Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	die_v	king_n	year_n	11,611	5	4.9248	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91210	The Levellers levelled to the very ground. Wherein this dangerous seditious opinion and design of some of them; that it is necessary, decent, and expedient, now to reduce the House of Peeres, and bring down the Lords into the Commons House, to sit and vote together with them, as one House. And the false absurd, grounds whereon they build this paradox, are briefly examined, refuted, and laid in the dust. / By William Prynne, Esquire.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1648 (1648)	Wing P4001; Thomason E428_7; ESTC R20341	22,072	30

to the Commons Sixthly admit the Houses might without any inevitable mischiefes and contradictions be modeled and united into one yet to bring downe the Lords into the Commons House to sit and Vote like Commons with them is no wayes tollerable or to be thought on but with indignation for these reasons First because the whole Commons House it selfe when they present their Speaker to the King and Lords which will be abolished by this union or when any Bills are to be passed by the Royall Assent upon the k Cook 4 Inst p. 28. 33 H. 8. c. 21. 3 Jac. c. 1. beginning and ending of every Parliament and upon some other speciall occasions have alwayes used to goe up and wait upon the House of Lords in person yea to stand bare at their Barre and to send their Members in person * See 5. R. 2. n. 16. up to the Lords upon any Message Cōference or other occasion but never did the whole House of Peeres in any age come downe in person to the Commons House or any Peeres of late bring Messages to them but onely send them by some Assistants as Judges Masters of Chancery c. Therefore now to talk of bringing down the House of Peeres to sit with the Commons in their House all one as to reduce a Noble mans Dining-roome to his Hall or Kitchin and levell the roofe and upper roomes of a house with the lowermost floore is such a dishonour and affront to the Lords that none but degenerate and ignoble spirits can so much as heare or think of it with patience nor no Peere resent it but with just scorne and contempt and rather dye then consent unto it without whose consents it cannot be done without both Houses ruine And to bring up the House of Commons to sit and Vote joyntly with the Peeres would be to advance the Cōmons above their degree not level the Lords to make some men Lords before they are Gentlemen every Commoner no lesse then a Lord which would too much puffe and bladder them with pride and make them slight those whom they represent who being but Commoners cannot be represented by Peeres or any sitting and Voting in the House of Peeres by the true fundamental Law and Custome of Parliaments as Sir l Instit 4. p. 8 46 47. Edward Cooke resolves Secondly if the Lords should bee brought downe into the Commons House which is much like the reducing of the head and shoulders of the naturall body into the belly or legges which would make a Monster and destroy the man there would be no roome for them their Officers and Assistants unlesse enlarged and metamorphosed into another forme Thirdly If the Lords must bee brought downe into the Commons House then the * See Cook 4. Inst p. 14 15. King and Prince as well as they or else they must be totally excluded the Parliament or sit alone by themselves in the House of Lords without any Lords to attend them An indignity which no King or Prince can brooke and no modest Commoner seriously thinke of but with detestation nor Lord nor King consent to but by force and violence and without their voluntary consents it will not be valid but destructive Seventhly The false pretext for it of expediting Bills Ordinances and Votes is an absurd and ignorant fancie of over-hasty spirits who would act all things in a hurry without good deliberation For first nothing ought to bee done in Parliament but upon full and mature debate and deliberation of all the circumstances and probable consequences of it in future time a thing now seldome considered Diu deliberandum quod semel statuendum Festina lente are safe rules in Parliament especially in passing publike Acts and Ordinances in making Warre or Peace or any Nationall Leagues and Agreements Secondly Hasty Dogges bring forth blinde Whelpes and hasty Votes over sudden Councels and Motions lame blinde contradictory unjust and inconsiderate Orders Ordinances Acts which must either be corrected supplyed or repealed by Additionals of which we have had too many experiments since this Parliament which in many Votes Ordinances Orders and Impeachments hath made more haste then good speed and Voted sometimes both absurdities and impossibilities witnesse the Commons Votes for the Tryall of Mac-Guire and Mac-Mohun in the Kings-Bench the very first day of the Terme before any Indictment drawne found or any Jury summoned to finde it for the Tryall of Judge Jenkins in the Kings-Bench by a short day for Treason aleaged to be committed in Wales before any Indictment found in the Country or removed into Court and the like which I only mention to satisfie and answer the Objectors nor to defame the House or Houses whose Honours and Reputations have beene much blemished through the inconsiderate rashnesse of some ignorant Members who poasted on such Votes and Impeachments Thirdly this dividng the Houses will breed infinite disorder and confusion * 4. Instit q. 2. not expedition in their proceedings as the premises manifest and destroy their very formes and method upon which ground Sir * Witnesse Dr Levtons Dr. Bastwicks Mr Burtons my own Mr. Walkers Mr. Foxleys the Chesterwars and many others about Ship-money and other grievances Edward Cooke writes they were first divided Fourthly it will be a great retarding and obstruction to publike Justice especially in Writs of Errour and all such things which the Lords may dispatch or judge without the Commons House where many hundreds of Petitions and businesses heard and Voted above seven yeeres since doe yet stick without report or transmission to the Lords to the great dishonour and scandall of their proceedings and speedy justice which had been dispatched and ended many years past had they first petitioned to the Lords for redresse So as the Lords House is clearly no cause of delay but the Commons rather through their long debates or want of method which debates would bee increased and lengthned by adding of the Lords unto them who can now debate and determine things apart and resolve two or three things or more whiles the Commons are debating one And therefore if delay be the onely cause of reducing the Lords House to the Commons the Commons certainly are rather to be reduced then the Lords and may bee better spared of the two even by k His letter to a friend his letters to Henry Martyn and Cromwel Innocency and Truth justified Englands Birth-right the late Petition of many free-born people of England Lilburnes and his Confederates Libells and Petitions their delayes being not a quarter to one so many nor one quarter so long as the Commons as themselves must and do acknowledge Eightly this whole design is a direct breach of the solemn League and Covenant a subversion of the Law and Custome of Parliaments a device to destroy both Houses under pretext of reducing them into one an engine to dissolve this present and all future Parliaments to alter the fundamentall Lawes and

the House of Peers or their negative voyce is as great nonsence and frenzy as to argue that all the Lords and Commons ought presently to be sent to Bedlam because one of our Parliaments was stiled Insanum Parliamen●um The mad Parliament and they may possibly prove now as mad as the Parliamēt was then reputed as they will do in good earnest if they should go about to levell the Lords and detrude them to the Commons house as these mad Sectaries and Levellers would perswade them Fiftly neither of these Writers were good Lawyers Historians or Antiquaries versed in Parliament Records for first our o 22 E. 3. 3. b. ● H. 7. 14. 11 H 7. 27 B● Parl. 107. Plowdens Cou●t 79. Crompton's Jurisdiction f. 8. Fortescue c. 18 f. 20. 4 H. 7. 6. ● Dy 92. Bro. 134 39 E. 3. 7. Law-books are expresse in point That no Law nor Act of Parliament can be made by the King and Commons without the Lords concurrent assent no more then by the King and Lords without the Commons And Sir Edward Cook the greatest Lawyer in this latter age is positive in his 4. Inst. c. 1. where he writes particularly of Parliaments f. 25. There is NO ACT OF PARLIAMENT BVT MVST HAVE CONSENT OF THE LORDS the Commons and royall assent of the King as appeareth by RECORDS AND OVR LAW-BOOKS Therefore this fancy of theirs that the King and Commons may make Laws without the Lords is a cleer mistake even in point of Law which the very form and penning of all our Statutes Be it enacted by the King c. THE LORDS SPIRITVALL AND TEMPORALL and Commons in this present Parliament assemblea and the like refutes Secondly all our Historians and Antiquaries concur herein That there can be no Parliament nor ever was in any age since Parliaments were in England held by the King and Commons alone without the Lords there being no such Parliament ever heard or read of neither do these Authors instance in any one President therefore this ground of their opinion That in times past our Kings kept their Parliaments when before there were any B●shops or temporall Lords is a meer groundlesse assertion contradicted by all our Antiquaries and Historians which alwayes make mention of Archbishops Bishops Abbots Dukes Princes Earls Lords and Barons in our ancientest Parliaments but * See Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour part 2. c. 5. Spelmanni Concil Tom. 1. Truth triumphing over falshood p 50 to 70. The grand Inquest p. 8 to 16. no mention at all of any Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses Thirdly all our Parliament Rolls contradict this fancy that there can be no Act nor Ordinance of Parliament without the Lords consent as well as the Commons as is evident by the penning of all our printed Acts and by 6 Edw. 3. Rot. Parl. n. 5. 17 E. 3. n. 59 60. 43 E. 3. n. 3 10. 14 R. 2. n. 14 15. 13 H. 4. n. 25. with many more yea the Lords presence in Parliament hath at all times be●n so absolutely necessary and expedient that our Parliaments from time to time have been adjourned from the day that they were first appointed to sit till some few days after upon this very reason That ALL THE LORDS by reason of the foul weather shortnesse of summons or some other occasion were not yet come up to the Parliament OR SOME OF THE LORDS NOT COME and the Declaration of the causes of calling the Parliament by the Lord Chancellour or chief Justice and all Parliamentary businesse deferred till their comming as well as because some of the Knights and Burgesses were not come nor all the Writs for their elections returned upon which reason and the absence of some Lords the first day of the Parliaments sitting hath been oft adjourned as the Parliament Rolls of 6 E. 3. nu 1. 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 5 6 8 9. 13 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 4. 15 E. 3. n. 5. 17 E. 3. n. 2. 6. 18 E. 3. n. 1 2 5. 20 E. 3. n. 5. 21 E. 3. n. 4. 22 E. 3. n. 1. 25 E. 3. n. 1. 29 E. 3. n. 4. 36 E. 3. n. 1. 37 E. 3. n. 1. 42 E. 3. n. 1. 50 E. 3. n. 1. 51 E. 3. n. 3. 1 R. 2. n. 1 2 R. 2. n. 1. 3 R. 2. n. 1. 4 R. 2. n. 1. 5 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 1. Parl. 2. n. 1. 6 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 1. Parl. 2. n. 1. abundantly * And 8 H. 4. n. 28 30 54. ● H. 4. n. 1. 1 H. 4. n. 1. manifest it being the custome of all former Parliaments to Debate Vote and determine nothing but in FVLL PARLIAMENT when all or the most part of the Members of both Houses were present and not in a thin or empty House when above half or three parts were absent an innovation of dangerous consequence brought in of later times and fit to be redressed for which some Parliaments and Parliamentary proceedings have been p See 31 F. ● n. 16. 1 H 4. Rot. Parl. 22 25 66. 39 H. 6. c. 1. Statutes of Ireland 10 H 7. c. 23. 21 R. 2. c. 12. 31 H 6 c. 1. 17 E. 4. c. 7. repealed and judged voyd by Parliament especially when accompanied with any armed forces and violence over-awing the Houses or their Members to prevent which in former ages by the q Cook 4 Inst p. 14 2 E. 3. c. 3. ancient law and custome of Parliament a Proclamation usually was and ought to be made at Westminster in the beginning of every Parliament THAT NO MAN VPON PAIN TO LOSE ALL THAT HE HAD SHOVLD DVRING THE PARLIAMENT in London or Westminster or the Suburbs c. wear any privy coat of Plate OR GOE ARMED or use any Games Playes Justs and other pastimes or shewing Shewes during the Parliament The reason whereof was That the high Court of Parliament should not thereby be disturbed nor the Members thereof which are TO ATTEND the arduous and urgent businesse of the Church and Common-wealth be thereby WITHDRAWN OR FORCED AWAY as is apparent by 5 E. 3. nu 5. 6 E. 3. nu 2 3. 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 2. 6 E. 3. Parl. 4. n. 4 5. 13 E. 3. n. 1. 14 E. 3. n. 1. 14 E. 3. Parl. 21. n. 2. 15 E. 3. n. 2. 17 E. 3. n. 3. 20 E. 3. n. 1. 24 E. 3. n. 1. 25 E. 3. n. 5 8. Stat. 2. n. 4. A law and custome now fit to be revived Fourthly the very Writs of Summons for the Lords and of election of Knights Citizens and Burgesses refutes this grosse mistake requiring them all to appear personally in Parliament on such a day at such a place and there to treat of the great and urgent affairs of the Realm not onely with the King himself but cum Praelatis MAGNATIBUS ET PROCERIBUS dicti Regni nostri with the Prelates Noblemen and Lords of our said Realm And therefore to dream of

Estates in Parliament as now they oft times do on the first and last day of the Parliament at conferences passing Bills and upon other occasions not of their sitting and voting together For my part I conceive the division of the Houses farre more ancient for this reason because our historians writing of our ancientest Parliaments as well before as after the Conquest do many times make mention only of our f See Spelman Concil T●m 1. Seldens titles of honour par● 2 c. 5. Kings Archbishops Bishops Earles and Barons present in them not of any Elders of the people Senators Knights or Commons to represent the people which at other times they speak of as present in our Parliaments Truth triumphing over falshood p. 56. c. and Councells occasioned only as I conceive by the distinction of their sitting places and debates unlesse it be granted that many of our ancient Parliaments were held without Commons Knights and Burgesses as some affirm but never without Peers Lords which would much invalid the Commons authority and that supream jurisdiction of theirs which the Levellers now plead for But admit they sat together in one roome in Edward the third his reigne yet it is cleart o me their debates votes judgement were long before distinct as now they are by that memorable passage in Stephanides transcribed out of him by g Titles of Honour part 2. Chap. 5. p. 705. 706 Master Selden concerning the jugdment given in Parliament at Northampton against Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh yeare of King Henry the second Anno Domini 1165. Where the Bishops Earles and all the Barons of England resolving upon the Kings motion there that Becket refusing to appeare in Parliament upon summons to answer the complaint against him being neither hindered by sicknesse nor sending any reasonable excuse for his not appearing should forseit all his moveable goods and be at the Kings mercy thereupon there arose a difference between the Bishops and Barons which of them should pronounce the judgement the Barons alleadged that the Bishops ought to pronounce it because he was a Bishop and they but Lay-men the Bishops Ecclesiasticall persons and his fellow Priests and Bishops To which one of the Bishops answered it belonged to the Barons and not to them because it was no Ecclesiasticall but Secular judgement that they sat there as * See Petrus Blesensis De Inst●t Episcopi B●bl Patrum Tom. 12. pors 2. p. 447. Barons not as Bishops you are Barons and we are Barons here we are Peeres But you insist in vain upon the reason of our Order for if you regard in us our Ordination you ought likewise to consider the same in him Now in this that we are Bishops we cannot judge our Archbishop and Lord. The King hearing this controversie about pronouncing the judgement was moved thereupon this controversie ceased and the Bishop of Winchester then Henry de Bloys being at last enjoyned to give the judgement pronounced it against his will There being no mention speech or inter locution of the Commons in this whole Parliamentary debate or censure but onely of the King Bishops and Barons it makes it more then probable to me that even then the Houses were divided at least that they sat and voted not together but distinctly and if the Commons were present yet it is most cleare the Barons only were the Judges and gave and pronounced the sentence in Parliament even without the Commons Of which more in some other Treatise Thirdly admit the division of the Houses no ancienter then King Edw. the third yet their division being made at first upon good grounds to prevent confusion and delayes and to passe things with more mature advise and deliberation upon double debates and second cogitations and continued constantly ever since upon good grounds without any alteration oropposition And this division of them being ratified and approved by the Law and custome of Parliament The Parl. Rolls and Journalls yea confirmed by sundry * And the Act for Trienniall Parliament made this Parliament Acts of Parliament and among others by 31. H. 8. c. 10. 33. H. 8. c. 21. 3. Jac. c. 1. it can be no way just nor safe nor convenient nor honourable to confound them both together now in the manner propounded yea a cleare dissolving of the Parliament being contrary to the Act for its continuance a breach of the solemn League Covenant and all engagements to obey and defend BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT and a great dishonour to to the Lords who cannot without apparent perjury and ignominy submit thereto without whose full and free consents and the Kings too by speciall act of Parliament it is no wayes feasible if by it Fourthly it will introduce a world of contradictions confusions absurdities and inconveniences as these particulars evidēce First both these houses as they are now divided have and alwayes since their divisions have had their severall distinct Speakers and one chief cause of the division as h Instit 4. p 2. Sir Edward Cook conceives was the Commons chusing of a continuall Speaker If then you will unite both Houses into one you must have either these two Speakers in that one house which would breed confusion and disturbance and be like two heads upon one mans neck Or but one both for Lords Cōmons who then cannot debate nor Vote distinctly but joyntly with the Commons If but one then which of the two shall be the man Not the Commons Speaker because they had no Speaker at all before the Houses were divided so can claim none when reunited And the Lords Speaker being of greatest antiquity Dignity and Superiour to the Cōmons in place and degree ought of right to be preferred and enjoy the Speakers place upon the reducement And how a Peere who is not * Cook 4. In●stit p. 8. 46. 47 elected either a Member or Speaker by the Commons can by the Law of the Land or custome of Parliament be Speaker of and for the Commons as their mouth and representative or a meere Commoner a Speaker to the Lords to represent them transcends my Law and skill and wil require 7 yeares time to settle and resolve Secondly if the Houses be united then how and where shall the Lords and their assistants sit and how and where the Cōmons If all promiscuously this would unlord unpeere them and make the meanest Commoner their equall If distinct then why not in distinct Houses still as well as Classes and Seats Or shall the Lords sit covered and the Commons sit bare as now they doat meetings and conferences of both Houses This would be but ill Physick for the Commons this winter season and too great a penance to such of them who have crazy heads and weak legges to stand bare so long and some of their spirits especially those who are the Levellers best friends I doubt are so high they would hardly brook such a

23. the Commons required that some five or six of the Lords might be appointed to come and discourse with them THE LORDS DENIED THAT saying The same was the guise of two or three Parliaments before But the use was That the Lords should among themselves choose a certain number and the Commons the like and that they should confer together which they would do for if the Commons would not dissever themselves neither would they the Lords To the which order the Commons agreed And 4 H. 4. n. 10. The Commons desiring the King that certain speciall Lords might be assigned to treat with them about affairs for the common benefit of the Realm It was condescended unto with this protestation specially entred by the Kings command that it ought not to be done of right OR CUSTOME BUT ONELY OUT OF THE KINGS SPECIALL GRACE which the Commons then acknowledged A pregnant evidence both of their distinct Houses and consultations except onely at private Committees and Conferences Yea the Commons had anciently such an high esteem of the Lords fidelity wisdom abilities councel and experience that in 15 E. 3. n. 17. The Commons pray that unto the Wednesday then next ensuing the Articles they then presented to the King might be committed to certain Earls Barons Bishops and other WISE MEN there named by them TO BE AMENDED which t●●e King granted And in 13 E. 3. Parl. 1. n. 11. 21 E. 3. n. 5. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 19 20. 17 R. 2. n. 17. and sundry other Rolls The Commons professe THEIR INABILITY AND INSUFFICIENCY TO ADVISE THE KING in some MATTERS OF PEACE WARRE and safeguard of the Seas for that THEY PASSED THEIR CAPACITY AND UNDERSTOOD NOT THE TERMS OF THE CIVILL LAW and some words in Truces and therefore WHOLLY REFERRED THEMSELVES in these things to THE KING AND THE LORDS AND THE KINGS COUNSELL to do therein as they should seem meet being men of greater wisdom and experience in State-affairs of this nature then themselves in which they had little or no insight And in 2 H. 4. n. 11. The whole house of Commons claim and the King grants and confirms and in 9 H. 4. n. 21. entituled The indempnity of the Lords and Commons The Lords and Commons seriously claim this as a speciall ancient priviledge belonging to both the Houses to sit and debate upon things in Parliament severally by themselves in their distinct Houses in the Kings absence whose presence might over-awe them and hinder their free debates which they both claimed and the king confirmed to them IN ALL TIMES TO COME and that no report should be made to the King of any debate vote or ayde granted till the Lords and Commons be all agreed and that by THE SPEAKERS MOUTHES Which ancient priviledge so long since claimed granted confirmed and enjoyed ever since not onely proves the ancient distinction of both houses but utterly subverts the Levellers project who would strip both Houses at once of this great priviledge which the Commons deemed their greatest immunity seeing they durst speak their mindes and vote more freely among themselves then in the presence of the King and Lords for fear of incurring their displeasures by reducing both houses into one The serious consideration whereof and of the premises will I trust for ever take them off from their dangerous absurd designe of Levelling and reducing the Lords House to the Commons and lay the ignorant illiterate prosecutors of it levell with the dust the rather because the King and Lords in Parliament have not onely joyntly and severally judged Commoners themselves in Parliament for such Treasons other misdemeanours as are properly triable in Parliament not at the common Law as is evident by r 4 E. 3. n. 3 to 8. 21 E. 3. n. 65 50 E. 3. n. 15 to 38. 1 R 2. n 35 to 44 4 R 2. n. 17 to 25 7 R. 2. n. 15 to 26. c. infinite Presidents but even Knights of the Shire and other Members of the Commons House it self in point of misdemeanours undue Elections and priviledges of Parliament as is apparēt by 16 R. 2. n. 6 13 14. Sr Phillip Courtney's case returned one of the Knights for the County of Devon 17 R. 2. n. 23. Roger de Swinerton's case 5 ● 4. n. 38. Thomas Thorp his case elected knight for the County of Rotland whose election was heard examined and adjudged by the Lords in Parliament to be good at the Commons request and 31 H. 6. n. 25 to 30. Baron Thorp's case Speaker of the Commons house whose priviledge was solemnly debated before and adjudged against him by the Lords in Parliament who therupon by the King's direction commanded the Commons to choose and present a new Speaker which they accordingly did the next day Yea the whole House of Commons in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. Remonstrated to the King and voluntarily confessed That THE JUDGMENTS IN PARLIAMENT APPERTAIN ONELY TO THE KING AND TO THE LORDS and NOT UNTO THE COMMONS and that THE KING AND LORDS EVER HAD IN ALL TIMES AND SHALL HAVE OF RIGHT THE JUDGEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT And the King then declared to the Commons that this Order shall be observed and kept IN ALL TIMES TO COME and that in cases of Commoners and Members of the Commons house it self as well as of Peers as is cleer by Thorp's case forecited and by 5 H. 4. n. 71 78. the printed Statute of 5 H. 4. c. 6. Richard Chedders case and 4 H. 8. c. 8. Richard Strode his case Burgesse for Plimton in the County of Devon where the King and Lords at the Prayer and Petition of the Commons provide remedies against the breaches of the priviledges of the Commons themselves and their servants which themselves alone had no sufficient power r● right and determine the power of judicature being not in them but in the King Lords and houses of Peers alone who long before the Conquest had the power of Judicature as is evident by Brampton and Master * Titles of Honour part 2. c. 5. sect 6. Selden in the case of Earl Goodwin in a Parliament held in the yeer 1052. wherein Edward the Confessor appealed to THE EARLS AND BARONS against this Earl for the murther of his Brother Alfred in these words Domini COMITES BARONES terrae c. Volo quod inter Nos in ista appellatione RECTUM JUDICIUM DECERNETIS DEBITAM JUSTITIAM FACIATIS And therfore it is the very extremity of injustice to deny them this their ancient Heredetary right and priviledge now and transfer it to the Commons house who never enjoyed it in any former Age and can make no right nor lawfull claim unto it at this present FINIS Errata Page 3. line 1. H. 7. read H. 4.