Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	kingdom_n	lord_n	18,878	5	4.5108	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B21538	The East-India Company, appellants. Mr. Attorney General at the relation of Walter Whitfeild, John Earl, and Thomas Killner. Respendents [sic]. The appellants case.	East India Company.	1693 (1693)	Wing E100BE; Interim Tract Supplement Guide L.R.305.a.7.[38]; ESTC R227817	2,510	2

The East-India Company Appellants Mr. Attorney General at the Relation of Walter Whitfeild John Earl and Thomas Killner Respondents The Appellants Case THE East-India Company at their vast Charge Established a Trade to the East-Indies very profitable to this Kingdom And had full Power by their Charter from the two last Kings to make War or Peace with any Heathen Princes within their Limits as occasion should require without any reservation to the Crown or Lord High Admiral of England of the Tenth or any other part of Prizes That the Great Mogul unjustly began a War against the Company and seized their Factories Servants and Goods and murthered several English and besieged their Forts and Castles in the East-Indies of which the late King James and his Council being informed his Majesty was pleased to direct the Company for the Preservation of their Rights and the Vindication of the Honour of this Kingdom to make War against the Great Mogul and his Subjects and gave Commissions to several of his Captains of Ships of War to assist the Company and observe their Orders in the Prosecution of that War thereby requiring the Captains to take care that the Tenths of all Prizes taken by them in that War and condemned as lawful Prize should be secured and paid to the said late King This War continued several years but at last a Peace much to the Honour of this Kingdom was made whereby all that was detained or stopped in the Indies during the War on both sides and not plundred or destroyed were to be restored to each other and such Goods of the Mogul's Subjects as the Company had sent home were to be paid for by them which they have since satisfied accordingly That the whole Expences of that War which were vastly Great were born by the Company and the King put to no Charge and the Tenth of all Prizes in that War taken and condemned in the East-Indies amounting in the whole to 1361 l. 13 s. ●1 d. were duly paid into the Exchequer upon the Relators Motion But the said Relators pretending there were more Prizes taken and condemned then those answered to Their Majesties as aforesaid got a Privy-Seal for a Third of the Tenth part of all Prize Goods during that War and prevailed with Mr. Attorney General at their Relation to Exhibit a Bill into the Court of Exchequer against the Appellants for an Account of all Prize Goods generally and to have the Tenths of the same To which Bill the Appellants put in their Answer and insisted on several Matters arising in the Indies material and necessary to be proved and upon which their just defence depended and therefore often moved that Court for a Commission thither to examine their Witnesses but were denied the same That after the Commencement of that Suit two of the Companies Ships called Charles the II. and New London arriving with Goods from the East-Indies the Relators upon pretence that those Goods were all or most Prize Goods obtained an Order from the Court of Exchequer to carry into Ware-houses and open and view the whole Cargoes of both Ships which they did disordering every Bale thereof to the great damage of the Goods a great part whereof was bought by the Companies Factors in the East Indies and other part belonging to other Marcha●ts and so the Appellants could have proved and again moved the Court of Exchequer upon Affidavits for a Commission to prove the same but were still denied it though the Proof was put upon them by Mr. Attorney General 's replying to their Answer and although the said Court by their Order of the 9th of May last had given the Company time to consider whether upon their having a Commission they would give Security to abide the Order of that Court on Hearing the Cause touching ●he Sum of Mony reported due which was but 9000l and had a●terward al●owed of Security offered by the Company for that purpose yet they could obtain no Commission unless the Company would first give Security by three sufficient Persons in the Sum of 30000l being more then three times the Sum reported due to abide the Order o● Court upon Hearing the Cause That the Appellants being thus denied the liberty of making their just Defence put in exceptions to the Deputy Remembrancer's Report being thereby without any sufficient Proof charged with 9000l for Prize Goods as brought home in the said two Ships but the Exceptions were over-ruled as to all save 179 Bales of Goods which were sent to a Tryal at Law and by a Jury of Knights and Gentlemen at the Exchequer Bar a Verdict was found that they were not Prize Goods tho' Jeremiah Bonneale who was the only positive Witness against the Appellants on which the Report was founded by his Affidavit and Depositions taken in the Cause did swear That the 1●9 Bales which were to to 〈…〉 by the Verdict n●t to be Prize Goods were Prize Goods as well as the rest and so his Testimony was contradicted by the Verdict as to the 1●9 〈◊〉 and would have been so likewise as to the rest of the Goods had the Appellants been allowed a Commission as of Right they ought After which Tryal the said Cause came to Hearing the 29th of November 1692. And a Decree pass'd against the Appellants for Payment to their Majesties 7940l for the Tenths of Prize Goods come to their hands in the said two Ships of all which they could have discharged themselves had they been allowed a Commission as they ought to have been Against which Decree and the denying of a Commission to the Appellants for Examination of their Witnesses an Appeal is brought and the Appellants humbly pray that the Decree may be reversed for these Reasons FIRST For that the Decree was founded on the Testimony of a single Witness who was falsified by a Verdict at Law given in the same Court where the Decree was made and before the same Judges and that in time before the Decree was pronounced and so as humbly conceived could be no good Ground in Equity for a Decree nor ought a single Witness tho' of good Credit to be received against the Defendants Answer that being contrary to the constant Practice and Rules of Equity and there was no other Witness but him who was falsified by a Verdict at Law to charge the Appellants with the Sum Decreed SECONDLY For that it is of commmon Right and the constant Justice of all Courts of Equity to grant Commissions beyond Sea for Examination of Witnesses there where the Cause of Action ariseth and when the Circumstance of the Case requires it as in this Case it was manifestly necessary the whole Matter of the Suit arising in the East-Indies for without such Commission it will be impossible to examine the Witnesses in Foreign Parts and without Proof no Man can defend himself and if the Appellants Witnesses in the East-Indies had been examined there would have been no colour for any Decree and therefore it is humbly hoped the Decree shall be Reversed THE CASE OF THE East-India Company Against Mr. Attorney-General And the Relators To be heard at the Bar of the House of Lords on Tuesday 14. of Feb. 1692