Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
city_n borough_n county_n town_n 5,505 4 8.5134 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A69830 A vindication of the Parliament of England, in answer to a book written by William Molyneux of Dublin, Esq., intituled, The case of Irelands being bound by acts of Parliament in England, stated by John Cary ... Cary, John, d. 1720? 1698 (1698) Wing C734; ESTC R22976 59,166 136

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

France and Scotland could not keep in quiet his County of Ireland as it is called in the Statute 1 Hen. 6. quoted before and now you tell us the Reason why it was then called so viz. because they formerly sent Representatives to serve in Parliament here If this was not the Reason why they sent them only on some occasions and you give no other then I am apt to think either that they sent none at all or that they sent them to every Parliament for I can't believe that Laws were made in England and in Ireland at the same time by two Parliaments that stood on equal footing one with the other This is not probable for what if their Laws should clash the Parliament of England would not submit to have their Laws repealed by the Parliament of Ireland that were unjust because the same Power that made them was not at the repealing of them Ireland had Representatives in the Parliament of England but England had not in the Parliament of Ireland Nor is it probable That the Parliament of Ireland would have stoopt to the Parliament of England if they had any colourable Argument of their side for you see how loath they are to do it now though they have none at all at least you who have undertaken this Contest in their favour have produced none but you have fairly quitted the Field and confest That Ireland did formerly for 100 years together send their Representatives to the Parliament of England Well then to return to this Happiness why did not Ireland continue it You tell us pag. 98. They found it very troublesome and inconvenient What makes you then to desire it again I do not see how it will be less troublesome now and I assure you it will be attended with as many inconveniencies if not to you in Ireland yet to us in England and I hope you will consider your Neighbours inconveniencies as well as your own But as inconvenient and troublesome as it is you are willing to have this Happiness restored Here the nature of the Argument is altered for now it is not Whether the Parliament of England have Power to make Laws to bind Ireland and whether what they have done in that Matter for 500 years past hath been done de jure but whether Ireland shall be restored to its former Priviledges of sending Representatives to sit in the Parliament of England I confess I have no Authority to treat with you about this Affair it is reserved for a higher Power to determine But suppose you are denied to have this Happiness restored the question then will be Whether you have any wrong done you If I was to be Judge I should give it against you For seeing you have given up your Rights so many hundred years since and submitted your selves to your English Representatives without sending any from Ireland I do not see how you can insist on it now And in this I believe you have Neighbours Fair for I doubt not there are many Corporations both in England and Wales who either did send more Members to Parliament in former days or might have done it had not the Charge or Trouble put them on seeking to be excused Particularly I observe a Clause to this purpose in the Charter granted to the City of Bristol by King Edward III. when he made it a County whereof I have before me an English Copy which runs thus And moreover we have granted for us and our Heirs to the said Burgesses and their Heirs and Successors for ever that the said Town of Bristol by any means shall not be charged to send to the Parliament of Vs or our Heirs but only two Men as heretofore hath been accustomed the which two Men as well Knights of the County of Bristol as Burgesses of the Town and Borough of Bristol for the same Town and Borough shall be bound to make answer Which shews that this was then granted as a favour to that City at their request to avoid the trouble and charge of sending two Knights as well as two Burgesses to represent them in Parliament which if they would now retrieve they cannot And this was about the same time that you say Ireland being discouraged by the Troubles and Inconveniencies that attended it forbore to send Representatives to sit in Parliament in England But whatever was the Reason that made them do this I cannot agree with what you say pag. 98. This we may presume was the reason that afterwards when times were more settled we fell again into our old Track and regular course of Parliaments in our own Country Pray what Regular Course of Parliaments do you mean you have not yet proved that you ever had any but rather confessed the contrary you say you sent Representatives to sit in the Parliament of England But what then Does it therefore follow that you might leave that off and set up Parliaments of your own at your pleasure No sure you might quit your Priviledges of being part of the Parliament of England but it doth not therefore follow that you had Power to establish a Parliament in Ireland independent on the Parliament of England no more then if the People of Cornwal being unwilling to put themselves to the trouble of attending the Parliament at Westminster should therefore without farther warrant erect one of their own nearer home and then expect it should be clothed with full Power and be Superiour to that of Westminster with relation to what concerns the County of Cornwal For to talk of your Old Track and Regular course of Parliaments after what you have said on this Matter is a Jest and deserves no answer We are now come to your fifth Particular pag. 115. The Opinions of the Learned in the Laws relating to this Matter The first you mention is the Lord Chief Justice Cook 's in his Seventh Report in Calvin's Case pag. 116. and he is against you But you blame him for his unfaithful broken Citations which I agree with you to be an ill way of deceiving a Reader into a good opinion of an Argument but must tell you that you have been too frequently guilty of the same Fault in this Book yet I cannot see how the Lord Chief Justice Cook hath been unfaithful in this his Citation for I take the whole sence of the Transcript you mention to be included therein You say That after he had declared Ireland to be a Dominion separate and divided from England for which he quotes out of the Year-Books the Case of the Merchants of Waterford and the proceedings thereon which you have mentioned pag. 91. He concludes Nostra Statuta non ligant eos c. yet with this Parenthesis which is to be understood unless they be especially named What you say against this his Opinion p. 117. That it is down-right Magisterial and point blank against the irrefragable Reason of the Book he quotes I think will appear to be very severe if the Point he was