Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	hold_v	king_n	tenure_n	3,330	5	12.6135	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57925	The Tryal of Thomas, Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, upon an impeachment of high treason by the Commons then assembled in Parliament, in the name of themselves and of all the Commons in England, begun in Westminster-Hall the 22th of March 1640, and continued before judgment was given until the 10th of May, 1641 shewing the form of parliamentary proceedings in an impeachment of treason : to which is added a short account of some other matters of fact transacted in both houses of Parliament, precedent, concomitant, and subsequent to the said tryal : with some special arguments in law relating to a bill of attainder / faithfully collected, and impartially published, without observation or reflection, by John Rushworth of Lincolnes-Inn, Esq.	Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of, 1593-1641, defendant.; Rushworth, John, 1612?-1690.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1680 (1680)	Wing R2333; ESTC R22355	652,962	626

whether it were or no hath denyed Licence without Fees and that certain Fees were demanded shall be made appear Whereupon Richard Wade being Interrogated whether Fees were not demanded by the Secretaries for Licences of mens passage into England and what Fees He Answered That for Fees for my Lord of Esmond's Licence he was demanded 24 or 25 s. Patrick Gough being asked to that point He Answered That he remembers he hath taken Licences twice or thrice for my Lord Viscount Mountgomery and for every one of them paid 25 s. and for three of his servants 25 s. and that those were demanded for he the Deponent would have given less if they would have taken less and that these were demanded by Secretary Littles Servants Mr. Glyn desired one word more and the rather said he because it seems my Lord of Strafford slights this Article which is the most proved and the least answer'd of any yet heard their Lordships may observe what is laid to his charge the subverting of Laws and the introducing of a Tyrannical Government And before he goes about his work he puts off all means of redress beforehand that if he give any occasion of offence he that is offended shall not possibly have remedy His justification is because of that great danger that may ensue for they may joyn with Rebels but that 's a pretence Indeed he used that Argument when he moved it to His Majesty but it was that they might not come over to make complaints That his Propositions were made and entred at the Council-Table here he aggravates his offence and Mr Glyn did thus illustrate it That if a man come to him and desire leave to lye in his House if he gives the party leave and he by that means takes occasion to betray him or to commit Felony or steal his Goods That leave was well given but it aggravates the others offence when he doth mischief to him that lodged him So my Lord of Strafford's Proposition was fair but if their Lordships observe the subsequence of it that he might exercise his Power and leave the Subject without means of redress but they must come to himself for it Mr Glyn further said he thinks had he suffered under his hands after the example of my Lord Mountnorris he should be loth to say to his face he would complain An Act of Parliament he produces for his Justification which is plainly against him for it shews there were some that held Lands there by tenure and if they were not resident they forfeited Then comes the Act and says That those whom the King commands to be absent they shall not forfeit which shows they had a personal Power without Licence so that the very Law produced is expresly against him and there Lordships may see by his own Proposition the occasion of his introducing this Letter And Mr. Glyn concluded That he supposes that my Lord of Strafford hath made no answer to that And so the 16 th Article was finished and the 17 th and 18 th being for the present set aside the Committee that managed the Evidence proceeded to the 19 th Article THE Nineteenth Article The Charge 19. That the said Earl having Taxed and Levied the said Impositions and raised the said Monopolies and committed the said other Oppressions in His Majesties Name and as by His Majesties Royal Command He the said Earl in May the 15th year of His Majesties Reign did of his own authority contrive and frame a new and unusual Oath by the purport whereof among many other things the party taking the said Oath was to swear that he should not protest against any of His Majesties Royal Commands but submit himself in all Obedience thereunto which Oath he so contriv'd to enforce the same on the Subjects of the Scotish Nation inhabiting in Ireland and out of a hatred to the said Nation and to put them to a discontent with His Majesty and His Government there and compelled divers of His Majesties said Subjects there to take the said Oath a gainst their Wills and of such as refused to take the said Oath some he grievously Fined and Imprisoned and others he destroyed and exiled and namely the 10th of October Ann. Dom. 1639. He Fined Henry Steward and his Wife who refused to take the said Oath 5000 pounds apiece and their two Daughters and James Gray 3000 pounds apiece and imprisoned them for not paying the said Fines The said Henry Steward his Wife and Daughters and James Gray being the Kings Liege people of the Scotish Nation and divers others he used in like manner and the said Earl upon that occasion did declare that the said Oath did not only oblige them in point of Allegiance to His Majesty and acknowledgement of his Supremacy only but to the Ceremonies and Government of the Church established and to be established by His Majesties Royal Authority and said That the refusers to obey he would prosecute to the Blood Mr. Whitlock proceeded to open the 19th Article setting forth in substance as followeth THAT the next Article in which they shall proceed to make good the Impeachment of all the Commons of England against my Lord of Strafford is the 19th Article That their Lordships have heard his demeanor to the Subjects of the Irish Nation what power he exercised over their Liberties their Properties their Lives That he used His Majesties Subjects of Scotland in the same manner exercising an unlawful power over their consciences by imposing a new and unlawful Oath on such of them as lived in Ireland That the Kings Subjects of the Scotish Nation have the same benefit of protection from His Majesty and His Laws as his other Subjects have since they are bound to the same Allegiance to the same Obedience and therefore what ought not to be done to any other of the King's Subjects ought not to be done to them That a new Oath cannot be imposed without Assent of a Parliament yet my Lord of Strafford is pleased to enjoyn this Oath to contrive it to threaten them that desired to consider of it he sends forth Commissions to the Gentry in the Countrey to tender it and such as refused were brought up by Pursivants and Officers to Dublin and committed to Prison and divers of them rather than they would take this Oath were fain to forsake their Families their Estates and Lands and fly away and were exiled the Kingdom That the Charge particularly mentioning the sentencing of Henry Stuart his Wife and two Daughters and one Iames Gray above the age of 16. who for refusing this Oath were Fined Stuart himself 5000 l. his Wife 3000 l. his Daughters 3000 l. apiece and Iames Gray as much and in their Sentence my Lord was pleased to declare himself so bitter against that Nation and so much resolved that this Oath should be taken by all of them though against Law That he publiquely said That those who refused to take the Oath

ad fidem legem Angliae The Irish without the Pale were enemies always either in open act of Hostility or upon Leagues and Hostages given for securing the Peace and therefore as here in England we had our Marches upon the frontiers in Scotland and Wales so were there Marches between the Irish and English Pale where the Inhabitants held their Lands by this tenure to defend the Countrey against the Irish as appears in the close Roll of the Tower in the 20th year of Edw. 3. membrana 15. on the backside and in an Irish Parliament held the 42 year of Edw. 3. it 's declared That the English Pale was almost destroyed by the Irish enemies and that there was no way to prevent the danger but only that the Owners reside upon their Lands for defence and that absence should be a forfeiture This Act of Parliament in a great Council here was affirmed as appears in the close Roll the 22 year of Edw. 3. Membrana 20 dorso Afterwards as appears in the Statute of 28 Hen. 6th in Ireland this Hostility continued between the English Marches and the Irish Enemies who by reason there was no difference between the English Marches and them in their apparel did daily not being known to the English destroy the English within the Pale Therefore it is enacted that every English-man shall have the hair of his upper Lip for distinction sake This hostility continued until the 10th year of Henry the 7th as appears by the Statute of 10 H. 7th and 17th so successively downwards till the making of this very Statute of 11 Eliz. as appears fully in the 9th Chap. Nay immediately before and at the time of the making of this Statute there was not only enmity between those of the Shire-ground that is the English and Irish Pale but open War and acts of hostility as appears by History of no less Authority than that Statute it self for in the first Chapter of that Statute is the Attainder of Shane Oneale who had made open War was slain in open War it 's there declared That he had gotten by force all the North of Ireland for an hundred and twenty miles in length and about a hundred in breadth that he had mastered divers places within the English Pale when the flame of this War by his death immediately before this Statute was spent yet the Firebrands were not all quenched for the Rebellion continued by Iohn Fitz-Gerard called the White Knight and Thomas Gueverford this appears by the Statute of the Thirteenth year of Queen Eliz. in Ireland but two years after this of the Eleventh year of Queen Eliz. where they are attainted of High Treason for levying of War this Eleventh year wherein this Statute was made So that my Lords immediately before and at the time of the making of this Statute there being War between those of the Shire-grounds mentioned in this Statute and the Irish the concluding of War and Acts Offensive and Invasive there mentioned can be intended against no others but the Irish Enemies Again The words of the Statute are No Captain shall assemble the people of the Shire-grounds to conclude of Peace or War Is to presume that those of the Shire-grounds will conclude of War against themselves Nor with the Statute Shall carry those of the Shire-grounds to do any Acts Invasive by the construction which is made on the other side they must be carried to fight against themselves Lastly The words are That as Captain none shall assume the Name or Authority of a Captain or as a Captain shall gather the people together or as a Captain lead them the offence is not in the matter but in the manner If the Acts offensive were against the Kings good Subjects those that were under Command were punishable as well as the Commanders but in respect the Soldiers knew the service to be good in it self being against the enemies and that it was not for them to dispute the Authority of their Commanders the penalty of 100 l. is laid only upon him That as Captain shall assume this Power without Warrant the People commanded are not within this Statute My Lords The Logick wherupon this Argument is framed stands thus because the Statute of the Eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth inflicts a penalty of 100 l. and no more upon any man that as a Captain without Warrant and upon his own head shall conclude of or make War against the King's Enemies Therefore the Statute of the Eighteenth year of Henry the 6th is repealed which makes it Treason to lay Soldiers upon or to levy War against the Kings good People But my Lords Observation hath been made upon other words of this Statute that is that without Licence of the Deputy these things cannot be done this shews that the Deputy is within none of the Statutes My Lords This Argument stands upon the same reason with the former because he hath the ordering of the Army of Ireland for the defence of the people and may give Warrant to the Officers of the Army upon eminent occasions of Invasion to resist or prosecute the Enemy because of the danger that else might ensue forthwith by staying for a Warrant from His Majesty out of England My Lords The Statute of the 10th year of Henry the 7th chap. 17. touched upon for this purpose clears the business in both points for there is declared That none ought to make War upon the Irish Rebels and Enemies without Warrant from the Lieutenant the forfeiture 100 l. as here the Statute is the same with this and might as well have been cited for repealing the Statute of the 18th year of Henry the 6th as this of the 11th year of Queen Elizabeth But if this had been insisted upon it would have expounded the other two clear against him Object My Lords it hath been further said although the Statute be in force and there be a Treason within it yet the Parliament hath no Jurisdiction the Treasons are committed in Ireland therefore not triable here Answ. My Lords Sir Iohn Parrot his Predecessor 24 Edw. was tryed in the Kings Bench for Treason done in Ireland when he was Deputy and Oruche in the 33 year of Queen Elizabeth adjudged here for Treason done in Ireland Object But it will be said these Tryals were after the Statute of the 34th year of Henry the 8th which enacts that Treasons beyond Sea may be tryed in England Answ. My Lords his Predecessor my Lord Gray was tryed and adjudged here in the Kings-Bench that was in Trinity Term in the 33 year of Henry the 8th this was before the making of that Statute Object To this again will we say That it was for Treason by the Laws and Statutes of England that this is not for any thing that 's Treason by the Law of England but an Irish Statute So that the question is only Whether your Lordships here in Parliament have cognizance of an offence made Treason by an Irish Statute

the Statute of the Eight and twentieth year of Hen. 6th in Ireland it is declared in these words That Ireland is the proper Dominion of England and united to the Crown of England which Crown of England is of it self and by it self wholly and entirely endowed with all Power and Authority sufficient to yield to the Subjects of the same full and plenary remedy in all Debates and Suits whatsoever By the Statute of the Three and twentieth year of Henry the 8th the first Chapter when the Kings of England first assumed the Title of King of Ireland it is there Enacted that Ireland still is to be held as a Crown annexed and united to the Crown of England So that by the same reason from this that the Kings Writs run not in Ireland it might as well be held that the Parliament cannot originally hold Plea of things done within the County-Palatine of Chester and Durham nor within the Five Ports and Wales Ireland is a part of the Realm of England as appears by those Statutes as well as any of them This is made good by constant practice in all the Parliament Rolls from the first to the last there are Receivers and Tryers of Petitions appointed for Ireland for the Irish to come so far with their Petitions for Justice and the Parliament not to have cognizance when from time to time they had in the beginning of the Parliament appointed Receivers and Tryers of them is a thing not to be presumed An Appeal in Ireland brought by William Lord Vesey against Iohn Fitz-Thomas for Treasonable words there spoken before any Judgment given in Case there was removed into the Parliament in England and there the Defendant acquitted as appears in the Parliament Pleas of the Two and twentieth year of Edw. 1. The Suits for Lands Offices and Goods originally begun here are many and if question grew upon matter in fact a Jury usually ordered to try it and the Verdict returned into the Parliament as in the Case of one Ballyben in the Parliament of the Five and thirtieth year of Edward the 1. If a doubt arose upon a matter tryable by Record a Writ went to the Officers in whose custody the Record remained to certifie the Record as was in the Case of Robert Bagott the same Parliament of the Five and thirtieth year of Edward the 1. where the Writ went to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer Sometimes they gave Judgement here in Parliament and commanded the Judges there in Ireland to do execution as in the great Case of Partition between the Copartners of the Earl Marshal in the Parliament of the Three and thirtieth of Edward the 1. where the Writ was awarded to the Treasurer of Ireland My Lords The Laws of Ireland were introduced by the Parliament of England as appears by Three Acts of the Parliament before cited It is of higher Jurisdiction Dare Leges then to judge by them The Parliaments of England do bind in Ireland if Ireland be particularly mentioned as is resolved in the Book-Case of the First year of Henry the Seventh Cook 's Seventh Report Calvin's Case and by the Judges in Trinity-Term in the Three and thirtieth year of Queen Elizabeth The Statute of the Eighth year of Edward the 4th the first Chapter in Ireland recites That it was doubted amongst the Judges whether all the English Statutes though not naming Ireland were in force there if named no doubt From King Henry the 3. his time downwards to the Eighth year of Queen Elizabeth by which Statute it is made Felony to carry Sheep from Ireland beyond Seas in almost all these Kings Reigns there be Statutes made concerning Ireland The exercising of the Legislative Power there over their Lives and Estates is higher than of the Judicial in question Until the 29th year of Edward the 3. erroneous Judgements given in Ireland were determinable no where but in England no not in the Parliament of Ireland as it appears in the close Rolls in the Tower in the 29th year of Edw. the 3. Memb. 12. Power to examine and reverse erroneous Judgments in the Parliaments of Ireland is granted from hence Writs of Error lye in the Parliament here upon erroneous Judgements after that time given in the Parliaments of Ireland as appears in the Parliament Rolls of the Eighth year of Henry the 6th No. 70. in the Case of the Prior of Lenthan It is true the Case is not determined there for it 's the last thing that came into the Parliament and could not be determined for want of time but no exception at all is taken to the Jurisdiction The Acts of Parliament made in Ireland have been confirmed in the Parliaments of England as appears by the close Rolls in the Tower in the Two and fortieth year of Edw. the 3. Memb. 20. Dorso where the Parliament in Ireland for the preservation of the Countrey from Irish who had almost destroyed it made an Act That all the Land-Owners that were English should reside upon their Lands or else they were to be forfeited this was here confirmed In the Parliament of the Fourth year of Henry the 5th Chap. 6. Acts of Parliament in Ireland are confirmed and some priviledges of the Peers in the Parliaments there are regulated Power to repeal Irish Statutes Power to confirm them cannot be by the Parliament here if it hath not cognizance of their Parliaments unless it be said that the Parliament may do it knows not what Garnsey and Iersey are under the Kings subjection but are not parcels of the Crown of England but of the Duchy of Normandy they are not governed by the Laws of England as Ireland is and yet Parliaments in England have usually held Plea of and determined all Causes concerning Lands or Goods In the Parliament in the 33 Edw. 1. there be Placita de Insula Iersey And so in the Parliament 14 Edw. 2. and so for Normandy and Gascoigne and always as long as any part of France was in subjection to the Crown of England there were at the beginning of the Parliaments Receivers and Tryers of Petitions for those parts appointed I believe your Lordships will have no Case shewed of any Plea to the jurisdiction of the Parliaments of England in any things done in any parts wheresoever in subjection to the Crown of England The last thing I shall offer to your Lordships is the Case of 19 Eliz. in my Lord Dyer 306. and Judge Crompton's Book of the jurisdiction of Courts fol. 23. The opinion of both these Books is That an Irish Peer is not Tryable here it 's true a Scotch or French Nobleman is tryable here as a common person the Law takes no notice of their Nobility because those Countreys are not governed by the Laws of England but Ireland being governed by the same Laws the Peers there are Tryable according to the Law of England only per pares By the same reason the Earl of Strafford not being a Peer of Ireland is