Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	king_n	lord_n	treason_n	2,059	5	9.0913	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63138	The tryal and condemnation of Capt. Thomas Vaughan for high treason in adhering to the French-king and for endeavouring the destruction of His Majesties ships in the Nore who upon full evidence was found guilty at the Sessions-House in the Old-Baily, on the 6th of Novemb. 1696 : with all the learned arguments of the King's and prisoners council, both of	Vaughan, Thomas, 1669?-1696, defendant.; Murphy, John, d. 1696.	1697 (1697)	Wing T2136; ESTC R5441	51,400	53

Irish man and born in Galloway he has often discoursed with him about his Country and he told him that he was an Irish man and born at Galloway Then you hear what a Letter is produced writ to Cray when he was to come upon his Tryal he mentions what his Defence was and that it was impossible that any could do him any harm but he and two more Cray Swears it is his Hand that he hath seen him write and he belives it is his Hand Then there is a Gentleman Mr. Rivet that came here by chance who is a Galloway man he saith he knew the Prisoner's Father who was reputed to come thither about the time of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1641. and lived at Galloway and that this Prisoner Mr. Vaughan was his Son and he knew him of a Child was well acquainted with him lived hard by him remembers him an Apprentice in Galloway and tells you to whom and says he is sure this is the very man and that he saw the Prisoner in 1691 about the time of the Reduction of Galloway and he is confident that the Prisoner is the Son of John Vaughan at Galloway and he gives you a particular account of him and his Family viz. of the Reputation and Manner of living of his Father and what other Brothers he had so that there is no Objection against his Credit and it is hard to believe since he is so positive and circumstantial that he can be mistaken But the Prisoner and his Council have endeavoured to answer all this Evidence and first they have called Cray's Brother to prove that he is an ill man for that he came into this Town where his Brother lives who subsisted him and took him to his House and one day when he and his Wife went abroad he made bold with some of his Money but they thought the Maid had it and he charged her with it but to his Satisfaction it did afterwards appear that David had it Then there is another Christopher Hyden Christopher Cray's Servant who says he heard D. Cray say he was forc'd to be an Evidence against Vaughan to save himself and that he used to threaten his Brother that if he would not give him more Money he would swear against him Bryan saith much to the same purpose These are produced to take off the Credit of D. Cray's Testimony But then Gentlemen as to the place of the Prisoner's birth two other Witnesses are produc'd to give you Satisfaction that this Capt. Vaughan was not the Son of that Mr. Vvughan of Galloway whose Evidence I will open to you and then you will see how coherent they are in their Testimony The first is Creighton a Shoemaker he says he knew Thomas Vaughan the Son of John Vaughan of Galloway about ten years since he was a Galloway man bred and lived the next door to John Vaughan that had a Son Thomas He says he has been here about ten years in England He says he thinks that Thomas Vaughan the Son of John Vaughan was about the Age of fifteen years but that this Prisoner is not he for that Thomas Vaughan was disfigured with the Small-pox he remembred him well he had reason for it for he once basted him soundly and that he went away from Galloway when he was about fifteen years of Age and was reported to be dead and if it were so this Prisoner cannot be the Person The other Witness is as positive as Creighton for he saith He knew this John Vaughan of Galloway and his Son Thomas and that Thomas Vaughan Son of John Vaughan died about ten years since of the Small-pox So that they have found two Thomas Vaughans one tells you of one that was fifteen years old and was disfigured with the Small-pox and the other tells you of Thomas Vaughan who died of the Small-pox when he was ten years of Age. You are therefore to consider the Evidence on both sides The Question principally is Whether the Prisoner be a Subject of the King of England If you are satisfied that he is not an English Subject but a French man then he is not Guilty of this High-Treason but if you are satisfied by the series of the whole Evidence that he is an Irish man and that he had a Commission from the French King and that he cruized upon our English Coasts in Company with the King's Enemies with a design to take burn or destroy any of the King 's or his Subjects Ships you are to find him Guilty of High-Treason whereof he stands Indicted otherwise you are to acquit him Cl. of Arr. Swear an Officer to keep the Jury which was done After a short stay the Jury returned into Court and gave in their Verdict Cl. of Arr. Gentlemen answer to your Names E. Leeds Mr. Leeds Here. Cryer Vous avez and so of the rest Cl. of Arr. Gentlemen Are you all agreed of your Verdict Jury Yes Cl. of Arr. Who shall say for you Jury Our Foreman Cl. of Arr. Thomas Vaughan hold up thy Hand Which he did Look upon the Prisoner How say you Is he Guilty of the High-Treason whereof he stands Indicted or not Guilty Foreman Guilty Cl. of Arr. What Goods or Chattels Lands or Tenements had he at the time of the Treason committed Foreman None to our knowledge Cl. of Arr. Then hearken to your Verdict as the Court hath Recorded it You say that Thomas Vaughan is Guilty of the High-Treason whereof he stands Indicted but that he had no Goods or Chattels Lands or Tenements at the time of the High-Treason committed or at any time since to your knowledge and so you say all Jury Yes Tho. Vaughan My Lord let me beg one Favour that I may be used like a Gentleman that I may be sent to a Chamber and not to a Dungeon and that my Friends may come to me L. C. J. Holt. Captain Vaughan they say you once made an escape and therefore the Keeper must keep you with Humanity but with all Security Tho. Vaughan I desire that I may be kept like a Christian. L. C. J. Holt. The Keeper must do his Duty Cl. of Arr. Thomas Vaughan hold up thy Hand which he did Thou standest Convicted of high-High-Treason against our Sovereign Lord the King What hast thou to say for thy self why Judgment should not pass against thee to dye according to the Law Tho. Vaughan I am altogether a Stranger to the Law my Lord I refer my self to my Council L. C. J. Holt. Well then you refer your self to your Council You have had a fair Tryal and have no reason to complain of it If your Council have any thing to say in arrest of Judgment they shall be heard Mr. Phipps My Lord the Indictment has two sorts of Treason laid in it the one for adhering to the King's Enemies the other levying of War and with submission I take it that the first is not well laid for it says that the Prisoner did adhere

them to go and accept a Commission and enter into their Ships of War and List themselves and go out in order to destroy their Fellow-Subjects and ruine the King's Ships these are Actings of an Hostile nature And it this be not adhering c. it may as well be said That if the same Persons had made an attack upon our Ships and miscarried in it that had not been so neither because that in an unprosperous attempt there is nothing done that gives aid or comfort to the Enemy And after this kind of Reasoning they will not be Guilty till they have Success and if they have Success enough it will be too late to question them Mr. Phipps Intending to levy War is not Treason unless a War be actually levied L. C. J. Treby Is it not actual levying of War if they actually provide Arms and levy Men and in a Warlike manner set out and cruize and come with a design to destroy our Ships Mr. Phipps It would not be an actual levying of War unless they commit some Act of Hostility L. C. J. Holt. Yes indeed the going on Board and being in a posture to attack the King's Ships As to the fault you find with the Indictment there is a fault but not in point of Law they might have laid it more generally so as to have given more Evidence Mr. Bar. Powis However it is well enough But for you to say because they did not actually fight it is not a levying of War Is it not plain what they did intend That they came with that intention that they came in that Posture that they came Armed and had Guns and Blunderbusies and surrounded the Ship twice they came with an armed Force that is a strong Evidence of the design L. C. J. Holt. You would make no Act to be aiding and assisting but fighting Mr. Phipps Then next I am in your Lordships Judgment whether the Statute of 28 of Hen. the 8 th by which Captain Vaughan is tried is in force and be not repealed by the first and second of Philip and Mary which saith that all Tryals in Cases of Treason shall be at the Common-Law Now by the Common-Law before the Statute 28 Hen. 8. Treason done upon the Sea was tried before the Admiral or his Lieutenant and my Lord Coke in the 12 Rep. in the Case of the Admiralty saith the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty is by the Common-Law By the Statute 33 Hen. 8. Treason confessed before three of the Privy-Council might be tried in a foreign County but that Statute is repealed by the Statute 1 and 2 of Philip and Mary for by the Statute 33 Hen. 8. c. 4 Treason committed in trales might be tried in what County the King would assign but since the Statute of Philip and Mary it must be in the proper County so that we are in your Lordship's Judgment whether the Statute of 28 Hen. 8. be in force and whether since the Statute of 1 and 2 Philip and Mary Treasons done upon the Sea ought not to be tried before the Admirals or anciently at the Common-Law L. C. J. Holt. This is Treason by the Common Law and the Trial is by the Method of the Common-Law Mr. Phipps 'T is true that my Lord Coke and other Authorities say That the Statute 35 Hen. 8. for trying Treasons committed beyond Sea is not repealed by the Statute of 1 and 2 Philip and Mary but they do not say that this Statute is not repealed by the Statute of Philip and Mary and the Books being silent in this is the reason why I propose this Question for your Lordship's judgment L. C. J. Holt. It is no more a Question than the Tryals of foreign Treason and then the Determination of the Tryals upon the 35 th determines the Question upon this Dr. Oldys We must have two Witnesses by the Rules of the Civil-Law an extrajudicial saying of a Party may be retracted by them at any time that is the Civil-Law and so there can be out one Witness L. C. J. Holt. That is not the Law of England Dr. Oldys I do humbly conceive that the Civil-Law is not taken away in this Case for though the Statute prescribes the form of Proceedings according to the Rules of the Common-Law yet as to the Crimes and Proofs the Civil-Law is still in force and then the Party may retract his Confession in Judgment much more any extrajudicial saying Mr. Whitaker You are arraigning the Verdict L. C. J. Holt. That you should have taken notice of before the Verdict was given But we think there is no danger in hearing this Objection because it is so easily answered How many Witnesses were to the Confession Sir Ch. Hedges We are not in a Court that proceeds according to the strict Rules of the Civil-Law but if we were that Law is not so absurd as to allow that a Party may retract his Confession at any time so as to make it have no effect Dr. Oldys There must be two Witnesses at any time Sir Ch. Hedges So there are here to the Confession but you mistake if you think that every particular is to be proved strictly as the Civil Law requires for the end of the Statute which directs the Proceedings of this Court was to facilitate the Method of making Proofs that being sound difficult by the course of the Civil-Law and therefore was that Statute made as plainly appears by the Preamble thereof Dr. Oldys There is a new Statute that revives that Statute again and that requires two Witnesses whereby 't is reduced to the Rules of the Civil-Law again L. C. J. Holt. Two Witnesses there must be but then consider it is not necessary to have two to every individual Overt-Act For suppose there be two Overt-Act laid in the Indictments for one species of Treason Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King if there be one Witness that he bought a Dagger and said he would kill the King and he is seen it may be going to the King's Bedchamber with the Dagger another Witness says he said he would kill the King with a Pistol and bought a Pistol and he stood waiting to kill the King as he came by that is another Overt-Act of the same Treason If one Witness prove one and another Witness prove the other this is sufficient Proof with us Dr. Oldys It is another Question Whether he be a Subject L. C. J. Holt. That is not an Overt-Act if there be one Witness to that it is enough there needs not two Witnesses to prove him a Subject but upon the Tryal there were above two Witnesses to prove it There was Crittenden the Marshal of Dover Cray and Rivet I must tell you as to the Doctrine of the Civil-Law it is not universally received in all Countries it is received in several Countries as they find it Convenient and not as Obligatory in it self Dr. Oldys Yes in all places as to Proof for 't is the Law of God and

Nations Ex ore duorum vel trium c. And one Witness is no Witness Sir Ch. Hedges Two Witnesses may be necessary to convict a Man of any capital Crime but then it doth not follow that there must be two Witnesses to prove every particular Fact and Circumstance In this point touching the Place of the Nativity of Thomas Vaughan Was there not sufficient in his own Confession together with the other Proofs on the King's behalf to throw the burden of Proof upon the Prisoner You your selves seem to have been of that Opinion you undertook to prove it and 't is you that have failed in that particular L. C. J. Holt. Our Tryals by Juries are of such Consideration in our Law that we allow their Determination to be the best and most advantagious to the Subject and therefore less Evidence is required than by the Civil-Law So said Fortescue in his Commendation of the Laws of England Dr. Oldys Because the Jury are the Witnesses in reality according to the Laws of England being presumed to be ex vicineto but when it is on the High and Open Seas they are not then presumed to be ex vicineto and so must be instructed according to the Rules of the Civil-Law by Witnesses Mr. Bar. Powis This is not a Tryal by the Civil-Law for that Statute was made to avoid the Niceties of your Law Mr. J. Eyers He is tryed with like Evidence as in other Cases of High-Treason Dr. Oldys No the late Act requires two Witnesses Cl. of Arr. Make Proclamation of silence Cryer All manner of Persons are Commanded to keep silence while Judgment is giving upon pain of Imprisonment And then Judgment was given according as the Law directs in Cases of high-High-Treason An Abstract of the Tryal of John Murphey for High-Treason c. John Murphey being Indicted for High-Treason the Twelve Gentlemen following were sworn upon the Jury for his Tryal Nathaniel Long John Eure John Child Thomas Clarke Thomas Batem●n Henry Trye John Morewood Nicholas Greenway Samuel Jackson John Hall John Collumn Roger Mott. Then Mr. Whitaker one of the King's Councel opened the Indictment after which Dr. Nuton one of the King's Advocates spoke as follows JOhn Murphey of Cork in the Kingdom of Ireland born a Subject of this Kingdom and therefore owing Allegiance and Service to his King and Country stands Indicted for Adhering to Aiding and Comforting His Majesties Enemies and likewise for levying of War in Assisting the French King the Greatest the most Inveterate and the most Dangerous Enemy of our King our Nation our Religion and the common Liberty of Europe in an Unjust Cruel and long War against his King and Country that King who Heads the League against the common Oppressor of Christendom and the Country whose Forces and Reputation support that League and this with a design only to rob and spoil which is the Meanest part of the War but withal the most Mischievous to the Innocent and Trading Subjects being on Board a French Privateer called The Nostre Dame de bon Novelle and Fighting in her for though the coming with such a design and the being in a Vessel under a French Commission was Criminal and must have met with since it deserved the same Punishment yet this was put in Execution too by the the Taking the Joseph and Isaac of London on the Twentieth of March last to the Terrour and the Impoverishment of many of his Fellow-Subjects which justifies their Complaint and this publick Prosecution of the State for the bringing him to Justice And then the Witnesses for the King were called and being Examined together with several others on the behalf of the Prisoner it appeared to the Jury that the said Murphey being an Irish Man and his Majesties Subject did Traiterously adhere unto and assist the French King in a French Ship called The Nostre Dame de bon Novelle and in Taking and Securing therewith a Ship called The Joseph and Isaac of London belonging to English Subjects And thereupon he was found Guilty and received Sentence of Death as in Cases of High-Treason THE COMMISSION OF Capt. Tho. Vaughan Which he had by Order of the FRENCH KING LEWIS ALEXANDER of Bourbon Earl of Toulouse Duke of Amville Commander of the King's Orders Governor and Lieutenant-General for His Majesty in the Province of Britany Peer and Admiral of France To all those who shall see these present Letters Greeting The King having Declared War against His Catholick Majesty the Favourers of the of the Crowns of England and Scotland and the Estates of the United Provinces for the Reasons contained in the Declarations Published by His Majesty throughout the Extent of His Kingdom Countries Lands and Lordships under His Obedience and His Majesty having Commanded Us to take care that the said Declarations be observed in what doth depend upon the Power and Authority which His Majesty hath been pleased to commit to Our said Charge of Admiral We have according to the express Orders of His said Majesty given Leave Power and Permission to THOMAS VAUGHAN living at Bulloigne to arm and set forth in Warlike Manner a Bark called The Loyal Clencarty of the Burthen of Ten Tuns or thereabouts which is at present in the Port of Bulloigne with such Number of Men Cannons Bullets Powder Shot and other Ammunitions of War and Provisions which are Necessary to set her out to Sea in a Condition to sail and cruize upon the Pirates and others without Commission as also upon the Subjects of His Catholick Majesty the Estates of the United Provinces the Favourers of the of the Crowns of England and Scotland and other Enemies of this Estate in what Places soever he can meet them whether it be upon the Coasts of their Country in their Ports or Rivers also upon their Shores or Places where the said Captain THOMAS VAUGHAN shall think fit to land to annoy the said Enemies and there to make use of all the Means and Arts permitted and used by the Laws of War to take them and bring them Prisoners with their Ships Arms and other Things in their Possession Provided the said VAUGHAN shall keep and cause those of his Crew to keep the Maritime Orders and that he shall carry during his Voyage the Flag and Ensign of the King's Arms and of Ours and cause the present Commission to be Registred in the Registry of the nearest Admiralty where he shall be Equipped and leave there a Roll Signed and Certified by him containing the Names and Surnames the Births and Residence of his Crew and make his return to the said Place or some other Port of France and make his Report before the Officers of the Admiralty and no others of what shall have happened during his Voyage and give Us Advice thereof and send his said Report to the Secretary-General of the Marine with the Papers justifying the same that We may give such Orders thereupon as may be Necessary And We pray and require