Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	earl_n	lord_n	sir_n	21,670	5	6.9416	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28358	An argvment of ivstification of the five members accused by His Majesty vvherin is proved that the raising of this present army by authority of Parliament, is not treason : by which it likewise appeareth, that never any king of England received losse or damage by any Parliament, from the first that ever was called to this present Parliament / by Peter Bland of Grays-Inne, Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1643 (1643)	Wing B3161; ESTC R16874	8,204	18

AN ARGVMENT IN IVSTIFICATION OF The five Members ACCUSED By HIS MAIESTY VVherein is proved that the raising of this present Army by Authority of Parliament is not Treason By which it likewise appeareth that never any King of England received losse or damage by any Parliament from the first that ever was called to this present Parliament By PETER BLAND of Grays-Inne Gent. London Printed for JOHN FIELD A Dialogue between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student at Law Concerning the KING and PARLIAMENT DOctor Sir being acquainted with your wayes of imployment and knowing you to be a Lawyer I shall desire some satisfaction from you concerning a Parliament it being no way belonging to my own study whereby I may resolve my self and first I desire you to tell me who may be Burgesses or Knights in Parliament Student I wish all Divines were of your temper not to meddle with that which belongs not to them and to answer your question the son and heir of an Earl may be and so was the Lord Russell Eliz. 6. or the sonne and heir apparent of a Baron and so was Mr. Henry Brook for the eldest son of an Earl is not a Lord only by the courtesie of England he is called so but in any Declaration or writing he hath no more then his legall addition given Doct But may not a Divine be chosen for a Burgesse for he hath no voice in the upper House unlesse he be a Bishop Stud. No Sir he may not and therefore Alexander Nowell was refused being a Prebend of Westminster whereupon a Writ issued to choose another in his roome for Leo in Cornwall Doct. But I have heard that the Country hath a free chise and if they choose a Divine and he is returned may the House put him out and have they power to send out Writs Stud. In 23 Eliz. it was ordered that during the Session no Writs should issue to choose Knights or Burgesses but by Warrant of the House to the Clerk of the Crown and 18 Martii 23 Eliz. it was agreed by the House that if a Burgesse be incurably sick another may be chosen in his place by licence of the House but not if he be easily sick or sent of his Majesties service unlesse the House will allow of a new Election Doct. What then Sir if one man be chosen for two places which must he serve for Stud. He must serve for that place which first chose him Sir Henry Piercy was chosen Knight for two Counties and thereupon it was adjudged by the House that he should serve for that County which first chose him 13. Eliz. and in 7. E. 6. one Cavell was returned for Ludders-hall and for Travayny and he appeared for the first and a Writ issued to choose another for Travayny Doct. Well Sir you have satisfied me for the Election of Burgesses and who may be now tell me what they do usually require at the Kings hands when they are all met and a Speaker made Stud. The first thing that they require at the Kings hands is that which was required by the Commons in the thirteenth yeer of Henry 8. to wit that if any man of the Commons House should speak more largely then of duty he ought to do all such offences to be pardoned and that to be of record Doct. If that be granted then they may speak of the King what they please and he must be pardoned Stud. No Sir the reverence which a vassall oweth his Soveraigne is intended in that motion for to be proved in every speech what ever it be it must import the good of the King and his State and so long it may be easily pardoned otherwise not for in Queen Elisabeths time who gave freedom of speech to all Parliaments when Wentworth made those motions that were but supposed dangerous to the Queens estate he was imprisoned in the Tower and there dyed Doct. I thought every Burgesse or Knight of the Parliament house had a priviledge that they could not be imprisoned Stud. No more they cannot at the suit of any common person where the offence does not touch the King directly as by a Trespasse against another or the like but a man shall not have the priviledge of the House for a criminall offence that immediatly toucheth the King Doct. If he shall not have the priviledge of the House for such an offence as immediately toucheth the King who then must commit him the King or the House of Parliament whereof he is a Member Stud. As to that question I shall not give you my own opinion but I shall shew you what Presidents have been done if the Books be true that I go by Sir Edward Warner Lieutenant of the Tower was sent out of his house to the Tower for an offence done before the Parliament was summoned And Sir William Cecill then Secretary said that the Queen was then assured by her Justices that she might commit any of the House during the Parliament for any offence against her Crown and Dignity and that they shewed divers Presidents thereof and Pearne was committed to the Marshalsy for words without any notice given to the House and Master Cope Master Leukenor Hurlston and Master Braynbridge and others were committed to the Tower by the Queen for that before the Parliament they had sundry conventions for the preferring in Parliament a Book touching the Rates of the Church and a form of an Act for establishing the same Which also they did print prefer and urge in Parliament but it seemed that if they had treated thereof onely in time of Parliament being Burgesses they should not have been impeached in 28 Eliz. Doct. What then do you think of the Kings accusing of the five Members Stud. Sir you must know that the accusation layd by His Majesty against them is not within the compasse of any of those Presidents and we need not stand to give any reasons to prove how it differs from them presidents because the King Himself hath acknowledged it and what dishonor can His so doing be to so Religious a Prince when as he himself is subject to error being considered as man nay in that point He hath excelled the goodnesse of His Royall Ancestors which act I hope shall be perpetually Recorded in the hearts of all His Subjects for a testimony of His Grace and goodnesse and for a pattern to all succeeding Princes Doct. But why did not they then except of a Pardon Stud. Then the Kings mercy had been apparent of which we have other great evidences but His willingnesse to acknowledge His errors which is as great a vertue in Prince had been concealed and so he had been in that respect lesse glorious besides had they received a Pardon being not guilty they had ipso facto lost their personall estate by the Statute unlesse some words of Art had been put into the pardon which is not too late yet to be done Doct. Then it seems that in former times the