Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	die_v	earl_n	marry_v	15,839	5	9.7541	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88116	The lier laid open in a letter, first written to a friend in the country, at his desire, for his private satisfaction: and now printed for the publick. Touching a late pamphlet, intituled, The manifold practises and attempts of the Hamiltons: and particularly, of the present Duke of Hamilton, (now generall of the Scottish Army) to get the crown of Scotland.		1648 (1648)	Wing L1948; Thomason E451_44; ESTC R202715	8,035	16

The LIER laid open In a LETTER First Written to a Friend in the Country at his desire for his private satisfaction And now Printed for the Publick Touching a late PAMPHLET INTITVLED The manifold Practises and Attempts of the Hamiltons AND Particularly of the present DUKE OF HAMILTON Now Generall of the Scottish ARMY to get the Crown of SCOTLAND London Printed in the Yeer 1648. An Answer to a Letter forged by some Malicious Person against the Illustrious Lord JAMES Duke of HAMILTON now General of the SCOTTISH ARMY And the Right Honourable WILLIAM Earl of LANERICK His Brother SIR IN satisfaction to your desire touching a malicious Pamphlet lately forged and published against Duke Hamilton and his Brother the Earl of Lanerick I shall shew you briefly and ingeniously my opinion thereof Sine amore et odio which blinds and transports most judgements The first part thereof concerning some of Duke Hamiltons Predecessors is borrowed from Buchanan who is known by all judicious impartial men of the Scottish Nation to have been suborned by the Earl of Murray then Regent to defame Queen Mary and her Posterity make them odious to the people and incapable of Government according to his pernitious principles now revived in this Island whether first invented by Jesuits or some Sectaries about the yeer of God 1536. is not material to our purpose since both Joyn issue in it and like Herod and Pilate agree against the Lords Anointed to make way for the setling of the Crown upon his own head and transferring of it to his Posterity as by Buchanan his Dialogue De jure Regni apud Scotos his Detectio and History may appear As also by the Charge which the Earls of Murray Morton and others gave in to Queen Elizabeth against Queen Mary and as King James declares plainly in his Basilicon doron And perceiving that this could hardly be effectuated so long as the race of Hamiltons the next undoubted lawful Heirs remained who stood firme to the Queen He caused Buchanan to defame them also in his Libels for that same end forfeited and banished them for their Loyalty and as Buchanan to insinuate his calumnies the better took his rise from King James the fifths minority so doth this Pamphleter now and yet makes only use of him when he serves his turn building upon his own raw invention when Buchanan makes not for it As when he instances Sir James Hamilton executed for Treason Buchanan doth not charge the Earl of Arran to have had any hand in it neither was he ever accused therof the said Sir James of Evendale being known to be a profuse wicked man Again Buchanan in terminis charges the Clergy as the chief hinderers of King James the Fift his meeting at York with his Uncle Henry the Eighth of England for fear he should have induced him to shake off the Popes Authority as himself had done a little before and that the Marriage with the Lady Mary might have been a means to procure it as they likewise hindered the Marriage of Mary Queen of Scots with Edward the Sixth agreed upon under the Great Seals of both Kingdoms The Queen-Mother and Cardinal Beaton who ruled all then sending her to France which this Pamphleter charges most injuriously upon the Duke of Chastle-rault whereas it is conspicuous that he obtained that title and 1200 Franks pension which this Duke keeps still from the French King for resigning the Regency to the Queen dowager being that he was made Regent not by a private faction as the Pamphleter saies but by the Three Estates of the Kingdom in opposition to a forged Will of the late Kings which Cardinal Beaton obtruded the Duke being inclined then to the Protestant Religion and most popular as both Buchanan and John Knox in their Histories do testifie and impute his after change in Religion to the Queens side to his Brother the Abbot of Paseley after Archbishop of St Andrews and M. David Panter his Secretary after Bishop of Rosse who returning from France got in great favour with him over ruled him being of no great intellectualls and caused remove of all his ancient servants and placed their own creatures about him And it is very plain that if he had been a man of an aspiring spirit to the Crown he would never have given up his Regency but all his actions showes him to have been a humble man and of no ambition and more inclined to a private than publick way of life And for his eldest Son the Earl of Arran he was known to be distracted and died so without marriage and Lord John the second Son this Dukes Grand-father never was a suitor to the Queen that I can read in any but this Pamphleter though I cannot see that it had been a Crime in either to have been suitors more than it was for the Lord Darnely to marry her As for the Kings murther afterwards when the Earl of Morton suffered for concealing of it a cleer Discovery was made who were the chief authors of it and actors in it the Duke of Chastle rault and his Sons having small hand in the Government at that time and standing fast to the Queen when others rose in Arms against her in prosecution of that Designe As for the Earl of Murrayes death Bothwel-haugh that perpetrated it flying after to France professed that he did it out of a private revenge because the Earl of Murray had taken his Estate unjustly from him and could not be induced by large rewards to kill a great man there neither could there ever be any legal proofes brought against the Duke his Sons or Archbishop Hamilton who was most illegally and barbarously murthered concerning the Kings murther and Regents death though much attempted by the Faction of the times out of malice to them for their Loyalty to the Queen and consequently to the Prince her Son whom the Faction set up in his Cradle to destroy his Mother under colour of his Authority invested in them which how much he abhorred he declared fully when he came to years of understanding and many of the cheif Actors did not escape Gods judgement And here I must observe how this Scribler would seem to be a Royalist and yet runs himself upon Sectarian Antimonarchical Rocks that make inevitable Shipwrack of all Monarchical power Where he sayes That the Queen was put and kept in Lochleven a prisoner by command of Parliament and that the Hamiltons took a course to releive her and suppresse the King and his party he will not deny but the Queen was their lawful Soveraigne by the Law of God and by neer 107 Descents by what law then of God or that Kingdom could a party of her Subjects imprison and disthrone her Was it Treason in my Lord Hamilton Duke of Chastle-rault to releive her and imploy all his power to defend her Let them cite the Law I demand of him Would it be so now to rescue the King out of the Isle of