Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	england_n	king_n	lord_n	3,923	5	3.9670	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64086	A Brief enquiry into the ancient constitution and government of England as well in respect of the administration, as succession thereof ... / by a true lover of his country.	Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718.	1695 (1695)	Wing T3584; ESTC R21382	45,948	120

Liberties and Estates were only insisted upon in my said Charge F. But pray Sir tell me as to the King Is he not the sole Supream Power in England I. No certainly for then he could make Laws and raise Money without the Peoples Consent but every printed Act of Parliament will shew you where the Supream Power resides wherein it is expresly recited in these words Be it therefore enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of this Realm and the Authority of the same or as I can shew you in several Statutes of King Henry the VIIIth wherein it is recited thus Be it enacted by the Assent and Consent of our Sovereign Lord the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by Authority of the same whereby you may see that not only the words Assent and Consent but the word Authority is referred as well to all the Three Estates as to the King F. This I confess is plain enough but what are the King 's chief Prerogatives I. I will tell you in as few words as I can his Majesty's chief Prerogatives for to enumerate them all would be endless are these First to call Parliaments once a year or oftner and Dissolve them if he pleases to give the last hand or sanction to all Laws for raising of Taxes and for the enacting all other things that his Majesty joining with the Two Houses of Parliament shall think fit to be Enacted to appoint Judges to Try Condemn and Execute Traytors and all other Malefactors for Treason and other Crimes and to grant Pardons for those Crimes if his Majesty shall think fit yet still according to his Coronation Oath to grant Commissions to all other Magistrates and Officers both Civil and Military no Arms being regularly to be Rais'd but by his Authority also by the Advice of his Privy-Council to issue Proclamations according to Law and for the Publick Good for enforcing the observation of such Laws as shall be thought fit in case those that are entrusted with the execution of them prove too remiss Lastly to make War and Peace though the latter as well as the former of these were anciently very seldom made without the Advice and Consent of Parliament These are the chief Prerogatives which I mentioned in my Charge tho' I grant there are divers others tho' less material F. But pray Sir cannot the King by his Prerogative do some things against the Laws and Dispence with them in all cases which he himself may judge for the Common Good of the Kingdom I. The King had anciently no Power to Dispence with Statutes with non Obstantes and so it is solemnly declared in the Kings Bench in the 39th of K. Edward the 3d. by all the Justices as a Rule in Law well known at that time and I could tell you were it not too tedious how this Prerogative of Dispensations first began but even then the King could not Dispence with any thing that was morally Evil in it self or with what was Enacted by Authority of Parliament for the common Good and Safety of the whole People or Nation in General And this is the true reason why the Late King Iames could not Dispence with all Statutes concerning the taking away the Test because the whole Nation had an Interest in them nor could he Dispence with any Act which conferred a particular Right or Priviledge on a third Person and lastly he could not commonly Dispence with any Statute wherein there was a particular provision to prevent the King from Granting Charters with Clauses of Non-obstantes But now all Dispensations with such Statutes are taken away by a particular Clause in the late Act of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you may see if you please and which I take to be no more than a Solemn Declaration of what was the Ancient Law of England before non obstantes came up F. I am very well satisfied in this but pray Sir tell me the reason Why the King cannot as the Supreme Executive Power of the Kingdom exercise his Royal Prerogative though it were to the prejudice of some particular Persons I. I can give you a very good reason for this because this would be contrary to that Trust which was at first reposed in the King by the Representative Body of the Nation when this Limited Monarchy was first instituted and which that ancient Treatise called the Mirror of Iustices writ above Four hundred years since very well sets forth the Common Law of England as it stood before the Conquest as also the Original of the Government of this Kingdom by one Person or Monarch which he thus recites That when Forty Princes that is Aldermen or Earls of Counties did Elect one King viz. Egbert to Reign over them to Maintain and Defend their Persons and Goods in Peace by Rules of Right they made him at first to Swear That he would maintain with all his Power the true Christian Faith and would Govern his People by Right without any respect of Persons and would also be Obedient to suffer Right i. e. Justice as well as others of his People By which it appears That all the Prerogatives of the Crown are trusted in the King by Law for the Good and Preservation of his People and not for the exercise of an Arbitrary Will or Power contrary thereunto As also Sir Iohn Fortescue once Lord Chancellor to King Henry the VIth in his Treatise in Praise of our English Laws has thus handsomely set forth viz. That the King was Made or Elected for the safeguard of the Law the Bodies and Goods of his Subjects and he hath this Power derived from the People so that he cannot long Govern them by any other Power and he also gives us the reason why he cannot regularly Dispence with Acts of Parliament Because says he they are made by the general Consent of the King and the whole Realm and if there be any thing in them that proves inconvenient the King may quickly or in a short time call another Parliament to amend it but not without that as it certainly would if the King had an Absolute and Unlimited Power of Dispensing with all Laws So that you see the King is entrusted with his Prerogative by Law that is by the Consent of the People only for their Benefit and Preservation therefore if the Judges or any other inferior Officer act contrary thereunto though by the King 's express Letters or Messages they are Forsworn and may be punished for it and in this sence it is that the King whilst acting thus by his subordinate Officers or Ministers is said to do no wrong because they are liable to be questioned for it and if he acts otherwise by his own personal Power or Commands it is not as King of England but as a private Person

not as well suppose a like tacite consent in the Princess of Denmark's not making any Opposition or Protestation against this Act whereby the Crown was settled upon his Majesty during his Life but rather agreeing to it for I have heard that several of her Servants in both Houses did declare that the Princess did not design that her future Right should be any hindrance to the present Settlement Pray therefore tell me why may not King William hold the Crown after the Death of the Queen if she should happen first to die without any Usurpation as well as King Henry the Seventh held it after the Death of his Queen notwithstanding his two Sons Prince Arthur and Henry both lived to be Married before their Father Died and Henry the Eighth was then in his nineteenth or twentieth Year of his Age old enough of conscience to govern himself F. I confess these things were altogether unknown to me before as they are I believe to most of my condition and I give your Worship many thanks for your kind Information But pray Sir resolve me one Question more and I have done Do you think a Man may Lawfully take the new Oath of Allegiance to Their present Majesties notwithstanding King Iames is still alive and do you think I could justifie it in Law should I be called to an account for it if he should again by some unexpected means or other obtain the Throne I. Well Neighbour to satisfie you as to the first of your questions I answer thus I doubt not but you may Lawfully take this Oath since the Parliament have done no more in thus setling the Crown than what many former Parliaments have done before in like Cases whose Proceedings have been still looked upon as good and held unquestioned unto this day as appears by the President of Henry the VIIth I now gave you and upon which Declarations of Parliament who are the only proper Judges who have most Right to the Crown in case of any dispute about it the People of this Kingdom have still thought themselves sufficiently obliged to take such Oaths of Fidelity and Allegiance as the Government thought fit to frame and require of them according to Law But I confess the latter of your questions is somewhat harder to be answered because it depends upon a matter that is farther remote since we cannot tell whether if ever at all King Iames should re-obtain the Throne by what means it may happen for if it should be by the Force either of the Irish or French Nations I doubt not but we should be all made mere Slaves and Vassals without any Law or setled Property but his own Will But if it should be by any Agreement or Composition with him upon his Engagement to Govern according to Law the● le● me tell you Not only your self but every other Subject that takes this Oath will have a good Plea in Law for taking it by the Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth whereby it is expresly Enacted That every Subject by the duty of his Allegiance is bound to Serve and Assist his Prince and Sovereign Lord at all seasons when need shall require and then follows an Act of Indemnity for all those that shall personally serve the King for the time being in his Wars Which were altogether unreasonable if Allegiance had not been due before to such a King as their Sovereign Lord mentioned in the Preamble and if Allegiance were due to him then certainly an Oath may lawfully be taken to observe it since it is no more than what the Law hath ever required from Subjects to such a King not only by this Statute but at Common Law too as appears by my Lord Cookes Comment on the Statute of Edward the IIId where he asserts not only from the Authority of this Statute but also from the old Year-Books that a King de Facto or for the time being is our Lord the King intended in that Statute and that the other who hath a Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act. So that you see according to this Act of Henry the VIIth as also by the Judgment of the best Lawyers of England whatever Person is once solemnly Crowned King of England and hath been so Recognized by Authority of Pariiament as Their Present Majesties have now been are and ever have been esteemed Lawful and Rightful Kings or Queens though they had no Hereditary Right of Succession as next of Blood as I have proved to you from the instance of King Henry the 4th and 7th and could do also by the Examples of Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth take which you please since they could not both of them succeed as the Legitimate Daughters and Heirs of King Henry the Eighth So that it is plain one or other of these Queens had no better than a Parliamentary Title to the Crown Therefore upon the whole matter whether Their present Majesties are Heirs to the Crown by Lineal Descent is not the Question but whether by the Law of England they are not to all intents and purposes Lawful and Rightful King and Queen so that an Oath of Allegiance may be lawfully taken to them and all men obliged to serve them in all their Wars and other Affairs even against King Iames himself since we cannot serve Two Masters that is owe Allegiance to Two Kings at once F. I cannot deny but what you say seems not only very reasonable but also according to Law but I heard the Squire and the Parson we but now mentioned positively assert That the King and Parliament had no Power to alter the Succession to thē Crown though they would and that therefore this Statute of Henry the Seventh you now mentioned which indemnifies all those that take up Arms in defence of the King for the time being is void First Because made by an Usurper who had no Right to make such a Law in prejudice of the true King or the next Heirs of the Crown but also because as they said it was but a Temporary Act and was to last no longer than during his life and lastly because this Statute hath never been allowed or held for good in any cases of Assisting Usurpers since that time for the Duke of Northumberland was Arraigned and Executed for Treason in the time of Queen Mary because he had Assisted and Taken up Arms on behalf of the Lady Iane Gray who was Proclaimed Queen and Reign'd as such for about a Fortnight and yet tho the Duke Pleaded afterwards that he had Acted nothing but by Order of the Queen and Council for the time being yet this Plea was over-ruled by the Peers who were his Judges and he was Executed notwithstanding Lastly they said That this Statute was implicitly or by consequence Repealed by those Statutes of Queen Elizabeth and King Iemes which appoint the Oaths of Allegiance to be only taken to the King his Heirs and lawful Successors besides a Statute of