Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	charles_n	esq_n	thomas_n	10,340	5	9.6402	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89976	An exact abridgment of all the trials (not omitting any material passage therein) which have been published since the year 1678 relating to the popish, and pretended Protestant-plots in the reigns of King Charles the 2d, and King James the 2d.	P. N.	1690 (1690)	Wing N64A; ESTC R229644	248,177	499

1684. was brought from thence by Habeas-Corpus to the Bar at the King's-Bench at Westminster where being Arraign'd he was told of his being Indicted and Outlaw'd and thereby Attainted for High-Treason and ask'd what he had to say why Execution should not be awarded against him upon that Attainder To which be reply'd that since he had made an Ingenuous Confession to his Majesty of all that he knew of any manner of Conspiracy against him he hoped That would render him Capable of Mercy and Pardon Upon which the Attorny-General offer'd him a Trial that if he had any thing to say he Defend himself from the Indictment but he Confessing himself Guilty of many things therein declin'd it and threw himself wholly upon the King's Mercy But the Court telling him that the King was the Dispenser of his own Mercy and that they were only to Execute his Justice gave a Rule for his Execution upon Wednesday Sevennight after there being no other Judgment to be pronounced in such Cases as the Court told the Attorny-General when he moved for it the Outlawry it self being the Judgment Which accordingly was Executed upon him on Wednesday the 30th of April 1684. at Tyburn Proceedings in the Court of King's-Bench against Sir Thomas Armstrong June 14. 1684. Sir George Jefferies being Lord Chief Justice SIR Thomas Armstrong Kt. was upon the 14th of June 1684. brought by a Writ of Habeas-Corpus from Newgate to the Bar of the Court of King's-Bench at Westminster and there Arraign'd upon an Outlawry of High-Treason for conspiring the Death of the King c. And being ask'd what he had to say for himself why Sentence should not be awarded against him upon that Attainder pleaded his being beyond-Sea at the time of the Outlawry and desired to be tried upon the Indictment Which the Court refusing to grant him he pleaded the Statute of the 6th of Edw. the 6th which gives the Person Outlaw'd a Year's time to reverse the Outlawry and desired it might be read which accordingly was done But it appearing by the Statute That the Person Outlaw'd ought to render himself to the Chief Justice of England within a Year's time Sir Thomas was told this did not concern him for he had not rendred himself but was taken and brought thither against his Will To which he answered That the Year was not then expir'd fie was there and did now render himself and pray'd Counsel might be assign'd him to argue it in Point of Law but the Court over-rul'd him in it telling him There was no such Doubt or Difficulty in the Matter as to need any such thing Upon which insisting much upon his Innocency and offering to make proof of it if he might be admitted to a Trial he produc'd Holloway's Case as a Precedent for it who had but a little before been offer'd it at the same Place but the Court told him that what had been done therein was meerly from the King's Grace and Mercy and that the King might extend the same Mercy to him also if he so pleas'd but since he had not done so and it not being their Business they must proceed to award Execution upon the Outlawry Upon which Mrs. Matthews Daughter to the Prisoner call'd out to the Court not to Murder her Father For which the Chief Justice caus'd her to be committed to the Marshal and accordingly she wishing that God Almighty's Judgments might light upon them was carried away the Chief Justice saying That he thanked God he was Clamour-proof After which the Attorn Gen. offered to shew the Reasons why the King extended that Grace to Holloway but ought not to extend it to Sir T.A. as not at all deserving any sort of Indulgence or Mercy but that having relation to the Evidence and not to the Outlawry the Court refus'd to hear any thing of it and so proceeded to give a Rule for his Execution the Friday following telling him upon his earnest pressing to have the Benefit of the Statute he had cited the he should have the Full Benefit of the Law And accordingly on Friday the 20th of June he was Executed at Tyburn Mrs. Matthews upon a Petition being before releas'd out of Custody without Fees The Trial between Sir William Pritchard Kt. and Alderman of the City of London Plaintiff and Thomas Papillon Esq Defendant in an Action upon the Case at the Sessions of Nisi Prius holden for the Court of Kings-Bench at the Guild-hall in the City of London on Thursday the 6th of November in Michaelmas Term in the 36th Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second 1684. Before Sir George Jefferies Kt. and Baronet then Lord Chief Justice of the said Court of Kings-Bench SIR William Pritchard late Lord Mayor of the City of London having in Easter Term last brought an Action upon the Case for falsly maliciously and without probable cause procured him to be arrested and imprisoned in his Mayoralty against Thomas Papillon Esq The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and thereupon issue being joined it came this day to be tried before the Lord Chief Justice Jefferys and the Jury sworn to try this Cause were these Bartholomew Ferryman Thomas Blackmore Thomas Symonds William Whatton John Green Thomas Amy Joseph Baggs Daniel Chandler John Reynalds John Allen Joseph Caine William Withers jun. Then Mr. Munday being of Counsel for the Plaintiff opened the Case to which Mr. Attorney General added something And then Mr. Solicitor General called Mr. Keeling who being sworn deposed That on April the 24th he being sent for by a Letter from Mr. Goodenough came to Mr. Russel's a Cooks-shop in Iron-monger-lane to meet him where were 30 or 40 Persons together By whom while he was gone for a little while his Name was put into a Warrant to be a special Bailiff to arrest the Lord Mayor which he seeming unwilling to do was urged thereto for fear of displeasing the Discontented Party which he said were such as he and the Goodenoughs were of even such as would have killed the King and the Duke that being prevailed upon he went along with the Coroner Mr. Burton and Mr. Francis Goodenough to Grocers-hall where Sir William Pritchard kept his Mayoralty to whom the Coroner came up and said he had a Warrant against him and therefore pray'd him to give an Appearance at the Suit of Mr. Thomas Papillon and another at the Suit of Mr. John Dubois whereupon some Words passed between them and the Lord Mayor refusing to give any Appearance the Coroner bid us execute our Warrants upon which he came up to the Lord Mayor and touched him upon the Shoulder telling him that he did arrest him at the Suit of Thomas Papillon Esq and one Ferdinando Burley arrested him then again at the Suit of Mr. John Dubois and then the Coroner dismissing them and taking the Lord Mayor into his own Custody he went thence to Sir Henry Tulse's and arrested him also Then Sir Henry Tulse being called and sworn deposed that about

endeavours to have over-ruled without so much as hearing the Prisoners Counsel for the maintaining it for that they said it was nought because it produced no Record of his Impeachment and did not specify what the High-Treason was for which he was Impeached and that the King had Power to proceed on an Impeachment or Indictment for the same thing at his Election Nevertheless the Attorny General demurred and the Prisoner joined in the Demurrer And then after much arguing a Day was given to argue the Plea till Saturday May. 7. At which time the Attorny General added to the Exceptions he took to the Plea Whether a Suit in a Superior Court can take away the Jurisdiction of the Cause of the Person and of the Fact at the time of the Fact committed To maintain the Plea Mr. VVilliams of Counsel for the Prisoner in a very long and learned Discourse first spoke stating the Prisoner's Case upon the Indictment the Plea to the Indictment and the Demurrer to the Plea Alledging the Difference of an Impeachment from an Indictment and offering some Reasons why this Court ought not to proceed upon this Indictment Then answering distinctly Mr. Attorney's Exceptions to the Plea producing some Presidents of this Courts Prosecution being stop'd by Pleas to the Jurisdiction shewing what had been done upon those Pleas What Doom they had Laying before the Court the Right of the Commons to Impeach in Parliament the Judicature of the Lords to determine that Impeachment and the Method and Proceedings of Parliament submitting it to them how far they would lay their Hands on this Case thus circumstantiated Here the Ld. Ch. Justice declared That all these Things were quite foreign to the Case and the Matter in Hand only was Whether this Plea as thus pleaded was sufficient to protect the Prisoner from being questioned in this Court for the Treasonable Matter in the Indictment before them To which Mr. VVilliams reply'd That 't was an hard matter for the Bar to answer the Bench. After which Sir Francis Winnington pleaded That he conceived that it was confessed by the Demurrer that there is an Impeachment by the Commons of England of High-Treason against Fitz-Harris lodged in the House of Lords Secundum Legem consuetudinem Parliamenti And that the Treason for which he was impeached is the same Treason contained in the Indictment So that now the general Question was Whether an Impeachment for Treason by the House of Commons and still depending were a sufficient Matter to oust the Court from proceeding upon an Indictment for the same Offence Which he learnedly endeavoured to make good by several Reasons as well as Presidents Mr. Wallop pleaded next on the same side whose Province was to prove That the Treason in the Impeachment and in the Indictment was the same and that this was well averred in the Plea Mr. Pollexfen pleaded That a general Impeachment in Parliament was a good Impeachment and the Judges had declared so to the King and Council concerning the five Popish Lords who could not therefore be tried upon Indictments so long as general Impeachments were depending for the same Treason and that therefore this Plea was good both as to Matter and Form c. In reply to vitiate the Plea it was insisted on by Mr. Attorn Gen. Mr. Sol. Gen. Serj. Jefferies and Sir Francis VVithens of Counsel for the King that the Plea concluded not in the usual Form That perhaps this Matter if the Prisoner had been acquitted upon the Impeachment might have been pleaded in Bar to the Indictment but it was not pleadable to the Jurisdiction of the Court That in the Case of the five Lords the Indictments were removed into the House of Lords and that the Judges Opinion given at the Council-Board was not a Judicial Opinion nor did any way affect this Cause After which the Ld. Ch. Justice thought fit not to give present Judgment but to take time for Deliberation Whereupon the Prisoner was carried back to the Tower And on Tuesday May 10. Mr. Attorney moved the Court to appoint a Day for their Judgment on the Plea and for Fitz-Harris to be brought up which they appointed to be the next Morning Accordingly on Wednesday Morning May 11. the Prisoner being brought to the Bar the Ld. Ch. Justice deliver'd the Opinion of the Court upon Conference had with other Judges That his Brother Jones his Brother Raymond and himself were of Opinion that the Plea was insufficient his Brother Dolben not being resolved but doubting concerning it and therefore awarded the Prisoner should plead to the Indictment which he did Not Guilty and his Trial ordered to be the next Term. The Trial of Edward Fitz-Harris at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster before the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton on Thursday June 9. 1681. THE Prisoner then and there appearing after several Challenges made for the King the Jury sworn were Thomas Johnson Lucy Knightly Edward Wilford Alexander Hosey Martin James John Viner William Withers William Cleave Thomas Goffe Ralph Farr Samuel Freebody John Lockier To whom the Indictment was read which was for High-Treason in conspiring the Death of the King and subversion of the Government the which Mr. Heath Serj. Maynard and Mr. Attorn Gen. opened And then Mr. Everard deposed How the Prisoner was with him on Monday Feb. 21. 1681. having a little before been with him to renew the Acquaintance which had been between them while they were both in the French King's Service and to perswade him to re-ingratiate himself into the French and Popish Interest and gave him by word of Mouth Heads to write a Pamphlet to scandalize the King raise Rebellion alienate the Hearts of the People and set them together by the Ears Whereupon he acquainted one Mr. Savile of Lincolns-Inn Mr. Crown Mr. Smith and Sir William Waller with it And the next day Mr. Fitz-Harris coming again to his Chamber in Grays-Inn he convey'd Mr. Smith into a Closet Sir William Waller failing to come where he both saw and heard the Prisoner ask him What he had done as to the Libel and give him further Instructions about what to write viz. That the King was Popishly Affected and Arbitrarily Inclined That King Charles the First had an Hand in the Irish Rebellion and King Charles the Second did countenance the same c. That the People should therefore be stirred up to rebel especially the City c. That the Day after he coming again he had convey'd Sir William Waller into the next Room where he also might both hear and see shewing him to Copies of what he had drawn up which he marked that he might know them again and see what alteration would be made That Fitz-Harris did them read one of the Copies and amended it adding some things and striking out other things saying The Libel was to be presented to the French Ambassador's Confessor and he was to present it to the French Ambassador and that it was to beget a