LEADER 01379nam  2200313 n 450 
001 996383648203316
005 20221108044557.0
035   $a(CKB)1000000000589997
035   $a(EEBO)2240927272
035   $a(UnM)9959216500971
035   $a(EXLCZ)991000000000589997
100   $a19810218d1712      uh              
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurbn||||a|bb|
200 10$a1. We conceive such an order, as is propos'd in the question, to be absolutely necessary, because we are fully convinc'd that the Duke of Ormond does lie under some order of restraint from acting offensively, ..$b[electronic resource]
210   $a[London $cs.n.$d1712]
215   $a1 sheet
300   $aA protest by several lords, 28 May 1712, against the rejection of an address to the Queen, concerning the restraining orders imposed on the Duke of Ormond.
300   $aReproduction of original in the British Library.
330   $aeebo-0018
607   $aGreat Britain$xPolitics and government$y1660-1714
801  0$bUk-ES
801  1$bUk-ES
801  2$bCStRLIN
801  2$bCu-RivES
906   $aBOOK
912   $a996383648203316
996   $a1. We conceive such an order, as is propos'd in the question, to be absolutely necessary, because we are fully convinc'd that the Duke of Ormond does lie under some order of restraint from acting offensively, .$92357617
997   $aUNISA