Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	law_n	lord_n	word_n	3,240	5	4.1297	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55894	A seasonable question, and an usefull answer, contained in an exchange of a letter between a Parliament-man in Cornwell, and a bencher of the Temple, London	Parliament-man in Cornwall.; H. P., Bencher of the Temple.	1676 (1676)	Wing P35; ESTC R5471	14,823	24

the Rolls relates to the Jurisdicttive power of parliaments which is often very necessary as well as the legislative It enacts That a Parliament be yearly holden to redress delayes in suites and to end such cases as the Judges doubt the 5. of Ed. 2. n. 9 and 13. and the 2. R. 1. 2. n. 73. and in the 50. Ed. 3. n. 177. In the parliament called the good Parliament the same thing was enacted and confirmed and in the opening the parliament in the 2. Ric. 2. n. 4. the Lord Chancellor in shewing the causes of calling that parliament gives for the second reason of it That it vvas enasted that a Parliament should be yearly holden And the message sent from the parliament to the King in the 9. Ric. 2. by the Duke of Gloster tells that King That one old statute and laudable custom is approved vvhich no man can deny that the King once in a year do summon his high Court of parliament there to consult vvith the vvise men and so you may read in Grafton Page 3. 48. It seems the course of holding yearly parliaments then passed not only for statute law wherein that Kings Ancestors had joyned with his kingdom to ordain it but as the most undoubted Custom of England that is the Common law de-declared in and by the statutes they clayming it as their most unquestionable inheritance being the only Root of all their Liberties and Properties and the only pollitick meanes of their defence and safeguard and no doubt our Ancestors had reason sufficient to claime their yearly parliaments as the custom or common law of England seeing no Antiquary nor record can shew the original of that usuage having its beginning with the Government it self Certain times for Parliament meeting are in truth of the essence of the English government Parliaments were the first appointers or creators of all other Offices Jurisdictions Powers and Prerogatives in the Government Don Wallo writing of the Brittish lawes tells us of Parliaments annuall or oftner amongst them above 400 years before Christ. And the Mirror of Justice tells us that king Alfred ordained it for a perpetuall usuage That tvvice in the year or oftner they should assemble at London to treat in Parliament of the Government of the People So it was in the Saxon's time and continued in the Normans being admitted by Duke William called the Conquerour as the Custom of England as appears by that antient Treatise called Modus antiquus tenendo Parliamenti And after great contest between the king of that Race and the people it was setled by Statutes often renewed That Parliaments should be yearly as the Statutes shew Upon the whole I think it beyond dispute that by the Laws and Statutes of our Realm a Parliament ought to be holden every year And surely it is as certain that the last prorogation beyond a year being persisted in by the king till the year is past over did prevent and defeat the execution of those Laws and is in direct opposition to them The sence of what the Lord Chancellor said to prorogue the parliament was a plain contradiction to these laws He tells them It vvas his Majesties Will that there should be no Parliament holden for one vvhole year and some months next follovving Then the question will be if it be any Whether the king's Will and Word in the Lavv or his Word in the Lord Chancelor's mouth is most potent The whole Kingdom in Parliament and all the Books of the Law have alwayes judged the Law to be the kings Superiour to judge of the validity of all his Grants Orders Commissions Patents under Great and Little Seal and every Court in Westminster-Hall have always thought its Authority sufficient to Judge His Grants under Seal or any thing he hath done void if they did not agree with the Law 'T is a Civility and honour that our Laws pay to the king that they will not suppose him to will any thing otherwise than as the Laws direct or allow him and thence it was received as a Maxim That the King can do no vvrong Indeed all he does contrary to Law is doing nothing 't is to be holden for nothing by Magna Charta it self therefore if the last Prorogation do not agree with the Laws it is a meer Nullity It is worth your remembring that in the 38 Chap. of the Great Charter it is ordained That no King should devise or invent any thing to infringe or vveaken the Liberties and Lavvs And if either King or Subject should seek out any thing against them it should be of no value and holden for nought If the Prorogation were a device or trick sought out to weaken the Laws for holding Parliaments every year 't is judged to be nought or no Prorogation by 30 or 40 Parliaments which have confirmed and re-enacted the same Charter But I ought to acquaint you that there are great endeavours to support the Prorogation some alledging with noise enough That many Kings have intermitted Parliaments not only for more than a year but for many years But these seem not to understand the Question which is of the validity in Law of what the king hath done to the Parliament 'T is not now enquired what Remedies there are if Kings shall leave undone what the Law and their Trust require in calling parliaments all the positive exercises of power by the king may and ought to be judicially sentenced and approved for good if agreeable to the Laws or holden for none if they be contrary to the Law And this hath been the un-interrupted usuage of England in all Ages They have sentenced all his Charters Grants yea his very Pardons that seem to come so singly from his Soveraign power or prerorogative and the Prorogation ought upon the same reason to be tried by the Law and judged void if so it be by the Rules of the Law But the kings omission to put the Laws in execution in calling Parliaments at the times limitted by the Statutes or in appointing sufficient Guards for the Seas or in issuing out Commissions to the Judges or any the like These I say cannot be brought into Question Judicially there being no possible relief for the People in such cases but by supplimentary laws to be made in Parliament in case of such Omissions as was done by the parliament 1641. 'T is well for the People that the law hath provided that whatever the king shall do contrary to law shall go for nought though they suffer by his neglect their right and laws remain to them and such Omissions of the king as are before mentioned have alwayes been esteemed by Parliaments and People Failers or breaches of the kings high and sacred trust and 't is a pittiful Argument to prove that the kings might of right or by the laws omit to do what the law hath trusted to their care because they have sometimes broke their Trust. His late Majesty in his Declaration of the 12 of

August 1642 when the unhappy War began to rage freely confessed That it was upon his Prospect the unhappy State of the kingdom and of the inconveniencies and mischiefs that had grown by the long intermission of Parliaments and by the parting too much from the known Rule of the law to an arbitrary Power that induced him to consent freely to that Act in 1641 called vulgarly The Triennal Act which was in truth for Annual Parliaments re-enacting those very Acts of Edvv. 3. before mentioned He said he was willing in Justice and Favour to his Subjects to make them Reparations for their Sufferings they had undergon by him in omitting Parliaments I remember this chiefly to shew that his late Majesty when his Subjects were in Arms against him freely acknowledged the wrong he had formerly done them by failing to summon Parliaments as the Law required And professed that he had the year before freely and heartily consented to that Act which re-enacted those Antient laws of Edvv. 3. which are conceived amongst others to make the Prorogation void Yet I must tell you there are those that affirm all the laws for Annual Parliaments to be Musty absolete Statutes vvhose strength and life are devoured by time But it is enough to stop their mouthes that they have been declared by two Parliaments within 40 years last past to be the laws of our Realm and indeed they are laws of such a nature as cannot be weakened by any neglect of their due execution being declarative of the common law and a most essential part of the constitution of the English Government which altogether lives and subsists in and by the certainty of Parliaments meeting If it were admitted for Truth That neither the Common-Law nor the Statutes did indispensably oblige the Calling of Parliaments at any certain times but that their Meetings were only at the Wills of the kings then the kings did no wrong if they commanded the people as was once done in a kingdom by Proclamation Never to mention parliaments more If these laws be dead of Age the Antient Famous English-Liberty is dead with them the English must never more claim the Name of A Free People if they have no share by right in the Government of themselves by their certain rightful times of Parliaments But my Lord Cook part 1. of Instit. pag. 81. concludes rightly That no Act of prlaiament can loose its force or be antiquated by non user unless the Reason of it fail and the Use of it is impossible and by change of time becomes a publick mischief but not those especially vvhich are made to bind the Kings themselves for the Common good for such are the Lavvs for parliaments Yet he that observes in our English law books and Histories in the time of king John Hen. 8. Ed. 1. and Ed. 2. How the Nobles and Free-holders claimed their right by the Common law to meet in Parliament before these Statutes were made and how often they compelled their kings I do not say how lawfull such compulsion was when need required to call parliaments and if he observes also how constant these statutes for Annual parliaments were executed in many whole kings reigns succeeding each other next after their making and if he considers how slowly and slily this Grand Right of the peoples was invaded and stolen upon in latter Ages he will have little reason to pretend a non user of those Statutes yet if some neglects and defaults have been committed against the laws it concerns his Majesty in Conscience and the people in Interest much more not to permit it hereafter least patient sufferánce of the wrong become an argument against the peoples Right Pray Sir read the sense of our Ancestors upon the kings neglect of executing a law against the Pope whom they then adored 't is the Statute of Provisors of the 25 of Ed. 3. These are the words The king seeing the dammages and mischiefs before mentioned and having regard to the said statute c. Which statute holdeth its force and was never defeated repealed nor annull'd and by so much he is bounden by his Oath to cause the same to be kept as the law of the realm though that by sufferance and negligence it hath been sithence attempted to the contrary Truly Sir these seem to be honest plain old English words and if the Statutes about parliaments were put in the front or preface they would sound well from his Majesties mouth in a Nevv Statute But some there are Sir who find softer Cushons in a Parliament Seat than you do who to avoid the nullity of the prorogation assert That the Statutes for yearly Parliaments may be dispenced vvith by the kings Soveraign povver and prerogative being say they only Councils and Advices to the king and not obligatory This is boldly said if it could be as soundly proved it would put all questions between the king and his Subjects to everlasting silence if he can legally or of right dispence or absolve himself from all the bonds of the Law for holding parliaments by whom the Lawes are to be maintained and the highest transgressors punished he may dispence with the lawes whereby all other Courts sit and then he is loose from all lawes and nothing of right can be claimed of him by the subject To dispute with statutes of this nature by the king without limitation of time or other rule than his Will is the same in other words as to repeale or anull these statutes and revive them again when he pleaseth and that is to asume to the Crown singly the legislative power which consists as much in anulling as in making lawes And if that be the kings rightfull power then all the laws are absolutely dependant upon the Will of the king I have read that an attempt of the same kind was made by king Rich. 2. in setting up a Phantatick opinion as the Parliament then called it saying that the lawes of the Realm were in his head and in his breast but it cost the people very dear both in blood and treasure to confute it and the poor king lost his Crown and life for that fancy I will not trouble you or my self with the Common yet dangerous Doctrine of my Tribe about the kings Power to dispence with penall lawes by his non obstante I am only to inquire in this case what dispensing power the king hath over the statutes made and declared only to bind and limit the kings themselves in the execution of their Trust about the Government such as are in their prime true intent sacred Pacts or Arguments between the king and People though in honuor to the king there could not be aded to them the sanction of a penalty upon the king Judicialy These statutes that I now discourse of are the Foundations of our Government and declarative only shewing what our Government is that is by king and Parliament and how far the Crown is trusted with the power of