Selected quad for the lemma: house_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
house_n	check_n	knight_n	queen_n	33,442	5	10.3795	5	false
house_n	check_n	knight_n	queen_n	33,442	5	10.3795	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47876	The lawyer outlaw'd, or, A brief answer to Mr. Hunts defence of the charter with some useful remarks on the Commons proceedings in the last Parliament at Westminster, in a letter to a friend.	L'Estrange, Roger, Sir, 1616-1704.	1683 (1683)	Wing L1266; ESTC R25476	42,596	42

4. c. 1. and 8 H. 6. c. 7. and 23 H. 6. c. 15. These are the Laws for regulating Elections and pursuant to them Queen Elizabeth in whose time the Commons busi'd themselves too much in that matter sent a notable check to the House in the 28 year of her Reign for their medling with choosing and returning Knights of the Shire for Norfolk a thing said she impertinent for the House to deal withall and only belonging to the Office and charge of the Lord Chancellor from whom the Writs Issue and are return'd D'ewes Journal p. 393. Which Message wrought then so far upon the House that for some years after they forbore to medle much in any thing of that nature but apply'd themselves when occasion requir'd to the Lord Chancellor or Keeper who proceeded therein as the Law directed without taking any great notice of the Commons Votes or Resolves as we find by a remarkable Instance in the 35 of this Queen when Sir Edward Coke then Speaker was order'd by the House to attend upon my Lord Keeper to move his Lordship to direct a New Writ for choosing a Burgess for Southwark instead of Richard Hutton suppos'd to have been unduly elected and another for allowing Sir George Carew who was duely elected but not return'd to be Burgess for Camelsford in Cornwall and a third for changing the name of John Dudley return'd Burgess for New-Town in the County of Southampton into the Name of Thomas Dudley alleadg'd to be the same person but his Name mistaken My Lord Keeper answer'd that the Returns for Southwark and Camelsford shou'd stand good but as for the said John Dudley he wou'd direct a new Writ for choosing another Burgess in his stead for Newtown D'ewes Journals p. 494. Now if this was the legal way of Proceeding in Queen Elizabeth's Reign warranted by the Statutes lately quoted and allow'd by the great Lawyer Sir Edward Coke and the whole House of Commons at that time by what Authority cou'd it be alter'd in succeeding Parliaments or is it just that the Ancient Precedents of former Ages shou'd be avoided by unwarrantable new-ones of later times Without question had the House of Commons then known they had any Power to mend the said Returns or punish the Offendors they wou'd never have sent their Speaker to wait on the Lord Keeper's pleasure about it and if that House had no such Authority 't is strange how can their Successors pretend to have any Thus we see the House of Commons was not in former times allow'd to regulate the Election of their own Members nor to Imprison any for undue Elections or Returns nor yet for a breach of Priviledge much less for any other Crime or Misdemeanor Nothing was heard in those better days of that terrible Sentence Take him Topham not a word of the Subjects Imprisonment during the Will and Pleasure of the House of Commons The sitting of Parliaments then was short and sweet dispatching more business in three days than of late they have done in so many months Their Study was to Redress not Create Grievances and preserve or procure a good understanding betwixt the King and His People and not like Banbury-Tinkers instead of mending one hole make a great many Oh! but say some the Connivance of King and Lords is a strong Argument that the Commons have done nothing herein contrary to Law I Answer 't is rather a very weak and frivolous Plea first because tho the King be oblig'd by His Coronation-Oath to govern by Law yet all knowing men will allow He has a Prudential Power to suspend the Execution of such Laws as he thinks prejudicial to the publick Interest and consequently may when he sees occasion wink at some illegal attempts of His Subjects to avoid a great Inconvenience If thefore of late times the King and if you will the House of Lords did connive at some unwarrantable resolutions of the Commons rather than exasperate the whole House too Jealous of their own Priviledges and thereby frustrate the chief end of Calling His Parliament the Security of the Publick it was Policy and great Prudence to wave it at that time tho now 't is the height of Folly to make this a warrant for doing the like again contrary to so many legal Presidents and express Acts of Parliament Secondly because the gathering of Peter-pence in this Kingdom has been conniv'd at by King Lords and Commons for divers Centuries of years yet it was an Illegal Tax upon the Subject contrary to Magna Charta and the Fundamental Laws of the Nation 25 H. 8. c. 21. Likewise the Clergy made divers Canons and Constitutions which have been conniv'd at for several Ages both by King and Parliament yet are declar'd by 25 H. 8. c. 19 To be much prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm The same may be said of the Ancient Custom of Archbishops and Bishops declar'd by 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. to be contrary to the Common-Law of of the Land tho practic'd and conniv'd at time out of mind And to omit several other Instances Cardinal Wolsey for exercising his Legantine Power and the whole Clergy for receiving it tho conniv'd at for many years as well in as out of Parliament were nevertheless found guilty in a Premunire in His Majesties Court of Kings-Bench Connivance therefore is no good Argument of any things being legal and the tolerating of a Custom tho never so long cannot warrant its continuance while the Law is against it Presidents indeed of former Ages when legal and just from the beginning are of great force in Judicial Proceedings but no new President of late days can have that weight in any Court of Justice and to be sure will never be allow'd if contrary to Law and the Authentick Records of Antiquity But the House of Lords say they use to punish the Breaches of their Priviledges and several other Misdemeanors why then may not the House of Commons do the like A most ridiculous parity for they might argue as well the Court of Kings-Bench Fines and Imprisons Delinquents therefore the Grand-Jury may do the like when they please For the Commons in Parliament are really the Grand-Jury of the Nation appointed to enquire after Briberyes Extortions Monopolies and other publick Oppressions and complain thereof to the King and Lords and humbly pray redress yet they are no Judges in any Case themselves but are Parties as being the Attorneys and Representatives of those that are injur'd So far they are from having any Judicial Power that they cannot as much as administer an Oath upon any occasion whatsoever which undoubtedly the Law wou'd not have deny'd them but that they were never design'd for Judges or punishers of any Criminal because qui negat Medium negat finem But the House of Lords is not only a Court of Judicature but the Supream Court of the whole Kingdom they are