Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
justice_n commission_n peace_n session_n 2,574 5 10.6777 5 false
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
A33904 The desertion discuss'd in a letter to a country gentleman Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726. 1689 (1689) Wing C5249; ESTC R18889 10,218 8

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

of Ill Administration and that nothing less than subverting the Fundamentals of Government will justify an Opposition Now I am much mistaken if Deposing of Kings is not Resisting them with a Witness But besides his self Contradiction the case is not to his purpose For 1. These Parliaments were called in Tumultuous times when the Subjects were so hardy as to put their Kings under Confinement Now if it is against the Constitution of Parliaments to Menace the Two Houses out of their Liberty of Voting freely then certainly Kings ought not to be overawed by Armies and Prisons These Parliaments therefore are very improper to make Precedents of 2. These Princes were wrought upon so far as to resign their Crowns which each of them did though unwillingly Let this Enquirer produce such a Resignation from His Majesty and he says something 3. He is much mistaken in saying these judgments as he calls them have not been vacated by subsequent Parliaments For all those subsequent Parliaments which declare it Unlawful to take up Arms against the King do by necessary implication condemn these Deposing Precedents for it 's impossible for Subjects to Depose their Princes without Resisting them 2. By Act of Parliament the First of Edw. 4. yet remaining at large upon the Parliament Rolls and for the greater part recited verbatim in the Pleadings in Bag●tt's Case in the Year Books Trin. Term. 9. Edw. 4. The Title of Edw. 4. by Descent and Inheritance and is set forth very particularly And that upon the Decease of Rich. 2. the Crown by Law Custom and Conscience Descended and Belonged to Edmund Earl of March under whom King Edw. 4. claimed It is likewise further declared That Hen. 4. against Law Conscience and Custom of the Realm of England Usurped upon the Crown and Lordship thereof and Hen. 5. and Hen. 6. occupied the said Realm by Unrighteous Intrusion and Usurpation and no otherwise And in 39. Hen. 6. Rot. Parl. when Richard Plantagenet Duke of York laid claim to the Crown as belonging to him by right of Succession it was 1. Objected in behalf of Hen. 6. that Hen. 4. took the Crown upon him as next Heir in Blood to Hen. 3. not as Conqueror To this it was Answered That the pretence of Right as next Heir to Hen. 3. was False and only made use of as a Cloak to shadow the violent Usurpations of Hen. 4. 2. It was Objected against the Duke of York That the Crown was by Act of Parliament Entailed upon Hen. 4. and the Heirs of his Body from whom King Hen. 6. did Lineally Descend The which Act say they as it is in the Record is of Authority to defeat any manner of Title To which the Duke of York replied That if King Hen. 4. might have obtained and enjoyed the Crowns of England and France by Title of Inheritance Descent or Succession he neither needed nor would have desired or made them to be granted to him in such wise as they be by the said Act the which takes no Place nor is of any Force or Effect against him that is right Inheritor of the said Crowns as it accordeth with Gods Laws and all Natural Laws Which Claim and Answer of the Duke of York is expressly acknowledged and recognized by this Parliament to be Good True Iust Lawful and Sufficient Cotton's Abridgment Fol. 665 666. From these Recognitions it plainly follows 1. That the Succession cannot be interrupted by an Act of Parliament especially when the Royal Assent is given by a King De Facto and not De Iure 2. The Act 9. of Edw. 4 by declaring the Crown to Descend upon Edmund Earl of March by the Decease of Rich. 2. does evidently imply That the said Richard was rightful King during his Life and consequently that his Deposition was Null and Unlawful If it 's demanded Why his Majesty did not leave Seals and Commissioners to supply his Absence This Question brings me to the Second Point viz. to shew That the leaving sufficient Representatives was impracticable at this Juncture For 1. When the Nation was so much embroiled and the King's Interest reduced to such an unfortunate Ebb it would have been very difficult if not impossible to have found Persons who would have undertaken such a dangerous Charge That Man must have had a Resolution of an extraordinary Size who would venture upon Representing a Prince who had been so much disrespected in his own Person whose Authority had been set aside and his Ambassador clapt up at Windsor when he carried not only an inoffensive but an obliging Letter But granting such a Representation had been ingaged in the Commissions must either have extended to the Calling of Parliaments or not if not they would neither have been Satisfactory no● absolutely necessary Not Satisfactory For the want of a Parliament was that which was accounted the great Grievance of the Nation as appears from the Prince of Orange's Declaration Where he says expresly That his Expedition is intended for no other Design but to have a Free and Lawful Parliament assembled as soon as is possible Declar. P. 12. Secondly This Expedient was not absolutely Necessary for the Administration of Justice might have proceeded Regularly without any such Deputation by Virtue of those Commissions which the Judges and Justices of the Peace had already from the King. This I shall prove 1. From a parallel Instance King Charles the I. took a Journy into Scotland in 41 during the Session of Parliament at Westminster where though he appointed Five Lords to sign Bills in his Name The Continuation of Bak. Chron. yet the Judges and Justices acted by Virtue of their former Commissions without any new Authority from any Representatives of his Majesty Now Scotland is as much a distinct Kingdom from England as France and France as much his Majesty's Dominions as Scotland And therefore if Commissions will hold in the King's Absence in one Place why not in the other Secondly The present Judges met in Ianuary last at Westminster to dispatch some Business in order to keep the Term but were forbidden to proceed by the Prince of Orange's Secretary So that it is plain it was the Opinion of these Reverend Judges that their Commissions from his Majesty were still in Force But in the next place If his Majesty had deputed any Persons to Represent him in Parliament this Method would have been attended with new and insuperable Difficulties For 1. If they had been Limited they would not have given Satisfaction For it being impossible to foresee the Business and Votes of a Parliament at a distance If they had been restrained to certain Points in all probability they would have wanted Power to have passed all the Bills and so their Deputation would not have Answered the Desire of the Houses and the greatest part of their Grievances might have been counted unredressed If it 's said that the Parliament might have requested an Enlargement of their Commission from his Majesty To this I