Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	henry_n	king_n	son_n	13,809	5	5.8259	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

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

contains a true Copy of the 13 Car. 2. cap. 1. which requires Witnesses credible Now if these Questions must be answered in the Negative how can the advice of these Letters be assistent to a better Defence than was known long since It was not a secret to the knowing part of the World that variance between the Indictment and the Evidence might be alleadged on the general Issue nor that Treason and Misprision of it were different Crimes nor that proofs of Treason must not be by hear-say or argument only or that less than two Witnesses were not allowable for proof of that Crime but the contrary of those were so frequently practised and imposed on the Juries unknowing in the Law by persons whose Characters imported Integrity and Knowledge though their Practice contradicted their Characters that it was fit to let the World know what the Law was in vindication of it I am sure it is very fit for the Liberty of the Subject to have the Law established certain and those who are against it and would have it as arbitrary as in the late time it was doe it with a design to have the present Government as odious as the former and then they know by the late Example that it will be as easily subverted but if Conspiracies to levy War are not Capital crimes are they therefore unpunishable Surely they are not It is true according to the Doctrine of the late times nothing but hanging and quartering or tantamount was thought a punishment There are such things as Fines and Imprisonments which are pretty severe punishment and upon occasion there is a power in the Legislative Authority to make such Crimes capital even after they are committed but that Authority did not think fit to vest such a power in the ordinary Courts of Justice The Assertions are two that there was neither Charge nor Proof that the Indictment and Evidence were both insufficient I must confess that it would be a mighty Addition to the Liberty of the Subject to have the Law established and declared to be what the late Judge doth argue it is for then there would be a freedom for Malecontents to endeavour their own satisfaction by Conspiracies and Consults and that with impunity But as the Law was and always hath been taken to be an English Subject hath very little colour for his pretence to such a privilege as that Doctrine gives The Indictment is That at such a place and time he did compass and imagine not only to deprive the K. of his Government and Royal State but to kill and put him to death and to procure a miserable slaughter among the K's Subjects and to subvert the Government of Engl. and to raise a Rebellion against the K. Then follows That to fulfill and perfect these Treasons and traiterous Imaginations he together with other Traitors did then and there with them traitorously consult conspire conclude and agree to raise a Rebellion and to seise and destroy the Guards of the K's Person contra c. Now whether these last acts be not a natural and genuine Evidence of the former let any rational man judge But I will particularly prove that this Indictment was sufficient to warrant the Judgment which the Court gave and pronounced upon a Verdict that the accused was guilty of that Fact in the Indictment and then answer the Objections 1. There is a sufficient Treason alledged 2. Here 's a sufficient Overt-act both these I 'll agree are necessary and if either were wanting the Indictment was naught Now it must be agreed to me that the first is clear and plain for by the Law to compass or imagine the death of the K. Q. or their eldest Son is high Treason It is true by the same Law some open act of which humane Justice can take a Conusance is requisite to be proved the very words of the Statute do expresly require it and in truth it is no more than what must have been had no such words been used for thoughts are secret and can never he arraigned proved or censured any otherwise than as they are discovered by some Overt-act so that that Clause requiring an appearance of the Compassing and Imagination by some Overt-act or open Deed is no more than would have been impliedly requisite had the Clause been omitted 'T is the Imagination and Compassing which is the Treason that alone is the Crimen laesae Majestatis which is prohibited and condemned the Overt-act is not the Treason that 's only a necessary circumstance without which no Court can ever take conusance of the other And it is necessary to alledge some such deed a necessitate rei without respect to the words of that Statute I insist the longer upon this because it is used as an Objection that the Clause of provably attaint by c. is restrictive whereas it is not so for it is only to make that first specified Treason of Imagination and Compassing to be a thing intelligible and triable and farther to prove this it is considerable that this Requisite of the Overt-act is of use and necessity barely and only in the case of that which is first mentioned viz. Compassing for the other sorts of Treason are Acts themselves whereof notice may be had as levying War violating the Q's Bed and the like and in an Indictment you need only alledge the Facts themselves as that there was a War levied there was a carnal knowledge had and the like And this farther appears from the very form of Indictments used ever since that Statute for there never was an Indictment and if there were it could never be good barely averring an Overt-act without an express allegation of the Compassing Then the Matter results solely into this Question Whether the Fact here laid be naturally and necessarily declaratory of the Parties Imagination to destroy the King for if so the Indictment is undoubtedly good and it can never be called a constructive Treason or a Thing devised by the Judges Interpretation of the Statute for they adjudg no more Treason than what the Statute declares and that is an imagination of the King's Death now whatsoever is signicative of a man's Intention or Imagination is a sufficient Overt-deed to demonstrate that that Man had such an Intention or Imagination and whatsoever is expressive or significative of a Man's intending compassing or imagining of the King's Death is a sufficient Overt-act to prove and make such a Man a Traitor within this Law. Now that a Consult about and an Agreement and Conclusion actually to seize the King's Guards and raise a Rebellion are a natural and genuine declaration that the person who did so consult agree and conclude did compass and imagine the Death of the King is surely plain enough for a Rebellion if successfull can determine in nothing else but the King's Death either Natural or Civil which is all one within this Law now he that designs and intends the necessary means naturally conducing