Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bill_n	house_n	pass_v	12,480	5	7.4741	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46646	Eikon aklastos The image vnbroaken : a perspective of the impudence, falshood, vanitie, and prophannes, published in a libell entitled Eikonoklastēe [sic] against Eikon basilikē, or, The pourtraicture of His Sacred Majestie in his solitudes and sufferings.	Jane, Joseph, fl. 1600-1660.	1651 (1651)	Wing J451; ESTC R2475	252,075	288

at his Tryall or other proceedings against him the cases being contrary for Lentulus and the rest were accused for conspiring against the state Strafford was accused by those that conspired against the state and sought to take him away for a cleerer passage to their designe The King vouchsafes to the Reformation which both Kingdomes intended noe better name then innovation and ruine both to Church and state and the expelling of Bishopps out of the Church ruine to the Church and out of the house of Peeres ruine to the state And he askes how happy the nation could be in such a governour who counted that their ruine which they thought their deliverance It cannot be doubted but the abolition of the order and Government of Church and state is an innovation performed by force against the King execrable Rebellion and the King never doubted to say that such disorderly innovations were the ruine of Church and state and the innovations and ruines mentioned by the King to be agitated by some men are not restrained to the cause of the Bishopps though that alone and the manner of proceeding in regard of the injustice violence and the dangerous consequences that attend it threatned ruine to Church and state It is strange that a people may mistake their ruine for their deliverance that a wise Prince by denying them their wil may keepe them from perishing which their owne errours would cast them into but such as knew how small a part of the people how contemptible affected those innovations and how they were cherisht by the leaders of Rebellion to strengthen their partie and how others were drawne in by hopes and feares to comply with a potent faction for their profit or safetie and how greate a partie both for number qualitie detested these innovations may well conclude that neither the nation thought it their deliverance nor the Kings refusall other then a just care and providence for their good It is not likely that the house of Peeres gave hardly their consent to the Bills against the Bishops that soe easily gave it to attach them of high Treason But it is apparent they hardly gave their consent to those Bills for they had often rejected them and therefore his presumption is of noe weight against plaine proofe If their rights and priviledges were thought so vndoubted in that house then was that protestation noe Treason and the house will become liable to a just construction either of injustice for soe consenting or of vsurpation to expect that their voting or not voting should obstruct the Commons The priviledges of the Bishopps had they not been vndoubted they needed not an Act of Parliament nor soe many Acts of violence to take them away neither can the Commons pretend to greater right for their sitting in the one house then the Bishopps in the other and the Libeller hath rightly concluded that their protestation was noe Treason but that their accusation by the house of Commons was a false and vngrounded Clamour and their commitment by the Lords house an odious injustice but it could be noe vsurpation to expect that their voting or not voting was conclusive to the Commons To what end did the Commons offer their accusation to the Lords if their voting or not voting were not considerable It is Justice when they concurre vsurpation when they dissent But Lords house Commons house are vsurpers when they obstruct the Dictates and overswaying insolence of rabbles and Tumults The Commons were not to desist for five repulses of the Lords noe not for fiftie from what in the name of the Kingdome they had demaunded soe long as those Lords were none of our Lords and what if they had been your Lords were they then to desist if so it was more then they would doe to their King but our or not our makes noe difference to resolute Traytours The Lords were soe farr their Lords as they were not to persist by the power wherewith they were intrusted for the kingdome in their demaund after the Lords refusall for to what end hath the law ordained a Lords house and the Commons soe long practised their addresses to them if they may doe what they please without them Doth the vse of the name of the kingdome add any right to them that have not the power of the kingdome and demaund things to the destruction of the kingdome The king allowes not such a faction the name of a Parliament which hath nothing of either house but some members that assume the name without the priviledges and authoritie that constituted it Though the Bill against roote and branch passed not till many of the Lords with some few of the Commons either enticed away by the king or overawed by the sense of their owne malignitie deserted the Parliament that was noe warrant for them who remained being farr the greater number to lay aside the Bill He well knowes they that remained of the Lords house were an inconsiderable number and such as deserted the Commons house wanted not many of the number of them that remained and of them that remained many were overawed by force and diverse plainely dissented to that Bill The injustice of them that remained was intolerable that refused all reparation or securitie to such as were injured by the Tumults and it was a most perfidious Act in them to enforce their members to desert the house that they might exercise their Arbitrary power over the kingdome the injury was so apparent the pretēce of malignancie so ridiculous against the deserting members that noe sober man can imagnie enticement or overawing to be the cause of their withdrawing and these remaining members ought to have forborne by their dutie to the kingdome the passing of such a Bil in the absence of soe many members but they that will forbeare noe degree of treason cannot probably abstaine from breakes of priviledge and lesse injuries He sayes this degrading of the Bishopps was orthodoxall in the Church ancient and reformed What will not this man say Wee neede not wonder at his other impudencies that will affirme the taking away the order of Bishopps orthodoxall in the ancient Church which never wanted them The King sayes he was bound besides his judgment by a most strict and vndispensable oath to preserve that order and the rights of the Church And sayes the Libeller If the letter of that oath be not interpreted by equitie reformation or better knowledge then was the King bound to graunt the Clergie all priviledges graunted to them by Edward the Confessour and so bring in Popery Equitie must be admitted in all interpretations of oaths and soe must better knowledges but the knowledge of other men is noe exposition to him that takes an oath if his owne knowledge be not convinced The King hath sworne to preserve the priviledges of the Church to be a protectour of the Bishopps and by what equitie reformation or better knowledge would this libeller induce

giddy wicked Rebellion in the people By what law was the king bound to attend these Lords or what authoritie had they to prepare matter for the Parliament more then any others of the Kingdome Is it not a knowne Treason to endeavour to depose the King and did not the late Parliament professe to abhorre the thought of it And how comes it to passe that these Lords have a power to threaten the King with deposing him What Rebells can be convicted by any law if this Action be not Treason The libeller getts nothing by this example but an evidence against his Masters for these Lords and their assistants had their pardon for that Rebellion And wherein did this Rebellion of these Lords differ from that of Jach straw and other Traytours mentioned by Mr. Sollicitour against the Earle of Strafford His folly in seeking to draw an Argument from the Actions of Rebells to prove a Cryme in the King is ridiculous to any reasonable man and it s not imaginable that the king should be bound to attend any meeting of his Peeres and Councellours which did tend towards a Parliament for by that Rule he must attend in as many places as there are factions noe sober time ever pretended that the king was bound to attend the Parliament which was to be called and dissolved by him and our Ancestours would be esteemed as voyde of reason as loyaltie if their Parliaments were governed by a Tumultuous rabble and the king were oblidged to doe what they would have though the whole kingdome were bleeding to death of those wounds which their impious and inconsiderate violence and fury had inflicted The king sayes the shame was to see the barbarous Rudenes of those Tumulte to demaund any thing And this the libeller beleives was the truest cause of his deserting the Parliament And was it not a just cause for him to desert the Parliament or faction in it when either they could not or would not restrayne that barbarous rudenes The worst and strangest of that any thing they demaunded was but the vnlording of Bishopps and expelling them the house and the reducing of Church discipline to a conformitie with other Protestant Churches And this the libeller would have noe Barbarisme What did the Parliament there if the Tumults may demaund the alteration of the Government of Church or state Can it be presumed that a rowte of Mechannicks could determine what was conformitie to other Protestant Churches The libeller at first remembred Mr. Solicitours discourse against the Earle of Strafford there he might have found that it was Treason to goe about assemble a multitude to alter the Government of Church or state And to seeke the vnlording of Bishopps by force in that manner they did was Treason by the law and we have seene that this desperate rabble whose demaunds the libeller sayes were but the vnlording of Bishopps and the like thinke the murther of the king and destruction of his family noe other then a but. They were demaunded by the Parliament which is vntrue but they were demaunded by a factton who suborned these Tumults to overaw and drive away the greatest part of the members of both houses The King in a most tempestuous season forsooke the helme and steerage of the Common wealth He withdrew himselfe from that storme which the Traytours had raysed against him and admitted not any steerage when all was whirled by tempestuous Tumults The libeller would willingly mince the causes of his Majest departure and therefore he catches hold of the mention of shame to exclude feare from the barbarous rudenes of the Tumults to demaund any thing he would conclude there were only demaunds noe barbarous rudenes and would make the last word to exclude all that went before To be importuned the removing of evill Councellours and other greivances was to him an intollerable oppression To offer violence to him for his protection of faithful Councellours the support of Government in Church and state was intollerable and though the libeller doe commend the violence of the Tumults yet heere he calls it only importunitie and the Kings denyall of the impetuous demaunds of a rabble to change the Government in Church and state denyall and delay of Justice If violence be lawful as he oftē affirmes why doth he mince his defence and soe often fly to these termes of importunitie and petitioning The advice of his Parliament was esteemed a bondage because the the King sayes of them whose agreeing votes were not by any law conclusive to his judgment for sayes the libeller the law ordaines a Parliament to advise him in his greate affaires but if it ordaine also that the single judgment of a King shall outballance all the wisedome of his Parliament it ordaines that which frustrates the end of its owne ordaining There is no doubt but in a Monarchy the dependence of the people is vpon the King the greatenes of whose interest in the prosperitie of the Kingdome is more likely to oblidge him to their preservation then any number of private men can be encleined to and as the law ordained a Parliament to advise him soe it forbidds them to commaund or prescribe him though the Major part of Parliament involve the whole It s against all reason to include the King who is allwayes furnisht by law with his other Councells may see good reason to preferr the Counsell of the smaller number and that law which ordained the Parliament to be called and dissolved by the King had destroyed what it ordained if the King had been bound to consent to all advices given him by the Parliament Such a restraint vpon the King not only makes voyde and vseles those select Councells which by law are continually to advise him but destroyes the Government of Monarchy which the law cannot intend and gives the Parliament the absolute soveraigntie which the people would not live vnder being contrary to their desires and dispositions the trust reposed in such as they elected The Kings judgment may dissent he sayes to the destruction of himselfe and Kingdome And soe doubtles may the judgment of a major part in Parliament and we have found by long experience that Parliaments have produced Acts to the preiudice of the state and corruption of Religion but this libeller holds all meanes frustraneous that beget not Rebellion and as in his affection he preferrs the judgment of the Parliament before the Kings soe any Company or committee of Lords that conspire against him as appeares by his late remembred instance against Rich the 2 And what power he would have in the Parliament over the King he would place in the Tumults his admired Iron flaile over the Parliament and prayes vnto God to send them that they may purge the Parliament and prescribe lawes both to the King and them and therefore he judges that it is vnlawlike that a remedy soe slender should be the vtmost meanes of publique safetie And we are sure that