Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	know_v	reason_n	2,948	5	4.7939	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35931	The royalist's defence vindicating the King's proceedings in the late warre made against him, clearly discovering, how and by what impostures the incendiaries of these distractions have subverted the knowne law of the land, the Protestant religion, and reduced the people to an unparallel'd slavery.	Dallison, Charles, d. 1669.	1648 (1648)	Wing D138; ESTC R5148	119,595	156

have no voice in reversing judgements or damning Patents in Parliament therefore they have not a voice in passing Bils for publike Laws Answer Mr. Pryns words must be understood one of these wayes viz. That these judgements are reversed and Patents damned by Act of Parliament or else in the ordinary way of proceedings of Law as in a Court of Justice if he meane by Act of Parliament he onely beggs the question And false it is to say the King hath not a negative Voice in every Act propounded for a Law If he meane by judiciall proceedings as in a Court of Justice which I conceive he doth then the case truely stated is but thus The Lords House in Parliament time is a Court of Judicature and amongst other things the Members of that Assembly have power the cause being regularly brought before them by writ of errour and by the advice of the Judges and not else to reverse erroneous judgements given in the Kings Bench wherein it is true the King hath no Voice but that nothing disproves His negative Voice in making Laws if so that reason serves as well to exclude the Commons as the King for in reversing judgements in the Lords House the Members of the lower House have no Voice so if this argument of Mr. Pryns be of force the Lords without King or Commons have power to make Laws by Act of Parliament Then for damning Patents neither the Lords nor the Commons nor both Houses joyntly have power judicially or finally to determine the validity of any Patent or grant of the King That properly appertaines to the Judges of the Kings Bench of the Common Pleas and other Courts of Justice before whom as afterwards it is more clearly shewed such cases may be judicially brought to triall wherein neither King Lords or Members of the Commons House hath Voice And for the rest of his arguments they rather prove the contrary then that which Mr. Pryn infers upon them Kings saith he have in former times shewed their reasons why they denied to passe Bils presented unto them by both Houses which proves that those Kings had power to deny them else they could not shew cause of their refusall no more then Mr. Pryn can render reasons of his being at Westmiuster unlesse he have been there But Mr. Pryn knowes all Kings have most frequently rejected Bils passed by both Houses and Bils declared by the Members to concerne the publike good without rendring their reasons for the same And for the power of the Protector to confirme Bils passed by both Houses if that be granted that in some cases of imminent necessity the Protectors consent might make good and perfect such Bils it nothing proves the absolute power of both Houses without the King but rather the contrary and plainly demonstrates the imperfect power of the two Houses who cannot without the consent of a Protector in such cases make any compleat and binding Laws Therefore if not stronger the same it must be when we have a King no infant and Reigning without a Protector But saith Mr. Pryn in Countries where Kings are elective by the death of the Present King untill a new one be chosen the people having no King over them may make binding Laws Here although I beleeve Mr. Pryn cannot for other Countries make his position good yet this admitted to him rather disproves his argument against the Kings negative Voice for of his owne shewing it appears that in those Countries where Kings are elective after such time as the people have chosen a King they cannot make Laws without Him And if so where Kings are elective much more they cannot where Kings are hereditary Therefore by Mr. Pryns owne argument it followeth that in this Nation neither the people nor the two Houses without the King have power to make Laws For we have no interregnum there is not with us any time of vacancy of a King eo instante upon the death of the precedent King the Crowne is vested in the successour And for the two Houses refusall to grant the King Aide by Subsidies and the like That disproves the Kings power of His negative Voice in Parliament as the Kings refusall to confirme Bils passed by both Houses prove that the King at this day may make Lawes without them But saith he if Kings will not passe Laws presented unto them by both Houses they may be compelled thereunto for Kings saith he have been so forced as King H. 3. in that of Magna Charra and other Statutes Answer To admit that a Judge of a Court of Judicature may be forced to declare his opinion or to give judgement against his owne conscience seemes to me to be so absurd as I cannot but suppose that Mr. Pryn himself would grant it to be most unreasonable and even to be destructive of the Law it selfe If the King should assemble powers and by force compell the Lords or Commons to passe Laws by Him propounded it would be judged an act of high Tyranny and I beleeve Mr. Pryn would conceive Laws so obtained bound not And if so in that case if he be not extreame partiall he must upon the same ground agree that the King in the like case ought not to be forced He doubtlesse hath the same authority the same rules and motions to be guided by His Conscience as a Subject hath And methinkes the Law should protect the King from the violence of the people asmuch as it preserves them from the force of their King certainly it is at least reci mony or Oath taken is actually vested in the King succeeding upon which the Law saith that although in hoc individuo Hen. Rex moritur yet the King in His politick capacity never dieth Besides if the King at His Coronation should refuse to take an Oath we have no more Law to compell Him thereunto then we have to force Him to be Crowned And as it is not material to the right power of the King whether he be Crowned or not so it is inconsiderable to the people to have Him sworne for if we had no municipall Law the King unsworne were bound in Conscience to govern the people by naturall equity But we have a knowne Law by which both King and Subjects the one by a directive power the others by both directive and coercive are regulated and every one protected in his just rights and this whether the King be Crowned or not Crowned whether he take an Oath or no Oath Secondly admit Kings obliged to take an Oath at their Coronation yet even by the Members owne shewing they are not bound to take it in the words by themselves mentioned And of all the Kings past they instance but seven who have taken any Oath and but three of those seaven admitting that Oath in French and the other in Latine to be one and the same they name to have taken it And of these three offer proof but for one And themselves shew