Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33904
|
The desertion discuss'd in a letter to a country gentleman
|
Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing C5249; ESTC R18889
|
10,218
|
8
|
THE DESERTION DISCUSS'D In a Letter to a Country Gentleman SIR I Don't wonder to find a Person of your Sense and Integrity so much surprised at the Report of the Throne 's being declared Vacant by the lower House of the Convention For how say you can the Seat of the Government bâ— Empty while the King who all grant had an unquestionable Title is still Living and his Absence forced and involuntary I thought our Laws as well as our Religion had been against the Deposing Doctrine therefore I desire you would Expound this State Riddle to me and give me the Ground of this late exeraordinary Revolution In answer to your Question you may please to take notice That those Gentlemen of the Convention and the rest of their Sentiments who declare a Vacancy in the Government lay the main stress of their Opinion upon his Majesties withdrawing himself For now especially since the Story of the French Leaguâ— and the Business of the Prince of Wales are passed over in Silence most Men believe that the pretended Breach of that which they call Thâ— Original Contract was designed for no more than a popular Flourish And that you may be not be shocked by seeing the Votes of so considerable and publick a Meeting debated by a private hand give me leave to remind you That a Parliament and a Convention are two very different Things The latter for want of the King's Writs and Concurrence having no share in the Legislative Power If it 's urged That the present Posture and Exigence of Affairs is a sufficient Dispensation with the usual Preliminaries and Forms of Parliament To this I am obliged to answer That this pretended Necessity is either of their own Making or of their own Submitting to which is the same thing and therefore ought not to be pleaded in Justification of their Proceedings For if his Majesty had either not been driven out of his Dominions or invited back upon honorable Terms they needed not to have had recourse to these singular Methods And since they have neither the Authority of Law or Necessity to support their Determinations I hope they will not think themselves disobliged if they are inquired into and some part of that Liberty which they have taken with his Majesty be returned upon themselves For all private and unauthorised Opinions are to be regarded no farther than they prove their point Like Plate without the Royal Impression they ought not to be obtruded for currant Coin nor rated any higher than the intrinsick Value of the Mettal Leâ— us examin therefore if his Majesty has done any thing which imports either in it self or by necessary consequence That he has voluntarily Resigned his Crown and Discharged his Subjects of their Allegiance Now the Author of The Enquiry into the present State of Affairs c. for whose Judgment the Commons seem to have a very great Regard as appears from their concurrence with him For their most considerable Votes are in a manner transcribed from his 11th Paragraph This Author tells us Pag. 5. That when a King withdraws himself and his Seals without naming any Persons to represent him the Government is certainly laid down and forsaken by him Though afterwards he is so good natured as to add That if any imminent present Danger or just Fear though indeed a King can never be decently suspected of that I suppose his Reason is because Kings are invulnerable had driven his Majesty away it might seem a little too hard to urge this too much In order to the confuting this Notion I shall prove in the First place That his Majesty before his withdrawing had sufficient Grounds to make him apprehensive of Danger and therefore It cannot be called an Abdication Secondly That the leaving any Representatives behind him was impracticable at this Juncture Thirdly That we have no Grounds either from the Laws of the Realm or those of Nature to pronounce the Throne void upon such a Retreat of a King. But before I do this it s not improper to observe That this pretence of a Demise if it signified any thing cannot affect Scotland or Ireland Not the first For there his Majesty's Commissioners acted in the usual Manner till they were disturbed Nor the second For that Kingdom continues still under the Regular Administration of the Lord Lieutenant Neither is it sufficient to say That Ireland is an Appendage to the Crown of England and therefore it must follow its Revolution For allowing a Demise was really consequent upon a Failure of Seals and Representatives yet there would be no colour to apply it to a Case where there was no such Omission For no Forfeiture ought to be stretched beyond the Reason upon which it is grounded But this only by the way I shall proceed to prove the first thing propounded viz. That his Majesty before his withdrawing had sufficient Grounds to make him apprehensive of imminent Danger We are now fallen upon Times in which the most extravagant and almost impossible Things are swallowed without Chewing and the plainest Truths outfaced and denyed as if Evidence was an Argument against Proof and Absurdities the only Motives of Credibility So that now if ever we seem fit for Transubstantiation Had not some Men believed this true in a great Measure they would never have disputed against matter of Fact which was done almost in the Face of the whole Kingdom To speak to the present Case Had not his Majesty great Reason to retire to secure his Person and his Honor at his first withdrawing from Wâ—itehall which is the time from which our Author dates his pretended Desertion for he will not allow him to be King at his return I say had not his Majesty great Reason to retire when he had met with so many unfortunate Disappointments with so many surprising and unparallel'd Accidents When part of the Army was revolted and the Remainder too apparently unserviceable When the People had such fatal and unremovable Prejudices against his Majesty's Service When there were such terrible Disorders in the Kingdom and all Places were either Flaming or ready to take Fire What should a Prince do when he had scarce any thing left him to lose but himself but consult his Safety and give way to the irresistable Evil But our Author pretends the King's Affairs had a much better Aspect Let us observe how he proves it Why he tells us That when the Prince of Orange ' s Proposals came to his Majesty the Army and the Fleet were left in his Hands They were so that he might pay them for the Prince's Service for they owned his Majesty's Authority scarce any other way than by receiving his Mony and eating up his Meat It 's to be hoped they have since repented of their Actions But the Enquirer goes on with his Inventory of Forts and Revenues which the King was to have still He may know if he pleases that we have but Four considerable Forts in the Kingdom Now Hull
of Ill Administration and that nothing less than subverting the Fundamentals of Government will justify an Opposition Now I am much mistaken if Deposing of Kings is not Resisting them with a Witness But besides his self Contradiction the case is not to his purpose For 1. These Parliaments were called in Tumultuous times when the Subjects were so hardy as to put their Kings under Confinement Now if it is against the Constitution of Parliaments to Menace the Two Houses out of their Liberty of Voting freely then certainly Kings ought not to be overawed by Armies and Prisons These Parliaments therefore are very improper to make Precedents of 2. These Princes were wrought upon so far as to resign their Crowns which each of them did though unwillingly Let this Enquirer produce such a Resignation from His Majesty and he says something 3. He is much mistaken in saying these judgments as he calls them have not been vacated by subsequent Parliaments For all those subsequent Parliaments which declare it Unlawful to take up Arms against the King do by necessary implication condemn these Deposing Precedents for it 's impossible for Subjects to Depose their Princes without Resisting them 2. By Act of Parliament the First of Edw. 4. yet remaining at large upon the Parliament Rolls and for the greater part recited verbatim in the Pleadings in Bagâ—tt's Case in the Year Books Trin. Term. 9. Edw. 4. The Title of Edw. 4. by Descent and Inheritance and is set forth very particularly And that upon the Decease of Rich. 2. the Crown by Law Custom and Conscience Descended and Belonged to Edmund Earl of March under whom King Edw. 4. claimed It is likewise further declared That Hen. 4. against Law Conscience and Custom of the Realm of England Usurped upon the Crown and Lordship thereof and Hen. 5. and Hen. 6. occupied the said Realm by Unrighteous Intrusion and Usurpation and no otherwise And in 39. Hen. 6. Rot. Parl. when Richard Plantagenet Duke of York laid claim to the Crown as belonging to him by right of Succession it was 1. Objected in behalf of Hen. 6. that Hen. 4. took the Crown upon him as next Heir in Blood to Hen. 3. not as Conqueror To this it was Answered That the pretence of Right as next Heir to Hen. 3. was False and only made use of as a Cloak to shadow the violent Usurpations of Hen. 4. 2. It was Objected against the Duke of York That the Crown was by Act of Parliament Entailed upon Hen. 4. and the Heirs of his Body from whom King Hen. 6. did Lineally Descend The which Act say they as it is in the Record is of Authority to defeat any manner of Title To which the Duke of York replied That if King Hen. 4. might have obtained and enjoyed the Crowns of England and France by Title of Inheritance Descent or Succession he neither needed nor would have desired or made them to be granted to him in such wise as they be by the said Act the which takes no Place nor is of any Force or Effect against him that is right Inheritor of the said Crowns as it accordeth with Gods Laws and all Natural Laws Which Claim and Answer of the Duke of York is expressly acknowledged and recognized by this Parliament to be Good True Iust Lawful and Sufficient Cotton's Abridgment Fol. 665 666. From these Recognitions it plainly follows 1. That the Succession cannot be interrupted by an Act of Parliament especially when the Royal Assent is given by a King De Facto and not De Iure 2. The Act 9. of Edw. 4 by declaring the Crown to Descend upon Edmund Earl of March by the Decease of Rich. 2. does evidently imply That the said Richard was rightful King during his Life and consequently that his Deposition was Null and Unlawful If it 's demanded Why his Majesty did not leave Seals and Commissioners to supply his Absence This Question brings me to the Second Point viz. to shew That the leaving sufficient Representatives was impracticable at this Juncture For 1. When the Nation was so much embroiled and the King's Interest reduced to such an unfortunate Ebb it would have been very difficult if not impossible to have found Persons who would have undertaken such a dangerous Charge That Man must have had a Resolution of an extraordinary Size who would venture upon Representing a Prince who had been so much disrespected in his own Person whose Authority had been set aside and his Ambassador clapt up at Windsor when he carried not only an inoffensive but an obliging Letter But granting such a Representation had been ingaged in the Commissions must either have extended to the Calling of Parliaments or not if not they would neither have been Satisfactory noâ— absolutely necessary Not Satisfactory For the want of a Parliament was that which was accounted the great Grievance of the Nation as appears from the Prince of Orange's Declaration Where he says expresly That his Expedition is intended for no other Design but to have a Free and Lawful Parliament assembled as soon as is possible Declar. P. 12. Secondly This Expedient was not absolutely Necessary for the Administration of Justice might have proceeded Regularly without any such Deputation by Virtue of those Commissions which the Judges and Justices of the Peace had already from the King. This I shall prove 1. From a parallel Instance King Charles the I. took a Journy into Scotland in 41 during the Session of Parliament at Westminster where though he appointed Five Lords to sign Bills in his Name The Continuation of Bak. Chron. yet the Judges and Justices acted by Virtue of their former Commissions without any new Authority from any Representatives of his Majesty Now Scotland is as much a distinct Kingdom from England as France and France as much his Majesty's Dominions as Scotland And therefore if Commissions will hold in the King's Absence in one Place why not in the other Secondly The present Judges met in Ianuary last at Westminster to dispatch some Business in order to keep the Term but were forbidden to proceed by the Prince of Orange's Secretary So that it is plain it was the Opinion of these Reverend Judges that their Commissions from his Majesty were still in Force But in the next place If his Majesty had deputed any Persons to Represent him in Parliament this Method would have been attended with new and insuperable Difficulties For 1. If they had been Limited they would not have given Satisfaction For it being impossible to foresee the Business and Votes of a Parliament at a distance If they had been restrained to certain Points in all probability they would have wanted Power to have passed all the Bills and so their Deputation would not have Answered the Desire of the Houses and the greatest part of their Grievances might have been counted unredressed If it 's said that the Parliament might have requested an Enlargement of their Commission from his Majesty To this I