Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bishop_n	king_n	sir_n	11,216	5	5.9979	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25782	An account of the proceedings at West Minster-Hall on the 29th and 30th of June, 1688 relating to the tryal and discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of S. Asaph, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Ely, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of Peterborough, and the Bishop of Bristol.		1689 (1689)	Wing A364; ESTC R23617	3,899	10

over the Court He added farther to prove it Libellous the insinuating Expressions of gaining the populace by saying It was not for want of due tenderness to dissenters in relation to whom we are Willing to come to such a temper as shall be thought fit when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation said he what 's the meaning of that But here my L. C. J. gave him a check and reftrain'd what he seem'd greatly disposed to vent against it There was not very much said by the rest of the Kings council at least nothing more considerable than this The King's Attorny General was pretty moderate Sir Barth Shores spoke a little but was presently silenc'd in the vacancy of stay for my Lord president my L. C. J. said to Sir Barth-Shores Now Sir Bartholomew we have time to hear your Speeches Serjeant Baldock's Argument against the Bishops was chiefly upon their refusing the King requiring such a slender matter so easily to be done for they were not enjoyned to read but only to send about and disperse it Yet this they would not do It concluded with the Kings Council Then my Lord Chief Justice summing up the business was favourable to the Bishops in the former part of the Tryal and could not say the matter of Fact was fully proved upon them but was inclin'd to make the Petition a Libel because of its accusing the King of Flaws in Government He said but little to oppose what had been brought by the Bishops Council against the Declaration and Dispensing Power After him spoke Judge Holloway and very much in the Bishops behalf giving it as his judgment that it could not be a Libel being done from a conviction of Conscience by such Persons in such an humble modest manner Then Judg Power spake to the same effect giving it as his opinion that it could not be a Libel being the only way to redress themselves He had also some smart expressions to confirm what the Bishops Council had urged against the Declaration and Dispensing Power So that Judge Powel gave his opinion also in favours of the Bishops Then Judge Allibon standing up professed he would not meddle with the Dispensing Power tho it had been so much Canvass'd and pleaded against but would only speak to the business of the Paper being a Libel and he did accordingly urging it to be so not barely because it was a Petition For said he any one under grievance may Petition his Majesty but not about affairs of Government for that would tend to very bad consequences and promote Discontents or worse in the Nation Nor as he added can the pretended fairness as to the manner of it be an excuse For the more it hath that way so much the worse and so concluded it in his sense a Libel But urging a Precedent to confirm what he had said he was partly mistaken in it as Judge Powel and the Bishops Council shew'd him and he himself acknowledged Then the Court broke up the Jury went together and the Bishops with all the privacy they could to their respective abodes but wherever the people met with them they huzza'd and humm'd them in a great abundance There was a prodigious full Court and Hall a very great many of the Peers and Nobility present and also the Bishop of Chester of whom they took no kind of notice The Bishop of Rochester did not meet with much better regard The Jury sat up all night tho they were very soon unanimous in their Verdict which they prudently resolved to give in open Court and accordingly next day about Nine or Ten they brought them in Not Guilty The Names of the Lord Bishops Counsellors Sir Francis Pemberton Sir Creswell Levins Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Finch Mr. Pollixfin Mr. Treby Mr. Summers The Names of the JVRY Sworn Sir Roger Langly of Westminster Sir William Hill of Tedington Robert Jennings of Hayes Esquire Thomas Harriot of Islington Esquire Jeoffry Nightingale of S. Giles Cripplegate Esquire William Withers of the same Esquire William Avery of Enfield Esquire Thomas Austin of South-Myms Esquire Nicholas Grice of Neston Esquire Michael Arnold of Westminster Esquire Thomas Done of S. Giles in the Field Esquire Richard Shore ditch of Ickenham Esquire FINIS

AN ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT WESTMINSTER-HALL On the 29th and 30th of June 1688. Relating to the Tryal and Discharge of the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of S. Asaph Bishop of Chichester Bishop of Ely Bishop of Bath and Wells Bishop of Peterborough and the Bishop of Bristol Edinburgh Re-printed in the Year 1689. AN ACCOUNT Of the Proceedings at Westminster-Hall on the 29th and 30th of June 1688. c. THE Indictment when read was very much excepted against on the account of its Form in that it did not mention all the Petition they were Indicted for there was not either the Title of it expressing to whom it was directed viz. To the Kings Most Excellent-Majesty was omitted and the prayer afterwards We therefore pray c. was not there which being closely pursued by the Bishops Council seemed to invalidate the whole business Then it was not and could not be proved by the Kings Council that the Bishops presented the petition to the King. They had in the Court the Original and subpoena'd some of the arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops Chaplains Servants and others to prove their hands which was not done very clearly upon most of them all the proof of the Kings Council had for the presenting the Petition to His Majesty did not directly prove it upon them The most it amounted to was either that the King told them he had it from the said Bishops or that my Lord Chancellor did ask them if it were theirs when they were summon'd before the King and Council and that they then express'd an averseness to own it saying before the King that if His Majesty did insist on it and ●hat it should not be improved to their disadvantage or produc'd in evidence against them that they would be plain and leave it to His Majesty Upon this the Bishops Council had some reflections which my Lord Chief Justice told them he must not hear But this did not amount to a full proof of the point Then the Bishops Council did greatly insist upon the Indictment being laid in a wrong County for it was proved upon Oath that the Arch-Bishop was not out of his House for a very considerable time before he was summon'd to the King in Council Now what was alledg'd against them was done at Lambeth and therefore in Surrey the Indictment ought to have been laid which seem'd much to affect them After this the Bishops Council objected against the term Publishing whereas what was said to be done by them was in the privatest way that could be and given only to the King which caus'd a long debate between both parties of things requisite to denominate a Publication all did still appear favourable on the Bishops side and here things were going to a conclusion and the Judge was entered upon summing up the Evidence but Mr. Finch one of the Bishops Council interrupted my Lord Chief Justice saying there was one material Evidence remaining Whereupon my Lord desisted tho with some seeming disatisfaction to the rest of the Bishops Council For the Judge was going on very favourably for the Bishops cause some of the Bishops importun'd my Lord Chief Justice to proceed but he would not And so it brought on more discourse about the former Subjects and occasion'd the sending for my Lord President who came into Court after it had stayed an hour for him The Evidence that he gave upon Oath could not fully prove the delivery of the Petition to the King by the Bishops When before for the proof of this the Solicitor did very greatly importune some Witnesse for the King that had upon Oath delivered what they knew about this matter which was as aforesaid by putting to them very intricate questions my Lord Chief Justice reproved him saying it was not to be suffered adding that if he went on thus he would let the Bishops council loose on him After these things my L. C. J. ask'd the Bishops council what else they had to plead whereupon they proceeded to that part of the Indictment that call'd the Bishops Petiton A scandalous Seditious Libel c. Which occasion'd very great solemn and most pleasing debates For hereupon they entered into and discuss'd the lawfulness of the Declaration and the Dispensing Power which were harang'd by every one of the Bishops Council in most brisk home and admirable Speeches for the space of three hours shewing the Declaration to be against and contrary to Law which no power could dispence or abrogate but that which made it viz. a parliament and that the Ecclesiastical Laws had the same foundation as the Civil and could be therefore no more dispens'd with That the Declaration did evacuate the Laws for Sabbath-breaking Fornication c. and let loose the reins to the most extravagant Sects and licentious practices and that all Laws might be dispens'd with as well as some That the Bishops were sworn to maintain the Ecclesiastical Laws and in representing the Case thus to His Majesty they had done both as the Law directed them and according to prudence Honour and Conscience There were hereupon publickly read several Acts of parliament Records of the Tower and parliament Records among which one Act of parliament was observable that gave the King power to dispense with a Law for a stated time So that what Dispensing power he ever had was both given and bounded by parliament From what they produc'd out of the parliament Records and otherways they greatly confi●m'd what was said in the petition of the Dispensing power having been often declared illegal in Parliament and particularly in the years 62 and 72. and in the begining of his Majesties Reign which was in 85 when the parliament declar'd the Popish Officers could not be dispen●'d with but that it was contrary to Law to do so tho they were willing by Act of Parliament to indemnifie such as His Majesty should nominate c. And they shew'd how the like Dispensing Power upon the same occasion was accounted illegal in 62. and 72. both by Parliament and the King himself who offered the Seal to be tore off and gave the testimony of his disowning such a Dispensing Power To which the Solicitors chief Answer was that the King then lacked Money and that such Acts as aforesaid whatever they might say did confirm not give the King 's Dispensing Power In short the Bishops Council behav'd themselves in this weighty matter with a great deal of gallantry and plainness no wise inferior to most mens expectations and desires The chief of the managers for the King was the Solicitor W. Williams who as was apprehended did no great wonders for invaliditating the foregoing Arguments He was very hot and earnest if not passionate in proving it a Libel saying It would be so tho it were done by them to redress a certain grievance whereupon my L. C. J. asking what course then they should take or what they should do in such circumstances he answered Acquiesce which occasioned a very great Hiss