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
A91212	The Long Parliament tvvice defunct: or, An answer to a seditious pamphlet, intituled, The Long Parliament revived. Wherein the authors undeniable arguments are denied, examined, confuted: and the authority of this present Parliament asserted, vindicated. By a zealous yet moderate oppugner of the enemies of his prince and country.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669, attributed name.	1660 (1660)	Wing P4003; Thomason E1053_2; ESTC R203196	25,482	48

Act they are a perpetual Parliament First because it is contrary to the end designed in the preamble Secondly because it is against the fundamental Constitution of the politick government of this Kingdom against all the presidents and books of Law which alwayes mention successive Parliaments Thirdly 't is against the Liberty of the Subject which a Parliament cannot alter in so principal a part especially seeing the Lawmakers may be intended reasonably to do it for their own benefit who in their own cases by the Law of Reason can be no co●petent Judges And that for many inconveniences In successive Parliaments the Country have every time power to chuse a new and 't is not often though sometimes seen that one man is chosen in many successive Parliaments which variation is necessary for several Reasons Sometimes because they would ehuse persons aptly qualified in parts or Affections or both to the Matters of State then in agitation Sometimes they elect persons having interests by their own greatnesse or alliance to procure some particular businesse of Consequence effected for the County or Corporation for which they serve So that to endeavour a perpetual Parliament would prejudice the people 's repeated election which is not to be allowed Besides this inconvenience would follow a perpetual Parliament that the persons chosen may be altered in Body Mind or Morals and so unfit for that service yet their authority would be continued For a Knight Citizen or Burgesse can make no proxie and Sicknesse c. is no cause of Removal And further if those persons should grow old in that power they would engrosse the offices of the kingdom into their own hands and by great means and friends and privilges overtop their Countrymen and make them meer Under-woods And if it be proved that this Act doth not establish this Long Parliament in an absolute perpetuity Then it is to be considered what is the time of their duration within the meaning of this Act for if it be construed that they have a continuance till they dissolve themselves without restraining their continuance to the time of the performance of those ends for which the said Act was made This is potentially a perpetuity and cannot be abridged but by 〈◊〉 own wills which would never militate as he phrases it against their own advantages So that then this exposition labours under the same Absurdities and Inconveniences with the former and therefore not to be supposed Therefore I conceive the most natural and genuine interpretation of this Act is to make the drift and purpose of this Act the limits of its continuance and this drift is the payment of the said debts And seeing by the rules of the Common Law which may be confirmed by Reason when an indefinite time is given for the performance of a voluntary Act possible to a third person the Act ought to be done within convenient time hence I infer that if the publique debts which were the end of the making of this Act be not satisfied by the Long Parliament yet because they have had time and power more than sufficient between the making of that Act and the Kings death to have raised and paid them off and did actually levy monies amounting to a far greater sum which were otherwise imployed The Gentlemen of that Parliament ought not to take advantage of their own neglect but having surpassed the time which by Law and Reason was sufficient to accomplish those ends they lost the advantage they gained by that Statute the Kings Prerogative and the ordinary course of Dissolution relapsed into its old Chanel and consequently the said Parliament was by the Kings death actually dissolved And so much is argued by way of Admission That the Act of 17 Car. did provide against all the Causes of Dissolution but not granting it for I doubt not but I shall prove the contrary afterwards in this Discourse But now we must hasten to the body of the Act His second Argument is drawn from the body of the Act the words whereof are these viz. That this Parliament be not dissolved unless by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose Whence he concludes that this negative Clause is exclusive of all the causes of Dissolution which I deny But before I give my reasons I shall observe That seeing this Act is derogatory in a matter of the highest nature to the Law and Custome of Parliament but especially to the Kings Prerogative which the Law supports and cherishes as a ballance to the two other Estates to preserve the perfect Crasis and equal Temper of the Politick Government The general words therof shall be expounded strictly in reference to the thing altered and beneficially as to the reviviscency of the Law and Custome of Parliament and of the Kings Prerogative which in obedience to some necessity was for a time laid afleep and suspended for 't is a rule that bonum necessarium extra terminos necessitatis non est bonum This being premised I doubt not but I shall give a full Answer to the Authors second Argument And therefore I make a Question whether an Act of Parliament by express and apposite words which is stronger than our Case can continue their own being after the death of the King in whose life it was summoned First because that after the death of the King if they be a Parliament they are either such by the Common law and custom of Parliament which is a principal and fundamental part of the Common law of the Land or by the special Statute so by both they cannot be a Parliament But they are not be a Parliament by either of those two wayes for the reasons hereafter alledged Not by the Common law and custom of Parliaments because as the learned Mr. Prynne hath proved in his said booke and the Author agreeth it and 't is not doubted by any man that hath any understanding in the Law That Parliament as it was a Parliament by the Common law naturally determined by the demise or death of the King Nor are they a Parliament by the especial Statute because then it would be another thing distinct from that Parliament which was summoned in the Kings life to which the power of Representation which was conferred upon the Members thereof by the people in their Election cannot extend for the Country being enabled to choose them by the Kings writ the persons elected received no power from them but according to the tenour of the Kings writ which determining with the Kings life the power of representing the people wbich they received at their Election was then likewise determined and by consequence they were no longer the peoples Representatives and therefore no Parliament Or to expresse it in plainer terms If they be a Parliament after the Kings death by the force of their own Act as I have proved they must be if they be a Parliament Then it would follow that a Parliament by their

their proceedings and to give example to inferiour Courts I shall not mention the Books cited by Mr. Prynne which pertain hither but refer the Reader to his Book But to come nearer t is the Judgement of a whole Parliament in these words viz. It is declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament upon demand made of them on the behalf of the King That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disherison of the King and his Crown to which they were sworn And my Lord Cook saith That although it might be done i. e. de facto yet it is against the Law and Custom of Parliament Now the said Act of 17 Caroli according to the Authors Interpretation is expresly against the Prerogative of the Kings Successor to call his own Parliament and hath many other inconveniences which need not to be here again repeated and therefore in the words of the Parliament in Edward the 3d. his time They could not make an Act to bear such an Interpretation to the disherison of the King and his Crown c. Yet I will not deny but that the Kings Majesty might binde up his own hads and suspend his ordinary power from an actual dissolution of the Parliament morally by his promise or legally by an Act made for that purpose For a Parliament may bee dissolved either by an external principle which is accidental viz. the declaration of the Kings pleasure or by an internal principle which is natural viz. the want of entring their Continuances or the Kings death whereby the Kings writ which is the authority they have to convene together is determined Now the King as over his Subjects so he hath a soveraignty over his own Will and being obliged by his Royal assent to that Act he might and ought to stave off the accidental cause of their dissolution But for the aforesaid Reasons I doubt whether the Kings Majesty or his two Houses or altogether could legally change the substance of the Parliament and defend it against the natural Causes of its Dissolution This being understood under the limitations expressed in my first Thesis or Position But that which I will rely upon is this that admitting it be in the power of a Parliament with the Royal assent by their Act to make themselves a Legal Parliament after the Kings death by apt words Yet in the Act of 17. Caroli there are no such words as according to the rules of Law will bear any such construction For the words That this Parliament shall not be dissolved unless it be by Act of Parliament are a general negative which by a proper interpretation cannot extend to all the causes of dissolution but only to that which most often happened and which was the pretended grievance at that time viz. the dissolution by the Kings will and Pleasure For it belongs to the Judges to expound the general Statute Laws according to reason and the best convenience and to mould them to the truest and best use And in all times the Judges have excepted particular cases out of the general negative or affirmitive words of Statutes though such particular cases have come within the comprehension of the general words Where the letter of those Statutes in the largest extent of it doth intrench upon the Kings Prerogative or the nature of the thing or enforces to an inconvenience or an impossibility By the Satute of Magna Carta c. 11. 't is enacted That common pleas shall not follow or be sued in the Kings Court or Bench which is a general negative clause yet notwithstanding because 't is a maxime in Law that the King is present in every Court and cannot for that reason be non-suited It is clear Law and so holden that the King is not within these general words but may sue in his Bench or in any other Court at his pleasure In the Marquess of Winchesters Case though there was an Act of Parliament 28. H. 8. that the Lord Norris should forfeit all his rights c. Yet adjudged that a right of action being an inseparable incident to the person attainted could not by general words be made separable contrary to its nature and therefore were not given to the King by the generality of that Law So in Englefields Case though the Statute 33 H. 8. gives all conditions of persons attainted to the King which being a general word comprehends all sorts of conditions yet a condition of revocation of uses by any writing under the hand of the Duke of Bedford that was attainted being appropriated to his own personal act was not forfeited within that general Statute The Statute of Winchester is a general Statute that the Hundred c. shall make satisfaction for all Robberies and Felonies done within the Hundred Yet Resolved that the Hundreds shall make no satisfaction for the robberies of a house because the house was the Owners Castle and he might have defended himself and so t was inconvenient that the Hundred should be put to take care of him that had ability to preserve himself and his goods Nor for a robbery done in the night because it was the Travellers folly to travel by night and it was impossible that the Hundred who by intendment were in their beds should take notice of such a Robbery The Statutes of Marlebridge cap. 4. Westm. 2d cap. 49. and 25 E. 3. cap. 16. are in the general Negative Yet the Judges have so expounded those Statutes that they extend not to many particular special cases which are within the general Comprehension of those words It were infinite to enumerate all of them Therfore to apply this Seeing it is agreed by the Author and otherwise proved That it is the nature of a Parliament ordinarily to be determined by the Kings death and the contrary is as I have proved against the liberty of the Subjects election and in prejudice of the Kings Successors prerogative of calling his own Parliament and this general Clause may be very fully satisfied by suspension of the Kings prerogative to dissolve them at his will and pleasure 'T is against all reason and president that it should be extended any further to change the essential nature of a Parliament abridge the subjects Liberty and shackle the prerogative royal withou● any special and expresse words to manifest certainly that the intention of the Lawmakers was such without any manner of Question For if they had intended to preserve themselves against discontinuance and the Kings death they would have added such special words as these viz. That this Parliament shall not be dissolved by the Kings Majesty nor by neglect of the due entring of Adjournments nor by his Majesties death but onely by Act of Parliament Which would have made their Intention manifest and in such Case they would never have been contented with general words which are uncertain and ambiguous And lastly if

the other ends mentioned in that preamble of that Act and therefore I shall take no notice of them in the discourse and seeing no body would trust them because it was hazardous they might be dissolved before repayment therefore was the Act made to establish their continuance till the money being satisfied they did dissolve themselve by Act of Parliament But saith the Author If they had been notwithstanding dissolvable by the Kings Death the Act had been of no effect because their dissolution was still hazardous the Kings life saith he being more uncertain then other mens and so ex absurdo he reasons That the Parliament shall not be intended to omit this cause of their dissolution out of the said Act To this I answer That the principle end of this Act being only to secure the payment of the publique debts which they were then contracting If the security of those debts did not so depend upon the Parliament that they would be necessarily lost if they were unpaid at the time of their dissolution then that Parliament was not absolutely necessitated to secure their sitting till those debts were paid it being sufficient to establish themselves against being dissolved by the Kings will which had most often recurrence and whereof they stood in most danger But those debts which they then contracted were either secured by Act of Parliament actually made and passed at the time of the money borrowed or they were not If they were secured by Act of Parliament that Act was as good a security after the Parliament dissolved as it was while the Parliament continued But if they were not so secured the debts were as likely to be paid and the Creditors had the same security viz. the Honour and Justice of the Kingdom which is all the security or compulsive power Creditors have against Parliaments for the repayment thereof by a subsequent Parliament as by the Parliament then sitting which borrowed the money which is apparent first because the Parliament then sitting by the Authors own confession took no care for repayment of the said money and another Parliament could not possibly be more remisse Secondly because those debts were the publique debts of the Kingdom contracted by their Representatives in Parliament in their publick and not in their individual Quality and therefore every following Parliament comming under the same Representation ●●ere bound to take the same care for the payment ●hereof being a part of their publique Service or Employment And it is no strange thing for a latter Parliament to pay sums which were drawn on the Kingdom by a precedent Parliament witnesse the paying off the Souldiers by the Honourable Assembly now sitting which Souldiers were the most part of them first set on work by the Long Parliament since which time till now we could never have the happinesse to shake hands with them So that it appears that there was no such great necessity as the Author insinuates to Bulwark themselves against a dissolution by the Kings Death which was a remote possibility But that in case that accident had happened which was unlikely the debts notwithstanding would not have been lost but had been in as much likelihood to have been paid by the next Parliament as if the Parliament in 17 Caroli had not been dissolved by the Kings Death Secondly at the time of this Act made there was no danger of the Kings death nor any suspition that it would happen within so short a time as was sufficient for them to have raised the said monies and therefore they shall not be reasonably intended to have made provision against the Kings death For his late Majesty of ever blessed Memory was sprung of longaevous Parents and was in the Meridian of his age of a strong and healthfull constitution and of great temperance in his diet and recreations which are all symptomes or causes of a long life and therefore 't is unlikely they should mistrust he would die within one or two years which was time more then sufficient for the raising and payment of the sums borrowed Thirdly if the case had been so that his Majesty had been of a languid and valetudinarious habit of body yet the Act had not been fruitless For a Parliament may be dissolved either by the Kings pleasure or by discontinuance or by the Kings death But seeing by this Act they were defended against being dissolved by the Kings pleasure as is agreed by all parties whereof there was most danger I conceive the Author will not deny but that their Session was more established by this Act then it was when it lay open to all the three accidents or causes of dissolution An estate determinable upon the surrender or forfeiture of the particular tenant is a lesse defeasible estate then another estate determinable by his death surrender or forfeiture And now reader you may breath a little and consider the emptiness of the Authors argument conceived upon the preamble of this Act which appears to be like the crackling of Solomons thorns under a pot makes a great blaze and a great noise but contributes little of solid heat to the vessel that hangs over it Yet to be further quit with him before I dismisse the preamble I shall thereupon frame this argument which I think flowes more naturally from it then his deduction That it appears from the preamble the Parliament only intended to suspend the Kings prerogative and the ordinary course of dissolving them till they had cleared their credits and repayed the money borrowed for this they make the principal end and drift of that Act and when the end of an Act of Parliament is satisfied the Act looses its force Aquisito fine cessat operatio which is proved by those temporary Statutes for Assesments c. when the money is paid the Statute is become of no further use or effect And therefore if all the ends for which the Act 17. Caroli was made be satisfied accordingly by the payment of the money therein mentioned to be borrowed upon the security of that Parliament Then is the suspension taken off and the Kings prerogative and the ordinary course of dissolution of Parliaments is revived again as it was before that Act made and by consequence they are dissolved by the Martyrdom of his late Majesty Now the Learned and worthy Patriot Mr Prynne asserts that the ends of this Act are all satisfied and the Author doth not endeavour to prove the contrary But if the moneys by them borrowed be not paid Yet I suppose the authority given them by that Act ceased before the Kings death for not performing the ends of that Act within the time which was limitted them by the construction of Law and Reason And for proof hereof and our more orderly proceeding we will inquire what time was allowed them by a rational interpretation of that Act to performe the ends in that Act designed There is no man I think so irrational as to imagin that by this

I should admit which can never be evinced That the said negative Clause should fortifie the Parliament against all the causes of dissolution as it stands singly by it self yet upon consideration of the other part of the same Statute it will appear that there are other words which do restrain the generallity of the former negative clause or sentence and shew that the intent of that Parliament was never to continue themselves a Parliament after the Kings death And to prove this It is a good Rule in Law that it is most natural and genuine to expound one part of the meaning of a Statute by an other The first general clause of the Statute 17 Car. respects the Effect viz. That they shall not be dissolved c. and this I call Conservatory And after comes another clause which respects the Cause of their dissolution viz. And that all and every thing and things done or to be done for the Adjournment proroguing or dissolving of this present Parliament contrary to this present Act shall be utterly void and of none Effect Which Clause is prohibitory of the Cause of their dissolution And in this last Clause it appears that the Cause of dissolution which they intended to prevent was something that should consist in Action by the words thing or things done or to be done Which words could be applicable only to an actual dissolution by the Kings Pleasure For the non-entry of continuance upon adjournments is not a Thing but a Defect nor Done but Omitted and the Kings death is not a Thing but a Cessation of his personal Being and of the dependents thereupon Nor is an Action but a Termination or Period So that the last clause which respects the cause of their dissolution extending only to a dissolution by the Kings pleasure the Author cannot with any Reason or Modesty strain or extend the negative words of the former general Sentence which Respects the Effect to any of the other wayes of Dissolution unlesse hee would have the Effect as 't is an Effect to be broader and more capacious than the Cause which is not to be endured So that it is evident that this later Sentence restrains the general words of the former to the particular kind of dissolution by the Kings pleasure and upon the whole that the Long Parliament had no establishment of their continuance against a dissolution by discontinuance or the Kings death which having both happened during their Session they are twice dead instead of being once revived And now let the impartial and understanding Reader judge what reason the Author had to trouble the world with this Paradox which is built by him upon so sandy foundation that it is no glory to demolish and kick it down It is the humor of some Men to make Election rather to doe Mischief than to doe Nothing Though I cannot but speak him ingenuous yet I could wish he had exercis'd his Curiosity in a matter of lesse dangerous consequence to himself and the Peace of these Nations There remain some Little things to be discussed and answered in the Authors discourse of the Existency of the Long-Parliament which I shall touch only and dismisse the Question To Mr. Prynnes first Argument he answers That the Kings death legally dissolves a Parliament but not such a Parliament as is established by an Act of the three Estates and requires a president to the contrary This distinction is fully answered before in this Discourse by my arguments upon the body of the Act So that Mr. Prynnes Objection stands in its full force and efficacy And for his president this is iniquum petere to demand an example of that which is without a parallel in any of the former Ages It sufficeth that we have evinced by Reason and a legal interpretation of the Act of 17 Car. that the Long Parliament hath no legal existence To Mr. Prynnes second Objection he furnishes out the same distinction for hee hath no weapons to fight with but a fork and if that break he must despair of Victory But he fortifies his distinction with an Interrogatory upon which he frames a Dilemma which is answered before viz. That a Parliament cannot de jure extend its continuance beyond the Kings life in whole time they were summoned but by the peoples special consent or an invincible necessity And this is not to be such a pedling necessity as the pretence of borrowing of Money in our particular case He sayes That Parliament security was ever looked upon as inviolable viz. as I think he means just and punctual and it hath been alwayes so esteemed before and since that Act and moneyes have been alwayes borrowed in great Sums upon their Security without scrupling their Dissolution Ask any Citizen of London he will give you a president of it which is not beyond the memory of man Yet I confesse that if the Moneys borrowed by the Long Parliament in 17 Car. were not paid by that Parliament although they sate till the Kings death which was many years afterwards 't is most certainly true that the general Rule did fail in that particular instance And till now very few of this Kingdom did ever know or suppose that that Parliament had left the Nation in Debt So that the Author hath no Reason to expect the Thanks of the House at their resitting for making this discovery so publique To Mr. Pryns third Objection he opposes the same magnanimous distinction which surely is not of French extraction for it shrinks not at the 3d. charge But 't is now almost out of breath and therefore to second it he sayes that the King virtually waved the authority of his Writ of Summons and fearing that for all this it may be repulsed he sounds a Barley by another Interrogation which is in effect but his old distinction wheeled off and re-enforced this as I have said is all answered before in this discourse and I would not tire my Reader with repetitions To Mr. Pryns fourth Objection he sayes nothing material only that passage must not escape unanswered viz. That the King is a part of the Parliament in his politick rather then in his natural capacity and therefore when the King dies the Parliament dissolved not because the politick capacity remains after his death To which I answer That the intent and use of a Parliament is to advise that particular King that summons it and all their counsels must be directed to him as he is a Man capable of Advice and assent And when he writes Le Roy le veult it is his personal act though as this act gives the instrument which he signes the validity and efficacy of a Law it is done by his Royal Authority And further every Parliament ought to begin and end by his personal presence or by him in representation which shewes that every Parliament depends upon the person of the King And this is further evident by the ordinary dissolution of the Parliament at

his death And to the Authors application that a Parliament may be such though the Kings person be utterly withdrawn because his politick capacity lives and is present with them This is an out-worn and thredbare Distinction which the common story of the Knights being perjured in his politick and going to Hell in his natural Capacity sufficiently confutes For the politick capacity is a second Notion and cannot subsist but in the natural To which it is so strictly united that it is inseperable otherwise than by our understanding which cannot alter the nature of any thing The Murthering of his late Majesty as it was Treason was an offence against his politick capacity as he was a King though that horrid and shamelesse Butchery was committed against his natural person as he was a Man But that saying that the King is a part of the Parliament must be cautiously understood because a mistake in it hath been a great cause or pretence of all our late Civil Wars For hence some would infer a Coordination of power in the Parliament which cannot I conceive be made good by Reason or the Laws of this Nation For the King hath undoubted power to call and dissolve Parliaments which are properties inconsistent with a coordinate power The Stile of all Acts anciently was by way of Petition that it may be enacted which doth not smell of co-ordinate authority and the Act of 17 Car. was in like form The Members cannot consent upon condition which shewes that the binding power of an Act as it is a Law doth not passe from them for cujus est dare ejus est modificare but only a bare assent which is necessary to perfect the Act of another as in Atturnments The Members during the Continuance of Parliament may be committed and be punished for Treason which could not be if they were in a Coordination with the King And the Writs of Summons under favour notwithstanding my Lord Cooks marginal notes do confirm this assertion I shall conclude with the Testimony of the learned Grotius Jure Belli in these words Multum falluntur qui existimant cum Reges act a sua nolunt esse rata nisi a Senatu aut alio Coetu aliquo probentur partitionem fieri potestatis nam quae acta eum in modum rescinduntur intelligi debent rescindi Regis ipsius imperio qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit ne quid fallaciter impetratum pro vera ipsius voluntate haberetur And yet t is most true that in our Legal Monarchy the King cannot make or alter any Law without the assent of his Peers and Commons in Parliament So that upon the whole it appears That the King is so a part as he is the head of the Parliament and Nation and though it be true that totum est dignius sua parte yet the head must be a part of this totum or else that Maxime is untrue and fallacious To Mr. Pryns fifth Objection he chops in again the distinction of the Kings politick and natural capacity which my former confutation hath rendred toothlesse But he sayes the dissolution of the Parliament by the Kings death might prove dangerous and pernicious to the Kingdom I answer he that intends to be believed must not affirm things in general terms which do nihil ponere and to which no certain answer can be given Again 't is presumption in the Author to think himself wiser then all the ages that liv'd before him who finding no inconvenience have derived the custom down to our times and 't is a known good Rule Oportet neminem esse sapientiorem Legibus To his answer to the sixth Objection affirming That the Parliament was not dissolved by the Act passed lately upon the Admission of the Secluded Members for their dissolution because it was but an Act of the House of Commons only which is no Act of Parliament I answer that it is most true That it was no Act of Parliament according to Law But by the Authors favour those very men that were the greatest part of the Commons of the Long Parliament then living ought not themselves nor their advocate to say that they were no Parliament for they imposed an Assessement upon the Nation and stiled their Instruments Acts of a Parliament so that those men shall never in reason averre any thing in disability of their own Acts though they were otherwise not agreeing with the rules of Parliamentary proceedings Besides that Act at least amounts to a Declaration of their Judgement that they were dissolved and it was true for they were long before dissolved by the Kings death To his answer to the seventh Objection That this Act 17 Car. is not void although the Bishops who were outed before this Act passed did not assent to it I shall say obiter That 't is the hope of the greatest part of the Learned Loyal and Moderate party of this Nation that this present Parliament if the necessity of other more important affairs would permit or some other Parliament will out of their zeal to Common Justice and the honour and safety of the Kingdom take the Case of the Reverend Bishops into consideration and restore unto them their ancient honours and privileges of sitting in the House of Peers Their undoubted and very ancient right and the necessity of their Re-establishment in order to the preservation of the ancient policy of this Nation for the better support of the Royal Authority for the ballancing of the other two Estates for the benefit of the Clergy of this Nation who have no Representatives in Parliament for the preservation of the rights and privileges of the Church and for the better establishment of the integrity of Orthodox Religion being strong and important advocates for their so just Restitution After which short digression I answer That if an Act of Parliament that divests so many Members of the same Parliament of their rightfull and ancient privileges and lawfull inheritance without any crime committed or alleged or without being called to answer in any judicial way of proceeding be good and valid then the Authors position is true and not to be denyed But if such an Act be against natural justice and equity and against the law and custom of Parliament for I shall desire the liberty to be sceptical in this particular then on the otherside it will appear that the Bishops were excluded against their Wills and they being so great a part of the House of Peers that their voices if they had been present might by joyning with other Lords of the same opinion have carried the Act of 17 Caroli in the Negative It follows that the Seclusion of the Bishops rendred that Act and all other Acts made after their Seclusion void and of none effect And this case of the Bishops hath no similitude with the point in Mr. Bagshaws reading lately printed because there the Bishops are supposed voluntarily to absent themselves