Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	england_n	king_n	lord_n	10,099	5	4.0833	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33897	Animadversions upon the modern explanation of II Hen. 7. cap. I, or, A King de facto	Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.	1689 (1689)	Wing C5241; ESTC R6488	11,433	10

relating to Shrewsbury and some others which by parity of Reason supposes the rest in the same Condition all Acts of this Nature were confirmed by the first of Edw. the Fourth which is a good Argument that this Parliament believed the Authority by which they were performed to be Defective and Illegal For we never find any such general Confirmations as these pass upon the Grants of Kings de Iure Fourthly In the First Year of Hen. 7. Ric. 3. was attainted of High Treason in Parliament under the Name of Duke of Glocester Lord Bacon vit H. 7. p. 1004. from whence its plain That as there was no Statute so neither was there any Common Law to support the Title of a King de Facto for Treason is an Attempt against the King's Person his Crown and Dignity but no Man can commit Treason against himself Therefore if Ric. 3. had been a King in the Sense of the Law we may be sure he would not have had such an infamous Censure past upon him after his Death Bradshaw and his High Court of Justice were the First that were so hardy as to pronounce a King of England guilty of Treason Fifthly if this Notion of a King de Facto had been allowed in the 1 H. 7. the Principal Assistants of Ric. 3. would not have been attainted Lord Bacon ibid. for Richard being actually in the Seat of the Government he was according to our modern way of arguing Rightful King and consequently the People ought to own him as such and defend him against all Opposers And if so certainly they ought not to be condemned as Traytors for doing their Duty as we find many of those were who fought for King Richard. Sixthly At the end of this Parliament Hen. 7. granted a General Pardon to the common People who had appeared against him in the behalf of Ric. 3. Now Pardon supposes a Fault and the Breach of a Law which they could not have been charged with if the Plea of a King de Facto had been warranted by the Constitution The Consideration of these Things is sufficient to confute that new Notion which is advanced in a late Book The unreasonableness of a Separation c. p. 30. viz. That a King de Facto is in the Sense of our Law no Usurper The Instances of proof are made in the Three successive Henrys Thus this Author But we see unrepealed and unexceptionable Acts of Parliament say the contrary For not to sum up the whole Evidence are not these Lancastrian Princes called pretensed Kings Kings in Deed but not in Right Now what are pretended Kings who have no Right but are rightfully amoved from the Government what are such Kings but Usurpers If the detaining and exercising that Power or Property which by evident Declarations of Law belongs to another be not Usurpation then no Man can be an Usurper but all Titles are alike and there is no such thing as Right and Wrong But possibly this Author thinks the Crown to be Ferae Naturae and that its every Ones that can catch it If so the Parliament 1 Ed 4. was not of his Opinion For they condemn the Proceedings of Henry Earl of Darby as they call Hen. 4. in very sharp Expressions they affirm the Reign of Hen. 6. to be Intrusion and Usurpation They are very positive That he who is an Intruder at First must provided the Right Owners are known be an Usurper ever after and that the Continuation of an Injury cannot alter the Nature of it except it be to heighten the Crime Indeed it would go hard with honest Men if Dominion might be acquired by Injustice and Right depended upon Wrong This Parliament Rot. Parl. 1 E. 4. n. 9 10. c. and that of 1 Iac. 1. though possibly this Author may not think it material fix the Crown upon the Point of Proximity and declare That Ed. 4. and Iac. 1. are rightful Kings of England by virtue of their Lineal Descent by the Laws of God of Nature and those of the Land and that they will repute them and their Heirs for true Kings of England and no other in virtue of their said Right and Title and spend the last drop of their Blood in defence of it This one would imagine is sticking upon the point of Proximity to purpose And yet our Author is pleased to say That a King of England may challenge Obedience though he does not claim by an immediate Hereditary Right pag. 30. Now he that has Allegiance due to him must have the Prerogatives of Sovereignty For the Word Allegiance applied to Kings imports thus much in the Sense of our Laws 11 H. 7. c. So that by Consequence he may be King to all Intents and Purposes without an immediate Hereditary Right i. e. without any Hereditary Right at all For Hereditary Right is nothing but a Lineal Succession to the last Lawful Possessor and therefore it must be immediate in the very Notion of it For where the next in Blood may be Lawfully pretermitted the whole Family may be served so too and consequently can lay no claim to an Hereditary Right But as far as our Author can see our Laws require Allegiance to be paid to a King without such Hereditary Right I am sorry he could not see these Acts of Parliament nor the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy for then possibly he would have been of another Opinion There is an excellent Book called The Grand Question which had it lain in this Gentleman's way I believe the Authority and Reason of it would have inlightned him upon this Point For that Great Author proves That an Act made 1 Ed. 3. was not barely Repealed but declared in Parliament to be Unlawful because Ed. 2. was then Living and true King. Rot. Parl. 64. 21 Rich. 2. Grand Quest. p. 80 81. Secondly He takes it for granted between himself and his Adversary That Hen. 4. was an Usurper and consequently that the Repeal of 21 Rich. 2. was not Legally made especially considering Rich. 2. was then Living Id. p. 83. Thirdly He avers That Ed. 3. was an Usurper as long as his Father was Living and the Proceedings of the Parliament under him during that time null and void p. 85 86. And yet it must be granted That Ed. 3. had several Advantages which some Kings de Facto cannot pretend to For 1. He was Heir apparent to Ed. 2. 2. His Father had resigned the Crown though by constraint 3. The Parliament which adhered to him was summoned in Edw. 2. Name 4. There was no Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy enjoyned the Members of both Houses under the Penalty of nulling every Thing they did by omitting to Swear as there are since by express Statutes 7 Iac. 1. 30 Car. 2. Farther I desire to know of our Author Whether the English of a King de Iure is not one to whom the Government belongs according to the Constitution He grants thus much and affirms That he

the Privy Council and the Great Seal the Judges answered That his Authority was invalid because granted by one who was not Lawful Queen Where we may observe They don't deny her the Name of a Queen but allow it by implication in their Answer And since she was a Queen and not de Iure she must be one de Facto For I have already proved That our Laws take no Notice of any Third Chimerical Monarch distinguished from these Two. We see therefore in the Opinion of the Judges and Court in Q. Marys Reign That the 11 H. 7. cannot indemnify the Subjects for bearing Arms against a Prince de Iure For if it could have been serviceable to the Duke its unimaginable to suppose his Counsel should forget such a remarkable Defence But to bring the Dispute nearer Home and to make the Case more plain if possible Let us suppose 11 H. 7. still in Force and upon this supposition I argue That this Act must necessarily give the same Advantages to the Lawful Successors of H. 7. which it gave to himself For if Allegiance is due to a King de Facto then certainly it is equally due to him who is King both de Facto and de Iure Therefore those who decline from their Allegiance to such a Rightful Possessour as they certainly do who depose him or swear Allegiance to another are expresly bar'd from receiving any Benefit or Advantage by this Act. So that now they must lye under the lash of those antecedent Laws which punish all Disloyal practices against a Rightful Prince whether in or out of Possession and if they are punishable by a King de Iure than undoubtedly they are his Subjects and consequently not at Liberty to translate their Allegiance to another If it is Objected That the Penalty of this Proviso affects the Subject no longer than the King is in Possession To this besides what has been said already I Answer That this Construction makes the sence of the Act Insignificant and Ridiculous For then the meaning of the Law runs thus viz. Those who adhere to the King in Possession shall be Indemnified but those who fight against him shall have none of this Favour that is they shall be punished Be punished by whom Why by the King they Opposed if he happens to sit sure and gets the better of them otherwise it seems they are safe enough Now this is profound Discourse and very suitable to the Wisdom of a Parliament to tell us That Rebels when they are Routed and Subdued may be Lawfully punished Had we not Statutes Common Law and Common Sence enough to acquaint us with this before What need this admirable Discovery have been thus carefully drawn up into a Proviso as if there had been something in the body of the Act which made it Unlawful for a Conquering Prince to chastise Rebellion If it be farther replied that this Proviso was intended for a Recaption For though it does not tye the Subjects Allegiance to an ejected Prince yet upon the recovery of his Crown it gives him Authority to punish those who dethroned him and with this Interpretation the Law appears intelligible In Answer to this I desire to know which way a Prince dispossessed can recover his Right according to the modern Construction of this Act For if the whole Kingdom be bound to assist the King de Facto against the King de Iure how is it possible for the latter to re-enter upon his Dominions And since by the supposition his Right to punish doth not commence till he has Power to execute this Proviso will have little Terror in it and prove a very slender Preservative against Treason And besides if it ever happens to come into play 't will be perfectly useless for this Expedient cannot take place unless the King de Iure makes his way back to the Throne by Conquest and Foreign Force And if he returns with this Advantage there are old Laws enough to punish Traytors 25 Ed. 3. c. which we may imagine he would venture to make use of whether this Clause had given him such a Liberty or not In short This Act as it is now the Fashion to understand it is such a monstrous and unaccountable piece of Legislation as I believe the most Barbarous and Unpolished Nation was never guilty of For it leaves the Kingdom Hereditary and yet obliges the Subject to obey the Possessor though never so obscure and remote from the Royal Line It resolves all Title into Force and Success and puts no difference between a good Cause and a bad one It sets the best Princes aside only for being Unfortunate encourages the Ambition of Enterprizing and unreasonable Men and gives the Rights of Sovereignty to those who have done the greatest Wrong It overthrows the most Sacred and Established Maxims of Justice repeals in effect almost half the Commandments and makes the Devil if he should prevail the Lord 's Anointed Besides it s not only Unnatural and Unrighteous in the Body but Useless and Impertinent in the Proviso In earnest I am afraid those Lawyers who debauch Mens Understandings with such singular Absurdities as these will have a great deal to answer for God grant they may consider before its too late FINIS