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
A91243	A plea for the Lords: or, A short, yet full and necessary vindication of the judiciary and legislative power of the House of Peeres, and the hereditary just right of the lords and barons of this realme, to sit, vote and judge in the high Court of Parliament. Against the late seditious anti-Parliamentary printed petitions, libells and pamphlets of Anabaptists, Levellers, agitators, Lilburne, Overton, and their dangerous confederates, who endeavour the utter subversion both of parliaments, King and peers, to set up an arbitrary polarchy and anarchy of their own new-modelling. / By William Prynne Esquire, a well-wisher to both Houses of Parliament, and the republike; now exceedingly shaken and indangered in their very foundations.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1648 (1648)	Wing P4032; Thomason E430_8; ESTC R204735	72,921	83

awarded him to the custody of the Marshall and to make fine and ransome at the Kings pleasure Whereupon the Commons REQUIRED by way of petition that he might lose all his Offices and no longer be of the Kings Councell which the King granted The Commons not joyning at all with the Lords in his judgement neither could they so joyne he being a Peer And for the Lord Nevill in that Parliament num 33. he was only accused not judged by the Commons Sixthly The case of 2. H. 5. rot Parl. num 15. that Error is there assigned that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons is a grosse mistake For the record only recites That Thomas Mountague Earle of Salisbury Sonne and Heire of Iohn Mountague Earle of Salisbury exhibited his petition in Parliament to reverse a judgement given against his said father in the Parliament at Westminster in the second year of King Henry the fourth Whereupon he exhibited certaine reversals of Judgements given in Parliament as making on his behalfe to the Lords consideration reversed for some errors assigned in those jadgements to wit one judgement given against Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster before King Edward the second at Pomfract the monday before the feast of the Annuntiation in the fifteenth yeare of his reigne and another Judgement against Roger de Mortymer late Earle of March in the Parliament of King Edward the third the Monday after the Feast of St. Katherine in the fourth yeare of his reigne at Westminster Which judgements being distinctly and openly read and fully understood Jo seemed TO THE KING and LORDS that the case of the death and execution of the said John late Earle of Sarum and of the judgement aforesaid against him given is not nor was like to the case of the executing of the said Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster nor to the case of the killing of Roger Earle of March nor to any judgement given against the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said Iohn late Earle of Sarum WERE A GOOD JUST and LEGALL DECLARATION and JUDGEMENT Per quod CONSIDERATUM FUIT in praesenti Parliamento PER PRAEDICTOS DOMINOS tunc ibidem existentes DE ASSINSU dicti Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc COMES Sarum NIHIL CAPIAT PER PETITIONEM aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius TAM DOMINI SPIRITUALES QUAM TEMPORALE supradicti JUDICIUMET DECLARATIONEM praedicta versus dictum Ioannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praem●ttitur habita five reddita DE ASSENSU IPSIUS DOMINI REGIS AFFIRMARUNT FORE ET ESSE BONA JUSTA ET REGALIA et ea pro hujusmodi EX ABUNDANTI DISCREVERUNT ADJUDICARUNT TUNC IBIDEM This is all that is mentioned in this Parliament Roll concerning this businesse It appeares by the Parliament Roll of 2 H. 4. num 30. That Thomas Holland Earl of Kent Iohn Holland Earle of huntingdo● Iohn Mountagne Earle of Sarum Thomas Lord de Dispencer and Ralph omely Knight were impeached of high treason before the King and Lords in Parliament for levying actuall Warre against the King to destroy the King and his Subjects and for this taken and beheade and hereupon ALL ●●E LORDS TEMPORALL BEING IN PARLIAMENT BY ASSENT OF THE KING DECLARED AND ADJVDGED all the said persons TRAITORS for leavying Warre against the King and that as Traytors they should forfeit all the lands they had in fee simple the 5 day of Jannary the first yeare of the raigne of the King or after according to the Law of the Land with all their goods and chattells notwithstanding they were slaine upon the said levying of Warre without processe of Law So this Record To reverse this judgement was this Petition of Thomas Earle o● Sarisbury in 2. H. 5. exhibited without the errour assigned as appeares by the Par●iament roll but if it were that the Lords only gave Judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons as Sir Edward Cooke imagins 〈◊〉 the King and Lords who upon solemned bate over-ruled the errour abuses and Petitions and found this judg●ment and Declaration of 2. H. 4. given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent without the Commons TO BE GOOD JVST and LEGALL as they did ex abund●nti is a most undeniable proofe of the King and Lords sole right of JVDGEING and DECLARING HIGH TREASON in Parliament without the Commons as well in case of Commoners as Lords Ralph Lomely being but a Commoner and Knight though the rest were Peers and yet all joyntly adjudged Traytors and declared such only by the King and Lords without the Commons and the Judgement assured to be good by the Commons who in the Parliament of 13. H. 4. num 19. Petitioned the Iohn Lomley might be restored by act of Parliament and made capable to inherit his fathers lands thus attainted to which the King by ASSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITVALL and TEMPORALL consented Seventhly the Parliament Roll of 28. H. 6. num 18. c. containes onely an Impeachment of High Treason against the King and other great misdemeanors against the Kingdome and wrongs to particular persons comprised by way of Articles in two distinct Bills brought up by the Commons and presented by William Tresham their Speaker to the King in the Lords House the 7. day of February against William de la Pole Duke of Suffolke to which they desired the Duke might give in his Answer by a certaine day which he did absolutly denying the Treason against the King and denying and excusing himselfe of the rest without putting himselfe upon the Tryall of his Peeres The Chiefe Iustice thereupon the 14. day of March by the Kings command asked this Question of the LORDS WHAT ADVISE THEY WOULD GIVE THE KING what is to doe futrher in this matter which advise was deferred till Monday then next following whereon nothing was done in that matter On Tuesday the 17. of March the King sent for all the Lords Spirituall and Temporall then being in Towne being 42. in all into his Inner Chamber within his Palace of Westminster where when they were all assembled hee then sent for the Duke thither who comming into the Kings presence kneeled downe and continued kneeling till the Chancellour of England had delivered the Kings command to him and demanded of him what he said to the Commons Articles not having put himselfe upon his Peerage Whereupon the Duke denyed all the Articles touching the Kings Person and state of the Realme as false and scandalous And so not departing from his said Answers submitted himselfe wholly to the Kings Rule and Governance without putting himselfe upon his Peerage Where thus the Chancellour told him That as touching the great and horrible things contained in the first Bill the King holdeth him neither declared nor charged And as touching the second Bill containing misprisons which are not criminall the King by force of his submission by his owne advise and

Domino Rege in Parliamente sue at the end of each Parliam Roll wherein the King and Lords or only the King and Lords alone generally gave Iudgement of imprisonment fine banishment and death it self even against Cōmoners themselves without the Commons the thing now principally controverted and denied for proof whereof I shall cite some few punctuall presidents and records in stead of many which might be insisted on In the famous Parl held at Claredon x Mat. Paris p. 6 97. M. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. c 5 p. 703. 705 under K. Hen. 2. 〈◊〉 D. 1164. there was a recognition made of all the ancient Customs of the Realm which all the Prelats Abbots Earls Barons and Nobles swore firmly to observe to the King and his Successors whereof this was one That the Arch-b Bishops and other Clergy men who held of the King in Capite by Barony Sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse JVDCIIS CVRIAE REGIS CVM BARONIBVS * Petrus Bles●sis De Instit Episcopi Bibl Patrum tom 12. par 2. p. 447 quousque perveniatur AD DIMINVTIONEM MEMBRORVM VEL AD MORTEM which proves the power and right of Iudicature even in those times and long before to be setled in the Barons as well in Parliament as in the Sheriffs Tourne and that in case of Commoners as Peers In the Parliament of 4. E. 3. num 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Roger Mortimer Earle of March a Peer Sir Simon Bereford Knight of Councell and assistant to the said Earle John Mautravers Bose de Bayous and Iohn Deverall for being guilty of the death of Edward Earle of Kent Thomas Gournay VVilliam of Ocle for murthering King Edward the second after his deposition were attainted and condemned of High treason and some of them then in cu●●odie accordingly executed by Iudgement of the Lords and Peeres alone who AS JUDGES OF THE LAW by the Kings consent gave judgement of death against them as the Parliament Rolls more largely relate It is true indeed that after these Judgements given the LORDS the same Parliament num 6. entred this Protestation * See Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. That alboit the Lords and Peers of the Realme AS JUDGES OF THE PARLIAMENT in the presence of the King had taken upon them to give Judgement of such who were NO PEERS OF THE REALM that he eafter NO PEERS should be compelled to give Judgement ON ANY OTHERS WHO WERE NOT THEIR PEERS according to the Law From this Protestation of the Lord which Lilburne principally insists on hee and * Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. some others conolude that the Peers in Parliament have no right at all to imprison fine judge or passe sentence of death against any Commoner for any offence no not for breach of their own Priviledges but only the Commons To which objection I answer First that this is no Act of Parliament as Sir Edwards Cooke mistakes but a bare Protestation of the Lords without Kings or Common● assent and that neither the House of Commons nor the Commoners then attainted of Treason and judged to death by the Lords ever demurred or excepted against their Jurisdiction as Lilburne and Overton doe but acknowledged and submitted to it Secondly That in this very Protestation the Lords professe and justifie their right of BEING JVDGES in Parliament without admitting or acknowledging any joynt or sole right of Judicature with them in Parliament in the Commons Thirdly That this Protestation was meerly voluntary not in derogation but preservation of their own Honour and Peerage and the Parliaments too and the substance of it no more then this That the Lords in Parliament should not bee constrained against their wills by the Kings command and in his presence to give judgement of death in ordinary cases of treason or Felony in the high Court of Parliament against such who were no Peers who in such case● * Magn. Ch. c. 29. 25. E. 3. c. 2. 4. 28. E. 3. c. 3. 37. E. 3. c. 8. 42. E. 3. c. 3. Cooke 2. Instit p. 50 51. by the Law might and ought to be tried in the Kings Courts at VVestminster or before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer by a Iury of their equalls but onely in such cases which could not well be tried else-where and were proper for their Judgement in Parliament This is the whole summe and sence of their protestation To argue therefore from hence That they cannot passe sentence or judgement against any Commoners in any case proper for their Judicature in Parliament because they protested only against being COMPELLED to g●ve Judgement against such as were no Peers in cases triable else-where and not proper for their tribunall as the Objectors hence conclude is quite to mistake their meaning and to speak rather non-sence then reason or Law Fourthly This Protestation was made only against the Lords giving sentence in Felony and Treason and that in the Kings own presence in Parliament who usually pronounced the Judgement himself with the Lords assent and did not charge the Lords to pronounce it as here hee did not against sentencing fining and imprisoning any Commoner for rayling and Lybelling against their Persons Jurisdiction and proceedings refusing to answer and contemning their Authority to their faces at the Barre and appealing from their Judicature in case of breach of Priviledge of which themselves alone and no others are or can be Judges the case of Lilburne and Overton whose commitments are warranted by hundreds of Presidents in this and former Parliaments Therefore for them to apply this Protestation to their cases with which it hath no Analogy is a manifestation of their injudiciousnesse and folly rather then a justification of their Libellous Invectives against the Lords injustice Lastly this Protestation did not foreclose the Lords in this or future Parliaments to give Judgement against Commoners in other cases of Felony and Treason even without the Commons To prove this by some instances In the Parliament of 1. H. 4. Placita Coronae num 11. to 17. Iohn Hall being in custody of the Marshall of England and brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged by him by VValter Cl●pton Lord chiefe Justice by the Kings command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a featherbed at Calayes by King Richard the seconds command the whole relation whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billing ford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading whereof the King and ALL THE TEMPORALL LORDS IN PARLIAM●NT resolved that the said Iohn Hall by his own confession deserved to have as hard a death as they could adjudge him to because the Duke of Glocester was so high a Person and thereupon TOVTE LES SEIGNEIURS TEMPORELZ per assent du ROY ADJVGGER●N● all the temporall Lords by assent of the King AJVDGED that the said Joh. Hall should be drawn from Tower

and Parl. 2. R. 2. n. 7 9. they are called the GREAT COUNCEL OF LORDS by waging of their extraordinary wisdome and abilities And therefore most fit to sit vote and judge in Parliament Secondly The Lords and great Officers of the Realme as such were ever reputed persons of greatest Valour Courage Power in regard of their great interests Estates allies and retainers and so best able to withstand and redresse all publike grievances and enchroachments of the King upon their owne and the peoples Liberties in defence whereof they have in ancient times been alwayes most ready and active to spend not only their estates but blood and lives for wherewith they have redeemed and preserved those Liberties and Freedomes we now enjoy and contend for And in this regard our ancesters in point of wisdome policy and right thought meet that they should alwayes be sommoned to and bear chief sway in our Parliaments in respect of their Peerage Power and Nobility only without the peoples election This reason of their sitting in Parliament we find expresly recorded in Bracton l. 2. c. 16. fol. 34. and in Fleta l. 1. c. 17. The King say they hath a Superiour namely God also the Law by which He is made a King likewise His Count to wit THE EARLS BARONS because they are called Counts as being the KINGS FELLOWS and he who hath a Fellow hath A MASTER And therefore if the King shal be without a bridle that is without a Law debent ei fraenum imponere THEY OUGHT TO IMPOSE A BRIDLE ON HIM c. which the Commons being persons of lesse power and interest were unable to do Andrew Horn in his Mirrour of Justice ch 1. § 2 3. renders the like reason In all the contest and Wars between K. John Hen. 3. Edw. 2. Rich. 2. concerning Magna Charta and the Liberties of the Subjects the Lords Barons were the Ring-leaders and chief Opposers of these Kings Usurpations and Encroachments on the people as all our g See Mat. Paris Matthew Westminster Walsingham Huntingdon Holings head Polythronicon Coxton Grims●on Stow Speed Trussell Baker Martin Daniel How and the Soveraign Power of Parliaments Kingdomes part 1 2. 3. 10 R. 2. c. 1 2. 11 R. 2. c. 1. to 7. 21 R. 4. c. 7. to 13. ● H. 4. c. 2. for proof hereof Histories and Records relate whence they stile the Wars in their times THE BARONS WARS and before this the Nobles were the principall Actors in resisting the Tyranny of K. Sigebert and K. Bernard and disthroning them for their misdemeanors as is clear by Mat. Westminster in his Flores Historiarum an 756. 758. To give some brief hints to clear this truth An. Dom. 1214. In the 16. year of h Mat. Paris Hist Angl. p. 233. to 282. Daniel p. 140. to 144. Speed p. 558. to 567. K. John a Parliament held at Pauls July 16. the Charter of Liberties granted to the people by K. Hen. 1. being read and confirmed THE BARONS swore in the Arch-bishops presence that if need were they would spend thier blood And afterwards at St. Edmonds Bury the BARONS swore upon the High Altar That if K. John refused to confirm and restore to them those Liberties the Rights of the Kingdom they would make War upon Him and withdraw themselves from His allegiance till he had ratified them all by His Charter under Seal Which they accordingly performed Tota Angliae Nobilitas in unum collecta all the NOBILITY OF ENGLAND COLLECTED INTO ONE appeared in this defence of their own and the peoples Rights and Liberties against the King whereupon it was afterwards enacted That there should be 25 BARONS chosen by the LORDS not Commons who should to their utmost power cause the Great Charter confirmed by K. John to be duly observed That if either the King or His Justicier should transgresse the same or offend in any one Article 4. of the said BARONS should immediately repaire to Him and require redresse of the same without delay which if not done within forty daies after that then the said 4. BARONS and the rest should distrain and seize upon the Kings Castles Lands and Goods till amends was made according to their arbitration Such confidence and power was then reposed in the BARONS alone i Hist Angl. p. 233. Mat. Paris speaking of the death of Geoffry Fitz-Peeter one of the greatest Peers of that age writes thus of him This year an 1214. Geoffry Fitz-Peeter Justiciary of all England a man of great power and authority TO THE GREATEST DETRIMENT OF THE KINGDOM ended his daies the 2 day of Octob. ERAT autem FIRMISSIMA REGNI COLVMNA for he was the most firm pillar of the Kingdom as being a Nobleman expert in the Laws furnished with treasures rents and all sort of goods and confederated to all the great men of England by blood or friendship whence the King without love did fear him above all men for he governed the raynes of the Kingdom Whereupon after his death England was become like a ship in a storm without an helm The beginning of which tempest was the death of Herbert Arch-bishop of Canterbury a magnificent and faithfull man neither could England breath again after the death of these two When K. John heard of Fitz-Peeters death turning to those who sate about him He said By Gods feet now am I first King and Lord of England He had therefore from thenceforth more free power to break His Oaths and Covenants which He had made with the said Geoffry for the peoples Liberty and Kingdoms peace Such Pillars and Staies are great and stout Peers to a Kingdom Curb to tyrannicall Kings and therefore of mee● Right ought to have a place and voice in Parliaments for the very Kingdoms safety and welfare without the peoples election In the 43 year of K. Hen. 3. his reign k Mat. Paris p. 952. 953. Speed p. 636. Daniel p. 178. The Barons of England entred into a solemn Oath of Association upon the Evangelist to be faithful and diligent to reform the Kingdom of England hitherto by the counsel of wicked persons overmuch disordered and eff ectually to expel the Rebels and disturbers of the same which Oath they made Richard Earl of Cornwall to take as wel as others In these Barons wars for the Subjects Liberties many hundred Lords and Barons spent both their blood lives and estates and among others Simon Mulford Earl of Leicester the greatest Pillar of the Barons slain in the batail of Eusham of who● l In his Continuation of Mat. Paris p. 968. Daniel p. 178. R●shing ●r thus writes Thus this magnificent Earl Simon ended his daies who not only bestowed his estate but his person and life also for relief of oppression of the poor for the asserting of Justice and the Right of the Realm In the 3 4 14 15. of K. Edw. 2. his raign the Barons were the chief Sticklers against Gaveston and the