Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	colonel_n	sir_n	thomas_n	16,547	5	9.4595	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26140	A defence of the late Lord Russel's innocency by way of answer or confutation of a libellous pamphlet intituled, An antidote against poyson : with two letters of the author of this book, upon the subject of His Lordship's tryal : together with an argument in the great case concerning elections of members to Parliament, between Sr. Samuel Barnardiston bar. plaintiff, and Sr. Will. Soames, sheriff of Suffolk, defend., in the Court of Kings-Bench, in an action upon the case, and afterwards by error sued in the Exchequer-chamber / by Sir Robert Atkyns, Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath ...	Atkyns, Robert, Sir, 1621-1709.	1689 (1689)	Wing A4136; ESTC R4958	24,651	29

Debate concerning the Message from the Lord Shaftsbury to the Company then met and the Answer return'd to it He flatly says the Prisoner was present at that Debate which Debate did indeed concern the Rising being ask'd by the same Person whether my Lord was averse to it or agreeing to it He answers like an Eccho Agreeing to it Nay then he says my Lord Russel did speak and that about the Rising of Taunton and that he did discourse of the Rising but what were his words Being question'd again by the Chief Justice whether my Lord did give any Consent to the Rising He answers still like an Eccho My Lord did And this last Answer is the weighty part of his Evidence if there be any weight at all Now mind the defect of the Witness 's Memory in some other most material Passages He thinks the Lord Grey did say something to the same purpose with the Answer deliver'd by Ferguson to the Lord Shaftesbury's Message He does not know says he how often he himself the Witness was at Mr. Sheppard's House where this Debate was He says he was there more then once or else I heard says he Mr. Ferguson make a Report of another Meeting to the Lord Shaftsbury And then he says that this was all at that time that he remembred and before this he had said no more against the Lord Russel but that he was present and after this upon much Interrogating of him he proceeds to tell a great deal more indeed all the rest that has been before observ'd to proceed from him And after all he says he thinks he was not there above a quarter of an Hour He says he was not certain whether he did hear something about a Declaration there or whether Mr. Ferguson did report it to my Lord Shaftesbury that they had debated it And the Witness speaking of a View to be taken of the Guards to surprize them the Lord Chief Justice seems to be surpriz'd at that word The Guards he never met it in all his Books What Guards why you know it is mention'd in the Indictment but he might yet very well ask what Guards And the Colonel answers The Guards at the Savoy and the Mewse The Colonel says He thinks the Duke of Monmouth and the Lord Grey and Sir Thomas Armstrong were the persons that undertook to view the Guards And he thinks Sir Thomas Armstrong began it and Mr. Ferguson And he says further Direction was given to take a view of the Guards if the Rising had gone on as it never did and then he mentions the very day that had been appointed for the Rising viz. the 19th of November and that the Message from the Lord Shaftsbury was he thinks a matter of a Fortnight before that day or something more for he thinks it was concluded Sunday fortnight after my Lord Grey met The mention of my Lord Russel's consent to this Rising comes in at the last and after many questions ask'd him and not till that very particular question was put to him and he answers in the very same words as the question was ask'd The Chief Justice ask'd him in these words Did my Lord give any consent to the Rising The Colonel's Answer was Yes my Lord he did But how did my Lord Russel signifie that Consent what words did he use that may clearly express it For this is the pinching Proof if it had been certain and clear'd by remembring the manner of his Consenting or how it did appear Why was not this put home to the Witness This is the Material part of his Evidence without which the rest had not come home to the Prisoner And why did not the Witness deliver this of himself and before his giving this home Evidence he had said That was all at that time that he remember'd And this was at the same time with that of the Message and of the Discourse about Viewing the Guards He afterwards doubts whether he was any more then once there with that Company or whether he heard Mr. Ferguson report things to the Lord Shaftsbury which shews a wild kind of Memory in a Witness and the Colonel is no Fool nor Baby so that there is but one time positively spoken of by this Witness How strangely uncertain is he in the Matter of the Declaration to which he was Examined A most noted thing and he cannot tell whether he heard any thing of it there or whether Mr. Ferguson told him of it It is to to be suspected too that what he has deliver'd positively at last so late in his Evidence and after so much Interrogating of him was but meer hearsay too and then it would not have been any Evidence He has not it seems a good distinguishing Head or Memory as a Witness ought to have in case of Life and a Life of so high a value as this of that Noble Lord. And many other Material Passages this Witness delivers under that Limitation as he thinkes The Rising was intended but never took effect and the View was no more then appointed and undertaken but the Seizing of the Guards as this Witness says was not to be unlesss the Rising had gone on which it never did He speaks nothing of any View made of the Guards or any Report upon it but he swears my Lord Russel consented to the Rising That is his stabbing Evidence but by what words or how he signified his consent not a word tho' mighty material But what is this Conspiracy for a Rising and a Conspiracy to seize the Guards in case the Rising had gone on What are these to the Crime charged in the Indictment against the Lord Russel for conspiring the death of the King Here is not a word of any such matter nor of seizing the Guards in order to it no not one word And that is the only material part of the Indictment as shall appear more plainly hereafter The second Witness Mr. Sheppard mentions the meeting at his House of the Duke of Monmouth and among the rest the Lord Russel and they discours'd of surprizing the Guards and that the Duke the Lord Grey and Sir Thomas Armstrong as he remembers went one Night to view the Guards and the next Day at his House they said it was very feasible if they had strength to do it And then he says there was two Meetings there and as he remembers my Lord Russel was both times there Being ask'd by the Attorney-General besides the seizing of the Guards if there were any discourse of a Rising He answers He did not remember any further Discourse for he was often gone out of the Room And this is the effect of that he says If any thing of this comes near my Lord Russel it is those words first giving an account of who they were that were met and that my Lord Russel was one of them he says the Substance of their Discourse was how to surprize the King's Guards This may be true if one or two of the

that the Witnesses inclin'd to prove against him was a Conspiracy with others to Leavy War against the King. The two first Witnesses viz. Rumsey and Sheppard tho what they say may raise a strong suspicion upon my Lord and make it probable that he was guilty yet neither of them do come home and close to the Person of my Lord Russel as they do I confess against the Earl of Shaftsbury Sir Thomas Armstrong and Ferguson The first does not affirm that the Lord Russel did joyn in the discourse or agree to any thing in the Consult but only says he was present which extends no farther then to make a Misprision of Treason and this too not directly and positively as Legal Proof ought to be to convict a Man of Treason the later Sheppard when he applies what he swore to the Person of the Lord Russel only sayes He believes the Lord Russel was there at that time when the discourse he speaks of was used which is a very imperfect uncertain proof and not positive enough so that neither of these were full Witnesses As to the Evidence given by the Lord Howard against my Lord Russel it is strange to me as the Evidence is stated that any Credit should be given to it that he should be believed against those Execrations that it seems he had so solemnly and so lately used to the contrary of his Evidence especially when by giving this Evidence he must merit his own Pardon and save his own Life which extreamly takes off from the credit and weight of his Evidence What Mr. West says in rference to my Lord Russel was but bare opinion and hear-say and is no proof at all in Law so that instead of two plain direct manifest and positive and two credible Witnesses as the Law requires in Treason here is not in my opinion so much as one positive Credible Witness The Lord Howard as your Case and Narrative states it is not credible though direct and positive None of the other three are positive though more credible In the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third of Treasons the word Proveablement as Sir Edward Coke observes upon it in his Third Institutes fol. 12. imports direct and manifest proofs not presumptions and conjectures and as may be added not probabilities and so the words per overt fact do as he observes strengthen that sence of the word Proveablement and the Act of Treasons made since this Kings time requires there should be two credible Witnesses Now tho' the Lord Howard was not by the Evidence offer'd against him by the Lord Russel utterly disabled from being a Witness yet I will be bold to say it made him no credible Witness in this Case That the Lord Russel made no use of these things in his Defence though a man of Parts is no wonder to me the ablest Man under that Terrour and upon so speedy a proceeding and where it is impossible to be so composed and free from distraction may easily pass by many just advantages which a stander by with less abilities might quickly have apprehended I am far from rflecting upon the Court that Try'd him this matter that I observed rested principally upon the Iury. And he is found Guilty and Condemn'd and it may be before this comes to your hand put to Death too if it have so hapn'd as possible it may that the Earl of Bedford and his other great Relations have prevail'd with the King for a respit of the Execution I wish and heartily beg of Almighty God that these Considerations may yet be made use of to the King with whom it then rests as Tabula post Naufragium to save the Life of this Noble Lord. Much more then this may be said were there such an opportunity before the King and I so intend it and no otherwise and if I might be any ways serviceable in it I would come up to London bare-foot rather then neglect so good an Office. And I ever thought it a severity in our Law that a Prisoner for his Life is not allowed the assistance of a grave and prudent Lawyer or some other friend to make his defence for him even as to matter of fact as well as to Law. I know 't is said the Court is of Councel for the Prisoner but for my part I should never desire to depend upon that onely I know what this is by experience If the Case be in any part of it mistaken I have lost all my observations and beg your pardon for all this trouble it is out of the great Honour and Zeal I have for that good Lord but the Narrative you give is very ably and well composed and in very good Method and I think could not have been better done which inclines me to think it very true also I could be contented the Earl of Bedford to whom I am known might have the view of this Letter if it come not too late and may be thought of any use I heartily thank you for your favour which obliges me to be Your Faithful Friend and Servant R. A. Iuly 21. 1683. A DEFENCE Of the Late Lord Russel's Innocency By way of Answer or Confutation of a Libellous Pamphlet INTITULED An ANTIDOTE against POYSON 1. THE Pamphlet stiles it self An Antidote against Poyson but it is so far from deserving that Title that it may be truly said That the Antidote it self is the rankest Poyson We read in History that the Noble Emperour called Henry of Luxenburgh was poysoned in the Sacrament and Pope Victor was poysoned in receiving of the Chalice Who could have suspected such horrid Villany in the Administration of such sacred and solemn Rites who could without Horrour and Amazement contrive the mingling of a deadly Poyson with the Bread and Water of Life to make those consecrated Elements which ought to be the Savour of Life unto Life to be the dreadful Messengers of sudden Death Surely had those outward Signs been changed into the very Body and Bloud of the Lord of Life as they that acted in those Execrable Villanies profess'd to believe there must needs have been a Miracle wrought in altering likewise the Substance and malignant Nature of those Poysons that they should not have wrought those direful Effects which yet they did There appears the like wicked Policy in the Author of this Pamphlet who under pretence of prescribing an Antidote against Poyson under the Vizar and Disguise of preventing Mischief does most deceitfully infuse the worst of Poysons and labours to intoxicate a whole Nation This Author would have the World believe that the Noble Lord in the composing of his Speech was wholly govern'd by his Confessor and that the Compiler of it was infected with those Doctrines that the Northern Climate has of late furnished us with The very Language and Spirit of Coleman Sure the Soul of Coleman is by Transmigration enter'd into this Author it is easie to guess at his Religion He supposes all that were

is the King and Kingdom it is the whole Protestant part of the World that suffers the enestimable loss of him Not to speak of the unspeakable grief of his dear and disconsolate Widdow and other Noble Relations Factum infectum fieri nequit So that we may seem to labour in vain and it comes too late but something may be done for the benefit of his hopeful Posterity and some small satisfaction may be made to his Noble Family by a Writ of Errour for reversing of this Attainder and the avoiding of the Record for the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap. 2. extends only to such Attainders for High-Treason as then had been before the making of that Statute and does not hinder a Writ of Errour in this Case if the King will sign a Petition for it But to examine this last Overt Fait or open Deed a little further Viz. To seize and destroy the King's Guards The Guards what Guards What or whom does the Law understand or allow to be the King's Guards for the preservation of his Person Whom shall the Court that tried this Noble Lord whom shall the Judges of the Law that were then present and upon their Oaths whom shall they judge or legally understand by these Guards They never read of them in all their Law-Books There is not any Statute Law that makes the least mention of any Guards The Law of England takes no notice of any such Guards and therefore the Indictment is uncertain and void The King is guarded by the special Protection of Almighty God by whom he Reigns and whose Vice-Gerent he is He has an invisible Guard a Guard of glorious Angels Non Eget Mauri jaculis nec arcu Nec Venenatis gravida sagittis Crede Pharetra The King is Guarded by the Love of His Subjects The next under God and the Surest Guard. He is Guarded by the Law and Courts of Justice The Militia and the Trained-bands are his Legal Guard and the whole Kingdoms Guard. The very Judges that Tryed this Noble Lord were the King's Guards and the Kingdoms Guards and this Lord Russel's Guard against all Erroneous and Imperfect Indictments from all false Evidence and Proof from all strains of Wit and Oratory mis-applied and abus'd by Councel What other Guards are there We know of no Law for more King Henry the Seventh of this Kingdom as History tells us was the first that set up the Band of Pensioners Since this the Yeomen of the Guard since them certain Armed Bands commonly now adays after the French Mode called the King's Life-Guard rid about and appearing with naked Swords to the Terrour of the Nation but where is the Law where is the Authority for them It had been fit for the Court that Tryed this Noble Lord on this Indictment to have satisfied themselves from King's Councel what was meant by these Guards for the alledging and setting forth an Overt fait or open Deed in an Indictment of Treason must be of something that is intelligible by Law and whereof Judges may take Notice by Law and herein too the Indictment failes and is imperfect But admit the Seizing and Destroying of those who are now called the King's Life-Guard had been the Guard intended within this Overt fait or open Deed yet the Indictment should have set forth that de facto the King had chosen a certain number of man to attend upon and Guard His Person and set forth where they did attend as at White-Hall or the Mews or the Savoy c. and that these were the Guard intended by the Indictment to be seiz'd and destroy'd that by this setting forth the Court might have taken notice Judicially what and who were meant but to seize and destroy the King's Guards and not shew who and what is meant makes the Indictment very insufficient So much as to the Indictment itself In the next place let us look into the Proofs as they are at large set forth and owned in the printed Tryal and let us consider how far those Proofs do make out the Charge of the Indictment viz. the Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King and how far they make out that Overt fait or open Deed such as it is of seizing or destroying the King's Guards in order to the effecting of that Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King and it must appear by Proof to be in Truth so intended by the Conspirators and levell'd to that end for if it were done yet if it were done quite to another intent and purpose and not to that of Compassing the King's Death it does not come home to this Indictment There are but three Witnesses that can be thought to bring the matter home and to fix any thing upon the Lord Russel Col. Romsey Mr. Sheppard and the Lord Howard It is true two of the three that is Col. Romsey and the Lord Howard positively prove a Trayterous Design or a Discourse at least by some of the Company of making an Insurrection or Rebellion or to speak it in the Language and Phrase of this Statute of 25 E. 3. of levying a War against the King for all these signifie one and the same thing and they prove the Lord Russel was sometimes present at those Meetings but is that enough Admit he were present and heard the Debate of it which yet is not fully and directly prov'd yet if he did not joyn in the Debate and Express and some way signifie his Approbation of it and consent to it it makes him not at all Criminous It is true his after concealing of it might have made him guilty of Misprision of Treason but that is a Crime of another nature and is another distinct Genus of Crimes of which he was not Indicted Col. Romsey as to the Overt fait as they would make it says there was some Discourse about seeing what Posture the Guards were in and being asked by one of the Jury by whom the Discourse was he answers By all the Company that was there whereof as he said before the Lord Russel was one So that my Lorld Russel may I agree be understood to be one that discours'd about seeing what posture the Guards were in Nay the Colonel says all the Company did debate it and he says further the Lord Russel was there when some of the Company undertook to take the View of those Guards and being asked by the Attorney General to what purpose the View was to be the Colonel answers It was to surprise our Guards if the Rising had gone on The Chief Justice observing to the Witness that he ought not to deliver a doubtful Evidence and to speak it with Limitations that made it not so positive as by saying I apprehend so and so then the Colonel grows more positive and says further that a Rising was intended but afterwards he says there was no debate of the Rising At last the Witness being asked by Sir George Iefferies whether the Prisoner were present at the

Company only discourses it for it does not necessarily affirm that every one did speak in that Discourse He does not mention one word spoken by my Lord Russel nor that he approv'd of or consented to any thing At the worst for any thing that he says it can be but Misprision He can say nothing as to the Intended Rising Now Colonel Romsey's Evidence is altogether of that Rising and the Seizing of the Guards was to have been if the Rising had gone on and this was at the same time that Mr. Sheppard speaks to and yet Mr. Sheppard being ask'd if there was any Discourse of a Rising he answers he did not remember any further Discourse Nor does Colonel Romsey certainly remember any thing of a Declaration read amongst them whether he heard it there or whether by Mr. Ferguson's Report of it to my Lord Shaftsbury which is one of the principal things that Mr. Sheppard speaks to besides that of seizing the Guards And as to the Declaration Mr. Sheppard says he cannot say my Lord Russel was there when that Declaration was read So they agree in nothing but in the Discourse of seizing the Guards and that my Lord Russel was then present So that as yet the sum of the Proof by Colonel Romsey is that my Lord Russel consented to the Rising which is too general and the sum of the Proof by Mr. Sheppard is that my Lord Russel was present in Company when the Company discours'd of Seizing the Guards but he knows nothing of the Rising The third Witness the Lord Howard discourses much about a Conspiracy to rise but he speaks most of what he says by Report from the Earl of Saftesbury and from the Duke so it goes for no Evidence against my Lord Russel and the Chief Justice did the Prisoner that Right as to declare as much to the Jury and the Lord Howard cleares the Duke from any such horrid Act as the Killing the King the Duke said he would not suffer it and if the Duke be Innocent in that it is probable that my Lord Russel and the rest of the Company that met had no discourse about Killing the King nor any Thought that way which yet is the great and only Substantial Charge of this Indictment which must still be minded and observed My Lord Howard does indeed prove two several Consults one at Mr. Hambden the youngers the other at my Lord Russel's about the middle of Ianuary last and after and that my Lord Russel was at both and these Consults were of an Insurrection and where to begin it and of providing Arms and Money and of sending into Scotland to settle an Understanding with the Lord of Argile and being asked what my Lord did say he answers thus viz. Every one says he knows my Lord Russel is a Person of great Iudgment and not very lavish in Discourse But did he consent was a Question ask'd by Sir George Iefferies the Lord Howard answered We did not put it to the Vote but it went without Contradiction and I took it that all there gave their consent that my Lord Russel joyn'd in the chusing a Councel of Six that he approv'd of his being chosen for one that he said one word in these two Consults there is not any Proof by the Lord Howard only he says He took it that all there Consented Is that enough Oh strange Evidence I will not here take Notice or Examine how far the Lord Howard is a Credible Witness in this Case but rfer the Reader to the Testimony of my Lord of Anglesey Mr. Howard and Dr. Burnet or how far any of the three Witnesses are to be believ'd having all three upon their own Testimony been Participes Criminis and it is suppos'd have their Pardons or are promis'd Pardons Not that this is offer'd to disable them quite from being Witnesses but surely all things consider'd it much lessens their Credit in this Case nor does it make them the more Credible because no other Witnesses can be had But then consider that most Excellent Character given of the Prisoner by Persons of Honour and of the highest Esteem for Ability and Integrity and such as contradicts and is inconsistent with the Charge of the Indictment and whatever is of weight in the Evidence against him and especially if you give any credit to the Lord Howard himself who upon his Oath does declare as in the presence of God and Man That he did not believe that either the Duke of Monmouth or my Lord Russel had any design to Murder the King which is the only effectual Charge of this Indictment These things considered it seems very strange to me how the Lord Russel could be found guilty of a compassing and imagining the Death of the King for so is the Verdict This answers most of the Observations made by the Author of the Antidote upon my Lord Russel's Speech restraining the Expression as he says of his Innocency to the design upon the King's Life and to killing of the King and of his omitting to mention the general Rising which as this Author boldly affirms was fully proved upon him and that my Lord's Professions of his Innocency as to any Plot upon the King's Life or to kill the King or his knowing any thing thereof these says the Author are no plain declarations of his Innocency as to the Crime charged and proved upon him of conspiring and consulting to raise an Insurrection Nor was there any need of my Lord 's answering that for it was little material How uncertain how dis-agreeing how unapplicable to the Charge of the Indictment those Proofs are has been fully observ'd already and the Author grosly mistakes in his Judgment when he takes the conspiring and consulting to raise an Insurrection to be the Crime charged in the Indictment for as was observ'd before the Charge of the Indictment is the compassing and imagining to kill the King and that of a Conspiracy to raise an Insurrection or to levy War is none of the Crimes or Treasons enumerated or specified in the Act of 25 E. 3. and therefore could not be the Crime charged in the Indictment which is grounded only upon that Act of 25 E. 3. as the Attorney-General acknowledges for it is an actual levying of War and not a conspiring only to levy War or raise an Insurrection that is the Treason specified in that Act of 25 E. 3. and therefore the mention of other things are but by way of aggravation for the more ample setting forth of the Crime charged which is of compassing the King's death and that the conspiring to make an Insurrection cannot be an open Deed to prove a compassing the King's Death has been already spoken to and shall be yet more fully Nor is the Author more mistaken in his Observations upon the matter of Fact and his unwarranted Conclusions and Inferences raised from thence then he is in his Determinations of matters in Law arising from that Fact. The Death