Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	earl_n	sir_n	walter_n	12,940	5	11.4258	5	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

as is to be seen in my Lord Bacon's Elements much less doth it prove that the Consequence of a Design to seize the Guards is to kill depose or imprison the King For time was when the Kings of England were very safe and at at full liberty without Guards and to say truth no one instance in our English Histories can be given That a King hath been killed deposed or imprisoned for want of Guards I know it hath been pretended that King Charles the First had not went from White-hall if he had had Guards but that is but a Conjecture And it is a doubt whether his departure was forcible or voluntary Guards may defend a Prince from a sudden Attempt and scarcely so for Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth of France were killed the first in the midst of his Army the last in the midst of his Guards but not from the violence of the People a Prince is safe in the love of his Subjects and without it Guards are but of little use There were two late Kngs who did not well know whether they were not Prisoners to their own Armies and Mahomet the Fourth Emperour of the Turks was a Prisoner for some time to his own Guards when he thought himself at perfect liberty so little difference there is between Guards for a Prince's safety or his safe imprisonment I purposely omit speaking to the Cases of the Lord Cobham and Gray Watson and Clark because I intend to answer them last of all and for the same reason I speak not of Sir Walter Rawleigh's Case because it was the same with the other though the Author cunningly Musters them as distinct Cases The Case of the Earls of E. and of S. is reported short by the Author for their Indictment and Fact was for designing to take the Queen into their Custody and for that end assembled a multitude of armed Men which is actual levying War and so makes nothing towards proving the Matter in Question which is a Conspiracy to levy War without actual levying War. Cardinal Poole's Case is to as little purpose for in the Book that Cardinal Poole wrote which was in the 27th of Henry VII in which as my Lord Coke says 3 Instit fol. 14. from whence the Author had the Case there was this passage In Anglia nunc sparsum est hoc semen ut vix à Turcico internosci queat idque authoritate unius coaluit And in the precedent part of the Letter names the King and though more Treasons in the Indictment than one are mixt together yet the Indictment did then as it hath of late conclude contra formam Stat. which may be interpreted All or any Statutes precedent to that Fact enacting Treason And if the Author will look back he will find it enacted by the 26th of Henry VIII cap. 13. That to publish that the King was an Heretick Schismatick or an Infidel was High Treason and I would fain know whether the above passage is not a good proof of publishing that the King was an Infidel and so it was Treason within the above Statute But nothing can be inferred from an Indictment never pleaded unto as was Poole's The Case of Dr. Story is as little to the purpose who as Cambden says was to have been charged with consulting with one Prestall a Man addicted to Magical Illusions against the Queen's Life and always cursing her in his Graces and for having conspired the destruction of Her and of the King of Scots and shewed the Duke of Alva's Secretary the way to invade England to which Indictment he would not plead and therefore was condemned There is no doubt but the Indictment against Story was legal and standing mute he was legally condemned but whether his accusation was only perswading the Duke of Alva to invade England does not appear nay the contrary appears by Cambden and my Lord Coke quotes the Case to prove Story being born a Subject was not an Enemy but a Traitor besides it must be remembred that at that time there were Acts of Hostility between the Queen and the Duke of Alva and so Story may well be guilty of Treason by the Clause in the Stat. E. 3. of adhering to the Queen's Enemies and in the exposition of that Clause doth my Lord Coke cite Story 's Case as if he had been attainted on that Clause And though the Author quotes my Lord Dier yet the Case was put to the Judges otherwise than the Author relates for he says If a Subject beyond Sea invite a Prince to invade the Realm and no Invasion follow that Offence that is and if the Practice be for the death of the Prince what Offence this is and how and where it shall be tryed and these Offences says the Book were held by the Justices to be High Treason for that an Invasion with great Power cannot be but that it will tend to the destruction or peril of the Prince but it is plain that if the Judges did deliver that as the reason of their Judgment they needed not have done it for that Story 's Accusation without that reason was High Treason within the first Branch of the Stat. of Ed. 3. it being for compassing the Queen's Death and was so put to the Judges And it is plain notwithstanding the report of that Book the Judges did not give that reason for their resolution or if they did there was little credit given to it for in April following as the Author says it was enacted That the intention of levying War should be High Treason during the Queen's Life which was very absurd if the opinion of the Judges was such as reported or if it were such and it were believed it had been proper rather to have declared That the intention of levying War was High Treason within the first Branch of Edward III. And it is plain If the Opinion of the Judges in Story 's Case was such as reported it gained no credit with my Lord Coke who takes notice of that Case and yet expresly says that a bare Conspiracy to levy War is not Treason within the Stat. of Ed. 3. and takes notice of the 13th of the Queen which says he is Expired The Case of Coleman is well remembred to be for Conspiring to take away the King's Life by other sort of ways than levying War and to say Truth there was such Proofs and Suspicions of the thing confirmed by what after happened that the Author if but in tenderness to his Party ought to have spared that Case As for Balshall's Case I did not think it worth my time to look the record of it I find the Author hath it out of a Paper called Animadversions upon the Lord Russel's Speech and that Author hath it out of Dr. Nalson's Collections and to say Truth the style of that and his Paper are so alike that they seem to be writ by the same Hand I think the Author might have fitted himself with a Case out of

this Realm and that was held an Overt-act of imagining the King's Death In the Lord Cobham 's and Sir Walter Rawleigh 's Case a Conspiracy Consult and Agreement to promote an Insurrection and procure an Invasion was held an Overt-act I Jac. 1. and their meeting consulting and agreeing was laid as an Overt-act though discovered before the thing took effect Dr. Story 's Case which is mentioned by the Lords Dyer and Coke was no more than a Practice and Persuasion to promote an Insurrection and Invasion and the Overt-act that was alleadged was the writing of Letters for that purpose which is no more influential towards it nor so much as frequently meeting consulting and conspiring and at last concluding and agreeing to make an Insurrection The Case of Mr. Coleman was no other for whatsoever the Indictment laid the Evidence was only of Letters to the like effect as to this point with those of Dr. Story and that Case of Dr. Story was before the 13 Eliz. which made a new Treason during her Life for the Tryall was in Hillary Term and the Parliament did not begin till April following A Machination or Agreement to raise a Rebellion naturally tends to the Destruction both of King and People and an Advice to it hath been adjudged so as in the Reign of Hen. 4. one Balshal going from London found one Bernard at Plow in the Parish of Ofley in the County of Hartford Balshal told him that King Ric. 2. was alive in Scotland which was false for he was then dead and advised him to get Men and go to King Richard in Mich. 3. Hen. 4. Rot. 4. you 'll find this adjudged Treason Throgmorton 's Case is as plain for his was only a Conspiracy to levy War within this Realm he did not joyn in the Execution and the Conspiracy alone was declared to be a sufficient Overt-act by the Judges 'T is no Answer to it to say that a War was afterwards levied for quoad him 't was a bare Consult his Offence was no more than that In Sir Henry Vane 's Case meeting and consulting were alleadged and held to be Overt-acts The Case of Constable mentioned in Calvin 's Case was only an Act tending to deposing the Queen as dispersing Bills in the Night that Edw. 6. was alive in France and held an Overt-act declarative of his compassing her Death and he was executed for it and in the Report of Calvin 's Case you have several other Cases mentioned where endeavours to withdraw Subjects from their Allegiance have been adjudged Overt-acts of this species of Treason the compassing c. The word Compass in the Statute is of a larger extent than only to mean an actual Assault on the King's Person and an endeavour to cut his Throat it most certainly implies any consult or practice of another thing directly which may produce that effect as dissuading people from their Fidelity such was Owen 's Case in K. James 1st's time in the 13th year of that Reign his Advice was to this effect That King James being excommunicated by the Pope might be killed by any man and that so to doe was no Murther for being convicted by the Pope's Sentence he might be slaughtered without a fault as an Executioner hangs a Criminal condemned by Law and for this he was hang'd as a Traitor He that denies the Title to the Crown and endeavours to set it upon another's Head may doe this without a direct and immediate desiring the Death of him that wears it so said Saint-John in his Argument against the Earl of Strafford and yet this is Treason as was adjudged in the Case of Burton and in the Duke of Norfolk's Case 13 Eliz. This denying of the Title with Motives though but impliedly of Action against it hath been adjudged an Overt-act of compassing the King's Death as it was in John Sparhawk 's Case Pasch 3 Hen. 4. Rot. 12. The like was the Case of John Awater who was indicted for a Treason of that ture in Kent and the Indictment removed into B. R. Trin. 18 Ed. 4. see Rot. 17. and he was thereupon afterwards outlawed as a Traitour and so was Thomas Heber at the same time and words significative of an actual intention have been held so as are the opinions in Yelver 107. 197. Arthur Crohagan 's Case Cro. Car. 332. and abundance of others might be named as they are reported in our Law Books but I do not particularly mention them for that their Authority in some of them is very slender and may be ill used to the straining of rash and unadvised Words into a signification of a man's compassing when perhaps the man never thought as he spoke however all of them do evince that advised and deliberate Preparations moving to a danger to the King's Person have all along been held Overt-acts of a compassing his Death and some of them prove that Preparatives and Motives to the levying of a War have been held Treason as was Sir William Ashton of Suffolk 31 Hen. 6. mentioned in Cro. Car. 119. for making Ballads reflecting upon the King and writing Letters to the Men of Kent exciting them to rise to aid the then Duke of York c. ad guerram levandam and no mention of any War actually levied Germain and Taylor 's Indictment hath very little more in it mentioned than the like Preparations and Incitements to a Rebellion and yet the Treason there laid was a compassing the King's Death anno 2 Edw. 4. as at large appears in the same Report of Cro. Car. amounts to no more than the Indictment in question viz. That he compassed the King's Death and to accomplish that Intention he dispersed divers Writings c. ad intentionem that the People should rise and levy War c. the Judgment in that Case Drawing Hanging and Quartering the like is Collingbourn 's Case 2. Rich. 3. in the same Rep. 122 where he is indicted in like manner for exciting and moving the People to an Insurrection and War and he incurred the like Judgment which Cases are infinitely short of this in question and it cannot but be wondred that any man who has read them should question whether a consulting and conspiring about rising and an actual agreement and determination to rise be an Overt-act of compassing the King's Death In the very Tryall of the Lord Stafford is it affirmed by Sir William Jones who was certainly of great Authority with the Authour that the meeting and consulting together is an Overt-act though the thing agreed on be never put in Execution and 't is there resolved by the Judges that the same Treason may be proved by two Witnesses to several Overt-acts though one speak of Words or Actions that were spoken or done at one time and place and another speak of Words or Actions at another time and place which argues that Words much more a Consult and Agreement may make an Overt-act Even in the Case of Stephen Colledge in which though

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

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