Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	duke_n	king_n	son_n	9,198	5	5.4723	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62230	Summus angliæ seneschallus, or, A survey of the Lord High-Steward of England his office, dignity, and jurisdiction, particularly the manner of arraigning a peer indicted of treason, or felony : in a letter to the Lords in the Tower ...	Saunders, Edmund, Sir, d. 1683.	1680 (1680)	Wing S745; ESTC R9936	19,870	38

to be challenged for that in Law they be Judges to that purpose and Judges cannot be challenged and that is the reason why Noblemen cannot be challenged for Mag. Charta saith Per Judicium Parium suorum Cap. 29. and not Veredictum When the Peers that were to be Tryers at the Arraignment of the Ealls of Essex and Southampton were called by name Camb. Eliz. A. 1601. the Earl of Essex demanded whether it were not lawful for them as the use is to private men to except against some of their Peers The Judges answer'd that such was the Credit and Estimation of the Peers of England that they are neither compelled to an Oath in Arraignments nor subjected to Exceptions QUERY IV. Whether the Lord High-Steward can collect the Evidence against the Prisoner or conser with the Lords touching the same in the Prisoners absence SOL. To this I answer negatively for after the King 's Learned Counsel have produc'd all their Evidence the Prisoner ought to be present at all Conferences touching the same and therefore it shall be necessary for all Prisoners after Evidence given against them before departure from the Bar to require Justice of the Lord High-Steward and of the other Lords and that no Question be demanded or conference had by any with the Lords but in open Court in their own hearing otherwise such Prisoners shall take no advantage thereof after Verdict and Judgment given QUERY VII If the Lords be equally divided between guilty and not guilty whether the party tryed shall be acquitted or condemned SOL. In an Information in the Court of Star-Chamber by the Attorney against Sir Stephen Proctor and others for conspiracy against and scandal of the Earl of Northampton Co. 4. Inst f. 64. and Edward Lord Wootten two of his Majesties most Honourable Privy Council at the hearing of which Cause there sat eight in Court whereof four condemned the Defendants and the other four viz. the Lord Chancellour two Bishops and the Chancellour of the Exchequer acquitted them the Question was according as your Lordships have propos'd it Whether the Defendants should be condemned or not And here it was moved by the King 's Learned Counsel that when the Voices are equal that in that case of which part the Lord Chancellour was on that side it should be determin'd without regard either to Plaintiff or Defendant And it was resolved that regularly and de communi Jure in respect of the equality of Voices that no sentence could be given as it holdeth in the High Court of Parliament and all other Courts according to the old rule Paribus sententiis Reus absolvitur And sentence was never given against Sir Stephen Proctor agreeable to the general rule in other Courts In this point the Civil Law concurs with the Common Inter Pares Numero Judices si dissonae sententiae proferantur in liberalibus quidem causis secundum quod a Divo Pio constitutum est pro libertate statutum obtinet in alits autem causis pro Ree quod in Judiciis publicis obtinere oportet Vid. Grot. lib. 2. c. 5. uu 18. de Jure Belli c. Reus sententiis paribus absolvitur semper quicquid dubium est humanit as milinat in melius Alter Judex damnat alter absolvit inter dispares sententias milior viniat I shall here take leave to make a little digression from the Query and consider if a person that is forth-coming can by Parliament be attainted of High-Treason and never call'd to answer This seems as much worth the inquiry as other your Lordships Queries and though omitted by you I shall not let it pass without some notice By the 2. of H. 6. we find a great Peer condemned without Arraignment or Answer Co. 4. Inst f. 37 38. the like in 32 H. 8. one Attainted though living and forth-coming of High-Treason without ever being called to Judgment The legality whereof was scrupled and demanded of the Judges whether the Act were void or not with some pause they adjudged it perillous and of bad example to the Inferiour Courts but 't was agreed if condemned by Parliament to be indisputable though Cap. 29. 5 E. 3. c. 9. 28 E. 3. c. 5. of Mag. Char. affirms that no man ought to be condemned without Answer without a Quid fecisti and all due proceedings at Law Senec. in Loco Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudita altera licet aequum statuerit hand aequus sucrit With the Municipal Laws agree those of the Romans Divi Severi Antonini Magni rescriptum est D. 48.17 ne quis absens primatur hoc jure utimur ne Absentes damnentur neque enim inaudita causa quemquam damnari aequitatis ratio patitur Acts 25. v. 16. It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to death before the accused have his accusers face to face and license to answer for himself QUERY VIII Whether the King and one of the Houses alone or both without the King can declare a Treason within the Stat. of 25 E. 3. cap. 2 SOL. John Duke of Groyen and Lancaster Steward of England and Thomas Duke of Glocester Constable of England the King's Uncles complained to the King that Thomas Talbot Knight with others his Adherents conspired the death of the said Dukes as the same was confessed and well known and prayed that the Parliament might judge of the fault which Petition was just and according to the Branch of the Stat. of 25 E. 3. but the Record saith further that the King and Lords in Parliament adjudged the same fact to be High-Treason which Judgment wanting the assent of the Commons was no Declaration within the said Stat. which is attended with this restriction That if any other case supposed to be Treason should happen before any Justices the Justices should tarry without going to judment of the Treason till the Case be shewed before the King and his Parliament consisting of Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons whether it ought to be adjudged Treason or Felony QUERY IX Whether the Subjects of another Prince Confederate with the King of England can be held for the King's Enemies SOL. It was objected against the Duke of Norfolk concerning his relieving of the Scots the Queens Enemies which was proved by Letters and Banister's confession c. whereupon the Duke asked the Judges Whether the Subjects of another Prince Camb. Eliz. A. 1572. Confederate with the Queen of England were to be holden for the Queens Enemies Calelin Chief Justice answer'd that they were and that the Queen of England might make War with any Duke of France and yet in the interim keep peace with the French King And here 't is to be noted that the Judges ought not to deliver their Opinions before-hand in any criminal case that may come before them judicially In the Case of Humphrey Stafford that Arch Traytor Hussey Chief Justice besought King H. 7.

the offence such he ought not to be Attainted by general words by Authority of Parliament as sometime hath been used but the Treason ought to be specially expressed seeing that the Court of Parliament is the Highest and most Honourable Court of Justice and ought to give Example to the Inferiour Magis Exemplis quam praeceptis ducimur QUERY XIV Whether a Subject of one Kingdom guilty of Treason flying into another Kingdom ought to be remitted to his own Soveraign SOL. It is holden and so it hath been resolved that divided Kingdoms under several Kings in League one with another are Sanctuaries for Servants or Subjects flying for safety and upon demand are not by the Laws and Liberties of Kingdoms to be delivered And this Opinion seems grounded upon the Law in Dout. c. 23. v. 15. Thou shalt not deliver unto his Master the Servant which is escaped from his Master unto thee When the Lord Paget and Arundel came into France Sir Edward Stafford Camb. El. 1584. Queen Eliz. Ambassadour there diligently observed them yet could by no means discover what they attempted he desir'd nevertheless of the French King that they with Morgan and other English who were practising against their Prince and Country might be removed out of France To which he received this answer That if they attempted any thing in France the King would punish them according to Law That all Kingdoms were free for Fugitives and that it was the great concernment of Kings to maintain every one the Priviledges of his own Kingdom That Queen Eliz had not long since received into her Kingdom Montgomery the Prince of Conde and others of the French Nation and that Sagury the King of Navarr's Embassadour was in England at this very time practising to move new troubles against the French King King H. 8. in the 28th year of his Reign being in League with the French King and in Enmity with the Pope who was in League likewise with France and had sent Cardinal Poole Embassadour to the French King of whom K. H. 8. demanded the said Cardinal being his Subject and Attainted of Treason and to that end caused a Treatise to be publisht that it ought to be done Jure Gentium sed non praevaluit Ferdinando King of Spain upon request made by H. 7. to have Edmond de la Poole Earl of Suffolk Attainted of High-Treason by Parliament A. 19. H. 7. at first intending to observe the Priviledge and Liberty of Kings in protecting such as came to him for succour and protection delivered him not yet in the end upon the earnest request of the King and his promise not to put him to death he caused the said Earl to be delivered up to the King who kept him in Prison and construing his promise to be but personal commanded his Son Henry after his death to execute him which he caused to be done in the fifth year of his Reign I shall add one more Example of a Remission out of Zouch Treat de Judicio inter Gentes Cum quidam Seywardus Scotus qui Mariam Scotorum Reginam veneno tollere conatus est in Anglia deprehenderetur Ed. Sextus Rex Angliae eum in manus Regis Galliae tradidit ut debito supplicio Remitteretur quod Nonnullis displicuit quia etsi ratio suadeat ut qui in Patria deliquit in Patria Puniatur aliter tamen de consuetudine quod Remissionem usurpatum est Having now run thorough the several Query's which your Lordships have thought fit to propose I Shall venture to set one step further and start Another of my Own with some Offers toward the Solution of which I will make an end Viz. QUERY XV. Whether in any Case it be Lawful for Subjects to Oppose their Prince SOL. It must be resolv'd in the Negative And that in any Case or upon any Pretence whatsoever it is utterly unlawful for Subjects joyntly or singly collectively or representatively to make any violent Opposition against their Soveraign or to Resist him either in an Offensive or a desensive way This Assertion you will find to be a Truth that is Consonant to Holy Writ Reverend Antiquity Sound Reason and to the Municipal Laws of the Land all the Sophistries and Argumentations that Seditious and corrupted men are able to produce to the contrary notwithstanding I. To begin with Holy Scripture It is clear from Deut. o. 17. v. 12. which commands the Israelites to put away evil from amongst them by bringing to Publique Justice all such Mutinous and Presumptious persons as refus'd to Obey the High Priest and the Judge that God imposed an Obligation even upon his own People not to Resist the Supreme Magistrate And v. 13. makes the Reason of this Severity to be to preserve the People from being Poyson'd in then Allegiance by the Malignity of such Examples That all the People under what Notion or Qualification soever may Hear and fear and do no more presumptuously The same express Warrant of the Word and to the self-same purpose there is in Joshua C. 1. v. 18. Whosoever he be says the Almighty speaking to him that doth rebel against thy Commandment and will not harken to thy words in all that thou commandest him he shall be put to death Saul is generally condemned for persecuting David and attempting upon his Life And yet though David had him twice at his mercy he was not to be prevail'd upon to do him any Harm 1 Sam c. 24. v. 6. and C. 26. v. 11. For who says he can lay his hand upon who can touch who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be Guilvless Now the Signification of the Scripture phrase Touch or stretch forth the hand against the Lords Anointed is of a Large Extent And the Guilt of this Horrid Crime may be incurr'd either by lifting up our heels in scorn against our King Psal 41. v 9. By taking up Arms in our own defence for whosoever Resisteth the Power Resisteth the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. By not bringing to light such Traiterous Conspiracies as we know to be forming against him Lev. 5. By not endeavouring to defend him when we see him in danger for Qui non vetat peccare cum possit jubet By striking at his Crown usurping upon his Prerogative or depriving him of his Revenue Jer. 18. v. 18 By Speaking or even Thinking evil of him for as the Tongue can strike without a Hand so the Heart can curse without a Tongue Or in a Word by any sort of indignity or out-rage offer'd either to his Authority or Person But to proceed Doth not Saint Paul enjoyn that every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers for there is no Power but of God and they that Resist shall receive to themselves Damnation Nay and doth not Saint Peter also inculcate a Patient Toleration of injuries 1 Pet. 2. v. 19.20 21 22. and recommend unto our imitation the Example of