Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	earl_n	king_n	reign_n	3,913	5	8.1254	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28358	An argvment of ivstification of the five members accused by His Majesty vvherin is proved that the raising of this present army by authority of Parliament, is not treason : by which it likewise appeareth, that never any king of England received losse or damage by any Parliament, from the first that ever was called to this present Parliament / by Peter Bland of Grays-Inne, Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1643 (1643)	Wing B3161; ESTC R16874	8,204	18

King had a power over the Parliament unlesse I misapprehend them pray tell me hath he not now a power over them Stud. I shall tell you what I have read and farther I cannot go The House had agreed in 23 Eliz. to have a common Fast whereof the Queen misliked not for the matter but for the innovation of order without her privity and without Ecclesiasticall Authority for which cause the Commons submitted themselves and she gave them their pardon And Sir Walter Raleigh saith the three Estates do but advise as the Privie-Councell doth which advice if the King embrace it becomes the Kings own Act in the one and the Kings Law in the other for without the Kings acceptation both the publike and private advices be but as empty Egge-shells Again if there be any difference for alteration of a Bill between the Lords and Commons then usually some speciall persons of each House meet confer that one House may understand the meaning of the other but a Bill that is signed by the King and sent to the Lower-house may not be altred in any part thereof without His Majesties licence but if a Bill come from the Lords and not signed by him it may be altered by noting what should be taken from it or added unto it from whence learned Doctor I desire you to gather your own satisfaction and in 4. 5. Phill. Mar. The Speaker shewed that it was the QUEENS pleasure that the House should proceed no farther with the Bill for the Revenues of the Queen because it extended to divers which had accompted and then Peter Wentworth and James Dalton moved whether this did not restrain the Liberty of the House upon which after many arguments they resolved to cease till some other time now the Queen revoked her said Command and gave them liberty to proceed but upon consultation amongst themselves they spared to proceed any farther Doct. But pray Sir tell me your opinion freely Is it dangerous for the King to assemble the three States for thereby former Kings have alwayes lost somewhat of their Prerogative and because you shall not think that I speak at random I will begin with elder times wherein the first contention began betwixt the Kings of this land and their Subjects in Parliament Stud. Sir you would do me a singular favour in your so doing Doct. You know that the Kings of England had no formall Parliament till about the eighteenth yeer of Henry the first for in his 17th yeer for the marriage of his daughter the King raised a Tax upon every hide of Land by the advice of his privy Councell alone but you may remember how the subjects soon after this Parliament began to stand upon termes with the King and drew from him by strong hand and the sword the Great Charter Stud. You say well Sir the great Charter was drawn from the King by the sword but hereof the Parliament cannot be accused but the Lords Doct. Then afterwards King John promised to restore King Edwards Laws and also to confirm the Charter of Forrests and the great Charter upon his absolution but after his return out of France in his 16 year he denyed it because without such a promise he had not obtained restitution therefore he said his promise was constrain'd and not voluntary what say you therefore was he not bound in honor to perform it Stud. Certainly no for it was determined the Case of King Francis the first of France That all promises by him made whil'st he was in the hands of Charls the Fifth his enemy were voyd by reason the judge of Honor which tells us he durst do no other Doct. But King John was not in prison Stud. Yet for all that restraint is imprisonment yea fear it self is imprisonment and the King was subject to both I know there is nothing more Kingly in a King than the performance of his word that is his word that is freely given for binding of a King by Law upon the advantage of his necessity makes the breach it self lawfull in a King saith Sir Walter Raleigh his Charters and all other instruments being no other than the surviving witnesses of unconstrained will Princeps non subjicitur nisi suae voluntate libra mero motu certa scientia necessary words in all the Grants of a King witnessing that the same Grants were given freely and willingly Doct. But what say you to the Parliament of Westminster in the 16 yeare of the King when notwithstanding the Wars of France and the great charge he had been at in repulsing the Welsh Rebels he was flatly denyed the Subsidy demanded Stud. I confesse Sir That the House excused themselves by reason of their poverty and the Lords taking of Arms but you spake Sir of danger of Parliaments Now in this Parliament there was a deniall but there was no danger at all yet in the end of that year at the Assembly of the States at Lambeth the King had the fortieth part of every mans goods given him freely towards the payment of his debts and those people who the same year had refused to give the King any thing when they saw he had supplied his own necessity out of Delinquents and corrupt Officers which he call'd to accompt they willingly yeelded to give him satisfaction and indeed 't is impossible for a King of England to greaten and enrich himself by any way so assuredly as by the love of his people for by one years-Rebellion or civill Wars the King hath more losse than by a hundred years observance of Magna Charta and the other Laws that are in force for in those times of War Kings have been forced to compound with Rogues and Rebels and to pardon them but by Parliaments the Kings of England never received losse or prejudice Doct. But what say you to tha deniall in the 26 year of this Kings Reigne sven when the King was invited to come into France by the Earle of March who married his Mother and who promised to assist him in the Conquest of many places that he had lost Stud. It is true that a Subsidie was then denyed and the reasons are delivered in English Histories who say That with a world of payments there mentioned the King had drawn the Nobility dry and besides That whereas not long before great summes of Money were given and the same appointed to be kept in four Castles and not to be expended but by the advise of the Peers it was believed that the same Treasure was yet unspent Doct. Good sir you have said enough judge you your self whether that were not a dishonor to the King to be so tyed as not to expend his Treasure but by other mens advise as it were by their licence Stud. Surely noble Doctor the King was well advised to take the money upon any condition and they were fooles that did propound the restrain't for it does not appear that the King took any great heed to those

AN ARGVMENT IN IVSTIFICATION OF The five Members ACCUSED By HIS MAIESTY VVherein is proved that the raising of this present Army by Authority of Parliament is not Treason By which it likewise appeareth that never any King of England received losse or damage by any Parliament from the first that ever was called to this present Parliament By PETER BLAND of Grays-Inne Gent. London Printed for JOHN FIELD A Dialogue between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student at Law Concerning the KING and PARLIAMENT DOctor Sir being acquainted with your wayes of imployment and knowing you to be a Lawyer I shall desire some satisfaction from you concerning a Parliament it being no way belonging to my own study whereby I may resolve my self and first I desire you to tell me who may be Burgesses or Knights in Parliament Student I wish all Divines were of your temper not to meddle with that which belongs not to them and to answer your question the son and heir of an Earl may be and so was the Lord Russell Eliz. 6. or the sonne and heir apparent of a Baron and so was Mr. Henry Brook for the eldest son of an Earl is not a Lord only by the courtesie of England he is called so but in any Declaration or writing he hath no more then his legall addition given Doct But may not a Divine be chosen for a Burgesse for he hath no voice in the upper House unlesse he be a Bishop Stud. No Sir he may not and therefore Alexander Nowell was refused being a Prebend of Westminster whereupon a Writ issued to choose another in his roome for Leo in Cornwall Doct. But I have heard that the Country hath a free chise and if they choose a Divine and he is returned may the House put him out and have they power to send out Writs Stud. In 23 Eliz. it was ordered that during the Session no Writs should issue to choose Knights or Burgesses but by Warrant of the House to the Clerk of the Crown and 18 Martii 23 Eliz. it was agreed by the House that if a Burgesse be incurably sick another may be chosen in his place by licence of the House but not if he be easily sick or sent of his Majesties service unlesse the House will allow of a new Election Doct. What then Sir if one man be chosen for two places which must he serve for Stud. He must serve for that place which first chose him Sir Henry Piercy was chosen Knight for two Counties and thereupon it was adjudged by the House that he should serve for that County which first chose him 13. Eliz. and in 7. E. 6. one Cavell was returned for Ludders-hall and for Travayny and he appeared for the first and a Writ issued to choose another for Travayny Doct. Well Sir you have satisfied me for the Election of Burgesses and who may be now tell me what they do usually require at the Kings hands when they are all met and a Speaker made Stud. The first thing that they require at the Kings hands is that which was required by the Commons in the thirteenth yeer of Henry 8. to wit that if any man of the Commons House should speak more largely then of duty he ought to do all such offences to be pardoned and that to be of record Doct. If that be granted then they may speak of the King what they please and he must be pardoned Stud. No Sir the reverence which a vassall oweth his Soveraigne is intended in that motion for to be proved in every speech what ever it be it must import the good of the King and his State and so long it may be easily pardoned otherwise not for in Queen Elisabeths time who gave freedom of speech to all Parliaments when Wentworth made those motions that were but supposed dangerous to the Queens estate he was imprisoned in the Tower and there dyed Doct. I thought every Burgesse or Knight of the Parliament house had a priviledge that they could not be imprisoned Stud. No more they cannot at the suit of any common person where the offence does not touch the King directly as by a Trespasse against another or the like but a man shall not have the priviledge of the House for a criminall offence that immediatly toucheth the King Doct. If he shall not have the priviledge of the House for such an offence as immediately toucheth the King who then must commit him the King or the House of Parliament whereof he is a Member Stud. As to that question I shall not give you my own opinion but I shall shew you what Presidents have been done if the Books be true that I go by Sir Edward Warner Lieutenant of the Tower was sent out of his house to the Tower for an offence done before the Parliament was summoned And Sir William Cecill then Secretary said that the Queen was then assured by her Justices that she might commit any of the House during the Parliament for any offence against her Crown and Dignity and that they shewed divers Presidents thereof and Pearne was committed to the Marshalsy for words without any notice given to the House and Master Cope Master Leukenor Hurlston and Master Braynbridge and others were committed to the Tower by the Queen for that before the Parliament they had sundry conventions for the preferring in Parliament a Book touching the Rates of the Church and a form of an Act for establishing the same Which also they did print prefer and urge in Parliament but it seemed that if they had treated thereof onely in time of Parliament being Burgesses they should not have been impeached in 28 Eliz. Doct. What then do you think of the Kings accusing of the five Members Stud. Sir you must know that the accusation layd by His Majesty against them is not within the compasse of any of those Presidents and we need not stand to give any reasons to prove how it differs from them presidents because the King Himself hath acknowledged it and what dishonor can His so doing be to so Religious a Prince when as he himself is subject to error being considered as man nay in that point He hath excelled the goodnesse of His Royall Ancestors which act I hope shall be perpetually Recorded in the hearts of all His Subjects for a testimony of His Grace and goodnesse and for a pattern to all succeeding Princes Doct. But why did not they then except of a Pardon Stud. Then the Kings mercy had been apparent of which we have other great evidences but His willingnesse to acknowledge His errors which is as great a vertue in Prince had been concealed and so he had been in that respect lesse glorious besides had they received a Pardon being not guilty they had ipso facto lost their personall estate by the Statute unlesse some words of Art had been put into the pardon which is not too late yet to be done Doct. Then it seems that in former times the