Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	city_n	king_n	lord_n	4,004	5	3.6249	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77930	Tractatus de jure regnandi, & regni: or, The sphere of government, according to the law of God, nature, and nations. / By VVilliam Ball, Gent.	Ball, William.	1645 (1645)	Wing B597; Thomason E309_36; ESTC R16489	14,585	23

Prerogative or power extraordinary but rather of his ordinary power and I conceive moreover power extraordinary or ordinary to consist rather in reason positive then negative in beeing rather then in non beeing and consequently in the Kings power to consent and Act rather then in his power to non consent and non-act which upon the matter is but ens negativum a deniall of acting enacting or coenacting with the Parliament ●d hath free ●er to doe at be plea● yet the tribute of Omnipo●ce is not ●ominated ●● his not ●lingnesse to ● but from power of ●ng able to ● if willing though the ●g have free ●er to con●● or dissent ●is Parlia●nt even as ●s a body ●tick yet the ●ue of his ●thority can● bee deno●ated from non-wil●gnesse to ●sent but ●● his pow●●facting c. ●illing wherefore concerning the Kings negative voice in Parliament I state the case thus viz. that his consent is either necessary or unnecessary to the consummating of an act in Parliament if unnecessary to what end should it be insisted upon if necessary then is his consent either voluntary free as in reason it may seem to bee as well as the consent of either House of Parliament or else the King is tyed and obliged not only in foro conscientiae but jure determinato to give his consent this last cannot be made appeare for a King of England hath power to write if willing to give his consent Le Roy It veult or if unwilling Le Royle avisera as for that allegation which some bring viz. that the King never writes Le Roy le neult or the King will not it seemeth to me of no great consequence for if the King may as a Politick body advise as he pleaseth he may consequently not will till he please wherfore his consent-must be voluntary that is to say the King hath free power to consent or dissent even as he is a Body Politick not withstanding that the vertue of his Authority consists in his possitive power of consent or being able to Act c. as aforesaid 5. Furthermore for my part I conceive that although the King have free power to consent or dissent even as he is a Politick body and that his consent give force and vertue to an Act and Statute as aforesaid yet his dissent doth not or cannot frustrate or make void an Ordinance concluded of and avouched by both Houses of Parliament and generally accepted of by the whole or major part of the Kingdome and the reason is because the Parliament is the representative Body of the Kingdom intrusted by the Kingdome and may therefore conclude of and constitute what shall seem expedient for the good of the Kingdome and such constitution or Ordinance generally admitted as aforesaid hath or ought to have the nature and vigor of Law for Ius Regni tâm Actuale quâm Potentiale is the peoples in generall they are interested in that the Kings interest consists in jure Regnandi but to this some it may be will object that almost all immunities and priviledges to Cities and especially to Townes corporate have been conferred by our Kings yea some will not sticke to affirme that all the liberties of the Kingdome have been granted by our Kings and that therefore it may seem unjust that any constitution or ordinance should have the nature or vigor of Law nolente Rege to this I answer that almost all such immunities or priviledges are included Radically in the generall liberties of the shares or shires of the Kingdome so that they are not meer Grants of our Kings but Treasures of the Kingdome in more speciall manner applied by our Kings to some places and persons and as touching all liberties of the Kingdome to have been granted by Kings I confesse I was once inclined to that opinion in respect of the conquest but having considered that conquest barely of it selfe createth no just Title as formerly instanced and that the Laws and liberties which this Kingdome now enjoyeth were upon the matter existent before the conquest that the Conqueror his heires and successors were obliged stricte in foro conscientia to conserve and maintaine them albeit they violated too many of them I say these things considered I cannot finde how the liberties of the Kingdome should proceed from our Kings but that they are the peoples in generall by right even as the Crowne or Ius Regnandi is the Kings by birthright yet admitting that some immunities or priviledges were granted by our Kings to some places and persons or to the Kingdome in generall may not the people or their feoffees in trust the Parliament make the best use of such Grants as well as Kings have made use of Grants from their Subjects And why should then the Kings Grants of priviledges or liberties if any such have been impeach the Subjects in generall or Parliament from doing what they may doe jure Regni for their generall good any more then the Subjects Grants to Kings should impeach them from doing what they may doe jure Regnandi for their owne good surely there can no reason be shewne so that for my part I conceive that Ordinances in nature as aforesaid have and ought to have the force and vigor of Law 1. And I intend now by way of reason to instance the generall benefit and liberty which the Subjects of England have by the Law or rather their Law I exclude not the King from any benefit thereof but only from power of violation The Law here in England to comprehend all speciall Lawes in one generall terme is as I conceive A rule admitted by common consent by which all men from the highest to the lowest according to their severall degrees are to regulate their actions to this both King and people have consented by this both King and people are preserved with this both King and people are united and as it were linked together This Law is the true Robur Britanicum whereof the Common-Law is the root and stock and the Statutes Acts and Ordinances of Parliament are the branches which at severall times upon severall occasions have spred themselves to solace the Subjects of this Kingdome under which they might in peace repose Now the Subjects of this Kingdom which live under this Law of common consent may be considered either as the Body essentiall and so all naturall or native persons of what degree soever in all Counties Cities and Towns corporate and wheresoever within the limits of this Kingdome are comprehended or else the Subjects of this Kingdome may be considered as the Body representative and so the Parliament is only intended consisting of Lords or Peers quasipares inter se and of Knights Citizens and Burgesses for the Counties Cities and Townes corporate These Knights Citizens and Burgesses are elected by the Democraticall body of Freeholders and such like of the people and doe represent or vices suas gerere if the people without confusion or disorder

could assemble together there were no need of such election so that these are the true Representative Body Democraticall of this Kingdome the Lords are in nature of a Body Aristocraticall and the King in form of a Monarch and these three viz. King Lords and Commons are in themselves so indifferently and exactly composed without excesse or defect ab origine that as soule and body make but one entire man so these three make but one entire power of government the which if defects or exorbitances should not or doe not distemper as diseases doe sometimes the soundest bodies is without any flattery or vain-glorious praise the most excellent known form of government in the world 2. This power aforesaid may enact any thing in beneficium Regni for the benefit of the Kingdome be it generall or speciall c. but this power in detrimentum libertatis aut proprietatis generalis subditerum Angliae cannot doe any thing not any thing I say to damnifie the generall liberty and propriety of the Subjects of England and the reason is becaus the English are subditi potius quam subjecti such as have rather put themselves under a law by common consent then enforced to undergoe a Law Wherefore I conceive the L. Digby to be greatly mistaken who affirmed that a King of England ensphered in his Parliament was as absolute as any Monarch of the East some Monarchs of the East can command to strangle one and he is strangled and to deprive another of his goods or estate and he is deprived and this they can doe ad placitum without shewing any cause but the King and Parliament in England cannot doe so those Monarchs can and some of them have and doe make Lawes that all their subjects estates shall be at their owne disposalls viz. that The Parliament by imposing Subsidies and the like do not dispose of the Subjects estates in generall ad placitum but only apply equally so much of every mans estate as seems convenient in necessitatem Regni c. the necessity of the Kingdome and such like they may take from whom they please what they please all if they please ad placitum but in England the King and Parliament cannot doe so for the King as aforesaid is but in nature of high Steward of the Kingdome by inheritance and the Parliament seoffees in Trust and both tyed by the great Indenture of Magna Charta to conserve the generall liberty and propriety of the people And it is to be noted that since Magna Charta was confirmed which upon the matter is but an Abridgement or Epitome of the liberties and rights of the Subjects of England before the conquest which liberties and rights are grounded upon the Law of God and naturall reason when any King of England would have extraordinary supplies from the people that the Parliament being conveened the King hath given or shewne some probable or seeming reasons why he desired or had need of such supplies and the Members of Parliament I meane those of the House of Commons at their returne to the places which intrusted them have likewise shewne or manifested some generall reasons or causes to the people why such extraordinary supplies were by them granted And surely were there now an account taken and given of the extraordinary and vast supplies levied on the estates of the people it would give a great satisfaction so that neither King or Parliament did at any time take ad placitum but ad necessitatem nor did the people otherwise grant any extraordinary supplies of mony 3. But some it may be will object and say suppose the King and Parliament should make an act that they would might dispose of all the Subjects estates in England themselves excepted or not excepted and consequently that they might take from whom they please what they please all if they please ad placitum what remedy might the Subjects have I answer that for my part I suppose it almost impossible that the King and Parliament should doe such a thing but admitting of a kinde of impossible possibility I answer further that in such case the Counties Cities and Townes corporate might and ought first to petition against so great an injury and if not remedied then they might declare and protest against such an act if violated then they might defend themselves by Armes for if the Representative Body of the Kingdome may in the behalfe of the Kingdome raise Arms for the defence of themselves and the Kingdome may not the essentiall is not the cause more noble then the effect in that it gives being to the effect doe not the Counties Cities and Townes corporate give being or a well-being to the Knights Citizens and Burgesses by intrusting their power Iudiciall to them And yet by reposing or granting such Trust they doe not disinvest themselves of their right naturall no more then one that passeth an estate to feoffees in Trust for some causes and considerations disinvesteth himself of the use intended or reserved so that they may defend their liberties and proprieties even by law of Nature which no speciall or Nationall Lawes can nullifie unlesse men will become or be made slaves and lose the right of Nature And besides it is an Axiom Politicall ubi nulla protectio ibi nulla subjectio if therefore the King or Parliament or King and Parliament should make an Act that they might dispose of all Subjects estates ad placitum as aforesaid deficiunt â protectione they faile or fall from the protection of the people and then the people may deficere â subjectione and protect themselves their liberties and proprieties even by Law Politicall 4. But some will farther object that it may be that the Counties Cities and Townes corporate doe intrust all their power both Iudiciall and Naturall fully and wholly as it were to the Knights Citizens and Burgesses at their election promising and covenanting to stand to all that they shall doe in Parliament c. And they will it may be object and say moreover that the King and Parliament are the Legislative power in England and that they may as well make a Law to dispose of all Subjects estates in England ad placitum c. as they have made and can make Lawes concerning Religion and the like I answer that albeit the Counties Cities and Townes corporate doe intrust their power Iudiciall not naturall to the Knights Citizens and Burgesses and promise to stand to what they shall doe yet they intrust it in beneficium Regni nonperniciem that is the proper and adequate object and end of their trust and they promise to stand to what they shall doe in matters disputable whether Religion is a matter disputable they be Actuall or de facto or Potentiall wherein the Kingdom may be either benefited or damnified and of such things the people make them their Judges but not in matters indisputable wherein without any dispute the Kingdome would be wholly damnified and