Difference between revisions of ".NDk0MA.MzQ2ODg"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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 by | 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 Parlt. | + | Rump Parlt. --The latter, by the Pr. of Orange. Let |
[[unclear]] & therefore the formal proceedings of | [[unclear]] & therefore the formal proceedings of | ||
those [[underline]] Assemblies [[/underline]] might not be liable to the same | those [[underline]] Assemblies [[/underline]] might not be liable to the same | ||
Revision as of 14:35, 26 June 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
