Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
act_n king_n law_n treason_n 3,277 5 8.9802 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A55933 The proceedings against the Right Honourable the Earl of Shaftsbury, at the Old Baily, on Thursday the twenty fourth of November, 1681 as they were taken by an impartial hand, and faithfully transmitted to every unbiassed reader : with sufficient reasons to justifie the Grand Jury in bringing in the Bill Ignoramus. Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of, 1621-1683.; Philonomus. 1681 (1681) Wing P3553A; ESTC R24477 15,222 20

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE Earl of Shaftsbury AT THE OLD BAILY On Thursday the Twenty fourth of November 1681. As they were taken by an Impartial Hand and faithfully transmitted to every unbiassed Reader With Sufficient Reasons to justifie the Grand Jury in bringing in the Bill Ignoramus LONDON Printed for H. Jones 1681. At the Sessions at the Old Bayly on Thursday November the Twenty fourth 1681. held by Commission of Oyer and Terminer within Term. THE Commission being read the Pannel of the Grand Jury was read over which was as follows Sir Samuel Barnardiston Baronet John Mordant Esq Thomas Papillon Esq John Dubois Esq Charles Herle Edward Rudge Humphrey Edwyn John Morris Benjamin Godfrey Edmond Harrison Joseph Wright John Cox Matthew Gardiner excused Samuel Swynock excused Thomas Parker Leonard Robinson Thomas Sheppard John Polixfen out of Town John Flavell Michael Godfrey John Smith Joseph Richardson William Empson Andrew Kenrick John Lane Esq John Gardiner excused John Hall William Ashhurst Esq John Ellis Esq John Deagle Thomas Weston out of Town Andrew Bonnel Gabriel Whitley Thomas Carpenter Laurence Baskervill Marwood Denby Peter Houblon The Gentlemen that were sworn of this Jury were Twenty one whose Names are as follows Sir Samuel Barnardiston Baronet Foreman John Mordant Esq Thomas Papillon Esq John Dubois Esq John Herle Edward Rudge Humphrey Edwyn John Morris Edmond Harrison Joseph Wright John Cox Thomas Parker Leonard Robinson Thomas Sheppard John Flavell Michael Godfrey William Empson Andrew Kenrick Joseph Richardson John Lane Esq John Hall After they were sworn the Lord Chief-Justice Pemberton gave them their Charge which was to this effect That they were met here in one of the most Solemn Assemblies of this Nation That it was for the Execution of Justice upon Ossenders if found Guilty That the nature of the Commission whereby the Commissioners sate and the Grand Jury were summoned doth extend to all Offences whatsoever Treasons Misprisions of Treasons Felonies and all other Crimes and Offences against the King and Government in short all that are called Pleas of the Crown all these he told them fall under the Cognisance of the Commissioners and the Inquiry of the Grand Jury but did acquaint them That there was a particular Occasion for the Issuing out of the Commission at this time His Majesty having received an Information That there were some evil and most Traiterous Designs against His Person and Government He did therefore think fit to have a due Examination of them that so the Persons might be brought to condign Punishment if found guilty thereof He did farther acquaint them That they must not expect any Formal Charge from him he expecting that they had received their Directions before they came for that it had been the common Usage for the Grand Jury to be sworn and receive their Charge before His Majesties Justices came upon the Bench but since he found it otherwise he should not make any set formal Charge nor give any Account of all the Offences that fall under the Inquiry of the Grand Jury by such a Commission at Common Law neither must they expect that he should acquaint them with all the Crimes that they might inquire of but that it would be sufficient to tell them the particular Matter of which they were then to inquire and their Duty concerning that Inquiry He told them that he had hinted at first that they were Matters of High Treason which is a Crime of the highest nature that can be committed against Man That other Crimes as Felonies and things of that nature may make Disorders and Troubles in a State or Kingdom but that Treasons strike at the very Root and Life of all and are that which destroys the Government and therefore have in all Ages been looked upon as Crimes of the highest nature that can possibly be imagined and accordingly Punishments have been allotted to them of the greatest Severity He did further acquaint them That at the Common Law there were great variety of Opinions about Treason and that there had been many Disputes what was Treason and what was not and therefore it was thought fit by the Wisdom of our Ancestors to make a Law to declare what should be Treason which was done by the 25 Edw. 3. By that Law for any one to compass or imagine or intend the Death of the King for he told them he would mention no more of that Statute than was agreeable to the present purpose and to declare it by overt-Overt-act as to levy War against the King and the like is declared among other things to be High Treason which Law hath obtain'd for Law amongst us ever since and that nothing had been accounted Treason but what was expressed in it unless upon some emergent Occasion and instanc'd in the Laws made in the time of Queen Elizabeth upon the occasion of that inveterate Malice that the Roman Catholicks bore her and likewise in that Law of the 13th of His now Majesty for the making whereof he told them the Parliament had great grounds as they declare in the Preamble of that Statute for that the Wounds the Kingdom had received were then bleeding and scarcely closed many Traiterous Positions and Seditious Principles spread amongst the People of this Realm and that they had good reason to believe that where they had been so maliciously bent against King Charles the First and had taken him off and had maintain'd so long and dangerous a War against Him and His now Majesty almost to the destruction of all our Liberties and Laws even to the utter overthrowing of this flourishing Kingdom they ought to be careful to prevent the like Mischiefs for the future and therefore did think fit whereas the Law before was That it should be Treason to conspire or to imagine or to intend the Death of the King so as it were declared by overt-Overt-act now because it was dangerous to stay till an Overt-Act should declare the Intention for that they had proceeded so far as to take away one Kings Life and banish another and endeavour to root out the Government of this Kingdom and therefore did Enact by the said Statute of the 13th of His now Majesty That if any one shall compass imagine or intend the Death of the King or his Destruction or any Bodily harm that may tend to His Death and Destruction any restraint of His Liberty by Imprisonment or otherwise or if they shall design and intend to levy any War against Him either within the Realm or without or design or intend to procure any Foreign Prince or others to invade His Dominions and shall signifie and declare this by any Writing by any Printing by any Preaching or by any malicious and advised Speaking and uttering Words to the same intent and purpose this shall be High Treason which he told them had altered the Law in two Cases 1. As to levying War the Intention was not Treason before unless it took essect And 2. As
to designing and compassing the Kings Death which was not Treason unless declared by an overt-Overt-act and as to the imprisoning His Person or restraining Him of His Liberty the very designing of them alone are made Treason whether they take effect or not tho these should be timely prevented that there be no hurt done yet the very Design if it be uttered or spoken is made Treason by this Act Which makes a great alteration in the Law Formerly it was said Words alone would not amount to Treason but since this Act Words if they import any malicious Design against the King any traiterous Intention in the Party are Treason He did further acquaint the Jury That this Act was made with the greatest care and prudence imaginable to take off that Liberty that People had taken to themselves in that time of Licentiousness wherein they were so bold to vent all their seditious and malicious Thoughts and Intentions each to other without restraint and therefore told the Jury That they ought to consider the Words whether they signifie or purport any Traiterous Intention in the Party either against the King or His Government either to restrain His Liberty or to do Him any Bodily hurt or any thing of that nature which he told them was Treason within the Act of Parliament And as to their Inquiry they were in the Sphere they stood in upon Indictments brought before them to consider these things Whether the Matter brought before them were within that Act of Parliament And in that if they doubted they were to advise as to Matters of Law with those that were Commissionated by His Majesty And that they were to inquire Whether there were Two Witnesses to prove the Treason because no Man without two Witnesses ought to be punish'd within that Law but withal did observe to them That it had been resolved by all the Judges of England upon a most solemn Occasion That it is not necessary that there be two Witnesses to prove the same Words spoken at the same time or in the same place but if one proves the Words that import a Treasonable Intention spoken at one time and in one place and others at another time and in another place these are good Witnesses within the Statute to prove the Treason He told them That what was referr'd to them was to consider what Evidence should be given them and whether upon that Evidence there were not reason to call the Person to an Account for if there were probable Grounds for it that was as much as they were to inquire into That they must consider this That as it is a Crime to condemn Innocent Persons so it is a Crime as great to acquit the Guilty so that they ought to be as strict in the one as in the other He farther told them That if they should be refractory and where there was a probable Ground for an Accusation should undertake to intercept Justice by not finding the Bill it would lie at their Doors that they were under a double Obligation one as they were Englishmen and so Members of the same Body they ought to consider that Crimes of this nature ought not to go unpunished the other as they had an Oath of God upon them they were sworn to Inquire truly according to their Evidence and therefore if there were two Witnesses of Words that might import a treasonable Design or Intention in the Party they were bound both by the Law of Nature as they are Members of the same Body and by the Law of God as they have taken an Oath to find the Bill He told them that it was neither their Province nor those whom His Majesty had Commissionated to be compassionate or pitiful for that is reserved to a higher and superiour Power from which both theirs is derived and therefore did require them to hear such Evidence as should be given and to be impartial as to what they should hear from the Witnesses and if there were ground sufficient to believe that there is reason for the King to call the Parties to answer what is objected against them they were bound to find the Bills and concluded with God Almightie Prayer to direct them After which he acquainted them that the Kings Council who were Sir Fran. Withins Kt. Mr. Saunders Mr. Heath and Mr. Jones moved that the Evidence might be publickly given that so there might be no occasion of slandering the Witnesses which he told them was a motion ought not to be denied Then the Jury demanded a Copy of their Oath which was granted them by the Court and they immediately withdrew and after a quarter of an hours stay returned and Sir Sam. Barnardiston the Fore-man of the Jury did acquaint the Court that it was the opinion of the Jury that it was their right to examine the Witnesses in private for that it had been alwas the Practice both in City and Country and they did insist upon it for this reason because they were by their Oaths bound to keep the Kings Secrets and their own which it was impossible for them to do if the Witnesses should be examined in Court To which the Ld. Ch. Justice Pemberton gave this Answer That it might probably be that the common usage had brought the Jury into that Error that it was their right and therefore did inform them that it was not their right but that it was done only to comply with the convenience of the Court for generally upon all Commissions of the like nature the business was much and that upon Gaol-Deliveries there were many Prisoners to be tried and other things to be done so that if at such a time they should examine all Witnesses in Court that came before the Grand Jury in order to finding the Bills it would make the Commissions of too great a length and that therefore the Judges have allowed this Practice and not that it is their right for that without question originally all Witnesses were examined in Court and further told them that it was for their advantage as well as for the Kings that it might be seen that they complied with their Evidence and did nothing clandestinely and besides that the King desired it and that they were bound to comply with his desire but yet that they should have the same liberty in Court they could have in private to ask the Witnesses what questions they pleased And further told them that as to keeping their Counsels that was a thing of another nature which were their own private Debates Then Mr. Papillion one of the Jury offered 4 things to the Court the first was the same in substance with what Sir S. Barnard had offered before The 2d was that it having been a common usuage was now grown to be the Law of the Land and that so not to be altered therefore desired the opinion of the Court for that as they were not willing to do any thing that might be in the least prejudicial to His