Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A36519
|
The Long Parliament revived, or, An act for continuation, and the not dissolving the Long parliament (call'd by King Charles the First in the year 1640) but by an act of Parliament with undeniable reasons deduced from the said act to prove that that Parliament is not yet dissolved ; also Mr. William Prin his five arguments fully answered, whereby he endeavours to prove it to be dissolved by the Kings death &c. / by Tho. Phillips.
|
Drake, William, Sir.
|
1661
(1661)
|
Wing D2137; ESTC R30130
|
16,499
|
26
|
the Parliament by special Act and Order authorizing and impowring any three persons joyntly to sell Land give Livery and seisin execute any Commission c. and that in case any of them die the two survivers joyntly or severally can do nothing because their authority and trust was joynt and not several c. Applying this to the Parliament which being as he now expresseth it a Corporation compacted joyntly of the King Lords and Commons House and three Estates that therefore the Death of the King necessarily dissolves it notwithstanding this Act. I answer This doth no more prove it than any of his former Arguments For this similitude doth not hold proportion nor come up to our present Case For we have not here to do with one Estate or more that hath absolute power in it self and intends to execute it to constitute other persons for any office or trust as a single person c. that makes a Will or Deed doth constitute three or more persons in trust for the execution of his Will or Deed whose joynt power being exprest in the said Will or Deed it necessarily failes upon the death of any one of them because joyntly and not severally intrusted But with a Parliament Who have voluntarily engaged themselves upon a trust and Credit received from the people for their security with the consent of the King making a Law to preserve their Session and establish their own Authority against all means of their untimely dissolution till they had honourably discharged their trust and given security and satisfaction to those that gave them Credit Which nothing concerns any Power or Authority to be given to others whether three or more persons according to Mr. Prins instance to be executed joyntly wherein a failer may be through any one of their deaths But because there seems something still to be unanswered to this Objection in reference to the conjunctive power of the Parliament consisting of three Estates Therefore this also is fully resolved in the following answer to what Mr. Prin intimates concerning the Kings being a part of the Parliament Who saith That because the King is a part of the Parliament Therefore if the King dies the Parliament must needs be dissolved To which I answer That the King is rather a part of the Parliament in his Politick than in his personal capacity which is alwaies subject to death but his Politick never With this agrees that famous Lawyer Sir Edward Cook see the third part of his Institutes Chapter the first where speaking of the High Court of Parliament and of what persons it consisteth saith in the first place and in express words That it consists of the Kings Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick capacity c. And if so then the Parliament dies not in all cases when the King dies and if this holds good in any case then surely in case of an Act to that purpose For though his person be dead yet his Royal Authority lives as is sufficiently evident by the Force and Authority of all our Laws till repealed by Act of Parliament But besides it may thus farther be argued clearly The Members of the two Houses of Parliament though many of them die as oft times it comes to pass and 't is possible they may all die by degrees before the Parliament rise yet the Parliament is not dissolved because they are not now the very same individual persons that were chosen first by the Kings Writs of Summons 'T is sufficient that there have been new Writs issued forth from that House or Estate of Parliament whereof they were Members whereby new Elections c. have been made and so other Members returned to supply the places of the dead ones And if this be good in the case of the two Houses of Parliament c. which no man that understands Law and the usage of Parliaments will deny then it is much more good in the case of the Kings Majesties Person Whose Royal Estate and Authority is so evident that it is a declared undeniable Maxime in our Laws He never dies So that what new Writs do legally for supply of the places of the dead Members to continue the Estate and Authority of the two Houses of Parliament that and much more eminently the Kings immediate succession to the Crown after his Fathers or Predecessors death doth do by vertue of his Royal birth-right and Title of Inheritance There being this grand difference between Members of Parliament dying and the King They so die that their Authority cannot be revived but by new Electâ—ons or Writs of Summons But the King so dies that his Authority still lives by immediate succession Whence it is that the Royal Seat is never vacant that there should be a failer to make good the Royal Actions of the Predecessor And thus the third Estate in Parliament always Living the joynt power still continues and so there is no necessity the Parliament should dissolve as Mr. Prin affirms due circumstances and actions being weighed and the necessities of the Kingdom well considered Fifthly Therefore by what hath been said already Mr. Prins fifth and last Argument must needs be out of doors which is this That because the end of Parliaments is to enact new Laws and repeal others c. which cannot be done but by the Kings assent And this Parliament being to be dissolved by an Act and an Act being now impossible to be made by that King for the dissolution of it he being dead therefore his Death must needs dissolve the Parliament notwithstanding this Act. I answer in the Negative In no wise For though he be dead as aforesaid in his personal which Mr. Prin seems to answer too weakly in his following objection yet not in his Politick capacity And therefore if the dead King cannot enact Laws by the Parliament yet his Successor can who comes immediately to the Crown after his Fathers death And as hath been shewed 't is no waies inconvenient but may many waies be advantageous to the Publike That should the King chance any waies untimely to be taken away the Parliament should continue after the Kings death Whose death if it should necessarily as Mr. Prin affirms dissolve the Parliament so untimely a dissolution as the case might stand might prove very dangerous and pernicious to the Kingdom Besides The Act doth not limit the Parliaments dissolution as lawful only if it be done by an Act of that King then living when the Act was made But in the general it limits it to an Act of Parliament that it shall not be dissolved but by an Act of Parliament And why the Predecessors authority and consent should not be as binding to his Successor in this case till so dissolved as in case of any other Law made with his consent I would very gladly know a solid reason for it Being that to all intents and purposes an Act for confirmation or dissolution may be as virtual and efficacious
Kingdome This money they must take-up upon their Credits But they see no waies how to raise or repay it unless their Session be continued for seven years Therefore to get Credit for raising the said Money and time to reimburse or give security to the Lenders they obtain the Kings consent to an Act for their continuance during the said term with this Proviso inserted though the King by any accident should happen to die before the said security were given or the moneys paid Whether doth the Parliament in this case continue in force and efficacy after the Kings Death or is it then actually dissolved If Mr. Prin grant it a Parliament in force after the Kings Death upon this consideration as I conceive he cannot deny it then 't is apparent that 't is not the Kings Death barely that doth of it self dissolve a Parliament viz. I say a Parliament stablished by a Law and consequently then not this Parliament the reasonbeing alike for the one as for the other But if he shall aver which to me is incredible that notwithstanding such an Act yet by the Kings Death 't is legally dissolved Then it will necessarily follow that Parliament security which was ever lookt upon till now as inviolable is most dangerous and of all others least to be trusted and the Subjects had need be warned to take heed of it seeing it must wholly depend upon so uncertain a thing as the Kings Life which as it throws no small dishonour upon that High Court So it will be no little prejudice to publike emergencies For if the King die half a year after the Moneys borrowed and before the security be given and he hath no surer or longer a lease of his life than other men all the said moneys must absolutely be lost and so the Subjects defrauded No future Parliament being bound to make good the Acts and Deeds of a Former further than they will or please themselves And it is to be wishe that the Kingdom may not now too sadly have experience of it Thirdly Mr. Prin objects the Kings name in which the Writs for Election are issued forth That because they go out in the name of the King raigning and so calls the persons elected to advise with him personally and the Parliament to be conven'd is call'd his Parliament and is 〈…〉 cons 〈…〉 of the arduous businesses of the Kingdom concerning him c. Therefore when the King dies who call'd the Parliament to advise and consult with himself the Parliament must necessarily be dissolved unless they could be supposed to consult and advise with him of the weighty affairs of his Kingdom after his decease To this I answer first That though the Writs of Summons run to consult with the King personally or by name yet they say not to consult with him only and so are not so exclusive having respect to the reason and equity of the Law but that the same Parliament may also consult with his Successor of the Peace and safety of the Kingdom do require Granting this Maxime to be undeniably true that the safety of the people is the supream Law And though the Parliament summoned by the Kings Writs be called his Parliament yet his death doth no more vacate it being established by Law than it doth other Laws by the same King made which are most properly call'd his Laws because enacted with his personal consent and yet we know that they are not so his but that they are also the Laws of his Successors and are so commonly call'd Besides By conâ—ituting the Parliament to dure till they dissolve themselves by an Act the King virtually waved the authority of his Writs of Summons in which Writs the Parliament is exprest to be called to consult with him by name No such thing being in the least said or exprest in the Act by which this Parliament is now confirmed to continue c. Therefore it matters not neither is it at all to the purpose in this case how or in what name the Writs of Summons whereby this Parliament was first called were issued forth Forasmuch as this Parliament consists no longer by any authority derivative from those Writs that Foundation being wholly taken away but only by Act of the three Estates as is evident in that the King could not now dissolve it by his personal Authority any more And if his personal Authority he being living which is affirmative could not dissolve it then his death which is but negative or a cessation of the influence of his personal Authority can much less do it And farther By way of interrogation I would ask Mr. Prin Whether he will grant any more priviledge in the case of the Kings Death to a Parliament stablished by a Law then he will do to a Parliament only call'd and constituted by the Kings Writs between which he cannot surely but say there is a very wide difference And if he yields the priviledge doth excel as he must needs on the side of that Parliament that is established by a Law In what sence can he conceive it to be as the case here put unless by the duration of its Authority after the Kings Death who call'd it Of which Priviledge the Parliament only constituted by the Kings Wrics comes fhort and failes as before acknowledged by the Kings Death And I would fain know what reason there is that a strained exposition of a Statute Law as this is that this Parliament should be dissolved by the Kings Death should take place against the express litteral sence of it which is that it shall not be dissolved but by an Act When as the strained sence also is evidently dangerous unsafe and prejudicial to the publike but the litteral exceeding beneficial The calling of Parliaments in this or that Kings name to consult or advise with this or that King these are but circumstantial things and done for orders sake and nothing of the substantials and essence of the Government and Kingdoms welfare And therefore if Parliaments call'd in this or that Kings name to advise with this or that King should continue in force though there were no Act for it after this or that Kings Death there were no danger or inconvenience in it how much less when an Act as now implicitely passed to that purpose but rather the contrary They may consult with as much safety and advantage to the Kingdom with the Successor as they did with the deceased King But to dissolve Parliaments rashly and untimely may throw a well-setled Kingdom into very great and hazardous difficulties And how sad a thing were it and how contrary to the general rule of the peoples safety which in the Government of a Nation ought to be valued before any thing and is the end of Government if for circumstances the general welfare and Peace of the Kingdom must be hazarded Fourthly As to what M. Prin objects concerning a man by his Will or Deed or the King by his Commission or