Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
parliament_n burgess_n king_n knight_n 3,853 5 7.2952 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
A29939 The absurdity of that new devised state-principle, (viz.) that in a monarchy, the legislative power is communicable to the subject, and is not radically in soveraignty in one, but in more in a letter to a friend. Brydall, John, b. 1635? 1681 (1681) Wing B5251; ESTC R19834 8,537 12

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

is not by a Contrivement or Reservation as some Fanaticks fancy at the supposed Making of the First King but procceds ex Indalto Regum from the gratuit Concessions of our Princes But it was Objectect by you in our Disecptation as it hath been by others heretofore that the very Stile of Comites and Peers implies a Co-ordinative Association with the King in the Government they are in Parliament His Comites His Peers I Answer that Mr. Bracton tells us Rex parem non habet in Regno suo the King has no Peer and offereth us another Reason of the Stile of Comites Quia sunt in Comitatu without any Relation to Parliament because they are either in the Train of the King of because placed in each County ad Regendum Populum and so assumed to the King to the like end that Moses did his under-Officers in Governing his People They were not only to be Companions as to his Person but in respect of his Cares Pares Curis solo diademate dispares They are the Highest and in the nature of Privy-Counsellors but Created by the Soveraign Prince the Fountain of Honour and so not equal unto him though exalted above Fellow-Subjects To be short if this word Comites should imply a Co-ordinative Society it must needs follow that the Commons must be the King's Peers too for they are as much Co-ordinate with His Majesty as the other And so let 's set up Three Thrones One for the King another for the Lords and a Third for the House of Commons I would advise you Sir to make a Voyage next long Vacation into France and argue there at the French Court from the Denomiation of Pares Franciae and see what Thanks you shall have for your Logick Thus much for the Lords I must have a touch at the Commons too As for the Commons they surely will not pretend to exceed the Lords in Antiquity If what Sir Robert Cotton that Famous Antiquary relates in some part of his Posthuma Works be truth And he hath been pleased in this very manner to express himself As this great Court or Council consisting of the King and Barons ruled the great Affaires of State and Controlled all Inferiour Courts so were there certain Officers whose transcendent Power seemed to be set to bound in the Execution of Princes Wills as the Steward Constable and Marshal fix'd upon Families for many Ages They as Tribunes of the People or Ephori amongst the Athenians grown by an unmannerly Carriage fearful to Monarchy fell at the Feet and Mercy of the King where the daring Earl of Leicester was slain at Eveshum This Chance and the Dear Experience Henry the Third himself had made at the Parliament at Oxford in the Fortieth year of His Reign and the Memory of the many streights his Father was driven unto especially at Rumney Meade near Staues brought this King wisely to begin what his Success●r fortunately finished in lessening the Strength and Power of His great Lords And this wrought by searching into the Regality they had Usurped over their peculiar Soveraigns whereby they were as the Book of Saint Alban's termeth them Quot Domini Tot Tyranni and by weakning that Hand of Power which they carryed in the Parliaments by Commanding the Service of many Knights Citizens and Burgesses to that General Council Now began the frequent sending of Writs to the Commons their Assents not only used in Money Charge and Making Laws for before all Ordinances passed by the King and Peers but their Consent in Judgments of all natures whether Civil or Criminal By what I have here offered out of Sir Robert Cotton and elsewhere before in this Discourse It is as clear as the Sun at Noon day That the Two Houses of Parliament are not Co-aetaneous with the First King much less before him and consequently the Legislature cannot be said to be Originally and Radically seated in the Lords and Commons Secondly As I have made it appear that the Architectonick Power Paramount of making Laws in Parliament was never Natively and formally seated in the Two Houses so I come now to prove that the Supream Legislative Authority was never vested in them by way of Emanation or derivation from the Imperial Crown of this Nation Now if they have derivatively such a power it must be one of these two wayes either by way of Donation or Usurpation Again if they have it via Donationis by way of Grant they must have it either by way of Division or by way of Communication But they cannot challenge it by either of these same wayes 1. The Houses of Parliament may not challenge a Co-ordination in the Supremacy by way of Division or Partition For Suprema potestas is an Entity or being Indivisible as it is subordinate to none but God Almighty so it admitteth no Co-ordinate Collateral Co-equal or Corrival Power To make Majestatem in Maj●state Regnum in Regno more than one Soveraign in a Kingdom is inconsistent with Supremity for Supream admits neither of Equal nor Superiour and to affirm it is Contradictio in Adjecto And therefore you may read that Henry de Beauchamp Earl of Warwick for the singular favour that King Henry the Sixth bare to him Crowned him King of Wight But we could never find sayes Cook and Letters Patents of this Creation because as some hold the King could not by Law Create him a King within his own Kingdom because there cannot be Two Kings in one Kingdom or if such there be they are but Reguli or Proreges Kings to their Subjects and Subjects to the Supream King So Oedipus King of the Thebans having Issue Two Sons Polynices and Eteocles ordained that after his Decease his Two Sons should alternative by Course Reign in his Kingdom But what was the event Fratres de Regni Haereditate dissidentes singulari certamine Congressi mutuis vulneribus ceciderunt Let any Man look upon the Estate of the Roman Empire when it was divided by Constantine the Great amongst his Three Sons Constantinus Constantius and Constans Or upon the Estate of the Western Empire after the Division made by Lotharius Lewis and Charles Sons of Lodovicus Pius And he will find most sad and horrible Confusions ensued on such Partitions But letting pass Forreign Conntries we must not pretermit the miserable Estate within this Kingdom under the Heptarchy until all was Re-united under one Severaign And this is the Reason that in England Scotland and Ireland the Royal Dignity is descendible to the Eldest Daughter or Sister Co. 4 Inst f. 243. on Lit. fol. 165. a. For Regnum non eft divisibile And so was the Descent of Troy Praeter te sceptrum Ilione quod gesserat olim Maxima Natarum Priami 2. As the Two Houses cannot have a Co-ordinate Power with the King by way of Division so neither can they challenge to themselves a Co-ordination in the Supremacy it self by way of Communication