Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	great_a	king_n	philip_n	3,390	5	9.0449	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42237	The most excellent Hugo Grotius, his three books treating of the rights of war & peace in the first is handled, whether any war be just : in the second is shewed, the causes of war, both just and unjust : in the third is declared, what in war is lawful, that is, unpunishable : with the annotations digested into the body of every chapter / translated into English by William Evats ...; De jure belli et pacis. English	Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645.; Evats, William.	1682 (1682)	Wing G2126; ESTC R8527	890,585	490

Baronies that are held by Homage or Fealty to the chief Lord. This is the succession of the Kingdom of England As in the Counties of Artoise Champane Tolouse and Brittany This was the order of succession prescribed unto the Dutchy of Mantua by the Emperour Sigismund Anno 1432. and by Charles the Fifth Emperour and King of Spain to Philip the Second in his Kingdoms and Principalities But the proof of this Lineal Succession though there were no Law or Example to guide us may be taken from the order that is observed in Publick Assemblies For if in that order regard be had to lineal descents it will be a sign that the hopes conceived of the children of the deceased was by Law quickened into a Just Right so that it may well pass from the dead to the living This is that Lineal Cognatical succession wherein women and those that are born of them are not excluded but only post-pon'd in the same line So that recourse is had unto them in case the Males that are nearer or that those born from Males in an equal line should fail The ground whereof as it differs from an hereditary succession is the hopes which the people conceive of them who are nearest related to the Prince in possession and who have the justest hopes to succeed him that they have Educations answerable to their high birth and hopes such are the Children of those Parents who had they lived must have succeeded XXIII The lineal succession of the Males only Agnatical succession There is likewise another lineal succession of Males only which is called Agnatical which differs from the Cognatical in that it excludes Females and admits only of Males which from the Kingdom of France takes its rise and is therefore called the French succession Though the Kingdom of Israel seems to have been thus setled 2 Chron. 13.5 And the chief reason of this is to debar Strangers from the Crown by marrying the Kings Daughters In both these lineal successions all are admitted that are any wayes allyed though in degrees never so remote from the last possessor whilst they can derive themselves from the first King And in some places where the Agnatical Succession is deficient recourse is had to the Cognatical Nay and this latter is sometimes preferred before the former as in Aethiopia where the Kings Sisters Son did alwayes succeed him which Bede records also of the Picts where the kindred of the women were preferred to the succession The like we read of the Indians So Tacitus of the Germans That their Kings gave the greatest honour to their Sisters Son as being nearest in blood to them XXIV A succession that alwayes respects the proximity to the first King Livy lib. 29. Vand. l. 1. Other manner of successions may be introduced either by the people or at the pleasure of him who holds the Kingdom in a patrimonial right so that he may alienate it For he may so settle the succession that they that are next to himself at all times may be preferred before others as it was anciently among the Numidians where for the like cause the Unkle did succeed in the Kingdom before the Children of the last King This Custome was introduced in Africk by the Testament of Gizerick wherein amongst many other things he chargeth his Vandals That they should admit of him only into the Throne that should be at any time n●arest unto himself in a right Masculine line and of them still the eldest and then the next in order wherein he regarded not the present possessor but the first Acquisitor Which order whether Gizerick himself learnt from the Africans among whom it had been long observed or whether they learnt it from some of our Northern Nations is a question The like was of old in use among the happy Arabians as may be gathered out of Strabo And the later Historians report the same of Taurica Chersonesus Lib. 16. Neither is it so long since the Kings of Fesse and Morocco did the like Livy speaking of Massinissa saith That whilst he made War in Spain for the Carthaginians his Father dying the Kingdom fell according to the custome of the Numidians unto Desalces the deceased Kings Brother The same Custome is in force throughout all Mauritania as Mariana testifies and in the Kingdom of Mexico and Peru as the Histories of those parts record Now the same if in doubt is to be observed in things committed to trust if it be left to the Family And this agrees best with the Roman Laws though some Interpreters do wrest it otherwise These things premised it will be no hard matter to resolve all Controversies which do arise concerning the Right of Kingdoms which the different opinions of Lawyers have made so intricate XXV Whether the Son may be so exheredated that he shall not succeed in his Fathers Kingdom And in the first place this Question ariseth Whether a Father may exheredate his Son so that he shall not succeed in his Kingdom Where we must distinguish between Patrimonial Kingdoms which are Alienable and such as are not Alienable In the former there is no doubt but that exheredation is lawful for such Kingdoms differ nothing from other Goods and therefore in such places where by Law or Custome Exheredation is in force it is practicable even in the case of Kingdoms yea though there were no Law or Custome to warrant it yet naturally it is lawful for a Father to exclude his Son from all but bare Alimony yea and from that also if he have committed any Crime worthy of death He may if the Kingdom be Patrimonial or have been otherwise notoriously wicked and have of his own whereby otherwise to subsist Thus was Reuben punished by Jacob with the loss of his Birth-right and Adonija by David with the loss of his Kingdom For David's Kingdom was in a manner Patrimonial though not by the right of War yet by special donation from God himself Now where the Kingdom is Patrimonial the King may nominate which of his Sons he will to succeed him as the Kings of Mexico now do Nay if the eldest Son have provoked his Father by any hainous crime and there be no manifest sign that he hath forgiven him he shall be as one tacitely exheredated Otherwise in Kingdoms nor alienable But it is otherwise in Kingdoms not alienable though they be hereditary because the people are best pleased that the Kingdom shall descend in an hereditary way especially from an Intestate Much less shall it be in the power of a Father to exheredate his Son where the Kingdom is to pass in a lineal descent For there without any imitation of an Inheritance it was agreed in its first Institution That the Kingdom should by the peoples gift pass to every person of the Royal Family in such order as was then prescrib'd XXVI Whether a King may renounce his Kingdom In a Kingdom meerly hereditary he may but n● in a Lineal

some Contracts which have some resemblance of Usury and are vulgarly so accounted which yet are of another kind As when the lender requires somewhat to repair the damage he hath sustained either by reason of the long detention of his money lent or being frustrated of the hopes of gain that he might have made by it deducting notwithstanding somewhat in respect of the incertainty of those hopes and also for the labour and hazard he must have run for it So likewise to defray the charges of him that lends money to many and to that purpose keeps his money ready with his Books of Account and for the danger he runs of losing the Principal where it is not sufficiently secured If any thing in these Cases be required it is not to be reputed Usury And if we would know what opinion the Roman Lawyers had of it we shall find that as they hated the word Foenus so they would easily admit of Vsura Vsura non propter lucrum petentium sed propter moram solventium Not that the lender desired to make again by the wants of the borrower but because his money is not paid at the time agreed on The difference being only this Foenus and Usura how distinguisht Foenus is that which we contract for more than the principal meerly out of a desire of gain But Vsura is that which is given more than the principal lest the lender should be damnified by the detention of the principal But since this word Vsura being abused by some hath gotten an ill report therefore hath this latter Age substituted in its room the word Interest Demosthenes in his Oration against Pantaenetus denyes peremptorily that he deserves to be branded with the name of an Usurer that lends what he hath got either by merchandizing or by his honest labour sub modico lucello for some moderate gain partly that he may keep what he hath so got and partly that thereby he may gratifie another It is recorded of Germanus Kinsman to Justinian That he lent money to every man that needed it to be imployed Goth. l. 3. but never took any thing that deserved the name of Usury True it is that the Scriptures the Fathers the Canon Law and the Decretals do all declaim against Usury so do the Civilians Baldus calls it a profitable Theft or Piracy Bartolus condemns all Usury so do the Roman Emperours and most Common-wealths yet are they contented to tolerate it being restrained and moderated The Hebrew word Nishech signifies a biting or grinding Usury such a lending of money as under the pretence of Charity devours the poor borrower The matter that binds the Conscience is the Debtors gaining nothing by the money lent and not the taking of much or little Interest It is a more biting Usury to take 2 or 3 per Cent. of him that gets nothing than to receive 6 or 8 of him that makes thereof a greater gain which was the cause that among the Romans he that took Usury of the poor was more punished than he that robbed the rich No man is by the Law bound or so much as admonished to lend to those who have no need And in case another man gain by what is mine Natural equity requires that I should be a gainer by so much as he by my means is made the richer Again If to a man that stands in present want I lend freely until such a time prefixt if he fail then of payment and I thereby incur any damage it is reason that he should satisfie the damage and so Interest may be due ex damno habito for the loss I sustain Also if a Tradesman lend his money which he can spare till such a Mart to be then paid and the borrower fail in his payment whereby he is disabled to drive on his Trade for the next year then shall he be bound to satisfie the damage the lender sustaineth propter lucrum cessans by reason that our hope of gain ceaseth Again four men are Partners in one Shop two being Aged supply Money the other two being young and active do take pains to improve it if they by their labour and care gain 20 or 30 per Cent. and pay the other two being past their labour 6 or 8 per Cent. for their Maintenance Can this be called Biting Usury If it be objected That the two lenders take no pains nor run any hazard I answer Yes they did doubtless take pains when they were able and they do now run an hazard by lending their money to them that are painful but have nothing It is recorded by Procopius to the honour of Germanus Proc. Got. l. 3. a Kinsman of Justinian's That he lent great sums of money to be imployed by such as needed it but never took any thing that deserved the name of Usury Our King Edgar forbad Usury and Edward the First sent away all the Bankers whom Gregory the Tenth had sent out of Italy into England and placed in Lumbard-street Henry the Eighth allowed 10 per Cent. for one year which Edward the Sixth repealed Queen Elizabeth tolerated 10 per Cent. so did King James which Charles the First reduced to 6 per Cent. which yet continues XXII What power the Civil Laws have determined in the case But these humane Laws that tolerate a moderate gain for the use of money or any other thing as in Holland they permit 8 per Cent. to some and 12 per Cent. to Merchants for a year as a reasonable compensation for that loss which the lender doth or may sustain by the forbearance of his money are no way repugnant to the Laws either Natural or Divine But if they exceed this rate those Laws may afford Impunity but no just Right XXIII How Contracts concerning ensurances are to be valued A Contract for the ensuring of Goods from Casualties either by Sea or Land is altogether void if either of the Contractors do know that the Goods are already safely arrived at the Port or place whither they were bound or that they are perished by the way not only in respect of that parity or equality of knowledge that there should be between such Contractors but in respect of the subject matter of such a Contract which is a loss but uncertain which in respect of both parties may or may not be But at what rate these Goods are to be secured depends upon common estimation XXIV How in Societies with their several kinds In social Negotiations where traffick is maintained by the joint Stock of a Company if every member contribute an equal proportion in money their gain or loss shall also be equal but if their proportions be unequal every member shall be rated according to his proportion The like is to be observed where the traffick is to be maintained by joint service accordingly as the service is by agreement either equally or unequally to be performed But yet in such Negotiations services may be set against money

proclamation That whosoever should plot any mischief against Philip and fly for protection to Athens should instantly be delivered up unto him yet is it not necessary that every person that is so demanded should immediately be delivered up but those only who upon due examination shall be found guilty For as Plutarch in the Life of Romulus rightly observes It is not fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deliver up a man unheard The King of Scotland as Camden informs us told Queen Elizabeth Camden Anno 85. that he would send Fernihurst yea and the Chancellor too into England as soon as by sound Evidence it was proved that they had premeditately broken the peace and committed the murthers they were charged with Neither is every Malefactor that is found guilty necessarily to be delivered up for the obligation being disjunctive binds only either to deliver up or to punish For thus we read that the Elians made War upon the Lacedemonians because they did not punish those Lacedemonians that had injured them that is because they would neither deliver them up nor punish them sometimes they that demand the malefactor are left to their choice but this is a favour and not a debt unless it be so agreed in the league as it was between the Kings of England and Denmark recorded by Pontanus Thus did the Cerites put the Romans to their choice Liv. lib. 7. Whether they would have the persons who had injured them delivered up or punished Aeschines in his answer to Demosthenes declares That treating with King Philip concerning the general Peace of Greece he told Philip amongst other things That it was fit that the Malefactors themselves and not their Cities should pay the price of their own wickedness and that Cities could not justly be punished if they caused the Criminals personally to appear in judgment Declam 255. Quintilian tells us That the next degree to Treason is to harbour and protect Traytors and next to the Renegadoes are they that receive them Basilius sent to Cosroes desiring him to deliver up unto him one who being a Subject had taken up arms against him being his Lord and Master and that he would not countenance so pernicious a precedent against himself Zonaras And Dion Chrysostom among other mischiefs arising from the discord of Cities mentions this as one Basil Porphyrogenneto That it is lawfull for offenders to fly for protection from one City to another And here we meet with another question namely whether they that being so delivered up by their own City and not received by any other do still remain Citizens of their own City Whether they who being delivered up but not received remain Citizens of their own City This Publ. M. Scaevola denies because they that are so delivered are no less banished from their own City than they who are interdicted fire and water But Brutus and after him Cicero were of a contrary Opinion which doubtless is the more probable though not properly for the reason brought by Cicero because as in gifts so in deditions they cannot be compleat unless accepted for in every donation that is perfect the consent of both Parties is necessary whereas the dedition here meant is nothing else but the permitting of a Subject to be under the Arbitrary Power of another Prince or State whom he hath injured which bare permission doth neither give nor take away any right only it takes away that which should hinder the execution wherefore if that other Prince or People shall not make use of that right then doth he that was delivered return unto the same condition as before to be either punished or not punished as the City whereunto he returns shall see cause which was the case of Clodius who was delivered to the Inhabitants of Corsica but was not by them accepted of as there are many offences wherein a City may do either but this Right of the City as both other rights and goods are not immediately by the bare fact lost unless some publick decree or sentence first pass upon him In the same manner Goods also though delivered yet if not accepted remain his whose formerly they were but if that Subject being delivered up shall be accepted and afterwards happen to return he shall lose the priviledge of his Freedom unless by some new service done he shall be admitted Now what we have here said of punishing or delivering offenders is to be understood as well of those who fly to our protection from other places as of those who are natural and native Subjects V. The right of Suppliants belong not to malefactors but to the miserable Neither do those so famous rights of suppliants and examples of sanctuaries and places of refuge any thing derogate from what we have before said For these belong properly to such as are wrongfully oppressed but not unto those who do such acts as are in themselves either destructive to Humane Society or injurious to other men Gylippus the Lacedemonian discoursing of this right of suppliants Diod. lib. 8. speaks thus They who first introduced these priviledges intended that they who were through any misfortune miserable should be preserved but they that were malicio●sly wicked should expect nothing but punishment for these have nothing to blame Fortune for neither ought they to assume to themselves the name of suppliants which is proper to those only Quibus innocens est animus irata fortuna Whom nothing but an inevitable fate or fortune have made miserable But as for those who are constantly and professedly unjust there remains no place either for Pity or Protection which two Menander thus distinguisheth Misfortune and injustice differ much For that 's our chance this our own choice makes such Wherefore as Philo notes Mercy indeed is due to the unfortunate De Judice but they that are wilfully wretched are not unhappy but unjust When we behold a man that is distrest saith Marcus Antoninus we should diligently observe his mind and manners whereby we may discover whether it were his ignorance or his wilfulness that occasioned his misfortune and accordingly we should administer either our advice or our reproof Goth. lib. 3. So Totilas in Procopius doth wisely distinguish between those injuries that are done through ignorance or forgetfulness and those done out of a premeditated malice The former may plead if not for pardon yet for mitigation of his punishment but the latter can urge nothing but what aggravates both the sin and judgment In Aphor. 1. Not much impertinent to this is that of Demosthenes which Cicero thus translates Misereri oportet qui propter fortunam non propter malitiam in miseriis sunt To commiserate those that are miserable is an act of humanity but then only when such sufferings are occasioned by some misfortune but not when occasioned by our own wickedness Nor that of Antiphanes That which is done involuntarily is from fortune but what we do deliberately is