Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n
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
|
which the Court adjourned and the Lords sent a Message to the Commons that they had ordered the Prisoner to the Bar again on Monday morning at 10 a Clock The sixth Day MOnday December 6. 1680. about 11 the Court being sat and the Prisoner at the Bar his Petition was read which was for leave to offer a few things more to clear himself and which the Ld. H. Steward told him the Lords had granted He then said that seeing he had received their Order that his Counsel should not be heard touching the continuance of Impeachments from Parliament to Parliament he desired that he might offer them his own Conceptions concerning that urging that they had not yet declared their own Judgments either as to that or whether they did acquiesce in the Judges Opinions praying that his Counsel might be heard as to the other points protesting his own Innocency and Abhorrency of Treason reading then his Case and repeating his Defence c. After which the Lords adjourned into the Parliament Chamber and the Commons returned to their House and received a Message from the Lords that they had ordered the Prisoner to the Bar to receive Judgment to morrow at 10. The seventh Day TUesday December 7 1680. About 11 the Court being sat the Ld. H. Steward took the Votes of the Peers upon the Evidence beginning at the Puisne Baron and so upwards in order the Lord Stafford being as the Law required absent The Ld. H. Steward began then saying My Lord Butler of VVeston Is VVilliam Lord Viscount Stafford Guilty of the Treason whereof he stands impeached or not Guilty Lord Butler Not Guilty upon my Honour The same Question was put to the rest whose Names and Votes follow Ld. Arundel of Trerice Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Crewe Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Cornwallis Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Holles Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. VVootton Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Rockingham Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Lucas Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Astley Guilty upon my Honour Ld. VVard Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Byron Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Hatton Not Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Leigh Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Herbert of Cherbury Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Howard of Escrick Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Maynard Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Lovelace Guilty upon my Honour Ld. Deincourt Not guilty upon my Honour Ld. Grey of Wark Guilty upon my honour Ld. Brook Guilty upon my honour Ld. Norreys Not guilty upon my honour Ld. Chandos Guilty upon my honour Ld. North and Grey Guilty upon my honour Ld. Paget Guilty upon my honour Ld. Wharton Guilty upon my honour Ld. Eure Guilty upon my honour Ld. Cromwel Guilty upon my honour Ld. VVindsor Not guilty upon my honour Ld. Conyers Guilty upon my honour Ld. Ferrers Not guilty upon my honour Ld. Morley Not guilty upon my honour Ld. Mowbray Not guilty upon my honour Ld. Viscount Newport Guilty upon my honour Ld. Visc Faulconberg Guilty upon my honour Earl of Conway Guilty upon my honour E. of Berkley Not guilty upon my honour E. of Maclesfield Guilty upon my honour E. of Hallifax Not guilty upon my honour E. of Feversham Not guilty upon my honour E. of Sussex Guilty upon my honour E. of Guilford Guilty upon my honour E. of Shaftesbury Guilty upon my honour E. of Burlington Guilty upon my honour E. of Ailesbury Not guilty upon my honour E. of Craven Not guilty upon my honour E. of Carlisle Guilty upon my honour E. of Bath Not guilty upon my honour E. of Essex Guilty upon my honour E. of Clarendon Not guilty upon my honour E. of St. Albans Not guilty upon my honour E. of Scarsdale Guilty upon my honour E. of Sunderland Guilty upon my honour E. of Thanet Not guilty upon my honour E. of Chesterfield Not guilty upon my honour E. of Carnarvan Not guilty upon my honour E. of Winchelsea Guilty upon my honour E. of Stamford Guilty upon my honour E. of Peterborough Not guilty upon my honour E. of Rivers Guilty upon my honour E. of Mulgrave Guilty upon my honour E. of Barkshire Guilty upon my honour E. of Manchester Guilty upon my honour E. of Westmoreland Guilty upon my honour E. of Clare Guilty upon my honour Earl of Bristol Guilty upon my honour E. of Denbeigh Not guilty upon my honour E. of Northampton Guilty upon my honour E. of Leicester Guilty upon my honour E. of Bridgwater Guilty upon my honour E. of Salisbury Guilty upon my honour E. of Suffolk Guilty upon my honour E. of Bedford Guilty upon my honour E. of Huntington Guilty upon my honour E. of Rutland Not guilty upon my honour E. of Kent Guilty upon my honour E. of Oxford Guilty upon my honour Ld. Chamberlain Not guilty upon my honour Marquess of Worcester Not guilty upon my honour D. of Newcastle Not guilty upon my honour D. of Monmouth Guilty upon my honour D. of Albemarle Guilty upon my honour D. of Buckingham Guilty upon my honour Ld. Privy-Seal Guilty upon my honour Ld. President Guilty upon my honour Ld. H. Steward Guilty upon my Honour Prince Rupert Duke of Cumberland Guilty upon my Honour The Ld. H. Steward then declared that upon telling the Votes he found there were 31 that think the Prisoner Not Guilty and 55 that have found him Guilty Whereupon the Prisoner was brought to the Bar and the Ld. High Steward informing him the Lords had found him Guilty He said God's Holy Name be praised for it confessing it surpriz'd him for he did not expect it and that he had only this to say for suspending of Judgment That he did not hold up his Hand at the Bar which he conceived he ought to have done and that though he was tried upon the Act of 25. Edw. 3. yet there being nothing more in that Act than what is included in the Act of the 13th of this King he ought only to lose his Seat in Parliament which was the Punishment there put down for a Peer submitting to their Lordships and desiring their Judgments in these Points Then the Lords Adjourned into the Parliament-Chamber and the Committee of Commons returned to their own House and the Speaker having re-assumed the Chair the whole Body of the House went with their Speaker to the Bar of the House of Lords to demand Judgment of High-Treason against William Viscount Stafford upon the Impeachment of the Commons of England in Parliament in the Name of the Commons in Parliament and of all the Commons of England Then the Commons with their Speaker went back to their House Then the Lords took into Consideration what Judgment was to be given and it was moved that he might be beheaded After some Debate the Judges were asked Whether if any other Judgment than the usual Judgment for High-Treason were given upon him it would attaint his Blood The Judges were of Opinion that the Judgment for High-Treason appointed by Law is to
where the Case was evident But this Court he took to be of the same Nature though of a Degree higher with the other Ordinary Courts of Judicature where there could be no Adjournment after Evidence given But for satisfaction the Judges were ordered to withdraw to Consult which they did and then the Lords Nottingham and Falconbridge moved that the Peers ought to be the Judges hereof because it concerned their Priviledg and so it was also permitted for them to withdraw And after about half an hour the Judges returned and after an Hour the Peers And then the Ld. Ch. Justice Herbert deliver'd the Opinion of the Judges that this Matter being wholly new to them they could not determin but only tell what the Law was in Inferiour Courts in Cases of the like Nature and the Reason of the Law in those Points and then leave the Jurisdiction of this Court to its proper Judges After which the Ld. H. Steward told them he was the only Judg of that Court and therefore he was to determin it shewing of what ill Consequence the Adjournment of the Court might prove if it should happen to be illegal and therefore he ordered the Prisoner to proceed The Lord Delamere therefore did begin his Defence in Protesting his Innocency and Reflecting on the Loyalty of his Family particularly his Father who had been so signally instrumental in the Restoration of the Royal Family that the late King caused it to be inserted in the Patent which created his Father a Peer which Clause he read out of the Patent to the Court. And as to the Evidence against him he observed that it was all but Circumstantial and by hear-say only except that of Saxon's and therefore he apply'd himself particularly against that and called his Witnesses Mr. Richard Hall testify'd how in 1683 Saxon counterfeited a Letter in the Name of one Richard Hildage to him for 6 l. which he ow'd him and Saxon brought the letter and received the Mony and afterwards Hildage demanded the Mony denying that he ever writ for it Mr. Francis Ling declared how this Saxon received 25 s. at this same Hildage's at Newcastle for Mrs. Wibbram without her order nor did she ever receive any of it Richard Shaw declared how he also forg'd a Letter in William Paugston a Bayliffs Name and sent it to him because he owed him a little Mony Peter Hough declared how Saxon cheated him in making him of a Bond for 20 s. less than was due from Saxon to him reading it false to him at the sealing Edward Wilkinson declared that Saxon hired his Horse June 23d last for only three days at 12 Pence a Day but he never came again nor had he had any satisfaction for his Horse it being supposed this was the Horse he rid into the Rebellion with William Wright said he had dealings with Saxon but never found him so good as his Word Then the Prisoner went off from this part of the Evidence to prove that neither Sir Robert Cotton nor Mr. Offley Crew nor himself were in Cheshire at that time Saxon had sworn he saw them at Mere together And to this end one Billing Margaret Davis Mrs. Sidney Lane Charles Reeves Mr. Ashburnham Sir William Twisden and Mr. Heveningham did all sufficiently testify that Sir Robert Cotton was in Town about that time and some of them being his own Servants that he was never in Cheshire since April 6th last nor never out of London till after June As to Mr. Offley Crew Sir Willoughby Aston declared every day particularly where he was from May 26. to June the 4th on which day he went from Sir Willoughby's House homeward Mr. Gregory and Thomas Kid his Servants testifyed that he went directly Home to Crew-Hall in Cheshire that Night and was not at Mere it not being in his way at all As to the Prisoner himself Mr. Booth one of his Brother's declared that he saw his Brother in Town June 3 4 5 6 and so on to June 10. till he went out of Town himself And another of his Brothers Mr. George Booth said he saw him in Town the 4th And the Lord Lovelace testified that he saw him the 5th of June in the House of Lords at the Lord Macclesfield's Trial against Mr. Fitton After it was thus cleared that none of them 3 were where Saxon had sworn they were at that time the Prisoner shew'd the incredibility of his Evidence and proceeded to give an account of his going down so often and so speedily That the first time he went which was betwixt the Coronation and the fitting of the Parliament was to take Possession of a Lease worth 6 or 7000 l. renewed to him by the Bishop of Chester of whose illness he had notice and this he proved by Mr. John Edmonds who said he was a Witness of his taking possession May 5th and by Mr. Henry who was Attorny and delivered him Possession at the same time And for his going out of Town May 27th the occasion of it was to see a sick Child of his and he went so suddenly and privately because he heard there was a Warrant out to apprehend him But while he was at Mere his Wife sent him an Express that as to the Warrant she hoped it was a Mistake but that his eldest Son was very ill and if he intended to see him alive he must make hast up He came but to his House in Cheshire on Sunday May 31. Whence he came on Tuesday morning June 2d and on Wednesday the 3d he was in Town To prove all this Mrs. Kelsey who was his Servant said my Lord told her there was a Warrant out for him which occasioned his coming and moreover his Childs illness The Lady Delamere his Mother testified the illness of his Child in the Country Mr. Kelsey testified his coming to Mere on Sunday Night and going thence on Tuesday Morning and that he had Letters dated June 4. which gave an account my Lord got to London the Night before And Sir Thomas Millington testified the illness of his Son in Town on May 28. he being sent for to him and remembring the time by the date of his Bills After this the Prisoner summ'd up his Evidence and concluded very handsomly and judiciously his Excellent Defence Then Mr. Sol. Gen. having summ'd up the Evidence and the Lord High Steward speaking a few words to this Point of Law which the Prisoner in his Defence seemed to urge That there is a necessity of two Positive Witnesses to convict a Man of Treason and shewing his Mistake about it The Peers withdrew for about half an hour the Prisoner being taken into a little Room appointed for him at the entrance into the Court and then being returned their appearance was took by a Serjeant at Arms and their Verdict took by the Lord H. Steward Seriatim beginning with the Puisne Peer who all declared the Prisoner Not Guilty upon their Honour's Which the Lord H. Steward acquainted him