Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A35924
|
A Dialogue concerning the times between Philobelgus and Sophronius.
|
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing D1363; ESTC R24293
|
7,740
|
8
|
Confined to a particular Object well enough known if he would but take day light along with him but the Man for Reasons best understood by himself chuses to swear in the dark and and so stumbles upon a wrong person I desire to know what his Oath signifies in such a Case Phil. Not much to his Business but I 'm afraid your Instance has no kind Application in it To come out of the Clouds therefore I would gladly understand what Objection can be fairly made against the Authority of the ensuing Parliament Sophr. Excuse me there I am not willing to meddle with that point But if you have a mind to put a feign'd Case and lay the Scene in Utopia I don't care if I discourse with you upon a resembling Argument only to support Conversation a little Phil. Pray let us hear what a Talent you have at Romancing Sophr. Well then to take Sir Tho. Moore 's Liberty let us suppose the Utopians under an Hereditary Monarchy and that as long as the Royal Line continues the People have no more right to choose their King than their God suppose that the Laws of that Kingdom expresly declare it Unlawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatever and that bare Possession against Right has no countenance from the Utopian Constitution Suppose a Monarch thus invincibly fortified by Law Opposed by one part of his Subjects and Deserted by most part of the rest so that he is obliged to retire out of his Kingdom for the security of his Person and Honour Upon this some part of the People who were either instrumental in the Change or wanted leisure to recollect themselves or courage to stand by the Laws put themselves under the Protection of a Foreign Prince who had lately made a Descent upon the Kingdom without premising any Complaint by his Ambassadour or demanding Satisfaction in a publick way This Prince at the instance of some obnoctious and engaged Persons assembles a Select and in some places a preconcerted number of the People which the Utopians call a Convention This meeting having neither the Essence nor so much as the form of Law tells the Nation though by a very slender Majority that the King had Resigned the Government though besides other demonstrative proofs they had his Letters on the Table to convince them on the contray These Men as the Utopian History informs us notwithstanding they had no Right to dispose of sixpenny worth of Property made no difficulty to deseise their King of his Crown and Dignity to the maintenance and support of which they are obliged to swear before they can enter upon any part of the Legeslative Authority After this remarkable beginning they proceed to choose the aforesaid Forreign Prince their King though every body knows Utopia is no Elective Monarchy This Prince of their own making and who by Consequence could have no Authority but what they gave him yet to make them some return for their kindness gives them a Power vastly greater than they pretended to before and sublimates them into a Parliament which signifies the same Thing in Utopia it does with us This Meeting after some Tryal he dissolved probably among other Reasons because he saw the People were not generally satisfied about the Legality of its Constitution Since they say he has summoned a New one in which the usual Preliminaries will be punctually observed and yet some People fancy all this won't do neither Phil. Why so Sophr. Because the Convention which is the Foundation upon which the late Utopian Revolution stands had no Authority to transact publick business and therefore their Proceedings though much more moderate might justly have been excepted against Phil. Your Reason Sophr. Because they Convened themselves by vertue of a Foreign Authority without the Kings Summons neglected to make those solemn Tenders of Duty and Allegieuce to their Sovereign which the Law requires and wanted the Royal Assent to give life to their Votes Now if the Convention was an Unlawful Assembly the whole Foundation is Sapped and then all the Superstructure must tumble into Rubbish Phil. Though I can't say I am pleased with your Entertainment yet pray go on and be as clear as you can for since we are discoursing about a Subject which is Visionary and Romantick we may speak as intelligibly as we please Sophr. I say then if the Convention was a private unauthorized Meeting if they had no Power to set aside their Old and make another King then their New Governour can have no Right to to the Regal Stile and Authority Nihil dat quod non habet A man cannot receive that from another which he has no power to give Nothing but a Nullity can proceed from a Nullity for no effect can rise above the Virtue and Efficacy of its Cause Such essential Defects in the Principles of Government are like Errours in the first Concoction never to be rectified And therefore the assuming the usual Forms and appearing in the shape of the Old Constitution is to speak softly but Pageantry and Varnish at the best Phil. I am told that about the year 1660 in the Reign of Don Carlo's there was a Parliament made out of a Convention which was soon after dissolved and another convened according to Law In which the Acts of the former were confirmed Which confirmation passing upon them they were always looked upon as unquestionable Law though I grant you they would have been null and unauthoritative without it And pray has not a Parliament as much Authority now as it had Thirty years since Sophr. No doubt on 't But you mistake the point horribly the case is by no means the same Phil. Where lies the difference Sophr. I wonder you don't perceive it Pray was Don Carlo's a Conventionary King. Did he derive his Power from the Election of the People on the contrary was not his Title and Authority wholy founded upon Hereditary Right according to the known Laws of the Monarchy I confess if his Father had been then living or he had broke in upon the Succession your precedent would have held but now it 's nothing to the purpose Phil. Make it clearer if you can Sophr. Clearer still Why don't you know there can be no Parliament in Utopia without a King for there Rexest caput principium finis Parliamenti as a great Lawyer has it Phil. And have not the Utopians made themselves a new King what would you have more Sophr. I perceive you have forgotten what we have discoursed already concerning the incompetent Authority upon which their present Establishment is founded and that they have nothing but Air for their Basis however I shall only refresh your memory with Two Questions your Answer to which will I suppose give you full satisfaction Pray can a Prince forfeit when the Laws expressly declare him irresistable and that his People have no Authority to call him to an account Phil. No. Sophr. Then if he was once