Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	death_n	king_n	treason_n	2,352	5	9.2422	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48310	Memoranda : touching the oath ex officio, pretended self-accusation, and canonical purgation together with some notes about the making of some new, and alteration and explanation of some old laws, all most humbly submitted to the consideration of this Parliament / by Edw. Lake ...	Lake, Edward, Sir, 1596 or 7-1674.	1662 (1662)	Wing L188; ESTC R14261	107,287	162

easily done thus The manner how it may be constantly observed In the House of Commons each long seat in the uppermost part thereof down towards the door to contain thirty or forty partitions or more or less as the length of the seat will bear so that in each partition there could not one man sit and an order made which seat should be first filled and which next and so successively one after another and none to go into the second seat till the first were filled nor into the third till the second were filled and so to the rest in like manner And to make it at the first view clear the number of every partition in order to be in great legible figures set over the head of the person that sits in that partition as 1. 2. 3. 4. c. then it being known being made so plain and certain how many persons each seat when filled contained as thirty or forty c. each seat being to contain equal numbers if that may be at least each seat of the side so many and each at the end so many equally It is quickly determined by seeing how many seats are filled or how many are in such seats whether the number required to be at the passing such Vote be then there or not The seats for Privy Counsellors may notwithstanding this be distinct and kept for them and for Committees some such course to be taken too if need were in a due proportion In the Lords House such distinctions of seats and partitions cannot be conveniently so done in regard of the requisite priority of place there which is otherwise then in the House of Commons yet the competent number there that House being not near so numerous as the Commons House which had need be as many in proportion as the Commons House might have been quickly and easily discernable The number of forty in the Commons House and a much lesse in the Lords House though by many accounted to be a competent number to make up an House we have seen how upon design ill use was made of it in the Long Parliament which could not easily perhaps not at all have been done with so great a number To instance no more the pitiful number of Peers present at the passing that pretended Ordinance for the late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's death may be thought on Fees to the Officers of Parliament Some advised that it might have been considered what Fees should have been taken by the Officers of Parliament Clerks Serjeants and other Officers some then conceiving them to have been very high Touching new Laws Declarations c. to be made and old Laws to be repealed and altered WE have seen in that Long Parliament what ill constructions were made by some men of Precedents in foregoing Parliaments accounting what has been once done there quo jure qua injuria right and good and to be deduced into practice even those strange irregular acts in the tumultuous times of Richard the second and Henry the fourth nay we have seen how Spensers Treason distinguishing the person and office of the King so declared to be Treason by Act of Parliament many ages since even urged for right to instance no more Some have advised that such precedents acts and proceedings should have been examined and by publick Declaration by Act of Parliament purged or abolished or declared illegal Acts of Oblivion c. And that if but for that reason of preventing that male construction of citing ill precedents for Law that an inspection should have been made into the Acts of Amnesty and Oblivion passed in the first years of the Long Parliament and also that passed this last Parliament We have seen especially if we looked Northward how soon after such Acts of Indempnity and Amnesty the Delinquents as though they thought themselves justified in their former crimes fell again into the same And that there should in those past and due care be had for the same in the future have been a specification made of the crimes and offences intended there to have been pardoned and put into oblivion lest otherwise implicitely and insensibly they might have been taken not to be crimes and Loyalty and Fidelity tacitly at least accounted crimes and so creep into precedent and example for the future And that the first Paragraphs in the late Act of Pardon Indempnity and Oblivion might if thought fit be considered of where in the first place are pardoned All and all manner of Treasons Misprisions of Treason Murthers Felonies and Offences crimes c. counselled commanded acted or done since the first day of January 1637. by any persons before the 24. day of June 1660 c. by vertue or colour of any command p●…er authority commission warrant or instructions from His late Majesty King Charles or His Majesty that now is Though there might be some obliquity error or abuse in the execution of Commissions from their Majesties yet some stumble at these expressions of Treasons Murther c. to be committed by Commission from the King as without all question was committed by Commissions granted by others and yet here they look like equal and eaven crimes which no loyal man can own It neither hurts nor hinders the pardon but rather more strengthens it that the crimes pardoned are specified and let the application be made onely to them that are guilty of them not to the guiltlesse and such as deserve honour and reward for that which some would at least imply to be criminal much lesse no ignominy or reproach Surely the Loyal party that acted according to the known Laws for so acting needed not His Majesties pardon Facinus quos inquinat aequat Some men cannot think themselves cleared except they can taint others guiltlesse with the imputation at least of these crimes whereof they themselves onely are culpable and it is a question whether their true meaning be not that they would have an Exculpation a term we have more lately had from the North and even a justification from their known crimes at least to be accounted no greater crimes then the actions of those that acted by the Kings authority according to the known Laws of the Land which they well know are no crimes but the contrary It is obvious to every eye how some have sweat to have justified all the illegal Acts of the Long Parliament Some make little or nothing of the endeavours that then were to have killed the late King in Battel but onely of putting him to death in cold bloud Restitution of some goods where the property is not altered And that if thought fit that such goods whereof the property is not altered as Houshold-stuff Plate Furniture of beds Pictures Hangings eminent Jewels or such like plundered or taken away wrongfully either by pretended Sequestrations spoil or otherwise should be restored to the owners or in some cases a just value repaid for them with a just consideration to be had of the parties from whom

they were taken and of their actings and not to remain as they do in the view of the owners perhaps purposely in despight exposed to such publick view This works contrary to His Majesties pious intention and that Act of Oblivion it continues does not abolish the memory of our former divisions when the spoiled shall see as a continual Eye-sore their proper goods in the possession of the spoiler whilest the spoiled for want of them perhaps is ready to starve and perhaps the spoiler makes his livelyhood out of them if not steps of preferment too The Heathen Poet could say of the Civil wars of Rome Bella geri placuit nullos habitura triumphos But surely this looks like a continued triumph after the Warre Reparation to persons spoyled Some have wished that that motion in the last Parliament or Assembly or Convention that ended in December 1660 made in the Lords House might be renewed that the spoyled party might at least in some good measure be repaired by some publick Tax made for that purpose and due consideration to be had of such suffering spoyled persons that constant never-changing Loyalty may have some encouragement and comfort besides that of a good conscience Touching the Long Parliament Some have wished that it might have been by Act of Parliament declared if thought sic that the Long Parliament notwithstanding that Act for the continuing of it till it should be dissolved by Act of Parliament was dissolved or declared void and null from such a day as should have been by advice of the Judges and learned in the Laws agreed upon And that also if thought fit consideration should have been had particularly from what time that dissolution annulling or making void should have commenced whether from the time that His late Majesty was driven from the Parliament by tumults and riots which as is known some if not many Members especially of the then Commons House in that Long Parliament that took up Arms against the King were so far from causing to be suppressed though His Majesty desired it that they were set on by them as is notorious And also if thought fit that if not from that time yet from the time they voted to live and dye with the Earl of Essex by them voted to be their General against the King and upon the matter causing those Members to leave the House that would not vote with them And whether that His Majesty calling them afterwards a Parliament as they alledged when they were in Arms against him though perhaps His Protestation to the contrary was entred in the Council-book could any wayes entitle them to a lawful Parliament And also if thought fitting that it should have been by Act of Parliament declared that any Member of Parliament offending against 25 E. 3. in raising or bearing Arms or maintaining them against the King ipso facto ceases to be a Member of Parliament for that a Rebel and a Parliament-man are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And also if thought fit that the Judges of the Land consulting together should have declared as they did in King James his time in that case about Watson and Clerk the Seminary Priests that the Kings Coronation was but a Ceremony and that without it the King was a complete King that that Long Parliament was dissolved from such a day as they should have found by Law that it was dissolved or annulled whether it was from the time of His late Majesties expulsion from his Parliament as before or from the time of voting to live and dye with the Earl of Essex or of their Votes of no further addresses to the King who called them to consult with him whether they did not then openly dissolve themselves by refusing to consult with him or from his death when they could consult no more with him And also if thought fit that it should have been so declared and enacted that though the King had passed an Act that the Parliament should fit till they were dissolved by an Act of Parliament and that if it had been expressed that it should be so notwithstanding that His Majesty should dye in the interim yet such an Act could not bind him nor his Successor especially when in that Act for continuing that Parliament till by such Act it should be dissolved there is no such mention that it should continue after his death that called it and that the King cannot be concerned at leastwise concluded any wayes in any Act of Parliament to his damage prejudice or diminution of his Royal Prerogative or Authority except at least he explicitely and freely consent to it be specially comprized and named in that Act to that purpose or whether he can though he so consent it following plainly that if by taking up Arms or bearing Arms against the King a Parliament-man ceases to be so nor can sit any longer in the House Then in that case none ought truly to be accounted secluded or excluded Members but onely these that would not then vote to live and dye with the Earl of Essex nor would assent to the raising of arms against the King but thereupon left the House or were expelled thence either by the Votes of the rest or by menaces just fear that might incidere in constantem virum or by tumultuous force so that if the Parliament if not by the reasons aforesaid yet at least by the death of the King being dissolved as to think the contrary is most void of reason or truth if I say it had not been so dissolved then those secluded or excluded Members they onely ought to have been restored and none of the rest that acted against the King by taking up Arms against him or acting against him ought to have been restored Such offended against the Act of 25 E. 3. raising Arms against the King c. counterfeiting or making a new Great Seal c. and their being Members of Parliament being as before inconsistent and for the void places His Majesty to issue out Writs for free legal and new Elections The keeping of the Records in the Tower And also that the keeping of the Records in the Tower should be in the hands of a known trusty Loyalist and none other in regard of the danger of imbezelling or corrupting them by any person of other principles not affected to Monarchical government by Law established to the great damage of the King and his Subjects The Militia And also that the Militia and all Offices and places of trust and concernment for the peace and safety of the Kingdoms and for the prevention of future Faction Sedition and disturbance of such peace and endangering such safety should be committed onely to the hands and especially for a competent space of time as by such free and legal Parliament or by His Majesty shall be agreed upon of known experienc'd Loyalists and not to any that may be reasonably presumed or suspected to be otherwise That rule may somtimes hold and not

proceedings touching them which in the late Usurpation were out of all places brought to London and no Record thereof in the County or Diocese where the deceased dyed so that the Subject is put to great trouble and charge sending to London when he hath occasion to use any of them and may be forced to sue at London when he would recover his right thereupon That all such Wills Inventories Bonds Accompts and all other proceedings concerning the same or true copies thereof to be made valid and authentick by Act of Parliament be transmitted at the charge of the Register at that time into the Registry of the Bishop of that Diocese where the party deceased dyed or had his principal mansion or dwelling house at the time of his death or rather in regard of the largenesse of some Bishops Dioceses including many Archdeaconries and many Counties they should be so transmitted into the respective Registries of every Archdeacon or Commissary of the said Archdeaconry and that every person concerned may sue for their right thereupon before the Bishop of the Diocese or his Chancellor or such Commissary or Archdeacon or his Official During the late troubles the Episcopal and Archidiaconal power having been de facto abolished or suppressed the Subjects have been forced to their great charge and trouble to prove all Wills and take Administrations c. at London before Commissioners or pretended Judges there for proving of Wills and granting of Administrations c. Degrees of Marriage That the Act of 32 H. 8. about the prohibited degrees of Marriage be by Act of Parliament explained Traytors heads That the late Traytors Heads and Quarters of the Murtherers of our late Soveraign of blessed memory and the others that are set upon wooden stakes should be set upon Iron pikes or stakes as Piercy and Catesby's Heads were upon the Parliament House Touching the suppressing of all Books and Writings published against the Regal Rights or the Right of the Subject About the suppression of seditious books SOme have advised if it be thought sit that a most choice and able Committee be appointed to enquire after all Books and Writings whatsoever which have spoke against the Regal Right or the Right of the Subject that they may as many as can be got either be purged or burnt and declared against by Authority and not remain as apt fuel for a new flame but be buried as far as can be in perpetual oblivion And perhaps in the first place as most pestilent those Tracts that have been writ about that ridiculous contradiction in adjecto of the two Houses coordination with the King the Monarch when as before is specified the King is the Head the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons the three Estates by several Acts of Parliament specified Lippis tonsoribus notum yet urged for designs mischievous abominably as we have felt Spensers Treason As also that trayterous distinction of the Spensers 'twixt the Kings Person and Office by two Acts of Parliament declared Treason yet in these late times maintained by too many Goodwins book justifying the murther of the King Goodwins book for the justification of the murther of the late King and many other of that kind Mr. Bucks book of Richard 3. Mr. Bucks book of Richard the third wherein he seems to impugne the right of the King from the daughter of King Edward the fourth wife to King Henry the seventh too much leaning to if not affirming Richard the thirds right by that monstrous Act of Parliament that illegitimates Edward the fourths issue In Sir Edward Cooks book entituled The third part of the Sir Edw. Cooks Writings Institutes of the Law of England concerning High Treasen and other Pleas of the Crown 1658. Printed at London by M. Flesher for W. Lee and D. Pakeman § Le Roy pag. 7. he puts it down there for Law upon the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. De proditionibus That if Treason be committed against a King de facto and non de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void Strange would have been the consequence of this if Cromwell had been made King as some desired and a loyal man should have killed him in order to the restitution of the true King de jure our dread Soveraign King Charles the second Or should a loyal man for the same end have killed him though he had but de facto non de jure the title of Protector how far would that have extended by the words in the same sect may be considered where he sayes that Statute of E. 3. is to be understood of a King regnant and as follows there and as he sayes most truly a Queen regnant is within these words Nostre Seigneur le Roy for she hath the Office of a King So perhaps it deserves to be examined whether some of note and power in the time of Cromwells Usurpation did not affirm that Cromwell was within these words Nostre Seigneur le Roy. In regard Sir Edward Cooks Writings are by many held in high repute and some have not stuck to style him the Oracle of the Law therefore his Writings require to be more strictly looked into and that if any errors be found therein they may be detected and expunged as being more dangerous then in other mens Writings not of so great repute Corruptio optimi est pessima Illegal and seditious speeches Also it was advised if it shall be thought fit that such Speeches as have been publickly made by any Judges or noted Lawyers upon the Bench or in any publick Assemblies against the Regal or Subjects Right or the Law of Nations which may give just offence to our Neighbours may be taken notice of and publickly declared against Such us that when that Act of 25 E. 3. was alledged to justifie Cromwells Usurpation and that Seigneur le Roy in that Statute included Cromwell the usurping Protector And that speech of a great Lawyer at the tryal of the Portugal Ambassadors brother when it was alledged that he was by the Law of Nations to be sent back cum postulatu to his Master the King of Portugal to be by him punished for his offence committed here and that that Commission for trying him here without the consent of the Portugal Ambassador was the first Commission that ever was granted here to try any Ambassador or his servant without the Ambassadors consent Even the Bishop of Ross Ambassador from Mary Queen of Scotland though she was de facto deposed or forced to renounce the Crown there when he had committed a great offence yet was onely dismiss'd and not further questioned But to all this and much more that Lawyer replied What have we to do with the Law of Nations if it be contrary to the Law of England One