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
A44192	Some considerations upon the question, whether the Parliament is dissolved by it's prorogation for 15 months?	Carey, Nicholas.; Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.	1676 (1676)	Wing H2467; ESTC R3362	16,176	27

considered Object The King might have dissolved this Parliament and called a Nevv vvithin the year and therefore these Statutes might have been observed notvvithstanding the Prorogation Ansv. This is a clear confession of the invalidity of the Prorogation since it is allowed those Statutes will not be pursued unless the prorogation be annull'd and the Parliament that subsists by it dissolved Neither doth the kings power to remedy it by another Act support the validity of this for then no Act of the kings though never so much against Law but may be as well justified he having power left in him to remedy it if he thinks fit which is an excellent way of rendering our law Arbitrary and the Power of the Crown Absolute Object The King hath frequently by shorter Prorogations and adjournments intermitted Parliaments for several years vvhich is the same as if he had prorogued them at once for so long time Ans. The case is directly different between these two the shorter prorogation being within the letter of the Law and those above a year directly contrary t is very true it is as much a part of the statute that mischeifs and grievances should be redressed at the Parliament as that a Parliament should be holden yet nevertheless though a King hereafter or in times past has or shall de facto by short prorogations evade the force and intent of those Laws against his Duty and Oath that does not argue or prove that therefore he may de jure make a prorogation above a year which is to repeal those Laws the wisdom of the Law doth in such cases put the king to renewing his Acts and to bring them under a fresh consideration Year Book 39. H. 6. as in the case of Pretections where the kings protections for a year stand good though several times repeated yet one and the same protection for more than a year is utterly void So the king can grant an exception to one single person from serving in Juries and so to as many single persons as he shall find cause and such exceptions shall be good in law but the kings Charter to exempt all in such a County is void because of the inconveniencies that ensue in such a case The kings prerogative extends only for the good of the people never to their prejudice or great inconveniencies In like case the Judges have a power to give a day to the parties pleading before them from one Term to another and may renew the giving of a day from Term to Term as often as they see cause but they cannot give a day during life or for tearm of years the reason is that this power or lesser prerogative is intrusted with them for the better dispatch and not for the overthrow of Justice Besides the Parliament doth really assemble and sit at the time of every adjournment or prorogation and the length or duration of their sitting doth not at all concern the state of this Question They may as well say the king need never call a Parliament because he can by law annually hold a Parliament for two or three days and then end them not having suffered them to do any of the business of the Nation Which is to argue from the kings power abused which power ought to be exercised for the protection and better execution of the laws to a nullity of the law it self To conclude this point It is no argument to say the king is trusted you have no remedy against him you cannot compel him for that is the very reason why all illegall Acts of the king are null and void 5. Cok. 14. where there is a contrariety between the Law and the kings single Act so as they cannot stand together the kings Act cannot over-rule and make void the Law but the law makes void the kings Act all the kings Acts are under the power operation and construction of the law and the law makes them either valid or void according as they correspond or not with it D St. 22. 23. IV. Since the prorogation cannot revive or continue the parliament unto the 15th day of Feb. 1676. being in that particular contrary to law and so void and null The next point will be Whether the Parliament be still sitting and hath been so ever since the prorogation To clear this point it would be worth the asking If the Parliament should pass Acts in February or March next to what day should they relate Must the members be allowed their priviledges and their 〈◊〉 during this time and a thousand more such like questions would arise But it is clear that a Parliament prorogued is a Parliament not dissolved but continued over to another day and when the prorogation is legal there is a Parliament continuing but not sitting To express the matter clearer it will not be un-useful either to the clearing this point or the better understanding the whole question in general to explain the law of Parliaments in this place If a Parliament meet though afterward they be prorogued or dissolved before they make any Act yet this in law while it was sitting was a Parliament holden The Judgements that are affirmed or reversed in such Parliaments are good in law and so are all other their proceedings and wages shall be paid A Writ of Error then brought would have been returnable at presens Parliamentum and in pleading it is usually said ad parliamentum incoat such a day ab inde per prorogationem continuat c. Next That a Session of parliament in law so called is when there is an Act passed and takes in all that time that is from the time of the meeting either by Summons or prorogation until the time the parliament is prorogued or dissolved for during all that time they are in law looked upon as sitting and all that sitting is called a Session Next if a Parliament be summoned and meet and then be prorogued either before or after any Acts passed that this is a Parliament continued Therefore 't is Parliamett continuat per diversas Prorogatione usque ad such a day tunc tent Therefore Parliament and Session of Parliament are different things every Parliament must be before it can make an Act therefore it must be and must have continance before it can make a Session and all the while that it hath continuance it is a Parliament in being but when it is prorog'd it cannot be said to be a Parliament sitting or that t is then holden but by the prorogation is put off from sitting or being holden but continued Hence you may observe the mistake of the Judges in Huttons Rep. Fol. 61. in not distinguishing between Parliament and Session of Parliament Next In this case de facto there was no sitting but all departed and the King hath summon'd them by his Proclamation to Assemble upon the 15th of Feb. So the king doth not know they are now sitting And though this Prorogation for the Causes abovementioned be not a