such Damage or Disherison but to reveal or cause it to be revealed unto him not a word of the Rights of the Crown which are I suppose foisted in the better to impose upon the World that the Judges c. are bound by the Tenure of their Oath to hinder any Law to alter the Succession the words do not at all look forward but are only as to what may concern the King Regnant to whom they are sworn 'T is a great fayleur in our Law that there is no punishment for such Impudent mis-citers of Records to serve a turn for without doubt they are within the Equity of the Pillory for their officious pains and industry Next he comes to a great Remarque in Parliament which he cites the Roll for namely that the Lords and Commons being demanded their Advice by the King in a matter relati●g the Crown did Answer with one Voice That they could not Assent to anything in Parliament that tended to the disherison of the King and his Heirs or the Crown whereto they were Sworn This looks like somewhat but will not appear much upon strickt Inspection The Story is thus The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury declared in that Parliament that the Offers of David Bruce of Scotland for Peace were so as he might freely Enjoy to him the whole Realm of Scotland without any subjection c. The Lords and Commons being willed to give their Advice made several Answers That they could not Assent to any such Peace but to the disherison of the King and of his Crown and to the great danger of themselves being Sworn to the same That Answer now resolves only into this it sets forth the ill consequence of such a Peace not much considered it may be before as the Disherison of the King of the Fee of Scotland which his Parliament could not that is were unwilling to Assent to an usual Form of denyal amongst great men it does not at all declare their incapability through want of Power for had that been the Case the Kings Council would not have been so weak as to have put it to them But Sir Edward Cokes Comment upon the Record makes all out as he says in Margine or the Margent of Inst 4. 14 no King can Alien the Crown though by Consent of Lords and Commons then my Author is at his old Ward again for my Lord Cookes Words are not so full but only Declarative what were the Words of the Parliament at that time what his Opinion was of the Power of that High Court I shall shew hereafter Then he comes to a late Example of the recognition to King James in which that Kings Title is acknowledged and the Parliament doth Humbly beseech the King to accept the Recognition not only to himself but to his Heir forever nay they go further they desire that this Recognition may have the Royal Assent c. I Wonder now this should be urged for nothing of Virtue can be conveyed by an Act of Parliament to that Title that 's derived from God and Nature because one Parliament may undo the Acts of any of their Predecessors nay Magna Charta it self is not shotfree notwithstanding the Statute that says all Judgments against Magna Charta shall be Void Next he tells you That the Right Heir of the Crown cannot be Barr'd or Excluded by Act of Parliament Because the descent of the Crown in an Instant absolutely Purgeth and Dischargeth