Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	good_a	read_v	word_n	3,211	5	4.1636	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76829	Resolved upon the question· Or A question resolved concerning the right which the King hath to Hull, or any other fort or place of strength for the defence of the kingdome. Wherein is likewise proved, that neither the setling of the militia as tis done by the Parliament, nor the keeping of Hull by Sir Iohn Hotham, nor any other act that the Parliament have yet done is illegall, but necessary, just, and according to that power which the law hath given them. By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1642 (1642)	Wing B3162; Thomason E119_4; ESTC R10865	11,393	18

but he must praerogare too asking the consent of the Parliament Besides though what they doe cannot be binding by way of Act without his consent yet by way of Ordinance it may in term Micael 21. E. 3. fol. 60. b. In a case touching the exemption of the Abby of Saint Edmons Berry from the Bishop of Norwich there was an Ordinance made by the Parliament without the King and if you turne to the booke you shall finde these words in the judgement fuit ordeigne which you may read likewise in Seldens title of honour But if I should admit that there were no law to prove their Act legall yet sure I am there is good reason for it As first from the words of the writ nostro quibusdam arduis rebus et gotiis urgentibus statu et diffentionem regni nostri Angliae concernentibus which words rebus arduis et urgentibus negotiis proves they have power upon urgent occasions to do that which at the time of their doing it they had no law to enable them thereto for their calling by writ is authorty to enable them to sit in Parliament and then their consent is law enough to binde us and therefore if the Parliament doe grant Subsidies by way of Ordinance and the Kings hand is never put to it yet it is sufficient enough to force a Paiment from us because the Countries are bound by Indentures seald to the Sheriffe at the time of their election to stand to what they shall consent to in Parliament whom they have chosen but by way of Act6 it cannot force us because it cannot be pleaded as an Act but that upon a demurrer it will be overruled Now if the Parliament could do nothing but what they had a law to enable them to do what need the Country seal Indentures to wand to what they doe when as that law the Parliament went by would force them to obey it without that waxen ceremony Besides if the Parliament had not power to do an Act to the doing of which there was no law at the time of their summons to enable them then what need a Parliament be cald at any time for then any inferiour Court had had as much authority upon the matter as that but I conceave necessity is the law they are to look at fot they need not deferre the doing of that which is for the Kingdomes good for want of a law or a president to steere by for if in times past the grave law-makers had not done things according to their profound judgement and as they saw fit without Presidents how should any presidents have been left to future ages and to this present Parliament but surely they did and surely this Parliament may unlesse any one can prove the power of Parliament to be abated and lesse now then in former times I agree if a Parliament should assume to themselves that power to sway every thing and never aske the Kings consent it were an abridgement of that prerogative the King hath in him by law but there are many humble Petitions full of submission and alleagiance to his Majesty that can prove this Parliament not guilty were they not adjudged Traytors without tryall But again if the King forsake them and deny to passe those Bills they bring him for the good of the Kingdome I think necessity enables nay commands them to doe it without him I shall prove it all by one example the like I hope shall not bee heard of in our dayes hath no man heard of a king deposed by a Parliament Surely yes and what law had they for it that did it besides convenience and the common good and surely they did it without the Kings consent too or at least he consented whether he would or no for if he had had an absolute power of denying and by that could have frustrated their endeavours he would never have consented to his own deposing which proves strongly that they may do that which is for the good of the kingdom without the King if he refuse to joyne with them But this I desire not and the Parliament intend it not as they have declared themselves in severall Declarations and Petitions and I hope the most ignorantly violent of the vulgars and the greatest zealots of any Sect what ever will wish so much good to our kingdome as that it may long be governd by this our gracious King Charles and his posterity and that he may soon be free from those cruell engagements and inconveniences which the malignant party hath drawne him into This is my heart prayer onely I used that great argument to prove a lesser to argue a mejori ad minus for omn● majus continet in se minus FINIS

I found the State troublesome every where and I leave it quiet even to the Britaines and the Empire sure and firme to my children if they be good but unsure and weake if they be bad My Lord Cooke in the first part of his Institutes fol. 60. b. observes that Littleton speakes of the Kings prerogative but twice in all his Booke and in both places saith Cooke he makes it part of the Lawes of England so that hence we may gather that though the working braines of these times plead his Prerogative to him y●t that cannot enable him to doe what the Law forbids for his Prerogative is but what power the Law gives him and that power cannot be made greater without the assent of the whole Realme Fort. fol. 40. ca. 18. and what is the reason of this our happinesse that the King cannot make new Lawes dam old ones without the Subjects consent but this because our Kingdom is not governed with a power onely royall but also politique Aristotle in 3. Pollitic saith melius est civitatem regi viro optimo quam lege optima it is better for a City to be governed by a good King then by a good Law But for as much as every King is not such a man therefore Saint Thomas in the Booke which he wrote to the King of Cyprus of the governance of Princes wisheth the State of a Realm to be such that it may not be in the Kings power to oppresse his people with tyranny For my part I did not looke upon our gracious King when I coated this for of himselfe I take him to be that vir optimus were he not misled and drawne to such engagements as will ruine himselfe his posterity and Kingdome if not by those of his best Councell prevented I meane the Parliament who are engaged both for the safety of the Kings Majesties person and posterity of themselves and the whole Kingdome to strike all those who perswade his Majesty to doe such acts as make the Lawes seeme but as cobwebs which by his Prerogotive may be stretched nay broken Some there are which Object that the Kings Majesty hath bin pleased to passe many gracious Acts already and therefore seeing we have so many tokens of his good intent why should he be doubted or his intent questioned Truely the Parliament and all the rest of his Subjects must acknowledge his Fatherly care of them in those Acts expressed But if he be perswaded nay resolved to breake those Acts againe by violence what are we the better to say we have beene happy in the making those Acts the breach of which is ten times a greater misery if a Father breeds his Sonne well or allowes him well whilest hee lives but when hee dyes leaves him nothing whereby both hee and his children and his childrens children may be the better surely the care and piety of a Father is not in him compleat So Kings if they make part of an age happy by governing well or making good Lawes but at last breakes them againe and does not leave them as Testaments whereby a perpetuity of good may descend to their Countrey they are but mortall and transitory benefactours I speake not this to incense the Subject against their lawfull Prince for I know no warrant for that for for his Majesties pure selfe His serious and often protestations command my Faith both for his maintaining our Protestant Religion and defence of his Subjects and their Liberttes and I discerne his words actuated his building or repairing of Temples his late Proclamations against Recusants his excluding them his Army that will not take the oath of Supremacy and Alleagiance are for the first his building of Shippes in these late times and his passing the Act for the continuance of this Parliament are testimonies for the second onely the danger is if those malignant spirits about him should prevaile with him which I hope is impossible to adde ill endings to those good Acts by changing the use they were pretended for Others there are that grant the KING hath it by way of trust but yet Object that by Law a trust cannot be countermanded and therefore Sir John Hothams keeping of Hull was against Law To which I answere thus I confesse that by law a trust cannot be countermanded but yet I shall take a difference between the trust of a private mans estate and a trust of a kingdome and if this difference should not stand good see what a mischiefe would follow and argumentum ab inconvenients is of great force in law if that were a good argument then our case in short were but thus We have intrusted the King with the whole Kingdome and this trust cannot be countermanded by us againe and if not then the Kings estate in the kingdome is as good as absolutely his owne in Fee and if so then he may doe what he will with the Crowne and if this mischiefe were remedilesse what estate or property had any man in his owne fortunes when they all lay open to so great a hazzard Again though for the avoydance of that mischiefe it might be thought countermandable yet that Act of Sir John Hotham is not a countermande but rather a strengthning of it for by common presumption the King being but one cannot prie into the actions and intents of all those that have procured his imployments so well as his Parliament may for plus vident oculi quam oculus and therefore they finding such treacherie and falsenesse in them which the King either does not see or else is wilfully impolliticke thought it fit as it was most seasonable indeed to imploy another whose faithfulnesse might prevent what they intended against both King and Kingdome to which truth so soone as his Majesty shall give credit and by that means they and the Kingdome be secured his trust will appear the same it ever was and he more able to discharge that trust reposed in him Others there are that doe object the authority of Parliament to be much but this is not binding which this Parliament does now because the King doth not joyne with them for t is no compleat Parliament the head of that body being absent But I shall prove by presidents and reason upon which law is partly grounded that the Parliament have that power in them which they so carefully make use of I confesse my Lord Cooke in the first part of his Institues thus derives the word Praerogativa a prae id est ante and rogare and saith he it carries with it this sence when an Act is passed by both houses of Parliament before it can be made a Law they must praerogare the Kings consent but this dirivation of the word does not prove that the King hath an absolute power of denying to passe any Bill that is brought him for the good of the Kingdom but it signifies on his part aswell that he cannot of himselfe enact any thing or lay any tax upon his Subject