Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aforesaid_a	king_n	say_a	23,782	5	7.5787	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37464	The works of the Right Honourable Henry, late L. Delamer and Earl of Warrington containing His Lordships advice to his children, several speeches in Parliament, &c. : with many other occasional discourses on the affairs of the two last reigns / being original manuscripts written with His Lordships own hand.; Works. 1694	Warrington, Henry Booth, Earl of, 1652-1694.	1694 (1694)	Wing D873; ESTC R12531	239,091	488

the King strove to please the People and they were willing to gratifie him by conniving at his Faults But besides all this the Law of Nature is to be considered and this Law cannot be extinguished by any other Laws whatsoever And this I never heard any man deny The Law of Nature commands Self-preservation and then I would ask whether I am to obey him that will destroy me If we shall have a Prince that plainly declares either by his Words or Actions that he will change our Government and Religion or that he will give us up to a Foreigner or else that he will govern by a standing Army and take away our Properties must I obey him must I not endeavour to rescue my Self and Country from Ruine for in the Saxons time Treason did not relate to any thing but the Government and the general Concern of the Nation and not to the single Person of the King and now though it be Treason to kill the King yet it is only in order to the Publick Good and therefore with the Saxons all Indictments against Legience concluded Feloniae Proditoriae but against the Person of the King only Feloniae But in our days we find things are crept in that is difficult to tell how or when they came in And you shall find in all our ancient Laws that whatever was decreed or enacted was for the Common Good and the King was not concerned otherwise than so far as related to the Common-wealth though I know in our days another Opinion is asserted which I am sure cannot be maintained That all things must give place to the King 's particular Interest For my own part I will obey the King but I think my Obedience is obliged no further than what he commands is for the Common Good Our Government ever since the Conquest has proceeded upon the Saxon Principles and they were grounded upon Self-preservation which I do not find to be repeated by any Act of Parliament for all our Lawyers do agree That it is Treason to subvert the Government and if so without doubt our Allegiance the Laws of God and of Nature command us to defend them I will detain you no longer but only to consider this one thing Whenever we have a Popish King we must expect an alteration at least in our Religion for though he take all the Oaths and Declarations that can be devised yet it ever stands in the way to oppose the Interest of Rome they must all give place and it is meritorious to break those Engagements for that purpose or at worst hand be certainly pardoned if he presume to do it without a Dispensation and it is no more in his power to preserve our Religion than it is for him to work an Impossibility And therefore whether it is better to oppose a Popish Successor seeing we have the practice of our Forefathers to justifie us in it and besides he cannot if he would defend us or else to suffer him to rest in the Throne to destroy all we have and bring in a Religion that will damn Millions of Souls from Generation to Generation And if we may not defend our Religion then we must absolutely depend upon Providence in every thing and not put out our Hand to help our selves up when we are fallen into a Ditch This is the Case and here is an end of all Human Policy but without doubt it is our Duty to do our Endeavours and leave the Success to God Almighty and his Will be done THE CASE OF WILLIAM EARL Of Devonshire ON Sunday the 24th of April 1687. the said Earl meeting on Collonel Culpepper in the Drawing Room in White-hall who had formerly affronted the said Earl in the said King's Palace for which he had not received any satisfaction he spake to the said Collonel to go with him into the next Room who went with him accordingly and when they were there the said Earl required of him to go down Stairs that he might have Satisfaction for the Affront done him as aforesaid which the Collonel refusing to do the said Earl struck him with his Stick as is suppos'd This being made known to the King the said Earl was required by the-the-Lord Chief Justice Wright by Warrant to appear before him with Sureties accordingly April 27. he did appear and gave Bail in 30000 l. to appear the next day at the King's Bench himself in 10000 l. and his four Suretles in 5000 l. a piece who were the Duke of Somerset Lord Clifford the Earl of Burlington's Son Lord De-la-mere and Tho. Wharton Esq eldest Son to Lord Wharton The Earl appeared accordingly next morning and then the Court told him that his Appearance was recorded and so he had Leave to de part for that time but upon the sixth of May he appear'd there again and being then requir'd to plead to an Information of Misdemeanour for striking the said Collonel in the King's Palace he insisted upon his Priviledge That as he was a Peer of England he could not be tryed for any Misdemeanour during the Priviledge of Parliament and it being then within time of Priviledge he refused to plead the Court took time to consider of it till Monday which was the last day of the Term and the Earl then appeared and delivered in his former Plea in Parchment the Judgment given by the House of Lords in the Case of the Earl of Arundale 3 Car. was urged on the behalf of the Earl viz. That no Lord of Parliament the Parliament then sitting or within the usual times of priviledge of Parliament is to be imprison'd or restrain'd without sentence or order of the House unless it be for Treason or Felony or for refusing to give Surety for the Peace And also that the like Priviledge was about two years before allow'd in the Case of my Lord Lovelace The Court over-rul'd the Earl's Plea and requir'd him to plead to the Information the first day of the next Term and to be a Plea as of this Term and so he had Leave to depart but his Sureties were not called for to see if they would continue as his Bail The next Term he appeared and pleaded guilty to the Information and so the last day of the Term the Court did award That he should pay a Fine of 30000 l. be committed to the King's Bench till it be paid and to find Sureties for the Peace for a year To all which Proceeding and Judgment three notorious Errors may be assign'd I. The over-ruling of the Earl's plea of Priviledge II. The Excessiveness of the Fine III. The Commitment till it be paid 1. The over-ruling the Earl's plea of Priviledge is a thing of that vast consequence that it requires a great deal of time to comprehend it aright and is of so great an extent that more may be said of it than any one man can say The Judgment seems to be very unnatural because an inferiour Court has taken upon it to reverse a Judgment