Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	king_n	law_n	3,185	5	4.7509	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88233	A plea at large, for John Lilburn gentleman, now a prisoner in Newgate. Penned for his use and benefit, by a faithful and true well-wisher to the fundamental laws, liberties, and freedoms of the antient free people of England; and exposed to publick view, and the censure of the unbyassed and learned men in the laws of England, Aug. 6. 1653.	Faithful and true well-wisher to the fundamental laws, liberties, and freedoms of the antient free people of England.; Lilburne, John, 1614?-1657.	1653 (1653)	Wing L2158; Thomason E710_3; ESTC R207176	34,122	24

concerning themselves but it shall be examined and tryed before the Justices of Assizes in the Sessions of the Assize as appeareth by the 8. of Hen. 6. chap. 7. and 23. Hen. 6. chap. 15. Yea the Parliament are not to punish those that will not pay them their wages for their service done in Parliament but the refusers are to be punished by the legal administers of the law in the ordinary of Courts of Justice as appears by the 23. of Hen. 6. chap. 11. Yea the law of England which is right reason or as Sir Edward Cooke stiles it in his second part Institutes folio 179. the absolute perfection of reason and which as he saith is the surest sanctuary that a man can take and the strongest fortress to protect the weakest of all and therefore it is called the best birthright the Subjects hath for thereby his goods lands wife children his body life honour and estimation are protected from injury and wrong for saith he to every one of us there comes a greater inheritance by the law then by our parents it being the Judges guide in all causes that come before them in the wayes of right Justice which never yet misguided any man that certainly knew them and truly followed them 2 part of the Lords Cooks Institutes fol. 56 63 97 526. and the 4. part folio 41. yea and the law-law-book of Ed. 6. folio 36. with the arguments in the Law in the Court of Kings Bench upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the cases of Sir John Eliot Sir Thomas Daniel c. pag. 11. in Michaelmas-terme in the third of the late King Charles calls the good old fundamental Laws of England the great inheritance of every subject and the inheritance of inheritances without the injoyments of which inheritance we have no inheritance at all And therefore the said Oracle of the Law of England the Lord Cook doth bitterly cry out of the unexpressible mischief that accrues to the whole body of the people of England when any fundamental maximes of their good old fundamental Laws are invaded or incroached upon either by Parliament or any other power whatsoever as appears in his 2 part Institutes folio 29 46 48 51 74 103 104 179 210 249 529 533 534 540. and 3. part fol. 208. 4. part fol. 41 196 197 198. and the preface to the 4. part of the Lord Cookes Reports where he saith the Laws of England consist of three parts the Common Laws Customes and Acts of Parliament for any fundamental point of the ancient Common Laws and customs of the Realm it is a maxime in policy and a tryal by experience that the alteration of any of them is more dangerous for that which hath been refined and perfected by all the wisest men in former succession of ages and proved and approved by continual experience to be good and profitable for the Commonwealth cannot without great hazard and danger to be altered or changed see also that old law-Law-book called The myrror of Justice page 239. And which law as the author of the ancient and excellent law book called the Doctor and Student chap. 4.8 is grounded upon six foundation or basis viz. the law of reason Secondly the Law of God 3. Upon divers general customes of common utility 4. On divers principals that be called maximes 5. On divers particular customes 6. On divers Statutes made by the Kings and the Common-councel of the Nation all which do abhor arbitra●iness in the law-proceedings especially in criminal cases and especially it abhors the arbitrary uncertain way of proceedings in Parliaments the rules of which certainly no man in heaven or earth knoweth the vileness wickedness and mischeviousness of which is sufficiently demonstrated in the Lord Cravens late printed case And saith that worthiest of English Lawyers Sir Edward Cook in the Proeme to the third part of his Institutes It is a miserable servitude or slavery where the law is uncertaine or unknown and therefore it is that the twenty ninth Chapter of Magna Charta the Petition of Right and the Act that abolished the Star-Chamber expresly saith That no freeman of England shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold or liberties or free customes or be outlawed or be exiled but by lawful judgement of a Jury of twelve sworn men of his equals of the same neighbourhood according to the law of the Land And that none shall be taken for any crime whatsoever by any person or Court whatsoever unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done in due manner or by Process made by Writ original at the Common Law and that none be put out of his franchise or freehold unless he be duly brought in to answer and adjudged of the same according to the course of the law and if any thing be done by any persons or courts whatsoever against the tenour of the same it shall be void in law and holden for error which two last Statutes of the Petition of Right and the Act that abol●sheth the Star-chamber doth expresly and nominally ratifie and confirme the Statute of the 42. of Edward the third which according to the peoples true fundamental law of England makes void and null all Acts of Parliament Ordinances Orders Judgements and Decrees whatsoever made by any power whatsoever that are contrary unto or in diminution of the free people of Englands foresaid liberties and freedoms of due Process of Law And the Petition of Right expresly saith No man whatsoever shall be any wayes punished especially in criminal cases but according to the laws and Statutes already established in the land And those also by the said Petition of Right and the Statute that abolished the Star-chamber are precisely declared to be according to our good old native fundamental rights and liberties or else they are ipso facto null and void in law this very thing or the securing thereof alone being the principal and chief declared cause of all the late Parliaments and present armies bloodshed and wars with the late King and his son and without the inviolable preservation of these our fundamental laws and liberties it is impossible that any in the Army from the highest to the lowest in the least can acquit themselves of being justly esteemed both before God and just men real and wilful murderers of all those persons that they have staine in the late civil wars and if so wo unto them when God makes inquisition for innocent blood Neither indeed is he the now prisoner at the Bar guilty of any such high crimes and misdemeanors as is expressed in the said Act neither ever was he the now prisoner at the Bar in the least duely and legally banished and fined by the said Act nor yet is a Felon nor guilty of felony in no manner of respect whatsoever as by the said Inditement now read unto him is supposed neither can he rationally

imagine that by the Parliament that is mentioned in the said Act of the 30 of January 1651. for banishing one Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburn is in the least meant the late Parliament of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster especially because it is not so therein exprest who had taken many Oaths and past abundance of Declarations and particularly that of the 9 of February 1648. inviolably to maintain the Fundamental Laws of the Land in reference to the Peoples lives liberties and properties with all things incident appertaining and belonging thereunto But that rather it was some ignorant sottish French Parliament sitting at Paris or elsewhere in France that understand nothing of the Laws Liberties and Freedoms of England or that it was the malignant Cavalier Parliament lately sitting at Oxford in the Kings Quarters there post-dating their Act and thereby endeavouring by the said Act to create such a president as in the consequence of it would destroy all the Laws Liberties and Properties of the free-born people of England and thereby absolutely set up the Kings will and prerogative above Law the bare endeavouring of which in the Earl of Strafford hath been long since adjudged high treason Or in the next place it the authors of the said monstrous and illegal Act of Banishment be neither the ignorant Parliament of Paris nor the Cavalier Parliament of Oxford Then of necessity in the third place it cannot in charity and reason but be judged that the said Act of Banishment was drawn up by Mr. Scobel the Parliaments Clerk Mr. Hill their Chayr-man and Mr. Prideaux their Attorney and Post-master-general when they were all riding post and so jumbled or shaken with fast riding that it was impossible for them to hold their pens to write right and true and when they had framed it then by some cunning artifice or inchantment of theirs they preferred it to the said Parliament who in charity and common reason must needs be judged to pass it when they were three quarters asleep against some silly natural fool called Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburn that could not be imagined ever in his life to have read any thing of Law or Reason it being impossible in the least in reason to be conceived that the late Supreme Authority the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster being onely by their own Declarations but trusted to provide for the peoples weal but not in the least for their wo would ever in their right wits or not being three quarters asleep pass such an Act of Parliament against John Lilburn now prisoner at the Bar who hath much read the Law and very well understands the Fundamental Liberties of England and hath hazardously adventured his life a thousand cimes for the inviolable preserving of them because such an Act of Parliament as the foresaid Act of Parliament is in the first place an Act of Parliament against common right common equity and common reason and therefore is void and null in Law and ought not to be executed as appears by these following authorities viz. 1 part of Dr. Bonham's Case fol. 118. and the 8 of Edw. 3. fol. 3 30 33. F. Cessavit 32 27 H. G. Annuity 41. and 1 Eliz. Dyer 113. and 1 part Cook 's Institutes lib. 2. Chap. 11. Sect. 209. fol. 140. and 4 Edw. 4.12 and 12 Edw. 4.18 and 1 H. 7.12 13. and Plowd Com. fol. 369. and Judge Jenkins learned works in the Law printed for J. Giles 1648. but particularly by his Discourse of Long Parliaments p. 139 140. and see also Mr. W. Prynne's notable book of the 16 of June 1649. called A Legal Vindication of the Liberties of England against illegal Taxes p. 11 12 13 c. But especially see a book intituled The Legal Fundamental Liberties of England revived asserted and vindicated printed and reprinted in the yeer 1649 page 54 55 56 57. yea an Act of Parliament that a man shall be judge in his own case is a void Act in law as appears in Hubberts Case fol. 120. and by the 8 part of Cook 's Reports in Dr. Bonham's Case and by the present Armies own Book of Declarations p. 35 52 54 59 60 61 63 132 141 142 143 144. yea saith that learned Oracle of the Law of England Sir Edw. Cook in the 4 part of his Institutes fol. 330. Where Reason ceaseth there the Law ceaseth for seeing Reason is the very life and spirit of the Law it self the Law-giver is not to be esteemed to respect that which hath no reason although the generality of the words at the first sight or after the letter seem otherwise And saith the said learned Author in his first part Institutes fol. 140. All Customs and Prescriptions Acts of Parliament Laws and Judgements that be against Reason are void and null in themselves And saith the Armies Sollicitor-General John Cook in the late Kings Case stated p. 23. That by the law of England any Act or Agreement against the Laws of God and Nature is a meer nullity for as a man hath no hand in making the Laws of God and Nature no more hath he power to marre or alter them And he cites the Earl of Leicester's adjudged Case for a proof And in page 20 he also saith that all the Judges in England cannot make one Case to be Law that is not Reason no more then they can prove an hair to be white that is black which if they should so declare or adjudge it is a meer nullity for Law saith he must be Reason adjudged And therefore saith he page 8. That man or men that rules by lust and not by law is or are creatures that were never of Gods making nor of Gods approbation but his permission and though such men be said to be gods on earth 't is in no other sense then the devil is called the god of this world And excellent to this very purpose is that ancient law-Law-book called The Doctor and Student who in his second Chapter pag. 4. expresly sayth Against the law of Nature which he calls the Law of Reason Prescription Statute or Customs may not prevail and if any be brought in against it they be no Prescriptions Statutes nor Customs but things void and against justice And what this law of Nature or Reason is he excellently sheweth in the latter end of the fourth page and the beginning of the fifth and therefore in pag. 7. he expresty saith That to every good Law is required these properties viz. That it be honest right wise possible in it self and after the custom of the Country convenient for the place and time necessary profitable and also manifest that it be not captious by any dark sentence nor mixt with any private wealth but all made for the common good for saith he every mans law must be consonant to the Law of God otherwise they are not righteous nor obligatory All which Judgements or Cases in Law in the equitable and rational part of

the least as to punish man whatsoever that is not of them for if my crime whatsoever which in part is already touched upon in the former part of the Prisoners Plea at the Bar and also the absolute Irrationality and Illegality of their making a particular law or their sett●ng up of a particular Court for a particular man which are notably and rationally discussed upon in the se●ond Edition of the book Intituled The Picture of the Councel of State pag. 45. and the second Ed●tion of The L●gal Fundamental Liberties of England rec●iv●d asserted and vindicated pag. 71 72 73. For though a Parliament hath power to levie what mony they judge convenient upon the people by a general tax for common safety of the Nation which Act both by Law and reason they may do yet they cannot in law equity or reason lay all tax upon one two or three men alone and so make them bear all the charges of the publick even so though Parliaments may pass Acts for the good of the People to administer law indifferently to all the people of England alike without exception of persons yet they can neither by law nor reason pass a particular Act of Parliament on purpose to destroy or condemn one two or three individual persons and which shall not in his extent or intention reach any body else because such an Act is against common reason common equity all English men or people being all borne free equally alike and the liberties and freedomes thereof being equally intailed to all alike without exception of persons and theref●…●…e in common reason not to be burthened with an Iron yoak of a particular Act of Parliament when the universalities goeth scotfree in that particular Yea he might urge many Arguments lawful to prove that the Parliament was no Parliament when they past the said Act of Banishment but were long before dissolved and that by their owne consents when the late Parliament took upon them the exercise of regality and the dissolution of Kingship and the house of Lords as it is notaly endeavoured to be proved in the late discourse of the Armies champions as for particularly one licensed to be printed for Giles Calvert and another by Richard Moon at the ssven sters in Pauls Church yard and that it was long since dissolved by that learned man in the Law of England Judge Jenkins renders many reasons in Law to prove it as in his works printed for J. Gyles are to be read p. 19. 20. 26. 27. 48. 49. 50. 96. 139. 140. 142. 147. But much more full to prove its absolute dissolution long since is Mr. Will. Prynne Barrester at Law In his Law-Arguments of the 16 of June 1649. called A Legal vindication of the Liberties of England against illegal Taxes and pretended Acts of Parliament p. 3 4 5 6 c. and p. 44 45 46 c. And that the Parl. Acts long since in Law dissolved the prisoner at the Bar for further plea saith The death of tde King in law indispensibly dissolved the late Parl. as appears by the express Judgement of the Parl. of 1 H. 4. Rot. Parl. Num. 1. and the Parl. of 14 H. 4. 1 H. 5. Rot. Parl. N. 26. and 4 part Cooks Iast f. 46. which book was published for good Law by two special Orders of the House of Commons in an 1641 and 4 E. 4. 44 b. For the Writ of Summons of the late Parliament that was directed to the Sheriffs by vertue of which men were chosen for the last Parl. runs in these words King Charles being to have conference and treaty with and upon such a day about or concerning as the words of the Triennial Act hath it and high and urgent affairs concerning his Majestie the State and the defence of the kingdom and Church of England But how it 's possible for a Parl. to confer or treat with King Charles now he is dead is not to be imagined See 2 H. 5. Cook tit Parl. 3. and therefore the whole current of the Law of England yea Reason it self from the beginning to the end is expresly that the Kings death doth ipso facto dissolve this late Parliament though it had been all the time before never so entire and unquestionable to that very hour And it must needs be so he being in Law yea and by the authority of this very Parl. stiled The Head the Beginning and End of Parliaments See Cooks 1 part Instit f. 109. b. 110. a. and 4 part Inst f. 1 2 3. and Mr. Pym's fore-mentioned Speech against Strafford p. 8. and the Lord St. Jo●ns Argum. against Strafford p. 12 70 71. and therefore as a Parl. in Law cannot begin without the Kings presence in it either by person or representation Cook ibid. in part 4. fol. 6. see also Rot. Parl. 25 E. 3. N. 10. so it is positively dissolved by his death for thereby not onely the true declared but intended end of their assembling which was to treat and confer with King Charles is ceased See 1 Edw. 6. cap. 7. Cooks 7 Rep. 30 30. and Dyer 156. 4 E. 4. f. 43 44. 1 E. 5. f. 1. Brooks Commission 19 21. and thereby a final end is put unto all the means that are appointed to attain unto the end and therefore it is as impossible for the late Parliament or any Parliament summoned by the King to be the Parliament in law after his death as it is for a Parl. to make King Charles alive again The Kings Writ that summoned this Parl. is the basis in Law and foundation of this Parl. If the foundation be destroyed the Parl. falls but the foundation of it in every circumstance is destroyed and therefore the thing built upon that foundation must needs fall it is a Maxime both in Law and Reason But if it be objected the law of necessity required the continuance of the Parliament against the letter of the Law The Prisoner at the Bar answers first its necessary to consider whether the men that would have it continue as long as they please or after it is in Law dissolved be not those that have created the necessities on purpose that by the colour thereof they may make themselves great and potent and if so then that objection hath no weight nor by any rules of Justice can they be allowed to gain this advantage by their own fault as to make that a ground of their justification which is a great part of their offence and that it is true in it self is so obvious to every unbyassed knowing eye it needs no illustration Secondly I answer There can be no necessity be pretended that can be justifiable for breach of trusts that are conferred on purpose for the redress of mischiefs and grievances yea to the subversions of Laws and liberties I am sure Mr. Pym by the Parliaments command and order told the Earl of Strafford so when he objected the like and that he was the Kings Counsellor and