Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	die_v	king_n	wales_n	2,578	5	10.1765	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34079	The Protestant mask taken off from the Jesuited Englishman being an answer to a book entituled Great Britain's just complaint.	Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699.	1692 (1692)	Wing C5484; ESTC R22733	44,472	73

right Heir and here he sets up his Bristles and hectors his Adversary the Convention and the Prince of Orange for not proving the Prince of Wales Supposititious Now he neither proves it a real Birth himself nor answers half the Arguments have been urged against it yet is very angry that others will not prove a Negative The Convention had seen the Depositions Pag. 20. knew the Credit of the Witnesses and all the Circumstances of the Delivery yet after all did not believe it a real Birth they had examined it as far as was necessary to their own Satisfaction and after all declared the Princess of Orange to be the right Heir The Papists whose Religion was to be brought in by the Father and established by this pretended Son and all their Well-wishers should have brought better Proof of their New Heir than a few depending partial interested People it was their Business to have produced their Evidence The Convention judged according to all the Proofs they had and unanimously declared for the Princess's Right who being the next Heir in their Judgment and in the Opinion of the whole Nation some few excepted they sufficiently shewed they did not intend to make this Monarchy Elective in that they declared the true Heir as they verily believed to be Queen But suppose they had spent Months or Years in the Inquiry and left the Nation to sink in the mean while what would all this have signified to Jesuits and Nose-led Protestants Unless they had pronounced for the Prince of Wales right or wrong this sort of People would not have acquiesced in their Determination and therefore they did wisely after they and almost the whole Body of English Protestants were satisfied not to trouble themselves any further Besides Pag. 21. if King James did believe it why did he not put it upon a Trial in Parliament in his own Time He understood the People of England generally suspected there was Artifice used to exclude a Protestant Heir and therefore why did he not call a Parliament long before the Prince of Orange came over and submit it to their Inquiry Yea when the Prince was come He the Bishops Nobility and Officers yea all England desired King James to call a Parliament to settle this and other Matters yet he would not call one but fled from this way of Trial. If it be said King James had proved it by the Depositions 't is answered These were Witnesses all of one side chosen by a Party sworn before partial Men and in too private a Place for an Hereditary Monarchy The People doubting about the true Heir ought to have Satisfaction given to their Representatives in Parliament which was not done yea King James did not call these Witnesses till fourteen Days before the Prince landed viz. October 22. thereby shewing he did not intend to give the Nation any sort of Satisfaction but Fear and the serving a Turn extorted this Condescension from him Wherefore when King James would not try this Matter by his Parliament when he might have done it why should the Convention do his Business for him and neglect the Nation 's Safety But he urges that none were denied Satisfaction who desired it I reply the Princess of Denmark formerly complained she had not the Satisfaction given her which was fit and it is generally believed she was sent out of the way on purpose The Dutch Embassador who ought to have satisfied Princess Mary was not called the Bishops by design were sent to the Tower the good Protestants were all at Church and this lucky Juncture with a Place suddenly resolved on seem plainly designed for Privacy And indeed none were at the Birth it self but interested Friends and Well-wishers to a Popish Heir whose Design and Hopes made some of them willing to affirm and others easy to believe any thing Nor is the late Daughter's Birth among Foreigners and such as would top this Prince of Wales upon us a sufficient Evidence that a Son was born before the Reckoners there were as often shifted as they had been here and as few Witnesses were called and after all the Letters that were writ hither and after all the Promises of a Birth that should be so well attested as to confirm the former the one was managed as much in the dark as the other had been nor have we yet heard of any of those Attestations with which we were so much threatned Having therefore not proved a Prince of Wales Page 22. the Argument from his Innocency and the Injury done him falls Non entis nulla sunt Accidentia Had the Convention believed there was such a Son they would have owned him as Heir but believing there was no such Person they cannot properly be said to intend or do him any Injury Queen Mary's Resolution to have the Prince joined with her is known to many The Injury done to Princess Ann and her Children is none at all but a Benefit for what was her Title or theirs worth if the Prince of Orange had permitted the Papists to set up a Prince of Wales and perhaps Dukes of York and Glocester to exclude them all for ever Is not her Succession and her Issues both nearer and surer than it was under King James King William it 's true is made King for his Life but if he die before the Queen which the Hazards he runs in defending both Sisters Titles makes too probable then the Princess Ann and her Children have no Injury at all and if he should survive Queen Mary I appeal to any impartial Man whether this King who rescued the Princess's Title from being extinguished do not merit to keep the Soveraignty for the rest of his Life especially since she and her Heirs precede his by any other Wife From Aggravations he falls to History and while he blames his Adversaries Ignorance therein he evidently shews his own in affirming that no such Breach was ever made in our English Succession before Whereas we have had but 27 Reigns from the Conquest to this Revolution and in that time there have been several Breaches in the Succession most of them greater than this viz. William the Conqueror William Rufus Henry the First King Stephen King John Henry the Fourth and Seventh to which some who deny Henry the 8th's Marriage with his Brother's Widow to be lawful add Queen Mary and the Papists put in Queen Elizabeth Now upon such Breaches the Sentence of the People was had to confirm the Pretender's Title yet this Kingdom still remained Hereditary in common Account and never was reckoned as by his Argument it would have been an Elective Monarchy But to keep to his Instances there was a greater Breach than is now by King Henry the Seventh's coming to the Crown for though Richard the Third was slain and left no Child yet he left an Heiress Elizabeth Daughter of King Edward the Fourth and some of her Sisters were then alive as was also a Son and a Daughter

he would have no Bounds set to the Prerogative but his Will and his constant Actings accordingly For he told his Judges what he would have to be Law but this King enquires of his Judges what they think legal He grants the late King used a Dispensing Power and that too in other Instances besides Liberty of Conscience which Liberty our Author contrary to the Opinion of his Friend K. Lewis calls That desirable and necessary Good of Mankind Well let it be so where then is the Parallel Why K. James granted this against Law and without a Parliament and K. William grants the same Liberty not by a Dispensing Power or by Prerogative but by Parliament that is K. James he granted it arbitrarily K. William settles it by Law A most exact Parallel no doubt and a good proof of K. William's Design to be arbitrary To get off this Difficulty the Prince's Agents are topt upon us again and all the blame laid on him and them they managed poor K. James with invisible Wires who followed them blindfold to his Ruine And if he were so easily wheedled by corrupted Protestants may he not more easily be wheedled into illegal Acts by fierce and dangerous Papists And is it not then our wisest way never to wish for the return of a Prince so apt to be misled If he be in the best Humour in the World with the Bishops upon his Restauration how soon may some Popish Emissary incense him once more against them and run them again into the Tower and from thence to the Bar It was truly urged against King James that his Affection to Catholicks was too strong for the Law And he will prove King William guilty of the same Crime because in time of War he hires a few Foreign Papists into his Army Men who stay no where have no Interest to serve no Design but on their Pay and no Concern about the Religion of any Countrey which employs them which with inexpressibly Effrontery he saith is worse than K. James Cashiering in Times of Peace great Numbers of Military and Civil Protestant Officers and putting English and Irish Papists in their Places whose Interest obliged and inclined them to assist their King in changing the Laws and Religion of their Native Country Again he asks if Catholicks so he calls them falsely in most places not Roman Catholicks be not countenanced as much and do not exercise their Religion as freely now as ever I reply they are permitted but not at all countenanced Do their Fryars walk in their Habits Do they ring Bells and invite all People to see and hear their Foppery or make publick Shews Are they promoted to Churches and Colleges and to be Privy-Counsellors If not how absurd is his Query and where is his Parallel But he fancies we were safer when his Catholicks held their Liberty meerly by the Favour of English Protestants that is surely he means in King James his Time than now when Foreign Princes of the Romish Communion desire this King to tolerate them Now I dare appeal to the Papists Whether they did not believe it was King James not English Protestants who gave them the Liberty in that Reign And whether they did not think their Religion more likely to be restored by a Prince of their own Faith in League with France than by a Protestant King Confederate with the House of Austria And if they think their Religion likely to be restored by King William let them make it evident by fighting for him against the late King and his French Allies otherwise all these Suggestions are as groundless as they are malicious Yet upon a review of these Bug-Bears of his own dressing up Pag. 18. he is terribly affrighted and falls to pray to avert these imaginary Evils using at the same time all his Rhetorical Amplifications to excite us to run into certain and real Mischiefs by destroying this Government that can and will defend our Religion and Civil-Rights to set up another which will destroy both But the Cheat is so visible and his Parallels so ridiculous that no Man of Sense can be deluded by such Stuff Wherefore I conclude this Point and have shewed that King James was the Aggressor and hurt himself we injured no Body and only warded off the Blow which aimed at the very Vitals of our Church and our Ancient Government and which would have turned it from a Limited to an Absolute Monarchy a Change infinitetly worse for this Nation than our Author can pretend hath been made by this Revolution Which brings me to his second Pretence for restoring King James Pag. 19. viz. the settling the Government upon its old Basts And here while he seems to cite a long Passage out of his Adversary See the Pretences examined p. 10. he jumbles the Sense alters the Phrases puts in his own Comment and leaves out some of the Author's Words and then accuses the Writer whom he blindly and falsly guesses to be the Earl of Nottingham of Ignorance in the History and Affairs of England want of Judgment Disingenuity Impudence and what not But it will be easily proved to all that know that accomplished Peer and read this Libel this is not his Lordship's but this Libeller's own Character And his Reply to this Passage confirms the Observation for he owns that the Convention declared the Throne void therefore he mistakes in saying they made it void Declaring supposes a thing done already and he may as well charge a Judg with committing that Fact which he declares to be Treason as to say the Convention made the Throne void But we utterly deny his infallible Mark viz. That a Vacancy certainly proves a Monarchy Elective and that in an Hereditary Monarchy the Throne cannot be without a Possessor one Moment For Scotland is and ever was accounted to be no Elective but an Hereditary Monarchy yet upon the Death of Alexander there was a Vacancy for above five Years while the Hereditary Titles of six several Pretenders were under Examination And there was a Vacancy in England See Spotsw History of Scotland An. 1279. from the two and twentieth of August when King Richard the Third was slain till Henry the Seventh was declared King Yea there was more than a Moment between the Resignation of Edward and Richard the Second and the Entrance of Edward the Third and Henry the Fourth I grant that where there is no Doubt concerning the next Heir upon Cession or Death there the right Heir succeeds immediately But while the next Heir is ambiguous in an Hereditary Monarchy till the Title be examined cleared and declared none of the Pretenders can assume the Royal Dignity And his other Maxim of our Kings never dying is not literally true in any other Case but where there is a certain known and undoubted Heir So that an enquiry into and declaring the right Heir doth not make an Hereditary Monarchy Elective But he denies that the present Queen was the