Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	john_n	knight_n	sir_n	20,604	5	7.8822	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46054	Ignoramus vindicated in a dialogue between prejudice and indifference touching the duty, power, and proceedings of juries : together with some material points relating thereunto / declared for law by the Right Honourable Sir John Vaughan ...	Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.	1681 (1681)	Wing I46; ESTC R34473	9,072	16

Ignoramus VINDICATED IN A DIALOGUE BETWEEN Prejudice and Indifference Touching the Duty Power and Proceedings of JURIES Together with some Material Points Relating thereunto declared for Law by the Right Honourable Sir John Vaughan Knight late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Indifference HOW go Causes now adays Monsieur Prejudice Prejudice Basely Roguishly Factiously Whiggishly not according to Evidence There are a sort of Folks call'd Ignoramus-men that refuse some times to find Bills though there be Positive Oaths before them Indiff That may be because perhaps Posiitive Oaths are not always true Evidence and therefore for ought I know these Folks may not be such Dishonest or such Ignoramusfollows as you take them for But Persons that have a due regard to their duty and the weight of their Office wherein other Mens Lives and their own Souls are concern'd and understand themselves so well as to know That they are Judges in some respect as of Law as well of Fact Pred How Juries Judges of Law that 's fine I saith Indiff How fine soever you think it 't is true I say in some respect For ex facto jus Oritur the Law arises out of and is complicated with the Fact and no Man can well and truly try and true deliverance make nor well and truly Inquire and Present Crimes without respect had to both of these and comparing one with the other 'T is true in difficult points Juries may and ought to crave the Advice and Opinion of the Judgess and so they have oft-times the Statutes read to them and to what purpose if not to judge of them and compare the matter with them But in Common Cases he is not fit to be a Grand-Jury-Man that does not understand the Nature of Offences by our Laws and to think that he is bound to find contrary to his Knowledge in such Cases is Absurd As suppose a Man should be Indicted of High-Treason for that he Traiterously Maliciously moved by the Instigation of the Devil had and kept an English Bible in his House Now let an hundred and fifty people swear positively the Fact viz. That he had such a Book in his Custody would you if you were a Grand-Jury-Man retorn this Indictment Billa vera and charge the poor Man upon your Oaths to answer for High Treason Prej. Well! This is nothing to my Business There was no doubt or scruple in the late Cases about matter of Law and though there were positive proofs as to Fact yet they did not find the Bills Indiff That possibly may be as I told you but now because such positive proof was no good Evidence for the Jury are Judges of Evidence or else they signifie no more than some would have them that is just nothing And therefore let Witnesses be never so Rampantly positive yet if the Jurors have good and sufficient Grounds not to believe them they will nay they must remain as Ignorant as before because there comes no credible proof to satisfie them who are upon their Oaths as well as the Winesses that the Party is Guilty of the Crime charg'd or ought to be put to Answer for the same For that in Law is called EVIDENCE by which we may Evidere quid sit Justum plainly see what is Just or as Cook 1. Instit fol. 283 saith it is called Evidence because thereby the matter is to be made Evident to the Jury Prej. Well for all your pratting I hope to see good Christian Juries once again amongst us Indiff What do you mean standing ones People that made a Trade on 't got a Livelyhood by the Groats and Sixteen Pences and now and then a good Dinner or small present by the by Fellows that were Indigent in Estates as Understandings That slept over an Evidence found Bills of Course Hang'd or Sav'd Pro-Plantiff'd or Pro-Defendanted it by pure chance Threw Dice for their Verdicts Esteem'd themselves Retorn'd and Sworn only to be the Courts Eccho's and thought it piacular not to encline that way the Judge Nodded his Reverend Head Prej. Better such say I than Ignoramus-men But I meant we shall have no Dissenters Jury-men for don't you know 't is a late Rul'd Case that such ought not to be Impannel'd Indiff I know no such matter however for ought I see 't is all one for lately when there was not one Dissenter there was as much Clamour as if they had been all so nor did I ever hear of any Law of England that excludes any Protestant from being a Jury-man because he is a Dissenter from or Non-frequenter of Church Ceremonies If qualified with Estate and Understanding For at that rate if Popery should ever get uppermost no Protestant at all would be capable of being a Jury-man because a Non-Conformist to Holy Church Old Lawyers tell us Vbi Lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus we never ought to put a difference where the Law puts none Now if no Statute excludes Protestants un-convict of any Crime or Dissenters Qua tales to serve on Juries I should think we ought to wait at least till an Act of Parliament be made to that purpose before we deny them Liberam Legem And to Act otherwise in my silly Opinion seems not only unwarrantable but a daring Usurpation of Legislative Power But what sentiments future Parliaments may have thereof Ignoramus But I pray what Reason can be assign'd to exclude them Prej. Reason stout and substantial because they are Breakers of the Law For can it be Rational to suffer one Breaker of the Law to give a Verdict against another Breaker of the Law for every Verdict of a Grand-Jury is a kind of Evidence against a Prisoner in order to Tryal or Discharge Indiff Well then if because they are Breakers of the Law they must be excluded let all Common Swearers Drunkards Profaners of the Lords Day c. be shut out for these are Law-breakers too To sell Claret is to Violate the Law Therefore no Vintner may be a Jury man if they could not be Captains neither what a sad case were we in Besides if to be Breakers of the Law disable men to be Jurors why should not the same take away the Credibility of a Witness So that it seems if none give Evidence to a Grand-Jury but such as are Law-Breakers they will have no Reason to Credit them and if they do not believe the Evidence what can they do but return an Ignoramus Prej. But how shall the Jury-men know the Witnesses are Law-Breakers Indiff Oh they have Engins call'd Interrogatives will do that feat as suppose a Person swears John a Stiles spoke such or such Treasonable Words the Grand-Jury ask when and he names Four or Five Months ago then they demand when he first discovered it to any Magistrate and he say but Two or Three days ago now is it not plain that here the Witness confesses himself a Breaker of the Law viz. Guilty of Misprision of Treason for concealing of

be rank Treason As if one should say to affirm the King has no more Right to the Crown of England than I have which is the Opinion of the Jesuits of his Majesty if once Excommunicated by the Pope Is detestable Treason And two Men at some distance not well hearing or remembring or maliciously designing against his Life should swear That he said the King had no more Right to the Crown than he had now that the Man did utter these very Words is true but if you ask the Evidence the rest of the Coloquium they shall tell you there was much more discourse but they cannot remember it what satisfaction is this to a Jury or would it not be hard for a man to be put to hold up his Hand at the Bar under the frightful charge of Treason in this Case Or if a Minister in his Sermon should recite that of the Psalms The Fool hath said in his Heart there is no God Jesuited Evidence now may come and charge him with Blasphemy and swear that he said there was no God and ask them what expressions besides he used may excuse themselves and say 't is a great while a go we cannot remember a whole Sermon but this we all positively swear-He said there was no God The Inquiry of a Grand-Jury should be suitable to their Title a Grand Inquiry else instead of serving their Country and presenting real Crimes they may oppress the Innocent as in the Case of Samuel Wright and John Good the very last Sessions Good Indicts Wright for Treasonable Words and swore the Words positively but after a Grand Inquiry the Grand-Jury found that Wright only spoke the Words as of others thus they say so and so and concluded with this They are Rogues for saying it And also Good at last confessed that Wright was his Master and corrected him for misdemeanors and then to be reveng'd he comes and swears against him which he confess'd he was Instigated to by one Powel so the Grand-Jury finding it to be but Malice returnd the Bill Ignoramus whereas if they had not Examined him strictly they had never discover'd the Intrigue and the Master had causelesly been brought to great Charge Ignominy and Hazard Prej. Well still I say Juries ought to go according to Evidence Ind. What is or is not sufficient Evidence to sway with the Consciences of a Jury they themselves are the only Judges Prej. You mightily magnifie Juries I 'le warrant you would have them sit with their Hats on Indiff Truely since they are a necessary part of every Court and have a Power vested in them by Law of determining the Lives and Estates of their Fellow Subjects I know not why they should sit creeping with Cap in Hand Nay I conceive when Grand-Juries are forc'd as of late for I know no antient precedents for it to heare and Examine Evidence in Court if they should put on their Hats the Court cannot by Law Fine them For by Immemorial Custom they have taken such Examinations sitting with their Hats on which Conciliated a respect to them from the Witnesses whereas if they sit in a Croud truckling like School-boys the Witnesses will not regard to Answer their Questions or Discover the Truth And the reason as I conceive why the Law provides that Grand-Juries should take Examinations in private is on purpose that Men or their Crimes might not be exposed before it appeared to a Grand Jury that the matter ought to be Publickly Tryed Whereas when they are compelled to take it in publick 't is a kind of Arraigning a Man before the Bill be found against him To what purpose is it for the Court to hear the Evidence given to the Grand-Jury the Jury are upon their Oaths and ought to follow the Dictates of their own belief and understanding the Court have nothing to do to meddle or interrupt For they are bound by the Verdict not by the Evidence Prej. Well but if the Jury goes contrary to Evidence cannot the Court Punish them Indiff Not at all the Law has provided no punishment and very reasonably For 't is impossible the Court can know that a Jury goes contrary to Evidence But to satisfie you fully as to the Law in this matter I shall here recite an Adjudged Case that of Bushel in the Two and Twentieth year of His Majesty reported by the Learned Sir John Vaughan whose Book is Licensed by the present Lord Chanceller the Lord Chief Justice North and all the Judges then in England the said Case begins fol. 135 and continues to 150. The whole well worth reading but I shall only select certain passages The Case was this Bushel and others of a Jury having at a Sessions not found Pen and Mead Two Quakers Guilty of a Traspass Contempt unlawful Assembly and Tumult whereof they had been Indicted were Fined Forty Pound a Man and Committed till they should pay it Bushel brings his Habeas Corpus and upon the return it appeared he was Committed For that contrary to Law and against full and clear Evidence openly given in Court and against the directions of the Court in mat-of Law they had acquited the said W. P. and W. M. to the great obstruction of Justice c. Which upon solemn Argument was by the Judges resolved to be an insufficiant cause of Fineing and Committing them and they were discharg'd and afterwards brought Actions for their Damage The Reasons of which Judgment are reported by Judge Vaughan and amogst them he useth these that follow which I shall give you in his own Words Fol. 140. One fault in the Retorn is That the Jurors are not said to have acquitted the Persons Indicted against full and manifest Evidence Corruptly and knowing the said Evidence to be full and manifest against the Persons Indicted for how manifest soever the Evidence was if it were not manifest to them and that they Believed it such it was not a Fineable fault nor deserving Imprisonment upon which difference the Law of punishing Jurors for false Verdicts principally depends And fol. 141. I would know whether any thing be more Common than for two Men Students Barristers or Judges to deduce contrary and opposite Conclusions out of the same Case in Law And is there any difference that two Men should infer distinct Conclusions from the same Testimony Is any thing more known than that the same Author and place in that Author is forceably urg'd to maintain contrary Conclusions and the Decision hard which is in the right Is any thing more frequent in the Controversies of Religion than to press the same Texts for opposite Tenets How then comes it to pass that two persons may not apprehend with Reason and Honesty what a Witness or many say to prove in the understanding of one plainly one thing but in the apprehension of the other clearly the contrary thing must therefore one of these Merit Fine and Imprisonment because he doth that which he cannot otherwise do preserving