Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	baronet_n	esq_n	sir_n	15,793	5	7.6495	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55933	The proceedings against the Right Honourable the Earl of Shaftsbury, at the Old Baily, on Thursday the twenty fourth of November, 1681 as they were taken by an impartial hand, and faithfully transmitted to every unbiassed reader : with sufficient reasons to justifie the Grand Jury in bringing in the Bill Ignoramus.	Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of, 1621-1683.; Philonomus.	1681 (1681)	Wing P3553A; ESTC R24477	15,222	20

THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE Earl of Shaftsbury AT THE OLD BAILY On Thursday the Twenty fourth of November 1681. As they were taken by an Impartial Hand and faithfully transmitted to every unbiassed Reader With Sufficient Reasons to justifie the Grand Jury in bringing in the Bill Ignoramus LONDON Printed for H. Jones 1681. At the Sessions at the Old Bayly on Thursday November the Twenty fourth 1681. held by Commission of Oyer and Terminer within Term. THE Commission being read the Pannel of the Grand Jury was read over which was as follows Sir Samuel Barnardiston Baronet John Mordant Esq Thomas Papillon Esq John Dubois Esq Charles Herle Edward Rudge Humphrey Edwyn John Morris Benjamin Godfrey Edmond Harrison Joseph Wright John Cox Matthew Gardiner excused Samuel Swynock excused Thomas Parker Leonard Robinson Thomas Sheppard John Polixfen out of Town John Flavell Michael Godfrey John Smith Joseph Richardson William Empson Andrew Kenrick John Lane Esq John Gardiner excused John Hall William Ashhurst Esq John Ellis Esq John Deagle Thomas Weston out of Town Andrew Bonnel Gabriel Whitley Thomas Carpenter Laurence Baskervill Marwood Denby Peter Houblon The Gentlemen that were sworn of this Jury were Twenty one whose Names are as follows Sir Samuel Barnardiston Baronet Foreman John Mordant Esq Thomas Papillon Esq John Dubois Esq John Herle Edward Rudge Humphrey Edwyn John Morris Edmond Harrison Joseph Wright John Cox Thomas Parker Leonard Robinson Thomas Sheppard John Flavell Michael Godfrey William Empson Andrew Kenrick Joseph Richardson John Lane Esq John Hall After they were sworn the Lord Chief-Justice Pemberton gave them their Charge which was to this effect That they were met here in one of the most Solemn Assemblies of this Nation That it was for the Execution of Justice upon Ossenders if found Guilty That the nature of the Commission whereby the Commissioners sate and the Grand Jury were summoned doth extend to all Offences whatsoever Treasons Misprisions of Treasons Felonies and all other Crimes and Offences against the King and Government in short all that are called Pleas of the Crown all these he told them fall under the Cognisance of the Commissioners and the Inquiry of the Grand Jury but did acquaint them That there was a particular Occasion for the Issuing out of the Commission at this time His Majesty having received an Information That there were some evil and most Traiterous Designs against His Person and Government He did therefore think fit to have a due Examination of them that so the Persons might be brought to condign Punishment if found guilty thereof He did farther acquaint them That they must not expect any Formal Charge from him he expecting that they had received their Directions before they came for that it had been the common Usage for the Grand Jury to be sworn and receive their Charge before His Majesties Justices came upon the Bench but since he found it otherwise he should not make any set formal Charge nor give any Account of all the Offences that fall under the Inquiry of the Grand Jury by such a Commission at Common Law neither must they expect that he should acquaint them with all the Crimes that they might inquire of but that it would be sufficient to tell them the particular Matter of which they were then to inquire and their Duty concerning that Inquiry He told them that he had hinted at first that they were Matters of High Treason which is a Crime of the highest nature that can be committed against Man That other Crimes as Felonies and things of that nature may make Disorders and Troubles in a State or Kingdom but that Treasons strike at the very Root and Life of all and are that which destroys the Government and therefore have in all Ages been looked upon as Crimes of the highest nature that can possibly be imagined and accordingly Punishments have been allotted to them of the greatest Severity He did further acquaint them That at the Common Law there were great variety of Opinions about Treason and that there had been many Disputes what was Treason and what was not and therefore it was thought fit by the Wisdom of our Ancestors to make a Law to declare what should be Treason which was done by the 25 Edw. 3. By that Law for any one to compass or imagine or intend the Death of the King for he told them he would mention no more of that Statute than was agreeable to the present purpose and to declare it by Overt-act as to levy War against the King and the like is declared among other things to be High Treason which Law hath obtain'd for Law amongst us ever since and that nothing had been accounted Treason but what was expressed in it unless upon some emergent Occasion and instanc'd in the Laws made in the time of Queen Elizabeth upon the occasion of that inveterate Malice that the Roman Catholicks bore her and likewise in that Law of the 13th of His now Majesty for the making whereof he told them the Parliament had great grounds as they declare in the Preamble of that Statute for that the Wounds the Kingdom had received were then bleeding and scarcely closed many Traiterous Positions and Seditious Principles spread amongst the People of this Realm and that they had good reason to believe that where they had been so maliciously bent against King Charles the First and had taken him off and had maintain'd so long and dangerous a War against Him and His now Majesty almost to the destruction of all our Liberties and Laws even to the utter overthrowing of this flourishing Kingdom they ought to be careful to prevent the like Mischiefs for the future and therefore did think fit whereas the Law before was That it should be Treason to conspire or to imagine or to intend the Death of the King so as it were declared by Overt-act now because it was dangerous to stay till an Overt-Act should declare the Intention for that they had proceeded so far as to take away one Kings Life and banish another and endeavour to root out the Government of this Kingdom and therefore did Enact by the said Statute of the 13th of His now Majesty That if any one shall compass imagine or intend the Death of the King or his Destruction or any Bodily harm that may tend to His Death and Destruction any restraint of His Liberty by Imprisonment or otherwise or if they shall design and intend to levy any War against Him either within the Realm or without or design or intend to procure any Foreign Prince or others to invade His Dominions and shall signifie and declare this by any Writing by any Printing by any Preaching or by any malicious and advised Speaking and uttering Words to the same intent and purpose this shall be High Treason which he told them had altered the Law in two Cases 1. As to levying War the Intention was not Treason before unless it took essect And 2. As

Being asked whether all the Witnesses were Examined before the Commitment He answered he did not know whether all or no but several of them were but how many he could not tell Then Booth was call'd for by the Jury but not appearing they said a Tipstaff was gone for him which gave occasion to Sir Samuel Barnardiston to ask whether he was a Prisoner or no to which the Attorny General replied yes for debt But at length he appeared and being asked what time it was that he had the discourse with my Lord Shaftsbury and where He answered at his own House a week or ten days before the Parliament sate at Oxford Being asked who was present he answered no body but my Lord and himself When he was asked how often he had been there he said five or six times Being asked how long it was after my Lord spoke the words before he discovered them he said seven Weeks Being asked whether he was Examined before his Commitment He answered No. Being asked to whom he gave his Information He answered to the Lords of the Council And being asked by whom he conveyed his Information He answered by Bains and whether he knew any more of my Lords Guard of 50 men then Captain Wilkinson He answered no. Then Turbervil was called and asked who was present when my Lord spoke those words to him He answered one of the Servants that used to dress my Lord and no body else by that he doth remember Being asked when it was that my Lord spoke the Words He saith the sixth of February to the best of his remembrance in the Morning Being asked how long t was before he discovered it He answered the 4th of July after Being asked to whom the Information was given He said to Mr. Secr. Jenkins Being asked whether my Lord was committed before or after his Information He said he could not be positive but he beleived before John Smith was called and asked whether he did not use to go by the name of Barry To which he answered he had gone by several names and so do all Popish Priests Being asked what Religion he was of he said he was a Protestant Being ask'd how long he said many a year Being asked when he was converted he said he was first a Protestant then perverted to the Popish Religion and then turn'd Protestant again Being ask'd when he receiv'd the Sacrament he said three months ago Being ask'd when he gave his Evidence first and to whom he thinks after the Commitment but is not positive and he gave it into Secretary Jenkins Bernard Hains being ask'd when he gave in his Information and to whom he answered to Secretary Jenkins just before my Lord was committed Being asked whether he gave in an Information of a design against my Lord of Shaftsbury and to whom he answered he did to Sir George Treby and being asked when he answered in March and being asked when my L. Shaftsbury spoke these words he answered a little before he made that Affidavit to Sir George Treby John Macnamarra being asked when he had this discourse with my L. Shaftsbury he answered the latter end of March or the begining of April Being asked when he gave this Information in he said before his Commitment and being ask'd to whom he said to Sir Lionel Jenkins Being asked whether he did petition the Common Council he owned that he signed a Petition but said he knew not what was in it But Mr. Papilion inform'd the Court that they did suggest themselves in that Petition that they were tampered with to be suborn'd and therefore prayed relief from the City Denis Macnamarra being ask'd how he came to my Lord he said by his Brother Being asked when it was he said the latter end of March or the beginning of April Being asked who was with him he said only Mr. Ivy and his Brother Being ask'd when he gave in his Information he acknowledged it to be before the Earls Commitment Being asked to whom he answered to Secretary Jenkins Edward Ivy being asked what time he had this discourse with the Earl he said a little after the sitting of the Parliament at Oxford the latter end of April or the beginning of May. Being asked who was by he said both the Macnamarra's only Being asked when and to whom he gave his Information he answered before my Lords commitment and to Secretary Jenkins Bernard Denis being asked when my Lord spoke the words answered four or five dayes after the Parliament was dissolved at Oxford Being asked when he made the Information and to whom he saith to Sir Lionel Jenkins in June Being asked why he concealed it so long he saith because he was in the City Being asked whether ever he went about his four hundred men in Ireland he saith he did advise them to be ready Being asked what Religion he is of he saith a Ptotestant ever since February last The last eight being every man of them asked severally and apart upon their particular Examinations where my Lord spoke this Treason they all say he spoke the Treason in his own house except Brian Hains who saith that at another time he heard him speak Treason in Iron-monger Lane And being all asked whether they have heard him speak any other Treason in any other Place or at any other time than is in their particular Examination set forth they all answered that they did not And being all particularly interrogated further whether they had any thing as a present Reward or any allowance from any Person for the swearing against the E. of Shaftsbury They all answered No. Upon the whole matter twenty of the Jury Mr. Tho Parker being sick and excused for what reasons he that reads this Information may easily gather brought in the Bill IGNORAMUS And now Reader take this as the substance of what was at the Old Baily more fully transacted and out of it observe for the Vindication of the Grand Jury in bringing in the Bill Ignoramus that the Lord Cheif Justice Pemberton did upon the Grand Juries Request that the Court would inform them upon what Statute the E. of Shaftsbury was Indicted declare that it was upon 13 Car. 2. Cap. 1. By which it is Provided that no Person or Persons by Virtue of the said Act shall incur any of the Penalties therein before mentioned unless he or they be prosecuted within six Months next after the Offence committed and Indicted thereupon within three Months after such Prosecution any thing in the said Statute to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding And if you please to examin the time in which the Witnesses swear the E. of S. spoke the said Treasonable Words it will appear that though he was prosecuted within six Months after the speaking of the same yet he was not Indicted within three Months after the Prosecution and if so by the particular Provision of that Law cannot incur the Penalties inflicted by it which if granted as it cannot well be denied the Grand Jury must have done very ill to bring in Billa Vera this Law being a general Law of which they amongst the rest of the Kings Subjects are bound to take notice But besides that 't is very plain if you please to observe it that there is a flat Contradiction in the Testimony of John Macnamarra Dennis Macnamarra and Edward Ivy for upon the Grand Juries Examination of them apart altho in their first Examination in Court they swear the words at the same time and place c. yet the said John and Dennis Macnamarra swear the words spoken by the E. of Shaftsbury at his own house the latter end of March or the beginning of April and Edward Ivy swears them spoken the latter end of April or the beginning of May and yet all agree that the words were spoke but once and then in the presence of all three But I shall inlarge no further but leave the Reader to make his own remarks least I should be thought to call in question the Loyalty and Integrity of perhaps the most able judicious and honest Juries that has been of late years returned in the City of London or elsewhere and if thou art as well pleased in the reading as I have been in the observing of these things it will be no small satisfaction to Philonomus FINIS