Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
justice_n king_n lord_n privy_a 3,082 5 10.8865 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A25783 Arguments concerning the new buildings in the parishes within the weekly bills of mortality without the city of London 1677 (1677) Wing A3641; ESTC R28302 3,665 1

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Arguments concernimg the NEW-BUILDINGS in the Parishes within the Weekly Bills of Mortality without the City of LONDON BEcause the increase of New-Buildings hath of late occasion'd much Clamour and seeing some Men endeavour by mistaken Suggestions to induce others to believe That such Buildings are erected against Law and are a publick Nusance or if not so that yet the Builders and Owners thereof having as they supposed made great advantages to themselves by such Buildings therefore they would have it thought reasonable that a particular Tax of half a Years value according to the improv'd Rent should be impos'd upon them towards the publick Charge imagining that the same will amount unto a vast Sum Wherefore for the prevention of a thing so unequal and destructive to many particular Persons and so little advantageous to the present Designe it may be reasonable to shew the Mistakes and Errors of such Persons and that these Buildings are not against any Law whatsoever or any Publick Nusance nor so advantageous to the Builders and Owners as is imagined I. The Common Law favours much the Increase of buildings being for the Habitations of Men and gives the Preheminence to Land builded before other Land Co. Litt. f. 4. a And the Supportation and Increase of Buildings in the Judgement of Law was and is esteemed a Melioration and for the benefit of the Publick and no Nusance according to that dangerous and unintelligble Opinion of some Men for a publick Nusance is properly malum in se and cannot be so by accident and what is not a Crime originally in it self can no more become one by Inferences or Consequences than the Accumulation of Things can alter the Name of Things And it may be very inconvenient to make a Constructive or State-Nusance But if the Parliament shall observe any growing Mischief or Inconvenience it may be proper to provide against them such preventing Laws as they in their Prudence shall judge meet but to punish Men by a Law Posterior to the Fact must needs be unreasonable For Vbi non est Lex ibi non est transgressio And it is the Birth-right of every English-man not to be punished but by the known Laws of the Land by the which those who are concern'd in New-buildings are willing to stand and fall and it is an injury to them to suggest the contrary II. If these buildings were publick Nusances any person might justifie to abate them neither could any Land-Lords of them have any remedies for their rents or covenants which were a thing unreasonable to imagine and Contrary to all practice and experience III. Th●● is no malum prohibitum for the first Statute Law which restrains any Buildings is the 31 Eliz. cap. 7. concerning Cottages made only to prevent poor Cottages in the Country the usual receptacles of idle and beggary people But lest other Houses within Cities or ancient Burroughs c. should by a strain'd construction be brought within the compass of that Law there is an express Proviso to exempt them and so it was lately declar'd by the Lord Chief Justice Hales upon a Tryal before him in the case of one Partridg for a House built near Hide-Park within the City and Liberty of Westminster for without an Act of Parliament Cottages could not have been restrain'd neither was this a retrospective Law Co. 3d. Instit f. 204. IV. The next prohibitory Law was the 35 of Eliz. cap. 6. which Law restrain'd only the erecting of small Houses in and within three Miles of London as fit only to receive poor People and Vagrants and not any Buildings for the inlargement of any House or necessary for the Conveniency or Pleasure of the Inhabitants nor the Erection of any Houses fit for the Habitation of such who were or might be Subsidy-men for it would be very strange if Noblemen and Gentlemen might not Build Houses for their Habitations which are Ornaments to the place as the Square in St. Jame's-Fields Southampton-Buildings and other places built by Vertue of His Majesties Letters Patents and the Express Contrivance of his Officers And it would be very hard if the Able and Wealthy Trades men might not erect Houses for their Trades and Accommodations and who so considers aright will find the i● increase of Buildings in the Out-parts of the City to depend upon various Circumstances as the increase of Trade the great and constant Concourse of the Nobility and Gentry to the Parliament the Burning of London His Majesties Proclamations to invite Forreigners and other secret Causes But this Act of the 35th of Eliz. had no Retrospection and was only Temporary and being thought inconvenient was not continued and serv'd only to give a colour for some Proceedings against New-Buildings by such who did not well observe the Expiration of it which was the Restitution of the Common-Law the best Rule for the Determinaton of all Offences and all Men's Rights and Properties Co. 3d. Instit 204. V. After the Expiration of this Law there were Proclamations against some sort of Buildings in and about London but never any general Prohibition or Retrospection in them but these Proclamations being complaned against as an Invasion upon the Common Law and the Rights of the Subjects the matter was referred about the Eighth of King James to the then two Chief Justices and others and upon mature consideration thereof and upon Conference with the Lords of the Privy Council it was agreed That the King by His Proclamation could not make that an Offence which was not so before nor alter any part of the Common Law and they agreed the Rule before mentioned Vbi est nulla lex ibi est nulla transgressio which seems to be a full Resolution that New Buildings in or about London was no Offence Co. 12. Rep. f. 74 VI. In the Year Fifty six in the time of the Usurper Oliver there was an Imposition of a Years value laid upon all Buildings upon New Foundations within ten Miles of the Walls of London But what great difficulty there was in raising that Money though the Act was carefully Penned How many infinite perplext Cases did arise what great clamor it occasioned by the ruine of many particular persons what time it required before the several and respective interests were adjusted how little Money it brought in though it had a retrospection of Thirty six Years and an extent of ten Miles every way from the Walls of London and how long time that little Money was a raising and what immediately followed upon that imposition is very well known VII Since His Majesties Restauration there was an Act made by this Parliament in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth of His Majesties Reign which prohibits all Timber and other irregular Buildings in and about London with a punishment upon the Offenders which by an easie Implication seems to give a Toleration to others But what is more observable is that immediately after the Burning of London when their members brought in