Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	law_n	power_n	word_n	4,342	5	4.2796	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27361	A iustification of The city remonstrance and its vindication, or, An answer to a book written by Mr. J.P. entituled, The city remonstrance remonstrated wherein the frequent falsifyings of the said Mr. J.P. are discovered, the many charges by him laid upon the remonstrance and its vindicator, disproved, and the parity and agreement of the remonstrance ... with the propositions, declarations, remonstrances, and votes, of both or either House of Parliament manifested / by John Bellamie.	Bellamie, John, d. 1654.; Price, John, Citizen of London. City remonstrance remonstrated.	1646 (1646)	Wing B1814; ESTC R4476	42,384	58

transcribe my very words where I told you that by the three Estates I meant as all the Laws and Records of the Kingdome expresse it and as all men unquestionably have hitherto concluded it and as the truth in it selfe is the King the Lords and the Commons Your second Querie is What I meane by Fundamentall and then you tell the Reader that I say the King the Lords and Commons are the three Estates of which the Fundamentall constitution of the Kingdome is made up It 's true I did and doe say so still and you say little to contradict it onely you aske another question which how wise a one it is I desire the Reader to observe for I must not judge viz. are there three Fundamentalls and you propose it as if I had said or imply'd so much and then you tell the Reader you ever thought there had been but one and in this I agree with you but herein is our difference which you and I must leave to the judgement of the reader to determine I say this one Fundamental constitution of the Kingd●m is the three Estates of the King Lords and Commons and this I still abide by but you say this one Fundamentall is the Commons and that for two Reasons 1. Bec●use the Commons made the King and the King made the Lords and so the Commons are the prime ●ound●tion 2. B●cause both the King and the Lords were adv●nced for the benefit quiet and welfare of the Commons and not the Commons made for them And you say if you are deceived the common Maxime of Salus populi suprema Lex deceived you Answ. First the frame of the Government of this Kingdome by the admired wisdom of the Architects and Contrivers thereof is so composed of these three Estates as may best preserve the whole and keep either of those Estates from any such exorbitancy as might destroy the other for as they are the three Estates in Parliament I humbly conc●ive there is no subordination of the one to the other but a co-ordination of them all three together by which the Princes Soveraignty and the peoples freedome and liberty are together preserved and maintained and herein is that common Maxime of Salus populi suprema Lex chiefly made good Secondly the legislative Power of this Kingdom is not in any one Estate distinct but in al the three Estates conjunct yea the very root and essence of this Legislative Power is compounded and as it were mixed together in the three Estates of King Lords and Commons and these three concurrent Estates producing one supreme Act as con-Cause ca●not have a subordination among themselves it not being imaginable how a power can cause the supreme effect and yet be subordinate thus the very being of our Common and Statute Lawes prove this truth for they are not composed nor enacted by any one of the three Estates divisim but they are established by the sole authority of the three Estates conjunctin every act being enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and by the authority of the Lords and C●mmons assembled in Parliament Thirdly I must needs dissent from you in that you say that both the King and the Lords were advanced for the bene●●t quiet and welfare of the Commons if your meaning bee as indeed by your words it seems to be exclusive excluding therein the benefit quiet and welfare of the King and the Lords for I conceive the benefi● quiet and welfare of the whole viz. King Lords and Comm●ns was equally and alike intended in the Fundamentall constitution of the Kingdom and so the Commons were as well made for the King as the King for the Commons yea the King and the Lords and the Commons were all alike made for the benefit quiet and welfare each of others and so of the whole together and this is that which in my minde maketh the Constitution of this Kingdome in this state of a limited and mixed Monarchy farre to surpasse the Constitution of any other Kingdome that I know and I think that in a good sense it may truly bee said of the severall members of this thus constituted Po●itique body of this Kingdome as the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 21. speakes of the members of the naturall body the eye c●nnot s●y to the b●nd I have no need of thee nor again the ●ead to the feet I have no need of you for as every member in the naturall body is by God there set and placed not alone for its owne good but for the welfare of the whole and accordingly it acts and is serviceable therein for the good of the whole yea such a naturall necessity there is in the body of every member that not any one member can be wanting but the body is thereby defective and so the eye cannot say to the ●and I have no need of thee nor againe the head to the feet I h●v● no need of you So in the body Politique of this Common-wealth by the ancient and excellent Constitution thereof the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons are so set and placed that in their severall stations they should not act alone for their owne particular but for the Common and Publike good and welfare of the whole yea I humbly conceive that to the upholding continuance of this so excellent a Constitution there is such a Politique necessity of every one of the three Estates in this Commonwealth for the preservation of the whole that the King cannot say to the Commons I have no need of you nor againe the Commons to the King I have no need of thee nor yet the King and the Commons to the Lords we have no need of you For if any one Estate in this b●dy Politique be cut off the whole constitution is presently destroyed and when I seriously consider how by the Fundamentall Constitution of this Kingdom there is such care taken for the preservation of the Soveraignty of the King and yet withall such provision made for the just Liberties and freedome of the people and how the one may be justly allayed and yet consist without impeachment of the other I cannot but conceive it to be unparalleld for true policy in the whole world and thus much in answer to your two first Q●eries Your third Querie is whether the King and suppose the major part of the Lord whi●h m●ke up two Estates do● agree tog●ther suppose it be to set up absolute prerogative and the Commons will not assent hereunto whether the majo● part of the Estates must not conclude the minor the two conclude the third and so as for the Common will they nill they sl●●es they must be and slaves they shall be Answ. To the making of a Law there must bee the concurrent consent of all the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons the King and the Lords without the consent of the Commons can make no Law valid and in that case the major part of the Estate● doe not

by the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome I humbly also conceive that there is just reason for it too and that not onely from the relation which these three Estates have one to another but also because of that interest which one Estate hath in another The King being no otherwise King of England but with relation to the subjects of England and so he hath an interest in them and they are his liege that is his lawfull Subjects or his Subjects according to the Law And likewise the Lords and Commons of England are no otherwise Subjects of England but with relation to the King as hee is the King of England in whom also they have the like reciprocall interest and so he is their liege our lawfull Soveraigne or their King according to the Law and thus runs the formes of our Laws viz. Bee it enacted by the King our Soveraigne Lord with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled But the City of London by the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 yeare of his Reigne hath a power granted to the Major and Aldermen and their successors with the assent of the Commonalty to make lawes for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City by vertue of which grant the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in Court of Common-Councell assembled being therin as one entire Court the representative Body of the City doe to this day make Laws which are alwayes binding to the Citizens of the same City And there is no other consent required to the consummation of these Laws but the sole and onely authority of this Court and therefore all our Acts of Common-councell are made in the joint names of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in the Court of Common-councell assembled and by the authority thereof and in the addition of any branch in an act of Common councell it is still thus exprest It is by this Court further Ordered c. Or this Court doth further Order c. which doth fully prove that all the power of making or altering or adding to the City lawes rests wholly and alone in the body of that one Court of Common-councell or the greater number of them which doth alwayes consist of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons but all the power of making or repealing or adding to the lawes of the kingdome doth not rest wholly and alone in the House of Commons but the concurrent consent of the other two Estates viz. the King and the Lords is necessarily required to this of the Commons for making or repealing of the Laws of the Kingdome And thus I hope I have answered your first head of Queries arising from that question viz. wherein resides the Supreme power of the Kingdome I shall now likewise endeavour to give a solution to your Argument and all the satisfaction I can to the second head of your Queries For a foundation to build your Arguments upon you produce an Argument of mine out of my Book entit●led A Plea for the Commonalty of London thus it is That Court which hath a power to make a law and by that law to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before must needs bee quoad hoe as unto the making of a law above the Lord Major and Aldermen But this Court of Common-councell hath c. Ergo this Court of Common-councell so farre as to the making of a Law must needs bee above the Lord Major and Aldermen Answ. I owne the Argument and for confirmation of what I t●●re affirmed concerning the power of the Court of Common-councell I made it good and proved it d● facto by an act of Common-councel made in the sixth yeare of Hen. 7. upon the 15 of Aprill concerning the choice of the Chamberlaine of London and the Bridge-masters of the City as by reference to the said Book appeareth and I would willingly see what you have to say against it But upon this in your 25 page you thus argue That Court which hath the power to make a law and by that law to conferre a power upon the King and Lords which as King and Lords they had not before must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a law above the King and Lord But the House of C●mmon● which say you speaking of mee is the kingdome representative even as the Common-councell is the City representative upon your suppos●tion hath a power c. Ergo the House of Commons so far as unto the making of a law must needs bee above the King and Lords But I pray you tell me is there no difference between the Court of Common-councell and the Commons in Common-councel I told you even now in page 42 that the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in Common-councell assembled being therein one entire Court are the representative body of the City I never said the Commons in that Court were so and if you had been pleased to have perused that Booke of mine you cite to this purpose and out of which you take my argument viz. The Ple● for the Commonalty of London in page 10. where I instance in four severall acts of that Court viz. the removing of Deputy Ald●n from the Court Mr. Iohn Wilde from being Town Clerk Mr. Tho. Wiseman from being the City Remembrancer and divers Aldermens Deputies from their places of Deputyship you might there have found that I thus conclude it viz. And all this by the joint and concurrent power of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in this Common-councell assembled And what though the Court of Common-councell which alwayes consisteth of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons have a power to conferre upon the Lord Major and Aldermen that power which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before as I fully proved and therefore without the least mutation am still of the same mind and in that respect as unto the making of a Law are above the Lord M●jor and Aldermen as the whole is above a part● But will it hence follow that the Commons in Common-councell alone and by themselves have either this power to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before or that they are above them If you will argue from my assertion bee sure you keep my terms and then see how it will advantage you for the confirmation of your argument I grounded this power of making City Laws from the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 yeare of his Reigne And in the same Book of mine out of which you took my argument you might also have had my authority for it it is in page 7 in these words Wee have granted further for us and our heires and by this our present Charter confirmed to the Major and Aldermen of the City aforesaid that if any customes in the said City hitherto obtained and used be in any part difficult

receiving into their Honourable House by any p●bli●e act manifested to the world the least dislike thereof and yet must Lon●●●s Remonstrance by one of its own members be charged with raising a prejudice against the Parliaments innoceney I pray consider whether by this you doe not first charge the House of Lords for their being well satisfied with that which yet you say doth raise a prejudice against the Parliaments innocencie And secondly whether you doe not prejudge the judgement of the House of Commons and therein breake the Priviledge of Parliament in passing such a sentence and laying such a charge upon that which yet lyeth under their consideration I onely offer these two Quaeries to your after or second consideration But for a ● this you say that this shall bee fully evidenced before you have done Answ. I pray remember what it is that in this you promise and be sure that in the particulars of it you make your Charge good otherwise you must not bee offended nor take it ill if according to the common Proverbe you be judged to be one of them which will undertake more in an houre then you can performe in an age I appeal to the Reader whether as yet either the Moderate reply or this your Remonstrance Remonstrated hath in any one instance which either of you have given or in all that both of you have done done any thing which proves that the City Remonstrance hath raised a prejudice against the Parliaments innocency and t●●ly you must needs beare with me in this that I cannot judge your bare word to be of that Authority as to beleeve it because you affirme it especially considering the honorable House of Commons hath not as yet passed any the least displeasing sentence against it and the honorable House of Lords hath declared that they are wel satisfied with the particulars contained in it And both House● of Parliament since their receiving of this Remonstrance have in the Propositions sent to his Majesty for a safe w●l grounded Peace● even in terminis proposed more to his Maje●ty for his R●oyall assent as unto Reformation of Religion then the Remonst●ant● have desired in their second third and fourth Petitidus so much condemned by you for the drift of all that they desire is 〈◊〉 an equall conformity of all the Subjects of England to the publike dis●ipline and doctrine set forth or to bee set forth by Authority of Parliament as by reference to those three Petitions will clearely shew but both Houses of Parliament in their great wisdome faithfulnesse and care for the publike safety and peace of the Kingdome have in the fifth and sixth Articles of the Propositions in these words thus proposed viz. Ar●ic 5. That Reformation of Religion accordin● to 〈…〉 by Act of Parliame●● in such manner as both Ho●ses have agreed 〈…〉 agree upon after consultation had with the Assembly of 〈◊〉 And Article 6 it thus followeth For 〈◊〉 much as ●ot● Kingdome● are 〈◊〉 oblig●d by the same Covm●n● to indeavo●● the ●●arest ●onjunction and unif●rmity in matters of Religion that such unity and 〈◊〉 in Religi●n according to the Covenant as after 〈…〉 Divines of b●t● Kingdomes now assembled 〈…〉 shall bee 〈◊〉 agreed ●pon 〈◊〉 Houses of Parliament of England and by the Ch●rch and Kingdome of Scotland be 〈◊〉 by Acts of Parliament of both Kingdomes respectively And therefore were I thought worthy to bee of your Councell I sho●ld advise you to bee so inge●●ous as in this to confesse your error and not to imagine that you see more in the City Remonstran●e then either one or both Houses of Parliament can yet discerne and for after times I wou●d perswade you to forbeare the thus unjust besm●a●ing and falsly acc●sing that City wh●reof you are a member 〈◊〉 amongst whom under God you enjoy your livelihood You g●e on and say 〈…〉 Reply 〈◊〉 with adversary ●pon adversary representi●● the Au●hor of the said ●ooke a lyer because 〈◊〉 tells 〈…〉 a friend to the Parliament Ans● Truly these are fine 〈◊〉 if they were true to beget 〈…〉 Remonstrance and to ingratiate the opposer● in the eyes of the people But I pray what doe you 〈…〉 I must needs say you tread in the 〈…〉 Replyer 〈…〉 and it 's very 〈…〉 the book and the page if you 〈…〉 and tell us the truth you have told 〈…〉 you are called a Lyer and where you are 〈…〉 you are a friend to the Parliame●● 〈…〉 be taking with children 〈…〉 The next thing you fall upon is in your fourth page and that is the word Humble Remonstrance and upon this you descant in some similitudes as of Court complements and Cavaliers carriage and then in plaine termes you call it a Remonstrance invective against the Parliament Answ. You are full of charges though never so false and liberall in your expressions though you make nothing good I conceive you thinke your selfe safe and secure and perhaps you are so from ever giving an accompt of these your actions to any earthly authority but yet methink● the words of the ninth Commandement should be of some authority to you and beare some sway with you viz. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour If not against a particular person then sure not against a Corporation a City whereof your self are a member Then you are offended at these expressions viz. Two late Libells published by two Anonymusses and you aske why I call them Libells before I prove them so Answ. They were so in themselves before I named them so neither called I them Libells for any of those reasons which you would have the world beleeve I did As first because they are written by an Antipresbyter nor yet because they containe in them lies falsities untruths though all these in severall instances are in the vindication made good against them nor because they are little Bookes nor yet singly because they are written against the City or because they are without the Authors Names but for these two last reasons joyntly and together A Libell I call that which is an untrue and therefore an unjust Charge upon or against a Person a Corporation a Court without any name annexed to make good what is there charged and in this respect I appeale to the Reader whether I did not truly and justly call them Libells Lastly before you come to the body of the Booke you have yet another fling against the Title A Vindication of the City Remonstrance that is say you a Vindication of that which is invindicable And therefore say you better it would bee that both the City Remonstrance and the vindication thereof were written in ashes with the finger of vanitie then in marble with the pen of a 〈◊〉 c. Answ. For ought I yet see it is but one 〈◊〉 opinion and he none of the gravest neither that the City Remonstrance is invindicable and what you have said to prove it to be so I desire the Reader to judge