Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A50300
|
Antiprobal-e, or A defence of the minister of Pensherst in a case between him and the Earl of Leycester in Michaelmas term, 1657.
|
Maudit, John.
|
1660
(1660)
|
Wing M1327; ESTC R217676
|
9,976
|
57
|
this Nation be violated the honourable Plantiffe ought to have mentioned it and concluded his Declaration Sub forma Statuti but the Plantiffe doth not mention any Statute Law transgressed hereupon the Judges of the Upper Bench were divided in their opinions Judge Warberton judging the Declaration void upon this default though the Lord chief Justice Glin allowed it But let this fault pass and let it be supposed that the Action be intended upon the Statute of Richard the second we shall through Gods help prove that the words alledged by the honourable Plantiffe cannot be concluded within that Statute and thererefore there is no Law to warrant it The Statute runnes thus Anno secundo Rich secundi Cap. 5. FOR Devisors of false News and of horrible and false lyes of Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and other Nobles and great men of the Realm and also of the Chancellour Treasurer Clark of the privy seal Steward of the Kings house Justice of the one Bench or of the other and of other great Officers of the Realm of things which by the said Prelates Lords Nobles and Officers aforesaid were never spoken done nor thought in great slander of the said Prelates Lords and Officers whereby Debates and Discords might arise between the said Lord or betwixt the Lords and Commons which God forbid and whereof great peril and mischief might come to all the Realm and quick subversion and destruction of the said Realm if due remedy be not provided It is straitly defended upon grievous pain for to eschew the said damages and perils that from henceforth none be so hardy to devise speak or tell any false news lyes or other such false things of Prelates Lords and of other aforesaid whereof discord or any slander might arise within the same Realm and he that doth the same shall incurre and have the pain another time ordained thereof by the Statute of Westminster c. Now the Argument we draw to prove that this Statute cannot warrant the judgement bears three parts first to prove that the words are not concluded Sub subjecto Statuti within the Subject of that Statute Secondly That the words are not concluded Sub materia Statuti within the Matter of the Statute Thirdly That the words are not concluded Sub fine Statuti within the End of the Statute That we may not carrie forth this dispute into a volumne we shall insist only upon the first of these That the words are not comprehended within the Subject of that Statute and contract all into five Arguments It s proved thus if the honourable Plantiffe be not a person comprehended under the Subject of that Statute then are not the words comprehended under the Subject of that Statute now that the Plantiffe is not a person comprehended under the Subject of that Statute I crave leave to argue thus If he be not qualified as the Statute supposes then is not he a person comprehended under the Subject of that Statute here therefore is the main point Whether the Earl be qualified so as that Statute doth suppose to make him Subjestum capax a Subject capable of the priviledge of that Statute for if he be not he cannot have a priviledge by this Statute Let us therefore fairly debate the point and we reason thus The persons specified in the Statute are Barons of the Realm as the first words import Barons Nobles and great men of the Realm Now those that were Barons of the Realm were not titulary Barons but Parlamentary Barons But the Earl of Leycester is no such Parliamentary Baron as the Act of the Common-wealth for abolishing the house of Lords intimates therefore by what right can his Lordship claim the priviledge of this Statute The Act for abolishing the House of Peers THe Commons of England assembled in Parliament finding by too long experienee that the House of Lords is useless and dangeruus to the people of England to be continued have thought fit to ordain and enact and be it ordained and enacted by this present Parliament and by the Authority of the same that from hence forth the House of Lords in Parliament shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away And that the Lords shall not from hence forth meet or sit in the said house called the Lords house or in any other house or place whatsoever as a house of Lords nor shall sit vote advice adjudge or determine of any matter or thing whatsoever as a house of Lords in Parliament Nevertheless it is hereby declared that neither such Lords as have demeaned themselves with Honour Courage and Fidelity to the Commen-wealth nor their Posterities who shall continue so shall be excluded from the Publicke Councells of the Nation but shall be admitted hereunto and have their free vote in Parliament if they shall be thereunto elected as other Persons of interest elected and qualified thereunto ought to have And be it further ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid that no Peer of this Land not being elected qualified and sitting in Parliament as aforesaid shall claim have or make use of any priviledges of Parliament either in relation to his person quality or Estate any Law usage or custome to the contrary notwithstanding Die Lunae 19. Martii 1648. If any will be so perverse and so much opposite to sense as to say the Earl may claim the priviledge of this Statute though he have nothing but an empty Title if any such be left him whose Creation stands not in a Title but in a work and capacity to serve the State against this we shall argue from the verie original Creation of Parliamentary Barons which it recorded thus Henry the third out of the multitude of those Barons that were in his time whereof some were seditieus chose out a certain number of good men and by Writ called them to Parliamentary Councels This Rule Edward the first and his Successors kept to and thereupon they alone were accounted Barones regni or Barons of the Realm Afterwards Richard the second and some Kings after him created Barons by their patent and putting on of Robes and both these forms were in use whiles that order and constitution held and those that are thus created Barons are called Barones Parliamenti or Barones Regni to difference them from others that were only nominal or titulary Barons These Parliamentary Barons had not only a meer Title or name but were all of them by birth Peers of the Realm Et Consiliarii nati and were created by the Kings Writ Ad tractandum de arduis regni negotiis consilium de iis impendendum Now to these belonged the priviledge to be judged by their Peers to judge upon their Faith and honour not upon oath to be beheaded for crimes deserving death to be free from Arrests and the priviledge granted by the Statute of Richard the second Now hence the Argument holds firm that if not titulary Barons but Parliamentary Barons only according to the first constitution were
' ΑÎΤΙΠΡΟΒΑΑΗ OR A DEFENCE OF THE Minister OF PENSHERST In a Case between him and the Earl of Leycester in Michaelmas Term 1657. LONDON Printed by T. R. for the Author 1660. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR A DEFENCE OF THE Minister of Pensherst in a case between him and the Earl of Leycester in Michaelmas Term 1657. THE Minister of Pensherst being setled in that Rectory by the Authority of the Committee of Parliament April 5. 1650. endeavoured in much faithfulness a holy Reformation there that he might prepare a people for the Lord in which work he found no encouragement from the Earl of Leycester but was put to much grief of heart by the Earls opposition who began a quarrel upon the Ministers denyal of letting his Lordship the Gleab land as sometime Ahab fell out with Naboth about the Vineyard taking occasion thereupon many wayes to oppress him and his afflicted family The Lord giving the Minister patience to bear much hard usage he made many Christian private Addresses to his Lord-ship to give his Lordship a right understanding of the wayes of God he proceeded in in his Ministrations and likewise entreating him to be sensible of his many great surferings but no redress being given and the cause of God suffering much by his Lordships contests and doing year after year worse and worse the Minister was prest in conscience at length to apply the Word of God against the Earl by name for many publick offences in the publick congregation praying also for him that God would reduce him from the evil of his wayes whereby he had offended him and his chosen ones This the Minister did upon conscience of duty respecting that of Saint Paul Those that sin reprove before all 1 Tim 5.2 that others may fear And wholesome pious rule of holy Augustine Si quid vitii in amico deprehender is saith that Father corripe occulte si te non audierit corripe palam sunt enimbonae correptiones plerunque meliores quam tacita amicitia si laedi se putet amicus tu tamen corripe tollerabiliora emm sunt amici vulnera quam adulantium oscula If thou find saith that Father any fault in thy friend blame him secretly if he will not hear thee blame him openly for reproofes are good and for the most part better then friendship that holds its peace If thy friend complains thou wrongest him yet notwithstanding reprove him still for more tolerable are the wounds of a friend then the kisses of a flatterer Indeed it fell out so according to that word the Earl thinks himself wronged in his honour by the Minister who by a christian admonition endeavoured to repair it for what could make more truly for his honour then to turn him from sin to God and to wash away that stain which was a blot no badge of honour The Earl therefore commences a suit against the Minister and being subtile in Law-suits surprises the Minister at a time when he expected no trouble and easily runs him down because he made little or no resistance but commended himself to him that judgeth righteously the Lord knowing both his work and the integrity of his heart therein The words the Earl lay to the Ministers charge were these that he should say of the said Earl That he was a wicked man a cruel Oppressor and an enemie to Reformation If the Minist had spoke these very words might he not sufficiently have proved the crime let us scan the words A cruel Oppressor does his Lordship call these a horrid scandal let it be a scandal worthy to be punished by the Judges and let my Lord for ever be guiltless of so horrid a crime but what then dorh he say for himself for keeping back the Ministers dues more or less from year to year for eight years together For a year or two his Lordship allows a small part for tithes for other years nothing if tithes were not the Ministers right why did his Lordship pay any if they were his right why did he not pay all Is it not oppression to withhold 12 li. per an for eight or ten years together from a Minister Again Is it not oppression to plant a Warren next to a Ministers Gleab-land and fence it on every side but where it lies to the gleab whereby the Minister was damaged for eight years together by the gain of his Lordships Warren ten pound a year without any satisfaction or commiseration This was the way indeed to have the Vineyard when it was denyed and rent free too Again Was it not oppression to seize upon part of the Ministers Gleab to dig up and carry away trees from the Gleab at his Lordships pleasure contrary to all right and common justice to arrest the Minister and his servants causlesly unless it were because the Minister had too much patience and would not be provoked to begin Law with the Oppressor to vex and worrie and disquiet him in the work of the Ministry If the common Law of England alas to much corrupted will not account this Oppression will not God declare against it as horrible oppression and violence yea and will not all good mens consciences condemn and detest it if the like were done to themselves What is this mans conscience made of if it sleep and acquit him as righteous after all this And for an enemy to Reformation If the Earl of Leycestor were not an enemy to the good work of Reformation endeavoured by the Minister why drew he off seeing that our Lord Christ declares That he that is not for him is against him and why were those that shunned the purifying of Gods ordinances admitted to the Table of the Lord so freely at his Lordships chappel if his Lordship had to object against the way of the Gospel offered to the Church by the Minister in writing why did he not disprove it if his mouth was stopped was he not then an enemy to that holy Reformation which he discouraged yea was not he an enemy to Reformation that sent a Copy of the Ministers way and discipline to his Lawyers to see if their subtilty could pick our a Premunire of it Will not the stones and the timber cry out of the wall and witness against such repugnancy and enmity to Christ and the precious unblamable way of Gospel worship if these things do not evidence the crime which are but lightly touched worse then these if God please to give time for inquiry may be made to appear before the great day of the Lord come when he must look to be discovered before the world But the Minister because he applyed the word of God in the Congregation against the Earls sin in other expressions not these therefore he pleaded not guilty but the Earl having got witness and a Jury after his heart at Lent Assizes 1656. in Kent Verdict was given for the Plantiffe 500 li. damages See yet more cruelty cruel man and yet more cruel