Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	law_n	word_n	11,415	5	4.4659	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62890	The rebels plea, or, Mr. Baxters judgment concerning the late wars in these particulars : viz. the originall of government, coordinate and legislative power in the two Houses, third estate, force upon the Houses in 1642, principles the Houses went by at the beginning, destructive to monarchy, covenant, reasons for submitting to the late government.	Tomkins, Thomas, 1637?-1675.	1660 (1660)	Wing T1838; ESTC R32811	35,816	50

For as much as divers complaints have been made to our Soveraign Lord the King by the Commons in this present Parliament Our Soveraign Lord the King hath ordained This will certainly shew the Legislative power to have been solely in the Kings Majesty in those dayes and therefore discovers the foolery to say no worse of those who upon that head assert a partition of that important piece of Soveraignty between him and the two Houses Be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament or Lords and Commons began in H. 7. time but that that variation of phrase should make such a considerable alteration of Government and no notice taken either by the King that parted or the people who received by it so large as is pretended a share in the Government is not easily imaginable Sure their apprehensions were very small of it the notice they took of it being so little We finde after that not to insist upon each act or reign which would be tedious and he that doubts may consult the Books Anno 1. Eliz. The Lords and Commons her majesties humble and faithfull Subjects most humbly beseeching that it may be Enacted c. And in the Act of Uniformity among others it is Be it Enacted by the Queens Highnesse with the assent of the Lords and Commons c. to which those words likewise inserted in some places of that Act by authority of this present Parliament cannot be thought without great imputation of folly to those members to be repugnant and the straining of those words is all that he can rely on I might here urge the old form Anno. 13. Eliz. Be it Enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty with the Assent c. among many others I will onely cite one of 4. Jac cap. 1. Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty with the Assent of c. Now to speak of the fundamentall partitian of the Soveraignty in the very constititon of the Government and to make it out by a phrase newly taken up and to take no notice of the old forms The King Grants the King Wils the King provides argues one very desirous to say some thing in a bad matter but when this form is it self varied and in many Acts both are used sure the latter was never intended to evacuate the former and it is very unlikely so great a change of the Legislative power would passe without any notice either of King or People it deserved at least one Act or Parliament to have transmitted it to posterity when alas we finde even in King Charls his dayes an Act framed according to the old regular way in the Petition of Right even there when we were not sure giving away nor unmindfull of our liberties To the Kings most excellent Majesty in which the Lords and Commons do humbly pray that no such thing as they Complained of c. To which the answer was Soi● droit come est desire The Laws are alwayes called the Kings laws but very improperly if this new doctrine be true I conclude all with the words of Bracton an Author the Antimonarchical party make much use of Quod Principi placuit i. e. non quicquid est à Rege temere ex animi perturbati impetu quodam aestu praesumptum sed quicquid ex Magnatum suorum consilio REGIO Assensu Authortatem praestante habitâ super hoc deliberatione tractatu recti fuerit definitum legis habet vigorem What the reason and the effect of their assent is is not hard now to judge men have been so often taught to say that because they must assent to the making of Laws they have a part of the Legislative power in them and will call it non-sense and absurd to think otherwise I will cite Grotius cap. 3. de jure belli Sect. 18. and I the rather cite him because living in a Popular State he naturally favoured it so much as in this point especially of sharing in the Government he shewed himself tender of the peoples Rights Multum fal●un●●r qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis nam quae acta in eum modum rescinduntur intelligi debent rescindi regis imperio qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit nèquid fallaciter impetratum pro ver● ipsius voluntate haberetur which is not much different from what we cited out of Bracton The sum of which is this when the assent of the Senate is necessary to any of the Kings Acts it is not that they share in the doing but that they truly ●nform the K●ng what it is he does He cites the example of Antiochus who wrote as our Kings use Nè sibi parerent siquid legibus adversum juss●sset They should not obey him in things contrary to law And Constantine nè pupilli aut viduae those forlorn people should not lose their priviledges etiam si Imperatoris rescriptum proferatur though by order under the Emperors own hand and yet the world took never any for their equals or them for any other then Soveraign Princes The same Author Sect. 1● Non desinere summum esse imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturus est promittat aliqua sui ditis aut Deo etiam talia quae ad imperii rationem pertineant A Soveraign ceases not to be so though he promise his Subjects not to exercise by himself some parts even of the Sover●●gn power Adrian the Emperour swore he neve● would pun●sh a Senato● without the assent of the ●enate which was a greater priviledge then our members can plead yet never any was so fond as to take them lesse for Subjects or him for Soveraign Princes upon the misinformation of corrupt men may doe much to the grievance of the Subjects if they to avoid this inconvenience to the people shall provide so for their security as to promise not to exercise such parts of their power without their advice and assent first in a Common Counsell assembled our old style they shew themselves unworthy of such an Act or grace who will interpret it to the disadvantage nay to the dethroning of him that passed it To apply it to our particular case suppose the King hath graciously promised not to leavy money on his Subjects without their assent first had in Parliament The King now cannot do it the King hath so far restrained the exercise of his power but is by this any power placed in them grant they had it will not reach their purpose The King cannot leavy mony without their assent but is there any law that gives them power to leavy any without his though they may give mony to the King I doubt it will puzzle a good Lawyer to prove they can give the Subjects money to themselves without which I doubt Contribution Excise and those other fine words was but Theft and Robbery That the assent of the two Houses

civilly bitter it allowed him as much ceremonious Royalty as might put him in mind of what he had been About Dec. 1647 for want of something else to do they treat with the King but he must grant foure previous propositions the first and last of which would serve to dethrone him and the other two to affront him which certainly they would never have asked had they not resolved to be denied But great ills cannot be maintained but by acting greater they would not allow the King any power because they feared what they deserved as it is usually seen that they that sin beyond all example think they sin beyond all possibility of forgivenesse so these though they might have had the greatest provision for their safety themselves could imagine so that they needed fear nothing but guilty consciences thought the King and themselves could not both be secure Wherefore on the third of January the Kings refusall tofigne the bills was wholy debated it was strongly urged how the King by denyall of those bills had refused to protect his people viz. by denying to part with the Militia without which it is impossible he should protect them so much as a constable can upon which score their sub●ection was no longer due it was time for them to think how to settle the Nation without him accordingly upon mature deliberation they frantickly resolve upon it and on the seventeenth of January Vote They will never make any addresses more to the King nor receive any message from him May Breviarium Hist. Parl. p. 18. At the beginning of the War it was necessary for them though they did act quite contrary to say they would make the King a great and glorious King and it was not impossible but some fools might beleeve them but that after these Votes passed publ●shed and maintained in a declaration set out to that purpose suitable usage they should dare to this day to professe they alwayes were for the King his Person and Authority is arrogantly monstrous unlesse at the same time they voted away their Princes liberty they thought they could vote away his Peoples reasons too It is true they afterwards recalled those Votes and sent some termes to the King which the necessity of affaires caused him to condiscend to but if it he remembred what previous concessions there were what an odious preface how harsh the Propositions were to the disparagement as well as the undoing of all his friends what fear themselves were then in of their own army will think the King obliged to thank them only when he hath nothing else to do How well the Pretences for the King have been seconded with unfit performances hath been in some measure seene the next enquiry must be about the Peers whether the pulling the sun out of the firmament hath been an effectuall way to make the starrs shine more gloriously The Bishops at the beginning of the Parliament were at the least so many Barons if not the third state and had as undoubted a right to fit there as the law could give to any man or men of this Nation they were a more ancient I add and a more considerable part of the Parliament then the whole house of Commons as having part of the judicative power in them which the other had not yet were they affronted menaced and endangered by tumults which the Lords would have suppressed and the Commons encouraged But of this before The Lords seeing the Commons would not joyne appoint a writ by the advice of the Judges to be directed to the Sheriffs and Justices upon divers statutes which issued accordingly to suppresse and hinder all tumultuous resort in obedience to which the Justices and other ministers appoint the Constables to attend about Westminster to hinder that unlawfull conflux of people which the Commons without any conference with the Lords to know upon what reason or what Law that writ was grounded Vote it a Breach of priviledge and send one of the Justices to the Tower Ex. Col. p. 53● The Bill concerning the Militia a most considerable bill was sent to the King by the house of Commons alone notwithstanding the express refusall of the house of Peers as themselves confesse Ex. Col. p. 59. However they may talk they were for the old constitution of King Lords and Commons it is evident the grandees were for neither full and free but so many of each as would serve their turne After the bill for the Militia had been rejected twice in the house of Peers it was contrary to all law reason Presidents forced upon them again and to fright the Peers into agreement it was said there That whoever would not consent c. was an enemy to the Commonwealth and the same day Mr. Hollis contrary sure to the freedom of Parliaments demanded to know who were against it much to this purpose may be read in Ex. Col. p. 547. 548. What was that ridiculous proposall that the minor part of the Lords might joyn with the Major part of the Commons That threatning Petition that they might protest against the dissenting Lords and that other that the good Lords might sit in the same house with the Commons but devices to aw the Peers What was the unparliamentary course of forcing bills upon the House of Lords after severall times being cast out but a down right telling them they were resolved to take no deniall The House of Commons made an order against an established Law concerning the Common Prayer the Lords made an order for the observance of it which the Commons very mannerly declare against the nineth of September Ex Col p 526. The house of Peers was certainly of very great authority when an Order of theirs in behalf of an established law was not equivalent to one of the lower House in direct opposition to an established law Again The protestation being so early whatever the meaning was the termes in common prudence ought not to be too offensive but presently they perceived that their surest friends the haire-brained Sectaryes would not endure to be bound to observe the Doctrine of the Church of England Whereupon those words in the protestation were explayned by a declaration of the house of Commons onely to be intended onely so sar as it is opposite to Popery The house of Peers taking an Oath to be too sacred to admit of so jugling an interpretation refused to joyn with them in it Presently the house of Commons who would accept of the Peers assent when it might be had and when it could not would act without it so excellent observers were they of the ancient constitution voted it by their sole authority That all people who would not take that Protestation so interpreted unfit to bear any office in the Common-wealth After all these actions I hope a few good words will not acquit them Nor will it signify any thing with intelligent men what is next urged That The Covenant was for King and