Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
parliament_n assent_n king_n royal_a 3,228 5 8.0365 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A42895 Plato's demon, or, The state-physician unmaskt being a discourse in answer to a book call'd Plato redivivus / by Thomas Goddard, Esq. Goddard, Thomas. 1684 (1684) Wing G917; ESTC R22474 130,910 398

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Soveraign power in the house of Lords either conjunctim or divisim joyntly or separately without the King therefore the Soveraign right of power can be no where but in the King right of council is in the Lords and Commons in Parliament duly assembled but right of command is in the King For he both calls the Parliament and dissolves it One Soveraign power cannot dissolve another Soveraign power could they be supposed together except by force But the Kings of England have ever called and dissolved Parliaments not by force but by right of power and command which belongs to them by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession A Bill which shall have regularly past both Houses and brought even to the Royal assent is no Act nor hath it any manner of force as such without the Kings will Le Roy le veult doth solely and necessarily transform a Bill into a Statute and is the essential constituent part of it His Will doth alone give life and being to that which is no more than a dead insignificant letter without it Nay though a Bill should pass both Houses with the unanimous consent and approbation of every individual Member yet the King may refuse it and it is indisputably the right of our Kings so to do if they shall so think sitting which prove evidently amongst other things that the Soveraign Power is solely in our Kings Merch. But Sir Plato Red. insinuates very strongly p. 123. that It is a violation of right and infringment of the Kings Coronation Oath to frustrate the counsels of a Parliament by his negative voice and that in his opinion the King is bound confirmare consuetudines or pass such laws as the people shall choose Trav. The Delphick Oracle did never impose Laws more peremptorily to the Greeks than Plato Red. would arrogantly obtrude his private opinions upon us for notwithstanding all the Laws are against him yet he alone would pretend to devest the King of this his undoubted Prerogative But Sir there is a difference between new modelling a Government and maintaining it according to its ancient institution If Plato designs the first he may as well pretend it is inconvenient that the Imperial Crown of England should be Hereditary and Successive and endeavour to make it Elective for the right of a negative voice in Parliament is as certainly the Prerogative of the Kings of England as their right of Inheritance or Succession is But having no design to d●…te so much at this time what ●lteration might be convenient for us as ●o maintain what the Kings Right ●● and ever hath been according to the ●●cient as well as present Cons●…tion of the Government I must 〈…〉 do averr That the King enjoyin● ●●reditarily and undeniably this N●…tive voice in Parliament hath himself the Supreme power of England And this the English Gentleman and his Doctor seem to acknowledge p. 105. Besides If the Soveraign power of England were not solely in the King then when there is no Parliament there could be no Soveraign power in England which is ridiculous and absurd For there is no Free and independent Kingdom or Commonwealth upon earth in which there is not at all times a Soveraign power in being If the Soveraign power ceaseth for a moment the power which remains becomes dependent and at the same instant a higher power must appear But the Imperial Crown of England depends upon none but God Omnis sub Rege ipse sub nullo nisi tantum Deo says Bracton an ancient and a Learned Author and again Rex non habet superiorem nisi Deum The King has no Superiour but God Or as it was express'd under H. 4. The Regality of the Crown of England is immediately subject to God and to none other Mer. But since the King can neither make any Laws nor levy any Taxes without the consent of both Houses it shews sure that at least some of the Soveraign power resides in them Trav. I perceive Cousin you have forgot your Grotius for he tells you that you must distinguish between the Empire and the manner of holding the Empire or the Jus ab usu Juris Aliud enim est Imperium aliud habendi modus So that although the Kings of England do generally promise or swear not to alter the Government nor to make Laws or levy impositions but according to the ancient Constitutions of the Kingdom yet nevertheless this takes not from him his Soveraign right of power for that he hath in him by Birthright and Inheritance and according to the Original Institution of the Kingdom and which is antecedent and Superiour also to any Oaths or Obligations I 'll give you Grotius his own words as you will find them l. 1. c. 3. s 16. Non definit summum esse Imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturm est promittat aliqua subditis etiam talia quae ad imperandi rationem pertineant But he confesseth indeed that such a Constitution is a little limitation to the Supreme power Fatendum tamen arctius quodammodo reddi Imperium But it doth not follow from thence that there is any authority Superiour to his own Non inde tamen sequitur ita promittenti Superiorem dari aliquem And he gives you the example of the Persian Monarchs who though they were as absolute as any Kings could be yet when they enter'd upon the Government they sware to observe certain Laws which they could not alter Apud Persas Rex summo cum Imperio erat tamen jurabat cum regnum adiret leges certa quadam forma latas mutare illi nefas erat So also that the Egyptian Kings were bound to the observance of several Customs and Constitutions Aegyptiorum Reges quos tame● ut alios Reges Orientis summo imperio usos non est dubium ad multarum rerum observationem oblig abantur Mer. Very well Sir but pray why may not the Soveraign power remain still in the people especially if all be true which our Author boldly affirms p. 119. viz. That our Prince hath no authority of his own but what was first entrusted in him by the Government of which he is head Trav. Here Plato plays the Villain egregiously is a Traitor incognito and carries Treason in a dark lanthorn which he thinks to discover or conceal according to the success of Rebellion which he evidently promotes But we shall unmask this Republican Faux And first our King whom he calls Prince not understanding it may be the difference between Regnum and Principa●us hath no authority saith he but what was first intrusted by the Government Here Government is a word of an amphibious nature and can as well subsist under a Monarchy as a Commonwealth For if Rebellion doth not prosper then Government in this place signifies the Law of the Land and indeed the King's authority over us is establish'd by the Law that is to say the consent and acknowledgment of the People in due form That