Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
act_n power_n spiritual_a temporal_a 2,523 5 9.3508 5 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
A60025 A Short abstract of the reasons against passing the bill of forfeitures by way of inquiry. 1689 (1689) Wing S3529A; ESTC R37548 5,616 4

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

A short Abstract OF THE REASONS Against passing the BILL of FORFEITURES By way of Inquiry Query 1. WHether it be not reasonable that these Offenders should have the same Benefit from the Act of Indempnity as all other greater Offenders Either it is or it is not If it be then the Intent of this Paper is answer'd which submits the active Men and those who were Managers and had profitable Places to refund their Pensions to the publick Treasury If it be not as all things are most humbly submitted to the great Judgment of the Honourable House of Commons then indeed they must be contented quietly to submit to the Penalties due by Law. But Query 2. Whether any Penalties be due by Law or not Since the same Law the Ancient Common and Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom which say That an Act or Statute made by King Lords and Commons is a Law to this Nation Doth also say That the Judges of England are the sole Interpreters of that Law And that their Interpretation and Judgment though ever so Erroneous in it self and contrary to the Letter of the Statute ought not only to be observed but reverenced by all inferior Subjects And the same Law of England which says That an Officer omitting the Oaths shall forfeit 500 l. Doth also say That the King may pardon that Penalty before Information Fil'd which is done accordingly Therefore Query 3. Whether it be consistent with the Goodness and Clemency of that Honourable House to take from them the Benefit of the Law And to condemn such a Number of Men their Wives and Families by a Bill of Attainder For the Bill doth not Enact That all Forfeitures due by Law shall be appropriated to the publick Vse but that all Officers who were not duly qualify'd shall forfeit 500 l. right or wrong without a Tryal Either the Forfeitures are due by Law or they are not If they are not then this Bill amounts to an Act of Attainder If they are due by Law then there is no prejudice to appropriate such Forfeitures only as can be recover'd by Law which is all that is desir'd Query 4. Since it is most evident that this is a Bill of Attainder that doth condemn a Number of Men which are not punishable by any Law besides itself Whether it will not introduce a President of very dangerous Consequence that may one day or other be severely used against us or our Posterity Though ill Men may be concerned now yet the Case is the same and good Men may be concern'd hereafter What are the Laws for but to guide and protect us And if a Law be defective and ill things done under Umbrage thereof our wise Ancestors have corrected the Law and not the Offender and that not for the sake of the Offender but of themselves and their Posterity that all Men may have fair warning It is a Fundamental Rule where there is no Law there is no Offence And therefore if this particular Act doth pass 't is hoped that care shall be taken in this Case as it was in the Case of my Lord Strafford that the same shall not be made use of for a President against us or our Posterity hereafter But to return Query 5. Why is it not reasonable that some of those Officers should reap the Benefit of the Act of Indempnity as well as other Offenders Either these Offences are held to be greater than any other or they are not If they are not then no Reason can be assigned unless that which is already answer'd And we cannot suppose that any person will maintain That these Offenders are greater than Dispensing Judges the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the Quo Warranto Lords the Surrenderers of Charters and the Subscribers of Addresses and Papers for taking off the Test c. But Query 6. Whether the Judges at the Assizes did not openly declare That all Dissenters in any Commission who did refuse to act should be returned into the Crown-Office For that the King had by His Dispensing Power left them utterly without Excuse Your Consciences was formerly your Excuse say they but now you are free from such Pretences And those who refuse to accept of the King's Favour and to rely upon his Prerogative and Protection shall be used as utter Enemies to the Government 'T is not for you to question the judgment of the Judges They have given Judgment and they will maintain it What shall poor ignorant Laymen do in this Case They are forced against their Wills to accept of Offices of Trouble and Charge on one side and their Families must be ruin'd for it on the other so they are twice punish'd for the same Offence When a Prince positively commands the Service of His Subjects and hath the Judges of His side the Subject must obey and in this Case the Dissenter must either have have hazarded their Souls or their Estates 'T is their Misfortune to think that Unlawful which others do not But it is no Fault to refuse to do a thing contrary to their Judgments And 't is humbly hoped whatever becomes of the active busier Men yet those who bore only Offices of Trouble and Charge as many Justices of Peace who behaved themselves well in their Stations shall not be blamed for following the advice of their Council who did assure them That what Opinion soever they themselves or a Future Parliament might have of the Judgment of the Judges yet it would certainly protect them until it was Reversed And therefore an acceptance of the Commission was the onely way left in that critical Juncture to secure themselves Query 7. Whether the several Commands Declarations and Proclamations by Vertue or in pursuance of the Powers and Authorities hereafter mentioned that is to say of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Decemb. 11. of the Four Parliaments of King Charles II. 31 Decemb. 1688. of the Convention 22d of January of the King and Queen 14th of February and of the late Act for Amoving Papists That all Protestant Justices of which Few were duly qualified should proceed in the Execution of their Offices disarming Papists securing all suspected or disaffected Persons and preserving the Peace of the Countrey Be not a tacite Confirmation of their former Proceedings For the Bishops the old Members of Parliament and His Majesty very well knew That the Dissenters could not receive the Sacrament and take the Oaths according to the Form of the Statute And yet they expected they should act and if they had not no doubt they would have been esteemed by all as Enemies to the Kingdom and so they would have been in the Reign of the late King therefore there seems with Submission some reason to shew them Favor in one Case as well as in the other there is no doubt but this acting tended to the preservation of this Government and that may atone in some measure for their acting in the last Query 8. Whether this Bill be design'd as an Expedient to