Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	high_a	king_n	treason_n	3,672	5	9.5249	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92318	A briefe and perfect relation, of the answeres and replies of Thomas Earle of Strafford; to the articles exhibited against him, by the House of Commons on the thirteenth of Aprill, An. Dom. 1641..	Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of, 1593-1641.; S. R.	1647 (1647)	Wing R68; Thomason E417_19; ESTC R203328	82,767	116

the Councell-Board that the Scotts demands conteined sufficient matter to perswade to an offensive Warre Secondly That the same demands did strike at the Roote and Life of Monarchicall Government and were only to bee answered by the Sword Thirdly That he had caused some Scottish goods and ships to be seized on in Ireland Fourthly That he had engaged the Irish Parliament by their Declaration in that warre against the Scotts Fiftly That by all possible meanes hee had put bad thoughts and suspitions into his Majesty against his Scottish Subjects and laboured to make a National-quarell between them and England which if the Kings piety and the Prudence of better affected States-men had not prevented could not have beene soadered up againe without much blood Concerning England his speeches were eyther before or after the Parliament First Before his Creature and Bosom-friend Sir George Ratcliffe he had said to Sir Robert K●ng when hee was doubting how the King might have monies to pay his Armies that the King had foure hundred thousand pounds in his purse thirty thousand men in the field and his Sword by his side and if hee wanted money afterwards who will pitty him Secondly That his brother Sir George Wentworth had said to Sir Robert Berington upon the dissolution of the last Parliament that seeing the English would not grant supply to the King it seemes they were weary of their Peace and desired to be conquered a second time Thirdly That hee himselfe upon a dis●ourse with the Prima●e of Ireland had said that hee was much of the minde of those English Divines who maintayned it lawfull for a King having tryed the affection and benevolence of his People and then denyed their helpe upon an inevitable necessity and present danger of the Kingdome that he might use his Prerogative for his owne supply and the defence of his Subjects Fourthly To the Lord Conway in a discourse hee had said that if the Parliament meaning the last Parliament should not grant a competent supply that then the King was acquitted before God and Man and might use the Authority put into his hands Fiftly That hee did say at the Councell-Board If the Parliament should deny to helpe the King hee would take any other way he could for his Majesties service and assistance His expressions after the Parliament were two First That the Parliament had forsaken the King and that the King should not suffer himselfe to be over masteredly the frowardnesse obstinacy and stubbornnesse of his People Secondly That if his Majesty pleased to imploy Forces he had some in Ireland that might serve to reduce this Kingdome The Proofe for the Scots Particulars were these First The Lord Traquiere who was indeede very favorable to the Lord Lievetenant and spake nothing to his disadvantage but what was scrued from him with much difficul●y hee told them That when hee gave in the demands he heard him say that it was high time for the King to put himselfe into a posture of Warre but that first all the Councell of England said the same as well as hee Secondly That it was a double supposition First that the Demands were truely given in Secondly That there was no other remedy left but Armes to reduce them Secondly The Earle of Mortons testimony being sick himselfe was produced and it was one and the same with the Article Thirdly Sir Henry Vane was examined who declared that he had heard the Lievetenant to advise the King to an offensive Warre when his owne judgement was for a Defensive Fourthly the testimony of the Earle of Northumberland was produced which was the very same with Sir Henry Vanes Fiftly The Treasurer of England deposed the same with Troquiere Sixtly One Beane from Ireland told that hee had knowne Shippes seized on there but by whose procurement or Warrant he knew not To the Articles about England First Sir Robert King and the Lord Ranelaugh deposed the same that Sir Robert King and the Lord Ranelaugh had heard Sir George Ratcliffe speake those words in the Article Secondly Sir Robert Barrington of Sir George Wentworth Thirdly The Primates testimony who is sick was the same with the Article Fourthly The Lord Conway deposed the same with this Article Fiftly Sir Henry Vane deposed He had heard those words spoken at the Councell-Boord For the Words spoken after the Parliament to the first Sir Tho. Jermyne Lord Newburg Earle of Bristoll Earle of Holland were Examined Bristoll did mince the matter But Hollands testimony was expresse because of the exceeding great Love he carried to the Man For the last which were the most dangerous speeches about the reducing of this Kingdome there was only Sr. Henry Vanes testimony who declared only thus That hee had either those words or the like Here some of the Lievetenants friends shewed themselves 1. The Lord Savill who desired of Sir Henry Vanes to know whether he said their or this or that Kingdome and withall said it was very hard to condemn a man for Treason upon such peettit circumstances 2. The Earle of South-hamton desired to know whether Sir Henry Vane would sweare those words positively or not Sir Henry said positively either them or the like The Earle replyed that under favour those or the like could not be positive 3 The Earle of Clare desired to know what could be ment by this Kingdome for his part he said he thought it meant of the Kingdome of Scotland to which the word this might very well be relative that Kingdome being only mentioned in the praeceding discourse And that he was the more ready to bee of that opinion because he could not see by what Grammaticall construction it could be gathered from his words that he meant to reduce England which neither then was neither is now God be thanked out of the way of obedience nor upon Rebellious courses They at last concluded the Charge That the words were so monstrous that to aggravate them was to allay them and therfore they would simply leave them to the judgement of the Lords The Lieutenants Reply was That though the heaping up of those Articles had put him to Straffords Reply a great confusion yet he would endeavor to bring his Answere into the best method he could and first he would reply to the Proofe then add something in generall for himselfe in what a hard taking and lamentable condition he was to have his private discourses his most intimate and bosome friends search'd and sifted to the least circumstance that he might seeme guilty of that which by God's assiistance he should never be To the Lord Troqueeres and the Deputies depositions hee thought their proofes did not much stick upon him for upon the suppositions first that the demands were true secondly that they were not justifiable thirdly that no other course could prevaile Hee could not see what other advice he could possibly give the King then to put himselfe into a posture of Warre especially seeing then there was frequent reports

Anjoy in France Ovum Ovo And for all these though he was Charged with high-high-Treason for wronging the right of the Subject and subverting the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome yet after a long Agitation the matter was found by the Lords of Parliament not to imply Treason but only Felony Add to this another who in the twenty third of Henry the eighth was Charged for subverting the English Lawes and yet no Treason Charged upon him Add to both the Charge of Richard Larks pleaded at the Common-Pleas who was Charged with Treason for subverting the Lawe but convicted only of Felony by which you may see My Lords what to this time hath beene subverting the Lawes Thirdly It is very considerable that the Lord Strafford is not Charged to have subverted but only to have intended to subvert the fundamentall Lawes and this I conceive if there were no more might keepe him free from that Statute of the twenty fift of Edward the third For although as touching the King his Queene and Children intention is treasonable yet in all other things there mentioned there must be action beside intention for it is not said if a man doe intend to kill a Chancellor it shall be Treason but only if he doth kill him and if hee doth actually counterfeit the broad-Seale And although a man should prepare a Furnace make ready his Stampe melt his Bullion yet if he gives not the Kings impression vpon the Coyne all his intentions yea his praeparations will not serve to make up a Treason And this under fauour may serve to answere the Case of Guido Faux lately objected unlesse it be alleaged that the Lord Strafford had as reall an intention against the Kings life as Faux had For though the intention in that Case be Treason by the Statute yet in all other things there is no Treason without the Action so immence and vast a difference both is and ought to be betwixt a project against the Royall-blood and all things else of a lower and under nature Yee see therefore my Lords that the body of the Statute cannot stick against the Lord Strafford neither in Letter nor in consequence this is not that must not be all that can be said is that his Fact may be Treason by the Common-Lawe For my part I professe my ignorance who ever thought the common-lawe might declare but never make a Treason that is It might bee presupposed that there is a Statute whereupon to build a Declaration and therefore to say there is no Statute for it is to say it is no Treason at all The Statute ever makes the Treason and to be declared to be Treason either by Common-Lawe or by Parliament are but two different waies of Proceedings and must both resolve into one Principle yea which comes home to the point in the one and twentith of Edward the third To kill a man imployed in the Kings Warre was Treason and the twenty third To kill the Kings Messenger was Treason by Declaration of the Common-Lawe but alwaies by reason of the Statute yet none of these are now Treasons but Felonies only by reason of the interveining Statute the twenty fift of Edward the third such hath ever beene thought the force of its Letter and Declaration And so I will leave it and speake a word or two of the Salvo which is this That because all Particulars could not bee then defined therefore what the Parliament should declare to be Treasonable in time to come should bee punished as a Treason And according to this Reservative in the eighth yeere of King Richard the second one was Charged before the Kings Bench was afterward referred to the Parliament and there though the Fact was not conteined in the body of the Statute yet because of the Proviso afore mentioned it was adjudged Treason In the eleventh yeere of the same King the Duke of Ireland and Nevill Arch-bishop of Yorke were impeached of high-Treason by Gloucester Arundell and Warwick and notwithstanding the Statute were convicted thereof by the Salvo But in the one and twentith of the same Richard the second the tide turned and the King had such a hand with the Parliament that the Sentence was recalled and those three noble-men themselves adjudged Traytors Againe in the first of Henry the fourth his Successor that Revocation of the one and twentith of Richard the second was repealed and the Sentence of the eleventh of his Reign established such were the tossings too and fro of Treason and all because of that uncertain Proviso Therefore it was That in the same Parliament the first of Henry the fourth A Petition was preferred by the Nobility to have Treason limited within some Statute Because they knew not what to speake or what to doe for feare thereof And in the tenth Chapter an Act was made upon this Petition that that Salvo should be holden Repealed in all times to come and nothing esteemed Treason but what was Litterally conteined in the Statute of the twenty fift of Edward the third and therefore it is said in the Records That there was great joy at the making of this Act in that the drawn Sword hanging over every mans head by this slender thred of a consequence or illation was moved by that Act. Add to this that in the first of queen Mar● the first chapter the same is repeated That no man shall be punished in life or estate as a Traytor but for the Crime conteined in the Stat. 25 Ed. 3. without the least mention of a pretended Salvo The Earle of Northumberlands Case comes nigh to the point he was Charged with Treason the fift of Henry the fourth and if the Statute of the first of Henry the fourth the first chapter whereby this Proviso is Repealed had not interveend no doubt he had beene condemned of Treason but he was only convict of Felony and that because he could not be drawne within the Letter of the Statute of the twenty fift of Edw. the third And I dare confidently say it that since that Act was made the first of Henry the fourth the first chapter whereby the Proviso is Repealed no man hath ever beene declared a Traytor eyther by King or Parliament except it were upon that or some other Statute litterally and declaratively taken These two things I doe offer to your Lordships considerations That the Lord Strafford cannot be impeached of Treason by the Statute of the twenty fift of Ed. the third and that the Salvo conteined in the same stands Repealed almost two hundred yeeres agoe And this is all I conceive to be necessary for that Statute which was alleaged by the Lord Strafford in his Defence for matter of Fact Then the Recorder spake some few words to this purpose That The Recorder what was spoken upon the Statute was because it seemed inseparable from the matter of Fact that they could proceede no further till a State were afforded them that to doe otherwise they conceived might bee very

to the Judicatorie that was sitting and not at all to meddle with the matter of fact The Lievetenant Replyed That in all humility hee did acknowledge that favour from the Lords and that it was such an one too as hee could not but expect from such Honourable Peeres and Just persons in whose integrity and goodnesse under that which hee had placed above hee had reposed his chiefest confidence for his councell they knew much better then himselfe what concerned the point of Discretion and Reverence and that hee doubted not but that they would give all satisfaction and obedience Then his Councell were called to the Barre Master Lane the Princes Attourney Master Gardiner Recorder of London Master Loe and Master Lightfoote Master Lane spake and much to this Sence and Purpose My Lords there is an heavy Charge lyeth on me and my fellowes nothing lesse then to defend the life the estate the Reputation yea the posterity of this Honourable person at the Barre If therefore wee shall bee more pressing we hope your Lordshipps will interpret this our forwardnesse to bee for Honour and Conscience sake in a matter that concerneth both so neerely But it shall bee our endeavour to carry our selves with our best respects to your Lordships and withall content and satisfaction to the honourable House of Commons and because your Lordships mentioned the matter of fact one thing I dare bee bold to say that all the time of this Noble Lords defences hee did not so much as crave any one of our opinions yea or acquainted us with any thing that tended that way And for the matter of Lawe those Statutes cited by himselfe were none of our stock but taken up at his owne adventure Nor doe I speake this to derogate from the pertinency of those Statutes for they shall be the subject of my discourse but that the Noble-man be not disappointed of your right conceptions and his own due praise My Lords It is your pleasure we meddle not with matter of Fact and indeede we neede not meddle at all with it because we hope it is already done and that sufficiently to our hands yet the matter of Lawe doth so naturally arise out of the matter of Fact that of necessity under your Lordships favours wee must somewhat grate on this if we speake of that nor doe I conceive it possible for us to speake advantageously enough for the Lord Straffords just defence unlesse the whole matter of Fact be determined eyther as proved or not proved or at least some states of questions agreed upon where we may fixe and settle our Agreements and therefore it is my Lords that I have chosen not at all to touch the matter of Lawe untill your Lordships shall be pleased to chalke me out a way unlesse it be to cleere your judgements in one Statute only viz. 25. Ed. 3. because when the same was alleaged by the Lord Strafford in his owne Defence that not being convict of the Letter thereof he could not be convict of Treason I remember the Salvo of that Statute was much insisted upon by those from the House of Commons as much conducing to their own ends My Lords I will first speake of the Statute it selfe and then of its Salvo or Provision The Statute is That if any man shall intend the death of the King his Queene their Children Kill the Chancellor or the Judge upon the Bench imbase the Kings coyne or counterfeit the broad-Seale c. hee shall be convicted and punished as a Traytor that the Lord Strafford comes within the Letter of this Statute is not so much as once alleaged nor indeede it cannot bee with any reason All that can be said is that by Relation or by Argument a minore admajus he may be drawn thither yet that this cannot bee I humbly offer these considerations First This is a Declarative Law and such are not to be taken by way of Consequence Equity or Construction but by the Letter only otherwise they should imply a contradiction to themselves and be no more Declarative-Lawes but Lawes of Construction or Constitutive Secondly This is a poenall Lawe and such if our grounds hitherto unquestioned hold good can admit of no Constructions or Inferences for poenalties are to perswade the keeping of known Lawes not of Lawes conjecturall ambiguous and by consequence which perhaps the most learned may not in their disputes question much lesse the Subject who is not oblieged to interpret the Statute doubt of in the point of obedience yea rather without any doubt hee is to obey the Letter of the Statute and conceive and that truly that hee is not lyable to the Poenalty Thirdly We have a notable Lawe 13 Eliz. Cap. 2. whereby it is declared that the bringing in of Bulls from Rome to stirre up the Subject to Mutiny and Rebellion shall bee punished as Treason Now if by interpretation or by consequence this sence might have beene thrust upon the praeceding Statutes the making of this had beene supersluous yea the Persons then charged with that Crime might have beene impeached of Treason even before the making of this Act. Anno 21 of Ed. 3. Wee have a Statute declaring That for a servant to kill his Master is an Act of Treason and in the three and twentith yeere of the same King a Processe of Treason was framed against a man for killing his Father grounded upon the same Argument A minori admajus But it was found and the Sentence is yet in the Records that although in the 21 yeere of Ed 3. that Argument might have beene admitted yet in the 27 it could not by reason of the Declarative Lawe interveining in the 25 yeere and this Case comes very home to the point in Lawe My Lords I will not demand what kinde of offence it may be for a man to subvert the fundamentall Lawes of a Kingdome the Crime doubtlesse is unnaturall and Monstrous and the punishment must keepe the same proportion only I presume to offer these few things to your Lordships considerations First That one or more Acts of Injustice whether maliciously or ignorantly done can in no sence of Lawe be called the subversion of the fundamentall Lawes if so as many Judges perhaps so many Traytors It is very incident to mans nature to erre nor doth the Lord Sttafford pleade his innocency in oversights but in Treason Secondly I doe remember the Case of John de la Poole Duke of Suffolke this man in the twenty eighth of Henry the sixt was Charged by the house of Commons with Articles of Treason and those too very like to these against my Lord Strafford 1. That he had given the King bad advices 2. That he had embased his Coyne 3. That he had cessed men of warre 4. That he had given out summary Decrees 5. That he had Imposed Taxes 6. That he had corrupted the Fountains of Justice 7. That he had perswaded the King to unnecessary warre and to the giving over of