Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A57287
|
Scotland's grievances relating to Darien &c., humbly offered to the consideration of the Parliament
|
Ridpath, George, d. 1726.
|
1700
(1700)
|
Wing R1464; ESTC R1580
|
53,913
|
60
|
as we cannot once doubt that our Parliament will take care to assert the Honour of the Nation against them but perhaps there may be some difficulty in getting proper Resolves taken against the late measures of some Courtiers in opposition to the interest of the Country such are the trifling and fraudulent dealing with us as to the Hamburgh Memorial the like as to the West India Proclamations the denying of the Companys reasonable Petitions the Proclamation against the National Petition c. the unreasonable delaying of the meeting of the Parliament when the Honour and Interest of the Nation did so londly call for it c. It is not to be suppos'd that a Parliament who have retriev'd so much of our Ancient Constitution that was Usurp'd upon or giv'n away by pact Parliaments during the frâ—ntick transports and prevalency of the Cavalier Faction in Charleâ— II. time will be huffed or frighten'd out of their Rights by the bugbear words of Treason and Sedition those are Crimes with which Parliaments lawfully call'd and acting with the Consent of the People can never justly be Charg'd Freedom of Speech and Debate in Parliament being retriv'd by the Claim of Right Members who speak freely for the Honour and Interest of their Country are not now to be frighten'd by Red Coats and other Court Pensioners with the Castle the Castle as in the late Reigns If any such thing should now be offered the said Claim will justify sending the Proposers of it to the same Quarters By the same Instrument of Government or Claim of Right we are also deliver'd from that overgrown Prerogative or Excrescence of Tyranny that made it Treason to say the King is accountable to his Parliament since a freedom from those incroachments upon the Liberties of the Subject that the late Reigns were guilty of are made the foundation of this present Government and that His Majesty accepted our Crown upon those terms in the Claim of right promising to protect us from the violation of those Rights we therein asserted and from ALL OTHER ATTEMPTS upon our Religion Laws and Liberties all which were to no purpose and a meer empty piece of formality on both sides if our Representatives in Parliament might not freely remonstrate against the breach of one or all of them and if upon obstinate refusal of redress when such of them are violated as tend to the overthrow of our Constitution they have not a right to betake themselves to the last Remedy from all which it follows as a natural Conclusion that all those tyrannical Usurpations upon the people and stretches of Prerogative since King Charles the II's Restoration contrary to the said Claim of Right are as fully abrogated as if there were an Express Act of Parliament annulling every one of them and His Majesty's agreeing to that other Clause to protect us FROM ALL OTHER ATTEMPTS upon our Religion Laws and Liberties extends to the things now under Consideration but more especially to those that have been made upon our Sovereignty Independency and Trade His Majesty has no reason to think this a Hardship or Innovation upon him since it 's evident from our Histories and Acts of Parliament that our Ancestors did many times claim a much greater freedom in relation to their Princes than any thing here demanded We know there were a Sett of Judges and Clergymen in the late Reigns that condemn'd this as Treason and Sedition from the Benches and Pulpits but without a grain of Truth on their side as hath been sufficiently evidenc'd since others had liberty to write and speak as well as they Sir George Mackenzy was one of the ablest Penmen on their part but his Character and Interest are too well known in Scotland to suffer any man to lay much stress upon what he wrote on that head in his Ius Regium or other pieces His ipse dixit must not outweigh the Credit of all our Historians and old Acts of Parliament in this Matter and so much the less since his wild Conceptions about the form of our Original Government as being an absolute Monarchy are sufficiently contradicted by Caesar Tacitus and other contemporary Historians They do all of 'em expresly say that the Spaniards Gauls Irish and Britains had each of them many Kings and in Britain particularly that Kent alone had 4 Kings and that almost every City had its own King He describes Cassibelan's Boundaries and gives an account of his making War with other Cities The Silures and Bigantes had each their own Kings and question is made of Gethus a King of Orkney all which proves the truth of what Buchanan asserts of our Ancestors who first inhabited this Island that they livd ' sine Rege ac certo Imperio per Cognationes tributim sparsi which fully overthrows what Sir George Mackenzy hath asserted as to our Government being originally an absolute Monarchy and overturns all the train of Consequences he would deduce from thence This was so much the more inexcusable in Sir George that being a Highlander he could not but know that that manner of Government by Clans or Kindreds continues still in the Highlands and that the experience of all Ages hath made it apparent that generally speaking they paid a greater defference to the respective heads of their Clans than to the Kings themselves and seldom sail'd espousing their Quarrels against their Princes so little did absolute Monarchy ever obtain in Scotland This is so much the more remarkable in our Nation because the Heads of those Clans Tribes or Families had not their Original or Estates from the Gifts or Patents of their Princes on condition of Military Service c. as happen'd in those Countries where the Feudal Law took place and where Conquerours such as Charlemagne divided their Conquests amongst their Captains on condition of serving them in their Wars or other occasions and they again subdivided their Lands amongst their Vassals on condition of the like Service but on the contrary our Kings receiv'd their Power originally from those Heads of Families or Clans who were in being long before the Feudal Law was heard of which is generally agreed to have had its Rise in Lombardy came from thence into France was first practis'd there by Charlemagne and brought into Britain by William the Conquerour We don't deny however that our People might afterwards incorporate some things from the Feudal Law into their own Customs but this is plain if our Histories may be credited that our ancient great Families don't owe their Original to our Kings and that from time to time those Heads of Families who were our real Nobility when the pompous Titles of Duke Marquis Earl and Lord were all together unknown chose and gave Laws to our Kings who without them could do nothing and when they acted contrary to their Advice and the Constitutions of the Country they were by them call'd to an account and dethron'd or continued in the Government as they saw cause This is
Equivalent we can propose for do what we can our Princes must be educated in a Country that as His Majesty himself has been pleas'd to express it is like to interfore too often with us in point of Trade and he plainly sees they have no Disposition to an Union with us by which it might be prevented Since we are so unhappy as to have our Princes educated by those who differ from us both as to Church and State and that by consequence they must needs be bred up in an Aversion for our Constitutions It 's absolutely necessary we should have Laws to secure otherwise it will be a perpetual Source of Discord betwixt Prince and People and a Seminary of Division betwixt the two Nations to prevent which as it's the Duty so it ought to be the Care of every Prince that wou'd shew himself to be a true Father to his Country That this fear of creating in our Princes an Aversion for our Nation and Constitution is but too well grounded time past hath prov'd beyond Contradiction and we wish that time to come may not prove it farther If we take but a cursory view of the behaviour of our Kings to us since that Union the marks of their Aversion towards us stare us in the Face K. Iames our Sixth and their First tho a Native of Scotland and swore at his Accession to the Crown of England he would visit us once in three Years never came near us afterwards but once and that only to strengthen the Faction amongst us that had joined with him in endeavouring to inslave us K. Charles I tho likewise a Native of Scotland the first time that ever he came near us was with an armed Force to subdue us because of our struggling against that Slavery of which his Father had laid the Foundation Having after this under Pretence of a mock Treaty sown the Seeds of an unnatural War which soon after broke out in our Nation by Montrosse and the Irish Rebels that join'd him he never came near us more till Necessity constrain'd him to flee to our Army At that time it 's known we made honourable Terms for him with the English and such indeed as neither his Circumstances nor our own could oblige them to make good which considering the Provocations he had given us and the Slights put upâ—n us in all Treaties during that War as is testified by Whitlock in his Memoirs and other English Writers could proceed from nothing but an Exuberrant Affection to a Prince that all along had testified such an Asiersion for us His Son K. Char. II. he came to us in his Distress or to speak more truly we invited him to a Crown when he had not so much as a Cottage and exposed our selves to Ruin and Devastation for his sake yet after the Restauration he never came near us but ungratefully overturned our Constitution in Church and State cut off the Marquis of Argile's Head that set our Crown upon his own and made those injurious Acts which ruined us in our Trade with England King Iames our VII and their II. when chased from England as a Traytor and in danger of being excluded from their Crown we received him with open Arms Settled our Succession upon him and turned the Balance in England on his side Yet he never once came near us afterwards but by his despotical Proclamations overturned the small remains of our Liberties that his Brother had left and wounded our Religion and Laws both at once King William for whom we have shed so much of our Blood in Britain Ireland and the Netherlands and whom we allowed a Standing Army when the Parliament of England would scarcely allow him his Guards He hath never yet honoured us with his Presence and we see how we have been treated by wicked Counsellors about him how our Sovereignty is trampled under foot our Trade opposed our Men starved and our Colony by that means deserted Certainly these Instances are enough to justifie our demands of having Laws for the security of our Liberty as good at least if not better than those of our Neighbours since our Kings have ever since the Union been in the Hands of our Enemies and that there 's little probability of its ever being otherwise To come to a Conclusion our Trade is the thing that 's now struck at and tho' we be a Soveraign free People have Heads Hearts Hands Commodities Harbours some measure of Shipping and good Laws to encourage our carrying it on yet our Neighbours will not allow us to do it but break through all the Laws of God and Man to put a stop to it Our King that should protect us and go in and out before us is in the Hands our Enemies that plainly tell him our Trade is inconsistent with theirs and that they expect the preference and in a word he is forced to act against us What shall we do then Because our King is a Prisoner must our Parliament be so too Because he cannot do what he would and what he ought must not they do it neither Because some of our Country-men about him and who have posts under him concur with our Enemies to betray us must not the Representatives of our Country redress us Must we who never allowed our Princes when at home and governed by our own Councils to plead their Prerogative contrary to Law suffer our Princes now when govern'd by Foreign Councils to swallow up our Laws and Constitution by pretended Prerogative We see that no Kings can either by the Laws of God or Man plead any Prerogative that 's inconsistent with the good of the People and our Kings least of any Our Neighbouâ—s may boast of their Magna Charta and other Priviledges granted them by their Kings We have something more Glorious to boast of ond that is our Kings have no Prerogative but what was granted them by us Our Ancestors who first inhabited this Island did not receive their Lands from the Gift of a Conqueror or General who afterwards made himself Prince as happened to most other Nations in Europe but being possessed of a Country we sent for Fergus and made him King and let his Eldest Son Ferlegus know to his cost that we chose a King for our own good to be our General fight our Battles and not to to Luxuriate in Wealth and Pleasures that Ambitious Youngster was quickly made sensible that we never intended our Crown should be Hereditary in such a manner as to be entailed upon the Heads of Fools and Madmen in like sort when we were banished the island by the Britains Picts and Romans we sent from the Western Islands where we kept Possession for Fergus II. and made him King and under his Conduct recovered our Country In a word in all the Revolutions of Time and Government it 's plain from our Histories that our Kings always received their Crowns at our Hands upon such Conditions as we thought fit in the respective Junctures from