Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	law_n	prerogative_n	1,605	5	10.3114	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35644	The case of Sir Edward Hales, Baronet being an exact account of the tryal upon an action of 500 pound brought against him, with his plea thereto, upon the King's dispensing with the Stat. 25. Car. II and the opinion of the judges thereupon.	Hales, Edward, Sir, d. 1695, defendant.	1689 (1689)	Wing C993; ESTC R8988	8,238	11

so with Submission that single Opinion in 12 Cook folio 18. is not Law but admitting the Case to be Law that can be no rule to guide this Case by for that Statute was made rather to deprive the King of his Power of makeing Sheriffs and so consequently commanding his Sheriffs not to serve him than to Disable the Subject and thereby restraining the King's Prerogative which is so inherent in him but by the Statute 25 Car. 2. 2. the Prerogative of the King is not touched for the King may grant the Office to any of his Subjects and it is only a direction to the Subject to qualifie himself for the King's Service and if he be uncapable to serve the King 't is through his own fault and neglect and may be punishable for the same as in Case of Sir John Reade in 27 and 28. Car. 2. in the Exchequer he was made and Sworn Sheriff of Hartfordshire and neglected to take the Oaths according to this Statute by reason of which the Office became void and afterwards there was an Information Exhibited against him upon this Statute we are now upon for neglecting to take the said Oaths and executing his Office and upon this Convicted and Fined and the Court was of Opinion that no Subject could put himself out of a Capacity to serve the King but for so doing he is punishable and in the Law of the Sheriffs the Dispensation is in the Patents but in our Case the Dispensation is after the Patent and so a difference between the two Cases And for these Reasons I pray your Lordships Judgment for the Plaintiff Arguments for the Defendant Sir Tho. Powis the King's Sollicitor Argued for the Defendant And as to the first Point that supposing the Defendant ought to have pleaded the Dispensation to the Indictment it does not appear by this Record but that he did for the Declaration is that he was Legitime Modo Convictus and does not say whether he Pleaded not Guilty or how he Pleaded and for any thing that appears he did plead it against the King yet he may be admitted to plead it against the Plaintiff who is a Stranger If they stand upon this as an Estople they ought to have relyed upon it and replied that he had the Dispensation at the time of the Indictment and refused to plead it for he that pleads an Estople must upon it as the Authorities are which treat of Estoples and therefore as to the first point I think with a submission we have very well pleaded the Pardon and Dispensation in Bar of the Action As to the second point whether the King can Dispense with the Statute or no I humbly conceive with Submission the King may very well dispense with the Statute 't is admitted that the King may in many Cases dispense with an Act of Parliament and let us consider why not this It 's well observed in 2 o. Insti 496. that the Kings Prerogative is as much the Law of England as any other Law whatsoever and the King may upon any Cause moving him in respect of time place or person by a Non Obstante dispense with any particular Person and that he shall not incurr the penalty of the Statute 7. Cooke 36 37. Vaughan 347. 333. 1 o. Rushworth 472. 473. there Glanvell in his Argument doth admit a power in the King to Dispense with Penal Laws and yet he was no friend to the Prerogative Though the Consent of the Lords and Commons be requisite to the making of the Act of Parliament yet it is the King that gives the Sanctions to the said Laws and most of the Antient Statutes began in form of Charters as it appears in 8. Cooke 19. and the Intents and meanings of Acts of Parliament are every day by the Judges extended and changed according to a better Rule of Reason and Justice than the words will bear Hobart 229. and the Judges have an authority over the Statute-Laws to mold them according to the truest and best Sense Hobart 346. and Statutes which have been made against common Right have been construed void 8 o. Cooke 118. There is a Distinction taken in our Books between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum The former the King cannot Dispense with the latter he may as where the Statute generally prohibits any thing upon a penalty which was Lawful before the Subject receiving no injury by such a Dispensation the King there may Dispense with such an Act. Vaughan 343. Dyer 5. 2. The King granted a License to carry Bell metal out of the Realm notwithstanding the Statute Dyer 54. It was Enacted by Statute 4. Hobart 9. that none should convey Wine into England out of Gascoign but in English Ship and the King granted a License to a Man that he his Deputies and Factors might convey c. in any Ship notwithstanding the Statute 28. Cooke 32. Vaughan 352 353. 354. Now to apply the Cases to the Case in question this is Malum Prohibiter whether is the Dispensation any Damage to the Subject if it were any wrong it were to the King himself and sure the King may very well Dispense with that which only relates to himself I must distinguish between those Acts of Parliament which concern Property and those which concern Government Acts of Parliament which concern Property the King cannot Dispense with but those which concern Government he may and this for the great Inconveniencies which may happen or Urgencies of State which may force him to it and those un-foreseen at the time of making the Law for it may happen by a vicissitude of times those Laws that were made for the preservation of Government should turn to the destruction of it if the King could not Dispense with them The Common Law in some Cases does very much respect the Prerogative That it leaves the private Interest of the Subject unregarded and the King may Dig in any of his Subjects Land for Saltpeter to make Gunpowder now this Statute 25 Car. 2 o. was made to diminish the Kings Prerogative but to secure him from his Enemies and for the preservation of the Government and the King is best Judge what will be most for his own security and the Governments preservation No Act of Parliament can discharge the Subject from his Allegiance which he owes to the King every one is bound by his Allegiance to serve his Prince when he shall be required Therefore no Act of Parliament can disable any man to serve the King. But they object that this Act doth make no one incapable but at his own Election If this were so it would be in the Election of some or all the Subjects to incapacitate themselves to serve the King and the King would be unserved for if it were not in the power of the King to force the Subject he would not it may be not be served at all as in the Case of Sir John Read Cited by the other side he