Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n according_a king_n law_n 2,841 5 4.9044 4 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
A36519 The Long Parliament revived, or, An act for continuation, and the not dissolving the Long parliament (call'd by King Charles the First in the year 1640) but by an act of Parliament with undeniable reasons deduced from the said act to prove that that Parliament is not yet dissolved ; also Mr. William Prin his five arguments fully answered, whereby he endeavours to prove it to be dissolved by the Kings death &c. / by Tho. Phillips. Drake, William, Sir. 1661 (1661) Wing D2137; ESTC R30130 16,499 26

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

and foundation of encouragement for the Credit which was to be given in order to the raising of the said monies and did accordingly effect it Secondly The Parliament could not without this be in any secure condition to make provision for the repayment of the said money so to be raised in regard that through defect of such an Act the Parliament might be in continual danger to be untimely dissolved and by the clear scope of the Act 't is accounted an untimely dissolution if dissolved before the said provision be made therefore the dissolution of the said Parliament before such provision made for repayment of the said monies which is not yet done is expresly contrary to the true meaning and intention of this Act. And if this Act were made purposely to prevent the untimely dissolution of the Parliament as it stands express in the Title then it cannot but have respect to the Kings Death as well as to any other means of untimely dissolution The Parliament well knowing the Kings life was as uncertain yea in some respects more uncertain than the life of other men And therefore could not choose but so understand it if they intended this Act to be any security for the monies borrowed or to be borrowed upon their Credit Secondly In the substance and body of the Act 't is delivered in express terms That this present Parliament shall not be dissolved but by an Act of Parliament Whence it follows that if not dissolvable unless by an Act of Parliament then it is exclusive to all other waies and means of dissolution as the interruption by armed violence the forcible omission of daies of adjournment the violent or natural death of the King or whatsoever else might be done or have happened legally to dissolve it had not this Act been made or constituted Thirdly and lastly To make all clear without any exception in the close of the said Act it is expressed That all and every thing and things whatsoever done or to be done for the adjourning proroguing or dissolving of this present Parliament contrary to this Act shall be utterly void and of none effect Which clause you see looks backward and forwards in reference to whatsoever had a legal power and tendency before this Act to dissolve the Parliament Against which this Act hath now fully provided that neither what hath been done for the time past nor whatsoever shall be done for time to come shall dissolve this Parliament excepting an Act of the said Parliament Whence I argue That all those things that otherwise legally would or might have dissolved this Parliament had not this Act been made have no force or efficacy to dissolve this but only an Act of this present Parliament All other Parliaments having no legal capacity till this be legally dissolved unless it be granted that two Parliaments may have both of them legal capacity at one and the same time Which I beleeve there are none so absurd as to aver no more then that two Kings may have a legal capacity at one time in the same Kingdom But because there are divers objections that seem to oppose the premises and the legal being and capacity of the said Parliament I shall endeavour to answer them as strongly and yet as briefly as I may to every ordinary Readers understanding The first and grand Objection of all is the death of the late King that summoned this Parliament in the year 1640. and is argued by Mr. Wil. Prin. Because saith he it hath been frequently resolved by Parliaments themselves the reverend Judges and our Law Books by King Charles his own Declaration and his Judges and Council that the deposition and death of the King doth actually dissolve the Parliament c. To which I answer by way of Concession that the Death of the King doth legally or according to Custome dissolve a Parliament that is only call'd and constituted by the Kings Writ but not a Parliament constituted and confirmed by an Act of the three Estates Let Mr. Prin or any other Lawyer shew me any Law or president to that purpose and I will presently yield the Cause If Mr. Prin would have spoken home to this Case he should have made it appear where or when it had been resolved by Parliament the Judges and our Law Books c. that in case of an Act of Parliament made for the Session and continuance of a Parliament till they should dissolve themselves by an Act that such a Parliament hath been or shall nevertheless be dissolved by the Kings death which it is believed he will find a very hard task to prove Secondly He objects the Parliament is no standing Court sitting at certain seasons by positive Laws but summoned and constituted by the Kings Writ of Summons and Royal Prerogative when and where he pleaseth and adjourned prorogued and dissolved by his Writ alone in point of Law c. I answer again by way of Concession that Parliaments according to their wonted and by-past Customes were no certain Courts sitting at certain seasons by positive Laws But yet may be made such by Act of the three Estates Witness the Triennial Parliament And further By an extraordinary grant of his late Majesty this Parliament was made a standing Court to sit constantly by a positive Law till they should please to dissolve themselves He having been pleased by the said grant for the better security of his Subjects to wave his Royal Prerogative and power of dissolution and to give his consent for the nulling of all other means tending thereunto And for what Mr. Prin intimates further in the said Objection That because all Writs of Summons are actually abated by the Kings death as well as all other Commissions and Patents of all Judges Justices c. That therefore this Parliament must needs be dissolved I answer That doth not at all follow till he can make it appear that there is no more validity in an Act of Parliament of the three Estates than there is in a meer Writ of Summons or a Commission or Patent granted only by the King For though this Parliament was summoned by the King Writ yet 't is manifest its continuance and confirmation did not at all depend upon that for then he might still have dissolved it when he ple●sed but upon the Act of the three Estates who had established it by Law and so was now no more dissolvable by the Kings Death than any other Statute Law or Act of Parliament whatsoever And therefore is not depending on so fickle a thing as a Writ of Summons or a Patent or Commission given the Judges and which the King may take away and repeal again at his own pleasure And to illustrate this more by an instance I shall desire to aske Mr. Prin this Question Put case that there are certain urgent necessities as before specified in the Act that the Parliament hath of great Sums of Money for preserving the Peace of the