Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	england_n	france_n	henry_n	33,048	5	7.4373	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43107	A reply to a sheet of paper, intituled, The magistracy and government of England vindicated, or, A justification of the English method of proceedings against criminals, by way of answer to the defence of the late Lord Russel's innocence, &c. written by John Hawles ...	Hawles, John, Sir, 1645-1716.	1689 (1689)	Wing H1189; ESTC R12198	38,849	39

as is to be seen in my Lord Bacon's Elements much less doth it prove that the Consequence of a Design to seize the Guards is to kill depose or imprison the King For time was when the Kings of England were very safe and at at full liberty without Guards and to say truth no one instance in our English Histories can be given That a King hath been killed deposed or imprisoned for want of Guards I know it hath been pretended that King Charles the First had not went from White-hall if he had had Guards but that is but a Conjecture And it is a doubt whether his departure was forcible or voluntary Guards may defend a Prince from a sudden Attempt and scarcely so for Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth of France were killed the first in the midst of his Army the last in the midst of his Guards but not from the violence of the People a Prince is safe in the love of his Subjects and without it Guards are but of little use There were two late Kngs who did not well know whether they were not Prisoners to their own Armies and Mahomet the Fourth Emperour of the Turks was a Prisoner for some time to his own Guards when he thought himself at perfect liberty so little difference there is between Guards for a Prince's safety or his safe imprisonment I purposely omit speaking to the Cases of the Lord Cobham and Gray Watson and Clark because I intend to answer them last of all and for the same reason I speak not of Sir Walter Rawleigh's Case because it was the same with the other though the Author cunningly Musters them as distinct Cases The Case of the Earls of E. and of S. is reported short by the Author for their Indictment and Fact was for designing to take the Queen into their Custody and for that end assembled a multitude of armed Men which is actual levying War and so makes nothing towards proving the Matter in Question which is a Conspiracy to levy War without actual levying War. Cardinal Poole's Case is to as little purpose for in the Book that Cardinal Poole wrote which was in the 27th of Henry VII in which as my Lord Coke says 3 Instit fol. 14. from whence the Author had the Case there was this passage In Anglia nunc sparsum est hoc semen ut vix à Turcico internosci queat idque authoritate unius coaluit And in the precedent part of the Letter names the King and though more Treasons in the Indictment than one are mixt together yet the Indictment did then as it hath of late conclude contra formam Stat. which may be interpreted All or any Statutes precedent to that Fact enacting Treason And if the Author will look back he will find it enacted by the 26th of Henry VIII cap. 13. That to publish that the King was an Heretick Schismatick or an Infidel was High Treason and I would fain know whether the above passage is not a good proof of publishing that the King was an Infidel and so it was Treason within the above Statute But nothing can be inferred from an Indictment never pleaded unto as was Poole's The Case of Dr. Story is as little to the purpose who as Cambden says was to have been charged with consulting with one Prestall a Man addicted to Magical Illusions against the Queen's Life and always cursing her in his Graces and for having conspired the destruction of Her and of the King of Scots and shewed the Duke of Alva's Secretary the way to invade England to which Indictment he would not plead and therefore was condemned There is no doubt but the Indictment against Story was legal and standing mute he was legally condemned but whether his accusation was only perswading the Duke of Alva to invade England does not appear nay the contrary appears by Cambden and my Lord Coke quotes the Case to prove Story being born a Subject was not an Enemy but a Traitor besides it must be remembred that at that time there were Acts of Hostility between the Queen and the Duke of Alva and so Story may well be guilty of Treason by the Clause in the Stat. E. 3. of adhering to the Queen's Enemies and in the exposition of that Clause doth my Lord Coke cite Story 's Case as if he had been attainted on that Clause And though the Author quotes my Lord Dier yet the Case was put to the Judges otherwise than the Author relates for he says If a Subject beyond Sea invite a Prince to invade the Realm and no Invasion follow that Offence that is and if the Practice be for the death of the Prince what Offence this is and how and where it shall be tryed and these Offences says the Book were held by the Justices to be High Treason for that an Invasion with great Power cannot be but that it will tend to the destruction or peril of the Prince but it is plain that if the Judges did deliver that as the reason of their Judgment they needed not have done it for that Story 's Accusation without that reason was High Treason within the first Branch of the Stat. of Ed. 3. it being for compassing the Queen's Death and was so put to the Judges And it is plain notwithstanding the report of that Book the Judges did not give that reason for their resolution or if they did there was little credit given to it for in April following as the Author says it was enacted That the intention of levying War should be High Treason during the Queen's Life which was very absurd if the opinion of the Judges was such as reported or if it were such and it were believed it had been proper rather to have declared That the intention of levying War was High Treason within the first Branch of Edward III. And it is plain If the Opinion of the Judges in Story 's Case was such as reported it gained no credit with my Lord Coke who takes notice of that Case and yet expresly says that a bare Conspiracy to levy War is not Treason within the Stat. of Ed. 3. and takes notice of the 13th of the Queen which says he is Expired The Case of Coleman is well remembred to be for Conspiring to take away the King's Life by other sort of ways than levying War and to say Truth there was such Proofs and Suspicions of the thing confirmed by what after happened that the Author if but in tenderness to his Party ought to have spared that Case As for Balshall's Case I did not think it worth my time to look the record of it I find the Author hath it out of a Paper called Animadversions upon the Lord Russel's Speech and that Author hath it out of Dr. Nalson's Collections and to say Truth the style of that and his Paper are so alike that they seem to be writ by the same Hand I think the Author might have fitted himself with a Case out of

the Tryall hath been censured yet the Indictment never was and in that Indictment the Treason is laid as in this Case That he traiterously imagined and compassed the King to Depose Kill and Destroy the Over-acts are That he armed himself and advised others to arm and spoke several Words c. Here was no War levied only a Preparation and yet that was allowed an Overt-act and as for the Words if they are allowed to be one with much more reason Meeting Consulting and Agreeing to doe As to the Objections surely there is no weight in the first which is Page 10. that criticises upon the Word fait Act and that 't is only a meeting to agree and an agreement to do but 't was not done Suppose they had concluded and agreed to poison or stab c. according to the opinion in that Page this was no Treason for 't is only agreeing and concluding upon a thing to be done but it is not done He doth in p. 13. argue that this can never be an Overt-act of compassing the King's Death because levying War is a distinct species of Treason and a conspiring to levy War is not a levying War and even levying War it self cann't be assign'd as an Overt-act of compassing unless the Indictment were particularly for that but surely another sort of Act that savours of another species of Treason if it naturally conduce to the accomplishing of the first species viz. that of compassing it may be assign'd as an Overt-act of it and Sir H. Vane 's Case is quite otherwise and there a levying War was the Overt-act alleadged of the compassing and allowed by all the Judges and all the Indictments in the West upon Monmouth 's Rebellion were so and yet drawn by every good Advice besides what Answer can be given to the Cases I have cited where Consults Conspiracies Practices Advices Letters Persuasions and other Motives and Preparatives to an Insurrection have been held Overt-acts of an Imagination of the K's Death tho' no War was levied no Insurrection had 'T is apparent from what has been said before that to take the K. Prisoner or to seize his Person is a compassing of his Death and if so then to sit in Council to conspire the effecting of that is an Overt-act of compassing the K's Death and this Case amounts to that here was a Consultation to seize upon the K's Guards which could tend to nothing but the seizing of his Person and then the consequence is plain The Author says p. 14. If it had but been alleadged in the Indictment that in pursuance of the Consult and Agreement there had been a view of the Guards and a Report made that the thing was fecible this would have been more to the purpose how much more no man can tell for every Objection in the Book would have been as good against that as this The great Objection he seems to rely on is That the Law takes no notice of them for once I will suppose that it doth not and then let us observe if any Argument can be drawn from thence Perhaps the thing was not used or known when the 23 Ed. 3. was made Can nothing be Treason if the Plot laid to accomplish it be concerning a thing not in esse at the time of the Stat. Certainly it may If several Malecontents should consult and agree and prepare in order to an Insurrection to seize the Tower Portsmouth Hull and Plymouth Fort would not this be an Overt-act of Treason and yet our Law takes no notice of any Garrisons there or any where else they have no Relation to the Militia nor were there any Arms in those places in Ed. 3. his time that we read of in our Law-Books if this be otherwise why did not the Author find fault with Rouse 's Indictment which was tried much at the same time with this in question Suppose all the Gentlemen-Pensioners Grooms of the Stole Gentlemen of the Bed-chamber and the like killed in the Night and the doors in Whitehall broken up and all the Swords Musquets and Pistols there taken away and yet it happened that the K's Person was left untouch'd would this be an Act of Burglary and Murther only We have no Law Books that take notice of Arms at Whitehall or such Names as those Servants go by and suppose at the same time upon the Consult that the Conspirators did move discourse debate and conclude of an Insurrection would it not then be Treason If not nothing can be so unless the K's Person be murthered or seized and the St. should not have said compass or imagine but seize or kill c. It suffices then that the Guards are in common understanding known to be used and imployed for the Attendance upon and Preservation of his Person If common Sense and Reason be judge no man can think but that he who intended to move an Insurrection and seize the Guards had a farther design upon the K's Person and then 't is Treason If otherwise a King of England is in a worse Condition than the worst and meanest of his Subjects for a King must not cannot in or by our Law assault strike seize attach or imprison in Person and consequently cannot defend himself and shall not his Servants Guards and Attendants which are all of the same nature wear a Sword or carry a Musquet before him If they do so is it not then known that they doe it if it be commonly known to be so doth not he that seizes and destroys those Attendants endanger the K's Person and if that be so the Inference is easie It can never be it will never be allowed for Law that a seizing all the K's Guards is only a breach of the Peace unless we renounce the Law and will judge more by Inclinations and Partiships than by Reason and Precedents As to the distinction between an actul seizing them and a Consult and Agreement to seize them what I have urged before overthrows it and what the Author says doth no maintain it for both have a tendency to the execution of the Treason intended I will not take the pains to remark upon all the Inconsistencies of the Concessions and Denials in the Book they are obvious to the Readers As to his Quarrel at the K's Guards as an illegal thing and terrible to the People somewhat of the French growth I hope the K. will always preserve them for his own personal Preservation notwithstanding the Authur's Opinion As to his temporary Laws which declare Words Treason most part of them were affirmative of the old Law and were made only in compliment to a new crowned Head when they prohibited nothing but what was before so and for the rest no Conclusion could be made from them for the maintenance of his Assertion if the had repeated them which since he does not nor will I. As to the Cases cited by the Authour of the Antidote which I have mentioned he agrees to Constable 's Case but