Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	aaron_n	lord_n	smith_n	43	3	10.0878	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25872	The arraignment, tryal, and condemnation of Ambrose Rookwood, for the horrid and execrable conspiracy to assassinate His Sacred Majesty King William, in order to a French invasion of this kingdom who upon full evidence was found guilty of high treason before His Majesty's justices of Oyer and Terminer, at Westminster on Tuesday the 21st of April 1696, and received sentence the day following, and was executed at Tyburn on the 29th day of the said month : in which tryal is contained all the learned arguments of the King's council and likewise the council for the prisoner, upon the new act of Parliament for regulating tryals in cases of treason.	Rookwood, Ambrose, 1664-1696, defendant.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3755; ESTC R4588	88,215	80

that cannot be a Jury-man it is true the Credit of such a Witness is left to the Jury but it is no Objection against his being a Legal Witness and it is a very strange Argument to me that because he was pardon'd by the King if that should be deficient that therefore the Act of Pardon should have no effect Truly that is to say that the King's Pardon works so as to have nothing left for the Parliament Pardon to work upon and certainly it sets him so right that to all intents and purposes he is as good a Witness as ever he was and if any thing remained to be done the Act of Parliament has done it and supplied the defect but I think the King's Pardon is sufficient Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord I suppose they do not insist upon it as thinking there is any great weight in it but only for Objection sake but we hope that notwithstanding this Objection Mr. Porter shall be sworn Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord they take this Exception at an improper time for they speak to his Credibility L. C. J. Holt. No they except to his being a Witness Mr. Soll. Gen. If so your Lordship remembers a Case that was before your Lordship not long since but in Easter Term last when one was try'd at this Bar for Treason and Aaron Smith was produced as a Witness and the Prisoner took exception against him as no good Witness because he had stood in the Pillory and your Lordship and the Court did say that the Act of Pardon did restore him to all intents and purposes ad liberum Legem Mr. Conyers In the Case of the Earl of Castlemaine both the Courts of King's-Bench and Common Pleas held Dangerfield a legal Witness though burnt in the hand for Felony and so was the Opinion of Rolls in Stiles Reports 388. one that hath been burnt in the hand for Felony may notwithstanding be a Witness Sir B. Shower My Lord in answer to that Case that was put that after the King's Pardon for one convicted of Felony another Man has not the Liberty to call him Thief that was an Objection in my Lord Castlemaine's Case that may stand as good and our Notion that we contend for be good top he cannot be impeach'd or have Guilt imputed to him when once the King has forgiven him and yet that may not restore him to his intire Credit as was my Lord Chief Justice Scroggs's Distinction in the Case of Dangerfield and as to the Case of Aaron Smith that was very different the reason in that Case was because the Crime for which Mr. Smith was Indicted did not import any such scandalous Offence for which his Credit could be impeach'd L. C. J. Holt. No no we did not meddle with that we went upon the Pardon Sir B. Shower But in that Case they did not insist upon it that he had a Pardon antecedant to the Act of Pardon so that he was subjectum Capax for the Act to work upon he was an Offender that needed a Pardon whereas Mr. Porter being pardon'd before could not be an Offender needing a Pardon and consequently not within the first words of the Act of Indempnity because he was pardon'd by the King before but he was not by that Pardon say we restor'd to his Credit to make him a good Witness and the Act of Parliament did not affect him he being not subjectum Materiae as not being an Offender Mr. Phipps As to Mr. Sollicitor's Case of Aaron Smith we agree the Act of Parliament did restore him because he never was pardon'd before by the King so there remained an Offence for the Parliament Pardon to work upon L. C. J. Holt. Do you agree that then you may agree the other for the Act of Parliament pardons none but those the King can Pardon generally Mr. Phipps It true my Lord but we say that an Act of Parliament Pardon removes those disabilities which the King's Pardon does not for every one is in Law a Party to an Act of Parliament and therefore no Person shall be permitted to alledge in disability of another any Crime which he himself hath pardon'd for that is to aver against his own Act but 't is otherwise in the Case of the King's Pardon L. C. J. Holt. Why the Very Parliament Pardon comes from the King the King has a full Power of Pardoning and where he does Pardon under the Great Seal it has the full effect of a Parliament Pardon A Pardon before Attainder prevents all corruption of Blood so that tho' a Man forfeits his Goods by Conviction yet after a Pardon he is capable of having new Goods and shall hold them without any forfeiture whatsoever for the Pardon restores him to his former Capacity and prevents any further forfeiture Indeed if he had been Attainted whereby his Blood was corrupted no Pardon whether it were by the King or by the Parliament could purge his Blood without Reversal of the Attainder by Writ of Error or Act of Parliament or express words in the Act to restore Blood but either Pardon makes him a new Creature gives him new Capacity and makes him to all intents and purposes from the time of the Pardon to be probus legalis Homo and a good Witness Indeed this Crime might be objected against his Credit but it is not to be urged against the sufficiency of his Evidence that is his being a Witness Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord we desire he may be sworn which was done Mr. Soll. Gen. Now Mr. Porter do you give my Lord and the Jury an Account what you know of this intended Assassination how it came to your Knowledge and what share the Prisoner at the Bar had in it Capt. Porter My Lord the first Account that I had of this Assassination was from Mr. Charnock who brought to me Sir George Berclay and Major Holmes to my Lodgings in Northfolk-street where I was sick of the Gout Sir George Berclay did not then particularly acquaint me with the Business but said he would leave it to Mr. Charnock to tell me what it was L. C. J. Holt. Who told you so Capt. Porter Sir George Berclay and after that we had several Meetings at which the Prisoner at the Bar was present particularly at the Globe-Tavern in Hatton-Garden where it was consulted of the best ways and means to Assassinate the King as he came from Richmond some were of Opinion that it was best to be done on the other side of the Water others were of Opinion that it should be done on this side by a Party of Men on Horse-back upon this Difference of Opinion there were Persons appointed to go and view both places I was appointed for one to go with Captain Knightley and Mr. King went along with me and we did view the Ground on both sides and when we came back we gave an Account to Sir George Berclay and those that sent us and upon our Report Sir George Berclay's mind was