Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n edward_n king_n sir_n 22,698 5 5.9318 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A78413 Another word to purpose against The long Parliament revived. By C. C. of Grays-Inne, Esq; Drake, William, Sir. 1660 (1660) Wing C16; Thomason E1053_5; ESTC R207979 10,311 21

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

originally determined else had the Parliament in 1 Edw. 6. cap. 7. little to do to make an Act to salve discontinuances of process by the device of the death of the King but I never heard of an Act to salve the determination of Writs and Commissions or to oblige a succeding King to confirm a Parliament called by his Predecessor so that though perhaps he might confirm them and then consent to an Act of Dissolution yet our Gracious Soveraign knows them too well to call them together again much less to confirm them and then there is no need of an Act of Dissolution they being dissolved of course for want of a King to own them As to what out Author mentions that the coming in of the Secluded Members and their making a pretended Act for Dissolution implyed their opinion that the Parliament had before a being It is far otherwise as the chief of them Mr. Prynne before declared but it was in those furious days to pacifie and to give some seeming satisfaction to such impertinent and unsetled Noddies as our Author who otherwise might have made some disturbance and occasioned some prejudice to the good that was then intended and since accomplished And whereas this bold fellow would p●rswade that the old Members might be recalled what is it but to remove Newgate to Westminster that the King should clap R●bels on the back and incourage Treason that he should not onely commend his Fathers Murder and the destruction of the Church and State but to give them a Knife to kill Him too and to make an end of all Such a seditious piece of Nonsensical vilany was never broached before But whilest I am harsh to the Long Parliament I intend the Rump only and not the Secluded Members some of whom Our Soveraign is pleased to own in this Parliament and elsewhere but for the other I think they are well disposed of being fitter for a Dungeon then a Parliament-House And so I leave them This Impudent Pamphleter is not only content to indeavour to vindicate and revive evil but would oppose and destroy the apparent good of this Nation and would Affront under the Notion of Illegal this happy Parliament that has renowned It self in restoring our King to us and us to our selves And this he indeavours First As to the Lords Secondly As to the Commons As to the Lords First They are not of age Secondly They are not called by Writs As to the Commons First They are not called by ancient Writs Secondly They wanted the Kings presence at their Meeting And all this is said by Sir Edward Coke in his fourth Institutes requisite to a Parliament rightly constitued As to the Lords I agree they ought to be of full age to sit in Parliament and so I presume they are that sit I never heard otherwise by the Author or others Secondly My Lord Coke says that Dukes c. and Barons c. ought to have a Writ of Summons Ex debito justitiae his meaning is That they ought not to be prohibited but ought of common Justice to sit but this denies not but that they may sit without Writ if the King please And therefore take this difference where a Writ is necessary and of substance and where 't is a thing of course only as if one be created Baron for life Intail or in Fee c. by Letters Patents he is presently a Peer of the Realm before he sits in Parliament and his Writ is a thing of Course and may be sued out at any time afte the sitting as well as before But where one holds per Baroniam only whereby he is a Lord by Tenure he must have a Writ and must sit also by virtue of that Writ before he be a Peer and there his Writ is substance and a sine qua non c. This diversity was resolved in Parliament in King James's time in the case of the Lord Abergaveny and is reported by my Lord Coke under his own hand it is now in Print in a book called his Twelfth Report fol. 70. by which the rest of the Books of my Lord Coke viz. his First Second and Fourth Institutes which are not so clear may be the better understood as to this Point Now then if these Lords be so by Patent their Writ is not of substance but supplyed by confirmation if by Tenure and have no Writs 't is more then I hear affirmed by any however it belongs to the rest of that House to inquire of these things As to the Commons First I agree they ought to have VVrits of Election the policy of that is to avoid the peoples meeting and assembling together without the Licence of the King I agree also that the Writs ought to be in the ancient Forms that is to avoid the Kings single alteration of things anciently attending Parliaments without the consent of the people Now as to the first this meeting of the people was with the Kings Consent and Licence witness Sir George Booths Contest by the Kings Order for the same so that there is no prejudice to the King on that side As to the Form of the Writ it was by consent of all and so no prejudice or innovation upon the people on the other side then it follows Consensus tollit Errorem if all parties concerned agree who is to find fault Further a Parliament made up in substance according to the Laws of the Land is a good Parliament though it may be defective in the complement of circumstances witness the Parliament holden at Coventry 6 H. 4. An. 1404. to the calling of which Parliament Writs went out in which Writs was contained that no Lawyer should be chosen which made the Writs victious to abridge the people in their liberty to elect yet there were some Acts made at the Parliament which continued in force which proves that Circumstances which are of right to be observed are not fatal to Parliament proceedings though omitted And under this head also comes that of the Kings personal or representative presence in the being of a Parliament But further without doubt the Kings consent to the Act for that purpose has made all whole and has made that Parliament from the beginning of their first meeting though till that time they were not a legal Parliament such Energy and strong relation has oftentimes the Acts of a King like this case Lords and Commons make an Ordinance which naturaily can continue but during their sitting then the King dissolves them the Ordinance thereby is become of no force yet if after the dissolution of the Parliament the King grants his Royal assent it s now become revived and an Act such an influence has the Royal assent upon Parliament-proceedings and according to this it s adjudged in 29 Edw. 3. 4. b 39 Edw. 3. 7. This I take to be a stronger case that the Act of the King should revive that which was dead that it should make good that which was absolutely void and that in point of substance then that it should confirm that which was but voidable at most and that in a point of circumstance onely Besides the legality of a Parliament is not to be disputed by subjects if the King assents to it it s to be tryed onely by it self or a succeeding Parliament and therefore in 33 Hen. 6. 17. An Act mentioning it self made by the consent of the King and the Commons omitting the Lords was holden by Fortescue chief Justice for the present to be a good Act for saies he we will be advised before we go about to Null an Act of Parliament but it s best to refer it to the next Parliament B●sides if we consider what great things a Parliament can do with the Kings assent provided it extend not to prerogative and such substantials we cannot doubt of the legality of this and whereas it s said that the forms of Writs c. can 't be altered but by Parliament this Parliament has salved that and all other Circumstantial defects by the Act of Confirmation which if otherwise ought not to be questioned but in Parliament their doings there being to us Phoebi or acula vera fixa I shall conclude with a Case cited by my Lord Cook in his 4th Institutes a Book our Author is acquainted with but I wonder he missed it He tells there of a Parliament man who for writing in dishonour of the Parliament was committed to the Tower for six moneths and fined 500 Marks Now if a Parliament man who has more liberty allowed then such whifflers as our Author was fined so much for writing in dishonour only what shall be done with this seditious Desperado that writes in destruction of the Parliament but sub judice lis est