Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	common_a	court_n	statute_n	6,256	5	8.3078	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63218	The Tryals of Peter Boss, George Keith, Thomas Budd, and William Bradford, Quakers for several great misdemeanors (as was pretended by their adversaries) before a court of Quakers at the sessions held at Philadelphia in Pensylvania, the ninth, tenth, and twelfth days of December, 1692 : giving also an account of the most arbitrary procedure of that court.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Boss, Peter.	1693 (1693)	Wing T2254; ESTC R26327	33,587	38

finding themselves aggrieved by this Judgment craved an Appeal to the Provincial Court in Law which was denied them Then by Advice of able Council they requested an Appeal to the King and Queen and their Council in England the King having reserved all Final Appeals to himself in the Charter to W. P. But this also was denied them tho' Robert Turner declared his dissent in this matter as in several other their Proceedings so that the said Persons are left without all help or remedy but must undergo the Arbitrary Sentence of this Court And as a further Mark of the miserable declension of these men and of their cold zeal for the honour of God take a view of two Laws which they now execute the first is the 5th Chapter of their Laws where it is enacted That whosoever shall speak loosely and prophanely of Almighty God Jesus Christ the holy Scriptures or Spirit of Truth shall for every such Offence pay 5 s. The other place is Chap. 29. where it is enacted That whosoever shall speak slightingly or carry himself abusively against a Magistrate shall for every such Offence suffer according to the Quality of the Magistrate provided it be not less than 20 s. according to which Law they have Fined Peter Boss Six Pound and G. K. and T. B. each Five Pound for speaking slightingly of Sam. Jenings as they pretend Whereas if they had spoke Prophanely of Almighty God Jesus Christ the Spirit of Truth or holy Scriptures the Law inflicts but 5 s. Were not these Men far more zealous for their own Honour than the Honour of God they would never let this disproportion of Punishment for Offences against Almighty God and poor Mortal Man stand upon Record thus to their Shame and Infamy The 10th of the 10th Month 1692. William Bradford was called into Court and set to the Bar. The Presentment read the substance of which was That they presented the 9 10 11 12. Articles of the Paper call'd An Appeal c. as being of a tendency to weaken the hands of the Magistrates And we present William Bradford for printing of the said Seditious Paper c. Clerk What say you William Bradford are you guilty as you stand presented or not guilty W. Bradford In the first place I desire to know whether I am clear of the Mittimus which differs from the Presentment The Clerk and Attorney read and perused the Mittimus and Presentment and finding them to differ said That when W. B. was cleared according to Law he was cleared of the Mittimus But W. B. insisted to know Whether on the issue of the Presentment he was clear of the Mittimus And after a long debate thereon answer was made That W. B. was clear of the Mittimus on the Issue of the Presentment Next W. B. desired to know what Law that Presentment was grounded on D. Lloyd It is grounded both on Statute and Common Law W. B. Pray let me see that Statute and Common Law else how shall I make my Plea Justice Cook told us last Court That one reason why ye deferred our Trial then was that we might have time to prepare our selves to answer it but ye never let me have a Copy of my Presentment nor will ye now let me know what Law ye prosecute me upon D. Lloyd and J. White It 's not usual to insert in Indictments against what Statute the Offence is when it 's against several Statutes and Laws made and if thou wilt not plead Guilty or not Guilty thou wilt lose thy Opportunity of being Tried by thy Country And they order'd the Clerk to write down that W. Bradford refused to plead which he did but as he was writing it down W. B. desired they would not take that advantage against him for he refused not to plead but only requested that which was greatly necessary in order to his making his own Defence and several in the Court requesting on the Prisoners behalf that the Court would not take advantage against him they admitted him to plead and he pleaded Not Guilty Then the Jury were called over and attested viz. Humphry Waterman Joseph Kirle James Fox Samuel Hoult Thomas Wharton Tho. Marle Nicholas Rideout John Whitpane Richard Sutton Richard Walter Thomas Morris Abraham Hardiman But before they were attested they asked W. B. if he had any Exceptions to make against any of them that were returned for the Jury W. Bradford Yes I have and particularly against two of them and which Exceptions I think are rational and that is against Jos Kirle and James Fox for at the time when I was committed to Prison Arthur Cook told me That Joseph Kirle had said That if the proceedings of the Magistrates was thus found fault with that they must not defend themselves against Thieves and Robbers Merchants would be discouraged of coming here with their Vessels c. And I except also against James Fox because on the first day after Babit and his Company were taken I being at Sam. Carpenter's there was Governor Lloyd James Fox and several others and in discourse concerning taking of the said Privateers James Fox greatly blamed W. Walker because he found fault with some Justices that were Quakers for commanding men and as it were pressing them to go against the said Privateers and also James Fox joined with Tho. Lloyd in saying He would mark them as Enemies to the Government and well-being of the Province who were neutral in the case of going against Babit c. By which Instances I think it appears that these two Persons have prejudg'd the Cause that is now to come before them Joseph Kirle acknowledged he had spoke such words and desired to be discharged but they would not allow of those Exceptions altho' it is frequent in these Courts to change Jurors on barely saying they do except against such a one D. Lloyd and Clerk These are no Exceptions in Law hast thou at any time heard them say that thou printed that Paper for that is only what they are to find W. B. That is not only what they are to find they are to find also whether this be a Seditious Paper or not and whether it does not tend to the weakening of the Hands of the Magistrate D. Lloyd Yea that is matter of Law which the Jury is not to meddle with but find whether W. B. printed it or no and the Bench is to judge whether it be a Seditious Paper or not for the Law has determined what is a Breach of the Peace and the Penalty which the Bench only is to give judgment on Sam. Jenings You are only to try whether W. B. printed it or not W. Bradford This is wrong for the Jury are Judges in Law as well as in matter of Fact Which D. Lloyd again denied Whereupon some of the Jury desired to know what they were to be attested to try for they did believe in their Consciences they were obliged to try and find whether that Paper

discoursed of and resolved by the People called Quakers at the said Yearly Meeting and that they might have timely notice of the said Appeal and be the better prepared to answer it G. K. procured the said Appeal to be printed Which was no sooner done but they issued forth a Warrant and apprehended William Bradford the Printer and John M ” comb who as they were informed had disposed of two of the said Papers and committed the said W. B. and J. M. to Goal and also seized all the said Papers they could meet with and took away a good quantity of W. Bradford's Letters tending to the disabling of him to work for his Wife and Children and upon pretence of another Warrant granted without any Conviction Signed by Samuel Jenings and Robert Ewer Justices John White the Sheriff took Goods out of the Shop of Will. Bradford half as much more as the said Warrant was for Whether these Actions are most like to the poor despised and persecuted Quakers or their Persecutors is left to all impartial People to judge Here follows a Copy of the Mittimus WHereas William Bradford Printer and John M ” Comb Taylor being brought before us upon an Information of Publishing Uttering and Spreading a Malicious and Seditious Paper Entituled An Appeal from the twenty eight Judges to the Spirit of Truth c. Tending to the Disturbance of the Peace and Subversion of the present Government and the said Persons being required to give Security to answer it at the next Court but they refusing so to do These are therefore by the King and Queen's Authority and in our Proprietary's Name to require You to take into your Custody the Bodies of William Bradford and John M ” Comb and them safely keep till they shall be discharged by due Course of Law Whereof fail not at your Peril and for your so doing this shall be your sufficient Warrant Given under our Hands and Seals this 24th of August 1692. These to John White Sheriff of Philadelphia or his Deputy Arthur Cook Samuel Jennings Samuel Richardson Humphry Murrey Robert Ewer Now though they had got these two poor Men into Goal and tho' all sober People did resent their Proceedings very ill and as proceeding from a cruel Spirit of Persecution yet the next day they met again in order to proceed against G. K. and several other Persons in the like manner and sent for two other Justices that were not called Quakers to assist them in this work of prosecuting several seditious and dangerous Persons that were like to subvert the Government as they pretended but contrary to their Expectation the said two Justices that were not called Quakers viz. Lacy Cook a Lutheran and John Holme a Baptist declared their dissent from them in these Proceedings signifying That the matter was a Religious Difference among themselves viz. the Quakers and did not relate to the Government John Holme particularly advising them to send for Geo. Keith and let him interpret his own words and upon a hearing of him if it any way appears that he strikes at the Government I will said Justice Holme joyn with you against him with Heart and Hand But this Advice had no weight with them whereupon the said two Justices left them and our New modelled Persecuting Quakers being warmly bent to root out Sedition forsooth proceeded in their Work and as they had judged G. K. in their Spiritual Court without all Hearing or Trial so in like manner they prosecuted him in their Temporal Court without all hearing Why to have done otherwise would have given the Lie and Contradiction to their Spirit of Discerning which Justice Cook declared to be such That they could judge of matters of Fact without Evidence and therefore it would have been ridiculous for them to have sent for G. K. and asked him Whether he was the Author of such a Paper that his Name was to Or to have enquired of him Whether it was against the Government that he intended by such and such words therein No for their Spirit of Discerning told them all that and therefore without more to do proclaimed G. K. by the common Crier in the Market-place To be a Seditious Person and an Enemy to the King and Queens Government But these Magistrates would do well to consider the Actions and End of Empson and Dudly and whether they have not violated the Fundamental Laws of English Subjects as well as they and that in convicting Men without Trial as shall be made appear anon 1st in the Case of George Keith and Tho. Budd 2ly In the Case of William Bradford And 3ly in the Case of John M ” Comb. 1st Here follows a Copy of the Publick Writing that was proclaimed by the Common Crier in the Market-place against G. K. At a Private Sessions held for the Country of Philadelphia the 25th of the 6th Month 1692. before Arthur Cook Samuel Jenings Samuel Richardson Humphry Murry Anthony Morris Robert Ewer Justices of the County WHereas the Government of this Province being by the late King of England ' s peculiar Favour vested and sithence continued in Governour Penn who thought fit to make his and our worthy Friend Thomas Lloyd his Deputy Governour by and under whom the Magistrates do act in this Government And whereas it hath been proved before us that George Keith being a Resident here did contrary to his Duty publickly revile the said Deputy Governour calling him an impudent Man telling him he was not fit to be Governour and that his Name would stink with many other slighting and abusive Expressions both to him and the Magistrates and he that useth such Exorbitancy of Speech towards the said Governour may be supposed will easily dare to call the Members of Council and Magistrates Impudent Rascals as he hath lately called one in an open Assembly that was constituted by the Proprietary to be a Magistrate And he also charges the Magistrates who are Ministers here with engrossing the Magistratical Power into their Hands that they might usurp Authority over him saying also He hoped in God he should shortly see their Power taken from them which he acted in a most indecent manner And further the said G. K. with several of his Adherents having some few days since with an unusual Insolency by a printed Sheet called an Appeal c. Traduced and vilely misrepresented the Industry Care Readiness and Vigilancy of some Magistrates and others here in their late Proceedings against some Privateers viz. Babit and his Crew in order to bring them to Condign Punishment whereby to discourage such Attempts for the future and hath thereby also defamed and arraigned the Determinations of Provincial Judicatory against Murtherers and not only so but by a wrong Insinuation have laboured to possess the Readers of their Pamphlet That it is inconsistent for those who are Ministers of the Gospel to act as Magistrates Now forasmuch as we as well as others have born and still do patiently endure the said