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
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

binding themselves by that Act which yet must bind the King tho it might as well be alleadg'd He did not intend it he boldly concludes with threatning and daring the Judges to do their duty Precibusque minas regaliter addit The same reasons says he which may be given for discharging such as are not Committed for breach of Priviledge if it be grounded on the Act for the Habeas Corpus will hold as strong for discharging of Persons Committed for breach of Priviledge and so consequently deprive this House of all its Power and Dignity and make it insignificant This is so plain and obvious that all the Judges ought to know it and I think it below you to make any Resolve therein but rather leave the Judges to do otherwise at their Peril and let the Debate fall without any question See the Debates of the House pag. 217. Was not this a rare Assertor of our Liberties who instead of allowing us the benefit of the Laws wou'd have us all made Beasts of burden to maintain the Grandeur of some Arbitrary Demagogues in the House of Commons and be content to turn Gally-Slaves rather than their Power shou'd become useless or insignificant But I find this daring Speech did not frighten all the Judges for Baron Weston to his immortal Renown had still the courage to grant the Habeas Corpus and rather expose himself to the malice of the Faction than deny or delay Justice contrary to his Oath Our Religion and Liberty being thus secur'd have we not reason to be fond of these worthy Patriots who tugg'd so hard against Popery the better to bring in Presbytery and to make sure that the Prince shou'd not use Arbitrary Power took all possible care to keep it in their own possession It was the Kings Prerogative in the days of yore to have the Power of making War and Peace and declaring who shou'd be counted Friends and who reputed Enemies to the Kingdom But now the Tribunes of the People are willing to ease him of that trouble and take upon themselves by the following Vote to declare some of His Majesties best Subjects and most Faithful Friends Enemies to the King and Kingdom Resolved That all persons who advis'd His Majesty in His last Message to this House to insist upon an Opinion against the Bill for excluding the Duke of York have given pernicious Councel to His Majesty and are promoters of Popery and Enemies to the King and Kingdom And this extravagant Vote they are pleas'd particularly to apply to four Noble Peers of the Realm exposing them to the Rable without the least colour of proof for Promoters of Popery and Enemies to their Soveraign for no other reason but because they were truly Loyal and free from the contagious leaven of the Faction What a happiness it is to live within the Walls of the House of Commons where the Knave becomes Honest and the Fool a Politician where People are sure never to be in the wrong but always impeccable and may freely rail and reflect upon their Betters which without doors wou'd cost them very dear Yet I cannot but wonder why these Noblemen unless they as well as many others took that Character for a mark of Honour from the givers have taken no course at least with the Printer and Bookseller if not with the then Speaker for ordering such Scandalous Votes to be publish'd contrary to express Acts of Parliament For if the Kings immediate Command cannot be allow'd as a good excuse in Law for any Illegal Act so that altho the Prince be unaccountable yet the Minister is to suffer for his Obedience sure a Vote of the House of Commons shall not be thought of force at least out of Parliament-time to Protect any Offender from Justice because whatever Title the Members within the sacred Walls of the House may claim in some Cases to impunity their Officers and Servants who execute their Illegal Commands abroad cannot in the least pretend to have any But how shou'd these Noblemen be enemies to the King and Kingdom for their advising His Majesty against the Bill of Exclusion when the whole House of Peers few discontented Lords Dissenting who by their Lives and Conversation never shew'd themselves the truest Protestants nor the best Subjects openly declar'd against it and upon the first reading threw it out of doors is a Mystery not easily to be understood His Majesty in His Message to the Commons declar'd He was confirm'd in His Opinion against that Bill by the Judgment of the House of Lords who rejected it why then are four Lords singl'd out and not the whole House declar'd Promoters of Popery and Enemies to the King and Kingdom The reason some will guess that the Leading Members saw matters were not yet ripe to shew themselves bare-fac'd or discover the bottom of their Designs and once more to Vote the House of Lords dangerous and useless and therefore to be laid aside But why the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion enemies to the King and Kingdom When 't is made plain even to Demonstration in several Treatises publish'd these four years past about the Succession that the Promoters of that Bill tho some perhaps meant otherwise were in fact Enemies to the Monarchy and no Friends to the King nor to the True Protestant Religion 'T is strange that such as loudly exclaim against Popery shou'd have the face at the same time to practice the worst of Popish or rather Jesuitical Principles and endeavour to force their Soveraign to disinherit His only Brother upon a bare suspicion of his being of another Religion which Henry the 3. of France being tender of the Monarchy and of the Hereditary Right of Succession was so far from offering to the King of Navarre tho a known Protestant and but a remote Kinsman that he cou'd never be perswaded to give the Royal Assent to the Bill which the powerful influence of the Factious Duke of Guise got pass'd by the three Estates for his Exclusion Oh! but say they Popery and Slavery will break in upon us if the Duke succeeds And I am sure Anarchy and Presbytery and an Intestine Civil War will undoubtedly follow if he be excluded the King expos'd to danger and the Kingdom to ruine How fatal it prov'd to Henry 6. that he suffer'd the good Duke of Gloucester to be made away by his Prosecutors which made way for his own Deposition and consequently for his untimely end Historians do abundantly testify and Baker tells us how the great Duke of Somerset then Protector by Sacrificing his Brother the Lord Admiral to the malice of his Enemies in hopes to stop their mouths by yielding to their demands clear'd the way for himself to the Scaffold A Warrant saith this Historian was sent under the hand of his Brother the Protector to cut off his Head wherein as afterwards it prov'd he did as much as if he had laid his own Head upon the Block For

accorded in the same Parliamenti that likewise it be done in time to come in like Case 5 H. 4. c. 6. and 11 H. 6. c. 11. As for the Commons freedom from Arrests 't is certainly a very Ancient Priviledge granted by our Kings to that House the better to enable them to attend the publick service to which they were summon'd as appears by Edward the first 's Answer to the Templars who having some Tenants in the Parliament that were behind with their Rents Petition'd the King to have leave to Distrain for the said Arrears in Parliament-time which he utterly refus'd saying Non videtur honestum quod Rex concedat quod illi de Consilio suo distring antur tempore Parliament 18 Ed. 1. Rot. 7. in Thesaur Receptoris Scaccar Yet that it was not formerly held so sacred nor did extend near so far as some people now imagine is plain from the Case of Thorpe 31 H. 6. Who tho Speaker of the House of Commons at that time was Imprison'd in the Fleet during the Prorogation of the Parliament for a 1000. Marks Damages given against him for a Trespass done to the Duke of York And the Parliament being Re-assembled the Commons earnestly desir'd to have their Speaker discharg'd but it was adjudg'd by the Lords that he shou'd remain in Prison according to his Sentence and they choose another Speaker whereupon they elected Sir Thomas Charlton and made no further clamours as some now wou'd do that their Priviledges were invaded 31 H. 6 Rot. Parliam n. 25 26 c. Seldens Baronage fol. 115. Now for the Tryal of a breach of this Priviledge tho I find no positive or express Statute that orders it to be decided in the ordinary Courts of Justice yet that they may lawfully do it is a plain consequence of the foregoing Acts of Parliament For to argue a majori ad minus since Assaults upon Parliament-men are far more Criminal than Arrests if the ordinary Courts of Justice can try the greater they may certainly try the lesser Crime And accordingly they have often taken cognizance as well of this as other Priviledges of Parliament as appears in the Case of Done against Welsh and of River against Cosyn Skewish against Trewynnard and many others But the most usual practice of former times was to make application to the King and Lords for redress in this particular for as Sir Edward Coke himself confesses The determination and knowledge of this Priviledge belongs to the Lords of Parliament in his select Cases 63. And therefore the House of Commons upon the restraint of any of their Members or Menial Servants of which themselves took no cognizance till of very late days always made their humble request to the King and Lords for his enlargement Thus when William Lake Servant to William Milred a Member of the House was taken in Execution of Debt and Committed to the Fleet the Commons Petition'd the King and Lords for his Liberty The like they did in Walter Clarks Case and in the Case of William Hide And to omit several other Precedents even in the 43 Eliz. when a Bill was preferr'd in the Star-Chamber against Belgrave a Member of that House the Parliament then sitting for Misdemeanors by him committed against the Earl of Huntington the Commons well knowing they had no Authority of themselves to protect their Member made their earnest but ineffectual Application to the Lords for relief Sir Simon D' Ewes Journals p. 612 And in the same Parliament a great asserter of Priviledges upon a debate about Subpaena's said openly in the House Our use at this day is not warranted by Ancient course of Precedents for if a man had been Arrested upon a Subpaena upon notice given he shou'd have had a Writ of Priviledge which of course Her Majesty must have allow'd D'ewes Journals pag. 655. which is conformable to the Report made 18 Eliz. by Mr. Attourney of the Dutchy upon a Committee appointed for setting Mr. Halls man at Liberty That the Committee found no Precedent for setting at large by the Mace any person in Arrest but only by Writ and that by divers Precedents of Records perus'd by the said Committee it appeareth that every Knight Citizen or Burgess which doth require Priviledge hath us'd in that Case to take a Corporal Oath before the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper that the Party for whom such Writ is pray'd came up with him and was his Servant at the time of the Arrest made D'ewes p. 249. The famous Case of Ferrers Burgess of Plimouth 34 H. 8. tho often alleadg'd in favour of the Commons is so far from making any thing for their purpose that it plainly shews they never offer'd till then to punish any breach of Priviledge for altho they found not only that the Sheriffs of London deny'd to deliver their Burgess but that the Officers of the Counter beat their Serjeant and broke his Mace yet knowing they had no coactive Power of themselves they were forc'd to repair to the upper House which they wou'd never have done had their own Authority been sufficient and complain to the Lords of the injury they receiv'd who judging the contempt to be very high for the Commons greater satisfaction referr'd the punishment thereof wholly to themselves which condescension it seems gave such encouragement to that House in succeeding Parliaments who have been always sure never to loose but still to gain ground upon the Prerogative and the House of Peers that now and then they made bold even without any Warrant or direction from the Lords to punish some breaches of Priviledge and at last other misdemeanors For King Edward the sixth because of his Minority and his two Sisters by reason of their Sex being not so active nor so fit for business as their Predecessors the Commons took hold on this opportunity to get themselves into Power and endeavour'd by punishing Offenders to render themselves the more formidable to the People From hence they proceeded to regulate Elections and tho the Law is very plain and positive in this Case also yet the Commons have taken upon them of late days not only to decide who is duely chosen and who unduly return'd but have further assum'd the Power to punish the Offenders contrary to divers Acts of Parliament in that Case provided For by several Statutes it appears That if the Sheriff makes an undue Return his punishment is 200 l. one to the King and the other to the party duely Elected besides a years Imprisonment without Bail or Mainprise And the person unduely return'd is to continue a Member of the House but at his own Charges without any allowance from the place for which he serves As for the return if any makes complaint thereof It ought to be tryed not by a Committee of Elections but before the Justices of Assizes in the proper County or by Action of Debt in any Court of Record as appears 11 H.