Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	great_a	know_v	word_n	4,458	5	3.8471	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48183	A letter to a lawyer containing an essay to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King's brother and heir to be high-treason within 25 Ed. 3 / written by a gentleman in the country, and one of His Majesties justices of the peace for the county of -----.	Gentleman in the country and one of His Majesties justices of the peace.	1685 (1685)	Wing L1664; ESTC R11129	5,824	14

will object that here 's a restrictive Clause I answer and confess there is a Proviso That if any other Case supposed Treason which is not above specified c. but this is specified and sufficiently expressed by the Word Heir which was the thing chiefly intended as I shew'd before in the threefold reason of this Act of Parliament and a Brother or Nephew that is apparent Heir being within the same reason and mischief with Son and Heir which was mentioned because he is where there is such the first and next in Succession and so the chiefest of the kind is named the rest being meant and intended and that in Acts of Parliament 't is common and usual only to mention the first and chiefest when all manner of Persons of that kind or sort are understood you know almost an hundred Cases for it then the Primogenitus the Eldest Son in the first place then in default of him the second Son because then Heir then in default of him the third Son for the same Reason because Son then Heir and this is agreed to notwithstanding the restrictive Clause pari ratione If no such Son c. then Brother or Nephew when and because next immediate Apparent Heir in being This construction seems very natural and genuine besides that were it otherwise the Word Heir would be needless and stand for a Cypher for without that Word Heir 't would have been sufficient to have said Eldest Son and no more if no more had been designed by this Clause Now I think it is a Rule in all Constructions as well of Statutes as of Wills and Awards those three receiving always one interpretation secundum Intentionem which the very termination denotes Parliament Testament and Arbitrement never to expound them so as any Word shall be void and useless if all its Words may have a meaning by another Construction And here now if Coke's Construction be received That no Heir is meant but Eldest Son then 't is as much as if they had said Eldest Son that is Eldest Son and the Word Heir is superfluous for a Mans Eldest Son is generally reputed Heir Besides this Act being in Affirmance of the Common Law you know the Judges are not bound to that literal syllabical Construction as is pretended in this Case and the Law against Treasons hath in all ages been construed according to the Rule I mentioned of an identity in the reason and Mischief As in the Case of Petty Treason you find in the Books that if the Servant Kill the Wife of his Master knowing her to be such 't is adjudged Petty Treason by all the Judges of both Benches because there is the same reason for the one as the other the one hath affiance in him as well as the other and he ows reverence to them both So for a Child to Kill Father or Mother is Petty Treason because there 's a majority of reason higher then that of a Servant which is the Submission due from a Son to his Father and this very branch of this Act hath had the like Construction as that a Queen Regent is here meant though literally She be neither within the Words King nor Queen-consort yet because She stands under the same reason and is in the same condition with a King in respect of the Kingdom and therefore Construed so as it was in Case of the late Queens Mary and Elizabeth and so the Eldest son and Heir of a Queen Regent for the same reason Further it is observable that the Words are their Heir and yet it cannot be denied that though such Heir of the King be not Son of the Queen but Eldest Son by a Consort deceased before He came to the Crown yet such will be within this Statute because within the same reason and the Kings Eldest Daughter there being no Son is surely within the Law such being the next in prospect to the Crown And several other Constructions there are upon this Statute of persons designed by this Statute though not literally expressed because in aequali Statu as Keeper of the Great Seal being the same in Power and Office with Chancellor and many more which are obvious in almost every Book And I can see no reason why such Construction should be admitted upon one part of the Act and so vehemently denied in this Clause thence it seems very plain that a Collateral Heir is as much within this Act as Son and Heir for that upon reading of the Statute it appears the Law-makers designed the Preservation of the Successor under the term Heir which must be meant to the Crown So Sacred a respect had our Law-makers in those days to the Divine right of Succession As for the Distinction of Presumptive and Apparent it is so idle and trivial that it needs not the least answer for they are often used promiscuously one for the other and a Brother whom perchance you will call presumptive Heir is in default of a Son as much an Heir apparent as any person can be when there is such there being no intermediate Heir in being and his Right is as Sacred and Inviolable and his condition the same in respect of the Kingdom For that saying of non est haeres viventis it is of as little consideration in this Case for though it should be agreed in strictness true yet the Word Heir suffices to describe the person who is to succeed or inherit by Descent and in the Civil Law which Governs in most parts of the Civiliz'd World is used for him that succeeds to a mans estate whether he be of the blood or a stranger whether he be so by Will or Descent So that it is an emphatical name in this place for to express the person intended by this Law to be kept from violence even in thought But some may imagine this is to make Treason against an Heir while a Subject You know that to be otherwise for the Treason is against the King as well in this Case as that of the Queen-consort and all such Offences are contra ligeantiam debitam Domino Regi so 't is in Felony and Murder though the Act of Violence be an immediate wrong to the Goods or Person of a Subject yet the offence is against the Kings Peace Crown and Dignity for he is interested in the Life and Welfare of his Subjects and being more especially and personally concerned in those of the Royal Family the Law hath made such Offence High-Treason But perhaps you will object that the consequence of this opinion will be to make Treason uncertain and that such thing as is so to day may prove otherwise to morrow by the Birth of a Son or the like I answer that will be no inconvenience to any good Man for every such never dares to indulge himself in an ill thought of any of the Royal Blood but besides 't will be no more so upon this Construction then in the Case of Eldest Son who dying you agree the Second to come in his place within this Law and the Treason is still the same to Kill or to Imagine the Death of the next and immediate Apparent Heir be the person who it will whether Son Brother Nephew Uncle c. You may perhaps further object that this is contrary to the opinion of the Lord Coke and the Lord Hales For Answer thereto I need say no more than that the Reason of Laws and not Authority is the Good old Rule Consulendum judicandum legibus non dictis But however if you consult Cokes opinion you will find it very odd in this particular he saith If such an Heir Apparent be a Collateral Heir Note here that Coke himself stiles a Collateral Heir to be an Heir Apparent he is not within this Law until Declared in Parliament i. e. until he be declared Heir as was Roger Mortimer Earl of March in Richard 〈◊〉 Second's time Now how the Declaration in ●●●liament that such a one is Heir Apparent can make him more within this Law then he was before I leave you to judge and if he were within this Law after he was proclaimed next Heir then surely he was before for he was as much Heir Apparent before Then for the Lord Hales 't is true this opinion is mentioned in his Pleas of the Crown but in the first Edition thereof it is with a tamen quaere but it seems some disingenuous Dogmatist being of another mind hath in the second Edition struck out those words tamen quaere unwilling to let the world know that that Great Good Man doubted of Cokes opinion in this particular and in truth it was that tamen quaere made me first consider this matter So that to draw to an end of this my too tedious Epistle there seems to me neither authority nor reason against this opinion which to my present thoughts results most plainly from the consideration of this Statute and its design which was to preserve the Sacred Person of the Kings most Excellent Majesty secondly the Royal Heir and thirdly the Kingly Government of this Realm The second of which includes a Brother or other Collateral as much as Son the mischief hereby to be prevented being the same and consequently the Reason alike in both Cases Thus I have given you only some rude hints which at present induce me to be for the affirmative in this Question Praying your thoughts hereupon if you have any thing to offer contrary to what I have said or in confirmation thereof if you agree and to return me the same and you 'l Oblige Your Humble Servant c. S●pt 29. 1684. FINIS