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	king_n	son_n	11,498	5	4.8814	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43107	A reply to a sheet of paper, intituled, The magistracy and government of England vindicated, or, A justification of the English method of proceedings against criminals, by way of answer to the defence of the late Lord Russel's innocence, &c. written by John Hawles ...	Hawles, John, Sir, 1645-1716.	1689 (1689)	Wing H1189; ESTC R12198	38,849	39

Spain which fell out in 88. and Protestant Subjects were not safe in assisting and had no encouragement to assist their Protestant Princess as long as there was fear they might be in danger of their being punished by a Popish Successor for which reason they were of Opinion That the Popish Successor might not only be excluded but might and ought to be the Law being of their side removed out of the World which was done in 1587 for which when Davison was questioned in the Star-Chamber the Lord Grey was against his being punished and would have had him rewarded for which he gave his Reasons in a very eloquent Speech remembred by Cambden This as it had reason provok'd her Son who was to be and was the Successor to the Crown Some time after the Earl of Essex having lost that Favour and Power which he thought he deserved at Court as it is natural betook himself to the Successor and though it was concealed for some time he became a great Favourite to K. James the First The L. Cobham and Raleigh were profest Enemies to the Earl of Essex who gave them a greater advantage over him than they could have hoped for by breaking out into an act of open Rebellion for which they took care he should not escape His Death was much regretted by K. James though he durst not take notice of it to the Queen The Queen dying those three Persons had reason to fear punishment from the King and therefore would have had if they could have prevailed the King admitted on Articles but being not able to carry that point the Lord Cobham and Raleigh thought to have made their peace by meeting the King on his Journey congratulating his Succession to the Crown and offering him their Service but were not permitted to come to him and had Word sent them They might spare their labour which presaged no good to them The King came to London in May and in July following was the pretended Plot discovered and in November following the pretended Delinquents were tryed at Winchester together with Watson and Clark Their Accusations were in general first to set the Crown on the Lady Arabella's Head and to seize the King. Secondly to have a Toleration of Religion Thirdly to procure Aid and Assistence from foreign Princes Fourthly to turn out of Court such as they disliked and place themselves in Offices Of these the first Article is Treason what Crimes the rest are is doubtful what of them was proved against the Lords Cobham and Gray Watson and Clark or how their Tryals were managed doth not appear But Sir Walter Raleigh's Tryal does appear and is much like the L. Russel's and therefore of some Circumstances of it I think it is fit to take notice Instead of Consults c. in the L. Russel's Tryal the cant-Words of the surprizing the Bie and the Main were made use of in Sir Walter 's interpretable as the Council thought fit at least it was astonishing to the Jury which was all that was design'd by the Council and fatal to the Prisoners I have no mind to run through all the ramble of Sir W. Raleigh's Tryal as it is printed before his History of the World because the parallel is too exact and sticks too close to the Memory of Persons gone only I will say That if Sir Walter Raleigh was guilty of the things he was accused of by the Witnesses though the Accusation did not amount to a legal Proof it was high Treason but if the L. Russell was guilty of the things he was accused of he was not guilty of high Treason But yet I think it is fit to take notice of some extraordinary things in Sir Walter 's Tryal particularly that when the Prisoner said he was tryed by the Spanish Inquisition if he was try'd by Circumstances without two Witnesses it was told him that was a treasonable Speech It was told him by the Court that the Statutes of the 25. Ed. 3. and 5. Ed. 6. were repealed it was told him that his Accuser need not be brought face to face to him nor subscribe his Confession 't was enough that there were Hands of credible Persons to testifie the Examination it was told him that a Man might be condemned by the Testimony of one Witness nay even without a Witness in Treason He was accused that he heard the Lord Cobham speak of Pensions from Spain he said he could not stop the Lord Cobham's mouth he was accused with having given the L. Cobham a Book treating against the King's Title to the Crown he said he did not give the L. Cobham the Book the Lord took it off his shelf and that himself never read it or urg'd it the Attorney said that was cunning Sir Walter reply'd That all that made for him was call'd cunning what made against him was probable The Prisoner was told that by Law his Accuser not only need not be brought face to face to accuse him but the Witness ought not to be produced lest he should recant what he had said One Dyer testified That a Gentleman he knew not whom at Lisbon told him Don Cobham and Don Raleigh would cut the King's Throat before he was crown'd the Attorney told him he was by when the Earl of Essex dyed Sir Walter produced a Letter from the L. Cobham wherein he acquitted Sir Walter of all he had accused him of the Jury found him guilty Sir Walter said the Jury must do as they were directed he complained of the wrong the Attorney did him Brook said that what he did in that matter was to try faithful Subjects and that he had a Commission for so doing but produced none Sir Walter in his Speech on the Stage took notice of several Calumnies raised of him particularly that he had spoke dishonourably of the King to a French-man and had rejoiced at the Earl of Essex his Death both which he denied Now why the Author quotes this Case as a Case for him I cannot imagine neither the Fact Accusation or Resolution of it in any point coming up to his purpose for Sir Walter and the rest were accused of the Main which was the destroying the King and his Cubbs and setting up the Lady Arabella for Queen or at least for designing to imprison the King till he yielded to their Demands and therefore what occasion was there for such a Resolution of the Judges as is pretended that conspiring to levy War was high Treason within the Statute of Ed. 3. Nor can I find in any Book nor do I believe there was any such Resolution My L. Coke indeed says in that case it was resolved That a design to imprison the King was high Treason but in the same breath says that a Conspiracy to levy War is not Treason But if the Author intends to vindicate the late Government by shewing that in former as well as in later times there have been found Persons of the long Robe who have by irregular means brought

What Sir William Jones said in the Viscount Stafford's Case I do not remember but it was plain his Accusation was for compassing the King's Death by under-hand dealing And though that taking the King Prisoner is high Treason yet the compassing it would not have been Treason if the Words of the Statute had not made it so no more than if the Act had said Killing the King should be Treason to inferr therefore compassing his Death should be high Treason For is it not begging the question to say Therefore consulting to do it is high Treason For where is the Consequence Coining of Money is high Treason Doth it therefore follow that designing to coin Money is high Treason And a much more remote Consequence is it to say compassing the seizing the King's Guards is compassing the King's Death I deny that designing to seize all the Forts in England is high Treason within the first branch of the Statute of Edward the Third nay the actual seizing them was not thought high Treason within that Statute and therefore the Statute of the 14 Eliz. expresly enacts That the seizing or keeping of any of the Queen's Castles or Forts from her shall be high Treason during her Life which shews it was not Treason before But if it were high Treason within the Statute of Edward the Third it is within the Clause of levying War and not the Clause of compassing the King's Death To what purpose was it to find fault with Rouse's Indictment Was not he tried the day after the Lord Russel was tried by the same Judges And I dare say the Author doth not think Rouse guilty of high Treason Rouse and Leigh were only tricking one another in which Leigh was too hard for him and Rouse died for the same But how vain is the Author to quote the Judgment of the very same Judges in other Cases to make good his Thesis in the Lord Russel's Trial when he cannot but remember how exploded and laughed at the Argument was of a certain Judge at the Old-Baily when the question was Whether a Soldiers flying from his Colours was Felony without Benefit of Clergy a Case too plain to bear an Argument either way who had nothing to say for it But that if the Law was not so he had hanged many a Man wrongfully It is strange to find an Author in so short a space as a sheet of Paper affords to be guilty of so many Repetitions and it would be idle to repeat the Answer to them Where did the Author find that by our Law the King must not cannot assault strike seize attach or imprison in defence of Himself No Man said it before the Author The Law were defective if it were so and fit to be altered It would be worse than binding the King to his good Behaviour It is true the King cannot execute the ordinary Offices of a Magistrate but remit them to be executed by some commissioned by him but what done in his own Defence is a matter of a quite different nature A Judge ought not to strike a Man but no Man said That if assaulted he might not fight in his own defence which he certainly may justifie It is one thing for a Judge to strike by way of punishment which he ought to leave to his Officers another thing to strike in his defence And now is the Author in the repeating strain of his Inferences and I must leave it to the Reader to judge whether what he here or elsewhere hath said overthrows the distinction between an actual seizing and an agreement to seize the Guards I am sure his closing Reason that both have a tendency to thing intended edifies little The King cannot live unless he eats he cannot eat without having his Meat drest he cannot have his meat drest without a Cook ergo he that kills the King's Cook starves the King and is guilty of high Treason It is very odd for the Author to think he can evade the Objection that Words were not Treason within 25. Ed. 3. because enacted to be so for some time by a saying That that Statute was a Complement to a new-Crown'd head what can he say to the Statutes of Hen. 8. and of the Queen which were made when the Crown had been many years on their Heads And why should he say That those Statutes as to words were affirmative of the Old Law when all the Judges in Hugh Pine's Case in Crook Car. on view of most of the Cases cited by the Author adjudged That no Words were Treason within the Statute of Edw. 3. Constable Sir Henry Vane and Dr. Story 's Cases have been answered before Plunkett was adjudged by some of the Judges which sate on my Lord Russell and I dare say few believe Plunkett guilty of the pretended Crime he died for but it was to make the World believe that Justice was impartially administred he was to be and was hanged ding dong against Fitz-harris to keep Tyburn steady It was feared that if Fitz-harris had hanged alone Tyburn would have warped or enclined to one side and therefore they were both hanged the same time on the same Gallows to keep it upright There remains but one Case to be answered though the Author would have them two Cases which is the Lords Gray and Cobham and Sir Walter Raleigh which I confess is an exact parallel Case in the truth of the particulars of it with the Lord Russell's Case though not in the Accusation as I think will be made appear Every Man knows because it was but few years past that the Lord Russell was a Person zealous for the Protestant Religion and an Enemy to Popery he was for that Reason very active in the matter of a Bill of Exclusion of a Popish Successor and as I have heard carried it up from the House of Commons to the House of Lords He was one who was for the prosecuting the Lord Viscount Stafford who suffered death for compassing the Death of the then Protestant Possessor of the Crown the then presumptive Heir of the Crown was at that time eclips'd but having recovered his Power and as the Lord Holles observed in his Letter to Monsieur Van Benningham governing all at White-hall Some few years afterwards the Lord Russell was brought to the Block upon pretence of the Treasons mentioned by the Author The Case of the Lords Gray Cobham and Raleigh was this They were all zealous for the Protestant Religion and affectionate to the Person and the Service of the then reigning Queen both which they thought in danger as long as there was expectation or probability of a Papist's coming to the Crown which would be as long as the Queen of Scots lived and continued to profess the Popish Religion They well enough knew that if the blow was struck the Law would be of the side of the Assassines They had seen many designs upon the Person of the Queen upon that encouragement they saw a Storm coming from