Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	act_n	parliament_n	session_n	2,713	5	11.3473	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02809	Duplies to the petition and replyes given in to the Commission of Parliament for Fines and Forefaultures, by Alexander Munro of Bear-Crofts	Monroe, Alexander, fl. 1691.	1691 (1691)	Wing D2647A; ESTC R174884	15,189	18

Law it had cleared the point For when in his Reply to the Dilators he cites l 14 § 3. ff quod met causa After the words In hac actione non quaeritur utrum isqui convinitur au alius metum fecit sufficit enim hoc docere metum sibi illatum esse He industriously suppresses these which immediatly follow Et ex haere eum qui convenitur etsi crimine caret lucrum tamen sensisse Which words do not only quite exclude this Case from falling under that edict seing the Clerks have their Offices for most Onerous Causes as is notour to all concerned and so cannot in Law be said Lucrum sensisse But likewayes these words must secure all such singular Successors from the Avarice of evil Men whose pretences they could not possibly obviat and what is said before to enforce the second Defence as to the difference of res furtiva and metu gesta in relation to singular Successors is here repeated tho' it be sufficiently cleared by what is already said That the Petitioner was under no Impression whereof the Law takes notice Whereas it is Replyed to the 4th Allegiance That the Renounciation being granted while the King who signed that Letter was in life And the Petitioner within his reach The Renounciation ought in Law to be looked on as an effect of the same continued Awe and Force whereby he was removed And the same as if Robbers had plundered him of an hundred pounds and offered back ten on his Discharge of the whole in which case the Discharge could not hinder Restitution It is Duplyed 1mo Although the Letter had expresly commanded him to remove from his Office yet unless it had adjected a certification of Death or an or other of the above effects of the vis atrox defined in the Text it could import none of the Legal and fixt causes of justus metus But it s far otherwise and that Letter is intended and conceived in such terms as could not possible fright any Rational Man And it is not in the least questioned but the Petitioner if he had not been conscious to the nullity of his Gift as being grounded on that dispensing clause in express contradiction to the Act of Parliament and constitution mentioned in that Letter he would have refused to accept of the money and without delay would have applyed to the King to be reponed who as the Petitioner cannot deny looked on him at that time as a very Loyal Subject and wanted but such an occasion to reward the Faithful Sacrifice he constantly rendred to him during the English Usurpation But 2do The Letter and Act of Sederunt were sufficiently obtempered by his removing and if he was thereby bound to give a Receipt to Haystoun on payment of the Seven Thousand Merks which is not unquestionable yet it is plain beyond all contradiction that there was no necessity from that Letter or the Act following upon it either for his accepting of the Money or after he had taken it for his granting so positive and ample a Renounciation in terms sufficient both to Denude himself and to transmit his pretence in favours of others tho the Letter and Act of Sederunt had left his pretended Right as entire as it was at the first granting of it and as to the ungentle parallel of the Robbers there are so many disparities and so palpable that it merits no more Particular answer then that the Petitioner is not in the case of the Edict and tho he were the difference in Law betwixt Res metu gestae and res furtivae betwixt singullar sucessors for most onerous Causes and Robbers need not be insisted upon The Replyer ends with a Reflection on the Wrongs commited in the latter Reigns as if the dispensing clause in Sir Archibald Primroses Gift and be vertue whereof he appointed six Clerks of Session in manifest contempt of the Act of Parliament were not one of the most pregnant instances though nor the most important that can be observed of that Nature since the Restoration of the Monarchy and was a wrong done not to a single Person only but to that intire Fraternity the making a preparative to break that Imployment and thereby occasion the greatest disorders in the Administration of Justice in all time thereafter if the Registers thought fit to constitut as many Clerks of Session as the Secretaries of State are in use to admit Writers to the Signet which they might very well have done be vertue of that Clause if the King could have thereby dispensed with the Act of Parliament 1621. Although it be but consonant to the Modesty of the Replyer to obtrude that the Kings letter for Executing the Act of Parliament was an act of Tyrrany and yet that Clause was a deed of legall Administration because it is the Foundation of the Petitioners pretended Right who does very much disparage the sufferings of these Persons in whose favours Their MAJESTIES and the ESTATES past the Act of Parliament for Rescinding Fynes and Forefaulturers by so Whinning a Comparison of the merits of his cause for tho his MAJESTIES Commissioner had not in plain Parliament Ordered the Petitioners Case to be Expunged out of that Act it is very well known that he never suffered the least inconveniencie for Conscience sake Nor will any Man who has not darkned that Light by Self-love and Avarice pretend to an Office which after he enjoyed for several years without paying a Groat for it He then Renounced upon Receipt of Seven Thousand Merks And knows very well that the present Clerks whom he would now Rob of it did purchase it bona fide for a greater Sum And whereof if he should prevail they have no Action competent to them for Recovery of a Sixpence In Respect whereof The desire of the Petition ought to be Refused and the Petitioner condemned in such Expenses as the Honourable Lords and other Members of the Commission of Parliament shall find just THE VISCOUNT OF TARBAT Being Cited INCIDENTER in the Action betwixt Alexander Monro and the Clerks of the SESSION Does humbly Offer what followes to be Considered by the Right Honourable COMMISSION of PARLIAMENT BY The express standing Statutes the Clerk Register's Deputes for Parliament and Session are restricted to the number of Three The Law prohibites the Clerk Register to commissionat any more or to adjoine any to these Three without express consent of the other Principal to whom any shall be adjoined Some three or four times one desires of the Principals one has been adjoined to the Desirer before the year 1640 and this was consonant to Law But Sir Archibald Primrose casts in a Clause in his Commission allowing him to joine one or more in these Offices as should be found conducing to the good of the Leidges and on this warrand joins one to every one of the Three Offices ratifies their Gifts in Parliament and they serve in Session but without asking or getting any express consent