Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	england_n	parliament_n	treaty_n	2,206	5	9.3516	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87456	The justification of a safe and wel-grounded answer to the Scottish papers, printed under the name of Master Chaloner his speech: which, (whatsoever the animadvertor affirmes) doth maintaine the honour of the Parliament, and interest of the kingdome of England. Novemb. 23. 1646. Appointed to be printed, according to an order of the House of Commons.	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1646 (1646)	Wing J1256; Thomason E363_11	6,958	16

also how the Kings Person may be disposed of for the equall good of both Kingdomes but the English onely are to be sole Judges thereof and to act thereupon as they themselves shall thinke fitting And so I thinke the Gentleman hath well provided for the Interest of England But now this Animadvertor begins to be so full of contradiction that he seemes to be the very abstract of it and thereupon cannot endure the word concrete and brings it in here once againe and would have an Ambassadour onely protected by the Law of Nations and is angry with the Gentleman because he affirmes that the Lawes of England doe protect him What the Law of Nations is other then certaine generall principles of Justice which nature hath infused into all men I see not for I am sure that all Nations did never yet meet together to make these Lawes neither doe they ever meet to punish them when they are broken but give mee leave to tell this Animadvertor that if the Law of England did not concur with the Law of Nations in punishing such as might violate the Priviledge of an Ambassadour I know not to what Tribunall that Ambassadour could appeale for the Gentleman faith truely in the fourteenth page That the English Nation being not subordinate to any power on Earth there is no power under heaven can judge them Neither hath an Ambassador any priviledge by the law of Nations farther then the particular or munificall law of that Nation unto whom hee is adressed will allow of For if an Ambassador will adventure to enter into a Country or State with whom his Master or Prince is either in actuall Warre or hath not contracted withal any confedracy that Ambassador is so far from being alowed any priviledge of an Embassador as he may justly be imprisoned and adjudged as a Spie at least an enemy and therefore no Ambassador of one Prince not in unity or confedracy with another can with safety enter into the other Princes Dominions without leave being first demanded and obtained from whence it followeth that what priviledge soever an Ambassador may pretend unto it is not the law of Nations but only the particular contract confedracy and agreement betwixt his Master and that Prince or State unto whom he is sent that can protect and defend him And whereas from the Gentlemans affirmation that no King can command any Subject of his being out of his Kingdome this Animadvertor will conclude that by the same reason the Parliament here cannot Command their Commissioners which they may send into Scotland but they must solely be disposed of by the supream power of that Kingdom In answere whereunto It is not to be doubted but that the supreame power in Scotland hath the Generall power in disposing of all persons whatsoever and their estates there according to the Lawes and customes of that Country yet not so neither but that particularly every man by leave of those Lawes and customes may command his owne Servant in his private affaires and dispose of his Estate as he shall think convenient provided that such command and disposall be not contrary to the said Lawes and customes so the Parliament of England sending Commissoners into Scotland have power to command them in their affaires as well as any Master there can command his servant and further as any treaty or contract made or to be made betwixt both the Kingdomes hath or may hereafter ad or deminish from the said power Then he objects that if a King of Scotland comming into England before the union should bee a Subject of England By the same reason the Prince of Wales is now a Subject of France and then his person is solely to be disposed of by the power of France and neither King nor Parliament have power to recal him To this I Answer as before that the Prince is now locally and pro tempore a Subiect of France and if he will not come home or the state of France will not suffer him so to doe we have no Authority to compell him Now he argueth from Analogie that if no man can be Rex but in Regno then cannot the Parliament of England be acknowledged a Parliament but in England This is such a wild Argument that I can hardly catch it For if all the Members and Speakers of both Houses should go out of England nay if they went but from Westminster to Lambeth without a Legall adjournment thither certainly their meeting there maks it no Parliament But as long as they meet at Westminster without disolution or adiournment to any other place their Commissioners in any other Kingdome or state are capable and may bee admitted to propound declare Treat or conclude in the name of both Houses But as if the Parl●ament should go into Spaine it is no Parliament there nor can give no lawes to them no more then it can give them Lawes whilst it resides here in England so a King of England being in Spaine though he reteine his dignity yet he hath no authority either to establish their lawes or stampe their Coyne no more then if he were in England And as other Nations may acknowledge the Parliament of England to be a Parliament though none of their Parliament so they may acknowledge a King of England to be a King live where he list but none of their King and as to them in way of protection and subiection which only makes a King no King at all In the 9 Animadversion he would faine incorporate our Brerhren of Scotland into our Parliament of England by making them our Fellowes But there be divers kinds of Fellowes besides fellowes at Football I acknowledge the Scotts to be our Fellowes and equalls but not in making of Lawes in England nor of Iudging or executing of those Lawes after they are made and so they can no more dipose of the King in England then come to our Parliaments in England Now for the story of King Iohn it will appeare that the argument which the Gentl. holds forth from the summons of King Iohn to answer in France is very materiall and proves apparently that a King hath no power to recall any of His Subjects they being out of his Kingdom for King Iohn not being summoned as King of England but as Duke of Normandy a Subject of France so was his summons adjudged voyd not because he was King of England but because hee was in England and not in France at the time of his summons Neither can any man see how this narration doth strengthen the Scotish Papers because the King of Engl. who is the person here summoned is at this time at Newcastle in Engl. which place though some of the Army there date their Letters from Newcastle in Scotland yet it was ingeniously confessed by the Scottish Commissioners as I am informed at the conference that it was as much English ground as Islington And therefore he being at this time Infra jurisdictionem Regni Angliae

THE JUSTIFICATION OF A safe and wel-grounded ANSWER To the Scottish Papers Printed under the name of Master Chaloner HIS SPEECH WHICH VVhatsoever the Animadvertor affirmes doth maintaine the Honour of the PARLIAMENT and Interest of the Kingdome of ENGLAND Novemb. 23.1646 Appointed to be printed according to an Order of the House of Commons LONDON Printed by A. Griffin 1646. The Justification of a safe and wel-grounded Answer to the Scotch Papers Printed under the name of Mr. Chaloners Speech Which whatsoever the Animadvertor affirmes doth maintaine the Honour of the Parliament and Interest of the Kingdome of England I Need not aske much who this Animadvertor is for by his Text he seemes to be a malignant Divine by his scraps of Greeke and Latine some Pedagogue by his stile no Englishman and by the whole scope of his discourse an Incendiary His Text is Prov. 28.2 For the transgressions of a Land many are the Princes thereof By Princes it is commonly thought that he meanes the Members of Parliament but therein certainly he is much mistaken in the sence of the Text For if they be Princes it was never the transgression of the Land but the transgression of the Prince of the Land which made them Princes And if they be Princes they are very poore ones and by his ordering but of a very short continuance for he hath no sooner begun his Sermon but he forgets his Text and speakes of the Parliaments former low condition whereas never any made it solow as himselfe for if a Member of Parliament could not be answered within doores there was never any one so bold untill this present that durst answer him without and the Parliament is low indeed when a Member thereof cannot assert the Votes of both Houses but he must be called to an account by every unknowne person But let him consider if hereby hee have not opened a doore for every Pamphleter to come in at whereby some late printed Speeches will hardly goe Scotfree for if a Principall cannot escape what then will become of a Deputy For the Gentleman that made this Speech though he neither ownes the printing nor Title page yet the matter of it hee must justifie unlesse hee will deeline the interest of this Kingdome But he being of that great Councell the Parliament can spend his time better there both for his credit and service of his Countrey then by answering of every mans impertinencies And therefore give me leave as unknowne a person as this Animadvertor is yet a better English man to tell him how inconsiderately he contradicts himselfe in the very beginning of his discourse when he assures you he wil not presume to intermeddle with any thing spoken within the wals and yet he presently tels you of something spoken there as hee saith different from the Originall whereby at the first dash hee proves himselfe a notable Incendiary and would set jealousies and devisions betwixt the Members of the house of Commons as if there were Spies amongst them and such who to maintaine the Interest of another Kingdome were so vile and base as to be content to betray their owne But I hasten to his Animadversions where Goliah like he presents himselfe a Champion to confound if he could not the Army but the assertions of both houses of Parliament And first hee saith that the Argument which the Gentleman makes is mistaken because hee joyneth not the Covenant Treaty and the Law of Nations with the interest which the Kingdome of Scotland pretends unto the King whereas these particulars are severally handled in the Scottish Papers and therefore must be answered severally and the Gentleman hath so sufficienly by many Arguments cleared in the first place that by the Law of Nations the Kingdome of Scotland hath nothing at all to doe to dispose of the Person of the King he being now in England as I am confident he will never be able to disprove any part thereof whilst he lives The next exception which this Animadvertor takes is against the distinction of a King in abstracto and concreto and that Persona is not Concretum Hereby you may see how he is contented to passe over such things of most substance which he cannot answer and to set up men of straw to use his owne words for himselfe to buffet This distinction of Abstractum Concretum is as ancient as Logicke it selfe but if hee will believe no Logicke but his owne let him looke upon an elaborate Booke written by one very neere and deere to some of the Scottish Commissioners called Lex Rex in the 29 question page 265. and there he shall finde these very words This is an evident and sencible distinction the King in Concreto the man who is King and the King in abstracto the Royall office of the King And whereas it is affirmed that the honourable Houses doe state the question not upon the Authority of the King but upon his Person so doth the Gentleman likewise and he concludes against any thing which hath been yet said to the contrary that neither by Law nor Covenant the Scots have any Interest to dispose of the Kings Person he being now in England Thirdly he objects that if the Kings Person be to be disposed of by the power of that Countrey where hee happens to abide then if hee were in Scotland hee must be disposed of by the power of that Countrey This is confessed to be true And if hee were now in Scotland as hee is an England they had then the sole power of disposing him And I doubt not but they would dispose of him for the equall good of both Kingdoms wherein I should be so farre from envying of their felicity as I should wish much good might he doe them But notwithstanding all this the assertion stands good that they have no authority to dispose of him as they now doe in England In the fourth Animadvertion hee makes the Gentleman speake what he doth not for the Gentleman doth say that England is as distinct a Kingdome from Scotland as Spaine but he saith not it is as distinct in Interest as the Animadvertor affirmes Yet by his favour the Interests are so distinct that neither the unity of one Religion one Covenant one King one Cause or one Warre can confound them It is no longer then Philip and Maries daies that England and Spaine had all the said Interests the Covenant excepted but yet no English man upon paine of death for all that could saile into the Indies neither enjoy other priviledges of Spaine no more then a Spaniard could doe in England And for Scotlands entring into confederacy with Forraigne Nations without the approbation of England the Treaty betwixt the Kingdomes must judge of that but neither any Treaty or Covenant yet made doth give them interest either in governing of our Militia making of our Lawes or setling of our Church-government as it was once aymed at In all which they have liberty to advise as