Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	earl_n	king_n	paris_n	2,755	5	9.0185	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88233	A plea at large, for John Lilburn gentleman, now a prisoner in Newgate. Penned for his use and benefit, by a faithful and true well-wisher to the fundamental laws, liberties, and freedoms of the antient free people of England; and exposed to publick view, and the censure of the unbyassed and learned men in the laws of England, Aug. 6. 1653.	Faithful and true well-wisher to the fundamental laws, liberties, and freedoms of the antient free people of England.; Lilburne, John, 1614?-1657.	1653 (1653)	Wing L2158; Thomason E710_3; ESTC R207176	34,122	24

imagine that by the Parliament that is mentioned in the said Act of the 30 of January 1651. for banishing one Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburn is in the least meant the late Parliament of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster especially because it is not so therein exprest who had taken many Oaths and past abundance of Declarations and particularly that of the 9 of February 1648. inviolably to maintain the Fundamental Laws of the Land in reference to the Peoples lives liberties and properties with all things incident appertaining and belonging thereunto But that rather it was some ignorant sottish French Parliament sitting at Paris or elsewhere in France that understand nothing of the Laws Liberties and Freedoms of England or that it was the malignant Cavalier Parliament lately sitting at Oxford in the Kings Quarters there post-dating their Act and thereby endeavouring by the said Act to create such a president as in the consequence of it would destroy all the Laws Liberties and Properties of the free-born people of England and thereby absolutely set up the Kings will and prerogative above Law the bare endeavouring of which in the Earl of Strafford hath been long since adjudged high treason Or in the next place it the authors of the said monstrous and illegal Act of Banishment be neither the ignorant Parliament of Paris nor the Cavalier Parliament of Oxford Then of necessity in the third place it cannot in charity and reason but be judged that the said Act of Banishment was drawn up by Mr. Scobel the Parliaments Clerk Mr. Hill their Chayr-man and Mr. Prideaux their Attorney and Post-master-general when they were all riding post and so jumbled or shaken with fast riding that it was impossible for them to hold their pens to write right and true and when they had framed it then by some cunning artifice or inchantment of theirs they preferred it to the said Parliament who in charity and common reason must needs be judged to pass it when they were three quarters asleep against some silly natural fool called Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburn that could not be imagined ever in his life to have read any thing of Law or Reason it being impossible in the least in reason to be conceived that the late Supreme Authority the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster being onely by their own Declarations but trusted to provide for the peoples weal but not in the least for their wo would ever in their right wits or not being three quarters asleep pass such an Act of Parliament against John Lilburn now prisoner at the Bar who hath much read the Law and very well understands the Fundamental Liberties of England and hath hazardously adventured his life a thousand cimes for the inviolable preserving of them because such an Act of Parliament as the foresaid Act of Parliament is in the first place an Act of Parliament against common right common equity and common reason and therefore is void and null in Law and ought not to be executed as appears by these following authorities viz. 1 part of Dr. Bonham's Case fol. 118. and the 8 of Edw. 3. fol. 3 30 33. F. Cessavit 32 27 H. G. Annuity 41. and 1 Eliz. Dyer 113. and 1 part Cook 's Institutes lib. 2. Chap. 11. Sect. 209. fol. 140. and 4 Edw. 4.12 and 12 Edw. 4.18 and 1 H. 7.12 13. and Plowd Com. fol. 369. and Judge Jenkins learned works in the Law printed for J. Giles 1648. but particularly by his Discourse of Long Parliaments p. 139 140. and see also Mr. W. Prynne's notable book of the 16 of June 1649. called A Legal Vindication of the Liberties of England against illegal Taxes p. 11 12 13 c. But especially see a book intituled The Legal Fundamental Liberties of England revived asserted and vindicated printed and reprinted in the yeer 1649 page 54 55 56 57. yea an Act of Parliament that a man shall be judge in his own case is a void Act in law as appears in Hubberts Case fol. 120. and by the 8 part of Cook 's Reports in Dr. Bonham's Case and by the present Armies own Book of Declarations p. 35 52 54 59 60 61 63 132 141 142 143 144. yea saith that learned Oracle of the Law of England Sir Edw. Cook in the 4 part of his Institutes fol. 330. Where Reason ceaseth there the Law ceaseth for seeing Reason is the very life and spirit of the Law it self the Law-giver is not to be esteemed to respect that which hath no reason although the generality of the words at the first sight or after the letter seem otherwise And saith the said learned Author in his first part Institutes fol. 140. All Customs and Prescriptions Acts of Parliament Laws and Judgements that be against Reason are void and null in themselves And saith the Armies Sollicitor-General John Cook in the late Kings Case stated p. 23. That by the law of England any Act or Agreement against the Laws of God and Nature is a meer nullity for as a man hath no hand in making the Laws of God and Nature no more hath he power to marre or alter them And he cites the Earl of Leicester's adjudged Case for a proof And in page 20 he also saith that all the Judges in England cannot make one Case to be Law that is not Reason no more then they can prove an hair to be white that is black which if they should so declare or adjudge it is a meer nullity for Law saith he must be Reason adjudged And therefore saith he page 8. That man or men that rules by lust and not by law is or are creatures that were never of Gods making nor of Gods approbation but his permission and though such men be said to be gods on earth 't is in no other sense then the devil is called the god of this world And excellent to this very purpose is that ancient Law-book called The Doctor and Student who in his second Chapter pag. 4. expresly sayth Against the law of Nature which he calls the Law of Reason Prescription Statute or Customs may not prevail and if any be brought in against it they be no Prescriptions Statutes nor Customs but things void and against justice And what this law of Nature or Reason is he excellently sheweth in the latter end of the fourth page and the beginning of the fifth and therefore in pag. 7. he expresty saith That to every good Law is required these properties viz. That it be honest right wise possible in it self and after the custom of the Country convenient for the place and time necessary profitable and also manifest that it be not captious by any dark sentence nor mixt with any private wealth but all made for the common good for saith he every mans law must be consonant to the Law of God otherwise they are not righteous nor obligatory All which Judgements or Cases in Law in the equitable and rational part of