Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n house_n king_n lord_n 2,914 5 3.9837 3 true
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
A29939 The absurdity of that new devised state-principle, (viz.) that in a monarchy, the legislative power is communicable to the subject, and is not radically in soveraignty in one, but in more in a letter to a friend. Brydall, John, b. 1635? 1681 (1681) Wing B5251; ESTC R19834 8,537 12

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

THE ABSURDITY Of that New devised State-Principle VIZ. That in a Monarchy The Legislative Power is Communicable to the Subject and is not radically in Soveraignty in one but in More In a Letter to a Friend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hand Multos regnare bonum est Rex unius esto LONDON Printed for T. D. and are to be sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers Hall 1681. SIR YOU cannot but remember that at our last Meeting there happened betwixt us a hot dispute touching Co-ordination occasioned by your reading the day before a Tract not long since exposed to publick view and Intituled by the Author thereof An Account of the Growth of Knavery c. In a Letter to a Friend In Answer to Two Pamphlets the one styled An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England The other A seasonable Argument to perswade all the Grand Juries in England to Petition for a New Parliament in which said Tract there are some Passages that seem very distastful to your Palat but more especially that Sentence pag. 44 45. concerning the Legislative Power thus expressed by our Author The Making of Laws sayes he is a peculiar and incommunicable Priviledge of the Supream Power And the Office of the Two Houses in this Case is only Consultive or Preparative but the Character of the Power rests in the Final Sanction which is in the King and effectually the passing of a Bill is but the Granting of a Request The Two Houses make the Bill 't is true but the King makes the Law and 't is the Stamp and not the Matter that makes it Currant This piece of Doctrine say you is very strong and Heterodox for it contradicts not only your own darling Sentiments but also the opinion of many other Persons in this Nation who hold That the Legislature resides not in the King only but in him and in the Two Houses of Parliament so that you and those other Persons fancy a Mixture or Co-ordinacy in the Supremacy it self making the English Monarchy a Compound of Three Co-ordinate Estates This same opinion say you is founded upon the Authority of the Law Books which tell us That every Statute must be made by the King Lords and Commons And if it appear by the Act. that it is made by Two of them only it is no Statute as appears by 4 H. 7. 18. b. Co. Lit. 139. b. Co. 4. Inst f. 25. Co. 2. Inst 157. 158. 334. Bulstrods Reports Dominus Rex Alleu v. Tooley These same Authorities I allow as well as you but then it must be with this distinction that the Two House of Parliament are in a sort Co-ordinate with His Majesty Ad aliquid to some Act or Exercising the Supream Power that is to say there is an equal Right in the King and the Two Houses of a Negative Voice in respect of new Laws to be Enacted or old to be repealed But if you intend by Co-ordination as indeed you do a Fellowship with the King in the very Supremacy it self you are much beside the Cushion and truly in the wrong side of the Hedge too Because it is repugnant to the nature thereof and a clear Contradiction If it be true as it is that the King is our only Soveraign there can be no such thing as a Co-ordinate or Co-equal Power If they be Co-partners in the Soveraignty in what a fine Condition are we that must be obliged to Impossibilities For we must obey three Masters Commanding contrary things The Two Houses may as well injoyn us to do them Homage which is and ought to be performed only to the King as to challenge a Corrival Power with the Soveraignty of Royalty 'T is true no Law can be imposed on us without the consent of the Two Houses yet this doth not make them Co-ordinate with their Prince in the very Supremacy of Power it self but still leaves the Power of Ordaining Supreamly in him as in the Fountain though the Efflux or Exercise of that Power be not solely in his Will but expects the Consent of his People And therefore 't is very curiously expressed by the Learned Mr. Hooker That Laws do not take their Constraining Force from the Quality of such as devise them but from the Power that doth give them the strength of Laws Le Roy le veult the King will have it so is the Interpretative Phrase pronounced at the King 's passing of every Act of Parliament And it was sayes Sir Henry Filmer in that most excellent discourse called Patriarcha the Antient Custom for a long time till the dayes of H. 5. that the Kings when any Bill was brought unto them that had passed Both Houses to take and pick out what they liked not and so much as they chose was Enacted for a Law but the Custom of the later Kings hath been so Gracious as to allow alwayes of the entire Bill and sometimes with a Tacking too as it hath passed both Houses So much Sir in general touching your fancied Corrivality of Power I come now to a more close and minute Application and I argue thus If the Two Houses have a Joynt and Co-equal Authority with their King in making Laws and the like it must be one of these two wayes either it must be Primitively Seated in them or it belongs to them by derivative participation First the Two Houses of Parliament cannot have this Co-ordinate Power vested in them Primitively or Radically For are not Both Houses Summoned by the King 's Writ Do they not fit in Parliament by Virtue only of the Authority Royal Can either the Lords or Commons or both together Lawfully convene themselves appoint the time and place of their own Meeting Our Books of Law can tell you Sir that the Power of Convocating and keeping of Assemblies of Subjects the Power of Calling Holding and Proroguing of Parliaments is an Essential Part and Inseparable Privilege of the English Regality All able Jurists and Polititians very well know that the King is Caput Principium Finis Parliamenti solely made and Created by him and into him only can be ultimately resolved And therefore surely it must be the most unreasonable thing that ever was in the World that Subjects Assembled by their Soveraign's Writ should have a Co-equality of Power with their Prince without whose call they could not meet together and at whose will and pleasure they are Dissolved in Law and bound to betake themselves to their own Habitations And return to the Statu quo of Private Persons and Subjects whereas Supremacy is a Publick and indelible Character of Lawful Authority But farther can the Two Houses of Parliament pretend to be before our First King in time can they outvy him in Seniority Surely no. As for the Lords Bracton affirms that the Earls and Barons were Created by the King and assumed to him only for Counsel and Advice which infers undoubtedly that the Power they are invested withall