Difference between revisions of ".NDk0MA.MzQ2ODg"
(Created page with "Collon Garden unclear 3 Jany. Sir, I have look'd into both the Instances of 1660, & 1668, & it is very true, that in neither was there any previous direction or su...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Collon Garden | Collon Garden | ||
| − | + | Saty. 3 Jany. | |
Sir, | Sir, | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
of 1660, & 1668, & it is very true, that in | of 1660, & 1668, & it is very true, that in | ||
neither was there any previous direction or | neither was there any previous direction or | ||
| − | subsequent approbation | + | subsequent approbation, of The Crown, respecting |
the advice of Speaker But it may be material | the advice of Speaker But it may be material | ||
to observe, That neither of those [[underline]] Parlts [[/underline]] (as | to observe, That neither of those [[underline]] Parlts [[/underline]] (as | ||
| − | they were afterwards made by Law) were call'd | + | they were afterwards made by Law) were call'd by |
[[underline]] The King's [[/underline]] Writ - issued by his direction The | [[underline]] The King's [[/underline]] Writ - issued by his direction The | ||
First were by virtue of an Ordinance issued by The | First were by virtue of an Ordinance issued by The | ||
| − | Rump | + | Rump Parlt. _ The latter, by the Pr. of Orange. Let |
[[unclear]] & therefore the formal proceedings of | [[unclear]] & therefore the formal proceedings of | ||
| − | those [[underline]] | + | those [[underline]] Assemblies [[/underline]] might not be liable to the same |
| − | rules, as those are of [[underline]] a | + | rules, as those are of [[underline]] a Parlt. [[/underline]] legally summon'd by |
| − | Writs from The [[underline]] Crown [[/underline]] | + | Writs from The [[underline]] Crown [[/underline]] Add to this, That in the |
| − | first | + | first instance, the personal absence of the The King's |
Revision as of 00:18, 20 February 2019
Collon Garden Saty. 3 Jany.
Sir,
I have look'd into both the Instances of 1660, & 1668, & it is very true, that in neither was there any previous direction or subsequent approbation, of The Crown, respecting the advice of Speaker But it may be material to observe, That neither of those underline Parlts /underline (as they were afterwards made by Law) were call'd by underline The King's /underline Writ - issued by his direction The First were by virtue of an Ordinance issued by The Rump Parlt. _ The latter, by the Pr. of Orange. Let unclear & therefore the formal proceedings of those underline Assemblies /underline might not be liable to the same rules, as those are of underline a Parlt. /underline legally summon'd by Writs from The underline Crown /underline Add to this, That in the first instance, the personal absence of the The King's
