Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	4,616	5	7.4258	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48183	A letter to a lawyer containing an essay to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King's brother and heir to be high-treason within 25 Ed. 3 / written by a gentleman in the country, and one of His Majesties justices of the peace for the county of -----.	Gentleman in the country and one of His Majesties justices of the peace.	1685 (1685)	Wing L1664; ESTC R11129	5,824	14

A LETTER TO A LAWYER Containing an ESSAY To prove the Compassing and Imagination Of the DEATH of the King's Brother and Heir To be High-Treason within 25. Ed. 3. Written by a Gentleman in the Country and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jesties Justices of the Peace for the County of LONDON Printed for John Eglesfeild at the Marygold in Fleet-street 1685. A LETTER TO A Lawyer c. SIR IN Reading somewhat of the Crown-Law this Vacation I met with a Case of great consequence which occasioned me some thoughts I would desire your Opinion thereon my first Conceptions upon it I herewith send you You know that by the 25th of Edw. 3. Cap. 2. it is said to be Treason to Compass or Imagine the Death of our Lord the King our Lady his Companion or of their Eldest Son and Heir c. Upon reading of which Statute there seemed to me to arise a considerable Question from the last words of that Clause viz. If a Collateral Heir be not there meant as well as Lineal Although my Lord Coke determines it in the Negative yet considering how the Law stood before this Act of Parliament and what was the general end why the Common-Law made and this Statute allowed Compassing or Imagination of the Death of the King 's Eldest Son and Heir to be High-Treason and the equality of the mischief to the Publick in the Death of a Collateral Heir with that of a Lineal and the necessity and design of the Law for the Preservation of the Royal Line in both these Cases Considering these things I cannot upon first thoughts persuade my self any other but that a Brother or Uncle being next Heir was intended by that Law as much as a Son if there happen to be such For it must be agreed that at the Common-Law before this Statute it was Treason to Kill or to Compass the Death of the King's Heir whether Lineal or Collateral nay it was held to be Treason in case of any of the King's Children or Uncle or other near Relatives though such were not Next Immediate Expectant Heir but only of the Royal Family and remote by some Degrees from any appearance of Succession to the Crown And this is even agreed by Andrew Horne and the Lord Coke themselves neither of which were such friends to the Crown as to be suspected of flattery or Biass in this particular Now that this Statute alters not the case is plain for it is resolved to be an Act declaratory of the Ancient Common-Law and not introductive of a novelty 't is true it is Abrogatory of all Treasons not therein expressed and restrains Treason to the particulars which it specifies although the words are Eldest Son and Heir which is to be supposed the first Born yet it is agreed that if such first Born die without Issue the second Son being the Eldest Living is within this Law and so of the third Son which is a construction far from Literal and yet consented to by all Lawyers that I have read now such interpretation of those words though this be in some for a Penal Law proceeds from the common rule in exposition of Acts of Parliament even those which are Penal that those cases which stand upon the same Reason shall be within the same Law Vbi eadem ratio ibi idem erit jus be the Law what it will where there is the same Identity or Majority of Reason in any case there ought to be the same Rule Besides this is not such a Penal Law as is meant in that rule of Expositions of not being extended by Equity for those Penal Laws are such only as create new Offences or inflict new Punishments of which sort you cannot reckon this in question For if you consider the end and design of this Law 't was not to either of those purposes but to declare what things our then Law-makers thought fit to be reckoned and allowed Treason from thenceforward then consider the end why those particulars there mentioned were agreed should be Treason for ever afterwards and the consideration thereof will make this perspicuous peruse the Act and take it apart or the whole together and you will find it either to concern the Kings Person the Kings Heirs or the Kingly Government the three Mischiefs designed to be prevented were Bodily harm to the Kings most Sacred Person the Extirpation of the Royal Family and Destruction of Kingly Government All which three are by this Act expresly provided against The third and last in the clauses of Levying War adhering to the Kings Enemies Clipping or Counterfeiting Mony or the Great Seal or Killing any of his Grand Officers there particularised the Sole Power of making War and Peace commanding Subjects to assist against Forreign Enemies ordering and regulating Currant Monies Custody and Management of the Great Seal of England and consequently of Pardons c. the makeing and removing of all Publick Officers of State and Justice being some of the Royal Prerogatives of Brittains Monarch The first is apparent in the first words of this Act whereby it is made High-Treason so much as to think evil of the King in a Mans Heart the second is no less manifest although some of Republican Principles are unwilling it should be so and therefore will say it is not so but 't is as plain as either of the two former which I have mentioned for that 's the end and reason why 't is High-Treason to compass the Death of the Queen and the Words are Emphatical Our Lady his Companion and their Heir Then which nothing can be more fully expressed 't is easie for you further to animadvert on the sense of the Words and their Coherence It not being placed among the Grandees of the Realm as the greatest Subject but between the King and His Heir And Heir surely is the principal thing there intended and this Statute you must needs imagine designed by that clause to preserve the Royal Family and maintain the Succession by providing a security for the Successor from all Danger as to his Person Now a Collateral Heir is in the same plight and condition in respect of the Kingdom as a Son and Heir and to destroy the Brother may be of as pernicious consequence as to cut off the Son as is easy for any Man to conceive by considering the dismal effects which may happen upon either as the Extirpation of the Royal Family which God forbid which was by this Law principally meant to be preserved and involving the Nation in Blood and War by rendring the Right of Succession disputable so that the Mischief that may happen in both Cases and that was intended to be prevented is alike and the same Then that this construction is contrariant to any one rule of Law I think no Man can affirm if any do I could with much facility evince its consonancy to the rules of Law in other like Cases even of Statutes meerlyand strictly Penal by abundance of Books But I know you