Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	speak_v	word_n	3,482	5	4.1705	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26142	An enquiry into the power of dispensing with penal statutes together with some animadversions upon a book writ by Sir Edw. Herbert ... entituled, A short account of the authorities in law, upon which judgment was given in Sir Edward Hales's case / by Sir Robert Atkyns ...	Atkyns, Robert, Sir, 1621-1709.	1689 (1689)	Wing A4138; ESTC R22814	69,137	66

in Hill. 11 Jac. B. R. Dominus Rex and Allen against Tooly in the Second Part of Bulstrode's Reports 186 to 191. in an Information brought upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for using the Trade of an Upholsterer in which he had not served as an Apprentice Seven Years The Defendant pleaded That he was a Freeman of London and that by the Custom of London a Freeman might use any Trade and he alledged that the Custom was confirmed per Regem in Parliamento It was holden first that there can be no good Act of Parliament without the three Consents viz. Of the King Lords and Commons 2. That tho' divers Acts of Parliament do not specifie these Three Assents but only mention the King as Dominus Rex Statuit and as it is in the Prince's Case Dominus Rex de Communi Concilio Statuit and the like Yet when the Party will Plead he ought to Plead it according to Law and to set forth all the Assents that is of the King Lords and Commons and this was the Opinion of the whole Court. Now Pleading is an exact setting forth of the Truth We are not to raise Arguments from Forms of Speaking but rather from exact Pleading and the Resolutions of Judges And tho' Magna Charta in the stile seems to be spoken by K. H. 3. as by the word concessimus yet the Act of 15 E. 3. c. 1. recites that it was made a Law by the King Lords and Commons and that what is said to be granted was but their former Right Lambert's Archion 267 c. I hear that in speaking to the Case of Sir Edward Hales it was observed that by this Act of 25 Car. 2. there is no incapacity or disability at the first and upon the admission to the Office put upon any Person from taking of an Office but that he is well admitted to it and the Grant is good and that time is given to take the Tests and if by the times given he fail to take them then he is to be disabled and the Grants are to become void but not before Like a Condition subsequent that defeats the Estate which yet was well vested and then before the Grant is defeated and the Party become disabled the King's Dispensation steps in and prevents the Penalty and Disability And herein it was said it differs from the Case of Symony and buying of Offices where the Interest never vested but the Person was first disabled There is indeed a difference but none that is material for it is all one whether the Party be disabled to take or whether having well taken and been well admitted he is afterward disabled to hold and retain by not performing the Condition For when he is first admitted it is sub modo and under a Condition that if he fail to perform what the Law requires his Office shall be void Another Argument as I hear it reported was rais'd from the King 's being a Soveraign Prince and from thence it was inferred that he might dispense with Laws that are Poenal upon necessity whereof he is the sole Judge The ground of this Argument namely That the King is a Soveraign Prince if it serve for the Point in question it may also extend a great way further then to this question we have before us it is hard to limit the extent of it it seems to speak that we must obey without Reserve The word Soveraign is French and in Latin is Supremus id est qui in alios potestatem habet The Correlate whereof is Subditus or a Subject and is attributed frequently to some sorts of Subjects especially to the Heads or Superiours of Religious Orders But among us tho' now frequently used in our humble Addresses to the King or in our reverend mention of him yet we find it very rarely if ever used in our ancient Acts of Parliament or in our Law Books I find no mention of the very word among the many Attributes and Titles ascribed to Kings and Princes in Mr. Selden's Titles of Honour He hath that which is Synonimous as Supream Monarch as it signifies in opposition or in distinction to Princes that are subordinate and feudatory such as Tacitus speaks of that the Romans when their Government was Popular had instrumenta servitutis Reges But properly he is a King that is a Soveraign and hath no Superiour upon Earth According to Martial Rex est qui Regem Maxime non habeat And such we freely and cheerfully acknowledge the King to be and the best and most of his Subjects do swear that he is the only Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Dominions as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as Temporal Causes and that no Foreign Prince hath any Power within this Realm And I wish that all the rest of his Subjects would heartily take this Oath but this among others is that which Sir Hales's Dispensation extends to Yet how from hence it can be argued that the King can dispense with his Laws I do not see I mean Laws of the same nature as that we have now before us Therefore those that used this Argument surely meant the word of Soveraign in another sence viz. Absolute Solutus a legibus It they mean by Soveraign a Prince that is absolute and solutus a legibus and they must understand it so or else I do not see how it is pertinent to the present Argument this is of a mighty Consequence and ought to have been well considered before it had been used I find the word in this sence as I take it propounded in an addition or saving to the Petition of Right 3 Car. 1. viz. Not to infringe Soveraign Power But it was not liked and upon Reasons given at a Conserence those that did propound it were satisfied to lay it aside It may be read in the Memorials of the English Affairs fol. 10. If the word Soveraign be meant in this sence it is oppos'd by all our ancient Authors Judges and others by plain and express Language whose very Writings I have before cited and I will but only touch upon them again Fleta says Superiorem non habet Rex in Regno nisi Deum Legem per Legem factus est Rex This fully expounds the word Sovereign Both Fleta and Bract. and Sir Gilbert Thornton who was Chief Justice in Edw. the First 's time take notice of that Jus Caesareum or Lex Regia as it is called by the Civilians Nec obstat quod dicitur quod Principi placet Legis habet vigorem For it never was received in England but in a restrained sence And with this agrees the ancient Coronation Oath That the King shall hold the Laws and Customs of the Realm which the People have chosen But King H. 8. with his own hand corrected the old Oath to the effect following viz. That he shall hold the Laws and Customs of the Realm not prejudicial

delay Common Right and tho' such Commandments do come the Justices shall not therefore leave to do right in any point Grotius ubi supra 117. Antiochus the third sent a Rescript to the Magistrates that they should not Obey him in case he should command any thing against Law. And Constantine published the like That Orphans and Widows be not constrained to come to Court for Justice no not if the Emperor's Rescript be shewed In the story of Daniel we read that King Darius signed the Writing and the Decree which indeed was but a snare laid for Daniel and Daniel had fallen into the snare The King was his friend but could neither dispence with him nor pardon him tho' he were sore displeased with himself for signing the Decree And the King set his heart on Daniel to deliver him and he laboured says the History an whole day till the going down of the Sun to deliver him he wanted such Judges as Cambyses had to find out an Evasion But the King himself sealed the stone that was laid upon the mouth of the Den with his own Signet and with the Signet of the Lords that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel Nihil opus est says a learned Author writing of the Government of England Licentiam dominandi in Rege Coerceri quoniam quicquid in administranda rerum summa vel contra Patriae leges vel minus ex populi commodo gestum fuerit Id omne Ministris Luendum rejicitur Adeo ut non ab adulatione sed ab aequitate summa fluxerit Notum Axioma apud Nostrates Rex Nunquam potest Errare aut cuiquam injuriam facere Quippe in Administros Conciliarios quorum est Admonere Principem iniqua volenti denegare operam aut officio renunciare potiusquam contra Leges quicquam jubenti parere tam culpa omnis quam paena derivari solet debet And we have seen Examples of such in our times many that have left good Places rather than act against their Judgments There is a rare Example of this in the French History Lewis the Eleventh King of France at the Pope's importunity had signed a Concordate for setting aside the Pragmatical Sanction which was made in defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church and the King had undertaken to the Pope that his Parliaments should approve of what he had done and the King sent a Command to the Parliaments accordingly and required them to give a punctual obedience to his Order The King's Advocate Johannes Romanus argued stoutly against it and being threatned to be turned out of his Place for his pains he said The King had freely bestowed that Office on him and he would discharge it faithfully as long as the King thought fit to continue him in it and should be ready to lay it down whenever it pleased the King But he would suffer all things rather then do any thing against his Conscience or the King's Honour and the good of the Kingdom and out he went. It will be admitted by those that argue for the Prerogative of Dispensing that tho' the King without the Parliament cannot dissolve nor repeal no nor so much as suspend the Law totally tho' but for a time but he may dispence with it as to some particular persons and for some limited time and so the Law will still remain in force against all others Those that will argue thus do yet hold that the King is the sole Judge who are to be dispensed with so that he is not limited to any number nor to any time so that tho' he may not in the gross dispence with the Law yet he does the same thing by retail which comes all to one or it is in his Royal Will and Pleasure to do so We are nothing beholding to the Judges if the King uses his Prerogative with moderation According to that sort of Argument that is called Inductio which is a particularibus ad Universalia progressus He that can dispence with A B C and so with the 24 Letters one by one does in truth dispence with the whole Alphabet but he must not do it Uno Ictu And we find it by Experience What signifie those several Acts of Parliament that forbid a Judge of Assize to Execute that Office in the County where he was born or dwells they are easily and daily dispens'd with How many Acts have been made against pardoning of Murder and to make void such Pardons and what fruit have they had Let us hear a learned Judge plainly speaking his experience and his mind in it Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown fol. 101. says that tho' there are words to null and make void these Charters of Pardon yet by putting into the Charters of Pardon these words viz. Non Obstante aliquo Statuto in contrarium Edito the force of these Statutes is taken away and not only of these says he but also of all others in which this Clause of Non obstante is put and it is put says he in every Letters Patents And fol. 102. he says that the Statute of 13 R. 2. Stat. 2. c. 1. and the rest of the Statutes to the same effect have always been destroy'd by that Clause of Non obstante and so false Suggestions have continued says he to this day without redress and abound from one day to another to the great detriment of the Publick Weal and do not cease till Princes have more regard what Charters they pass and he might have added till the King's Attorney and Council at Law shall have more Fidelity and Courage I hear that in justification of such a Dispensation as this it was said in the Argument of the Case of Sir Edward Hales in the Court of King's-Bench That there is no Law whatever but may be dispensed with by the Supreme Law-giver as the Laws of God may be dispensed with by God himself as appears by God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his Son Isaac So likewise may the Laws of Man be dispens'd with by the Supreme Legislator I fully agree to this and have already argued upon this ground That the Legislators and no other can dispence with their own Laws and I have given several Instances and Examples wherein it was so practised that is by King and Parliament But does this justifie the present Dispensation now in dispute I agree the King hath a great and most eminent part in the Legislature and in the passing of Laws it is he that quickens the Embrio and first gives it Life but under favour and with all due Reverence to the King I may affirm it That the King hath not the sole Legislature such as Almighty God hath over his Creatures but the whole Kingdom hath a share in that Power as I have fully proved as well as the King. I would cite one Case not so much to prove what I have said herein but rather to illustrate it It was a Case