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	lord_n	time_n	1,564	5	3.2852	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43105	The English-mans right a dialogue between a barrister at law and a jury-man : plainly setting forth, I. the antiquity of juries : II. the excellent designed use of juries : III. the office and just priviledges of juries, by the law of England.	Hawles, John, Sir, 1645-1716.	1680 (1680)	Wing H1185; ESTC R14849	29,854	42

Speaking or Preaching to them Note the Quakers have a Meeting-house in that Street out of which they were then kept by Soldiers and therefore they met as near to it as they could in the open Street but what he said the Witnesses who were Officers and Soldiers sent to disperse them could not hear This was the effect of the Evidence which Sir John Howel the then Recorder as I find in the Print of that Tryal P. 14 was pleased to sum up to the Iury in these words You have heard what the Indictment is 't is for Preaching to the People in the Street and drawing a Tumultuous Company after them and Mr. Pen was speaking if they should not be disturb'd you see they will go on there are three or four Witnesses that have proved this that he did Preach there that Mr. Mead did allow of it After this you have heard by substantial Witnesses what is said against them Now we are upon the Matter of Fact which you are to keep to and observe as what hath been fully sworn at your pern This Tryal begun on the Saturday the Jury retiring after some considerable time spent in debate came in and gave this Verdict Guilty of Speaking in Gray-Church-Street At which the Court was offended and told them they had as good say nothing Adding Was it not an unlawful Assembly you mean he was speaking to a Tumult of People there But the Foreman saying what he had delivered was all he had in Commission and others of them affirming That they allowed of no such word as an unlawful Assembly in their Verdict They were sent back again and then brought in a Verdict in writing subscribed with all their Hands in these words We the Jurors hereafter named do find William Pen to be Guilty of Speaking or Preaching to an Assembly met together in Gray-Church-street the 14th of Aug. 1670. And William Mead not Guilty of the said Indictment * Note though this Jury for their excellent example of courage and constancy deserve the commendation of every good English-man yet if they had been better advis'd they might have brought the Prisoners in Not Guilty ut first saved themselves the trouble and inconveniences of these two Nights Restraint This the Court resented still worse and therefore sent them back again and Adjourned till Sunday morning but then too they insisted on the same Verdict so the Court Adjourned till Monday morning and then the Jury brought in the Prisoners generally Not Guilty which was Recorded and allowed of But immediately the Court fined them Forty Mark a Man and to lie in Prison till paid Being thus in Custody Edw. Bushel one of the said Iurors on the 9th of Nov. following brought his Habeas Corpus in the Court of Common-Pleas On which the Sheriffs of London made Retorn That he was detained by vertue of an Order of Sessions whereby a Fine of forty Marks was set upon him and eleven others particularly named and every of them being Iurors sworn to try the Issues joyned between the King and Pen and Mead for certain Trespasses Contempts unlawful Assemblies and Tumults and who then and there did acquit the said Pen and Mead of the same against the Law of this Kingdom and against full and manifest Evidence and against the direction of the Court in matter of Law of and upon the Premises openly in Court to them given and declared and that it was ordered they should be imprisoned till they severally paid the said Fine which the said Bushel not having done See Bushels Case in Vaughans Reports at large the same was the cause of his Caption and Detention The Court coming to debate the validity of this Retorn adjudged them same insufficient for 1. The Words Against full and manifest Evidence was too general a Cause the Evidence should have been fully and particularly recited else how shall the Court know it was so full and evident they have now only the Iudgment of the Sessions for it that it was so but said the Iudges Our Judgments ought to be Grounded upon our own Inferences and Vnderstandings and not upon theirs 2. It is not said that they acquitted the Persons Indicted against full and manifest Evidence corruptly and knowing the said Evidence to be full and manifest for otherwise it can be no Crime for that may seem full and manifest to the Court which does not appear so to the Iury. 3. The other part of the Return viz. That the Iury had acquitted those Indicted against the direction of the Court in matter of Law was also adjudged to be naught and unreasonable and the Fining of the Juries for giving their Verdict in any Case concluded to be illegal for the several Reasons before recited and other Authorities of Law urged to that purpose and all the Precedents and Allegations brought to justify the Fine and Commitment solidly answered whereupon the Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That the Cause of Commitment was insufficient and accordingly the said Bushel and other his Fellow-prisoners were discharged and left to the Common Law for Remedy and Reparation of the Damages by that tortious illegal Imprisonment sustained Which Case is amongst others Reported by that Learned Iudge Sir John Vaughan at that time Lord Chief Iustice of the Common-Pleas setting forth all the Arguments Reasons Authorities on which the Court proceeded therein from which I have extracted most of the Reasons which before I recited for this Point for the greatest part in the very words of that Reverend Author Jurym. This Resolution hath one would think as you said knock'd this Illegal Practice on the Head beyond any possibility of Revival but may it not one day be denied to be Law and the contrary justified Barr No such thing can be done without apparent violating and subverting all Law Justice and Modesty for though the Precedent it self be valuable and without further inquiry is wont to be allowed when given thus deliberately upon solemn debate by the whole Court yet 't is not only that but the sound substantial and everlasting Reasons whereon they grounded such their Resolves that will at all time Justify Fining of Iuries in such Cases to be Illegal besides as the Reporter was most considerable both in his Quality as Lord Chief Justice and for his Parts soundness of Iudgment and deep Learning in the Law so such his Book of Reports is approved and recommended to the World as appears by the Page next after the Epistle by the Right Honourable the present Lord Chancellor of England Sir William Scroggs now Lord Chief Iustice of England my Lord North Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas and in a word by all the Iudges of England at the time of Publishing thereof so that it cannot be imagined how any Book can challenge greater Authority unless we should expect it to be particularly confirm'd by Act of Parliament Jurym. You have answered all my Scruples and since I

and thereupon to give judgment according to Law For the office of a Judg as Cook well observes is jus dicene not jus dare not to make any Laws by strains of wit or forced Interpretations but plainly and impartially to declare the Law already establisht Nor can they refuse to accept the Juries Verdict when agreed For if they should and force the Jury to return and any of them should miscarry for want of accommodation it would undoubtedly be murder and in such case the Jury may without crime force their liberty because they are illegally confined having given in their Verdict and thereby honestly discharged their office and are not to be starv'd for any mans pleasure J. How Jurors are Judges of Law as well as Fact But I have been told That a Jury is only Judg of naked matter of fact and are not all to take upon them to meddle with or regard matter of Law but leave it wholly to the Court. B. 'T is most true Jurors are Judges of matters of Fact that is their proper Province their chief business but yet not excluding the consideration of matter of Law as it arises out of or is complicated with and influences the Fact For to say they are not at all to meddle with or have respect to Law in giving their Verdicts is not only a false position and contradicted by every days experience but also a very dangerous and pernicious one tending to defeat the principal end of the Institution of Juries and so subtilly to undermine that which was too strong to be batter'd down 1. It it false for though the direction as to matter of Law separately may belong to the Judg and the finding the matter of Fact does peculiarly belong to the Jury yet must your Jury also apply matter of Fact and Law together and from their consideration of and a right judgment upon both bring forth their Verdict For do we not see in most General issues as upon not guilty pleaded in trespass breach of the peace or Felony though it be matter in Law whether the party be a trespasser a breaker of the Peace or a Felon yet the Jury do not find the Fact of the case by it self leaving the Law to the Court but find the party guitly or not guilty generally So as though they answer not to the question singly what is Law yet they determine the Law in all matters where Issue is join'd So likewise is it not every days practise that when persons are Indicted for murther the Jury does not only find them guilty or not guilty but many times upon hearing and weighing of circumstances brings them in either guilty of Murther Manslaughter per Infortunitus or se-defendendo as they see cause Now do they not herein complicately resolve both Law and Fact And to what end is it that when any person is prosecuted upon any Statute the Statute it self is usually read to the Jurors but only that they may judg Whether or no the matter be within that Statute But to put the business out of doubt we have the suffrage of that Oracle of Law Littleton who in his Tenures Sect. 368. declares That if a Jury will take upon them the knowledg of the law upon the matter they may Which is agreed to likewise by Cook in his Comment thereupon And therefore 't is false to say That the Jury hath not power or doth not use frequently to apply the Fact to the Law and thence taking their measures judg of and determine the crime or issue by their Verdict 2. As Juries have ever been vested with such power by Law so to exclude them from or disseize them of the same were utterly to defeat the end of their institution For then if a person should be Indicted for doing any common innocent act if it be but clothed and disguised in the Indictment with the name of Treason or some other high crime and prov'd by Witnesses to have been done by him the Jury though satisfied in Conscience that the Fact is not any such offence as 't is called yet because according to this fond opinion they have no power to judg of law and the fact charged is fully prov'd they should at this rate be bound to find him guilty And being so found the Judg may pronounce sentence against him for he finds him a convicted Traytor c. by his Peers And thus as a certain Physician boasted That he had kill'd one of his Patients with the best method in the world So here should we have an innocent man hang'd drawn and quarter'd and all according to law J. God forbid that any such thing should be practised and indeed I do not very fully understand you B. I do not say it ever hath been and I hope it never will be practised But this I will say that according to this Doctrine it may be and consequently Juries may thereby be rendred rather a snare or engine of oppression than any advantage or Guardian of our Legal Liberties against Arbitrary Injustice and made meer properties to do the drudgery and bear the blame of unreasonable Prosecutions And since you seem so dull as not to perceive it let us put as Imaginary case not in the least to abet any irreverence towards his Majesty but only to explain the thing and shew the absurdness of this opinion Suppose then a man should be Indicted For that he as a false Traytor not having the fear of God before his eyes c. did trayterously presumptuously against his Allegiance and with an intent to affront his Majesties Person and Government pass by such or such a Royal Statue or Effigies with his hat on his head to the great contempt of His Majesty and his Authority the evil example of others against the Peace and his Majesties Crown and Dignity Being hereupon arraigned and having pleaded Not guilty suppose that sufficient evidence should swear the matter of Fact laid in the Indictment viz. That he did pass by the Statue or Picture with his hat on now imagine your self one of the Jury that were sworn to try him What would you do in the matter J. Do Why I should be satisfied in my Conscience That the man had not herein committed any crime and so I would bring him in not Guilty B. You speak as any honest man would do But I hope you have not forgot the point we were upon suppose therefore when you thought to do thus the Court or one of your Brethren should take you up and tell you That it was out of your power so to do For look ye saith he my Masters An ordinary Jury-man's wise Speech we Jury-men are only to find matter of Fact which being fully prov'd as in this case before us it is we must find the party Guilty whether the thing be Treason or not does not belong to us to inquire 't is said so here you see in the Indictment and let the Court look to that they know