Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	act_v	affair_n	16	3	7.0503	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85396	Hybristodikai. The obstructours of justice. Or a defence of the honourable sentence passed upon the late King, by the High Court of Justice. Opposed chiefly to the serious and faithfull representation and vindication of some of the ministers of London. As also to, The humble addresse of Dr. Hamond, to His Excellencie and Councel of warre. Wherein the justice, and equitie of the said sentence is demonstratively asserted, as well upon clear texts of Scripture, as principles of reason, grounds of law, authorities, presidents, as well forreign, as domestique. Together with, a brief reply to Mr. John Geree's book, intituled, Might overcoming right: wherein the act of the Armie in garbling the Parliament, is further cleared. As also, some further reckonings between thesaid [sic] Dr. Hamond and the authour, made straight. / By John Goodwin.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing G1170; Thomason E557_2; ESTC R12380	138,495	164

OF OUR OWN 4. If the Parliament of England because of the sequestration Sect. 36 of some of their Members by the Army were under force or in no capacity to act Parliament-wise doubtlesse the Parliament of Scotland now sitting is much more under force and upon this account all they have acted since the first of their sitting or shall act yet further must be null yea more formally and apparantly null than any the Acts of the present Parliament of England For about six moneths since the Army of the Parliament of Scotland which invaded this Kingdom being by the blessing of God overcome those that now govern affairs there who were before oppressed by them raised forces of their own Authority and by force caused them who See the Parliaments Declaration o● 〈…〉 17. 16●● Pag. 12. 13. had the Parliamentary Authority to flee from Edenburgh and by the help of the English forces than in the North invited to their assistance did compell the disbanding of the forces there remaining that were raised by the Parliament and having modelled their own forces did call another Parliament while the former was by Adjourment continued and gave such limitations to the new Elections as they judged most for the interest safety and peace of that Kingdom And that Parliament hath since sat under the Protection of those forces so raised So that the present Parliament of England is much more free than the Parliament of Scotland For 1. The Members of the former were Elected without any limitations prescribed to or about their Election whereas the Election of the Members of the latter was incumbered and not carried or made with the like freedom 2. The Parliament of England now in being was not brought in by force over the head of another Parliament legally chosen this being forced to flee to make way for that which is the case of the Scottish Parliament 3. And lastly the Parliament of England sitteth under the Protection of forces raised by their whole body and whilest all their Members had full liberty to sit whereas the Parliament of Scotland is attended for their security by forces raised by some few of them onely the forces raised by their free Legall Parliament being by force compelled to disband But 5. That the Parliament of England acteth freely and not as Sect. 37 under any force since the want of their secluded Members or at least as freely as they did before is evident because they now act by the same principles and according to the same genius by which they acted whilest those Members sat with them though by the number and potent influence of these Members upon the House matters were still over-ruled in opposition to them as well as to the liberties and safety of th● Kingdom 6. There is no colour to judge the Parliament now sitting to be under force in as much as those under whose Protection they sit are their reall cordiall and ●ried friends being their own Army raised by themselves and who have stood by them and by the Kingdom with all faithfulnesse and with the eminent hazard of their own lives from the first untill now Do m●n use to be afraid of their friends their known their long their throughly experienced friends Suppose they had been under such a kind of force which had strongly inclined them to act contrarie to their judgements I mean contrarie to such principles as by which it is like they would have acted in case such a force had not diverted them yet unlesse it can be proved that those judgements of theirs according unto which it is supposed they would have acted in case no force at all had influenced them were consistent with the liberties peace and safety of the Nation which consistencie hath not yet been proved nor ever will there can no sufficient reason be given why their acts should be judged null or illegall It is the saying of Seneca It is an happy necessity which compelleth men to better 〈…〉 c●●p●… wayes than otherwise they were like to take And in case Parliamentary Acts should be questioned in point of legall validity u●on a supposall yea and this in some degree reasonable that Parliaments at the time of their transaction were under force or which is the same under fear of acting otherwise upon this account the validity of all Parliamentary Acts whatsoever in this Kingdom if not in others also will be obnoxious and liable unto question For it may very reasonably be doubted whether any Parliament were ever so free in the passing of any Act but that they were under fear either of the King and his power and party on the one hand or of the people and their discontent on the other and consequently whether ever any Parliament acted with such precisenesse of liberty or freedom as that the genuine and native ducture of their judgements was no wayes touched or wrought upon by any influence of persons or things feared by them If it be yet objected yea but it was onely the House of Sect. 38 Commons that voted the Erection of that Court of Justice which gave sentence against the King The House of Lords concurred not with it Therefore the Authority of this Court was illegall it being contrarie to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom that either of the two Houses should assume unto themselves or exercise a compleat Parliamentary power without the concurrence of the other I answer 1. Many talk of the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom who I beleeve understand not at least consider not what the word fundamental imports Certain it is that no other Law or Laws of this Kingdom can with any propriety of speech be termed fundamental but onely such the observation whereof by the body of the Kingdom is of absolute necessity to the wel-being of it And no lesse certain it is but that the welfare and prosperity of this Kingdom may stand without any house of Lords at all and much more without their concurrence with whatsoever the House of Commons shall passe in order thereunto Upon the same ground evident it is that the Trial of Malefactours or Delinquents especially in extraordinary cas●● of Delinquencie by Juries is no fundamental Law of the Kingdom in as much as the wel-being of the Kingdom may subsist as well without it 2. All Authority and Power of Government being originally Sect. 39 and fundamentally in the people as hath been already proved at large they have a just and legall power in their Representative which is the House of Commons without the Lords to act and do whatsoever they rightly judge conducible to their wealth and safety especially when the Lords shall refuse to concurre with them in such things It is unreasonable to conceive that it should be a matter of sin or unlawfull for a Kingdom to make provision for it self and it is own good unlesse such or such a small party amongst them who prefer their own undue personal Interests before