Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	duke_n	king_n	send_v	11,139	5	6.1665	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55894	A seasonable question, and an usefull answer, contained in an exchange of a letter between a Parliament-man in Cornwell, and a bencher of the Temple, London	Parliament-man in Cornwall.; H. P., Bencher of the Temple.	1676 (1676)	Wing P35; ESTC R5471	14,823	24

the Rolls relates to the Jurisdicttive power of parliaments which is often very necessary as well as the legislative It enacts That a Parliament be yearly holden to redress delayes in suites and to end such cases as the Judges doubt the 5. of Ed. 2. n. 9 and 13. and the 2. R. 1. 2. n. 73. and in the 50. Ed. 3. n. 177. In the parliament called the good Parliament the same thing was enacted and confirmed and in the opening the parliament in the 2. Ric. 2. n. 4. the Lord Chancellor in shewing the causes of calling that parliament gives for the second reason of it That it vvas enasted that a Parliament should be yearly holden And the message sent from the parliament to the King in the 9. Ric. 2. by the Duke of Gloster tells that King That one old statute and laudable custom is approved vvhich no man can deny that the King once in a year do summon his high Court of parliament there to consult vvith the vvise men and so you may read in Grafton Page 3. 48. It seems the course of holding yearly parliaments then passed not only for statute law wherein that Kings Ancestors had joyned with his kingdom to ordain it but as the most undoubted Custom of England that is the Common law de-declared in and by the statutes they clayming it as their most unquestionable inheritance being the only Root of all their Liberties and Properties and the only pollitick meanes of their defence and safeguard and no doubt our Ancestors had reason sufficient to claime their yearly parliaments as the custom or common law of England seeing no Antiquary nor record can shew the original of that usuage having its beginning with the Government it self Certain times for Parliament meeting are in truth of the essence of the English government Parliaments were the first appointers or creators of all other Offices Jurisdictions Powers and Prerogatives in the Government Don Wallo writing of the Brittish lawes tells us of Parliaments annuall or oftner amongst them above 400 years before Christ. And the Mirror of Justice tells us that king Alfred ordained it for a perpetuall usuage That tvvice in the year or oftner they should assemble at London to treat in Parliament of the Government of the People So it was in the Saxon's time and continued in the Normans being admitted by Duke William called the Conquerour as the Custom of England as appears by that antient Treatise called Modus antiquus tenendo Parliamenti And after great contest between the king of that Race and the people it was setled by Statutes often renewed That Parliaments should be yearly as the Statutes shew Upon the whole I think it beyond dispute that by the Laws and Statutes of our Realm a Parliament ought to be holden every year And surely it is as certain that the last prorogation beyond a year being persisted in by the king till the year is past over did prevent and defeat the execution of those Laws and is in direct opposition to them The sence of what the Lord Chancellor said to prorogue the parliament was a plain contradiction to these laws He tells them It vvas his Majesties Will that there should be no Parliament holden for one vvhole year and some months next follovving Then the question will be if it be any Whether the king's Will and Word in the Lavv or his Word in the Lord Chancelor's mouth is most potent The whole Kingdom in Parliament and all the Books of the Law have alwayes judged the Law to be the kings Superiour to judge of the validity of all his Grants Orders Commissions Patents under Great and Little Seal and every Court in Westminster-Hall have always thought its Authority sufficient to Judge His Grants under Seal or any thing he hath done void if they did not agree with the Law 'T is a Civility and honour that our Laws pay to the king that they will not suppose him to will any thing otherwise than as the Laws direct or allow him and thence it was received as a Maxim That the King can do no vvrong Indeed all he does contrary to Law is doing nothing 't is to be holden for nothing by Magna Charta it self therefore if the last Prorogation do not agree with the Laws it is a meer Nullity It is worth your remembring that in the 38 Chap. of the Great Charter it is ordained That no King should devise or invent any thing to infringe or vveaken the Liberties and Lavvs And if either King or Subject should seek out any thing against them it should be of no value and holden for nought If the Prorogation were a device or trick sought out to weaken the Laws for holding Parliaments every year 't is judged to be nought or no Prorogation by 30 or 40 Parliaments which have confirmed and re-enacted the same Charter But I ought to acquaint you that there are great endeavours to support the Prorogation some alledging with noise enough That many Kings have intermitted Parliaments not only for more than a year but for many years But these seem not to understand the Question which is of the validity in Law of what the king hath done to the Parliament 'T is not now enquired what Remedies there are if Kings shall leave undone what the Law and their Trust require in calling parliaments all the positive exercises of power by the king may and ought to be judicially sentenced and approved for good if agreeable to the Laws or holden for none if they be contrary to the Law And this hath been the un-interrupted usuage of England in all Ages They have sentenced all his Charters Grants yea his very Pardons that seem to come so singly from his Soveraign power or prerorogative and the Prorogation ought upon the same reason to be tried by the Law and judged void if so it be by the Rules of the Law But the kings omission to put the Laws in execution in calling Parliaments at the times limitted by the Statutes or in appointing sufficient Guards for the Seas or in issuing out Commissions to the Judges or any the like These I say cannot be brought into Question Judicially there being no possible relief for the People in such cases but by supplimentary laws to be made in Parliament in case of such Omissions as was done by the parliament 1641. 'T is well for the People that the law hath provided that whatever the king shall do contrary to law shall go for nought though they suffer by his neglect their right and laws remain to them and such Omissions of the king as are before mentioned have alwayes been esteemed by Parliaments and People Failers or breaches of the kings high and sacred trust and 't is a pittiful Argument to prove that the kings might of right or by the laws omit to do what the law hath trusted to their care because they have sometimes broke their Trust. His late Majesty in his Declaration of the 12 of

dispence with the certain appointed sitting of this Judicature he can lawfully say the wrongs that I and my great Ministers too bigg for other Courts shall do to the people shall never be heard or Judged but at my will their complaints shall not be admitted once in 50. years nor till domes day unless I please If our men of the Robe will maintain such a dispensing Power in the king with the statutes in question they must say that the king may by law prevent and defeat the last results of Justice and null the highest Court of Judicature founded on the common law and let them tell me why he may not by the same right and reason despence with the lawes whereby all the inferior Courts of Judicature now fits or adnull the Courts themselves and throw all things into a confused Chaos where the strongest shall injoy every thing Upon these Premises I may dare to conclude That the laws for holding a Parliament every year stand firm and immutable untill an undobted parliament shall repeale them by some express words and that the prorogation can never be reconciled to those lawes or be helped by any power of the kings to despence with them but must be Judged inconsistent with the lawes that are of the essence of our government having actually defeated the execution of them and therefore ought to be holden for nothing and the day appointed for your meeting to be no day for that purpose in the sence of our law Supposing then that I having hitherto rightly concluded the question will be Whether the kings dismission of the parliament without any day set for their return and their continuing so beyond the year be a dissolution Ill tell you Sir the method of my thoughts upon this Question that I might not be couzened with words nor intangled in trifling disputes about them I first consider whether dissolving a Parliament were a term of art in our law and ought to have some peculir sence gained by the use of it in the law But finding it used only in its vuilgar sence I perceived it signified to break off or put an end to a Parliament and all their business and authority so that a dissolution may be made without the king or Lord Chancellors saying you are hereby dissolved The force of the law or custom of England may put an end to a Parliament Of old the finishing the business of the people for which they were called did dissolve them See the ancient Modus tenendi Parliamt The custom was that when all the petitions for relief against grievances were dispacthed proclamation was made demanding if any petition were yet unanswered and if there was none the parliament forth with departed this was the naturall death or dissolution of a parliament but if the king did command the Lords and Commons to depart before they had suffitiently consulted about the state and defence of the king and Kingdom and set up-day for their return that was the voilent death of a Parliament and I doubt a violence to the kings conscience But it was usuall for the kings to dissolve Parliaments either by leave or command given them to depart fixing no day for their return so testify the Antient Rolls of the 37. Ed. 3. n. 38. and 38. Ed. 3. n. 31. 40 Ed. 3. n. 16. 45. Ed. 3. n. 13. 50. t is by force of law that the writ of sumons to Parliament abates or becomes void by the kings naturall death and the Parliament is thereby dissolved Upon the same reason a failer of some circumstance as the naming such a time as the law allowes to which it is adjourned the holding and continuing a parliament if Judged necessary by the law for preserving both the form and substance of the Government I say such a fayler in time onely may by Act of law dissolve a parliament even against the will of the king and if such a failer happens if the king should step out of the form of the law to revive a parliament it would alter the whole Government by owning a power in the king to vest in such as he please the legislative power out of the form of the law In making a parliament the king hath his power from the law to summons and the form wherein only he can exert that power And the Elected have their power from the people by the writ of the law what to do and consent to on their behalf at the time and place then mentioned as the writ says tunc jbidem and these powers must by the law be strictly and punctually persued and nothing less than an Act of parliament can help any defect or failer in persuance of these powers if the Parliament then meet as the law requires if they fayl to be continued in the form of the law then by the Act of law they are dissolved not being able to create to them selves a day or time which will not agree with the returnes to the writ of summons by which their Masters impowred them to consent on their behalf Neither is this a nicety or quirk in law but a form essentialy necessary to preserve our liberties If the representatives trusted for the people to do and consent for them at the time and place mentioned in the lawfull writ after a fayler of continving their trust as the law directs pceede to Act as a parliament they must do it without any appointment or power given them from the people in any form of law and in the appearance and Judgment of the law without any Authoritie and if they might do it after fayler of a legall continuance one year they may do it after 20 years and because they were once commissioned by the people to represent them in one parliament they should therefore make themselves Lords of the people and of their Laws Lives and Liberties for ever and admit whom they please as some have done heretofore into their society and if it should be admitted that any number of men might exercise a share of the legislative power without evidence in law upon record that they were thereunto first sufficiently authorized and therein legally continued it would give a fatall stroak to the Antient English government and all its lawes and liberties Sir from these principles I tell you freely my opinion That the parliament is dissolved having been dismissed or commanded to depart without a day to return within the time that the Laws require a Parliament to be holden and that time also lapsed since their dismission I think it not material in the case what words the Lord Chancellor said when he dismissed them If he said you are prorogued or you are dismissed or you are sent home or you must be gon 't is all one I mind what was really done you were in substance and sence of the words commanded to dissolve your Assembly and you were told that all the business before you was at an end as if it had not