Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	king_n	statute_n	treason_n	3,122	5	9.7332	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38261	The proceedings in the House of Commons, touching the impeachment of Edward, late Earl of Clarendon, Lord High-Chancellour of England, Anno 1667 with the many debates and speeches in the House, the impeachment exhibited against him, his petition in answer thereto : as also the several weighty arguments concerning the nature of treason, bribery, &c. by Serj. Maynard, Sir Ed. S., Sir T.L., Mr. Vaughan, Sir Rob. Howard, Mr. Hambden [sic], and other members of that Parliament : together with the articles of high-treason exhibited against the said Earl, by the Earl of Bristol in the House of Lords on the 10th of July, 1663 : with the opinion of all the learned judges therein.	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.; Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of, 1609-1674.; Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.; Seymour, Edward, Sir, 1633-1708.; Littleton, Thomas, Sir, d. 1681.; Hampden, Richard, 1631-1695.; Maynard, John, Sir, 1602-1690.; Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Lords.	1700 (1700)	Wing E2683; ESTC R3660	65,855	176

not say For Scarce any Man can tell what was Treason before 25 Ed. 3. was made to bring things to a Certainty and what was uncertain to them who made that Law can be certain to us now As the Judges can declare no other Treason so in your Declaratory Power neither can you declare Treason unless there be Resemblance to some other like Case The Advice said in the Article to be given the King cannot be within that Statute unless the Councellour must run the hazard of his Advice Mr. Vaugh. The greatest Declarations of Treasons which ever were equal not those 22 Rich. 2. in Nottingham Castle The Judges are called to deliver their Opinions upon their Faith and they declare the Acts to be Treason because Felony before and tho'some of them were hang'd for it yet the Parliament declared the same Thing Serj. Mayn Was what is mentioned Treason by the Common-Law tho' so said by the Lords And what was so declared was repealed H. 4. Sir Tho. Litt. Pray resolve whether it was Treason by Common-Law and if so when made so Some think not because they find not the Parliament declaring them Treasons as being so at Common-Law and that that Statute was made to bound them but that was only to bound Inferior Courts not themselves for the Parliament makes not a new Crime and then Condemns it but the Crime was before and the Parliament declares it Sir Ed. Thur. Hath the Parliament declaratory Power now Yes but it must be by King and Parliament so it was in the Case of the Genoua Ambassador The Judges would not conclude the Articles Treason nor would the Lords alone and if you come to an equal declarative Power with them you must examine Witnesses or go by a Bill Serj. Charl. The Question is Whether it be Treason by the Practice of England the Common-Law is the Custome of England and the usuage is grounded on Presidents I know not one President where Words or Intentions were Treason at Common-Law for they are not Treason where no Act follows Sir Rich. Temp. The Article is Treason by Common-Law and Judges have recourse to Glanvil c. Who say that giving Advice to overthrow the Realm is Treason by Common-Law Serj. Mayn The Question is whether he shall be Impeached of Treason upon this Article If you go to Treason at Common-Law before 25 Ed. 3. you fly out of sight for the word Seductio was soon after called Seditio Seducing but not said to what nor were those Authors ever reputed of Authority It 's true they are sometimes quoted for Ornament but not Argument and not one Case in one hundred of Glanvil is Law but when a Case comes that is the Sheet-Anchor of Life and Estate you should be wary for by Wit and Oratory That may be made Treason which is not and this which is a great Crime ought not because great to be made Treason Object But it will be said levying War against the Law is against the King and here was an intent to alter the Law Answ. True yet a design no levy War is not Treason within the Statute here is nothing of Act but Words to that end If a Councellor gives bad Advice it makes it not Treason but by a Bill it may be made what you please By that Statute of 25 Ed. 3. are more Treasons than are metnioned for it faith if any Case happen the Judges shall stay till the King and Parliament hath declared so that there is a Power but the Modus is the Question whether by Impeachment or Bill you may the latter not the former It was done but you have Repealed it and have said None of which pretended Crimes are Treason and what was pretended against him * Of Strafford That he had Traitorously Endeavoured which is worse than design'd to alter the Government c. Now where is the Difference Here is advice to Raise an Army there to use an Army Raised and these you have called pretended Crimes and no Treason which is not Comprechended by a Law but to Impeach as a Treason and yet the thing No Treason is strange In this House other then by Bill you have no Power you carry your Impeachment to the Lords and they may give Judgment without coming back to you declaring by Bill is by way of Judgment but as an Impeachment is only an Accusation So that whatsoever the Consequence is the Lords judge it and it never comes back to you and if you go by Bill you make it Treason ex post sacto Mr. Vang Concerning what you have declared about Straffords that this Case is if not less equal to it and you have declared that not one Charge aganst him is Treason is true thus far when that Act was made I repaired to it because there were some Things which should not have passed so if there had not been something to secure such Charges as these for there is no expression of any Particular Charge but that the Charge against the Earl of Strafford was not in the particular Treason and in the Ciose of the Bill it is said that the whole Proceeding shall be taken away and if so no Man should speak against the Particulars but look on it as Repealed Then this is said to be levying War and its true it must be Actual and so not within the Charge And the Charge against Spencer was for Councelling the King c and is called levying War against the Kingdom and the Judgment against him was but Banishment because the Sentence was mitigated at the instance of the King And for Councel tho' Councel is given but in Words yet Words are more than Councel and are an Action otherwise a Councellour is Sworn to nothing But it may be thought I have not dealt ingenuously with the House than which I abhor nothing more when the Case of Strafford was before the Lords I was of opinion the Parliament had no Declarative Power left because 1 Hen. 4. there was an abolishing of all declared Treason and that no Treason for the future should be so and then the Treason about the Genoua Ambassadour was gone and all declared Treasons were gone 1 Hen. 4. and no Statute hath recovered them and if all Actual Treasons were taken away 1 Hen. 4. or if not then 1 Ed. 6. then what doth the first of Q. M. do unless it take away all declaratory Treason Upon the whole the Question was whether to accuse of Treason upon the first Article Yeas 103. Noes 172. 275. November 11. The Second Article was read Mr. Pr n. Let the Act made by you about defending the King be Read because it limits Prosecution to a Time to see if this be within Time Mr. Vaugh. In Things wherein there is a publick Defaming the King it becomes no Man here to defend the Person accused if the Charge be not proved let the Party himself plead it you had that which induced you to Impeach him and have

Articles read and Voted Fifteenth Article read Lord Vaugh. I brought in this Article His Betraying the King's Councels was to the French King during the War and that in the secrecy of State which was the occasion of the late Mischiefs Sir Tho. Osb. That is direct adhering to the King's Enemies and so it is Treason Mr. Sollicit This must be Treason if you have any inducement to believe it Sir Rob. How I have heard it from an Eye-Witness who told it me and added that we are neither to be trusted nor dealt with who were so betrayed Serj. Mayn Betraying the King's Councel to his Enemies is doubtless Treason Corresponding is another Thing Betraying must be without the King's Knowledge otherwise it is but delivering the King's Words to his Enemies Sir Iohn Bramp Did this Information come from a Subject or from one of the King's Enemies Sir Rob. How I would not have brought you Information from one of the King's Enemies nor did I ever converse with them during the War Coll. Birch We cannot accuse of Treason except it be said Betraying the King's Councel or Corresponding with his Enemies Mr. Vaugh. You have declared that you have had inducement to Impeach and ought to put the Question whether on this Article he shall be Impeached of Treason Mr. Sollicit To betray the King's Councel taken generally is not Treason for it may be to the King's Friends but to his Enemies it is If the Article be so Lord Vaugh. Let it be put betraying His Majesty's secret Councels to his Enemies during the War Then the Question was put whether these New Words delivered by the said Lord Vaugh. should be added Carryed in the Affirmative Sir Iohn Holl. Was this Information given by an Enemy or by a Subject Mr. Vaugh. It must come from a Forreigner or you could not know it may not the King have from a Forreigner a discovery of Treason against him The end of questioning it must be to know the Man for it might as well be asked whether his Beard be red or black Sir Tho. M rs The words are discovered not betrayed and discovering may be with the King's consent Lord Vaugh. Add the word Betraying for so I meant it Serj. Mayn They who give the Information say not they had it from more than one Witness which Stat. Ed. 6. requires and only one of them Names the Earl of Clarendon Mr. Seym. This exception is proper to be made before the Judges Then the Question was put Whether to Impeach of Treason on this Article Yeas 161. Noes 89. 250. Sir Tho. Litt. That an Impeachment of Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours be carryed up to the Lords against him by Mr. Scym Serj. Mayn For Misdemeanour he may have Councel not for Treason Therefore so distinguish the Charge that he may have Councel Resolved That a Charge be carryed up Resolved That the Speaker and the whole House carry it Novvember 12. It being considered that if the Speaker go up with the Charge some dispute might arise about carrying the Mace and otherwise It was Resolved That Mr. Seym. carry it Accordingly he went where at the Bar of the Lords House the Lord-keeper Bridgman being come to the Bar to meet him he delivered himself to this purpose My Lords THE Commons Assembled in Parliment having been informed of several Traiterous Practices and other high Crimes and Misdemeanours commited by Edward Earl of Clarendon a Member of this Honourable House have Commanded me to Impeach him and I do accordingly Impeach him of High-Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours in the Name of the said Commons and of all the Commons of England And they have farther Commanded me to desire your Lordships to Sequester him from Parliament and to Commit him to safe Custody and in convenient time they will exhibit Articles against him November 15. The Lords sent down to desire a Conference in the Painted Chamber At which the Earl of Oxford delivered a Paper in writing without any Debate the Contents whereof were to this effect The Lords have not Committed the Earl of Clarendon becase the Accusation is only of Treason in general without charging any thing in particular Mr. Garra I had rather the House should loose the Punishment of this Man tho' a great Offender then that this House should loose its priviledge for if this House may at no time Impeach a Lord without giving in particular Articles it may fall out to be at a time as in the Duke of B s Case where a great Man by his Interest with the King procured the Dissolution of the Parliament and then the Accusation falls Mr. Vaugh. Either you can justifie your Proceedings so as to satisfie the Lords what you have done or you cannot you must name a Committee as well to consider what you are to do if your Reasons satisfie not as to draw those Reasons Mr. Sollicitor Without doubt this House was not mistaken in demanding that the Party accused for Treason should be committed That is that Treason is worthy of Commitment and you can but find Presidents that Persons have been accused of Treason and thereupon have been committed But the Case is this Treason is an Offence for which Bail cannot be taken the Lords tell you not they will or will not Commit But it is true Persons have been Committed for Treason and Persons accused of Treason Judges may Commit or not Consider this Law Let the Crime be what it will an Imprisoning till the Charge it given is but an Imprisoning to security not to Punishment otherwise the Law is not Just and if the Judges of the Kings-Bench have a Judgment of Discretion whether to Commit or not can we wonder that the Lords have not Imprisoned till they know the Article when they have Judgments of Discretion tho' they knew it You may find Presidents but it is not an Argument it must always be so But as the Judges have a Latitude much more then the Lords the Impeachment from the Commons of England is properly the King's Suit for there is no Treason but against him and if the Judges may Bail in that Case may not the Lords But you are not told he shall be Balied but they desire to know what his Crime is and then you shall know their Answer the Resolution seems reasonable having gone no farther I cannot except against it Sir Tho. Litt. The Long-Parliament had some good Presidents which we are not to cast away least we smart for it Resolved To Resume the Debate to Morrow Nov. 16. Mr. Vaugh. The Lords do not say Commitments should follow because Treason is Bailable by the Kings-Bench its true the Kings-Bench Bails for Treason but how If Persons be brought thither for Treason directly there is no Bail but when a Commitment is by the Councel Table for suspition of Treason then if the Matter fall not be to what was expected they give notice to take Bail else the great Article of the Great Charter

insist upon examining Witnesses first the Difficulties will be unanswerable for is it like that Men before they shall see you in earnest will have their Names produced against the Earl of Clarendon If this be your proceeding we must never expect to Impeach a great Man more If you think there is nothing in the Charge leave it but if you think 't is worth your while take heed of making such a dangerous President as by neglecting it to wound your Liberties but proceed in the usual way with a general Impeachment Serj. Mayn I stand not up to give Advice but to speak to matter of Fact in the business of Strafford and Canterbury I attended that business from the beginning Sir Iohn Clotworthy informed something against Strafford to be direct Treason that he had assumed an Arbitrary Power in Ireland and dispossessed one Savage by force of Arms and undertook to prove it Sir Henry Vane also told them that he had a Note taken out of his Fathers Cabinet containing the Advice which Strafford gave the King in that Case Namely the King wanting Money and the Question being how he should supply it he replyed That if the Parliament was refractory and would not you stand loosed and absolved from Rules of Government you have an Army in Ireland which you may employ to reduce them Then there was a Debate whether they should accuse him of Treason And Sir Edward Herbert the Attorney said if you are perswaded the Truth is as is pretended you may and so it was but when the close Committee had examined the business they moved the House that some Lawyers might be added to them and had they gone when they said they were ready they had not touched one Hair of Strafford's Head Then it was considered what was fit to be done To accuse him of Treason would be a dangerous President as if out of many other Crimes a Treason could be drawn thereupon it was Resolved not to demand Judgment from the Lords because some Articles were not Treason Then it was propounded not to State what his Offences were lest it should give advantage to inferior Courts so to proceed but said he deserved to be accused of Treason and in conclusion a Proviso was added not to make that Case a President For the Bishop of Canterbury the four Articles were general and he was long in Prison without any proceeding against him but after long time he demurr'd then new Articles were framed on which he dyed Mr. Iohn Vaugh. You have had a Charge opened of a strange Nature and I know not what part of it can be proved but the reputation of This House is at Stake and of the King too For where a Charge is brought in by some of your Members whereof one Article is That he should say such words of the King as by a Statue made by you is a Praemunire and to give Councel to levy War upon the Kingdom is it agreeable to our Duty to the King and Kingdom to let it die For the Person concerned I know not which way his Honour can be whole without his giving an Answer to his Charge for Mark the Consequence if the King should take him to favour again before clear'd will not the World say a Person is received to favour again who gave the King Councel against the Kingdom and traduc'd the King and how can he be whole in his Honour this way Obj. But it will be said we must have ground to put him to Answer Ans. Whether you have ground enough to prove I know not but you have ground enough to make him Answer to clear himself Suppose those two Articles had been Charged on a Member of this House what would it have become that Member to do Should he sit still and say I will make no Answer but see whether the House will make more proof If he should do so the not making an Answer is Reason enough to Charge him I can give you Instances of Persons charged in Parliament who tho' not nominated yet being as it were pointed at Petitioned that they might Answer and so would any Man but when this is bruited up and down will not the World say You never ask the party whether Guilty The Duke of Suffolk was Charged upon Common Fame and if that were a ground for a Charge then which I do not say it was so it is in this Case but he moved that he might be heard and tho' it was desired he might be Committed yet it was justly rejectly till he had Answered Then for the Nature of the Charge if it be true it is very High but whether it be Treason is another Matter it is brought to you under no Name when you make the Charge it becomes you to say what it is therefore Choose a Committee to reduce the Accusation into Heads and bring them to you without which you cannot right you selves nor him if Innocent For the way of it it cannot be thought fit to publish your Witnesses and the Matter before-hand if in private Causes the Defendant and Plaintiff should have a Publication before hand no Cause would be rightly Judged much less when you have Publication of all which concerns the One but nothing of the Other Again if a Witness be examined concerning Matters in his own Knowledg if he gives Evidence where he is not brought judicially to give it if he hath testified any Thing which brings him within the Statute of false News how can he avoid the Penalty For it s not enough for him to say he knows it but he must have others to justifie it As for the Persons who bring the Charge they are your own Members which the Writs return for honest and discreet Men and if you are satisfied of that how can you reject their Complaint tho' grounded upon Common Fame as all Accusations are seeing they tell you they can bring-Proof of what they say Then for Common Fame if a Man spends largely and hath no visible way to get an Estate no Man accuseth him to have gotten it unlawfully yet he may be put to clear himself from what Common Fame chargeth him with Upon suspicion of Felony I may bring a Man before a Magistrate to clear himself so in the Course of Indictments and Presentments a Charge is given of what Things are to be Presented then a Proclamation is made That if any one can give Evidence he may be Sworn but if no Evidence appear yet they may Indict Then it will be said the Oath is a Material Thing but we are proceeding without an Oath To this I Answer What this House shall Charge is of more Authority than the Oaths of ordinary Witnesses Peers tho' not upon Oath are supposed to do right so are we upon the Reputation of our Honesty and Discretion Mr. L. H. I am sensible the House may think me Partial but I shall endeavour to shew my self not so much a Son of the Earl of Clarendon as

declared not to Impeach of Treason upon the first Article And if any Man will add to the rest of the Articles he may but you ought to accuse Mr. Sollicitor None accuseth but for Justice sake and should be glad if the Party accused prove himself Innocent There is a Duty to the King and to Truth and it is not fit that an Article of this Kind brought into the House should be laid by upou pre tence that the time is clapsed for the Crime is more than what is mentioned in the Act made by you it is an Offence at Common-Law and if it be prosecuted by Fine and Imprisonment no time is limited The Third and Fourth Articles read and Voted Mr. Vaugh. Your reading every Article is needless unless it be to see whether any one may be Charged as Treason for if one may be objected against so may all as to Misdemeanours Fifth Article read Sir Iohn Sh w. The old Farmers had not the Customes till others said they would give no more and they had no reason to thank the Chancellour because they gave more than others And I declare upon my Life I know no reward given him Sir Tho. Litt. It appears by the Farmers Confession that they had it 50000 l. under besides time of Payment which was 30000 l. more Mr. Seym. Your are at liberty to receive Objections to the Articles but tho' others bad more they were told they should not have it and had about 1000 l. each given them to bid no more Sixth seventh Eight and Ninth Articles Read and Voted The Tenth Mr. Vaugh. This is an Article of an high Nature Dunkirk was then as much a Part of His Majesty's Dominions as Ireland and if the Sale of it be nothing I know not what you would think of it if England should be Sold you lately debated whether on the first Article he should be accused of Treason and found by the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. he could not tho' it was absolute Treason at Common-Law and it s reported abroad that I said that the Right of the Parliament in declaring Treason is taken away which I did not for there are Treasons not mentioned in that Statute Therefore it provided that the Judges should not upon any one Treaso proceed to Judge untill declared before the King and Parliament and what is signisfied by it If we think before the King Lords and Commons that is impossible for how can the Commons possibly declare before the King and Lords nor was that the Case but this that there is the ultimate Power of determining what the Law is in a doubtful Case In Writs of Error let them pass from Court to Court at last they come to the Lords 24 Ed. 3. If the Judges cannot resolve what the Law is it is to be brought thither that is where it is questionable but that is not in the House of Commons any more than in a Writ of Error How than is the Case here If a Question be whether a Thing is Treason or not it shall be Resolved where the Law useth to Resolve that is before the King in Parliament that is in the Lords House Had the Words of the Act been these there shall be no Proceeding untill Resolved by the King in the Lords House and Suppose that Clause taken away That Treason shall not be Resolved but suppose it shall not be declared otherwise doth it follow it is taken away No if you charge Treason which is not within the Statute it is another Thing but I said not there is no Treason at Common-Law Mr. Sollicitor There was a great Mischief in the declaring Treason by Parliaments for Mortimer was made a Traitor for incroaching upon Royal Power which every Man who incroacheth upon any Power doth Hence the Commons Petition'd the King to explain what incroaching upon Royal Power was and when no Answer could be gotten to it 25. Ed. 3. They Petion'd it might be declared certainly and so Treasons were enumerated and if the Judges be in doubt it is Provided that the King and Parliament shall first declare it Declaration in Parliament is a Declaration before the King Lords and Commons Would our Ancestors leave what is to be Resolved Treason to the Lords and themselves have no share in it And Talbots being declared Treason by the Lords is said to be no Treason by Judge Cook because the Commons had no hand in it there is no Treason in Common-Law because there can be no Treason where there is no way to Judge it which is not at Common-Law Mr. Vaugh. When the Law is made uncertain the Lords must declare it it appears there were Treasons at Common-Law not mention'd 25 Ed. 3. It is one Thing for a Matter to be Treason before and the Parliament to declare it another for the Parliament to make a Thing Treason which was not Sir Will. Lewis I desire to be Resolved whether Dunkirk was annexed to England because a Bill to that end was carryed but not Passed Mr. Waller To shew that Dunkirk was annexed to England consider we were Passing a Bill for 1200000l But when we were making a Preamble to the Bill we were to seek for Reasons for giving the Money seeing we had no War some said to keep Dunkirk but were told we should take heed of looking upon it as annexed unto the Crown but it was replyed Dunkirk was look'd upon as a Frontier Town and accordingly noted in the Bill Therefore the Sale of it Treason Mr. Coven Had it been part of the Crown of England what needed a Bill to make it so Mr. Pr n. It cannot be Treason because Sold by the King's consent Mr. Vaugh. If the King agreed to it doth it follow that he who adviseth the King to a Thing destructive to his Kingdom and King is not a Traitor If any part of the King's Dominions may be alienated especially when a Parliament is Sitting for they concurring it may be alienated by the same Reason the King may alienate Ireland or England too without the Parliament For by what Act of Parliament doth the King hold Ireland or England It is by Acquisition I say not Tangier for that was part of his Portion and is his own But Dunkirk would have been the Kingdoms if not thus disposed of and tho' it might have been alienated with the Parliament it could no more without than England or Ireland Mr. Ed. Hart. The Act of Parliament for annexing was not This Parliaments but of the Convention and came in thus the King was pleased to tell me that the Spanish Ambassadour might press him to part with it which he had no mind to do therefore he would have a Bill to annex it to the Crown which shews it was the King's Will to have it annexed accordingly this Parliament passed it and Dunkirk might have been as useful as Calice At length this Article was passed by without determining whether Treason or not Eleventh Twelfth Thirteenth and Fourteenth