Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	duke_n	king_n	wales_n	6,380	5	10.4533	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44191	Lord Hollis, his remains being a second letter to a friend, concerning the judicature of the bishops in Parliament, in the vindication of what he wrote in his first : and in answer to ... The rights of the bishops to judge in capital cases in Parliament, cleared, &c. : it contains likewise part of his intended answer to a second tractate, entituled, The grand question touching the bishops right to vote in Parliament, stated and argued : to which are added Considerations, in answer to the learned author of The grand question, &c., by another hand : and reflections upon some passages in Mr. Hunt's Argument upon that subject, &c., by a third.; Second letter to a friend concerning the judicature of the bishops in Parliament	Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.; Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680. Letter of a gentleman to his friend.; Atwood, William, d. 1705? Reflections upon Antidotum Britannicum.	1682 (1682)	Wing H2466; ESTC R17318	217,539	444

I say that if the Bishops did joyn in the Judgement it would have been so expressed and they would have been first named otherwise it is like an Et caetera in the beginning of an Enumeration which in the close and after an enumeration of some particulars may intimate a joyning of some others that are not particularly specified and named but is never put in the beginning And I think I may with confidence affirm That there is no example in all the Rolls of Parliament that any of the Benches of the House of Lords hath been particularly mentioned in any business and if the Prelates did likewise act in it that they were not also particularly mentioned and always in the first place nay before any other even before the Prince of Wales and the Princes of the Blood as may be seen in the Roll 28 E. 5. upon Roger of Wygmore's Petition the Record saith Le Roy ●…st venir devant lui les Prelatz Edward son fitz eisne Prince de Gales Henri Duc de Lancastre Countes Barons Piers le Iugement c. The King caused to be brought before him and the Prelates and Edward Prince of Wales his eldest Son and Henry Duke of Lancaster and the Earls Barons and Peers the Iudgement c. Now is it probable or can it be believed that the Decorum concerning the Bishops being in those times still so punctually observed and that respect always given to the Prelacy whenever they were concerned to mention them particularly and in their due place that they would in that Parliament of E. 3. be content to be comprized under a general notion and pass as a man may say Incognito when others have more respect shewed them to have their names recorded I do not think that the Clerk of the Parliament durst have been guilty of so great a disrespect to them Therefore we may well conclude that in this Judgement upon Mautravers the Prelates were not at all signified under the general word of Trestouz les Piers Countes Barons All the Peers Earls and Barons nor were they at all present or had any part in that Tryal no more than in that of Roger de Mortimer Earl of March The other persons judged that Parliament had all the same Judges and passed under the same Judicature The Record for Boeges de Bayons and John Deuerell is Item tieu Iugement est assentiez accorde que soit fait de Boeges de Bayons John Deuerell pur la cause sus●…ite c. Item The same Judgement was agreed to and accorded to be given upon Boeges de Bayons and John Deuerell for the cause aforesaid c. The very same words are likewise for the Judgements upon Thomas de Gurney and William de Ocle And to prove it more authentically that they were all Ejusdem farinae of one and the same nature I will give you the Kings Writ that declares them to be so to the Lord Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer commanding them so to inroll those Judgements and with them a kind of Protestation made by those Peers stiled a Concordia ne trahatur in Consequentiam An Agreement that it should not be drawn into Consequence That is Not made a Precedent to oblige and compel them to judge hereafter any but their Peers because of the Judgement they had then given against Sir Simon de Bereford John Mautravers and the rest who were Commoners For as for those who were their Peers they could not avoid the Trying of them particularly in Parliament where only a Peer of the Realm can be tryed in Parliament time which hath ever been the priviledge of the Peers and from which I shall in due time and place before I make an end draw I think an Argument not to be answered that the Bishops are not Peers for if they be Peers and questioned in Parliament time they must be Tryed in Parliament But 4 E. 3. Stephen Bishop of London having been complained of in Parliament for saying That if Edward the Second were still alive as he was informed that he was and in Corfe-Castle he would assist him with all his force to re-establish him in his Throne was by the Parliament referred for his Tryal to the Kings Counsel and by them to the Kings-Bench where putting himself super Patriam to be Tryed as all Commoners do a Jury was empannelled and the Tryal went on there in the Kings-Bench till at last he got the Kings Pardon This is Term. Pasc. 4 E. 3. rot 53. Now had the Bishop been truly and really a Peer of the Realm neither could the House of Peers have avoided the Trying of him themselves nor would he have submitted to a Tryal elsewhere out of Parliament the Parliament being once possessed of his Cause But this is by the by the Writ for inrolling those Judgements and the Concordia is In Memor and. Scaccarii inter Brevia directa Baronibus de Termino Sancti Hillarii Rot. 33. 5 E. 3. In these words Rex Thes. Baronib suis salutem Bittimus vobis sub pede Sigilli nostri quaedam Iudicia in Parliamento nostro apud Westmon nuper tento per Comites Barones at alios Pares regni nostri super Rogerum de Mortuo Mari quosdam alios reddita nec non quandam Concordiam per nos Pares praedictos nec non Communitatem Regni nostri in eodem Parliamento factam super praemissis Mandantes quod Iudicia Concordiam praedicta in Scaccario nostro praedicto coram vobis legi publicari ibidem seriatim irrotulari de caetero ibidem obser●…ari faciatis Teste me ipso apud Wyndesor 15. die Februarii Anno regni nostri 5. Per ipsum Regem Concilium The King to the Treasurer and Barons greeting We send you under our Seal certain Judgements given in our Parliament late at Westminster by the Earls Barons and other Peers of our Realm upon Roger of Mortimer and some others also an Agreement made in the same Parliament by Our Selves the foresaid Peers and the whole Commonaliy concerning the matters aforesaid commanding you that the said Judgements and Agreement you cause to be read in your presence in our Court of the Exchequer and there to be enrolled in course and duly observed Given under our Test at Windsor Febr. 15. in the fifth year of our Reign All this shews there was no variation in any of those Tryals but all went on pari passu in the same Method And it is not probable there could be any great change in their proceedings the Parliament continuing together so short a time but fifteen days in all as Mr. Pryn observes by the Writs of wages in his fourth Part which is concerning Parliamentary Writs And I think I may now say that few will believe I concealed these Precedents because they made against me The Case of Sir Thomas Berckley is of another nature his Tryal is said to be Inter Placita

they had a place to go to when 't was fit they should consult apart not that they always did so no more than it doth that the Prelates sate not among the Lords because they sometimes went apart and had a place to go to as well as the Commons We know that 7 Iacobi when Prince Henry was created Prince of Wales they all sate together in the Court of Requests and may do again when the King pleaseth I have now done with this rather curious than necessary Question which I had not touched upon had not Percy 's place in Parliament given me occasion a little to search into it Yet I think it not amiss here to insert the Prayer of the Commons and the form of the Proxy made by the Clergy to Sir Thomas Percy in 21 Rich. 2. memb 6. no. 9. as it is at large upon the Record that the Reader may be able to give a rational Judgment both what his Power was and how the Clergy were represented by him The Commons first pray the King that whereas divers Judgments and Ordinances before time made in the time of his Progenitors had been recalled and made null because the Estate of the Clergy were not present Et pour ceo prierent au Roy que pour surety de sa person salvation de son royaum les Prelates le Elergy ferroient un Procurateur avet povoir sufficient pour consentir en leur nome a toutes choses ordonances a justifier en cest present Parlament que sur ceo chacun seigneur spirituel diront pleinment son avis Sur quoy le dicts seigneurs spirituels commetterent leur plein povoir generalment a un lay personne nomerent en especial Thomas Percy Chevalier sur ceo baillerent au Roy une schedule contenant leur povoir la quelle nostre seigneur le roy receust commanda le dit Mardy estre entre de record en rolle de Parlement de quelle cedule la form sensuit Nos Thomas Cantuariensis Robertus Ebor. Archiepiscopi ac praelati Clerici utriusque provinciae Cantuar. Eborac jure ecclesiarum earundem habentes jus inter essendi in singulis Parlamentis Domini nostri Regis regni Angl. pro tempore celebrandis nec non tractandi expediendi in eisdem quantum ad singula in instanti Parlamento pro statu honore Domini nostri Regis nec non Regaliae suae ac quiete pace tranquillitate regni judicialiter justificand Venerabili viro Domino Thomae de Percy Mil. nostram plenarie committimus potestatem ita ut singula per ipsum facta in praemissis perpetuis temporibus habeantur It is observable in this Prayer the Commons recite Ordinances as well as Judgments to have been made null by reason of the Bishops Absence and comprehended not Judgments alone Now of what Latitude Ordinances were taken whether temporary or otherwise look'd upon as Laws is not very certain Secondly they desire such a Proctor as might have Power to confent to such things as should be done Thirdly they naming a Lay-man who had no Right of his own to sit there and giving the King a Schedule of their Procuration was enough to make their Right be preserved to them without any explicite Consent by their Proctor or perhaps his being so much as present at any Debate But I now proceed to observe how ready our Author is to pick what Advantage he can against the Author of the Discourse of Peerage from the words by him quoted out of the Manuscript History written by the Abbot of Molros in Scotland where the King of England sent Bishop Fox as I remember to treat with the King of Scotland Iames the Fourth then there touching a Match between the Children of those two Princes 'T is a Book to be seen in some few hands and writes of the Parliament in 21 R. 2. The Author of the Discourse pag. 20. tells you that that Manuscript Author blames the Prelates much for the Opinion they gave generally about the Revocation of Pardons but in this as in many other Authorities that make against him our Author curtails the Words and cites no more than makes for his turn The Words at large are these Dederunt ergo locum judicio sanguinis in hoc facto Ita quod dubitabatur à pluribus si non incurrerent in poenam irregularitatis pro negotio memorato unde contigit quod propter istud minus peccatum inciderent in aliud majus peccatum consequentur ut laicam personam constituerent procuratorem pro iisdem qui illorum vice consentirent ad judicium sanguinis dandum in isto Parliamento si necesse foret occasio emersisset The Prelates by this act of theirs gave Allowance or Countenance to Tryals of Blood insomuch that it was doubted by many whether they did not fall under the Penalty of Irregularity by reason of the foresaid business from whence it happened that instead of that lesser Offence they fell into a greater by Consequence in that they made a Lay-man their Proctor who in their Room might consent to a Judgment of Blood to be given in that Parliament if it were needful or occasion had happened I have translated dare locum fudicio sanguinis to give way or Allowance to a Judgment of Blood because it appears by the subsequent Words he meant them so The use the Author of the Discourse of Peerage makes of these Words is to shew that the Canons were not the only Cause that hindred their presence in II Rich. 2. For then when they had no Encouragement from the King or Lords then they ought not at any hand to be present in such Cases but here in 21. when they had any Allowance or Connivence as to the Laws against them then the Canons were neglected altogether His Inference seems to me rational and good Oh! but saith the Grand Questionist they were present in voting the Pardon to the Earl of Arundel revocable Under his Favour I think he is mistaken for the Book warrants no such matter only tells you that they gave a general Vote that Pardon 's granted in Parliament were revocable by the King by consequence whereof some of those who were pardoned in 11. were executed in 21. which Votes I hope might pass though the Parties concerned were not present and this meaning the book seems to enforce For first that Author saith it was a doubt amongst many whether that act did not make them incur the Penalty of Irregularity which would have been none had they personally by their Votes revoked the Pardon granted to the Earl of Arundel Secondly he saith by making a Proctor in that Case of Blood they committed a greater Fault than the former but certainly the making a Lay Proctor was not a greater Fault than actual Allowance and personal voting in Blood which that Author charges them with Lastly they made a

besides them In the 47 th of Hen. 3. which to be sure was before the 49 th there was an Army to be sent against Llewelin Prince of Wales who committed Hostilities against the English this 't is certain was no General Council of the Kingdom being only a Summons to the Wars and yet the Great Barons had personal Summons as appears by the Record Rex dilecto fideli suo Rogero de Rigod Comiti Norff. Mares Ang. Salutem quia Llewellinus filius Griffini et cumplures rebelles nostri contra Homagum suum fidelitatem nobis debit am terras nostras fidelium nostrorum in partibus Walliae dudum ut nostis hostiliter sunt aggressi terras illas occupando devastando in nostrum dedecus in nostrum et praedict fidelium nostrorum exheredationem manifestam vobis mandamus sub debito fidelitatis homagij quibus nobis tenemini sicut eaquae de nobis tenetis diligitis quod in festo beati Petri ad vincula proximo futuro sitis apud Wigorn cum Equis Armis cum Servitio vestro nobis debito parati exinde nobiscum proficisci in expeditionem nostram contra praefatum Llewellinum complices suos Rebelles nostros Et it a de contentis in hâc necessitate nostrâ ibim veniatis ut dictorum Rebellium nostrorum versutia adeo patenter reprimatur quod nobis et vobiscedat ad honorem exinde vobis ad grates teneamur speciales Teste Rege apud Westmin 25 o die Maij. Eodem modo mandatum est Phil. Basset c. And this Gentleman if he had thought fit to have trusted Mr. Selden without taking the impertinent Pains as he terms it of searching the Records might have known that about 130 Temporal Barons had then their several Writs But this Author finding a Precept to a Sheriff Quod summoneri facias Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites Barones Abbates Priores Milites et Liberos Homines qui de nobis tenent in Capite c. concludes that this must necessarily be a Curia Regis in distinction to a Parliament because of the general Writ of Summons whereas a little insight into Records would have acquainted him that the Sheriff was obliged to summon all those by a General Proclamation and then to deliver the particular Writs to the Great Barons amongst them this Record doth not say how they were to be summoned but notwithstanding this every one of those Ranks of Men might have been summoned particularly but to prevent all Mistakes or Evasion we have a Record which explains that very Instance which he insists upon it being of that very time Rex Vicecom Devon salutem praecipimus tibi quod in fide quâ nobis teneris visis literis istis scire facias omnibus de Com. tuo qui de nobis tenent in Capite per Servitium Militare vel per Serjantiam similiter illos qui terras Norman vel Brittan tenent de Ballio Domini Regis Iohannis Patris nostri vel nostro quod sicut tenementa sua quae de nobis tenent diligunt sint apud Winton die Clausi Paschae Parati cum Equis et Armis ad trasfretandum cum Corpore nostro in Pictaviam Literas etiam ipsius certis Personis directas in Com. tuo mitti fac T. R. apud Windles 8 o die Februarij Here was notice given to all or general Summons and particular Writs also to be delivered to some of the Tenants and thus for ought appears to the contrary it always was This alone were enough to shew that he has mistaken King John's Charter which he thinks has establish'd this difference but his own Explication of it will make it more apparent Which I shall consider under this next Head CHAP. II. Some erroneous Suppositions which may have contributed to Mr. Hunt 's Belief that the Tenants in Chief were the only Members of the General Council of the Kingdom till 49 H. 3. or that Tenants in Capite only constituted both the Curia and the Parliament according to the imagined different Summons considered ALL the Grounds which Mr. Hunt can pretend for this besides the matter of Fact in relation to the Summons which I have already examined must be either 1. From the Interpretation of King Iohn's Charter 2. His Notion of Tenure in Capite or 3. The belief that William the first made an Absolute Conquest of this Nation If King Iohn's Charter requires that the Great Tenants in Chief should have particular Summons to Parliament then indeed there would be a reason why though all the Tenants in Chief were obliged to attend in the Curia upon general notice yet some might not be concluded by any Act of Legislation unless they had notice of Attendance to such end But if he knew not what was meant by Tenure in Capite 't is odds but he might mistake the Sense of that part of King Iohn's Charter which relates to the Tenants in Chief And if William the first did not make an absolute Conquest 't will be wonderful how those that derived from under his Grant should be the only Persons interested in the Government exclusive of all others but if he did make such a Conquest then a very little Evidence would be enough to make one believe that none but Tenants in Chief were Cives or any part of the Civil Society To take away all Colour from his Presumption I shall shew I. That he gains no help from King Iohn's Charter II. That he mistakes the Nature of Tenure in Capite III. That he would have done well to have answered the Objections against the supposed Conquest before he concluded for it I. He can gain no help from King Iohn's Charter for his Interpretation of it fights against its self He himself acknowledges a difference between the Curia Regis and Parliament and particularly that in the Curia the Suitors assess●…aids and Escuage to which purposes he will have it that they were summoned by General Writs and yet contends that by King Iohn's Charter the Great Tenants in Capite who were Suitors at the Curia were to be summoned in particular de scutagiis assidendis to assess Escuage and that the Council where this was assest was a Parliament according to his imaginary distinctive Mark But let us observe his way of demonstrating his Sense of this Charter he divides some of the Clause in dispute into two parts and leaves out as not material to the Enquiry what particularly relates to the Cities Ports Burroughs and Vill●…e Townships or Parishes in which alone according to his own Division the Liberties of sending Burgesses to Parliaments must have been confirmed and provided for and yet notwithstanding such omission will have it that the modus Parliamenti in King John 's time was in the said Charter declared His first Division is this Nullum scutagium vel auxilium ponam in Regno nostro nisi per