Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	king_n	law_n	levy_v	3,963	5	11.2983	5	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86443	The reading in Lincolnes-Inne, Feb. 28. 1641. Vpon the stat. of 25. E.3. cap. 2. being the statute of treasons. / By Robert Holborne, Esq.	Holborne, Robert, Sir, d. 1647.	1643 (1643)	Wing H2374; Thomason E246_14; ESTC R19470	15,208	17

THE READING IN LINCOLNES-INNE FEB 28. 1641. Vpon the STAT of 25. E. 3. cap. 2. Being the Statute of TREASONS By ROBERT HOLBORNE Esq Indici conjurationis praemia constituta Salust in Conjur Caril OXFORD Printed by Leonard Lichfield Printer to the Vniversity Anno Dom. 1642. The Reading of ROBERT HOLBORNE in Lincolnes-Inne Esq Feb. the 28. 1641. Vpon the Stat. of 25. E. 3. c. 2. being the Stat. of TREASONS BEfore the Statute Trespasses were made Felonies and Felonies were made Treasons and we could not judge which were Felonies and which were Treasons The parts of the Statute are first Declarative High treason Pettie treason And secondly Directive High treason but it did rest in the brest of the Judges that were in those dayes for the preventing of which mischiefe this Statute which I now read upon was made which hath two parts A Declarative part and that doth declare what hereafter shall be judged Treason and treason also is commonly divided into two parts that is First high Treason that is against the person of the King and that will fall out for this dayes worke Secondly petty treason which is in the latter part of the Statute as will appeare hereafter The second part of this Statute is the Directive part and directs the Judges how far to proceed upon a Fact that is not within the Statute High treason is against the person of the King or against his government viz. as against his Judges Seales and Coynes these are the Divisions that I shall make of this Law The Definition of Treason The Definition of treason It is Laesa Majest which comprehends the person of the King and his Officers of Justice For the person of the King and the treasons that are committed more immediately against his person and they are acts and persons Persons they are of two sorts persons against whom and the persons by whom these treason are committed the acts and they are divers As first compassing the death of the King and for explanation of this word compassing it is an old word signifying not a bringing to passe onely but a going about as you shall finde it in Britaine and the Mirrour of Justice but it is since called in Latin Macinatio or a going about 1. Mar. Bro. tit trea 24. and compassing is treason though no effect doe follow as a compassing to kill the King though he be not kild so a compassing without any other act is treason but there may be an act done that doth effect the death of the King and yet no treason if there be no compassing as in the case of Sir Walter Turrell who shooting at a Deere his arrow glanced against a tree Hollinshead and strucke King William Rusus upon the brest that he died and this was not treason because theâ—e was no compassing And so it is in the case of a Physitian as if the King takes paysick and dyes of the physicke working yet if it be not notoriously grosse and it doth not appeare that he did any way compasse the death of the King this is not treason within this Law for in the case of a common person if a Physâ—â—ian give one physicke whereof he dyes this is not Felony in him although the Phyhtian had no licence to practice Physicke for it is his fault that he will take physicke of him and volenti nosit injuria If the Prince in person assaults a man and drives him so hard against the wall that if hee doth not defend himselfe he will kill him and he cannot doe it without danger to the Prince in that case he ought not to defend himselfe but ought rather to dye then hazard the person of the Prince because he is caput salus Repub. and yet nature doth teach a man to defend himselfe against all danger And thus much for acts without compassing and yet some of these acts that are without compassing are left to the Jurie to judge of and some others are left to the Judges to judge of as by presumption of Law as in Murder there ought to be malice forethought and yet if an Officer in executing of his office be slaine this is Murder by the Law and yet in this case there doe not appeare any malice forethought and so in this case the Law makes an evidence for the Jurie and so in deeds of the like cases The second Act is violating and this word is derived of vi perdendo but yet it may be done without any force at all The third act is levying warre against the King what shall be said of levying warre See Saint Johns argument in Sherly of Sheffields case that may be divers wayes as if the Inhabitants of a Town will gather themselves together to pul downe the fences of a Common in which they have no interest or Common nor ever had this is treason within this Law but if they had an interest or Common there then it is no treason but if they shall doe it by force of Armes in a warlike manner qu but in the first case it is a levyings of war against this government Another levying of war may be against the King as if it be to the displacing of his Officers Nota. as in the Earle of Essex case in his comming to the Citty of London for to remove Officers that were about the Queen this was treason and so it is also to the same purpose in 1. 1. Mar. Dyer 14. Brooke tit Treason 14.8 Hen. 8. Mar. Dyer 24. so it appeares a man may levy war against the King although he hath no intent to meddle with the person of the King or any way to hurt him so you shal finde it also in Bro. title treason 14. And if any levy war without the King this is a levying of warre within the Law 8. H. 8. If two conspire to levy warre and one alone doth it this is treason in both The fourth part is to adhere to the Kings Enemies and first who shall be saidenemies within this Law Nota. See Irish statute p. secondly what shall be said adhering to them that are enemies within this Law this word Enemy cannot extend to subjects for they are Rebels and no enemies and so it is exprest in the Irish statutes and this statute cannot be taken according to equity for it is a penall Law and of the greatest pepenalty that is and therefore the aiding of Rebels cannot be meant any way the aiding of the Kings enemies within this Law aiding the enemies within or without is an aiding of those that come into the Land or of those that are without a Subject is of two sorts ratione originis and a Subject ratione loci Subjects 2. sorts 1. Ratione Origenis 2. Ra. Loci A Subject rationi originis cannot be an enemy although he doth levy warre inrespect of his obedience but a rebell he shall be A Subject rationi loci during his residence here

he can be no enemy neither but if he goeth over Sea and then levy warre against this Kingdom or any other of his majesties Kingdoms he is then an enemy within this Law and no Rebell There is also Dominum rectum et Dominum utile Dominum duplex for if a man be born within the dominum rectum as that of Scotland in ancient time and there he levy war he is an enemy and no rebell but if he be borne within the dominum utile and levy warre he is a rebell and not an enemy Aiding is by sending of them aide as of victuals or of weapons and the like by giving of them counsell or by any other way whereby they may receive strength or comfort from him Now for the persons by whom this levying of warre may be and as to that all levies are within this Law aswell women as men for women are comprehended under this word man Secondly persons of all nations that are within this Land are within this Law for as they shall have protection by the Lawes of the Land and they ought at their perill to take notice of the Law so soone as they come into the Land for they ought to have notice given them and cannot alleage ignorance if it be not given them especially in such Lawes as this that are so beneficiall both to the King and Kingdome Thirdly persons of all degrees as a Queen that is married to the King attempting the death of the King is within this Law A forraigne Embassadour is also within this Law but if a forraign King should come into this Land by licence and here compasse the death of the King the question will be how he shall be tried for he is a King here and therefore ought to be tried per Pares which he cannot be for other honours are not allowed here Fourthly all ages are within this Law as in faults which have knowledge or men of non sanae memoriae and a mad man is also within this Law as to that part of the statute which concernes more immediately the person of the King for if any of them afore mentioned in this division shal compasse his death it is treason within the first clause but not in the clause of levying warre as I shall shew you afterwards but a man that is surdus caecus et mutus is not within this Law for it is impossible for him to have understanding Northumberlands case Now for the persons against whom a King before his Coronation is within this law as it is in the Duke of Northumberlands case for he is presently a King as soon as the other King deceaseth and there is no interregnum for the King Quatenus a King never dyeth but he is said to demise when he departs this life and the King is crowned because he is a King and not a King because he is Crowned a King See 4. E. 4.1.9 F. 4.12 de facto and not de jure is a King within this Law as it is in 4. E. 4.1 and 9. E. 4.12 A King conjugall or maritall that takes to wife the Queene of England is within this Law a Queene that is maried although the mariage be voyd yet that Queene is within this Law so is a Queene maried by proxie a Queene a Queene within age is also within this Law The first Case I. S. First Case after the divorce of the wife of the Grandchild and Heire-apparent to the Queen doe violate her and imagine the death of the husband and declares this to I. D. and after kils the husband of the Queen and conspire to levy warre against the Queene and delivers to I. D. mony to buy armes and after becomes mad and aids the enemies of the Queene within the Realme and then kill the Queene The conclusion is first I. S. is a traytor within this Law for killing the husband of the Queen and for conspiring to levy warre and for killing of the Queen and in every one of these The second conclusion that I. S. is not a traytor within this Law for imagining the death of the Grandchild and yet he is within the case of the Law not for violating of his wife nor for aiding of the enemies I. S. is a traytor within this Law for killing the husband of the Queene but not within these words that whosoever shall conspire or compasse the death of the King for as to that clause he is not King for the Queene is regent and not he and so not within that clause nor the meaning of it but he is within this word Companion for he is as good a companion to the Queene as the Queene is to the King and so within the same reason of Law for the husband of the Queene in such a case is in a better condition and plight then a Queene to a King and so upon a stronger reason but this you must take as a rule that I have said before viz. that this Statute is not to be taken by equity and this you shall finde as another rule as well for the expounding this Statute as any other Bro. tre sol 12.12 ass pl. 30.19 H. 6.47 Com. 87.6 Fitz. Cor. 7.118 Brooks tuareas 8. that those cases that stands upon the same reason shall be within the same Law although not taken by equity for where there is the same identity paritie or majority of reason in any cases there ought to be the same Law as it is in the statute of Glooester concerning waste and in this our statute the misterics are not named yet there is within this Law for if the servant kils the wife of his Master knowing her to be his Masters wife this is adjudged petty treason by the judgment of al the Judges of both Benches 19. H. 6.47 Com. 87.6 Fitz. Cor. 7.118 Bro. Tit. treason 8. For as well the Mistris as the Master hath assiance in him and he ought to give reverence to his Mistris as well as his Master and yet the Master is onely named in this statute but in our case the expresse words are that if any man shall compasse the death of the Kings Companion it shall be treason and so there is an expresse proviso for him being the Companion for he is a Companion to the Queene a second difference betweene our case and the case of the Mistris is that shee is his Mistris but gratia and under the power of her husband but in our case the King maritall hath a superiority over his wife as he is her husband and so our case is a farre stronger case If a child kils his Father or Mother this is petty treason 21. E. 3.17 Bro. tit Sanctuariiâ— Bro. tit treas 6. and so it was also at the Common-law before the making of this statute 21. E. 3.17 Bro. tit Santuarii the 2. and Bro. tit treason the 6. because there is a majority of reason then that of a servant the reason of the

submission and duty that is to the Father and Mother from the child and where there is a majority of reason or a paritie of reason for the one case as there is for the other there is alwayes the same Law But you will object there is a Satute made 1. 2. Ph. Mar. Cap. 9. 1 2. Ph. Mar. ca. 9. that if any shall imagine the death of the King that it shal be treason and therefore he was not provided for before this statute and therefore this stature was made if it were treason before this statute then this statute was made in vaine and to no purpose Answ That that statute doth provide as well for the preservation of the Queene as for the King and makes it treason for any to compasse the death of the Queene and therefore it cannot be concluded from thence that it was not treason to compasse her death before that statute the second reason is because that statute doth provide for other matters as it doth there appeare The next poynt is the declaring of this his imagination to I. D. 1. Mar. Bro. tit treas 24. The second point which is an overt act for an overt act is the declaring of his minde and intentions to others by such words as imply an act to follow as by bidding a man to doe what he hath intended or to do any act that may tend to his purpose or by writing to declare his mind but if a man have a thought of killing the King this is onely primus motus and although he afterwards tels another that he had such a thought this is no overt act but if he doth cherish this thought then it becomes his own and then he tels it to another that he hath such an intention this is an overt act for the words that he doth speak are words executory and imply that he will doe such an act or if A. conspire with B. to kill the King this is an overt act but to imagine with himselfe is not because it cannot come to be knowne words of encouragement to others is an obvert act also For conspiring to levy warre is the next and this is treason within this Law although it be not within the words of the sttatute but yet it is within the meaning and reason of the statute Nota. for how is it possible for any to levy warre but he must conspire the death of the King or his deposing at least and the conspiring to do either of these is treason within this law as aforesaid and that within this word compassing which as I said before is of a very large extent but I must confesse the intention is not so bad an actuall levying of warre and yet it is as bad in him that doth intend it and this levying of warre doth immediately looke at the person of the King though not immediately and so in that respect it is treason and so it is of deposing and so is the statute of 1. E. 6. Cap. 12. and so you shall finde it in Doctor Stories case 1. Ed. 6.12 Dyer Storys Case 13. Elizab. Dyer 298. 13. Eliz. Dier 298. B. who did conspire with a forraigne Prince to invade this Land and shewed him a meanes how to conquer this Kingdome and yet there was no act done by that Prince against the Queene yet this is adjudged treason and the reason there yelded was because this invasion could not possible be without great hazard and perrill to the person of the Queene which is a very full case in proving of this point 19. II. 6.47 but a conspiring to coyne money is not treason within this Law because it is not against the person of the King but yet if two shall conspire to coyne money and one doth it alone without the other yet this is treason in both The third poynt The third point is that I. S. after he became mad kils the Queene this is treason within this Law first because a man may counterfeit himselfe to be mad and he may doe it so cunningly as it cannot be discerned whether he be mad or no. The second reason is in respect of the great esteeme that the Law gives to the person of the King for he is the fountaine of justice and for the proofe of this point that it may be understood we ought to see what the Common Law was before the making of this statute as to this point and then we ought to inquire and see how the Law is altered since the making of the statute and by this meanes we shall finde out the Law and the reason thereof it is true that the Law without speciall words will not binde an Infant or a mad man as to the punishment of their bodies but yet it will extend to their lands and estates but this our law is no new law but onely a declarative law and in that case generall words will binde an infant or a mad man without any speciall words that it was treason at the Common law is apparent in Britame and the Mirrour of Justice and this statute doeth not declare who shall be traytors but what shall be treason and therefore this act is treason in a mad man See Beverleys casâ— com 124. Daltons Just 206. or whomsoever shall commit it for a mad man is not excepted out of this law and to make this appeare more fully you may be pleased to read the case of Beverley in Com. 124. that a man that is non compus mentis may commit high treason although he cannot commit petty treason nor felony and so it is also in Daltons Justice of Peace 206. that if a man that is non compos mentis shall kill the King this is high treason nay Beverleys case goes furthur and saies that if he shall offer onely to kill the King this is high treason Nota. because the King is caput et salus Reipub. acapite bona valetudo transit in omnes and for this case his person is so sacred that none must offer the least violence to him but he is reus criminis lesae Majestatis et pereat unus ne pereant omnes The second conclusion is that I. S. is not a traytor within this Law for imagining the death of the Grandchild yet he is within the care and protection of the Law for he is not within the words of the Law but without the intention and reason of the Law for the words are that if any man shall compasse the death of the eldest sonne that this is treason but in the French language in which this Law was first written it is le regne fils et heire and yet if the eldest sonne dyes the second sonne is within the Law because he is then the eldest sonne and so it is of the third sonne for then he is also Heire apparent and he is within the intention and meaning of this Law Princes case 8. separ and

Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Text snippets containing the quad