Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	king_n	lord_n	treason_n	2,059	5	9.0913	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86443	The reading in Lincolnes-Inne, Feb. 28. 1641. Vpon the stat. of 25. E.3. cap. 2. being the statute of treasons. / By Robert Holborne, Esq.	Holborne, Robert, Sir, d. 1647.	1643 (1643)	Wing H2374; Thomason E246_14; ESTC R19470	15,208	17

Ecclesiasticall Judges are not within this Law for they hold with the Court of Rome and did derive their authority from him in ancient time neither is a Constable within this Law The second case I. S. slits the great Seale and closeth it to a Commission and coynes money in the forme of shillings invertendo the armes The second case kils the Lord Keeper of the great Seale in Chancery and brings in false money like English to Marchandize knowing it to be false but doth not offer it and I. S. knowing this doth succour him The conclusion is that I. S. is a traytor in omnibus and I. D. also within this Law the first act is slighting of the Seal and putting of it to the Commission and that is treason first because that is slit whereby it is become now no Seale at all it cannot be said that this halfe is the broad Seale or that the other halse is the broad Seale fer they both together make but one broad Seale and when he hath closed them together againe and joyned them to a Commission he hath made the Seala new for it was no Seal when it was slit but now it is The second reason is in respect of the mischiefe that doth come by this translating of an old Seale to a new Commission for both the King and his Subjects are as much abused as if it had beene counterfeited and the reason of Lawes and not authority 40. Ass 33. Broait treas 17. Britta ca. 4. fo 10. ought to be our rule to goe by for indicandum est legibus non exemples and so he conceiveth the case in Bro. Tit. treason 3. to be no grand Law this was treason also at Common-law as you shall finde it exprest in Bruam ca. 4. fol. 10. and in the mirrour of Justice ca. 1. sex 6. and since the statute in the same Kings time that this statute was made in and they who knew best the reasons and grounds of this statute and the meaning thereof and were at the making therof by all likelihood did adjudge it treason to take an old Seale from an old pattent and to put it to a new one as in 40. Ass pl. 33. and 2. 〈◊〉 4.33 and Stamf. saith 40. Ass p. 33. 2 H. 4.33 that it was so adjudged in his time In all treasons that doe concerne the person of the King the judgement ought to be that he shall be hanged drawne and quartered but for other treasons that doe not imediately concerne the person of the King 1. H. 6.5 19. H. 6.47 6. H. 7.13 the judgement ought to be that he shall be drawne and hanged onely and not that he shall be quartered as it is in 1. H. 6. 5. 19. H. 6. 47. The second act is the counterfeiting of the Kings money and the inverting of the armes of the King whereby the Kings Liege people and others may be deceived for that is a sufficient alteration to make it treason although it be such a one as cannot be discern'd without speciall notice taken of it and this doth appeare by the judgement given in the Star-Chamber for the counterfeiting of farre things and it is treason for any man to beare the Kings armes as it appeares in the Earle of Surreys case The third act is the killing of the Officers of the King as of the Lord Keeper and that is treason within this Law for the Lord Keeper is now Chancelour although at that time when this statute was made the Lord Chancelours Office and the Lord Keepers Office were two severall and distinct Offices yet they are made now both one Office 5. Eliz. c. 18.25 E. 3. c. 2. and that is by the statute of 5. Eliz. ca. 18. and this statute of 15. E. 3. ca. 2. may and doth extend to that statute of 5. Eliz. which comes after as is very fully exprest to the purpose though not to this case in Co. 4. fo 4. Vernons case the statute of Marlebrige which was made 4.52 H. 3. gave the word of the tennant that held by Knight service notwithstanding he had made a feoffment by colusion from which time and for 200. yeeres and more till the statute of the 4. of H. 7. ca. 17. which gave the Ward of the heire of Costigase the heire of Costigase was not in Ward and yet it is held in the 27. of H. 8.9 fol. that if Costigase after the statute of 4. H. 7. makes a feoffment in Fee by colution to defraud the Lord of his Ward that this is taken within the equity of the statute of Marlebridge and so of divers other cases that you may see there cited in Vernons case above mentioned The fourth Act is the bringing in of false money like unto our English money for to Merchandize withall and this is treason for here is not onely an intent but there is also an act joyned with this intent for he brings over this money which is the act with an intent to Merchandize The second conclusion is that I. D. is a traytour within this law and his treason doth goe or extend to all the other foure treasons that were committed by I. S. for this succouring of him after the fact committed makes him a traytour within this law and at the Common-law before the making of this Statute if a man had succoured one that had committed treason knowing him to have committed it he had bin a traytor and so if one doth now succour a fellon it is fellony in the succorour and why should it not be so in our case for the reason of law in our case is farre stronger that the succorour of a traytour should be a traytour then the succouring of a fellon should be a fellon because the offence is greater and therefore it is an aggravation of his punishment to make him that no man shall receive or succour him for we see the law inflicts a greater punishment upon a traytor then upon a fellon and that is to deterre men from such acts as those are and so it apperes that there is reason why he should be a traytour although he be not within the words of the Statute And therefore it is in the reason of the Statute Another reason is because the Statute doth not say who shall be traitors but what shall be treason and this word treason shall be taken with all its concomitants and accidents as it was at Common-law and then that was a concomitant to treason that the succoror should be a traytor Object But it is so in 3. H. 7. fol. 10. that a succoror in treason is no traitour Answ The reason of that case there is because the judgement was that he knowing eam ●roditionem predictam perpetrasse felonice hospitalis fuit and this was not grand because he was in that case indicted as an accessary and was not indicted as a traytour for there can be no accessaries in treasons Fit tit Cor. 55. Bro. tit Cor.

he can be no enemy neither but if he goeth over Sea and then levy warre against this Kingdom or any other of his majesties Kingdoms he is then an enemy within this Law and no Rebell There is also Dominum rectum et Dominum utile Dominum duplex for if a man be born within the dominum rectum as that of Scotland in ancient time and there he levy war he is an enemy and no rebell but if he be borne within the dominum utile and levy warre he is a rebell and not an enemy Aiding is by sending of them aide as of victuals or of weapons and the like by giving of them counsell or by any other way whereby they may receive strength or comfort from him Now for the persons by whom this levying of warre may be and as to that all levies are within this Law aswell women as men for women are comprehended under this word man Secondly persons of all nations that are within this Land are within this Law for as they shall have protection by the Lawes of the Land and they ought at their perill to take notice of the Law so soone as they come into the Land for they ought to have notice given them and cannot alleage ignorance if it be not given them especially in such Lawes as this that are so beneficiall both to the King and Kingdome Thirdly persons of all degrees as a Queen that is married to the King attempting the death of the King is within this Law A forraigne Embassadour is also within this Law but if a forraign King should come into this Land by licence and here compasse the death of the King the question will be how he shall be tried for he is a King here and therefore ought to be tried per Pares which he cannot be for other honours are not allowed here Fourthly all ages are within this Law as in faults which have knowledge or men of non sanae memoriae and a mad man is also within this Law as to that part of the statute which concernes more immediately the person of the King for if any of them afore mentioned in this division shal compasse his death it is treason within the first clause but not in the clause of levying warre as I shall shew you afterwards but a man that is surdus caecus et mutus is not within this Law for it is impossible for him to have understanding Northumberlands case Now for the persons against whom a King before his Coronation is within this law as it is in the Duke of Northumberlands case for he is presently a King as soon as the other King deceaseth and there is no interregnum for the King Quatenus a King never dyeth but he is said to demise when he departs this life and the King is crowned because he is a King and not a King because he is Crowned a King See 4. E. 4.1.9 F. 4.12 de facto and not de jure is a King within this Law as it is in 4. E. 4.1 and 9. E. 4.12 A King conjugall or maritall that takes to wife the Queene of England is within this Law a Queene that is maried although the mariage be voyd yet that Queene is within this Law so is a Queene maried by proxie a Queene a Queene within age is also within this Law The first Case I. S. First Case after the divorce of the wife of the Grandchild and Heire-apparent to the Queen doe violate her and imagine the death of the husband and declares this to I. D. and after kils the husband of the Queen and conspire to levy warre against the Queene and delivers to I. D. mony to buy armes and after becomes mad and aids the enemies of the Queene within the Realme and then kill the Queene The conclusion is first I. S. is a traytor within this Law for killing the husband of the Queen and for conspiring to levy warre and for killing of the Queen and in every one of these The second conclusion that I. S. is not a traytor within this Law for imagining the death of the Grandchild and yet he is within the case of the Law not for violating of his wife nor for aiding of the enemies I. S. is a traytor within this Law for killing the husband of the Queene but not within these words that whosoever shall conspire or compasse the death of the King for as to that clause he is not King for the Queene is regent and not he and so not within that clause nor the meaning of it but he is within this word Companion for he is as good a companion to the Queene as the Queene is to the King and so within the same reason of Law for the husband of the Queene in such a case is in a better condition and plight then a Queene to a King and so upon a stronger reason but this you must take as a rule that I have said before viz. that this Statute is not to be taken by equity and this you shall finde as another rule as well for the expounding this Statute as any other Bro. tre sol 12.12 ass pl. 30.19 H. 6.47 Com. 87.6 Fitz. Cor. 7.118 Brooks tuareas 8. that those cases that stands upon the same reason shall be within the same Law although not taken by equity for where there is the same identity paritie or majority of reason in any cases there ought to be the same Law as it is in the statute of Glooester concerning waste and in this our statute the misterics are not named yet there is within this Law for if the servant kils the wife of his Master knowing her to be his Masters wife this is adjudged petty treason by the judgment of al the Judges of both Benches 19. H. 6.47 Com. 87.6 Fitz. Cor. 7.118 Bro. Tit. treason 8. For as well the Mistris as the Master hath assiance in him and he ought to give reverence to his Mistris as well as his Master and yet the Master is onely named in this statute but in our case the expresse words are that if any man shall compasse the death of the Kings Companion it shall be treason and so there is an expresse proviso for him being the Companion for he is a Companion to the Queene a second difference betweene our case and the case of the Mistris is that shee is his Mistris but gratia and under the power of her husband but in our case the King maritall hath a superiority over his wife as he is her husband and so our case is a farre stronger case If a child kils his Father or Mother this is petty treason 21. E. 3.17 Bro. tit Sanctuarii● Bro. tit treas 6. and so it was also at the Common-law before the making of this statute 21. E. 3.17 Bro. tit Santuarii the 2. and Bro. tit treason the 6. because there is a majority of reason then that of a servant the reason of the

135. as there is in felonies and he is Enz. titl Coron 55. Bro. tit Coron 135. and for expresse authority it is in 1. H. 6.5 for if this Statute had made felony treason and one doth commit that treason and A. succours him knowing of it it had binabsurd for to have said that the succorour should have bin onely a felon but our case is stronger for this Law doth not make any one treason but onely declares what shall be adjudged treason but if this statute had exprest that all abettors should have beene traytors that then the receivers or succourers should not have beene traytors within this Law for then the intent of the makers would plainly appeare that it was not intended that the receivers or succourers after the fact should not have beene within this Law but onely the Abettors before and at the fact The third Lecture This Lecture is of petty treason and petty treason do very little differ from felonies for by the pardon of all felonies all petty treasons are pardoned Stam. as it is fol. 2.6 Stam. fo 2.6 But it hath some correspondency with other treasors and that is in respect of the duty and obedience that is dueeach to other as it is from the Subjects to the King so from the servant to the Master All servants although they receive no wages but onely meat and drinke are within this Law a servant that is not compellable to serve by this Statute yet if he doeth serve he is within this Law and so is a Bailiffe of a Mannor for if he kill that Lord of the Mannor it is p●tty treason within this Law Steward of a Court Leet or Court Barron is not within this law a wife divorced for adultery is within this law although a Queene divorst for adultery be not within this law as ye have heard before Ordinaties are of two sorts Ordinarius loci ordinarius Dioces Ordinarius loci Ordinarius Dioces and the superiour Ordinares they are all within this law Ordinarius loci as that of the Deane of Westminster Ordinarius Dioces is the Bishop of the Diocesse and the superiour Ordinary is the Archbishop they are all within this law in respect of the obedience that is due to them A childe killing his Father or his Mother he is within this law as you heard before although he he not named in it yet there is a majority of treason in it more then that of a servant and therefore is within that intent and reason of the law and so it is in Dalton If one command another to kill his Master who doeth it yet it is not treason within this law unlesse he be there present when the fact is done 40. Ass 25. 40. Ass 25. If a wife command a servant to kill her husband and he doeth it it is treason in both within this law and so it appeares that Abettors and Partners are within the last part of this Statute concerning petty treasons although they are not named If a servant goes from his Master and then kils him this is petty treason within this law for it shall be intended that he had such an intention to kill him before he departed out of his service Bro. Titl treason 15.33 Ass 7. 33. Ass 7. And so is a quarrell in Westminster Hall the Courts sitting and then goe out of the Hall into the Pallace-Yard and then one strikes the other this is punishable with the same punishment as if he had struck him in the Hal for the punishment shal be to the losse of his hand and the forfeiture of his goods and perpetuall imprisonment as it is in Dacies case 1. and 2. Eliz. Diar 188.21 E. 3.17.21 Ass 30. in the 1. and 2. of Eliz. Diar 188. but some of these offences were treason at the Common-law as the sonne killing of the father 21. E. 3.17 and of a maid-servant killing her Mistris 21. Ass 30. if a servant kill his Mistris this is petty treason within this Law and yet she is not named but is to be intended upon the same reason with his Master 19. H. 6.47 and the obedience is due to the one aswell as to the other 19. H. 6.37 Treason ought to be fully proved as it appeares by the words of the statute and that is to be by two witnesses the proving of every treason 1. E. 6. and the statute of 1. E. 6. is not repealed as to this point by the statute of Ph. and Mary but onely the triall in the Counties and not concerning witnesles as by that statute more at large appeares and in the 14. of Eliz. in the Lord Lumlyer case 14. Eliz. Lumlies case 13. H. 8. 11. 12. Bro. tit tre 29.33 it was agreed that the statute 1. E. 6. was not reversed by the old statute The triall of Lords of Parliament ought to be per pares but in some cases he shall not have his triall per pares as in an appeale but in an indictment he shall and the indictment shall be received into Parliament because an Indictment is the Kings suit and the statute of Magna Charta is nec super cun ibimus nec super eum mittimus and this is to be intended in the Kings suit the 10. Ed. 4.6 10. E. 4.6 But a Lord may refuse his tryall per paces if he will as it was adjudged 1. of Phil. and Mar. Br. in the Lord Grayes case 1 Phi. Ma. Bro. Lo. Gr. case Pa. 13. Jac. but in the Lord of Castlehavens case it was held the contrary if a man be kil'd in rebellion he shall forfeit his lands and is a traytor but there ought to be an inquisition taken of him ond that shall be a sufficient triall As the case in Pa. 13. Jac. Br. if a man doe cast himselfe into the water and never is found after yet if it be presented by the Justice of Peace this is sufficient to make him forfeit his goods As for those treasons which are not here declared the Judges authority take indictments of them but they ought not to be proceeded to judgement for nothing is to be done in point of judgement in such a case till it be adjudged and declared in Parliament and all other treasons that are not here declared ought to be felonies at the least because felonies were made treasons before the statute and because the words of the statute are that it ought to be treason or felony but if it be but once declared in Parliament unlesse there be a Proviso that the Judges shall not proceed upon the like cases they may afterwards proceed by force of this statute They are treasons at Common-law notwithstanding the statute 1. Q. Mary for that did take away those treasons and Declarations of treasons that were made in Parliaments from the time of our statute to the 1. of Q. Mary but doth not take away the declarative power in our statute mentioned nor the Common-law but they doe remains still as before FINIS