Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	law_n	parliament_n	2,185	5	6.6353	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B04974	Replyes for Alexander Monro of Bearcrofts and the answers made to the petition and information presented by him to the Commissioner his Grace, and Estates of Parliament.	Monroe, Alexander, fl. 1691.	1691 (1691)	Wing R1047A; ESTC R182635	14,973	20

REPLYES FOR ALEXANDER MONRO of Bearcrofts To the ANSWERS made to the PETITION and INFORMATION presented by him to the COMMISSIOMER HIS GRACE AND ESTATES OF PARLIAMENT WHEREAS the Answerer in his Preface craves leave to represent the point of Fact thereby professing to clear the Parliament how far Alexander Monro's desire in the foresaid Petition was contrare to the Rules of Justice and in order to which clearing states the matter of Fact so as thereby and in the Answerers intention to demonstrate that there could be but three Clerks of Session viz. One for each Office and that particularly in the year 1594 and 1621 Acts of Sederunt were made appointing only three principal Clerks and that no other Clerk should be joyned but of consent of these Principalls for the future and that the said Act of Sederunt was ratified in Parliament and that there was no Legal Title for appointing two Clerks in each Office till Tarbat procured the same by a Letter from the KING ratified in Parliament Anno 1685 and upon all this Insinuating that the Petitioner's Right to one of the Offices of Clerkship in conjunction with Mr John Hay in the year 1669 was Illegal and therefore that the thrusting of him out by an impetrate Letter from the KING was no Act of wrong especially seing that any collour of Right Sir Archibald Primrose then Register had by his Gift to present the Petitioner was a surrepticiously insert Clause into the said Sir Archibald his Gift relative unto his naming of Deputes one or moe in each of the Offices after that Sir Archibald had abstracted the Records of the year 1621 which did bear the Act of Sederunt anent three Clerks only recorded therein and also that the Petitioner became troublesome to the LORDS in the year 1674 which occasioned the procuring the KING'S Letter for turning him out and consequently that the Petitioner cannot in Justice be reponned to the Office of Clerkship especially seing he accepted 7000 Merks as an adequate price modified therefore and thereupon renunced the Office Replyed That the Anwerer considering the mistake alsewell as the Irrevolancie of these points of Fact accumulate by him had good reason to crave leave for his adventuring by such an Ingenious Contexture of words to impose upon the World in stead of clearing the Parliament of the Truth and that all the abovementioned Storie ought to derogate nothing from the sufficiency of Alexander Monro's Title to the Clerkship in point of Right nor yet hinder him from being restored in Justice to his said Office notwithstanding of his Recept of the 7000 Merks and Discharging his Office thereupon is clearly evident from the unanswerable Grounds following viz. 1mo That as to the pretended Act of Sederunt in the year 1621 the Answerer confesses there is no such Act and therefore he ought not to sound thereupon nor consequently upon the alledged Act of Parliament relative thereto because by the principle of Law Non creditur referenti nisi constiterit de relato especially when the said Act of Parliament is neither amongst the Printed Acts nor in the index of the Imprinted Acts nor can the Answerers alleadged Cause and occasion of abstracting of the said pretended Act of Sederunt be in the least respected as being a most unjust reflection on Sir Archibald Primrose considering the World knows that Sir Archibald at the delivery up of the Registers deponed he had abstracted none besides that these Books of Sederunt have been alwayes in the Custody of the Clerks of Session but which totally takes off the said Reflection Sir Archibald had no Temptation thereto for the whole six Clerks came in uniformly upon Recommendation to him so that there was no use for any indirect method 2do That the pretended Act of Sederunt in anno 1594 as the same is printed by the Answerer bears That the Clerk of the Proces should be only present with the LORDS at Voting and Reasoning c. Alsewell as Mr Alexander Gibson Clerk his Admission at that time to have been of consent of the other two principal Clerks yet all the World knows how far that of removing the Clerks the time of advising alsewell as the getting the incumbent Clerks consent to a Conjuncts Admission has gone in desuetude in so much as upon the contrare now about 70 years six Clerks have alwayes been in use to serve and all of them allowed to be present at advising and this is demonstrated 1mo From the Books of Sederunt as follows viz. That in the year 1621 the Defenders acknowledge there were six Clerks and the first Admission of any Clerk thereafter is found to be on the 25 of July 1932 when Sir John Hamiltoun Clerk Register presented Mr Alexander Gibson and John Gibson his Brother conjunctly and severally Clerks to the Session in one Office and upon the first of June 1636 Sir John Hay Clerk Register presented Mr John Hay and Mr William Hay his Son conjunctly and severally to one Clerkship and upon the first of June 1649 Mr David and Mr John Hayes were presented by the Register conjunctly and severly to one Clerkship and in the year 1661 at the settlement of the Government two Clerks were presented to each of the three Offices who were every one of them recommended by the KING to the Clerk Register except Mr Lawrence Scot who came in in the place of Mr James Mariland who was so recommended and they and the Petitioner Alexander Monro who succeeded to the said Mr Lawrence Scot continued in the peaceable possession of their Offices until the year 1676 after Arbitrary power began to exert it self 2do That in the special case of Alexander Monro the Petitioner his Admission there was no possibility that Mr John Hay the incumbent Clerk for the time his consent could have contribute any thing to the said Alexander his Right the said Mr John his own Right and Gift being from Sir Archibald Primrose in the year 1661 upon the KING'S recommendation as said is but to the half of the Office only nevertheless esto that the said Mr John his consent would have contribute anything Alexander Monro and Mr Lawrence Scot his Predecessor had the samen sufficiently testified to them by the said Mr John his Acquiescence from the 1661 year of GOD till the 1676 without ever reclaiming during their Incumbency as indeed he could not considering the established custom of two Clerks in each Office at that time and long before as said is and that he had no Right to reclaime and Mr Lawrence Scot Alexander Monro were principal Clerks as well as he 3tio That as Alexander Monro's Right was founded in the established custom and consuetude of the Sessions being served by six Clerks as said is which is sufficient per se to sustain his right custom in such Cases being equivalent to a Law nevertheless ex super abundante Sir Archibald Primrose then Lord Register and from whom the said Alexander his Right