Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	common_a	england_n	king_n	8,307	5	3.8915	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28359	A royall position, whereby 'tis proved, that 'tis against the common laws of England to depose a king: or, An addition to a book, intituled, Resolved upon the question: or, A question resolved concerning the right which the King hath to Hull, or any other fort of place of strength for the defence of the kingdom. By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne, Gent	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.; Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne. aut	1642 (1642)	Wing B3163; ESTC R210829	6,351	15

A ROYALL POSITION Whereby 't is proved that 't is against the Common Laws of ENGLAND TO Depose a KING OR AN ADDITION TO A BOOK Intituled RESOLVED UPON THE QUESTION OR A QUESTION RESOLVED Concerning the Right which the KING hath to Hull or any other Fort or place of strength for the defence of the Kingdom By PETER BLAND of Grays-Inne Gent. London Printed for JOHN FIELD 1642. To his ever Honoured Uncle HENRY SHELLY Esquire one of the Members of the Honourable House of COMMONS in PARLIAMENT Assembled SIr 't was not the hope of adding either to your honour or my owne profit but my certaine knowledge of the encouragement which any pious endeavours shall receive from your religious selfe that made me not hazzard but presume on your acceptance were my Position contrary to what it is I might then be sencible of a fear and suspect its welcome because I am confident that nearnesse of relation cannot bribe your judgment no not to purchase but a slight view from your observing eye But being as it is no way contradictory to what I affirmed before I hope it will not breed in you the least suspition of a change in my affections Sir my hope of your acceptance is not grounded upon the agitation of so poore a principle as that of Kindred for I am sure that your judicious and alwayes just censure will not be pleased with that from me which from another would prove distastefull therefore for my part I shall not be refractory but submit to your profound judgement and whether you approve or disprove I shall still remaine what I ever was Your faithfull Servant and Nephew PETER BLAND A Royall Position I must confesse 't is no way pleasing to mee to dispute the power of a KING for had I fortunes of my owne so far as those would reach I would nere urge property against my Soveraignes Commands and no man ought to complaine of my grievance but my selfe and if I were content to lose that which the Subjects Liberty calls Meum I hope 't is no prejudice to that it calls Tuum But when I looke upon the generall cause as at this time t is otherwise therefore now I hold every man bound to lay particular cases aside and sacrifice his best endeavours for a timely composure of these generall and unseasonable distractions and the best way I could think on is this viz. Neither for private ends on the one side to flatter the King by giving him more power then the Law hath settled in him nor for by-respects on the other side to abate of the Kings due and give it to the Parliament but with Allegiance to the one and submission to the other as neer as I can give both their right And truely I cannot be made sensible that I have done otherwise onely 't was my misfortune to fall under the misapprehension of divers who from an Argument I used in the former Impressure have raifed a consequence as dangerous as the Subject of discourse was nice The Accusation against me is that I did implicitely hold it lawfull to Depose a KING the ground of their Accusation is this In the former Impression Fol. 13. this objection was urged viz. The KING hath the Kingdome by way of Trust now by Law a Trust cannot be Countermanded therefore Sir John Hothams keeping of Hull against the Kings Command was illegall To which my Answer was thus viz. I doe confesse that by Law a Trust cannot be Countermanded but yet I shall take a difference between the Trust of a private mans estate and the trust of a Kingdome and if that difference should not hold I shewed the mischiefe that would ensue for then our case were in short but thus We have intrusted the King with the whole Kingdome and this trust cannot be in any part countermanded by us againe and if so then the Kings estate is as good as absolutly his owne I meane for his commanding power though not for his disposing power and if so then we cannot make use of our own staff when we are in feare of being beaten by a forraigne Force because by that means that is by the Kings Commanding Power the Parliament that is the whole Kingdome may be bound to the peace But now some will here object that we ought not to have such a thought of the King as to thinke that he would by his commanding power bind us to the peace when a forraigne Force is comming against us To this I answer that 't were poor policy for him to do it but that t is no dishonour to the King for me to suppose that some Traiterously minded Favorite may at such a time perswade him to use his Commanding power pretending some advantage to the Crowne as all Traytors doe when nothing is more intended then their own Trayterous ends therefore t was the wisdome of our Ancesters the Law makers to keepe the power out of his hands not so much for feare what he would do of himself as what others might possibly perswade him to do I must confesse I might have answered the objection with the authority of Parliament who did imploy Sir John Hotham but not imagining any would draw that consequence they accuse me with from the differenc I answered with I waved that answer I might have given from the power which the Parliament have above the Law If the Law had bin so that in case of the trust of the Kingdom it could not be in any part countermanded But truely I cannot have any ground in that difference for that conclusion For I took the difference in answer of an objection concerning a particular place as Hull not concerning the whole Kingdom and though it may be lawfull in that particular case by reason of some great mischiefe or inconvenience which might otherwise ensue yet it may not be lawfull in the generall for who knowes not but the Law will rather suffer a particular inconvenience then a generall mischief Besides I meant not an absolute and perpetuall Countermand of that particular place neither for that were utterly to extinguish and take away the Kings Right for ever but I meant a temporary Countermand onely that was as long as in the judgement of that Great Counsell the PARLIAMENT the urgency of the necessity did require it and many things we find are and may be done for a certain time which cannot be done for ever as in case of the Peers of the Realme 't is the Birth-right of a Baron to Vote in the House of Lords in time of Parliament yet we see and find it adjudged that a Baron or an Earl or any Peer of the Land may be disabled to sit during his life or during such a time but yet his heirs cannot be disabled so long as their veines are filled with Noble blood Besides I meant that that temporary Countermand can never be done but by the Parliament neither and if they should not have power to do it being

the Kingdom representative then the King had more power then the Kingdom which is absurd saith Fox Vol. primum Fol. 879. And thus I have explained my self sufficiently I hope to prevent farther mistakes and to shew that for my part I shall for ever pray that the Crown may stand as firm upon His Majesties Head as ever 't was and may it long continue there and for ever to his Posterity after him And yet I fear there are many fiery zealous spirits who imbrace the tenet and are glad to find any premisses from whence they may but with some colour draw their conclusion nay and such as may have honest hearts too and be earnestly desirous of a Reformation only the zeal of their houses may eat them up but for such as do hold the opinion I am sure they have no incouragement from the Parliament neither can any thing that the Parliament hath done be any ground for their uulawfull hopes and from me they shall have no more fuell to encrease their flames then this viz. 'T is against the Common Lawes of England to Depose a King a thing that was held damnable by no lesse then two Acts of Parliament the one in Edward the seconds time the other in Edward the thirds time Had I had the gift of foretelling the divers objections and conclusions that would have been raised by the severall Readers from my Arguments I would have laid them so that no Conventicling Tubman should have made my words his text raising from thence so damn'd a Doctrine but that was impossible and therefore seeing I could not then avoyd it let me now labour to cleer my selfe by striving to convince others that hugg the tenet which I shall do by two Arguments First from the Common Law of England which sayes the KING can do no wrong the reason is good because all his active Offices are disposed of and he never executes none of them Himself and therefore what ever wrong is done 't is done by his Officers and they are to answer for it and therefore the Parliament layes the fault upon his Evill Councellors not upon the King himself now then I say if the King can do no wrong then you must allow that he does none and if so how then can any man hold it lawfull to Depose him surely you will not be so unjust as to hold that he may be deposed without a cause and suppose a cause you cannot for the Law will not allow of such a supposition Again 't is a rule in Law that unumquodque ligamen eo ligamine disolvitur quo ligatum fuit now that Ligamen of institution or ordinance of Royall Dignity as you say your self was not only humane but partly divine for as you say jure Coronae the King was mans appointed so you likewise say that jure personae he was God Anointed now if it be so that he be as well Divine as Humane how then can Humane Laws undoe any more then what human Authority did at first institute now according to this argument if you Depose a King you must thwar● that rule in Law and contra principium negantem non est disputandum The next argument is from Gods Law which is the better way for weak man either to humble himself under the affliction God layes upon him or stoutly to his power oppose him surely you will grant that to stand on tiptoes against God is not the safest way why then for arguments sake let us supponere quod non est supponendum admit that a King himself be as bad as bad may be or which is most usuall admit that he be drawne and perswaded by his Councellors to do that which is illegall and to the great prejudice of his Subjects why now is not this a scourge layed by God upon the Kingdom to suffer the King to be thus perswaded and possest Surely yes why then do you think it the best way to Depose that King presently as if you would have the Land flow with milke and hony in despight of God or as if God did not know whether he sent him when he first bestowed him upon this Kingdom at his Birth or whose child he should be when he first fram'd him in the womb in my opinion I am sure I my self am you may be zealous against the Cavaliers and yet not envy the King and certainly you may worship God aright without crucifying his Son you may honour God and not dishonour the King Again if God punish a Son with a sharpe and cruell father were it fit for that son thinking to enjoy a greater liberty then before to kill his father and so Depose him as I may say for every man is a King in his own family as if God could not whipp him with another lash apply it to your selves Yet mistake me not I blame you not for your good affections and for being assistant to the Parliament but rather for commendation tell you that if any thing can be meritorous in my opinion that is onely this caveat I give to the vulgars for knowing and learned men I hope will not entertain a thought of it that their private hopes or inward thought reach not beyond the intent of the Parliament for feare lest their honest endeavoures should faile notwithstanding your large contributions by reason of your unjust intents You do well to stand for your Mother Englands right yet take heed you destroy not your Fathers the Kings for Gods command of obedience to your Parents doth not except against the honour you owe your Father And thus I have discharged my owne conscience concerning that point whether I have pleased others or not I know not and indeed care not I could never yet studie to please the roving fancies of the giddy multitude any farther then truth and that little knowledge I have would guide me no though the greatest recompence of a glorious but fading world were by my own thoughts presented to me And now seeing I am upon publishing an addition I shall correct some of the chiefest faults of the last impression so passe by the rest being but faults of the presse The chiefest was indeed occasioned by my own neglect in leaving a whole leafe out of the Printers copy and it was this In the 7. leafe of the first impression there was an objection raised but the answer was omitted the objection was this Some that endeavour to destroy the trust and maintaine that the King hath his right to Hull et per consequens to all the Kingdome by discent do urge the place in Calvins case where t is said the King holds the Kingdome of England by Birth-right inherent by discent from the blood Royall whereupon succession doth attend To which objection I answer that those words whereupon succession doth attend is a direct comment upon that place for the King is the Heire apparent of King James his Father now being so he is capax coronae that is he is his

Fathers successor too and so he holds the Kingdome by succession now the successor is the Heir of the Kingdom Dan. fol. 28. not the heire of the King onely and that is the reason t is usually said To the King his heirs and successors where the word heirs is first named because he is first heire to the King by title of discent before he can be heir to the Kingdome that is before he can be his successor so that there is a difference between Haereditas and successio for they signifie two severall capacities the first signifie his naturall capacity as he is King jure personae that is as Gods Anointed the other signifying his politique capacity or his jus corona that is as he is mans appointed Bracton speaking of the King and his Oath and how that he swears to administer Justice to all his Subjects to the utmost of his power goe forward and sayes Et ad hoc creatus est electus which two words creatus electus do fully prove the former Distinction that is they prove him to be Gods Anointed jure personae and Mans appointed jure coronae Bracton cap. 9. I finde the same Distinction made good too out of holy Writ Saul and David were both Anointed by Samuel but yet the peoples consent was so necessary that they had not the Crown till they consented to it for David was twenty yeers without the Crown after he was anointed and the text saith Saul fought a Battle before his creation 1. Sam. 11. 5. and yet he was anointed before the Battle so that the word creation in that text justifies what Fortescue sayes Fol. 31. the intent of the people is the primum vivens having within it blood that is to say politique provision for the utility and wealth of the same people which it imparteth aswell to the head that is the King as to the Members There are some that have gotten a new objection which is not without some ground I must confesse and 't is this 'T is said in Calvins case Cook Lib. 7. Fol. 13. A. that before any judiciall or municipall Laws were Kings did dare jura of themselves and decide causes according to naturall equity and were not ty'd to any rule or formality of Law and yet they were Kings and then say they could not have any politique capacity for that being but fictio juris can be no ancienter then the Law whose fiction it was To which I answer that the very place my Lo Cook there cites for his proof is a sufficient comment upon that place for he there quotes Fort. cap. 12. 13. which very places are quoted in the former impression of this book Fol 10. by which you may see that he spake of other Kingdomes not of Kingdom of England who raised themselves into a Body and so got the start of other Nations Many other things I should also correct of the former impressions but I cannot in regard I am forced to print this addition by it selfe otherwayes I should have corrected them all and have brought the additions in their right places but that Printers must now be pleased who like Players touch nought but what will take Newly revived is quite forgoten with them nay and with the Stationers too but when they cheat a Puisne with a new cover upon an old book with leafes pasted together to conceal an aged blott never Printed but once before is not for their turn they abhorre the beast yet est natura hominum novitatis avida is their Creed though the Beasts language An ingenious Stationer told me 't would not sell without a new Title which made me change the dresse of this addition yet he may be none of those that can find no eares for a Sermon at the second preaching unlesse the text be changed And thus I am willing to submit to an inconvenience for their profits rather then my words should be made the ground of Arguments so terrible as to shake a Crown and so maliciously envious and irreligous as to strike at Royall Dignity FINIS