Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	duke_n	king_n	lord_n	3,773	5	3.7457	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61098	The case of our affaires in law, religion, and other circumstances examined and presented to the conscience	Spelman, John, Sir, 1594-1643.	1643 (1643)	Wing S4935; ESTC R26250	27,975	42

of the soveraigne power of the Peeres and Commons indeed in both there were much what the same pretences and both had much what the same warrant But all those Parliaments as they were called in the troublesome Times of Faction and Civill War so were they ever swayed by those that were the Heads of the most potent Faction and while they alwayes acted in favour of them and their Designe they are so farre from being instances of the power and authoritie of the two Houses as that cleane contrary they are plain instances of the weaknesse and unsteadinesse of them when forsaking the moderation and guidance of their naturall Head they suffered themselves to be lead by the private conduct of every popular pretender and so even among the precedents which he citeth we see that when Canutus prevailed by his Armes he could have a Parliament resolve that his Title was the best When Hen. 4. had an Armie of 60000. he could have a Parliament depose R. 2. and conferre the Crown upon himselfe When Edw. Duke of Yorke grew potent he could have a Parliament be the instrument of determining the Raigne of H. 6. and leave him onely the name of King for his life but give the Duke the very Kingdom under the names of Protectour and Regent Edw. 4. could by Parliament procure H 4. H. 5. H. 6. to be declared Kings in fact but not in right R. 3. though an Usurper could procure a Parliament to declare him a lawfull King Henry 7. could procure the forementioned Acts in favour of Edw. 4. R. 3. to be adnulled Hen. 8. could have a Parliament authorise his Divorces And Queen Elizab. could by Parliament make it High Treason to say that the Queen could not by Act of Parliament binde and dispose the rights and Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown when yet we know that no Act of Parliament no not an Attainder by Parliament can disable the right Heire to the Crown because the descent of the Crown upon Him purges all disabilities whatsoever and makes Him capable of it This is the summe and true estimate of all the Authorities which he cites in which if the Acts could be granted to be the meer Acts of the two Houses yet did they no more prove the soveraigne power to be in the two Houses than the Popes deposing of Kings proves the right of deposing them to be in him that the things were done is no proofe that they were lawfully done and yet as idle and vile a collection of examples not to be imitated as he hath made he is fain to belie them to makem seem to serve his turne for truly though he affirmes that the popish Parliaments c challenged or claimed greater jurisdiction over Kings than any ever since yet his instances prove no more claime of Soveraignitie than a robber claimes when he exercises an arbitrary power over a mans person and fortunes what they did they did de facto upon some inferiour reasons not upon claime of the Soveraignitie they neither taught nor ever learn'd that Jesuitique depth of Sathan that the Soveraignitie over the Soveraigne is placed in the Bodie Representative of the Subject All claime therefore of either the Soveraignitie it selfe or of the rights thereof by any Representative of the Subject is a transcendent impietie beyond the parallell of all his unimitable examples in which I cannot but the more wonder that he should ascribe the Acts unto the two Houses when by making the Acts theirs he makes all the long miserie and bloodshed that ensued upon those Acts to have been brought upon the Land by the meer Act of the two Houses Considering therefore the every way faulty Argument of that Book both in citing and applying I am forced to conclude with the same words that in the frontispice of his Book he begins with The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously yea the treacherous dealers have dealt exceeding treacherously As for the second part of the same Author that came since forth under a title that pretends to shew the lawfulnes of a defensive war that answers it selfe that it comes nothing to the case in question where the War is acknowledged to be an Invasive War to take from His Majestie certain Counsellours pretended to be evil Counsellours If possibly therefore he should prove what he undertakes to maintain that Subjects may make a Defensive War against their Soveraigne yet being nothing to our case deserves at all no answer here I therefore returne again unto my purpose That the Soveraignitie with all the rights claimed by His Majestie is in the King inseparably inherent in the person of His Majestie we have not onely the forementioned testimonies and reasons but we have the witnesse of the two Houses themselves for whom our deceiving Pamphlets do now make all the new arguments of pretence For first we have as I have said the whole current and bodie of our very Acts of Parliament acknowledging it in these very termes Our Soveraigne Lord the King We have the Parliament 25. H. 8 declaring thus This Your Graces Realme recognizing no Superiour under God but Your Grace The Parliament 16. R. 2.5 affirming The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately to God in all things touching the regalitie of the said Crown and to none other In the 25. H. 5. both Houses declare That it belongeth to the Kings regalitie to grant or denie what petitions in Parliament he pleaseth In the 15. E. 3. The King being unwillingly drawn to consent to certain Articles prejudiciall to the Crown and to promise to seale the Statute thereupon made least otherwise his affaires in hand might have been ruinated Another Statute the same year reciting the matter enacted in these words It seemed to the said Earles Barons and otherwise men that since the Statute did not of Our free will proceed the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their counsaile and assent We have decreed the said Statute to be void c. In the Statute of Banishment of H. Spencer the first Article against him is for making a Bill wherein he affirmed Homage and alleageance to the King is more by reason of their own than of the person of the King The word hath a note of a Parliament roll Diarie of H. 4. The Commons in Parliament pray the King that They may not be made parties to any judgement in Parliament but where in rei veritate they are parties for that the judgement belongs onely to the King except where it is given by Statute As for the Militia the Shippes and Forts of the Kingdom The King and His Predecessours have not onely been ever in possession of them commanded and disposed of them even during the sitting of Parliaments but have enjoyed that possession

soly in the King We shall easily reconcile that apparition of contradiction if we consider that we use the word Parliament to divers senses and that in two senses wherein we use the word Parliament there is no Soveraignitie to be ascribed to it We sometimes use the word Parliament for the House of Lords onely As when upon Writs of Errour any Judgement in the Kings Bench is examined in the House of Lords and there affirmed or reversed the Judgement is said to be affirmed or reversed by Parliament And yet though in that sense the House of Lords is well enough called The Parliament yet is it not the high Court of Parliament which is the supreme Judgement power and Authoritie of the Kingdome and that we may easily see in this that though the Lords have power there to reverse the Judgements of their inferiour Courts yet have they not power to reverse their own Judgements nor to restore again any Judgement that they have reversed for they judging ministerially and not soveraignely do as well binde their own hands as the hands of their inferiours whereas the absolute soveraigne power doth not so but may reverse any judgement that they themselves have given and again restore the judgement that they themselves reversed for the absolute supreme Court having Juris dandi dictionem can never be at the last period of her jurisdiction but looking ever forward to the present occasion whatsoever passed before it pro re natâ legislatively judgeth maketh and declareth Law But the House of Lords though the most superiour of all Courts of ministeriall iurisdiction and all other inferiour Courts they having no other iurisdiction than onely juris dati dictionem in using their iurisdiction do consummate it and bring it to a period beyond which they cannot go Besides the House of Lords is nor universally to all occasions a iudicatorie and therefore not soveraigne but is the distinct Court of the Kings Barons of Parliament of particular and ministeriall iurisdiction in which the King though one of the three Voters in Parliament yet in those things which come by processe of Law to receive determination there onely hath no Vote at all no more than in all other Courts of ministeriall iurisdiction Sometime we use the word Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament onely and that in regard they are the grosse of the Bodie whereof the Parliament consists there wanting onely the Soveraigne Head to compleat it But the two Houses alone without the King are so farre from being the supreme and high Court of Parliament as that they are not at all a compleat Court neither can they so unite or conioyne as to be an entire Court of either soveraigne or ministeriall iurisdiction But are two distinct Courts if so be the House of Commons which cannot minister an Oath nor fine nor imprison any but their own Members may be called a Court then are they Courts not otherwise co-operating than by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act of all the three Orders of the Parliament which when they have done their Votes are so farre from having any Legall Authoritie in the State as that in Law there is no stile nor forme of their joynt Acts nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them untill they have the royall assent which if the King refuses he yet doth no injurie to any for that every of the three Orders that are the formall parts of the high Court of Parliament that is the King the Peeres and Commons are every of them by Law trusted for their own respective interests to be the onely assured Conservatours of the rights that do belong unto them and may therefore every one of them freely dissent from the Votes of the other two nor is their any danger that it should be so but contrarily the most assured safetie that may be for the consequence of their not agreeing can be no worse than that their severall interests shall still remain in the condition that they were before untill such time as that they shall all three agree upon the state of alteration Now when the two Houses alone do no way make an entire Bodie House or Court and when their is no known stile nor forme of any Law or Edict by the Votes of them two onely nor any notice of them taken by the Law it is apparant there is no Soveraignitie in their two Votes alone To argue now as some do that the King must not deny His Vote for if by denying it He may frustrate the Votes of the two Houses by the same reason may He frustrate the Votes of all inferiour Courts and open a way to the most boundlesse tyrannie that ever was is a most perverse and absurde falsitie there being no affinitie nor resemblance of the course of those Courts with that of Parliament For in inferiour Courts the Judges sit and give Judgement for the King and not for themselves and the Law there authorises them to give the Kings Judgement and none but them and therefore the Kings Dissent or Countermand cannot frustrate their Judgements But in Parliament the Peeres and Commons neither sit nor Vote for the King but for themselves And the Law appoints the King himselfe to give His own Vote there which if the Peeres and Commons in His absence could have supplied the Statute 33. H. 8.21 needed not have provided that His Consent or Vote by His Letters under His Great Seale should be as effectuall as if He himselfe in Person had assented Besides the Judgement given by the Judges in inferiour Courts is compleat in Law without the assent of the King and therefore cannot be frustrate by the Kings dissent but the Votes of the two Houses are therefore to be frustrated for want of the Kings assent because without it they are not compleat nor perfect The high Court of Parliament therefore resembling a Chaire of three feet the two Houses make but two of the three which without the third is lame and uselesse as to making of Law but with the third becomes a firme and usefull seate and makes that sacred Tripos from whence the Civil Oracles of our Law are delivered When therefore we speake of the Soveraigne power and Authoritie of the Parliament that never is to be understood of the power of the two Houses onely nor any such Soveraigne power to be ascribed unto them Now in the last place we use the word Parliament for the three Orders of Parliament agreeing in their Votes then and then onely use we the word Parliament properly and in that sense onely is the Parliament the supreme Court the highest judicatorie and most soveraigne power and authoritie in the Kingdom But we must ever understand that it is not the most Soveraigne Court for any Soveraignitie placed in the two Houses and from them transferred or communicated to His Majestie by their joyning or consenting with him but it is therefore