Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	bind_v	king_n	law_n	3,290	5	5.2223	4	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

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

Victory Unjust and himself an Usurper but we have neither Example nor Reason to expect such singular Confessions as these For no Usurper will own himself in the Wrong so long as he intends to enjoy the Advantages of his Injustice Upon supposition therefore that the Victory had fallen on the side of a King de Facto the Act would be wholly superfluous But Secondly If the King de Iure had prevailed the matter is not mended For now though those that stood by the King de Facto will have great occasions for an Indemnity yet this Act will be as helpless to them now as it was needless before For either they must submit to the King de Iure or not if they do not submit it 's easie to imagine the consequences how a Victorious and Irresistable Prince will treat the Obstinate and Rebellious Opposers of his Just Title if they do submit as of necessity they must then they can claim no manner of Priviledge and Indemnity from this Act for they cannot come into the side de Iure without deserting that de Facto i. e. without declining their Allegiance to him who was King when this Statute was made By declining which Allegiance the Proviso expressly excludes them from all manner of Benefit or Advantage by this Act. In this condition the Law would have left the de Facto Party If the Sovereignty had been disputed between H. 7. and the House of York and the Prince de Iure or House of York had been Successful From whence it 's undeniably plain that neither the Design nor Words of this Statute can be drawn to such a monstrous Construction as to Enact bare Possession a good Title and make Might and Right the same thing The only design of this Parliament was to continue the Crown to H. 7. during his Life which both by the Body and Proviso of the Act was as effectually done as in them lay Now the reasons that prevailed with the Two Houses to consent to a Temporary alteration of the Constitution with respect to the Crown were probably these 1. Because H. 7. did not openly disavow his Reigning in his Wifes Right who was Queen de Iure for the Act of Parliament by which he was recognized King of England was Interpretable in this Sence Lord Bacon ibid. p. 1003. and with this Construction there was no injury done to the Hereditary Right of the Crown 2. Elizabeth the Queen de Iure by her subsequent Marriage and acquiescence seem'd contented with this Settlement So that her forbearing to claim or in the least to insist upon her Right was a tacit resignation of it to King Henry which seem'd to make him not only de Facto but during her Life de Iure too 3. When this Parliament was called Perken Warbeck had lately made a Descent upon Kent and threatned the Kingdom with a more formidable Invasion Lord Bacon p. 1075 1076. Now though the Two Houses might see through the Imposture yet it 's plain many of the People did not Nay some Persons of great Quality who had better Opportunities for Enquiry believed Perkin to be the true Plantagenet Son to Ed 4. The Parliament therefore who knew him to be no more than a Counterfeit Prince must conclude that the best way to secure the Succession of the Crown was to support the Government of H. 7. which considering the present Scruples and Uncertainties of Right could not be more effectually done than by Indemnifying all those who should afterwards appear for him 4. We are to consider that at this juncture H. 7. had several Children by his Queen viz. Arthur Henry c. So that now the contending Families of York and Lancaster being thus happily United there was no reason to fear That a Security though an unusual one to the present Possessor could be prejudicial to the right Line especially since the force of that Act was confined to the Reign of that Prince as has been already prov'd 5. That this Act was no more than Temporary may be made good from the Practice as well as the Reason of that Law I shall cite the Duke of Northumberland's Case who when he was tryed for Treason for leading an Army against Q. Mary desired to be informed by the Judges Whether a Man acting by the Authority of the Great Seal and the Order of the Privy Council or Prince's Council as Stow and Heylin word it could become thereby Guilty of Treason To which the Judges answered That the Great Seal of one that was not Lawful Queen could give no Authority or Indemnity to those that acted by such a Warrant Burnet's Hist. Reform p. 2. p. 243. Upon which the Duke submitted though without Question he did not want Lawyers to reinforce his Plea if his Case would have born it From whence 1. I infer against Sir. Edw. Coke That Treason lyes against a King de Iure though out of Possession For its plain by all our Historians that Q. Mary was far from being possessed of the Crown when the Duke of Northumberland acted against Her. So far was she from being Regnant that its pretty plain she had no great hopes of Succeeding For when she understood Q. Iane had taken the Government upon her she retired with only a few Suffolk Gentlemen to Framingham Castle near the Sea that she might be ready to embarque for the Security of her Person But I shall insist upon this Corolary no farther though were it necessary it might be proved by other unquestionable Authorities 2. I infer That any Commission or Authority granted by a King de Facto against one de Iure is null and insignificant though it has all other Advantages and Forms which the Law prescribes The only Objection against this Inference is That the Lady Iane was not a Queen de Facto But why not a Queen de Facto Had she not the Colour of K. Edward's Letters Patents and the Concurrence of all the Judges save one to support her Claim Did not a numerous Privy Council several of which were Persons of the first Quality and highest Offices of the Kingdom swear Allegiance to her Heylin's Ref. p. 160. Was she not proclaimed in London and in most of the chief Cities Towns and Places of greatest Concourse Heyl. Ibid. p. 237. Burn. p. 237. Were not the Tower of London and the Land and Naval Forces under her command 'T is true some of them deserted her soon after but this proves they were with her before Did she not assume the Name and State of a Queen and were not the Seals those Dead Springs of the Government in her Custody I grant our Historians agree That her Queenship lasted but Nine or Ten Days but if she had Reigned but so many Hours it had been sufficient to prove the Point in hand For the Essence of a King de Facto consists in Possession and extent of Power not in the length of his Government Besides when the Duke pleaded the Warrant of