Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	chattel_n	good_n	tenement_n	2,741	5	10.4479	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62230	Summus angliæ seneschallus, or, A survey of the Lord High-Steward of England his office, dignity, and jurisdiction, particularly the manner of arraigning a peer indicted of treason, or felony : in a letter to the Lords in the Tower ...	Saunders, Edmund, Sir, d. 1683.	1680 (1680)	Wing S745; ESTC R9936	19,870	38

reason alledged by some how truly let others judge is forasmuch as Archbishops and Bishops cannot pass in like cases upon the tryal of any other of the Peers their Lordships being prohibited by the Common and Ecclesiastical Laws to be Judges of Life and Death and this Tryal ought to be Mutual since the performance of it is upon their Honours without any Oath taken And hone by the way your Lordships may take notice how great regard the Law hath to the word of a Peer when spoken upon his Honour I need say no more upon this Topick I since your Lordships in that Excellent Poem A PARADOX against Liberty have exprest your thoughts so extremely well No Temporal Lord but only Lords of Parliament shall have this kind of Tryal and therefore the Eldest Son and Heir Apparent of a Duke in the life of his Father though he be called an Earl is excluded And this was the Case of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey Son and Heir Apparent of Thomas Duke of Suffolk in the 38. of H. 8. Likewise the Son and Heir Apparent of an Earl though he be called Lord or Baron and all the younger Sons of Kings are Earls by Birth though they have no other Creation yet shall they not be partakers of this or other Priviledges incident to the Lords of Parliament Those that are Barons of Ireland of Scotland Cok. Litt. 16. b. 3 Inst f. 30. 2 Inst f. 48. committing Treason c. in England shall not have their Tryal by Peers though they were born in England for they receive their Dignity from a King of their Nations If a Duke or other Noble man of France Spain Co. L. 7. Calvin's Case c. comes into England by the King 's safe Conduct in which the King stiles him Duke according to his Creation nevertheless in all proceedings in the King's Courts he shall not be stiled by his Name of Dignity much less a partaker of the Priviledge of this Tryal by Peers But if the King of England at this day create one of his Subjects of Scotland to be Viscount within England or by ordinary Summons under his Great Seal call him to the Upper House of Parliament and assign him a Place and to Vote there in his Great Council he shall be thereby a Peer of this Realm and enjoy all their Priviledges QUERY IV. What Witnesses are required in Indictments and Tryals of Treason or misprision of Treason SOL. By the Ancient Common Law one Witness or Accuser was not sufficient to Convict any person of High-Treason for in that case it was to be tryed before the Constable and Marshal by Combat but they have no Jurisdiction to hold Plea of any thing which may be determined by Common Law And that two Witnesses are requisite appears by the Books of Law and the Common Law herein is grounded upon the Law of God Mirr cap. 3. Ordin de Attaint Brad. L. 5. f. 354. 48 Ed. 3.30 35 H. 6.46 Fortescue c. 32. expressed both in the Old and New Testament Deut. 17. v. 6. Numb 35. v. 30. Deut. 19. v. 15. Matth. 18. v. 16. 2 Cor. 13. v. 1. and this seemeth more clear in the Tryal by Peers because they come not de aliquo Vicineto whereby they may take notice of the Fact in respect of Vicinity as other Jurors may do By the Stat. of 1 E. 6. c. 12. none shall be Indicted Arraigned Condemned or Convicted for any Treason c. for which the Offender shall suffer pains of Death Imprisonment loss or forfeiture of his Goods Chattels Lands or Tenements unless he be accused by two sufficient and lawful Witnesses or shall willingly without violence confess the Fact The same provision is made by 5 E. 6. wherein I must observe to your Lordships that two lawful Accusers in this Act are taken for two lawful Witnesses for by two lawful Accusers and accused by two lawful Witnesses as 't is in 1 E. 6. are Identical which word Accusers was used because two Witnesses ought directly to accuse that is charge the Prisoner for the Common Law respects none else and therefore lawful Accusers must be such as are allowed by Laws And thus 't was resolved by the Justices in the Case of the Lord Lumley Hill 14. El. for if they should not be taken according to the meaning aforesaid then there must be two Accusers by 5 E. 6. and two Witnesses Dyer f. 99. W. Thomas his Case by 1 E. 6. and the strange conceipt in 2 Mar. that one may be an Accuser by Hear-say was utterly denied in the Lord Lumley's Case And here since your Lordships did not make it a Query I shall not so strictly consider it whether the Testimony of a Forreigner may be admitted in case of Treason The Duke of Norfolk at his Arraignment said that nothing which was yet produced was of any moment against him save only the Bishop of Ross his Testimony and that by Opinion of Bracton was not to be admitted because he was a Forreigner to which Callin Lord Chief Justice answer'd that in such Causes as this the Testimony of Forreigners is of force and it lies in the Peers to attribute to Camb. El. A. 1572. or derogate from such Testimony as they shall think fit Where Bract. saith that an Alien born cannot be a Witness it is to be understood of an Alien Infidel for the Bishop of Ross being a Scot born was admitted to be a Witness and sworn 14 El. by Opinion of all the Justices Assistants If a person be accused by one Witness touching one fact and by another concerning another fact the one committed in Middlesex the other in Surrey he that swears the fact done in London joyned to the other Witness that swears to the fact done in Surrey shall be esteemed two sufficient Witnesses in case of Treason and so was it ruled by the Judges at the Old-Baily upon the Tryal of the Five Jesuits whitebread Harcourt Turner Fenwick and Gaven according to the Resolution in Sir H. Vane's Case at the King's-B Bar where one Witness prov'd the levying War in one County and the other prov'd the levying War in another County and so though they were but single Witnesses of single facts yet both coming up to the Indictment they were adjudged two sufficient Witnesses to maintain it QUERY V. Whether a Noble-man being Arraigned own challenge his Peers SOL. If the party an aigned says Coke be a Lord of Parliament and a Peer of the Realm and is to be tryed by his Peers he shall not challenge any of them for they are not sworn as other Jurors be but find the party guilty or not guilty upon their Paith or Allegiance to the King Cok 's Litt. 156. b. and they are Judges of the fact and every of them doth separately give his judgment beginning at the lowest Again Cok 's Litt. 294. a. he tells us that the four Knights Electors of the Grand Assize are not