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	year_n	3,080	5	4.8170	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26174	The Lord Chief Justice Herbert's account examin'd by W.A., Barrister at Law, ... ; wherein it is shewn that those authorities in law, whereby he would excuse his judgment in Sir Edward Hales his case, are very unfairly cited and as ill applied.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?	1689 (1689)	Wing A4176; ESTC R2780	39,888	80

this Non obstante Matthew Paris calls a detestable addition against all Reason and Justice and when the year after King Henry urg'd the example of the Pope for Non obstantes The Prior of Jerusalem says God forbid you should use this unpleasant and absurd word as long as you observe Justice you may be King and as soon as you violate it you will cease to be King. Which shews how little Foundation in Law it then was thought to have and what the whole Nation thought of the Pope's use of it may be seen at large in Matthew Paris and Mr. Prin's Animadversions on the 4 th Institute Farther the Reasons given why the King ought to have this Power fail here upon many accounts 1. In that the Interest of the whole of which the Legislators are the best Judges when they make the Law without Exception ought to outweigh all private Inconveniences 2. The Law has provided a more certain and equal Remedy having taken as sufficient Care for the meeting of Parliaments once a Year at least and I may say sitting too as it has for the sitting of the Common Courts of Justice as appears from the several Statutes in Print and others in the Rolls which avoid the common Cavil upon the words Oftner if need be And these were like the famous Triennial Act Provisions for the greater certainty of meeting so often at least but no Recessions from the old Law which as appears both by the Mirrour and the Life of King Alfred was for the Great Council to meet twice a year at London 3. The great Reason assign'd in the Latin Quotation from the Lord Cook Propter impossibilitatem praevidendi de omnibus particularibus which is after distinguish'd as to Person Time and Place can by no means be applied to the Case in question For 1. The Law was made but very few Years before their Lordships Resolution and not grown more inconvenient by length of time to any particular Person than it was at the making of the Act. 2. The Law-makers had in their immediate prospect every particular Person of the Romish Communion and the Time when and Place where the Danger would happen if any such were Commissioned Let us now see what help he can have from his second Quotation from the Lord Cook which is 7 Rep. f. 73. but he intends I suppose f. 37. and would have it believ'd that it was the Opinion of all the Judges of England 2 Jac. 1. That the King may dispense with any particular Person that he shall not incur the Penalty of the Statute tho' it be an Act made pro bono publico and that this is a Trust and Confidence inseparably annex'd to the Royal Person of the King in which 1. He again overthrows his Distinction of malum in se and prohibitum making that Power at large in relation in any Statute pro bono publico 2. He manifestly perverts the Lord Cook 's sense whose Words are When a Statute is made pro bono publico and the King as Head of the Commonwealth and the Fountain of Justice and Mercy is by all the Realm trusted with it this is a Trust and Confidence inseparably adjoyn'd and annex'd to his Royal Person in so high a Point of Sovereignty that he cannot transfer it to the disposition or power of any private Person or to any private Use for this was committed to the King by all his Subjects for the Publick Good c. But true it is that the King can upon any cause moving him in respect of Time Place or Person c. make a Non obstante to dispense with any particular Person that he shall not incur the Penalty of the Statute Where the sole Question was of transferring over a Penalty granted to the King as entrusted by all the Realm to see the Statute put in execution by inflicting the Penalty This Trust is adjudged inseparable and not to be transferr'd over but that however the King may dispense with the Penalty granted to himself Upon which I must say our Chief Justice has made a very foul Stretch for what is this to the Informer's Part concerning which the Question before him was But surely there is a mighty difference between these two Propositions Where the Subjects have entrusted the King with a Statute made for the Publick Good this Trust is inseparable and cannot be transferr'd to another but the Statute so entrusted may be dispens'd with which is all that is to be gather'd from the Lord Cook and this Tho' an Act be made for the Publick Good yet the King may dispense with it and this is a Trust and Confidence inseparably annex'd to the Royal Person of the King which is Sir Herbert's perverse Comment In short Lord Cook says Where the King is entrusted with the Execution of a Statute made for the Publick Good he may dispense with that Statute Sir Edward Herbert says He may dispense with any Statute made for the Publick Good. Upon which 't is to be observ'd That the Question in the Lord Cook was not of Dispensing but granting over the Penalty which Penalty he says is not to be transferred over The other would make it of Dispensing and that that Power is inseparable and not to be transferr'd so apparently changes the State of the Question His next Step is to the year-Year-book of H. 7. f. 11 12. in which he leaves us to seek the Year which is 11. This he calls the first and great Case which he cites wherein the King 's Dispensing Power is described and limited There is a diversity says the Book between malum prohibitum and malum in se as a Statute forbids any Man to coin Money and if he does he shall be hang'd this is malum prohibitum for before the Statute Coining Money was lawful but now it is not so and therefore the King can dispense with it So if a Man ship Wooll in any place but Calice it is malum prohibitum because it is prohibited by Act of Parliament But that which is malum in se the King nor no other Person can dispense with as if the King would give a Man power to kill another or license one to make a Nusance in a High-way this were void and yet the King can pardon these things when they are done Upon this Case 't is observable That the Power of Dispensing is here asserted in relation to Things and not Persons Wherefore according to this taken in Sir Herbert's Latitude the King may grant Dispensations to all in general where the Matter is only malum prohibitum whereas he himself owns that the nature of a Dispensation is particular and given to particular Persons by name 2. Many things in Magna Charta nay the most are but mala prohibita and so Magna Charta its self may be dispensed with when he himself owns that the King cannot dispense with one Tittle of Magna Charta And