Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bring_v	day_n	time_n	1,694	5	3.4053	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62698	Tam quam, or, A attaint brought in the supream court of the King of kings, upon the statutes, Exod. 20. 7, 16 and Levit. 19. 12 against those modern jurors, who have found any indictments upon the statutes of 23 Eliz., 29 Eliz., or 3 Jacobi, against Protestants, for monthly absence from church, without any confession of the parties, or oath of witness against them, or made any presentments of them : contrary to the express letter of their oaths taken in a Court of Judgment, the course of the law of England, or any right reason : wherein is discoursed, whether any Protetant be concerned in that part of those laws? : the contrary is proved : as also whether a grand-jury's finding and indictment, be any evidence to a petit-jury? : the absurdness, and most pernicious consequents of which are detected, and the vengeance of God agaisnt false-swearing is declared / by one who prosecutes, as well for his sovereign lord the King of kings, as for the lives, liberties, and properties of all the subjects of England.	One who persecutes as well for his sovereign lord the King of kings as for the lives, liberties, and properties of all the subjects of England.	1683 (1683)	Wing T133; ESTC R17	24,452	40

reason to part with these Juries after such Verdicts with the same Prayer or Complement that he doth sometime part with condemned Prisoners with and the Lord have Mercy upon your Souls For not one Indictment of many hundreds of this nature are found upon any such Evidence or indeed upon any Evidence at all which is either such in its own Nature or according to the Law of England in all other Cases as also in this very Case 7. Proofs ought to be clear and perspicuous saith my Lord Cook and it is impossible any thing should be an Evidence which doth not make the Thing clear and evident Indeed none that useth to speak Sense will call any thing less Evidence Now what is there can be imagined in Nature to make a matter of Fact evident to others but either the confession of the Party or the Oath of Witness or the personal knowledg of the Truth of it to the Persons to whom it is so to be made evident Those that serve upon Grand-Juries may according to their Oaths look upon the last as an Evidence for them sufficient to present upon that a Petit-Jury may I never heard affirm'd none of them can be Witnesses because they are Judges in the Matter of Fact The Law of England indeed alloweth another conviction in this Case viz. In case a Person presented indicted and proclaimed doth not appear in Person at the next Sessions or Assizes and put himself upon his Traverse The Reason is because the Law takes such a Person to confess the Fact And it may be this is righteous enough provided that such persons have Summons to appear truly served upon them But if they have not it is the highest Vnrighteousness imaginable For though the Law supposeth all his Majesties Subjects to be present at Assizes and Sessions yet every one knows how impossible a thing it is that all Men and Women above sixteen years of age should so appear and know what is done Upon which account our Law ordereth Summons of the Party upon every Presentment and if the Party be not summoned to proceed against him can be no Righteousness for our Law condemneth none before the Executioners of it have heard him speak or at least given him an opportunity that if it be not his own fault they may hear him speak for himself Yet multitudes are thus Presented and Convicted and great portions of their Estates seized who never so much as knew they were Presented or Accused till the Sheriff and Bayliffs come and make a Seisure of their Estates which certainly is in the Officers an Iniquity to be punished by the Judge and an Act of Vnrighteousness from which every one ought to be relieved for tho the person 's not appearing if he be summoned and proclaimed and hath notice of such Proclamation may be a ground of a Righteous Conviction yet if he hath no such Summons or notice of such Proclamation no such Conviction can be righteous For it is the condemning a Person before they have heard him speak or given him a liberty to speak for himself a thing abhorred by the Heathens who had no more than the Light of Nature to guide them in the things which they ought to do and avoid But this is a digression from my Argument 8. There are some so absurd in this case as to affirm there needeth no Evidence it is a thing which cannot be proved And if the Person presented and indicted cannot prove that within the time for which he is so presented and endicted he was at some Church or Chappel and that during the time and the whole time of Common Prayer or had some lawful impediment the Petit-Jury ought to find such Indictment The Absurdities of this Assertion are so many that it is not easie to number all of them I will hint at some few 1. If the Oath administred to the Petit-Jury were You shall well and truly try and true deliverance make betwixt our Sovereign Lord the King and the Person at the Bar without any Evidence Though it would be a strange Oath for any to administer or take yet it might excuse the Petit-Jury from the infamous crime of false swearing though they found such Indictments But their Oath being to find according to their Evidence it is impossible to excuse them finding without any Evidence for none ever called Silence Evidence nor yet the extorted Confession of the Party The Law of England requireth no Man to speak any thing to accuse himself nor to prove himself guiltless unless some Attempts have been first made to prove him guilty which he can disprove 2. Again This Assertion obligeth every Subject of England to have Witnesses ready to prove he was at Church at least one time within every 28 days throughout the year if not he may it seems be Presented Indicted and ought to be found guilty The Statute gives twelve months time to prosecute upon these Statutes Suppose persons presented and indicted for absence the first 28 days in that year how many thousand of innocent persons may not be able to bring Proof of their presence at Church after eleven months any one day within that month 3. There is no such Proceeding allowed in any other Criminal Cause Is the Man indicted for Robbery or Murder bound to prove he was at another place in another company at that time when the Murder or Robbery was done before it be first proved to the Jury upon Oath that he was at that time in that place where such a fact was committed I cannot understand but by these Mens Law the very same Persons found guilty of this Crime may when they please be found guilty of Murder robbing by the High Way or any other Capital Crime if this be sufficient Evidence to the Petit-Jury that the Party accused having no Evidence against him yet shall not acquit himself by proving the Place where he was at that Time which after nine or ten Months who is able to do And these very Jury-men who are so liberal of their Souls as to find without Evidence in these Cases may one day by God's righteous Retaliation find themselves thus dealt with Nec Lex est justior ulla Quàm necis artifices arte perire suâ To allow Persons guilty of a Crime without any other Evidence but because they will not or perhaps cannot acquit themselves by proving Circumstances of Time and Place where they were after 3 5 6 10 Months time having no prospect of such an Accusation is a thing which may prove of most fatal Consequence to every Mother's Child in the Nation 4. Yet if the Law of England which alloweth it in no other Case did by any Clauses in it allow this to be a sufficient Evidence in this something might be said The Civil Power may be allowed when themselves create a Crime to set down what shall be Evidence of that Crime But doth any of the Statutes made in this Case ordain any such

God's Vengeance upon themselves as to think that they may do it upon a common Fame and that not proved before them neither nay more that they may do it though some of themselves know the contrary to such Presentment or Indictment and put the Persons to 40 s. charge at Sessions or 7 or 8 l. charge at the Assizes to clear themselves and very often it is proved that such Presentments are notoriously false Now that a Petit-Jury should take such Presentments or Indictments for Evidence is a thing so obviously contrary to Sense and Reason as well as their Oath which they take that nothing need be said against it 6. It is expresly contrary to the Law of England in all other Causes Criminal That the Presentments of Officers who present ex officio should go for Evidence Nor doth either the Common or Statute-Law of England direct it any where in this Case This is to make the Accusers Evidence and to confound Accusers and Witnesses Whereas Si satis sit accusari nullus erit innocens It was all our Fore-father's Opinion that none could be innocent if the Accusers might be allowed for Evidence If the Grand-Jury do but deliver in the Presentments or Indictments of others they are in that case considered as Judges in the Matter of Fact averring their charitable belief that such Presentments are true If the Presentment ariseth originally from themselves they are but the Accusers and in that capacity can be no Evidence to say that Common Fame is the Accuser in the Case when that Common Fame is a mere aerial thing suck'd in by some or other of the Grand-Jury and not justified to the whole Body of the Grand Jury vivâ Voce is but to dignify a Chimera There can be no Common Fame without a multitude to report it which I presume Grand-Juries have not coming to them upon that Errand and if they had they must be sworn in Court before by the Law of England they can come near to make the Common Fame In all such Cases therefore to make a Grand-Jury an Evidence to the Petit-Jury is to make Accusers Evidence the Consequents of which I leave to every Man of sense 7. If Malice did not out-law the Reason of Jurors who find Indictments on no other Evidence than this they would consider Hodie mihi cras tibi What you make the Lot of others to day may be yours to morrow A Grand-Jury may find against you an Indictment for treasonable words you never spake Heretical Opinions or Speeches Murder Theft Burglary In three or four of these Cases it is very ordinary for Grand-Juries to find upon slighty Evidence because the Good of the Publick is concerned If the Petit-Jury need no other Evidence every Subject's Life Liberty and Property is at the Mercy of every Villain If any will say that in such Cases there must be further Evidence brought to the Petit-Jury I ask Why Evidence is Evidence I hope in one Cause as well as in another except the Statute-Law directs otherwise which I am sure it doth not Besides that Grand-Juries often find Indictments where the Publick Peace and Government is concerned upon very slight Evidence because they know they cannot be convicted without other more full and particular Evidence So that to allow their finding the Indictment for Evidence to found a Conviction upon is the greatest Unrighteousness imaginable Upon the Trial of my Lord Shaftsbury my Lord Chief Justice told the Grand-Jury That that which was referred to them to consider was Whether upon the Evidence should be given to them there be any Reason or Ground for the King to call these Persons to an account if there be probable ground it is as much as you are to enquire into You are not to judg the Persons but for the Honour of the King and Decency of the Matter it is not thought fit by the Law that Persons should be accused and indicted where there is no colour nor ground for it where there is no kind of suspicion of a Crime nor reason to believe that the thing can be proved It is not for the King's Honour to call Men to an account in such Cases therefore you are to enquire Whether that that you hear be any Cause or Reason for the King to put the Party to answer it You do not condemn nor is there such a strict enquiry to be made by you as by others that are sworn to a Fact or Issue A probable Cause or some Ground that the King hath to call those Persons to answer for it is enough Gentlemen for you to find the Bill it is as much as is by Law required From this great Oracle of Law may easily be gathered 1. That any probable Ground or Reason that the King hath to question a Person for such a Fact any kind of suspicion of the Crime and that it may be proved is enough for a Grand-Jury 2. That the Grand-Juries Work is not to condemn nor to make so strict an inquiry as the Jury for Trial who are sworn to a Fact or Issue Add now to this the common sayings of some little Country Lawyers at a Sessions Cushion That the Grand-Juries finding the Indictment is Evidence enough And affirming to Juries That this is Law and observe what follows Then a suspicion that a Man hath stollen an Horse or a probable Ground that the King hath reason to question a Man for a Murder without any strict inquiry into the thing whether it be so or no is ground enough by Law for a Petit-Jury to find a Man guilty of the Theft or of the Murder But this was not my Lord Chief Justice his sense who tells us the Jury for Trial who are sworn to a Fact or Issue must make a strict enquiry as to which he conceiveth a Grand-Jury not concerned and therefore what they find is no Evidence to a Petit-Jury But those that find an Indictment upon no other Evidence are apparently forsworn bringing in their Verdict not according to their Evidence but without any Evidence CHAP. III. A short Disquisition whether the Statutes of 23 Eliz. 29 Eliz. and 3 Jacobi concern any Protestants The Arguments for their concern in them propounded and answered and found too light to ballance three great Arguments to the contrary which are propounded and enlarged upon 1. I Know it is Forreign to this Discourse to debate the Question Whether those Statutes of 23 Eliz. 29 Eliz. 3 Jac. do in all the branches of them concern Protestants or no particularly in those Branches which relate to coming to or absenting from Church Great Lawyers are divided in their Opinions as to it those who think they do urge 1. The general words every Person and the mention of Recusants sometimes without the addition of Popish 2. The reference of those Statutes to the Stat. 1 Eliz. 2. in which they say Protestants as well as Papists are most certainly concerned 3. The Oath of Allegiance which is within