Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	edward_n	king_n	year_n	8,591	5	5.7368	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43107	A reply to a sheet of paper, intituled, The magistracy and government of England vindicated, or, A justification of the English method of proceedings against criminals, by way of answer to the defence of the late Lord Russel's innocence, &c. written by John Hawles ...	Hawles, John, Sir, 1645-1716.	1689 (1689)	Wing H1189; ESTC R12198	38,849	39

What Sir William Jones said in the Viscount Stafford's Case I do not remember but it was plain his Accusation was for compassing the King's Death by under-hand dealing And though that taking the King Prisoner is high Treason yet the compassing it would not have been Treason if the Words of the Statute had not made it so no more than if the Act had said Killing the King should be Treason to inferr therefore compassing his Death should be high Treason For is it not begging the question to say Therefore consulting to do it is high Treason For where is the Consequence Coining of Money is high Treason Doth it therefore follow that designing to coin Money is high Treason And a much more remote Consequence is it to say compassing the seizing the King's Guards is compassing the King's Death I deny that designing to seize all the Forts in England is high Treason within the first branch of the Statute of Edward the Third nay the actual seizing them was not thought high Treason within that Statute and therefore the Statute of the 14 Eliz. expresly enacts That the seizing or keeping of any of the Queen's Castles or Forts from her shall be high Treason during her Life which shews it was not Treason before But if it were high Treason within the Statute of Edward the Third it is within the Clause of levying War and not the Clause of compassing the King's Death To what purpose was it to find fault with Rouse's Indictment Was not he tried the day after the Lord Russel was tried by the same Judges And I dare say the Author doth not think Rouse guilty of high Treason Rouse and Leigh were only tricking one another in which Leigh was too hard for him and Rouse died for the same But how vain is the Author to quote the Judgment of the very same Judges in other Cases to make good his Thesis in the Lord Russel's Trial when he cannot but remember how exploded and laughed at the Argument was of a certain Judge at the Old-Baily when the question was Whether a Soldiers flying from his Colours was Felony without Benefit of Clergy a Case too plain to bear an Argument either way who had nothing to say for it But that if the Law was not so he had hanged many a Man wrongfully It is strange to find an Author in so short a space as a sheet of Paper affords to be guilty of so many Repetitions and it would be idle to repeat the Answer to them Where did the Author find that by our Law the King must not cannot assault strike seize attach or imprison in defence of Himself No Man said it before the Author The Law were defective if it were so and fit to be altered It would be worse than binding the King to his good Behaviour It is true the King cannot execute the ordinary Offices of a Magistrate but remit them to be executed by some commissioned by him but what done in his own Defence is a matter of a quite different nature A Judge ought not to strike a Man but no Man said That if assaulted he might not fight in his own defence which he certainly may justifie It is one thing for a Judge to strike by way of punishment which he ought to leave to his Officers another thing to strike in his defence And now is the Author in the repeating strain of his Inferences and I must leave it to the Reader to judge whether what he here or elsewhere hath said overthrows the distinction between an actual seizing and an agreement to seize the Guards I am sure his closing Reason that both have a tendency to thing intended edifies little The King cannot live unless he eats he cannot eat without having his Meat drest he cannot have his meat drest without a Cook ergo he that kills the King's Cook starves the King and is guilty of high Treason It is very odd for the Author to think he can evade the Objection that Words were not Treason within 25. Ed. 3. because enacted to be so for some time by a saying That that Statute was a Complement to a new-Crown'd head what can he say to the Statutes of Hen. 8. and of the Queen which were made when the Crown had been many years on their Heads And why should he say That those Statutes as to words were affirmative of the Old Law when all the Judges in Hugh Pine's Case in Crook Car. on view of most of the Cases cited by the Author adjudged That no Words were Treason within the Statute of Edw. 3. Constable Sir Henry Vane and Dr. Story 's Cases have been answered before Plunkett was adjudged by some of the Judges which sate on my Lord Russell and I dare say few believe Plunkett guilty of the pretended Crime he died for but it was to make the World believe that Justice was impartially administred he was to be and was hanged ding dong against Fitz-harris to keep Tyburn steady It was feared that if Fitz-harris had hanged alone Tyburn would have warped or enclined to one side and therefore they were both hanged the same time on the same Gallows to keep it upright There remains but one Case to be answered though the Author would have them two Cases which is the Lords Gray and Cobham and Sir Walter Raleigh which I confess is an exact parallel Case in the truth of the particulars of it with the Lord Russell's Case though not in the Accusation as I think will be made appear Every Man knows because it was but few years past that the Lord Russell was a Person zealous for the Protestant Religion and an Enemy to Popery he was for that Reason very active in the matter of a Bill of Exclusion of a Popish Successor and as I have heard carried it up from the House of Commons to the House of Lords He was one who was for the prosecuting the Lord Viscount Stafford who suffered death for compassing the Death of the then Protestant Possessor of the Crown the then presumptive Heir of the Crown was at that time eclips'd but having recovered his Power and as the Lord Holles observed in his Letter to Monsieur Van Benningham governing all at White-hall Some few years afterwards the Lord Russell was brought to the Block upon pretence of the Treasons mentioned by the Author The Case of the Lords Gray Cobham and Raleigh was this They were all zealous for the Protestant Religion and affectionate to the Person and the Service of the then reigning Queen both which they thought in danger as long as there was expectation or probability of a Papist's coming to the Crown which would be as long as the Queen of Scots lived and continued to profess the Popish Religion They well enough knew that if the blow was struck the Law would be of the side of the Assassines They had seen many designs upon the Person of the Queen upon that encouragement they saw a Storm coming from

does not distinguish it in its reason from that in dispute He denies the Authority and Law of Dr. Story 's Case which no body ever denied before him He says that in the Lord Cobham 's Case there were People assembled but gives not any Answer to what the Antidote affirmed viz. that the Overt-act taken notice of in the little Book called The Pleas of the Crown was only the conspiring to make an Insurrection He doth confess that in the Lord Gray 's Case there was only a Conspiracy He says that in Sir H. Vane 's and Plunket 's Case there were several other Ingredients to mount them to Treason but what they were no body must learn at least not from the Author for he names none of them He consumes half a page in an Encomium upon the Judiciousness of that Court which made a consciencious legal Scruple whether the Murther of a Mistress by her Servant were Petit Treason by reason of the difference of her Gender but at last he tells us That the Judges of the Common Pleas did upon much deliberation satisfie those of the King's Bench that Master and Mistress were in effect but one The Indictment contained no new constructive Treason but only that which was plainly and directly declared in and by 25 Edw. 3. if the letters of it make words and the word sense and one man may be allowed able to read them as well as another Since the writing of the last Paragraph there came to my hands another Pamphlet written by a New Observator but I suppose the Judges that shall be will correct that sort of Licentiousness which he assumes in his Remarks which if they do not they 'll have fine easie Places on 't as well as their Predecessours and much good may it doe them Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit Nos nequiores mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem Horat. The Truth is the Indictment though I think it was not good yet it was the least defective of any thing in that whole prosecution the Evidence was the most defective which the Authour dares not bite at and yet the Authour doth not pretend it amounted to more than an intention to levy War which is not Treason within the Statute of Edw. 3. he quotes indeed a great many Cases to prove his Thesis to every one of which something shall be hereafter said only at present I cannot but wonder at the assurance of any man who pretends to understand the Law when the Parliament which is the supreme Court of Judicature in the Nation hath so often adjudged that it is not Treason within the Stat. of Ed. 3. that he should think to confront and over-rule those Judgments by Judgments given at Westm or at the Assizes Surely it is as ridiculous as if in any Court at Westm a Counsel should think to ever-rule a Judgment given there by the Authority of a Judgment given in an inferiour Court by a Steward or a Bailiff that Person was excusable because he did not pretend to understand Law who said in Parliament that if they did not doe him right there he would not abide by it but would bring the Matter into Westminster-Hall For is not the Stat. of C. 2. which makes a Conspiracy to levy War during the King's life an express Judgmt of the Parliamt that it was not Treason within the St. of E. 3. is not the St. of the 13. of the Q. which made it Treason during her Life another express Judgmt in the same Case to the same purpose And is not the Judgmt of the Parliamt as it is the supreme Court of the Nation of more Authority than any Judgmt in Westm Hall and much more than any Judgmt at the Assizes or Sessions Besides consider the Parliamt which consists of all the Nobility assisted with all the Judges and of the best of the Gentry and assisted with Lawyers and none can doubt which Judgmt ought to carry most authority with it Consider the imputation which is laid on the St. of E. 3 by such construction a St. seemed to be penn'd with all Wisdom and circumspection imaginable out of a sense of what the Subjects had suffered by the uncertainty of the Law before and which in all ages hath been applauded for the best penn'd Act to be found and which in all ages hath been made the Standard of Treasons for when out of Flattery or in compliance with the King Treasons have been multiplied out of a sense of the mischief they have afterward still been restrained to the St. of E. 3. and yet by this construction that St. is made guilty of an absurd tautologie for if conspiring to levy War be compassing the K's death which by that St. was Treason it was absurd afterwards to say that actual levying War should be Treason because a War cannot be actually levied without a Conspiracy to do it though there might have been a Conspiracy to levy War and yet not afterwards actually levied And the true Reason of the difference is this What tends to the mischief of the King's Person every one knows but what is War is not so certainly known Those who went to throw down Enclosures did not think it to be levying War though it were so and it would be hard to make their consulting to do it high Treason I do not instance in this as a parallel Case with the matter in question but only to shew that what is War or not War is not so easily known as at first sight apprehended and the Makers of this Statute who had smarted by pretence of levying War were more strict in penning the Clause of War than they were in penning the Clause of Compassing c. In the time of Henry the Fourth in the Earl of Northumberland's Case it was doubted whether his riding armed with a Force for a private Revenge was not levying War which was a Doubt so great that it was resolved in Parliament to be only a Trespass And if what is War is so uncertain the intention of levying it is more uncertain Let any one but remember how narrowly Blague escap'd but for talking of the feasibleness of taking the Tower. Now though I agree That conspiring to depose or imprison the King is high Treason within the first branch of the Statute of Edward the Third because they destroy him in his politick Capacity it is no manner of inference to say therefore conspiring to levy War is high Treason within that Statute because if the Conspiracy took effect the Death or Deposing the King doth not naturally much less necessarily follow nay it very rarely hath so done And let any one examine our Histories it will not be found to be a Consequence once in forty times whereas if a Conspiracy to depose or imprison the King if it take its effect he is actually deposed or imprisoned The first Conspiracy is remote the last is next the Deposing a distinction of great use in our Law and in Treason

Baker's Chronicle as much to the purpose and of as good Authority as this where one Walker said He would make his Son Heir to the Crown meaning his House whose Sign was the Crown and it was adjudged Treason and Walker hang'd for it a Case I as much believe to have happened as the Author 's The truth is the Case is not put like a Lawyer If he had said That the prittle prattle between Balshall and the Plowman had been adjudged Evidence of an intention to levy War and that such intention of levying War had been in that Case adjudged Treason he had said something to the purpose but to tell an idle story and say That that talk was adjudged Treason if true would carry no Authority with it I would fain know what part of it is Treason Was it Balshal's troubling a Man at Plow with idle talk or telling the Plowman a lye or advising him to go to K. R. who was in another World which was as much as bid the Plowman hang himself in order to go to R. 2. and so sold him a bargain I cannot indeed see against which Branch of the Statute of Edward the Third the expressions were offences Sir Henry Vane's Case was advising a War which followed and advising it while on Foot and besides it was expresly proved as I have heard that he advised the excluding the Family of the Stewarts from the Crown The Case of Constable and all the other Cases are to the same purpose because as the Author says and so was the reason of them they directly tended to depose the Queen as affirming Edward the Sixth was alive and pointing to such an one as my Lord Coke says which being accompanied with other Circumstances was good Evidence of his intention to depose the Queen And even that Case may answer Balshall's Case in affirming Richard the Second to be alive for then Henry the Fourth was not rightful King But I am sure neither prove an intention to levy War to be High Treason but a repetition of a number of Cases makes a Mutter and a Noise It is strange that the Author should cite Throgmorton's Case as a Case for him whereas it is against the express Authority of my Lord Coke who quotes Throgmorton's Case for his Opinion That conspiring to levy War is not High Treason and the express Authority of my Lord Dyer who reports that Case and gives the reason That Throgmorton was guilty of Treason because Wiat with whom he was concerned actually levyed War. If A advise B to kill C who does it it is Murther in both if B doth it not it is not Murther yet A is equally guilty of the Consult the Author would do well to shew the reason of the difference between this Case and what he puts It is strange the Author should say Owen's Case was only for disswading People from their Fidelity whereas he says himself his Crime was his saying the King might be killed and it was no Murther Are the Cases of Burton the Duke of Norfolk Sparhawkes Awater Heber or Crohagan to the purpose when the Author confesses their Crimes were denying the King's Title to the Crown and endeavouring to settle it on another Head which are direct Evidences of an Intention to depose the King which none ever yet denyed to be Treason though the Author mistakes for Burton was indicted on the 13 El. and it was for conspiring to pull down Enclosures the Duke of Norfolk was indicted for conspiring the Death of the Queen and adhering to Herris the Scot and others the Queens Enemies and for that purpose is the Duke's Case cited in my Lord Dier and my Lord Coke In Sir W. Ashton's Case nothing but the Indictment appears and it doth not appear that any Judgment was given on that Indictment and if there were it is plain his Crime was endeavouring to set up the Duke of York who had right to the Crown and depose Henry the Sixth The Offence of Germain and Taylor if they were two Persons but Taylor seems to me to be the addition of Germain was for endeavouring to Depose Edward the Fourth and compassing his Death what the Evidence against him was doth not appear Burett's Indictment was for compassing the King 's and his Eldest Son's Death by Witchcraft and Necromancy and it adds likewise That he endeavoured to stir up War by scattering Ballads where the scattering Ballads is rather an Overt-act of his intention to levy War than his intention to levy War an Overt-act of his compassing the Death of the King or the Death of his Son. Collingbourn's Case was for compassing Richard the Third's Death and adhering to the Earl of Richmond and other Traitors and scattering Ballads to move an Insurrection The Viscount Stafford's Case was for compassing the King's Death and the Evidence was of Consults tending that way and the Authority of that Case ought to have been spared for the same reason that Coleman's Case ought not to have been mentioned The Legality of Colledge's Indictment hath been questioned and was questioned by Colledge as appears by his Trial licensed by his Enemies and if those in whose Custody he was had not robbed him of his Papers he had raised such Objections that his Enemies neither then nor since would have been able to have answered And though the Author says he armed himself and advised others to do the like yet there was no pretence of Proof that he did or advised others so to do on any other account than to defend him and themselves which is indeed an Overt-act of an intention to defend himself but not of offending others the first of which at that time was though never at any other time hath been construed High Treason But how vain is the Author to quote the Proceedings in that Trial to justifie the Proceedings in the Lord Russel's Trial when two of the Judges were the same which sate on both Trials What the Indictment against Sir Henry-Vane was I know not and I did not think it worth my time to enquire It is plain his Crime was making War and deposing the King both which as it is said were proved against him And if in his Indictment and the Indictments of Monmouth's Men it was added That they compassed the Death of the King it was only added as an additional Treason and the levying War which was so exprest in all the Indictments in the West was not so exprest as an Overt-act of compassing the King's Death but as a distinct Treason within the Statute of Edward the Third though if it should be granted that levying War is an Overt-act of compassing the King's Death it doth by no means follow that an intention to levy War is an Over-act of compassing the King's Death which is what the Author is to prove And now after all the muster of words the Author hath made there is not one Case he hath cited which proves That the intention of levying War is high Treason