Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	king_n	parliament_n	wales_n	3,402	5	10.4444	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85742	A reply, to a namelesse pamphlet, intituled, An answer to a speech without doors, &c. Or, a defence of Master Chaloner's speech. Wherein the question is rightly stated, the interest of the kingdome and Parliament vindicated, and all moderate men answered. / By G.G. a lover of his countrey. Published according to order.	G. G.	1646 (1646)	Wing G21; Thomason E362_26; ESTC R201222	5,015	8

wealth that always comming to make peace or continue it that they have from the beginning had the priviledge to be protected in all Countreys where they shall happen to be and our Laws of England are so agreeable to the Civill Law that the subjection an Embassadour is in by them is agreeable to that Law of Nations that maintaineth their freedome wherefore although they are not excepted from it yet are they not liable to prejudice by it therefore any reasonable creature may judge whether the honour of the Kingdom and Parliament can for this be brought in question by Forreigners This civill protection to Commissioners or Embassadours is in Scotland as well as England and although he will have the contrary yet will the Parliament of Englands Commissioners residing in Scotland claime as their Jus the same protection and priviledge there as they and other Embassadours enjoy in England and will beyond all peradventure have it But in page 5 on these words of Master Chaloners That if a King of Scotland had come into England before the union his person might have been disposed of by the sole authority of the Laws of England He insinuates that by this principle the Prince of Wales his person is to be disposed of by the authority of the Laws of France and the King and Parliament have no authority to recall him and is not this a good salve for the honour of the Parliament sayth he This is a further discovery of his quibling and little ability to judge on such things for want of knowledge in the proceedings of former ages in such cases He needed not have gone further for presidents then his own Countrey if he be an English man in this case for the taking prisoner of Richard the first King of England by the Duke of Austria as he passed through his Countrey at his return from the termed Holy Warre notwithstanding they were both ingaged in it and the securing of the person of Mary Queen of Scots in the Reigne of Queen Elizabeth But if any shall say they were both enemies to England as well the Queen of Scots as the Duke of Austria and therefore to take all advantages against each other It is most sure that the King of England and the Duke of Austria wereboth in amity and kept good correspondencie as was necessary for Princes whose Countreys lay so far distant one from the other and the Queen of Scots had severall Ties on the Queen of England that might obliege her friendship to her as that of kinred the leaving out of her Coat the Armes of England which the Kingdom of France had adjudged her a right to beare and assurance from the Queen Elizabeth of her welcome and safety in England had shee staid in her own Countrey till it came into her hand and as there was no certain peace so there was no war between them Wherefore if the Prince of Wales is gone into France without assurance from that Kingdom of his safety there and liberty to return he may for ought I know have the same fortune that these Princes had and as his going was without the consent of the Parliament so if it should happen he should suffer there they are free from blame of his misfortune A little further he sayth Master Chaloner hath it thus No man can be sayd to be Rex but in Regno wherefore sayth he by just Analogy the Parliament of England cannot be acknowledged a Parliament but in England only Neyther can there Commissioners in any other Kingdom or State being admitted to propound declare treat or conclude in name of both Houses These are fine Oxford Inferences for as a King of England by being in France loseth not his Title of King of England he gaineth not the Title of King of France And they may take him as Subject of France and King of England as we know they have done those Kings as have been Dukes of Normandy And if they will admit the King of England his Title of England he being in France Master Chaloner only denying Forreign King the Title of that Countrey where he shall happen to comeunto and not the Title of his own that he brought with him they will admit whom he appoint his Messengers or Agents as servant of the King of England when they shall reside there from him and the Parliament when they send their Commissioners thither or to any other Countrey desireth not the title of the Parliament of that Countrey nor their Commissioners to be so accepted But those that will allow them the title and power of the Parliament of England in England may accept of their Commissioners in any other Countrey as servants to the Parliament of England without prejudice of the Parliament of that Countrey where their Commissioners shall so reside And although in England we would not admit of Mary as Queen of England yet was shee acknowledged Queen of Scots at her being here A few lines further Master Chalenor sayth he in his pag. 9 telleth us If the Scots be our fellows why come they not to our Parliaments on which sayth he if it can be made to appear that they be our fellows equals and brethren they may come to our Parliaments and see how the priviledges of Parliament is mainteined doth it make a breach of priviviledge of Parliament to doe justice in it And when the Scots can make it appear that they are in that capacity that M. Chalenor and all the Kingdom knoweth them to want God forbid but they should have right and then how could that be against the honour of the Parliament On what M. Chaloner sayth of John King pf England in his Speech in this Answerers pag. 6. he will have it much to strengthen the Scotch papers for sayth he if the King of England must be disposed of by the sole authority of both Houses of Parliament what shall become of the person of the King of Scotland There is no more cause of doubt in them of that then we ought to make of their disposing of the King of England whom they have in their custody and as he is in England they are unjust in deteining him but if they shall get him into Scotland as they have no right in him in England we could pertein as little to him he being in Scotland and though M. Chaloner pleadeth for a sole power in both Houses to dispose of him in England yet doth he not plead for it out of England as their suggestion will have it which discovers this Answer of a false calumner and that he hath an insight into his disability to answer other mens and therefore he will make questions of his own This pretended Answer to M. Chaloners Speech is no better then that of this Answerers fellow Collegian where telling a sheepherd he was a sheep and he would prove him so the shepherd desiring to know how he replyed That the sheepherd had a head and a sheep had a head ergo he was a sheep The rest that commeth from this Subtilist is no answer but a malicious aspersion on M. Chaloner and the honourable Parliament and as he endeth so do I with my desire of God that from such Apostates from their native Country and Countrymen he would deliver us FINIS

A REPLY TO A Namelesse PAMPHLET Intituled An Answer to a Speech without doors c. OR A DEFENCE OF Master CHALONER'S Speech WHEREIN The Question is rightly stated The Interest of the Kingdome and Parliament vindicated And all moderate men answered By G. G a lover of his Countrey Veritas Index sui obliqui Published according to Order LONDON Printed for R. Leybourn 1646. A Reply to a namelesse Pamphlet intituled an Answer To a Speech without Doores c. I Had thought M. Chaloners speech should not sooner have been published then received the joy of our Nation for so knowing a man of it his gallant sayings did not tend to the advance of himself but his Countrey not to destroy the King as some will have it but to let him know hee was Prince of a People that know their priviledges and his just authority which they would not have questioned by servants and hirelings but preserved by Freemen and Masters but the bad people of our Nation that had rather be slaves to strangers then live in necessary subjection under the Government of their Countrymen must stretch their little proportion of wit to a defence of the Scorishmens interest in the disposition of the English affairs For allow them a right in the disposall of the King in England and that of the Kingdom must needs follow but the undertaker of this must be such anone whose expressions of himselfe in Greek may perswade a man of the excellency of the English intended to put a Blur on this Worthy of Israel But to leave this prefacing as he terms it I shall discover the weaknesse of this Malignant imagined confutation And first God not permitting him in this to lye he admires Master Chaloner comming forth as a Goliah and being unable to meet him in the field of Truth which M. Chaloner had stated in few lines making the Scotchmans much appear little which are wheresoever the King of Scotland hath an interest in their King they may dispose of him But the Kingdom of Scotland hath an interest in their King hee being in England therefore in England they may dispose of him But he will have it altered from the Truth and sayth thus it ought to be Whatsoever is by Covenant Treaty and the very Law of Nations of joynt interest and common concernment to both Kingdoms ought not to be disposed of but by mutuall advise of both Kingdoms for the good of both But the person of the King whether in England or Scotland is by Covenant Treaty and the very law of Nations of joynt interest and common concernment to both Kingdoms Therefore the person of the King whether in England or Scotland ought not be be disposed of but by the mutuall advise of both Kingdoms for the good of both I confesse for a principle for him to ground his argument on thus It ought to be But whereas he urges Covenant Treaty and the Law of Nations to be the ground the Scots work upon to prove their interest in the disposing of the person of the King he being in England if it were as well proved as it is by him urged it might appear rationall but not true enough for rationall Englishmen to believe it For as no president can be brought to prove the King of England was ever in his Kingdom of England disposed of by the greatest forreigne Prince I hope wee are not grown so effeminate to let him be disposed of or we subjected by one of the meanest people Page 3 he sayth the Scotch Papers do state the question not upon the authority power and office of the King but upon the person of the King When a question is put to have judgement given on it if it be not right put it cannot be rightly judged And the case between us and the Scots is not how it is put but how it ought to be He hath an ill tongue that cannot tell a good tale for himself the Scots make the person of the King the only thing of dispute but wee are by Covenant oblieged to mayntayn as well the Law of the Land as the person of the King therefore they leaving that out hath made the case imperfect But imagine the person of the King to be the only thing now in dispute yet hath the Parliament of England the sole disposing of it in England The case is thus both the Kingdomes have voted the Kings person ought to be disposed of and therefore it ought to be so beyond dispute so that now the question is whether the Parliament of England shall dispose of him in England or the Scots and Parliament Now as it is a great prejudice to the honour of the English Nation to have any other people to dispose of their King in their own Country singly or joyntly so it ought to be looked into whether they have a right to do it if they have a right it must be by custome or an Act of Parliament And if they can shew neither President nor Law God forbid that the Parliament that sitteth to make us free and preserve the priviledge of the English Nation should consent to this that will so much destroy it Page 3 he also sayth That the honour person and just priviledges of the King ought by Covenant to be mayntained wherefore they being joyned in it they are bound to mayntain it We will allow that they ought and when they finde that the Parliament doth take away the just priviledges or wrong his person then let them endevour to defend it and if the Parliament cannot justifie their actions by their priviledges they will be blameable Page 4 he sayth the paper sayth Persona sequitur locum and his person must be disposed of by the supreme power of that Countrey wheresoever he shall hap to abide By which principle sayth he the person of the King of England if he were in Scotland must be disposed of by the supream power of that Countrey And was not this well pleaded for the interest of the Parliament of England There is nothing can be sayd to justifie the just spirit of M. Chaloner more then this noble expression for as hee would have no inchroachment on the priviledge of the English Nation by the Scots so he is equally just in defending the priviledges of the Scots against the English He sayth in Page 9 of M. Chalenors Speech he reades that what person soever commeth into the Kingdom of England hee is forthwith a subject of England for being protected by the Laws hee becomes subject to the Laws On which hee concludeth that when an Embassadour comming from an other Countrey into England can receive no protection in England and further inferres that the honour of the Parliament and Kingdome are blemished by this with forreigners As the Laws of all Nations are made positive to all people residing under the protection of them without exception of Embassadours yet the condition of Embassadours is so welcome to a Kingdom or Common